1. There's an argument going around, articulated most forcefully by @nytdavidbrooks, that now is not the time for the Democrats to embrace Sanders' social democratic agenda because the economy is growng.pic.twitter.com/UXbAvWWvlg
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
3. The very book Brooks cites in his article makes the opposite point he thinks it does. The whole point of Benjamin Friedman's “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth,” is growing economies make people not just more tolerant but also more receptive to progressive policies.
4. The Great Depression skews people's memories, but it's important to understand the timing because it lasted so long: the Depression hit in 1929, bottomed out in 1932/33 -- thus doing FDR a favor by totally discrediting Hoover & the GOP.
5. FDR benefitted from the uspwing of 1934-1936 to start on reform. He then self-sabotaged by adopting austerity too soon (creating a mini-recession of 1937-1938). But larger reform agenda flourished again after wartime & post-war booms: the era of mass unionization & GI Bill
6. Aside from complex & special case of New Deal, periods of robust economic growth (early 20th century, 1960s) are the ones where progressive economy policy is most likely to succeed. People feel more secure, see wealth isn't being share & push for it.
7. The great recession of 2008 bottomed out in 2010. We've had 10 years of economic growth. Unemployment is low. Wages haven't kept up. There is an affordability crisis. Now is the best time to push for expanded social democracy since 1960s. More here:https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/democratic-socialism-economy-primary/ …
8. The above argument centers around Sanders because that was Brooks' target. But it also applies to Warren, who doesn't call herself a social democrat but is offering a nearly equally ambitious program of economic overhaul. It's one I think is sellable, more now than ever.
Conservatives have entered that stage of the grieving process called bargaining.
Correct - and was when even most of the wealthy were being affected. However, we had the chance in 2008 to do just this, but the rich truly weren’t hurt. In fact, they were the ones provided with the most assistance, as the conventional wisdom is that we need them.
The poor and middle class are easily replaceable in their mindset, so even though the economy is doing well for the well off (and not getting worse for the rest, so hooray for the hamster wheel of middle class?), any struggles with the 99% are bootstrap-related.
No matter how many times Bernie and his stans make the false claim, "Democratic Socialism" is not Social Democracy. If Bernie were a Social Democrat he could say so. He has said for fifty years that he is a Socialist. Believe him.
A democratic socialist is a type of socialist. Sanders saying he is a socialist doesn’t make him a Stalinist. Sanders’ 30 years as a mayor, rep and Senator demonstrates that he is committed to democracy as well as socialism.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.