SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Big Media's Crummy Advice for Democrats
Even before their recent drubbing, pundits were telling Democrats to be more like Republicans.
Nov 25, 2014
Before anyone even knew just how badly the Democrats would get trounced in the 2014 midterm elections, some pundits were already sending the party a message: Be more like the Republicans.
Now they don't put it that way, exactly.
The professional campaign watchers like to say instead that the Democratic Party needs to move to the "middle" or the "center." What they mean is that the Democrats should get closer to the Republicans on the issues.
Think about this for a second.
The turnout for the midterm elections was the lowest in 70 years. Can we really expect more people to get excited about voting if the two major political parties become more like one another?
It doesn't make much sense, but that's Big Media's remedy.
For example, after Senate Democrats voted to give the populist Senator Elizabeth Warren a leadership role in their caucus, CBS host Bob Schieffer told one Democrat that it was "going to leave the impression that the party is moving to the left," when the advice from "a lot of people" is that nothing will get done in Washington unless "both parties move toward the center."
USA Today actually recommended that Barack Obama steal an idea from post-Iran/Contra Ronald Reagan and apologize on TV. What for? The newspaper didn't say.
The problem, as The New York Times saw it, was that the Democrats had gone too far to the left under Obama: "Democrats largely abandoned the more centrist, line-blurring approach of Bill Clinton to motivate an ascendant bloc of liberal voters," the paper insisted.
But that's a dubious description of Obama-era Democrats.
On foreign policy, after all, the White House has escalated the war in Afghanistan, carried out drone attacks on several countries, helped engineer a disastrous Libyan War, and is now going back into Iraq.
The centerpiece of Obama's domestic policy, meanwhile -- the Affordable Care Act -- was borrowed from Mitt Romney, who established a similar initiative as the governor of Massachusetts. And the law's "individual mandate" to buy insurance was first cooked up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
But if that's what the media considers veering left, what do Beltway insiders think the White House should do to make up for it?
For them, the first order of business is, well, big business: Obama should push through the secretive, corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. People who actually turned up to vote must find this peculiar, since almost no one was talking up the deal before Election Day.
What else should Obama do, according to these pundits? Approve the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would pump dirty tar sands oil from Canada down to the Gulf Coast for refining.
Why would a president who says he cares about the climate crisis do this? To be more bipartisan, apparently.
Does any of this sound like the message voters were sending?
Not at all.
In fact, one of the most intriguing findings to come out of the 2014 exit polls was that voters overwhelmingly think the economic system favors the wealthy: 63 percent of respondents said so, up from 56 in 2012.
This would suggest that a more vigorous brand of economic populism would resonate with voters -- even if the pundits would hate it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 has always been 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, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
barack obamademocratic partyelection 2016elizabeth warrenhillary clintoniran-contrakeystone xlmediatar sands
Before anyone even knew just how badly the Democrats would get trounced in the 2014 midterm elections, some pundits were already sending the party a message: Be more like the Republicans.
Now they don't put it that way, exactly.
The professional campaign watchers like to say instead that the Democratic Party needs to move to the "middle" or the "center." What they mean is that the Democrats should get closer to the Republicans on the issues.
Think about this for a second.
The turnout for the midterm elections was the lowest in 70 years. Can we really expect more people to get excited about voting if the two major political parties become more like one another?
It doesn't make much sense, but that's Big Media's remedy.
For example, after Senate Democrats voted to give the populist Senator Elizabeth Warren a leadership role in their caucus, CBS host Bob Schieffer told one Democrat that it was "going to leave the impression that the party is moving to the left," when the advice from "a lot of people" is that nothing will get done in Washington unless "both parties move toward the center."
USA Today actually recommended that Barack Obama steal an idea from post-Iran/Contra Ronald Reagan and apologize on TV. What for? The newspaper didn't say.
The problem, as The New York Times saw it, was that the Democrats had gone too far to the left under Obama: "Democrats largely abandoned the more centrist, line-blurring approach of Bill Clinton to motivate an ascendant bloc of liberal voters," the paper insisted.
But that's a dubious description of Obama-era Democrats.
On foreign policy, after all, the White House has escalated the war in Afghanistan, carried out drone attacks on several countries, helped engineer a disastrous Libyan War, and is now going back into Iraq.
The centerpiece of Obama's domestic policy, meanwhile -- the Affordable Care Act -- was borrowed from Mitt Romney, who established a similar initiative as the governor of Massachusetts. And the law's "individual mandate" to buy insurance was first cooked up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
But if that's what the media considers veering left, what do Beltway insiders think the White House should do to make up for it?
For them, the first order of business is, well, big business: Obama should push through the secretive, corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. People who actually turned up to vote must find this peculiar, since almost no one was talking up the deal before Election Day.
What else should Obama do, according to these pundits? Approve the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would pump dirty tar sands oil from Canada down to the Gulf Coast for refining.
Why would a president who says he cares about the climate crisis do this? To be more bipartisan, apparently.
Does any of this sound like the message voters were sending?
Not at all.
In fact, one of the most intriguing findings to come out of the 2014 exit polls was that voters overwhelmingly think the economic system favors the wealthy: 63 percent of respondents said so, up from 56 in 2012.
This would suggest that a more vigorous brand of economic populism would resonate with voters -- even if the pundits would hate it.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart is the Domestic Communications Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Before anyone even knew just how badly the Democrats would get trounced in the 2014 midterm elections, some pundits were already sending the party a message: Be more like the Republicans.
Now they don't put it that way, exactly.
The professional campaign watchers like to say instead that the Democratic Party needs to move to the "middle" or the "center." What they mean is that the Democrats should get closer to the Republicans on the issues.
Think about this for a second.
The turnout for the midterm elections was the lowest in 70 years. Can we really expect more people to get excited about voting if the two major political parties become more like one another?
It doesn't make much sense, but that's Big Media's remedy.
For example, after Senate Democrats voted to give the populist Senator Elizabeth Warren a leadership role in their caucus, CBS host Bob Schieffer told one Democrat that it was "going to leave the impression that the party is moving to the left," when the advice from "a lot of people" is that nothing will get done in Washington unless "both parties move toward the center."
USA Today actually recommended that Barack Obama steal an idea from post-Iran/Contra Ronald Reagan and apologize on TV. What for? The newspaper didn't say.
The problem, as The New York Times saw it, was that the Democrats had gone too far to the left under Obama: "Democrats largely abandoned the more centrist, line-blurring approach of Bill Clinton to motivate an ascendant bloc of liberal voters," the paper insisted.
But that's a dubious description of Obama-era Democrats.
On foreign policy, after all, the White House has escalated the war in Afghanistan, carried out drone attacks on several countries, helped engineer a disastrous Libyan War, and is now going back into Iraq.
The centerpiece of Obama's domestic policy, meanwhile -- the Affordable Care Act -- was borrowed from Mitt Romney, who established a similar initiative as the governor of Massachusetts. And the law's "individual mandate" to buy insurance was first cooked up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
But if that's what the media considers veering left, what do Beltway insiders think the White House should do to make up for it?
For them, the first order of business is, well, big business: Obama should push through the secretive, corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. People who actually turned up to vote must find this peculiar, since almost no one was talking up the deal before Election Day.
What else should Obama do, according to these pundits? Approve the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would pump dirty tar sands oil from Canada down to the Gulf Coast for refining.
Why would a president who says he cares about the climate crisis do this? To be more bipartisan, apparently.
Does any of this sound like the message voters were sending?
Not at all.
In fact, one of the most intriguing findings to come out of the 2014 exit polls was that voters overwhelmingly think the economic system favors the wealthy: 63 percent of respondents said so, up from 56 in 2012.
This would suggest that a more vigorous brand of economic populism would resonate with voters -- even if the pundits would hate it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.