Coffee Party News
80
Fact-based, solutions-oriented, people-powered news for the 99%
Follow
Scooped by Coffee Party USA onto Coffee Party News
Scoop.it!

Obama’s daring liberal agenda is neither daring nor liberal. Discuss.

Obama’s daring liberal agenda is neither daring nor liberal. Discuss. | Coffee Party News | Scoop.it

Excerpt from piece by Zachary A. GoldfarbWashington Post
 

Opinion polls show that on almost all of the major positions Obama espoused in his speech — entitlements, immigration, climate change and same-sex marriage — a majority of Americans agree with him.

By that measure, Obama did not advance a liberal agenda. A consequential one, certainly, but one that reflects centrist views or center-left ones at most. The agenda seems liberal only when judged against the liberal-conservative divide we’re used to in Washington.

Over the past four years, politics in the nation’s capital has been consumed by the fight between the president and tea party Republicans.

But because Obama is far closer to the center than the tea party is, what counts as middle ground in Washington is more conservative than the political center nationwide. In this setting, even centrist proposals face mighty legislative hurdles.


Beyond the capital’s divisions, citizens across the country resist the “liberal” label — even though polls showthat they tend to hold liberal positions on individual issues. Political scientists call this “symbolic” vs. “operational” ideology.


According to one poll, 74 percent of Americans support regulating greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. According to another, 68 percent oppose cutting spending on Medicaid, the public health insurance program for the poor. And other polls show that more than half of Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a vast majority opposecuts in education or transportation funding, and a slim majority support same-sex marriage. [MORE]

Coffee Party USA's insight:

We're no longer a "center right nation." But is our national conversation framed by what the People think, or by what politicians, pundits, and lobbyists tell us we think? In the age of social media, how much longer will we allow them to tell us what we think? —Eric Byler

Niccolo Casewit's curator insight, January 27, 9:44 AM

We should not confuse the media with the people's opinion.

Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Coffee Party USA
Scoop.it!

Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams

Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams | Coffee Party News | Scoop.it

Via Larry Lessig we get series of Venn diagrams showing the revolving door between big business and government. When people talk about regulatory capture, this is what they mean. When people talk about corruption and crony capitalism, this is what they mean. If you want a quick visual idea of why so few people trust this government to do the right thing for the people, rather than the big companies, this is why. [MORE diagrams]

Coffee Party USA's insight:

A great diagram for every citizen to gaze upon! Thank You Larry Lessig of Harvard Law. Great Visual! Your friend Aaron would be proud of you.


Rene Thompson's comment, March 6, 4:57 PM
Why not do both parties?
Monica S Mcfeeters's comment, March 7, 3:36 PM
This is most likely incomplete or it may also be due to the fact that we have a Democratic president filling jobs at the moment. It seems to record mostly those current positions that overlapped in earlier periods & show up in both parties. There does appear to be influence no matter which party is in charge.
Monica S Mcfeeters's comment, March 11, 11:21 AM
Also Aaron died as a result of Obama's (Bush's to a lesser degree) push to promote a cyberwar defenses and offenses and part of that means capturing and cornering talent like Aaron's to work for the government and corporate interest. I think many people don't realize that the Republicans aren't the only ones not playing in all the various power games fairly. All of them are reaching for the power of the web and being not clearly in control of it is scary to the so called and sometimes elected "ruling class" of all governments and businesses. The cyberwar is real and citizens all over the planet need to be fully aware that it may be the most serious war of all times and hold their own share of that power through activism, shopping habits and sending strong messages to officials all over the globe. The fight isn't just out of country hacks....It is over who will control the voice and the messages of the planet and the power it gives to many groups like this and totally different groups from this to connect to one another and collectively and individually seek answers to problems and discoveries we can't even imagine. And the longing to hold on to the old power structure is now challenged more than ever in history if people all over the world don't pay attention they will lose the war and never know it happened. Aaron's army goes on to make sure that doesn't happen. His death shows how serious all governments are taking this war. He faced more years in jail than a murderer in most states and all he was trying to do was make knowledge available as a cultural share. Now that's a scary odd war like we've never seen, but it is clearly real.
Scooped by Coffee Party USA
Scoop.it!

Presidential Election 2012 To Play Out On New Campaign Finance Field

Presidential Election 2012 To Play Out On New Campaign Finance Field | Coffee Party News | Scoop.it

BY PAUL BLUMENTHAL for Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- As Rick Santorum exits the Republican presidential primary campaign stage right and Newt Gingrich wallows in a sea of debt, the general election match-up between President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney begins in earnest. Thanks to a sea change in campaign finance laws brought about by the Supreme Court and a shift in fundraising norms driven by Obama's decision to opt out of presidential matching funds in 2008, this campaign will be unlike any other in recent memory.


The 2012 contest will be the first since 1972 in which neither major-party candidate will accept presidential matching funds in the general election. Both Obama and Romney will be free to raise as much money as they can and spend as much money as possible. The campaign will also be the first since the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money was implemented in which unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and the wealthiest Americans will play a major, if not pivotal, role. [MORE]

No comment yet.
Scooped by Coffee Party USA
Scoop.it!

Don’t take the Bain bait

Don’t take the Bain bait | Coffee Party News | Scoop.it

by DAVID SIROTA, Salon.com

Regardless of whether the Obama campaign’s attack ad on Bain Capital is 100-percent accurate, its overarching message — and that of similar ads – is crystal clear. As embodied by Joe Soptik’s quote, the basic argument is that Mitt Romney is a particularly bad guy for laying off workers, ruining communities and making bank as a private equity magnate at Bain Capital.

But while Romney’s bragging about his time allegedly creating jobs certainly makes the Obama assault fair, it doesn’t make that assault constructive. Yes, it might help win Obama a few votes in a single election, and it might be a reasonable way to figure out whether Romney really has created jobs, but it subtly forwards a destructive fallacy about the root of America’s economic crisis: Namely, that the problem stems from a few especially evil individuals like Romney, not from an entire system that both Romney and Obama support.

The history of this system is well-known. Thanks to a campaign finance system that allows for a legal form of bribery, our laws have been sculpted to permit private equity firms to make a handsome profit from buying up honest businesses, loading them up with debt and dumping them into bankruptcy — all while hurting workers by raiding their pensions, slashing their benefits and laying many of them off. And even using the word “permit” doesn’t reveal the whole truth because those laws don’t just allow private equity firms to do this, they essentially require such cutthroat moves if making them is the best way to maximize profits for a private equity firm’s shareholders. (Yes, executives can be successfully sued for taking actions that are not solely in the interest of maximizing profits.)

MORE: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/dont_take_the_bain_bait/singleton/ 

No comment yet.