|
In Chris's early October diary "Wall Street Bailout Thwarting Democratic Realignment" , a couple of commentators talked themselves into a fact-free Versailles kool-aide fest, confusing Versailles Dems with the Democratic base.
Texas Dem began with a comment that I might argue with, but that held a modicum of truth:
Labor atrophied, and the Democrats went from being a party of labor
to being a party of labor AND of business AND of half of the rich.
That is the real source of the "Democrats divided" meme. The true left base is not large enough in this country to rest a party on, so we have a party built on labor AND on business, which can barely function.
Democrats don't propose restoring the Reagan Brackets because a significant fraction of their donor base would revolt. Until we get a party built only on unions and working people without any rich people required (they can join out of conviction, but not to defend their interests), then even the obvious cannot be done.
I don't remember the details of when Obama waffled on rolling back the Bush tax cuts vs letting them expire (after the primary, or did Hillary do it too?), but that was the tell.
Actually, the Democratic Party was never a party of labor, labor didn't simply atrophy, the left was purged from it during the McCarthy Era and the business-friendly labor leadership that remained misrepresented labor even when it was still strong, and even today the Democratic Party is not the party of "half the rich." But ever since the early 80s, the party has gone out of its way to court Wall Street, and Obama has done the same to a ridiculous extent:
Rank Candidate Office Amount
1 Obama, Barack (D) Senate $39,572,425
2 McCain, John (R) Senate $28,952,642
3 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $20,262,274
4 Romney, Mitt (R) $13,722,157
5 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $13,417,809
Given Obama' vast small donor base, he could have kept his distance from Wall Street. Instead, he's turned the other way around. But the comment thread quickly diverged further and further from reality:
This donor base that would revolt...
...why are they Democrats to begin with?
"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- oward Zinn
by: Master Jack @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 20:08
Social issues
by: DTOzone @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 20:30
So the Dems have been reduced to...
...being the Abortion Party.
Lovely.
"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
by: Master Jack @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 20:34
yes...sorta
that's how they rose from the 1980's doldrums...by winning over socially liberal fiscal conservatives in the Northeast.
and similarly, the GOP is the Christian party.
by: DTOzone @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 23:02
In fact, the Democratic electorate has not changed significantly since the 1980s in the ways alleged, and the gap between Democratic and Republican voters on a state-by-state basis is quite distinct on economic issues compared to social ones. Details on the flip.
|
STATE BLOGS
