The end of a coalition... this is why we are so damn divided

this is what you are seeing here on DU... it is a textbook example.

A large part of the "base," you know the professional left, feels insulted and ignored.

This will not bode well.

Problem is that we are seeing further fracturing of US politics in general.

Oh and IF things continue the way they have been going, and increased triangulation... expect this to just get worst.

Not that this matters much.... but realize that third rails in politics ARE third rails for a reason.

And no, the "Center" cannot hold without the left... just as the RIGHT WING, cannot hold without some measure of tea.

This is my observation and I don't expect it to be very popular, albeit from the present evidence it is quite accurate, from a poli sci perspective...

On the bright side... the COUNTRY is so damn fractured that I don't expect permanent forty year plus majorities anymore... that has it's issues as well, but hell, we are watching history. I am not sure if I really want to live through this Chinese curse... but that is indeed what it is.

...they have spent decades fighting for - and are looking for a way to bring change we really can believe in.

looks like. And this is not happening just on the left. The RIGHT, as much as we might dislike Tea Parties, are having the same problem. That insurrection is not about GOP unity.

We are at a very dangerous moment in US History. Events are accelerating and soon will be out of control.

Ok some people go... CASANDRA stop it! Or you've been at this for a while. Yes... these are events that take about a generation to come to full fruition. Chinese curse indeed. They can be diverted, but... the longer they go on, the worst they become. Or to clarify, the harder they are to stop or change course.

...as opposed to the two corporate parties we have now - especially if both left and far right want to get rid of corruption. This could all play out well in the end.

so we might get that wish in a few of the successor states. Yes, that is an absolute worst case scenario... but that is also coming. The G-20 did not go well for the Administration... (I may have spent more time than needed on a certain cruise ship for other reasons, though connected) but the G-20 and other meetings did NOT go well. We will see the end of globalization and the rise of trade barriers... the WORST thing possible right now. No, not because Globalization is good... there are some good things about it... (Count them with one hand) but our INTERNAL market is pretty much not there. We NEED exports to get that economy going. Yes, we still make a few things here.

Maybe we could stop pissing money away on patroling and destroying the world and rebuild this country based on something other than power and greed. Short range, it'll be painful of course.

scenario, and in my mind very likely actually.

So it will not be the US... but the successor states that will need to pick up the pieces. And there are a few places I would not like to be when the fall comes. No, not the people, those likely to be in charge

but disagree with 'Center cannot hold without the left.' The Center ALWAYS holds; it IS the Center, whether 'we' like it or not. 'We' may have to learn to like it, and grow WITH it, esp if we keep kicking our best possibility to succeed, that is, OUR POTUS.

We are all sorely tried by media culture and repugs propaganda success; THOSE are killers, imo.

...because Democratic presidents and congresscritters don't hold the line.

'We the People,' you know.

But when you talk policies that people support, rather than labels, the center is far to the left of what is discussed in DC or by the media.

Truth is, "we the people" is only a charming phrase as long as elections are decided by the Supreme Court and partisan voting machine companies, and politicians are corporate whores.

People in the 1950s were more rebellious and intellectually curious. The tumult of the 1960s was simmering during the 1950s.

The soul deadening conformism of the 1950s is largely a myth.

that it is quite to the right of popular sentiment.

And "the Center cannot hold" refers to a speech right before the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln as well.

We are extremely divided, that's not a media narrative, we are.

It is the left that defines where the center is, and what the center is.

If the left is ignored and bashed until it collapses as a viable political force, the center moves much farther to the right. Everything that Republicans have been pushing becomes the center. All their extreme stuff becomes their moderate stuff. They get to bring in even more stuff from the far, far right lunatic fringe and introduce it as if it is only their radical right.

That is why we need the left wing, and why anyone in the Democratic party with any sense would Want us to have a very strong left wing. The left wing serves a necessary purpose.

The left wing anchors the left. It also anchors the center so that it doesn't move to the right. And if the left wing is strong enough, it pulls that center towards the left.

After decades of the center being constantly pulled to the right everyone in the center (in our party at least) should WANT that center pulled back to the left! x(

The American people have never, in ANY form, been "moderate". The nation has always been shaped by the extremes. For the past 30 years that shaping has been done by the right, who propagandize that their ideas are "moderate", but if you ignore the rhetoric and look at the policies you can see beyond the propaganda.

What the majority HAS been is bullied into submkission by the right. That is why 40% is a great turnout at the polls. That is why the same percentages like liberal policies whils at the same time say they are NOT liberal (app. 65%).

The entire nation suffers from Stockholm syndrome.

But it is NOT moderate.

That's a political myth that seems to be conventional wisdom, but I have never seen that proven in any real sense.

The majority of people in the US are poor. Poor people are politically invisible, not moderate.

When I used to run a polling departing in a research firm (admittedly several decades ago) and did weekly omnibus surveys on political issues we routinely found that the single biggest correlating factor was income. On almost any issue, if you wanted to track what people thought, find out how much money they made.

It is very doubtful that this has changed since then.

I recall that the very poor supported public services. It was only once you got into the middle class (who are numerically much fewer), the people who counted that you found people who were "moderate" who thought that maybe we should consider whether we had too much public services, and maybe they should be cut back to save money. Middle class people don't use public services, and often don't care about people who do use them, and may not care about people who will be hurt if services get cut. That's a "moderate" position.

Poor people have always been will, historically, to invest tax money spent on the social safety net. They saw the need for it. Almost all had needed it, or expected to need it at some point. It is only once you get to people in the middle class that you find "moderates" who consider capping access to the social safety net, and who think that imposing work restriction on people on public assistance is a good idea. These "compromises" that limit access and punish poor people for needing help are "moderate" ideas, because only people who are at least middle class could think that it is reasonable to cut off help to people who need it, and punish people because they need help.

Poor people opposed the move away from public hospitals, and the move to privately owned corporate hospitals. "Moderates" didn't listen and supported the privatization of hospitals because it would supposedly allow hospitals to modernize, bring down costs, reduce redundancies, or do other wonderful things. This was part of our great love of all things in Capitalism starting in the 80s. History has shown us that the advocates for poor people were right and "moderates" were wrong. Privatizing hospitals allowed the hospitals to create monopolies, drive up prices, fire most of their workforce, drive down wages, destroy unions, close emergency rooms, and most of all, it allowed hospitals to stop providing services to the poorest and most indigent people. Only public hospitals, because they were taxpayer funded, were able to serve poor people and run at a loss when necessary. Public hospitals demand a profit, so costs skyrocket and only people with insurance get care.

So now we have this big debate about health care reform, and most of the people in the US, including almost every poor person ever polled, wanted guaranteed universal access to health care. Mandated access to Insurance was the "moderate" compromise. But access to insurance isn't the same as access to health care. And costs keep going up. Nothing in the reform bill is intended to lower costs, just slow the rate somewhat at which costs keep increasing. That is the "moderate" position.

Perhaps you can see how that won't be of much good to poor people, unless a system is put into place to have the government pay for those rising costs for poor people. Otherwise poor people are still going to be denied access to health care. And supposedly a system is coming to have government pay for these costs, but if that system ends up having flaws, because of any "moderate" compromises like this whole system has had so far, then it will be poor people who are likely to suffer for it.

I don't mean to imply from this that all poor people are progressives, or all middle class are moderates. I'm making generalizations about general trends. On wedge issues, like choice and LGBT rights, clearly this breaks down. But on most bread and butter issues, income would correlate very closely to political leanings.

The more income or resources someone had, or someone's family had (and therefore the fewer people in that population), the more likely someone was to have libertarian views. Add in age as a factor and this would correlate with being more likely to hold republican views too.

In all of this, nowhere do I see a majority of moderates. However, I certainly do see why it would be useful to create a political myth that the majority are moderates. If you make poor people invisible, so that only the middle class is considered "people" then immediately the views of the poor are considered unpalatable precisely because those are the views of those people who shouldn't be seen.

"Moderates" become more respectable, and populists (those who hold the views of the people) even among people in the middle class, are downplayed because the sounds like poor people. It isn't acceptable to sound like a poor person. That is very much where we are right now.

So we have moderates, who are not a majority, assuming that they are a majority, by ignoring all the people who really are the majority who have been rendered invisible.

When people are polled with reasonable questions about what they want, and when they take political "quizes" asking about their basic needs and wants, they always poll to the left.

of where you are told.

Ask people (without labels) about things like oh single payer, and public education and they WANT IT. Now the people in DC... not so much.

You have laid it out so clearly that nobody should be left with any doubts on this.

How else could it possibly be?

Thank you, Thom... your understanding of these things is a breath of fresh air!

and you see how they are being brought to heel by elites, I mean the ones elected.

and you see how they are being brought to heel by elites, I mean the ones elected.

and you see how they are being brought to heel by elites, I mean the ones elected.

Control of Congress bouncing back and forth is a common sign of a party system realignment.

Recently read the Bankers' Manifesto again, published in 1892, part of which is reproduced below:


"...When, through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers.

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete actions, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

http://www.illuminati-news.com/bankers-manifesto.html



"...the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism..."


Strategy of tension. I tend to think we as a population are subjected to more forces of manipulation on a daily basis than any before it. There are intentional divisions imposed upon us from external entities. Not tinfoil, just factual. 1984 was really about 1948.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

realize that in the 1880s the level of home ownership was less than 5%... and things were all but quiet.

We are not the only party that is having serious infighting right now.

So, not only are we divided from the right wing/Republicans we're divided from many of our own.

Vice versa for the Repubs. It's too perfect. It's the BEST time for them to try the shit that's come and will come our way.

I hope we can come together to mount a defense of our way of life someday soon. Our kids and grandkids probably do too.

Perhaps you'll pardon me I just came from a Green Tea Party love fest for "Movement to Amend" and that's the plan.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Green Tea Party - I like it. It sounds healthy.

and not very well at that.

Plus Tea Party.

In light of the effect that they could have upon Medicare reform, I'd say not very healthy at all.