General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThird Way True Believers Live in a Patronage Bubble
A couple of people asked me to turn a comment from If Third Way Democrats continue to the right with TPP, union bashing, privatization it's because... into an OP. Below is what I think the "Third Way personality type" boils down to. Third Wayers, be aware when you think you are propounding from the Very Heights of Reason, you may actually be coming across as outlined below.
********
People who find affinity with the Third Way are people who have held the sort of jobs or other position in life (for instance, big money fundraiser) that require playing courtier and sucking up to the rich. They think they are being "reasonable" and "savvy" when they discourage talk of redistribution and shun the "angry left". Since their livelihood has always been dependent on the favor and patronage of the rich, they see threatening the status quo as a destruction of the source of all lifeblood.
These are the same people that insist on "polite protests" (so the rich might chose to "listen", but remain unoffended so they won't take their toys and go home). Since protests are usually triggered by the rich "choosing" to ignore problems, this approach causes not a little cognitive dissonance in the social justice community. The other Sign By Which Ye Shall Know Them is by their demands for real identity on the Internet in the name of courtesy. But it isn't courtesy they are enforcing - it's deference. Real identity brings the possibility of real life rewards and punishments into play. In that game, the rich have implied power over the poor. When anonymous speakers do end runs around the status quo on the Internet, it fries the Oligarch's hard-wired neural circuitry.
In California there is the added ingredient of New Age modes of thought - especially EST. These ideas proclaim all problems are a matter if attitude or transforming one's consciousness. The rich don't have to take responsibility for an unfair economy: the poor should just get some therapy and change their attitude.
If California invested half the money it puts into therapy into housing and livelihood safety nets, our economy would be blasting off into space! But no, that might involve "redistribution" and making the patron class grumpy, which would be unreasonable. Besides, so many people are employed by the "bureaucracies of poverty" - wouldn't it be unfair if all those folks lost their jobs because resources were redistributed to the poor?
The Third Way point of view is an insidious form of moral corruption because it identifies pleasing the rich with securing one's livelihood. That's how moves to the right became "reasonable". The constant repositioning against the "angry" or "wingnutty" left is based on FEAR of troublemakers as a threat to livelihood BASED ON PATRONAGE. The Third Way drags everyone into the bubble of this corrupt world view.
The Democratic Party needs to air out this underlying motivation and challenge its ethics. I hope we then chose to tear it out by its slimy ass-kissing roots.
********
Ps. My call outs managed to stir up fears in that very thread. I was juried out of the comments with this accusation:
The post confines itself to personal attack only, without supplying quotes to prove its point. So we are left with advice to believe nothing the OP poster says, with no supporting documentation. This is classic Republican rhetorical malfeasance.
I'm a purveyor of "classical Republican rhetorical malfeasance", eh? I'll let the rest of DU be the judges of whether that particular label fits me.
Response to daredtowork (Original post)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Seriously?
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)And I lost the first version. I'll correct it.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)For madfloridian:
Here is how you do the "angry left" hokey-pokey:
Dance caller: Angry left!
(You look to your left and take two steps right.)
Dance caller: Angry left!
(You look to your left and take two steps right.)
Dance caller: Angry left!
(You look to your left and take two steps right.)
Meanwhile everyone who *was* on your right was shoved clear on out the door an hour ago!
And that's how you do the "angry left" hokey-pokey! *jazz hands*
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They care only about winning elections, and not about human beings. For them, everything boils down to political calculus: oppose the invasion of Iraq because the Other Side did it, applaud the destruction of Libya because Our Side did it.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)involves "appreciating" the power-structure "as it is". That's why they see themselves as practicing Reason, in an economic sense, when they behave in a way that will curry the favor of patrons. They rabidly fear anyone who will mess up their patronage positions.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Their strategy has resulted in HUGE losses nationwide. On your other points you are spot on. The country will not not have real healthcare for at least 50 years because of the Turd Way's "success" in 2010. They're even excusing the "defense" budget proposed by the president. Appalling. It's almost like they want the Republicans in power
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Just motivation.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)They hold up the "bipartisan" or "transpartisan" cover over the Reasonable Middle so they can move to the right while retaining the party machine of the Democrats. They would rather be Republicans on most policy matters, but the label is too declasse for them now. The Democrats have the intellectual prestige.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Board of Directors is made up of Investment Bankers. Not a single Working Class person is to be found among them.
They are so far removed from normal working class people, as their sense of entitlement shows. In their 'writings' or 'papers' as they call them, they never speak about PEOPLE.
Power is the goal. People are the fodder.
To gain that power they need both parties. Or at least half of the Dem Party. They are a Wall St Creation founded for the sole purpose of taking over the Dem Party. Wall St already owns the Republican party.
But one party isn't enough to ensure total control of this country's economy, or it's War ambitions.
They despise the Left. Mainly because the Left is a huge threat to them. The Left talks about the forbidden, PEOPLE, and their needs and RIGHTS. The Left reminds them of the existence of those outside their Bubble and they prefer to lump all those people into an 'entity', to make decisions for them, with NO input from them.
They are snobs who believe they know better, are smarter than the population at large, whose purpose, to them, is to SERVE and to do it CHEAPLY.
They are a despicable group of human beings who when they are challenged, rightfully, respond with attacks, see their recent attack on Elizabeth Warren in the WSJ eg.
The condescending way they spoke about an elected Senator was par for the course of how they 'think'.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)it's rather more like neo-kulaks; politicians who rise from the proletariat to turn and oppress it even while claiming to be pro-folky.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)were reasonably well off to very well off to start with.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)And, IMHO, the more important point is the way they cultivate their followers across the "reasonable middle". They disseminate a way of life that is based on courtiership and deference to hierarchies. The superiority complex that is presented as "reason" is based on the financial success that such courtiership brings, as well as the punishment that is dealt out to troublemakers. That's why it's extraordinarily difficult for whistleblowers to regain a footing on any sort of a "career ladder", even if everyone agrees they did extraordinary service to society. They broke the rules of courtiership and became troublemakers.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Good to see some honest discourse and so far this is a very interesting discussion; one that is long long overdue.
I notice the underlying dynamic others mentioned as well: It's almost as if the corporatist wing of the democratic party has a more visceral disdain of the populists than even the republicans.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)but its really fear of the power structure as given. People are living off bread crumbs from the table. They are savvy about where their bread crumbs come from. Populists alienate the patrons, so they threaten the very livelihood of "reasonable " people.
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)Evidently the desire to insult is too great to adhere to what the term actually means.
His point was about articulating the message, not the substance of her positions, which he said he believed were correct. Yet for some here, substance seems to be last among their concerns. But if you can show how you think you are so superior to everyone else, that's what really matters.
I find it amazing how people who claim they see the rich as the problem spend most of their time attacking Democratic voters.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)where have I heard that critique before?
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)History repeats itself, the so-called moderates bring a heavy hand and the few are out in force.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Lol, so true.
The Left, who they totally despise, doesn't do deference, which is why they despise them.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And very few people, ever, want to be accountable. The fantasies we have about life are all about doing what you want without consequences, or having things go just exactly the way you want, but in any case about control, not being meddled with. THAT is "Freedom".
Thus the powerful wish to be anonymous themselves, in their beliefs and in their actions, but they want to know everything about you. Hence government secrecy, and hence the endless list of whistleblowers exposing the government's and politician's habitual violation of their own laws.
And that is why they hate the anonymity of the internet, it undermines their ability to hold us accountable for what we say. We can talk without supervision to people all over the planet.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Are the courtiers more than the kings. And they will help box (other) people in with identifiers because they need to know who to defer to and who they can filter out. In real life, a lot of this is encoded in status symbols and the invitations that sort the wheat from the chaff. This is why we get the irony of only the woman who can afford a membership to the $20,000/year club having the access to the person who can provide a million dollar donation while the beggar on the street is called a Welfare Queen for asking the less-well-off public for a few dollars. It seems more efficient for the millionaire to be helping the beggar, but they aren't coming into direct contact because of the status filters that intervene.
We complain about filters on the Internet a lot, too, and there are people trying to set up private high status clubs for "like minded people". However, there is still more of a chance for a direct connection between people from different walks of life on the Internet. The "game" isn't completely rigged yet.