Neoliberalisms epic fail: The reaction to Hillary Clintons loss exposed the impotent elitism of li

[NRQ891]

Neoliberalism’s epic fail: The reaction to Hillary Clinton’s loss exposed the impotent elitism of liberalism
Faced with a Donald Trump presidency, the privileged elite vowed to flee the utter Democratic collapse they caused
Conor Lynch


(Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts)

By the time last week’s presidential election was finally called for Donald Trump during the wee hours of Wednesday morning, the initial disbelief felt by the millions of Americans who had been assured of a Clinton victory by the media had turned into shock and panic — if not yet full-blown despair. As pollsters collectively changed their predictions and news pundits started to resemble confused and dejected children, the fight-or-flight response kicked in for countless viewers. Hearts pounded, stomachs turned and some of the more privileged liberals started seriously considering whether to flee the country in the face of a national nightmare that had just become a reality (privileged, because the average American doesn’t have the resources to just pack up and run at will).

The surreal night concluded with Canada’s immigration website crashing from too much traffic, as if every alt-right Twitter troll’s fantasy had come true.

Although the instinct to flee from a Trump presidency is understandable, it reveals a great deal about the impotence of modern liberalism and its monumental failure to stop an unhinged and thoroughly unqualified demagogue like Trump.

Elite liberals who vowed to leave America if Trump was elected, which includes a slew of celebrities, are those who would be most insulated from the impact of a Trump presidency — unlike working people and seniors who stand to lose their healthcare, children of immigrants who may soon see their families torn apart, or poor people of color who could face heightened persecution under the already racist criminal justice system. Sadly, fleeing is not an option for the most vulnerable Americans. Their only option is to keep fighting; yet the first impulse that many of their professed allies felt was to do the exact opposite: to escape.




http://www.salon.com/2016/11/19/neoliberalisms-epic-fail-the-reaction-to-hillary-clintons-loss-expos

[Lunabell]

1. I 100% agree

The corporatists have ruined the party that was once the working class party.

[ihaveaquestion]

7. Exactly!

The article was mostly spot on about this. The Dem party needs to become the Party for the People again.

[JHan]

2. next time I bump my toe I will blame neo-liberalism.

[NRQ891]

3. if you opened your eyes a little

maybe you wouldn't bump you toe

[Grey Lemercier]

6. I must say, that was a true zinger, ouch

[JHan]

16. In defense of a piece whose points have been debunked since then?

[NRQ891]

19. 'debunked'.......says who? nt

[JHan]

21. Says who?

that Clinton didn't reach out to the working class is one of those myths: That was she "tone deaf" or the party was so caught up loving up "neo-liberalism" it forgot the working class. This is all nonsense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/ - I'll keep sharing this till the cows come home.
Another bit of ridiculousness in the piece: That Identity Politics was a major reason why we lost. It played a part but not in the way the author believes... "ID politics" has always shaped how demographics vote in this country, it's cute that it's only issue in this election.

[NRQ891]

22. says you nt

[JHan]

24. Can't address the points? okay.

[Squinch]

27. Blahahahaha!

[JHan]

18. my eyes are open enough to know:

- that one of the points in the piece blames ID Politics - AGAIN ( this was the in thing right after the elections)

- That Hillary's message did reach working class people - working class people was all she talked about:

And as this article states it is a dangerous myth we should not spread.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/?utm_source=atlfb

So much analysis since the election and we're still believing myths..

[NRQ891]

20. finding an article that disagrees with a point of view is one thing

but it doesn't mean that you've 'debunked' it or that is was a 'myth'. I've always felt one of the biggest 'myths' out there, is that an article with 'myth' in the title, is automatically telling the truth

[JHan]

23. This is not a "Well that's just your opinion" situation... really..

there's verifiable proof proving the assumptions in the article you shared are wrong. On top of the exit polling data analyzed since the piece was written.

[NRQ891]

25. 'On top of the exit polling data analyzed '

the most important exit poll results will be announced on January 20 of 2017

Look, I get not wanting to find negatives on Hillary from the time she got the nomination, until the election. And if she had won, continuing it.

But she didn't. The party suffered the worst defeat in 90 years. This is an autopsy of the 2016 election

[JHan]

26. and that's why the term "neo-liberal" is a massive distraction..

our platform was its most "progressive" in years, and yet there are still claims of "republican lite" and "neo-liberalism" -

which doesn't help. We're supposed to build on and cement on our message this year , not tear it down with nonsensical claims that we didn't address the issues and concerns of those struggling the most - that is a lie.

[NRQ891]

30. 'neo-liberal' is not a distraction, it's the key to what's really going on

look at stuff from Lori Wallach, perhaps the expert on 'Neo-Liberalism'. She calls herself a 'recovering trade lawyer.' she was one of the people who WROTE these trade agreements, until she flipped sides to expose it to the public. She was a law school classmate of Obama



http://www.globalissues.org/video/729/lori-wallach-free-trade-the-price-paid-part-one

transcript of a great talk on public TV (word doc)

www.iptv.org/medialib/media/ittv_20081220_155.rtf

[oberliner]

4. More garbage from a serial Hillary Clinton basher

Sad to see this kind of crap here.

[NRQ891]

5. so Salon is a right wing website? nt

[oberliner]

13. No, Conor Lynch is a serial Hillary Clinton basher

Here are some of his other articles on Salon:

The Clintons’ arrogance might be their undoing: Hillary has a serious image problem — and blood-thirsty Republicans aren’t to blame
For the Clintons, politics is a family business, which on its face is about accumulating wealth and gaining power
CONOR LYNCH

The Clintons’ arrogance might be their undoing: Hillary has a serious image problem — and blood-thirsty Republicans aren’t to blame
For the Clintons, politics is a family business, which on its face is about accumulating wealth and gaining power
CONOR LYNCH

Bubba’s toxic economic legacy: When Hillary brags about the first Clinton presidency legacy, she doesn’t want you to remember this
Hillary Clinton recently stated that her husband would be a key player on economic policy. That's not good news
CONOR LYNCH

Hillary Clinton’s foolish Tim Kaine hedge: Democrats cannot defeat Trumpism with cautious conservatism
Clinton's VP pick should make progressives worried about the direction of the Democratic Party
CONOR LYNCH

Hillary’s awful week: She won’t be indicted, but the damage is done
Her email scandal has been declared all but over by Democratic partisans, but the public won't be so forgiving
CONOR LYNCH

And so on.

[NRQ891]

17. well, I just saw an article on a resonable website that I agreed with

pardon me if I failed to research the author to see if he was someone I was 'allowed' to read

[oberliner]

42. Understood

It was a little extreme for me to say that the post should not be allowed on DU. I apologize for that.

[NRQ891]

43. understood and accepted nt

[apcalc]

11. Agree....PS Hillary got many more votes.

[NRQ891]

14. but lost in EC math to a total amatuer nt

[DetlefK]

8. What a bunch of pretentious hoity-toity bull***t.

No mention of the media's obsession with Clinton-scandals.
No mention of the endless smears that there must be a scandal because everybody agrees that there must be a scandal.
Comey.
Voter-suppression.
Electoral College.
If Trump won because of populism, why was voter-turnout the lowest in 20 years?
If Trump won because of populism, how could he lose the popular vote by a landslide?



But sure, blame it on the Democratic party's neoliberalism. Blame the Democrats for not offering progressive change.
NEWSFLASH A**HOLES: REPUBLICAN VOTERS DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING THAT CHALLENGES THEIR WORLD-VIEW!
That's why they elected a financial fraud who gives you the unvarnished truth, a vindictive narcissist who is a good Christian, a blue-collar billionaire who sits on a literal golden throne in a literal palace atop of a tower with his name written on it in golden letters.

Trump promised them that he will do everything to turn the clock back. He didn't promise change. He promised the undoing of change and a return to how the US is "supposed to be".

Clinton could have offered a perfect, utopic vision and those people wouldn't have voted for her anyways: Because they don't want new ideas. They want to go back to the good old days.

[NRQ891]

10. it raises an issue that gets overlooked here

that many people were not happy with *either* choice, in fact, that describes most people I know, the most common opinion I heard

another thing people forget, is that a lot of people enjoyed watching Trump take on and destroy the Republican establishment. He completely destroyed what was left of the Bushes. He called out George Bush for the invasion of Iraq, and even 911 itself, total heresy on a republican debate stage. I have to admit, I enjoyed watching him do it. (while at the same time concerned about him getting anywhere near the nomination)

He also destroyed Carly Fiorina, in *correctly* calling out her trail of ruin in the tech world of Lucent and HP, (which she had been getting a total pass on). He humiliated 'empty suit' Marco Rubio, who spouted the same old tired Republican talking points with supposed Hispanic appeal. And he showed Ted Cuz to be what he is - a despicable human being, that all his colleagues hate

But it didn't change my mind about him being unfit, which he was, and is

[DetlefK]

12. Then the article should have mentioned that and not put all the blame on one side.

Voter-turnout was at an historical low. The people were unhappy with both choices. But the article is trying to sell that it was only Clinton the voters didn't like.

[oberliner]

15. The author of this piece has been trashing Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign

See upthread for the titles of some of his other pieces.

[Coolest Ranger]

9. Yea

you all scream about party unity but then post stuff like this. No thanks

[Squinch]

28. So much bullshit, so little time. Salon is still pissed about the Primary and they continue

their relentless attack on all things of the Democratic party.

[Skittles]

48. agreed

just so much trash

[turbinetree]

29. Donald Trump is a serial predator and he should have been disqualified

the media continued to make this election a personality race instead of a policy race, it was gotcha media.
The minute that herr dumpster and that tape came out, the news media, turned the news into the newest Entertainment Tonight broadcast.
He should have been barred, some may think that is extreme, but it is not, he was given a platform to be seen and that's all it took.

Again, he is a f***ing serial predator.

There should be news on the recount in three possibly four states now, all the news is doing is trying to "normalize" a serial predator, they should have journalist's standing in these states looking at what is going on in the recount, this democracy is at stake, the question that needs to be asked is this a republic or it is going to turn into fascism, not one news organization is running any information to inform the public on this matter, for a full half hour of programming, or preempting some show to examine this issue,
not once.

The "public" has aright to know how 538 people are going to vote on this serial predator, and the answers media should be questioning these 538 individual to explain their position and the why! Because human beings in this country need to know, you have a congress being led by lackeys of corporations that are going to come after the middle class and the working poor, just because of these 538 people.

The democrats have one opportunity to get Garland into the U.S. Supreme Court and this is procedural fact:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/12/senate-democrats-have-one-shot-saving

[Nitram]

31. This post strikes me as an attempt to troll Clinton supporters.

The phony "neoliberal" meme gives the game away right at the start.

[NRQ891]

32. calling something a 'meme' is a cheap dismissal

this word document, a transcript of a public television lecture, is perhaps the best detailing of 'neo-liberalism' I've ever heard. It's not a 'meme', it's what's really going on

Lori Wallach, perhaps the expert on 'Neo-Liberalism'. She calls herself a 'recovering trade lawyer.' she was one of the people who WROTE these trade agreements, until she flipped sides to expose it to the public. She was a law school classmate of Obama

www.iptv.org/medialib/media/ittv_20081220_155.rtf

[Nitram]

35. Yes, it is a cheap dismissal of a cheap attempt to continue a destructive campaign

...against a large part of the Democratic Party by labeling them "elites" and "neo-liberals." It's bullshit and it's time to stop.

[NRQ891]

36. that reality is why this side LOST!

the party isn't getting away with it anymore!

[Nitram]

38. Lost with a huge popular vote lead. The Trump campaign and their supporters won by using

a well-coordinated digital campaign boosting Trump in by targeting potential supporters in key locations and demographics, and sowing doubt about Clinton in other key locations and demographics. NPR had a story this morning about the $100 million digital campaign during the last weeks that turned the tide. The elite neo-liberal meme has nothing to do with this election at all.

[NRQ891]

39. an 'amatuer' beat professionals in EC math

was the party not responsible for knowing that it's the EC, not the popular vote that actually determines who is sworn in next month?

Was it Trump who assured Hillary that she could ignore the 'blue wall' that collapsed?

[Nitram]

40. The idea that Clinton "ignored" the "blue wall" is entirely false.

The right wing narrative that Clinton is an elite, and the narrative among some liberals that Clinton is a neo-liberal, along with clever use of the email "scandal" and a series of other fake scandals (baby-selling ring run by Clinton out of the back rooms of a pizza parlor) made the difference.

[NRQ891]

41. ...

[Martin Eden]

33. "Elitism" is an overused pejorative

If it refers to wealth and influence and resentment thereof, it makes no sense for voters to flock to the Republican Party which is essentially on the payroll of the 21st century robber barons -- or to a greedy billionaire with a history of stiffing small businesses.

There is some truth to the assertion we have two corporate parties, but only one fights for raising the minimum wage, supporting labor unions, and protecting earned benefits and public health.

What this election exposed is the power of propaganda and demagoguery and the complicity of a corporate media more intent on generating TV ratings than fulfilling the responsibilities of the Fourth Estate.

[NRQ891]

34. 'There is some truth to the assertion we have two corporate parties'

there is, indeed

that truth is what happened in 2016

and has to be faced squarely, in terms of what to do about it. the party's future depends on it

[Martin Eden]

37. That is part of the truth

And I agree the Democratic Party is very much in need of rejuvenation.

[JudyM]

46. Good luck with that argument here, NRQ, and welcome to DU!

[alarimer]

44. Unless the Democratic Party moves beyond neoliberalism, it will never win another election.

Incidentally, the Republican Party has an issue with it as well, since Donald Trump advocated policies that were in direct conflict with some of those neoliberal policies that make up the platform, specifically free trade.

Neoliberalism specifically refers to economic liberalization and includes such things as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, and free trade. All of which are advocated to one degree or another by Democrats as well.

Remember when Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid." That is still true. The economic recovery did not reach enough people and Hillary simply got run over by the Trump Train. Obviously, the new and improved Democratic Party platform did not go far enough. Or she was simply not able to connect with enough people in enough key states. The key to winning in the future in economic and social inclusion. It means true progressive policies. It means ditching the corporatists that run the party, in favor of people in the mold of Elizabeth Warren, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[NRQ891]

45. someone should correct that wikipedia article on neoliberalism you linked

and inform them that neoliberalism is 'just a meme'

[supernova]

47. Except for the part where HRC hasn't actually lost

She is winning, WINNING the popular vote. By closing in on 2.7 million votes. Even in spite of punitive voter ID laws, dodgy easily hackable voting equipment, gerrymandering and all other forms of active voter suppression.

Hillary. Is. Still. Winning.

Let's take a moment to appreciate that simple, elegant fact.

Her strategy worked. The overall Dem strategy worked. The organization of field offices and volunteers worked. (Yes, I'm still far more progressive than the overall Dem party, but that's a separate topic.)

What has failed us is the Electoral College. It needs to either be reformed or done away with. Reform is far easier to achieve. All that has to happen is to do away with the winner-take-all system of EC vote allocation and replace it with proportional dividing of the electoral votes to reflect the % of the popular vote within a state. That would make candidates spend money and campaign in each state for every vote. What if the Dems knew they could peel off a few electoral votes even in a red, red state like Kansas? Conversely, California would give up some, 3 or 4 electors? for the Repubs under this scheme. Makes things a little more interesting doesn't it?

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19-4a78160a-023c-4ff0-9069-53cee2a095a8?source_location=discover_feed