Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent

[Purveyor]

Rich Americans still have it pretty good. I don’t mean everything’s perfect: business regulations can be burdensome; Manhattan zoning can prevent the addition of a town-house floor; estate taxes kick in at over $5 million. But life is acceptable. Barack Obama has not imposed much hardship, and neither will Hillary Clinton.

And what about Donald Trump? Will rich people suffer if he is elected president? Well, yes. Yes, they will. Because we all will. But that’s a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things. Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything. Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea.

Yesterday’s primary handed victories to Trump and Clinton, and, if Michael Lind is right, Trumpism and Clintonism are America’s future. Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?

The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It’s been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.

Trumpism changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.

MORE...

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent

[onehandle]

1. Democrats are Terrible!

What is this site I'm posting on, anyway?

[villager]

10. I don't know -- but sure isn't an "Underground" of any sort. nt

[HooptieWagon]

2. The 1% bought the party.

And they'll discard it once the tent becomes small enough not to bother with.

[lagomorph777]

4. It's looking like a subsidiary of the GOP.

The hostile takeover is nearly complete. Soon the assets will be sold off.

[Sheepshank]

3. Fuck the article

Dribble, lies and inuendoes...completely ignoring that the 1% overwhelmingly support Republicans

Anti Democratic articles posted on a Democratic site...flame bait.

[IamMab]

5. POC are the 1% now? No straw these Sanders folks won't grasp, apparently.

And the disregard for minority voters continues apace.

[oldandhappy]

8. It looks to me as if the clintons are 1% or very close to it.

I've been thinking about this. I am inclined to be a little more lenient than you in accepting the op. And I accept your response.

[Sheepshank]

12. What makes no sense is that Hillary is called out as being bought, here on DU all the time

yet she is a 1%er or really close. Really she is being bought? How much money would that take?

[oldandhappy]

19. All the money that it took to get them into the higher echelons.

They did not have the money to begin with. She is bought in the sense that super wealthy friends were courted and then they courted in return. The clintons cultivated power and influence and others cultivated them in return for the same reasons. It is a world I do not understand or participate in so this is largely conjecture. There is no doubt they are wealthy now and that money came from somewhere.

[Sheepshank]

20. Yes conjecture.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

6. What brain dead moron said this

unfriendly to expanded trade

in relation to Drumpf?

I am assuming the person here at DU didnt otherwise I retract that; but if stated by anyone that cant get me in trouble here on Democratic Underground, then let me laugh my god damn ass off.

Trump, unfriendly to expanded trade the guy who has his ties made in China, or is China too expensive now for him?

[MineralMan]

7. Did you look at the demographics of yesterday's primary?

It wasn't the 1% that got Hillary Clinton the win. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Uff da!

[oldandhappy]

9. I looked at the maps of reported voting.

The clinton win was the enormous population base in the NYC area plus a few other urban areas. The 1% are in NYC, not Buffalo. The headquarters for many financial organizations are in NYC and hence the top guns are in that area. It costs a fortune to live in NYC. It does look as if the higher income folk supported her very nicely. So maybe the 1% were part of the win???

[MineralMan]

13. See, not everyone in New York City is a bankster.

Not by a very, very long shot. She won throughout the city, in every neighborhood really. Have you ever been to NYC? Have you ever ridden the subways into every borough? If not, you have really no idea who are the millions of people who live there.

I think you're confused a bit. The vast majority of people who live in greater NYC are not part of the 1%. Not even close.

You're mistaken about that. If you don't believe me, do some more research, please.

[oldandhappy]

15. I am willing to believe you.

Not arguing. Just amazed at the weight of the population in NYC.

[MineralMan]

21. That's New York for you.

Only a tiny part of the state is New York City. The rest is pretty rural in nature. But NYC has an enormous population. One person; one vote. That's how we do it.

It's the same thing in many states, like my own adopted Minnesota, for example. Most of the population of the state lives in Minneapolis, Saint Paul and the surrounding suburbs. The rest of the state is rural and thinly populated. Many states fit that mold.

Moreover, every major city is made up primarily of people of average income, not rich folks. They are the bulk of the voters in any city. While it's true that there are fabulously wealthy people in NYC and other cities, each of them has just one vote. They are so outnumbered by average-income voters that their votes have no impact at all on election results.

For every million dollar high rise apartment in New York City, there are thousands of cramped little apartments and single family homes out in the buroughs. In those live all the bus drivers and store clerks and garbage collectors and everyone else in the city. They are all voters, too, and they're far from being the 1%.

In fact, the 1% is just that. It makes up about 1% of the vote. That's not enough to swing an election. Many wealthy people never even bother to vote, in reality. Why should they? None of that matters to them, really.

[geek tragedy]

11. Why did the so-called man of the people get beat 70-30 in the Bronx? nt

[MineralMan]

14. Yeah, all those 1%ers in the Bronx.

C'est pour rire.

Only people who have never been in NYC would say something like that.

[geek tragedy]

16. the readership of The Intercept is just not sufficient

to win a Democratic primary.

[MineralMan]

18. Hell, I don't think it is sufficient to elect a congressperson.

We do tend to exaggerate our importance, don't we.

[0rganism]

17. the evolution of the Democratic party is in progress

as i predicted some time ago, "Trumpism" and the concomitant self-immolation of the GOP are paving the way for a decade of "centrist" Democratic party dominance, in which the "donor class" (read: bankers and military industrialists) realigns with the Democrats.

this will lead us to a dominant Democratic party which fully embraces social liberalism, along with economic neo-liberalism and a hawkish foreign policy. the degree to which the new Democratic "donor class" controls the conversation will, to a great extent, be determined by the extent to which Sen. Sanders can nurture the movement he's leading from within the Democratic party.