|
>You're only talking about elections that have happened in a >framework where the right has control of the electorate.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. You're saying the right had control of the electorate in 2008?
>That's my whole point. By following voters, parties have >shifted right. It's going to take a re-articulation and >re-definition of politics to reverse that trend.
Meaning, moving away from democracy? I'm not trying to insinuate anything here about what you're saying; I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. Aren't the voters SUPPOSED to be in charge?
>Hillary and Trump take your point to extremes. Their strategy >is 100% tell the voters what they want to hear. It's not a >good thing. > >Even in the cyclical examples you've mentioned, we've been >working under the assumption that Republicans get what they >want legislatively until they REALLY fuck up, and then the >Dems get maybe 2 years to try to do something, but in most >cases they don't because they're afraid of losing the next >election.
No, the only reason GW Bush got more time than most was because 9/11 complicated the normal state of politics.
Besides, W didn't always get what he wanted. Remember when he tried to privatize Social Security? Bush held both houses of Congress at the time and it still turned into a disaster for him.
I think a lot of the time we forget how often the OTHER side is powerless. We only carry the scars from our own losses.
>The current alignment is not permanent, but the DNC acts like >it is. That's a failure in leadership and articulating a >platform. it's what happens when you take politics one >election at a time. > >>That said, I firmly reject the idea that Hillary is to the >>right of Al Gore. On the issues Hillary is identical to >Barack >>Obama, Al Gore, and in terms of goals even Bernie Sanders. >The >>broad outlines of Bernie's policy proposals are the same as >>the broad outlines of Hillary's proposals. The only >>differences are in the details, and that's only because the >>Sanders campaign hasn't taken the time to spell out any of >>those details. >> > >Al Gore went out of his way to endorse an anti-war candidate >in 2004.
An anti-war candidate who, by the way, is currently endorsing Hillary Clinton.
>He would not be nearly as pro-corporate as Hillary >is.
How, exactly, is she "pro-corporate"? Saying she's taken campaign contributions from the same sources as Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore, would not be a good answer.
>He would have been more aggressive about issues like the >Keystone XL pipeline than Hillary (and Obama) have been.
Maybe but the Keystone pipeline has always been a silly issue.
>That's not to say that they aren't mostly the same, but yes, >definitely, she is to the right of Al Gore.
I still don't see it. At any rate, whatever difference there may be is negligible compared to the difference with Donald Trump or George W Bush.
|