Big Business Is Even More Unpopular Than You Think

[Cronopio]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/16/6399/

by Robert Weissman

The U.S. public holds Big Business in shockingly low regard.

A November 2007 Harris poll found that less than 15 percent of the population believes each of the following industries to be “generally honest and trustworthy:” tobacco companies (3 percent); oil companies (3 percent); managed care companies such as HMOs (5 percent); health insurance companies (7 percent); telephone companies (10 percent); life insurance companies (10 percent); online retailers (10 percent); pharmaceutical and drug companies (11 percent); car manufacturers (11 percent); airlines (11 percent); packaged food companies (12 percent); electric and gas utilities (15 percent). Only 32 percent of adults said they trusted the best-rated industry about which Harris surveyed, supermarkets.<1>

These are remarkable numbers. It is very hard to get this degree of agreement about anything. By way of comparison, 79 percent of adults believe the earth revolves around the sun; 18 percent say it is the other way around.<2>

The Harris results are not an aberration. The results have not varied considerably over the past five years — although overall trust levels have actually declined from the already very low threshold in 2003.

The Harris results are also in line with an array of polling data showing deep concern about concentrated corporate power.

-------

So why hasn't this translated to primary victories for Edwards?

[rfranklin]

1. Because homos and aliens are taking over America!

Not to mention Hillary Clinton.

[groovedaddy]

2. Yeah, I heard David Brooks railing against John Edwards for raising

the issue, saying that only a small percentage of Americans distrusted corporations. Brooks is a whore for them.

[Two Americas]

22. the disconnection is beyond the pale

Yet we are letting the same falsifications dominate and steer the discussion among Democrats.

Perhaps as many as 90% of the people in the country agree with FDR - I will post a quote in another post from him on this - and yet we have a relative handful of people here, and throughout the party at all levels telling us that ony 5% do.

The party is not being driven to the right because we have to do that to pander to a conservative public to "win." The leaders of the party, and their small band of sycophants that have infiltrated the party and dominate everything at all costs, are blatantly lying about this because they want to move the party to the right.

There is no outrage that is as important as this. There is no issue that can do more for the party and the country.

The fundamental reason for the existence of the Bush administration, and for all of the subsequent horrors, is because our hands have been tied all of this time by our supposed friends.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. 18% of American adults believe the sun revolves around the Earth?

.
.
.

That's problematic methinks ..

[NewJeffCT]

5. Peanuts compared to the number that believe in Creationism over Evolution

I think that percentage is in the 40s.

[ConcernedCanuk]

8. I hope that 18% is within that 40%, cuz if it's not, USA is FUBAR

.
.
.

and gonna take a lot of innocent people and countries down with them,

wherever dead empires go.

[tritsofme]

63. If some idiot pollster called and asked me if the Earth revolved around the sun

I would probably choose the ridiculous answer as well.

[AdHocSolver]

4. The average American is ignorant about economics, business, and politics.

It is worse than ignorance. Most Americans hold concepts about economics, business, and politics which are totally at odds with reality. They hold these concepts, or more precisely, misconceptions, or even more accurately delusions, with a religious fervor, and refuse to see reality no matter how often it is shoved into their faces.

Many women are supporting Hillary Clinton because they want to see a woman president in the White House. This desire on the part of many women overshadows the reality that Hillary is the most corporate of all the Democrats running for President, now or in the recent past. With a Hillary Presidency, this country will NOT see health care reform, will NOT see a reversal of job offshoring, will NOT see a rapid wind down of the Iraq war/occupation.

In the early debates Clinton said she would work to have health care reform "by the end of her second term". Translation: Since she may not get a second term, even if she might possibly get a first term, you will never see health care reform under a Clinton Presidency. She has also talked about an indefinite presence of US troops in Iraq Translation: She has no plans to end the occupation, which means that the Iraq civil war will continue indefinitely.

As to job offshoring, it was Bill Clinton who pushed through NAFTA, pushed through a law deregulating the media which directly led to right wing domination of the media, signed Most Favored Nation trading status with China without demanding that China adhere to fair trading practices. The high employment of the late 1990's had more to do with the computer/technology boom and low interest rates than to any policies initiated by Bill Clinton. Finally, with Bill back in the White House, what more scandals to hamper a Clinton presidency could we expect?

As for Barack Obama, while he talks a good game, and he is preferable to Hillary, his "reach across the table" mantra shows a naivete that indicates that the right wing would eat him alive.

Most Americans live in a fantasy world created, in large part, by the right wing, and avidly embraced by a populace that has immunized itself to reality. This is the MAIN reason why an administration as corrupt and immoral and ruthless as Bush/Cheney could be placed in power, not once, but twice.

Only Edwards and Kucinich seem to understand the danger faced by a continued corporate hold on America. Only Edwards could win the presidency in a general election. Edward's house, his haircuts, and his previous votes in the senate are irrelevant. He has been bold enough to speak truth to power and that is proof enough that he means what he says.

[Cronopio]

10. Right on, and well said. nt

[Two Americas]

17. respectfully disagree

The general public is much smarter than we are about this.

We on the left have failed. We have allowed the Democratic party to be hijacked at all levels by a relatively small number of people who are dtermined to move the party dramatically to the right, and it is now far to the right of the general public.

Blaming the public is an excuse.

[asdjrocky]

20. Agreed. Our job is to make sure they're informed.

[Cronopio]

35. If people aren't informed now, then they're trying not to learn.

It doesn't take an Einstein to see how corrupt our economic and political system is, and even if the majority of the electorate don't know who their friends are in this fight, they should have at least figured out who their friends *aren't* by now. I.e., whoever the DLC likes and the mainstream covers the most.

[Two Americas]

73. I give the people a break

If Democrats do not talk like they are their friends, if Democrats do not act like they are their friends, if Democrats are not speaking to the concerns of the bottom half of the population, how can we blame the people for not seeing that the Democrats are their friends?

So many people are desperately struggling to survive, and so few liberals or Democrats are visiting these people, speaking to these people, let alone speaking for these people, or accurately describing to people what the cause of their suffering is, that the people can hardly be blamed for being confused. There is no access for most people to the truth, and few Democrats telling them that they are not getting the truth.

The people well know how corrupt and rigged the system is. They well know they are being exploited. They well know that they are losing ground and life is getting worse. But they do not hear a recognition and acknowledgement of that from most Democrats, let alone any expression of a willingness to fight on their behalf.

[asdjrocky]

18. Posted in wrong spot.

[Egnever]

19. his "reach across the table" mantra shows ...

he has allready done it. Course you arent really paying attention are you?

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S. 2590)<1> is an act that requires the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007 on a website maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. This bill was introduced by Senators Tom Coburn and Barack Obama on April 6, 2006 and passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and was passed in the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006. In August 2006 there was a "secret hold" on the legislation placed by Senators Ted Stevens<2> and Robert Byrd.<3> The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 2590 will cost $15 million over its authorized time period of 2007 - 2011.<4>. The website USAspending.gov opened in December 2007 as a result of the FFAT act of 2006.

[redqueen]

6. teevee news!

Even if someone were to prefer Edwards, MANY will look at the polls and media coverage and think, "Well, he doesn't have a chance so I'll go with x."

We've seen it happen here... I've heard personal friends say it IRL.

It's sad. :(

[Cronopio]

11. It means they really don't care about the country.

They just want bragging rights around the watercooler after Election Day.

Bush isn't bringing this country down, nor is Cheney. It's the kind of people you're describing. People who let the direction of the wind tell them what to think and do.

[bobbolink]

30. Yup, Edwards determination and loyalty isn't matched.

:cry:

I'm not just crying for the loss of Edwards, which is important to me because he's the only one speaking up for poverty.

I'm crying because I see the inevitable decimation of this country, with supposed intelligent and "liberal" people going right along with it.

:cry:

[redqueen]

31. It *is* enough to make one want to cry.

The poor are far too easily written off... forgotten.

*sigh*

I love that John keeps the issue front and center. I'm so proud of his endorsement from MLK III. :)

[bobbolink]

36. Do you have a link to his endorsement from MLK III?

I saw the article but couldn't print it from the site. arrrggghhh!

I'd like to find another source for it.

It happies me. :hi: :hug: :hi:

[redqueen]

38. I sure do!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/21/martin-luther-king-iii-to-john-edwards-i-challenge-all-candidates-to-follow-your-lead/

"I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America..."

How beautiful is that?

:loveya:

[bobbolink]

40. You're determined to keep me in tears, aren't you?! BEAUTIFUL!

I've printed it, and put it on the desk of the librarian who is so besotted with Obama.

:evilgrin:

Really, this just makes my rather difficult day have a bit of sunshine in it!

Thank you so very much!!

:hug: ~~insert thank-you flowers emoticon here~~ :hug:

[martymar64]

49. I think this poem is apropos in regard to the poor of America

A Dream Deferred
By Langston Hughes

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up _like a raisin in the sun? _
Or fester like a sore-- _And then run?
_Does it stink like rotten meat?
_Or crust and sugar over-- _like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags _like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

[redqueen]

53. I think so, too.

Thank you.

[redqueen]

7. Kick for comments.

:kick:

[redqueen]

9. ...

...

[Two Americas]

12. stunning

What is truly remarkable is how effectively the opinions of the people are buried and denied in the discussion within the party.

It is one thing for so many activists, party operatives and posters right here to take such a radically different view then the general public, but it takes the deception to another level entirely to be lectured here everyday that the people reject the views of the left as "too radical." As I have often said, the general public is far to the left of those who dominate and control the discussion within the Democratic party.

Clearly, not only has the Democratic party abandoned its traditional principles and ideals - supposedly to be more "realistic" and "electable" - but it is seriously out of step with the general public.

I think that one factor that cannot be ignored is that the most vocal people at all levels of the party are disproportionately from the upper 10% household income bracket. That cannot be a coincidence.

[closeupready]

14. I agree with your last paragraph 100%.

n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

26. Spot on once again. n/t

[kurth]

13. We need a Giant Slayer - Not some freakin' UNITY candidate

and not another dynasty coronation.

[bobbolink]

37. When you're right, you're waaaay freakin' right!

That deserves to be put on a button!

[Two Americas]

15. another kick

This is one of the most important posts here in weeks. It completely gives the lie to the common wisdom among the activists, party regulars and party leadership at all levels.

It is not true that the people are, or would reject politics that are "too far left" or "anti-business" and all of the rest of the lies we constantly here.

Everyone who is true to the traditional principles and ideals of the party have been relentlessly beat up over this for years, and all of that abuse we have taken has been based on a lie. The truth is being suppressed, continually and aggressively.

[Two Americas]

16. more...

More from the article...

What the Harris findings on attitudes to regulation do show is that the business campaign against regulation as an abstract concept has been very successful.

It highlights the need for consumer, environmental, labor and other corporate accountability advocates to defend the concept of regulation, and to connect the rampant corporate abuses in society with the deregulation and non-regulatory failures of the last three decades. There’s little doubt that the general public attitude toward regulation significantly affects the willingness of politicians — none to eager to offend business patrons in the first place — to take on corporate power.

Our opponents know precisely where the battle lines are drawn and what is at stake in the battle.

So does the general public.

When will we?

[asdjrocky]

21. Couldn't agree more, this needs to stay kicked.

[Two Americas]

23. would the people support this?

Would the people overwhelmingly support the program described in the following qoute? Damned right they would. More so than they did in 1932.

Are a few among us sacrificing the success of the party for the sake of maintaining control over it and control over the direction of the party? That is a question that must be asked.

The Resolute Enemy within our Gates

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy—from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution—all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor—these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age—other people's money—these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this Convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that Government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.



Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
June 27th, 1936

[CelloPaddy]

24. Well, that's mostly not surprising, except

"Only 32 percent of adults said they trusted the best-rated industry about which Harris surveyed, supermarkets."

I didn't know supermarkets are not trustworthy, whats bad about grocery stores?

[annabanana]

74. If you spend a few hours in a supermarket, week after week, year after year.

It is easy to develop a jaundiced eye. You become aware that the manipulation of the shopper is here at it's zenith. People have to eat. Unless they grow enough & raise enough at home, they have to shop for groceries.. every week.

First they redesigned the packaging to "catch the eye" (this is beginning to backfire, but they don't know it yet - Harvard MBAs don't spend much time on the "front lines"). Then they put the most expensive, "newest" stuff at eye level and move the staples and necessities to the top shelf, or down to the floor. They put the stuff with the widest profit margin at the ends of the aisles where you have to walk around it several times in the course of a shopping trip. They put mind-numbing muzak just loud enough so you can't really think about what you need. Oh, and if you just need a loaf of bread and a quart of milk, I can guarantee you that you will have to walk through the entire store to get them. The longer you're in there, the more time they have to get you with the "impulse buys" These are just a couple of the tricks... there are thousands more, and supermarkets operate on such a narrow margin that the Jr. Exec. that gets you to buy one more lousy twinkie gets a massive bonus...

Now let's talk about the size of the packages. It used to be pretty straight forward. Vegetables were in 1 lb cans, the standard coffee can was 1 lb. The prices would go up, but it was pretty easy to keep track of and adjust. Go ahead.. look at those cans now. First they went to 14 ounces, now they are at 11 ounces.. the price "stays the same" - ha

I come out of the store exhausted, broker than I should be and pissed off from having to be on my toes and on the alert to their "latest innovations" in human manipulation..

:rant:

[Two Americas]

79. from the other end, as well

I work in agriculture, and the pressure is on the farmers as well. Control of the food supply is becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and it is getting harder and harder to farm. The pressure to meet the buyers' standards for size and appearance, price pressure - the prices paid to farmers are going down while the prices to consumers are going up - the pressure to focus on fewer and fewer cultivars - the big buyers are only interested in the handful of varieties that give them the maximum and most consistent return - pressure from substandard imports and widespread cheating and misrepresentation by corporations all are making things worse and worse for farmers.

[eridani]

25. Because Edwards is starting to get the Kucinich treatment

BTW, welcome to DU. I approve of those who walk away from Omelas.

[OneGrassRoot]

27. K&R n/t

[redqueen]

28. Kick for more comments!

:kick:

[bobbolink]

29. Yet, our two top contenders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of big business.

Then we wonder why so few people vote.

sigh....

[Two Americas]

32. non-voters

You touch on something that hadn't occurred to me.

Of course people don't vote when there is such wide gap between them and the politicians - not on ideology, but on perception of reality. What does voting have to do with people's lives? If Democrats are an alternative, why aren't they aggressively pointing out the 180 degree difference between reality - the reality that the people can see - and the right wing propaganda instead of buying into it and reinforcing it?

Clearly, there is an enormous squandered opportunity for the Democratic party here. Yet we have people screaming that winning is everything and trying to enforce loyalty tests while claiming that moving to the left would alienate voters and saying we must accept candidates in the pockets of the big corporations.

The rightist Dem activists - rightist on the issues that matter most, power and economics - apparently do not really want the party to "win," let alone the people. They want to continue to control the party and prevent it from moving even slightly toward the left, even if that means being in opposition to the general public, discouraging people from participating, and handing the Republicans more power. And they call us the purists! They are the purists - they are sabotaging the party because they are insisting on moving it to the right for the sake of their purist stance of favoring big finance and capital over labor and the people.

[bobbolink]

39. This is what I've been preaching! Maybe I finally said it in a way that resonated?

I saw a bumpersticker a couple of weeks ago that said it:

"I'm fair and balanced. I detest BOTH political parties."

Of course, I didn't have the opportunity to discuss it with the driver, but it could very well be that the sticker-person sees the same corruption and lack of concern for the "common citizen" in both parties. We (Dems) can't keep saying we're the party of the people, while we sell our souls to the corporations. OK, we can keep saying it, but we can't say it and expect people to vote *for* us, or even to vote.

Some things just stretch credulity.

[Two Americas]

42. it is resonating with me

The whole building is shaking here.

[nancyharris]

33. That a bit like saying

Edwards has a national 29% negative rating: How come he doesn't get 71% of the vote? (one has nothing to do with the other)

[Two Americas]

34. maybe

But only if the issue of corporate dominance over our lives is disappeared, and if we pay no attention to how this relates to the internal struggle over the direction of the party.

Perhaps Edwards could be making a better case and doing a better job of connecting people's dissatisfaction with corporations, and their suffering at the hands of corporations, with his campaign - I think that is the case, actually. But the rest of the party is making virtually no such attempt at all, and is in fact many are creating and promoting a false view of where the people are to support a particular rightward direction for the party.

Still, the point is that many here are arguing that Edwards is not having more success because he is running on an anti-corporate theme and that the people don't agree with that and are rejecting that. Now, clearly that is false, and it is not insignificant since it tells us that the activists - or that small segment of the activists who are the most vocal and who dominate the discussion - are seriously out of touch with the people and are using a falsehood to drive the party to the right and to discredit and marginalize the left within the party.

[bobbolink]

41. *I'm* "arguing" that Edwards is being shut out BY CORPORATIONS because of his anti-corporate theme!

Thanks to Raygun, the corporate media has the ability to shut out anyone messin' with their kingdom.

In talking (mostly LISTENING!) with various people of low-income, I KNOW that no matter how unsophisticated, they SEE the ill effects of the ruling of the corporations. They know in their gut what is wrong.

However, you may have a point that Edwards isn't saying this in the best possible way.

Care to elaborate?

:hi:

[Two Americas]

43. elaborate?

Me? :)

I would like to see Edwards make a stronger connection between poverty, unbridled greed, corporate domination, how right wing propaganda has fooled people about this and how Democrats have gone along with their framing of the issues, and the decline in our freedom and well-being.

The people strongly support regulation of the corporate monster for the benefit of the public - overwhelmingly so. There is more consensus on that issue than on any other issue. There is no reason to be afraid of it. There is no reason to be afraid to be real Democrats. We can stop the compromising and back-pedaling and temporizing, and the public will support us.

All of our social and economic and political problems are caused by economic injustice and inequality. That is as true today as it ever was, and taking a strong stand on this is what the Democratic party has traditionally done, and that is what has always brought the party its greatest electoral success as well.

There is a very strong case to be made here, and people need to have the dots connected for them. Of course, no politician can get too far ahead of their support. In a democracy, politicians represent us, they are not dictators (although we are now running that risk) and they are not gurus or spiritual leaders (although many people are seeking that.)
That is where we come in. We must give them something of substance to represent. We must let them know that we have their backs, and that if they will fight for us we will fight for them.

By the way, I read people saying "oh this is just a little Internet board, and no one pays attention and it doesn't have any effect on anything." That is a lie. That is part of a general effort to limit and suppress participation and to take away the voice of the people so that a small group of upscale and very reactionary people can control the debate and the direction of the party. If what we say doesn't matter, why is so much time and effort put into creating such an uproar that we can't be heard above the din?

People here say "so and so is electable, so we should talk about their candidacy" and "so and so has no chance, so we should stop talking about them" or "those ideas are not popular so we shouldn't consider them" or "the people are voting for conservatives, that is the way it is and we must adjust to that reality."

That is all highly suppressive and turns the political process backwards. Who gets elected, what ideas are popular, are a function of what we talk about, not the other way around. If all we ever talk about is what is, we will never get to what could be. How people vote is a product of the discussion, If we make the discussion be about how people vote, we are putting the cart before the horse and we are buttressing and promoting the status quo– the exact opposite of “change.”

Speak out for what is right and it will become popular. Support the politicians who are telling the truth and they will become electable. That is democracy.

[nancyharris]

44. Much of what Edwards says

is populist gobbeldy-gook with little substance behind it. Most Democratic and Independent votes can see right through it. Having the government control business is just as abhorrent as business controlling government. Most people have little faith that government can actually solve problems. Unfortunately, there are few shining examples.

[Two Americas]

45. much of what anti-Edwards people say...

..reflects a very provincial view of the country, that is strongly biased to upper class interests and that ignores and dismisses most of the people in the country. This is the main challenge faced by the party, as we actually now have Republican candidates moving to the left of the Democrats on issues of economic justice - the traditional stance of the Democratic party and the position that has historically brought the party its greatest electoral success - to fill the vacuum.

Most Democratic party activists supposedly "see through it" just the same way that they see through over half of the people in the country - as though they were not there and did not count.

People have no faith that the government can solve problems because of decades of Republicans running it into the ground and because of decades of relentless right wing propaganda. We can surrender to that, or we can fight it. I can see no excuse for any Democrat to surrender and I do not find your argument that we should do so persuasive.

But the public overwhelmingly supports reigning in big capital, and supports government regulation as the way to do that. There is more consensus on this issue than on any other. Merely repeating right wing characterizations of the Edwards campaign - that people do not trust government, that people are not angry, that poverty is not a crisis, that people feel good about corporations and have no problem with economic injustice—does not make them true.

[nancyharris]

46. As an example of

Edwards lack of substance:
Just what does he intend to do to "reign in big capital"?
just what does he intend to do to "regulate" big business?

[bobbolink]

47. Why am I picturing you with your hands on your hips, and your chin stuck out?

What is YOUR candidate doing that's any better?

Hmmm?

[nancyharris]

51. Perhaps because

your imagination is keener than your rational thought.

[bobbolink]

52. No wonder you won't tell who your candidate is. You're doing a find job of representing him/her.

:crazy:

[Two Americas]

48. the Democratic party

Are you familiar with the history of the Democratic party and with the programs of FDR? Are you unaware of the 30 year effort by the right wingers to dismantle every aspect of our government that once protected workers and the general public? Are you in support of that effort by them? Are you unaware of the hideous and immoral consequences of that, and the very real suffering as a result by millions of your fellow citizens?

There was a time when we did not put "regulation" and "reigning in big business" in quotation marks to mock and trivialize those ideas. The day when only the lost vehement pro-business conservatives continue to do so is rapidly approaching.

There is no need to re-invent the wheel here. Those familiar with the history of the Democratic party recognize exactly what Edwards is saying, and it does not sound like gobbledy gook to them.

You can mock populist gobbledy gook, but we will support that today or have much worse tomorrow—neo-feudalism or social upheaval. To deny that is to believe that somehow the United States is exceptional and immune to the forces of history, and that a country can allow the sort of income and wealth disparities that we now have in this country and not risk one or both of those unhappy consequences.

[nancyharris]

50. The fact that you are completely unable

to answer my questions about what Edwards would actually do (besides talking) should give you great insight as to why he is gaining single digit support from the Democratic party. To compare him with FDR is a outrageously absurd.

[Two Americas]

56. ok

One would need to be interested in solving the problems - or even acknowledging them - to be interested in the solutions, and I didn't detect any interest on your part. What we have seen over the last couple of decades is not a lack of solutions from Democrats, but a lack of willingness to tackle economic issues or to strongly address the needs of the poor, or to fight back against the right wing de-regulation program.

The taunting question that we frequently have to field - "how is he going to do it?" - strongly suggests not merely skepticism about Edwards but rather a cynicism about anything working, or a lack of awareness about the desperate need. I have yet to talk to anyone who asked that question about whom that was not true.

I didn't compare FDR to Edwards, and would not. I was contrasting your views with those of FDR.

For the sake of clarity here, I will say that I am as suspicious of politicians and politician's promises as anyone, and I am no groupie or camp follower for any personality.

Aside from the fact that merely speaking out about economic inequality is in itself new and powerful thing, and aside from the strongly implied willingness to return to traditional - and obvious and tested - Democratic party methods and solutions for tacking economic disparity and worker and consumer protection, I can describe specifics Edwards has talked about that are in alignment with his rhetoric. Is that what you are looking for?

I reject the idea that “oh we would solve poverty if only we knew how and if only we had a concrete plan” since it is the willingness to address the issue that has been lacking, and the willingness to fight for economic justice, not the lack of a plan. It is a problem that the Democratic party has successfully tackled in the past, and then they all stopped even talking about it and started compromising with the right wing agenda.

I also reject the idea that Edwards is any less likely to be truthfully describing where he wants to take us than any other politician is. He may be no better, but it has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is any worse.

I will put together a list of concrete proposals from Edwards for you, with my comments on them.

[nancyharris]

57. I look forward to your answers

The eight paragraphs of your last last post contained nothing that speaks to what Edwards will actually do to limit corporate power and influence. Just more populist blather designed to solicit money and support for those not interested in details.

I look forward to anything substantial. I have searched his web site and found nothing there, so maybe you can enlighten me. I am at a loss to even see anything he did as a US Senator to limit corporate power and influence. One would think he could at least point to his record as proof of his ability to enact laws limiting corporate power.

[bobbolink]

61. Using terms like "blather" and the sneering tone is what makes it easy to take

your questions with a grain of salt.

People who are truly interested don't talk down to others in that way.

Yes, I know, you will come back with more sneers.... so be it.

Others will see the sincerity in the replies, and gain from it.

And I repeat... your sneering isn't furthering the cause of your own candidate, whoever she may be.

[OneGrassRoot]

62. good for you, bobbolink. I see she didn't return for Two Americas' answers...

I can't believe that mindset is held by anyone with compassion and empathy for others in this country. It makes no sense to me.

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

65. Believe me, I see that lack of compassion, and disinterest in understanding EVERY DAY!

You wouldn't believe the ugly things that people say and do to me, while I'm sleeping in my car in bitter cold!

People always want to say, "Those republicans are awful", but what hurts is that I'm getting this from "liberals" and those who see themselves as compassionate.

And, yes, the tone is even worse than what I responded to.

Then people wonder why some of us give up.

:cry:

Thanks, John and Elizabeth, for speaking up for me!

[OneGrassRoot]

66. I am so sorry...

May I offer a hug? :hug:

I'll keep believing for you and keep up the fight during times when you've lost strength...as I know you and others would do for me. Soon something will happen to give us all a boost of strength and enthusiasm, and then togther we can lift others who didn't realize they have a choice...that life CAN get better.

[Two Americas]

58. a few specifics

Minimum wage

Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then indexing it, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty. In 2001, a $1 increase in the minimum wage alone would have lifted an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty.

Enforcement of laws protecting workers' right to organize

Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security. Federal law promises workers the right to choose a union, but the law is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union.

Expand the Hope VI propgram

Edwards believes that it is better to invest in struggling neighborhoods than abandon them. He will reform and expand the HOPE VI program to replace dilapidated housing in areas of concentrated poverty.

Public works employment programs

Every American should have the chance to work their way out of poverty, but some willing workers cannot find jobs because of where they live, a lack of experience or skills, or other obstacles, like a criminal record. Edwards will create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work.

Reform how the government defines poverty

The poverty measure excludes necessities like taxes, health care, child care and transportation. It also fails to count some forms of aid including tax credits, food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. The National Academy of Science has recommended improvements that would increase the count of people in poverty by more than 1 million. Edwards believes we need to measure poverty honestly, evaluate our performance, and hold politicians accountable for policies that change the number of people suffering hardship. He supports revisions along the lines recommended by NAS.

Low income housing subsidies

Our current housing policies concentrate low-income families together, isolating willing workers from entry-level jobs and children from good schools. Edwards will create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods. At the same time, he will phase out housing projects that tie families to certain locations and are often lower quality and more expensive than private sector alternatives.

Enforcement of workplace regulations

To help protect workers, Edwards will create a new Labor taskforce to target the industries with the worst abuses of minimum wage and overtime laws. He will step up enforcement of the misclassification of employees as independent contractors and strengthen workplace safety rules.

Radically overhaul HUD

Edwards recommended ending existing public housing that ties families to certain locations. Projects are immune from market forces, and they are often worse and more expensive than vouchers. Instead, HUD should give families a housing voucher, which they could use to either stay or move. Housing projects would get a one-time grant to improve their facilities and then compete for tenants. A small number of public buildings could be preserved if necessary to preserve the supply of affordable housing.

Trade reform

Edwards believes that the true test of a trade deal is not its reception on Wall Street or contribution to the gross domestic product. Instead, his primary criterion for new trade deals will be simple: considering its impact on jobs, wages and prices, will it make most families better off? He rejects President Bush's use of trade agreements to encourage countries to support his foreign policy, rather than to strengthen our economy.

Many overseas workers work 12 to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without the right to form an independent union. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers' rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. Edwards believes that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. Edwards will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs, any new bilateral trade agreements, and future World Trade Organization negotiations.

Edwards supports strong environmental standards so multinational companies cannot profit by exploiting weak environmental laws and enforcement in some countries. For example, after the U.S. has capped its greenhouse gas pollution as Edwards proposes, trade policy could be used to encourage similar commitments by other nations.

Prosecute Violations of Trade Deals

Too often, Washington has looked the other way while other countries have broken trade laws and failed to live up to their commitments to open markets to U.S. goods. The U.S. Trade Representative is currently responsible for enforcement, but often neglects trade deals as soon as the ink dries. As a result, trade violations like subsidies are overlooked, unsafe products enter the country, intellectual property is pirated, and goods are counterfeited. Edwards will assign top prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice to the job of enforcing trade laws, including the stronger labor and environment standards he will negotiate. He will also go after illegal trade subsidies and insist that China and other countries move toward ending manipulation of their currencies, seeking WTO sanctions if necessary.

Revamp Trade Assistance to Help Dislocated Workers and Communities

The economic upheaval of globalization is no longer limited to certain jobs or communities. American workers today are more likely to lose their jobs, look longer for a new one, and then take a significant pay cut. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) helps only a select group of manufacturing workers and unemployment insurance (UI) fails to help most unemployed workers.

Create a New "Training Works" Initiative Tied to High-Wage Jobs: While training alone is no substitute for good trade policies, we must do more to help workers get skills and move ahead in their careers. Edwards will make an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to help workers advance by:

Building career ladders that help low-wage workers gain skills and move up into well-paying jobs that can support their families. Edwards will support industry labor-management partnerships that work with community colleges and educators in industries like health care and manufacturing to expand opportunities for tailored, industry-specific training.

Supporting quality on-the-job and customized training for responsible businesses that agree to hire and train previously jobless workers.

Extending unemployment benefits to allow workers to enroll in long-term, quality training.
Supporting unemployed workers who have promising business ideas with entrepreneur grants, mentoring, and continuing unemployment benefits through the business start-up phase.

Investing in trained, professional career counselors, which is a proven, cost-effective approach to helping workers identify quality job and training opportunities.

Help Communities Recover from Mass Layoffs

When communities lose a major employer, there is a predictable downward spiral: retailers lose customers, home foreclosures depress property values, and falling tax receipts force cuts in public services. For too long, the federal government has stood by while plant closings devastate entire towns. And yet, which communities will struggle under new trade deals is usually predictable. Edwards will require the independent U.S. International Trade Commission to study which communities will face stiffer competition under new trade deals. When a plant closing appears imminent, Edwards will immediately deploy technical assistance and recovery specialists to work with affected employers, unions and local officials just as the government does for areas facing a military base closing. New resources will be available for shoring up the local tax base, attracting new family-sustaining jobs, and helping local businesses expand.

Strengthen the Safety Net for Workers Who Lose Their Jobs

Our unemployment insurance program has not been improved in over 70 years. Americans today are more likely to lose their jobs and less likely to receive unemployment benefits. TAA excludes millions of service workers facing trade-related competition. Edwards will help states provide UI coverage to 500,000 more workers a year, particularly low-wage and part-time workers. He will help the long-term unemployed by creating a standard 26-week extended benefit and expanding options for benefits during job training. He will also expand TAA's extended unemployment insurance and training benefit to all workers dislocated by globalization, regardless of their industry, making an estimated 600,000 workers a year eligible. Edwards' universal health care plan will ensure that workers who lose their jobs will not lose their health insurance.

[nancyharris]

69. A few responses

Minimum wage laws are indeed very positive for workers but they have little effect on corporate power or influence. Corporations do not pay for the salaries of their employees. Consumers pay for employee salaries in the form of product cost. As wages (or the cost of raw materials) goes up, so does the price of the finished goods or services. This is basic economics.

Do you know what the “Employee Free Choice Act” entails? It is the elimination of the secret ballot for workers to choose whether or not they want a union. Do you really want to do away with the idea of a secret ballot?

The Hope VI program, public works program, government poverty definitions, low income subsidies, overhaul of HUD, worker training initiatives and increasing unemployment insurance (while fine ideas) have nothing whatsoever to do with limiting corporate power and influence.

The “Help Communities Recover” program looks surprisingly like a corporate give-away program. I am sure most corporations would gladly support a program where the government deploys “technical assistance and recovery specialists to work with affected employers.

The “trade reform” section is quite interesting. “Edwards believes that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization”. Do you really believe (or do you really want) Edwards to impose a trade embargo against China, all Muslim countries, all African countries and most South American countries (including Mexico) because NONE of them enforce the core labor rights defined by the ILO? Have you any idea what would happen to our economy if such embargos were enacted?

Finally – “Prosecute Violations of Trade Deals” WOW! Corporate America has been pushing Bush for 7 years to start enforcing other country’s commitment to open markets, intellectual property enforcement and environmental standards. What a boon for corporate America!

Sorry, but you have failed miserably in convincing me that Edwards will actually do anything to limit the power and influence of corporations. Anyone who takes even a cursory look and gives an ounce of thought to his policies can see through the rhetoric to a complete lack of substance.

[Two Americas]

72. odd

I can't help you. The goal is not to harm corporations, it is to help the rest of us. If you can't see the connection between the two, then no traditional Democratic party solutions will make sense to you.

A fundamental underpinning of all politics is that it is about power - who has it and who does not. A fundamental underpinning of all Democratic party thought is that to balance the tendency of power and wealth becoming disproportionately concentrated in the hands of the few, that protections for workers and the general public are needed. Political interests representing entrenched wealth and power tend to resist that. Hence the need for politics, and the need for the Democratic party.

If you do not agree with that, then we have little in common politically and it is not surprising that we do not agree, nor that you do not see any value in the Edwards campaign. I can't really help you with any of that.

[nancyharris]

75. I understand perfectly well

the problem of wealth, disproportionately amassed in the hands of the few. However, I just don’t see how these programs affect that unbalanced distribution of wealth at all. Edwards' programs are a safety net – most of which I support and most of which are supported by the other Democratic candidates (and even some of the Republican candidates). But these programs will not affect wealth distribution – they do not go to the core of the problem.

For instance, he has not proposed an increase in the corporate tax rate. He has not proposed the elimination of the “S corporation” tax laws. He has not proposed an increase in the dividend tax rate. He has not proposed an increase in the personal tax rate (only rescinding the Bush tax cuts - an idea even McCain supports). He has not proposed an increase in the minimum tax schedule. He has not proposed an increase in the inheritance tax. He has not even proposed an import levy on imported goods and services.

You cannot break the imbalance of wealth in this country without fundamentally challenging the corporate profit margin.

I know none of the other Democratic candidates have made any of these proposals as well, but none of the other candidates are campaigning on the false populist hope.

[Two Americas]

76. I agree

I completely agree.

[Two Americas]

78. ok

I have gone back over our exchange here, and I am still not sure what you are trying to say.

[Two Americas]

60. by the way

If you are complaining that Edwards is not being aggressive enough in attacking corporate domination of our lives, our government and our economy and that Edwards is not moving strongly enough toward New Deal programs as a solution to that, than we are in agreement.

Is that what you are saying?

[redqueen]

54. He sure fooled MLK III.

[balantz]

55. How often does the public get to actually HEAR Edwards speak about this?

Even if voters wanted to hear substantive issues from Edwards they don't get a chance to. Most people listen to the news flying down the road to work, or on the major network nightly news at dinner-time. I'm always listening for his message (when I can stand to turn on M$M anymore) and have for the most part only heard him speak about the important issues on M$M during the debates. How many regular voters watch the debates anymore I wonder?

[Two Americas]

59. worse

We have many of our own distorting, obfuscating and misleading people about his message. It is bad enough that the opposition has declared all out war against Edwards message - from the MSM to the US Chamber of Commerce to right wing talk radio - we are being undermined by a relative handful of people who are supposedly our allies. That may be the most damaging - to be "wounded in the house of your friends."

[balantz]

67. Are you talking about so-called "liberal" congressmembers?

They are the ones many people think are a-o-k and their judgement is trusted. Many here at D.U. even consider Kerry to be a top-notch politician. I disagree and consider him a sold out snake.

Not having been involved in politics before, beyond merely voting, I wonder how this insanely up-hill battle compares to any other campaign of recent history? J.E. the underdog seems to be almost all alone amongst the Washington crowd.

[Two Americas]

70. the path to power

The path to power for Democratic politicians is to cater to the wealthy and powerful. A relatively small percentage of Democrats, upscale and in the upper 10% income bracket, admire them and the path they have taken and dominate the entire discussion in the Democratic party and are controlling the direction of the party. Despite their relatively small numbers, through a variety of suppressive tactics they are able to pose as representing all of us. We are then told that we have no choice, that we are in the way, that we are not wanted, but that we dare not speak against them or leave. This prevents a strong traditional Democratic party message - advocacy for labor and for the have-nots in opposition to the interests of the wealthy and powerful few - from getting to the public.

Who is ands who is not “liberal” or “on our side” has been redefined to mean who votes for supposedly liberal positions on cultural war issues, and we are supposed to overlook how they are selling us down the river on issues of power and economics, which are what politics should be about. Advocacy of women’s reproductive health rights means “for those who can afford that.” Advocacy for safe food means “organic choices for those who can afford that.” Gun control means only those who can afford to live in suburbs with armed-to-the-teeth first class police protection or can afford private guards deserve the right to defend themselves. On every liberal issue, the focus has been skewed to become advocacy for “choices” for those few who are doing all right, and the vast majority of the people are left behind.

All of the liberal causes could be advanced quickly for all in a context of attacking the growing economic injustice and disparity, as the party traditionally always did. In the absence of that, the benefits of successfully promoted liberal causes will be reserved for the privileged few.

[balantz]

71. I'm with you friend.

In my short education on how "our government" works today I have realized these awful truths.

I appreciate you thoughtful posts and often catch them in the Edwards group. I can't afford to join, but I do lurk to keep up, and to help kick our agenda :hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

64. Any update on the Tom Donahue/CoC attack on populist movement?

This thread was from a week or so ago. I posted a new thread asking for updates, but my threads tend to sink like rocks...lol...so I'm asking here since the subject matters are related. Has anyone seen this discussed anywhere outside of DU? I'd love to see JRE make hay out of this, as well as the O'Leilly/homeless vet nonsense (but it's harmful nonsense, IMHO).

Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2641270:hi:

[no name no slogan]

68. That's even lower than Congress

I think congress's popularity is around 25%, on average.

[nolabels]

77. Did you notice that even the title of your post is a sugar coated apology?

Some people even hate Big Business. To say it's "Unpopular" gives the notion that it's kind of being ignored at present and maybe might even be embraced as having redeeming qualities later on.

Much of our societal problems can be traced back on how many a major corporation has done most of us wrong. I don't think we could do without some kind of business idea and it's dealing with capital. The problem is global rules need to be enacted and enforced on corporations that would make them worthwhile and equitable for anyone or anything involved