Dems v. Dems
| Thu Jun. 4, 2009 10:43 PM PDT
It seems strange, almost surreal, to say this, but the Republican Party, and arguably the whole conservative movement, is not the left's biggest enemy at the moment. On keeping a public plan in healthcare reform; streamlining student lending; and passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), cap and trade, financial regulation and a host of other structural economic reforms progressives hope to enact, the GOP is more akin to the garbage men than the alderman. [Click the link for an explanation of what this analogy means. –ed.]
"Most Republicans aren't waking up every day thinking, How do we kill banking regulation?" says Goehl. "Most people who listen to Rush Limbaugh aren't waking up thinking about how do we kill banking regulation. But the people with the deep pockets who have power in DC are thinking that.
"I sometimes get frustrated because it seems like the left isn't focused on corporate power. We like to talk about the Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs, and meanwhile the American Bankers Association is one of the main entities running the country."
....While the Republican Party shrinks, corporate interests are deftly molting their old K Street Project skin and crawling en masse inside the big tent being pitched by the Democratic Party. These same corporate interests have always had a purchase on Democrats, of course. But for much of the last decade, business interests had the luxury of spending most of their resources aiding their allies in the GOP.
Chris is right: the biggest threat to the Democratic agenda these days isn't the Republican Party. It's the Democratic Party.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
All I have to say is....
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jun. 4, 2009 10:55 PM PDT.
WORD.
An easier paradigm
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 1:14 AM PDT.
That you've read before: The Money Party has two wings, Rs and Ds. Nothing in Washington gets done that is not first approved by the Money Party. No one gets past nomination to any important post who is not suitable to the Money Party. Why does everyone get wrapped up in spin and refuse to see these simple truths? Could it be that the Money Party doesn't want you to see, doesn't want you to think these thoughts?
Right idea, wrong punchline
Submitted by BigRichard on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:22 AM PDT.
In my view, the best way for progressives to position the Democratic party is that of the regulators: those people who will ensure that capitalism can continue generating wealth for everyone without degenerating into exploitive crony-capitalism.
The biggest threat is that politicians are dependent on the very monied interests they are supposed to regulate, and are getting co-opted. Those interests include big unions as well as big business. It is the entire system that is the threat, not any particular Party.
I would propose banning the use of corporate income for any political contribution, and having some sort of cap on the maximum per-person contribution to PACs, advocacy groups, and other aggregators (but much higher caps for contributions to individual election campaigns). I suppose this would be as likely as getting a single-payer health plan passed by Congress.
R
No Disrespecting the Money
Submitted by DWN (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:32 AM PDT.
Yes, money has power, but does anyone think that Rush has no part in the circus?
Now the Party of Rush, once called the Republicans, has completely self-destructed, I can only say that one party rule sucks.
But I am curious, what will the money do when they have destroyed the Democratic party too? How do they have legitimacy?
DWN
"the biggest threat to the
Submitted by Ross Best on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:50 AM PDT.
"the biggest threat to the Democratic agenda these days isn't the Republican Party. It's the Democratic Party."
Surely President Obama will save us from the Democratic Party.
Addition
Submitted by Joe S. (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:51 AM PDT.
The only thing I want to add to this is that financial services is about the smartest of the lobbies. They never contributed based on affinity; they always contributed based on strategy. Therefore, they contributed heavily to the Ds even in the out years, because they knew that they could always rely on R votes, but had to buy D votes.
Oil might be the dumbest. They contribute heavily R, no matter the circumstances. Since Rs will always vote for the ahl bidness anyway, this is a waste of their money.
Campaign finance reform,
Submitted by Marc W on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 4:20 AM PDT.
Campaign finance reform, public financing of elections. . .boring. And fraught with serious constitutional issues.
But critical to combating this rot in both parties.
Well, I would say the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 5:28 AM PDT.
Well, I would say the biggest problem in the Democratic Party are political idiots who think that a campaign to tell people the secret ballot is a dumb, stupid idea will be a winning campaign in America (EFCA of course). That and the bastards who would sell out the secret ballot as their first maneuver instead of trying to correct the problem which should be much simpler to do now that "we" are in charge. Correcting the problem would consist of making sure labor elections are scheduled promptly and properly and that existing laws are upheld.
Since idiots pushing for EFCA have such a big say these days, my suggestion is that we go back to a supposedly progressive idea from years past: pushing for instant runoff voting and proportional representation.
During GWB's reign of terror we used to talk about the importance of IRL and proportional representation in order to obtain better representation. Again, now that "we" are in charge, these sorts of reforms should be much easier to accomplish.
Instead we get Drumism.
make it as easy as purchasing an equity
Submitted by tpx on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 8:58 AM PDT.
Joining a union should be as easy as joining a capitalist collective, i.e. purchasing an equity, or purchasing an equity should be as difficult as it is to join a union for a Walmart employee.
Well, I would say the biggest problem in the Democratic Party are political idiots who think that a campaign to tell people the secret ballot is a dumb, stupid idea will be a winning campaign in America (EFCA of course). That and the bastards who would sell out the secret ballot as their first maneuver instead of trying to correct the problem which should be much simpler to do now that "we" are in charge. Correcting the problem would consist of making sure labor elections are scheduled promptly and properly and that existing laws are upheld.
No, the biggest problem is anonymous, pro-business loudmouths who continue to spread easily disproved lies about card-check legislation, which has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating the secret ballot. This insistence that labor continue to play on a field that's insanely tilted in favor of big business has everything to do with keeping unions neutered, and nothing to do with the principle of fair elections. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie.
apparently HTML tags aren't working today
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 9:27 AM PDT.
The relevant portion of anonymous's comments should have appeared in italics. I blame big business.
junebug, I'll ask you the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 9:50 AM PDT.
junebug, I'll ask you the same question I asked markg8:
If the Republicans proposed a bill, Management Free Choice Act, the MFCA, leaving the payment of minimum wage up to the management of a company, they could choose to pay the minimum wage, they just wouldn't have to, would you make the argument that there still was a minimum wage and that the MFCA doesn't do away with the minimum wage? If you would be upset with Republicans making such an argument, why?
and I'll include the same response here that I did below
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 10:19 AM PDT.
This is nothing but a grossly false equivalence. To suggest that an employer's option to eliminate existing salaried positions in favor of nonliving wages is in any way equal to workers' option to organize through majority sign up is preposterously disingenuous. This is big-business propaganda, and nothing more.
What are you talking
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 10:31 AM PDT.
What are you talking about?
"This is nothing but a grossly false equivalence. To suggest that an employer's option to eliminate existing salaried positions in favor of nonliving wages"
No, as I put it, the MFCA ONLY would allow an employer the choice of paying minimum wage to positions we currently consider to be "minimum wage jobs" or to allow the employer to not pay that wage but to pay some other wage. The MFCA would allow employers to pay the current minimum wage, it might even encourage employers to pay more than the current minimum wage, but it would allow them to pay workers less than the current minimum wage too.
So would you agree that such a bill does not do away with the minimum wage? It just leaves it to the employer.
that's not at all how you put it
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 11:30 AM PDT.
Irrespective of your evolving scenario, all you've offered is a tautology. The only reason any position is "consider[ed] to be "minimum wage"" is because it receives a minimum wage. Your supposed analogy equates an employer's option to confiscate workers' earnings with workers' option to organize through an already legally established process -- a process that employers subvert with a veto power. This simply isn't a legitimate comparison.
Scenario is not evolving at all
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 11:59 AM PDT.
You decided to put in all sorts of obfuscation about non-living wages, an employer opting to eliminate salaried positions, or the illegal confiscation of workers' earnings.
Basically "the scenario" is discussing hourly employees, currently governed by minimum wage laws set by the Feds. I am suggesting that instead of setting the minimum wage by the Feds and mandating them, we give managers the freedom of choice to pay the minimum wage or some other wage of their choosing.
By the same logic you use with the EFCA, I say that this MFCA *preserves* the minimum wage. Employees could still use a secret ballot. Managers could still pay the minimum wage. Neither is forced to.
You apparently have a hard time acknowledging this, but you are unable to explain why without going far afield and complicating the scenario or complaining that it's some sort of unfair comparison.
I don't think the MFCA preserves the minimum wage and I don't think the EFCA preserves the secret ballot and I believe we should be honest about that or do a much better job of explaining how, and why the secret ballot will be preserved and when a group of workers wanting to unionize will choose the secret ballot over the card check.
why stop there?
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:01 PM PDT.
You can make the elimination of safety regulations, overtime pay, & existing benefits the prerogative of the employer, too. Look, if business interests thought this were a winning proposition, it would have happened long ago. It's not, so it hasn't. The principle at stake here for labor isn't some sort of preservation of secret-ballot elections. Even if EFCA were to go through (regrettably, an unlikely prospect at this moment), the secret-ballot election remains as one of the means of organizing. But it's completely useless when employers thwart incipient unions through delaying tactics, vetoes, & threats of firing. Card check is is nothing new, and it's a perfectly legal way for workers to organize. If there were a problem with abuses of the system, critics would be able to point to them in Canada's 60 year history of using it. Thus far, nothing but silence.
"The principle at stake here
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 3:23 PM PDT.
"The principle at stake here for labor isn't some sort of preservation of secret-ballot elections"
Yes, I know, and that's what offends me, a non-pro business progressive on this issue.
Don't know about Canada, but here in America, we were brought up to know that the difference between "us" and "them" was the secret ballot. And now we have overreaching idiots telling us that the secret ballot isn't important and is somehow a tool of corrupt management.
It's completely horrible optics and it was a gift from us to Limbaugh and Gingrich.
So then we waffle and we way, "well, the secret ballot hasn't *really* been eliminated", but that's nonsense.
As I asked, you tell me, under what circumstances will a group of employees use a secret ballot should EFCA pass? We should stop lying to ourselves about our acts.
If my imaginary MFCA were proposed, would we say it preserved the minimum wage? Of course not. And EFCA effectively kills the secret ballot and it does it with horrible optics.
If there are problems with the NLRB, since we are in control of House Senate and Presidency, NOW is the time to fix it.
the secret-ballot ain't a holy sacrament
Submitted by junebug on Sat Jun. 6, 2009 3:10 PM PDT.
Your position is based entirely on the assumption that majority sign-up is somehow less than legal or legitimate than a secret-ballot. It's not. It's perfectly legal within the framework of the original National Labor Relations Act, and it's entirely appropriate in an environment where management has been able to game the secret-ballot system at every step of the way. As has been noted time & again, they control information that workers can receive in the workplace, they can force workers to attend antiunion meetings while at work, and they can make veiled threats to workers about job reductions, job losses, & plant closings. The idea of a sacrosanct secret-ballot fetishizes process at the expense of workers' rights, and it requires that they go about the task of organizing with one hand tied behind their collective back. Your MFCA scenario is a big-business bogeyman, and it's more than a little curious when coming from someone who identifies as "a non-pro-business progressive." The very idea of waiting for someone to step in & make big business negotiate fairly is the surest recipe for keeping the status quo. Of course, you & I are talking past one another. I'd have greater respect for the secret-ballot if there were better than 1 in 5 chance for election petitions to make their way to a first contract. Currently, there is not, and the related figures only get more depressing. You can go on worrying about optics. Some of us are more concerned with workers rights.
Anonymous
Submitted by markg8 (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 5:56 AM PDT.
Way to make the Republican argument about EFCA. Never mind that it leaves the choice of a secret ballot up to employees, not employers, and most of the bill has to do with making sure labor elections are scheduled promptly and properly and that existing laws are upheld.
And pushing for instant runoff voting and proportional representation is going to solve what?
If you want healthcare reform; streamlining student lending; and passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), cap and trade, financial regulation you're gonna have to work for it.
Yesterday at Organnizing for America I built a page to advertise an event tomorrow to push for the strongest public healthcare option we can get. Then my local township Democratic chair sent out an email blast to everybody on our list. As of this morning we have 10 people signed up. We're going to give them lit and petition forms to get signatures on for the rest of the month. We're also going to provide more info at our booth at the local town fest at the end of the month and get more sigs there. Then we're going to send those petitions to Obama, Baucus, Kennedy, Rangle and our local reps and senators.
We'll also provide contact info for all these legislators and local media so folks can write their own letters.
Grassroots organizing isn't rocket science, it just takes a little bit of your time.
Way to make the Republican
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 6:17 AM PDT.
Way to make the Republican argument about EFCA. Never mind that it leaves the choice of a secret ballot up to employees, not employers, and most of the bill has to do with making sure labor elections are scheduled promptly and properly and that existing laws are upheld.
Markg8, if the Republicans proposed a bill, MFCA, leaving the payment of minimum wage up to the management of a company, they could choose to pay the minimum wage, they just wouldn't have to, would you make the argument that there still was a minimum wage?
IRL should produce representatives much more aligned with the voters interests, and representatives much more interested in listening to and respecting their constituents, because constituents would not have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
this is nothing but a grossly false equivalence
Submitted by junebug on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 10:15 AM PDT.
To suggest that an employer's option to eliminate existing salaried positions in favor of nonliving wages is in any way equal to workers' option to organize through majority sign up is preposterously disingenuous. This is big-business propaganda, and nothing more.
the biggest threat to the
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 6:30 AM PDT.
the biggest threat to the Democratic agenda these days isn't the Republican Party. It's the Democratic Party.
Amen.
The whole thing reminds me of the Republicans touting "family values" while their membership gets caught with their pants down -- literally -- all over the place. Dems talk anti-corruption and then turn around and sell themselves to the highest bidder.
At times, the only difference between the two parties is the letter behind the name, the song and dance remains essentially the same.
Dear MotherJones webmaster stupidhead
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 6:39 AM PDT.
Is there some combination of operating system/browser/screen size in which your font decisions for blockquotes make any sort of sense?
My fault. Forgot to close
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 11:09 AM PDT.
My fault.
Forgot to close the blockquote tag. I'm too used to italics as an html tag and the blockquote thing, while not only being a pain in the ass to type out, threw me enough to forget to close to tag.
That's not your fault....
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 11:23 AM PDT.
It's still the webmaster's fault for providing crappy tools and making crappy design decisions.
odd that ralph nader has
Submitted by ltl (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 6:50 AM PDT.
odd that ralph nader has been making similar arguments for years (no diff btwn R and D, it's corporate power--monied interests), yet he gets lambasted . . . maybe it's a timing thing. you can make that sort of argument as long as the presidency is not at stake.
Art Eclectic's post
Submitted by optical weenie on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 7:09 AM PDT.
Is a test for determining the efficacy of Kevin's new progressive bifocals!
Too Obvious
Submitted by Boronx on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 8:48 AM PDT.
Is it uncool to point out that while big business is always able to get some democrats to vote for them, that they always get close to 100% of the Republicans?
Some Democrats are always going to be corrupt. Money has too much power. But the Republicans are totally corrupt. If even a handful of them were a force for good, all manner of essential legislation would pass easily.
evangelical prayer meetings or Defense Department weapons tests
Submitted by tpx on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 8:49 AM PDT.
Leftists have known Democrats are the biggest obstacle to change long before 2000. Democratic Party activists viciously attack leftists, then dine with Republicans and lobbyists at five star restaurants before attending evangelical prayer meetings or Defense Department weapons tests.
Chris is right: the biggest
Submitted by Royko on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 9:11 AM PDT.
Chris is right: the biggest threat to the Democratic agenda these days isn't the Republican Party. It's the Democratic Party.
That's not exactly what he says. I get your point, and in a sense, you're right, but your version seems to have taken the lobbyists out of the equation. I think the thing to remember is that we have to counteract the influence of lobbyists. If we just hope the Democrats will not be swayed by money, we're doomed.
I don't know. The 40
Submitted by Dan (not verified) on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 1:14 PM PDT.
I don't know. The 40 Republican Senators and their consistent opposition to almost everything the Democrats try to do makes the Democratic Party a lot more corruptible. When the Democrats need every vote that they can get to pass any legislation, corporate interests only need a couple Democrats on their side to derail (or defang) legislation.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
