Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

B402, Screw you for still chewing on your fucking bone.

"So it used to be, but things have change over the years, the history of the Democratic party is far different than the modern one, just the near equal distribution of corporate money now speaks volumes of the modern day.......Results or lack of and then the blame game can be convenient..The status quo is just what the corps want since they are now so completely in control......Pluto is now the master and Mickey is wondering why our leaders don't listen to Nick... "

That's bullshit. In spite of all the evidence you have been given you cling to it, one example:

...basic claim is that, from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democratic Party espoused a set of values defined by, or at the very least consistent with, social democracy or socialism. Then, starting in the 1970s, a coterie of neoliberal elites hijacked the party and redirected its course toward a brand of social liberalism targeted to elites and hostile to the interests of the poor and the working class.

[Insert: Correct me if wrong, that sounds like B402 to a T.]

The first and most obvious problem with this version of history is that there is little reason to believe the Democratic Party has actually moved right on economic issues. The most commonly used measure .. http://k7moa.com/political_polarization_2014.htm .. of party ideology, developed by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, has tracked the positions of the two parties’ elected members over decades. Here is how they have evolved on issues of the government’s role in the economy:



This chart indicates that Democrats have not moved right since the New Deal era at all. Indeed, the party has moved somewhat to the left, largely because its conservative Southern wing has disappeared.

Now, the Poole-Rosenthal measure does not end the discussion. No metric can perfectly measure something as inherently abstract as a public philosophy. One obvious limit of this measure is its value over long periods of time, when issue sets change in ways that make comparisons difficult. The Poole-Rosenthal graph has special difficulty comparing the Democratic Party before and after the New Deal. But it does raise the question of why the Democrats’ supposed U-turn away from social democracy does not appear anywhere in the data.

Any remotely close look at the historical record, as opposed to a romanticized memory of uncompromised populists of yore, yields the same conclusion as the numbers. The idea that the Democratic Party used to stand for undiluted economic populism in its New Deal heyday is characteristic of the nostalgia to which the party faithful are prone — no present-day politician can ever live up to the imagined greatness of the statesmen of past.

In reality, the Democratic Party had essentially the same fraught relationship with the left during its supposed golden New Deal era that it does today.
[...]
The Democratic Party has evolved over the last half-century, as any party does over a long period of time. But the basic ideological cast of its economic policy has not changed dramatically since the New Deal. American liberals have always had some room for markets in their program. Democrats, accordingly, have never been a left-wing, labor-dominated socialist party. (Union membership peaked in 1955, two decades before the party’s supposed neoliberal turn, and has declined steadily since.) They have mediated between business and labor, supporting expanded state power episodically rather than dogmatically. The widespread notion that “neoliberals” have captured the modern Democratic party and broken from its historic mission plays upon nostalgia for a bygone era, when the real thing was messier and more compromised than the sanitized historical memory.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170923414

Obviously, B402, you disagree vehemently with that position of Johnathon Chait's. I don't think though
you have given any good evidence to discount either the basis for, or the logic toward, that chart of his.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170952847

You say the fact Democrats now take more corporate money than they used to means conclusively they have moved away from their earlier ideals.

That sole point of yours flies in the face of the work done by so many others. In the face
of the learned opinions of Chait and the others who created the chart above.

Yet you cling more tightly to that bone of yours than Linus ever did to his blanket.

The bills blackhawks and others keep giving you as evidence the dems are not as tied to corporations as Republicans are is a much better guide than your simply saying: ' they get the money so they must be as much in bed with corporations.' That's like saying every man who dresses neatly is of better character than all who don't. You lay your entire argument on the foundation of appearance. That's simplistic as shit. And smells as bad.

There is not equivalence. Your position is not supported by the evidence. It's crap.