Economic Populism

Cancel7

Banned
I can only hope that we are approaching a new progressive era, we badly need one. I agree with this approach, and think that the DLC'ers represented here by Topspin, are wrong and out of step.

If I'm wrong, well, I'd rather go down swinging.

New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, July 15 — On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.

Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

At the same time, centrist Democrats, like those at the research group the Third Way, worry that the party is veering left away from the optimistic, pro-growth, business-friendly policies that Mr. Clinton championed.

But many Democrats argue that this is an inevitable response to the dislocation and unease in much of the country, which was a crucial factor in the party’s victory in Congress last November. The case for populism is made most powerfully by the Democrats who were elected to Congress last fall. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who defeated a Republican incumbent with an attack on the trade and economic policies of recent years, said he was convinced that the populists were on the rise. He noted that he carried Ohio by 12.5 percentage points two years after John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lost the state by only about 2 percentage points, and with it the presidency.

“That’s because of the economic populist message,” Mr. Brown said. “They voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”

Even Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is viewed as far too much of an establishment, free-trade Clintonian by many populists, says the party must respond. “The party that deals with globalization and economic security will win,” Mr. Emanuel said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
 
I can only hope that we are approaching a new progressive era, we badly need one. I agree with this approach, and think that the DLC'ers represented here by Topspin, are wrong and out of step.

If I'm wrong, well, I'd rather go down swinging.

New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, July 15 — On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.

Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year’s Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, calls it “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

At the same time, centrist Democrats, like those at the research group the Third Way, worry that the party is veering left away from the optimistic, pro-growth, business-friendly policies that Mr. Clinton championed.

But many Democrats argue that this is an inevitable response to the dislocation and unease in much of the country, which was a crucial factor in the party’s victory in Congress last November. The case for populism is made most powerfully by the Democrats who were elected to Congress last fall. Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who defeated a Republican incumbent with an attack on the trade and economic policies of recent years, said he was convinced that the populists were on the rise. He noted that he carried Ohio by 12.5 percentage points two years after John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, lost the state by only about 2 percentage points, and with it the presidency.

“That’s because of the economic populist message,” Mr. Brown said. “They voted minimum wage, they voted trade, they voted student loans, they voted health care and prescription drugs, over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest. And that’s the route to winning Ohio for Hillary or Barack or anybody else.”

Even Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is viewed as far too much of an establishment, free-trade Clintonian by many populists, says the party must respond. “The party that deals with globalization and economic security will win,” Mr. Emanuel said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

YES. Please democrats pick up this cause. I will become a democrat. many other freedom-oriented, individual rights oriented conservatives will also vote for a D if they ACTUALLY fight the internationalist fascist sytem. But of course, if slapping a government sticker on the whole mess and calling it NATIONALIZED is the solution you offer, that will be unacceptable, and you will again be relegated to the dustbin. Devolve power to the people, don't replace corporate tyranny with a government tyranny. That's just the same thing repackaged.
 
watch for the internationales playing up the social issues to defeat a true populist unity. I personally think breaking the hold of the hegemonic internationales is more important than the abortion issue, at this point in time.
 
watch for the internationales playing up the social issues to defeat a true populist unity. I personally think breaking the hold of the hegemonic internationales is more important than the abortion issue, at this point in time.

No, I think it will be fear of terrorists this time around.
 
No, I think it will be fear of terrorists this time around.

There are legitimate fear from terrorists, but we will handle it all wrong, as the various created neuroses on boths sides of the aisle interact to produce the result the elites intend. Political correctness from the left will combine with radicalized jihadis, which are a result of the bipartisan overreach of the western military industrial complex and the inherent violence and tribalism of the region, as policies to protect the society from terrorists will be implemented in broad "society as a whole" solutions, because of the inherent political incorrectness of actually targetting the know perpetrator population.

Rights=gone, thanks to the tom and jerry rope a dope strategy.
 
There are legitimate fear from terrorists, but we will handle it all wrong, as the various created neuroses on boths sides of the aisle interact to produce the result the elites intend. Political correctness from the left will combine with radicalized jihadis, which are a result of the bipartisan overreach of the western military industrial complex and the inherent violence and tribalism of the region, as policies to protect the society from terrorists will be implemented in broad "society as a whole" solutions, because of the inherent political incorrectness of actually targetting the know perpetrator population.

Rights=gone, thanks to the tom and jerry rope a dope strategy.

Well maybe you should be President.
 
They will hate this honest discussion of things. When we come at them (our leaders) from this angle their tactics to divide us are ineffective, and their agenda becomes clear, as every lynch pin in their fascist plan is defended to the death, with name-calling, and labelling starting pretty soon into the discussion. If the people can stay together, they have no place to hide.
 
I can only hope that we are approaching a new progressive era, we badly need one. I agree with this approach, and think that the DLC'ers represented here by Topspin, are wrong and out of step.

If I'm wrong, well, I'd rather go down swinging.

New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy
By ROBIN TONER
WASHINGTON, July 15 — On Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail, Democrats are increasingly moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current economy.

snip


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/us/politics/16populist.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Beyond the iraq war, this is the issue that a new crop of Dem senators were elected from traditionally red, or swing, states: Tester, Webb, Brown, Casey, etc.
 
It's a mistake to assume populism = socialism. The thing with populism is that it depends on the people. When the elites agree with the people populism is called democracy, when the elites do not like what the people believe and wish to begin a campaign of ideological destruction against the people, they call it populism.

A hard line needs to be drawn between globalism/internationalism and capitalism. They're not the same thing. I believe in capitalism inside a framework devised with other considerations in mind, like sovereignty, the economic future of the working class, self reliance, and security.

Globalism is a radical assertion that countries may not protect their populations from what may be deemed unfavorable international market conditions.
 
I know.... people want to know why the corps are leaving the US and putting their corp offices overseas... this is why.

Note to all the isolationist/protectionists.... there are many reasons the global economy is doing well. A small part is the fact that there has been a concerted effort to reduce taxes. Another is the ever increasing capitalistic influence in China. (not to say that the communist leaders will be ousted any time soon).

While global trade deals should be simplified and try to improve working conditions where needed, all this gloom and doom from the anti-NAFTA types is a bit absurd.
 
BTW I warched an economic news show from India on CNBC last night. It appears that foreign ownership of India companies is limited to 26%, at least in the finiancial and insurance areas.
 
I know.... people want to know why the corps are leaving the US and putting their corp offices overseas... this is why.

Note to all the isolationist/protectionists.... there are many reasons the global economy is doing well. A small part is the fact that there has been a concerted effort to reduce taxes. Another is the ever increasing capitalistic influence in China. (not to say that the communist leaders will be ousted any time soon).

While global trade deals should be simplified and try to improve working conditions where needed, all this gloom and doom from the anti-NAFTA types is a bit absurd.


LOL - China is one of the most protectionist trading countries on the planet. So much for your theory about NAFTA-style "free" trade driving china's economy.

Company's often move there for cheap labor, slave labor, and few if any labor protection laws. Bottom line.
 
that article is about the global economy. Not the US economy. I don't give a crap what's happening in china and india. The global economic growth rate (cited in the article) is largely being driven by them. Our economic growth is mediocre.

Forgive me oh wise one... I could have sworn this thread was about GLOBAL trade. About protectionist ideals vs. globalism.
 
Back
Top