Blog entry

The Rise of 'The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party'

David Sirota — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:04:42 -0400

On Monday morning during a CNN discussion from the floor of the Democratic convention in Denver, I told anchor John Roberts that despite the personality tiff between the Obama and Clinton people, and despite some blemishes on Joe Biden's record, one thing is undebatable: The progressive wing of the Democratic Party—the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, as Paul Wellstone famously called it—has finally defeated the corporate wing of the party. (You can watch the clip at right.)

On the morning after Ted Kennedy's electrifying convention speech, the Wall Street Journal's headline reiterates this point with a striking headline: "Party's Left Pushes for a Seat at the Table.". The story takes a deeper look at the remarkable rise of progressives - a rise that was so powerfully woven into the fabric of this convention by Ted Kennedy's emotional speech last night.

As someone who has fought the trench war against corporate front groups like the Democratic Leadership Council way back when it was considered uncouth, I can tell you that I have never seen the party so ideologically unified. After years of watching the Washington Democratic Party Establishment attack economic populists and antiwar activists, progressives have come back. The turnaround can be explained by two factors: George W. Bush and the 2008 Democratic primary.

In so aggressively overreaching on so many issues, Bush has been America's polarizer-in-chief to the point that the center of public opinion has tectonically shifted in a progressive direction. Today, polls show broad consensus support for the major tenets of a progressive agenda: namely, universal government-sponsored health care, trade policy reform, a re-regulation of Wall Street, and an end to the Iraq War.

Within the Democratic Party, Bush's extremism has galvanized progressives to reassert themselves after years of watching Clintonism run "over the dead bodies" of kitchen table priorities, as American Express's CEO famously praised Bill Clinton for doing. And, as the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and I agreed last night on Minnesota Public Radio, recent election results have only bolstered progressives' arguments. Instead of listening to corporate front groups who wrap corruption in the language of "moderation" and political "expertise," progressives point to 2006 candidates who won some of the toughest swing districts and states with full-throated populist campaigns. They make the convincing argument that in forcing the Democratic Party to be more progressive, activists are not only helping to accelerate the pace of policy change, but also helping Democrats win elections.

By the time the 2008 Democratic presidential primary hit, progressives had laid the groundwork for a full takeover of the party. Because labor, environmental, antiwar and other grassroots groups had set the stage so effectively, the competition between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama became a competition to show who was a more full-throated progressive. The heat of that supercharged battle ended up burning off the corporate naysayers and unifying the party.

Of course, the work still continues, as money remains a persistent and powerful force. For all his populist rhetoric, Obama still surrounds himself not with the grassroots organizers that he brags about starting his career around, but instead with a mix of Wall Street profiteers and Ivory Tower elites like Cass Sunstein, who wrap their free market fundamentalism in the argot of academia. That means remembering this specific passage in the Wall Street Journal's article:

David Sirota, a liberal analyst and author with the Campaign for America's Future, which bills itself as "the strategy center for the progressive movement," expresses particular concern about whether Sen. Obama will attack corporate interests on behalf of the working class. "If we are serious about developing the tactics and strategies to bring about real change after the election, we have to first know if Barack Obama is even with us," he wrote a few days ago on the Campaign for America's Future Web site. Mr. Sirota expressed particular qualms about the candidate's choice of economic advisers who support free-trade agreements and hail from the investment-banking world.

At the convention last night, a video showed a young Kennedy thundering away at a podium, slamming his fist down demanding universal health care. The video's grainy quality and the senator's then-black hair was haunting. It reminded the audience of how long fights over health care—and all other progressive causes—have been going on, and how little we've moved forward. it was a subtle message that reminded us that enough is enough, and that we don't want to look back on this moment, and wonder why—again—we did not move forward. Twenty years from now we don't want to be ruefully watching at a grainy video of a young Barack Obama insisting he's going to reform our trade policy so as to revive the American job base—and know that he was never forced to fulfill those promises.

Thankfully, the millions of rank-and-file citizens who comprise the Democratic Party have finally answered the age-old question: Which side are you on? And they have answered it by siding with America's progressive majority, suggesting that a progressive pressure system will indeed follow Obama into office, if he is elected. That is critical, because Obama hasn't yet decisively answered the same question of which side he is on. It will be up to the newly invigorated Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to make sure he listens to the public—not the Establishment job-seekers now flocking to his inner circle—when he answers that question.

Convention Eve: Kaine's Geography Lesson, The People Party's HQ & Connective Tissue

David Sirota — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0400

I'm just home from the first unofficial day of the convention (officially, the event starts tomorrow). I'll give you a blow-by-blow of my day, and some random thoughts in between. This is the first convention I will be going to in any real way (though I was at the 1996 convention for two nights, I was only a college student) - so it should be an eye-opening - or maybe eye-closing - experience, especially with it in my hometown.

My morning started out watching the Sunday talk shows from by bed. When I hit Fox News, I stopped because I saw my governor Bill Ritter on the panel. That's when I heard the other panelist, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine trumpet the Biden VP nomination as a help for Democrats in Virginia, saying "Joe comes from a state, Delaware, that borders Virginia." When I heard this, I felt a synapse in my brain fire - one that hadn't fired since 4th grade geography, and that remembered something about Virginia not bordering Delaware.

But Kaine then repeated the assertion again. So I checked a map, and indeed, Virginia does not border Delaware. Not to (nit)pick on Kaine - he seems like a really decent guy - but the borders of one's state seem like something a governor should know, especially when referencing a question (ie. Biden's viability in his swing state) that he probably knows (or should know) he's going to get - and it suggests he may have needed some polishing had Obama selected him for VP.

At about noon, I trekked down to the Sheraton - and specifically to its basement - to pick up my media credential for the week. The U.S. House press gallery is coordinating the credentialing for the media, and they were actually quite helpful. I also got a convention gift bag, stocked with corporate and interest group gifts. The lanyard for my credential, in fact, is sponsored by Qwest.

Out on the 16th Street walking mall, I strode down to the convention area alongside an antiwar protest. Though there were only probably 300 or so protesters, the police were out in force, dressed in full riot gear. The protesters, while loud, were actually quite disciplined, respectful and on message. I was impressed.

At about 2pm, I arrived at The Big Tent - the headquarters for bloggers and new media at the convention. The Big Tent is really something special. A few weeks ago, it was a parking lot outside the Tattered Cover bookstore. Now, thanks to ProgressNow, DailyKos and the Alliance for a Sustainable Colorado, it is a huge, two story space, with full wireless Internet access and all sorts of necessities - not for the Big Media, but for The Rest of Us. At a convention whose sponsorship and symbols happily promotes The Money Party, the Big Tent is the place for The People Party - and that's basically how I described it when me, Markos and Bobby Clark officially opened the Big Tent at a press conference right at the entrance.

On the second floor of the Big Tent, I was part of the Media Consortium's Live from Main Street townhall meeting, which you can watch here. The room was packed with people, as activists from all walks of the progressive movement discussed how progressives can seize this election as an opportunity for change.

I was on a panel with Jay Fawcett, the former congressional candidate who runs the Western Strategy Center, and Andre Banks of Color of Change - it was a vigorous discussion, to say the least, and one that focused not simply on applauding the Democratic Party, but on challenging it to be the best party possible. Andre made the best point of the discussion, noting that as the country gets more and more frustrated with the economic crisis, the war in Iraq, and the dysfunction of both parties in Washington, the progressive movement has to continue building tools (like Color of Change) for people to feel like they have a chance to wield real power. He's absolutely right - simply "getting our message out" isn't enough. Polls show progressives have won on the issues - now we have to make people feel like getting involved can make a difference - and part of that means making sure the Democratic Party's actions don't demoralize people.

My night ended with a drop by at SEIU's reception at Tamayo - one of the best Mexican restaurants in Denver. I caught up with a bunch of friends, including Anna Burger, who I recently suggested as a VP candidate. I told her I was disappointed she wasn't picked, but glad she got a major convention speaking role. More generally, the event was a good example of some new bridges being built. Not only were there union leaders and state legislators, but also prominent bloggers like my buddy Glenn Greenwald, Christy Smith, Jane Hamsher and Dave Niewert. The personal relationships and connections being constructed across the typical progressive silos suggests that some of the essential connective tissue of a movement is starting to grow.

Now I'm home, after a dinner of veggie burgers at my brother's place (he lives across the street from me). After 3 months on the road for my book tour, it's great to be able to come home - especially since I am lucky enough to live in a quiet, middle-class oasis a bit removed from the downtown hullaballoo.

I'm going to need that quiet tonight because I need a good night's rest: I'm getting up at 4am for a 5:50am MST (7:50am EST) live interview with CNN on the floor of the convention hall. It's about the Biden nomination, and I plan to give my unvarnished opinion from a progressive perspective - both what's great about Biden's nomination from a progressive perspective, and what's not so great about it from a progressive perspective (anyone expecting me to serve as a partisan shill in the media should look to someone else - that ain't what I'm about - I'm about holding both parties feet to the fire). Then I'll be on Jay Marvin's radio show at AM760 (which you can stream at www.AM760.net). Tune in - see you tomorrow.

What Does Presidentialism Look Like?

David Sirota — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:32:12 -0400

I've gotten some email today about my column in the Denver Post about the concept of "presidentialism" - ie. the obsession with presidential election politics to the exclusion of all else. People are asking me whether presidentialism is as pronounced as Vanderbilt professor Dana Nelson's new book makes it out to be - and what it looks like in practice. To answer those queries, I present to you this graphic, juxtaposing two pages of the Denver Post, where my column runs every week:

As you can see on the left, most of the entire front page is taken up with presidentialism - specifically, speculation about who one candidate might choose for vice-president - an office that has almost zero power or impact on ordinary people's lives. Now take a look at the right side where there's an image of page 7A. Right, you see it there if you squint hard enough - a tiny AP story headlined " U.S., Iraq Negotiate Gradual Pullout" about a potential end to the war in Iraq, wedged next to a Dillard's ad.

Mind you, I'm not at all trying to pick on the Post (in fact, the paper's coverage of serious issues like energy and water has been far better than most, and you could argue that with the Democratic convention coming to Denver, the paper has a reason to focus on the presidential hullabaloo - and also, in this same paper, they ran my column questioning presidentialism). This is merely a mundane example of a much broader phenomenon that all of us are part of. I checked around other media today and found that many major dailies (for instance, Boston Globe, Detroit News, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Columbus Dispatch and Columbia State) made little or no mention of the potential end to the longest and most expensive war in American history among others, but carried stories about the latest presidential gossip.

But as I said in my column, the media is just as much a reflection of presidentialism as a manufacturer of it in our culture. Politics has been celebrified to the point where everyone from bloggers to activists to regular voting citizens see the American Idol quality of a presidential campaign as more important than the actual issues that campaign is supposed to be about. We are left to believe that the only thing that matters in American democracy is the White House horse race - and what a travesty that line of thinking really is.

The Conquest of Presidentialism

David Sirota — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:18:41 -0400

If the Founding Fathers could see us all now, they would be appalled. As America has been trained to treat the presidency as a royal throne, we have stomped all over the very anti-royalist revolution that brought this nation into being. As I show in my weekly newspaper column today, the presidential-palooza that has come to dominate every media instrument - TV, radio, newspapers, blogs, email - has suffocated the most fundamental tenets of Jeffersonian democracy.

Living here in Denver, the tragedy of all this is on display in full relief. As huge tax and energy fights roil the Rocky Mountain West, we are about to have the entire presidential-focused political Establishment from D.C. swoop in here, turning the city into a carnival of White House obsession. While I'm excited for the fun of it all, I'm also dreading it - both because I moved out to Denver, in part, to get away from the D.C. culture, but more importantly, because the convention exemplifies the true rot of our democracy.

The reason the presidential race gets almost all of the attention - and every other level of government gets none - is because we have come to believe democracy is a quadrennial vote for president, and that's it. As I say in the column, that has happened over time, thanks to the decline of journalism and evisceration of social movements. And no one is faultless - we are all part of the problem.

The first step to fixing the problem, of course, is acknowledging the problem. If we as progressives look honestly at ourselves, we will realize that we have contributed in very intense ways to the deification and starfucker-ism that is destroying our democracy. Groups like Moveon.org, the major progressive blogs, and the new "progressive" infrastructure in D.C. has fanned the flames of what Vanderbilt professor Dana Nelson calls "presidentialism" - the worship of the presidency and federal politics to the exclusion of all else.

Of course, there are beacons of light in all this. Democracy for America is about true local democracy. Their DFA-Link program, for example, is designed to help individuals in local communities connect with each other and organize around issues (and I can tell you from working with them for the last few months, they - not Moveon - are the future, if there is a future, of Internet organizing). The Bus Project, as another example, is working hard at true grassroots organizing far way from the spectacle of presidential politics. And the state-focused blogs that cover local and state politics are starting to build some shreds of democratic infrastructure.

But sadly, those examples are few and far between. Most progressive resources - whether from big Democracy Alliance donors, or small donors - goes straight into the presidential wasteland. The big donors are looking for Lincoln Bedroom access, the small donors are looking to be involved in the only arena that the media says is important. As they tell themselves each time around that they are participating in "the most important election in American history," many of the most important decisions are already being made in the shadows at the state, local and municipal levels. And as we all know, when decisions are made in the shadows without public attention, they are usually made to solidify the status quo.

The column keys off two upcoming books that I strongly suggest you read. One is Professor Nelson's "Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People." The other is John R. MacArthur's "You Can't Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America."

You can read the full column at the San Francsico Chronicle, Denver Post, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, Lewiston Sun-Journal, Alternet, TruthDig, Credo Action or Creators' website.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

TRADE REPORT: GOP Cites America's Richest County As Proof Economy Doing Well

David Sirota — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:34:21 -0400

In this week's edition of The Trade Report, Barack Obama visits Virginia to discuss how unfair globalization policies have hurt rural areas of that state - and the Republican Party responds by citing the wealthiest county in America as proof everything is swell. Meanwhile, in upstate New York, a debate over NAFTA could turn one of the most contested congressional races in the country - all while corporate front groups in Washington desperately try to claim that NAFTA is the best way to stop Al Qaeda (no kidding).

MUST READS: NYT SAYS EXTREMISTS ARE “CENTRISTS”; TRADE ACTIVIST FORCES DEMS’ HAND

The New York Times Magazine this week publishes an article by David Leonhardt attempting to explain Barack Obama’s fundamental economic ideology. To echo Philip Seymour Hoffman in Almost Famous, “it’s a think-piece about a mid-level band struggling with their own limitations in the harsh face of stardom.” And, indeed, many of its passages should make Wall Streeters wet themselves. Within the first nine paragraphs, for instance, Leonhardt bills Citigroup Chairman Bob Rubin the “center,” despite his deregulatory and pro-NAFTA policies lying far outside the center of American public opinion. That said, the article provides some interesting insights into what Obama will – and will not – do as president.

Meanwhile, the Madison Capital Times’ John Nichols reports on the successful effort to amend the Democratic Party platform to acknowledge its complicity in rigging America’s trade policy. Read the full story here.

WHITE HOUSE '08 - GOP CITES RICHEST COUNTY IN AMERICA AS PROOF ECONOMY IS GREAT

The Roanoke Times reports that as Barack Obama convened a discussion about unfair trade policies in economically ravaged regions of Virginia, the national Republican Party countered by citing Fairfax County as proof the economy is doing just fine. "It doesn't take a lot of courage to go to Martinsville and talk about trade," said U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R) said in a Tuesday conference call arranged by McCain's campaign. "What would be courageous is to come to Fairfax County, where you have 362 foreign-owned companies and tens of thousands of employees with foreign-owned firms...and take the same stand up here."

Besides the tone deafness of holding up foreign-owned firms as proof of a solid domestic economy, Davis forgot to mention that according to Forbes magazine, Fairfax County has long been the wealthiest county in the United States - a place where the median (the median!) household income is over $100,000 a year. The county is home to many of the millionaire corporate lobbyists that have been instrumental in the passage of rigged trade deals. Davis citing Fairfax County today as proof that trade policies are working for the vast majority of the country would be like Herbert Hoover citing the Rockefeller family as proof that the economy was working for most Americans during the Great Depression.

TRUMKA: "IT WILL DO LITTLE GOOD IF NEXT DEM ALLOWS WALL STREET TO TAKE COMMAND"

Bloomberg News reports that AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka is turning up the heat on economic issues in advance of the stretch run of the presidential campaign. In a powerpoint presentation slamming Citigroup Chairman Robert Rubin's deregulatory, pro-NAFTA agenda, Trumka said, "It will do us little good if, when the next Democrat moves into the White House, Wall Street takes command of our country's economic policy.''

Trumka has the winds of public opinion at his back. Over the last year, polls have consistently shown the vast majority of Americans want America's trade policies reformed. The problem - as it always is in politics - is money.

As reported last week, Obama's campaign is quietly courting the same CEOs that oppose trade policy reform. While there are certainly huge differences on trade between Obama and McCain's stated positions, the two campaigns are both being advised by top executives from UBS, one of the largest investment banks in the world. Indeed, the McCain campaign continues to solicit advice from UBS vice-chairman Phil Gramm, while the Obama campaign has long been shaped by Gramm's UBS boss, Robert Wolf. That kind of Wall Street influence will likely make a fair trade agenda much more difficult in 2009.

CONGRESS '08: TRADE TAKES CENTER STAGE IN MARQUIS RACE

NBC News reports that a debate over unfair trade policies is taking center stage in one of the hottest congressional races in the nation. Democratic candidate Eric Massa is hammering Rep. Randy Kuhl (R) for supporting NAFTA and CAFTA in an upstate New York congressional district that has seen its job base crushed by those pacts. As Public Citizen has already reported, the 2006 congressional elections pivoted on Democratic challengers running populist campaigns on trade. 2008 looks like it is shaping up the same way.

DLC: WHEN THE GOING GETS ROUGH, START FEARMONGERING

Ripping a page straight out of George W. Bush's playbook, the Democratic Leadership Council this week attempted to justify its corporate sponsors' trade agenda by writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed insisting that NAFTA-style trade deals fight Islamic terrorism. Yes - you read that right, and the DLC wasn't joking. They really want America to believe that passing trade deals that are unpopular both here and abroad is the way to stop Al Qaeda.

In fact, the BBC's landmark 2008 poll undercuts the DLC's fact-free rhetoric with hard data. The survey of international opinion shows widespread unease with the United States' trade and globalization policies - and that unease is particularly acute in the Middle East, where the DLC claims that NAFTA-style policies will stop terrorism.

A Call For 'Revolution' To Counter The Middle-Class Collapse

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:02:13 -0400

On "Meet the Bloggers" Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said that there is a "collapse" of the middle class and that nothing short of a revolution will be needed to reverse it.

"What we really need is a political revolution in this country," Sanders said, beginning with countering the corporate media spin on what is happening in the economy.

Sanders indicted the media for not probing what is happening to working people on a consistent basis. "We need to raise the consciousness of the public" so that more Americans will ask such basic questions as why America is the only industrialized nation without universal health care or why the disparity between working-class families and the wealthy are at record levels.

Sanders, in the Meet the Bloggers interview, cited these statistics as evidence of what he's calling the middle-class collapse since President Bush has taken office:

5 million people in middle-class households have slipped into poverty
Household median income for working families has declined on average $2,500
3 million people have lost their pensions
8 million people have lost their health insurance coverage
Almost 20 percent of children are living in poverty, the highest poverty rate for children in the industrialized world.

To move Washington to solve these problems and overcome the roadblocks set up by corporate interests and conservative ideologues, Sanders said we need to force a discussion in the media of these issues and "we need a strong, grassroots political movement to fight for progressive change, to take on the big-money interests."

Watch the full interview, which features a discussion between myself and Amanda Logan of Center for American Progress.

Labor Challenges Obama's Rubinomics

David Sirota — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:18:50 -0400

From Bloomberg News:

Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka delivers a slap at former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in a slide show exhorting union members to back Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Blaming unfettered global trade and inadequate government regulation for lost manufacturing jobs and a staggering economy, Trumka's presentation cautions that "it will do us little good if, when the next Democrat moves into the White House, Wall Street takes command of our country's economic policy.''

It is definitely good news that unions are speaking up, though not for the reason Washington conventional-wisdom parrot Charlie Cook says:

In the end, the competition for influence between laborites and Rubinites may actually prove politically helpful, says Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "What you need is two loud voices in the room to keep Obama down the middle, which is where he needs to be to get elected,'' Cook says.

This suggests that Rubinomics and its embrace of NAFTA-style trade policies has a mass political constituency, and that by echoing Rubinomic themes, a candidate appeals to that constituency. But polls - which Charlie Cook is paid to read - show exactly the opposite. No, there are not throngs of Americans clamoring for more of their jobs to be outsourced. Contrary to Cook's silliness, while up to Bob Rubin may make Obama friends among Washington and Wall Street elites, it doesn't help him win votes in places like Ohio, and doesn't move him into the political center - it helps him lose places like Ohio by moving him out of the center.

Buh Bayh?

David Sirota — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:21:58 -0400

In the last week, the national media has ramped up its speculation that Indiana senator Evan Bayh is going to be named to the vice-presidential ticket by Barack Obama. Mind you, this is all speculation - this is what our national media now substitutes for actual reporting. What's worse, the same media hasn't really looked at who Bayh is, what he would represent, and why there is a growing backlash to the prospect of him being Obama's runningmate. So I did that in my newspaper column today.

I'll let you read the column for the rundown of what I think Bayh would do to the Democratic Party should he be nominated. What I want to explore here is the concept that he's a "safe" pick - because that's the underlying rationale for selecting him.

The traditional definition of "safe" in vice-presidential politics is someone without any secret skeletons in their closet. The Tom Eagleton disaster in 1972 made this the number-one priority for Democrats for the last generation, explaining truly unimpressive picks like Lloyd Bensten and Joe Lieberman.

The problem with this definition of "safe" is that it creates a separate danger - namely, the nomination of someone who demoralizes (or at least fails to energize) voters, and also refuses to put the heat on the opposing ticket. Think Lieberman i 2000 - a DLCer who demoralized the progressive base and spent the vice-presidential debates telling the country how great Dick Cheney is.

The true definition of a "safe" pick is someone who 1) has a respectable history of service or of winning elections 2) will energize key constituencies and 3) will go on the offense against the opposing ticket. If a potential candidate like Bayh is only #1, but not #2 and #3, then he's unsafe, because he hurts the ticket's chances of winning.

Obviously, it's not productive to show why one candidate would be terrible without offering up some ideas for possible runningmates. You can see my personal suggestions in this earlier column.

To read this week's full column, go to The San Francisco Chronicle, The Denver Post, The Ft. Collins Coloradoan, The Lewiston Sun-Journal, In These Times, TruthDig, Credo Action or Creators Syndicate.

New Signs Of A Middle-Class Collapse

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:24:52 -0400

A hearing in late July on the middle-class squeeze by the congressional Joint Economic Committee did not get much attention at the time, but a warning at that hearing by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that what's happening to the middle class is not just a squeeze but a "collapse" is resonating in the wake of this week's bad economic news.

Sanders is arguing for "bold and aggressive" measures to address that collapse in an interview on "Meet the Bloggers," the weekly Brave New Foundation program which will stream live at 1 p.m. today. I will be featured on the program with Amanda Logan at the Center for American Progress.

Thursday's reports on consumer inflation and unemployment claims reveal the latest blows delivered to working-class families by the current economic downturn. Consumer prices going up at an annual rate of 5.6 percent last month, far above the 3.1 percent average increase in income. At the same time, the number of people receiving unemployment claims is 3.42 million, the highest level in almost five years.

With these trends, the legacy of Bushonomics is poised to add one more item to its legacy: "stagflation," the combination of a stagnant economy and rising unemployment that had conservatives in the late 1970s indicting President Jimmy Carter and Democrats in Congress as failures on the economy.

The difference between the 1970s and today is that families earning five-figure salaries enter this dangerous economic period facing record economic disparity.

"I do think this is one of the most underreported issues of the past 10 years," Sanders told the Joint Economic Committee on July 24. "The reality is that in many respects the middle class of this country is collapsing. The vast majority of our people have seen a decline in their standard of living," while those at the top of the income ladder are beneficiaries of a wealth gap between the very rich and the middle class that has not been seen since the late 1920s.

One of the witnesses at the hearing, Elizabeth Warren, a Leo Gottlieb professor of law at Harvard Law School, said that while inflation-adjusted median household income has declined by $1,175 since 2000, basic expenses for average families have increased by more than $4,600.

"Seven years of flat or declining wages, seven years of increasing costs, and seven year of mounting debts have placed unprecedented stress on the ordinary families. By every critical financial measure, these families are losing ground. Without changes in critical economic policies, the strong middle class that has been the backbone of the American economy and the American democracy is in jeopardy," she testified.

The case keeps getting stronger for a new, bold change in economic policy explicitly designed to help working-class families regain their footing. Sanders will outline his ideas on the Meet the Bloggers program, which will be available for on-demand viewing after the live streaming.

TRADE REPORT: Your Weekly Fill of What's Really Going On

David Sirota — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:22:45 -0400

With this week's reemergence of globalization and trade as major 2008 campaign issues, we thought it as good a time as any to launch our regular report on globalization, helping you sort through what is too often an esoteric and inaccessible discourse on one of the most important set of issues we face. We are aiming to have this report out every Thursday - though bear with us as we get this product off the ground. Ultimately, we hope you consider it your one-stop must-read to keep up to date on all the economic rhetoric - and propaganda - that is now filling up the airwaves.

CAMPAIGN '08 - IS OBAMA'S RENEWED POPULISM THE REAL DEAL, OR A WINK AND NOD?

The Hill newspaper reports that the Obama economic adviser Jason Furman issued a particularly scathing statement in response to this week's Commerce Department announcement that the U.S. trade deficit hit $693 million in June.
Since the Democratic primary ended, Obama has noticeably tamped down his criticism of NAFTA-style trade pacts - even giving an interview to Fortune magazine suggesting he may not be as aggressive a fair trader as he once portrayed himself to be.

So this week's announcement, coupled with new evidence that he is focusing on trade in swing states, may signal his campaign's tack back to more populist themes - themes that Washington Post columnist Harold Myerson (and before that, yours truly) says is the best way for Obama to counter McCain's race-tinged cultural populism. Then again, at the same time Furman lashed out at the trade deficit, the Wall Street Journal reports that he "is spending this weekend in the tony Hamptons outside New York, as will many top Wall Street executives" where he will try to court corporate leaders to support Obama's campaign.

CONVENTION '08 - FAIR TRADERS IMPACT THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

The Wall Street Journal reports that fair traders - led by Steelworkers President Leo Gerard - have used the pre-convention political lull to focus on adding stronger language to the Democratic Party's official platform - and that their efforts were successful. The final document "promises to improve the North American Free Trade Agreement," writes the Journal - a stunning rebuke to longtime NAFTA backers Bill and Hillary Clinton at a time the Denver Post reports that the Democratic convention is being quietly engineered to celebrate the Clinton legacy.

CONGRESS - BAUCUS DEMANDS MORE NAFTAs

Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D) this week told the Associated Press that he is worried that his fellow congressional Democrats are having too much success stopping NAFTA-style trade pacts. The statement follows Baucus's statement a few weeks ago - almost completely unreported - that he officially supports the passage of President Bush's Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Though Baucus is an obscure lawmaker, he chairs the Finance Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. As I wrote in my syndicated column last week, that means he will be in a pivotal position to trip up what could end up being a clear election mandate demanding trade policy reform.

BUSINESS - RACE TO THE BOTTOM CONTINUES AS CHINA WAGES RISE

Fortune magazine reports that with China's wages and environmental standards gradually rise, corporations are now looking to move their outsourcing operations to countries where conditions are even more desperate. "China's actions to strengthen its environmental and worker protections are unquestionably good moves for the country, its people, and the global economy," writes the magazine. "But for outsourcers focused on rock-bottom production prices, the search is on for new low-cost countries."

Of course, this race-to-the-bottom dynamic is encouraged by a standards-free U.S. trade policy that allows companies to troll the world for the worst conditions, exploit those conditions, and sell the products of that exploitation back into the American market. Put another way, our trade policy is helping foreign governments manufacture comparative advantages out of their horrific labor, environmental and human rights records.

The good news is an unexpected silver-lining around the energy crisis: Businessweek reports that as energy costs rise, more companies are keeping operations in the United States. As much as Tom Friedmans of the world scoff at blue collar work, the magazine notes that this is "a good time for an American manufacturing renaissance."

The trend directly undermines President Bush's attempt to cite jobs as his reason to oppose the Kyoto Treaty. If carbon controls result in higher prices for fossil fuels, that may actually encourage companies to keep manufacturing operations at home, so as to avoid higher transportation costs. The challenge, though, remains reducing the cost of necessity energy - gasoline, heating, etc. for the middle class - without incentivizing job outsourcing.