Two Bribes Are “Better” Than One

In the recent release of the Democratic Party’s new (or is that just supposed to be better?) messaging campaign, the sloganeering is merely a re-hashed version of Clinton 2016 incrementalism. But an added anti-monopoly plank has ruffled some feathers from the DLC wing of the party which is usually a good thing. It’s also captured the imagination of some progressives who consider it a grand departure from Clintonian corporate-friendly centrism cum rightism. And it certainly takes some imagination to think that it’s a significant departure.
We get it. It’s a safe bet. Nobody likes monopolies. Genuine trust-buster and Republican Roosevelt sure didn’t and ever since Teddy, different politicians from “both” parties have used the issue since to entice voters who are irrationally attached to the idea that they should have more choices than one on any particular product or service. So we live in a world where we view either Coke or Pepsi browser ads on either our Mac or PC while we read articles about whether we should vote Democratic or Republican — let freedom ring.
It’s not that the consolidation of corporate power into fewer mega-companies isn’t a serious issue for some commercial products and services in some markets where consumers have very limited options. Telecom companies are the obvious example and the Democrats anti-monopoly plan cites them. But it also oddly cites another less obvious and lesser-known one of eyeglasses where Luxottica, a stealthy mega company owns almost every major eyeglass manufacturer as well as the major commercial distributors and eyeglasses chains. Their plan also cites rising beer costs, exactly the kind of thing that allows a rhetorical dip into the heart of the blue-collar pool of voters without actually changing the famous Democratic shift away from empowerment of the proles and unions towards the managerial classes and technocrats that began with Clinton but accelerated under Obama. The genius is the balancing act here, that we have voters who can afford a better beer buzz and better optics of their nominally cheaper cable broadcasts.
I don’t expect these latter day trust-busters to do much to challenge the most pernicious offenders of concentrated corporate power, that of the corporate media. They decry fake news as soon as they’re done broadcasting bits of it as well the limited and/or partisan propagandizing pundits like those at MSNBC, Fox or CNN or the more establishment ones at the other networks. The radical consolidation of the pay-for-play networks these last decades is well understood. Less understood is that they require big ad buys to consider any political candidate serious enough. They won’t likely be challenged by any party rep who raised enough money to become “serious”. And 3rd parties just don’t have the cash.
As for MSM self-reform, the day an establishment pundit slips and goes fully anti-establishment is the day their next slip becomes a pink one. Wolf Blitzer knows why he’s there and it’s not because he’s a muckraker. His job is to buff the muck to have a nice sheen but still get a juicy, provocative sound-bite.
The problem with the anti-monopoly plank and Dem politicians turning into pale-Nader part-time consumer advocates is that it does nothing to take the money out of politics, the truly egregious and corrosive aspect of a corrupted once-a-democracy. It may slightly change the relationship between this politician and that large corporation but there will still be plenty of corporate influence-peddling except now the politician has the additional leverage of playing competing corporations against each in their intramural battles for industry superiority. In other words, two bribes of $60k are better than one of $100k, $20k better to be precise.
There’s that word “better” again. Did it really take Democrats until 2017 and being trumped by a Donald the Mega-Corporatist-Clown to figure out that voters might want something better than what they got out of 8 years of hopey-changey stagnation and expanding wars and national security state? Here’s how to evaluate a slogan like “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future” — were Democrats against those incrementalist modest improvements before 2017, even a better future?
If it seems like there’s no artistry to that slogan that could be because 1.) It came from either from professional center-rightist Tim Kaine or Papa John depending on who you ask, 2.) Trump had already added the art with his better-sounding ”Art of the Deal” and it’s surprising he’s not suing for copyright infringement and 3.) FDR got it right the first time when he opted for “New” as in A New Deal. We don’t need a nominally better one. We need something new — as in a political revolution. I believe that revolution idea may have even been raised during the primaries.
We can struggle to make the ACA “better” (from better corporations, I guess) or we can have something new and revolutionary like single payer, well, revolutionary inside our borders at least, since we’ve been leading the advanced world from the rear on that issue.
But back to monopolies and the very real problem of increasing concentration of corporate power. Whereas Eric Holder and I essentially agree that Wall street has reached too big to fail status that has sheltered it from prosecution for it’s criminality, and the MSM probably qualifies as well, it’s more dicey in some other industries to determine if they’ve already achieved the kind of power that makes them un-bustable. They may be bust-worthy threats but what will the Dem plan actually do about it? Basically, try to not let them get any bigger.
Is this more a declaration of principles than actual plan, a virtual wish list? And are they actual principles or just messaging and re-branding?
Trust busting is largely enforced by the DOJ who works for the Executive. Trump’s main meritorious argument to his dwindling supporters is that business confidence is high because he’s been pushing de-regulation which the worst cabinet in history has done in almost every agency while we’re busy fretting over his tweets and how Russian someone’s name might sound as if it’s the 1950's. (By we I mostly mean McCarthyite Dem reps like grifter Adam Schiff and party surrogate network pundits). Even if the Democrats miraculously took the House in 2018 and the Senate was snoozing and far more miraculously passed some anti-monopoly laws (which I’d bet would be a mild glancing blow like Dodd-Frank was), the bill, if not the buck, stops at the oval office.
The Dem monopoly plank also mentions airlines. Everybody hates those rising costs, right? Well, if you doubt that the POTUS decides these matters let’s look how trust-worthy Democrat Barack Obama handled that: he fostered the further consolidation and when there were opportunities to break them up his DOJ passed on it.
Does anyone really believe that the FTC or a new trust-busting department at DOJ would actually bust up the old, existing big monopolies like Exxon-Mobil? Or rather that it’d be relegated to trying to slow down some of the new proposed mergers and acquisitions while the biggest guys keep on asserting their existing power over Congress. When is the last time you even heard talk like that? The Ma Bell case?
Occasionally states and Governors have sued over anti-trust matters but the Democrats have lost record statehouses and the hallmark of the Roberts court has been how corporate friendly it is, hence we have Citizens United. That is where Dems should focus, along with exclusively publicly financed elections, but no, that would take the 2 bribes down to not 1, but zero. Yet CitU somehow is still not a plank in their plan, either.
For every Dem bleating the virtues of this monopoly plank, we can’t know for sure if it is a genuine populist strategy move back towards the center for them or just more focus-group style “here’s how we can appear to ride anti-corporate sentiment but keep the corporate cash”. As long as the leadership is like Schumer and Pelosi whose main skill seems to be fundraising at far above the $27 donation level I think I’ll lean towards the focus-group interpretation. A handful of other elected reps and candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Tim Canova who have denied themselves PAC and corporate money I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.
In the context of the developing storms establishment Democrats have wrought and what the GOP will worsen, being symbolically anti-monopoly strikes me as useful as being anti-tornado. Speaking of that and the 1950's, I’ll be looking for anti-corporate policies better than an abandoned bomb shelter or a deep cellar. Those of you uncritically buying into the new, better messaging and anti-monopoly plank seem to be hoping the house lands on Wicked Witch Incorporated. It worked that way in a movie once but I wouldn’t count on repeating that.
I also wouldn’t count on there not being a vengeful sister witch when voters find out their reps still vote how GenericCo wants them to and their cable bill didn’t go down much more than the cost of a six-pack.