s/this/any/g
So, no, it is this administration.
It illustrates how US politics were hijacked, and the horrible policies of the administrations since Bill Clintons inauguration. If you are someone who thinks Obama or Clinton were "good" presidents, the book will dispell you of that notion.
I'm not saying the things you enumerated are bad things.
Personally, I am fiercly pro-NN, and I think Pai should actually be imprisoned (though there's probably no current law that would allow it, obviously IANAL), and the CFPB is something the US has lacked for ages (though I'm not sure if it has enough powers to enforce anything much).
But I am saying that the previous administration was actually not better, all things considered. And if you think so, the book will convince you otherwise.
But you cannot compare to the level of dishonesty and incompetency that this administration has.
Lets not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
If you can't compare it, that's because you're missing the data to do so. I'm quite certain you'd like reading it.
I don't really want to push that book this much, but I do want liberals to understand the dishonesty and malice inherent in the actings of previous administrations that are held in high esteem for no apparent reason - like Clinton and Obama.
And the reason I want that is because it would be helpful to liberals.
The US is so far behind on many basic things, it's a joke to the rest of the world; - The level of poverty in the US is staggering - you can reasonably say that more than 50% of citizens live below the poverty line. - The lack of basic bank security, the fact that if someone steals your bank account money, you don't automatically get it back from the bank. - The cost of health care is actually insane - The number of citizens in jail, and the exploitation of them for manufacturing (talk about slavery) - The low number of people who vote. In my country, more people vote in _city_ level elections than do in your presidential elections. Always. By a factor of 20%. "representative democracy" my ass.
Anyone who lives in Europe knows these things. And any honest US citizen who has lived abroad knows it.
I am saying these things to illustrate that I want to _help_ you.
And that includes reading that book, and dispelling your notion that Clinton or Obama were good or honest. Competent, oh yes - competent enough to literally destroy your nation.
Ha. Donald & friends' behavior disgrees with that statement.
But we are making an in-group comparison here: the current administrations versus previous ones on the topics at hand. To imply complete equivalence between the two on the grounds that both suffer from some of the same systemic problems is moving the goalposts.
Were previous administrations also corporatist and deeply flawed? Yes. Does that mean that the Obama administration didn't also provide demonstrably better outcomes than the Trump administration on a range of issues? No. Dismissing the clear policy differences between the two actually does a disservice to the cause of making government better, because it ignores the positive things that did happen that we want to encourage and further.
For instance, if you support a single-payer healthcare system, you can say both "the ACA has made healthcare in the US better than before, and closer to what I want," and "the ACA doesn't get me all the way to what I want." But it would be dishonest to suggest that the ACA didn't bring us much closer to healthcare-for-all than we were before it passed. Incremental change is still change. (And if you have the opposite stance on healthcare, the same logic applies in reverse.)
Major changes, such as single payer healthcare, require major action and major support. It's highly controversial and would require a massive rethinking of an enormous amount of our society - and all at substantial risk to many people. To get this sort of action you need people pretty far along that number line - perhaps at 85 - to drag people out of their naturally inertial state. And indeed it may have been the case that before the ACA people were starting to reach into the 90s. What has the ACA done? It's certainly a very flawed system and that's seen, arguably predictably, skyrocketing premiums (an average 25% increase in premiums in 2017 alone [1] ) and other more systemic issues such as rapidly decreasing competition. But it's better than what we had before, even if just incrementally. But now instead of being in the 90s, our numberline on the 'fairness' of healthcare is now somewhere in the high 70s. Another way of looking at this is that the odds of something like single payer entering the political conversation, which was a very real possibility before, are now effectively zero.
And this has been a recurring theme throughout many of Obama's actions. Of course this all begs an obvious question. Was he behaving this way intentionally to maximize the value of special interests, or was he just a well intentioned person trying to make progress in a difficult system? Given one of the first things he did after leaving office was to go give a private talk to a wall street firm on healthcare, for a $400k "speaking fee" - well...
[1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-obamacare-premiums-are-risi...
The top commenter here says "I don’t think this administration has much interest in what “we the people” really want, though."
And if he believes that previous administrations like Clinton/Bush/Obama did, that's demonstrably not true.
> ..., because it ignores the positive things that did happen that we want to encourage and further.
That's not what it's about, it's about highlighting the flaws of the previous administrations, because all I see is unequivocal love for both Clinton and Obama.
Not because that's somehow immediately helpful to the political climate, but because it might be helpful to someone personally to understand at least some of the reasons why their country has gone to shit, and it might stop them rallying to false idols.
And it also might humble them towards the other half of their country when they realise their church is just as filthy.
Some people just want to watch the word burn.
Money overcomes political ideals or the interest of those with less money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
"Report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters "
Keeping the people divided is the key to keeping the establishment powers entrenched in office. So long as the people hate the alternative sufficiently, they need not worry about the quality of their own candidate. Clinton won the popular vote, yet I think it's safe to say that most voted for her not because she truly was the type of candidate that people wanted in office -- but because the alternative was considered absolutely unacceptable under any circumstance. And the same is no doubt true of much of Trump's support.
I don't think another Ross Perot 1992 is ever likely to happen. If that's before your political period, an independent individual (vastly more eloquent and reasonable, but politically similar to Trump) ended up making a huge run. At one point he was actually ahead in the polls against candidates from both parties. In the general he ran against Bush and Clinton, even then some of the most powerful names in politics. He pulled 19% of the vote - destroying Bush's incumbency and effectively giving the presidency to Clinton.
But far from just a spoiler, that's a single outsider independently threatening to 'take over' Washington. The increasingly sensationalized and divisive rhetoric with a focus on identity politics, really began to spike in the elections to come. So long as both side of the political spectrum think those on the other side are completely intolerable, it makes it much easier to control people. You can even get them to do things like vote for people they don't actually want in office -- they just need to be convinced that it's better than the alternative.