NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts

12 August 2024

JD Vance’s Racist Populism 9AUG24

 


jd vance is trying to deceive and manipulate the Democratic opposition to the drumpf / trump-vance campaign with both lies and blatant racism, misogyny, and class warfare. The republicans are employing the strategy of keep your opponents fighting amongst themselves and they will be easier to defeat. vance is trying to pit Whites against Blacks and Hispanics, Blacks against Whites and Hispanics, Hispanics against Blacks and Whites, poor against middle class. This fascist republican is a real threat to our democratic Republic but what he will not accept is that the American electorate is wise to him and are rallying around the Harris-Walz campaign with their message of hope, unity and progress for the nation. This from Mother Jones / Our Land.....

JD Vance’s Racist Populism

The veep candidate has blended working-class resentment and white racial grievance.

When JD Vance, the GOP vice presidential candidate, delivered his acceptance speech at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, he lauded the people of eastern Kentucky, his family’s ancestral home. Though it’s one of the poorest regions in the United States, he said, its residents are “very hardworking” and “good” people: “They’re the kind of people who would give you the shirt off their back even if they can’t afford enough to eat.” He then added, “And our media calls them privileged and looks down on them.”

Privileged? Who refers to the low-income families of Appalachia as privileged? Vance did not explain and moved on to talk about “American greatness.” But this sentence was something of a dog whistle and a callback to a demagogic rhetoric that Vance has been slinging for years.

During his convention speech, Vance repeated the message that has led the political press to label him a populist: The ruling elites have screwed over Middle America by pushing economic policies that benefit the well-off and harm working-class families. (His support for Donald Trump, who implemented a tax cut that heavily favored the wealthy, has not undercut his standing as a populist.) But Vance’s populism has a dark underside that has largely gone unnoticed: racism.

Vance has blended working-class resentment and white racial grievance. In various venues, he has charged that plutocrats (whom he doesn’t name) are conspiring with the woke crowd (whoever they are) to silence Middle America. According to Vance, these powerful interests deploy false accusations of racism to prevent people—white people, that is—from complaining about the economic hardships they face. This is how Vance put it in a 2021 interview with conservative talk show host Bill Cunningham:  

Here’s what the elites do. When they say that those people are white privileged, they shut them up. Look, you’re unhappy about your job being shipped overseas? You’re worried that a lawless southern border is going to cause the same poison that killed your daughter to also affect your grandbaby? Don’t you dare complain about that stuff. You are white privileged. You suffer from white rage…What they do is use it as a power play so they can get us to shut up. So they can get us to stop complaining about our own country. And they get to run things without any control, without any pushback from the real people.

As I noted over a year ago, this is deft demagoguery. Vance conflates legitimate concerns about economic power with racist paranoia. It’s much more sophisticated than the usual GOP playing of the race card. Instead, Vance fuses toxic culture wars to bread-and-butter issues. Look at how he weaved all this together when a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, last year and sparked a chemical fire. Vance blamed Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his Department of Transportation’s racial equity initiatives for the catastrophe: “I’ve got to say, the Secretary of Transportation…talking about how we have too many white male construction workers instead of the fact that our trains are crashing…This guy needs to do his job.” So the good (white) folk of East Palestine were victimized supposedly because Buttigieg was spending too much time trying to help Black people.

This is what Vance meant when he groused about the media calling his people “privileged.” It was code for “white privileged.” And he was insinuating that such labeling—a.k.a. wokeness—is used to repress these working-class Americans.

In Milwaukee, Vance did not spell out his racism-shaped populism. He hinted at it, and there’s no telling whether he’s going to be more explicit as he campaigns as Trump’s running mate. But Vance—who only a few years ago was a Never Trumper who compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and who then appeared to be positioning himself as a public intellectual with center-right politics—has demonstrated that he is willing to ally himself with the extremism that has thoroughly infected Trump’s GOP. As I reported last week, Vance recently endorsed a book co-written by an alt-right extremist (who promoted the crazy Pizzagate conspiracy theory) that contends that progressives are part of a group of “unhumans” who for centuries have been trying to destroy civilization. The book says that conservatives must not abide by the rules in countering the left and describes January 6 rioters as “patriots.”

Moreover, Vance has promoted a paranoid and Manichean view of American politics. Here’s what he said at a conservative conference in 2021:

We have lost every single major cultural institution in this country—Big Finance, Big Tech, Wall Street, the biggest corporations, the universities, the media, and the government. There is not a single institution in this country that conservatives currently control. But there’s one of them, just one that we might have a chance of actually controlling in the future, and that’s the constitutional republic that our founders gave us. We are never going to take Facebook, Amazon, Apple and turn them into conservative institutions. We are never going take the universities and turn them into conservative institutions…We might just be able to control the democratic institutions in this country…This is a raw fact of cynical politics. If we’re not willing to use the power given to us in the American constitutional republic, we’re going to lose this country.

In his convention speech, Vance praised Trump’s call for national unity. But that was camouflage. He is not aiming for unity. He has enthusiastically adopted the stance of a far-right culture warrior and has shown he’s willing to exploit racism to advance his form of populism.

Vance got into hot water recently when a video emerged of him referring to Vice President Kamala Harris as one of a group of “childless cat ladies.” And Democrats have taken to calling him and Trump “weird” to cast the Republican ticket as outside the norms of American life. I’m not sure that label will stick and hurt Trump and Vance. But it’s clear that Vance deserves to be tagged as extreme. Throughout his short political career, he has been a chameleon, changing his colors to match his ambitions—that includes aligning with radical conservatives. This offers Democrats much material to show voters that Vance is not a champion of the heartland but a friend of the fringe right.

David Corn’s American Psychosis: A Historical Investigation of How the Republican Party Went Crazy, a New York Times bestseller, is available in an expanded paperback edition.

DONALD TRUMP & DEMOCRACY

Mother Jones was founded to do things differently in the aftermath of a political crisis: Watergate. We stand for justice and democracy. We reject false equivalence. We go after, and go deep on, stories others don’t. And we’re a nonprofit newsroom because we knew corporations and billionaires would never fund the journalism we do. Our reporting makes a difference in policies and people’s lives changed.

And we need your support like never before to vigorously fight back against the existential threats American democracy and journalism face. We’re running behind our online fundraising targets and urgently need all hands on deck right now. We can’t afford to come up short—we have no cushion; we leave it all on the field.

Please help with a donation today if you can—even just a few bucks helps. Not ready to donate but interested in our work? Sign up for our Daily newsletter to stay well-informed—and see what makes our people-powered, not profit-driven, journalism special.

 payment methods

16 August 2014

THE AGENDA PROGECT WEEKLY ROUNDUP 14AUG14

 

NORTH CAROLINA VOTING BLOCK…TEAM COCO H20…A YEAR OF ACTION…WITH LIBERTY TO MONITOR ALL…ECONOMIC GROWTH, FROM THE MIDDLE OUT…PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS…Jamie Dimon’s $13 Billion Secret…A Feminist Take On Piketty…Commemorating Freedom Summer…

NORTH CAROLINA VOTING BLOCK — Rock the Vote, Demos, The Brennan Center for Justice, USAction, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, UltraViolet, Color of Change, Demos, Advancement Project, and over 40 other organizations launched a petition to #ProtectVoting in the wake of a North Carolina Federal Judge’s ruling that upheld the state’s highly restrictive voting law. The law reduces early voting from seventeen to ten days, eliminates same-day registration during the early voting period, and prohibits counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The Nation Magazine Contributing Writer Ari Berman: “North Carolina is the perfect case study for what happened after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.”
READThe Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: A Constitutional Response to Shelby County” over at the American Constitution Society and SIGN Demos and MoveOn.Org’s petition to Congress to enhance and pass the Voting Rights Amendment Act HERE.
TEAM COCO H20 — Comedian and talk show host Conan O’Brien and Andy Richter teamed up with the NRDC and Save Our Water–California’s drought awareness program–for a series of comedic PSAs highlighting water conservation amidst the state’s historic drought. WATCH the PSAs and FIND OUT if you are as water smart as Conan O’Brien HERE.
A YEAR OF ACTION7 million workers will benefit from wage increases in the 13 states and the District of Columbia that have raised the minimum wage since early 2013, according to the new progress report on raising the minimum wage released by the White House. Meanwhile, women in female-dominated industries are fighting back against wage theft, unfair schedules, and other unjust practices: Cheerleaders from three NFL teams are taking a stand against wage theft and demeaning requests, hotel workers are are seeing the benefits of their fight against illegally low wages, and domestic workers are taking back their rights in California, Massachusetts, and New York.
READ: “5 Things That Have Changed Since the Federal Minimum Wage Was Last Increased” over at AFL-CIO.
WITH LIBERTY TO MONITOR ALL — Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the ACLU published a new report exposing the increasingly dangerous impact that large-scale surveillance has on journalism, law, and democracy. HRW and ACLU Aryeh Neier Fellow and report author Alex Sinha: “The work of journalists and lawyers is central to our democracy. When their work suffers, so do we.” READ: “With Liberty to Monitor All.”
ECONOMIC GROWTH, FROM THE MIDDLE OUT – Center for American Progress Policy Analyst Brendan Duke argues that overtime reform would help grow the economy from the middle out. Guaranteed overtime rights would help solve three critical economic problems: low consumer demand, slow hiring of the long-term unemployed, and stagnating human capital growth. READ more HERE.
PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS — The Other 98% launched a petition urging the SEC to create new rules in order to protect corporate whistleblowers before another financial crisis. SIGN HERE.
PP MUST READ: “Jamie Dimon’s $13 Billion Secret: The Inside Story of JPMorgan Chase’s Landmark Mortgage Settlement” over at The Nation.
A FEMINIST TAKE ON PIKETTY — Roosevelt Institute Campus Network Director Joelle Gamble joined Center for American Progress Chief Economist and Top Wonk Heather Boushey and other feminist and economic thinkers to examine Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century in the latest installment of The Curve. READ the full column HERE.
COMMEMORATING FREEDOM SUMMER — Advancement Project will be hosting a screening for Stanley Nelson’s new documentary Freedom Summer on August 21st at BusBoys and Poets in Washington, DC. The event will also feature a panel discussion with Advancement Project Co-Director and Top Wonk Penda D. Hair, as well as other civil rights activists and leaders. REGISTER HERE.
FROM THE WONK WIRE
A PRECARIOUS NEW POPULISM: Campaign for America’s Future Co-Director and Top Wonk Robert Borosage warns that powerful moneyed interests threaten the stability of the alleged victorious new populism.
BIG COAL’S AMNESIA: NRDC Policy Director and Top Wonk David Doniger exposes the false history propagated by coal giant Peabody Energy.
DON’T BLAME THE MARKET: CEPR Co-Director and Top Wonk Dean Baker explains that the wealth of most of the financial sector is the result of deliberate policy decisions rather than a product of market forces.
Find out more at www.TopWonks.org.
ON OUR AGENDA … PP is back from hiatus with WEEKLY ISSUES! Check back every Thursday at 10:30am (EST) … Visit our twitter @PractProgress!

20 February 2014

Actual photo of the moment Democrats lost the white working class vote & Daily Kos Recommended 18FEB14

EXPOSING the falsehood of third way democrats, many of whom are DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) it is not necessary to embrace the austerity economics and class warfare of the extreme right wing gop tea-baggers to win an election and govern. However, it IS necessary to have Bold Progressive, Populist Democratic candidates who not only have the courage to explain why the opposition's policies are bad for America, for the 99% ( see my earlier post The real face of conservatism ( It should scare you!) 16FEB14 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-real-face-of-conservatism-it-should.html ) these candidates must have the courage to promote, defend, and govern in the best interest of the American people, not the rich and corporate America who have bought politicians of the left and right. From Daily Kos....
Chris Bowers

For those of you with your images turned off, that’s President Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act into law. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands immediately behind him. It is taken as virtual gospel among progressives that Democrats once had a lock on white working class voters, but that position quickly eroded in the 1990s and later as party leaders pursued cuts to social programs, Wall Street deregulation, and anti-union trade agreements.
But what if the Democratic position among the white working class hasn’t eroded at all outside the south? What if, even as Democratic Party economic policies undeniably became more obsequious to the one percent, the entire Democratic decline among the white working class can be attributed to Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”?
In a paper (PDF) published on the eve of the 2012 election, political scientist Elisabeth Jacobs presented compelling data pointing to that exact conclusion:
On average, Democratic presidential candidates prospects with self-identified white working class voters have diminished somewhat over time. ... Yet, the downward trend in Democratic presidential vote choice between 1956 and 2008 is concentrated amongst the Southern white working class. ... White working class presidential party vote choice for non-Southerners is remarkably stable over time; if anything, the period between 1984 and 2008 has been one of improvement for the Democrats amongst this group. The opposite is true in the South. Prior to the 1960s rights revolutions (including, most notably for the South, the major upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement), a strong majority of the Southern white working class voted for Democratic candidates. Southern white working class voting appears to have settled into a basic equilibrium with Reagan’s 1984 election, with the notable exception of an uptick for Clinton’s first election in 1992, and again for Obama’s 2008 election gambit.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.
More from Jacobs:
[P]erhaps most importantly because it is so often overlooked in popular analysis, the defection of the white South from the Democratic Party plays a central role in driving the overarching story of white working class politics. As Bartels succinctly summarizes: “Democratic presidential vote share has declined by almost 20 percentage points among [S]outhern whites without college degrees. Among non-southern whites without college degrees, it has declined by one percentage point. That’s it. Fourteen elections, 52 years, one percentage point.” The same basic relationship holds across all income groups of non-college educated whites: a 20-point-gap between the South and the rest of the country. This is Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy come to life, not a widespread national defection of white working class voters from the Democratic Party. Case in point: in 2008, Obama won 54 percent of whites with incomes under $50,000 outside of the South, while he secured just 35 percent of this group in the South.
For the greater good of this country, to reduce America’s intolerable levels of poverty and its obscene levels of inequality, every effort must be made to get the Democratic Party to become a serious advocate of pro-working class economic policies. On that front, we have a long way to go. However, just because Democrats moved to the right on economic policy does not mean that was the cause of their decline among the white working class. Instead, the Democratic decline among the white working class happened because the party did the right thing and stood up against oppression.
The fact is that whether “working class” is defined by income, education or by self-identification, Democrats have not seen their performance among the non-southern white working class decline at all over the past six decades. What’s more, the decline of Democrats among southern working class whites coincided precisely with the photograph at the top of this article, and not with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council.
The dominating Democratic coalitions of the past were based not only on organized labor and economic populism, but also significantly on Jim Crow and American apartheid. It’s OK for us to admit that. As progressives, we strive for a better, more equal future that has never been attained, not for a past golden age that never really happened.

Originally posted to Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:32 PM PST.

Also republished by Barriers and Bridges, Three Star Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/18/1278680/-Actual-photo-of-the-moment-Democrats-lost-the-white-working-class-vote?detail=email
Daily Kos Recommended
Make change happen. Log in or sign up for Daily Kos, the nation's largest progressive community.

Thanks for all you do,
The Daily Kos team

P.S. Please help keep Daily Kos strong by chipping in $3.

17 February 2014

(I WILL NOT HONOR THIS PATHETIC REQUEST) Warren Supporters - Please stop 17FEB14

THIS is a pathetic, whiny piece cloaked as a bid for unity but is really B.S. propaganda encouraging people to stop thinking and just follow the leader. The stagnant economy, long term unemployment, cuts to the social safety net, growing economic inequality (I could go on) shows how well that worked for us in 2012. I will continue to promote Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA as a true champion of the people, and if doing so bothers Clinton supporters they better start working on changing their candidate. This from Daily Kos and them my posted response.....
Please, I'm begging each and every one of you to stop bashing Secretary Clinton.  I was not for Obama in 2008.  At the time, I worked for the State of Illinois and I had some dealings with him, and I thought (just my opinion) that he wasn't what people thought he was and he definitely wasn't the person he was selling to the public.  But, my candidate (Clinton) lost, so I sucked it up, and worked to elect Obama.
Which brings us to 2014.  Secretary Clinton may not be your choice to be the Democratic standard bearer in 2016.  Great! We live in a democracy.  You can back whomever you want.  But the constant negativity being thrown at Mrs. Clinton is beneath you and your candidate.  I like Elizabeth Warren.  Heck, I was living and working in Connecticut when she was running, so I made the short trip up to help her campaign.  But, I like Secretary Clinton more.  That's my right.
Let's put aside the fact that NO ONE has even announced that they are or are not running.  Let's put aside the fact that President Clinton played a major role helping President Obama get reelected.  Let's even put aside the fact that Secretary Clinton brought a steady hand to the State Department.  All Democratic candidates deserve our respect.  There is not one Republican that is a better option for this country than any Democrat.  So please, I'm actually begging you, please, please, please, please stop it.
And now let's see if we can keep the comment section free from vitriol.  I don't have much hope, but let's see.
My posted comments
I do not support Hillary Clinton for President now. Maybe I will if she abandons the third way politics she promotes, but even then I will be careful because Obama talked a great progressive, populist game and then turned into a jellyfish democrat. If promoting Sen Elizabeth Warren as a true Democrat is Hillary Clinton bashing I suggest Mrs Clinton and her supporters take a look at her political record and policies and see how she measures up as a champion of the people, of the 99%, not the 1%, to someone like, oh, maybe Elizabeth Warren! If people do that now they will realize Hillary really ain't all that.....
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/17/1278325/-Warren-Supporters-Please-stop 

05 September 2013

JENNIFER BOYSKO, TERRY MCAULIFFE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF VIRGINIA & New York City's Populist Shift -- And Why It Matters 5SEP13

THERE is a lesson here for the Democratic Party in Virginia. Look at Terry McAuliffe's (D VA) campaign for governor platform and the platform of Jennifer Boysko's (D VA) campaign for 86th district (my district in VA) delegate to the General Assembly in Richmond. McAuliffe will probably be elected because ken cuccinelli's "christian" sharia policies are so repugnant to a majority of Virginians. But make no mistake, McAuliffe is no friend of the common person, his loyalties are to the corporate community in Virginia and his administration will kow-tow to their demands and so their will be no requirements for corporate Virginia to pay their fair of the social contract to the Commonwealth. Jennifer Boysko is more complex. She has very progressive positions posted on her campaign website ( http://www.jenniferboysko.com/home  ) and I know she is true to the positions she has posted. But reading her stand on the issues one thing is missing, money. Again there is nothing about making corporate Virginia pony up and pay their fair share of the social contract to the Commonwealth. 
Jennifer Boysko's opponent for the 86th district delegate is tom rust (R VA). The main challenge Jennifer faces is making the voters of the 86th district realize that while tom rust is a nice person (and he is) that doesn't translate to being a good representative for the district and for Virginia. Long has the 86th district suffered from rust's benign representation in Richmond, and we have the traffic congestion, lack of mass transit and underfunded schools to prove it. rust just fills a seat in Richmond, he does what the republican party tells him to do, and opposes the party only when it is safe to do so, when their legislation will pass without his vote. He is not interested in representing the will of the people of the 86th district, his loyalties are with the republican party and keeping them in control of the General Assembly in Richmond. 
Jennifer Boysko is a progressive and deserves to be elected to represent the 86th district. I hope she will take the next step and become a Bold Progressive and include in her platform a call for corporate Virginia to be held responsible to meet their financial obligations to the social contract with the Commonwealth, making funding available for the government to meet the needs of and obligations to the residents of the 86th as well as for all Virginians. tom rust will never take that stand.
This from HuffPost....
For 12 years now they've been touting New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a model for the politics of the future. Beltway pundits have pushed hard for his amalgam of economically conservative policies and social-issues liberalism.
They seized on Bloomberg's mayoralty as a vindication of their vision. They were eager to tell us that us his winning candidacy was the harbinger of a new political trend.
They have yet say the same about populist Bill de Blasio, who's leading the polls to replace Bloomberg. And yet, it could be argued that de Blasio is already a more significant political bellwether than Bloomberg ever was.
The race isn't over. But it's beginning to look as if de Blasio, not Bloomberg, is the shape of things to come.
It Takes a Campaign of Millions to Hold Us Back
They sneered at "partisanship." They told us that the ideal politician of tomorrow was a nonpartisan "technocrat" who ignored "ideology" -- although they never told us who'd be pulling the levers in their new technocracy.
Pundits like Thomas Friedman and the late David S. Broder presented the corporate- and Wall Street-friendly Bloomberg as a shining example of their ideal, an unpopular right-leaning agenda which is frequently -- and falsely -- described as "centrism."  They pointed to the Republican Bloomberg's three mayoral victories in Democratic New York as confirmation of his agenda's political strength. (How did he get past the city's two-term limit? As my grandmother, who lived on West End and 103rd, used to say: Don't ask.)
But Bloomberg's races have never been especially good indicators of the national mood -- or even, arguably, of New York City's.  Bloomberg's personal wealth allowed him to spend stratospheric amounts of money on his campaign, which meant his victories may have been nothing more than cash-driven anomalies.
How much cash are we talking about? The New York Times noted that expenditures for Bloomberg's three mayoral campaigns were $74 million, $85 million, and $102 million, respectively.  That third figure comes to $185 per vote received (per the Times), or approximately $88 per vote cast.[1]
By contrast, total spending in the 2012 presidential election -- the most expensive in history -- was roughly $46 per vote cast, roughly half of what Bloomberg spent.[2]
And yet, despite the spending, Bloomberg's margin of victory was less than 5 percentage points. That's hardly a ringing endorsement for his patriarchal brand of corporate "centrism."
New York, New York Is a Hell of a Town
New Yorkers should be ready for a dose of populism right about now.  Official statistics show that half of New York City's residents live at or near the poverty level, while the few who live at the other end of the scale are seeing their income soar to unprecedented heights.
And yet, Bloomberg was able to win relatively strong approval numbers from New York City's population. He did it with a potpourri of policy positions that led de Blasio to observe: "On health and the environment, he is Franklin Roosevelt. On economic justice, he's Adam Smith. "
With great respect for Mr. de Blasio, but that's not exactly right. Adam Smith was far tougher on corporations than most of those claiming his legacy today. But the candidate's point is well taken: Bloomberg was able to quell New Yorkers' dissatisfaction with his pro-wealthy and pro-corporate economics by assuming liberal positions on lifestyle issues.
That's a posture he shares with a number of Democratic politicians in the Clinton mold.
The New Populism
It could be argued that de Blasio's rise in the polls is an anomaly too. But there are good reasons to believe that his candidacy represents a broader trend.
First, de Blasio doesn't have Bloomberg-style cash. His rise in the polls can be attributed to his message, not his money. And that message is heavily populist. De Blasio's been emphasizing the wide income divide that characterizes Bloomberg's New York City. A modest millionaire's tax for early childhood education is a cornerstone of de Blasio's campaign.
And de Blasio isn't an outlier. He's part of a broader political trend which resonates with voters.  The Democrats, especially the president, leaned heavily toward Bloomberg-style "centrism" in 2010, and lost Congress. Spurred by the polls, and by the brief but transformative impact of the Occupy movement, the president and his party pivoted to populist themes in 2012 and won handily.
(What about Congress, you ask? Gerrymandering returned the Republican majority. But Democrats won the popular vote for Congress by well over a million votes.)
Populism Rising?
Americans voted for populism in 2012. Americans for Tax Fairness compiled polling data which showed that 60 percent of voters wanted the Bush tax cuts ended for income of $250,000 and above. They wanted Social Security and Medicare benefits protected. Voters also thought deficit shortfalls should be addressed by taxing the rich, an opinion they favored by 64 percent to 17 percent.
Nearly two-thirds of those polled said that "the message [they] were trying to send to the next president and Congress with [their] votes this year" was: "We should make sure the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes."
That's de Blasio's message too. We seem to be seeing a trend developing which favors the politics of economic justice.
It's true that Bloomberg was able to keep Gracie Mansion with massive campaign spending and a faux populism derived from his liberal social views. It's also true that the mayor's race isn't over. We could still see a massive infusion of campaign cash which affects the outcome. An unexpected revelation could shift the dynamics of the race. But Bloomberg's brand of corporate centrism has already been resoundingly repudiated.
But we've already learned something very important from Bill de Blasio's rise to the top of the polls, and by the corresponding plunge of Bloomberg-style politician Christine Quinn. To paraphrase an old political adage: In a race between a "populist" and a populist, we may be learning that the populist wins every time.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]  To reach that figure we divided Bloomberg's total spending from the number of votes cast.
[2]  We used the same methodology for the 2012 presidential election, using a higher-end spending estimate assembled by OpenSecrets.org.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/new-york-citys-populist-s_b_3868930.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications    

18 February 2010

CAN OBAMA FIGHT? from MOJO 25JAN10

.Mon Jan. 25, 2010 2:00 AM PST
Two days after Republican Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts, the Obama administration proposed two new measures that would limit the ability of big financial institutions to wheel and deal. In announcing these initiatives—one of which would prevent investment banks from playing the market with their own cash—President Barack Obama got rather feisty:

What we've seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people. So if these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform.

Ready for a fight—that was the message. White House reporters later that day grilled press secretary Robert Gibbs and economic aide Austan Goolsbee on why the administration was poking at the banks at this particular moment, implying that Obama was revving up a populist attack in response to the Democrats' demoralizing loss in the Bay State. Gibbs and Goolsbee insisted that the release of these proposals had been planned since before Christmas. Gibbs also noted repeatedly that the president was committed to "fighting for what's important to the middle class."
Whether or not the Obama crew rushed out these measures, the more important question is this: if Obama now intends to be a populist battler, how hard will he fight?

Obama and his aides certainly believe he's been pounding away for the past year—to pass the stimulus bill, to win congressional approval of his budget, to expand the children's health insurance program, to cut several wasteful Pentagon programs, to enact credit card reform, to win support for climate change action, to advance financial reform, to win passage of a jobs bill, to move health care reform through the House and Senate. In the prepared remarks for a town hall meeting he held in Elyria, Ohio, on Friday, Obama declared 14 times that he's been "fighting." He vowed, "I'll never stop fighting for you." A few hours later, Obama tweeted to his 3.1 million Twitter followers, "So long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I'll never stop fighting for you—on #HCR [health care reform] and so much more." And in his weekly address—finalized on the same day—he decried the influence of "special interests" and promised, "I'll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you."

Yet Obama has rarely come across as a fighter during his first year in office. He frequently seemed more preoccupied with working an insider's game than confronting the interests and legislators standing between him and his policy objectives. With health care in particular, it looked as if he was playing three-dimensional chess in a mud pit. Proceeding as a calculating operator, rather than as an in-your-face brawler, Obama has indeed won legislative tussles and remains close to sealing a deal on health care. But if he wants voters to believe he's a fighter, Obama needs to show them, not tell, them.

Obama is not naturally combative. The week before his populist eruption, he presented a less confrontational attitude toward the banks. While proposing a tax on big banks to cover the TARP bailout funds not being paid back, Obama didn't explicitly pick a fight with the financial industry. He entreated it to cooperate:

What I'd say to these executives is this: instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal, or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities. And I'd urge you to cover the costs of the rescue not by sticking it to your shareholders or your customers or fellow citizens with the bill, but by rolling back bonuses for top earners and executives.

Instead of clobbering banks and lobbyists seeking to block this initiative, Obama was attempting to convince them to back off.

That's been the typical style of this administration. On Wednesday, I asked Gibbs about a recent Wall Street Journal report that Senator Chris Dodd, the chair of the banking committee, was considering dropping the White House's proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. "Is that something that the President would actually get angry about," I inquired, "and has he conveyed that sentiment to Christopher Dodd already?" Gibbs replied:

He's conveyed that—well, Senator Dodd was here yesterday, as the [press] guidance suggested, and the President addresses this morning in his interview that financial reform has to include a consumer protection agency. That's what he's talked about for quite some time, and that's what he continues to want.

Not exactly mad-as-hell rhetoric. If the White House had come down heavier on Dodd, a fellow Democrat, Obama could have picked up easy points as a fighter. The soundbite writes itself: "We respect Senator Dodd and appreciate his various contributions to enacting the president's agenda. But the President is clear on this: he will oppose any Democrat or Republican who sides with the big banks and tries to prevent us from setting up an agency to protect consumers from the sleazy practices of big banks and financial institutions." Okay, maybe strike "sleazy." But it's not that difficult to display some fight.

The following day, Gibbs was asked if the White House was anticipating and preparing for a major political battle over the just-unveiled financial reform measures. He again missed an easy opportunity to exhibit White House fire:

I don't doubt that—this happened before we broke for Christmas, that when some of these activities were being voted on, that scores of lobbyists were called to Capitol Hill to generate activity in opposition to financial reform. I have not sensed a retrenchment by those lobbyists on this issue and I think the special interests, in order to protect the good that they have, will do all they can to derail what's good for the American economy.

There was nothing technically wrong with that answer. But it was not exactly loaded with passion. An hour or so earlier, Obama had proclaimed he was ready, even eager, for this fight, yet the White House did not seem to be on a war footing.

What happens in Washington—especially on complicated matters such as health care and financial reform—can, no doubt, appear like an incomprehensible swirl to voters who don't follow the ins and outs of the legislative rigmarole. To these voters, Obama's role in this jumble probably seems confusing. He's been sucked into the mess. For instance, he's overseen the generous bank bailout and stocked his administration with Big Finance insiders, while also talking about cracking down on financial institutions. He's refused to state clearly his preferences for critical aspects of health care reform, while the White House has engaged in closed-door dealmaking with legislators and industry representatives to win votes. What Obama's really fighting for can be hard to discern.

Consequently, if Obama aims to be widely regarded as a warrior for the middle class, he will have to take some mighty swings that cut through the clutter. Proclaiming "I am a fighter" will not be enough. He will have to name his foes (financial institutions, insurance companies, Republicans, and perhaps recalcitrant Democrats) and truly exchange blows. He may even have to lose a high-profile battle or two to persuade voters he is slugging away on their behalf. Muhammad Ali talked a good game, but he fought a better one. A true populist pugilist is defined not by his words, but by his actions, and a year into his presidency, Obama has not yet lost one of the more valuable presidential assets: the ability to define himself. He can still be a populist, if he acts like one.