American Politics the 2016 edition

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 HackettFan wrote:

 rogerthat wrote:

 JJLehto wrote:

Yeah, the New Deal may have saved capitalism (so if you are opposed to capitalism guess you must hate the New Deal too) but it's quite a different beast from neo liberalism and indeed, the latter has slowly chipped away at the former by yelling socialism a lot. I still feel given no other moderate option more and more people will look to real socialism as an option, which currently is happening. Luckily in the US what is social democracy, is what we think of as socialism. 

Obstinately clinging onto laissez faire capitalism is arguably what birthed communism and socialism.  And it looks like history is all set to repeat.  Yeah, US seems to have moved so far to the right that Sanders is a socialist for USA so a moderate option like Hilary is still somewhat in the Reagan mould.  Reagan's actual policy was less potent/malignant than his rhetoric.  It has been the other way around with his successors from the Republican as well as Democratic parties.
 It moved further right than this a long time ago, and it has made a leftward return of late. I remember a time when 'liberal' was a naughty 'L' word, and Michael Dukakis lost the election because of it (he wasn't particularly liberal, but he got labeled that way). Later things changed and it was not derogatory to be liberal, so republicans started using the term, socialism/socialist, as its derogatory accusation. Now things have shifted toward a comfort level with the 'S' word too. So yeah, we have a ways to go, but the direction is indeed leftward.

Yeah, the (former) fringes of the right always existed. Goes straight to the New Deal, where some Repubs accepted it and some didn't. The former dominated the party, every nomination from 1936 to 1976 except for 64 and we know how that went. But the fringe did always hang around. Taft, then Goldwater, Reagan, fueled by other fringe people like Milton Friedman, Art Laffer who provided the academic backing. 

Dukakis I know from being a politics nerd but sadly before my time. I do get it though. Even in 2004 liberal was still a dirty word to be avoided at all costs. The progressives at the time had pretty modest goals really: Get the Clinton tax rates back (a whole whopping 4.6% extra) universal healthcare and keeping the middle class cuts permanent, sometimes vague talk of cutting them even. Howard Dean and Obama come to mind. And yeah it was hard in 2004 to defend being "liberal" it really was toxic. I kept reading too how the party needs a moderate, ideally southern, red stater otherwise there's simply no hope and it was lunacy to be outright liberal.

Thankfully, seems 35 years of Reaganomics is starting to turn things back the other way. 

Oh, Dukakis, yeah can't vouch really how his campaign compares.
However, isn't it funny that in 1992 we saw both Pat Buchanan/Ross Perot AND Jerry Brown?
Brown was the original Bernie railing against the 2 party system, $ in politics, inequality, free trade and ran a fiery campaign against a Clinton.
Buchanan was the original Trump, and Perot was also an outisder businessman railing again free trade and walked the "all over the map" route. 

So seems to me 1992 is repeating. A Clinton still won, though this time the Buchanan-Perot spawn managed to topple the establishment person. Another Bush was involved...things really dont change do they?