Don't think the Democratic Establishment will be moved to action. They do not exist to govern - they exist to make sure the Progressives never govern. Like the GOP, as long as they show a slavish devotion to their corporate sponsors, they don't have to worry too much about winning.
If they show their loyalty, they will receive a nice sinecure at some think tank funded by the giveaway they spent their careers voting for.
However, if they ever do anything that raises the taxes of those who fund those think tanks (whose job it is to provide "research" that supports policies favorable to those who fund them), well, they'll never get to ride the gravy train.
Nothing will get better until progressives and/or populists break the back of one of the ruling parties.
Well said. Diane Feinstein signing a pledge is meaningless virtue signaling. Nancy Pelosi kneeling for black lives matter is meaningless virtue signaling. It's a shame anyone still believes these politicians have actual values beyond maintaining power through any means necessary. D's care about their donors, their donors mainly consist of wealthy corporations and super-pacs, therefore the agenda of the D's will largely show deference to corporations. How can anyone think otherwise?
The Supreme court decisions about Roe v Wade might upset a large number of D voters, but if the D's engage in enough blame shifting to R's, and virtue signaling to their base, they can lul their voters back to obedience. One reason I think the D's haven't pushed back too hard on this decades-long campaign to install right-wing judges is that D's and these judges have one important thing in common, and that is deference to corporations. Thus the EPA ruling curbing gov. power to regulate emissions falls perfectly in line with anti-regulation tendencies of the donor base of D's and of those supporting these judicial nominees.
So D's will keep up their false pretenses of caring about issues while keeping their wealthy corporate donor base happy by doing a whole lot of nothing. This inaction is intentional, not a result of incompetence.
Don't think the Democratic Establishment will be moved to action. They do not exist to govern - they exist to make sure the Progressives never govern. Like the GOP, as long as they show a slavish devotion to their corporate sponsors, they don't have to worry too much about winning.
If they show their loyalty, they will receive a nice sinecure at some think tank funded by the giveaway they spent their careers voting for.
However, if they ever do anything that raises the taxes of those who fund those think tanks (whose job it is to provide "research" that supports policies favorable to those who fund them), well, they'll never get to ride the gravy train.
Nothing will get better until progressives and/or populists break the back of one of the ruling parties.
Well said. Diane Feinstein signing a pledge is meaningless virtue signaling. Nancy Pelosi kneeling for black lives matter is meaningless virtue signaling. It's a shame anyone still believes these politicians have actual values beyond maintaining power through any means necessary. D's care about their donors, their donors mainly consist of wealthy corporations and super-pacs, therefore the agenda of the D's will largely show deference to corporations. How can anyone think otherwise?
The Supreme court decisions about Roe v Wade might upset a large number of D voters, but if the D's engage in enough blame shifting to R's, and virtue signaling to their base, they can lul their voters back to obedience. One reason I think the D's haven't pushed back too hard on this decades-long campaign to install right-wing judges is that D's and these judges have one important thing in common, and that is deference to corporations. Thus the EPA ruling curbing gov. power to regulate emissions falls perfectly in line with anti-regulation tendencies of the donor base of D's and of those supporting these judicial nominees.
So D's will keep up their false pretenses of caring about issues while keeping their wealthy corporate donor base happy by doing a whole lot of nothing. This inaction is intentional, not a result of incompetence.
Their inaction is an action that prevents others from taking meaningful action.