Gary Younge really nailed it there, I M H O. It’s too bad that Faux News is unlikely to air this very insightful opinion.
A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin Gilens & Benjamin Page, released last year, tracked 1800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 & 2002, & compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median-income Americans, the affluent, business interests, & powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich & their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule”, they wrote.
Trump the Chump, vote Democrat. (Unfortunately, that won’t be enough, though.)
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thoughtsays
Yep. He gets it right.
See also Right-wing populism in Europe for a collection of essays about the topic (various contributors; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral listed as editors)
Rich Woodssays
Gary Younge is one of the Guardian’s very best journalists. Until last year he and his family lived in the US (I think his wife is American), and his reports were always thoughtful and incisive. His election coverage was excellent; I hope they’ll send him back from time to time throughout this year.
blfsays
Basically just echoing what Rich Woods already said: Mr Younge is one of The Grauniad’s best writers.
Nick Gottssays
Younge is indeed correct. But it’s worth noting that there are also new left alternatives arising in a range of rich western countries: Sanders in the USA, Syriza in Greece*, Podemos in Spain, the Left Bloc in Portugal, Corbyn in the UK. Some long-existing parties have also taken a leftish turn: Sinn Fein in Ireland, the SNP in Scotland**.
* Yes, they retreated under immense pressure from the neoliberal forces Younge discusses, but it’s too early, in my opinion, to write them off.
** The Scottish political scence is complicated. The independence campaign was very much of the left, and the SNP almost wiped out Labour in last year’s UK elections, on an anti-austerity platform, but contains many pro-oligarchy elements, who just want to be the big fishes in a smaller pond. There are two significant electoral forces to its left, the Scottish Green Party, and the newly formed RISE (Respect, Independence, Socialism and Environmentalism) alliance.
In the absence of meaningful government financial regulation, one thing I think would help a lot is an alternative financial system that focuses on consumer protection and customer interests over profits. It would take a lot of serious money to set up, but I don’t see why, say, a chain of banks or mortgage brokers that actually delivers a fair deal to customers (as opposed to just promising one) can’t be both successful and profitable.
Not saying it would be easy, or that the entrenched interests would give them an easy ride, but it would be worth a try, if enough backers were willing to step forward.
(And no, I’m not talking about Bitcoin or some other libertarian fantasy.)
Not that I want to keep repeating myself but: this is one of the reasons why it is so critical not to let Hillary Clinton be the nominee. Actual populism is on the left, and it will be a serious disaster for the U.S. if DLC-style Democrats let the Republican Party become perceived as the “populist” one.
(Well, that and DLC-style Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel tend to be just plain evil and corrupt so they shouldn’t be elected no matter what banner they’re running under.)
I wish he hadn’t opened up by making fun of Trump’s hair. For fuck’s sake! Especially when he then followed it with a solid 3 minute critique of Trump based on the facts of Trump’s position. Picking on Trump’s hair is …. well, trumpish.
F.O.says
@tacitus #6: Credit unions and ethical banks?
Here in Oz there’s Bank Australia (was Bank Mecu) and a couple others.
davroslivessays
@Nick #5, slight comment on the fact that Sinn Fein has ALWAYS been outwardly leftist (indeed more or less socialist at some points during the Troubles), though like the SNP it’s also complicated at times (the rank and file weren’t necessary leftist, even if the leadership, and many imprisoned members were). I still hesitate at suggesting these to be anywhere near as important or influential as their equivalents on the right, but I suppose I should try to be optimistic. And the SNP at least has been showing its force, even though the parliamentary power it has right now is driven in some parts by popular nationalist concerns, not necessarily progressive concerns (though, having lived there, I can say that Scotland does seem more progressive than other parts of Britain)
numerobissays
Interestingly, the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois were nationalist, separatist, leftist parties. This is changing: the PQ has gotten an oligarch to take over the reins, and both have been riding waves of islamophobia to electoral victories in the regions (though it kills them in the cities).
laurentweppesays
Interestingly, the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois were nationalist, separatist, leftist parties. This is changing: the PQ has gotten an oligarch to take over the reins, and both have been riding waves of islamophobia to electoral victories in the regions (though it kills them in the cities).
Which is why I’ve never been very found of separatist parties, at least in pluralistic democracies: As Nick Gotts mentioned, you often find would-be princelings who view separatism as a way to become the bigger fishes in the smaller pond, and these careerists will never fail to use bigoted demagoguery to get their fancy bossman’s chairs and cars with drivers.
ck, the Irate Lumpsays
laurentweppe wrote:
Which is why I’ve never been very found of separatist parties, […] you often find would-be princelings who view separatism as a way to become the bigger fishes in the smaller pond,
Separatist parties are also implicitly nationalistic, even if they’re not nationalists for the country they’re a part of right now. That will attract those who wish to redefine their country with some ideal of purity and see separatism as a vehicle to carry out these aims.
Gary Younge really nailed it there, I M H O. It’s too bad that Faux News is unlikely to air this very insightful opinion.
A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin Gilens & Benjamin Page, released last year, tracked 1800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 & 2002, & compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median-income Americans, the affluent, business interests, & powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich & their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule”, they wrote.
Trump the Chump, vote Democrat. (Unfortunately, that won’t be enough, though.)
Yep. He gets it right.
See also Right-wing populism in Europe for a collection of essays about the topic (various contributors; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral listed as editors)
Gary Younge is one of the Guardian’s very best journalists. Until last year he and his family lived in the US (I think his wife is American), and his reports were always thoughtful and incisive. His election coverage was excellent; I hope they’ll send him back from time to time throughout this year.
Basically just echoing what Rich Woods already said: Mr Younge is one of The Grauniad’s best writers.
Younge is indeed correct. But it’s worth noting that there are also new left alternatives arising in a range of rich western countries: Sanders in the USA, Syriza in Greece*, Podemos in Spain, the Left Bloc in Portugal, Corbyn in the UK. Some long-existing parties have also taken a leftish turn: Sinn Fein in Ireland, the SNP in Scotland**.
* Yes, they retreated under immense pressure from the neoliberal forces Younge discusses, but it’s too early, in my opinion, to write them off.
** The Scottish political scence is complicated. The independence campaign was very much of the left, and the SNP almost wiped out Labour in last year’s UK elections, on an anti-austerity platform, but contains many pro-oligarchy elements, who just want to be the big fishes in a smaller pond. There are two significant electoral forces to its left, the Scottish Green Party, and the newly formed RISE (Respect, Independence, Socialism and Environmentalism) alliance.
In the absence of meaningful government financial regulation, one thing I think would help a lot is an alternative financial system that focuses on consumer protection and customer interests over profits. It would take a lot of serious money to set up, but I don’t see why, say, a chain of banks or mortgage brokers that actually delivers a fair deal to customers (as opposed to just promising one) can’t be both successful and profitable.
Not saying it would be easy, or that the entrenched interests would give them an easy ride, but it would be worth a try, if enough backers were willing to step forward.
(And no, I’m not talking about Bitcoin or some other libertarian fantasy.)
Not that I want to keep repeating myself but: this is one of the reasons why it is so critical not to let Hillary Clinton be the nominee. Actual populism is on the left, and it will be a serious disaster for the U.S. if DLC-style Democrats let the Republican Party become perceived as the “populist” one.
(Well, that and DLC-style Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel tend to be just plain evil and corrupt so they shouldn’t be elected no matter what banner they’re running under.)
I don’t see why, say, a chain of banks or mortgage brokers that actually delivers a fair deal to customers
In principle wouldn’t it be possible for someone to set up a bank that made only a sliver of profit?
I wish he hadn’t opened up by making fun of Trump’s hair. For fuck’s sake! Especially when he then followed it with a solid 3 minute critique of Trump based on the facts of Trump’s position. Picking on Trump’s hair is …. well, trumpish.
@tacitus #6: Credit unions and ethical banks?
Here in Oz there’s Bank Australia (was Bank Mecu) and a couple others.
@Nick #5, slight comment on the fact that Sinn Fein has ALWAYS been outwardly leftist (indeed more or less socialist at some points during the Troubles), though like the SNP it’s also complicated at times (the rank and file weren’t necessary leftist, even if the leadership, and many imprisoned members were). I still hesitate at suggesting these to be anywhere near as important or influential as their equivalents on the right, but I suppose I should try to be optimistic. And the SNP at least has been showing its force, even though the parliamentary power it has right now is driven in some parts by popular nationalist concerns, not necessarily progressive concerns (though, having lived there, I can say that Scotland does seem more progressive than other parts of Britain)
Interestingly, the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois were nationalist, separatist, leftist parties. This is changing: the PQ has gotten an oligarch to take over the reins, and both have been riding waves of islamophobia to electoral victories in the regions (though it kills them in the cities).
Which is why I’ve never been very found of separatist parties, at least in pluralistic democracies: As Nick Gotts mentioned, you often find would-be princelings who view separatism as a way to become the bigger fishes in the smaller pond, and these careerists will never fail to use bigoted demagoguery to get their fancy bossman’s chairs and cars with drivers.
laurentweppe wrote:
Separatist parties are also implicitly nationalistic, even if they’re not nationalists for the country they’re a part of right now. That will attract those who wish to redefine their country with some ideal of purity and see separatism as a vehicle to carry out these aims.
Charles Stross said something similar. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/01/long-range-forecast.html