The announcement that Chuck (Mr. Wall Street) Schumer has been tabbed to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate is a vivid reminder that the Democrats have been captured by big money. The Democrats can talk economic populism, but those who bankroll the campaigns call the shots. This is not a new development. Citizens United aggravated the problem, but the Democratic reliance on business financing goes way back. It is certainly more than 30 years old. Indeed, I am looking forward to reading The American Three-Party System: Hidden in Plain Sight which details the intrusion of the Corporate Political Party into the Democratic Party. Robert Kuttner himself has a good account in his 2008 book The Squandering of America of the corruption of the Democratic Party by big money.
Kuttner for many years has observed that the Republicans have a natural fundraising advantage. Their deregulation message is just what business wants to hear and financially support. The Democratic emphasis on the environment, worker safety, consumer protection (particularly from abuses perpetrated by the financial system) and the like is anathema to the Chamber of Commerce and corporate contributors. And so it was that in the 1980’s, the Democratic Party sold its soul to get elected. From that point, it has been able to speak with a clear voice on gender and racial issues, but its economic message has been muffled and deceptive. Elizabeth Warren stands out as one of the few economic populists precisely because the Democratic Party has been corrupted.
Kuttner asks the right question: With both parties captured by corporations, how can change take place? He essentially argues that Democratic politicians need to lead. This is easy to say, but the prospect of being significantly outspent in an election is precisely the incentive leading Democrats to abandon principle for a quarter of a loaf. Having said that, given how far removed both parties are from the electorate, it is hard to believe that a populist revolt will not someday arrive. Regrettably, however, I don’t see how change occurs without a significant financial disaster and leadership causing masses of the population to believe that change is necessary and feasible. True, it's not a pretty picture.
Comments