Reich vis-a-vis Clinton: Keeping a Good Man Honest
At a time when average working people need a president who will fight for them, the question is whether Hillary Clinton is willing to be bold and to fight. This is a defining moment for Democrats, America and Clinton, herself. Barack Obama was a defining moment too. In my book he's running 40/60 good/bad. Even O-care would have been infinitely more effective as single-payer. So much for defining moments.
It’s a paradox. Yeah, in a Zeno kind of way, and Hillary is going to bring me half the way there.
Almost all the economic gains are still going to the top, leaving America’s vast middle class with stagnant wages and little or no job security. Two-thirds of Americans are working paycheck to paycheck.
Meanwhile, big money is taking over our democracy.
If there were ever a time for a bold Democratic voice on behalf of hardworking Americans, it is now.
Yet I don’t recall a time when the Democratic Party’s most prominent office holders sounded as meek. With the exception of Elizabeth Warren, they’re pussycats. Come on now, Mr. Reich, who was the one who bowed out of contention in favor of your front-runner? It was un"warren"ted and also very feline, if you ask me. If Paul Wellstone, Teddy Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or Ann Richards were still with us, they’d be hollering.
The fire now is on the right, stoked by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and a pocketful of hedge-fund billionaires.
Today’s Republican firebrands, beginning with Ted Cruz, blame the poor, blacks, Latinos, and immigrants for what’s been happening. They avoid any mention of wealth and power. Screw Cruz. I know the breed well. No peasant ever fared well in pre-Castro Cuba!
Which brings me to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Oh, Robert, you had to go there.
Some wonder about the strength of her values and ideals. I don’t. I’ve known her since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is. For her entire career she’s been deeply committed to equal opportunity and upward mobility. Really, Robert? How often have you heard a relative or a long-time neighbor of a serial killer say, "Well, I never imagined that so-and-so would. . .?"
Some worry she’s been too compromised by big money – that the circle of wealthy donors she and her husband have cultivated over the years has dulled her sensitivity to the struggling middle class and poor. Robert, how did the stock market fare during Bill's term?
But it’s wrong to assume great wealth, or even a social circle of the wealthy, is incompatible with a deep commitment to reform – as Teddy Roosevelt and his fifth-cousin Franklin clearly demonstrated. I have to disagree with you big time, friend. The Roosevelts were of Dutch descent, I believe. No offense to the British Isles, but their poor (and in the U.S., slaves and the poor) have always fared poorly. Perhaps it was all a result of their monarchy--I don't know but, btw, do we want another monarchy?
The more relevant concern is Hillary Clinton’s willingness to fight. Or party hard as a mother, First Lady, and Secretary of State? Do we want another Kissinger holding high office?
Politicians usually seek to appeal to as many voters as possible, eschewing controversy. After a devastating first midterm election, her husband famously “triangulated” between Democrats and Republicans, seeking to find a middle position above the fray. I don't care how much of a geometer he was, the middle position was still Wall St., Manhattan.
But these times are different. Not in ninety years has America harbored a greater concentration of wealth at the very top. Not since the Gilded Age of the 1890s has American politics been as corrupted by big money as it is today. Welcome to the second Gilded Age. I anticipate a very long run.
If Hillary Clinton is to get the mandate she needs for America to get back on track, she will have to be clear with the American people about what is happening and why – and what must be done.
For example: Wall Street is still running the economy, and still out of control.
So we must resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act and bust up the biggest banks, so millions of Americans don’t ever again lose their homes, jobs, and savings because of Wall Street’s excesses. I could believe that Monica could have stirred up some passive-aggressive tendencies in Hillary Artillery, but methinks the Clinton Family see eye to eye on financial matters. Please remember, Mr. Reich, that a 19 year old still has to reach adulthood and her views are more than likely to undergo change.
Also: Increase taxes on the rich in order to finance the investments in schools and infrastructure the nation desperately needs. But wouldn't Hillary need their support for her second term or has she and her husband accumulated all that they will ever need?
Strengthen unions so working Americans have the bargaining power to get a fair share of the gains from economic growth. I wish you would limit these to the Private Sector. Those in the Public Sector are asking for money from the thief (the public official who is in charge of others' money).
Limit the deductibility of executive pay, and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Only an economist would have thought of the first; but, I'm with you on both.
Oppose trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership designed to protect corporate property but not American jobs. Yeah, Bobby!
And nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse “Citizens United.” I guess we do have to leave it up to our SCOTUS shadow government.
I’m not suggesting a long list. Democratic candidates too often offer mind-numbing policy proposals without explaining why they’re important. Sorry to ask this, Bobby, but were there records of your vociferous objections to Bill Clinton's deregulation policies or where you sitting pretty because people were employed? [or were there visibility problems? I'm assuming I can make such jokes being that you do so yourself]
She should use such policies to illustrate the problem, and make a vivid moral case for why such policies are necessary. It remains to be seen if the 19 year-old is mother to the woman.
In recent decades Republicans have made a moral case for less government and lower taxes on the rich, based on their idea of “freedom.” What a job Senator Paul has ahead of him, eh?
They talk endlessly about freedom but they never talk about power. But it’s power that’s askew in America –concentrated power that’s constraining the freedom of the vast majority. This is why I'll always love you Bob, er, Mr. Reich.
Hillary Clinton should make the moral case about power: for taking it out of the hands of those with great wealth and putting it back into the hands of average working people. Is this akin to the moral case that whistle-blowers have a role to play in our society and should be supported as she supported Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden? To do what you want her to do requires empathy and your lady has no more empathy than that possessed by a Walton.
Almost all the economic gains are still going to the top, leaving America’s vast middle class with stagnant wages and little or no job security. Two-thirds of Americans are working paycheck to paycheck.
Meanwhile, big money is taking over our democracy.
If there were ever a time for a bold Democratic voice on behalf of hardworking Americans, it is now.
Yet I don’t recall a time when the Democratic Party’s most prominent office holders sounded as meek. With the exception of Elizabeth Warren, they’re pussycats. Come on now, Mr. Reich, who was the one who bowed out of contention in favor of your front-runner? It was un"warren"ted and also very feline, if you ask me. If Paul Wellstone, Teddy Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, or Ann Richards were still with us, they’d be hollering.
The fire now is on the right, stoked by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and a pocketful of hedge-fund billionaires.
Today’s Republican firebrands, beginning with Ted Cruz, blame the poor, blacks, Latinos, and immigrants for what’s been happening. They avoid any mention of wealth and power. Screw Cruz. I know the breed well. No peasant ever fared well in pre-Castro Cuba!
Which brings me to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Oh, Robert, you had to go there.
Some wonder about the strength of her values and ideals. I don’t. I’ve known her since she was 19 years old, and have no doubt where her heart is. For her entire career she’s been deeply committed to equal opportunity and upward mobility. Really, Robert? How often have you heard a relative or a long-time neighbor of a serial killer say, "Well, I never imagined that so-and-so would. . .?"
Some worry she’s been too compromised by big money – that the circle of wealthy donors she and her husband have cultivated over the years has dulled her sensitivity to the struggling middle class and poor. Robert, how did the stock market fare during Bill's term?
But it’s wrong to assume great wealth, or even a social circle of the wealthy, is incompatible with a deep commitment to reform – as Teddy Roosevelt and his fifth-cousin Franklin clearly demonstrated. I have to disagree with you big time, friend. The Roosevelts were of Dutch descent, I believe. No offense to the British Isles, but their poor (and in the U.S., slaves and the poor) have always fared poorly. Perhaps it was all a result of their monarchy--I don't know but, btw, do we want another monarchy?
The more relevant concern is Hillary Clinton’s willingness to fight. Or party hard as a mother, First Lady, and Secretary of State? Do we want another Kissinger holding high office?
Politicians usually seek to appeal to as many voters as possible, eschewing controversy. After a devastating first midterm election, her husband famously “triangulated” between Democrats and Republicans, seeking to find a middle position above the fray. I don't care how much of a geometer he was, the middle position was still Wall St., Manhattan.
But these times are different. Not in ninety years has America harbored a greater concentration of wealth at the very top. Not since the Gilded Age of the 1890s has American politics been as corrupted by big money as it is today. Welcome to the second Gilded Age. I anticipate a very long run.
If Hillary Clinton is to get the mandate she needs for America to get back on track, she will have to be clear with the American people about what is happening and why – and what must be done.
For example: Wall Street is still running the economy, and still out of control.
So we must resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act and bust up the biggest banks, so millions of Americans don’t ever again lose their homes, jobs, and savings because of Wall Street’s excesses. I could believe that Monica could have stirred up some passive-aggressive tendencies in Hillary Artillery, but methinks the Clinton Family see eye to eye on financial matters. Please remember, Mr. Reich, that a 19 year old still has to reach adulthood and her views are more than likely to undergo change.
Also: Increase taxes on the rich in order to finance the investments in schools and infrastructure the nation desperately needs. But wouldn't Hillary need their support for her second term or has she and her husband accumulated all that they will ever need?
Strengthen unions so working Americans have the bargaining power to get a fair share of the gains from economic growth. I wish you would limit these to the Private Sector. Those in the Public Sector are asking for money from the thief (the public official who is in charge of others' money).
Limit the deductibility of executive pay, and raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Only an economist would have thought of the first; but, I'm with you on both.
Oppose trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership designed to protect corporate property but not American jobs. Yeah, Bobby!
And nominate Supreme Court justices who will reverse “Citizens United.” I guess we do have to leave it up to our SCOTUS shadow government.
I’m not suggesting a long list. Democratic candidates too often offer mind-numbing policy proposals without explaining why they’re important. Sorry to ask this, Bobby, but were there records of your vociferous objections to Bill Clinton's deregulation policies or where you sitting pretty because people were employed? [or were there visibility problems? I'm assuming I can make such jokes being that you do so yourself]
She should use such policies to illustrate the problem, and make a vivid moral case for why such policies are necessary. It remains to be seen if the 19 year-old is mother to the woman.
In recent decades Republicans have made a moral case for less government and lower taxes on the rich, based on their idea of “freedom.” What a job Senator Paul has ahead of him, eh?
They talk endlessly about freedom but they never talk about power. But it’s power that’s askew in America –concentrated power that’s constraining the freedom of the vast majority. This is why I'll always love you Bob, er, Mr. Reich.
Hillary Clinton should make the moral case about power: for taking it out of the hands of those with great wealth and putting it back into the hands of average working people. Is this akin to the moral case that whistle-blowers have a role to play in our society and should be supported as she supported Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden? To do what you want her to do requires empathy and your lady has no more empathy than that possessed by a Walton.