David Sirota is wrong, There are just Democrats and Republicans

I like David Sirota’s piece entitled the People Party vs. The Money Party. I really do. It is direct, straight forward and gives a picture of the world which is clear and concise it just happens to be wrong. He uses many simple rhetorical tactics designed to make it almost impossible to disagree with him, and yet I still found a way. These tactics in many ways are used to shore up some the weakness of his argument. My argument is simple, Democrats are better for the average person on economic issues than Republicans. This is true of all but a few Democrats and there is simply no reason to create a division in the party where none exists.

Lets start with this quote “The fact that our nation's politics is divided not between Democrats and Republicans but between the People Party and the Money Party is obvious to anyone who looks at the political system honestly” This is a tactic that is of the right. You can’t disagree with David Sirota’s view of the world and be honest, therefore before I get in another word in, I am already inherently dishonest, you don’t need to read anymore. If you would do this lying crook a favor please read on.

First comes Deification
Mr. Sirota then goes on to lionize hero’s of the People’s Party. I don’t know as much about these leaders as him, as with all attempts to create hero’s in some cases hero’s will fall. Jon Tester and Jim Webb have never cast a vote in the Senate. Now I don’t doubt they are Populist, but I think time needs to pass before there roles are clear. So far I am with him.

Next comes vilification.
Chuck Schumer is a villain because he talked about a report that suggest that some post-Enron corporate might have been overreaching, I am not making the argument that theses reforms are overreaching merely that was all the evidence one needed to make Chuck Schumer a villain. Ignore Chuck Schumer’s role at the DSCC where he clearly helped elect People Party Hero’s Webb Brown and Tester. In Webb’s case endorsing in a primary against a man Harris Miller who would clearly be likely to fall into what Mr. Sirota would call the Money Party.
Rahm Emanuel is a villain because he helped Clinton pass NAFTA and he raised money from Wall Street. Now I think it is very important here to understand that Trade is a very complicated issue, one that I don’t think can be used as a test of morals. So even if you oppose trade you can’t call those for it evil. On the issues of Wall Street money, I would agree with Mr. Sirota on the need for public financing of elections, I think it would do a lot of good, but until that happens Democrats are wise to keep financial pace with Republicans. Again, this doesn’t mean Rahm is a saint but again there is zero mention by Sirota of his chairing of the DCCC or for that mater his last minute independent expenditure on behalf of newly minted People Party Member Nancy Boyda

Steny Hoyer is a villain because he wants to raise money on K Street. That is all you need to know that someone is a villain. That fact he went everywhere and raised a ton of money on behalf of all kinds of Democrats is irrelevant
Joe Lieberman is of course the arch-villain in fact there is no greater villain. This has nothing to do with the fact that Sirota worked on Ned Lamont’s campaign and everything to do with truth. I am not making the argument that on Economic issues Joe has anything but a mixed record. He is however on record for repealing all of the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealth, and He also sponsored a Federal Law to allow card check for Union organizing.

Followed by obfuscation.
Note that Mr. Sirota is not willing to vilify anyone who might run for President. Also Baucus and Bayh have clearly less progressive records on Economic Issues than Senator Lieberman. So his hope for them is really his belief in the power of his movement than it is reflective of their actual records and beliefs. Also he is clearly hypocritical with respect to Hillary Clinton. She is in every respect ideologically in lock step with the Clinton Administration and an attempt to create daylight there so as to avoid calling Hillary Clinton a part of the money part is wrong. A question that I think Mr. Sirota needs to answer is whether Bill Clinton is himself part of the money party?

The point so as to make sure it is not missed is this. Democrats are better than Republican on the issues of economic justice, it is true some Democrats are more progressive than others, but on issues like raising the Minimum Wage, restoring Bush era cuts to vital service, or even regulating corporate wrong doing, Democrats generally agree. To say otherwise in an attempt to divide the party and set up the frame work for future primaries is in many ways no different from the Club for Growth who wishes to destroy all those who disagree with their extremist economic views. I may like the Progressive aims more but the tactics, don’t persuade, destroy are the same. I also think it leads down another terrible path, just as the Republicans promise their base the idea that traditional values can be re-instilled in the nation, Democrats would be wise not to promise American’s a return to an economic way of life that might simply never be coming back.