1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
DC Reade's avatar

That may be the case; I'm not sure whether Sirota thinks that the most viable option for a national "left-liberal, social democracy, working people's party" movement is to mount a viable challenge to the Democratic Party Establishment from the inside.

Based on an assessment of all of the facts of which I'm presently aware, I don't think that's possible. For anyone who doesn't make it past whatever protege or pre-screening process is functionally in place to winnow out challengers to the institutional Democratic Party Establishment, not just "the Squad" and the "progressive wing." Consider the fate of all of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 who have been not only sidelined like Bernie Sanders- they've been disappeared. No new ideas allowed; no different agenda of political priorities permitted to gain traction.

In my opinion, the most instructive example isn't Bernie Sanders; it's John Delaney of Maryland, a former Democratic Party Congressman (District 6, 2013-2018.) Multimillionaire businessman, businesses that he founded rather than inherited. Roman Catholic church attender ("pro-choice", like Biden.) Finance capitalist, even! Here's his biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Delaney_(Maryland_politician)

With that CV, you'd think Delaney would be a great fit for an up-and-coming leadership role in the "centrist, mainstream" Democratic Party Establishment. Except that many of Delaney's positions- while significantly less sweepingly ambitious and ideologically driven than Sanders- are still evidently much too "radical" to gain any traction with the Democratic Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Delaney

Compare Delaney's platform and tax proposals with the Biden "infrastructure"/"climate change"/"human investment" policy- and the Biden administration's "plan" to pay for it, and you'll encounter the difference between an ambitious but practical agenda of ordered priorities vs. an incoherent mess of dangling loose ends, including what appear to me to be ample openings for patronage pork barrels.

Taxes: "To address the national debt, Delaney has proposed several tax-related measures. This includes creating more revenues by closing certain corporate tax loopholes and imposing a "Buffett style" rule on individuals making over $1 million in annual income. It also includes raising the cap on Social Security taxes.[115] Delaney champions a form of the "Buffet rule" should be implemented that incorporates aligning capital gains tax rates with ordinary income tax rates. He argues that a lower capital gains tax is unneeded, an outdated incentive that contributes significantly to structural unfairness in the United States tax code by allowing investors to pay lower rates than workers.[55] However, Delaney advocates for instituting a higher capital gains tax rate for short-term investing, accompanied by very low rates for investors who hold their investments for ten years or more.[6] He believes that these measures would both benefit investment in startups and infrastructure.[6]

To also address the national debt, Delaney proposes rolling back tax cuts Republicans have given to high earners[55] and raising the corporate tax rate to approximately 27%.[55]..."

The Biden administration started out with proposals similar to those of some of Delaney's ideas- proposing a top marginal rate on capital gains that's equivalent to the top tax rate on earned income: 39%. But look what the Democrats of the House did with it, last month: "House Democrats proposed a top 25% federal tax rate on capital gains and dividends. It would apply to single taxpayers with over $400,000 of income and married couples with over $450,000..." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/house-capital-gains-tax-better-for-the-super-rich-than-biden-plan.html

Delaney's proposals on climate change and energy policy:

"In his campaign for president he proposed a $4 trillion climate plan,[60][61] which he declared would be focused on bringing the United States to net-zero emissions by 2025. Delaney's climate plan focuses on a carbon cap and dividend program.[60][62] The six tenants of his plan are a carbon fee and dividend, direct air capture/negative emissions technology, quintupling the budget for renewable energy research, challenge grants, a "Climate Corps", a "Carbon Throughway".[61][62]"

That means a carbon tax with dividend rebate for low-income earners. The Democratic Party Establishment wants nothing to do with that.

Delaney wanted a well-funded but voluntary National Service program linked with college scholarships, and controls on student loan provisions. He does not support lofty (and empty) rhetorical promises of "free college education for all." Consequentially, his ideas aren't even on the table.

And that's what I'm talking about- the platform espoused by Delaney, not the personalist politics of Fearless Leader John Delaney, Hero Of The People.

It isn't just that the Democratic Party Establishment didn't want John Delaney as President; they don't even want to provide a forum for most of the policy proposals in his platform, much less actually enacting them. Although it is worth noting that unlike ideologically predictable Bernie Sanders, John Delaney can't be caricatured as a "socialist." And the programs on Delaney's platform aren't reliant on sweepingly ambitious abstractions supported only by self-indulgent rhetoric; they're well-reasoned and well-scaled, and there's an outline of priorities and how to pay for them. How much influence does John Delaney have in today's Democratic Party? Zilch. How much name recognition has the national news media provided to Delaney? Nada. How much time does the news media spend on discussions of issues of substance rather than symbolism, and on policies rather than personalities? Negligible.

Expand full comment