Jim Webb spoke in 2007 about the Rubin wing of the party. Defends "populist" anger.

[madfloridian]

He spoke in 2007 about the effects the policies of Robert Rubin had on the party and the people.

Rubin wing didn't pay attention to needs of working people

"He criticized what he called 'the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party,' after Robert E. Rubin, former President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, saying those Democrats share the same problem as many Republicans: 'We're not paying attention to what has happened to basic working people in the country.' He said of the freshman Senate Democrats, six of them take a 'populist' view, and said they are bringing needed reinforcements to the Senate: 'We've got a number of us that pretty well see the economic issues the same way. I think that's the Democratic Party of the future."

Jim Webb talked about his memories of his grandparents in Arkansas during the Great Depression.

Sen. Jim Webb is talking about his mother's family, which lived in hardscrabble eastern Arkansas during the Great Depression and was so poor "there was nothing -- not even money." The Democrats built their party around such people, Webb is saying, while the Republicans never cared about them.

Webb quoted a part of a song by Alabama..Song of the South.

"Well somebody told us Wall Street fell,

But we were so poor that we couldn't tell.

Cotton was short and the weeds were tall.

But Mr. Roosevelt's a-gonna save us all."

And he spoke about populist anger in an interview with the Washington Post last year.

That kind of populist anger is part of the Democrats' past, and Webb argues that it's the party's future as well. But he worries that "the people at the top of the party don't comprehend the power of that message" and that as a result the Democrats may miss their best chance in a generation to reconnect with the American middle class.

..." Webb articulates what may be the wild-card issue of the 2008 campaign. There is a deep anger these days among middle-class Americans who feel abandoned by the elites in both parties. That anger surfaces on pocketbook issues that affect working people -- immigration, outsourcing of jobs, and the trade and tax boondoggles that broadcaster Lou Dobbs rages against each night on CNN.

"The average American worker sits there feeling the impact of globalization and immigration. They need people sticking up for them," says Webb. Though he doesn't criticize any politicians by name, he scolds what he calls "the Rubin wing" of the party, which supports the pro-investment policies advocated by Clinton administration Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

At that time last year he said only 6 in the Senate shared his views on that wing of the party. I don't know the statistics since then.

[Vincardog]

1. Damn right I am angry.

[Ashy Larry]

2. Webb is great.

He is also focused on the disastrous failure known as the "war on drugs".
He hosted a symposium on the subject last month:
http://webb.senate.gov/symp/Symposium.html

Here are a couple of short clips from the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ2ut_8puLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl_geYfDo2A

[JDwho]

3. K&R

Seems as if Webb has his finger on the pulse of the middle class...
:kick:

[scarletwoman]

4. Too bad that what we'll actually get is "soft Democratic Party Corporatism".

The quote in my subject line is from interesting article from Nov. 7 that I just came across today, catching up on reading Joe Bageant's site. The article's main focus is Palin and conservatives, but there were some good points made about the Democrats as well, that tie in with your OP:

Sarah Palin is the Future of Conservatism

(excerpt)

The old right itself died a dialectic death, by which it passed on as the very result of the spectacular success of its policies. The destruction of the labor movement, deregulation, free movement of capital, massive military spending and the massive shift in wages and wealth to the top 10% of the country at the expense of the rest of the population undermined majoritarian political support for its programs.

<snip>

Within such a context the primary task of the new Obama administration will be to weave together a new political consensus that will fill the political space left behind by the collapse of the old right. These discussions over the next few months are likely to decide the political direction of the United States for a long period of time.

An Obama administration will have two primary options to choose from. One choice would be to move center left and reestablish the social compact of a modern New Deal type program. Barring a further deterioration of the economic situation in the country, it is not likely the direction they will move in. The second choice would be to reassemble a new establishment center consensus, minus the most reactionary elements of corporate power, and create a soft Democratic Party Corporatism as the new vital center of American political life.

The second option is the more likely choice and also the path of least resistance. The Obama administration will not pay a great political price in abandoning the pretense of moving the country in a progressive direction for two primary reasons. First, for Senator Obama's political base the symbolism of his election is the change they were seeking and not an idea or program based on a set of policies. The second reason is the political weakness of what passes for the left in the United States, a line up of individuals and organizations stretching from MoveOn.org to the AFL-CIO, who in their misunderstanding of the nature of power confuse access with power itself.

The primary task of serious progressives over the next few months must be to prevent progressive votes of this Tuesday from being turned into another corporatist victory. No one should be very hopeful for the prospects of such an effort. I suspect as progressives spend their time fighting over tickets to the inaugural ball, the Wall Street and K Street branches of the Democratic Party will win the war of priorities and ideas of the new Obama Administration in a rout.

Since the above piece was written on November 7, I think it's safe to say that the prediction the writer made in the final sentence of this excerpt is well on its way to being fulfilled.

I'm not surprised, it's pretty much what I expected all along -- I knew full well that Obama was no Lefty. I accepted that when I supported him because, as always, the alternative was so much worse.

Just because I can recognize the shape of the political reality unfolding before us, and recognize what little chance there is to change it, doesn't mean I have to like it.

I can understand why HRC was picked for S.O.S., and why so many Clintonites are being brought on board. On the other hand, I reserve my right to be appalled by it. I will not be bullied into seeing five fingers where there are clearly only four.

All the good Dem Party loyalists who are carefully and skillfully rationalizing the DLCization of the Obama administration get very unhappy with those of us who will never, ever see that as a good thing.

sw

[bread_and_roses]

40. Second that (n/t)

[Dr.Phool]

42. Excellent points. She be it's own post.

[pscot]

5. Rubin was one of the strongest proponents of deregulating

the financial markets. And as a director at Citigroup, he is said to have urged and abetted the high risk activities that ultimately brought the system down. What I'm having a hard time understanding, is why none of these crooks are having to explain their actions to grand juries. At the very least they ought to be forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. Some of them should probably be in jail.

[girl gone mad]

6. And his protege Timmy Geithner..

will be Obama's Treasury Sec.

[Thrill]

8. Geithner is for MORE REGULATION

[madfloridian]

7. TPM: "Can't get around it." post about Rubin policies

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/245520.php

"Chuck Prince going down to the corporate investment bank in late 2002 was the start of that process," a former Citigroup executive said of the bank's big C.D.O. push. "Chuck was totally new to the job. He didn't know a C.D.O. from a grocery list, so he looked for someone for advice and support. That person was Rubin. And Rubin had always been an advocate of being more aggressive in the capital markets arena. He would say, 'You have to take more risk if you want to earn more.' "

As you probably know, Rubin has become a key economics advisor to President-elect Obama and is advising the transition, though he seems neither in line for nor interested in a formal appointment. But Rubin's hand does seem present at so many turns in Citigroup's undoing that I see no way of getting around asking what sort of advice he's giving.

Before going any further, I know this post has some of the feel of a gotcha. Some of the best or most successful reformers have been those who knew what needed fixing because they played a big part in creating the mess in the first place. And I've always thought there was something small-minded and immature about trying to strike this or that person from the realm of reasonable debate because they were "wrong" about, say, Iraq, whether the supposed error was in 1991 or 2003. But it's a record that's hard to ignore in present circumstances. And I'm curious whether anyone can point me to any recent (and in this context I'd say the last six months or so) statements or interviews with Rubin that shed light on his current thoughts on what led us to this point."

[pscot]

9. I read that piece yesterday

and at one point he was asked if he would have behaved differently, knowing what does now. He says not, which suggests to me that he is blind to the mood of the country, and to what's happening to working people. I guess you can rationalize anything if there's enough money at stake.

[w4rma]

10. 6 FRESHMEN in the Senate. Not 6 in the entire Senate. (nt)

[madfloridian]

13. I know. It is correct in the article. I did not word it correctly at the end.

If one read both, one could figure it out.

[w4rma]

17. Ack, I didn't realize it was you that posted this, madfloridian. My sincere apologies.

Thank you for all of the work you have done and are doing!

[madfloridian]

18. Oh, no offense taken at all.

I did word it wrong at the end. I knew what I meant, but I should have worded it better.

:hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Weird. I think of Webb as center-right.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

12. In some ways he is. Here's my view...

I admire the Democrats who are standing up and saying we have to change what we have doing. The ones who inspire us to get away from the status quo that has hurt our country so badly.

Even moderate to right Dems can do that. They can see the mistakes and that we should not go the same direction.

[Two Americas]

29. yes

You have led the way in this area. "Moderate" does not have to mean compromise, cave in, forget the people, and pander to wealthy and powerful interests. Dean knows that, Webb knows that, and you know that. I am far to the left of all three of you, but proud to call you allies.

Standing up to the extreme right wing and corrupt corporate interests is not a matter of ideology. It is more a matter of moral principles and integrity.

You are leading the way to the true big tent, as opposed to the fake DLC corporate big tent. They let in the corporate crooks in the name of "bi-partisanship" and then call that a big tent. Dean, and Webb, and you show us that the big tent can include moderates as well as leftists, but must be based open a solid foundation of shared principles and ideals and has no place for those who would sabotage and corrupt our very democracy.

[suzie]

41. Jim Webb was a Republican until just a few years ago.

Earlier this week, the OP writer asked that we consider votes of Tom Daschle's from 1997 to consider what a terrible, awful, no-good choice he was for Secretary of HHS.

And now, we're expected to exalt the opinions of Jim Webb, who in 1997 was a Republican.

I like Jim Webb, but he has a lot of views that I'm not very comfortable with.

Seems difficult for me to understand why it's okay to dredge up all the past views of some Democrats and ignore those of others.

[karynnj]

16. He is on many things

But, he is an economic populist. The combination is what confuses people because they are shocked when he votes "wrong".

[Two Americas]

31. exactly

Historically politics was always about power and economics - who does and who does not have access to resources and power. The extreme right wing has succeeded in redefining politics, as "personal values" and "personal choices," and modern liberalism took the bait and fell for the scam. The right wing wants us all to ignore who has the wealth and the power and be at each others throats over cultural war issues.

[karynnj]

34. But it was not just the "personal values" with Webb,

(I do agree with you that fighting to get more resources for your "group" is the real motive in most politics.)

Webb voted against an amendment by Kerry and Feingold (to a Boxer water bill) that required the Corps of Engineers to consider the impact of global warming in all their projects rather than guarding only against 50 year and 100 year water levels - because, even with everything that already has happened , future years will be higher. (Some argued the Corps would do that anyway - but given that logic, NJ and other states should take the rule that you have to stop at a red light out, because people know that is the prudent (as well as legal) thing to do.

He also voted for FISA, each and every time it was voted - including the Dodd amendment that prohibited giving retroactive immunity to the telcos. This was really an amendment to protect the Bush administration.

As to economic issues, under Bush, what progressive measures could conceivably pass were so centrist - that there were no Democrats against them. It will be interesting to see what he is for in a Congress with large Democratic majorities.

(If he is really good - I might even be able to ignore his blind spot on Vietnam. It bothers me that he is not like Chuck Hagel, who eventually came to accept that it was a policy disaster, continued long after that was clear. Why, because it indicates that if he is involved and committed to a mistake, he is unlikely to be able to step back from it and say it was a mistake.)

All I know is that if any of the center left Democrats had his record, they would have multiple threads against them. I understand that he does represent VA, but some of the support he gets is really grading on a curve.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

39. We in Virginia.....

Webb beat george Allen in Virginia primarily because he understood middle class concerns and aspirations. He is a product of that mindset. There are so many among us here in Virginia, and elsewhere, who still adhere to the belief that opportunity at education, jobs, and economic upward mobility are the great equalizers for the common folk. We see in Webb someone who has lived and promotes that belief system, a system that has and can serve as a foundation for a larger party organization. At the same time, regarding a "wrong vote," we should try to understand variable positions and avoid the temptation of a lockstep mentality.

[NashVegas]

36. Populism Is Neither Right Nor Left

It's about issues that ordinary people care about deeply, that get no play in elite circles. It's why so many DUers expressed admiration for someone like Ron Paul, even though we disagree so strongly with his RW politics on many issues.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Populism isn't. But Webb is.

:shrug:

[beachmom]

14. That is why Rubin is not Treasury Secretary. He made major

mistakes in the '90s, and now we learn he also hurt Citibank.

[madfloridian]

15. He is an advisor and is on the transition team though. And Pelosi gave him exclusive

access to the 2006 freshmen Democrats. There were no labor friendly people invited to the sessions.

Robert Rubin gets the floor to himself to talk to new Congress folks.

So why does Pelosi begin the education of her freshman members with a seminar on Rubinomics? Robert Rubin, the Citigroup executive and former Treasury secretary, will appear solo next week before the party caucus to explain the economy. Pelosi has scheduled another caucus briefing on Iraq, but that includes five expert voices of varying viewpoints. Rubin gets the stage to himself.

When labor officials heard about this, they asked to be included since they have very different ideas about what Democrats need to do in behalf of struggling workers and middle-class families. Pelosi decided against it. This session, her spokesman explains, is only about "fiscal responsibility," not globalization and trade not the deterioration of wages and disappearing jobs. Yet those subjects are sure to come up for discussion. Rubin gets to preach his "free trade" dogma with no one present to rebut his facts and theories.

[beachmom]

20. I don't mind Rubin being an advisor IF he is not the dominant voice.

I read about him wanting to keep the derivatives market unregulated so I am under no illusions about the mistakes he has made. However, he does know the culture of Wall Street, and is from what I have heard extremely intelligent. But I HOPE that Obama is well aware of Rubin's role in this current crisis.

[madfloridian]

21. I pretty much agree.

I guess I feel like the change is the same old same old.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Freshmen Democrats aren't impressionable school-children

If they want Labor's point of view all they have to do is pick up the phone and call someone at the AFL-CIO.

[madfloridian]

23. Not my point.

Why couldn't/wouldn't Nancy pick up the phone and ask them?

That's my point.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Maybe she felt that the members would have ample opportunities to meet with labor on their own

[madfloridian]

25. Like they could have met with Rubin on their own.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I would imagine Rubin is pretty busy in the private sector these days

And probably doesn't have the time to meet with every freshmen congressman individually. The AFL-CIO has representatives who are paid to meet with members of congress.

[madfloridian]

27. Then why didn't she ask them to come when requested by the freshmen.?

I guess you are trying to say Rubin is more important and thus busier?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I would say that Rubin isn't paid to meet with members of congress

And thus he came as a favor to the Speaker of the House. And since you don't wish to continue this conversation my point is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[madfloridian]

28. AND if you decide to continue this dialogue...

I won't be taking part with you.

[autorank]

19. Yep, he talks the talk and is very intelligent, a fighter in campaigns

His campaign against Allen was a classic. Whenever Allen or anyone would take a cheap shot,
Webb would fire back and give much more than he took. McCain came in to VA to help Allen, and
Webb took him down a peg or two. Really first rate.

I've followed him before he ran. His populism is consistent with the needs of the working
and middle class. He's also clear on the need for white and black working people to align rather
than be split over race and divided. Brilliant stuff.

He disappointed me when he went for the last big FISA bill in 2007.

He will speak up and become very prominent if he whiffs that things are being done for the "fat cats."

He supported Obama strongly in Virgniia, along with other Virginia Democrats.

[happychatter]

32. kicking it - NT

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

33. Leftist populists will have a meaningful voice in the Democratic Party

when winged pigs are circling the Empire State Building. Fuck this, it is time to move to Finland or Denmark, where actual Leftist Social Democrats hold power and don't apologize for it.

[Skwmom]

35. I think he would have been a great VP. But, hey we don't want to

send the wrong message and upset the big money players.

[madfloridian]

38. Leaving out the voices of the labor and union advocates.

Pelosi had called in Rubin to speak to the freshman. She did not have opposing voices to his.

When she called the press conference last year when the trade deal was done, there were no labor advocates present. It was carefully staged and happened without the knowledge of union advocates in the House.

Labor voices not informed of trade bill

Here are those New Democrats who were in the know and on the podium with Nancy Pelosi.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus
House Ways & Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel
House Ways & Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery

New Democrat Coalition Leadership:
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Adam Smith. Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Ron Kind, Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coaltion
Rep. Artur Davis, Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Joe Crowley, Vice-Chair and Whip, New Democrat Coaltion

Here are the ones left out in the cold about what was happening.

...But a half-dozen House Democrats with strong labor ties, watching the news conference from the back of the room, later expressed strong dissatisfaction with the process. The strongest voices for workers and the environment were not included" in the negotiations and were not informed of the deal, said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio.

..."I'm very disappointed that Speaker Pelosi held a press conference before meeting with the caucus," said Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine. "In a democratic process Democrats ought to know."

[madfloridian]

43. I think about this when I hear the UAW being lectured by Obama

and others, while Citigroup gets all pampered...it makes me feel like we are having too much lack of partisanship.

It sounds like many of our Democrats are going to fail the unions now.

Working People and Good Jobs are the Foundation of Our Economy, Not the Problem