Entrepreneurial Elites Swinging to the Democrats

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:24


This should not be a surprise.

The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title...

Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.

There are roughly two cultural parts of the business community.  One is the 'managerial' sector, the corporate group that took power during the Reaganite era and is basically illiberal in orientation.  These are the people who are running companies like General Motors into the ground of out fealty to ideological right-wing class solidarity.  Here's Atrios.

Digby:

GM says it needs to cut costs. Perhaps it would like to work with the Democrats and the Unions to get universal health insurance. It would be good for their workers, good for the country and good for the bottom line.

This is true. The failure of big business to step up in this area has long mystified me. It can't be explained by anything other than cultural biases of the men with money.

These people are becoming independents or depoliticized.  Their ideas don't work, and their very identities as masters of the universe is shown as a sad and tragic lifelong fraud.  People like Tom Tauke of Verizon, who probably believes that Verizon isn't censoring political speech, fall into this camp.  Defense contractors, franchise restauranteurs, telecom executives, PR companies, agribusiness, health insurance and pharam execs - that's where these people live, roughly speaking.

The second group is 'entrepreneurial' in culture, not large and corporate.  This is the group that sees new industries in green technology, and will swing to a liberal model of governance.  In fact, this is the group many of us belong to, though the institutional isolation of 'the left' makes people in various Web 2.0 and sustainable energy businesses make it hard to recognize.  The new ideas and new economic and cultural structures that can govern a 21st century economy are being designed in this sector, which combines philanthropy in the form of corporate structures like Google.org and Good Capital with sustainable business practices and new companies that incorporate the customer as an integral and democratic piece of the profit chain.

This sector is where our new governance models are going to come from, though the political piece is really our job and the policy details will come from emerging public spiritedness in academia.  Building the bridges between the business left and the open left is going to take 20 years, but it's starting to happen.

Matt Stoller :: Entrepreneurial Elites Swinging to the Democrats

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
a mixed bag (0.00 / 0)
It's nice that businesspeople are abandoning the Republicans, but ponder this:  If you are a Beltway Democrat and have to choose between picking up the support of one of these defecting corporate heads, and pissing off a million MoveOn supporters, which way are you going to go?  It's not always either/or, you say?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

But what is the impact of this on long-term prospects for progressives taking over the Democratic Party?  The iron law of institutions applies to progressives too.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


yeah. just you wait. n/t (0.00 / 0)


Democrats As Saner Party of Capitalism; On GM & Single Payer (0.00 / 0)
Even the hard core capitalist class eventually begins to sort itself out between those who simply want to grab a ton of money right now whatever the cost, and those who have or who begin to realize that, holy crap, bad management really can run the whole country into the ground.

It's been obvious for years that the Bush Jr. / Reagan II conservatives are good at shoveling money at the ultra-rich, but at the cost of terrible management and the risk of great instability.

Having reaped the enormous rewards of shifting the economic output of the nation up into the top few micropercentages of wealth owners, it's now time to see if the slightly more liberal, 'better' government wing of the two business parties might mop things up a bit.

On why GM would or would not back single payer health care, David Himmelstein (single payer advocate) noted that the capacity to hold health care over striking workers is a serious labor control tool.

Such an observation is a good beginning to realize that freeing employees from dependence (or at least from complete dependence) on their employer for health care might have all sorts of effects on management's continuing war against labor power and unions.

This perspective should be at least considered -- even though costs may hugely go down for GM if the nation adopted a single-payer health system, might there be other effects they oppose more, or are unsure of?


A Bargain (0.00 / 0)
I think there's a grand bargain to be made with the corporations over the cost of health care. If not a campaign issue, it should be a governing issue if/when the Democrats take charge of the White House.

[ Parent ]
Can we hasten the bridge building? (0.00 / 0)
I think the "bridge building" Matt refers to is one of the more important elements of creating a sustainable political and economic realignment.  Net neutrality (and also the related battles over the 700 MHz auction and the white space spectrum) have been arenas where this has started to happen--at least at the level of recognizing shared interests. 

And, as Matt notes, this has included important and thought-leading input from activist academics, including Tim Wu, Susan Crawford, Larry Lessig, Yochai Benkler and others.  Like the political left, these folks tend to make heavy use of the Internet to communicate their message, in addition to their direct involvement in debating Internet-related issues.

Are there any conferences or other networking exercises that have taken place to focus specifically on this bridge-building task?  Maybe this should be something considered in planning next year's YearlyKos event?

As Matt suggests, there are basic structural and philosophical commonalities among businesses built on the Internet model, those focused on renewable and distributed energy systems, and netroots-based progressive political movements and organizations. 

These shared roots apply directly to policy issues related the communication and energy sectors, which together are the basic underpinnings of our entire economy.  They also feed into issues related to real and effective reform of our "broken" healthcare, educational and political systems, and the mass-advertising system that feeds the growing distortions in these core systems.

My hope (and my belief) is that it won't take 20 years for those bridges to be built.  I think there's too much that needs to be changed a lot sooner than that, and that the emerging alliance Matt refers to can be instrumental in making those changes happen faster, better, cheaper and more holistically and effectively.

So my advice to leaders within the open left would be to reach out more directly to your counterparts in the progressive entrepreneurial sector (and vice versa).  This alliance has the potential to generate the kind of bloodless revolution this country needs.

Some questions to consider:

--What beliefs, values, policy positions, etc. do these two "groups" have in common, and where are their chief differences, whether real or just perceived?

--What are the barriers that are slowing the growth of this type of alliance?  How do the two sectors perceive each other, both positive and negative?  How much actual overlap is there among their membership?

--What are the respective needs and priorities of each side that can be better addressed by more active cooperation withthe other...and how?

--What are their respective strengths and weaknesses, and how can these lead to cooperation that enhances the strengths and offsets and/or remedies the weaknesses?


Web 2.0 is a buzzword (0.00 / 0)
Defense contractors, franchise restauranteurs, telecom executives, PR companies, agribusiness, health insurance and pharam execs - that's where these people live, roughly speaking.

Don't be surprised when all of these companies try to come out with web 2.0 stuff.

I think the real differences are companies that are based out of the internet and probably headquartered in some liberal area and the companies that are headquartered in south carolina.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search