Populism, Right And Left, In Present Day American Politics
There was a fascinating article about Rep. Eric Cantor in yesterday’s Washington Post. Cantor is the leader of the Tea Party clique in Congress that has turned a standard, non-controversial debt ceiling increase, one done more than 70 times over the years, into a mechanism to push an ultra-conservative fiscal agenda. Cantor, this Post article also notes, is a long time defender (and contributions recipient) of a Wall Street clique, hedge funds and private equity funds, some of whose managers have realized personal incomes exceeding $1 billion a year, incomes on which they paid exceptionally low taxes because of a loophole in the tax code.
That’s the background. Here’s the populist hook.
The Tea Party movement is a populist movement. A major target of this populism is anti-elitist hostility directed at Wall Street, which Tea Partiers peg (rightfully) as an institution whose greed, arrogance, and utterly inappropriate influence over key sectors of the government is much to blame for this country’s (and the world’s) present economic angst.
Yet Rep. Cantor and other Tea Party factotums in Congress get away with the claim that they represent the Tea Party’s populist hostility to Wall Street while flagrantly fronting for some of Wall Street’s fattest, fat cat elitists.
How do they get away with this? In part by burying this Wall Street fat cat protection in a larger anti-tax rhetoric. Equally important, though, they get away with it because the Democratic Party lets them get away with it.
The Democratic Party should be calling Cantor and his cohorts out on this hypocrisy, but it can’t. The reason is that Democrats, and most notably their leader in the White House, are as beholden to Wall Street, as much its active protectors, as Cantor and the Republicans.
The Democratic Party bonded with Wall Street in a hard embrace during the Clinton years. Mr. Obama continued this embrace with the economic advisers he chose when he first got into office, and the kid gloves policies toward The Street he has followed ever since.
You listen to the president’s melodious calls for equal sharing of pain and you get the idea he might mean some pain for the Wall Street’s rich. Then you look at the plan from Harry Reid, the Democratic, the Obama approved Senate plan billed as counter-proposal to the Tea Party-dominated Republican House plan, and what do you find? Not a single increase in taxes for the rich. And certainly, most certainly, no discomfort for the best-and-brightest, the richest-and-slickest, on Wall Street.
There a huge budget battle going in Washington these days. Right-wing populists, protecting Wall Street heavies, have strong supporters there. But progressives with liberal leanings such as myself don’t have a Democratic Party dog in his fight. And neither, I venture to say, do most Americans.
More from (and about) this writer at http://cootavengers.com/
21 Responses to “Populism, Right And Left, In Present Day American Politics”
… and don’t forget the Fed and the military budget.
This is what happens when there is no countervailing power center.
I don’t think that’s what this thread is about.
Do you have any thoughts on Eric Cantor and Michael’s point(s) or are you just trying to change the subject in an effort to divert attention from the main point of the piece?
@Michael
Good article… The amount of ignorance and gullibility in the Tea Party never ceases to amaze me.
[...] post by CBS and software by Elliott Back No Comments [...]
“A major target of this populism is anti-elitist hostility directed at Wall Street, which Tea Partiers peg (rightfully) as an institution whose greed, arrogance, and utterly inappropriate influence over key sectors of the government is much to blame for this country’s (and the world’s) present economic angst.”
If you have a source for this statement other than clinical rumination disorder, I would like to see it posted.
The TeaParty was incepted in response to the “government bailout” of Wall Street without regard to citizen opinion or even sufficient legislative debate, not merely the existence of Wall Street.
If Eric Cantor is holding out for more bailouts, you might have some veracity underlying your point…….however, if that isn’t part of his current proposal, then not so much.
Hi Casual Observer,
I’ve actually suffered from clinical rumination disorder (CRD) for years, and tried everything to deal with the affliction. Pills, vapors, meditation, bizarre religious cults, watching Glenn Beck videos. Do you think if I listen more closely to the utterings of Eric Cantor or B. Obama the pain will ease? It hasn’t worked so far, but…
@SteveK
No, it’s not an attempt to change the subject. The government doesn’t create the top 1% with low taxes, but with direct and indirect subsidies.
”Do you think if I listen more closely to the utterings of Eric Cantor or B. Obama the pain will ease?”
Hey, don’t come to me if you have problems with Barry selling you out in the name of electoral triangulation. You’ll get more sympathy at Hullabaloo or FDL. At TMV, we only support the “Villager” side of the Democratic Party.
As far as Cantor goes, he is serving his natural constituency far better than Obama, Reid or Pelosi. I see no quotes from Wall Street supporting so-called debt ceiling brinksmanship, nor did he vote to bail out Wall Street firms, so where you get the idea that he is the “defender” of Wall Street, other than sharing a standard laissez-faire mindset, it beats me.
If Nixon were still alive, writers on this site would call him “Tea Party,” too. Frankly, I’m surprised that the lefties haven’t done this with George W. Bush, who has been an equal or larger object of hatred and dishonesty.
It’s time once again for (using the word correctly, unlike others) remedial education:
The Tea Party, a center-right traditionalist US resistance to overreach by Washington and lurching too far left (in other words, just like most of the rest of the normal population), began with Rick Santelli’s anger about the bailout. The name caught on and was later used by populist protestors. Doesn’t anybody else remember that? (Few on this lefty site, no doubt — myths rule.)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701/Rick_Santelli_s_Shout_Heard_Round_the_World
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1039849853
[sigh]
“If Nixon were still alive, writers on this site would call him “Tea Party,” too.”
More comedy stylings from our own DLS.
The truth is, if Nixon were still alive, he would be denounced as a RINO by the party he once belonged to. Seriously, who are you trying to convince with all that over-the-top nonsense???
All it would take is for a latter-day Nixon to succeed. The Usual Suspects would never accept success with an R stamped on it — obviously. That has been the central issue, not that he (or, say, Eisenhower, an even more frequently named “old-style Republican”) would be denounced by many partisans and ideologues as a RINO.
There’s nothing funny about the worst of mainly left-wing rancor.
“The Usual Suspects would never accept success with an R stamped on it — obviously.”
If that was really true, it might go a ways toward explaining your poisonous attitude toward liberals. Since it isn’t true, the mystery surrounding your seething resentment continues. I’ve voted republican on a few occasions and would do so again if they came down on the sane side of issues I care about. Given today’s crop of republicans I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Nothing can explain what you imagine that isn’t true, Mr. Spencer.
Sorry Prof but I challenge you to prove that the government creates the top 1% at all.
Prove? Don’t be silly, or I’ll just ask you to prove that they didn’t. All I can show is that:
1. There are quite a few groups that get direct government subsidies.
2. There are people that have become rich as exclusive or limited providers to the government.
3. The three big rip-offs: education, medicine, and banking, have unusual and harmful government protections and subsidies. I can also show that the majority of the top 1% (and top 10%) come from one of those industries.
Well now, I didn’t make the claim, you did.
1. True. The largest by far is the elderly in an undifferentiated fashion. Indeed, there is no correlation between income and amount of federal subsidies received. So that would constitute non proof as you would have to believe that the wealthy get more, not some to make the argument.
2. True again I’m sure in the sense that some means more than zero. But as a fraction of 1.4 million households, I think I would need some data
3. I would be interested in the proof if you have it. I doubt it is true but even then it is a two step inference pretty far removed from your original statement…paraphrasing…the government creates the top 1 percent. That just isn’t factually correct
Actually, it isn’t provable, just like no one can prove a particular case of lung cancer was caused by a person smoking.
Keep in mind that to get into the top 1% is a salary of around $400,000, and around $100,000 for the top 10%. I don’t have a breakdown handy, but here’s one part:
“Nothing can explain what you imagine that isn’t true, Mr. Spencer. – DLS
“
I’d happily address that comment if I could make any sense out of it. FYI, Spencer is my middle name – after the doctor who delivered me about 60 years ago.
No offense but that is a long way short of proof of your claim about who constitutes the top 1 percent never mind the government causing it.
But I have my answer. Good night to you.
HOW MUCH FURTHER ARE WE WILLING TO GO IN ORDER TO PLEASE THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO DENY US EVEN THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE(what is to you country without laws or lawless country in respect to your personal rights, but the one that in contrast to your denied basic human rights recognizes you extremely liable when payments are due) !!?
IS IT INDEPENDENCE THAT WE CELEBRATE OR DEPENDENCE (what are your credit card bills or alimony saying about it) !!? HOW IS YOUR DIABETES AND LOST MARRIAGES !!? FORECLOSURES AND JOB SEARCH !!? THAT IS THE QUESTION TO BE OR NOT TO BE !!!!!! IS IT LAND OF THE FREE OR STATE OF TERROR AGAINST OWN POPULATION !!? IT IS TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT COLOR ARE THE STRIPES ON OUR STAR SPANGLED BANNER !!!
VISIT(google text if links don’t work) “DICTATOR OBAMA = STALIN = BUSH or USA = SOVIET UNION” http://avsecbostjan.blogspot.com/ or http://avsecbostjan.wordpress.com/ …TO LEARN WHO, HOW, AND WHY RUINED YOU…FROM 911 TO EXILED WHITE AMERICAN REFUGEES SEEKING ASYLUM RIGHT NOW !!! TIME TO DETERMINE WHOSE INDEPENDENCE/AMERICA, WE CELEBRATE TODAY(who want to erase us and denies us the right to exist) !!! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHOM WE ADDRESS WITH “PRESIDENT”(STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF) !!!!