Radically Back Atcha
Jon Chait suspends his innate suckitude long enough to write something decent:
A second factor encouraging Democrats to buck their presidents is the role of the rich and business interests. Unless you are a high school student reading this article in your civics course, in which case I’m sorry to dispel your illusions, you will not be stunned to learn that the affluent carry disproportionate political weight with elites in both parties. So, while people who earn more than $250,000 per year make up just a tiny slice of the electorate, they make up a huge chunk of any congressman’s friends, acquaintances, and fund-raisers.
What’s more, whatever their disposition toward business in general, Democrats feel it is not just a right but a duty to slavishly attend to the interests of their home-state businesses. That is why Kent Conrad upholds even the most absurd demands of agribusiness, or why even a good-government progressive like Michigan’s Carl Levin parrots the auto industry’s line on regulating carbon dioxide.
Taken as a whole, then, the influence of business and the rich unites Republicans and splits Democrats.
Interest begets a structure; the structure ensures the status quo. Yet the same dynamic is at play with regard to foreign policy — specifically interventionism (the liberal hawks‘ semi-self-serving euphemism for colonialism or imperialism). The Rethugs are disciplined; the Democrats are split, with by far the most siding with the venal and murderous bloc; the interests of the majority of voters are ignored.
With regard to the economic issues, Chait thinks Obama is on the left side of the Democratic split, something, in the general sense, I take leave to doubt. But that’s neither here nor there. Obama is, however, certainly on the rightwing side of the Democratic split over interventionism — even earning David Horowitz‘s approval for his efforts so far.
The one thing Chait left out of his analysis is the media’s complicity: it, too, is totally in the tank for the rich, in no small part because it is owned or otherwise funded by the rich. Duh. Just as it — in its “liberal” or “objective” or wingnutty versions — is for blowing shit up when the opportunity arises, totally in the tank for the imperialists — and for, at root, the same special intere$t. But then I suppose such a conclusion is too Chomskyesque, and we all know what that means (intellectual totalitarianism!). Anyway, contrast the above quote with the following from one of Chait’s old L.A. Times columns:
The liberal wing of the party has long been aware that although Democratic voters are generally dovish, the party’s foreign policy elite is fairly hawkish. Liberals, understandably, want to depose that hawkish elite and replace it with a dovish one. Flynt Leverett, a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry, complained that “Democrats have fallen into a ‘soft neoconservatism’ that has dulled the party’s voice on foreign policy.” John Tirman, in his book, “100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World,” writes, “When I see a liberal hawk, I smell a rat.”
When it comes to that split, when it comes to elites being irresponsible to and unrepresentative of the wishes of the majority of their constituencies in that context, Chait’s totally on the other side of the fight (as you’ll see if you read the rest of the piece), fretting that the Iraq debacle would force the mini-neocons in the party and among the “liberal” punditocracy to step down in favor of DFHs. As if. Fucker.
i can haz teh funny nao?
The one thing Chait left out of his analysis is the media’s complicity: it, too, is totally in the tank for the rich, in no small part because it is owned or otherwise funded by the rich.
And when the WaPo and NYT passed into ownership of wealthy sons like Pinch and the Donald, the fiction that they were still “liberal” provided all sorts of cover for people to go right over the right wing cliff.
I wonder why Chait doesn’t mention this, surely his own boss raised himself up with his own bootstraps?
There’s been funny all day, TKK.
There’s been scary all day long.
Surely you enjoyed your assignment, trolling the right wing blog that was chosen for you by Obama-Kos-Soros?
I needed a Karen Silkwood style shower after reading a few comments at Free Republic.
Ahhhh.
Next time, ask if you can be tasked with Althouse for a little convalescence.
The rest will do you good!
I don’t want to be sucked into that vortex and end up married to her.
It still astonishes me that some people can maintain the fiction of a “liberal media”. I imagine what they’re yammering about is the tendency of corporations to offer a Spanish option when you call them, or sprinkle their bullshit commercials with a perfect diversity of minority actors and happy nonsense about helping the environment. That’s got to be what they’re whining about, because there is simply no other empirical option.
Kenosha, I too prefer easy mockery that doesn’t bum me out. That’s why I’m pleased that Brad, a very good writer and valued contributor, hasn’t written anything lately. God love him, I just don’t want to deal with his panicky shtick right now. I have quite enough panic of my own.
I have quite enough panic of my own.
Likewise.
The fact is that Obama pretty much doomed General Motors to bankruptcy today. Obama directly fired the CEO of General Motors, leaving them rudderless during a time of problems.
And when bankruptcy occurs, the workers will get laid off in the millions and they will wake up and realize that the Democrat Party has stabbed them in the back.
Obama’s extreme environmentalism led to his hatred for American cars. His conduct in handling the auto crisis shows us that he wants America’s auto industry to fail. Green does not lead to Green. The environmental cars do not sell. Plain and Simple. The best selling cars have been Hummers, which Obama is trying to ban.
The cause of the problems in America’s auto industry is the boa constructor of Unions. The fact is that Unionization is a poison pill for industry. The industries that succeed are the ones who are not strangled with unions. There is no constitutional authorization that allows for the recognition of a Union. The fact is that if unions didn’t legally exist, our national economy would be better. Look at the Auto industry, and if you think that’s fine, then support EFCA and you can turn our entire economy into a bankrupt smokepit.
The last 3 years of Democrat congressional rule have been disastrous for America. When the Democrats took over, the Dow Jones was over 12,000. Now it’s at 7,000.
Obama is going to receive a rude awakening in 2010. The unemployed auto workers will be part of the coalition that will sweep the Republicans into power in the House and Senate. These auto workers will then sweep Barack Hussein Obama out of the White House.
Obamaization of America is not a forgone conclusion. We can restore freedom in America.
I’m sick of the Gary bot. Come up with new propaganda or STFU.
Yes, the Geitner plan sucks and I hate it, as do a lot of liberals, but for fuck sakes, Republican SHITHEADS enabled finance to go hog wild on greed. They need to STFU already too.
It still astonishes me that some people can maintain the fiction of a “liberal media”
As noted on another thread, it’s all about proving one’s “conservative” (i.e. anti-liberal) bona fides. “Liberal media” is just another in the long line of shibboleths — “socialist” Obama, “TelePrompTer” — which are part of their anti-reality. It’s like pretending that Rush Limbaugh or Faux Noise are still remotely tethered to actual reality.
Hey, look: it might be Real Gary!
The industries that succeed are the ones who are not strangled with unions.
Malicious, hateful, and just flat-out wrong — yep, that’s our Gary!
The industries that succeed are the ones who are not strangled with unions.
Finance is not unionized. Explain that one Gary.
Oh wait, I know what he’ll say…that they’re a huge success at failing!
The explanation of the “liberal” hawks is the same as for the rest of the Republicrats’ corporate outlook: war makes money for huge corporations like Halliburton, Boeing, etc. And those businesses not only funnel huge sums into the campaign war chests of both parties, they also employ lots of voters whose livelihoods depend Oceania always being at war with Eurasia and/or Eastasia.
I have quite enough panic of my own.
Moi aussi.
friggin pheonomenal blog… the freepers scare the livin crap out of me….
All this talk about doves and hawks is making me hungry.
OMNOMNOMNOMNOM
Gary, Gary, Gary.
You folks have been complaining about unions for the longest time.
Yes, it’s all the unions’ fault that GM, Ford and Chrysler chose to ignore the gas crisis of the 70s and make cars that lasted two years and guzzled gallons to the mile. The UAW runs product design at car companies, dont ya know.
And yes, the union heads were all in on that meeting where GM, Ford and Chrysler said building SUVs that did the same thing was a good idea.
And yes, the unions were all behind the decisions made on how to invest the pension fund, whether to count it as a current liability.
Somehow, Gary, you missed that Japanese car companies located their plants in the US for some reason, can’t imagine why. BMW is still around and isn’t crying to the Bundesbank or help. So is Volkswagen. But it must be those lax German labor standards. They don’t have unions in Germany, I guess.
GM and Chrysler and Ford have all been steadily losing market share for years. Must be all the unions’ fault too. It can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that my 1986 Toyota Corolla used less gas and lasted until about 2002, (when the windshield got busted) and my dad’s Escort of the same year crapped out in 1990. Nah, that couldn’t be it.
Garybot, Lee Iacocca went crying to Congress for help back in the day. The unions had absolutely nothing to do with the business decisions that got him there. Unlike German unions, the ones here don’t get to sit on the board.
The real problem is employer-based health care, which the BMWs, VWs, and Toyotas of the worldd needn’t deal with. Funny what happens when you offload the cost of health to taxes and remove it from the companies balance sheets.
But hey, this is all reality. I know these things don’ mater in the Ayn Randiverse.
Obama’s extreme environmentalism led to his hatred for American cars.
Adding two miles to CAFE and refusing to lift the light truck exemption is extreme?
Gary, can I invite some ELF members to your house, please?
Nice piece, HTML. Thank you.
What Chait left out is that now insanity is splitting the Republicans.
While the Dems have the despised Blue Dogs and liberal hawks, the Repubs have their Overlord Total Fucking Crazy WingNut Inhofe et al.
I guess the next step is to get the wealthy to vote for the interests of the working class, even if that means that they would have to vote against their own interests.
Obama’s tried to “please-do-this-for-the-good-of-the-country” thing. I don’t see that it’s working. Are the majority of Wall Street cretins adjusting to the new paradigm of public ownership (or at least public “interest”), or are the majority of them still quiting over insubstantial $700k bonuses?
I guess the next step is to get the wealthy to vote for the interests of the working class, even if that means that they would have to vote against their own interests.
Why not? The Republicans since Reagan have made their “majorities” based on the poor and middle classes voting against theirs, because of persuasive non-classist arguments (gods and guns)
We know what arguments the GOP made, but what would be the equivalent liberal argument?
If we assume that the GOP wins the rich vote, by virtue of policy, then that theoretically leaves the entire middle- and working-classes up for grabs. Seems easy, right? In reality though, the rich exert a great influence on the media and discourse of the country, and thus have a disproportionately-large megaphone with which to reach the other classes. The GOP’s policies benefit only a small fraction of the population, but that small fraction in turn is able to amplify it’s votes by manipulating the discourse and convincing those less fortunate to vote against their own interests.
So, we have a conundrum; each rich vote the GOP receives is not one vote. Each rich vote is, in fact, many votes. Practically speaking, the Democrats have to pick up several middle- or working-class votes to offset a single upper-class vote garnered by the GOP. This is, systematically-speaking, a losing arrangement for the Democrats.
There’s a few ways, I think, that liberals can go about fixing this:
1.) Hope that the upper classes miraculously gain a willingness to sacrifice their material interests for the good of the other classes, and vote accordingly.
2.) Try to appeal to the upper-classes material interests. There is some evidence that liberal policies help the rich more than conservative policies.
3.) Try to appeal to the upper-classes ethical and civic values.
4.) Increasing appeals to working- and middle-class material interests. There is no argument that conservative policies are better than liberal ones for these economic groups.
The problems associated with each:
1.) Hardly likely.
2.) Despite that liberal policies help the upper-class more than conservative policies, the real crux of the issue is that, for many I think, being “upper-class” has less to do with how well one is doing relative to one’s own standards, and instead has more to do with how well one is doing relative to others. People that want to be “upper-class’ in this latter sense will invariably favor conservative policies, regardless of the actual outcomes of liberal policies, because conservative policies economically hurt those people that the aforementioned “upper-class” are in competition with.
3.) Obama’s currently giving this option a go, and I’ll reserve judgement until there is something to judge.
4.) Appeals to the working- and middle-classes are always framed as class warfare. The stigma associated with “class warfare” is steadily receding, however, and this may well be the best option for the Democrats. OTOH, this option does not alleviate the underlying problem , and thus is only likely to be effective in the short-term.
2.) Try to appeal to the upper-classes material interests. There is some evidence that liberal policies help the rich more than conservative policies.
Some. Actually, quite a bit, enough that, long before anyone did longitudinal studies of the issue, it was widely accepted that, as Harry Truman put it, “if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.”
Which would be my argument. The good thing about the wealthy is they tend to listen to reasoned arguments and logic as opposed to scare tactics. That might explain why the Dems have latched onto as many wealthy people as they have.
The argument the Republicans use to protect their base has been taxes and welfare spending. The Democrats could come up with a response based on a couple of things:
1) Fairness. It costs money to pay for those bridges and roads and airports that we all need. Similarly, it costs money to pay people to maintain and repair those bridges, et al. A progressive tax rate pays for these things, since it inflicts (and here’s where we appeal to the senses of logic and reason) pain on everyone, those who can pay more while feeling less pain for it ought to.
2) Charity. I don’t mean handing money to poor people, but the classic concept of charity, which is assisting someone in need until they have their feet under them again. Republicans successfully painted The Great Society as “welfare” without ever giving the program a fair chance and after Nixon and his White House had the chance to gut and alter many worthy policies of the LBJ initiative.
Clinton was not far off base when he said we needed to mend it, even if I found his compromise hard to swallow as a progressive. There are areas we needed to do more in, like education and healthcare. But by demonstrating that fixing these will make everyone in better economic shape long term, we could win a far larger share of the wealthy to our cause.