Dear Hillary Supporters

[kristopher]

I'm supporting Bernie, but I would like to acknowledge that Hillary's record as a social progressive is very good in relation to the continuum of political persons on the national stage.

But that isn't the only metric for being a liberal.

Can you make the case for Hillary as an Economic Leftist?

The 1% has worked diligently through their right wing minions for more than 50 years trying to divide the 'lower classes' with crowbars fashioned from various social agenda - race, abortion, religion to name the most effective.

They didn't do this because they actually support racism, forced parenting or "America is a Christian Nation"; they did it because they wanted to divert energy from opposition to their policies on the economic front.

Hitting the limits of their power grab within the Republican party only got them part of the way toward putting the nation on an economic policy path securely under their total domination.

Enter the 3rd Way. In my opinion, Hillary is a poster child for this Democratic party face of the 1%'s divide and conquer strategy.

Can you provide evidence that this view the situation, held by most Bernie supporters, is false?

PS: My interest in politics was rather lethargic until I saw Bill's impeachment trial and the Republican behavior towards the Clinton's generally. I'd never felt such disgust towards any public figure as I did the Republican's pressing the impeachment hearings. I have long liked and sympathized with the Clintons.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. And history would agree with you, the " third way " is a diversion for the 1%, who is she ?

[demwing]

2. I'll be surprised if you get a productive response

maybe an accusation or two, with a little derision on the side, but no serious answer because there isn't one.

[brooklynite]

3. How about the fact that Hillary voted against the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001?

Would have been pretty easy to go with the "pro Wall Street" position, don't you think?

[JaneyVee]

6. How about the fact she tried numerous times to...

Reign in Wall Street before the collapse: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

[kristopher]

9. This is also a response to brooklynite

A single vote on a republican tax plan in 2001 isn't really a way to define a pattern of thinking about issues IMO. It has meaning, but like the calls for controlling Wall Street commencing after the meltdown was underway, for me that meaning seems to reside in the way those are exceptions to what I see as a general set of beliefs forming a philosophy embracing what I'll call the "GM standard".

It has been used by others so GM is only an example but I remember it as a saying that "What is good for GM is good for America".

To a degree that statement is true - when our corporations do well it DOES provide the potential for everyone to do well. So, we do indeed need to pay attention to that "political economy" (a term from anthropology, not a slight towards HRC) and ensure external trade and defense issues are not neglected. However, in doing so we also need to be mindful of the fact that the ultimate purpose of any economic endeavor in a democratic country is to provide for the needs of the greater populace. When we place primacy on the political economy and neglect the "domestic economy' (another term from anthro best summarized as the 'bread and butter' issues) we have the state we are now in.

What I see with Hillary is a good faith belief that placing primacy on the political economy will automatically take care of the domestic economy over time. Some people call that 'trickle down economics'.

I don't think there can be any question that Bernie's economic vision focuses (perhaps too much I don't know) on the primacy of the domestic economy. If pursued relentlessly and mindlessly it would of course be at the expense of the political economy, resulting in a system that is as dysfunctional as the one we now have, but in the other direction.

[ucrdem]

4. Okay Clinton vs Jeb I don't think is an issue.

That leaves Clinton vs. Bernie. And the answer is that on a narrative level, yes, Bernie probably has a more appealing campaign message. But at the actual level of policy it's a bogus message, and when you get down in the weeds, i.e. writing and voting for legislation, they're basically alike. However, the pragmatic compromises Bernie has made, i.e. to support gun manufacturers and the F35, seem to me more cynical and destructive than Hillary's: what they say is that Bernie doesn't believe in his own hype, which is not unusual for a long-time pol. Hillary on the other hand seems to take a more analytic and strategic view of every compromise, and while she's perfectly willing to make them, at least weighs the benefits against the consequences.

Hope that helps!

[JaneyVee]

5. No, she's not an "economic leftist".

She's an economic liberal. Believes in capitalism, but believes it needs constant regulation. Believes economy works best when there is a balance between labor and capital, but also believes that balance is out of whack and capital is crushing labor. Clinton's have an excellent record of creating tens of millions of jobs as well.

[kristopher]

10. It isn't a matter of just "regulation"

What matters is her conceptual model of how value in society is distributed. She is pretty obviously a proponent of trickle down theory. See my post #9 above for more detail on why I say that.

[BootinUp]

7. The times have a lot to do with actual policy. Thats just a fact and it usually

is an ignored fact around here. If this was '92 and Hillary was running instead of Bill, she would have used that god given intellect of hers and reasoned that an approach like what Bill took during the Reagan era was sound from an electability standpoint and could still help families and reduce poverty. This is not the Reagan era. This is the era after the pukes tried to destroy the economy. If you look at her economic policies either now or in the 2008 campaign you will see that she favors policies that are core liberal policy. I expect that Hillary being the fighter she is will always fight for the best outcome she can get. Its going to be hard for any democrat with the current lock the pukes have on the House, to get through policies we want but I would rather have an experienced fighter like her in there than anyone else.

[kristopher]

11. You're correct, the local/national/global situation is fluid.

And it is wrong to pursue policy based on dogma.

EXCEPT for one point. There is a fundamental premise that should always guide policymakers - the welfare of the masses of people. I haven't seen the kind of pivoting which indicates her changes are motived by that fundamental belief. If they were, her positions would have been different in line with the decline of the middle class in the US, not with political silly season.

[BootinUp]

12. I just gave you an example

of what you are "supposedly" looking for.

[kristopher]

13. I don't think the position you laid out shows Hillary as an economic leftist

It shows pragmatism related to electability true, but that doesn't speak to an embrace of anti-corporate sentiment within her underlying values.

[BootinUp]

14. Maybe if you re-read it. nt

[kristopher]

15. No change, sorry.

Like I hope I made clear in post 9, it isn't that I think she doesn't care about Middle America, it has to do with the way her beliefs lead her to follow a path that is more "What's good for (insert corporate name) is good for America".

In the range of nations, there aren't very many that are more to the right economically than the US. I'm sure there are NO nations that successfully serve the people who are to the economic right of the US. We are almost totally into fascism as defined as the merger of government and corporation. We don't require a minor adjustment.

[BootinUp]

16. This country generally doesn't do major adjustment

Thats just the way system is constructed. And in a lot of cases thats actually a good thing.

[kristopher]

17. 1979 and the Reagan Revolution

Don't tell me things can't be changed.

What Reagan began has led us to a place that is not tenable. Hillary won't fundamentally change anything in the economic structure even if she squeaks into a win. But given her high unfavorable ratings, I don't think there is any chance of a high turnout election. If true, that means the state level offices, along with the Congress, will probably remain in Republican control. And if Kasich manages to outflank the nut jobs, he will roll to a major victory.

I think Bernie offers a different outcome at every level.

[BootinUp]

18. I don't know any serious (fact based) analysis

that gives us a chance in hades of getting the house.

[kristopher]

19. A wave election with someone that excites those hungry for real change can.

We can't predict it because the pieces aren't in place, but that doesn't mean We can't help put those pieces in place.

Economic policy is what Can unite the disparate groups divided by unsolvable social issues - which is precisely why the Rs focus exclusively on social issues. Otherwise it's 99% against 1% in that conflict and we are not the 1%. I've been talking to a number of R's using this reasoning and Bernie's positions. They are extremely responsive to crossing over for the right person and they are open to Bernie as the right person.

[BootinUp]

20. I can only judge based on

many years of observation and experience and what I have learned from history. And your suggestion seems like little more than a nice fairy tale. Can't say I never believed in one like it though. I don't say this to discourage you or anyone else, no. Instead I encourage you to keep trying because of course anything is possible. Along the way, I am sure you will have some positive experiences. cya.

[olddots]

8. you used a scary word

So called moderate dems have been brainwashed into thinking the word left is evil .