Corporate-Friendly Democrats Mobilize to Drag Party Rightward
So-called 'centrist' Democrats are attempting to distance themselves from progressive voices like Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Afraid "a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections," factions within the Democratic Party more closely aligned with Wall Street and other corporate interests than with the progressive left are "gathering their forces to fight back against the 'Elizabeth Warren wing' of their party," The Hill reported Monday.
Framed as a fight between so-called "centrists" of the party and more progressive voices, exemplified by Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), journalist Kevin Cirilli describes how leaders of three corporate-friendly groups--the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN), and Third Way--are moving to steer the Democratic agenda away from issues like income inequality, the student debt crisis, and corporate tax breaks.
Warren has come out swinging on these issues. Just last week, Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) launched the Middle Class Prosperity Project with a Forum on Economic Challenges Facing the Middle Class in Washington, D.C.
"There have been deep structural changes in the economy, changes that have gone on for more than thirty years, changes that have kept hard-working middle class families from sharing in an improving economy," Warren said in her opening statement (pdf) at the forum, calling on Congress to close tax loopholes, raise the minimum wage, and cut student loan interest rates.
Of current economic struggles, Warren declared:
Now this didn't need to happen. It happened partly because of deliberate choices made right here in Washington. The choice to tax assembly line workers and teachers at higher rates than billionaire hedge fund managers. The choice to cut support for higher education and leave students with massive debt. The choice to gut funding for infrastructure and basic science research that grows the economy and that saves lives--all while giving corporations fat tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. The choice to run this country for the rich and the powerful, instead of running it for hard-working people.
Following the forum, Campaign for America's Future analyst Isaiah Poole wondered: "Could this project, using Warren's distinctive voice, help progressives present a bold alternative not only to destructive conservative policies but the Band-Aids and incremental measures of some mainstream Democrats?"
Such "barbed attacks" as Warren's have "thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach," Cirilli writes at The Hill. "But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda."
To that end, the New Democrat Coalition (NDC)--whose list of members, historian Eric Zuesse pointed out in 2014, is "very close to being the same list as the members of Congress who are owned by Wall Street"--plans to unveil a policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course, one that focuses more on economic growth than on populist concerns.
Gabe Horwitz, director of the neoliberal think tank Third Way's economic program, offered a hint of what the NDC plan could entail--or at least, what it will eschew: fairness.
"In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively," Horwitz told The Hill. "Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth."
This is in keeping with the remarks of former Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who recently said that a challenge for presumptive presidential candidate--and Warren foil--Hillary Clinton in shaping an economic platform is "to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy."
In an op-ed last month, Richard Eskow responded: "But there are ways to address that quandary. One is to recognize that struggling Americans want and need economic reformation, not personal vilification. The public is presumably much more interested in solving its problems than it is in demonizing wealthy strangers."
Eskow continued: "In fact, the entire 'envy' and 'vilification' framing is counterproductive. It's a rhetorical ploy that, whether intentionally or not, characterizes a genuine national crisis--and the hardship of millions--as a transitory and less than admirable emotional state. We are dealing with a problem that threatens to tear our social fabric apart, and it must be discussed that way."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Afraid "a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections," factions within the Democratic Party more closely aligned with Wall Street and other corporate interests than with the progressive left are "gathering their forces to fight back against the 'Elizabeth Warren wing' of their party," The Hill reported Monday.
Framed as a fight between so-called "centrists" of the party and more progressive voices, exemplified by Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), journalist Kevin Cirilli describes how leaders of three corporate-friendly groups--the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN), and Third Way--are moving to steer the Democratic agenda away from issues like income inequality, the student debt crisis, and corporate tax breaks.
Warren has come out swinging on these issues. Just last week, Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) launched the Middle Class Prosperity Project with a Forum on Economic Challenges Facing the Middle Class in Washington, D.C.
"There have been deep structural changes in the economy, changes that have gone on for more than thirty years, changes that have kept hard-working middle class families from sharing in an improving economy," Warren said in her opening statement (pdf) at the forum, calling on Congress to close tax loopholes, raise the minimum wage, and cut student loan interest rates.
Of current economic struggles, Warren declared:
Now this didn't need to happen. It happened partly because of deliberate choices made right here in Washington. The choice to tax assembly line workers and teachers at higher rates than billionaire hedge fund managers. The choice to cut support for higher education and leave students with massive debt. The choice to gut funding for infrastructure and basic science research that grows the economy and that saves lives--all while giving corporations fat tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. The choice to run this country for the rich and the powerful, instead of running it for hard-working people.
Following the forum, Campaign for America's Future analyst Isaiah Poole wondered: "Could this project, using Warren's distinctive voice, help progressives present a bold alternative not only to destructive conservative policies but the Band-Aids and incremental measures of some mainstream Democrats?"
Such "barbed attacks" as Warren's have "thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach," Cirilli writes at The Hill. "But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda."
To that end, the New Democrat Coalition (NDC)--whose list of members, historian Eric Zuesse pointed out in 2014, is "very close to being the same list as the members of Congress who are owned by Wall Street"--plans to unveil a policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course, one that focuses more on economic growth than on populist concerns.
Gabe Horwitz, director of the neoliberal think tank Third Way's economic program, offered a hint of what the NDC plan could entail--or at least, what it will eschew: fairness.
"In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively," Horwitz told The Hill. "Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth."
This is in keeping with the remarks of former Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who recently said that a challenge for presumptive presidential candidate--and Warren foil--Hillary Clinton in shaping an economic platform is "to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy."
In an op-ed last month, Richard Eskow responded: "But there are ways to address that quandary. One is to recognize that struggling Americans want and need economic reformation, not personal vilification. The public is presumably much more interested in solving its problems than it is in demonizing wealthy strangers."
Eskow continued: "In fact, the entire 'envy' and 'vilification' framing is counterproductive. It's a rhetorical ploy that, whether intentionally or not, characterizes a genuine national crisis--and the hardship of millions--as a transitory and less than admirable emotional state. We are dealing with a problem that threatens to tear our social fabric apart, and it must be discussed that way."
Afraid "a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections," factions within the Democratic Party more closely aligned with Wall Street and other corporate interests than with the progressive left are "gathering their forces to fight back against the 'Elizabeth Warren wing' of their party," The Hill reported Monday.
Framed as a fight between so-called "centrists" of the party and more progressive voices, exemplified by Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), journalist Kevin Cirilli describes how leaders of three corporate-friendly groups--the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the New Democrat Network (NDN), and Third Way--are moving to steer the Democratic agenda away from issues like income inequality, the student debt crisis, and corporate tax breaks.
Warren has come out swinging on these issues. Just last week, Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) launched the Middle Class Prosperity Project with a Forum on Economic Challenges Facing the Middle Class in Washington, D.C.
"There have been deep structural changes in the economy, changes that have gone on for more than thirty years, changes that have kept hard-working middle class families from sharing in an improving economy," Warren said in her opening statement (pdf) at the forum, calling on Congress to close tax loopholes, raise the minimum wage, and cut student loan interest rates.
Of current economic struggles, Warren declared:
Now this didn't need to happen. It happened partly because of deliberate choices made right here in Washington. The choice to tax assembly line workers and teachers at higher rates than billionaire hedge fund managers. The choice to cut support for higher education and leave students with massive debt. The choice to gut funding for infrastructure and basic science research that grows the economy and that saves lives--all while giving corporations fat tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. The choice to run this country for the rich and the powerful, instead of running it for hard-working people.
Following the forum, Campaign for America's Future analyst Isaiah Poole wondered: "Could this project, using Warren's distinctive voice, help progressives present a bold alternative not only to destructive conservative policies but the Band-Aids and incremental measures of some mainstream Democrats?"
Such "barbed attacks" as Warren's have "thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach," Cirilli writes at The Hill. "But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda."
To that end, the New Democrat Coalition (NDC)--whose list of members, historian Eric Zuesse pointed out in 2014, is "very close to being the same list as the members of Congress who are owned by Wall Street"--plans to unveil a policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course, one that focuses more on economic growth than on populist concerns.
Gabe Horwitz, director of the neoliberal think tank Third Way's economic program, offered a hint of what the NDC plan could entail--or at least, what it will eschew: fairness.
"In the last election, Democrats, as a party, offered a message of fairness. Voters responded, and they responded really negatively," Horwitz told The Hill. "Democrats offered fairness, and voters wanted prosperity and growth."
This is in keeping with the remarks of former Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who recently said that a challenge for presumptive presidential candidate--and Warren foil--Hillary Clinton in shaping an economic platform is "to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy."
In an op-ed last month, Richard Eskow responded: "But there are ways to address that quandary. One is to recognize that struggling Americans want and need economic reformation, not personal vilification. The public is presumably much more interested in solving its problems than it is in demonizing wealthy strangers."
Eskow continued: "In fact, the entire 'envy' and 'vilification' framing is counterproductive. It's a rhetorical ploy that, whether intentionally or not, characterizes a genuine national crisis--and the hardship of millions--as a transitory and less than admirable emotional state. We are dealing with a problem that threatens to tear our social fabric apart, and it must be discussed that way."