Jim DeMint and Elizabeth Warren: mirror images? (cc photos: Gage Skidmore, New America Foundation)
FAIR has always argued that reporters and pundits who present a kind of right-in-the-middle, both-sides-are-doing-the-same-thing approach to politics are really just displaying a different kind of media bias. Take Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who wrote a column (12/16/14) explaining there was a “little parlor game” going on in Washington: Is liberal Democrat Elizabeth Warren more like former far-right Sen. Jim DeMint, or is she the left version of far-right Sen. Ted Cruz?
Milbank says it’s the former:
Warren, the populist former Harvard professor, now finds herself in a position very much like DeMint’s in 2006 after the Republicans’ midterm wipeout. After the Democrats’ 2014 midterm debacle, we are seeing the early signs of a left-wing analogue to the tea party emerging, and Warren is well positioned to be its godmother.
But to argue that Warren is the left equivalent of DeMint, one must exhibit no interest in the substance of politics. DeMint’s most high-profile contributions to the policy debate in this country have included denying climate change and opposing the presence of gay/lesbian teachers in schools (Think Progress, 12/6/12). Warren is best-known for wanting to fight Wall Street and advocating for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
DeMint’s tenure as head of the Heritage Foundation has drawn intense criticism for steering the think tank away from research in favor of right-wing advocacy (New York Times, 2/23/14). Warren was a professor at Harvard Law School.
Dana Milbank (photo: Matthew Bradley)
In order to equate Warren and DeMint, you have to pretend that reality doesn’t actually matter; what’s important is that they are on opposing sides. As Milbank put it, “she is channeling the same anti-establishment anger he voiced. She’s just directing it at big corporations instead of big government.” Again, that’s true so long as details don’t matter. DeMint is against “big government,” OK, but he worries that “the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets,” and he once blasted a supposed a tax on Christmas–which didn’t exist (Mother Jones, 12/6/12).
Milbank’s point is a familiar one in corporate media: Left-leaning populism is dangerous for Democrats:
If Clinton loses to a Republican in 2016, the liberal anger could explode into an equivalent of what the tea party was in 2009 and 2010–and Democrats could be purged in primaries for being inadequately doctrinaire.
The left’s tea-party equivalent is still in its infancy. But it could be seen recently in the opposition by environmental activists to the reelection of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who lost her seat this month. They wanted to punish her for opposing them on energy issues — even though the conservative replacing her is less to their liking.
What Milbank refers to as the “purging” of Democrats is actually just grassroots Democrats standing up on some principle; in the case of Landrieu’s election, environmentalists criticized her record on issues like the Keystone XL pipeline.
It’s a little strange to suggest that a political movement on one side of the spectrum is equivalent to a movement on the opposite side of the spectrum–unless your point is that centrism knows best.
It can be said even more bluntly, the right is crazy, most of their hysterical rantings are delusional, actually divorced from reality. The left doesn’t suffer from this, there isn’t any nuttery spewing form leadership as in the repuglican party. There are no prominent dems the likes of Gohmert, Buchanan, or King, what more needs be said?
Two points: Warren standing up for the American people is a good thing, unlike DeMint and Cruz standing up for corporations.
And nobody “punished” Landrieu. I knew she was going to lose the second she struggled to be republican-lite and gave Democrats no reason at all to bother to vote for her.
Voter turnout in the last election was at historic lows. Uninspired voters don’t waste time at the polls. A “centrist” approach by Democratic candidates should continue to keep voters home, which is good news for Republicans. Let’s hope Democrats don’t believe “centrist” is good in the current environment.
It comes from having ones head in the Inverted position and firmly entrenched in the channel of outflow.
The Uber-right, not the real right is for gone they are no longer on the planet, let alone anywhere in reality. This is the perfect example of living rock trying to pretend to be educated and human.
What a dumb f**kwit! Is this what one has to do to get a raise at the “new” WaPo? ^..^
No wonder Americans are so ignorant politically: even our “liberal” media can’t abide a sharp analysis. For example, “Frontline” will provide evidence for something, but pull its punches when it comes to concluding what the evidence means. Their version of “balanced and fair” reporting.
The Left and Right are not mirrors or opposites. They exist because classism exists. Without class, there would be no elite few who enjoy the best of life while the much larger masses struggle.
As to Left movements, there are far more than just one. On the Right, everyone pretty much marches lock-step to the beat of the corporations and the wealthy elite. On the Left, there is much more nuance. Leftists certainly disagree with the justification for classism (the Right), but there is much more to this.
Not everyone on the Left agrees to exactly HOW to address classism. The Left — if I have not already posted this umpteen times here and elsewhere (see my Disqus posts) — is diverse and dynamic. We don’t all march to one drummer… just ask the anarchists, who don’t even agree with other anarchists all the time.
I’ve witnessed division among Greens, Socialists, and even rifts in the PDA (whom aside from their party affiliation are more-or-less Leftists). My own experience of the Left, by observation and by direct involvement, demonstrates to me that the notion of comparing people leading on the Left with those leading on the Right is a concept fraught with error from the start.
Warren may be, indeed, the spark of some movement on the Left. I question this a bit, but perhaps there is something happening I am not aware of. But to point to her as THE, ONE, SINGLE “opposite” of ANYTHING that happens on the Right is a deeply faulty concept, let alone any conclusion one might try to draw from such an argument.