It Takes a Movement
Published on
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
by
RobertReich.org
It Takes a Movement
by
Robert Reich
Students listen to Bernie Sanders as he speaks at a big rally at the
University of Iowa on Saturday. (Photo: Lucian Perkins/for The Washington
Post)
In 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.
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Election 2016
. Bernie Revolution Revs Engine
. Water Crisis in Flint
. Our 1% World
It Takes a Movement
Published on
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
by
RobertReich.org
It Takes a Movement
by
Robert Reich
. 17 Comments
.
. Students listen to Bernie Sanders as he speaks at a big rally at the
University of Iowa on Saturday. (Photo: Lucian Perkins/for The Washington
Post)
. In 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.
