Robert Reich: "The modern Democratic Party is not likely to embrace left-wing populism"

[Better Believe It]

The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democratic Party
by Robert Reich
October 9, 2011

Barack Obama is many things but he is as far from left-wing populism as any Democratic president in modern history. True, he once had the temerity to berate “fat cats” on Wall Street, but that remark was the exception – and subsequently caused him endless problems on the Street.

To the contrary, Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business – making Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary and de facto ambassador from the Street; seeing to it that Bush’s Fed appointee, Ben Bernanke, got another term; and appointing GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt to head his jobs council.

Most tellingly, it was President Obama’s unwillingness to place conditions on the bailout of Wall Street – not demanding, for example, that the banks reorganize the mortgages of distressed homeowners, and that they accept the resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act, as conditions for getting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars – that contributed to the new populist insurrection.

But the modern Democratic Party is not likely to embrace left-wing populism the way the GOP has embraced – or, more accurately, been forced to embrace – right-wing populism. Just follow the money, and remember history.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/09-2

[mmonk]

1. Unless we resolve ourselves to outlast their ignoring us.

[MNBrewer]

2. This is part of why OWS began and will remain, outside of the Democratic Party

[vi5]

5. It's less the Democrats not embracing it that bothers me...

It's going to bother me more when we get to the point of them actively trying to sabotage it, which I'm afraid will be quite soon. The faster this movement grows, the more it is at odds with Democrats continuing their decades long streak of playing both sides of the game and never being called on it.

[xchrom]

8. if the 'party' embraced it -- they would have to face up to staying on the side lines.

which i think would be good for them.

[vi5]

3. This paragraph sums it up for me....

Anyone who has the stones to actually try to convince me that Obama is anything other than a fiscally conservative, Reagan acolyte never responds to these facts:
"
To the contrary, Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business – making Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary and de facto ambassador from the Street; seeing to it that Bush’s Fed appointee, Ben Bernanke, got another term; and appointing GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt to head his jobs council."

This doesn't even get into Lary Summers, Arne Duncan, Bill Daley, and many others.

No even slightly left of center president would put those fools in charge of anything related to the economy.

[frankcjames]

26. I agree with your summation

Obama had a rare chance to do so much. He had a Democrat House and Senate. He could have gotten national health care. But ... he preferred to be friends with insurance companies. He could have helped the victims of the mortgage bankers. He preferred to help the bankers.

What's the old saw ?

"Saddest words of voice of pen ... that which might have been".

[Donnachaidh]

58. welcome to DU!

+10000!

[Enthusiast]

46. PLUS ONE!

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. But, the Democratic Party will try to coopt OWS and buy it out with promises.

Hopefully, the people in the streets won't fall for offers and "support" from the corrupt system that they're trying to rid us of.

[MNBrewer]

10. Fool me once, can't get fooled again

To quote the previous President.

I remember "Hope" and "Change". I bought it then. Not so much now.

[IndyPragmatist]

16. That's what happened to the Tea Party

They started off being upset about the bank bailouts, then a bunch of politicians started getting involved and changed it to just follow a far right path.

The right lost their war against the banks, hopefully this one works a little better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. The modern democratic party of 1926 was not willing either

nor was the one in 1929... I love Secretary Reich and I agree they won't right now... but survival sooner or later will make one of the two national parties embrace left wing populism... the pressure is building for that.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. Or it will lead to the creation of an ACTUAL worker's party

as a home for these left populist supporters. Not an advocacy BTW, just an observation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Well for that you need the failure of one of the two parties

the system don't allow for more than two parties and it is structural... for the needed change we need to change the constitution.

[FredStembottom]

15. Thank you, thank you.

That's what I am sitting here saying to my 'puter screen.

Of course, Mr. Reich, if things stay the same... they stay the same.

Economic populism has never been started and ushered in by the 2 dominant parties. Dire events sparking mass movement made the Democratic party respond in 1929.

Jonathon Alter's book The Defining Moment makes a strong case that the Republican party was so spooked by the desperate men in the streets that some of the famous reforms of FDR's first 100 days were already under consideration in the Hoover administration.

[lonestarnot]

24. Yeah!

[bemildred]

9. Then we need a "post-modern" Democratic Party. nt

[Enthusiast]

48. Good way to put it.

I won't embrace corporate governance no matter which party favors it.

[kentuck]

12. Is it better to fight for something you believe in and lose...?

or fight for something you don't believe in and lose??

[Better Believe It]

19. It's better to fight for something you believe in and win rather than

fight for something you don't believe in and win.

[kentuck]

21. True also...

But we should not be afraid to lose. We should fight for what we believe in and stop compromising for the politicians.

[reACTIONary]

23. You don't consider winning an alternative? (nm)

[kentuck]

32. I do but that wasn't my question.

The more important point was that we should not be afraid to lose.

[polichick]

13. That's why the party is becoming irrelevant.

[mod mom]

25. They certainly will if they continue to work for corporate interest over people.

[seabeyond]

14. pelosi did. there is a thread up now. obama supported them in a speech recently. nt

[Better Believe It]

17. With their tremendous resources what is the Democratic Party doing to build the OWS protests?

Anything at all?

And what are leading Democratic politicians doing to encourage "their base" to participate in these protests?

Do they know how to build a genuine independent mass movement, have they any practical experience in such matters, do they even want to see such a mass movement develop that isn't a mere election campaign political adjunct of the Democratic Party?

Perhaps we will now see some politicians say nice words about the protests and perhaps even be willing to speak at these demonstrations! The question is, is that all they are willing do?

They claim to represent millions of people.

Well, if that is so, where are their followers and troops, why have they so far failed to bring them out into the streets?

Maybe they just are uncomfortable with mass movements and don't do that sort of thing.

So shall they continue to sit on the sidelines while cheering protestors on?

We might see a handful of Senators or members of the House do something meaningful to promote these protests before too long.

Or we might not.

[Bobbie Jo]

28. lol

Good Lord. :rofl:

[seabeyond]

34. i dont think the occupiers want it party identified and i think pelosi speaking for the group

and as obama spoke for the group was what is required of them. within their party, the democratic party, acknowledging they hear and support what is being protested and protestors are correct and have every right to feel what they do.

[defendandprotect]

49. OWS had nothing to do with Democrats 'n better to keep it that way - nor do they support Obama ..!!

Quite to the contrary --


These are great questions which we should have been asking all along ...

for example re the American public wanting government-run health care --

74% of the public -- 83% of Catholics -- want MEDICARE FOR ALL --


80% of the public want an end to the wars --

the will of the people is being ignroed --


And re the BASE ...

And what are leading Democratic politicians doing to encourage "their base" to participate in these protests?

Official policy of the Third Way which now runs the Democratic Party is that the BASE is to

be ignored --

Just happened to catch Jonathan Cowan, Pres. Third Way on C-span last week and he made clear

that it is their policy that "the base of the party is to be ignroed" -- and that

populist/populism issues are out --

Cowan related that populist issues are "the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda of extremism"!!


I've been trying to get the word out on this -- I'd like to find that two or three minutes

of C-span tape -- I think DU'ers would be very enlightened by it!!



:hi:

[anamandujano]

27. See post #6 and

as the poster who answered you before me, what about their resources.

I'm suspicious of those who've had tremendous power and got zip accomplished at best. At worst, well, most here know better than I do about how things got so bad and why the Pukes win it all every time.

[seabeyond]

35. and my response on 34. it doesnt matter with some duers. regardless of what dems do or not

they will be all over their ass. between your post and BBI post, you two have conveniently made it so democratic politicians lose. regardless. they are doen before htey have done a damn thing, in your book. i dont play that game.

[Exilednight]

30. Obama, like he usually does, provided nothing but lip service. Words don't mean much, anymore. It

is actions that count. If he were to start prosecuting those that got us into this mess, then, and only then, will he BEGIN to make amends.

[seabeyond]

37. if obama says nothing, he is the shit. he says something he is the shit. he particpates, he coopts

it.

no matter what our dems do, the three of you that responded has created fail, regardless what obama or the other dems do.

the OP was bitchin no dems involved. i show two i know of and

sanders, K, durbin....

probably others

and the three posters bitch

whatevah....

[anamandujano]

40. The politicians got us into the kind of mess that got people so

forlorn with nothing to lose. Now said forlorn people are in the streets.

Good luck at the ballot box.

[anamandujano]

41. dupe --cookie error

nt

[Exilednight]

54. I plainly stated what Obama needed to do to win over the protesters. He needs to stop talking and

start acting like he's the President of the United States.

[seabeyond]

56. lol. nt

[EFerrari]

18. Yeah, we know.

lol

[OHdem10]

20. I have said before and will repeat. We are most likely seeing

the end of Democratic Party as we know it.

The Conservadems who run the Party owe Wall Street.
They will have to continue their Republican Lite
Policies.

Could it be that this is why there is an OWS.
No Party repesents the Middle Class, Working Class
and Poor.

[BrendaBrick]

44. "No Party represents the Middle Class, Working Class and Poor"

I feel that the Dem Progressives come about as close as anything else right now. I think that with continued support of along with a concentrated effort towards the expansion of the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) might actually be our best bet.

From wiki: The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in the United States Congress with 83 declared members, and works to advance progressive issues and positions.

The CPC was founded in 1991 and now has more than 80 members. The Caucus is co-chaired by Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Of the 20 standing committees of the House in the 111th Congress, 10 were chaired by members of the CPC. Those chairmen were replaced when the Republicans took control of the House in the 112th Congress.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by six members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first chairman. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Popularity and support towards those ends seem to be happening already if this article is any indication: "Progressive Democratic Women for US Senate": (though I am not so much concerned about gender as much as I am about furthering more elected progressives in general):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/15/994810/-Progressive-Democratic-Women-for-US-Senate

Also, clip about Donna Edwards (D-MD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMOIdP-I6H0

Supporting progressives, (including monetarily if we want to keep big business out of it) to my mind, is the only viable option/game in town at present and probably the closest thing we have to representation of the overall thrust and sentiment currently taking hold in the OWS movement.

[workinclasszero]

22. Well the democratic party can get with the 99%

or get left behind I guess. Is this how new political party's start? Time will tell I guess.

Unions are getting with OWS and they are traditional democratic voters. What dems would be against it?

The DLC? LOL good! They should join the rethugs where they belong.

[kenny blankenship]

29. Then they are useless and obsolete.

The world doesn't need two Republican Parties.

[moondust]

31. Um, Bill Clinton's daughter is married to Wall Street.

Just a reminder that serving Wall Street has its rewards...

[Better Believe It]

33. It's all about class.

[meow2u3]

36. New Democrats = Old Republicans

One reason: the Democrats of today, especially the New Democrats who are running the party, are Rockefeller Republicans who defected from the Republican Party when the Religious Right (a misnomer if there ever was one), the Southern fascists, and the teabagger types took over. The traditional Democrats who remain have been crowded out by the ex-rethugs in the same pockets of the big banksters as are the GOPee. The only difference between modern "Democrats" and Republicans are which side they take on non-economic wedge issues that are soon to be irrelevant.

Left-wing populists have been silenced for the past 30 years: ignored by the Party big shots and marginalized by the MSM. Left-wing populists need to form a third major political party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. the only rational reason for a progressive person to support the Democratic Party is because the

Republican Party is far worse. And I will absolutely agree...it isn't just marginally worse...it is far worse. But it is intellectually dishonest to the extreme to try to spin its record of the past three decades as liberal or progressive. Less reactionary? Absolutely!! Progressive? No, that is beyond disingenuous or flat out ignorant..one or the other.

Nonetheless, the recent events on the streets of New York and across the country may very well be offering a glimmer of hope..Maybe, just maybe the power of social change through spontaneous mass action could possible reignite a progressive movement that inspires the rank and file of the Democratic Party - most of whom are progressive - to rise up and force the party against its will to abandon its shameful legacy of the past few decades and become an actual force for progress once again. I don't know that will happen. But it is possible.

[BrendaBrick]

51. I agree. I think it is possible too!

Then representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first Chairman of the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) in 1991:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

I'd like to see the CPC expand by leaps and bounds ( ^ ( ^ ( ^ ( ^

[Owlet]

39. How about renaming this website

to just "The Underground". Doesn't seem to have much connection with the Democratic Party anymore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Why? Most of the people posting are members of the Democratic Party.

The party isn't just made up of office holders.

[defendandprotect]

45. Democratic Party doesn't have much connection to the people anymore .... and agree with you !!

But it should clearly be a liberal site!

[defendandprotect]

43. Dem Party is now under control of THIRD WAY ... and "base of party to be ignored" ... !!!

according to Jonathan Cowan, Pres. of Third Way on C-span last week ---

Not only is the base to be ignored ....

POPULIST/POPULISM is to be taboo --

Cowan explained that populist discussions and debates will not be happening --

Cowan compared populist/populism to Kark Rove propaganda of extremism -- !!!


Who is going to vote for this?

[Mr Deltoid]

47. Obama's policy should be, 'Get bailed out, get broken up'

[monicamonix32]

52. That's pretty much how it usually goes for the banks. Many of the savings and loan criminals from

the 80s were prosecuted.

[monicamonix32]

50. Obama was raised by his bank vice president grandmother and business owner grandfather.

While his mother traveled the world and worked on her PhD. Obama also went to Punahou, which is a very expensive private school in Hawaii attended by many children of the wealthy. He likes to talk about being raised by a single mother who collected foodstamps. Focusing on those two pieces of information alone though is misleading. In some ways he was privileged and I don't think he identifies with people from humble origins.

Furthermore, like you said, and as other's have pointed out, Obama's appointments are baffling if you assume he's an economic progressive who's interests are aligned with those of the general public. He's definitely socially liberal and for that I'll give him credit. Economically liberal? Not so much.

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Straight from Faux News....

Looks like the OP invited a few friends to the party.

C'mon in!!

[ProSense]

53. "So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party."

Let's look at Dodd-Frank.

Here's Bernie Sanders:

<...>

More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed’s lending programs during the financial crisis.

<...>

Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.

<...>

Reich is downplaying the effects of Wall Street reform, but the law does reverse many of the policies initiated over the last couple of decades to weaken financial regulations. The Volcker rule, which is being finalized this month, is basically Glass-Steagall. There was a complaint about an exception, but the rule also addresses issues that were not covered by Glass-Steagall.

The law can be improved upon, but it is a huge step in the right direction.

Also, the overall effect of Obama's policies will be an increase in taxes on the top one percent.