How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street

[Saint Milei]

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/

[Person Man]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

[AggregateDemand]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

They aren't liberal at all. It's just a faction of people who want to continue wasting money on 50-year-old programs that don't work.

[Indy Texas]

AD, who got more money from investment banks in 2012? Romney or Obama?

[Deus Naturae]

AD, who got more money from investment banks in 2012? Romney or Obama?

What does that have to do with anything? The existence of Wall Street Republicans precludes the existence of Wall Street Democrats?

[Indy Texas]

AD, who got more money from investment banks in 2012? Romney or Obama?

What does that have to do with anything? The existence of Wall Street Republicans precludes the existence of Wall Street Democrats?

Why is a Republican criticizing the Democratic Party for being a tool for Wall Street when his own party is an even bigger tool if you go by how much money they got from them?

[IceSpear]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

[AggregateDemand]

Why is a Republican criticizing the Democratic Party for being a tool for Wall Street when his own party is an even bigger tool if you go by how much money they got from them?

I accused American liberals of being a faction of phonies who support the failed status quo. DeadPrez accused Democrats of being Wall Street shills, which is true, even if Republicans shill for Wall Street as well.

[free my dawg]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

The New Deal coalition says hello.

[IceSpear]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

The New Deal coalition says hello.

How do you propose replicating that in the modern era? Union membership is at an all time low, Southern whites are tethered to the Republican Party due to the religious right, and of course the elephant in the room: race, which is why the coalition dissipated to begin with.

[Cory]

The New Deal coalition says hello.

I don't believe in ghosts.

[Sopranos Republican]

The New Deal coalition says hello.

I don't believe in ghosts.

I'd sooner vote for a dead guy than I'd vote for the Cuomo/Clinton Wall Street blowjob faction.  

[free my dawg]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

The New Deal coalition says hello.

How do you propose replicating that in the modern era? Union membership is at an all time low, Southern whites are tethered to the Republican Party due to the religious right, and of course the elephant in the room: race, which is why the coalition dissipated to begin with.

By helping the disadvantaged in the inner city out, and passing policies that will help people instead of bailing out the rich. Bolstering social programs and unions instead of trying to roll the New Deal-level reforms that protected us from Wall Street back helps too.

Obama took the working class for granted, ignored them for the first quarter of his presidency and appeased Wall Street, so the working class didn't show up to the polls. If you actually do something to hurt Wall Street, like re-instate Glass-Steagall or pass a public option, and give the working class some semblance of a bone, you take back at least Feingold's seat (since Wisconsin is more economically liberal) and at least five House seats (for example, Herseth Sandlin and Oberstar probably hold on) in more economically liberal areas. Probably not enough to stop the bleeding in Ohio or Pennsylvania, but definitely enough to hold onto some more rural areas, and maybe enough to hold the House. If you want to toss the working class to the side, that's fine with me. Just don't blame me when we collapse in 2018 (possibly 2016 if Our Lord and Savior opts out for some unforeseen event, like a birth in the family).

[traininthedistance]

If you actually do something to hurt Wall Street

You mean like Dodd-Frank, which Wall Street is fighting tooth and nail to gut?

Note: Dodd-Frank is probably not enough- but jeez, people, let's stop pretending that it doesn't exist and isn't actually shrinking the financial sector... because it is actually shrinking the financial sector...

[Napoleon]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

The New Deal coalition says hello.

From their graves, maybe.

[IceSpear]

So a Conservative is saying that liberals aren't liberal enough?

This, and a conservative is angered by Democrats being tools for Wall Street? What about Republicans?

While obviously Democrats are a bit better at standing up to Wall Street, there are some pretty anti Wall Street Republicans who might consider voting for Democrats if they ever took a real stand against Wall Street.

I doubt it.

Democrats have no incentive to go against Wall Street, because it loses them lots of funding while gaining little to nothing in return. The only vaguely "populist" element currently within the GOP is the Tea Party, and good luck getting them to vote for any Democrat.

The New Deal coalition says hello.

How do you propose replicating that in the modern era? Union membership is at an all time low, Southern whites are tethered to the Republican Party due to the religious right, and of course the elephant in the room: race, which is why the coalition dissipated to begin with.

By helping the disadvantaged in the inner city out, and passing policies that will help people instead of bailing out the rich. Bolstering social programs and unions instead of trying to roll the New Deal-level reforms that protected us from Wall Street back helps too.

Obama took the working class for granted, ignored them for the first quarter of his presidency and appeased Wall Street, so the working class didn't show up to the polls. If you actually do something to hurt Wall Street, like re-instate Glass-Steagall or pass a public option, and give the working class some semblance of a bone, you take back at least Feingold's seat (since Wisconsin is more economically liberal) and at least five House seats (for example, Herseth Sandlin and Oberstar probably hold on) in more economically liberal areas. Probably not enough to stop the bleeding in Ohio or Pennsylvania, but definitely enough to hold onto some more rural areas, and maybe enough to hold the House. If you want to toss the working class to the side, that's fine with me. Just don't blame me when we collapse in 2018 (possibly 2016 if Our Lord and Savior opts out for some unforeseen event, like a birth in the family).

Obamacare is FAR from perfect, but at its core, it is still a wealth distribution system that primarily benefits the poor and working class. So why is it that working class people are not rallying around this law and punishing the Republicans who unanimously opposed it (in fact, they rewarded them generously in 2010)? It's because people don't divide themselves politically by class, but by their ideology and political party. "The working class" is not a cohesive unit of voters.

This is why I'm highly skeptical that being tougher on Wall Street would do a damn thing to help Democrats, in terms of votes. Working class Republicans aren't suddenly going to break out of their FOX induced hypnosis and see the Democrats as the good guys, they're just going to use it to fuel their beliefs that Democrats are "anti-business, anti-capitalist, you didn't build that, socialist communists envious people who hate success!"

Of course, personally, I'd love it if Democrats were more economically liberal and tougher on Wall Street. But political parties and politicians operate what's in their best interest. If they see attacking Wall Street as a net loss (losing money while gaining few votes), they're probably not going to do it. And that's the sad truth.

[free my dawg]

Obamacare is FAR from perfect, but at its core, it is still a wealth distribution system that primarily benefits the poor and working class. So why is it that working class people are not rallying around this law and punishing the Republicans who unanimously opposed it (in fact, they rewarded them generously in 2010)? It's because people don't divide themselves politically by class, but by their ideology and political party. "The working class" is not a cohesive unit of voters.

This is why I'm highly skeptical that being tougher on Wall Street would do a damn thing to help Democrats, in terms of votes. Working class Republicans aren't suddenly going to break out of their FOX induced hypnosis and see the Democrats as the good guys, they're just going to use it to fuel their beliefs that Democrats are "anti-business, anti-capitalist, you didn't build that, socialist communists envious people who hate success!"

Of course, personally, I'd love it if Democrats were more economically liberal and tougher on Wall Street. But political parties and politicians operate what's in their best interest. If they see attacking Wall Street as a net loss (losing money while gaining few votes), they're probably not going to do it. And that's the sad truth.

Ever since the Ronald Reagan era, we seem to have completely lost all sort of respect for ourselves and whored ourselves out to Wall Street. He took office, passed tax cuts for his cronies, and the people didn't care, because the economy was quickly recovering. And the sad thing is, the Democratic Party could have embraced populism when they had a supermajority. They could have kicked Lieberman out as soon as he challenged Ned Lamont, but they welcomed him back like with open arms. They could have passed minimum wage instead of leaving it an issue to ignite the base for his second term, but they banked on the majority holding and saved it for later. They could have passed meaningful health reform, but they went on a conservative plan after a Republican in all but name stabbed us in the back. The Democratic Party had countless opportunities to go to bat for the middle class, but all they did was pass weak-wristed “reforms” that only tweaked the system instead of uplifting it. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that we the base elected a Churchill, and we got a Chamberlain.

And to disguise their milquetoast “solutions” to the problems, they've decided to distract the base with feel-good social justice causes in order to give the base some sort of a token (usually to attract the middle-class voter). I've expanded my thoughts on this enough, but it boils down to the slogan of the Ronald Reagan era that's been popularized by Paul Ryan's philosophy - “I've got mine.” Gun control is okay because white middle class suburbia (where IIRC you're from) has theirs if they vote Democratic. Not having a public option is fine, because middle class suburbia has theirs. Never mind that Susan Collins could very potentially be the 51st vote for Mitch McConnell to take the Senate, she hates guns and drugs, so she's better than that horrible libertine Bellows. Instead of repudiating the new American culture of greed and selfishness, we've embraced it as soon as Clinton took power, and the moderate wing will even support Republicans if it means giving them theirs.

As for Obamacare, I've benefited personally from it. I am insured because my parents signed up for the Affordable Care Act. I know about Obamacare's successes very well – had the court struck it down, I wouldn't be insured. Thanks to Obamacare, I've got mine. But I don't think about how it's succeeded for me, or any of the other 15 million that it insured for that matter. I think of the 15 million that aren't insured, like one of my teachers, because it didn't go far enough. Obamacare has stopped some of the bleeding for a while, but the main problem stays: some members of the working class cannot afford it, even with the reform, and any system that leaves even one person uninsured is a failed system.

The saddest thing about the Obama presidency is that populism can work. The inner city would definitely vote for something that would get them out of the slums, and we can hold the minority coalition if we raise the wage and pass meaningful immigration reform. We can make people vote for us if we say that the Hobby Lobby (rightfully so) will actually lead to more abortions because people won't actually get pregnant, and we can defend a woman's right to choose by saying that the government shouldn't force you into having a baby on their terms. We can make the Republicans pay by calling them out on their bullsh*t: that they're only for big government when it helps out mega-corporations, and that they're only for a balanced budget unless those goddamned Moozlums are bothering the world or big business is in trouble and needs a tax cut. We can do all those things, but we just talk about them when the base is paying attention more. Coincidence? The stats say otherwise. When the working class has more confidence in Democrats to do something, they'll vote for them.

Whether you realize it or not, the Reagan Era has sent us into a Second Gilded Age, and Obama hasn't done jack sh**t to do anything to get us out of it. We need a William Jennings Bryan or an FDR to reignite the populist elements of our party, not lie down and watch as the rich reap all of the economic recovery that has happened, expecting everything to trickle down to them and only getting a few drops of piss. And if you think that Democrats would be better off waiting for Goldman Sachs's piss to trickle down, you're in for a rude awakening.

[memphis]

This is another case where Americans are hurt by not knowing themselves. Because people hold onto the mythology of Infinite Opportunity, they don't see themselves as Poors, Working Classers, or even Richers. Everybody is Middle Class, floating around like an Oklahoman in the Update, convinced that one of these days things are going to work out if we just believe. Americans need a serious dose of realism. We're all busting our butts for peanuts, and things are not going to change until we make low prestige jobs worthwhile. It is not possible for everybody to be a doctor, a CEO, or a lottery winner.

[King]

Wall Street is big fun for politicians because when it's supported it pumps up the GDP quickly and then its members are very loyal donors.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I've put some thought into this, and I can only keep coming back to Machiavelli's "people are fickle" line. And in politics, they are.

In regards to what Sawx wrote, frankly, the way the Democratic supermajority went about things was haphazard in hindsight, yes, but I don't think it would've worked to even attempt to push what we term "populism" as far as we want. For example, if we went the cut out Lieberman route, where would we have gone next? Cut out the 40 or so Blue Dogs that constituted the majority in the House? Cut out every moderate Senator in the South? Like it or not, the reality of the situation is that we have a Democratic Party that constitutes a wider and larger tent and regionalism would've trumped true-leftiness every time.

And Memphis is absolutely right. The only way you can drag voters away from self-interest politics that concerns only the change in front of them is to gut the American dream. But no one is willing to do that because no one is willing to be told that their lives are horrible. Otherwise you follow yourself into electoral suicide.

There's that great moment from The West Wing, when the Chinese ambassador tells CJ Cregg "Your American dream is financial, not ethical." And as so long as we glamorize the small business, the self-made millionaire, everyone will aspire to be one. And people aren't willing to pay the price to help everyone else because no one cares about a sense of equality anymore in regards to your financial future. Whether you make it or break it in life is your fault, not the system's, and these people teach their children the same ethos.

"It doesn't matter if most voters don't benefit, they all believe that someday they will. That's the problem with the American Dream, it makes everyone concerned for the day they're gonna be rich."

[Cassius]

And the problem with this is... what, exactly. The Democratic party is not a Labour party, or a 'Working man's' party. Indeed, its not even something so abstract (in the context of today) as a Social-Democratic party. Its a huge coalition, spanning across a wide range of groups in society; groups which one could, perhaps, argue are brought together largely due to the electoral system and their dislike of the chaps on the other side. The Democratic party has no obligation to serve the segment of the electorate fuzzily labeled 'working class'. It could just as easily be a party for bankers (not that it is of course). But, anyway, I digress; a political movement based on catering largely to the needs of the poorer members of society cannot work in today's world, if it ever worked at all (after all, the vast majority of left-wing parties in most countries have been markedly less radical in government than they promised to be in opposition, aside from a few exceptions). It cannot work by bullying those with wealth and security. Only by cooperating with those hold have means can any 'reform' be achieved. One also has to consider funding. To cut a long story short, the Democratic party needs the money that can be provided by those who are associated with big business and financial services, and, to be pretentious and paraphrase Harold Wilson, you can't kick your creditors in the balls.

Edit: I'm also not entirely sure as to why people are raising up the New Deal coalition as a model for future success, when one of the chief lynchpins of the New Deal Coalition was the near unanimous (at least during the coalition's heyday) support from white southerners, for whom one of the chief factor that united them in favour of the Democratic party was the latter's willingness to look the other way on their... unique... society. There is no way that bloc support can be replicated using a New Deal Coalition strategy in this day and age.

[CatoMinor]

The New Deal coalition says hello.

How long have you been seeing dead people?

[AggregateDemand]

This is another case where Americans are hurt by not knowing themselves. Because people hold onto the mythology of Infinite Opportunity, they don't see themselves as Poors, Working Classers, or even Richers. Everybody is Middle Class, floating around like an Oklahoman in the Update, convinced that one of these days things are going to work out if we just believe. Americans need a serious dose of realism. We're all busting our butts for peanuts, and things are not going to change until we make low prestige jobs worthwhile. It is not possible for everybody to be a doctor, a CEO, or a lottery winner.

I agree about improving the plight of workers who bust their asses at minimum wage jobs, but raising the minimum wage is the wrong solution, and its a lazy shift of responsibility from government to private companies, who simply fire Americans and move overseas.

Also, most of us are middle class working-stiffs by choice. Buy overpriced garbage. Give your income to creditors, rather than accumulating assets. Wouldn't be so horrible if the government didn't actively subsidize the permanent indebtedness of the people.