thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-03-18--Who Won the Sanders vs. Biden Debate & How Would We Ever Even Know?

“ He ’ s not a good debater .
He doesn ’ t answer questions directly , and takes too much time to circle back around .
When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate , he doesn ’ t land them right… ” Expert political observer Joaquin Flores weighs the pros and cons in Sanders ’ match with Biden .
Flores is certain ( and so are we ) that Sanders could have done a lot better all along this campaign , but his style and overall strategic posture are deeply flawed .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He doesn ’ t answer questions directly , and takes too much time to circle back around .
When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate , he doesn ’ t land them right… ” as the Coronavirus cancelled American Democracy ?
CNN hid the DNC candidate ’ s debate from the American people in the best way it knew how – it aired it strictly on CNN and has only made Biden-friendly snippets available on YouTube and its own website .
If we missed it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate replete with Biden ’ s gaffes .
Does anyone even watch TV anymore ?
Not like that , they don ’ t : only 44 % of American people even have cable , and the demographic is skewed over to the 55+ crowd .
This means that CNN ’ s debate was intentionally aimed at shoring up support among the very over-achieving-yet-low-information voter that characterizes the Baby Boomer and oldest of Generation X cross-section .
How will we ever know who really won the debate if we can ’ t watch ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have cable , and coverage of the virus garnered more TV viewers .
Sanders ’ likely voters are often caught in wage-work in the gig economy , and don ’ t enjoy the Boomer pastime of weekends off .
So before the debate even starts , Sanders can ’ t reach his base and energize them – point for Biden .
It comes as no surprise : CNN ’ s main goal was to host this debate in such a way that it actually went away .
That ’ s because the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like him .
Additionally , the more Biden has to talk , the greater odds that he ’ ll make another ‘ gaffe ’ .
What ’ s fascinating was that the DNC leaked a story that the debate may not happen at all .
Another version was leaked that it may be more like a town-hall with both candidates sitting down .
This ‘ weather balloon ’ was floated precisely to gauge the public response without taking responsibility for posing the question .
The public ’ s response was that there had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden wants to sit down it ’ s because he can ’ t stand up for more than twenty minutes at a time because he has early signs of Alzheimer ’ s .
There ’ s no point to veer off into conspirology regarding the timing of the public hysteria on the Coronavirus and the American election cycle .
There are varying views about the seriousness of this outbreak in proportion to temperature and scope of public attention on it , and I ’ m very underqualified to have an opinion on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ malpractice also not to mention that this point has not just been raised , but has gained significant traction especially among Trump supporters .
After all , a healthy stock market and decent employment figures at least on paper , are Trump ’ s main electability factors for swing-state voters going into November .
The extraordinary effect of this pandemic on the stock market does not match our experience with H1N1 – what Biden in this debate called ‘ N … N1H ’ mumble .
Trump ’ s tough position on China and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fast-rising People ’ s Republic have led to all sorts of rabbit hole theories on what ’ s really afoot .
Did enough people hear Biden ’ s flub ?
Anyhow it ’ s cosmetic – half point , Sanders .
On the one hand , any global epidemic is a critically good reason why emergency health services at the very least ought to be heavily government subsidized , even if that means working with private insurers .
Sanders sort of made this point – and that ’ s the problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good debater .
He doesn ’ t answer questions directly , and takes too much time to circle back around .
When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate , he doesn ’ t land them right .
He makes criticisms of his opponent Biden ’ s fundraising by speaking in vague generalities about money in politics today , without actually concluding that Biden – yes Biden – is one of those politicians that Sanders is quite loosely referring to .
That just doesn ’ t work in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I suspect these wouldn ’ t have landed well fifty or sixty years ago either .
Half-point , Sanders .
Biden responded by flat-out lying about Sanders having nine Super Pac backers .
Do you see what you just read there ?
Even as I report that , it seems to infer that Biden was wrong about the number .
See , that ’ s how it will be reported in media , and still people will come away believing that Sanders has some PAC backers and therefore he is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on politicians-and-money-and-we-may-assume-that-Biden-is-one-such-politician .
Half point , Biden Both candidates seemed to make the argument that in such cases where a state of emergency is declared , deductibles should be waved and those without coverage should be welcome anywhere medical services are provided .
Sanders supporters who evaluate objectively must have been outrageously frustrated at Sanders ’ bizarre gestures .
Sanders speaks as if we can read his mind , read between the lines ad infinitum .
He told the televised audience ( due to the virus , there was no live audience ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he wants everyone who is sick to go to the doctor and ‘ it ’ s taken care of ’ .
What ’ s taken care of , the bill ?
Yeah it ’ s taken care of once we have to pay out of pocket for it , or what did he mean exactly ?
As he continued to nearly ramble , we could then tease out that people should pay it and that since it ’ s an emergency , we ’ d … what , figure it all out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well informed voter and an extraordinarily active listener to tease out what Bernie was gesturing at : Go to the doctor if you are at all sick , and expect them to bill you as they would – but I will use the fact that this is a state of emergency to give an executive order to reimburse all healthcare providers at a rate my government will work out with them , so that at the end of the day , despite what you were sent in the mail , you will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually didn ’ t clearly say this during people ’ s attention span .
His objection to Biden ’ s solution is that it wouldn ’ t cover shrink visits for someone having a nervous break-down in response to their spouse ’ s infection .
Because Sanders couldn ’ t say that the more leftish thing , which is that the emergency response doesn ’ t cover undocumented immigrants and there are many .
Quarter point Sanders Because that ’ s what Americans want who are electing a president .
The entire mythology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what may well be the positive side of the kind of executive power creep that we ’ ve seen with legislation like the Patriot Act .
By declaring a state of emergency on , say , the state of healthcare in general , Sanders – if well counseled – could arrange an executive order on that too , and just bypass congressional obstructionism .
That said , he made a number of very good points about society ’ s priorities and why if we can authorize 1.5 trillion to bail out big business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bail out the American people in the time of a pandemic that threatens hours at work , mortgages , healthcare , and rents ?
Point – Sanders And yet still saying this all is a pretty good attack on how Trump has handled this , but he couldn ’ t make that attack directly on Biden .
Yes , it ’ s good to show you can beat Trump , but right now people want to see what ’ s so wrong with Biden who is otherwise in the lead ?
So in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s people know that Sanders rambles and that most people are not these incredibly active listeners that are going out of their way to hear out Sanders .
Those who do hear him out , realize he ’ s the one with the right ideas and policies .
Biden understands how listeners in fact listen .
So , all Biden had to do was say that he agreed with Sanders on a few of the points that were hard to follow anyway .
And that ’ s what Biden did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacle of the virus , and framed the whole debate around it .
One thing political scientists and social psychologists know is that emergency crises have a conservatizing effect on the populace .
Even as Sanders ’ campaign rests not upon broad and lofty visions for an improved tomorrow that builds on the tolerable one today , the Coronavirus hype switches up how we view things .
While Sanders speaks to intolerable and unjust problems in American society today , despite his best efforts to seem establishment friendly , his branding is anti-establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden because of the fact that he ’ s seen as an insider that – warts and all – knows how to wheel and deal with other politicians and if he were president right now , as was posed in the debate , could call on his Republican allies in the legislative branch to get ‘ something ’ done .
An openly establishment candidate like Biden uses some progressive-sounding talking points to cover his bases , but is clearly the more conservative candidate .
Undecided voters , who also tend to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would tend to go over to Biden as opposed to taking chances on what appears to be a radical with admittedly good ideas .
Point – Biden The timing certainly is inconvenient for whatever modicum of democratic procedure exists within the Democrat Party .
We would have otherwise had the debate in Arizona where one of the next primaries is set to take place .
With a national state of emergency at play , the debate was far removed from Sanders friendly Arizona , where no doubt thousands of his ardent supporters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of a bullhorned tailgate party outside .
While CNN would have ignored this , as is their standard practice , and Sanders would have well worked his magic in Arizona and shored up some energy in a state where he ’ s struggling to keep up .
Sanders really responds to a crowd , and is very good at reading and feeling them .
But they weren ’ t there .
Point – Biden The best thing about Joe Biden ’ s campaign is that the media does all the work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , massive , gaping holes in his logic and even his dementia afflicted basic syntax .
Point – Biden My obligation was to cover this debate and weigh in on the ins and outs , and offer a final verdict on the outcome .
I did the same in 2016 and I did so in a way that readers believed was on the balance fair , if not tilted in favor of Trump .
The right thing for me to do is disclose my own bias – like 40 % of Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think then that readers thought I was tilted towards Trump speaks to my fairness .
Point – Flores Of course the debate covered other subjects too , but since you ’ ll never be able to see it again , and since the rest of the debate conformed to the same pattern we ’ ve been on about here , we can superimpose this onto the rest of the debate which you might see again in several decades .
That is , if CNN ’ s successor wants to make a full length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss to Trump in 2020 was critical to Trump ’ s eventually becoming a four-term president after he evoked executive orders and stacked the courts .
Last night ?
For those listening , Sanders actually won big .
For everyone else and all other factors in consideration , Biden communicated more effectively and will probably be seen as winning by anyone watching CNN ’ s heavily edited clips , which is how most people – if they see it at all – will get to see it .

"He’s not a good debater. He doesn’t answer questions directly, and takes too much time to circle back around. When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate, he doesn’t land them right..."
Expert political observer Joaquin Flores weighs the pros and cons in Sanders' match with Biden. Flores is certain (and so are we) that Sanders could have done a lot better all along this campaign, but his style and overall strategic posture are deeply flawed. "He’s not a good debater. He doesn’t answer questions directly, and takes too much time to circle back around. When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate, he doesn’t land them right..."
[dropcap]H[/dropcap]as the Coronavirus cancelled American Democracy? CNN hid the DNC candidate’s debate from the American people in the best way it knew how – it aired it strictly on CNN and has only made Biden-friendly snippets available on YouTube and its own website. If we missed it, we’d never see the real debate replete with Biden’s gaffes. Does anyone even watch TV anymore? Not like that, they don’t: only 44% of American people even have cable, and the demographic is skewed over to the 55+ crowd. This means that CNN’s debate was intentionally aimed at shoring up support among the very over-achieving-yet-low-information voter that characterizes the Baby Boomer and oldest of Generation X cross-section.
How will we ever know who really won the debate if we can’t watch? 56% of Americans don’t have cable, and coverage of the virus garnered more TV viewers. Sanders’ likely voters are often caught in wage-work in the gig economy, and don’t enjoy the Boomer pastime of weekends off. So before the debate even starts, Sanders can’t reach his base and energize them – point for Biden.
It comes as no surprise: CNN’s main goal was to host this debate in such a way that it actually went away. That’s because the more people see Biden, the less they like him. Additionally, the more Biden has to talk, the greater odds that he’ll make another ‘gaffe’.
What’s fascinating was that the DNC leaked a story that the debate may not happen at all. Another version was leaked that it may be more like a town-hall with both candidates sitting down. This ‘weather balloon’ was floated precisely to gauge the public response without taking responsibility for posing the question. The public’s response was that there had better be a debate and that if Joe Biden wants to sit down it’s because he can’t stand up for more than twenty minutes at a time because he has early signs of Alzheimer’s.
There’s no point to veer off into conspirology regarding the timing of the public hysteria on the Coronavirus and the American election cycle. There are varying views about the seriousness of this outbreak in proportion to temperature and scope of public attention on it, and I’m very underqualified to have an opinion on that count. But it would be malpractice also not to mention that this point has not just been raised, but has gained significant traction especially among Trump supporters. After all, a healthy stock market and decent employment figures at least on paper, are Trump’s main electability factors for swing-state voters going into November. The extraordinary effect of this pandemic on the stock market does not match our experience with H1N1 – what Biden in this debate called ‘N … N1H’mumble. Trump’s tough position on China and the DNC’s cozy relationship with the fast-rising People’s Republic have led to all sorts of rabbit hole theories on what’s really afoot.
Did enough people hear Biden’s flub? Anyhow it’s cosmetic – half point, Sanders.
On the one hand, any global epidemic is a critically good reason why emergency health services at the very least ought to be heavily government subsidized, even if that means working with private insurers.
Sanders sort of made this point – and that’s the problem with Sanders. He’s not a good debater. He doesn’t answer questions directly, and takes too much time to circle back around. When he does finally circle back around as he did in this debate, he doesn’t land them right.
He makes criticisms of his opponent Biden’s fundraising by speaking in vague generalities about money in politics today, without actually concluding that Biden – yes Biden – is one of those politicians that Sanders is quite loosely referring to. That just doesn’t work in today’s low attention span world, but I suspect these wouldn’t have landed well fifty or sixty years ago either. Half-point, Sanders.
Biden responded by flat-out lying about Sanders having nine Super Pac backers. Do you see what you just read there? Even as I report that, it seems to infer that Biden was wrong about the number. See, that’s how it will be reported in media, and still people will come away believing that Sanders has some PAC backers and therefore he is a hypocrite when he somewhat gestures an attack on politicians-and-money-and-we-may-assume-that-Biden-is-one-such-politician. Half point, Biden
Both candidates seemed to make the argument that in such cases where a state of emergency is declared, deductibles should be waved and those without coverage should be welcome anywhere medical services are provided.
Sanders supporters who evaluate objectively must have been outrageously frustrated at Sanders’ bizarre gestures. Sanders speaks as if we can read his mind, read between the lines ad infinitum. He told the televised audience (due to the virus, there was no live audience) that since it’s an emergency, he wants everyone who is sick to go to the doctor and ‘it’s taken care of’. What’s taken care of, the bill? Yeah it’s taken care of once we have to pay out of pocket for it, or what did he mean exactly?
As he continued to nearly ramble, we could then tease out that people should pay it and that since it’s an emergency, we’d … what, figure it all out later? It would take an already well informed voter and an extraordinarily active listener to tease out what Bernie was gesturing at: Go to the doctor if you are at all sick, and expect them to bill you as they would – but I will use the fact that this is a state of emergency to give an executive order to reimburse all healthcare providers at a rate my government will work out with them, so that at the end of the day, despite what you were sent in the mail, you will not pay one red cent.
But he actually didn’t clearly say this during people’s attention span. His objection to Biden’s solution is that it wouldn’t cover shrink visits for someone having a nervous break-down in response to their spouse’s infection. Because Sanders couldn’t say that the more leftish thing, which is that the emergency response doesn’t cover undocumented immigrants and there are many. Quarter point Sanders
Because that’s what Americans want who are electing a president. The entire mythology around congressional deadlock seems there to hide what may well be the positive side of the kind of executive power creep that we’ve seen with legislation like the Patriot Act. By declaring a state of emergency on, say, the state of healthcare in general, Sanders – if well counseled – could arrange an executive order on that too, and just bypass congressional obstructionism.
That said, he made a number of very good points about society’s priorities and why if we can authorize 1.5 trillion to bail out big business last week, we couldn’t bail out the American people in the time of a pandemic that threatens hours at work, mortgages, healthcare, and rents? Point – Sanders
And yet still saying this all is a pretty good attack on how Trump has handled this, but he couldn’t make that attack directly on Biden. Yes, it’s good to show you can beat Trump, but right now people want to see what’s so wrong with Biden who is otherwise in the lead?
So in truth, Sanders flubbed that too. Biden’s people know that Sanders rambles and that most people are not these incredibly active listeners that are going out of their way to hear out Sanders. Those who do hear him out, realize he’s the one with the right ideas and policies. Biden understands how listeners in fact listen. So, all Biden had to do was say that he agreed with Sanders on a few of the points that were hard to follow anyway. And that’s what Biden did. Point – Biden
Certainly CNN made a spectacle of the virus, and framed the whole debate around it. One thing political scientists and social psychologists know is that emergency crises have a conservatizing effect on the populace. Even as Sanders’ campaign rests not upon broad and lofty visions for an improved tomorrow that builds on the tolerable one today, the Coronavirus hype switches up how we view things. While Sanders speaks to intolerable and unjust problems in American society today, despite his best efforts to seem establishment friendly, his branding is anti-establishment.
So the coronavirus plays very well for Biden because of the fact that he’s seen as an insider that – warts and all – knows how to wheel and deal with other politicians and if he were president right now, as was posed in the debate, could call on his Republican allies in the legislative branch to get ‘something’ done. An openly establishment candidate like Biden uses some progressive-sounding talking points to cover his bases, but is clearly the more conservative candidate. Undecided voters, who also tend to be low-information television watchers and less net-savvy, would tend to go over to Biden as opposed to taking chances on what appears to be a radical with admittedly good ideas. Point – Biden
The timing certainly is inconvenient for whatever modicum of democratic procedure exists within the Democrat Party. We would have otherwise had the debate in Arizona where one of the next primaries is set to take place. With a national state of emergency at play, the debate was far removed from Sanders friendly Arizona, where no doubt thousands of his ardent supporters would have held a media event in the form of a bullhorned tailgate party outside. While CNN would have ignored this, as is their standard practice, and Sanders would have well worked his magic in Arizona and shored up some energy in a state where he’s struggling to keep up. Sanders really responds to a crowd, and is very good at reading and feeling them. But they weren’t there. Point – Biden
The best thing about Joe Biden’s campaign is that the media does all the work for him, and fills in the huge, massive, gaping holes in his logic and even his dementia afflicted basic syntax. Point – Biden
My obligation was to cover this debate and weigh in on the ins and outs, and offer a final verdict on the outcome. I did the same in 2016 and I did so in a way that readers believed was on the balance fair, if not tilted in favor of Trump. The right thing for me to do is disclose my own bias – like 40% of Americans, I’m a socialist. I think then that readers thought I was tilted towards Trump speaks to my fairness. Point – Flores
Of course the debate covered other subjects too, but since you’ll never be able to see it again, and since the rest of the debate conformed to the same pattern we’ve been on about here, we can superimpose this onto the rest of the debate which you might see again in several decades. That is, if CNN’s successor wants to make a full length documentary about how Biden’s massive loss to Trump in 2020 was critical to Trump’s eventually becoming a four-term president after he evoked executive orders and stacked the courts. Last night? For those listening, Sanders actually won big. For everyone else and all other factors in consideration, Biden communicated more effectively and will probably be seen as winning by anyone watching CNN’s heavily edited clips, which is how most people – if they see it at all – will get to see it.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-03-18--Arrogance and Condescension Cause Resentment and Blowback

He was lying , because , as publicly announced on 24 February at a media conference of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Covid-19 , “ As agreed by the two sides , China and the WHO invited Chinese and foreign experts to form a joint mission to investigate the epidemic prevention and control in China .
Starting from February 16 , the joint mission has visited Beijing , Guangdong , Sichuan and Wuhan of Hubei province successively… ” Pompeo ’ s allegation that there has been no “ sharing of the information that needs to take place ” by China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mission was headed by Dr Bruce Aylward , lately Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organisation and currently senior adviser to the director general , who along China ’ s Dr Liang Wanniang headed the team of experts which examined the vast problems facing the country .
As Dr Aylward recounted , “ In the face of a previously unknown disease , China has taken one of the most ancient approaches for infectious disease control and rolled out probably the most ambitious , and I would say , agile and aggressive disease containment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , like the national approach to hand-washing , the mask-wearing , the social distancing , the universal temperature monitoring .
But then very quickly , as it started to evolve , the response started to change .
.
.
So they refined the strategy as they moved forward , and this is an important aspect as we look to how we might use this going forward.
” Contrary to what Pompeo claimed on Fox News — which , unfortunately , is regarded as a credible source by millions of Americans including President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperative internationally .
For example , on 14 March President Xi sent a message to European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offering total support .
Dr Aylward was not interviewed by Fox , as it would have been embarrassing to hear him state that “ WHO has been here from the start of this crisis , an epidemic , working every single day with the government of China… WHO was here from the beginning and never left .
What ’ s different about this mission is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other external experts.
” The “ Wuhan Virus ” theme was adopted by several Republican legislators , including , as by the New York Times , Senator Cotton of Arkansas and Congressman McCarthy of California who indulged his followers by tweeting that the disease is “ the Chinese coronavirus.
” What are these people trying to prove ?
Do they imagine that the “ Chinese Communist Party ” is in some fashion going to lessen the effects of Covid-19 ?
Do they think their silly posturing has assisted one single member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the disease ?
With such mindsets they are not fit to be in any position of legislative or administrative responsibility .
Which brings us to President Trump who leapt on the anti-China bandwagon and according to Time Magazine “ retweeted supporter Charlie Kirk calling it the ‘ China virus , ’ with the president agreeing ‘ we need the Wall more than ever !
’ ” Then he used his Address to the nation to to the Covid-19 epidemic “ that started in China ” and claim that the U.S. was making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confront a foreign virus in modern history.
” Note that it was of course a foreign virus , as by the Guardian .
Trump went further in his flailing attempts to claim that the U.S. had taken speedy and energetic action against the virus , when in fact he had been the most dilatory leader in the world .
He declared that the European Union “ failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots .
As a result , a large number of new clusters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Europe.
” He then announced that there would be restrictions on travel from European countries , without having the common sense or the courtesy to consult with or at least notify the EU of this sweeping decision .
The leaders of the European Council and the European Commission issued a joint statement that the decision had been made “ unilaterally and without consultation , ” and there was chaos at airfields all over the European continent .
Trump and his minions have gone out of their way to grossly inconvenience , denigrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if they think that when international affairs return to a pre-epidemic state , then there will be forgiveness on the part of the EU and the PRC they are profoundly mistaken .
The resentment created by Washington ’ s sneering attitude and mercurial pronouncements isn ’ t going to disappear .
There will be blowback , and the U.S. will suffer , and the blame for this will lie squarely with the White House , its Congressional hacks , and the egregious Pompeo .

He was lying, because, as publicly announced on 24 February at a media conference of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Covid-19, “As agreed by the two sides, China and the WHO invited Chinese and foreign experts to form a joint mission to investigate the epidemic prevention and control in China. Starting from February 16, the joint mission has visited Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan and Wuhan of Hubei province successively…”
Pompeo’s allegation that there has been no “sharing of the information that needs to take place” by China was a downright lie.
The International Mission was headed by Dr Bruce Aylward, lately Assistant Director-General of the World Health Organisation and currently senior adviser to the director general, who along China’s Dr Liang Wanniang headed the team of experts which examined the vast problems facing the country. As Dr Aylward recounted, “In the face of a previously unknown disease, China has taken one of the most ancient approaches for infectious disease control and rolled out probably the most ambitious, and I would say, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. China took old-fashioned measures, like the national approach to hand-washing, the mask-wearing, the social distancing, the universal temperature monitoring. But then very quickly, as it started to evolve, the response started to change . . . So they refined the strategy as they moved forward, and this is an important aspect as we look to how we might use this going forward.”
Contrary to what Pompeo claimed on Fox News — which, unfortunately, is regarded as a credible source by millions of Americans including President Trump — the Chinese are being completely cooperative internationally. For example, on 14 March President Xi sent a message to European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offering total support.
Dr Aylward was not interviewed by Fox, as it would have been embarrassing to hear him state that “WHO has been here from the start of this crisis, an epidemic, working every single day with the government of China… WHO was here from the beginning and never left. What’s different about this mission is it’s complementing with a lot of other external experts.”
The “Wuhan Virus” theme was adopted by several Republican legislators, including, as reported by the New York Times, Senator Cotton of Arkansas and Congressman McCarthy of California who indulged his followers by tweeting that the disease is “the Chinese coronavirus.”
What are these people trying to prove? Do they imagine that blaming the “Chinese Communist Party” is in some fashion going to lessen the effects of Covid-19? Do they think their silly posturing has assisted one single member of the human race to avoid or recover from the disease? With such mindsets they are not fit to be in any position of legislative or administrative responsibility.
Which brings us to President Trump who leapt on the anti-China bandwagon and according to Time Magazine “retweeted supporter Charlie Kirk calling it the ‘China virus,’ with the president agreeing ‘we need the Wall more than ever!’” Then he used his Address to the nation to refer to the Covid-19 epidemic “that started in China” and claim that the U.S. was making “the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history.” Note that it was of course a foreign virus, as pointed out by the Guardian.
Trump went further in his flailing attempts to claim that the U.S. had taken speedy and energetic action against the virus, when in fact he had been the most dilatory leader in the world. He declared that the European Union “failed to take the same precautions and restrict travel from China and other hotspots. As a result, a large number of new clusters in the United States were seeded by travellers from Europe.” He then announced that there would be restrictions on travel from European countries, without having the common sense or the courtesy to consult with or at least notify the EU of this sweeping decision.
The leaders of the European Council and the European Commission issued a joint statement that the decision had been made “unilaterally and without consultation,” and there was chaos at airfields all over the European continent.
Trump and his minions have gone out of their way to grossly inconvenience, denigrate and insult the European Union and China and if they think that when international affairs return to a pre-epidemic state, then there will be forgiveness on the part of the EU and the PRC they are profoundly mistaken. The resentment created by Washington’s sneering attitude and mercurial pronouncements isn’t going to disappear. There will be blowback, and the U.S. will suffer, and the blame for this will lie squarely with the White House, its Congressional hacks, and the egregious Pompeo.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-03-20--Liberal NPCs Hate Russia, Conservative NPCs Hate China

And when I say the exact same thing , I mean literally the exact same thing .
The frenzied , shrieking hysteria I ’ m witnessing right now among Trump ’ s base regarding China looks and moves in the exact same way the mental zombification of Russia hysteria looked and moved when it began tearing through rank-and-file Democrats in late 2016 and early 2017 .
The seething , screaming vitriol I get from the MAGA crowd on social media when I talk about this is identical to what I got during that period from Democrats : just as irrational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as emotion-driven .
The 2020 outbreak of China hysteria is so identical to the 2016/2017 outbreak of Russia hysteria that as of this writing if you do a Twitter live search right now for the word “ wumao ” or “ CCP paying you ” you ’ ll see an endless stream of Trump supporters running around bleating accusations of being a paid troll for the Chinese Communist Party at anyone who disputes their hysterical China narratives .
Anyone who ’ s ever shared anti-establishment ideas on social media will immediately recognize this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pussyhatted # Resistance crowd of brainwashed MSNBC liberals , who accuse anyone who questions establishment narratives of being a paid troll conducting propaganda for the Russian government .
These “ How much is the CCP paying you for this ?
” accusations which have been cluttering up my social media notifications for the last 24 hours are indistinguishable from the “ How ’ s the weather in St Petersburg , Ivan ?
” McCarthyite accusations I ’ ve been receiving from rank-and-file Democrats for the last three years .
Just like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the victims of media-induced China hysteria are always unable to justify their sudden Beijing anxiety in a way that makes any coherent sense .
I ’ ve spent the last few days debating these poor wretches online , because that ’ s what I do whenever a new sociopathic establishment narrative surfaces to gain an understanding of how it works , and I have yet to encounter a single one which can coherently reconcile the sudden uptick in shrieking China hysteria with the thing that China has always been throughout its historical existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s because China lied about the virus and made errors in the early days of the outbreak , but can ’ t lucidly explain how screaming about this helps fix any problem , and can ’ t justify the fact that lying about the virus and making errors is exactly what their president just spent weeks doing .
They ’ ll tell me it ’ s because China is authoritarian , but can ’ t explain the sudden uptick in outrage over this since China has always had an authoritarian government and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
They ’ ll parrot establishment narratives about Uighurs and organ harvesting , but , again , can ’ t explain how this has any connection to the virus .
When I point out that there are extremely powerful government agencies which stand much to gain from manufacturing consent for new escalations against America ’ s primary geostrategic rival I mostly get more outraged , incoherent sputtering , but once in a while a more thoughtful China Derangement Syndrome victim will say they don ’ t want any escalations against China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship between China and the US which they perceive as unfair .
But , again , this has nothing to do with the virus , and also it ’ s a mighty interesting coincidence that they ’ ve formed this opinion about the one nation who just so happens to be America ’ s primary geopolitical foe .
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health crisis they ’ re now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land squarely on the shoulders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for re-election this year .
Deep down they know full well that this isn ’ t really about China , but about protecting their president .
But what they are actually doing , unwittingly , is manufacturing consent for an agenda which is far bigger and far more consequential than who wins the election in November .
And it ’ s no accident that they ’ re being shepherded in this direction with the help of right-wing establishment narrative managers .
More than two years ago I wrote an article titled “ Russiagate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It Isn ’ t Even Ultimately About Russia “ , about how all these Russia escalations ( and the propaganda used to justify them ) are ultimately not really about Russia at all , but China .
Here ’ s an excerpt : This is what Russiagate is ultimately about .
Democrats think it ’ s about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin , Trump ’ s supporters think it ’ s a “ deep state coup ” to try and oust their president , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump , and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either .
When all is said and done , Russiagate is about China .
In an essay titled “ Russia-China Tandem Changes the World ” , US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia ’ s willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War .
Alone both nations are very vulnerable , but together their strengths are complimentary in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s self-appointed role as world leader .
And now we ’ re seeing one of America ’ s two mainstream factions cheerleading for increased hostility toward America ’ s primary rival , while the other faction cheerleads for increased hostility against that rival ’ s right arm .
This two-pronged propaganda campaign has enabled the establishment via the Trump administration to escalate tensions not just with China but with Russia as well .
This tracks with something I ’ ve been pointing to for a while now , which I described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 37 Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation “ : Notice how the manipulators like to split the population in two and then get them arguing over how they should serve the establishment .
Arguing over whether it ’ s better to vote Democrat or Republican , arguing over whether it ’ s better to increase hostilities with Iran and Venezuela or with Syria and Russia , over whether you should support the US president or the FBI , arguing over how internet censorship should happen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ censorship should happen in the first place .
The longer they can keep us arguing over the best way to lick the imperial boot , the longer they keep us from talking about whether we want to lick it at all .
It is truly , deeply and profoundly stupid because the agenda to topple Iran ’ s government and the agenda to topple Syria ’ s government are not two separate agendas .
They are the same .
Supporting one while opposing the other is like wanting to shoot someone in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in the heart .
Syria and Iran are allies .
Eliminating one government necessarily hurts the other .
Iran has been helping Syria to win the war against foreign-backed extremist proxy fighters who nearly succeeded in toppling Damascus before its allies stepped in , and should Syria succeed in rebuilding itself ( something the Trump administration is actively preventing it from doing ) we can be sure it would return the favor when called upon .
We are now seeing this exact same two-pronged approach used with Russia and China .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , like in this affectionate debate between former CIA Director James Woolsey and Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham over which of the two nations America should be more aggressive toward , but it ’ s kicked into high gear now .
The end result being that you have America ’ s two mainstream parties arguing over whichestablishment agenda should be advanced and how establishment interests should be served , and hardly anyone in mainstream circles ever questioning if the establishment should be served at all .
Which is just how the establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties .
The Overton window of acceptable mainstream debate has been ripped away from those who simply want peace and a healthy planet altogether , and now the only permitted arguments are about which wars should occur first .
This is gravely disordered , and it can not continue .

And when I say the exact same thing, I mean literally the exact same thing. The frenzied, shrieking hysteria I’m witnessing right now among Trump’s base regarding China looks and moves in the exact same way the mental zombification of Russia hysteria looked and moved when it began tearing through rank-and-file Democrats in late 2016 and early 2017. The seething, screaming vitriol I get from the MAGA crowd on social media when I talk about this is identical to what I got during that period from Democrats: just as irrational, just as vituperative, and just as emotion-driven.
The 2020 outbreak of China hysteria is so identical to the 2016/2017 outbreak of Russia hysteria that as of this writing if you do a Twitter live search right now for the word “wumao” or “CCP paying you” you’ll see an endless stream of Trump supporters running around bleating accusations of being a paid troll for the Chinese Communist Party at anyone who disputes their hysterical China narratives.
Do a Twitter live search right now for the words "CCP" "paying" and "you" together to see an endless stream of Trump supporters accusing any critics of their China hysteria of being paid trolls running propaganda for the Chinese government. Sound familiar?https://t.co/cfCWE3JvTV https://t.co/dp9SYYai9I — Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) March 19, 2020
Anyone who’s ever shared anti-establishment ideas on social media will immediately recognize this as identical to accusations which come from the pussyhatted #Resistance crowd of brainwashed MSNBC liberals, who accuse anyone who questions establishment narratives of being a paid troll conducting propaganda for the Russian government. These “How much is the CCP paying you for this?” accusations which have been cluttering up my social media notifications for the last 24 hours are indistinguishable from the “How’s the weather in St Petersburg, Ivan?” McCarthyite accusations I’ve been receiving from rank-and-file Democrats for the last three years.
Just like the froth-mouthed victims of media-induced Russia hysteria, the victims of media-induced China hysteria are always unable to justify their sudden Beijing anxiety in a way that makes any coherent sense. I’ve spent the last few days debating these poor wretches online, because that’s what I do whenever a new sociopathic establishment narrative surfaces to gain an understanding of how it works, and I have yet to encounter a single one which can coherently reconcile the sudden uptick in shrieking China hysteria with the thing that China has always been throughout its historical existence.
They’ll tell me it’s because China lied about the virus and made errors in the early days of the outbreak, but can’t lucidly explain how screaming about this helps fix any problem, and can’t justify the fact that lying about the virus and making errors is exactly what their president just spent weeks doing. They’ll tell me it’s because China is authoritarian, but can’t explain the sudden uptick in outrage over this since China has always had an authoritarian government and that has nothing to do with the virus. They’ll parrot establishment narratives about Uighurs and organ harvesting, but, again, can’t explain how this has any connection to the virus.
When I point out that there are extremely powerful government agencies which stand much to gain from manufacturing consent for new escalations against America’s primary geostrategic rival I mostly get more outraged, incoherent sputtering, but once in a while a more thoughtful China Derangement Syndrome victim will say they don’t want any escalations against China, they just want to end an economic relationship between China and the US which they perceive as unfair. But, again, this has nothing to do with the virus, and also it’s a mighty interesting coincidence that they’ve formed this opinion about the one nation who just so happens to be America’s primary geopolitical foe.
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health crisis they’re now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land squarely on the shoulders of their president, who’s running for re-election this year. Deep down they know full well that this isn’t really about China, but about protecting their president. But what they are actually doing, unwittingly, is manufacturing consent for an agenda which is far bigger and far more consequential than who wins the election in November. And it’s no accident that they’re being shepherded in this direction with the help of right-wing establishment narrative managers.
More than two years ago I wrote an article titled “Russiagate Isn’t About Trump, And It Isn’t Even Ultimately About Russia“, about how all these Russia escalations (and the propaganda used to justify them) are ultimately not really about Russia at all, but China. Here’s an excerpt:
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it’s about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump’s supporters think it’s a “deep state coup” to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. In an essay titled “Russia-China Tandem Changes the World”, US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia’s willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America’s self-appointed role as world leader.
And now we’re seeing one of America’s two mainstream factions cheerleading for increased hostility toward America’s primary rival, while the other faction cheerleads for increased hostility against that rival’s right arm. This two-pronged propaganda campaign has enabled the establishment via the Trump administration to escalate tensions not just with China but with Russia as well.
This tracks with something I’ve been pointing to for a while now, which I described in an article from last year titled “37 Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation“:
Notice how the manipulators like to split the population in two and then get them arguing over how they should serve the establishment. Arguing over whether it’s better to vote Democrat or Republican, arguing over whether it’s better to increase hostilities with Iran and Venezuela or with Syria and Russia, over whether you should support the US president or the FBI, arguing over how internet censorship should happen and whom should be censored rather than if censorship should happen in the first place. The longer they can keep us arguing over the best way to lick the imperial boot, the longer they keep us from talking about whether we want to lick it at all.
37 Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation Added some more tips to this article from last year in order to help navigate through the haze of narrative manipulation in these confusing times. https://t.co/Z05RH16IlB — Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) March 18, 2020 I wrote more about the way the establishment manipulators get the mainstream factions arguing over which nation should be targeted with aggression, rather than if any nations should be targeted at all, in a January 2020 article titled “ On The Idiotic Partisan Debate Over Regime Change In Iran Or Syria “:
It is truly, deeply and profoundly stupid because the agenda to topple Iran’s government and the agenda to topple Syria’s government are not two separate agendas. They are the same. Supporting one while opposing the other is like wanting to shoot someone in the head but being morally opposed to shooting them in the heart. Syria and Iran are allies. Eliminating one government necessarily hurts the other. Iran has been helping Syria to win the war against foreign-backed extremist proxy fighters who nearly succeeded in toppling Damascus before its allies stepped in, and should Syria succeed in rebuilding itself (something the Trump administration is actively preventing it from doing) we can be sure it would return the favor when called upon.
We are now seeing this exact same two-pronged approach used with Russia and China. We’ve actually been seeing it for years, like in this affectionate debate between former CIA Director James Woolsey and Fox News’ Laura Ingraham over which of the two nations America should be more aggressive toward, but it’s kicked into high gear now.
The end result being that you have America’s two mainstream parties arguing over whichestablishment agenda should be advanced and how establishment interests should be served, and hardly anyone in mainstream circles ever questioning if the establishment should be served at all. Which is just how the establishment likes it.
America has two war parties. The Overton window of acceptable mainstream debate has been ripped away from those who simply want peace and a healthy planet altogether, and now the only permitted arguments are about which wars should occur first.
This is gravely disordered, and it cannot continue.
Addendum


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-03-20--Jimmy Dore—betrayed by Tulsi—is twisting hard to defend her.  Don’t do it Jimmy.

^5000The mainstream imperialist media lie CONSTANTLY .
Literally 24/7 .
And it 's getting worse .
All of them do @ @ @ @ @ , the newspapers , the movies .
The internet .
No exceptions .
The corporate @ @ @ @ @ totalitarian .
CBS does it .
NBC does it .
ABC does it .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ it .
NPR does it .
And of course the NYTimes and WaPo do it @ @ @ @ @ '' voices telling you the same lies .
Enough to convince anyone .

Maybe out of pride, or lingering loyalty, Jimmy Dore is belatedly filing a video in which he still struggles to find excuses for Tulsi's actions. We all feel betrayed, Jimmy. But, as YouTube commenter so aptly says, you must stop "twisting like a pretzel to defend her." Another viewer, equally spot on (Donna Gray) adds, "At least Tulsi has shown her true colours. Jimmy you need to let her go. Give yourself 48 hours to grieve and get back into jag off mode." They are all right, of course. Painfully right, even if this latest slap in the face for many of those who held minimum hope of relief via the existing setup did not come entirely as a surprise.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-03-20--What is ‘social democracy’? (A comprehensive examination)

Like another ubiquitous word , “ Liberal ” , or “ the LEFT ” , “ social democracy ” has many meanings , often misleading , depending on who is using it .
This historical review offers some clarification .
Most “ social democrats ” ( such as members of the Lib Dems today ) would agree with that .
Social democracy often presents itself as a “ centrist ” movement , opposing what it labels the “ extremes ” of left as well as right .
In 1981 a group of dissident Labour Party MPs and former MPs led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Owen and Bill Rodgers—the “ Gang of Four ” —broke away from the Labour Party to form the Social Democratic Party ( SDP ) .
The move was precipitated by Labour conference resolutions in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from what was then the European Economic Community ( later , the EU ) .
However , the underlying issues were ideological ; whether capitalism needed to be transformed or could simply be reformed .
Immediately after its formation the SDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party .
Owen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party activists formed a breakaway group under the name of the SDP immediately afterward .
In 1988 the SDP-Liberal Alliance rebadged itself to become today ’ s Liberal Democrats .
Meanwhile the breakaway SDP formally dissolved itself in 1990 , but small groups of activists continue to contest elections in the name of the SDP which today has a handful of local councillors and ( up to the end of last January ) one MEP ( a defector from the UK Independence Party ) .
The SDP ’ s slogan is “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” its website declaring : “ We represent neither capital nor labour , not private industry nor the public sector , but only the welfare of the British people and residents of these islands.
” The 1981 SDP wasn ’ t the first political body to define a form of social democracy , however : this most recent iteration is very different from the complex historical trajectory of social democracy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries .
Marx and Engels were both closely associated with the Marxist Social Democratic Workers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marx ’ s Critique of the Gotha Programme ( 1875 ) was written in opposition to its proposals to limit its demands in exchange for concessions from the government .
These proposals were adopted and subsequent “ revisionism ” led in due course to what is today ’ s German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands ( SPD ) .
Britain ’ s first organised socialist political party , the Social Democratic Federation ( SDF ) was formed in 1881 .
Among its prominent early members were James Connolly , George Lansbury , Eleanor Marx and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clerkenwell Branch— “ Branch No 1 ” —met in what is now Marx House on London ’ s Clerkenwell Green which had by that time become a centre of radical activity .
Karl Marx ’ s International Working Men ’ s Association ( the First International ) had met at “ number 38 ” —then a coffee house forming the east wing of the building which had been divided into a number of units .
The SDF had an explicitly socialist policy and is often described as a Marxist party , although Engels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with it , partly because of political differences , but mainly because of its domination by its authoritarian founder and funder , the businessman HM Hyndman , a political opportunist .
In 1891 the SDF established the Twentieth Century Press as a printer for its journal Justice : Morris arranged for the Press to move into no 38 , guaranteeing the first year ’ s rent , and in 1893 a printing press was installed .
The following year the SDF split , partly over Hyndman ’ s autocracy and anti-semitism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ parliamentary road ” to socialism , downplaying trade unions and extra-parliamentary organisation .
A majority of its council , including Morris and Eleanor Marx , resigned to form a new organisation , the Socialist League , supported financially by Morris and initially also by Engels who welcomed the split .
Morris was clear that capitalism would not allow itself to be dismembered peacefully and that it would require a revolution , led by a revolutionary party ; his News from Nowhere was written specifically as an answer to those who saw the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as peaceful , but the result of a consensus , secured by an appeal to common sense ( the attitude of Fabianism today ) .
The Socialist League was finally disbanded in 1901 .
The rump SDF continued to occupy what was now a combined 37 and 38 ( ie Marx House today , publishing Justice and also from April 1901 to May 1903 , 17 issues of Iskra ( “ Spark ” ) , the illegal journal of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party ( RSDLP ) which was edited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice ’ s editor , Harry Quelch .
The SDF survived defections of its right and left wings to other organisations and eventually in 1911 united with other radical and Marxist groups including branches of the Independent Labour Party ( ILP ) to form the British Socialist Party .
The BSP in turn saw the defection of its right-wing pro-war elements and , following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the end of the first world war , it became an explicitly revolutionary socialist organisation , culminating in 1920 with the formation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social democracy has a complex history .
But subsequent to the end of the second world war , and particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union , social democracy has increasingly become identified with “ managed capitalism ” associated with Keynesian economics and a mixed economy dominated by the market .
Conflicts within British social democracy today are generally not about broad ideology but rather concern specific issues ( such as Brexit ) .
The tiny SDP is anti-EU , and emphasises the nation state and the family as the foundation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dems and with sections of the Labour Party all these groups present themselves as advocating social progress within the existing capitalist system , though with “ left ” and “ right ” —or perhaps better , “ ideological ” and “ populist ” —variants .
As such , social democracy presents itself variously as an alternative to socialism or as representing some form of compromise between socialism and capitalism .
Central to social democracy is a false view of the state as somehow neutral ; the “ honest broker ” of different economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialism is always ideal , utopian—and therefore essentially unobtainable ; and of capitalism , as reformable , capable of being made to work in the interests of “ the many.
” This in turn leads to a denial of class struggle and a focus on Parliament as the main , if not the only , vehicle for social progress .
Marxists , by contrast , see the state as , ultimately , the guarantor of the status quo and capitalism as inherently exploitative .
Achieving socialism will therefore need to involve extra-parliamentary organisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Britain , social democracy is less embedded in the trade union and labour movement than in other European countries where political parties bearing the name “ social democratic ” play a stronger role in politics .
For trade unions this is to some extent a strength in that , focused on protecting workers against excessive exploitation , dangerous working conditions , redundancy , bullying and harassment , and on more proactive action on wages and terms and conditions of employment of their members , they can appeal across a wide spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also held back the ability of the Labour Party , which was formed by trade unions which continue to be a major source of support and funding , to develop policies which directly challenge the structure of capitalism and the hegemony of capitalist ideology .
Today while the Labour Party has at last , hopefully , rejected the neoliberalism of the Blair years , the battle—between social democracy and socialism—remains the main source of contention within the party and within the wider labour movement .

Like another ubiquitous word, "Liberal", or "the LEFT", "social democracy" has many meanings, often misleading, depending on who is using it. This historical review offers some clarification.
[dropcap]G[/dropcap]OOD question! Look up the term in a dictionary and you’ll find a definition something along the lines of “an ideology that advocates or supports political, social and economic interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a representative democracy and capitalist economy.”
Most “social democrats” (such as members of the Lib Dems today) would agree with that.
Social democracy often presents itself as a “centrist” movement, opposing what it labels the “extremes” of left as well as right.
In 1981 a group of dissident Labour Party MPs and former MPs led by Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Bill Rodgers—the “Gang of Four”—broke away from the Labour Party to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP).
The move was precipitated by Labour conference resolutions in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from what was then the European Economic Community (later, the EU).
However, the underlying issues were ideological; whether capitalism needed to be transformed or could simply be reformed.
Immediately after its formation the SDP formed a coalition with the Liberal Party. Owen, two other MPs and a minority of party activists formed a breakaway group under the name of the SDP immediately afterward.
In 1988 the SDP-Liberal Alliance rebadged itself to become today’s Liberal Democrats.
Meanwhile the breakaway SDP formally dissolved itself in 1990, but small groups of activists continue to contest elections in the name of the SDP which today has a handful of local councillors and (up to the end of last January) one MEP (a defector from the UK Independence Party).
The SDP’s slogan is “The Common Good in the National Interest,” its website declaring: “We represent neither capital nor labour, not private industry nor the public sector, but only the welfare of the British people and residents of these islands.”
The 1981 SDP wasn’t the first political body to define a form of social democracy, however: this most recent iteration is very different from the complex historical trajectory of social democracy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Marx and Engels were both closely associated with the Marxist Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany (SDAP); Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) was written in opposition to its proposals to limit its demands in exchange for concessions from the government.
These proposals were adopted and subsequent “revisionism” led in due course to what is today’s German Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD).
Britain’s first organised socialist political party, the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) was formed in 1881.
Among its prominent early members were James Connolly, George Lansbury, Eleanor Marx and William Morris.
The SDF’s Clerkenwell Branch—“Branch No 1”—met in what is now Marx House on London’s Clerkenwell Green which had by that time become a centre of radical activity.
Karl Marx’s International Working Men’s Association (the First International) had met at “number 38”—then a coffee house forming the east wing of the building which had been divided into a number of units.
The SDF had an explicitly socialist policy and is often described as a Marxist party, although Engels refused to join and would have nothing to do with it, partly because of political differences, but mainly because of its domination by its authoritarian founder and funder, the businessman HM Hyndman, a political opportunist.
In 1891 the SDF established the Twentieth Century Press as a printer for its journal Justice: Morris arranged for the Press to move into no 38, guaranteeing the first year’s rent, and in 1893 a printing press was installed.
The following year the SDF split, partly over Hyndman’s autocracy and anti-semitism and ideologically over his emphasis on a “parliamentary road” to socialism, downplaying trade unions and extra-parliamentary organisation.
A majority of its council, including Morris and Eleanor Marx, resigned to form a new organisation, the Socialist League, supported financially by Morris and initially also by Engels who welcomed the split.
Morris was clear that capitalism would not allow itself to be dismembered peacefully and that it would require a revolution, led by a revolutionary party; his News from Nowhere was written specifically as an answer to those who saw the “transition to socialism” not only as peaceful, but the result of a consensus, secured by an appeal to common sense (the attitude of Fabianism today).
The Socialist League was finally disbanded in 1901. The rump SDF continued to occupy what was now a combined 37 and 38 (ie Marx House today, publishing Justice and also from April 1901 to May 1903, 17 issues of Iskra (“Spark”), the illegal journal of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party (RSDLP) which was edited by Lenin, who shared an office with Justice’s editor, Harry Quelch.
The SDF survived defections of its right and left wings to other organisations and eventually in 1911 united with other radical and Marxist groups including branches of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) to form the British Socialist Party.
The BSP in turn saw the defection of its right-wing pro-war elements and, following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the end of the first world war, it became an explicitly revolutionary socialist organisation, culminating in 1920 with the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
So social democracy has a complex history. But subsequent to the end of the second world war, and particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union, social democracy has increasingly become identified with “managed capitalism” associated with Keynesian economics and a mixed economy dominated by the market.
Conflicts within British social democracy today are generally not about broad ideology but rather concern specific issues (such as Brexit).
The tiny SDP is anti-EU, and emphasises the nation state and the family as the foundation of society.
Together with the pro-European Lib Dems and with sections of the Labour Party all these groups present themselves as advocating social progress within the existing capitalist system, though with “left” and “right”—or perhaps better, “ideological” and “populist”—variants.
As such, social democracy presents itself variously as an alternative to socialism or as representing some form of compromise between socialism and capitalism.
Central to social democracy is a false view of the state as somehow neutral; the “honest broker” of different economic and social interests.
Its vision of socialism is always ideal, utopian—and therefore essentially unobtainable; and of capitalism, as reformable, capable of being made to work in the interests of “the many.”
This in turn leads to a denial of class struggle and a focus on Parliament as the main, if not the only, vehicle for social progress.
Marxists, by contrast, see the state as, ultimately, the guarantor of the status quo and capitalism as inherently exploitative.
Achieving socialism will therefore need to involve extra-parliamentary organisation and struggle as well as electoral participation.
In Britain, social democracy is less embedded in the trade union and labour movement than in other European countries where political parties bearing the name “social democratic” play a stronger role in politics.
For trade unions this is to some extent a strength in that, focused on protecting workers against excessive exploitation, dangerous working conditions, redundancy, bullying and harassment, and on more proactive action on wages and terms and conditions of employment of their members, they can appeal across a wide spectrum of political views.
But this has also held back the ability of the Labour Party, which was formed by trade unions which continue to be a major source of support and funding, to develop policies which directly challenge the structure of capitalism and the hegemony of capitalist ideology.
Today while the Labour Party has at last, hopefully, rejected the neoliberalism of the Blair years, the battle—between social democracy and socialism—remains the main source of contention within the party and within the wider labour movement.