General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA very revealing article about the libertarian take over of the Democratic
Party, called "New Democratic Party. The article is from Business Insider.
"The Republican party is not the only party experiencing a grassroots political coup. A new breed of capitalism-loving and urbanized liberals is demanding an entirely new role for the federal government.
"With heavy support from Silicon Valley, these new tech Democrats want the government to embrace economic disruption, with unlimited high-skilled immigrant visas, expansive trade deals, and performance-based funding that encourages charter schools to abandon teacher unions and adopt the management model of a modern startup.
The replacement of working-class whites with upscale professionals has turned the Democratic coalition into an alliance with a built-in class division," wrote Columbia Journalism Professor and NYT Columnist, Thomas B. Edsall, on the migration of professionals from the Republican party to the Democrats. "While constituting a minority, the relatively upscale wing clearly dominates party policy and provides the majority of the activists who run campaigns, serve as delegates to the convention and have become the core of the partys donor base.
More here with charts and more details.
http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-overhauling-democratic-party-2015-11
The origins of this takeover occurred along with the introduction of that word Progressive instead of liberal for Democratic, also that awful "New Democrat, Third way and left libertarian. These people are not liberal and Hillary has embraced them, they do have all the money and power now.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)There's nowhere sane for Business to pour money in the GOP now. The problem with that is that most of us don't support Republican policies...but we're told we have to.
Our party is likely to split at some point if this takeover is not addressed.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The Democratic Party is running for president:
One moderate liberal,
One left liberal,
One strong left liberal socialist democrat.
NO libertarians, even socially liberal ones, this time around. This means they're not that powerful in our party, much less have taken it over.
Those addicted to panic attacks may want to instead spend some time with THIS reality: The GOP presidential primary is almost entirely made up of candidates vying for the backing of libertarian billionaires. And, although the candidates themselves are not admitting it, most of them are leaning toward economic conservative libertarianism themselves, if they aren't the real thing. Like that scary Kaisich.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and just was attractive to the young idealists that won't vote?
Now he's too far right in three party and attracting liberal republicans?
You guys gotta keep some consistency in your attacks on Sanders.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I want to know so I don't accidentally take a hit by mistake.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #3)
TumbleAndJumble This message was self-deleted by its author.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)are finally being brought into the light.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)supply of money, and that meant pleasing the rich--here, it was the tech and entertainment sectors, plus Wall Street and sectors with a "hi-tech" cachet like Exelon or Monsanto: smart, expert, "pro-science," professional, not fundies saying if the Bible says 2+2=5 they'd believe it or handsy oilmen or rough-handed Hard Hats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberselfish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The DLC was created to turn southern economic gains into political gains that would mostly serve southern politicians.
That economically based political gain was rooted in policies and practices that had encouraged manufacturing to 'go south', and which by their very nature depended on politically friendliness to corporations and vice versa.
The DLC mostly took advantage of what already existed. They simply pushed the inflation of it from regional party policy to national party policy. And it didn't work so well nationally because the economics were dependent upon between-region economic and political asymmetries that weren't uniformly favorable across the nation.
The exploitation of the asymmetrical economic advantage of taking an industry south which began in the late 50's was almost over when the DLC rode into politics on the glory of the economic rise of the south.. At the time the DLC arose, American industry was already actively looking to create manufacturing colonies outside the country. The big successes of foreign auto and electronics manufacturers having opened their eyes.
Soon after the formal introduction of the DLC, it was very apparent to corporations that the greater asymmetries that would provide much greater profit opportunities were international. Jobs quit going south, they began seriously moving outside US borders. By the end of the Clinton administration, the DLC was deep into the rhetoric and policies of 'globalization'.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)of them run on, let's reduce wages, instead they talk about letting markets decide. They never oppose the voter disenfranchisement laws called innocently, Voter ID laws, etc.
pampango
(24,692 posts)of the party.
As an example of their growing power, California was once Ronald Reagan territory; but now, the Democratic leadership has taken over big cities, as their base in manufacturing union towns dwindles (think of House Leader Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco, Hillary Clinton from New York, and Barack Obama from Chicago).
On nearly every major battle within the Democratic Party (high skilled immigration, Syrian military intervention, Keystone XL pipeline, and charter schools) education is the dividing line between the capitalism-loving-global-citizen Democrats and regulation-happy-America-first Democrats.
Unlike their capitalism-loving libertarian counterparts, these tech Democrats aren't rabid individualists. They want the government to encourage everyone to maximize their contribution to society by competitively funding citizens to be as educated, entrepreneurial, healthy, and civic as possible.
Traditionally, each political party had had their fear-of-change coalition. Conservatives feared cultural disruption while liberals feared economic disruption. ... That is, psychologically, the same need for certainty that predicts anti-gay attitudes in conservatives also predicts support for wage laws and regulation in liberals
blockquote]
On each of the issues in the graphic, Democrats differ but not dramatically. On 'decreasing Asian immigration' a majority opposes it. On 'free trade is good for Americans' the difference is only 6%, right around 50%). On 'public services should compete', again a majority opposes it. On the Keystone Pipeline, leaders of the party have not supported it, although some unions did.
There are certainly changes in the makeup of the party. If tech and urban professionals had migrated to the republican party, I doubt our party would be stronger today. There always have been changes in the makeup of the party and always will be.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Just aimed at a different set of 'winners'
djean111
(14,255 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Those aren't Democrats.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)unemployment, food stamps and welfare.
they are the children of politics.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)including libertarians who lean more liberal socially, rather than libertarians who lean more conservative socially.
If this faction IS gaining more power at this time it's because of the power money gives them. And what's new about business-friendly factions driving most government policy since conservative economic policy took over the nation in the 1980s?
BTW, TRUE libertarians (not those who just pick a few libertarian ideas that sound good and call themselves libertarian) are a dangerous crowd, to almost everyone individually and to a democratic republic. They range from favoring a fairly mild anarchy with some structure (including dog-eat-dog capitalism), to anarchist, to nihilist.
Since the 1970s many wealthy libertarians have been busy dismantling the national structure built over the past century and more. For that, we can blame our own ignorance. No one knew who the Kochs were, for instance, before a year or two ago, yet over those decades we voted thousands of their and their colleagues' choices into office at literally every level and branch of government throughout the nation.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)union groups, but they told everyone where they stood. This group has done nothing but hide behind social liberal ideas while promoting with obfuscating language pure libertarian oligarch ideas.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)people like Southern Democrats told everyone they were flaming bigots but these particular Silicone Valley-type libertarian-leaners we're talking about pretended they were not just what they were. Both groups are real and part of the party, no matter what they say or don't say.
As for libertarian Democrats, nothing new here except that some extras are coming over from a batshit-crazy GOP, which is a good thing overall. Most of the original Democratic libertarians have been socially liberal and economically libertarian (the latter works out as very conservative). Most of the GOP libertarians have been socially more liberal but economically, again, conservative libertarian.
This all means they were "hiding behind" their own ideology all the time. Which is to say, they're not some evil deceiving group pretending to be "you." They're just another faction of the Democratic Party which, like all the others, believes they have the best answers.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)conservative economic and political beliefs, policies and practices and is fine. Why must they be so dishonest? Why hide who they are until after they are elected? If these are such good ideas why aren't they running for office with them?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And why do so many here "refuse" to identify themselves as liberals, anti-liberals, left-wing extremists, conservatives of various types, totalitarians of various knee-jerks, Christians, Muslims, fascists, libertarians, Hindus, various socialists, communists, a slew of other labels so academic I can never remember them?
No one owns the Democratic Party, Today's Illusion. There is no litmus test for belonging. It's an organization various peoples join to further goals better pursued in a group instead of individually. Most tend to fall left on at least either economic or social issues, but not necessarily.
Does your "hiding" of where you're truly coming from make you dishonest? Or aren't you hiding a thing? Maybe it's your own business even and you have no duty to explain your ideology any more than you have a duty to disclose your sex, skin color and age, which btw all usually affect ideology.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)A libertarian nation with absolutely no guaranteed or protected individual rights.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)
liberal, not a libertarian, and this is the first I've heard of a one-party movement. I wouldn't get all worked up about THAT possibility. Remember the thing about herding cats. We're worse.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)it was a one liner. I have now read it and I am not a philosopher nor am I here in DU for a humanitarian experience. I am here to have a political brawl. And you have no idea how much your comment really does sound like the lefty libertarian fast talklking snake oil selling deceivers, nor how much you mirror the libertarian superiority and condescension. It is not my intention to offend you. I am telling you what I experienced when I read your entire comment. GMO corn meal mush.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We're known for our tolerance of different people and views. I would not grab the Democratic Party for my favorite type even if I could, and not just because it'd be an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)what you believe, it isn't important for a dialog, we can only respond to what we each type.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Many of those "New Democrats" do have liberal positions though.
They are strong on the environment, are fine with abortion, are not religious, and want decent and affordable schools.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)minimum wage?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)trickle-down economics above all.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)With no viable left left (except as it tries to regroup under the rubric of the Sanders'campaign), the half-abandoned old castle of the Party is ripe for any Tom, Dick, and Betty to come in, turn up the volume, crap on the carpet, and declare themselves a fate accompli.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...the libertarian dream economy for weeks!!! These Democrats are too transfixed by their smartphones that they don't understand, even after you explain it too them, that the tech driven gig/sharing economy is driving wages down, replacing full-time jobs with benefits with these glamorized "be your own boss" 1099 jobs. Uber is wreaking havoc on the cab industry at the same time disgruntled Uber drivers are suing Uber nationwide over its business model. Under its current business model, Uber avoids paying into social security and has gamed the tax system by hiding their income in shell companies in the Netherlands and Bahamas.
Airbnb is impacting both housing and smaller hotel industry. In San Francisco, affordable housing is getting squeezed out because landlords can make more money on Airbnbs. While Airbnbs employ no one, they are taking business from smaller hotels that do employ full-time workers. Further, in many cases, Airbnb is another source of income for people with 2 homes. My friends post pictures of the Airbnb they stayed at and they are gorgeous. It's just another redistribution of income from the middle and lower class to the upper class.
Venture capitalists Nick Hanauer made a fortune off his investment in Amazon, but he says "We don't create jobs. Amazon didn't create jobs, it destroyed 1 million jobs."
The very power elite Libertaian Democrats Jeff Bezos, Hollywood agent mogul Ari Emanuel and his brother, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Microsoft fuel the gig/sharing economy and they are taking liberal democrats with them.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)support Bernie and look closer at the Democratic U.S. Rep and Senate candidates there are already too many of the libertarian ones in office.
FSogol
(45,355 posts)It is all about the libertarian take over of the economy by the tech firms you mention. Highly recommend.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...one of the last hanger-one.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)That so called environmental group that just endorsed Hillary is made up of tech libertarians and all the candidates they have supported are as well.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)between long-time liberal Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA17) and tech darling Ro Khanna. Thanks to our new top-two primary system, the two of them faced off last November, with Honda winning handily, but Khanna has already made an Ahh-nuld-like "I'll be ba-ack!" statement. Unless, that is, he decides to go for the Central Coast seat that will soon be rendered vacant by Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA20)'s retirement.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)now call themselves Democrats.
But they made damn sure to bring their Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman economics along with them.
Al From and the Clintons sold the institutional party to them.