In the past few days, in response to Robert Gibbs' hostile comments about the "professional left," a number of commentators have focused on whether the "left" has given President Obama enough credit for his accomplishments or been too critical of his failings. But I don't want to focus on the left. The truth is that whatever role the "left," such as it is, may have played in helping Obama win the Democratic nomination and the presidency, since then the left -- professional, amateur, or otherwise -- has had virtually no impact on the policies and strategies of the Obama administration.
What I want to focus on, instead, is a group that has had a great deal on impact on the Obama administration's policies and strategies, namely Wall Street corporate "liberals." If President Obama and the Democratic Party are in trouble with many voters who cast their ballot for them in 2008, it is because of the influence of this group, not the "professional left."
As E.J. Dionne cautioned last January:
"If you held a contest to pick the worst thing a politician could be called at this moment, my nominee would be Wall Street Liberal...About the only more unpopular combination I can think of is high-cholesterol broccoli."
Or as I warned in these pages last December:
"As it increasingly appears that Obama is the President of Wall Street, and not the President of Main Street, he is losing not only the left but the center. It's a myth that the path to winning the popular center in American politics is moving to the corporate center. If the only political choice given to American voters is using their taxes to help big government subsidize wealthy corporations, or the Republican message of shrinking the size of government and cutting their taxes, many who voted for Obama will return to the fold of the seemingly brain-dead Republican Party. Obama will likely face an even more conservative Congress after the 2010 election and even, like Jimmy Carter, could end up as a one-term President."
Unfortunately, as Democrats passed a health reform bill filled with special interest deals with drug companies and for-profit hospitals, a financial reform bill that didn't cut Too Big To Fail Banks down to size, and failed to enact policies to stem the tide of long-term unemployment, the perception that Democrats buckle under to corporate big money interests over the interests of the middle class majority has begun to take root in many who voted for Obama. Republicans -- whose only policy prescription other than "No" is trickle down tax cuts for the wealthy -- only need to sit on the sidelines to reap the benefits...
...
As it turns out, Corporate Liberalism, or Wall Street Liberalism, despite claims of pragmatism, leads to both bad policy and bad political strategy. As policy, the Democrats' health care bill fails to contain rising costs while forcing uninsured Americans to buy unaffordable policies from private insurers or be fined by the IRS. The financial reform bill does nothing to limit the size Too Big to Fail financial institutions which is likely to insure another round of bubbles, bursts, and bailouts. The stimulus package was too small, and too weighted to tax cuts, to make a sufficient impact on long-term unemployment. As political strategy, corporate liberalism makes it appear that Democrats favor powerful corporate interests over the middle class and disillusions voters.
If the only choice voters are offered is between corporate Democrats whom they perceive as using their taxes to subsidize corporations and banks, and not primarilly to benefit and strengthen the working and middle class, and right-wing Repubicans who promise to cut their taxes, many voters who supported Obama and the Democrats in 2008 will go back to the Republicans or stay home.
Despite this, most of the "professional left" whom Gibbs attacked, are likely to remain the Democrats' best foot soldiers come election time in the fall, loyally knocking on doors, making calls, and sending contributions. If, as now seems likely, Democrats face a big defeat in November, perhaps even losing their majority in the House or even the Senate, it won't be because of the "professional left." It will be because of voters' perceptions, largely correct, that Washington Democrats are dominated by Wall Street liberals.
More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/its-wall-street-corporate_b_681746.html*Reasonable take, though I take some issue with Mogulescu's over broad definition of "liberal"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
