Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillary - the corporate populist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    Not sure how the Tyson Chicken thing is socialism - corruption and political access but socialism? What was the reference to Silicon Valley? Did you mean the fundraising or was it something else?
    During Bill Clinton's tenure as Arkansas' governor, Tyson Chicken was that state's largest employer. Helping Tyson meant jobs for arguably the US' most impoverished state. Advancing employment is "populist" or "liberal" or "leftist" in the US political lexicon, even if the programs derive from more "rightist" motivations. Perhaps a more eloquent description of our economies -- beyond "left" and "right" -- is in order.

    The fundamental essence of corporatism is not technocratic but moral: what does government have the responsibility to do? What do people have the right to demand be done for them?

    The economic Left likes corporatism for three reasons:

    1) It satisfies its lust for power.

    2) It makes possible attempts to redistribute income.

    3) It enables them to practice #2 while remaining personally affluent.

    The economic Right likes corporatism for three different reasons:

    1) It enables them to realize capitalist profits while unloading some of the costs and risks onto the state.

    2) The ability to intertwine government and business enables them to shape government policy to their liking.

    3) They believe the corporatist state can deliver social peace and minimize costly disruptions.

    This process has been described as "socializing the losses, privatizing the profits" by its leftist critics, who also call parts of it corporate welfare. What they don't get is that in a society which grants the fundamental premise that government should take care of everybody, government will, and big business is part of "everybody." Most economic arguments today are not between a socialistic ideal and a capitalistic one, as many seem to believe, but are arguments within the corporatist consensus. This consensus is incapable of gelling into a unitary consensus because it is supported by the two sides for different reasons. There is also no public, coherent ideology of corporatism because almost no-one is willing to admit they believe in it.

    "What is American Corporatism?," by Robert Locke, Front Page Magazine, 13 Sep 2002
    - emphasis mine

    The Clinton's great success has been in synthesizing "leftist" sentiments with "rightist" realpolitik and corporatist economic realities. It's arguably the greatest con of recent memory, and the Clinton's must be geniuses, 'cause they've made it work for going on three decades now.

    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    The Clintons are a sleazy and corrupt pair.
    You're just jealous 'cause you can't make sleaze work as well as they do.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
      During Bill Clinton's tenure as Arkansas' governor, Tyson Chicken was that state's largest employer. Helping Tyson meant jobs for arguably the US' most impoverished state. Advancing employment is "populist" or "liberal" or "leftist" in the US political lexicon, even if the programs derive from more "rightist" motivations. Perhaps a more eloquent description of our economies -- beyond "left" and "right" -- is in order.

      - emphasis mine

      The Clinton's great success has been in synthesizing "leftist" sentiments with "rightist" realpolitik and corporatist economic realities. It's arguably the greatest con of recent memory, and the Clinton's must be geniuses, 'cause they've made it work for going on three decades now.



      You're just jealous 'cause you can't make sleaze work as well as they do.
      The Clintons relationship with Tyson Chicken sounds like corruption and the usual political deals that are done with business. It really has nothing to do with socialism. I would agree that terms like right and left have increasingly become inappropriate.

      I could have made sleaze work just as well as those two - it was my inherent moral code, laziness or inability to get to a position of power that made me choose not to.
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
      G.B Shaw

      "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
      Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        The Clintons relationship with Tyson Chicken sounds like corruption and the usual political deals that are done with business. It really has nothing to do with socialism.
        Perhaps not "socialism" in the "according to Hoyle" sense, but if a given government program can be sold as beneficial to the Working Joe -- even if it's really corrupt in essence -- then it will be pretty hard to deny it's "populist" appeal. The UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are an example of such: their strategic role is unclear -- indeed, the RN's need for 60,000 ton CVs is unclear -- but they bought Gordon Brown's Labour Party some votes in Scotland, didn't they?

        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        I would agree that terms like right and left have increasingly become inappropriate.
        I'm not sure that they're meaningful anymore. I wonder what terms would make appropriate replacements?

        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
        I could have made sleaze work just as well as those two - it was my inherent moral code, laziness or inability to get to a position of power that made me choose not to.
        So you're saying that you don't schmooze 'cause you can't tear yourself away from the tele? Rimshot

        Or is that "telly"?
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #19
          I don’t think it’s about who are corporate creatures (ALL politicians are, after all, having to pander to potential donors and beg for funding). Politicians are the captives of the folks with money and EVERYONE knows it or should know it, the Supreme Court made sure of that.

          It's all about who can influence the demographic groups who will vote, and it appears that Hillary will be able to take the women's and Millennial's votes.

          http://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/the_...simply_do_not/

          This is a really fascinating piece about why the GOP is not gaining young folks or older women for the next election.

          An excerpt about why they are not gaining the young people:
          Half of the electorate are women and half of the older demographic Kristol insulted as a bunch of losers are women, and a good many of those are women who usually vote Republican, like Kathleen Parker. It would seem to be rather reckless of Republicans to denounce so many potential voters with such a sweeping condemnation.

          But then Kristol might calculate that while he may alienate women, and older women in particular, screaming “Boomers suck” will be just the thing to bring over some of those Millennial voters who have rejected the GOP ticket in such huge numbers up until now. So maybe you can’t blame him. After all, as Ryan Casey pointed out in [his] piece at Huffington Post, the media has been flogging the idea that young people are on the verge of abandoning the Democrats for years….

          […]
          And, as he points out, that ancient Boomer warhorse Hillary Clinton seems to recognize that her political future is tied to these youngsters, and is formulating her political agenda with that in mind. From campaign finance to a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers and their families, to a hike in the minimum wage, her campaign so far has been very conscious of the top level concerns of young people. She may be old, but she isn’t stupid either.

          Gen-X dreamboats Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, on the other hand, are offering young people a bleak vision of endless war, antiquated social values and economic hardship and they know it. It matters little if that dark picture of the future is offered by a youthful fellow with an ethnic name. It’s embarrassing for the Republicans that they don’t understand that.
          I think if you are a politician you have to offer hope, not despair.

          The young folks, and I think even older women, have a more optimistic viewpoint that older men and it is likely that they will vote for a person who will play to that attitude. I know that I will never vote for a person who proclaims that the “end of world” is upon us, or that “30,000 ISIS fighters are going to turn the world upside down” or that taking care of poor and middle class health issues is going to bring down our health car system or even worse, the government.

          If nothing else, I have faith that the whole corporate structure behind the government will not let that happen.
          Homo homini lupus

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            Perhaps not "socialism" in the "according to Hoyle" sense, but if a given government program can be sold as beneficial to the Working Joe -- even if it's really corrupt in essence -- then it will be pretty hard to deny it's "populist" appeal. The UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are an example of such: their strategic role is unclear -- indeed, the RN's need for 60,000 ton CVs is unclear -- but they bought Gordon Brown's Labour Party some votes in Scotland, didn't they?
            A populist policy still does not mean it is socialist in nature though, it just means it is designed to win votes.

            I'm not sure that they're meaningful anymore. I wonder what terms would make appropriate replacements?
            Good question - these labels get thrown around so much and most of the time it has become nonsense.

            So you're saying that you don't schmooze 'cause you can't tear yourself away from the tele? Rimshot

            Or is that "telly"?
            It would indeed be telly or just TV usually. Is it different over there - tele or something else?
            "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
            G.B Shaw

            "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
            Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X