What Now
-
honorentheos
- God
- Posts: 4295
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: What Now
The Biden administration was progressive in the same vein as early 20th century progressives. That being, pro-labor and pro-middle class. Anyone saying more than that doesn't know crap about politics.
-
Dr Exiled
- God
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm
Re: What Now
They are a far cry from William Jennings Bryan, their candidate for three elections back then. I think the early 20th century democrats would have been Bernie supporters and would have wanted to dismantle the american empire, looking for peace.honorentheos wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 2:41 amThe Biden administration was progressive in the same vein as early 20th century progressives. That being, pro-labor and pro-middle class. Anyone saying more than that doesn't know crap about politics.
Here is a speech he made against imperialism:
https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1616
https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/willi ... eech-text/
He would have been against the monopolistic policies that both parties today love:
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/
Here are some general articles about Mr. Bryan:
https://www.history.com/topics/us-gover ... ings-bryan
https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lesso ... ria-25-3-c
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
-
honorentheos
- God
- Posts: 4295
- Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am
Re: What Now
As President, Biden made the pivot away from neoliberalism to Progressive pro-labor policies. Here is an article regarding his efforts as President specific to labor:
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024 ... dr/397002/
I believe we (the board, not specifically you and I) discussed the railroad workers strike where he had to balance preventing a potentially disastrous hit to the economy with supporting the Union, doing so by invoking the Railway Labor Act to end the strike but then working behind the scenes to pressure the railroads to meet worker demands. That's considered a low point on the administration's pro labor record. Yet it was a masterful political move in the best interest of the country over partisan politics. Bernie Sanders couldn't do that. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Bernie is great at rhetoric but lacking when it comes to actually governing in any form. He has made a career out of the easy job of pointing out what's wrong but has never shown the ability to actually do something better.
The concern you have with American Empire is not inherently Progressive. The 1890-1910 period of American imperial ambition that saw us overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy, challenge European colonialism in the western hemisphere and ultimately send Spain packing as we moved in on Cuba and the Philippines is a morally dubious event in our history, most closely mirrored by the George W. Bush administration's vision of a world ripe for American dominance following the collapse of the Soviet Union. And Bryant's voice on that issue at that time was one calling for moral clarity. But there is a significant difference between turn of the century territory grabs under the claimed Monroe doctrine, and the post-WWII global order began with the Marshall Plan. It is one of the high points in our history that, when WWII ended with the US industrial might intact and holding the power of nuclear weapons, and the other world powers broke and broken, that we did the unthinkable to that point. The Bush administration undermined the efforts of decades of creating global good faith trust in a system that has largely eliminated major nation-to-nation conflict in favor of global trade and stability. The idea the world has been increasingly descending into bloodshed and violence compared to eras past os one of the many deceptions in the Mormon civil war prophecy Mormons grow up believing to be true but which couldn't be further from such. As we've discussed before, Russia and aligned enemies of the post-WWII western alliance want that stability to end in favor of a return to the exact period Bryant decried. That being the regional balkanization of the world with regionally dominant powers claiming rights of rule over their subjected nations of their region. The result of that world view is what's going on in Ukraine, but spread around the world.
Teddy Roosevelt represents the difference here, as he practically salivated over the idea of war, and actively drove the US to engage in war with Spain. But his Bull Moose party was a pro-labor progressive party.
https://www.govexec.com/management/2024 ... dr/397002/
I believe we (the board, not specifically you and I) discussed the railroad workers strike where he had to balance preventing a potentially disastrous hit to the economy with supporting the Union, doing so by invoking the Railway Labor Act to end the strike but then working behind the scenes to pressure the railroads to meet worker demands. That's considered a low point on the administration's pro labor record. Yet it was a masterful political move in the best interest of the country over partisan politics. Bernie Sanders couldn't do that. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Bernie is great at rhetoric but lacking when it comes to actually governing in any form. He has made a career out of the easy job of pointing out what's wrong but has never shown the ability to actually do something better.
The concern you have with American Empire is not inherently Progressive. The 1890-1910 period of American imperial ambition that saw us overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy, challenge European colonialism in the western hemisphere and ultimately send Spain packing as we moved in on Cuba and the Philippines is a morally dubious event in our history, most closely mirrored by the George W. Bush administration's vision of a world ripe for American dominance following the collapse of the Soviet Union. And Bryant's voice on that issue at that time was one calling for moral clarity. But there is a significant difference between turn of the century territory grabs under the claimed Monroe doctrine, and the post-WWII global order began with the Marshall Plan. It is one of the high points in our history that, when WWII ended with the US industrial might intact and holding the power of nuclear weapons, and the other world powers broke and broken, that we did the unthinkable to that point. The Bush administration undermined the efforts of decades of creating global good faith trust in a system that has largely eliminated major nation-to-nation conflict in favor of global trade and stability. The idea the world has been increasingly descending into bloodshed and violence compared to eras past os one of the many deceptions in the Mormon civil war prophecy Mormons grow up believing to be true but which couldn't be further from such. As we've discussed before, Russia and aligned enemies of the post-WWII western alliance want that stability to end in favor of a return to the exact period Bryant decried. That being the regional balkanization of the world with regionally dominant powers claiming rights of rule over their subjected nations of their region. The result of that world view is what's going on in Ukraine, but spread around the world.
Teddy Roosevelt represents the difference here, as he practically salivated over the idea of war, and actively drove the US to engage in war with Spain. But his Bull Moose party was a pro-labor progressive party.