CT Blue

There's been a lot of speculation about why Eric Cantor went down in flames. The basic reason may be the main: the man is an asshole. But I'm persuaded by this view that this is the argument that clinched the deal with the voters:

But there’s no question that conservative economics professor David Brat succeeded in channeling a strain of right-wing populism to target Cantor, and plausibly so, as a corporate stooge and progenitor of crony capitalism. Lee Fang at Republic Report did the most thorough work on this:

“All of the investment banks, up in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail.”
That isn’t a quote from an Occupy Wall Street protester or Senator Elizabeth Warren. That’s a common campaign slogan repeated by Dave Brat, the Virginia college professor who scored one of the biggest political upsets in over a century by defeating Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary last night […]
Brat told Internet radio host Flint Engelman that the “number one plank” in his campaign is “free markets.” Brat went on to explain, “Eric Cantor and the Republican leadership do not know what a free market is at all, and the clearest evidence of that is the financial crisis … When I say free markets, I mean no favoritism to K Street lobbyists.” Banks like Goldman Sachs were not fined for their role in the financial crisis — rather, they were rewarded with bailouts, Brat has said.
Brat, who has identified with maverick GOP lawmakers like Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, spent much of the campaign slamming both parties for being in the pocket of “Wall Street crooks” and D.C. insiders. The folks who caused the financial crisis, Brat says, “went onto Obama’s rolodex, the Republican leadership, Eric’s rolodex.”
In particular, Brat took aim at Cantor’s work on the STOCK Act, which was prompted by a conservative economist who found major stock gains from members of Congress and staffers in industries where they had inside knowledge. Cantor openly watered down the STOCK Act before passage. If you’re trying to paint your opponent as a corporatist who looks out for himself and his buddies over his constituents, this would top the list.

The oft-repeated claim that Brat won by framing Cantor as somehow pro-immigration (which comes from a couple off-hand remarks and not any real actions) actually goes together with this. Brat made an economic argument on immigration about how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants to import cheap labor to take away “your” jobs. This has a nativist element to it, and it was certainly used as a rallying cry by right-wing radio talk show hosts. But even when Brat says that immigration won the race for him, he says it in terms of Cantor “supporting the U.S. Chamber agenda.” The key ad on this showed Cantor in a picture with Facebook’s Marc Zuckerberg. It’s all coherent with the idea of Cantor as handing corporate America whatever they want.

…

I hope we can agree that Brat’s campaign strategy of playing on the resentments of a handful of voters who aren’t getting by in this economy means nothing for the policies he’ll actually pursue. Given Brat’s ideological leanings, he will probably react to regulatory capture and Wall Street corruption by arguing that financial institutions need to be freed from burdensome government oversight and have the market discipline any untoward behavior.

Via Naked Capitalism

A few days ago I noted a similar phenomenon in Europe. There, as here, the right plays on working and middle class (actually everyone but the .01%) resentments with no intention of actually addressing the root causes of the problems once they get in. In fact, Brat's “libertarian” philosophy would only exacerbate the problem. But here, as in Europe, the allegedly left party (and yes, that would be the Democrats) has neither attempted to capitalize on those resentments or do anything about them. In fact, the party is almost apologetic about backing programs like Social Security, which at least provide minimal protections against the predations of Wall Street.

The Democrats appear to be figuring that Hillary will skate into office in 2016, and that the country will be safe in her corporatist hands for four to eight years. That may, in fact, be what happens in 2016, but it may just be putting off the inevitable day when the right will capitalize on Democratic inaction by sweeping into power. They already control the courts, and Pat Leahy is making sure that won't change. Come 2020 they'll no doubt steal some more states through gerrymandering, since the Democrats historically lose big in years ending in zero. (Funny about that). It is more likely to happen in Europe, but it can happen here.