The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
Reality-Based Chat. Speak!
Dan wrote: "At most major newspapers, the reporters are in the newspaper guild. That usually means they cannot be fired without cause. Of course, most newspapers have been laying so many reporters - which they..."Thanks, Dan. I do get your point about lack of editorial supervision, and perhaps we're saying much the same thing about the implicit acceptance of an unchallenged dominant narrative (which I've been calling "self-censorship"). I always thought of journalists as the last line of defense (along with judges), so it distresses me to see that their numbers have been so drastically curtailed, and that the surviving ones are, on average, so much less critical of conservative ideas routinely "accepted as fact," as you say.
The problem is the Democratic Party has very poor leadership. I am referring to the party organization. There is no coherent, appealing, message coming from them. Obviously, there are individual leaders who have appeal, but to win back the Congress, the party has got to be better organized and more focused. Having a member of Congress as the head of the party organization makes no sense. I don't like the guy but Rance - I can't spell his last name - has done a very good job with the Republican Party. There's definitely a sense of organization, strategy and purpose. It's all wrong, but it is effective. There's no one doing that for the Democrats.
Dan wrote: "The problem is the Democratic Party has very poor leadership. I am referring to the party organization. There is no coherent, appealing, message coming from them. Obviously, there are individual le..."You're absolutely right about the Democrats' dismaying lack of strategic coordination, but I think the problem may be inherent. People who align with Democratic principles tend to be less authoritarian and conformist. It is just intrinsically more difficult to keep them all in lockstep and ideologically "on-message," but the cats absolutely must be herded, because their antagonists are, and there's no other way to mount an effective opposition. The Democrats ought all to be conformant with a single set of ideological talking points faxed daily from an underground (liberal) bunker in an undisclosed location (possibly Seattle?) -- in just the way that the Republicans are (except that their talking points are presumably faxed from hell). Of course, part of the problem is that I'd rather see the talking points written by Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and others would rather they were written by Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid, but compromises will have to be made: we're in desperate straits.
I think you're right, Mary, that it would be incredible "malpractice" (widespread electoral nullification notwithstanding), if the Democrats didn't manage to get their act together in time for 2016.
Latest polls showing Clinton slaughtering every possible Republican opponent. I am a bit dubious that will hold up when the real mud-slinging campaign begins against her. I like Warren and Sanders better. Bernie can't win because he is a socialist. Warren could be this round's Obama, but so far she has been fairly convincing in saying she is not running. If she doesn't change her tune soon, the key money sources will be locked up.
Also, like Obama, her experience is rather specialized. We really need a strong progressive candidate who has broader and deeper experience, and is a very good politician. I like Sherrod Brown of Ohio as well as Warren. He has more experience, but he doesn't get a lot of attention. He also, apparently, absolutely does not want to run.
* * Biohazard Warning: Editorial by George F. Will * *http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinion...
This (predictably misogynistic and supercilious) screed of George F. Will's disingenuously harnesses the "authenticity" of Brown's progressivism in a preview of the heinous memes that are going to be deployed against Hillary or Warren (if either takes the nomination), but he's nevertheless right about Brown's "authentically" progressive credentials. Of course, he's also both wrong and fathomlessly despicable in his characterization of Warren as someone given to "tantrums," but that's clearly the misogynist drum the Republicans are going to pound against her if she does run (and against Hillary, for that matter). They're "emotional," they're "unstable," they don't have the "strength" of the testosterone-fuelled Republican sociopath (whichever one that turns out to be: all the "viable" Rebub candidates are largely indistinguishable, except in their degree of rabidity).
Anyway, I nevertheless thought it was interesting, Will's multi-faceted Machiavellian motives notwithstanding, in that Brown is an authentic progressive, and he'd make a good president, but I think he lacks the national recognition and potential for generating enthusiasm that Warren has (or even Clinton).
I think George Will displays the early symptoms of Alzheimer's. Most of the time now, he doesn't make sense. He wrote a piece last summer about how the Republican candidate for Senate here in Oregon was going to win. She was a terrible candidate and got beaten pretty badly by Merkley, who isn't the best politician in the world. He doesn't answer my emails. My Blue Dog Democratic congressman does and so does the other Democratic Senator, Wyden.
Dan wrote: "I think George Will displays the early symptoms of Alzheimer's. Most of the time now, he doesn't make sense. He wrote a piece last summer about how the Republican candidate for Senate here in Orego..."That's really interesting. Given my overall health and antediluvian vintage, I speak perhaps as shouldn't in trying to discern the presence or absence of Alzheimer's (which, let me hasten to add, I do not have: I've always been rhetorically rabid), but I really don't discern a difference. I think Will's thinking has always been perversely distorted, weirdly incohesive and gratuitously anfractuous. I always thought of him as a William F. Buckley commemorative replica automaton with a few screws loose. He seemed to have the lexicon down, but not the semblance of ordered logical thinking. Do you think, Dan, that he's been better in past? I can't really be sure, because I haven't really read enough of his earlier zany sesquipedalian diatribes to be able to judge. :) :) (The only thing that might cause me to suspect it would be his recent preoccupation with sports in some of his books. :))
Will was much better in his past. I used to read him all the time. He was smart and clever and a very good writer. He is a big baseball fan and he used to have an annual baseball column. He has written some books about the Baltimore Orioles. When I read him now, which is seldom, he is completely different. He is not logical. He writes things that are not true. His judgment is off.
I did not mean the statement about Alzheimers to be taken literally. I have no idea whether it is the case, and I hope for him and his family it isn't. I've been through a family case of that and it was a nightmare that lasted for years, and I think contributed to the early demise of my wife.
Dan wrote: "Will was much better in his past. I used to read him all the time. He was smart and clever and a very good writer. He is a big baseball fan and he used to have an annual baseball column. He has wri..."I will certainly take your word as regards Will; I really never read him much, probably because his ideology was so aversive to me that he wouldn't have seemed to make logical sense, whether or not he did. I'm sincerely sorry to hear about your personal experience with Alzheimer's in the family: it really is a very terrifying matter, and whatever I think of Will's politics, I earnestly hope he doesn't have it. (I'm afraid I had taken you literally.) I enjoy wordplay and tend to be a bit logorrhetic, even when I'm not trying to be amusing, so my riff on Will was intended in that spirit. If I'd personally actually thought he had Alzheimer's, I wouldn't have done it. I was pretty sure he didn't. His piece on Brown just struck me as typical, and even I wouldn't resort to the word, "Pecksniffian."
Anyway, you've explained what seemed to me to be a recent inexplicable preoccupation with baseball on his part.
Incidentally, George Will used to be on the board of directors of the Orioles - along with the late Tom Clancy. Clancy owned a piece of the team. I don't know if Will had any ownership. It is a limited partnership and I haven't been able to find a current list of directors.
I don't know how many times I have read a George Will essay and not known what he was getting at.
Jimmy wrote: "I don't know how many times I have read a George Will essay and not known what he was getting at."I know, but I've always figured I wouldn't like the destination, so I haven't really cared whether my car went off the road. Will has verbal gifts -- he's adept at constructing clever sentences and invoking erudite references -- and as I've said, I don't believe he is suffering from any significant cognitive impairment (though I believe Dan that his past writing was better). But on balance, I'd rather that my ideological adversaries didn't manage to gain any political traction -- though Will's prose is probably inaccessible to most of the current Republican base, so the people who actually read him and understand his vocabulary will be predisposed automatically to endorse or reject his positions, anyway, and it probably doesn't matter.
There are some really smart Republicans who terrify me far more than Will (whom I perceive to be pretty anodyne): Ted Cruz is a nightmare incarnate. If he becomes president (and I'm still around), I believe I will emigrate to Alpha Centauri.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only one of his parents was an American. I can't see how he qualifies to run for President. The Constitution is fairly specific on this. Article II, Section 1 says "No person except a natural born Citizen ...shall be eligible to the Office of President." McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but his father was in Navy, and thus he was a citizen from the time of birth. I don't know that Cruz can qualify.And if he scares you, have you ever seen and heard his father? The man is a certifiable religious lunatic.
I think that if one of your parents is an American citizen, you automatically can get American citizenship. Good try though.
I wish Howard Dean would take over the Democratic party again. We won the House and Senate in 2006 when Dean was running the party and won the White House in 2008, and then Obama's friend Kaine took over until he ran for office (Is he still in the Senate?). Dean focused on a fifty-state campaign, and I think he's now talking about trying to win back state houses, etc. He seems to be a good strategist. I don't know why he quit or was replaced.I think (hope) the Hillary thing is just name recognition. She was also way ahead in 2006 and 7. Even when Obama was winning, she was still ahead in the national polls, but she didn't win, partly because she has a high unfavorable rating. I'm sticking with O'Malley, who is not the brother, son, or spouse of anyone we know and hasn't been in our faces for the last ten years. We need to move forward, not back.
On the Alzheimer's/dementia front, I heard today that sleep aids and allergy medication like Benadryl may contribute to seniors' cognitive problems. It makes sense since Benadryl can be used as a sleep aid. In fact, my mother's heart doctor used it on her when he was installing her pacemaker. Anyway, I'm going to have to get her off Benadryl, which she's been taking for years. I rarely take it, but I'm throwing away the half empty bottle that I've had for a couple of years.
As for Will, he may be suffering from that other kind of dementia, the vile kind. The election of Obama and the tanning of America have caused some previously sensible people to lose their minds.
Dan wrote: "Ted Cruz was born in Canada and only one of his parents was an American. I can't see how he qualifies to run for President. The Constitution is fairly specific on this. Article II, Section 1 says... And if he scares you, have you ever seen and heard his father? The man is a certifiable religious lunatic. ..."I'm somehow moved to remember the line from Rosemary's Baby: Rosemary screams, "What have you done to his eyes?" and Roman responds, "He has his father's eyes. Satan is his father."
If only this could be established empirically, perhaps it would be sufficient to disqualify him from "sanctification" as a "natural-born, US citizen." I mean, the circumstantial evidence is sort of overwhelming. "By their policies (and weirdly creepy emulation of Joseph McCarthy), shall ye know them." :) :)
I lived in Maryland since I went to college many many moons ago until we moved to Oregon in 2012. I know Maryland politics very well. Once upon a time I was assistant press secretary to a Maryland governor. I once had Spiro Agnew's private phone number. I like O'Malley. He was a good mayor of Baltimore and a good Governor. But I don't think he is presidential material, and I don't think he'll draw flies in the primaries, if he runs, which I suspect he won't because he won't be able to raise any money. Unless Warren jumps in soon, Hillary has it locked up.
What Mary said about Benadryl worries me. I've been using it as a sleep aid since my wife died in April. She used it for years and had no dementia. Her mother, however, had Alzheimers. No one in my family has had it so far as I know. But having had a close up experience with that horrible disease makes me want to be very cautious.
Dan wrote: "I lived in Maryland since I went to college many many moons ago until we moved to Oregon in 2012. I know Maryland politics very well. Once upon a time I was assistant press secretary to a Maryland ..."Benadryl contains diphenhydramine, which is anticholinergic (it blocks the neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, and thus might plausibly reduce the amount of acetylcholine in the brain -- but also, the brain produces less acetylcholine as it ages in any case, so I'm not sure the fault can be attributed very conclusively to the use of Benadryl). The study that's being cited found that a higher percentage of frequent users of Benadryl developed Alzheimer's than of a control group that reported having used it infrequently, or not at all. But correlation is not causation, and it's entirely possible (which does not seem to get reported) that factors that impelled people to use Benadryl on a more frequent basis (such as that their blood chemistry rendered them more susceptible to allergic reactions, or that they were more insomniacal for want of melatonin or some other sleep-facilitating neurochemical) were also factors that helped potentiate the development of Alzheimer's for reasons wholly unrelated to the use of Benadryl. There would still be a statistical correlation, but Benadryl might not actually be the cause of the Alzheimer's. I would tend to want to limit my use of Benadryl, but I am not sure there is cause for massive alarm on grounds of having used it. Alzheimer's is more directly functionally related to the development of amyloid plaques on the brain, and this can very frequently be attributed to the presence of prions (present, incidentally, in our beef supply). This is true, at least, of many cases of Alzheimer's (if not most), so I would actually tend to be concerned more about the consumption of meat than the ingestion of Benadryl (though that does not mean you should not also reduce your use of Benadryl -- and benzodiazepines, for that matter, which are likewise anticholinergic).
Those who are interested should definitely look at these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Trust-Con...
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Hamburger...
and for a clinical treatment:
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Protein-S...
Mark wrote: Alzheimer's is more directly functionally related to the development of amyloid plaques on the brain, and this can very frequently be attributed to the presence of prions (present, incidentally, in our beef supply).
Wow, I had not heard of this. One more thing to worry about when it comes to food.
Wow, I had not heard of this. One more thing to worry about when it comes to food.
Well, last night I did not take any Benadryl, which I normally take about an hour before going to bed. And I had no trouble going to sleep. In fact, I fell asleep in a chair watching television and woke up at 5 this morning! That History channel miniseries on Sam Adams and friends was very entertaining, if not exactly accurate.
Thought I would share this article by Charles Blow which was in the 'New York Times'. I'm not sure I learned anything I didn't already know…. the statistics didn't really shock me and the proposals have been out there for quite some time. But take a look at the comments that were posted…. I suppose those don't surprise me either but many are very disheartening……http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opi...
Mark, even though I had a close up experience with Alzheimer's, and my wife and I read a great deal about it, I never came across those books, and that theory. I think the dying hamburger guy is off a bit. I recall reading accounts from ancient Greece of old people with dementia, and other accounts throughout history of such cases. The reason why there weren't more is because people didn't live nearly as long as they do now. And the reason why there are much fewer cases in Asia may have something to do with genetics, rather than diet. They are many other differences as well.
However, I do have concerns about our food supply, especially the enormous concentration of ownership up and down the chain. Unfortunately, the naturally-raised, organic meats are too expensive for most people.
Dan, My impression is that people's diets in the past were not as likely to include meat with prions in it.
I do try to eat naturally raised, organic meats,at least some of the time. Can one really assume that they are prion-free?
I do try to eat naturally raised, organic meats,at least some of the time. Can one really assume that they are prion-free?
We don't know. Prions weren't discovered until 1982, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. They are very hard to detect. According to what I read on-line, prions are spread by ingestion, and they can be spread by manure and can become airborne. They may be all around people who have cattle, daily cows or sheep. But there apparently is no evidence that such people have any higher incidences of prion-caused diseases, all of which quite rare.
Your comments about other causes besides Benadryl make sense, Mark. I had also heard recently that people who had trouble sleeping or didn't get enough sleep were more likely to have dementia, and my mother was a notoriously bad sleeper until very recently. She also ate plenty of red meat into her fifties. So I guess we're lucky that she didn't start showing really serious signs of dementia until she was 85.I hope you're wrong about O'Malley, Dan. I liked the way he debated on "Meet the Press" during the 2012 campaign, and it doesn't look like there's some new guy or girl on the horizon who can get us excited. I noticed that O'Malley's speech bombed during the Convention (and he was doing exactly what I said we should do, shout that we're not going back but forward), but I assumed it was because he followed the fiery Massachusetts governor and because he didn't have the rhythm to do the call-and-response that the speech required. I just think Hillary will be bad for two reasons. She will take us back instead of forward, and she will further enrage these Tea Partiers who fear that a white man will never again get in the White House. I said in another forum that if Hillary wins, cops might start shooting unarmed white girls. Electing an O'Malley (or Biden if he could get any traction and was a little younger) will calm these back-to-the-past jerks, the George Will types, down.
Dan - Regrettably, prion-related diseases are not rare at all. Leaving aside all the undiagnosed cases (because people die sooner from unrelated causes), a recent study of the autopsied brains of people who had died, ostensibly from Alzheimer's, showed that 13% had actually died of CJD. It really is not controversial that prions cause Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease in humans, which is not distinguishable from kuru, and is frequently misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's Disease stemming from other causes. Not controversial among researchers in neurodegenerative diseases, in any case (see, especially, much of the research done at the UCSF Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases). A recent, particularly important paper: "Serial propagation of distinct strains of Aβ prions from Alzheimer's disease patients" (2014) establishes the self-propagating nature of Aβ (amyloid-β) peptides in Alzheimer's patients.
The cattle industry has devoted immense resources to the dissemination of disinformation about this epidemic (even as the tobacco industry did in denying the carcinogenic effects of smoking, and the various energy industries have done in denying the existence of global warming). They have also managed to secure immense loopholes in the original FDA prohibition on the use of cattle remains in feed, such that it currently applies altogether vacuously.
Now, the prion responsible for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy is distinct from the one responsible for kuru/CJD (which spread originally as a result of the eating of brain tissue by Papua, New Guinea tribes that long ago engaged in anthropophagy, and may have spread to the US as a result of the distribution of tissue samples for research purposes: there is certainly very strong evidence), but the BSE prion is likewise capable of affecting humans. What happens is that the prion from the cows, sheep or other susceptible animals is ingested and gets into the human brain, whereupon it sets about converting human brain proteins into fibrous protein structures known as "amyloids," and it is these amyloid plaques that ultimately produce massive neurodegeneration. This will be true whether the origin is the original kuru/CJD prion strain, or the one from infected cattle.
Because of the massive efforts to suppress (and threats and lawsuits) by the cattle industry (you may recall the case brought against Oprah Winfrey, which she won), it is difficult to find recent popularly-intelligible accounts of all this, but in addition to the seminal 2004 work by Kelleher that I earlier cited (and I'd urge everybody to read neurologists' comments on that book contained within the reviews to be found on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Trust-Con...
and to read the book, itself), there's a highly accessible 1999 book by Richard Rhodes, "Deadly Feasts," that provides much of the background and explains prions in a very lucid fashion:
http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Feasts-T...
The issue, unfortunately, is not that humans are living longer (though it's true that much more diagnosed dementia and AD has been cropping up because of it*), and it is not that the relative immunity of Asians who don't eat meat and the apparent lower incidence of Alzheimer's in those populations might be attributable to genetic factors, because there is no known research that genetic factors would inhibit the propagation of amyloid peptides in the human brain. It is, simply, that prions exist, that they've conclusively been demonstrated to produce Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease in humans, that CJD is frequently misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's, that the incidence of Alzheimer's has been burgeoning, and that there is a clear link to the prions responsible for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, as well. And that we've been lied to, up and down the line.
I think we ought to be insanely mad about it, and not in the manner of an infected cow.
*Actuarial longevity is actually currently on the decline in the US, though, it's worth mentioning -- I would contend, in large part because of our healthcare policies, increased poverty among the elderly, and the impotence of the FDA and other regulatory agencies. In other words, people are dying because of policies promoted by Republicans.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/life_...
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/arc...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
In the course of working on my book, I often get diverted into reading material only peripherally related to my subject - at least it seems so. But your last point is relevant. Because of various pro big business public policies generally put in place by Republicans - including deregulation, non-enforcement of antitrust laws, etc., there has been enormous concentration in almost all businesses with multinationals at the top - companies that are almost beyond the control of anyone.I read some of the material about prions, but probably won't read anymore right now because I need to do other things. But I am cutting back my consumption of red meat. Unfortunately seafood is contaminated with mercury and other things, almost all chicken is contaminated with a variety of horrors, etc. I tried being a vegetarian once and I didn't like it. But I am moving closer to it now. But I still love hamburgers. I'm just going to buy the organic grass-fed hamburger!
Mary, I love Biden. I have been following him since he was elected to the Senate in Delaware and I was running the UPI news operation that included Delaware. People make so much fun of him, but that is really unfair. He is a very smart man, with good common sense. He also is a very good politician - something Obama is not. I think Biden would be a great President. Unfortunately, he is as close to it now as he ever will be.I know what you mean about Clinton. The haters will go even more insane. I think her time has passed, and I think if Elizabeth Warren ran against her, Warren would win. It just doesn't look like that is going to happen.
Mary wrote: "Your comments about other causes besides Benadryl make sense, Mark... Electing an O'Malley (or Biden if he could get any traction and was a little younger) will calm these back-to-the-past jerks, ..."Mary - Though I'd prefer Warren (unwilling) or Sanders (hopelessly precluded by his self-identification as a "socialist" -- which is what I am), I do think your analysis is spot on: that nominating O'Malley or Biden would defuse the prospect of the Republican's fracking the rock overlaying a truly fathomless pit of toxic misogyny, a vile explosion of which from the long-frustrated, wretched, deranged haters (yearning to breathe old white maleness in the White House) the Repubs would be certain to unleash on Hillary or Warren. And I share Dan's great admiration of Biden and yours of O'Malley. But unless Warren is engaging in an Oscar-worthy theatrical fake-out, I don't think she'd seek the nomination in any case, so I want to see a viable scenario that would lead to a Biden or an O'Malley presidency. But right now, I really don't, so I think we're eventually going to have to work prodigiously hard to elect Hillary (whose hawkishness and position on trade I intensely dislike) -- because the alternative would be Republigeddon.
Darlene wrote: "Thought I would share this article by Charles Blow which was in the 'New York Times'. I'm not sure I learned anything I didn't already know…. the statistics didn't really shock me and the proposals..."Darlene -- This is prodigiously depressing, but as you say, nothing we haven't already recoiled at in incredulous horror... but it is part and parcel of the Republican agenda, which is non-discriminatory: they want starvation for impoverished toddlers and the elderly, alike. Evil.
It seems Mitt Romney has declared that he will not seek the 2016 Republican nomination. Now, Mitt Romney would be an immitigably horrible president, but he is not flat-out deranged (an unusual characteristic for Republican candidates), and he would almost certainly fail to be elected, so on balance, I'd tend to view this as bad news -- though probably only in a vacuous sense, since he would have had virtually no prospect of securing the nomination, in any case.
I think Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. The money is lining up behind him. Rand Paul has an outside chance, but I think his libertarian views don't sit well with the social conservatives. Scott Walker is a slight possibility, but more likely a VP nominee. The rest of the field is just horrible.
Dan wrote: "I think Jeb Bush is going to get the nomination. The money is lining up behind him. Rand Paul has an outside chance, but I think his libertarian views don't sit well with the social conservatives. ..."I think you're most likely right, though Bush wouldn't be the optimal darling of the TP contingent. He isn't deranged, either, though the prospect of another Bush presidency actually sickens me. On the other hand, he is much less scary than Cruz. I would rather eat glass than see another Republican presidency, no matter under whose nominal leadership, so I am still nursing the desperate (and probably benighted) hope that they won't steal another election.
Guys, I'm getting sick at the thought of another Bush versus Clinton race. Talk about taking our country back. Why won't people listen to Barbara Bush, who said there are more than two families in America? I saw that Bill was on Rachel Ray's show the other day, talking about being a grandfather and blah, blah, blah. Does anyone know anything about the governor of Connecticut? My friend who lives in Rhode Island said he's good. I certainly don't agree with Rachel Maddow who is pushing "moderate" Claire McCaskill(?) (that blonde woman from Missouri). What? Is this 1992? The voters are on our side; we don't need a DINO, who didn't have the courage to attend the 2012 convention, running for President in 2016. I can't even enjoy all of the stupidity on the Republican side because I'm so worried about being stuck with the Clinton crap from the 20th Century and about the fact that those two supposedly invincible Democrats have lost twice--to Obama and in November when their candidates lost.I wish Joe was a little younger and could win the primaries, Dan. It's not just that he's a white man who could calm these take-our-country-back freaks down; I love Joe, especially since he became Obama's Vice-President. Anyone who dares to call him racist because he's politically incorrect hears from me. He is an older white man, older even than us baby boomers, who is willing to call a younger half-black man his boss, and he's not trying to pretend that he's the real President. He can say "Oriental" or even "Negro" if he wants; the man is not racist.
I just finished saying on google+ that he has more common sense and speaks more sensibly than most politicians and most people. I was responding to conservatives who combat liberals' digs at Republican clowns like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump by calling Biden crazy. Biden isn't as crazy as McCain, who at least has an excuse (he was tortured) for his bizarre behavior. I think these conservatives heard about his aneurysm back in the eighties and assume that he must be nuts. Or maybe they assume that any politician who speaks the truth is crazy.
I also agree, Dan, that he is a better politician than Obama (or Kerry and Gore), and he's a better debater than all of them, as well as the Clintons. As I just said on google+, my favorite debate quip of all time is Biden's 2008 comment about former New York Mayor Rudy G saying only a noun, a verb, and 9/11. I also liked the way he handled Brian Williams' question about gaffes. Williams asked him something like if he could be disciplined in his speech or maybe he asked the question in a way that required a No, but anyway Biden said either "Yes" or "No," and shut his mouth. Brian, who is humorous, stared, waited, and Joe just stared him down. It cracked me up. Is that disciplined enough for you, Brian Williams?
We need a younger Joe, and I hope that's O'Malley or the Connecticut governor, or somebody we haven't seen yet. But he'd better step forward quickly because I hear that Hillary is announcing in April.
Mary wrote: "Guys, I'm getting sick at the thought of another Bush versus Clinton race. Talk about taking our country back. Why won't people listen to Barbara Bush, who said there are more than two families i..."Mary, I'm pretty sick of it, too. I've said why I don't like Hillary's positions, and that Bush makes me want to reach for an emesis bowl. I'm always torn between examining what seem to be the ineluctable pragmatics of the situation (because of my inherent pessimism in the face of entrenched power), and seeking desperately to envision a plausible and viable alternative scenario.
I think Joe Biden would make a great president, and I don't care about his age, but most people would and the Republicans could use it to destroy him, so you're right: we need a "younger Joe Biden," but he really is inimitable, so that would be a hard order to fill. (Of course, I'd really also like a "non-publicly-socialist Bernie Sanders." *sigh*) Do you think that O'Malley or Dannel Malloy has any prospect of sneaking in as a dark horse? I'd really like for someone to be strategizing the issue.
We pretty much know what we are going to get with Hillary. She is a middle of the roader and practical. She also is a very good politician. She was a good Secretary of State and a good Senator. So she is competent. She just isn't visionary. She isn't going to get a progressive movement going - something that could lead to real change at all levels of government. Still, if she is the one, we have to support her. But until that point, let's see if we can find somebody better.That mention of McCain reminded me of something that happened to me 20 years ago. I then was the CEO of a wireless company and one of our licenses was for Las Vegas and surrounding territory, including part of Arizona. So I, and a handful of others, were invited to a dinner with McCain to discuss telecommunications policy. It was in a restaurant on Capitol Hill.
McCain is an engaging person in person, but I came back and told a number of people I thought there was something "off" about him. I couldn't explain it, it was just a feeling that he wasn't quite all there. That was confirmed when he picked Palin. I still sort of like the guy at times, but I sure am glad he did not become President.
Dan wrote: "We pretty much know what we are going to get with Hillary. She is a middle of the roader and practical. She also is a very good politician. She was a good Secretary of State and a good Senator. So ..."I do not think it would be possible to be subjected to protracted torture and not be damaged psychologically, so whereas I am very sympathetic to McCain on a personal level, and appreciative of his steadfast opposition to torture, I profoundly agree that I would not want to see him in a position of nuclear authority, or one involving the sort of unremitting stress that the presidency would.
Hi all! I've been following your discussion about the eventual presidential candidacy with great interest! I am a HUGE fan of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (and just finished her book and loved it!) and although I would love for them to run, I don't really think that either of them could ever win a general election. I see your points, Mary and Dan, about Hillary Clinton and certainly your concerns are warranted. But the realistic part of me (or perhaps it's the pessimistic part of me!) really thinks she is our best chance to keep the White House. I admire Vice President Biden and although I have heard of Governors Malloy and O'Malley, I just don't think they can win! Governors Malloy and O'Malley, outside of the northeastern part of the country, just don't have the name recognition they would need. And it seems to me that in politics and campaigns, in particular, name recognition is crucial!! After all, look at Mitt Romney… yes, I know he announced he isn't running but he still finds himself leading all of the polls, despite his poor performance in the last two elections!! I know that Hillary has her baggage but I think she also has many strengths and to be honest, I think the fact that she is a woman is probably going to turn out to be one of the things that actually get people excited… even if her last name IS Clinton!! And I'm with you.. I would LOVE to see a progressive movement sweep the country… but there again, it feels to me that that is simply wishful thinking. Sadly, I DO believe that much of the country leans toward the conservative side and I also think many people think progressive/liberal = socialism and there is such a 'knee jerk' negative reaction to the word 'socialism'. Perhaps Hillary is not as progressive as we would like (and I agree with that) but I really can't think of any other candidate at this time that would be able to help us keep the White House. Just my humble opinion, of course.:)
So the Connecticut governor is Malloy? Well, let's hope only one of them runs because I'm sure people will be confused by Malloy and O'Malley. Did you hear why Romney claims he's not running (the real reason is his former backers aren't lining up to support a third run)? He thinks that he won't be the best candidate to argue for change against Hillary. He says we need a new face (he's clearly throwing some shade at Huckabee, Palin, Bush, and Santorum, as well as Clinton). That will be the strategy against Hillary, in addition to all of the Monica mess and the Benghazi b.s. How well known was Bill when he ran in 1992? I know that he had given a boring speech at the 1988 convention, but did people really know the governor of Arkansas? I voted for Jerry Brown that year. (Speaking of him, I wish he was a little younger so that he could run, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ran anyway.) And how well known was Jimmy Carter in 1976? I certainly didn't know who he was. I think I was for Mo Udall that year.
Darlene, I agree that there is a knee-jerk negative reaction to socialism and probably still liberalism. But the liberal causes--higher minimum wage, taxes on the rich, acceptance of gay marriage, less interest in the war on drugs or even in the war on crime, especially with the cops shooting unarmed blacks, less interest in going to war--are more popular than the conservative ones. We have to recognize that the polls right now are measuring name recognition, which is why Romney and Bush are ahead on the Republican side even though they are not popular with their base. The reason Hillary is so much farther ahead of the Democrats than they are of the Republicans is because there are fewer well-known Democrats right now.
Also, the Obama voters do not participate in those polls; they also do not necessarily vote if they are not inspired. Hillary and Bill did not inspire them to come out and vote in November, and I'm afraid they will take the old "it doesn't matter whose in the White House" attitude if Hillary is our nominee, and she and Bill engage in what will undoubtedly be a dirty, mud-slinging, "liar, liar, pants on fire" battle with the Republican nominee, which is why I still wish she would fake running for a few months, draw all of the fire, and let some other Democrat become the nominee.
The problem with Hillary as our first woman President is that she's an asterisk. Some of the people voting for her might actually be voting to return Bill to the White House. I prefer that the woman who makes history does it without the "because her husband was the former President" asterisk.
Of course, Obama was also an asterisk. He's half white, raised by whites, and his black family is from Africa, so his ancestors were not slaves. But I think those qualifiers made him a better first black President because he is less enraged by the racism. While Hillary will be a more experienced first woman President definitely than Warren would be but also than any of the other women Senators or governors, will she be given credit for what happens during her presidency or will Bill get all or half of the credit?
Mary, Yes, Malloy is the governor of Connecticut. And you make some really great points!! You're right…. Bill Clinton WAS unknown and I'm sure you're right about Carter as well but I don't remember much of his campaign. I guess I don't really include Bill Clinton as he seems to the politician of all politicians…. and even the people who don't particularly like him admit that he is probably one of the best politicians ever! I DO agree with you that there may be some people who would vote for her because in their minds, they would be returning Bill Clinton to the White House. And I also agree with you that there are a majority of people who support progressive causes… raising of minimum wage, gay marriage, taxes on the rich, etc… but for reasons I don't understand,the Democrats seem to be unable to really stand up and say they actually WANT these things. Look at what has happened with President Obama's Affordable Care Act….. how many Democrats actually DEFENDED it? I think President Obama should have pushed for 'single payer' but to me, this was a HUGE deal and the Democrats ran away from it…. just as they are running away from really pushing for some of the other causes the President is championing and has been since he was elected. I guess I have gotten a bit 'off topic' but I think what I'm trying to say is that regardless of what Democrat we choose for President, we need stronger Democrats to be elected to Congress!! They are supposed to legislate and the President can then sign things into law. Just look at what occurred the other day with the Keystone Pipeline… look how many Democrats voted with Republicans. This party is truly pathetic, in my view. The Democrats seem afraid of their own shadows.. the Republicans say we want to create a 'nanny state' and the Democrats back down. Plus, as I said, they always cry 'socialism'…. even though I have yet to find anyone who doesn't like Social Security and Medicare. I just don't think the population (in general) is educated enough to understand theses things. But back to Hillary.. you DID make some great points and I certainly can't disagree with you on any of them. I suppose that what I'M saying is that I really think Hillary COULD win.. despite all of the mud-slinging that will be done … and especially when you put her beside any of the clowns that are running on the other side… most of them are incomprehensible!! I want us to keep the White House.. but what I would REALLY like is for us to recapture the Senate.. with Democrats who are ready and WILLING to stand up for what causes people are actually FOR!! That's why I think that although I would love to see Warren and Sanders run, they play a greater role in the Senate!!
Thanks, Mary! I enjoyed your comments and I think we all ultimately want the same things. I guess it's a matter of figuring out how to get them!:)
Darlene wrote: "Hi all! I've been following your discussion about the eventual presidential candidacy with great interest! I am a HUGE fan of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (and just finished her book and lov..."I agree with you, Darlene. My hope is that someone within the Democrats who is a more viable candidate than Hillary Clinton will step forward. According to the media, she had the nomination sewed up in 2008, but she didn't. Maybe that will happen again.
That's true, Lisa… President Obama seemed to come out of nowhere and all of a sudden, Hillary was no longer inevitable. The problem for me is that I just can't think of anyone who can do that this time. Jim Webb's name has been out there but he seems to the right of Hillary Clinton. There doesn't seem to be a 'sleeper candidate'… but perhaps I'm wrong… I've been wrong many, many times!! :)
Darlene wrote: "Mary, Yes, Malloy is the governor of Connecticut. And you make some really great points!! You're right…. and the Democrats ran away from it…. just as they are running away from really pushing for some of the other causes ..."TRIGGER ALERT: MAY OFFEND EVIL OVERLORDS OR SUFFERERS FROM EODS (EVIL OVERLORD DENIAL SYNDROME)
I think you make a disturbingly compelling observation, Darlene, in reminding us of the Democrats' seemingly unrelenting penchant for "running away."
But I don't actually believe the Democrats are cowards, and I am an "Occam's Razor" sort of guy, and also, I believe that, although the actors in the game are afforded some latitude, there are points with respect to which they are not allowed to step off the reservation. So I think "cowardice" is both too unforgiving and too complex an explanation for this eternally-recurrent pattern of backing off. I think a simpler explanation is that (whether because they have been so instructed by higher powers, or because they have bowed to the exigencies of political pragmatism), the Democrats have backed off critical issues, and always at the 11th hour, because they had no choice. I do not believe it is possible to accede to a position of significant power in this country without having sworn fealty to some element of the power elite, or someone possessed of sufficient clout to have your back and prevent your summary assassination. And those people, or groups of people, will pull on the reins of even the best-intentioned of the participants in the Kabuki drama, should they perceive their most vital interests ever to be in jeopardy. Obama was allowed watered-down healthcare, and even so, it was an extraordinary achievement and an act of defiance of some elements of the power elite that would have resulted in his demise had Wall Street not had his back. But I think he ultimately knew that single-payer simply would not have been allowed -- it would have been a bridge too far. So he did what he could, as did Democratic members of Congress. As they always do. The best they think they can get away with.
My view of this government is that it is immeasurably less powerful than the multinational corporatocracy, or perhaps just a subsidiary thereof, but for goodness' sake, Dorothy, don't pull back the curtain. No one is allowed to see that. There are many great and good people in the Democratic Party (in contradistinction to the Republican Party, which is a nest of Schadenfreude-engorged sociopaths), but they have struck a Faustian bargain merely by dint of the act of becoming politicians. And I doubt there's a single one who doesn't ultimately understand the rules of the game: this far and no farther -- and only as far as your protection extends. For the Republicans, of course, the constraints apply mostly vacuously, because they actually want to promote evil programs that will immiserate people, so there's no potential conflict with the power elite. The Democrats are in a more tortured position.
And so we torture ourselves about the qualities of the disparate candidates (who really do exhibit significant differences in their personal beliefs, but none of whom fails to understand the rules of the game). And we bemoan Hillary's hawkishness and devotion to reprehensible trade practices, and we compare and contrast the virtues of some of the other prospective candidates; and there's a point to this, because it's the only game in town: we don't have a functioning democracy, so we desperately need the least pernicious figurehead we can manage to put in place, someone who will actually strain at the leash). But underlyingly, what we are always going to have is a Bilderberger presidency, or a Skull & Bones presidency (per 2004, wherein both candidates had drunk blood, and the predetermined sacrifice, instructed to stay on the mat when the election was once again stolen, naturally complied). Or a TLC or a CFR presidency, or one controlled by the Koch Brothers, or the Waltons, or the CEO of Evil Overlords, Inc. But the truth is, except in the minute particulars (the degree to which Democrats have latitude), it will not matter. But some of those "minute particulars" are extremely important, so perhaps they are not "minute," and perhaps I am just seizing the opportunity to quote William Blake altogether gratuitously... because I do tend to do that (as well as to rant against "Evil Overlords"). But what fun would it be, otherwise, on a Sunday, so thanks, Darlene, for giving me the entrée. :)
(In case anyone ever wonders whether I am serious or am being somewhat jocular for effect... yes. One of those.)
Since we keep using the term, progressive, I thought I would add a little history. The following is a bit lengthy, but I hope you find it interesting. It is adapted from the book I am in the process of completing, "Do What Works and Call it Capitalism."Full disclosure - and this will make sense further down - I am a graduate of Johns Hopkins. They never mentioned their progressive past when I was a student there. Milton Eisenhower was the President of the school.
It is interesting how the terms "progressive" and "liberal" now frequently are used interchangeably. It is not really correct to do that, but I think it really started after liberal became an epithet back in the 1970s. Liberals started calling themselves progressives.
But there is a huge difference between the two. Liberal and conservative basically are ideologies. If you are a liberal, the chances are quite good that you are liberal on almost all important political, social and economic issues. However, if you are a progressive you decide which side you are on by issue.
This is because progressivism, as applied to government, is a philosophy of government, or governance. It is not a philosophy concerning a particular issue.
Today the terms “liberal” and “progressive” frequently are used interchangeably, but in its basic concepts of governance, progressivism is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.” Progressives are pragmatists, not ideologues, and they will borrow good ideas from any source, and are not afraid to experiment with an untested idea if it seems to make sense as a solution to a particular problem. Progressives do differ from most conservatives over the role of government. While most conservatives favor "laissez faire" when it comes to government's role in the economy and as a regulator, progressives believe that government must play a major role in the economy and in the regulation of business to tame the destructive characteristics of capitalism.
It must be noted that most progressive programs have liberal origins. But then, so does the government of the United States. Progressivism captures the fundamental optimistic American spirit of progress, of making things better.
While many progressives were religious and had high standards of morality – including, unfortunately, support for Prohibition – Progressivism is not Puritanical. It does not impose a rigid set of values, other than the expectation that public officials should act honestly, responsibly, and intelligently. Progressives seek to expand, rather than limit, individual freedom and opportunities, and they will use government as a means to achieve these ends.
Socialists have many progressive ideas, but progressives are not socialists. Progressives do not seek to change the existing economic, or political system. They support American democratic capitalism, and believe their methods and practices only strengthen it. Theodore Roosevelt frequently said that he wanted to protect the existing capitalist system, but that reform and regulation were necessary to do so.
Libertarians also may support some progressive ideas, but progressives are not libertarians. Unlike libertarians, progressives strongly believe in the social contract, and the compact among the people of the United States that was forged when the Constitution was adopted. Libertarians tend to be suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, government.
The original Progressives believed government was a force for good. Later, after Wilson's Presidency, they realized that government also could be a force for curtailment of personal freedom, and they became much more protective of civil rights, and more willing to put constraints on government actions when it came to personal freedom.
The Progressive Movement drew its intellectual inspiration from many sources, but the three major influences were the perfection of man concepts of Puritanism along with the Christian social conscience, the classical liberalism from the 18th Century Enlightenment and the progress of history concept of the German philosopher G.F.W. Hegel.
The name of the progressive movement is directly derived from the concept of progress, which came to the U.S. from Germany in the late 19th Century. By 1900 the faculties of many of the most prominent colleges and universities contained many with degrees earned in Europe where the German influence was greatest, but also from The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
Founded in 1876, Johns Hopkins brought German-style university scholarship to the U.S. One of the most prominent members of the Hopkins faculty was Herbert Baxter Adams, who earned his Ph.D. in history in Germany. He was the first professor in the U.S. to teach with the seminar method and his classes included some men who went on to be among the most influential in the progressive movement.
There also was Richard T. Ely, who received his Ph.D. in Economics from University of Heidelberg, and was a professor and head of the Department of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins from 1881 to 1892. He was a founder of the American Economic Association, served as its Secretary until 1892 and President from 1899 to 1901. That organization's keynote address at its annual meeting still is titled the Richard T. Ely Lecture. Ely was one of the first progressive economists, arguing against Social Darwinism and determinism in general. He believed in government intervention in the economy and regulation of business to insure competition. He also was a leader in the progressive religious movement, a believer in applying the teachings of Jesus Christ to social problems, and he was a founder of the Christian Social Union.
The progressive thought taught at Johns Hopkins had enormous influence for generations. The students of Baxter and Ely included Woodrow Wilson (who also taught at Hopkins), Frederick Jackson Turner, John Dewey, and Thorstein Veblen. John R. Commons, who became one of the most famous and influential economists during the 1920s and 30s, earned his PhD at Johns Hopkins, studying under Ely, and later joined him at the University of Wisconsin, where they created the "Wisconsin idea" of progressivism. Some of the ideas and work in the development of Social Security came from the faculty at the University of Wisconsin.
Did anyone watch "Meet the Press" today? I wasn't watching, but my mother claimed that something was said about Hillary postponing her decision. Since my mother has some serious cognitive problems, I'm not sure that she heard or understood right, but I had heard earlier that Hillary was planning to announce in April. Notice that no one on either side has actually announced yet, although there are clearly plenty of Republicans either running or fake running. If Hillary is postponing, she might be doing what I was hoping she would do, letting the Republicans focus on her while other Democrats quietly slip into the race and see if they can get some traction.Darlene, I think you are right that Clinton is a smart politician. I think they are both smart, and I'm sure they saw what I saw; people didn't come out and vote for their candidates. They definitely do not want to lose again, so I don't think she will run unless she's fairly certain she can beat all of the Democrats and the Republican nominee. She saw how those left-leaning polls went for Warren, so she knows she has a problem on the left, and although the women Senators seem to be supporting her, I wonder how many of the establishment Democrats are really behind Clinton. Remember some of them pushed Obama to run because they were suffering from Clinton fatigue in 2006 and 7. Has that fatigue lessened now? She smartly left the Secretary of State position after one term, but they haven't left the scene. They didn't do what Nixon did years ago, disappear from Washington and television for a few years. Clinton behaved well during 2012; he gave a better speech at the convention than Obama did, and I loved the way he bowed when Obama came out. But he was obnoxious during the 2008 campaign. In fact, I hadn't forgiven him for his behavior in 2008 until that 2012 speech.
Most of the Democrats are wimps, Darlene. That's why they lose even when the issues are on their side, and that's why the activists love Sanders and Warren. They are not wimps. The Democrats in Congress don't have to support everything that Obama does, but they certainly should brag about his successes. Instead they act as if he's less popular than they are. That 15% rating for Congress applies to both Democrats and Republicans.
I think some of the Democrats who are thinking about running are scared of the Clintons and the Clinton posse. If that's the case, they shouldn't run. We definitely need bold candidates.
Dan, your discussion of the origins of the term "progressive," was interesting, but I think you're right; "liberals" became "progressives" when the word "liberal" became a slur. I'm hoping that more conservatives will start calling themselves "libertarians" or some other name. Then maybe the Democrats we elect will realize that they no longer have to apologize for being liberal. But Mark is right; we are not really a democracy. We are a plutocracy. Right now we have the best government that Wall Street and Koch money can buy.
Mark, you made excellent points and I certainly can't dispute anything you said! I know.. as do politicians… the way the game is played! I guess that is part of the problem I have with it all.. it is (or it seems) all a game to politicians; whereas, the policies that are made .. or AREN'T made… affect real life people. And I certainly didn't mean to come across that I did not LIKE the ACA… I think it is one of President Obama's HUGE accomplishments! *sigh* I think my frustration with the process is just getting the better of me. What bothered me about the ACA is that the Democrats TRIED to work with the Republicans… allowing and encouraging them to add amendments, which in my opinion just weakened the law… only to have not ONE Republican vote for it!! I appreciate many things about the ACA. My oldest son, who has just turned 26 , was able to remain covered on our health insurance and has now been able to sign up to get his own. And Dan, I appreciate your comments about the words liberal and progressive. You're right… liberal became a bad word and progressive IS used interchangeably with liberal. Liberal has always been used in conjunction with the words 'bleeding heart' (at least where I live) and I suppose it isn't a positive thing to have a 'bleeding heart'!! And Mary, you said EXACTLY how I feel! It has made me so disgusted to see Democrats run away from all they and the President have accomplished… and they have accomplished quite a bit considering what they have been up against! And you're right… the 15% approval rating applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. And your mother has no cognitive issues with what she heard!!:) I also heard that Hillary will be most likely putting off her decision until July… in order to 'develop a message and get her team together.'
That's interesting news about Hillary, Darlene. If you remember the 2008 situation, several people declared their candidacy early. That former governor of Iowa who is now the head of agriculture (my mother's daughter also has some cognitive issues; I can't recall his name) entered early and quickly dropped out. Then John Edwards entered at the end of 2006, and everyone knew that Obama was going to enter, so Hillary entered in January, 2007. Obama entered in February. I wasn't paying attention to the Republicans, but I find this waiting game interesting. The situation this time is similar to 2008; there is no incumbent, and it looks like our friend Joe Biden is only slightly more likely to run than Cheney was, so the race should be kind of wide open. Hillary seems to be taking what is usually the Vice President of the White House incumbent position (in other words, she's taking Biden's place), or is she? I hope our candidates whoever they are will this time remind the voters of all of the things the Republicans were saying about the ACA. Where are those death panels? Where are all of the lost jobs? I hope that they will connect the ACA to the other popular Democratic programs--Medicare, Social Security--and wonder what the Republicans gave us besides wars fought by other people's children and recessions. I hope that they will defend unions because both Walker and Christie attacked unions as governors. And I hope they will say what my rubber stamp would say about what caused the recession, not Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or teachers' salaries.
And they must show respect for this President if they want the blacks and the young to vote for them. I can't speak for the young, but we blacks (the Democrats' most loyal voters) are very protective of Obama, and we get annoyed when people like that stupid Allison Grimes disrespect him. Every time I see McConnell's face, I think of her, shooting that gun and saying that she was not Obama. Democrats can promise to be more transparent than Obama, and they should promise to be less cozy with Wall Street than Obama is (quiet as it has been kept), but they should embrace most of his policies because they are working. And they should send him to every state that he won (with the possible exception of Illinois) so that they can win as decisively as he did.
Oh, yeah, and they need to demonize the Koch Brothers and other plutocrats while encouraging everyone to vote. They need to make it clear that they want people to vote because they believe that their policies are popular. We should win, but the Democrats know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Gift Upon the Shore (other topics)Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
More...
There was an article in the L.A. Times today explaining the Republicans' dilemma with things going well in the economy. It's usually not a good strategy to make people feel bad when they are feeling good. And they don't have Bush's gift of a Monica Lewinsky scandal so that they can talk about making the White House more moral, etc. They don't even have gay marriage, and the abortion thing now hurts them. If the Democrats can't win in 2016, I think we should sue them for malpractice.