Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means
________________________________________
Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means
By Robert Reich [1] / RobertReich.org [2]
November 10, 2016
As a first step, I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of
the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who
are determined to create a party that represents America-including all those
who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our
politics and left behind in our economy.
The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising
machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests.
This must change. The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people's
party-a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition
to Donald Trump's Republican party, which is about to take over all three
branches of the U.S. government. We need a New Democratic Party that will
fight against intolerance and widening inequality.
What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for
hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation
of the American power structure.
At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties,
their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in
New York and Washington, D.C.; the country's biggest corporations, their top
executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest
Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and
private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy
individuals who invest directly in politics.
At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic
and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases
of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced
political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate
could possibly want.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was
won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and
casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television
program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with
the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not
enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.
Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign
vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements,
and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the
general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also
many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens
of Wall Street and the top executives of America's largest corporations, and
even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run
by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and
forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent
months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the
Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's
nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him
their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for
Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.
What happened?
There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the
Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged
in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates-a 74-year-old
Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist
and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and
47 percent of the vote in those primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the
country's political and economic system was rigged in favor of big
corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and,
until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider
recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo.
"The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than
they've been in years."
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the
insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness
and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the
linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining
real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower [3] now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for
inflation. Workers without college degrees-the old working class-have fallen
furthest. Most [4] economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains
have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate
subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing
market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement-all of which
have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover
has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last
three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers,
bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising
campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes
from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for
four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time
they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic
security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade
agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby
lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the
white working class-failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful
penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with
simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22
percent [5] of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less
than 12 percent [5] today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to
get a share of the economy's gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify-with the
result that large corporations have grown far larger [6], and major
industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this
combination-more trade, declining unionization and more industry
concentration-has been to shift political and economic power to big
corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created
an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify
America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power
structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie
economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because
for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of
its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because
it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also
doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role
in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently
as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is
"Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few." His website is
www.robertreich.org [7].
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8]
[9]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
[x]
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before clicking
Subscribe:
Rights & Liberties
Education
Drugs
Economy
Environment
Labor
Food
World
Politics
Investigation
Personal Health
Water
Media
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-what-donald-trumps-electi
on-really-means
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-reich-0
[2] http://robertreich.org/
[3]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advisorperspectives.com%2Fdsh
ort%2Fupdates%2FMedian-Household-Income-Update&t=Y2I5NDQ3NzJkZTlkNTQxMzQ
0MmZiYTk4NWFiYzM5MDljNmIzZDU2ZSxBT1lHbHhiUw%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgE
r8WMqg&m=1
[4]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F01%2F28%
2Fupshot%2Fgains-from-economic-recovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.htm
l%3F_r%3D1&t=ZmE3MjBlN2I3YjIwNzhkMWJkMTJiNWQzODkxYjc2NTBjMDllOWM2NCxBT1l
HbHhiUw%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&m=1
[5]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Funio
n2.nr0.htm&t=MzkwZTMyZjNkNGViZDAyNWZhNDk0YWIwZTZlMTQxOWQ3MDBkMzIxZixFdTB
acFMxcA%3D%3D
[6]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2F...%2F20151
016_firm_level_persp...&t=Njc1MTBlNWFhNGQzNjZhZjYwOTRhNzllNzhlZTE3YzMyYm
ZhMjkwMixFdTBacFMxcA%3D%3D
[7] http://www.robertreich.org
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Robert Reich: What
Donald Trump's Election Really Means
[9] http://www.alternet.org/
[10] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means
Robert Reich: What Donald Trump's Election Really Means
By Robert Reich [1] / RobertReich.org [2]
November 10, 2016
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to More9Share to
Email
As a first step, I believe it necessary for the members and leadership of
the Democratic National Committee to step down and be replaced by people who
are determined to create a party that represents America-including all those
who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our
politics and left behind in our economy.
The Democratic Party as it is now constituted has become a giant fundraising
machine, too often reflecting the goals and values of the moneyed interests.
This must change. The election of 2016 has repudiated it. We need a people's
party-a party capable of organizing and mobilizing Americans in opposition
to Donald Trump's Republican party, which is about to take over all three
branches of the U.S. government. We need a New Democratic Party that will
fight against intolerance and widening inequality.
What happened in America Tuesday should not be seen as a victory for
hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation
of the American power structure.
At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties,
their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in
New York and Washington, D.C.; the country's biggest corporations, their top
executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest
Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and
private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy
individuals who invest directly in politics.
At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed
Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic
and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases
of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced
political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate
could possibly want.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was
won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and
casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television
program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with
the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not
enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.
Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign
vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements,
and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the
general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also
many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens
of Wall Street and the top executives of America's largest corporations, and
even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run
by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and
forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent
months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the
Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's
nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him
their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for
Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.
What happened?
There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the
Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged
in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates-a 74-year-old
Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist
and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and
47 percent of the vote in those primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the
country's political and economic system was rigged in favor of big
corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and,
until recently, didn't take Trump seriously. A respected political insider
recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo.
"The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than
they've been in years."
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the
insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness
and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the
linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining
real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower [3] now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for
inflation. Workers without college degrees-the old working class-have fallen
furthest. Most [4] economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains
have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate
subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing
market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement-all of which
have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover
has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last
three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers,
bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising
campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes
from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for
four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time
they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic
security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade
agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby
lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the
white working class-failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful
penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with
simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22
percent [5] of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less
than 12 percent [5] today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to
get a share of the economy's gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify-with the
result that large corporations have grown far larger [6], and major
industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this
combination-more trade, declining unionization and more industry
concentration-has been to shift political and economic power to big
corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created
an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify
America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power
structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism will stymie
economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because
for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of
its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because
it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also
doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role
in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently
as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is
"Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few." His website is
www.robertreich.org [7].
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[9]
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-what-donald-trumps-electi
on-really-means
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-reich-0
[2] http://robertreich.org/
[3]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advisorperspectives.com%2Fdsh
ort%2Fupdates%2FMedian-Household-Income-Update&t=Y2I5NDQ3NzJkZTlkNTQxMzQ
0MmZiYTk4NWFiYzM5MDljNmIzZDU2ZSxBT1lHbHhiUw%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgE
r8WMqg&m=1
[4]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F01%2F28%
2Fupshot%2Fgains-from-economic-recovery-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.htm
l%3F_r%3D1&t=ZmE3MjBlN2I3YjIwNzhkMWJkMTJiNWQzODkxYjc2NTBjMDllOWM2NCxBT1l
HbHhiUw%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&m=1
[5]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Funio
n2.nr0.htm&t=MzkwZTMyZjNkNGViZDAyNWZhNDk0YWIwZTZlMTQxOWQ3MDBkMzIxZixFdTB
acFMxcA%3D%3D
[6]
http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2F...%2F20151
016_firm_level_persp...&t=Njc1MTBlNWFhNGQzNjZhZjYwOTRhNzllNzhlZTE3YzMyYm
ZhMjkwMixFdTBacFMxcA%3D%3D
[7] http://www.robertreich.org
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Robert Reich: What
Donald Trump's Election Really Means
[9] http://www.alternet.org/
[10] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
