How Corporate Democrats Aim to Stifle Criticism
By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
26 December 18
Well-informed public discussion is a major hazard for Democratic Party
elites now eager to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the 2020
presidential nomination. A clear focus on key issues can bring to light the
big political differences between Sanders and the party's corporate-friendly
candidates. One way to muddy the waters is to condemn people for pointing
out facts that make those candidates look bad.
National polling shows that the U.S. public strongly favors bold policy
proposals that Sanders has been championing for a long time. On issues
ranging from climate change to Medicare for All to tuition-free public
college to Wall Street power, the party's base has been moving leftward,
largely propelled by an upsurge of engagement from progressive young people.
This momentum is a threat to the forces accustomed to dominating the
Democratic Party.
In recent weeks, Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke has become a lightning rod
in a gathering political storm - largely because of the vast hype about him
from mass media and Democratic power brokers. At such times, when spin goes
into overdrive, we need incisive factual information. Investigative
journalist David Sirota provided it in a deeply researched December 20
article, which The Guardian published under the headline "Beto O'Rourke
Frequently Voted for Republican Legislation, Analysis Reveals."
Originating from the nonprofit Capital & Main news organization, the piece
reported that "even as O'Rourke represented one of the most solidly
Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has frequently
voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills
and Trump administration priorities."
Progressives have good reasons to like some of O'Rourke's positions. But
Sirota's reporting drilled down into his voting record, reviewing "the 167
votes O'Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the majority of his
own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were
not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers, but instead
votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation."
The meticulous and in-depth reporting by Sirota was a public service, but
some angry reactions were classic instances of blaming the messenger for the
unfavorable news. At times vitriolic, the denunciations of Sirota came from
people who apparently would have preferred that Congressman O'Rourke's
actual voting record remain shrouded in a hagiographic haze.
But it's better to learn revealing political facts sooner rather than later.
Thanks to Sirota's coverage, for instance, we now know "O'Rourke has voted
for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced
Republicans' anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry
and bolstered Donald Trump's immigration policy."
The backlash to Sirota's news article was in keeping with a tweet two weeks
earlier from Neera Tanden, the president of the influential and lavishly
funded Center for American Progress, who has long been a major ally of Bill
and Hillary Clinton. On December 6, Tanden went over-the-top in response to
a tweet from Sirota simply mentioning the fact that O'Rourke "is the #2
recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in the entire Congress."
Tanden lashed out via Twitter, writing: "Oh look. A supporter of Bernie
Sanders attacking a Democrat. This is seriously dangerous. We know Trump is
in the White House and attacking Dems is doing Trump's bidding. I hope
Senator Sanders repudiates these attacks in 2019."
Such calculated nonsense indicates just how panicky some powerful corporate
Democrats are about Bernie's likely presidential campaign - and just how
anxious they are to protect corporate-oriented candidates from public
scrutiny. The quest is to smother meaningful discussions of vital issues
that should be center stage during the presidential campaign.
Corporate Democrats are gearing up to equate principled, fact-based
critiques of their favored candidates with - in Tanden's words - "seriously
dangerous" attacks that are "doing Trump's bidding." Such demagogic rhetoric
should be thrown in the political trashcan where it belongs.
This is not only about Beto O'Rourke - it's about the parade of Democratic
contenders lined up to run for president. Should the candidates that mass
media and party elites put forward as "progressive" be quickly embraced or
carefully scrutinized? The question must be asked and answered.
Email This Page
Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He
is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and
Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
