Matt StollerOvjeren akaunt

@matthewstoller

Author, "Goliath: The Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy" published by . Fellow at the Open Markets Institute.

Washington, DC
Vrijeme pridruživanja: ožujak 2007.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @matthewstoller

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @matthewstoller

  1. Prikvačeni tweet

    My book, Goliath: The Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, is out in mid-October. Americans once challenged corporate power, but the 1970s Watergate Baby generation rejected this tradition, embraced monopoly, and destabilized politics.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    This reminds me I need to read Goliath. Also the psychological resistance to admitting that your view of the world is *wrong* cannot be overstated, particularly if your job and self esteem are based on knowing how things work. Of course people don't want to face that, it hurts.

    Poništi
  3. 17. At any rate, to really understand the rebellion going on in both parties, you have to get into the guts of banks and corporate power.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    Poništi
  6. 16. So listen to . If you can't incorporate the financial crisis, the role of big money philanthropy or big tech into your understanding of politics, then it's time to do some learning. Learning is good.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 15. The only people who are making the case about economic power being meaningful are socialists, like Jacobin , and Michael Lind. And now, populists. The politics and institutions are aligning. Bernie/Warren in politics. Antitrust investigations.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 14. It's time though to recognize that our political errors repeated over and over for decades, are a result of a flawed historical, where we read power out of economic exchange. Giant media and tech and banking enterprises matter in our politics. They just do.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 13. There's still a deep reluctance to recognize what is clearly happening even as it's happening. I've found deep anger at my argument, more from the left than the right. Because I don't excuse my side from having caused the mess we're in.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 12. Both parties missed it. The refused to admit any errors under George W. Bush, insisting it was all inevitable. They put up Mitt Romney. Then Obama boosters saw Romney's weakness as validation of their own poor choices. Even when Trump blew everything up.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 11. As elevated the debate over Obamacare, the tectonic shifts in American politics happened over the bailouts, trade and foreclosure crisis. That's what we had been told to ignore as not part of relevant politics. I noted this in 2012.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 10. What's so insane about the view that polarization comes from ordinary people engaging in tribalism and sorting into parties is that it ignores policy choices in the 1980s/1990s/2000s to elevate Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, MSNBC, and then big tech.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 9. So did Trump! Trump had a sort of weird grasping but protectionist view from the 1980s, in which economic exchange among countries was all about power. It's much closer to traditional American views of trade than neoliberalism is.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 8. But had a different view. He had been fighting against corporate cronyism since the 1970s, as well as for unionization. Same with . She had trained on and rejected neoliberalism. They had a different view of history, rooted in institutions.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 7. Dems learned that banking was just technical not political. Socialists had learned their view that all of this was inevitable. Both forms of history left us inert, irrelevant. But Geithner and Bernanke knew their history. They sought to stop, not a depression, but a New Deal.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 6. But I realized this narrative was wrong, terribly so, in 2009, when I was working in Congress and we on the left literally had nothing to offer as the banks collapsed. We just had no historical framework to see banking power as political. We just didn't know.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 5. This narrative, of politics without power, comes from elite Democrats in academia traumatized by Joe McCarthy and what they perceived as the risk of mass politics. There's a line from Columbia University in the 1950s to the Hillary Clinton campaign 'deplorables.'

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 4. The conversation on politics remained totally stuck in the 1950s, with psychological theories and medicalization of anger, along with 'responsible party theory' to explain politics purely as process/race. And it stays there today. See 's book "Why We're Polarized."

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 3. Mass layoffs in the 1990s from Clinton's policies re: defense contractor monopolies induced enormous anger from white men and their families whose lives were destroyed. Huge political impacts with consolidation in agri-business, banking, media, tech. And yet...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 2. Let's take a problem very few think about on the left. The collapse of military effectiveness/capacity because Bill Clinton consolidated defense contractors. Who opposed that? Turns out in 1996 it was... Congressman .

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 1. Many of us in politics, depending on age, have seen these tensions for 5, 15, 25, 35 years. But we have been stymied because the broad historical narrative elite types know is wrong, written without banks and corporate power. It's why I wrote Goliath.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·