Yves here. This post provides a compact, long-term view of the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the working class in favor of cultivating wealthy donors. Obama deservedly plays a large role in this sellout. There does not seem to be remotely enough self-recrimination among party leaders and operatives to hope for much of a course change. So what comes next?
By Leonard C. Goodman. a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and an adjunct professor of law at DePaul University .Originally published at ScheerPost; cross posted from Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute
Following its crushing defeat in the 2024 election, the Democratic Party might finally face its day of reckoning. The party markets itself as the champion of the working class and a bulwark against the party of the plutocrats. But this has been a lie for at least three decades.
The Democratic Party has partnered with Wall Street donors since at least the 1990s. Under President Bill Clinton, the party overturned Glass Steagall and other New Deal programs that had effectively restrained Wall Street greed for 60 years. It also sold out American workers with so-called trade deals that freed their bosses to ship American jobs overseas. It ended welfare “as we know it” and passed draconian crime bills that destroyed mostly black and brown communities, sending mothers and fathers to prison for decades in the name of a cruel and senseless war on drugs.
Into the 21st century, the Democrats continued pushing the lie that they were fighting for working people. After September 11, 2001, the party put up a token resistance to the Bush/Cheney regime of illegal regime-change wars, black sites, indefinite detention and torture. All the while, it continued soliciting campaign contributions from the arms dealers profiting from Bush’s wars.
In 2008, the party found a Black face to carry on its Wall Street-friendly agenda. Gullible Americans, myself included, were taken in by Barack Obama’s promises to end “dumb wars” and to institute a single payer healthcare system. We ignored the red flags, like the fact that Obama’s campaign broke records in pocketing Wall Street donations. It was later revealed by Wikileaks that nearly every member of Obama’s cabinet had been selected by the giant Wall Street bank Citigroup.
It didn’t take long for President Obama to crush our hopes that he was a different kind of Democrat. One of his first acts as president was to funnel trillions of dollars to the big banks that, newly freed by Clinton from FDR-era regulations, had embarked on an orgy of unbridled greed, swindling millions of Americans out of their homes and retirement savings with a scheme to sell worthless mortgage-backed securities.
Adding insult to injury, Obama saw to it that the bailed-out bank executives faced no criminal prosecutions and received their year-end bonuses. In their place, the Obama Justice Department brought federal mortgage fraud charges against thousands of poor people—I represented a half dozen of these folks—who had signed their names to the phony mortgage loans that the Wall Street bankers encouraged, packaged and sold to pension funds and other unwitting investors.
The pipe dream that Obama would be an anti-war president was also quickly dispatched. During his two terms, Obama ushered in a new era of continuous war, envisioned by George Orwell and favored by Wall Street. Obama expanded Bush’s bombing campaigns into Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Somalia. Today’s Democratic Party is indistinguishable from the Republicans in its ties to war profiteers and trillion-dollar Pentagon budgets.
Obama also effectively ended the Democrats’ promise to fight for a true national health care system in which all Americans would be able to go to the doctor when sick without fear of bankrupting their families. In its place, Obama pushed through a health care plan developed in right-wing think tanks, that guaranteed profits (and taxpayer subsidies) for the private insurance industry and did little to contain costs.
By 2012, Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report was describing the Democratic Party as the “more effective evil” for using its reputation as protector of the working class to neutralize effective opposition and push through right-wing policies that the Republicans could not get passed.
In 2016, the Democrats received a wake-up call when their chosen successor to Obama lost the White House to a crude-talking New York City real estate developer and game show host with no prior political experience. But with the help of its partners in corporate media, the party managed to limp along for another eight years, first by telling the American people that President Trump was an agent of Russia, and then by claiming that Trump was Hitler who was planning concentration camps and firing squads for his political enemies.
Now after the November 2024 elections in which Trump won every swing state and the popular vote, the Democratic party is finally being forced to face some uncomfortable truths. The party’s partners in the corporate media initially tried blaming the election result on the voters for being too misogynist, too racist, or too dumb to vote correctly. But there is little trust that remains in corporate media.
The party’s corporate consultants have put the blame on the party’s excessive focus on identity politics. But the issues for the Democrats run much deeper than bad messaging. The real problem is that the party takes direction from plutocrats whose interests are antagonistic to the needs of the working people it pretends to represent. Both Democrats and Republicans are financed by the same corporate interests. Thus, there is general agreement and support for policies that guarantee high rates of return on investment capital, policies like continuous war, for-profit health care, and outsourcing jobs. This leaves few issues for the parties to fight about other than abortion and identity politics.
Fifty years ago, American capitalists still relied on American workers to build everything from cars and televisions to sneakers and light bulbs. These titans of industry had to care about things such as functioning schools, decent wages, cities and public transportation. But the times have changed. Today’s plutocrats support outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries and have little concern for the condition of American workers. And while ordinary Americans want the country’s resources to be spent at home, plutocrats are heavily invested in foreign wars, and they shun diplomacy.
These contradictions could only be covered up for so long. Even with reliable partners in the corporate press, the internet has given Americans alternative sources for their news. During the last few years, in a desperate effort to keep its scheme afloat, the Democrats embraced censorship and a regime of corporate “fact checkers” to police social media and remove or punish unsanctioned speech. In so doing, the party abandoned the last of its core principles: standing up for free speech and the right to dissent.
Many Democrats argue that they had to go after Wall Street money to compete with the Republicans. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explained the strategy: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” But for this plan to work, the party still needed an actual message to take to the voters.
Forbes Magazine reports that during the 2024 presidential race, Kamala Harris’s campaign raised a billion dollars while Trump’s campaign raised $388 million. Harris’s substantial edge in fundraising allowed her to flood the airwaves with commercials. But she had nothing of substance to say to voters.
The Atlantic Magazine reports that early in her campaign, Harris gained ground by attacking Trump as a stooge of corporate interests—and touted herself as a relentless scourge of Big Business. But then, suddenly, Harris abandoned her attacks on big business at the urging of her brother-in-law, Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer.
Many Democrats, especially in swing states, opposed the Biden Administration’s unfailing support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 Palestinians and displaced nearly all of its 2.3 million residents. Harris could have gained the support of many of these voters by promising to stop arming Israel during the genocide. But her Party’s donors wouldn’t allow her to even hint at such a change in policy. Two days before the election, while campaigning in the swing state of Michigan, Harris stated, “I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza.” But as Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada pointed out on election night, this promise carried no weight because Harris had also promised that she would never do the one thing within her power to stop the slaughter: cut off the flow of bombs to Israel.
After decades of malfeasance and deception, it has become evident that the corporate Democratic Party cannot serve as the lone opposition party to the corporate Republicans. The American people need a viable political party that represents the interests of ordinary working people.
A true workers party will not raise as much money as the corporate Democrats. But it will have an honest message with the potential to appeal to large numbers of Americans. Further, a political party that actually represents workers will press for reforms that begin to even the playing field between the haves and the have nots.
For example, one the most effective ways plutocrats game the political system is by flooding campaign contributions to the lawmakers who sit on the key committees that oversee their businesses. Members of Congress covet these committee chairs because they guarantee high fundraising numbers. Lawmakers who sit on the House Financial Services Committee have jurisdiction over banks and insurance companies and are targeted by those firms with campaign contributions. Lawmakers who sit on the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees provide funding for lucrative government contracts and are flooded with war industry cash.
These practices are corrupt and deprive American citizens of their right to be governed by representatives free from conflicts of interest. A judge who has received political contributions from a litigant must be removed from the case. Similarly, the most important functions of government, such as determining tax and how our tax revenue will be spent, should be performed by lawmakers who have not been bribed.
In 2017, the Center for American Progress, a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party, proposed a “Committee Contribution Ban” for Congress. It asserted: “Congress should enact a law to make it unlawful for members of Congress to accept campaign contributions from entities that fall within the jurisdiction of their committees.” Unsurprisingly, this proposal never reached the floor of Congress, that I could find.
Some states have enacted similar conflict of interest rules. And Congress could certainly pass such a law, if it chose. Of course, this will never happen as long as we are ruled by two corporate parties that benefit from the corruption. But if we had a political party that represented ordinary people, countless opportunities for positive change would soon emerge.
This was a $16 billion election. The media, the think tanks, the academy, and our history are all under the control of centralized economic power. We are an oligarchy, not a democracy as regularly conceived in all venues.
When popular forces have gained power in our history, the rulers have fought back. In the first part of the 20th Century the Palmer Raids destroyed the left, and, when the New Deal created forces an economy serving the needs of the masses, the rulers instituted a counter attack with McCarthyism and laws to limit popular power as exemplified by the Taft Hartley Act.
The activism in the 1960s also brought a reaction from the rulers. Watanuki, Crozier, and Huntington wrote of the Crisis of Democracy, too much democracy makes democracies ungovernable.
The Powell Memorandum was a call to arms of the business class. It is not mentioned in the discussions of who wins elections, but it is relevant because the $15 billion to buy the Congress and elections is corporate America responding to Powell.
The Democratic Party will not face its day of reckoning until the population not only feels anger revealed by the lack of sympathy over the murder of United Healthcare’s Brian Thompson, but combines that anger with an understanding that we live under the power of a ruling class and that the Democratic Party as the party of opposition is as much of a distraction as the invading immigrants of Trump’s denunciations.
This is one thing that I am very very interested in drilling down more into. Are you saying that the quid pro quo is simply having enough funds to be elected? Because given congress salary levels, that seems to be pretty small potatoes. So I’m not sure how this is a direct incentive to the lawmakers (not contradicting your statement, just saying I don’t see the connection).
Is it simply the revolving door of lawmakers going to corporates and think tanks and back again into congress? Then they can depend on high salaries in these places but must suffer a haircut when they are in congress? But that’s quite a risk because if you can’t get elected for a few cycles, why would anyone invest in you?
Or is there more there? I understand, however, that there are specific rules in place that prohibit campaign funds from being paid to the politicians directly. I’m conscious that there are any number of creative accounting methods that are available to evade such rules. The lawmaker might own a company that makes a loan to the campaign for 100% interest. Or the company sells paper cups to the campaign for a 1000% mark up. But I’m only speculating here.
At the end of the day, the individual has to pay for their McMansion mortgages, the car(s), their kids’ college education, their expensive holidays…. what is the incoming cash flow that offsets these constant outgoing cash flows, and how does it come in?
The commentators on the Naked Capitalism forum are quite an informed bunch, so I’m hoping to finally hear something solid.
If you have missed the level of insider trading among Congresscritters, I can’t help you.
But aside from money, many were already millionaires before they ran. You seem to ignore the things money can’t readily buy, like high public profile and powerful people seeking you out
Post retirement many congrees-drones end up as handsomely paid lobbiests or think tank members for the interests they serve. It a whole career trajectory.
As a 4x D nominee for Congress in a deep R district (KY-02, I am in no danger of being elected) it’s even worse than you know on the inside. I met with a prominent Kentucky D who claimed that our D Governor Beshear was “..all about labor. Look at all these jobs.” True – Beshear has brought billion$ of investment during his terms – but I asked, “Then why are 20% of working people 3 or 4 bad paychecks away from becoming homeless, and 2/3rds live paycheck to paycheck? Do you even know someone who lives paycheck to paycheck?” The answer was, “Yes, I do! Some of my employees…”
This person isn’t a bad person, they are simply unaware, stuck in a bubble of affluence that insulates them from the realities of life on the ground. I shop at a Walmart in Leitchfield, the people at the store are my neighbors, I see how close to the edge they live. I also see how kind hearted most of them are.
I don’t complain about Rs – they don’t want to hear it from a D. All agree that both parties are screwed up, the only one you MIGHT be able to change is the one you’re in. OTOH, this is an uncomfortable road to say the least.
Dem party leaders are all about data and dollars – “We can’t invest in that district because we can’t win this season” has been the approach for 2 & 3 decades in Kentucky’s rural districts. As popular as Gov. Beshear is, he did’t win my district. Without a viable party, no candidate is viable.
Re data – a business leader friend says “Focus groups tell you what you needed to know 2 weeks ago.” Or as my history prof at the University of Louisville said, “All analysis presumes a cadaver.” Data is what was true a while ago, following it slavishly makes the bad news true indefinitely. I mentioned the party had accused me of being disruptive, he said “You need disrupters, it’s how you find the future. But they are often wrong.” I can take “often wrong” over “never right”, the normal attitude party insiders present.
To be clear, I am not advocating for my campaign. I am advocating for the idea of running in un-winnable districts as a path to activism and influence; as a nominee you get a tiny little soapbox. You can’t change your party where they are strong, the opportunities are where they are weak, as Dems are in Kentucky. Beshear has already made it clear he is running for President in 2028, but without a rebuild of the party in rural and working districts I don’t see him going the distance. I have been saying to party insiders and to Rs I meet as well, we really don’t need Trump or Harris or Beshear etc. – we need a Lincoln or an FDR. A R friend said in response, “I’d take either one.”
Peace.
Best…H
I had been a Democrat since the time of the Republican “hardhats” in the ’60s. Never gave it a second thought until the debacle of 2016 when the party elite decided to undermine Sanders to promote their necon queen, HRC. Sanders at least had the idea of empowering the public to bring about change. Obviously, the party of the donor class could not countenance that. Afterwards, rather than reform, they circled the wagons and doubled down, and their base went along with that. They demanded nothing better and worse is what they got. Without even a whimper, they fastened a “Kick Me Again” sign on their back and carried on. Pathetic. They absolutely deserve to lose. For myself, I swore not a vote nor dime more until the election process became transparent, “super delegates” were dumped, and lobbyists were kicked out of DNC decision making. Well, that didn’t happen. In fact, with every election cycle, the ironically named Democratic Party gets worse. I truly blame the DP base for that.
Stepping back though, it seems that the basic human competence of leaders throughout the West in general has simply plummeted over the last 30 or so years to utterly ridiculous levels. Look at Europe, the UK, and all the “five eye” nations. IMO, It must be the the culture of neoliberalism that spawns them. Rather than a process for weeding out incompetent, malicious leaders, something in Western culture finds and promotes them. Is there any Western leader that you would be willing to have run your business, do your taxes, or take care of your children? Shallow, incompetent leadership has become institutionalized in the West.
Whether in peace or in war, incompetent leaders in positions of power are the absolute bane of humanity. IMO, there is no way around it nor any moving forward until the foundational issue of finding and promoting competent leaders is solved. I don’t expect any enthusiasm for this from our current political parties. Rather, I expect that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. If the public does not demand it, by the millions, together, with pitchforks and torches in hand, and deadly serious intent, they will never get it.