You're citing two presidential candidrtes, like somehow namedropping those names makes Clinton exempt. I am sure those two are very bad men, but doesn't doesn't excuse Hillary. I think you're deflecting.
My point is, Hillary Clinton in 2016 isn't in the top 20 of Democratic candidates when it comes to hawkishness or neoliberalism "ever" to use your own words. I mean, fuck, Kennedy went to the right of Nixon on national defense during the 1960 election.
As for the second part, what the hell are you talking about? Truthful - personal bias on your part. Libya, Iraq, arming syrian rebels, whistleblower crackdown, Nafta and deregulation of wall street-
moderate on abortions "lets keep abortions rare", against gay marriage back in the 90s, using Kosovo to fuel personal agenda, being campaign funded by Saudi monarchs. Militarization of Israel.
For a democrat with influence, she has continuously exercised appalling political acts and flipped the agenda.
Actual studies show politicians actually try to follow up on their promises (
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=all /
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...aign-promises/2011/08/25/gIQAwCA9DQ_blog.html) so even if yo believe Hillary is a secret Republican, she's still going to attempt to pass some of the things she's stated.
As for the usual "the 1990's were horrible and sucked and the Clintons are terrible human beings," I'll simply point out that prior to Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party was in the same exact position the GOP is in now - they'd lost 5 out of the last 6 general elections and they were perceived as extremists, rightly or wrongly by the middle of the nation.
So, a social democrat or a New Dealer was not going to win the 1992 election. So yeah, Bill Clinton did some shitty things. He also helped preside over the strongest economy in decades, and the first economy in decades where African Americans and Hispanics actually had wealth grow - probably part of the reason why older minorities still love him - because for many of them, it was the last time the American Dream seemed possible for them.
The alternative in 1993 was not Bernie Sanders or hell, even Barack Obama if Bill Clinton wasn't the nominee. The alternative was George H.W. Bush winning another term and being forced right by his own Congress and then an even more conservative nominee from the Democrat's in 1996.
I'd also point out that every history by those within the Clinton White House during that time paints Hillary as somebody who was always making the liberal argument for policy.
You don't understand socio economic policy if you actually believe this bile. Do you think countries with social economic models are some made up fantasy land that gives pizza and soda to everyone?
Other countries are upfront with the cost - they tax middle class people a lot on their income and also have things like VAT which add additional cost to things. Which I'm fine with - but they don't throw out things like "oh, you'll save money because you won't be paying student loans or a health insurance premium." They say, "we all need to pay higher taxes to prove for society."
You're proposing a hypothetical. I don't know who said what or why about those people you mentioned, but from everything I have seen, conflict of interest and lobbying with wall street and the government is intertwined. Some of Geitners top people and political advisors during the bailouts were partially responsible.
Yes, that's fine. But, we're not talking about them. We're talking about the columnist who was the only real liberal voice on TV and in the New York Times throughout Bush's Presidency pouting cold water on the insanity of the Republican economic plans and one of the economists who authored the study that gave the idea of minimum wage hikes any positive momentum within the economics sphere.
That's not even getting into the trashing of a civil rights hero like John Lewis or an organization like Planned Parenthood simply because they chose to endorse somebody insufficiently pure.
You talk about strength in numbers give the democratic party credibility.
Is that really true? Haven't the democrats showed a continued lack unity revolving around their candidates as well as coming out for midterm elections?
I mean, I agree. It sucks that young people didn't turn out and defend the gains they made in 2008 simply because Obama didn't fix everything in eighteen months.
And really, even if they did- what does being a majority have to do with being credible?
The democratic party in the united states is a proto center party that has been pushed to the right by a far-right republican party. Unlike most other places in the world, the US democratic values within the democratic party, are not very democratic party.
Again, this is simply false. Before recently, the Labour Party picked their leadership through a system where the couple of hundred MP's had 1/3 of the vote. Most leaders in parliamentary systems are decided by the vote of the members of parliament and you're selected for a parliamentary seat by leadership within the party, not a primary.
In fact, the primary systems is one of the most open systems for deciding a nominee for leader in the world.
As for the "Democrats have moved right" silliness, the Democrat's have moved right on economics as compared to 1968. Because staying still on economics got them killed because many people who were left leaning on economics were only left leaning on economics when it came to poor white people.
So, the DNC had to go where the votes were - and those votes where with socially liberal, but economically moderate former Republican's who didn't like the Republican's embrace of populist social conservatives in the south.
Until very recently, there frankly wasn't a coalition of white liberals who were liberal on economics and social policy _and_ minorities that could win a national election. Again, numbers, not dreams.
Even putting that aside, since 2004, the Democratic Party has moved very far to the left economically. Go find the economic plans of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the like from 2004. Now, compare them to even Hillary's promises. Hillary sounds like Kucinich compared to them.
Again- Sanders is a New Dealer, reciting policy by a Republican from more than half a century ago. "If you don't believe in the new deal, you have no future in the political process". If you actually think about the many times that blue democrats have voted yes for cutting of social welfare, yes to war, yes to increased surveillance, the militarization of police, the destabilization of regions they feel no obligation to support or help after destruction, supporting rebels who end up causing destruction and death on innocents, - It all ends up to a party who is not very democratic.
Even if I agree or disagree with the policies you stated, what does that have to do with democracy? A majority of the populace, including many Democrat's were for the war in Iraq. The vast majority of Democrat's are not isolationists, they're liberal internationalists who don't believe we should let Libya burn and let Gadaffi kill thousands or we should let ISIS and the Syria regime battle it out while tens of thousands are killed or stuck under the reign of people so extreme they make Al Qaeda go "what the fuck are you doing guys?" And frankly, I know you guys hate to hear this, but outside of Reddit and the Internet, nobody gives a damn about the NSA reading your emails.
You end by saying that voting for Bernie Sanders and believing in his policies are no better than voting for the republicans. That isn't true either. There is no consensus that their economic policies will benefit everyone but the rich. There is a proven record for Sanders, based on what is done in other countries.
Again, other countries are upfront with the actual cost - they don't try to sugar coat by telling people, "oh, you'll save money" or "you won't even notice the tax changes."
No, Denmark, Sweden, and the like say, "you're going to pay a lot more in taxes compared to America and that's a good thing."
America has more wealth than any other nation on earth. It is astonishingly rich. Almost none of that money is being poured into the economy, and it is a massive problem that could have global ramification as the equality goes. What the bailouts proved to everyone, was that the government(and the country) needs the banks, more than the banks, if only because the CEOs and top people in banks got theirs, if shit went to worse. Essentially, if another collapse comes, due to continued greed and corruption and the mantra of "too big to fail", the government will have to bail it out again, on the tax payers dime.
I'm puzzled that you cannot see the problematic nature of the current landscape, citing social democratic economics as some farce. It's sensible, and it's the right thing to do.
Like I said, I'm in favor of universal health care coverage. I'm in favor of largely fee-less based public universities. I'm in favor of vastly cutting our military budget and demilitarizing the police. I'm in favor of large scale immigration reform.
But, I'm also honest about the costs of these projects and they won't be miracles that will make America a perfect society. That's my problem with Bernie - he's promising to change the world in a moment and American politics doesn't work like that.
To enact change in America, you're going up against a political system built to make change as difficult as possible and that means small incremental changes take blood, sweat, and tears that'll largely be ignored by extremists on both ends.