Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Buckeye_Democrat

(15,331 posts)
29. The platform places too much faith in businesses.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 07:32 PM
Dec 2016
Public-private partnerships should become the rule, not the exception, in delivering services. Civic and voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems.

I even prefer the 1912 Bull Moose Party platform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
The platform's main theme was reversing the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled the Republican and Democratic parties, alike. The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The "Third Way" is about cutting welfare for the economically vulnerable while also placing the burden of "new skills" on them. It places faith in free markets and capitalism, domestically and abroad, but expects individuals to adapt to any changes that result.

Does our military expect new soldiers to be fully trained when they enlist? Do they expect voluntary groups to keep them afloat in the meantime? Or does our military pay new enlistees right from the start and then do the training themselves?

Models that cater to wealthy business owners, that don't treat "new skills" as their ultimate responsibility since THEY are the ones making such demands, is a problem.

If we're going to continue down the path of decentralized, individually responsible education and training, then it needs FAR more government funding which should come mostly from higher corporate and ownership taxes... and many people will need a basic minimum income to survive as they tackle those endeavors.

EDIT: It also blows my mind how many times that I've seen supposed Democrats here on DU making statements like, "Rural voters should move because those jobs aren't coming back. Adapt or die." Do they not see how out of touch that is? That's like people flippantly saying, "People in poor ghettos should just move." Moving takes money! And making such a leap is frightening without better safety nets! Meanwhile, many of those rural voters are more likely to see their local churches as more helpful than government. Heck, it's even in the "Third Way" platform -- e.g., "voluntary groups, including faith-based organizations, should play a larger role in addressing America's social problems." It's no wonder to me that so many "Christians" in this country vote Republican! Some Democrats have been driving them away!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Not sure. I like him but the entire playbook La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #1
I'm not a big fan personally, but I think he'd have had a good chance. Kentonio Dec 2016 #2
He would've lost bigger than Hillary Yavin4 Dec 2016 #3
And you know this how? mtnsnake Dec 2016 #5
I think he would have had an excellent chance of beating the likes of Trump mtnsnake Dec 2016 #4
We never get to know. Orsino Dec 2016 #6
You're certainly correct about the media promoting the same candidate. LonePirate Dec 2016 #9
People who wouldn't vote for Clinton because of gender wouldn't be voting for a dem, anyway, JudyM Dec 2016 #10
I think there are some Dems or Dem-leaners who didn't vote for Clinton because of her sex. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #13
What are you basing that view on? JudyM Dec 2016 #17
The fact that sexism is alive and well. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #22
Some voters were not going to let a woman have that power Kolesar Dec 2016 #27
It would have been interesting. But truth is, he didn't do well in Primary, so it's kind of moot. Hoyt Dec 2016 #7
He would have fared the same as in WhiteTara Dec 2016 #8
I think he would have done well blue cat Dec 2016 #11
He's a great candidate lake loon Dec 2016 #12
Not nearly as well as Clinton. duffyduff Dec 2016 #14
Media wasn't interested in him so it came down to Clinton and Bernie. hollowdweller Dec 2016 #15
Yes women must always smile dsc Dec 2016 #28
If he had won the nomination, he probably could have won the general election. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #16
I like O'Malley, and I think he could have beaten Trump, but this question misses a HUGE point. StevieM Dec 2016 #18
If he got the nomination I think he would've won, I also think Biden would've won Raine Dec 2016 #19
A "Third Way" Democrat? He wouldn't get my vote in a primary, but... Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #20
Digging up the old 3rd way lie on O'Malley? He was asked to join, but refused. As for the Hyde Park FSogol Dec 2016 #24
The platform places too much faith in businesses. Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #29
Whatever the 3rd way became, they were not any of those things when the Hyde Park Declar was signed FSogol Dec 2016 #31
I read all of it. Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #33
Not True: "O'Malley was endorsed by Third Way as a Presidential candidate a few years ago" FSogol Dec 2016 #34
He's certainly less of a 3rd wayer than Hillary jfern Dec 2016 #25
He might have won but with less votes than Clinton. JI7 Dec 2016 #21
He came off as smug and unlikable to me during the primaries. aikoaiko Dec 2016 #23
Who? bowens43 Dec 2016 #26
He could've won because he would've been hungry for it. Trump was beatable. coolbreeze77 Dec 2016 #30
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»How would Martin O'Malley...»Reply #29