[wildman]

Sunday NY Times:

"When we conducted our election-night national survey after last year’s Republican sweep, voters strongly chose new investment over a new national austerity. They thought Democrats were more likely to champion the middle class. And as has become clear in the months since, the public does not share conservatives’ views on rejecting tax cuts and cutting retirement programs. Numerous recent polls have shown that the public sides with the president and Democrats on raising taxes to get to a balanced budget.

But in smaller, more probing focus groups, voters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: “It’s just words.” “There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”"

-------------------

Take a look at the full article there's a lot of truth to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/tuning-out-the-democrats.html?_r=1

---

Last edited by wildman; 07-31-2011 at 01:12 PM.

[shooz]

That's only possible, if there were an actual liberal government.
We've not had that since Roosevelt.

[wildman]

That's only possible, if there were an actual liberal government.
We've not had that since Roosevelt.

OK I'll settle for relatively liberal.

[jolepp]

Interesting piece, thanks .

[jeffkrol]

OK I'll settle for relatively liberal.

more like "just not conservative"...

[Nesster]

but what about LBJ?


The point of the article is that to the degree we're disgusted with or disillusioned by politics and politicians - and government, or the possibility of better government - the liberals hold a losing hand.

What the article misses is the likelihood that the Tea Party represents the same kind of over-reaching and ideological hegemony liberals reached in the 70's - and we can argue, despite two centrist presidents, the Democratic party has yet to fully overcome. That the Republicans are getting to the same place doesn't exactly endorse the same old same old Democrats, and vice versa. Many of us looked for this spark of renewal from Obama, but haven't seen a heck of a lot of it from him. His arguments make sense, but us liberals want red meat just like our Republican friends

[shooz]

Here's the crux of the biscuit.
Listen to Boehner talk --"But it shows how much we've changed the terms of the debate in this town."

Do you really buy that?
It's the republicans holding the line on what they feel they won during the Bush years.
It's about the republicans not 'changing the terms of the debate'.
That's why the teabaggers were needed to pull even harder towards the same kinds of policy that got us in this mess. To keep the debate the same.

it's wrong.
8- 10 years of tax cuts to build the job market have failed miserably, in all regards, save one.
I'll let you guess.
In fact, the job market went into steady decline almost immediately.
Topped off by the Bush recession.
In fact jobs are down in most states that elected teabagger style politicians.
The republicans want more and more of the same.
The whole of the free world needs us to change our tune.
We are not.
Heaven help us.

[wildman]

This was an article about broad public perception not necessarily reality.

Given that I think it pretty much nails it - the public perception that government's real practical purpose and result has become, over time, to serve the interests of wealth and property and not broad public interests irrespective of the party in power.

I share this perception.

I will continue to vote for the Democratic party because at least it pays lip service to some of the issues I care about. But I don't really expect much out of my vote in a real world practical sense.

Welcome to Amerika Inc.

[Nesster]

I will continue to vote for the Democratic party because at least it pays lip service to some of the issues I care about. But I don't really expect much out of my vote in a real world practical sense.

While I sympathise with this, I think it is precisely this attitude that "they" like to see as it keeps the population feeling like their votes don't matter and very little change is possible. Thus it doesn't really matter which bozo we vote in.

NOT

See e.g. Wisconsin.

There IS a difference, even when you grant the corporate involvement thing, between the parties.

Also, there is a cartoon simplification of what 'ought' to be possible. The political system is - on purpose - slow and zig zaggy. The fact that a Tea Party fantasy or a left-Liberal one are emotionally satisfying and seemingly obvious, simple solutions to all our ills doesn't make these solutions either practical or achievable in anything but exceptional circumstance.

[Chwisch87]

You know, the media and the GOP played up tea party wins in the midterm but if we were in ANY OTHER western parliamentary democracy, the tea party would be NOTHING other than a fridge party in congress that holds 60 seats. The news media would make a story about how right wing fridge parties had a big win but not enough for government.

We could in all likelyhood have a coalition of conversative democrats and rank and file GOP.

Because we have a two party dictatorship, the tea party, a minority party, is able to exert FAR more control than they should. This is something that the system was NEVER designed for. We have been able to hold together the two party system for so long because Washington DC has also been a government of compromise.

POLL AFTER POLL AFTER POLL shows that americans want higher taxes to save the welfare state with some benefit cuts.

[BillM]

the corporate involvement thing

Is this what you speak of Nesster,Emerson CEO David Farr 'inviting' employees
to dinner with the boss and republican senate wanna-be Todd Akin.Ask's for
$1K to $5K [voluntary] contribution for chance at 'chit-chat chow down'.
Says that "saying no" will have no effect on employment of employee,
but mentions nothing on wages,benefits or anything indirectly associated.

David Farr asks Emerson employees to donate to Todd Akin

[Ratmagiclady]

This was an article about broad public perception not necessarily reality.

Given that I think it pretty much nails it - the public perception that government's real practical purpose and result has become, over time, to serve the interests of wealth and property and not broad public interests irrespective of the party in power.

I share this perception.

I will continue to vote for the Democratic party because at least it pays lip service to some of the issues I care about. But I don't really expect much out of my vote in a real world practical sense.

Welcome to Amerika Inc.

Part of the problem here is a corporate media, and as we're about to find out is even worse with the 'Citizens United' ruling, the corporate money in politics themselves: treating a suppressed liberal vote and majority opinions as if that means there's some kind of 'mandate' for the Republicans to get even more corporate-favoring and right-wing...

When everyone knows the reason they picked up a few House seats and all is because the Democrats have been seen as not standing up to the Republicans as it is.

The Right and the 'Tea Party' have been ignoring even their *own* constituency. while trying to ram through just the kind of right-wing social engineering they promised up and down (in the corporate media, as opposed to when speaking to the actual right-wing part of their base) they wouldn't be doing, with all the claims of 'just being about the budget,'

The vast majority of Americans are *really* tired of Big Oil, Big Finance and Big Money getting all the tax breaks and exemptions and billion dollar subsidies, while they try and squeeze more and more out of the poor and middle classes, but they're not getting represented, either.

By now the Tea Party are effectively calling their own voters 'leftists,' is what it comes down to.

No one's getting representation but the big money and right-wing religion, is what it comes down to. It's not, certainly an 'end of liberalism,' but, at least if we're not careful, a return to Reagan-era cynicism about ever really being represented in government. Or at this point, even the nightly news.

[newarts]

Small Government Dreamers, ignorant of the consequences of their demands, seduced the media into repeating their mantra. Leadership then followed the red herring.

In the recent past the public and media finally heard the muted voices of sane liberal analysis and revised its views on the need for investment in the form of directed government spending funded by tax reform. Liberalism's message was recently revived as Right Wing media talking heads began to emphasize the need for stimulus; but it was too little, too late.

The right will surely blame the decline to come on insufficient austerity and more bloodletting will be demanded. I hope the muted voices of ration can gain a little passion as the economy and society slips.

Replacement of congress by a committee of 12 may be a serious error, short circuiting the representative legislative process.

[mikemike]

The end of liberalism? Lets hope so!

How about this for american exceptionalism, this morning on the radio they had a story about youth protests in Israel over government cut backs and an Israeli they were interviewing compared what they were doing with the European anti-austerity movements. In america, instead of anti-austerity we have a pro-austerity movement in the form of the Tea Party. Quite refreshing IMHO.

[jeffkrol]

POLL AFTER POLL AFTER POLL shows that americans want higher taxes to save the welfare state with some benefit cuts.

Why don't you list the "welfare states" and their economic ranking..

Start w/ Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Denmark, Great Britain (too bad about that austerity thing throttling their economy) ect....