Robert Reich published Seven Hard Truths for Democrats: Future Bleak without Radical Reforms
This is the version rebllogged on Naked Capitalism with Yves Smith’s introduction.
Reich: 7 Hard Truths for Democrats: Future Bleak without Radical Reform
Here is a summary of Reich’s points with my annotations.
1. The Party is on life support. This is what I mean by “The donkey is dead.” The brand is toxic and the institutional infrastructure has been nuked in many states and localities.
2. We are now in a populist era. Actually, we are in an astroturfed organized hate that has stirred up the grassroots and that the established Democrats do not understand (possibly do not care) how to ratchet back into authentic grassroots governance.
3. The economy is not working for most Americans. Most Americans means those without the market or institutional power to set their own wages and salaries.
4. The Party’s moneyed establishment–big donors, major lobbyists, retired members of Congress who have become bundlers and lobbyists–are part of the problem. These folks are in the situation in which they can set their wages and salaries and want to keep their good thing going. They have sabotaged effective outreach and created the scandals that have been used to bring down Democratic politicians in state after state.
5. It’s not enough for Democrats to be “against Trump,” and defend the status quo. State and local elections get nationalized when one or the other party does not contest state and local issues of importance. McCrory’s failure to adequately deal with a coal ash spill cause by his previous and future employer is what brought him down as much as his sudden change from moderate to GOP-lockstep radical. That was not sufficient to change the General Assembly, nor was opposition to Hate Bill 2.
6. The life of the Party–its enthusiasm, passion, youth, principles, and ideals–was elicited by Bernie Sanders’s campaign. Bernie and his followers within the Democratic Party are still where the vitality is. But the establishment is still taking pot shots at the so-called Bernie voters (twitterers) who are still hung up on the Clintons and wanting to ensure that the donkey is really dead. (It is.)
7. The Party must change from being a giant fundraising machine to a movement. The right-wing populist movement already has the big money behind it. The rest of the money is hanging out at Davos and scared enough to talk about inequality and how to manage the carnage. Whatever movement that revitalizes the movement must function with a minimal of rich folks’ money, be as frugal as possible, and not create a subverting professional class. Doing this is not a trivial challenge but without it Democrats go the way of the Federalists and Whigs and spend some amount of time in the belly of GOP power before it can break out again.
Reich says on item 7:
It needs to unite the poor, working class, and middle class, black and white–who haven’t had a raise in 30 years, and who feel angry, powerless, and disenfranchised.
That means wrenching the corporate seal of state and local Democratic parties out of the hands of those who have been selling it to the highest bidder and winning back the people at the same time. Do you see the fight that this is in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, Baltimore, and other places that have retained some of the mechanisms of the machine politics that caused the rise of a progressive populist movement out of the moralistic side of the Republican Party a century ago? The same urban machines that FDR had to bring into alignment with his programs in order to roll out the New Deal. Chicago’s Anton Cermak took a bullet for that alignment. But he had to overcome a Republican machine with a Democratic machine.
This raises the question about populist approaches. When does the demos select at tyrant? And when does a movement degenerate into a machine?
Disagree on #2 – We are now in a populist era. Actually, we are in an astroturfed organized hate that has stirred up the grassroots and that the established Democrats do not understand (possibly do not care) how to ratchet back into authentic grassroots governance.
We are in a populist era and “organized hate” (astroturfed or any other means) are how elites and institutions exploit the moment to further feather their own nests. The Democratic Party and Clinton have also been engaged in exploiting it. A difference is that Mr. Trump injected enough of “I’m going to bring good things” with the hate to eke out wins in three not anticipated to be swing states; whereas, the opposition (other than Sanders) went with a symbol (a woman will bring good things), but always accented fear, hate and anger.
Doubt it escaped many that the #1 objective for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump was to become POTUS and to hell with whatever “the people” want and need. (This is evident from both of their fav/unfav ratings that were the worst ever in a presidential election.)
Mr. Trump had the easier task in that he could say any darn fool thing that sounded good to some people without a public policy record that contradicted him. As his takeover of the lead role in the GOP was done without being beholden to the party apparatchiks and funders, he didn’t have to measure his words and thus, was free to blatantly tap the racism, etc. that has kept the GOP in the game for the past seventy years. Challenging Republicans either to go with him (where they might get something on their wishlist and some power in his administration) or Clinton (where they might have gotten more on their wishlist but with less power in her administration).
He could also free to use some sleight of hands. ie. attacking Cruz and Clinton for their ties to Goldman Sachs and postponing the revelation of his Goldman Sachs ties until after the election. How exactly can Democrats credibly attack the Trump-Goldman Sachs ties when they gave tacit approval for the same with Clinton? It’s a similar box that Kerry found himself in — how could he attack GWB for the Iraq War and Abu Gharib when he’d voted for it?
Exactly. Thanks for filling this out.
The point is looking to the zeitgeist and figuring out how to get authentic politics of the people into affecting institutions again.
Damned if I know. Although the answer is always the same. Pierce enough institutional powers and sufficiently that their seeming invincibility begins imploding and “the people” can rush in to finish them off and rebuild something better or less stultifying. Of course the risk, if at least a rudimentary “better” isn’t pre-existing, is that the outcome results in anarchy and worse that can persist for a long time.
Or wait until the corruption and rot like termites do the work. Those opportunities are rare in modern and developed countries. But where they’re more common, the results aren’t that inspiring; usually, a new boss, no better and often worse, is waiting in the wings and takes over.
Such a “moment” developed over a decade in the US almost a hundred years ago when multiple institutions collapsed. Government through Teapot Dome and prohibition. Military (small during periods of peace) denied promised benefits which spawned the Bonus Army. Droughts and the Dust Bowl. Railroads. Wall Street and banks. The GOP. All had to be tackled simultaneously and this country got very lucky in that there were enough good men and women (Frances Perkins was a giant) in a hungry political party to change the course of history for the better. Had there been more such good men and women, the change would have been both faster and better.
Since then, institutional collapses have occurred but singly and the remaining institutions have been capable of papering over/propping up the collapse quickly enough that the victims aren’t widespread and their anger can be contained. The major left of center one, unions, have been collapsing so slowly (beginning 1947) that it’s imperceptible to more than the few are directly impacted with each shudder. Along with that, media (newspapers, radio, and TV) that once contained a wide variety of political/social orientations has been shrunk to a handful of mega-capitalist voices, dishing out a mix of propaganda and authentic news.
The military was in the throes of a collapse due to its own hubris and lack of purpose from the early 1960s through say 1975. LBJ through Reagan propped it up (as would JFK if he had lived) because the nuclear component was vital to the stupid Cold War.
Like Unions, farming collapsed slowly and was supplanted by agri-business that exerted far more power than its predecessors had.
Energy did collapse, but that rescued the money/banking/investment institutions that were teetering and some failed. The S&L collapse was the result of a failed government attempt to stem the larger money/banking collapse (and the USG credit card rescued that one with barely a whimper from the public). Consolidation — mergers and takeovers — was the final solution that extended from the the late 1980s to 2007. And the only solution when it collapsed again — and a trillions on the USG credit card instead of hundred of billions with the S&L collapse. This collapse was a big enough moment that it could have been seized upon, but “the people” as an institution is too weak and flabby to resist “a chicken in every pot” (hope & change) as the solution. That worked so well that now Trump is in the WH.
I suppose I should throw in the institution of church — like government, a long time player in regressive and progressive social and economic justice. But since about 1970, the progressive end has withered and the regressive end has grown in power along with the military. So, it too needs to collapse as it has done many times in the past.
Institutions with power and wealth have never been so large and mutually interdependent and intertwined as they now are. That makes them both more invincible from without (the people) and more fragile within. While the cracks in the facade can be seen throughout the west, they can be patched up for a long time to come.
This is a great comment.
Especially this:
Trump’s election and the “liberal” reaction to it down at the granular level, from Politico, of all places.
Funny how when it is their privilege assaulted (in their minds, at any rate), it causes all kinds of anxiety that they refuse to validate when it has developed in the rural community’s indigenous.
They sound downright terrorized by night sweats. Aren’t they embarrassed by their own projections? Are we becoming a citizenry irretrievably headed for divorce? Or is rural/urban the newest black/white iteration to disempower us?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/blue-red-state-democrats-trump-country-214647
This is a very good article. Real reporting.
Steve Anderson was the one Democrat/liberal interviewed that gets it. The other, Democrats/liberals, ranged from sort of gets it to rather clueless. Ah, but Anderson is a “self-described ‘working-class liberal” and walks his talk. The disconnect between the urban transplant liberals and the multi-generation local Democrats couldn’t be more stark. It’s as if the former has zero understanding of what it was the made the latter Democrats in the first place and how that original transition was seamless from their tradition beginning with the establishment of land grant universities (1862 and 1890).
More insight was displayed by some of the Trump or reluctant Clinton voters.
The following is hits a few notes that Democrats are blind to:
IOW — give us plain speaking instead to parsed into incomprehension, stand up publicly for what you espouse, and don’t beat up on those that are reluctant to accept social changes after the change has been enshrined in law.
I know. It’s like they thought their rural neighbors grew horns overnight. Sheesh.
That might be a generous interpretation as it still implies a continuing certain non-existence to their rural neighbors. Too much like the response of southerners in the 1960s to the shock that their AA neighbors no longer accepted their servile role and they wanted to put that genie back in the bottle.
That one could have been phrased better. As is, the thought isn’t easy to comprehend. It’s also extremely broad brushed, and therefore, not entirely accurate during different time periods.
On further reflection, it’s more descriptive from 1990 on than the prior dozen years when there were multiple institutional collapses that were more concurrent than sequential, but they tended to be seen, recognized, or experienced as sequential. Yet, the seeds were planted earlier. One — 1973 OPEC embargo.
That was concurrent with the US peak oil point. (Not that it was recognized as such in real time.) Its impact wasn’t all negative, but it did weaken a wide range of institutions. That weakening was more difficult to paper over with the second “oil shock” in 1979. And while battered by the two oil shocks, Detroit (US auto industry) had other major problems of its own making, but it put the blame on OPEC, labor, and Japan.
Leadership at the federal level – Nixon through GHWB — could have been worse, but it was pretty damn bad. It had settled into a “new normal” by 1990. Which the subsequent bozos read as “need more Reaganomics.”
What I think the 2016 election revealed is that the Fourth Estate has collapsed. In the making from 1980 on. It’s replacement — tweets, etc. — may not be worse than what it developed into, but it’s not better and is more likely to get much worse. The alternatives are doing a decent enough job, but they’re small and don’t have the resources needed to put boots on the ground and therefore, are dependent on the MSM and whatever docs they can wrestle out of institutions. Or maybe I’m viewing all of this through a lens too dark.
Is this from CBS a more accurate report of Trump’s CIA visit?
It does include an easily verifiable aspect that was omitted/not covered by other reports on Saturday/Sunday (I know because I looked for it, but didn’t spend much time doing so.):
The rest of the report, based on official(s) and authorities said, is probably accurate because it’s consistent with what we’ve heard from reliable reporters that attended actual Trump rallies/events in comparison with what Trump and conservatives put out for the same events. Can’t discount that officials/authorities spun what they said or the reporter did some spinning, but if so, it wouldn’t have been by much because they was little room to do so. That said, Trumpsters totally discounting this report as lies from anonymous sources. That may be a healthy impulse but doesn’t exhibit any critical thinking on their part.
I like the way you put it.
For decades I have read about the coming global collapse of everything. What people fail to realize is the system is far less fragile than they think.
Inequality has been going up in a serious way for 40 years. I guarantee if I told someone in 1980 how unequal things would become, they would have said that there would be a revolution, or capitalism would collapse.
It hasn’t. We MAY be seeing the political consequences finally being felt in a serious way, but there is no great depression in the offing. In truth what is remarkable is how stable things have been.
Institutional systems riding on increasing productivity gains AND increasing income/wealth inequality is more stable in the short run because the institutions become larger, wealthier, and more powerful.
Also important to remember that the majority of people don’t measure their wealth in terms of real assets but instead in terms of what they can buy, usually today.
One example that I’ve written about here before is a KitchenAid mixer. Built like a brick and lasts a lifetime when USAMade. It was expensive but a desirable tool to invest in for serious cooks who saved up to buy it. As Julia Child made cooking cool, upper middle class people had to buy all the tools even if they rarely or never used them. The KitchenAid became a status symbol. Offshoring the manufacturing has kept the price the same — in dollars and not inflation adjusted dollars; it was about $250 in 1980 and it’s about $300 today ($250 in 1980 = $728 today).
Is it the same machine? Other than looks, no. It’s probably fine for those that don’t/won’t use it much, but an inexpensive hand-mixer would meet their needs just as well. But it’s on most bridal registries today. For the manufacturer, sales have doubled or tripled. And even if the profit margin per unit is less, they’re still coming out a ahead. The big difference is that no US workers are earning income from producing them and more natural resources are being consumed to satisfy a demand without need.
More on that last point — dollars aren’t kept at home to recirculate but are being shipped to China.
The same is true with “fast fashion.” Cost/wearing probably the same as what was once produced in the US. But “fast fashion” always looks and feels cheap. But I’m a dinosaur in that I’d rather wear something nice a hundred times than ten cheap things ten times each. (Although research on women’s closets indicates that much of that “fast fashion” is worn once or never. It’s occupying closet space that costs $300/sf (or more) to build.)
$300 in California, I’ll buy. About $125 here in the Land of the Deplorables.
The reduction from list price does vary by store and location, but no way would a new best price $300 in CA be $125 in your neck of the woods. Unless someone is pawning off fakes in the Land of Los Deplorables.
$125 per square foot is normal here, closet or living room or whatever residential.
Sorry — thought you were referring the to cost of a KitchenAid. I just used $300/sf to point out that space, even in a closet, has a cost. A better measure would be annual occupancy cost/sf. Building cost gets spread out over decades and is just one component. Taxes, insurance, repairs, energy are all part of the cost of space in closets. One reason that houses have gotten bigger is that we have more stuff to put in them, including clothes and shoes.
Aren’t they still assembled in Ohio?
I got one as a wedding gift in 97, the kind with the lift bowl. A freaking workhorse. Still runs like a charm. Priced one recently, 600.00.
Hobart was acquired by Dart & Kraft in 1981 and the KitchenAid division was sold to Whirlpool in 1986. Whirlpool hasn’t been as aggressive in offshoring manufacturing as other appliance makers have been. (and I’ve personally preferred their appliances but others differ on that). However,
wrt KitchenAid manufacturing:
The motors for the stand mixers are reportedly manufactured in China. That likely began after you bought yours. Like most small appliances today, once the motor goes, the whole thing gets tossed. And the life of appliances such as auto-drip coffee makers has become so short that I gave up on them with my last one.
wrt price, I was speaking of the Classic or KA model (looks like it’s now the KSxxx model) (I’ve used and dislike the Pro model, but if I were making large batches of bread on a daily basis, I’d probably like it.) It’s listed at $350 at Macy’s. Target, Walmart list it for less. I’ve only recently looked at one at Bed, Bath & Beyond — and the top part wasn’t metal.
Mine will soon reach the forty year mark and should have at least another forty years left in it.
Thanks for posting.
Dead donkey fundraising like mad. Looks to install their guy at DNC?
Not a dead donkey.
Now just a gene-crossed mule that isn’t going to produce any longterm offspring but still possess a hard kick.
Mules are more patient, hardy and long-lived than horses, and are less obstinate and more intelligent than donkeys.
HMMMmmmm…
A long-term problem?
May be…
ASG
Unfortunately — Ellison is already running away from principles in his effort to get the job.
Jeebus, do they expose themselves. I’ll have to bookmark that thing.
Time (a precious resource in this instance) was squandered in mounting support for the appointment of Ellison. One that I was never all that wild about (except in comparison with Perez). His skill-set didn’t seem to match what is needed. Surely there’s someone with a more compatible skill-set for the job, that affiliates with the Democratic party, and is not currently in elective office. So much luck, etc. factors into winning an election that it’s a weak criteria to use.
Recall when Harry Reid had to get someone with skill to chair the TARP oversight committee, he skipped right over politicians, advisors, etc. and roped Warren into the job. Someone like that for DNC chair. And it was up to the hoi polloi in the party to find and draft such a person. Zephyr Teachout would be superior to any of those angling for the job.
At least she won’t be hunting conservadems to run.
But fundraising is the biggest job of the DNC chairman. Is why Obama picked DWS.
That’s what has to change. The (D) party will always be Republican-Lite as long as it is dependent on corporate money. They used to get big union money but that dried up with the unions. No, I don’t want to argue which came first the chicken or the egg.
Worked together to create a negative feedback loop. Walter Reuther was the last one standing tall to prevent that negative feedback loop. (And no, I’m not going to engage in speculation that is was an assassination and not an accident.)
Exactly why part of Nixon’s ethnic strategy by using race-based dogwhistles was to split off the union members to allow anti-union actions and legislation to proceed. Keeping blacks out of their neighborhoods was more important than keeping their union jobs–that seems to be the judgment of history at this point. Now we see the next con-job of the same folks.
What came first was the civil rights era and an already weakening Democratic support of unions from (1) the Red Scare and (2) the ongoing prosecution of union leaders with organized criminal associations.
One age cohort of ethnic union leaders could not avoid having associations with the guys from the neighborhood who made their way in the “informal economy”. Same is true of the newer ethnic groups shut out of jobs.
Not just a hard kick. A hard…ahhh, nevermind.
It’ll fuck with you, too.
Bet on it.
And…it works hard for its owners.
Bet on that as well.
AG
That is not the greatest vote-getter of a brand.
And “Screw you.” is not the most appealing campaign slogan or policy of operation. Will it take 2020 for the death throes of the dead donkey to end?
Yu ask:
I dunno, Tarheel.
I really don’t.
2020?
I have grown so tired of the endlessly lame back-and-forth amongst the various (supposed) donkey owners and renters here that I am tempted to simply sit it all out and watch the remaining mules kick their (once again, supposed) various “owner’s” asses up and down the impotent, mulish internet.
The silence of the lambdas.
I’m off to Sitka, AK soon.
Time for a (working) winter vacation.
See y’all in mid-February.
Shit will have shaken out a little by then.
Meanwhile…ignore the trolls.
They resemble gnats.
A change in the direction of the media winds and they will disappear into the fake news (
o)zoneWatch.
Later…..
AG
Give those folks some good sounds. You know, they might be annexed by the Russian Far East Republic or Yakutia, or so I’ve been told. 🙂
OK. Good sounds it is. Mostly teaching good sounds to other, younger pros, I’m thinking.
But the annexation?
Why go to all that bother?
Trump’s gonna annex the U.S. to Russia anyway, or at least that’s what the DNC/GMC (Government Media Complex) wants us to believe.
AG
Number 4 is very true.