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.
Regardless of how many democrats- be in 2 or 20, Hillarys track record is anything but democratic, when viewed from a globalized democratic perspective. You're instigating this like, Hillary is off the hook. Unlike presidential candidates and views of blue warhawkish democrats, the fact is, that her record is out there, paved with blood, and that is what matters. Everything else is hypotehtical- particularly when you try to paint her as better than Kennedy, when he governed in a way more hostile era. Unlike the cold war, the war on terror is completely misguided, self serving and paved with lunacy.
I'm not trying to paint all of this on Hillary and Bill, but they certainly have been democratic. Particularly from the views of most democratic countries. Perhaps only the UK- Or England specifically share their strong conservative values. In some cases, Australia and NZ too.
Do I believe that Democrats are more liberal on a number of issues compared to where they have been before? I do, but I still don't think that says much. What is more, the democrats have failed to become more liberal at a pace as the democrats have gone more far- right (
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...vious_democrats_haven_t_gone_as_far_left.html )
Actual studies show politicians actually try to follow up on their promises (
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mag...1.php?page=all /
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...A9DQ_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.
This is anecdotal, and cannot be applied as a guideline for every politician. Furthermore, flipflopping doesn't disclose what I said. There are many instances- not just in America, but all over the world where lawmakers don't follow through. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, and you cannot expect everyone to fall through with everything. The concept of flipflopping is that you flip on issues under the guise that it is popular and will get you elected, not that you're sincerer.
I never said, she wouldn't try to pass what she says she will. I said, her integrity is compromised due to her flipflopping, and that is something that comes up repeatedly with her.
Hillary couldn't come out for 15 USD minimum wage despite having been called on for many years by unions and labor and activists groups for the things that she has championed the most through her career- women and children. Not until summer of 2014 she came forward on that.
On issues like marijuana, she is even less consistent, taking a no-position, by adhering to keeping it illegal but in a lower class drug, which is awful. She is essentially partaking in the untrue war on drugs bullshit she has claimed to remove herself from, but still partaking on it in a less awful capacity, that might actually stilt it from becoming legal down the road.
Furthermore, it's issues like that has given her the label as an opportunist who tries to honk voters from both sides of the aisle, instead of taking a stand and then staying with it.
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.
Nostalgia blinds and misunderstandings are a rift. Short term economic prosper and growth by the free markets in the 90s was due to irresponsible deregulation of wall street that didn't significally undid the shit Reagan pulled with his administration. You talk about how African Americans and Hispanics had wealth grow, but a more apt way to put it; would be how the massive disproportion of wealth continued. Which is also reflected by the mass incarnation exodus, who mostly consisted of poor people of color.
It might have started in the early 80s, but the seeds flourished by clintons administration. Too much growth, and too much corruption paved the way for Bush era.
It instigated a lot of the conditions that allowed the fraud of 08 to occur, and while not directly related Steagall-Glass, the moniker of Clintons "too big to fail" as evident by the disasterous NAFTA law (
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf <
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html )
What is more, you even have people who oversaw TARP under Geitner who originally were defending the Steall-Glass act, who admit that they need to reign in the banks;
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/federal-reserve-bank-president-need-break-big-banks.html
In total- Bill Clinton somehow being the pavement dubber of the best economy in decades is false. Short term economic gain, followed by instability and crashes is not good economy. Too aggressive economic policies lead to bubble bursts, and the economic crisis of 08 can easily be traced back to Clinton.
Do I think the 90s were horrible? Depends on where you live and who you were. Was it the last great time of the middle class? Yeah, I'd agree with that. And thew middle class back in the 90s was a sizeable chunk- a significant portion of which today are in poverty, or in some cases, extreme poverty. And as such I understand the sentiment. Furthermore, it's hard to make Clinton look back when you see the guy who was after him and how unqualified he was. It just makes him look terrific by comparison.
In fact just weeks after was sworn into office in early 2011, the economy began to sink again. There was no doubt that republicans who opposed the tax increase were in the wrong, but it is also wrong to ignore a lot of the factors going into the 90s prosperity and productivity which was not a product of Clinton, but of circumstances.
"...But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the worlds rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clintons presidency.. "
(
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/ )
That's not to say that Clinton didn't do good, or that Bush Jr wasn't incompetent along with the democrats who went on the charade of starting wars, which many many people from across the political spectrum- from out the fringes candidates like Ron Paul, to Chomsky warned that the guerilla warfare that would come from trying to tame tribal socities would spark new waves of violence and misery.
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."
From what I've seen, it is clear that people will pay more in taxes, on the middle class spectrum. I've understood it as, it is only with regards to the poor mobility compared to single player in Canada where they get more from less. (
http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html ) Partially due to big pharma. I've understood Bernies comments about that his health plan being cheaper has just as much as shutting down the expendure and make-up achievable on your drugs.
You're right that many other countries pay more. US GDP revenue from taxes is almost half of some countries. But you know what- the extreme tax deductibles of the rich would offset that. (
http://fortune.com/2016/02/17/bernie-sanders-taxes-2/ )
It's clear that middle class will pay more. Has Sanders camp not communicated that enough? Maybe not, but it's no secret.
America can pay for it. It is realistic. American is immensely wealth, and so much of it's wealth doesn't go back into the economy. It's a charade that it would be unrealistic policy. A lot of people are seriously not understanding of marginal taxes. (the 90% tax myth)
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.
As I said, I don't know this economist, but I find it hard to believe that this person was the only liberal voice on TV(Joseph E. Stiglitz (
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/12/bush200712 ), ralph nader(
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/03/country-you-destroyed-letter-george-w-bush ), Warren(
http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-takes-aim-at-democrats-republicans-1420642851 ), Sanders himself( Bernie schooling Alan Greenspan;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh-qGcYruw ). Regardless, doing something good doesn't make you incapable of also doing bad shit. Things don't exist in a vacuum, and you can't use good deeds to vouch off conflict of interest. You insistently tried to argue the US Democratic party as being pure and uncompromised. I then explained to you, that Wall Street obviously had their fishhooks deep into the democratic process, the DNC, and both Clintons and Obamas administration.
So the idea that you would water down all the good fucking deeds about established fat cats as some hail-marry get out of jail card is outrageous.
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.
Re-read what you just quoted: "
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."
You're talking about elective process. That has NOTHING to do with the concept of being credible. You talked about the democratic party was credible in its numbers, and you back it up with how government officials are elected? Credibility in politics is having credible positions- as in, you have consistent track record, you're not compromised by corruption- Which America doesn't do too well in (
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results )
Furthermore, explaining DNC undemocratic behavior by "thats where the votes are" bullshit, is the quintessential douchey compromised rhetoric and inconsistent lack of consistency that has made so many people lose faith in the democratic party. You don't change your political views because of popularity. That is the definition of an opportunist, and not a politician who you can actually belief in. Sure as hell fuck not, when you're running on shutting down wall street corruption and ends up doubling down, by putting high ranking people who were responsible into your administration to oversee Geitner. Or talking about protecting Americas freedom by taking campaign funds from Sunni funded terrorist monarchs.
Iraq, Iran (hillary!), Syria, Libya, Yemen all attest to a democratic funded invasive policies along with the drone program, and domestically with regards to patriot act, whistleblower, all is unprecedented policies from the democratic party compared to what we have seen before. Regardless of what the democratic party has moved left or right on, it's still not very liberal with the things that it has done.
And as such you really see Clinton personifying this. As you said, particularly on Economic issues (corporate interests);
Senator Warren; For example, in her 2003 book, Warren slammed Clinton for reversing her previous position as first lady by voting in 2001, as a New York senator, for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes, yachts and investment properties from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bills provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.
"As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs, Warren wrote. As New Yorks newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. ... The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.
Link;
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...g-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810
Interview;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
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.
We're talking about democratic process, and being on the wrong side of history. The Iraq war is the biggest war crime of the 21th century. Unmotivated, unjustified, and not sanctioned by the UN, it has shaped up to be one of the most grotesque Imperialistic and justifiedable acts in the last 50 years, going back to the vietnam war.
The Iraq war faced major opposition and many polls- along with mass protests (all over the world) argued that the war unjustified. Particularly after the UN inspectors quit. Much like they had done in the mid 90s when the sactions against Iraq caused, what they called a genocide, killing more than half a million Iraqi Children. This was under Clinton (
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 ).
As to summing this poor rundown of events as the acts of "liberal internationalists" I have to really ponder at this. Like with Saddam, dealing with Gadaffi has NOTHING to do with the interest or well being of the people, and everything to do with US foreign policy interests.
As to letting Libya burn, that makes absolutely no sense, as America is the one who created so many of these problems with their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It completely destablized the regions, hitting it with a sledgehammer. Watch this noam chomsky video with a rundown of the events (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1XkceXiAms ) (and against why Libya was a unmotivated disaster;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V61NAS0Fi38 )
Listen; It is not up to the United States to police the world, or enact justice. Its direct military response, as propelled by the military industrial complex is an instigator over common sense or humane decency. Labeling this as a "liberal internationalists" is quite frankly, insulting.
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.
No. It's caused by gridlock. As evident by many American leaders, even going back to the likes of Lincoln who argued that it was apparent that they stopped the two parties from stilting progress.
If you think Bernie Sanders is an extremest, then you're not educated on democratic policy around the rest of the world (and the UK- as you brought up the labour party before).
What is more, the United States has repeatedly, done the same atrocious acts of war and invasion. There are many parallels you can draw from the cold war eras shadow CIA destabilization of regions around the world, to the unjustified war on terror, who- let's be clear, is very much created by the US. By enabling a facist regime, like Netanyahus government, supporting and selling enmass arms (along with the UK) to SA, it has created a new era of sectarian conflict, and now also a whole new wave of xenophobia across the European continent.