CBS anchor Bob Schieffer and Sen. Claire McCaskill on a recent episode of Face the Nation.
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 Timessaw 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.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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 Timessaw 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 Timessaw 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.