Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is not all doom and gloom about the Democratic Party's chances of keeping control of the Senate. The polls may suggest otherwise, but Greenberg still sees a way for Democrats to have a good outcome Tuesday – and it's through the Democratic Party's base in the "rising American electorate" of single women, millennials and people of color.
But to get to that path of victory, Democrats will have to pivot much more strongly and convincingly toward a populist economic message that identifies the villains responsible for economic inequality and middle-class decline as well as the policies needed to address those problems.
This election hangs on turning out the base. The Democrats are in the unfortunate position of having to forfeit their base or their donors if they throw red meat to the base. So voter intensity is with the GOP.
New Insight Into A Progressive Populist Path To Victory
Isaiah J. Poole
9 comments:
Actions speak louder than words. There is nothing that either party has done that would bring the democratic party base to show up in a mid term election.
There has to be much more suffering before the Democratic will actually have a populist platform and act on it. in 2008, there was a populist program, and there were voices talking about FDR. But after the elections, the Dems only had ears for the siren song of their corporist donors.
Clonal I dont know if I would look at Soros as a "corporatist donor" yes he has $bazillions but he is not about "free trade" and "TBTF", etc... he is about "open society" whatever that is... (sounds suspiciously libertarian to me)...
Rsp,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society#Definition
(Karl) Popper defined the open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society."
He considered that only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and leadership change without the need for bloodshed, revolution or coup d'état.
Modern advocates of the open society suggest that society would keep no secrets from itself in the public sense, as all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are claimed as the foundation of an open society.
So I guess he sees Putin as a threat to these 'Open Societies' forming in eastern Europe. .. ?
"Open society" thinking is IMO alogn this lines:
West political system is the best possible: a combination of representative-"technocratic" democracies + capitalism based on free trade (ie. NO CONTROL over systems). More End-of-history type of thinking (was dominant thought when this ideological framework was born).
Any 'threat' to this model must be opposed (cold-war type of thinking). From this to neocon Nuland/Hillary policy is not far (in fact they pretty much come from the same place, are ideologically identical), that's why the reaction against it by Soros. They see it as a threat while Russian clearly is not interested in expanding outside (conquest), they are focused on expanding inside (internal growth).
Open Societies in EE are a joke because of austerianism, they are regressing towards nationalism and hatred-based politics (from Ukraine to Hungary). How can that not be more of a threat that Putin? maybe Nuland should invade Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin (well, it's sort of occupied already lol) and undo the EU or change the current bureaucrats. - can't say much about Soros thought, at least he has been consistent and a critic of the EU as the biggest threat to open societies in western Europe.
Popper's concept of the open society and Soros's adoption and adaptation of it was based on the context of the time, namely, Nazism and Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Soros had personal experience with this context and it shaped his subsequent thinking. Now he still sees the world through that lens. So in that sense, Soros is an anachronism.
But the basic idea is correct, of course. No one wants to live under a totalitarian system. However, the assumption that liberal "democracies" cannot become totalitarian states is an erroneous one, since the majority of voters can ratify such a state either by preference — yes, there is mass psychopathology as well as the wisdom of crowds — or by capture through control and manipulation.
In other words, it's not a black and white world. Soros doesn't seem to get the nuance of the contemporary world. Part of the problem may be fixed ideas, but self-interest in the status quo may also be a factor. After all, Soros is one of the billionaire "oligarchs" who has the wherewithal to push his own agenda.
"So I guess he sees Putin as a threat to these 'Open Societies' forming in eastern Europe. .. ?"
I was gobsmacked listening to the BBC interview when Soros blew off the interviewers' question about rising Nazism in Eastern Europe and only wanted to talk about Putin "attacking" the EU. The thought came to me that the man must be getting senile.
Matt and Tom,
I did not see Soros mentioned even once in Isaiah Poole's article. Am I missing something? I was reacting to Poole's article, and I was not talking about Soros. Or has Soros captured the democratic party
I wrote, " The Democrats are in the unfortunate position of having to forfeit their base or their donors if they throw red meat to the base."
Soros is a big donor to the democrats, but I wasn't thinking of Soros. Wall Street supported Obama when he supported them, and then they turned on the Democrats when they didn't think he was supportive enough. Not that Obama was even throwing red meat to the base, just trying to look even-handed.
There's a reason that there is no party of the left in the US. US politics is dominated by money and the people calling the shots in both parties are moneyed interests.
So the people switch back and forth between the two parties as each stiffs them in turn. Without a viable third party, this game could go on for a long time.
Post a Comment