Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Finally, Elite Democrats Are Feeling the Heat

By Ruth Conniff, The Progressive. Posted October 7, 2006.


A surge of populist Democratic challengers in Washington are threatening to overturn the power structure elite Democrats have held on to for decades.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ruth Conniff

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

David Broder recently wrote a column in the Washington Post warning of a battle between sensible centrists and "vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers on the left" and their heroes.

He singled out Ned Lamont in Connecticut and, in Ohio, Sherrod Brown, whom Broder called "a loud advocate of protectionist policies that offer a false hope of solving our trade and job problems."

Broder's ire shows how media establishment types and defenders of the status quo are "freaking out" because a majority of Americans are not forming their opinions according to the opinion-makers' predictions, according to one leftwing blogger -- political activist David Sirota.

Change is in the air, and the people who have been holding onto power in Washington are worried.

It is the Republicans' betrayal of middle-class voters that got them into the hot water they're in this year, Brown says. "People look at whose side are you on?" he says. "The Republican leaders in the state see government as a piggy bank.[Ohio's Republican Senator Mike] DeWine and that crowd are giving away tax breaks to drug companies and the oil industry. People reject that."

As for Broder's critique, Brown shrugs it off. "Reporters and editors in Washington have always hated my position on trade," he says. "Out here they don't feel that way."

The controversy over Brown -- whom the National Journal compares to John Edwards, saying he's turned his "liberal" record in Congress into a popular pitch for "economic populism" -- captures a basic struggle within the country.

Brown has always been for establishing fair trade, raising the minimum wage, and breaking the oil and drug companies' stranglehold on public policy. He has also opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. These positions turn out to be particularly popular with voters this year, both in the Rust Belt and around the country, as polls show the public definitively opposed to the Administration's war in Iraq and in favor of progressive wage and health care policies.

But, as David Sirota put it in his furious blog following Broder's column, the ragged people who work at manufacturing jobs in Ohio -- those Brown represents -- aren't the people Washington insiders care about.

"In David Broder's world, those hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers who have been thrown out onto the street thanks to NAFTA and China PNTR are the filth of the earth that high and mighty elite Washington journalists like him cannot be bothered with," Sirota ranted in vituperative-blogger fashion. "In David Broder's world, any request for our trade pacts to include restrictions on child slavery, environmental degradation, and pharmaceutical industry profiteering off desperately poor people, positively un-American. Why? Because David Broder lives in a place where all of these critical issues are merely just more fodder and gossip for a newspaper column -- not real challenges in his life, nor in the life of the people he spends his time with in the Washington Beltway."

In the Democratic Party, the economic populists are fighting an uphill battle against the Washington in crowd. The outcome of that struggle is one of the interesting issues up for grabs in this fall's midterm elections.

Across the country, the Democrats are all over the map on Iraq and other fundamental issues. "I understand there's not going to be a national Democratic policy on Iraq," Brown says, "because Harold Ford doesn't want to say what I'm saying. Everybody runs their own race the way they run it -- that's endemic in the party and maybe in politics generally."

But for Brown, being a straight shooter seems to be winning politics.

"He is a person who says what he thinks," says Progressive Democrats of America chapter member John Cross. "Despite fourteen years in Congress he's pretty straight-forward. I think people appreciate that."

But, as Sirota laments, it's not a quality that's necessarily prized in Washington. Take Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC, who is another Sirota nemesis.

A rather breathless Newsweek story on Emanuel and his brother Ari -- who happens to be the model for the smarmy Hollywood agent on the hit HBO series "Entourage" -- gushes over the two men's similar roles as gatekeepers and kingmakers in their intersecting Hollywood and political worlds. One big question in this fall's midterms is what chance does the rabble who care about "kitchen table" issues have against this glamorous "in crowd" of the Washington and Hollywood elite?

Sirota calls the coming election a "tidal wave" heading for Washington's "hall of mirrors," conjuring up a massive populist uprising against the smug establishment types that will smash their arrogant worldview to smithereens. It's a gratifying image. But the positions of individual candidates around the country don't necessarily sustain it. Along with the Sherrod Browns and Ned Lamonts, there are the Maria Cantwells and James Webbs, who don't take such a strong position on getting out of Iraq, and who supported CAFTA and other free-trade bills. Around the country, a majority of Democratic Congressional candidates are not calling for withdrawal from Iraq.


Digg!

Ruth Conniff covers national politics for The Progressive and is a voice of The Progressive on many TV and radio programs.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
two
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 7, 2006 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two basic issues here: will the Ds take over 1, 2 or no House/Senate majorities and how much influence will progressives have in the new Congress. I think the Rs disasters and lies and miscalculations will definitely cause some movement toward decent progressivism but it remains to be seen how big the movement is and how much clout there will be for progressive dismantling of the Bushie disaster creations. Stay tuned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nov. 7 is Democrats last chance Posted by: LeftWright
» Whatever, troll Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» LeftWright is faultless here Posted by: LDavistrueblue
OK, but what about mass immigration, universal healthcare & progressive taxation?
Posted by: political_outcast on Oct 7, 2006 3:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brown and the so called economic populists only buy into JUST ENOUGH economic populism as they have to to get elected. Notice that they dare not talk about stopping the mass immigration that would give most of the factory jobs to immigrants if we were about to get them back from China anyway.

And where is Brown and the FakeLeft on universal healthcare paid for by taxing the upper class? Nowhere!
THAT is the REST of economic populism. It would do no good to stop unfair trade and bring jobs back from China if those jobs went to immigrants.

America for AMERICANS! Just like my house is just for me and my family, America and whatever jobs it has is only for American citizens.

Now THAT is TRUE economic populism, not the FAKE economic populism practiced by Brown and the fakeLeft democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OK, but ... Posted by: Metesh-ah
IMHO
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 7, 2006 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, of course, which candidates make it at the House level is going to be determined in large part by Rahm Emanuel, who controls the national party's purse strings

If anybody thinks that candidates opposed to the interests of the corporatocracy will be funded by the Democratic Party leadership he or she is doomed to disappointment. It is more important to both political parties to maintain the status quo than to win an election. Neither party will risk losing the funding of the corporate establishment that they get whether they win or lose.

If there is going to be a tidal wave in November, it will have to be pushed along by voters who are far more assertive than most of the Democratic candidates.

Assertiveness is one of the unique features of The Lincoln Initiative strategy. It is a strategy based on the successful tactics of the labor unions. By sheer numbers in a bottom up grassroots movement, the working class can dictate the platforms of both parties. If both parties have our issues on their platforms we can't lose. Today the corporate establishment controls the agendas of both parties and we can't win.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

progressive candidates
Posted by: Linda50 on Oct 7, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, I understand why the DCCC didn't endorse our Maine's progressive candidate. She is progressive and ahead of her time to help the state and the country. AHAHAH now it all comes together. As long as Olympia Snowe keeps making the broad statements such as " I would have voted for the habeas corpus if I was there" then the progressive will have a good chance of winning without the endorsement, backing of the DNC or the DCCC or whatever other acronym that is out there. Even the DFA will not support our canddiate. Guess the OLD GUARD does feel threatened after all. That is a good thing, to see them scramble and not endorse good candidates. Maybe Dr. Dean's message is finally taking root and starting to blossom. WE can all hope for a better future and work now to make it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't be shy, what's her name? Posted by: LeftWright
» Give it up, troll Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Give it up, troll Posted by: may261989
It was the Primary elections that would have made the difference!
Posted by: Prophit on Oct 7, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately not enough kicked out the incumbant. Connecticut was one of the few that had the courage and will to send that message "we are taking our country back". We have no leaders of any worth, so we have to do the job ourselves.

No more reliance on "leaders" to take care of us. We must take care of ourselves and assert ourselves vigorously. I am happy to hear this movement is accross the country. I am disgusted with both parties. I wish there were a viable third party to use to send that message, but unfortunately there isn't.

I live in a small town and some of us walked off our jobs Oct 5th and went downtown to hand out flyers on this issue of "kick out all incumbants regardless of party". Its a conservative town mostly republican and I was shocked that everyone took the extensive information sheets that we handed out and no one got mad or rejected what we were saying.

In fact, both right and left agreed. It was amazing. I was prepared to be vilified and have to justify our position, but none of us were ever treated badly and EVERYONE TOOK THE INFORMATION PACKET. HURRAY, AMERICANS ARE WAKING UP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hello Steve! Posted by: Douglas
» Bush stole Florida in 2000 Posted by: LeftWright
» What an Obtuse Response Posted by: Douglas
Not surprising
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 7, 2006 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now you know what Howard Dean is up against with his plan to take the Democrats national again. Emmanuel is part of the "centerist" axis that includes the Clintons and Lieberman (although they don't dare say so.) Let David Broder be their mouthpiece. It's thrilling that Lamont and Brown and, yes, David Sirota threaten them. We still have a long way to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mitterand Middle of the Democratic Party
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Oct 7, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may be old news to the Alternet readership, but I thought it was an apt moniker. Recently, someone referred to the Hillary-Lieberman Axis of Centrism as the Vichy Democrats . Seems about right to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anti-elite
Posted by: amacd on Oct 7, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the basic concept of this coplumn is correct, in applauding the coming populist resistance anginst entrenched power, the suggestion that this battle against the entrenched 'power-elite' includes both the neocon, proto-fascist, corporate monied elite and some liberal, intellectual elite only serves to further confuse and defuse the real meaning of the coming battle against the only real 'power elite' ----- the monied elite.

There is only one proper target for popular democracy, and it is the singular and unitive elite ----- the entrenched, monied 'power elite'.

The use of the term 'elite' to define the non-democratic, proto-fascist, undying enemy of popular democracy should never be muddied or confused by using the plural term 'elites'.

Like the unifying phrase, "Eyes on the Prize" was for the civil rights movement, the unifying target of 'eyes on THE elite' must be the singular focus of the popular democratic revolution.

A singular, unitive, sordid, monied, and 'power elite' must be the only accurate focus of popular and solidarity to overthrow in the sucessful continuation of the American Revolution.

The singular, monied, 'power elite' is the only proper target of popular democratic resistance because any deminunitionor defusion of the term 'elite' simply allows the only real elite --- the non-democratic, arrogant, viscious, pro-war, monied, 'power-elite' to confuse and distract the source of our battle for full popular democracy.

All war is caused by this singular elite. All inequality is fostered by this singular elite. All racism is created and manipulated by this singular elite. This is the singualr elite that believes and acts on Jay Gould's unguarded statement in the 19th century that, "I can hire half the working-class to kill the other half" ----- and which the 21st century global corporate, wealthy, 'power-elite' is now using to do just this on a 'global' basis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: anti-elite Posted by: zedaker
About time too!
Posted by: Knowmad on Oct 7, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've never known, or even imagined, a more blatantly ineffectual gaggle of politicos than the rank and file Democrats - anywhere, anytime, except maybe for the second party in a 'two' party tyranny in some tiny, virtually unknown country. This is just what they need. I just hope for your sake it's not too late.

And thanks Alternet for finally running something that's not about Foley's sick obsessions, or the republicans sicker cover-up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you're consistent again Posted by: edith
The Elite = The Money Masters
Posted by: schewtschenko on Oct 7, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One has to be careful to correctly identify this “elite”.
There seems to be a long term, more far-reaching and sinister reality:

The U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are NOT government institutions under governmental control. Their names are just trick names. The same goes for almost all central banks of states.
They are the property of international financiers that is an elite who keep a low profile.
They are more powerful than the government because they are the lenders/debt-makers.

The central banks, which issue the national currency, have for a long time used a system called fractional loaning - lending money they do not have and charging interest on it.
This is hard to believe but it is legalized by law because of the power of the bank owners involved. Yet it is obviously a fraud. Still it has been accepted into reality.
These companies are also completely free to fix the interest rate.
They can create depression by reducing the money supply or inflation by printing bank notes.

Even if an individual citizen keeps out of loans and is not in debt, the central banks, i.e. the money lenders, direct politicians to borrow money for expenses such as weapons and government contracts, i.e. to pay Halliburton. The higher the spending the better.
The resulting national debt plus interest has to be paid back. The pay-back is taken from the taxes paid by the citizens and goes directly into the pockets of the international profiteers. Naturally the general public is kept unaware of the tactics and the profits
This elite who have a lot to lose will go to a great length to protect their gains.

Politicians are positioned to distract attention while the countries of the world are being placed at the mercy of usurers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

November 7th is Democrats Last Chance
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 7, 2006 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to keep from becoming irrelevant in U.S. politics.

If they do win, we will have to hold their feet to the fire every day for the next two years.

If they don't retake either the House or the Senate, then they are completely finished as a viable conduit of the loyal American opposition, and we will move on.

I'm not holding my breath as the plutocracy is desperate to maintain control.

I highly recommend this book:

was the 2004 presidential election stolen? by Steven F. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss

See you in the streets.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where do the Dems get their big $ from?
Posted by: edith on Oct 7, 2006 2:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that tells you who they will respond to.

if you want working people to have rights, if you want an end to the military industrial complex that employs people to avoid a Depression and a revolution, if you want to give nature at least a chance against massive trauma from the consumer globalist societies of the world

build a party/movement run by real people,not by professional politicians and political operatives.

it may take years. but don't get fooled again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Signing Statments
Posted by: aonghus36 on Oct 7, 2006 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>If the Democrats do retake the House, Senate, or both, Brown says, "We pass a new minimum wage right away, the first week, pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations, pass legislation negotiating drug prices -- substantive legislation." On that "populist" issue, the minimum wage, he points out: "There are always the votes if the leadership schedules it. If we brought it to the house floor almost all the Democrats and half Republicans would vote for it."

The thing is that for much of these Bush will still resort to his signing statements indicating how the law won't really be followed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jean Hay Bright
Posted by: aonghus36 on Oct 7, 2006 9:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I forgot all about her. Thanks DCCC, for nothing. Let's play a dirty trick on the DCCC and give her campaign contributions, at least those of us who can afford it. Just google her name, and you'll find her campaign. *Chuckling With Glee*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After the elections is just as important as before the elections - lobby!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 7, 2006 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most important thing, like several of the above posts point out, is to not be followers - because right now the money is what controls politics. If you want people to control politics instead of money, a Democratic majority is a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough.

If Democrats win back the Congress, what will immediately happen is that all the lobbyists who gave them money before the election will be on the phone demanding favors.

What the lobbyists don't want is competition from the public for their candidate's ear. These people pay both sides of the aisle (though they seem to give a lot more to Republicans) to make sure that they have friends after the election is over. Oil, pharma, finance, arms dealers - you name it, they all rely on having friends in government to steer lucrative contracts in their direction.

So if all the people who complain about the elite Democrats do nothing besides vote, what they will likely see is that their progressive Democrats gradually morph into elite Democrats (apparently there's some kind of virus loose in Washington DC that causes this).

After the election you have to start lobbying your candidate to hold hearings on the crimes of the past six years. Emails and form cards don't work; you have to write letters on nice paper and politely demand written responses; getting a few people to sign your letter doesn't hurt either.

If you aren't willing to do that, then do something else. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, Gonzales, Rice, etc. - they are all hoping that you won't do anything at all - but they seem to have run out of fear spray.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The I-factor
Posted by: YogiBear on Oct 8, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone recall how upset the mainstream Democrats were when the MoveOn Internet "pre-election" put Howard Dean atop all the rest? We would never have heard of him in the press otherwise.

He was torpedoed, of course, by Gephardt or Kerry's campaign (or maybe all of them woking together in some cabal-like meeting), but at least we got to see a bit of an uprising. I imagine mainstream Dems fear the rise of the Internet as much as the GOP, because finally the people can seek out alternatives to spoon-fed party politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Jack Davis Victory Would Be A Setback for Elite Democrats
Posted by: Douglas on Oct 8, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My conservative Republican Congressman Thomas Reynolds (26th New York Congressional District) is one of the most powerful persons in the GOP and in Washington. He is a personal favorite of George Dubya Bush, who even sent Laura to our district last week to campaign for him. A few weeks ago Reynolds seemed certain to handily win reelection in our heavily GOP district (where Republicans outnumber Democrats by 185,972 to 141,565). Now, because of his role in the Foley scandal, it seems likely that Reynolds will be defeated on election day. A recent poll found that multi-millionaire Democratic challenger Jack Davis is now running ahead of Reynolds (even in heavily Republican areas) and has an excellent chance of winning the election. Davis is a traditional "working-class" Democrat, definitely not a "liberal" or a "progressive," but he is not a DLC Democrat either. Unlike the DLC (and Reynolds), Davis opposes so-called "free trade" and globalization and favors tarriffs on imports to balance trade with other countries, and thus help save American jobs. Davis is also in favor of immediately beginning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but opposes announcing a final withdrawal date. Although Davis is not my idea of the "perfect" candidate (I am, after all, a Green Party member), I do support him and I do plan to enthusiastically vote for him on election day. He definitely represents a vast improvement over the ultra-Conservative, Bush-loving Tom Reynolds. I have to admit that I do find it especially pleasing, however, that if Davis does win, his stand on "free trade" will put him at odds with the DLC Democratic Party elite. A vote for Davis is thus not only a vote against Bush and the Republicans but also a vote against the "elite Democrats."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» an acceptable Democrat? Posted by: LeftWright
» Jack Davis .... Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Jack Davis .... Posted by: Douglas
» Dear troll, go home Posted by: thoughtcriminal
plutocracy
Posted by: DoctorAndy on Oct 8, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole Repub vs Dem divide and conquer idea is, of course, killing freedom. The Repubs are fronted by Dubya, naturally, but the Dem traitors in the wings are creatures like Pelosi, Obama, and Emmanuel. We've had it, babes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Broder
Posted by: bringbackthe70s on Oct 8, 2006 2:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David "Beltway" Broder has the unique distinction of being even more out-of-touch than the Republican leadership. Washington consensus-style "free trade" is his religion, and anyone who questions any of its tenets is not just misguided but morally corrupt. For raw vituperation, it's hard to beat Broder's attacks on the integrity of Congressional Democrats during the NAFTA debate, with no evidence other than the fact that they opposed the bill. I'd love to see Broder's job outsourced to Calcutta. Spouting off dogmatic positions and calling your opponents demagogues and opportunists - how hard can that be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Need for REAL Democrats
Posted by: MSS on Oct 10, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the Dems win the Congress - with hard work it will the the Lamonts rather than the Liebermans who call the shots!

We could see big changes, when there are more 'real' Democrats in Congress negotiating the direction of the next Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Oct 25, 2006 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it is about time for REAL Democrats to take back the party from those inside-the-beltway-idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]