Subscribe: Library Chronicles
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
care  clinton  economic  hour  issues  it’s  palmieri  people  politics  talking donors  talking  voters  working people  working   
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Library Chronicles

Library Chronicles

Paradise plastic. Cheap and fantastic.

Updated: 2017-02-24T15:37:13.665-06:00


Six Flags: So Very Tired



Anyway, par for the course. Wait a few months and we'll see if they're all in the same room frowning at the same group of applicants again.

They're just talking to donors


It's fine to go through the all the trouble of explaining why the Clintonista messaging is so hollow and cynical and generally useless particularly for the current political climate. But, really, all you have to understand is that when they say things as thoroughly tone deaf as, "It's about Nordstrom, not Fight For Fifteen" they are talking to donors and not to voters.
There are a few issues to note here. First, if anyone wondered whether Clinton Democrats would have learned that they needed to care more about economic issues, the answer is no. Palmieri, like Nancy Pelosi, does not sense any need to respond to the economic populism that led 13 million voters toward Bernie Sanders in the primary and helped Trump win crucial Rust Belt states. The standard progressive criticism of Clintonian centrism is that it values racial diversity and inclusive gender politics, but it actually doesn’t care about lifting the living standards of working-class people of any race or gender. Palmieri confirms that this impression is no myth; it’s “all about identity” these days, and we shouldn’t assume people want $15 an hour. (Is there actually anyone who doesn’t want $15 an hour?) And “power,” to this contingent of Democrats, is about whether you shop at Neiman Marcus or not. It’s not about, say, power in the workplace.

But there’s a separate important question to ask: what is Palmieri actually talking about here? Look again at the above paragraph. It’s almost totally without meaning. What is “a safer place to be”? What does “it’s all about identity” even imply? Yes, one gets the fact that she’s rejecting calls to adopt more progressive economic policies, and that she thinks doing politics means deciding which expensive department store to shop at. But the most striking thing about the statement is its utter vacuousness. She wants to be supportive and empowering, but we get almost no specifics as to what that entails. (Palmieri also said that voters were “scared” rather than “angry,” a distinction just about as clear and useful as the one between “greatness” and “goodness” in the baffling Clinton slogan “America is great because America is good.”)
Of course, also, they don't actually care about working class people's issues. But mostly what's happening is they were taught that the way to do politics is to reassure the donor class first. And that's all they know how to do.