This Is Why We Don't Have Nice Things

Every now and then I come across a piece of punditry that's just so amazingly bad and mendacious that it really bears breaking down on a line-by-line level. So that's what we're going to do with Dougles Schoen's "Why Democrats Need Wall Street" column in Tuesday's New York Times.  Now, before we get started, it's important to note that Dougy was a pollster for Bill Clinton from 1994-2000, so he has something of vested interest in making sure the strategy his bossq implemented doesn't look so horrible.He starts off with 

"Many of the most prominent voices in the Democratic Party, led by Bernie Sanders, are advocating wealth redistribution through higher taxes and Medicare for all, and demonizing banks and Wall Street.
Memories in politics are short, but those policies are vastly different from the program of the party’s traditional center-left coalition. Under Bill Clinton, that coalition balanced the budget, teacknowledged the limits of government and protected the essential programs that make up the social safety net."

It's nice that right from the start we're already pretending that the whole Democratic Party structure is moving in the direction of Bernie Sanders' populism.  And sure, he has Elizabeth Warren and maybe a few others on his side, namely a bunch of people looking to be President in three years and are covering their asses now by co-sponsoring his Medicare For All bill, but to act like the DNC or the  party leadership in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have any interest in moving away from the holy "center-left" coalition is just laughable.

The other bit of comedy comes in acting like the this is somehow violating Democratic "tradition;" a tradition which is barely over thirty-years-old.  The Clintons and their ghouls all sprang from something called the Democratic Leadership Council which formed in the wake of the 1984 Presidential election and the party's second loss to Ronald Reagan.  Their strategy was to move the Party away from the working class and make it more appealing to Wall Street and other donors with lots of cash on hand.  And hey, it worked, didn't it?

Anyway, back to Schoen:

"As the party has left behind that version of liberalism, it has also found its way to its weakest electoral position — nationally and at the state level — since the 1920s. Hillary Clinton’s lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump."

This is really where the column makes the jump from your average bullshit punditry to some truly artistic levels of outright fuckery.  First off, Schoen just glides over the fact that the Democratic party lost Congress and the majority of governorships and state legislatures- that weak electoral position- entirely during the Obama Presidency.  You know, the same Obama who Wall Street gave more money to in both of his Presidential Elections than his supposedly more business friendly Republican opponents.  Also the same Obama whose Attorney General confirmed that they were intentionally not arresting or prosecuting Wall Street for their litany of criminal acts in the lead-up to the financial crisis of 2007-08 and who threw trillions upon trillions of dollars at the banks through whatever bailout method he could find.  Yeah, that's totally the actions of a Party moving away from acting in the interests of Wall Street, sure.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Clinton's loss of key Midwestern states had more to do with not even bothering to campaign in them once she secured the nomination but, I don't get paid for this so what would I know.

Speaking of, here's Schoen's primary reason why Democrats should snuggle up closely to the Vampire Squids:

"Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street for several reasons. The first is an ugly fact of politics: money. Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full.
In the 2016 election, the Center for Responsive Politics reports, employees and companies in the securities and investment industry donated more than $63 million to the Democratic Party."

And that, right there, is the core of the entire piece: politics is a job and we all need to get paid.  The idea that we should change our political system to one that eliminates or at the very least mitigates the influence of money in our political system is never even considered in the column mainly because, if it was, Schoen would have to address the overwhelming majority of people who want nothing money to have as little to do with our politics as possible.  One poll has 78% of the country saying that we need new laws limiting the influence of money.  Think about that, in a country as polarized as this one, you still get eight out of ten people across the political spectrum all agree on that one key fact.  That same pole shows 81% of Democrats saying they support their elected officials working across the aisle to come up with legislation to that effect, with 79% of Republican voters saying the same thing.  

You would think that someone whose literal job is to collect and analyze the data on political and ideological trends of the voting public would see that massive, bi-partisan- and correct -suspicion about money and its corrupting influence on our political system as something of a hint that advocating for its continued prominence is something of a liability.  You might also think that, in the wake of the DNC having its worst fundraising year since 2003 mainly because there are so many voters refusing to give the Party money precisely because it refusing to turn away from the direction Schoen is advocating for, would be a hint that they shouldn't fucking do that anymore.  

Oh well; back to the party:

"If voters really hated ties to Wall Street and financial elites, Republicans would not enjoy such a commanding electoral position — or have elected a New York plutocrat president. Most voters’ major problems with President Trump stem from his performance, not from his wealth or connections to Wall Street."

This would be a real solid stumper and excellent point if it wasn't so busy ignoring literally everything about how Republicans work to win elections.  I've gone over the Southern Strategy so many times even I'm kind of sick of doing it, but, really, it's easy to think of the Republican strategy as having three main pillars: stoke as much racial/cultural resentment as humanly possible (the "Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays" or whatever other Judeo-Christian values nonsense is in this season), voter suppression like the voter I.D. laws that by sheer coincidence keep poor minorities from voting Democrat and keeps the turn out favorably low, and finally, the grand American tradition of gerrymandering.  As far as Trump goes, his connections to Wall Street mattered far less to his base than his appeal to their good ol'-fashioned racism.


And now, one of my absolute favorite passages:

"A second reason Democrats should keep ties with Wall Street: Despite what the Democratic left says, America is a center-right, pro-capitalist nation. A January Gallup poll found that moderates and conservatives make up almost 70 percent of the country, while only 25 percent of voters identify as liberal. Even in May 2016, when Senator Sanders made redistribution a central part of his platform, Gallup found that only about 35 percent of Americans had a positive image of socialism, compared with 60 percent with a positive view of capitalism."

The whole "Americans identify has conservative" trope is one of my favorites in political hackery precisely because it such a naked ploy to ignore actual policies the public supports.  Let's take regulation, as an example.  In a poll released this year, Americans for Financial Reform found that 70% of Independents and 53% of Republicans felt Wall Street should be more tightly regulated.  The same poll also found that 90% of Independents and 87% of Republicans think it's important to regulate Wall Street activities.  Oh, and Medicare For All? That's at 60%.  Tuition-free college is at 62%.  Higher taxes for the rich and corporations? Those poll at 76% and 52% support, respectively.  So yeah, Americans may not like the label of Socialism, but they're pretty fond of the expanded social policies, higher taxes on the richest people, and tighter regulations of businesses.  Point is, there's no way you can look at those policy preferences and say that the American public is of an overwhelmingly conservative mindset when it comes to economic and social policies.  In the 90's and early 2000's, I can see Schoen and his ilk easily getting away with this kind of tactic because no one could easily disprove what they were saying.  But now, in the Google era?  That he's still trotting out this shit when it takes all of five minutes to get a full, comprehensive rebuttal is just insulting.

Moving on:

"Third, it is hypocritical for Democrats to maintain ties to Silicon Valley and then turn their backs on the very people who help finance its work. The financial industry brings to market the world’s most innovate products and platforms that expand the economy and create jobs."

Schoen actually stumbles onto a solid point here, so, good for him.  I think it merits a participation award, even.  To the core of his point, though, I will say that given the rampant racism, sexism, and massive invasions of privacy perpetrated by the tech industry, the easiest way out of this conundrum is to cut ties with both of those toxic industries and hold them to account.  Pretty simple, when you think about it.

Next:

"Fourth, demonizing Wall Street does nothing to bridge the widening gaps in our country. Wall Street has its flaws and abuses, which were addressed in part by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. And yes, the American people are certainly hostile to and suspicious of Wall Street. But using this suspicion and hostility as the organizing principle for a major political party will consign Democrats to permanent minority status. 

Here’s what the Democrats need to do instead: develop a set of pro-growth, inclusive economic policies. Democratic leaders must prioritize entrepreneurship, small-business growth and the expansion of job-training and retraining programs."

You can really see Schoen running out of rhetorical thread here, since his main argument in the top paragraph boils down to "Yes, Wall Street has done bad things, which we kinda-sorta already punished them for.  And yes, most people still hate them.  But playing to that majority opinion will only make you unpopular, so there."  Also, the Democrats already have a plan that follows his whole thing about prioritizing entrepreneurship etc etc, it's called "A Better Deal."  That Schoen has apparently forgotten or never even knew that the Party already did the thing he wanted them to speaks for itself in how successful they would be in pursuing that path.

And now, the beginning of the home stretch:

"American leadership in finance will make it possible for our country to invest as much as $1 trillion in infrastructure, extend health care access to every American at an affordable rate and lift the 76 million Americans who are barely surviving financially, as reported in May 2016 by the Federal Reserve, into the middle class. 

The Democrats need to partner with the financial community on these issues. Most important, the Democrats have simply had an ineffective, negative and coercive economic message. Advocacy of a $15 minimum wage and further banking regulation does not constitute a positive, proactive agenda."

Okay, so, first of all,you really have to admire the casual contempt Schoen has for the idea of paying people more money so they can maybe have a living wage.  It's such a tell that he views "pay workers more money" as such an obvious waste of time that he can't hide his frustration with the, from his perspective, utter stupidity of pursuing such a thing in the first place.   More importantly, if the government really wanted to expand social services or spend money repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, they could do it all on their own.  The government creates the money used to do all of those things in the first place, they don't need the financial industry for shit.  The only reason to include the public-private partnerships in those kind of public services is to give the private sector a chance to fleece the public to profitability.

Finally, the closer:

"The Democrats cannot be the party that supports only new, stifling regulations. Reducing regulation allows banks to employ capital and finance investment in our country’s future, making electric cars, renewable energy and internet connectivity across the globe a reality 

This was evident to Democrats in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000, for example, Democrats led the way on two key economic legislative victories. First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the communications and cable industries, increased growth and enhanced market competition. Second, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 removed regulations placed on financial institutions by bureaucrats and expanded opportunities for Wall Street to engage in mergers and acquisitions, adding wealth to the retirement accounts and other investment portfolios of millions of middle-class Americans. 

If the party is going to have any chance of returning to its position of influence and appeal, Democrats need to work with Wall Street to push policies that create jobs, heal divisions and stimulate the American economy."

I already covered the regulations bit, so I won't go over it again.  But, I will say that it's hilarious that Schoen uses deregulating the cable/internet industry, an industry that has spent the last several decades consolidating into regional monopolies and provides the absolute worst internet and broadband services in any industrialized country on the planet, as a "win" for deregulation.  The real balls-of-steel moment though, comes right after, where he uses the deregulation of Wall Street as the apex move of the moderate Democrats.  Schoen really expects everyone to forget, or just ignore, that the end result of that bill was a financial industry so untethered from consequence or oversight that they made fraudulent mortgages to any warm body they could pull off the street, and then packaged those up with other toxic loans and falsely sold them off as quality products that would never default only to turn around and bet heavily that those products would implode, and finally, when all that and more finally came crashing down and nearly caused a second Great Depression, wrote off the entire thing with taxpayer bailouts and walked away into the sunset, free and clear of absolutely everything.

It takes a real piece of shit to wax nostalgic about the time where everyone turned a blind eye to the thing that turned our financial system into little more than a government-backed criminal enterprise but, hey, Schoen has to be good at something, I guess.