For Clinton & Krugman, 'Hardheaded Realism' Amounts to Protecting Interests of the Richest People

[99th_Monkey]

For Clinton & Krugman, 'Hardheaded Realism' Amounts to Protecting the Interests of the Richest People in America
The demeaning attacks on Bernie Sanders speak volumes about Hillary Clinton's worldview.
By Les Leopold * AlterNet * January 27, 2016

Here are three telling quotes about this year's election:

"In theory, there are a lot of things to like about (Sanders') ideas. But in theory isn't enough. A president has to deal in reality. I am not interested in ideas that sound good on paper but will never make it in real life." —Hillary Clinton, Jan. 21, 2016

"The point is that while idealism is fine and essential -- you have to dream of a better world -- it's not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends. ... Sorry, but there's nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking about means and ends. Don't let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence. —Paul Krugman, NYT, Jan. 22, 2016

"In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes..... (We) believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened." —Gilens and Page

Team Hillary (which includes economist/columnist Paul Krugman) is worried about major defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their counter-attack is clear—Bernie is all pie in the sky, he isn't facing up to the realities of Washington. And as Krugman puts it, Sanders and his supporters are letting "idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence."

But these demeaning attacks say much more about Clinton than they do about Sanders. In effect Clinton is admitting (as is Krugman) that we have to accept American plutocracy as a given that, at best, can be modified around the edges. Neither Clinton nor Krugman believe a progressive populist uprising (that Sanders is calling for and counting on) could possibly modify our elite-driven system. After all, if such a movement is possible, Hillary is likely to lose. Therefore it must be declared impossible, off the table, unrealistic and so on.

Clearly Clinton and Krugman accept that elite rule not only shapes our current sense of reality, it is our permanent reality.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clinton-and-krugman-hardheaded-realism-amounts-protecting-interests-richest-people

[Buzz cook]

1. I don't see a problem here.

Sanders and his followers have staked out the ideological purity ground. Most of the attacks made by Sanders and his supporters has to do with the lack of ideological purity of his opponents.
That goes so far as condemning Planned Parenthood and HRC for lacking ideological purity.

The fact is that ideological purity has a limiting effect. That shows in an inability to compromise or even recognize that people who disagree with you might have honest concerns.
Once you accept that premise then it follows that your opponents are dishonest.

Makes it hard to effectively administer government when even those that are nominally on your side can't be trusted.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Lie: "condemning PP & HRC for lacking ideological purity. "

Bernie clearly explains his problem with progressive groups LEADERSHIP making endorsements
that are at odds with the vast majority of their membership, and/or Leaders endorsing candidates
with a lower rating than his 100% rating. <--THIS is the issue, period. It has absolutely
nothing to do with "ideological purity".

[Buzz cook]

3. Yes he did walk back his original remarks nt

nt

[frylock]

5. No, he didn't.

[farleftlib]

6. No he most certainly did not

What is all this "walk back" crap that's been going on the past few days? Bernie walked this back or walked that back...it's totally disingenuous. It's almost like someone sent a memo that the new talking point is "Say Bernie had to walk stuff back."

[farleftlib]

4. The attacks on him are very demeaning

It's seemed strange to me for a long time how vitriolic the attacks are. Now I realize it's because his message is resonating. People are not willing to hold their collective noses and vote for the lesser of two evils anymore and that is very dangerous for Hillary. That is what she has been counting on for 8 years now and along comes Bernie with his message of hope and change and it infuriates her. Those who are also invested in the status quo are quite desperate to stop the groundswell that Bernie has started. However, the message is out there and they can't unring the bell so they scream bloody murder.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Yes indeed. Those already on the Gravy Train are scared shitless of paying their fair share

and their paymasters are calling in their chips to block Sanders at all cost.

[closeupready]

7. She wants to be a cowardly leader. What a winning posture.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, 99th_Monkey.