Over at Alternet.org, Kevin Drum has cross-posted an outstanding piece of commentary which he has up on the Mother Jones’ blog, entitled: “Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich.” It gets my vote as this weekend’s “must-read,” IMHO.
It’s tempting to write lengthy summaries about a piece such as this—it’s a fairly extensive article–but, what’s the point of that, especially in the middle of a three-day weekend?
Here’s a brief overview of the opening portion of Drum’s commentary, and I’ve quoted the closing couple of paragraphs, verbatim. Getting from “point A” to “point B,” however, is up to you.
At the beginning of the post, Drum tells us that, in 2008, Americans elected a liberal Democrat and we were ready for “serious change.” He then points out that, it’s two years later, and Wall Street and the status quo are right where they’ve been, all along, and “…it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.”
Those “two crucial things” are: 1.) the dramatic growth of income inequality since the mid-1970’s, “far more in the U.S. than in most advanced countries;” and, 2.) referencing a study by Princeton political science professor Larry Bartels (read the whole piece at Alternet or Mother Jones for the link to the study), both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate, in particular, and “American politicians,” in general, don’t give a rat’s ass about the “desires” of anyone in this country other than those in “high-income groups.”
(Simply shocking, right?)
Here are Drum’s closing words…
Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich
Kevin Drum
Alternet.org (cross-posted from Mother Jones)
May 27, 2011
The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism. Without it, Wall Street will continue to extract ever vaster sums from the American economy, the middle class will continue to stagnate, and the left will continue to lack the powerful political and cultural energy necessary for a sustained period of liberal reform. For this to change, America needs a countervailing power as big, crude, and uncompromising as organized labor used to be.
But what?
Over the past 40 years, the American left has built an enormous institutional infrastructure dedicated to mobilizing money, votes, and public opinion on social issues, and this has paid off with huge strides in civil rights, feminism, gay rights, environmental policy, and more. But the past two years have demonstrated that that isn't enough. If the left ever wants to regain the vigor that powered earlier eras of liberal reform, it needs to rebuild the infrastructure of economic populism that we've ignored for too long. Figuring out how to do that is the central task of the new decade.
If I have any quibble with Drum as far as this piece is concerned, it’s that he doesn’t spend enough time talking about campaign finance reform (i.e.: Citizens United, etc.). But, other than that, I think this is an excellent effort on his part and–for his commentary on organized labor, alone–it’s well worth the read.
So, yes, there is some (albeit secondary) merit to the "don't-blame-the-player-blame-the-game" mentality. But, I don't see Democrats actually lining up for campaign finance reform right now, do you? And, contrary to popular belief, appointing Geithner to Treasury and reappointing Bernanke to the Fed were not exactly calls the administration "had" to make, either. Or, am I missing something?
Hope everyone’s having a healthy, relaxing, and enjoyable weekend!