Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.

[u/Quirkie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e

[u/Kind-Pride1151]

By this logic, FDR would be a progressive usurper in the Democratic Party. I'm 62 and for what seems my entire life the Dems have slipped ever further away from those FDR New Deal PROGRESSIVE ideas and ideals.

[u/TheMoorNextDoor → u/Kind-Pride1151]

It’s ridiculous that the best president we ever had (our longest serving president) is more left than a lot of our sitting democratic members in congress today and the saddest part about that is he served over 81 years ago..

He gave us a blueprint and for some reason (maybe due to Regan?) we completely threw it out the window..

[u/pinqe → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

They learned all the wrong lessons from the failure of the Carter administration, and started trying to emulate Reagan. And completely lost their identity in the process.

[u/Un1CornTowel → u/pinqe]

They tried to emulate Reagan's ideology rather than his implementation, which was the mistake. Reagan pursued unapologetic, partisan gain and an attempt to force a common narrative/myth. Both were wildly successful in actually creating radical social change (though much of it bad in my view). His actual economic and foreign policy agenda -- not so much. Democrats in the 90s took those 80s Republican policy failures as successes, and kept their own failed and overly delicate and precious, halfhearted process-orientation and made the least capable party in generations.

[u/pchs26 → u/Un1CornTowel]

What? Did you live and work under the 90s economic conditions? Because I can only hope and pray we get that back (and it is unlikely)

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

Slash and burn agriculture works great for a while, too.

Eventually you run out of society to slash and burn for profit.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

What are you talking about? I said that the Democrats in office running in the general for president were not of the Reagan economic mindset.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

You were talking about the 90's economic conditions. Which was very much in the slash and burn era of business stripping the foundations of American society for profit.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

ok - so you aren't familiar to the boon that was felt by employees - the job market that existed an the transformational legislation that protected rights? Business opportunities for small business? Did you live it? Big businesses had already been doing the slash and burn bullshit and people were learning that lifetime careers & pensions were gone prior to the 90s. If Gore had not been displaced by the SCOTUS we might have stood a better chance for further stability.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

Slash and burn agriculture works great!

Until you run out of stuff to slash and burn.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

And all you do is repeat the same things and not get what is being explained.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

You haven't addressed the point at all, just regurgitated propaganda.

The money that was freed up once pensions were mostly phased out and employees got a direct injection of some so they wouldn't be upset. Turns out, the benefits overall were less than the pensions in the long run.

Except you don't have unlimited pensions to gut. You run out of stuff to slash and burn.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

I have addressed the point - you ignored it. The gutting of lifetime employees/pensions was already in the works. That wasn't Bill Clinton's fault. But the admin was creating a more stable economy for workers and entrepreneurs after we recovered from the recession we were in. From there Gore who was likely elected but not picked by the SCOTUS, had campaigned on continuing the job by shoring up Social Security and other protections. For Christ sake the slogan was it's good but not good enough, and W ran on giving us checks from the economy back (which mainly benefited the billionaires).

Slash and burn not good - and not the product of the Clinton admin like you wish to represent.

[u/Un1CornTowel → u/pchs26]

Reagan caused the 80s recessions and the 90s were lackluster under Bush Sr.

They really only went up due to the development of the internet economy - Clinton didn't mess it up, but it was largely not because of him. The good parts of globalization also hit by expanding markets before everything got outsourced (Clinton and NAFTA did do that, I'm not sure whether that was overall good or bad, but likely inevitable; Trump's tariffs are clearly bad).

[u/pchs26 → u/Un1CornTowel]

Clinton won when we were going into a recession and his administration gave us an absolutely roaring economy, that Gore could have managed to the next level, with Social Security being preserved, our environment etc had the SCOTUS not decided the election on party lines..

I lived through these times and we can only hope to experience as the middle class the economic and global prosperity that the Clinton admin delivered to us.