In the Democratic primaries, the race comes down to a contest between the idealistic appeal of Bernie Sanders and the incrementalist defend-what-we-already-have technocracy of Hillary Clinton.
The Thrilling Appeal of Incrementalism
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
26 Comments. Leave new
Speaking of incrementalism, did anyone else see how Clinton’s six percentage point lead simply faded away all through the evening? You know, in small increments.
My question for the group. O’Malley got 8 “votes.” Clinton has 699, Sanders 695. I just don’t have the patience to delve into the arcana of how the caucuses work. Can he give/pledge/award those eight votes to either candidate? Is it up to his supporters?
Interesting question. I would guess not, but I don’t really know.
What matters is how the representatives to the Democratic National Convention vote. My understanding is that it’s just like your representatives to the electoral college. While it’s expected that they will carry out the will of the electorate, they aren’t legally obligated to do so.
50-50 in Iowa yesterday. That’s just astounding considering that Bernie was a total dark horse, ungroomed by the DNC, snubbed by the press, etc.
That’s the bump he needed, he’s no longer unelectable, and we now have a real horse race going.
yeeeeeeeeHA!
I have a question primarily for Jack, but also whoever wants to respond.
What is globalism and why is it bad?
I can explain how we on the nationalist or libertarian Right see it. Globalism refers to the aim of our elites to centralize power supranationally in a New World Order. These elites have no loyalties to their own peoples; they don’t value different individuals or even entire peoples–we may as well all be one generic mud race of indebted, hyperconsumer drones. They have no real values to speak of. They don’t believe people have a right to self-government or self-determination. It’s not that they don’t believe that more localized government can be more responsive to people, they simply do not care. They are only interested in the profits of their multinational corporations and consolidation of their control over humanity. The globalist elite uses entire nations as private mercenaries. They sow chaos everywhere they can, and then step in to offer to solve the problems they’ve created. George Soros’ ‘work’ in Ukraine is a prime example.
They work through NATO, the UN, the EU, central banks, NGOs, and “free trade” deals. They stop at nothing to get power out of the hands of the people. They believe the whole world is theirs to police. It should be obvious by this description that the globalists are those in power in the West today. They style themselves Masters of the Universe and we little people should be so lucky to be lorded over by them. They are “the enemies of all mankind.”
That’s the gist of it.
But my dear «Jack Heart», what is all this talk of «real values» and «a right to self-government or self-determination» ? Whatever happened to «personal responsibility», which hitherto has been your mantra ? That chap with the cup is obviously a failure, and has no one to blame but himself ! To argue otherwise is to deviate from the true path of libertarianism – the next thing we know you’ll be celebrating the nanny state and organising rallies for Bernard Solomon Sanders !…
Henri
Real values, self-gov’t, and self-determination in no way include handouts, nor do they exclude responsibility. The contradiction you believe you see exists only in your convoluted imagination.
Because we have a rigged system rather than a free market economy, it is difficult to tell whether “that chap with a cup” is really a failure. When you run into such people, feel free to donate your own money, but know that other people’s money is not yours to confiscate and redistribute how you see fit.
In my town I’ve given money to several beggars. All but one turned out to con artists. But he was a Vietnam veteran who should have therefore been helped by gov’t. Since he wasn’t helped, I helped him instead each of the few times I saw him, not just because he needed it or deserved it (and much more), but because I believed he had earned it.
I’m sure this is all lost on you though.
Jack, what is the ethnic or national identity, for the most part, of these globalist elites?
Jack,
Well of course the system is rigged! The thing about competition is, somebody eventually wins. It’s a fight to the death, and if you want to win you have to cheat while convincing your opponent that he really ought to follow the rules. Once the big fish swallow up all the little fish, then they rig the system with what are called in business, “barriers to entry.” This is raw capitalism at its finest. This is what the system produces. If you had gone to business school or read Lenin’s “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism” you would know this.
No offense Jack, but according to the standards of the American capitalist system, if you’re not a billionaire, you are also a failure. You are not against private property and capital accumulation so why are you mad at the elites? Because they cheated to win? Why didn’t you do the same?
Jack, you see the world very differently from the way I do. For you, everything is filtered through a national-cultural-ethnic-tribal worldview. I see things from a class perspective. If you want to get philosophical about it I guess one could say that neither point of view is necessarily wrong, but that we simply have different values, ideals and goals that we want to achieve.
Here are my responses to some points you made about globalism:
“Globalism refers to the aim of our elites to centralize power supranationally in a New World Order.”
The capital of this NWO is in Washington, D.C. The elites behind this scheme are the American ruling class, the big bourgeois billionaires, the 1%. The US has hegemonic control over most of the world already, but wants to conquer the entire planet.
“one generic mud race of indebted, hyperconsumer drones ”
Interesting that you used the word “drones” that can mean a deadbeat leech on society. Was that deliberate? Also interesting that you don’t mention the exploitation of labor. Before any wealth can be created to generate that debt and consumption, labor must be exploited – wage slavery. You deny the existence of class, but these “drones” as you have described constitute a class.
“They have no real values to speak of . . . They are only interested in the profits of their multinational corporations and consolidation of their control over humanity.”
Sorry, but here you contradict yourself. They have no real values, except profits and to control all of humanity (in an effort to make more profits I would add). Power is no good until you use it to do something – like capture more wealth for yourself. Again we have a clearly defined social class – what I would call the big bourgeoisie as opposed to the petty bourgeois (what I think you are) and the proletarian / working class majority.
“The globalist elite uses entire nations as private mercenaries . . . George Soros’ ‘work’ in Ukraine is a prime example.”
These globalist elites are some group of “others,” not real Americans I suppose you would say. Did you mention Soros because he is a Jew? Is it your view, false in my opinion, that Soros is playing the American elites just as he would the Ukrainians, Russians, Chinese, Bulgarians, whoever? The way I see it is that Soros is nothing more than a CIA asset. He is a member of the American ruling class working to further US dominance over the world.
“They work through NATO, the UN, the EU, central banks, NGOs, and “free trade” deals . . .”
Strangely, from my point of view, the primary culprit and ringleader is not mentioned – the US. When people gripe about NATO I really wish they would just say US. NATO is the US. Also, with mention of “central banks” we have the strange bourgeois libertarian fixation on currency, on superficial aspects or institutions of the US capitalist system.
“the globalists are those in power in the West today”
Again, the “globalists” seem to be foreign; they are outsiders. Conservatives don’t see homegrown enemies within the tribe, just outsiders. Any enemies within their group were apparently enticed and turned by an evil OUTSIDE force.
I things first from a reality perspective. The reality is that we have to live in some harmony with our own biological parameters and limitations. Sex and family are critical considerations in structuring society and finding personal fulfillment. And then I look to maximize justice and freedom. I find class considerations unimportant because I advocate a free enterprise system, within which people would have utmost economic mobility rendering class so fluid as to be insignificant.
Most of these elites are Jews* and whites. Since for the most part we only see the puppets rather than the puppeteers, there is no saying for sure. At this point anyone just looks silly who would argue that a hugely disproportionate amount of entertainment, banking, news, lobbying groups, etc. are not owned by Jews.
*This is the obligatory disclaimer that not all Jews are bad. In fact I admire a great many of them! But fat lot of good saying this will do.
It sounds as though I consider the elites foreign because I do. They live physically in gated communities as well as ideologically in bubbles. They have nothing in common with ordinary Americans but citizenship. They do not share our values or concerns and pursue not American interests abroad but the interests of this elite.
I did say “our elites.” I am American. I said NATO because it is a supranational organization and that was the focus of the post. Absolutely it is merely an arm of the US elite, but as we have seen on the issue of sanctions on Russia, so is the EU. And when I said, “The globalist elite uses entire nations as private mercenaries,” I meant the US as the prime nation. The US is also just an arm of the globalists.
And don’t forget that Soros is “American” as well as a billionaire and I would think according to your own statements therefore a ringleader rather than a mere CIA asset. I won’t discount the possibility but find it unlikely in light of his enormous personal monetary efforts. I mentioned him because his Ukrainian adventures are just so visible. Of course, I would argue that Mr. Putin thwarted the globalists in that case. He didn’t give them the overt invasion they wanted.
I believe in competition, which our elites loathe. I believe in the invisible hand of the market, which the elites have amputated by distorting true price information by legislating countless market interferences. As I’ve said, I believe in free markets, so I oppose barriers to entry. Likewise, I oppose all central economic planning, which is what central banks do. And quite frankly if you do believe that central banking is a “superficial aspect…of the US capitalist system,” you have a huge gap in your knowledge. It is the *penultimate* institution. No honest, sane person believes that wealth can be created by accounting shenanigans or running printing presses. It’s all illusory. These people are deceivers and often self-deceivers (see: Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke).
And I have not denied the existence of class. I just don’t believe in its import as a rigid identifier or organizing principle.
I simply said “drones” because they want us numb and mindless…
And no, with fiat currency and central banking, labor “exploitation” is not the primary method. The only reason America is still tottering along, is because Americans have been forced to spend *credit.* They spent money that doesn’t really exist because they don’t have enough money of their own. Makes sense, right? Krugman and Bernanke think so.
And ironically enough, before you said “we see the world very differently” I was thinking we were more similar than I first believed.
FWIW, your comments here of late have easily been the most stimulating. This place is usually quite the echo chamber. I keep in mind Ted’s lesson that all anti-establishment forces should unite against the elite and once victory is gained, then we’ll sort things out between ourselves.
Good to see, «Jack Heart», that in your no doubt infinite wisdom you know who has» (and, of course, who has not) earned the right to a decent living standard. A better demonstration of why public support for those who are unable to support themselves is vastly preferable to the sort of caritas people like yourself may choose to give – or to withhold….
But I am certain that all this is lost on you….
Henri
Yeah, Soros is more than just a mere asset, he is definitely part of the ruling class.
I agree as well that we need an alliance of the proles and the petty bourgies against the 1%, but I have to draw the line at white supremacy. It’s really bad.
Also, I don’t mind nationalism with a little “n,” so to speak. There is a place for Anglo-Saxons among the community of nations. They should not be allowed to dominate nor should they be repressed if they can treat other nations / cultures as equals and live in peace.
Traditions like religion and family are okay, but you have to keep at least one foot grounded in reality. Family values are cool too, but if that means the wife stays barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I say that’s bad.
No, henri, I just have my own opinions and my own money to use as I see fit. As does anyone else.
You often like to mock me as if I’ve figured everything out and am oh so conceited (i.e. “In your infinite wisdom”), yet it is you and your ilk who believe you best know how to spend everyone else’s money. Funny that.
Prolecenter,
I am for nationalism for all peoples. Crimea had a right to choose to rejoin Russia. The Kurds deserve their own state. And each European nation should be free of the yoke of the EU bureaucrats.
I have never really understood who wants to keep their wives from wearing socks, but I do find it self-evident that a woman with a husband and children is far more fulfilled than one with only a career though they may not always understand this. They’re often afflicted with the grass is greener syndrome.
«Opinions» – hopefully at least to some degree related to the topics depicted in the cartoons of which these are the commentary threads – are precisely what we debate here, «Jack Heart» – why then the whinging («You often like to mock me …»), when the inconsistencies and the sheer absurdities of (some of) your opinions are pointed out ? As a matter of fact, we agree to a degree which may well surprise both of us when it comes to the would-be globalist masters of the Universe, whose attempts to maintain and widen their global hegemony endanger us all. But when you post comments like «but I do find it self-evident that a woman with a husband and children is far more fulfilled than one with only a career though they may not always understand this.», you give yourself away – why do you choose «a woman» to represent the lack of fulfillment suffered, in your view (how can you pretend to know ?), by those who don’t choose to live in a heterosexual nuclear family ? Your views concerning the manner in which other people choose to live and the degree of fulfillment resulting from their choices are hardly «libertarian» – if that term does, indeed, refer to those who support personal liberty to arrange one’s life without outside interference (myself, I suspect that without such interference, our species could not exist – the question is rather how to protect our liberties, among them that of choosing the nature of our intimate relations, within the framework of society as a whole (which latter we must be able work to change))….
Henri
Without bothering to address Jack’s paranoid delusions (which sound just a heck of a lot like DanD’s)
We (humans) are no longer a bunch of small, isolated, tribes. We have global scale problems. Fixing those problems will take global cooperation, and therefore global coordination.
We also have a global community and a global economy, it’s better to recognize that which already exists rather than acting as if it doesn’t.
CH, I completely agree.
We (Americans) are no longer safe. We have terrorism problems. Fixing those problems will take TSA pat-downs, as well as NSA spying.
We have global terrorism and a domestic spying apparatus; it’s better to recognize that which already exists rather than acting as if it doesn’t.
@prolecenter – that’s a step in the right direction, and the first step towards agreeing on a solution is to agree on the problem.
@jack: “We (Americans) are no longer safe. We have terrorism problems.”
In this case, you are acting as if something exists when it does not. At least, not to the degree which your puppet masters would have you believe. In 2014, more Americans were killed by toddlers with guns than by terrorists. In 2015, 22 Americans were killed by terrorists – including Christian terrorists shooting up medical clinics – while lightning killed around thirty.
Yet you don’t seem to be at all worried by the lightning or the toddlers with guns, even though they are a far bigger threat.
Obviously, somebody’s been lying to you. Once you figure out who and why, you will have taken your first faltering steps towards true freedom.
As expected it went right over your head. For the elites both terrorism or any other global problems are just opportunities to expand their power. They’re just counting on you believing you need to give it to them because after all they’ll do good with it, right? Right?
Then again, we are talking about organized violence by people (terrorism). Not unpreventable natural occurrences (lightning). I’m sure your position is that we wait until we have another horrific mass attack before we consider terrorism to be much of a problem.
Global problems can be tackled between nations without creating permanent organizations or semi-permanent agreements that both remove power from the people.
“For the elites both terrorism or any other global problems are just opportunities to expand their power. They’re just counting on you believing you need to give it to them because after all they’ll do good with it, right?”
That’s RIGHT Jack! Very good! You get a gold star! :: clapping ::
… and you quite obviously believe it, just like they counted on. You intent to vote for an elite who wants to expand his power by legalizing torture, mass incarceration, collective punishment, and religious discrimination.
… but he’ll just do good with it, right? Right?
Incrementalism as such is neither appealing or unappealing, it is a symptom of a greater problem. Some might say that globalism is the cause, but what is happening is that as the world becomes more and more connected and competitive, there are some people that will benefit from this, and others that do not. Darwin comes to mind. There is not much that can be done immediately or quickly to make everything “fair” for everyone, so things like incrementalism raise their head. The real problem can be summed up or described in many ways, but lately, my observation is that “When the going gets tough, the tough abuse the less fortunate”.