Fire on the Left
Tea Partiers are getting all the press, but it's the anger on the left that spells trouble for Dems in the midterms.
Robert B. Reich | August 2, 2010
A friend whom I'll call David raised a ton of money for Democrats in 2008 and now tells me they can go to hell. He's furious about the no-strings bailout of Wall Street, the absence of a public option in health reform, financial reform that doesn't cap the size of banks or reinstate the Glass- Steagall wall between investment and commercial banking, and a stimulus that was too small to do much good but big enough to give Republicans a campaign issue. He's also upset about tens of thousands of additional troops being sent to Afghanistan, a watered-down cap-and-trade bill that's going nowhere, and no Employee Free Choice Act. David won't raise a penny this fall and doubts he'll even vote. "I busted my chops getting them elected, and they caved," he fumes. "They're all lily-livered wimps, and Obama has the backbone of a worm."
Tea Partiers are getting all the press. But the anger on the left, including much of the Democratic base, is almost as intense. And it spells trouble for Democrats a few months from now.
The pattern isn't new. I remember a gloomy fall 16 years ago when as secretary of labor I traveled around the country trying to rev up the base for the 1994 midterms. I found anger and disillusionment then, too. Of course, Clinton hadn't accomplished nearly as much as Obama. In fact, he'd pushed initiatives like NAFTA that infuriated the base.
When Republicans control Congress or the White House, their base can get restless but doesn't seem to suffer the same disillusionment. Republicans stood by Ronald Reagan in the 1982 midterms and rallied enthusiastically for his re-election in 1984. They were out in force for George H.W. Bush's 1990 midterm as well as George W. Bush's in 2002 and his 2004 re- election. Why the asymmetry?
First, the Republican base keeps the heat on after elections so Republican officeholders accomplish what they promise and are less likely to compromise in the first place. The Republican base fueled the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts and penalized George H.W. Bush only after he reversed his "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes.
The Republican base is part of a conservative movement. The Democratic base, by contrast, is a loose coalition that elects a new president and then goes home, expecting the new president to deliver miracles.
When I ask David what he's done over the last 18 months to push for a more progressive agenda, he says he e-mailed senators in support of a public option and signed a Sierra Club petition for cap-and-trade. "On Afghanistan I even called the White House to tell the president not to send more troops. What else am I supposed to do?"
David thinks of himself as an individual with strong progressive views about specific issues rather than as a member of an ongoing movement with a larger vision of what America should be.
Washington's network of progressive advocacy groups is just like David. Each has a narrow bandwidth (health, environment, labor, women's rights) with a national constituency that donates money and sends members of Congress e-mails as requested about particular initiatives.
These groups are staffed by overworked 20-something's and headed by people who enjoy being minor celebrities at Washington fundraisers and occasional visitors to the White House. But these groups don't mobilize people back where they live, and they're no substitute for a broad progressive movement.
A movement connects the dots across issues and reveals a larger wrong that must be righted. When it comes to misuse of power, Americans carry two deep-seated fears -- of big government taking over and of big business and Wall Street running amok. Both are sometimes justified, but the political response is lopsided. The conservative movement adeptly fits almost every morsel of news to the first fear, giving its members an animating cause: Reduce government.
A progressive movement would focus on the second fear, seeking to protect average working people from the depredations of big business and Wall Street. Given what has occurred in recent years -- from Enron and WorldCom through the devastation brought on by Wall Street, to the price- gouging by health insurers like WellPoint and Big Pharma, right through BP - - there is no absence of dots to be connected.
With the election of Barack Obama, many on the left found comfort in the belief that a single man could make transformative change without powerful tailwinds behind him. But that was a pipe dream. Rather than feel discouraged and angry by a president and representatives that seem to bend to the prevailing winds from the right, David and others like him must drum up a storm.
***
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <dorothyreik@pdsmm.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Subject: Congresswoman Waters Challenges Investigation
To:
From: <dorothyreik@pdsmm.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Subject: Congresswoman Waters Challenges Investigation
To:
Please forward. This is ridiculous. By this standard all legislators who have defense stocks are guilty too. (Or obeissance to Wall St., G St., Big Oil, et al. -Ed)
Dorothy Reik
PDSMM
818-226-6100
818-226-6111 fax
PDSMM
818-226-6100
818-226-6111 fax
Please feel free to share.
Blanca JimenezDistrict Director10124 S. Broadway, Suite OneLos Angeles, CA 90003Ph: 323.757.8900 ext. 11Fax: 323.757.9506PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Phone: (202) 225-2201Congresswoman Waters Challenges Investigation"No benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced: no case"Washington, DC – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) issued the following statement today:"I have not violated any House rules.
Therefore, I simply will not be forced to admit to something I did not do and instead have chosen to respond to charges made by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a public hearing.
Starting with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) report released today, the record will clearly show that in advocating on behalf of minority banks neither my office nor I benefited in any way, engaged in improper action or influenced anyone. Additionally, the OCE acknowledges that I have fully disclosed my assets as required by House rules, even going above and beyond the requirements by disclosing my assets at several Financial Services Committee hearings. In sum, the case against me has no merit.
The accusations against me stem from work I have done throughout my decades of public service as an advocate for minority communities and businesses in California and nationally.
As the financial crisis was unfolding, jeopardizing the health of banks large and small, the National Bankers Association (NBA), a trade organization which represents the interests of more than 100 minority-owned banks, requested a meeting with Treasury Department officials. It is important to clarify that this meeting was requested and scheduled on behalf of the NBA, not on behalf of OneUnited Bank as has been suggested.
A letter from NBA to Treasury, included in the OCE report (see page 39), dated September 6th, 2008, requesting the meeting indicates the intent of the meeting and the dire concern expressed by the association on behalf of its members. The NBA contacted Treasury directly, just as other trade associations did, to request a meeting so that its members could discuss their concerns regarding the crisis facing minority banks. I followed up on the association's request by asking then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to schedule such a meeting, as did other members of Congress. Secretary Paulson recognized that the NBA's concerns about the future of minority banks were valid and arranged for a meeting.
I did not attend the meeting and thus did not participate in the conversation. The OCE focuses on concerns expressed during the meeting between NBA and Treasury on behalf of a single bank. However, NBA's follow up letter, dated September 10, 2008 and also included in the OCE's report (see page 59), to Treasury reiterates the organization's concerns about the fiscal health of its members generally.
Despite this evidence, the committee is arguing that I was not acting to help minority institutions and the constituents they serve but instead that I was trying to help OneUnited (in which my husband held investments) -- and that doing so violated House rules related to personally benefiting from official actions and conflict of interest.
However, the suggestion that I gained personally by assisting the National Bankers Association in getting a meeting with the Treasury Department is not credible. Even the OCE acknowledges that the meeting resulted in no action. Although it leveled the accusation, the OCE also failed to show that I received any benefit or engaged in any "improper exercise of official influence."
The OCE has drawn negative inferences where there are none and twisted facts to fit its faulty conclusions. After a lengthy investigation, the report released today only shows:
No benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced: no case.Although I am not convinced that the process for investigating and examining House ethics cases is fair, I welcome the opportunity to show my constituents and the American public that the accusations against me are frivolous and unfounded."###If you would rather not receive future communications from House of Rep: Office of Maxine Waters, let us know by clicking here.
House of Rep: Office of Maxine Waters, 2344 Rayburn Building, Washington, DC 20515 United States
_______________________________________________
PDLA mailing list
PDLA@svpal.org
http://mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/pdla
No comments:
Post a Comment