Are Corporatist/Careerist Democrats Even Worthy Of Carrying The Progressive Vision?

Independent candidate

Adolph Reed, who exploded onto the national scene last week with an incisive article-- and Bill Moyers interview-- about the demise of the left, said he expected pushback from liberals. And he got it. Many Democrats-- particularly the ones whose incomes depend on being a party functionary-- don't have an inkling that the Democratic Party as a vehicle for a progressive agenda is what makes the party valuable, not just a "blue" color or a meaningless "mystery meat" brand being pushed by the Beltway professional Democrats and careerists. No one is voting for your turgid careers; voters want authenticity and integrity. In an essay this morning, Reed pushed back himself-- against an apologia for the Democratic Party by Michelle Goldberg.

There’s a vast gulf between “elections don’t matter” and “shut up and lineup behind this season’s Democrat.”

For the record, I don’t argue for backing third party candidacies, which as a rule are quixotic by definition, and I agree with Goldberg that in any given election it’s overwhelmingly likely to be true that the only realistic choice is to vote for whichever Democrat is running. So her beef on that score is with someone else, not me.

I do argue that it’s a serious mistake to exaggerate what we’re doing when we vote for them and that that practice has come back to haunt us since Clinton at least. As only one small illustration, where has the American antiwar movement been since November 2008, even as President Obama has expanded the theaters of American military intervention? My vote for Nader in 2000, by the way, stemmed mainly from the right-tilting campaign Gore ran, which was embodied in his selection of reactionary tool Joe Lieberman as his running mate. (And I’m still proud to say that I’ve never voted for Lieberman for anything.)

…[W]hat do we say about the social impact of Clinton’s support for financial deregulation and his role in gutting the federal commitment to provide income-support and housing for the poor? Or his failure to pursue labor law reform when he had the opportunity? What about NAFTA? And that leads us to the nearly parodic imagery of Obama’s simultaneously tossing off a passing gesture to concern with inequality-- worthy of a more florid version of Mr. Mackey from South Park (“Inequality is bad, mmkay”)-- and then heading off to twist Congressional Democrats’ arms to support fast track for the Trans Pacific Partnership “trade” agreement, which certainly would produce a bunch more inequality.

I wish I could say I didn't vote for Lieberman either. I certainly didn't intend to. At the last minute, there were predictions Bush could win California and I lost my nerve and voted Gore-Lieberman, something I've regretted ever since. They didn't need my vote and beat Bush 5,861,203 (53%) to 4,567,429 (42%). Last year I finally broke free and was one of 456,169 voters who picked Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate running against Obama and Romney.

This cycle, we've been looking closely at Marianne Williamson's independent race for Henry Waxman's seat (CA-33), a candidate I'm thinking could be something like Bernie Sanders. She's announced she'll join the caucus he founded-- the Congressional Progressive Caucus, work with the Democrats on policy and seek counsel from Alan Grayson and Keith Ellison. And she's not the only progressive independent going beyond the "more and better Democrats" theme and into "better THAN Democrats."

Ed Marksberry, a Kentucky populist and former Democrat, is running for McConnell's Senate seat. He's taking a lot of flack because he may take enough votes away from the corporatist neo-liberal Democrat, Alison Lundergan Grimes, to help McConnell get reelected. Voters have to decide if they're ready to help elect another garden variety Democrat, certainly the lesser of two evils but… you want to vote for evil? This note on tax reform came from Marksberry this morning:

Today’s Tax Codes favor large Corporations over small businesses. The large corporations have exploited the myriad of tax credits and loopholes that puts an unfair burden on small businesses.

My plan is to simplify the tax code for small businesses and large corporations while also attracting manufacturers back to the United States.

We need to lower our corporate tax rate to 22% to be more competitive with other industrialized nations. We can afford this by eliminating all tax credits and loopholes that our current convoluted tax codes allow.

It’s simple and it’s fair.

With “Income Inequality” eroding our economy, it is time to restructure capital gains tax for our seniors, middle class and working poor.

I propose implementing a stair-stepped reduction on capital gains tax based on income.

This will encourage more investment and savings for those who have not shared the same economic success as the top 2% income earners.

Our seniors have paid their fair share of taxes and it’s wrong to tax them on investments when they are struggling to pay for daily needs.

The Democrats may wind up being very sorry they pushed him out of the primary and the party.