I agree with that, and Germany, which is an economic powerhouse because of – and not in spite of – its high tax rates, stringent regulations, and strong labor support, puts a lie to the supply side and marketplace fundamentalists. And because the US since Reagan succumbed to those right wing arguments we are that much poorer.
But progressives have made the arguments you espouse, but all too often we are more fractious and prone to infighting compared to the organized right, which enjoys the backing of big business and religious and social conservatives. Too often we fall for optics, purely symbolic victories, litmus tests and media-driven controversies.
We must make a better effort to unite the left, the center-left and moderates and better explain our common interests and the economic and social value of our policies.
Will the press ever make it clear what the NATO defense budget agreement is about? It is not about nations paying “dues” into the NATO budget and never has been. It is about the % GDP that a nation spends on defense. The nominal target is 2%.
The US (stupidly) spends 3% of GDP on “defense”. Other countries spend less than the 2%. But this is all about their national government budgets, not NATO “dues”.
Really, the story is how clueless the President of the United States is about NATO. The man is an idiot and a menace to world peace.
Oh, and by the way, NATO members other than the US have quite generously contributed - both in $$, personnel, expertise and leadership, to NATO operations supported by the US including interventions in the Bosnian Civil War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and LIbya. Thousands of non-US NATO member troops have been killed or wounded in the war in Afghanistan
Like Trump, FDR had great populist appeal (yes, I know, that hurts). He was able to go straight to the public and browbeat Congress with populism. For progressivism to succeed we may need a leader or at least a figurehead with that level of courage and commitment.
Interestingly, alt-right isn’t especially united. Some are hispanic and some are white supremacists. Some are religiously oriented and some are not. Could be we put too much emphasis on reaching agreement? Sanders galvanized a movement around a few simple “targets”, where targets can be either positive or negative aspirations…
FDR was a great president, I agree, but he had some advantages due to his unique situation.
The market crashed in 1929, and the economy got steadily worse for the next four years; the Depression didn’t occur overnight, but conditions deteriorated over time due to misguided policies and a hands-off philosophy of Hoover. Unemployment reached 25 percent or so with no end in sight, there was very little of a safety net, labor unions were increasingly restive, and people had had enough – they demanded immediate action, and they’d had enough of laissez faire capitalism.
And communism was gaining sympathy, and fascism was on the march in Europe. The public was ready for bold action.
FDR took office with overwhelming majorities: more than 300 Democrats in the House and 75 percent of the Senate. Also, as a member of a rich and prominent family – his cousin was the beloved President Teddy Roosevelt – he was able to declare a mandate and avoid the nonsense that plagued President Obama throughout his term.
FDR is considered a lion of liberalism, and deservedly so, but it’s forgotten that many of his earlier policies did not bear fruit, and that, despite his party’s control of a supr-majority, he repeatedly was forced to make compromises with Congress. He had to compromise on enforcing anti-trust regulations, he refused to call for anti-lynching legislation for fear of alienating southern Democrats, etc.
No, I think we need greater agreement and unity. We need not be in lockstep on every issue or strategy. But we must also recognize that it is the majority that sets agenda in Congress. If we could have held together in 2010 instead of hand-wringing recriminations over Democrats dropping the public option or Medicare for All or passing a too-small stimulus, we’d be much better off today.
Because I’m not clear on how exactly we’re “supporting” German/EU monetary policy. Certainly Obama applied as much pressure as one can apply to an important and economically powerful ally without making things worse. As has the Fed, and indeed, in recent months even the IMF, via central banking back-channels. And all they get is that intransigent “Nein!”
He’s flipping based on convenience and the disingenuousness of saying whatever it takes to be perceived as winning an argument.
I guess the fact that he is alienating and turning very important allies against him and us by extension in the meantime, is just an after thought unworthy of consideration.
Obviously the winds have shifted, Captain Weathervane is the first indicator.
As an exercise, Trounce could be toyed with just to prove that his words are hollow and meaningless.
With fingers crossed behind their backs, Merkel or any leader that’s also laughing in the Blob’s face could lead him on with true fake news (???) and watch him go off as he does.
Then just say, Psyche!. The dummy would scramble back and forth aimlessly to spin his being duped without ever considering the truth, reality or consultation with you know, experts.
I think that’s the key. It doesn’t have to be a depression, just a situation in which people stand up and say, “we’ve had enough”. They were doing that in 2016. And recently something like 4M people participate in the women’s march, which wasn’t even billed as a Hell No sort of thing.
Fox, Limbaugh, Breitbart, Stone, et al. fabricate fictitious situations to effect. We have an advantage here in that we have a real situation. U.S. is not far from becoming an oligarchy. We have people such as Thiel and Graham openly either calling for a return to oligarchy, celebrating the coming reign of oligarchy, and/or rationalizing why oligarchy is the normal order of things. We have Trump, repellent to most citizens, as nominal president, Bannon, an evil genius who publicly states that he embraces “the dark side” and that Satan is one of his role models.
I submit that we in fact do have a situation. And even before this, Sanders was a significant populist draw. People unify over principles better than they unify over specifics. That’s where populism has an edge…keep the specifics backgrounded and the principles front and center. Right focuses of grievance. Grievance is a motivator. That’s how the tea party unified. People only cling to minutia when they feel they have little to lose. I think an adequate unity of purpose is possible if the vision is compelling and the alternative is frightening.
I’m not clear on how exactly we’re “supporting” German/EU monetary policy
For example, when Obama met with Tsipras and informed him he would have no help from the U.S. in seeking to reform the EMU nor in negotiating a rational resolution to Greece’s debt crisis. The Obama administration was a staunch ally of austerity in practice. I’d guess this was driven by Realpolitik given that he wanted Germany’s and Brussels’ help imposing Russian sanctions. Sometimes you have to do Realpolitik. I get that. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
ETA: Obama’s message to Tsipras was actually stronger than I implied above. It was more along the lines of “submit or else”.
It might have been more complicated than that. Remember, when he took office President Obama faced a financial system swirling around the drain. He had to work with major US banks, the Federal Reserve, and foreign banks and central banks to rescue the economy. Perhaps these delicate negotiations and arrangements left little in the way of wiggle room for him. He might have been boxed in.
This might also explain his less-than aggressive stance with regard to prosecuting bankers; he was focused on saving the financial system as part of a wider effort of rescuing the economy. And our economic picture was looking really dark in 2008/2009.
At a minimum, Obama could have publicly expressed recognition that what Varoufakis correctly called “fiscal waterboarding”, is not a solution. U.S. could have intervened for an IMF debt restructuring. More would have been politically risky, but ethically correct.
U.S. could also have helped Greece Grexit and helped afterwards with a restructuring plan. Greece is not and never will be like Germany, so a Marshal plan wouldn’t have made sense, but an agreement that enabled Greece’s entrepreneurs to get a footing could have benefited both nations.
EMU leaders don’t want to see any nation exit it successfully because that puts the treaty union at risk.
