Rubio the nominee

[JoB]

JTB
our economic growth is sufficient to maintain the social programs that are important to me… However, when we give away a good portion of the tax revenue from that growth to corporations who move their money and jobs overseas.. funding does become problematic.

you say that Bernie has a plan to get those programs funded. Unfortunately, it’s one that won’t work without some kind of political revolution that include an overthrow of our current system.

I am thinking that the people who rely on those programs can’t afford to wait that long for the benefits he promises.

If you actually go to Hillary’s website you will find that she has an achievable plan to keep the social safety net intact while the system changes.. if it does.

Because… that social safety net is one of her priorities..

As are human rights.. as in the rights of women, children and minorities.

To be perfectly clear.. even if Bernie Sanders was to make women’s equality a priority… which is not something he really proposes.. he talks about equal wages not equality.. but even if he did.. there is nothing he could do for women’s equality in his entire term as President that would be greater than Hillary’s first day in office.

As it turns out, women’s equality is a subject she not only understands well but cares deeply about…

As are workers. Do you remember the investment tax credit for R&D and for hiring American workers? Probably not… but Hillary does and she proposes bringing it back.

imagine that.. giving business incentives to invest in American jobs… that’s revolutionary.

Share This

[JTB]

JoB, My view is that when Bernie refers to a “political revolution” he is talking about restoring our democracy into the hands of the electorate, not overthrowing the government as would be the case in a “social revolution.” For the latter, the legal foundation for property relations is changed to enable public, rather than private ownership of large enterprises. But it’s a comment on our political system that it has degenerated so far that the population will have to mount some sort of “political revolution” to wrest control from the plutocracy and political class.

He consistently evokes the “northern European” social democracy model which is simply capitalism with strong regulations and high taxes. That was always considered reformist (in a critical way) by radical socialists precisely because it doesn’t entail overthrowing the system.

Other than that, how people characterize one thing or another as “revolutionary” when disconnected from classic political economic discussion is often arbitrary and subject to interpretation. For instance one can reasonably say the impact of the feminist movement has been revolutionary, yet it hasn’t reached the status of a political revolution or a social revolution.

I think we have a different view of our economic position. Beyond short term calculations, the issue of funding social programs is more than a matter of allocation of available resources. I don’t see anything from Hillary that indicates what I consider to be an adequate approach to reversing the flow of wealth from the plutocrats and back to the working people and public services. It’s a very big task.

Share This

[JoB]

JTB..
ok.. explain to me how this restoring our democracy into the hands of the electorate thing works.. because it is already as in the hands of the electorate. literally. All they have to do is vote.

Now, there are a lot of excuses for not voting.. and in 50 or so years of working to get out the vote i have heard them all… but we still have a dismal voting record.

So do you think that if Bernie is the candidate the angry young voters of today will magically turn out in mass numbers and change the system?

Maybe you are right.. but that will only happen if the republican smear machine doesn’t manage to disillusion them first.. and they will do a remarkably good job of making an attempt.

it’s ok to rant and rave about how the media paints socialism.. as if Bernie were a socialist.. but that isn’t even the big guns.. and there are big guns to be had in Bernie’s record… his reputation isn’t so stellar among those who counted on him for his support…

but.. lets say that those first time voters.. you know the net generation of the group that turned out and elected Obama.. do show up and elect Bernie.. what is the magic that is going to keep them energized to cause this so called political revolution?

It sure didn’t happen for the Obama voters..

and if you take the long view.. it didn’t happen for the energized voters of the early 70s either..

Bernie is capitalizing on anger and when anger wears out everyone goes back to the business of living… you can’t sustain anger against the man when you become the man.

i doubt we have a differing view of our economic position.. at least not as far as the need to reverse the current flow of national wealth… I agree it’s a big task.

But again. i ask.. how exactly do you intend to do this?

Yes, i know Bernie has some pretty cool concepts and if you take our current political system completely out of the equation they are much better solutions to problems than we have now.

but how do you take our current political system completely out of the equation.. because that system as flawed as it is .. is what we have to work with.

Yes, it will change. with or without Bernie.. because the political base for that change has already been laid.. but it will not change immediately. it’s going to take time and a heck of a lot of work.

I will conclude with a comment on your characterization of revolutionary…

” Other than that, how people characterize one thing or another as “revolutionary” when disconnected from classic political economic discussion is often arbitrary and subject to interpretation. For instance one can reasonably say the impact of the feminist movement has been revolutionary, yet it hasn’t reached the status of a political revolution or a social revolution.”

you really don’t get the point if you think the women’s movement hasn’t achieved the status of a social revolution .. it had achieved that by the time i came of legal age… and that’s been a while.

what it has not achieved is the status of a political revolution and what is lacking to make that happen is making equality a priority…

Bernie isn’t the person to do that… it’s not even something he thinks is that important…

Paying lip service to equality is not the same thing as prioritizing equality.. and if you can’t get that legal equality is a necessary part of this political revolution you have missed the point.

Women’s wages haven’t risen to the level of men’s JTB.. men’s have fallen closer to women’s… and that alone fuels a good deal of that economic inequality you think you can change by going after financial institutions…

real change occurs bottom up and when you ignore the reality of half of the population you aren’t going to create change.

Share This

[JanS]

@Wakeflood @Smitty well, maybe not anymore (referring to Rubio the nominee)

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/marco-rubio-melts-down-in-stunningly-bad-debate-performance/23770/

Share This

[JTB]

JoB, in some respects, I think we’re talking past each other but there are a few distinctions I do think are important.

To me, a social revolution involves a fundamental, legal change to the economic system—private property (capital) rights versus public ownership and control on a large scale, (big capital, not small business).
A political revolution entails making reforms to the existing economic system (but often of such scale or scope to threaten the control of those who have accrued control.

I’m not sure why you made the comment you did about my sense of the the feminist movement has achieved (and has not). I described what I think a “social revolution” entails from a classic political economic standpoint, namely a structural, legal change in property relations in which private ownership of large enterprises is restricted in favor or public ownership. Then I observed the feminist movement didn’t accomplish that sort of result although it is considered “revolutionary” in many other respects. From your comment, I can’t tell if you are disagreeing with my definition of a social revolution or simply don’t think I have sufficient appreciation of the impact of the feminist movement. In either case, I think it illustrates the basic point I made about the difficulty of discussing these matters when concepts and definitions are uncertain.

But to go on—-you say our democracy is in the hands of the electorate IF they vote; but they don’t. Yes; they have withdrawn from the electoral process, they do not vote. By your definition the democracy is no longer in their hands. “It could be” isn’t the same as “it it.”

But even with that, I may be giving to much credit to your basic assertion. One of the reasons people don’t vote is because they correctly observe the results have a limited impact on what happens in the legislative (and executive) processes. Beyond the matter of voter turn out, I think the key issue is, as is frequently observed, politicians actually serve the plutocracy, not the people who vote for them. Citizens United is only the latest step in a series of developments that effectively disenfranchise individual AND even collective voters.

A very related issue that is broadly referred to but not sufficiently appreciated in my opinion, is that our laws and regulations are actually created by the technocrats and lobbyists supplied by those who fund the candidates. The public interest lobbying groups face a daunting challenge in competing against the corporate interests for attention in Congress where public policy and legislation is concerned.

Do you seriously believe that any campaign finance reform is going to happen through our Congress to a sufficient degree to change any of the above? I don’t. It will have to be extracted or forced through, however you want to view it. That’s one, key part of the political revolution.

The other concerns changing tax policy, a project I also submit will not be accomplished by this or any near term Congress left to it’s own. Again, it will have to be forced through. Unless you think the coming Congress will support a Bernie, a Hillary or anyone calling for a 60% top marginal tax rate (mmm, perhaps not Hillary) along with eliminating tax loopholes, carried interest, etc.

One of my notions of how we might get there from here, what a political revolution might look like, is for a Sanders administration to propose specific legislation for campaign finance reform and tax reform which of course will get absolutely nowhere in Congress. What I envision Bernie doing, something Hillary would never do, is then call for mass action and igniting something like OWS on steroids with an eye on becoming organized. Out of that, I envision a grass roots movement of sufficient scale to elect a radical caucus in the 2018 elections in a similar way to how the Tea Party rose in 2010. Only this would likely be much larger and cut back decisively from both Republican and Democratic representation in the House and Senate. Then we would be in a position to achieve a political revolution.

That gets back to what a political revolution actually is. In my view it is simply decisive political action that shapes or reforms the system in place (without overthrowing the system itself). In our case we supposedly have democratic capitalism as a system, but in actuality political structures have been systematically altered to result in a society run by and for a plutocracy. So to my thinking if you drop the language about socialism or social democracy, what Bernie is actually proposing is taking steps to return to democratic capitalism and potentially save the system from the disastrous course it’s clearly on.

As a final attempt to clarify what I see as political revolution and social revolution:

The Russian Revolution of 1917— social revolution restricting private ownership and nationalizing private property (enterprises)
Russian (counter) social revolution 1989-91—privatized state-controlled property (enterprises)
Czech Spring 1968—- political revolution striving to introduce democratic reforms of socialist state. Squashed by USSR who feared a similar development throughout eastern Europe and the USSR.
China-(counter) social revolution 1995> — large scale privatization of state property
Cuba -1958 initially political revolution targeting reforms then by 1960 became a social revolution with nationalization of land and business.
Northern Europe and France throughout the 50’s and 60’s—-retained social democratic (pro-capitalist) systems with limited instances of nationalizing a few industries, never on a large, systemic scale that would constitute a social revolution.
Cuba- initially a political revolution 1958-59, then a social revolution by late 1959 early 1960 with large scale nationalization.

Share This

[JTB]

Back to Marco, McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed has a rather disconcerting assessment of Rubio’s core personality that accounts for his brain freeze and reliance on scripts. Fortunately, I think these fundamental personality elements become evident to people after some exposure, so hopefully we can expect to see Marco’s anxieties confirmed.

“But to those who have known him longest, Rubio’s flustered performance Saturday night fit perfectly with an all-too-familiar strain of his personality, one that his handlers and image-makers have labored for years to keep out of public view. Though generally seen as cool-headed and quick on his feet, Rubio is known to friends, allies, and advisers for a kind of incurable anxiousness — and an occasional propensity to panic in moments of crisis, both real and imagined.
This jittery restlessness has manifested itself throughout Rubio’s life, from high school football games in Miami to high-profile policy fights in Washington — and in some ways, it’s been the driving force in his rapid political rise.”
Anxious Marco

Share This

[Smitty]

Not a Rubio fan, but I don;t get what is the big deal.

Don’t they call it a “stump speech” for a reason?

Marketers and handlers woujld love a candidate to keep hitting on something if it resonates with voters.

Is it just that he kept going to it during the debate that is different?

Share This

[waynster]

I can’t help it lol……

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2016/02/03

Share This

[Author]

Posts