Forum Post: No difference between parties? Wall St. disagrees.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 3:02 p.m. EST by looselyhuman
(3117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Hopefully everyone knows by now that I'm a liberal, but not a partisan hack. The Democratic party is more neoliberal than liberal -but less so than the Republicans. I expect it from the Republicans, it's a natural fit, they've always been the party of wealth and elite power. But the Democrats, since Clinton, have sold out the liberal cause. We have two corporate parties.
But there IS a difference. Democrats embraced neoliberal corporatism because the money from shrinking unions was drying up, and they couldn't compete for campaign cash. There was no broad-based progressive movement in the 90s-2000s to provide a substantial base for a liberal Democratic party. So the DLC and triangulation took over, and we got two parties of Reagan.
However, that can change, and it's what Wall St. fears the most.
I point to the Wall St. lobbying firm memo, exposed by Chris Hayes on MSNBC, that's been making the rounds, proposing an oppo project to construct negative narratives about OWS. It provides the best evidence in support of my conjecture.
Of course it's obvious that the financial elite is going to be coming after OWS, and in that sense this memo just exposes the expected machinations to that effect. But more importantly, it exposes the political scenario that Wall St. most fears - that OWS will pull the Democrats back to the left, like the socialists did with FDR, and it will impact the bottom line of their little empire of greed.
CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
Now the memo also expresses concern that OWS will affect the Republicans, putting pressure on them to not be as public in their support for Wall St. That's a good thing too.
But the real opportunity here is to make Wall Street's fears come true, and revitalize a populist, progressive Democratic party.
I'm not suggesting we embrace the Democrats, or allow ourselves to be co-opted in any way. But we should also show willingness to support politicians from either party that display sympathy for our cause. Pull them to the left.
For starters, we should support Elizabeth Warren for Senate in MA against Scott Brown. NYT ran a piece yesterday that makes it clear Wall St. is investing heavily in her defeat. This is exactly the sort of political fight we should jump into. Wall St. vs Warren - which side are we on? Her successfuly candidacy, in turn, can serve as an example to other politicians, that the wind is blowing back hard against government of, by, and for the corporations and the 1%.
Sources:
Also, thanks Puff6962 for this find:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164715/memo-reveals-how-seriously-powerful-interests-take-ows
Flame away.
Good post
Thx. :o)
How about: defeat any incumbent who takes the Protect Big Wealth pledge of Grover Norquist!
Anyone from either party who has signed on with that sleazy lobbyist should go.
Right, I'm all for it. Who knows, we might find some sort of pattern there...
While Scott Brown may not be a pledge-signing member, he's certainly in that club.
I'm 35 miles too far south to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but am communicating to those who can.
Agreed.
Excellent. Also keep in mind she's going to be almost entirely dependent on small donations, and you don't have to be in Mass to donate...
Done that, will do more!
So when Wall Street gets a little nervous about their interests, maybe they are worried that their millions of dollars in direct contributions to Washington is not enough? Best to back that up - by spending more money for lobbying support as well. Safety first!
Haha exactly. Democracy in action, eh?
Not a single troll to help me bump my thread? I'm disappointed.
Trolls don't like factual evidence or legitimate points.
So true.
I'm with you buddy....But I wonder why this ship is listing so badly. I can barely keep my footing...Oh now look at those deck chairs..Could you get on over here and help me get this straightened out.. That rail needs painting, shit!...These musicians won't stop playing that song..Over and Over..
OWS makes allot of sense, it's necessary...I just think at times, we might be a bit late...Well no matter, we must push on! Get your life jacket on, we could make it anyway!
As funny as that is - and it is - do you ever consider the horrifying possibility that you may be wrong? That we'll find a way to perpetuate the status quo, or some version of it, on a long downward trend that lasts another 50+ years?
What then? If we spend all of our time watching for asteroids or hyperinflation bombs, we really won't do the little detailed stuff that needs to be done, like restoring responsible government (and maybe even change the trend).
You are right...and I think we will have to do a bit of both. I try to think of what would we have to do to stand up a new form of government, if necessary, or save this one from itself..while also preparing for a very real possibility of system collapse..Of course I can be wrong..
I see the US and many countries on a path toward self destruction via the banking elite and the politicians that are owned by them....The car is rolling off the cliff and we are watching and warning, but the folks who are in charge seem like they want it to happen..Look at what they do!
I see Greece's situation as a very real outcome for the US....Banks own that country at this time..The only thing that will save them is uprising and not just protesting ..They need to take over..and we will have to do the same..
I don't think this government can be reformed..I may be wrong, I hope I am..But at some point we will have to come to terms with that...
This movement needs to be gigantic in order for things to happen peacefully...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf
We could fix this entire thing. The only problem here is big money`s influence in our elections. You want to fix this country? Public financing of all campaigns will over time flush these bought off politicians that are the majority currently, out of our democracy.
+1 Elizabeth Warren. I don't know that i would always agree with her prescriptions, but i do know that her analysis and descriptions are very worth while. Having her voice heard in DC with the volume of a Senate vote behind it would be good.
Yep, agreed. Thanks.
thanks for including source material!! Good post.
Good post.
Thanks.
All very interesting. One important thing to note is what comes next--not necessarily bad, as it warns the Democrats not to take OWS for granted and to shape up and listen. Still, somewhat scary.
e.g.,
Today, people voted in Spain, (read the analysis), and see what may happen in this country. Essentially, they got rid of the incumbents--all of them, while the Spanish OWS were on the fence.
As this working guy said: "We can choose the sauce they will cook us in, but we're still going to be cooked."
RESIGNATION
Most Spaniards are resigned to deep spending cuts and see Rajoy as a better steward for the economy than the discredited Socialists, who they blame for failing to act swiftly enough to head off the crisis and then belatedly imposing biting austerity measures that slashed wages, benefits and jobs.
"Being a civil servant I'm not optimistic," said Jose Vazquez, 45.
"We can choose the sauce they will cook us in, but we're still going to be cooked."
Many leftist voters are fearful Rajoy will destroy Spain's treasured public health and education systems, but they were so angry at the Socialists that they fled to smaller parties such as the former communist United Left, which made huge gains.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-spain-election-idUSTRE7AI10E20111120
Yes, this is important.
Does it mean I'll be voting for Mitt Romney? No way. But some will. And Obama and the Dems know it, too. Maybe not well enough, so your comment is well-recieved.
I guess what I am saying is that OWS, the Progressive Left, needs to be ready for this contingency--how do you wait it out for four years? What will the response be 1) if OBM wins and continues feeding his 1 percent or 2) if the Rep win and ... well, I don't even want to go there.
Yeah, I wish I knew. If he wins, my sense is we'll get a more progressive president, for several reasons, not the least of which is that the reelection calculus is gone. He would still need constant pressure from OWS and other progressives to provide political capital. If he loses, I guess we do the same; keep the pressure up and hope the movement grows too large to be ignored, even by a Republican. A Romney win and the resulting austerity tragedy would likely pour fuel on the OWS fire - not a reason to hope for it, but maybe a silver lining.
Nader said that Bush would be so bad that the nation would move in a better direction. I think that was intellectual dishonesty to cover how Nader had help mess up the nation.
It's not a risk I'd like to see us take again.
Right, I agree. I do wish there was a safe route to a viable third party, but the spoiler effect is very real and very dangerous.
sure. What's your assessment of what's going to happen in Spain then?
I would bet more of the same. Once the new austerity proposals come down, the indignados will be back in the plazas.
And then there is France where the opposite will happen: the Right out, the Left in--and possibly with horrible consequences if they do what the Greeks/Italians/Spaniards/UK, et al are doing. Grow the classes of the poor.
the irony is that it is precisely austerity measures that cause a longer/wider recession/unstability for the markets. These people are so stubborn!
"it is precisely austerity measures that cause a longer/wider recession/unstability for the markets"
Exactly right.
That's why I try to be careful about drawing parallels between us and Europe. We have a lot of tools left in our monetary/fiscal toolbox that they simply don't have, because of the Euro and Germany's dominance. It's the political intransigence of the Republicans stopping us from addressing our problems, it's not structural - despite their wild cries about debt and inflation... I guess Republicans are our Germany. :)
ah ha!
Let's hope that it will be easier to disloge 'our' Republicans than Germany.
I was thinking today that Lincoln (wasn't he one?) would be horrified by their irrational behavior.
Yeah, Lincoln was one of the predecessors of the Progressives though, which included Teddy and Wilson - Republicans in name only, basically. Eisenhower's another one that would slap the current GOP silly. Check this out (the blog account was recently deactivated so sending you to the google cache):
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m4-CHyOvOHkJ:www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1
Very interesting the take on the Progressives--you always think it means left/liberal in US (not UK) speak; I had already heard about Eisenhower on RT, the Thom Hartmann show.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
Yeah, I think "progressive" is a synonym with "liberal" in the US. It's actually a term adopted by us modern liberals after the right turned liberal into a dirty word in the campaigns of Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush. Though they were in the Republican party, the Progressives of the turn of the 20th century century were liberal. Progressives shifted to being more Democrats with Wilson, but many stayed Republican for some time, which explains Eisenhower and the Rockefeller Republicans... Confusing, I know. :)
loosely, you speak as if you think there is some hope for this system, as if we could just manipulate the system, we could get it to treat us fairly. I do not believe that such is possible. We might be able to get the financial elite to acquiesce in some areas if we were to accomplish such things as getting Elizabeth Warren elected, but then they would just bide their time as they did since the liberal accomplishments of the 60's, until they could once again stack the deck against us--and inch closer to the feudal system that they really want. I believe that the U.S. is evil and corrupt to its core and is irredeemable. It should be dissolved and replaced with very local governments. Of course, I know that that would be a very tall order indeed.
The good news is that change can happen, at least that's my personal experience. The bad news is that things roll downhill, so you have to keep your shoulder in there pushing. Forever.
My other account is prevented from posting for "voting too much." Too many Paulbot comments....
I think there's more hope for reforming the system than there is realistic hope of a) overthrowing it and b) that resulting in a better outcome for the majority of Americans.
We need to take it back, and it will be a helluva fight. That is my position.
Both parties seem to be war mongers to me
I agree we should support Warren, we should also call out the worst offenders in the democratic party, starting with Chuck Schumer see my post http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-chuck-schumer/
You cant support anyone in either party, because they each are so far gone, that party promises will overturn the individual.
Go ask Obama and Boehner if you dont believe me.
thats not entirely true, I agree the system is broken but dennis kucinich and Ron Lawl have been in congress for years and have consistently voted according to their principles. Although they may be few and far between, there are some good ones. We can create more of them If you have a better plan i would like to hear it.
The good ones never get to positions of influence (see kucinich and paul). Solution is simple- create something new. If the people want it, they will vote for it. If they dont, they wont.
At least then, when teh nation has gone to shit, we can claim we did everything within our abilities.
Is it too much to think we can eventually do away with the two party, corporate financed political system altogether...?
Eventually? No, I think a parliamentary/multi-party system is a worthy goal, but it will take a lot of change. We can probably get the corruption down to more manageable levels within the two-party framework though, by being vigilant in our demands of our representatives.
I'm more focused on the short- and mid-term prospect. There's a lot of suffering and injustice right now, and more on the horizon. So, what do we do?
I think if viable third-party candidates crop up in races where neither of the major-party candidates are acceptable, and voting for that candidate won't increase the chances of the greater evil (usually R), then I say we go for it, on a selective basis... I don't really have a better solution without shooting ourselves in the foot by enabling a long string of Republican victories.
I have to admit, I am somewhere between wanting to be realistic while also wanting to harness the power of this movement to completely change the system. I have come to view both parties as the same. I feel that at the end of the day, neither party really cares who has control as long they remain in office, playing the game for as long as possible. Their objective is to maintain control for themselves and their families so that they can continue to live a privledged life at the expense of us. Before we can determine what the final outcome of this movement should and will be, we need to create simple messages for the masses that will make them wake up from a century of brainwashing. A century of brainwashing is not an easy thing to unwind or, deleverage as the corrupt bankers would say. If people, from all walks of life knew some basic truths about the corruption by politicians and corporate America, I think they would join this movement. How does OWS track the increaes of support behind this movement ? Is there a plan and/of simple educational brochure that can be mass produced to major cities and rural communities ? Everyone in support of OWS wants to see immediate results, myself included, but we must remember that 100 years of brainwashing can not be corrected in less than 3 months of OWS. How do we extend this movement past this website and those on the frontlines ? Contingency plans need to be established, that is just responsible planning.
Forget the republicrats, what Wall St fears most is the 99 party (a rose by any other name is an independent third party)
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Well in 30 years when we have a viable 3rd party that will be good. For 2012 and 2016 we need a contingency plan.
Please show us your math that gave you the 30 #. Or is it just some pessimistic, glass-is-half-empty, off-the-cuff statement? I can appreciate that you've been working hard and you're getting frustrated. It's OK
It is off-the-cuff, but I think more realistic than thinking we'll have a viable 3rd party in either of the next two elections.
OWS has maybe 25% favorability, and that number creeps up into a majority for some of the overarching issues like inequality - but those people will mostly vote Democratic. Of the 25% though, maybe half, maybe, would go in for a 3rd party that looks like OWS, but it would be competing with Ron PauI and the Greens as well, don't forget. Of those, most would make the Nader calculation in the end, and vote for the Dem anyway (but maybe not enough to avoid the spoiler effect).
So, let's say we do build momentum, accept the spoiler defeats to the Rs, but over the next few election cycles we bring that number up to 10% actually voting for an OWS candidates. That's a whole lot of wins for the GOP in the meantime, and we're still left with a 2-party dominant system - because that 10% hasn't got a single OWS candidate actually elected.
I'm fighting for a better world for my kids. OWS is a once in a generation opportunity to make this place better for all the kids so I am not willing to "be realistic' or contemplate 'contingency plans" FUCK. THAT. SHIT.
"we'll occupy the streets! we'll occupy the courts! we'll occupy the offices of you..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE&NR=1
I sympathize, I really do, but I'm just not the sort to fuck life up for everyone for a quixotic dream.
wall street, republican party, and democrats are part of the same "system"...the only difference is the "language"....they work hand in hand anyway. Of course there are good people among the 2 parties but their power is completely irrelevant.
That is an important reason to try to weed out the worst. We need to find the ones that are the particular pets of the millionaires & billionaires club, and work to defeat them.
The Big Wealth lobby is behaving differently now that they don't have a McCain/Palin ticket to be afraid of. They are pouring money rightward, in general, but it is vital to assess each race as it can vary somewhat.
well said. going to Philadelphia?
NGA NOW all roads lead to Philadelphia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE&NR=1
MSNBC reports say that the memo was sent to the American Bankers Assoc. and the Assoc decided not to act on it. So in that respect it is not a representation of Wall Street.
More significant, and based on the facts of the stories, 1. the fact that a REPUBLICAN lobby firm with close connections to Boehner could not get the ABA to throw money at an anti OWS effort. And 2. The Republicans are the ones running scared. The entire memo is paranoid fantasies and delusions. OWS has no connections with the Democrats. If it did I, as an Independent, would not support OWS. I hate the two dominance parties equally.
The bankers are more afraid of the high profile purely right-wing partisan political position that buying this project would put them in then they are afraid of OWS. The ABA is not just Wall Street banks. It is also thousands of small community banks that benefited from OWS when the OWS ran a campaign to move deposits out of the Wall Street banks. Don't be so ready to count the ABA as enemies.
They are afraid we will wake up to who is working hardest for the billionaires. Prime example: everyone of either party who has signed onto the misleading "taxpayer protection pledge", which protects the super rich from more reasonable income tax rates.
We must work to defeat every incumbent who has signed on.
Confront the current members of Congress who, in 1999, voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Demand that these Wall Street owned representatives in Congress reinstate Glass-Steagall NOW!
SEE: The Congress that Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html A compilation of current members of Congress who, in 1999, voted to repeal Glass-Steagall.
I like your recommendation of confronting them. I'd like to know if they've learned better since, or whether they are still deregulation hounds.
Of course there are differences between the two parties of the 1%. Even though they are only 1% of the population they are bound to have disagreements among themselves, which is why they have two parties. It's also convenient to have two parties in order to hoodwink the 99% into believing that they actually live in a democracy. But that doesn't mean that the differences between the two parties isn't real. It's just that the differences between the two parties represent differences within the 1% and not anything that we in the 99% should worry about except to the extent that we might be able to exploit those differences, but we can't exploit those differences effectively, by entering one of their parties. So far we are being much more effective staying out of their electoral game altogether.
"So far we are being much more effective staying out of their electoral game altogether."
"This message brought to you by the GOP."
Just saying. Consequence should not be factored out, even in matters of principle.
If there is anything that is going to wreck OWS it is not cops, it is not cold weather, it is not the black bloc. It is the Democratic Party where every mass movement since the Populists has gone to die. Why should we align ourselves with the party of Obama, the chairman of the board of the 1%, a guy who feels no compuction about assasinating American citizens or administering the American empire. Forget about it. That's one of their parties, not ours.
Anybody who thinks this is an endorsement of the Republicans isn't paying very close attention. Of course that's there other party and of course we shouldn't support it.
Besides all that we are a revolutionary movement and what the fuck is so revolutionary about supporting the Democratic Party.
Long live the world revolution! Solidarity forever!
Long live the world revolution!
But, you've missed two key points, and I'll make a third.
1.) Nobody's talking about blanket support for Democrats, just not being so hostile to them that we cut off our noses to spite our faces. Warren is the example given.
2.) I'm not claiming you're in support of the Republicans, but your advice to eschew the political process benefits them all the same.
3.) "Long live the world revolution!" <-- THAT is the biggest threat to OWS as a cohesive movement looking for broader support. You have no idea how you sound to most Americans, do you? We are not there yet, and may NEVER get there with the American people. They would choose straight up fascism first (and have been).
OWS is a revolutionary movement. Just look at the top of this page. What's revolutionary about the Democratic Party! It's a party of the 1% and more specifically it has literally been the death trap of every mass movement since the Populists. It is a much much greater danger to our movement than brutal cops, cold weather or black bloc nut.
Look at the top of this page. Right under Occupy Wall Street it says The revolution continues world wide! OWS is a revolutionary movement. If you dispute that go to any NYC GA and it would become pretty clear. If you think that is a bad idea then it would seem that you have a responsibility to expunge revolutionary slogans and ideas from official OWS websites. So far, however, the moderates in OWS can't even seem to agree among themselves much less launch a serious challenge to the much more coherent and articulate revolutionary minority.
BTW the revolutionaries in OWS absolutely agree that the vast majority of Americans are not revolutionary and that the process will take a long, long time. At least years, perhaps decades and maybe even several lifetimes. Ironically the revolutionaries are much more patient than are the moderates. Patience is a revolutionary virtue.
The revolution continues world wide! Solidarity forever!
I don't consider the party of the New Deal a death trap. We got a society that is pretty close to my ideal.
The hyperbolic rhetoric of the organizers does not reflect the overall sentiment of the movement, and you know it. We're all here demanding (some significant, some pretty common sense) reforms. You're playing into the hands of people like Glaucon/Thrasymaque by projecting your left extremism onto the movement as a whole.
"agree that the vast majority of Americans are not revolutionary"
Learn the same about the movement, and don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I also won't accept any cynical calculus that bad policy (i.e. as a result of not participating, allowing Republicans to win) is a long-run good because it will hasten the revolution. We need to shoot for achievable reforms to reduce suffering and injustice in any way possible.
The New Deal sure was a death trap for the labor movement. Just look at how militant and agressive it was in 1934 when it was independent. Or how fast it grew during the sit down era of 1936-37 when 5 million workers organized themselves in 10 months and it was still independent. Then right after Pearl Harbor FDR called all the labor leader to the White House, tamed them, got them to agree to a No Strike Pledge and set back social change nearly two decades until Rosa Parks sat down own a bus in Montgomery and at the time she wasn't a Democrat either but an active member of the Socialist Party.
The Democratic Party is one of their party's not ours.
Go to any NYC GA. That pretty much is the most organized guiding force for the movement as a whole and they don't think that the notion of revolution is mere hyperbole. They believe it and they try to act on it. I've also been to GAs in Philly and DC and I'd say the same is true there.
It is true that probably the base of the movement is more moderate in its perspective, but it's also the case that that more moderate base lacks the political coherence of the radicals. At the NYC GA the natural habitat of the moderates is the Demands Working Group. And for several weeks there meetings tend to degenerate into ego trips which is much less the case among the radicals. The Demands Working Group can't even agree on a set of demands among themselves, much less present it coherently to the GA.
I don't think I'm playing into anybody's hands. I'm 68 years old and I've been involved in social movements since 1964 so I'm not easily duped.
I don't think I'm projecting anything. Just look at the rhetoric of this website. It's an official website of OWS. I'm not making this up. It's not my web site. I'm not the web master. Just go to any GA. They don't think that calls for revolution are hyperbole. It is undoubtedly true that the revolutionaries are a minority in OWS but they are also the most coherent political expression. It was they who were the initiators of OWS. It was they who early on established the alliance with organized labor without which OWS today might not well exist. It was they, ultimately to which people all over the nation responded to when they started occupations all over the nation within days after the occupation of Zuccotti Plaza.
Meanwhile, while the moderates in the movement are undoubtedly a numerical majority, they lack the political coherence of the radical and they can't seem to get there act together. If they could it seems to me that one of the things they would do is purge the official OWS web site of what you see as its revolutionary hyperbole, but that's your problem, not mine.
Right now I'm just fine with OWS. I don't know where it's going, but I'm happy to be along for the ride and I tend to agree with Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore and what OWS needs to do is keep doing what it's doing. Of course I have ideas about what it should do and I try to bring them up in GAs and Working Groups when and where appropriate and when I think I can get a serious audience to listen to me and have a serious discussion, even when they don't agree.
The revolution continues worldwide! Solidarity forever!
No matter who is in charge, corruption is inevitable. People are ver good at finding loopholes and creating ways to advantage themselves. It doesn't matter which side you're on.
You're a little bit TOO cynical, my friend. Skepticism is good though.
I hope I don't appear to be too cynical, I prefer to recognize and accept reality of the human condition.
The reality is pretty bad, I agreed, but there have been times, in the not to distant past, when things have been improved. That's kind of what keeps me going.
Does that mean you're voting Democratic in the next election?
Ha. Gary Johnson is pretty close.
Horseshit. Read this:
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164715/memo-reveals-how-seriously-powerful-interests-take-ows
That Truthout piece should be read by everyone.
Good find on the Nation one. I'm going to include it above.
I read it, but it's just an opinion piece. I happen to disagree. Both parties reflect the madness of politicians trying to navigate dangerous waters full of dissatisfied voters. Washington has always been a madhouse. Locate some newspapers from 70 or 100 years ago with political stories and try to convince me otherwise.