Skip to main content

In an excellent essay entitled Thinking About the Government, Robert Kuttner laments the growing disconnect between the policy consensus of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the views of the American people:

We have almost reached a tipping point where majorities of Americans who want to government to be on their side look in vain for a government that actually serves them. Meanwhile, the national security state is more overweening than ever.
Kuttner lays out the case against the current centrist or even center-right incarnation of the Democratic Party:
I remember a time when liberals were the people who used government as a democratic counterweight to the abuses of capitalism, and conservatives were those close to big business who wanted to limit government. ...

But, lately the lines have blurred. The old, stylized picture of what liberals and conservatives want of government doesn't mean much, especially to younger Americans, because they have seldom experienced it.

Lest anyone think this is hyperbole, let's consider the facts. Millions of young Americans enthusiastically supported Barack Obama for president, believing he would bring significant change to the policies of the U.S. government. They volunteered and voted for him in massive numbers because they trusted that he would do everything in his power to overturn the destructive policies of the Bush administration: reining in the militarism, domestic spying, and other abuses of the "War on Terror," the corruption of Wall Street, and the privatization and excessive influence of corporate lobbyists in our government.

Instead, as Kuttner points out, this is what has happened under President Obama:

On civil liberties:

An administration currently run by supposed liberals thinks that it's ok for government to secretly seize phone and Internet records of citizens, without the kind of explicit search warrant contemplated by the Fourth Amendment.
On private vs. public sector:
More and more of the government is being contracted out and privatized, even the most sensitive state secrets, not to mention basic public services. Even the U.S. armed forces depend increasingly on private mercenaries. ...

This is the first recession in a century when government employment and public services were cut rather than expanded to compensate for the weakness of the private sector.

On financial sector reform:
The financial collapse and presidential election of 2008 were a moment for political reformers to dismantle the Wall Street power that caused the financial collapse and did such damage to ordinary people. But the moment passed with only feeble reforms, which are being dismantled daily as lobbyists eat away at the regulations...
On health care reform:
A health reform that professes to use government to move us closer to universal insurance coverage is actually a command for people to buy insurance from private industry, which is fatter and less efficient than ever.
Kutter goes on and on, and I wish I could quote his whole article, but these final observations will have to suffice:
Take enough resources away from government, and it becomes too enfeebled to do its job for regular people. Citizens then give up on government. Why throw good money after bad? ...

Instead of having a government that delivers practical help while restraining its own excesses, we have one that is doing far too little to keep us economically secure and far too much in the name of keeping us safe. No wonder our politics is a muddled mess.

As a young, liberal American, I am worried about the future of the Democratic Party and of liberalism in general in this country. I will be blunt: The presidency of Barack Obama has been a major setback to both. It has been a deep disappointment, and a betrayal of trust.

Most importantly, the Obama presidency -- and the current political agenda of mainstream Democratic Party politicians overall -- risks alienating an entire generation of once enthusiastic Democratic voters and giving new life to a Republican Party that is searching for a replacement for the dying social conservative message.

I see more and more young people giving up on the possibility of good government and turning to libertarianism. In many cases, they don't agree with libertarian economic policies, but after Obama, they simply no longer believe that it is even possible in America today for the federal government to do good, rather than all the bad things it's doing. Once people come to that belief, they naturally decide "screw government!" and they start voting for Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and other exponents of the philosophy that government doesn't work and therefore it should be cut to the bone.

I was a member of the Libertarian Party about 15 years ago, when I was in college. Bush turned me into a liberal, and I remain a liberal. But when I was a libertarian, it was mainly because I believed in the mantra of Harry Browne, the LP candidate at the time, who wrote a book called Government Doesn't Work. Browne's message was simple: The government never does what you want it to do; it always ends up doing the things you don't want it to do. Therefore, it is logical to support a smaller and less powerful government.

I'm sorry to say, but this cynical anti-government message is going to start resonating with more and more people, unless the Democratic Party boldly casts aside the center-right path of Barack Obama and embraces a new progressive revival. People want middle class jobs, not Big Brother listening to your phone calls and reading your emails. They want student loans, not bailouts for an obscenely wealthy investment banking industry. They want increased funding for health care and education, not cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Too many Democrats have a smug assurance that the younger generations will automatically keep voting Democratic; that "demographic change" will condemn the GOP to permanent minority status in just a couple decades. But if the American people elect Democrats and then those Democrats keep cutting government services for the poor, elderly, and disadvantaged, while continuing to expand the military-industrial-security state and serving the Wall Street lobbyists that people were actually voting against, why are they going to bother to vote for Democrats again? "Because they have no other choice," right? I don't think that's going to work much longer.

The GOP is not stupid. There is a rising libertarian wing of that party, led by Sen. Rand Paul, which seeks to appeal to young voters who have given up on the promises of Democrats who talked the talk but didn't walk the walk -- young liberals who would seriously consider voting Republican if only the GOP would cut the military, end the domestic spying, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the war on marijuana. Do you really think the Democrats have these pissed-off young voters locked in their column for life? Do you really think the Republicans are never going to try to rebrand their party to appeal to young Democrats who saw all their political hopes and dreams slip away under the weak, centrist, corporate-dominated, too-similar-to-Bush administration of Barack Obama? Think again.

It is time for a concerted movement to take back the Democratic Party from the centrist, corporate-driven "Republican lite" party it has become. It is time for the voters of America to have a real choice between conservative and liberal, not ultra-conservative and mildly, sanely conservative. If progressives don't take action to make this happen, then Democrats are at high risk of losing whatever advantage they had gained with a whole generation of frustrated Obama voters, who may be getting very close to throwing in the towel on the whole idea of a powerful U.S. federal government that can do good for ordinary people. The Rand Pauls and Gary Johnsons will be calling their sweet siren song of libertarianism, and a new generation of the GOP will be born from the ashes of a supposedly liberal Obama administration that didn't deliver for liberals but delivered richly for Wall Street and the NSA.

Don't let it happen.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (348+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poopdogcomedy, tardis10, ferment, twigg, Miss Jones, brainwave, Bob Love, nailbender, paradise50, blueoasis, Simplify, 4CasandChlo, run around, Dobber, Deward Hastings, spacecadet1, Shahryar, Laurence Lewis, Cassiodorus, gulfgal98, dkmich, Lepanto, Bob Duck, Rick Aucoin, DavidMS, AoT, jaf49, Horace Boothroyd III, bobswern, Buckeye Nut Schell, Victor Ward, CT Hank, dance you monster, bleeding blue, Jim P, congenitalefty, k9disc, TarheelDem, PhilK, kyril, crackpot, Michael Alton Gottlieb, rasfrome, happymisanthropy, The Free Agent, ehavenot, slowbutsure, praenomen, quill, paradox, enhydra lutris, camlbacker, KJG52, Nattiq, cmize, PapaChach, soarbird, Chaddiwicker, ctsteve, Eddie L, sturunner, Kombema, 420 forever, poligirl, commonmass, cardboardurinal, Lonely Liberal in PA, Dallasdoc, joedemocrat, SteelerGrrl, Preston S, cybersaur, greenbell, profewalt, Involuntary Exile, 3goldens, shaharazade, flowerfarmer, lunachickie, SBandini, Jazzenterprises, ferg, Carol in San Antonio, JekyllnHyde, peptabysmal, BroadwayBaby1, PhilJD, Dartagnan, ask, offgrid, wader, koNko, Demeter Rising, eeff, cassandraX, Dumbo, chrississippi, devis1, disrael, Kevskos, solesse413, Beetwasher, punkRockLiberal, mattc129, AlwaysDemocrat, Crider, gregsullmich, mightymouse, Bluesee, randomfacts, badger, psnyder, Fury, DRo, dsb, LSmith, Moravan, radmul, jeff in nyc, Rusty SpikeFist 2, No Exit, arendt, deeproots, Thinking Fella, Rogneid, jamesia, sgrAstar, Shockwave, monkeybrainpolitics, ialonelady, Catte Nappe, birdboy2000, yoduuuh do or do not, HCKAD, mph2005, stevemb, PrometheusUnbound, Catesby, triv33, TrueBlueMajority, Williston Barrett, middleagedhousewife, wasatch, Lefty Coaster, WB Reeves, TracieLynn, banjolele, Blue Bell Bookworm, emal, irmaly, CA Nana, temptxan, mahakali overdrive, mconvente, JayRaye, albrt, Kentucky Kid, FutureNow, fabucat, nycjoc, WisePiper, quagmiremonkey, sunbro, Mother Mags, thegood thebad thedumb, Captain C, Wek, skepticalcitizen, catilinus, muddy boots, YucatanMan, mishal817, just want to comment, Brecht, Alma, Skennet Boch, notrouble, 4kedtongue, JesseCW, pontechango, joanneleon, Jarrayy, jgnyc, ItsaMathJoke, BlueInARedState, movie buff, soros, poe, Unitary Moonbat, humphrey, rmx2630, RFK Lives, Element 61, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, markthshark, dalemac, Leftcandid, squarewheel, Tolmie Peak, Garrett, hungeski, Alumbrados, Ray Pensador, science nerd, lostinamerica, Pescadero Bill, ChemBob, Subterranean, bluicebank, worldlotus, equern, Wolf10, Medium Head Boy, tidalwave1, Thunder, angelajean, native, JosephK74, Tirge Caps, Panacea Paola, daveygodigaditch, I Lurked For Years, splashoil, LillithMc, eru, bbctooman, prettygirlxoxoxo, misterwade, bula, linkage, greengemini, pfiore8, LaughingPlanet, rbird, dull knife, probably jay, toby esterhase, kat68, qofdisks, KenBee, pcl07, Jeff Y, mythatsme, betterdemsonly, pgm 01, barkingcat, mookins, Fishgrease, deep info, caul, carpunder, BlueDragon, DeadHead, profh, OutcastsAndCastoffs, Mosquito Pilot, postalblue, FindingMyVoice, milkbone, Russ Jarmusch, jnhobbs, Heart of the Rockies, irate, Teiresias70, Mary Mike, marleycat, Rumarhazzit, petulans, Auburn Parks, Wisdumb, happy camper, BYw, jrooth, letsgetreal, mkor7, Tool, Mahood, hlsmlane, The Voice from the Cave, glitterscale, musicsleuth, rbaillie, rivamer, politik, pierre9045, decisivemoment, One Pissed Off Liberal, greenbastard, opinionated, allenjo, Cory Bantic, afatjunco, claude, Ohkwai, Sagebrush Bob, eightlivesleft, Panama Pete, on the cusp, HairyTrueMan, Indiana Bob, PDiddie, ruscle, Hunter Acosta, NearlyNormal, lyvwyr101, Aaa T Tudeattack, Crabby Abbey, ratzo, MKinTN, zerone, Boogalord, Assaf, GeorgeXVIII, tommymet, Laughing Vergil, Paolo, DBunn, NYmama, J M F, Free Jazz at High Noon, jfromga, Barbara Marquardt, CenPhx, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, surfbird007, lehman scott, speak2me, leonard145b, The Hindsight Times, Scientician, fixxit, RageKage, Capslock, Damnit Janet, bryduck, el dorado gal, aaraujo, NBBooks, PALiberal1, dradams, figbash, Rhysling, LucyandByron, Cat Servant, hubcap, nswalls, BusyinCA, niteskolar

    The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

    by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:02:27 PM PDT

  •  Do you not think (41+ / 0-)

    that the Democratic policies, as opposed to what the government is actually doing, is broadly in line with mainstream American thinking?

    Most polling indicates that the Democrats at large support those things that people find important, even allowing for the fact that the Federal, and many State Governments are unwilling, or unable to get the bills passed.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:10:52 PM PDT

  •  ...interesting diary... (25+ / 0-)

    ...and it may have some merit. In this past national election I would run into Ron Paul people locally. I was amazed that they were primarily long-haired young guys and hippie-looking young women. These folks primarily wanted no government in their lives...especially regarding pot or drug use (Ron Paul said drugs should be legal).

    The other Ron Paul supporters were full-fledged government haters who love their guns.

    Both of these groups of people were NOT very clear on who Ron Paul was or anything about his past. When I'd bring up Ron Paul's racist writings, they'd deny it completely telling me it was made up by...get this...liberals (not the GOP who was more afraid or Ron Paul).

    What I experienced may well not be anything but what I ran into regarding local Ron Paul supporters...BUT...I was very underwhelmed by the lack of political understanding or even understanding how our government works...by Ron Paul supporters.

    I was left feeling like Ron Paul supporters were knee-jerk reactionary more than informed and thinking...

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

    by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

    •  Interesting observations. Paul supporters are (20+ / 0-)

      a mix of various political types, as you point out, as well as people just wanting to cast a protest vote. I know several people who voted for Paul because of a general frustration with the quality (or lack thereof) of government, rather than any specific political ideology.

      The key point I'm trying to make in this diary is that as people's trust in government declines, libertarian candidates gain. If mainstream Democratic politicians such as Obama, Feinstein, etc. stand for a government that has the money and the power to spy on all Americans but doesn't have the money and the power to give people jobs, education, health care, retirement security, etc., then naturally, lots of people are going to say "screw that!" and just vote for whichever candidate hates government. Democrats loss, libertarian/GOP gain. It's a real problem, and we have to face it and realize that Democrats may be in worse political shape because of it, if progressives don't succeed in gaining influence in the party and delivering some results to convince people that government can do good.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:23:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...there is so much stuff going on about... (8+ / 0-)

        ...the NSA stuff that it clouds all other discussions (like the comment you made above for instance).

        I'm 55 years old. We had land line phone only....and rotary ones at first in my life.

        Wanna know something? Anytime a crime happened the cops could ALWAYS get the phone records of anyone.

        I want to mention that only because the fact the NSA is gathering the data now from all our phone calls is NOTHING NEW. What is new is the internet and facebook and twitter and all the rest of ways people communicate that doesn't use a phone.

        The truth is this NSA stuff went on steroids after 911, but they were always tracking us ever since they could. If a technology was created the we could use to communicate, THEY were tracking it.

        The only difference is the scale they can now.

        THE biggest problem for governance...including Democrats being even allowed to govern when they are in power is ---> the GOP which is now simply the "Party of NO."

        The Democrats would seem fine if they could win the HOUSE again which looks like a near impossibility after the gerrymandering that took place (never before has the popular vote NOT determined the majority of the HOUSE members...the GOP is really, really proud of this feat)...

        Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

        by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:40:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent diary (5+ / 0-)

        What you have written reflects what I've seen anecdotally in other places. Democrats need to stop being republican lite and start fighting for the American People.

        +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

        by cybersaur on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  my rapid response to paulites... (18+ / 0-)

      do you care about climate change, racism, and homophobia?

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:34:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course they are ignorant (13+ / 0-)

      But ignorant people can vote, and often do in large numbers.  I've made this point over and over through the years:  if the Democratic party wants to win elections, it has to attract more voters than the Republicans.  It sounds like a truism, but actually the Democratic party often behaves as if it doesn't have the first clue about the truth of it.

      These people look around and see endless flavors of Suck in the political parties they see.  They're not wrong in seeing that, either.  Both parties are corrupt, dishonest, self-interested and completely uninvolved in actually representing the people they con into voting for them.  That's why non-voters so overwhelmingly outnumber the followers of either party.  These people aren't wrong in their observations, they just see the consequences of their choices differently than you probably do.  And at an individual level, they're not wrong about that either.

      The current Democratic party doesn't really have much to offer younger voters, other than "We Suck Less!"  That's because it is almost as thoroughly corrupted as the Republican party.  Anybody interested in the future success of the Democratic party should be first in line to criticize Democratic officeholders selling out the people in favor of their big donors.  Defending the corrupt status quo makes you no true friend of the Democrats.

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:46:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's even ignorance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        caul

        any more at that point.  I've known quite a few who, even after you point them toward the correct information, continue to insist that they're right, as if they have some kind of inability to process that information.

        These people, frankly, are either stupid, or willfully ignorant.  Though I would argue the two tend to be basically the same.

    •  Solution is to combat ignorance. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul

      If you show people what libertarians for what really stand, they will vote against them.

      Just keep playing that clip of Rand Paul criticizing the Civil Right Act on Maddow over and over again.

    •  Yeah, I knew people (0+ / 0-)

      last year who, because they were fed up with Obama, instead decided to vote in the GOP primary for Ron Paul, because "He's the only liberal running."  One of them even went so far as to claim that Ron Paul was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage; he knew this because he'd been to a Paul rally and had heard it said.

      Of course, when I pointed out Paul's actual policy positions on the issues, I was told I was wrong.  Even though, you know, I'd quoted his official policy positions, bills he'd sponsored, etc.

      I agree fully with this diary.  The problem is that many of my generation (I'm 26), in addition to being disappointed in Obama, also aren't informed at all.  So people like Ron Paul, who has a strong internet presence, and has followers out there putting out misinformation about his positions, gets even more followers from misguided "liberal" voters who think he's one of them.

      But then I also still don't understand how one makes the jump from being pissed off about the increased privatization of government services to thinking that completely gutting the government would somehow improve the situation.  Yet, I see many libertarians who think that this is somehow the anti-corporate position.

      To be honest, it's hard not to feel that at times it passes beyond ignorance to plain stupidity.

  •  Libertarianism means Money is Power. (36+ / 0-)

    It's bad enough already. Someone here last week called it Feudalism.

    Just continually ask "Under Libertarianism, what prevents the Money from doing whatever it wants?"

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:17:36 PM PDT

    •  ...you are actually spot on!... (13+ / 0-)

      ...Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard. The gold standard was abandoned in the 1930's for one very significant reason ---> only people with gold (or money which was backed by gold) had any wealth.

      Everyone else's wealth was wiped out. If you couldn't get your money out of the bank before they ran out...you were just shit out of luck.

      Money was taken off the gold standard to get it into peoples hands again and get some type of economy started again. After a Great Depression like that...just a small group of people had all the wealth, which was backed by gold.

      I've always seen Ron Paul's getting back on the gold standard and getting rid of the Fed as actually a very racist and sexist thing...not that the Fed is all that great...

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

      by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:27:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  dismantle government (17+ / 0-)

      and let corporations rule unfettered. sounds fun.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:34:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can't have corporations without government (15+ / 0-)

        They are a creation of government and they are protected by the government. They are themselves a form of regulation. Libertarians only want to dismantle parts of the government. They still want the cops and the other people who enforce the rules the corporations push on people.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:55:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  we have reverse socialism (12+ / 0-)

          in socialism, government owns the corporations. in our system, corporations own the government.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:58:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Laurance I don't think (9+ / 0-)

            the young people who are totally disgusted with the Democrat's and Republicans are Libertarian's capitalized and an official party in the Ann Rand present day partisan version. Most I know are extremely liberal they value human and civil rights but rightly see through the partisan Kabuki that offers them no choice.

            Your looking at the false ideological political spectrum that at this time is all that's offered by our corrupt  lying electoral system. The one that is not connected to what you win or decent governance. My granddaughter and many many young people supported, voted and worked for Obama. Hell I registered a whole household of skateboarder's so they could vote for some bottom change. One of my canvasing partners in 07 was a 12 year old boy who's Mom had been a Reagan Democrat and was enthusiastic about taking back the country. When my granddaughter turned 18 and was eligible to vote in 2012 she said I'm not registering it's all rigged. We talked her into it but she refused to register as a Democrat. She's an Indie, she wrote in Bernie Sanders and so did her Mom.

            There is nothing wrong with people having libertarian leanings especially in regards to civil and human rights, liberty and war.  Even a socialist can believe in liberties and rights. Our politics are ass backwards when your choices are maniac RW theologians, or corrupt corporatist war mongering Dems. Young people are not low information or stupid they are wired to the world and know a con when it bites them.

            I think often of the one skateboarder who would not register to vote for Obama and said 'I vote for Pizza'. I don't think these young ones will be taking the bait of either the Democratic or the Libertarian party. Republicans aren't getting them either as their really creepy. So we are losing a generation and perhaps a lot of other generations from this Democratic bait and switch. Sometimes fear of other just isn't enough to get people to vote for evil be it lesser then the worst.            

               

            •  Let me guess (0+ / 0-)

              There is no diversity of backgrounds with this libertarian left group you are talking about. As if only young caucasians are the only ones that matter. There are other demographics to think about. I know the US is heavily segregated and easily gerrymandered as a result but it would help if folks knew people who were outside of their own demographic.

        •  ...corporations were originally only allowed... (5+ / 0-)

          ...for specific things. The first time they really happened was when "they" built the transcontinental railroad. The "they" were the uber rich. They were allowed to incorporated to pool the "risk" of that arduous project.

          Once it was completed, that corporation disbanded.

          What had happened since then is NOT what corporations were supposed to be for...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

          by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:26:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sure you can. Ask fictional Megacorporations. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldlotus

          Its completely plausible imo. The East India Company was a real life example, a private corporation w/ vast land holdings and a huge standing army and navy. Disney has de facto sovereignty w/ Reedy Creek, including the power of eminent domain and the right to build a nuclear plant, among other things.

          There was also the Congo Free State. Shudder.

          Once upon a time, an institution called The Church wielded more power and influence than the biggest nation-states. It isn't impossible to imagine another institution taking over someday...

          "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

          by TheHalfrican on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, and both of those were run (0+ / 0-)

            by government. Those were both explicitly government run operations.

            And it is definitely not impossible to imagine corporations taking over, some of us think they're doing a good job of just that right now. But they're doing it by controlling the government. As did the church.

            Either way, corporations are a creation of the government.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:21:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It would be nice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          if that were true, but corporations are now multi-national and aren't bound by national laws as a result.  The global stage is now composed of both nations and multi-nationals.  This exerts huge constraints on national politics.  See my diaries on capitalism for a discussion of this and why it's not as simple as a matter of national law and regulation.

          •  They are bound by national law (0+ / 0-)

            National law has just been changed so as to give them international powers.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:22:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The issue is the power they're (0+ / 0-)

              able to exert and which effectively frees them of national law.  Because these entities aren't bound by any particular geographical location, they exercise disproportionate bargaining power with respect to nations.  Basically, they perpetually hold the threat over the heads of politicians of being able to say "reduce our regulations and obligation to give benefits or we'll take our production elsewhere".  The politician then finds himself face with the unpalatable option of either refusing and destroying jobs (thereby losing votes and prosperity) or bowing to the demands.  

              The situation of contemporary economic politics is, for this reason, completely different than the one FDR faced where big business was tied to geographical locale.  Where business in FDR's world didn't have the realistic alternative of going to other countries, now business can always look to the lowest nation-state bidder on the global stage.  The situation is analogous to early phases of labor in capitalism, where workers would undercut each other through their willingness to take a cheaper wage for longer hours and fewer benefits than another worker.  This, of course, generated a race to the bottom for everyone's wages, and they quickly realized the only way to solve the problem was through organizing through unions.  We now encounter this dynamic at an international level.  My point is that we can't solve these problems any longer at a merely national level because the forces of capital are using geography to their advantage.  As a consequence, it's not simply a matter of national politics, but requires organization at a higher international level.

      •  When we elect Democrats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward, Laconic Lib

        the corporations run the government.

        And that's worse, because then they have the tools of government to do their work for them.  I want a government that protects us from Wall Street, not one that is owned by Wall Street.

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:12:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure that the only thing left to do... (8+ / 0-)

        is put the corporate logos in the sleeves of the politicians they own.

        Shouldn't take very long but they will probably want us to pay for it.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:12:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Technically it would (0+ / 0-)

        just be free enterprise. You can't have a legal entity like a corporation without regulatory government.

      •  Can it be worse than the current situation? (0+ / 0-)

        corporations rule unfettered now, and if anything gets in their way, they simply buy/co-opt the government into doing their bidding.

    •  Democrats Mostly Abandoned the Message of (11+ / 0-)

      restraining money nearly 40 years ago.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:40:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the difficulty there (11+ / 0-)

      is that if you substitute "the Democratic Party" for "Libertarianism" you get the same result . . . "Money . . . doing whatever it wants".

      In both cases the answer to the "what prevents" question is "nothing" . . . but with the Democrats it's a demonstrated nothing.  Obama said all the right things to attract youth support in 2008 . . . in 2009 and ever since he has done all the wrong things.  His position on marijuana is widely seen as a knife-in-the-back betrayal, and his sell-out to Wall Street no better.  Mention either and the typical sneering response would get HR'd in an instant if repeated here.

      I think the diarist is largely correct in his perception . . . you have to actually be liberal and progressive to build a liberal and progressive Party . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:50:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...so again Deward... (0+ / 0-)

        ...if not Democrats or Libertarians...who then?...

        Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

        by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:30:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The hard left (6+ / 0-)

          Radical politics will make a comeback. It already is. The rise of Anarchism as a political identification is definitely on the rise and helped along by Occupy and the fact that anarchist tactics have been increasingly used in social movements across the world, successfully.

          Right now we've got a political establishment telling us that neoliberalism is inevitable and it's got all these other failed political systems to point to. But it can't do that with anarchism. It will be the last refuge of people who are sick of all this electoral nonsense and want to do things that have immediate effects.

          Add to that the fact that anarchism is also heavily involved in a number of music/social scenes, which gives an organizing base and practical skills. And people can make all the arguments against it that they want, but if people see a way that they can have a direct affect on things and they'll take it.

          I don't know what kind of political effect this will have, or what the size of it will be, but it will be one place people go.

          To give some actual examples, although I'm in Oakland so it isn't representative of the country obviously, but at the immigrant march on mayday there were about a hundred Anarchists marching and only five were white. There was a bloc of muslim anarchists about 10-15 strong, the women fully covered even. It was sort of mind blowing.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:16:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  anarchism also has the advantage of not having an (5+ / 0-)

            easily-seen disastrous failure for everyone to point to, like the leninists did.

            :)

            Alas, Occupy also showed that anarchist "organization" leaves a lot to be desired.

            •  a LOT to be desired . . . (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              paradise50, sebastianguy99, J M F

              since it leaves everything to the thugs.  The individual cannot stand against the king or the robber or the mob . . . the delicate balancing act of democratic government is to protect us from all three . . .

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:22:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um, there's no king if there's (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, J M F

                anarchy.

                And yes, the individual cannot stand against those other individuals. That's why Anarchists advocate for organization among people for mutual aid.

                And the robber is a product of capitalism and the King of the state. The mob is the main problem, always. And democracy has done a pretty poor job of protecting people from mobs for the most part.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:40:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "How can you tell he's not a King?" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT

                  "He hasn't got the blood of children all over his hands!!"

                  (more honest Quest for the Holy Grail)

                  Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

                  by JesseCW on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:09:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  there will be soon, either a king or a thug, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT, sebastianguy99

                  because anarchy s inherently unstable and self destructive . . . as demonstrated (for the umpteenth time) by Occupy.  It fails because it provides no practical way to address and resolve conflict.

                  In my formulation the king represents aristocracy, class and landed nobility organized to serve the king's interests (which in turn recognized the king to serve theirs).

                  the robber is the thug, whether acting alone or organized in gang or tribe or corporation

                  and the mob is just that, the mindless masses acting without reason or restraint, until the king, the thug, or the "vanguard" arrives to restore order and tell them what to do.

                  Ideally "government", as a separate entity, is a collective attempt to restrain all three.  When government is captured by any of the three you have tyranny.

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:19:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What's the difference between a king and a thug? (0+ / 0-)

                    And Occupy was destroyed by the police, not by itself. Constantly under attack by the police among others. And we resolved a great many conflicts. That's just nonsense.

                    And government is seperate from the aristocracy?  Government is elected aristocracy.

                    And if anarchy is so self destructive then why does it take a mass show of force to put it down every time it pops up somewhere? Every time that anarchism has been the leading ideology in an insurrection it has been put down with the force of the government. Often numerous governments working together.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:35:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Occupy destroyed itself . . . (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sebastianguy99

                      the police simply kicked the corpse.  And the "consensus" model does not resolve disputes . . . the loser simply leaves the playpen as, in the case of Occupy, many did.  That's why it shrank and shriveled away instead of enduring and growing.

                      Police are called when anarchists show up because not only are they self destructive (of their own "movement") they are also self-centered, self-righteous and destructive of everything around . . . and people in general don't like that.  So they "call the cops".

                      The difference between thug and king is agreement, endurance and "tradition".  The king imposes restraint on the otherwise tribal nobility by a limited form of thuggery. The mechanisms by which the aristocracy/nobility restrain the king (limit his thuggery) are the first steps in creating government . . . a system of rules and agreements which limit the [mis]behavior of all parties.  Simple thugs, on the other hand, recognize no such restraint, and order within gangs is maintained simply by dominance.  But it's certainly fair to argue that the difference is only in degree, and more a matter of manner than substance.  The peasant enjoys scant relief in knowing he's been "taxed" rather than simply robbed.

                      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                      by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:57:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Democracy is at its base just mob rule. (0+ / 0-)

                  Democracy only protects the rights of the majority in any given vote.  If that majority wishes to protect a minority at that specific point of time then it will but it is not subject to the binding that limit the power of government to infringe on minority rights should the majority change its mind in the future.  

                  Democracy should not be the goal of any person who values minority rights - fundamentally because democracy does not value minorities.

              •  Being an Anarchist doesn't mean standing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                alone against a mob.

                It means being part of the only really human form of human social organization - a tribe of people freely choosing to associate, while refusing the be ruled.

                it worked for at least 2.8 million years.  It saw us through massive climactic shifts time and again.

                Get back to me when you discover a social system that has served humanity better than Anarchism.

                Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

                by JesseCW on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:08:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ah, romanticism . . . (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sebastianguy99

                  and tribalism . . .

                  "red of tooth and claw", "of the thugs, by the thugs and for the thugs"

                  Not my idea of such a good time . . .

                  Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                  by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:26:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  please take at least a basic survey course (0+ / 0-)

                    in cultural anthropology.   It will do you a world of good and prevent you saying things this astoundingly ignorant.

                    Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

                    by JesseCW on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:17:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Only when it comes to political agreement (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              paradise50

              not when it comes to logistics.

              In regards to the failure of anarchist organizing.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:28:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  alas, our entire decision-making process (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, sebastianguy99

                led to no decisions being made.

                It needs fixing.

                Fighting groups like the IWW have already done that, but our methods are not very well-suited to groups with a large number of widely-diverging viewpoints. I wonder if ANY structure can handle that.

                But if there is to be a more functional way, it must be worked out in the heat and stress of actual usage.  Theoretical weiner-wanking over it won't help us.

                Some things Occupy did worked.  Some didn't. We need to keep the ones that did, and shitcan the ones that didn't.

                •  I wish that New York had (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW

                  switched to a spokes council format earlier. I didn't get to see how effective it was and the occupation got shut down rather quickly.

                  But, logistically, horizontalism worked fairly well given the circumstances. And the work of occupy sandy has shown how amazingly well it can work given better circumstances. There were entire jumbo jets full of supplies being shipped to occupy sandy from other countries because people were so impressed. It was incredible. Knowing that we have that model available for disaster relief is huge to me.

                  At the same time, trying to make political decisions about interacting with the current power structure under that model simply fails. Consensus doesn't work once you bring physical force into the equation.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:44:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  well, I always figured consensus would never work (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sebastianguy99

                    once you have a bunch of widely divergent people trying to consense.  It works fine in a small group like the IWW, where we all basically agree to the same program.  But putting an anarchist, a Leninist, a Christian pacifist and a Ron Paul fan into a room (or a few thousand of each into a park) and asking them to work something out by consensus?  It's just a recipe for failure. All they'll do is debate ideology until we all die of old age. Especially when any one of them has veto power over the entire decision.

                    And indeed that is what paralyzed most of the Occupy groups I saw and/or talked with.

                    •  all they did was what the Left at large (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, orestes1963

                      has failed to do for 30 years, completely changing the national conversation in the face of massive and brutal Government and Corporate retaliation.

                      Total waste>

                      Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

                      by JesseCW on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:11:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And then after being demolished (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Demeter Rising

                        by a police state, remobilized to respond to a natural disaster faster than the relief organizations and on a shoestring budget.

                        Branched out into activities like protecting people whose homes were being seized, and forming projects like Strike the Debt which has relieved people of more than $5 million in personal debt, so far.

                        And formed networks all around the world that remain in place today and at the moment are resisting police brutality in Turkey.  Too many to name.  A hydra.


                        "Justice is a commodity"

                        by joanneleon on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:24:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  ...aren't anarchists = libertarians?... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, sebastianguy99

            Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

            by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:32:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, there is a big difference (3+ / 0-)

              Specifically in the method of organizing. Also, Libertarians oppose most government, anarchists oppose all government. Anarchists support worker control and are opposed to capitalism which they see the state as propping up.

              A lot of different groups have tried to rebrand themselves as anarchists recently. Anarcho-capitalists being one of them. Really they're just libertarians who don't understand anarchism. Also the Anarcho-nationalists, which are just Nazis rebranded. There are a lot of groups trying to hop on the anarchist band wagon right now.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:38:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're mixing up your forms of anarchism. (0+ / 0-)

                Anarchists as defined only believe in the non-existence of a state.

                There are anarchists who support capitalism (and oppose state sponsored corporatism).

                There are anarchists who support Marxist Communism.

                Those are both forms of anarchism using divergent ideals of social organization.

                Anarchism is a statement about government.  If you want your society organized around a specific set of beliefs you need to define that because anarchism by itself is defined by absence and so you cannot say that any of the kinds of anarchists are not anarchists - so long as they wish no government they are anarchists.

                •  No, the right wants to claim (0+ / 0-)

                  anarchism as a title, for PR reasons.

                  Anarchism means not just the absence of the state but the absence of rulers, as in those who rule. Capitalism means that those with more money have more power over other. It is and always has been more than just a statement about government. People who oppose anarchism often try to change that, but the history of anarchism shows otherwise.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 11:36:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ancaps do not consider an agreement (0+ / 0-)

                    by two or more parties a form of rulership (and neither do I).

                    The idea that because any given one has more power in the eyes of others (thus it is subjective) that the one with power is a defacto ruler is not rational.  The idea that of those who engage in an agreement one must rule the others is pure fiction.

                    Even within that fiction is the core belief that there is some state of mankind in which no one will have a subjective power difference at any time is purely magical thinking.  During times of starvation the woman with good root cellars has a power advantage.  In times of sickness those with medical knowledge do.  The idea that everyone can be made to be subjectively evenly powered at all times to each other person is false.  Even worse are those who believe this is humanity's natural state which discounts the individual strengths and weaknesses we all have which in due time raise and lower our subjective power relationships constantly.

            •  that's actually an interesting question (0+ / 0-)

              There really are two entirely different groups who call themselves "anarchists".  The first are the collectivist anarchists, or socialist anarchists. They advocate the formation of self-governing units to run the industries directly and democratically, and their economics is largely socialist.Their intellectual forefathers are Kropotkin and Goldman. They make up most of the Occupiers.

              Then there are the individualist anarchists. They are entirely rightwing, and advocate that the self-reliant individual be allowed to do whatever he or she wants, with untrammelled liberty.  Their economics is free-market capitalism, and their intellectual forefathers are Stirner and Bauer. They make up most of the libertarians. (Oddly enough, the name "libertarian" was originally used by the socialist anarchists to distinguish themselves from the authoritarian party-centered Leninists of the day.)

              The two groups share virtually nothing in common except the name "anarchist", and they both hate each other like poison.

              It is often said that the radical left and the radical right meet themselves at the edges.  If so, "anarchism" is where that meeting happens.

              •  It's said often, but never by anyone (0+ / 0-)

                with even a rudimentary understanding of politics or history.

                Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

                by JesseCW on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:18:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, no (0+ / 0-)

                The individualist anarchists are still anti-capitalists, but the favor small family owned businesses with no wage slavery, and a market based economy where goods are sold. But they are anti-capitalist, and don't allow employing wage labor.

                Right wing anarchism is an oxymoron and doesn't really exist except in the impoverished minds of its adherents.  

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It must be wonderful to be able to (0+ / 0-)

                  dismiss an ideology by deriding it.  Many people organize political thought in different ways and thus there can easily be right wing anarchism as it is fully individualist.  As I know several ancaps and it's quite insulting for you to pretend that their political ideology doesn't exist.

                  I'm sure you wouldn't like yours to be dismissed in such a manner so please don't do it to others.

                  •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

                    Not, there is nothing logical about anarcho-capitalism. It is an oxymoron. Capitalism does not eliminate hierarchy and leaders, which is the original, traditional meaning of anarchism, the usage of which predates anarcho capitalism by over a hundred years.  An= without, or absence, and anarcho = ruler, authority. Thus, a system with hierarchy and leaders (the typical business model in capitalism) is not anarchic. How can a business which employes labor be anarchic? If capitalism can be anarchic, the entire meaning of the term is lost. It is, in fact, an Orwellian twist of meaning.

                    Private ownership of the means of production, in which one small minority class owns production and all profit derived from it, creates a mass of exploited workers who are under the authority of the owner class. That is not anarchism by any stretch of the term.

                    And I don't care if they're insulted. It is a devious spin of meaning, intended to muddle the minds of the enslaved, and it is exploitative. Anarchists are insulted by the American right wing, Ayn Randian attempt to thieve a word of its meaning. But insult isn't the worst of it. It is social Darwinism, exploitation, oppression, wage slavery.

                    No one on the left should support the right wing spin on words.

                    Most anarchist agree with this statement.

                    Here's a good article on how anarchists (real ones) view anarcho-capitalism. http://www.infoshop.org/...

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 10:57:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agreeing to do something for another (0+ / 0-)

                      is not a case where one has a ruler.

                      Ruler = one who rules.

                      Rule= Verb
                      Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people): "Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians".

                      If one can freely end such agreements they are not ruled, if one can choose to enter into those agreements or not they are not being ruled.

                      "Most anarchists..." is an appeal to popularity.

                      You may disagree with ancaps but that does not mean ancaps are somehow not using words correctly simply because of you're disagreement.

                      •  Your logic is flawed (0+ / 0-)

                        In the typical labor environment of capitalism, workers are hardly "free" to choose to end "agreements" of employment. That is a capitalist lie which is propagandized by people who lack experience in the working class. If people were truly free to choose, most would choose to own the means of production, or at least to hold high paying jobs. But we all know that isn't possible for most people. It's next to impossible to get business loans. So it is coercion that forces people to take jobs. It's either that or be homeless. Gee what a choice. And the fruits of labor serve to benefit disproportionately the owner class. The workers are treated not as people, but as commodities, much like slaves. They often don't get paid health care. They often don't get paid vacations. They don't get educational leave. They don't get pensions, or if they do, the pensions are subject to being rescinded. And the typical employee is under the complete authority of the boss, and must obey most commands while at work, which comprises the majority of waking hours.

                        If you think this is anarchic, you're a blithering idiot.

                        In this economy, people with PhD's are working in liquor stores. Do you think they willingly "choose" such work after eight years of education and about 80,000 in student loan debt? That they can easily "end agreements" and get work somewhere else?

                        That insanely stupid scenario not only just isn't factual, it's a horrible lie.

                        No, the logic of your beloved "ancaps" (what a weird abbreviation) is flawed. And you're supporting right wing memes.

                        By the way, language is determined by two factors:

                        1) traditional usage (in fact, this factor is the most important)

                        2) logic (blue does not equal red, anarchism does not equate to capitalism)

                        Anarcho-capitalism, as a term, defies both.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:41:48 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Anarchists are simply people who refuse (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT

              Rulers.

              That's it.  The raw meaning of the word in Greek.

              Some are primitivists.  Some collectivists.  Some syndicalists.  Some socialists.

              All believe that no person has the right to rule another - the same principle around which all pre-agricultural societies have always organized.

              Anarchists are not "pro chaos and destruction" OR in favor of "Social Darwinism".  At least, this is not in any way the meaning of the word.

              "Without Rulers" means "Get the bosses off your back".  Not "Unlimited corporate power".

              Our Government locks men in cages and has them isolated, raped, beaten, and terrorized for decades because they have grown medicine. Only a complete fucking idiot would not fear it.

              by JesseCW on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:16:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oakland is so not representative of the country (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, lehman scott

            in a good way, I might add, but I'd be wary of judging the lower 48 through the lens of the bay area.

            If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

            by jgnyc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:06:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Completely (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lehman scott

              Which is why I added that in. But when I was in Santa Fe befroe I moved back here there was a storng culture of anarchist organizing methods among ounger people. At least two art collectives that basically used the same organizing principles as we used in Occupy. And good sized collectives as well. I see more and more people who may not cal themselves anarchists but are certainly sympathetic. A lot of people who are lefties and don't like the way things are going identified as libertarians for a bit and then moved over to identifying anarchists after the problems with libertarianism are explained. These were generally people who were sick of politics and saw these two philosophies as an explanation of why things are so broken.

              With as much authoritarianism as we have right now I think the rise of a radical anti-authoritarian movement is almost inevitable.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:14:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but the demographics are not large (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT, lehman scott

                There are a lot of people in this country. The scary thing about the far right base is how numerous they are as the Christian right is huge.

                That said, a ground up economic revolution could push across sectarian barriers. Proudhon, The Mondragons, not as much anti-capitalist as mutualist. The left has been cursed by the excesses of state fascism in the 20th century. Proudhons' mutualism is significantly less confrontational. Of course to sell it in the heartland it would have to be rebranded. Anarchism (like Socialism) is to loaded a word. Call it "protecting the little guy" or "anti-Wall St" and leave all the culture war stuff out of it. (we're gonna coast to wins in the culture war anyway)

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:29:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The left right culture war is won (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lehman scott

                  The top bottom culture war has just been started. That's what occupy realy represented. The first real ideological shots in a culture war between those who have power and those who don't. This one is going to be harder I think, but we've got a base in both political parties and it's clear where the problem is with things like stopping global warming and the abuse of people around the world.

                  I agree about the branding thing, although at this point I'm almost of the mind that not branding at all and jut keeping the same term might be better for any movement. The folks in charge can destroy any label and changing titles for this group or that isn't going to change that. Progressive is going to be denigrates and detroyed like liberal was, just you wait and see. Defending those sorts of things only really makes sense on an electoral level, not on an on the ground day to day level.

                  At this point people are concerned with what you actually do and not with what you say you do or what you say you stand for. If you can help them fight the corporations and the government when they need that help then they'll be on your side. And a lot of people just want to be involved with some group or another that seems like they can win. That's why Occupy got so popular and did what it did. Because we did the impossible. It did the impossible. There was a camp full of anarchists and progressives and libertarians and homeless people for three months in downtown Manhattan. And it could have been permanent if the cops hadn't of shut it down. Ditto with all of them. The cops broke up the publically visible hoovervilles, or Bushvilles more appropriately.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:02:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but the camp in Manhattan (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT, sebastianguy99, lehman scott

                    ( and I touch nerves when I point this out but I live walking distance - it's a long walk) became too quickly the usual suspects in the eyes of the vast majority of the city.

                    I think OWS missed by attempting a strategic reformulation of society which meant dealing with every pet issue.

                    If OWS had stuck to "jail the bankers" or even better "jail the &*&ing bankers!" there was a moment there to be seized. But the format, for better, or in my limited tactical view worse, led to: Free Mumia, Free Palestine etc ... Regardless of where the members of the left of center stand on these issues they do not resonate at all across the culture war divide and should have been debated on their own merits.

                    A friend of a friend keeps ranting that "identity politics" has dragged the left down into near irrelevance since the 60s. I don't always agree but coalition building across the sectarian cultural issues could lead to class solidarity (need to rebrand that phrase but ...)

                    Go to suburbanites outside of Philly, farmers in Idaho, elderly Republicans in Ohio and say: "we can agree to disagree about Palestine / Mumia / GMO / Choice / fraking etc ... but the big banks are SCREWING EVERYONE. Especially the elderly!" with the whole centrist chained CPI austerity group think. That's a ball the left could run with regardless of the centrists trying to triangulate with the far right machine (and getting taken to the cleaners on a regular basis see: Obama, B.)

                    My friends in Occupy vehemently disagree with my analysis as what ever their pet cause is has to be front and center, or rather they want to demand significant progress towards utopia and damn the elections full speed ahead.

                    Which is fair enough, but my friends the Reagan Democrats in Ohio thought Occupy was the same hippies they always see at the demos with some local street life thrown in. These people aren't stupid, they know they're getting screwed in the class war (they'd never call it that). They don't think Obama is an RFK Democrat (I agree). They might be interested in an RFK Democrat, or better yet an FDR Democrat, if they didn't have to be lectured about "white privilege" or Monsanto or choice or LGBT rights at every turn.

                    We'll win on the other stuff (don't know about Monsanto actually) in time but we've got to get to the class struggle to reach the incredibly numerous right wing base. Chip a few of them off and (I'm a lesser evilist) we buy ourselves some time with some at-least-sane liberals and centrists and their generic light rail and money for teachers. And maybe get to jail some bankers for Xmas.

                    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                    by jgnyc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:28:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So, I agree with much of this but (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lehman scott
                      I don't always agree but coalition building across the sectarian cultural issues could lead to class solidarity (need to rebrand that phrase but ...)
                      I completely agree. Also, fuck branding. Im so done with it. As long as we can explain what we're doing to people when we first talk about it(remember, ground up movement) then we can call it whatever we want.  Also, finding the commonality with various issues can be very powerful. I've been pointing out that privacy matters as a women's rights issue because that's what Roe v Wade was decided on. That seems like  pretty basic place to start in regards to cross sultural aliances.
                      My friends in Occupy vehemently disagree with my analysis as what ever their pet cause is has to be front and center, or rather they want to demand significant progress towards utopia and damn the elections full speed ahead.
                      I don't have pet causes, I have a zoo. And what needs to happen is that we need to all have a zoo and see how these things interact. How bankers are tied to the suport of abortion rights and gun control and whatever other issues are out there. Becaue the reason that certain things are law now has nothing to do with what Americans actally believe and everything to do with an insane system.
                      They might be interested in an RFK Democrat, or better yet an FDR Democrat, if they didn't have to be lectured about "white privilege" or Monsanto or choice or LGBT rights at every turn.
                      I think the first step needs to be figuring out why everyone involved thinks politics is important for them to engage in. Saying that you don't want to be involved with something becaue you might get a lecture on privilege seems reasonable until you startworking with people who have a terribly limited experience with coalitions. If they want to help fi this shit then the can deal. If I can deal they can. It's not hard. You listen to the people you're working with. If you come to a movemet and refuse to engage because other people want to talk about different things than you want to then you aren't going to be much use.

                      And none of that is to say that you're wrong about your assessment. A lot of people will refuse to be involved because they don't feel comfortable having people confront them about their role in the system. If we worry about making everyone comfortable then we'll definitely lose.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:07:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I think you make many valid points, but I think (0+ / 0-)

                      the point where Occupy lost its public support was when it changed its entire focus from "Wall Street" to just "Occupy".  Until January or February, Occupy was all about fighting Wall Street---and that was a fight very very many people were willing to join.  Then. Occupy became a fight with the cops over who can sleep in a park--a fight that very very many people don't give a shit about.

                      Keeping a fixed vulnerable base in a particular park, and trying to go toe-to-toe with the cops to defend it, was also a lethal strategic error on Occupy's part.  It just allows the cops to surround and crush you. Once the movement was large enough, we should have moved out of the parks and into the streets--and especially into the buildings where the 1% exercise their power.

                      •  yeah Wall Street (0+ / 0-)

                        but I'll mention

                        >Once the movement was large enough, we should have moved out of the parks and into the streets

                        There are 8+ million people in NYC. I watched labor move 30k people down Broadway and get no media coverage. Seen many more then than on 7th Ave against the Iraq fiasco. Those crowds did not in anyway fill up Manhattan which is only part of the city. I was overjoyed when OWS had its media bubble but a block from the park downtown went on as usual.

                        I think if the focus had been Wall St vs Main St with nothing else there was a chance for resonance throughout the country. I was terrified some rightie might try to work that and still worry about a populist right wing movement. The centrist Democrats can't be populist, it's not who they are, and the demographically very small left of the Democrats has an enormous wish list of litmus tests.

                        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                        by jgnyc on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:40:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  As long as anarchists are the "face" of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Susan G in MN, sebastianguy99

            Occupy, the numbers will not be there.

            Few people want to burn the whole thing down, and that was Occupy's fatal mistake.  I had suburban moms with signs heading out.  They hit one general assembly and ran.  They want a fairer system, not a new one.

            Not enough people are desperate enough to burn it all down.  And we don't want to get to that point.

            Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

            by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:46:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  it's a good question, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          to which there is no easy answer.  I'd like to be able to say "reclaim the Democratic Party", but I don't see any easy mechanism by which that can happen.  The DP was taken over by a particular faction (with its own particular interest[s]) many years ago and I don't see that hold loosening.  We're so far from changing it that we don't even talk about it.  I'm coming to believe that the only thing that will (might) bring it down is its own arrogance, hubris and overreach . . . and I'm not at all convinced that the aftermath will be at all pleasant either.  What would it take to bring down Big Brother?

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:40:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's a matter of degree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paradise50, sebastianguy99

        Which party is more likely to limit corporate excess? Democrats.

        When you deal in absolutes, everything but perfection is indefensible.

        "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

        by Bob Love on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:21:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of young libertarians do not understand that (15+ / 0-)

      Eric Stetson is right when he talks about the young people who become disenchanted with government.  I was shocked at how many Ron Paul supporters were very young. They tend to drift toward libertarianism because they see that as being anti-government. They are not as sophisticated as many people here at dkos.  Libertarianism addresses their basic disaffection with govt. and they fail to see the downside.

      "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

      by gulfgal98 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:15:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it also appeals to the young (5+ / 0-)

        because it encourages the belief that all conventional wisdom about government is wrong, all the current people in authority in government are at best misguided, and all human history, which has very broadly involved the evolution of government into complex, modern nation-states, is heading in the wrong direction. You get to go around secure in the knowledge that you know better than the people who haven't embraced your minority theory of government, yet. It can be heady stuff, at first.

        Don't get me wrong, being anti-Establishment can be a good thing, but you can over-do it. And libertarianism does over-do it.

    •  you're right but... (26+ / 0-)

      ...it is somewhat irrelevant to the issue raised by the diarist.

      Democrats--and Barack Obama in particular--appealed to a generation's idealism in the wake of the Bush fiasco. And then they refused to deliver.

      The GOP is not responsible for Obama's appointment of people like Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder and other hacks and corporate toadies. Those appointments revealed the Obama campaign to be an almost unparalleled exercise in cynicism and bad faith.

      I'm 57. After Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, I thought I had gotten wise to this. But I got sucked in again by Obama.

      One of the things that moved me was his effect on the younger generation. My son, who was in college in Boston at the time, was inspired after seeing Obama speak at his school in 2007. He spent a lot of time volunteering for the campaign and his enthusiasm helped move my wife and me from supporting Edwards to supporting Obama.

      This is a recent status update from his Facebook page:

      People I canvassed during the 2008 Obama campaign: Sorry, turns out it wasn't that important. Hope I didn't interrupt you during dinner.
      You may disagree, based on the lesser evil argument, and that's fine. My son isn't about to become a libertarian (except on civil liberties, where they are right). But Obama didn't appeal to a generation of young people on the basis of being a lesser evil. He appealed on the idealistic level of restoring freedoms, protecting the environment, restoring our standing in the world by not basing our foreign policy on militarism, and economic justice. He very explicitly distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton as being a candidate who wanted to govern more democratically, who wouldn't let lobbyists and special interests rule the roost. But then he appointed Rubinite clones to set his economic policy. The same old sh*t.

      He did it for the money. He sold out these idealistic young people for the money from the Banksters. They probably won't go over, en masse, to the libertarians. More likely they will just stay home and sour on democracy.

      I will never forgive Barack Obama for shitting on my son's (and so many others') idealism.

    •  Re (6+ / 0-)
      Just continually ask "Under Libertarianism, what prevents the Money from doing whatever it wants?"
      Money already does whatever it wants anyway.

      A strategically smaller government means less of it for corporations to co-opt.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:13:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I can't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, AoT, Deward Hastings, worldlotus

        believe the things I say now that sound so republican.

        I want term limits, I want all of them voted out ASAP, I want people in office with limited power to screw everything up, and, at the state level, I'm glad we have a short state legislative session that limits the damage they can do [although the Co state lege did manage some huge accomplishments this year].  

        Unfortunately, all these changes in my attitude add up to an anti-government stance - all because dems simply couldn't/wouldn't significantly change anything - and they are as compromised as the repubs.......ugh.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, soros, worldlotus

          I'm more liberal than I get credit for here.

          I just prefer that a lot of stuff get done by state governments as opposed to the Feds.

          Ordinary people can have significant influence on their local and state governments. But do you think Obama, the NSA, DEA, TSA, or any of the other alphabet soup organizations care what you have to say? Really?

          I prefer that most things be left up to state governments and we let the Feds have influence only over things that they must (yes, I think the 14th amendment is part of their charter). Honestly, I have a thought that there might not even be an official federal income tax: you just pay to your state government and let them interface with the Feds and make whatever deal they want.

          It sounds illiberal, but state and local governments are more accountable. The Feds just aren't.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:13:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well.....yes, unbelievably, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Stetson, worldlotus, Sparhawk

            I've had the same thoughts.....and ugh, I can't believe I would ever say that I support strong states' rights, given the ugliness of the history of states' rights.

            But, the fed gov is completely out of control and responds only to big money, and the state level is where some progressive issues have gotten some traction.

            I'm having an identity crisis.....what am I turning into?  

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:57:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The problem, it seems to me, (0+ / 0-)

            is that one of the things that helps make state and local governments more accountable, their smaller size, also means they're easier and cheaper to buy.

      •  Smaller government (0+ / 0-)

        also means less ability to regulate corporations, leaving them unchecked and able to do whatever they want.

        Or was the "strategic" part meant to imply leaving those powers in place?

    •  yep. if you allow rich powerful people to do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Love, Deward Hastings

      whatever they want, they will do . .  well .  . . whatever they want.  And they don't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves.

      Most libertarians, of course, are naive and arrogant enough to presume that they will BE one of those rich and powerful people.  And then they end up (if they're lucky) working at McDonald's right next to all us dumb lazy mooching people they were lecturing as college students.

      Reality is a harsh teacher.

    •  What sets the Libertarians apart (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deward Hastings

      is that they have the honesty and integrity to acknowledge that money is and should be power.  What American party, as judged by its actions and the policies it will actually fight for, disagrees in any substantive manner?  At least for the time being, the Libertarians do not adopt the posture that was, Empire and the National Security State are good things that must be fought for, advanced, and expanded at all times regardless of the costs borne by the helots.  Show me the major American party that has a like commitment.  I certainly don't expect either of our two bourgeois, "money is hegemony" parties to give a rat's ass for the worling men and women any more than I expect the same from the Glibertarians.  The Great Liberal Party has of recent vintage dedicated itself to the slashing of social security and medicare in order to maintain low low tax rates for our ruling classes, so that pretty much sums political economy in the 21st century US polity up.

      "You may very well think so, I could not possibly comment." ~ Francis Urquhart, pragmatic political philosopher

      by ActivistGuy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:33:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Such a non-issue (0+ / 0-)

      Money is always power, and pretending that government prevents this rather than encourages it, is laughable.

  •  What can be done? (10+ / 0-)

    I share your perceptions about the effect of this sinister train wreck of a Democratic administration, on idealistic young voters. One wonders what to do, other than more blogger style handwringing.

    Hmmm.

    -- Petitions for Obama to apologize and resign?

    -- Petitions to chop the NSA budget in half right now pronto, with some sort of an emergency sequester scheme? Money talks, in fact, it is the only thing that talks in Washington, D.C.

    -- I tore up and threw away a recent DNC mailing asking for my membership fee money. If we could direct voter attention to state and local races, and forget about the presidency, that might do some good. Maybe mailing back to the White House all those stickers and such from 2008/2012 would feel good, too.

    Let's do take some actions.

    By the way, the smiling Hillary ad on the right side of this page at the moment does not help my attitude any.

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

    by catfoodnation on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:17:51 PM PDT

    •  Here's what I support doing: (30+ / 0-)

      1. Focus mostly on electing progressives to local and state office. It costs less money and maybe can have more of a direct effect on people's lives than national politics anymore. Some states and jurisdictions can become much better places to live as a result. Unfortunately, some other parts of the U.S. will likely continue to go in a self-destructive direction, according to the values/choices of their residents.

      2. At the national level, only vote for members of the Progressive Caucus.

      3. At the national level, try to recruit primary candidates who support/belong to the Progressive Caucus for every Congressional race and every Senate seat, to run against any Democrat holding a seat who does not stand with the progressive wing of the party.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:30:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good thinking (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paradise50, mightymouse, worldlotus

        Your ideas are sound.

        One thing is the virtual invisibility of a Democratic Party at local levels, in much of the nation, for many decades. I mean, an ongoing organization, not just a brief presence every two or four years.

        The Tea Party and other elements took advantage of that and we see the damage, much of it beyond repair.

        Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

        by catfoodnation on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:10:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  4 write a book called crashing the gate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Nada Lemming, PhilK

        an attempt at humor. i will always remember where i was when i found out snowden was live blogging on gg's page.

        & it was interesting that he was giving advice to obama on how to step away from the precipice.  & his posts were spot on.  i would have loved to have seen what the nsa hackers were doing and im'ing to each other.

        that DC dems are whole hog into dumping billions of $ into duplicated data centers in f'n utah, says exactly enough.

        what lincoln said http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/10/abraham-lincoln-was-on-to-wind-power-long-before-the-rest/

        by rasfrome on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:16:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Realize first, it's not just about the President (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus, sebastianguy99

      Presidents are powerless before members of Congress, who can be confident of lasting in Washington long enough to make buying a home a good investment.  A single Senator, well-versed in procedure and unafraid of offending powerful Senators, can tie the entire legislative branch in knots.

      At most, a President has the first two years of the first term, and the first two of any second term to effect change.  The recurring lame-duck feature of our politics whittles away executive power toward midterm elections;  Congresspeople know this, and use the feature constantly to evade or defy White House pressure.

      Which is all my way of agreeing that, yes, we need to focus on electing progressives to state and local offices.  I think we will need to cut the national party loose and make them fend for themselves.  If they don't do us any good, we shouldn't feed them.

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:31:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like climate change, the tipping point may already (47+ / 0-)

    be past.  I talked to my 26 yr old son last weekend.  We talked for 45 minutes about life, science (his field in college), work and, yes, politics.  His opinion is that he has been screwed by Obama, whom he supported and campaigned for in '08, his first chance to vote in a Presidential election.   His comment specifically was

    "I think we're going to have to have a complete societal collapse before the political class starts to serve the interests of humans rather than profit centers."
    I grieve daily for my kids and grandkids and great grandkids...and theirs.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

    by nailbender on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:19:41 PM PDT

    •  I feel the same way your son does (18+ / 0-)

      Given the current opposition, The DNC doesn't have too much to worry about because a lot of us young 'uns would rather be kicked in the junk by Dems than by Reps.  That's not exactly a ringing endorsement, though, and the worst thing for the establishment Dems is a GOP collapse.  Clear the field for an actual new party and crazy things starry to happen.  
      Until then, each election is often a choice of who is least damaging.  Right now Democrats lead that race.  Yay?

      War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left. Better be left so you can determine later if you were right.

      by Cendojr on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:26:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...you do realize that what you wish for... (0+ / 0-)

        ...a viable third party...cannot occur UNLESS you change the Constitution of the USA. With the electoral collage in place, there can only be two parties that duke it out in national elections.  

        Third parties might gain some steam on the very local level, but not on a national level. The GOP is no longer remotely the "Republican Party." It's the Tea Party...who simply took it over (rather than start up as a separate party).

        The only way to get political parties that work for us all is to get rid of all the money in politics, including Citizen's United.

        This has been the bane of politics for decades...all of Congress is bought...

        Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

        by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:31:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, I know (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, paradise50, RageKage

          It's not that I want a third party, I just want decent opposition.  Right now the GOP is so comically against my principles that electoral choices are simple.  If the GOP implodes enough to force a course change it'd be for the better.  Also, the states control the EC, if they wanted to muck it up they could, but it would take all states making significant changes and diluting their power.  Good luck with that.

          War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left. Better be left so you can determine later if you were right.

          by Cendojr on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:38:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that's correct. IRV could be (5+ / 0-)

          implemented and that would open up early voting to many different candidates.

          Of course the EC would choose the final winner, but the final winner is not our problem. The problem is the initial selection process - viability - and the lesser evil argument after TPTB have selected the palatable options...

          IRV is a silver bullet.

          Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

          by k9disc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:01:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ...how do you propose doing that?... (0+ / 0-)

            ...election voting is controlled by State Government...as we saw demonstrated in the last national election.

            I believe what you think would work would only work if all states ran elections the same way...which the don't...

            Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

            by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:38:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ...we have something a little bit akin... (0+ / 0-)

              ...to IRV in California...now the top two vote getters in the primary elections go at each other.

              What do you suppose we got? In areas dominated by Republicans you ended up with two Republicans in the final election.

              I see IRV as a cool idea...but one that could be easily subverted very quickly...

              Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

              by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:40:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not agree... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                paradise50, Leftcandid

                ...that IRV is anything like the subverting by the recent change to the "top-two" primary system here in California.

                As a Democrat, I used to be able to vote my more progressive choice (as opposed to Feinstein for example) in the primary, without risking diluting the vote so that possibly two Republicans could advance to the general.

                IRV would give the voter more power to shape the choice, whether in primaries or general elections. More parties to promote.

                First, we need to reverse this top-two system here, and then push for IRV.

                •  ...how ya going to do that?... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...To really work, IRV would require most folks to be really  involved...like you.

                  Otherwise it could be gamed big time, IMO, by a handful of controllers busing in their minions (just like Dick Armey and the Tea Party he created)...

                  Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

                  by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:32:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Gamed easier than this or that? (0+ / 0-)

                    This or that is a fool's choice, always... if someone offers you a this or that decision that is important to you, you can be pretty sure that you are being manipulated.

                    The only reason our political process is so easy for the Establishment to game is because it's this or that. As soon as you put 5 or 10 people on the slate it becomes far more difficult to game - from a results and from a process standpoint - too many variables to predict and too many variables to control rhetoric - he said - she said becomes a cacophony of ideas.

                    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                    by k9disc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:41:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You can't change the top two system without IRV. (0+ / 0-)

                  The Establishment will not allow it.

                  IRV allows the poles of our body politic to participate in a meaningful way, not just in closed or open primaries - again super easy to game - but also in the general election.

                  The only ones who think it's a bad idea are in the corporate center.

                  Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

                  by k9disc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:43:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well the first step is to propose it and get (0+ / 0-)

              behind it. Leading with the negative is not going to do it.

              The Right and Left - Libertarians and Leftists would quickly get behind this as it would offer them power.

              The Establishment would have serious problems with it, but they could easily get beat down electorally because everyone knows that this or that easily becomes the lesser of 2 evils and most people are pretty tired of that.

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:45:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Grassroots movement to take over the Dem Party (8+ / 0-)

        could succeed, just like how the GOP has been taken over by the Tea Party. A third party would probably be the more difficult path in the U.S. electoral system, and should only be tried as an absolute last resort.

        Yes, I know the Tea Party had a lot of corporate money which progressives don't have, but money isn't everything. Nowadays there is social media to get the word out. If enough people get thoroughly disgusted with mainstream politicians, primary challenges could actually work. But people have to run and get on the ballot, and it probably would have to be coordinated or networked nationally, with a national platform and simply presented, unified message, maybe through the Progressive Caucus or something like that. Sort of like a party within a party.

        The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

        by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:49:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...not remotely likely... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          yella dawg, doroma, AoT, worldlotus

          ...the GOP was blown away by the Tea Party's rise. That's because they were always a top-down organization and simply ignored the local level of politics. The GOP was so used to all their lower-downs simply taking orders from the top...the NO LONGER even paid attention to who becomes a delegate at the state level.

          AND do remember it was those that did understand this that did the deed (Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity). He realized the total vacuum that he could simply fill in.

          I was vying for a spot to become a candidate for the Democratic Party for the state of California for my Assembly District. There are 80 Assembly Districts in California. They take 6 women and 6 men from each district.

          I went through the process. What was very apparent is the Democrats DO VERY MUCH pay attention to the level of governance the GOP forgot about.

          All the spots had already been "pre-determined." I came in 7th for men. I was both very impressed by the control the Democratic  Party had at this lowest of levels...but also scared  because I now know you can't even get in at the  most basic level without already being "in."

          The Democrats have always  been "herding cats" so they  can't be surprised by some  upstart group taking control of Assembly Representatives as the GOP was via  the Tea Party.

          Sorry Eric, but I respectfully disagree with you on this point...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

          by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:49:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay. What do you suggest instead? (6+ / 0-)

            I'm not saying it would be easy to start a progressive movement to take over the Democratic Party, but I'm not sure what else could be done that has even a remote chance of working to move political policy in a progressive direction, at this point.

            Third parties don't work because of the high cost of ballot access and the nature of the first-past-the-post electoral system in America.

            Non-voting doesn't change anything, because the message it sends can be interpreted as anything or nothing at all.

            Protest rallies don't work, because the government will shut them down, like what happened to Occupy.

            Personally, I see only two options on the table that could have a chance of doing some good:

            1. A coordinated national movement to primary all non-progressive Democrats.

            2. Pick a few states that already lean to the left, and focus all activist energy and money on taking over the government of those states. Ignore the rest of the country and just hope that the states with good governments will be allowed to continue their policies without interference.

            What do you think of these ideas? Do you have any other ideas?

            The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

            by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:04:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we already have models to look to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              paradise50, worldlotus

              The civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the union movement. They all changed society from top to bottom. That's what grassroots movements DO.

              Occupy was this generation's first step in that direction. There is much we can learn from Occupy's failures, and also from its successes.

              There's no need to reinvent the wheel---we've already made large-scale change before, repeatedly.  Most often, it took years or decades, and an enormous amount of organization and grunt work, but history has proven time and time again that it works in the end.

              And there lies our path.

            •  ...if you wanted a "grass roots"... (6+ / 0-)

              ...thing within the Democratic Party you'd have to really make is something...not just some flash in the pan.

              You'd have to very logically and determinedly take it over. It would take time and lots of constant drip, drip, drip.

              The only reason the GOP was so easily taken over (and it was NOT grassroots) is because savvy players who'd been at the highest levels of the GOP recognized the total lack of involvement from the top of the GOP with the lowest levels of how people get elected and what the party's platform will be.

              This all takes place at the state delegate level.

              The GOP lost all sight of that level and was ripe for a coup, which is EXACTLY what happened.

              Unless there was an "Arab Spring" in America...which could only really happen if things got super, duper extra crappy (the OWS movement was a glimpse...but didn't stand a chance to succeed for any time at all)...there isn't a chance for a viable, electable third party to come on board.

              Politics is POWER. And the fastest way to gain that power is to work with/change the fabric of one of the existing parties in power.

              The GOP got whalloped! POW! But is really was completely an inside job...nothing true about grass roots...that was all a FOX NEWS job.

              The Democrats really need to be overhauled.  Out with the Baucus's and in with Progressives.

              There ain't no quick fix. It takes dedication and time. DailyKos for all the arrows it takes is a place where this is happening...in the last election cycle $3,200,000 dollars were pledged by DailyKos for Progressive candidates.

              You might laugh at that, since it's a drop in the bucket in that arean...but there are great discussions here...like this very diary of yours...and this all does "bend the arc" in the right direction.

              Besides that...we can all work locally in politics. I am very involved in that. And I live in an extremely red area...but I keep drip, drip, dripping...

              But you can't herd cats. All  you can do is get cats to think...hopefully. Knee jerk reactions and emotional yelps are not going to get it done....

              Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

              by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:47:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Democratic primaries (0+ / 0-)

          Cut out all the dead wood to make way for progressive shoots to grow and prosper. Primaries for poor Democrats is the way to go.
          I think progressives with a populist message can win in many of those red gerrymandered districts as well.

          +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

          by cybersaur on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:00:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not "just like" (0+ / 0-)

          it's possible, but the billionaires in the Democratic Party would be working against us not with us.  Big difference.

          Our snoops are not legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization. Of course, if they were legally authorized to snoop without legal authorization, that would constitute legal authorization. Do you feel better yet?

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:24:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  polite kid you've got . . . (4+ / 0-)

      most who I talk to are much more, um, blunt in their language.

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:56:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My 25 year old son feels the same way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, mightymouse, nailbender

      See my comment upthread here.

      Perhaps we should tell our children to clap harder or they will be blamed for the elections of Republicans.

  •  YOU don't let it happen..don't fall for the siren (5+ / 0-)

    call..it's in your hands

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:22:21 PM PDT

    •  No it is not in our hands. (16+ / 0-)

      In order to change things, people need to be able to have candidates that match their expectations. Here in California, Di Feinstein, who is more Orwellian, and sinister that many republicans, calls the shots. Should anyone who is truly liberal try to run, she squashes them. So we have a state where voters approved Medical Marijuana  clinics, but Di Fi sees to it that the DOJ can be running amuck shutting down the clinics and jailing the people that run them! Some 600 clinics had letters ent that will probably force them to shut down, just in the last ten days. How can that message compete against a Ron Paul message of legalizing marijuana?!?

      Feinstein  preferred having Angelides run against Ahnold the last time he ran for the gubernatorial position, rather than Steve Westley, even though voters liked Westley, and even though having Angelides run at that time guaranteed Ahnold the win.

      And the same thing goes on in other states also. the "Two Party" system is mostly a fiction, and a whole lot of kabuki theater. The Dems had a majority in the House starting in Jan 2007. Immediately Pelosi took impeachment off the table. (Much like obama refused to punish Cheney or Bush for starting illegal wars.)

      After thirty years of Dem control followed by Republican control followed by Dem control we always have our jobs outsourced, our schools and educational systems denigrated, our incomes bubbled and collapsed. And endless wars. And now Obama seems A-okay against the very civil rights/NSA abuses that he had scolded George Dubya for allowing! If that surveillance money was poured into our economy, we could really "green" our society. instead it is going for massive building projects, including "Fusion Centers" that cost over a billion a piece, and who is it they are planning on having occupy the "rooms" at those centers.

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:47:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  change is slow, and you must work constantly, (8+ / 0-)

        if you don't have patience you go backward. Always focus on the big picture. Much has been accomplished under Obama but of course not everything, but we're moving forward. You're right libertarians will turn power to the repubs. and backwards again.

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:59:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In some ways we're moving forward (8+ / 0-)

          Economically we most certainly are not. We're moving backwards at a startling pace. And the young are bearing the brunt of that.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:34:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  inequality is killing us and so is corporatism.. (4+ / 0-)

            immense problems.  i agree the young have borne the blunt of mainly republicans policies.  we have to turn it around and we need them to help. their cynicism should not be encouraged.  

            Macca's Meatless Monday

            by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:02:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That means the democratic politicians (5+ / 0-)

              need to take meaningful steps to fix the problems. That's the only thing that will stop cynicism. There's no other way to address these problems.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:22:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  true and we have to pressure them to do so.. (4+ / 0-)

                that's what it's about.  corporatism makes it much harder.  democracy is not supposed to be easy where one just sits back and waits for the good things to happen. we have to make them happen.  it's a lifetime struggle.

                Macca's Meatless Monday

                by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:39:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  just my opinion but it comes from experience (4+ / 0-)

                  of making necessary things happen.

                  Macca's Meatless Monday

                  by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:44:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Which is what we're doing (4+ / 0-)

                  That's most of what we do other than get them elected.

                  It just doesn't seem to be doing much good at this point.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:53:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  we have to stay the course. we get as many (3+ / 0-)

                    as we can to work with us. focus is key.  we never give up and never lose focus.  that's what it takes.   cynicism, apathy and impatience are deadly and are running amuck on this site.

                    Macca's Meatless Monday

                    by VL Baker on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:03:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bryduck

                      but I think statements like this

                      Much has been accomplished under Obama but of course not everything, but we're moving forward.
                      fuel the problem.  There is not enough consensus that this is a fair statement.  I personally don't think it is accurate.  You cannot encourage young people who are cynical (fairly so, I would argue) by trying to shovel this same crap.  Much has not been accomplished that is good.  But much harm has continued to go unabated, if not been accelerated (like talking about cutting social security, these new trade agreements, keystone, etc.).  You are making an argument (we are moving forward) that has no currency in the present state of affairs.  
                      •  Exactly so. (0+ / 0-)

                        Anyone who is exposed to Ron Paul and Libertarianism for even ten minutes starts to realize what is going on. Obama's appointments have made his Administration the first Wall Street President. After he enthroned Tim Geithner as head of Treasury, and while both Obama and Geithner looked the other way while Bernanke loaned out fifteen to sixteen TRILLIONS of dollars to the biggest financial concerns, the middle class was decimated. Because Geithner refused to bring back Glass Steagall, and refused to have the Savings and Loan legal apparatus handle the situation, we now have witnessed Main street Bailing Out the crooks on Wall Street, while Main Street has been buried!

                        This happens to be  the largest robbery and biggest transfer of wealth in modern times - and its damage maybe irreparable.

                        If Obama had done the right things regarding the country's economic system, (for instance, putting Barofsky in at Treasury,) then we would see a vital, engaged and prosperous middle class right now. But he chose not to. The man can give all the speeches he wants to to pretend he has great concern for us working folks. But his appointments say it all. And he has cost us so much - the damage might well take thirty years to repair.

                        Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

                        by Truedelphi on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 02:12:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Some of what has been accomplished... (8+ / 0-)

          ...is further institutionalizing Bush and Cheney's police state and protecting the corporate predator class from accountability.

          Barack Obama appealed to these young peoples' (including my son, now 25) sense of idealism. And then he betrayed it. The choices of Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner revealed the character (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama. Those choices show that when Barack Obama appealed to peoples' idealism he was just faking it. Didn't mean a word of it.

          So for a large cohort of idealistic young people, this is going to be a case of "once bitten, twice shy."

          I doubt they will go over to the libertarians. Most likely they will become cynical and sit out elections.

          Libertarianism may be cynical but so is Barack Obama. Only a cynic would speak such beautiful words to idealistic young people with his fingers crossed behind his back.

        •  ...bingo... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          worldlotus, beach babe in fl
          change is slow, and you must work constantly
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

          by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:03:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarians are racists (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        paradise50, sebastianguy99

        Keep playing that clip of Rand Paul criticizing the Civil Rights Act on Maddow over and over again on a loop to all the new minority voters. That will keep them from voting libertarian. Nuff said.

  •  i agree with the 1st part of your essay but not (5+ / 0-)

    the 2nd.  I do think the current Democratic leadership is hurting the Democratic brand, so to speak, by morphing the party into an offshoot of the 80s Rockefeller Republicans.  These monied interests have taken over the party to the exclusion of the activist wing that was the heart of many of the successes in the 60's - 80s.

    At the same time, I've always felt libertarian philosophy, especially as it pertains to the US gov't, is very shallow and can't offer a meaningful alternative.  Whether its the environment or health care, people crave (or will crave) collective action.  They want fixes not philosophy.  

    Most people don't care what the ideology is called at the end of the day.  They just want the trains to run on time, so to speak.  The trains can't run on time in the libertarian land - and if they do, they'll cost $200.00 to ride.  

    I think it is more likely that some type of broader movement takes place with ideas stolen from libertarian, socialist, and liberal thinking.  I don't think we have to worry about a Rand Paul presidency.  

    •  I'm not advocating libertarianism. (13+ / 0-)

      I'm just pointing out that the more people get frustrated with the government, the more libertarians will gain. The alternative would be for a progressive movement to arise and stand up strongly against the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

      I do agree with you that some kind of fusion between libertarians, socialists and progressives could be a powerful movement. It would focus on reducing the military/security state, expanding civil liberties, and reducing the influence of big corporations in government. Some of the money saved from foreign entanglements could be used to shore up Social Security and Medicare, and maybe some of the military brought home from bases all over the world could work on vital infrastructure projects here in the U.S.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:35:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think you're advocating liberalism (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude, AoT, sebastianguy99

        I was just pointing out that I think its far more likely disillusioned progressives drop out of the political process than become libertarians b/c ultimately libertarianism would usher in all the things they were presumably against when voting for Obama.

        Buried in that opinion is my belief that Rand Paul is just another odious, opportunistic politician who has jumped on the ideology du jour and is trying to use it for his gain.  Even if Paul were president, I believe we would have the same level of spying and military conflicts, if not more b/c he would totally outsource it to private agencies with little oversight.   And he would be a train-wreck domestically as he would turn over the country to big business and while the infrastructure crumbled.  I just when people take a hard look at what libertarianism is about, they will turn away.  

    •  Unless the bashing of the hard left (6+ / 0-)

      stops here and elsewhere then I think that sort of alliance is unlikely. The socialist left is fairly small, a lot of the hard left are anarchists in this generation, and anarchists are not going to work with liberals after the way they were treated during Occupy. The problem is that the Democrats are on board the Neiliberal train. They are pushing to make everyone equally oppressed by class and class alone, and their winning. We'll start seeing the GOP get a larger share of the gay vote in five to ten years, after all of the rich gay issues have been "solved" and then the rest of the movement will be left hanging.

      Really, what will likely happen is that the folks she or he talks about in the diary will end up not voting because there is no one who represents them at all. You're not going to get a bunch of young women to vote for a dude that supports ending abortion protections but it's entirely reasonable that she would stop voting for the Dems despite the agreement on that issue.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:05:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  one thing you have to hand to the Paulian nutters (0+ / 0-)

      They are VERY VERY well-organized.  They've made themselves into a visible force (at least on the Internet) even with just their relative tiny handful of supporters.

      Most of the radicals I've known in my lifetime couldn't organize their way out of a wet paper bag.  They just wanna sit around and debate ideology to death.

  •  DK gripocracy has always said government is bad. (11+ / 0-)

    Or worse, that the democrats we elected are liars and frauds.

    Don't pretend like it's the fault of anyone by the people who think outrage and hyperbole is a form of power and admirable, regardless of justification.

    Example: Health care reform.  The rec list abounded with accusations of Obama promising a single payer system, and that the senate was ready to pass it, but he nefariously killed it, because he's in league with someone or other.

    I pointed out, as often as I could, that it's not possible to argue for a huge new government program if people thought that the people who would be administering it were frauds, liars and in cahoots with corporations.  I noted that I understood the point was to "pressure" politicians, in the sense of "do what I want or I'll lie about you", but it was counterproductive.

    Now we've had years and years of the same tactics rolled out on everything, and there is almost giddy pleasure at the idea that something is finally going to stick, just like there is on the republican side.

    And what do you get from it?  Exactly what you said.  

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:25:21 PM PDT

    •  not sure what you mean by (31+ / 0-)
      DK gripocracy has always said government is bad
      but much of the criticism of the administration on this site involves his not allowing government to do more- regulate banks, prosecute white collar criminals, push for a larger stimulus and a more comprehensive health care bill, etc.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:37:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the criticism that's in terms of evil intent (5+ / 0-)

        or fraud or being bought off as the REASON why none of those things are happening is being directed at democrats.

        That's what tops the rec list.  

        If you really believe that, then of course you don't want government to do more.   Who would want to give war criminals, corporate stooges, liars and frauds more power?  I sure wouldn't.

        If you don't really believe that, then you should stop saying it, because it's counterproductive.

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  interesting that you see it that way (22+ / 0-)

          but the criticism is mostly substantive. certainly, the personality stuff hits the rec list, as does the stuff about how wonderful obama is. but some of the most vilified obama critics fill their posts with substantive links and quotes.

          and yes, some wonder why more isn't being done to empower government against the wealthy and the powerful. it would be productive if everyone focused on that, rather than trying to defend those who aren't doing more to empower government against the wealthy and the powerful.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:49:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's impossible... (8+ / 0-)

            ... for some people here to see the criticism of Barack Obama as anything other than personal.

            •  I think calling him a liar is personal, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sebastianguy99

              but maybe to some it's just business, Michael, I always liked you.

              "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

              by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:02:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not personal (6+ / 0-)

                It's based on him presenting himself as one thing to appeal to idealistic young people when he had no intention on governing in that manner. His intention was to govern like the type of person who apppoints Geithner, Summers and Rahm Emanuel. You know, lying.

                Was all the vitriol here that was directed at Bush and Cheney "personal?" No, it was based on the substance of their violations of law and decency.

                I was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. My support was based on his presentation of his intentions in the way he would govern and the policies and change he would support.  When it turned out that those were lies, I became a critic. And my criticism is substantive.

                •  It's about him, personally; in fact, it's GOP (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sebastianguy99

                  attacks on him and "idealistic young people" that they've been harping on, and claiming that they are going to wake up to regret, even after Obama sweeps the younger age groups decisively.

                  Being able to point to people like you who profess to be democrats or left as agreeing with their assessement doesn't help anyone who wants an active government role.  But I suggest that "helping" isn't your bag.

                  "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

                  by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:39:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  "Mostly" will never cut it: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sebastianguy99

            the attacks on character reinforce the exact same attacks made by republicans and conservatives who, while not buying any policy arguments, are always able to say that "not even democrats trust him".

            Take the unicorn commenting below.  He repeats the same shit about Obama and gullible young people that the cons have been repeating since November 2007, along with lots of democrats who have been left in the dust.

            Think that doesn't hurt the cause of an active government to have the supposed progressives repeat all the dumbass applause lines from the Republican National Election about how the proponents are crooked?

            "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

            by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:32:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's a convenient excuse (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RageKage

              because it would make it impossible to criticize him at all.  and the gop attacks are just slightly different. the liberal criticism is based on his being too cozy with neoliberal and neocon interests. the gop attacks are that he's a socialist/communist/nazi/muslim.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 11:32:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Well, the people running these things (5+ / 0-)

      are in fact in cahoots with the corporations they used to run. Monsanto and the FDA is a perfect example of that. If the Democratic leadership wants people to believe that there are good honest people running things then maybe they should start appointing people who aren't beholden to the industries they are suppose to be watching. If good governance is so easy then lets see the dems get to work on that. But that hasn't been true for decades, if not more. What evidence do you have that these people are honest and have our best interests in mind when they go through the revolving door from industry to the government? Any? Because they have a clear conflict of interest and I don't see any evidence that it's being addressed by the supporters of good governance.

      And pointing out specific policies that are bad is what people here do. And when there are a lot of really bad policies then people say the government is bad. That seems imminently reasonable to me.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:10:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Three words: Emanuel, Summers, Geithner (5+ / 0-)

      Those appointments at the beginning of Obama's administration showed him to be cynical in his appeal to idealistic young people. Even though he explicitly ran against Hillary Clinton in the primaries on the premise that he would not be a re-run of the corporate-friendly Clinton administration, he didn't mean it.

      Good luck with inspiring young people to the polls with the "clap louder" exhortation.

      •  I'm told your opinion is very rare. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma

        Why don't you and Lawrence have it out on whether you are an outlier or common.

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:59:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The difference between Dems & the GOP (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Stetson

      The GOP, for all their flaws, at least listens to their base of voters.  

      The current leadership of the Dem Party (for the last 8 yrs or so) feels nothing but thinly disguised contempt for their voting base.  Their relationship with their grassroots has steadily deteriorated over the last several yeas.  Oddly enough,  they sometimes brag about that fact.  Dems won a presidential election in 2008 that was nearly impossible for them to lose.  They mistakenly took that victory as evidence they were brilliant campaign strategists and didn't need to listen to voters.  Big mistake.

      Failure is always a strict teacher.  I just hope we don't have to watch our national party leadership stumble through too many more failures before we can kick them out and rebuild.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:51:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liberal populism (10+ / 0-)

    is a great power just lying there, as senior politicians refuse to pick it up.

    They won't because it's hard to control. It means more power for us, and less for them. It means lower concentrated profits and wider shared happiness among the populace.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:26:37 PM PDT

  •  i do think the number (23+ / 0-)

    of young liberals who will turn to libertarianism is relatively small, although we see evidence of it- among young and old- even here. but my real worry is that we will lose liberals- young and old- from political engagement altogether.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:31:31 PM PDT

    •  I'd agree in essence with you. (5+ / 0-)

      Just from anecdotal evidence I'd differ with the diarist that Republicans will benefit directly with new voters coming to them who are disappointed with the Dems.  I sense Republicans will benefit as voters leave Dems to abandon the ballot box altogether, as they seek alternative social structures in a world that will deteriorate quickly under the impact of climate change and decaying infrastructure.  This is not going to be pretty for anyone, but if Dems don't start standing up for the young, the disadvantaged, the hurting, it's the Democratic Party that will be one of the early casualties in the world that's coming.

      •  the best thing the democrats have going for them (5+ / 0-)

        is the batshit lunacy of the republicans. disaffected liberals don't have any viable political alternatives.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:51:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and one of my points is that we can't assume (7+ / 0-)

          the GOP will remain as repulsive as it is today. They could rebrand themselves. If the libertarian wing gets control, look out. Most young people detest the social conservative message of today's Republican Party more than the anti-government message. Once gay rights ceases to be an issue, and if a major GOP candidate such as Rand Paul embraces marijuana decriminalization and gains traction within the GOP, all bets are off.

          But, I do agree with you that many liberals will just stop voting rather than voting GOP or Libertarian. Some might switch, and some will drop out of politics altogether. Either way, it's not good.

          The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

          by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:54:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  heh (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cybersaur, AoT

            the gop won't rebrand. the theocratic wing is necessary to its existence.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:56:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only in the south and it's other strongholds (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Victor Ward

              It's entirely possible that they could get someone strong on privacy on the ballot here in California who is otherwise a Rockefeller Republican. Of course, the race and gender thing is the big issue. It's really a numbers game at this point, if the libertarians can mobilize enough people to swing a big primary then they might be able to pull more people in.

              Honestly, most of the people I know who supported Ron Paul were significantly left of the Dems. So if they capture the party then it could shift left. At least in whatever state that happened in. Given what the Dems are doing with their super-majority here in California I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP has something like this planned with a stealth candidate.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:40:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Batshit lunacy will not be enough anymore,... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis, AoT, worldlotus

          ...from what I'm hearing.  That gambit was played already, more than once, with no improvement coming after voters responded as they were bid to.  It may not make sense electorally, structurally, in our political context, but I'm seeing people drop out and encourage others to do so as well.

    •  From my son's Facebook page (4+ / 0-)

      Although my wife and I have long been politically active and took our son to lots of protests and events, it was Barack Obama who inspired him to volunteer extensively while in college for the 2008 campaign.

      This is a recent status update from my about-to-be 25 year old son's Facebook page:

      People I canvassed during the 2008 Obama campaign: Sorry, turns out it wasn't that important. Hope I didn't interrupt you during dinner.
  •  As well written as this is, and I did tip and rec (10+ / 0-)

    it, the big question is what to do?  We tip and rec several diaries that analyze and acknowledge the problems and those diaries always make the rec list.  They make all very valid points but they don't really open up the conversation for solutions.  I think they're meant to but it usually results in angry comments and pie fights.  There are a lot of smart people here in the Daily Kos community and I guarantee you if they just decided to put their minds together, they could come up with a great, detailed plan that all of us could follow and initiate successfully.  This is why I write about individual races and candidates to prove there are still good people in government trying to do what's right and why it still matters that we vote.  It's not easy and anyone who dare says they could do it better, I challenge you to run for office and do it yourself.  Put your money where your mouth is what I say.  Personally, I think we need better Democrats on the local level first before you can have better Democrats in D.C.  Make the blue states bluer, the swing states blue and some of the red states purple and you will see change.  I also advocate reaching out to the moderate voters in our party.  Yes, there are moderate Democratic voters and they have a lot of say in the party.  Some of them are from the older generation and some of them just get frustrated with both the left and the right over how they want everything done their way.  We have to use persuasive arguments with these people.  Not guilt tripping, not shaming, not flowery speeches, persuasive arguments.  Arguments that make our stances sound practical and what's best for the country (which they are).  If you can get more progressives elected at in swing districts and states, that's an accomplishment.  

    P.S. I lived with a Libertarian for two years.  They will never win over female voters.  That I can guarantee you.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:35:12 PM PDT

    •  P.S. I've been able to make moderate voters pick (5+ / 0-)

      progressive candidates before.  My mother and her family are moderate Democrats and huge Hillary supporters and I was able to convince them to vote for Joe Sestak over Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic Primary.

      Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

      by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with your emphasis on state/local races. (10+ / 0-)

      And I agree that a big part of the solution is simply that more progressives need to attempt to run for office.

      I have long been advocating for more progressives to challenge centrist/conservative Dems in the primaries. I think we need to get rid of the mentality that career politicians who don't support most of our political beliefs should be supported "just to hold the seat." The Democratic Party's leaders need to stand for something with a principled voice, or else the party will be despised as weak and meaningless, merely the "lesser of two evils," by most voters.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:59:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well some of those centrists/Conservative Dems (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, LSmith, worldlotus, sebastianguy99

        certainly come in handy for some big votes.  The Democratic Party has long had a history of it's own members fighting with each other but they've been able to finds ways to get things done.  Like I don;t agree with mark Begich on background checks or drilling but man do I want the guy in the Senate because he's against the NSA, for lifting the cap on Social Security, fighting Wall Street and pushing for more GMO labels.  Some here would consider him a conservative Democrat not worth fighting for.  I heavily disagree with that.  In fact, I think this community can see that some of these moderates still have some good in them and just need to be pushed the right way.  I've had three Mary Landrieu diaries make the rec list when she's bashed Republicans like Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz.  So some of these people we can't just scrap aside.  We need to understand the mentality of the voters in their states and figure out ways to change their minds.

        Also, I think progressives can certainly step their game up a bit.  Take the Occupy Wall Street movement.  We all support that 110% but when I talk to working people, and these are people are part of the 99% we are trying to win over, the major consensus I get from them is "Well we understand why they're angry but what exactly do they want?"  That was the thing, and I talked to top people in the OWS movement, that they were afraid to make demands because they feared they would get watered down.  Plus there are a few other mistakes OWS made that I think have hurt their momentum.  For example, that article from Rolling Stone about OWS' future pointed out that their leader and founder, Marissa Holmes, turned down money from Ben & Jerry's.  Now I understand they don't want to be co-oped but this is Ben and Jerry we're talking about.  Not the Koch Brothers.  They're gray hippies who wanted to help the movement grow.  Their money could've paid for permits, supplies, helped pay bail for members who were arrested and God knows what else.  You can't run a movement based solely on emotion.  You have to be strategically smart about it.

        Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

        by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:16:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's part of the problem (4+ / 0-)
          For example, that article from Rolling Stone about OWS' future pointed out that their leader and founder, Marissa Holmes, turned down money from Ben & Jerry's.
          You're buying into the media narrative if you think she was a leader. We chose to turn down money because it was coming from a corporation. We don't want corporations to have tons of power and we need to be upfront about that and stick to that. We wanted to take money out of politics by not letting money into politics. The fact that they're good rich people doesn't change any of that. And She most certainly didn't get to make that choice. We decided on that as a group.

          How we used money was such a giant screw up in Occupy. It was just horrible. Everything should have gone to food and bail once the parks were emptied. Instead OWS ended up using it for transportation costs for lots of people and used a lot of it. Oakland did better, thankfully. Those were the only two I know about.

          In regards to what did we want, well, I thought we made that pretty clear. We wanted to organize a movement against wall street and corporate control of the government. One of the big things that people seem to gloss over is that we spent a shit ton of time, most of our time, talking about what we wanted. Talking to people who came to visit about what we wanted. The process really was important because it was a response to the neutering of various previous movements.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:43:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for clarifying and I now fully understand (4+ / 0-)

            why they turned down Ben & Jerry's money.  But OWS should've been making the demands more specific and clear from day one.  Getting corporate cash out of the political system obviously is the main reason but the people needed to hear how to do so and the demands I think would've explained that better and attract more people.  You're right, if they had used the money better they could've been more sustainable and helped one another out.  However, I think the Daily Show's coverage on OWS was kind of embarrassing.  But the Move Your Money day was a genius idea.  More of that is needed.  See you'll never get rid of corporate control if you don't weekend the source.  Corruption isn't a political party based thing, it's human nature.  If OWS can focus more on ways to weaken Wall Street's influence on government, they can succeed.

            Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

            by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:51:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As one of the people who was there (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poopdogcomedy, paradise50, worldlotus

              from day one, at least day one of the occupation, let me tell you that we didn't expect to be successful enough to have to make demands. People thought we were crazy for even trying. Shit, I thought we were crazy for trying. We spent most of our time either figuring out logistics or talking about what we wanted.

              But the Move Your Money day was a genius idea.  More of that is needed.  See you'll never get rid of corporate control if you don't weekend the source.
              That wasn't even us. We always get the credit for that, and we did encourage people to do it, but there was a woman who set that up as an event page on facebook and then did some promotion for it. I completely agree with you on that though. I'm working with Strike Debt on building a debt resistance movement. One of the things keeping people from greater participation is that they are weighted down by debt and we're working to end that.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:05:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well some examples that OWS could've demanded (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, worldlotus, sebastianguy99

            were the Disclose Act demanding for donors to disclose the contributions.  Also, my beef OWS Atlanta was how they treated John Lewis.  You created a movement to get the politicians attention and then when they come down to talk to you, you yell them out of the movement meeting?  This was a guy who worked on the civil rights movement.  They could've learned some things from Lewis about how to run an effective movement.

            Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

            by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:01:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They could have (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poopdogcomedy, worldlotus

              And I can understand why they did what they did, but I also understand why people didn't like it. It was bad timing and people wanted it to remain a people focused movement and so there was resistance to a politician being given special treatment. It was probably the worst politician they could have had that happen with.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:08:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  ...I love you for what you did... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, worldlotus

            ...I know that comes off as a joke...but I'm dead serious...

            Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

            by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:09:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Young people don't remember when gov't worked (23+ / 0-)

    Government stopped working during the Reagan era because the Republicans made it not work.

    “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” Lyndon Baines Johnson

    by spacecadet1 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:36:36 PM PDT

  •  There are no liberals or moderates anymore. (13+ / 0-)

    There are three political groupings in America today:

    1) Antipublic conservatives -- these are the Ayn Rand types.

    2) Corporate conservatives -- these are people who think of ways to buy off the public while maintaining the capitalist system in its current state of decrepitude.

    3) People looking for the exit door -- this group includes everyone who doesn't want to live in a political universe in which conservatism is the only choice.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "It's not my fault reality is marxist." - Che Guevara

    by Cassiodorus on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:37:16 PM PDT

  •  Every generation's lament in youth (4+ / 0-)

    When viewed against historical precedent this does not sound unfamiliar. The young perceive events as moving too slow and politics as something that happens to other people. As people age those perceptions tend to reverse. And with that reversal so too comes increased voting participation.

    And the beat goes on.

    •  The refusal of the Democratic leadership (5+ / 0-)

      and especially the president to put forward a real solution to global warming is a clear threat to millions of young people. This isn't just another generation of disaffected kids like so many people want to portray them. It's a generation with huge student loan debts and bad job prospects that saw the government take virtually no action after one of the largest economic crashes in this countries history. And they've seen the banks continue to scam people. And the Dems seem to be more worried about rhetoric.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:15:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Global Warming is big enough to go around (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, Lawrence, worldlotus

        There's blame lying thick on every one of us. I seriously doubt people 30 years from now are going to sift through all the history and all the missed opportunities and say, "You know who really blew it?  The Democrats!"

        And those people will still be listening to Rush Limbaugh.

        •  They will if they see that the Dems (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orestes1963, worldlotus

          had the presidency for 20 years and never argued for a solution to it. And the people who have to live through it will remember that we knew right now how big a problem it was and the party in power didn't put forward a plan to fix it.

          And no, the blame doesn't sit thick on all of us. Some of us are doing everything we can to stop it and people are going to remember that and ask why more people couldn't have done that. In 50 years when they have to start evacuating cities they're going to look back on "environmental terrorists" like we look back on John Brown.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:58:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Very good diary -- however no answer available (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, mightymouse

    The "answer" to bad government is to elect better leaders -- however, for the past 30 years it seems no matter what leaders are elected, the nation continues on the path set for it by the rich and powerful. Every president who was elected on "popularity" (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) and a hope to change things turns out to have merely been camouflage for a system determined to form an oligarchy.
    If after doing something several times you get no results -- at least none you can see -- you just stop doing it.  Eventually "voting" will be a obscure task the majority of people will cease doing because it never works, as far as they can tell. By then elections will have lost all value.
    So the idea of using voting to help cure voting has no validity -- it's like using cancer cells to counter cancer. The process is as polluted as the system, and using it only strengthens the corrupted system.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

    by fourthcornerman on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:38:40 PM PDT

  •  what about: On the waging of wars of choice ? (9+ / 0-)

    That's one point on which GOP and Dems are practically indistinguishable - and both completely out of touch with with the average American.

    It's the non-interventionism that seems to be the most attractive element of Libertarianism to the younger generation.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:40:00 PM PDT

  •  The Libertarian Message is to Dismantle Gov't (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, RichM, Heftysmurf, futurebird

    so it's not likely that a large fraction of disaffected voters will vote for such a party.

    Steady drop in voter participation though is very likely. Look at 2010 and look at Republicans preparing for 2014 the same way they prepared for 2010.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:43:26 PM PDT

  •  P.S. Here's an example I posted today of Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus

    doing good.  Senator Chris Coons (D. DE) is working on getting ready what to do if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    So he's looking out for our generation and future generations.

    Also, in order to get the corporate hold off the two parties, we need to stop being a consumerist society.  Corporations get bigger and powerful through supply and demand.  Just look how long we'll wait in line for a new iPhone.

    Funny Stuff at http://www.funnyordie.com/oresmas

    by poopdogcomedy on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:48:14 PM PDT

  •  This is an excellent post. It's too bad... (6+ / 0-)

    ...there are some in this community that vilify Kuttner.  It actually circles back to the very content of this post and his commentary, IMHO. He's spot-on and a brilliant thinker. (Disclosure: Virtually immediately after college, I worked very briefly [a couple of weeks] with him on a political campaign and also on a closely-related issues effort.)

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

  •  60 percent of people (14+ / 0-)

    under the age of 30 voted for President Obama last year.  The electorate last year, according to Roper, was 25% liberal - the highest percentage of any electorate going back to 1976.

    Obamacare, for all its flaws, will give health insurance to 30 million Americans, almost half of them by way of Medicaid, a public program.  The law contains patient protections liberals once dreamed of way back in the 1990s.  My uncle and mom, who are currently uninsured, will become insured next year as a result of Obamacare, and they are damn thrilled about it.  Obamacare will also be the biggest redistribution of wealth that I can recall - it literally taxes the rich more in order to provide insurance to the poor and uninsured.

    As I look outside my window right now, I see swarms of construction workers working on the new bus terminal here in downtown San Francisco - which is being funded by the Stimulus.  On my way home I go through the Caldecott Tunnel - where swarms of construction workers are building a third tunnel, also funded by the Stimulus.  My uncle has received an extra $1,000 a year the last three years as a result of an increase in the EITC - an increase initiated by the Stimulus.  

    Yes, the response to the financial crisis was not robust enough, President Obama's biggest failing in my opinion, along with his inept response to the housing crisis.  The revelations about the NSA program are disconcerting.

    But same sex marriage has gained enormously these past five years.  DADT is repealed.  If immigration reform passes, that will do more to sow up the youth vote than any single measure - because the youth are more non-white than any generation previous, and immigration reform will benefit them immensely.  Yet liberals here don't seem much concerned by immigration reform.

    Kuttner makes some good points, but frankly he is accentuating the negative while downplaying greatly the positive.  From what I can see with my own eyes and from how people I know have benefitted from the actions of government these last few years, and based on the change in culture towards a more liberal outlook, it seems to me that liberalism has made significant progress.  Not nearly enough progress, and there have been downsides, but frankly we heard these warnings of doom all last year and the three years previous from folks like Kuttner, yet President Obama became the first president since Eisenhower to win 51% or more of the popular vote in consecutive elections.  He did so by turning out the young, the nonwhite, and produced an electorate with the highest percentage of liberals in recent memory.

    Failed liberalism?  Maybe young white liberals might be warming towards libertarianism, and older whites might not be thrilled with Obama.  But that's not his base anyway, and the rise in liberalism has not come from those groups but from the increase in nonwhites as a portion of the electorate.  It is this group that is far more liberal than the population at large, particularly young nonwhites, and from what I can tell Kuttner does not exactly speak for them, and I don't see too many of them flocking to Rand Paul.  

    "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

    by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:51:31 PM PDT

    •  Great you mentioned Downtown SF (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puakev, offgrid, Lawrence, worldlotus

      And I'm glad to see you're focusing on the positive.

      San Francisco's economy is growing rapidly and is on fire right now.  America's Cup is coming next month to the city, a Muni Central Subway is being build from SoMa to Chinatown and the Transbay Terminal is being build (which should open at 2016 at the latest).  More vacancies are being filled in SF at an unbelievable rate.

      So let's see:  Was the Democratic Party corrupt in getting the San Francisco economy growing?  Don't think so and I'm damn proud the city has one of the best mayors in the U.S, Ed Lee.

      And it should also be worth noting that the Caldecott Tunnel got an additional upgrade thanks to the stimulus funds in 2009.

      •  I'm not Obamabot (3+ / 0-)

        and I have very strong criticisms of President Obama's handling of the financial crisis, his premature and foolhardy adoption of austerity in 2010, the Afghanistan surge, the woefully inadequate response to the housing crisis - something which is inexplicable given that housing was at the heart of our economic woes - and I can keep going on with more grievances on my part.

        But from a dry-eyed appraisal of the last five years, and given the way I've seen my own friends, relatives, and community benefitted by policies set forth by President Obama and the Democratically-controlled 111th Congress, given the sea change on things like same-sex marriage, and the need for immigration reform, and given the electoral results of last year, I find it hard not to conclude that progress has been made.  

        And when I see accounts such as this diary that seem to think that no progress has been made, that in fact ground has somehow been lost, I find it hard not to conclude that the "left" - at least the left you see in the blogosphere, or on cable TV, or elsewhere amongst the liberal chattering classes - is not at all representative of the vast majority who do make up the Democratic/liberal base.

        For if what I see here is the real reality, then I guess I'm just imagining the Obamacare coverage that my mom and uncle will get next year, and I'm just imagining all those construction workers outside my window working on the new bus terminal, and my uncle was just imagining the extra $1,000 dollars he received each of the last three years, and I'm just imagining the fact that we have rich clients at my firm bitching about Dodd-Frank and the increased Medicare taxes and tax rates they have to pay.

        "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

        by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:08:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We'll find out in 2014 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Laconic Lib

          If nothing changes before then, it will end up being like 2010.  Obama and his supporters are very much out of touch with public opinion and where people stand on the most important issues of the day.

          That hasn't changed and its not likely to.  The Obama organization and its supporters  are convinced that being disengaged from the real world somehow helps them.  We can't change that, we just have to move forward and do the best we can.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:30:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:36:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just don't blame us when we lose in 2014 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AoT, Laconic Lib

              Grassroots liberal Dems have so few cards to play these days.  The grassroots of the party have been cut off by the national party.  Y'all are on your own, that's how you want it.

              "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

              by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:39:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  We are NOT going to lose in 2014 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                puakev

                The GOP has MANY more problems to deal with from within its party and its base so in comparison with the Republican Party, I think we should feel grateful we are Democrats and we can actually be able to have good, smart, progressive U.S. Senators like Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall in Congress.  There are more progressives in Congress now than before and that's an accomplishment in itself.

                So giving up the fight is not what I'd advise at this point.

          •  I'm not so sure (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lawrence, worldlotus

            On immigration, on gun control, on approach to the economy, President Obama is generally preferred over Republicans.  This is particularly the case with regard to the Democratic base.  On the generic congressional ballot Democrats continue to maintain a modest lead over Republicans.  If the economy continues to gradually improve through November of 2014, I very much doubt 2014 will be like 2010.  That year was the result of 9.7% unemployment and Republican enthusiasm that was off the charts.  If those conditions are not present in 2014, we will not see a repeat of 2010.

            In my view, the ace up the sleeve of Democrats is immigration reform.  If it passes, Latinos and Asians will reward Democrats for passing it with increased turnout.  If it fails, the question remains:  will they turnout to punish Republicans or stay home in disappointment at Democrats for not passing reform.  My feeling is that it will be the former because Latinos and Asians know that staying home will only put immigration reform further out of reach.

            Another wild card is Obamacare.  If the implementation goes relatively well and millions of previously uninsured folks like my mom and uncle are satisfied with their insurance, it will either play no factor (most likely result in my opinion) or may even benefit Democrats.  But if implementation is a catastrophe, then it could harm the Democrats' chances.

            As for the recent stuff about the NSA, clearly that may pose a problem, but again it's not so clear yet how much this means to the Democratic base.  While liberals here and elsewhere on the liberal blogosphere and among the chattering classes the NSA issue is a very big deal, for nonwhites who are Obama's base it doesn't appear to be much of an issue.  They are motivated more by the economy and immigration reform and health care.  I reiterate, if the signs are good or at least steadily improving on the economy, if immigration reform passes, and if health care reform goes relatively well, nonwhites will turnout.  The problem in 2010 was that these groups, along with young voters, stayed home, as they usually do in non-presidential election years.  In 2010 this effect was even more pronounced due to 9.7% unemployment and sky-high Republican enthusiasm.  

            As for the Obama supporters not living in the real world, this is an opinion that appears motivated more by feeling than any relation to reality.  If you think Daily Kos or the liberal and online echo chamber or even "everyone you know" represents the real world, you're fooling yourself.  A whole lot of denizens of white America sure thought Obama was headed for defeat last fall because in their world that appeared to be the case.  But clearly it was they who were out of touch and did not anticipate that Obama's base - his real base - would turn out in such numbers.

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:06:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Jobs and the economy are the #1 issue for voters (0+ / 0-)

              In the latest CBS/NYT poll, 34% of voters say its the most important issue.

              Every other issue is in single digits, including immigration. Three percent of voters think its the most important issue.

              Link

              "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

              by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:12:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah but news outlets have terrible coverage (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                puakev

                Of the economy.  Seriously, CNN and other outlets do such a piss poor job at even reporting the growing economy in detailed numbers.  If people want to know more about the economy in the U.S., they ought to read Bizjournals.com and subscribe to it, which covers local economies (including SF with the SF Business Times) more effectively than CNN, MSNBC or any other news outlets.

                Also, yes, the economy is the #1 issue but the GOP already lost this argument last November and their approval ratings are WAY down in the tank.  They can't win on the economy because, quite frankly, they've already tried their arguments in 2012 and they aren't working.

                •  Growing economy? Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  Jobs and economy are issues the voters know a great deal about.  They're the issues voters encounter, on their own, every single day.  

                  Seriously, the Obama administration is not going to BS voters on  economic recovery.  They know better than he does if he's getting it right.

                  His administration was very, very lucky to eke out a victory last fall with the economy in such bad shape.  They may not be so lucky with the midterms.  The bigger question is why do DC Dems want to run on a bad economy?  What's the benefit of not doing everything possible to fix the economy?   What's the benefit of doing even more harm to the economy by pushing for SS and Medicare cuts?

                  We've had these conversations here before and these questions have never been answered.

                  "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

                  by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:09:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're making it sound like everyone is hurting (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, there is a growing economy.  REALLY.

                    I work in the marketing industry in San Francisco and I can tell you that from a Bay Area standpoint, the economy is on fire right now and will only continue to get better.  I can't stress how many start-ups and companies are in hiring mode and how much activity companies like Robert Half are getting right now.  The one issue is economic security for poor, lower and middle income class.

                    And in Ohio, while quite a number of people are unemployed, it's less severe now or in 2012 than it was in 2009 or 2010.  GM and Chrysler are continuously in hiring mode and bioscience jobs have been added.  Ohio right now has one of the better regions of economic activity in the U.S.

                    I hope you're not taking my argument as being that the economy is booming.  It's not as a whole but on a number of regions (not just SF) the economy is not recovering as well.

                  •  Assessment also is based on inside business info (0+ / 0-)

                    Unfortunately, neither the Democratic or Republican side is giving enough facts.  I depend most of my information on local news outlets.  Hell, I even type in a Google search and find "jobs added" and get a whole list of results.

                    There are roadblocks into the economic recovery:

                    1)  Not enough stimulus (Paul Krugman have argued for more efforts on this front)
                    2)  Sequestration

                    The Democratic Party being lucky they won the seats in 2012 and Presidency?  Are you kidding me?  They made their case perfectly.  The Democratic Party was on a roll from 2009-2010 in terms of putting the U.S. in recovery mode.  Since the Tea Party has had a clout in Congress, it's been hampering the economy even more.  The Democrats in Congress have barely been able to get much if anything passed on economic matters thanks to the Tea Party.

        •  Seems a reasonable assessment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev

          I'm not an Obamabot myself.  I've criticized Obama on numerous occasions but that's healthy because I feel I should be able to criticize a U.S. President, even if that person is in my own party.

          I just think that Kos as of lately has become pessimistic and really ought to be focused on the purpose that Markos (who happens to live in Berkeley, where I live) originally set out for Daily Kos in the first place:  To elect Democrats.

          Sure, it's difficult to get progressive Democrats in all areas of the U.S. but we have to frickin build out party damn it, progressive, moderate, you name it.  Kos people and the liberal base have a choice:

          Build the Democratic Party OR face more of the Tea Party and GOP.  

          And yes, there has been progress.  Hell, even in Ohio the economy has been growing for some time, particularly with the manufacturing sector.  How funny is that during the 2012 campaign, Kos people were pointing out all the citations of growth in Ohio yet now people are no longer talking about it anymore.  I guess the fear of sequestration got to everyone.

          •  Hear, hear (0+ / 0-)

            Improving the state of the Democratic Party and advancing liberalism doesn't mean constant gloom or cheerleading.  It's about realistic appraisal of the situation and drawing productive conclusions.  Agree wholeheartedly with your viewpoint.  

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:53:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Democratic Party has decimated (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        the poor and middle class in SF. It's being gentrified and turned into a bedroom.party community for Silicon Valley. I saw this, and fought it for a while, first hand.

        And the fact that we wasted money on the Coldecott tunnel is outrageous. All it will do is encourage people to drive more. Ugh.

        And now we've got the same thing going on in Oakland. I'm sure I won't be able to afford to live here in five years if we don't stop it this time.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:46:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your analysis is off but I recognize your view (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev, AoT

          I don't agree that the Democratic Party has decimated the poor and middle class in San Francisco.  That's like saying all Democrats in SF are DLC/conservative Democrats which is not true at all except for maybe people who live in the Marina.  There have been progressive and liberal Democrats who have fought moderate/moderate conservative Democrats such as Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom like hell (way too pro-business and less for the poor and middle class) and for quite some time, progressives actually occupied the Board of Supervisors and even people like Chris Daly (whom I'm not a supporter of) have fought for better recognition towards the little guy.  It's probably the rise of Brown's tenure as Mayor of SF and on that brought the insensitivity towards the poor and middle class.  On the other hand, there's a SF Minimum Wage so you can't argue that the Democratic Party decimated the poor and middle class on that front.  Quite a number of Democrats from what I understand supported the minimum wage law in SF.

          On the other hand, you also forgot to point out that in San Francisco, there's quite a considerable number of small businesses being owned by those in the Sunset and Richmond districts, for example, where the owners are in the middle class, even particularly with the Asian and Russian communities.  Those districts are more family oriented but are also known to having lots of small businesses that aren't necessarily trendy restaurants nor do they have much in the way of chained stores (maybe as Safeway or Walgreens perhaps but not much else).  Not all San Francisco is VERY expensive and there are still quite a lot of small business owners who aren't necessarily in the upper income scale.  But the rent prices are going up and that concerns me for a number of reasons as I don't want the colorful people of SF in a number of neighborhoods to leave all due to uncontrolled and uncapped rent increases.

          Understand, we just went through a Great Recession so San Francisco had lost a considerable amount of revenue from all the vacancies left over from companies in the financial services and business industry at large.  What was SF supposed to do:  Replace the vacancies with social services centers?  San Francisco in 2009 was in a deficit and it needed to plan for long term in terms of attracting businesses.  What was it going to do, not get revenue?

          Without the growth of the tech industry and even the healthcare industry, SF would be quite frankly still struggling with revenue and if anyone would be kind enough to argue they had a better plan instead of bringing the tech industry, I'd sure like to see it.  As for you saying SF is becoming a bedroom party community for the Silicon Valley, well, guess what?  Thanks to the tech industry, there are many other new businesses taking over vacancies that aren't just tech.   There are additional consulting companies, financial services start-ups, banks and boutique investment research companies taking up space in the Financial District and SoMa.  I network a lot in the business community in SF and I can tell you, it is NOT a party community for Silicon Valley although there are quite a number of Meetups and tech events (as well as tech companies) and yes, tech companies and start-ups.  

          For gentrification, that's a mixed bag for me.  I happen to be a strong supporter of what's going on in Mid-Market in terms of development and with all due respect, the Mid-Market area of SF has been ignored and neglected for years and had crime going on for quite some time.   If there were any ideas to improve the Mid-Market area while reducing crime prior to the push on getting Twitter to move to Mid Market, I haven't seen any legitimate ones.  Greater dialog does need to happen though in the areas of San Francisco which have quite a number of people still in the lower and middle income scale to ensure they don't get kicked out.  Believe me, as someone who is a marketing professional, I'd rather SF not be filled with just Silicon Valley types or rich snobs.  Then again, I'm glad SoMa has the new businesses and tech companies because now the community is less filled with crime than it was a decade or so ago.  I would have preferred dealing with crime in a open and humane way but there's also the need in keeping the revenue stream coming to the city and the business growth continuing.  San Francisco also for many years has been an expensive city to live in anyway but it just happens to have gotten more expensive in recent years.

          Oakland is in a situation completely different than Oakland and with all due respect, it is NOT the same thing as in SF.  There's no tech scene in Oaktown.  I've lived in the East Bay my whole life and Oakland's always had crime problems and it's gotten worse under the tenure of Jean Quan.  Prices vary in Oakland but aren't as expensive as in SF.  The problem with Oakland is that the city nickle and dimes people and does not have the best incentives for businesses, small mom 'n' pop shops or even corporations (although there are a few but just a few, like Clorox and Ask.com).  On the other hand, homicides have increased and all Mayor Quan can do is really give half-assed remarks to deal with crime.  Almost wish Joe Tuman was elected Mayor of Oakland because he offers greater dialog and sensitivity to the issues Oakland residents face and unlike Quan, Dellums or Brown, he's actually a nice, calm and approachable guy, bright and actually listens.

          However, going back to the issue of gentrification, right now what worries me the most is what's going on in Bayview with the Lennar Corp. development in Hunters Point although I understand the development there continues to be delayed.  Lennar continues to argue that the new development at Hunters Point will be conscious of the community in Bayview, which is predominately African-American/Black (Bayview has one of the largest populations of the ethnicity in SF) but I'm very skeptical.  The Mission District is also dealing with this potential issue as well but guess what?  The district is filled with crime and particularly stabbings and gangs.  You can decide how you'd want that resolved and I'd argue, no more start-up companies are needed considering the Hispanic and Latino communities in Mission have a clout in the district and they need to be recognized as well considering most of them are poor, in lower class or at most middle class.

          I don't think money was wasted on the Caldecott Tunnel to be quite honest.  I take public transportation all the time from Berkeley to San Francisco and I'll be frank, I'd like more people to use it but it ain't going to happen anytime soon, I can guarantee you that.  Maybe if BART extends as far out as Sacramento but that's a pipedream at this point.  I argue the Caldecott Tunnel addition WAS necessary because of the traffic situation.  Had the additional improvements not been done, it would have been a lot worse of a congested situation than before.  Keep in mind, commuters don't come just simply from Lafayette to Concord (which BART has stations at).  They also come from Martinez, Alamo, San Ramon, Danville, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, Fairfield, Vacaville and yes, even as far up as in Sacramento.  Currently, there's just not that efficient of a public transportation system as BART and it can't cover everywhere.  Meanwhile, population continues to increase rapidly in the Bay Area so even public transportation at its current state cannot address every resident, unless each of them happens to live near BART, Caltrain, Muni, etc.

          In the meantime, I'm enjoying the growth San Francisco is getting right now and I hope it continues.  More people are in the San Francisco area and surrounding regions are getting back to work (and thanks to loads of networking opportunities in the city and support groups). In the Bay Area, we should be grateful the city is getting the attention it deserves because quite frankly, I keep running into people all the time who are coming from outside of the Bay Area in Carlsbad, out of state, out of the country, etc. who want to work in SF.  Unfortunately, not many regions in the SF have this kind of growth and more mayors and Governors need to study the Bay Area economy right now because it WILL benefit them to make smart decisions.  However, yes, being sensitive to the needs of the working class, poor, lower class and middle class is important and my father's family is filled with people in that background so needless to say, San Francisco does need to listen and address their needs as well.  However, it's also well run nowadays and smarter than most other local governments in California (although SF General Hospital desperately needs improvement).  

          •  A error again. (0+ / 0-)

            It's late for me but to point out...

            "Unfortunately, not many regions in the U.S. have this kind of growth"

            NOT

            "Unfortunately, not many regions in the SF have this kind of growth"

            I just had wine earlier on a date so my mind isn't in the best of shape.

          •  I haven't been in SF for a bit (0+ / 0-)

            so I'm thinking it's changed more than I thought. When I was there the DLC/Centrist machine was very powerful, Newsom being the best example of that.

            Thanks for the more in depth analysis.

            There's no tech scene in Oaktown.
            There's actually a big one these days. Oakland and Berkeley both have a huge number of tech companies, Pandora and Ask are the two big names that spring to mind, but also a lot of game companies, etc. There are also by my last count at least four hacker/maker spaces in Oakland. Also, in October the East Bay Mini Maker Faire is happening. This is all part of the gentrification in a way, so there's down sides as well.
            Had the additional improvements not been done, it would have been a lot worse of a congested situation than before.  Keep in mind, commuters don't come just simply from Lafayette to Concord (which BART has stations at).  They also come from Martinez, Alamo, San Ramon, Danville, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, Fairfield, Vacaville and yes, even as far up as in Sacramento.
            Yeah, but the new bore won't do anything to relive commute congestion. All it will be used for is to relieve congestion going the other direction, which will mean more people driving and more emissions. If they had added two bores and had three available for the commute direction I could see it being some congestion relief, but the fact is that "congestion relief" has been show to fail again and again. If you put in more road capacity then people will use it. It would have been money better spent on improving and expanding public transit. Of course, I know that politically that was just never in the cards, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 08:49:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're incorrect on Berkeley and Oakland (0+ / 0-)

              Berkeley and Oakland have much less of tech companies than San Francisco and Peninsula and South Bay.

              However, yes, Oakland is home to Pandora, Sungevity, Ask.com, Clorox, etc. but I'm just not seeing much of a tech scene like in SF.  When I said no tech scene, that means there has to be a certain degree of credibility of a tech community that can influence the economy in the way they are influencing San Francisco and even the Silicon Valley.  Based on that argument, there are tech companies in Oakland but I still argue there is no tech scene.  I haven't seen a single notable Meetup or tech event situated in Oakland that I can find on Eventbrite or Meetup.  That has to be present in order for there to be a tech scene in Oakland.

              Oakland right now has serious problems with crime and as I mentioned before, does not have the best incentives in the world for business growth.  It won't really matter at this point what social services can do for people in Oaktown because, crime is probably #1 for residents concerns at this point.

              Berkeley, it has some tech companies but not that much and to be frank, there aren't any notable tech companies I can think of that are getting much if any attention unless maybe you're talking about West Berkeley but that's nowhere close to BART.  I live in the city currently and the most notable company is Annie's.  There used to be Cliff Bar but that company left its original location at Shattuck a long time ago.  If there's any scene, it's the trendy restaurants around Berkeley.  I'll have to do more research on tech companies in Berkeley anyway.

              Most game companies are actually based in San Francisco.  I haven't seen any notable ones based in the East Bay to my knowledge but that doesn't mean there aren't any start-ups out there focusing on that.  More gaming companies that have gotten any attention are in SF and scattered out throughout the Peninsula.  All you need to do is go to YetiZen and search on Eventbrite for gaming events and they're ALL based in San Francisco.

              Something to understand.  The current San Francisco economy is become robust because city government, Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors have become very proactive and business friendly compared to say Oakland.  Some of this outreach can be credited towards Gavin Newsom but it's also Ed Lee who is strengthening the tech community and overall business community at large.  As a point of reference, I was at a lunch meeting with some people in the business community.  One person organizing the lunch event is a commercial real estate manager and he's pointing out that it's very competitive with commercial real estate right now (i.e. a lot of companies are fighting for good deals).  This kind of environment does not exist in Oakland.

              Commute congestion won't be relieved entirely because of the Caldecott Tunnel, that I understand.  However, it does add quite a bit of flexibility for lanes.  What will help eventually is BART being extended to Livermore, San Jose and I believe it's also being extended to Brentwood but that's going to take time.  I also support BART going to Vallejo, Sacramento and Stockton as there's no other viable way to get congestion to be reduced (not to mention pollution).  Not enough people use electric cars (probably less than 5%) as well.

            •  The DLC/Centrist machine still exists in SF (0+ / 0-)

              But unlike Gavin Newsom and Willie Brown, Ed Lee is a very effective Mayor and not all that partisan.  He's one of those rare Mayors that actually listens to all viewpoints so if anything, Newsom's best decision aside from granting gay marriage licenses was nominating Ed Lee to replace him.  Lee is very popular and always works to compromise and serve SF residents around, even if prices are still very much a concern for many residents (even those feared to be victims due to gentrification).  Unfortunately, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan (Chinese, like Ed Lee) is a very unpopular Mayor and will likely lose re-election in 2014.

              The SF Board of Supervisors nowadays in the past two years is more moderate and business friendly but they are also very smart as well.  I was never much of a fan of Gavin Newsom myself.

        •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT

          I said "Oakland is in a situation completely different than Oakland" in I believe the third paragraph but I meant "Oakland is in a situation completely different than SF" instead.

    •  Yes, the president is popular (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      puakev, paradise50

      And he won't be in office in three years. One popular politician does not make a party.

      Maybe young white liberals might be warming towards libertarianism, and older whites might not be thrilled with Obama.
      This is a big part of it. But, at some point the GOP isn't going to be a significant threat anymore and then people will see what the party is failing to do. In my experience the dislike for the party not the president or the specific rep is broader than just white folks.

      More than that, the liberal people in the base aren't going to stick around forever. They can see that the economic situation is getting worse for people of color faster than it is for white people. Unless the party has an answer to that then people aren't going to want to have much to do with them.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:47:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, he's not popular (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, doroma, worldlotus

        at 45-48% approval, which historically is fairly middling.  But the reason for that is, and this might sound crude, that white folks don't like him.  According to Gallup, just 36% of whites approve of Obama - but 74% of nonwhites do approve.  Hell, in 2012 Obama even lost young white folks between the age of 18-29, 44% voting for him and 51% for Romney.

        By the way, I agree that if more progress is not made, the progress already made will be jeopardized.  I still fear that the austerity that President Obama bought into and sequestration will sap economic growth enough that even his strongest supporters will wane in their support.  I still think the financial giants who tanked our economy need to be held accountable.  Which is why it is important for a vibrant and independent liberalism to be around to keep the President honest, but more importantly to shape public opinion and debate.

        But at the same time I can't possibly deny reality and facts.  And based on those things, I find analyses such as the kind found in this diary to be not very in touch with the reality as I see it.

        "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

        by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:22:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think your analysis is good (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev

          but I think it is too short term. Although I don't see people of color going to the GOP even if the libertarians do reform the party some. I think what's likely is a three party situation on a regional basis. The Dems will be the only national party, really. In the more liberal areas it will be Dem vs Green and in the more conservative it will be Dem vs GOP. Neither party will have a broad enough national presence to challege the dems for the presidency but will be able to win in congress and the senate on a state by state basis.

          I expect a rise of the radical left as well. Anarchists more than socialists, mainly because of the way people are used to organizing things on the internet now and the role anarchist tactics have played in various social movements in the last few decades.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:29:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  While I may not always agree with radicals (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            on the left, I feel they are necessary and it is mutually profitable for liberals to maintain a dialogue with such radicals, and even ally with them on various issues or policies.

            Which is why I personally don't see why those on the left who may advocate for third parties are banned from this place.  I will certainly disagree with radicals on a number of things, but I also believe that the goal of "more and better Democrats" may benefit from a presence to the left to keep Democrats honest and push them to the left.

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:36:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The poor economy has everything (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, paradise50, Demeter Rising

          to do with Obama's loss of support from young voters.  Everything.  Unemployment rates are incredibly high among that age group and many are saddled with big student loans while trying to get by on food stamps and starvation wages, if they can get them.

          No, Obama is losing these young voters because he chose a conservative path for his economic policies.  It has hurt young voters more than any other group.

          They're not forgiving him and I don't blame them.  They're smart enough to know they were used and discarded.

          "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:34:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  His approval rating is 55% among (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            worldlotus, Jerry056, kitebro

            voters 18-29.  And that is undoubtedly much higher among young nonwhites.  As for "blaming" the self-avowed "grassroots Dems" such as yourself, don't worry, I won't, and never have.  Because frankly you and folks like you are not the Democratic base.  If you were, Obama would've lost last year.  But older, white liberals on Daily Kos are not very numerous, in fact most old white folks vote Republican anyway.  It's the young and nonwhite voters who Obama lives and dies with, and frankly your viewpoint isn't representative of their views.

            "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

            by puakev on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:16:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You may dislike older, white Democrats (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mama jo

              But, as a group, we're the ones who care about what happens to younger voters.  They may be stats to you, you may blithely overlook the problems they're facing.  But they're our children and we don't appreciate the way our party is treating and using them.

              If they don't want to declare themselves as Democrats, I can certainly understand why.  

              "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

              by Betty Pinson on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 12:02:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where'd I say I dislike them? (0+ / 0-)

                and why do you even think I don't like you?  You seem to like unvarnished opinions that don't mince words, so that's what I gave.  Nothing to do with like or dislike, just statements of what I see with my own eyes.  The facts are that older white folks generally vote Republican and 60% of white folks overall voted for Romney last year.  But Obama won anyway, because of overwhelming support from young people and especially nonwhites.  You were suggesting that somehow you were somehow representative of "grassroots Democrats" but it appears that most of such Democrats - the ones who organized and turned out to vote for Obama and Democrats last year - did not share your disposition towards the President.  Rather it seems as if you seem to have a problem with "the Obama organization" and "Obama supporters", who apparently consist of the vast majority of Democrats and self-described liberals, who you oddly claim don't live in the real world.  This is funny considering that some 60% of those who made less than $50,000 - by far the biggest chunk of voters in the electorate - voted for Obama last year.  Clearly such folks live in the real world.

                Again, I have nothing against you or older white Democrats.  But if you're going to assume that somehow you are representative of Obama's base or even most Democrats or liberals, then I must point out that such assumptions are based on little more than personal feeling on your part and are belies by facts and data.  

                Take care.

                "Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude." - Martin Van Buren

                by puakev on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 06:33:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Slow clap! (7+ / 0-)

      I don't think any party that has alienated non-white people has any real future.

      I was a libertarian when I was younger, but as a black woman that party made me feel more and more unwelcome year after year.

      And after moving to the city I started to see that government could work.

      I still have libertarian friends, but most of the non-racist ones turn liberal with age-- the racist ones... well I don't know I don
      't talk to them anymore.

      PS. I am from this "generation" that's often talked about. What I find most frustrating about my fellow older democrats is how unscientific that can be about cities and urban planning. A collation of mostly young liberals in NYC has been fighting hard for this issue but most of the older liberals just don't "get" it at all.

      That said there are a few older liberals who do and they have been key to some of the recent victories in the planning front.

    •  Yeah, he's talking about young white voters. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, puakev, paradise50

      Well, a subset of young white voters.

      And, you know, he may have a case there.

      But whites are only 57 percent of young voters these days and they're continuing to decline.

  •  Option C... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK

    Politically aware, but disinterested youth.  i don't see how they can be 'fooled' into thinking that the GOP really gives a shit about them either.  If they did, they wouldn't be bagging on homosexuality, voting to repeal Obamacare for the umpteenth time, or writing another omnibus abortion bill.  But I do agree that they are becoming really disillusioned with Democratic Party.

    'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

    by RichM on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 03:52:32 PM PDT

    •  Or radicalized leftists (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paradise50

      Which given the growing economic problems I can see a resurgence of radicals.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...and that sucks... (0+ / 0-)

        ...it takes a totally shitty economy to get radicals going.

        (what the hell is a radical anyway)...

        Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

        by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a bit of a myth (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence

          Although it's a myth that most leftists seem to believe. The last leftist resurgence happened during one of the greatest boom in our history, the 60s.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:23:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  YUP! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, mightymouse, worldlotus

    and i worry about the new FOX LATINO corruptive news stations.  they are poison for a new generation of immigrants.

    "A dollah makes me hollah"-- Stephen Colbert, pretending to be S. Palin

    by stagemom on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:04:24 PM PDT

  •  A brave post and well done (8+ / 0-)

    Libertarianism is an idea. And in a world of disintegration, which we currently face, not a practical one.

    But the idea is noble and not cynical at all. If I have to label myself, I'd say I'm a leftist-libertarian, which in the classical labels is a contradiction in terms.

    BUT, the point is both political parties are bankrupt ideologically and are both creatures of cynical predatory capitalism.

    As things get worse, as the economic fundamentals assure, something will fill the gap: extreme nationalism of the right wing or a return to libertarian principles a la the Founders.

    But what is sure is "business as usual" is doomed to fail.

    The Later it Gets, The Faster it Gets Late

    by Michael Alton Gottlieb on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:04:52 PM PDT

  •  can you hear me now? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, jamesia, worldlotus

    Nice post.

  •  Libertarian-Corporate Looting Rigid Class Stucture (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobinson, Grizzard, WheninRome, Icicle68

    Libertarianism has always been a fantasy funded by wealthy eccentrics looking for alternatives to the income tax.

    It's all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:14:52 PM PDT

  •  Lazy people always have an excuse not to vote. (0+ / 0-)

    There are Left Low-Information Voters just as there are on the Right.

    There are single and narrow issue(s) voters on Left and Right.

    There is a group of people who believe that their perspective alone is the one true that defines what is "Left" and what is "Right".

    Both the Left and the Right believes in an Imperial President. For the Right, it is mostly in foreign policy;for the Left it is mostly on domestic issues where such power is expected.

    Both the Left and the Right use outrage as a fundraising tool.

    Neither the Left nor the Right particularly cares about including people of color in the discussion unless it is to help them win elections.

    Both the Right with Libertarians and the Left with Anarchists have a Social Darwinism Wing.

    Homophobia and transphobia is found on both Left and Right.

    Both Left and Right have absolutists who would impose their absolutism on others.

    Forget "Democratic and "Republican", or "Liberal" and "Conservative". I am beginning to see very little difference between Left and Right in tone or willingness to hurt people they deem "others".

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:15:08 PM PDT

    •  Anarchism is far from social darwinism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      paradise50, ZhenRen

      So incredibly far.

      Neither the Left nor the Right particularly cares about including people of color in the discussion unless it is to help them win elections.
      That seems to be changing, thankfully. At least for the Dems, obviously.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:50:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No it's not-A classless/stateless society? Really? (0+ / 0-)

        No hierarchies? How is that enforced? No private property? How is that enforced?

        No laws, only mutually agreed upon, supposedly non-coercive agreements? Give me a break. Heck, they can't even agree upon what to do with pedophiles and murders and other predators except to blame it all on government.

        Make no mistake. No one has ever proposed a revolution without seeing themselves in power. Both Anarchists and Libertarians want to hold the power to control people and they want to undermine/eliminate the present form of government in order to make that happen for them.

        The end result is the same:people are left to fend for themselves with those with power and resources in control without any mediating institutions and that is Social Darwinism.

        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

        by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:32:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You need to read about the actual (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ukit, ZhenRen, Liberaltarian

          political philosophy and not just throw out your assumptions about it.

          Make no mistake. No one has ever proposed a revolution without seeing themselves in power. Both Anarchists and Libertarians want to hold the power to control people and they want to undermine/eliminate the present form of government in order to make that happen for them.
          That's factually untrue. Anarchists have most certainly done that, on more than one occasion. Spain is probably the best example. That's explicitly what anarcho-syndicalists argue for. You obviously don't think it's possible, but that's not what were talking about. We're talking about social darwinism, which is the opposite of anarchism, and in fact anarchism was in part a response to social darwinism. Mutual Aid lays out an explicit argument against social darwinism and is one of the earliest writings that espouses anarchism.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have read and base my conclusions based on those (0+ / 0-)

            ...readings as well as actually talking to  people who identify as anarchists.

            Perhaps you should read more and discover what happened in Spain?

            Perhaps you should also read my comments closer as I never claimed Anarchy=Social Darwinism. I said that it, and Libertarianism would eventually lead to Social Darwinism.

            As is usual with many Anarchists and Libertarians, when confronted with some very fundamental questions, the answer invariably leads to the conclusion that the questioner just needs more information.

            Again, I see nothing in either philosophy/system that suggests to me people now exploited would be any less exploited. I see nothing to suggest to me that the exercise of power isn't going to arbitrary and capricious. I see nothing to suggest how issues of tribalism (which predates capitalism) will be dealt with?

            As I said, when you ask some basic questions, answers are hard to come by. Real world scenarios are met with restatement of the underlying philosophy. I'm amazed that asking about trash removal could so perplex people. Or how to deal with human predators? Or what happens to those who do not believe in the revolution?

            I could go on, but I know it is pretty pointless this focusing on mundane details of modern life.

            The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

            by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:13:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you explicitly equated it with social darwinism (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ZhenRen, Liberaltarian

              In your comment and that is what I took issue with. Social Darwinism is the opposite of anarchism as a political position. And yes, I'm telling you about the philosophy because we were discussing the various philosophies. Anarchism is not social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief that the best people will inhabit the higher rungs of society because they are "more fit" in the evolutionary sense of fitness. You're equating that with the hobbesian "state of nature" which is incorrect. Anachism is not about social Darwinism and you most certainly did make that claim.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 07:33:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This isn't college debate club. I raised some (0+ / 0-)

                ...fundamental concerns. Concerns that you, in this third reply, still have not been able to address directly.

                For the record,Social Darwinism:

                : a sociological theory that sociocultural advance is the product of intergroup conflict and competition and the socially elite classes (as those possessing wealth and power) possess biological superiority in the struggle for existence

                And I find it curious you still refuse to understand the basic argument here that one starts out with one system that leads to an unintended (I'll give a benefit of the doubt) consequence.

                Anarchism is the cause; Social Darwinism is the eventual consequence. You've offered nothing to refute this except the same ol' "misinformed" deflection.

                There are no stronger safeguards inherent in Anarchism or Libertarianism against exploitation than the present systems we have. Exploitation breeds more exploitation which leads to the eventual extinction of groups. That is man's history and changing systems will not change the future.

                The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

                by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:23:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Social Darwinism requires a class system (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ZhenRen, Liberaltarian

                  so you think that there will always be a class system based on who's strongest without government(and then they'll start a new government). You are basically taking a hobbesian position that the state of nature is such that we all compete against everyone and we can't have social cooperation in a situation like that despite the fact that we did for hundreds of thousands of years. Government as we know it is a historical anomaly.

                  My problem here is that social darwinism makes moral claims, which is what I took issue with. Social darwinism is not just a sociological claim, it's a political stance that has a moral dimension. Social Darwinism is the claim that those people who are in charge should be in charge because they are more "fit" to be in charge due to evolutionary pressures. That has nothing to do with Anarchism, except in so far as anarchists have refuted the ideology.

                  You're conflating a Hobbesian state of nature and Social Darwinism. I understand that you think that anarchism wil lead to a really bad result, but that isn't Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a justification for the rule of upper classes based on evolutionary criteria. You're using it as a synonym for a bad situation where people don't have rights and such.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 08:43:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Obviously you aren't going to address what I (0+ / 0-)

                    ...actually said. I know colleges and Western literature train us to shoehorn everything into the thoughts of some dead European, but this isn't an essay about Hobbs.

                    One can be exploited within class just as easily from without. So save that deflection. Exploitation, as I have said repeatedly now, doesn't come from systems and philosophies,it comes from people. Human nature is going to be just that no matter what. So the question is how best to craft a society given human nature with a desire to see maximum prosperity for all people and the planet?

                    I gave you my definition of Social Darwinism, straight from the dictionary. That your response is to try and insist upon one, your, definition is quite telling. "So you think..." deflection is also symptomatic of people who just cannot defend their beliefs in an honest and straightforward fashion.

                    As I stated upfront, Anarchists and Libertarians sure hate to answer basic mundane questions the answers of which should just easily come to mind.

                    Funny thing this repeatedly allusion to Hobbs, how the hell you plan to convince the 99% of the planet who doesn't know who he is but raise the same questions as I have?

                    What's the message to the folks sitting on reservations while millions occupy their lands?

                    What's the message to people without clean water?

                    Again, who takes out the trash in this classless society?

                    Anyway, shame on me. If you are an anarchist, you don't believe in government yet here you are on DK a site dedicated to people who do believe in the collective power of the self governed. So your mission here isn't to convince but to find the weak minded and try to exploit them. See how class can exploit class?

                    Finally, I think the great band NOFX sums it up nicely.

                    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

                    by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:35:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you're talking about Social Darwinism then (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ZhenRen, Liberaltarian

                      you're talking abiout dead white dudes. It was created by and for dead white dudes. You clearly want to attack me more than you want to have a conversation about social darwinism. That's fine.

                      What's the message to the folks sitting on reservations while millions occupy their lands?
                      Really, you want to know what Anarchism has to say about the ongoing genocide of native people via the government? Well, I'd start with taking action to suport blockades when they feel the need to uild blockades. And I'd note that all of the attacks and the genocide of tha American indians was state sponsored. If it wasn't thearmy doing it then it was the government telling people they owned some land in the middle of indian territory and then supporting their "land rights".
                      Again, who takes out the trash in this classless society?
                      The people who make it. And we organize so as to have as little trash as possible. None outside of human waste if possible. Who do you think deserve to be in the class that picks up the trash? Why do we ned a class to pick up trash? How about this. The anarchists will pick up trash. The people who really want a world that isn't based on violence will pick up the trash.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:02:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Still do not acknowledge exploitation. (0+ / 0-)

                        So what happens if people do not wish to take out trash but also have large families? Will the "nonstate" intervene and if so, on what and whose authority? And if no such authority has been promulgated, how do we ensure arbitrary and/or power-seeking violence isn't incited?

                        Human nature is complex after all.

                        Interesting that the answer to aboriginal people isn't that we leave, but blockades! Yes, we keep the land and all it's resources. Exploitation.

                        Let the record reflect that it took five tries just to get a half-assed answer about how to handle trash.

                        As I said, since you don't believe in government, why are you here at DK a site dedicated to improving it? It is a simple question you should be able to answer straightforwardly.

                        The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

                        by sebastianguy99 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 10:54:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Liberaltarian

                          Rubbish collection and other necessary services would continue in an anarchist society, but workers will collectively manage the operation. In the same way that people in any society want to have a clean and sanitary environment, so would people in an anarchist society.

                          The authority comes from the people, locally from the bottom up, rather than top down from a distant central government.

                          Rubbish collection is a problem in capitalistic society, and there is illegal dumping, not only by individuals but also by industry, and environmentally toxic, hazardous substances are discharged into waterways, oceans, rivers.

                          In an anarchist society, with profiteering eliminated, the incentive to get rid of toxic waste illegally would be removed. Organizations would be set up to deal with such issues. And everyone involved will be paid well for the effort. And with profiteering out of the way, there would also be less incentive to use toxic substances if there were alternatives.

                          And the same applies to other services. Life would go on, but would be worker manged. Authority would exist, but only that which could be justified. The authority would reside collectively in the people who would work together to self-manage their own lives.

                          We would have a far cleaner environment with this approach than we do in the current system.

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:26:32 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  You're misunderstanding... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Liberaltarian
                          And if no such authority has been promulgated, how do we ensure arbitrary and/or power-seeking violence isn't incited?
                          The communities and individuals have a right to self defense. Attempts by individuals or groups to use unwarranted authority over others would be defended against. Thus, those who would try to take over with force would be prevented from doing so.

                          No one has the authority to enslave others through exclusive domination of the means of production, or to declare public resources to be under sole ownership. Those who would attempt to do that would be stopped. It isn't abuse of authority to defend against these forms of authoritarian exploitation.

                          As to crime in anarchist society, here's a start in understanding possible anarchist approaches.

                          http://anarchy101.org/...

                          There is no one, single, agreed upon way to solve problems in anarchist society, and thus there has been a lot of discussion of this topic. But suffice to say the methods would be far different from our current system.

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:57:09 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  So you just (0+ / 0-)

                        rely on everyone to pick up their own trash, or to pick up other people's trash?

                        What if there aren't enough people in that area who feel like doing that?

                    •  Oh my... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Liberaltarian
                      If you are an anarchist, you don't believe in government yet here you are on DK a site dedicated to people who do believe in the collective power of the self governed. So your mission here isn't to convince but to find the weak minded and try to exploit them. See how class can exploit class?
                      If only our system really were "the collective power of the self-governed," and was actually done in such a manner that truly is self-government by the people, instead of this faux system of "representational democracy" in which mostly wealthy people are groomed to run for office by one of two parties, and once in office can "govern" over the public as they please, usually completely ignoring mandates by the public, and almost impossible to recall, and once established, often go on for decades, winning future elections due to sheer name recognition and through the use of extremely expensive "campaigns" (elaborate selling of name brands using truckloads of propaganda and lies).

                      Your definition of "collective self-government" could almost serve as a definition of anarchism, if it were truly based on direct democracy on a local level, with worker groups and community assemblies organizing bottom up, and horizontally, rather than vertically, self-managing their own local participatory communities and workplaces with each person having an equal voice.

                      Anarchism is not disorganization, it is just a different way of organizing using egalitarian principles. Anarchist communities can form agreements, and through these agreements, they directly manage their own lives, rather than have some "elected" official dictate to them from on high how to live.

                      Oh, and this "trash" thing you seem to think is so clever as an argument: First of all, if everyone is making the same income, it won't matter if you're a college profesor or a garbage collector in terms of access to housing, food, health care, and retirement benefits. Some people might not mind working a few hours per day collecting the trash. Another option is rotating people to do the most unpleasant work, with each person who is able to occasionally put in time doing such work. The beauty of anarchism is there is no single approach, and communities can work out their own solutions.

                      Once profit is eliminated, and along with it all the parasitic middlemen, the wholesalers, the retailers, each level adding more and more to the basic cost of production, so that by the time products reach the consumer they cost ten or twenty times the actual costs of production, enormous savings will be realized. And more people will be available to do the necessary labor, since they will be freed from all of the selling, and other exploitative forms of earning a living, and thus it is certainly possible with this system to reduce average workday to 4 or 5 hours, which would make some of the less attractive work far more tolerable.

                      And with more time off after the work shift to do other activities in the day, such as pursue education, artistic interests, science, etc., most people will see a large improvement in standard of living, no matter what they do for work. Not to mention longer vacations, and access to resorts once only enjoyed by the wealthy.

                      With all of these quality of life improvements, I don't think we will have a problem getting people to provide trash collection. ;)

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:31:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)
                  There are no stronger safeguards inherent in Anarchism or Libertarianism against exploitation than the present systems we have.
                  You obviously know next to nothing about the topic of anarchism.

                  In capitalism, the exploitation of workers is systemic, built directly into the structure. Capitalism is by nature fundamentally exploitative.

                  Anarchism removes these systemic forms of exploitation by eliminating the hierarchical leadership structure, opting for horizontal participatory communities, creating a level playing field.

                  It also removes the primary form of exploitation, wage slavery, by eliminating private ownership of the means of production. Workplaces would be worker managed and owned, with direct democracy in which workers would democratically self-manage their own industries.

                  Local community assemblies, which in turn would form federations with other assemblies, would serve to keep the communities functioning through self-management. These groups, completely accessible and open to everyone in the community to join with equal participation, would deal with any threats to undermine the egalitarian social arrangement. The last resort would be the use of trained militias which could be deployed if necessary to answer any organized threat to democracy.

                  Instead of elected officials who are prone to corruption and power grabbing, anarchist General Assemblies would appoint, democratically, delegates to be sent to anarchist federations, and the delegates have no autocratic power of their own, but rather serve at the will of the people, and are mandated and recallable, which means that the General Assemblies who delegate them instruct them in terms of policy, and if the delegates attempt to stray from their mandates, they are subject to immediate recall and replacement, since they have no immutable authority of their own, but are subject to the people of the community.

                  Thus, the typically rich, corrupt, public official in capitalism who is owned by the wealthy class would not exist. The elitist, top-down, central government would not exist, but would be replaced by bottom-up people's assemblies.

                  And anyone appointed to key positions who would try to usurp authority unto themselves would be easily replaced. They would have no police subject to their personal command, no armies of guard under their exclusive control, no power structure under their authority, since all power and authority resides in the people, collectively shared through the existence of general assemblies and other small scale worker's groups.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:49:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberaltarian
          Both the Right with Libertarians and the Left with Anarchists have a Social Darwinism Wing.
          Social Darwinism is a vertical society based on individual competition in which one is expected to engage in economic warfare with one's neighbors.

          Anarchism is a horizontal society in which each person has a voice in determining how his or her life is lived, and how his or her community is organized. Ayn Rand would not approve.

          No hierarchies? How is that enforced? No private property? How is that enforced?
          Anarchists tend to view attempts to oppress people (with private ownership of the means of production and the resulting wage slavery, unwarranted authority, and other exploitative behaviors) to be aggression. And thus, it is justified to oppose that aggression using methods of self defense. Militias would exist which could be mobilized if authoritarian insurgents tried to restore capitalism. It isn't exactly true that no authority exists in anarchist societies, only that the authority is based collectively in the communities, and no one is given the sole authority to rule over the rest. Delegates to networks and federations would be recallable immediately, and they would be instructed with mandates which they would be required to implement, or face recall.
          No one has ever proposed a revolution without seeing themselves in power. Both Anarchists and Libertarians want to hold the power to control people and they want to undermine/eliminate the present form of government in order to make that happen for them.
          Of course revolutions are about power, and who holds it. In anarchism, power is collectively shared, with no central state authority, separate and above the people, dictating the course of their lives with impunity. Instead, people self manage their own communities and workplaces. And eliminating undemocratic and authoritarian power structures is considered an act of self defense, since no one has the right to take control over the people, depriving them of the right to live freely, through collective self-management. Thus, it isn't about "controlling" people, but allowing them to control themselves, which anarchists view as a fundamental right.

          Restoring to people the right to determine the course of their own lives, in collective self "government" of all aspects of managing the community is NOT oppressively depriving anyone of any deserved authority, but rather the opposite. The only persons not satisfied with the arrangement would be people who want to enjoy wealth directly at the expense of others, through private control of the means of production, and thus rendering people to be exploited wages slaves.

          Thus, capitalism is not a "freedom" or a justifiable form of authority. Anarchists want to give power back to workers, rather than set up a new state to control them. To say that revolutionaries crave power the same as any capitalist authoritarian dictator is a false equivalency, as if capitalistic enslavement of workers is morally equivalent to liberating workers from slavery. That's nonsense, of course.

          The end result is the same:people are left to fend for themselves with those with power and resources in control without any mediating institutions and that is Social Darwinism.
          No, the end result is an egalitarian society, based on economic equality and horizontal self-management, in which each person has a direct voice, and in which no one has unjustified authority over another, with participatory communities collectively in control over resources, and social organizations such as general assemblies and worker co-ops which are completely accessible to every individual to directly participate in community management. Such a society would be far more democratic and would give authority and power to each person to share, and social Darwinism would finally be eliminated as a systemic, built-in horror of daily life, as it clearly is in our present social structure.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:36:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know about libertarian specifically, (10+ / 0-)

    but we do face the problem that more voters are moving away from either party.  I attribute that to plutocratic design, but however one construes it, we really have a major problem with the rule by corporatocry.

    As a side note, I was just looking at quantcast rankings for liberal and progressive sites.

    As an example, Alternet has doubled, much since the beginning of the year, and with a large number of younger viewers.  The site's not libertarian but it is less partisan.

    There's nothing so destructive to progressive or liberal activism as betrayal of the hope and optimism that is created for short term electoral victory and then dashed by behavior, both in selective actions and inactions.

    I can't in my wildest dreams, or nightmares perhaps is most accurate, imagine how any decent citizen could vote for almost any Republican today.  But I'm afraid that in a time of turmoil, with an even greater degree of propaganda than after 9/11, and more people dropping out
    of the political process even to the point of voting, it's quite possible we will end up with a Republican gain in 2014 and even 2016.

    The reason that this would be especially devastating is that with the current Republican plans for the nation they would have and use a mandate mercilessly on the people.

    But there's no way that I or others here or hundreds of thousands of dedicated people can save our elected politicians from themselves short of forcing people at gunpoint to the polls.  Which absurdity is only semi-snarky in today's politically embedded insanity.

    More matter, with less art. Hamlet, 2. 2

    by blueoasis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:18:40 PM PDT

    •  The repulsiveness of the GOP is not guaranteed. (5+ / 0-)
      I can't in my wildest dreams, or nightmares perhaps is most accurate, imagine how any decent citizen could vote for almost any Republican today.
      Almost any Republican, yes. But the libertarian-leaning Republicans may be an exception. I know some smart, generally liberal-minded people who voted for Ron Paul. They did so because they were attracted to his message of more civil liberties and less military interventionism.

      Yes, the current mainstream of the GOP seems repulsive to many, many people. However, they still get the votes of approximately half of Americans. Just imagine how big of a victory they could achieve if they got rid of the gay bashing, the anti-woman rhetoric, the racist undertones, and the religious fanaticism? We have to keep in mind that most of the Republicans who support that kind of repulsive stuff are getting old. They will be dying off. The younger generation of Republicans are mostly libertarian-leaning or at least less oriented toward conservative social issues. Eventually they could take over the party.

      If that happens, and the Democratic Party remains unchanged, which party do you think would have the electoral advantage? I think it would be a clear advantage for the GOP, despite their advocacy of tax cuts for the rich and reduced regulations on business.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:31:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarianism has zero traction in America (7+ / 0-)

        The right in this country is authoritarian and will once again drop any libertarian rhetoric they might have now once a Republican is back in the White House.

        The left is currently animated by economic inequality and fairness, especially the youth. Why would they turn towards capitalism on steroids which is what libertarianism is?

        I don't see how the "I'm disapointed in Obama" turns into "I'm now a libertarian".

        •  Here's how: (5+ / 0-)

          As I wrote in the diary,

          after Obama, they simply no longer believe that it is even possible in America today for the federal government to do good, rather than all the bad things it's doing. Once people come to that belief, they naturally decide "screw government!" and they start voting for Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and other exponents of the philosophy that government doesn't work and therefore it should be cut to the bone.
          The way people can turn from liberal to libertarian is if they decide that a bigger government is a government that does more things that they don't like, rather than the things they would like it to do.

          I think the risk is clear.

          The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

          by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:11:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just like the Democrats dropped (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, deep info

          their rhetoric about civil liberties.

          This is the problem.

          The difference is that libertarians are specifically organized around that one issue. If one of them gets elected and then drops the ball then their done forever as a political group. But if they don't drop the ball on scaling back the military and protecting civil liberties then they might peel off some people.

          Mostly white though, so it isn't going to benefit the GOP in the long run.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:51:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh certainly. (5+ / 0-)

        I made several observations and perhaps didn't develop or state this concern so clearly.

        The last election proved the danger that we face.  At first I was so happy that Obama had a decisive victory that the fact that Romney's messages, addled as they were at times, were essentially nihilistic and the whole campaign inept, but that he got 47% of the vote, is just flat out scary.

        I think the greatest danger the Democratic Party faces is self-destruction.

        More matter, with less art. Hamlet, 2. 2

        by blueoasis on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:51:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Those folks you know who voted (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, worldlotus

        Paul,are they aware how much libertarian = crony capitalism  Do they know stuff like this for example? (btw,the entire article is worth the read)

        Honestly, though, I’m being unfair in singling out Michael Arrington here. Really the only remarkable thing about his involvement with CIA-friendly big data companies is his hypocrisy in attacking those Valley luminaries who won’t admit to exactly the kind of spying his portfolio companies help facilitate. (In the hypocrisy stakes, though, Arrington comes a distant second to Ron Paul who this week told Fox Business, “I’m worried about, somebody in our government might kill [Edward Snowden] with a cruise missile or a drone missile,” after Snowden exposed the mass government surveillance facilitated by companies like Palantir. Last year Ron Paul received over $2.5 million in donations from his biggest single donor… Palantir’s Peter Thiel)  http://pandodaily.com/...  
        Or do these voters,cynical and disgusted by Dems,just believe without further investigation? I know some libertarians are willing to overlook racism,loss of women's rights etc. but are they also willing to overlook crony capitalism and the un-checked growth of the Surveillance State?
        I agree with you that the Democrats in power who consistently embrace policies to the right of the constituency who voted for them (which is almost all of them),are ultimately a destructive force. Destructive both policy-wise and politically to the Democratic Party. Growing cynicism that keeps people from bothering to vote at all,or simply looking to vote different,is a huge Democratic Party problem. The world is becoming more transparent,not less so,no matter how the status quo wants to corral information. Voters are beginning to demand more authenticity and accountability from their government. If govt. won't deliver,then what is to be done?
        Now that is a question that,historically,has prompted all sorts of responses.Not all of them thoughtful.
        Very good diary,T&R'd.  

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:16:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarian = I'll go ahead and vote REpublican (7+ / 0-)

    I never met a Libertarian who wasn't really a Republican who didn't want to be called a Republican.

    •  ...spot on...they are uber Republicans... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma

      ...except the "new" young ones who don't understand anything about government and think it's always "the man" and they don't want "the man" in their business (who would?)...

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

      by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:00:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that's the running joke (0+ / 0-)

      What do you call a republican who smokes pot?

      A libertarian.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:59:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And what Obama's doing isn't cynical? (11+ / 0-)

    It's profoundly cynical, this congenital if not strategic aversion to risk and confrontation lest the upper crust of the Democratic party suffer any pain and sacrifice and have to give up its perks and prerogatives, no matter what the consequences to the people who put them in office.

    "Change you can believe in"
    Has become
    "Change that I and my Dem, MIC, national security, Wall St. and big oil buddies can afford and won't mind terribly much"
    Translation:
    What, you actually took my pretty speeches seriously? Punk'd ya!

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:26:30 PM PDT

    •  I don't think many of us were that naive. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, worldlotus, Beetwasher

      I never expected Obama to be much more liberal than Bubba was. Anyone who did was fooling themselves.

      I'm just glad he got elected and not the other guy.

      The presidents we elect in the next 30 years will be even better than Obama.

      •  What makes you so sure? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        The country seems to be happiest with whoever says the most pleasing sweet nothings in their ears at the moment. McCain & Romney never stood a chance on this count. Not saying they would have been better, of course, but the next guy or gal will almost certainly be the one who puts on the most believable impersonation of someone you'd want to have a beer with.

        We are a stupid nation, indisputably.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:30:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think this is a stupid nation. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lawrence, worldlotus, Jerry056, Beetwasher

          No more so than any other we have stupid people, and our own brands of home grown stupidity, but the US is a pretty good country as far as countries go.

          I feel that the people who feel BETRAYED by Obama make a lot of noise. Most young liberals are more pragmatic than that-- we have not yet had a main-line candidate who is truly liberal.

          The rest are more comfortable with Obama's being rather moderate-- that's why he won the election.

          •  We elected Bush--twice (4+ / 0-)

            And Reagan before him--twice.

            We elected a congress that impeached a president over a blow job. And then we reelected them--more than twice.

            QED.

            And Obama won reelection because Romney was an unlikable asshole rich bastard and Obama's not, not because Obama's a moderate. In actuality both men's policies are not that different. Not in words, in actuality.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:50:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No, Robert Kuttner is wrong (5+ / 0-)

    Democrats are NOT as corrupt as Republicans (unless you're talking about in Chicago and Detroit).

    Let's see.  He forgot to mention Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson.  All are not corrupt and fighters.  Oh and I also forgot Ron Wyden.

    Seriously, this article is another reason why Democrats (and even people on Daily Kos) better not sit on their asses and twiddle their thumbs in 2014.  I'm fired up and ready to go to get the House back for Nancy Pelosi and get her back her damn gavel!

    Who wants her badly to get her gavel?

    •  I don't (7+ / 0-)

      I think it's time for new blood.  Pelosi had her moment on stage.  It's time to give the gavel to someone new.  Someone with fresh ideas and who didn't think taking Bush impeachment off the table was a good move.  

      It's time to look to the future and not the past for leadership.  

      •  Agree with you 100%! (5+ / 0-)

        We need new blood; we need NEW ideas that are not derived from neo-liberal thank tanks and advisers.  Your comment is spot on as far as I'm concerned!  The Democratic Party as it now stands is going to lose in 2014 if there are not major changes made NOW.  And I don't see that happening----the leadership and too many of the politicians are merely preserving the status quo----which may be fine for them and their corporate owners, but they've screwed the hell out of the 99%.  Surely these people have proven that they are incapable of governing.  They need to be replaced and people of integrity, vision, and courage brought in to replace them.  In all my years, I've NEVER seen an entire Congress as corrupt, inept, and worthless as the current one.

        "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

        by 3goldens on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:24:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats are not going to lose in 2014 (0+ / 0-)

          Are you kidding me?  With all the GOP is doing to continue to hit itself in the foot and with its incompetent RNC Chairman (not to mention the gun control issue), I think the Democrats should win plenty of seats in 2014.  I'm really not buying any notion we'll lose in 2014.

          Now we can win more seats in the House.  On the other hand, we need to overturn Citizens United as well.

          •  Remember, Republicans are out of power (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BroadwayBaby1, 3goldens

            It's much harder for them to shoot themselves in the foot when they are out of power.

            •  Out of power? (0+ / 0-)

              Well, they only have power in the House.  We defeat the GOP in the House, they have no power, not while Reince Priebus is RNC Chair.

              I think the GOP will continue to shoot themselves in the foot in the years to come, whether they're in power or not.  They are doing worse damage to themselves than even the Democrats did to themselves in 2010.  It also doesn't help that the demographics nation wide really don't favor the GOP.

          •  No, I'm really not kidding you. (0+ / 0-)

            I hope that you are right----I'd much rather be wrong.  But, I think that there is very strong disenchantment with the Democratic Party here in WI as well as at the national level.  This does not mean people will vote Republican----most people view them as either brass-knuckle authoritarians (as here in WI) or as utter loons.  But, there is a lot of distrust.  It's going to be a real job to get people to turn out and vote.  The level of disgust with both parties is palpable and threatening that "if you don't vote the Republicans will get in and they're worse!" is not going to motivate people.  They're sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  But, things can change and I hope they do.

            "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

            by 3goldens on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 09:57:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  WI is a different story (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              But what people need is proper information and arguments.  Unfortunately, we have too much pundits and people using talking points.

              Democrats HAVE to make the case that the Tea Party is making the economic recovery worse.  

      •  Right but let's first win back the House in 2014 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1

        We'll worry about Nancy Pelosi later.

    •  So that's seven Senators. (0+ / 0-)

      I know there are more good Democrats in the House (lots more).

      But seriously, seven Senators?

  •  Instead of giving dire Cassandra-like warnings (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, worldlotus, deep info

    How about you put some effort into figuring out a way to sell the youth on the benefits of complete government intrusion into their lives and how much the President personally cares about each one of them.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:42:30 PM PDT

  •  Young voters are no longer white voters. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, worldlotus

    So, you know, I don't think they're going to be voting Repub any time soon.

  •  Lost in '90's, the DLC and Clintonian paradigm... (11+ / 0-)

    small change on social issues while cutting the money out of social programs, "welfare to work," "educational accountability," and "harnessing the free market for climate and health reform," the "new economy," all this neoliberal rhetoric and framing the issue away from government spending to change social ills, that's the Democratic Party of today. Supporting this Party without demanding that it change to reflect the needs of the people, as most "pragmatists," that always argue against change by expressing sentiments like, "the President has to deal with the system as he finds it," is Party suicide.

    The demographics that are sure to destroy the Republicans in national elections will also work against the Democrats if we lose the next generation, and we are busy losing the next generation with our "centrist" President and the national Party leadership that is following him. The diarist may not be correct about the move to Libertarianism; however, he is absolutely correct in his assessment of the drift away from both established political parties.

    This latest round of disclosures about the national security state, a phrase I thought would be history after the repudiation of the Bush Administration, has really hit the current generation right where they live, on line.

    Being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," is a recipe for appeasing voters that no longer exist, "Reagan Democrats," that generation is passing and should have less impact on Democratic Party thinking; however, most of the Democratic Party leadership is still stuck in that generational paradigm. "Never again," they say, "we won't be ambushed on the Right ever again," but instead of realizing that Reagan was a reaction, not the new normal, they have thrown the baby out with the bath water in remaking the Democratic Party into Republican Lite. In the process of rebranding, we have become what we beheld, a party championing cuts to Social Security and Medicare/MedicAid as a "Grand Bargain," a Party cosying up to bankers, big Pharma, Big Data, privatization as a remedy to public policy, and a big supporter of expanding the security state and toadying to the "MIC" in a way that would have made Barry Goldwater blush. In what ways are we different than establishment Republicans on fiscal policy and the direction of government on spending to bring about social reform? You think the new generation can't see this? If Democrat is to mean champion of the working people of the country, their children and parents, then we need some real reform within the Party now, before, as this diarist strongly points out, it's too late.

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 04:55:30 PM PDT

    •  ...couldn't agree more... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      worldlotus

      ...so here's where the fucking rubber meets the fucking road ---> what do you propose we do?...

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

      by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:04:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I propose we stop playing Blue Team vs Red Team (7+ / 0-)

        politics and actively commit to changing the Democratic Party from the bottom up. Stand up to the "pragmatists" at every level from Democratic Clubs to County Committees, not all of us can run for public office, but we can identify and support candidates that hold with our ideas. Stop running Rahm Emmanuels' and Dianne Feinsteins' because we "have to win in order to govern," start thinking strategically, as the Republicans did in the "70s after Nixon, and build a Party that actually reflects the needs of our constituents not the needs of our funders'. In fact, stop thinking about funding as the be all and end all of politics and start thinking about crafting a Party that can be competitive without Billions of dollars from corporations, a Party built on connecting to people, not connecting to money. This starts at the neighborhood level, whether your neighborhood is on Facebook or at the local coffee shop, it is time to work on building a real community based Party, because that's the only way numbers trump money.

        "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

        by KJG52 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:21:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Libertarianism? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradise50, doroma, pigpaste

    Maybe if there were some shining example of how well libertarianism actually works I wouldn't think it was a sick joke.


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:01:13 PM PDT

  •  I think the Democratic party (6+ / 0-)

    I think the Democratic party has been living on the fantasy all they have to do is sit back and let demographics do the job.  

    IMO, many people voted Democratic in 2012 for a Democratic party that no longer exists.  People voted for the Democratic party of FDR and not the Democratic party of today which bears no resemblance to the FDR party.  

    Democrats need to stop living on past glories and pretending everything is in the bag because of demographics.  

    The voter of the future will have the same worries about jobs, education, healthcare, and the environment voters have today.  If the Democratic party can't ease those worries, another party will.  

    And, frankly, if the Democratic party can't ease those worries, why do they deserve anyone's vote?  

    •  ...sound great! What party will ease these?... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma
      If the Democratic party can't ease those worries, another party will.  

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

      by paradise50 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:06:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I could predict the future (0+ / 0-)

        If I could predict the future, I'd be picking the next power ball numbers.

        In other words, I have no idea.

        I do know one thing:  Political winds change and people will look to what suits them.  

      •  Political parties have always evolved (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1, WheninRome, deep info

        over time in this country.  Don't ever assume that the Democratic Party cannot be abandoned or changed into something very different from what it looks like today.  There could be either a totally new party----Democratic Socialist, for example----that would attract Labor and Progressive Liberals and many others who believe that the current Democratic Party no longer represents their interests.  I know of a lot of Independents who have leaned Democratic for years, but no longer respect it or what it stands for.  They won't vote for Republicans, who they consider utterly insane, but IF a new Party came along that appealed to them, they're ready, willing, and able to find a new Party.  

        Don't ever think, also, that the Democratic Party could not bleed so many folks who have been loyal to it for years, that it could continue to exist for a brief period of time but would eventually fade because it could no longer attract enough of a base of voters.  How do you think the Republican Party became powerful?  When LBJ took the Dems towards civil rights, racist Southern Democrats joined the Republican Party----that's why so many southern states are to this day Republican strongholds.

        "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

        by 3goldens on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:13:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not only Independents (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens
          I know of a lot of Independents who have leaned Democratic for years, but no longer respect it or what it stands for.  They won't vote for Republicans, who they consider utterly insane, but IF a new Party came along that appealed to them, they're ready, willing, and able to find a new Party.  
          A lot of longtime Democrats feel this way.  I'm one of them.  For me, support for the Democratic party is down to one issue:  the 5th Supreme Court vote to uphold Roe v Wade.  

          When that goes, I'll be like millions of other Democrats.  I'll look around and vote my interests.  

          •  I hear you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BroadwayBaby1

            My vote for Democrats is no longer a given.  I have never voted Republican and never will.  But I'm not handing my vote automatically ever again to Dems.  The in-state Dems I will vote for; outside of that, I intend to weigh my choices very carefully.

            "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." - from the prophet Jeremiah

            by 3goldens on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:00:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  A party not yet in existence, perhaps. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1

        In 1850, these was no party which would ease the worries of the people who opposed the "Slave Power".  Well, there were some minor parties, but they seemed to have no chance.

        The Republican Party was organized only a few years before Lincoln was elected President.

  •  Other issues... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, worldlotus

    Young people are not a monolith, this generation is the most diverse ever and the one that follows will take it further.

    Just as important as these failures are the issues were young and old people do not see eye to eye:

    1. PRIVACY. Young people live online, privacy has a very different meaning and different significance. We are very protective of online freedoms-- but at the same time listing to people muddle through the way networks work is really frustrating.  I don't think your average young person cares as much about the privacy of metadata, but she might care MORE about the privacy of email contents. Older people tend to conflate the two and on my facebook everyone is complaining about it. "MOM says the NSA is reading her SpaceBook LOL"

    2. CITIES. A lot of politically active young people live in them and suburbs are not on the menu, not even after having kids. Most people will still live in suburbs, but urban issues are big.

    3. OBAMA. Most people know he isn't a magical unicorn. This isn't really a big problem. But the next elections will need better candidates who are able to be more firmly liberal. That's true.

  •  Absolutely Correct /eom (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:10:15 PM PDT

  •  Libertarianism = giving up (5+ / 0-)

    On government and society.  Lord of the Flies as public policy.

    http://www.buonoforgovernor.com/

    by Paleo on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:11:52 PM PDT

  •  Ironically as long as Republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    keep advocating for insane a majority of voters will vote for the Dems, however reluctantly. Republicans going completely off the rail has basically allowed Democrats to present themselves as defenders of the status quo and get rewarded from the electorate because people are deathly afraid of losing what little they have if Republicans get in.

     I think Obama has incrementally moved this country leftward and away from the "Greed is good, government is bad" Reagan years but I also acknowledge that Obama and the party has been more timid then I like partly because they can basically win elections now by saying "were not crazy Republicans".

    •  That's what they said in the 1850s. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK

      Whigs and Democrats!  Your only options!

      And it was true, until it wasn't true.

      One possibility is that New Dealers manage to take over the Democratic Party again.

      Another is that the authoritarian right wingers successfully throw the New Dealers out of the Democratic Party, or the New Dealers of the Democratic Party give up in disgust, and all the New Dealers end up in a different party.

      I don't really care which happens; I'll support the New Dealers whereever they go.  Markos thought that the party takeover was easier, but there's a lot of evidence that he may be wrong.  The Democratic Party brand was poisoned by Obama's betrayals.

  •  all according to plan, don't you think? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  the illusion of choice (6+ / 0-)

    I was pretty shocked to see Obama right next to Mitt Romney on the political compass graph.

    It's worth noting how much Obama moved from center right to closer to the upper right from 2008 to 2012 elections.

    2008 Presidential Election

    2012 Presidential Election

    (I'm down in the lower left section, which is where I would have thought the Democratic Party would be, but no, it isn't. FWIW, the lower left is also where Ghandi and Nelson Mandela are as well. See here (and scroll down) for other international leaders, etc: Political Compass Analysis)

    "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

    by solesse413 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:20:16 PM PDT

  •  Officeholding is all about fundraising nowadays (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK

    Unless we have serious campaign finance reform, I can't ever see Congress ever enacting the will of the people again. Even the Libertarians know that the will of the people will get you into office, but won't keep you there.

    "Oh if a man tried To take his time on Earth And prove before he died What one man's life could be worth I wonder what would happen to this world" - Harry Chapin

    by macleme on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:21:26 PM PDT

  •  Loved reading this (9+ / 0-)

    I'm 20, I got my first chance to vote in the nationals last November. I voted for BHO.

    It was not easy for me to do so. I explored third-party candidates, and was particularly fond of Socialist Party's Stewart Alexander.

    My political views have been greatly influenced by the Obama presidency. While I have appreciated many aspects of it--getting rid of DADT, the end of the Mexico City laws, the PPACA, the Consumer Protection Act, etc.--I have been greatly disillusioned by the continuation of aggressive militarism, invasion of privacy and many of the other issues that have been highlighted as of late.

    Voting for BHO, I fully realized that he was a centrist and likely to not accomplish many of his campaign promises. To me, that in and of itself was not so difficult to accept. I figured "well, he's a politician, so duh. He's not going to be able to fulfill every little thing he chimes about. So it goes."

    However, I do not consider myself part of the left-libertarian contingency. I don't think one needs to label oneself as "libertarian" to recognize the blatant abuse of power in the current administration fed by the various shadowy influences of big money. I think my political philosophy most closely resembles democratic socialism--but that's for a different comment.

    I do not consider myself so cynical as to jump ship on the Democratic Party altogether--I rather like my Representative, Suzanne Bonamici (D, OR-1) and my senators, Merkley and Wyden.

    While I believe it is healthy to be somewhat skeptical, the cynicism that has consumed the pages of this website and other left-leaning websites I peruse is totally counterproductive. To a young, optimistic guy like me, it sounds like "Obama's a traitor, the Dems are all sellouts, all hope is lost, let's just f*cking kill ourselves"...

    Tipped and rec'd for bringing awareness to this issue, thank you very much. Hope to see more of this kind of material in the near future!

    "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

    by punkRockLiberal on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:22:44 PM PDT

    •  Thank you! As for optimism vs. cynicism, (5+ / 0-)

      I can see the arguments of both sides.

      Optimistically, there may be enough people who haven't totally given up on politics yet that it could still be possible to move the Democratic Party to the left, much like how the Tea Party succeeded in moving the GOP to the right. To do so would require young people like yourself to get involved in local Democratic politics and try to rock the boat.

      On the other hand, it may be that the Obama presidency was sort of the "last gasp" for the idea that the United States of America could have a government "of, by, and for the people." With the continuation of the corporate/militarist agenda under Obama, and the fact that he is seen as a "liberal" (LOL!), it may be that real liberalism is now actually outside the window of possibility for who can get elected to high office in America. If so, that would mean that American democracy, at the national level, is effectively dead, since most Americans agree with liberal policies on many issues, yet never see those policies enacted into law, no matter which party is in power.

      If the pessimistic scenario is correct, then the focus should shift entirely to gaining control of the governments in certain states and localities, where it would be possible to implement liberal policies, and resigning ourselves that the American national government will just be a cesspool of corruption and special benefits for military/security contractors with little benefit to ordinary people. It would basically be a liberal version of "states' rights" philosophy, in which liberals would acquiesce to the conservative philosophy of local control, so that we could at least implement our preferred policies in some parts of the country while the rest of the country rots.

      I don't know which scenario is correct, but I think these are the possibilities we need to be thinking about and discussing.

      The most serious problem in American politics today is that people with wrong ideas are uncompromising, and people with good ideas are submissive and unwilling to fight. Change that, and we might have a real democracy again.

      by Eric Stetson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:40:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good food for thought. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, k88dad, Lawrence, worldlotus, jrooth

        I think that broadly, the winds of time are favoring "liberalism", or at least more left than before. Politicians, regardless of party, are eventually going to have a real hard time getting folks to vote for them if they keep up the current model. Fundamentally, I believe government can only be as good as its constituents want it to be; hence why I think that "libertarianism", at least in the context of the modern political dialogue, is highly destructive--i.e. those young folks who are disillusioned to the extent of not voting or voting for idiots like Ron Paul.

        Short term, political outcomes our fairly predictable. Not super predictable, but pretty predictable. But do we know what's going to happen, 20, 30, 100 years out? Probably not! "Dystopian masturbation" is really popular now on the left and right, for various contributing reasons. Personally, I find it laughable. Things are bad and they could get worse, but to assume that it's all going down the tubes is a bit overboard for my taste.

        I have been taking the local approach. I stay as involved with city and state politics as I can, and try to encourage my friends to do the same. I act within my reach, it keeps me motivated and hopeful.

        "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

        by punkRockLiberal on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Dystopian masturbation" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          punkRockLiberal

          That's a great way to describe a lot of what is written in the blogosphere.  I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts, like your outlook a lot, and must say that I feel much more mentally at home with your generation than with my own Gen X'er generation.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:41:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The local approach is good. (0+ / 0-)

          We can't predict politics 20 years out.  I can predict that the current situation is incredibly unsustainable, and therefore there is going to be some really serious change in the next 20 years.  Global warming alone will do that.

          I wish I could predict what will happen, but once you enter a revolutionary period, the outcome is unpredictable.  It's easy to tell that the old regime will go away -- impossible to tell what will replace it.  It scares me.

          The local approach is good.  Many local institutions are likely to survive and thrive.

          •  I don't know if I would go as far to say (0+ / 0-)

            "revolutionary," at least in the historical sense. I find the prospect unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely.

            A metaphorical revolution, or a revolution of common thought perhaps, but not a full-on "physical" revolution.

            Gotta agree with you on global warming though.

            "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

            by punkRockLiberal on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:34:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Merkley and Wyden -- lucky you! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      punkRockLiberal

      I wouldn't give up on them either.

      I, on the other hand, have "Democratic" Senators who are sellouts on multiple issues.  

      •  I think the upshot to all this sense of betrayal (0+ / 0-)

        is that more people are paying attention.

        Even if it costs the Dems a seat here and there short term, I think the overall attitude is drifting leftward--i.e., we may see more and better Dems and maybe a sprinkling of leftist indie/third party folks.

        However it goes down, I'm sure it will be interesting.

        "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool that follows him?"--Obi-Wan Kenobi

        by punkRockLiberal on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 10:38:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I usually only comment on diaries (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stetson, 3goldens

    I disagree with, but I strongly agree with this diary. I've been seeing and thinking the same thing for years.

    "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

    by randomfacts on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:31:39 PM PDT

  •  Spot on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stetson, 3goldens

    I wish more people were talking about this, and contemplating current events within a pro- v anti-govt framework

  •  Yep. (4+ / 0-)
    CNN Poll: Obama approval falls amid controversies

    President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped eight percentage points over the past month, to 45%, the president's lowest rating in more than a year and a half, according to a new national poll.

    SNIP

    The poll indicates that for the first time in Obama’s presidency, half of the public says they don't believe he is honest and trustworthy. And Americans are split on the controversial National Security Agency anti-terrorism program to record metadata on U.S. phone calls, but they support the NSA program that targets records of Internet usage by people in other countries. That doesn't mean they necessarily like what is going on: Just over six in 10 believe that government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.

    SNIP

    "The drop in Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:42:31 PM PDT

  •  I don't agree with libertarianism. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k88dad

    For me its too much about self centeredness and not enough about community.  My belief is that we all do better when we all do better.  If the Koch brothers are representative of a libertarian utopia I, for one, want no part of it because it is not about personal autonomy, just about hiding one's true motives, saying what you think people want to hear, all the while stripping them of their autonomy.  If Glenn Greenwald is a role model for young libertarians, I predict they will find themselves being just as manipulated at the followers of Glenn Beck.

    If the John Birch Society becomes reincarnated as libertarianism its still the same thing.  I hope for much better for the future of the Democratic party, personally.

  •  Yep. What are you doing about it? (0+ / 0-)

    Rand Paul for President anyone?  He seems to be quite popular around here.

    In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

    by Sixty Something on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:54:39 PM PDT

  •  Obama should be leading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep info

    Sadly, instead of leading, he's simply reacting and offering up excuses while dancing around the truth.

    Source

    Obama's approval rating among Americans has dropped eight percentage points over the past month, down to 45 percent, according to a CNN/ORC International poll. The fallout over the surveillance programs was cited as a reason.

    The only trouble with retirement is...I never get a day off!

    by Mr Robert on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 05:57:04 PM PDT

  •  Obama is not center right. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k88dad, worldlotus

    The entire thesis of this article is off the mark.

    The solution to this "problem" is to remind people what a libertarian government would really look like and why it would suck. The solution is to show people the advantages of PPACA and the stimulus over flawed GOP counterplans. The solution is to show how Obama ended the Iraq war and is ending the war in Afghanistan.

    OP, you need to rejoin the reality based world.

    •  No. He's far right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilK

      He's claiming powers which were never claimed by the crowned heads of Europe -- the ones who claimed to rule by divine right.

      "Assassination orders", for instance.

    •  He is, but the GOP is far right (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think Eric is that far off the mark.  On the whole, Obama is more like Nixon or Bush the First of That Name than he's like Bill Clinton.  It's just that the current GOP are to the right of anyone who's held the presidency in the last 100 years.

      But Obama has failed the current college and post college generation in a huge way, especially in his refusal to go after Big Finance, and his idiotic persuit of a Grand Bargain.  There's no reason for young adults to get excited about his kind of governance.

      Clinton at least was willing to put on a populist front.  But Obama won't even say he's going to fight for working people.  He won't even talk the talk, much less walk the walk.

      Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

      by mbayrob on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The choice is never no government. (0+ / 0-)

    There is always government.  It's either the thug down the block, or it's a democratically elected group.  But there is always government.

    Libertarianism is the fantasy that you don't have to do the hard work of actually convincing your dad to stop voting Republican already.

  •  Obama will lose (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Medium Head Boy, PhilK

    the youth to libertarianism. I have seen it happen all around me. I brought 4 or 5 friends from Ron Paul to Obama in 2008, and not only have they gone back, they've taken others with them too.

    They're socially quite liberal. Depending on which demographic, all over the place on economics. I'm surrounded by mostly Latinos outside work, and they're strongly big government economics-wise. At work, it's all tech people, and they are far and away economic liberals.

    In my experience, of all social issues, Internet privacy is literally the greatest pull away from the Democrats. Those who just shirk off Snowden & the NSA spying are turning a blind eye at their own peril. It's visceral and powerful enough to ruin both parties.

    •  Not to libertarianism (4+ / 0-)

      Young voters are too open minded to find refuge in such a narrow, restricted political party, one that is so bereft of intellect and stimulating political ideas.  I alwyas think of libertarianism as a political philosophy for cranky, opinionated old and middle aged men who don't want to think for themselves.

      "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

      by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:26:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It wasn't easy to vote for Obama last year. (4+ / 0-)

    I wanted to vote for Gary Johnson, and when I was in the voting booth, I thought about it for a few seconds.

    Then I did the sensible thing, and was properly relieved when Mr. Romney was defeated. Romney/Ryan would have been a disaster. But the author is right, the Democratic Party can't rely on that forever... that voters will forgive and forget on election day because the other guy is worse.

    You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

    by Eric Stratton on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:00:12 PM PDT

  •  The GOP is self-destructing right before our eyes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deep info

    and the dems are set to piss it all away before it even happens.

    Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

    by jusjtim35 on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:11:39 PM PDT

    •  Cuomo actually arranged to give Rs control (0+ / 0-)

      of the State Senate in NY.   He gerrymandered it in their favor.  He didn't have to.

      This reminds me very much of what Obama has done.  The Republicans are sinking and he jumps in with them and throws them life preservers.

      It's political malpractice.

  •  libertarianism ... no thank you! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, deep info

    if you want to drop both parties, libertarianism is the worse way to go.  the answer isn't eliminating government, it's getting it to work for the people.  there are better choices than libertarianism.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:14:57 PM PDT

  •  two factions, one conservative, other faschist (0+ / 0-)

    both work for the 1%

    •  They're both corporatist, I'll give you that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info

      fascism |ˈfaSHˌizəm|(also Fascism )
      noun
      an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
      • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

  •  This is exactly what happened... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stetson, AoT, worldlotus, deep info

    With my 23 y/o daughter last year. She proudly voted for Obama in 2008 but between her husband's influence and frustration with the terrible economy, chose libertarianism and voted for Ron Paul!
    Great diary Eric and keep up informing everyone you know!

  •  On jobs and the economy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, k88dad, worldlotus, deep info

    The younger generation has experienced terrible failure at the hands of both parties.  Right now, that issue is more important than any other.

    I don't think they're attracted to libertarianism, at least not those who have a good education.  But they are disconnected from both parties in massive numbers.

    There is also a massive disconnect between Democrats at the local and regional level and those at the national level.  The grassroots have been ignored and marginalized continually over the last 5 years.  National party negligence has taken a toll at the local level.  

    OTOH, young voters can still connect and communicate better with local Dems, to some degree.  But they feel no loyalty towards Dems at any level.  Thats completely understandable, the young voters have been used and abused by our national leaders.  

    "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their booze and then vote against them, you have no business being in DC."

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:22:44 PM PDT

  •  Couldn't agree more (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stetson, AoT, worldlotus, deep info

    Most of my friends under 30 are already Libertarians. They have simply lost faith in government and I believe that Obama has all but poisoned the well for the next few years. If Paul can get his act together then we could be in for a shock in 2016.

    Add to that the incredibly disappointed Liberals who wouldn't vote GOP if their lives depended on it but because of Paul's foreign policy would overlook a lot of the evil buried in the Libertarian Party.

    War for war's sake is simply destroying this country and maybe we are in store for 4 years of crazy shit simply to end this economic malais that affects us.

  •  It's not Rand Paul we have to worry about (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, deep info, jrooth, LillithMc

    It's a future American Mussolini.

    The more dysfunctional government becomes, the more people start to long for someone who will just come in and get things done. That's what we have to be on guard against, I think.

    •  Sadly, thats what many believed in 2008 (0+ / 0-)

      They thought Obama was that someone. He wasn't and they don't want to be reminded of that.

      •  Believed? Hoped! (0+ / 0-)

        Still do! But then, I'm on the red, authoritarian, upper left quadrant in the diagram above. Like most Southerners, I like goose-steppin' in shiny boots as much as anyone - I just don't like rich people.

        Liberalism is comparable to Conservatism. But Conservatism died with the end of the George Herbert Walker Bush administration. (I liked those guys.) Reaction reigns on the right today. Liberalism is not the ideology to combat reaction. Radicalism is.

        The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

        by bubbajim on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 09:20:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped not because I agree with your sentiments (7+ / 0-)

    by and large, although I would like to see a bit more Left in our Left, as ever. But I do know, at least from my firsthand experience, that one too many young people think the Democratic Party is inferior to the nefarious policies of Libertarians, as if Libertarianism were a utopian solution of any sort and as if it were a Leftward ideology at all... which it is not. To me, it's part of the problem, categorically.

    That alarms me.

    We should be moving in a more socially forward direction than the isolationist, short-sighted, and backwards policies of Libertarianism -- which should be GLARINGLY clear to American youth, but which unfortunately are not always.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 06:47:19 PM PDT

    •  Just explain the libertarian aversion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info, jrooth

      to laws protecting the environment to them, and they will likely reconsider.

    •  People now prefer unknown risks to known failures (0+ / 0-)

      That's actually a very scary point in history.  It's the point when people are fed up and are willing to risk something worse in order to get rid of the known disaster they currently have.

      This is the point at which we have to present an alternative which is actually good.

      Unfortunately, the only way to do it is to split the Democr