Building Consensus: Constructing the Argument On Demand
Look at the argument, for example, that businesses create jobs.
Hillary Clinton said not to believe anybody that says businesses create jobs. Robert Reich tells us demand creates jobs, and Mrs. Clinton agrees, constructing a populist argument on demand after saying that fighting with big banks is futile.
Demand not only builds consensus, it creates jobs. As corporates consolidate to create so-called “natural monopolies,” however, they deliberately destroy demand, which is
deflationary–like we have now.
Now, keep in mind, Mrs. Clinton and her husband both regard natural monopolies to be an unavoidable, objective reality.
Progressivism without deconsolidation of the risk is but another name for charity.
Elizabeth Warren is apparently the only Democrat left saying we need to deconsolidate the risk if we want to supply the demand that creates jobs.
Notice that the party has promoted Senator Warren to the task of strategic messaging, which is a way to build consensus and party support without a confirming confirmation. In other words, instead of risk being applied on demand, consent is being delivered on command, conserved from the top down by means of electoral process, ruled by the law of large numbers.
Curious, isn’t it, how (by the rule of law) we always yield to command attributes being sold on demand. Is this really a natural law, or does always answering the question “how” always beg the real question (the attributive value) “why?”