Democrats, for very practical reasons, are cautious about embracing Occupy Wall Street. After all, the vast majority of Democratic political fundraising, from President Obama on down, comes from the top 1 percent. Without such money, Democrats would have to rely on the 99 percent for their fundraising. Lets face it: the 99 percent are broke. However, those reasons have a significant downside: many of those folks in the top 1 percent oppose the sorts of policies that improve the lives everyone else. I find it very difficult to believe those folks are willing to finance their political opponents.

A recent piece in The Atlantic noted:

"They're taking a wait-and-see approach with Occupy Wall Street," said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Social Policy and Politics Program at the left-of-center group Third Way. "I think there's a danger. It's very difficult for a president to turn an angry populist movement into something positive for a campaign."



FYI: Third Way is the reanimated corpse of the defunct Democratic Leadership Council, also known as the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

While Occupy Wall Street is changing the national zeitgeist into something more favorable to Democratic politics, there isn't much changing going on in the Democratic Party itself. While President Obama has embraced a more populist rhetoric and pushed it aggressively, many other Democrats aren't even taking that step. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, is scuttling New York's Millionaire Tax while demanding ever greater concessions from the middle class. On the local lever, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is proposing a budget that cut public libraries, raise fees on middle class services, and simultaneously cuts business taxes. There are other examples going on around the country in states where Democrats are in charge, all of them representing the "Third Way" brand of Democratic politics. We are reaching a critical point where the rank and file of the Democratic Party finds itself increasingly alienated from its leadership class. Occupy Wall Street is expressing how the common people view money and power in America: it is a game that is rigged in favor of the 1 percent. Democrats are reaching the point, probably sooner than later, when they will have to make some key decisions about what sort of party they want to be: Occupy Wall Street or Third Way?

Perhaps there shouldn't be a stark, rather strident change in the character of the Democratic Party's leadership. As the party stands, I am of the opinion that if the Democrats were to fully embrace the Occupy movement, they would destroy it. Partly because many of them don't understand what it is all about, but mainly because Democrats are more often than not politically incompetent. Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In other words, the best way Democrats should handle Occupy Wall Street is by not handling it at all. They seem to be doing just find without the Democrats, thank you very much. However, there is one area where Democrats could begin making a move in the right direction by learning something from Occupy Wall Street: Put the kibosh on Third Way Democrats.

Take Senator Ben Nelson. (Please)

Ben Nelson can be counted on to be against anything that is beneficial to the middle class and costly to Wall Street and Big Business. That is a given. Even the rather modest, milquetoast jobs bills being pushed through the Senate. He won't even vote for those. He has been a thorn in the side of Democrats for years, doing everything within his power to see to it that the policies that have shafted the middle class for decades remain in place so that his corporate benefactors keep him in place. One shouldn't expect that Democrats would even think of asking someone like him to embrace a modest jobs bill, much less Occupy Wall Street. Even if almost the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus is behind it. Nelson is the toast of the Washington Third Way establishment for doing these things.

Considering all that, does this make any sense at all?

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is investing precious resources to bolster Sen. Ben Nelson, even though the Nebraskan has yet to commit to running for re-election in 2012. Since September, the Nebraska Democratic Party appears to have accessed DSCC transfers to fund about $800,000 worth of statewide television and radio ads on Nelson's behalf, according to GOP sources who track media purchases.



The guy opposes almost everything of economic importance the Democratic Majority proposes. The guy has watered down even the most minimal legislative efforts to bring the tiniest of crumbs to the middle class. The guy is cheering FOR Herman Cain, a man who says if you aren't rich it's your fault. Does a guy who consistently opposes everything Democrats attempt to do for regular folks deserve a million bucks in precious campaign resources? Especially when he all but certain to get defeated?

This is the sort of thing that Democrats in Washington can put a stop to. While they may not be able, due to the realities of our political system, to embrace the growing Occupy Wall Street movement, they can put a stop to Third Way Democrats running amok and then cashing in. Simply put, Democrats should adopt a position of cutting off financial and political support for anybody professing to be a "New Democrat" or a "Third Way Democrat." While it may not change much in the actual character of the party leadership in the short term, it should be obvious that the first step to building a strong, people centered party is not to endorse the people who are against it. It certainly doesn't make sense to spend precious fundraising dollars on someone who is supporting Republicans.

Let Democrats who choose the Third Way get their benefactors to pay for their campaigns while protecting and developing the more familiar brand of Hollywood/Trial Lawyers/Silicon Valley-backed Democrats. It won't bring us the "Occupy Democrats" we hope for or the union Democrats of old. Only major campaign finance reform will bring that about. But it would certainly mean a better party than we have now.