By Mark Blessington
I long for a reemergence of an FDR-like era.
FDR was a no compromise Democrat.
He was even willing to take on the Supreme Court.
It happened before, and it can happen again, if we push hard enough.
I'm not ready to give up on the USA yet.
For me, Hillary Clinton represents giving up on ourselves before we've even started the "good fight."
Compromise Democrats have done as much damage since FDR as any Republican.
Hilary and the "let's be practical and get things done in Washington" philosophy has been a disaster, time and time again.
Compromise with Republicans means the interests of common people are compromised.
This has happened for decades now.
Only one Democrat since the FDR era--LBJ--has managed to hold the line.
All other Democratic Presidents and their administrations let us slip further and further behind. This is not the fault of individuals or even Democratic administrations.
Our economic system is designed to protect wealthy minority interests unless a supermajority has been elected by the masses to represent the masses.
And not a single Democratic president since FDR had supermajorities in both houses.
The numbers are clear: Democratic administrations have consistently experienced increasing income disparity and rule changes that favor the 1%.
While their words support common citizens, their results are no better than the Republicans.
In my book, if you deliver Republican results (i.e., the wealthy get wealthier at the expense of everyone else), then you deliver Republican results.
There is no hiding. There are no points for good intentions, only points for success--for results.
Sure, Obama scored a few points, such as with Obamacare, but a few points are not enough. He still lost the game.
Obamacare is a great example of compromise destroying the original, great healthcare approach Obama campaigned for. Before he was elected Obama said we did not need private health insurance companies. But the final Obamacare result is intricately tied to healthcare insurance.
We, The People, need to score major victories, not a few little ones.
The end results of the Obama administration: income disparity soared.
For explanations, we need look no further than his Republican-ish appointees to the Treasury and the Fed.
For me, Bernie Sanders represents the best possible aspiration the Democratic party could offer America: a return of the Democratic Super Majority with a fervent conviction to "reverse the reversals" since the FDR administration.
We don't need another Compromise Democrat. Been there, done that.
We need Democrats who won't compromise with Republicans.
And we need Democrats who can inspire the masses.
But if the leaders and thinkers don't support candidates with a no compromise passion, then the people suffer and the wealthy stay fat and happy. Bernie is capable and has tremendous conviction to not compromise. But will the Democratic machine let him? I fear not.
The Democratic Machine has become too vested in Compromise.
They benefit personally and economically from compromise with Republicans.
Compromise puts them in touch with the wealthy few. It puts money in their pockets.
Then they get distracted by the lure of wealth.
I think Hilary is living proof of this phenomenon. Just follow the money.
Some great thinkers--Krugman for example--have lost sight of how to put their convictions into reality. Before Bernie, Krugman talked like a liberal, even a progressive. He waged a righteous war against conservative Republican economic claims and reasoning. Yet as soon as Bernie offered, in effect, to make Krugman's philosophy real, Krugman reversed himself.
Krugman's rants about Bernie tell a whole other story: when it comes to politics, even analytical humans often leave the facts at the door. Now Krugman sounds a lot more like a conservative than a liberal or a progressive.
His attacks on Bernie have the same intensity as his attacks on conservative economists. How can he possibly think Bernie represents someone as wrong-headed as Milton Friedman? His positions against Bernie and conservative economics sound strangely, even suspiciously, familiar.
FDR, on the other hand, relentlessly focused on facts about the common good. Everything else was just smoke and mirrors. He swept the "Krugmans" and "Friedmans" aside. Economists shouting "chicken little" predictions were ignored. Thank goodness.
Bernie is the closest thing we've seen to FDR since, well, FDR.
Today's youth think Bernie represents an FDR-like revolution and a radically better future. Most of today's youth are not gainfully employed. Many are on a track to nowhere economically. Along with that, many lug into their futures a ball and chain of debt. They don't like it. They want something better. They see their student loan interest rates near 7% and feel used. They know something is horribly wrong.
How is it that the USA sponsors "government" loans to students at such exorbitant rates?
How does it make sense, especially since these loans are only forgivable by death or by working in a few, obscure government jobs?
The prime rate is 3% for Corporate America, yet students--the future of our country--pay more than double that?!?
It's offensive and disgusting to them. Me too.
You may think I am unrealistic and overly idealistic about what can be done in today's world.
For my whole career I was paid lots of money to reform corporations to be more competitive. There were many of us: consultants, new executive hires, and so on. MBAs trained in top business schools. We consistently and relentlessly destroyed old, ineffective ways.
We were not paid to compromise with the competition.
We did not get promoted by pleading with the competition to play fair and be nice on the playground.
We were paid to crush the competition. And we tried, and often succeeded, in doing exactly that.
Compromise had very little to do with it.
Compromise only played a minor role as part of the transition to the new.
Compromise was never, ever a stated objective or managerial practice.
Much of that same, NO COMPROMISE energy and dedication is what I now direct toward politics.
I think we need to fight without compromise until we take back what rightfully belonged to the people.
Isn't that about as "American" as it gets?
I think it is, and I think it will happen again, sooner or later.
To me, compromise is a watered-down, ineffective political concept. It simply does not work.
To me, compromise is what two rich people do. It is not what the rich and poor do.
The only way for the poor to improve their lot is to take back what was lost.
This is not compromise.
The rich won't just give it back because they all of a sudden choose to play nice. They will only give it back when forced to do so by law. This is not compromise. It is political economic war.
Compromise has proven itself to be one of the most dangerous managerial concepts ever put into practice.
The private sector knows this quite well.
The public sector still lags far, far behind.
And the wealthy few keep winning at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality and income disparity is an irrefutable fact. But just as we have climate change deniers, we have income inequality deniers.
I ask: Why do people keep supporting compromise if it does not reduce income inequality?
I hypothesize: It must serve some personal interest of those with political power, and that personal interest must be stronger than wanting to reduce income inequality. In other words, if compromise maintains the growth of income inequality, then personal interests are somehow aligned with income inequality.
What do you think? Join the debate. Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
Mark Blessington is a sales and marketing consultant and has worked with many of the world's largest corporations. He has written four books, ranging from Deep Economics to Sales Forecasting.
FIXCapitalism.com is dedicated to "saving capitalism from itself." Visit us at www.fixcapitalism.com to join the debate. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook. Sign up for our newsletter to get more insights.