Neoliberalism, New Democrats, Third Way

[Dr.Sack]

Now that the Democratic Party has been nearly wiped out the question now is do they double down on their neoliberal strategy first adopted in 1984 or develop a new ideology?

 

Basically the path forward for Democrats is to continue their virtually identical Republican Light corporate friendly agenda, AND bend on social issues that serve as the last differentiator of establishment Democrat & Republican orthodoxy, OR move to Progressive economic platform with key acquiesces on nationalist and social issues such as the 2nd amendment, religious freedom, abortion, and cultural identity such as immigration. The problem is the corporate influence over the Democratic Party means that the ideological stagnation keeps the Party from adopting a progressive platform.

 

We can trace the roots of the Democrats embrace of neoliberalism back to 1984 and the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) under Al From.

 

The founding philosophy of the New Democrats included; economic centrism, national security, and entitlement reform.

 

Becoming Republican Light served the Democrats well and helped Bill Clinton win in 1992. By 1996 Clinton had passed legislation that was long the corporate donors dream agenda: NAFTA, welfare to work, and the '94 Crime bill. Clinton even managed to stave off impeachment and passed a sweeping overhaul of the 1930s era Glass-Stegall bank regulations setting the stage for the 2007-2008 Great Financial Crisis.

 

So in essence it took a Democrat to pass what Republicans Bush Sr & Reagan couldn't. In 2009 Barack Obama passed a healthcare reform bill with many policies crafted by the Heritage Foundation & implemented 5 years earlier by Gov Mitt Romney - on a national scale.

 

Under Obama the largest financial institutions weren't prosecuted by Attorney General Eric Holder. They were bigger in 2017 than 2009. In essence the crowning achievement of Obama's legacy is 7 foreign interventions and dropping 26k bombs on Muslim majority countries in 2016.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[KD in CA]

I don't think there's any doubt the Democratic Party is in the process of taking a hard left and leaving the Clinton-era agenda behind.

 

Real progressives were hugely disappointed in Obama and think Hillary is dog sh-- (like everyone else). I think they'll go full lefty nut-job in 2020.

[ALF]

They will go with the great orator Andrew Cuomo in 2020 , jobs and healthcare imo

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

They will go with the great orator Andrew Cuomo in 2020 , jobs and healthcare imo

 

"the great orator"

 

Christ you've been polishing this idiot's knob quite a bit.

[Nanker]

Yeh. He doesn't know he was one of the prime contributors to the financial collapse in 2008.

[Benjamin Franklin]

The left has already won on economics. Amusing that the right thinks otherwise. Party names mean little.

[Tiberius]

Too early to tell, IMO. If McConnell reaches across the aisle to Dems on healthcare that could have a big impact on the next elections. If Trump screws up healthcare behind the scenes that will cause a real sh it storm and give Dems a big opening. But if all that gets taken care of it's a different story.

 

Climate change will be a huge issue, we are literally burning up the planet while Trump fiddles. Dems will be on a mission to save civilization but will anyone care?

 

Trump might be in jail by 2020 for all we know.

 

But a lot of this is playing out "naturally." One hundred years ago the Progressive era was just finishing up and in November 1918 the Republicans swept the country and stayed in power for 12 years or so. But the Progressive reforms stuck. Then the New Deal, and by 1946 the Republicans were back (in Congress) but the reforms stuck. The next round of reforms were the Great Society which had a huge positive impact on the elderly, blacks, the poor and even immigrants. They stuck. Then 1968 happened but still, even under Nixon the EPA was created. Clinton couldn't get health care in the 90's, it was Obama that did that, and it looks like it's going to stick. The big effort to roll back Medicade seems to have failed. What's the next step forward?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The left has already won on economics. Amusing that the right thinks otherwise. Party names mean little.

What the actual !@#$ are you ranting about this morning? The left WON on economics?

[Gary M]

What the actual !@#$ are you ranting about this morning? The left WON on economics?

 

I think he is talking about Illinois

[Benjamin Franklin]

What the actual !@#$ are you ranting about this morning? The left WON on economics?

You're blind to the fact that the economics of the US is socialist. The debate over health care is a prime example. It's currently focused on just how a new socialistic system will work. Listen to Rand Paul if you want the lesson I'm teaching. He understands.

 

But keep saying the left is losing. It probably makes you feel good.

[row_33]

Bill won as a southerner with charm, taking back a good block of the Nixon/Reagan Democrats. Ross Perot also cut heavily into Papa Bush's voting base.

 

[ALF]

Yeh. He doesn't know he was one of the prime contributors to the financial collapse in 2008.

 

Oh I know about HUD and the mortgage debacle. That should have been checked when Clinton left office.

 

I'm still a Kasich supporter , just guessing on the next D running in 2020. I want the next president to be able to work in a bipartisan manner to get something done with Congress.

Edited July 10, 2017 by ALF

[row_33]

Nothing to glean from Clinton's charm and Obama's ability to be an acceptable man of colour for future Presidential elections, except to try to repeat these patterns.

 

Gore and Hill couldn't hold any power over from those two.

[Doc Brown]

The main problem is going to be that the corporate Democrats in charge now still think last years election was a fluke. Even if they do realize it's not Russia and Comey, the corruption runs so deep that they'd rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. Your proof is they wouldn't even fund a progressive (a guy named Thompson) in Kansas's special district who asked for only 20k from the DNC and was denied. He lost by 7 points (Trump won the district by 27 points). Meanwhile, they funded Ossoff (a corporate Democrat) with 20 plus million dollars and he lost.

 

You're probably going to need a populist on the left to beat Trump in 2020 and the DNC (like the RNC did with Trump) will do everything they can to prevent that. My guess is this party is so stupid and corrupt that Republicans will be in power for the next 8 years.

[row_33]

Doc, are they in shock that could continue for years from this loss?

 

Elections often turn on people fed up with a party and voting for the opposition, no matter whom is in charge.

 

Used to it more in Canada perhaps.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Doc, are they in shock that could continue for years from this loss?

 

Elections often turn on people fed up with a party and voting for the opposition, no matter whom is in charge.

 

Used to it more in Canada perhaps.

How many parties have you got in America's hat?

[row_33]

How many parties have you got in America's hat?

 

You got 2.

 

And Perot and Wallace were able to effect the outcome during my lifetime as a 3rd party candidate.

[GG]

 

You got 2.

 

And Perot and Wallace were able to effect the outcome during my lifetime as a 3rd party candidate.

 

Add Nader to the list. And of course evil Vlad if you believe the headlines.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

You got 2.

 

And Perot and Wallace were able to effect the outcome during my lifetime as a 3rd party candidate.

 

No, I was asking about the great white north

[Tiberius]

Bill won as a southerner with charm, taking back a good block of the Nixon/Reagan Democrats. Ross Perot also cut heavily into Papa Bush's voting base.

 

Yes, he got the bubba vote. The demographics are really different now.

[row_33]

The Parliamentary System allows for a party down in the dumps to promote a leader who wouldn't get a look if it was a US-type Presidential system. And sometimes this drip gets to be Prime Minister without a mandate from the people.

 

Add Nader to the list. And of course evil Vlad if you believe the headlines.

 

Nader gets special mention, much gratitude for him, but he wasn't remotely a national presence like Perot or Wallace, he just messed up a county or two.

[ALF]

 

 

 

Nader gets special mention, much gratitude for him, but he wasn't remotely a national presence like Perot or Wallace, he just messed up a county or two.

 

 

Bush won all Florida electoral votes in 2000 , winning there popular vote by 537.

 

Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. He had a major effect .

[row_33]

 

 

Bush won all Florida electoral votes in 2000 , winning there popular vote by 537.

 

Nader had 97,488 votes in Florida. He had a major effect .

 

Few were aware Nader was even a candidate nationally until the postmortem aftermath started. Not even remotely comparable to Wallace or Perot.

 

Perot and Wallace were on everyone's minds nationally for their runs at the crown.

[Doc Brown]

Doc, are they in shock that could continue for years from this loss?

 

Elections often turn on people fed up with a party and voting for the opposition, no matter whom is in charge.

 

Used to it more in Canada perhaps.

 

Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020.

Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat.

[row_33]

 

Seems to me a lot of the party is still in shock and still don't understand Trump's appeal that caused many people who usually vote Democrat to vote for Trump. That's why the corporate neoliberalism propagandist channels (CNN, MSNBC) are pushing this stupid Russia narrative because they don't know what else to do. Unfortunately, a populist progressive candidate who promises too many free things with no way to pay for them is our only chance of regaining the White House in 2020.

 

My recollection of W's re-election campaign was that his constituency cared only about

 

1) does he really want it? and

 

2) can he deliver a solid nomination speech at the Convention for a second term?

 

and yes on both counts and that was that...

 

There may not be much more to the re-election of Trump for a second term.

 

It is a possibility.

[Doc Brown]

Other than your wife being a public school teacher, with I assume your support being 100% behind the unions in everything they stand for, I really don't understand why you're a Democrat.

 

That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.

[row_33]

 

That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.

 

Plausible on both points but not sure anyone has a solution either way that will be useful.

Edited July 10, 2017 by row_33

[GG]

 

That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.

 

I don't know why people are so hung up on for-profit entities. Profits in public service industries are usually tiny compared to the expenses. That's why there's always a focus on running these business more efficiently.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.

I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.)

 

As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible.

Edited July 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[ALF]

 

That and I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years so I'm obviously very pro union and am vehemently against the government using federal money to fund for profit charter schools. I also refuse to believe that going back to our old system of health care (what real conservatives want) is the best this country can do.

 

Private school teachers make way less than public school teachers. Average salaries are nearly $50,000 for public, and barely $36,000 for private. That’s not just a gap. It’s a chasm.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/

Can you even imagine school taxes if private schools closed ?

Catholic school teachers in my area make way less then $36k

Edited July 10, 2017 by ALF

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

 

Private school teachers make way less than public school teachers. Average salaries are nearly $50,000 for public, and barely $36,000 for private. That’s not just a gap. It’s a chasm.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/

Can you even imagine school taxes if private schools closed ?

Catholic school teachers in my area make way less then $36k

 

 

Exactly the point.

 

And if you take into account teachers work 9 months out of the year, well, then it gets even more ridiculous.

[/dev/null]

 

I've been a school psychologist for the last 13 years

http://www.troll.me/images/mrmackey/mmmkay-thumb.jpg

[Doc Brown]

I don't think you'll find many true conservatives or libertarians who are anti-union. Most rightly view union membership as well within the purview of the freedom to associate. The only issues most would take with unions would be when their associations are no longer voluntary, but rather are an internal pre-requisite for employment or have mandatory funding; and public sector unions which are a perversion of our process. (IE. private sector unions must be careful not to push too far, because the companies their employees work for ultimately report to a bottom line, and pushing too far results in job losses as a company shuts it's doors. This is not the case with public sector unions, as there is no bottom line, and tax payers will be continually soaked in perpetuity even as their municipalities crumble as excessive benefits packages erode tax bases.)

 

As far as the education issue goes, your argument is one that insists that the purpose of public schools is to provide high paying jobs for teachers rather than provide high quality education for at risk students and their families. That may not be your intention, but under the current structure it's all that's possible.

 

No. It's absolutely my intention for teachers to have high paying jobs and for me to have an even higher paying one .

 

More research is needed about if charter schools actually help improve student outcomes and most of the peer reviewed studies I've reviewed showed students in charter schools perform either worse or equal to students in public schools. My main complaint about charter schools is that they often fail to meet the required services for students with disabilities under the IDEA act (the federal act passed in 1975 and expanded in 1990 preventing discrimination against students with disabilities that Betsy Devos amazingly never heard of). Once in a while I'll receive a student with an IEP or 504 plan from a charter school whose parents were unsatisfied with the lack of services their kid was receiving.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

No. It's absolutely my intention for teachers to have high paying jobs and for me to have an even higher paying one .

 

More research is needed about if charter schools actually help improve student outcomes and most of the peer reviewed studies I've reviewed showed students in charter schools perform either worse or equal to students in public schools. My main complaint about charter schools is that they often fail to meet the required services for students with disabilities under the IDEA act (the federal act passed in 1975 and expanded in 1990 preventing discrimination against students with disabilities that Betsy Devos amazingly never heard of). Once in a while I'll receive a student with an IEP or 504 plan from a charter school whose parents were unsatisfied with the lack of services their kid was receiving.

This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other.

 

Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential.

 

Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential.

 

If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children.

 

Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children.

Edited July 10, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc Brown]

 

 

This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other.

 

Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential.

 

Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential.

 

If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children.

 

Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children.

 

 

That's the biggest drawback with a strict, rigorous curriculum and standardized testing. When NCLB came out under Bush the children that were left behind were the gifted ones. AP classes now usually aren't available until you get to high school unless you're a student lucky enough to live in a rich district.

 

One thing worth mentioning is the high turnover rate for teachers at charter schools due to either lower pay and/or a lack of union protection. There's now a push nationwide to get charter schools unionized. Charter schools often serve as a training ground for young, inexperienced teachers, but then lose teachers just as they are becoming experienced and truly knowledgeable in their field. So, are these advanced students who may become bored in a public education classroom more engaged at charter schools if they have new or inferior teachers?

 

On the flip side, I've seen a small percentage of public education teachers get tenured (who I didn't think deserved it) and now you're stuck with an ineffective, lazy teacher who shows up right as the kids do and leave 15 minutes after.

 

I'm slightly more optimistic than you with your long term projections for students "at risk". I've had kids who've had learning disabilities in either math or reading get the extra help they needed and thrive once they get to college because they can then pick what career they want based on their strengths. Also, since we're dumb enough to make state college tuition free for low income students, lets eliminate pointless majors like art history, sociology, philosophy, etc... All those majors do is qualify you to work at Geico or a collection agency.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Doc Brown

[ALF]

Charter School funding in WNY

 

Statewide, charter schools receive roughly 25% less funding per student than their traditional district school counterparts.

This disparity is more severe in Western New York than anywhere else in the State. In Buffalo for example, charter schools receive roughly 40% less than their traditional district school counterparts.

From that already limited funding source, most charter schools, and all Western New York charter schools, have to pay facilities costs, such as rent and utilities.

Charter school students statewide receive $5,232 less than students in traditional district schools. This disparity is much worse in Western New York.

In Buffalo for example, charter school students receive $9,811 less than their friends and neighbors in district schools.

http://www.necharters.org/ny_funding_disparity_explained

[GoBills808]

 

 

This is where the issue gets muddy, because the individuals involved are talking past each other.

 

Charter schools are not going to have the best outcomes for all students. Charter schools, by design, cherry pick the kids who will have the most parental involvement, the highest intellects, and the most desire to succeed. They take those children who are most likely to see the highest ROIs with tax dollars spent on education, and removes them from failing school systems which act as a weight on them, making it more difficult to reach their full potential.

 

Public schools, because they have to, teach to the lowest common denominator. They divert an extraordinary amount of resources to the most at-risk kids in an already at-risk environment, and away from those kids with the highest potential.

 

If education is truly about outcomes for children, then it is imperative that we give the kids with the best chances of breaking the life-cycles of poverty within their families the best opportunities to do so. And that is charter schools, where the dollars follow the children, and we educate individuals rather than the hypothetical mean of all children.

 

Might that mean worse outcomes for the most at risk? Absolutely, but who cares. It is the peak of immorality to insist that the education outcomes of the children most likely to break a cycle of poverty be inextricable from the education outcomes of the children least likely to break a cycle of poverty. The state does not own these children.

 

I disagree with mostly all of this, but I have to admit it's refreshing to hear a conservative position that doesn't beat around the bush on education.

 

I admire your candor, well done.

[row_33]

I performed an audit of a megachurch in town, the church has a private school run on family ability to pay and donations.

 

They teach the kids how to read and study and think and many graduates were scholarship students in engineering and science coming out of that church school.

 

My friends with kids in public school say they aren't being taught anything at all.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I disagree with mostly all of this, but I have to admit it's refreshing to hear a conservative position that doesn't beat around the bush on education.

 

I admire your candor, well done.

I'm curious about the defense of any position which denies poor families the ability to seek the best possible education for their children, and instead asserts that the state owns them for the good of the state.

 

In addition, I am genuinely curious how you come to disagree with the facts I posted.

Edited July 11, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker