Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Are Americans Ready For A Transformative Presidency?

>




The woman in the video is Disney heiress, Abigail Disney, a member of Patriotic Millionaires, which released the video yesterday to advocate for the inclusion of an ultra-millionaires tax in the New York state budget (which is going to be wrapped up in 2 weeks... and the villains here are Governor Cuomo and Senate Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, of course + The Long Island 6: Todd Kaminsky, Monica Martinez, Kevin Thomas, James Gaughran, John Brooks and Anna Kaplan). The tax only affects individuals with annual income over $5 million. It's meant to help bail out cash-strapped public schools that are facing further budget cuts, and the long-neglected subway system which just continues to decline.

I'm glad New York is trying to solve these problems on a local level. As for addressing these kinds of problems across the country-- on the national level-- obviously nothing's going to happen while Trump and McConnell have a choke-hold on the political system. But a transformative presidency would. Not a Status Quo Joe bullshit presidency or that of any other pick-me, pick-me candidate with nothing to offer the American people-- but a really transformative presidency, the likes of which we haven't seen since FDR passed away. I guess I gave it away, right? Bernie.


You've probably noticed that many of his once-shocking policy ideas have lately moved from the fringe to the mainstream of the Democratic Party-- from Medicare-For-All and the Green New Deal to putting working families interests before Wall Street's interests. Most of the potential nominees-- despite their own histories and records-- are now trying to offer some version of Bernie's populist economic message.

Faiz Shakir, Bernie campaign manager, reminds the media that all Trump offered to woo working class voters was a ripped-off, hollow version of what Bernie has been advocating for decades-- almost making himself sound like what Shakir calls a "faux-Bernie Sanders."

Yesterday the AP reported that the case for Bernie being able to beat Trump is now front-and-center in discussions of the Democratic nomination.
“The polls have been pretty consistent that Democratic primary voters are very focused on which candidate has the best chance to beat Trump, so I expect all the candidates to argue why they are uniquely positioned to win,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.

“Bernie Sanders has a strong case that his economic message works in the states that delivered Trump the presidency in 2016, but his challenge is going to be articulating how he can defend himself against attacks that he is a socialist,” Pfeiffer said.

Goal ThermometerKarine Jean-Pierre, a Democratic strategist and senior adviser at MoveOn, argued against the notion that a more centrist candidate is inherently more electable. “Often you’ll hear arguments from centrist, or more corporate-aligned, Democrats that a candidate needs to run as a centrist to win-- but those comments say more about the commenters’ interests and ideology. They don’t actually tell you much useful about political outcomes,” she said.

“This year’s primary is obviously a different dynamic than 2016, when there were only two Democrats, and much of that debate centered on electability-- and then the candidate presumed by the Democratic establishment to be most ‘electable’ lost,” Jean-Pierre said.

So far, Sanders has been focused on Democrats’ shared goal of defeating Trump, whom he’s called the most dangerous president in American history. But he’s also placed himself as a standard-bearer in today’s political environment.

“In 2016, this is where the political revolution took off,” Sanders said during a recent trip to New Hampshire, a state that he won by 22 percentage points. He said that he began the race far behind Clinton, campaigning on ideas “considered by establishment politicians and mainstream media to be ‘radical’ and ‘extreme.’”

Sanders says that now his ideas are supported by a majority of Americans, particularly Democrats and independents, as well as his rivals in the race.


Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

At 6:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"shocking policy ideas have lately moved from the fringe to the mainstream of the Democratic Party"

among voters, yes. among the PARTY, all they are forced to do is to find more ways to parry these issues so that their donors continue to slather them with money.

Let's say Bernie gets the nom in spite of the DNC. Let's say he wins in spite of the baked-in anti-democratic structure of the electoral college.
Pelosi will still be speaker with a line of 200 more corrupt neoliberals backing her. Scummer will still be the democrap "leader". If democraps are in the senate majority, he'll have similar despotic power as Pelosi to determine what is, but much more importantly, what is NOT considered in that chamber.

We don't need a transformative presidency nearly so much as a transformative PARTY.
And that party cannot be the democraps. it just cannot.

Bernie will turtle to the money bwo Pelosi and scummer, just like he turtled before the DNC and $hillbillary in 2016.

And if you don't think so, you are a very typical lefty voter and probably a devout scientologist -- total moron.

 
At 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

as long as we insist on democraps as the only alternative, there can be no transformative anything ever. too much money/corruption/greed that never suffers electoral demise.

as long as lefty voters remain this stupid... nothing ever changes except the names and the amounts for which they whore.

 
At 5:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have had nothing but transformative presidents since the Coup of November 22. The transformations have always been for the worse.

 
At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Granted, 5:24. The transformative prez was Reagan. All since have copied and expanded the smallish tweaks of his predecessors. Cheney was transformative in that he acted as prez from the VP office and started the aggressive war and torture memes. obamanation was NOT transformative because he initiated ZERO new policies. He just continued and extended all the worst of the old ones.

But I presumed to understand that "transformative" in this context was meant in a "positive transformation" way instead of either plus or more minus. My reply was thusly grounded.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home