Posted by
Laura L. Hollis, JD on Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:22:55 AM
Maybe, if some of the voters "progressives" are going after are concerned about fiscal accountability.
Here's one view from the regressive's side.
I am fascinated with the constant drumbeat of the "faux populism" accusation that is constantly being levelled at the tea partiers. It could only be from people who are too entrenched in their own elitist viewpoint (carefully crafted at the very "best" schools and lefty think tanks, and dutifully repeated ad nauseum by the Pravda press in this country).
There are two things that interest me about this:
1) How incredibly unsuccessful a strategy this is for the Left. It inflames and invigorates the grandparents, plumbers, stay-at-home moms, small businessmen and -women, and other grass-roots-level voters who are flocking to tea parties and "outsider" candidates in both the (R) and (D) camps. It is PRECISELY this kind of tin-eared condescension and disdain that conservative voters of all socioeconomic classes and all races/ethnic backgrounds are fed up with.
and
2) Borosage says this: "[progressives need to go after] corporate dominance of the legislative process and corruption of government that we have seen in every area, from finance to the catastrophe in the Gulf, to health care reform, and [we] need to take that out to the country where the real populous voice is as opposed to the faux populous voice of the tea parties..."
It is true that voters hate this. But it is the increasing involvement of government in business that creates the culture of "corporate dominance" in the legislative process. The more control government has over business, the more business focuses on pleasing its legislative overlords, as opposed to its customers and the general public. Increasing government control over business will make that WORSE, not better.
BUT! It is important in this vein to note that scholars like Harold Laski - the granddaddy of American progressivism - acknowledged that government regulation of business was only a watered-down alternative to what "progressives" REALLY want - which is complete government control of all of the means of production. (So there are your Marxist roots.) In other words, under the "progressives'" real agenda, the more businesses that collapse and have to be taken over by the government, the better. And Laski was also blunt about the fact that this aspiration has to be hidden from the American public, who would oppose it. So it has to appear to have happened because of corporate blundering, and the government has to look as if it is (oh so reluctantly) only riding in on the white horse to save the business from itself. (For the sake of the people, of course.)
Increasingly, I think Americans are seeing through this charade. My take is that this is an opportunity for legitimately conservative candidates to peel off many of the "progressives"' most faithful constituencies, most notably working-class Americans. Anyone who has ever had to balance their checkbook or live on a budget understands that profligate government spending is destroying this country, and that the Obama administration's "boot-on-the-neck" attitude toward business will ultimately deprive them of any source of a livelihood, except for maybe being a census-taker.
So, bring it on, Borosage. You guys are the best friends conservative candidates could ask for.