Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Corporate takeover of Democrats

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:24 AM
Original message
Corporate takeover of Democrats
First, let me say that I supported John Kerry in the election, but had serious misgivings about his pro-war stance. My views are pretty much in line with Dennis Kucinich, although I supported Howard Dean because of his strong anti-war stance. I have been questioning whether there is a place for me in the Democrtatic party of today, especially with the calls from some within the party that they need to move even farther to the right.

Here is a response I sent to a friend who describes himself as a "moderate" Democrat -- in other words, he agrees with the Republicans on a lot of things, but can't handle their radical right wingers.

He blames the election loss on the pro-choice people, NOW, and the ACLU:

First of all, I believe that these so-called “moral values” issues can always be trumped by economic interests. “It’s the economy stupid.” Kerry was so compromised by being beholden to corporate interests, that he could not effectively do this (he didn’t want to be seen as a “redistribution Democrat”). Blaming pro-choice people, NOW and the ACLU is just a smokescreen for the real culprit: the corporate takeover of the Democrats.

Thank you for helping me to understand what the Democratic Party really is. Under the guise of a “big tent”, the far right wing of the party calls all the shots, puts up the candidates and sets the agenda. There is no voice for someone like me, but we’re still expected to work for the nominee, no matter how much he shares with the Republicans in terms of agenda.

You and the Republicans have effectively quashed any voice from a third party, thus ensuring that the national debate will be kept within narrowly defined limits that benefit the large corporate interests who finance Republicans and right wing Democrats.

The end result is that for the foreseeable future, we can expect:

1. There will be no real electoral reform. If you and your pals in the Republican Party were really interested in democracy, you would eliminate private campaign funding completely, do away with restrictive ballot access laws, allow for instant runoff voting (to make sure the winner wins with a majority), have proportional representation (so everyone has a voice), allow for a binding no confidence vote, have same day registration, and demand a verifiable voting system. But none of this will happen because this would mean power would go back to the people of this country rather than in the hands of large corporate interests.

2. The permanent war in the Mideast will continue with full support from the Democratic power structure. This benefits the defense and oil industries, but is costing everyone else dearly in terms of thousands of dead and wounded and billions of taxpayer money wasted on an unnecessary war.

3. No crackdown on corporate crime, abuse, and fraud. Republicans and Democrats have been bought off by large corporate contributions to ensure they won’t be held accountable.
Here’s what Ralph Nader says on this subject:

“The US needs to crackdown on corporate crime, fraud and abuse that have just in the last four years looted and drained trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders and consumers. Among the reforms needed are resources to prosecute and convict the corporate executive crooks and to democratize corporate governance so shareholders have real power; pay back ill-gotten gains; rein in executive pay; and enact corporate sunshine laws, among others.”


4. The continued swelling of the ranks of the uninsured, and continued increases in healthcare premiums, to the benefit of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. This ignores the huge cost to society of not having everyone insured. If everyone were insured, they would go to the doctor early instead of waiting till they are in bad shape (which costs us much more). Also, preventive care can reduce future illnesses and save everyone in the long run.

5. The continued increase in the ranks of those earning less than ten dollars and hour –last I heard this was over 40 million: the Wal-Martization of the workforce. Along with this, the continued crackdown on unions.

6. The current tax cuts will be made permanent – to the benefit of the well off, but again screwing the ones who need it the most. As many have pointed out, these tax cuts mean that states will continue to cut programs, raise college tuition, and raise property taxes in order to stay solvent. This effectively makes a tax increase for the middle and lower classes.

7. Privatizing social security: great for Democratic and Republican benefactors on Wall Street but bad for everyone else. How can they expect some average Joe to make wise investments?

8. The U.S. will continue to alienate the rest of the world in its misguided use of the overwhelming superiority in military power. One can only guess what the consequences of this eventually will be, but the backlash is bound to come in one form or another.

9. The continued assault on the environment, to the benefit of the corporate bottom line, but costing everyone else in terms of medical expenses as a result of bad air, polluted water, etc.

I realize that a John Kerry presidency would have addressed some of these problems, but in order to do that we have to win the election. That can’t be done as long as the candidate is constantly concerned about offending corporate interests. This allows the Republicans to win over lower and middle class voters with the “values” argument while at the same time screwing them economically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Your necessarily long post does a great job of summing up
the situation. I suggest that you stay with the Democratic Party and try to educate some of our group that seems to feel that we would be better off to imitate the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well Said...Agree with every word you wrote....Can't add a thing, except
that I feel sick...and powerless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. someone needs to craft a message and movement for those
35% that show no allegiance to either party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. ...........Corporate Personhood...........
It's simple...we need to repeal Corporate Personhood...and take back the power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. Can't disagree with much
of what you have posted.

Let me address just one point of your post: Corporatization of the Democratic Party. We saw this coming during the '90s and, I think, turned a blind eye to it because it was the political equivalent of a nuclear arms race. Why? Because without corporate funding the Democrats were at a huge disadvantage against the Republican money raising machine. I too would argue for full public financing of campaigns and agree that McCain-Feingold is easily circumvented and, in effect, useless. But it is that way because the Supreme Court has ruled that, essentially, money=speech and cannot be controlled in many of the ways that Feingold origionally envisioned.

There have been many, many opinions of where, when and how the party should fight back and those opinions have been argued here on DU. I think the truth is that the battle has to be fought on many, many different fronts all at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmike27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. I can't agree more
What is sad though, most democrats here probably agree too, yet they go to the polls and vote for democrats each time. But I understand the problems, I too voted for Kerry. I wish I'd voted for Nader now, but some slim hope in me (idiot-hope really) though Kerry just might have some outside chance. But as usual, the uneducated, poorest area of the country, with the least health care, voted Republican. Alabama the stupid.

I think many democrats fail to realize that the Green Party, or Ralph Nader is actually the democratic party of old. How can they realize the truth, when the media that calls itself liberal, is so incredibly conservative? Our population is hopelessly duped, and let us face it, with the exception of a few folks that traverse this web site, ignorant as hell. Witness the growth of the pseudo-reality shows. It makes me gag to see people sell their dignity for a buck, but apparently people enjoy watching morons sit around degrading themselves, or chat about how Suzy is such a hussy, throwing herself at Tom (whatever).

What we need is a democrat to exactly mirror the republican in the race, thus splitting the vote. At the same time, we need a charismatic independent, not Nader since the media has drained him of any political capital he ever possessed, but someone who is good looking (superficial, we are in America) yet as well-spoken as Nader. Maybe then we'd have some chance by splitting the hard-liners, and breaking off enough who recognize the message. But we dare to dream, and surely they will be crushed. The control-fix is in, and we now have a dictatorship, and Republicans will not be motivated to fix the voting machinery they have now set in place. Perhaps our only hope is for states with Democratic governors and legislators to attempt to steal the elections for Democrats. Too bad, can't we all be honest? Guess not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. keep the dialog going
Great points, everyone who responded. I think we just need to keep the dialog going, look for oportunities to act, and progress will be made.

Tonight I am meeting with some local Democrats who are closer to the DU point of view.

Keep the faith!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
8. Sorry, but you are WRONG. Kerry is one of the LEAST beholden Dems
Edited on Tue Nov-09-04 10:14 AM by blm
Maybe you were unaware of the fact that Kerry never took any corporate pac money during his entire Senate career. He also wrote the Clean Elections legislation with Paul Wellstone. He has been an advocate for public financing of campaigns since 1985, specifically to get corporate influence OUT of lawmaking decisions.

Attack Kerry for REAL grievances against the campaign, like not responding to SBV or something real. Your assessment of Kerry was based on a false perception and just proved YOU never even knew much about Kerry. What a shame. Now you spread disinformation. Just what we DON'T need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Exactly.
This post illustrates how many are very quick to blame those who don't agree with them, no matter what the facts are. The "moderate Dem" friend blames ACLU and NOW for some reason that doesn't appear based in reality, only that that person doesn't like ACLU and NOW. The poster also blames what he/she doesn't like, with little relation to actual facts.

This is exactly what we don't need at this time.

--Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Maybe not in the "direct" sense, but his compromises hurt him
Kerry was an ardent free-trader. The best that he could do for the progressive wing of his base was to promise "review" of free trade agreements. Given his history on this issue, this was hardly a reason for enthusiasm.

Kerry's chief economic advisor was Robert Rubin of Citibank. His economic advisor team was almost solely made up of Wall Street elitists. While some more affluent Democrats may think this is a good strategy, neither it nor the policy pronouncements that result do much to inspire a voter in the rust belt who has seen his job disappear while people like Rubin get richer in the process.

Kerry also supported the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in 1996. That was a purely corporate-driven bill that did little to benefit the "public interest".

I fully recognize Kerry's support for things like Clean Elections, and even laud him for it. Unfortunately, he did absolutely NOTHING to play up such issues, and his compromised stance on many economic issues -- trying to play to workers while still supporting corporate interests -- didn't help his cause. I think that The Nation hit this on the head in their latest editorial:
The Democratic elite are out of touch, as Republicans claim. They have lost reliable connections to ordinary people, including some long loyal constituencies. John Kerry did not lose this election in the South (those defeats were fully expected). He lost it in leading industrial states that, given their economic condition, should have belonged to the Democrats. Kerry advocated establishment views, on trade and globalization, for instance, that distanced him from his natural constituency. He could not find the words and images to speak authentically about their lives. He did not offer plausible remedies to their pain.

Based on independent voters that I am friends with, this seems a pretty accurate assessment of the Kerry campaign. He tried to express economic policies for workers while still remaining true to establishment views on the overarching issues. In the end, those policies just rang hollow for too many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Inaccurate portrayal. Kerry was a free trader but ALWAYS pushed protection
Edited on Tue Nov-09-04 11:07 AM by blm
clauses in those agreements. Labor even promoted Kerry's legislation when it was being debated and then (unfortunately) defeated in Clinton's term, and they knew he would have used the power of the presidency for those positions he advocated then.

Face reality - The media didn't let those issues be heard. If you didn't get to a Kerry rally in person, you likely didn't hear about it. But, the media sure knew how to focus on gay marriage and terror and Swift Boat Vets and you DO know Teresa told a reporter to shove it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Was Kerry a free-trader, or wasn't he???
Edited on Tue Nov-09-04 11:10 AM by IrateCitizen
Free trade, by definition, is trade free of constrictions. Conventional wisdom views labor and environmental considerations as "barriers to trade". This is the language of the bills and agreements, not mine here. So, are you saying that Kerry was a free-trader, or was he a protectionist? You can't be both.

My watershed moment was the fast-track vote. Kerry did push for an amendment to include labor and environmental protections in the fast track bill. It was defeated. Kerry voted for the bill anyway.

What this says to me, as someone who cut his teeth on fair trade activism, is that Kerry does have concern about these issues -- but when it comes down to a CHOICE between supporting them or supporting corporate interests, he'll choose the latter. He'll support labor and the environment as long as it doesn't interfere with supporting corporate interests as well, but the telling moment is what he does when forced to make a CHOICE between the two.

I didn't need to go to a Kerry rally. I saw several of his speeches on CSPAN. I read his policy positions on his website. And I also looked at his record, especially over the past few years. He had many positive attributes. I loved his championing of alternative energies. I was tickled that he had supported Clean Elections (although he didn't promote it nearly enough, IMHO). But I also found him to be just too compromised on too many economic matters to put forth a coherent message that would resonate with many voters -- especially on an EMOTIONAL level. And don't even get me started on security matters and his IWR vote, no matter how many times he tortuously explained it.

It's obvious that we don't agree on this. I know that you were a Kerry booster from way back, blm. But the fact remains that I'm aware of his record too -- and from the perspective from which I view it, there is nothing you can say to convince me to come around to your way of seeing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. A global trader with some labor and environmental protections written in
That's a pragmatic approach. Global trade is here to stay and the best thing for all countries is to build in some protection for labor and the environment.

All go one way or the other is just plain unrealistic and also wrongheaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. So you have nothing to say about his "choice" on trade then?
Edited on Tue Nov-09-04 12:51 PM by IrateCitizen
It's always interesting to note what is left out in a response. It can often speak volumes. In your response, you failed to even address the "choice" Kerry made on trade.

Kerry was forced to decide between commerical concerns and labor/environment concerns, and he chose commercial concerns. Therefore, it is apprarent from this piece of his record that commercial concerns are more important to him than labor/environmental concerns.

It's not about an all one way or the other approach. It's about seeing what is more important in the choices that one makes. It's easy to support one side or the other when they aren't in conflict with one another. It's when the different sides are competing that you get to see what side is really more important.

In Kerry's case, this was that commercial interests are more important than labor/environmental concerns. Otherwise, he would have voted AGAINST the bill in its final form, rather than FOR it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
9. Welcome to du! *wave*
-------------------------------------------------------
Support the New Boston Tea Party!
http://geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/index.htm#shopping
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark414 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. you just realized this?
oh well, better late than never
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakfs Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
11. Finally, somebody speaks the truth
Your post says it all and identifies the real threat to the future of our country.

We are currently ruled by a corporatocracy, which now controls the government, legislation, the mainstream media, sports and entertainment, health care, and soon the court system. The attempt of the Democratic party to "veer right" a la Clinton was a failed attempt to appeal to the corporatocracy. I'll say it here - Clinton won because he is a masterful politician, NOT because of the Dem's rightward movement. Nobody but Clinton could have pulled that off, as we have seen in the last two elections.

The one thing you did NOT mention in your otherwise excellent list was continued outsourcing of jobs, which I consider to be simply a part of the corporatocracy's grab at global dominance. This election has turned me into a complete protectionist.

We need the Democratic party to oppose the corporatocracy, not try to join it. There are good issues here that can be framed as "moral issues."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugarbleus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
13. I feel the same for the most part. I "feel" a split coming on..
I'm pretty disillusion right now myself. I was hopeful for a few days after "black Tuesday" but then I heard some "Leaders" talking on C-span yesterday: Harrold Ickes and ? Rubens

Ickes tried to sound stern about our party; challenging callers about the "moral values" issue..etc. The other guy was all pasty white and docile looking (though he did get riled a bit with one caller)talking about a "new" direction(He also coyly stated that he did support the war and the $87bil)--he sounded like a "Neo-Liberal" :puke:

Ickes tried to hold the old dem ground up to a point...THEN BOTH these guys LOST ME when they hinted at privatizing SS might be a good idea and that they'd thought of it themselves some time back!!!!!! WTF??

THAT DID IT FOR ME! I AM an old school dem. I DID like what Nader said, although I don't much care for Nader himself. I DID like Kucinich, gave money and voted for him in primaries.

Kerry AND Clinton are NOT redistribution democrats. I was SHOCKED at some of the programs these two killed/gutted in order to "balance the budget". I'm sick of all the politicians......AGAIN.

I strongly got behind Kerry and gave him my vote.

Now, since we've "lost" to THEE MOST evil goverment/party in our history, I don't see any reason to continue to support the Democrats, in total. This is the perfect time for me to start looking around.

I hope more people will do the same. I'm heartbroken, disillusion, and burned out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
15. When a Massachusetts liberal is the center of the Party and beholden...
You know there is a refusal on the far left to support anyone who doesn't fit their ideology EXACTLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I have defended Kerry in the last week
While I don't think he ran the greatest campaign in the world, I acknowledge that the fundies "won" this election for the repubs. It is likely that any of our candidates would have seen the same fate, given the motivation of these people this year. (they want the Rapture to happen as soon as possible and what better way to speed the end of the world than by allowing repubs to run things!)

But I can't believe that people really think of Kerry as a Liberal. I understand the fundies and repubs calling him that, but not Dems. Yes, he has a pretty liberal record in his 30 years of politics. But have you really taken a close look at his votes over the past 10 years- and especially the past 3.5 years? If so, I just don't understand how you think he can be described as a liberal. Moderately left, yes. But liberal?

I guess the spectrum really has been shifted that far to the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
18. And that's all, folks, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robert Oak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
20. NAFTA, China PNTR, fast track
I agree with you.

I'm involved in groups (not unions) against the latest purge, outsourcing and the use of the US Visa system to fire Americans and bring in cheaper foreingers to replace them.

Pretty much the mood was "Kerry and Bush are the same" from many.
Even major media claimed Kerry wouldn't do anything about outsourcing.

Then, to make matters worse, in the debates, Kerry fudged and claimed he couldn't stop it.

Bad play!

And of course he captured millions in campaign contributions from those very corporations who are busy gutting their companies of Americans like Germany did of Jews in 1938.

He stopped using the term "Benedict Arnold CEO's" of the advice of one of his "free trade" economic advisors.

I believe that phrase alone is how he won the Iowa caucuses.

Ya know, curbing outsourcing is a complex issue...while maintaining a global economic policy...

but man, these guys need to read the theory and plain adjust, based
on what is right for the middle class and the economy.
there are a series of economists speaking out about current trade policy and worker policy proving just how bad this current course is for the country, especially the China PNTR and no veto vote in the WTO. Paul Samuelson himself has written a detailed mathematically based paper proving outsourcing is not "good for America" and how
Ricardo's theories are being completely misapplied...

Yet, one got the feeling that things were going to continue in the same horrendous direction from the Kerry team for the most part.

And this pisses me off, because it's quite clear, from the results...
these economic policies are NOT WORKING for most of America...
and from the overall look at the dollar recently, I question for all of America, including multinationals.

I'm sick of Repuke and Repuke light here as the options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-09-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
23. Nice summary, and welcome to the club friend
Some of us have been saying what you are now just realizing for the past eight years. Clinton, despite the RW's demonization of him, was for all intents and purposes, a Republican president. His policies were designed not to benefit the common person, but to benefit the rich and wealthy.

I think that this is going to be the death knell of the Democratic party. Too many people have realized what you do, and are going to abandon the party over it. We hung around for one last go this year because Bushco is such an entirely evil alternative. But with the failure of the Kerry campaign to win against such an entirely inept opponent, many of us are going to go away, and either not be involved in politics, or caucus with the Greens.

The Democratic party might hang around for a few more years as the token opposition, but that is all they really are. It is sad to say, but apparently we are going to have to go through the wringer of single party, fascist rule before the majority of people in this country wake the fuck up. I suggest you prepare for the worst, I know I certainly am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC