General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ralph Nader: 'Cowering' Democrats face defeat [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)nor has anybody ELSE on the Left.
All we were talking about were DLC politicians and other right-wing Dem officeholders. There's a huge difference between that and between dissing actual voters. My points have been about DEFENDING those voters, when our party's attempts at appealing to corporate leaders always ended up producing policies that hurt the types of voters you talked about. It's not like those voters WANTED unions to be weakened or were really even all that obsessed with punishing poor people for taking government assistance(they knew those people had no alternatives, in most cases).
Oh, and those voters you referenced in that post were always AGAINST all the "free trade" stuff Clinton fought for(with all the passion he NEVER displayed on the healthcare issue or anything else that actually mattered more to Democratic voters than ceo's). The overwhelming majority of U.S. voters always OPPOSED "free trade".
And that same overwhelming majority wanted single-payer, not the Byzantine corporate-rewarding shit that Clinton tried half-heartedly to get through on health care.
And again, you know perfectly well I don't LIKE Ralph...I'm just saying that what you look at is the point being made, not the person making it. Even if he's personally in league with the GOP, that doesn't mean the observation that we need to be a fighting populist party is automatically invalid simply because HE was the one making it in this case. A creative response would be to use that observation to fight AGAINST Ralph, to beat him at his own game-rather than just to call bullshit just for the sake of calling bullshit.
btw...why do you think unions would ever have objected to anything FDR did to fight the depression?. FDR never did a bank bailout, OR protected the economic royalists from the consequences of their actions.