How the Democratic Party became a tool for Wall-Street

[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.

[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).

[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.

[free my dawg]

Well first of all, nice post. I agree with most of what you've said. Secondly, I think you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not saying that Democrats SHOULDN'T be economically liberal. It's pretty obvious that some Democrats (cough Cuomo) have gone way too far in kissing Wall Street's ass. In addition, being more economically populist would likely energize people that already vote Democrat, and get them more likely to turn out, especially for midterms where we have issues with getting people to actually vote. I was responding to the assertion that being tougher on Wall Street would cause many "anti Wall Street Republicans" to turn to our side, which I think is a load of crap for reasons I already stated.

As for Lieberman, I despise the guy as much as anyone, but there wasn't much they could do. In 2007-2009 he could've flipped and delivered the majority to the Republicans at any moment, and in the next Congress he was the 60th vote (even though he screwed us over in the end). You're not telling me anything I don't already know about the 111th Congress. It was a huge missed opportunity, and one as good may not come again in a long time. Being so ineffective during 2009-2011 was easily Obama's biggest failure as president.

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

On Obamacare, nothing was going to fix the issue overnight. Single payer would've had an extremely messy transition as well, most likely even messier than Obamacare. But it establishes healthcare as a right and gives a good starting point for future reforms, and that's what is truly important.

Goddamnit, I totally forgot about the majority being that slim in 2006 that we needed him. Nice catch.

I mostly agree with your stance that we need to advance social justice, and we can definitely become champions of the party and hold the Obama coalition with a populist message. Instead of mansplaining that companies not giving birth control is "bad for women because they should have the right to choose", we can simply say that the government forces you into a situation you (and the father) are not ready for and that it violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion. Same with abortion - if Democrats work to give women birth control and safe opportunities to have one, that can become agreeable to the public. We can give immigrants who cross our border looking for an opportunity a pathway to citizenship through our old ideals - after all, we were founded on immigrants, and we have been a shining beacon of light for those who seek home. We accepted the world's tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free, and they're no different from the ones we've had. As I've said before, gay marriage is being settled by the courts and will be before the next presidential election, and looking past that, we seem to be doing a decent job at ending gay discrimination. However, the best way to prevent social justice, after all of this, is to give them a fair, fighting chance.

My point about Obamacare is that there are still millions of people who can't afford health insurance, even without Obamacare. It's more economical for them to pay the "uninsured tax", and they simply go without coverage. That's why I don't like it - any system that leaves one person uninsured is a failed system, and as long as for-profit healthcare is a thing in America, there is no way out. If I were in the Senate during the healthcare debate, I would have probably proposed something like the German model banning for-profit healthcare altogether (which I'm sure Lieberman or Lincoln would have accepted) if single-payer didn't work out. Even though my family can afford health insurance thanks to the new law, I'm not going to sit here and enjoy my doctor's visits. I'm going to fight so nobody can go without seeing their doctor because I like to live in a healthy society. Now that I have mine, I have a responsibility to give other people theirs, and there's no way in hell I'm going to shirk it.

[free my dawg]

And thank the Lord we're using Medex to get a leg up on Republicans. It's our key to taking back state legislatures.

[free my dawg]

It's certainly much better than "take two tax cuts and a deregulation and talk to me in the morning".

[free my dawg]

Great post, TITD. I'll address your points individually:

*I'm not really talking that much about full-on gun control like what's happening in DC. I'm not exactly warm to the idea of gun control (like I said, it took a crazed maniac for me to take a position for background checks) in the first place, and I think that that type of stuff is a  I'm talking more about the "assault weapons bans" that white people seem to champion because they're big and scary guns, even though people don't use assault rifles in shootings. The white media plays up constant fetishization of every white shooter that happens in white suburbia, and white Americans get scared and tell their white politicians to ban assault weapons because they'll get their "safety" if they ban them. Meanwhile, thousands of black Americans in the inner city get shot, like you said, and not a single news station bats an eye. It's just another event in the day of white people, and they won't do anything about it because it doesn't affect them. It's institutional racism that we as a party perpetuate, and we're as guilty as the media for playing along with it.

*I actually agree with your third post, and understand your second a little better (after all, I was only twelve when the wave of 2006 happened). It's definitely closer to the message that I wanted to deliver - give people the room for upward mobility and make the slums a decent place to live.