General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes...I know....BUT, he makes some Excellent Points (Lets look Forward and Not Backward)
Can Progressives Learn from Eric Cantors Defeat?
by Ralph Nader
Brat is a mixed bag for progressives. But in that mix is a clear populist challenge by Main Street against Wall Street and by ordinary people against the corporate government with subsidies and bailouts that the Left calls corporate welfare and the Right calls crony capitalism. Therein lies the potential for a winning majority alliance between Left and Right as my new book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, relates in realistic detail.
Second, Professor Brat spent about $230,000 to Eric Cantors $5.7 million. However, David Brat more than made up for the money deficit with energy, focused barbs and the shoe-leather of his committed followers. On election night, Brat made the point that progressives would do well to heed, as they obsess over big money in politics; Dollars dont vote, he said, people do. Interestingly, Tea Party forces and donors claim they thought Cantor was so unbeatable that they didnt even fund David Brat even though he had two national radio talk show hosts speaking well of him.
Cant progressives find that kind of energy with their many broader issues and larger support base? Cant they find capable so-called nobodies with hidden talent to become publically heralded champions? There are fresh voices everywhere who can take on the corporate Democrats, like the Clintons, who work with Wall Streeters and espouse crony capitalism and with neocons to advance militarism abroad, along with corporate-managed, job destroying trade agreements and off-shore tax havens.
Unfortunately the driving energy of progressives, including the dissipating Occupy Wall Street effort, is not showing up in the electoral arena. The political energy, the policy disputes and the competitive contests are among the Republicans, not the Democrats, observed the astute political commentator and former Clinton White House aide, Bill Curry.
The third lesson from the decisive Cantor upset is not to embrace the political attitude that calls for settling, from the outset, for the least-of-the-worst choices. Progressives have expressed and harbored strong criticisms of the Democratic Party establishment and their adoption of corporatist policies, but election cycle after election cycle, fearful of the Republican bad guys, they signal to the Democrat incumbents that the least-of-the-worst is acceptable. Like the liberals they often consort with, progressives do not ask: Why not the best? with the plan that they will either win or at least pull their Party away from the relentless 24/7 grip of big-time corporatism.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/13-6
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)karynnj
(59,474 posts)but when he actually sees good in someone like Brat, a free market economist - holding a chair funded by Libertarians, I am actually scared.
I have often had a problem with commondreams. Here, I don't know if this is something they support or agree with or simply something by a well known man, Nadar, that they thought deserved to be read.
It is pretty scary that in a time where there is substantial anti government fervor, that might be most easily captured by the right - which both wants change and sees the government as the enemy. Brat, also ran as anti Wall Street and anti corporation. There would be a huge irony in the tea party altered Republican party - largely as the result of Koch astroturf, is able to be seen as anti corporation - as they simultaneously take extreme positions against regulations of businesses, against anything to help the environment, and against anything pro workers -- or, when you get down to it, pro people.
At this point, the Congress is already dysfunctional - as one party actively does not even want to try to govern -- except maybe to legislate against abortions or gay marriage.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)A minimum wage question most likely because he hadn't called up the Koch bros yet for their talking points.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)He is an economic professor and if he taught either a basic micro or macro economics class, it could well have been discussed. (ie in a micro economics course, it would be one of the things effecting business for companies - in macro, there are fascinating studies of what implementing it does to the economy as a whole.)
It is completely unlikely that he NEVER even thought about it. Not to mention, I would guess that as a free market economist, he wants NO controls at all on business - certainly not one on something as basic as what the least you can pay people is.
I expect that there has to be an enterprising journalist who is reviewing any public talks or papers this man has given. I really do think we will here what his students have to say. Remember, his opponent teaches at the same school. I would imagine that they have students in common - and that BOTH may have students actively volunteering for them in this race.
For an economist NOT to have an answer - means he KNOWS that saying what he really believes - likely that no minimum wage should exist would cost votes. What I wonder is whether this interchange (which I hope is on video) is used --- ie Brat, a PHD economist, wants you to think that he needs time before responding to a question on the minimum wage. Are we to believe that this economist never thought about an economic issue that relates to a top economic goal for President Obama? So much for straight talking. This is not honest - he wants to wait for a "well crafted answer" ????
G_j
(40,366 posts)but it is true that he has campaigned against Wall St. and lobbyists. This is a point that others besides Nader have addressed.
It is something to take note of. I don't see the sides uniting though. The Teabaggers are full of hate, and proud of their ignorance. I want nothing to do with them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's about realizing that a lot of people in this country who self-identify as Republican have the same anger over the corporate-government cronyism that is looting this country as we do; they just have been propagandized to disagree on the solutions. I think it's important to clarify that the people we're talking about appealing to here are the people out in the country, not the corrupt party machines.
No, we don't agree on solutions yet. But we are seeing growing agreement over the problem, and that's a good thing. It's a start to crafting a message that can appeal to more and more Americans and growing a national demand to get cronyism out of government that can't be ignored.
The corporatists in both parties depend on a closely divided government and hyperpartisanship. They work hard and engage in all kinds of deception to sustain gridlock that allows them to claim they can't be responsive to the will of voters. That Republican *voters* are responsive to rhetoric about crony corporatism is a very good sign. It is a potential chink in the hyperpartisanship that gives Democrats an opportunity to appeal across party lines for candidates and policies that might actually, finally, start to help.
I have seen quite a few posts here lately, deliberately and specifically insisting that "Tea Partier" equals "Republican" and that they are all batshit crazy and we shouldn't even talk to them. I consider that to be repetition of a corporate propaganda talking point that is designed to protect the division in the country so that coalitions against cronyism can't be formed.
All Republicans are not Teabaggers. And not even all Republicans who do express sympathy for the Tea Party are batshit crazy. Some of them are just incredibly angry and frustrated at what has become of their government and latch onto a group that advocates radical change.
I talk on a regular basis to people in my neighborhood, a few of whom are die-hard Republicans and even a Tea Partier or two. I have been pleasantly surprised at some of the points of agreement we've been able to reach over months and months of discussion. One of those is protection of the safety nets, which shouldn't surprise anyone, since polling has shown that support for defending them extends across party lines. Another is disgust at corporate cronyism in government.
Republicans have been propagandized for years to believe that big government is the problem. Democrats have focused on corporate corruption. But now we have some growing agreement that the cronyism, the incest *between* corporations and government, is a major problem, and that awareness is growing across party lines. That's an important chink in the hyperpartisanship the corporatists depend on to keep us divided, and we need to exploit it.
We are not a nation of half-Democratic human beings and half Republican monsters. We are all people being looted, exploited, and disenfranchised by a very small group that is systematically merging corporatism with government to dismantle the remaining protections we have against their authoritarian rule. We don't have to agree on everything...just on this menace and the need to do something about it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I'd ask you to post it as an "OP" but the "force is not with us" who are tired of the constant hate that every Republican is a bat shit crazy. And, if we can't listen to what Nader points out and Jon Nichols of the "Nation" that Brat campaigned on issues that many of us here on DU have been discussing for years then we are not much better than those Extreme RW'ers who can't see a good Democrat for their own hatred. We can become what we loath and that doesn't build a strong Dem Party for the future. It alienates just as the Republicans have been doing. I am Left of most people who post actively here on DU, these days, and have understood how alienated one can feel who was Anti-Iraq Invasion, wanted Wall Street Bankers pay for their crimes along with the Mortgage Brokers and the rest of that Criminal Enterprise to be held accountable.
I'm totally against our Empire Building involvement in countries we have no business sending arms to or killing their citizens with Drones with so much work to do here at home. Am against the NSA Dragnet Spying and War on Whistleblowers. Yet when a Democratic Government does these things I am expected to stand up and either Cheer or make Excuses for policies that seem more far right Republican than what I hoped our Dem Party would be after Vietnam and the Church Committee hearings on Spying on American Citizens.
Totally Agree...
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I was fascinated by how he won that election and think it's a really important development.
And, if we can't listen to what Nader points out and Jon Nichols of the "Nation" that Brat campaigned on issues that many of us here on DU have been discussing for years then we are not much better than those Extreme RW'ers who can't see a good Democrat for their own hatred. We can become what we loath and that doesn't build a strong Dem Party for the future. It alienates just as the Republicans have been doing.
Exactly. At the risk of sounding like a scold, I think this hyperpartisanship is the biggest stumbling block in circles like DU to discussing actual solutions. This is a group of incredibly well-read, politically aware people, but there's still this Pavlovian, "circle the wagons, attack the Other" response whenever the partisan whistle is blown, that prevents people from criticizing our own party when it's warranted and seeking allies outside it when those alliances could really help in the larger fight.
If Republicans are waking up to crony corporatism, that is a tremendous opportunity for all of us. We have an opportunity to reach critical mass.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)So according to the corporate Democrats, good bipartisanship:
pro-war
pro-trade deals
pro-austerity
anti-union
pro-privatizing public education
anti-accountability for Wall Street
BAD bipartisanship:
anti-war
anti-trade deals
anti-corruption
anti-crony capitalism
pro-accountability for Wall Street
Somehow, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party only notices that Republicans are nuts and racists when they advocate policies that the very wealthy don't want.
If they advocate policies that hurt the working and middle class, why the only "reasonable" thing to do is more than compromise with them (no matter how weak they are politically at the moment).
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Also note the many Republicans retained and appointed to the administration, over and over again.
Great post. Thank you.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Johonny
(20,681 posts)of course not.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and not automatically reject it because of the messenger because, well, he'd right. I've been saying this for a LONG time right here on DU and got pretty much the same response. Simply doesn't matter, the points are valid.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The big problem today politically is that we don't really have a debate between "liberal" and Conservative" principles. We don't have one party that represents one philosophy and another that represents the other -- who argue, debate and -- yes, actually reach compromises in degree over their differences.
Instead we have two parties at are basically Subsidiaries of Wall St. and the Corporate Monopolists. And a politics of empty "Tiger Beat" personality driven differences, "My team versus Your Team" and lifestyle choices. The smaller the real differences are in substance, the more heated is the Tiger beat focus.
Meanwhile the Corporate Monopolists and the Wall St. Barons continue to buy government and make the actual distinctions between the Liberal and Conservative philosophies meaningless.
And the actual issues also get perverted. Instead of honest debate over, say, the appropriate level of money that should go to food stamps we get these monster bills where Big Subsidies to Corporate Agribusiness get tossed in with Food Stamps, making the debates impossible to deal with coherently.
So we get a lot of divisive social issues that get associated with one "brand" or the other. If you're for gun control you have to be a Democrat. If you're anti abortion, you have to be a Republican.
Bratt obviously has fundamental differences with progressives and moderate liberals over the appropriate role of government. But one thing to say in his favor. If he is sincere in his opposition to the corruption and intrusion of Wall St/ Big Bizness into government policy (a big "if" I realize), at least if we could reduce the Apolitcal Corporate Hold on politics, at least the debate between the free market conservatism and actual liberalism could be fought on a more honest and clear basis -- and actual haggling and compromise could occur.
struggle4progress
(118,035 posts)and showed us how to put people in motion by organizing them for concrete results
It must have been hard for Nader, after the activist spirit of the 60s, to watch apathy grow in the 70s, leading to the Reagan era and the rollback of many progressive gains in the 80s and 90s
He didn't take it well, and it seems to me he didn't really analyze the situation accurately or think through carefully what might reconstruct an effective progressive movement with concrete goals
So I haven't much appreciated his recent views. The bottom line for our side has always been: we don't have lots of money -- but we do have a chance of winning when we use people power intelligently
What happened in Brat v Cantor, of course, is that a bit over 7% of the district turned out to vote for Brat and a bit under 6% of the district turned out to vote for Cantor, while everybody else apparently said, Well, whatever!
And, frankly, that's not so uncommon
That's why it's really worth remembering Margaret Mead's famous remark, Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. You don't always need everybody behind you to win: what you need is a group of people who agree that such-and-such is a problem, who share some general practical ideas about how to address the problem, who are willing to devote time and energy and cash to the problem, and who are willing to continue recruiting further folk to the effort in order to be able to funnel more time and energy and cash towards solution of the problem. It helps a lot, too, if everybody can show a bit of discipline, avoid getting involved in endless vague arguments about abstract philosophical nonsense, and stay focused on pragmatic details
Brat won by about a 7000 vote margin, so changing 3600 votes would have given a different outcome. It's not always that hard to do. And one can win legislative fights or influence regulatory outcomes the same way: in his prime, Nader was very good at that
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Nader's opinions are always self-serving.
But, yes, Brat did run as a populist, and Democrats shouldn't let the libertarian claim that mantle.
blue neen
(12,306 posts)Guess it's time to start trashing Ralph Nader threads.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)and should be.
They have played the "lesser of two evils" game so long and so successfully that they thought they were immune to primary defeats like Cantor's.
Many, many Democrats deserve to join Cantor's early transition to K Street--and then their replacements in Congress should refuse to take their calls or offers of free drugs and prostitutes.