Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
December 31, 2007 7:38 AM
Gauging the Fear Inside the Palace Walls
A pretty reliable gauge of Establishment fear is how far away from factual reality its chief spokesmen stray at election time. With economic populism now driving both the Democratic and Republican presidential contests, professional political pontificators in Washington are attacking candidates for being crazed and angry - when in fact their own rhetoric shows it is the pundits who are the angriest of all. An uprising is on - one against the hostile takeover of our government by Big Money interests. And inside the walls of the Washington palace, the elite are freaking out.
Here's Time Magazine's Joe Klein, claiming that presidential candidates who attack NAFTA are "wildly irresponsible on trade":
"NAFTA has been a wash, creating as many jobs as have been lost."
According to government data, NAFTA has cost America at least 1 million jobs. This is not new information - nor is it even much debated among economists on either side of the trade debate. But because it offends the Washington Consensus in support of lobbyist-written trade policies and because the realities of trade are finally taking center stage in the presidential primaries, Klein - a loyal Establishment soldier - has taken to the ramparts to lie.
Klein's silliness is eclipsed only by Stu Rothenberg - who reliably hands us the old adage that any candidates challenging the status quo will destroy America. Here's his take today:
"[John Edwards] is also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election...His approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans...Given the North Carolina Democrat's rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart - even further apart than Bush has torn it."
Rothenberg's entire career is predicated on his supposed ability to analyze polling data - which is stunning in juxtaposition to his statements today. After all, polls show Edwards performing the best of any Democrat against any Republican presidential candidate. More importantly, polls also show the vast majority of the country - including Republicans - behind his populist economic positions.
For instance, Edwards has staked his candidacy on guaranteeing health care to every American and on raising the minimum wage - two positions the majority of Americans - and a huge chunk of Republicans - strong support. As I noted in a 2005 Washington Post article, a 2005 public opinion survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed that about half the GOP's core voters support the "government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes" and an astounding three-quarters support an increase in the minimum wage. Pew recently updated these numbers to show that 4 in 10 Republican voters nationally "favor universal health coverage, even if it means higher taxes."
Trade? Same thing. Edwards has been demanding an end to Washington's lobbyist-written, job-killing trade agenda - a demand that the majority of Americans (and Republicans) support. The Wall Street Journal was only the most recent publication to note this fact. "By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy," the Journal noted, adding that voters in both parties want our trade policies reformed.
Knowing these number, it is difficult to understand how a professional poll-watcher like Rothenberg could say that an economic populist platform "is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans." It is even more difficult to understand when you consider that the leading Republican candidate right now is Mike Huckabee - a guy being grossly outspent but who is nonetheless surging among Republican voters on the strength of his campaign's economic populist themes. In short, all of the actual facts point to exactly the opposite of Rothenberg's conclusions: That power-challenging economic populism is exciting most voters, including most middle class Americans and many Republicans.
But, then, the rhetoric from the Kleins and Rothenbergs is less surprising when you consider how the rise of economic populism fundamentally indicts both the system they have long defended and, more personally, their individual relevance as supposed political oracles.
Most Washington pundits have reached their positions by defending the system they cover as fundamentally good. Doing that, in their minds, validates their own value and worth - because if they acknowledge that the system is corrupt, it means they are admitting that their work bolstering that system is corrupt, too (which, of course, it is).
And so elite reaction to the populist uprising is swift. As respected pollsters tell us that "if Americans have ever been angrier with the state of the country, we have not witnessed it," Washington pundits tell us candidates representing that anger are doomed. These pundits desperately claim that candidates' support for majority positions will somehow "rip the nation apart," and that such candidates who take up the populist mantle are "wildly irresponsible" for doing so.
Sadly, the caucuses and primaries look like only the opening act of a more full-scale Establishment backlash against America's populist tide. A group of has-been politicians are pushing Wall Street billionaire Mike Bloomberg to run as an independent if these has-been politicians do not approve of the nominees of both parties. We are told that Bloomberg is the one who can restore "unity" and "bipartisanship" in the face of the uprising. That the populism represented in both parties' primaries right now is supported by both Republican and Democratic voters has somehow escaped these supposed crusaders for "bipartisanship."
The fledgling Bloomberg candidacy says all you need to know about the difference between actual bipartisanship in America, and Washington bipartisanship. A cursory glance at the New York mayor's positions show an egomaniac wholly out of touch with the country on issues from the Iraq War, to civil liberties to economic policies. But because he is a Wall Street billionaire with the corresponding respect and love of Big Money, he is promoted as a deity by Washington.
"[A Bloomberg candidacy would] be intended as punishment meted out by the Establishment," writes Salon's Glenn Greenwald. "That, more than anything, seems to be the oh-so-noble and trans-partisan purpose...To find a way to stifle the populist anger at our political establishment after 8 years of unrestrained Bush-Cheney devastation."Still, on this New Years Eve, I remain an eternal optimist. A few weeks ago I finished up my new book, entitled "The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington" (due out in the Spring of 2008). I spent a year reporting firsthand from the trenches of the populist movement that I have been a part of for the last decade - an uprising against the hostile takeover of our government that I documented in my first book.
In my reporting over the last year I learned that things are - finally - starting to change. The Joe Kleins, Stu Rothenbergs and Mike Bloombergs still have influence, because they have lots of money behind them. But an uprising is on - one that has already impacted the 2008 presidential race, and one that will continue to seethe well past the upcoming caucuses and primaries. It is that simple fact that truly frightens the defenders of the status quo who have gotten used to the good life inside the palace walls.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
How many years will it be before the hostile takeover by Big Money actually meets its end? Last I checked, they're still winning and getting stronger. And is it just me or is the Establishment of both parties cooperating with Corporate America and the Military Industrial Complex to distract voters with DUMBSHOWS in another election year all the while doing their SECRET terror plans against us?
By the way, here's what I mean by dumbshow and it sure as hell fits perfectly with kabuki dances !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbshow
Excellent analysis.
People are getting tired of the same old crap being sold to them. The fact that both Huckabee and Edwards who have nowhere near the funds of the corporate owned front runners of their respective parties can poll neck and neck with Wallstreet's chosen ones points it out.
Also the comments by Rothenburg and Klein show how deeply the establishment is invested in the status quo candidates. The problem is though the torrent of bullshit coming from the establishment candidates flies in the face of the economic reality of most working class people.
In regards to running Richie McRich(aka: Bloomberg) to stop a potential Edwards or Huckabee sweep. If either does win the nomination, expect the GOP and corporate wing of the Democratic party to get behind a Bloomberg run. All Bloomberg needs to do is get enough votes to stop either Edwards or Huckabee from winning.
Then again Bloomberg's success depends on him managing to bullshit people that are no longer listening to the corporate approved GOP and Democratic candidates. A rather tough group to win over considering he's a east coast brahmin who exudes a aristocratic manner.
Of the two men, Huckabee is the bigger threat. If he does well, it could usher in a populist wave of GOP candidates, something WallStreet fears. A semi-populist GOP could also cripple a social issues oriented Democratic party as well.
David, can't wait to read your new book!
As far as Bloombie goes, I think he would have a very hard time gaining the traction that Perot or even Nader had. I could see him trying to replicate Lieberman's 2006 run in CT, but I don't see how he could be successful nationally. I guess the only hope for the GOP is Bloomberg would play a spoiler role if it's a matchup of Edwards the economic populist versus Romney the corporate drone. But I think Edwards or any other Democrat should be able to neutralize Bloombie or a Unity type of ticket, as long as they have a contingency plan ahead of time. The dynamic could really diverge depending on whether it's Romney, Giuliani, Huck or someone else on the ticket...
We don't need another Republican Lite candidate. We don't need another spoiler third part, especially one that wants to be "bipartisan."
Republicans in charge don't know what bipartisan means. They think it means you agree with me or nothing gets done.
We need a people's revolution! Out with the old and in with the ones who really care about us and our country.
I suspected from the moment I heard about Bloomberg that he was being staged to be a "Perot Thwarter".
The Corporatists knew they dodged a bullet in '92, and they knew that they needed to usurp the next populist uprising. Polls can easily tell when one is coming, and we're right in the middle of one now.
If the nominees are Hillary vs. Gulliani, Romney, or Huckabee, then Bloomberg and Hagel can be presented as the "reasonable", experienced, "moderate", bi-partisans, just innocently running to right this listing ship.
But they will be wolves in sheep's clothing, because Bloomberg, at least, is a Corporatist, not a populist.
It will be really tough to explain their duplicity to the electorate, however, as starved for an alternative to the current corrupt madness as we are.
Their ploy could work.
That would keep us in Iraq, and further tighten the Corporatist chokehold on our democracy.
It should be noted that no other Democratic candidate alienates the middle like Hillary does, so a Hillary nomination may be required for Bloomberg to run. If Edwards were to win the nomination, he could easily pull all the Independents and have a majority without even running a campaign.
I've been pounding the pulpit over at Huffpost that a Hillary win will be death for the Democratic party, worse than George W. was for the Republicans.
We need to get the word out that Hillary is The Borg Queen.
Just listen to her Drones:
"Resistance is Futile... You will be assimilated."
An uprising is on the rise ?!?!? PFFFTTT !!! LOL !!! First off, Edwards and Huckabee are NOT populists or they wouldn't be associating with the CORRUPT Democratic and Republican parties respectively but instead run as INDEPENDENTS. As for Bloomberg running as an "Independent", that's as ABUSIVE as LIEberNAZI running as an "Independent" when both of those motherfuckers are insider aristocrats and both give us working class in the northeast a bad rap ! SpankinRankin's correct that these supposed uprisings are nothing but fake outrages being used to somehow delude voters into thinking that there is any change for the better coming when in fact it's just more of the same or change for the WORSE. We need to get beyond these two parties and give 3rd parties a chance. Except for Libertarians, most don't go out of their ways to kiss Wall Street's ASS.
The reason why no one breaks away from their prospective party and runs as independent because its political suicide.
For starters any candidate would face obstacles that are nearly insurmountable, such as:
1)A media blackout like what Edwards is currently facing.
2)A joint effort by both parties to derail any serious 3rd party attempt on the WhiteHouse. And both parties have colluded in the past when mavericks in their respective parties went to far. They would do far worse to any foreign element.
3)The MSM failing to derail a independent by silence would then resort to smearing him.
4)Finally if it looked like the independent would win, both parties would come out and state they would not work with the independent should he win. Perot was told as much by both Democrats and Repugs should he be elected.
Jesse Ventura suffered a similar fate when he beat the two establishment clowns in his run for governor. Both parties colluded and did whatever they wanted.
This is why people like Bernie Sanders don't run. He's smart enough to know what would happen.
Put even simpler, the current two party oligarchic duopoly doesn't like outsiders meddling in their cozy racket.
If you want real change you need several things IMO.
1) Elect more independents to the House and Senate. Enough to alter the power dynamics there.
2) Work to dis-empower both parties. Both are in the process of dying now but the process can and should be speeded up so as to wreck the oligarchic grip on our country.
3)Support open primaries where anybody can vote. This is like garlic to a vampire. Both parties loath this practice because it takes the selection of candidates out of the hands of insiders and mindless party hacks.
Ron Paul is the real mover and shaker in this election cycle. The fear is almost palpable. He would actually uphold the rule of law, stop torture, end the war crimes, and veto the sale of our children into slavery.
DMR is out, and Obama is the golden boy. All I can say is that I intend to vote Republican in the general and then never again. Iowa and NH have no business picking our candidate. The process is rigged. I have said from day one, that it has already been decided and Hillary will be the next President. This whole bull shit deal with Obama and Iowa is nothing more than drama for the story leading to the final chapter which has already been written. We are a free democracy just like I'm a martian. I give it up, David. I won't be used anymore.
If Edwards is the nominee he gets my vote. If Obama or Hillary gets the nod, I start buying lots of gold and silver and stay home on election day. Because Hillary and Obama will continue the destructive economic and foreign policies started by Bush.
"Ron Paul is the real mover and shaker in this election cycle." - aminorex
True, and he's the only one in Washington to bring up bills to legalize and allow into the markets INDUSTRIAL HEMP. Of course, there are plenty of issues with Paul that I can't stand.
Well, looks like Kucinich is "feeling" it and therefore does the unthinkable task of supporting Obama, the same fucker who supported more NAFTAs ! To hell with both parties !
Edwards is consistently tagged "anti-corporate" by centrist (i.e., shifted way to the right)news outlets like NPR and Washington Post. And don't forget "some think he (like Huckabee) is too 'strident'."
This is perfectly analogous to the misuse of the term "antiglobalization" to refer to concerns with the corporate-statist manipulation and exploitation of the inevitably and increasingly interconnected global economy.
Join the Discussion