Thursday, November 02, 2017

Political Words

Is it necessary? The US itself is rich vs. middle class vs. poor. Big fish devours little fish, only to be eaten by the biggest fish whose stomach finally explodes.
On "compassion:" It was the middle class that demanded an end to basic welfare aid, and the Democrats granted their wish. The Clinton administration also took the first steps to similarly "reform" Social Security, targeting the disabled. As the overall life expectancy of the US poor fell below that of every developed nation, liberals maintained a boisterous pep rally for the middle class.

No, today's Dem pols aren't centrists. Over the past quarter-century, the Dem party moved well to the right, especially on core socioeconomic issues, and pulled middle class liberals along with them. They split apart their own voting base, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years only established that this split is permanent.
The call to Stand in Solidarity with the better-off alone, the middle class (in the process of being updated to "working class"), ignoring the consequences of our current system (our poverty crisis), represents a distinctly right wing ideology.

Sen. Sanders became pragmatic. Older people might recall that Sanders used to speak out powerfully about US poverty, the inevitable consequence of our deregulated capitalism. He advocated for legitimate poverty relief and needed programs. That doesn't sell today, so he dropped the issue. To my knowledge, he recognized no one worse off than low wage workers during his 2016 campaign. Odd, since the US lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs alone since 2000.

What do today's progressives stand for? What we've heard for nearly a quarter of a century was simply a pep rally for the middle class (recently revised to "working class") while ignoring the consequences of our deregulated capitalism (our poverty crisis).

Yes, efforts to build that new, egalitarian party began decades ago. It has lacked the financial, etc., means to make a dent in the liberal discussion. That said, even those who support democratic socialism today might think twice when they learn that this had always included legitimate poverty relief for those who can't work/for whom no jobs are available. Much has changed since the 1990s.

That is correct. Bill Clinton divided and conquered the Dem voting base. The Obama years only confirmed that this split is permanent. The liberal bourgeoisie have dominated the online media, successfully splitting apart those who aren't on the right wing.
Class warfare. The US began shutting down/shipping out jobs in the 1980s. Democrats ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s, and got a start on dismantling Social Security (targeting the disabled). We lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs alone since 2000, and pretend there are no consequences.

The number of formal evictions is only the tip of the iceberg of our poverty crisis. Many leave when they can't pay the rent, but well before an eviction notice can be issued, even if they have nowhere to go. While the issue has been ignored since the 1990s, the US has spent years building a poverty crisis. (Note: This isn't the same thing as "wealth inequality.")
Complex issues, but without a legitimate system of welfare aid, there is no solution, and conditions in the US will only continue to deteriorate. All we can do is adjust.

 I'm not. That said, there is no connection between Democrats and progressive politics. Progressive politics isn't a new invention. It has been around at least since the early 20th century. It's about building a better society/nation from the bottom up -- firm restraints on financial and corporate powers at one end, legitimate poverty relief/programs at the other. We have nothing like that today.
As for the state of the party, look back: The "Reagan Democrats" were essentially a backlash to the progressive 1960s/early '70s. They moved further to the right in the 1990s to merge with the Clinton "New Democrat Party." The Clinton wing own and control the Dem Party today. They split the Dem voting base wide apart, middle class vs. poor, further pitted against each other by race. They implemented more of the right wing agenda than Republicans would have dared to try, selling it to the beat of a rock and roll song. In the process, they divided and conquered themselves.

It might be hard to "wrap our minds around it," but our government -- both parties together -- seem to have been working to set the stage for a cataclysmic war. Democrats spent 2017 trying to build support for war against Russia while Republicans worked to build support for war against China via Korea. This has brought Russia and China together, working out their years of conflict in view of a potential world threat -- the US. How do you think this will all turn out?

Let's get down to the basics. Not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all. The US began shipping out jobs in the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s. We lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs alone since 2000. What should we do with those who are left behind, with no incomes? Decades of calling for jobs has left is with a fraction of the jobs needed.
First, it would be necessary to impose heavy financial disincentives on moving jobs out of the country. Secondly, we would have to legitimately address poverty. The more people in poverty, the fewer the consumer purchases, the fewer products need to be made. Fewer workers are needed, pushing more people into poverty, and we've maintained this downhill slide for years.

No comments: