Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Thomas Frank: Dems have gone from the party of the New Deal to a party defending mass inequality [View all]
from In These Times:
.....(snip).....
The book is about how the Democratic Party turned its back on working people and now pursues policies that actually increase inequality. What are the policies or ideological commitments in the Democratic Party that make you think this?
The first piece of evidence is whats happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the 30s. But he chose not to.
.....(snip).....
A lot of progressives that I talk to are pretty familiar with the idea that the Democratic Party is no longer protecting the interests of workers, but its pretty common for us to blame it on mainly the power of money in politics. But you start the book in chapter one by arguing theres actually something much deeper going on. Can you say something about that?
Money in politics is a big part of the story, but social class goes deeper than that. The Democrats have basically made their commitment [to white-collar professionals] already before money and politics became such a big deal. It worked out well for them because of money in politics. So when they chose essentially the top 10 percent of the income distribution as their most important constituents, that is the story of money.
It wasnt apparent at the time in the 70s and 80s when they made that choice. But over the years, it has become clear that that was a smart choice in terms of their ability to raise money. Organized labor, of course, is no slouch in terms of money. They have a lot of clout in dollar terms. However, they contribute and contribute to the Democrats and they almost never get their waythey dont get, say, the Employee Free Choice Act, or Bill Clinton passes NAFTA. They do have a lot of money, but their money doesnt count.
All of this happened because of the civil war within the Democratic Party. They fought with each other all the time in the 70s and the 80s. One side hadnt completely captured the party until Bill Clinton came along in the 90s. That was a moment of victory for them. ................(more)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/19084/listen-liberal-thomas-frank-democratic-party-elites-inequality
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
140 replies, 13578 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (211)
ReplyReply to this post
140 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas Frank: Dems have gone from the party of the New Deal to a party defending mass inequality [View all]
marmar
Apr 2016
OP
Frank is wrong: the GOP are the. party. of ineguality: they cut taxes on the rich:
lewebley3
Apr 2016
#76
Long past time. You have to stand for something, or you stand for nothing. nt
silvershadow
Apr 2016
#106
One does not preclude the other. That's why Sanders is going to convention. nt
silvershadow
Apr 2016
#105
The Democratic party supports sharing and caring politics: The GOP only business
lewebley3
May 2016
#139
TONIGHT: THOMAS FRANK 'Listen Liberal' | HBO Real Time with BILL MAHER, Fri April 29 10PM
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#32
K & R. Thanks for posting. Perfect timing for Thomas' appearance on Bill Maher tonite!
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#34
And the economy turned around from a 13% collapse in 1932, to a 13% boom in 1936.
forest444
Apr 2016
#82
Certainly Enthusiast! It'll be good to see Tommy on Maher tonite, and his brief
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#78
Great article! I sure suggest clicking on the link and reading it. Thanks for posting the link!!!
Akamai
Apr 2016
#5
More purity crap, same bunch of people who bash Obama reflexively.. would've hated FDR
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#10
To pretend the purist want to do anything else but complain and not work in mid term elections
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#19
You really think Hillary Rodham Clinton has ANY interest in bringing back the New Deal?
marmar
Apr 2016
#21
No, she wants to fry baby bunny rabbit ears and eat them with seal livers....:rolleyes:@HDS
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#22
If you're into HDS it is, otherwise its part of rat fucking right wing tripe spouted by either
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#55
Your posts are all vapid personal attacks with lurid catch phrase verbiage.
Bluenorthwest
Apr 2016
#119
We agree, its foolish to just talk about how people want things instead of getting things done
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#133
FDR was to the right of Trump on issues, yes... the purist would've hated FDR but fuck facts...
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#59
Perhaps some would have since income inequality increased significantly during FDR's first term.
pampango
Apr 2016
#53
There are many more issues FDR was to the right of Trump on, so no need to stop there...
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#60
... without a supporting congress then we look like a bunch of complainers.." that should've
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#128
More bullshit talk. Name one Dem who actually said he or she defends mass inequality. nt
Jitter65
Apr 2016
#17
What they do isn't influenced at all by the lack of congressional support?! REALLY?! MY GOD!!
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#20
More right wing tripe, not they did NOT have a CONTROLLING majority due to GOP Senate rules
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#26
Very brave of you to admit that even WITH a 60 vote Super Majority in the Senate,
bvar22
Apr 2016
#79
You forgot the "for 59 days" part but and so did Franks but no one would leave those little facts
uponit7771
Apr 2016
#127
It's also regular, predictable, and centered around one particular faction here
Scootaloo
Apr 2016
#109
Historically, income inequality goes down during recessions/depressions and rises coming out of them
pampango
Apr 2016
#37
The author omits contextual data from his analysis and provides a conclusion that's not accurate
Yavin4
Apr 2016
#69
My grandfather told me this years ago, the party isn't the same as when FDR was President
davidn3600
Apr 2016
#61
the result of Democrats being accused of the "too Liberal" label fed via right wing media...
tenderfoot
Apr 2016
#74
And to think that John Bohner just last night said that Bernie is the most honest in DC!
Dont call me Shirley
Apr 2016
#77
Nonsense. Hillary strongly supports Social Security, if that's what you're referring to.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#85
I know what his excuse is. But it's garbage. He's siding with the tea party on this and
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#112
President Obama, like every Democratic President since FDR, ended up strongly supporting
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#115
Obama did side with the tea party UNTIL improvements were made at the Export-Import bank.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#117
Marmar, no. 34 was for you. I was rushing earlier, sorry. So glad news of 'Listen Liberal'
appalachiablue
Apr 2016
#83
he's right. We're not pushing for unions all around the country or for increased minimum wage or for
craigmatic
Apr 2016
#97
Hillary Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate in recent history, a stab in back of working
whereisjustice
Apr 2016
#124
"Metropolitan Opera" liberals who prioritize lifestyle issues affecting 0.001% of the population
whereisjustice
May 2016
#137