Neoliberals Managing the Decline of the Middle Class

[thomhartmann]

Thom Hartmann comments on a piece by Gaius Publius, who writes the goal of the Republican Party, and neoliberals in the Democratic Party is to manage the decline of the American middle class in a way that doesn't produce revolt.

[Hulk]

1. God, I miss this brilliant voice out here in Portland, Oregon!

Rest assured we are supplied with a steady dose of stupid from vannity, levin, Larson, limp balls, ingrahm. It's no wonder this country is so sick and twisted.

[FighttheFuture]

9. Stream his show from WCPT... and Thom's "The Big Picture" show on RT....

WCPT Thom Hartman (11 - 2pm CST): http://player.tritondigital.com/6111
Other options at the WCPT web site or Thom Hartmann's site.

Hartman's "The Big Picture": https://www.youtube.com/user/TheBigPictureRT

[jtuck004]

2. 'Course, that one in the pic is dead. The one doing it today is Barack Obama. n/t

[Depaysement]

3. Well done

Payday loans are legalized usury. Laws have been on the books for generations banning usury. The Bible, Torah and Koran all ban it.

And who seeks these loans? The poor, the sick, the dispossessed. Cut bono? The 1%.

What is to be done?

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Thom, need a better term than neoliberal? Try corporate socialist instead.

[billhicks76]

11. Hillary Loves Con-Job Neocons

Our party is filled with fools lately.

[beastie boy]

13. Neocons, neolibs...

...sclumiel, sclemazel... What do the definitions matter?

[Baobab]

19. Obama and Hillary are neoliberals. That means corporatists

I think the term is pretty accurate, after all Hillary's husband is probably the person most associated with neoliberalism and the WTO in the US.

They want to reverse the money isnt everything viewpoint back to the money is everything of the 19th and early 20th century, and then lock in with secret trade deals. Eliminating the risk inherent to democracy forever, turning governments into symbolic leadership in everything having to do with business and money.

[Rebkeh]

5. "Manage the acceptance"

Wow.

I haven't read the blog but it syncs with my observation of what's going on.

[Madmiddle]

6. We are way past the revolution stage.

Either you people here on the underground get behind this or join the republicans!

[billhicks76]

10. Damn Right

People think Trump is scary? Watch what a pissed off mob of the disenfranchised does. This is why they created the Patriot Act and militarized police. They know what's coming.

[FighttheFuture]

7. Bingo!!!

[billhicks76]

8. Scum

Guilotines may come back in fashion.

[beastie boy]

12. Contrary to Hartman's opinion, I find precious little evidence of neoliberal sentiment

among Democrats. The only area of exception may be in the area of international trade, where a neoliberal streak is perceptible among the elites in the Democratic Party. And even there, the populist opposition to their views is overwhelming and growing.

So I find no justification for lumping the Republicans and conservatives in general under the same label as the Democrats who are, overwhelmingly, social liberals and are fundamentally opposed to anything resembling neoliberalism.

[FighttheFuture]

14. Riighht... all that Democratic Establishment "resistance" has staved off the decline... pfaugh!

Go read the article he was referencing. Very illuminating, unless one is in denial.

Gaius Publius: The Goal of the Neo-Liberal Consensus Is to Manage the Decline

[beastie boy]

15. Read it.

It mainly consist of criticism of one person, Hillary Clinton. And without arguing the merits and weaknesses of the author's arguments, his perception of neoliberalism appears quite incomplete and capricious. Perhaps we should start with a dictionary definition of the word.

[FighttheFuture]

16. I have, and it is spot on. He is pointing out the decline of this country's middle class over

the last several decades and applying the current elections , the establishment parties and the candidates and their continuing role in it. If it's not the doctoral thesis with abundant references you want, too bad, it does not negate his point in the least.

All you need to know. Both parties are giving away the store, cleaning out the cash register. Your lives will be very much worse unless you stop them. Yet both parties want you to get used to it, get used to being made poor. The Democrats want to soften the blow more than the Republicans — a kinder, gentler devastation if you will. A softer crash landing.

But either way, the goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.

And that’s what this election is about — on both sides. Acceptance or resistance.

If it's spanking Hillary and you don't like it (obviously), well, what would you expect? She is the establishment and is not expected to really rock the boat. To think otherwise is wishful thinking, at best. The republicans are even worse, as mentioned, and Bernie is a bright spot in this muck. He references Avedon Carol's observations

... of the identity-fight on the left, or as she calls it, an attempt to “actively divide us by making personal and tribal differences into the main show of the public political arena.” She offered her thoughts via email (emphasis hers):

Bernie Sanders wants to do these two important things:

- Create enough abundance for everyone so that there is far less resentment and bitterness to divide us.
- Empower us to be better able to fight for ourselves.

Clinton’s program for dealing with sexism and racism is … what?

As far as I can see, she’s offering, at best, a kind of paternalistic sympathy that does little to ameliorate the actual problems we face.

And yet, the Clinton campaign is attacking Sanders for some sort of weird and undefined insensitivity to issues of racism and sexism that is “proven” by an inadequacy of photo-ops and the fact that some of his supporters, just like some of her own supporters, say things that are sexist and insensitive.

And she is still talking like the DLC.

I suggest you re-read it, or dismiss it. Either way, it does not change the reality and a very cogent explanation for it.

[beastie boy]

17. Like I said before, I will not even go into the merits and shortcomings of the article.

My problem with the author is much more fundamental. He is either unaware of the accurate meaning of the term "neoliberal", or worse, is deliberately distorting its meaning to fit his narrative.

You don't have to be a scholar to know that if you use a term on which you base your thesis, you better be aware of its meaning, and you better not insult the intelligence of your readers who might. If you don't, whatever follows, no matter how "spot on" and "spanking", is built on a faulty foundation and immediately becomes suspect.

[FighttheFuture]

22. Yet you can't enlighten us to what you think it means? Okey dokey. Perhaps you should go and study

some more.

[beastie boy]

23. Yes I can. I merely assumed you were able to enlighten yourself.

My bad. Google is a bitch.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neoliberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism

Think Reagan, Thatcher and Milton Friedman. Think "government is the problem" and making government small enough to be able to drown it in a bathtub. Think everything the Democrats (including Hillary, BTW) stand against.

[FighttheFuture]

24. Read your provided links? No, your too busy splitting hairs on terminology rather than the merits!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used by many scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[2] and critics[3]... Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy

Another movement from the American left that used the term "Neoliberalism" to describe its ideology formed in the United States in the 1970s. Prominent neoliberal politicians supposedly included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States.

Describes most Republicans and many Democrats and DLC type particularly, very well.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neoliberalism
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc

Where do you think Obama or Hillary do not fit into this? TPP/NAFTA mean anything? Bank bailouts and not policing seems pretty minimal. Reduced public expenditure... well Obama tried to do that with his "Grand Bargain", thank god the R's hated him so much and would not bite.

Regardless, go educate yourself, and stop diverting discussing the substance of the article with meaningless points because it was not flattering to Hillary. If the shoe fits...

[beastie boy]

29. Yes I do read the links. And I don't pick and choose and I don't quote out of context.

The first Wikipedia paragraph you chose describes most Republicans but hardly any Democrats. Privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, advocacy of the so called "free trade" reductions in government spending and enhancing the role of the private sector can hardly be pinned on Democrats or their policies. Nor does the Wikipedia entry you are quoting from suggest that any of it is in any way advocated by the Democrats.

Your second quote contains the word "supposedly" in reference to the only two Democrats it mentions, and this supposition is based on a single opinion, that of a known conservative neoliberal David Brooks (see the footnote next to the quoted part). No factual evidence.

In short, your suggestion that neoliberalism has anything to do with the Democrats lacks any substance. Sorry, what things look like to you from your eternally fixed vantage point is not particularly substantive.

If Obama and Hillary or any Democrat were in favor of free trade, there would be no auto industry bailout or "cars for clunkers". If they were in favor of fiscal austerity, there would be no extension of unemployment insurance. If they were for privatization, there would be no Obamacare.If they were for reductions in spending, the Republicans would have no need to shut down the government.

Sorry you find the fundamental flaw in the author's argument to be a meaningless point, and my objection to it a diversion. I have obliged you with every conceivable explanation and reference so far. I see no point in continuing this conversation. If you will excuse me, I will now go and educate myself some more. I hope you'd do the same, eventually.

[FighttheFuture]

30. NAFTA put into law by Clinton. TPP being setup for a push by Obama in the lame duck session.

Grand bargain on entitlements (cuts to Social Security, etc.) being pushed by Obama back in 2009-10. And so on. You're splitting hairs.

I am not saying the Democrats are as bad as LIEbertian style republicans or Tea Party clowns, but give them a few years. They are usually few steps behind. I will remind you that the original point of this post, that is, "Neoliberals Managing the Decline of the Middle Class". The key word their is "managing". You don't manage the decline by shoving it down peoples throats. You manage it by letting of some social steam like Gay issue, or addressing black issues (or not). Then you place some odious, but unrelated crap through, like the Telcom act of '96, which effectively made our main stream media corporate monopolies and neutered them as any real source of relevant information to these programs. So you "manage it", otherwise there would be too much danger of open rebellion. You ease them into it, like cattle down the slaughter chute.

The Democratic party has been part and parcel of this Right Wing Oligarchic movement for decades. Perhaps at first by cluelessness, but with the rise of the DLC and corporate influence while deminishing unions, not so much today. Yet, you will argue fine little points of minutiae, while these real events have occurred and are occurring (look at Debbie Wasserman Shulze's BS, for example). So split your hairs, but foolish deniers like you, who fail to address the original point of this post and dismiss it out of hand, are the very reason Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have such a movement today, thankfully for one of them, at least.

[merrily]

18. Poster, I served with Adam Horowitz. I knew Adam Horowitz. Adam Horowitz is a friend of mine.

Poster, you're no Beastie Boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you're_no_Jack_Kennedy

Sorry, just could not resist.

[beastie boy]

20. Was it my avatar that gave me away?

No, I am no Beasty Boy. I am just a beasty boy.

My regards to your esteemed BFF Adam Horowitz.

[merrily]

21. Beastie Boys is the name of the group, but you can be a beasty boy (or a beastly boy, if

you prefer). No License to Ill, though.

[KoKo]

25. K&R!

[Skwmom]

26. They are going to bust Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Educational funding, etc.

by running up the national debt. And they will blame this on liberal policies not the raiding of the U.S. Treasury by the 1%, family members of politicians, and political cronies.

[Skwmom]

27. Don't be deceived there are some. No Thom we are not deceived. They control the

Democratic Party.

[colsohlibgal]

28. Agree 100%

I am not sure why a few dogged types have myopia about this. Who ended welfare as we knew it? Who started the ball rolling on disastrous trade deals? None other than Bill Clinton.

The unemployment percentage going down is one thing, but what kind of jobs are hoards of people getting? Millions are underemployed or paid just not enough to keep a family from being poor.

As I said elsewhere, 44 per cent of kids in the Columbus City School system qualify for subsidized meals. Most upper middle class and above suburbs here now have food banks based on so many jobs going elsewhere, corporate raiders, and so on.

So again, lots of losers in this new era of free trade, all facilitated by Neo democrats.