Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "It's almost as if the conservative party gradually scared the ostensibly liberal party away from economic populism then reaped the electoral benefits of being the only populist party"   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Democrats, The American Prospect, political question, other people, swing voters, Google Search, poor get poorer, Culture of the United States  
•       •       •

2629 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jun 2012 at 1:33 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-06 09:46:22 AM  
*blink*

Splitters!
 
2012-06-06 01:35:39 PM  
It's almost as if the conservative party gradually scared the ostensibly liberal party away from economic populism then reaped the electoral benefits of being the only populist partybecame a fascist party.
 
2012-06-06 01:37:13 PM  
Populism is not the same as holding the economy hostage every time there's an election around the corner.
 
2012-06-06 01:38:27 PM  

fark.upi.com
"I'll vote Republican so the government can't take my wealth once I'm promoted to head manager of Dairy Queen!"

 
2012-06-06 01:42:49 PM  
FTFA It's almost as if the conservative party gradually scared the ostensibly liberal party away from economic populism then reaped the electoral benefits of being the only populist party!

Key word "ostensibly."

And even that, they do badly.
 
2012-06-06 01:43:53 PM  
And yet so many of them keep voting for the party actively trying to make the wealth gap larger.
 
2012-06-06 01:47:29 PM  
It's almost as if there has been an effort to shun those who get an education (you know, those dirty elitists) and reward those who don't question but blindly follow. This has been going of for ohhh the last 3 - 4 decades.
 
2012-06-06 01:51:51 PM  
Dear Salon,

CRY MOAR!!!!

Love,
beta_plus
 
2012-06-06 01:53:09 PM  

EyeballKid: [fark.upi.com image 301x301]
"I'll vote Republican so the government can't take my wealth once I'm promoted to head manager of Dairy Queen!"


www.edhumphries.com
 
2012-06-06 01:53:12 PM  
It's almost as if there's a gigantic right-wing media complex that has redefined "liberals" as "conservative, just not radical reactionaries" and so there's no real alternative to the far right's program.
 
2012-06-06 01:54:05 PM  
What 'conservative' party?

Fascist =/= Conservative
 
2012-06-06 01:54:48 PM  

MrEricSir: Populism is not the same as holding the economy hostage every time there's an election around the corner.


No, populism is adopting positions that are designed to pit "the people" or "the average citizen" against "the elite", the latter group possibly being an actual group with some sort of advantage but generally just being some kind of convenient cultural whipping boy. Additionally, all that's required of the group cast as "the people" is that people _think_ they're in said group, not that the group actually constitute the majority of citizens or even actually exist. The less-kind name for this strategy is "class warfare", and it's not some obscure, advanced political technique that only one party uses, it's been a characteristic of the majority of political dialogue in the West since dates were expressed in "ad urbe condita".

An example of populism from the GOP side would be the efforts to shoehorn creationism into science curricula or argue against global warming-related regulation on the theory that those ivory-tower intellectuals are ignorant of or undermining the values of ordinary red-blooded americans. An example from the Democrats would be promoting Health Care Reform on the grounds that all the people opposing it are servants of the corporate overlords that just want to make a buck off of your hard work without regard for your welfare.

Note that being populist or not has very little to do with a policy being beneficial or well-thought-out. As mentioned, health care reforms were advanced essentially as a populist cause, and that seems to be helping quite a bit. However, so is the War on Drugs and its elder cousin Prohibition, which are downright stupid.
 
2012-06-06 01:56:05 PM  
replace "populist party" to "party with balls"

too many Dems want power but then are afraid to use it.
 
2012-06-06 01:56:55 PM  

EyeballKid: [fark.upi.com image 301x301]
"I'll vote Republican so the government can't take my wealth once I'm promoted to head manager of Dairy Queens!"


Dairy Queens: Wisconsin's most popular and successful gay bar/ RNC strategy meeting hall.

/NTTAWWT
 
2012-06-06 01:57:03 PM  
Yea Salon, it's almost as if. Groundbreaking stuff.
 
2012-06-06 02:02:11 PM  
Did the author read as not admire as despise? Wow that is just as braindead as populism. Populism is the bread and butter of the weakminded.
 
2012-06-06 02:04:26 PM  
Fastest way to get an American to do what you want: "They're coming to get YOU, and your CHILDREN!"
 
2012-06-06 02:07:57 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The less-kind name for this strategy is "class warfare", and it's not some obscure, advanced political technique that only one party uses, it's been a characteristic of the majority of political dialogue in the West since dates were expressed in "ad urbe condita".


Any change to tax laws could be construed as "class warfare." But strangely, the term is only used when it's the poor demanding higher taxes on the rich, and never when the rich demand higher taxes on the poor.
 
2012-06-06 02:18:26 PM  
Looks like the Dem win in Racine put Walker's special session on hold. We can have peace for a few months until the rampage starts again.
 
2012-06-06 02:19:13 PM  

MrEricSir: Jim_Callahan: The less-kind name for this strategy is "class warfare", and it's not some obscure, advanced political technique that only one party uses, it's been a characteristic of the majority of political dialogue in the West since dates were expressed in "ad urbe condita".

Any change to tax laws could be construed as "class warfare." But strangely, the term is only used when it's the poor demanding higher taxes on the rich, and never when the rich demand higher taxes on the poor.


Except in the instance where you just used it that way. And how it gets used as such by a lot of people, including the 99% movement. I suppose the easy response is that they use it that way in a reactionary fashion, but I don't think that takes it away from it being used that way.

/Supports aiming for fairness which eliminates the warfare against either side.
//With great power money, comes great responsibility... or at least it should.
 
2012-06-06 02:19:22 PM  
I'd put it more like 'The GOP whitewashed the results of Walker's economic vision then lied repeatedly with a 10-1 money advantage to get their message out'.

Close, I'm sure.

/He had a surplus!
//from deferring to pay this year, wracking up more interest payments next year
 
2012-06-06 02:22:36 PM  

Leo Bloom's Freakout: /Supports aiming for fairness which eliminates the warfare against either side.


What's fair?
 
2012-06-06 02:23:00 PM  

Hastor: /He had a surplus!
//from deferring to pay this year, wracking up more interest payments next year


Inevitably the budget "crisis" that results will be put on the backs of the working class again. Then everyone can panic when consumer confidence is down, jobs are lost, and everyone wonders why.

Oh, well.
 
2012-06-06 02:24:26 PM  

dumbobruni: replace "populist party" to "party with balls"

too many Dems want power but then are afraid to use it.


I have no idea what national Dems even want anymore. Quick, name the top five Dem party planks.
 
2012-06-06 02:25:24 PM  

Headso: Leo Bloom's Freakout: /Supports aiming for fairness which eliminates the warfare against either side.

What's fair?


A beautiful woman?
 
2012-06-06 02:25:35 PM  
FTFA:
This is positive news. And I think that Wisconsin is living up to its state motto, that providential motto of forward. They're moving forward.

But when Obama used "forward" last month, it was a Socialist thing somehow?

Also, was Obama on the ballot in Wisconsin? I didn't realize that.

And you guys should see Caribou Barbie's new "look" if you can find the video, not so MILF-y any more...
 
2012-06-06 02:29:49 PM  

MrEricSir: Any change to tax laws could be construed as "class warfare." But strangely, the term is only used when it's the poor demanding higher taxes on the rich, and never when the rich demand higher taxes on the poor.


Again, it's a negative-connotation way of saying populism. Since _literal_ class warfare only really occurred in the Soviet revolution, which was definitely a left-wing extremist movement, the historical reference only really "works" when you're using it to denigrate someone on the left.

There are more general ways to make the same insult. You can say your opponent is "pandering to [x group]" which is essentially the same thing if you're talking about a group that's essentially an entire major demographic. You can imply that your opponent's commitment to populism is insincere because he's part of "the elite"-- the 'washington insider' gets thrown about a lot by both parties. Even using "conservative" as an insult is essentially attacking someone over populist positions.

Again, I'm not saying this kind of political back-and-forth isn't bullshiat, because it is. But it's not some magical new strategy that only one party or the other can execute successfully, it's as fundamental a political course of action in a democracy as "getting the vote out", renting ad space, or being "strong on defense". If a politician doesn't attempt to play up their own populism and play down their opponents', I would be hesitant to vote for them because they're clearly the most incompetent politician I've ever seen.
 
2012-06-06 02:31:10 PM  
fark.upi.com

"My Walker hat sales are through the roof. I'm going to own everyone in this audience in a manner of weeks."
 
2012-06-06 02:35:06 PM  

Headso: Leo Bloom's Freakout: /Supports aiming for fairness which eliminates the warfare against either side.

What's fair?


Reduced exploitation. A system that allows those who do well to gain and gain to a level of high comfort, wealth to sustain their families, etc. The point at which someone is making $1M a year in personal income, they can provide all of that. If they so choose to live extravagantly, they are welcome to but the wealth above a mark like that should fall into a higher tax rate.

Those at the bottom should have access to a basic living while they sort out how to get into a more stable position. If that requires those extra funds because charitable causes cannot collect them voluntarily, there needs to be a public safety net. It's part of the social contract here. We give you the opportunity to do amazingly well, but there may come times where that success means we also ask you to pitch in more because you have shown yourself capable of doing so.

Now, there's a discussion to be had as to how well the government manages that money, but that's true of the money they take from all of us and could reduce the burden on the upper sections. As a people of means, it would be in their interest to use that status and the example of how much they give to ask that the government streamline the processes to reduce waste. Don't eliminate services, just do them better. With that, then the government shows its good faith in trying to demand as little as possible above and beyond while providing what the society as a whole needs.

/Secondary answer: maidens with red hair.
 
2012-06-06 02:51:38 PM  

Jim_Callahan: MrEricSir: Populism is not the same as holding the economy hostage every time there's an election around the corner.

No, populism is adopting positions that are designed to pit "the people" or "the average citizen" against "the elite", the latter group possibly being an actual group with some sort of advantage but generally just being some kind of convenient cultural whipping boy. Additionally, all that's required of the group cast as "the people" is that people _think_ they're in said group, not that the group actually constitute the majority of citizens or even actually exist. The less-kind name for this strategy is "class warfare", and it's not some obscure, advanced political technique that only one party uses, it's been a characteristic of the majority of political dialogue in the West since dates were expressed in "ad urbe condita".

An example of populism from the GOP side would be the efforts to shoehorn creationism into science curricula or argue against global warming-related regulation on the theory that those ivory-tower intellectuals are ignorant of or undermining the values of ordinary red-blooded americans. An example from the Democrats would be promoting Health Care Reform on the grounds that all the people opposing it are servants of the corporate overlords that just want to make a buck off of your hard work without regard for your welfare.

Note that being populist or not has very little to do with a policy being beneficial or well-thought-out. As mentioned, health care reforms were advanced essentially as a populist cause, and that seems to be helping quite a bit. However, so is the War on Drugs and its elder cousin Prohibition, which are downright stupid.


It's actually something that has me torn, since I see myself as kind of a Rockefeller Republican. I think the Democrats would be better off electorally if they decided to go full-on populist, but the biggest thing that has me backing Democrats is that instead of following the "stupid hippie" stereotype most Democratic politicians make wonky arguments for how things like a strong social safety net, domestic "pump priming" during recessions, public infrastructure spending, and a more progressive tax system actually lowers risk and addresses some negative externalities which provides room for innovation and growth in the private sector. The Republicans meanwhile have made their arguments entirely on appeals to emotion recently.

In other words, the thing I hate is the thing that is best for "my team" to do. It's a struggle.
 
2012-06-06 02:55:47 PM  

Evil High Priest: dumbobruni: replace "populist party" to "party with balls"

too many Dems want power but then are afraid to use it.

I have no idea what national Dems even want anymore. Quick, name the top five Dem party planks.


fark.upi.com

"Mmm, lessee.... Socialisms, gay phags, hatin' Gawd, murderin' babies, and um, more Socialisms."
 
2012-06-06 02:57:43 PM  
Republicans aren't afraid to make emotional appeals. When the economy is the shiatter, Americans need a cheerleader. Reagan was good at this. Clinton was good at this. America's growth has been fueled by propaganda and bullshiat, but frankly I don't think this is a bad thing.
 
2012-06-06 02:58:00 PM  
Do not hate me because I'm a liberal, instead work with me because I'm a fellow American.

I love this country just as much as you. It's where I was born, it's where I was raised, it's where I went to school, it's where I became an adult, it's where I've laughed and cried and had the best and worst times in my life. We may have difference on the way think things should be run, but as long as I can maintain a happy lifestyle and have the freedom to live my life as I choose, that's all I really need.

Please remember, just because we yell and scream at each other doesn't men we can't get past our difference to make the United States a great place. And also realize that we will yell and scream at each other many more times. Because the fight is never over, the pendulum always swings back and forth. Remember that.
 
2012-06-06 03:00:48 PM  

Leo Bloom's Freakout: Except in the instance where you just used it that way. And how it gets used as such by a lot of people, including the 99% movement. I suppose the easy response is that they use it that way in a reactionary fashion, but I don't think that takes it away from it being used that way.


I've never heard the Occupy movement use the term "class warfare." But their critics use the term to demonize them constantly.
 
2012-06-06 03:05:43 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Do not hate me because I'm a liberal, instead work with me because I'm a fellow American.

I love this country just as much as you. It's where I was born, it's where I was raised, it's where I went to school, it's where I became an adult, it's where I've laughed and cried and had the best and worst times in my life. We may have difference on the way think things should be run, but as long as I can maintain a happy lifestyle and have the freedom to live my life as I choose, that's all I really need.

Please remember, just because we yell and scream at each other doesn't men we can't get past our difference to make the United States a great place. And also realize that we will yell and scream at each other many more times. Because the fight is never over, the pendulum always swings back and forth. Remember that.


Actually, I think the yelling and screaming would be good. Acting a bit like the Japan or the British and getting into shouting matches and melees in Congress would be better than this passive-aggressive dog and pony show we do today.
 
2012-06-06 03:06:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: dumbobruni: replace "populist party" to "party with balls"

too many Dems want power but then are afraid to use it.

I have no idea what national Dems even want anymore. Quick, name the top five Dem party planks.


The Democratic priorities boil down to one thing: Promote equal protection under the law. Working for civil rights, protecting women's health, fighting voter disenfranchisement, and promoting economic stimulus all draw from the core of making sure all citizens have equal opportunity to succeed.

What are the top Republican planks?

Keep your knees closed and your mouths shut, girls.
Whar Birth CerTficAt Whar?
Tax cuts for the rich, austerity for the rest.
Libs R Bad.
 
2012-06-06 03:08:34 PM  
EVISCERATE THE PROLETARIAT!
 
2012-06-06 03:16:40 PM  
All thanks to the "Liberal Media", which has turned Madison Avenue's lifelong conditioning program into a nightmare. All hail Global Corporate Socialism.

Say it's not "socialism" and I point out the whole "job creators" line - ie "each according to his ability..."

Only question is, who merged with whom when Kissinger cut the deal with the Chicom Conspiracy.
 
2012-06-06 03:18:37 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Yea Salon, it's almost as if. Groundbreaking stuff.


ostensibly.

/cred to Emposter
 
2012-06-06 03:37:31 PM  

Evil High Priest: dumbobruni: replace "populist party" to "party with balls"

too many Dems want power but then are afraid to use it.

I have no idea what national Dems even want anymore. Quick, name the top five Dem party planks.


Equal pay for women
Increased access to healthcare
Prevent Republicans from destroying Medicare
'' '' '' '' Social Security
Raining fiery death on al Qaeda
 
2012-06-06 03:44:01 PM  
The problem here is that so many Democratic politicians are only ostensibly liberal.

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it's played:

Politics Daily, October 4, 2009:
Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"

Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He's [] a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor - and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."

President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need.

The Huffington Post, yesterday:
Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that" . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process - which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option - Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.

This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it.

They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush's eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush's habeas and interrogation abuses ("Gosh, what can we do? We just don't have 60 votes).


You can read the whole article for many other concrete examples of this deceitful game in action.
 
2012-06-06 03:47:45 PM  

MrEricSir: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Except in the instance where you just used it that way. And how it gets used as such by a lot of people, including the 99% movement. I suppose the easy response is that they use it that way in a reactionary fashion, but I don't think that takes it away from it being used that way.

I've never heard the Occupy movement use the term "class warfare." But their critics use the term to demonize them constantly.


www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com


www.chicagomag.com
 
2012-06-06 03:51:11 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: MrEricSir: Leo Bloom's Freakout: Except in the instance where you just used it that way. And how it gets used as such by a lot of people, including the 99% movement. I suppose the easy response is that they use it that way in a reactionary fashion, but I don't think that takes it away from it being used that way.

I've never heard the Occupy movement use the term "class warfare." But their critics use the term to demonize them constantly.

[www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com image 500x300]


[www.chicagomag.com image 600x400]


Good job. You've now shown him the pictures showing people holding signs mentioning class warfare. I guess Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obama has to get his shinebox. Darn.
 
2012-06-06 03:52:27 PM  
What you has was a genuine grassroots movement which was then hijacked by the Democratic party and union leadership and then castrated and turned into more of the same mainstream Republicrat -- Demolican BS we get everyday from DC. Change will only come from outside the major parties, not from within.
 
2012-06-06 03:53:48 PM  
dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-06-06 03:54:06 PM  

bhcompy: Acting a bit like the Japan



Right. Nothing says success like a country in a 20+ year depression.
 
2012-06-06 03:55:55 PM  

BullBearMS:
Politics Daily, October 4, 2009: Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"


Breaking news! Heir to billion dollar family fortune bought and paid for by health insurance companies! Full story at 11
 
2012-06-06 03:57:05 PM  

runwiz: What you has was a genuine grassroots movement which was then hijacked by the Democratic party and union leadership and then castrated and turned into more of the same mainstream Republicrat -- Demolican BS we get everyday from DC. Change will only come from outside the major parties, not from within.


Change will only come when it's too late to do anything else.
 
2012-06-06 03:57:09 PM  

BullBearMS: The problem here is that so many Democratic politicians are only ostensibly liberal.

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it's played:

Politics Daily, October 4, 2009: Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"

Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He's [] a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor - and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."

President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need.
The Huffington Post, yesterday: Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that" . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democ ...


What are they supposed to do? A true liberal rarely wins an election outside of small constituencies like a House district. They have to move to the center to win statewide or national elections. They move to the center, piss off some of the more extreme liberals who now sit the election out. The Republican wins, and the next Democrat has to move even more to the right since that's the path to victory. Alternately, the Democrat wins on a centrist platform, but the liberals are pissed off because they feel betrayed and won't vote in the next election, meaning that to win, the Democrat has to move...further right.
 
2012-06-06 03:58:04 PM  

beta_plus: Dear Salon,

CRY MOAR!!!!

Love,
beta_plus



Republicans lost control of the WI Senate

CRY MOAR!!!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report