Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

8 Comments

  1. … ” Their rigged identity politics nominee selection process

    Their neoliberal anti worker economic policy & their own failed candidate”…

    ………………………………

    The above in a nutshell.

    And actually , those who pushed the Clinton bandwagon were not even nationalists. They were globalists. And neo liberalism is just an extension and a tool for globalization. That’s all it ever was. Those people were never interested in the peoples welfare , they were interested in building and maintaining a global network of power.

    People have wised up since the 1980’s.

    We’ve seen the destruction of economy’s and how its always the working poor that pay the price. We’ve seen the dilapidated social services, we’ve seen the colossal hypocrisy of those in power with their obscene wealth while people are homeless and starving…

    Did they really think people would come back for more of the same ?!!?

    And it doesn’t matter what party is if its Left or Right or any other permutation,… people don’t want anymore of it.

    People are not interested in divisive identity politics, – they’re interested in jobs and job security , putting food on the table , saving for their retirement, putting their children through affordable education , being able to comfortably afford a mortgage , being able to afford a well deserved holiday , and still having a bank account after it…

    Where do these neo liberal lizards get off in thinking people are going to accept their evil little neo liberal ideology just so that only they can enjoy a life while the rest have to slave to support these leeches?

    And that’s why the American people voted Trump.

    They’ve had a gutsful of the lies of the neo liberals.

    1. I’ve been wondering recently, if the 2016 race for US President had been between Sarah Palin and Bernie Sanders, would the identitarians still have been telling us to vote for a neo-liberal warmonger, just for the empty symbolism of finally having a President without a penis? I agree it’s disgraceful that women haven’t been roughly 50% of all US Presidents so far, just as it’s disgraceful that black people haven’t been roughly 10-15% of all Presidents, and that Hispanics and Latinos haven’t been President roughly 20% of the time. But you don’t fix that by cheerleading right-wing women, black people, or hispanic/ latinos over much more left-wing candidates, even if they do happen to be old white men (which they can’t help, they were born that way …)

  2. To use Wildes analogy on Fox hunting, “the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable”…

    If this gets to Court the DNC will have to furnish some evidence. To date apart from conjecture this has been scarcer than hens teeth.

  3. The Dems seem to have learnt nothing and are staring at another defeat if they put up Clinton or a clone. Are they incapable of the radical changes they need to make to defeat the Repugs? It certainly looks like it.

  4. Agree 100% – the Democrats are out of touch – if they had made a deal with Sanders they would be the President. They were too arrogant to do that and lost the election.

    In NZ Labour and Greens did a deal and that’s why they are in power. You have to collaborate if you are on the margins of power, not gamble away that you will get enough votes to win – nobody likes those that gamble and can’t share power and ideas in parliament, in particular they are out of touch!

  5. At the moment, the left, as personified by Corbyn and Sanders, is making a bid for legitimacy as much as for office. Under Neoliberalism, Thatcherism, The Washington Consensus, or whatever you want to call it, the delegitimisation of the left has been a measure of their success. Hence Thatcher’s counting Tony Blair as a victory – so long as the parliamentary left agreed to play by the new rules, the core gains of her revolution would go politically unchallenged. Up until 2008 that kept them constrained but not devoid of purpose. There were still significant socially liberal wins to be had, and it was still possible to see these wins as if they were in some way continuous with economic wins, as a bit of economic wiggle room still remained.

    But since 2008 and the imposition of targeted austerity, that option has become exhausted. With much of social liberalism now an accepted part of the status quo, and very little room for challenging austerity while at the same time remaining insiders, the adaptive left is left with very little to offer. They also lack allies, apart from certain sections of the middle class who are cut from the same cloth as themselves, and are less numerous than their noise-level suggests. The US Democrats prefer to blame anyone but themselves for this state of affairs, and rather than try to rebuild a viable constituency, prefer to pitch for a new gig, drumming up support for foreign regime-change wars, on socially liberal v authoritarian grounds. Anything to retain roles within the establishment, and avoid finding themselves out in the cold with a left whose core struggle is against delegitimisation.

Comments are closed.