Former Bill Clinton Aide: The Democratic Party Lost Its Way Chasing After Wall St. Cash

[Fuddnik]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/former-bill-clinton-aide-democratic-party-lost-its-way-chasing-after-wall-st-cash?page=0%2C1

(snip)

In Reagan's epic 1980 sweep, the GOP picked up 12 Senate seats, the biggest gain of the last 60 years for either party. Nader had done his best business with Democrats, especially the liberal lions of the Senate; men like Warren Magnuson, Gaylord Nelson, Birch Bayh and George McGovern, all swept out to sea in the Reagan riptide. In the House, a freshman Democrat from California, Tony Coelho, took over party fundraising. It’s arguable that Coehlo’s impact on his party was as great as Reagan’s on his. It is inarguable that Coehlo set Democrats on an identity-altering path toward ever closer ties to big business and, especially, Wall Street.

In 1985 moderate Democrats including Bill Clinton and Al Gore founded the Democratic Leadership Council, which proposed innovative policies while forging ever closer ties to business. Clinton would be the first Democratic presidential nominee since FDR and probably ever to raise more money than his Republican opponent. (Even Barry Goldwater outraised Lyndon Johnson.) In 2008 Obama took the torch passed to Clinton and became the first Democratic nominee to outraise a GOP opponent on Wall Street. His 2-to-1 spending advantage over John McCain broke a record Richard Nixon set in his drubbing of George McGovern.





Throughout the 1980s Nader watched as erstwhile Democratic allies vanished or fell into the welcoming arms of big business. By the mid-’90s the whole country was in a swoon over the new baby-faced titans of technology and global capital. If leading Democrats thought technology threatened anyone’s privacy or employment or that globalization threatened anyone’s wages, they kept it to themselves. In his contempt for oligarchs of any vintage and rejection of the economic and political democratization myths of the new technology Nader seemed an anachronism.

(snip)

The campaigns defined him for a new generation, but he never stopped writing. His latest book, “Unstoppable,” argues for the existence and utility of an “emerging left-right alliance to dismantle the corporate state.” The book is vintage Nader and ranks with his best. The questions it poses should greatly interest progressives. The question is, will any read it.

It’s a question because on top of all the hurdles facing even celebrity authors today, Nader is estranged from much of his natural readership. It goes back, of course, to his third race for president, the one that gave us George W. Bush, John Roberts, Sam Alito, the Iraq War and a colossal debt. Democrats blame Nader for all of it. Some say he not only cost Al Gore the 2000 election but did it on purpose. Nader denies both charges. Both are more debatable than either he or his critics allow.

In 1996 I served as counselor to President Clinton and met often with Nader to discuss that campaign. Early on he told me he wouldn’t be a spoiler. Judging by his message and schedule and the deployment of his meager resources, he was true to his word. In 2000 his allocation of resources was little changed: He spent 20 days in deep blue California, two in Florida; hardly a spoiler’s itinerary. But he was in Florida at the end and his equation throughout of Gore with Bush — “Tweedledum and Tweedledee” — outraged Democrats.

(snip) long article.

[SwampG8r]

1. fuck the dlc /new democrats/neolibs/third way

eta I just wanted to say this before the 2 minute nader hate starts
these people (third wayers) have done more to crush our nation than the gop
because they excuse it and join in with the gop they are worse that the worst republican

[BillZBubb]

2. If money to a great extent determines elections, what choice did Democrats have?

That is the big question. If the republicans can outspend the Democrats 3 or 4 to one in every race, it likely guarantees republican rule and with that a government that is owned by business.

To fight that the Democrats had two bad options: Face the money onslaught in every election going forward or become more "business friendly".

The Democrats chose the latter as the least bad. They hoped that by softening their approach to business they could at least level the money field against the republicans. From that standpoint, it has worked.

From a policy standpoint it hasn't worked. We've seen the Democrats becoming strongly influenced by business interests and pushing policies harmful to the poor, the working and the middle classes.

Especially after Citizens United, this isn't going to change. Until we can get rid of the "money is speech" lunacy and enact public financing of elections, we are screwed.

[moondust]

6. Agree.

I usually cut Democrats a little slack on the money thing because of how much everything changed/was corrupted during the Republican administrations of the 80s. Democrats therefore could hardly afford to make an enemy of Wall Street in any kind of big money game.

We are screwed.

[dawg]

8. It's money versus numbers. Campaign spending versus a populist message.

Populism is the only viable option for Democrats. We can try pandering to Wall Street for money, but we will never be able to out pander the Republicans. They are willing to completely sell out the rest of the country for the benefit of the wealthy. Even the worst third-way Dem isn't willing to go that far, so therefore, such a strategy is doomed to failure.

[BillZBubb]

10. I don't think so.

The Democrats haven't tried to out pander the republicans and have been able to raise enough money to be competitive. I expect that situation to continue. So, I don't think your quite right about that.

Even with a populist message, if you lose business money and start getting outspent 4 to 1 you don't have much of a chance. The republicans through ads and with a compliant media can make a populist into a "tax raising, socialist elitist who you wouldn't want to have a beer with" really quickly.

[TheKentuckian]

11. How are the prescribed solutions supposed to happen? They require the same forces that have captured

the government to allow themselves to be defanged.

I submit to you that of all the heavy lifting needed, your first steps are the perhaps the least likely under your own logic because "the stakeholders" know it takes their most key advantage away and as such is to be avoided above all else.

There is no mechanism to bring about removing money from politics that doesn't exist for the multitude of obstacles preventing broad prosperity, self governance, equality under the law, and self determination.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. A very good article and it hits the nail.....

on the head.

[hedda_foil]

4. And here is the answer to what Dems should do but don't.

It pains us to watch Democrats bungle populist issues. We see Rand Paul corner the market on privacy and the scrutiny of defense budgets and wonder why no Democrat rises to expose his specious rantings. We yearn for a new politics but worry that our democracy, like that Antarctic ice shelf, has reached its tipping point. For things to improve Democrats must come up with better ideas and learn how to present them. So why don’t they?

One reason is that today’s Democrats think politics is all about marketing. While Republicans built think tanks Democrats built relationships with celebrity pollsters. When things go awry one pops up on TV to tell us how they “lost control of the narrative.” Asked to name a flaw, Obama invariably cites his failure to “tell our story.” Judging by his recent book, Tim Geithner thinks failing to tell his story was the only mistake he ever made. People don’t hate the bailout because Tim Geithner gives bad speeches. They hate it because their mortgages are still underwater.

Democrats must learn that policy precedes message; figure out what you believe, then how to tell people about it. A good idea advertises itself.

Democrats must also learn to argue history. They chortle when Michele Bachmann credits the founders with ending slavery or Sarah Palin forgets who Paul Revere rode to warn. Yet they let the right turn our founding myths into pulp propaganda with nary a reply from any but academics. In “Unstoppable” Nader enlists Jefferson, Adam Smith, Friederich Hayek and a raft of others to buttress his case and reclaim valuable ground.

[KoKo]

7. Recommend...! Dems on Left have argued this for years...

It turned out that Dem Leadership thought Obama was the "Message"...but, didn't bolster up anything but his "Brand." He couldn't do it alone. So...we got Obama but no back up. It's not like George Lakoff hadn't been hired by (Harry Reid, I think or maybe Pelosi) to work getting Dems to take control of the "Message." And the "Netroots" on the Left certainly tried. But, leadership never listened or put money into it. So...here we are.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. The United States of Capitalist Pig. n/t

[xchrom]

9. Du rec