The author makes a strong argument that campaign financing is increasingly determined by the rich. But the argument that Democrats have therefore become weak in terms of social policy is passed on undocumented invective, not data. The fact is that Democrats in the mold of Obama and Clinton are vastly more likely to support workers' rights, higher taxes on the rich, increased health care coverage, educational opportunity, needed regulation of finanical instiutions and business, and many other social programs than are Republicans. The only thing holding back the Democrats is Repbulican opposition. The author has failed to make a causal link between the sources of Democratic campaign financing and threats to social programming. Indeed, the Democrats would restrict disporportionate participation of the wealthy in campaigns if not prevented to do so by the Republican majority in Congress.
11
"the mainstream of the Democratic Party supports centrist positions ranging from expanded free trade to stricter control of the government budget to time limits on welfare for the poor."
Don't get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool social liberal. I am not going to provide description for fear of making the Times censors blush and whip out their blue markers.
But yes I have had the feeling for a while now that I have to choose: do I want to be able to buy mary jane in the drug store, kiss my boyfriend in the street, dye my hair blue and wear a bone in my nose and worship the Goddess?
Or do I want trade policies that protect our jobs, tax policies that share the wealth better, and a shot at a middle class life for my kids?
Again, don't get me wrong. I am a social liberal to the bone. But I begin to believe that a populist agenda can only succeed if I hold my nose and look a bit more like all those 'Reagan Democrats' and hide my eccentricities from my new strange bedfellows and ignore their tendency to drag their knuckles when they walk. I will ignore the gun he keeps under his pillow to protect against Muslims, and nod yes when he asks me if I like the taste of communion crackers.
It is in this spirit that I look at Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and try to decide which horse to bet on. Sanders has my heart. But my head still wanders to Trump and wonders if some of that nastiness might just be the ingredient a populist candidate needs to win.
Don't get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool social liberal. I am not going to provide description for fear of making the Times censors blush and whip out their blue markers.
But yes I have had the feeling for a while now that I have to choose: do I want to be able to buy mary jane in the drug store, kiss my boyfriend in the street, dye my hair blue and wear a bone in my nose and worship the Goddess?
Or do I want trade policies that protect our jobs, tax policies that share the wealth better, and a shot at a middle class life for my kids?
Again, don't get me wrong. I am a social liberal to the bone. But I begin to believe that a populist agenda can only succeed if I hold my nose and look a bit more like all those 'Reagan Democrats' and hide my eccentricities from my new strange bedfellows and ignore their tendency to drag their knuckles when they walk. I will ignore the gun he keeps under his pillow to protect against Muslims, and nod yes when he asks me if I like the taste of communion crackers.
It is in this spirit that I look at Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and try to decide which horse to bet on. Sanders has my heart. But my head still wanders to Trump and wonders if some of that nastiness might just be the ingredient a populist candidate needs to win.
3
So democrats and republicans both support limits on financial support for those who are unemployed.
Should there be limits on financial support for those who never worked, those who inherited huge fortunes, like the art-collecting Koch brother or the yacht-champion Koch brother?
The rich get welfare like farm subsidies to people like Michelle Bachmann, already many times a millionaire. The poor get welfare with limits, like food stamps.
The rest of us should also get welfare! Welfare for All! This would eliminate poverty and level the playing field. It has been tried in Canada and it works. A limited version applies in Alaska, where everyone gets an annual oil royalty check.
To see this and other great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
Should there be limits on financial support for those who never worked, those who inherited huge fortunes, like the art-collecting Koch brother or the yacht-champion Koch brother?
The rich get welfare like farm subsidies to people like Michelle Bachmann, already many times a millionaire. The poor get welfare with limits, like food stamps.
The rest of us should also get welfare! Welfare for All! This would eliminate poverty and level the playing field. It has been tried in Canada and it works. A limited version applies in Alaska, where everyone gets an annual oil royalty check.
To see this and other great ideas go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then send a buck to Bernie Sanders and invite me to speak to your group. Thanks.
5
AACNY: I would not go that far. But EDSALL's point is that w have less of a choice than we think when we enter the voting booth.Differences in ideological and social issues are a "faux fuyant" , a smoke screen to hide the fact that both parties r controlled by the wealthy and that the major goals of politicians is (a)personal enrichment networking of contacts while in office to obtain a sinecure once out of office and (b) of tertiary importance, recognition for having done a creditable job for his or her constituents. EDSALL's piece is an eye opener.There r exceptions, politicians who r dedicated to public service--LIZ KRUEGER is one in a million-- but most incarnate the cynicism which EDSALL has made the subject of his piece..
4
On the surface, this might seem interesting, but I think a little longer timeline is important. We all know that following disastrous elections in 1984 and 1988, Democrats turned away from the likes of Mondale and Dukakis and their pleas for economic redistribution as a contrast to the Reagan pursuit of self-interest, and embraced the so-called New Democrats embodied in Clinton. That promoted economic growth and simultaneously squeezed the poor in welfare reform and threw huge numbers of minority citizens in prison for drug offenses. But confusing the connection between neo-liberal Democrats and affluent donors with a corruption of traditional Democratic values may be a step too far. Remember that FDR's financial base in 1932 was Wall Street, and Bernard Baruch was his principal sponsor in that community; already in 1928, Wall Street was leaning toward Al Smith. Though it seems counterintuitive, monied interests realized that it was in their best interests to sponsor candidates that promoted the general rather than personal welfare, and that to get the economy moving again, the next president would need to take a broader view than what was good for the donor class. Perhaps we can hope for something similar this year, and wealthy donors and Bernie Sanders will come to an understanding of a more enlightened economic policy.
2
The corny capitalism that Obama and Clinton practice get many very wealth individuals and companies to join the Democrats.
It works like this
1. Register as a Democrat
2. Apply for a federal or state government grant/loan or no bid contract".
3. The company can be on paper only, no business plan, building, work force or infrastructure necessary, just a post office box and a bank account.
4. Make it known that you with make a really big campaign contribution to Obama or any other democrat in the leadership.
5. Apply for a multi-million grant/loan/no bid contract
6. After you get the money pay yourself, your wife kids and friends >1 Million/year plus even bigger bonus.
7. Pay your taxes but take every possible tax deduction and loop hole.
8. Make the contribution.
9. Declare the company bankrupt when all the money is gone and retire on the money you have saved up.
10. Do not talk to the press or congress
It works like this
1. Register as a Democrat
2. Apply for a federal or state government grant/loan or no bid contract".
3. The company can be on paper only, no business plan, building, work force or infrastructure necessary, just a post office box and a bank account.
4. Make it known that you with make a really big campaign contribution to Obama or any other democrat in the leadership.
5. Apply for a multi-million grant/loan/no bid contract
6. After you get the money pay yourself, your wife kids and friends >1 Million/year plus even bigger bonus.
7. Pay your taxes but take every possible tax deduction and loop hole.
8. Make the contribution.
9. Declare the company bankrupt when all the money is gone and retire on the money you have saved up.
10. Do not talk to the press or congress
1
It's just amazing ... Edsall not only notices that there is a difference between Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia, but that half of donations to the Democrats' candidates are coming from wealthy or super-rich people, and that the panoply of issues concerning the public isn't limited to gay rights and abortion, after all.
Hopefully his employer will recognize the value of having him outside the New York City culture elite bubble, in the wilderness, and will finance food and shelter for Edsall through his odyssey. It will be like a Lewis & Clark expedition, only for Upper Eastside types reading along with him as he goes.
Hopefully his employer will recognize the value of having him outside the New York City culture elite bubble, in the wilderness, and will finance food and shelter for Edsall through his odyssey. It will be like a Lewis & Clark expedition, only for Upper Eastside types reading along with him as he goes.
3
There is nothing surprising that social conservatism trumps
social liberalism.
Nixon's silent majority was post JFK 1960s social conservatism's reaction
to fears of women's lib, libertine behavior, hippies and drugs.
Radio talk shows are seemingly also most about appealing to listeners re social issues rather than their "purely economic-interests."
"Economic determinism" is unclear, because I prefer "culture determinism," which handily covers much more dynamics & complexities that interrelate than dry "economics."
The late 1960s NYC cynical/humorous populist expression "limousine liberal" is about the hatred of the "American left liberal class social interests" observed as (seemingly) reaction to elitism.
If I'm herein distorting/exaggerating, then I wish it weren't harsh/candid reality to me, struggling to understand economic/cultural phenomena at least since the 1960s.
social liberalism.
Nixon's silent majority was post JFK 1960s social conservatism's reaction
to fears of women's lib, libertine behavior, hippies and drugs.
Radio talk shows are seemingly also most about appealing to listeners re social issues rather than their "purely economic-interests."
"Economic determinism" is unclear, because I prefer "culture determinism," which handily covers much more dynamics & complexities that interrelate than dry "economics."
The late 1960s NYC cynical/humorous populist expression "limousine liberal" is about the hatred of the "American left liberal class social interests" observed as (seemingly) reaction to elitism.
If I'm herein distorting/exaggerating, then I wish it weren't harsh/candid reality to me, struggling to understand economic/cultural phenomena at least since the 1960s.
1
I don't think there's been a single President in US history -- save maybe Cheney -- who loved the 1% more than Obama. Obama, he's taken away tens of thousands of dollars in Medicare benefit from America's elderly with his recent team-up Medicare bill with Republican John Boehner. The effect of that bill will devastate many American elderly. Even GOP frontrunner Trump and his also-ran opponent Jeb Bush both favor eliminating the "carried interest" tax loophole for billionaires. But Obama, the most he'll say about "carried interest" is that there's no proof it helps the economy. In other words, Obama, he's not against giving the wealthy massive tax loopholes unavailable to the middle class. Just that there's no evidence it helps the economy. But he's fine with giving the 1% what they want anyway. This kind of "take from the 99% and give to the 1%" nonsense coming from a Democrat President? Sheesh!
7
"How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich"?
That's an easy one. They had to compete. As the commercial says "ya gotta be in it to win it". But really, its an unfair question. The two parties play within the electoral system as it is which, in America, is mostly defined by the parties themselves. Any party that does not utilize all the (legal) tools available to compete is putting itself at a disadvantage in the contest. (Full disclosure: I think our privatized electoral system is a mess and a disservice to our nation)
The better question would be "If Democrats Get the Most Votes, Why Are They the Minority Party in Congress?"
That's an easy one. They had to compete. As the commercial says "ya gotta be in it to win it". But really, its an unfair question. The two parties play within the electoral system as it is which, in America, is mostly defined by the parties themselves. Any party that does not utilize all the (legal) tools available to compete is putting itself at a disadvantage in the contest. (Full disclosure: I think our privatized electoral system is a mess and a disservice to our nation)
The better question would be "If Democrats Get the Most Votes, Why Are They the Minority Party in Congress?"
4
The Democrats are still finding themselves and are not necessarily winning the swing districts. As they move closer and closer to positions that are either supporting grievance groups, or supporting the corporate policies that are in direct conflict with their core voters, they risk alienating many of their traditional supporters.
They may have new constituencies, such are the more educated and affluent, but their success with this group is based as much on the lack of coherent message from the Republican party as much as a unified and coherent message from their Democratic candidates.
I'm not impressed with this gain. They're taking their base voters for granted and sooner or later, as happened in the 2014 elections, those voters may not support them blindly.
They may have new constituencies, such are the more educated and affluent, but their success with this group is based as much on the lack of coherent message from the Republican party as much as a unified and coherent message from their Democratic candidates.
I'm not impressed with this gain. They're taking their base voters for granted and sooner or later, as happened in the 2014 elections, those voters may not support them blindly.
4
"How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich"? They got to party with Hillary and Bill at the Whitehouse for either cash or an IOU....
5
In a study paper published in 2014 Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page concluded that the U.S. is an oligarchy. Here's a quote: "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
This coincides with the data referenced by Mr. Edsall (in this op-ed).
That being the case, I'm very surprised there hasn't been more of a movement for average people to move towards a participatory democracy model where people -- after having come to the conclusion that the system is utterly corrupt and unresponsive -- start organizing themselves in communities to tackle important issues, bypassing corrupt institutions as much as possible.
First thing: withdraw your support from all things corporate (as much as humanly possible); buy from locally own businesses. Rethink your patronizing of (often-predatory) tech companies (Google, Facebook, Uber, Twitter) Reach out to members in your community an form co-ops (real estate, employee-owned businesses, local food). Bottom line, YOU have lots of (dormant) power now being exploited by the corporate overlords. Some of this is already happening in other countries. Look it up: Community-Based Participatory Democracy.
This coincides with the data referenced by Mr. Edsall (in this op-ed).
That being the case, I'm very surprised there hasn't been more of a movement for average people to move towards a participatory democracy model where people -- after having come to the conclusion that the system is utterly corrupt and unresponsive -- start organizing themselves in communities to tackle important issues, bypassing corrupt institutions as much as possible.
First thing: withdraw your support from all things corporate (as much as humanly possible); buy from locally own businesses. Rethink your patronizing of (often-predatory) tech companies (Google, Facebook, Uber, Twitter) Reach out to members in your community an form co-ops (real estate, employee-owned businesses, local food). Bottom line, YOU have lots of (dormant) power now being exploited by the corporate overlords. Some of this is already happening in other countries. Look it up: Community-Based Participatory Democracy.
4
The Times finally acknowledges a phenomena that has existed for almost 2 1/2 decades: from New Deal to "raw deal", the Democratic party has become Republican-Lite, with predictable consequences on income inequality.
https://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/growth-in-incom...
https://acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/growth-in-incom...
5
One of the commentators below opined "Democracy is based on the principle of 1 person=1 vote...now it's $1=1 vote." In addition to being factually incorrect, it's also contradictory. The wealthy are not "buying votes" on some sort of electoral market exchange. Politicians are still getting elected 1 ballot at a time. So what accounts for money's influence?
Teleport yourself back to 1935 and virtually every American who voted "belonged" to some kind of community organization. Just look at a city directory or read an old newspaper. Be it the Oddfellow, Sons of Herman, American Legion, or Brotherhood of Locomotive operators, political opinions were mediated by a host of associations. Congressmen at the time didn't have "town halls": they were guests of community groups. Today those civic associations have disappeared, replaced by so many gym memberships and churchified religious groups.
The logic of consumer capitalism has nationalized all politics and transformed the electorate into an inchoate mass of atomized consumer retail voters. What money buys is market share and that's why "issues" all seem so vacuous and emotionally overwrought. Anglo-Saxon democracy was traditionally based on political associations, classes and interest groups vying for some gain. Today it's mass elections where candidates associate themselves with a partisan "brand" and the success of this year's national advertising campaign.
Teleport yourself back to 1935 and virtually every American who voted "belonged" to some kind of community organization. Just look at a city directory or read an old newspaper. Be it the Oddfellow, Sons of Herman, American Legion, or Brotherhood of Locomotive operators, political opinions were mediated by a host of associations. Congressmen at the time didn't have "town halls": they were guests of community groups. Today those civic associations have disappeared, replaced by so many gym memberships and churchified religious groups.
The logic of consumer capitalism has nationalized all politics and transformed the electorate into an inchoate mass of atomized consumer retail voters. What money buys is market share and that's why "issues" all seem so vacuous and emotionally overwrought. Anglo-Saxon democracy was traditionally based on political associations, classes and interest groups vying for some gain. Today it's mass elections where candidates associate themselves with a partisan "brand" and the success of this year's national advertising campaign.
3
I'm not sure I see the conflict here -- there are many affluent people who are progressives and liberals (how about all those Hollywood types the Republicans like to rail against?). And support from the wealthy doesn't have to that the Democratic Party will struggle for the votes of those who aren't affluent. At some level, this article seems to assume that the rich will, by definition, only support those who will protect and increase their affluence, and that their support therefore calls into question the Democrats' liberal/progressive bona fides. Surely, not all affluent people are GOP-style plutocrats worshipping at the shrine of Ayn Rand.
2
The reality is that the Democrats, for years, have been saying one thing and doing another and their rank and file are too stupid to recognize it. How have working people gained from current free trade policies and the deregulation of the financials? Short term - maybe here and there, but long term these policies have led to declines in the level and growth of regular wages. Reducing certain tax rates unlocked some heady times and helped working people temporarily, but long term, have increased income inequality and have resulted in most gains going to the elite. The same was true for easy mortgages and deregulation. We now have lower growth rates and less opportunity... That's a fact.
I think diehard Democrats today are mostly concerned with issues related to genitalia. They really don't care about the bread and butter issues that were the reason most working people and their families became Democrats in the first place. I can't stand the issues of genitalia because they are a purposeful distraction from the fact that members of both parties are literally giving away the equity of the middle class to the elite via tax breaks, free trade, and deregulation of the financials and our country is being hollowed out and milked out in the process.
Bernie Sanders is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands this and is honestly articulating what is happening and what the long term consequences are to the nation. I won't vote for anybody else.
I think diehard Democrats today are mostly concerned with issues related to genitalia. They really don't care about the bread and butter issues that were the reason most working people and their families became Democrats in the first place. I can't stand the issues of genitalia because they are a purposeful distraction from the fact that members of both parties are literally giving away the equity of the middle class to the elite via tax breaks, free trade, and deregulation of the financials and our country is being hollowed out and milked out in the process.
Bernie Sanders is the only Presidential candidate who truly understands this and is honestly articulating what is happening and what the long term consequences are to the nation. I won't vote for anybody else.
6
The Democrats' move toward the center in the 90's meant that the lighter touch of a Democrat in your wallet became way less objectionable than the Religious Zealot the GOP wanted to put the bedroom. As the Democrats move back toward the loopy left on crime and economics this is likely to change.
1
Democrats became the favorites of the prosperous and educated as Republican ideology has turned increasingly toward extremist misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic and racist viewpoints.
20 years ago, I had conversations with educated and thoughtful friends who were conservative Republicans.
As the definition of conservative in the Republican party has shifted to gun toting knuckle-draggers who believe the world is 6,000 years old, those bright, educated friends fled the Republican party in droves.
Now, Republican extremists are more interested in protecting a zygote (while preventing all methods of birth control), yet could care less about the 30,000 people a year killed because of gun proliferation.
The modern Republican party bares little resemblance to Goldwater or Reagan.
The solid red center of the country also overlap with the poorest states: Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.
These folks will choose their biases over the economic interests every day of the week, which is why they stay mired in poverty.
Sensible, educated people understand the environment matters, climate change is a crisis, renewable clean energy is essential, infrastructure is critical to the economy, and tax policy favors passive investors over wage earners as a result of special interests and lobbyists.
Perhaps the poor favor Republican policies because it makes more of them.
20 years ago, I had conversations with educated and thoughtful friends who were conservative Republicans.
As the definition of conservative in the Republican party has shifted to gun toting knuckle-draggers who believe the world is 6,000 years old, those bright, educated friends fled the Republican party in droves.
Now, Republican extremists are more interested in protecting a zygote (while preventing all methods of birth control), yet could care less about the 30,000 people a year killed because of gun proliferation.
The modern Republican party bares little resemblance to Goldwater or Reagan.
The solid red center of the country also overlap with the poorest states: Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.
These folks will choose their biases over the economic interests every day of the week, which is why they stay mired in poverty.
Sensible, educated people understand the environment matters, climate change is a crisis, renewable clean energy is essential, infrastructure is critical to the economy, and tax policy favors passive investors over wage earners as a result of special interests and lobbyists.
Perhaps the poor favor Republican policies because it makes more of them.
6
"Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters." Except for Bernie Sanders, whom my beloved NYT seems to want to ignore.
5
Just look at the NY Times -- the progressive liberal's Bible. Who else can buy all that ridiculously overpriced real estate, art and clothing that serves as the NY Times' advertising base? Where else can you see an op-ed complaining about the Republicans' indifference to the poor juxtaposed next to an advertisement for a $5000 handbag?
14
Democráts have always been the party of the rich. They have been hidden by the lies of the media.
4
All of the wailing and gnashing of teeth in these comments neglects a single salient point: the electorate, those who can actually be bothered to vote, have a BIG case of Democratic President Fatigue after the Obama years. I don't think any Democrat stands much of a chance of being elected next year.
5
This article touches on something that has troubled me about the Democrats for years: their focus on social issues as a way to gain public support, while allowing the investor class to dictate economic policy.
I am genuinely happy for my gay friends who now have the ability to marry, and the reduction of discrimination against gays. I suppose the next big issue for the Democrats will be getting "equal Pay" for women. Great, this is something that needs to be done, but it will mainly benefit college educated white women, who dominate our colleges and universities.
But the real determinate of the wellbeing of the American people is economic policy, which has been driven by the investor class. The result is stagnation of wages, loss of family wage jobs, outsourcing, etc. Ah, but the stock market has soared, so the investors are happy to spend political capital on social issues. Its not that such rights for citizens are not important, but its a matter of priorities, and gaining these rights has alienated a large part of the electorate as Edsall points out. This comes at the expense of other things that might have been accomplished. During this same period, we have fought 2 disastrous wars, and generated a huge cohort of veterans who's suffering from PTSD, TBI, loss of limbs, etc is surely worse than not being able to marry whom you want. And of course, the big elephant in the room are racial issues that have been swept under the rug for decades.
I am genuinely happy for my gay friends who now have the ability to marry, and the reduction of discrimination against gays. I suppose the next big issue for the Democrats will be getting "equal Pay" for women. Great, this is something that needs to be done, but it will mainly benefit college educated white women, who dominate our colleges and universities.
But the real determinate of the wellbeing of the American people is economic policy, which has been driven by the investor class. The result is stagnation of wages, loss of family wage jobs, outsourcing, etc. Ah, but the stock market has soared, so the investors are happy to spend political capital on social issues. Its not that such rights for citizens are not important, but its a matter of priorities, and gaining these rights has alienated a large part of the electorate as Edsall points out. This comes at the expense of other things that might have been accomplished. During this same period, we have fought 2 disastrous wars, and generated a huge cohort of veterans who's suffering from PTSD, TBI, loss of limbs, etc is surely worse than not being able to marry whom you want. And of course, the big elephant in the room are racial issues that have been swept under the rug for decades.
3
Democrats became the favorites of the rich because it is possible for narrow-minded people to become very successful in technology when they are young. These young simpletons (consider Sergei Brin who heads the incredibly arrogant Google) think that no norms of society are useful and that whatever pleases them at the moment is good for them and society. This coincides with the Democrats social views.
These rich people have so much money that whether the government takes a million or two doesn't matter to them. Also, their wealth allows them to bypass the barriers and channels of government that the average citizen must navigate which is another reason they have no concern for the higher taxes and regulations that burden small businesspersons. (For instance, a small landowner has no way to market land deemed wetlands by the government [my family endured this problem in Florida] but wealthy people can simply buy access and results.) So the wealthy can use the Democrats predilection for regulation and control to hurt small business competitors.
JD
JD
These rich people have so much money that whether the government takes a million or two doesn't matter to them. Also, their wealth allows them to bypass the barriers and channels of government that the average citizen must navigate which is another reason they have no concern for the higher taxes and regulations that burden small businesspersons. (For instance, a small landowner has no way to market land deemed wetlands by the government [my family endured this problem in Florida] but wealthy people can simply buy access and results.) So the wealthy can use the Democrats predilection for regulation and control to hurt small business competitors.
JD
JD
3
This is all-to-common horse-blinded social science research. It is oblivious to the fact that one of the two parties has actively sought to enact universal healthcare reform; raise taxes on the wealthy; reduce taxes on the working poor; broaden environmental, safety, and public health regulation; expand and defend Progressive Era reforms and New Deal/Great Society redistributive programs; and preserve the franchise for all Americans, while the other party, well, does not.
Yes, Democrats were complicit in dismantling regulation of the banks, and some Democrats have supported other economically and fiscally regressive policies. On the other hand, GOPs have supported them in lockstep. The records of the two parties on these issues is crystal clear.
This research is also oblivious to the powerful influence of one party's integrated propaganda machine, and overlooks the fact that, over the past decade, its .o1% contributors have decimated the state and local farm systems of the other party.
An interesting but also clueless analysis.
Yes, Democrats were complicit in dismantling regulation of the banks, and some Democrats have supported other economically and fiscally regressive policies. On the other hand, GOPs have supported them in lockstep. The records of the two parties on these issues is crystal clear.
This research is also oblivious to the powerful influence of one party's integrated propaganda machine, and overlooks the fact that, over the past decade, its .o1% contributors have decimated the state and local farm systems of the other party.
An interesting but also clueless analysis.
Get over yourself, Tom. The Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of the rich. And the arrogant. And the pseudo-intellectual.
Consider the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Johnsons and even Hubert Humphrey. All making hundreds of millions from the sale of their offices and their status as 'public servants'.
Remember Hilary and Bill looting the White House on their last day in office?
Consider the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Johnsons and even Hubert Humphrey. All making hundreds of millions from the sale of their offices and their status as 'public servants'.
Remember Hilary and Bill looting the White House on their last day in office?
7
This article explains why the Obama administration has been so lax in prosecution of individual white collar criminals (financial crisis, GM ignition switch, etc): you can't send the donor base to jail....
4
The extremely wealthy are moving towards the Democrat party because they recognize how the ever increasing regulation burden driven by democratic leadership, under the false pretense of helping the citizens, creates the largest barrier of entry for potential competition from growing small and mid-size businesses. The regulations are too burdensome (ACA for example) and a small or mid-size company will halt growth just to avoid having to being subject to them.
3
Thanks to citizens united tapping rich donors is essential to survival. Dems are not stupid.
Seems like what you're saying is that the Democrats would have to give up on the culture wars if they want to be a more successful party.But what a nasty world we would have if we have to go back to such things as arresting gay people on sodomy laws, and forcing many women to deadly back alley abortions. There doesn't seem to be a way out of this mess for the Democrats.
One party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street. The other party is a partially owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
4
Very wealthy Republicans and Democrats both send their kids to the same schools, they go to the same country clubs, eat in the same restaurants, shop in the same stores, vacation or summer in the same places, live in the same neighborhoods or buildings, hire the same household help and at times even attend the same religious congregations. Sometimes they even inter-marry! There is less and less of a chasm between the two and they're more chummy then we think they are. One's got narrower stripes that's all. Or maybe a bigger yacht.
4
Comparing income quintiles is silly. The issue of income inequality is buried in the "top" 20% of voters. Given the tendency of low income voters to sit out elections (especially in red states requiring ID's), it is a testment to the importance of redistribution that the lowest income quintile contributed as many votes to Obama as the top quintile. How did PBO do among the top 1%?
1
Q: "How did Democrats become favorites of the rich?"
A: Most Democratic candidates are sane: and electing crazy people to run the country is not good for profits.
A: Most Democratic candidates are sane: and electing crazy people to run the country is not good for profits.
3
Democrats are very tight with Wall Street and our loanshark banks, and very on-board with open-borders immigration. What's not to like? Looters and cheap-labor importers get everything they want. There's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans on these issues - really the only ones that matter. (Sorry, blacklivesmattter.) Each party has different cover stories for their bases, but both answer the same phone calls. ...And get 'er done.
4
What you call "centrist" economic policies are actually center-right, at best. That's where Bernie gets his (our) support.
1
In order to prosper in the future, the United States needs healthy, well-educated citizens. It needs to welcome qualified immigrants. It needs to have functional bridges and highways. It needs to be at peace. It needs to be a secular society. Ultimately these things are good for the bottom line.
Smart people understand that cutting taxes to the point where health, safety and infrastructure are impacted may lead to a short term windfall, but will beggar our nation. And so many wealthy people have concluded that they can't really afford to vote for the party of ignorance.
Smart people understand that cutting taxes to the point where health, safety and infrastructure are impacted may lead to a short term windfall, but will beggar our nation. And so many wealthy people have concluded that they can't really afford to vote for the party of ignorance.
1
What this article really demonstrates is the divergent interests of voters and donors. The party is pulled one way by donors and yet another way by prospective voters.
This has been in the working for some time.
In November 2014, The New York Times, reported on the reelection of Democratic Governor Cuomo : "Awash in Campaign Cash, Cuomo Benefited From Big Donors and Loopholes"
"As of last month, Mr. Cuomo received 81 percent of his contributions from donors who gave him at least $10,000, according to the Nypirg analysis. Donors giving less than $1,000 accounted for only seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total haul"
Think about it.
In November 2014, The New York Times, reported on the reelection of Democratic Governor Cuomo : "Awash in Campaign Cash, Cuomo Benefited From Big Donors and Loopholes"
"As of last month, Mr. Cuomo received 81 percent of his contributions from donors who gave him at least $10,000, according to the Nypirg analysis. Donors giving less than $1,000 accounted for only seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total haul"
Think about it.
11
OK. I've thought about it. How many small contributions did Rob Astorino get? didn't think so.
1
Not enuf rich?
So the democrats are the party of the .01 percent?
7
Yes, the Democrats are one wing of the party of the 0.01% and the Republicans are the other wing of that party. Both wings have been bought and paid for by their wealthy sponsors.
No plutocrat would want to be associated with the Party of No, deniers of science, acolytes of Ayn Rand, Grump Old People, etc. They have to go somewhere...
I guess we should re-title this article
"How the Democrats stole New York"
"How the Democrats stole New York"
3
To say politics in America is frustrating is a gross understatement. One just has to look at our gun laws verses the opinion of the majority. A heaping majority favors universal background checks and, to a slightly lesser degree, a ban on assault weapons. Yet we can't get "our" government to do anything about it because the gun lobby is more powerful than the American majority.
Here in Mississippi, there's an initiative on the ballot, Initiative 42, that would guarantee that Mississippi's schools would be fully funded (because presently they're not being fully funded.) The governor, and other Republicans, are fighting it in the worst way. They've introduced Initiative 42A. The wording is very confusing. One county has already printed the ballots and didn't bother to include the "A," so now there's 2 Initiative 42s on their ballot. Also, the conservative opposition has been running misleading ads claiming that Initiative 42 will put the decision making regarding how much it will cost tax payers to fund schools in the hands of a single liberal judge. It's all so dishonest, yet they're getting away with it. There's nothing to stop America's political corruption. It makes me sick.
For the first time in my life, I've become a one issue voter. I'll support the candidate who has a serious plan to take money out of our political system. So far Bernie Sanders has my vote.
Here in Mississippi, there's an initiative on the ballot, Initiative 42, that would guarantee that Mississippi's schools would be fully funded (because presently they're not being fully funded.) The governor, and other Republicans, are fighting it in the worst way. They've introduced Initiative 42A. The wording is very confusing. One county has already printed the ballots and didn't bother to include the "A," so now there's 2 Initiative 42s on their ballot. Also, the conservative opposition has been running misleading ads claiming that Initiative 42 will put the decision making regarding how much it will cost tax payers to fund schools in the hands of a single liberal judge. It's all so dishonest, yet they're getting away with it. There's nothing to stop America's political corruption. It makes me sick.
For the first time in my life, I've become a one issue voter. I'll support the candidate who has a serious plan to take money out of our political system. So far Bernie Sanders has my vote.
29
Trying to get money out of our system is a fool's errand. Big money is the latest big bogyman of those who are unhappy. If it's not money, it's something else. Obama pandered to the Hispanic Caucus and Hispanic activists by easing up on immigration enforcement. Politicians are bought with bloc votes as well as money.
6
"Trying to get money out of our system is a fool's errand."
Yes, so was independence from England; so was getting women the right to vote; so was civil rights for blacks; so was legalizing gay marriage.
You know, it's really disappointing when you see someone take a position that they know is wrong, but because they feel it benefits them, or furthers their political positions, they dawn the cap and act accordingly. Our system has been corrupted by money and any American who cares about their country needs to apply pressure to end it whenever and where ever it's possible until we gain our independence from England; women get the right to vote; black Americans gain equal rights; and same sex couples gain the right to marry.
Yes, so was independence from England; so was getting women the right to vote; so was civil rights for blacks; so was legalizing gay marriage.
You know, it's really disappointing when you see someone take a position that they know is wrong, but because they feel it benefits them, or furthers their political positions, they dawn the cap and act accordingly. Our system has been corrupted by money and any American who cares about their country needs to apply pressure to end it whenever and where ever it's possible until we gain our independence from England; women get the right to vote; black Americans gain equal rights; and same sex couples gain the right to marry.
Here in America the Democrats worked with Big Insurance to write the ACA/Obamacare law.
Dems claimed they would make the systems more efficient so they could cover more people and still lower costs.
Dems claimed people who already had insurance would experience no bad effects, no price raises, and we could keep our plans and our doctors, period.
Dems claimed that every family who had insurance at the time would save $2,500 and no one would be hurt or taxed more or see higher prices.
Dems told horrific lies and sent bigger profits than ever to Big Insurance because now Americans are required to have insurance by law.
Dems are so corrupt they used hundreds of millions of dollars to pay off their corrupt cronies in states like Maryland, Oregon, and Hawaii for websites that never worked for even a day.
Growing the goverrnment the way Bernie wants to grow it will only increase corruption. Big government gets targeted by special interests because it has all that money to hand out. Supporting Bernie means supporting corruption on a grand scale.
I'm a one issue voter on illegal immigration because of the massive damage it does to our public education, public resources, tax base, social services, and because it drives down wages on working class and working poor Americans while making the rich even richer even faster (according to the CBO).
I care about corruption also (amnesty is corruption) so I'm supporting the only candidate who has never taken special interest money -- Trump!
Dems claimed they would make the systems more efficient so they could cover more people and still lower costs.
Dems claimed people who already had insurance would experience no bad effects, no price raises, and we could keep our plans and our doctors, period.
Dems claimed that every family who had insurance at the time would save $2,500 and no one would be hurt or taxed more or see higher prices.
Dems told horrific lies and sent bigger profits than ever to Big Insurance because now Americans are required to have insurance by law.
Dems are so corrupt they used hundreds of millions of dollars to pay off their corrupt cronies in states like Maryland, Oregon, and Hawaii for websites that never worked for even a day.
Growing the goverrnment the way Bernie wants to grow it will only increase corruption. Big government gets targeted by special interests because it has all that money to hand out. Supporting Bernie means supporting corruption on a grand scale.
I'm a one issue voter on illegal immigration because of the massive damage it does to our public education, public resources, tax base, social services, and because it drives down wages on working class and working poor Americans while making the rich even richer even faster (according to the CBO).
I care about corruption also (amnesty is corruption) so I'm supporting the only candidate who has never taken special interest money -- Trump!
Because that's where the money is.
3
Sure, more politically active millionaires are Democrats, but most politically active billionaires are Republican. And that is the gist of the problem.
5
Soros, stayer, Buffett, Silicon Valley and Wall Street billionaires are heavy supporters of Democráts. So you are wrong.
Buffett, Soros, stayer, silicon and Wall Street execs all support Democráts.
There are 2 sectors, or "industries" in the American economy that have very powerful political influence and have caused outsized destructive effects on the nation:
The Financial Industry (Wall Street) which was responsible for the mortgage meltdown, and the global financial crisis, and continue their zero-sum hacking of the economic system to extract profits from the economy.
And the Military Industrial Complex which, behind the scenes, support and advocate for belligerent foreign policies (i.e.: Iraq, etc...) with continued help from neo-con political ideologues, and waste taxpayer money on extremely expensive weapon-system boondoggles (i.e.: the F-35, etc...)
These 2 sectors appear to have bipartisan support, and influence both Republican and Democrat politicians.
Of course, one could point to coal (i.e.: Koch) or guns (i.e.: the NRA), but these support mostly one party (Republicans), and therefore, don't get automatic tacit compliance from the other.
The Financial Industry (Wall Street) which was responsible for the mortgage meltdown, and the global financial crisis, and continue their zero-sum hacking of the economic system to extract profits from the economy.
And the Military Industrial Complex which, behind the scenes, support and advocate for belligerent foreign policies (i.e.: Iraq, etc...) with continued help from neo-con political ideologues, and waste taxpayer money on extremely expensive weapon-system boondoggles (i.e.: the F-35, etc...)
These 2 sectors appear to have bipartisan support, and influence both Republican and Democrat politicians.
Of course, one could point to coal (i.e.: Koch) or guns (i.e.: the NRA), but these support mostly one party (Republicans), and therefore, don't get automatic tacit compliance from the other.
10
“Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?”
The question assumes we are still a democracy. The graph shows the outsized influence of the large and super donors in both political parties. Democracy is based on the principle of 1 person=1 vote. Ever since the Supreme Court deemed that money equates freedom of speech with their decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly transforming into a plutocracy. Now 1$=1 vote.
The question assumes we are still a democracy. The graph shows the outsized influence of the large and super donors in both political parties. Democracy is based on the principle of 1 person=1 vote. Ever since the Supreme Court deemed that money equates freedom of speech with their decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly transforming into a plutocracy. Now 1$=1 vote.
25
We have been a dictatorship controlled by plutocrats for a very long time. It's nothing new.
The Democratic Party can thank its Faustian bargain with what used to be considered far right-wing economic ideas from basically one man: Al From, who headed the Democratic Leadership Council and is credited by BIll Clinton himself with finally getting a Democrat elected President in 1992. Prior to Clinton, it was Democrats who often fared best in grassroots local legislative elections, while Republicans held a position of strength in Presidential elections. From considered the party in distress, and decided to "triangulate" Republican free market and anti-crime ideas which seemed to be working at the time into a successful Democratic Presidential election. Hey, it's good to have more money for Democrats if the rich support them! He is still a True Believer to this day. We've all (except for 1% of us) paid the price for this.
10
Nothing confirms the thrust of this op-ed any more than the corporatist direction of the Democratic Party in San Francisco. It goes back quite a while but our newest up-and-comers -- Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris -- will soon be bought-and-paid-for national figures.
13
U.S. The best country money can buy.
14
And therein lies the problem with the Modern Democratic Party.
11
In their heyday, unions played a really crucial role of educating citizens about the forces arrayed against them and what they might do to work in united opposition. Now, working class people get their news from Fox News and talk radio, telling them again and again that taxes (not wages) are the problem, that unfettered capitalism will bring benefits (jobs!) to the lower economic classes. With the influence of unions muted and the rise of right wing, propaganda oriented media, the tide has turned.
It doesn't matter what happens in Washington, DC. What matters is what people think happened.
Another factor is this: America has become a lot richer. There is a large cohort of Americans who are far, far richer than their parent's generation. Once, places like Texas and southern states like South Carolina had a thin layer of wealthy at the top and a big blob in between that would be called the economic middle class. Multi-million dollar houses in such places are no longer unusual. Some people are doing very, very well. The result is that what they want changes, even while their basic political alliances might not.
Sanders appeals to those who say they want social and economic justice and fairness. Educated citizens can make this choice. "Working class voters" don't think they can get these things from govt. They have been persistently taught, lectured, to look elsewhere and to see govt. as aiding minorities, not themselves.
It doesn't matter what happens in Washington, DC. What matters is what people think happened.
Another factor is this: America has become a lot richer. There is a large cohort of Americans who are far, far richer than their parent's generation. Once, places like Texas and southern states like South Carolina had a thin layer of wealthy at the top and a big blob in between that would be called the economic middle class. Multi-million dollar houses in such places are no longer unusual. Some people are doing very, very well. The result is that what they want changes, even while their basic political alliances might not.
Sanders appeals to those who say they want social and economic justice and fairness. Educated citizens can make this choice. "Working class voters" don't think they can get these things from govt. They have been persistently taught, lectured, to look elsewhere and to see govt. as aiding minorities, not themselves.
23
When you vote religiously, you begin to wonder whether voting hasn’t become a religious act. The votingest people have to ask themselves, why? Am I truly represented, or is it more like what we think of as the sham elections of some countries? Because one party is worse than the other, the lesser of two evils, has become the predictable answer of many.
5
Shutting down the government is bad for business. 2013 was a turning point I think. When your attack dog turns on you, its time to put it down.
7
"The kinds of congressional districts Democrats are now winning also tilt toward the well-to-do." .....The fact that Democrats are becoming the favorite of the more well-to-do is really straight forward. What do the well-to-do have in common? They are better educated, usually have been to college, and can read. As Republicans become more and more right wing - super religious, guns, anti-immigration, anti-gay, pro Tea Party types who gravitate to emotion - the people who are educated, rely on facts, and think logically are fining it harder and harder to continue to be Republicans.
11
When those brilliant, better educated well-to-do's vote for republicans, they suddenly become exceptionally greedy, lose all that intelligence and become irrational and driven by emotions? Got it.
5
Big donors, regardless of party, give because they "get". And what they want to get is a bigger piece of the financial pie.
As the Democrats have shifted to the right on tax, trade, and other economic issues, their views have become more in synch with those wealthy donors who already agreed with them on issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control etc.
While this article embodies a thorough analysis, it all boils down to you get what you pay for. It's truly naive to think that the wealthiest liberal/Democratic donors are acting out of a sense of enlightenment, much less altruism.
As the Democrats have shifted to the right on tax, trade, and other economic issues, their views have become more in synch with those wealthy donors who already agreed with them on issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control etc.
While this article embodies a thorough analysis, it all boils down to you get what you pay for. It's truly naive to think that the wealthiest liberal/Democratic donors are acting out of a sense of enlightenment, much less altruism.
11
The American political scene is fraught with contradiction. On one hand, Democratic-leaning people want wages that will ensure each worker a comfortable living, but on the other, they want to welcome anyone who wishes to come into this country seeking work. Republican-leaning people claim to respect all life, but resist gun control, as well as more financial support for the families resulting from unplanned pregnancies. I could go on and on, but suspect that most of us are already fatigued from pondering these mutually exclusive goals. You are right to point out, however, that too many use identification with and support for the Democratic Party as a fig leaf for their protection of policies that, by any other name, would be Republican.
8
If Sanders succeeds in having his message communicated to working class voters, he'll win. He is speaking their language, and the language that once made Democrats the winning party. That Republicans have effectively siezed the votes of white working class men always surprizes me. My father was a white working class man who tended to be Republican while everything the party stood for worked against his interests, and that remains as true today as it was 60 years ago when my father's economic security depended on his union membership and he voted Republican. Polls show that Sanders' positions are favored by the majority of potential voters, but he's sill a long-shot. Guess our educational system hasn't yet figured out how to teach critical thinking and the effects of big-money propaganda. Consistently, the majority of voters say they want what liberal Democrats support, yet they continue to vote for Republicans? Go figure!
14
You're forgetting the time when the Republicans had a Liberal faction, as in Rockefeller, and we all know how he was treated by his own party ultimately. Tricky Dick let the crazies handle the Domestic side and they ate Rocky's lunch.
3
Polls have consistently shown that more people favor policies associated with Democrats than those associated with Republicans. Which means that majorities are not only voting against their own self-interest; they are voting against their own avowed values. The ones that bother to vote at all, that is.
1
or maybe the Republican candidates have completely uninspiring to the broad center.
1
The Democrats and the Republicans are pretty savvy. They both manipulate the publics attention, emotional, and loyalty to one party vs the other with very different views on mostly moral issues. But economically and financially is where we all live and eat, the individual, the family, and the community. These issues, regarding wages, benefits, taxes, the cost of education and retirement and the like have the most direct impact on our daily lives, and the Dems and Reps have very similar views. The new money Democrats are just as greedy and self serving as the old money GOP. But they support gay marriage and a woman's right to choose so that makes them liberal? Forget what you call yourself or others call you, your values and actions speak for themselves.
10
It appears that most commenters have overlooked the most important tidbit in the article. That would be the observation that Republicans concentrate on policy that is good for all citizens while Democrats only represent the rich or special interest social groups. This, Democrats ignore the entire body and focus on a tiny pimple. Addressing the pick ple is fine and dandy but pretty useless if the body is dying. Social issue focus completely ignores the entirety of the people at the cost of all, not that social issues are not important.
6
I agree with MANY of your commentors today, in that the "something new" has in fact arrived and is living in many who have achieved the hope of our country: plenty of education, plenty of freedom, and plenty of material comfort -- and truly do not want to HOARD, or to restrict this to themselves! The number of those who "have made it" and are eager to set the table for all to "make it" is a growing number. I feel sorry for those who still see "democracy" and "freedom" to mean that our country is like a destruction derby, where the biggest trucks demolish and immobilize the smaller trucks. Those are the ones who equate freedom with the biggotry which thumps the chest to say "I got her by my efforts; you do the same" Thank God for Bernie and on a good day, for Hillary!
4
Nice analysis, but it begs the question of who gets the money. Who are the people who populate the "industry" that clicks into gear at election time (is there ever a non-election time?). Who works in the ad agencies? What is the floating infrastructure that stages election events? Where does the money go that gets donated by the rich?
1
This editorial presumes the wealthy are single issue voters. For starters, the super rich are rich in ways that the taxman cannot touch - with their wealth often tied up in trusts or other structures that shield them from taxes.
When Obama states that he was going after those with $250K or more in his original campaign, the income brackets most vulnerable to that were the merely well off, typically professionals and small business owners. Not the Soros' of the world.
And in the end, rich people can be turned off by the GOP pandering to the the extreme right, including issues of race, women's rights, warmongering and gun rights.
The risk of more taxes may not sway them to stomach a tea party zealot.
When Obama states that he was going after those with $250K or more in his original campaign, the income brackets most vulnerable to that were the merely well off, typically professionals and small business owners. Not the Soros' of the world.
And in the end, rich people can be turned off by the GOP pandering to the the extreme right, including issues of race, women's rights, warmongering and gun rights.
The risk of more taxes may not sway them to stomach a tea party zealot.
Ever fill out a 1041? Believe me, trusts pay more tax than indivudals, not less.
Strange headline, given that the data in the chart shows that the rich still favor giving to Republicans.
3
hmmm, even the rich are abandoning the party of stupid. Is that your conclusion?
2
The Left is focused on identity politics. The legalization of gay marriage has no effect on the economic underpinnings of society. Nor does interest in transgender people. We are more than ever before concerned wit race and gender and less than ever concerned with economic and class issues.
11
The most logical explanation is that many rich people think the Democrats are going to continue to win the Presidency.
You nailed it, Thomas. The Democrats have become the Republicans of the 1950s and the Republicans have gone off the deep end.
22
Like Bernard Sanders? He now has several million dollars all contributed in small amounts.
But even if he had been given a fat check by a rich wall st. investor , unless he trims politics to suit , then it is not specifically relevant. Sanders did not, (unfortunately?), make the rules of this election. It is the Supreme court which has been appointed by fat pocket lawyers and big wallet politicians-I consider Obie to be just as creepy and as bad as his twin brother Bush.
But Sanders didn't get to where he is because Wall st loves hi.
Recall also, that the Democrats faltered in 1928 but crushed the GOP in 32. Also, the Democrats were the party of the old South. Should that make them forever the lickspittles of slave owners?
But even if he had been given a fat check by a rich wall st. investor , unless he trims politics to suit , then it is not specifically relevant. Sanders did not, (unfortunately?), make the rules of this election. It is the Supreme court which has been appointed by fat pocket lawyers and big wallet politicians-I consider Obie to be just as creepy and as bad as his twin brother Bush.
But Sanders didn't get to where he is because Wall st loves hi.
Recall also, that the Democrats faltered in 1928 but crushed the GOP in 32. Also, the Democrats were the party of the old South. Should that make them forever the lickspittles of slave owners?
1
With all the necessary qualifications, perhaps the relevant - rather than the "repeal the death tax" crowd - portion of the .01 percent is aware of what Paul Krugman is talking about here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/did-the-fed-save-the-world/
when he makes the point that were it not for Democratic safety net programs and other more or less automatic fiscal balancers made possible by "Big Gum'mint," in contradiction to the Republican/Regan meme that "Gum'mint is the problem, not the solution," we'd still be trying to dig our way out of the Second Depression, rather than recovering from the Great Recession.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/did-the-fed-save-the-world/
when he makes the point that were it not for Democratic safety net programs and other more or less automatic fiscal balancers made possible by "Big Gum'mint," in contradiction to the Republican/Regan meme that "Gum'mint is the problem, not the solution," we'd still be trying to dig our way out of the Second Depression, rather than recovering from the Great Recession.
5
As a doctor in private practice I am in the 1% in terms of income, but I vote straight democrat and I donate between 5-10k per election cycle. I do this because the evidence is that the Dems do a better job of running the country, and when the country does well, I do well. My top marginal tax rate is not the burning issue for me. Under Clinton, the economy boomed and my investments did great, under Bush it all melted down, and under Obama I have done very well, even though my marginal tax rates have gone up both Federal and State.
I want leaders who are not beholden to anti-science, who are willing to look at evidence rather than dogma, and who look before they leap into a war. Women should have the right to choose, we need to do something to grant legal status to the 10 million undocumented, and we need to raise the minimum wage significantly. The GOP stands against all this. They also have a bizarre obsession with deficits and budgets when the Dems are in power, but all their candidates are running on a platform of massive tax cuts with no corresponding spending reduction. That is hypocritical and dishonest. The current Republican party is a farce and I cannot support it.
I want leaders who are not beholden to anti-science, who are willing to look at evidence rather than dogma, and who look before they leap into a war. Women should have the right to choose, we need to do something to grant legal status to the 10 million undocumented, and we need to raise the minimum wage significantly. The GOP stands against all this. They also have a bizarre obsession with deficits and budgets when the Dems are in power, but all their candidates are running on a platform of massive tax cuts with no corresponding spending reduction. That is hypocritical and dishonest. The current Republican party is a farce and I cannot support it.
29
It doesn't surprise me that you support amnesty - how many illegal aliens are working for you and your family and friends? As Voltaire noted, "The comforts of the rich rest on an abundance of the poor." When these illegal aliens you like so much get sick, are you going to fork over the money to pay for their medical care, or are you going to let folks like me pay with our tax moneys?
2
@Les, I agree - opposition / support of amnesty for illegal immigrants is a class-based issue.
It's really easy to call opponents of amnesty/mass illegal immigration "racist" and "xenophobic" instead of considering that they might have a point - these policies negatively and disproportionately affect our most vulnerable U.S. citizens.
It's really easy to call opponents of amnesty/mass illegal immigration "racist" and "xenophobic" instead of considering that they might have a point - these policies negatively and disproportionately affect our most vulnerable U.S. citizens.
1
Well, I guess there are rich people with a conscience....
5
At least in Silicon Valley, the majority of rich people who are Democrats vote so bc they are appalled at the ignorance of most of the GOPers. Really, are there any moderates in the GOP anymore? Are there any GOPers seeking compromise rather than spite? Over 75% of residents in Palo Alto, city of the rich and educated, are registered Democrats.
A perfect example of Gop stupidity is how the GOP has used the Planned Parenthood tapes to spread lies. Medical research is absolutely critical if we are going to fight disease. PP is helping society by donating unused tissue for research and not profiting from it. We need these tissues and we need medical research. Today, a diagnosis of cancer does not mean death.
Remember the stem cell fight? Remember all the false *projections* the GOP made about stem cell research? .....Ridiculous and costly financially, but more important, in terms of saving lives. The GOP party has become the party of stupid unfortunately.
A perfect example of Gop stupidity is how the GOP has used the Planned Parenthood tapes to spread lies. Medical research is absolutely critical if we are going to fight disease. PP is helping society by donating unused tissue for research and not profiting from it. We need these tissues and we need medical research. Today, a diagnosis of cancer does not mean death.
Remember the stem cell fight? Remember all the false *projections* the GOP made about stem cell research? .....Ridiculous and costly financially, but more important, in terms of saving lives. The GOP party has become the party of stupid unfortunately.
11
And the Democrat Party has become the party of elitist snobs, convinced they're smarter than everyone else. I don't know how many Democrats I've heard utter something along the lines of "most American's are stupid" inferring "except me and my friends, we're geniuses".
Democrats increasingly pander to the self absorbed, be they rich, illegal, gay or trans-whatever.
Democrats increasingly pander to the self absorbed, be they rich, illegal, gay or trans-whatever.
I really don't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both Political parties are light versions of the other. Your choice of the welfare/war party or the war/welfare party. Now there is a huge gulf between the bases of both parties, and this is where the Country is cracking up. Over the last 30 years or so, the bases of both parties have become in effect like Africanized Honey bees. When aggressive bees from outside the ecosystem started killing off the docile and native populations of bees. The same thing has happened as more aggressive partisans who want their agenda implemented now, now compromising, nothing, just now. And of the other side resents having their voice muffled by the opposition, so they yell louder and it becomes a screaming match. Which is where we are now. Its no surprise that both parties favor the interests of their benefactors over the citizens in their districts.
1
These are complicated issues with serious questions about the direction of what's causing what. This piece implies that one factor in the shift of the Democratic Party away from policies favoring the poor is an accommodation to high end donors. I'm sure there is some of that involved. I am interested in another change that I think is now or soon will be going on. While the Republican Party has represented the wealthy and big business since at least 1877, current trends among Republican voters are threatening to established order and, therefore, to the people the Party has traditionally represented. Depending on who the nominee of the Republican Party is next year, and on the success of the insurrectionist wing of the Party in Congress, I expect an accelerating flight from the Party by the most affluent. The elite tend to be rational. There's probably no hope for poor Southerners who will vote against their economic self interests over scams like abortion and guns regardless of how badly they get beaten up.
2
The most corrupt Congressional members are also those who have been playing the Washington, D.C. game the longest.
Both parties come under thisrule. Probably the richest, Ms. Pelosi, has also benefitted the most from her legal access to market information not available to other investore, both in stocks and real estate (Harry Reid's specialty.) Democrats have owned the House for such extended periods that the first assumption to make is that the longest-''serving'' Dem members have the greasiest palms.
As far as insider arrogance goes, how can anyone outpace Mitch McConnell? He wore himself out in 2009-2012 promising that we would see a HUGE difference in the Senate's obeisance to Prince BigEars in the White House. Inatead, the only person who looks better these days is Reid of Las Vegas.
The trend that has always put the lie to the Right being the money guys is the fact that all the foundations of cash left by great employers ALWAYS come under Leftist-fringe boards controlling the foundation. This is probably due to the success-guilt and white-guilt felt by the heirs of Ford and all the other successful creators of previous years.
Then the most morally-challenged greenmailers and uncaught crooks tend to end up liberal simply out of their love of beating The Man, and Johnny Law always translates as Republican. George Soros, take a bow.
Both parties come under thisrule. Probably the richest, Ms. Pelosi, has also benefitted the most from her legal access to market information not available to other investore, both in stocks and real estate (Harry Reid's specialty.) Democrats have owned the House for such extended periods that the first assumption to make is that the longest-''serving'' Dem members have the greasiest palms.
As far as insider arrogance goes, how can anyone outpace Mitch McConnell? He wore himself out in 2009-2012 promising that we would see a HUGE difference in the Senate's obeisance to Prince BigEars in the White House. Inatead, the only person who looks better these days is Reid of Las Vegas.
The trend that has always put the lie to the Right being the money guys is the fact that all the foundations of cash left by great employers ALWAYS come under Leftist-fringe boards controlling the foundation. This is probably due to the success-guilt and white-guilt felt by the heirs of Ford and all the other successful creators of previous years.
Then the most morally-challenged greenmailers and uncaught crooks tend to end up liberal simply out of their love of beating The Man, and Johnny Law always translates as Republican. George Soros, take a bow.
4
The Unions were vital for protecting the interests of the working class. They had money and clout. Since the "War on Unions" succeeded in dismantling a lot of unions, there has been no one to truly represent the interests of workers and it's now extending even to the middle class workers.
4
Another slant on this issue is that really Democrats need Republicans to exist so they have an enemy and can say that they are not like those rich fat cat business people. The idea is that since they are not like those rich fat cat business people then they are for the common man. Wrong on both counts. How many rich Democrats pound the table for higher taxes on their income and wealth?
Take away the Republican party and the rich fat cat Democrats that run the party stick out in sharp contrast to the common man.
No wonder this election season has so many outsiders running strong.
Take away the Republican party and the rich fat cat Democrats that run the party stick out in sharp contrast to the common man.
No wonder this election season has so many outsiders running strong.
5
Sadly, we can't get away from the spector of Ronald Reagan's politcal and cultural shift. You see clearly in the charts that the anti-union sentiment the Gipper successfully sold to the rank and file meant that unions had less of a role to play; after all, they didn't have the money or the boots on the ground that they once had. That meant, to be successful in electoral politics, given the high cost of running for office these days, the Dems had to go where the money was. Indeed, the entire idea behind the Reagan coalition was that big money (through the clever strategizing of people like Roger Ailes) would get the working class (whites, at least) to chuck their immediate economic interests by appealing to their emotional religio-cultural sensibilities. FDR, bu contrast, built a disparate coalition on economic concerns and avoided the more emotion-packed religious and cultural issues (think about race relations, for instance; there was never any push, despite the personal viewpoints of leading new dealers, to ease or eliminate segregation -- even at war, where there were notably heroic all Black regiments like the Tuskeegee Airmen).
I hate to blame Republicans for the Democrats' predicament here, but writing about the power of money in Democratic politics without reference to the underlying reasons why seems a bit shallow. Yes, its true. But why -- well, the cynical deals of the 1980s continue to effect our politics. And the effects are not of a benign sort.
I hate to blame Republicans for the Democrats' predicament here, but writing about the power of money in Democratic politics without reference to the underlying reasons why seems a bit shallow. Yes, its true. But why -- well, the cynical deals of the 1980s continue to effect our politics. And the effects are not of a benign sort.
2
Ignorant reasoning.....obviously.
You write as though the public policy issues and the interest groups involved are the same today as in 1935, 1945, 1955, or even 1965. They aren't, times have changed. As others have noted, labor is a much less significant factor in Democratic support than formerly; the 20th century taught us that both socialism and communism have great disadvantages that were not so visible long ago; and have learned a lot about how public policies affect the general prosperity of the country. Global warming, endless war, terrorism, civil rights for almost anyone who suffers discrimination, biomedical issues, cyberwar and cybersnooping--these were not on anyone's radar, and current disagreements on these matters don't fall into simplistic rich/poor divides.
3
The graph you show displays percentage of contributions. Of course the percent from wealthy has increased in percent to the Democrats. Contributions from labor have decreased due to union busting and decreased numbers. If one looks at the drop in labor and union money it parallels the supposed increase in other including wealthy donors. And it is clear that some of the wealthy have realized that despite their individual concerns about preserving their income that the GWP (Global Warming Party) represents, there will not be a meaningful future if we do not try to limit the effects of global warming.
A recent comparison of absolute amounts of donations from the wealthy still reveals that the GWP is the clear favorite of the (ignorant) super rich. The article title and premise are not supported.
A recent comparison of absolute amounts of donations from the wealthy still reveals that the GWP is the clear favorite of the (ignorant) super rich. The article title and premise are not supported.
1
Interesting how the Democrats have been so successful nationally in recent years with its focus on "values conflicts" and identity politics. The shift away from economic issues began to "cultural liberalism" of the Democratic Party in the late 1960s is largely cited as the beginning of the decline in the power of the Democratic Party, the rise of the religious right, Reagan (and Reagan Democrats), and culminating in the Republican Revolution in 1994. It wasn't until 2006 when the Democrats finally regained control of both houses of Congress.
3
Nice try Mr. Edsall.
I think the picture will become clearer once you include racial attitudes among the various wealthy donors.
I think the picture will become clearer once you include racial attitudes among the various wealthy donors.
1
Tom Edsall really loves to trot out the old horse of how the Democrats are losing socially conservative Appalachian whites and what a terrible thing this is for the Democratic Party. This argument has less and less salience with each passing day, as the white population of Appalachia and like-minded areas continues to die off or move to other parts of the country with more economic opportunities. The fact that national Democrats are no longer competitive in Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee or West Virginia is only a serious problem for the party if you conveniently forget that Democrats now dominate the entire West Coast and Northeast in national elections and are routinely competitive in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida and North Carolina - states with growing populations where the Democrats had little chance in the 1980's and early 1990's. All of Tom Edsall's love for struggling Appalachian whites who can no longer bring themselves to vote Democrat because of the gays, the blacks and the women's libbers doesn't outweigh the basic math of winning national elections with the electorate of 2016 and not the electorate of 1976.
41
Pierre... Have you been asleep the last 25 years? The Democratic Party from 1930 to 1994 held Congressional House Majorities in 60 of 64 years. Since 1994, Republicans have held majorities in all but 4 of 22 years. The Senate is a little better, but not much. Of State legislatures, 68 of 98 are held by Republicans and 32 governorships, as well.
The only two non-incumbent Presidential elections Democrats won in the last 30 years were won during an economic recession, and in Obama's case, the worst recession since the Great Depression.
If Republicans win the Presidency 2016, which election history suggests they will, Republicans will control ALL THREE Federal branches of government.
How much worse does must it become before your ilk realize the personal-id, majority-minority strategy is a disaster for Democrats?
The only two non-incumbent Presidential elections Democrats won in the last 30 years were won during an economic recession, and in Obama's case, the worst recession since the Great Depression.
If Republicans win the Presidency 2016, which election history suggests they will, Republicans will control ALL THREE Federal branches of government.
How much worse does must it become before your ilk realize the personal-id, majority-minority strategy is a disaster for Democrats?
3
Just one problem with that; it's a receipe for gridlock. It gets you the Presidency, loses the Congress. That's just how the electoral map works. Democrats need to recover the support of working class whites in red states to acheive a governing majority. Only an economically liberal(populist) agenda can do this, which Sanders intends to do.
If the only election that mattered was a national one, you would have a point. But electing a progressive president with the support of urban voters in a few large states still doesn't solve the problem of legislative paralysis when the rest of the country sends rabid conservatives to Congress to thwart the initiatives of the president.
1
Show us a pair of charts comparing actual money instead of proportions. The picture will be radically different then.
2
What I'm not seeing in Edsall's column are any remarks about the fact that many higher income people simply no longer identify with the loony antics of the GOP. Higher income people tend to be more educated and possess more liberal attitudes on social and cultural issues. Hence their aversion to Republican candidates and a drift towards Democrats.
In my opinion, Democratic politicians are adopting policies closer to the hearts of higher income people because there are financial rewards to cementing them to the Democratic Party. If Bernie Sanders can continue to focus on traditional Democratic political values that are more universal in their appeal so as to hold and expand the number of lower and middle income voters who prefer Democrats, I don't think higher income voters will abandon that party to return to one that is captive to right wing conservatives.
In my opinion, Democratic politicians are adopting policies closer to the hearts of higher income people because there are financial rewards to cementing them to the Democratic Party. If Bernie Sanders can continue to focus on traditional Democratic political values that are more universal in their appeal so as to hold and expand the number of lower and middle income voters who prefer Democrats, I don't think higher income voters will abandon that party to return to one that is captive to right wing conservatives.
37
Great analysis. The question for Dems is whether their traditional base will bother turning out for Clinton. Her uber-hawkish policies are a big turn off for many of the bo-bo types (for good reasons) ... and her long history of Wall Street pandering means minority voters have no reason to get excited about her candidacy either.
Lots of commentators also forget how well the GOP does in elections... the party dominates electoral office on the state and Federal level except for the Presidency
Lots of commentators also forget how well the GOP does in elections... the party dominates electoral office on the state and Federal level except for the Presidency
Is it not obvious?
These Democrats want to control their enemy.
These Democrats want to control their enemy.
This column confirms a belief I have held since Bill Clinton was president. We need to get democrats back in charge of the democratic party. That eliminates Hillary Clinton.
FEEL THE BERN.
FEEL THE BERN.
5
Social liberalism is painless; the rich love it, provided it doesn't cost them anything. When "conservatives" complain about "liberal" media, they're really complaining about TV personalities who support gay rights.
But on matters of taxation, spending and foreign policy, we live in a one-party state which is deaf to the 99%. If this state capitalist combine can't manufacture consent, it does what it pleases anyway.
TPP is the classic example. The public hates it. But we're going to get it anyway, thanks to social liberals like Schumer and Pelosi (and Obama).
But on matters of taxation, spending and foreign policy, we live in a one-party state which is deaf to the 99%. If this state capitalist combine can't manufacture consent, it does what it pleases anyway.
TPP is the classic example. The public hates it. But we're going to get it anyway, thanks to social liberals like Schumer and Pelosi (and Obama).
4
If Democrats are "favorites of the rich," why is it that the "rich" - Kochs, Adelson, et al - continue to support GOP candidates? Does Edsall live in the same world I do?
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a wealthy man, but that did not mean he had no compassion for the poor and middle class in America. Quite the contrary. We must ask why wealthy people give money to a political party. On the Republican side it is clear that the contributions are given to put candidates in office who will increase the income and wealth of our richest citizens at the expense of everyone else. Examples: cut taxes for the rich and for corporations, cut expenses by eliminating or reducing social services. On the Democratic side large contributions are made to enact programs for the public good. Examples: the Affordable Care Act (millions more people now have and can buy major medical insurance; the act raised taxes on the rich), the Dodd-Frank Bill (banks are better regulated, creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), diplomacy instead of going to war immediately (bad for the arms industry, good for the world and our people). Wealthy Republicans give to benefit themselves; wealthy Democrats give for the public good, even though it may harm their bottom line.
33
Let's hope you are correct. I am not sure that they are not pushing the Democrats to more "liberal" regulations and taxes while loathe to let their less liberal views on women, gays (they may be well represented among this group, anyway) and people living in minority communities be known. Maybe they just don't want to be associated with wingnuts who think guns are the answer to everything.
The Affordable Care Act is NOT an example of enacting a program for the common good. Quite the opposite -- it was a gift to the medical industry and the already wealthy who make money from it. And it is only affordable for the poor. Large companies (50+ employees) are exempt from having to offer policies with anything other than preventative care. Insurance does not equal health care.
1
So now which party is the favorite of the moneyed classes? The Republicrats, or the Demopublicans? Both groups, after all, keep showering the voters with expensive media campaigns when it's election time, only to make it lucky to see an intern to an aide to an aide if you're just an ordinary constituent with a problem once they're back in safely for the next term.
Recall that episode of 'All In The Family', when Michael Stivic (Rob Reiner) scolds Archie Bunker (Carroll O'Connor) for not having voted for a number of years? "Why bother?", responds Archie. "All you get is a cherce [sic] between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber."
Did you ever think a statement like that could prove prophetic. Well, in this era of Citizens (dis)United, here we are. Pity.
Recall that episode of 'All In The Family', when Michael Stivic (Rob Reiner) scolds Archie Bunker (Carroll O'Connor) for not having voted for a number of years? "Why bother?", responds Archie. "All you get is a cherce [sic] between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber."
Did you ever think a statement like that could prove prophetic. Well, in this era of Citizens (dis)United, here we are. Pity.
1
Selling body parts is forbidden. Selling souls is The American Way.
Around 1900 all four of my grandparents arrived in this country penniless. They worked their tails off to get educations and then to advance their families in the face of right-wing phony-Christian bigotry. Everyone of their children(our parents' generation struggled to achieve middle and upper middle class lives. We were taught by them to value education and hard work and to revile the bigotry that had been perpetrated on us. Now the vast majority of us third, fourth, and fifth generationers vote Dem, vote to increase taxes for things we care about, and vote against bigots and demagogues of all sorts. We are doing fine and care little about using politics to advance our narrow financial self interest. No, we vote D because it is the party of education, science, sharing the wealth, and opposition to bigotry.
Interestingly several family members who were moderate Republicans have almost without exception become Dems--the vicious racism, sexism, and homophobia and the anti-science ignorance of the Republicans is a real turn off to humane and educated people.
Interestingly several family members who were moderate Republicans have almost without exception become Dems--the vicious racism, sexism, and homophobia and the anti-science ignorance of the Republicans is a real turn off to humane and educated people.
27
The Republican's anti-science stance is in some ways misguided but in large part correct.
I am a physician, published in the medical literature and edit a medical journal. You might not be aware of the very serious corruption - both financial and ideological - within science and particularly medicine. It is rampant. A large majority of published research has very serious deficiencies (from invalid statistical procedures, to conclusions at variance with the data, to outright misrepresentation and fraud), yet is cited selectively by various groups (including gov't agencies) to promote their agendas. Mark Twain is still right, 100 years later - we can get almost any result we want with the use of dishonest statistics.
Tea Party types are wrong about global warming, but actually correct (along with "green" liberals) about harms of vaccines (in a small but meaningful number of children) and a general mistrust of pharmaceutical-oriented medicine. I'm not alone, many physicians realize the corruption of medicine and the harms of many medications. Look at the surveys of satisfaction with our profession - very, very low.
I am a physician, published in the medical literature and edit a medical journal. You might not be aware of the very serious corruption - both financial and ideological - within science and particularly medicine. It is rampant. A large majority of published research has very serious deficiencies (from invalid statistical procedures, to conclusions at variance with the data, to outright misrepresentation and fraud), yet is cited selectively by various groups (including gov't agencies) to promote their agendas. Mark Twain is still right, 100 years later - we can get almost any result we want with the use of dishonest statistics.
Tea Party types are wrong about global warming, but actually correct (along with "green" liberals) about harms of vaccines (in a small but meaningful number of children) and a general mistrust of pharmaceutical-oriented medicine. I'm not alone, many physicians realize the corruption of medicine and the harms of many medications. Look at the surveys of satisfaction with our profession - very, very low.
1
We're all glad to see that all the struggles resulted in your having several people's worth of hatred to spew out for entire millions of people that you will never know. How lucky we are to have you in the Northeast.
Be sure to follow through on those dental checks because constant teeth-gritting has to have negative consequences.
Be sure to follow through on those dental checks because constant teeth-gritting has to have negative consequences.
Tom Edsall, I think you have the division between Dems and the GOP based on wealth is not the entire picture and not the most important factor.
There are plenty of poor people ( example- all the red states in the south) who always vote Republican. There are also rich Dems ( FDR, Kennedy, Streisand, etc). I think the real division between the parties really is based on education, critical thinking, racism, human rights, and magical thinking.
When a person denies global warming, puts head in sand and hope it will just go away while watching the Kardashians- that's willful ignorance and denial. If they think God talks to Huckabee or whoever- that's magical thinking- or another word for it- stupid.
There are plenty of poor people ( example- all the red states in the south) who always vote Republican. There are also rich Dems ( FDR, Kennedy, Streisand, etc). I think the real division between the parties really is based on education, critical thinking, racism, human rights, and magical thinking.
When a person denies global warming, puts head in sand and hope it will just go away while watching the Kardashians- that's willful ignorance and denial. If they think God talks to Huckabee or whoever- that's magical thinking- or another word for it- stupid.
12
Marian, should we automatically assume that all the racism, lack of critical thinking, and way too much religion are found in your political opponents? Just guessing here. No wonder Philly is doing so much better than the rest of Pennsylvania.
Most NY Times readers are affluent so the comments tend to reflect why they've become Democrats. But this really illustrates more of why the old white labor-class blue-collar FDR Democrats have left the party in droves. These are people who are not concerned with the progressive cultural achievements of the Democratic Party, and the party has stopped offering them anything economically. Even Obamacare, a godsend to the poor, doesn't help middle-income or less-than-middle income people who work full time. Employers who offered good, comprehensive healthcare are being punished with a so-called "Cadillac Tax," leaving individuals with skimpy, high-deductible health insurance that basically says: "You're on your own."
16
Was FDR a radical? The policies proposed by Bernie Sanders are essentially a restoration of the New Deal. He is not the radical leftist described by corporate media (including the NYT). He has maintained focus on economic issues because neoliberal Democrats (including the Clintons), like Republicans, have used cultural issues to distract while they dismantle the New Deal piece by piece. The conservative Supreme Court has ushered in an era of legalized corruption that has exposed the political power now wielded by corporations and the elite. If the majority comes to realize that they are being sold out by a cabal of Republicans and neoliberal Democrats they might actually be ready to elect a true progressive for a change.
20
Bernie may be FDR without all the religious influence that always guided Roosevelt.
FDR ended all those important addresses with references to God, and check out FDR's recommendation letter about the Bible that went overseas with ever G.I.
FDR had huge faults but he had his head straight on the biggest issues.
FDR ended all those important addresses with references to God, and check out FDR's recommendation letter about the Bible that went overseas with ever G.I.
FDR had huge faults but he had his head straight on the biggest issues.
Life has changed: more and more voters are becoming low information voters. In families today, both adults now must work full time. Unpaid overtime is common in order to keep a job, so people come home late and exhausted. Life is also a lot more complicated. Company pensions were a no-brainer; now one must manage a 401(K)--if lucky enough to even have one. Kids could once be sent outside to play; now they must be supervised constantly in a more dangerous world.
While the 99% is struggling, of course they cannot pay much attention to politics. Perhaps that's intentional on the part of the wealthy, or it is just an extra bonus?
While the 99% is struggling, of course they cannot pay much attention to politics. Perhaps that's intentional on the part of the wealthy, or it is just an extra bonus?
15
" Kids could once be sent outside to play; now they must be supervised constantly in a more dangerous world." True only in the sense that the police are enablers of the current hysteria and will punish parents who allow their children normal freedom. The "dangerous world" meme is not borne out by any of the relevant statistics. It is a fabrication of the sensationalist media and special interests like the NRA.
1
Could Wall Street had anything to do with it? The Clintons embraced hedge fund managers early on as a potential vast source of political contributions -- in his final days as president in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned the notorious financier Marc Rich, then wrote an op-ed in the NYT (02-18-2001, My Reasons for the Pardons) justifying his action so shameless as to make one wish to change the subject back to Monica Lewinski. Everyone expects the GOP to be the party of self-interest for the .001 percent but little attention was given to how President Obama raised a billion dollars for the 2012 campaign or how no perpetrators of the 2008 financial meltdown were prosecuted for criminal behavior during his administration.
When Donald Trump recently complained about the unfair 15% tax rate on hedge fund managers the Donald quickly backtracked, probably the result of a serious slap down by the money men which he forgot to tweet about.
There really is no hope until we have exclusively publicly funded elections nor should we expect there to be, so this article is just more hand waving filler.
When Donald Trump recently complained about the unfair 15% tax rate on hedge fund managers the Donald quickly backtracked, probably the result of a serious slap down by the money men which he forgot to tweet about.
There really is no hope until we have exclusively publicly funded elections nor should we expect there to be, so this article is just more hand waving filler.
5
You can rise into the upper-middle class and even become very rich without forgetting the importance of a strong social safety net or the value of a strong federal government to promote civil rights, handle disaster relief, and curb the excesses of unfettered capitalism or dishonest business practices. And if one needed yet another reason to remain a Democrat, take a quick look at the other party. But don't look too long or you might turn to stone.
4
Well said.
Thank you
Thank you
Thanks for the reminder of why your side lost the House and then the Senate.
Hate is such a downer, socially and physically.
But keep thinking that way!
Hate is such a downer, socially and physically.
But keep thinking that way!
The Democratic Party has become the party of Bloomberg, Cuomo and Schumer, who are in favor of any socially liberal policy as long as it doesn't cost their wealthy pals a dime. Look at our President - even knowing he would never get a minimum wage law passed, he didn't swing for the $15 an hour bleachers, he bunted for $10.10. Pathetic.
9
Bloomberg was elected REPUBLICAN.
Skeptical - Bloomberg was a Democrat until 2001 when Giuliani's departure left a vacancy in the Republican rolls; it was merely a matter of his convenience. With his bucks, he could have run under the banner of the Lollipop Guild.
Perceptive column by Edsall, which confirms what the late KARL Moscowitz, a far left liberal, but "sympathique," said to me once that there were no major differences between the 2 parties, that they had amalgamated into a "parti unique," the party of money.KM was ahead of his time.(He was fired from his position as a lecturer at the ultra liberal NEW SCHOOL because he naively believed that bringing in members of the BLACK PANTHER PARTY, David Hilliard, BOBBY SEALE, HUEY NEWTON to lecture to students was a good thing, that it would be enlightening for them. KM also remarked that contrary to popular belief, the GOP did not stand for smaller government, but was simply envious of the Democratic Party which held power at the time, and simply wanted the Presidency so that they would wield the same power themselves.GOP and Democratic Party today r made up of those who disagree in public in order to agree in private on deals beneficial to both sides.
'
'
2
It seems as though democrats are as dependent on the 'rich and powerful' as are the republicans; after all, running for office has become prohibitively expensive. Too bad that the 'social distance' between the well-to-do and the poor has gotten wider, hence, no empathy for those left behind. The ideal, a social democracy of inclusion, has degenerated into a sort of economic 'war' that ignores the disenfranchised, the poor and even the stagnating middle class.
4
Count me as one who believes that the shift towards neo-liberalism has been the single most destructive influence on the Democratic party. We already have one political party totally committed to enshrining the lifestyles of the rich. We never needed two.
8
Good quantification of trends we have been seeing for a long time. The Democrats are the Party of minorities: racial, sexual and religious. They occasionally throw a bone to the "incredible shrinking man," Big Labor.
After the general election in 2012, so many influential Democratic leaders were predicting the Republicans were becoming a rump party and that would be bad for the nation. They didn't and still don't realize the Dems are just a subset of the "Big R."
After the general election in 2012, so many influential Democratic leaders were predicting the Republicans were becoming a rump party and that would be bad for the nation. They didn't and still don't realize the Dems are just a subset of the "Big R."
3
I will begin by saying there is no such thing as "free trade". That term is a mantra that is used to support awful anti human agreements entered into by governments including ours to smoke sure consumers don't have a chance and workers are squeezed and preferred multinationals agre protected....there is not such thing as free trade!
Most Dems like Obama are corporatists. Go Bernie!
Most Dems like Obama are corporatists. Go Bernie!
10
The rich 0.1% who are liberal Democrats have good thoughts and ideals at heart, but their wealth shield them from the unintended consequences of the legislation and executive actions they support.
3
Excellent points. For years, I have wondered what incremental change either major political party in this country stands for. The GOP is all about what it will repeal-taxes, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, most other social programs, regulation. What will they put in place of all they destroy? Beyond increasing military spending, not much, if anything. At least they're clear about what they want to do.
What, if anything, does the other side believe in? Except for its stances on social issues, the Democrats don't seem to have a coherent policy message. It opposes most of what the GOP wants to dismantle, but what would a Democratic majority in Washington bring us, besides a $10 or $15 minimum wage? Anything to address our educational problems, the utter lack of meaningful environmental or business regulation, our crumbling or non existent infrastructure? I doubt it.
It seems that all politicians of either stripe stand for only two things-reelection
and the status quo.
What, if anything, does the other side believe in? Except for its stances on social issues, the Democrats don't seem to have a coherent policy message. It opposes most of what the GOP wants to dismantle, but what would a Democratic majority in Washington bring us, besides a $10 or $15 minimum wage? Anything to address our educational problems, the utter lack of meaningful environmental or business regulation, our crumbling or non existent infrastructure? I doubt it.
It seems that all politicians of either stripe stand for only two things-reelection
and the status quo.
2
Hello! This happened more than 20 years ago when Bill Clinton was POTUS. He was an enemy of the middle class. Think: NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, taxing Social Security income, etc. That's one reason why more people than The New York Times will acknowledge are feeling the Bern.
9
The parties have been serving the rich since at least the 1990s. Citizens United had nothing to do with it.
Even if it got worse, CU provides freedom for all groups, including insurgent groups. Any reforms to CU now will serve the crony corporate party machines.
Even if it got worse, CU provides freedom for all groups, including insurgent groups. Any reforms to CU now will serve the crony corporate party machines.
3
I will go to my death shouting from the rooftops (I hope falling from those heights is not the cause of said death) that Bill Clinton was the most successful republican President of the 20th Century.
I would be able to buy more of Edsall's thesis had democrats not stayed home from the polls in 2010 and we had seen 4 to 6 years of democratic majority in government instead of just 2. Even so, Obama's list of historic and progressive accomplishments is impressive.
When republican voters (especially those getting pandered to at present) are angry with government they get angry at democrats.
When democratic voters get angry with government they get angry at democrats, too. Had those who voted for Obama in 2008 got out to vote in 2010 we would not be seeing the tea party chaos in government we now see.
As for donors:
The quotes I read from top execs at Caterpillar, Boeing, and IBM regarding right wing aversion to the Export Import Bank tells me these CEOs are not happy with the current state of government any more than we liberal pinkos out here waiting for America to catch up with the rest of the world are.
I am hoping that not all 1%ers are as stupid as the koch bothers who don't seem to realize the future will eat their children and grandchildren alive if they are not ready to participate in it.
There are 1%ers who remember the Bastille.
There are 1%ers who realize that we really are all in this together.
I believe it is those rich folks who Edsall writes about.
I would be able to buy more of Edsall's thesis had democrats not stayed home from the polls in 2010 and we had seen 4 to 6 years of democratic majority in government instead of just 2. Even so, Obama's list of historic and progressive accomplishments is impressive.
When republican voters (especially those getting pandered to at present) are angry with government they get angry at democrats.
When democratic voters get angry with government they get angry at democrats, too. Had those who voted for Obama in 2008 got out to vote in 2010 we would not be seeing the tea party chaos in government we now see.
As for donors:
The quotes I read from top execs at Caterpillar, Boeing, and IBM regarding right wing aversion to the Export Import Bank tells me these CEOs are not happy with the current state of government any more than we liberal pinkos out here waiting for America to catch up with the rest of the world are.
I am hoping that not all 1%ers are as stupid as the koch bothers who don't seem to realize the future will eat their children and grandchildren alive if they are not ready to participate in it.
There are 1%ers who remember the Bastille.
There are 1%ers who realize that we really are all in this together.
I believe it is those rich folks who Edsall writes about.
20
"The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter."
Except for Bernie Sanders and the grass roots that support him.
Except for Bernie Sanders and the grass roots that support him.
6
I think it's clear that both parties can be bought. And that is a huge reason for legislation that is increasingly hostile to American citizens and American culture.
The constituency is beginning to see it, but whether they will deal with it proactively remains to be seen. In my view, both major parties have become increasingly toxic the the best interests of the citizen and the nation. I no longer view candidates in the context of party affiliation, only as individuals, and judge them by historical behavior and professed ideas.
The constituency is beginning to see it, but whether they will deal with it proactively remains to be seen. In my view, both major parties have become increasingly toxic the the best interests of the citizen and the nation. I no longer view candidates in the context of party affiliation, only as individuals, and judge them by historical behavior and professed ideas.
8
"I think it's clear that both parties can be bought."
And that's why I, tens of millions of others, will surprise the pundits by voting for Bernie in the primaries. Even the "least intellectual" are starting to see through the injustice of our political system and Bernie Sanders has another 13 months to hammer his message home.
Clinton and Biden are both beltway establishment Democrats.
And that's why I, tens of millions of others, will surprise the pundits by voting for Bernie in the primaries. Even the "least intellectual" are starting to see through the injustice of our political system and Bernie Sanders has another 13 months to hammer his message home.
Clinton and Biden are both beltway establishment Democrats.
2
Naturally the Republicans do well with uneducated,low income ,marginalized white voters by demonizing anyone but them in sight. They blame the blacks, gays, liberal social values, Obama, Hillary, 'anti-Christian forces etc. Sometimes you wonder how we got to where we were with a population so easily willing to buy snake oil.It makes you amazed that the Roman Empire lasted a thousand years. So we have a new crop of carnival barkers offering bread and circus to the ignorant masses. Instead of real healthcare we offer a bigger military to show the world how strong we really are. Instead of peace and progress through cooperation , we are going to NOT talk to anyone and continue to act unilaterally. The Right acts like the school yard bully , who is himself terrorized when he goes home at night. No real friends, confused, malevolent, prone to violence.No wonder we have so many killings in this country. As on script, the cure for gun violence is more guns. How about no guns but those for sport.How many people hunt with a pistol? Why is it so important to have a right to own a gun? How about asking the mothers who have lost their children to gun fire what they think. I doubt any of them would chose a second amendment right instead of having their children back.
18
A sort of elitist critique in itself, but the author is on to something. The Democrats ARE the establishment and have been for a long time. Republicans can capitalize with their own populism among the ones most marginalized by the current situation i.e. the middle class. SMBs are where the jobs are = something the Progressives like Obama and Sanders can't deliver. If Republicans run on this - a middle class economic populism and mainstream middle class morality - they'll win.
3
OK, where are the R's that are running on that? Have you looked at the current crop of Republican candidates and their policy positions? They are nowhere near what you are proposing. And what, pray tell, is "mainstream middle class morality"? BTW, R's are the establishment throughout the South, and much of the Midwest.
4
There are more than a few comments here bemoaning how the Democrats of today are like the GOP of 1960. Some of us who are Democrats today are actually happy that the current Democratic Party is closer to the GOP of the 1950's and 1960's - with its embrace of private enterprise in a mostly deregulated economy with strong protections against discrimination and a decent social safety net for all - rather than a Democratic Party that is busy chasing dreams of welfare state socialism for all with persistent hostility to American business in an internationalized economy.
3
Edsall's article reflects the bias of liberals, including the NYT and most of its readers, that lower and middle income voters tend to vote Republican because they have been hoodwinked into voting against their economic interests. In fact, many of those voters genuinely believe that government redistribution of wealth is not a good thing. Even those who might support some wealth redistribution still vote Republican because those voters prioritize Republican views on social issues over economic issues. And to add icing on the cake, those voters enjoy rejecting the holier than thou, I know everything, conservatives are dumb attitude of many liberals.
Meanwhile, the entire premise of Edsall's article, that wealthy Democratic donors universally make donations to influence Democratic politicians to take conservative positions on economic matters such as wealth redistribution, has no basis in and is contradicted by the facts. Instead, as demonstrated by their statements, regardless of their wealth, most wealthy Democratic donors either morally believe wealth redistribution is appropriate or practically believe that such redistribution is a necessary component of a healthy, democratic society. So again, it is quite possible for people to reasonably take positions that might be against their parochial economic interests.
Meanwhile, the entire premise of Edsall's article, that wealthy Democratic donors universally make donations to influence Democratic politicians to take conservative positions on economic matters such as wealth redistribution, has no basis in and is contradicted by the facts. Instead, as demonstrated by their statements, regardless of their wealth, most wealthy Democratic donors either morally believe wealth redistribution is appropriate or practically believe that such redistribution is a necessary component of a healthy, democratic society. So again, it is quite possible for people to reasonably take positions that might be against their parochial economic interests.
11
Sorry! Surely hot-button voters are the holier-than-thou group? And they vote their imagined interests--their immortal souls, of which no one has ever produced a shred of evidence.
3
Liberals don't know EVERYTHING. They just have a higher regard for facts and the truth. Conservatives, on the other hand have a higher regard for FOX News, and "truthiness."
6
Lord Jesus commands feudalism.
1
Poor people aren't voting for Democrats anymore, they vote for Republicans because Democrats aren't fending for the little guy and unions anymore, they look out for what they think is the whole economy. Also, Republicans have a much more xenophobic approach and "defend" the work place from immigration better than the Democrats, which the (white) poor think raises their chances of getting a job and a decent salary. Rich people who just want to lower their taxes will keep with the Republicans as an investment whereas the rich who need an affluent middle class to thrive will give to the Democrats. Poor whites vote Republican out of hate for the Democrats but won't give money to the Republican party. The key to all of these analyses is fear of immigration. The Democrats could do much better in the South if they had an anti-immigrant platform.
4
I think Edsall isn't placing enough stress on cultural and racial factors. When Lyndon Johnson pushed his civil rights laws through Congress whites in the South, particularly working class whites, felt betrayed and started voting Republican. The Republicans, sensing an opportunity, responded by pitching their message to appeal to the white working class. By now the transformation is complete. Apart from their policies on taxes, I cannot imagine an important Republican politician saying anything that might appeal to an educated voter. I'll change my mind the next time a Republican presidential candidate admits that climate change exists and is harmful or that Darwin may have been right.
7
'How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?'
Because the rich fund all election campaigns?
And the Citizens United ruling put the final nail in the coffin of our democracy?
Because the rich fund all election campaigns?
And the Citizens United ruling put the final nail in the coffin of our democracy?
12
Thank you for this excellent examination of the Democratic Party’s shift in economic allegiance, since Reagan’s presidency and particularly since Clinton’s, to the corporate class. It has been dismaying to watch as the Democratic Party has aggressively embraced social progressivism and identity-based politics, while it has largely abandoned the economic interests of the working and middle class voters it once represented. It is no wonder that the “lunch pail tradition,” once solidly Democratic, is angry, confused, and easily falls for the phony populism of the Republican far-right.
The New York Times is in lockstep. Regularly reading its front page and editorial page over the past year, one gets the impression of an obsession with promoting gay rights, marriage equality and transgender rights. (By the way, I am a socially very liberal gay man.) But where is the same dedication to the long-growing crisis of structural economic inequality? Where is a the sustained examination of economic policy, for instance, right now, with the Trans Pacific Partnership (speaking of trans)? Oh, and also, why has it’s news coverage over the past year has treated Hillary Clinton—the embodiment of the corporate Democrat--as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee?
The New York Times is in lockstep. Regularly reading its front page and editorial page over the past year, one gets the impression of an obsession with promoting gay rights, marriage equality and transgender rights. (By the way, I am a socially very liberal gay man.) But where is the same dedication to the long-growing crisis of structural economic inequality? Where is a the sustained examination of economic policy, for instance, right now, with the Trans Pacific Partnership (speaking of trans)? Oh, and also, why has it’s news coverage over the past year has treated Hillary Clinton—the embodiment of the corporate Democrat--as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee?
29
Great comment, Steve. As someone who is also socially liberal and a heterosexual male, I am a republican. Mostly because of exactly the reasons you reference in your comment. The last two years (I call 2014 the year of the liberal and it was a spectacular failure), it's been non-stop promotion of single issue topics. Not a peep or word about the collective security of our country and economic inequality. This is where democrats failed terribly and there are many, across both party lines, that are tuned in. As evidenced in this comment section there are also many sheep who refuse to acknowledge what many of us know and see about democrats. Much of what is written about republicans is false, but with a media that promotes single issue points with frequent jabs to the GOP, its no wonder we are where we are. Its because of the democrat arrogance, that they would never get another vote of mine. I don't even consider Sanders a democrat.
Democrats for years have been pulling the wool over our eyes, creating division and talking points on single issues, while padding their bank accounts and creating perhaps the most extreme financial inequality we may ever witness in our time on this planet. Like ever. Hillary Clinton could perhaps be the worst possible outcome. As a republican, Bernie Sanders, a socialist, will get my vote first.
Democrats for years have been pulling the wool over our eyes, creating division and talking points on single issues, while padding their bank accounts and creating perhaps the most extreme financial inequality we may ever witness in our time on this planet. Like ever. Hillary Clinton could perhaps be the worst possible outcome. As a republican, Bernie Sanders, a socialist, will get my vote first.
Good points.
Out here in the provinces (my mother used to tell me that there was New York and the rest were the provinces, and not to forget that my roots are in the provinces - :)) the NYT seems rather stuck in a rut. At age 62, I am in the mid-cohort of my generation, and respect Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, but gee, golly, I would like my doctor to be younger than I am--can't I vote for a Democratic candidate who is younger, too??
I am glad to see the NYT take a positive stand on gender rights, and that means a lot to many of us, but the reality out here in the provinces is that the economy is not going anywhere in a hurry and it's not anyone's fault--it just is a tough problem to solve. Companies are no longer hiring as many humans--I was googling "Automation" by Alan Sherman last evening and thinking how relevant it is today. Too many young people can't get a leg up on life, and I know too many young people who told it like it is during the Occupy movement. They are right. We need new thinking and newer brain cells to think it with, and while Hillary Clinton is a wise old trooper, the NYT needs to give more space to candidates who are not retired.
When I'm in my rocking chair, I want the Millennials to be on top of the world, and the only way they will get there is by fighting against inequality now. We all have to eat. Dear NYT, please take a trip to the provinces!
Out here in the provinces (my mother used to tell me that there was New York and the rest were the provinces, and not to forget that my roots are in the provinces - :)) the NYT seems rather stuck in a rut. At age 62, I am in the mid-cohort of my generation, and respect Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, but gee, golly, I would like my doctor to be younger than I am--can't I vote for a Democratic candidate who is younger, too??
I am glad to see the NYT take a positive stand on gender rights, and that means a lot to many of us, but the reality out here in the provinces is that the economy is not going anywhere in a hurry and it's not anyone's fault--it just is a tough problem to solve. Companies are no longer hiring as many humans--I was googling "Automation" by Alan Sherman last evening and thinking how relevant it is today. Too many young people can't get a leg up on life, and I know too many young people who told it like it is during the Occupy movement. They are right. We need new thinking and newer brain cells to think it with, and while Hillary Clinton is a wise old trooper, the NYT needs to give more space to candidates who are not retired.
When I'm in my rocking chair, I want the Millennials to be on top of the world, and the only way they will get there is by fighting against inequality now. We all have to eat. Dear NYT, please take a trip to the provinces!
It's interesting that Sander's ideas are characterized as "left-populist" when he is advocating financial regulations and tax laws that used to be mainstream fifty years ago. I'm sure many things appear to be left-populist as the center of our government drifts toward an oligarch coddling police state.
9
This article is great for pointing out the nuances of the delicate or strange alliances in political parties. The Democratic party is not homogeneous. A lot of times we vote because we value one issue more than others, not that we agree with every part of a party's platform.
The article did a good job of pointing out how black and Hispanic voters may be socially conservative. In many polls, blacks and Hispanics oppose gay marriage at a higher rate than others. Black churches still have some clout, and all the growth in the Catholic church lately comes from Hispanics.
Blacks and Hispanics are also not a big group you can lump together just because they are minorities. Anecdotally, I've seen blacks opposed to immigrants because they think they should "make it" first since they've been in the US the longest.
Even within those groups there are conflicting interests. African and Caribbean immigrants in many ways are "model minorities" and not reflective of our media stereotypes of blacks in poverty. Not all Hispanics are Mexican, and Mexicans come to the US with varying degrees of wealth.
Politics is messy, and this is why people like Obama and Sanders can have totally different results despite sharing overall core values.
The article did a good job of pointing out how black and Hispanic voters may be socially conservative. In many polls, blacks and Hispanics oppose gay marriage at a higher rate than others. Black churches still have some clout, and all the growth in the Catholic church lately comes from Hispanics.
Blacks and Hispanics are also not a big group you can lump together just because they are minorities. Anecdotally, I've seen blacks opposed to immigrants because they think they should "make it" first since they've been in the US the longest.
Even within those groups there are conflicting interests. African and Caribbean immigrants in many ways are "model minorities" and not reflective of our media stereotypes of blacks in poverty. Not all Hispanics are Mexican, and Mexicans come to the US with varying degrees of wealth.
Politics is messy, and this is why people like Obama and Sanders can have totally different results despite sharing overall core values.
2
The Big Bang generated both matter and anti-matter in nearly equal parts. But Matter had just one extra particle per billion. all the rest was annihilated, but what remained was enough to generate all the matter we see in the universe.
It may be true that both parties accept giant donations -- that's how our broken political system works for the nonce. But the slight advantage on behalf of the working class goes to the Democrats. That difference is huge.
It may be true that both parties accept giant donations -- that's how our broken political system works for the nonce. But the slight advantage on behalf of the working class goes to the Democrats. That difference is huge.
1
G. Nowell (below) said:
"This is a simple idea in a fancy package. As the Republican party shifted to being the party of Nuts from the South and Their Guns, sane Republicans jumped ship into the Democratic party ...."
This is both bang on, and eliding the obvious: why does the southern and rural white middle and lower-middle class vote so entirely against their interest? Is it pure racism and religious nuttery?
Or where is there a Huey Long to speak to them?
There is so much angry talk about there, but the idea of fat elderly white men lead by Wayne draft-doger LaPierre and armed with pistols managing a revolution or secession is risible.
Guns are their "opiate of the masses." It provides them the illusion of retaining some power and independence, some "freedom." So they vote the interests of the wealthy, and they think that the "gubmint" is why things are so bad for them, and getting worse.
"This is a simple idea in a fancy package. As the Republican party shifted to being the party of Nuts from the South and Their Guns, sane Republicans jumped ship into the Democratic party ...."
This is both bang on, and eliding the obvious: why does the southern and rural white middle and lower-middle class vote so entirely against their interest? Is it pure racism and religious nuttery?
Or where is there a Huey Long to speak to them?
There is so much angry talk about there, but the idea of fat elderly white men lead by Wayne draft-doger LaPierre and armed with pistols managing a revolution or secession is risible.
Guns are their "opiate of the masses." It provides them the illusion of retaining some power and independence, some "freedom." So they vote the interests of the wealthy, and they think that the "gubmint" is why things are so bad for them, and getting worse.
5
It is not that Democrats are shifting towards a "free market". It is that they. like the Republicans, are creating the crony capitalism that stifles a free market and enriches those making the rules. Politicians stopped seeing public service as service to the public a long time ago. They are only interested in a slice of the nearly 4 trillion dollar budget. The real money, however, comes from their reward for good service to their donors after they leave office. Lucrative speaking fees, extravagant salaries as lobbyist, and positions on boards of directors await them after they leave office. A truly free market would mean no more gravy train.
4
Another way to look at this evaluation; Americans now realize that all a $200 contribution gets you are unlimited emails from anyone and everyone in the party looking to grab another sucker. If you can't donate 5 figures, you're not a small donor, you're a sap. So while there may be more big donors out there who want a seat at some table, the rest of us small donors sit back and hope someone wins tha we can stomach voting for.
6
Amusing to read that many on the Left is finally admitting to what any non-biased person knew years ago - that when it comes to the gathering of and the self-protection of personal wealth, there is no difference between the 2 political parties.
Now, if we can only get the rest of the electorate to admit it and vote these clowns out of office.
Now, if we can only get the rest of the electorate to admit it and vote these clowns out of office.
6
The desire to "vote these clowns out of office" is understandable and widely shared. Unfortunately we can't literally just vote someone out. We have to vote someone in, and there the problem begins.
This is very helpful, particular by publicizing the analysis of political contributions (by Bonica et al.). But reality is complicated.
State by state, lower income still correlates with Democratic votes, as Andrew Gelman shows (building on the work of many others): http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9030.html
But the mechanics of campaigning is an important part of the story. Campaigns understandably focus on likely voters, while millions of disproportionately low income potential voters are disaffected, and their attitude may be rational.
The ebbing power of unions (or any other "countervailing power" as Galbraith called it) leaves little in its place, except possibly some worried or guilt-driven Democratic elites do not replace working people's institutions, and these elites are no smarter or better than anyone else. Instead, Democratic elites can be captured by foolish plans that flatter their desire to advance what they consider worthy aims, like Zuckerberg in his effort to "reform" Newark schools.
It's not just about campaign contributions, although that can be quantitatively measured better than the decline in countervailing power, or the nuances of campaign mechanics.
State by state, lower income still correlates with Democratic votes, as Andrew Gelman shows (building on the work of many others): http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9030.html
But the mechanics of campaigning is an important part of the story. Campaigns understandably focus on likely voters, while millions of disproportionately low income potential voters are disaffected, and their attitude may be rational.
The ebbing power of unions (or any other "countervailing power" as Galbraith called it) leaves little in its place, except possibly some worried or guilt-driven Democratic elites do not replace working people's institutions, and these elites are no smarter or better than anyone else. Instead, Democratic elites can be captured by foolish plans that flatter their desire to advance what they consider worthy aims, like Zuckerberg in his effort to "reform" Newark schools.
It's not just about campaign contributions, although that can be quantitatively measured better than the decline in countervailing power, or the nuances of campaign mechanics.
1
The influence of big money on both parties no doubt has a lot to do with the policies they pursue.
I am fairly affluent and vote Democratic partly based on issues around cultural liberalism, and also because as an educated person, I prefer that my politicians have at least a tenuous grounding in reality, which Republicans don't. I am in favor of higher tax rates on the rich, preserving Social Security, and the government taking a greater role in assisting lower income Americans. However, if neither party is going to pursue those, I will probably do OK and therefore I will vote for the party that is less likely to pursue destructive, unnecessary invasions of other countries, at least acknowledges the existence of climate change as an issue, and doesn't use me as a scapegoat to rile up their fundamentalist Christian base.
So I guess I pretty much illustrate Mr Edsall's point.
I am fairly affluent and vote Democratic partly based on issues around cultural liberalism, and also because as an educated person, I prefer that my politicians have at least a tenuous grounding in reality, which Republicans don't. I am in favor of higher tax rates on the rich, preserving Social Security, and the government taking a greater role in assisting lower income Americans. However, if neither party is going to pursue those, I will probably do OK and therefore I will vote for the party that is less likely to pursue destructive, unnecessary invasions of other countries, at least acknowledges the existence of climate change as an issue, and doesn't use me as a scapegoat to rile up their fundamentalist Christian base.
So I guess I pretty much illustrate Mr Edsall's point.
12
Two critical events caused much but not all of Edsall's analysis. He under estimates: the impact of: Citizens United decision that unleached a flood of money into political campaigns for TV advertising; the Failure of Brown, Black & under 30 people to Vote in the 2010 elections. Both generated overwhelming Republican victories in State elections, which led to more severe gerrymandering of districts. That produced more severe Republican victories for House & state districts in 2012 & 2014- even worse- because the Democrats lost the Senate, partly due to failure of Blacks, Browns & Under 35s to vote.
The patterns he described bunching of Dems in Urban & semi-Urban districts & more spread out Reps in less dense areas. This applies to the Middle West especially as the Northeast & Pacific Coasts are highly Dem. in their voting patterns and where high income people vote Dem. for social reasons. Example: Ohio where Statewide the Dems. got a majority Of House votes, but only won 4 of 12 House seats; In a such a spread out state, the Dems. should have won more seats except for gerrymandering.
The patterns he described bunching of Dems in Urban & semi-Urban districts & more spread out Reps in less dense areas. This applies to the Middle West especially as the Northeast & Pacific Coasts are highly Dem. in their voting patterns and where high income people vote Dem. for social reasons. Example: Ohio where Statewide the Dems. got a majority Of House votes, but only won 4 of 12 House seats; In a such a spread out state, the Dems. should have won more seats except for gerrymandering.
3
You have pinpointed the political center in its left and right incarnations, for better or worse. One clarity -- Bernie is not running against plutocrats but against the Democratic center. People can support or oppose -- I am opposed -- but it should be clear that is what is happening. And he is in fact a left-populist -- again, that is the truth. "For better or worse" is how we need to get busy.
I propose that the motto on the national seal be changed. In place of "E Pluribus Unum", which is obviously an anachronism, let's have something that accurately reflects the current United States of America - "Quid Pro Quo."
1
This is a great and illuminating piece. Edsall hits the heart of the matter each time. Republicans represent the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country. The democrats used to represent the middle class and the middle class workers through labor unions. Now we see that social issues are used by democrats to subvert the middle class from seeing their true alignment with major republican issues, such as cut taxes for the rich, deregulate corporations etc. This change in policy by the democrats is predicated on their voters not being able to recognize that when they vote for democrats they are very close to voting against their own interests, which is to have a government by, of and for the whole population, not just the rich. I am convinced that we have substituted an oligarchy in place of our democracy, with very few options left open to change it back. Seventy years ago it took WWII to reinstate the middle class's share of the country's wealth. I hope we don't need a WW III to eliminate class warfare in the US and other countries around the world.
2
I don't mean this as a criticism of the article, but it's depressing how when the article canvasses the many issues that matter to the public or to its wealthy subset, climate change does not come up once. We're doomed.
1
Excellent piece, but the reason is less about economics and more about how Republicans became the party of stupid. If you have a college degree, it's hard to side with people who disavow evolution, believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth, bash gay people, and deny the science of climate change.
2
Yes, the Republican party has become a Confederacy of Dunces, hasn't it, Ignatius?
Uh, okay. I'll take a stab at that. Big money is attracted to anyone who might win. Money is spent on candidates for the sole purpose of buying influence in the event that they are elected. Why would big money put all its eggs in one basket. Democrats are winners. Big money interests need to give to them, if they hope to maintain control over govt. In the process they've driven Democrats farther and farther from the ideals that their party once stood for (staring with Bill Clinton). The only reason they keep winning is that the modern Republican party is filled with bozos and losers. And as long as we lack any semblance of campaign finance reform, the trend will continue. Unless a people-powered candidate like Bernie Sanders manages to, against the odds, change the rules of the game.
3
Mr. Edsall, sadly, your well articulated message obviously failed to penetrate the inherent bias of a majority of commenters. The party they support is nothing like the "other" party & is good & right in all it does. Or, the other one's still evil while theirs retains its wings & a halo. Take your pick.
6
Mr. Edsall:
It takes all kinds. Since the bean-counting Clinton years and Glass-Steagall's
demise the game has been rigged. Toss in Alan Greenspan's inane trust in self-regulating markets and the incessant clamor for growth at all costs and... here we are.
Mr. Clinton helped create a lot of rich people, why shouldn't those people stay with the party that made them weathy? If one can afford it the notion of playing both sides of the fence is also available to the rich. Let us not forget Citizens United and the enfranchisement of corporations.
Most don't follow or understand this dismantling of safeguards that were a hedge against the total exploitation of the poor and the middleclass. I remember when people actually had savings accounts. Do you put your money in a savings account?
One thing the rich have in common, Democrat of Republican, is wealth. When push comes to shove, they all believe they are entitled to it. In the end,
they also believe that no one else deserves entitlement. A little tax deductable philanthopy goes a long way towards soothing a rich man's conscience.
I met a holocaust survivor once. We talked of many things, including justice.
He said to me,"how much bread can one man eat".
It takes all kinds. Since the bean-counting Clinton years and Glass-Steagall's
demise the game has been rigged. Toss in Alan Greenspan's inane trust in self-regulating markets and the incessant clamor for growth at all costs and... here we are.
Mr. Clinton helped create a lot of rich people, why shouldn't those people stay with the party that made them weathy? If one can afford it the notion of playing both sides of the fence is also available to the rich. Let us not forget Citizens United and the enfranchisement of corporations.
Most don't follow or understand this dismantling of safeguards that were a hedge against the total exploitation of the poor and the middleclass. I remember when people actually had savings accounts. Do you put your money in a savings account?
One thing the rich have in common, Democrat of Republican, is wealth. When push comes to shove, they all believe they are entitled to it. In the end,
they also believe that no one else deserves entitlement. A little tax deductable philanthopy goes a long way towards soothing a rich man's conscience.
I met a holocaust survivor once. We talked of many things, including justice.
He said to me,"how much bread can one man eat".
6
A lot of the change in the Democratic party can be traced back to Al From, Bill Clinton, and the DLC. Matt Stoller had a nice summary/review of Al From's book: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/matt-stoller-democratic-party-act...
As for restoring a democracy, our problems go much deeper than campaign finance reform. Look at the revolving door, as people go back and forth between positions as govt regulators and jobs in private industry, being richly rewarding for either doing nothing or promoting the interests of the industry in question during their tenure in govt. Look at the Clintons and from where there huge speaking fees came after they left office. I think Obama's goal is to do the same, being rewarded by the industries for which he sold us out. Obama did not have much of a record, and we voted based on promises he did not keep. Bernie Sanders has a long record in public office. If you want change, vote for him, and stay involved - he cannot fight the oligarchs alone.
As for restoring a democracy, our problems go much deeper than campaign finance reform. Look at the revolving door, as people go back and forth between positions as govt regulators and jobs in private industry, being richly rewarding for either doing nothing or promoting the interests of the industry in question during their tenure in govt. Look at the Clintons and from where there huge speaking fees came after they left office. I think Obama's goal is to do the same, being rewarded by the industries for which he sold us out. Obama did not have much of a record, and we voted based on promises he did not keep. Bernie Sanders has a long record in public office. If you want change, vote for him, and stay involved - he cannot fight the oligarchs alone.
4
The typical democrat in New York is wealthy and votes democratic because it means they don't have to donate to charity. They vote to increase other people's taxes while exploiting loopholes for themselves. They oppose charter schools and support the teacher's unions and then send their children to private school. And worst of all, they are against the police but live in million dollar apartments with private security.
And they justify their hypocrisy by claiming that all republicans are stupid and anti-science. They believe the distortion and caricature created by the media, and they all refuse to actually listen to the proposals and the candidates. Just look at the ignorance in the comment here to prove my point!
There are many reasonable Republicans, but the NY Times pretends they don't exist!
And they justify their hypocrisy by claiming that all republicans are stupid and anti-science. They believe the distortion and caricature created by the media, and they all refuse to actually listen to the proposals and the candidates. Just look at the ignorance in the comment here to prove my point!
There are many reasonable Republicans, but the NY Times pretends they don't exist!
6
There might be reasonable Republicans out there but they have yet to show themselves in the NYT forums. Every comment from a Republican I've ever seen on here is just a rehash of the latest Fox News talking points.
And I'm sorry, can you look me in the eye and say that with the current cast of Republican presidential candidates that the party has not become stupid and anti-science? To paraphrase something the intellectual giant Dan Quayle once said, today's Republicans wear their stupidity and anti-science attitudes as a badge of honor.
And I'm sorry, can you look me in the eye and say that with the current cast of Republican presidential candidates that the party has not become stupid and anti-science? To paraphrase something the intellectual giant Dan Quayle once said, today's Republicans wear their stupidity and anti-science attitudes as a badge of honor.
1
Outstanding comment! Every single thing you said is absolutely correct, even if few will admit it. Nothing resonates more about this, than the time I was listening to the radio and one of these democrat's was on a call concerning former Mayor Bloomberg and stop and frisk. Her exact words. "I am vehemently against stop and frisk, but I want police to be keeping guard in my neighborhood." Huh? That means stop the stop and frisk in Brooklyn, and "keep it real" and patrol my affluent neighborhood?! The radio hosts were so flabbergasted that they didn't even answer her and hung up. This folks, is the mentality of your average New York democrat. You get it and I get it. Lots of us do.
And...none of this is assumption on my part. It's rooted in fact. Many of my clients are this profile and I go into their homes and I see it with my own eyes. Furthermore, odd how a republican like myself and other men, have relationships with women from all cultures and religions (including Muslim), but more than anything, I know many conservative men who have Black and Hispanic wives, yet every liberal democrat house I go into is very very White like a merger of Stanford and Boston grads (ew gross) and they all employ their "help" or nannies who are often Black and Hispanic. Just walk through the UWS or Park Slope and see it for yourself. Meanwhile their kids are enrolled in Bank St school and others. The hypocrisy is absurd and the problem is none of us speak up on these subjects.
And...none of this is assumption on my part. It's rooted in fact. Many of my clients are this profile and I go into their homes and I see it with my own eyes. Furthermore, odd how a republican like myself and other men, have relationships with women from all cultures and religions (including Muslim), but more than anything, I know many conservative men who have Black and Hispanic wives, yet every liberal democrat house I go into is very very White like a merger of Stanford and Boston grads (ew gross) and they all employ their "help" or nannies who are often Black and Hispanic. Just walk through the UWS or Park Slope and see it for yourself. Meanwhile their kids are enrolled in Bank St school and others. The hypocrisy is absurd and the problem is none of us speak up on these subjects.
The Democratic coalition is about o follow the Republicans in splitting apart.
3
Both parties have moved to the right. That is the real problem with democrats-they are the republicans of the 50s.
3
Professor Edsall,
This is a very interesting column. It helps explain the mystery of why in many regions of the country, that are obviously low income voters do not go to the polls and vote in their self interests. The election of 2010 that that flipped the House majority is an example of the phenomena. I don't have access to the data of the studies that you cite but I suspect that one key factor is the low voter participation rate. More affluent voters turn out than the less affluent, especially in off year elections. I have noticed some states such as NC there is an active effort to making voting more difficult.
I agree, the focus of the Congress is on the Donors, being Democrat or Republican appears to be a secondary consideration. The agenda-setters use both Democrats and Republicans to promote their interests, It is becoming increasingly obvious as you have noted in several columns. Would it be better if we could get the BiG MONEY out of politics? Yes. But no one really knows how to do it. I have been very impressed with Senator Sanders and hope that somehow he can take his broad based money raising campaign strategy all the way but it will be difficult for him because it seems that his message can be distorted by the agenda-setting BIG MONEY. It is no error that the most affluent counties and towns, including my own, are influential & they are good at what they do politically. The resulting concentration of wealth & income probably harms the economy.
This is a very interesting column. It helps explain the mystery of why in many regions of the country, that are obviously low income voters do not go to the polls and vote in their self interests. The election of 2010 that that flipped the House majority is an example of the phenomena. I don't have access to the data of the studies that you cite but I suspect that one key factor is the low voter participation rate. More affluent voters turn out than the less affluent, especially in off year elections. I have noticed some states such as NC there is an active effort to making voting more difficult.
I agree, the focus of the Congress is on the Donors, being Democrat or Republican appears to be a secondary consideration. The agenda-setters use both Democrats and Republicans to promote their interests, It is becoming increasingly obvious as you have noted in several columns. Would it be better if we could get the BiG MONEY out of politics? Yes. But no one really knows how to do it. I have been very impressed with Senator Sanders and hope that somehow he can take his broad based money raising campaign strategy all the way but it will be difficult for him because it seems that his message can be distorted by the agenda-setting BIG MONEY. It is no error that the most affluent counties and towns, including my own, are influential & they are good at what they do politically. The resulting concentration of wealth & income probably harms the economy.
1
It;s easier to say you don't mind paying more in taxes to help people who are less off - but also intellectually lazy or indifferent. The effects are the opposite, on taxes and the welfare of the poor. And the objection to welfare is to the massive increases in public assistance under Obama - no one opposes it for some people. Liberalism is largely emotion over good sense. If you really think increasing taxes or regulations aren't regressively felt and paid for - you are probably a "liberal".
2
Democratic Party obeisance to the rich, particularly in the financial sector, is most obviously illustrated by the fact that not a single individual was prosecuted for the financial debacle of 2007-08 which roiled our economy.
The latest indicia is the failure to prosecute a single individual at GM for hding a problem for 10 years that cost the lives of 124 people and injured many more.
The latest indicia is the failure to prosecute a single individual at GM for hding a problem for 10 years that cost the lives of 124 people and injured many more.
9
I was surprised there was no mention of unions. Back when unions were strong and represented the working men and women, they supported the Democratic Party with money and get out the vote efforts, and the party in turn looked out for their members. The Republicans destroyed the unions and the Dems had to look elsewhere for support.
89
The Republicans didn't destroy the unions, the unions did it to themselves with unrealistic work rules and corrupt leaders. Private sector unions have been going downhill ever since the 1960's when Japan and Europe recovered from WWII and started selling higher quality, less expensive products in the US.
It is important to remember that in 1980 not only was Ronald Reagan officially endorsed by the Teamsters Union and the National Maritime Union, but he also received large numbers of votes from blue-collar union members throughout the nation. Thus, to the extent that one may argue that the "Republicans destroyed the unions," one also has to keep in mind that the Republicans who did so were boosted into power with the explicit support of many union members.
@trakker
I support Unions, but too many Union leaders care more about themselves than about the workers.
If Unions had proper leadership, every employee would willingly vote for them. As it turn out, the Union leaders are trying to force membership so they can steal the money for themselves.
I support Unions, but too many Union leaders care more about themselves than about the workers.
If Unions had proper leadership, every employee would willingly vote for them. As it turn out, the Union leaders are trying to force membership so they can steal the money for themselves.
I've always thought that a major difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats have some scruples. Democrats don't base their whole strategy on the exploitation of wedge issues and disingenuous political theater to con voters into voting against what is in their own best interests.
But I've always wondered why Democrats make no effort to point out to those taken in by the GOP propaganda that they are being used, and that the vast majority of us voters have the same interests at heart. Now I see why.
Those providing the money to the GOP or to the Democrats both don't really care about the interests of the working classes, and the leaders of the Democratic Party are content to sit by and let the GOP do the more obvious dirty work.
But I've always wondered why Democrats make no effort to point out to those taken in by the GOP propaganda that they are being used, and that the vast majority of us voters have the same interests at heart. Now I see why.
Those providing the money to the GOP or to the Democrats both don't really care about the interests of the working classes, and the leaders of the Democratic Party are content to sit by and let the GOP do the more obvious dirty work.
“Both Republicans and many Democrats have experienced an ideological shift toward acceptance of (a form of) free market capitalism…”
Curiously, this has happened at the same time as more and more people realize that free market capitalism is precisely the cause of our predicament, namely: financial deregulation leading to obscene inequalities; extractivism, the looting of the earth’s resources, leading to climate chaos.
As the Democratic establishment has joined the GOP in its advocacy of the status quo and growing irrelevance, people are catching up and see in Bernie Sanders their only genuine representative, and their only chance of salvation.
Which is why the DNC, the Clinton machine, and the pundits in the mainstream media are doing everything they can to smother the “Bernie Sanders insurgency”.
Curiously, this has happened at the same time as more and more people realize that free market capitalism is precisely the cause of our predicament, namely: financial deregulation leading to obscene inequalities; extractivism, the looting of the earth’s resources, leading to climate chaos.
As the Democratic establishment has joined the GOP in its advocacy of the status quo and growing irrelevance, people are catching up and see in Bernie Sanders their only genuine representative, and their only chance of salvation.
Which is why the DNC, the Clinton machine, and the pundits in the mainstream media are doing everything they can to smother the “Bernie Sanders insurgency”.
1
As an affluent voter myself, I vote Democratic out of enlightened economic self-interest. I am retired and depend on investments for my income, and a quick survey of the markets over the last century or so shows that they invariably do better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones. I did very well during the Clinton years even with the collapse of the tech bubble, while the Bush II administration almost forced me back to work.
The shift of Democratic economic policy to the right reflects the county's shift towards greed and self-interest that started in the Reagan era. Without significant checks on the wealthy, their influence over all aspects of American life has grown exponentially in the last three decades. Democrat or Republican, you oppose their financial interests at your peril.
The shift of Democratic economic policy to the right reflects the county's shift towards greed and self-interest that started in the Reagan era. Without significant checks on the wealthy, their influence over all aspects of American life has grown exponentially in the last three decades. Democrat or Republican, you oppose their financial interests at your peril.
1
It's nice that someone finally noticed. The Democrat Party is and has been the party of the rich now for many decades, starting with the spoiled, rich kids in the 1960s.
Who do you think attends all those expensive, and ultra-liberal, ivy league colleges? Not Joe-Six-Pack's kids. And while Democrats rail against "big bankers" and Wall Street, eight of the ten richest counties in the U.S. quietly voted for Obama in the last election. Check out the choicest and most expensive spots in America - Vermont, Beverley Hills, Tahoe, Long Island, Westchester County, Hyannis Port, etc., etc. They're all infested with Democrats. (Do you suppose any of those residents are "big bankers?")
The Democrats long ago deserted Middle-America's working class. In fact, In fact, they can barely conceal their contempt for blue-collar workers.
Who do you think attends all those expensive, and ultra-liberal, ivy league colleges? Not Joe-Six-Pack's kids. And while Democrats rail against "big bankers" and Wall Street, eight of the ten richest counties in the U.S. quietly voted for Obama in the last election. Check out the choicest and most expensive spots in America - Vermont, Beverley Hills, Tahoe, Long Island, Westchester County, Hyannis Port, etc., etc. They're all infested with Democrats. (Do you suppose any of those residents are "big bankers?")
The Democrats long ago deserted Middle-America's working class. In fact, In fact, they can barely conceal their contempt for blue-collar workers.
6
If blue-collar workers think they've gotten such a great deal under Republicans, let them party on. If present trends continue, they'll spend their old age looking forward to their daily can of cat food, but by gum, they'll have their guns (if they haven't had to sell them for food) and their "religious freedom". And they will have stuck it to us snooty coastal liberal elitists!
1
With this column, Mr Edsall proves once again why he is one of the best op-ed writers in the NYT or anywhere else.
Let's assume that the partisanship exhibited between the two political parties is basically a civil war without bullets over American governance and correlating quality of life. In this civil war, dollars are the armaments, donors are the arms dealers, and politicians are waging the conflict on behalf of themselves and whoever supports their often vacuous bromides masquerading as policy proposals. (ok, I'm thinking more republican here than democrat, but there are plenty of democratic skeletons in this closet).
Note that "on behalf of themselves" matters as much, or more than on behalf of "whoever supports" their social, economic, legislative ideas. Since government officials at all levels of local, state and national government typically are career politicians, regardless of party affiliation, it's really hard not to view their funding solicitation of the top quintile as anything other than self-aggrandizement. Factor in the revolving doors of "K" street, banking industry and so on, and the picture becomes very clear. They like those cushy jobs.
Seems like the bottom 4 quintiles of donors and voters had better start organizing themselves into a "voters union" if they want to have their voices heard. Arguably, that's what both the Tea Partiers and the Bernie Sanders supporters are driving at ... at least in terms of getting out the vote.
Let's assume that the partisanship exhibited between the two political parties is basically a civil war without bullets over American governance and correlating quality of life. In this civil war, dollars are the armaments, donors are the arms dealers, and politicians are waging the conflict on behalf of themselves and whoever supports their often vacuous bromides masquerading as policy proposals. (ok, I'm thinking more republican here than democrat, but there are plenty of democratic skeletons in this closet).
Note that "on behalf of themselves" matters as much, or more than on behalf of "whoever supports" their social, economic, legislative ideas. Since government officials at all levels of local, state and national government typically are career politicians, regardless of party affiliation, it's really hard not to view their funding solicitation of the top quintile as anything other than self-aggrandizement. Factor in the revolving doors of "K" street, banking industry and so on, and the picture becomes very clear. They like those cushy jobs.
Seems like the bottom 4 quintiles of donors and voters had better start organizing themselves into a "voters union" if they want to have their voices heard. Arguably, that's what both the Tea Partiers and the Bernie Sanders supporters are driving at ... at least in terms of getting out the vote.
2
is It would appear that Thomas Edsall is looking for nuance and is ignoring the obvious. Since Reagan, Republicans have gone increasingly crazy and detached from reality. Over the short term, this craziness benefited the wealthies who were allowed to dictate Republican economic policies while giving only lip service to Christian fundamentalist social-policy goals.
Now, however, the crazy tail is wagging the economic dog. The wealthies have lost control, and they know it. What rational business person would condone shuttering the government over a dispute on contraception? None.
Supporting Democrats is now in the economic self-interest of the 1%.
Now, however, the crazy tail is wagging the economic dog. The wealthies have lost control, and they know it. What rational business person would condone shuttering the government over a dispute on contraception? None.
Supporting Democrats is now in the economic self-interest of the 1%.
3
Michjas, I hope you're looking at Bernie Sanders seriously! (And let's give him a Congress to work with!)
1
This has everything to do with money. If campaigns were actually funded by taxes and donated media, as is the case in many other developed nations, we might actually have candidates who are responsive to the people they govern. As it currently stands, any candidate who wants to be elected must "kiss the ring". After they are elected, they pass policies that benefit their donors. Why should any of this be a surprise? What should be surprising is that our entire system hasn't yet imploded. But clearly, that's coming. There can be no democracy when the country is run by a few wealthy donors, which is what is happening now.
1
The New York Times has long been a newspaper of and for the rich and it's virtually an arm of the Democratic Party, and it's readers (at least based on posted comments) are mostly partisan Democrats. This is not new. Go back to the egghead days of Adlai and you see the same affluent liberal phenomenon. Will this remain the case if social issues become less prominent or is this partisan identification now baked in?
6
" In the case of these white voters, however, animosity to Democratic cultural and moral liberalism trumps Democratic economic liberalism, as demonstrated by the near unanimous Republican-majority midterm and presidential voting in the poorest white counties of Appalachia."
This only goes on for so long, eventually the need to put food on the table becomes paramount over one's cultural values. We are witnessing an uprising in both parties Mr. Edsall and at the core is basic economics, income inequality. Those of us who are not part of the six figure income crowd have had enough. We may not be able to "topple one of the parties" but we may start a revolution and the smugness of the elites will not be able to stop it. We may not have money but we have far greater strength in numbers.
This only goes on for so long, eventually the need to put food on the table becomes paramount over one's cultural values. We are witnessing an uprising in both parties Mr. Edsall and at the core is basic economics, income inequality. Those of us who are not part of the six figure income crowd have had enough. We may not be able to "topple one of the parties" but we may start a revolution and the smugness of the elites will not be able to stop it. We may not have money but we have far greater strength in numbers.
5
One very real attraction of the rich to the Democratic party is that these wealthy individuals can justifiably fork over fifty grand for a political fundraiser and rationalize their disdain in personally making regular donations to charitable donations while they hide behind the belief that caring for the poor or less fortunate is the job of government and not individuals and communities. That usually explains the wide gap in personal giving of wealthy Republican supporters versus their Democratic voting counterparts.
1
I believe the gap is because of tithing, and the same could be said of republicans and the church. Charity distributed by churches does not always come without strings attached.
Obama's secretary of commerce, billionaire Penny Pritzker, has contributed to Bush, Lieberman, Giuliani, McCain, Gore, Kerry, Clinton.
The rich 'invest' in politicians in the expectation of a return.
The rich 'invest' in politicians in the expectation of a return.
4
It is not because of wealth that Democrats are favored by a majority of wealthy districts in the country, but that those districts are in the states of the old Union. Overwhelmingly, districts favoring Republicans are white districts in the old Confederacy. That is the real divide, not wealth.
That's a big part of it, and also education. People with advanced degrees vote strongly Democratic and there is still a pretty strong correlation between advanced education and affluence. However, I think it's the education that shapes the voting behavior more than the affluence per se.
1
Mr. Edsall's opinion is continuing a trend of "false equivalence" between Democrats and Republicans; a trend that the media in its fear of being labeled the "left wing media" started in the past ten years or so.
There is no equivalence between the two parties' policies. While it may true that the overall acceptance of the power of the "free market" (in concept) to promote the general welfare may have been embraced by both parties, the equivalence stops there. All the statistics of the past forty years have proved that the Democrats are, in every aspect, the better stewards of our economy.
As a result, it is not surprising that a good proportion of the very wealthy and the educated class support them. They know a good thing when they see one.
Could the Democrats be enticed to be a little less attuned to the corporate lobbyists and more attuned to the needs of the middle class? I hope they can, and Mr. Sanders is performing a great service to the nation by reminding them of this need. Could the Republicans be enticed to acknowledge facts such as climate change or that tax cuts alone do not an economy make? I doubt it very much as there is no one in their party daring to do so.
There is no equivalence between the two parties' policies. While it may true that the overall acceptance of the power of the "free market" (in concept) to promote the general welfare may have been embraced by both parties, the equivalence stops there. All the statistics of the past forty years have proved that the Democrats are, in every aspect, the better stewards of our economy.
As a result, it is not surprising that a good proportion of the very wealthy and the educated class support them. They know a good thing when they see one.
Could the Democrats be enticed to be a little less attuned to the corporate lobbyists and more attuned to the needs of the middle class? I hope they can, and Mr. Sanders is performing a great service to the nation by reminding them of this need. Could the Republicans be enticed to acknowledge facts such as climate change or that tax cuts alone do not an economy make? I doubt it very much as there is no one in their party daring to do so.
1
There are plenty of policies hostile to the interests of the working class that are integral to the culturally liberal ethos espoused by many of these mega donors or other deep pocketed special interests. Examples:
- climate change: the working class doesn't have the option to not use electricity. What happens to rates when PUCs require rate payers to foot the bill for expunging cheap coal energy from existence?
- school choice: the Democrats have been on the wrong side here forever, at odds with families and children seeking to improve their education options. The income gap wreaks its effect through an education system that forces poor students exclusively (as captive customers) into the poorest performing schools
- minimum wage: "hey pay me more" sounds great until you hear, "hey you're laid off", or "hey we're cutting back on your hours" or "hey we're closing up shop because this toothpick factory doesn't work with everyone pulling down $15 per hour". In the end, not great for the working class; one might say, why would Democrats ardently support such a policy?? And let's put aside the cynical view that it polls well with the uninformed voter. High minimum wage is very helpful to organized labor in making themselves not as expensive relative to a non-union workforce. however, organized labor is seeking to exempt their jobs from minimum wage, because they want the same flexibility to manage their workers that any independent employer would want!
- climate change: the working class doesn't have the option to not use electricity. What happens to rates when PUCs require rate payers to foot the bill for expunging cheap coal energy from existence?
- school choice: the Democrats have been on the wrong side here forever, at odds with families and children seeking to improve their education options. The income gap wreaks its effect through an education system that forces poor students exclusively (as captive customers) into the poorest performing schools
- minimum wage: "hey pay me more" sounds great until you hear, "hey you're laid off", or "hey we're cutting back on your hours" or "hey we're closing up shop because this toothpick factory doesn't work with everyone pulling down $15 per hour". In the end, not great for the working class; one might say, why would Democrats ardently support such a policy?? And let's put aside the cynical view that it polls well with the uninformed voter. High minimum wage is very helpful to organized labor in making themselves not as expensive relative to a non-union workforce. however, organized labor is seeking to exempt their jobs from minimum wage, because they want the same flexibility to manage their workers that any independent employer would want!
6
The voice of 100 million U.S. voters is muffled by the megaphone of $100 billion in contributions to political parties from large and wealthy donors:
$1 = 1 vote
$1 million = 1 million votes
$1 billion = 1 billion votes
A proposed revised title of this column -
"Political Party Contributions now Dominated by Large and Wealthy Donors"
- better summarizes data from the associated graph.
Large and Super Donor contributions to each political party:
1980 - less than 25% of total
2012 - greater than 50% of total
Small Donor contributions to each political party:
1980 - greater than 60% of total
2012 - less than 30% of total
Other than the early 90's, PACs and Super PACs combined contributions are less than 25% of total contributions to each political party.
$1 = 1 vote
$1 million = 1 million votes
$1 billion = 1 billion votes
A proposed revised title of this column -
"Political Party Contributions now Dominated by Large and Wealthy Donors"
- better summarizes data from the associated graph.
Large and Super Donor contributions to each political party:
1980 - less than 25% of total
2012 - greater than 50% of total
Small Donor contributions to each political party:
1980 - greater than 60% of total
2012 - less than 30% of total
Other than the early 90's, PACs and Super PACs combined contributions are less than 25% of total contributions to each political party.
24
This article underscores the importance of primary races.
If the ultra-wealthy can select the candidate to run in the general election, then they are free to choose between the two candidates who are most likely to do their bidding. Conversely, the hoi polloi are stuck choosing the least disliked candidate.
Perhaps, control (or lack of control) of the 2016 primary process is why there is so much angst about Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party's presidential nominating contest and Donald Trump winning the Republican Party's primary. Neither candidate can be counted on to do the bidding of the ultra-wealthy.
If the ultra-wealthy can select the candidate to run in the general election, then they are free to choose between the two candidates who are most likely to do their bidding. Conversely, the hoi polloi are stuck choosing the least disliked candidate.
Perhaps, control (or lack of control) of the 2016 primary process is why there is so much angst about Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party's presidential nominating contest and Donald Trump winning the Republican Party's primary. Neither candidate can be counted on to do the bidding of the ultra-wealthy.
5
"I'm not insane" has a lot to recommend it as the minimum qualification for office. Rich people's interests may vary considerably from those of the rest of us, but they probably don't vary enough to risk voting for World War III, environmental destruction and overreaching into people's private lives. Yes, of course, Citizens United was a horrible decision and I would really rather that money not be an omnipresent force in political life, but I sure as heck don't want to commit political or national suicide in response.
Even more startling: why would poor people favor Republicans?
3
While it is certainly true that the Democratic Party has done very well by the bankers, this article overdoes the correlation of wealthy districts with voting Democratic. Two things drive this: first, the Republican Party is centered in the South and the rural Midwest. These are poorer sections of the nation and they are Republican not based upon economic policy but based upon religious social issues; second, the wealthy districts largely coincide with districts having a large number of college graduates and post-graduate professionals, who vote Democratic because they see the Republican Party as appealing to anti-science ignorance and bigotry. The Democratic/Republican divide has become more a religious divide than an economic divide. Beyond that, the Democratic Party has remained the party of the young, the poor, the immigrant, and those marginalized because of their sexual orientation.
2
I'm old enough to remember my great grandmother telling me she waved at Abraham Lincoln when he came through New Jersey campaigning for his second term in 1863. The strategy of the ruling planters to keep lower class white from banding together with slaves about to be freed by encouraging this dichotomy on social issues is not of recent origin.
1
Edsell quotes the authors of a report as claiming that, "the Democratic agenda has shifted away from general social welfare to policies that target ascriptive identities of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.
What nonsense. All one has to do is look at Democratic support by this Democratic president, congressional Democrats, and Democratic governors across the country for President Obama's healthcare reforms to understand how hard Democrats still fight for those who need help. And all one has to do is look at the dozens of votes by congressional Republicans to repeal Obamacare to understand that the Republicans have no concern for Americans who are struggling economically.
What nonsense. All one has to do is look at Democratic support by this Democratic president, congressional Democrats, and Democratic governors across the country for President Obama's healthcare reforms to understand how hard Democrats still fight for those who need help. And all one has to do is look at the dozens of votes by congressional Republicans to repeal Obamacare to understand that the Republicans have no concern for Americans who are struggling economically.
2
This is not news. Democrats have always taken big money from wall street, hollywood, union lobbies, lawyers - basically nobody looking out for the interest of the little people.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that both are sellouts to big donors (corporate, individuals, unions, special interest orgs). It's just that Republicans own up to it while Democrats continue to suggest they are holier than thou and fighting for the little people.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that both are sellouts to big donors (corporate, individuals, unions, special interest orgs). It's just that Republicans own up to it while Democrats continue to suggest they are holier than thou and fighting for the little people.
2
It was union lobbies who looked out for middle class interests.
When will people start to pay attention?
Republicans haven't owned up to anything in decades.
35 years after FDR's New Deal America was doing great. In fact, that was the time the know nothings would take us back to.
35 years after Reagan's voodoo policies America is in the pits.
Facts have a curious liberal bent.
When will people start to pay attention?
Republicans haven't owned up to anything in decades.
35 years after FDR's New Deal America was doing great. In fact, that was the time the know nothings would take us back to.
35 years after Reagan's voodoo policies America is in the pits.
Facts have a curious liberal bent.
1
Well....we are -fighting for the little people. Why? because we are better people; we are smarter - most educated of the two parties; make better decisions, are inclusive and just what America stand for.
This astute analysis reminds me of the comment in one of these pages some time ago: the Soviet Union would be alive today if the politboro had simply bifurcated into two faux parties, one for abortion rights and one against.
4
I'm going to guess that the Dems became the favorites of the rich because they helped make them richer and more powerful....just like the GOP's. Take Pearson for example....please!
Look who Randi and the AFT and teachers everywhere have endorsed for President. One more candidate who hasn't a clue about improving K12. And lest you think is this is just ideology, there are tens of millions of dollars that go along with this Machiavellian embrace.
You'd think after the impotent Duncan and clueless Obama, the Dems would have learned something. Ironic, isn't it, that these pols are subjected to the same fate as the millions of kids staring at useless bubblesheets.
Look who Randi and the AFT and teachers everywhere have endorsed for President. One more candidate who hasn't a clue about improving K12. And lest you think is this is just ideology, there are tens of millions of dollars that go along with this Machiavellian embrace.
You'd think after the impotent Duncan and clueless Obama, the Dems would have learned something. Ironic, isn't it, that these pols are subjected to the same fate as the millions of kids staring at useless bubblesheets.
No presidential candidate has ever lost an election by betting that an overwhelming majority of lower middle class white voters will ignore their economic interests or that the majority of all voters will respond to a message of optimism and hope. At least not since 1980.
The sad truth is that the United States has become a plutocracy. The top 1% has bought off both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at state and national level. Depending upon the results of the next election, the plutocrats may dominate the Supreme Court as well. When the interests of the top 1% are at stake, both political parties will listen to their sponsors and then enact legislation and pursue policies that favor the plutocrats opposing interests be damned.
We now live in a period similar to the 1920's. The Republicans dominate the political landscape. As in the 20's their dominance rests on the support of lower middle class white voters who ignore their own economic interests at the ballot box. The hold of the Republicans in the 1920's was not broken until the financiers who dominated the GOP drove those lower middle class white voters into poverty during the Hoover administration.
Although the Great Recession fired a warning shot over the bow of the Democratic and Republican parties, neither party has changed course. I cannot predict how bipartisan deference to the plutocrats will play out. But I urge you to stay tuned.
The sad truth is that the United States has become a plutocracy. The top 1% has bought off both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at state and national level. Depending upon the results of the next election, the plutocrats may dominate the Supreme Court as well. When the interests of the top 1% are at stake, both political parties will listen to their sponsors and then enact legislation and pursue policies that favor the plutocrats opposing interests be damned.
We now live in a period similar to the 1920's. The Republicans dominate the political landscape. As in the 20's their dominance rests on the support of lower middle class white voters who ignore their own economic interests at the ballot box. The hold of the Republicans in the 1920's was not broken until the financiers who dominated the GOP drove those lower middle class white voters into poverty during the Hoover administration.
Although the Great Recession fired a warning shot over the bow of the Democratic and Republican parties, neither party has changed course. I cannot predict how bipartisan deference to the plutocrats will play out. But I urge you to stay tuned.
3
"The top 1% has bought off both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party at state and national level. Depending upon the results of the next election, the plutocrats may dominate the Supreme Court as well."
It seems your second sentence contradicts your first.
Imagine the difference today had Al Gore named the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court instead of bush ii.
Had middle class working stiffs not bought into Reagan's nonsense union jobs would still dominate our economy and white working class stiffs would be doing as well as they think black working class stiffs are doing.
It seems your second sentence contradicts your first.
Imagine the difference today had Al Gore named the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court instead of bush ii.
Had middle class working stiffs not bought into Reagan's nonsense union jobs would still dominate our economy and white working class stiffs would be doing as well as they think black working class stiffs are doing.
But for his colored hue, party label and bizarre family history, Barack Hussein Obama would have has been recognized as being well to the socioeconomic political right of FDR, LBJ, Ike and Nixon. Indeed in modern political parlance, the Kenyan Arab Muslim socialist usurper, is a moderate conservative main stream Reagan Republican.
No matter what the poor misguided long suffering liberal progressive black African American Democratic base has more people on welfare, in prison and unemployed than ever before. While listening to the condescending paternalistic "lectures" of the 1st black President about some imaginary unique innate black sloth, immorality, ignorance and violent criminality. Too many blacks battling institutional white supremacy have neither boots nor boats to rise above their station.
No matter what the poor misguided long suffering liberal progressive black African American Democratic base has more people on welfare, in prison and unemployed than ever before. While listening to the condescending paternalistic "lectures" of the 1st black President about some imaginary unique innate black sloth, immorality, ignorance and violent criminality. Too many blacks battling institutional white supremacy have neither boots nor boats to rise above their station.
Edsall makes some interesting points here, but some dubious ones as well. While it is clear that higher income, better educated Americans have gravitated towards the Dems because of their stances on social issues, it is not at all clear that this has moderated Democratic economic policy, as Edsall, an extreme Leftist, contends. While support from the high end has most likely mitigated confiscatory tax levels on high income Americans, taxes have nonetheless risen dramatically under President Obama, with an especially dramatic increase in capital gains-the ultimate soak the rich tax. Regulation has also increased exponentially: the Left's effort to shift blame for the financial crisis from Government housing policies to Wall Street has been a resounding success, with Dodd Frank establishing political control of credit allocation. Similarly, the FCC's illegal regulation of the Internet provides Washington with pointless oversight of the fastest growing part of the economy. The EPA is of course out of control, and while the President is to be commended for his support of the TPP, the only reason it got through the House and Senate is because of GOP support. Perhaps for Mr. Edsall and the academics he quotes this is evidence of "deregulatory orientations", but from the perspective of economic conservatives, it is in fact more evidence that Liberals are divorced from reality.
2
Anybody who think that the financial crisis was caused by liberal government housing policies is either divorced from reality, or is cynically attempting to manipulate other's perceptions of reality for their own personal gain.
The latter is both more likely and more contemptible.
The latter is both more likely and more contemptible.
2
Edsall a leftist?
Interesting.
Interesting.
1
Such a long post. Let me see if I can shorten it.
Liberals. Everywhere! Very bad!!
You're welcome.
Liberals. Everywhere! Very bad!!
You're welcome.
1
Another insightful column from Dr. Edsal. The only thing I would add is that economic equality and justice are the base of the pyramid that everything else is built, kind of like Mazola's hierarchy of needs. Both parties can tinker with the upper structures. The Democratic party can tinker wit the upper structures of acceptance of personal identity and the Republican party can tinker with Religious identity. But if the bottom rots out, the whole structure will fail. "Why Nations Fail" by Acemoglu is instructive. And, of course, the elite at this point are more international, and they can go anywhere they like if America descends into chaos. But the rest of us will have to stay here and pick up the pieces.
4
Organized labor no longer has the power and influence they had in earlier decades, partially because the Democratic Party long ago abandoned any honest allegiance to union labor and its membership. Consequently, both major parties have solicited support from Wall Street, big health, big pharma, military contractors, big oil, and other huge companies. The resulting policy of both parties consequently serves the interests of those donors at the expense of everyday working Americans. Despite the rhetoric of campaigns, neither party actually works on behalf of everyday Americans, which is why the candidacy of Bernie Sanders resonates so clearly and brightly among those of us who struggle to support our families.
5
Yes. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson addressed this in Winner-Take-All Politics, 2010:
http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/ps126aa/documents/HackerPierson2010.pdf
Business organization has surged, while labor has declined.
http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/ps126aa/documents/HackerPierson2010.pdf
Business organization has surged, while labor has declined.
Interesting that though this shift happened primarily in the '90s, there is no mention of President Clinton. And the shift happened well beyond the Supreme Court ruling everyone would like to blame.
“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.
“The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.
8
Obama belongs to the 1%. His children will receive free ivy league college and free give-aways galore. His policies reflect this reality. Unfortunately, the NYT protects him from any association that would engender jealousy in the public.
Yes, he is black, but he is also very wealthy... or soon to be wealthy.
The public is not aware of what it is up against in terms of protecting itself against the rich.
Yes, he is black, but he is also very wealthy... or soon to be wealthy.
The public is not aware of what it is up against in terms of protecting itself against the rich.
8
What do you mean "his children will receive free ivy league college?" If you mean, the President will pay for his children to attend an Ivy League school, that's not "free." You chose your words pretty well, though, when you wrote of "jealousy," because that's all I'm reading in your post. You're jealous because a father plans to pay for his children to go to a good college, you're jealous his daughters receive attention and "free give-aways galore" (you make no mention of the death threats that are almost certainly being screened from their mail), and you deride unnamed policies you say reflect some sinister agenda has to keep the common man down. What policies? The Affordable Care Act? Reduced sentencing? Support for gay marriage? Immigration reform (attempted, but thwarted)? Gun control (attempted, but thwarted)? From what I can tell, your sole criteria for determining whether someone is a good person or not is whether they are rich or poor.
1
If the rich are smart, they will share enough of the wealth to keep the masses from turning their substantial weapons cache upon the 0.1%. If the poor have any sense, they will learn to vote, and elect Bernie Sanders.
13
This analysis makes perfect sense within the friendly confines of the last 40 plus years of American life. During that time there has been a radical redistribution of wealth upwards in the country. in 1970, the 1% accounted for 7% of all recorded income, per the IRS. That number is now in excess of 23%.
This is in fact the most important event of the last half century in the United States.
Awash in cash and resources, and with increasing wealth to protect, the .1% have done what any of us would do - do everything in their power to augment and maintain their wealth. The most effective way to do that is influence government at the federal and state levels, ensuring that only legislation favouring the .1% gets passed. Highly paid lobbyists and large political donations are both important elements of that toolbox.
As the old clothing commercial on WABC used to say, "Money talks, nobody walks."
That's the political climate in which the country operates, and anyone who doesn't understand that vulture capitalists roam the land devouring anything in their path simply has their head in the sand.
And their fingers pulling Republican levers in the ballot box.
This is in fact the most important event of the last half century in the United States.
Awash in cash and resources, and with increasing wealth to protect, the .1% have done what any of us would do - do everything in their power to augment and maintain their wealth. The most effective way to do that is influence government at the federal and state levels, ensuring that only legislation favouring the .1% gets passed. Highly paid lobbyists and large political donations are both important elements of that toolbox.
As the old clothing commercial on WABC used to say, "Money talks, nobody walks."
That's the political climate in which the country operates, and anyone who doesn't understand that vulture capitalists roam the land devouring anything in their path simply has their head in the sand.
And their fingers pulling Republican levers in the ballot box.
6
When my Republican friends start in on the President, my retort is always, how is your stock portfolio doing? They would like to say that under Bush, they did better, but we all know how that ended. Although I agree with conclusions of this article, there is, within the Democratic party, a social justice element, which if crafted right, would sell. Wealthy democrats/liberals become uneasy, somewhat like Republicans, with government's ability to manage social change programs. What is the big difference between both parties, is the acceptance by well-off democrats that there is such a thing as the common good, while Republicans believe that my good is the common good.
99
"What is the big difference between both parties, is the acceptance by well-off democrats that there is such a thing as the common good, while Republicans believe that my good is the common good."
Not so simple. Democrats believe in expanding the government and eroding the social structure, and then lament that society is getting worse. Their ignorance and unwillingness to recognize the social decay is why I cannot support them.
Not so simple. Democrats believe in expanding the government and eroding the social structure, and then lament that society is getting worse. Their ignorance and unwillingness to recognize the social decay is why I cannot support them.
The common good that Democrats in Baltimore and Newark and the like have done? The Republicans I know think limo liberals (see Obama and Clinton) who are precisely in politics to enrich themselves, and a good portion of affluent Dems are all say as I do but lead a life entirely different - as in not in my backyard! At least the Republicans have made their money before they go to Washington....and I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to keep it when you see the way our government wastes it. I can do my own charitable giving...far more effectively.
Identity is the core human psychological imperative because it provides a defense against awareness of our unconscious conflicts and anxieties. We will defend our personal sense of identity even to our own detriment. Politically, the parties vie to claim that they are the defenders of a majority of the country's identity groups. Republicans were originally the party of Lincoln and were seen as carpetbaggers in the South. Today, they rule that region of the country and my guess is that there aren't two many memorials to the great emancipator down in Dixie. Democrats were once the party of middle class, white, WASP-envying ethnics and members of the Klu Klux Klan. Today, they are a quixotic union of elitist WASPs and an underclass people of color. Why? Shifting perceptions of identity. Who knows? Maybe tomorrow blacks will decide that the Dems have sold them out by flooding the country with Hispanics who will work cheap and take over the ghettos.
Mr. Edsall's fine overview is a persuasive argument for more political parties. If the two legacy parties are not responsive to the voices within them, which of course is the cry of the Tea Partyites, let's bring back in reconstituted, postmodern forms the Whigs and TR's Progressives.
I often feel my choice on election day is between frick and frack, and would like to cast my ballot for a progressive candidate who actually has a chance. Ironically, I envy the right wingers in red states who can pull the lever for candidates who accurately reflect their views. Ditto for Vermonters who put a socialist democrat in the Senate.
Bernie Sanders's candidacy makes a bold argument for breaking the vise-like grip of the major parties on politics. If it had been feasible for him to run as in independent, he'd have done so. But to run on any ticket other than Rep or Dem is suicide. The major parties have a death grip on the mechanics of voting in every state, down to the county and village level. They control the debates. Let's bring the curtain down on their hegemony.
I often feel my choice on election day is between frick and frack, and would like to cast my ballot for a progressive candidate who actually has a chance. Ironically, I envy the right wingers in red states who can pull the lever for candidates who accurately reflect their views. Ditto for Vermonters who put a socialist democrat in the Senate.
Bernie Sanders's candidacy makes a bold argument for breaking the vise-like grip of the major parties on politics. If it had been feasible for him to run as in independent, he'd have done so. But to run on any ticket other than Rep or Dem is suicide. The major parties have a death grip on the mechanics of voting in every state, down to the county and village level. They control the debates. Let's bring the curtain down on their hegemony.
2
While I do not agree with every conclusion in this article, I praise Mr. Edsall for providing a conceptual framework and historical guideline of what has been happening over the last several decades.
One very important thing to note is that the Democrats are also largely responsible for income inequality by championing several key legislations that break down financial regulations and reduce taxation on the wealthy. The researchers also conclude that the Democratic party has moved from caring for the general welfare to ascribed identities (minority, women, gays and transgender etc). The last two midterm elections have handed Republicans in Congress, and even more importantly, in the state legislatures, an ever growing majority. For Democrats to attain long term success beyond the next Presidential election, they need to move away from identity politics and genuinely support policies that protect and grow the middle class.
One very important thing to note is that the Democrats are also largely responsible for income inequality by championing several key legislations that break down financial regulations and reduce taxation on the wealthy. The researchers also conclude that the Democratic party has moved from caring for the general welfare to ascribed identities (minority, women, gays and transgender etc). The last two midterm elections have handed Republicans in Congress, and even more importantly, in the state legislatures, an ever growing majority. For Democrats to attain long term success beyond the next Presidential election, they need to move away from identity politics and genuinely support policies that protect and grow the middle class.
Excellent analysis, and very educational.
I will be reading the information that you provided as links.
Thank you!
I will be reading the information that you provided as links.
Thank you!
As Gore Vidal was fond of saying, "America has one political party--with two right wings."
2
Just because you are rich- and around 60% of the Forbes 400 were born that way- does not make them stupid. The Democrat administrations, in recent history, have always produced the best investment markets for capital, even if it got dirty with NAFTA or the WTO deals. And the inequality plaque, helped along by cuts in "death taxes" has put more inherited capital in the hands of the rich who are always looking for good places to park it.
The "new money Democrats" also share most of the political ideals of the party and aren't violently averse to paying more taxes- like Buffet, Winfrey and Gates, for example.
With 10% of the rich owning about 70% of the wealth- and these harmful distortions affecting more of us every year- this inequality plaque should be a frightful thing for the very rich as well. Without a peaceful, stable society wherein those who get the work done can at least have comfortable lives, that money won't be worth nearly as much.
The "new money Democrats" also share most of the political ideals of the party and aren't violently averse to paying more taxes- like Buffet, Winfrey and Gates, for example.
With 10% of the rich owning about 70% of the wealth- and these harmful distortions affecting more of us every year- this inequality plaque should be a frightful thing for the very rich as well. Without a peaceful, stable society wherein those who get the work done can at least have comfortable lives, that money won't be worth nearly as much.
1
There's an old saying that Democrats build ladders so people can rise to higher levels,while Republicans do all they can to secure their levels by kicking those ladders out. Mr. Edsall, as usual, has trouble interpreting and analyzing data. Why, Mr. Edsall, would you believe that Liberal-leaning superrich would act like Republican superrich?
And why would you believe that donors are either-or? Smart bettors box their bets, so they win whenever EITHER horse comes in. Rich people are smart bettors, that's how you get rich.
And why would you believe that donors are either-or? Smart bettors box their bets, so they win whenever EITHER horse comes in. Rich people are smart bettors, that's how you get rich.
1
I grew up hearing my father say that Democrats were the party of the people and Republicans were the party of the rich. While I'm glad Democrats can appeal to some of the very rich,( and why should't they when compared to some of the very questionable candidates of the R's), I hope Democrats never abandon the poor, the needy, the down-trodden, the sick, the helpless. That would break my heart.
The conservative bent of wealthy Democrats came into focus when President Obama suggested making community colleges free by taxing the rich. While the Republican screaming about it was expected, the rich San Francisco Democrats in Nancy Pelosi's district saying no, no, no was telling. As someone who lived in the Bay Area until recently it was not surprising. Who will support the majority in the future. Maybe Bernie Sanders message will help. I hope so.
The gulf between GOP and Dems on immigration is not so vast, unless you are looking mainly at the elite politicians and media. And even there, it's not clear what the difference is. Bernie Sanders referred to open borders, the de facto US immigration policy, which Pres Obama has been pursuing, as "A Koch brothers policy (Obama's Domestic Policy Advisor is a former VP of La Raza, an open borders advocacy group). Sanders, being interviewed by Vox's Ezra Klein, went on to provide unemployment figures for African American and Hispanic American young adults, pointing out that too much immigration puts Americans out of work.
Unfortunately, the NYT and the rest of the elite media are quiet about the numbers. When the Senate immigration bill, S744, was in play, the NYT never said a word about the fact that the bill would have tripled legal immigration, to 1.5 New York State population equivalents per decade, while doing virtually nothing to stop illegal immigration. A couple of hundred thousand immigrants annually would be fine. But the Pew Research Center just came out with a projection that the US population would grow by 100 million over the next 50 years, 88 percent of that growth due to immigration. Those numbers did not appear in Julia Preston's article.
Unfortunately, the NYT and the rest of the elite media are quiet about the numbers. When the Senate immigration bill, S744, was in play, the NYT never said a word about the fact that the bill would have tripled legal immigration, to 1.5 New York State population equivalents per decade, while doing virtually nothing to stop illegal immigration. A couple of hundred thousand immigrants annually would be fine. But the Pew Research Center just came out with a projection that the US population would grow by 100 million over the next 50 years, 88 percent of that growth due to immigration. Those numbers did not appear in Julia Preston's article.
3
Thank you SCOTUS!
There is little to dispute about the main point of Mr. Edsall's column. The evidence shows daily in the lives of ordinary Americans who are smart enough get Edsall's point, but not empowered enough to counter the well-organized billions of dollars that now support both parties.
The danger rests in the sense of exclusion that most citizens feel about shaping the destiny of their own country. How else does one explain the poll-topping campaign of someone who rants inchoate nonsense and labels himself "The Donald?"
It may be a stretch (but I fear not) that such alienation is drivIng the rage that has resulted in turning our country into a morbid shooting gallery of mass assassination.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
There is little to dispute about the main point of Mr. Edsall's column. The evidence shows daily in the lives of ordinary Americans who are smart enough get Edsall's point, but not empowered enough to counter the well-organized billions of dollars that now support both parties.
The danger rests in the sense of exclusion that most citizens feel about shaping the destiny of their own country. How else does one explain the poll-topping campaign of someone who rants inchoate nonsense and labels himself "The Donald?"
It may be a stretch (but I fear not) that such alienation is drivIng the rage that has resulted in turning our country into a morbid shooting gallery of mass assassination.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
The "mainstream" of the Democratic Party? That's virtually Times-speak, as well illusrrated here, for those in control of the Party. Voters (remember them?) may send a message about that.
The role of money is the important change maker not party. It's not that democrats are coming to resemble republicans, but all politics are being shaped by the wealthy. As Big Money increases so does wealthy leaning policy.
The chart, does not show wealth favoring democrats. Rather, large donors increasing and small donors decreasing across the board. There are two party differences. Republicans started earlier and republican shift to Big Money tracks ahead of democrats for the entire length of the trend.
The pattern in the chart suggests a significant change in this trend is due. The latest bar on the republican may indicate a sudden jolt escalating this 30 year trend. Or it's a spike and the slight reversal seen in the democratic recent years may indicate that the pendulum is beginning to swing in the opposite direction.
I am disappointed at the muddling of facts and conclusions in the discussion of the composition of wealth in individual districts. It ignores urban/rural and education/class differences to float conclusions unsustained by insufficient facts that compare apples and oranges as the same. I expect better.
Bottom line, if money is the only game in town then that is the game played. We need another game. Get money out of politics that leverages the interests of wealthy over everyone else. Money is not speech, it's bribery. Even those who bribe know it but with enough money you don't have to care everone knows.
The chart, does not show wealth favoring democrats. Rather, large donors increasing and small donors decreasing across the board. There are two party differences. Republicans started earlier and republican shift to Big Money tracks ahead of democrats for the entire length of the trend.
The pattern in the chart suggests a significant change in this trend is due. The latest bar on the republican may indicate a sudden jolt escalating this 30 year trend. Or it's a spike and the slight reversal seen in the democratic recent years may indicate that the pendulum is beginning to swing in the opposite direction.
I am disappointed at the muddling of facts and conclusions in the discussion of the composition of wealth in individual districts. It ignores urban/rural and education/class differences to float conclusions unsustained by insufficient facts that compare apples and oranges as the same. I expect better.
Bottom line, if money is the only game in town then that is the game played. We need another game. Get money out of politics that leverages the interests of wealthy over everyone else. Money is not speech, it's bribery. Even those who bribe know it but with enough money you don't have to care everone knows.
1
Perhaps the title of this article should have been “WHY did the Democrats become favorites of the Rich?” Even the substitution of “why” for “how” isn’t sufficient. The How is that they started taking pay-for-play money on a larger scale than previously. The Why is so that they could get elected. Neither of these statements is particularly newsworthy…just the same old game at play. The real point arising from this article is that the Rich don’t have favorites. They make contributions to both parties in proportion to the power being wielded by any particular party from time to time. The Rich have no interest in issues relating to the ordinary folk. For example, if abortion is banned they can always send their embarrassingly pregnant daughters overseas to have the job done. As for ObamaCare and minimum wage…what possible relevance does either of these issues have to the Rich…Nothing…so long as their taxes aren’t increased. The Rich have never been concerned about the health and well--being of the masses. But what is vital to the interests of the Rich is that Americans continue to use lots of oil and that US Government tax dollars go on investing billions in very expensive weapon systems because that is where they big bucks are made. Note that both Bush and Obama have spent billions on weapons systems, not so much on infrastructure and green energy. The Rich will always host a luxurious party, regardless of Party.
2
It's my opinion that affluent Democratic voters have become more aligned with affluent Republican voters on economic policy because both reflect a concern that the capitalism that has been practiced the last 35 years in this country is hollowing out the society, waning in its sustainability to provide for all, and the more affluent are seeking to fortify themselves with as much largess as possible before it gets worse and leads to inevitable unrest and decline.
Democrats also rely disproportionately on high-information voters whereas Republicans rely disproportionately on low-information and disinformation voters.
Wealthy people have better educations, read more, travel more and understand what policies work well in other countries.
Poor whites in particular have weak educations, read less and watch Fox News, travel less and have no idea that socialism is actually a smashing success in Europe, Canada and Japan.
Republican voters disproportionately believe in manufactured right-wing fantasies like abstinence sex education, trickle-down economics, guns-make-us-safe, universal-healthcare-is-evil, regulation-is-bad, Benghazi-is-Watergate, the Earth-is-6000-years-old, climate-change-is-a-conspiracy and Iraq attacked America in September 2001.
The GOP attracts voters who believe in carefully peddled right-wing propaganda and prevarication.
The Democratic Party attracts voters who are connected to reality, not right-wing fantasy.
It's always easier to find a low-information and disinformation voter than a high-information voter.
That will always be the real struggle for the Democrats.
It's very hard to fix the misinformed right-wing masses when the entire American landscape is one carefully groomed and landscaped by the right-wing propaganda-industrial complex of cultured stupidity and misinformation.
The endless insulin drip-drip of right-wing hate radio and Fake News has disabled the very idea of an 'informed electorate'.
Wealthy people have better educations, read more, travel more and understand what policies work well in other countries.
Poor whites in particular have weak educations, read less and watch Fox News, travel less and have no idea that socialism is actually a smashing success in Europe, Canada and Japan.
Republican voters disproportionately believe in manufactured right-wing fantasies like abstinence sex education, trickle-down economics, guns-make-us-safe, universal-healthcare-is-evil, regulation-is-bad, Benghazi-is-Watergate, the Earth-is-6000-years-old, climate-change-is-a-conspiracy and Iraq attacked America in September 2001.
The GOP attracts voters who believe in carefully peddled right-wing propaganda and prevarication.
The Democratic Party attracts voters who are connected to reality, not right-wing fantasy.
It's always easier to find a low-information and disinformation voter than a high-information voter.
That will always be the real struggle for the Democrats.
It's very hard to fix the misinformed right-wing masses when the entire American landscape is one carefully groomed and landscaped by the right-wing propaganda-industrial complex of cultured stupidity and misinformation.
The endless insulin drip-drip of right-wing hate radio and Fake News has disabled the very idea of an 'informed electorate'.
100
Let us not forget that conservative ideology, from its origins, was built on fantasy. Edmund Burke called this fantasy the "pleasing illusions" of deference to your masters. Don't expect such a belief system to betray its own genealogy.
1
Excellent, penetrating analysis of our failing state.
And a timely reminder of how Democratic leaders under Bill Clinton bought into the oligarchy by embracing "free market" ideology and its large political rewards.
Thanks for being there Sen. Sanders.
And a timely reminder of how Democratic leaders under Bill Clinton bought into the oligarchy by embracing "free market" ideology and its large political rewards.
Thanks for being there Sen. Sanders.
2
Why is it a problem for Sanders that educated and affluent Democrats support him? If you believe that his policies would hurt the purse of affluent Democrats, this says something good about their idealism and willingness to sacrifice for the greater good. Why would the less affluent, once the virtual media blockade is broken and they hear Sanders' message, not join the party with a more truly compassionate agenda?
2
They call it the Washington Consensus for a reason, Mr. Edsall: no major American political party exists to challenge the crushing maw of unrestrained capitalism.
In addition to this, their has been a century's long effort to propagandize people about the glories of market society--and, even more bizarre than this, to announce the compatibility of democracy and capitalism. They're enemies. Rousseau knew this, Thomas Paine knew this, and--if right-wing political leaders really want to own their conservative credentials--they should know it as well.
In addition to this, their has been a century's long effort to propagandize people about the glories of market society--and, even more bizarre than this, to announce the compatibility of democracy and capitalism. They're enemies. Rousseau knew this, Thomas Paine knew this, and--if right-wing political leaders really want to own their conservative credentials--they should know it as well.
1
Thank you, Thomas, for writing this article. I've been saying this for several years and this phenomenon has grown noticeably over the last 4-5 years. Its even more apparent in New York City. There are days that I walk outside and I think I am on the set of Hunger Games, or 1984 or one of the many "futuristic" movies depicting a bunch of loud, material obsessed, rude people that are full of insecurity, hate, and lack rational. Turns out, most of these people that fit this profile are Democrats, which to a degree is different than the "I'm stuck in 1975" liberal. I'm 40, so I've been around the 80's and 90's. The former of which was considered an ostentatious period, but I don't think the neon and Lamborghini's of the 80's have anything on 2015. I look around and people are swimming in money now. The average White person (I'm White), is full to the brim with money in NYC and I know for a fact, many of these people are boomers and White and Democrat.
These people are our worst nightmare and even scarier, is that Hillary lines up perfectly to represent these folks. She is exactly this.
Which makes this all the more odd, as I am someone who is relatively liberal. I support gay marriage and pro-choice, but like many others, I am now a Republican. Why? The #1 issue is the Democrats exploitation of Blacks and other groups for their profit. It's the worst kept secret that no one wants to talk about. Rich elitist Democrats who are only about themselves and the party of one!
These people are our worst nightmare and even scarier, is that Hillary lines up perfectly to represent these folks. She is exactly this.
Which makes this all the more odd, as I am someone who is relatively liberal. I support gay marriage and pro-choice, but like many others, I am now a Republican. Why? The #1 issue is the Democrats exploitation of Blacks and other groups for their profit. It's the worst kept secret that no one wants to talk about. Rich elitist Democrats who are only about themselves and the party of one!
2
Where is the outrage at this turn of events in the party of FDR? When the Clintons amass almost a billion dollars in wealth, the Obamas no doubt are planning the same for themselves, and very little out-cry from the "Zombie-fied" Democratic voters what is to be done to put the party back on a path that helps the middle and lower classes?
If Sanders was just ten years younger many might vote for Bernie. Are there no other challengers to the coronation that will probably out-trump you-know-who as well as trim the Bushes? Mr. Edsall has pulled back the curtain of the Democratic wizard of wealth, but more must be done to change the all-too-cozy "snuggle" the party is making with the rich and super rich.
If Sanders was just ten years younger many might vote for Bernie. Are there no other challengers to the coronation that will probably out-trump you-know-who as well as trim the Bushes? Mr. Edsall has pulled back the curtain of the Democratic wizard of wealth, but more must be done to change the all-too-cozy "snuggle" the party is making with the rich and super rich.
5
Are Democrats against making money? Really? It's how you make it, what you do with it and it's how you want to see tax money used that distinguishes Democrats from the GOP. It's whether you think its fine to make money by poisoning the earth, air and water to make money or not. The biggest aspect of hypocritical Democrat leaning behavior I see is with off-shoring manufacturing. I get it that board members owe a duty to shareholders to make money. Its awful that to do that American companies use cheap, nearly slave labor off shore. How can we return manufacturing to the US and address the need for jobs that don't require a masters degree? Tax credits don't work. Tariffs are disdained. And infra-structure improvements are seen as give aways rather than valid work. I don't have an answer for this problem.
1
FDR was rich.
After all this time, the Patrician-Plebeian divide of Ancient Rome is still with us.
1
...as well as the Roman system of radically distorted voting power.
This is a simple idea in a fancy package. As the Republican party shifted to being the party of Nuts from the South and Their Guns, sane Republicans jumped ship into the Democratic party, embarrassed by being associated with gay hating and the obligation to repudiate the theory of evolution. This Republicanized the Democratic party.
19
You are conflating the ranchers with their cattle.
2
Does Democratic social liberalism give them an edge among new money rich people?
This is why I left the Democratic party. Whether Bernie Sanders wins (and I hope he does) is not the whole point. He's busy naming the problem. Hilary Clinton et al. are busy being the problem.
12
How did the Democrats become favorites of the rich? Because the Republicans have become so wacky, anti-science, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-common sense, pro fundamental religious views, that anyone with a decent education cannot possibly vote for them in good conscious. Bobby Jindal described his party best as "the party of stupid" - and that's what they are.
I was once a Republican, but left the party when I realized there was no room for me. My sister and my mother left a bit later than I did, but sooner or later the Republican nuttiness turned them off as well.
I was once a Republican, but left the party when I realized there was no room for me. My sister and my mother left a bit later than I did, but sooner or later the Republican nuttiness turned them off as well.
190
Thank you for writing the response I was ready to submit.
1
You make a case for the rich supporting the Democrats but not for why Democratic politicians support the rich.
Clearly the answer is money. Democrat politicians like it just as much as Republicans. The rich, by definition, have it. Therefore Democrats, just like Republicans, go where they can get it. Everything you hear from either side about being for the people is just political rhetoric designed to get what they need from the people. Your vote.
Clearly the answer is money. Democrat politicians like it just as much as Republicans. The rich, by definition, have it. Therefore Democrats, just like Republicans, go where they can get it. Everything you hear from either side about being for the people is just political rhetoric designed to get what they need from the people. Your vote.
The rich own the system. The elections are predetermined farces. Just like the so called debates, our entire government is a bought and paid for reality show. A bad one at that.
5
If limited gov't powers authorized by the Constitution were followed, what influence would there be to peddle? Why is it that in the era of Obama (and Bush) and the massive increase in the spending of gov't & regulatory blizzards - is DC the richest area in the country? Don't you find that ironic, that the more gov't there is, the more corruption? Conservatives don't call this ironic, but inevitable.
Honor and forthrightness notwithstanding, what choices do the candidates have? I'm being three-dollared to death and frankly, I am hard pressed to see where my paltry donations are going to help any candidate.
To make sense of any of this, we need to level the playing field and get rid of fair-election destroyers like Citizens United and of course gerrymandering.
To make sense of any of this, we need to level the playing field and get rid of fair-election destroyers like Citizens United and of course gerrymandering.
5
But for a brief shining moment known as the New Deal, populism in America, from the early days of the Republic through the Tea Party, has been anti-intellectual, anti-government, evangelical and, on all issues except working-class voting rights, reactionary. Recall that it was Jackson, the populist, who engineered "Indian removal" from the southeast territories. Every progressive movement in U.S. history, starting from the Revolution (it wasn't farmers who signed the Declaration, but rather lawyers and plantation owners) has been led by wealthy, educated intellectuals and businessmen.
The New Deal, too, was led by educated liberals, including the "traitor to his class," FDR, who was not so much a populist, as an aristocrat who felt it his Christian duty to save both capitalism, and the working class Americans whom vulture capitalism had victimized. Ditto abolition, led by New England Harvard/Amherst prelates and academics, 19th/20th century progressism- Roosevelt, Wilson - and civil rights in the 1960s -- wealthy, white liberals, not poor whites, supported and facilitated the struggles of African-Americans.
Yes, the people have spoken and, at times, have acted in their best interests. More often, however, the people have spoken the same kind of nonsense that we hear today: nativist, jingoistic, paranoid, religious rants. The Democrats supporting liberal candidates are part of a long tradition in which the educated have saved the people from the people's delusions.
The New Deal, too, was led by educated liberals, including the "traitor to his class," FDR, who was not so much a populist, as an aristocrat who felt it his Christian duty to save both capitalism, and the working class Americans whom vulture capitalism had victimized. Ditto abolition, led by New England Harvard/Amherst prelates and academics, 19th/20th century progressism- Roosevelt, Wilson - and civil rights in the 1960s -- wealthy, white liberals, not poor whites, supported and facilitated the struggles of African-Americans.
Yes, the people have spoken and, at times, have acted in their best interests. More often, however, the people have spoken the same kind of nonsense that we hear today: nativist, jingoistic, paranoid, religious rants. The Democrats supporting liberal candidates are part of a long tradition in which the educated have saved the people from the people's delusions.
5
This is one of the strangest editorials I've read in the Times for a long time. Edsall is essentially making the exact same argument about the Democratic party that Bernie Sanders is, yet tosses off Sanders in a few sentences. Very strange.
13
Don, I do not think Bernie can win the general election, which is why I remain a Hillary supporter, and I hope you and all Dems will turn out en masse and vote for whichever Dem is the nominee. And yet I agree with you-- Bernie has mass appeal now, and it is growing. To toss him off in a few sentences is to minimize his message and the influence he could have on the platform and policy. Not good. Not fair either.
Not so strange. Edsall noted that Sanders' message would resonate with a wider group of voters if they heard it. That message is such a threat to corporate hegemony that the corporate owners of the New York Times and the corporate advertisers who provide its revenue are determined to make sure Sanders' message is not heard. Thus the editorial mandate that Sanders must be summarily dismissed whenever he needs to be mentioned. Government of the donors, by the donors, for the donors shall never be allowed to perish from the earth.
This is an old, old story. In "Wealth and Democracy." Kevin Phillips points out that there is a feedback in economic distribution because as the rich get richer, they use their wealth to get more power. They then use their power to get more wealth and so on. There seems to be a tipping point where this process becomes impossible to reverse. When inequality becomes bad enough, the country soon goes down the tubes. He gives several examples, e.g. the 18th century decline of the Dutch Republic. Chrystia Freeland used 14th century Venice to illustrate this process in a Times article, but history is replete with other examples.
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverse the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
Will that happen this time?
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverse the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
Will that happen this time?
155
This is why Bernie must win.
Elementary chaos theory recommends negative feedback to prevent instability in complex systems. A progressive net worth tax applies negative feedback to concentration of wealth for power.
Bernie Sanders will happen this time
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the Democrats are swinging to the right. Hillary Clinton, as an example, has been quite busy giving expensive speeches to rich bankers conventions or the like while Jimmy Carter was out building houses for poor people. The Democrats need to get back to basics and stop apologizing for it.
8
Given the nearly equivalent state of Superdonor giving, I suggest that the overly frequent castigation of the Kochs by the NYT is rather fatuous. Please choose another stalking horse.
5
Politics, by it's very nature, is a corrupt business. Most politicians go where the money is and many freely change party affiliations and/or philosophy to align with money they can collect. The question then becomes, "What are you going to do for me and my family in the midst of this corruption?" Teddy and Franklin D Roosevelt were at the top of the money pile yet they cared about their country and wanted it to be strong and livable for all. John F. Kennedy and his family were at the top of the money pile yet they wanted a truly democratic nation. It's not who has the money - it's what they do with it that counts. Bill Clinton won the Presidency the same year Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote and the democratic field was weak. In retrospect there is little doubt in my mind that Mr. Clinton promised further deregulation of financial markets and banks in return for support from BIG money and his acts directly allowed the financial heydays and subsequent meltdown that nearly destroyed the global economy. The democrats are looking for a way to return to being the party for average Americans and Senator Bernie Sanders' message is the one the vast majority of Americans want established in America. Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE to be the next President of the United States. Bernie Sanders for powerful Vice President!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
5
Pres. Clinton deregulated only after the GOP made massive wins in the house and senate. Also, somehow, his deregulation ended up with twice as many regulations as before the deregulation. The same happened under Bush.
"Politics, by it's very nature, is a corrupt business."
A great reason to reduce the resources and power of govt.
A great reason to reduce the resources and power of govt.
Politics is the only process we have to lawfully negotiate the social contract we live under. What a pity the negotiation is so despicably dishonest.
Support for the priorities of the rich go back further in time than Edsall (and commenters) seem to think. During the Reagan and first Bush administrations Democrats cooperated in deregulation and tax cutting and some Democrats (e.g. Bill Bradley) even took the lead. Reagan and Tip O'Neill go on so well because they could agree on moving the country to the Right.
The trends that Edsall finally notices have been glaringly obvious for a long time.
The trends that Edsall finally notices have been glaringly obvious for a long time.
19
Re: " the mainstream of the Democratic Party supports centrist positions ranging from expanded free trade to stricter control of the government budget to time limits on welfare for the poor."
As a fiscal conservative who votes Republican, I must say I'm glad to see this.
As a fiscal conservative who votes Republican, I must say I'm glad to see this.
2
Since politics is about money, not about people, it makes sense that all politicians must grovel for money:
"One dollar, one vote" has replaced "One man, one vote."
"One dollar, one vote" has replaced "One man, one vote."
21
Perhaps if it was one woman one vote, the World would be a much better place for everyone.
Gee. I wonder if Citizens United has anything to do with why BOTH parties are now the party of the rich?
Nah. Couldn't be. Justice Scalia assured us there was no such thing as an actual quid pro quo involved when donors give huge amounts of cash.
So that can't be it.
Nah. Couldn't be. Justice Scalia assured us there was no such thing as an actual quid pro quo involved when donors give huge amounts of cash.
So that can't be it.
391
In fact many if not most of the large donations from individuals such as Tom Steyer, George Soros and the Koch brothers were declared protected protected under the first amendment by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1977). Citizens United extended that protection to organized groups of individuals such as labor u ions and corporations. The left-wing flap against Citizens United, seconded by Oblabla in his insulting State of the Union assault on the Supreme Court, is a dangerous lie.
2
And what is your solution to Citizens United? If you cut out donations, the power to get the message out sits with two entities - incumbents who by definition have the stage, and the media (who were conveniently exempt from citizens united). So basically in that world, the NYT use it's own print space to voice its opinion on candidates but I have no voice. Sounds great.
1
I totally agree with your comments, and like your sense of humor!
I think your conclusions are flimsy. The only examples you cite of Democrats siding with Republicans in favor of a freer form of capitalism go back to 1994. Otherwise you're just quoting others who are saying this. And then you assume that upscale voters are moving to the Democrats because of this.
You failed to mention some key issues where the gulf between Democrats and Republicans is also vast -- climate change, the environment, income inequality, and gun violence, to name a few. Affluent, well-educated voters recognize that the Republican party has done all it can do to hinder any progress in these areas while at the same time trying to dismantle the social safety net (for example trying to repeal Obamacare, and refusing to expand Medicare).
I think the rise in affluent Democratic donors is nothing more than responding to a sense of obligation to counter the Republican superdonors who are trying to buy the government, and is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
You failed to mention some key issues where the gulf between Democrats and Republicans is also vast -- climate change, the environment, income inequality, and gun violence, to name a few. Affluent, well-educated voters recognize that the Republican party has done all it can do to hinder any progress in these areas while at the same time trying to dismantle the social safety net (for example trying to repeal Obamacare, and refusing to expand Medicare).
I think the rise in affluent Democratic donors is nothing more than responding to a sense of obligation to counter the Republican superdonors who are trying to buy the government, and is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
244
Thank you, Incontinental, for making this point so well. "Well-educated" is key, plus perhaps recognizing that we personally have enough and wouldn't necessarily have gotten to this fortunate position without the help of the "commons." (Go Bernie!)
Read the latest headlines for the update: Pres. Obama has crossed the aisle to force TPP fast track on the Congressional Democrats who side with US workers instead of the corporate oligarchs.
These so called "trade" agreements aren't about "free" trade but about extending patent protections for rent-seeking corporations, and undermining judicial review in open courts of law, allowing "foreign investors to challenge our health, safety and environmental regulations in secret arbitration tribunals.
These so called "trade" agreements aren't about "free" trade but about extending patent protections for rent-seeking corporations, and undermining judicial review in open courts of law, allowing "foreign investors to challenge our health, safety and environmental regulations in secret arbitration tribunals.
Only since 1994 -- a mere 21 years.
The super donors are hedging their bets. Not surprising.
The super donors are hedging their bets. Not surprising.
I used to vote Republican. Voted for Nixon twice, Reagan, Bushes 4 times, against Mario endlessly, but when I looked at those contenders lined up at the Republican debate I just shook my head in disbelief. These people, like some southerners still fighting the Civil war, are still looking to overturn Roe/Wade. In 2015! Are you kidding me?
255
That is why you must turn to the democratic party. It is not great, but it is our only hope to get out of this GOP induced coma.
No, they aren't kidding you they really want to overturn and repeal Obamacare for starters. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the House pass a bill imposing a federal poll tax.
To be fair, many in the Democratic party are looking to overturn the 2nd Amendment, in 2015! Are you kidding me?
1
There is much evidence to suggest that the US is well along in the process of shifting from democratic governance to plutocratic rule. The data presented in this article serve as additional evidence of that trend but more ominously, suggest, that what was a lurch toward plutocracy has accelerated and may have achieved the critical mass that will render it irreversible.
61
There is always a process that will render plutocracy reversible -- it is called revolution -- and when conditions become intolerable it becomes violent revolution and the outcome is usually ugly. FDR understood this and in that sense was as much a best friend to the plutocracy as he was to those struggling economically as he promoted the changes that probably saved the country from this.
Lyndon Johnson said it much more concisely when he signed the Civil Rights act and remarked something to the effect of "We (the Democrats) just lost the South." The Democratic Party's concern for "... decriminalization of drug possession; women’s rights; the rights of criminal defendants; and rights associated with the sexual revolution, including transgender rights, the right to contraception, abortion and same-sex marriage" as Edsall well puts it have created new privileged classes, and those on the bottom who aren't in one of them now hate the Democrats for it. Ironic shift from the long-standing former Republican archetype of "Mr. Gotrocks," to the hillbillies and the Evangelicals. Vesting the leadership of the Democratic party in a woman and an Afro-American has greatly exacerbated this shift, and the exaggerated political correctness that exasperates lots of folks has been icing on that same cake.
Since the growth of agriculture some hundreds of thousands of years ago permitted larger groups than a few dozen closely related huner-gatherers, there has been and I guess never will be any such thing as a classless society. But wow how the dimensions of ours have changed in the last 50 years!
Since the growth of agriculture some hundreds of thousands of years ago permitted larger groups than a few dozen closely related huner-gatherers, there has been and I guess never will be any such thing as a classless society. But wow how the dimensions of ours have changed in the last 50 years!
8
Another Johnson quote, modified for propriety:
"I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
Considering last November's GOP electoral landslide (Donnie Brazile described it as "almost a crime"), I'd say Johnson's prediction was 150 years too optimistic.
"I’ll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
Considering last November's GOP electoral landslide (Donnie Brazile described it as "almost a crime"), I'd say Johnson's prediction was 150 years too optimistic.
Superb examination of Democratic & Republican trends post 1980 Reaganism. It might be important to point out that the de-regulation that occurred during Bill Clinton's tenure as President was negotiated as a compromise in order for him to avoid impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans had him over a barrel so to speak so he capitulated. The Clinton - Gore presidency was the beginning of the New Economy which was built on the emergence of the tech industries which were crucial in catapulting the US economy into double digit growth unseen since the roaring 20s. Their combined emphasis on jump starting the economy as well as heavily investing in science research & development to the tune of 10 billion dollars was the biggest investment ever in the NSF. Clinton increased R&D support to universities by 53% & made investments to spur private sector innovation, help improve the environment & advocated for a nationwide healthcare plan. In many ways, the Clinton-Gore presidency's ambitious efforts to improve American lives inadvertently resulted in NAFTA causing ordinary people to lose their well paying union jobs in the decades to follow. The tech revolution has further exacerbated the discrepancies between rich & poor as those who are able to master STEM skills continue to reap the benefits of the new economy while those w/o the means to afford a computer, tech camps or private educations with early exposure are left in the economic wake.
16
Your analysis is pretty good. Let us not forget that Clinton's having an affair with someone young enough to be his daughter, in OUR oval office was a colossal error in judgement, but it was not worthy of impeachment, and the witch hunt would not have occurred if the "vast right wing conspiracy machine" was not firmly in place. This led to Gore's move away from Clinton. Thus the Clinton-Gore presidency did not turn in to the "era" it needed to be. Instead we got Bush who is responsible for the mess i which we now find ourselves. Clinton's will always be the wudda shudda cudda presidency.
The rich now have all the chips. If they want to sleep better at night, they can side with Democrats. When they have some specific economic interest, they can always buy a Republican. Heads they win, tails the rest of us lose.
9
It is clear that the major differences between the two parties are much greater on cultural issues than they are on economic matters; both parties cater to economic elites. What is less clear is why Bernie Sanders, running as a Democrat who is, finally, sincerely addressing bread and butter issues, is polling much better with college educated Democrats than he is with lower income, working class Democrats.
While you attribute this to a cultural divide, I wonder if it is not also explained by efforts of the Democratic Party's establishment to discredit candidates like Sanders in favor of more mainstream Democratic candidates who can be counted on to cater to the demands of the party's wealthy donors. The difference may have less to do with cultural factors than it does with the working class's unfortunate tendency to trust the hacks who control the Democratic Party for the benefit of elite benefactors while working against the interests of the working class that it has, at best, only pretended to care about for at least 30 years now.
While you attribute this to a cultural divide, I wonder if it is not also explained by efforts of the Democratic Party's establishment to discredit candidates like Sanders in favor of more mainstream Democratic candidates who can be counted on to cater to the demands of the party's wealthy donors. The difference may have less to do with cultural factors than it does with the working class's unfortunate tendency to trust the hacks who control the Democratic Party for the benefit of elite benefactors while working against the interests of the working class that it has, at best, only pretended to care about for at least 30 years now.
51
I think that many well-educated, but not necessarily wealthy dems know that the economic trajectory we are on cannot be sustained and Bernie at least offers hope.
It has long been said that people vote their pocketbooks. Obviously, this is no longer true.
People increasingly vote their cultural preferences both left and right.
Poor whites have been doing this since at least 1980 and there is little sign that will change anytime soon. If anything, it's a pattern that is becoming even more entrenched. Guns and religion, much.
Wealthy white people vote to raise their own taxes. I think this is somewhat about policy but it's also about not wanting to have anything in common with poor whites. Hence blue New Jersey and blue Massachusetts.
You know, we're still fighting the civil war.
People increasingly vote their cultural preferences both left and right.
Poor whites have been doing this since at least 1980 and there is little sign that will change anytime soon. If anything, it's a pattern that is becoming even more entrenched. Guns and religion, much.
Wealthy white people vote to raise their own taxes. I think this is somewhat about policy but it's also about not wanting to have anything in common with poor whites. Hence blue New Jersey and blue Massachusetts.
You know, we're still fighting the civil war.
8
I think it may have started with the appearance on the political scene of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. You think?
I find Tom's arguments curious fare to consider with cornflakes this morning. After all, Bernie Sanders is crowing even as we contemplate our cornflakes that his campaign war chest has been assembled from the contributions not of Soros and Steyer, but from regular people giving small amounts. And it's an impressive war chest at that, comparable to Hillary's that has an entire foundation shilling for her.
And, if Democrats are generally moving to the right to embrace mainstream values on free market capitalism, a lot of Republicans would welcome this return to America. But, given the extraordinary electoral success of Republicans since 2010, in statehouses and governorships as well as in Congress, is it THAT surprising that an irresistible tug right might be manifesting that draws those on the left who wish to remain relevant to our governance?
But all this concerns this Republican very little -- though perhaps it should consider the more excessive collectivists in this community a lot. You see, if Democrats gradually become resolved to making a dominant America in the world, focused on economic prosperity while keeping government intrusions and debt manageable, and one in which the individual is regarded as at least as important to our culture as the collective ... then I wouldn't mind at all calling myself a Democrat.
I find Tom's arguments curious fare to consider with cornflakes this morning. After all, Bernie Sanders is crowing even as we contemplate our cornflakes that his campaign war chest has been assembled from the contributions not of Soros and Steyer, but from regular people giving small amounts. And it's an impressive war chest at that, comparable to Hillary's that has an entire foundation shilling for her.
And, if Democrats are generally moving to the right to embrace mainstream values on free market capitalism, a lot of Republicans would welcome this return to America. But, given the extraordinary electoral success of Republicans since 2010, in statehouses and governorships as well as in Congress, is it THAT surprising that an irresistible tug right might be manifesting that draws those on the left who wish to remain relevant to our governance?
But all this concerns this Republican very little -- though perhaps it should consider the more excessive collectivists in this community a lot. You see, if Democrats gradually become resolved to making a dominant America in the world, focused on economic prosperity while keeping government intrusions and debt manageable, and one in which the individual is regarded as at least as important to our culture as the collective ... then I wouldn't mind at all calling myself a Democrat.
2
If that's your criterion for joining a political party, what are you? Surely not a Republican.
1
Thanks, Ray, but I don't need someone else to define for me what it means to be a Republican. Ayuh.
Social and economic class distinctions have been with us since the beginning of the Republic but Americans have always been reticent to discuss them either because they were taught the fallacy they did not exist or because they knew all too clearly they existed but did not want anything to change. The essential “job” of elites is to maintain their wealth, power, and prerogatives, even as society evolves in unpredictable directions. Although not all elites are cold, greedy little Gordon Geckos, they are the ones who truly live by the coda expressed in airline safety briefings: “When there is a problem and the oxygen masks deploy, take care of yourself FIRST, then help someone else …” Self-identified wealthy Democrats, no less than Republicans, understand that circumstances and governments may change, but the most important thing is the maintenance of their elite status – whatever it takes.
5
The real difference is between the PAC beholden Hillary and Bernie, not between her and the Republicans. It is a new party, founded on old roots, the liberal democratic party, which is dead.
4
As an old, white male raised in an evangelical environment, I see the problem Mr. Edsall. I'd say the single best strategy would be for Democrats to highlight elite Republican attitudes and the GOP's history regarding Social Security and Medicare. Instead of Obamacare, Democrats should have advocated a year-by-year lowering of age eligibility for Medicare and let Republicans argue against this known and popular program that would immediately benefit 64 year olds, then next year 63, etc. Advocate a modest increase in Social Security benefits paid for by modest (in our opinions) increases for the very rich and watch Republicans argue against that, too. Old white people are the core of the Grand Old Party and those two positions stand the best chances of defeating Republicans and doing so by promoting populist messages.
15
It always amuses me when the right decries how "liberal" professors are. Professors; that is, the people we place in positions of high status because of how intelligent and knowledgeable they are! So, Republicans themselves enthusiastically point out how intelligent people oppose their own policies!
Perhaps there is an equivalent analysis regarding the rich. Republican administrations devastate the U.S. economy; Democratic administrations improve it. While rich people are effectively separating poorer people from their money (as they do under GOP policies), they can support those politicians. However, at some point the "unequal distribution of wealth" in America runs low on steam. Then, even rich people seek out the greater growth and progress inherent in Democratic policies, notwithstanding the accompanying broader distribution.
Plus, rich people are often highly intelligent!
Perhaps there is an equivalent analysis regarding the rich. Republican administrations devastate the U.S. economy; Democratic administrations improve it. While rich people are effectively separating poorer people from their money (as they do under GOP policies), they can support those politicians. However, at some point the "unequal distribution of wealth" in America runs low on steam. Then, even rich people seek out the greater growth and progress inherent in Democratic policies, notwithstanding the accompanying broader distribution.
Plus, rich people are often highly intelligent!
6
Congressional Democrats have earned the support of the wealthy with $1.3 trillion in annual tax expenditures (credits, deductions, special rates, deferrals and exemptions). Over the last 20 years the richest 10% have increased their share of wealth from 67% to 75%, the next 40% (the middle class) declined from 27% to 24% and the poorer half of the population went from 4% to just a 1%. Much of the decline is due to growing debt such as student loans which prevent young adults from marriage, making babies and moving into the middle class.
The 15.3% combined payroll taxes are a modern ball and chain for the workers and are applied on top of ordinary income taxes. Workers pay a much higher combined rate in taxes than the wealthy when all economic income, including exemptions, are considered (i.e. foreign earnings, unrealized capital gains, etc.). If the real effective tax rates were fair, the declining wealth share trends for the 90% would stop, and perhaps reverse. The Democrats, and particularly the New York - Wall Street powerhouses of Schumer and Clinton exemplify the modern Democrats who give lip service to the poor and struggling middle class while feeling sorry for those who struggle with just a few million dollars. These are the Democrats that favor monopolies, trade agreements, Big Pharma and other global businesses at the expense of non-union U.S. workers and consumers.
Pope Francis at least let all sides know that government policy should serve the family.
The 15.3% combined payroll taxes are a modern ball and chain for the workers and are applied on top of ordinary income taxes. Workers pay a much higher combined rate in taxes than the wealthy when all economic income, including exemptions, are considered (i.e. foreign earnings, unrealized capital gains, etc.). If the real effective tax rates were fair, the declining wealth share trends for the 90% would stop, and perhaps reverse. The Democrats, and particularly the New York - Wall Street powerhouses of Schumer and Clinton exemplify the modern Democrats who give lip service to the poor and struggling middle class while feeling sorry for those who struggle with just a few million dollars. These are the Democrats that favor monopolies, trade agreements, Big Pharma and other global businesses at the expense of non-union U.S. workers and consumers.
Pope Francis at least let all sides know that government policy should serve the family.
11
In the 80s, the Republicans perfected a brilliant, but cynical, political strategy of persuading millions of Americans to cast their vote for cultural symbols, like patriotism and American "exceptionalism," while the party platform was decidedly contrary to those same voters' economic self-interest. The Democrats have adopted pretty much the same strategy around environmentalism. By masterfully blending environmental priorities - which hit jobs and dramatically raise the cost of living on those whose energy costs are a larger portion of household expense - with culturally liberal ideals, the Democrats attract the bi-coastal elites' big money while holding on to the lower-income urban base. The result is that lower-income Democrats are voting against their own economic self-interest. This is why we see community groups and low-income advocates promoting dual agendas of income redistribution and environmentalism: the latter attracts the money, while the former maintains the constituency base. It's cynical, yes, but in terms of raising funds, politically effective.
2
Isn't that what the Democrats did in the south about 1870 with the Jim Crow laws? The poor whites voted against their own economic self interest in the interest of culturally keeping the blacks down.
16
I also seem that playing out in the Democratic Party's support of amnesty for illegal immigrants - if a working class U.S. citizen opposes this because it's basically more competition for housing, employment and public education - they are deemed as racist and xenophobic.
Isn't it strange that the illegal immigrant lobby is so powerful if it supposedly represents the most marginalized??
Isn't it strange that the illegal immigrant lobby is so powerful if it supposedly represents the most marginalized??
1
So some of the wealthy can actually support measures that help the working and middle class. Perhaps they're channeling FDR. The country would benefit greatly from another FDR in my opinion.
6
"The authors, from Stanford, Princeton, the University of Georgia and N.Y.U., respectively, go on to note that the Democratic agenda has shifted away from general social welfare to policies that target ascriptive identities of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation."
I have to disagree with this statement, access to health care for all, fixing global warming, gun control, immigration reform, civil rights -- especially the right to vote - these are just a few of the rallying points for Democrats. Far more concern for the general population than this author gives us credit for. Are the majority of us Democrats and independents more pragmatic than in the days of the far left campaign of a Walter Mondale - yes - at least for the times we are living in. For that reason go Mrs. Clinton! Re-balance our Supreme Court and start us back on the road to sanity!
I have to disagree with this statement, access to health care for all, fixing global warming, gun control, immigration reform, civil rights -- especially the right to vote - these are just a few of the rallying points for Democrats. Far more concern for the general population than this author gives us credit for. Are the majority of us Democrats and independents more pragmatic than in the days of the far left campaign of a Walter Mondale - yes - at least for the times we are living in. For that reason go Mrs. Clinton! Re-balance our Supreme Court and start us back on the road to sanity!
8
The problem is that Democratic policies thoroughly distort those issues and corrupt the system.
Hmmm..."re-balance" would seem to imply two sides, as in the classic image of a scale. Yet, what I see and read and hear is not a demand for balance at all, but a total, 100% shift to the more liberal analysis of court cases and issues. Dissent from what many see as wrong, hateful, silly, whatever, is less and less tolerated. Agree with me 100% or you're bad, seems to be the attitude, even when couched in supposed desires for balance. As with so much else in politics, it's say one thing but mean another, it appears.
Yes, the democrats blabber on about all that, but do little. They had the presidency and both Branches of Congress for two years and address only health care. No efforts were made to reform immigration, gun control, global warming. Democrats like the issue to be on the table so they can collect donations rather than to implement it and own the results. The issues are so much easier to discuss than to implement. Dems are in the tank for donations just the same as Republicans. They are like athletes playing hard for whatever name is on their shirt.
Is the NYT just noticing that the Obama Democrats depend on the liberal gentry?
4
This structural analysis makes some sense, but has limits. I've seen such reasoning fall apart before -- not because it is mistaken, but because it leaves out other factors.
So, what are possible other factors that may affect voting in the near future if not now? One factor might be very local -- individuals beginning to change their mind about certain issues, such as climate change or minimum wage, or health care, which seem not especially immediate to those not now feeling the impact of these -- (those not impacted by flooding or lack of water or low wages or illness). But some of these are issues for which it is not hard to switch positions, especially as it becomes personal. Chipping away at some of these may lead to openness to a progressive candidate who doesn't offend, yet gets the job done.
Another outside factor are slips by the moneyed and conservative, such as made by the Majority Leader about Benghazi. People begin to see the real issues and the real tactics heretofore concealed beneath slick language (death tax) and pleasant faces.
This is not to suggest that these changes are easy or are coming soon. But it is to suggest, and others may have more and better examples, that structure is not fate and is certainly not unchangeable. Who would have thought that Sanders would be where he is (or Trump, for that matter)?
Edsall is good at pulling together a lot of studies. Some get angry at him for stating the logical conclusions. But he is only the messenger.
So, what are possible other factors that may affect voting in the near future if not now? One factor might be very local -- individuals beginning to change their mind about certain issues, such as climate change or minimum wage, or health care, which seem not especially immediate to those not now feeling the impact of these -- (those not impacted by flooding or lack of water or low wages or illness). But some of these are issues for which it is not hard to switch positions, especially as it becomes personal. Chipping away at some of these may lead to openness to a progressive candidate who doesn't offend, yet gets the job done.
Another outside factor are slips by the moneyed and conservative, such as made by the Majority Leader about Benghazi. People begin to see the real issues and the real tactics heretofore concealed beneath slick language (death tax) and pleasant faces.
This is not to suggest that these changes are easy or are coming soon. But it is to suggest, and others may have more and better examples, that structure is not fate and is certainly not unchangeable. Who would have thought that Sanders would be where he is (or Trump, for that matter)?
Edsall is good at pulling together a lot of studies. Some get angry at him for stating the logical conclusions. But he is only the messenger.
5
Centrist Democrats is another nicer work for Corporate Democrats. You know, like the Governor we have. They are bought by the rich of one ilk or another and that is why the people regardless of how many agree on things are ignored. No gun control, no public schools etc. That is also why a very large number of let us say 'Real Democrats' are fighting mad and why Senator Sanders appeals to us and could very well appeal to a number of ignored working folk Republicans as well.
4
Bernie Sanders can win if the economic liberalism of the working class trumps their cultural conservatism. His message that those at the top of the economic pyramid have gained steadily at the expense of those at the bottom of the pyramid is getting traction because those struggling from paycheck to paycheck know it is true and are increasingly upset with the system as it exists. Unfortunately for Bernie no one at the top of the political or economic hierarchy in place want him to succeed and the more he gains momentum the more nervous they are getting….
20
This is not very surprising; how can any successful college educated fellow be attracted by a party where the base believes that the world has been created in 6 days, global warming is a hoax, we should encourage more people to bear arms, women choice should be restricted, immigrants are rapists and Trump and/or Carson would be great Presidents? Yes at one point the cost of paying few percent more in taxes is not sufficient to offset the malaise of being identified with the Republican base.
224
Aren't the college educated the big believers in the lies of GMO's, that cell phones cause cancer, that the lining of tin cans cause cancer, that vaccines cause autism, that organic food is better for you and years ago that margarine was better than butter.
1
"A man is known by the company he keeps."
Follow the money.
As federal spending and power have ballooned, the road to wealth has merged with the road to government.
Democrats are the party of government. Now there are many who have become wealthy by virtue of govt contracts or deals, and they wish to protect that wealth by keeping the gravy train rolling along, and they are likely to be loyal to Democrats.
Note that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US surround DC. It is becoming Capitol City in Hunger Games.
The Republican party in all its chaos still tries to be the party of the private sector (though defense firms see their gravy train defended by the GOP). However, with the rise of the Tea Party, crony capitalism is deeply unpopular among many GOP voters. So the old GOP of big business is at odds with the GOP voters who favor free markets not just big business.
Truly, neither major party really represents the average Joe or small businesses very well.
What do they want? They mostly want to be left alone to manage their own lives. They don't want govt to tell them what to do and they don't want govt to take their stuff and give it to people who didn't earn it.
But that stick has been lying there on the ground for about 25 years, and neither party has even bothered to pick it up.
Democrats are the party of government. Now there are many who have become wealthy by virtue of govt contracts or deals, and they wish to protect that wealth by keeping the gravy train rolling along, and they are likely to be loyal to Democrats.
Note that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US surround DC. It is becoming Capitol City in Hunger Games.
The Republican party in all its chaos still tries to be the party of the private sector (though defense firms see their gravy train defended by the GOP). However, with the rise of the Tea Party, crony capitalism is deeply unpopular among many GOP voters. So the old GOP of big business is at odds with the GOP voters who favor free markets not just big business.
Truly, neither major party really represents the average Joe or small businesses very well.
What do they want? They mostly want to be left alone to manage their own lives. They don't want govt to tell them what to do and they don't want govt to take their stuff and give it to people who didn't earn it.
But that stick has been lying there on the ground for about 25 years, and neither party has even bothered to pick it up.
5
This seems somewhat like a separation of church and state problem. People-- both Democrats and Republicans- are voting based on their nearsighted social, cultural, and what they seem to think are moral concerns. Liberals see conservatives as being being small-minded and bigoted in their social views; conservatives see liberals as amoral libertines ready to discard any social strictures that interfere with their freedom to be whomever they want to be.
Both sides need to take a step back and see that the real concerns center on the role of government, on economic policy and on international relations. How we regulate our individual citizens and our businesses so that might does not make right, how we interact with other countries around the world, how we treat those for whom individual might is not a possibility because of accidents of birth -- those are the real issues.
As it stands now both parties have their share of people who equate success with money and who see the world only from their limited viewpoints. Raise taxes on the other guy; cut mine. Vote against funds for Hurricane Sandy relief, but demand help for the South Carolina flooding.
We all ned to stop arguing over smaller cultural issues, and understand that true morality lies not in adhering to dogma of any kind, but in getting beyond being self-centered and money-hungry and understanding that the common good can exist if we regulate our behaviors enough to ensure that might (and money) do not make right.
Both sides need to take a step back and see that the real concerns center on the role of government, on economic policy and on international relations. How we regulate our individual citizens and our businesses so that might does not make right, how we interact with other countries around the world, how we treat those for whom individual might is not a possibility because of accidents of birth -- those are the real issues.
As it stands now both parties have their share of people who equate success with money and who see the world only from their limited viewpoints. Raise taxes on the other guy; cut mine. Vote against funds for Hurricane Sandy relief, but demand help for the South Carolina flooding.
We all ned to stop arguing over smaller cultural issues, and understand that true morality lies not in adhering to dogma of any kind, but in getting beyond being self-centered and money-hungry and understanding that the common good can exist if we regulate our behaviors enough to ensure that might (and money) do not make right.
27
This comment should be a NY Times Pick, not some of the other one-sided dreck being chosen by their ever shrouded and mysterious vetting process. But then it steps on some editorial toes, I guess.
People have become too short sighted and focused on cultural issues that are far more malleable, while ignoring the very real dangers of poor governance. Culture can and should change on its own without government intervention but too many today want the government to set the agenda, tone and pace, a foolhardy and dangerous gamble to give power to those people (often unelected ones, no less) to do so.
People have become too short sighted and focused on cultural issues that are far more malleable, while ignoring the very real dangers of poor governance. Culture can and should change on its own without government intervention but too many today want the government to set the agenda, tone and pace, a foolhardy and dangerous gamble to give power to those people (often unelected ones, no less) to do so.
There are different currents at work here.
First, not all of the affluent pursue their interests over those of society. They know they have to live on the same planet, breath the same air or drive the same roads as everyone else.
Secondly, many of the elite are socially liberal and repelled by the GOP so they gravitate to the Dems by default, influencing them with their fiscally conservative views.
I think there's a view among the wealthy, especially in the corporate world, that they can afford to be socially liberal because it costs them nothing, which is a price worth paying to sustain their economic advantages.
First, not all of the affluent pursue their interests over those of society. They know they have to live on the same planet, breath the same air or drive the same roads as everyone else.
Secondly, many of the elite are socially liberal and repelled by the GOP so they gravitate to the Dems by default, influencing them with their fiscally conservative views.
I think there's a view among the wealthy, especially in the corporate world, that they can afford to be socially liberal because it costs them nothing, which is a price worth paying to sustain their economic advantages.
9
The data presentation is excellent but conclusions less so. “It may be that voter discontent will topple one of the parties...an improbable development.”
It’s NOT improbable because:
One- The income inequality suffered by 90% of Americans over the last 35 years, as outlined by Piketty and others, isn’t changing without changing the rules. It’s the same reason the Fed’s zero interest rate policy for the last seven years proved to be inadequate. Adjusting the monetary fuel injection system can only do so much, when it’s the business model transmission system that’s broken.
So the economic pressure will continue to grow without progressive economic reforms.
Two- The Democratic Party is engaged in a struggle to throw off the Clinton Era Wall Street agenda. Whether it’s 2016 or some future presidential election having two corporate agenda parties can’t exist without interruption. The one constant about Capitalism is that there will always be another economic crisis. There will be an opportunity to fix the next blow-out, and it won't be the Republicans.
Ironically, F. A. Hayek, in his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom,” predicted a mixed economy would lead to economic stagnation. Instead, the next three decades resulted in the greatest expansion of the middle class in history.
Americans climbed on the bus down the Road to Corporate Serfdom, when President Reagan adopted Hayek’s market fundamentalism. With the right message and messenger, we can turn that bus around.
It’s NOT improbable because:
One- The income inequality suffered by 90% of Americans over the last 35 years, as outlined by Piketty and others, isn’t changing without changing the rules. It’s the same reason the Fed’s zero interest rate policy for the last seven years proved to be inadequate. Adjusting the monetary fuel injection system can only do so much, when it’s the business model transmission system that’s broken.
So the economic pressure will continue to grow without progressive economic reforms.
Two- The Democratic Party is engaged in a struggle to throw off the Clinton Era Wall Street agenda. Whether it’s 2016 or some future presidential election having two corporate agenda parties can’t exist without interruption. The one constant about Capitalism is that there will always be another economic crisis. There will be an opportunity to fix the next blow-out, and it won't be the Republicans.
Ironically, F. A. Hayek, in his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom,” predicted a mixed economy would lead to economic stagnation. Instead, the next three decades resulted in the greatest expansion of the middle class in history.
Americans climbed on the bus down the Road to Corporate Serfdom, when President Reagan adopted Hayek’s market fundamentalism. With the right message and messenger, we can turn that bus around.
14
As always Mr. Edsall's analysis is scholarly and compelling. The conclusion: money rules politics and policies in both parties with subtle exceptions, markedly: scientific and economic. The concern for global warming, pollution, the effort to move toward renewable energy, the economic analysis by Piketty and behavioral economists, and the acceptance of immigrants as an economic boon set Democrats apart from Republicans. Indeed, the strength that Republicans derive from their appeal to poor uneducated whites depends on emotional isolation, fear, hatred, distrust of government and false equivalence that some of Mr. Edsall's analysis overlooks as above. Additionally, the recent visit by Pope Francis, and the floundering of the economy that has neglected infrastructure renewal may provide an unrepresented opening for Democrats. Bernie Sanders has demonstrated an opening that others may use. Those wealthy liberals who recognize that hoarding cripples economies as Piketty illustrated, and that their opponents depend on ignorance, global warming industries, and war, which are universally destructive may be emboldened to double down on a future that is democratic instead of oligarchic.
16
The dependence on wealthy donors is very worrying, but this column also complexity overlooks the redistributive effects of the ACA. A greater commitment to redistribution might be a good thing, but is there any evidence that white working class voter would back such policies, or, would they vote on "cultural" issues?
The Democrats support the liberal social issues to bring the Left into the right of center economic fold. Republicans oppose them because they are right of center. Democrats are working for the rich. Economics are more important to the rich than abortion, or gay rights. Democrats are just really Republican lite when it comes to economics. They will keep just enough social programs running to appease the poor and keep them from arming themselves and starting a violent class war. Meanwhile Democrats support the economic class war practiced on the middle, working and poor classes by the rich.
So the difference in negligible. Both manipulate their constituencies to divide them from each other so that the rich can enact their oligarchical utopia upon the world where they own all the means of production and property and we are all their laborers, living in company houses and buying at the company store. Both parties work toward stratifying our society so we cannot band together and recreate America as our Founding Fathers saw it: a land of hard working business owners, land owners, and family farmers.
So the difference in negligible. Both manipulate their constituencies to divide them from each other so that the rich can enact their oligarchical utopia upon the world where they own all the means of production and property and we are all their laborers, living in company houses and buying at the company store. Both parties work toward stratifying our society so we cannot band together and recreate America as our Founding Fathers saw it: a land of hard working business owners, land owners, and family farmers.
8
This is all a manifestation of the total erosion of limitations on Gubmint that forms the basis of our Constitution, especially Article I Section 8.
Plutocrats of both parties now manipulate the Gubmint in crony capitalism. There's a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the US Treasury Secretariat. Ordinary middle class people are bought off and mollified by incumbent politicians via "programs" like Social Security, Medicare, etc.
Plutocrats of both parties now manipulate the Gubmint in crony capitalism. There's a revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the US Treasury Secretariat. Ordinary middle class people are bought off and mollified by incumbent politicians via "programs" like Social Security, Medicare, etc.
3
Nice reference to late fellow Texan Molly Ivins. Sure do miss her sarcastic wit. Gail Collins does a nice job, but Molly created the genre.
The reason the Democrats lost me during the Clinton years was because they became the advocates of Wall Street and were proud of it. They abandoned the low-income voters they have always claimed to represent and then scratch their heads when they don't show up to vote. Their focus has been on social issues. And, yes, they needed to be addressed. The problem? While they did that, behind the scenes they were taking significant actions that benefited Wall Street and the 1%. They lost my faith and support at that point. I had great faith in Obama. But, he did NOTHING to hold the thieves and liars on Wall Street that brought the US down with a crash. His strong advocacy for illegal immigrants has continued to keep the poor down and now the middle-class have joined us. I believe absolutely nothing they say. When Senator Paul Wellstone died we lost one of the biggest supporters of the average American. There a very few left. Sanders is one of them, Warren is another. I am waiting for a battle for the 99%. I haven't seen one yet. And until the billionaires that Clinton brought into the party continue to control them, nothing will change. Nothing.
4
Two comments.
First, the plutocracy is simply hedging or buying insurance. In 2008, they gave more to the Democrats than to the GOP, and got what they needed - there was no "100 days" of real financial reform legislation in the opening days of the Obama administration.
Second, this is why the public like Trump and Sanders - each in their own way is not an establishment candidate, bought and sold by the ultra rich. And this is why 90% agree (an amazing figure) that Citizens United must go, and we need public funding.
History tells us that at one time the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the Roman Empire. Are we reaching that stage?
First, the plutocracy is simply hedging or buying insurance. In 2008, they gave more to the Democrats than to the GOP, and got what they needed - there was no "100 days" of real financial reform legislation in the opening days of the Obama administration.
Second, this is why the public like Trump and Sanders - each in their own way is not an establishment candidate, bought and sold by the ultra rich. And this is why 90% agree (an amazing figure) that Citizens United must go, and we need public funding.
History tells us that at one time the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the Roman Empire. Are we reaching that stage?
4
The song goes, “Don’t know much about history, don’t know much about biology, don’t know much about [fill in the blank].”
Thomas Edsall doesn’t know much about the United States Supreme Court. I do. I teach it. The column is about political parties—Republican, Democrat. There is a difference, according to Mr. Edsall, at the start of the column, and of course he is right. But his examples? Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia? Worth no more than characterization as Democrat and Republican?
Liberal/conservative is the usual portrayal of the difference. With reason to back it up. Although, if Mr. Edsall bothered to look, he would see the times liberal and conservative come out the same way on issues before the Supreme Court.
Thomas Edsall doesn’t know much about the United States Supreme Court. I do. I teach it. The column is about political parties—Republican, Democrat. There is a difference, according to Mr. Edsall, at the start of the column, and of course he is right. But his examples? Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia? Worth no more than characterization as Democrat and Republican?
Liberal/conservative is the usual portrayal of the difference. With reason to back it up. Although, if Mr. Edsall bothered to look, he would see the times liberal and conservative come out the same way on issues before the Supreme Court.
I have long perceived The New York Times as reflecting the same views as the super-rich "liberals" depicted in this column, namely, the liberal views on social issues, and the conservative views on trade, taxes, deficit spending, regulation, and often, foreign policy. These elitists views are precisely the opposite of my own, generally.
This explains why my comments are rarely published when submitted. (When published, it is usually about 8 hours later. Or, should I say, buried?)
This also explains why Mrs. Clinton has been pushed by this newspaper, whereas Bernie Sanders has been treated like an unfashionably dressed guy trying to enter a restaurant catering to the elites.
This explains why my comments are rarely published when submitted. (When published, it is usually about 8 hours later. Or, should I say, buried?)
This also explains why Mrs. Clinton has been pushed by this newspaper, whereas Bernie Sanders has been treated like an unfashionably dressed guy trying to enter a restaurant catering to the elites.
193
Yep, if Sanders had a home address somewhere between those of Trump and HRC he'd receive much more equitable consideration herein.
1
I agree that the NY Times fashionably markets itself as Manhattan liberal which means that their idea of pizza delivery is a flat crust with Marinara sauce of extra toppings of caviar, arugula & crudites rather than the average Joe (who could never afford even a closet in Manhattan, let alone an entire apartment) who delights in Pepperoni. The NY Times form of liberalism is advocating for full nudity for street artists in Times Square, cheering on the race & class wars through artful dodger literary pieces although remaining staunchly Conservative in their so called serious pieces regarding foreign policy (as spoon fed by the White House) & building up GOP personalities like the cream puff front page piece today on Jason Chaffetz which plays up his strengths while neglecting to mention that he was the PR face of the pyramid scheme company Nu Skin for over a decade who continue to support his political career to the tune of thousands of dollars. In essence, the NY Times markets itself as liberal to sell to the public while being the Conservative propaganda paper for the Washington DC & NY banking industry status quo.
4
Three cheers. You got it in.
Cassandra: NYT is not liberal.
NYT: Are too! So there!
Cassandra: NYT is not liberal.
NYT: Are too! So there!
4
Thanks for this important and carefully documented op-ed about this dark long-term trend. Former Times reporter Chris Hedges details this in his compelling polemic, "Death of the Liberal Class," and in subsequent books. The bottom line: Over the last thirty-five years, corporate money has very literally purchased the entire political establishment so that it now principally serves corporate interests. The Democrats continue to claim they fight for working people and the underclass, but this is an increasingly transparent and sickening charade. They fight for the money to seize and preserve power, just as the Republicans do. For many of us this is not exactly news, but it's nice to see the trend so well documented here.
158
Obama yesterday on NPR described himself as a "progressive democrat;" I almost choked. A progressive dem would not: a) invite pharma and insurance corporate gurus to write the healthcare bill b) describe banksters who with their crimes and high jinx destroyed the economy, as "the smartest people I know" and c) establish the simpson bowles commission whose goal is to kill social security. If he had done so in some sort of delusional bipartisan handshake, would have scoffed at their right wing plans. We on the left though are stuck with people like him and Hillary, for we know that the GOP is worse.
70
@karen: Regarding your b), I believe they may indeed be extremely smart. Being smart has nothing to do with caring about the rest of the country or the world. I know enough examples.
On the other hand, if they really are the smartest people Obama knows, he must know mostly banksters and politicians. There are plenty of (at least) equally smart scientists, engineers, and artists.
On the other hand, if they really are the smartest people Obama knows, he must know mostly banksters and politicians. There are plenty of (at least) equally smart scientists, engineers, and artists.
2
"The Democrats continue to claim they fight for working people and the underclass, but this is an increasingly transparent and sickening charade."
Right, as evidenced by the DNC (and especially Wasserman-Shultz) transparently working to keep Bernie at bay. But it looks more and more as if so many people are infuriated by the fact that today's Democratic Party is positioned well to the right of Dwight Eisenhower's Republican Party that Bernie Sanders has a real chance, despite his outsider status and the dreaded "Socialist" label.
Go Bernie!
Right, as evidenced by the DNC (and especially Wasserman-Shultz) transparently working to keep Bernie at bay. But it looks more and more as if so many people are infuriated by the fact that today's Democratic Party is positioned well to the right of Dwight Eisenhower's Republican Party that Bernie Sanders has a real chance, despite his outsider status and the dreaded "Socialist" label.
Go Bernie!
4
Thank you for doing all of this wonderful excavation work! I had come to the conclusion that the party once sold to me years ago as the party of the working man, had adopted the motto (when I wasn't looking), "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em". I think some thought, they could bring the bottom up -- but you will always have a bottom, and the best thing to do for the middle is support the bottom. And, someone keeps reminding us of the "rising tide lifts all" quote, but I once asked my mom, if my ship would ever come in, and she told me her ship had a hole in it. At $7.25 an hour and a dozen eggs at $4.18, I think I may have inherited it ------ I'm holding out for hero!
2
We need a new way forward. How we get there is another question altogether. Neither party is going to advocate for public funding of all elections which is the obvious solution. Elected officials crave all the campaign money just as much as the power that they have. They are never going to voluntarily give it up. The only question is what will be the tipping point that causes mass demonstrations, strikes and unrest to demand that our government serve the interests of working people? I dislike Hillary more than Trump. At least you know whose side Trump is on. Hillary lies through fake smiles and plays the game that she is on the side of workers.
3
So in fewer words, both established parties are in essence the same.
8
I'm glad someone else got it.
By pandering to ignoramuses and crazies, the GOP has alienated intelligent, well-educated, emotionally mature people, who have increasingly realized that the only way to vote is Democratic. To be a smart, sane Republican these days is to be chronically embarrassed and ashamed.
4
Nothing peculiar here, rich people tend to be smarter than poor people.
And now some smart people are beginning to realize that they are going to share their existence with a whole lot of poor people on a disintegrating planet.
And if that planet isn't fixed, things are going to get unpleasant for all people.
And, unless they happen to be invested in Peabody Coal or get their science reporting from the National Review instead of the Scientific American, they also realize that the Republican party occupies another planet on which the laws of physics and chemistry are suspended for the sake of dividends.
So they do what smart people, sometimes grudgingly, do. Vote and support non-Republicans.
I'm one of them and the thought of President Hillary is merely less repugnant than all the Republican alternatives.
Gerrymandering and Citizens United have handed the Republican party both houses of Congress and the only restraint on their delusional fiats is a Democratic presidential veto.
Clinton-Gore, anyone?
And now some smart people are beginning to realize that they are going to share their existence with a whole lot of poor people on a disintegrating planet.
And if that planet isn't fixed, things are going to get unpleasant for all people.
And, unless they happen to be invested in Peabody Coal or get their science reporting from the National Review instead of the Scientific American, they also realize that the Republican party occupies another planet on which the laws of physics and chemistry are suspended for the sake of dividends.
So they do what smart people, sometimes grudgingly, do. Vote and support non-Republicans.
I'm one of them and the thought of President Hillary is merely less repugnant than all the Republican alternatives.
Gerrymandering and Citizens United have handed the Republican party both houses of Congress and the only restraint on their delusional fiats is a Democratic presidential veto.
Clinton-Gore, anyone?
1
Excellent analysis. There may be other reasons why the rich like Democrats. With the Ds, we know where we are. With the GOP, it's now anyone's guess on the details, but the general direction is clear--down the tubes. Our physical infrastructure is rotten. Our social infrastructure is unraveled to the point where some fear outbreaks of violence. (How ironic if the greed of Smith and Wesson puts weapons of revolution in the hands of the really angry!)
With a Democrat in the White House and a GOP-led House, anything that gets done will be a compromise. With a Republican in the White House and a GOP-led House, chaos is our next stop. Who can do business in such an environment?
With a Democrat in the White House and a GOP-led House, anything that gets done will be a compromise. With a Republican in the White House and a GOP-led House, chaos is our next stop. Who can do business in such an environment?
86
The question should not be “Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?”
The question should be "How has Rising Income and Wealth Inequality Slowed Democracy?"
Two parts to the answer: A few of us wanted this to happen; A lot of us let this happen.
The question should be "How has Rising Income and Wealth Inequality Slowed Democracy?"
Two parts to the answer: A few of us wanted this to happen; A lot of us let this happen.
9
The historical differences of the two parties remains the same -- one offers compassion, the other doesn't. That's why Bernie Sanders is popular right now.
Hillary is offering that in the gun control speech of late, and it is also substantive -- the best offered so far. Value speeches are nice, but substantive speeches that reflect values are better (policy speeches).
So far, Hillary is the only policy speaker on the trail. Money talks, but some are throwing good money after bad -- as they say in Texas -- all hat and no cattle.
Hillary is offering that in the gun control speech of late, and it is also substantive -- the best offered so far. Value speeches are nice, but substantive speeches that reflect values are better (policy speeches).
So far, Hillary is the only policy speaker on the trail. Money talks, but some are throwing good money after bad -- as they say in Texas -- all hat and no cattle.
1
A stunning analysis that explains a lot of what is happening in the current political landscape. Edsall is a treasure.
1
How did Democrats become favorites of the rich?
The stock market under Democratic presidents always does better than under Republican presidents.
The stock market under Democratic presidents always does better than under Republican presidents.
5
Nixon smelled it coming 45 years ago … preempt the potential leaders, buy 'em off, almost everyone has a price. Yes, follow the money … until you hit a brick wall like Bernie who won't budge for the big bucks & billionaires.
Go Bernie.
Go Bernie.
6
The key laws in the realignment were signed by Bill Clinton ( who goes unmentioned, perhaps as part of the Times chronic shilling for his spouse).
Gee whiz,I wonder why her support is dwindling?
This is a masterful article about what really matters in the 2016 race.
Gee whiz,I wonder why her support is dwindling?
This is a masterful article about what really matters in the 2016 race.
13
She.Is.Toast.
How do we do one of those Twitter hashtag thingy's?
How do we do one of those Twitter hashtag thingy's?
3
As a member of the slight majority of adult Americans who pay income taxes (purportedly ony 53%) I'm very concerned about inequality--the inequality that sees barely half of us paying general income taxes. And since I will never qualify as a member of any "protected class" so revered by the D's, as I"m white, straight, not handicapped etc, I'll never be a recipient of D's "cause of the month" largesse. But apparently since I have fairly high income and assets I need to change my party affiliation. Will do. When pigs fly.
3
Simple explanation, I'd think. The poor know the GOP is out to get them. The more affluent and better educated know the GOP is nuts. The poor folks probably know this, too....
1
You would be wrong. The GOP adheres to different principals, those of which would benefit the "poor". The only thing Democrats do for the poor is create massive divide. What's strange is that we are witnessing that right now. It's blatantly out in the open for all to see, after 8 years and we still 8 years later, have to read comments like this. Denial is powerful, but this is next level stuff.
How's this theory "The more affluent and better educated know the GOP is nuts". It could be argued the majority of the so called "educated" folks are actually a bit brainwashed. I know many educated people, mainly women, who are often conflicted about what they want out of life and their place (i.e. their place -- work or family -- how they choose). The point is, I know many people who lack degrees and a formal education who are actually quite bright and deep thinkers, yet I know many "educated" folks who fail at critical thinking and are more likely to follow the heard. Food for thought.
How's this theory "The more affluent and better educated know the GOP is nuts". It could be argued the majority of the so called "educated" folks are actually a bit brainwashed. I know many educated people, mainly women, who are often conflicted about what they want out of life and their place (i.e. their place -- work or family -- how they choose). The point is, I know many people who lack degrees and a formal education who are actually quite bright and deep thinkers, yet I know many "educated" folks who fail at critical thinking and are more likely to follow the heard. Food for thought.
8
For years now, the Dems have had Hollywood cash, Wall Street cash (see Schumer, Chuck) and now have Silicon Valley cash. They give these guys tax breaks in return for their money.
Silicon Valley gets cheap foreign labor, and is allowed to violate the HB-1 visa program with impunity. All they need to do is cough up a few bucks for the Dems.
This is why Trump is resonating: The single biggest issue in the '16 election is immigration, both legal and illegal. The Hart-Sellers Act of 1965 must be repealed, and we must end chain migration and birthright citizenship.
Time for the American worker for a change.
Silicon Valley gets cheap foreign labor, and is allowed to violate the HB-1 visa program with impunity. All they need to do is cough up a few bucks for the Dems.
This is why Trump is resonating: The single biggest issue in the '16 election is immigration, both legal and illegal. The Hart-Sellers Act of 1965 must be repealed, and we must end chain migration and birthright citizenship.
Time for the American worker for a change.
9
I really appreciate Thomas Edsalls commentary. He is a wake up call. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately he doesn't tell one what they want to hear. This was another one of those depressing/debilitating pieces on how there is no party of the middle-class let alone the under class. We have been sold down the river of neo-liberal economics or "free market" economics by the supposed party of the working man. Trade deals that don't work, tax cuts that don't produce the revenue streams they were sold on, anti-regulatory policy that destroys the wealth and health of the average citizen and puts their stolen assets in the wealthy ledger, even when the wealthy did the damage. What is to be done? Somehow, someway the underclass must be educated. I know, Orwell gave up on them. We can't. They have to see that supporting the "centrist" Dems like a Clinton does them must more harm than good. And voting the R on the ticket is dooming you to serfdom.
7
If this analysis is correct, then it appears that working-class Americans will have no effective representation of their economics interests, at least on the national level. This is obviously not an entirely new development. Once the American economy grew to the point that a very wealthy class emerged (late 19th century) that class acquired political influence out of proportion to its numbers.
In times of crisis, like the 1930s, when substantial portions of the middle class were dumped into the same class as unskilled workers, candidates who challenged the elite could be elected. Today, the persistence of economic hardship for millions of Americans has not generated enough discontent with national economic policies to duplicate the upheaval of the Great Depression.
Edsall's analysis implies that the reason is the narrow focus on social and cultural issues which attracts enough support to the Democrats that they can afford to ignore the economic concerns of the working-class portion of their coalition. But is this policy of malign neglect by both parties really sustainable in a democracy? The simmering anger among white working-class voters, noted by many observers, suggests that this tendency to concentrate on non-economic issues will not prove acceptable indefinitely.
Will we adapt democratically to resolve this dilemma, or will we find another way, less compatible with our political institutions? No predictions here.
In times of crisis, like the 1930s, when substantial portions of the middle class were dumped into the same class as unskilled workers, candidates who challenged the elite could be elected. Today, the persistence of economic hardship for millions of Americans has not generated enough discontent with national economic policies to duplicate the upheaval of the Great Depression.
Edsall's analysis implies that the reason is the narrow focus on social and cultural issues which attracts enough support to the Democrats that they can afford to ignore the economic concerns of the working-class portion of their coalition. But is this policy of malign neglect by both parties really sustainable in a democracy? The simmering anger among white working-class voters, noted by many observers, suggests that this tendency to concentrate on non-economic issues will not prove acceptable indefinitely.
Will we adapt democratically to resolve this dilemma, or will we find another way, less compatible with our political institutions? No predictions here.
7
Be very careful America. This is what happened in the UK in 1998. The Conservative Party was seen as out of touch and corrupt and many otherwise Tory voters and donors were taken in by the rhetoric and big smile of Tony Blair. Blair achieved a landslide victory.
Blair made a big impression in the US but the UK quickly began to realise that his popularity in the US was because he was always THERE and not at home doing his job. Many at home were beginning to see him as George 'Dubayahs' poodle being led into a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq. He lied to the British People about a non-existent cache of WMDs that convinced the Government to indulge in the venture.
Somehow, Blair managed to win another 2 General Elections but abdicated halfway through his third term in favour of Gordon Brown. Brown had been a reasonable Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had previously carried on the policies of the Tories but as Prime Minister he lost it completely. He became infatuated with the rich and Rupert Murdoch. Even though constantly being told by senior EU Ministers that the Lisbon Treaty was word for word the same as the rejected 'Constitution', he signed the UK up for it and brought us fully into the EU and then proceeded to break the economy to the point that we were broke. Every single Labour Government in the past has done the same.
The US appears to be making the same mistakes as Britain and from over here, it appears that Obama is just another Blair.
Blair made a big impression in the US but the UK quickly began to realise that his popularity in the US was because he was always THERE and not at home doing his job. Many at home were beginning to see him as George 'Dubayahs' poodle being led into a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq. He lied to the British People about a non-existent cache of WMDs that convinced the Government to indulge in the venture.
Somehow, Blair managed to win another 2 General Elections but abdicated halfway through his third term in favour of Gordon Brown. Brown had been a reasonable Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had previously carried on the policies of the Tories but as Prime Minister he lost it completely. He became infatuated with the rich and Rupert Murdoch. Even though constantly being told by senior EU Ministers that the Lisbon Treaty was word for word the same as the rejected 'Constitution', he signed the UK up for it and brought us fully into the EU and then proceeded to break the economy to the point that we were broke. Every single Labour Government in the past has done the same.
The US appears to be making the same mistakes as Britain and from over here, it appears that Obama is just another Blair.
4
Whooeee. Edsall is some athlete, as his back flips and triple twists in this column prove. Criticism of Democrat supporters because they have money? It just means they're smarter voters who don't believe in "class warfare".
2
Neo-liberal (i.e., conservative) unregulated free market economics fails in too many ways to be sustainable. With more technology there will be increasing need for income redistribution, and increasing opportunities for environmental protection, and with them will come political pressure from majority voters. Rightwing/industrial smoke and mirrors can only go so far in suppressing the interests of the majority. The question is how slow will the needed political changes be, and how much damage and pain will we endure in the meantime. One destructive meme that I hate to see over and over again in the media is the idea that everyone "earns" what they get from the system. The winners don't like the idea that we are a society and that the products of the society are earned by all. The owners of the robots on the assembly lines will not have anyone to sell to unless there is income sharing. We are on the verge of a new era, handicapped by old era ideas.
4
A depressing documentation of how the oligarchy is entrenching itself in our politics. It now owns both parties. There are differences in policy, but not in what matters (establishing a decent society where wealth is not concentrated at the top).
The age of the American Republic is coming to an end. What comes next is anyone's guess, but one gets the distinct feeling that it won't be pretty.
The age of the American Republic is coming to an end. What comes next is anyone's guess, but one gets the distinct feeling that it won't be pretty.
138
Gfagan, what is coming next to America is Social Democracy where government owns valuable resources and businesses essential to the well-being of all Americans and the businesses are managed by private companies with AT LEAST ONE-HALF THE PROFITS COMING BACK INTO THE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE STRONG SOCIAL SERVICES TO ALL AMERICANS. Enough of the top 1% global financial elite sucking off the rewards of OUR hard work and OUR U.S. Treasury.
I wish I could believe that, njglea. But look around you. The rabid right has a grip around the nation's neck and it will take much effort to pull it off.
1
I am a middle class liberal. I am distressed that liberalism in the U.S. has become a religion characterized by superficial doctrine dictating views that pretend to serve the interests of the working class but are handed down by wealthy leaders of the Democratic Party and are not responsive to my needs. The Party platform seems mostly to be designed to assuage wealthy guilt and when I complain I'm told I don't know my own interests. Republicans are unacceptable. Democrats are not nearly as acceptable as they think.
169
I've read many of your comments here. You're neither liberal nor progressive.
4
Disappointed in the usually astute Mr. Edsall here - both in assumptions and conclusions. Wealthy folks are increasingly D, but information education are the two most critical reasons. And not because the D's are particularly insightful either. The Republican Party has simply become the bastion of flat-earthers - just name your issue! They are not attracted to the D's so much as increasingly repelled by R policies and their candidates. "Class" analysis is obsolete here.
5
"The Democratic Party pushed through the financial regulation of the 1930s, while the Democratic party of the 1990s undid much of this regulation in its embrace of unregulated financial capitalism,” the four authors write.
Ah yes, the era of the grifters in chief whose effects still resonate today. That doesn't stop people from claiming Mrs. Clinton as the candidate to beat; it might even be the reason she is the putative Democrat the party wants. But is she the candidate that we want to be the face of the Democrats? Paul Theroux's column a few days ago laid out some of the problems that were wrought by the very policies and ideas Edsall describes here. The election is months away but the decisions are being made now by these deeper pockets described here.
I am not even that progressive or liberal but our course needs shifting not reinforcing.
Ah yes, the era of the grifters in chief whose effects still resonate today. That doesn't stop people from claiming Mrs. Clinton as the candidate to beat; it might even be the reason she is the putative Democrat the party wants. But is she the candidate that we want to be the face of the Democrats? Paul Theroux's column a few days ago laid out some of the problems that were wrought by the very policies and ideas Edsall describes here. The election is months away but the decisions are being made now by these deeper pockets described here.
I am not even that progressive or liberal but our course needs shifting not reinforcing.
4
The most telling fact is that the Democrats became "favorites of the rich" without taking $1 away from the Republicans. Financial & corporate interests donate freely to opposing candidates now, providing proof, if proof were needed, that politics now runs on financial obligation, not political principle. The cultural battles that win both parties their loyalty are basically marketing strategies. The real point is to deliver access, tax cuts, deregulation & trade deals & whatever else the big money demands.
The more alike the 2 parties become, the greater their need to sell themselves as mortal enemies. But there are telling markers of their true differences, which are entirely strategic: when Democrats take power and govern as moderate Republicans, as Clinton & Obama both did, the Republicans go into a frenzy of anger, staking out a new position & a new debate farther to the right. When the Republicans take power and govern from the right-wing deep end, as with GW Bush, the Democrats mostly roll over & play dead. Because Republican policies explicitly serve the wealthy, they have to pose as loose cannons & outsiders, while Democrats pose as responsible insiders to balance their occasional economic populism,
As citizens we continue debating & discussing politics. But the only issue that matters in terms of participatory democracy is getting money out of politics.
The more alike the 2 parties become, the greater their need to sell themselves as mortal enemies. But there are telling markers of their true differences, which are entirely strategic: when Democrats take power and govern as moderate Republicans, as Clinton & Obama both did, the Republicans go into a frenzy of anger, staking out a new position & a new debate farther to the right. When the Republicans take power and govern from the right-wing deep end, as with GW Bush, the Democrats mostly roll over & play dead. Because Republican policies explicitly serve the wealthy, they have to pose as loose cannons & outsiders, while Democrats pose as responsible insiders to balance their occasional economic populism,
As citizens we continue debating & discussing politics. But the only issue that matters in terms of participatory democracy is getting money out of politics.
50
"Republicans go into a frenzy of anger, staking out a new position & a new debate farther to the right."
In reality we know this is merely Schadenfruade. The big donors don't really give a hoot about the rantings against immigration, abortion, or most of the other social issues, but they know very well this means votes from the unwashed masses. Meanwhile the big donors and their bought and paid for representatives huddle at the country club to make deals that continue to pad their asset balances while stripping away the rights and protections of the middle class.
Suckers. All of us.
In reality we know this is merely Schadenfruade. The big donors don't really give a hoot about the rantings against immigration, abortion, or most of the other social issues, but they know very well this means votes from the unwashed masses. Meanwhile the big donors and their bought and paid for representatives huddle at the country club to make deals that continue to pad their asset balances while stripping away the rights and protections of the middle class.
Suckers. All of us.
4
Affluent voters aren't necessarily "rich." Someone working in the financial industry in NYC or tech in San Francisco might be a well educated Democratic voter earning around 165 (or three times the national median income) but given the cost of living in these places the notion that they are plutocrats is ludicrous. Does Edsall have any idea what a modest home in these places costs?
43
The Republicans want to " save" Social Security by privatizing it so that "wealth managers" can take a cut of the funds while risking all in the stock market, and by raising the Retirement age so that some people never live to get their benefits. The Republicans want to " save" Medicare by turning it into a voucher system and then cutting the voucher so that it pays for less and less care. The Republicans want to " fix" student loans by draining funds through giving risk - free profits to banks. And Republicans want unregulated secret money flooding our elections, enabled by Republicans on the Supreme Court, with all Democratic attempts to reverse this blocked by Republicans in Congress.
Yes, some bills pass with some Democratic votes following lobbying by wealthy interests, but they typically are majority Republican votes. If the Congress were 100% comprised of Democrats, these bills would not have passed. If the Supreme Court were comprised of Democrats rather than Republican ideologues attacks on the right to vote while opening floodgates of secret money would not have happened.
Yes, many rich people have been Democrats, including FDR, but many of them love their country and are concerned about those who are less fortunate, and vote against their narrow financial ( tax) interest to support candidates who will support measures to help America to remain the land of opportunity for others that they loved and which enabled their own good fortune.
Yes, some bills pass with some Democratic votes following lobbying by wealthy interests, but they typically are majority Republican votes. If the Congress were 100% comprised of Democrats, these bills would not have passed. If the Supreme Court were comprised of Democrats rather than Republican ideologues attacks on the right to vote while opening floodgates of secret money would not have happened.
Yes, many rich people have been Democrats, including FDR, but many of them love their country and are concerned about those who are less fortunate, and vote against their narrow financial ( tax) interest to support candidates who will support measures to help America to remain the land of opportunity for others that they loved and which enabled their own good fortune.
236
Re: "The Republicans want to " save" Social Security by privatizing it so that "wealth managers" can take a cut of the funds while risking all in the stock market...."
May I recommend a different view?
"An Observation on Income Inequality" http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/an-observation-on-income...
May I recommend a different view?
"An Observation on Income Inequality" http://relevantmatters.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/an-observation-on-income...
I would rather have control over the money allocated to me in the Social Security system because I do not trust the government to efficiently manage my money. Yes, I would rather give someone accountable to me a slice of my retirement to manage it, since the bureaucracy has consistently proven itself ineffective at demanding value from its employees on pain of prompt termination.
2
So, QED, when you get your SS check, you can give it to someone "accountable" to you to invest. Good luck.
3
The only answer is to enact public funding of all campaigns. For that to happen, the Constitution needs to be amended to specify that money does not equal speech.
Until that unlikely event, or an economic collapse rivaling 1929 happens, I do not see anything on the horizon changing the status-quo.
Senator Sanders will not be the nominee. Bernie will make a gallant effort, give a rousing speech at the convention, and go gently into that good night.
Until that unlikely event, or an economic collapse rivaling 1929 happens, I do not see anything on the horizon changing the status-quo.
Senator Sanders will not be the nominee. Bernie will make a gallant effort, give a rousing speech at the convention, and go gently into that good night.
76
I thought the last election was scary. This election is terrifying!
If Bernie Sanders did not have "Socialist" attached to his name, he would stand a better chance of being the Democratic nominee, but he is honest about his political philosophy, and it is why he is admired by all of us who are progressives/liberals. I wish, truly wish he stood a real chance of becoming President, but in my heart I know he does not.
I always look for your reasoned and intelligent comments.
If Bernie Sanders did not have "Socialist" attached to his name, he would stand a better chance of being the Democratic nominee, but he is honest about his political philosophy, and it is why he is admired by all of us who are progressives/liberals. I wish, truly wish he stood a real chance of becoming President, but in my heart I know he does not.
I always look for your reasoned and intelligent comments.
1
Will his supporters go gently along with him? Have we had enough yet? Those thoughts are behind the deep silence of the news media on Bernie. They learned during the Viet Nam war that people react to what they see exposed on television. Therefore, the press has not published photos of caskets returning from our wars of aggression in the middle east, and Occupy Wall Street received little coverage over all while ten people attending a Tea Party rally is front page news. Liberal protests are generally peaceful and not covered, but the police are allowed a free hand to intimidate and arrest. Tea Partiers bring weapons to their rallies and get wall-to-wall coverage and are not arrested.
2
Bernie says he really prefers the term "progressive", but "socialist" is what is stressed in the press minus the "democratic" qualifier in front of it. They would call him a "communist" but for the fact that the press conflated the two so totally over the years it isn't necessary.
Frankly, other the reactionary right who would never vote for him anyway, I am not sure people particularly care about the boogey-man term "socialist" any more. It's lost its impact.
Frankly, other the reactionary right who would never vote for him anyway, I am not sure people particularly care about the boogey-man term "socialist" any more. It's lost its impact.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Since the Supreme Court saw fit to change the election laws and allow people with obscene amounts of money to dominate our political system, our political process has moved from being a battle of ideas to a battle of dollars. The obvious perception is that if your opponent has a billion dollars of financing, you'd better have a billion dollars of financing, too.
The only person bucking that system is Bernie Sanders. For that reason alone, he deserves our praise. For the other principles and policies that he brings to the race, he deserves our votes.
Go Bernie.
Since the Supreme Court saw fit to change the election laws and allow people with obscene amounts of money to dominate our political system, our political process has moved from being a battle of ideas to a battle of dollars. The obvious perception is that if your opponent has a billion dollars of financing, you'd better have a billion dollars of financing, too.
The only person bucking that system is Bernie Sanders. For that reason alone, he deserves our praise. For the other principles and policies that he brings to the race, he deserves our votes.
Go Bernie.
414
The true problem of money in politics isn't corporate contributions for issue ads, it is the doling out of money by incumbents to the populace via "programs" and "grants" in order to buy votes at retail for the re-election of the said incumbents. Both parties are guilty of it. It is a natural consequence of the erosion of the enumeration of powers in the Constitution.
2
People with obscene amounts of money have dominated the political system long before Citizens United.
Just saying.
Just saying.
And exactly who do you imagine must first approve Supreme Court appointees. It has become a battle of the oligarchs -- those who are bible thumpers and those who are not. Even if poor Bernie were elected, Congress would be united against him, rendering him virtually powerless as a president. Why bother?
In talking about the voting habits of the Forbes 400 (a class which excludes those with a measly $Billion$ net worth) it is indeed interesting to note that voting trends Democratic, which we posit is the reason Citizens United and its unlimited donations to superPacs has been such a success in this group, enabling a battle of campaign $Billion$ among the higher elites vs. the lower elites.
When it comes to what has happened to policy in D.C. over the 1982-2012 time period, it's not necessarily true that policies promoted by/secured by lobbyists in D.C. have much at all to do with wishes of the majority of the party or even the party's elite - sometimes it's just one small faction of a party or one small faction of both parties, with out-sized clout. Case in point: the ability of the gun lobby to prevent legislators from doing what 92% of Americans polled wish to have done on firearm background checks, including 92% of gun owners, 86% of GOP'ers, and 98% of Dems:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/majority-americans-support-background-checks-...
As for passage of the 1994 Intestate Banking reforms (which hasn't been very often pointed to as a contributor to the 2008 Melt-down), it's true that happened with Democrats in control of Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House, but when it comes to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, even though Clinton was still in the White House, Congress and the Senate were run by GOP'ers, as they were from 1996-2006.
When it comes to what has happened to policy in D.C. over the 1982-2012 time period, it's not necessarily true that policies promoted by/secured by lobbyists in D.C. have much at all to do with wishes of the majority of the party or even the party's elite - sometimes it's just one small faction of a party or one small faction of both parties, with out-sized clout. Case in point: the ability of the gun lobby to prevent legislators from doing what 92% of Americans polled wish to have done on firearm background checks, including 92% of gun owners, 86% of GOP'ers, and 98% of Dems:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/majority-americans-support-background-checks-...
As for passage of the 1994 Intestate Banking reforms (which hasn't been very often pointed to as a contributor to the 2008 Melt-down), it's true that happened with Democrats in control of Congress and Bill Clinton in the White House, but when it comes to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, even though Clinton was still in the White House, Congress and the Senate were run by GOP'ers, as they were from 1996-2006.
37
When it comes to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the truth is much worse than simply blaming the GOP. It was never actually sent to any committee, never voted on by a committee, never sent to the floor, or never voted on by either house.
At the very end of the 2000 sessions, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriation bill was rushed through both houses to keep the government going. A conference committee met and thrashed out a bill acceptable by both houses. The day AFTER the conference committee finished, sometime in the dead of night, someone added a footnote somewhere in the 11,000 pages that said, HR*** is included in this bill. HR*** was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This footnote was in the bill when it was sent to the official printer. The text of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not in the bill.
How many people knew it was there is a mystery, but you can guess it was a tiny number.
At the very end of the 2000 sessions, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriation bill was rushed through both houses to keep the government going. A conference committee met and thrashed out a bill acceptable by both houses. The day AFTER the conference committee finished, sometime in the dead of night, someone added a footnote somewhere in the 11,000 pages that said, HR*** is included in this bill. HR*** was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This footnote was in the bill when it was sent to the official printer. The text of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was not in the bill.
How many people knew it was there is a mystery, but you can guess it was a tiny number.
7
len - Yep, we agree it was a travesty.
To the extent Democrats are favored by the rich, it may not be because of the Democrats.
The Republicans have become noxious. The deliberately appeal to stupid, to hate, to bigotry, to jingoism, to all of the worst in us.
They expect the rich to like that, because they expect the rich are too greedy and self centered to care. Some are.
But some are not, they're better people than that. When they look at Democrats, they see "not noxious that way" as much as they see any specific policies or candidates.
They don't have to like the Democrat to be repelled and appalled by the Republican, to fear what would happen if that clown got power.
Many Democrats do have a more positive appeal, but that is not the only reason they are preferred. It may not even be the main reason, with some of the Democrats in question.
The Republicans have become noxious. The deliberately appeal to stupid, to hate, to bigotry, to jingoism, to all of the worst in us.
They expect the rich to like that, because they expect the rich are too greedy and self centered to care. Some are.
But some are not, they're better people than that. When they look at Democrats, they see "not noxious that way" as much as they see any specific policies or candidates.
They don't have to like the Democrat to be repelled and appalled by the Republican, to fear what would happen if that clown got power.
Many Democrats do have a more positive appeal, but that is not the only reason they are preferred. It may not even be the main reason, with some of the Democrats in question.
241
Agree, basically. Democrats have also listened to their opponents and learned. I'm a life long dem, but I sometimes see (first hand, not in the media) anecdotal evidence of Republican talking points: inefficiencies (sometimes) in social services seen by friends who work in agencies or county government, complex law enforcement issues discussed by a policemen investigating a crime on my street, undeniable economic benifits to capital investments in a reviving city, many made by (what we used to call) conservatives, (not the reactionary GOP of today). It takes a loyal opposition to point out flaws in what you are trying to do, party loyalists and special interests will not criticize honestly. Yes, I am a progressive, but plans are never perfect and need honest scrutiny, so that progress, once it is achieved, can become permanent. Revolutionary thinking is important for aspirational goals and innovative ideas, but in the field of practical politics tends to provide a weak foundation. I say, dream big, but build to last, which requires diverse input. Democrats have this ability, the republican party seems to have lost it.
3
The problem is that few democratic candidates for public office oppose Citizens United. To the 0.1%, the positions of democrats on other issues make no difference whatever.
3
Add to this that government shut-downs are definitely not good for business and brinksmanship about the federal debt does nothing positive for Wall Street. As long as the Democrats are willing to put weak or ethically compromised people in positions of power, the SEC comes to mind and the Citi Group cabal in and around the treasury, the wealthy are okay with them.
The Republicans just rock the boat too much.
The Republicans just rock the boat too much.
Below, is exactly why Bernie Sanders has a real shot at winning the presidency. He brings people together. I disagree that his policies are not enough to bring the those vested in social and cultural issues back into the fold of the common good. He may be the "something new" that is emerging. Stand by.
"It may be that voter discontent will topple one of the parties and something new will emerge — an improbable development. As it stands, schisms that pit advocates of the lunch pail tradition against those better-off voters who are vested in social and cultural issues will continue to constrict Democratic success, particularly at the state and local level, where Republicans have now achieved substantial retrenchment of the liberal state."
"It may be that voter discontent will topple one of the parties and something new will emerge — an improbable development. As it stands, schisms that pit advocates of the lunch pail tradition against those better-off voters who are vested in social and cultural issues will continue to constrict Democratic success, particularly at the state and local level, where Republicans have now achieved substantial retrenchment of the liberal state."
85
Syriza rose from nothing to win in Greece, Podemos is poised to do the same in Spain, and a new anti-Austerity left party has just launched in Ireland fired up by outrage about privatizing water. Jeremy Corbyn came from being a 200 to 1 shot to winning election as the Labor Leader in the UK, where Thatcherism began the lurch to the right. Millennials are the most progressive generation in history - they know global warming and Climate Change is real, some of them understand the Limits to Growth on a finite planet, and for sure they know their futures are dismal with $100,000 college loan debt. Change is coming like the change in the 1850's when the Republican antislavery party emerged from nowhere, like the movements which toppled the Berlin Wall and the unexpected rise of the Arab Spring.
To assume the politics of the plutocrats, austerity and neoliberalism is entrenched forever is a big mistake...
Go Bernie!
To assume the politics of the plutocrats, austerity and neoliberalism is entrenched forever is a big mistake...
Go Bernie!
5
Bernie Sanders isn't going to win a national election. This is nothing more than a progressive fantasy. The fact that he is a Brooklyn born man of Jewish faith, and a former Socialist party member simply will not play in Peoria. All issues that matter outside of New York, California, and possibly Florida due to a large Jewish voting base. This means that Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and other who swung to Obama the last time are back in play, and it's more likely that the swing voters in these states hold their nose and pull the lever for Jeb! or Rubio than for Bernie.
Furthermore, don't expect the Democratic party leadership to give him much support, due to his split with the party back in the early 2000's. This will become evident (expect a media blitz on his 'downsides') should he manage to pull off wins in the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses.
The best we can hope for is his messages resonate with enough people to move the mainstream back from it's rightward trajectory. But don't expect the Democratic nominee to make campaign policy promises that will send the donors elsewhere. Which is practically everything Bernie proposes.
Furthermore, don't expect the Democratic party leadership to give him much support, due to his split with the party back in the early 2000's. This will become evident (expect a media blitz on his 'downsides') should he manage to pull off wins in the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses.
The best we can hope for is his messages resonate with enough people to move the mainstream back from it's rightward trajectory. But don't expect the Democratic nominee to make campaign policy promises that will send the donors elsewhere. Which is practically everything Bernie proposes.
5
The elite love to have us believe there's no hope. They love things the way they are. Of course they do!
2