Three power centers
Although there are many factions and interests competing for influence in the rambunctious Dem Party, three major, non-homogenous groups seem to be crystallizing into more or less coherent power centers. One is the democratic socialists. They are leftist radicals who are so angry at how capitalism has screwed them over that they want to replace it with honest to Dog socialism. Those people are never going to get what they want, but they’re giving it the old college try anyway.
The next big power center is around groups of more or less moderate Dems who go by the label social democrats. In general, those people want to reasonably re-regulate capitalism like it was in the pre-radical right tyranny & corruption MAGA days. They want to leave capitalism mostly intact as it is, while trying to bring it back under a reasonable degree of pro-public interest control. In terms of policy, that’s where bipartisan majority or near-majority public opinion generally lies on many or maybe most major policy issues.
But there’s the third group, roughly the old Dem “establishment”. Those people and interests are mostly major donors, corporate “neoliberal” Dems, elected politicians and organized labor. That cluster of groups is starting to give off a very unfriendly vibe. The donor and corporate Dems have most of the power because they have most of the cash. As we all know, money is power. We do have a pay-to-play two-party political system.
What is that smell?
For average, normal people sensitive to the possibility of being sold out by politicians in power, a NYT article, Jeffries and Kushner Meet Privately as Midterm Attacks Fly, instantly raises a huge red flag about the direction the elite Dem establishment might want to take the party. They may want to sell out to Trump and MAGA to protect their wealth and power. That is not new. People and interests like Bezos, Zuckerberg and some big law firms have already sold out for the same reasons, i.e., protecting their wealth and power.
Jeffries is an elite Dem establishment-aligned creature. He was picked for power by Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn and Steny Hoyer. They are the epitome of the elite Dem establishment that helped get us into the gigantic messes we’re in right now. It was Pelosi who once seriously believed it was OK for members of congress, their families, and staff to engage in insider trading, i.e., securities fraud. She reluctantly backed away from her support when it was pointed out that insider trading was securities fraud. Pelosi came from corporate wealth, corporate thinking and natural corporate sympathy to oligarchy (a form of authoritarianism). Her innate sympathy for that kind of crime is understandable.
As is well-known, Kushner is not a neutral bipartisan policy broker. He is Trump’s son-in-law, a former senior White House official, and an influential outside adviser. His political and business interests are completely entwined with Trump and MAGA politics and policy. Kushner and his family seem to be about as honest as a $4 bill or a Trump cell phone (and this).
The problem with the Jeffries-Kushner meeting is simple, it was in secret and what it was about is unknown. We are kept in the dark. There is no public account of the meeting’s commitments, limits, or agenda. It was said to focus on “common ground” matters. However, “common ground” is often politician-speak for rigged deals the elites want kept in secret. Assertions of “common ground” can also normalize the Trump administration that elite Democrats publicly and accurately say is corrupt and authoritarian. This smells rotten. It feel like the start of a sell-out in progress.
The open question is whether the Democratic establishment will use House power to defend congressional authority, investigate corruption, enforce subpoenas, curb conflicts of interest, and protect democratic institutions, or whether it will protect elite interests, donor access, and a narrow, authoritarian conception of bipartisan governance. Jeffries must answer such questions transparently and honestly. Vague assurances coming from the old Dem establishment about finding common ground are not remotely close to reassuring. That “explanation” is deeply troubling and not close to convincing.
Q1: Is distrust of the Dem establishment, Pelosi and Jeffries for example, coupled with MAGA’s overt authoritarianism and corruption, probably why there is rising power centered on replacing capitalism with true socialism?
Q2: Do you believe that reasonable compromise is necessary for a democracy to function reasonably well, while refusal to compromise based on political power alone is the epitome of authoritarianism, e.g., MAGA authoritarianism?
Q3: Is it plausible that reasonable compromise replaced only with finding common ground amounts to a reasonably functional form of democracy?
Info sources:
What The Word ‘Compromise’ Really Means — Reporter Leslie Stahl said governing means compromising. House speaker John Boehner replied that it means “finding common ground.” When pressed, he said, “I reject the word.”
Boehner: ‘I Reject The Word’ Compromise — BOEHNER: I made it clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people. STAHL: What are you saying? You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t. BOEHNER: When you say the word “compromise,” a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense.
The Mindsets of Political Compromise — In this analysis, political compromise is seen as necessary for democratic governance to exist. It describes how permanent campaigning and unreasonable distrust make compromise difficult, often impossible.
Compromise and Democracy: How They Get Along — John Stuart Mill: “an indispensable requisite in the practical conduct of politics is the readiness to compromise, a willingness to concede something to opponents and to shape good measures so as to be as little offensive as possible to persons of the opposite view”.
