Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

E.J. Dionne: Supreme Court ruling calls for a populist revolt (a new populist-progressive alliance)

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:46 AM
Original message
E.J. Dionne: Supreme Court ruling calls for a populist revolt (a new populist-progressive alliance)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Supreme Court ruling calls for a populist revolt

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, January 25, 2010

"Populism" is the most overused and misused word in the lexicon of commentary. But thanks to a reckless decision by Chief Justice John Roberts's Supreme Court and the greed of the nation's financial barons, we have reached a true populist moment in American politics.

-snip-

The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It's time for a new populist-progressive alliance.

This court ruling should also challenge the fake populism we have seen of late. It disguises a defense of the interests of the powerful behind crowd-pleasing rhetoric against "Washington," "taxes" and, yes, "Obama."

President Obama has helped feed this faux populist revolt by failing to understand until recently how deeply frustrated politically moderate, middle-class Americans are over policies that bailed out the banks while leaving behind millions of unemployed and millions more alarmed about their economic futures.

If average voters came to see government primarily as an instrument of the banks, why should they believe that the same government could help them on matters of health care and employment? This problem was aggravated by puffed-up, self-involved U.S. senators who conspired to make the legislative process look as ugly and chaotic as possible.

Obama began turning toward populism before the results of the Massachusetts Senate race rolled in. Republican Scott Brown's victory made the new turn imperative.

The president has now offered a modest tax on the big financial institutions to cover the costs of bailouts, and a tougher approach to banks that will limit their size and their capacity to make economy-wrecking financial bets. It's a decent start, and it's about time.

Next will come legislation to turn back the Supreme Court's effort to undermine American democracy. Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen are working with the White House on a measure to rein in the reach of the Supreme Court ruling.

Their bill is still being written, but the ideas they're considering include prohibiting political spending by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists or make most of their income abroad.

And shouldn't shareholders have the right to vote before a corporation spends money on politics? Do we want foreign-owned corporations, especially those owned by foreign governments, to exercise an undue influence in our politics? Imagine what an enterprise owned or influenced by the Chinese or Russian governments might try to do to a politician who campaigns too ardently for human rights?

My favorite idea: Requiring chief executives to appear in ads their corporations sponsor, exactly as politicians have to do. ("I'm Joe Smith, the chief executive of Acme Consolidated Megacorporation, and I approve this message.")

President Obama was right to invoke Teddy Roosevelt in his radio address on Saturday. American democracy and the square deal in government for which TR battled are in jeopardy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good things are happening!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. When and where do we start marching?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I was going to post that. It seems we march for little things let's
march for something big. And while we are at it, protest in front of the supreme when smirky idiots are in session. Maybe since they were allowed to burn Nancy Pelosi in effegy, it would be OK to do it to Roberts. Just kidding. That's over the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. We need to reach for the stars. Let's go after corporate personhood and
push for public financing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. We could rally on the first weekend of Spring
Good symbolism, hopefully the worst of winter will be well behind us, and it gives us two months to plan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. Seems the Ron Paul peeps have mixed feelings on the ruling.
Link to discussion:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=227593


Also, the right wingers & teabaggers at the link below had a healthy debate the SC decision. Most were clueless and merely regurgitated RW talking points, but a few were smart enough to understand the broader implications of the case.

Background: The owner of this blog (Karl or "Genesis") is a proud two time Bush supporter. He's also one of two 2009 recipients of the Conservative Political Action Conference's (CPAC) Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award.

Probably safe to assume he's bought & paid for. Either that or he's still woefully naive. My money is on the former.

Here are his thoughts on the SC Ruling:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1888-Freedom-Of-Speec ...

Here's his forum members' reaction to his SC ruling opinion:

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=125556
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 Sat Dec 20th 2014, 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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