Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Heroes of Wall Street: How Democrats Got Their Pockets Picked
It's hard to read Thomas Frank's new book, "Pity the Billionaire," without being astonished at what utter nincompoops Democrats are.
This surely was not Frank's primary intent. The book is subtitled, "The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right," so it's pretty clear where Frank coming from. But the obvious subtext is how, in a two-party system, Democrats allowed Republicans to pull off the greatest cross-dressing scam since RuPaul became America's Drag Queen.
Frank is a journalist and polemicist best known for his 2004 book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that explored how Republicans in his home state had used social issues to persuade people to vote against their own economic best interests.
In "Pity the Billionaire," he examines how Republicans -- with help from some Democrats --created policies that led to the financial collapse of 2008, the Great Recession, massive income inequality and the gutting of the middle class. And then the Democrats sat back as the GOP reinvented itself as populist defenders of free-market capitalism.
"Now there is nothing really novel about the idea that free markets are the very essence of freedom," Frank writes. "What is new is the glorification of this idea at the precise moment when free-market theory has proven itself to be a philosophy of ruination and fraud. The revival of the Right is as extraordinary as it would be if the public had demanded dozens of new nuclear power plants in the days after the Three Mile Island disaster; if we had reacted to Watergate by making Richard Nixon a national hero."
For Frank, a key moment in this bizarre turn of events came on Feb. 19, 2009, less than a month after President Barack Obama's inauguration. The TARP bailout bill proposed by President George W. Bush and endorsed by candidate Obama had been passed the previous fall. The new president had just signed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill.
On that day, CNBC business reporter Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and began ranting about the unfairness of it all. Not the bank bailout, mind you, but the 6.3 percent of the TARP program intended to help people modify their underwater mortgages.
As it turned out, this program hasn't been particularly successful because banks refused to go along. But on that Feb. 19, Santelli was incensed at the unfairness of it all -- that "losers" with bad mortgages might be helped and that the salt-of-the-earth traders who were cheering him on were being punished for being successful and prudent.
Santelli's rant went viral on the Internet. So-called Tea Party rallies began to be held. "Your mortgage is not my problem," read a sign at one of them.
Self-promoters seized them as a way to cash in -- a fine conservative tradition, Frank writes -- and the right-wing foundations funneled money to them. What could have been, and should have been, populist outrage against the people whose greed brought the house down was subtly turned into protests against "elitists" (i.e., Democrats) who were attacking "free markets" (i.e., cracking down on banks and health care costs).
The Tea Party, Frank says, became defenders of a Darwinian version of free markets intended to "trample the weak."
Frank spends a great deal of attention on the various absurdities peddled at the time by Glenn Beck on Fox News -- "bogus populism shores up ironclad elitism and ... bogus enlightenment serves the most grotesque form of dupery."
But Beck and his ilk could not have gotten away with it had (a) people been more discerning about what they were hearing and (b) had Democrats mounted some kind of response.
As to (a), Frank quotes from one of the Tea Party's favorite movies, "Network," where the mad-as-hell-not-going-to-take-it-any-more newscaster Howard Beale explains, "We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. But you people sit there day after day ... we're all you know."
As to (b), the question of where the Democratic response was, that's still a mystery. Aside from perhaps Elizabeth Warren, architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and now a U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts, no Democrat has been particularly successful in articulating where the blame belongs.
Until recently, Obama floated above it all, finding common cause with Wall Street and health insurance firms, trying to compromise with people who were elected not to compromise, playing his preferred "long game," avoiding intemperate language.
This allowed the GOP to retake control of the House and pass themselves off as defenders of the average guy. And anyone who has the temerity to point out how stupid you'd be to fall for that is labeled an "elitist." As the British political scientists David Runciman has noted, "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots."
Republicans understand that. Democrats aren't very good at it. If they hope to avoid catastrophe in November, they'd better figure it out.




41 Comments so far
Show AllIf it wasn't so sad and destructive it would be funny. I find it strange that Fanny and Freddy are still being painted as the arch villains when in essence they were merely dupes and clueless tools. That should be obvious when it's now clear many republicans are invested in them.
What happened to the bill to outlaw insider trading for members of congress?
In order to understand the complexities of the Fannie and Freddie mess, I recommend Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner's recent book, Reckless Endangerment. The two writers name names, and they connect the dots. Maybe, you've already read the book. If so, you already know that the two writers spare no one as they recount what led up to the sub-prime mortgage and financial crisis.
To me, the Republicans and the Democrats are all culpable.
Ever since Bill Clinton zealously championed NAFTA during his first year in the White House (1993) a few Democrats have not been getting dragged to the right by the GOP as the author alleges. The Democrats have led the charge for regressive legislation as often as the GOP has during the past two decades.
Its not your father's Democratic Party.
Great grand papa evil Bankster fuck once said:
Give me control of your currency and I care not who makes your laws.......
Excuse the language but this stuff pisses me off - both the theft and the idiots who think the dems are on our side even after they screw us time after time after time.....
Reality based thought is not high on the list of American traits.
The epidemic of denial syndrome among US voters pisses me off too.
interesting piece
to follow up on the mood of the piece let me quote einstein:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe
folks may have to think for a minute - its painful to do it, but speaking of stupidity - about how much the republicans and bush baby were despised when they were kicked out of office in 2008
the dislike of the gop and the "hope", and we were sincere in that hope, that obummer would come into office and "change" the place as he promised he would
to come from that point to this one in just 3 years has been quite a ride, none of it good for the country
people also forget that it was the bank scam/crash that put obummer in office. if you recall mccain looked like a fool while he tried to get his mind around the problem - and couldn't - while obummer was cool and calm - almost as if he knew the script and he knew what was going to happen
webster tarpley knew - before the election he wrote his book
Obama: The Postmodern Coup - Making of a Manchurian Candidate
"Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.
Obama comes from the orbit of the Ford Foundation, and has never won public office in a contested election. His guru and controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the deranged revanchist and Russia-hater who dominated the catastrophic Carter presidency 30 years ago. All indications are that Brzezinski recruited Obama at Columbia University a quarter century ago."
http://tarpley.net/
i remember reading an interview with noam chomsky prior to the election in 2008 and he mater of factly stated that obummer was financed by wall street and that, once elected, he would be their boy. to him it was simple and obvious
they were both right weren't they
the late great joe bageant wrote a book called deer hunting with jesus
"Bageant sought to answer the question of why the working poor vote for Republicans in apparent opposition to their own interests. On a broader level, he examines issues of economic class distinctions as he drills below the middle-class claims of his hometown. The reality is that two of five residents do not have high-school diplomas and virtually everyone over 50 has serious health problems in a town—and nation—with poor and failing schools and health systems. Still clinging to illusions of personal responsibility and the vain hope of someday achieving wealth, Winchester's residents fall deeper into debt, farther behind in ambitions beyond working in the local factory—if they're lucky—and, along with their children, subject to the de facto draft of economic conscription"
http://www.joebageant.com/
more true today than ever before
who can forget the tea party signs: "get lost you morans" or "youth in asia will kill your grandmother"
with the debate winking "you betcha" palin as the homecoming queen
all quite a spectacle
joe bageant where have you gone
"Put simply, Katie Couric and the dumbshits grinding out your local paper actually believe they are in the news business. In today's system, everybody is a patsy for the new corporate global order of things -- the well-coiffed talking head, the brain dead audience, even the terrorists themselves. All play out their parts in our holographic image and information process."
"All Americans, regardless of caste, live in a culture woven of self-referential illusions. Like a holographic simulation, each part refers exclusively back to the whole, and the whole refers exclusively back to the parts. All else is excluded by this simulated reality. Consequently, social realism in this country is a television commercial for America, a simulated republic of eagles and big box stores, a good place to live so long as we never stray outside the hologram. The corporate simulacrum of life has penetrated us so deeply it now dominates the mind's interior landscape with its celebrities and commercial images. Within the hologram sparkles the culture-generating industry, spinning out our unreality like cotton candy."
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2007/08/the-great-ameri.html
we miss ya bub! long live joe bageant
let me offer a counter narrative to the article above
there is no choice in amerika anymore, most particularity in politics
don't matter who you vote for either
the breakdown of the economy was/is planned, has been going on for 40 years (begun under raygun) and the powers that run the breakdown are the powers that run the government
amerika is being devastated to serve the elite plan to bring in a world government
once amerika is finally done goldman sachs will open a new "head office" in beijing and simple carry on over there
so long suckers
"Moreover, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other western banks have cooperated with the tyrants in Beijing and have constructed over 100,000 huge warehouses located throughout Red China. These warehouses are brimming with stores of expensive materials—wood and lumber, aluminum, iron ore, steel, tin, concrete, brick, glass, tractors, earth-moving equipment, tools. The list is endless."
http://www.texemarrs.com/092010/triad_of_evil.htm
the amerikan sheeple may not be planning for the end of the republic but goldman sachs and jp morgan sure are
we are near the end with obummer on one side and the increasingly insane gop on the other..
truly we are all of us perpetually deer hunting with jesus...
"May you live in interesting times." - Ancient Chinese curse
Ironic, no?
I always used to get a kick out of that one. Now, I don't find it so funny, anymore...
I've always said that Obama's time at BIC (a purported CIA co that puts agents in deep cover) was much more indicative of Obama's true personality than his 'community organizer' days......
But why focus on Facts? That's no fun!
Well, yes, this is all true, and obvious, and well enough presented here, until one hits the inevitable modifiers. The poor Democrats are simple, foolish, naieve, untrained in the brutal arts of confrontational politics. Obama tries so hard to compromise, but the Republican bullies again shove his poor sad face in the shitpile. Don't fool yourselves. These people, this party, our president know exactly what they're doing. They fulfill the role of being the choice of those for whom participation rather than effectiveness is the purpose. That is, we have candidates for whom we may vote who are at least marginally more appealing than the GOP offerings. So we play along. And sometimes a Democrat is elected and almost always that Democrat fails to do what we hoped he or she would, or even to live up to the small promises made during the campaign. Obama is "eloquent." He is not a Republican. Sadly, tragically, that seems to be all we require.
"Obama floated above it all, finding common cause with Wall Street and health insurance firms..."
"If they hope to avoid catastrophe in November, they'd better figure it out."
And why should we care if they avoid catastrophe? As far as I'm concerned, the nation would be better off if the entire traitorous Democratic Party went up in smoke. Then we can say: "One party down...one to go."
When it comes to getting their pockets picked Democrats should not be afraid of looking at collusion. New York's Attorney General at the peak of Wall Street's looting was Andrew Cuomo who did nothing against the criminals which caused state pension funds alone to lose millions. Cuomo may have been too busy assisting the Feds in getting Governor Eliot Spitzer kicked out. Cuomo promised Wall Street that he would end the millionaires' tax if he were elected governor. He did just that and more.
Actually, I thought the Democrats were learning everything they needed to know about the pickpocketing trade quite well indeed.
Obviously, the Democrats at large are NOT learning anything, if they constantly allow their pockets to be picked.
The dems are paid well to Offer the Appearance of a opponent to the rethugs.....
They are bright eyed, lucid, willing participants the the picking of pockets. When it is their own pocket, it is money that was already shoved in that pocket by their corporate sponsors.
Successful pickpockets work as a team. One part of the team distracts you while the other bumps into you and picks your pocket. I think you can figure out which team is which.
The still-clueless response to what Rick Santelli's wrong-headed rant produced confirms what Will Rogers quipped about his party, "I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a Democrat." If either the aforementioned is true, or they were merely being compliant corporate tools, then it bespeaks quite badly of them.
Good cop bad cop scam........ And We The People Are the mark - a mark that doesn't learn they're being scammed out of his/her paycheck time after time after time........
People seem to forget that in the good cop/bad cop scam - BOTH cops are looking to screw us - neither are on OUR side....
And the author, as smart as he is, doesn't see this?
I hope he is paid well for is blinders......
Good essay by Kevin Horrigan, thanks to Kevin and CD.
A huge part of the problem is Democratic Congesspersons who have amassed incredible fortunes, who are long gone from their humble roots.
Iowa's Senator Tom Harkin, who once described himself as a "progressive populist," has a net worth of $16.6 million, the Washington Post reported. His wealth is 17th highest of 100 US Senators.
Most congresspersons, Demo or Repub, speak for the wealthiest Americans, because they're in the same club.
Imho, only Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders speaks for the rest of us, the 99%. God bless him!
Bill in Dubuque
Frank and Horrigan miss the mark on this one. I would refer folks to Chris Hedges analysis, Bill Quigley, the late Howard Zinn, and of course Sheldon Wolin's Democracy Inc...and many more.
The superficial nature of this article is very disappointing
"It's hard to read Thomas Frank's new book, "Pity the Billionaire," without being astonished at what utter nincompoops Democrats are."
That's CONSERVATIVE Democrats, Mr Horrigan. Republicans in disguise, with lots of oligarchy funding.
Direct democracy
Which is most of the Democratic Party, if not right wing. Certainly the president, and the rest of the leadership of the Democratic party are indeed right wing. There are some progressives in the House, but they are entirely ignored, and apparently they are happy to be so.
I don't like you, so I hate to agree with you.
What you don't like me for my pointed comments that you're a gun nut? Who envisions a world where if everyone carried a gun, that everything would be hunky dory?
What, you don't like me challenging the naivete of your "direct democracy" mantra, and that I challenge you to please explain how that would work? How would the electronic voting booth in your home be secured? How the minority could be protected from the possible tyranny of the majority?
I honestly couldn't care less, whether or not you like me or not. I'm sure you're a good person. Otherwise you wouldn't be in your own way wanting a better and more just world. I have faith, even with your gun worship, that you truly want a better world.
All the best.
Washington and Jefferson were gun nuts?.:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
Direct democracy is how OWS operates. Read about it here: NI4D.US
Thanks for the rest. I think I like you better now.
I love how you reference people (slaveholders, no less) who lived in a time with no public police force, telephones or efficient means of travel, and, who moreover, had just rid themselves of an unnecessary power by use of arms.
Not the case today pal.
I'm well aware of those quotes. I'm also aware, that a lot of water has passed under the historical bridge, and now we have cities of millions of people, and guns that have the capacity for shooting large numbers of people, in short order.
As to preventing tyranny. It seems to me, that our current government, is becoming more tyrannical by the day, and all of those gun possessing Americans don't seem to really be all that successful of preventing it. What are they to do? Storm the Capitol? And will "they" all align, with their loaded guns, on the "right side of history"?
How about all of those militia groups. Are they representing the enlightened mind of a Jefferson? Wouldn't those rednecks, if given their druthers, rule the rest of us with their twisted notions of what is "right" with their gun slinging might?
Oh yes, the liberals, or leftists with guns will keep that from happening! Ah, a wonderful world of hot lead traversing the distance between world views. Something to hope for, for our children and grandchildren. A world awash with ever more powerful guns, and tasers, and personalized drones. How about an iDrone? Come on Apple. Save the world through innovation, and ensure that if every citizen can sit behind a computer screen in their steel reinforced bunker, sending out drones to potential enemies within the citizenry, then of course, other citizens with their own iDrones, will behave themselves. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of iDrones".
I think Americans should have the right to own a gun. But I don't think that every American should be carrying one on their hip. That isn't a world I want to live in. The main point of debate I have with you, isn't the right of ownership of a gun, to keep in your closet just in case someone breaks into your house, or a fascist government goon comes to take you away. I'm opposed to the contention, that a more civil society can be attained by the constant threat that another person can shoot hot lead into your head, or that you can shoot hot lead into someone else's head. How many times in your travels throughout your day, do you witness people carrying guns? You don't see them do you? Well given your argument, one would assume that people would constantly be running around attacking each other, perceiving that vulnerability. Or that criminals would be drawn to virtually everyone not carrying a gun. That's not our reality. For the most part, people are guided by their own sense of right and wrong, and by laws on the books that carry a penalty for violence, whether or not it is a fist, or a bullet.
How is it, that millions of people, manage to interact everyday, in cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego…all of them eyeing each other's unarmed status, yet relative to the stress of a big city, and the many disagreements between citizens that occur in such densely populated areas, and alas....you don't see fights breaking out all over the place. Nor do you see armed criminals in masse, coming into densely populated areas, having their way with that unarmed public. Why? Police officers for one thing. The hired guns. So, there is your nod.
I don't think that police officers, are going to side with the contention, that violence, and crime would go down, if only every citizen carried a gun in a holster.
Criminals chose to become criminals for various reasons. Some are truly sick individuals who are sociopaths, and wouldn't think twice about shooting anyone in the face if it meant getting something they want. Some people become criminals, gun wielding or otherwise, out of desperation, insanity, having been the victim of violence themselves, yadda yadda yadda.
So, in my view, the greater good, is to create a society, that holds its government accountable through giving a shit what is happening in their name, and a society that teaches its children that non violence is the only way, and a society, that demands, and works toward, equality.
I personally, don't own a gun, and don't ever want to. Let the bullets fall where they may. I've been held up at gunpoint twice, with 9mm semi-automatic handgun being held at the side of my head with a crazed individual screaming that he was going to blow my bloody brains out if I did anything "stupid". Both times, even if I would have had a gun, would not have prevented the gun already having been pulled on me, and in fact, had I shown such a weapon, I'm certain I wouldn't be here writing this post, which might please you anyway…ha ha ha, nudge, nudge.
My bottom line, is. I don't agree with the notion that more gun ownership, and especially more guns on the hips out in everyday life, equates with a more civil and non-violent society. It does not make any sense to me. And, more than that, I just wouldn't want to live in that world.
I'll agree to disagree with you on this. I won't badger you again with that argument.
As to OWS's use of direct democracy. I'm familiar with it and have attended numerous GA's here in San Diego. I agree with the philosophy behind it, and I think that the non-centralized aspect of the movement is grand. But, that is face to face, and transparent, and in the end, apparently not that efficient, given that it takes 2 hours to do nothing, and now there are about 10 people who still show up, as the rest have disappeared out of utter frustration, that nothing gets done.
Direct democracy that you have advocated, on a national level, where one is availed of a vote through one's use of the internet, is problematic such that…
It assumes that those votes will be counted accurately, with magically, no malfeasance whatsoever entering into the picture. That is naive.
Holding that position, doesn't mean that I'm asserting that the current system isn't broken. It absolutely is. But the core problem is not that representative government is unworkable, but that in the US has become completely corrupted.
That's what all of us know on Common Dreams, no matter what our particular takes are on the solutions.
We shall continue the fight. I appreciate your tenacity on promoting that idea of direct democracy, and perhaps some aspects of OWS's direct approach, will survive. It has been truly inspiring, and there have been a lot of good suggestions at GA's how the "new york model" might be altered to be more effective.
I'll await your response, before I update my "liked" status graph.
No Democrats in presidential politics as opposition party! Systemic problem unless president loses!
hue_sir_name
Extremely well said.
If there's one good thing about this article, it's that commenters here see the folly in it. Thank you all.
The Dimocrats are just doing what they're being paid for: to be ineffective both in the majority and the minority: When in the minority they allowed the GOP to do anything they wanted with a bare majority (51 votes in Senate); while in the majority they suddenly became unable to accomplish anything without 60 votes.
Puhleeze.
If there were no filibuster, it would have to be invented.
Others have said it here already: The democrats are complicit in this scam. They are the "opposition" to the kleptocratic Republicans and Randroid Libertarians, but are well paid to be a wholly ineffective opponent.
As David Michael Green said last year, "We are not permitted to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs."
Anybody who thinks that Democrats are just hapless dupes rather than an integral part of the problem is just as stupid as their rank and file conservative brethren.
Morons like Thomas Frank are part of the problem as well.
"he examines how Republicans -- with help from some Democrats --created policies that led to the financial collapse of 2008" writes the author of this article. Is he not aware that it was Bill Clinton and his economic team that advocated for the repeal of Glass-Stegall?
Are Democrats and other liberals too daft to realize Obama hired the same gang of crooks and is trying to kill any attempts by states' attorneys general to hold wall street accountable?
Are rank and file Democrats ignorant of their leaders whole-hearted support for NAFTA and other free trade deals? Etc., etc......
Republicans are not the only idiots in town, you know.....
As I read "...Kansas?" it occurred to me that Democrats use the exact same scare tactics as the Republicans.
Republican: "If you vote for that Democrat, he'll take your gun and destroy your marriage."
Democrat: "If you vote for that Republican, he'll take away your birth control."
Meanwhile, both do everything in their power to transfer more wealth from the middle class and workers to the super rich.
... the worst part being that abortion is de facto illegal in large parts of the country already, and not a damn thing improves with a Dem in the White House AND Dems in control of both houses of Congress.
Essentially if Roe v Wade were overturned tomorrow thing would only get very slightly worse - states that already don't have abortion providers would only technically make it illegal and states that have plenty would not.
Worth noting: the infamous South Dakota abortion law was sponsored by an elected Democrat! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x503228 I can recall reading a few years ago that the rape exception was added to the bill by a female Republican, but I'm having trouble tracking a link for that down at the moment.
When it comes to the most damaging economic policies, free trade, globalization and deregulation, both political parties are in total agreement with each other because they are paid off with peanuts by the money power that rules the parties.
This portayal of the democrats as dumb victims while partially true ignores the obvious corrupt choices Obama made after being elected when he appointed known enablers of wall street Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and more recently his corrupt attorney general Holder to the positions of power in his administration. This had nothing to do with victimhood but in paying back his biggest corporate sponsors who were the wall street banksters. The democrats in congress are also thoroughly corrupt and as busy as republicans in enriching themselves at the people's expense so the idea that the democrats are dumb though true is hardly sufficient in explaining why they do what they do and to suggest otherwise is to completely ignore the principal motivation of both corrupt parties.
Puleeeezzze---Will someone explain to Horrigan and the rest of the those so deep in denial about the Democratic party that they cannot or will not see that the Democrats just don't give a shit about them? Tell them the Democratic Party is complicit with the other wing of the duopoly that funnels these dupe's money to the greedy-rich in the form of tax breaks and austerity programs.
Agreed, this is especially silly considering that Obama raised more corporate money in '08 than McCain. Also as HRC was on the cover of BusinessWeek even earlier that year as the business candidate of choice.