Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThomas Edsall: How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?
Thomas Edsall: How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters. Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the partys elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter.
The gulf between the two parties on socially fraught issues like abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and voting rights remains vast. On economic issues, however, the Democratic Party has inched closer to the policy positions of conservatives, stepping back from championing the needs of working men and women, of the unemployed and of the so-called underclass.
The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism, the four authors write.
They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the GrammLeachBliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 GlassSteagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.
Sanders is running on an explicitly left-populist platform. It includes taxation of overseas corporate profits, a progressive estate tax, an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, the investment of $1 trillion in infrastructure, withdrawal from Nafta and other trade agreements, free tuition at public colleges, a single-payer health care system, and more.
The problem is that the core of Sanderss support, according to an October 2 Pew Research Center survey, is more concentrated among the college-educated than among those without degrees, and stronger among middle-class and affluent Democrats than among low-income Democrats. For now his messages appear to have caught on primarily among ideologically liberal voters, although there is an argument that it will resonate with others as they learn more about it.
The gulf between the two parties on socially fraught issues like abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and voting rights remains vast. On economic issues, however, the Democratic Party has inched closer to the policy positions of conservatives, stepping back from championing the needs of working men and women, of the unemployed and of the so-called underclass.
The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism, the four authors write.
They cite the crucial role of congressional Democrats in enacting the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which eliminated past restrictions on interstate banking; the GrammLeachBliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 GlassSteagall Act separating commercial banking from other financial services; and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which restricted government oversight of most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps all of which played a role in the financial crisis of 2007-2009.
Sanders is running on an explicitly left-populist platform. It includes taxation of overseas corporate profits, a progressive estate tax, an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, the investment of $1 trillion in infrastructure, withdrawal from Nafta and other trade agreements, free tuition at public colleges, a single-payer health care system, and more.
The problem is that the core of Sanderss support, according to an October 2 Pew Research Center survey, is more concentrated among the college-educated than among those without degrees, and stronger among middle-class and affluent Democrats than among low-income Democrats. For now his messages appear to have caught on primarily among ideologically liberal voters, although there is an argument that it will resonate with others as they learn more about it.
Related:
Rolling Stone: Robert Reich on Why Capitalism Needs Saving
Yahoo Politics: Hillary Clinton doesnt support revival of Glass-Steagall Act
The New Yorker: Bernie Sanders has spent decades attacking inequality. Now the country is listening
Delamaide: Clintons still have blind spot on deregulation
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 784 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas Edsall: How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich? (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
Candidates in a word, see if you can spot the only one described as a Democrat.
Uncle Joe
Oct 2015
#7
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)1. The Koch-funded DLC sold the party off piecemeal to the wealthy
and no one did more selling than the Clintons. Feathering their own nest has ever been their primary goal in life. By any means possible.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)2. It's by design.
Respectively, Democrats and Republicans have always been different but the takeover happened on the right first. In order to ensure that the interests of the rich always had favor and priority in Washington it was necessary to buy out the Democrats as well. Certain mechanisms and social phenomenon were employed to sow division within the public so that by remaining divided we were not only easier to conquer but unaware of what was really taking place.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)3. This is an Important Read for "Non-Corporate Dems" or All of Us!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)4. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!
appalachiablue
(41,132 posts)5. K & R.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)6. The old fashioned way
They were leased.
Uncle Joe
(58,362 posts)7. Candidates in a word, see if you can spot the only one described as a Democrat.
Thanks for the thread, portlander.