Wed
Aug 16 2017
08:56 am

A new "new media" company popped up on my radar a few days ago. It's called Axios and according to their mission statement they are "delivering vital, trustworthy news and analysis in the most efficient, illuminating and shareable ways possible." They also have a manifesto.

Started by the founders of Politico, their website is slick and at first glance appears to have a "liberal" (i.e. rational, fact-based) point of view with some decent original reporting and a few inside sources.

After following them for a few days, though, it started to seem more blog-like, with links to other reporting embellished with commentary and "original" pieces that appear cribbed from sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

(According to their "about" page they have a staff of more than 70 people. Why does it take that many people to produce yet another political blog?)

I noticed their national political reporter Jonathan Swan is showing up on MSNBC as a commentator. He was on with Chris Matthews last night. Called a "breakout media star" by Politico, Swan comes across as a smooth talking, well-informed journalist. I'm getting a vibe, though, that Jonathan Swan's greatest skill is promoting Jonathan Swan.

Anyway, here's the point of all that background. At the bottom of their "about" page there's a list of "launch partners." It includes JPMorgan Chase & Co., PhRMA, Boeing, BP, Bank of America, Koch Industries, S&P Global, United Health Group, Walmart, Pepsico, and Cooley (a Silicon Valley/Wall Street law firm).

Also, scrolling through their front page today I noticed the articles were interspersed with advertorial messages from the American Petroleum Institute and Goldman Sachs disguised as articles.

I'm not clear on how all that squares with the "trustworthy" part of their "vital, trustworthy news" mission statement.

42
like
Rachel's picture

Mike Allen, who's been

Mike Allen, who's been somebody who's been quick to say "on the other hand" just a little too often, is involved in this venture. Saw him on tv the other day. My opinion of him didn't change.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Randy, I ask this in complete sincerity: Why does it bother you that these companies have underwritten this "new media" company when it (apparently) didn't bother you that virtually the same companies underwrote Hillary Clinton's several political campaigns over the years?

J.P. Morgan Chase, B of A, and Goldman Sachs have been among her biggest "top 20" donors for years.

Both Koch Industries and especially Walmart's family members have donated to her campaigns and/or PACs (and of course she formerly served on the board of directors for Walmart).

Lobbyists for both BP and American Petroleum also donated to her campaigns. Boeing has donated to her campaigns, too, but is best known for having donated to the Clinton Foundation, by some accounts in exchange for State Department contracts.

As for PhRMA and United Health, I don't know that those companies in particular donated to her campaigns, but it was widely known during the 2016 presidential campaign that Clinton raised more money from drug companies than any other candidate on either side of the political aisle. I also recall linking an Open Secrets recap of her donations from health insurance companies over the years (here, I thought), although I couldn't immediately find it again just now.

In any event, virtually every company you cite as raising your skepticism (mine, too) WRT this new publication is also a company to have underwritten Clinton in recent years. So, what gives?

R. Neal's picture

So Trump was clearly the

So Trump was clearly the better candidate. We get it. Clinton lost. You won. Give it a rest.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

I didn't deserve either the tone or the circumvention of my question in your response. Here in TN, neither of us had any ability to impact the general election result. I am asking your thought process in the course of the primary election vote you cast and I'm asking because I don't understand it. Since we're of the same fractured political party, it seems important that we try to understand one another in this regard, unless of course we agree to an uncontested divorce.

I've shared more here regarding my own thought process in that election--about what issues were important to me and why--than any poster I've ever seen in my decade here at KV. I recently posted line items from my last Form 1040, for gosh sakes, for the sole purpose of fostering understanding from people who didn't vote like I did as to what was important to me and why.

I left a conversation with Factchecker hanging just the other day after his last comment asserted his "expectation" of how a Democrat would vote, namely for anybody on the ballot with a "D" following his name, whether or not his positions, voting record, and source of funding were that we'd expect to see from a Democrat--and whether or not we should harbor any concern for how that candidate's positions are apt to hurt us personally, too, apparently.

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. If we as Democrats no longer share a common ideology, what do we share? Kurt Vonnegut coined the term "granfallon" to describe "a large, meaningless association of people," like Hoosiers.

I very much agree with Steve Dupree that discourse between our two factions just feels utterly impossible. However, progressive Democrats do have the option of courting the majority party of independents in order to rebuild our party. Hard as that is, it just may be easier than talking to a brick wall. I sure don't know who centrist Democrats might court, though, in order to boost their ranks beyond, what, 20 percent of the electorate?

Well, that's not my problem. Back to my progressive FB groups, now. Have a good day.

bizgrrl's picture

I'm glad enough progressives

I'm glad enough progressives voted for Obama twice even though he wasn't any more progressive than Clinton. We had eight good years after Bush. Now if we could just get enough progressive people to vote for a Democrat in the next presidential election. H. Clinton, Obama, B. Clinton, etc. may not be the perfect solution but they are much better than the conservative alternatives, IMO.

Who is the most progressive appears to be a losing battle. Maybe if some of us try harder to forget Hillary Clinton if it offends them so much, it might be better for our future. She is not the president. She is barely in the news anymore, except for more accusations as to why she is a bad person. Let's move on toward protecting our country and its citizens from the current president and his administration.

Some of us voted for Clinton. What was it over 65 million? More than the current president. Maybe more progressives can get together for future elections to win a few.

Knoxoasis's picture

Democrats used to be able to

Democrats used to be able to unite northern progressives, midwestern labor interests and regressive dixiecrats under the same banner and more or less ruled America non-stop from the 50's to the 80's (at least at the congressional level.) It can be done if you're willing to build coalitions of people with disparate interests. If you're not, you get one party rule on the other side. Just sayin.

In fact, in 2009 Democrats managed to build a coalition of progressives and conservative "blue dogs" sufficient to drag the ACA over the finish line. And then the ideological purists abandoned and condemned the blue dogs and 2010 happened.

michael kaplan's picture

Tamara has a point

Many are also sponsors of PBS programs. It's a Company Country.

bizgrrl's picture

Since Huffington left the

Since Huffington left the Huffington Post it doesn't seem as good as it used to be.

I noticed the articles were interspersed with advertorial messages from the American Petroleum Institute and Goldman Sachs disguised as articles

Huffiington Post sort of does the same thing. I scroll down through the headlines and have to check to make sure the link is an article instead of an advertorial before I click.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

It can be done if you're willing to build coalitions of people with disparate interests. If you're not, you get one party rule on the other side. Just sayin.

Why are you directing that comment to me? I'm the person repeatedly attempting overtures to meaningful conversation, replete with anecdotes and authoritative links both, and being met with smart aleck responses.

In any event, there are "disparate interests" and there are "contradictory interests."

I have written volumes on this blog to explain how when Democrats adopt tactics and ideology more supportive of business than of people, the result is inevitably policy that is ahistorical to our party mission--which is what has happened to our party.

The task is to identify it and to root it out of our party, not to bastardize the party trying to accommodate it.

From the ACA to "education reform" to "on-demand" employment, trying to accommodate the interests of business over people hasn't worked.

As to economic issues, we have "one party rule" right now.

fischbobber's picture

Preach it, sister.

You're the last progressive actively writing on this forum! Please don't quit!

Knoxoasis's picture

Democrats used to be able to

Democrats used to be able to unite northern progressives, midwestern labor interests and regressive dixiecrats under the same banner and more or less ruled America non-stop from the 50's to the 80's (at least at the congressional level.)

Why are you directing that comment to me?

In fact, in 2009 Democrats managed to build a coalition of progressives and conservative "blue dogs" sufficient to drag the ACA over the finish line. And then the ideological purists abandoned and condemned the blue dogs and 2010 happened.

The task is to identify it and to root it out of our party, not to bastardize the party trying to accommodate it.

The Democratic Party is in deep trouble, especially at the Congressional level, because it is increasingly closed to non Progressive points of view. As of 2014 (the most recent poll I can find) only 24% of Americans self-identify as "liberal" while 38% self-identify as "conservative." That leaves 38% of the population self-identifying as "moderate" which probably means non-ideological. If you write off 72% of the population, you're going to lose elections. And that problem becomes worse when you consider that a very large portion of those who self-identify as liberal live in a handful of states, concentrated in coastal urban centers.

Ideological purity is well and good, and ideologically-driven people on both sides of the aisle get driven a little crazy when their Party doesn't conform with what they think its principles should be. But Ideological purity doesn't win elections, and that is what Party organizations exist to do. Ask the Greens and the Libertarians how ideological purity is working out for them, election-wise.

If you want an ideologically pure Democratic Party that's well and good, and if you achieve it you're going to have a nice social group with which to identify and feel proud of. But you're going to spend a lot of time on the outside looking in as the Party which is less rigid about enforcing political norms grasps all the power to actually do stuff. ACA is flawed - not single payer and not even a public option - because compromise was necessary to get it passed in the first place. I'm sure President Obama would have much preferred a Sanders-style health reform package. But Pelosi understood that to have the power to do anything she needed moderate Democrats from moderate to right-leaning states in order to build a governing coalition. When those lessons were forgotten in favor of enforcing a more ideologically rigid view of Democratic politics, she lost the House.

You can be pure or you can win. That's just how it is in a society that is as ideologically diverse as ours.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

The Democratic Party is in deep trouble, especially at the Congressional level, because it is increasingly closed to non Progressive points of view.

You are trippin.'

If the Dem Party were "closed to non-progressive points of view," it wouldn't have used a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate majority to expand healthcare to the poor on the backs of working class families via private, for-profit insurers and providers.

If the Dem Party were "closed to non-progressive points of view," Barack Obama and Arne Duncan wouldn't have turned over public ed coast-to-coast to "investors" looking for a place to "play."

If the Dem Party were "closed to non-Progressive points of view," she-who-shall-remain-nameless and her sidekick Tom Perez wouldn't have stood before the 30% of working class Americans who no longer have a full-time permanent job and told them everything will be just fine, they're working on "portable benefits" the workers can pack up and take with them while they look for a new temp job every six weeks for the rest of their lives.

In each of these three instances, both the true benefactors of the initiatives and the tactics used to route the associated benefits to them were taken straight from the playbook of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They've been hard at work on these three initiatives for ten years and you have only to read their manifestos online to confirm it. The unfortunate and unsuspecting working class, meanwhile, is only now coming to understand by whom they've been played and the release later this year of the Contingent Worker Supplement (about which no one at this blog has any comment) will be the very. Last. Straw.

You got a preview in this last presidential election of the power of economic concerns to unite otherwise "disparate interests" to effect change, but you don't understand what you saw.

Come 2020, you may see an election or you may see a coup. In the event of the latter, the safest place for you to stand will be on the curb.

Knoxoasis's picture

I didn't say "always", I said

I didn't say "always", I said "increasingly." But I can't argue against the proposition that both parties play to Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce, for the same reason that Dillinger gave for robbing banks.

Rachel's picture

I just got around to reading

I just got around to reading this thread, and I kind of regret it.

Tamara, please list exactly what a person must and must not believe and do in order to be a progressive. Srsly. I've always considered myself one. In fact, I wasn't afraid to call myself a liberal when people acted like the word meant spawn of the devil.

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I always knew he wouldn't get the nomination (and IMO, couldn't win the general) but I wanted to do my part to move the party a bit left. I then unhesitatingly and happily voted for Clinton in the general. So am I a progressive or am I a traitor to the cause?

Knoxoasis has it exactly correct; You can be pure or you can win. That's just how it is in a society that is as ideologically diverse as ours.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*Please* read this

I'm sure you and I (and Randy and Biz and FC and Knoxgal and I) are in complete agreement on most any social issue we progressives might discuss, Rachel. Each of the three topics I brought up to Knoxoasis, though, is an economic issue. That's where the rift among progressives has developed.

I wrote incessantly about ed reform as an economic issue for three years, of course. More recently, you've seen me harp on the ACA's adverse impacts to working families and on the rise of contingent workers. Too little is yet being reported by media on either of these extremely important topics.

On that last topic, contingent workers, you're probably our resident expert on stats here at KV. That being the case, I'd really, really appreciate it if you'd take a few minutes to read and comment sometime soon on a 14-page article on the topic (it "reads" quickly, what with lots of charts and graphs in the text)? It's entitled THE US JOBS MARKET: MUCH WORSE THAN THE OFFICIAL DATA SUGGEST and it's hands down the most thorough and well-written piece I've seen yet to explain how our existing labor reporting mechanisms mask a problem of enormous proportions.

But forget "more progressive progressives" and "less progressive progressives." Just read it, if you would, and see if you don't agree that the author's points are correct and that the alarm he sounds has to be answered. All I've been trying to say is that it's important for progressives to be working on issues like this one first (and that we understand the sheer inanity of "portable benefits" as any answer to the crisis).

We have not had "eight good years." America has 30% unemployment. In advance, thanks very much for your consideration of it.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

P.S.--

You can be pure or you can win. That's just how it is in a society that is as ideologically diverse as ours.

I should have pointed out, too, that you will see working class people, left and right, unite on these two economic issues of how the ACA hurts working families and how "contingent work" destroys working families.

In fact, you've already seen it.

Next election, we just need to make sure they unite behind the right candidate(s).

Hillary's Left Kidney's picture

The point is this...

There are indeed problems left unaddressed by the 'mainstream' Democratic party. However, once the primaries were over, by harping on those things, and frankly, by playing right into the hands of Russian propagandists, people like you helped to undercut support for Clinton's campaign and handed everything over to the absolute, total worst option that was available. This did not advance the progressive cause. This did not make healthcare more accessible for American workers. This did not make "contingent workers" a front-burner issue that will now be solved. It put Neil Gorsuch on the bench. It took the United States out of the Paris Accord. It shut down an effort to increase overtime pay for millions. It emboldened Nazis to march in the streets with torches.

Now, just like Trump, you are still here obsessing over how anyone could have supported Hillary Clinton.

The only saving grace right now is that Trump is so mentally impaired by his narcissism that the GOP that let him take over is now imploding. If the country can get to 2018 and 2020 without also imploding, the Democrats have an opportunity, with non-dogamtic moderate voters, to form a 70% voting bloc that could push the Republicans into political irrelevancy. If, on the other hand, the former Sanders wing refuses to compromise with anyone who is impure, there will be nothing progressive left in American government. There may not even be any recognizable American government left at all.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Now, just like Trump, you are still here obsessing over how anyone could have supported Hillary Clinton.

Nooo, I am telling you in no uncertain terms those values the Democratic Party must again espouse if it is to ever again lay claim on the millions of voters who abandoned it last election--but you are deaf as a stone.

This thundering herd of "non-dogmatic moderate voters," if you could produce it which you can't because it doesn't exist, would net you the exact same result it netted you in 2016. You were responsible for Trump's election the first time and you appear intent on repeating your success.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play chess with Boris Spassky (rolling eyes).

Hillary's Left Kidney's picture

Facts

I would highly recommend that you spend some quiet time thinking. The fact that you are dismissive of the clearly determined fact that the Russians interfered in last year's election makes you even more like Mr. Trump. You are thinking more like a feverish Breitbart fan than anyone who actually wants working people in this country to have access to healthcare and jobs.

From the US intelligence assessment: "Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."

The report (link...) further details how the Russian media and professional Russian "internet trolls" propagated false and negative information about Clinton throughout the campaign. Some of this information you undoubtedly latched onto in order to confirm your biases, justifying your preferences in undermining Clinton over doing anything to oppose Trump.

Making demands for progressive purity will do nothing to make a progressive agenda a reality. It will in fact do the opposite. You link to a year-and-a-half-old observational article to dismiss the reality that the people in the middle are needed to decide elections. I need only refer you to back to the fact that Trump is President.

The Republicans now own the disaster that is Donald Trump. The next two elections are the Democrats' to win. That is, unless they refuse to compromise in order to achieve the greater good. In that case, we remain vulnerable to the whims of Vlad's preferences.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*


Some of this information you undoubtedly latched onto in order to confirm your biases, justifying your preferences in undermining Clinton over doing anything to oppose Trump.

I don't know if you're new around here, if you just misunderstand, or both. I am perfectly aware that the Russians tried to influence our last election and your review of my posts here over the last several months will confirm that I share your concern for it.

Where you lose me, though, is with your suggestion that I arrived at my political position as a result of "pizzagate" or one of those half-baked recaps of where the count of "Clinton Assassinations" now stands.

On the contrary, I arrived at my political position because I read incessantly to better understand how, why, and by whom I've been f*cked. And I've been f*ucked by both parties, because as to economic issues there's no longer much to distinguish one from the other.

So if the Democratic Party--my party, historically--ever again offers me a candidate indistinguishable from his Republican opponent on economic issues, I will not be voting for him, period. I'll be examining his positions on issues, his voting record, and his source of funding to make my determination. Just like Factchecker, I have my "expectations."

If the Democratic Party wants my vote, they'd damn well better start courting it. You aren't doing a very good job of it.

Somebody's picture

Where you lose me, though, is

Where you lose me, though, is with your suggestion that I arrived at my political position as a result of "pizzagate" or one of those half-baked recaps of where the count of "Clinton Assassinations" now stands.

If you think the Russians' online subterfuge was limited to depositing those patently insane narratives, you're not paying attention.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Point taken.

My point, though, was simply that, like most everybody else, I vote the interests of "me and mine," and certainly so when I can feel that my personal interests mirror what's best for society more generally.

Specifically, I don't believe that either party has in recent years promoted economic policies reflective of what's best for society generally, per three examples I offered upthread.

I can offer more, but I'm not sensing any keen interest from my peers in party introspection.

(Back to mowing. Will check in later.)

bizgrrl's picture

So not voting for Hillary

So not voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election felt like you were voting the interests of "me and mine,", thus helping to elect 45. I know, I know, Clinton wouldn't have won Tennessee, however all the extra negative language toward her from Tennessee did not help to attract voters in states that make have taken her to the White House.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

I am trying to explain that the Democratic nominee did not answer my economic worries.

She didn't answer those of millions of other voters, either. In the general election, she didn't lose important swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin because of "extra negative language toward her from Tennessee." She lost them for the same reason she lost them in the primary election, namely inattentiveness to the economic concerns of a struggling middle class.

The theme of The American Prospect's entire summer issue is entitled The Wages of Neglect: The Economic Abandonment of Middle America and Its Political Consequences. Its series of articles may explain better this topic I'm having trouble getting across. Here are three particularly succinct articles just part of that series (parenthetical subtitles are theirs, not mine):

Democrats Need to Be the Party of and for Working People—of All Races
(And they can’t retake Congress unless they win over more white workers)

The Democrats’ ‘Working-Class Problem’
(It’s not only with whites. It reaches well into the party’s base)

Why the White Worker Theme Is Harmful
(It’s a mistake to racialize an economy that harms the entire working class)

Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect, also wrote a column for the HuffPo last year on this specific topic of just contingent work being available to degree-bearing millennials (Sanders, Socialism and the Shafted Generation), lest you or others imagine it's a dilemma faced only by those of us approaching or past age 60. Kuttner opines that "altering these trends will require radical reforms, not adjustments at the margins," which I can heartily applaud.

But again, I don't share all this only to needle on the subject of the 2016 election. I share it to emphasize why I think the Democratic Party as a whole has shifted its support from the concerns of labor to the concerns of business--and I can handily choose other Dem poster children to make that point.

Corey Booker, for example, is now being said to be a possible contender in the 2020 presidential race, which I think would be "deja vu all over again," as Yogi put it. Diane Ravitch, at least, agrees with me. In the New Republic, see Don’t Like Betsy DeVos? Blame the Democrats (The Democratic Party paved the way for the education secretary's efforts to privatize our public schools). Again, parenthetical subtitle is theirs, not mine.

Anyway, examples of a party out of touch with its base abound--as does some good counsel on how that party can reconnect with those of us who have historically supported it.

bizgrrl's picture

That's a big long answer to

That's a big long answer to the comment,

"So not voting for Hillary Clinton in the general election felt like you were voting the interests of "me and mine,", thus helping to elect 45. I know, I know, Clinton wouldn't have won Tennessee, however all the extra negative language toward her from Tennessee did not help to attract voters in states that make have taken her to the White House."

It doesn't matter to me how out of touch you or others thought Hillary Clinton was since the result of the negative rhetoric, IMO, helped get 45 elected.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

My answer was in my very first sentence, where I said that "I am trying to explain that the Democratic nominee did not answer my economic worries."

The balance of my post was to substantiate that that's how too many Dem voters responded nationally, which was pretty much the conclusion of analysts within hours of the election.

Nearly a year later, I continue to hear from some folks that it was the Russians, it was the racists, it was third party voters. It was none of those things. It was purely and simply inattentiveness to the economic needs of the middle class. For every circumventing commentary proposing other reasons for the election result, reams and reams and reams of reporting exists to point to the real reason for the result, economics.

The party won't win back these voters by insisting that the problem doesn't exist or worse, by insulting them. Those of us hesitating by the exit door are waiting for an answer as to how the party intends to address our concerns--yet Dems here seem unable to even acknowledge the problem, much less offer suggestions for what to do about it.

(Did you read my links? I wrote Rachel off-list the other day to ask if she read the one I posted for her, but I haven't heard back. For months now, I have seen no commentary whatsoever here when I post authoritative reporting to substantiate my points...)

Hillary's Left Kidney's picture

Response?

I would imagine that you're not getting a response to those things because you're pointing at a lot of trees while exclaiming that there's no forest.

None of the things that you're interested in will ever be addressed, so long as conservatives and the Republican party hold majority power and define the public debate.

In London, they hold elections and then sort out majority coalitions to form a government afterward.

We reverse that order in Washington. The coalitions have to firm up between the primaries and election day. If the liberal/progressive wing refuses to join an 'impure' coalition with the center-left before the elections, that leaves the center-left folks to try to reach out to the center-right, in hopes of peeling a few off to try squeak out a win. When that fails, you get government run by the center-right/far-right coalition. When it fails as spectacularly as it did this time, it's the far-right that leads that coalition, and you have neo-nazis so emboldened that they're marching in the streets.

You seem to want the center left to reach out and coddle the far left to build a progressive coalition, but in the same breath, you and those who are like-minded are quite adamant that you can't be counted on to step up when the votes are cast. That's the rhetoric we heard from Sanders voters after he lost the nomination. 'Adopt our platform or don't count on us.' It's that obstinance that literally pushes the mainstream of the Democratic Party to the right. If you and those with you keep showing yourselves to be unreliable, that forces the rest of us to work harder to find compromises with the center-right that will pull some of them away from the hard-right. The end result is less progressive influence, not more.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*


None of the things that you're interested in will ever be addressed, so long as conservatives and the Republican party hold majority power and define the public debate.

No, HLK, I'm speaking here of the party's rightward drift over the course of 30 and 40 years. Truman was pushing for single-payer in 1945 but Obama pooped out on just a public option within the market-based ACA in 2008, even with that 60-vote filibuster-proof majority? FDR gave us a New Deal in the 1930's, but Bill Clinton "reformed" welfare (to gut it) and enacted "tough on crime" legislation (replete with private prisons)? This pattern now spans decades.

In another thread, Randy has posted about a so-called "unity ticket" in 2020 potentially featuring Repub John Kasich and Dem John Hickenlooper and why not. They're cozy enough bedfellows already, but there's no indication they have the fortitude to regulate business as to its heavy reliance on contingent workers or to open up ACA marketplace subsidies to families forking over 20 and 25 percent of their gross incomes for health insurance premiums--and there certainly isn't any indication that the duo would work to rebuild stricken labor unions or to entertain a single-payer program nationally.

Nor am I "the far left." I am "the left that always was," as in FDR and Harry Truman. You appear to be "the new left," as in Arne Duncan and John Hickenlooper.

I don't think you're reasonable to imagine that even if you are "the mainstream," you may expect to remain that for very much longer. Quite literally, the center cannot hold. These many attacks on the middle class are weightier than you seem to realize.

When that Contingent Worker Supplement confirms 30 percent unemployment in the middle class--and I firmly believe that it will--one or more major political parties may just go the way of the Whigs.

bizgrrl's picture

In another thread, Randy has

In another thread, Randy has posted about a so-called "unity ticket" in 2020 potentially featuring Repub John Kasich and Dem John Hickenlooper and why not.

Before Randy wakes up and his head explodes, it should be clarified that he did not make a post or comment about Kasich/Hickenlooper. This was a post by jbr.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

My mistake, Biz, because I didn't look back to verify who posted it.

Neither did the poster--jbr, as you point out--offer any opinion on the possible so-called "unity ticket."

My point, whether or not it was implicit, was simply that this is not the time for conciliatory, milquetoast solutions from the perps to the economic travails of the shrinking middle class. Rioting among the masses is already in process.

Knoxoasis's picture

This discussion has evolved

This discussion has evolved to a very interesting point. Tamera says she wants to vote the interests of "me and mine." Others are arguing that her stances are essentially against her interests. Which brings us to the presumptuousness of the "What's the Matter with Kansas" thesis.

Each person's "interests" are entirely subjective. Everyone has a range of interests; economic, lifestyle, religious, cultural, political and the like. And every person ranks those interests subjectively; for some, economic issues are preeminent, while for others questions of culture or lifestyle may dominate.

So I've really always found it quite irritating when people who vote this way or that way are condemned for "not voting their interests." People who make such arguments are really saying "I know what's best for YOU, and if you don't vote or think or act in the manner that I believe is most appropriate for you, then you are voting, thinking or acting in a manner that is against your interests."

It's entirely appropriate to suggest that a person's subjective rankings of interests are, in your opinion, misplaced, but to suggest that when people make a decision, entirely rational to their way of thinking, but wrong in YOUR eyes, that somehow they have been duped or misled, is offputting to the listener to say the least. You CANNOT know what their "interests" are, because only they subjectively can decide that question and act upon it in accordance with their own philosophy and beliefs.

Only the individual can make these judgments for themselves, as Tamera is doing. To suggest otherwise is paternalistic in the extreme. And that goes for folks in Kansas too.

bizgrrl's picture

Don't think anyone is trying

Don't think anyone is trying to tell Tamara how to vote versus trying to understand how voting for someone who won't be elected and campaigning against someone who might get elected resulting in a 45 presidency that gets us farther from the desired goal.

Hillary's Left Kidney's picture

The person has stated what

The person has stated what her interests are, thus, insofar as I am able to read and take what she writes at face value, yes, I can know what her interests are.

With that knowledge, I am merely pointing out that refusing to vote for a candidate who is most aligned, but not perfectly matched, with those interests ultimately benefits the candidate least aligned with those interests.

This is how our system works.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Each person's "interests" are entirely subjective. Everyone has a range of interests; economic, lifestyle, religious, cultural, political and the like. And every person ranks those interests subjectively; for some, economic issues are preeminent, while for others questions of culture or lifestyle may dominate.

Thanks, Knox, but...not exactly.

What I've been trying to communicate is that all people's behavior is generally motivated by something along the lines of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

That is, we do not find it humanly possible to turn our attention to "higher needs" (social, esteem, self-actualization, Maslow called them) when our "basic needs" (physiological and safety, Maslow called them) are not being met.

So yes, we may have a "range of interests," but no, we do not find it humanly possible to pursue those interests in any manner except sequentially, starting with the most basic.

It has been a criticism of the Dem Party that, WRT the angst of the middle class, the party has in recent years pursued "social" issues to the neglect of our more basic "physiological and safety" issues.

And that has rankled the struggling middle class, even among those of us who share the party's goals on social issues. It's how we're all built.

bizgrrl's picture

If, on the other hand, the


If, on the other hand, the former Sanders wing refuses to compromise with anyone who is impure, there will be nothing progressive left in American government
.

Good point. However, from some comments here, it appears this is possible.

Bbeanster's picture

Would somebody please shoot

Would somebody please shoot this thread with a silver bullet?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

style="display:block"
data-ad-format="autorelaxed"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3296520478850753"
data-ad-slot="5999968558">

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

Alt Weekly

State News

Local .GOV

State .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Monthly archive