Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumJust for us!
Trumpism and Clintonism Are the FutureSource: New York Times, by Michael Lind
Most important of all, it would be a serious mistake to assume that the growing sympathy of many of todays millennials for the concept of democratic socialism as embodied by Mr. Sanders will translate into a social democratic America in the 2030s or 2050s. Half a century ago, as the Age of Aquarius gave way to the Age of Reagan, many of the hippies of the 60s became, in effect, the yuppies of the 80s still socially liberal, but with new concerns about government spending, now that they were paying taxes and mortgages.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trumpism-and-clintonism-are-the-future/ar-BBrQccp?OCID=HPDHP
Cha
(295,899 posts)From hippies to yuppies. Remember that?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Well, there goes your "political revolution", Bernardo.
The Democratic Party, which he has so recently decided to join in order pursue his own ambitions, is a much bigger tent than his doctrinaire "democratic" socialist ideology would admit.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)I did NOT vote for McGovern in the primary.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Watching the Watergate hearings on TV did make me a lifelong yellowdog Democrat, though!
Those memories keeps it real simple.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Anyone who could claim that the two parties are opposite sides of the same coin needs their head examined.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)What is more likely is that we'll see an intersectional synthesis: candidates that tie together social justice and economic justice into a coherent package and set of policies. Today's Millenials are not going to suddenly turn into conservatives in 20 years because:
1: because the Millenials and post-Millenials are blacker and browner than every other generation that has preceded them, and the coming generations will be blacker and browner still, and black and brown people, despite the protestations of the BernieBros calling us the "Confederacy", are more left, not less, than the average.
2: Because the hippies were never that big a group. Even the young people on average in the 60s were much closer to their parents socially and culturally than to the hippies. In particular, young working class whites never really got on board, it was more of a middle class thing.
What we'll likely see is more candidates talking about the specific issues minorities and other marginalized groups suffer from, and how those issues intersect with economic issues.
ismnotwasm
(41,916 posts)The article, although good, wasn't in-depth, more broad ranging in its conclusions. Your points about the up-coming generations being "blacker and browner" is well put.
It's my belief the part of what we are seeing, part of the reason for the extreme contentiousness of the current Democratic primary, is that we are seeing the beginning of the end of white male rule. As has been proven, AA's and Latino's are a powerful voting bloc who want more than being used for political gain. They want solution for the dangers years of oppression has caused. Women, as well, band together to affect policy in very effective ways.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"...The Clintonian synthesis of pro-business, finance-friendly economics with social and racial liberalism no longer needs to be diluted, as it was in the 1990s, by opportunistic appeals to working-class white voters.
This realignment within the Democratic Party requires Hillary Clinton to distance herself from many of the policies of her husbands administration and to adopt policies favored by her partys core constituencies. On issues from criminal justice to immigration enforcement, that is precisely what she has done..."
After three Republican presidential terms in a row, Bill Clinton found a "third way" alignment that broadened the appeal of the Democratic Party.
Today, we have the synthesis you are describing. It is today's Democratic Party, and our candidate Hillary!!
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Her campaign has reiterated socioeconomic issues & solutions.
If you don't know the depth & detail to which she has addressed, then your're not bothering to listen to her.
Sanders has popular criticisms but stops at the point of thought out policy to change those criticisms into a functioning society.
He has no follow through beyond the stump speech.
Foreign policy is nonexistant.
Hillary, on the other hand will serve all those under her inclusive big tent, and has laid out policy changes to create the functioning American society Sanders only dreams of.
She also has given all she can to assisting her Party in electing Dems to the Senate & House, all necessary to help break the RW gridlick & allow Her sensible policies to become law.
This is how you defeat the RW Party of billionaires & theology.
Nothing changes in society nor economics until the Koch funded RW KKKristian TeaParty are reduced to a minority.
Bernie should be focusing his ire on the RW Koch purchased TeaParty.
Wht hasn't he?
Why hasn't he so much as touched on the real Party behind the gridlock in our society?
When the Money House in DC is stacked against socioeconomic equality, with RW Teapartists, then why has Sanders been so silent in ending their majority?
Helps to listen to what Hillary plans on doing to make the change in DC, so that a better socioeconomic status of all Americans can take place.
Bernie Sanders criticises.
Hillary has a path to actually making the necessary changes.
THIS IS THE HILLARY GROUP btw.
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)Thanks yallerdawg.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Still sharpening that stake!
Hoping New York will be the hammer!
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)I walked to town to watch the marathon. Two of the runners lost limbs three years ago during the Marathon Bombing, yet today they are on their feet and running. It is an emotional day here.
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/04/17/marathon-bombing-victims-back-on-course/
Luv ya yallerdawg. NY, we will do this!