
Yesterday I asked David Sirota and Matt Stoller what they thought Chuck Schumer meant when he used the word "centrist." We were soon on our feet, shouting and jamming our fingers at each other but not long in concluding that neither we, nor Chuck himself probably had any idea what he was talking about. If it's a term generally employed to describe those who are socially liberal but fiscally "conservative," then neither Shuler nor Bob Casey (who are usually touted as poster boys for this particular triumph) fit the bill. Rita Cosby in her stint with Cliff Schecter this morning presumes it means that anyone actually cared about Heath Shuler, or anybody else's position on abortion this election. They really didn't. As Harold Meyerson says:
Looking at the Democrats who picked up formerly Republican House seats, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch tallies 27 who defeated (or replaced resigning) free-trade Republicans and who campaigned against the kind of trade deals that Congress has ratified. The fair-trade 27 insist instead on deals that stress labor rights and environmental standards. In North Carolina, Democrat Heath Shuler -- ostensibly one of the new conservative Democrats -- attacked his opponent, Republican Charles Taylor, for backing off his commitment to vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. "It's not right when Congress passes trade bills that send our jobs overseas," said one Shuler ad.In the incoming Senate delegation, the contrast is even sharper. The Democratic pickups -- Missouri's Claire McCaskill, Montana's Jon Tester, Ohio's Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse, and Virginia's James Webb -- all unseated free-trade incumbents with campaigns that stressed the need to pay far greater attention to the downward leveling that globalization entails. Tester ran ads attacking trade agreements for putting "our jobs and the viability of family farms and ranches across Montana in jeopardy." Webb's Web site states, "We must reexamine our tax and trade policies and reinstitute notions of fairness."
Exit polling made clear that the fair-trade Democrats have tapped into a profound national anxiety. When asked whether life for the next generation would be better, worse or about the same as life today, 40 percent responded "worse," while just 30 percent answered "better." That's a stunning figure to emerge from what has historically been perhaps the most optimistic of nations.
Sirota wrote an article entitled "Debunking Centrism" last year where he argued essentially that those who define themselves as such don't much like to ruffle corporate feathers more than anything else. Yet this is purported "centrist" Jim Webb in today's Wall Street Journal:
The most important-- and unfortunately the least debated-- issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.
Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.
This is where the "centrism" both of the country and this election probably rests, but I doubt it's what Rita Cosby or Chuck Schumer or anybody else who spits out the word like it was a cheap taco probably means. Webb's language is not the language of the Blue Dogs or the New Democratic Coalition who are quick to claim victory in this election expressly because they see themselves as an outgrowth of corporate culture. And I really just do not think that's what many people thought they were voting for.
As the Agonist's Ian Welsh said (via email):
The US is ripe for populism, and getting riper by the year. One day some politician is going to realize there's a bunch of nitro fuel lying around. I hope it's an FDR, but it doesn't have to be.
Predictably, Democrats are now lining up to receive the bounty of all that lobbying money which K Street has denied them so long. I think the spectacle of a few interesting political tightrope walks await us all.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
FITZ!
Jim Webb!
Roots!
It’s gonna be hard cleaning house and maintaining a majority.
K Street should sink into the earth. Let the netroots be a ruthless watchdog. I mean lamb.
I’m thinking that all this economic populism and anti-corporatism plays into the hands of a Preznitial candidate who’s talked about Two Americas, or One America, for a while. The cute one, on The Daily Show last night, with the handsome, wholesome family and the dimples. And the accent.
just sayin.
TeddySanFran @ 5
mebbe so!
Or we could see a lot more of Jim Webb… ;)
“ripe for populism”
Yep—
Dems will decide what to do with the guns and abortion issues depending on where they are running- but the bread and butter issues are all breaking the dems’ way.
TeddySanFran @
5
Missed TDS, but caught Fresh Air today
TeddySanFran @ 5
I agree, and a nice balance would include someone focused on global warming/alternative fuels, international cooperatoin and restoration of Constitutional principles.
My rule: don’t support anyone who’s still in the Senate. (Cause next time, I want at least 52 Dems in the Senate, in case we want to purge anyone.)
rwcole @ 7
Guns, gays and abortion issues are just not going to make it onto the agenda. They are divisive for Democrats, and we won’t be seeing people forced to vote and choose sides on them because they just won’t make it onto the floor.
There will, however, be a whole lot of populist economic issues that even the Republicans are already starting to deal with (raising the minimum wage, with as many nasty GOP amendments as they can jam in, may actually pass before the end of the year). The ensuing political realighment should be interesting.
I proudly say that I am not a so-called centrist. I am however in favor common sense. I despise NAFTA, CAFTA, right to work, present day Republicans and the DLC.
Edwards/Clark
Clark/Edwards
Bring it on.
Al Gore
Looking at Olbermann and they’re talking about how if we pull out of Iraq now, ‘it will quicken the slide to civil war’ there. My gawd!
Gore/Dean
Gore would be my first choice. Dream ticket for me would be Gore/Clark.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
works for me.
On KO– Moore says there is no way that Abramoff doesn’t touch Rove.
Any combo of Gore/Clark/Edwards works for me!
I for one will welcome not having my goverment attack me for being a gay man.
Those who don’t realize that the lobbyist culture is a very big part of the problem are an even larger part of the problem.
‘G’head, everybody’s doing it’…’You don’t understand, this is the way things are done‘…’Hey man, I’m not like those guys - I have principles‘.
All self-serving bullshit written on the tombstone of ideals, while the orgy of greed capers at the graveside.
It took, what, 40 years the last time for the Democrats to go ‘Mr. Creosote’ from stuffing themselves at the trough.
Republicans, 12 years.
Somebody trying to set the new record here?
Right on Jane!!
I hope we see more attention to this issue. Because the class thing that we were all talking about “back in the day” is really home to roost now. Americans have finally realized that all this “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” routine applies to an era long gone. There are fewer and fewer among us who rise to the political class from the ranks of the poor.
And the idea that it is really possible to transcend the class one was born into is really fleeting. Yet this “dream” is dangled like a carrot, and some are still straining to reach it, as if it is not actually almost beyond imagination now.
Someone earlier today, on FDL, mentioned that our country (or the world) was saved, basically in the nick of time, by these elections.
I truly do not know if the Democrats can rise to the cause. The whorehouse/crack house that is K Street/campaign cash needs to be outlawed.
There is a HUGE opportunity to turn back towards accountability, fairness, science, education, environmental protection, health care, and the END to endless war. Among other things.
We have GOT to keep the pressure on.
Thanks for this post. It needed to be said.
It sure was refreshing to hear straight-talking Henry Waxman on NPR this afternoon! Maybe I’m biased but he sure sounds sensible ;)
Combine Henry with Jane’s 5:03 and we’ve got a winner.
angie @ 18
Did you catch Moore saying Rove/Bush; two heads on the same monster?
I don’t have a dream ticket since I am still recovering from Russ’s decision.
Clark would be the best person to take on Pryor in ‘08. I don’t see any other person on the horizon that could take him out.
scarecrow @
9
I loosely adhere to the same rule, but only because they’ve historically been unelectable. The last senator to get elected was ridiculously charismatic and eloquent - Obama’s the only Democratic senator that comes close, and he’s been a huge disappointment.
Also worth noting that in 2008 there will be 21 Republican seats up for re-election, and only 12 Democratic ones. And I believe either Tapped or TPM said that Landrieu was the only one of those 12 who was vulnerable (pre-emptive primary strike, anyone?).
Oops. Class issues, populism, and health insurance. Nope, not going there.
99% of the press will never go there. It’s totally dangerous to their mission: to convince viewers that everything is either hunky-dorry or scary–but someone up next will tell us how we are fixing it to be hunky-dorry again so you can feel good about tuning in and then buying all the stuff we have to sell you.
I’m such a cynic, but the media is point-focused on keeping America in the dark, undereducated, and being happy consumers of all that is superficial and therefor must be consumed all the time.
Populism is the death knell of today’s economic structure, from Wall-mart to CNN.
Besides, on top of all that social stuff, if the media started reporting on actual economic facts and realities and what we can do about it, they are deathly afraid that most of their audience will click somewhere else where they can get their superficial celeb fix, their nasty minority murderer story, and their T&A fix. (And I’m afraid they’re right.)
What worries me most about the Democrats is the fact that they gave Lieberman a standing ovation yesterday. That gave me a serious sinking feeling.
I did, OK kiddo.
:)
99% of the press will never go there. It’s totally dangerous to their mission: to convince viewers that everything is either hunky-dorry or scary–but someone up next will tell us how we are fixing it to be hunky-dorry again so you can feel good about tuning in and then buying all the stuff we have to sell you.
America is, in fact, sailing on the Hunky Doria.
I would suspect Johnson (D-SD) would always be susceptible, but don’t know enough about him. Couldn’t kick Landrieu out fast enough…don’t let the door ya and all that.
Eli @ 28
ooh, thanks for the reminder:
my contmept for Joe Lieberman will never subside.
Which is not to say we are going to have to be victims to the media. We have driven the stories and arguments and campaigns of this last election to a large extent. We will become even more effective in the next. This powerful community is just waking up and trying things, and damn is it fun!
The selection of the mf’ing racist, anti-woman and anti-gay Lott by the GOP, signals additional nastiness by Rove etc.
I would like very much to see Gore run again, but ONLY if Jane advises Gore. He would need to hear every single day to not listen to any D.C. insiders. And if people go after him, either laugh at them, or give them the facts. Either/or.
The US Hunky Doria.
Great shi* of state.
Eli @ 30
and Libby is sailing on the Edmund Fitzgerald
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Did you see the Fark comment that Atrios posted?
Jane Hamsher @ 10
In the meantime, American politics are moving in the opposite direction as American religion, and it’s not just the evangelicals. It’s also the Episcopalians, who can’t seem to handle gay priests, Presbyterians and Baptists, who can’t even think about them, and the American Catholic Bishops:
Bishops stress sexual issues and would deny communion
The last quote is my favorite, because it says that any activity that does not fulfill the natural end of human sexuality is not morally acceptable. Let’s see, that applies to . . . playing baseball, going to a symphony, blogging, taking out the garbage, and so on.
It’s just possible that “centrist” in the future will mean, not allowing religious bigots define morality. btw, the Bishops acknowledge that about 98% of Catholics don’t agree with the bit about contraception.
marksb @ 27
Yes but the right easily held their base transfixed by the red meat of social issues and bright, shiny objects while they pillaged the country. I sincerely hope that does not work with the left and that if the old corporate whores don’t wake up to this hunger for economic populism as their newly elected bretheren have done then they too will find themselves under electoral pressure.
GrandmaJ @ 35
and she’d probably give better wardrobe advice than Naomi Wolf
punaise @ 41
Why are you afraid of Naomi Wolf?
Eli @ 28
Read Webb’s Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal today a few times. It should make you feel better.
Phillyboy @ 43
It’s always good to see that some Democrats Get It, but it’s disturbing to see them applaud en masse for someone who is basically their sworn enemy at this point.
Clinton mentioned that the presidency allowed him to have a big impact in many areas at once, but being free of the onus of that job he was able to impact a few things in a big way.
I like Gore for president, but I’m not convinced he wants the job. I do think he would be super with a job in the Edwards/Clark administration.
Where would the best place be for him?
Eli @ 28
I heard a couple of people disdainfully toss that off as “politics” and not at all significant. He’s to stay on our side for the duration of this two years, and if all the leadership has to do is stroke his ego with a round of applause and a couple of committee slots, well, so be it.
It’s like the photo of Pelosi at her lunch engagement with Cluster. She was smiling in a strained, fixed way, obviously trying to keep her lunch down, while Cluster was talking like an idiot. Don’t want to throw up on the lame duck leader of the Free World.
Eli @ 30
Or, perhaps, the Lucretania….
Oklahoma kiddo @ 34
Wasn’t Lott purged by the Rove Admin. a few years back? I think it indicates nastiness emanating from the Senate minority with a big ole bullseye on Rove’s back. The results will indeed be interesting.
Eli @ 42
GrandmaJ @ 35
Damn I like that. Jane, got the Man on speed dial yet?
marksb @ 46
I’d rather see ‘em play hardball and remind him that they’re *very* well-positioned to consolidate their majority in ‘08, and he’d best remember that before he thinks about doing anything stupid. But hardball hasn’t exactly been their strong suit. Hopefully the new blood will help.
Gore will not run because Tipper doesn’t want him to.
jeffreyw @ 12
I have never understood Edward’s appeal. Please educate me.
Now his wife, Elizabeth - I totally get her appeal.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
Agree
Jane Hamsher @ 40
Until this election, I didn’t hold much hope of that happening. I now think it will happen. Matt Taibbi had a great piece (I assume it was in Rolling Stone, but it’s also available on Alternet.org) on the Connecticut Democratic primary in which he said it was the first time in a while that people had accidentally been allowed into what had been a closed system. Emmanuel and others, he said, are working to make sure that doesn’t happen again because they know they’re toast if it does. It just did. They’re toast.
dab from CT @ 53
I like the populist “Two Americas” message; I think it’s very powerful. But he was pretty ineffectual as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate, and I keep thinking of him as kind of a Democratic Quayle.
They weren’t applauding Lieberman; they were applauding the fact that Cheney doesn’t get to vote, that Leahy replaces Specter, Levin replaces Warner, etc … Pure cynicism, and only Joe would see this as people loving him. Joe gets two years of self delusion.
Was talking today with someone grumbling already about all the stupid talk coming from D.C. leaders and I mentioned to him to listen for the names Tester and Webb. And if you see they are going to give a speech, LISTEN.
I like both men enormously. And I still like the Gov. of Montana. Weren’t we considering him for a run for the prez awhile back? Do you think 1 year on the job as Gov. is enough experience? :)
Too bad the handsome guy shown riding a horse lost. :(
Eli @ 38
Haven’t been there yet. But will take a look now. Thanks.
scarecrow @ 57
There are few things that would make me smile bigger than seeing Joe, all puffed up with his own self-importance and statesmanliness, make some big power play… and get totally smacked down and humiliated.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 60
I just posted it. That was the comment in its entirety.
Let him take on global warming as Energy Sec.
We need a new energy policy, global warming or not.
Apple Canyon 2 @ 59
rat bastahd @ 19
oh yeah
any combo — Clark Secty of State? Edwards Atty General??? Any of them Prez or Vprez.
Somewhere today I read a quote from Lieberman (CNN? — maybe TPM) saying he thought it was foolish to even talk about taking troops out of Iraq. He was totally persuaded (cough, choke, spit) by Abasaid (sp?) testimony today that … who knows what, but he will NOT side with the dems in any effort to bring them home. Of course, we all know that the dems really can’t do anything about the troops except make it so uncomfortable for Bush he gives in. Not likely.
And Bush will use Joe for cover for his position, as usual. Tweety at least recognized that people like Steny Hoyer and many others had moved their positions lightyears over towards Murtha’s position just to remain viable leaders in a party that was voted to power on the strength of the dems doing something to bring troops home.
I didn’t much care for Edwards until I saw him in person at rallies up here in NH– he’s mesmerizing up close the first time, the second and the third time, etc.
There is a place for him in our government, I am just not convinced at all it is as President.
Gore is my greatest hope thus far– antiwar and pro- environment and pro- The People with a rather good fix on foreign policy.
Eli @
61
I actually said to Matt yesterday in the same conversation that my sense is a big wave is cresting over Joe’s head. Sometimes information gets disseminated to the public but it takes a while to reach the saturation point, and the Lamont campaign may just not have had enough time to achieve that (esp. with the Dems working against them). Joe helps every day that he turns around and does the exact opposite of what he campaigned on (he wanted to bring our troops home, yet sits with McCain and nods like his dummy). Joe thinks he got a “mandate” but I think given the fact that he actually stands for the complete opposite of what people think they voted for in this election cycle that wave is going to come crashing down on his head.
Apple Canyon 2 @ 59
dab from CT @ 53
Edwards is poised to tap the populism Lou Dobbs is pushing and the electorate seems hungry for. We may be able to win without Dixie, but why write them off, he has the right accent. Clark is very impressive in his own right. I am leaning for Clark to top the ticket but I won’t get to vote in the primaries in time to have any influence that way. They are both attractive and well spoken.
Eli @ 61
Yes - I much prefer scarecrow’s interpretation. I know life isn’t fair - but there has to be some sweet justice regarding Lieberman. I still think - what goes around comes around.
(By the way, the Lieber volunteer I chatted with while poll standing election day, was there supporting Lieberman because he helped his family out when he was serving in Falujia. But even he said Lieberman was a nasty campaigner - and that the campaign Lieberman conducted against Weicker was nastier than the Lamont/Lieberman face off.)
Lieberman is a nasty man with zero integrity.
Jane at 68 - and I would bet that there are some mighty fine people in CT that will work to make sure Joe’s current flip-flop-flap gets noticed back in the state.
And shall we take bets when Joe visits his home state again? He doesn’t get back very often does he.
dab from CT @ 71
Which is sadly ironic for someone who uses integrity as his “hook” and the core of his brand.
Kinda like McCain and independence.
this is an earnest, non-snarky question: can populism become predominant without awakening its evil cousins xenophobia and isolationism?
Populism would take this region (Rust Belt) by storm; Ian Welsh is right.
We need to make life tough on Lieberman. Tough as tough can be.
GrandmaJ @ 72
How would that manifest, though? Joe’s in for the next six years, and probably knows (or at least suspects) that he won’t get another. So how can CT give him his comeuppance?
jeffreyw @ 70
Totally agree with all that!
LindaR: “any combo — Clark Secty of State? Edwards Atty General??? Any of them Prez or Vprez.”
Well, I was thinking any two of the three could be THE ticket. Gore/Clark, etc.
punaise @ 74
I think “Two Americas” populism can. Its message is that the economic elites are bleeding everyone else dry for their own comfort and self-enrichment. The “Other” is right here, and it’s not black or Mexican or Muslim or gay.
(Might want to be careful about quoting this comment, lest you end up in moderation…)
Clark/Edwards.
Bring it !
Oklahoma kiddo @ 75
Landrieu and Pryor (Lieber children) are up for reelection in ‘08. This would be an excellent place to start.
Couldn’t one definition of a centrist be defined as someone Johnny (Colbert refers to as Johnny pretty terrific) Rotten might discribe as a person having “no views”.
“Populism”
Merriam-Webster defines this term as: “a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people”
Eureka Springs, AR @
81
Oh, please let there be an ArkanTester.
punaise @
74
That is always a danger.
here’s the point I guess
progressives ARE centrists..period
we want what the majority of people want, we want fiscally sound policies, a strong national defense, we don’t want to give our money to ANYBODY that is able to provide for themselves, this INCLUDES the wealthy and corporations that turn profit
we Don’t want to give our jobs to countries that don’t have collective bargaining so their workers can get market value for their wares
we want government OUT of our lives, we want government OUT from under our girlfriends dress, and OUT of our bedroom
we want government OUT of our religion, we want government promoting the COMMON good, not special interests that DO NOT provide for the GENERAL welfare of this nation
these are all progressive ideas but they are centrist, they are what the majority of Americans want.
we don’t want to pay the health care for corporations, we want them to pay that bill, if this means a national health care then that’s what it means, but if a man or women works a full work week they should be able to care for their wives, their kids and themselves when they get sick, the shouldn’t have to go into their savings.
that means either the company health insurance or it is payed by a general tax which will apply to corporations more then to the worker.
just about every progressive idea is founded in centrist beliefs and once explained in the correct terms would find near universal agreement
Oklahoma kiddo @ 75
where’s the $387,000?
really!
I would like to express that I meant to put a question mark at the end of my last post.
Ok Kiddo and Eli,
Jane just brought up something that I have been thinking about, but Jane’s feeling of that crashing wave is a perfect analogy.
I have been thinking about how we should keep a scorecard on EVERY vote that Joe makes.
Eli, your idea of keeping track of the veto issue is a good one and hopefully the Dem. leadership is already considering this plan
Not sure about Edwards, I want somebody with some passion. Gore seems to have it now, as does Clark. Webb certainly has it.
They also need to know how take a punch, which I don’t know if Edwards can.
On second thought, he was a trial attorney.
GrandmaJ @ 72
Eli @ 73
I agree with Jane that the “wave” Jane sees over Lieberman’s head will come when CT voters realize they elected a truly dishonest man, a charlatan. And yes, the CT bloggers really matured over the course of that campaign; they’re very good. And don’t count on Joe coming to visit often. The fact that he doesn’t do that was part of the reason he lost the primary; and now that he’s “independent,” he has no reason to return again; he will see himself as beholden only to his campaign contributors. His reputation can only decline.
dab from CT @
53
His parents are working class, and he worked in the textile mills - he has internalized working class values.
He put his law degree to work taking on insurance companies on behalf of the little guy. He could have gone corporate, like Hillary
(http://www.roselawfirm.com/practice/management.asp).
Most importantly, he understands the point of Jane’s post - micro-economics will most likely determine the next election. Hillary, Rahm and Chuck are comfortable with their at-the-trough status quo - and the devil and working class take the hindermost.
I’d like for him to have more experience, but given the whorehouse DC has become, that may actually be ok.
Apple Canyon 2 @ 89
Well, okay, but only if it accounts for cloture votes…
Twisted Martini @ 88
Yessirree!
All against the war too!
Twisted Martini @ 90
Hackett will probably never be in a position to run for president, but I sure would like to graft some of his DNA onto whoever ends up as the nominee.
Eli @ 93
here’s the point;
joe is very capable of voting with the democrats when his vote doesn’t swing the decision one way or another
however if it’s a close vote and his vote is the swing, he’s a republican
I don’t understand why Lamont isn’t protesting Lieberman’s the vote total thing.
angie @ 87
I would like to see an investigation, culminating in an indictment and resignation in, say, early-to-mid 2008. That would give Lamont enough time to get ready for a special election, right?
Ayone see this re the Wilson/Plame civil suit?
perris, formerly known as me to me, @ 96