Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Forget Sanders and Clinton for a moment. This is a symbolic schism that has been long brewing [View all]ieoeja
(9,748 posts)76. "Pro-Business" is a Liberal capitalist. "Corporatist" is a Conservative capitalist.
We're not communists by a long shot. Where in the fuck did you come up with that weird ass idea?
And Liberal capitalism was anything but a failure. We were the #1 creditor nation in the world. We led the world in innovation. We built a country that outshined the Soviet Union so much that they turned to capitalism likely knowing it might bring down their empire.
Or do you actually believe the Rightwing myth that we would have "bankrupted" the Soviet Union without them entering the global marketplace? Because, while the Soviet Union still owed us for WW-II expenses, they didn't have to discharge their loans through bankruptcy. But that was a pre-requisite to them joining the global market place. Had they continued as a self-contained, communist country using its domestic resources and de facto slave labor, the Soviet Union would still be alive today.
But once Nixon lowered the Iron Curtain and embraced detente allowing the people of the Soviet Union to see how much better the West was doing, their own people began clamoring for capitalism. And *that*, not the "bankrupted by military spending" myth which, as I point out above is nonsense, is why communism fell. How do you bankrupt a country that has no need to borrow money when they already own all the resources they need and de facto slavery to do the work? You can not. It is not physically possible.
It is not, in other words, in the Reality Based Community.
That myth did not even exist when the Soviet Union first fell. It was invented years later by people who can only see things through a RW national security lens. The RW national security had to have done that somehow. So they came up with an impossible scenario to describe how the military did it.
In the meantime in the Reality Based Community, Western businesses were popping up like flies in the former Soviet Union. While the CIA was informing Poppy Bush that the Soviet Union still had at least 20 years of life in it, Western law firms were helping Soviet Republics write commerce laws compatible with the global marketplace. While the RW was still preparing for the long fight, Liberals were preparing the fall.
And the Reagan economy did not even exist when this began under Nixon. It was what you today would call a far left economy. Well, no, actually you just literally called the Western economy "communist" even though it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Because you refuse to accept Reality and instead keep trying to find some way that Reagan flexed his mighty muscles and the Union came tumbling down.
Reagan did flex his mighty muscles and something came tumbling down. But it wasn't the Soviet Union. He brought the United States from the #1 creditor nation in the world to the #1 debtor nation in the world. He shut down VA mental hospitals because he thought veterans with PTSD were just whiny losers. Our streets became flooded with the homeless to this day.
He cut taxes on the wealthy, raised them on the working class. He eliminated block grants to the cities and states. Small rural communities could never have afforded to build modern sewage plants on their own. But now they are on their own. Big cities could have, but he did this in the immediate aftermath of White Flight which took a great deal of Money Flight with it. So big cities and small towns went broke while suburbs flurished.
The cities, those that did not come under attack by state legislators, are bouncing back. Newly minted young professionals fled the anti-youth attitude prevelant in the suburbs and moved into the cities. Some moved out to the burbs as they aged, so the burbs are still doing just fine. But many, like me, said "fuck the burbs" and began re-building the city. And now we're the ones with the money and the cities are beginning to regroup.
But rural towns don't stand much of a chance. They just don't have the numbers. There is a reason my family did not get electricity until 1961. There were no power lines nearby.
More farms went bankrupt under Reagan than during the Great Depression! I worked for a bank that went through the Great Depression without laying off a single worker. Not so under Reagan. Had I predicted the bankruptcy of any of the giants of industry that went bankrupt under Reagan, you would have called me a loony.
Had I predicted a quarter of the disaster Reagan would create, nobody would have believed me. Hell, we lived through it and Republicans still can not see it when it's staring them in the face.
And apparently one Proud Member of the Reagan-Myth Based Community.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
290 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Forget Sanders and Clinton for a moment. This is a symbolic schism that has been long brewing [View all]
Armstead
Sep 2015
OP
There are Conservative Populists, Moderate Populists, Liberal Populists, Progressive Populists
Skwmom
Sep 2015
#11
I think the OP is correct about the split in the party. The DLC/Third Way takeover
sabrina 1
Sep 2015
#17
Your posts are full of attacks on your fellow DUers, express and implied, DUers who had not yet
merrily
Sep 2015
#188
Traditional Democrats were not the ones who initiated the division. The DLCers/New Democrats did.
merrily
Sep 2015
#186
Truth is, we need a different term. Liberal does have a component of laissez faire corporatism,
merrily
Sep 2015
#185
Well yeah but....I thin k a lot of people have no idea of what traditional Democrat is anymore
Armstead
Sep 2015
#237
Merrily, liberal is also 1 of 2 or 3 basic personality types. You could reject it because
Hortensis
Sep 2015
#275
Wow. Condescend much? You think we don't know about forging alliances or about Bernie?
merrily
Sep 2015
#190
I think middle ground exists, but the middle is not where DLC types say it is.
merrily
Sep 2015
#191
Okay, so like Armstead, you see corporate mergers as being the problem?
ConservativeDemocrat
Sep 2015
#141
Your pedantic claim that only you live "in the real world" is tiresome bullshit
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#219
One, thank you very much. And I reiterate, your claim is pedantic, tiresome, condescending bullshit
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#262
None of those things are the reasons why McGovern lost that election. And, this ain't 1972.
merrily
Sep 2015
#192
Yes. So stop ignoring the real reasons why McGovern lost and the real differences between 1972 and
merrily
Sep 2015
#196
I no longer attempt substantive replies to in the face of insulting, arrogant posts.
merrily
Sep 2015
#201
Most people who are looking at the polls believe that Clinton will be the nominee
Gothmog
Sep 2015
#255
Thanks, malokvale77. I never have a problem with anyone's disagreement on issues, even if
merrily
Sep 2015
#225
Yes: See 2010 and 2014 for the effects of running candidates unwilling to take
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#220
Nationwide polls? They show that, given a real choice, Americans are more liberal than the 3rd way
merrily
Sep 2015
#193
I certainly felt this schism back in 2008 when Edwards left the race then...
cascadiance
Sep 2015
#75
As did many of us, who liked that he was speaking more on many of the inequality issues directly...
cascadiance
Sep 2015
#134
Edwards, who was a third way legislator, was a slick talking snake oil salesman. JMO
merrily
Sep 2015
#198
A schism has been in the Party since Lincoln. FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ all dealt with it.
merrily
Sep 2015
#195
The problem we have is that we must draw the line somewhere. If Clinton wins the WH
rhett o rick
Sep 2015
#118
Sorry, I don't think Conservative Democrat is right at all. Compare earlier posts in the Bernie
merrily
Sep 2015
#203
name calling? didn't you post up thread that liberals are actually communists who are
Doctor_J
Sep 2015
#152
Their name calling of us doesn't count, only our criticism of a professional politician on issues
merrily
Sep 2015
#211
"Pro-Business" is a Liberal capitalist. "Corporatist" is a Conservative capitalist.
ieoeja
Sep 2015
#76
So where did you get the idea that Secretary Clinton is a "Conservative Capitalist" ?
ConservativeDemocrat
Sep 2015
#82
So why is the ACA healthcare a modern version of conservative GOP Romneycare?
Armstead
Sep 2015
#105
Romneycare was modeled on Billarycare, which was modeled on Heritage Foundationcare, which was
merrily
Sep 2015
#206
so spot on -- it's about leveling the playing field so everyone can compete.
nashville_brook
Sep 2015
#233
Sorry, I'm not following. Who do you mean by "we?" Democratic politicians or Democratic voters?
merrily
Sep 2015
#215
Not woo. Your post could have been about me. Of course I have not a spec of woo.
Enthusiast
Sep 2015
#120
War has risks, well, winning a war requires taking risks, though, of course, one
merrily
Sep 2015
#218
American's now know that Wall St. isn't interested in solving economic and societal problems.
jalan48
Sep 2015
#19
I disagree. First of all, the large majority of Dems like both Hillary and Bernie.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#23
So what's the problem with Hillary then? She's basically the same place policy-wise.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#64
Those are labels, not policies. As far as gay marriage, again she's the same as Obama,
DanTex
Sep 2015
#67
It is a pretty brroad casting of the support of Hillary to say it is all "corporate"
Cosmocat
Sep 2015
#70
HRC - Is A DLCer & Obligated To Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - A Favorite Friend Of The 1%
cantbeserious
Sep 2015
#24
I agree, and I would like to say that I think that Bernie is not talking about a socialist revolutio
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#34
My husband says people are for Bernie because they are against corpotate crime.
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#36
"Sometimes it's been subtle and duplicitous, hidden behind nice innocuous words. "
RufusTFirefly
Sep 2015
#54
Doesn't matter...When GOP is in power they get what they want. When the GOP is out of power...
Armstead
Sep 2015
#62
Hillary hatched her own discontent by supporting a shitastic set of policies
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#224
I disagree. Populists are not liberal and Populists are not Democratic or strongly democratic,.
Todays_Illusion
Sep 2015
#109
Populism itself is a fairly neutral term -- like all othrs open to interpretation
Armstead
Sep 2015
#148
The DLC/Third Way/Centrist faction cost us the House and the Senate and left Obama holding the bag!
Major Hogwash
Sep 2015
#149
I agree with you, we want a liberal not some fake liberal calling themselves populist.
Todays_Illusion
Sep 2015
#158
I see 2010 and 2014 as routs? Sorry, that is not exactly a subjective assessment.
merrily
Sep 2015
#240
I haven't forgotten how much I had before the Democratic Party went Third Way or what my vote was
mmonk
Sep 2015
#207