Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats' Divide

Thursday, November 14, 2013

In his profile of Elizabeth Warren, Noam Scheiber, senior editor at The New Republic, argues that there are big changes taking place within the Democratic party, particularly an emerging anti-corporate strain. But is it really on the verge of a split?

Stat Time: Anti-Corporate Sentiment in the Democratic Party

  • A pew survey shows that 92% of Democrats agree with the statement “it’s really true that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” That’s up almost 10% since 2009.
  • In 2007, even a majority of Democrats said that “government regulation of business does more harm than good” – that’s now down to 41%. (Worth noting: Republicans have shot the same amount in the opposite direction, so there’s now a big divide.)
  • On the statement “corporations generally strike a fair balance between making profits and serving the public interest” – in 1997 43% of democrats agreed with that statement. Today it’s 29%.
  • The number of people who say they are “very satisfied” with Medicare and Social Security systems is the highest it’s been since 2001.
  • A recent Pew poll showed that voters under 30—who skew overwhelmingly Democratic—view socialism more favorably than capitalism.


Noam Scheiber

Comments [15]

antonio from baySide


No need to get hyperbolic. Your assumptions are typical. However I was talking about INDIVIDUALS, no where dd I mention corporations...


Nov. 15 2013 09:09 AM
Mr. Bad from NYC

@ Jim

You're right to bring up the Austrians in this debate but there is no way to bring about a sensible, subtle discussion of their criticisms while the Koch Brothers are still subverting libertarianism to meet the ends of corporate power.

The most perfect analogy I can imagine is that Marxism is to Capitalism what Austrians are to Keynesians. In both cases you find the thesis and the perfect critique. What about the Chicago Plan? Dead in the water ... even the IMF was behind it and then nothing... Marxists and Austrian Economists are both provide superbly critical evaluations of the status quo but with no way forward (gold standard, are you kidding?) what do you do without a market in the former case and with private money creation (Rothschild) in the latter case ?

Nov. 14 2013 06:03 PM
Chris from New York

@ Antonio

Clearly you have no basic understanding of tax policy.

Capital gains are taxed at corporations, and at 15% for individuals.

When company's pay dividends, it is AFTER they have already paid 35% federal corporate tax rates. Including personal income taxes(15%), dividends are taxed at 44.75%.

It's likely, given your ignorance, that you do not receive dividends, hence you want to raise the taxes on them. That's the underlying belief system of the Democratic party. Tax other people and redistribute their wealth through an incompetent, growing and intrusive government back to those that do not have the wealth.

Nov. 14 2013 02:32 PM

Anyone who thinks that they want socialism should read Hayek and Mises. I know that it is popular to reflexively bash these authors, but if you cannot read these sorts of books with an open mind, you have not honestly considered your position.

Nov. 14 2013 11:51 AM
ivan obregon from nyc

Young Democratic Socialists - Home | YDS‎
The youth section of the Democratic Socialists of America, YDS is the US affiliate of the International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY).

Sick of the neoliberalism of the Clintons/Sommers/Friedman/Obama/Reid/Rubin/Rahm Emmanuels......

Democratic socialism and the Green Party (or the polite term for label-frightened neoliberals, "progressives") reflect a genuine left-of-center voice the nation lacks that every European and Latin American country readily and normatively includes as an alternative to the centrist Democrats (the "moderates" like the Joe Liebermans are really just lite republicans) a left-of-center "Social Democrats", "Labor Party' and "Socialists". We sorely lack a left to pressure the centrist neoliberals to our continuing ineffectiveness, mealy-mouthed platitudes, and the continuing disparate evidence of change....we can't believe in after one over-compromise after another to the banks and the right. We need a real left on the left.....

Nov. 14 2013 11:24 AM
Milos from Queens

It's not just young Democrats who are left of center. A lot of us radical boomers from the 60's haven't changed our views, we've just waited for the world to catch up to what we knew back then, which is that large-scale corporate capitalism devours everything in its path.

Nov. 14 2013 11:19 AM
Amy from Manhattan

On "allowing" insurance co's. to continue offering the plans people had before, wasn't the administration saying (till today) that it had been their *choice* to discontinue those plans, even though they didn't meet the law's requirements? I'd rather the gov't. extended the subsidies to pay the difference for people whose costs for new plans w/full benefits would go up than let the insurers keep plans that don't give adequate coverage.

Nov. 14 2013 11:14 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

I thought that the ACA was law. How can the administration, for better or worse, arbitrary change parts of a law?

Nov. 14 2013 11:11 AM
Robert from NYC

Well by don't you, Brian, and or your guest define what capitalism is and what socialism is. IF we, your listeners are that stupid, why don't you educate us as to what these two economic schools of thought. Then tell us what Democratic Socialism as practiced in Europe means. Then show us how, in spite of it's shortfalls works vs extreme capitalism which is where we are right now here and are doing our best to keep.

Nov. 14 2013 11:10 AM

We all flirted with socialists in our youth.

Nov. 14 2013 11:08 AM

"92% of Democrats agree with the statement “it’s really true that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” That’s up almost 10% since 2009."

Does anybody dispute this? Even conservative economists like Andrei Shleifer and Gregory Mankiw agree that the rich are getting richer while everybody else is getting poorer. This has been true since the mid-1970s. Perhaps Tyler Cowen, Casey Mulligan, or Glenn Hubbard dispute it — the most delusional right-wing economists to found today.

Nov. 14 2013 11:07 AM
antonio from baySide

The sad part about this discussion is people like Senator Warren and people myself are just articulating logic..

Social Security could remain funded until infinity and we could use the surplus for other initiatives if we just RAISED the cap; right now its 113K.

Taxes on capital gains and dividends are NOT taxed like income from real work. Another windfall.

That's logic not an ideology...

Nov. 14 2013 11:03 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

[[Producer Writes: You're right - and we fixed it! Thanks.]]

Shouldn't the grammatically correct title of this segment be the "Democrats' divide" (not "Democrat's") to honor it as a plural possessive noun?

Nov. 14 2013 11:03 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

When will the Tea Party and their "ultra-progressive" counter-parts on the left realize, that the GOP and Democrats are governing parties, who have no real interest in changing the status quo.

Nov. 14 2013 10:56 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Yes, please run (and win) Elizabeth Warren ... so that we can remind minorities how this very dishonest, very WHITE WOMAN lied and used a claim to being a “Native American” (1/32 at best!!) in order to advance her academic career at Penn and Harvard Law Schools via affirmative action. (All of the articles from the Boston Globe and other news outlets are easily accessed... and though objecting to the framing, she hasn't denied this.) The liberal media gave their new “hero” a bye, but we shouldn’t. Scheiber , of course, doesn’t mention it in his “profile”.

Good heavens ... personal integrity used to be important, even to Lefties.
Does nothing matter anymore, as long as the person is on “your side”??!!

Nov. 14 2013 10:33 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.