The Bernie maniacs think only ideology matters but party matters just as much. I'm a liberal Democrat which means I look for a solid, electable liberal within the Democratic party. Full stop.
I don't see myself as a nomad like the Bernie maniacs do where they just look for the 'true progressive' according to ideology.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-bernie-maniac-razzes-hillary.html
Ideologically I agree with Hillary on most issues. I also think that Bernie and her agree on many issues.
There are a few differences. He talks a log about 'Going after the billionaire class/' But that's hardly a policy proposal that's just an aspiration. He does call for a few specific policies that are different from her.
He calls for an Elizabeth Warren favorite: Let's break up the big banks!
To me I'm not that impressed. For one thing, it just sounds like populist anger is driving the train there. There is this desire to mete out more punishment.
By the way this is why I don't call myself a populist but a liberal. Now if you insist I will answer to 'progressive' though I prefer liberal. Progressive seems like the legacy of Reaganism where liberals were afraid to admit they were liberals.
Many folks criticized Hillary-notably on MSNBC-for how her talk with Black Lives Matter went, but I actually thought she did a pretty good job.
She is right to be a pragmatist. It's not what you can promise on stump but what you can actually get done when in office.
Much as I love President Obama, even he found out the truth of this after speaking of a 'Post Partisan world.'
He learnt however, and his accomplishments are nevertheless very great. He is to me a great President. He too is a pragmatist at heart.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/krugman-obama-one-most-successful
To me a populist is angry and full of moral indignation. He wants to just strike out endlessly at 'The Establishment.'
His policy proposals-such that they are-are just about punishing 'elites' etc.
A liberal however-like Hillary-is a pragamatist. BLM seemed to get angry with Hillary when she asked them what policies they would like her to implement.
But that's reality. It's not enough to criticize and act out. At the end of the day you have to have actual policies to do something about it.
This is the problem with activists: often they have no agenda other than condemning everything.
So when you say 'break up the banks' my answer is: what does that achieve? Barney Frank who knows a thing or two about financial reform indicates that at this stage of the game this may be a dead end.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/barney-frank-defends-dodd-frank-against.html
Bernie is also about getting all the money out of politics. To tell the truth I'm not sure this is necessary or even the best choice. It also takes away our chance at donating to important candidates and causes of our choice.
There are many great liberal causes I want to donate to as well-like Planned Parenthood.
Yes, I was totally against Citizen's United-which by the way is the same conservative law firm who has put in all these FOIA's with the State Department.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/lawrence-odonnell-sides-with-citizens.html
I'm just saying while that decision should be rolled back, I'm not sure that we necessarily should have no money in politics at all.
It might limit our activism rather than expand it.
This is the trouble with the Bernie maniacs. Everything with them is a litmus test. They put a gun in Hillary's face and demand she say whether or not she's against the TPP. When she says she hasn't decided they go wild.
That tears it for them. Because every issue is simple and ever answer is immediately self-evident right?
There is a respectable case for the TPP which is a significant achievement of the President's.
She is an Obama Democrat. So why is this shocking?
On the MW the Bernie folks have a litmus test: Hillary must say outright she's for a $15 MW. She wants to increase it but hasn't committed on a number. So in their mind this is a deal killer. Yet there are good reasons to at least wait on a national $15 MW.
https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/629309663432065024
If you gleam from this that Ok, so Mike is against a national $15 MW!-then you still don't get it. I'm not sure to tell the truth. Maybe it is a good thing to see how such a high MW does at the local level first.
Or maybe it would be better to do it at the national level right away-economics isn't easy! My point is both arguments are at least reasonable but the Bernie fans make it black and white, cut and dried, true progressive and false. You either commit absolutely to $15 national MW now or you are not a true progressive.
Not every issue has to be a litmus test.
On some issues Hillary is superior to Bernie like immigration and gun control-both areas he has some explaining to do.
But overall I'm a liberal Democrat. I don't just use the party as a repository for finding the 'true progressive' not does doing so make any sense when you realize that there are parties in Congress and you can't get anything done without a party.
As Krugman says it takes a party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0
In some ways you wish we had a parliamentary system where you vote for the party you want to lead on election day not the candidate as this would rid us once and for all in the cult of personality in politics.
So when I vote it's not just about ideology but partisanship-I vote party as I already know where ideology resides.
I don't see myself as a nomad like the Bernie maniacs do where they just look for the 'true progressive' according to ideology.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-bernie-maniac-razzes-hillary.html
Ideologically I agree with Hillary on most issues. I also think that Bernie and her agree on many issues.
There are a few differences. He talks a log about 'Going after the billionaire class/' But that's hardly a policy proposal that's just an aspiration. He does call for a few specific policies that are different from her.
He calls for an Elizabeth Warren favorite: Let's break up the big banks!
To me I'm not that impressed. For one thing, it just sounds like populist anger is driving the train there. There is this desire to mete out more punishment.
By the way this is why I don't call myself a populist but a liberal. Now if you insist I will answer to 'progressive' though I prefer liberal. Progressive seems like the legacy of Reaganism where liberals were afraid to admit they were liberals.
Many folks criticized Hillary-notably on MSNBC-for how her talk with Black Lives Matter went, but I actually thought she did a pretty good job.
She is right to be a pragmatist. It's not what you can promise on stump but what you can actually get done when in office.
Much as I love President Obama, even he found out the truth of this after speaking of a 'Post Partisan world.'
He learnt however, and his accomplishments are nevertheless very great. He is to me a great President. He too is a pragmatist at heart.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/10/krugman-obama-one-most-successful
To me a populist is angry and full of moral indignation. He wants to just strike out endlessly at 'The Establishment.'
His policy proposals-such that they are-are just about punishing 'elites' etc.
A liberal however-like Hillary-is a pragamatist. BLM seemed to get angry with Hillary when she asked them what policies they would like her to implement.
But that's reality. It's not enough to criticize and act out. At the end of the day you have to have actual policies to do something about it.
This is the problem with activists: often they have no agenda other than condemning everything.
So when you say 'break up the banks' my answer is: what does that achieve? Barney Frank who knows a thing or two about financial reform indicates that at this stage of the game this may be a dead end.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/barney-frank-defends-dodd-frank-against.html
Bernie is also about getting all the money out of politics. To tell the truth I'm not sure this is necessary or even the best choice. It also takes away our chance at donating to important candidates and causes of our choice.
There are many great liberal causes I want to donate to as well-like Planned Parenthood.
Yes, I was totally against Citizen's United-which by the way is the same conservative law firm who has put in all these FOIA's with the State Department.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/lawrence-odonnell-sides-with-citizens.html
I'm just saying while that decision should be rolled back, I'm not sure that we necessarily should have no money in politics at all.
It might limit our activism rather than expand it.
This is the trouble with the Bernie maniacs. Everything with them is a litmus test. They put a gun in Hillary's face and demand she say whether or not she's against the TPP. When she says she hasn't decided they go wild.
That tears it for them. Because every issue is simple and ever answer is immediately self-evident right?
There is a respectable case for the TPP which is a significant achievement of the President's.
She is an Obama Democrat. So why is this shocking?
On the MW the Bernie folks have a litmus test: Hillary must say outright she's for a $15 MW. She wants to increase it but hasn't committed on a number. So in their mind this is a deal killer. Yet there are good reasons to at least wait on a national $15 MW.
https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/629309663432065024
If you gleam from this that Ok, so Mike is against a national $15 MW!-then you still don't get it. I'm not sure to tell the truth. Maybe it is a good thing to see how such a high MW does at the local level first.
Or maybe it would be better to do it at the national level right away-economics isn't easy! My point is both arguments are at least reasonable but the Bernie fans make it black and white, cut and dried, true progressive and false. You either commit absolutely to $15 national MW now or you are not a true progressive.
Not every issue has to be a litmus test.
On some issues Hillary is superior to Bernie like immigration and gun control-both areas he has some explaining to do.
But overall I'm a liberal Democrat. I don't just use the party as a repository for finding the 'true progressive' not does doing so make any sense when you realize that there are parties in Congress and you can't get anything done without a party.
As Krugman says it takes a party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0
In some ways you wish we had a parliamentary system where you vote for the party you want to lead on election day not the candidate as this would rid us once and for all in the cult of personality in politics.
So when I vote it's not just about ideology but partisanship-I vote party as I already know where ideology resides.
No comments:
Post a Comment