Wojtek
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:51 AM, James Leveque <jamespl79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/01/matt-stoller-understanding-the-strategy-of-the-democratic-power-class.html
>
> [the comments of one of Alan Graysons' staffers posted on the naked
> capitalism blog]
>
> Since the 1970s, Democratic elites have focused on breaking public sector
> unions and financializing the economy. Carter, not Reagan, started the
> defense build-up. Carter, not Reagan, lifted usury caps. Carter, not
> Reagan,
> first cut capital gains taxes. Clinton, not Bush, passed NAFTA. It isn’t
> the
> base of the Democratic party that did this, but then, voters in America
> have
> never had a lot of power because they are too disorganized. And there
> wasn’t
> a substantial grassroots movement to challenge this, either.
>
> Obama continues this trend. It isn’t that he’s not fighting, he fights like
> hell for what he wants. He whipped incredibly aggressively for TARP, he has
> passed emergency war funding (breaking a campaign promise) several times,
> and nearly broke the arms of feckless liberals in the process. I mean, when
> Bernie Sanders did the filiBernie, Obama flirted with Bernie’s potential
> 2012 GOP challenger. Obama just wants policies that cement the status of a
> aristocratic class, with crumbs for everyone else (Republican elites
> disagree in that they hate anyone but elites getting crumbs). And he will
> fight for them.
>
> There is simply no basis for arguing that Democratic elites are pursuing
> poor strategy anymore. They are achieving an enormous amount of leverage
> within the party. Consider the following. Despite Obama violating every
> core
> tenet of what might have been considered the Democratic Party platform,
> from
> supporting foreclosures to destroying civil liberties to torturing
> political
> dissidents to wrecking unions, Obama has no viable primary challenger.
> Moreover, no Senate Democratic incumbent lost a primary challenge in 2010,
> despite a horrible governing posture. Now THAT is a successful strategy, it
> minimized the losses of the Democratic elite and kept them firmly in
> control
> of the party. Thus, the political debate remains confined to what
> neoliberals want to talk about. It’s a good strategy, it’s just you are the
> one the strategy is being played on.
>
> A lot of people think that Obama is a bad poker player, but they miss the
> point. He’s not playing with his money, he’s playing with YOUR money. You
> are the weak hand at the table, he’s colluding with the other players.
>
> There are parts of the Democratic elite that don’t believe in
> neoliberalism,
> but they are a modest portion of that structure. So often what comes out of
> the party is garbled. Most Democrats support our reigning institutions,
> they
> believe in paying taxes, they believe in government power. Given a choice,
> they’ll grumble, but they are more willing to believe that this government
> is good than to support structural change. By contrast, the Republicans are
> unified in their desire for a more brutal and more plutocratic though
> otherwise unchanged institutional arrangement.
>
> This makes the GOP seem more committed, more professional and more
> change-oriented. This isn’t poor strategy or coordination from Democratic
> elites. The lack of willingness to fight on behalf of the public isn’t the
> same of an unwillingness to fight. It’s just their unwillingness to fight
> anyone but you.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>