Skip to main content

"Punching the hippies" is a figure of speech I have picked up on from never missing MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. Most recently used by Rachel to describe President Obama's proposal to effectively cut Social Security benefits, "punching the hippies" refers to a Democratic politician taking a conservative policy stance with the purpose of proving to all their constituencies other than the left-wing base that they really aren't beholden to that base after all. I believe that is exactly what Congresswoman and recently confirmed Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Allyson Schwartz has done by voting for CISPA, though perhaps in an even more insidious way than is typically the case.

Allyson Schwartz
Allyson Schwartz
CISPA is widely considered to be the latest version of similar legislation introduced last year called SOPA and PIPA that caused an unprecedented online uproar and backlash. The Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and Protect IP Act in the Senate would have empowered corporations to have websites cut off from payment providers, blocked by internet service providers, sued, and ultimately shut down for allegedly violating copyright law - an action so broadly defined there's no telling what sites could be shut down for. This wouldn't have just been a problem for people illegally downloading music, movies, software, television shows, and other digital products, but also for people singing and/or playing copyrighted songs in videos, people posting copyrighted images on their sites and blogs, and endless other examples.

CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) will allow our personal information to be shared between and among corporations and the government, used for virtually any purpose, and most disturbingly grants corporations immunity from any actions taken in response to information retrieved through CISPA. Since there are no search warrants involved, CISPA appears to violate the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." An amendment that would have banned corporations from demanding social media log-in passwords of prospective and current employees as a condition of employment failed to pass.

After much speculation, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D-PA 13) officially confirmed at the beginning of the month that she is running in the primary to be the Democratic party's gubernatorial candidate to run against incumbent Republican Governor Tom Corbett in 2014. This is a particularly important Democratic gubernatorial primary election because Governor Corbett is vulnerable and in 2012 the Democrats swept the presidential vote and all three statewide row offices - the state's attorney general, treasurer, and auditor. In February, a PPP poll found Governor Corbett trailing behind all five potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates they asked about by solid margins ranging from 7 - 11 points. Just this month, Nate Silver of predicting-every-state-in-the-2012-presidential-election fame ranked all of the nation's governors who are up for election in 2014 and said Governor Corbett is the fifth most likely to be defeated governor in America.
Governor Corbett
When CISPA passed in the House of Representatives late last week, only one Democrat from Pennsylvania voted for it: Allyson Schwartz. This is definitely feeling like one of those "punch the hippies" moments to me. Coming out of a solid blue district with a history running an abortion provider, this provides conservative counterweight to prove she's willing to stick it to progressives. It may also be a move to bolster tough-on-crime credentials in reaction to fears of sexist assumptions by voters that being a woman makes her soft - demonstrating the strength to sacrifice security for safety when necessary as the talking point might go - again, at the expense of the progressive base she should be relying on to carry her through the primary. The same progressive base that she should already be concerned about losing support from because of her conservative positions on health care reform, consumer financial protection, and financial regulations and the fact that she had a 2012 primary challenger from the Occupy movement kicked off the ballot.

But I think in one aspect this may be an even-worse-than-usual "punch the hippies" moment. While these other uses for the vote may come in handy when talking to persuadable conservatives, this doesn't seem like the type of vote taken to tell the average prospective voter about, this seems like the type of vote taken to facilitate campaign donations. I believe it's quite possible that Schwartz assumes this will not be a big enough issue to the average voter to cost her much on election day, but this expression of her fealty to corporate rule will be a selling point to prospective campaign donors who don't support Corbett for one reason or another but still expect lapdog behavior from candidates they support when it comes to expansion of corporate power. True, Schwartz has already moved $3 million from her congressional campaign committee to her gubernatorial campaign committee, but Corbett spent nearly $30 million to win in the last race, so she is still just getting started. And what better way to start raising that coveted corporate campaign cash than by punching the hippies?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

    by ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:27:37 AM PDT

  •  qwatz (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ProgressivePatriotPA
    And what better way to start raising that coveted corporate campaign cash than by punching the hippies?
    I think it is just a cash raising move.  It would pass the house anyway I think - but the Senate and president can still stop it.   I don't know what the odds are there.

    The Cispa vote was 288 to 127 - it is not like it made a difference.

    Bill Belichick also has 10 million gallons of crude oil stashed away, just in case.

    by 2liberal on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:05:52 AM PDT

    •  You're right about a couple of things (0+ / 0-)

      I should have mentioned, which is that there is no action planned on this in Senate and Obama has threatened to veto it, but this was really supposed to be about what this vote says about Schwartz. It probably would have been worse if her vote was needed for it to pass, but I don't think it justifies the vote in any way that it wasn't.

      Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

      by ProgressivePatriotPA on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 02:17:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site