There is a lesson to be learned in the confrontation between Pelosi and the Plutorats. It may not be the one you think. by rtbohan
(libertarian)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The polite extortion attempt on Speaker Nancy Pelosi in support of Senator Clinton's campaign for the presidency tells us a lot about the past and present of American politics. It also provides a lesson of hope for the future.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had made a public statement saying the Superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention (public officials and party officials) ought to respect the choice of the voters in deciding whom to vote for. Twenty wealthy and active Clinton supporters who had, they pointed out, donated more than $24 million to the Democratic Party and its candidates wrote a very public letter calling on Pelosi to change her position. The speaker has chosen to ignore the demand.
In a way all of this is not surprising. We know that wealthy contributors are paying for access and influence when they make contributions, and they regularly do influence our Congressmen and Presidents. It is also not surprising the Pelosi ignored them, since she is a tough politician holding the third most important post in the government. What is surprising is that the extortion attempt was made so publicly. With the kind of money these people donated (or bundled) for the Democrats, they should not have needed to ask anyone's help, certainly not publicly. In the past, it would have taken only a quiet word from one of these large contributors to secure action. It is not clear if the purpose of the action was really an attempt to strongarm Speaker Pelosi into serving as a go-between to the uncommited super delegates, or an attempt to threaten her with, or actually raise a revolt against her leadership by Representatives facing strong challenges for re-election.
What is clear is that the position of the rich contributors is weaker because the funding of campaigns has changed beginning in 2004 and becoming a major factor in 2008. The small contributors, through the internet, have shown their strength. Some Democrats say that the action against Pelosi proves the need for stricter regulation of contributions, or even the complete federal funding of campaigns. The real message is that the system is beginning to correct itself with the small contributors providing the funding for candidates with a wege issue and an appealing message to bypass government funding, wealethy donors and fund bundlers.
In the 2004 campaign, Howard Dean showed the way, going from being an unknown governor of a small state to become briefly the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination thanks to an outpouring of financial support from small contributors. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama changed from a potential vice presidential ccandidate into the most likely nominee of the Democratic Party, and Ron Paul moved from being a minor gadfly to the Republican Part to the leader of a large and growing grass roots movement within the party. In the future, the edge belongs not to the candidate who is able to attract the most wealthy contributors and the most successful bundlers of contrituions, but to the candidate who is supported by the money and the votes provided by the larger population.
Any candidate to benefit from this needs, first of all, a wedge issued. For Dean in 2004 and both Obama and Paul in 2008, that wedge issue was a record of consistent opposition to the war and a call for its immediate end. But this kind of issue, by itself, is not enough. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were equally consisten in their opposition to the war. And Dean, while he was able to tap into the grass roots for money and votes early in his campaign saw this money and support disappear after the first setback to his campaign. Obama was able to survive defeats in New Hampshire and and retain support in terms of both money and votes. Ron Paul kept the financial support of his backers and the enthusiasm of his voters even after he admitted that he no longer expected to win the nomination.
The difference bewteen these two candidates and the other three is that each had (or at least promised) a program of radical change in the way the government does business. The voters responded to Obama's call for change and this is what has taken him into the lead among the Democrats. Ron Paul gave a far more specific and wide reaching program for change which excited a smaller group within the Republican Party. But this kind of radical change is difficult to attract enough voters in a single campaign.
Obama, while he called for change is, in his specific programs, a typical liberal Democrat without the totalitarian trappings which Clinton and Edwards brought to their campaigns. If the enthusiasm for change brings him to the White House he will have give reality to his promises for change or he will be as unpppular in four years as George W. Bush is today.
Representative Paul has created a movement. If either Barack Obama or John McCain is elected this year the movement will continue to grow, and in four years the program he has laid out will be better understood by the voters, and it will no longer be possible to portray him as a fringe figure. In four years, what he is saying today may be the "main stream thought" which the establishment politicians say they represent today.
Fight out the remainder of this year's campaign, but do not relax when it is over. The idea of liberty has been turned loose again in America, and it will triumph.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of rtbohan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I am not so sure about your statement that 'The idea of liberty has been turned loose again in America, and it will triumph.' After decades of socialistic brainwashing especially within the entire education system and the main stream meadia, a lot of people are dependent on the government to make the decisions for them. Most people want the freedom but not the responsibilities. When I talk to a lot of people about freedom, only a handful gets it. The rest want a bigger role from the govenment in keeping us 'safe' and making the right decisions for us. I hope I am wrong and you are right and thus people will embrace freedom again. At this point I don't see it.
