The Democrats have a problem in the US. Liberals have been the media's favorite punching bag for quite some time, and a lot of Democrats have been running away from it for that reason. That leaves at least a quarter of the nation with little to no representation as the Democratic Party pushes farther to their right in a bid to poach the moderates edged out by right-wing extremists in the Republican party.
Enter The Third Way, a think tank with corporate ties looking to support the Democratic Party's move toward the center. They're distinctly against populist rhetoric and they want us to play nice with Wall Street and other corporate giants who have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of interest in playing nice with anyone else. They're closely aligned with the Clintons in the aftermath of Bill's administration and have dominated the conversation among Democrats ever since.
An attitude that I find infuriating in American politics is the notion that whatever's good for business must necessarily be good for America. The Third Way seems more interested in promoting business interests at the expense of all else, even if it means reduced consumer protections, growing income inequality or skyrocketing poverty. This is why I've been leery of Hillary Clinton ever since she became Senator Clinton and voted like a Third Way Democrat. In trying to please everyone she abandoned her liberal roots and tried to play to the center. Conventional political wisdom said it was the smart thing to do at the time.
Now of course Hillary Clinton has thrown her hat in the ring as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. After electing the first black President a lot of Americans are talking about how it would be nice to have a female President, too. The problem is that we don't need people of specific identities to lead us, we need people of specific qualities and leadership to lead us. As much as I approve of electing a female President I don't approve of electing just any woman. Any candidate for political office, whatever their race or gender identification, needs to be qualified for the job before I vote for them. If they already have a voting record I want to see that they're representing me. I don't want another Obama who promises to fight for single payer health care and the restoration of civil rights only to turn around and pretend he never made those promises.
I have a lot of respect for Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton's Administration. He's a liberal, an economist and a keen political analyst. In his examination of Hillary's latest bid for President he acknowledges that she's disappointed liberals but reminds us of her roots and points out her liberal credentials aren't the problem. There's a reason that the Clinton-era health care reform debate lambasted the administration's proposal as "Hillarycare." The question is whether or not she'll stand up and fight for us again the way she did as First Lady? Can she remember her commitment to equal opportunity and upward mobility? Robert seems to imply she can, but it remains to be seen.
To her credit, Hillary Clinton is pulling to the left in an attempt to convince us that she hasn't forgotten liberals. Of course, Obama did the same before he tacked right and displayed a horrendous fetish for unrequited bipartisanship. I knew from the beginning that he was going to be a centrist and at the time I said "I'm not expecting more than a brief respite from the nightmare of the last eight years." I think that's what we've gotten, even though I was thankfully wrong about the economic crisis being worse than the Great Depression. Will Hillary be the one to turn it around? Not if she continues to be Senator Clinton, Third Way Democrat.
Let me be clear, I will not attempt to "punish" the Democratic Party if I don't get a more liberal nominee. I learned my lesson with Nader in 2000 and I'm not doing it again. There's no one capable of winning the Democratic Party nomination who is nearly as bad as the least objectionable candidate for the Republican Party nomination. The Republicans will not get my vote again unless they return to the politics of Abraham Lincon and Teddy Roosevelt rather than Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. But I am getting sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.
3 comments:
I've never thought of Hillary Clinton as a liberal, not now, not when she was president (you don't really think Bill was the brains in that pair, do you? He was too busy letting the little head think for the big one).
And, she totally fracked up the planet.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
Remember too, it was Billary who signed Graham-Leech-Bliley into law, thus demolishing the highly successful Glass-Steagal act and opening one of the major doors to the subprime crisis. IMHO, that solidly cements the Clintons as members of the Pillage People.
http://www.nomiprins.com/it-takes-a-pillage/
All of that said, she's still orders of magnitude less evil than anyone the Repugnicans have put forth for president in 2016.
So, if we can't get Warren to run (or Al Gore for that matter), I will certainly vote for Ms. Clinton.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/16/8220537/al-gore-president-2016
>I've never thought of Hillary Clinton as a liberal, not now, not when she was president (you don't really think Bill was the brains in that pair, do you? He was too busy letting the little head think for the big one).
I did, but then again I was still the good Republican my parents raised me to be at the time. Reflecting back, my surprise at how "Billary" completely failed to destroy the nation as Rush Limbaugh predicted helped drive me to re-examine my assumptions about the way the world works.
>And, she totally fracked up the planet.
>http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
Yup. Like a good corporate puppet.
>Remember too, it was Billary who signed Graham-Leech-Bliley into law, thus demolishing the highly successful Glass-Steagal act and opening one of the major doors to the subprime crisis. IMHO, that solidly cements the Clintons as members of the Pillage People.
>http://www.nomiprins.com/it-takes-a-pillage/
Bear in mind by the time the Republicans had the backing to push that repeal the Clintons had already suffered a stunning midterm loss and were "triangulating" into a centrist position. The question I have now is whether Hillary still thinks we're living in the same political climate as the 90s where centrism is the way to go or if she's going to listen to us and fight for liberalism again.
>All of that said, she's still orders of magnitude less evil than anyone the Repugnicans have put forth for president in 2016.
>So, if we can't get Warren to run (or Al Gore for that matter), I will certainly vote for Ms. Clinton.
We can't get Warren to run. I doubt Gore will be willing to try and after his 2000 run I don't think it would be a good idea. We need a dark horse candidate; maybe Mallory?
I'm still hoping Elizabeth Warren might change her mind. I seriously doubt Al Gore will run again, despite having already won once.
Depressingly Richard Nixon would be more liberal than any of the mainstream candidates we've had in the last few decades from either side.
If only he hadn't been a crook or even if he just hadn't gotten caught, we would have had the public option for health care for the last 40 years.
https://misanthropicscott.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/sock-it-to-me-nixon-you-lefty-liberal/
Who knew The Big Dick would ever begin to look like a liberal?!
Post a Comment