Reich writes: "'The real world we're living in' right now won't allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement. Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign."
Robert Reich. (photo: Richard Morgenstein)
It Takes a Movement
02 February 16
n 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama promised progressive
change if elected President, his primary opponent, then-Senator Hillary
Clinton, derided him.
“The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,” she said, sarcastically, adding “I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be.
Fast forward eight years. "I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, ‘We shall do this, and we shall do that,’” Clinton said recently in response to Bernie Sanders’s proposals. "That ain’t the real world we’re living in.“
So what’s possible in “the real world we’re living in?”
There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.
The first might be called the “deal-maker-in-chief,” by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.
Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way – gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn’t use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.
But such deals can be expensive to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about $16 billion a year), and they don’t really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.
The costs of such deals in “the world we’re living in” are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opening the floodgates to big money.
Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.
Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts – not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.
It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the “robber barons” literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.
The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president – his “bully pulpit,” as he called it – to galvanize political action.
Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?
Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama’s. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.
After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called “Organizing for America” (now dubbed “Organizing for Action”), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.
So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.
Despite OFA’s public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the “future of the progressive movement”), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.
In the interim, Citizens United had freed “independent” groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.
That’s the heart of problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.
(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I did about widening inequality, called “Inequality for All” – but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors. We refused. They wouldn’t show it.)
In short, “the real world we’re living in” right now won’t allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.
Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that’s fueling it isn’t really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.
It’s about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
A note of caution regarding our comment sections:
For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.
It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.
We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.
It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.
Adapt and overcome.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Things don't get accomplished by skeptics; they get done by those who won't take no for an answer.
Contrary to the statements of the Clinton campaign, Sanders consistently outperforms Clinton in GOP matchups.
More importantly, Clinton will mobilize the GOP base, while Sanders will energize the Democratic base.
The problem with this point is that less people know about Sanders. He has lesser name recognition in comparison to Hillary. Once people know about him I suspect support will drop for him.
The problem is that Sanders has said that he is a "Democratic Socialist". And, despite what people say here, it's a deal-breaker with many voters. Sanders's radical past is almost certainly going to be brought up, including:
--The fact that he applied for conscientious objector status in the Vietnam war.
--The fact that he called for the nationalization of businesses in the 1970s.
--The fact that, as mayor of Burlington, he traveled to the USSR in the 1980s.
--The fact that he visited the Sandanistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
--Stating out loud that he plans to raise taxes.
All of these facets of his past will almost certainly end up in negative ads should be the Democratic nominee. I am afraid that Sanders won't survive the onslaught that is almost certainly coming his way. Whatever Hillary has said about him is only the tip of the iceberg.
This is why I am voting for Hillary in the primary. I don't think Sanders can survive this onslaught of negative ads.
To many, those are good reasons to vote for Sanders.
Either tell us what you're doing to improve things or stop bitching about it.
I'm not easily annoyed, but your constant carping about folks who don't live up to your standards is getting tiresome. You may be on the side of the angels but you write like a very judgmental one.
Please eschew bitterness. We're all together in our species' long struggle to wake up, and what we need is positive reinforcement.
Thanks.
Obama could have done it but I think he had no intention from the getgo. I think he has accomplished what he intended: a facade of feelgood democracy while keeping the empire of oligarchy ticking.
Clinton is prepaid and prepared to do the same ropeadope.
Livable wage? No you cant.
Peace? No you cant.
Clean air. No you cant.
...you get the picture.
And there you have it. You wonder why minorities haven't embraced the far left or Sanders by and large? It's condescending attitude like that.
Maybe minorities are more pragmatic in their thinking because they have more to lose if a Republican wins. Maybe they can't afford the luxury of throwing an election away. And you wonder why most of them are still with Hillary. Talking down to them isn't going to get them to change their mind.
Sanders and his supporters being dismissive of Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority, John Lewis, other civil rights activists, labor unions, and other organizations and activists who have endorsed Hillary is not helping their cause.
Sorry but poll after poll shows that most minorities still don't even know who Sanders IS. They don't know that while Hillary was working for Barry Goldwater, Sanders was marching with MLK. Hillary is many things, but a person of the people, and one who is actually going to stand up to the very powerful special interests who are funding her campaign, is not one of them.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
No more coal (like no more buggy whips.) Why, for one example, is Yertel the turtle McConnnell still there? ...he doesn't (and cannot) produce more jobs in Kentucky....
It is not untoward to suggest that this Progressive Effort will take a lot more, a thousand times more, than most of its neophytes have acknowledged, delivered so far. I'd love to hear that the Berners have taken a state that doesn't touch Vermont, and has more than one half million primary voters. I love Bernie, but he needs to educate his supporters, and quit promising them free tuition that they will NEVER receive. Party on!
His plan for "free tuition" is explained on his website. Quite simple. Quite doable.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
Here is his plan to pay for Universal Single Payer Healthcare:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
Of course, if a President Sanders (who would bring in a more progressive Congress on his coat tails) would be unable to get even such widely popular programs passed, then a President Clinton, who is perhaps the most divisive politician, would get even less done.
The magic of 28: between 1901 and 2099, years that are 28 years apart will always have the same calendar. Also, 28 is one of a very few "perfect numbers" in mathematics.
RSS feed for comments to this post