Interesting: The ideological differences between Warren and Sanders
I read a most interesting in the Atlantic monthly about discerning the differences between Sanders and Warren based on demographic appeal and ideology.
Here is the link, if you are interested.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … yptr=yahoo
I included excerpts from the article with my opinion which reinforce why I support Liz over Bernie.
------------------
"He is the only one who says the change is going to have to come from outside the system,” Wivell said. Sanders, he added, is the only candidate working to shepherd “a mass movement of working people” to overhaul the country’s political and economic system."
I am not ready for an "overhaul" more than I am interested in substantive structural repair of the current system.
---------------------------
"there is still a clear and important difference between them, argued the DSA members I spoke with: Sanders is fighting for a political revolution. Warren isn’t."
I don't want "Revolution" with all that it would imply, just working within the system as an agent of change much like what happened in 1933 under FDR.
-----------------------------
"See? There’s a difference!” Kastronis said, whipping around in his seat to face me. “He’s calling out specific companies and specific people, whereas Warren said more feel-goody stuff.”
Not really, Warren is notorious for dressing down CEO and representatives of the Corporate Class for unethical and inappropriate conduct during Congressional hearings. I am satisfied that she has the needed chutzpah going beyond "feel-goody stuff".
---------------------
"But their political philosophies offer a stark difference: Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who is not an official member of the DSA, views capitalism as unjust, while Warren has called herself a “capitalist to my bones.” Steadfastly refusing to join the Democratic Party, Sanders has embraced and even treasured his status as an insurgent candidate, while Warren, throughout her political career, has worked more closely with the party establishment—more intent on building bridges than burning them."
Socialism in the style of Europe or even Canada is outside the American tradition. There is the fundamental advantage of Capitalism as an incentive to be productive. So, I am for Capitalism, but not without its abuses addressed properly.
I am for building bridges over burning them, if you can. But, the desire to build bridges cannot be an excuse for inaction. I think that Liz gets that.
----------------
"Group members explained to me that Warren, with her myriad plans for addressing the country’s biggest problems, is operating under the false premise that good laws can fix an inherently broken system."
I haven't given up on the "System", but doesn't mean that I won't if problems continue.
Like the Titanic, the debate revealed so called moderates and those to the Right of Warren and Sanders as content to just rearrange deck chairs on a sinking ship. Bernie talks about scuttling the ship and building a new one, with all the head winds he can expect from both political and social resistance. Warren is talking about the patching of the ship making needed structural repair to keep it afloat to properly sustain itself for the future. I prefer the latter course of action.
-------------
"Others think Warren, with her gentler tones and careful policy rollouts, offers a safer choice than Sanders. “He seems like a loose cannon in some ways,” said Morgan Fletcher, a young New York City activist at the conference. “Elizabeth [says], ‘Here are my plans, here are my steps,’” while Sanders’s policy prescriptions feel “far more nebulous.”
The proposals that both Liz and Bernie hang their hats on are controversial, to say the least. I like gentler tones and careful policy role outs.
--------
Your thoughts?The comparisons illustrated by your excerpts seem about right. They seemed almost like teammates at last night's debate. It will interesting to watch their interactions after the field is whittled down to only serious contenders.
I can understand why you like her. I just hope she ditches some of her crazy campaign pandering issues*, (like reparations, etc.), and talks serious stuff when the campaign heats up.
*yes, that is just my opinion
GAYour opinion is always appreciated, thanks for commenting
As for reparations, Marianne Williamson addressed the issue eloquently last night.
"We don’t need another commission to look at evidence. I appreciate what Congressman O’Rourke has said. It is time for us to simply realize that this country will not heal — all that a country is is a collection of people. People heal when there is some deep truth telling. We need to recognize that when it comes to the economic gap between blacks and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with. That great injustice has to do with the fact that 250 years of slavery was followed by another 100 years of domestic terrorism.”
The gist of her comment is spot on, while I oppose reparations ONLY because it isn't politically palatable and is divisive within a progressive family that needs to stand together.
The kind of stuff that makes me wonder if the tail on the dog is getting relatively larger as compared to the dog itself?
I think Sanders is more in line with old-school Lenin revolutionists than he would admit, I also think he is in it for himself ($$$$) and I believe that was proven out in how he sold out during the last campaign (2016).
Sanders and Biden offer nothing but old and failed ideas from another era.
Warren on the other hand, comes from a background where her research dove into the depths of why the American system was failing the 'average' American, how families were being broken apart rather than made stronger with new 'freedoms and opportunity'.
She fully gets that women leaving the household and joining the workforce helped lower wages by doubling the amount of people in the workforce... a family that could survive on one salary now had to have two just to get by... and of course with NAFTA and other 'free trade' globalization efforts, the industrial base was wiped out making matters even worse.
I've listened to her and read her positions from before she entered politics, she may have to give up a lot of her beliefs/positions to win the nomination, but she is still ten times better than Sanders, who is not just an old school Socialist, but the worst type of old-school politician as well."a family that could survive on one salary now had to have two just to get by"
I would disagree with this, on the whole. What is ignored is that very often those couples don't HAVE to have a second income - they just want the luxury that comes with it. In addition, women were always a part of the workforce, even though it was not formal and they did not get a paycheck. Sewing clothes, maintaining a garden, cooking all the meals rather than eating out, etc. all provide for the family but without a check.I don't know about "often," but in some cases the jobs are low paying in nature--Walmart, McDonalds etc. and don't pay a couple with children enough to furnish the basic needs, not to mention any "luxuries". But I suppose where you live these jobs pay more than here.
I'd also note that Walmart is the largest employer in the United States after the government (obvious paycheck bias there):
https://largest.org/misc/employers-usa/What do you mean by "paycheck bias"? WalMart has made their name, and business, by offerring cheap, low cost merchandise. You don't do that by paying high wages (wages are a major expense to nearly any business and must be passed to the consumer - the consumer that demands a very low price).
McDonalds here is paying around $10 (all the fast food joints are) - suitable only for singles sharing rent, kids in school and living at home and the elderly. It will not support a family of four and isn't intended to. WalMart I don't know. I'm sure there are local areas paying less, but Idaho is hardly noted for high wages.
But if you don't want to work a low paying job intended for beginning, unskilled employees and retirees wanting a few extra dollars don't do it. Learn a skill, improve your "salability" and get a decent wage.Oh no !!!
"Stand up and take on the greed and corruption of the ruling class of this country. Let’s create a government and an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent!”
That's what they want to do!
I agree, but I think what often gets overlooked is the underclass that the American "justice" system creates. In many areas, there are so way too many felons who are disqualified for skilled labor positions that mean getting licenses, etc. Something someone did 15 years ago should not keep them from earning a decent living and being a more productive member of society. Unfortunately, this is one way Mcdonald's, Facebook, Google, are able to maintain workers and "gig economy" contract labor. Then, so many turn back to crime as it's the better alternative. As a nation, we are judgmental to the detriment of our own health.
Why aren't more "progressives" putting this issue at the top of their platform? This is where the biggest inequality is generated in our nation.
I am pleased that although we are from different political perspectives, we can share a kudos or two regarding Liz Warren's candidacy. Thanks for weighing in....
I think you pointed out the contrast between them well. In my opinion, I'd say Bernie uses very strong language because simply strong language has always been used to over-promise and under-deliver. He needs even bigger, more powerful terms to set them apart from the usual political bloviations. It seems that Warren and Sanders and sticking close together as the field narrows and it seems the debate was strong foreshadowing that we could see them on the same ticket. Unless something drastic and unexpected changes, that ticket would get my vote.
Yes, Eastward, it inspiring to watch the two, Sanders and Warren, hold off all of the milquetoasts in mass. They are too smart undermine the truly progressive position that they both share before a public audience.
It was inspiring and exactly the kind of energy the Dems need to stand a chance in 2020. They are smart and they've been putting in the work, instead of offering lip service, for a long time. That makes it easy to bring out the progressive platform like a bulldozer.
... whats so good about "the progressive platform?"
For example, healthcare that isn't tied to employment. Right now, I have more healthcare protections from 3rd world countries that some of my fellow Americans like to so haughtily berate. We should be ashamed as a nation that 3rd world countries do more to assure the well-being of their citizens than an extremely resourceful and powerful nation like the United States. We spend more money on healthcare than any other developed nation, yet we aren't getting better results. We pay drastically more for prescription drugs as well. We have plenty of other countries to learn from that are getting results (Canada, Nordic countries, Japan, etc.).
I'm happy to hear such talk about reform of the criminal justice system right now in the democratic debates. Cases like the Eric Garner case simply should not happen in a civilized nation. I've lived in other countries under marital law and these days it seems small town USA looks more like occupied territory in comparison. I find it ridiculous to see the numbers of citizens killed by police in comparison to police killed by citizens. Yet, "I feared for my life" seems to be a free pass.
It sickens me to read stories near my hometown where elderly men are fined into submission because the privileged oligarchs in power didn't like how the outside of his business looked. If they believe so deeply in irreproachable capitalism, they'd make him an offer he couldn't refuse and run things the way they want. Instead, they roll up with an armored vehicle to point a gun turret at his home (along with 26 armed SWAT officers). What was their purpose, to take this old businessman's money.
Then we have the iron-fisted approach to drugs and addiction. Again, we spend trillions of dollars to end up in a worse position than where we started. Again, other countries have solutions that are getting proven results. Why we keep funneling money into failed approaches is beyond me. The only justification I can find is that the right people are profiting. Don't get me started on how disgusting a for-profit prison industry is. This isn't the middle ages, so we need to stop treating the citizens of the country like it is. We no longer chip holes in the human skull to release demons to cure a headache. We need to update these other practices as well.
That's where I start in support of the progressive platform...Right. That is partially true.
And why is that?
Because of corruption, the politicians in D.C., specifically Congress.
They are the ones that allow Big Pharma to sell $500 dollar pills to Americans.
They are the ones that make it illegal for people to use natural remedies to handle stress, autism, etc. making Big Pharma's $500 dollar pill the only legal option Americans have.
They pass the ACA which did nothing to make things cheaper for Americans, it actually strangled competition so that only the Big Insurance companies could stay in business, and once their competition was out of business, they increased deductibles tenfold. having a form of Obamacare insurance was a waste of money for the typical American family... but not having it meant they were going to be taxed anyway, either way they lost.
People crying for 'Free' Healthcare are asking for this most corrupt and criminal organization (Congress) to have control over our healthcare... we are NOT Sweden, a close knit country/society of 10 million people, we are a nation of 320 million. We are NOT Canada, a country where two-thirds of the nation is employed, out of 33 million, one-half our population does not work.
Those people who actually research the matter, and consider how inept and corrupt our Congress is, should be deathly afraid of the idea of our government taking control of healthcare (more than they already have)... if you work for a living, or have a nice pension, or hefty stock portfolio you should anyways... because it is those people who will pay the freight, and end up losing everything they have to support a behemoth government run Medicaid system.I agree that corruption is our biggest issue and that for just about anything to work in this country in long-term, sustainable way, we'll have to address that issue first. Unfortunately, I feel like the current administration only focused on tax cuts for the corporations that were already doing well. I would have supported the cuts if it was balanced with some kind of action, any kind of action, that would address the needs of the poor, working poor, and middle class. However, there was no balance.
To expect people to be able to cover their own healthcare though would take some major changes beyond corruption clean-up. We'd need less to no income taxes, healthcare at the prices the rest of the world is paying, better financial education, etc. I'm not holding my breath for any of these as we have too many parasites at the top feeding off of the blood. sweat, and tears of hardworking Americans. I guess all we can do is each keep fighting the good fight in the best way we can.Its the downside of 'capitalism' I guess, the Big Pharma companies 'Lobby' to get Laws passed that favor them, make their drugs legal and the competition illegal, and then pass the cost down to the consumer.
If you do away with Big Pharma's $500 dollar pill, and do away with the surgeon's $200k salary, and the $5k a night hospital room then you might be able to make Medicaid for all work.
But when we have a system that includes Universities, Research Companies, Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies, Hospitals in the business of making profit not necessarily making people healthy, etc. you will not be able to create a Medicaid for all healthcare system that will be sustainable economically.
As you say, you would have to address the corruption in the system, the lobbyists and payouts, the Congressmen and women who sold out the American people to fatten their bank accounts... like Pelosi or any of them that have been there for 25 - 35 years.
The system in America is very flawed, you go to a doctor and he treats you for something based on flawed methods, he prescribes you drugs based on kick-backs from the company that makes them, they treat so much with drugs and operations, rather than with diet change, natural remedy, etc.
They suggest an operation for an achilles tear, when the body will heal it naturally (and without concern for complications) when treated properly.
They prescribe drugs for 'asthma' to a patient, when the real problem is a home filled with mold.
They put a patient on pain medication and drugs for depression, when it is a hormonal imbalance that comes naturally due to age, and is treatable with hormone injections (a practice frowned upon by most doctors).
I could literally write a book with examples of the ways our healthcare system oftentimes misdiagnoses and mistreats its patients. they make far more selling you drugs, or opening you up and operating on you, than they do telling to to go home and get some rest and change your diet.It is a vicious cycle, Ken. The lobbyists write the laws, the politicians sign them, the corporations profit and hire more lobbyists to further control the laws and politicians and so on. With all the hands in the cookie jar that you described, it's obvious that reforming the industry is a massive undertaking. I'm not sure who is the right person to lead the battle, but I don't see our current leader stepping up for us.
Corrupt politicians are tempted by the money held out by lobbyists.
Know who your corrupt politicians are!Regulations and laws are made by Congress, not judges, not lobbyists.
Lobbyists do write laws. I was a lobbyist who wrote letters to the editors of papers, and letters to politicians...often times, my bosses wrote the bills with the help of whoever was sponsoring the campaign ( and the real sponsor of the bill)..i..e. health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, energy, gambling, and military interests, etc.
Lobbyists work in many different legal, if unethical, ways in the states. They don't just pay off politicians, although I'm sure it happens
Can you explain Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco and NYC? All progressive cities run by progressive mayors...
If these were the results, I think you get failing grade.
Definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.I don't claim to have the answers to each city's complex problems, but we do have nationwide problems under a Republican President as well. Trump is on the tail end of his first term without achieving any substantive healthcare reform, criminal justice reform, or otherwise. I'm just sick of the only tool in the gov't toolbox being a hammer and seeing it constantly wielded recklessly against its own citizens as well as the rest of the world. It's a farce to call the US a free country with policing and the for-profit prison industry being what they are. I'm only saying that because I feel that we are all responsible as citizens to do our small part to try and get things back into the realm of sanity.
I was sickened to see the desperation in Chicago during my last trip there. I don't think I've seen that many beggars anywhere in the 3rd world. I have to give you that there are some big failures there.
I see college graduates in my hometown and the surrounding area looking for work at ridiculously low wages. If they were willing to move, I could probably find higher paying jobs for hundreds of them in Asia without much effort. It's sad to see, but from what I see traveling back and forth. It's hard to perceive the US as the land of opportunity.
It seems clear to me both parties are failing us and it's about time and we stop falling into the divide and conquer 101 trap.Sort of a pointless argument, there are not that many large urban areas that are not progressive, relative to rural areas. Big cities have big problems regardless of who is mayor.
Work as in repairing failing infrastructure? Or fixing the truly massive problem we have with illegal immigration? Work as in bowing to every other country and allowing unfair trading practices?
About the only "work" I've seen from the Dems is to put into place a massive, budget busting ACA that does absolutely no good when it comes to the poor getting actual health care. A $6,000 deductible per person is not "affordable", after all!There does need to be work done in repairing and improving infrastructure. In the last few times I visited home, I've only noticed things getting worse.
I think illegal immigration is a problem. I know how strictly other countries treat immigration so I can support making sure people crossing the border do so legally. However, I can't support the militant approach.
The ACA was a half-measure and that's one major reason why I'd have a hard time backing Biden. $6,000 deductible is an insane deductible for the average American.
In the beginning of the Trump administration, I was happy to see him addressing the unfair trading practices and intellectual property theft that should have been a top priority decades ago. I still think we still have a lot of work to do in that direction. Trump has lost me on a lot of other things, but I will give him that.
It seems we agree on a lot of the issues but likely disagree on which way to address them. I have the feeling that is the issue with much of the country in general at the moment. Our differences are inflated while most of our concerns are the same. It would be great to see a truly unifying leader help bring people together to work towards substantive solutions.
I am always in favor of working within the system to effect change, I don't think we need a revolution but we need a leader who will stand up to the big moneyed interests and also be able to explain to Americans why this must be done and how it can be accomplished.
Warren is showing herself to be that person.Standing up to big moneyed interests does sound like a revolution in its own right (though not one to overturn the system).
I can agree with that. It isn't going to be easy so anyone who truly wants to make sweeping and meaningful changes that will be opposed by big money must be able to convince the vast majority of the people to stand behind her. It is a daunting task.
Such a daunting task with so much at stake. In my opinion, what happens in the next election will be a major deciding factor on whether American ideals and western ideology persists in the global arena. There are shifts in Asia happening at a dizzying pace and I think it's only a matter of time before Americans feel the ripples (more than they have been).
Remember, Warren and Sanders are the only candidates that had been specifically identified Wall Street excutives as persona non grata.
I fear that anybody really willing to go against the establish ( I mean really) takes his or her life in her hands.I would expect we'll see major push-back against any candidate willing to fight against the Establishment (more than we've seen in past). Though she isn't a front-runner, I would add Tulsi Gabbard to the list. Being a veteran very critical of the military industrial complex, the media is especially hard on her. I hope that the candidates remain safe but share the same fears as you do, Credence. Going up against some of the most powerful people and organizations in the world takes an immense amount of bravery.
Worth repeating:
Learn a skill (or two.)
Improve your salability.
Get a decent wage.I'm all for improving our education system and making sure students are financially prepared to go out into the working world (and earn decent wages). This is one major criticism I had of my own high school curriculum. I hope it's improved, but I highly doubt it.
"Stand up and take on the greed and corruption of the ruling class of this country. Let’s create a government and an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent!”
So there is "Ruling Class"? Wouldn't that be the crooks in government? The ones who are trying to minimize separation of powers?
You want to 'create a government that works for "all of us"?
Already have that. Its called a constitution.
"Lets create an economy that works for all of us."
Already have that, except for all the people who hold out their hands.
Except for the excessive amount of govt. mandated fees, regulations and restrictions interrupting and minimizing the free market.Is there a ruling class? Princeton says yes:
https://www.businessinsider.com/major-s … chy-2014-4
And with such an oligarchy, the system doesn't work for a large percentage of the population. Certainly all those people aren't lazy and holding out their hands. The world is a very different place depending on which class you are born into and social mobility isn't what it used to be:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … rld-nation
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 94726.html
https://www.brookings.edu/research/thir … education/
Stand up and vote out those who are corrupt. Those who lie and mislead.
Related Discussions
- 9
What are The Political Differences Between Biden and Trump?
by Mike Russo 4 days ago
There is a constant comparison of Trump to Biden on these forums. According to Jon Meacham, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian, he stated that Biden is a Patriot while Trump is a Nationalist. Patriotism and nationalism are related concepts, but they have distinct meanings and...
- 36
Eulogy for Elizabeth Warren
by Credence2 4 years ago
I am more than distressed with Warren's announcement that she is dropping from the Presidential race.I am reminded of a scene from Star Trek "First Contact" when the crew of the Enterprise are forced to go back in time from the 24th to the mid 21st Century to combat cybernetic creatures...
- 8
What are the differences between regular garlic and elephant garlic?
by Susan Zutautas 11 years ago
What are the differences between regular garlic and elephant garlic?
- 19
What's the biggest difference between Australians and Americans?
by ttrash 13 years ago
What's the biggest difference between Australians and Americans?
- 38
Is Poverty a Disease?
by Charles James 12 years ago
There are many millions of people who are born in poverty, live in poverty, die in poverty, and leave their children in poverty. Getting out of poverty by individual effort is theoretically possible, and there are people who have broken out of poverty.A bit of bad luck can derail anyone's plans....
- 8
Explain the differences between British English and American English?
by Debby Bruck 11 years ago
Explain the differences between British English and American English?What are the most obvious differences between British English and American English that stand out to you? How do you respond to the different spellings in print, the accents, and the idioms or terms to describe common ideas and...