The Occupy movement brought key issues like economic inequality, Wall Street greed, and political corruption to the table. And we may have the GOP frontrunners to thank for keeping them there. Here’s a look at how the Battle of Newt and Mitt can help keep the OWS flame alive...
The Populist Platform
Newt Gingrich’s populist messages in South Carolina dealt Mitt Romney a body blow. Newt hit the multi-millionaire on his low tax rate and his role in the oft-reviled private equity industry to leave him stumbling through debate questions and looking generally ill at ease. Getting branded as a corporate raider who pays less in taxes than your housecleaner is not a great image, to say the least.
Newt leveled three sets of charges at his rival on economic issues, all of which resonate with core Occupy Wall Street concerns. The first two were key in the South Carolina primary, and the third may be important in the next phase as Newt attempts to draw Ron Paul supporters into his camp. They are:
1) Taxes (OWS concern = economic inequality)
2) Private equity (OWS concern = Wall Street predation, ruthless capitalism, senseless job destruction)
3) Federal Reserve (OWS concern = power of big banks over government)
Each of these issues, of course, is viewed through somewhat different lenses by left and right-leaning populists. For Occupiers, questions about the Federal Reserve, for example, tend to call up issues of the banking industry’s influence on government at the expense of the ordinary Americans. For many Tea Partiers, a greater concern is 1) the relationship between the Fed’s activity and the government deficit and 2) the desire of some to abandon fiat money in favor of a return to the gold standard. Newt signaled his stance in Saturday night’s victory speech:
Dr. Ron Paul, who on the issue of money and the Federal Reserve, has been right for 25 years. While I disagree with him on many other things, there’s no doubt that a lot of his critique of inflation, of flat money into the federal reserve is absolutely right, in the right direction, and its something I can support strongly.
However Newt spins them, all three issues are likely to produce robust discussions that highlight and educate the public on matters that OWS would like to have at the center of national economic debate. OWS and Tea Partiers often agree that the Fed should be more transparent and that it’s structure is problematic, so even if Newt comes at the issue from the perspective of right-wing populism, there are enough intersections that OWS can celebrate the discussion.
The tax and private equity issues have brought a flood of commentary throughout the media, such as a recent New York Times piece by Floyd Norris questioning the fact that investment income is now taxed at a lower rate than earned income -- ;a debate driven by Mitt’s admission that he pays a mere 15 percent in taxes. Norris demonstrated that this discrepancy has not historically been the case and also why it is unfair . Thanks to the attacks on Mitt, Americans have been talking about “vulture capitalism” (Newt’s term for private equity) and the ruthless policies and game-rigging financial engineering it is known for. Of course, this produced an entirely predictable chorus of “Shame on Newt” from financiers and their apologists, succinctly captured by Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, who whined on Fox News: “This is what our capitalist system is about!”
Truly, Occupiers could not have hoped for better media coverage of their grievances.
Newt, Incorporated
Having won in S.C. on a wave of populist discontent, Newt must now must do some fancy footwork in the ring. He has to figure out how to continue tapping into widespread resentment against elites while simultaneously bringing many of those same elites -- particularly the financiers -- on his side in the fall presidential battle. If Newt decides to go full force on populist economic issues, he will certainly garner enthusiasm from some elements on the right. But he’s got a problem: If you keep hitting the Money Men, they tend to hit back. And they might just leave the show altogether and throw their weight behind Obama, who has served their interests well on many fronts.
Another small problem: Just as Mitt became the face of the brutal and unfair aspects of our capitalist system in recent debates, Newt may find himself the poster boy for the corrupt influence of money in politics. In the final days of the S.C. showdown, Mitt began to signal that he was willing to hit on his opponent's big Achilles' heel in his demand that records of Newt’s 1997 ethics violation be released.
Here’s a little history on why Newt’s populist-champion narrative has more holes that a slice of Swiss cheese.
As Speaker of the House, the number of ethics violations Newt racked up through unsavory money transactions is breathtaking, and resulted, as Mitt reminds us, in a $300,000 fine. But there’s more. Oh, so much more.
The worst thing about Newt is what political economist Thomas Ferguson pointed out in a paper for the Institute for New Economic Thinking -- namely that Newt was the key architect of the current pay-to-play system in Congress. More than anyone else, he is responsible for building the system in which members of Congress who bring in the most cash get the plum and powerful committee appointments. It was not always thus. Before Newt and his buddy Tom Delay saw the potential for pay-to-play, committee appointments came through seniority. But after Newt & Co. came to power, influence in Congress was nakedly up for sale. Today, both parties actually post prices for key positions, as Ferguson noted in the Financial Times.
This crass turn in American politics has undermined democracy and has done more to separate the will of the voters from the actions of the politicians they elect than perhaps anything else in the last fifty years. It’s the shameless mentality that once prompted Newt’s former buddy and fellow Georgia politician Ralph Reed to talk giddily about his aspiration to start “humping corporate accounts” following his turn in electoral politics.
When Newt left Congress, he then went on to become a consultant for, oh, Everybody in the Universe. He cozied up to Big Oil and changed his stance on climate change. He hopped into bed with health care executives, selling access to lawmakers and collecting millions from the industry for his think tank. And he famously took $1.6 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for his services as a “historian.” Know any real historians who rake in that kind of cash?
Americans’ deep anger about the degree to which Big Business buys the political system has been channeled through the Occupy Movement, and Newt’s role not only as a key conduit in this system, but one of its engineers, may open up public discussion of this issue, much as Mitt’s low tax rate and corporate raiding have helped keep the torch burning on income inequality and predatory capitalism.
Mitt will certainly try to overwhelm Newt with money. But he can also call out Newt’s particular affinity for channeling cash through the political system and expressing more enthusiasm for lobbying than anyone in recent memory. Calling him Mr. Anti-Free Market Capitalism is one tactic, branding him as Mr. Corruption is yet another. And the branding has begun. On Sunday, Mitt headed to Florida and challenged the former Speaker on his influence-peddling, criticizing him for “what's he been doing for fifteen years…working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington.”
Mitt asked Newt to release his records concerning his years working for Freddie Mac, emphasizing the GOP view that the government-backed lender played a key role in the housing bubble and subsequent collapse, which has been a major source of economic distress to Florida residents.
Newt and Mitt will continue to duke it out, each trying to position himself as a Man of the People. As for the Occupiers, we’ll be sending “thank you for your support” letters to both candidates.
Follow Lynn Parramore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LynnParramore
Stuart Muszynski: America's Character: A Work in Progress
I guess you get different rules if you are among the 1%
It was in the Monday Florida debate !
Newt also failed to get on the ballot in 13 states and is forfeiting all 564 delegates of the 13 states !
It looks like Newt has Neutered or Newt-ered himself ! lol
When the other team is begins making your arguments for you, you're starting to win the discussion.
This has GOT to be so demoralizing for the GOP. A 1%er who made his money gutting US corporations, or the epitome of modern political corruption. Huck has to be regretting his decision to stay out.
I laughed out loud when Newt said that he told his colleagues in the House to vote for the reprimand and fine to "get it behind us". How gullible does he think people are? What hope does this guy have or garnering any support at all from the middle? Doesn't the GOP understand that for every ounce of motivation Newt created on the right there'll be a pound of motivation on the left to vote against him? And Mitt, the posterboy for the 1%. If he really wants a shot at the WH, he should give all his wealth to the poor, apologize for his greed, and try to start again.
I hope Paul wins the nomination. At least he's not a crook and at least he's genuine.
Still no jobs, still no budget, still no energy policy with the exception of closing down oil rigs, stopping oil pipelines and giving money to companies with no buyers for their products....
plus, still missing six million jobs from when President Obama took office.
That is the motivation.
Reid and Pelosi are positively tame compared to DeLay and Gingrich in the 90's. And Gingrich is quickly becoming the GOP standard bearer?
Unemployment is droping, albeit slowly. The prediction for this came in late 08 when economists noticed that the consumer class not only lacked money to spend, but it was in deep debt. No consumers, no mfg/service, no jobs. Retraining and regearing takes a long time. Besides, government's role in creating jobs is small to begin with, and the President's role is actually miniscule. To blame Obama for unemployment would be like blaming you or I for global warming. A very, very small role. But I agree, most don't understand that.
When Obama took office, the country was in free fall. The fact that the recession ended in June 09, that deflation ended around that time, that unemployment started down shortly after that => stim pkg was successful (despite what Hannity and COulter have to say about this). It was miraculous given the stubborn "My top priority is to make Obama a 1 term President" commitment by McConnell who would have fillibustered the time of day back then.
"Look at me. I can hardly walk. Casts on my limbs, I feel terrible, I look worse. And I don't care if I'm recovering, I'm not as good as I was just before the crash. AND this is going to cost me a bundle. You guys are incompetent"
The other says...
"Thank You"
The range of GOP candidates underscores and spotlights many critical social issues of the day, indeed. I agree with others that for this historic display of glaring ineptitude, prejudice, and inequality coupled with thoughtless, visible careless unconcern for the majority, we can and ought to be truly thankful.
OWS is thrilled, now their claims about class inequality is confirmed, by non other then the ultimate representatives of the 1% : )
Now don't get to heavy handed on the Xanax, we want to hear from you tomorrow after The State Of The Union, OK.
not.
These kids rightfully have been confused by the lefts' politics of resentment.
These kids rightfully have been confused by the sheep within the left wing media.
It was a crime against humanity to have the union bosses and Mike Moore hijack these kids megaphones and put their own "greedy" motives on these blurry eyed kids. It was insult to injury.
Of the college kids I know, OWS is no longer. These kids are smart and I think most are now solidly on the right. You made the case!
The lies of the left (fanny/freddie), the 1%, the 40% of the stimulus going back to government employee pensions are going to be very difficult for the left to spew more propaganda, with any degree of efficacy.
The "progressive persecution posse" is destined to a footnote in an eighth grade textbook. It will be looked at like the "flappers" of the 1920's.
The prospect of left-wing propaganda surviving time ought to scare the wits out of those who survive upon it.
Moreover, with 22% of the left having already "left" - ought to spark a sense of urgency in even the most insular of the progressive mindset. I tell you this, not to purposely upset you, but to help you realize the extent of change occurring.
Mic Check! Shame! Shame! Shame!
That was beautiful. High five. Fanned and faved you. :-)
You do realize that Empires fall (Rome, British, to name but two) when upward mobility ceases to exist and wealth inequality predominates, don't you? Do we need to repeat history to learn from it?
With a billion dollars in his war chest, I hope that Obama and his supporters can show enough character heed your point.
The last thing the left needs is another credible person pointing out the chronic insularity built into their platform.
As a conservative, I hope and pray we can get a meaningful party with real issues to debate. The last thing we need is a one party system.