Will the Wall Street Occupiers morph into a movement that has as much impact on the Democratic Party as the Tea Party has had on the GOP? Maybe. But there are reasons for doubting it.
Tea Partiers have been a mixed blessing for the GOP establishment -- a source of new ground troops and energy but also a pain in the assets with regard to attracting independent voters. As Rick Perry and Mitt Romney square off, that pain will become more evident.
So far the Wall Street Occupiers have helped the Democratic Party. Their inchoate demand that the rich pay their fair share is tailor-made for the Democrats' new plan for a 5.6 percent tax on millionaires, as well as the President's push to end the Bush tax cut for people with incomes over $250,000 and to limit deductions at the top.
And the Occupiers give the President a potential campaign theme. "These days, a lot of folks who are doing the right thing aren't rewarded and a lot of folks who aren't doing the right thing are rewarded," he said at his news conference this week, predicting that the frustration fueling the Occupiers will "express itself politically in 2012 and beyond until people feel like once again we're getting back to some old-fashioned American values."
But if Occupy Wall Street coalesces into something like a real movement, the Democratic Party may have more difficulty digesting it than the GOP has had with the Tea Party.
After all, a big share of both parties' campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms. The Street and corporate America also have hordes of public-relations flacks and armies of lobbyists to do their bidding -- not to mention the unfathomably deep pockets of the Koch Brothers and Dick Armey's and Karl Rove's SuperPACs. Even if the Occupiers have access to some union money, it's hardly a match.
Yet the real difficulty lies deeper. A little history is helpful here.
In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party had no trouble embracing economic populism. It charged the large industrial concentrations of the era -- the trusts -- with stifling the economy and poisoning democracy. In the 1912 campaign Woodrow Wilson promised to wage "a crusade against powers that have governed us ... that have limited our development ... that have determined our lives ... that have set us in a straightjacket to so as they please." The struggle to break up the trusts would be, in Wilson's words, nothing less than a "second struggle for emancipation."
Wilson lived up to his words -- signing into law the Clayton Antitrust Act (which not only strengthened antitrust laws but also exempted unions from their reach), establishing the Federal Trade Commission (to root out "unfair acts and practices in commerce"), and creating the first national income tax.
Years later Franklin D. Roosevelt attacked corporate and financial power by giving workers the right to unionize, the 40-hour workweek, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. FDR also instituted a high marginal income tax on the wealthy.
Not surprisingly, Wall Street and big business went on the attack. In the 1936 campaign, Roosevelt warned against the "economic royalists" who had impressed the whole of society into service. "The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor ... these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship," he warned. What was at stake, Roosevelt thundered, was nothing less than the "survival of democracy." He told the American people that big business and finance were determined to unseat him. "Never before, in all our history, have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred!"
By the 1960s, though, the Democratic Party had given up on populism. Gone from presidential campaigns were tales of greedy businessmen and unscrupulous financiers. This was partly because the economy had changed profoundly. Postwar prosperity grew the middle class and reduced the gap between rich and poor. By the mid-1950s, a third of all private-sector employees were unionized, and blue-collar workers got generous wage and benefit increases.
By then Keynesianism had become a widely-accepted antidote to economic downturns -- substituting the management of aggregate demand for class antagonism. Even Richard Nixon purportedly claimed "we're all Keynesians now." Who needed economic populism when fiscal and monetary policy could even out the business cycle, and the rewards of growth were so widely distributed?
But there was another reason for the Democrats' increasing unease with populism. The Vietnam War spawned an anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian New Left that distrusted government as much if not more than it distrusted Wall Street and big business. Richard Nixon's electoral victory in 1968 was accompanied by a deep rift between liberal Democrats and the New Left, which continued for decades.
Enter Ronald Reagan, master storyteller, who jumped into the populist breach. If Reagan didn't invent right-wing populism in America he at least gave it full-throated voice. "Government is the problem, not the solution," he intoned, over and over again. In Reagan's view, Washington insiders and arrogant bureaucrats stifled the economy and hobbled individual achievement.
The Democratic Party never regained its populist footing. To be sure, Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 promising to "fight for the forgotten middle class" against the forces of "greed," but Clinton inherited such a huge budget deficit from Reagan and George H.W. Bush that he couldn't put up much of a fight. And after losing his bid for universal health care, Clinton himself announced that the "era of big government" was over -- and he proved it by ending welfare.
Democrats have not been the ones to engage in class warfare. That was the distinct product of right-wing Republican populism. Anybody recall the Republican ad in the 2004 presidential election describing Democrats as a "tax-hiking, government spending, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak Show?"
Republicans repeatedly attacked John Kerry as a "Massachusetts liberal" who was part of the "Chardonnay-and-brie set." George W. Bush mocked Kerry for finding a "new nuance" each day on Iraq -- drawing out the word "nuance" to emphasize Kerry's French cultural elitism. "In Texas, we don't do nuance," he said, to laughter and applause. House Republican leader Tom DeLay opened his campaign speeches by saying "Good morning or, as John Kerry would say, Bonjour."
The Tea Party has been quick to pick up the same class theme. At the Conservative Political Action Conference of 2010, Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty attacked "the elites" who believe Tea Partiers are "not as sophisticated because a lot of them didn't go to Ivy League Schools" and "don't hang out at ... Chablis-drinking, Brie-eating parties in San Francisco." After his son Rand Paul was elected for Kentucky's Senate seat that May, Congressman Ron Paul explained that voters want to "get rid of the power people who run the show, the people who think they're above everyone else."
Which brings us to the present day. Barack Obama is many things but he is as far from left-wing populism as any Democratic president in modern history. True, he once had the temerity to berate "fat cats" on Wall Street, but that remark was the exception -- and subsequently caused him endless problems on the Street.
To the contrary, Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business -- making Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary and de facto ambassador from the Street; seeing to it that Bush's Fed appointee, Ben Bernanke, got another term; and appointing GE Chair Jeffrey Immelt to head his jobs council.
Most tellingly, it was President Obama's unwillingness to place conditions on the bailout of Wall Street -- not demanding, for example, that the banks reorganize the mortgages of distressed homeowners, and that they accept the resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act, as conditions for getting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars -- that contributed to the new populist insurrection.
The Wall Street bailout fueled the Tea Party (at the Utah Republican convention that ousted incumbent Republican Senator Robert Bennett in 2010, the mob repeatedly shouted "TARP! TARP! TARP!"), and it surely fuels some of the current fulminations of Occupy Wall Street.
This is not to say that the Occupiers can have no impact on the Democrats. Nothing good happens in Washington -- regardless of how good our president or representatives may be - unless good people join together outside Washington to make it happen. Pressure from the left is critically important.
But the modern Democratic Party is not likely to embrace left-wing populism the way the GOP has embraced -- or, more accurately, been forced to embrace -- right-wing populism. Just follow the money, and remember history.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
Artists Occupy Wall Street for a 24-Hour Show
Pelosi Supports Occupy Wall Street Movement
Nancy Pelosi comes out in support of Occupy Wall Street protesters
Occupy Wall Street: Hundreds march in Denver
Occupy Atlanta Turns Down Congressman John Lewis' Request to Speak
Occupy Wall Street Is Fox's New Fair And Balanced Enemy
Occupy Wall Street: Republican Hypocrites And Politics
Slavoj Žižek Speaks to Occupy Wall Street
Several hundred rally downtown in support of 'Occupy Wall Street'
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Obama, who will try to "harness OWS' energy", with leaders, friends and foes alike, urge OWS to "tell us what you want", set "legislative goals", and then draw similarities between the "Tea Partier's and OWS", are all wrong! They are two groups and they know how to walk, sing and chew gum,at the same time, but all similarities end there!
Reich points out historically, how we have come a long way from "economic populism" to "economic royalist". Political parties, the Street and corporate America are "one".
OWS symbolize dramatic changes from Americans welcoming JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country", to where we are now, with 99% of Americans asking, "What Must We Do for Ourselves"!
Reich is right. Obama is many things, but "he is far from a left-wing populist". Likewise, "Tea Partiers" are another iteration of the Robber Barons' pledge to do away with FDR's populism. For the long-term, OWS' make the 2012 presidential elections, meaningless. In the short-term, if the W.H. goes Republican, 99% will stand-in their way. However, if Obama is reelected, leaders like Reich, Jeffrey Sachs, Stigleitz, and OWS will help him remember, his "bipartisan economic royalist" agenda didnot put him back in the W.H!
"But if Occupy Wall Street coalesces into something like a real movement, the Democratic Party may have more difficulty digesting it than the GOP has had with the Tea Party.
After all, a big share of both parties' campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms."
All that means is,... the Democratic Party has a choice. It can continue to embrace the corporate big-buck while trying to hold the 'rabble' at arm's length and alienate that rabble. An alienated rabble is likely to either stay home come election day, or jump to 'anything' but a 1st or 2nd Party.
Or
The Democratic Party can embrace the 'rabble' and alienate the corporate big-bucks - hoping that the rabble will carry them through to victory against the withering fire of a Republican negative add blitz.
Color me a cynic,... but I think denial of this movement will persist in official channels until a few incumbant Democrats lose their primary election bids to 99%-er candidates.
Likewise, Democrats would like to absorb "Occupy" energy while setting the idea agenda.
It will be divide and conquer again to the advantage of the "Money Party" that plays both sides of the street. Enron games enabled. No one goes to jail. Obama says nothing illegal, just immoral. Wow. Why did so many go to jail after the much smaller S&L disaster?
William K. Black calls Keynes followers "theoclassical" implying they imbue Keynes with godlike qualities. Don't question the current Keynes biblical interpretations.
The real story is here, Hernado de Soto looking at us from the third world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-financial-ignorance/2011/10/03/gIQAEU3yTL_story.html
What is Robert Reich's plan to meet the challenges to America and the middle class.
I tend to agree with him on the strength of the Occupy Wall St. movement. I spent
an evening at their website reading the comments that were going by posted by the
participants, and it sounded like a big party. There was very little talk about issues.
Americans seem to be locked into a mindset where we can all yell argue disagree,
but we cannot distribute, process or find any new information of ways to look at
our problems that will get us out of this mess and rolling again .... and meanwhile
the corporations are just locking in their power gains.
It really looks like the end for this country, and I do not know what do to or where
to go?
Hard to ride the coat-tails of a guy who has been dead since 1945. The current Democrats have a lot of work to do to earn the right to be compared to FDR.
And you're right we *are* mad at the Dems about as much as the right.
Because Wall Street *bets* on both parties, they diversify their congressional portfolio as I like to say, they want to make sure that whoever does get into offices of congress or the WH, they've got first dibs on their ear.
It's not anti-obama, we don't believe a single person is the problem.
The problem is the last 30yrs of a symbiotic and nepotistic relationship our government has with Wall Street. Too many former heads of Investment Banks have gotten into our government and too many former government reps have left and gone to work for these Wall Street firms.
And thats a serious problem.
We are for Capitalism, and against the corruption of Capitalism by Wall Street, who have the game (our government) rigged to their favor.
Wall Street, is Pete Rose.
Well said. You named the game. We don't have capitalism. It's more like the original big corporations, Dutch and British East India Companies and we live in their colonies.
In making the case for the Dems being working class heroes, Reich has no choice but to stretch the truth, especilally when discussing Wall Street's grip on the political process: "after all, a big share of both parties' campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms". In the last election Obama received the lion's share of Wall Street's campaign contributions, as demonstrated by how quickly Obama nixed his muted criticism of their excesses.
Obama's poised to collect another huge share of Wall Street's generosity this election cycle due to his convenient placing of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the aegis of the Fed, followed of course by his dumping of too-feisty Elizabeth Warren as its head.
The Dem's are not heroes or even friends of the working class.
Bush receive massive wall street *investment* both times he ran.
After that, knowing Obama was the likely winner, thy invested in Obama
Now they are spreading that investment around.
Wall Street is about Investing in their best interest, they want to make sure the winner is in their pocket.
and the right wing is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street.
Obama was the likely winner BECAUSE he received the lion's share of Wall Street's campaign money. First comes the horse, then the cart. Both parties are wholly-owned by Wall St.
The chant shouldn't stop until Glass-Steagall is re-enacted.
"Re-enact Glass-Steagall!"
This political race began in the streets of NY, with hundreds voicing their cries on behalf of hundreds of millions of the American middle class regarding their dwindling quality of life, and the massive (and escalating) economic, employment/jobs, wealth disparity, perceived social value, etc. chasm between the top 1-2% (already) very wealthy and the other 98-99%. This race will wind through many US cities and States. But, this is only the start of the race. The finish is many grueling miles ahead.
The “uphill” and “wind in the face” moments in this race are literally defined by resistive elements to be encountered, being primarily the massive Republican monetary political machine (enabled by far right MSM’s) of purchased political resistance and power via the Citizens United case, voting/registration changes in Republican controlled States designed to inhibit Democratic voter turnout, etc.
The successful “finish” is defined by what happens in November 2012, and quite literally nothing else.
Those "occupiers" and the middle class in general must discern that to ultimately win this race, they MUST counter this Republican resistance with overwhelming Democratic political contributions and a Democratic voter turnout in 2012 far exceeding the monumental levels of 2008.
It’s all in the numbers-there’s hundreds of millions more of the 98-99%er’s electorate than the 1-2%er’s.
There's a song in there somewhere!
At Starbucks, where I expect people to be smarter than those at, say, a Tea Party rally, two teachers were discussing it and thought the 5.6% was on a millionaire's total income, and weren't sure that it was fair. An easy way to envision this is to think about income being in layers, with higher layers being taxed at higher rates. This is fair because people who have only the lower layers of income need to spend it all on necessities just to survive.