There are a series of things that could be said. The first is that the destruction of democracy must be reversed. The New Democrats, as Bill Clinton said, have an economic program near to Eisenhower, and Hillary, an Goldwaterite and McCarthyite in her youth, is follows both policies today.



This the party of the left. The same has happened in Europe.



Russia has perfectly free elections in the sense of multiple candidates and freedom to vote freely for them. But we know Russia does not meaningful democracy because of the restrictions on those who can get on the ballot.



It is the same here. A Clinton runs against a Republican esttblishment that is further to the right. Even a Christie at a time of great dissatifaction ran on a program of reducing Medicare and Social Security.



Think about the Gorsush nomination. Simple majority rule found throughout western Europe is called a nuclear option!!!

And in Europe the main purpose of EU is end the power of democracy.



The 21 most rural states have 42 Senators when they have 21% of the vote. They have less population than California, New York, and Illinois combined who have 6 Senators.



Think about the fact that the poor states are the red states

To be sure, the most rural states are the poor ones. Their overrepresentation should give extra power to the poor. Yet, the poor states are red--the conservative ones. The so-called left-wing blue states are the rich ones. "Left" now means bathrooms and support for students who suppress free speech.



Immigration and refugees are so explosive because their consequence--and often purpose--is to ensure that the poor are grossly underreperesented in the political sphere. Illegals are given sanctuary in wealthy cities in large part because they cannot vote for social welfare measure.



What if we had the de facto rules of most of the 19th century when immigrants were given the vote immediatlely--or within a year. Do you think the rich (the top 20% who earn over $130,000 family income) would welcome 18 year old "children" if they could vote for their economic interests immediately??? Do you think that there would be such pressure to admit refugees here and in Europe if they could vote immediately??? Really???



We are in the early stages of the democratic revolution of 1848.It is time to re-democratize. The income redistrbution is more important than Rodrik says. Since the botttom in 2009, the market tripled and wages for 90% were stagnant. The main economic program of the left-wing party of Obama and Hillary was no tax increase on those under $250,000--that is. the top 5% to 20%--the rich who own stocks.



A tripling of the Dow from 6500 to 20,000 is visible enough. A triping from 20,000 to 60,000 is utterly explosive. We have had no recession for 9 years. What happens when there is another?





























