Skip to main content

Corporatist Democrats are upset they don't have their own tea party, so they're inventing one

Apparently not learning zip from the experience of the GOP dealing (or not dealing) with its own spawn, corporatist Democrats (specifically including Delaware Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons) seem intent on creating a Moderate/Progressive(Populist) division in their own ranks so they can go back to losing elections again:

A think tank with ties to Sens. Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware is under fire from some Democrats for a recent op-ed that describes entitlement policies pushed by “left-wing populists” as “disastrous” for the party. 
The Dec. 3 Wall Street Journal op-ed by the Democratic centrist group Third Way assails economic populism and targets a plan by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to expand Social Security benefits for all seniors as “exhibit A of this populist political and economic fantasy.”
But let's recall, however, that the elite leadership cadre of the Delaware's Democratic Party suffers no progressives or populists among its ranks.  You either have to be a corporatist (Markell, Carper, Coons, Carney) or corrupt (Stewart, Flowers, Jones-Potter) to be a statewide leader in today's Democratic Party.

There are some very good people trying to carry the Progressive banner in the General Assembly (Paul Baumbach, Bryan Townsend, John Kowalko), but the reality is that they're pretty much tokens in the corporate-financed statewide Democratic Party machine.

That's why you have to keep remembering that the definition of a Democrat in Delaware is a Republican who favors marriage equality.

(And if you want to know where all those Mike Castle Republicans went, you now have your answer:  they infiltrated the Democratic Party.  Don't believe me?  Then riddle me this:  exactly how many votes has John Carney made in nearly two full terms in the House wherein Mike Castle would have voted differently?  You don't need enough fingers to go to the other hand.  The same, ironically, could be said about Tom Carper and Bill Roth.)

Comments

Anonymous said…
This piece was intriguing for it made me see things in a bigger frame than just political parties... I will probably ponder this over the weekend, but I just glimpsed that ongoing struggle is between power versus populism, and political parties are interchangeable. Hence, since those who think they are the elite of Delaware have no Republicans, they now have Democrats who are now, no different than those previously who had their "slots"

Power usually wins, but not always... But this goes far back into the makeup of our species and probably, is the single driver of human history.

For example. There is huge difference in how DC or NY Security reacts to Demonstrations by those supporting the status quo of those at the top ie. Tea Party .. and those who gather to complain over policies the status quo is undertaking....Occupy. How many riot police, helicopters, dog patrols, conspicuous surveillance... are expended for either of these two groups is a good indicator I now see, of who feels threatened..... and of who needs to be suppressed....
political parties are interchangeable

You know, I used to believe that. But I have changed my mind.

Here's the difference: like their agenda or not, if you elect Republicans they will attempt to enact it. So if you don't want them trying to enact their agenda, don't elect them.

Like their agenda or not, it is usually safer to elect Democrats in the sense that they will rarely actually try to enact their stated agenda, and will instead spend their time telling you how much worse off you'd be than if you elected Republicans ... while they are simultaneously enacted 60% or better of the Republican agenda.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...