by Robert Reich:Does Hillary Get It?
'Does Hillary Clinton understand that the biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left, but between the anti-establishment and the establishment?
I worry she doesnt at least not yet.
A Democratic operative Ive known since the Bill Clinton administration told me now that shes won the nomination, Hillary is moving to the middle. Shes going after moderate swing voters.
Presumably thats why she tapped Tim Kaine to be her vice president. Kaine is as vanilla middle as you can get.
In fairness, Hillary is only doing what she knows best. Moving to the putative center is what Bill Clinton did after the Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994 signing legislation on welfare reform, crime, trade, and financial deregulation that enabled him to win reelection in 1996 and declare the era of big government over.
In those days a general election was like a competition between two hot-dog vendors on a boardwalk extending from right to left. Each had to move to the middle to maximize sales. (If one strayed too far left or right, the other would move beside him and take all sales on rest of the boardwalk.)
But this view is outdated. Nowadays, its the boardwalk versus the private jets on their way to the Hamptons.
The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy.
This is a big reason why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. Its also why Bernie Sanders took 22 states in the Democratic primaries, including a majority of Democratic primary voters under age 45.
There are no longer moderates. Theres no longer a center. Theres authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernies political revolution, and is now up for grabs).
And then theres the Republican establishment (now scattered to the winds), and the Democratic establishment.
If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party dont recognize this realignment, theyre in for a rude shock as, Im afraid, is the nation. Because Donald Trump does recognize it. His authoritarian (I am your voice) populism is premised on it.
In five, ten years from now, Trump says, youre going to have a workers party. A party of people that havent had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.
Speaking at a factory in Pennsylvania in June, he decried politicians and financiers who had betrayed Americans by taking away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.
Worries about free trade used to be confined to the political left. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, people who say free-trade deals are bad for America are more likely to lean Republican.
The problem isnt trade itself. Its a political-economic system that wont cushion working people against trades downsides or share trades upsides. In other words, a system thats rigged.
Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanderss campaign. Its also been central to Donald (Im so rich I cant be bought off) Trumps appeal, although hes now trolling for big money.
A recent YouGov/Economist poll found that 80 percent of GOP primary voters who preferred Donald Trump as the nominee listed money in politics as an important issue, and a Bloomberg Politics poll shows a similar percentage of Republicans opposed to the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.
Getting big money out of politics is of growing importance to voters in both major parties. A June New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 84 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans want to fundamentally change or completely rebuild our campaign finance system.
Last January, a DeMoines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or mad as hell about money in politics.
Hillary Clinton doesnt need to move toward the middle. In fact, such a move could hurt her if its perceived to be compromising the stances she took in the primaries in order to be more acceptable to Democratic movers and shakers.
She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.
She must make clear Donald Trumps authoritarian populism is a dangerous gambit, and the best way to end crony capitalism and make America work for the many is to strengthen American democracy.'
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf
LuvLoogie
(7,078 posts)Tim Kaine has done more real good for more people, and with real accountability. Vanilla middle?
Kaine is in the mix Mr. Reich. You pundit and preach.
elleng
(131,414 posts)Not preaching; informing.
malthaussen
(17,241 posts)No one would buy that, and it would be spun as yet another proof that she'll say anything to get elected.
And Mr Reich's premise may be flawed to begin with: if the "great divide" is as he sees it, then why didn't Mr Sanders win the nomination? He is clearly anti-establishment.
-- Mal
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)He cites the danger that she will compromise "the stances she took in the primaries in order to be more acceptable to Democratic movers and shakers."
Read that carefully. She "took the stances in the primaries," stances that she had not held before, and she took them "in order to be more acceptable," not because she believed in them, and she was taking them to pander not to the people, but to "Democratic movers and shakers."
That statement betrays a process controlled by the party machine and a candidate running on entirely mercenary principles, and he addresses none of it.