Can the Dem tent be big enough to cover both the exploiters and exploited?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is now the poster child for transparently terrible, 1% loving Democrats….and for good reason, as the esteemed Bill Moyers notes:
“… She embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence.”
For me, her support of the Payday Loan Misery Industry is a particularly egregious affront to cohesive Democratic values. So, now that this is being pointed out, can she remain the chair of the party? Can she still be a Democrat in good standing? I’m honestly asking. Because while there are other elected Democrats that I view as just as bad as Wasserman Schultz on these issues, Tom Carper does not happen to be the current Democratic National Committee chair.
Some of us have been calling for her removal for two or more years for these as well as other vital reasons….she’s done a lousy, or better said, no job at all in helping our party organize and provide all fifty states the tools to do so. Simply said, she’s been no Howard Dean. Tim Kaine wasn’t either. But, sadly, 6 months before the election is no time to remove any Chair. The learning curve is too steep for a new Chair at this point. We’re stuck, thanks to the inaction of our own DelDem DNC members and most others who were asleep at the wheel who view their work as some kind of honor rather than a job to do for us in the Party grassroots.
Good points. I agree on performance alone, she should go. But you are right, the timing sucks.
I am comforted by the fact that these questions of what constitutes “beyond the pale” Democratic behavior are finally being taken up.
Jason330 ..
Thanks for your insightful posts .. I joined this blog back in the fall.. not knowing it is a Democratic Party platform. I’m an unaffiliated independent since 1972 who registered Democratic in 2008 to vote Obama and again this election year to vote Sanders in closed primary states.
I vote for candidates, not parties .. was 18 when I gained the right to vote in 1972 because we protested for this when marching against the war in Viet Nam .. “If we are old enough to die for our military industrial complex, we are old enough to have a say so in the matter.” Both mainstream parties are even more corrupt than they were when I was a kid .. and Sanders is a breath of fresh air in our corrupt corporatocracy.
This primary 2016 has been a real learning curve for me .. don’t know much about party politics .. I applaud Tulsi Gabbard for resigning as vice-chair to support an honest, truly liberal candidate.
How did DWS get selected chair of the DNC? Am assuming dirty-back-room-politics?
Kate – I’m happy you’re here. You may want to prepare yourself for a sanctimonious lecture about politics and how you don’t understand it and how President Trump will be our fault.
My humble advice is to tell those commenters to fuck off.
Lol. (It is funny because it is true.)
@DG “You may want to prepare yourself for a sanctimonious lecture about politics…”
May I start?
This is an important read by David Brooks, a conservative commentator at the NYT.
“Why Is Clinton Disliked?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html
I’d like Kate Kent to read that and then think hard about why she really dislikes Hillary… I’d say it’s also important for DG and Jason, but I’m probably wasting my time.
I’m honestly asking. Because while there are other elected Democrats that I view as just as bad as Wasserman Schultz on these issues, Tom Carper does not happen to be the current Democratic National Committee chair.”
Another excellent post, Jason. I’d only suggest not to ask the question but to affirm your insight, It is precisely because DWS holds so much power that she deserves special attention and renunciation during her primary given her awful positions. That’s obvious.
I don’t know what’s funnier, recommending a David Brooks column, or explaining to us who David Brooks is.
Political parties serve the people who run them
@DG “I don’t know what’s funnier, recommending a David Brooks column, or explaining to us who David Brooks is.”
Well… I assumed that KK has no clue whatsoever who David Brooks is. Am I evil?
Hope DWS loses her primary. That would be sweet!
> I’m an unaffiliated independent since 1972 who registered Democratic in 2008 to vote Obama and again this election year to vote Sanders in closed primary states.
You registered Democrat and voted Democrat in more than one state?
“I assumed that KK has no clue whatsoever who David Brooks is. Am I evil?”
Depends on the definition of evil. I’d say no, but others might find a sanctimonious poseur whose interest in politics seems to extend no deeper than rooting for all the Democratic women, no matter how illiberal, to be an example of the banality of evil.
What worries those of us who have followed this blog since its inception was this sentence:” I joined this blog back in the fall.. not knowing it is a Democratic Party platform. ”
That’s what I’ve been warning y’all about. Once you are seen as losing your independence, this blog is doomed.
@a “Once you are seen as losing your independence, this blog is doomed.”
And a “you’ve just got to love Sanders” purity test somehow accomplishes that??
I see Sanders as a false bearer of his basic message, just as I see Trump as a false bearer of conservative ideology.
And so while I love the message that Sanders brings forward, I really wish the man would just go away. That is NOT losing my independence, that’s affirming it.
LOL! In 2008 we were accused of being an echo chamber, now we’re in danger of losing our independence. The reason? We all aren’t Bernie supporters?
@pandora: It has nothing to do with you. It has to do with Democratic Party regulars using this blog as a launching pad. It has to do with people lecturing about party unity, when there is no party in this blog’s name.
You can be liberal and you can be Democratic, but at crunch time, when those two identities are in opposition, which way does this blog go?
@LE: The sentence was about the blog, not you. Your self-delusions are of no interest to me.
@a “You can be liberal and you can be Democratic, but at crunch time, when those two identities are in opposition, which way does this blog go?”
Go?? A good blog continues to debate the merits of both.
…lest you end up with a worthless echo chamber.
“You can be liberal and you can be Democratic, but at crunch time, when those two identities are in opposition, which way does this blog go?”
Your way? 😉
On a serious note, those two “identities” aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m fine with DWS going away. I’m fine with whatever candidate people support. What bothers me is how quickly people place everyone into assigned boxes. That’s not very progressive.
Thanks, a heaping helping of LIberal Elite’s patented pablum.
This blog censors people with whom it doesn’t agree — a whole string of conservatives will attest to that fact. So, as is often the case, reality and your view of it are not in alignment.
“I’m fine with DWS going away.”
That’s all? Why aren’t you more insistent that this self-interested, incompetent and not-at-all-liberal person get the boot?
Besides, my comments were aimed at the blog’s leading Woman Cheerleader, Liberal Elite.
Woman Cheerleader? What’s up with that?
@p “Woman Cheerleader? What’s up with that?”
Actually sounds like typical misogyny. Gotta be a woman if you support women politicians…
She’s a cheerleader for Hillary, for DWS. Yeah, exactly. What’s up with that? I see no reason to support either one, but I know an identity-politics voter when I read one.
I support Warren — at last check, a woman. Not these two — at last check, not liberal.
And if you think I”m a misogynist, you’re only half right. I hate the men, too.
I’ve always had a thing for cheerleaders lol
“LOL! In 2008 we were accused of being an echo chamber, now we’re in danger of losing our independence. The reason? We all aren’t Bernie supporters?”
That’s nonsense. Bernie, the person, isn’t relevant as a test. It’s that many here on DL don’t support the positions that Bernie supports. Instead they support neo liberal hawkish and corporate friendly Hillary for the utterly transparent reason that is what the establishment wants. Then they also defend, while laughably denying that they are, the pro pay day extortionistist DWS. She’s also front and center in the establishment. So those of you to whom this applies, you either give your support because that’s what the party bigwigs want or you tacitly do support the blatantly illiberal and ordinary-American-unfriendly positions they support. Instead of coming out and declaring your real position, you bizarrely twist this into something about Bernie. Get real.
I also love how you two retreat to the “let’s parse the language to see if it passes our litmus test” home base immediately.
That’s what you dopes think liberalism is, when in fact, that’s just the liberalism of conservative parody.
@DG “So those of you to whom this applies, you either give your support because that’s what the party bigwigs want or you tacitly do support the blatantly illiberal and ordinary-American-unfriendly positions they support.”
Nope. Sorry. Not either of those. Try again.
Try again, indeed. Try again to explain why Debbie deserves to stay in the job.
^ probably because of the massive congressional and state-level gains the Dems have made since she has been party chair. Like that kick-ass 2014 mid-term election. What a resounding victory that was.
This is how life works. If you are bad at your job and your clients dislike you, you lose your job. The party is more important that inter-personal relationships and the country is more important than the party. By that metric, DWS is long overdue for a pink-slip. But fear not…. she’ll get that golden-parachute consultant gig until she can become a pay-day loan lobbyist.
@Ben: I posted the other day the story about her plan to accuse people who want her out of anti-Semitism and misogyny. Identify politics at its finest.
“Try again to explain why Debbie deserves to stay in the job.”
Yeah, no one actually said that.
What is it then? Fear of the even worse alternative? I get that fear of the worse alternative is a legitimate motivation for some, but you guys don’t get that it leaves many would be Democrats flatter than flat.
How about this? Some of us like Hillary.
And some like what Hillary’s politics brings them.
Thomas Frank:
@J “What is it then?”
In the case of DWS, I see her as the front line warrior against the GOP. Many claim that she’s incompetent, but I don’t see it quite that way. I’d say she has been quite unsuccessful, but that is a different thing. For the incompetence claim to stick, you’d need to believe that someone else would have done a much better job. I’m not sure I buy that argument, considering the political climate and how the Dems just didn’t go to the polls in 2014. Is that really DWS’ fault?
And so I see her on the front line fighting the GOP and she’s taking arrows in the back from ‘friendly fire’ from liberals. Sure… Kill her off with arrows in the back if you want. But don’t assume that someone is going to step up and take her place and do a much better job against the GOP…
And remember.. Her DNC role is entirely operational, and not at all political (in the pure sense). She does not set policy nor does she steer the party in any real way. She is not determining the balance of liberal and centrist objectives. That is done at another level entirely. She’s just a foot soldier doing her job.
How is Hillary involved in this? Did she hold office in the 70s, 80s, or 90s?
@p “You find that there was a transition in the Democratic Party in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s where they convinced themselves that they needed to abandon working people in order to serve a different constituency: a constituency essentially of white-collar professionals.”
In the absence of considering the GOP’s “southern strategy”, this makes little sense. I don’t think that the Dems ‘convinced themselves’, they just became aware of their new reality. It was imposed by the GOP.
aaaak too many conversations going on at once.
I personally consider the conversation about Clinton over. Any comment i make is going to be about how to make the DNC more progressive and ensure the 35 and under crowd in this country votes for the more progressive candidates forever….. She is the nominee, we must do all we can to make sure as many people as possible vote for her.
Much of the animosity is a directed at “the DNC”. If a failure of a party leader (and someone who helped predatory lenders prey on poor families) were to be offered up as a sacrifice to roughly half the party, what’s the harm? You dont get into politics to be given a million chances and make friends.
You think im being sexist or double standardy? (no one has said that, Im not saying anyone has said that…yet) How about this… Anthony Weiner, someone who really could have been a major player, screwed up and was rightfully drummed out of politics. GOOD. He was a disgrace and a liability…. (keep reading, because im about to address the “how is DWS anything like Anthony Weiner, Ben? you’re a jackass and I hate you)…. DWS is not at all like Anthony Weiner.. however, she has become a liability to the party. The perception is that she is bad at her job (and electoral losses have proven that) and will do more harm than good for the party. We must keep younger voters engaged. If you dont think that is important, or that they will line up and follow orders, you know nothing, john snow.
As far as “who else could chair the DNC?”…. i wish Howard Dean would come back and do it. He was wildly successful. Failing that, I dont know too much about the Dem Bench to make that call. Elizabth Warren, if she isnt VP….. maybe Keith Ellison. I dont know. The devil we know (in this case) is so bad, I’m willing to roll the dice a little, we cant have another election like the ones DWS has overseen.
@Ben: I posted the other day the story about her plan to accuse people who want her out of anti-Semitism and misogyny. Identify politics at its finest.” A…. Well, I’m Jewish, I want her gone. SO at least we know it isn’t anti-semitism.
Good thread. I like how it always comes back to this…
“considering the political climate and how the Dems just didn’t go to the polls in 2014. Is that really DWS’ fault?”
Whose fault is it that Democrats don’t vote? Iknow Cassandra thinks that it is Democratic Voters fault. I happen to think it is the fault of Democratic leaders (like DWS) not giving Democrats anything to vote for. We’ve agreed to disagree on that, but what does Thomas Frank think? Well, thanks to Puck’s comment, he per-answered Liberal Elite’s question:
So… why don’t Democrats vote? Oh, because their party frankly doesn’t give a flying fuck about whether they vote or not.
@Ben “Failing that, I dont know too much about the Dem Bench to make that call. Elizabth Warren”
Elizabeth Warren is currently doing an important job. And you want to demote her to a low level ‘keep-the-gears-turning’ sort of job???
And quite honestly, the job she’s doing is more important than the VP. Having her as the VP would actually be a double loss for liberals.
1. She’d be replaced by a conservative republican in the senate.
2. There is no one good to replace her in keeping WS and the bankers in check.
…double loss.
@J “So… why don’t Democrats vote? Oh, because their party frankly doesn’t give a flying fuck about whether they vote or not.”
There was only one way to fight the southern strategy. Thankfully, the Dems never went there. That’s not to say they didn’t care.
yup… which is why I didn’t actually commit to Warren. Someone LIKE her however… an unashamed liberal who is very VERY untethered to big money interests. Not someone with a losing record and who has fought for predatory lenders. I dont care about “foot soldier” …. calling someone that makes me like them less (fyi)
@B “I dont care about “foot soldier” …. calling someone that makes me like them less (fyi)”
That’s the nature of the job. It’s basically an administrative position. If this was a typical office, she’d be the secretary.
“Oh, because their party frankly doesn’t give a flying fuck about whether they vote or not.”
When elections are between two candidates defending slightly different sides of the status quo, no wonder. – voting (or not voting) is not likely to change your fortunes. The election of 2008 broke from that pattern, offering a choice of “no war” or “forever war” and we got heavy turnout. 2016 is also likely to break pattern due to the unknown quantity of Trump, for better or worse.
She does not set policy nor does she steer the party in any real way.
I don’t think that this is right. She may not direct party platform or governing strategy, she is in charge of the policy of electing more Dems. Howard Dean had a definite policy and strategy here — one specifically focused on Dems running everywhere AND in supporting those Dems as best as possible. He was very interested in bench-building and in making sure that voters heard Dem messages in elections — even if those elections were long shots. I don’t see DWS doing this. She seems to have retreated to the position that the DNC is the incumbent protection force. There’s lots of fundraising and high profile work for Dems like Terry McAuliffe, which is fine but if you aren’t focused on getting Dems engaged at governing at all levels you are guilty of malpractice, IMO.
I think it comes down to these questions. Would Americans be better off with a living wage standard rather than an increased minimum wage standard? Do Americans deserve a single payer universal healthcare system they doesn’t involve deductibles and copays? Would American college students be far better off graduating without massive college related debt than having it? Would the American government be in a better position to avert possible financial collapses with the reinstatement of Glas Steagal or not? Do Americans deserve to have drinking water that cannot catch on fire because of fracking? Etc.
If you supported Hillary, you answered no to those questions. You did so either because you just went along with the Democratic establishment or because you think no is the correct answer and you are highly questionable as a progressive. Just to baldy deny without demonstrating why those alternatives don’t apply to you, as some did above (see @LE’s response to me as an example) doesn’t get you off the hook. In fact, your bald denials without further explanation arguably indicates that you really don’t have a response and you’ve been caught red handed.
I’d love to have Hillary supporters to explain why Americans don’t deserve single payer universal health care w/o deductibles and copays. Why college students wouldn’t be better off, or why it’s not something that should concern anyone, if they graduated debt free instead of being saddled with decades of debt. Explain why you didn’t hold those and the other positions above and tell us how you still qualify as a progressive.
Dana – If those questions have been asked an answered in the primary, (and let’s stipulate that they have), then we need another set of progressive questions for the general election. The notion that there is no difference between Clinton and Trump is transparently absurd. But there are valuable questions to ask – particularly with regard to globalization and free trade.
In future local, county, state and national elections your questions above should be asked again. We can’t sit back and be annoyed every four years that there are no true lefties with a shot at being President. We need lefties in every level of government.
@DG “If you supported Hillary, you answered no to those questions.”
Sorry. It’s just not that simply. You need to think about process.
I fully support livable wage, single payer, college costs like the rest of the world, Glas Steagal, no fracking,… and add in reasonable gun laws. FULLY SUPPORT. We have no apparent differences in our goals.
OK. Then how do we get those? What’s the feasible path?
How do we get those without putting all of the progressive gains under Obama at risk? Don’t forget that we’ve made precious progress and all of that is at risk.
If all the Repubs dropped dead tomorrow, the strategy would be clear… but that’s not going to happen. We have to realize that the Dems will likely be the minority party for the next decade. We might get 2 or 4 years where we hold the senate and maybe the house, but we’ll be lucky to get that.
Here’s what it comes down to. If Hillary loses, we lose the USSC for two decades. We lose health insurance for many poor, and go back to fake health insurance scams. We will likely lose the right for women to have abortions,…
And the 1% will raid the piggy bank in a manner we’ve not seen since GWBush.
It goes on and on. The losses to our nation would be quite significant.
We’re in the midst of a pitched battle in our culture war, and you want to open up a dozen new fronts. Well guess what… We don’t have enough troops to do that yet. And if you insist, all our front lines will collapse.
Timing is everything, and we need to pick our battles carefully. The proper path is to FULLY support Hillary right now while making serious efforts in the down ballot. The more votes Hillary gets in November, the more down ballot Democrats will win. That should be our objective for the next 6 months.
What we need MOST at this time are more liberals getting elected.
Sanders isn’t going to do that… Only Hillary can.
If you supported Hillary, you answered no to those questions.
This is one more version of the ever-present purity test.
Because regular readers in this place know that most of us are fans of single-payer. A few of us get that single-payer isn’t going to be in the cards until Congress looks different that it does. I think that there are battles to suit up for that can be won and I’m all in for that. Congress is still a problem, but there are definitely policies that can be pursued that would have a broader public support too.
“We have to realize that the Dems will likely be the minority party for the next decade. We might get 2 or 4 years where we hold the senate and maybe the house, but we’ll be lucky to get that.”
The Reagan coalition is broken and Republican blood is in the water. Now is the time for Democrats to make broad and deep progressive gains in as many areas as possible. ACA, gay marriage, Cuba – these are progressive wins that cause Republicans to tear themselves apart and become even more ineffective. Progressive wins on progressive issues will elect more Democrats. Leadership has to lead; it can’t pretend to wait for a line of followers to form behind them.
Now is the time for Democrats to make broad and deep progressive gains in as many areas as possible.
And most of those are still going to need a cooperative Congress. It’s as though you’ve been asleep for the past 8 years. Leadership isn’t enough when your initiatives have to pass two houses of Congress that you don’t/just barely hold.
@p “The Reagan coalition is broken and Republican blood is in the water. Now is the time for Democrats to make broad and deep progressive gains in as many areas as possible.”
OK. So… What’s your plan? Have you got a plan that doesn’t need Hillary and need her to be strong?
…and there’s the rub. You got nothing.
“What’s your plan? Have you got a plan that doesn’t need Hillary and need her to be strong?”
Any reasonable plan needs Hillary and needs her to be strong. That’s what the primary was about – making Hillary stronger. Unfortunately she has barely budged on trade, minimum wage, and bank oversight.
@p ” Unfortunately she has barely budged…”
Was that an objective?? It wasn’t for me.
Look. Here’s another way to look at it:
If Hillary beats Trump 10 points or more then the Dems will also win the house and the senate.
If Hillary lose to Trump, the Dems will win neither the house nor the senate.
These are inextricably coupled. You cannot wish for one without wishing for the other. How much Hillary wins by matters, and it matters a lot.
I want Hillary to win in a landslide. That is why I am disappointed she has not taken the policy steps to do so.
…but if she did, she would not win in a landslide.
You don’t agree with the run to the center election trick?
The center is moving left faster than Hillary can keep up.
Puck is right. How man elections do Democrats have to lose, or barely squeak by for Liberal Elite to get his head around the fact that “the middle” isn’t juicy with votes?
More, apparently.
@p “The center is moving left faster than Hillary can keep up.”
According to whom?
Here’s the counter argument:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/
It isn’t as though Barack Obama got elected with votes just from “the left”.
And certainly Chris Coons or Tom Carper or John Carney aren’t especially interested in votes from “the left”.
Exactly, and we on quote-the left-unquote aren’t especially interested in voting for them, or voting for Clinton to help them (“down-ballot” Democrats) who aren’t especially interested in our votes. What part of this has you all so confused?
I actually have no issue with this situation except for being harangued every day to vote for a set-up that isn’t “especially interested in” my vote. Apparently they can do it on their own.
Which is fine, right? If you are that disinterested in your government, you are always free to sit it out.
And then STFU about a process you won’t deign to participate in.
Once again, a “liberal” is confused over the rights Americans have.
Nobody has to “STFU” about a process he or she won’t deign to participate in. In fact, you ought to STFU for suggesting it.
Who fucking died and made you queen, anyway?
And once again, a “liberal” who considers herself “elite” doesn’t understand the difference between disliking Clinton and supporting Sanders. You can dislike Clinton without supporting Sanders. Your inability to understand that never stops expanding.
I didn’t say I wasn’t going to participate. Discussion is participating. I said I was not interested in voting for someone who doesn’t particularly care for my vote. You were the one who so kindly pointed out that they aren’t interested. Thanks.
So I’ll ask again, since you’re such a brilliant political analyst and tactician, what part of this don’t you get exactly?
The very reason these ideas are so important to me is because I do care. By your definition if someone doesn’t vote for one of two candidates selected by two private organizations that person is de facto disinterested. This is a very dumb idea.
the analogy Cassandra used involving Carper Coons and Carney doesn’t fly either.
As long as someone has a D behind their name they are getting elected in this state with few exceptions