Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
This should tell you what absolute garbage most American administrations were for the working class.
FDR was the last president who was really afraid of Marxism at home, while Nixon was probably the last president even slightly afraid of the people.
FDR was the last president who was really afraid of Marxism at home
So in order to get actual progressive change, we need the looming threat of Marxism?
Yes.
You aren't going to get meaningful progressive change by just asking for it, and certainly not by hoping for it. The powerful need to be afraid that a worse alternative awaits them before they'll acquiesce to sharing what they have.
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” ― Assata Shakur
I give the Democrats a really hard time (mainly because I have much higher expectations for them, and so I hold them to a much higher standard than the Republicans), but I can't deny that Democrats, generally, listen to experts and follow their guidance much more than Republicans. I would even say the Democratic party is somewhat of a technocratic party, for better or worse. It is in this light that the apparent "flip flop" regarding unions should be seen. Both parties became anti-union during the neoliberal era because economists were largely anti-union. Their models or formulas were telling them that unions were bad, so that became the orthodox position of mainstream economics, and Democrats trusted in their expertise. Now, many mainstream economists have decided that unions are good, actually, and so Democrats have once again followed the experts. I'm not sure what changed in the economists' models or formulas that made them rethink their position on unions, but then economics has always been a bit of a mess.
That says a lot and not in a good way.
We need another FDR.
Grading on a curve, here.
They mispelled Julie Su.