Highlighting one part of Taibbi's article.

[Garrett78]

A Matt Taibbi article is a point of discussion in another thread, but I wanted to highlight one particular passage.

The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.

Taibbi indicates that this is because Democrats are "dense."

If you agree with the passage above, do you think it's because Democrats are "dense?"

Do you think Democrats don't want to win more often and more easily?

Stupidity or a desire to lose? Does anyone really think either of those factors constitute the root of the problem?

[Juicy_Bellows]

1. I posted in the other thread a very similiar thing -

They don't want a populist platform - they've been crystal about that.

Money runs the show on both sides of the aisle and until that is addressed, nothing changes.

[Garrett78]

4. So, it's corruption? And not stupidity or a desire to lose?

But, if Taibbi is right about what they could do to win every election in a landslide, then wouldn't Democrats follow his advice? Isn't Taibbi essentially saying that corruption is the very thing that's preventing Democrats from winning more often and more easily? And that Democrats are too stupid to recognize that?

[Juicy_Bellows]

5. They recognize that.

They aren't into politics for helping people, they are in politics to help their constituents who aren't you and me but big $$$.

Sadly, they are married to corruption.

They want to win but they want their lucre first and foremost.

[Garrett78]

10. Meaning they're getting paid under the table?

I understand that Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Ag et al. make huge contributions to campaigns, but Taibbi is suggesting Democrats could easily win every election by shunning those contributions. In other words, they don't need them and would be better off without them. They'd be more likely to remain in their fairly cushy, high-paying jobs without having to campaign nearly as hard. If Taibbi is right, that is.

So, why don't Democrats shun those contributions? Is it that they're taking a portion of those contributions for their own personal use (boat, mansion, grandchild's college fund)?

[Juicy_Bellows]

11. It's not so much as under the table as outright quid pro quo.

A lot of political asshats go right into cushy jobs out of office and play nice with those they gave legislation or refused legislation against. Barney Frank is a prime example of this.

[Garrett78]

13. I considered that, as well. The cushy jobs once out of office thing, that is.

In that case, though, we should see a marked difference between the behavior (or policy positions) of those who simply retire after leaving office and those who go on to cushy, higher-paying jobs. That could make for an interesting study.

For the most part, though, don't those who go on to other jobs do so because they lost their re-election bid? Which wouldn't have happened had they followed Taibbi's advice (assuming, again, that Taibbi is correct).

[Juicy_Bellows]

23. Well one thing is for sure, there aren't any broke politicians in the upper echelon of politics.

Here is a sobering link: https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

I appreciate the dialogue and I think we are left with two conclusions assuming Taibbi is correct.

They are either dense or greedy as hell - which seems more plausible?

[Garrett78]

25. I'd be curious to know exactly how Warner accumulated that much net worth.

Same with the other uber-wealthy Representatives and Senators. And how do their policy positions differ from those Reps and Sens on the opposite end of the net worth spectrum (I know Mark Pryor isn't particularly progressive, and his net worth is the lowest, according to your link).

I don't doubt that many are inflicted with greed, and there may even be some who are pretty dense. But it seems Taibbi's argument (at least the portion I highlighted) relies on circular reasoning, and I don't think it passes the sniff test.

[Juicy_Bellows]

30. Winning need not mean winning re-election.

Many politicians parlay their options and often times they can get big positions inside major industries just on their political clout. They use this clout while working for them to pressure legislation to be favorable to their new owners - many work as lobbyists after office. Often times they will return to office again and the cycle continues.

Re-election is nice but parlaying political power for big money is the name of the game.

I think Taibbi's framing of giving the option of political elites as dense is charitable - he knows they're corrupt as shit.

[Garrett78]

34. That takes us right back to reply #13 and reply #25.

If it's about getting high-paying gigs after they leave office, then we should see a marked difference in the policy positions taken by those who do and those who don't (take those high-paying gigs, that is).

We should see a marked difference in the policy positions of those who are uber-wealthy (like Warner) and those who aren't (like Pryor).

[840high]

29. Greedy.

[Juicy_Bellows]

31. You're right, I've wasted too many words!

Greedy sums it up.

[George Eliot]

38. X20 Too many words when it is all about GREED. The party has changed internally.

Reagan's influence I think. Can we get the party back?

[Jackilope]

7. Illusion of stupidity, but cowardice

It is GREED that makes the Democratic Party fail. If they wanted to really win, they could be courageous. Instead, we have cowards or sold out Oliarchs.

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. Some are firm believers that without financial compensation no one would do anything.

Sad fuckers, that lot.

[CrowCityDem]

2. It's a theory. There is no evidence proving it, one way or the other.

[Armstead]

16. Everything is a "theory"........The idea that people would reject a truly populist party is a theory

Aside from that, actually being a liberal/progressive party is the right (correct and moral) thing to do.

[CrowCityDem]

21. The evidence we do have is that perceived far, far left/right rarely win.

[Armstead]

22. That always depends on how one defines "far,far...."

The only honest definition of "center" is what I believe...or you believe....or what that person over there believes.

One's idea of centrist is someone else's idea of conservative, and one's idea of moderate is anotehr's idea of radical.

[Ferd Berfel]

3. Taibbi is correct

Problem is the right wing Third Way Authoritarians that now control the neo-Democrat party will only take this party farther to the Reich.

[Garrett78]

6. I'm asking specific questions about a specific passage.

If Taibbi is right, then why don't Democrats follow his advice? Is it really that they're too "dense?" Is it that Democrats don't want to win more often or more easily?

[Ferd Berfel]

14. It's that the interests of the Wall Street Puppet masters

... THe Koch Bros and other people that the Clinton's Sold the Party to in the 80's, are diametrically opposed to the interests of the people that Matt is suggesting would benefit

Money/ power Trumps everything - for some.

They have what they wanted, they win with Clinton, Drumpf (or Drumpfs bait-n-switch replacement) so as long as you get there, it dosen't matter

Populism doesn't help THEM.

[Garrett78]

15. Isn't staying in power/office what they desire?

Taibbi is suggesting that they'd be more likely to stay in power if they shunned Wall Street. If he's right, then staying in power must not be their ultimate desire. So, what is?

[Ferd Berfel]

49. Obviously they don't believe that Taibbi is correct - that's his point.

I think that Taibbi is correct and that the survey's - polls etc regarding what average people want prove that out - and Wall Street masters are ignoring it - therefore teh DNC puppets ignore it

Neocons are not interested in any of this: -- http://www.thinkbig.us



They only understand brute force and total domination of masses

They are conservative Authioritarians (and right wing - not centrist)

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/



Our Neoliberal Nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Why the Wealthy Win Every Time


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027898122

[ancianita]

9. Yes. Democrats are Dense and their leaders are guilt-ridden opportunists slowly

enveloping themselves into the unimaginative, binary paradigms bubble of some new world order capitalists.

Dense in that they know that old counterculture/cyberculture Enlightenment values are right but can't give up that addiction to .01%'s money and diktat.

Stupid because they still desire to be benign authoritarians, but authoritarians nonetheless, and they have long term economic marching orders from risk managers, banksters and the "security" sector.

I could go on, but the history of it has already been chewed around DU.

[Garrett78]

12. Taibbi is suggesting that the elected officials are dense, not the bulk of their constituents.

I'll repeat what I wrote above. I understand that Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Ag et al. make huge contributions to campaigns, but Taibbi is suggesting Democrats could easily win every election by shunning those contributions. In other words, they don't need them and would be better off without them. They'd be more likely to remain in their fairly cushy, high-paying jobs without having to campaign nearly as hard. If Taibbi is right, that is.

So, why don't Democrats shun those contributions if their ultimate desire is to remain in power? Is it that they're taking a portion of those contributions for their own personal use (boat, mansion, grandchild's college fund), so they're willing to risk not getting elected or re-elected?

[ancianita]

19. I'm a diehard Taibbist and get it all. I just think you overestimate Democrats to be anything but

crisis voters, and their leadership still thrives on job security no matter how they win it.

You remember the April 2014 study by Princeton/Northwestern about how less than 1% of all Congressional decisions have been influenced by polls showing vast majority voter concerns -- across four presidential administrations, Democratic or Republicsn.

I'd LOVE for this party to turn Left, take the high road and stay in governance forever, but GOP run media are jackals who'll always chip away at voter identity politics, gaffes, Dem mistakes, inconsistencies, etc. That's how they get so many of both parties to believe that "they both do it" bullshit.

It's a BIG country, with lots of non-voters, even after the movement gets great optics.

But Taibbi's fucking right. But. Where has being right ever gotten political leaders, really.

You asked in the OP, and though I hope I'm wrong and leaders will change and their constituencies with them, I have to say that momentum isn't with Taibbi yet.

[Garrett78]

27. I don't know what you mean by overestimating Dems to be anything but crisis voters.

Please explain.

If job security is their primary goal and Taibbi is right, then they would shun Wall Street. I'm not convinced that Taibbi is right (for reasons I've expressed in other replies), as his argument relies upon circular reasoning.

[ancianita]

43. Okay. I'll try. With 3,143 counties in the US, it's hard to find national trend graphs. Too race-

gender-, demographics or state-oriented. Look at mid-term turnouts (2012 seemed pretty high and yet Dems lost big) and presidential turnouts (Dems come out for the big, visible fights).

Remember that there always reasons, but Democratic numbers are not dependable within or across states where ALEC and Republican voter suppression money and media swamp airwaves with what amounts to "inevitably, both parties do it" kinds of messaging.

Dem turnouts as a percentage of their registration seem less consistent that do Republican turnouts. We in our party argue constantly about how it's the candidates' relative appeal, but I think it's about the varied attitudes within the Democratic Party about how valuable their time/job/vote really is, and whether 'duty' nor 'fear' weigh in nearly as high to GOTV as they do for Republicans.

My head hurts from trying to find accurate, recent numbers of party registration vs. voter turnout. I have failed, but my 45 years of party turnout observation lead me to claim inconsistency in our party's voter support.

From WaPo -- and let's not get into source criticisms.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480


and then



Obviously the claim doesn't get made that much around here because the numbers are hard to find -- at least for me. If you can find other graphs that give a national picture of voting as a percentage of registration, maybe that can help you understand.

Overall, the Democratic party makeup hasn't been clearly mapped.

I agree with Taibbi on how reps perceive their job security, which they've mistakenly equated with big money donations over performance for constituents, who are convinced to go along to get along OR get pissed about the ethical conflict of interest bs that rationalizes reps capitulating to party leader pressures in DC rather than vote for back home interests.

My head hurts.

[Garrett78]

45. Turnout is impacted by a number of factors.

Who the sitting president is and how popular that person is, how eager the other party is to replace the president, how many candidates are running from each party (the more candidates the more GOTV efforts there are), how many Democrats or Republicans there are in a given state such as South Carolina, etc.

It stands to reason that 2016 Democratic primary turnout would be lower than it was in 2008. Instead of being fired up about replacing Bush, Dems are pretty satisfied with the sitting president. Fewer candidates means fewer GOTV efforts. And so on. Fortunately, primary turnout has no bearing on general election turnout.

Anyway, as for Taibbi's argument, George Eliot posted something interesting/disturbing in reply #36.

[George Eliot]

17. I think there are too many opportunities to become rich for them to change.

They seem to complain about having to beg for money and lots of reports indicate they hate that. So they could change it but they don't. If they play their cards right, they will become millionaires after serving their stints in Congress. I think that's the bait. How they do it, I don't know. But they do. And I guess lobbying is a great second career. Kind of enhances retirement.

That's why Bernie is authentic. He is one of the least wealthy in Congress. His duty is to the people and that's where his values, principles and heat lie.

[Garrett78]

24. I understand that some get cushy, high-paying gigs after they leave office.

But as I wrote in reply #13:

In that case, we should see a marked difference between the behavior (or policy positions) of those who simply retire after leaving office and those who go on to cushy, higher-paying jobs. That could make for an interesting study.

For the most part, though, don't those who go on to other jobs do so because they lost their re-election bid? Which wouldn't have happened had they followed Taibbi's advice (assuming, again, that Taibbi is correct).

[George Eliot]

36. Politicians are opportunists. Studies show they become rich while in office. See excerpt below.

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-insider-trading-earmarks-real-estate-nancy-pelosi-rich-tax-payer-money-2011-11

Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer's explosive new expose, has pulled back the lid on congressional insider trading, revealing the shocking regularity with which elected officials use their legislative positions to reap financial rewards.

This 'honest' graft is by no means limited to using inside knowledge to play the stock market. Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institute, reports that members of Congress are also making a killing in real estate, using federal funds to boost their personal land holdings.

Like Congress's questionable trading practices, mixing real estate investments with taxpayer money is technically legal. Actually, it's pretty easy for members of Congress to get rich off of federal projects — land deals are more difficult to detect than trades, and land, unlike stocks, doesn't have a set price. Members of Congress aren't required to disclose if a land deal would benefit them personally.

In the corporate world, using company money for personal financial gain would at minimum get you fired. But in Congress, the practice is not only legal, but common.

This answers how they get rich in office which many do. This isn't new. I remember reading about one congressman who made a killing by his insider knowledge of rezoning for a large land developer who was willing to pay big bucks for the land. Only a few decades ago, politicians didn't have to be rich. But they became rich in office. Many studies over the years have pointed this out.

Today our politicians are often millionaires when they enter office. It's for power. Few can compete especially in urban districts where media is key and low familiarity with candidates.

Waiting for retirement and lobbying jobs has never been necessary. It is just the frosting on the cake.

I disagree with Taibbe (and I really like his writing) in that those who do follow Taibbi's advice are now unable to compete against the avalanche of media and ads that either keep them out of office or drive them out of office. We have to get the money out of politics.

I would also query the kind of people for political office we are attracting. I agree that our political establishment is made up of like-types that tend to represent the elites on both sides. They aren't so welcoming of new people. Do you recall that Obama campaigned for Blanche Lincoln who was a blue dog dem from the south. A very good and highly liked liberal democrat was running against her. He could have been campaigning for that candidate. The DLC brought these blue dog dems into the party and they frequently proved to be obstacles to liberal social issues. The DLC also welcomed the Koch Brothers and Wall Street. The party has changed internally. That's what Taibbi misses I think.

[Garrett78]

39. Thanks for the link.

I haven't yet read through the whole piece, but it's making more sense than anything else I've read in terms of how exactly the corruption operates.

Unfortunately, campaign finance reform wouldn't address those factors that enable elected officials to get rich while in office. So, what would put a stop to the land deals, the stock market profits, etc.?

Mark Pryor was a blue dog, as I recall, and he didn't have much net worth according to what someone else posted. But maybe that was just because he wasn't savvy enough to figure out how to game the system. I certainly wasn't impressed by his intellect on display in Religulous.

[George Eliot]

40. The liberal running against Lincoln was the current Lt. Gov. Phil ???. He had a chance to win.

[Garrett78]

41. Since you may not notice what I added when I edited my last reply, here it is again:

Unfortunately, campaign finance reform wouldn't address those factors that enable elected officials to get rich while in office (land deals, stock market profits, etc.). So, what should be done?

[ancianita]

47. Totally agree. Which is why Taibbi's claim about their turnaround isn't so easy. I remember

reading this a while back. This particular article is five years old, and maybe was an attempt to get both parties to clean house, with the planned buyout of new, pliable candidates whose campaigns got bought by their new non-party affiliated, but corporate, owners who weren't loyal to party.

The upshot of 2012 was a sweep of corporate/lobby supported reps in Congress who pay even less attention to their home constituencies back home than they did before.

Example: You should see the total bullshit theater that billionaire jet and limo leaser Vern Buchanan puts on for the retirees and blue collars there. They have no idea how much this guy works behind the scenes to help buy up as much corporate representation as he can in Congress, being a one-time head of the state and national chamber of commerce.

[Octafish]

18. Someone's gotta lose.

And it hasn't been the rich or peaceniks since Jimmy Carter.

Thank you, Garrett78. It isn't stupidity or a coincidence, it's the way:

"To get along, go along." -- Speaker Sam Rayburn

[Armstead]

20. Politicians are individuals and the party is institutional expression of that

The motivation of individual politicians are varied. Some have morals but are political cowards. Others are corrupt but pro-active. And a lot of variations in-between.

There's also the inbreeding factor. When you have a city oriented to people of a similar mindset and position, it tends to warp their worldview. They get into the mindset of detached elitism that Taibbi refers to in the article....That leads to having a very different vision of reality from people in the hinterlands, or those of different socio-economic surroundings.

Add it all up and it creates a collective mix of conflicting impulses and perspectives.

Unfortunately the combination of corrupt and cowardly has been dominant for too many years.

[Garrett78]

32. I appreciate the reply and do think insulation could be a factor.

On the other hand, I think politicians read polls and have some awareness of what constituents want. And their rhetoric, if not their actions, sometimes reflect that.

As you can see in my other exchanges in this thread, which you're welcome to engage in, it's not clear to me exactly how the corruption operates. If Taibbi is right, they'd be more likely to remain in power if they shunned Wall Street. So, either Taibbi is wrong or staying in power isn't the primary objective. So, what is?

Perhaps the primary objective is getting a cushy, higher-paying gig after they leave office. In that case, though, we should see a marked difference between the behavior (or policy positions) of those who simply retire after leaving office and those who go on to cushy, higher-paying jobs. That could make for an interesting study. For the most part, though, don't those who go on to other jobs do so because they lost their re-election bid? Which wouldn't have happened had they followed Taibbi's advice (assuming, again, that Taibbi is correct).

If they're taking campaign contributions and using them for personal use, that would get uncovered, so I don't think it's outright bribery.

Someone else posted a link to the wealthiest and least wealthy Senators and Representatives. How exactly did Warner accumulate so much net worth? Why is Mark Pryor at the bottom of the list? Is there a marked difference between the policy positions of those at the top and those at the bottom? Aren't/weren't both Warner and Pryor considered to be "blue dogs?"

Taibbi's argument (at least the portion I highlighted) seems to depend upon circular reasoning.

[Armstead]

35. I think the difficulty is that diversity

An overall mindset is established biut it is the product of many different types of politicians.

There might be, for example, a Dem senator who is truly moderate and not a progressive butt kicker. But the's ethical. So he may vote on the more conservative side, and campaign that way because that' s who he is. And then after Congress does something like get a position at a college as a professor or something else that is not lucrative corporate cash.

Another one may have started out as a real liberal....but once they get into Congress and get seduced by all the money swirling around starts to become a "centrist" and doing more and more of the bidding of the corrupter. Then by the time he has finished his congressional career, he sees no problem with getting a high priced lobbying job or something similar pushing bad policies for Big Bucks. (See Dick Gephardt.)

Then you might have someone who is a true liberal populist. And lo and behold, they become very popular with their constituents and keep getting reelected by being their true selves. Unfortunately there are not enough of those. (See Bernie Sanders.)

[George Eliot]

37. It takes a strong politician to avoid the glamour, glitz, money of DC.

The few who do seem to rarely find the seats of power in Congress. I think they sorted themselves this election. Those who chose to support/endorse Sanders and those who support/endorse Clinton. Don't you think that sort makes a pretty good straw poll?

[Garrett78]

42. They could have the glamour, glitz and some riches simply by remaining in office.

Which, if Taibbi is correct, would be made easier by shunning Wall Street. But I don't think Taibbi is correct. I think what you posted in reply #36 may be the key. They're getting uber-rich while in office via the legislation they write. That doesn't bode well for those who hope campaign finance reform will prevent elected officials from being beholden to Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc. A whole host of measures would need to be taken, such as forbidding elected officials from investing in the stock market, forbidding them from writing land deal legislation that benefits them personally, etc.

[Garrett78]

44. Almost everyone keeps getting re-elected. There's very little turnover.

People tend to like their representative. It's all of those others that are the problem.

Juicy Bellows posted a link to the net worth of various Congress critters. I can't help but wonder how some, such as Mark Warner, have accumulated such an obscene amount of wealth. And then George Eliot posted a link in reply #36 that may provide an answer. Unfortunately, it's not a problem that's easy to solve. Campaign finance reform won't do the trick, because it's simply being in office (regardless of how their campaign is funded) that enables the massive accumulation of wealth.

As for populists, they need to grasp that social injustice can be a driver of economic injustice. Addressing the latter won't resolve the former. A wealthy POC or a woman or an LGBTQ person may have his or her basic needs met (and then some), but that won't stop him or her from being abused by police or in any number of other ways.

I don't think leftists have laid the groundwork necessary to help bring about systemic change, and I think Issac Bailey makes some excellent points. All of which I wrote about in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2171700

[ancianita]

48. That incumbency voter bias has driven me crazy for decades.

[Skwmom]

26. But they could NOT become a 1 percenter under that system

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I think Taibbi's appellation is merely simplistic ...

the "populist platform" that he hails as the magic bullet is comprised of stuff the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about ... except on the left regions of the internet.

[Garrett78]

33. Can you give some examples?

What aspects do you think most don't care about? In the quote in the OP, Taibbi lists "stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world."

I get the sense that Taibbi's argument (at least the portion I highlighted) is wrong. But I'm not convinced that there isn't corruption taking place. I'm just not sure exactly how it operates.

[Recursion]

46. If Taibbi is right, then yes, it's "density"

The disagreement here is that the "new" Democrats sincerely do not believe a "populist" message will win nationally.

I bold that because people don't seem to get it. These are Democrats who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s, for whom the Great Society was a club that Republicans would use to beat them unconscious every four years. They do not believe white (yes, specifically "white&quot voters will actually support any social spending that populism implies, as much as they may swoon at the rhetoric.

So "dense" may be the wrong way to look at it: Taibbi and the leadership of the Democratic Party have different opinions about the behavior of the American electorate.