November
2007
With a Year To Go: Where Are the Democrats?
So thanks to Feinstein and Schumer we’ll be getting a new attorney general who can’t say straight out that waterboarding is torture. What makes us so sure that if voters a year from now choose to put a Democrat in the White House, this new chief executive won’t endorse (in secret, of course) the same kinds of practices–brutal interrogations, detentions, torture, renditions, wiretapping, repression of domestic dissent, etc.–that the current chief promotes? What makes us so sure that the ugly underside of American Empire will operate much differently than it does today?
Oh, I do realize that one is not supposed to say these things–so negative, so cynical.
And, yes, the Democrats are so much better on so many issues. But they will have to pardon me and pardon many other informed voters for wondering whether having two national parties with different names really means we have substantially different choices about the kind of country we are going to be.
Have any of the leading Democratic presidential candidates renounced the dominance doctrine or the basic premises of the war on terror? (When I say “leading” I do not include Kucinich, who seems to be having unlicensed congress with extraterrestrials in any case.)
The polls are now reporting that the state of the economy looms ever larger as an issue of concern to likely voters. How do the Democrats measure up there? Are they standing up strongly for the proverbial Little Guy?
Yesterday Paul Krugman got in a nice jab on the Democratic “dithering” (Krugman’s word) over closing an egregious tax loophole that allows gazillionaire hedge fund buccaneers to pay income taxes at a much lower rate than drywallers and UPS delivery people. Krugman cites a report in The Financial Times (and why not in the New York Times, one might ask) concerning how key Senate votes regarding this loophole have been delayed as the hedge fund forces mobilize their heavy lobbying artillery and pump contributions into Harry Reid’s special campaign fund.
Today I was glad to see an NYT editorial outing Barney Frank, the Democratic chair of the House Financial Services Committee (and why not Banking Committee, one might ask), for totally watering down his own Mortgage Reform and Antipredatory Lending Act of 2007.
Frank’s new amendment would prevent borrowers from seeking redress on the state level. As the Times editorial points out, state laws would be pre-empted with regard to “too common predatory practices” that often lead to what is called “equity stripping.” Frank’s proposed changes would also block other kinds of state-level cases against unfair loans, deceptive lending, and fraud on the part of mortgage lenders.
Why is Frank doing this? The Times answers straightforwardly enough: “State pre-emption is a demand of Wall Street.” And what Wall Street wants, Barney delivers, even if it makes the high-sounding title of his committee’s bill into rather a bad joke.
The new style among leading Democrats seems pretty clear. Promise to change course in Iraq, then stick with General Petraeus. Promise to deal with scandalous Wall Street chicanery, then take Wall Street’s money and collude in screwing Wall Street’s working-class and middle class victims.
I’m not saying I won’t vote for them next November. I’m just noting that they aren’t doing much to win my confidence or inspire me to knock on doors for them. I think we should at least let them know that we pay attention.
- Peter Laarman