The War for the Soul of the Democratic Party

[RiverLover]

The Budget Fight Was the First Skirmish in the War for the Soul of the Democratic Party

Democrats had the leverage to nix a deal that opens the door to more Wall Street bailouts, but they caved in to Republican blackmail.

Blowing up this budget deal should have been easy for Democrats. They were handed a perfect message: the Republicans are willing to shut down the government so they can bail out Wall Street the next time it wrecks the economy.

Democratic votes were needed because a group of 67 right-wing Republicans opposed the bill on the grounds that it did not go far enough in opposing the president’s executive order on immigration. The Republican split gave Democrats the leverage to demand that the bank bail-out provision be stripped from the bill.

But with President Obama twisting enough Democratic arms (57 in total) to give in to the Wall Street-engineered Republican blackmail, that powerful, winning message was diluted.

Democratic negotiators also agreed to the deal to repeal a provision of the Dodd-Frank law that prevents government bailouts of banks who engage in a form of risky trading. Their argument was “Republicans made us do it; it’s the best we could do.” But of course, with all the Wall Street money going to Democrats, that’s a convenient excuse. They can turn around and wink at the lobbyists who deliver Wall Street campaign contributions, playing a game in which the dupes are the American people.

The bailout of banks and Wall Street speculators remains deeply and broadly unpopular. It is an issue that generates anger among grassroots activists on the left and the right. For Americans who see Wall Street billionaires getting richer by gaming the system while families struggle to meet the basics, there could be no clearer contrast.

Progressive Democrats fought back. In a rapid-fire display of the energy and nimbleness of progressive organizations and champions in Congress, the deal was quickly exposed.

...In the House, progressive Democrats joined the call. California Rep. Maxine Waters, the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said, “We don't like lobbying that is being done by the president or anybody else that would allow us to support a bill that ... would give a big gift to Wall Street and the bankers who caused this country to almost go into a depression.”...

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/budget-fight-was-first-skirmish-war-soul-democratic-party

[hobbit709]

1. The Democratic Party is becoming more and more the D-Wing of the Corporate Party

The progressive voices within the party are becoming more and more marginalized

[benz380]

7. And the beat goes on...

Looks like it may be more of the same come the 2016 election.

[marym625]

2. I would disagree with the "Republican blackmail"

Don't know how it can be called that when the President pushed for the bill to pass.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Apparently, every few days, we're going to have to go over this ...

Yes ... the stuff crammed into the spending bill is bad ... we all hate it ... but had Democrats blown up the spending bill, the republicans would have cobbled together a stop-gap measure, with the message: "See we - republicans - are doing this to keep government running", knowing that any stop gap measure would expire in late January/early February ... just after the gop has control over both houses of Congress. Any subsequent long term spending bill would have included everything we hate and much, much more ... AND come with the added "benefit" of having any 2015 government shut-down fall squarely on the Democratic Party (the soon to be labelled (hopefully), the "Obstructionist Democratic Party" ... how's that for turn-about?)

Now ... accepting this as the way the spending battle would likely have played out, into early 2015 (and it IS ... what boehner and mcconnell, both, indicated was their next move if the spending bill had failed) wouldn't the more prudent strategy be to lock in a budget fully funding the ACA and keeping the social safety net and research programming (and federal government employees' jobs) funded, into September 2015, while setting up the fight to win comprehensive immigration reform (i.e., no immigration, no funding for DHS ... we can't deal, no government shut-down, only a DHS shut-down)?

Now ... let's look a step farther ... We know that each and every piece that Democrats/liberals/progressives hate (with the possible exception of the energy/environmental roll-backs) would be unable to survive, should Democrats introduce (loudly) legislation re-establishing the roll-backs and removing the political giving rules.

In the best case, the stand alone, re-establishing legislation is introduced by Democrats, and all the stuff we hate gets stripped out ... name a single Democrat and more than a hand full of republicans that would vote TO re-open the casinos, TO cut WIC, and all the other stuff.

In the immediate case, the legislation is introduced; but, never makes it out of committee/is never brought to a vote, we are at status quo, with all the crap we hate ... but we have a funded government though September 2015, a strong position for the immigration fight, and have the superior messaging position, i.e., "We - Democrats - want to close the casinos, to restore WIC, to get money out of politics; it's the gop that is allowing this to happen by not bringing this to a vote."

In the worst case, the stand alone legislation is introduced and fails, or it is never introduced by Democrats. In the former case, we have republicans (and possibly a few Democrats) on record affirmatively voting to re-open the the casinos, to cut WIC, and to allow more money of the powerful into politics; but we still have a funded government, a strong position for the immigration fight, and have the superior messaging position, i.e., "We - Democrats - tried to close the casinos, to restore WIC, to get money out of politics; it's the gop that is allowing this to happen by defeating our legislation." However, if the latter scenario proves ... Democrats never introduce the stand alone legislation ... well ... we'd have to question why Democrats didn't do so ... but more, wouldn't/shouldn't that question be posed to the liberal/progressive lions of Congress?

[marym625]

10. Please don't condescend to me like this

You and I agree strongly on some things and disagree as strongly on others. We have managed, so far, to be civil and polite when discussing things we disagree about. Starting your reply with "Apparently, every few days, we're going to have to go over this ..." is not a way to keep things civil and respectful. I am not a child for you to scold, nor do I need the patronizing attitude.

That said, I completely disagree with your assessment. Not that I don't think that some of the scenarios you laid out are not correct, but that I don't agree with the idea that something so incredibly oppressing should just be allowed to pass because of what might happen. We now have a will happen, that never should have.

It is the lack of backbone in the Democratic party that has helped get us into the mess we are currently find ourselves. The money in politics and the bailout to the banks was not worth getting this bill passed. Period.

Besides that, we have a President, like it or not, that is in bed with the big banks. There is no way to deny that. There is no way around it. That is why President Obama pushed for this bill to pass.

You can throw out your "if this" and "if that" all you want. This never should have been voted for, never mind lobbied for, by anyone who has any interest in helping end the control by the oligarchs. It's bad for everyone but the 1% and the banks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I apologize ...

you are right. My opening was condescending and patronizing ... though, if it makes it "better", my sentiment was not directed to you.

Okay, we disagree.

It's bad for everyone but the 1% and the banks.

Question:

Who suffers the most during (and after) a government shut-down?

[marym625]

15. Thank you.

I truly appreciate that.

My brother is one of those that suffers greatly from a shut down. He even had to take out a loan last year he is still paying off. He is as upset as I am that this bill passed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Luck your brother was able to take out the loan ...

But I'm thinking those who don't eat because of an unfunded SNAP program, and those that go homeless because of unfunded housing subsidy programs ... in short, those with the least.

I am unwilling to sacrifice them on the quixotic mission of "getting the oligarchs" ... Probably, because I have seen the suffering of, and benefits to, the poor - right now - by acts of politicians ... I have yet to see anything a politician has done to (negatively) affect the wealthy ... and those of us in the middle, all to often, fearing what might happen to us, disregard what IS/will happen to those with less to lose ... and do so by, rationalizing that it'll be far worse of the poor should I get hurt.

[marym625]

21. except that this passing

Will increase the population you're not willing to sacrifice. And there was not even a chance to pass something else or the same bill without the sections that help the banks, ALEC, Citizens United, Koch and every other person that will be infusing hundreds of thousands of dollars into elections.

The risk of the shut down was worth it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. No ...

except that this passing ... Will increase the population you're not willing to sacrifice.

I disagree ... Not for another 10 months and never if Democratic legislators introduce the legislation.

[marym625]

26. If if if

There is no if. This is a done deal. Until there is legislation that will undo this, there's no other way to look at it.

Why would you think that something will be introduced and passed that would change this when we couldn't even get enough support to not pass it in the first place?

As it now stands, this bill will hurt the election process, the middle class, the working poor and those that are already living below the poverty line.

It was a bad, horrible, step back that should never have happened.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Okay ...

so the way to deal with the travesty that is ... is to lament that it happened?

Why would you think that something will be introduced and passed that would change this when we couldn't even get enough support to not pass it in the first place?

Actually ... everything that was in the bill that we hate, reverses stuff that was voted on (in separate pieces of legislation) and passed. There is a reason why this was stuffed into the spending bill.

As it now stands, this bill will hurt the election process, the middle class, the working poor and those that are already living below the poverty line.

"As it now stands" being the operative, and seemingly resigned to, phrase.

It was a bad, horrible, step back that should never have happened.

Okay ... Now what?

[marym625]

30. As I stated in my first reply to you

I don't disagree with most of your scenarios, nor do I disagree we need to work hard to reverse this.

My initial comment was directly to the OP. And I stand by it. We can't blame just the Republicans for this passing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Okay ...

We can't blame just the Republicans for this passing.

I don't care to "blame" anyone ... except during election season, and then only republicans, and as a part of election strategies ... especially, when I see what was done and the way forward.

[marym625]

35. Your prerogative

I care to call out what I believe is very wrong, Republican, Democrat, Independent. It's our duty as citizens. And if we ignore it, we're doomed to repeat it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. As is your prerogative ...

I VOTE out those I see doing wrong; but more, promote those I think/see as headed in the right direction ... even if that direction doesn't get me exactly where I want to go - right now.

[Autumn]

58. That is just what we should all do. Vote out those we see doing wrong.

When bad behavior is rewarded you get one thing. More bad behavior.

[AgingAmerican]

65. The bad behavior becomes the new baseline

...and worse behavior follows.

[RiverLover]

50. Excellent, excellent post.

Thank you marym625.

[marym625]

52. Oh thanks!

[rpannier]

11. And when they screw up the economy again

I will be there to blame them and their apologists (you)

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. But not blame the Democrats ...

that can re-establish the push-out rule, and all the other stuff in the spending bill we don't like? Or, the republicans that would resist such legislation?

That's sadly interesting.

People act as though the war stops after battle ... No, it doesn't. We must live in the now and plan for the future.

[AgingAmerican]

20. Some folks last courage to think for themselves

Instead just automatically agreeing with everything Obama does, damn the consequences.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. And others treat criticism and pessimism as viable political strategy ...

for accomplishing anything other than feeling good that they opposed something, and looked strong doing it ... damn the consequences.

[AgingAmerican]

27. The next collapse will be the last collapse

And whatever is left over goes strait to the banks! Genius!

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. The next collapse ...

can be averted.

BTW, you responded before I could strike my last comment ... it was unnecessary and counter-productive to moving people past "It was bad" to "Now what?"

[AgingAmerican]

32. The collapse of 2016

Thom Hartmann correctly predicted the last collapse.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/07/crash-2016-gets-closer-every-day

And whatever is left over? It goes straight to the banks that cause it! It's a perfect storm!!

Thanks Obama!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. The Economics PhD and Nobel Laurate, Paul Krugmann ...

disagrees with American radio host, author, former psychotherapist, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator, Thom Hartmann.

[AgingAmerican]

38. No link forthcoming?

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. My bad ...

I read Hartman's commentary on the FT's reportage on Bank of International Settlements calling for policymakers to halt the steady rise of debt burdens around the world" and stopped reading ... thinking it was just another "hyper-Inflation is coming" OP piece(based on this: "The article notes that capital markets are "extraordinarily buoyant," according to the Bank of International Settlements, and argues that central banks around the world "should not fall into the trap of raising rates 'too slowly and too late.'" - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/07/crash-2016-gets-closer-every-day#sthash.u3avXJ0f.dpuf

And we know what Krugmann has been saying about that.

I should have skipped all of Hartman's commentary on the FT's reportage on Bank of International Settlements and cut to his chase:

Until the corporate elite and our billionaire class are under control, and our working class once again can enter the middle class, we stand at the precipice of a great crash. Without vigorous governmental action to radically reduce student and working family debt, increase wages, and suppress speculation, that crash comes closer to us every day. - See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/07/crash-2016-gets-closer-every-day#sthash.u3avXJ0f.dpuf

Which I agree with ... and will note, so does Krugmann.

But I can't help but observe ... the predicted crash has nothing to do with the components in the spending bill.

I'd, further note, that Hartmann's conclusion above is internally inconsistent ... he calls for measures to get/return "our working class once again can enter the middle class", yet cites as a solution only one (of 4) measure(s), i.e., increased wages, that would affect the problem.

[AgingAmerican]

57. Still waiting for this mystery Krugman link

...that you keep forgetting to post.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Do you read what others post ...

or,do you just see a/my name and start typing?

[AgingAmerican]

60. I saw this:

"The Economics PhD and Nobel Laurate, Paul Krugmann ...

disagrees with American radio host, author, former psychotherapist, entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator, Thom Hartmann."

Now I am waiting for the link....

Thanks in advance...again!

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. But did you see anything else ...

like my "My Bad" post #41? Or, post 42 ... or anything else?

[AgingAmerican]

62. So you cannot walk your talk

Have a nice evening!

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Yeah, Okay ...

I've addressed this crap more than I intended to.

[AgingAmerican]

40. So Krugmann

Believes putting several hundred trillion dollars worth of unregulated credit swaps, (many times the total world economy) AKA derivatives, under the protection of the FDIC is sound economics?

When did Krugmann join the Libertarian party?

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/12/thom_hartmann_libertarians_are_pushing_us_over_a_cliff/

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. I didn't say that ... Neither did your Hartman article. n/t

[stevenleser]

48. Boom goes the dynamite. Non-economist disagrees with Nobel Laureate in economics.

That's the whole discussion in a nutshell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. But in all fairness ...

See my, "My Bad" comment at post #41

[AgingAmerican]

56. I'm still waiting for the link

Where Krugmann said it.

Thanks in advance!

[stevenleser]

46. Lots of people correctly predicted the last collapse. Most of them dont agree with Hartmann

about 2016.

[RunInCircles]

54. Your optics are terrible

Today next year who really cares when the republicans implement their agenda. Now the Democratic leaderships hands are all over this. Shared blame? If you are going to stand for the working class then do not get behind these power grabs by the rich and powerful. All you are supporting is the idea that both parties are the same. They both equally work to screw over the middle class in their efforts to kowtow to the rich. No your argument is awful and just provides cover for the fact that many Democrats are working to screw the middle class because money.

Let the Republican Party own their agenda. Let the Republican Party pass their agenda. Do you really think the Republicans paid a price for shutting the Government down at the polls? If they are going to pass legislation that we do not have the votes to stop that badly hurt the American people let the American people see that.

Jeez Lets do bad things to provide cover for the other party doing bad things is a terrible idea.

[PearliePoo2]

3. I'm so disappointed, it makes me sick.

I had such great hopes for Obama, I feel I've been duped.

Here's another snip from the article:

But this is not just a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party, it’s a fight for our very democracy. As Justice Louis Brandeis said almost a century ago, “We may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”

Americans are yearning for champions who stand up for them. If we have any hope of changing the direction of our economy from enriching the rich at the expense of the rest of us and of recapturing our democracy from the CEO campaign contributors and Wall Street bag men, it will be because progressive forces and elected champions stand up not just to Republicans but to President Obama and any Democrat who takes the side of Wall Street against America’s working families.

[RiverLover]

4. Me too. We can have a Democracy or concentrated wealth at the top, but not both.

Thanks for posting that as well. We really need to recognize our govt has been taken over by corporations, to the point where they're overseeing themselves in virtually every industry. To the point where their $ is buying our representatives and its kissing our representation as citizens good-bye.

That is how the game is rigged.

[newfie11]

18. Same here nt

[L0oniX]

45. Democrats care about democracy ...uhm ...errr ...hmmm

[hifiguy]

55. +1 It has been a demoralizing six years.

The banksters get off scot free and now the torturers do as well. Why did I even bother voting for him twice?

[NorthCarolina]

5. I think "complicit" is a more accurate term than "caved". nt

[stupidicus]

14. yep

imo that can't be repeated enough...

[NorthCarolina]

17. It's always the SAME scenario...Dems had no choice

good cop-bad cop, nothing more, nothing less. The reality is that both parties share the same goals, and those goals are personal gain, general public be damned. We are all just being played for fools. I for one am hoping beyond all measure that Bernie Sanders does decide to run in 2016 as he is the only one I believe can be trusted to be what he appears to be. I like Elizabeth Warren on the surface, but I can't help but think at the back of my mind that she may be the 1%'s ruse for 2016 much as Obama was their progressive ruse in 2008. I could be wrong on that part, and I truly hope I am, but I prefer known quantities at this point...and for me that known quantity would be Sen. Sanders.

[stupidicus]

22. well

I can't strenuously disagree with any of that.

I also think that BS's record provides more assurance over that of EW, even if it's not totally devoid of a question mark or two.

[Scuba]

6. The CROmnibus bill is ample evidence that the two parties are far too much alike.

[L0oniX]

44. Democratic republican big money kumbaya.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I love Maxine Waters, she is one of the 3 remaining of the 6 founders of the Progressive Caucus

which is the largest caucus within the Democratic Party in Congress. Waters along with Peter DeFazio and Bernie Sanders established the caucus back in 1987, when Reagan was President and when loyal Reagnomics Republicans were making millions and trickling down on those below. The following year, Republicans were so delighted with Reaganomics and with the thousands dying from AIDS without any action from the government that they voted for more of the Reagan policies they were so devoted to.

History. It's just sitting there. It can't be avoided by saying 'aw shucks' and the choices made back then were definitive of character in ways that can not be denied.

[calimary]

23. Me too! I called her office to tell her staffers to thank her for her backbone.

I said - "please pardon my language but please tell her I think SHE FUCKING ROCKS!!!!" She's not my Congressmember at least geographically, but philosophically she's pretty doggone close. She sure represents a lot of my thinking on issues like this. The staffer giggled and expressed agreement, and promised to send her my message.

They need to be told when they're doing something good, as well as the opposite. Reinforce good behavior! And thankfully, she'll be back in the new Congress. While Henry Waxman (my guy) has retired, he's been replaced by another D - Ted Lieu, whose head seems to be in a good place.

[stupidicus]

13. has been waged for quite some time now

the only real difference between now and the battles I had with the Clintonite/DLC/Third Way types starting a decade and a half or more ago, is that I have a great deal more company in the fight these days.

Finally breaking down and participating here on DU has been a validating experience because of that. I also find the many awakening and finding the causes for dem failures and their voices to spread that around, very encouraging in terms of prospects for changing it.

[RiverLover]

51. Thanks for hanging in there, waiting for Democrats to be Democrats once elected!

There are a number of good ones throughout the country. We just more of them, along with an authentic leader to not cut them off at the knees.

Anyways, I enjoyed your post & I feel the exact same way~

"Finally breaking down and participating here on DU has been a validating experience because of that. I also find the many awakening and finding the causes for dem failures and their voices to spread that around, very encouraging in terms of prospects for changing it."

So glad you're here!

[stupidicus]

66. let me thank you as well

for your efforts such as this one to raise awareness.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment. More and better dems are what's needed to make a strong effort at eliminating the cause for those already corrupted -- dependence on campaign dollars -- as well as a leader who doesn't think it a good idea to compound their problems with full and unqualified support for things like the TPP that increase the role and influence of our collective enemy in this case.

[madville]

29. The banking changes could have been stopped

Any of the Senate Democrats could have filibustered if they really wanted to stop it, but none of them thought it was worth a government shutdown being pinned on them.

[KG]

34. there is no war. the dem party is owned lock stock and barrell by wall st.

[arely staircase]

36. moderate-left vs. slightly more left nt

[L0oniX]

43. Spineless.

[Doctor_J]

47. I would submit that the war is over, and te party lost

And took with it a lot of Americans. Although in 2008 Obama looked like an agent of change, we can now see that he's a corporate tool. Hillary would have been very similar. And of course these were the BEST of the choices we were given.

The shame of it is that in January 2009 we had the chance to do something BIG with all of the Obama voters. But the nation's big shots wouldn't let it happen, and the PARTY big shots give not a flying fuck about the voters - they work for the same sociopaths as do the GOP.

The only thing that will reverse the nation's situation at this point is an old-fashioned revolution.

[kentuck]

53. Pitiful...

When this generation of Democratic leaders die off, and they are all getting very old, who will replace them??

[WillyT]

64. K & R !!!