AIPAC ZIO-MAFIA RUN DNC NOW ADDED TO THE ENDANGERED-SPECIES LIST!
Should the Democratic Party Be Added to the Endangered-Species List? by William Greidner on TheNation
Nine months ago Naked Democracy Blog = Announced the crackup of the Republican Party. Still the GOP is Confused and alarmed by the Republican Party breakup.
NOW Naked Democracy Blog add the Democratic Party to the endangered-species list. Yes the party once known for its brave liberal reforms is hung up on an identity crisis of its own = The Dem party led by Hillary is holding on to its familiar recent past of CLINTON’S New Corporate Democrats = Poor Hillary & Dem Party are very confused and alarmed by the current Republican breakup and moving with GREAT caution = Hillary was supposed to follow Obama says AIPAC bringing her own assets and running on Bill’s reputation (or notoriety). SURPRISE the PROGRESSIVE HUMANITARIAN WING WOKE UP and HRC’s supposedly new agenda sounds a lot like the same old, same old that NOT MANY AMERICANS want. BUT THERE IS THE EASY TO DO ELECTION TALLY FRAUD to insure HILLARY’S VICTORY! Unless Trump has similar ideas.
Sure Hillary might lose to as pathetic and distrusted Trump in November. = Season of political chaos with TWO INCREDIBLY WEAK CANDIDATES.
1992 Bill Clinton’s winning slogan was “putting people first.” WHICH HE IGNORED or maybe he meant “PUT PEOPLE FIRST IN PRISON!”
2016 Hillary Clinton’s slogan is “putting families first.” Will she “Put Families in CHAOS?” like Bill did to minority families? Hillary promises lots of jobs like Bill building infrastructure. Remember Bill never deliver on jobs but destroyed them with NAFTA and his GOP AGENDA.
BILL CLINTON After his election = Turned Wall Street-AIPAC right and adopted the GOP agenda for free-trade agreements that ratified US multinationals’ desire to globalize their production and use SLAVE LEVEL LABOR in Asia = 60,000 Factories GONE in a single signature. Boy did the AIPAC MAFIA LOVE THE $TRILLIONS IN WEALTH IT CREATED FOR THEM = Just ignore the 12 to 15 million high paying jobs lost by the EVAPORATING Middle Class that wiped out entire families and planned retirements.
OBAMA = Has done a mediocre job of replacing those high-wage manufacturing jobs Americans lost with low-wage jobs at Walmart & McDs = Requiring no education to do.
SAD TRUTH = Bill Clinton promised organized labor he’d protect American workers, but instead DESTROYED THEM for AIPAC MAFIA MULTINATIONALS’ PROFITS! = Another broken Clinton promise supported by MAFIA’s bogus think tanks lies and propaganda = BOGUS STUDIES BY MAFIA’s BOGUS PEOPLE telling AMERICANS that NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements would bring them great waves of new jobs. All a BATCH OF LIES as the opposite occurred! = Organized labor lost big as did Middle Class workers and their families.
CLINTONS = Without questions, Supported the AIPAC-Wall Street Mafia Plans devised by same or other Think Tanks. = COMPLETE BETRAYAL = Middle Class COLLAPSE + MAFIA GOT $TRILLIONS.
FACT: Working class has not forgotten this brutal betrayal as desperate working families still get hammered daily by the ugly consequences.
AIPAC MAFIA MASTER PLAN = Destroy Millions of high-wage manufacturing jobs and use SLAVE LEVEL cheap Asian labor to PUMP UP $TRILLIONS in PROFITS as intended by the MAFIA Corporate Think Tanks. = IT WORKED AS PLANNED!
Did Shrewd Bill Clinton know what he was doing? Of COURSE he did as he read the REAL REPORTS (Not the LIES & PROPAGANDA ONES)! Did MANIPULATING Hillary know? Of course!
Political reporters and op-ed economists in the prestigious newspapers continue to dismiss angry workers as deluded or just plain stupid. The tortured denials of what ordinary people know to be true in their own lives drip with class condescension, talking down to people with economic abstractions when their human losses are about real pain. These establishment commentaries typically have two omissions: The reporters seldom talk with the people actually victimized, and the opinion pieces almost never mention what happened to wages.
Cutting high-wage manufacturing jobs out of the US economy deadened the wage structure far beyond factories. Stagnation and worse spread broadly through surrounding towns and cities, where independent businesses and skilled craftsmen depended on the manufacturing core to maintain wage levels. A Democratic president authorized wage depression for their sectors, and the losers were typically portrayed as Luddites trying to stop progress.
Globalization’s cheerleaders still did not seem to understand that busting down US wages was not unavoidable, like a change in the weather (as some prominent economists claimed). Smashing labor incomes was an essential strategic goal of the American multinationals. Corporate leaders didn’t talk about it, for obvious reasons—they would have sounded unpatriotic. But the fact is that America’s best and biggest enterprises were allowed to harvest profit from the misery of other Americans.
Labor unions described free-market globalization as “the road to the bottom,” and they were right about the decline of middle-American prosperity. Governing elites brushed aside their complaints. The influential newspapers did not explore the matter, since it seemed self-evident that expert economists would know more than assembly line workers. It was only long after the fact that some corporate execs began to admit that wage destruction was their objective.
“We did a lot of violence to the expectations of the American workforce.” —Frank Doyle, GE’s former executive VP
“We did a lot of violence to the expectations of the American workforce,” Frank Doyle, General Electric’s former executive vice president, confessed at an economic forum. GE was a leader in the offshoring of production. It tripled its profits during the 1980s and ’90s, as it eliminated more than 100,000 US employees.
Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s current CEO, recently explained the company’s logic to an audience of fellow CEOs. “In the 1980s,” Immelt said, “US labor was expensive and materials were cheap for probably the first 20 years of my career. This did not generally help good labor-management relations. As a result, most of us saw it as our task to outsource manufacturing, to move it to low-wage countries. Today materials are expensive and labor is relatively inexpensive.”
After the financial crash in 2008, Immelt began to sing a different song. Cheaper US labor, he said, should now make it possible for companies to bring home some of their off shored production. President Obama, who liked that message, appointed Immelt to chair the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. GE got several federal grants to develop new technologies for US products.
Perhaps in innocent ignorance, Obama described Immelt as “my jobs czar.” It was an embarrassing gesture, since Immelt’s GE was still dumping American jobs. Subsequent reports to shareholders made it clear that in the Obama era, GE continued to move more jobs offshore than it added at home. By 2014, the company told stockholders, it had only 136,000 US employees, down from 165,000 a decade earlier. Its 169,000 foreign workers were now the majority, up from 142,000 in 2004. As an employer, one could say, General Electric has become a foreign corporation.
I recite these facts to demonstrate how distant the Democratic Party establishment has drifted from the everyday realities of working stiffs. Dem strategists and Clinton advisers, who were cheering progress, didn’t see jobs as an explosive issue for Election 2016. The official unemployment rate was grossly misleading, but it was good fodder or the campaign. The Clinton betrayal was forgotten long ago. Wrong again.
The events of 2016 derailed such optimistic expectations. HRC’s advantage succeeded in scaring off potential competitors for the nomination—all but Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. Not to worry; the Clinton machine would brush him aside. But Bernie’s eye was on something much bigger than winning the White House (always unlikely for him). Senator Sanders aspired to encourage a “political revolution” that would restore democracy for the people and, not coincidentally, liberate the money-bound Democratic Party from its patrons. Clintonistas never seemed to understand that Bernie meant it. He still does. His clarity and conviction stole the show from HRC.
To vigorously confront the angry zeitgeist of 2016, Hillary Clinton would have to turn on the old party of Bill Clinton.
The senator’s stunning popularity, especially among young people, ought to have told the party of FDR and LBJ that it was missing something. The so-called New Democrats have now become old Dems and are struggling to hang on.
HRC’s dilemma looks like this: To vigorously confront the angry zeitgeist of 2016, the new party of Hillary Clinton would have to turn on the old party of Bill Clinton. To seek ownership of this year’s fed-up rebellion, HRC would have to speak for the anger instead of smothering it with platitudes. She would also need to acknowledge (gently) that vast destruction flowed from her husband’s presidency, but that things are different now.
Clinton’s new approach to globalization, job creation, multinational corporations, and other fundamentals would be concretely different, she could say, because the American condition now demands it.
Don’t hold your breath. To execute such a hard-nosed leap, the Clinton machine would have to do a back flip that abandons not just Mr. Bill but also the Wall Street power brokers whom she trusts. Given HRC’s natural caution, it doesn’t seem likely she could ever make that break, especially since she’s still surrounded by Clinton veterans who are dreaming of a blowout election victory in November.
What was going to be Hillary’s best asset has turned into an awkward millstone. People will still ask what she really thinks about the family legacy. The GOP will demand an answer. Hillary’s avoidance doesn’t cut it. If Americans wind up choosing Donald Trump as their president, the faint-hearted Democratic Party will have to share the blame.