Neo-liberals have accrued a long track record of failed policies, not just in America, but globally, and yet, they have successfully avoided accountability for their misdeeds by transferring the blame to the “liberal” wing of the party; and unfortunately, mainstream media outlets have been happy to support those efforts. Case in point: The Washington Post’s recent editorial attack on Rahm Emanuel’s detractors.
Rahm Emanuel pays the price for not pandering WP Editorial Board
“Democratic Party purists and special interest groups have reached the startling conclusion that the able and decidedly liberal incumbent is not liberal enough, and they are intent on punishing him for not toeing their line. If there is no room in the party for a pragmatic progressive like Mr. Emanuel, who was President Obama’s first chief of staff in the White House, then the party, and by extension the country, are in trouble.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The Post’s assessment is wrong on several levels: First: Rahm Emanuel is not a liberal, he is a neo-liberal and if the Washington Post is unable to distinguish the difference, then the newspaper, and by extension journalism, is in trouble. Second: “Party purists” is a derogatory name given to populists by conservatives who believe the best way to defeat an opponent is to attack his or her credibility, and they do so by convoluting the opponent’s strengths into something more radical or subversive. By definition, purity means: “The condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.,” and given the state of politics and journalism in general, purity doesn’t sound all that bad. But in the twisted world of propaganda, the words “purity” and “liberal” are catchalls for everything hated by conservatives--freedom, civil rights, racial equality, etc. (Dictionary.com)
Progressive efforts to hold Emanuel accountable for adopting Republican approved austerity measures do not merit the use of the word, “pandering.” That is just another way the Post has disparaged Democrats for supporting someone who represents traditional Democratic ideals.
Because Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama have blurred the lines between Democratic values and Wall Street/corporate interests, it has been difficult for progressives to enact the type of policies that protect needy people.
And our unwillingness to fight back has made us an easy target.
If you listen to the current beltway narrative, you might believe the populist wing of the Democratic Party approves of free trade deals, that we are gung-ho on the use of drones, support NSA spying on innocent American citizens, support the use of militarized police forces, accept income inequality, have no regrets about the sequestration, believe austerity measures are needed, hope to reduce Social Security benefits, or a long list of conservative/corporate objectives that Obama has embraced; but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the President’s policies are antithetical to traditional Democratic values, and the “non-vote” cast by populists in the 2014-midterm elections sent an unambiguous message to the President and the DNC.
But neo-liberals have benefited by blurring inter-party lines. Each time you hear Obama give a rousing populist speech, and then turn around and push an anti-populist agenda like Fast Track and the TPP, then you know it’s just political theater. Like Emanuel, and Hillary Clinton, the President is a neo-liberal; he is not a populist, and if you compare his actions to his rhetoric, then you can easily understand the duplicity behind his recent shift to the left.
In a recent article titled, The D.C. Centrists' Straw Men, Mike Lux alluded to this problem:
“…centrists believe in cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits; not taxing Wall Street tycoons at the same levels as their secretaries; weakening regulations on the kinds of financial speculation that caused the 2008 financial panic; bailing out bankers when they get in trouble, and not prosecuting them when they break the law; and doing trade deals that have historically benefited mostly big business and created bigger trade deficits. Voters are in opposition to all those policies by very big numbers, so those positions certainly aren't centrist to them, but that doesn't seem to matter much to the insider D.C. "centrists."
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Elizabeth Warren’s popularity is rooted in her ability to skillfully articulate problems and solutions, and she is admired because she has a talent for exposing lies and obfuscation. Perhaps populist bloggers should follow her lead: our movement would benefit from refusing to allow D.C. insiders to define our identity, what we represent, and the party policies we approve.
We certainly need to end the beltway narrative that liberals support neo-liberal policies.