Showing posts with label George Wallace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Wallace. Show all posts

25 June 2019

Socialism in the United States – Is it making a Come Back?

Focus on Milwaukee and Chicago – Can the United States put the Cold War and McCarthyism behind it?



Bernie Sander’s challenge for the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2016 was unique for a number of reasons, not least for the fact that he was the first mainstream Presidential contender to openly call himself a socialist. The fact that he nearly won the contest was remarkable, especially given that ‘Crooked’ Hilary and her friends openly cheated.


Whereas Europe has had a tradition of strong socialist and communist parties in the United States such parties have always been confronted with a virulent anti-communism. Attacks against labour unions and the right to organise have been particularly vicious in the USA.
Sacco and Vanzetti
Frank Little of the Industrial Workers of the World was lynched in August 1917 by six thugs who pulled him out of his bed and Joe Hill was judicially murdered in Utah in 1915. Twelve years later two Italian born anarchists, Sacco and Vanzetti, were again judicially murdered on trumped up charges in Massachussetts.
Nonetheless the United States has had a rich socialist history of class struggle such as in the car factories of Detroit in the 1930’s. In 1912 when Eugene Debbs stood for President he got nearly a million votes and 6% of the vote.  In 1920 he stood again and got nearly a million votes but just 3.4%.
The first Red Scare was in the first World War when Debb’s Socialist Party opposed the draft. A speech in Canton Ohio on June 16 1918 at the end of the war when Debs declared that:
“The working class have never yet had a voice in declaring war. If war is right, let it be declared by the people – you, who have your lives to lose.”
led to a prosecution under the Sedition Act and Debs being sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, of which he served 32 months before being pardoned.
Debs campaigning for President in 1912
In the post-war period McCarthyism and anti-Communist hysteria led to a witch-hunt of supporters of all progressive and radical politics.  This was depicted by Arthur Miller in The Crucible, which was ostensibly about the Salem Witchhunt. People like Pete Seeger and Charlie Chaplin were victims of the determination of the American Right to root out anyone who was seen as an opponent of US imperialism and its war machine.
It was only with the movement against the Vietnam War that radical and socialist organisations began to resurface and grow. Nonetheless the American political environment is very different from that in Britain or Europe.  There is no equivalent to a mass social democratic or Labour Party.  Instead there are two capitalist parties – Republican and Democrat.
The Democrats were originally the party of Dixieland, the KKK and White Supremacy. In the 1950’s and 1960’s it became the party of civil rights and an end to segregation and the Big Society.  This caused a rupture in its southern base with the Democratic Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, running an independent campaign for US President in 1968 having coined the slogan 5 years earlier ‘segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever’. Wallace won 5 states in the Deep South.
Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes
In the Congressional elections last year, Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator for Vermont was joined in Congress by two members of the Democratic Socialists of America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and the Palestinian-American Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. It has to be said that the DSA are a social democratic not a Marxist party. Class struggle is not to the fore in their politics.
Nonetheless this has provoked a backlash. In his State of the Union address, Donald Trump railed against the advance of socialism. when he warned that
“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. ... Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country”
Not only Congressional Republicans but Nancy Pelosi joined in the applause!
An article in The Hill by Paris Dennard, a CNN political commentator and former Bush official explained:
‘The Democratic Party continues to go further to the extreme left. Their latest clarion call is the idea of "Democratic Socialism." Socialism by any other name is still socialism, and trying to infiltrate it into our modern political process and system of government is dangerous. 
There is no doubt that this new rise of socialism found in the base of the Democratic Party is a flawed economic ideology that must be challenged by all Americans who support free enterprise....
This is, of course, what the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign and the launch of Chuka Ummuna’s now failed TIG was all about.  Making the Labour Party into a safe party of capitalism.
Below are two interesting articles on socialism in Milwaukee and the Democratic stronghold of Chicago, home to the infamous Mayor Daley.
Tony Greenstein
For much of the 20th century, Milwaukee was run by socialists—and Time magazine called it “one of the best-run cities in the U.S.”
April 6, 2019 John Nichols The Nation
Dan Hoan, Milwaukee’s mayor from 1916 to 1940. (Milwaukee Public Library / Historic Portrait Collection), (Milwaukee Public Library / Historic Portrait Collection)

If I owned all the real estate in the world, I wouldn’t feel so powerful as I do on the streets of this socialist city,” declared former New York City councilman Baruch Vladeck when he arrived in Milwaukee in 1932 for the Socialist Party’s national convention in that city.
Norman Thomas, the famed civil-rights and economic-justice campaigner who became the party’s presidential nominee that year, celebrated the fact that he was chosen for that honor in a city governed by Socialists. The success of Milwaukee under then-Mayor Dan Hoan, Thomas said, was proof that the party’s social-democratic “dreams will someday come true.”
Someday” was dramatically delayed by the results of the 1932 elections. The Socialist ticket did well, securing almost 900,000 votes nationwide and registering its highest percentage of the total vote in Wisconsin. The winner of that year’s race, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, took notice: He met with Thomas after the election and borrowed liberally from proposals that had long been championed by the Socialists—for a Social Security system, unemployment compensation, strengthened labor unions, and public-works programs. Roosevelt’s New Deal took the wind out of the Socialist Party’s sails in the national arena, but the party remained a force in Milwaukee for decades to come.
Now that Milwaukee has been selected as the host city for another national convention—that of the Democrats in 2020—Republicans have suddenly discovered its history. “No city in America has stronger ties to socialism than Milwaukee,” griped Wisconsin Republican Party director Mark Jefferson. “And with the rise of Bernie Sanders and the embrace of socialism by its newest leaders, the American left has come full circle. It’s only fitting the Democrats would come to Milwaukee.” Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson said the Milwaukee convention would provide a “firsthand look” at “the risk of Democrat socialistic tendencies.”
Apart from the fact that Wisconsin’s top Republicans don’t seem to like the state—or its history—very much, the GOP response is comic. Many Wisconsinites know that their state has a long, rich socialist tradition, and that Milwaukee’s association with it is one of the coolest things about the city. It even earned a mention in the movie Wayne’s World, when rocker Alice Cooper explains, “I think one of the most interesting aspects of Milwaukee is the fact that it’s the only major American city to have ever elected three Socialist mayors.
The Democratic Party is not a socialist party, but the delegates to its 2020 convention might nominate a democratic socialist, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, for president. And when they convene in Wisconsin’s largest city next summer, they shouldn’t hesitate to take the Republicans up on their call to highlight lessons from Milwaukee’s Socialist past. Doing so will strengthen the hand of the party’s eventual nominee, whether it’s Sanders or another of the contenders, all of whom will surely be labeled “socialist” by Donald Trump and his troll army.
Instead of fearing mention of the S-word, Democrats can and should approach it as smart Republicans have the L-word—“libertarian.” Republicans frequently borrow from the libertarian lexicon and toolbox, and acknowledge as much, without abandoning their essential partisanship. Democrats ought to be similarly limber. It’s great that the party now has a strong democratic-socialist wing, which includes Sanders and members of Congress like New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib. But Democrats who do not identify as socialists can still follow the lead of FDR and the late senator Edward Kennedy, who worked closely with and celebrated the ideas and ideals of democratic socialist Michael Harrington, author of The Other America, a groundbreaking study on poverty. Another 2020 Democratic presidential contender—Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana—gets it right when he says that the old Republican strategy of attaching a “socialist” label to every progressive idea is just that: old. “Today, I think a word like that is the beginning of a debate, not the end of the debate,” explains the most millennial of the Democrats’ presidential prospects.
Buttigieg says that the S-word has “lost its ability to be used as a kill switch on debate,” arguing: “If someone my age or younger is weighing a policy idea, and somebody comes along and says, ‘You can’t do that—it’s socialist,’ I think our answer is going to be, ‘OK, is it a good idea or is it not?’”
Polling tells us that young voters are more comfortable with socialism than capitalism. Older voters may still be susceptible to Republican appeals rooted in Cold War hysteria, but the challenges posed by the existential crisis of climate change and the radical transformation of our economy in an age of AI-driven automation are going to make everyone far more open to radical responses. And many of the best of these—especially those that call for expanding the social-welfare state—will draw from historic and contemporary socialist thinking.
Democrats can get ahead of the curve and disarm Trump and the trolls by embracing the opportunity that Milwaukee offers to talk about socialism as it has existed and succeeded in the United States. For American socialists in the 20th century, Milwaukee was a political mecca, a city that tested and confirmed the validity of their ideas. Vladeck, then the manager of The Jewish Daily Forward (these days known simply as The Forward), called it an example of “the America of tomorrow.”
Socialists were proud to point to Milwaukee, which had a Socialist mayor for most of the period from 1910 to 1960, as a model of sound and equitable governance. And they were not alone: During Hoan’s 24-year tenure, Time magazine reported, “Milwaukee became one of the best-run cities in the U.S.”
Hoan also took on the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, at a time when politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties were compromising with the violent racists as they extended their reach from the South to northern cities. “The Ku Klux Klan will find Milwaukee a hotter place to exist in than Hades itself,” the mayor declared in 1921.
Hoan’s integrity, along with his managerial skills, would eventually earn him recognition as one of the 10 finest municipal leaders in American history. In The American Mayor, his groundbreaking 1999 assessment of municipal governance in cities across the country, Melvin Holli wrote: 
“Although this self-identified socialist had difficulty pushing progressive legislation through a nonpartisan city council, he experimented with the municipal marketing of food, backed city-built housing, and was a fervent but unsuccessful champion of municipal ownership of the street railways and the electric utility. His pragmatic ‘gas and water socialism’ met with more success in improving public health and in providing public markets, city harbor improvements, and purging graft from Milwaukee politics.” 

Emil Seidel and Frank Zeidler, the mayors who served before and after Hoan, were Socialists as well. And Milwaukee voters elected dozens of Socialists to the city council, county board, school board, state legislature, and Congress. Milwaukee’s Socialists were so fiscally and socially responsible that historians to this day hail them as exemplars of a uniquely American form of democratic socialism. Zeidler once explained to me, 
“Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for the common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest.” 
That worked well for Milwaukee in the 20th century—so much so that “socialism” ceased to be a scare word for the city’s residents. What frightens Republicans today is that “socialism” is ceasing to be a scare word in our contemporary national discourse.
John Nichols is The Nation’s national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America, from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy.

Tuesday night’s elections saw the largest socialist electoral victory in modern American history
April 3, 2019 Micah Uetricht


The United States is experiencing a socialist surge right now. That surge came to Chicago last night, where democratic socialists won big in the second, final round of municipal elections.
Three Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members won their city council races in runoff elections on Tuesday: Byron Sigcho-Lopez in the 25th ward, Jeanette Taylor in the 20th and Andre Vasquez in the 40th. The fourth candidate, Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, is locked in a race in the 33rd ward that is too close to call and will await the counting of mail-in ballots, but was up by 64 votes once all precincts’ votes were counted.
They will join two other socialists who handily won the first round of elections outright in February: Carlos Rosa, an incumbent in the 35th ward, and Daniel La Spata, who defeated an incumbent in the first ward.
Add them up and you’ve got at least five, maybe six democratic socialists who will be on the 50-member Chicago city council. Few major American cities have seen even a single socialist councilor in generations; the third-largest city in the US could soon have half a dozen. It’s the largest socialist electoral victory in modern American history.
The socialists won by strong, straightforward campaigning on working-class issues. Rosa, for example, made his race a referendum on affordable housing in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, painting big real estate developers as the enemy and demanding rent control in the city.
Taylor, a longtime neighborhood and education activist on the city’s South Side, demanded the forthcoming Barack Obama presidential library in her ward include a community benefits agreement to fight displacement of working-class residents. In 2015, she participated in a 34-day hunger strike to demand the reopening of Walter H Dyett high school; her website homepage reads: “Send a Dyett hunger strike to city hall.”
And Rodriguez campaigned on a history of activism for affordable housing and immigrant rights in a gentrifying, working-class immigrant neighborhood and against privatization of public services and expansion of police power in the city.
In other words, these democratic socialists ran as unabashed fighters against corporate greed and austerity and for the city’s working class.
Political observers and organizers should take these victories as a lesson: voters found that strong leftwing message appealing – and weren’t scared off by candidates who proudly called themselves “socialists”.
Socialism is spreading throughout the US, as seen in the popularity of the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the huge bump in DSA membership, increasing more than seven times over to 60,000 in the past three years. But what sets Chicago apart from many other cities in America – and played a crucial role in last night’s socialist victories – is that the left wing of the city’s labor movement hasn’t been afraid to partner with democratic socialist candidates.
Since its 2012 strike, the Chicago Teachers Union has served as the anchor of the city’s labor left. The CTU, along with community groups and other progressive unions such as SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, formed a political organization called United Working Families (UWF) in 2015. Many union leaders, in Chicago and elsewhere, are skittish about backing openly socialist candidates.
UWF appears to be, endorsing most of the DSA’s city council candidates (and in many cases expended significant resources on them). Another progressive electoral group, Reclaim Chicago, was the principal backer of two of the victorious DSA members, Vasquez and La Spata.
That coalition of left unions and community groups will be crucial in the years to come. Last night also saw the election of the Chicago’s first black woman mayor, as well as its first lesbian mayor, Lori Lightfoot, a former prosecutor and corporate lawyer.
Lightfoot claimed to be a progressive, but her record has been scrutinized by criminal justice activists and the CTU (which backed Lightfoot’s opponent, Cook county board president Toni Preckwinkle); she drew a large donation from a murky “dark money” group that uses vague pro-austerity rhetoric as well as support from Emanuel’s personal lawyer. The city’s labor movement and left will probably find themselves joining together to fight Lightfoot in office.
Chicago’s socialist victories last night weren’t a fluke. Throughout the country, people are tired of low wages, soaring housing costs, privatization of public goods, budget cuts and corporate giveaways of public money. They have tried austerity and found it miserable.
If Chicago’s elections are any indication, maybe they’re ready to try socialism.
  • Micah Uetricht is the managing editor of Jacobin magazine. He is the author of Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity (Verso, 2014) and a member of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

24 January 2019

The Democrats are the Graveyard of all Protest and Social Movements

Billionaire Republican Donors Helped Elect Congress’s New Centrist Democrats


Most of us were pleased with the news that the Republicans had lost control of the House of Representatives last November and the resulting discomfiture of Donald Trump. We were even more pleased that for the first time, open supporters of the Palestinians were elected.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dislodged a 10 term Democrat in New York. Both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, elected for constituencies in Minnesota and Michigan, have come out in support of BDS. Opinion in the Democratic Party is slowly shifting in support of the Palestinians.
However it would be a great mistake to assume that this change at the rank and file level is having any great impact nationally.  As the following article from The Intercept shows, the major winners in the November elections were the Corporate Democrats. It would be great mistake to assume that the election of Ocasio-Cortez and her sisters reflected the Democrats in the House as a whole.
What we saw was billionaire Republican donors financing ‘centrist’, i.e. right-wing Democrats.  The ‘blue dog Democrats’ increased their numbers to 24 and it is estimated that the right-wing caucuses have 90 members between them.
Another right-wing caucus, the Problem Solvers Caucus (it seems that the only problems they solve are how the rich can get richer) consists of 24 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Bipartisanship is the way that the capitalist system ensures that there is never a political challenge to corporate corruption. They have imposed a procedural demand on the Speaker-elect of the House, Nancy Pelosi that she give greater privileges to Republican members from now on.
The same caucus members were responsible for ensuring that Obama’s Affordable Care Act did not attempt to cut the price of drugs thus providing a windfall for the drug companies.
There is a saying (though I can’t find where it originated!) that the Democrats are the graveyard of all social protest. Historically they were the party of segregation and slavery. The Southern Dixiecrats were epitomised by George Wallace, four times Governor of Alabama and a three-time Presidential candidate.
At a time when the American electorate are moving to the left, a shift symbolised by Bernie Sanders near-win in the Democratic primaries against Hilary Clinton (which he might have won but for fraudulent conduct of those primaries by the Democratic National Committee) the Democrats pose a danger to progressive and socialist movements.
Both the Republican and Democratic represent different wings of the capitalist political establishment.  Although the Democrats have a radical and even socialist fringe, their whole make up and organisation is based on support for the existing capitalist system.  It is riddled with corporate influence and finance. It is the task of socialists and radicals to build a third party based on the American labour movement.
Tony Greenstein
The three centrist Democratic caucus groups could boast as many as 90 members or more in January when new lawmakers elected this month are sworn in.
December 2, 2018 Lee Fang The Intercept

From left, James Murdoch in N.Y., on Sept. 20, 2018, Howard Marks in N.Y., on Aug. 1, 2017, Louis Bacon in N.Y., on Jan. 17, 2013, Nelson Peltz in N.Y., on July 16, 2014., Bryan Bedder/Getty Images; Christopher Goodney/Getty Images; Diane Bondareff/AP; Heidi Gutman/Getty Images

 JUST THREE YEARS ago, hedge fund manager Louis Bacon was writing a $19,600 check to a committee called “Boehner for Speaker.”
Now, the billionaire GOP donor has pivoted to influence the future of the Democratic Party. Records show Bacon is one of several deep-pocketed donors that have shifted to financing recent Democratic campaigns. Though national media attention has focused largely on newly elected democratic socialists and progressive members, the House Democratic caucus has also swelled with pro-business moderates, such as the Blue Dogs, the Problem Solvers Caucus, and the New Democrats.
The newly ascendent centrists flexed their muscle this week when a bloc of moderate lawmakers imposed a set of rules on Rep. Nancy Pelosi in her bid for speaker of the House, forcing the California Democrat to accept parliamentary changes that are designed to give the GOP greater access to floor votes and amending legislation.
The rule changes were proposed by the Problem Solvers Caucus — a nearly 2-year-old group affiliated with the organization No Labels that consists of 24 House Democrats and 24 House Republicans. Many of the members of the caucus were elected with financial support from Bacon, the billionaire hedge fund manager, along other wealthy donors with a long history of giving to Republicans.
When the House was previously under Democratic control, the Blue Dogs and New Democrats helped industry lobbyists kill health care reforms designed to lower costs and expand public insurance options. Earlier this year, the same bloc sided with House Republicans to repeal financial reforms on medium and large-sized banks.
On Monday, the Blue Dog Coalition also formally announced the addition of eight new members, bringing the total group to 24 members. The new members represent a rebound for the caucus, which has lost a lot of its members since the 2010 tea party wave. The recent electoral success is at least partially thanks to close ties to Democratic leadership — the Blue Dog caucus, notably, helped the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee identify pro-business candidates for swing districts ahead of the midterm elections.
The Blue Dog caucus is known for embracing a corporate-friendly agenda draped in rhetoric about finding common ground with conservatives. The caucus has a long history of supporting defense spending, fiscal austerity, and corporate-friendly free trade deals and regulations, while opposing civil rights legislation and expanded social services.
The three newly elected Blue Dog co-chairs, Reps. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla.; Tom O’Halleran, D-Ariz.; and Lou Correa, D-Calif., are simultaneously members of the New Democrats. Murphy and O’Halleran are also members of the Problem Solvers Caucus and were two of the members who signed a letter demanding rule changes in exchange for their support of Pelosi. The three centrist caucus groups could boast as many as 90 members or more in January when new lawmakers elected this month are sworn in.
No Labels, Lots of Cash
The newly empowered centrist Democrats rode a wave of big money into office.
Federal Election Commission records show that much of the centrist bloc has been financed by eight Super PACs associated with group No Labels, a centrist group that created the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Despite the litany of PACs, the donors remain largely the same group of about 13 wealthy businessmen, most of whom have a history of financing Republican campaigns.
Bacon, the founder of the Moore Capital Management hedge fund, gave $1.1 million in campaign contributions exclusively to GOP committees for federal office during the 2016 cycle. This cycle, Bacon gave $1 million to three No Labels-affiliated Super PACs, with much of that money flowing to races that elected centrist Democrats. One of the groups, United for Progress, played a decisive role in helping Rep. Dan Lipinski, a centrist Illinois Democrat who is anti-abortion, beat back a progressive primary challenger.
James Murdoch, chief executive of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News, gave $500,000 to United for Progress, a No Labels Super PAC. The group transferred $730,000 to another No Labels Super PAC, Progress Tomorrow, which helped Rep. Darren Soto, D-Fla., fend off a primary challenge this year from former Rep. Alan Grayson, who has been highly critical of Fox News.
Lipinski and Soto, who are members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, both signed the letter to Pelosi. They are also members of the New Democrats, and Lipinski is the former policy co-chair of the Blue Dogs.
Investor Nelson Peltz, an adviser to No Labels, has donated $900,000 to No Labels Super PACs and directly to several centrist Democrats that pressed to impose new rules on Pelosi, including Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Tom Suozzi of New York, and Murphy, the representative from Florida. Peltz is also a major donor to Donald Trump, having given to the president’s campaign and joint fundraising committee over the last two cycles.
Peltz, who made much of his fortune using junk bonds, has awarded himself very large pay packages. At one of his former companies, known as Triac, he paid himself $29 million for a company with only $1.2 billion in sales. After the election in 2016, he urged support for Trump and called for policies that give investors a special tax holiday on repatriated oversees profits.
Last year, the Washington Post revealed that the top aide to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin traveled on Peltz’s private plane, a trip that raised ethics concerns. Peltz notably has pushed for lower tax rates for corporations.
Dan Webb, co-executive chair of the law firm Winston & Strawn, gave $100,000 to Citizens for a Strong America, one of the No Labels Super PACs. Webb’s other direct federal donations this cycle only went to two incumbent House Republicans.
The individual donors named in this article did not respond to requests for comment. Melanie Sloan, a spokesperson for No Labels, noted that she’d seen our request to at least one of the donors. In a statement, she said, “No one in the Problem Solvers Caucus takes their marching orders from a donor.”
The Problem Solvers Caucus, Sloan added, “didn’t demand plum committee assignments, goodies for their districts, a special interest provision or any of the other horse trading usually required to move a congressional vote from no to yes. They asked for reforms that are good for the whole Congress, and they started pushing for them over the summer, when they didn’t even know which party would control Congress or who would be Speaker.”
Most of the No Labels backers have not been strictly partisan in campaign giving. Howard Marks, co-founder of Oaktree Capital Management, has been a major player in Democratic fundraising circles and was a heavyweight donor to Hillary Clinton, though he also donated briefly to former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va. Another donor to the No Labels Super PACs, John Arnold, the former Enron energy trader, has given largely to Democrats but also to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Earlier this week, The Intercept reported that former Clinton adviser Mark Penn, who owns an investment company that owns a stake in a number of political consulting firms, has quietly shaped the anti-Pelosi strategy. Penn’s spouse Nancy Jacobson is the founder of No Labels.
The No Labels project touts itself as an effort to build commonsense solutions to vexing political issues. Yet the group did not demand that Republicans John Boehner or Paul Ryan seek Democratic votes or open legislation to Democratic amendments in order to serve as House speaker, a new bipartisan criteria the group succeeded in imposing in part on Pelosi.
Instead, in the era of unlimited campaign giving, the organization has provided a backdoor way for Republican donors to shape control of the Democrats, even when the GOP is defeated at the ballot box.
Blue Dogs Fetch Dark Money
One of the other Super PACs that worked to elect centrist members is known as the Center Forward Committee, an outgrowth of the Blue Dog Research Forum, a now-shuttered think tank affiliated with the House Democratic caucus.
The group was formed by former Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., and other retired centrist Democrats. Tanner now serves at the lobbying firm Prime Policy Group, which represents many corporate clients, including FedEx, Bayer, the American Hospital Association, Google, and the National Restaurant Association.
The Super PAC spent big on electing moderate, pro-business Democrats, including Florida’s Murphy, Arizona’s O’Halleran, and Rep.-elect Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J. But unlike the New Labels PACs, the Center Forward Committee has virtually no identifiable individual or corporate donors. Out of $1.2 million the Super PAC raised, $980,000 came from Center Forward, an affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit that is not required to disclose its donors. Another $200,000 came from the New Democrats PAC and the Blue Dog PAC, two groups nearly fully funded by a range of corporate PAC money. Center Forward did not return a request for comment.
Despite the opaque nature of the big-money group, there are some hints.
The National Restaurant Association, an avowed opponent of expanding union rights and raising the minimum wage, is funded through company donations from the likes of McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Jack in the Box franchise owners, though the group does not provide a public breakdown of exactly how it is funded. The National Rifle Association, notably, directly contributed $40,000 to the Blue Dog-affiliated Super PAC, according to FEC disclosures.
Other corporate donors have given through a daisy chain of semi-disclosed entities. The Center Forward 501(c)(4), for instance, received $77,000 from NCTA, a trade group that represents Comcast, Cox Communications, and other cable giants, according to the 2017 tax filing made available to The Intercept last week.
The Blue Dogs’s name comes from paintings of dogs that once adornedthe walls of former Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin’s congressional office, who once hosted an informal gathering of fellow conservative southern Democrats. Tauzin, notably, switched to the Republican Party in 1995. He later oversaw the creation of Medicare Part D through 2003 legislation that expanded drug benefits to seniors. Tauzin passed the bill with a special provision preventing the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for better prices.
Tauzin later retired from Congress and took the job as the chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, the very drug industry group whose corporate members he had showered with an unprecedented financial windfall reaped by the Medicare expansion he passed. In 2010, Tauzin helped convince Democrats to leave aggressive cost-cutting measures out of the Affordable Care Act, another win for drugmakers. That year, he was paid $11.6 million by the drug lobby for his services.
PhRMA, again facing political headwinds as Democrats confront high drug prices, appears to have been laying the groundwork for the challenge. The group’s most recently filed tax return shows that PhRMA provided massive donations to a range of pro-Trump and Republican groups, along with conservative nonprofits fighting against greater government oversight of the drug industry.
But the filings also show one seven-figure donation to Democrats: PhRMA gave $1.19 million to Center Forward last year, the dark-money group that helped elect several Blue Dogs to Congress in the Trump era.


Lee Fang is a journalist with a long-standing interest in how public policy is influenced by organized interest groups and money. He was the first to uncover and detail the role of the billionaire Koch brothers in financing the Tea Party movement. His interviews and research on the Koch brothers have been featured on HBO’s “The Newsroom,” the documentaries “Merchants of Doubt” and “Citizen Koch,” as well as in multiple media outlets. He was an investigative blogger for ThinkProgress (2009-2011) and then a fellow at the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute and contributing writer for The Nation.
In 2012, he co-founded RepublicReport.org, a blog to cover political corruption that syndicates content with TheNation.com, Salon, National Memo, BillMoyers.com, TruthOut, and other media outlets. His work has been published by VICE, The Baffler, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Progressive, NPR, In These Times, and the Huffington Post. His first book, “The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right,” published by the New Press, explores how the conservative right rebuilt the Republican Party and its political clout in the aftermath of President Obama’s 2008 election victory. He is based in San Francisco.
Will those who focus on wealth’s concentration gain the upper hand within the Democratic Party’s leadership?
December 12, 2018 Sam Pizzigati

Bernie Sanders, Joseph Biden: two different approaches to billionaires, Getty Images
Back in the closing years of the 20th century, the British Labour Party leader Tony Blair thoroughly redefined his party’s essence. Labour, Blair believed, had to shake off the past and become a political force “on the side” of the upwardly mobile, not just workers and their unions.
Blair’s chief strategist, Peter Mandelson, would capture the new Blairite sensibility with a quip that would go viral in the UK, even before the days of social media.
“We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich,” Mandelson opined, “as long as they pay their taxes.”
And those taxes would stay modest in the years after Blair’s electoral triumph in 1997. Prime minister Blair would pay precious little attention to the increasing concentration of British income, wealth, and power in the hands of a filthy rich few.
How did that benign neglect work out for average people in the UK? Not so well. Families in Britain’s industrial belt, reeling ever since the 1980s free-market fundamentalism of the Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher, continued on a dispiriting economic slide.
Corporate and banking honchos, meanwhile, stuffed their pockets and eventually crashed the British economy. For an encore, they helped shove Great Recession Britain into years of austerity that placed the full burden of economic recovery onto the backs of low- and middle-income households.
This toxic economic stew would bubble over into a widespread political frustration that right-wing fringe elements would shamelessly exploit. The resulting wave of racism and xenophobia and a national mood sour and cynical,” concludes one UK commentator, have become Tony Blair’s “legacy.”
The good news? An intense relaxation about the filthy rich no longer dominates the British Labour Party. In 2015, the backbench lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn came from seemingly nowhere to win the party’s top leadership post. Corbyn and his fellow progressives have since led Labour to new policy stances that repudiate the Blairite indifference toward grand concentrations of private wealth.
Why should Americans care about this history from across the Atlantic? One simple reason: Our past quarter-century of history eerily mirrors the course of events in the UK.
In the 1990s, the British had a relaxed-about-the-rich Tony Blair. We had a relaxed-about-the-rich Bill Clinton. No one in the Clinton administration would ever capture their relaxation perspective as colorfully as Peter Mandelson did in the UK. But some Clintonites came close.
Former Clinton Council of Economic Advisors chief Laura D’Andrea Tyson may have come the closest. In remarks at a 1998 Federal Reserve conference, Tyson asked us to imagine our income distribution as an apartment building with a rat-infested basement and a penthouse ever more luxurious. What to do? Pillage the penthouse? By all means no, contended Tyson. We need to focus instead on doing “something about that rat-infested basement.”
Worrying about the wealth of the wealthy, in other words, simply distracts us from more pressing matters.
This attitude has dominated the Democratic Party leadership mainstream ever since President John F. Kennedy started pushing tax cuts on America’s highest incomes as a secret sauce for economic progress. More dollars in rich people’s pockets, the argument went, would enhance the nation’s economic growth, in the process creating a “rising tide” that would “lift all boats.”
In more recent years, even Democrats who’ve challenged the Democratic Party leadership mainstream have accepted the be-happy-don’t-worry framing on grand fortune.
“The thing to do is concentrate on the 90 percent of people who don’t have what they need and make sure they have it, and not worry about the people who make $500,000 a year,” as former Vermont governor Howard Dean noted in his insurgent 2004 White House bid. “Of course, it’s obscene, but so what?”
How has this relaxation about the filthy rich, a constant through both the Clinton and the Obama years, worked out for average families in the United States? We have essentially suffered the same fate as the British. Hard-hit industrial centers have continued to rust. Real wages have stagnated, and widespread economic insecurity has exploded into a frustration and cynicism that purveyors of xenophobia and racism have shamelessly exploited.
The Brits ended up with Brexit. We ended up with Donald Trump.
But here in the United States, as in the UK, we’ve seen a political pushback against relaxing while wealth continues to furiously concentrate. In 2016, a year after backbencher Jeremy Corbyn helped energize an end to that relaxation within the Labour Party, backbencher Bernie Sanders came out swinging against the “billionaire class” and performed far better in the Democratic Party presidential primaries than any pundit ever thought possible.
Unlike Corbyn in 2015, Senator Sanders ultimately fell short in 2016. What will now happen in 2020? Will Sanders or someone who shares his perspective on grand fortune win the Democratic nomination? Will those who worry — intensely — about wealth’s concentration gain the upper hand within the Democratic Party’s leadership?
At the grassroots level, Gallup polling suggests, that shift has already taken place. Late this past spring, Gallup researchers asked a cross-section of Americans a simple question they had originally asked in 2012: “Do you think the United States benefits from having a class of rich people, or not?
Six years ago, a slim majority of self-identified Democrats, 52 percent, told Gallup they do believe that the United States benefits from having rich people in our midst. That slim majority has now evaporated. In the 2018 surveying, only 43 percent of Democrats felt that the United States benefits from having a class of rich people.
A clear majority of grassroots Democrats now believe, in effect, that we don’t need the rich. We don’t have that clarity —at least not yet — at the party leadership level. What we do have: a clear fault line within the ranks of those who seek to shape the party’s future.
“We must develop an international movement that takes on the greed and ideology of the billionaire class and leads us to a world of economic, social and environmental justice,” Senator Sanders noted earlier this year. “Will this be an easy struggle? Certainly not. But it is a fight that we cannot avoid.”
“I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders,” former Vice President Joseph Biden retorted to a Brookings Institution audience this past May. “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble.”
Two different takes on grand fortune, one party. Which take will prevail? We’ll see soon enough.
Sam Pizzigati co-edits Inequality.org. His latest book, The Case for a Maximum Wage, has just been published. Among his other books on maldistributed income and wealth: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970. Follow him at @Too_Much_Online.

The Graveyard of Progressive Social Movements – The Black Hole of the Democratic Party

This is a very long article but well worth reading for a background to radical working class movements in the United States.

The graveyard of progressive social movements: The black hole of the Democratic Party, August H. Nimtz Platypus affiliated Society