General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs "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 rights 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 Americas 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 industrys 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/
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Liberal in name only?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)there's something that seems missing, though. like, how does a politico acquire liberal status if they *always* turn around and support 1%-friendly policy?
Is this a function of gifting people like Rahm Emanuel and Evan Bayh liberal status when they really haven't earned it?
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... most voters don't look - really look - at their critter's voting record day in & day out.
So they get a general persona of being a liberal because they're not a rabid wingnut and then go vote their Wall Street/Bank/MIC donors' way when the cameras aren't looking. But they show up at rallies and marches for LGBT equality, gun control, reproductive freedom, religious freedom et al to earn their "liberal stripes".
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it's just not okay to be culturally conservative anymore and call yourself a Dem. We need to make it just as toxic to be economically out-of-step with the party.
we simply don't have the capacity to bleed $$ anymore. middle class families are a dying breed.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Much like on the right, I expect it may eventually lead to an intra-party schism between 3rd Way Democrats and Social Democrats.
I'm biased. I hate and oppose conservative Democrats every bit as strongly as I do Republicans. To me, if you're not pro-labor, fair-trade and economically-liberal, you cannot be a Democrat. If you support TPP, you're not a Democrat. If you support Keystone XL, you're not a Democrat. If you accept conservative supply-side economics, you're not a a Democrat. If you oppose the civil rights of women and LGBTQ individuals, you're not a Democrat.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)than the Repubs because they can get votes the Repubs could never get from the left, which is what slowed down their agenda for so long.
So then they decided to infiltrate the Dem Party with their policies and put a Liberal rubber stamp on them, getting the votes they needed to speed things up.
It was brilliant when you think of it. Many of us fell for it for a long time.
I also think they've taken it further to get enough of the Left on board, by pretending to be opposed to many policies they totally support. Once they know they can get something passed ONLY by Dems and couple of Repubs if needed, they can rouse up the Left to defend what they traditionally opposed, by pitting them against THEM.
After watching it all over the past few years, what once was puzzling, seeing Dems you trusted vote for Bush policies, eg, it has become much more clear as to what they were up to.
So now that the game is up what do we do?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)too many dems have bought into this ugly notion that policy for the 1% somehow trickles down to us. It never has and it never will. it's completely irrational.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)They need "liberals" to offset the many conservatives they have on air, and those "liberals" have to be naturally weak in morals to allow the conservative side to "win".
Our base has no say in who is labeled as liberal, or who gets the TV time to make our case.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)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.
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)Now look at the mess, the middle class is stuck paying "through the nose" for the rich man's foolish war in Iraq. And we are paying big time--for their massive mistake.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)and its shareholders, reap private profits from the use of public funds in Iraq. that's the MOST galling thing of all.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)it used to be that all Dems tried to position themselves as middle class champions -- now it's the rare Elizabeth Warrens and Alan Graysons who are truly putting themselves out there on our issues.
can we dare say that the Iraq War might not have happened, or might not have been such a treasury-emptying jubilee for Cheney had there been some real middle class fighters left in Congress?
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Working poor and very poor. The demonization of those groups has worked since the 80s. It's easier to blame a lazy neighbor than to blame the military who saved them from terrorism. Or, their employer to whom they are loyal.
People don't want to believe they are victims.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Middle / working classes bleed and pay the bill. The wealthy collect defense industry checks or stock dividends and dodge their own taxes.
polichick
(37,152 posts)and also learn to demand what we know to be just and right.
Honestly, this party may be too far gone to really serve the people again - but I hope not.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)i guess we just need better ways of separating the policy issues from the personalities.
...and... this is why it's so depressing to see CAP leaning in to support Goldman Sachs. we expect policy think tanks to stay on the policy side and do so with integrity. This shows a lack of integrity on their part.
polichick
(37,152 posts)but even here at DU those who wouldn't sell out the people are seen as unelectable.
imo if the Dem Party doesn't become populist and concerned with justice, a new party will arise, comprised of disenchanted Dems, Indies, Republicans and those who haven't been involved at all.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)probably congress members with a small donor base giving large amounts vs those with a large donor base giving small amounts.
i think we saw the first real rumblings of desire for a new political party (or movement) with Occupy. i was taken aback by the diversity of people supporting occupy.
I'm not very hopeful for a 3rd party b/c our system is structured to alienate anyone outside of the established 2-party system. but again, the rise of independents might be changing that. in 10 or 20 years we might actually see a wholly new landscape. what we have now might just collapse of its own weight.
will try to find the campaign donor chart that shows large/small donors. i think it was created by the WaPo.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I think you're right about Occupy - those feelings aren't gone and will eventually turn into something powerful.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I can think of just a little more than a handful.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)the Howard Dean example is classic. here's someone who changed the face of campaigning with a true grassroots 50-state strategy, and is largely responsible for the successes of 2008. Then he has the door slammed in his face. such a wake-up call.
CAP is one of the worst offenders with liberal washing, for sure. it's a shame b/c they still do some important research -- but the good stuff will likely get lost as their brand suffers from corporate usage.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)personally, i spent too much time in "give-up" mode in my 30s -- b/c of work. i had no time or personal space to do the work. things have changed, and I'm "in it" now more than ever. and, i'm wiser than i was when i was younger. i think that helps.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)http://www.fiscalsummit.com/
How scary can Mr. Let's Pretend SS is driving the deficit so we can kill it be, if he rubs Foundations with Bill and Hillary?
Pretty scary, actually.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Deleted. Too much ranting by me.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Aside from some basic values and principles, the very idea that we have to adhere to some list would seem to be the antithesis of liberalism and free thought.
Most of us here agree with most of the "liberal agenda" as it seems to be proposed, but hardly anyone agrees with it entirely. Guns is a prime example and I don't know if the hard left has even proposed a "liberal" stance. Most women here, afik, want abortion to be freely available, but some do have hard time with the concept. If a woman's own feelings and decisions about her own body conflict with the general consensus, do we throw her out for daring to say she would never have an abortion?
If you were a governor of a state with high unemployment and a pipeline was proposed, guaranteeing 50,000 jobs for two years and another 5,000 permanent ones, do you get thrown under the bus by literal liberals for agreeing to it? Even if firm environmental safeguards are part of the package?
My point is simply that the real world is not an anonymous discussion group with little influence. Out there are myriads of opinions, vast wants and needs, problems that need solving, and simply pointing to a wishlist of the perfect world won't get us very far. Having such a list is good for balance and to remind us who we are, but blind adherence just doesn't work.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)as there are DUers!
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)where we get the "multiple" definitions is when folks try to advance anti-liberal policy as "true blue."
people are always going to try and pass off fake knock-offs for the authentic thing. that doesn't make it so, however.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)The GOP figured this out a long time ago, that if they focused on "culture wars" they could get away with emptying the treasury for their buddies. Is it that the Dems are playing catch-up?
The matter of "who decides" seems to be fairly easy to clarify: it's the people with money, access and power. So let's say in the next presidential primary we have a slate of 5 contenders who fall anywhere on the spectrum from deep blue to reddish purple: economically populist to neo-liberal/Republican Lite. The money is going to follow the candidate with the most money-friendly positions on policy. Money votes for money with money.
The bargain we've made seems to be that if we can make some headway on cultural issues that we'll deal with the free-market/Pete Peterson types b/c "only the best-funded can be elected." That's why Anthony Weiner was considered the defacto nominee for NY mayor until his alter-ego, Carlos Danger knocked him out of the race. Then we see that the actual liberal, De Blasio, is electable after all -- when before he was considered "too liberal" and "too populist" to be a "serious" candidate.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)real people have real issues. In NYC you have landlords and tenants who each have certain rights but have been at war with each other for years. Negotiations are treacherous, subject to a number of state and city laws and regulations, and take forever. In Suffolk County the cops want a raise but they are the highest paid county employees already...
It goes on, and then the schools need this and the parents insist on that, and some anti-tax asshole wants to shut it all down...
and the your congressman has a defense plant in the district that he's fighting to keep open for the jobs, while the EPA is pissing off another business in the district making a poisonous fertilizer...
It's really not easy at all.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)leftstreet
(36,107 posts)Excellent piece
Some of those examples will make you grind your teeth
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)We need to cease supporting individual icons and stand for polices.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)one of my favorite college professors used to say that we have a problem with the media reporting on personalities rather than policies. this was 20+ years ago and at the time i had no idea what he was talking about.
it's so much clearer now.
on one level we're human, and as such we need "personal narratives" to understand things. but, we shouldn't disempower ourselves by creating heroes to take the place of doing the real work.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)being peddled to make Nader/McKinney types feel superior to mainstream liberals.
Note that Sirota prefers Ron Paul to Barack Obama, so he's qualified to speak for neither Democrats nor liberals.
The fringe is still the fringe.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/
In holding this pragmatic view, it doesnt mean Pauls progressive-minded supporters believe in the reactionary tenets of Pauls agenda (eliminating major social programs, opposing civil rights laws, ending all taxes, having a history associated with racist newsletters, etc.) any more than it means Obamas progressive-minded supporters are thrilled with all of the presidents ultra-conservative actions (wars, mass killing of civilians, trampling of civil liberties, bank bailouts, a racist drug war, etc.). It only means that theres a calculation at work one that takes into account the realities of presidential power.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/ron_paul_and_our_selective_definition_of_bigotry_20120120?ln
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/what-dems-dont-want-menti_b_583807.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/153246/why_do_young_voters_love_ron_paul
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)one can only come to the conclusion that there's a willfulness on your part to try and shoehorn Sirota's piece linked here as "supporting Ron Paul over Obama" when he states in the first 'graph, "Yet, with a virulent case of Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome plaguing partisan Obama loyalists, it bears repeating if only to preempt future mischaracterizations and slander: I am not endorsing Ron Paul for president."
if there wasn't discord you wouldn't come out swinging like this -- no one here wants Ron Paul or his idiot son to be anything except retired.
what we do want is policy that helps our families and keeps our country competitive. is that too much to ask?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)willfully ignoring that. you realize that... no?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The other camp tends to acknowledge those ugly truths about Paul but then points out that the Texas congressman has been one of the only politicians 1) fighting surveillance, indefinite detention and due-process-free assassination policies almost exclusively aimed at minorities; 2) opposing wars that often seem motivated by rank Islamophobia; and 3) railing against the bigotry of a drug war that disproportionately targets people of color.
Summarizing this part of Pauls record, the Atlantic Monthlys Conor Friedersdorf has written: When it comes to Americas most racist or racially fraught policies affecting the world today, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them (while) his opponents are often on the wrong side.
Only a libertarian tool would suggest that Ron Paul is on black people's side on all or most substantive issues of oppression and injustice, other than civil rights laws passed in the 1960's. And if someone needs that comment explained, they're probably a libertarian.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/why_young_voters_love_ron_paul/
It's not because they're potheads. It's because they're sick of America's militaristic misadventures
Did you know that young voters love Ron Paul? David Sirota thinks so.
Don't forget this one:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/
Yes, he described Rand "drone liquor store robbers for all I care" Paul's fundraising stunt as "heroic."
Fuck David Sirota.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)i get that you need to find a yarn to pull to try and undermine Sirota b/c of his criticism of some personalities within the party. but, this might not be the most effective way of going about it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on policies that affect black people. Rand Paul is NOT 'heroic' for a stunt on the Senate floor designed to be a moneybomb.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)More to the point, yes there's a problem with pols being swayed by big money. Liberal, conservative, whatever--it happens.
When has this not been the case? Never.
If Obama really wanted to cut social security, he would have done it by now. The biggest obstacle, btw, to any kind of Social Security tampering is the oligarch's club known as the US Senate.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)so, that's kind of a non-starter. we know he's signed on to the Grand Bargain, so we know that's on his agenda. it's up to us to protect our economic interests in this bc we're not going to enjoy any help from the executive branch.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and Durbin in the Senate, it would be a lot easier than it should be.
This sounds funny to a lot of people, but thank goodness for Harry Reid.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)I didn't know that it makes a person "progressive" to oppose the Civil Rights act and equate taxation to theft.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)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.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)described in the OP.
A right leaning agenda dressed up to appear left leaning. But there's not enough lipstick to fool most people on DU.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)right up until primary season.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)They'll use it again. Many times.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)"where the money is" feels like the root of the problem. All the "too big to fail" behemoths are presumed to be non-defiable.
We have to put up leaders who DO defy the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and Pete Peterson's of the world, or we'll forever be trying to rationalize the 1%'s interests over our own.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)right now it seems like we're told to DONATE NOW or else our best champions will lose their seats. Very true with many if not most.
so we do the work, write the checks and all of sudden we find that some of them didn't actually mean that they'd support US. it's breeding cynicism which breeds apathy. we need leadership that holds us together and (for me right now) the only way to do that is to keep us SOLID on Social Security.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)WE are charged with protecting the social safety net. With dollars, yes, but more so with our votes and our voices.
Assuming that nothing Big Money opposes can happen; nothing it wants can be denied, is plain lazy thinking. We DO have a democracy, if and when we want it badly enough.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)that are plugged into national work. the fundraising has to occur at the grassroots level or else it will be compromised.
this are BIG orders, but we have some very good models for making this work. if you look at the fundraising success that LGBT grassroots have had in the last decade, there's clearly the ability to raise this money at the local level without having to ask up the food chain.
reddread
(6,896 posts)you cannot fight unlimited money with money.
take freedom's fight to another place, dont let them call the tune.
technology and clear headed simple strategy can do the deed.
We can not keep reacting, being played and victimized into subservience.
Play their game to lose.
its fixed.
change the game.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And there is no better way to dilute politics than with money.
And money does not care what the politicians say, they care what they do, and so when a bill comes up that money wants all they need to do is vote for it, and cite the rational for it given to them by money.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)call it "commie" to reinforce that
easy peasy
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)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.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And exactly the case.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The discord I mean. Also there are splits in the party that might not ever manifest nationally, but we've seen in some regional elections here in CA. Labor-friendly Dems are going to be facing primary challenges from the right from corporate-friendly Dems.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)yes, i think you're right. it is class-based -- and it does manifest at the local/state level in terms of primary challenges. although, in my state (Florida) we're just trying to get anyone elected at the state level with a D next to their name. Hence, Charlie Crist.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That *never* made sense to me...
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)this is the one that looks at the aggregate amount a person can spend in an election cycle. it's less well known at the first Citizens United.
Scuba
(53,475 posts).... County Board, City Council, School Board, etc. Then qualifying those folks who have been vetted - and can win - for State and national offices.
This wouldn't even be hard if it wasn't for the boatload of cash the other side is spending.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)they have big money b/c they come from big money.
we have to get better at funding ourselves -- something that really scares the crap out of most of us as we see the filings from the other side.
Grayson presents a very solid model for better grassroots funding, and he's done amazing work fundraising for other candidates. he's our anti-Cruz.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)what Liberal have done to hurt the Middle Class to what the Republican Tea Party has done is like pissing in Ocean and thinking your are affecting the Tides!
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)you're talking about assault.
the issue is liberal washing of policy that hurts the middle class -- or, using our party's brand to advance policy that hurts the people in our party. so, when Dems support anti-middle class policy, like the Grand Bargain, or NAFTA, etc -- that's a betrayal, and we need to stand up and call them on it.
It's no okay to use our brand for Pete Peterson's billion-dollar scheme to dismantle Social Security. in case you haven't heard, many different arms of the Fix The Debt groups have been out this week touting their "bipartisan" cuts to SS.
Dems like Evan Bayh and Ed Rendell who are "blue washing" this agenda need to be stopped, and it's just too bad if they suffer for it b/c our families are suffering now, and we need help -- not more kicks in the chin.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)without a comparison to How Conservatives are far worst.....
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)is it that bluewashing doesn't exist in a world where conservatives exist? is it that much of a straight line for you?
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts).... work just fine on way to many people right here on DU.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)without background to recognize "empty promises."
The rest...well...maybe they have political capital invested in their views for whatever reason.
But...still this "Road Show" is starting to wear thin amongst the American People, according to very mainstream polling. How long can all this last?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)and as such there's all kinds of people with different investments in the party conversation. so, there's going to be the young party activists who are trying to "win one for the team," and there's going to be those who, as rank-and-file depend on the party to fight for us.
so, some of this is the tension between those "fighting for the party," and those "fighting for real policy that helps real people."
DC is a very strange place. if you ever get the chance to spend any time wandering thru the congressional office buildings do yourself a favor and sit quietly in one of the cafeterias and just listen. the careerism is deafening.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)in terms of economic theory. Because in those terms, things like NAFTA make perfect sense.
Just something to think about
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)and generations of economic and political theorists.
Just looking at the wiki entry for liberalism and 'liberalism by country' shows that you are wrong - plenty of people think that, and if they don't, they are either uninformed or are deliberately misleading people. NAFTA is a free trade agreement. Free trade and 'free markets' are the main economic characteristics of liberalism.
In the US, we focus on social liberalism, but our economic policies - including those pushed by most mainstream Democrats, are economically liberal.
It should be no surprise that voting for liberals leads to liberal economic policies such as NAFTA and TPP, but the rare occasions I point this out here on DU it is not well received. I expect this will be no different.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)These organizations are mostly interested in staying close to power.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)instead of DC. he also seems to be writing from outside of his own comfort zone lately, publishing on NSFW corp.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the people. Emanuel has never worked for the people.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)folks are starting to publish on this, here's a book called "Mayor of the 1%" and I know I heard of another one on NPR recently.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/kari-lydersens-new-book-profiles-mayor-emanuel/Content?oid=10979151
Mayor Rahm: The mayor for some of us
Kari Lydersen's new book explains how Emanuel earned the nickname "Mayor 1 Percent."
Most of his political battles foretell his fights as mayor. It's pretty obvious that Emanuel concluded early in his career that since progressives were probably going to vote for Democrats no matter what, he really didn't have to pay any attention to them. And he didn't, as he cut deal after deal with the right.
Lydersen recounts how he helped water down President Obama's national health plan. And then raged at anyoneincluding his older brother, Ezekielwho dared to criticize the president for not passing a genuine single-payer plan.
polichick
(37,152 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)And yes, it is based on a class divide.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)the more we examine it. there's class in the sense of monied Dems vs grassroots Dems. class is in play also with economic vs culture issues. and class is definitely in play in the basic fight to get reasonable policy considered.
right now we're looking at the possibility of Social Security being gutted -- when we SHOULD be talking about the failure of 401-k plans, the looting of pensions and eliminating the cap. instead we're having this politically stupid fight about how much of Social Security should be cut.
we're dead as a party if we let this happen.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Supporting escalation in Afghanistan and opposing single-payer health care are not liberal positions. Thus, it's not surprising that CAP would be more attuned to Lloyd Blankfein and his ilk than to, say, Noam Chomsky.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)of real independent liberal think tanks.
or, i bet that exists already.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)It's an old, old game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Benda
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)i think there's some similarities between our time now and the moment he was writing.
ananda
(28,858 posts)Clinton represented a huge betrayal, that's for sure.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)make a coherent assessment of their policies difficult if not impossible while they are happening. we spend so much of our time defending them from stupidity and racism (in the case of Obama) that it's easy to feel sorry for them and go easy on substantive critique.
but political life isn't like sports. if the wrong players win in politics we might wind up with a lost generation starving in their senior years. We might completely lose our middle class (which has basically happened already).
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)a proposal to simply weaken Social Security or starve a few million children could be taken as sanity. That's what we deal with now -- an endless parade of screaming clowns gibbering about birth certificates and death panels.
So even the most corporatist proposal -- provided it doesn't involve batshit theocracy or intricate theories on how women must be instructed on the use of their own uteri -- becomes the "pragmatic center."
It's sort of like the Overton Window, except we spend our time trying to drag the frame not left or right, but toward anything coherent or even vaguely rational.
This is why I think we need more leftwing crazies. I don't even know exactly what that would look like at this point, but apparently we need something loopy to compromise away in order to have anything vaguely progressive taken seriously.
Otherwise, the extent of our victories going forward will apparently be winning the argument over whether our candidates are crypto space aliens and the Post Office is a Stalinist plot.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)for more/better dems to campaign on.
i was ecstatic after the shutdown that we had a real lead in the sitting Repub vs Generic Dem polls. I was told by people much smarter than me that we'd likely not hold on to that thru the ACA implementation all the way to 2014. in other words, they were bracing for ACA implementation problems to wipe out our shutdown lead.
it's definitely an "i told you so" moment. if we had a public option or a "medicare for all" model we wouldn't be dealing with the anger stemming from the mandate.
on to the Grand Bargain.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)NO MAJOR AMERICAN INSTITUTION wants anything to do with any outlook to the "left" of any Democrat since FDR. That includes The Obama Administration, the Democratic Party, MSM and Gold Sacks & Co.
Two choices to prevent de jure authoritarian take over of all institutions:
1) Take over the Democratic Party from the precinct level up (the FR did it with the GOP); or
2) Form a new party.
Otherwise, we can start yet another brou-ha-ha revolution discussion thread.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)are working at the precinct level and taking their ideas and energy into local political scenes.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Now, I'm no longer sure.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I knew Rahm Emanuel was a piece of crap way before he ran for mayor. Hillary Clinton is another example of liberal washing. I see right through her and I know she only cares about the 1%.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)and we didn't have this language of Occupy to help sort it out. we were told a "rising tide floats all boats" as if NAFTA was going to help middle class americans.
i really hope we don't fall for this again.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)that we could massage and empower the largest monied interests in a way that wouldn't hurt everyone. Rising stock market floats all boats, if you will.
But a rising stock market isn't enough. They have to game the system. Inflate bubbles, burst them, rush in to pick up the pieces. Fend off all regulation. Abscond with the social safety net.
We can be friends with those interests once they get back behind the walls liberals built to contain their worst impulses in the first place.
reddread
(6,896 posts)are you buying, or working on commission?
CrispyQ
(36,461 posts)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.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)love the Lily Tomlin quote!
i think there's definitely DU'ers who come by their "blue doggedness" honestly. there's plenty of dems who believe neo-liberal policies work. on this measure i think the crisis of people going hungry would help to wake people up (and god what a horrible thing that is to admit).
In this way, The Hunger Cliff might undermine The Grand Bargain. We'll see, I suppose. We can't underestimate the ability of people to ignore inequality. There's always going to be people on our side of the fence who think the underclass deserve their position.