Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 02:46 AM Feb 2015

Only 1-percenters need apply for the job of POTUS.

And we the people willingly agree to those pre-conditions of our servitude (as if they are natural).

Anyone see a problem? And please, spare me the microscopic bellybutton gazing and please take a moment to look at this with a bit more historical perspective than say 20 or 30 years. Okay?

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Only 1-percenters need apply for the job of POTUS. (Original Post) Bonobo Feb 2015 OP
That's the modern trend, of course Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #1
And now it seems a fait-accompli. nt Bonobo Feb 2015 #2
Truman made it from Vice President, then ran as an incumbent. merrily Feb 2015 #6
I don't follow you Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #11
You are correct. I must be half asleep. I will edit my post, with an acknowledgement to you. merrily Feb 2015 #14
Oh, yes, ol' Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #15
Yep. Strom, whose failure to be elected POTUS was later bemoaned by Lott, who merrily Feb 2015 #17
OK malokvale77 Feb 2015 #3
What happened was, a guy named Reagan came along Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #4
It became common wisdom for our party that we had to move right to win the General Election. Bonobo Feb 2015 #5
Despite the debacles in the last several national and state elections, they are still peddling that. merrily Feb 2015 #8
Plenty of Democrats helped Reagan turn the word "liberal" into an epithet. merrily Feb 2015 #7
Hence my reference to "boll weevils" et al Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #10
Re: the left's equivalent, Maddow tactfully blamed media, but here is her refutation. merrily Feb 2015 #12
Well fuck that shit. (nt) malokvale77 Feb 2015 #9
The DLC and its offshoots, like Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way, ate your party. merrily Feb 2015 #13
Try 240 years BainsBane Feb 2015 #16
Plutocracy being sold as democracy to keep the plebes happy. merrily Feb 2015 #19
Perhaps, but it is sickening to see liberals do it. At least let's stare the ugly truth in the face. Bonobo Feb 2015 #22
It's been like that since 1776, pretty much. Even before Citizens United. Even before any rules at MADem Feb 2015 #18
The DNC and RNC look for wealthy people to run and they don't care if it's self made money. merrily Feb 2015 #21
....or venal men who can be counted upon to carry out their orders without question. Warpy Feb 2015 #20

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
1. That's the modern trend, of course
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 02:50 AM
Feb 2015

I don't think Harry Truman was a one-percenter. Kennedy was, but he was one of the good ones. Carter wasn't and probably still isn't a one-percenter, and Clinton started out as a poor Arkansas boy but something happened along the way.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
6. Truman made it from Vice President, then ran as an incumbent.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:34 AM
Feb 2015

As VP, Truman was so shunned, even by a President who knew he was ill and the nation was at war, that Truman did not learn of the Manhattan Project until after FDR died.

I think Carter was fairly well off when he ran for POTUS. Maybe not a multi multi millionaire like JFK, but maybe a million or three. He most definitely is wealthy now, if only from book sales.

Edited, thanks to Art from Arkansas, who corrected my erroneous statement about Truman's having run as a war time incumbent. Having been made an incumbent by FDR's death, he ran as an incumbent, but the war was over.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
11. I don't follow you
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:53 AM
Feb 2015

Just a few weeks after Truman took office, the war in Europe ended, and 3 months after that, the war in the Pacific was ended, too. So when he ran as an incumbent in 1948, the war(s) had been over for 3 years.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
14. You are correct. I must be half asleep. I will edit my post, with an acknowledgement to you.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:58 AM
Feb 2015

Still, it was a close election for an incumbent. However, there was a third party challenge from segregationists (because Truman had integrated the military).

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
15. Oh, yes, ol' Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 04:02 AM
Feb 2015

who were imitated 20 years later by George Wallace and his American Independent Party.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
17. Yep. Strom, whose failure to be elected POTUS was later bemoaned by Lott, who
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 04:12 AM
Feb 2015

said the nation would have been better off if POS Thurmond, who never acknowledged his own mixed race daughter, had been elected POTUS. And then there was bemoaning of the kerfuffle over Lott's comments that caused Lott to resign as Minority Leader, with the claim that poor ole Lott was only being nice to Strom on his 100th birthday. (My ass.)

Sincerely or not, Wallace later said he was wrong. POS Thurmond never did.

How times change. Now David Duke calls for the resignation of House Majority Whip Scalise on the ground that Scalise is not owning his (Scalise's) (alleged?) inner Klansman.

malokvale77

(4,879 posts)
3. OK
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:14 AM
Feb 2015

My voting goes back more than 40 yrs.

I do not agree to those pre-conditions of our servitude.

I want to know, what the hell happened to my party.

Oh, fuck the 1%'s.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
4. What happened was, a guy named Reagan came along
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:22 AM
Feb 2015

and turned the world "liberal" into an epithet. His coattails in 1980 took the Senate away from the Democrats for the first time since 1954, and he had enough support from "boll weevils" (aka, "Dixiecrats", "blue dogs", "third wayers&quot that he might as well have had the House, too. Then, the "liberal" Walter Mondale got trounced in the next election, and the "liberal" Dukakis didn't fare much better in the election after that. So the Democratic apparatchiks decided "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
5. It became common wisdom for our party that we had to move right to win the General Election.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:26 AM
Feb 2015

That was wrong. But convenient cover for Wall Street and the Corporations.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
8. Despite the debacles in the last several national and state elections, they are still peddling that.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:38 AM
Feb 2015

Though the emphasis now seems to be morphing to, "The only alternative to total gridlock, which Americans reject, is for Democrats to go even further right." (My words, not a direct quote from anyone.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025769052

Because the defeats in 2014 were so sound that even Third Way realized the "electable" stuff was going to sound ludicrous.



merrily

(45,251 posts)
7. Plenty of Democrats helped Reagan turn the word "liberal" into an epithet.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:37 AM
Feb 2015

And to paint everyone who was not center right as a "liberal." Now, groups like No Labels are painting traditional Democrats as the left's equivalents of teabaggers. And getting help at DU.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
10. Hence my reference to "boll weevils" et al
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:47 AM
Feb 2015

And yeah, it is really irritating seeing traditional Democrats here being painted as "the left's equivalents of teabaggers".

merrily

(45,251 posts)
13. The DLC and its offshoots, like Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way, ate your party.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 03:56 AM
Feb 2015

And not in a good way.

BainsBane

(53,041 posts)
16. Try 240 years
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 04:08 AM
Feb 2015

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson--wealthy slaveholders, the political elite for a capitalist state. That is America; it always has been. America emerged as a liberal republic, the political corollary of capitalism. The presidency has never been an office for the common man. There have been a few exceptions, Andrew Jackson (though wealthy by the time he became president) and Abraham Lincoln most notably. But the fact they were not born wealthy doesn't mean they didn't serve capital.

Yet SCOTUS has ensured the cash nexus of the capitalist state will be naked. The pretense of government of the people by the people is falling away. The mistake you and many others make, however, is to assume that the political reality you observe is new. Its difference is only a matter of degree, and its nature has become more apparent because American capitalism has developed to the point where wage inequality is deepening and capital has become global rather than national. While constructing an ideal past to juxtapose against current exploitation may be common and understandable, it is not accurate. What you believe is a past where government served the people is in fact mythology. America has always been a capitalist state, and the system was never intended to serve the interests of ordinary Americans. In the early republic, only male, while property holders could vote. The vast majority of the population was deliberately excluded from political participation. While the franchise expanded during the first two centuries of the nation, the purpose of the capitalist state has not changed. Its primary function is to serve capital. In the late 18th century, those who wielded that capital were landowners and slaveholders. At the turn of the 20th century they were industrialists. Today they are financiers. The fact that capital is increasingly global, however, has generated a new series of contradictions. What you are witnessing are those new contradictions, but the fundamental nature of the system remains the same.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
22. Perhaps, but it is sickening to see liberals do it. At least let's stare the ugly truth in the face.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 08:13 AM
Feb 2015

no message

MADem

(135,425 posts)
18. It's been like that since 1776, pretty much. Even before Citizens United. Even before any rules at
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 04:32 AM
Feb 2015

all were applied to the process, and votes could be pretty much bought.

Generally speaking, smart people find themselves in positions where they make money. They may not be stinking rich, but they aren't poor, either.

We're unlikely to see a part-time cashier from JC Penny elected to the White House any time soon. We pick people from public life--politicians, many of whom were trained as lawyers (not a minimum wage gig), who are working as Senators or Governors. We occasionally pick people who have served the nation honorably and well in times of war--senior military leaders, like Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower. These aren't foot soldiers, they're general officers. Those jobs also pay fairly well.

People who are worrying about making the rent and paying the light bill before the power gets shut off just aren't viable candidates for the Presidency. They may be nice folks, but they're just not in "the pool" for consideration and odds are, they never will be.

Warpy

(111,317 posts)
20. ....or venal men who can be counted upon to carry out their orders without question.
Tue Feb 24, 2015, 05:14 AM
Feb 2015

Honestly, it's getting to the point where we are not choosing presidents, we are choosing which group of lobbyists and power brokers will give them their orders, banking for the Democrats and petroleum/coal for the Republicans.

If it weren't for the social issues, it might be a wash. Well, the social issues and the fact that Republicans have gone completely insane.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Only 1-percenters need ap...