the US enters a new political era ...socialism !
Kithsiri Herath
In TheoryOpinion
Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs
Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism compared with less than a third of those over 30. Moreover, Gallup has found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a “socialist” candidate for president — among their parents’ generation, only a third would do so. Indeed, national polls and exit polls reveal about 70 to 80 percent of young Democrats are casting their ballots for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a “democratic socialist.”
Yet millennials tend to reject the actual definition of socialism — government ownership of the means of production, or government running businesses. Only 32 percent of millennials favor “an economy managed by the government,” while, similar to older generations, 64 percent prefer a free-market economy. And as millennials age and begin to earn more, their socialistic ideals seem to slip away........
.....................continue reading
| Mar 18 (7 days ago)  | | ||
| ||||
Arthur Arambepola
පිකෙටි සඳහන් කරන්නේ 1980 ට පෙර ඉතා ඉහළ ආදායම් ලබන්නවුනට ඉතා ඉහළ බදු තිබී ඉන් පසු බදු අඩුවූ බවය.
එසේම අවම ආදායමද ඉහළ මට්ටමක තිබී අඩුවූ බවය.
" From 1930 to 1980 – for half a century – the rate for the highest US income (over $1m per year) was on average 82%, with peaks of 91% from the 1940s to 1960s (from Roosevelt to Kennedy), and still as high as 70% during Reagan’s election in 1980."
"The culmination of this new program was the tax reform of 1986, which ended half a century of a progressive tax system and lowered the rate applicable to the highest incomes to 28%. Democrats never truly challenged this choice in the Clinton (1992-2000) and Obama (2008-2016) years, which stabilized the taxation rate at around 40% (two times lower than the average level for the period 1930 to 1980)."
"In the 1930s, long before European countries followed through, the US also set up a federal minimum wage. In the late 1960s it was worth $10 an hour (in 2016 dollars), by far the highest of its time."
"Reagan also decided to freeze the federal minimum wage level, which from 1980 was slowly but surely eroded by inflation (little more than $7 an hour in 2016, against nearly $11 in 1969). Again, this new political-ideological regime was barely mitigated by the Clinton and Obama years."
එමෙන්ම අධ්යාපනය හා සෞඛ්ය පහසුකම් ලබාගැනීමට ඇති අවස්ථා අතර පෙර නොවිරූ විෂමතාවක් ඇති බවයි.
ඔහු කියන්නේ මෙය ආපසු හැරවිය හැකි නම් නව වටයකට ආරම්භයක් ලැබෙන බවයි.
කිසිම අවස්ථාවක රාජ්ය විසින් ආර්ථිකය පාලනය කිරීමක් ගැන පිකටි සඳහන් කරන්නේ නැත.
KH උපුටා දක්වන ලිපිය අනුව නම් තරුණ කණ්ඩායමෙන් 32% ක් ආර්ථිකය රජය විසින් පාලනය කිරීම ගැන කැමත්ත දක්වති.
නුමුත් මෙම පාලනය (“an economy managed by the government”) යන්නෙන් අදහස් කරන්නේ කුමක්දැයි පැහැදිළි නැත.
නුමුත් 1980 දශකයේ ඇරඹුන ධනවාදයේ නව මුහුණුවර අමෙරිකානුවන් සෑහෙන පිරිසකගේ තෘප්තියට හේතු වූ බවක් නම් නොපෙනේ.
අමෙරිකාවේ සමහර පෙදෙස්වල ජීවිතය ගැන සිතාගැනීමටත් අපහසු තත්ත්වයක් පිළිබිඹු කෙරෙන ලිපියක් මෑතකදි පළවිය. පහත අලවා ඇත්තේ ඉන් උපුටාගත් කොටස් කිහිපයකි.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/21/with-so-much-poverty-hidden-in-plain-sight-you-have-to-ask-is-this-still-america
"On my morning walk, instead of the vista of palm trees, beaches, gelato shops and yachts I was expecting, the footpaths stopped abruptly, or crumbled, the roads buckled, people were searching for food in bins, buildings were vacant with the paint and signs peeling and there was rubbish everywhere.
I can deal with a grim high street – after all I lived in London for years – but having to step over people sleeping in the parks, bedded down between the branches of a banyan tree, American flags affixed to their carts, signs saying they were returned servicemen, was distressing.
This was America – one of the world’s richest countries – yet the vibe was distinctly third world"
"I don’t drive and wanted to get out of Depresso, but I was warned off public transport. There was one bus a day out of the town, but sometimes it just didn’t arrive. Locals told me they occasionally passed people waiting on the side of the road who had been there all day, waiting for a bus that never came.
Where are the apps, or the phones, or the timetable alerts, I asked? The locals just shrugged – the people taking the bus are poor, they don’t have apps, they don’t even have phones."
"I explained that it wasn’t the lack of activities that was disturbing; it was the homeless people, it was the number of really uncared for older women who were sleeping rough; women with matted hair, and old clothes, pushing trolleys and heaving backpacks, filled with everything they owned. Women my mum’s age. If we saw a cat or dog on the streets in that state, dirty and scuffed, we’d do something about it – but these people were the visible invisible. Why wasn’t anyone caring for them?
These were not comfortable topics to raise in the gorgeous bars and restaurants of Posho. But Depresso haunted Posho. Once you’ve seen, you can’t unsee, and the multi million dollar condos up the road and the cocktails by the pool couldn’t erase the poverty next door.
In fact it made the poverty more obscene."
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Kithsiri Herath
Bernie’s multiracial alliance might not be enough to surpass Hillary Clinton in 2016. But it’s growing every day:
And with 60% of young nonwhite Dems, the future belongs to Bernie's coalition http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR131/filters/SC_RACE:2|-1|3|5|4,RESP_AGE:-4,PARTY_ID_:1/dates/20150401-20160325/type/month … Look out, USA!
Nissanka Rajapaksa
The Bernie Sanders Moment: Brought to you by the generation that has no future
The future was so uncertain, they said, the economy so broken, there simply was no point in devising a plan, much less trying to execute it. The best one could do, one of them said, was to take whatever came your way, without looking more than six months ahead of you.
They even dreamed of the Chilean example, where an activist a few years ago burned what he claimed was $500 million in student debt. Sadly, they pointed out, that option wasn’t available in the US, where all of the debt is up in the cloud. (How strange, I thought to myself: once upon a time, utopian philosophers had their heads in the clouds; that was where they found a better world. Now it is the most dreary and repressive forces of society—drones, surveillance cameras, debt collectors—that take up residence there, ruling us from their underworld in the sky.)
I obviously had some sense of this millennial experience of futurelessness from reading newspapers and magazines, and have even written about it myself. But still, it was jarring to be confronted with it, to hear a dispatch from a generation that was so completely different from my own. (Perhaps the single most important marker of the difference between Gen Xers like myself and the millennials is that we thought we could make a career; if we didn’t, it was because we had chosen not to.)
For a moment, my mind drifted back to those reports of Edmund Wilson from 1930-1931, first gathered in The American Jitters and, later, in The American Earthquake. There, the sense of vertigo is palpable, as the economic bottom suddenly drops out from everyone. All of society is shocked into a catatonia of mass unemployment and systemic deprivation, interrupted by periodic fits of anxiety and explosions of violence.
But then I was snapped back to today’s world, where there’s no shock. For the last 40 years, we’ve been preparing for this generation without a future. We’ve weaned and fed them on the idea that life doesn’t get better, that there are no plans to be made, no futures to be had. So that when that reality actually hits, when they inherit the world they’ve now inherited, they’ve been readied for the nothing that lies ahead. There’s no shock of recognition, no violent recoil from the new. There’s just this slow descent into systemic immobility and unreliability.
Strangely, this is the generation that is now making the Bernie Sanders moment. Which, whatever else it may be, is a bid on the promise that the future can be better. Radically better. For the millennials, this is not a promise born from any economic experience. It is a purely political promise, distilled from the last decade and a half of failed protest against neoliberalism and austerity, and some strange phantom of socialism conjured from who knows where. Progress is an idea that has died a thousand deaths, none more permanent, it seemed, than the one it suffered at the hands of There Is No Alternative. Yet here it is, brought back to life by a generation that has the least reason to believe in it.
We desperately need a chronicler, or chroniclers, of this eruption, an army of Edmund Wilsons and Martha Gellhorns to send us news from the front, to give us the deep reports of the texture and feel, the sensibility, of this completely unexpected revolt of the new.
Kithsiri Herath
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
By Naomi Klein
YESTERDAY 4:47 PM
Dharmapala Gunawardena
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
After Winning 7 Straight, Sanders Has the Momentum to Upset Clinton in New York and This Story Proves It
That Sanders rally in the Bronx changed the way I look at politics. It didn’t even feel political. It was so full of life and love and hope and togetherness.
Politics is not about winning or losing, although winning is so often the goal.
It’s about bringing people together.
What Sanders has done, in organizing a populist movement, a revolution even, transcends the 2016 election. It transcends American politics.
.....................
“The Bernie rally in the Bronx was attended by so many different kinds of people, multigenerational and multicultural. As an undocumented immigrant who has grown up in the US, I’ve never felt like I belonged to any political sphere, but was rather a pawn in politics, as many other immigrants have been in this country. Bernie’s campaign is the first time, ever, that I have seen myself and my people represented on that platform in a way that empowers us, recognizes us and fights and speaks for us, not just ‘about’ us. I feel like I can fight for his election and actually be rewarded for it. Bernie is one of us and his views AND actions prove that he is invested in the people of this great country and not the corporations and deep Wall Street wallets that Hillary and the establishment are so connected with. Looking around the crowds at the rally, you could tell my experience was shared by many. I think a lot of first time voters and first timers like myself are uniting under Bernie.”
Kithsiri Herath
Matt Karp @karpmj 3m
Nissanka Rajapaksa
When the US picks its president, it is not only choosing a head of state but a head of government and a commander-in-chief of the largest military on the planet.
It's a big responsibility. So how does the process work?
Who can be president?
Technically, to run for president, you only need to be "a natural born" US citizen, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident for 14 years. Sounds easy, right?
In reality, however, every president since 1933 has been a governor, senator, or five-star military general. And that's before you even consider getting a party nomination and securing national media attention.
In this 2016 election, at one stage there were 10 governors or former governors and 10 who are or were senators, although many have since dropped out.
One person is nominated to represent the Republican and Democratic parties in the presidential election.
How to become the president of the US
Who gets to be the presidential pick for each party?
A series of elections are held in every state and overseas territory, starting in February, which determine who becomes each party's official presidential candidate.
The winner of each collects a number of "delegates" - party members with the power to vote for that candidate at the party conventions held in July, where candidates are formally confirmed.
The more state contests a candidate wins, the more delegates will be pledged to support them at the convention.
As President Barack Obama cannot run again, both parties are holding competitive primaries this year.
The Republican candidate will need 1,237 delegates to win a majority, while the Democratic contender must secure 2,383.
What are primaries and caucuses?
What are the key dates between now and the election?
By the end of April, most states will have casted their votes and in most election campaigns, it's clear by then who each party has picked as their presidential candidate. It is usually a matter of making the nomination official at the summer convention.
But this time around it might not be so clear-cut because it looks like none of the three Republicans may reach the magic 1,237 number of delegates to win the nomination outright.
That would mean the party convention in July will, instead of being a coronation, involve horse-trading and in-fighting.
And if you're still with us, you'll be glad to know the real campaigns haven't even started yet.
That happens after the summer, when the two candidates hold a manic, mammoth journey whizzing across the country to make their case.
There are three televised presidential debates in the last six weeks before - finally - votes are cast on Tuesday, 8 November.
How does the vote in November work?
The candidate with the most votes in each state becomes the candidate which that state supports for president.
It's all down to a system called the electoral college, a group of people who choose the winner - 538 of them, in fact. Just half of them - 270 - are needed to make a president.
But not all states are equal - California, for example, has more than 10 times the population of Connecticut, so they don't get an equal say.
Each state has certain number of these "electors" based on their population in the most recent census (it so happens that it's the same number of districts in a state, plus two senators).
When citizens vote for their preferred candidate, they're actually voting for the electors, some of which are pledged to one candidate, some for another.
But here's where it gets interesting. In almost every state (except Nebraska and Maine), the winner takes all - so the person who wins the most electors in New York, for example, will get all 29 of New York's electoral votes.
In the race to get to the magic number - 270 - it's the swing states that often matter most.
The US electoral college explained
What are swing states?
So, we've got two candidates, both in a race to get to 270 electors by winning whole states at a time.
Both parties think they can bank on certain states, big and small. Republicans will count on Texas, and not waste their money campaigning to a great extent there. Similarly, California is likely to sit in the Democrats' column.
The others are known as "swing states" - where it could go either way. Florida in particular, with its 29 votes, famously decided the 2000 election in favour of George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote nationally but, after a Supreme Court case, won the electoral college.
Other swing states include: Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada.
When does the new president start work?
In the days and weeks after the election - if the vote is decisive - the victor will assemble a cabinet and begin crafting a more thorough policy agenda.
Meanwhile, the departing "lame duck" president works to shape his legacy and begins packing up his belongings.
Under the US constitution, the president is inaugurated on 20 January of the year following the election.
Kithsiri Herath
The generational divide in the Democratic primary is phenomenal. If it weren’t for voters over 49, and their higher participation rates, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have much of a chance. “Age seems to be the most significant factor,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York.
The conventional wisdom is that younger voters are idealistic and impractical, and don’t know enough about how the world works, and what can feasibly be accomplished in politics
Leaving aside that “younger” in this case includes a majority of voters under 50 that support Sanders , there is an alternative explanation that makes more sense. There are times in almost any country’s history when important narratives lose credibility, and this expands the range of political possibilities. Younger people are often quicker to recognize these changes and the options that they present.
The Vietnam War is a classic example. Its legitimacy was premised on a deeply entrenched, Cold War narrative that the United States was engaged in an existential battle against communism, which threatened to take over the world. Vietnamese communists were part of this alleged existential threat, and therefore had to be defeated — even at the cost of more than 58,000 American soldiers’ lives, millions of Vietnamese, and many more casualties, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars.
It is now abundantly clear that this narrative was false. The Vietnamese communists won the war in 1975, and for more than 40 years since then, Vietnam has posed no threat whatsoever to U.S. security. But even at the height of the antiwar movement, Americans were divided, and very much along generational lines. And it wasn’t simply because of the draft; to put it simply, younger Americans just didn’t buy the dominant, false narrative that was used to justify the war. Even if they had less life experience and in some cases knew less about politics or even about history, they knew something very important that most older Americans did not understand.
Today’s generational divide has similar characteristics. Younger people are not as steeped in the Cold War narrative, and so Hillary’s foreign policy experience — her support for wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and for potential war in Iran — does not impress them at all. For those who know it, it repels them, and gives them more reasons to distrust Hillary and favor Bernie. The “War on Terror” is in many ways a somewhat flimsier but self-perpetuating replacement for the Cold War as a justification for our current state of permanent military conflict. Many people, especially those not so close to retirement, can see right through the official story.
Obama himself said: “ISIS is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaida in Iraq, that grew out of our invasion.” And the original Al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden, was also aproduct of earlier U.S. intervention — in Afghanistan.
Younger people, more often than older, can also see that the label “democratic socialist” doesn’t have quite the shock value that it may have had 20 or 30 years ago. This is corroborated by national polls, where Bernie does very well not only among Democrats but generally also better than Hillary in face-offs against the Republican candidates. For many respondents in these polls, the label “democratic socialist” is one of the very few things that they know about Bernie, thanks to the major media’s including it in most of their reports, and giving Bernie a fraction of the coverage that they have given to Donald Trump. Yet independent voters — whom the Democratic candidate needs in order to win the general election — favor Bernie over Hillary by a wide margin.
There is evidence from exit polls that many of Clinton’s voters are more driven by fear than those who voted for Sanders. This includes a fear of terrorism, or the fear that the Democratic candidate might lose in the general election. Younger voters, for the reasons noted above and more, are not so easily scared. They are more likely to vote their hopes, rather than their fears. If they continue to organize and turn out in higher-than-usual numbers, as they did for the Obama campaign in 2008, they will make history once again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-great-divide-in-the-d_b_9660146.html?section=india
--
Kithsiri Herath
Nissanka Rajapaksa
මේ වන විට ඇමරිකානු කොංග්රසයට ඉදිරිපත් වී ඇති'මහජනයා විසින් ආණ්ඩු කිරීම සදහා වූ පනත'(Government by People Act)හා ඡන්ද අයිතීන් පනත (Voting Rights Act) සම්මත කරන ලෙස මෙම විරෝධතාකරුවන් ඉල්ලා සිටියෝය.
ඇමරිකානු ජනාධිපතිවරණය මෙම නොවැම්බර් මාසයේ පැවැත්වීමට නියමිතය. ඇමරිකානු දේශපාලනඥයින්ගේ මැතිවරණ ව්යාපාරයන්ට විශාල සමාගම් විසින් ලබා දෙන ආධාර නිසාවෙන් ජනතාට හිතකර ආර්ථික ප්රතිපත්ති වෙනුවට එම විශාල සමාගම් වලට හිතකර ආර්ථික ප්රතිපත්ති ක්රියාවට නැගෙන බව මෙම මැතිවරණ සමයේදී කැපී පෙනෙන ලෙස මතු වූ කරුණකි. ඒ සමඟම ජනතාවට ඡන්දය භාවිතා කිරීම සංකීර්ණ ක්රියාවලියක් කරමින් පනවා ඇති සමහර ප්රාන්ත නීතිද දැඩිව කතා බහට ලක් වූයේය. විශේෂයෙන්ම ඩිමොක්රටික් පක්ෂයේ මූලික මැතිවරණය මෙම කරුණු මතු කරන ලද තෝතැන්නක් විය. ඒ ස්වාධීන සෙනෙට් සභික බර්නි සැන්ඩර්ස් ඩිමොක්රටික් පක්ෂයෙන් තම ජනාධිපතිවරණ අපේක්ෂකත්වය ප්රකාශ කිරීමෙන් අනතුරුවයි.
විශාල සමාගම්වලින් ලැබෙන මුදල් ප්රතික්ෂේප කරන බර්නි සැන්ඩර්ස්ගේ මැතිවරණ ව්යාපාරය පදනම් වී ඇත්තේ ඇමරිකාවේ වැඩ කරන ජනතාව ලබා දෙන ආධාර මතයි. ඔහු ලැබූ ආධාරවල සාමාන්ය අගය ඩොලර් 27ක් පමණක් වේ. ඊට ප්රතිවිරුද්ධ ලෙස ඩිමොක්රටික් පක්ෂ අපේක්ෂක වීමට අපේක්ෂා කරන අනෙක් අපේක්ෂිකාව වන හිලරි ක්ලින්ටන් ද ඇතුලු ඇමරිකානු ජනාධිපතිවරණයට තරඟ වදින අනෙකුත් සියලුම අපේක්ෂකයින් වොල් වීදීයේ විශාල සමාගම් වලින් ඩොලර් මිලියන ගණනින් ආධාර ලබා ගෙන තිබේ.
සමාගම් විසින් දේශපාලනඥයින් මිලදී ගැනීම ගැන ඇමරිකාවේ ඇති වී තිබෙන මෙම විවාදය විධිමාත්රික ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදයේ (Formal democracy) සීමා ප්රශ්න කිරීමට ලක්වු ප්රබල අවස්ථාවක් ලෙස සැලකිය හැක. තුන්වන ලෝකයේ රටවල මෙන් නොව ඇමරිකාව ආදී සංවර්ධිත ධනවාදී රටවල හොර ඡන්ද දැමීම් ආදී ක්රමවලින් ඡන්ද දූෂණ සිදුවන්නේ නැත. මැතිවරණ ප්රචණ්ඩ ක්රියා ආදිය නොමැති තරම් වන අතර බැලූ බැල්මට නිදහස් හා සාධාරණ ඡන්ද පැවැත්වේ.
එහෙත් මෙම සමාජවල මැතිවරණ දැඩි ලෙස ව්යාපාරිකකරණයට ලක්වී තිබෙන අතර අති දැවැන්ත ප්රචාරක කටයුතු සහ ඒ සදහා වියදම් කෙරෙන අති විශාල මුදල් නොමැතිව මැතිවරණ ජයග්රහණය කල නොහැකි තත්වයක් ඒ අනුව ඇති වී තිබේ. මේ අනුව ඡන්දවලට ඉදිරිපත් වන අපේක්ෂකයන් හා මහා පරිමාණ සමාගම් අතර සන්ධාන සුලභව නිර්මාණය වී දේශපාලනඥයින්ගේ මැතිවරණ ව්යාපාර සදහා මේ සමාගම් අත දිග හැර අනුග්රහය දක්වනු ලබයි. ධනයේ විශාල අසමානතා තිබෙන සමාජයක ධනය හිමි ධනවතුන්ගේ අනුග්රහය නොමැතිව මැතිවරණ දිනීම අසීරු කටයුත්තක් බවට පත්වී තිබේ. ඒ අනුව ප්රකෝටිපති පංතිය හා දේශපාලන පක්ෂ අතර අශුද්ධ සන්ධානයක් නිර්මාණය වී තිබෙන අතර බර්නි සැන්ඩර්ස් ආදීන් විසින් පෙන්වා දෙන පරිදි මෙය මහජනයාගේ අභිලාෂයන්ට පටහැනිව සමාගම්වල අභිලාෂයන් සදහා සේවය කරන ප්රජාතන්ත්ර විරෝධී දූෂිත තන්ත්රයකි.
මැතිවරණ නිදහස් හා සාධාරණ වීමට නම් ධනවතුන් හා දේශපාලන කොටස් අතර තිබෙන අශුද්ධ සන්ධානය බිද දැමිය යුතු බවට ඇමරිකාවේ වාම හා ප්රගතිශීලී සමාජ ක්රියාකාරීන් ගොඩනගන මෙම උද්ඝෝෂණය විසින් මතු කරන්නේ ලංකාව වැනි මැතිවරණ එන්න එන්නම ව්යාපාරිකකරණය වෙමින් තිබෙන රටවල්වල ප්රජාතාන්ත්රීය අරගලයට ද අතිශයින් අදාල වන්නා වූ ප්රශ්නයකි.
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
4:19 PM, APR 15, 2016 | By DANIEL HALPER
Bernie Sanders reportedly earned just over $200,000 in 2014. That same year, Hillary Clinton, Sanders's top Democratic rival, gave about 45 paid speeches, many of which paid her more in a single hour than Sanders made the entire year...........
The Washington Post reports on Sanders's income. "The senator from Vermont reported income of just more than $200,000 on his 2014 returns,............
In 2014 alone, Clinton gave speeches to GE (for $225,500), the National Automobile Dealers Association ($325,500), Deutsche Bank AG ($280,000), and many more.......
........................................
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Sanders supporters shower Clinton motorcade with $1 bills at Clooney event
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/276586-sanders-supporters-shower-clinton-motorcade-with-1-bills
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Attention New York! The polls have underrated Bernie in almost every northern state. We can still win this!
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
It’s Not Over for Bernie Sanders Yet
Bernie Sanders Is Not Going to Be President of the United States—He Should Keep Running Anyway
Millions of Americans still need a champion, and the Democratic Party needs his supporters.
Kithsiri Herath
With the 24-hour, wall-to-wall soap opera-style coverage, it is easy to get lost in the minutiae of the US presidential primaries. Seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency, Senator Bernie Sanders recently noted: “We need to break through the fog of the corporate media, which does everything that they can to keep us entertained without addressing the real issues … they talk about everything under the sun, but not the real issues.”
So what are the real issues when it comes to the US presidential elections?
Discussing the influence of money last year, former president Jimmy Carter provided much-needed clarity: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president.”
Comparing polling data with policy outcomes, recent research by conducted by two academics from Princeton University and Northwestern University provides hard evidence to support Carter’s assertion that the US is controlled by a monied elite.
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” note Professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin Page.
“Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,” they conclude. However, “if policy-making is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
Professor Thomas Ferguson fleshed out the nefarious relationship between money and US electoral politics in his 1995 book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems.
Many view US politics through the wrong lens, Ferguson argued in 2010, “treating public policy as the result of the will of voters. But, in fact, American political parties are mostly bank accounts.”
Ferguson maintains the historical record shows “parties are more accurately analysed as blocs of major investors who coalesce to advance candidates representing their interests.” Importantly, his theory posits that “on all issues affecting the vital interests that major investors have in common, no party competition will take place.”
To take just one example, neither of the two main parties reflects the interests of the majority of US citizens who have long supported a US national health service, according to repeated polling.
For Edward Herman and David Peterson the US political system is “an unelected dictatorship of money” whereby big business “vets the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, reducing the options available to US citizens to two candidates, neither of whom can change the foreign or domestic priorities of the imperial US regime.”
Hillary Clinton’s conservative, business-friendly presidential candidacy is the perfect illustration of this. The former secretary of state and her husband Bill Clinton have received £24.3 million from the financial services, insurance companies and real estate sectors since 2001, including $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving three speeches, as well as the backing of the vast majority of the liberal media.
In contrast, CNN noted in January 2016 that left-leaning social democrat Sanders “has received vastly less media attention than” Clinton, “while his chances of becoming the party’s nominee were largely dismissed by pundits and commentators.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? “None of them, except the Morning Star, supported us”, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell explained earlier this year about the British media’s coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s bid to become Labour leader. “Even the liberal left Guardian opposed us and undermined us at every opportunity.”
Like Corbyn’s inspirational grassroots campaign in Britain, Sanders’s surging progressive campaign suggests the corporate-controlled political status quo is not invincible, that the popular will of the people can force its way on to the agenda in the right circumstances.
And, like Corbyn and the British Establishment — remember that a senior serving general threatened a coup should the MP for Islington North become prime minister — Sanders’s growing popularity has, according to commentator Brent Budowsky, put “virtually the entire Washington and Wall Street establishments … in a state of panic.”
Though a victory for Sanders in the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee would be an astonishing moment in US politics, unfortunately it looks like Clinton’s lead is insurmountable. But all is not lost for those who wish to see a more equal and peaceful world.
As US historian Howard Zinn once noted: “What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but ‘who is sitting in’ — and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.”
Therefore, with the climate crisis already upon us, Obama having bombed seven nations and talk of another financial crisis over the horizon, win or lose it is imperative that the mobilisation and energy of Sanders’s campaign is expanded and deepened into a sustained mass movement that can successfully challenge corporate power and the dark shadow it casts over US politics.
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3305-An-unelected-dictatorship-of-money
Kithsiri Herath
Little in 2016 resembles 1860 (esp. the voters!). But for pure map aesthetics it's nice to see Bernie next to Abe
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll
By Chris Kahn
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. presidential election may turn out to be one of the world's biggest un-popularity contests.
Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.
The results reflect a deepening ideological divide in the United States, where people are becoming increasingly fearful of the opposing party, a feeling worsened by the likely matchup between the New York real estate tycoon and the former first lady, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
"This phenomenon is called negative partisanship," Sabato said. "If we were trying to maximize the effect, we couldn't have found better nominees than Trump and Clinton."
Trump has won passionate supporters and vitriolic detractors for his blunt talk and hardline proposals, including his call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, his vow to force Mexico to pay for a border wall, and his promise to renegotiate international trade deals.
Kithsiri Herath
Bernie Sanders’s Legacy? The Left May No Longer Need the Rich
When Bernie Sanders started gaining in the polls, it was easy to place him in a long line of idealistic insurgents like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley or Jerry Brown.
They built strong bases of support among white liberal voters, excelling in places like Boulder, Colo., and Vermont, but their chances of being nominated hinged on building a broader coalition that included nonwhite voters. Only Mr. Obama managed it.
Mr. Sanders, despite his success in Indiana this week, has effectively lost the Democratic nomination, and for a familiar reason: He didn’t do well enough among black voters. But he gained the enthusiasm of a subtly different — and potentially larger — coalition than his liberal predecessors.
His brand of progressivism played far better among white working-class voters than that of past liberal outsiders. At the same time, he fared far worse among the affluent Democrats who represented the core of Mr. Obama and Mr. Bradley’s coalitions.
Mr. Sanders’s weakness among affluent Democrats and his strength among working-class Democrats might seem unsurprising, given his class-focused message. Mr. Sanders himself anticipated it in aninterview with The Upshot in July.
But in broader historical terms, it might be something of a turning point in Democratic politics: the moment when the party’s left no longer needs an alliance with wealthy liberals to compete in national elections.....................................................................
--
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Kithsiri Herath
Didn't realize you need 3 cops and a throat grab to take down a skinny ginger girl holding a "love" sign.
ඒ වුනාට බලපුවම මේ ..3 cops කතාවත් වැරදියි.
Nihal Ananda
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Nihal Ananda
Nihal Ananda
Amarasiri Gunawardena
හේරත් ඒ වගේ ජෝක් එකකින් තමයි අවසන් කරල තිබුනෙ.
Nihal Ananda
Nihal Ananda
Dayananda Attanayake
Don't vote, my American friends and families.
All it does is validate the system. If voter turnout was down to 10 percent, for example, the political system would no longer have the mandate to exist in its current state. People would be demanding change and have the mandate to enact positive change in a way no candidate or political party will ever do.
Ask yourself how Clinton will make things better for those who are struggling or even suffering.. How Trump will "fix" things. They only want power for their selfish reasons, not to serve the people.
It's all about the $ and the title. They don't get to control anything significant as President. They may think they have control and that would be all that matters to them. The feeling of control is far different than the actuality of control. The feeling of power is not actual power.
Kurundu Hewage Nandisena
“රතු අලියා“ ඇමරිකාවේ මුල් පුටුවට
- 09 NOVEMBER 2016
ඇමරිකා එක්සත් ජනපදයේ 45 වන ජනාධිපතිවරයා ලෙස තේරීපත්වීමට රිපබ්ලිකන් පක්ෂ අපේක්ෂක ඩොනල්ඩ් ට්රම්ප් සමත්ව තිබේ.
මෙතෙක් ප්රකාශිත ප්රතිඵල අනුව ට්රම්ප් ආසන 276 ක් ලබාගෙන ඇති අතර හිලරි ක්ලින්ටන් හිමිකර ගෙන ඇත්තේ ආසන 218 ක් පමණි.
ඇමරිකානු ජනාධිපතිවරණය ජයග්රහණය කිරීම සඳහා යම් අපේක්ෂකයකු ආසන 270 ක් හිමි කර ගත යුතු වේ.
ජනාධිපතිවරණ ජයග්රහණයට ප්රධාන වශයෙන් බලපාන්නේ යැයි සැලකෙන ෆ්ලොරිඩා, ඔහායෝ, උතුරු කැරොලිනාව සහ ආයොවා යන ප්රාන්ත ඩොනල්ඩ් ට්රම්ප් විසින් ජය ගනු ලැබ ඇත.
එක්සත් ජනපදය පුරා ඉතා ඉහළ මට්ටමකින් ඡන්දය ප්රකාශ කිරීම සිදු වී ඇති බව වාර්තා වේ.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Arthur Arambepola
"ට්රම්ප් බලයට පත්වීම ලෝක විනාශය නොවුනද ට්රම්ප් වනාහී ඒ අසළටම ලෝකය ගෙන යැහැකි තරමේ අඥාන අහංකාරකමකින් යුතු කූට ජාවාරම්කාර දේශපාලනඥයෙකි. ඔහු නූගත්, ග්රාම්ය සහ සුදු ඇමෙරිකානු මහාජාතිකවාදයේ නියෝජිතයා ය. මෙවැනි පුද්ගලයකු මේතාක් එක්සත් ජනපදයේ ජනාධිපතිධුරයට පත් වී නැත. ට්රම්ප් නියෝජනය කළ රිපබ්ලිකන් පක්ෂයේ ප්රධානීන් ගණනාවක්ම ඔහුට ජන්දය පාවිච්චි කිරිමෙන් වැළකී සිටියේ ද ඔහු විසින් ඇති කල හැකි භයානක දේශපාලන ආර්ථික වර්ධනයන් ගැන තිබූ බිය නිසාය."
ඩොනල්ඩ් ට්රම්ප්, රාජිත සේනාරත්න සහ මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Dayananda Attanayake
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Nihal Ananda
Nihal Ananda
Putin Praises Trump...........,
Says President-Elect Will Understand New Responsibilities
“Because he achieved success in business, it suggests that he is a clever man.”
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is a clever man and will quickly understand his new responsibilities, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with NTV TV.
Putin has spoken previously of his hope that Trump will help restore U.S.-Russia relations, and analysts said he was unlikely to want to dial up anti-Western rhetoric before Trump’s inauguration in January.
“Trump was an entrepreneur and a businessman. He is already a statesman, he is the head of the United States of America, one of the world’s leading countries,” NTV quoted Putin as saying in the interview on www.ntv.ru on Sunday.
“Because he achieved success in business, it suggests that he is a clever man. And if (he is) a clever man, then he will fully and quite quickly understand another level of responsibility. We assume that he will be acting from these positions,” Putin said.
Putin’s comments appeared to address criticism from Trump’s opponents who say his unconventional actions since the election - including railing at the cast of a Broadway show and early-morning invective on Twitter - show Trump is out of his depth.
China lodged a diplomatic protest on Saturday after Trump spoke by phone with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, the first by a U.S. president-elect or president since Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging Taiwan as part of “one China”.
Speaking about Russia’s relations with the West, Putin said attempts to create a unipolar world had failed: “The situation is changing. I think it is not a secret to anyone, everyone sees it, that many of our partners already prefer to stick to principles of international law, because the world’s balance is being gradually restored.
Putin said when building relationships with other countries, Russia would respect their interests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putin-praises-clever-trump_us_58440893e4b0c68e0481671c
Kurundu Hewage Nandisena
ඔබාමා වෙනුවට – ට්රම්ප් ඔක්කොම හරි යයිද?
Posted on December 10, 2016 by Madanayaka in විදෙස් විශේෂාංග with 0 Comments
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+u...@googlegroups.com.
Amarasiri Gunawardena
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Kirthi Walgama
Dharmapala Gunawardena
ඕන්න රාජා පටලවා ගෙන ඉන්නෙ. පටලවාගෙන එන්න එපා. මා කිව්වේ මරාගේ මර උගුල් පැරදවීම වැරැද්දක් කියලා නොවෙයි. එහෙම නම් මාත් මහින්දගේ දුෂ්ට ඒකාධිපති පාලනයට 100% ක් ම විරුද්ධව තමයි හැම දෙනෙකුටම කීවේ ජ.වි.පෙ ට ඡන්දය දෙන්න කියල. නිකං හිතල බලන්න ඔය ඡන්දයේ ප්රතිඵලය විධියට ජ.වි.පෙ ට ආසන 20ක් පමණ ආවා නම් එය රටේ ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදය සුරැකීමටත් රනිල්ගේ කුණුවෙන ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදයට අභියෝග කිරීමටත් හැකිවෙනවා නේද? රටේ බහුතර ජනයාට මහින්දගේ සරණින් මිදී වෙනත් දේශපාලන මාවතක් ගැන හිතන්නට උදව් වෙනවා නේද? ඒකට වෙනස් වෙන්න තිබ්බෙ එක් දිස්ත්රික්කයකින් ඡන්ද 10000 ක් වගේ සුළු ප්රමාණයක්, ඒ ප්රමාණය ඔය රටේ ඉන්නා උගත් බුද්ධිමතුන් ප්රශිද්දියේ ජ. වි. පෙ. ට පක්ෂව ඉදිරිපත් වුනා නම් සිද්ධ වෙනවා කියල මා විශ්වාස කරනවා.
එහෙමයි මගේ අදහස වුනේ ඒ වෙලාවේ, හැබැයි රංජිත් දේවසිරි වගේ මනුස්සයෙක් හැර අනෙක් බොහෝ අයට තිබුන ලොකු බයක් මහින්ද රැඳේවිද කියල. මා කතා කරන්නේ මහ ඡන්දය ගැන. තවමත් මා විශ්වාස කරන්නේ ජ.වි.පෙ සහ කුමර් පාර්ශවය එක් කිරීමටත් එවැනි බලවේග ඉස්සරහට ගැනීමට රටේ උගත් මිනිසුන් වෙහෙස විය යුතුයි කියලා. ඔය ප්රධාන පක්ෂ දෙකේ සහ චන්ද්රිකා වැනි උන්ගේ හැසිරීම් ශ්වභාවය වෙනස් කළ හැක්කේ ඉන් පමණයි. බලය ගන්න අවශ්ය වන්නේ නැහැ. නමුත් ප්රධාන පක්ෂ දෙක කරන ගේම් එක නැවැත්විය යුතුයි. එත කොට තමයි ප්රජාතන්ත්රවාදයට ඉඩක් ලැබෙන්නේ.
Nihal Ananda
Donald J. TrumpI have chosen one of the truly great business leaders of the world, Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, to be Secretary of State.
Justin Hendrix@realDonaldTrump Donald. So sloppy. So obvious. But bubbly is flowing in the Kremlin! изменники #HesWithRUS 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCqLc5N_2NA&feature=youtu.be
Nihal Ananda
The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.
Bloomberg
Upali Sarath Wijesekara
Arthur Arambepola
ලංකාවේ විදේශ ඇමති තුමා මේ ගැන කියල තිබුණේ:
'Because the American system, I am sure, will steer the new administration along the same path, as far as international relations are concerned.’
( http://www.dailynews.lk/2016/11/13/local/98966 )
විදේශ ප්රතිපත්තියේ වෙනසක් වෙන්නේ නැතිවා වගේම අභ්යන්තර ප්රතිපත්තිවලත් ලොකු වෙනසක් වෙන්න බැරි බවයි බොහෝ දෙනා කියන්නෙ.
නුමුත් මීට වෙනස් මතයක් ප්රකාශ කරන ලිපියකට ලින්ක් එකක් පහත දැක්වෙනව. ඒක කියවපුවම නම් හිතෙන්නෙ අමෙරිකාවත් තුන්වෙනි ලෝකෙ රටක මට්ටමට වැටිල කියල.
"For Donald Trump, the presidency will be a vast stage for accommodating his megalomania and insatiable appetite for money. Those who mock, defy or anger him will feel the wrath of the state. Those who are not obsequious will be cast aside. He will invest most of his energy in his brand. Self-promotion is the only real talent he possesses. Corruption, already rife within the political system, will explode into a full-blown kleptocracy. Manufactured stories about Trump’s prowess, brilliance, sexual allure and goodness, as well as how America is becoming “great again,” will be pumped out by the White House smoke machine. He will demand encomiums that will become ever more outrageous. All love, devotion and allegiance will be to Trump."
http://www.slguardian.org/2016/12/trump-demagogue-in-chief/
Amarasiri Gunawardena
බටහිර අධිරාජ්යවාදය සහ ඇමෙරිකන් ආක්රමණිකයින් කල මිනීමරු යුද්ධය වැරදියි කියා කියන ආකාරය බලන්න. කුඩා දරුවන් ගැහැණුන් ඇතුළු ලක්ෂ සංඛ්යාත ජන සංඛ්යාවක් මරා දැන් මෙලෙස බහුබූත කතා කරන්නේ අධිරාජ්යවාදී ප්රාග්ධනයේ බලයෙන් මිස කුමන බලයකින්ද? තුන්වන ලෝකයේ රටවලට උපදෙස් දෙන්නට හෝ ඒ රටවල ප්රශ්ණ හඳුනා ගන්නට මේ අයට පුළුවන්ද? ෆැක්ටරියක තත්ව පාලනය හෝ කළමණාකරණ ගැටලුවක් විසඳිය හැකිවුවත් ඉතිහාසයක් ඇති රට වල තිබෙන සංකීර්ණ ගැටලු මේ අයට හඳුනාගත නොහැකි බව මින් පැහැදිලි නොවන්නේද?
Nissanka Rajapaksa
Nihal Ananda
Productivity in manufacturing increased more than the output of manufacturing. Therefore employment fell.
Nishantha Kamaladasa
Freelance Management Consultant
If you are interested in reading management in SINHALA please click the link belowwww.managementinsinhala.wordpress.com
Nihal Ananda
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/indraka.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "INDRAKA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to indraka+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Nihal Ananda
Russian-supported far-right movements throughout the world, which support has now come home to the U.S.A. The hacks (or leaks) are not the issue. Russia is not the issue. Reaction is the issue. Russia didn’t give us Trump, but Russia is tied up with Trump, and Trump is going to give us hell.
Sponsorship of ultra-right movements by moneyed interests would not ordinarily surprise anyone on the left. What confounds the debate is the perception that such sponsorship is seen—by both believers and skeptics—as originating in a self-seeking nation-state and its autocratic ruler, one with a communist history. But today, kleptocratic, capitalist Russia is among the moneyed interests in the world. It’s tempting but simplistic to see Russian leaders as a fairly narrow species of nationalist interlopers in U.S. domestic politics. More to the point, they are allied with germinating, reactionary forces internationally, if only lately inside the United States.
Right-wing movements in France, Great Britain, Hungary, and elsewhere do not lack domestic political support, and there is no reason to think they would not exist without Russian backing. In the same vein, Trump’s victory here is owed first and foremost to the Republican Party and its sponsors, to all the usual suspects we have been observing with revulsion for decades. In the context of domestic U.S. politics, Putin is not the dog; he’s the tail.
.............................Neo-cons and superannuated Cold Warriors elevate the Russian threat to ramp up national security paranoia. Defense contractors want to ramp up military spending.The possibility that the Russians’ meddling could provide them some geopolitical advantage, such as breaking up the EU and NATO or discrediting the U.S. electoral system (like we needed any help with that) looks huge but should be a secondary concern. Let the neo-cons worry about it. After all, for the left, great power rivalries are usually a distraction from the class struggle. Putin’s goals may be difficult to fathom, but his attempts to establish a presence in our politics are clear and unwelcome.
The truth of a Russian alliance with rightists does not appear to be controversial, but it suffers from a lack of deserved attention. These movements, need we be reminded, are viciously, violently racist, misogynist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and homophobic. Similar groups run amok in Russia itself with the apparent indulgence of the authorities. The Trump campaign has brought like-minded creatures out from under the rocks of the U.S. right.
2. Russia supports rightist formations in other countries. International solidarity, including with immigrants, women, and gays, demands opposition, not least to any Trump administration collaboration with such reactionary forces.
The U.S. welfare/regulatory state with all its flaws contains many seeds for a better system. Trump, with an assist from a cavalcade of shady backers, including Putin’s Russian oligarchy, threatens to uproot these seeds. It’s possible to exaggerate Putin’s role, but it would be wrong to discount it altogether. Any complete survey of the forces colluding against progressive goals must now include the Russian state..........
Nihal Ananda
We need an alternative to Trump’s nationalism. It isn’t the status quo
A clash of two insurgencies is now shaping the west. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic are on the sidelines, unable to comprehend what they are observing. Donald Trump’s inauguration marks its pinnacle.
One of the two insurgencies shaping our world today has been analysed ad nauseum. Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and the broad Nationalist International that they are loosely connected to have received much attention, as has their success at impressing upon the multitudes that nation-states, borders, citizens and communities matter.
However, the other insurgency that caused the rise of this Nationalist International has remained in the shadows: an insurrection by the global establishment’s technocracy whose purpose is to retain control at all cost. Project Fear in the UK, the troika in continental Europe and the unholy alliance of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the surveillance apparatus in the United States are its manifestations.
The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation’s illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world’s factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall Street closing the loop nicely).
Meanwhile, billions of people in the “third” world were pulled out of poverty while hundreds of millions of western workers were slowly sidelined, pushed into more precarious jobs, and forced to financialise themselves either through their pension funds or their homes. And when the bottom fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism’s illusions burned down and the west’s working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global establishment.
Thatcher’s and Reagan’s neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks.
After the events of 2008 something remarkable happened. For the first time in modern times the establishment no longer cared to persuade the masses that its way was socially optimal. Overwhelmed by the collapsing financial pyramids, the inexorable buildup of unsustainable debt, a eurozone in an advanced state of disintegration and a China increasingly relying on an impossible credit boom, the establishment’s functionaries set aside the aspiration to persuade or to represent. Instead, they concentrated on clamping down.
In the UK, more than a million benefit applicants faced punitive sanctions. In the Eurozone, the troika ruthlessly sought to reduce the pensions of the poorest of the poor. In the United States, both parties promised drastic cuts to social security spending. During our deflationary times none of these policies helped stabilise capitalism at a national or at a global level. So, why were they pursued?
Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that “my only limits are the ones I set myself”, or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters “requesting” predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system.
It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism’s Waterloo cannot be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of “our” people against “others” fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences.
The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the west sovereignty over their lives and communities.
