Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats Good. Republicans Bad.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:43 PM
Original message
Democrats Good. Republicans Bad.
That's it, in a nutshell.



Details:

Almost every single puke on the national scene is, to put it in as straightforward a manner as possible, a turd: greedy, ignorant, trickle-down corporatist cronie capitalist warmonger.

The trouble is, a number of Democrats -- including many, if not all, in leadership positions today -- are on that same wavelength. Hence, the expression: "Rubin Democrats." Be nice to Wall Street and its owners and everything will work itself out.

And that's why we have the divisions in the Democratic Party and on DU. That approach is not working, wars are raging, and the People are hurting.

Think I'm wrong? Why are We the People asked to "sacrifice" and not the nation's billionaires and millionaires?

It's time to not only think outside the box, but to change the shape of the box. We need to put the needs of the People ahead of the needs of Big Money. THINK BIG. That's what we Democrats do best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R to the fucking moon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. The Moon is exactly what I mean.
On July 20, 1969, humans walked on another world for the first time. We did so because of the work of 400,000 or so men and women -- and the vision of one man, President John F. Kennedy.



Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, aboard Eagle,
the Lunar Excursion Module, begin their descent to the surface of the moon.
The photo was taken by Michael Collins aboard the Command Module, Columbia.


President Kennedy's rationale in challenging and directing the nation to land a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth was clear: He wanted to show the world that the United States would win the "space race" -- and overtake the Soviets who had been first to orbit a satellite, Sputnik 1, and first to put a man in orbit, Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin.

Here's a great resource from NASA about President Kennedy and Apollo 11:



The Decision to Go to the Moon:

President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech
before a Joint Session of Congress


National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA History Office


On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. A number of political factors affected Kennedy's decision and the timing of it. In general, Kennedy felt great pressure to have the United States "catch up to and overtake" the Soviet Union in the "space race." Four years after the Sputnik shock of 1957, the cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first human in space on April 12, 1961, greatly embarrassing the U.S. While Alan Shepard became the first American in space on May 5, he only flew on a short suborbital flight instead of orbiting the Earth, as Gagarin had done. In addition, the Bay of Pigs fiasco in mid-April put unquantifiable pressure on Kennedy. He wanted to announce a program that the U.S. had a strong chance at achieving before the Soviet Union. After consulting with Vice President Johnson, NASA Administrator James Webb, and other officials, he concluded that landing an American on the Moon would be a very challenging technological feat, but an area of space exploration in which the U.S. actually had a potential lead. Thus the cold war is the primary contextual lens through which many historians now view Kennedy's speech.

The decision involved much consideration before making it public, as well as enormous human efforts and expenditures to make what became Project Apollo a reality by 1969. Only the construction of the Panama Canal in modern peacetime and the Manhattan Project in war were comparable in scope. NASA's overall human spaceflight efforts were guided by Kennedy's speech; Projects Mercury (at least in its latter stages), Gemini, and Apollo were designed to execute Kennedy's goal. His goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module's ladder and onto the Moon's surface.

CONTINUED w LINKS

http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html



What JFK's innermost motives for the speech were, I can easily guess. He wanted to show the world that a free people could accomplish the impossible -- getting a man to the moon had been considered impossible since the dawn of history.

He also wanted, I believe, to show that if we could figure out how to the moon and back, we could face any problem on earth and solve it -- from ending hunger, poverty and ignorance to creating a lasting peace.

The space program would make an excellent example of what we could do, working together. Rather than building missiles and bombers and bombs, we invested in high technology that resulted in real benefits for us on earth -- from great jobs to scientific and engineering breakthroughs to improved communications to increased productivity. The computer you are using to read this is a direct result of investment in the space program needed to miniaturize computers. Imagine what we could have done if we had continued with that approach?



With the problems facing the nation and our world, we need a President with that can-do spirit again.

Lord knows we haven't had too many since November 22, 1963.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Do you think Obama will come on with can do soon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I hope he'll change.
That's what my kind of Democrats -- JFK, FDR, HST -- apply the powers of government to make life better for ALL Americans.



But, going from the past 32 months, it's doubtful he wants to -- or'll be allowed to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
40. I am watching in disgust.
Edited on Mon Aug-29-11 09:09 AM by lonestarnot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. How Orwellian. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. There was only one party in ''1984.''
I guess the inner party are the pukes. The outer party are Rubin Dems. We the People are just proles and cannon fodder.



But, yes. We are living in a totalitarian nightmare the likes of which few authors understood or predicted -- Orwell, being one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. And only one party now.
The Fascist and Non-Fascist wings of the Money Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Corporate parties push for fervent brand loyalty
even while replacing the contents of the box with crap.

....just like Breyers did with their ice cream after they were purchased by Unilever.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. William K. Black explains the financial side of our national problem...
Agree with your analogy, Woo-san. I want D's who are D's, through and through. Here's details on the Rubin Ds from the official who busted the S&L crooks (a guy who campaigned for Obama):

An Economic Philosophy That Has Completely Failed

I get President Obama's "regulatory review" plan, I really do. His game plan is a straight steal from President Clinton's strategy after the Republican's 1994 congressional triumph. Clinton's strategy was to steal the Republican Party's play book. I know that Clinton's strategy was considered brilliant politics (particularly by the Clintonites), but the Republican financial playbook produces recurrent, intensifying fraud epidemics and financial crises. Rubin and Summers were Clinton's offensive coordinators. They planned and implemented the Republican game plan on finance. Rubin and Summers were good choices for this role because they were, and remain, reflexively anti-regulatory. They led the deregulation and attack on supervision that began to create the criminogenic environment that produced the financial crisis.

The zeal, crude threats, and arrogance they displayed in leading the attacks on SEC Chair Levitt and CFTC Chair Born's efforts to adopt regulations that would have reduced the risks of fraud and financial crises were exceptional. Just one problem -- they were wrong and Levitt and Born were right. Rubin and Summers weren't slightly wrong; they put us on the path to the Great Recession. Obama knows that Clinton's brilliant political strategy, stealing the Republican play book, was a disaster for the nation, but he has picked politics over substance.

I explained in a prior column how the anti-regulators made the crisis possible and caused the loss of over 10 million jobs.

Anti-regulation proved to be a profoundly negative sum "game" in the financial sphere. Both principals -- the home borrower and the lender -- lost (negative Pareto optimality). The unfaithful "agents," however, made out like bandits.

CONTINUED...

Hence, the expression, "Shared Sacrifice." As in, "We take your share. You get the sacrifice."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Personally, I think the trouble is that
Too many old school conservatives left the R banner for the D. This left the old party open for control by the whackadoodle talibornagain and formed the core of the now defunct DLC which was replaced with the turd way.

When you sully a brand, it needs be changed, eh?

Thanks for giving a crap, Der Fishie.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The Liberal Art
A place chock full o' good ideas: The Roosevelt Institute

AIAS: You are one of the DUers I immediately think of when I think of Thinkers, hootinholler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Someday I might be lucky enough to work at such a place. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. There does seem to be a natural progression happening
And, as with any monumental shift, there will be resistance. If Rs move to the Ds and the remaining Rs become completely divorced from the mainstream, there is vacuum created that must be filled by accompanying movement away from the new Ds. This is not a bad thing but the process is not going to be very pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Nor was it pretty when the Bull Moose party split from the Rs
The question is who seriously could rise? We've seen the TP rise and there's another astroturf third candidate effort underway, but they will never allow a real people's candidate to be nominated.

I suspect a serious discussion would necessarily dance close to DU rules, but I think it important to discuss at a minimum as a threat to the election of Democrats.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. there was no Bull Moose party
that was just TR trying to pull a Lieberman.

Now the populist party was a real party, and they actually controlled a number of state legislatures (in places like Kansas and NoDak. However, they got co-opted by the Democratic Party when their candidate, William Jennings Bryan, was nominated as the Democratic candidate as well.

The last successful 3rd party was the Republican Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. The problem with the new leaders of our party (Rubin followers) is that they leave no choice
Those on the left will have to either become begrudging corporatist and support them hoping to teach Keynesian economics to those that refuse to learn (in my opinion a quixotic adventure)

Or else we will finally have to face the fact that the party we have been trying to bring back to it's former glory of standing for the people, their rights and their livlihoods has now finaly after all attempts to revive, died on the table.

It is now a corpse propped up next to the Republicans to maintain the illusion of a choice. Even if the corpse wins it will only be used as a ventriloquist dummy for banks , oil, and military talking points.

We have to stop holding up the corpse like some political version of weekend at bernie's. and admit that we must gather together in the wilderness and ally ourselves with the Unions the workimg poor and the poor and begin the work of forming a party that will stand for what Democrats once did, revive the platform of FDR and give it not lip service but support and expression in legislation submitted by a third party, The son of the Democratic party so to speak, now that it has died and left us with simply another Republican alternative, it must be reborn or be lost to history.

The Corporate political employes have stolen our name for their abomination. So we will be forced to choose a new one, perhaps Labor Party, or just go with the Socialist Democratic party.
It will take time, but we are getting nothing but Reagan and worse from the corpse right now, so we have finally reached a point where we simply have no other options left to us except to breathe life back into the principles and ideas that fought back the last assault of the super wealthy.

If we just go along to get along with either party all we will get is neo-feudalism.
I prefer to fight for the only ideas that brought shared prosperity and a moral and secure nation.

The corpse is dead, any more time spent on it is time spent on our own destruction. They will only bring us third world wages without security, a land where only the ultra rich can know security and joy.

If this fails, it will only be a matter of time before the hungry and sick that can not get help will explode in numbers and then explode in bloodshed. Once the rich prince said "let them eat cake" or more precisely, "let them eat peas", they stopped hiding the green skin of the corporate corpse as the stench became too pungent to continue to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. We need a stronger, more progressive leader in the House of Representatives.
But, say that more than one time at DU and they'll beat you to death over the head about not liking Nancy "Compromise" Pelosi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Remember, a few years' back, the protesters outside Ms. Pelosi's home?
Somethings are difficult to forget:



House Speaker Pelosi lashes out at antiwar protesters

By Patrick Martin
World Socialist Web Site/wsws.org
15 October 2007

EXCERPT...

Asked about criticism of the failure (or more accurately, refusal) of the congressional Democratic majority to take action to put an end to the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming antiwar opinion among Democratic voters, Pelosi said, I am well aware of the unhappiness of the base.

She told reporters that antiwar demonstrators had established seemingly permanent protest encampments outside her home in San Francisco several months, and more recently outside her Washington home as well.

The real venom in Pelosis comments was reported by Washington Post Capitol Hill columnist Dana Milbank, one of those in attendance at the press interview. While Pelosi invariably maintains a publicly smiling posture, he wrote, her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic base over her failure to end the war in Iraq.

Look, she said, I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of thingsBuddhas? I dont know what they werecouches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.

Pelosi continued: If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have Impeach Bush across their chest, its the First Amendment.

CONTINUED...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/pelo-o15.shtm...



We do need new leadership. And it isn't just us, Major Hogwash, who've noticed the wars are still going and the rich are still getting richer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I barely remember seeing a blurb on teevee about that.
But, what really got me was in 2009, almost 2 years later, when we had the bull by the horns and ALL 3 elements of government under Democratic leadership -- the White House, the Senate, and the House -- and we did nothing, not ONE damn thing to slow those wars down.

And now we come to find out they want to keep US troops in Afghanistan until 2024.
That's not going to cut it with me.
There's no way in hell I'm willing to just sit back and let that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. K & R !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Upon re-reading, I forgot to mention the raison d'etre for The Vulgar Pigboy...
One big reason that there are as many repuglians today as there are is that the television screen and airwaves are full of right-wing hatred. Here in the Motor City, one FM sports talk station is being transmuted as we speak into an organ of right-wing propaganda.

Those new to the subject would do well to think about why the War Party and Wall Street get the gold and We the People get the shaft. It's the same reason they do all they can to fill our heads with dreck.



ABC (CIA) and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.

The following brief history of ABC offers a perfect snapshot of everything that has gone wrong with the media. This remarkable story includes ABC's takeover by a conservative parent corporation, the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, the rightward shift of the evening news, the rise of conservative talk radio, and the cozy relationship between a state and a press that are supposed to be separate.

In 1985, ABC was taken over by Capital Cities, a conservative, Roman Catholic media organization with extensive ties to the CIA.

(If you think we're making this up, you should know that the Capital Cities takeover of ABC is one of the most analyzed in history, and the subject of many books by Wall Street experts and scholars. Especially recommended is Networks of Power, by Emmy Award-winner Dennis Mazzocco.) (1)

Capital Cities was born in 1954, and rapidly prospered. Many of its founders had previously worked in the U.S. intelligence community and had a great amount of wealth, social contacts and influence in government. Yet they opted to keep the company's actions out of the public eye -- they did not flaunt their wealth with private planes and lavish offices the way so many successful companies do. Just exactly how well-connected Capital Cities was to the CIA is unknown, but it is clear that the CIA concerned itself with the company at various times. The fact that the CIA has often used private businessmen, journalists and even entire companies as fronts for covert operations is not only well-known by historians, but legendary. (Recall Howard Hughes and Trans-World Airlines...)

One of Capital City's early founders was William Casey, who would later become Ronald Reagan's Director of the CIA. At the time of Casey's nomination, the press expressed surprise that Reagan would hire a businessman whose last-known intelligence experience was limited to OSS operations in World War II. The fact is, however, that Casey had never left intelligence. Throughout the Cold War he kept a foot in both worlds, in private business as well as the CIA. A history of Casey's business dealings reveals that he was an aggressive player who saw nothing wrong with bending the law to further his own conservative agenda. When he became implicated as a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, many Washington insiders considered it a predictable continuation of a very shady career.

Another Capital Cities founder, Lowell Thomas, was a close friend and business contact with Allen Dulles, Eisenhower's CIA Director, and John Dulles, the Secretary of State. Thomas always denied being a spy, but he was frequently seen at events involving intelligence operations. Another founder was Thomas Dewey, whom the CIA had given millions to create other front companies for covert operations.

CONTINUED...

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm





And to think some DUers were emphatic in deriding those who still defended the antiquated notion of a "Fairness Doctrine."

PS: Thanks for the kick! And thank you for all you do, WillyT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'm starting to think we should start to suppor the emerging labor party.
I feel they will win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Understand, empathize, and will stand there with Labor if things don't change.
As the party that has stood for America's working people is one of the most important reasons I am a Democrat. What I see happening, is the party leadership is no longer doing that. And that's a problem of historic proportion. To keep me and you, Tiggeroshii and the rest of the working, progressive and liberal Democrats together is for the Democratic leadership to act like Democrats.

Democrats use the power of government to make life better for ALL and believe all people are equal under the law, all have a voice equal to one another's in politics and governance, all have a right to: Justice. Peace. Work. Prosperity. Equality. Progress. Enlightenment. Etc. Etc. Etc.

That also means ending "Washington -- Business as Usual." Most of all, Democrats would end corruption, starting with:

America: Where Money Trumps Peace

Not only is that idea un-American, it's treasonous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Thing is it's Labor that mobilizes a large amount of the Democratic party...
Since Labor is beginning to start their own system, they will be the only active part of the Democratic party left that could actually appeal to people, mobilize them and win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yay!!! Black or white!!!!
Christians good! Muslims bad!

People of Faith good! Atheists bad!

Thin people good! Fat people bad!

Americans good! Foreigners bad!

Whoever "we" are good! Whoever "they" are bad!


Wheeeee!!! :party:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Question out of curiosity: Did you read the part under the image?
If you did read that, what makes you come to the Either/Or conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I get it...
If some Democrats are allegedly espousing the same values as Republicans, then that makes them DINOs, right?

No better than Republicans.

And that's not good.


Put it in as many fancy sounding words as one likes...that's the gist of what's under the photo. Democrats have to stop acting like Republicans.

Because Republicans are bad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Thanks. I like my Democrats to be Democrats.
If they like the same things as Ronald Reagan, such as war for profit and trickle-down economics, yes, I don't like that.

Call me idealistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. That has nothing to do with my point
I like my Democrats to be Democrats too.

But that doesn't mean Democrats are good while Republicans are bad.


No more than it means Christians are good while Atheists are bad.

Or that Atheists are good while Christians are bad.


"Good" and "bad" are relative terms depending on which side one is on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. The Party of Davos
Gosh. What a difference five years makes for those with the means.

Bit o' background:

The Party of Davos

by Jeff Faux
www.thenation.com/, February 13, 2006/ via ThirdWorldTraveler.com

EXCERPT...

Americans are of course prominent members of this "Party of Davos," which relies on the financial and military might of the US superpower to support its agenda. In exchange, the American members of the Party of Davos get a privileged place for their projects--and themselves. Whether it's at Davos, at NATO headquarters or in the boardroom of the International Monetary Fund, heads turn and people listen more carefully when the American speaks.

"Davos Man," a term coined by nationalist scholar Samuel Huntington, is bipartisan. To be sure, Democrats tend to be more comfortable with the forum's informal seminar-style and big-think topics like global poverty, cultural diversity and executive stress. Bill Clinton goes often, and Al Gore, John Kerry, Robert Rubin, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden and other prominent Democrats are familiar faces. Republicans generally prefer more private venues. George W. Bush, of course, doesn't do anything unscripted. But people like Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and Condoleezza Rice have all worked the Davos circuit.

That the global economy is developing a global ruling class should come as no shock. All markets generate economic class differences. In stable, self-contained national economies, where capital and labor need each other, political bargaining produces a social contract that allows enough wealth to trickle down from the top to keep the majority loyal. "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Dwight Eisenhower's Defense Secretary famously said in the 1950s. The United Auto Workers agreed, which at the time seemed to toss the notion of class warfare into the dustbin of history.

But as domestic markets become global, investors increasingly find workers, customers and business partners almost anywhere. Not surprisingly, they have come to share more economic interests with their peers in other countries than with people who simply have the same nationality. They also share a common interest in escaping the restrictions of their domestic social contracts.

The class politics of this new world economic order is obscured by the confused language that filters the globalization debate from talk radio to Congressional hearings to university seminars. On the one hand, we are told that the flow of money and goods across borders is making nation-states obsolete. On the other, global economic competition is almost always defined as conflict among national interests. Thus, for example, the US press warns us of a dire economic threat from China. Yet much of the "Chinese" menace is a business partnership between China's commissars, who supply the cheap labor, and America's (and Japan's and Europe's) capitalists, who supply the technology and capital. "World poverty" is likewise framed as an issue of the distribution of wealth between rich and poor countries, ignoring the existence of rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/Party_D...

"Rubin Democrats" has kind of an exclusive ring to it. Which is the point: The upper class already has a party looking after its interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
28. I thought the Party strategy was "Republicans appallingly awful, Democrats merely appalling."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Money and War already have representation.
On a fundamental level, things have been really messed up since Reagan.

The Party of Davos

by Jeff Faux
www.thenation.com/, February 13, 2006/ via ThirdWorldTraveler.com

EXCERPT...

But Clinton was more Davos than Democrat. Tutored by financier Robert Rubin, a prodigious fundraiser who became his Treasury Secretary, Clinton embraced a reactionary, pre-New Deal vision of a global future in which corporate investors were unregulated and the social contract was history. Indeed, in all three countries it was the leaders of the political parties that had historically claimed to represent ordinary people--the Democrats' Clinton, the Liberal Party's Jean Chrtien and the Institutional Revolutionary Party's Salinas--who delivered NAFTA to their global corporate clients, undercutting their own constituencies. "NAFTA happened," said the then-chairman of American Express, "because of the drive Bill Clinton gave it. He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies."

SNIP...

Consistent with a deal among the rich and powerful, NAFTA made the distribution of income, wealth and political power more unequal throughout the continent. In all three countries, wages in manufacturing fell behind productivity increases, shifting income from labor to capital. Ordinary Mexicans especially went through the economic wringer--to which the willingness of hundreds of thousands of them to risk their lives each year crossing the border continues to be tragic testimony.

SNIP...

Banamex, the country's second-largest bank, was bought by a Mexican syndicate, owned by Salinas pal Roberto Hernandez Rodriguez, for $3.2 billion and when, thanks to NAFTA, foreigners were allowed to own Mexican banks, it was resold to Citigroup for $12.5 billion. Robert Rubin negotiated the deal for Citigroup, where he had gone after leaving the Treasury Department. The Mexican government's welfare program for Citigroup and other foreign investors continues: In 2003 government subsidies to private banks (more than 85 percent of them now owned by foreigners) were almost three times those spent on roads, schools and other infrastructure.

NAFTA was only the beginning. The Clinton/Republican alliance then pushed through the WTO agreement and the subsequent deal with China that traded off more US industrial jobs in exchange for protections for US investors in that huge Asian market. Not only has this produced a massive trade deficit with China and further downward pressure on US wages, it has also sent some 250,000 jobs from Mexico to China. The ubiquitous Citigroup, with banking operations in 100 countries, is now busy building its Chinese banking empire--with Chinese partners.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/Party_D...

Let's make Democrats stand for something more than just the rich and powerful. Our nation needs us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-28-11 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. K&R....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
34. The oligarchs really appreciate your distraction.
They play three card Monty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Have another shit sandwich, on the house.
The House of Representatives, that is.
Where all of the bluedawg Democrats held up the healthcare bill for more than a year arguing about whether the healthcare bill would allow for abortions to be paid for with federal dollars, despite there being a law on the books preventing that already, while the rest of the country went deeper and deeper into recession without new jobs.


What does a Democrat look like to you? ---
Starts wars by voting for them, and then never votes to end them.
Votes for looking into cutting Social Security because old people suck.
Takes public option "off the table" before there is even any discussion of it.
Looks the other way when the Fed hands out $1.2 Trillion dollars in loans to banks and doesn't report it to the GAO.

Yeah, sure sounds like the FDR Democrats I used to know.
Sure, sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I'm not saying either is worse, we're looking the wrong way while the rich run off with the loot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. From my perspective, I've tried shining light on their gangster arses for a long time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
39. KnR thats it.....you got it right.....they are despicable and fucked up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC