Corporatist bi-partisanship = inclusiveness; Populist bi-partisanship = lying with dogs.

[Truth2Tell]

What's with all the howling about Jane Hamsher and others finding common cause with Grover Norquist on the health reform bill?

Why is OK for the corporate right wing of our Party to enter into cooperative coalitions with like-minded members of the opposition Party, but not OK for populists or progressives to do the same? In many crucial policy areas - war, globalization, civil liberties, etc. - legislative policy is set largely by a corporate-sponsored bi-partisan coalition. This coalition is universally described by it's members from both Parties, including our President, in glowing terms, as laudable, mature-adult, bi-partisan unity.

Yet when anti-war, pro-civil liberties or fair trade politicians of a more populist bent come together on the other side of these same issues (Kucinich and Ron Paul meeting for example), they are derided by our establishment class as lying down with dogs or slithering with snakes.

Anyone with even a tiny bit of political experience understands that everyone in politics forms coalitions of convenience. Working with someone on an issue in politics doesn't indicate support for all that person represents. This reality seems to be fully understood when it's Obama or Reid dealing with THEIR Republican friends. When it's the populist left finding common cause across the aisle, this reality conveniently disappears down the memory hole.

[leftstreet]

1. They fear nothing more than the peasants finding common cause

They've invested great effort in divide/conquer strategies to keep the lower classes from uniting.

Fuck 'em

K&R

[DJ13]

10. +1

[G_j]

28. I think fomenting social and religious intolerance and hatred in the RW is exactly how

the peasants are kept from joining forces.

Though, there is no way Norquist is a peasant!

[Skidmore]

49. Grover Norquist is lower class? SInce when?

Grover is a trust fund baby with a snobbish sense of entitlement. He would drowned the lower class a bathtub too, if he could get away with it.

[divideetimpera]

57. you are correct, and that all started in 1791 with the dissolution of the articles of confederation

the divide and conquer (divide et impera) strategy implemented by Madison, et al, used the new federal govt to create larger voting districts (senate and president). These larger voting districts were created in order to increase the amount of factions in each district. THus, james madison said, the masses would be less able to unite and discover their common interest. A less united electorate means that the majority could not use their own govt to tax the wealth of the rich, according to madison. That was what was happening in the several states under the articles of confederation. The masses were taxing the rich and passing debt relief laws. The rich aristicrats did not like that, so they created the federal govt, which was designed by madison. Madison said that his Divide et impera strategy had a primary goal of preserving wealth inequality.

[Truth2Tell]

58. Interesting post! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[debbierlus]

2. Jane executed a BRILLIANT move

[jgraz]

44. Which is why the Rahmbaggers are out in force attacking her.

Their greatest fear is a populist revolt against both parties.

[Blue_In_AK]

55. I agree, Debbie.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

[ixion]

3. Yep. Corporatism good. Populism bad. That seems to be the standard operating motive

no matter what brand is currently being peddled as 'change'.

[Xicano]

40. Exactly!

Damn! Right on the money again by ixion. Welcome to my buddy list.

:hi:



Peace,
Xicano

[ProSense]

4. Now playing: The "when will Obama learn that bipartisanship doesn't work" crowd

starring in "Bipartisanship: It's American as Apple Pie," co-starring the despicable RW immoral bastard Grover Norquist.

[leftstreet]

7. It works quite well for the Ruling Class. The rest of us should try it

That's the point of the OP

[ProSense]

9. Yeah, from now on let's all be bipartisan. Progressive activism with teabaggers, yay!

It's unbelievable that people can try to spin working with Grover Norquist as a good thing.

[leftstreet]

12. The Left could learn a few things from the 'Teabaggers'

They're vocal, they've mobilized, they're trying to do something

Likewise, the Teabaggers could learn a few things from the Left.

What's not to like about a coalition?

[ProSense]

14. You evidently already have. n/t

[XemaSab]

19. I have been to a few of their meetings

It's too bad I don't agree with 75% of what they stand for, because you're right: they're put together, motivated, inspired... In short, all the things that ordinary people on the left should be.

[LeftishBrit]

50. What is there not to like about a coalition?

Well, if you had contact with countries that have extreme forms of proportional representation, you might get your answer. In such countries, very small parties often have very disproportionate power over the minority governments. If the small parties are centrist, this may not be so bad; but often it can result in even governments with liberal/left parties at the head, being held hostage by small far-right parties which can enforce all sorts of nasty things on the country.

There is nothing to like about scapegoating and trampling on racial and social minorities.

There is nothing to like about trampling on poor people and regarding social safety nets as 'theft' (as Ron Paul does, along it seems with most Republicans).

There is nothing to like about fanatical opposition to all public services because 'all government is evil'.

The point is well taken that establishment Democrats often compromise far too much with people who hold such monstrous views. (Lie down with Blue Dogs and get up with Blue Fleas!) But should anti-establishment progressives also do so? Surely we should be seeking something BETTER than the current status quo - not joining hands with those who would drag us all back into the early 19th century?

I am not forming any alliance with the BNP, or even with the enthusiasts for the large-circulation RW pseudo-populist xenophobic tabloids, just because they are anti-New Labour!
And in this internet-connected world, our nations are very much in all this together. I hope we can all make real progress -rather than the reverse.

[Truth2Tell]

52. I think you are missing the distinction

between temporary single-issue coalitions, and broader governing coalitions. The concerns you express and the examples you site are all the result of broader coalitions, in which each Party must necessarily sacrifice some of their principles. This isn't necessary in deliberately temporary coalitions. Hamsher has had to accept none of Norquist's views on any other issue, nor need she give him anything at all.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Fair enough

As stated in another post, I was not referring here so much to this specific incident - which I suspect has become a bit of a storm in a teacup, though I admit to not being very knowledgeable aobut it - but to more general suggestions that come up from time to time that the far right are sometimes right; that 'paleoconservatives' are at least better than 'neoconservatives' (they may or may not be, but BOTH groups are scum!); that people like Ron Paul and even Pat Buchanan often have valid viewpoints; or that progressives and 'teabaggers' should join hands against the current establishment.

[ipaint]

8. Yes, using their own tactics against them.

Now you are catching on. Except your on the side that's wailing "no fair, you cheat."

[ProSense]

11. Cool. So from now on you can accept bipartisanship.

There should be no more complaints from so-called progressives. In fact, when the health care bill is negotiated, maybe they can throw in some things for DeMint.

[ipaint]

20. Used wisely. of course.

Used to undermine accountability, cover up crimes and promote corporatism no. Not only is that wrong it's not democracy.

See it's not about personalities or parties, it's about policy and how it ultimately distributes taxpayer wealth.

[ProSense]

23. Wisely?

Grover Norquist is playing Hamsher and her supporters for the big suckers they are.

[ipaint]

27. Your opinion. Of course if Obama hadn't given a blank check to Fannie and Freddie

with no oversight, congress or inspector general to protect the public interest then maybe things would be different.

[ProSense]

33. That's a

bogus RW argument. Any idiot who wants to embolden the RW, go right ahead.

The RW's attempt to blame CRA for the mortgage crisis is despicable

Their script goes something like this: ACORN, Fannie, and Freddie worked with the Democratic Congress to pressure banks to lend to "risky" borrowers, using the Community Reinvestment Act as their leverage.

Just don't pretend you're being brilliant.

[ipaint]

37. Well since I was talking about a blank check.

US removes $400b cap on aid to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
By J.W. Elphinstone
Associated Press / December 25, 2009

NEW YORK - The Treasury Department has removed the $400 billion financial cap on how much money it will provide to the beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a step taken to keep the companies from failing.

So far, taxpayers have shelled out $111 billion to the pair.

Yesterday, Treasury officials said the cap would be replaced with a flexible formula. The goal is to ensure the two agencies can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide vital liquidity to the mortgage industry by purchasing home loans from lenders and selling them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion, or about half of all mortgages.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/12/25/us_removes_400b_cap_on_aid_to_fannie_mae_freddie_mac/

No inspector general, you know the one that was investigating fannie, freddie and rahm, (obama demoted him thanks to a bill Rahm authored in 2008 and never replaced the position) no congressional oversight and so far FOIA for info on rahm's freddie board activities in the lead up to the housing bubble has been denied by obama.


Replace Bush for obama and rove for rahm and this place would be screaming foul with one united voice. But this is about personalities and "our side" so any investigation into why this is happening is forbidden should it turn up something unsavory.


Understanding that requires no brilliance just a few facts and the ability not to be hypocritical. Policy before personality/sides.

[Raineyb]

26. Funny, I don't see Jane Hamsher giving anything to Norquist to get his

cooperation which is a hell of a lot more than I can say about the party.

The party turns its back on its so called principles to make nice with right wingers and people applaud. Hamsher joins up with Norquist on an issue they happen to agree on without having to make any concessions and it's considered bad. The hypocrisy would be funny if the situation wasn't so serious.

[Capt_Nemo]

5. I suggest you check out what Norquist said about "Bi-partisanship"

And then you'll know what he ultimately intends to do with Jane Hamsher and her followers...

[ipaint]

13. That's funny, every single liberal male that has partnered with Norquist

is still in one piece. Not much faith in the abilities of a female? All of sudden the poor thing is going to be chewed up and spit out by the great dark and ominous male genius that is Norquist.

I swear you guys give him the majority of his power.

If your scared of your enemy good luck defeating him.

[Capt_Nemo]

16. Norquist advocated that republicans should practice "bi-partisanship" as "date rape"

... prepare to get raped by him...

[ipaint]

24. That's all you've got, get ready to be a victim. Raped no less.

No wonder we have been on the losing end of policies for 30 years.

A proven lousy long and short term strategy. Yuk.

[Capt_Nemo]

29. yeah, enabling the republicans back to power will improve things

sure...

[ipaint]

32. Well the administration needs to stop acting above the law. nt

[Capt_Nemo]

62. on acting above the law

see post #61

[FLAprogressive]

39. Like Wesley Clark....this is certainly sexism. nt

[Capt_Nemo]

60. That comment is realy illustrative of your intelectual skills

There is a world of difference between standing with someone (deeply involved in a notorious corruption case)
in a comitee, in a think tank, or in the board of an institution and
joining with the same person (deeply involved in a notorious corruption case) to target a person or an
administration with a fishing expedition, whose main purose would be to cast a shadow of
suspicion, truth be damned.

more details on post #61

[Truth2Tell]

17. Coalitions of convenience.

I'm sure the feeling with Jane is mutual. Nevertheless, you fail in politics if you refuse to form a coalition with someone on an issue because you disagree with them on others. Neither our DLC Party leadership nor our President let such considerations stop them from forming coalitions with folks who think the same about them as Norquist does about Hamsher. Why should the left unilaterally neuter ourselves of the use of fundamental political strategy?

[Capt_Nemo]

25. because Jane is doing it on his terms

I think it is a lousy strategy on her part.

if you're interested in my opinion you can check out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7325235

[ipaint]

30. Do you have a link to the list of Norquist's terms? nt

[Truth2Tell]

36. If you want to share your opinion in this thread

then share it. I'll try and discuss it respectfully.

But to just link to your own thread and say "see what I think here," is lame IMO.

[Capt_Nemo]

61. Well, here it is:

I have no problem with the "Kill the bill club"

there is a rational argument for it, although I disagree: this bill is crap but it represents a marginal
improvement over the status quo and killing it would be counterproductive in several ways, but I'm not
going into that discussion now.

What is realy pissing me off is that, inside the "Kill the bill club", a "Kill the administration"
faction is forming and that is stupid, self-defeating and unacceptable:

1. Pretending to "fight corruption" by teaming up with Grover Norquist - involved up to his neck
in the Abramoff case - is an absolute joke.

2. Putting Fanny & Freddy center stage in a supposed "corruption scandal" consolidates the right wing
narrative that they caused the financial crisis by lending to the poor and minorities.
Involving Rahm Emmanuel in this has the added "benefit" of forwarding the right wing talking point
that the Obama WH, and by extension the Democratic Party are a corrupt bunch, which bring us to
point 3.

3. There is a legitimate criticism of the Obama administration to be made of the fact that up to
now they've done nothing to investigate the dealings of the G. W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE, THE MOST
CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION IN RECENT US HISTORY. If Hamsher and her followers were serious
about fighting corruption they would be fighting for the DOJ to open up investigations
on the Bush administration... taking us to point 4.

4. I never liked Rahm Emmanuel, his ideas, or his tactics. I thought he was a bad choice for
chief of staff of the Obama administration. But going after him when none of the criminal
behaviour of the previous administration has been investigated, much less punished,
would be a travesty of justice and a political disaster for EVERYONE to the left of
Republican Party (Hamsher followers included). Want a permanent Republican majority? Well this is the ticket...

5. It is not clear at all that Obama will be any more compliant to your demands if you're
hellbent on giving him a bloody nose.

6. Blackmailing progressives (Bernie Sanders) into unquestioning support for your strategy is just plain wrong.
Why don't you devote your efforts instead to challenge conservative democrats?

7. Flirting with the Teabaggers... well, go singing kumbayah with them and you're lucky if they
don't shoot you dirty hippies in the face...

I could go on, but these are the main reasons why I think Hamsher is leading her followers into
the most stupid and counter-productive political strategy ever concieved in the left...

[Truth2Tell]

64. Thanks, some valid points in there.

However, if you believe, as I do, that Obama has surrounded himself with a cabal of corporate criminals and right-wing war-mongering Wall Street thugs - then "kill the administration" makes some sense. Of course "kill the administration" and replace it with Republicans doesn't make any sense. But destroy the layers of scum surrounding Obama and pray that he behaves like he actually gives a shit after it's gone... I could get behind that, or something like it.

[havocmom]

6. BRAVO!

When the DLC types go adopting the methods of the Newt and Rove, they show just how morally impoverished they have become.

Seeing it employed by a handful of posters here, arguing with any post that shows dissent from the corporation approved 'party line' would be amusing if it didn't reek so much.

[xchrom]

15. As a gay man -- populism is nothing I have

Any particular respect for.

I liked Jane hamesher up til Grover -- I liked Obama ok up til
Donnie.

[Truth2Tell]

22. I don't identify the term "populism"

with anything anti-gay, but maybe I've missed something. I consider populist to essentially mean anti-corporatist. If it has some widely understood further connotations, then I'd reconsider it's use. Can you explain?

[xchrom]

41. Nazi-ism or Italian facism or law and order movents

These can all be populist - we on the left have our own romantic versions

But these ugly things can be as well.
And rarely ate lgbtiq people seen as brothers and sisters
in even theist liberal movements.
Historically we lag.

[Truth2Tell]

43. Fair enough,

maybe a different term would make more sense. Though I hope you know none of those connotations were intended by my use of the word here.

[xchrom]

56. Oh no I know that. Nt

[Political Heretic]

18. I'll work with anyone who I agree with on an issue.

When it comes to the next issue, if we stand in disagreement, then I won't work with them.

It's pretty simple.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FLAprogressive]

31. This is the point I was trying to make earlier in the week. the shills, however, will still shill.

[Donnachaidh]

34. no kidding -- I get the impression that some of them

are quite proficient in one-handed typing. Shills and their thrills :rofl:

[EFerrari]

35. You bet! Double Standards R Us!

[amborin]

38. Well Said! K&R

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. There's a difference between Ron Paul and Grover Norquist.

Ron Paul is the proverbial "broken clock" that's right two times a day. In his case, the two times are that 1) Interventionist foreign policy sucks and 2) The Federal Reserve is a criminal private banking system that should have nothing to do with controlling the US economy.

But what common ground can we find with Grover the unfriendly monster? Rahm Emanuel is a douchebag piece of shit who should be investigated? Sure, of course he is. But why should those investigations come from a tool who wants to literally drown the Federal government in a bathtub.

Grover Norquist and Rahm Emanuel probably have a lot more in common with each other than we do with either one of them. They both love corporatism and hate Liberals, for example.

[Truth2Tell]

46. Paul would also like to use that same bathtub

for the same reason. One could fairly ask your exact same question... "why should those wars be ended by a tool who wants to literally drown the Federal government in a bathtub."

Norquist's clock appears to to right on Emanuel and HCR. Doesn't mean he's not scum, just that a coalition of convenience - as effective politics necessitates - might make sense on those issues. Such limited coalitions are invaluable political tools and shouldn't be left just for use by the corporate faction of our Party.

[Vinnie From Indy]

59. +1

"Grover Norquist and Rahm Emanuel probably have a lot more in common with each other than we do with either one of them. They both love corporatism and hate Liberals, for example. "

Undeniable!

Cheers!

[LeftishBrit]

45. How about all such things being bad?

Blair getting together with Bush = lying down with dogs.

Democrats watering down the health bill in order to appease Republicans = lying down with dogs (no wonder RW Dems call themselves Blue Dogs!)

Progressives treating Ron Paul as an ally = lying down with dogs.

Anti-war campaigners accepting the views of xenophobic-isolationists as valid because they too oppose the war = lying down with dogs.

Left-wing opponents of New Labour regarding the Daily Mail and similar RW hate-tabloids as valid sources because they also oppose New Labour = lying down with dogs.

Sometimes in the real world it may be necessary to compromise with 'bad guys' to get anything done at all. You may have to negotiate with warmongers and terrorists on all sides in order to achieve a peace agreement (cf Northern Ireland). You cannot vet everyone at the anti-war demo for their views and throw out all who may be anti-war for the wrong reasons. And you may have to compromise with your political opponents to get any bill passed at all - as often happens in certain Europaean countries with proportional representation leading to weak minority governments (though to this outsider it does seem as though 60 Democrats have been giving an awful lot to 40 Republicans, who haven't been compromising at all).

But I think there is a difference between accepting some compromises out of necessity, and considering that the views of far-right-wingers may be valid, or that the distinction between right and left is an artificial construct. It is one thing to negotiate with right-wingers on a particular issue. It is another to argue that because the issue is important, everything else becomes unimportant, and that for example, racism and xenophobia, oppression of minorities, or denying benefits to poor people are reasonable prices to pay for solidarity on the one issue.

I have encountered this view that 'the left don't have the monopoly on the truth; sometimes the far right have a valid viewpoint' BOTH from centrists AND from progressives - and I think it is incredibly dangerous from either. I don't 'Godwinize' about most things, but I think that the history of Fascism in the 1930s *is* relevant here. Fascism was enabled both by conservatives and centrists who thought that fascists were an ally against communism, and by some frustrated populists who thought that any movement that opposed the status quo was better than none.

If some of us are more indignant when it comes from progressives, perhaps it is simply that we expect more in terms of principled stands from progressives.

In any case, I think that the main point to be recognized is that far-right viewpoints are invariably dangerous and invalid and wrong - and if there are some occasions where temporary compromises or alliances on a specific issue are unavoidable, it STILL doesn't make the right-wing viewpoints acceptable or ones that we should share in any way.

[Truth2Tell]

47. I don't see Hamsher or anyone else

suggesting that Norquist's views on other issues are valid or right.

[LeftishBrit]

53. I'm not referring just to Hamsher/Norquist...

I have come across people saying from time to time:

that the 'RW is sometimes right/telling the truth and the LW/liberals hold no monopoly on the truth/love of liberty' - stated several times, in only slightly different words, by people who appear to be centrists *and* by people who appear to be anti-establishment leftists;

that 'right and left are just labels'

that Pat Buchanan is right frequently, or even 'more often than not'

that Ron Paul would be a better president than most Democrats

that 'teabaggers' should not be 'demonized' and have some valid points

that far-right sources are sometimes valuable sources of 'truths' that are being concealed by the 'corporate media' (not that I have much faith in the latter, but I would NEVER trust a far-right source!)

I am not really, on these threads, talking about Hamsher/Norquist - which is not an issue I truly know much about; unlike many American political issues, it's not getting any traction outside the USA. However, my point is really that some people (both on the centre and the left) *do* sometimes argue for the validity of far-right people and sources, or for the view that opposing the current establishment is so important that the issue of (e.g.) opposing racism or opposing the abolition of taxes and benefits is of secondary importance. And it is this viewpoint, which hardly originated with Hamsher (whether she even has the view or not, which I think is very dangerous in all its forms.

[mmonk]

48. I think you've nailed it.

[WeDidIt]

51. Stawman building = stupidity

Nothing at all corporatist about Obama, other than a bunch of idiots calling Obama a corporatist.

[Truth2Tell]

63. I can't imagine what a politician would have to do

for you to consider them a corporatist. Please don't tell me you think Obama is a socialist?