Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/151108/why_the_democratic_party_has_abandoned_the_middle_class_in_favor_of_the_rich/

In 2008, a liberal Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically since the mid-'70s—far more in the US than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.

Second, American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.

More at the link --

[kentuck]

1. Eye-opening!

Wow!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

2. Um, there are MORE of us than there are of them....

...Are they fucking bananas?!

[Ed Suspicious]

3. ... but "them" have more influence on us.

Money is speech, says SCOTUS. They have more money and a louder voice.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

15. SCOTUS is stacked with a few people who need to be dis-fucking-barred...

...like Clarence Thomas. Fucking pervert, , corporate whore douchwad as he is known around my house.
Duckie

[Hannah Bell]

36. there are always more serfs than lords. so what?

[sufrommich]

4. That was an excellent article.I do believe the fall of private

sector unions has caused the tidal wave of right wing politics to roll through with very little opposition. The problem is, as the article states, the odds of ever seeing that kind of union power again is slim to none. k&r.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

12. I agree

Mr. Obama is far from being a liberal.
Welcome to DU! :toast:

[TheKentuckian]

6. It is amazing that some actually think this isn't true or know it is true and still wish to bury it.

Recced to zero or less.

[postulater]

7. Helpful analysis.

Maybe the internet is replacing the union halls of old and we can unite within a different sort of institution.

[Kaleko]

41. That is my feeling too.

America has a chance to leave behind the industrial age and enter the information age. By using the tools that instant connectivity provides, progressives can innovate new ways of coming together as a powerful political force. My guess is that this class struggle will gain momentum worldwide in the coming years.

[tonybgood]

48. It only takes a power outage to silence the internet.

This may be the information age, but the information is controlled by the wealthy who need only kill the power to control the information.

[postulater]

53. But a power outage would silence FoxNews too.

Then even the comfortably numb would be pissed too.

[postulater]

55. Good point.

The real change that is happening has less to do with political parties and even less to do with nations.

Corporations have gone global. Resistance will too.

Look at how Egypt sent pizza to Madison.

We're all in this together.

[hollowdweller]

8. This is true but I think we are starting to see a change.

The media are starting to pick up the buzz about income inequality just like this article.

Obama mentioned it.

The fact that taxes for the rich have dropped off so much and the effect on the deficit is starting to get mentioned.

The only thing I see that needs changed is when they talk about the deficit on the news 90% of the time then they go on to mention "cuts needed" but don't mention raising taxes on the rich as an option.

Worldwide people are getting pissed off. There is enough money being made even now to give them healthcare, retirement security and a decent wage but the unequal distribution is preventing it.

Both 2010 and 2012 the voters will reject the status quo. That will get their attention more.

2 years ago you did not hear the president or congress talk about income inequality.

[gop_equals_taliban]

10. Citizens United

is going to prove you and everyone else WRONG.

Our votes no longer will matter.

Back in the day the Colonists had a problem with undue corporate influence in Government, the company was the Dutch East India Company, today it is more than 1 company causing problems.

It is going to take more than a vote to change things now.

[enough]

9. Having lived through the 40-year period this article discusses, I think it's well worth reading.

The person who un-recced it before my rec apparently doesn't think so.

It's a long article. Read the whole thing.

[Raksha]

62. Anyone who lived through that 40-year period understands the truth and relevance of this article.

Don't know why anyone would un-rec it.

[H2O Man]

11. recommended

thanks

[hfojvt]

70. wow, 122 recs

I can remember back in February when I posted the EXACT same article http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=487527 and I got a whole three replies.

Probably my fault. I should have repackaged it with a title that bashes the Democratic Party.

Except that the article noted that labor gave up on McGovern before the Democratic Party gave up on labor. Labor, however, was sort of a victim of its own success. Many of those union workers, with good jobs putting them in the top 40% of household income, really didn't care that much about the rest of the working class and were more than happy to vote for Reagan who promised them a big tax cut.

[xchrom]

13. recommend

[DCBob]

14. Several problems with this article..

-- Obama is not a "liberal".
-- Our "huge" majorities included lots of conservative Dems who voted with Repubs.
-- The GOP was revived by RW media lies and exaggerations.
-- Stabilizing the economy required stabilizing Wall Street.
-- We are leaving Iraq and making progress in Afghanistan.

And most importantly, Democrats are at least trying to help the middle-class.. Republicans are simply trying to manipulate and screw them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. The fact that we have ANY Dems who vote with the Republicans is

a huge problem. A REAL leader would whip them into shape with the threat of no funding and no campaign support. LBJ and Truman knew how to deal. Obama either caves in constantly out of insecurity or is actually a Blue Dog himself.

--The Dems slept through the rise of right-wing media, even though it was out in the open and plain for anyone to see and hear.

--I'm not enough of an economist to know whether stabilizing the economy absolutely required stabilizing Wall Street, but it absolutely did not require the Wall Street robber barons keeping their bonuses and their jobs and even, in some cases, being appointed to White House or Cabinet positions. (Meanwhile, the auto workers were required to accept reduced wages and benefits.)

--"Leaving" Iraq with lots of mercenaries in place and fighting in Afghanistan with no firm definition of "progress" (the definition keeps changing)

-- Trying to help the middle class? Thanks to letting the Blue Dogs run things, many of the "reforms" are meant not so much to help the middle class as to pretend to help the middle class while preventing big business from being offended: no public option in the health care bill, no anti-usury provisions in the credit reform bill.

[Lorien]

30. +1.

:thumbsup:

[Art_from_Ark]

59. +1

Once again, you hit the nail on the head.

[Hannah Bell]

37. "at least trying" = pretending to try.

[SharksBreath]

39. Obama ran on progressive policies.

Then reached across the aisle to make sure they never saw the day of light with his co-conspirator Harry Reid.

Far as the entire Dem Congress.

What happened to all those investigations.

When Obama said let's look forward instead of backward I knew we were screwed.

Same for Pelosi not wanting to impeach Bush.

There all full of it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. You do realize that your second point is completely at odds with

your "most importantly" point, don't you?

SOME Democrats are trying to help the middle class, but most have completely bought into the 'new democrat' 'third way' crap which killed the unions in the first place. They do NOT listen to or care about the middle or lower classes - only the business & monied class.

The republicans have always been against us, but it is the fucking DLC that will destroy us.

[DCBob]

56. So again we hear Democrats are worse than Republicans...

some of you people have no clue whatsoever.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. You need to get a clue.

Who was more hated in the American Revolution? General Gage, whose actions kicked off the war? Or Benedict Arnold, who betrayed those he was supposed to support?

We EXPECT the Republicans to be against us. To counter them we turn to Democrats, only to find out they are ALSO against us.

Fucking blue dogs do NOT have our backs - but because they are supposedly on our side we have to support them even when they do exactly what our opponants do.

Fuck that.

[DCBob]

67. Paranoia much? Most Democrats are NOT against you..

If they were, we might as well just give it up.. because then we have zero hope of ever fixing this country.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. Read what I fucking wrote. Most Democrats are not blue dogs.

Most Democrats are not fucking DLC.

Most Democrats voted for the progressive programs that Candidate Obama espoused on the campaign trail.

Then he turned to 'not most' Democrats to look after the banksters, excuse torture, betray unions, privatize public education, prosecute medical marijuana, entrench the health insurance industry...

And coming soon, privatizing Social Security and 'reforming' medicare.

All of which MOST Democrats oppose.

Somebody ain't listening to most Democrats.

[DCBob]

76. I read your "fucking" post..

You wrote: "We EXPECT the Republicans to be against us. To counter them we turn to Democrats, only to find out they are ALSO against us."

I repeat, most Democrats are NOT against "us"... including our President.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. Then you are not paying attention. nt

[inna]

66. "-- Stabilizing the economy required stabilizing Wall Street." - bullshit.

"-- We are leaving Iraq and making progress in Afghanistan." - no, we are not.

[DCBob]

77. Bullshit on your bullshit.

yes we are.

[Joe Fields]

16. And all of this is a surprise to you?

Where have you been these last 20 years?

[blindpig]

18. Fuck the middle class

All but the upper echelon of that ephemeral designation are working class, by their deprivation the capitalist class serves notice that we are returning to an arrangement of 'capitalist normalcy'.

Maybe once we discard that bogus moniker we can find the solidarity to resist these bastards.

[socialist_n_TN]

20. True. "Middle Class" is a made up designation

in order to divide the working class from each other. Only a small tip of the "middle class" is part of the exploiters.

[russspeakeasy]

32. Eventually the "new middle class" will be any family that has

housing of some type and a vehicle of some vintage. Then the politicians can say that 75% of all people in the U.S. are in the middle class. Upper middle class will be designated by having 2 televisions in their home. Just keep lowering the expectations and soon we will all be "rich".

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. With that housing and that vehicle not being one and the same, that is. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

58. And that's another problem with the designation

of "middle class". It's like a DLCer claiming to be "left". It's a RELATIVE designation. Sure, the DLCer is "left" compared to where the political center has been dragged by triangulation, but compared to history, they're right wingers.

"Middle class" means whatever the PTB SAYS it does whereas working class, although still somewhat nebulous, has a more definitive, objective meaning than "middle class".

[russspeakeasy]

68. Exactly.

[hfojvt]

71. the middle class tends to be upwardly defined anyway

All those households making between $80,000 and $250,000 are considered by Obama and many Democratic politicians to be "middle class". During the debates, it was suggested to raise the FICA taxes on people making over $104,000 a year and Richardson immediately objected - "that would be a tax increase on the middle class" and Hillary applauded too. Candidate Hillary started calling that a "billion dollar tax increase on the middle class" and I attacked her for that on DU http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/65 and not too much after that Obama swatted her down in a debate, using the same basic facts.

But the "middle" tends to be the 60th to 90th percentile. Meaning that those below 60% can go hang, because it is the middle class that matters.

But your distinction is ridiculous too, like Bill Self and My self are both "working class" because we both live on wages. Bill gets $3 million a year, and I get $14,000, but we are both working class. Okay, maybe Self was a bad example, what with his ten year contract. What about my cousin Keno Davis? Sure, he made millions over the last few years, but he just got fired, and at some point he will need another job.

[Octafish]

19. Candidate Obama took counsel from Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman.

President-Elect Obama dumped them and hired Tim Geithner and kept Ben Bernanke.

Gee. Shoulda known something wasn't quite "left."

K&R and thanks for a great article and thread, Donnachaidh.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. oligarchy: form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class

1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

[Kurovski]

54. -and there it is. (nt)

[JonLP24]

22. K&R

[PufPuf23]

23. Thanks kr

[LetTimmySmoke]

24. I can answer that question in 3 words.

Follow the money

[MrMickeysMom]

40. and I can respond in ONE...

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!

[slay]

25. K&R

MANY of us are extremely unhappy with the obviously high level of corruption within the Democratic Party these days. It's is a serious and severe problem.

[Odin2005]

26. First, as BlindPig mentioned, there is objectively no such thing as the "middle class".

It's a label that was originally meant simply as a convenient label for professional occupations like Medicine and Law along with college professors and small business owners. The current usage is a bastardization of the term from working-class people that did not want to think of themselves as working class.

Secondly, Obama is not a Liberal, except in the European sense as "Pro-Capitalist"

Thirdly, the reason a lot of working class people vote for the Pukes on social issues is BECAUSE them Democratic Party has abandoned them.


The closest analogy with our situation is Rome in 100BC, with Obama as Gaius Marius. At rome at this time the aristocrats were forcing free-holding farmers off their lands and turning that land into slave-worked agribusinesses. The dispossessed farmers became the urban unemployed Proletarii. The urban poor came to support politicians with private armies, like Marius and Caesar, to crush the aristocracy.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Great article altho a lot of it is already widely known. I recommend

DUers take the time, though, to read the full article for the argument favoring labor advocacy.

K&R

[Puregonzo1188]

28. The Democrats have not abandoned the middle-class for the rich.

The rich have always had two parties in this country.

It's why Groover Cleaveland a Democratic President used the military smash America's first national labor strike. It's why Woodrow Wilson put Eugene Debs and the Industrial Workers of the World in jail.

It's always been the rich's country--this isn't new.

[Scruffy1]

46. Exactly

[Taverner]

29. Silly voters, money is for the rich

Not us lowly worker ants

We only get debt

[tavalon]

31. This is why I'm not a Democrat anymore

I didn't leave them, they left me. I still believe in the party platform.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. But SARAH PALIN!!! SARAH PALIN!!! SARA PALIN!!!

See, it's easy to get Democrats to vote for fringe-right elected "Democrats" - just remind them that the other guys suck a bit more.

"Who the &*$% else 'ya gonna vote for, chumps?! Now 'scuse me while I appoint a bipartisan commission designed to recommend savage cuts in Social Security, you &%^#heads."

We need to start firing elected Democrats who turn hard right once elected. We may lose a few rounds to Republicans in the process, but look where 18+ years of triangulation has gotten us. It has to stop.

[myrna minx]

34. K&R n.t

[DeSwiss]

35. Which is why I believe we have to:

http://www.kickthemallout.com/

K&R

[cali]

43. Bernie Sandeers is my Senator. He's a career politician

no way I want him gone. Peter Welch is my rep. He's a career politician too (though only elected to the House in 2006), no way I want him gone.

[OwnedByFerrets]

38. Public financing of political campaigns with a cap.

I think that would fix most of that problem.

[moondust]

49. +1

Big money has utterly corrupted the U.S. political system, probably beyond salvation in the age of Citizens United. Long, expensive, up-close-and-personal election campaigns are completely unnecessary as many other countries have proved again and again. I wonder how many DUers needed to see Bernie Sanders live at a campaign rally to convince them that he's got it? Close to zero?

[Raksha]

64. Everyone says this, but the "Catch-22" is that we will NEVER get public financing

while the party with two right wings controls Congress. They won't vote to end the corporate lobbyist gravy train in a million years, regardless of which party has the majority at any given time.

[socialist_n_TN]

69. Which is why some of us don't see any hope of

lasting reform from within the system.

[OwnedByFerrets]

74. +1

[Selatius]

79. You need a constitutional amendment implementing a robust public financing mechanism.

We're basically talking about a robust "Public Option" to the regular notion of elections run largely on private cash. It'll take a monumental amount of political force to make politicians enact this reform. We're talking of the kind of force you're seeing in countries like Egypt or Syria right now, where people are taking to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, despite the bullets and mounting body count.

[OwnedByFerrets]

73. Oh, I agree 100%. It would, however, probably fix the problem.

[Raine]

42. This explains what has become pretty obvious

for awhile now. :-(

[Meeker Morgan]

47. 'Twas ever thus,in the lesser-of-two-evils party. n/t

[RBInMaine]

50. Oh, nice radical headline, "abandoned the middle class...". Dems are FIGHTING for them !!

Who is FIGHTING against Voucher-Care? Democrats! Who got the Affordable Care Act? Democrats! Who got the Fair Pay Act? Democrats! Who expanded SCHIP? Democrats! Who is FIGHTING the Ryan budget? Democrats! Who saved the American auto industry? Democrats! Who is FIGHTING the destruction of collective bargaining rights?
Democrats! And it goes on, and on, and on. Nice try. But what else do you expect from the fringe.

[NorthCarolina]

51. ...

[Chan790]

52. Cherry, Orange or Grape?

Ohhhh yeah!!

(Whose going to use all that as bargaining chips for their personal enrichment and give the GOP whatever it wants? C'mon, be brave and answer that question too.)

[BlueIris]

57. Diebold and the CIA means they don't have to care.

I think it's less about paying their campaign bills, and more about trying to get shot in the head. Also, knowing that fixed elections mean the corporations and the media (read: intelligence community) will give "victories" to the candidates who do as they're told, regardless of what the people want.

[TransitJohn]

60. Because they have all the money, duh.

It's not rocket science.

[Raksha]

61. Too late to recommend, but kicking anyway.

I'm an early-vintage Baby Boomer and I just turned 65 a few months ago. I wish I could recommend this, because it's the best article I've read in a long time that makes sense out of what I observed happening in the Sixties and afterwards. I could not understand of course what the long-term consequences would be, except with 20/20 hindsight--just like many others my age, I guess.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Imho, it began with Clinton and "The Third Way."

The whole triangulation scheme was devised to try and combat the 3:1 fundraising ratio the Republicans had over the Democrats. Essentially, they made a bargain with the devil to relinquish the traditional Democratic Party principles for larger campaign coffers. It worked well for Wall Street but the U.S. Constitution and We The People were/are sold out in the process.

[butterfly77]

72. ..