Re:California Can Expect Blackouts for a Decade, Says PG&E CEO
by dragonwriter on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @06:05AM
(#21321924)
> That’s all correct, but you’re choice of starting point is a bit misleading.
The commenter who made the accusation of present leftism chose the time period of interest (the last couple decades.) Discussing within that frame rather than changing the subject to the distant past isn't "misleading".
> FDR was not a center right neo-liberal.
FDR died more than 70 years ago.
I mean, I might just as relevantly point out that Thomas Jefferson was a follower of the kind of old-school liberalism that modern center-right neoliberalism seeks to return to in reaction--at least within the Democratic Party--against center-left progressivism.
> There was a brief interregnum during which Clinton and Obama governed as center-right economically and center-left socially.
Well, except the Democratic Presidents governing from the economic center-right include Carter, as well; 1977-2008 isn't all that much shorter than 1932-1968 (the FDR-Johnson period). It was no "brief interregnum".
> To someone who grew up during that period, the allegations of socialism from the right never made any sense to me. It was only recently when Democrats started fighting to distance themselves from Obama that I understood the criticism from the right.
But the criticism you didn't understand didn't concern the times that you describe it as making sense. So...how did the later change validate it?
> I would also argue that you’re understating the profound shift that has happened in the last two years. The Green New Deal is an openly socialist document, and every Democratic candidate has committed to supporting it.
(1) The shift didn't happen in the last two years, more like the last 5.
(2) You are overweighting establishment candidates seeking deny candidates challenging the establishment ground to fight from, while burying substantial differences in policy below the level of headline positions; its a fairly standard strategy. Also, the GND is not, in any case, an "openly socialist" document; it does endorse both environmental and social-democratic goals, but does within a capitalist framework.
> It’s again the party of FDR
I think you are jumping to conclusions on the flimsy basis of early primary campaign strategy.
The commenter who made the accusation of present leftism chose the time period of interest (the last couple decades.) Discussing within that frame rather than changing the subject to the distant past isn't "misleading".
> FDR was not a center right neo-liberal.
FDR died more than 70 years ago.
I mean, I might just as relevantly point out that Thomas Jefferson was a follower of the kind of old-school liberalism that modern center-right neoliberalism seeks to return to in reaction--at least within the Democratic Party--against center-left progressivism.
> There was a brief interregnum during which Clinton and Obama governed as center-right economically and center-left socially.
Well, except the Democratic Presidents governing from the economic center-right include Carter, as well; 1977-2008 isn't all that much shorter than 1932-1968 (the FDR-Johnson period). It was no "brief interregnum".
> To someone who grew up during that period, the allegations of socialism from the right never made any sense to me. It was only recently when Democrats started fighting to distance themselves from Obama that I understood the criticism from the right.
But the criticism you didn't understand didn't concern the times that you describe it as making sense. So...how did the later change validate it?
> I would also argue that you’re understating the profound shift that has happened in the last two years. The Green New Deal is an openly socialist document, and every Democratic candidate has committed to supporting it.
(1) The shift didn't happen in the last two years, more like the last 5.
(2) You are overweighting establishment candidates seeking deny candidates challenging the establishment ground to fight from, while burying substantial differences in policy below the level of headline positions; its a fairly standard strategy. Also, the GND is not, in any case, an "openly socialist" document; it does endorse both environmental and social-democratic goals, but does within a capitalist framework.
> It’s again the party of FDR
I think you are jumping to conclusions on the flimsy basis of early primary campaign strategy.