Eskow: Have Wall Street's "Third Way" Democrats Ever Been Right About Anything?

[JHB]

Have Wall Street's "Third Way" Democrats Ever Been Right About Anything?
Richard (RJ) Eskow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/have-wall-streets-third-w_b_3018559.html

Prof. William K. Black Jr. was understandably displeased by The New York Times' description of the Third Way think tank as "center/left." Prof. Black writes that "Some lies will not die ... Third Way is Wall Street on the Potomac. It is funded secretly by Wall Street (it refuses to reveal its donors), it is openly run by Wall Street, and it lobbies endlessly for Wall Street." Black adds that "Third Way, like every Pete Peterson front group, is dedicated to shredding the safety net as its highest priority and throwing the Nation back into a gratuitous recession through self-destructive austerity."

The description of Third Way as a "Pete Peterson front group" might seem to contradict the "Wall Street" label. It doesn't. Peterson's a hedge fund billionaire who has devoted decades of his life, as well as an enormous sum (he spent nearly a half-billion dollars in one five-year period alone) to slashing Social Security and lowering taxes for himself, his ultra-wealthy peers, and large corporations.

***
Third Way's board members include a number of prominent financial types who benefited mightily from bank deregulation, including some (like William M. Daley) who lobbied and fought for deregulation.

***
Third Way argues that their patrons' preferred system of (lower) taxes would increase employment in the United States. The response to that is simple: We've had more than a decade of low taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations. How's that working out for you? But lower taxes lead to economic growth, don't they? Look around you: Wrong.

In an interview on Bill Moyers Journal, Moyers introduced the quoted Prof. William K. Black Jr. like so:

"The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating — after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — he sent a memo that read, in part, 'get Black — kill him dead.' Metaphorically, of course. Of course."

[msongs]

1. to be fair, obama has been good for glbt issues at last nt

[bvar22]

4. Obama IS good on the stuff...

...that doesn't cost the RICH a single penny.
I think that someone finally explained to Obama the Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity for GLBT would be GOOD for Wall Street.
Happy consumers with equal protections living "out" spend more money.

[antigop]

13. +100. Robert Reich explained it best...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-politicians-are-sensi_b_2978297.html

But our elected representatives don't want to touch Wall Street. According to Politico, even the White House believes too-big-to-fail will soon be a closed chapter.

Why are politicians so sensitive to public opinion on equal marriage rights, immigration, and guns -- and so tone deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?

Perhaps because the former issues don't threaten big money in America. But any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nation's finely-appointed dining rooms and board rooms -- alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.

[Arctic Dave]

5. No, no he hasn't.

LGBT is another glaring example of his "leading from behind" style. He only came around after it became politically safe to do so in the polls.

He never once pushed equal rights for them.

[JHB]

7. And that's a big difference with the Social Security thing...

Leading from behind simply marks him as a politician, who are infamous for "leading" parades by jumping in front of one already in progress. It's standard "make me do it" progress. Obama's switch had more impact than most because it swayed opinions in some sectors in ways that a "typical liberal" -- or someone who hadn't obviously changed positions -- would have been less able to reach.

Which parade is he jumping in front of by offering up cutbacks/changes to Social Security? (and NOT following up with a campaign highlighting Republican radicalism. The "it's a bluff to show how extreme they are" gambit only works if you actively focus attention on the extremism. Otherwise it gets lost in the daily fogbank.) There's no call among the public for it. It's a Third Wayer bandwagon.

[ljm2002]

20. To be fair, Eskow mentions this...

...right there in the 3rd paragraph of the article:

The "centrist" Democrats often adopt the 'liberal' line on social issues like gun control or gay marriage -- which, coincidentally or not, are also issues which have little or no financial impact on their corporate and high-net-worth individual sponsors.

The article is specifically discussing whether the Third Way has been right about issues of economic import, and he makes a pretty convincing case that the answer is "no".

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[99Forever]

3. Great article, THANKS.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

6. K&R

[a2liberal]

8. But they label themselves as Democrats

so we can't criticize them or we're helping Republicans win.

[Cleita]

9. If not right, they have been consistent with trying policies over and

over again that don't really work for the nation. They work for Wall Street, but not the nation. The nation is hurting. The world is hurting. It's time for them to wake up and do the right thing and stop the hurt.

[cantbeserious]

10. Some Of Us Tried To Warn That Obama And Clinton Were Not Left Of Center

eom

[on point]

11. When it comes to being good for the avg person -NO. For corps? Yes.

Fake dem effort to move the discussion away from the center and to the far right

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. There is no "Third Way"...

These Democrats are providing cover for Republicans so the policies of the rich can be called "Bipartisan".

[JHB]

21. I like to point out we already had a third way, it was called The New Deal

You know, that cluster of policies that blunted the excesses of unregulated capitalism without going to full-blown socialism? The one that used to be credited for saving capitalism?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Including the bank regulations the banks themselves requested after the crash of 29....

That's all called "communism" now by the Right.

[antigop]

14. THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!!! k&r nt

[grahamhgreen]

15. K&R!

[antigop]

16. Third Wayers just rub it in our faces, don't they? "So what are you going to do? Vote Republican?"

nt

[antigop]

17. JHB, had you thought about posting this in the Good Reads forum? nt

[antigop]

19. deleted. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. They were right about the Democratic Party embracing them when they left the Republican Party.

Embracing them and the Republican policies they brought with them.

[WillyT]

23. Kick !!!