We are finally witnessing the decline of corporate Democrats | Robert Reich

Americans are supporting progressive candidates not due to socialism, but because they seek representatives who will advocate for working-class interests. Recent discussions surrounding the Democratic Party in this election cycle often highlight the surge of progressive Democrats like Angie Nixon, a socialist who won the Democratic US Senate primary in Florida.

However, another significant narrative is the diminishing influence of corporate Democrats. Some express concern over this shift; James Carville, a long-time Democratic strategist, likens the current wave of progressive primary victories to those of Bernie Sanders in 2016. He asserts that Sanders' challenge to Hillary Clinton fractured the Democratic coalition, suggesting that voters in key states perceived establishment Democrats as indistinguishable from Republicans, weakening her general election prospects.

Even if Carville's perspective on 2016 holds true (despite my skepticism), it is no longer pertinent given our current political climate. The emergence of former President Trump and his administration have exposed the greed, corruption, and self-interest of the U.S. corporate elite. Trump has enabled corporations and Wall Street titans to pursue their interests unhindered, offering them lucrative government contracts, exclusive licenses, tax breaks, and exemptions, while simultaneously promoting their ambitions to consolidate their market power.

Consequently, the true nature of corporate America has become evident, with CEOs and billionaires demonstrating their willingness to prioritize profits over the welfare of average Americans. This newfound awareness has led many to cast their votes for progressive Democrats, who promise to address affordable housing, food, healthcare, and childcare issues while countering Trump's billionaire backers, corporate giants, and their attempts to manipulate the economy against the general populace.

Most traditional media outlets fail to cover this aspect of the story. When Dr. Abdul El-Sayed triumphed in Michigan's Democratic primary against Haley Stevens, the media extensively covered the margin of victory, which was smaller than originally predicted by polls. However, the most noteworthy aspect of El-Sayed's victory was his ability to win despite receiving vastly less financial backing than Stevens.

Stevens' campaign benefited from tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Super PACs, including the largest single donation ever made to a senatorial race by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, in recent elections, has tended to support candidates aligned with corporate interests. AIPAC's advertisements supporting Stevens and opposing El-Sayed did not mention Israel at all.

Super PACs backed Stevens with an estimated $54 to $60 million, while El-Sayed received only about $5 million. In the final weeks of the campaign, Pro-Stevens groups outspent El-Sayed on TV advertisements by more than 12 to one ($26.9 million to $2.1 million). On average, it cost $95 to secure each vote against El-Sayed, whereas it only required $9 per vote to support him.

The Stevens-Elsayed race was essentially a proxy battle over the future direction of the Democratic Party. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer endorsed Stevens, encouraging donors to back her campaign, alongside other corporate-aligned politicians such as Michigan Senator Gary Peters. Conversely, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other progressives supported El-Sayed, alongside other Democrats like Chris Van Hollen and Elizabeth Warren.

El-Sayed strategically made a campaign issue out of the substantial corporate money backing his rival. He argued that Democrats should reject corporate influence and instead adopt an agenda focused on helping average Americans, advocating for Medicare for All, lower prescription drug costs, and banning corporate Super PACs. "We’re in a situation right now where the rich keep getting hyper-rich on the backs of figuring out how to monetize everyday people," El-Sayed stated to the Associated Press, as his supporters chanted, "Money out of politics!

Money in your pockets!" El-Sayed's victory marked a turning point for the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. My involvement with the corporate Democrats dates back to the early 1980s when Democrats in Congress began relying on the same campaign funding source as Republicans, primarily from big corporations. Tony Coelho, the Democratic representative from California, who later headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, once bragged, "Business has to deal with us whether they want to or not."

Democrats had dominated Congress since 1955 and believed they would retain control indefinitely. They thought they could capitalize on their seemingly limitless power to raise campaign funds. Coelho's Democrats managed to achieve a rough parity with Republicans in corporate and Wall Street contributions, but this partnership proved detrimental as big corporations and Wall Street exerted increasing influence within the party.

As with nature, one cannot bite the hand that feeds. Corporate Democrats eventually abandoned the Democratic Party's pursuit of progressive policies.