I am a bit worried about this Prof. Fish. He makes a good point about dominance for candidates. They must be passionate to move people, seems like common sense at one level. But he is decidedly disconnected from ordinary political reality. His take on Ukraine is like he was brain washed by the establishment, no critical or historical thinking. And the Democrats have accomplishments to celebrate? Obama tanked single payer, Clinton killed welfare, and then there is Genocide Joe. The economy is not good for most people. Stock market is up but that is on the backs of working people. Rents are through the roof and inequality is at historic (as get the pitchforks) levels. Then there is the environment, with the USA producing more oil than any country has ever, anywhere. Lots to celebrate if one is clueless.
What stood out more is not asking why. Why do the Democrats behave this way? It might be because they know that if they are too passionate about things that matter to most people, most people might expect that from them. The corporate Dems exist to prevent the party from returning to FDR's days. The corporations that own politics are desperate to avoid sharing any more than necessary to keep the pitchforks at bay. The Dems do this on purpose because they would rather loose than have people demand too much, or -- horror of horrors - elect someone like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
People do not seem to appreciate that enough -- corporate Democrats would rather loose than see real progressives elected. They keep moving to the right because people keep falling for the lesser evil trap. If people just voted for the candidate that best represents them we could have a chance. The Democrats are not "us" (in the way Dr. Fish liked to use that term).
Excellent comment—I was pulling my hair out listening to this one. At one point he described Democrats as being “progressively minded” and I almost lost it. 🤬
I think the best way to describe them is to say they’re a neoliberal party that understands what people want, so they say they want those things too, but have no intention on delivering them. Most are really this cynical, but a handful of members like AOC probably really were ignorant enough to believe the ‘blundering Democrat’ myth—gee whiz, Dems always conveniently seem to trip RIGHT before they cross the finish line.
Briahna Joy Gray recently had John Nichols on her program and he seems to believe the same thing Nader’s guest believes…that these blundering Democrats just need to hear the right advice and they’ll start doing good things. (As if they’re even asking for it.)
BJG demonstrated pretty clearly that this has never been the case. Not during Carter, not during Clinton, not during Obama, and certainly not when they “almost” nominated Sanders (2x). Their close calls with progressivism have ALWAYS been a fake-out.
It’s time for us to stop caring about them (and their paranoid threats about “democracy ending”) and vote our conscience. This is why they have people like Jill Stein more than Trump—indeed, let’s not forget that the Clintons encouraged Trump to run for president. They really are that cynical.
Steven Fish's analysis is quite obviously and ridiculously wrong and therefore utterly useless.
If the candidate seen as the 'strongest' always won, then Donald Trump would have won the 2020 election. He didn't.
Election victories are based on 2 factors. 1) Which candidate has the most powerful narrative frame that ignites people's values and emotions (as explained by George Lakoff in several books and articles), and most importantly 2) what the condition of the economy is at election time.
When the economy is bad, incumbents (and the incumbent party) lose almost *every* time.
Speaking of the economy, the fact that Fish laughably believes the completely fictional DNC fairytale that the Biden economy is 'good' shows why his analysis is such a joke.
Real working and lower class Americans know from their grocery and utility bills, and rent and mortgage payments, that the economy is IN THE TOILET. And this reality is exactly why Biden will not win in November.
Fish's milquetoast, clueless, upper class, neoliberal apologist Democrat fantasyland view of reality is further revealed to be abject by his hilarious assertion that Putin is a 'weak' leader. Anyone who actually understands geopolitics at mere 3rd grade level knows that the truth is exactly the opposite.
Where is Fish getting his news, CNN and MSNBC?
Can we please have far fewer guests from the neoliberal manipulated stenography rag New York Times?
I couldn't listen to his nonsense. Are you familiar wth Ryan Dawson #NUMEC #RyanDawsonFilm @RyLiberty ? Until we stop AIPAC econ finance control, government cover-ups. Prior to this USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, Israel planes & torpedo boats, conversation, Ralph has not provided us wth the arms we've needed to End AIPAC.
I do agree about the importance of how the public views the economy in terms of voting behavior. That said, when looking at the current situation, the public is surely looking at a lot of conflicting information about the economy.
Yes, if one looks at traditional macroeconomic indicators and compare them to periods in recent history, things do look pretty good. Unemployment is indeed relatively low. Inflation has stabilized...mostly due to a return to supply-side normalcy as compared to Covid lockdown-era supply shortages than the increased interest rates. The stock market is doing well. The chance of a recession in the near future is low. Biden is extremely pro-fossil fuels right now which is keeping gasoline prices relatively low and stable.
Although the perception is that increased interest rates will slow the economy, there is growing macroeconomic literature saying that this is not necessarily true and, indeed, there is some evidence that increased interest rates may actually fuel inflation given certain current circumstances. I won't get too deep into that here, but the bottom line is that it is a great time if one has money to invest in the market, in bonds, and so forth. The returns relative to inflation are great. The investment class may get sticker shock from high prices, but that's all it is to them. Sticker shock. They're still spending because they can spend.
Conversely, those who do not have money to invest are in a pretty bad spot with the current interest rates. It could be worse. Government spending, mostly corporate welfare at this point, is boosting employment, but certainly more well-targeted government spending would stabilize the economy like existing spending, but would do so in a much more progressive manner by eliminating healthcare debt, by establishing full employment with price stabilization, improving the state of education, and so forth. Further regulation, and also investment, can prevent inflation from speculation.
Long story short, the current administration, and even Trump's administration during Covid, are using federal government spending to help stabilize the economy. This is better than the alternative of austerity and it does explain the quicker economic recovery post-Covid than we saw post-GFC under Obama when Obama maintained a more austerity-based economy. This can be viewed as a good thing, but the reality is that government spending could be used to provide much, much greater and more equitable rewards and stability for the general public. The current trickle-down model is certainly benefiting many and leaving others behind even with relatively high employment (though certainly we're not at full employment as opposed to what the administration might say about it).
Not going to read your entire book length response that from your first paragraph is clearly just as wrong as the Nader's guest. The US government uses bullshit tricks to undercount unemployment and inflation (see below) and they further increase the deception over time (especially in election years, for obvious reasons).
Anyone who buys their own groceries and pays rent knows quite well that the Biden administration's claims about the economy are laughably false. See:
“Not going to read your entire book length response that from your first paragraph is clearly just as wrong as the Nader's guest.”
Then perhaps you need to read more especially when the message doesn’t fit the narrative you’re wanting to read. I’m not going to post useless headline-sized analysis about a complex matter such as the economy. This isn’t Twitter or the YouTube comments section. My original comment was, at most, a page and a half in length. Perhaps you read different books than I do, but that is not 'book length' by my standard.
As I clearly initially indicated, I do not really agree with the claims from the Democrats that the economy is great. That said, to say that the economy is terrible is also clearly inane and self-defeating. The economy is complex. There are aspects which are working pretty well because of slightly altered economic policy, but things could work a lot better. One must understand what is working kind of well, how that can work better for all people, and then understand what isn’t working well at all. Formulating a solid economic platform takes more than dime store analysis about grocery store prices which completely ignores other economic factors.
Yes, I agree, the current Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) paradigm used by the government gives a false sense of full employment versus, say, a non-accelerating inflation buffer employment ratio (NAIBER). However, even within the highly flawed NAIRU paradigm used over the last several decades, unemployment is quite low. How could it not be with all the ‘military Keynesianism,’ as stated by a RNRH commenter a few weeks ago?
Regarding inflation, I also agree that the statistics there can be misleading, but inflation must also be measured against other macroeconomic factors. For those who have money to invest, inflation is merely sticker shock right now rather than a barrier due to the high returns on investments in the current economy. We see the net results of this when we see reports of a record number of travelers, mostly leisure travelers who obviously have the money to pay for vacations, flying during the Memorial Day holiday even with relatively high airline fares, high hotel prices, and high rental car prices (gas prices, OTOH, are stable and, quite frankly, too low given Biden’s rather ridiculous pro-fossil fuel policies). Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-screens-highest-number-air-passengers-ever-single-day-2024-05-25/
So things are peachy for those with investments, but things fall apart quickly for those who do not and that extends beyond increased product prices at the supermarket. Medical debt is severe problem. Housing costs are a problem as is the lack of housing construction. Education debt. Increased pricing for energy on the privatized market and insurance, perhaps caused by global warming and a lack of regulation in many areas, may price people out of their homes. There is lingering unemployment and underemployment. Wages continue to lag behind the advances in productivity and those who are doing the most productive work are often those who are seeing the least improvement in wages. There is the nature of the modern debt crisis…a personal debt crisis.
When looking at these problems, any progressive (or conservative for that matter) who says the economy is terrible from an aggregate macroeconomic perspective is really shooting themselves in the foot because they are ignoring some improvements in policy as compared to, say, the Obama era. What we’ve seen from the Covid-era Trump administration and the Biden administration, relative to the Obama administration, is increased willingness to spend out of general economic trouble. This has stabilized the economy a great deal. This cannot be ignored, if you want to see increased suffering, see what happened in the US post-GFC under a more austerity-based paradigm and also see what’s happening in other countries where economic policy is more based on austerity.
That said, while increased spending has led to some positives, the increased spending has mostly come in the form of trickle-down corporate welfare and much of it has gone towards destructive industries such as militarization. Furthermore, the spending has tapered off with the economic recovery when, in reality, spending should have been maintained and better targeted not just to achieve an economic recovery, but to further economic stability for all citizens. This naturally would mean spending towards increasing access to healthcare, education, the peace industry, and so forth.
Remember all those headlines from the WSJ, CNBC, and the New York Times about the pending recession that people and businesses were expecting in 2022 and 2023? Well, the recession didn’t happen and it doesn’t look like it is going to happen anytime soon. There are reasons why that didn’t happen and we must understand the policy shifts which have helped to stabilize matters *and* then apply that knowledge to understand how further improved policy can achieve true full employment and price stability.
Perhaps you need to stop getting your news from NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post, so that your view of how the world works fits reality, rather than a ridiculous liberal fairystory.
With issues and candidates on the right, how can people of goodwill support either Joe Biden, the warmonger, or Trump the dictator wannabe and a convicted felon? There’s no choice between the two. Look at the issues! Both of these characters stand for income inequality, a missing environmental policy, and a general dislike for a social-welfare safety net. God, did I just say a social-welfare safety net in the land of dog-whistle politics? The economy is doing well? I must be living in some other nation with most jobs not providing a living wage and inflation raging. The Democrats haven’t had a liberal since Lyndon Johnson and he gave away the farm in Southeast Asia. The only plus about the Democrats is that I probably won’t be arrested for my writing. I’m surprised that someone with Ralph Nader’s idealism and accomplishments aired this program.
LBJ gave away our nation to Israel lobbyists. Ryan Dawson "Israel stole the bomb and killed JFK" #NUMEC @RyLiberty Ralph never seemed to get past the JFK conspiracy theories. At the least watch Dawson's film. End AIPAC in the name of those murdered on the USS Liberty June 8, 1967.
Obama "saved the country from another Great Depression" and "gave us all healthcare"? Really? And now more pro-war Russia fear-mongering with "Moscow Don"? This is so frustrating. Could it be that people don't like the superficial sanctimony of the Democrats, when in fact Obama bailed out the banks and passed a sell-out health care bill that did nothing to rein in the giant, inhumane insurance industry? People are sick of corporatism, especially the hypocritical kind. "Dominance" is beside the point.
It's interesting that when M Steven was enumerating the many glorious achievements of the Democratic Party, he did not mention the attack on the USS Liberty and the cover-up of the same.
WHY did Dems put on a SHOW “Investigation” vs. Immediate DoJ Special Prosecutor Investigation of the J6 Riot❓
Because just as with their 40 year refusal to codify Roe v. Wade, for NINE YEARS they’ve EXPLOITED TRUMP as their primary Propaganda DISTRACTION from the DC InsiderTrader, TotalitarianFascist-WEALTH $$upremacy’s MURDEROUS Domestic and Global “$$ubmit or DIE!” Economic Monopoly EVIL
I’d like to say that the interview with Fish is a great example of Mr. Nader playing ‘4D chess’ by having a Democratic Party supporter of some prominence exhibiting through their own ineptitude how disconnected the Biden administration, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are from progressive goals since that might inspire more emotion than a monologue from Mr. Nader on the subject. Unfortunately, my best guess is that Mr. Nader was really hoping that Fish would make a compelling argument for engaging in ‘least worst’ voting to try to prevent another Trump presidency when, in reality, Fish only helped make the case for why the American public should not vote for Biden even if it means another unwanted Trump presidency.
Once again, we hear another Democratic Party supporter make excuses for why these elections with Trump in them are close when, in reality, the majority of the public naturally does not want to see a Trump presidency. The Democrats are so odious themselves that the anti-Trump public are compelled to stay home on election day. Perhaps the most convincing arguments for ‘least worst’ voting which might convince someone to vote for a neoliberal with a long, long history of neoconservative foreign policy positions (Biden, of course) is that at least the courts would be in a better position than under Trump, but Fish couldn’t even muster that argument. Oh, there is the positive work of Lina Khan, but I suspect many Democrats are hopeful that a second Biden term means that Biden no longer has show respect towards Bernie Sanders’ supporters and they’d push to replace Khan with someone more aligned with the Party’s neoliberal stance.
Given the tenor of previous user comments made here, it seems there’s not much more else I have to say about Fish’s commentary. I will say that Fish’s commentary about Democrats going high when the Republicans go low does not fit the reality where both parties have ‘gone low’ towards treating the American public with contempt by engaging in neoliberalism which has robbed society from public investment. The treatment of the international public is even worse. Deeds matter more than words to much of the public. It has been a long time since I had a fit of laughter like I did when Fish suggested that Obama should have doubled down on self-promotion for Obama’s policies when the public were not feeling the benefits of those policies. What a bloody dunce. Point and laugh. Point and laugh! I guess this is what counts for ‘Reclaiming the Nation’ and ‘Restoring Democracy’s Edge’ in Fish’s book.
With all the narratives during the 2020 election, you’d think Biden and the Democrats would have prioritized strengthening the US Postal Service, but it continues to be severely underfunded and mismanaged with no promises to do anything about it. Biden and the Democrats claim to be anti-Trump, but they are continuing Trump-era policies which cause foreign policy friction with countries such as Canada and China merely because those countries use government investment to lower prices whereas the US wants to use government investment to raise profits for the private sector. Take Trump and Biden’s protectionism of Boeing and the US lumber industry versus Canadian exports which has caused significant price increases for the US public and this was not done for the sake of improving the environment or circumstances for the employees in those sectors. I suppose Biden so hated Trump’s Canadian lumber tariffs that he, at least for a while, decided to double them just to increase profits for US industries. It is really an entirely new form of inflationary neoliberalism!
Oh, and sure, Biden’s foreign misadventures has been a jobs program of sorts, but one which is entirely environmentally-destructive...and destructive in so many other ways. Just like we saw with Obama, Biden’s pro-fossil fuels, pro-consumption stance plausibly makes the Republicans seem like the more environmentally-friendly party. Biden (or Trump) could achieve full employment through a peace-oriented jobs program, but no. They won’t do it.
Mr. Nader did well to counter Fish’s cheerleading of calamitous policy, but the intellectual bar was set so low that countering the rubbish in that segment was like shooting fish in a barrel. While I believe the RNRH is doing a great job informing people about matters pertaining to foreign policy, and that includes the segment with Mr. Tourney, the non-foreign policy segments have become dull especially compared to the high intellectual bar most of us expect from Mr. Nader. I’m quite sure Mr. Nader wants to see Trumpism be defeated, understandably so, but the only way to defeat Trumpism is to defeat ‘Bidenism,’ which is really just neoliberalism/corporatism and neoconservatism that we’ve seen from so many recent administrations. With that in mind, regardless of who wins the election this year, we need better conversations about what policies will most benefit society broadly so that the public knows what to demand in the election this year and also in 2026, 2028, and so forth when there is greater potential for the public to create more useful candidates.
terrific comment in that your seem to have covered much in the history of the dem party that is correctly in error and you entire post is concise and well written.
Fish is spot on when he said voters vote for people like themselves. That's the only reason tRump will get all of the xenphobic, white power, racist, Nazi votes for their wanna-be führer.
Vote against genocide!
Jill Stein 2024! Green Party for all other elected offices 2024!
OMG noNoNO. Trump has been the TotalitarianFascist WEALTH $$UPREMACY Empire’s Favourite DISTRACTOR since 2015❗️
Nearly TEN friggin years of this not news “News.” And MSM wonders WHY Earth’s entire population is sick of their Divide and Conquer Manufactured Crisis sh*t
At least based on this episode, it appears that Fish does not ‘think,’ but rather he ‘believes’. It has been so long that it is possible I’m not remembering this correctly, but I remember Mr. Nader giving a speech at a college many, many years ago where Mr. Nader discussed his father asking a schoolboy Ralph Nader if Ralph learned to think or believe when he was in school. Perhaps Fish’s parents never held a similar discussion.
To be fair, the ‘believing’ rather than ‘thinking’ happens all over the partisan political spectrum, unfortunately. There was a discussion earlier in the comments here where someone wants to believe that the US economy is universally bad. Well, that’s simply not true. The economy is a complex matter and there are certainly winners and losers at the current time. Saying that things are universally bad only creates a barrier towards achieving better, more informed policy which benefits everyone. It is also an insult towards those working in government who are legitimately doing good work such as Lina Khan.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. On the economy, however, I can’t see how printing all this money is sustainable. My goodness, 35 trillion dollars with debt repayment, alone exceeding a trillion! Frightens me to death and I can’t help but believe that it is at least a substantial factor in causing over 20% inflation since Biden took office.
The national debt is not a concern at the US federal government level...or, perhaps more accurately, it is not a concern for the reasons you might be concerned about the national debt. With our fiat currency, the constraint on spending is never running out of money and there is never a concern about ‘the debt burden on our grandchildren’, but rather the actual constraints are real resource constraints (labor, materials, etc.).
Poor government policy, including policy which involves spending, can have inflationary consequences, but government spending itself is not inherently inflationary. In fact, good government policy, including well-targeted spending, will greatly stabilize prices and the economy in general. The idea that government spending and debt is naturally inflationary is balderdash from libertarian monetarist economists such as Milton Friedman which most right-wing politicians do not even subscribe to at this point except when they, Republicans and Democrats alike, want to give a bogus response for why they want to privatize or eliminate public functions.
In many ways, it is the absence of government spending which leads to inflation. When government allows unemployment and a lack of education (the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, are often deemed by potential employers to be poor job candidates and are often passed over for jobs), productivity dips because employers cannot find suitable employees to fill needs. Properly targeted government spending, OTOH, can improve educational outcomes, especially in productive sectors such as healthcare, science, engineering, and so forth as compared to unproductive sectors such as finance and real estate, and the government can buy idle/underutilized labor to prevent the many problems of unemployment.
Back to healthcare, not only would increased government spending for a single-provider health program become a source of major financial savings for the public, but this also ties back to education. If the government encourages young people to take up careers in the health sector, and if government builds more health facilities in areas which need them and then staffs these facilities, it would go a long way towards solving the real resource constraints we have in healthcare as it is now even with a large percentage of the population not having useful access to healthcare. This again all lowers costs for the public while dramatically improving public health which will also lead to greater economic productivity.
Now, let me return to my first sentence in this reply. As Warren Mosler has been pointing out for years, the current positive interest rate policy, along with the related bond market policy, is “basic income for those who already have money.” Mosler has postulated that interest rate increases, especially given the current national debt, may actually be inflationary rather than serving the stated rôle of fighting inflation. It has become easy, non-productive income for those who already have money. The more money one has, the more easy, non-productive income there might be and that can drive inflation. This is still an emerging field of research, but it is one to watch.
This should not be taken as there being a problem with national debt, but rather the problem is with the current positive interest rate policy and the fact that the bond market even still exists when it is a vestige of the gold standard which the US most certainly is not using (and hooray for that!). These policies strongly benefit the wealthy and is part of a trickle-down economics system which only tilts national wealth towards the wealthy along with other forms of neoliberal policy.
I’m only scratching the surface of the subject, but I suggest reading Stephanie Kelton’s best-selling book about the ‘Deficit Myth’ for more information about this subject. I don’t agree with some of Kelton’s policy suggestions she’s made since the book was published, but her theoretical knowledge is excellent and she explains the theory very well in the book even for people who do not have a background in macroeconomics. Knowledge of this material is fundamental for anyone crafting progressive policy of any kind including environmental and foreign policy.
Ralph Nader, I’ve admired and loved you all my adult life. But with all due respect… WHY are you simping for the Democ*rats*?!!
Genocide, endless war, no unconditional, unobstructed access to healthcare; student debt scam; no subsidized, affordable childcare, no family leave, no maternity leave, no guaranteed vacation time for all workers, no living wage; the ranks of the homeless, exploding… And we’re supposed to be grateful the economy is “always better” when Democrats are in power? For WHO? As to the matter of the economy being “better” under the Dems, try telling that to someone paid $7.25 an hour, in an economy where, anywhere in the country, you have to get $50 an hour for a crummy two-bedroom apartment!!!!
We need a strong third party. No matter which side of this duopoly wins the congressional majority, we are screwed. And I for one am tired of it. I'm never voting for another Democrat.
Does my spending the last nine years hammering home the same point again and again that Ralph should be leading citizens in demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes make me a strong leader or does my asking Ralph for help make me appear weak?
While the Republicans are no longer the party of Lincoln and are now the party of no, the Democrats are no longer the party of yes -they are now the party of not now.
Neither party has the strength to stand up to the big money interests. They prove this every time they take big money.
If politicians cannot display with their actions the strength to stand up to the big money interests when to comes financing their campaigns they will not display the strength to stand up to the big money interests when it to comes to passing legislation.
Will you, Ralph, display the strength to help lead citizens to stand up to the big money interests by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes?
Advising the Democrats on how to appear strong is not going to get them to be strong when it comes to standing up to the big money interests.
Even if you cannot summon the strength to take on the big money interests by leading citizens to take on the biggest threat to our democracy, can you at least explain why you think citizens using the basic principles of democracy to achieve our common goal (80% of citizens wanting the big money out of politics) will not work so it will be clear why you are not helping to lead citizens in taking this action now?
It seems you have interpreted my challenge to Ralph to take a risk leading citizens to utilize the leverage of our votes and our money by exercising the basic principles of democracy as a criticism rather than a request and challenge for Ralph to take action.
I would hope that Ralph also reads these comments (we know Steve does).
Ralph advised listeners writing to their congresspersons to request a written response to their questions.
Please, Steve, let Ralph know I am requesting a written response to my question on why this approach will not work as it seems to me that if it could work that Ralph should at least be willing to discuss whether or not taking this action is worth the risk based on Ralph saying things like politicians want our votes more than big money and 1% of citizens in a congressional district can make things happen.
Ralph may not be comfortable with giving out the contact info to anyone that asks.
Have you tried sending Ralph a letter outlining your plan for organizing with your contact info that Ralph could send to his Montana followers so they could contact you if they are interested?
Yes, to him and to Steve but he never answers. I suppose he gets thousand of requests. He can’t respond to all of them. The irony, though, is he wrote a book about his unanswered letters to the Presidents.
I have been a community, well statewide, grassroots organizer in Montana judicial elections for decades. It would be nice to organize and have the ability to do the things Ralph advocates
I am a bit worried about this Prof. Fish. He makes a good point about dominance for candidates. They must be passionate to move people, seems like common sense at one level. But he is decidedly disconnected from ordinary political reality. His take on Ukraine is like he was brain washed by the establishment, no critical or historical thinking. And the Democrats have accomplishments to celebrate? Obama tanked single payer, Clinton killed welfare, and then there is Genocide Joe. The economy is not good for most people. Stock market is up but that is on the backs of working people. Rents are through the roof and inequality is at historic (as get the pitchforks) levels. Then there is the environment, with the USA producing more oil than any country has ever, anywhere. Lots to celebrate if one is clueless.
What stood out more is not asking why. Why do the Democrats behave this way? It might be because they know that if they are too passionate about things that matter to most people, most people might expect that from them. The corporate Dems exist to prevent the party from returning to FDR's days. The corporations that own politics are desperate to avoid sharing any more than necessary to keep the pitchforks at bay. The Dems do this on purpose because they would rather loose than have people demand too much, or -- horror of horrors - elect someone like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
People do not seem to appreciate that enough -- corporate Democrats would rather loose than see real progressives elected. They keep moving to the right because people keep falling for the lesser evil trap. If people just voted for the candidate that best represents them we could have a chance. The Democrats are not "us" (in the way Dr. Fish liked to use that term).
Excellent comment—I was pulling my hair out listening to this one. At one point he described Democrats as being “progressively minded” and I almost lost it. 🤬
I think the best way to describe them is to say they’re a neoliberal party that understands what people want, so they say they want those things too, but have no intention on delivering them. Most are really this cynical, but a handful of members like AOC probably really were ignorant enough to believe the ‘blundering Democrat’ myth—gee whiz, Dems always conveniently seem to trip RIGHT before they cross the finish line.
Briahna Joy Gray recently had John Nichols on her program and he seems to believe the same thing Nader’s guest believes…that these blundering Democrats just need to hear the right advice and they’ll start doing good things. (As if they’re even asking for it.)
BJG demonstrated pretty clearly that this has never been the case. Not during Carter, not during Clinton, not during Obama, and certainly not when they “almost” nominated Sanders (2x). Their close calls with progressivism have ALWAYS been a fake-out.
It’s time for us to stop caring about them (and their paranoid threats about “democracy ending”) and vote our conscience. This is why they have people like Jill Stein more than Trump—indeed, let’s not forget that the Clintons encouraged Trump to run for president. They really are that cynical.
Brain Washed - I agree.
Steven Fish's analysis is quite obviously and ridiculously wrong and therefore utterly useless.
If the candidate seen as the 'strongest' always won, then Donald Trump would have won the 2020 election. He didn't.
Election victories are based on 2 factors. 1) Which candidate has the most powerful narrative frame that ignites people's values and emotions (as explained by George Lakoff in several books and articles), and most importantly 2) what the condition of the economy is at election time.
When the economy is bad, incumbents (and the incumbent party) lose almost *every* time.
Speaking of the economy, the fact that Fish laughably believes the completely fictional DNC fairytale that the Biden economy is 'good' shows why his analysis is such a joke.
Real working and lower class Americans know from their grocery and utility bills, and rent and mortgage payments, that the economy is IN THE TOILET. And this reality is exactly why Biden will not win in November.
Fish's milquetoast, clueless, upper class, neoliberal apologist Democrat fantasyland view of reality is further revealed to be abject by his hilarious assertion that Putin is a 'weak' leader. Anyone who actually understands geopolitics at mere 3rd grade level knows that the truth is exactly the opposite.
Where is Fish getting his news, CNN and MSNBC?
Can we please have far fewer guests from the neoliberal manipulated stenography rag New York Times?
Thanks in advance.
I couldn't listen to his nonsense. Are you familiar wth Ryan Dawson #NUMEC #RyanDawsonFilm @RyLiberty ? Until we stop AIPAC econ finance control, government cover-ups. Prior to this USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, Israel planes & torpedo boats, conversation, Ralph has not provided us wth the arms we've needed to End AIPAC.
I do agree about the importance of how the public views the economy in terms of voting behavior. That said, when looking at the current situation, the public is surely looking at a lot of conflicting information about the economy.
Yes, if one looks at traditional macroeconomic indicators and compare them to periods in recent history, things do look pretty good. Unemployment is indeed relatively low. Inflation has stabilized...mostly due to a return to supply-side normalcy as compared to Covid lockdown-era supply shortages than the increased interest rates. The stock market is doing well. The chance of a recession in the near future is low. Biden is extremely pro-fossil fuels right now which is keeping gasoline prices relatively low and stable.
Although the perception is that increased interest rates will slow the economy, there is growing macroeconomic literature saying that this is not necessarily true and, indeed, there is some evidence that increased interest rates may actually fuel inflation given certain current circumstances. I won't get too deep into that here, but the bottom line is that it is a great time if one has money to invest in the market, in bonds, and so forth. The returns relative to inflation are great. The investment class may get sticker shock from high prices, but that's all it is to them. Sticker shock. They're still spending because they can spend.
Conversely, those who do not have money to invest are in a pretty bad spot with the current interest rates. It could be worse. Government spending, mostly corporate welfare at this point, is boosting employment, but certainly more well-targeted government spending would stabilize the economy like existing spending, but would do so in a much more progressive manner by eliminating healthcare debt, by establishing full employment with price stabilization, improving the state of education, and so forth. Further regulation, and also investment, can prevent inflation from speculation.
Long story short, the current administration, and even Trump's administration during Covid, are using federal government spending to help stabilize the economy. This is better than the alternative of austerity and it does explain the quicker economic recovery post-Covid than we saw post-GFC under Obama when Obama maintained a more austerity-based economy. This can be viewed as a good thing, but the reality is that government spending could be used to provide much, much greater and more equitable rewards and stability for the general public. The current trickle-down model is certainly benefiting many and leaving others behind even with relatively high employment (though certainly we're not at full employment as opposed to what the administration might say about it).
Not going to read your entire book length response that from your first paragraph is clearly just as wrong as the Nader's guest. The US government uses bullshit tricks to undercount unemployment and inflation (see below) and they further increase the deception over time (especially in election years, for obvious reasons).
Anyone who buys their own groceries and pays rent knows quite well that the Biden administration's claims about the economy are laughably false. See:
Unemployment Is Much Worse Than You Think
https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2021/01/25/unemployment-worse-than-you-think-462218
and
How Official Statistics Underestimate Inflation
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/how-official-statistics-underestimate-inflation/
“Not going to read your entire book length response that from your first paragraph is clearly just as wrong as the Nader's guest.”
Then perhaps you need to read more especially when the message doesn’t fit the narrative you’re wanting to read. I’m not going to post useless headline-sized analysis about a complex matter such as the economy. This isn’t Twitter or the YouTube comments section. My original comment was, at most, a page and a half in length. Perhaps you read different books than I do, but that is not 'book length' by my standard.
As I clearly initially indicated, I do not really agree with the claims from the Democrats that the economy is great. That said, to say that the economy is terrible is also clearly inane and self-defeating. The economy is complex. There are aspects which are working pretty well because of slightly altered economic policy, but things could work a lot better. One must understand what is working kind of well, how that can work better for all people, and then understand what isn’t working well at all. Formulating a solid economic platform takes more than dime store analysis about grocery store prices which completely ignores other economic factors.
Yes, I agree, the current Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) paradigm used by the government gives a false sense of full employment versus, say, a non-accelerating inflation buffer employment ratio (NAIBER). However, even within the highly flawed NAIRU paradigm used over the last several decades, unemployment is quite low. How could it not be with all the ‘military Keynesianism,’ as stated by a RNRH commenter a few weeks ago?
Regarding inflation, I also agree that the statistics there can be misleading, but inflation must also be measured against other macroeconomic factors. For those who have money to invest, inflation is merely sticker shock right now rather than a barrier due to the high returns on investments in the current economy. We see the net results of this when we see reports of a record number of travelers, mostly leisure travelers who obviously have the money to pay for vacations, flying during the Memorial Day holiday even with relatively high airline fares, high hotel prices, and high rental car prices (gas prices, OTOH, are stable and, quite frankly, too low given Biden’s rather ridiculous pro-fossil fuel policies). Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-screens-highest-number-air-passengers-ever-single-day-2024-05-25/
So things are peachy for those with investments, but things fall apart quickly for those who do not and that extends beyond increased product prices at the supermarket. Medical debt is severe problem. Housing costs are a problem as is the lack of housing construction. Education debt. Increased pricing for energy on the privatized market and insurance, perhaps caused by global warming and a lack of regulation in many areas, may price people out of their homes. There is lingering unemployment and underemployment. Wages continue to lag behind the advances in productivity and those who are doing the most productive work are often those who are seeing the least improvement in wages. There is the nature of the modern debt crisis…a personal debt crisis.
When looking at these problems, any progressive (or conservative for that matter) who says the economy is terrible from an aggregate macroeconomic perspective is really shooting themselves in the foot because they are ignoring some improvements in policy as compared to, say, the Obama era. What we’ve seen from the Covid-era Trump administration and the Biden administration, relative to the Obama administration, is increased willingness to spend out of general economic trouble. This has stabilized the economy a great deal. This cannot be ignored, if you want to see increased suffering, see what happened in the US post-GFC under a more austerity-based paradigm and also see what’s happening in other countries where economic policy is more based on austerity.
That said, while increased spending has led to some positives, the increased spending has mostly come in the form of trickle-down corporate welfare and much of it has gone towards destructive industries such as militarization. Furthermore, the spending has tapered off with the economic recovery when, in reality, spending should have been maintained and better targeted not just to achieve an economic recovery, but to further economic stability for all citizens. This naturally would mean spending towards increasing access to healthcare, education, the peace industry, and so forth.
Remember all those headlines from the WSJ, CNBC, and the New York Times about the pending recession that people and businesses were expecting in 2022 and 2023? Well, the recession didn’t happen and it doesn’t look like it is going to happen anytime soon. There are reasons why that didn’t happen and we must understand the policy shifts which have helped to stabilize matters *and* then apply that knowledge to understand how further improved policy can achieve true full employment and price stability.
Perhaps you need to stop getting your news from NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and the Washington Post, so that your view of how the world works fits reality, rather than a ridiculous liberal fairystory.
With issues and candidates on the right, how can people of goodwill support either Joe Biden, the warmonger, or Trump the dictator wannabe and a convicted felon? There’s no choice between the two. Look at the issues! Both of these characters stand for income inequality, a missing environmental policy, and a general dislike for a social-welfare safety net. God, did I just say a social-welfare safety net in the land of dog-whistle politics? The economy is doing well? I must be living in some other nation with most jobs not providing a living wage and inflation raging. The Democrats haven’t had a liberal since Lyndon Johnson and he gave away the farm in Southeast Asia. The only plus about the Democrats is that I probably won’t be arrested for my writing. I’m surprised that someone with Ralph Nader’s idealism and accomplishments aired this program.
AND they both deserve the moniker, President Pussy Grabber.
I believe Tara Reade: https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/31/tara_reade_joe_biden_sexual_assault
LBJ gave away our nation to Israel lobbyists. Ryan Dawson "Israel stole the bomb and killed JFK" #NUMEC @RyLiberty Ralph never seemed to get past the JFK conspiracy theories. At the least watch Dawson's film. End AIPAC in the name of those murdered on the USS Liberty June 8, 1967.
Obama "saved the country from another Great Depression" and "gave us all healthcare"? Really? And now more pro-war Russia fear-mongering with "Moscow Don"? This is so frustrating. Could it be that people don't like the superficial sanctimony of the Democrats, when in fact Obama bailed out the banks and passed a sell-out health care bill that did nothing to rein in the giant, inhumane insurance industry? People are sick of corporatism, especially the hypocritical kind. "Dominance" is beside the point.
Biden has done a “good job” on foreign policy? Are you kidding me? This guy is a complete non-thinker.
His opinion might change if Biden succeeds in blowing up the world. But the, it is too late.
I agree with many of the other commenters, M Steven Fish was a remarkably stupid and out-of-touch guest.
It's interesting that when M Steven was enumerating the many glorious achievements of the Democratic Party, he did not mention the attack on the USS Liberty and the cover-up of the same.
🩸❓Exactly HOW is A RIVER Of PALESTINIAN BLOOD + 1000 Bases of GLOBAL TotalitarianFascistTerrorism “Empathy” ❓🩸
Allow me to temper my criticism of the first segment with this: Excellent second segment on the USS Liberty! Thank you.
WHY did Dems put on a SHOW “Investigation” vs. Immediate DoJ Special Prosecutor Investigation of the J6 Riot❓
Because just as with their 40 year refusal to codify Roe v. Wade, for NINE YEARS they’ve EXPLOITED TRUMP as their primary Propaganda DISTRACTION from the DC InsiderTrader, TotalitarianFascist-WEALTH $$upremacy’s MURDEROUS Domestic and Global “$$ubmit or DIE!” Economic Monopoly EVIL
www.LifeNews.com
I’d like to say that the interview with Fish is a great example of Mr. Nader playing ‘4D chess’ by having a Democratic Party supporter of some prominence exhibiting through their own ineptitude how disconnected the Biden administration, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are from progressive goals since that might inspire more emotion than a monologue from Mr. Nader on the subject. Unfortunately, my best guess is that Mr. Nader was really hoping that Fish would make a compelling argument for engaging in ‘least worst’ voting to try to prevent another Trump presidency when, in reality, Fish only helped make the case for why the American public should not vote for Biden even if it means another unwanted Trump presidency.
Once again, we hear another Democratic Party supporter make excuses for why these elections with Trump in them are close when, in reality, the majority of the public naturally does not want to see a Trump presidency. The Democrats are so odious themselves that the anti-Trump public are compelled to stay home on election day. Perhaps the most convincing arguments for ‘least worst’ voting which might convince someone to vote for a neoliberal with a long, long history of neoconservative foreign policy positions (Biden, of course) is that at least the courts would be in a better position than under Trump, but Fish couldn’t even muster that argument. Oh, there is the positive work of Lina Khan, but I suspect many Democrats are hopeful that a second Biden term means that Biden no longer has show respect towards Bernie Sanders’ supporters and they’d push to replace Khan with someone more aligned with the Party’s neoliberal stance.
Given the tenor of previous user comments made here, it seems there’s not much more else I have to say about Fish’s commentary. I will say that Fish’s commentary about Democrats going high when the Republicans go low does not fit the reality where both parties have ‘gone low’ towards treating the American public with contempt by engaging in neoliberalism which has robbed society from public investment. The treatment of the international public is even worse. Deeds matter more than words to much of the public. It has been a long time since I had a fit of laughter like I did when Fish suggested that Obama should have doubled down on self-promotion for Obama’s policies when the public were not feeling the benefits of those policies. What a bloody dunce. Point and laugh. Point and laugh! I guess this is what counts for ‘Reclaiming the Nation’ and ‘Restoring Democracy’s Edge’ in Fish’s book.
With all the narratives during the 2020 election, you’d think Biden and the Democrats would have prioritized strengthening the US Postal Service, but it continues to be severely underfunded and mismanaged with no promises to do anything about it. Biden and the Democrats claim to be anti-Trump, but they are continuing Trump-era policies which cause foreign policy friction with countries such as Canada and China merely because those countries use government investment to lower prices whereas the US wants to use government investment to raise profits for the private sector. Take Trump and Biden’s protectionism of Boeing and the US lumber industry versus Canadian exports which has caused significant price increases for the US public and this was not done for the sake of improving the environment or circumstances for the employees in those sectors. I suppose Biden so hated Trump’s Canadian lumber tariffs that he, at least for a while, decided to double them just to increase profits for US industries. It is really an entirely new form of inflationary neoliberalism!
Oh, and sure, Biden’s foreign misadventures has been a jobs program of sorts, but one which is entirely environmentally-destructive...and destructive in so many other ways. Just like we saw with Obama, Biden’s pro-fossil fuels, pro-consumption stance plausibly makes the Republicans seem like the more environmentally-friendly party. Biden (or Trump) could achieve full employment through a peace-oriented jobs program, but no. They won’t do it.
Mr. Nader did well to counter Fish’s cheerleading of calamitous policy, but the intellectual bar was set so low that countering the rubbish in that segment was like shooting fish in a barrel. While I believe the RNRH is doing a great job informing people about matters pertaining to foreign policy, and that includes the segment with Mr. Tourney, the non-foreign policy segments have become dull especially compared to the high intellectual bar most of us expect from Mr. Nader. I’m quite sure Mr. Nader wants to see Trumpism be defeated, understandably so, but the only way to defeat Trumpism is to defeat ‘Bidenism,’ which is really just neoliberalism/corporatism and neoconservatism that we’ve seen from so many recent administrations. With that in mind, regardless of who wins the election this year, we need better conversations about what policies will most benefit society broadly so that the public knows what to demand in the election this year and also in 2026, 2028, and so forth when there is greater potential for the public to create more useful candidates.
terrific comment in that your seem to have covered much in the history of the dem party that is correctly in error and you entire post is concise and well written.
Thank you. Watch Ryan Dawson #RyanDawsonFilm "Israel stole the bomb...." @RyLiberty
Unimpressive stuff
Fish is spot on when he said voters vote for people like themselves. That's the only reason tRump will get all of the xenphobic, white power, racist, Nazi votes for their wanna-be führer.
Vote against genocide!
Jill Stein 2024! Green Party for all other elected offices 2024!
The worst thing is, we had to see and or hear about trump everyday for the last four years. 😵💫
OMG noNoNO. Trump has been the TotalitarianFascist WEALTH $$UPREMACY Empire’s Favourite DISTRACTOR since 2015❗️
Nearly TEN friggin years of this not news “News.” And MSM wonders WHY Earth’s entire population is sick of their Divide and Conquer Manufactured Crisis sh*t
USS LIBERTY VETERANS dot org
https://www.usslibertyveterans.org/
Ralph ! Who is this bloody war monger writer professor on your show?! He thinks Biden is doing a good job on foreign policy- omg
Why give someone like this a platform to speak his propaganda ?
At least based on this episode, it appears that Fish does not ‘think,’ but rather he ‘believes’. It has been so long that it is possible I’m not remembering this correctly, but I remember Mr. Nader giving a speech at a college many, many years ago where Mr. Nader discussed his father asking a schoolboy Ralph Nader if Ralph learned to think or believe when he was in school. Perhaps Fish’s parents never held a similar discussion.
To be fair, the ‘believing’ rather than ‘thinking’ happens all over the partisan political spectrum, unfortunately. There was a discussion earlier in the comments here where someone wants to believe that the US economy is universally bad. Well, that’s simply not true. The economy is a complex matter and there are certainly winners and losers at the current time. Saying that things are universally bad only creates a barrier towards achieving better, more informed policy which benefits everyone. It is also an insult towards those working in government who are legitimately doing good work such as Lina Khan.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. On the economy, however, I can’t see how printing all this money is sustainable. My goodness, 35 trillion dollars with debt repayment, alone exceeding a trillion! Frightens me to death and I can’t help but believe that it is at least a substantial factor in causing over 20% inflation since Biden took office.
The national debt is not a concern at the US federal government level...or, perhaps more accurately, it is not a concern for the reasons you might be concerned about the national debt. With our fiat currency, the constraint on spending is never running out of money and there is never a concern about ‘the debt burden on our grandchildren’, but rather the actual constraints are real resource constraints (labor, materials, etc.).
Poor government policy, including policy which involves spending, can have inflationary consequences, but government spending itself is not inherently inflationary. In fact, good government policy, including well-targeted spending, will greatly stabilize prices and the economy in general. The idea that government spending and debt is naturally inflationary is balderdash from libertarian monetarist economists such as Milton Friedman which most right-wing politicians do not even subscribe to at this point except when they, Republicans and Democrats alike, want to give a bogus response for why they want to privatize or eliminate public functions.
In many ways, it is the absence of government spending which leads to inflation. When government allows unemployment and a lack of education (the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, are often deemed by potential employers to be poor job candidates and are often passed over for jobs), productivity dips because employers cannot find suitable employees to fill needs. Properly targeted government spending, OTOH, can improve educational outcomes, especially in productive sectors such as healthcare, science, engineering, and so forth as compared to unproductive sectors such as finance and real estate, and the government can buy idle/underutilized labor to prevent the many problems of unemployment.
Back to healthcare, not only would increased government spending for a single-provider health program become a source of major financial savings for the public, but this also ties back to education. If the government encourages young people to take up careers in the health sector, and if government builds more health facilities in areas which need them and then staffs these facilities, it would go a long way towards solving the real resource constraints we have in healthcare as it is now even with a large percentage of the population not having useful access to healthcare. This again all lowers costs for the public while dramatically improving public health which will also lead to greater economic productivity.
Now, let me return to my first sentence in this reply. As Warren Mosler has been pointing out for years, the current positive interest rate policy, along with the related bond market policy, is “basic income for those who already have money.” Mosler has postulated that interest rate increases, especially given the current national debt, may actually be inflationary rather than serving the stated rôle of fighting inflation. It has become easy, non-productive income for those who already have money. The more money one has, the more easy, non-productive income there might be and that can drive inflation. This is still an emerging field of research, but it is one to watch.
This should not be taken as there being a problem with national debt, but rather the problem is with the current positive interest rate policy and the fact that the bond market even still exists when it is a vestige of the gold standard which the US most certainly is not using (and hooray for that!). These policies strongly benefit the wealthy and is part of a trickle-down economics system which only tilts national wealth towards the wealthy along with other forms of neoliberal policy.
I’m only scratching the surface of the subject, but I suggest reading Stephanie Kelton’s best-selling book about the ‘Deficit Myth’ for more information about this subject. I don’t agree with some of Kelton’s policy suggestions she’s made since the book was published, but her theoretical knowledge is excellent and she explains the theory very well in the book even for people who do not have a background in macroeconomics. Knowledge of this material is fundamental for anyone crafting progressive policy of any kind including environmental and foreign policy.
Ralph Nader, I’ve admired and loved you all my adult life. But with all due respect… WHY are you simping for the Democ*rats*?!!
Genocide, endless war, no unconditional, unobstructed access to healthcare; student debt scam; no subsidized, affordable childcare, no family leave, no maternity leave, no guaranteed vacation time for all workers, no living wage; the ranks of the homeless, exploding… And we’re supposed to be grateful the economy is “always better” when Democrats are in power? For WHO? As to the matter of the economy being “better” under the Dems, try telling that to someone paid $7.25 an hour, in an economy where, anywhere in the country, you have to get $50 an hour for a crummy two-bedroom apartment!!!!
We need a strong third party. No matter which side of this duopoly wins the congressional majority, we are screwed. And I for one am tired of it. I'm never voting for another Democrat.
Does my spending the last nine years hammering home the same point again and again that Ralph should be leading citizens in demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes make me a strong leader or does my asking Ralph for help make me appear weak?
While the Republicans are no longer the party of Lincoln and are now the party of no, the Democrats are no longer the party of yes -they are now the party of not now.
Neither party has the strength to stand up to the big money interests. They prove this every time they take big money.
If politicians cannot display with their actions the strength to stand up to the big money interests when to comes financing their campaigns they will not display the strength to stand up to the big money interests when it to comes to passing legislation.
Will you, Ralph, display the strength to help lead citizens to stand up to the big money interests by demanding small donor candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes?
Advising the Democrats on how to appear strong is not going to get them to be strong when it comes to standing up to the big money interests.
Even if you cannot summon the strength to take on the big money interests by leading citizens to take on the biggest threat to our democracy, can you at least explain why you think citizens using the basic principles of democracy to achieve our common goal (80% of citizens wanting the big money out of politics) will not work so it will be clear why you are not helping to lead citizens in taking this action now?
Don, I don’t think all your comments are merited- certainly not about Mr. Nader, who has paid dearly at the hands of the Democrats.
But I hope Mr. Fish is reading these comments as they seem to be well deserved criticism that Ralph for whatever reason chose not to voice.
It seems you have interpreted my challenge to Ralph to take a risk leading citizens to utilize the leverage of our votes and our money by exercising the basic principles of democracy as a criticism rather than a request and challenge for Ralph to take action.
I would hope that Ralph also reads these comments (we know Steve does).
Ralph advised listeners writing to their congresspersons to request a written response to their questions.
Please, Steve, let Ralph know I am requesting a written response to my question on why this approach will not work as it seems to me that if it could work that Ralph should at least be willing to discuss whether or not taking this action is worth the risk based on Ralph saying things like politicians want our votes more than big money and 1% of citizens in a congressional district can make things happen.
Don,
In your favor, I’ve asked Ralph for years to shate the identities if his followers in Montana so we can organize. No luck.
Ralph may not be comfortable with giving out the contact info to anyone that asks.
Have you tried sending Ralph a letter outlining your plan for organizing with your contact info that Ralph could send to his Montana followers so they could contact you if they are interested?
Yes, to him and to Steve but he never answers. I suppose he gets thousand of requests. He can’t respond to all of them. The irony, though, is he wrote a book about his unanswered letters to the Presidents.
I have been a community, well statewide, grassroots organizer in Montana judicial elections for decades. It would be nice to organize and have the ability to do the things Ralph advocates
for. So keep the pressure on. I’m with you.
Erik