Skip to main content

Clinton Democrats embrace losing strategy to combat ‘Sanders-style Socialism’ in midterms

Democratic Party elites are increasingly concerned the midterm elections will be a “base election” and make their centrist politics even more irrelevant, as insurgent candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez garner widespread support.

The think tank, Third Way, recently held a conference in Ohio with Democrats, who primarily adhere to the politics of President Bill Clinton, and new recruits, who they hope will counter “Bernie Sanders-style socialism.” They also intend to defend corporate executives and wealthy people from condemnation for their attacks on poor and working class Americans.

Right now, in the Democratic Party, there is only one option on the table: Sanders-style socialism. That’s the main option on the table. We’re doing this now because the party’s got to have a choice,” Jon Cowan, one of the presidents of Third Way, declared. “It’s going to matter a hell of a lot in 2020, and so while 2020 may feel a ways off, in our mind it isn’t. And the ideas primary starts now.

So we’re actually doing this for a very straightforward reason: to stand up and launch a serious, compelling economic alternative to Sanderism,” Cowan added.

Similarly, former Delaware Governor Jack Markell whined, “The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left.

I think we need a debate within the party. Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier,” Markell said.

Democratic Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio earned laughs when he quipped, “You’re not going to make me hate somebody just because they’re rich. I want to be rich!” The line went over well because Third Way and the 250 insiders that attended the conference have deep ties to hedge funds and various financial institutions on Wall Street.

As of 2014, “Two-thirds of its 31 trustees [had] held senior leadership positions in investment funds or big banks or served in some other capacity on Wall Street.” However, corporate Democrats bristle at the notion that their money ethically compromises them. Hillary Clinton even went so far as to defend her speeches to Goldman Sachs by accusing critics of misogyny.

Mitch Landrieu, a pragmatic liberal and former mayor of New Orleans, warned during the conference, “Republicans have chosen their [path]. They’re going to run a base election, which means they have ceded the middle of the road. In my opinion, Democrats would be making a big mistake if they run a base election. We have to find common ground.

The strategy of finding “common ground” is one the establishment of the Democratic Party has touted for the past few decades, particularly to ward off left-wing populist challenges. It was adhered to by Hillary Clinton in 2016, President Barack Obama embraced it as a core philosophy in 2008 and 2012, and Bill Clinton, along with Al Gore, perfected the art of making common cause with corporate interests to maintain power and influence in the United States government.

As Lance Selfa detailed in his book, “The Democrats: A Critical History, ” Clinton and Gore broke with labor, civil rights, and other liberal causes to push for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They backed welfare repeal, bills which fueled the rise of mass incarceration, and signed a 1997 budget that slashed millions for social programs, like Medicare and Medicaid. They put corporations ahead of protecting the environment. They encouraged the deregulation of industry, which greatly boosted Wall Street.

This tradition continues with former Labor Secretary, Tom Perez, as the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Perez was a major proponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. He granted waivers for UBS, Barclays, J.P. Morgan, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and Citigroup while he was Labor Secretary, which allowed the banks to go back to managing pension money even though they were guilty of crimes. He also refused to support a revival of Obama’s ban on donations from corporate lobbyists.

The Democratic Party managed to defeat a strong challenge from Representative Keith Ellison, who represented Sanders on the DNC’s Platform Committee in 2016. So, Cowan’s suggestion that Democrats have veered from his preferred course is far-fetched. But it does indicate the leadership of the party still views a coalition of progressives and democratic socialists within the party as a threat.

Landrieu’s fear of a “base election” is striking, given the fact that such an election is what Democrats need to bolster voter enthusiasm for candidates in November so they can potentially take control of the Senate and/or the House of Representatives.

Also, the leadership of the Democratic Party did everything it could to prevent a “base election” from taking place in 2016, when Sanders gained momentum against Clinton. It took steps to aid Clinton so she would remain the inevitable nominee. Clinton ran a poor campaign that promoted centrist politics as a counter to President Donald Trump’s right-wing populist message and lost the election.

Corporate Democrats, like House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, point to candidate Conor Lamb’s victory in Pennsylvania as evidence their “moderate economic” message can work.

Conor Lamb won with a message that I think is a Democratic message: The tax bill was not for you. They’re trying to take your health care away,” Hoyer said. “Clearly, what we found in the polls was, [voters] will listen, they’re not happy.

Indeed, the tax bill was not for most Americans. It was for corporations and wealthy elites. They plan to take Americans’ health care away to pay for their tax cuts. But that message is not one that meshes well with the center-right politics of corporate Democrats. It is truly a message to be bolstered by the socialist politics of insurgent candidates.

The Democratic Party has floundered throughout Trump’s presidency because it refuses to articulate an alternative vision to Trumpism that addresses the material conditions which many Americans endure. Among Sanders Democrats, there is an alternative vision with grassroots energy that could be seized. However, Clinton Democrats cling to the role of sensible steward for corporate elites so tightly that they will not embrace critiques of capitalism and offer policy solutions that address root causes of systemic problems.

As a result, what Third Way proposes is a set of bland focus-grouped policies, such as “a massive apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security, and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training.

The emphasis on training workers is indicative of centrist Democrats compulsion to triage the impacts of capitalism on poor, working class, and middle class Americans rather than support measures that could lift up the 99 percent.

In fact, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested in an op-ed for the New York Times in 2017 that employers, “particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs.” He contended this “Better Deal” would help Americans in “smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

It was like a proposal Hillary Clinton put forward during her presidential campaign in June 2015. She called for tax credits for businesses for “every apprentice hired as a way to boost employment among young adults.

Schumer’s announcement ultimately flopped. The Democrats scrapped the “Better Deal” message last week. They now believe, based on their most politically connected public relations consultants, that “For the People” is better. But what that means for policy is anyone’s guess.

Other ideas touted by Third Way include a “small business bill of rights” and “BoomerCorps,” a national service program where seniors can earn money to supplement their dwindling Social Security payments.

The idea of “BoomerCorps” is rather offensive. It basically says to Americans, who have labored for decades to fuel the U.S. economy, “Hey, why not break your back some more for America if you really want to retire?

Nevertheless, the narrative pushed by Clinton Democrats into the media should not fool anyone into believing they cannot get their message out, that voices in the party have drowned them out, or that Sanders Democrats had a “head start” and now they must battle their way back to challenge them before they cost Democrats seats in the midterm election.

These Democrats are the very individuals who collectively shepherded Hillary Clinton to a presidential nomination. They have fended off an insurgency for the past two years and stunted efforts to develop the Democratic Party into an actual opposition party that will meaningfully challenge Trump. They have responded to dissent against Trump by complaining that “incivility” is not the answer. They even will go so far as to accuse Sanders Democrats of dividing Democrats by running challengers against incumbents.

Clinton Democrats or followers of the Third Way still have the power, and that is part of what is holding back an agenda for working people. They stand in the way of a movement that believes the country should move away from destructive corporate politics, and until their obstruction is overcome, progress on economic, environmental, racial, and social justice will be exceptionally difficult to achieve.

Source, links:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

False flag operations set up by private companies

globinfo freexchange
Here is another sector soon to be occupied entirely by private companies: staging successful false flag operations and the subsequent suitable psyops.
As the World Socialist Web Site reported early this year:
Cambridge Analytica’s parent company is British-based SCL. Formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories, it is a private behavioural research and strategic communication company, founded in 1993 by Nigel Oakes.
As with Oakes, SCL’s board members include scions of the British ruling class, from former military officers and defence contractors to major Conservative Party donors.
SCL boasts of providing “data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations worldwide,” notably the British Ministry of Defence, the US State Department and NATO. It states that it has carried out “behavioural change programs” in more than 60 countries. One of its first contracts in 1999 was promoting Indonesian President Abdurrahma…

CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

Joel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA's attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam War.
globinfo freexchange
James Jesus Angleton wa…

Former Pentagon official confirms: Trump prepares for war with Iran

globinfo freexchange
Right after Trump's sudden announcement that he will withdraw the US forces from Syria, we had some mixed reactions. Some liberals reacted angrily, but most of the reactions from the liberal machine were rather moderate, or at least not as intensive as someone would normally expect.
On the other hand, Trump's supporters and all those who had enough of the pro-war neoliberal establishment, felt a kind of vindication, as it appeared that Trump would eventually keep its promise for an 'anti-interventionist' policy.
But the blog wrote immediately a 'not so fast' article to explain that most of the Americans and all those who are tired of the US endless wars, should not rush to celebrate. We estimated that Trump's move is probably a sign that he is going to re-organize troops and go after the big target called Iran.
Indeed, shortly after the move, Trump, suddenly again, announced that he will also pullout troops from Afghanistan.
And then, about…

It’s the US imperialism that has been defeated in Syria, but it’s now gathering forces to go after Iran

globinfo freexchange
And all of a sudden, the US president Donald Trump decided to withdraw the US troops from Syria, declaring victory over ISIS.
No one, of course, understood why the ISIS was suddenly defeated now. So this must be a typical excuse by the American leadership to withdraw forces from a battlefield that it is no longer 'profitable' and affordable.
Comparing with other, relatively recent cases, in which even the liberal establishment was calling Trump to bomb Syria, the reactions from the US political status were rather moderate. We would expect the media pundits and the corporate puppets of the US political scene to fire back against Trump with much more anger. It didn't happen.
We will have to wait of course because the unpredictable Donnie may change his mind in the blink of an eye. And then, we will have to make a completely different discussion. Yet, if it's true, and the US troops will, indeed, leave Syria, it would be one of these very rare cases that …

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 10 – How Margaret Thatcher systematically destroyed the British industry along with the trade unions
While there were many elements out of which consent for a neoliberal turn could be constructed, the Thatcher phenomenon would surely not have arisen, let alone succeeded, if it had not been for the serious crisis of capital accumulation during the 1970s. Stagflation was hurting everyone. In 1975 inflation surged to 26 per cent and unemployment topped one million. The nationalized industries were draining resources from the Treasury.
This set up a confrontation between the state and the unions. In 1972, and then again in 1974, the British miners (a nationalized industry) went on strike for the first time since 1926.
The miners had always been in the forefront of British labour struggles. Their wages were not keeping pace with accelerating inflation, and the public sympathized. The Conservative government, in the midst of power …

The desperate efforts of the Western neoliberal establishment to build a new propaganda machine

globinfo freexchange
The UK government and other Western governments and the US in recent years have had increasing difficulties persuading enough of their populations as to the legitimacy of the foreign policies that they have been pursuing.
And at the same time, Western countries have been going through a period of political crisis and economic crisis.
Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, further explains:
I think a lot of this drive is as much about trying to shore up shaky official narratives and trying to shore up political systems in a situation of political crisis, as it is actually about countering Russian propaganda.
I would suspect that that's a little bit of an excuse here to really what's going on of problems much closer to home.
This is not just to do to UK, this is Europe-wide. And there are also indications from the documents that they are intending to start to have some kind of impact within the United…

Confirmed: Germany builds its own imperialist empire

globinfo freexchange
Almost two years ago we identified Germany's efforts to develop its military in the context of its ambition to build its own sphere of influence.
As we wrote, Brexit will give the chance to Germany to increase influence due to the change of power balance, especially now that France appears weak - crawling behind Berlin's austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction. These conditions (created in the Greek experiment), are necessary to Germany in order to retain a model in favor of its surpluses. These could become the solid ground upon which Germany could build a strong, modern military machine.
Therefore, Merkel knows that the economic domination is not adequate for a country to become a major power. It is also important to have a strong military presence in its “sphere of influence”, or, its financial/debt colonies, if you prefer. The German military presence in Lithuania is a first step towards this direction as the Baltic countries have already be…

Τι το'θελες ρε Κούλη;

globinfo freexchange
Άλλη μια άθλια παράσταση (μάλλον τη χειρότερη ως τώρα) έδωσε από το βήμα της βουλής ο αρχηγός της αξιωματικής αντιπολίτευσης, Κυριάκος Μητσοτάκης.
Δεν ξέρουμε αν ήταν δικής του έμπνευσης, ή αν το άθλιο θέαμα που παρακολουθήσαμε ήταν έμπνευση των επικοινωνιολόγων του. Αν ισχύει το δεύτερο, μάλλον πρέπει να τους απολύσει. Αν ισχύει το πρώτο, τότε το μόνο που κατάφερε ο Κυριάκος ήταν να φανερώσει οριστικά και αμετάκλητα τον μεγάλο εκνευρισμό του και ίσως και πανικό του.


Γιατί, όμως, πανικοβάλεται ο Κυριάκος;
Πρώτον, γιατί βλέπει ότι, έστω και σε αυτές τις άκρως αμφιλεγόμενες δημοσκοπήσεις, η ψαλίδα ΝΔ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, κλείνει.
Δεύτερον, γιατί αντιλαμβάνεται ότι δεν είναι χρήσιμος πλέον σε κανέναν από τους έξω. Γιατί ο Τσίπρας έγινε το καλό και υπάκουο παιδί των Ευρωπαίων, αλλά και ο πιο πιστός υποτελής των Αμερικανών.
Τρίτον και ίσως το κυριότερο, γιατί η πολιτική ένδεια της παράταξής του δεν έχει προηγούμενο. Πράγματι, η γαλάζια παράταξη δεν έχει απολύτως τίποτα να προσφέρει στη…

The difference between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and what the US elections won't allow you to decide

globinfo freexchange
A country that has been completely taken over by the banking mafia and the corporate power will never allow people to decide on the most important issue: the abolition of the dominant system that works against them.
Professor Richard Wolff explains:
Because of Bernie Sanders, particularly, we now have the word Socialism floating around, but typically it's about, more or less, really among Democrats. Like Mr. Sanders is ambiguously an independent but he's also a Democrat.
So, the ‘Socialists’ seemed to be the Democrats who want to do more for people. Social welfare, social supports, state supports, versus those who don't want to do quite so much - the centrist Democrats, like Clinton and Obama.
But the real question is a program of change. Socialism is a change of system it goes away from capitalism to do something else. It would be interesting if we could have an election ‘do we want that?’, ‘would we like a different system?’.
There are countries doing t…

The IMF is dismantling Argentina all over again

Part 1
In September, Argentine president Mauricio Macri accepted the 2018 Atlantic Council’s Global Citizen Award. In attendance were many of world’s neoliberal power players and policy makers, among them International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
Facing the crowd, Macri gleefully admitted that “with Christine, I have to confess we started a great relationship some months ago,” referring to a series of loan agreements with the IMF amounting to $57.1 billion dollars. “I expect that this is going to work very well, and we will end up with the whole country crushing on Christine,” he continued.
This dynamic of chasing an improved image with the world’s big banks and the dominant economies in the West is emblematic of Macri’s priority to secure a relationship with the IMF and improve the country’s image with global financial institutions. But it comes at a devastating cost for the majority of the population who will suffer from neoliberal policy prescriptions of…