that was then, this is now

i often hear about how FDR did this so Obama should do this et al. FDR died before most of the people on here were born. The country's population was easily half of what it is now. I post on another forum and here is a post I saw that really explained it for me. I understand some here may not like it. But, to quote Abraham Ribicoff; "how hard it is to accept the truth":

Impossible. There simply aren't enough working class whites in good paying jobs (industry, auto-manufacturing). The old UAW workers are now living in the suburbs, and vote based on cultural issues. Today's union members are mostly hispanic and black service employees who don't make very much money and rely heavily on the state, rather than on the company.

I used to agree with your basic attitudes, in that I was a big supporter of the NDC and believed that it could be duplicated in today's climate. But then I read more about it and came to this conclusion: Every political generation has it's own coalitions, but they can't remain stagnant. The New Deal coalition served it's purpose in the 1930, 40s, and 50s. There was a general post-war consensus within the Democratic Party that government intervention into the economy generated jobs and growth for everyone. That was largely because we weren't competing with anyone as they had all gotten the sh**t bombed out of them. Our economy was thriving, revenue came pouring in, and we could afford a heavily involved government. Then social issues cropped up, leading Southern whites and later the WWC to vote for Republicans like Nixon and Reagan. At the same time, the Democrats began to do better among women, young people, and eventually suburbanites. However with folks like McGovern and Mondale, we clung to the old New Deal mantra. In the economy of post-1960s America, that was simply untenable. Competing with Germany, Japan, China, and the developing world, we can't believe that more government will solve our problems. Clinton recognized that, creating a New Democratic coalition based on the suburbs, minorities, and women. They supported less government intervention in the economy, were socially liberal, and wanted to change the way the welfare state functioned. Obama has built on this.

In short, we can't have the NDC back, nor should we want it. The protectionism of Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders hurts many more Americans than it helps. Sure, what's left of our paltry manufacturing base will benefit. But what about consumers, farmers, and tech workers? They have to pay more and sell less of their products. In today's economy, we can't pander to the old wwc which no longer exists in the way it used to. The New Democratic Party needs to be based around smart education, energy, and investment. Not big government.

actually, one doesn't need to wonder too much...

Economies don't just happen. Government intervention and regulation is a necessity for a strong economy and to make sure that those who actually do the producing share in the prosperity.

You are no Alan Cranston.

We're constantly lied to.

I don't want to hear a word from anyone who doesn't realize where the jobs have gone, and why.

:shrug:

yet ignore cutting taxes and trickle down economics was created by Hoover. Funny how every time those ideals were put into action they produced the exact same results, out sourcing to over sea's factories, massive unemployment and economic melt down. FDR's formula of taxing the wealthy, creating social safety nets, creating work programs all worked to bring the US economy back from the death it faced after 1929. Notice that for all of Reagans rants about welfare not only did he not cut the program but increased it as well as creating a new benefit, he made welfare people who were high school dropouts get their GED's. Now states like Michigan who had high unemployment in the 80's also were hit with a nit wit republican who sold the ideal cutting off all single people with no children as a way to lower taxes, the people in the state noticed 2 things 1) their taxes remained the same, corporations saw tax cuts, 2) businesses started failing almost as fast as they opened, both related to cutting social safety nets.

are not really the future of the party. Who wants to associate themselves with an aging, dying community. The future of our party is in places like Loudoun County, VA; Westchester County, NY; and Santa Clara County, CA.

and why won't you explain it?

as your screename. For instance there is a guy who posts on here with the name "William Pitt" who was a famous 18th century philosopher. I decided to have my screen name as Alan Cranston, who was a Senator from California.

:shrug:

do you know anything about Alan Cranston?

what about him do you like?

as he did back when CA was a marginal state. In fact I remember reading somewhere that in 1974, Reagan thought about challenging him for the senate, but when he found out he was trailing by 15-20 points, he decided not to. If somebody could have defeated Reagan (and by that many points) in his home state, he must be a strong politician.

there are lots of politicians that won elections. why pick him? what one thing impressed on you?

for the rich