Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

As pundits spend much time commenting about the factions dividing the Republican Party — Tea Party radicals poised in opposition to mainstream, old-guard, establishment liberals — the Democrats are suffering their own largely unreported symptoms of a serious new dividing line.

Look no further than Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. As the Washington Post reported on Sunday, “a more liberal and populist voice is emerging within a Democratic Party already looking ahead to the next presidential election.” And its candidate is none other than Senator Warren. The new movement is what journalist Zachary A. Goldfarb calls “both a critique of Obama’s tenure and a clear challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s presumptive presidential front-runner, who carries a more centrist banner.”

Leave aside Goldfarb’s characterization of Hillary Clinton as a centrist (many would simply describe her as an opportunist  who will shift to whatever stance the base wants in order to obtain their votes). While many conservatives see our current president as a man of the Left (which he undoubtedly is), his leftist critics see him as a man who bent to Wall Street, who keeps his private views to himself, and who only tries to achieve his social-democratic aims by stealth means.

Warren, to the contrary, is upfront about what she favors: taxing the rich in order to fund left-wing economic programs.

Warren would not even countenance any reforms to Social Security that might save the program by major fixes. Instead, as Jon Cowan and Paul Kessler write:

Sen. Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.

This is the program the new Democratic Party far left is calling “economic populism,” itself a misleading term masquerading the upfront socialist economics advocated by its proponents. Their new program includes calls for taxing the rich, demanding legislation that would create a giant increase in the federal minimum wage, and concentrating on programs they claim would greatly reduce “economic inequality.” Aiding them in this new propaganda offensive is, of course, the pages of the New York Times. A few days ago, the paper debuted a new series on the topic in the Metro section, which ended all pretense of separation of the news pages from those of the editorial section and the views of its editors.

As Ira Stoll wrote at Smartertimes.com yesterday: “The Times metro section as propagandist for the de Blasio administration’s grim class warfare focus is off to quite a start.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"If they [the GOP] don’t blow it with their own volatile extremists."

I'm curious, Ron, whom you consider these people to be.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
No matter how far left the Democrats go, by the time of the general election, they will be deemed moderate, and the Republican will be "far right".

This is how we get someone like GWB, who grew the government more than anyone but Obama, basically, and people like McCain and Romney. All big government types, but if you ask the average person who doesn't pay attention to politics, but just the media, they will consider those people to be small government far right types.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary in 2007 called herself a "progressive." The original "third wayer" was Benito Mussolini. He was for a third way between capitalism and Soviet Union style communism. These "centrist/third wayers" are simply fascists. It doesn't mean they are for rounding up the Jews or Gypsies or the enfeebled (though they do show a scary tendency to put little stock in the sacredness of human life) but they are fascists nonetheless.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (60)
All Comments   (60)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Ron, you seem to be behind the times. The Democrat Party is already dominated by far Left radicals.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary and Liz have a common trait that will prove to be a detriment in the 2014 election; the public has had enough of psychopathic liars and non-performers.

Talk is cheap, but lies come with an account overdue, both these gals have used up their credit with the rest of the country or we to assume that running for the country's highest office allows them to lock up their past, like Fearless Reader. Voters won't fall for that ruse until these two are suffering from dementia.

http://skooksjournal.com/?p=255
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only "opportunity" the democrats moving left has ever presented to the GOP is an opportunity to move left with them.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I hope that Warren(Commie-MA) ends up the democRATic candidate for president in 2016. This would announce to the American voters just how steeped in communism the democRATs are. That ticket would have no chance of winning the presidency. Republicans will end up with both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch (and hopefully the still 5-4 good vs left leaning SCOTUS). At that time, I would like to see numerous (names withheld) Obama administration cronies arrested, put on trial, convicted of treason, and perp-walked in orange jump suits to the nearest federal prison.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Liberal "hierarchy," the "elitists" of the Democratic party, can move as far to the Left as they wish. I say this because they are rapidly losing control of the youth segment of our society. More and more children and young adults are waking up to the fact that they do not wish to be tethered to such socialist dreams/disasters as "wealth redistribution," "bigger" government, and "managed" freedoms. Those ideologies--alien to the most basic tenets of American liberties--are quickly becoming the fast-fading creatures of a Liberal establishment created over four decades ago, bent on reducing/destroying American exceptionalism and her values in order to pave the way for a New (Third)-World Government.

Read about the 11 year-old girl who was recently told that she couldn't "sell" mistletoe in a Portland, Oregon public park in order to buy braces, but that she could "beg" for the money instead. She told the authorities--rather ADAMANTLY--that she would rather "earn" her money than "beg" for it.

Read also the Harvard political poll--released yesterday--showing that among students in the US, approval for BOTH the President and his "legacy" achievement, Obamacare, has fallen rapidly, is now greatly upside-down, and is virtually in sync with the increasing dismay and distrust of the rest of the country. In other words, the youth aren't buying the b.s. any more than the rest of us.

Every day there are dozens of stories of kids WANTING to recite the Pledge of Allegiance; in fact DEMANDING it. They wish to be allowed to PRAY--when and wherever they feel the need. They wear pro-Second Amendment shirts to school, knowing full well that the exercising of their FIRST Amendment rights is anathema to the structure of a nanny-state liberalism where all must pass muster through the "benevolence" of an oppressive government.

So, yeah...let the aging Liberals, still fervently entrenched in their Socialist "revolution" of the 60s and 70s, bear even further to the Left. For the faster they move, the more quickly they'll leave.

(Note: There's a reason why Obama preaches many of his "liberal sermons" to those captive audiences at high schools and Universities across the nation. His "hope" is to "change" the social and political philosophy of our country through the innocence and inexperience of our children.)

Sucks to be Obama.




36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
If Warren does jump in mocassin first, this might be the most entertaining political season of a generation. Of course, we might all be driven to a new revolution of sorts should she ever win the Presidency and I would not put that past the dullards that make up a substantial portion of our electorate.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
At least Fauxahontas hasn't murdered anybody yet. Hillary has left quite a trail of bodies behind.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
funny, in 2016, Warren's senate tenure will have been exactly as long as Obama's in 2008.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
What's also funny is that no one speaks of those women as the frauds that they are. Warren the phony Indian and Hillary the coat-tailer. They will never be ready for prime time.

Right after Hilllary lied and people died, she went from Secretary of State to the 'face' of Secretary of State. "Under the bus, boys".

And, with Warren, it turns out that not only was Warren not 1/32 Cherokee, she descended from Europeans who took Cherokee land away during the Oklahoma Land Rush!

Warren: "Oh, that. Oh, sure throw that in my face."

Liberals are sociopaths.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
To my knowledge Warren doesn't have any inconvenient corpses kicking around in her closet like HRC does. Not only 4 deaths in Benghazi, but poor Vince Foster as well. It's amazing how Foster's "suicide?" vanished from the public memory.

As for Warren, anyone with high cheekbones could make the mistake of believing they were part Cherokee, right?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
"If they don’t blow it with their own volatile extremists." Probably the most relevant sentence in the article. What does extremism really mean in the realm of politics? It means consistent in one's principles. In politics, there can only be two "extreme positions": either your life belongs to you or it belongs to the state/tribe/public. When applied consistently, the first position leads to laissez-faire capitalism (no regulations and no wealth redistribution) the other position leads to fascism or communism. Saying that extremists on the right (which aren't extremism up to laissez faire) would blow away their chances against Warren, is saying that if the premises of the right were made evident, people would reject them and that the solution is to place a "moderate", a mixture of "your life belongs to you" and "you must serve your brothers". It means nominating someone who has (partially) accepted the other camp's principles and fighting on their ground. It means fighting a losing battle. Ultimately, the most consistent win. Once you have accepted the idea that a thief has a right to 2% of your wealth, what stops him from taking it all? In the realm of politics, when you have accepted that some people have a right to some of your money for their healthcare because they need it, what argument can you present to stop other needy people to take in your pocket or other for the existing ones to take more from you?
Calling for a moderate is recognizing that one's side has no chance on winning on the principles it claims to defend. That might be true. It also means that one is giving up on the battle of ideas, without which any political battle will be lost.
For the past century, the right has never challenged the left's ideas on a fundamental level. It fought against statism but never for capitalism, never for a full separation of state and economics. It was left as helpless as a boat in the sea with no destination in mind, open to any compromise the left could offer. The left on the other hand has always known where it was going: universal healthcare, high taxes, minimum standard of living without the need to work,... The left couldn't impose these goals all at once but it sailed in that direction, never taking its eyes off the goal, accepting any compromise it could reach in that direction. Even with Obamacare, many on the left were opposed to it. They clearly expressed they wanted the government to run it all. But they were ready to accept it as a compromise on the way, not on the goal. Today, there's no politician on the right capable of offering a vision of free-market healthcare. Capitalism rests on the belief that every man has a right to live for himself. Until the idea that our duty is to serve our brothers is challenged, the right will be on a losing track. Maybe it could snatch a victory from Warren by running a moderate. It would slow down the pace but not change the direction.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent post but the ideas, as stated, won't win. The reason is that it sounds like a roll-back of programs that vast majorities support, including SS, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid.

There is a compromise, which is is to recognize that the first three programs are actually enforced savings programs that people fund themselves. The programs have to be fixed because the payouts have grown into much more than the funding mechanisms can support, and they are bankrupting the country. But the fixes have to minimize disruption to the people who depend on them.

The last two are welfare programs whose growth has to be stopped, after which they must be gradually limited but not eliminated. Elimination of them is also electoral suicide, but the case can and should be made that rampant growth is suicide for the country.

This approach recognizes the facts on the ground, which are that yanking these programs isn't feasible when hundred of millions of people depend on them; while also recognizing that ever-growing welfare is societal cancer.

Note also that obamahillarycare is different than either category. It certainly isn't an enforced savings program, and it also isn't a safety net program. It is closer to pure socialism than either category of existing programs. Moreover, given its coercive and intrusive nature, obamahillarycare is probably closer to communism than socilism
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Prove that the "vast majority" support these programs. I think you've bought into MSM propaganda. If the "vast majority" of Americans are genuinely that stupid then what is the point?
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
I hear from your type occasionally.

My recommendation for you: don't run with a knife in your hands.
36 weeks ago
36 weeks ago Link To Comment
MMM, Everything you say is correct but, when you say that we must challenge the idea that it is our duty to serve our brothers, my Christianity causes me to be uncomfortable with how selfish that sounds. Perhaps the moderate Republicans aren't just interested in winning elections, but care deeply about doing right by their fellow human beings. Socialism is a dishonest and cynical attempt to distort and abuse the basic human instinct to care about the well-being of others for selfishly cold ideological ends. But to some - especially the so-called LIVs out there - it simply sounds crass and cruel to champion an every man for himself ethos. Surely there's a way to accommodate all of us within the conservative movement.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Get Ready for Democratic Party's Tilt to the Far Left"

Really? As if they are not so steeped so far to the left for some years now that Blue Dogs are now fettering the Republican Party with their presence as RINOs.

On a side note, they should be called the Democrat Party, as there is nothing at all particularly democratic about them (more like fascitic).
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liz Warren. Please. That said, don't get distracted. The Senate in '14 is ALL that matters.
37 weeks ago
37 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All