Progressives (Liberals)

Well I suppose we could have an argument about just who or what constitutes Democrat leadership, and I'll readily concede my use of the term was imprecise and subject to dispute. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to have written, "many among the Democrat leadership".

There's a lot of tumult going on now within the Democrat party. The Sanders 2016 campaign appears to have ignited much of this change and multiple new forces have since added issues attendant to group identity and various proposed reforms to the mix. One result is the evident fact that the central tendency of the party has moved considerably to the left on both economic and social issues, and has done so at a pace that has so far limited their ability to develop a coherent synthesis of the several main parts.

Though it appears he is trying to catch up with these new forces, Biden is overall largely representative of the Obama/Clinton era, while Warren and Sanders seek to lead the new wave. My opinion is that neither Warren nor Sanders has much potential to win the general election, and that so far Biden is seeing at best only moderate success in capturing the leadership of the process. You may well disagree on both points.

I suspect that an important element of the renewed interest in impeachment among Democrats is a result of their growing concern about success in the coming election. That plus their visceral loathing of Trump, something that he sustains with his continued egoism and crudities, is what fuels this fire. Hard to be certain of the future, but my estimation is that Trump will weather the storm and win the election.

I just get tired of all the attempts to set Bernie above and beyond as some kind of superior being. He is saddled with human defects as are we all. I don’t particularly doubt his motives. I just doubt that he’s definitively purer or more above petty concerns than say Warren or Harris.

I disagree.

If Trump would have followed Rule of Law, he would have asked the Ukrainian President to re-open the investigation on Burisma Holdings, subject to prior scrutiny for corruption. This would allow assurances to the IMF, the US and others that they had indeed cracked down on corruption within the Ukrainian government.

Instead, the US President insisted on only pursuing information on a political rival and the inferences of wrong doing by his son. This is election interference and Trump got caught. There's no way to spin how asking a foreign government for dirt will be a positive for him. It's wrong. it's illegal, and he now has a formal impeachment inquiry to show for it.

Bernie’s life is evidence that he is, in fact, a superior human being to the corrupt wastoids running for president.

Naw. No more than your constantly bleating this makes you superior to those of us who don’t believe it.

He is a superior human being.
More honest, more interested in helping others, more consistent.

Nothing you say can change those facts.

A bit old but interesting.


Insider Q&A: Joseph Stiglitz touts ‘progressive capitalism’

By JOSH BOAK | The Associated Press | July 7, 2019

WASHINGTON  — Many of the economic policies being pitched by Democratic presidential candidates are rooted in the ideas pioneered by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who teaches at Columbia University.

In his new book “People, Power and Profits ,” Stiglitz outlines his case for “progressive capitalism” in which government programs for health care, retirement and housing can compete against private sector options. He believes that greater competition made possible through the government will improve Americans’ quality of life.

Q: We have this debate politically about capitalism versus socialism. But you use the term progressive capitalism. What does that mean?

A: It really is a response to a lot of the confusion around the word socialism, which was traditionally defined as the government ownership of the means of production. No one is really advocating that anymore, not even in Europe.

Progressive capitalism is not anti-market. It reflects the a broad consensus that any successful economy needs a mix of markets, government, civil society and a variety of other institutional arrangements such as non-profit universities.

Q: You propose some big ideas such as government-backed health care and retirement. Why should the government have these responsibilities?

A: What I emphasize is having a public option. The government wouldn’t be the only choice, but it would enrich private choices.

On health care, it’s clear that the private sector is failing to provide for the needs of large numbers who are uninsured or have costly medical expenses. With retirement, the idea is you can save more money through Social Security and get a commensurate increase in benefits.

These are three examples where a public option would enhance the ability of ordinary Americans to have a middle class life. A public option would provide competition to the private sector, encouraging them to provide better products at lower prices.

AP: You’re critical of Republicans. In your opinion, is there anything that Republicans got right on economic policy?

Stiglitz: At one point in 1986, President Ronald Reagan got right the idea that we ought to broaden the tax base and take out a lot of the loopholes that had been put in by corporate interests. But over time, new loopholes were added to the tax code. Still, the original vision was right.

Q: Have you been talking to any Democratic presidential campaigns about any of the policies?

A: We put the ideas out there. You see them picked up by a number of candidates and people in Congress, who are pushing the importance of creating a more competitive economy and adopting new rules for antitrust. If you listen to some of the candidates, these ideas have clearly resonated with Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders and most of the other progressive candidates have policies that are consistent with these ideas.

Q: Ultimately, in this book, are you arguing more for a better quality of life or for faster growth?

A: My emphasis is really on having a better quality of life. The objective of the economy is to serve society.

People care about their sense of security, their retirement, the education of their children and access to health care, all those things that may or may not be well captured in economic growth numbers.

https://apnews.com/a72324dbcdd0404690bc16168d6a70eb

And you saying it doesn’t make it true.

But just to be clear ... “superior” to everyone? Or just to anyone else running for President?

To everyone else running.

I hold out hope that across the world, there are people in all walks of life who are basically honest, don’t take just any opportunity to enrich themselves no matter who it hurts, and genuinely care about other people.

He’s just one of them.

That he was able to remain like that-so close to power-is more rare.

What I and Sanders are pushing is getting labeled as socialism, but it's in fact an amalgam of socialism and capitalism. It's an insistence that capitalism allow for society to make gains on an equal basis to the military-industrial interests.

=================================================

Attacking Bernie on a personal basis as many centrist Democrats are doing shows they have no interest in policy beyond getting rid of Trump and installing a person labeled "blue." Sort of an episode of Family Feud. This coming election is, in my opinion, the final breaking point. Either the nation rights itself or we become a truly fascist state. Which is why I am particular for whom I vote.

Sorry. I guess I misread your post. I wanted to make the distinction between Sanders himself and many of his supporters.

It's a common ruse to attack Sanders supporters to deflect the conversation away from the issues.

I understand that this is a widely disseminated idea in the communities you attend to. But the communities you and Lash attend to are highly suspect.

I have never paid attention to the Russian angle beyond the instances it gets aimed for my throat. I pay my main attention to what actually is happening.

You are sounding more like ollie every day.

Greta Thunberg says her Asperger's makes her a laser for the truth. I sort of feel the same way about my Asperger's. I make a few missteps, but the general thrust never wavers.

I think that's a fair assessment.

This as well.

I do.

Small point but I don't think "renewed interest" accurately describes the present. Voices on the left, whether sitting politicos or political writers, having been steadily growing in consensus that impeachment is legally appropriate and morally necessary. You could say that the press has, in the last two or three weeks, jumped on this with renewed interest and coverage but that's a different thing.

You've said earlier that this growing clamor for impeachment is a consequence of Dems recognition that their electoral chances are dim and dimming. Why you'd think that is the case befuddles me entirely. But it is the sort of notion Hannity or Limbaugh would forward.

Thank you. Good post.

Who? What was said? Where? I just don't see this in anything I read and I read pretty widely.

I trust you don't believe that any of us here are so motivated.