Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCentrist Democrats = Corporate Sellouts
Every time I hear about Joe Lieberman's latest apostasy, I think, Oy vey! There he goes again. More Joementum.
Remind me why we still call this guy a Democrat? Sure, Lieberman caucuses with Democrats in the Senate--Joe is nothing if not opportunistic and who wants to be part of a lowly Republican minority?--but I think he forfeited his right to call himself one when he almost became John McCain's VP and campaigned stridently against an Obama presidency. Yet somehow he managed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Gotta love those Senate Democrats--they always find a way to reward someone for stabbing them in the back. See Baucus, Max.
Following Lieberman's threat to filibuster a public option, every paper played up the story of how the "centrists" are now rebelling. Watch out, the centrists are coming! "Centrists unsure about Reid's public option," the Washington Post reported today. Let's get real. These holdouts are not centrist Democrats; they are corporate Democrats, which should be an oxymoron. They'll do whatever the healthcare industry wants and use their red state constituents as an excuse to do so. Only Lieberman is from Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the country. So what's his excuse?
Well, some rather large insurance companies reside in Connecticut and, as Joe Conason points out, Lieberman's wife just so happens to have been a drug industry lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton. Conason reports:
Among Hill & Knowlton's clients when Mrs. Lieberman signed on with the firm last year was GlaxoSmithKline, the huge British-based drug company that makes vaccines along with many other drugs. As I noted in July, Sen. Lieberman introduced a bill in April 2005 (the month after his wife joined Hill & Knowlton) that would award billions of dollars in new "incentives" to companies like GlaxoSmithKline to persuade them to make more new vaccines. Under the legislation, known as Bioshield II, the cost to consumers and governments would be astronomical, but for Lieberman and his Republican cosponsors, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., the results would be worth every penny. Using the war on terror as their ideological backdrop, the pharma-friendly senators sought to win patent extensions on products that have nothing to do with preparations against terrorist attack or natural disaster.
Sounds like a bit of a conflict of interest, no? Let's take a look at some of these other so-called "centrists." Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is in the pocket of Wal-Mart (just like her fellow Arkansan in the House, Blue Dog leader Mike Ross), Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is tied up with every major industry in the Bayou State and Ben Nelson...Well, he's Ben Nelson. What more need I say?
This healthcare debate has provided what they call a clarifying moment. When it's all over, we'll know exactly which side these Democrats are on.
55 Comments so far
Show AllCenter of what?
People across the globe do not want to extend American Empire, continuation of American aggression and American dominance of resources.
So it's not the center of humanity or experts that we're talking about.
-- Americans do not want
------ the occupation of Afghanistan
------ the occupation of Iraq
------ the fighting in Pakistan
------ further coal mining
------ a larger carbon footprint for the US
------ to further underwrite the finance casino
Americans do want single payer health coverage.
They want more funding for education.
So we're not talking about the center of the US or of American opinion.
Can this mean anything besides the center between the Demoplican and Republicrat parties.
Is this not something like being a moderate czarist in Moscow in 1904?
Is it not a little like being an enlightened slaveowner in Carolina in 1855?
Surely there were moderate fascists too.
"Centrist" is phony language, sales jargon. It's used to take the associations English-speakers have with "center" and apply it to an arbitrary selection of violent goons.
May we never let this kind of thing pass.
The Centralists are paid for. They are just keeping their end of the bargain. As long as lobbyists are allowed to flourish in Washington there will be Democrats who act as their representatives. It's all about money. Very little morality in Washington. Why do we allow a system that puts carrots in front of the elephants and asses.
There are three parties in Congress, not two. There are a few Democrats who act on their beliefs that government actions can result in positive solutions to help people, especially those less fortunate and the middel class. There are a few Republicans who hold a genuine ideology of conservatism and believe in limited government as the best course of action.
Unfortunately, the majority of the Senate and House belong to the corporate party. The have bought their positions in Congress to do the bidding of corporations and the wealthy and care little about it's affect on the rest of the American people.
Say what you will, the last President who did anything to offend the upper classes was Bill Clinton.
Clinton raised taxes on the rich--something a "corporate Democrat" would never do.
Are you stupid? Bill "Bubba" Clinton gave us Nafta with the help of Mr Globalization himself, George H W Bush. Under Clinton and the Bush Family the working classes lost some seven million good paying jobs that were outsourced to China. We are now in a major depression and people like you still don't get it.
How come Bubba is pulling in millions of dollars from Foreign countries every day?
What do they owe him besides the fact that he outsourced our economy to Foreign countries? Time for a wake up call...
What's with your Clintonphilia?
Clinton initiated a repeal of the New Deal that went far beyond anything even Reagan contemplated: repeal of aid to dependent families, repeal of Glass Steagall, WTO/NAFTA, Telecom Act, refusal to regulate derivatives.
Were you in a coma while all that fervently procorporate stuff was going on?
The minute I read the title of this article and saw it was from the supine Nation Institute, I knew there was trouble. Come on now, Democrats are corporate sell-outs, just as Republicans are. What a complete waste of time to try to discern minute differences between "Centrist Democrats" and Right-Wing Democrats and Left-wing Democrats. They all get elected and serve in the same corporate bribery regime.
The significance of Lieberman's public statements declaring his opposition to health care reform (even of a pathetically limited nature) is that he gives cover to Democrats who now have a handy scapegoat to blame-- which conveniently takes them off the hook for their own votes. This helps them keep close ties to their corporate contributors--which is essentially the main motive they have in this whole debate now. Thus, Lieberman is performing a valuable service to all the Democrats who really don't want meaningful healthcare reform to pass, but don't want it to look like it was their fault that it failed. Rather than hurting these Democrats, Lieberman is HELPING them.
Too bad the author of this piece limited his analysis to such superficial considerations.
"Gotta love those Senate Democrats--they always find a way to reward someone for stabbing them in the back."
They're trying to win the "credibility deficit" award which Republicans held for so many years. It's not taking them very long to catch up!
Obama is a centrist republican (at best). And a war criminal. But so what, which of our elected officials wasn't a war criminal? Very few.
And Lieberman? He would have made a very good nazi. Just like some gays make very good republicans. And most democrats make very good republicans.
Single payer or single term.
Public option is not an option.
unrepentant Nader supporter
Good points NotOneMore. The truth is not pretty or "politically correct" is it? It is better for most to ignore that and pretend the system and institutions work just fine
The Democratic party as a whole is well right-of-center, when measured against dominant parties in other democratic societies like New Zealand, Canada, Germany, France, the UK, Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland and Austria, for examples.
The Republican party is a far-right party, akin to France's National Front, the British National Party, Flemish Block in Belgium, Geert Wilders and the Party of Freedom in the Netherlands, and the late Joerg Haider's Austrian People's Party.
So you have two choices: right or far right.
I voted for McKinney, but Nader is also a great candidate. He speaks the truth, and that cannot be allowed. He, like Chomsky are virtually censored from the corporate media.
Ralph Nader is a centralist. He takes the truth as far as a capitalist can. A real liberal would have a coup, and firing squads. The United States would be a socialist country, period. There would be no muliti-billionares left, and corporations would be novel things of the past. If the general idiot who calls himself or herself a citizen of this land put up a fuss, they would be thoroughly 'spanked'. I'm tired of fascists, and I'm tired of living in a fascist state. It's time people grew up and took responsibility for their fellow man.
The "centrists" are the ones that want a restrictive public option which they have the temerity to call "robust". The center right are the Bluedogs, to their right are the Republicans. A few "progressives" who haven't sold out want Improved and Expanded Medicare for All stand to the left. They have 60-70% of public opinion behind them and would prevail if we did not have such a corrupt system of governance with institutions like the Senate. The progressives are the ones who should break off and form a party which does not have to sell itself to corporate interests. The Centrist who support a pitiful public option actually have much in common with the BlueDogs who want none since they both feed at the corporate trough. They should become what used to be the Republicans. The Republicans should be disgraced from office.
Exactly right. Any narrative, like Berman's, that implicitly absolves the mainstream Democrats like Pelosi, Obama, and Reid and attempts to pin the whole rap on the Blue Dogs and Republicans is fostering dangerous illusions. ALL these people are employees of the health lobby.
Berman's piece is just another lame piece of apologetics for the sold-out mainstream Democratic Party.
Well said. The "Corporate Sellout" is so 20th century. We need to look at and for those who aren't, no matter what party they belong to.
Yes, in the larger view, the author assumes that the two party sytem is democratic. Very crudely put we do not live in a functioning democracy. There is not one person one vote. The line of democratic accountability is highjacked by corporatations with virtually unlimited resources. The legal framework also supports an Oligarchy/Plutocracy/Kleptocracy. In the USA, Democracy(TM) is nothing but the worlds most expensive public relations exercise.
No one should completely write off that strategies aren’t being used to expose those in office from showing their “true colors”. If you were president of the USA, wouldn’t you want to keep them guessing "is he my friend, or isn't he?” hmmmm That seems to still be the question. No one is really certain.
It's a good thing American's are skeptical. Those who are confident, think they have friends and feel someone's got their back may be in for a big surprise not to far down the road. It seems to me the Big Corp’s seem confident, or maybe they are stuck in this position and they have to keep the payola flowing or their ship will sink instantly. This whole political ball game maybe no more than a fools game. Before long we will know who was out foxed (no pun intended). 2010 should be very telling.
I still don't get it! Can anyone explain to me why they don't just let these people filibuster? How would Nelson, Conrad and Lieberman look filibustering AGAINST the people and FOR the health insurance companies, number one. Number two - let them do it. Let them read the phone book for a few days until they crap out and fall asleep (or if we are lucky, have a stroke), then march everybody back into the room and vote for the damn thing and get it done! Why not call their bluff?
Oh I know, I know...Democrats are pro-corporate scum, etc. I get all that. But I don't understand why, under existing Senate rules, and following still current political practice, the Dems can't just let the Repubs and their little errand boys, Lieberman et al, charge off that cliff. Bill Clinton let the Repubs shut down the federal govt and it ended up costing the execrable Newt Gingrich his job.
What am I missing here?
Funny thing about the filibuster--a completely undemocratic holdover from the days of slavery and segregation--but just like our 'representative' democracy, filibusters are simply procedural these days--pure pretense. Today's senate obstructionists, such as Lieberman, simply file a motion that they want debate to continue on a measure indefinitely.
According to Thomas Geoghegan, in an excellent piece he wrote on the subject for The Nation, they will next "put the measure aside, and go back to it only if [they] get sixty votes to cut off this not-really-happening debate." He goes on: "In other words, the opposing senators don't have the stomach to stand up and read the chicken soup recipes. [They] call it the procedural filibuster, but what [they] really mean is the 'pretend' filibuster. At least with the old filibuster, we knew who was doing the filibustering. With the modern filibuster, senators can hold up bills without the public ever finding out their names. No one's accountable for obstructing. No senator runs the risk of looking like a fool. But while they're up their concealing one another's identity, the Republic is in shambles" (August/September, 2009, p. 20). The article is titled The Case for Busting the Filibuster and is enlightening. I highly recommend checking it out at thenation.com.
Both parties are largely owned lock stock and barrel by some Big person or Corp. interest or interests. A few Congress critters are Independently wealthy and answer to know one. The trick is to get some of these whores to rise above their owners interests for the "common good" . A strong leader is a help here. Unfortunately we have Jimmy Carter Billy Clinton Obama and not FDR or HST.
I am sure Obama is pleased.
Hmmm...who else is a Centrist Democrat you may ask? Oh yes. Obama! #1 CORPORATE SELLOUT!!!
lieberman is a traitor to the american people
The winner takes all electoral system, which produces only two parties betrays the American people. The legal system that gives corporations individual rights, and views money as free speech betrays the American people. The corporate media propaganda machine betrays the American people. Lieberman is no different than most; in order to prosper in a corrupt system, most resort to corrupt practices, that are institutionalized and perfectly legal. We call bribery "lobbying"; we call propaganda "the evening news" and so on. To call it Orwellian is cliche, yet fitting all the same
To quote Noam Chomsky, "propaganda is to democracy what the bludgeon is to totalitarianism."
The modern oligarchs and their political courtiers have learned that it's far easier to control the masses and lull them into complacency with media distractions and thought manipulations under the guise of representative democracy than to resort to brute force and risk populist uprising.
I agree. We don't call it propaganda in the USA it is called "public relations" and "the evening news".
Ed Bernays (Sigmund Freud's Nephew) was the godfather of modern public relations, I am sure he would be quite proud if he were alive today. Joe Stalin would be green with envy at the efficiency and efficacy.
As of today I've joined the Green Party. I've had enough of the Lieberwhore and the rest of these spineless Democraps.
Quite a few people in my rather liberal town have done the same.
How long do the sold out Democrats and Republicans - the two-party - think they have? Considering their superb talent for managing the parameters of discourse and scaring the living daylights out of naive voters, this elite group of evil-doers probably think another three or four terms, at least - around 15 years. They can do a lot to finish us off in that amount of time and they will, no doubt about it.
The only way forward is to withhold your vote and tell them so today!
If voters don't have the spine, how do they expect politicians to?
The Greens could sure use some help, by the way.
The only way forward is to vote third party! Good progressives who have spines will vote third party. All our problems will be solved by a third party, cuz there won't be any senate procedural machinations or anything. It will be, like, heaven!
Yeah you have only two choices: the corporate sponsored candidate on the right, or the corporate sponsored candidate on the far-right. That's what we call democracy. Voting aint gonna change anything until the corrupt system is reformed.
Well, some rather large insurance companies reside in Connecticut and, as Joe Conason points out, Lieberman's wife just so happens to have been a drug industry lobbyist for Hill & Knowlton.
I had a conversation yesterday with Mikva Mouse, the woman whose official, tax payer supported job on Lieberman's Senate office staff is to pull the paper money out of Holy Joe's ass after the lobbyists (including his wife) stuff it up there. As Lieberman considers Mikva "unclean", the job is perfect for her; she rinses the doo-doo off the the thousand dollar bills, dries them in a microwave and then deposits them in Holy Joe's account at Goldman Sachs. Lieberman is the only senator who has such a person fulfilling such duties on his staff. Not even Max Baucus, Harry Reid or Dianne Feinstein employ someone like Mikva Mouse. Which makes you wonder what kind of warped, sick, corrupt monster Holy Joe Lieberman really is.
Connecticut really goofed when they stuck with Mr. Magoo instead of going with Ned Lamont.
There's nothing funny about this Mr. Magoo.
Obama campaigned for this Mr. Magoo against Lamont. How come the "progressive" media never brought this up during the primaries?
Even that obscene comment didn't draw cause for alarm from the loyal democrats. What would? Try to think of what he would have to do so that he would finally fall from grace. He could even execute someone and there would not be a major outcry from a majority of the people.
Since the American Revolution 230 plus years ago, Connecticut has been a hot bed of "defense" contractors. As long as Joe continues to bring those "defense" contracts to Connecticut, the voters will keep voting for him no matter what his party affiliation is.
Exactly--CT Dems were afraid of losing all their pork if Joe lost.
Since the American Revolution 230 plus years ago, Connecticut has been a hot bed of "defense" contractors. As long as Joe continues to bring those "defense" contracts to Connecticut, the voters will keep voting for him no matter what his party affiliation is.
Ari Berman is rather confused as to who and what the Democrats are be they 'centrists' or otherwise labeled. The dishonesty and danger in an article like this is that it gives the impression that 'if only' the Democrats would return to their imagined roots or 'if only' the Democrats would represent the people that things would all of a sudden be even mildly okay here in The Homeland. What Ari fails to acknowledge is that the Dems aren't 'selling out' they are doing just as they have always done. How can someone who writes at such a high falutin' outfit as The Nation be so completely ignorant or naive on this point? That's really the more important question.
A friend once wrote:
Supporting Democrats is a serious political disorder, like alcoholism or returning again & again to an abusive spouse who repeatedly lies to you. It's easy to fall off the wagon, to make excuses & rationalizations for it.
Even many whose views are developed enough to recognize such truths as the fundamental rottenness of the 2-party system & the complicity of Democrats in all of the Republicans' major crimes, are still unable to draw the logical consequences of these insights. (Those so naive that they still conceive of Democrats as being the "opponents" of Republicans are another case altogether.)
The central point is this: capitalist society permits the Democrats to be one of the 2 allowed parties for a very definite reason. It's not because the Democrats "serve the people." It's because in a subtle but effective way, they help the capitalists keep the populace under control by providing them with the illusion of possible change. TPTB don't want the people "served." They want them managed, or controlled.
It is the job, the central social function of the Democrats to always be dangling before the people's noses vague pseudo-hints of possible change, so as to keep them from bolting from bourgeois politics altogether. It is the Democrats' intention to never deliver meaningful change, but rather to keep dangling hints of it alluringly forever. This produces control -- a populace habituated to remain safely within the lines required by ruling class interests.
This is why the Democrats NEVER paint a picture of US history that's the slightest bit accurate -- they want a brainwashed population every bit as much as the Republicans do. This is why they NEVER are willing to set forth an honest socioeconomic analysis of why things are as they are -- they much prefer that people not understand such things.
As long as a large chunk of voters can be deceived by the seemingly "nicer guy" act of the Democrats, there is no hope whatever of coming to grips with the core problems of our society. The most dangerous trends -- a wasteful consumer society, environmental destruction, grotesque social inequality, and an uncontrollable propaganda/war machine -- cannot even be approached within the framework of bourgeois politics, because they all serve ruling class interests. This is what is really being protected, when people opt to support Democrats just because they seem less blatantly cruel on TV.
Very well said, mcoyote.
It's the old good cop vs. bad cop routine. Dems and Repugs may seem like they're on opposite sides, but they both serve the needs of their corporate masters. After all, the corporations fund Dem/Repug campaigns. So it should be no surprise that the legislation that gets passed doesn't reflect the public interest at all.
While this article fusses about Lieberman, it's really not paradoxical that Lieberman can easily flit between the two parties. Corporate funding is split about equally between Dem/Repug candidates. What difference does it make which side they are on?
Under this system of control, the public gets slapped around by the two sides. A few hot buttons are pushed to make it seem like there's an ideological divide. Usually, those issues go nowhere, but they are trotted out every time: abortion, gun control, social security, etc.
There have been some hits. Bill Clinton destroyed the welfare system, which had traditionally been a Dem Party stalwart issue. This is another sign that the duopoly is one. Loyal Dems tend not to be able to recall such assaults.
For some reason, the good cop/bad cop routine continues to work on the party faithful every election year. They are too scared to vote for a party that actually represents their interests. By the time the next Presidential campaign rolls around, loyal Dems will have forgotten Obama's many betrayals. People seem to lack long-term memories or they succumb to the emotional appeals of the moment rather than recalling past abuse. There are a fair number of Common Dream posters who think you're speaking Martian when you dredge this stuff up. Not sure how to reach them.
-TIA
I was about to write something, but mcoyote has beat me to it. I couldn't agree more. This is exactly what's going on. I continue having disagreements with Democratic Party hangers-on who just cannot digest the fact that there really sin't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. They stubbornly cling to their delusions as much as rightwingers cling to theirs. And their favorite punching bag is Nader: See Eric Alterman.
As long as a large chunk of voters can be deceived by multi-million-dollar WillieHorton/SwiftBoat campaign ad smears during elections, and by multi-million-dollar Limbaugh/Beck/O'Reilly commentary smears before, during, and after elections, there is no hope whatever of coming to grips with the core problems of our society.
Republicans have an approval rating of not more than 25%. Glen Beck and Limbaugh are not the majority. Democrats are! Obama won because he made promises and people wanted change. After he proved to be a sellout, his ratings went down. Then came the "right-wing" onslaught, which brought his ratings up a litte. See how it works? Glen Beck is good for the Democrats and they know it. Folks who were beginning to wake up to the scam rallied 'round in protective mode. This is one of the obfuscation techniques.
When the Dems were about to win the election, the triple majority, I said on these comments: When the Democrats have the triple majority, what will they use as an excuse once they're standing stark naked in the light?
At this very moment in time, the Democrats are throwing away what many have been waiting for - the triple majority, where it doesn't matter what Glen Beck says! ha! or Fox News!
What matters is that Dems have complete license to vote in anything they want. For example, if they look at the polls, they can see that We the People want a strong government run health care system. Who the f--- cares what Rush Limbaugh thinks!
It's another scam.
"What matters is that Dems have complete license to vote in anything they want."
Thsi statement is simply untrue as Joe Lieberman's latest announcement has made clear.
You also ignore the fact that the Judicial branch of our federal government - especially the Supreme Court - is still lousy with republican appointed corporate functionaries.
q
Mr. Berman, That would be centrist neo-fascists. From opensecrets.org 2006 #2 recipient of insurance industry donations Sen. Joe Lieberman$424,644.00.Public election financing anyone ? peace
Since Obama is a centerist Democrat this piece smells like another apologetic for the Administration. Berman wants to attack what he characterizes as the "center" while keeping his hands off Obama the Leader of the Centrist cause.
This is exactly right, elohim.
I made essentially the same point above, before I saw your post. This forum--nay, this country!--needs more people with your clear-headedness and honesty.
Compared to the US House of Representatives, Obama is more right-leaning (fascist is the most succinct term) than the average congressperson. Compared to the Seanate Obama is more "centrist", falling in the middle of the pack.
These are distinctions without a difference.
There are no differences IN SUBSTANCE among all these imagined factions about key elements of policy.
I don't recall a party being mentioned. I recall from last week you like to argue with your would-be allies, thus alienating them. Thanks. Did't you vote Democrat?
The laughable thing here is that you're "arguing" with someone who agrees with you, just to scratch an itch of spite--just what you falsely accuse me of doing! Tsk, tsk.
This kind of petty ressentiment is the opposite of the largeness of spirit one expects to find in a "socialist." Your personal impulses are about as "socialist" as those of a pawn-shop owner.
First--nobody mentioned parties. I never used that word. I said "factions," because the previous poster was talking about shades of difference among the Democrats, and I am arguing that there are no significant differences among mainstream Democrats.
If you want to pick a fight, you'd better be sure to have reading-comprehension skills that exceed those of a pet rock.
Second, I only argue with "would-be" allies when they single out Blue Dogs like Baucus for criticism without mentioning the role of the mainstream "liberal" Dems, as you did.
Third, you're a liar. I never voted for a Democrat in a general election for state or federal office. And I certainly have NEVER singled out Blue Dogs for criticism, implying that they are "worse" than the centrist "liberal" Dems, as you have.
So . . . are you a professional liar or just an aspiring amateur?
Spreading lies is most unbecoming a self-professed "socialist." The truth is always revolutionary.
Also, have you always had a reading-comprehension problem?
I can suggest remedial at-home courses for this issue.
you are right, but this happens decade after decade. A corrupt system produces corrupt outcomes. Bill Clinton was the same, talked a slick talk, but at the end of the day a right of center, laissez faire, neo-liberal pro-Nafta, corporate puppet.
The people like me who are Democrats, need to be told repeatedly, Bill "Bubba" Clinton sold out our industrial base to China and Mexico. Ross Perot tried to tell us.
Clinton is now pulling in Millions of Dollars everyday from Foreign countries, who are they the same ones that he outsourced our industrial base to?
We the Democrats need to send a message to Washington DC...We will not take it anymore. Forget Barry, he belongs to the bought and paid for crowd.
Let's sit out the next election and watch Sen Dodd and his ilk get re-elected by the Bankers and the republicans, after all, it was the republicans who voted for Lieberman in Ct..
I disagree about Clinton. He never pretended to be a progressive. But Obama did.
(Clinton didn't pour trillions into the banks or continue fascist policies either--but never mind.)
What's with your Clintonphilia?
Clinton initiated a repeal of the New Deal that went far beyond anything even Reagan contemplated: repeal of aid to dependent families, repeal of Glass Steagall, WTO/NAFTA, Telecom Act, refusal to regulate derivatives.
Were you in a coma while all that fervently procorporate stuff was going on?