This, IMO, is the basic issue Democrats should run on -- Not run away from

Corporations have acquired too much power. The economy has become monopolistic, rather than competitive and diverse. Politics has become oriented toward protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Our government has given up on its basic role in promoting the common good. "Free trade" globalization is eroding the base of our domestic economy and middle class, while also screwing the poorer nations by making them into colonies. Ownership of the media has become concentrated in too few mega-corporations, which stifles the basic freedom of speech and narrows our public discourse.

Our priority should be to begin to slow and eventually reverse this process of increased consolidation of Wealth and Power, and return to an economy based on diversity and shared prosperity and political power.

Restore regulation that sets rules to prevent abuse of wealth and power, and opens the door to more new businesses of all sizes. We should also restore the position and appreciation of the role of employees at all levels, and ensure that anyone who works a full time job is paid enough to cover their essentials in life. We also have to maintain support and assistance to those who are unable to enter the mainstream economy, while providing them with the tools to live as self-sufficiently as possible.

We must also renew our appreciation for our domestic economy. While we should be engaged in international trade, we should also ensure that our trade policies both support the continued existence of a middle class in the United States, and also enable poorer nations to develop their own middle class and domestic economy and their societies according to their own values and cultures..

Values? Very simple. The Golden Rule, the importance of neighborliness and community, and an appreciation that the goal of the economy is to lift everyone's boat.

And most importance, we need to return to the balance of economic values with social and human values throughout society.

I think points like "the economy has become monopolistic, rather thanh competative and diverse" and "return to an economy based on diversity and shared prosperity" would be difficult to pull off in a coherent way though.

most people don't see the effects of increased economic power or see how it influences them.

It may be true that citizens should be rewarded for hard work and enterprise. And if someone gets wealthy through their own efforts, it doesn't necessarily affect you and me. But over the long run, it does affect all of us. And it has corrupted the political process.

This is the challenge of running on this issue. It can be a powerful plank in the party platform, but it takes a lot of skill to communicate it and make it stick.

I believe there is a difference in recognizing the problem, and believing that anything can be done about it.

I know a lot of people who hate these trends, are scared by them and are angry about the direction society has taken.

But they have become cynical and fatalistic because they do not believe anyone in politics is willing to do anything about it. They don't feel like anyone is on their side anymore, and thus they erect a crust of apolitical nihilism.

However, it is possible to change that. The days of FDR and the time when working people were Democrats becauase they knew Dems would fight for them are not that long ago.

...level, I sense people are getting fed-up, it's coming, the Dems need to grasp it, show that the GOP will NEVER be for the little guy, and alway give the corporations their bottom line, while the people work their bottoms off.

is getting people to attribute those everyday experiences to a political agenda that will change them.

The Republicans have become very good at claiming invincible ignorance on how to help ordinary citizens. And if there's a solution, it's too expensive. And it makes people dependent. And it doesn't do any good anyway in the long run.

Democrats need to change this paradigm. It's hard when most people listen only to their own kind and depend on sound bites. But as Republican abuses get greater, it gets easier and easier.

That used to be mainstream. We need to revive that spirit.

by right-wing depiction of liberals as effete elites with a godless agenda. It's one of the things that took Kerry down.

It's particularly invidious because Republican politicians are arguably much more elite than Democratic politicians, and represent upper-class interests more strongly.

It could be all we need is one leader, like FDR or Reagan, to break that perception.

I thi9nk that "effete" image you talk about is because too often politicians on our side waffle and use evasive nothings instead of straight talk.

If there were more liberals who lay it out straight like Bernie Sanders, that image thing could be easily defeated.

It's not even left vs center so much as straightforward vs waffling.

An incumbent party can stay in power longer by playing to all sides and being cautious. That used to be the case 30 years ago for the Democrats, but it's long since gone by the boards. Half the Democrats in Congress don't seem to realize it.

Democrats could seize the moment and truly lead what is already brewing on the grass roots level. What Jenk Ugar of the Young Turks radio show calls the "quiet rage" that's building across the country.

For one, it sounds like you're trying to use monopoly out of it's traditional context. You'll be expending a lot of energy attempting to describe what you mean.

I also don't think people are going to buy that the economy isn't competitive and diverse, which makes the "monopolistic" strategy that much tougher to sell.

Look at all the anger that has been building against Wal mart, for example. And the people who are getting angry at Wal Mart are not all leftist activists. Many are just average peopel who object to that way of doing business, and who don;t want to see local business and decent jobs killed off by a monopolistic Goliath..

You are right that monopoly has strict legal definitions. But "monopolistic" covers a wide range of things. Using it in context is no more difficult than the trms the Republicans use with a broad brush all the time.


We have to give people more credit than to think that unless an issue can be summed up in a one sentence sound byte that people won;t understand....Sure there are a lot of dummies around, but there are also a lot of people with enough intelligence to connect the basic dots.

...what you're going to get is a lot of people explaining why the monopoly you're talking about isn't really monopoly. And the more you try to explain it, the greater number of critics you're going to attract.

I'd rather see the Golden Rule concept front and center than that.

They don't shade the meanings of their messages. Bush paints in very broad strokes all the time.

"My job is to protect the American people, within the law. But If I decide a law is outdated I don't have to follow it. "

But if the word "monopolistic" bothers you, there are otehr phrases that say the szme thing. "Concentratioin of wealth and power"........"Modern robber barons" (okay a little harsh, but true).

What's imporgtant is the concept. Most people realize instinctively that life has gotten harder for the "little guy" as big businesses have gotten never bigger and more powerful and greedy.

That's why the emphasis on sideshow issues like gay rights, PC codes and abortion in the last 15 years or so. Regardless of which way they go, those issues are ZERO threat to the power elite and their bank accounts.

They mean well, but they drank the Koolaid that says you can't address the real issues of wealth and power anymore.

Your avatar woulda gone there, Kucinich, maybe a handful of others, but the vast majority are there to keep the boat from being rocked, IMO.

I think there are a number of elected liberal and progressive Democrats who would be willing to stand up for such a stance, if they believed they had the support of their peers.

“reverse this process of increased consolidation of Wealth and Power”

How? Limit (by law) the amount of profit an individual can attain? – you’re not likely to get many Democratic representative that will go out into their communities and campaign on that. And just what amount of money constitutes “Wealth and Power”? Kerry and Kenendy are very wealthy and powerful Americans – does this apply to them as well?

“restore the position and appreciation of the role of employees at all levels
How? More empty platitudes…

“ensure that anyone who works a full time job is paid enough to cover their essentials in life”
Just how much is that? 20k, 30k, 40k? What are the “essentials in life”? Do they include a car?, a home,? What if the full-time job does not bring in enough money for the employer to pay for the “essentials in life”. My son works full-time for a non-profit Arts group. They cannot afford to pay him enough to “cover the essentials” -certainly not enough for a house, car or insurance.

“should also ensure that our trade policies both support the continued existence of a middle class in the United States”
How? How? – more empty platitudes. Do you mean passing laws so that steel cannot be imported to the US? What products should not be allowed? What products should be allowed?

As long as Democrats lack the courage to actually go beyond the platitudes and get to the specifics it is just blowing more smoke.

My point was this as a basic message. It is far more specific and pointed than the current message coming from most Democrats these days.

You want more specifics? I'll give 'em to you. There are laws either existing or possible (or which used to exist) to accomplish every one of those things.

I'm 54 years old. I can remember when things that are being done now would have been considered unthinkable, either because they were immoral or illegal.

One example. Media consolidation? The FCC had laws that limited the number of radio and television stations that any one company could own. I can't remember the exact number but across the country it was something like 15, and no more than one AM and one FM in any specific community.

There were also laws against cross ownership and monopolistic practices in many industries, including banking and financial services. Those have also been chucked out the window. Now we have a handful of banks swallowing up otehr banks and financial services companies left and right.

Public unitilites used to be heavily regulated monopoliues because of their nature. They were deregulated, but have once again been moving towards monopoly status. So it has gone from regulated monopolies to unregulated monopolies. That's fixable, if we just restore the old principle of a public infrastructure.

The minimumn wage used to be raised regularly to keep pace with the cost of living. It was not enough to live extravagently, but it was based on the basic concept that ifg you worked full time you deserved to be able to cover your basic expenses. But it has been allow to fall so low that it is not just a joke. But its former status could be restored.

Many more exmaples if you want them.

But not with the fondness that you seem to remember them.

The FCC has never had a regulation limiting ownership to 1AM and 1FM station. Here in Boston before de-regulation single companies had a monopoly on Radio transmission wattage as well as TV and newspapers. New York was even worse. You think you will find a single Democrat that will campaign on breaking up Viacom or Disney?? – You are more likely to find Republicans that would relish that thought!

Banking and financial services monopolies? Which banks or financial services do you think should be forced by law to divest their holdings? Good luck finding a Democrat (or Republican) representative to campaign on that – where do you think their campaign contributions come from????

“Public unitilites used to be heavily regulated monopoliues because of their nature”
You obviously don’t remember Ma Bell. Thank god those days are gone.

Yes, you given more platitudes and no specifics – Have the courage of your convictions and point to a problem and offer a solution to the problem.

I'm not looking back through a gauzy haze of nostalgia. It was far from perfect. But instead of going in a better direction we went in a worse on on these issues. The process has been ongoing for thirty years, but it is not inevitable. It was enabled by lies and collusion and CONservative salesmanship.

To correct your memory, I worked in broadcasting in the 70's. There were definite limits on the number of stations any one company could own in a community to one station on each band. And there were limits on national ownership. (There were exceptions, but they were granted for a reason and were limited.)

I remember Ma Bell. Phone systems are marginbally better now. But it has been reforming into new corporate monopolies in telecommunications to replace the Ma Bell of old.

In my state they deregulated electricity suppliers to give consumers more "choice" and to stimulate competition. Guess how much more choice we have now? None, Nada. Zip.....Meanwhile, the supplier of electricity has much more leeway to raixe rates without challenge.

If you have been paying attyention to fimnancial services over the last few decades, you will see that smaller banks have been swallowed up by bigger banks which then got swallowed up by bigger banks. If you believe that is healthy, or good for the large mass of people, I'll just have to say we must agree to disagree.

The FCC has no control over newspapers or cable TV. Do you want to give them control? Do you want Democrat representatives to campaign on the platform that Time Warner (the largest US media company) be forced to sell it holding in Time magazine, CNN, AOL and Netscape? Do YOU think Time Warner is too wealthy and powerful? Do you see Democrat representatives telling their constitutes that CBS must sell Viacom because they are too powerful and wealthy? – Get serious!

“Phone systems are marginbally better now”
Now I know you must be living in a cave.

“In my state they deregulated electricity suppliers to give consumers more "choice" and to stimulate competition”
Your “state” probably does have more choice – individuals never have (and never will) have a choice for electricity.

“smaller banks have been swallowed up by bigger banks which then got swallowed up by bigger banks”
Very true. But in the regulated days I could never get free checking and free ATM (if they had it), low interest home loan, and no interest credit cards – thank god those days are over as well.

Actually, it sounds as if you are the one that is fearful of change…..

Yes, frankly, I believe the Democrats should concentrate on first becoming more vigilant about approving megas-mergers when they have monopolistic results.

And, yes, I believe that monopolies should be broken up when they stifle competition. Remember Teddy Roosevelt, and others who have forced corporations to divest themselves of properties when they became too dominant and/or abusive?....Most of these companies were doing quite well before they got too big for their britches. They would still do well if they were smaller and more focused.

And, at the very least, thgey should subject to much greater scrutiny regarding their behavior, regarding manipulation of industries and markets.

(For example, networks once had to buy the shows from outside producers. Now they are allowed to produce their own. Hence we get a glut of cheapie reality shows, and endless repeats of Law and Order on the cable channels those nedtworks own. meanwhile, independent producers have found it harder and harder to get in the door.)

Actually, this should have been prevented from happening in the first place. But just because something was wrong then does not make it right now, merely because it would be more difficult to rectify now.

And cable companies should be subject to at least local regulation again. That's an industry where they have been "deregulated" to the point that they have a protected monop
You seem to have bought into the CONservative Koolaid notion that businesses can't improve if there is regulation. An ATM was not a product of deregulation. It was simply a technological advance. And regulation would not prevent reasonable cooperation to allow banks in different regions to honor your ATM....And I had free checking long ago.

I'll ignore your remark about living in a cave regarding telephone service. I'll take out the word "marginally" if it'll make you happy. But the advances have more to do with technology than with taking away the accountability of phone companies.

Finally, I'm not afraid of change. But there's good change and bad change.

Part of the problem is not just political and legal. It is the whole value system that has been shoved down our collective throats for the last 30 years. Business is more importsant than anything. Business needs to become meaner, but that will ultimately benefit everybody.

It's no longer satisfactory to strive for reasonable success. Instead you have to kill the competition, and become one of the select few at the top in any way you can.

Politics is about values, but very few politicians have really been championing humane, decent, public oriented values for many years.

Saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

No more war unless all diplomacy has been exhausted.

No more tax cuts for the rich.

Equal education for ALL kids.

Equal nourishment and security for all kids.

The right to Choice for women so they may have 100% of the say over their own bodies.

Equal pay for equal jobs.

A decent minumum wage.

Universal Healthcare.

Equal Rights for everyone, even the right for gays to marry under protection of the law.

Real and workable safety nets and a real hand-up to the poor.

Freedom of speech.

Freedom to worship (or not) as we see fit.

I WANT MY AMERICA BACK. No middle-of-the-road collusionist bullshit or candidates can get it back for me. From now on, it's a DNC with real teeth, real balls and real VALUES!

TC

I'd only add "Kick the ass of the ruling class."

er, maybe not. :evilgrin:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson (1816)

No Way to a "middle" way! We are better than this middle-of-the-road corporate-sponsored Democratic Party/DLC "Rising Star" mentality.

SAY NO TO THE DLC, ITS ISSUES, and ITS CANDIDATES. NO WAY TO "THE MIDDLE WAY" AS OF TODAY!

TC

The far-right laissez-faire "free" market ideology only promotes a scorched earth short term gain for the most powerful players in the economy.

By investing in people and our infrastructure, we lay the foundations for sustainable economic growth. While the market can be a very potent instrument for generating wealth, it's the job of government to step in when it fails. Even Bush implicitly admitted this last night when he proposed that the government take the lead in promoting the development of alternative energy. If that's appropriate, then why shouldn't the government take a more aggressive role in promoting education, health care, transit, and a clean environment?

We have had pro-big-corporate policies,while allowing the middle tier of business to disappear and small businesses to struggle for crumbs.

That's the fatal flaw of Corporate CONservatism.

from a sensible liberal agenda in the long run. It's hard to get strong revenue growth if nobody can afford your products. It's hard to find skilled workers if the education system is crumbling. It's hard to remain competitive in a global marketplace when healthcare costs are eating away at your bottom line.

Hell, it even crimps the style of a CEO making $10 million a year if he can't sit out on the balcony of his penthouse condo to sip on a martini because the air quality is so poor it's hard to breath.

Living wages, universal health care, expansion of public transit, investing in education (including early education): this isn't class warfare, it's making society work right for everybody.

On edit: Would corporate America have preferred 4 more years of Hoover to an FDR that got things moving again?

But a Win/Win seems so far from present "Screw they neighbor" value syatem and policies we have now.

"America works best when it works for ALL of us" - John Edwards

The wide distribution of wealth among many is what made this country great.

Unfortunately the reverse is also true.

I'm damned if I can think of what we're going to run on otherwise.

Or have you lost the true faith?

Sacre bleu, mon frere! :D

Once a S & I, always a S &I.

Wes Clark and Jimmy Carter, frequently have a hint of populism in their speeches. Both of them mention this boat lifting often, saying it should be part of our national conscience, our duty. Their call for sacrifice in time of need is of particular importance to me and I can not understand why this basic call for decency is not front and center in every Democrat`s speech. So simple.

Halliburton can avoid taxes by getting a P.O. box offshore. But if Joe Blow tried to do the same, he'd be slapped with fines and penalties for tax evasion.

The GOP has certainly given us plenty to work with -- every bit of legislation they've written is designed to enrich the corporations at the expense of the people. And by midterm elections, a lot of folks will have firsthand knowledge of this after trying to sort through the Medicare drug "benefit" and paying their heating bills.

Most people I know who are Republican are basically greedy -- they want to keep whatever money they make (because they don't see how the taxes paid by those who came before them paved the way -- there are no self-made millionaires). They hate paying taxes because they think it's money straight out of their pockets and into the hands of less "deserving" people. They hear * tell them in the SOTU that 60% of the budget goes to fund "entitlement programs". But he doesn't mention how much he's stealing for his little escapade in Iraq -- and that's NOT part of the budget.

That is the way it SHOULD be, but it is not that way now. We have plenty of people in this party who are happy to feed the corporations on the blood, sweat, and tears of the people.

edited for clarity

Sadly the more corporate elements of the party and the corporate media will endlessly and mindlessly repeat that such positions make one "unelectable."

What I proposed in the original post was not radical at all. Most people recognize it in their bones, and they dislike that trend. I can understand the Repuglicans and the corporate conservative DINO's seeing it as a good thing. But they are a minority.

The desire for real reform is an undrlying point of agreement from moderates to the left. Even the Mainstream Media Presstitutes bemoan it in their own way.

So supporting reforms that a majority of people believe would be the right thing to do seems to me like it should be an obvious way to make candidates more electable, not less.

peace and low stress!

But since I worked hard on writing the original post, thanks for reincarnating it/

even if folks don't post.
peace and low stress!

I want to know why they'd have a problem of substance with such a basic and obvious set of principles and a message that is really just what should be Liberal Democrat 101, in my 'umble opinion.

lefties and centrist alike...

peace!

The Chomsky level is too low. ;-)

There, maybe that'll smoke 'em out.

(the centrisignal.)

Let's see if they pick up the scent

to comment on something, I've even PMed them the link just so I knew they hadn't missed the chance.

I'm just sayin'.

a simple :kick: for your avatar!

Thanks, Armstead.

the problem with our trade policies (like everything else) is that we don't simply "engage" in fair trade practice based on fair trade policies.

we "engage" from a hegemonic point of view - it's "our" way or the highway - and it always needs to be stated, that when it comes to trade, it is no longer about America or Americans (as working class American's) at all, it's about CEO's of Multi Nationals (who may or may not be American by way of citizenship, investment or loyalty)who are soley interested in monopolies and privatization of other nations natural resources - which naturally is bad for people of those nations, and their economies, environments and for self sustaining communities to thrive.

Only one group of winners in our current trade policies: the CEO's and large stake holders.

If it could be made clearer what the REAL agenda of the "free trade" movement was, they'd be pissed.

It is all about taking away the ability of governments to regulate business, so that a narrow set of corporate values can be imposed on every nation on earth.

i haven't yet fleshed out how to communicate this in basic terms, but i really think it could be done - but i wonder how many politicians UNDERSTAND it themselves?

People aren't stupid. I know people would get it if only a politician would dare tell the people.

(Progressive) Populist message.. mine isn't nearly as erudite analysis as yours or specific by any means, but there is sort of a shared commonality in conscientiousness streaming, i think..


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2455258