CNNs post-speech discussion of Barack Obamas State of the Union address included anchor Wolf Blitzers reaction to colleague Jake Tappers view that the president had outlined a liberal economic agenda. Blitzers analysis illustrates the logic behind corporate medias longstanding efforts to dissuade politicians from advocating for progressive policies: TAPPER: Of course, most of the speech, the body of the speech, was a very progressive, very liberal economic message about trying to help the middle class…. [It] was about new tax cuts, about the $3,000 per child per year, paid sick leave or paid maternity leave, raising the minimum wage, lowering the cost of community college to zero. BLITZER: I think its fair to say, had he put forward all these new initiatives before the midterm elections–was afraid to do so, because he feared it could hurt Democrats who were up in a tough reelection or election season. As a result, he didnt do any of those things before the midterms, but now after the midterms, [with] two years to go, he feels emboldened, almost liberated, ready to move on with these new very progressive or very liberal initiatives. According to Blitzer, policy proposals such as paid sick leave and maternity leave, an increased minimum wage and free community college are all liabilities to pragmatic Democrats concerned with winning elections–which explains Obamas reticence prior to Novembers midterm elections. However, public opinion polls show widespread support for those measures, including, in many cases, from Republican voters. … So its not voters preferences that, in Blitzers words, could hurt Democrats facing elections. A likelier reason is election funding. In what were probably the most expensive midterms in history (Washington Post, 10/22/14), politicians largely depended on financing from economic elites, observed political scientists Walter Dean Burnham and Thomas Ferguson (AlterNet, 12/18/14): The president and the Democratic Party are almost as dependent on big money–defined, for example, in terms of the percentage of contributions (over $500 or $1,000) from the 1 percent–as the Republicans. To expect top-down, money-driven political parties to make strong economic appeals to voters is idle. In the context of low-turnout elections largely financed by economic elites, policies such as minimum wage increases and paid sick leave, which force financial concessions from the wealthy, do indeed hurt Democrats. It is in part this conflict that explains high-profile Democrats lack of advocacy on those measures. As The Atlantic reported (6/18/14), Hillary Clinton isnt against federally mandated family leave–she just doesnt think its politically feasible: #Propaganda #Neoliberals #Neoconservatives #Corporatism #WageDeflation #IncomeGap #Progressives
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:13:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015