‘They vote against their economic interests’

Liberal Democrats like to talk about the foolishness of rank-and-file Republicans who vote against their economic interests.

But I think this is no less true of liberal Democrats themselves.  The Obama administration, as much or more than the Bush administration, is committed to furthering the interests of Fortune 500 CEOs and Wall Street bankers at the expense of the general public.

And a Hillary Clinton administration, based on her record and her sources of support, would be no different.

Just one example, out of many, is Obama’s and Clinton’s support for the Trans Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements that limit the ability of governments to legislate to protect labor, public health and the environment.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

The chart from the Center for Responsive Politics shows the affiliations of her top campaign contributors from 1999 to the present.

They are all connected with Wall Street banks, corporate law firms and Fortune 500 companies, except for Emily’s List, which supports women and feminist candidates.

She is a rich woman because of six-figure fees she received from Wall Street financial firms for giving speeches.  I don’t think they would have paid such fees except in gratitude for favors rendered in the past and expectations of more favors in the future.

Now she has expressed concern about economic inequality and concentration of wealth at the top, but I think her associations, her sources of campaign funding and her record are better guides to her thinking than her campaign rhetoric.

This is not to say that there are no disagreements between Democrats and Republicans on economic policy.  But I think these disagreements reflect disagreements among the corporate elite.

The Koch brothers have a different political philosophy than Bill Gates.  Some members of the economic and financial elite are willing to do things to alleviate economic distress, and others aren’t, but neither will tolerate a candidate that threatens their economic and political power.

I make this argument to my fellow liberal Democrats, and the answer I get is, “Nobody’s perfect.”

LINKS

Will Clinton win back Wall Street for Democrats? by Russ Choma for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Hillary Clinton Calls for ‘Toppling’ the 1% … While Being Bankrolled by the 1% by Nick Bernabe for Global Research.

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary by William D. Cohan for POLITICO.

Left flank critique of Hillary Clinton on Wall Street ties by Armando for Daily Kos.

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney Have the Same Big Campaign Donors on Palmetto Quinn’s Blog.  [Added later]

Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to “‘They vote against their economic interests’”

  1. whungerford Says:

    I don’t believe the claim that “the Obama administration, as much or more than the Bush administration, is committed to furthering the interests of Fortune 500 CEOs and Wall Street bankers at the expense of the general public” Where is the evidence of that? Further, even if a Hillary Clinton administration, based on her record and her sources of support, would be no different than the Obama Administration, what’s wrong with that. Consider the alternative of a Trump Administration for example..

    Like

  2. Palmetto Quinn Says:

    @whungerford – when a liberal democrat has to rely on the argument “well he was better than Bush or Trump” that in an of itself is evidence that something is wrong. You can also look at campaign financing, which as Phil pointed out about Clinton, is a much more telling story than the rhetoric.

    I do think it is interesting that Clinton’s campaign donors resembles Romney’s a lot more than Obama’s from 2012. Here’s Romney’s from 2012 which you can compare to the one is Phil’s post above.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

    Like

  3. sglover Says:

    It’s almost like FedEx just delivered whungerford from the warehouses of Amazon. I mean, he sounds like the department store floor model of a Believing Dem. The remarks he’s posted are things that I **know** I will be hearing, verbatim, from believing Dems as 2016 approaches. I have already heard them say, more times than I can count, how Obama’s fabulous Libyan adventure and his endless drone campaigns are ***Way Better Than Bush’s War***!!! Their “argument” never gets beyond, “no/few Americans were killed in Obama’s wars”. The general issue — should we **really** go to war on presidential whim? — is simply not entertained. It’s textbook, lab-grade doublethink in action. As whungerford says, questioning Obama’s warmaking and 1%-er economic is “bashing”. Can’t have that.

    Of course if a Republican did what Obama’s done, believing Dems would be wailing about the horror of it all. And they’d be correct. Lobbing cruise missiles on a whim, coddling finance industry sociopaths — these are all horrible things. But believing Dems are too dim to see that it’s horrible when **my** tribe does it, too.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: