After 25 Years of Losing to Wall Street, Left-Wing Democrats Are Winning - TheNation

[WillyT]

After 25 Years of Losing to Wall Street, Left-Wing Democrats Are Winning
William Greider - TheNation
June 15, 2015 - 10:44 AM ET

...
...
...

A different sort of political leader might swallow pride and start a serious conversation with his opponents. Is there a deal to be made that would cut out some of the more odious corporate plums in the TPP in order to get something that labor-liberal critics might accept? Labor officials are ready to talk but rather doubt Obama will pursue the chance.

In that event, the same choice will fall to Hillary Clinton. She is of course grounded in the Clinton wing of the party and aligned with the same powerful interests as her husband. But her prospects as Democratic candidate for president are now directly threatened by the party’s growing divide. The monied interests remain in charge of the party and Clinton has tried not to choose sides. That doesn’t sound like a strategy that can survive until November 2016.

Something even more profound may now be unfolding in politics. As the Democratic rebellion makes clear, both parties are driven by severe intramural divisions. On both left and right, the rank-and-file are fed up with establishment leaders and eager to challenge them, even bring them down.

On the Democratic left, the spirit of reform is resurgent. Both politicians and freelance advocates are advancing strong new ideas for confronting inequality and repairing the damage done to ordinary Americans—and not only by the Republicans. The media usually portray these ruptures as symptoms of dysfunctional politics. But these intramural fights may actually be leading toward something far more positive for the country.

What we may be witnessing are the initial stages in the gradual breakdown of the imperial presidency. Since World War II, the presidency steadily assumed greater powers in both war and peace while Congress generally surrendered its prerogatives and powers. The Executive Branch is no longer held accountable for unconstitutional sins and egregious policy disasters.

For two generations, both parties and both houses of Congress mostly went along with this debasement of the governing order. Letting the White House made the big decisions and take the blame if things go wrong became the standard default.

However, the country has now reached a difficult passage where the imperial decision-making no longer works for common good but pulls the country into deeper quagmires...

...
...
...

More: http://www.thenation.com/blog/209937/after-25-years-losing-wall-street-left-wing-democrats-are-winning

[Wellstone ruled]

1. The exposure of Micheal Fromm as

the go to guy pushing TPP did not help Jamie Dimon's cause. Always said,if there is a piece of fact that can be used to bolster a argument,you will find it on the Web. The Internet is Wall Street's and their Lobbyist's largest enemy. Facts do not lie.

[sabrina 1]

49. Their biggest mistake has been ignoring the growing anger and opposition to the neocon/third way

policies that have so harmed so many people. Arrogant in their 'success' going back to the 'nineties, they dismissed the dissatisfaction of voters, ignored it, lost the House and Senate, then rather than concede that it WAS they who lost those elections and are primed to lose the next one, Dem Leadership did the worst thing they could have done, BLAMED THE VOTERS.

Meanwhile voters have been busy, at the local and state levels, rebuilding the party from the ground up, ditching national leadership, ignoring THEM and their choices of candidate, mainly Wall St friendly, and finding and supporting candidates locally and statewide, AND WINNING.

It isn't just dissatisfaction they had to deal with, it is the most politically active members of their own party, finally taking matters into their own hands.

Strategizing for the FUTURE, while all the third way leadership can do is look for scapegoats.

Now those same voters have finally found a candidate THEY can support, not chose FOR them by Wall St.

I do not WANT them to conceded anything, or to pretend to once they finally 'get it', that if they don't, all their 'work' is likely to be undone by popular demand. Because I wouldn't believe or trust them.

They dismissed all attempts to warn them that they could no longer count on their traditional and taken-for-granted votes.

That's their problem.

Ours was we went along, believing that sooner or later if we kept Dems in power, we would begin to see changes.

That was naive. But that was then. People are not that naive anymore and a movement is growing to stop the policies that got us to where we are and that can only be done by no longer 'settling'.

[Wellstone ruled]

50. Everything you posted is

exactly what I have been pushing for years. Tried to move our local Dems to get their butts in gear in the 2014 cycle. If you do not talk to the voters instead of talking at the voters you loose. Nevada Dems lost the State Legislature by not talking to the Base which is mostly Hispanic,African American and Midwestern mover iners. Yes we got out spent,but our message was do not run on our successes and instead run on false equivalency set up by the TeaBillies. Of course Harry Reid was AWOL and now he is hanging up his seat. No loss in my opinion. Nevada in 52 % Hispanic and they sure as hell aren't all illegals and many own small businesses and they are exploited by the Caucasian minority which is in turned influenced by the Monied Casino thieves. With the resurgence of housing,our Dem base has more players and the 2016 cycle should flip the Legislature as well as a couple of house seats and a safe Senate Seat. Out side of the Teabilly want to be's,the populace is very cankerous and looking for leadership and not this third way crap.

[busterbrown]

71. The incident of Jeb’s security team..

booting a group of Latin Farmers from a rally today or yesterday, should be a huge deal to Hispanics everywhere.. Hope this story gets lots and lots of legs..

On first page in case U haven’t seen.

[Betty Karlson]

57. What a beautifully concise overview of decades

of Democratic evolution. So well said. Thank you for posts like that one.

[Octafish]

2. Show me the money.

Main Street has carried Wall Street for 34 years of freaking Trickle Down Raygonomix to the point where the greatest wealth in human history has been squandered on the likes of the Koch Brothers and Walton family (no offense to any Democrats named Koch or Walton).

[appalachiablue]

46. +1

[Snotcicles]

3. K&R.

[jwirr]

4. Read the whole thing it is really great and gives me real hope.

[Populist_Prole]

5. Good post. Thanks

[WillyT]

32. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[Jack Rabbit]

6. K/R

Excellent read, Willy. Thank you.

It's going to be a long, hard struggle.

[WillyT]

33. Anytime, Jack Rabbit... Anytime...

[Doctor_J]

7. greider is far more optimistic than I

Clinton will win the nomination and ge comfortably. She will abandon all of the populist promises made during the campaign. The turd way destruction of the party and the country will plow ahead.

Rec

[Ikonoklast]

12. From Molly Ball at The Atlantic, commenting on Hillary's carefully worded speech.

Here are some things Clinton didn’t say: She didn’t directly call for higher taxes on the rich. She didn’t directly blame Wall Street or financial deregulation for the economic crisis. (In fact, she mentioned Wall Street and banks just once in the speech.) She didn’t say, as Warren frequently does, that “the game is rigged” against ordinary Americans. She didn’t mention the gap between rich and poor at all, and her two mentions of inequality (both quoted above) were indirect. CEO benefits and hedge-fund salaries weren’t directly attacked, but used as a point of contrast. Rather than rage against the perfidy and greed of the rich and powerful, as Warren routinely does, or insist that economic villains must be punished, Clinton posited that a better economy could lift all boats—that under her policies, “everybody will have a better time.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/hillary-clintons-fainthearted-populism/395837/UTM_SOURCE=yahoo


This is what you're going to get from Hillary, better get used to being disappointed.

[passiveporcupine]

17. I agree, and I don't understand

how so many cannot see this.

[Ikonoklast]

18. There are those who cannot step back, listen to what is actually said, and compare those words

to what *wasn't* said.

What *wasn't* said here speaks volumes to me.

[passiveporcupine]

19. You are correct

Disregard for the party faithful began with Bill Clinton back in 1992. Labor was edged aside. Wall Street replaced it as the senior managing partner of the Democratic coalition. Clinton ran on “Putting People First,” but he governed according to the needs of big business and finance. His permissive policies on so-called “free-trade” globalization were especially damaging to American workers and middle-class prosperity.

I wonder too if Hillary supporters were also Bill Clinton supporters and feel that he was good for the country because he paid down our national debt by cutting spending on social needs (like welfare reform). I think he was a disaster.

[antigop]

42. because they benefit from the status quo or have not been harmed by it (yet). nt

[coyote]

68. I don't understand either.

Even if Hillary came out tomorrow and brings announces the most progressive policies in history, I still won't believe her.

I don't believe anything she says....she is simply not a candidate I can believe in. It´s just more of the same. Yeah she can talk a good talk....but so did Obama and what did that bring us.

I don't understand why anybody would support her here....one look at who is financing her campaign should be enough for anybody.

Bernie is the only candidate I have seen that speaks to me and brings authenticity to the table. The others are just professional liars who promise the world and then fuck us over once the voting is over.

[PeoViejo]

29. "everybody will have a better time.”

Channeling St. Ronnie, is she?

I've had enough warm piss down the back of my neck to last 10 Lifetimes.

[Ikonoklast]

30. Hillary will do nothing to upset her hedge fund and investment banker friends.

They need to hear the guarantee from her that they will still be allowed to game the system and steal from the rest of us.

If you support Hillary, you support Wall Street.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

51. Couldn't have said it better.

[Enthusiast]

60. You are absolutely correct. This is true no matter what she says. n/t

[7962]

58. But, "first woman president" seems to be all that matters to many.

Facts dont

[Enthusiast]

59. I'm already disappointed. That's why I support Bernie.

[rhett o rick]

25. You may be right but what I see happening is that should HRC win the nomination

the millions that woke up to support a candidate with integrity will be discouraged that they couldn't change the corrupt system and crawl back to their lives, leaving HRC dangling. Why would the DEmocratic Party go with a candidate that won't get all the Democrats behind her, when the Party can go with a candidate that almost all of the Party likes?

I will tell you why. The DEmocratic Party leadership would rather have HRC lose than let a progressive run in the general.

[Doctor_J]

28. she will get a LOT of votes because of her gender, and a lot of crossover votes

from republicans afraid of Bush or one of the crackpots. The big shots, including big media, want Clinton to be president. I am pretty sure she'll win.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. Why would the big shots have a particular preference for Clinton?

What could Clinton give them that the other side couldn't or wouldn't?

[Doctor_J]

45. sanity

[Art_from_Ark]

47. I don't know

They seemed to have no problem putting up with Bush the Lesser for 8 years.

[Enthusiast]

61. Yeah. They got war and stuff. They will vote for the party that promises them free stuff.

Like profitable wars. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sabrina 1]

55. I disagree. She will get part of the base of the Dem party, period. And the party's base has shrunk

since 2008 by almost 10%, at least 5% are now registered Independents, maybe more. She will NOT get the Independent vote which is now the largest voting bloc in the country. Bernie is going after that vote.

Then there is the large non voter bloc, disgusted with the corruption in DC, the lack of interest in actual people, many simply don't vote anymore. They are tired of packaged campaign promises, the carefully chosen words, the empty promises made in campaigns then reversed once the election is over.

Iow, they have no reason to vote.

Bernie is already making inroads into that demographic. I, eg, have already signed up someone who has not voted in many years. It's not hard to spark interest in non-voters WITH THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.

Bernie not only has a chance of winning, he very likely to win at this point.

Much of the support for Clinton right now is the 'hold your nose and vote' kind, it's very soft. Bernie appeals to many Clinton supporters, see the interviews with some of them at Bernie's rallies. The ONLY thing stopping them from supporting him right now they say, is a fear he might not win the GE. But the more successful he is the more that fear begins to diminish.

The country is starving for something other than the old status quo. And now they have it.

[Enthusiast]

62. "The country is starving for something other than the old status quo."

Precisely.

The old status quo is all they are offering us.

[TM99]

56. I would not count on that.

There are many women who want a woman president but NOT a Maggie Thatcher neo-liberal. They won't vote Clinton just because she is a woman.

The GOP will unite against Clinton in epic proportions. She holds zero appeal for cross-overs.

Greens and many independents who favor Sanders now will not vote for her. They don't feel any party loyalty or the need to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Big media is just big business. They don't give a shit if it is Clinton or Bush or Rubio or whoever as long as they are pro-corporate whores.

We have had 8 years of neo-liberal Bill, then 8 years of neo-con Bush, and then 8 years of neo-liberal Obama. It is a kabuki theater and the Republicans turn at bat.

I predict she will lose soundly to the GOP if she is the Dem nominee. Her numbers are already going down.

[L0oniX]

8. K & R Feel the Bern.

[JDPriestly]

9. Good article. Really readable.

[SoapBox]

10. Well at least our "divide" (Dems) is about bringing back some control

to the 99% versus the "divide" on their side (Pukes and Baggers) is how to increasingly destroy the 99%.

[SoapBox]

11. Must Read! Must Read! Must Read!

The article at the link!

How exciting...are we really rocking the boat? REALLY?

Keep it going.

Go Bernie Go!

[marym625]

13. Great post!

Love it!

Thank you Willy!

K&R









And just so you know, you are a very important voice here. Just needed to say that.

[WillyT]

34. :)

[TygrBright]

14. ummm... "The President Does the Job Badly, Let's Devolve Power Back to Congress..."

Because they do it SO MUCH BETTER!

Having to raise money to get re-elected twice as often, and all.

'scuse me, does anyone have a realizable GOOD solution?

I'd so much like that better than a -not-less-but-differently-shitty solution...

wistfully,
Bright

[calimary]

20. You raise an awfully good point here, TygrBright!

Let's give it back to Congress??? CONGRESS??? To be honest, I think NOTHING should be given to Congress, especially THIS Congress, but the back of our hand.

Letting Congress take the lead is NOT the answer either. Congress has been far more the problem than a potential solution.

[closeupready]

15. Inspiring. Thanks.

K&R

[Gregorian]

16. Also, part of what is driving this is that even though we are still growing, growth is seen as not

growth is seen as not possible without dire consequences. And the bond market has just turned a corner after 28 years. There may not be a reality yet, but there is a mentality of change.

People respond to the truth, but for some reason timing or the messenger seem to play a role. Why didn't Kucinich get the same following? I saw him, but others didn't. I partly think that growth had a part to do with it. We were still in the Bush mentality. And something H2Oman posted about is fear factor. I think people were still afraid of the Bushstapo mindset. No one dared say the war was illegal, or question where the authorities were taking this country. Then came OWS, and Bernie. All of a sudden we not only have decreased fear factor, (haha Bustapo!), but a new set of terms (1%, 99%,), as well as Wikileaks to give us all the evidence we needed to finally put a foot down.

And even still, growth comes from cheap energy, and resources. That's almost all about to end. But that's another subject's worth of stuff.

It sure feels comforting to see sanity.

[zipplewrath]

21. I'm going with a mix of ignorance and arrogance

Whether in ignorance or arrogance, the president didn’t seem to realize that his smooth reassurances were actually inflaming grassroots anger. People knew what happened to them when their factories were closed and the jobs moved to low-wage workers abroad. And people have not forgotten the role of the Democratic party in messing up their lives. TPP looked to some like an opportunity for payback.

When members of Congress tried to explain this to him, Obama responded by personalizing the political question. I am your president. A vote for TPP is a vote for me. Stick to the regular order of things, he told them. The dismissive put-down simply deepened the anger. Forced to choose between him and their angry constituents, they chose not him.

A different sort of political leader might swallow pride and start a serious conversation with his opponents. Is there a deal to be made that would cut out some of the more odious corporate plums in the TPP in order to get something that labor-liberal critics might accept? Labor officials are ready to talk, but rather doubt Obama will pursue the chance.

I work with a lot of wickedly smart people. And many of them can be understandably arrogant. But a trait they all tend to share is that when you suggest to them they are wrong, they are more than interested in demonstrating just how wrong YOU are by explaining in detail why they are right. They not only don't mind being challenged, they love it because it gives them the opportunity to demonstrate just how smart they are.

On the other hand there are those that want to believe they are smart, but basically are afraid of being exposed as not being all that bright. They hate being challenged and usually respond with anger and dismissiveness as well as attacks upon the questioner.

In this particular case, Obama seems to be more of the latter than the former. Little willingness to discuss/explain/defend the treaty. This could be mostly because he doesn't think the congressmen and senators will listen. But it could also be because he actually doesn't have a great command of the details and is merely convinced by his own team that the treaty is defensible. So he can't actually defend it against someone knowledgeable like Warren or Krugman. So he's left arguing that their questions and concerns aren't valid.

[appalachiablue]

48. What you describe in the former is competitiveness that many successful people thrive on,

especially in business, sports, life. The latter is not interested in dealing with a challenge, competing and fighting to WIN the game, they don't have that desire or ability. They just want to be obeyed, similar to authoritarians. Just my opinion.

[Enthusiast]

63. Huge +1!

[bbgrunt]

22. k and r. Greider helps us see the truth.

[CanSocDem]

23. I see...

...signs everywhere, that this is true. Starting with the Arab Spring and the Occupy movements, the rise of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Not to mention the liberalizing of social issues like cannabis and gay marriage despite the objections of the "imperial presidency".

Great article. Thanks for posting. The Nation always nails it.

k&r


.

[Babel_17]

24. "they chose not him" curious but fitting

Good article, good summary, thank you.

[WillyT]

35. Anytime...

[Babel_17]

26. We nominate, and elect, very bright, and energetic, people

"The Exercise of Vital Powers"*

The allure of "the deal" is like catnip to such people, it's hard to resist. "The deal" engages their faculties and challenges them to accomplish more than seems possible.

"It's a trap"

Yes, in a way it is a trap. Like an insect sucking nectar out of a carnivorous plant, the entanglements of engaging in these massive deals all too readily bind the negotiators, rather than empower them.

*"... a reference to Aristotle's definition of happiness: "The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope."

P.S. Yeah, it's hard top resist mining that show.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/082.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exercise_of_Vital_Powers

[BillZBubb]

27. I wouldn't say we on the left are winning.

But at least we are more than just road kill on the political highway now.

[WillyT]

43. How About... Because Of OWS, Elizabeth Warren, And Bernie Sanders... We've Changed The Conversation

And They Seem Worried About Us Now ???

[Enthusiast]

65. That's good.

[craigmatic]

31. That's one way of looking at it. Another way is calling this move reverse triangulation.

The house dems looked at what Obama wanted and what republicans wanted then did what the labor base wanted because that's where electoral power was.

[Hotler]

36. This is the perfect time for the workers to.....

shut this country down and strike, strike swift and hard. Our biggest weapon are our wallets and pocketbooks. Shut down all spending through the rest of the year except for the very least of what is necessary (food, gas smokes and booze) nothing else. No movies, no new washer and dryers, no going out to eat, no new cars, no houses, etc. If you do business do it with the mom and pop stores. No Walmart, Kamart, Sears, best Buy and so on. Shut this economy down and send a message to those fuckers in Washington and on Wall St. that we have had enough. Sure they 1%ers will retaliate with laying some of us off, but we have been laid off before and we are survivors. When the money stops flowing in to the businesses and corporations the creditors will go after them first before they come after us because they, the 1%ers have the money.

[WillyT]

52. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[kelliekat44]

37. What exactly are we winning?

Just asking...

I like Bernie and I like Hillary. Which one can actually win the GE? Honestly.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. "A different sort of political leader might swallow pride..."

It has long seemed to me that proudness is Obama's hallmark.

[Thespian2]

39. K & R

Like the article in The Nation...especially like some of the comments that followed...Democrats must take their party back, Now...the political situation in America is headed for a giant explosion...average Americans have, I believe, already passed the point of "I can't take it anymore!"

[AgingAmerican]

40. Thank you Bernie!

nt

[ensemble]

41. I actually don't think...

we have drifted toward an imperial presidency. Obama is largely hamstrung by Congress and his "acceptable" appointees. We get presidential candidates who are vetted by the people really running the show. I don't think Sanders is on their list, and if his popularity grows, powerful people will do things to sabotage his campaign. JMO.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. Great article, thanks for posting.

[WillyT]

54. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

[Orsino]

64. What did we win? n/t

[raouldukelives]

66. Man, I hope so. Still, winning. Doesn't sound quite right.

Its not about winning, its about retaining a viable ecosystem. That is a win-win for all parties.

If they don't believe it now, they will soon enough. We have let the corporations and foreign money steer our world for far too long. They are driving straight towards a cliff and some of us are just trying to get them to let up on the accelerator a tad and they have that damn AM radio up so loud nobody can hear us.

[Enthusiast]

67. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

This is a great article. It puts all the factors neatly together into a single article. And, it is accurate.

[me b zola]

69. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

70. We are not the left, we are the center; we are the majority.

[d_legendary1]

72. From the looks of it we are Charlie Sheen winning

and it ain't good.