• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

NYT OP ED: Why Democrats need Wall Street

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
Many of the most prominent voices in the Democratic Party, led by Bernie Sanders, are advocating wealth redistribution through higher taxes and Medicare for all, and demonizing banks and Wall Street.

Memories in politics are short, but those policies are vastly different from the program of the party's traditional center-left coalition. Under Bill Clinton, that coalition balanced the budget, acknowledged the limits of government and protected the essential programs that make up the social safety net.

President Clinton did this, in part, by moving the party away from a reflexive anti-Wall Street posture. It's not popular to say so today, but there are still compelling reasons Democrats should strengthen ties to Wall Street.

As the party has left behind that version of liberalism, it has also found its way to its weakest electoral position — nationally and at the state level — since the 1920s. Hillary Clinton's lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump

If voters really hated ties to Wall Street and financial elites, Republicans would not enjoy such a commanding electoral position — or have elected a New York plutocrat president. Most voters' major problems with President Trump stem from his performance, not from his wealth or connections to Wall Street.

America is a center-right, pro-capitalist nation. A January Gallup poll found that moderates and conservatives make up almost 70 percent of the country, while only 25 percent of voters identify as liberal. Even in May 2016, when Senator Sanders made redistribution a central part of his platform, Gallup found that only about 35 percent of Americans had a positive image of socialism, compared with 60 percent with a positive view of capitalism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/...wall-street.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

This was written by a senior Democratic Bill Clinton political and economic adviser. Thoughts?

In an era when America is attempting to fight against the swamp, i am alarmed that this kind of article was so prominent on NYT's website.
 
Sep 1, 2016
676
0
0
Extremely sad. And his first two (only two) examples are actually the worst possible ones, especially the Telecom deregulation. He also outright says they should want their money, so he is condoning Wall Street writing legislation. What the fuck is this author thinking?
 
Dec 11, 2012
22,028
2
0
Why are you so upset about the NYT having a democrat write an op ed that you don't agree with?

Is the NYT supposed to be a specific bastion of progressive ideals that I wasn't aware of?
 

Guevara

Member
Jul 27, 2009
24,808
4
0
I was just thinking about why Democrats are so tied to money, even though money has failed them time and again.
 

Caturro

Member
May 26, 2008
235
0
0
The US being a center right nation should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Democratic Party is NOT a leftist party.
 

Brakke

Banned
Jan 21, 2014
16,743
0
0
www.terrisus.com
Dogs when y’all gunna learn that RT =/= endorsements. Opinion section publishes uncomfortable or straight up wrong shit. This dude’s articulating a sentiment that’s important to see and to understand, that we may be vigilant and defeat it.

This is a fine point at least:

Third, it is hypocritical for Democrats to maintain ties to Silicon Valley and then turn their backs on the very people who help finance its work. The financial industry brings to market the world’s most innovate products and platforms that expand the economy and create jobs.​

He’s right, we should get in there and start smashing some tech companies.

Extremely sad. And his first two (only two) examples are actually the worst possible ones, especially the Telecom deregulation. He also outright says they should want their money, so he is condoning Wall Street writing legislation. What the fuck is this author thinking?

Yeah completely insane. Who is happy about cable companies buying content producers?
 

yanipheonu

Member
May 8, 2014
6,320
0
0
There's the very real problem that if you don't side with at least some of the rich and powerful, you'll be outgunned by the people that did.

Political change isn't easy when you have to balance the needs of your base with the needs of the powerful people you have to keep happy.

NYT is a right wing rag at this point

🙄 The hottest takes.
 

Nerokis

Member
Feb 28, 2013
3,404
0
0
Fuck NYT. We don't need YOU

...what?

The fact that some percentage of the opinion pieces posted in the NYT are ideologically questionable (as in, virtually all the ones that reach GAF are posted with that premise) doesn't even come close to negating how important it is.
 

Ithil

Member
Apr 19, 2011
41,089
1
0
The "Wall Street connections aren't a big deal, look at Republicans doing well" part is stupid because the whole problem is Republican messaging pretends the GOP aren't in bed with Wall Street but Democrats are. Republican voters believe only the Democrats support Wall Street, they buy the propaganda that the GOP are fighting for the little guy and aren't corrupt.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
I feel like Wall Street's preferences were:

1) Clinton
2) Any other Republican
3) Trump
4) Sanders
Given the stories we're hearing about the GOP's donor base, it's really 2314.
The "Wall Street connections aren't a big deal, look at Republicans doing well" part is stupid because the whole problem is Republican messaging pretends the GOP aren't in bed with Wall Street but Democrats are. Republican voters believe only the Democrats support Wall Street, they buy the propaganda that the GOP are fighting for the little guy and aren't corrupt.
Exactly: look at the CPFB - Warren is a Senator today because the GOP (and their donors) refused to let her run that agency.
 
Jun 27, 2017
571
18
245
It's literally an opinion piece from a single person

There's some strong sentiment within the old guard of the DNC to try and quell Sanders and his progressive base because of their outright rejection of corporate money and their insistence that America needs more socialistic programs governing crucial public services, which is antithetical to the current ideological adherence to neoliberalism and the unwarranted faith both sides of the aisle seem to possess in regards to letting the rich assholes run things because they suspposedly know best.

The fact that this writer was a Clinton acolyte isn't surprising given that the Clintons are very much the antithesis of what the progressive base is looking for in their leadership and governing ideology.

And that isn't meant to bring up debates about HRC from this last election cycle. (I voted for her in the general)

My point is there is an internal power struggle going on within the DNC and many centrist Democrats clearly do not like Sanders or his followers.

This editorial strikes me as one of the old guard hitting back at the popularity and momentum of the progressive base.

Just my two cents.
 

Madness

Banned
Jan 1, 2013
22,118
0
0
Bill Clinton era America didn't have a hallowed out middle class.

His worst policy ever was corporations coercing him into granting China entry into the WTO. One of his last acts in office. There were tons of people who warned would be the end of American manufacturing and China would flood the market with cheap exports. That is exactly what happened. Bill Clinton gets a lot of the post-Cold War globalism good will yet he is directly responsible for starting the decline of the American middle class.

As for OP. Just another Dems need to be Republican to make political gains style writeup.
 

Nerokis

Member
Feb 28, 2013
3,404
0
0
The fact that this writer was a Clinton acolyte isn't surprising given that the Clintons are very much the antithesis of what the progressive base is looking for in their leadership and governing ideology.

The writer wrote this last October:

As of now, I have no confidence that either of those questions will be answered by Election Day or that we will have full clarity on an investigation into what could be as many as 650,000 emails that found their way to Weiner and Abedin’s computer.

However, in good conscience, and as a Democrat, I am actively doubting whether I can vote for the Secretary of State. I also want to make clear that I cannot vote for Donald Trump as his world view and mine are very different.

I remain a Democrat and proud of the work I did for six years for President Bill Clinton between 1994 and 2000 and I write with extreme sadness. But I cannot in the waning days of the election make the case that Secretary Clinton should be elected.
 
Jun 27, 2017
571
18
245
Opinions Page, breh.

And yes, Democrats do need Wall Street. As a proud neo-liberal centrist, some of you guys just want to burn it all down. Doesn't work like that.

Wall Street has an important place, but they also need to be heavily regulated and kept on a tight leash.

Because if not, they have demonstrated a propensity to burn it all down themselves.
 
Dec 11, 2012
22,028
2
0
There's some strong sentiment within the old guard of the DNC to try and quell Sanders and his progressive base because of their outright rejection of corporate money and their insistence that America needs more socialistic programs governing crucial public services, which is antithetical to the current ideological adherence to neoliberalism and the unwarranted faith both sides of the aisle seem to possess in regards to letting the rich assholes run things because they suspposedly know best.

The fact that this writer was a Clinton acolyte isn't surprising given that the Clintons are very much the antithesis of what the progressive base is looking for in their leadership and governing ideology.

And that isn't meant to bring up debates about HRC from this last election cycle. (I voted for her in the general)

My point is there is an internal power struggle going on within the DNC and many centrist Democrats clearly do not like Sanders or his followers.

This editorial strikes me as one of the old guard hitting back at the popularity and momentum of the progressive base.

Just my two cents.

Fair points

And still, liberals are flipping their shit at a news organization for hosting an op ed, thinking for some odd fucking reason the NYT is a mouth piece for their personal liberal ideals.

There is nothing wrong with calling bullshit on the contents of the article.

Crying about seeing something you don't like and feeling betrayed by the NYT is simply absurd
 

Nerokis

Member
Feb 28, 2013
3,404
0
0
....is this guy just a massive troll?

Basically. He's also the guy who wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post encouraging Obama to announce that he wouldn't be running for a second term.

Here's a snippet from that piece:

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

The best way for him to address both our national challenges and the serious threats to his credibility and stature is to make clear that, for the next two years, he will focus exclusively on the problems we face as Americans, rather than the politics of the moment - or of the 2012 campaign.
 
Jun 27, 2017
571
18
245
The writer wrote this last October:

That's interesting but I would still posit he's part of the old guard if he thinks Sanders and his base are wrong in wanting to massively regulate Wall Street.

Or maybe he actually though the emails were a serious issue.

(I'm not a fan of Clinton but the emails struck me as BS from the outset)
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Basically. He's also the guy who wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post encouraging Obama to announce that he wouldn't be running for a second term.
Could you link all of those? It sounds like he's literally just writing articles that deliberately bait populist lefties.
 

SerAardvark

Member
Jun 16, 2016
385
0
0
Trying to pass Doug Schoen off as a meaningful figure (or representative of substantive numbers of voters) in the Democratic Party is silly.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Mar 31, 2005
11,818
0
1,310
36
Arlington, VA
His worst policy ever was corporations coercing him into granting China entry into the WTO. One of his last acts in office. There were tons of people who warned would be the end of American manufacturing and China would flood the market with cheap exports. That is exactly what happened. Bill Clinton gets a lot of the post-Cold War globalism good will yet he is directly responsible for starting the decline of the American middle class.

As for OP. Just another Dems need to be Republican to make political gains style writeup.

Bill was a neoliberal but the rest of this post is nonsense. The decline of manufacturing and the American middle class began decades before the Clintons arrived in Washington.

The dollar becoming the world's reserve currency after WW2 is what killed manufacturing and made Wall Street what it is today.
 

Skellig Gra

Member
Aug 24, 2007
20,771
2
1,195
It’s incredibly naive to say Democrats don’t need Wall Street. Money controls everything. Yeah it’s nice to be ideological but we have to live within the framework of our society or it’s going to be an endless string of Trump like presidents.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
During my weekly show on the “Fox Report” hosted by Harris Faulkner with Pat Caddell and John LeBoutillier, I indicated that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8.
His latest book is Putin's Master Plan: To Destroy Europe, Divide NATO, and Restore Russian Power and Global Influence
There's a Supernatural "confused.gif" that would be appropriate here.

Though his previous book in 2010 makes this less confusing:
Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster who worked for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System."
 

mavo

Banned
Feb 22, 2016
782
0
0
Opinions Page, breh.

And yes, Democrats do need Wall Street. As a proud neo-liberal centrist, some of you guys just want to burn it all down. Doesn't work like that.

I really love how Neoliberal was co-opted by americans lol.
 

Autodidact

Banned
Dec 13, 2008
2,533
0
0
The US being a center right nation should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Democratic Party is NOT a leftist party.

Tell me how the Democrats differ markedly from your typical center-left European social democratic party.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
Why are you so upset about the NYT having a democrat write an op ed that you don't agree with?

Is the NYT supposed to be a specific bastion of progressive ideals that I wasn't aware of?

No. I just am alarmed that big time websites run malarkey like this. Its not that its an opinion i disagree with, its that its blatantly wrong and dangerous for America for views like this to be so prominent.

The writer of the piece is holding up the telecommunications act(which allowed corps to become huge monpolies of concentrated groupthink and focused narratives), and the wall street deregulation Clinton did which in part led to the collapse of 08.

And he's doing it on the basis of "deregulation good, regulation bad!"

Its important for me to state how i don't think neoliberal democrats should be making Trump and the GOP's arguments for them, that's a big part of the problem we're having.
 

entremet

Member
Dec 6, 2008
85,707
384
1,455
It’s incredibly naive to say Democrats don’t need Wall Street. Money controls everything. Yeah it’s nice to be ideological but we have to live within the framework of our society or it’s going to be an endless string of Trump like presidents.
The far left types live in their fantasy land, as always.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
It's incredibly naive to say Democrats don't need Wall Street. Money controls everything. Yeah it's nice to be ideological but we have to live within the framework of our society or it's going to be an endless string of Trump like presidents.

Freeze. Apply that sentiment in your head to literally any other thing in America's history which you would decide was worth having to take a principled stance on. Then i would ask you reevaluate your position.


Its important for people, i think, to understand that any sane person would never say that when the KKK and the neonazi's were going through Charlottesville. "Oh its nice to be ideological but racism is everywhere, what are you gonna do?" But political corruption or supply side economics by way of money generally means nothing? Unless its the republicans, and then its bad. I think we need to be far more consistent on things like this if we want to claim we care about anything in general.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
NYT Editorial should absolutely be on blast for giving this guy a platform- not for the content of the article specifically, but because he's obviously a disingenuous troll.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
NYT Editorial should absolutely be on blast for giving this guy a platform- not for the content of the article specifically, but because he's obviously a disingenuous troll.

I think its important to call out the content most of all, because that's the most egregious thing. The person himself should probably come secondary, even though just seeing his previous articles doesn't make him out to be a bright individual. He's basically trying to badly emulate Tony Blair in sucking up to the right wing whenever he can