RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Jeffrey D. Sachs begins: "Occupy Wall Street and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America."

Protesters trapped on the Brooklyn Bridge by police flash peace and victory signs to comrades on the walkway above, 10/01/11. (photo: Eric Hart/flickr)
Protesters trapped on the Brooklyn Bridge by police flash peace and victory signs to comrades on the walkway above, 10/01/11. (photo: Eric Hart/flickr)



The New Progressive Movement

By Jeffrey D. Sachs, The New York Times

13 November 11

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns

ccupy Wall Street and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.

Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Taxes for the rich were slashed, as were outlays on public services and investments as a share of national income. Only the military and a few big transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits were exempted from the squeeze.

Reagan's was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue - the rise of global competition in the information age - and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.

Washington still channels Reaganomics. The federal budget for nonsecurity discretionary outlays - categories like highways and rail, education, job training, research and development, the judiciary, NASA, environmental protection, energy, the IRS and more - was cut from more than 5 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 1970s to around half of that today. With the budget caps enacted in the August agreement, domestic discretionary spending would decline to less than 2 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, according to the White House. Government would die by fiscal asphyxiation.

Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.

The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women's suffrage.

The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. FDR's New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

None of this will be easy. Vested interests are deeply entrenched, even as Wall Street titans are jailed and their firms pay megafines for fraud. The progressive era took 20 years to correct abuses of the Gilded Age. The New Deal struggled for a decade to overcome the Great Depression, and the expansion of economic justice lasted through the 1960s. The new wave of reform is but a few months old.

The young people in Zuccotti Park and more than 1,000 cities have started America on a path to renewal. The movement, still in its first days, will have to expand in several strategic ways. Activists are needed among shareholders, consumers and students to hold corporations and politicians to account. Shareholders, for example, should pressure companies to get out of politics. Consumers should take their money and purchasing power away from companies that confuse business and political power. The whole range of other actions - shareholder and consumer activism, policy formulation, and running of candidates - will not happen in the park.

The new movement also needs to build a public policy platform. The American people have it absolutely right on the three main points of a new agenda. To put it simply: tax the rich, end the wars and restore honest and effective government for all.

Finally, the new progressive era will need a fresh and gutsy generation of candidates to seek election victories not through wealthy campaign financiers but through free social media. A new generation of politicians will prove that they can win on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blog sites, rather than with corporate-financed TV ads. By lowering the cost of political campaigning, the free social media can liberate Washington from the current state of endemic corruption. And the candidates that turn down large campaign checks, political action committees, Super PACs and bundlers will be well positioned to call out their opponents who are on the corporate take.

Those who think that the cold weather will end the protests should think again. A new generation of leaders is just getting started. The new progressive age has begun.


Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of "The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+10 # Activista 2014-07-11 00:25
Robert Parry writing is very important - especially these days when war on Gaza will morph into the war on Iran.
here I wrote 9 days ago:
Activista 2014-07-01 10:53
"Hamas in Gaza responded Monday evening to the discovery of the bodies of the three Israeli teens, kidnapped on June 12, denying complicity in the kidnapping and blaming Israel for "preparing the ground" for an attack against Gaza."
www.haaretz.com - I find Haaretz or Hamas more trutworthy than Israeli/USA mass media ...
That Israel will use its propaganda blitzkrieg to attack Iran (now IF but when).
 
 
+7 # Citizen Mike 2014-07-11 05:48
So much for the conservatives' claim that The Times has a left-wing bias! Damifino how they can say that. Mainstream journalism tends to lean right and support all kinds of government wrongdoing, such as waging wars of aggression, the kind conservatives like.
 
 
+1 # Buddha 2014-07-11 10:22
Quoting Citizen Mike:
So much for the conservatives' claim that The Times has a left-wing bias! Damifino how they can say that.


Because many Conservatives are still living in the 1950's, when "Left Wing Media Bias" actually had some small truth to it? And for those who know better and craft GOP narratives, because it still plays with the ignorant base, getting them to drink the Corporate Kool-Aid voluntarily?
 
 
+6 # ericlipps 2014-07-11 06:11
Unfortunately, a lot of people, including many liberals, bought the "WMDs" claim about Saddam Hussein, as conservatives keep gleefully reminding us.

I wonder if they'd be quite so gleeful, though, if they realize that what they're really admitting is that (1) our intelligence services are vulnerable to being led by the nose by those willing to provide false information which fits their (right-leaning) institutionaliz ed prejudices, and (2) conservatives are more than happy to provide such false information, even when they know, or have good reason to know, that it is false. Or, to put it another way, that our spy agencies are suckers for right-wing disinformation, and right-wingers are happy to sucker them.
 
 
+4 # Buddha 2014-07-11 10:26
Quoting ericlipps:
Unfortunately, a lot of people, including many liberals, bought the "WMDs" claim about Saddam Hussein, as conservatives keep gleefully reminding us.


I always laugh at this chestnut. My come-back is always that this take solely suggests is that the GOP are very effective liars, not that some liberals being duped by them provides any proof that deliberate lies weren't being told. Any psychologist will tell you that Sociopaths are always good at lying.
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2014-07-11 07:55
Of course Michael R. Gordon was the co-writer on many of Judith Miller's total fabrications published on the front page of the NYT. Actually, the Miller and Gordon stories were more than fabrications. They were direct dis-information stories from Dick Cheney's office. Gordon and Miller were how Cheney and his lying machine took control of the front pages of the NYT. Of course the editors at the NYT knew this and consented to it. The NYT has been doing this for more than a century.

Now Miller works at FOX news and Gordon is still the well greased conduit for the lies of the military industrial complex.

There is no "free press" in the US. The major media are simply conduits for the ruling elites to tell the masses what they intend to do. They inform the masses so the masses will support the actions, such as a war against Iraq or the funding of a coup d'etat in Ukraine.

There's nothing to say about Anders Fogh Rassmussen. He's simply a whore. He does what the ruling elites tell him to do. There's no lie that is too disgusting to him. There's no amount of wanton killing that he's not willing to authorize. that's why his career has been so successful. He's a political whore of the first order.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-07-11 09:08
RMDC, allow me to explain an important point here. The U.S. controls the world, and I do not exaggerate this point. I never realized how much so until recently, until even Putin himself has become subservient to U.S. dictates, not because he's necessarily afraid of the U.S. military and its proxy puppet army in Europe, NATO, but because the U.S. controls the world's finances and can hurt most any country with sanctions.

We've a saying: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never harm me." I agree that people like Anders Fogh Rassmussen and Benjamin Netanyahu aren't the nicest people in the world, and calling them names may make one feel good, but it's not going to change anything unfortunately.

I am somewhat depressed right now because the only country in the world today that I thought could've changed anything, that could've stood up to the U.S., that could've opposed U.S. world domination, has just capitulated its power away to the United States, and that country is Russia. I refer you to the following short article that came out today:

http://seekingalpha.com/news/1839155-russia-not-interfering-as-ukraine-surrounds-donetsk

Putin has just told the United States of the world that it will not stand up to the U.S. and that the U.S. is virtually free to do whatever it wants to do in the world today.

Name calling doesn't work when you're dealing with very thick-skinned people, people who are absent a conscience and a soul, evil wicked people.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-07-11 09:07
Deleted
 
 
+2 # Pikewich 2014-07-11 11:59
Well.....Duh!

Anyone who depends on any corporate media outlet for accurate information should have their heads examined.

Remember, one definition of insanity is to continue the same behavior expecting different results.

What if we ignored the NYT? Would it figure out it needed to provide accurate information?
 
 
0 # Activista 2014-07-11 14:28
 
 
0 # LAellie33 2014-07-26 04:46
Did some ugly rightwing extremist take over the NYTimes?
 

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.

RSNRSN