Now that we’re in the era of the 45th republican administration the battles we fight are more basic. Defending basic rights of people and defending the societal institutions that promote equality in society. That is where we are now. But back in the first term of the Obama presidency he had it all, majorities in both houses and what came of it? Pretty much nothing and in this Q&A interview with Thomas Frank, some of the reasons for the Obama flop are teased out and discussed candidly.
The book is about how the Democratic Party turned its back on working people and now pursues policies that actually increase inequality. What are the policies or ideological commitments in the Democratic Party that make you think this?
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in the ’30s. But he chose not to.
Why is that? This is supposed to be the Democratic Party, the party that’s interested in working people, average Americans. Why would they react to a financial crisis in this way? Once you start digging into this story, it goes very deep. You find that there was a transition in the Democratic Party in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s where they convinced themselves that they needed to abandon working people in order to serve a different constituency: a constituency essentially of white-collar professionals.
That’s the most important group in their coalition. That’s who they won over in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. That’s who they serve, and that’s where they draw from. The leaders of the Democratic Party are always from this particular stratum of society.
There is no party of the working class, or even ones making half-hearted attempts to look like it any more in the United States. The interests of the great majority of Americans simply have no place, and no voice in the US democratic system.
I hearken back to my country whose political game of hot potato has historically fluctuated between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party – it is the same shit – with the liberals selling out the middle and lower classes at a slightly lower rate than the conservative manage to do every time they are in power. We have a viable third party in Canada the New Democratic Party – that through the near heroic efforts of leader lost to cancer – could have formed the first avowedly socialist government (we’re pretty social democratic here by default, despite the neoliberal cancer that is US politics) in Canada’s history.
That hope was shot to shit by one of the greatest miscalculations in Canadian political history – the new NDP leader, Tom Mulcair unwisely thought that moving to the political centre was the best course of action riding the late Jack Layton’s orange wave of support. And in our last election the NDP (the MF NDP) was outflanked by the liberals ON THE LEFT and was, once again relegated to second opposition status in the house of commons (Lib 184, Con 99, NDP 44).
The NDP ignored the boilerplate election strategy that has held true for nearly every Canadian election – run centre left, and govern centre right. Tom Mulcair ignored this simple nugget of truth and now we have the world’s darling Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party ruling the nation from the centre right and showing more and more contempt for the middle class that so dutifully elected them.
What gives? In the US Thomas Frank contends it is the Democratic Party’s obsession with the professional class to the exclusion of all others.
What’s the content of the ideology of the professional class and how does it hurt working people? What are their guiding principles?
The first commandment of the professional class is the idea of meritocracy, which allows people to think that those on top are there because they deserve to be. With the professional class, it’s always associated with education. They deserve to be there because they worked really hard and went to a good college and to a good graduate school. They’re high achievers. Democrats are really given to credentialism in a way that Republicans aren’t.
If you look at the last few Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Obama, and Hillary Clinton as well, their lives are a tale of educational achievement. This is what opened up the doors of the world to them. It’s a party of who people who have gotten where they are by dint of educational accomplishment.
This produces a set of related ideas. When the Democrats, the party of the professionals, look at the economic problems of working-class people, they always see an educational problem, because they look at working class people and say, “Those people didn’t do what I did”: go and get advanced degrees, go to the right college, get the high SAT scores and study STEM or whatever.
There’s another interesting part of this ideology: this endless search for consensus. Washington is a city of professionals with advanced degrees, and Democrats look around them there and say, “We’re all intelligent people. We all went to good schools. We know what the problems are and we know what the answers are, and politics just get in the way.”
This is a very typical way of thinking for the professional class: reaching for consensus, because politics is this ugly thing that you don’t really need. You see this in Obama’s endless efforts to negotiate a grand bargain with Republicans because everybody in Washington knows the answers to the problems—we just have to get together, sit down and make an agreement. The same with Obamacare: He spent so many months trying to get Republicans to sign on, even just one or two, so that he could say it was bipartisan. It was an act of consensus. And the Republicans really played him, because they knew that’s what he’d do.
And we all know how well the Obama Care legacy is going today. The current set of storm trooper Republicans give exactly no fucks about consensus, bipartisanship, or really anything except enriching and enshrining the 1% as the ruling oligarchs of the US. And the confounding thing is this – people who are getting hit hard voted this republican administration in. They took the small mined demagogue and made him their hero, unaware or uncaring of his pedigree and his allegiances with basically all of the forces that are directly fucking the populace over.
The last American election is a stinging indictment of the Democratic Party and how utterly disconnected they are with the majority of Americans.
“A lot of progressives that I talk to are pretty familiar with the idea that the Democratic Party is no longer protecting the interests of workers, but it’s pretty common for us to blame it on mainly the power of money in politics. But you start the book in chapter one by arguing there’s actually something much deeper going on. Can you say something about that?
Money in politics is a big part of the story, but social class goes deeper than that. The Democrats have basically made their commitment [to white-collar professionals] already before money and politics became such a big deal. It worked out well for them because of money in politics. So when they chose essentially the top 10 percent of the income distribution as their most important constituents, that is the story of money.
It wasn’t apparent at the time in the ’70s and ’80s when they made that choice. But over the years, it has become clear that that was a smart choice in terms of their ability to raise money. Organized labor, of course, is no slouch in terms of money. They have a lot of clout in dollar terms. However, they contribute and contribute to the Democrats and they almost never get their way—they don’t get, say, the Employee Free Choice Act, or Bill Clinton passes NAFTA. They do have a lot of money, but their money doesn’t count.
All of this happened because of the civil war within the Democratic Party. They fought with each other all the time in the ’70s and the ’80s. One side hadn’t completely captured the party until Bill Clinton came along in the ’90s. That was a moment of victory for them.”
So, I’m thinking third a third party is necessary in the US. The cynical side of me thinks that there will actually be one in the US. Not to have a party that represents the people, but as a corrupt puppet of a party meant to siphon off revolutionary zeal and progressive rage to safeguard the oligarch’s corrupt and self-serving ‘democratic’ system that is currently in place.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
6 comments
January 2, 2018 at 7:14 am
Steve Ruis
I think we need two new parties as the ones we have have betrayed the American dream of democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 2, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Meg
Here’s the thing, even if Obama played it the way he wanted to, he was voted in by the same white guys on the hard left that support Bernie. These were the guys that posted pictures like “bros before hos” during the 2008 election, and they were the guys who accused feminists of being racist even though they were the ones treating Obama like the “magical black man” caricature that would swoop in and solve their problems like the racist storybooks they were raised reading.
These are the same “bernie or busters” that either voted third party or sulked on the sidelines and blamed everyone but themselves for Trump getting elected. They accuse Hillary of not sucking their dicks hard enough, of not sucking the dicks of racist rural white voters hard enough, and accuse liberals of being snotty elitists because they don’t kiss the asses of bigoted white men or rust belt Bible thumpers who rejected social progress a long time ago.
So when I read stuff like this, it sounds like a whole lot of buyer’s remorse, a lot more blame shifting, a lack of responsibility for extreme misogyny and male entitlement, and a refusal to admit that the hard left’s new culture war is just another men’s rights movement. They say “working class” but poor women like me know for a fact they don’t give a fuck about us. If they did, they’d stop openly participating in misogyny and take women seriously. But they don’t.
Not really. Hillary won the popular vote, it’s the electoral college that gave the presidency to Trump. The majority of whites who voted, voted for Trump, including 1 in 10 Bernie supporters.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
LikeLike
January 3, 2018 at 2:10 am
Meg
To expand on my previous comment, I guess what I’m trying to say is that if the hard left is feeling played maybe it’s because they’ve been played by their own misogyny. Obama appealed to the misogyny and narcissism of feminist haters, but the joke was really on them wasn’t it? People can say what they want about white feminists, but white women (and women who pass as white) knew even back then political promises alone wouldn’t overturn a deeply entrenched system of exploitation. The American political system is a bureaucracy designed to prevent any one person from accomplishing too much, a third party isn’t going to change that fact.
I’m annoyed with the constant claim that the Democrats are out of touch. Third party voters can’t even get 5% of the vote which is required to be recognized as a major party, so who is out of touch with who? Black Americans overwhelmingly voted for Hillary because they knew Bernie’s movement was a movement of entitled upwardly mobile white people. The hard left even has the gall to demand women and minorities reach out to sexist racist white men who opted out of social progress decades ago, basically telling us that if we don’t see any progress it’s our own fault for not kissing the asses of people who hate us. It’s just… gross. There are no words for this.
Saying in not so many words that “Trump won, therefore we were right” is insulting. Are you seriously going to tell me on a feminist blog that sexism had nothing to do with last year’s election? Even after the hard lefts dog whistle that Hillary was nothing but a “corporate w***e”? Even after Bernie supporters went on harassment campaigns against feminists saying we were voting with our vaginas? People voted for Trump BECAUSE he’s a sexual predator, BECAUSE he treats women like shit. Just like they voted for Trump BECAUSE he is a racist, and BECAUSE he is an irresponsible abuser who gets away with saying whatever he wants. If they didn’t like those qualities they wouldn’t have voted for him. If Bernie supporters are so politically enlightened then why did 1 in 10 of them vote for the monster that symbolizes everything wrong with America? Why should people who have such a flagrant disregard for the safety and security of their fellow Americans ever have the arrogance to assume they should lead the movement of social progress? People can say what they want about clueless and self destructive white women voting for Trump, what about the men who KNEW BETTER and voted for him anyway.
The problem with the hard left’s claim to represent the poor and working class is that they aren’t listening to us at all. They keep saying “both sides are the same” without even even asking us if that’s what our experience is. Their politics revolve around ambitious white people who have the connections and opportunities to have their hard work count for something, but what about people who don’t? They say “save the middle class” and recommend better wage slavery for the poor. Why? Because they still want the gratification of being better off than someone else. They aren’t against socially stratifying people by income level, they just want to make sure they have a better place in it. And should they achieve what they want, they’ll turn around and tell women and minorities that hard working white men deserve what they accomplished, and if only we’d kissed ass or sucked dick a little harder that we would have gotten a slice of the pie. As if we haven’t heard that enough already. Same status quo, different day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 4, 2018 at 6:05 am
bleatmop
Good post. I think your sentiment of Mulcair lines up with mine in most of the areas that count. The guy will forever be known as the person who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and let Trudeau run up the left side of the spectrum to form a government. I mean, at the beginning of the election cycle I think the NDP had a 48% poll going in, well within forming of the largest majorities ever saw in the history of Canada. Certainly in contemporary times. Yet the more people got to know Tom the less they liked him. And lets face it, as Canadians most of us were only getting to know him for the first time during the hustings.
Welp. At least we got Notley.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 4, 2018 at 7:33 am
The Arbourist
@Meg
Yes, but is remaining withing the current duopoly the only way forward? The institutional bias is very much against any third party contenders, although the green and libertarian options were not exactly appealing in the last American election. I do think that a socialist party would do much better than either of the offerings from last election.
The great blows dealt to organized labour have come under the Democrats – NAFTA comes to mind. That particular free investor agreement was bad for the working classes in all three countries involved, and is indicative of the Dems in the US turning away from a the people they often claim to represent.
I expect very little from men, and unfortunately this recent american election proved my intuitions right once again.
Wouldn’t it be assumed by now that sexism is a part of every election, in both Canada and the United States? Looking at other aspects of the election and how they play into what happened is meant to further understanding and provide more nuance to what happened.
LikeLike
January 12, 2018 at 10:28 am
Meg
I didn’t say that, but I can also turn that around and say that a third party isn’t the only way forward either. In fact there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that a third party is the last thing Americans need right now since third party voting only helps the Republicans. There is also the problem that I have to take time out of my life to point out sexism to these guys – the guys who champion social justice but refuse to see misogyny where it is plain and obvious – tells me that America is not ready for a third party yet. If there is a third party, it can NOT be dominated by yet more Christian white males that are looking out for their own interests. We have enough of that in politics today. We need to not only recruit feminists but immigrants, people of color, Spanish speakers, and religious minorities. Everyone has to live in this society therefore everyone deserves representation and an equal chance to be heard. At one time, the hard left was counterculture and rejected the materialism and welfare demonizing money politics of the Reagan era. Now it’s a crapshoot of comfortably privileged whites who can afford to be outraged about their paychecks and not much else. In general they don’t give a shit about sexism and as a result push voodoo “trickle down” economics which women would be required to ingratiate themselves to men to gain any kind of financial security for themselves. I’m not just talking about shacking up in heterosexual relationships but on the job where males in power demand tons of ass kissing and cock sucking before a woman is even considered for a promotion.
But that’s part of the problem, though. Nobody expects better of men, so men are able to keep behaving as shitty as they want without ever being held accountable for it.
Only women are held to a higher standard and expected to magically “know better” as if women aren’t even human and subject to the same psychological limitations that come with being human. People rake women over the coals for every fucking little mistake they make while never EVER addressing the systemic sexism and pervasive misogyny that affects women’s perceptions of themselves and other women. Internalized misogyny is a major problem, one that men are only willing to admit exists if it keeps them off the hook from being criticized for being abusive sexists. Otherwise, women are blamed for their own oppression including the side affects of that oppression which is self-hatred turned inward and outward against other women.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic sentiment all played parts for sure. Trump is also the literal god-king and literal epitome of what MRA types want to achieve – a rapist that gets away with rape, a man who imports his trophy wives because he thinks Eastern European women are w**** to be bought, a man who is so rich and powerful he’s “too big to fail” or be held accountable for anything he’s done. A man who can sell out his own country without massive protests in the street (seriously, American what the actual fuck). All power, no responsibility, massive narcissism with zero ability to give a shit about anyone else but himself.
However if you’re going to try to tell me that people weren’t sexist when they refused to vote for Hillary, well we both know that’s not true. Anyone with a functioning brain can see that misogyny was THE reason why people refused her the vote, since nobody cared about corporate money or internal politics of the Democratic party until she ran for president. Then all of a sudden it became a BIG DEAL and people grabbed at ANY excuse to withhold their vote. These are the same voters who had, for decades, looked the other way when male politicians were doing the same things and only decided it mattered when an outspoken feminist ran for President.
LikeLike