Open thread Oct. 28, 2014 Dan Crawford | October 28, 2014 1:16 am Tags: open thread Comments (12) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Just wondering what others might think of the idea that rather than the right wing growth phenomenon having been responsible for the neo-liberal, right of center drift of the Democratic Party just the opposite is what actually occurred. With rise of the DLC and its complete dominance by the time of the Clinton presidency the Republican Party had no where to go but to the right side fringe. Granted that which ever came first and prodded the other, the entire political class seems to have seen their futures on the right (though wrong) side of economic ideology. And this phenomenon coming to fruition with the collaboration of key members of the political class becoming key operatives in the investment banking industry. Though even that process being a chicken or egg first question. In effect, why the drift to the right? Because that’s where the money is!
The Democratic Party decided to go after big time corporate money ca. 1992 (while still taking those union checks too!) and the costs of elections exploded. Quell Surprise as Yves Smith likes to say on Naked Capitalism.
Have you noticed who is paying for the conventions of both parties? The sponsors have. And it’s been a pretty good investment overall. The “election show” (or is it show election? I always get that one confused) is sponsored by the biggest banks, food conglomerates, retailing behemoths, insurance companies etc. And the content just gets more and more useless. Welcome to the Electoral-Media-Complex our newest self licking ice cream cone (modeled after the MIC Gen. Eisenhower tried to warn us about on his way out…).
Meanwhile, Charlie Pierce at Esquire.com points to an article in the Sunday NYT regarding fast food giant Burger King paying a living wage. In Denmark. http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Great_Danes
Somebody is getting the word — copied this reply from Economist’s View yesterday:
“Minimum wage legislation is a (crude) substitute for centralized bargaining when labor organizations are too weak (as in the US).
“The Scandinavian countries, as well as Germany, do not have minimum wage legislation. Instead they have very strong unions that make minimum wage legislation superfluous.
“Legally mandated centralized bargaining is the long game. The short game is to raise the minimum wage.”
Emailed the following to the three authors of the two articles you linked to:
* * * * * * * * * *
If the top 1% income continues to receive all the economic growth, then, by the time the output per person expands 50% (25-30 years?) the top 1% income will “earn” half of a half-larger economy (25% + 50% = 75% of 150%). By the time output per person doubles (typically 40-50 years) the equation will read 25% + 100% out of 200% = 62.5% of a twice-as-large economy.
In his “The Seeds of a New Labor Movement” Harold Meyerson in his American Prospect article portrays David Rolf as the top (I would call it) “ground gainer” (Patton style) of today’s American labor movement. Meyerson writes: “More than most union leaders, Rolf is a student of labor history.” Yet Rolf thinks collective bargaining is dying — just waiting to be dead: “Every condition and factor that underpinned unions’ power from the 1930s through the 1960s was gone: immobile capital, government assistance, the Cold War defense establishment, even organized crime, which propped up some unions so it could loot them. Not to mention losing two generations of workers by not organizing in the private sector after the 1940s. In the ’80s and ’90s, Andy’s [Stern’s] generation rediscovered organizing, but it was too little, too late.”
Top American labor leader sees the history of America never even thinks of something new (for us); never mind try. Ever hear of the history of Germany and continental Europe, David? Or of French Canada or even Argentina or even of Indonesia? Ever read a very recent tome by whom many think to be America’s top labor lawyer: Thomas Geoghegan, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?: How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life.
The only answer to massive economic and political dystrophy here — or anywhere around the world apparently — is a labor market setup called centralized bargaining — legally mandated is the way to institute it. Couldn’t be simpler or more fair: all employees doing the same kind of work (e.g., retail sales) for different firms (e.g., Safeway, Walmart, Best Buy) negotiate one common contract. With one stroke the race-to-the-wages-and-benefits bottom disappears. In the same stroke the average (now unionized) person acquires the same campaign financing and lobbying level as ownership to go with 99% of the votes.
If only some of our labor leaders or progressive economists would look out the window (like a weatherman) and see how things are done next door, and for decades.
Jack and AS.
Look to television for the answer why the Dems had to follow the money. IN 1950 around 10% of US homes had a tv. By 1960 it was 88%.
Television was responsible for the surge of big money into politics. It was the reason for most of the Watergate scandal(and now most of that illegal contributions are now perfectly legal).
Other than Carter, there was no Dem elected until Clinton moved the Dems to big money. And Carter had the good fortune of running against an incumbent who was named VP by the President he pardoned for Watergate.
As Deep Throat said, “Follow The money”. Problem is there is so much of it that it is really hard to do.
So I’m supposed to accept a Democratic party that loses because they aren’t selling out to big money, or one that wins but is useless because they’ve sold out to my interests.
This kind of There Is No Alternative pronouncement makes me wonder why bother. So I’m not, outside the marginal exercise of the franchise.
You are supposed to bother because you do not want the US to follow Kansas. Or you do not want to see 10 million and counting Americans to lose their health insurance.
Yep, they’re all the same. Except for a couple of pretty big things.
Can you remember a Rep government that raised taxes on the rich by raising passive income taxes by 60%? I sure can’t.
This is the part that always gets me about the lesser evil thing, though I certainly understand the frustration with a Dem Party that is too far to the right.
Given a choice between two evils, the thought is to allow the greater evil to win? I don’t see the point.
Yeah I get that. It’s a lovely veal pen really. No thanks though.
And fwiw last time I checked the evil ones were having a spot of trouble in Kansas. Yes Kansas.
My democratic party is George McGovern’s and Paul Wellstone’s and Russ Feingold’s etc.
Corporate sellout democrats who are republicans in disguise undermine what’s worthwhile to me about participating in politics. Including the ones who win elections. Sorry.
And you can pull that stick out of your a$$ about me I am voting early in TX tomorrow for a straight democratic ticket. God help me.