Hillary Clinton “Re-Launches” Presidential Campaign
Hillary Clinton opened a new phase in her campaign for President yesterday with a speech in New York City.
Although she officially entered the race for President back in April, yesterday Hillary Clinton began what her advisers were calling the kickoff of her campaign with a speech at New York City’s Roosevelt Island:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech that was at times sweeping and at times policy laden, delivered on Saturday a pointed repudiation of Republican economic policies and a populist promise to reverse the gaping gulf between the rich and poor at her biggest campaign event to date.
Under sunny skies and surrounded by flag-waving supporters on Roosevelt Island in New York, Mrs. Clinton pledged to run an inclusive campaign and to create a more inclusive economy, saying that even the new voices in the Republican Party continued to push “the top-down economic policies that failed us before.”
“These Republicans trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations without any regard on how that will make inequality worse,” she said before a crowd estimated at 5,500, according to the campaign.
“I’m not running for some Americans,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I’m running for all Americans.”
Offering her case for the presidency, she rested heavily on her biography. Her candidacy, she said, was in the name of “everyone who has ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.”
Mrs. Clinton portrayed herself as a fighter, sounding a theme her campaign had emphasized in recent days. “I’ve been called many things by many people, quitter is not one of them,” she said.
Standing on a platform set in the middle of a grassy memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt on the East River island named after him, Mrs. Clinton invoked his legacy. She also praised President Obama and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, but declared that “we face new challenges” in the aftermath of the economic crisis.
While some Republican detractors have tried to make an issue of Mrs. Clinton’s age (if she won she would be 69 when she took office in January 2017), she sought to embrace it and to rebut the notion that she cannot stand for change or modernity. Offering her campaign contact information, she spoke about the lives of gay people, saying Republicans “turn their backs on gay people who love each other.”
In one of the biggest applause lines, she said: “I may not be the youngest candidate in this race, but I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States.”
Underscoring the point with a riff on an old Beatles song, Mrs. Clinton said: “There may be some new voices in the presidential Republican choir. But they’re all singing the same old song.”
“It’s a song called ‘Yesterday,’ ”she continued. “They believe in yesterday.”
Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called the speech “chock-full of hypothetical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past that led to a sluggish economy.”
Mrs. Clinton specified policies she would push for, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. She also spoke of rewriting the tax code “so it rewards hard work at home” rather than corporations “stashing profits overseas.” She did not detail how she would achieve those policies or address their costs.
Mrs. Clinton spoke to the criticism that her wealth makes her out of touch with the middle-class Americans, saying her candidacy is for “factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day, for the nurses who work the night shift, for the truckers who drive for hours.”
Uncomfortable with the fiery rhetoric of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, Mrs. Clinton offered some stark statistics to address the concerns of the Democratic Party’s restless left. “The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined, often paying a lower tax rate,” she said.
Mrs. Clinton said many Americans must be asking, “When does my family get ahead?” She added: “When? I say now.”
In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy. She did speak of her experience as a senator from New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“As your president, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe,” she said, weaving the skyline and a view of the newly built One World Trade Center into her remarks.
For as much as the content of the speech mattered, the theater of it was equally important. For a campaign criticized for lacking passion, the event gave Mrs. Clinton the ability to create a camera-ready tableau of excitement.
The Brooklyn Express Drumline revved up the crowd assembled on a narrow stretch at the southern tip of the island. And Marlon Marshall, the campaign’s director of political engagement, rattled off statistics about the number of volunteers who have signed up and house parties held in the early nominating states. A section with giant screens set up for an overflow crowd stood nearly empty.
But a crowd of die-hard supporters and volunteers from the staunchly Democratic New York area does not exactly represent the electorate writ large. The real test for Mrs. Clinton and how the speech was perceived will be in Iowa, where she was to travel on Saturday evening for several events. Iowa, the first nominating state, shunned her the last time she sought the presidency, in 2008.
“I was disappointed she didn’t challenge Obama four years ago,” said Dominique Pettinato, a 24-year-old parole officer who lives in Brooklyn.
Although she’s been a Presidential candidate for two months now, this is really the first substantive speech that Clinton has given before a large crowd during this election cycle. Until now, she’s mostly been involved in small group forums in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina before audiences that were largely pre-selected by either the campaign or the local Democratic Party. Given the fact that this was happening at the same time the stories about Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server and the donations to the Clinton Foundation were unfolding in the press, there was much speculation that Clinton was doing this to avoid the spotlight at the same time that she was running for President. Additionally, the fact that she spent the better part of this time avoiding answering questions from the press was becoming a story all on its own as were her declining favorability numbers. This speech doesn’t necessarily solve that last problem, of course, but it does set the campaign on a new track that is likely to stop at least some of the reporting on the scandal stories as the political press covers Clinton rallies in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere.
As for the speech itself, by most accounts it seems to have been a very good one, and a good start to what will likely be a more active part of Clinton’s campaign. In it, we can see what are likely to be the major themes of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign. Many of them, such as the paeans to income inequality, gay rights, equal pay, and the like are likely to play well the progressives in the Democratic Party who have been pushing Clinton to emphasize those issues. Her appeals to female voters will clearly be a major part of her campaign going forward as well. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the speech was the fact that it was so heavy on policy, something which caused some political reporters covering the event on Twitter to pontificate about how “boring” it was, and how it seemed like more of a General Election speech than a primary speech. Given the fact that Clinton really doesn’t have a primary fight to worry about, that’s not entirely surprising, but, as Paul Waldman noted, it demonstrates the advantages that Clinton has over whomever her Republican opponent turns out to be:
This speech, like much of what Clinton does now, is about creating a synthesis out of two related goals or ideas. She wants to energize liberals in a way that also wins independents. She wants to advocate an economic agenda that will be substantively compelling and also creates a personal affinity with voters. It’s Clinton’s good fortune that she has at least the opportunity to do both at the same time.
Presidential candidates come in two basic types: those who can tell a story of personal struggle and those who can tell their relatives’ story of personal struggle. For one of the first times, today Clinton told how her mother was abandoned by her own parents and started supporting herself as a teenager. The point of these stories is to tell people, “I’m just like you.” I understand your struggles and your challenges, and I’ll advocate on your behalf. The truth is that there’s absolutely no relationship between whether a candidate was rich as a child or is rich now and what kinds of policies she’ll pursue as president.
[W]hile some of the positions she mentioned have been more fully fleshed-out than others, what it added up to was an extremely progressive agenda: paid family leave, affordable college education, more infrastructure investments, renewable energy, universal preschool, expanding broadband access and a lot more — all of it wrapped in populist rhetoric (the part about 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers seemed to hit a chord).
And I’d challenge Republicans to look at the policy proposals in the speech and say about any of them, “Oh boy, the general electorate isn’t going to go for that.” Which highlights one important way in which Clinton’s path to the White House is easier than that of her potential GOP opponents. They have multiple areas where the goals of winning over Republican primary voters and setting themselves up to assemble a general election coalition are at odds. They need to sound tough on immigration now, but that will hurt them with Hispanic voters next fall. They need to proclaim that the Affordable Care Act must be totally repealed, when most Americans would prefer to make it work better. They need to oppose things like paid leave, minimum wage increases and imposing restrictions on Wall Street bankers, all of which are extremely popular. And they need to do it all while arguing that they understand regular folks and will be their advocates.
These are many of the same problems that Republicans faced in 2008 and 2012, of course, and the elections of 2010 and 2014 do stand as some evidence that, under the right circumstances, the GOP is able to push past the standard Democratic rhetoric that was laced throughout Clinton’s speech. It isn’t going to be easy, though, and it’s going to take a candidate who makes very few mistakes.
I have already read people snarking about how she won’t be able to get a (pick your fraction) of what she proposes out of Congress. The truth is, that won’t matter if people feel she will be fighting for them.
One thing I’m curious about because honestly I’m no tax attorney is employee profit sharing as it relates to pre-tax profit.
Perhaps someone could help me here. If, as business I decided that while I don’t want to be come an “employee owned” company but do want to initiate a profit share program with my employees what are the tax consequences?
Can I funnel profits to my employees pre-tax and let them pay income tax on the proceeds? Better yet, what if profit sharing to employees was treated the same as profit share to stock holders with capital gains taxes applying? Or perhaps a “whichever is less” scenario where the employee would pay a capital gain rate or a standard income rate?
I wish I knew more but perhaps someone here does.
Once upon a time, long long ago, there were journalists who thought that the role of “political reporter” ought to be different in both form and substance from being a host of Entertainment Tonight…
In the great tradition of having to parse everything that is said or written by a Clinton, I was amused to hear the term “An Economy that Works for You.” I suspect that the phrase was selected after extensive focus testing because everyone will interpret it to their own advantage. A OWS protester with a graduate degree in the liberal arts who lives in NYC is going to see an economy working for them very different than a single mother living in Section 8 housing in Memphis.
Once again, All Ms. Clinton is doing is playing from the David Axelrod playbook of offering to tax the rich and transfer the wealth to the core groups of the Democratic Party.
Do me a favor, would you? I’m going to guess that you are not making enough money to worry about paying higher taxes. So, can you explain why this bothers you? Can you make the argument in a way that isn’t just blatantly racist?
I listened to the speech – taped not live, though Ms. Clinton’s money-raisers certainly offered to arrange for me to be there.
It was a good speech. Hillary does not have the ability to go full MLK or JFK or BHO. She’s not that person. But she reads as genuine. When she talks about issues one senses a core honesty and genuine concern.
I listened skeptically but came away convinced that she’s going to slaughter the Republicans. She’s optimistic, she’s real, she’s got a story, and she has been smart enough to fold income inequality into her pro-family, pro middle class message.
Women are they key here. “I may not be the youngest person running for president. But I will be the youngest woman president. And the first grandmother as well.” That’s a very well-crafted line and a well thought out approach.
Women, gays, blacks, Latinos, the young. I don’t think you can beat that with angry old white men and billionaires and their bankers.
First, taxing the rich will not generate as much income as a Clinton Adminstration and Congressional Democrats will plan on. Second, over time, the rich will find ways to avoid it. That is what has happened in the past. Second,, more people will end up paying higher taxes than is being implied. The government could tax those hedge fund managers at 100% and not generate enough revenue to close the budget deficit, let alone fund new programs. The only way to add %500 billion or more of new spending will be to raise taxes on most people considering that total revenues from incomes taxes is $1.2 trillion.
Also, more entitlements, more regulations, more public sector employees will just create larger blocks who will push for even higher taxes in the future. That is one of the reason the Democrats are working so hard to create a one party state where they cannot lose, higher taxes will not affect enough voters to matter, and most people are dependent on the government.
Of course Ms. Clinton is going to win and after the Democrats regain control of the House in 2022, she will have the last two years of her administration to create a legacy of not only the U.S. being a one party state but of creating a party that can remain in power no matter the results of government and policy. But what is strange is that a party that wants to double the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S. each year (the number used in Comprehensive Immigration Reform) is worried about helping the middle class.
In Hillary Clinton’s America, avoiding the poor will be so incredibly expensive that the quality of life but for all but the hated rich will slowly decrease.
OK, one last time, even though you have ignored the last 27 times people have pointed this out to you:
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WEALTH IS NOT FIXED.
The purpose of taxing high incomes and high wealth is not a one-time redistribution (though there are certainly benefits to that). The purpose is to create an economy in which, in the longer term, more wealth is generated at all economic tiers, and labor income wealth has more leverage than capitalized inherited wealth.
Pro tip: “more people paying higher taxes” is a good thing — it means more people are wealthy.
If higher taxes won’t cost the rich anything net, then why do the rich fight them so vociferously?
And again, what do you care?
Basically, you’re saying you oppose me paying more taxes because my money might go to black people. I mean, boiling it down, that’s the essence of it.
And you don’t want more money going to black people because you need them to remain lower on the socio-economic ladder than you are yourself. This validates your unfounded sense of racial superiority. That racial superiority is the only kind of status you have or are ever likely to achieve.
It’s the same old plantation scam rich whites have pulled on poor, dumb whites like you.
All things are static in superdestroyer’s mind. Race is static, political identification is static, even the issues are static, solid state, unchangeable. It’s kind of creepy. SD has serious problems. OCD obviously, but also deep insecurity, intellectual rigor mortis.
I am waiting on the fine print, specifics, and the catches. These areas need to be focused on: middle class relief, tax reform, government reform (size and efficiency), crime, monetary reform, security, and foreign policy.
Of course the total amount of wealth is not fixed. It can go down as well as go up. However, having the government use tax dollars on very low value projects and will produce no additional tax revenue but will create more automatic Democratic Party voters who will demand more entitlement spending without concern for long term economic impacts is probably a losing idea in the long term. Rewarding single mothers while making life harder for middle class children from a family with both a mother and a father is probably not the way to really grow the wealth for everyone else. Also, making life better for freelance writers in Burlington, VT while making life harder for engineering, health care workers, and small business men is probably not going to grow the wealth but will ensure that the Democrats stay in power no matter what.
Of course, higher taxes costs the rich. They have to pay more to attorneys and accountants to avoid the taxes. They have to restructure their investment to take in consideration the new tax laws. However, in the long run, constantly changing tax laws are a drain on the economy. Too bad Ms. Clinton could not have learned anything from Mr. Clinton’s Administration where the last six years had no new tax laws and no new regulatory schemes. Compare that to knowing that in 2023 that everything will change and who knows if any investment mad today will be worth it later.
Also, Democrats always benefits from higher taxes and bigger government because more spending, more set asides, and more special programs always benefit Democrats. That is why every Democrat talks about tax increases and new investments no matter the economic situation and why the ratchet effect exists when it comes to spending.
What is amazing is how excited progressives get to reward people who have made bad decisions their whole life why punishing people who have generally made good decisions but were not sharp enough to get into the Ivy Leagues.
Clinton, in giving her speech on Roosevelt Island and weaving Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms into her speech is clearly attempting to claim his mantle, at least for the length of her campaign. These are:
Unfortunately the policy proposals she outlines fall far short of such goals; this is the same “fiddling around the margins” stuff Democrats have been churning out for twenty years. What we won’t hear from her but did hear from Roosevelt speaks volumes. If Clinton really wanted to continue the man’s legacy I’d suggest giving a speech like:
You should update your bigotry.
Black fathers are more likely than white to be involved with their kids.
And rates of single motherhood have declined slightly among blacks while rising slightly among whites and rising more among Hispanics.
The same link shows that births to teen mothers have declined dramatically. In fact, the real problem we are facing is that we are going the way of Europe and Japan into a period of declining population. Among white Americans the fertility rate is well below replacement rate. Blacks, too, are now just a hair under replacement rate, and Latinos are right on the edge.
The only reason the US population is still growing is immigration. Americans have simply stopped having enough children even to keep the population stable. Just like every other country in the developed world. And that is a problem, because it means the population is aging.
So, SD, if you were really as data-driven as you pretend to be you’d see that a future where whites are somehow overwhelmed by black welfare babies is nonsense. The far more likely future is that we will be overwhelmed by old people – old people who will need tax support and services. Old people whose prosperity will depend increasingly on immigrants.
When my wife and I reach retirement age we’ll be getting about $45,000 a year from SS. In addition, Medicare will take over paying for the $24,000 a year medical insurance policy I currently pay. So at a bare minimum the USG will be subsidizing me to the tune of $67,000 a year – rather more than it spends on a black or Hispanic child, even one on welfare.
And here’s the vital difference: society will need that black kid to get a job and provide services. Society won’t need me at all. So money spent on a black child’s education makes infinitely more economic sense than providing me with a comfortable retirement.
Now, those are the facts. I assume they will have no effect whatsoever on your bigotry.
@superdestroyer: so does it really come down, in the end, to the middle class versus the mooching poor and the decadent elites (as opposed to the virtuous poor and worthy elites as you imagine them on your side)?
For those not immersed in the revanchiste culture it is all a lot of weird world-building that is only slightly less arcane than Westeros. But it is just as fanciful and escapist.
In the context where we have a lawless plutucracy, redistribution is not so much to the poor, who do not have control over productive resources, but to the rest of the economy as a whole. Think of it as the commercial economy versus the financial economy. I may make my living in the financial economy, but if it eclipses the commercial economy that is not a good result.
A bit of reality here. FDR had much larger majorities than Clinton is likely to have, and that’s going to matter. Since 2008, we have had a President who started with the idea that legislative majorities didn’t matter much, and that the future was going to be reasonable bipartisan compromises engineered by a transformational leader that could sway legislators by the sheer power of his rhetoric and personal example. We now know that doesn’t work.
The plain fact is that ONLY the incremental approach will have any chance of success, until at least after 2020 when the districts are redrawn and the Democrats will have a fighting chance again to win the House. You’re a good economist, Ben, but you need to understand the fundamental realities of modern politics.
Jesus F. Christ! I can understand the argument that giving our hard earned tax money to single mothers etc etc is not the best thing for the economy, but what are exactly the set of policies that are going to make life easier for a freelance writer in Burlington VT and harder on an engineer, or a small business owner, especially since, as Mike can testify freelance writers ARE SMALL BUSINESSMEN?
The funny thing is that the Ben Wolf c. 1940 would have, with some justification, argued that the New Deal was small potatoes, far from adressing the needs of the moment, and provided little more than a series of bandaids on a bleeding American economy that did nothing to resolve its underlying issues.
In a similar way,when citing Roosevelt’s speeches from his 1936 populist campaign, our progressive betters fail to mention it was followed by an abrupt aboutturn into orthodoxy- with terrible consequences for the economy.
This is not to disparage FDR- a truly great President, but it never ceases to amaze how the hard-nosed progressives who see the corporate machinations behind everything living and breathing Democrats do tend tend to become slobbering naifs when they talk about dead Democrats.
Thank you for noticing. Exactly right. A writer is an entrepreneur and businessman. I conceive a product, I execute it, I take it to market, I conceive and carry on various marketing activities, and my fortunes rise or fall according to the dictates of the marketplace.
Except for the fact that giving the poor money is better for the economy than giving the rich tax cuts.
@humanoid.panda: Sorry, can’t get over the Super-duper virtuous small businessmen/ corrupt creative class parasite distinction. My wife is a clinical social worker, with both her degrees from UW-Madison, exactly the kind of hippy environment SD so hates. Unlike his beloved oil engineers, she produces nothing solid, but she operates a small clinic, in which people are getting a service they want, in exchange for money, and she in turn pays for some labor and asset: rent for her office, an accountant, and, one day, hopefully, a receptionist. Now, she is def. dependent on the government: her education was partially paid by federal loans, lots of her clients are covered via the exchanges, her field is regulated by a licensing agency, an so on. However, all this is true of oil engineers too: they get federal loans,and tax subsidies, and enjoy the fact that our infrastracture is made for cars, and benefit from basic research. However ,just like the engineer, she is producing and sellling a product. What is that that makes her a parasite, besides working in a field that the SDs of this world suspect is nothing but a boon for ninnies that should get over themselves?
@OzarkHillbilly: Oh, I don’t agree with it for a second, but it makes a superficial sense. Dividing our elites into virtous producers who make stuff, and decadent parasitic elitists who provide services doesn’t make any internal sense, to the extent that free market theory says that anything people are willing to pay for has value. In other words, the worlview that views welfare as wast makes sense, on its own terms; the worldview that sees a freelance writer or a gay cupcake maker as parasites while extolling small businessmen makes no internal sense.
I have never argued that blacks would overwhelm whites. The black birthrate in the U.S. has been pushed down by welfare reform and the increase of third world immigration. I have argued that non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. will eventually be overwhemled by non-whites, You live in California and have a front row seat to see how that works out.
One of the reasons that the white and Asian birthrate are so low in the U.S. is that the costs of living in the deep blue cities is very expensive and living there makes it too expensive to have children (See California as exhibit one and the District of Columbia as exhibit two). Thus, the U.S. is dividing into the population that plays the credential-ism game (call it the Tiger Mom track) and the population that is not really capable of competing in the world market place (call it the Detroit track).
What Ms. Clinton has decided with her policies to not only double down on the Tiger Mom track and make it even harder and more expensive to live and work in the deep blue urban centers of the U.S. but to also double down on the Detroit track with more entitlement programs to single mothers and the underclass.
The U.S. has had 50 years to show that it is capable of educating the urban poor to be able to compete in the world marketplace. It has failed every single time. Do you really think that a country where more than 50% of the children in public school are born to single mothers and are on a free lunch program will be able to compete in the world marketplace. Senator Sanders and Ms. Clinton have shown that they do not believe that the U.S. can compete in the world marketplace and want to pass laws to somehow make the world marketplace do away. In reality, Senator Sanders is standing in the middle of the pathway of the global economy and yelling stop.
To believe that trying to avoid the global economy will create an “Economy that Works for You” is laughable. What is more likely to happen is that it will produce an economy of a small ruling class and a massive underclass who are both working against the middle class.
In the long run, the Democrats and the block inside the Democratic are going to win everything they want in policy and governance. The only question is what impacts will that have on the U.S. and what unforeseen effects it will have.
Which is also the reason why birth-rates everywhere from Iran to Japan are collapsing. Those damn SF regulators have a long reach!
Free healthcare (single payer), free undergraduate education (no student loans), more entitlements will make life better for that free lance writer. In addition, I would not put freelance writer into the same category is a small businessman trying to operate a restaurant. Think of the difference in regulatory burden between the two. The freelance writer is not even affected by an increase in the minimum wage, social security taxes, workmans comp, or environmental regulations. But the small restaurant owner is affected by all of them. The higher price of labor, the shrinking of the industrial base, the shriinking of the military, and the lowering of CMS reimbursement for healthcare will all affect small businessmen, engineers, and healthcare workers. But it will not affect that freelance writer.
The costs of housing in Tokyo where about 25% of the population of Japan lives makes SF look cheap. And it is just not the regulators. Living in the SF area is an area where one does not have to live next to poor people if very expensive.
Look at how much it takes to be middle class while living in NYC, DC, Boston, SF, or LA. It makes having chldren out of reach of large portions of the white (and Asian) population. And of course, credential-ism and job uncertainty do not cause the middle class to have children. And no, there is nothing that a Hillary Clinton Administration can do to increase the job security for IT Workers, government contractors, or the financial sector employees.
@superdestroyer: you really do not understand what you are talking about.
The poor will aways be with us. So get used to it.
Poverty can be substantially alleviated, and a lot of kids who are born poor can be quite successful if that poverty is alleviated. But then we don’t call them poor any more. Some middle class folks have problems with drugs or mental illness and can wind up quite poor. What sensible approach is there but tp alleviate povery and open up opportunity for the next generation.
Trying to sort out the worthy from the unworthy poor is a ridiculous exercise. Aside from the modal vanity driving it, it is the sort of pointless and doomed nation building that conservatives are contemptuous of if other contexts.
Yep, because, say, an architect running their own firms, or a software consultant, don’t need any of that education or healthcare! Have you actually talked to any breathing, living small businessmen who are opening buisnesses now, or is your model of a businessman is someone long established?
This is exactly what Mike pointed about you: you can imagine things as only existing in a static way: a freelance writer will always be a static writer, all restaurant owners own McDonald’s franchises, and so on. The truth is that very few freelance writers remain that for long: either (the vast majority of cases) they fail and so something else, or succeed, and then do have to worry about regulations and so on.
Same with restaurant owners: yes ,if you run a McDonald’s franchise, labor costs is the onyl thing you need to worry about. However, I have friends who are aspiring restaurant owners: they are not happy about paying higher minimum wages, but are actually thrilled with Medicaid expansion freeing them from thinking about healthcare, and see the benefits of having a more stable and skilled labor force, there one big advantage over franchises. I am pretty sure that if they succed, in 20 years they will be opposed to whatever new regulations happen (my guess, by then we will be eradicating industrial farming..), but guess what: new generation of business owners will view that as a new opportunity.
So, if as you acknowledge, having to have super education and clumping in expensive cities is a universal condition, why are you foaming in the mouth about blue state regulators? To put it mildly, it seems you have a slightly schizophrenic attitude towards politics: you want both a government that regulates and does nothing, and some kind of a magic wand that will cancel out the technological, social and demographic change of the last 50 years or so.
Shorter Superdestroyer: it is the proper role of government to subsizide groups I have emotional affinity towards, but any subsidizing of groups I dislike is a no no.
Seriously: if the needs of American security maintain an army of X people, and we have an army of 2X people, then maintaining the spending necessary to upkeep 2X people IS welfare!
@stonetools: Roosevelt didn’t inherit a majority. He built it and swept into office with a new Democratic coalition. I would also say that incrementalism has been the Democrats’ tactic of choice for quite some time now and the country is further to the right than ever. It’s strange thinking that Republicans have to be defeated but without advocating policies that might make them too angry.
Also, just a moment ago you argued that Sanders complaining about trade policies means he is
Now, you complain about
and presumably think that if the government was not captured by twinks from Vermont, something could have been done about it.
Again, it seems you are opposed to any and all government action, unless that action involves a magic wand to bring us back to the 1950s!
No, he wouldn’t. But let the excuses and justifications continue, it’s done so well for us all so far. If you don’t like all this talk of Roosevelt, talk to the candidate who is attempting to bootstrap her campaign from his legacy. Democrats won’t get far running on the fumes of principles they abandoned decades ago.
To cite the notorious corporatist Obama “he didn’t built that.” Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the 1932 race knows that FDR ran on a totally incoherent campaing, attacking Hoover as a pawn of the rich, but also promising austerity, budget cuts, and fiscal discipline (in 1936, as I said, he ran as populist and delivered austerity, budget cuts and fiscal discipline). FDR had the presidency to fall into his hands, because by 1932, Hoover was as popular as sifilis.
Nonsense. Was US welfare reform the cause of dropping birth rates in every single developed nation on earth? Was our welfare reform responsible for Japan and Denmark?
Then why is California’s birth rate higher than the rate in South Carolina, Montana and Iowa, just to name three of the many states? California is certainly far more expensive, and far more urban, and with the exception of SC, far more minority. And before you call back on blaming brown people for California’s high rate, you’ll see Nevada which has our same immigration and border issue, and New Mexico, both have slightly lower birth rates.
That is a statistic caused by the fact that we have far more of our kids in private schools, so that by default public schools are poor kid schools. What do you think the rate of single mother births is in Denmark? I’ll tell you: 51%. In France it’s 57%. In the US? 40%
And in fact, our workers do compete. Check any table of labor productivity by country per hour and you’ll see American workers at or near the top among developed nations. We beat the Germans every time.
So, once again, SD, the facts do not support you.
Care to try again?
Your self delusion is magnificent, especially, even ignoring that given your frame of mind you would be either a Communist or a radical populist in the 1930s, even from the point of view of Keynesian economics, you have to acknowledge that before WW2 FDR’s stimulus was nowhere near to meet the demand hole created by the Depression!
Just as a side note: in Scandinavia it’s quite common for people to co-habitate without marriage for decades. That should skew the single parenthood significantly.
Hillary is not running on the fumes of long-abandoned ideas, you ninny, she’s endorsing the Occupy agenda, but couching it in real world as opposed to fantasy terms.
You are drifting into fantasy. We elect presidents not emperors. And politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect.
Your self delusion
argumentum ad hominem
. . . you would be either a Communist or a radical populist in the 1930s
appeal to emotion
even from the point of view of Keynesian economics, you have to acknowledge that before WW2 FDR’s stimulus was nowhere near to meet the demand hole created by the Depression!
Solving the unemployment problem means communism? Appeal to emotion. And anyway. . .
@michael reynolds: Hillary is not running on the fumes of long-abandoned ideas, you ninny, she’s endorsing the Occupy agenda, but couching it in real world as opposed to fantasy terms.
Hillary endorses Occupy? When did this happen, during the actual Occupy movement? Did she object to the nationwide paramilitary crackdown coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI?
Or was she being silenced by the Kenyan president who would have had her killed? Where was Hillary at the time? Where has she been discussing Occupy since she left the administration?
Who is the fantasist?
You’re applying non-political thinking to a political problem.
Let me ask you: does Mr. Obama support gay marriage? Yes, he does.
Did he, endorse it from the start? No. Did he make it a centerpiece? No. Did he wait until it made political sense, at which point he tipped the balance? Yeah. Because that’s how politics works when you’re POTUS. We don’t have a Czar, just a president and a Congress.
It is irrelevant that Hillary didn’t join the drum circle. The point has been won, even some on the right are making the right sounds. Income inequality is on the agenda, and the Democratic candidate is pushing it. Good grief, learn to accept victory rather than pining for some idealized fantasy of perfect leadership.
Can you read? I am not saying that full unemployment is Communism. All I am saying that
1. Given your dislike of real existing politicians and fondness for fantasy, you would have despised FDR and his Keynsianism, and would have gone with either Communism of Long style radical populism.
2. By the terms of Keynsian theory which I fully, wholeheartedly support, FDR was no magic warrior, but a politician who did not follow through on what theory told him to do. Now, I see nothing wrong with that- poltiicians operate in the real world, and we can’t expect perfection from them. However, for you to claim FDR as an avatar for non-compormising purity is just plain silly.
Shorter Ben Wolf: Obama and Hilary are corporatists who disguise their pusillanimity with empty rhetoric, unlike the unbroken, unbent warrior FDR. How do I know that? Why, he issued a bold call for change in a speech to Congress!
Again, to reiterate: I am a huge fan of FDR. He was, by far, the greatest American President of the 20th century. I also fully endorse the Second Bill of Rights, am skeptical of “free trade,” support Keynsianism and policies meant to radically enhance worker power and so on. However, I am also know my history, and know that presenting FDR as a White Knight who never compromised, never erred, never retreated, unlike the sellout Dems of today, is pure hackery.
Geez! How long will seemingly otherwise intelligent people keep feeding the bottomless trough that is SuperD and his one party nightmare?
Is our people lernin?
By the way, Hillary just sold out Obama’s TPP fast track. She’s backing Pelosi. This runs rather counter to the narrative that she’s a tool of Wall Street.
@superdestroyer: Still, getting the rich to pay more makes people under them less restless and less liable to revolt.
Progressive taxation: insurance against getting hanged from a lamppost by the proletariat.
@superdestroyer: Like hell it does. I lived for ten years in Tokyo, so don’t try to make whacko statements about Tokyo apartment prices.
I was paying TWICE in London what I did in Tokyo, and I had moved from a place that was considered pretty central to a place out at the end of one of the Heathrow runways.
Name me one single issue where the country is further to the right than ever.
One has to be very patient with the mentally ill.
How would you define that? Is the country really further to the right than it was in 1980? 1950? 1920? 1890? 1860? Really?
You don’t need to believe anything. You just need to recognize that there are countries in the world like Norway, Sweden and northern Europe in general where there are simultaneously lots of single mothers and very competitive, successful economies.
Now that doesn’t mean that single motherhood is the ideal. The article makes it clear that things are harder for single mothers . But you actually have a highly successful modern country without trying to roll things back to 1950.
OK, you are babbling incoherently now. I would urge you to read the book Freedom From Fear, which makes it clear that FDR swept in a platform of nothing other than doing something, anything, to reverse the Great Depression. Once in, he gambled, improvised, implemented Keynesianism in haphazard fashion, and did everything he could think of, all the while being constrained by the presence of conservative, racist Southern Democrats in his coalition and a reactionary Supreme Court. In the end, it was the gigantic super stimulus provided by WW2 that pulled the USA out of the Great Depresssion-something that every economist but the wacko libertarian fringe agrees upon.
Realistically, the best Clinton can hope for in 2016 is to come in with a Senate majority. A House majority is out of reach, no matter what her message is, thanks to gerrymandering. That’s the consensus view of political strategists. And without a House majority, there can be no radically progressive legislative program.That’s not what you or I would like. That’s just fact, like the non-existence of unicorns, fairy godmothers, or leprechauns with pots of golds.You should begin there in your understanding of what a Clinton Presidency can accomplish.
Let me second this recommendation: Katsnelson does a supreme good job laying out all the compromises and half measures FDR had to take in order to accomplish what he did, and very clearly shows the vast limitations of the New Deal. I wish it was less dense though- more people on the left need to read it.
Hillary is as inevitable in 2016 as she was in 2008.
Conventional wisdom is often wrong.
The Dems will eventually realize she has too much baggage. I personally hope they don’t (and they ride her all the way to a landslide defeat) but the money people will eventually figure out that Hillary is unelectable.
Too bad – if she were the Dem candidate, the GOP could nominate someone as conservative as Cruz and still win.
Calvin Coolidge was the greatest president of the previous century.
Of course you support FDR – you’re a socialist just like he was. He was a good war time leader (so for that reason he ranks above losers like Obama, Carter, and Buchanan), but he was one of the five worst domestic policy presidents in history.
You support Keynesianism?
You do know that’s been thoroughly discredited and debunked??????
@Onward Christian Soldiers:
You realize that multiple question marks does not turn nonsense to truth, right?
In fact, it is conservative economics which has been disproved again and again and again, while Keynes has been vindicated.
@Onward Christian Soldiers:
And Barry Manilow was the greatest singer/songwriter. Got it.
@Onward Christian Soldiers:
We’re all socialists; it’s just that some of us won’t admit it.
…Or do you really believe that all roads and water treatment plants should be privately owned?
This guy’s so dumb he must be James P. The same combination of stupidity and belligerence.
The thought had occurred to me, but Marching as to War seems a bit more obviously trollish. I mean, come on, Calvin Coolidge? Nobody believes that. James P would have picked St. Ronnie.
@DrDaveT: But he used the “Ted Cruz would beat Hillary line” that James P likes. Dead giveaway.
@michael reynolds: Hillary has shown to be tough and experienced, but lacks the down home charm and character of Jimmy Carter.
Onward Christian Soldiers, the key to a good Poe is to not overplay your hand. Coolidge was a step to far, now everybody has to realize you are satire.
The view that Calvin Coolidge was a great president is a popular conservative meme, difficult as it is for liberals to believe. I first encountered the argument in conservative historian Paul Johnson’s book “Modern Times”. Since then, the meme has snowballed , as in here:
Johnson also popularized the argument that FDR made the Great Depression worse-another common right wing meme. He has has thus contributed a lot to right wing apologetics and the right wing alternative universe we have today.
Wow. Is it really possible to write that line and not realize that it can only mean that income disparity increased enormously?