Robert Reich: "The middle is a fiction"

[madfloridian]

Amen to that. This is from an interview with Der Spiegel on November 1st.

Interview with Robert Reich

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why then is President Barack Obama's Democratic Party so wary of considering an increase in government spending?

Reich: It started with the bailout of Wall Street. The socalled Tea Party movement that's gradually taking over the Republican Party began when President George W. Bush and, after him, President Obama provided Wall Street with $700 billion. It looked and felt like an insider job, a rigged deal to many Americans. In the US, when there is a sense that government and business are in cahoots, the tendency is to blame government rather than business. Had Obama put very strict conditions on that bailout, requiring for example, that Wall Street firms lend to small businesses, that homeowners be allowed to reorganize their mortgage debts under personal bankruptcy, that they limited their own pay, I don't think we would have had the kind of reaction we did. Obama also failed to connect the dots, showing America that the financial reform bill, the health care bill, and the jobs bill, the stimulus package, were all part of a broader effort to restore the middle class and fairness in the American economy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: When you served in the White House, President Bill Clinton began on the left but drifted to the middle after the Democrats lost significant ground in the mid-term elections. Do you see that happening again?

Reich: I was there with Bill Clinton when he tried to socalled "triangulate" and please the voters in the middle. But the middle is a fiction. The middle is simply where most voters who respond to surveys say they are. What Clinton did and what Obama may be forced to do is to give up leadership; that is, to simply respond to polls. I think it would be a shame if Obama moved from leadership to opinion polls, but his advisors may feel that that's the only way to guarantee him a re-election.

I remember a paragraph from a review of Reich's book called Locked in the Cabinet. That one paragraph was so telling about the tendency of our party leaders to go along to get along.

Review of Locked in the Cabinet

"The reviewer sets up the scenario by saying "Reich and his wife Clare, and Bill and Hillary go to Kinkaid's, an elegant restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's a good-bye dinner for Clare, who is going back to Cambridge with their two sons. Over dessert, Reich can't help himself."

'After all, we're balancing the budget and sacrificing public investment so that corporations have more money to invest. At the least, we should expect them to invest with their employees and communities in mind.'

There's an awkward pause. Have I overstepped the line?

'It seems to me,' says Clare, weighing her words carefully, 'that corporations are downsizing not only themselves but also a big part of the middle class.'

She's bailed me out. I want to kiss her on the spot. I throw caution to the winds and ask B, 'Would you be comfortable saying what Clare just said?'

'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

The failure to be real leaders when we have the chance....that could be the problem.

[BzaDem]

1. " The failure to be real leaders when we have the chance....that could be the problem."

Perhaps the ACTUAL problem is that the President actually doesn't have the power to force a Republican House to do what is necessary? Maybe the real problem is that too many people talk about the "bully pulpit" and "lack of leadership" and other nonsense, as opposed to the actual reasons why policies can't pass?

[madfloridian]

11. What kind of majority would it take to make a difference?

The actual reason we didn't get things done is because everyone tried to get along with the right wing that is filled with extremists who have no intention of compromising.

[defendandprotect]

18. IMO, Obama resurrected the Repug Party ... it was finished in '08 ....

[leftstreet]

32. +1

[txlibdem]

27. I, too, thought that a 60 seat majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House...

would have been enough to get things done.

From this back seat driver's point of view it looks like the moronic drive to "compromise" and bring aboard "bipartisan support" was what put the stink of failure onto everything they did.

Who in their right mind would look at the fact that America gave the President the biggest majority ever in the history of the nation and think that what we "really" meant is that the corporations needed to be bailed out, none of the crooked rules they used to destroy the economy needed to be changed, and every bill had to be watered down to the point of uselessness in a foolish attempt at "bipartisanship?" Did we vote in 50 Rethugs and 50 Dems? Hell no we didn't.

Failure of vision, lack of cajones, failure to realize what decade we were actually in. And the bully pulpit sure was good enough for FDR. But the current Pres. is too timid to even say the word "Republican" when talking about the failed last administration or any of the failed policies then or those proposed by the Repukes this time around. Wimp with a capital "W" is what I'd call that.

[defendandprotect]

38. These aren't "failed" policies .... they were intended to fail .... sadly...

Just look at the behind closed door deals Obama pulled with Big Pharma

and private health care industry to ensure the PRIVATIZED status of our

health care and drugs!!

Rahm .... crowing about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!

Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:03 AM

Here is the quote: ”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that

the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...


If that doesn't make you ill nothing will!!

[bindelh]

34. everyone tried to get along with the right wing

Would that include the Blue Dog Democrats?

One reason every hope from the 2008 election was thrown out the window with the bath water.

Public opinion be damned... when the Republicans had it they used it and look where we ended up.

The Democrats got it back and look what happened.

Too much attention to DADT and pleasing the Insurance Corps instead of putting the country back on it's feet and headed in the correct direction. No inquiries in to the Iraq war. No prosecutions for outright Financial Fraud by Wall Street and the Mortgage Industry.

Instead we got Bernie the Martha Stewart media biatch for 2009. Bernie got busted for scamming the rich but no one has taken the fall for scamming the rest of America and the rest of the world.

Wonder how long it will take the next Republican House to introduce a bill about banning the burning of the flag??? But I digress.

[sabrina 1]

19. I wondered how long it would take before the next excuse, a Republican

House, which in case you didn't know, hasn't been installed yet, would come up.

We had a majority and then the excuse was the Blue Dogs. If that excuse was legitimate, then nothing has changed.

It's hard to keep up with the excuses. In 2006 it was 'we have to wait until we have the WH and a bigger majority. After we got that done, it was the Blue Dogs and we needed an even bigger majority. All those excuses returned us to where we are now.

How about just rolling over Republicans and Blue Dogs the Bush even with a minority in Congress, rolled over Democrats?

We've tried it every other way, and failed. What is there to lose by just saying 'I'm the president, we have the Senate, and things are going to be done our way for a change.' That actually might get them back in power in 2012, or not. But since it hasn't been tried, and we know that 'triangulation' doesn't work, it's worth a try.

[defendandprotect]

39. And, great point, again -- GOP always takes over BEFORE they take over ...

:)

[defendandprotect]

40. And, great point again -- GOP always takes over BEFORE they take over ... !!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

41. Great point -- again -- GOP always takes power BEFORE they actually take over ....

and here we are watching it again --

[treestar]

2. a fancy way of saying the people should be ignored?

[stray cat]

3. only people who disagree with you I guess

[treestar]

10. He's referring to the voters in general

Those who agree and disagree with me. What do I have to do with it?

[polichick]

4. The irony is, they don't lead because they're worried about reelection...

...but if they really did lead, they wouldn't have to worry about reelection.

It's mindboggling that they don't get it.

[madfloridian]

7. Yes, that is true. Fear of not being re-elected drives governance.

Mostly our side worries about it, the right just barrels on ahead.

[polichick]

9. Yep - and the right is rewarded by their constituents for barreling ahead...

imo the prez and Dems would've been better rewarded in this election if they had boldly barreled ahead with Democratic principles instead of caving to special interests and the Republicans.

[AlbertCat]

14. the right is rewarded by their constituents

Yeah.... like Bechtel and Halliburton and General Electric.


"if they had boldly barreled ahead with Democratic principles"

which would have been filibustered like everything else. And then the Media would have reported how weak Dems are while showing repeatedly Repugs pontificating about "The will of the People".

Of course, just some insistence on principle might have been nice. I understand that Obama might have felt the bickering was one thing the people were sick of, but when it is obvious the other side doesn't want to play...

[txlibdem]

28. Filibustered? Which bill was filibustered? NONE OF THEM.

Harry Reid just had to get a whiff of a rumor that they were thinking of filibustering and he wimped out and took it off the table.

THERE WERE NO BILLS FILIBUSTERED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. None. They threatened it and Harry Reid caved like a scared little turtle (or ostrich, pick your simile).

I got so tired of the spineless BS from the Senate I felt like I could spit most of the time. "Oooh, they didn't help us. We got no help from the Republicans on this bill..."

How much help do you think Teddy Roosevelt or FDR got from the opposition? None that's how much. But those were MEN with SPINES. Why doesn't the professor in the White House look it up in the goddamn history books and learn something about leadership?!?

[Recursion]

37. Search senate.gov's vote archive for failed cloture motions

Every single one of those is a filibuster.

Pretending the Senate's rules are something other than what they are doesn't help anything.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Oh they get it and they don't need us. They know on which side their bread is buttered.

[Recursion]

5. Clinton and W both triangulated and the voters rewarded them

In both cases (and in Obama's) their bases howled.

As long as politicians are rewarded for it, they will keep doing it.

[Greyhound]

6. The voters took the only choice given them, that's not the same.

As the sitting President, Clinton's nomination was a done deal and the republiks pushed Dole on their voters because it was his 'turn', and in the end whichever way it went would have made little difference for the people that matter.

(Although, perhaps we would have been spared the Idiot Frat Boy had Dole won.

[OrwellwasRight]

25. W did not triangulate.

He swung far right and kept swinging.

[Recursion]

30. Nope. He was definitely a triangulator. That's why the GOP base was so sick of him by 2008

He massively expanded education and medicare funding. He co-opted Democratic issues with a slight conservative spin -- the mirror image of what Clinton did. He tried immigration reform but that was a bridge too far for his own party. His only really right wing project was social security privatization and that went absolutely nowhere.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. Wow where have you been living?

He did not massively increase education funding. that is why Kennedy was so mad at him. He voted for NCLB because Bush promised education funding he never delivered. the Medicare funding increases were to buy the votes of seniors (NOT a LIBERAL group, by the way), not to triangulate and "appease" liberals. There is a difference. The liberals, if you'll recall, opposed that bill because it was and still is a sell out to insurance companies.

"His only really right wing project was social security privatization"???????

Are you kidding me???

Clear Skies -- Gutting the clean air act

Healthy forests -- Gutting forest protections

Repealing the Roadless rule -- a giveaway to lumber companies

CAFTA -- a giveaway to the US Chamber of Commerce

The War in Iraq -- Self - Explanatory

The USA PATRIOT ACT -- a complete abolition of our fourth and fifth amendment rights

HAVA--a gift to Diebold, ESS,and other private "voting systems" companies to steal our votes and obscure our democracy


These are not right wing????

I could do this all day long, but I think the fundamental problem here is that you misunderstand "triangulation." It means finding a middle of the road policy position that tries to satisfy all parties (Clinton). It does not mean lying and obscuring what you do with names that mean the exact opposite of what you intend (that is hypocrisy, Orwellianism, or whatever you want to call it, but it is not triangulation). Bush was far right, always meant to be far right, and rarely pretended to be anything but far right. He did want to keep his enemies complacent, though, by hiding the truth about what he was doing when he could. Thus, the Frank Luntz-inspired names for his destructive ideas.

[leftstreet]

8. K&R

[PurityOfEssence]

12. What's more important, what should and needs to be done, or his re-election?

Somehow so very many of us have been suckered into believing that he's a literal god whose greatness will be revealed if we just keep giving him more chances. He's entitled to all sorts of things he hasn't earned--like a PEACE prize--and we're all to simply put aside our petty lives and desires so things will work out well for him. It's crap.

He has habitually tried to have it both ways, and it doesn't work. The ultramoderate all-things-to-all people works somewhat for getting elected, but not for LEADING, and especially not when dealing with entrenched extremists of privilege and power who brook no accommodation.

It's really impressive how so many are willing to overlook so much about our President, but how on earth can anyone be surprised by the unwarranted hatred of him from the right when we view so much unwarranted love of him right here?

[madfloridian]

13. I don't have any answers anymore. I don't even know the questions now.

I feel like we are kind of lost without a leader.

[Marr]

15. Eventually, this "moderate" con-game is going to become unviable.

I'd say it already has, really, and this past election demonstrated it.

We've got one political establishment and it services capital. Party doesn't matter much beyond style-- they're all selling the same thing, just to different audiences.

But we have real problems that need fixing, and they're affecting regular people in the most profound ways now. Out politicians are always going to service wealth. That's just how our system is structured. But eventually people get fed up, and the only way to preserve the system and service wealth is to make concessions to those who have nothing.

[butterfly77]

16. Kicked&Recommended!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

20. he might be right, but Reich is just speculating here

Reich: I was there with Bill Clinton when he tried to so called "triangulate" and please the voters in the middle . . . I think it would be a shame if Obama moved from leadership to opinion polls, but his advisors may feel that that's the only way to guarantee him a re-election.

The WH will pay attention to politics when it serves them. That doesn't mean they aren't willing to act on principle in their economic considerations and deliberations.

At any rate, it would be politically stupid to go into the presidential re-election campaign oblivious to the politics and tilted against the political mood of the electorate.

[truedelphi]

21. When any intelligent & laid off worker in America can spend a mere week on the internet

And figure out what Reich is saying, it is an absolute disgrace that B. Clinton can allow himself to say: 'I have to keep myself from saying it everyday,' he says softly. 'I shouldn't be out in front on these issues. I can't be criticizing.'

And then we wonder why last week people didn't show up at the halls where Obama tries to GOTV?

We Americans are so screwn. We have gone from a nation that in the 1890's had TWO PARTIES supporting the workers, as even the Republicans took out full page ads praising the strikers out in the streets, according to Howard Zinn.

Now neither party cares at all.

[madfloridian]

22. Remember when Harold Ford said DLC would be the "policy shop"

of the 08 nominee?

He was totally right, he knew before the election. They all knew it. And it is the policy of the 08 nominee.

Harold Ford says the DLC will be the "policy shop" for the 08 nominee.

"In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nominee.

"This is the incubator," Ford said of the DLC, which was founded in 1985 in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection. "If you look at the last ten great domestic policy ideas in the last 10-15 years ... 75 percent have come out of this organization."

And they have managed to make anyone to the "left" of them look fringe, elitist, and even crazy.

[Mimosa]

23. Robert Reich has long been near the top of my heroes list. n/t

[madfloridian]

24. Mine, too. Favorite article by him. "Why are they gunning for Howard Dean"

It was after the election in 2006, and Carville and other Dems were on TV attacking Dean and wanting Ford to replace him...even after we won.

Why are they gunning for Howard Dean

"Why? Dems now control both Houses and have twenty-eight governorships. Dean ought to be congratulated. So what’s the underlying agenda here? Three theories:

1. The only way a Dem gets on television after such a sweet victory isn’t by criticizing Republicans – it’s by criticizing fellow Dems. Stirring up clear waters grabs attention. Attention draws crowds. Crowds create power. Power is the name of the game in Washington, especially when formal control of Congress changes hands.

2. Dean’s strategy of putting money into state party infrastructure takes money out of the pockets of Washington insiders – away form Democratic consultants and key congressional party activists. That makes insiders angry.

3. Dean is an independent DNC chair, not under the sway of the Clintons. Unlike Ron Brown, who guided the DNC toward a Clinton victory in 1992, Dean doesn’t play the usual power games. Hence, the Clintons would like him out, and the sooner the better. Carville, Greenberg, and Emmanuel, among others, are doing their bidding.

[txlibdem]

29. Just one more reason we need to Primary for Dean in 2012

Let's get a real Democrat in office for a change!

[Mimosa]

33. Thanks! I never heard of that article.

Mad Floridian, I have long admired Robert Reich. He's not 'against capitalism'. But he recognises how capitalism requires restraints and regulation in order to benefit society.

[earcandle]

31. It just can be right ever if the repugs have all of the cash.. Ever. We need national banks for

the people and our own capital to have good lives.  And keep
the thieving rich away from them. 

[Catherina]

35. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours n/t

[Mimosa]

36. K&R n/t

[defendandprotect]

42. Late K&R --- and a kickey --