Obama/Markell Syndrome: Pols Split Loyalties Leave Front Line Democrats Listless
I know this much: The Democratic base is awesome. This story about people from around the country rallying to support the public workers in Wisconsin makes my New-Deal-loving-Woody-Guthrie-singing, heart leap up in my chest.
When I read stories like that, I can’t help but think that if we ever had a Democratic leadership that decided to be forthrightly on the side of the Democratic base, and was able to screw up the courage to take a break from bowing a scraping to Wall Street – we cold accomplish great things in this country.
Whether is cynical politics, economic exigencies, or something else, we have a generation of Democratic leadership that has decided that it can be socially “progressive” and economically “regressive.” While that strategy might be good for the career prospects of individual Democratic politicians, I don’t like it as a long term Democratic strategy, and more importantly, I don’t see it as a viable path back to peace and prosperity for the country.
America is the first and greatest middle class country. By turning to Wall Street and seeking to comfort the comfortable under the false belief that the DJIA is the economy, we’ve turned our back on our greatest strength – economic mobility.
Opportunity, drive, ambition, and innovation, are sucked out of the economy as the game continues to tilt toward inherited wealth. It has always been Democrats who have policed the gap between the rich and the poor and the country needs Democrats to take up that job once again.
Please Note: None of this is meant to suggest that I will not work for Obama and Markell to get reelected. We’ve lost our way as a Party, but we are still infinitely better than the alternative presented by Republicans. Wanting to be better does not mean that we are not good.
Whether is cynical politics, economic exigencies, or something else, we have a generation of Democratic leadership that has decided that it can be socially “progressive” and economically “regressive.”
I think it can be explained neatly as corporate capture of government.
Corporations don’t care about social conservatism, except as a useful tool to win electoral majorities. If social liberalism would help win control of government, corporations would become the gayest pot-smokingest abortionists in town.
And just like in any banana republic, the authoritarian side is always seeking to seize control over the Treasury and national resources, while the people are simply looking for the middle-class American Dream. There is the political conflict.
Corporations are not people, but they are controlled by a very small handful of people. Therefore policy is aimed at the benefit and comfort of those people, at the expense of everybody else. To the extent that the corporate officers and investors can cover up this fact, they can win majorities (see: corporate capture of media).
Dismantling corporate capture will take much bolder leadership from Democrats. We have to hope that the Democratic platform still exists as an ember in the hearts of Demcoratic leaders. I am pessimistic, but Republican overreaching like we are seeing now might be the trigger. Popular protests will provide Democratic leaders the cover they need to take back control, if they have the inclination.
And there was a time when inherited wealth was socially liberal. It is not often mentioned that Charlie Copeland’s grandfather founded Planned Parenthood.
The wealthy men gave the money, and their wives served on the boards of these liberal institutions.
Peoples Settlement Association was founded with a gift by P.S. du Pont. Now his clan is silent while Republicans laugh and point as PSA and its mission withers for want of cash, leadership, and accounting knowhow.
If not more liberal, at least more sheepish about being bloated plutocrats.
Great post, Jason! We as a party have lost our way. I think the problem will be corrected in the coming years as the party’s base wakes up like the Republican base recently did. A lot of the problem is the ghost of Ronald Reagan. He changed the nation’s trajectory–negatively. It is difficult for a politician to even seriously speak of the increasing gap between rich and poor, the stagnation of the middle-class that has since the 1970’s been losing ground on the treadmill. No, such rhetoric would be demonized as “class warfare.” Any policy proposal to remedy the situation would be demonized as “big government.” This is why Barack Obama is a disappointment to me. He had all the ability and was presented with an opportunity to be the Democratic Reagan–historically political realignment occurs every 30-40 years and we are due for another correction–yet he blew it, or at least has thus far, by opting for compromise with the Republicans, soft and vague rhetoric aimed at preserving his political appeal as a unifying figure as opposed to being a strong leader seeking to shift the country’s ideological temperament.
Come to think of it, the social liberalizations of the 1960s were only possible because they were backed by waves and waves of street protests.
I disagree, Obama. There was a trend toward progressive progress starting from FDR that continued until the mid-60’s, although protests were very helpful, particularly with respect to the cause of civil rights.
Given the level of need and economic deprivation in the USA (1 out of 3 families either live within the poverty level or close to it), the deference that the Democratic Party (my party) gives to the middle class and poor is, on the whole, little more than a token nod. If it were otherwise, cutting LIHEAP funds, allowing all the banksters responsible for the recession to go unprosecuted, etc., would be unthinkable. While it is incontrovertibly true that the Republican Party has totally abandoned all vestiges of genuine representation of the interests of the middle class and poor and that some members of the Democratic Party still represent their interests, the prevailing current within the Democratic Party is to be (in Jason’s words)”socially ‘progressive’ and economically ‘regressive’.” I used to think that a Democratic President buttressed by a Democratic House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate would be all that is needed to turn the USA in a thoroughgoing and genuinely progressive direction. I know longer think so. There would still be too many big-money, corporation-friendly Democrats (e.g. Carper) to impede and limit progressive legislation. In fact, there would probably be more of them because big money would be far more solicitous to more Democratic politicians than they have been heretofore. It would be in their interest to do so. While the middle class and poor would undoubtedly be better off under a government controlled by Democrats, they would only be marginally better off compared to, say, the citizens of European social democracies.
What will it take to make the USA government work for the interests of the middle class and poor (its overwhelming majority)? What will it take to jolt the Democratic Party into representing their interests and cutting its deepening ties to big money interests? I now think that the only hope for the USA to become a nation that works for the best interests of its people is for its people to do on a massive and sustained scale–in many cities across the USA–what the citizens in WI are doing now: taking to the streets; resisting; if need be, paralyzing the system; supporting politicians that do act in their interest in bold ways (like the Dem state senators in WI); and to do this not just for a few days but for weeks (months if need be). Unless the American people take back their government, it will continue to be taken from them by the ruling elites. Short of that, I see no alternative to the continuing pauperization of the vast majority of Americans. We are on the road to becoming a third world nation.
taking to the streets; resisting
Not yet. We didn’t get the New Deal until we starved for five years. We didn’t get collective bargaining until our grandfathers’ heads had been broken fighting for it. We are still getting enough bread and circus to keep that from happening.
“Peoples Settlement Association was founded with a gift by P.S. du Pont”
Sorry, not in the least bit factual. It was founded by a woman named Sarah Webb Pyle.
P.S. duPont donated 5 thousand bucks for a better structure years after Pyle opened the doors of “the organization with a mere monthly stipend of $15.00. She managed to support herself and provide recreational activities from a three room shack”.
http://www.psassociation.org/history.html
I felt the movement of the unions and joined them during the push for health care and finance reform. I borded buses for DC and NYC and marched and rallied several times under union banners.
Getting out onto the streets is the best way to make your point.
I know that. “Founding” is an oversimplification, but it is quite a bit factual. I wasn’t planning to write a history book, just a blog comment. The intellectual credit goes to Pyle; the financial credit for survival and expansion into its modern incarnation goes to du Pont and other wealthy Delawareans. The point is that today’s rich are different.
The status quo is unsustainable. I believe we are due for a correction in the next decade. The excesses of the tea party movement may actually help accelerate a progressive revival.
Look out, here comes the pendulum!
It is a matter of time. Here are the years previous realignments were consummated.
1800
1828
1860
1896
1932
1980
201?
We are due for another correction. I believe that most likely will be a progressive one that repudiates the Reagan era, but there is a scary off chance that tea party fever spreads and we regress even further back than the Reagan era into near Gilded Age politics and policies.
I hope you are right. The thing working against a progressive realignment is the fact that there is no progressive mass media. There is no liberal media.
I think those dates can be correlated with poverty and unemployment levels. As bad as the economy is, we haven’t reached the trigger point yet. But keep an eye on the unemployment rate in 2012. We keep getting warnings it still won’t be so hot.
The safety net has allowed us to maintain higher unemployment without so much poverty. As Republicans chip away at the safety net, they will lower the threshhold toward a realignment. So there are forces pushing in both directions.
I think it takes greater misery to trigger a realignment toward Democrats than toward Republicans. When Republicans see the slightest chance to win they launch a full court press. Democrats, not so much.
In any case, the definition of realignment has changed now that we have Democrats enacting the Republican agenda. Who the hell knows what an actual realignment would look like now.
“At the very least, the huge demonstrations in Wisconsin over Mr. Walker’s efforts suggest that the Republicans have succeeded in doing what Mr. Obama was unable to do last year: energize the Democratic base.
“In addition, several Democrats pointed to Republican efforts to cut back abortion rights as another example of an issue that made them subject to the same criticism that Democrats faced: pursuing their party’s base agenda while ignoring the central concern of Americans, jobs.” From this morning’s NYT Front Page.
Then there’s the “shut down the government” strategy that worked so well for Newt Gingrich and appears to be on the horizon in the next few weeks.
People aren’t going to stand for this and there’s another election in 19 months.
“the public WORKERS in Wisconsin”? As opposed to what? Public drones? Are we a beehive now? Do you refer to YOURSELF as a worker, or something different? Dude, you are brainwashed man.
As someone who makes their living doing physical labor, I don’t want to be referred to as a worker. It’s a condescending term in the text that you use it, just as “Proletariat” is.
It’s just plain creepy in a communist sort of way.
After reading the posts here I have the impression that most of you live in a bubble. You must be unaware of the fact that the party is over. Progessivism, socialism, communism, what ever the current incarnation is, simply does not work. There is no money left to impose your vision of social utopia. The TEA party (Taxed Enough Already) consists of every day folks (the very people you purport to represent) who have had it with government taking the fruit of their labor under threat of force and giving it to those who did not earn it. Margaret Thatcher got it right when she said “socialism is a great system, until you run out of other peoples money to spend”. You progressives have spent us dry.
Getting that Thatcher quote sorta right saved her comment from being 100% wrong. That is something…. I guess.
There is no money left to impose your vision of social utopia.
Of course there is. It is just busy funding somebody else’s utopia right now.
“You progressives have spent us dry.”
Precisely what your corporate overlords want you to believe. Witless fool.
“As someone who makes their living doing physical labor, I don’t want to be referred to as a worker.”
Genius On Board.
Jubilee and commenters like her (him?) serve to confirm the fact that Fox News really is killing America. To paraphrase kos, they’ve created an army of nit wits who have such a visceral hatred of “liberalism” that they’ll fight to the death in favor of corporatism, privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. All because they think that corporatism, privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism are a bulwark against the evils of “liberalism.”
Jubilee you are a walking cliche. By all objective measures, citizens in the European western social democracies enjoy a standard of living that is better than what most Americans enjoy.
Sorry Geezer, I guess when you don’t include my next sentence it sounds kind of funny. That’s what happens when you take things out of context.
Sing it to the tune of the old Dr Pepper jingle: “I’m a worker, you’re a worker, he’s a worker, she’s a worker, wouldn’t you like to be a worker too?” Nowadays, who wouldn’t answer yes?
FDR opposed public sector unions. You see, people don’t like it when they themselves are wanting and a unionized government employee is out picketing for benefits that the average tax payer could only wish for . FDR knew this. Apparently Obama et al., don’t.
Teachers are skipping school with the help of fake doctors excuse so they can pressure state legislators to vote in their favor.
I guess these tactics work because Democrats left the state rather than face a vote.
“people don’t like it when they themselves are wanting and a unionized government employee is out picketing for benefits that the average tax payer could only wish for”
Isn’t this sort of envy what you conservatives normally call “class warfare”? Why is it you prefer class civil warfare? Why are you willing to attack fellow members of the middle class rather than those in the upper classes, who certainly aren’t being asked to share in the sacrifices these days?
Delaware public employees pay into their benefits. Why can’t the state teachers in Wisconsin pay a fraction of their paychecks into their health care and pensions ?
Two thirds of public school eighth graders in Wisconsin cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education despite Wisconsin spending more per student than any other midwest state.
Why can’t the state teachers in Wisconsin pay a fraction of their paychecks into their health care and pensions ?
Bring the apples to apples comparison, with real data, and we’ll talk. I’m tired of doing your homework and batting away half-baked right-wing talking points fresh off the press.
Two thirds of public school eighth graders in Wisconsin cannot read proficiently
Like this talking point making the rounds today. It turns out Wisconsin students read a lot better than in red states where public workers have no collective bargaining.
They can, and have agreed to, pay into both their pensions and health plans, to the tune of an 8% decrease in pay.
Are you now going to claim student achievement is linked to collective bargaining rights?