What Democrats, elected or not, are currently big pushers of privatization and austerity?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Bernie Sanders will Run Again in 2020
- Thread starter RDreamer
- Start date
- Status
What Democrats, elected or not, are currently big pushers of privatization and austerity?
65 pages? I haven't read them all, but I'm sure it's all love for Bern. Wife donated 27 to him last night. Go Bernie!
Did you actually read and understand what you quoted? Because it doesn't say what you think it says. Neoliberal is very useful as it accurately describes politicians like Clinton, who like your quoted text claims, is quite ubiquitous in the Democratic Party. That is why Bernie is such an outsider - because most Democrats are neolibs. The "criticism" you cite would be like criticizing the use of "Christian" to describe someone in America. Most Americans are Christian and true while it may be more useful to describe a Christian by further denomination - we simply don't have the agreed upon language to demarcate further. Neoliberal works just fine to describe those who are pro-free market and anti-socialist within the Democratic Party.
Language is not a science. It is an art. You use the best tools you have available.
Let it go. You lost this one.
What Democrats, elected or not, are currently big pushers of privatization and austerity?
Not...really?
Since corporate democrat basically means from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris, some CorDemocrats are neolibs while others are...a weird mix.
Like, I can imagine Biden or Bloomberg (if he hypothetically run as a D) approving deregulation, tax cuts for the rich or cuts to social security. It wouldnt surprise me. And those three are basically the neoliberal trinity.
But I cant imagine Harris or Beto doing as such, especially when campaigning around things like the green new deal or more access to healthcare. It might not be the investment that we would want they would cut it, like how Blair cut parts of the social safety net in Britain iirc.
Of course, this is when it comes to domestic policy.
Yep, a catch all term for things people don't like.
Still waiting for someone to point out: What Democrats, elected or not, are currently big pushers of privatization and austerity?
Isnt Biden pushing for cuts?
of course, he will change his tune once his base starts to run away from him but, thats what he legitimately believes in.
225,000 donors in 24 hours.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising.html
Income-based testing for SS/Medicare benefits is not austerity.
That article says a whole lot of nothing with barely any sourcing.
Big claims with nothing backing them up.
Also, it's typically customary to include a couple of quotes when sharing a thousand word article.
Last edited:
There are videos lasting over 5 minutes on Youtube mocking predictions where Hillary would win by a large margin
I take every prediction with a truck of salt
And don't get me wrong, I would want Bernie to win.
The charter school supporters within the Democratic party are the ones that come to mind for me. Arne Duncan, Cory Booker, Hakeem Jeffries, and Diane Feinstein for example.
That said the opposition to charter schools within the party is a lot stronger thankfully. The reason for that is because teachers are fighting back and folks have finally caught on that the charter movement is primarily backed by the ultra wealthy.
These never predicted Hillary winning by a large margin
Also, consider all the reasons Trump had an edge on Hillary and none of them would apply against Sanders
"The term has been criticized, particularly by those who often advocate for policies characterized as neoliberal."
I am flabbergasted.
People don't want to be called "neoliberal" because it's not too popular on the left (for good reason), but there is a pretty good shared understanding of what it means.
Ageism is a disease. I expect that kind of garbage from Twitter, but I kind of thought ERA was better than that. The fact is, Seniors and Boomers do go out and vote and they deserve representation as much as anyone, if not moreso, because like I say, statistically they do actually care enough to vote. If Bernie can't represent the American people at large because of his age, then neither can any candidate. If anything Bernie has experience being young, middle aged and older, so that should give him more insight into every demographic. I'm not saying that Bernie is the best candidate, but to write him off because he is older is just as bad as people writing off candidates because they happen to be women or POC. The discrimination I see here (and other social media sites), really makes me feel like Seniors do need and deserve someone like Bernie speaking out for them right now.
Argue against his policy or beliefs all you want, and many people are doing that here in good will, but as soon as you use age as discriminating factor, I don't take any of your arguments about policy seriously anymore.
Argue against his policy or beliefs all you want, and many people are doing that here in good will, but as soon as you use age as discriminating factor, I don't take any of your arguments about policy seriously anymore.
Do you not know how magazine articles work or are you just being dismissive because I provided an actual example to your inane assertion that neoliberal is "just a catch-all". When even the literal Wikipedia entry you gave said "Yet the handbook argues to view the term as merely a pejorative or "radical political slogan" is to "reduce its capacity as an analytic frame."
I am giving you an example of someone examining Obama's presidency under the lens of neoliberalism and austerity. You can choose to bury your head in the sand or you can actually make sense of an issue. Your call.
There is?
Still waiting on examples.
Someone shared me a long article with no context or examples,
The other example was just wrong.
The other ended with saying Democrats are not largely for Charter schools.
Where are all of these 'neoliberal' Democrats?
I don't know why you're focused solely on Democrats. It's a useful framework with which to analyze the entire Western political landscape.
It's primary use is against Democrats.
Hence, the term having little real meaning anymore.
I can't think of a time it was used on this forum against anyone else.
I'm with this statement. How about we stop telling other people what they can't do because of their age, skin color, sex/gender? It's all an assumption about another person and what there capabilities are based on your own personal prejudices and its fucked up. Listen to the peoples words and look at their actions. Basing your decisions on anything else, especially politically, is a fools game.
Nate Silver left a lot of room for error for that. He predicted that she had around a 70% chance of winning, which leaves a lot of room to lose...
This thread has gotten pretty bulky so I apologize if there has been a detailed answer to this already but I have a serious question for Bernie Supporters: If Bernie wins 2020, what's your plan for 2024? Do you seriously think he can make the full 8 years? Do you have someone else in mind to run then? Are you just waiting for AOC to hit the right age to run?
Please don't call this ageism. The POTUS is one of the most physically taxing jobs in the world and you can see the toll it takes in 4 years alone through photos of Clinton, Obama, Carter, and GWB. Reagan was the closest to Bernie's age and he flat out lost his mind. Trump is harder to determine because he lost his mind about a decade ago and has never looked good.
Bernie won't go senile to the point of ranting on Twitter like the current POTUS but what happens if his health fails him? Because that's far more likely than ever given his age and I imagine many voters will also consider this. The campaign trail alone is exhausting and running the country itself is even worse.
Please don't call this ageism. The POTUS is one of the most physically taxing jobs in the world and you can see the toll it takes in 4 years alone through photos of Clinton, Obama, Carter, and GWB. Reagan was the closest to Bernie's age and he flat out lost his mind. Trump is harder to determine because he lost his mind about a decade ago and has never looked good.
Bernie won't go senile to the point of ranting on Twitter like the current POTUS but what happens if his health fails him? Because that's far more likely than ever given his age and I imagine many voters will also consider this. The campaign trail alone is exhausting and running the country itself is even worse.
Is that a new defense for posting shitty evidence?
Gotta remember that.
The open hostility to the corrupting influence of money from Bernie and others in the Democratic party are a big reason why billionaire funded privatization schemes like charter schools have organized opposition.
I wish we could be honest with ourselves and each other and admit that yes, a lot of powerful Democratic leaders did push neoliberal policies in the past. They did that because of the corrupting influence of big money donors. We shouldn't be hostile to the people that point this out.
But at the same time we also shouldn't reflexively accuse anyone who disagrees as being an ally to the corrupt oligarchy (i.e. neoliberals).
I wish we could be honest with ourselves and each other and admit that yes, a lot of powerful Democratic leaders did push neoliberal policies in the past. They did that because of the corrupting influence of big money donors. We shouldn't be hostile to the people that point this out.
But at the same time we also shouldn't reflexively accuse anyone who disagrees as being an ally to the corrupt oligarchy (i.e. neoliberals).
It's an actual concern. We want our president around for 8 full years. He's at the end of his life. It will be a disruption should he die in office or before his first term. We risk losing incumbency status. His ideals are already part of the democratic party. He's not special, let him go.
I see it more of a term used to describe political ideology and mindsets. Not necessarily to attack individuals. Neoliberal mindset often describes the overton window that has dominated American politics which has put unnecessary limitations on helping people and undeserved priority for monied interests over people. Or giving deference to a free market ideology over a measured analysis of the needs of the people.
But yes, it's often a catch all term for things people don't like. But I'm also not ready to throw the term out because some people use the word incorrectly.
Thank you.
But not that surprising coming from the only person to find an actual example, while not being a particularly strong one.
If Democrats are 'neoliberals' then what the fuck does that make the actual people pushing for austerity and privatization?
Hence my argument about it having no meaning.
It largely started with Reagan, then continued moving in that direction in differing levels until Obama when it largely started to shift directions.
Obamacare was a significant shift away from unregulated markets all on it's own.
You wouldn't take 4 years of Bernie over another 4 years of Trump?
Why do we want him around for eight years? Seems to me that he should focus on working for his full four years, and campaign for a progressive successor to his cause in 2023-4. Incumbents aren't guaranteed a victory, ask Carter or H.W. Bush. I'd rather put Sanders in for four years and then see new blood in 2024.
Seniors have (nearly) every other elected official: they're well represented in all areas of government. They are not a minority that needs a voice by any stretch of the imagination. They do not deserve "more" representation. Everyone deserves representation, whether or not they vote regularly -- although, obviously, everyone should.
POTUS is a demanding, stressful job that requires both physical stamina and mental agility. Age is positively correlated with declines in both. (Obviously it's not a sole predictor, but denying the correlation is ridiculous.) There's also the harsh reality that there's a statistically likely chance that, unique among his first term compared to other contenders, his VP will succeed him due to death or other infirmity. Those chances increase in a possible second term, to say nothing of the rancor of the debate that will occur should he consider running for that second term. It basically eliminates the incumbency advantage through a self-inflicted wound.
Wanting a POTUS that isn't 80 years old isn't ageism. I don't want 80-year-old generals or policemen either. It's understanding that, if one actually does the job (see: Obama and even W, solely for "actually travels and puts in long hours and attends briefings from staff"), it requires certain attributes that unmistakably decline with age. Someone in that position, as long as they remain mentally sharp, is perfect for an "elder statesman"-type role.
I think most people here (and yes I realize there are some dumbass "I won't vote for him in the general" types, I'm speaking broadly) would gladly vote for Sanders in 2020 over Trump. But that's a legitimate concern when talking about a primary.
I think most of the major Democrats are more than capable of defeating Trump.
There is always an expectation that a president should seek two terms. Democrats didn't elect Carter thinking it wouldn't be a big deal if he lost in 1980.
It is significantly easier to win re-election as an incumbent than to go through another primary. It's the only reason Trump winning a second term is even a possibility. Just think of all the people who were like "I won't vote for Clinton, why couldn't Obama just have a third term???" as if Clinton's platform wasn't 99% the same as Obama's. Yes it's irrational but that's the way campaigning is.
I'm okay with Sanders, voted for him in 2016, probably will not next year but if he makes it to the general, count me in. I will be fucking pissed if he only runs for one term.
In the context of the Democratic party I agree that it largely has no meaning. The overwhelming majority of 'neoliberals' as they are defined by most I've encountered are in the other party. And unfortunately too many people seem to forget that.
The fact that some people keep hand waving the age thing when it's been a concern for both parties for literally half a century and was proven definitively by Reagan suggest they shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
Yeah, now that I think about it even the most conservative democrats of the most conservative branch of power (the senate) voted against the tax cuts and the cuts to medicare and social security.
Also neoliberals. I don't see what's so difficult about any of this.
Seriously, why is it hard for you to accept that some members of the Democratic party in the US have pushed neoliberal policies?
It has been the case ever since I started following your politics when Bill Clinton was president.
I mean, that's the whole "New Democrat", "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" thing.
Sure, the kind of shit the Republicans pull is on a whole new level comparatively, but I don't see how that changes anything about the meaning of terms.
Beto, Harris and Biden would look terrible on stage with Bernie. I'm sure they're cursing their luck right now. They'll never get the level of passion and enthusiasm his base delves from him. And were he somehow not to get the nomination again, I can't imagine those voters flocking to another candidate even if it meant another 4 years.
Usually Trump will say something raciest but his response is rather tame.
Austerity is not inherent to neoliberalism. When I use the term, I mean a Democrat who is too cozy with the current capitalist hegemony. The ones who don't see the billionaire class and big tech lobbying as a real problem. Status quo democrats who continue to vote for more military spending.
- Status