In this file photo taken on July 30, 2019 Democratic presidential hopefuls US Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders (L) and US Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren hug after participating in the first round of the second Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season in Detroit, Michigan. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty Images)
With Sanders and Warren Surging, Is Wall Street's 2020 Nightmare Coming True?
The very biggest fear among corporate elites is that Warren or Sanders could win—and then use the presidency to push back against oligarchy.
For plutocrats, this summer has gotten a bit scary. Two feared candidates are rising. Trusted candidates are underperforming. The 2020 presidential election could turn out to be a real-life horror movie: A Nightmare on Wall Street.
"Wall Street executives who want Trump out," Politico reported in January, "list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California."
But seven months later, those "appealing nominees" don't seem appealing to a lot of voters. Biden's frontrunner status is looking shaky, while other Wall Street favorites no longer inspire investor confidence: Harris is stuck in single digits, Booker is several points below her, and Gillibrand just dropped out of the race.
Meanwhile, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are drawing large crowds and rising in polls. In pivotal early states like Iowa and especially New Hampshire, reputable poll averages indicate that Biden is scarcely ahead.
"Bankers' biggest fear" is that "the nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader" like Warren or Sanders, Politico reported, quoting the CEO of a "giant bank" who said: "It can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders. It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win."
But the very biggest fear among corporate elites is that Warren or Sanders could win--and then use the presidency to push back against oligarchy. If Biden can't be propped up, there's no candidate looking strong enough to stop them.
Biden, Warren and Sanders, as the New York Times reported on Wednesday, are "a threesome that seems to have separated from the rest of the primary field." In fourth place, national polling averages show, Harris is far behind.
Biden's distinguished record of servicing corporate America spans five decades. He is eager to continue that work from the Oval Office, but can he get there? A week ago, a Times headline noted reasons for doubt: "Joe Biden's Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge." Enthusiasm for Biden has been high among Democratic-aligned elites, but not among Democratic-aligned voters.
While corporate news organizations--and corporate-enmeshed "public" outlets like NPR News and the PBS NewsHour--evade primary contradictions, Sanders directly hammers at how huge corporations are propelling media bias and undermining democracy.
Even though he has inspired media onslaughts--such as the now-notorious 16 anti-Sanders articles published by the Washington Post in a pivotal 16-hour period during the 2016 primary contest--the Sanders campaign is so enormous that even overtly hostile outlets must give him some space. In an op-ed piece he wrote that the Post published seven weeks ago, Sanders confronted Biden's wealth-fondling approach.
Under the headline "The Straightest Path to Racial Equality Is Through the One Percent," Sanders quoted a statement from Biden: "I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason why we're in trouble." Sanders responded, "I respectfully disagree"--and he went on to say: "It is my view that any presidential candidate who claims to believe that black lives matter has to take on the institutions that have continually exploited black lives."
Such insight about systemic exploitation is sacrilege to the secular faith of wealth accumulation that touts reaching billionaire status as a kind of divine ascension. Yet Sanders boldly challenges that kind of hollowness, shedding a fierce light on realities of corporate capitalism.
"Structural problems require structural solutions," Sanders pointed out in his Post article, "and promises of mere 'access' have never guaranteed black Americans equality in this country. . . . 'Access' to health care is an empty promise when you can't afford high premiums, co-pays or deductibles. And an 'opportunity' for an equal education is an opportunity in name only when you can't afford to live in a good school district or to pay college tuition. Jobs, health care, criminal justice and education are linked, and progress will not be made unless we address the economic systems that oppress Americans at their root."
Like many other progressives, I continue to actively support Sanders as a candidate who bypasses euphemisms, names ultra-powerful villains--and directly challenges those in power who've been warping and gaming the economic systems against working-class people.
Those systems are working quite nicely for the ultra-rich, like the giant bank CEO who told Politico that "it can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders." That's the decision from Wall Street. The decision from Main Street is yet to be heard.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
For plutocrats, this summer has gotten a bit scary. Two feared candidates are rising. Trusted candidates are underperforming. The 2020 presidential election could turn out to be a real-life horror movie: A Nightmare on Wall Street.
"Wall Street executives who want Trump out," Politico reported in January, "list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California."
But seven months later, those "appealing nominees" don't seem appealing to a lot of voters. Biden's frontrunner status is looking shaky, while other Wall Street favorites no longer inspire investor confidence: Harris is stuck in single digits, Booker is several points below her, and Gillibrand just dropped out of the race.
Meanwhile, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are drawing large crowds and rising in polls. In pivotal early states like Iowa and especially New Hampshire, reputable poll averages indicate that Biden is scarcely ahead.
"Bankers' biggest fear" is that "the nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader" like Warren or Sanders, Politico reported, quoting the CEO of a "giant bank" who said: "It can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders. It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win."
But the very biggest fear among corporate elites is that Warren or Sanders could win--and then use the presidency to push back against oligarchy. If Biden can't be propped up, there's no candidate looking strong enough to stop them.
Biden, Warren and Sanders, as the New York Times reported on Wednesday, are "a threesome that seems to have separated from the rest of the primary field." In fourth place, national polling averages show, Harris is far behind.
Biden's distinguished record of servicing corporate America spans five decades. He is eager to continue that work from the Oval Office, but can he get there? A week ago, a Times headline noted reasons for doubt: "Joe Biden's Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge." Enthusiasm for Biden has been high among Democratic-aligned elites, but not among Democratic-aligned voters.
While corporate news organizations--and corporate-enmeshed "public" outlets like NPR News and the PBS NewsHour--evade primary contradictions, Sanders directly hammers at how huge corporations are propelling media bias and undermining democracy.
Even though he has inspired media onslaughts--such as the now-notorious 16 anti-Sanders articles published by the Washington Post in a pivotal 16-hour period during the 2016 primary contest--the Sanders campaign is so enormous that even overtly hostile outlets must give him some space. In an op-ed piece he wrote that the Post published seven weeks ago, Sanders confronted Biden's wealth-fondling approach.
Under the headline "The Straightest Path to Racial Equality Is Through the One Percent," Sanders quoted a statement from Biden: "I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason why we're in trouble." Sanders responded, "I respectfully disagree"--and he went on to say: "It is my view that any presidential candidate who claims to believe that black lives matter has to take on the institutions that have continually exploited black lives."
Such insight about systemic exploitation is sacrilege to the secular faith of wealth accumulation that touts reaching billionaire status as a kind of divine ascension. Yet Sanders boldly challenges that kind of hollowness, shedding a fierce light on realities of corporate capitalism.
"Structural problems require structural solutions," Sanders pointed out in his Post article, "and promises of mere 'access' have never guaranteed black Americans equality in this country. . . . 'Access' to health care is an empty promise when you can't afford high premiums, co-pays or deductibles. And an 'opportunity' for an equal education is an opportunity in name only when you can't afford to live in a good school district or to pay college tuition. Jobs, health care, criminal justice and education are linked, and progress will not be made unless we address the economic systems that oppress Americans at their root."
Like many other progressives, I continue to actively support Sanders as a candidate who bypasses euphemisms, names ultra-powerful villains--and directly challenges those in power who've been warping and gaming the economic systems against working-class people.
Those systems are working quite nicely for the ultra-rich, like the giant bank CEO who told Politico that "it can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders." That's the decision from Wall Street. The decision from Main Street is yet to be heard.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
For plutocrats, this summer has gotten a bit scary. Two feared candidates are rising. Trusted candidates are underperforming. The 2020 presidential election could turn out to be a real-life horror movie: A Nightmare on Wall Street.
"Wall Street executives who want Trump out," Politico reported in January, "list a consistent roster of appealing nominees that includes former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California."
But seven months later, those "appealing nominees" don't seem appealing to a lot of voters. Biden's frontrunner status is looking shaky, while other Wall Street favorites no longer inspire investor confidence: Harris is stuck in single digits, Booker is several points below her, and Gillibrand just dropped out of the race.
Meanwhile, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are drawing large crowds and rising in polls. In pivotal early states like Iowa and especially New Hampshire, reputable poll averages indicate that Biden is scarcely ahead.
"Bankers' biggest fear" is that "the nomination goes to an anti-Wall Street crusader" like Warren or Sanders, Politico reported, quoting the CEO of a "giant bank" who said: "It can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders. It has to be someone centrist and someone who can win."
But the very biggest fear among corporate elites is that Warren or Sanders could win--and then use the presidency to push back against oligarchy. If Biden can't be propped up, there's no candidate looking strong enough to stop them.
Biden, Warren and Sanders, as the New York Times reported on Wednesday, are "a threesome that seems to have separated from the rest of the primary field." In fourth place, national polling averages show, Harris is far behind.
Biden's distinguished record of servicing corporate America spans five decades. He is eager to continue that work from the Oval Office, but can he get there? A week ago, a Times headline noted reasons for doubt: "Joe Biden's Poll Numbers Mask an Enthusiasm Challenge." Enthusiasm for Biden has been high among Democratic-aligned elites, but not among Democratic-aligned voters.
While corporate news organizations--and corporate-enmeshed "public" outlets like NPR News and the PBS NewsHour--evade primary contradictions, Sanders directly hammers at how huge corporations are propelling media bias and undermining democracy.
Even though he has inspired media onslaughts--such as the now-notorious 16 anti-Sanders articles published by the Washington Post in a pivotal 16-hour period during the 2016 primary contest--the Sanders campaign is so enormous that even overtly hostile outlets must give him some space. In an op-ed piece he wrote that the Post published seven weeks ago, Sanders confronted Biden's wealth-fondling approach.
Under the headline "The Straightest Path to Racial Equality Is Through the One Percent," Sanders quoted a statement from Biden: "I don't think 500 billionaires are the reason why we're in trouble." Sanders responded, "I respectfully disagree"--and he went on to say: "It is my view that any presidential candidate who claims to believe that black lives matter has to take on the institutions that have continually exploited black lives."
Such insight about systemic exploitation is sacrilege to the secular faith of wealth accumulation that touts reaching billionaire status as a kind of divine ascension. Yet Sanders boldly challenges that kind of hollowness, shedding a fierce light on realities of corporate capitalism.
"Structural problems require structural solutions," Sanders pointed out in his Post article, "and promises of mere 'access' have never guaranteed black Americans equality in this country. . . . 'Access' to health care is an empty promise when you can't afford high premiums, co-pays or deductibles. And an 'opportunity' for an equal education is an opportunity in name only when you can't afford to live in a good school district or to pay college tuition. Jobs, health care, criminal justice and education are linked, and progress will not be made unless we address the economic systems that oppress Americans at their root."
Like many other progressives, I continue to actively support Sanders as a candidate who bypasses euphemisms, names ultra-powerful villains--and directly challenges those in power who've been warping and gaming the economic systems against working-class people.
Those systems are working quite nicely for the ultra-rich, like the giant bank CEO who told Politico that "it can't be Warren and it can't be Sanders." That's the decision from Wall Street. The decision from Main Street is yet to be heard.