Why [a] lefty Tea Party may be here

Can the Democratic Party return to its populist roots?

It’s an odd question. Unlimited corporate money is pouring into politics after the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Dramatic economic inequality is being exposed by best-selling economist Thomas Piketty. Politician Elizabeth Warren is ascendant in the Democratic Party. So the answer would seem to be yes. At the same time, Hillary Clinton, an extremely Wall Street-friendly candidate, is attracting the bulk of liberal support. Other candidates for the 2016, such as Martin O’Malley and Jay Nixon, may run, both solely as competent technocrats. In 2016, despite the seemingly potent moment, no serious candidate is directly challenging corporate power. It seems as if liberal Democrats are, to put it mildly, confused.

The answer to this question may best be answered by looking at an improbably important race in New York state, for governor. A year ago, this race looked like a snooze, with a popular and powerful incumbent Democrat, Andrew Cuomo, cruising to re-election. But that was before two things happened. One, federal prosecutors began investigating possible criminal activity by Cuomo in tampering with a New York state anti-corruption panel known as the Moreland Commission. And two, Zephyr Teachout, a constitutional law professor and corruption scholar, began her campaign to challenge Cuomo, on this same question of corruption. And Teachout’s campaign, though a longshot, is no laughing matter. Larry Lessig, the reform advocate who has raised $12 million for a campaign against corruption, calls this “the most important money in politics race this year.” It’s not just a race about corruption; it’s the first shot of what might be a real revolt in the Democratic Party. more . . .

 

Good piece. This paragraph is essential:

"Since the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, Democrats have been governed by a specific ‘New Democrat’ model. The basic theory of the ‘New Democrat’ model of governance is that Wall Street and multinational corporate elites produce wealth through the creation of innovative financial practices and technology, and that Democrats should then help middle class and poor citizens by taxing this wealth, and then using some of it to support progressive social programs. Financialization, which is a specific type of financial capitalism in which various elements of society are turned into revenue streams to be sold into financial markets, has been the order of the day."

It has almost a scientific beauty to it. Examining assumptions.


You might enjoy this piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7/18/the-free-market-is-an-impossible-utopia/

Excerpt
"By putting government and politics into the center of economic analysis, Polanyi makes it clear that today’s vexing economic problems are almost entirely political problems. This can effectively change the terms of modern political debate: Both left and right today focus on “deregulation”—for the right it is a rallying cry against the impediments of government; for the left it is the scourge behind our current economic inequities. While they differ dramatically on its desirability, both positions assume the possibility of a “non-regulated” or “non-political” market. Taking Polanyi seriously means rejecting the illusion of a “deregulated” economy. What happened in the name of “deregulation” has actually been “reregulation,” this time by rules and policies that are radically different from those of the New Deal and Great Society decades. Although compromised by racism, those older regulations laid the groundwork for greater equality and a flourishing middle class. Government continues to regulate, but instead of acting to protect workers, consumers, and citizens, it devised new policies aimed to help giant corporate and financial institutions maximize their returns through revised anti-trust laws, seemingly bottomless bank bailouts, and increased impediments to unionization."

 

Indeed. I'm old enough to remember what Democrats used to be like and stand for, which makes the whole Clinton/Obama thing that much more difficult to swallow. Or choke on. Whatever.

 

Is this current alignment a practical concession? Could we say that as unions have fared so have the real democrats?

 

There are certainly a few things I could get behind in such a party.

 

No quickie answer here. Remember that Roosevelt did not exactly enjoy universal support, at least until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. But even then there were quite a few people who preferred to supply the Allies rather than become directly involved. Then the war was over and we conceded much more to the Russians than we should have. But people were war-weary and wanted to bring it all to a close, the error of which quickly became clear with Korea. Then we got into the whole McCarthy thing.

But however deeply one wants to go into the history of this, at some point Democrats became much more concerned about getting elected than doing anything for the people. And getting elected became more and more difficult what with Viet Nam and the counter-culture and civil rights legislation (de-segregating schools and declaring anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, which believe it or not didn't happen until 1967. voting rights, Roe v Wade, etc). The 1968 Democratic convention was a disaster, leaving the door wide open for Nixon, though I expect people were simply Democrat-exhausted at that point.

And that for all intents and purposes was that. Since then, Democrats have been primarily interested in getting elected, as I said above, and that means cozying up to big money. And since Repubs have been more or less in charge since 1968, Democrats had good reason, in their view, to focus on getting elected rather than actually doing anything for people (again, as I said earlier).

This is the Cliff's Notes version of the last 70 years, of course, but it may suffice for now.

 

db lives in the fantasy world also populated by the editorial writers at the NY Times and WashingtonPost and MSNBC hosts.