Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Robert Reich
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 17, 2017 at 5:25 pm #66381
znModeratorRobert Reich…from Facebook
3/16
I’ve spent much of this week in Washington – talking with friends still in government, former colleagues, high-ranking Democrats, a few Republican pundits, and some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. It was my first visit to our nation’s capital since Trump became president.
My verdict:
1. Washington is more divided, angry, bewildered, and fearful – than I’ve ever seen it.
2. The angry divisions aren’t just Democrats versus Republicans. Rancor is also exploding inside the Republican Party.
3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
4. Many Republicans are also angry at Paul Ryan, whose replacement bill for Obamacare is considered by almost everyone on Capitol Hill to be incredibly dumb.
5. I didn’t talk with anyone inside the White House, but several who have had dealings with it called it a cesspool of intrigue and fear. Apparently everyone working there hates and distrusts everyone else.
6. The Washington foreign policy establishment – both Republican and Democrat – is deeply worried about what’s happening to American foreign policy, and the worldwide perception of America being loony and rudderless. They think Trump is legitimizing far-right movements around the world.
7. Long-time civil servants are getting ready to bail. If they’re close to retirement they’re already halfway out the door. Many in their 30s and 40s are in panic mode.
8. Republican pundits think Bannon is even more unhinged than Trump, seeking to destroy democracy as we’ve known it.
9. Despite all this, no one I talked with thought a Trump impeachment likely, at least not any time soon — unless there’s a smoking gun showing Trump’s involvement in Russia’s intrusion into the election.
10. Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
March 18, 2017 at 1:00 pm #66407
wvParticipantMany people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
===============There ya go.
w
vMarch 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm #66409
ZooeyModeratorMany people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
===============There ya go.
w
vWhile the first nine points were interesting, too, it was that same one which caught my eye – for the same reason.
In spite of Sanders and Trump, neither party seems to notice the obvious underlying connection. How dense are they?
March 18, 2017 at 1:49 pm #66412wvParticipantIn spite of Sanders and Trump, neither party seems to notice the obvious underlying connection. How dense are they?
————
I dunno, but i just think thats who they are.
Ya know. I mean, Obama just IS a corporatist. Same with Clinton. Its not that they are ‘dense’, its that they are neoliberals. They just are.w
vMarch 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm #66415
Billy_TParticipant10. Many people asked, bewilderedly, “how did this [Trump] happen?” When I suggest it had a lot to do with the 35-year-long decline of incomes of the bottom 60 percent; the growing sense, ever since the Wall Street bailout, that the game is rigged; and the utter failure of both Republicans and Democrats to reverse these trends – they gave me blank stares.
These things have happened, yes. Though Reich short-changes the length of time. It’s actually more like 44 years for wages. The most recent decline started roughly in 1973. But the “rigging” of the system goes back generations prior to that, and it comes out of the internal mechanics and logic of the capitalist system itself. Capitalism will always produce mass inequality and ecological destruction. It’s baked in.
This really doesn’t explain Trump’s victory, IMO. If it did, why didn’t we see a Trump prior to this? Again, what Reich describes has been going on for generations. Why now?
That said, the (center-right) Dems and center-left parties all over the world are certainly guilty of leaving an opening for the far right, mostly because they’ve been too afraid to offer up strong, at least “progressive” economic solutions. But there’s a lot more to this than just economics. Again, if there weren’t, this all would have happened decades ago.
Beyond all of that, Reich’s “solution” is itself woefully inadequate. He wants to “save” capitalism, when it’s capitalism itself that has generated this mass inequality and ecological destruction, and always will. Reich and all too many “liberal” economists are talking about adding restraints to a system that perpetually shrugs them off, like a giant dog throws off lilliputian leashes. It’s too late for that.
The patient needs far more than bandaids. It needs a full body transplant.
March 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm #66422Billy_TParticipantThe other part of that equation is pretty obvious:
If, as some say, the Dems in America lost because of the lack of a viable, “progressive” economic program — and they did lack this, of course — then why on earth would someone with a far worse economic vision win the day? Why on earth would someone running at the top of the GOP win the day, when that particular party’s economic orthodoxy is more stridently anti-labor, anti-worker, anti-environment and pro-corporate than the Dems?
In order to support the notion that the Dems’ lack of concern for the poor, the working class, and the middle class led to Trump, the victor would have come from regions to the left of the Dems, not well to the right. He or she would have promoted at least Sanders-like policies, or better, and he or she wouldn’t have been a vulgar, lying billionaire, with a long record of screwing over workers.
As much as all of us want the Dems to move waaaay left on economics, the fact that Clinton was center-right on the issue isn’t why she lost. She lost for a host of other reasons, chief among them her personal lack of charisma, her rather cold public persona, her inability to “connect” or inspire anyone outside a small circle and . . . . on the flip side, Trump’s ability to tap into ongoing fears and resentment in White America. Survey after survey shows us the key common denominator for his voters is the idea that non-whites are getting wildly preferential treatment in America, and whites are getting screwed.
No other single factor looms as large for his voters, despite all the attempts to “white wash” this. It is what it is. Trump loudly, aggressively, at times viciously scapegoated people of color, citizen and feriners alike, and his supporters got off on it. He won because he became, for them, the real great white hope.
March 18, 2017 at 5:07 pm #66423Billy_TParticipantThat said, I do think Sanders would have won. And the Dems, if they actually do want to win elections, need to radically alter their strategies going forward. Instead of this mindless idea that they should work to pick off “moderate” Republicans, while remaining centrist, as they dance with corporate America, etc. etc. . . . They need to turn leftward and concentrate on voters they’ve been ignoring for decades . . . and if those right of center don’t like it, tough shit. Instead of courting Republicans who might want to switch sides, they need to inspire folks on the left who haven’t picked any side yet. Push policies that appeal to lefties, on economics, inequality, war, empire, surveillance, civil liberties, etc. etc. and do so without hedging, apology or regret. Do so boldly, in a fiery manner, and talk about the “morality” of this vision as well.
In any battle with the Republicans, they’re going to retain the vast majority of their core, regardless. But with this new push for actual left-wing governance, they’d expand their tent via the only fertile ground still available:
To their left.
The ground to their right is already locked down by the GOP.
March 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm #66539
TackleDummyParticipant3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
They are just now figuring this out! Really?
March 21, 2017 at 4:44 pm #66541wvParticipant3. Republicans (and their patrons in big business) no longer believe Trump will give them cover to do what they want to do. They’re becoming afraid Trump is genuinely nuts, and he’ll pull the party down with him.
They are just now figuring this out! Really?
==============
Nice to see you on the board, Al. Hows life?
w
v -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
