Elections Hillary will be President.

[Jack V Savage]

For a political candidate to be strictly "anti-establishment", with no qualifier whatsoever, their policy positions would have to fall entirely outside, to left or right, of the entire Venn diagram.

Nah. To be "anti-establishment," policy positions would have to be opposed to the current establishment. Clinton's proposal to increase capital gains taxes (which, FYI, is to the left of what either party had proposed until she proposed it) certainly qualifies, as do many of her other positions.

*Her right-wing, neocon foreign policy perspective may be the lone, reasonably debatable exception to calling her a strictly "establishment democrat". Though it can be argued that the Obama administration has already moved the party so far to the right on foreign policy that Hillary's position can now be considered "centrist" or, relative to the Venn diagram, within the purple overlap.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Hindu goddess Kali made her appearance on the Empire State Building this weekend. This picture reminds me of Hillary and is it a sign that she will be elected? It has me wondering.

Lmao!!


you're trying too hard again...

I'm surprised you didn't accuse Hillary of being a Lesbian to top it off.

 

[ripskater]

Lmao!!


you're trying too hard again...

I'm surprised you didn't accuse Hillary of being a Lesbian to top it off.

She is. Well one thing we do know is that she's not having sex with Bill.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Jack's position is a product of confusion between establishment/anti-establishment and conservative/liberal.

With the exception of Jack, himself, a special fellow, I think everyone else participating in this discussion sees that.

Two terms that are genuinely synonymous with "anti-establishment" would be "radical" and "maverick".

And who has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being a radical or maverick democrat?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack's position is a product of confusion between establishment/anti-establishment and conservative/liberal.

With the exception of Jack, himself, a special fellow, I think everyone else participating in this discussion sees that.

Two terms that are genuinely synonymous with "anti-establishment" would be "radical" and "maverick".

And who has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being a radical or maverick democrat?

You're equivocating between the "Democratic establishment"--basically referring to who is popular among Democrats and getting the big endorsements--and "The Establishment," which refers mainly to the rich and other small groups with power disproportionate to their numbers. Clinton is clearly anti-establishment if you're referring to "The Establishment" but she is the likely winner of the Democratic nomination.

 

[Denter]

You're equivocating between the "Democratic establishment"--basically referring to who is popular among Democrats and getting the big endorsements--and "The Establishment," which refers mainly to the rich and other small groups with power disproportionate to their numbers. Clinton is clearly anti-establishment if you're referring to "The Establishment" but she is the likely winner of the Democratic nomination.

Bold: With all due respect, disproportionate influence does not equate to "establishment".

Currently our government is split. The R party controls the national legislature, the D party the executive, and the judicial branch is roughly split.

That is the formal centers of power. Informally, the other centers of power that contribute to an "establishment" would be wealthy individuals, business associations, media conglomerates, academia and lobbying groups, as well as religious and civic associations. All of these in some way have influence in politics and form a consensus on certain issues, and are divided on other issues.

So we can say that the formal and informal centers of political power together form the "establishment", because they support one another and influence one another.

One of the issues they have consensus on- Israel- running against Israel would be anti-establishment. Some issues they are fiercely split on. You seem to be equating rich people with the establishment, but that's just not true. The more pro-rich candidate has lost the last two elections, and its not like the President lacked for funds raised from other sectors of the establishment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Bold: With all due respect, disproportionate influence does not equate to "establishment".

Not on a small scale, but a group that is dominant out of proportion to its numbers is a good definition.

Currently our government is split. The R party controls the national legislature, the D party the executive, and the judicial branch is roughly split.

The judicial branch is solidly conservative, and state gov'ts are mostly conservative. But again, if you're just talking about democracy, that's not "The Establishment."

That is the formal centers of power. Informally, the other centers of power that contribute to an "establishment" would be wealthy individuals, business associations, media conglomerates, academia and lobbying groups, as well as religious and civic associations.

Yes, that part is fine. And Clinton is pretty clearly "anti-establishment," no?

One of the issues they have consensus on- Israel- running against Israel would be anti-establishment. Some issues they are fiercely split on. You seem to be equating rich people with the establishment, but that's just not true. The more pro-rich candidate has lost the last two elections, and its not like the President lacked for funds raised from other sectors of the establishment.

Your mistake is thinking that democracy is "The Establishment," when democracy is--like unions--an alternative power source to The Establishment.

 

[Denter]

Not on a small scale, but a group that is dominant out of proportion to its numbers is a good definition.



The judicial branch is solidly conservative, and state gov'ts are mostly conservative. But again, if you're just talking about democracy, that's not "The Establishment."



Yes, that part is fine. And Clinton is pretty clearly "anti-establishment," no?



Your mistake is thinking that democracy is "The Establishment," when democracy is--like unions--an alternative power source to The Establishment.

I disagree, entities from the establishment both participate in and shape democracy. These groups have power precisely because they can influence the results of the democratic process.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree, entities from the establishment both participate in and shape democracy. These groups have power precisely because they can influence the results of the democratic process.

The problem with your approach is that you're draining "The Establishment" of any meaning and making discussions about it completely useless. How is The Establishment distinct from any other source of power in your view? Would a general strike be an example of The Establishment flexing its muscle? Would you say that by your definition, the only thing that can make one "anti-establishment" is a failure to achieve any results?

 

[ultramanhyata]

The problem with your approach is that you're draining "The Establishment" of any meaning and making discussions about it completely useless.

Yes. It's much easier and more productive to have this discussion when we define "The Establishment" as the GOP. :icon_lol:

 

[Denter]

The problem with your approach is that you're draining "The Establishment" of any meaning and making discussions about it completely useless. How is The Establishment distinct from any other source of power in your view? Would a general strike be an example of The Establishment flexing its muscle? Would you say that by your definition, the only thing that can make one "anti-establishment" is a failure to achieve any results?

No, I think a good definition of the "establishment" could go two ways-

1. The things the formal and informal sources of power agree on- capitalism, Israel, etc.

2. The establishment could also be defined as toeing the lone of the coalition you are seeking to head- the R and D parties. There is significant overlap in what the formal and informal power sources agree on, but where they diverge, they have clustered into two roughly equally balanced coalitions. So running contrary to many of the coalition positions on the D side, while still seeking to head the D coalition, would be anti-establishment in a way (but also pretty irrational).

However, it would also be reasonable to describe her as anti-establishment if she was running against some positions both power sources have reached consensus on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. It's much easier and more productive to have this discussion when we define "The Establishment" as the GOP. :icon_lol:

Well, that is, of course, not an honest representation of what I've said. The rich, primarily, are the establishment. Capital owners, as opposed to workers. You know, the people who you are an unwitting servant of.

No, I think a good definition of the "establishment" could go two ways-

1. The things the formal and informal sources of power agree on- capitalism, Israel, etc.

2. The establishment could also be defined as toeing the lone of the coalition you are seeking to head- the R and D parties. There is significant overlap in what the formal and informal power sources agree on, but where they diverge, they have clustered into two roughly equally balanced coalitions. So running contrary to many of the coalition positions on the D side, while still seeking to head the D coalition, would be anti-establishment in a way (but also pretty irrational).

However, it would also be reasonable to describe her as anti-establishment if she was running against some positions both power sources have reached consensus on.

You didn't answer my questions, and your response here leaves me wondering the same things.

How is The Establishment distinct from any other source of power in your view? Would a general strike be an example of The Establishment flexing its muscle? Would you say that by your definition, the only thing that can make one "anti-establishment" is a failure to achieve any results?

I can add: If the Occupy movement were more successful, would it be a pro-establishment movement?

 

[Deleted member 449757]

I'm afraid you're right. I hope you're wrong though.

 

[Denter]

Well, that is, of course, not an honest representation of what I've said. The rich, primarily, are the establishment. Capital owners, as opposed to workers. You know, the people who you are an unwitting servant of.



You didn't answer my questions, and your response here leaves me wondering the same things.

How is The Establishment distinct from any other source of power in your view? Would a general strike be an example of The Establishment flexing its muscle? Would you say that by your definition, the only thing that can make one "anti-establishment" is a failure to achieve any results?

I can add: If the Occupy movement were more successful, would it be a pro-establishment movement?

Its a good point. Perhaps a better definition of the establishment would be "formal power structures and the informal power structures that actually have influence". Occupy does not have influence on formal or informal government, at least not very much. It is clearly anti-establishment.

A general strike- well, it depends. It would disrupt capitalism, so it would be anti-establishment in a very major way. But if the goals for the general strike were, let's say, a higher minimum wage (a mainstream D position) then they would have establishment support, and would not be completely an anti-establishment movement. If the goal of the strike were seizing control of the means of production, well that would be 100% anti-establishment.

The formal levers of government actually have power- so we can conclude that the consensus of each political party is basically the establishment as to those two parties, but the general establishment would be best described as what the formal and informal sectors have consensus on. So, very few candidates are actually anti-establishment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its a good point. Perhaps a better definition of the establishment would be "formal power structures and the informal power structures that actually have influence". Occupy does not have influence on formal or informal government, at least not very much. It is clearly anti-establishment.

But what if it did? Let's say they came up with Sanders' silly TBTF proposal, and Democrats, included the new president, got behind it and it passed. I don't think that would suddenly make it a "pro-establishment" position or that "pro-establishment/anti-establishment" would have any meaning if it did.

A general strike- well, it depends. It would disrupt capitalism, so it would be anti-establishment in a very major way. But if the goals for the general strike were, let's say, a higher minimum wage (a mainstream D position) then they would have establishment support, and would not be completely an anti-establishment movement. If the goal of the strike were seizing control of the means of production, well that would be 100% anti-establishment.

OK, but aren't you saying here that "anti-establishment" is about the ends rather than the means? And then doesn't that open the door to the possibility that anti-establishment ends could be achieved through the electoral process? If so (if we agree, that is), then we're back to looking at specifics of policy, which is where I think Clinton is clearly anti-establishment.

The formal levers of government actually have power- so we can conclude that the consensus of each political party is basically the establishment as to those two parties, but the general establishment would be best described as what the formal and informal sectors have consensus on. So, very few candidates are actually anti-establishment.

Again, I distinguish between "party establishment" and The Establishment. Obviously, I'm not arguing, for example, that Clinton isn't getting the important Democratic endorsement, isn't the most popular candidate among Democrats, etc. But her proposals (and voting record, going further back) look clearly anti-establishment with respect to The Establishment. And I recognize the waters are muddied further by angry, disaffected types who see "anti-establishment" as being synonymous with "angelic" or something.

 

[Denter]

But what if it did? Let's say they came up with Sanders' silly TBTF proposal, and Democrats, included the new president, got behind it and it passed. I don't think that would suddenly make it a "pro-establishment" position or that "pro-establishment/anti-establishment" would have any meaning if it did.



OK, but aren't you saying here that "anti-establishment" is about the ends rather than the means? And then doesn't that open the door to the possibility that anti-establishment ends could be achieved through the electoral process? If so (if we agree, that is), then we're back to looking at specifics of policy, which is where I think Clinton is clearly anti-establishment.



Again, I distinguish between "party establishment" and The Establishment. Obviously, I'm not arguing, for example, that Clinton isn't getting the important Democratic endorsement, isn't the most popular candidate among Democrats, etc. But her proposals (and voting record, going further back) look clearly anti-establishment with respect to The Establishment. And I recognize the waters are muddied further by angry, disaffected types who see "anti-establishment" as being synonymous with "angelic" or something.

Bold: This comes from romanticizing rebels, which is a stereo-typically American thing.

Red: I agree.

Green: Some of the ends of the establishment- like capitalism- can have different means for reaching those ends. Social democracy and laissez faire are both capitalist systems. So if she were working within the democratic system to attack capitalism, I'd say you have a point on this.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Well, that is, of course, not an honest representation of what I've said. The rich, primarily, are the establishment. Capital owners, as opposed to workers. You know, the people who you are an unwitting servant of.

Yes, Jackie-O, those of us who consider Hundred-Millionaire Hillary a member of The Establishment are unwitting servants of the rich and powerful.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Green: Some of the ends of the establishment- like capitalism- can have different means for reaching those ends. Social democracy and laissez faire are both capitalist systems. So if she were working within the democratic system to attack capitalism, I'd say you have a point on this.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

I don't think a market-based economy is the target, but capitalists in the sense of large owners of capital are the biggest part of what I'd call the The Establishment, and certainly Clinton's agenda is harmful to them in a lot of ways, even though she's planning to carry it out in the context of electoral politics.

Yes, Jackie-O, those of us who consider Hundred-Millionaire Hillary a member of The Establishment are unwitting servants of the rich and powerful.

Again, that is not what I said. I said that you are an unwitting servant of the powerful because all of your positions advance their goals.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Again, that is not what I said. I said that you are an unwitting servant of the powerful because all of your positions are to the left of the planks in the DNC's 2016 platform.

Fixed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fixed.

Nope. It was fine the way it was. And you know it, which is why you feel the need to distort what I say.