If you don't want soulless capitalism to triumph, stop supporting people who have soulless capitalism as their primary objective.

exactly who and what did he support that in any way promotes the furtherance of what he's objecting to here, and exactly how in the sam hell does it show that he doesn't know what he's talking about or undermine the validity of the charges posed here?

Did he commit the crime of supporting the efforts of Snowden, or something like that?

I agreed with and promoted Ron Paul's pov on the Iraq War throughout the Bush admin. Does that mean that my total opposition to his econ policy is really or results in support for it or something, and him as well beyond the specific issue on which we find agreement?

I have no idea of what you are referring to.

I do agree (as I pointed out in another post) that some of the the grass-roots wingnuts are driven by the same frustration with the excesses of Big Institutions and Centralized Power and the loss of a human scale in life as progressives.

Where I disagree with them is on what the primary cause is. But many of the TeaBaggers were just as pissed off at the Gift to the Bankers who wrecked the economy as were liberals and progressives.

That's where the "politics as sport" falls flat, because that issue of scale and entrenched power transcends party labels these days (unfortnately.)

If on the oter hand you are referring to defensing Greenwald and Snowden -- well thats a different subject than the OPh ere.

You're pissed off about some things some people have posted on DU, but we haven't any idea what. You've even deployed Capital Letters to show how important the Concepts that Piss You Off are. But I still don't know who or what caused this thread.

Undermining net Neutrality and remaining silent on Comcast and other Corporate Takeovers of the Information Infrastructure.

Pushing for more Corporate Globalization through secret agreements like TPP to create a set of laws that favor big moneya nd undermine civil laws of government.

Killing single payer healthcare, and then killing the mild alternative of a Public Option, while keeping the Insurance Industry in charge of healthcare.

Ignoring the idea of Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly regulation to prevent Huge Corporations from swallowing up more and more of te economy.

Hiring the same Arrogant Elites to fix the Financial Crash they caused. Allowing Too Big to Fail Banks to become even richer and bigger, instead of punishing them and breaking them down to a more reasonable size. Rewarding the Wall St. Tycoons and their minions who also tanked the economy. Letting the Rich continue to get even Richer, while everyone else has to struggle more and more.

Continuing to pursue the same filed policies that created so many messes.

I could go on, but maybe that's enough for you to understand why I'm not a happy camper.

got it

next?

dems who just happen to be Obama...?

it is early, I am tired, maybe I misread it, but i have read thousands of posts like it so i just thought that is what it was

maybe it was a response i was reading, not sure

we need govt regulations increased, taxes higher and protectionism

guaranteed to solve our problems, and if you are rich and say the hell with that i will go elsewhere, go ahead, just know you cant sell here, or live here etc if you do that (you being corps)

President Obma represents it, but it's much bigger and wider than that.

It's fixable, but only if we stop acting as enablers of this theft.

kindly put up, or shut up (as they say)

It's always been there, but I remember well when the public worship of money became mainstream, not just something you saw on TV preachers and Ayn Rand novels.

It was starting ib the 1970's and got a boost from the bad economy and some other factors like the Energy Crisis and the bankruptcy of New York.

But I do distinctly remember that within about a year -- around 1979-80 -- when the obsession with "blancing budgets" and "global competitiveness" and the election of Ronnie kicked it into hyper-drive. And it's been gaining momentum ever since.

It was like flicking a switch. I didn't know they could do that. It was an education.

A few you note, plus conservative organizing (Powell memo, establishing think tanks to sell their views), establishments of both parties still reeling from Vietnam and Watergate, some practices in government, businesses, and unions that did need reform (but were used as an excuse to dismantle), etc.

I'd also include postwar demographic shifts (reducing the electoral strength of Democratic-leaning cities while more conservative-friendly suburbs gained) and the rise of television as the major way of campaign advertising. TV ads were effective but expensive, which pushed towards a greater need to fundraise, which gave big donors more and more influence to push their interests, and built the structure of the fundraising/influence complex we have today.

the beginning of too big to fail.

pigs everywhere could here it.

silly things, depending on the issue of the day.

But, your larger point is well taken. We are fast returning the monopoly days of the robber barons and it's as if history doesn't exist. They are much more sophisticated than Jim Fisk ever was, and there aren't any bottle of blue milk or bodies in the lard vats any more, but we are going backwards and who knows how far back we'll end up.

Wal-Mart is the favorite whipping boy, but that's an ignorant complaint. Their growth is slowing, and stopped in some sectors. Far more important is the hold ADM, Mars, P&G, and a few others have on our food supply. Amazon isn't just an online retailer-- we've had those for years-- but controls the supply chain for more and more businesses and has no problem putting anyone out of business. You do know why Netflix was shitting its pants when Amazon announced its streaming movie business...

Mergers and taking companies private-- completely reversing the concept of equity markets. The Dutch invented the stock market a few hundred years ago as a means of raising capital from the middle class at the time. Now, they don't have to raise capital from Main St. since Wall Street has so much they don't know what to do with it.

Wall Street has never been a bunch of nice guys, but now that there's so much more money in mergers and other such deals than retailing stocks, they've become even more remote from the rest of the country.

and elected leaders who make that money and those who shuffle it around a priority.

These Corporate Oligarchs have lost all sense of loyalty to any national or public interest. They have purchased politicians who deliver them laws and policies tailored made to enable them......
-
and they own the media

It really should.

This monopolistic system is unsustainable and contrary to very spirit of the nation.

.....posture of victim hood. It comes off as whiny and weak IMO.

Clearly you need to give a seminar on "Pulling yourself up by your pragmatic centrist bootstraps"!

Pragmatism(tm) when you don't understand the issues and are willing to let Republican lobbyists write most of the legislation for you.

.....on BOTH sides of the aisle. Only the rising up of "the people" stands any chance of changing that. I watched the American people take the 2008 financial fraud that destroyed our economy with nothing more than a whimper. To expect individual politicians to change the system that is their current reality is pie in the sky thinking. The Far Left and Far Right have some lovely theories but lack the where with all to execute those theories. A dose of pragmatism could prove very helpful to you IMO.

for real reforms that are not earthshaking but would move us in a better direction, then you're just not paying attention. Or else you don't want to pay attention.

Trust Buster my ass. You'd be the first in line with a bag of stones if TR were around today. He wouldn't be "pragmatic" enough for you. And the idea of Anti-Trust regulation would be "pie in the sky fantasy" according to you.

That support does not yet exist in today's society. If it did, based on Republican behavior over the past 5 years, the Mid-terms would be a stunning success for the Democrats. REALITY: Democratic turnout will be abysmal this fall as it historically is for the Mid-Terms. You seem to think that our politicians can be miracle workers while the citizens sit on their collective asses and look on. That IS pie in the sky thinking.

But developing popular will also requires some indication that the desires for real reform will be expressed in the political system, and will translate into policies.

If not -- and because that has been happening for 40 years -- people either give up and stay home on the "no difference" theory or they get bamboozled into misplaced right-wing activism by the party that actually stands for something and knows how to CONvince people that yellow is blue (i.e, the GOP).

...hasn't shown the slightest inclination to Take On the Giant Trusts.
They have aided and abetted the criminals despite having several golden opportunities to rein them in.

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=3] Paulson with Co-Conspirators

Now THIS is Bi-Partisanship, SUCKERS!!!
Hahahahahahaha[/font]

Obama WON an election decisively posing as a Populist who would Raise Taxes on the RICH, Raise the CAP on SS,"Renegotiate NAFTA", "Make EFCA the Law of the Land", Hold Wall Street Accountable, Label Foods with Country of Origin & GMO Warnings.

An ARMY gathered in the streets to support this Populist & The Democratic Party. The People gave them a MANDATE for "CHANGE",
and Obama and the Party left this ARMY standing in the streets and snuggled up to Wall Street and Big Business as Usual.
If the turnout is miserable, THAT is the reason WHY.

[font color=white].[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]


You will know them by their WORKS,
not their promises or excuses.

Considering that one of the points of the OP is the radical shift in the very definitions of "Left" and "Right", it might be enlightening to know the boundaries of your definitions of those terms.

But, be it the Far Right or the Far Left, the difference is one of rational expectation. From the political perspective, the best we can hope for is a President in 2016 that will have the opportunity to reshape the balance on the Supreme Court. But, given our current system, that Democrat will have to raise in excess of $1 Billion and benefit from another $1-$2 Billion in outside PAC money. If we want Citizen's United reversed, that's the price that must be paid. Congressional candidates face that same reality. Whining about it achieves squat. Beyond that, impetus for real change in the flows of money sloshing around Washington MUST come from the people. A Democracy is only as good as the vigilance of it's citizens and, quite honestly, that current level of vigilance SUCKS IMO !!! I don't refer to the citizens on this site, rather, the citizenry in general. The Far Left and the Far Right think that change will be inspired from the top. That is just not rational thinking IMO.

These days even the Management Class is getting Screwed.

Unless you are in the crem de la creme 1 percent, you too are a victim. You just seem more willing to take it.

You may not like my personal style of expression -- which is okay with me. I don't give rat's ass what you think of my writing style.

But the predictable response of those who dismiss those who point out thee problem as "whiners" and "victimhood" just proves my point. You sound like Rush.

actually start to believe in those principles instead of bashing others who have those beliefs -- and stop defending and rationalizing the perpetuation of a status quo level of corruption and economic abuse that is much deeper than degrees of ideological shades of opinion on the "center to left" side of the spectrum.

I'm a moderate at heart. But we have gone so far to one side that what was once accepted values and policies are not subjected to ridicule from defenders of the New Gilded Age Status Quo.

Politicians cannot bring about significant change without the express support of the people. Lincoln understood this on the slavery issue. Both Roosevelt's understood this on the economic front. Even today's politicians are only responding to gay issues as they are in a reactionary reflex to changing attitudes amongst the citizens. This fall the majority in the Senate is up for grabs. If the American people are ready to embrace the "principles" that you espouse, why is Democratic turnout this fall expected to be historically abysmal again ?

Nowhere have I ever said it is totally a problem with politicians and leadership. But it is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Much of it is the steady stream of brainwashing and disinformation that has been going on from the Corporate Monopolists for 40 years. Such tripe as "We have to eliminate competition to protect competition" and "we have to destroy jobs to protect jobs." whenever these mergers occur.

I don't want to blame the public, but I will acknowledge that we are all collectively responsible for either buying into that crap ourselves, or not being more successful at offering a different explanation that will appeal to a wider spectrum of the public.

But i do fault the Democratic Party over the years for not taking the political leadership in providing such alternatives and offering different narratives to combat the GOP/Corporte linbe. I do criticize the Democratic leaders who hang out with the Oligarchs and join them.

And that's why people stay at home, instead of getting excited about replacing the GOP with Democrats.

In answer to your question what would you do? It's a big complicated question. But I'd start by not bashing and mischaractrizing those who are vocal about needing to change those problems.

It was a very interesting book that hit on all the various ways that corporations and the 1% mold public opinion and tilt the playing field in their direction. It is because of this book and others that I've read, that I have come to believe that politicians are prisoners to the system. Another book by Thom Hartman suggests that it will take another financial disaster to awaken the American people to the inequities of our distorted capitalistic system. The people on this site are adequately engaged. But, what will it take to wake up the rest of America ? My father didn't fight in Korea just to have his children and grandchildren have the deck stacked against them in this fashion. When will the American people set the stage for our politicians to act confidently and forcefully so that they feel the independence to bite the corporate hands that feed them ? Well, off to do yard work. I enjoyed the discussion.

I can't imagine that anything else you might post would be in any way useful.

/ignore.

Decades of Wall St workers and investors slowly bending and shaping the rules with the help of paid off politicians to make outright theft successively easier for each ensuing generation of them.
Any restrictions or regulations that could be imposed to restrain the outright looting is fought tooth and nail with the assistance of millions of shareholders all demanding things not only stay the same, but get easier for them as well.
The time and money and effort it would take to get close to the point of a sustainable economy and ecosystem for our beloved four legged and two legged friends would finally be accomplished about the time things truly fall apart, it will only happen when things do truly fall apart, and at that point, it will not matter.

to where it is today.

This is why I've contended since I've been here -- after having engaged the purity police on several issues -- that not only do they share many goals with their rightwing cousins whether unwittingly or not, they are almost identical to them in the kinda tactics they use, rhetoricallly and otherwise, in achieving them.

They can't demonize the "liberals" they either pretend to be or hilariously think they are, so the "far gone" on the left are no longer designated as "liberals" lest they burn by the association.

ya stinking commie....lol

It's not a mater of being a purist.

The biggest problem is Centralization and Concentration of Wealth and Power into the hands of a few. Tat's not an ideological issue of "liberalism" or "progressive purist."

The results of that Concentration of owner and lack of human scale in our economic and political institutions are also what drive many grass roots people into the arms of the TeaBag Movement -- even though that is actually a Con game because the money is provided by Big Corporate Oligarchs. They have successfully flim flammd too many frustrated people into believing that Big Government and Liberal Elites are the root of the problem, rather than Big Corporations and Concentration of Wealth.

And yes, some of the TeaBag movement is also fueled by bigotry and social narrow mindedness.

But among the people who are on the right, many could be persuaded to support at lest moderate liberalism (progressive populism) if there was a political party that actually stood for and fought for the basic principles I noted in the OP.

Im old enough to remember when there were many hard-assed working people who identified with economic liberalism. So it is not an unattainable goal.

Unfortunately although the Democratic Party is supposed to be tat alternative, its has dropped the ball -- both intentionally through corruption and unintentionally through defeatism and weakness.

is so in love with them, except corruption.

since the only way to preserve capitalism is to regulate it heavily. We're seeing what happens when you remove those regulations now and it's not pretty.

The far left, which is so far away from the far right that the wingers don't know it exists, are opposed to capitalism, period.

When I first read it, I agreed with every point you made except (being a relative newbie), I had not run across anyone on DU that would attack such a reasonable "moderate" position like the one you outlined in your post.

Then to my true shock, the very first post proved your point.

What-the-fuck indeed.

is Libertarian. It means no regulations , no labor laws etc . This isn't far left , it's far right Koch brothers crap. I agree with everything else .

I am using the very broadest definition, which would be that the economy is diverse, with many competitors that include a mix of small, medium and large businesses -- and in which individuals and entrepreneurs have an actual opportunity to earn a decent wage and/or earn a reasonable profit.

Libertarianism has certain points in its favor -- or at least an understandable appeal. Nobody likes idiotic regulations that strangle economic activity and personal freedom either to protect entrenched interests or because of muddle-headed bureaucratize overreach.

The problem with grass-roots libertarians is that they fail to recognize the oter side -- which is the fatal flaw of capitalism. Left to its own devices, in totally free-market capitalism Wealth and Power feed themselves in a geometric fashion. That's why regulation is necessary.

(That's also a potentially a fatal flaw in socialism, but we're so far from that it's not even a factor at this point.)

There are many shades of possible opinion on the appropriate degree and nature of all that.

But at base is whether we continue to have a system where the actual contests of ideas about specifics can be hassled out within a system that allows those differences of opinion to be debated and policies to be developed -- without being totally smothered by Oligarchs.

formed the DLC.

It started w/ Reagan. He began the massive privatization schemes, he & Nancy made conspicuous consumption fashionable, taught people to hate & distrust government, initiated trickle-down economics & began allowing corporate mergers that would have been shocking under Carter.

He blew a mean dog whistle & generally encouraged those hiding under rocks to come out & spread their infection of hatred.

Since then, corporations have gained rights & personhood, while we the people have been demoted to rubes, slave-wagers, peons, & helpful idiots.

Every 75 years or so Democrats become the mirror image of what they were it is in the DNA of the political system we live under.

So yes, democrats are the Party of Business. Yes, painfully so, it is that simple. At the very base of the Republican Party you are starting to see moderation. Some candidates for lower tier offices, and even congress (mind you, right at the momentary they have no chance) are starting to sound like even moderate democrats did ten years ago. I actually heard one sort of defend Unions in a tea party event. We cover politics, so I cover them. And I am thankful to see that. And that was whiplash you just felt.

So, we might see a pro labor, anti business party emerge. Nature and politics abhor a vacuum. This has happened in the past. I keep pointing at the 1880s. We had the Granger movement emerge out of no light between the two parties. It was the Grangers and later them darn cute Socialists that gave us Social Security. What? But FDR!!!! The Democratic Party took the idea in whole cloth from the Socialists. We were this close to a workers revolt in 1932.

So I do not expect to vote for the party of business and Ritchie Rich, whoever that might be. But the party of FDR started to die after he died. Over the last 25 years it has been taken over by business interests. They are still slightly less damaging to workers, but that is the operative word. They are also counting on the democratic base to still come out and pretend it is not noticing, because their current natural base is not yet ready to vote for them either. It's a process thing. And coalition building anew takes a while.

Will this be arrested by younger more involved voters? With all the problems third parties gave, this is how it will be arrested. This is how that was arrested in the past. Will this mean dems will go back to FDR? Don't hold your breath and prepare to be surprised as to who, or what might do that. But current trends...unless things change dramatically, I do not expect to be voting for dems in a generation or less.

as long as actual progressive populism -- or liberalism -- keeps getting batted down by the Party Elites and those who blindly follow them, it's hard to maintain that faith sometimes.

Especially when they lie about where their loyalties are.

the frustration with both parties. And that is where a lot of Occupy's frustration came from too.

to become the party of sane business leaders. Most of the big money guys are not very religious, are pro-choice, are not anti-gay, and believe in science (when it suits them).

I think it is possible that the Democratic Party continues to evolve along the lines it has been heading, and the Republicans become more populist on economic matters while still clinging to their religious extremism and intolerance. Indeed, that would make them the perfect political party for my part of the country.

(mind you, all politics is very much local), is a real change. Populism is starting to take place. There is the crazy "we protect life" aspect. As well as "we are a christian nation." (Some of the things I got on tape will make your skin curl, guaranteed). But there is this change that is starting to happen.

I do not know how to describe it yet, or what true form it will take. Off the damn record I have had very long discussions with Republicans who feel their party left them. Yes, long, and coffee is good, and in hours at a time. A few are realizing they "need to take it back" from the religious right. So you are starting to see a fight develop. At a national level you are already seeing the shades of it in Congress as well. It will start to be obvious from places we least expect it, and some people will be primaried for those statements. Watch for when they start to consistently survive those primaries.

Oh and I did not break into hives, or flames or anything covering a tea party event. Nor did I become argumentative. God gave me two ears and one mouth, as Ed Shultz often says on the TV machine, and my husband does as well, you figure the ratio. Hell, we repeated that saying to a couple kids we will be training.

Whether it is government or business, our institutions have become too centralized and remote from the concerns and needs of individuals and communities. And people react to having to deal with increasingly remote and abusive institutional bureaucracies and clueless bureaucrats.

I think that is at the base of much discontent, whether it is directed against "big gubernment" from the right, or big orporations from the left or just generalize discontent in the middle.

It's all a complicated and intertwined matrix, but I believe that's what it boils down to, whether the source of frustration is in the abuses heaped on us by Big Business or unresponsive and inhumane government.

This is giving rise to movements of back-to-basics "small is beautiful" ideas, emphasizing human scale, local economics and other antidotes that combine elements from both progressive and conservative.

Don't know where all that leads, but it could at lest create pressure for institutions that are more responsive and allow for more hinest and constructive working out of specific issues.

which most Americans are not even aware, for the most part. We are going to start to break ground on that in my own blog by the way.

Right now we are looking at energy and green policies in the border region, and the layer for that includes both Mexico and the United States Federal Governments. It's been going on for 20 years. Wait, WHAT???? I know... but just a taste, the Solar projects in Ramoma California, phase one and two, were financed by the North American Development Bank, at least partially. This is a binational bank established 20 years ago. Yup, I got the damn thing in my hard drive right now. I was under the impression it was Banorte, nope... it is a bank modeled, it looks that way, on the IMF. So is the Sierra Juarez wind development.

Now, here is a huge difference. When I need to find out what treaties have been signed between the US and Mexico, I check Mexico City Papers. Even the most obscure, you really shit me, kind of an agreement will be in the paper. (For example a mutual aid agreement covering ten miles into both countries for fire fights in the Arizona\Sonora border) The WAPO... not so much. Hell, not even the local papers in AZ have that shit either, even if it will affect them directly. Our close mind is really hurting us in major ways.

They are too much in bed with the Kochs and other Corporate Piggies.

The Democrats are also in bed with the Piggies. But -- if they ever woke up (or became sincere politically) they would realize that true economic populism -- which also protects small and large business against the predatory behavior of the Monopolists and Wall St.-- can attract both workers and business people who understand the need for protection of competition and reasonable behavior.

It is the exact opposite of what happened before. The Republicans started out as a far-left anti-slavery party. Once in power, corporate influence started pouring in. After 50 or 60 years, the party was no longer recognizable. Meanwhile, the Democrats (stalwart supporters of the plantation owners) moved towards populist economic policies, eventually resulting in the party of the slave owners being transformed into the party that best represents minorities.

In a two party system, the party that doesn't have the money *must* have the numbers. And populism is the only way of getting those numbers.

I prefer to think that it is more possible for the Democrats to be broken free from those chains. The GOP is much more in bed with the Oligarchs like the Kochs.

But I guess ya never know what'll happen down the line.

But I can see how it could go either way.

We won't end up with two "money" parties, though. Someone will eventually decide to try the "numbers" strategy.

I agree that Citizens United has opened the door to a host of abuses and reliance on corporate backers.

But I also point out that the money is still a means to an end of delivering voters. A strong message and agenda is just as important in attracting the votes (and grass roots donations) necessary to win.

Somewhere along the way, things, uh, changed.

Wall Street deregulation pushed by Clinton advisers, documents reveal

Dan Roberts in Washington
theguardian.com, Saturday 19 April 2014 09.28 EDT

Wall Street deregulation, blamed for deepening the banking crisis, was aggressively pushed by advisers to Bill Clinton who have also been at the heart of current White House policy-making, according to newly disclosed documents from his presidential library.

The previously restricted papers reveal two separate attempts, in 1995 and 1997, to hurry Clinton into supporting a repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and allow investment banks, insurers and retail banks to merge.

A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

The White House papers show only limited discussion of the risks of such deregulation, but include a private note which reveals that details of a deal with Citigroup to clear its merger in advance of the legislation were deleted from official documents, for fear of it leaking out.

“Please eat this paper after you have read this,” jokes the hand-written 1998 note addressed to Gene Sperling, then director of Clinton's National Economic Council.



CONTINUED...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama

"Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeal it."

Unless, those same people are happy with history and WANT to keep repeating it -- for the benefit of the 1 percent over te 99 percent.

Makes ya wonder if in ten years -- while everyone is griping about how bad and expensive Internet service has become under the ownership of Comcast -- if similar documents will come out about current behind-the-scenes machinations over Net Neutrality.

the fact that as Bill Clinton's labor secretary, he was a fundamental player in getting NAFTA passed through a skeptical Democratic Congress. Leading to decimation of America's middle class and labor unions. Yay, Robert Reich!!!

But hey, what do we know, we're old. Some days ...

and another thank you.

And Hillary, the next F.D.R.

I was called anti-capitalist for wanting sphc.The party I have voted for for 30 years has been replaced by the one I voted against for 30 years. Any post could be my last. A shame since the republicans are so despised right now that running away from them would be a huge win.

I posted a video from RT USA wherein they were discussing redistribution of wealth via a much higher minimum wage and lower CEO pay and it provoked a rash of posts calling it Putin-loving commies. This place has been almost completely taken over by republicans.

You seem to think that taking a 'lefter-than-thou' position means you don't have to be civil. Don't pose as a martyr.

For evidence one only need look at DU - we've got a shitload of purely right-wing people who think rah-rahing anything with a D after its name is going to make them believable liberals. Of course, only right-wingers actually believe that "Democrat" and "liberal" are the same thing, so they sort of give themselves away.

The claim of "far left!" is a silence attempt by a clump of right-wing trolls posing on DU - and in general as well - hoping to hush up anyone through the invented non-philosophy of "centrism," that being the middle ground in all things is the "true way" no matter how far into crazy fucking territory it takes you. It's purely an accomodation of hte far right, which pulls further and further right, skewing hte "moderates" the whole way.

The sooner we shed the dead weight of these Dixiecrat dumbfucks, the better-off we'll be.

It's all in there

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

was considered liberal when all else was feudal, oligarchs and peasants.

We are working our way towards a new feudalism, so in that respect a "free enterprise" based merchant middle class might seem liberal. When all things get pushed far enough right, the center seems far away to the left. It is not particularly left at all, in fact a free enterprise merchant middle class is right of center.

There is a notion that what has happened in re the concentration of wealth and power is the result of government policy, it isn't. It is the result of government leaving the field of battle. It has largely left the battlefield through "starve the beast" republicanism.

The laws are still there, but the departments left to enforce them are empty shells. This is and always was the intent of the small government crowd. We have "a program" for everything under the sun, but no people and no funds to run them in a meaningful way. After a period of time of underfunding and under staffing, the program is deemed "ineffective" and either closed or preferably outsourced to companies who donate heavily.

As Picketty correctly posits, only strenuous and consistent intervention, by government (the only thing with the potential power to do so) keeps wealth and power from accumulating in a free market capitalist system. It is a feedback loop inherent to the system that must forceably be interrupted or it will carry forward to the unsustainable end.

Great points

and the other (major) party moves to the right to 'fill the void', rather than standing firm. The Overton window continually shifts rightward towards authoritarianism, monopolies, oligarchies, plutocracy.

The 'rush to the "middle" is damaging to the country because it gives more credence to lunatic RW ideas that should be mocked, rather than 'compromised' with.

Yes, it seems that the rush to "fill the void" by becoming more conservative has been one of the fatal flaws of the Democratic Party over the last 30 years. A variation of the "winning is the only thing" principle.

Ironically, in my opinion, the more effective "marketing strategy" for the Democrats could have been to stand firm, as you say, in basic liberal principles -- and worked harder to convince the "middle" (those who are moderate and slightly conservative) that many basic principles of liberalism are in their own interest.

Call people up, ask them to state whether they consider themselves liberal, moderate, conservative. Then ask them how they feel about a series of policy options, and then tell them where their responses fell on the political spectrum. Poll after poll has shown that 60-70 percent of Americans agree with all sorts of liberal positions, yet you turn around and ask them how they identify, and only half that or fewer say they're liberal. You have to bring up that mismatch, and show people that many of the policies they agree with are liberal policies, and that even if they call themselves moderate, or even conservative, many or most of the positions they hold are liberal ones.

Once you can shift how people self-identify, they'll be more willing to vote to the left, and support candidates who actually support the same positions they do.

In several elections the state going for someone like Boosh or some RW wingnut for Congress also votes for ballot initiatives to raise the state's minimum wage.

I'm in Ohio, which has a red gov, SoS, 1/2 of senators, and 14/18 reps red, as well as virtually entirely red state legislature, despite the fact that something like half the electorate is blue. Our Repubs are really, really, really good at gerrymandering, and, based on my interactions with the local Dem party people, the local Dem party folks are largely clueless and out of touch with even Dem voters. After meeting with them, I actually switched from being registered as a Dem to an independent (Dem Socialist, but the local board of elections apparently doesn't recognize that party.)