Is "liberal washing" at the heart of discord in the Dem party?
Here's a piece published on Salon penned by David Sirota that calls out the practice of liberal organizations and icons lending a "liberal seal of approval" to policy initiatives that hurt middle and working class Americans. He gives historical examples such as NAFTA being put forth by President Clinton, and current examples such as "bipartisan" support for cutting Social Security which enjoys promotion by President Obama.
Sirota is inspired by The Center for American Progress liberal-washing Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as an icon of “shared social goals in areas like housing, clean energy and — most recently — preventive social services.” Unsurprisingly, Goldman Sachs is a corporate donor for CAP.
Seems to me that when we find ourselves in the worst kind of disagreement, it's because of some form of liberal washing: a politician or a liberal group is advocating for the 1% at the expense of the 99. Their advocacy is rewarded in donations and access, while the rest of us are left wondering what the hell just happened. I remember feeling this way after NAFTA was passed. I trusted President Clinton and could not fathom that he'd put for policy that would hurt the middle class after all we had suffered through the Reagan/Bush years.
I think Sirota has put his finger on something important here --> that the moment of conflict where we lose our minds is when we see our trusted liberal icons breaking away from the principles that we elected them for (or, donate to their organization in the case liberal orgs). I think that the problem here is that we wind up fighting amongst ourselves instead of directing that energy toward the source.
What says DU? How do we turn this around?
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/01/how_the_1_percent_always_wins_liberal_washing_is_the_rights_new_favorite_tactic/
How the 1 percent always wins: Liberal washing is the right’s new favorite tactic
Here's why plutocrats control our politics: Corporate America knows both parties are up for sale
snip
Similar to green washing or so-called “gay washing”/“rainbow washing,” liberal washing is all about wrapping corporate America’s agenda in the veneer of fight-for-the-little-guy progressivism, thus portraying plutocrats’ radical rip-off schemes as ideologically moderate efforts to rescue the proles.
Liberal washing has always been around, of course. But it has really risen to prominence — and dominance — in modern times. Indeed, one of the most reliable political axioms of the last 30 years is this: If corporate America cooks up a scheme to rip off the middle class, Republicans will provide the bulk of the congressional votes for the scheme — but enough establishment-credentialed liberals inevitably will endorse the scheme to make it at least appear to be mainstream and bipartisan. Yes, it seems no matter how venal, underhanded or outright corrupt a heist may be, there always ends up being a group of icons with liberal billing ready to drive the getaway car.
(snip)
The famous examples of liberal washing come from the White House. A few decades ago, Democratic President Bill Clinton liberal-washed corporatist schemes like NAFTA and financial deregulation. Today, it is Democratic President Barack Obama liberal-washing the insurance industry’s healthcare initiatives and now joining with a handful of Democratic legislators to liberalwash – and legitimize – the right-wing crusade to slash Social Security benefits.
(snip)
At the municipal level, this kind of thing can be even more shameless, and it involves not only Democratic politicians but also leaders of traditionally liberal organizations. A few years ago, for example, some (but not all) prominent union leaders helped liberal-wash Rahm Emanuel. Those union leaders endorsed the former investment banker in his run for Chicago mayor, despite Emanuel being the architect of the union-crushing NAFTA and calling liberals “fucking retarded.” Once elected, Emanuel used his manufactured liberal credentials to then liberal-wash a full-scale war on organized labor. That war has included school closings and efforts to privatize municipal services — aka policies designed to undermine public-sector unions.
snip -- much more at link including many aggravating examples of liberal washing: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/01/how_the_1_percent_always_wins_liberal_washing_is_the_rights_new_favorite_tactic/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Liberal in name only? 
this is definitely something that needs more attention though b/c if appearances on Sunday Talk Shows determined the direction of the country then we'd be living in some dystopian Republican hellhole by now.
wait... that horse might have already left the barn.
kill me now.
So...what should we expect from CAP. 
Some of us are feeling we got sold out in 2008. After all the work trying to build Grassroots under Howard Dean....we got sold out even before inauguration with appointments and then (even though we hoped it was first year transition) it never stopped...
BTW...thanks for this post. I don't check out Salon as much since Greewald left.
it's sad...
But DAMN IT...I'm not GIVING UP...and hope You aren't either.
Although...these days ..I wonder why I bother!
But...I keep bothering.
Excellent piece
Some of those examples will make you grind your teeth
anyone but him damn self, let alone the Democratic party or liberals in general. Especially after pimping the idea that a reasonable case can be made that Ron Paul would govern as a progressive. It should hurt to be that stupid.
There is no widespread discord within the Democratic party--the party is more or less as unified as it has ever been. You want a party in discord, look at the Republicans.
What one does see are arguments from the supposed "Real Democrats in exile" who feel as though the vast majority of people who call themselves Democrats deserve to be excommunicated, much like the Opus Dei types view most Catholics as heretics.
I didn't know that it makes a person "progressive" to oppose the Civil Rights act and equate taxation to theft.
Kind of proving the oppsition's case, gt.
If opposing liberal leaders taking middle-class hating monied interests to bed is fringey, that "fringe" is a lot deeper and wider than you seem to believe. About 99% so.
haven't thought about the veal-pen in a while -- my sense is that OFA kinda made that irrelevant as anyone except them were seen as untrustworthy of access.
in terms of economic theory. Because in those terms, things like NAFTA make perfect sense.
Just something to think about
When I heard a democratic president put SS cuts on the table was a turning point for me. I don't care if it doesn't happen, this time, it will be put on the table again, & a dem prez did it first. To me that was the last straw with this party.
I'll probably vote mostly dem, but next time some right-leaning dem asks me, "Who else are you going to vote for?" I'll respond, "The Greens, perhaps." I changed my registration to send a message & also, because voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten me exactly what I was voting against in the first place. This is not the democratic party I joined in 1975. I know many think we have to take our party back from within, but I think it's too compromised with big money.
I worry that if another liberal party were to somehow rise in the ranks, that it too would become corrupt. Until we get big money out of politics, the 99% are fucked. But ask the average person on the street if they would be willing to have government pay for elections & I'll bet they would say no. The 1% has so effectively brainwashed the 99% into believing that government spending on the 99% is always bad.
There will be no change until more people go hungry. I believe that most people don't change until the pain becomes personal. I think it was Lily Tomlin who said, no matter how cynical I am I can't keep up. 
Good post. Now I'll go read what others said. 
