Theoretically, I agree it’s important for the left to regain the working class. Their anger is legitimate but being directed away from helpful solutions. Their increasing alliance with the extreme right could be dangerous, especially if economic conditions deteriorate. The problem is the left stabbed the working class in the back a long time ago. What amount the party retains is from historical inertia and race politics. Liberals are paralyzed on this point. They can ask why the poor saps vote against their own interests, ask what’s the matter with Kansas all day long, but it’ll take way more than lip service and hypocritical “feel your pain” rhetoric to get them back. Given deep indoctrination, it might be impossible for another generation.
Ideas like Glass-Steagall 2? Yeah, that’s great. But the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall St., so that won’t happen. A lot of the stuff being offered here would require a complete restructuring of the party. You may as well put down reparations and forgiveness of all student debts.
Just trying to imagine what an honest Democratic Contract might look like:
Identity politics, probably the best polling plank and driver of lesser of two evil-ism.
Industry friendly IP laws.
Secret trade agreements. NAFTA on steroids? Where do we sign?
Toothless environmental platitudes.
Middle East intervention continues to poll favorably. The public has a violence boner that won’t quit. The anti-war interlude was merely a refractory period.
Continued financialization of the economy, if that’s even possible.
Continue to expose labor to foreign competition; make sure to protect skilled/educated labor from the same.
Maintenance and/or expansion of the surveillance and security state.
War against whistle blowers.
You don’t want the other side to repeal our insurance company handout program that did jack to control costs, do you?
I mean, Hillary Clinton is going to be the face of the party? The liberals are mist, a phantom. You might find them on blogs and in academia, huddled in a corner somewhere, praying for Elizabeth Warren’s third eye to open and bring the Kali Yuga to a close.
This is an inaccurate portrayal of Maher’s view – he doesn’t want to ban all guns, or all handguns. Very, very few Democrats want to ban all guns or all handguns.
This doesn’t support what you said. “The Second Amendment is bullshit” is different than not acknowledging the right to own a gun. Further, in this more comprehensive link, he explains what he means by “bullshit” – he’s referring to the “well regulated militia” part.
The 2nd amendment is not the only document in human history that has proclaimed the right to bear arms. One can believe in the right to bear arms without necessarily supporting the 2nd amendment.
Like what? And even if there were, why would you oppose the 2nd amendment if you support an individual right to bear arms? It’s not a 20-page document where you can accept some parts and not others. It’s just one statement. I don’t see how you can oppose that statement and then claim to be for gun rights. Which BTW, Maher has not said he’s for. You’re trying to find a contradiction in Maher’s statement that isn’t there.
The “bullshit” he was referring to was the militia part. I’m not pointing to a contradiction – I’m just pointing out that Maher has not refuted or condemned the legality of gun ownership. The issues he’s spoken out for are various gun regulations (magazine size, “assault weapons” [which I recognize is a superficial category]) as opposed to a blanket gun ban.
N.B.: The best level of government for a particular government function is all a matter to be decided as to each particular policy field based on practical administrative and financial considerations.
It is not a matter to be decided based on constitutional law or political principle or anything of that nature.
So you don’t believe the government is bound by constitutional law? I’ll have to keep that in mind the next time you claim that the GOP has violated the Constitution.
No. I believe that in any country, the best level of government for a particular government function is a matter to be decided without reference to constitutional law. Whether it can actually be placed at that level is a question to which constitutional law might be relevant.