Discussion

• spankinrankin :

  The COE has always done this during the general election since 1980 but I thought they did it back in the 2000 and 2004 primaries although not as noticably. Hint, when McCain went against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and Bradley's pro-populist appeal compared to Gore's stuck-in-the-beltway mentality. Not too surprising especially since 1980 rightwing lunatics, be it economic and social, are usually quick and wise to swiftboat any candidates even remotely pro-people ahead of time. The progressives should have united and planned ahead a long time ago knowing very well that Big Money is today's "law of the land". It's not the money that's killing them but their lack of appeal needed. Out here in MS for example, the rank-and-file voters are quick to believe that they too can "get rich quick" and "match" Donald Trump.

  P.S.: Any Republican or Democrat who touts their religious fervor to extremes is always pro-corporate. The Chamber of Commerce is not going to bomb out Huckabee especially since he's misusing populism to sugar-coat the BIGGEST ECONOMIC BOMB against the middle class, the NATIONAL SALES TAX. Like Gravel, Norquist has an economic "crush" on Huckabee alright. BEWARE.

  Posted on January 9, 2008 6:22 AM

• waltc :

  Populism is dead. The popularity of corporate funded centrists like Obama and Hillary show it. People don't want change, they want a continuance of the Bush economic and military policies albeit with a change of faces.

  Edwards will never carry a single state. His mistake was believing that the Democrats was still the party of the working man and woman. It isn't, its the party of the white upper middle-class who are direct beneficiaries of globalization and off-shoring along with a massive base of welfare recipients who provide the bulk of the votes.

  This is why economic issues are not important to Democrats and liberals - they are too well off to notice any problems, much like the Bush "haves and have mores".

  The CoC has nothing to worry about. They not only won, but have made the majority of Americans believe they have it made and life is one big party.

  
  

  Posted on January 9, 2008 9:03 AM

• kalfor :

  "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

  According to Fortune magazine "Business Loves Hillary!" so she won't have to worry about her butt getting bit.

  http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=588

  http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/1728/fortune20070709gz8.jpg

  Posted on January 9, 2008 9:37 AM

• below_mason_dixon :

  Wow. Donahue and the US CoC are truly evil. I'll give 'em credit for being straightforward about their evilness and belieft that they (a tiny minority) control America.

  From the article: "Under Donohue, the organization has also frequently aligned itself with GOP priorities."

  Also, the article talked about how they attack primarily dems, and how they have a general fear of economic leftism. WE MUST KEEP THIS ARTICLE AND SEE IT DISTRIBUTED FAR AND WIDE! Why? Because the anti-business rhetoric and ideology is monopolized by "far-right" populists on the internet who argue that big business uses MARXISM and LEFTISM to promte themselves. Some even argue that big business IS marxist just because they are globalist. This excellent article unwittingly lays out the barenaked, definitive truth: that big business is ADMITTEDLY CONSERVATIVE, not marxist in ANY way, and much more fearful of LIBERALS than of anyone else. Because you liberals (I am one of you) assume that anti-business will translate into leftism. But I have discovered that to be wrong. Many "populist" republicans blame cheap labor immigration/outsourcing on the LEFT, and argue that their main proponents (Bush, GOP) are not rightwing at all but are rather "LEFTIST LIBERALS" and "SOCIALISTS!" as well as "FAKE conservatives." I tried to tell some of them that big business was rightwing, but they would not believe me. They have this false view of conservatism as this populist ideology that has been betrayed by business. Uh, actually, business IS conservatism. We need to get this message across PRONTO!

  
  The funny thing is that the CoC has nothing to worry about considering that even without their interference they'd be doing quite well. The fact that they need to interfere shows how greedy they are.

  Posted on January 9, 2008 11:53 AM

• below_mason_dixon :

  the funny thing about populist rightwingers is that they will go to the most extreme (and false) intellectual depths to show you how the triangulation of unions/labor parties is actually a manifestation of their MARXIST BETRAYAL! This is the one area where non-intellectual, common sense can tell you the real truth: that business HATES marxism. And yet, on all other issues, the rightwingers resort to false common sense when a more deep intellectual presence is needed. So they reverse everything: they use excess (pseudo) logic where it is not needed, and common sense where it is not needed.

  Posted on January 9, 2008 11:59 AM

• maxpayne :

  Speaking of rightwing populism, you should see the way rightwing fundie voters out here in VA Beach do a toxic mix of libertarian economics and social conservatism. For example, let's take healthcare. Now most gun toters who only vote for the candidate that "promises" not to take away their guns would gladly support single payer healthcare. However, given how clever the rightwing populists have framed the entire debate in a backwards sense, you'll hear responses from blue-collared GOP fundies such as "Yeah, well the right to own guns are in the goddamn motherfucking Constitution but there ain't no healthcare and abortion rights in the Constitution, commie !"

  Or ask a typical "NASCAR Dad" who's sick and tired of "big government" if he's ready to abolish the CIA and he'll reply something like this "Hey man ! The CIA is doing its fucking job of protecting America from terrorists !"

  Better yet, ask a typical social "conservative" about the lack of tort reform against corporate lawsuits and you'll hear something like this "Those stupid kids deserve to be punished for stealing off the internet because they didn't fucking pay for it !" Even if you try and tell them that the very same Hollywood elite that they despise is benefitting from tax cuts for the wealthy, the dismantling of privacy rights in America, and allowing Big Business to GOUGE consumers at large and you'll probably get a reply like this "Hey dude, privacy is for sissies so if you ain't got nothing to fear, shut the fuck up and get used to it. Besides, that's business !" You could also try and tell them about the strange bedfellow relationship between Hollywood the the "Religious Right" and the fact that they're rich at their expense and one response a friend of mine got from a pickup truck "conservative" was this "I got a gun in one hand and a bible in another. Don't joke Pat Robertson, you damn hippie ! I'm gonna get more fucking rich with more tax cuts so if you gotta problem with that, you can fly your fucking ass over France !"

  Until there are enough progressives and liberals putting populism and the progressive ideology to work, it's going to be years of win-win with the monied and social con elites at the top with the rest of us in the loser's column.

  Posted on January 9, 2008 3:09 PM

• below_mason_dixon :

  GREAT job of outlining that form of rightwing populism, maxpayne. Better than I could do. I see that crap all over the place. BTW, I was just down in the Newport News and Williamburg Area recently. First time. Beautiful, beautiful area. If you are indeed from Virginia, let me complement you on your wonderful (if not demented) state. We have our own share of those types of people here in Baltimore. They tend to be more rare and more socially liberal, though. Much more of an urban style "reagan democrat."

  I myself in my previous post was specifically talking about the strangest form of rightwing populism, which is the "national socialist" type. At first you may dismiss them as racist/white supremacist. And you may be right. But surprisingly, parties like these, which are more prevalent in Europe (take the BNP for example) are socialist/leftwing on economic issues, but because of their nationalist, insist on being either rightwing of extremely anti-left because they see globalization as a tool of MARXISTS of all people. At first one may think: HEY! nice party here, being nationalistic, leftwing on economics, anti-PC. BUT, one soon realizes that these parties are far too obsessed with race, the cultural aspects of immigration, islamophobia, and whatever the latest rightwing fad on the internet is to be of any use. And their anti-left semantics display their idiocy. These rightwing populists/socialists consist of many former members of left parties in Europe. If this trend continues in Europe (and it could occur in America soon) we will have on our hands a bunch of people who AGREE with us on economic issues but are STILL rightwing. We will have lost the idea war. I got an account over at Kucinich4President where I have been spending part of my time alerting people about this. They all assume that as people get poorer they will support Kucinich/ go left. This is not the case.

  I guess my point is that Thomas Frank's theory of social issues being important and economic conservatism being attached is not always true; sometimes the conservatives actually SUPPORT leftism on economics. That does not make them, however, the correct choice for the working class.

  Posted on January 10, 2008 6:18 AM

• n*t* :

  below_mason_dixon:

  We must realize first that fundamentalism is an economic disorder. It emerges in Pakistan, Europe, and even here when economics were taken off the table. You really do Frank's a disservice if you have not read One Market Under God.

  Short version - the cultural war was Clinton's fault. Way too many liberals totally miss the thesis of What the Matter with Kansas. In their simpleton brains they take it as the working class voting against their economic interests. That is not his point, his point is that if class rage does not have an outlet, it will be replaced with cultural rage.

  The cultural war is fed by the lack of a economic populist vision. Fundamentalism emerges out of economic poverty and despair. Zizek said it best,

  [quote="zizek"]Although, of course, as to the positive content of most of the debated issues, a radical Leftist should support the liberal stance (for abortion, against racism and homophobia...), one should never forget that it is the populist fundamentalist, not the liberal, who is, in the long term, our ally. In all their anger, the populists are not angry enough - not radical enough to perceive the link between capitalism and the moral decay they deplore.
  Slavoj Zizek[/quote]

  Posted on January 10, 2008 1:11 PM

• below_mason_dixon :

  i LOVE "one market under god"

  his BEST book

  that book has shape my worldview possibly more than any other book

  and that book is the reason why I have learned to blame "cultural decay", political correctness, mass immigration on the rightwing (even though most blame it on the left). i may very well have gone rightwing (not on economic issues, but in general political outlook) had i not read that masterpiece

  thank you for citing it- you made my morning!!!

  Posted on January 11, 2008 8:56 AM

• below_mason_dixon :

  EXCELLENT quote and an eye-opener. So much of the "radical left" is radical but too obsessed with social issues. the populist fundamentalists are more our ally and sometimes even agree with us on economics, but there IS a lack of a radical edge with them - a radical edge you feel more in existence when you go to, say, a communist website.

  I think the longterm goal should encompass at least 3 things (no specific order)

  -rooting out bourgeois fakeLeftists out of the radical left
  -rescuing populist fundamentalists/nationalist rightiwngers from their hopeless ideologies and bringing them back into the leftwing fold (this will be by far the hardest thing)
  -making the radical left more economics focused, and less obsessed with "anti-racism"*

  *note for anti-racism: it is usually an attempt to stifle people's natural thoughts rather than eradicate . It is actually performed mostly and far more evilly and vindictively by the bourgeois centrists/rightwingers in the corporate and academic sectors, and far less by the "fadical left." The radical left has good intentions of raising class consciousness above ethnic consciousness, BUT still obsesses over race too much. Those aspects of the left that obsess over race are the fault of the rightwing non-Profits (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller foundations), because they want a left more obsessed with race than economics. Thus, it is hard financially to have a left that does not talk about race.
  
  for more, see: www.leftwingmediamachine.blogspot.com

  I wander if Sirota is getting worried that our discussion is going beyond GOP/Dems.

  Posted on January 11, 2008 9:07 AM

• below_mason_dixon :

  "*note for anti-racism: it is usually an attempt to stifle people's natural thoughts rather than eradicate"

  that was supposed to end: "eradicate actual racism"

  also i meant to say "radical left" above, NOT "fadical left"

  now fadical there is a funny word. i could use that more often to describe starbucks environmentalists

  however, there was no freudian slip above. it was just a typo

  Posted on January 11, 2008 9:15 AM

• below_mason_dixon :

  doing a google search i see that i am not nearly the first one to come across the word "fadical"

  it was a typo

  so nobody come here and tell me i stole their word

  Posted on January 11, 2008 9:23 AM