# Is there a "new populist majority" in the Democratic Party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 25, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558 "2014-03-25T22:30:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/1 "2014-03-25T22:30:52Z")
That’s the claim Markos Moulitsas makes in [this article](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/democrats-wall-street-kos-104959.html?hp=pm_1#.UzIAnMLQd9A) where he’s locking horns with [Matt Bennett and Jim Kessler.](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/daily-kos-democrats-moderates-104817.html#.UzIB2MLQd9D) Bennett & Kessler: > [@](#): > > \*\*Kos Folds Up the Big Tent > > By MATT BENNETT and JIM KESSLER > > March 19, 2014\*\* > > If Markos Moulitsas had his way there’d be no Affordable Care Act, no Dodd-Frank, no economic stimulus package. That’s the price when purity tests are applied to Democrats. > > In a remarkable [post](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/18/1285726/-10-years-of-political-progress-And-yes-we-ve-made-progress) yesterday, Moulitsas, founder and publisher of the progressive community site DailyKos, celebrates the departure from the Senate of 10 moderate Democrats over the last decade, and makes clear his hope that Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) lose their tough reelection battles this year. He doesn’t name some other moderates in tight races, like Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), but his logic suggests that he’d be only too happy to say goodbye to them as well. > > Moulitsas cares passionately about progressive politics, and he is a very savvy political observer—he knows that we must have Democratic majorities in Congress to make real progress, and that to create those majorities we must have Democrats win in red states like Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana and North Carolina. Surely he can see that such Democrats must be somewhat different than the full-throated progressives that he name-checks in his essay. Moulitsas: > [@](#): > > \*\*We Don’t Need Two Wall Street Parties > > Yes, I think Democrats should stop sucking up to the rich. Leave that to the Republicans. > > By MARKOS MOULITSAS > > March 24, 2014\*\* > > t’s tough to be a “Third Way” corporatist in today’s Democratic Party. Sure, the numerically small faction of Wall Street and Beltway Democrats has long enjoyed an outsized influence on public policy, but all the hedge fund money in the world can’t change the fact that the party is in the midst of a dramatic reorientation toward a new progressive populism. And it turns out that populism is popular! Voters across the country are increasingly concerned about the pressing issues of income inequality and economic security, and elected Democrats have responded with a renewed focus on solutions for working Americans. > > So what’s a group that exists—as far as I can tell—solely to defend the narrow interests of Wall Street Democrats, to do? > > Apparently, the answer is to lash out at me and others who simply want to see the Democratic Party work for Democratic values. Third Way’s Matt Bennett and Jim Kessler took to this site last week to charge me with the apparent sin of celebrating the party’s current Senate majority, one that is finally starting to function thanks to the absence of corrosive elements like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, who tied the Democratic caucus in knots just 10 years ago. > > Bennett and Kessler’s argument seems to be that I, and by extension the **new populist majority** of the Democratic Party, am somehow particularly intolerant of certain flavors of Democrats—that we’re closing up the “big tent” and limiting the party’s national appeal. That’s pretty rich coming from a group whose raison d’etre seems to be to hammer progressive candidates and policies. I do think I sense a prevailing wind leftward among the Dems, or at least a light breeze, but to say it has already captured a “majority” – that’s a bigger claim than Moulitsas seems to appreciate, making it so off-handedly as he does with no supporting stats. Is he right? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/2 "2014-03-26T00:47:41Z")
I’d say the answer is no. The thing maintaining our position in split government is the ability to bring a certain number of rational centrists with us. Any form of litmus test will do to us what it’s doing to the Republicans. And that’s not where we want to be. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/3 "2014-03-26T01:27:14Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I’d say the answer is no. The thing maintaining our position in split government is the ability to bring a certain number of rational centrists with us. > > Any form of litmus test will do to us what it’s doing to the Republicans. And that’s not where we want to be. Well, perhaps that’s too categorical. Only Blue-Dog and Boll-Weevil Dems appear to fail Moulitsas’ litmus test: > [@](#): > > Still, let’s look at the question of whether our populist approach is compromising the party’s ability to win across the country. Bennett and Kessler lament that seven of the 10 right-wing Democrats that I celebrated for no longer being in the Senate were replaced by Republicans—but what was then a Democratic two-seat minority is now a Democratic 10-seat majority. If you’re genuinely a Democrat, you have to admit that a 55-seat caucus reinforced with strong progressive voices is objectively preferable to a 49-seat caucus packed with corporatist Democrats who voted for the disastrous Iraq war and George W. Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts. _If_ you’re genuinely a Democrat. > > Furthermore, the notion that Daily Kos and I are intolerant toward moderate Democrats just doesn’t square with the facts. We’ve raised millions of dollars and generated on-the-ground activism for moderate Democratic candidates such as Jon Tester in Montana, Jim Webb in Virginia, Mark Begich in Alaska, Jack Conway in Kentucky and Jim Martin in Georgia. No liberal or progressive would categorize a single one of those candidates as anything other than moderate, yet our community backed them with significant financial resources. The Senate races in Kentucky and Georgia will be getting plenty of love this year despite featuring moderate Democrats on the ballot. We’ve backed similar moderates at the House and state level for more than a decade. > > Even Sen. Chuck Schumer—no enemy of Wall Street, he—wrote in his book _Positively American_ about his stint as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, “[The netroots] helped identify and encourage viable candidates, like Jim Webb and Jon Tester,” thus “it seemed somehow appropriate that as a new majority dawned for Senate Democrats, two candidates who had been propelled by the growing ‘netroots’ (Democratic leaning bloggers), had made all the difference in the end.” > > Let me put it plainly: We aren’t the Tea Party, undermining our party’s electoral chances by nominating fringe candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin and Linda McMahon. Quite the contrary, in fact. We support Democrats of all flavors so long as they support basic Democratic values and their fellow Democrats. Can Third Way say the same, or point to anything remotely similar they’ve accomplished on behalf of Sens. Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley or (ahem) Elizabeth Warren? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/4 "2014-03-26T01:55:03Z")
Democrats in the South would do much better if they adopted economically progressive views, unlike the current batch of Blue Dogs and Boll Weevils. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/5 "2014-03-26T02:07:15Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Democrats in the South would do much better if they adopted economically progressive views, unlike the current batch of Blue Dogs and Boll Weevils. That brings to mind [RationalWiki’s analysis](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Democratic_Party#Internal_factions): > [@](#): > > Internal factions > > While the Democrats have a substantial liberal wing among the public at large, the party’s inability to coordinate itself properly results in a political platform that consists of rolling over to Republican schemes and failing to provide effective leadership. The sectarian violence appears below. > > **Progressive Democrats** > > European-styled social democrats. In the House they are organized in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the largest in the House of Representatives. Some are descendants of the New Left: > Sherrod Brown > Howard Dean > Keith Ellison > Russ Feingold (the only Senator to vote against the original manifestation of the PATRIOT Act) > Barney Frank > Dennis Kucinich > Barbara Lee > Jim McDermott > Cynthia McKinney > Bernie Sanders (self-described socialist; not a Democrat, but caucuses with them) > Pete Stark (the first openly atheist member of Congress[5]) > > **Traditional liberals** > > Constitute half of the voter base, and take pain to avoid infighting between the separate Democratic coalitions. “A little left of center,” in FDR’s words, and don’t share many differences with the progressives anyway: > Joe Biden > Barbara Boxer > Kirsten Gillibrand > The Kennedys > John Kerry > Nancy Pelosi > Jay Rockefeller > Elizabeth Warren > Anthony Weiner > > **New Democrats** > > The Third Way moderates. They’ve increased their clout since the Dems’ neoliberal exploits since the 90s, and are roughly equivalent to the British New Labour. Represented by the New Democrat Coalition (an affiliate of the Democratic Leadership Council): > The Clintons > John Edwards > Dianne Feinstein > Al Gore > Joe Lieberman (independent since 2006) > Some random black guy[6] > Harry Reid > Debbie Wasserman Schultz > > **Blue Dogs** > > Here’s where the shit starts to break out. Those in the Blue Dog Coalition are often accused of being DINOs, siding with conservative thought whenever they wish, most commonly on social issues and deficit hawkery. Officially they are a coalition in the House but a few ideologically aligned Senators are listed as well. They’re typically elected in Jesusland, and are considered flaming lefties there, despite being firmly centre-right: > Joe Donnelly > Mary Landrieu > Gabrielle Giffords > Joe Manchin > Ben Nelson > Collin Peterson > Heath Shuler > > **Dixiecrat leftovers and boll weevils** > > To the right of the Blue Dogs. Not a significant feature in the party anymore, although occasionally one will turn up here and there as a failed Senate candidate, or a centrist Democrat will go haywire and swing far to the right.[7] > Virgil Goode (left the Democrats in 2000, was the Constitution Party presidential nominee in 2012) > Zell Miller > > **Random populists** > > These often vote with the progressive and traditional liberal wings of the party, but have their conservative quirky bits. Not easily categorized elsewhere: > Jon Tester > Jim Webb > > **The libertarians** > > Yes, they exist too, probably upset about Dubya’s stance on civil liberties and the Republicans’ constant juggling between pro-business interests and the Religious Right: > Mike Gravel > There is also an erstwhile “Democratic Freedom Caucus” influenced by Georgism whose actual influence in the party is negligible. Now, if it’s just a matter of shaving the Blue Dogs and the Boll Weevils/Dixiecrats out of the coalition and letting the GOP have them and their voters forever, I think the Dems could do that and still mostly and consistently win. But they can’t so safely read out or write off the New Democrats, those need to be dealt with, at least as credible enemies. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/6 "2014-03-26T03:13:57Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I’d say the answer is no. The thing maintaining our position in split government is the ability to bring a certain number of rational centrists with us. Calling someone a “centrist” is a reference to their position in relation to the elite consensus. On economics a lot of Americans are to the left of what elites consider acceptable policy alternatives ( the Overton window if you will). 40% of Americans oppose free trade. 44% have a negative view of capitalism. [(cite)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17199124&postcount=42) These are mainstream positions. Yet no politician who espoused them would be called a centrist. This I think is the issue with the Democratic Party. They need to move outside of the straight jacket of being the _other_ corporate party. Half of Americans don’t vote at all. If the Dems could inspire 1 out of 5 of them with populist rhetoric then they wouldn’t have to cater to the moderate conservatives we call “centrists”. An extra 10% support would put the Democratic Party into the permanent majority and finally force the GOP to moderate their monomaniacal drive toward complete plutocracy. Of course, just because I want that to happen doesn’t mean it will or even could. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/7 "2014-03-26T11:58:07Z")
It all really comes down to campaign finance. Yes, the democratic party could move significantly left. Anti-corporate positions could gather significant interest and some media attention. It would, however, all but eliminate fundraiser among large donors, both for candidates and PACs. And that means losing elections. Remember, it was as recently as 2000 where we were astonished - I was, and I was covering it - that GWB raised and spent $100MM on a Presidential campaign. Now that’s cheap openers. According to Opensecrets - a site which should be on everyone’s bookmarks - Obama raised about $280MM from individual donations and half of that was in $2500 or greater contributions. That ain’t grass roots fundraising. Combine that with the fact that he spent $684MM during the campaign and that’s a LOT of extra - non-individual - contributions that could have gone away. Toss in PAC money and other corporate spending and it’s those donations that control who has the money to get the message out. Without real finance reform you should get used to the two corporate party system. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/8 "2014-03-26T13:59:42Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > It all really comes down to campaign finance. > > Yes, the democratic party could move significantly left. Anti-corporate positions could gather significant interest and some media attention. > > It would, however, all but eliminate fundraiser among large donors, both for candidates and PACs. **And that means losing elections.** Not necessarily, if the positions to which the party moves leftward are really, really popular ones. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/9 "2014-03-26T17:24:21Z")
I think **Jonathan Chance** raises a good point. This is why campaign finance reform is so crucial. It’s not just that it’s the right thing to do (bribing politicians shouldn’t be legal) but it also is the key to reducing the stranglehold of elite opinion over policy. A government can’t succeed entirely in opposition to the most wealthy and powerful segments of society. That shouldn’t be the goal. Instead it should be to achieve the type of understanding that underlay the New Deal. Smart aristocrats like FDR realized that it was in everyone’s interest, including their own, for the government to respond to the desperate popular demands to Do Something. I expect to see incremental policy initiatives from the Dems. Things like increasing the minimum wage which even Walmart has come out in favor of in the past. Policies that will appeal to people struggling economically but won’t scare off big donors in hopes that we can take baby steps toward a more economically secure future. The current paradigm doesn’t allow for more. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/10 "2014-03-26T17:56:59Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > A government can’t succeed entirely in opposition to the most wealthy and powerful segments of society. But a revolution can . . . Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/11 "2014-03-26T19:18:22Z")
Can it? I’m no expert but I doubt there has been a revolution without significant elite support that ended up with a better government. The Russian Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the czars but only at the cost of reestablishing a new totalitarian rule but with different buzzwords. I think it is likely to eventually require a revolution in America to shed our foolishly antiquated constitutional arrangements. But I would much prefer a tidy _coup d’état_ such as 1787 America rather than the long bloody struggle of France a few years later. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/12 "2014-03-26T19:53:30Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Can it? I’m no expert but I doubt there has been a revolution without significant elite support that ended up with a better government. They recently had one in Libya. The result is not perfect, but certainly better. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/13 "2014-03-27T00:48:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > They recently had one in Libya. The result is not perfect, but certainly better. Of course, that revolution did have some “elite support” in the form of local notables and defecting generals. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/14 "2014-03-27T04:21:07Z")
I suspect all revolutions have elite support: at the very least the leaders tend to have college educations. At any rate after the speeches are over you need technocrats to run things. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I do think I sense a prevailing wind leftward among the Dems, or at least a light breeze, but to say it has already captured a “majority” – that’s a bigger claim than Moulitsas seems to appreciate, making it so off-handedly as he does with no supporting stats. Is he right? Of course he’s wrong, otherwise he’d have supporting stats. This is pure wishful thinking. You are correct about the prevailing winds though. [Michael Tomasky](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/06/new-populism/?insrc=toc): There exists these days, among Washington policy intellectuals and advocates who tilt toward the left end of the accepted political spectrum, a certain measured optimism. It’s not about Obama, or any feeling that he might somehow, with his sagging poll numbers, be able to persuade congressional Republicans to fund, say, an infrastructure investment bank. Confidence is appropriately near zero on matters like that. Rather, it’s about the widely held perception that the Democratic Party, after years of, in the argot, “moving to the right,” is finally soft-shoeing its way leftward, away from economic centrism and toward a populism that the party as a whole has not embraced for years or even decades. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > It would, however, all but eliminate fundraiser among large donors, both for candidates and PACs. And that means losing elections. Exactly. And campaign finance reform sufficient to move the needle that much won’t happen. If we had 1950s levels of unionization it would be different, then we’d have both funds and enough leverage to pass middling campaign finance reform. That might be enough. Two corporate parties aren’t the end of the world. Recall that Rubin opposed welfare reform for example. And the Democrats have a lot to offer corporate America. Health care reform grappled seriously with our long run budget challenges and the Democrats can deliver sound policy in exchange for somewhat higher taxes on the 1%. They can still run terrific companies: crackpot economics and warmongering foreign policy are bad for most businesses, though not all. Attacks on the silver-spooned Koch brothers therefore make perfect sense, as citizens of all income brackets can unite in opposition to their fanaticism, lunacy and corporate welfare. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Democrats in the South would do much better if they adopted economically progressive views, unlike the current batch of Blue Dogs and Boll Weevils. I agree that there’s scope for creativity. You could have an anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-regulation, anti-fatcat populist Democrat that could win in certain regions. Given existing demographic trends, a Democratic senator from Texas wouldn’t surprise me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/15 "2014-03-27T04:44:26Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Two corporate parties aren’t the end of the world. Might be just exactly that in this particular instance, actually. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/16 "2014-03-27T05:54:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Might be just exactly that in this particular instance, actually. This. 2 corporate parties in the most powerful nation on Earth could well lead to the end of humanity as our corporate overlords happily burn up our habitat. (Though the world will continue on without us, of course.) We need politicians to stand up and say that the survival of the species tomorrow is more important than the ephemeral profits of today. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/17 "2014-03-28T01:02:32Z")
“[We have a Common, Collective Interest in Full Employment and Shared Prosperity. We are the 100%](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/we-are-the-100.html)”. Similarly, a phased in carbon tax equivalent to a $1 hike in the price of gas doesn’t substantially conflict with most of the ruling class’s interests. Our choices are to develop financially sufficient countervailing institutions or to get in bed with the rationalist corporatists. Or some combination of the preceding. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/18 "2014-03-28T01:47:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > “[We have a Common, Collective Interest in Full Employment and Shared Prosperity. We are the 100%](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/11/we-are-the-100.html)”. Similarly, a phased in carbon tax equivalent to a $1 hike in the price of gas doesn’t substantially conflict with most of the ruling class’s interests. [They don’t seem to think so.](http://www.thenation.com/article/179034/whats-really-behind-koch-attacks-democrats) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/19 "2014-03-28T02:33:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [They don’t seem to think so.](http://www.thenation.com/article/179034/whats-really-behind-koch-attacks-democrats) A Koch link doesn’t demonstrate my point. Remember that Rubin of Goldman Sachs opposed welfare reform under Clinton. We’re discussing the reality of 2 corporate parties: under such a scheme Koch would fall under the GOP category. But they aren’t especially representative of corporate America. Nor are the rationalist: they are big supporters of supply side jihaders such as Americans for Prosperity, notorious for putting false claims in their political advertising. And advocating the end of public schooling puts them in the crackpot fringe even by the standards of the 1800s. Of course they never debate these issues: they just fund mouthpieces. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558/20 "2014-03-28T08:16:12Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > This. 2 corporate parties in the most powerful nation on Earth could well lead to the end of humanity as our corporate overlords happily burn up our habitat. (Though the world will continue on without us, of course.) We need politicians to stand up and say that the survival of the species tomorrow is more important than the ephemeral profits of today. Now you’re messing around with the nexus between corporate and labor interests. Labor likes energy jobs. There’s no political will to deal with climate change in any meaningful way, and it’s not because of corporations, it’s because corporations and labor and many very important swing states are of one mind on this issue. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-new-populist-majority-in-the-democratic-party/684558.md?page=2)