Dumping the elites.
Democrats are moving populist, but Republicans just can't let go of their donors.
"Down dooby doo down down
Comma, comma, down dooby doo down down
Comma, comma, down dooby doo down down
Breaking up is hard to do."
Neil Sedaka sang it: Breaking up is hard to do.
The death this week of Pat Caddell brought refreshed attention to his work as a pollster, including the fact that he observed in 2015 that there was widespread American appetite for revolt against elites, and that voters wanted a candidate who expressed the disgust they felt for both parties.
There was gridlock. Disfunction. Special interest money everywhere. Donald Trump understood the moment, and called it "the Swamp."
Hillary was establishment to the core. Trump was flawed, but he said he would drain that swamp and shake up the elites. He claimed he didn't need them, he was so rich.
Now that he is in office, it turns out that Republicans have a problem with those elites. They can't let go.
We saw it with the GOP tax bill, which targeted tax savings for corporations and the very richest Americans. Trump and Republicans try to talk about the middle class benefits--look what we did for you--but the reality was that the increase in a middle income paycheck wasn't big enough to matter, plus the new withholding tables mean the spring bonus of a tax refund is missing. People are disappointed.
Moreover, the estate tax exemption was raised to $22 million for a couple, amid GOP voices simply to eliminate it altogether. Twenty two million dollars is a very big number for most people. People see the money leaving their paycheck in FICA taxes, Medicare, Federal and State taxes, but rich kids get $22 million tax free.
The tax bill is a problem for Republicans.
As Caddell wrote in Breitbart after the 2018 midterm Blue Wave:
"The Republican party is essentially wusses. They will not fight. They don't believe in fighting. They just lay down and roll over, and usually for their donor class, who are basically antithetical to 90% of Republicans and what they want."
This is exactly what insurgent candidate Sam Carpenter feared and predicted in the failed attempt to take over the GOP in Oregon, that he would be opposed by "the Ruling Class" of establishment Republicans, even though his populist insurgency represented the 90% of Republican voters. The GOP is more comfortable as an establishment party, the party of business and wealth, of financial elites.
It sets up a pattern and dependency on the donor class. Candidates are funded by employers, not employees. By landlords, not tenants, By management, not unions. By white, Christian, heterosexual men, with interests to protect, and not the people who feel economically squeezed.
It tightens the connection between the GOP and the economic elites.
All the presidential candidate websites declare that the candidates won't be taking corporate PAC money. Bernie Sanders showed one can raise presidential campaign amounts with small dollars off the internet. Beto O'Rourke moved to the top tier of candidates to watch because he, too, raised presidential amounts of money--$80 million plus--in a Senate campaign, all without corporate PAC donors.
Now, even candidates like Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey and inevitably close to Wall Street interests, and a reputation as being "corporate," makes the point that he funds his campaign Sanders-style, with small dollar contributions off the internet.
Former Congressman John Delaney was the first Democratic candidate to file for election. He has a net worth of some $250 million dollars. That isn't his message. His message is economic populism.
He posts this notice on his contribution page:
"John is refusing any corporate PAC money. This campaign is driven by grassroots supporters like you."
Refusing corporate PAC money is now the standard for Democrats.
Democrats have moved populist left on money. It isn't the party of Howard Schultz, the Starbucks billionaire. People are OK with people who make $50 million dollars a year being moved into the 70% marginal tax bracket. Ocasio-Cortez's proposal is not as toxic as Fox News says it is, which is why they mis-state it to imply she wants everyone to pay it. Polls show 59% of Americans agree with her. Democrats are talking about taxes on wealth.
Republicans now carry the political burden of the 2017 tax act. Republicans loved their donors. Democrats are breaking up with them.
Tomorrow: The Democratic weakness. Democrats cannot break up with their own elites, the cultural perfectionists and snobs and finger-pointers who have created a backlash against political correctness. No one likes a scold.
There was gridlock. Disfunction. Special interest money everywhere. Donald Trump understood the moment, and called it "the Swamp."
Hillary was establishment to the core. Trump was flawed, but he said he would drain that swamp and shake up the elites. He claimed he didn't need them, he was so rich.
Now that he is in office, it turns out that Republicans have a problem with those elites. They can't let go.
We saw it with the GOP tax bill, which targeted tax savings for corporations and the very richest Americans. Trump and Republicans try to talk about the middle class benefits--look what we did for you--but the reality was that the increase in a middle income paycheck wasn't big enough to matter, plus the new withholding tables mean the spring bonus of a tax refund is missing. People are disappointed.
Moreover, the estate tax exemption was raised to $22 million for a couple, amid GOP voices simply to eliminate it altogether. Twenty two million dollars is a very big number for most people. People see the money leaving their paycheck in FICA taxes, Medicare, Federal and State taxes, but rich kids get $22 million tax free.
The tax bill is a problem for Republicans.
As Caddell wrote in Breitbart after the 2018 midterm Blue Wave:
"The Republican party is essentially wusses. They will not fight. They don't believe in fighting. They just lay down and roll over, and usually for their donor class, who are basically antithetical to 90% of Republicans and what they want."
This is exactly what insurgent candidate Sam Carpenter feared and predicted in the failed attempt to take over the GOP in Oregon, that he would be opposed by "the Ruling Class" of establishment Republicans, even though his populist insurgency represented the 90% of Republican voters. The GOP is more comfortable as an establishment party, the party of business and wealth, of financial elites.
It sets up a pattern and dependency on the donor class. Candidates are funded by employers, not employees. By landlords, not tenants, By management, not unions. By white, Christian, heterosexual men, with interests to protect, and not the people who feel economically squeezed.
It tightens the connection between the GOP and the economic elites.
Meanwhile, Democrats.
 |
| https://corybooker.com |
Now, even candidates like Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey and inevitably close to Wall Street interests, and a reputation as being "corporate," makes the point that he funds his campaign Sanders-style, with small dollar contributions off the internet.
Former Congressman John Delaney was the first Democratic candidate to file for election. He has a net worth of some $250 million dollars. That isn't his message. His message is economic populism.
He posts this notice on his contribution page:
"John is refusing any corporate PAC money. This campaign is driven by grassroots supporters like you."
 |
| https://www.johndelaney.com |
Refusing corporate PAC money is now the standard for Democrats.
Democrats have moved populist left on money. It isn't the party of Howard Schultz, the Starbucks billionaire. People are OK with people who make $50 million dollars a year being moved into the 70% marginal tax bracket. Ocasio-Cortez's proposal is not as toxic as Fox News says it is, which is why they mis-state it to imply she wants everyone to pay it. Polls show 59% of Americans agree with her. Democrats are talking about taxes on wealth.
Republicans now carry the political burden of the 2017 tax act. Republicans loved their donors. Democrats are breaking up with them.
Tomorrow: The Democratic weakness. Democrats cannot break up with their own elites, the cultural perfectionists and snobs and finger-pointers who have created a backlash against political correctness. No one likes a scold.
1 comment:
Better to choose "Money...that's all I want" (Beatles)
It's fine and well that candidates are talking about where they get their money, but it still takes a fortune to run for office. Until I see reform legislation I am skeptical either party is serious about money in politics. Legislators spend the bulk of their time hustling donations...that's crazy! When money raising determines who wins an election and is a primary measure of a candidates qualifications we are out of control. Last night on "The Circus" they interviewed four big democratic donors who spoke as if it was they who were choosing who runs and who doesn't.
I would favor private/public funded campaigns, with limits on PACs and spending ceilings. Most of the money is spent on media which should be free (public airwaves) for general elections and restricted for primaries. Equating money and speech is not working. Lobbying also is out of control.
Post a Comment