Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jon Notabot's avatar

As a forever enthusiast of Hartmann's work I need to make one thing clear: this is the most consequential piece I've read.

More specifically, naming the enemy is job number one for all of us. And who exactly is this enemy? Not so much the obvious front personalities like Trump and his ever devolving cabinet picks - no - the enemy are those mostly obscure and shadowy figures and institutions that make it all possible. Think Heritage, Koch, Mercer, Freedomworks, Federalist Society, ALEC, AIPAC, Harlan Crowe, Leonard Leo, The Family, Focus on the Family, and on and on and on.

Learn them, name them, share them. Make the name of the enemy a household name. Until then, we're chasing ghosts.

Expand full comment
docrhw Weil's avatar

Actually the Democrat Wilson followed Taft. He did start the Federal Reserve but also raised taxes and controlled the economy as much as possible for the World War I effort. And I would say there were additional issues causing the Depression, including Germany's bankruptcy (it couldn't borrow to pay its terrible war repatriations), a lack of controls on the stock market (a situation we are in again) and a US tariff so high it almost stopped world trade.

But none of this affects your basic argument, which I agree with. Now the question is, with wealthy massive corporations controlling much of the media, with Citizens United squashing or at least overwhelming almost any serious political reformer (notice how Sanders could never get a national platform that many people heard) and with a country fragmented and distracted in so many ways, how do we pull together and get this message out? FDR and Goebbels both knew how to use the more limited mass media of their times--radio and movies. And perhaps people in general were more trusting of government to finally do the right thing, had a slower, quieter world where they had time to think about these things, and were desperate enough to take radical solutions but within the framework of the Constitution. Today I'm not sure any of those factors are true.

We have to try, with perhaps the first step being an overthrow of the entrenched interests who keep the Democratic Party almost like a middle of the road business. But any such action would lead to the GOP claiming it is becoming “more radical”. And that might scare off more people. You know how Trump simplistically called Harris a “Communist.” Ridiculous, but maybe he even believed it. Change from the bottom up is needed, but will the national system be able to reform itself? Perhaps a real wiping of the board is required, with the party turning into a sort of mild socialist-green organization, but I’m not sure that is viable either. Harris had a message and not enough people listened. Would they want to hear something really different? But maybe an angry, combative approach is as you say the best, maybe only, path forward.

Expand full comment
60 more comments...

No posts