Sunday, November 6, 2011

Guest Dialogue: "Democrats can no longer speak for us because they no longer are us."

Okay, so, it started with an open-ended rant to a couple of friends about why Democrats were so willing to cut social security and medicare, and a call to action by "Credo" to Tell Harry Reid and the Democratic senators on the Super Committee: Absolutely no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits. 

This bullshit makes me so angry because, well, I'm awake and sentient. So, I wrote to them, ranting about it, the way I do, and here's the digital conversation that followed:
Me: Of course, the sick truth of this is that we wouldn't be in this position in the first place if the Democrats had any sack whatsoever when they controlled both houses of congress and the white house and never entered into a deal to create the anti-democratic uber committee devil. Jeezus, so incredibly not smart...
Hugh: *Sigh* Same old shit
Patrick: *Sigh, aussi*... I second the notion that it is indeed the same superannuated feces we behold.
Now, I was gonna say that until some of them Dems nut up, it's really pointless to even try to articulate the issues they could take advantage of in the next election (e.g., embrace the growing resonance of the #OWS message with the preponderance of the public by introducing meaningful tax/ mortgage/ public spending/tuition/health insurance reforms). 
And then I had second thoughts: it's pointless to point out this pointlessness. 
Because you have to take into account that even a reenergized Democratic majority in both houses in 2012 (miracle of miracles) is not likely to even consider changing things for the better because we have to remember that Democratic Congressmen are just that: Congressmen. --And Democrats way second. 
Do I know you? You look familiar...
This here's where that good ol' Sociology 101 standby comes into play: where your average Democratic representative stands depends upon where s/he sits. And what s/he sits on is a barrel o' cash.
What does it mean to be a "representative" these days? 
It means you are likely to be rich. Roll Call found that fully 244 of the 435 members of the House (including 106 Democrats)  are millionaires, placing them among the One Percenters. The average Senator was worth $7.8 million 2010 (up from $6.5 million in 2008).  Net worth of all 535 members of Congress was estimated to be $2.04 billion in 2010. It increased 25% just between 2008 and 2010.
And the median household income for the rest of us in 2010?   $49,555 (the lowest since 1996).
So how do you draw  a meaningful contrast between: a) the cornhole-the-99% policies of the GOP congressional cabana boys ever ready at the drop of a lobbyist's checkbook to parade around in their  ideological assless chaps for the edification of the East Hamptons arbitrageur crowd; and b) the Dem members' facile support for common people, when they are at least two generations and one trust fund removed from their blue collar roots? It's increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two expensive flavors on offer. 
I fear that Democrats can no longer speak for us because they no longer are us.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): 2009 Net Worth
[Source: Open Secrets]
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): 2009 Net Worth  
[Source: Open Secrets]

Patrick is a well-travelled denizen of DC and tends to brook no nonsense--verbal or otherwise--unless, of course it comes from his own grandiloquent self.

1 comment:

  1. As if anyone needed a reminder, the November 8th announcement by the White House to increase offshore drilling underscores this basic truth. There is no real difference between the two parties, not any more: