Ibon wrote:both parties have until today both really pledged their allegiance to an economic system that rewards share holder value at the expense of the middle class.
Disagree. It's the democrats, for instance, that keep trying to prevent the republicans from inserting tax breaks for the rich into each budget. Also, I'd hardly call Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in favor of stiffing the middle-class. Biden was nominated because he was perceived to be the most electable but his sympathies skew more towards those two than trickle-down-ism.
If you want to argue that capitalism in general rewards share holder value at the expense of the middle-class, then, well, your beef is largely with the mainstream voter who has no interest in jettisoning capitalism entirely. But it's worth considering that those who DO want to jettison it are the extreme wing of the Democrats, not Republicans. So there's a clear ideological difference. Bashing the democrats for not being uniformly marxist is like bashing the republicans for not being uniformly fascist. Things exist on a continuum and they point very clearly in one direction or the other.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the things they cherish and demonize. Both parties paint a portrait of struggle between big business and the working class, only the republicans portray big business as the good guys and the democrats portray them as the bad guys. You can make a case for both, really, the robber barons and child labor of the 19th century or the failure of communism in the 20th. What tends to work best is somewhere in the middle which is not satisfying for those who are firmly rooted in one extreme viewpoint or the other. But "the middle" is where winning democrats reside, Clinton being the best example. The democrats are permanently tarred and feathered by the Carter administration and how effectively Reagan used it to brand all Democrats as weak military, tax and spend, etc... Therefore they feel it necessary to placate right-wing voters by softening their economic platform (and hardening their foreign policy). All of this really should be common sense. I hate having to point out the obvious here.
When it comes to presidential elections, ideology skews to the right on most matters. Obama was kind of a blip because the public needed a break from the neocons. But by and large the public skews right and if things tilt to the left it's only because of generational (generation snowflake) and immigrant-driven demographic shift. But the traditional voter can't really stomach the Democrats' unvarnished platform. Trump knows this which is why he's portraying the Democrats as the anti-christ. It's just an extension of the same playbook that goes back to Reagan--and it works. It shouldn't work, but it does. In the same way the US still suffers the scars of the civil war it also suffers from the scars of the recessions and stagflation under Carter. Older voters still remember and they won't drop that grudge. They'll easily forget Bush's war adventurism or any other Republican screwup, but they won't offer the same courtesy to Democrats. Those voters need to die off before that calculus changes.
Ibon wrote:the entrenched part of the Democratic Party establishment will be under fire exactly because of the egregious similarities of the elite of both parties wanting to preserve the social inequities in order to preserve their privilege.
Only under fire by the Democracy Now! marxist crowd. What you'll see more of are red states
threaten to secede like they did after Obama won.
