I can see why you have such strong views on Chuck Schumer and corporate Democrats. Ur critique highlights a valid concern about the disconnect between Democratic rhetoric and action, especially regarding economic policy.
Your email makes a compelling case comparing today's Democratic leadership with figures like Sam Rayburn, who refused railroad discounts to maintain his independence. That example of integrity stands in stark contrast to modern politicians who maintain close ties with Wall Street while claiming progressive values. How else are they going to amas millions so they can join the country club fees and purchase lavish homes...
I would add that this pattern extends beyond Schumer. Consider how many Democratic leaders opposed Medicare for All despite its popularity with their base. During the 2020 primaries, we saw establishment Democrats rally against Bernie Sanders despite his grassroots support, suggesting a party more committed to corporate interests than economic justice. Everyone wants $ and the pursuit of this corrupts even the most well intended politician.
The point about the "middle class" being an overly broad and politically meaningless term is particularly insightful. When politicians like Schumer lump together people making $30,000 and $400,000, they obscure the real economic conflicts and power dynamics at play. This framing allows them to avoid addressing wealth inequality directly while appearing populist. It's a brilliant move on their part since the average Joe hasn't a clue.
Schumer defending the carried interest loophole that benefits hedge fund managers highlights exactly how these politicians protect the wealthy while claiming to represent everyday Americans. This schmuck along w the rest of the political lowlifes are hoping for table scraps so they can eat while the wall street fat cats feast at the table above them. We, at the end get to divide the few discarded crumbs left by our representatives. It's despicable and contemptible behavior. REVOLUTION!
Lastly ur comparison between the FDR/Rayburn era accomplishments SEC, Social Security, labor rights...and today's limited Democratic agenda shows how much the party has shifted from economic progressivism toward a more corporatist position n gives the illusion of social liberal credentials.
I left out some stuff about Sam rayburn. It's stuff that really was irrelevant to this piece, which centered on economics, but some people might consider his staunch southern identity an unforgivable demerit.
He came from a poor white southern background. I read that in his office, in WDC, he had a huge confederate flag on the wall. (Many southerners were, from the civil war until FDR, progressive on economics because econ policy, in the post civil war era, was biased in favor of northern industrialists and bankers and against southern and agrarian interests __ farm income dropped almost every year from 1865 to FDR.)
Although he was Gung ho on being Texan and southern, I never read that he was A supporter of southern racism
I can see why you have such strong views on Chuck Schumer and corporate Democrats. Ur critique highlights a valid concern about the disconnect between Democratic rhetoric and action, especially regarding economic policy.
Your email makes a compelling case comparing today's Democratic leadership with figures like Sam Rayburn, who refused railroad discounts to maintain his independence. That example of integrity stands in stark contrast to modern politicians who maintain close ties with Wall Street while claiming progressive values. How else are they going to amas millions so they can join the country club fees and purchase lavish homes...
I would add that this pattern extends beyond Schumer. Consider how many Democratic leaders opposed Medicare for All despite its popularity with their base. During the 2020 primaries, we saw establishment Democrats rally against Bernie Sanders despite his grassroots support, suggesting a party more committed to corporate interests than economic justice. Everyone wants $ and the pursuit of this corrupts even the most well intended politician.
The point about the "middle class" being an overly broad and politically meaningless term is particularly insightful. When politicians like Schumer lump together people making $30,000 and $400,000, they obscure the real economic conflicts and power dynamics at play. This framing allows them to avoid addressing wealth inequality directly while appearing populist. It's a brilliant move on their part since the average Joe hasn't a clue.
Schumer defending the carried interest loophole that benefits hedge fund managers highlights exactly how these politicians protect the wealthy while claiming to represent everyday Americans. This schmuck along w the rest of the political lowlifes are hoping for table scraps so they can eat while the wall street fat cats feast at the table above them. We, at the end get to divide the few discarded crumbs left by our representatives. It's despicable and contemptible behavior. REVOLUTION!
Lastly ur comparison between the FDR/Rayburn era accomplishments SEC, Social Security, labor rights...and today's limited Democratic agenda shows how much the party has shifted from economic progressivism toward a more corporatist position n gives the illusion of social liberal credentials.
Ricardo, thanks for your excellent comments.
I left out some stuff about Sam rayburn. It's stuff that really was irrelevant to this piece, which centered on economics, but some people might consider his staunch southern identity an unforgivable demerit.
He came from a poor white southern background. I read that in his office, in WDC, he had a huge confederate flag on the wall. (Many southerners were, from the civil war until FDR, progressive on economics because econ policy, in the post civil war era, was biased in favor of northern industrialists and bankers and against southern and agrarian interests __ farm income dropped almost every year from 1865 to FDR.)
Although he was Gung ho on being Texan and southern, I never read that he was A supporter of southern racism