Great article from Kevin Drum at “Mother Jones” reposted at Alternet.com.
This is really worth reading if you are still tying to figure out why things did not turn out as well as some of us hoped after the 2008 Elections…
In 2008, a liberal Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.
Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, 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.
More: Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich | | AlterNet.
One response to “Why the Democratic Party Has Abandoned the Middle Class in Favor of the Rich | | AlterNet”
Maybe I’m not getting the argument of this article quite right, but this is how it seems to me. I wouldn’t agree totally that the Democratic Party has abandoned the middle class in favor of the rich. If that were the case, then why would the Dems rail against ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, raise the minimum wage, institute financial reform. Why are
they calling out the Repubs about radical change to Medicare by offering vouchers, in fact, the Dems have been against any voucher
system including where to send your kids to school. For the most part I feel that the Dems still have the values that have the middle class
in mind when it comes to creating legislation. If this blogger is suggesting that the Dems favor sources of contributions from the rich vs.
the middle class because the middle class does not have the discretionary income , then that’s a different argument and dubious one at that.
The Dems have grassroots support, and although unions have been a major contributor to the Dems campaigns, it is the union members
who are under duress and unions themselves under attack by Repubs. In contrast, unions have waivered their support if the Dems couldn’t
not make good on a promise, but they are losing their political gravitas because of the reduction in members & dues. Also, some in the middle class
has had less involvement and support of the Dems lately because they feel that they have been left out of the equation and their interests no longer
matter, or they (Dems) don’t fight hard enough. However, I don’t see the Dems bending over backwards to the rich & wealthy , nor do I see a total abandonment. President Obama’s agenda to make Congress more bi-partisan has perhaps changed the perception of whether the Dems
are fighting for the middle class or not, and it’s clear that the Dems have made more conciliatory agreements with the Repubs in order
to achieve bi-partisanship to get the people’s business done. However to some that may look like abandonment, but until I can see
the donor dollar figures showing clearly that the Dems have benefited more from the rich in the past decade or the last two years of this
current administration, I’m not buying this argument. I’m just saying…