Thanks for the pep-talk, Coach, but all that you say is embedded in an ecosphere that has been shredded of natural resilience, is not “bouncing back,” and betides little reason for hope. But, that aside, I’m glad you’re still “hopeful.” (I wonder what that feels like?)
Still in high school (and the voting age was 21) in 1968 I enlisted on Eugene McCarthy’s primary campaign the day after RFK was assassinated. That campaign combined with Viet Nam moratorium marches and other anti military industrial complex (MIC) actions during 1968 and subsequent years kept us making progress toward a “more just society”.
Although the Raygun revolution, especially the morphing of the MIC into the military industrial media infotainment complex (MIMIC) has indeed been a forty year set back for progressives, the momentum we are now building portends future progress toward a “more just society”.
1968 was the year that so many more men and women (really boys and girls) were slaughtered in the jungles of Vietnam and America began to wake up to the senseless nature of wars for economic reasons.
Robert, have we really learned that much since then?
Seems to me, members of Congress, when it comes to voting on insane sums of money to keep the war machine running, never hesitate for a single moment.
And, as far as the public is concerned, have they learned anything when every 4 years they go to the polls and pull the levers for the same two warmongering parties?
I say, BS.
Can Prof. Reich think of any reason why Trump should be allowed to remain in the U.S., let alone in the White House? Can anyone on CD?
I can still recall how stunned I was at Nixon’s defeat of McGovern. Even with all that was known by then about Nixon, about Vietnam, etc., STILL the bastard won in forty-nine states.
You give another huge reason that so many do not vote and become cynical.
It looks like neither of the two corporate parties are getting any smarter by putting their best candidate forward.
We only got the dregs in 2016.
It’s still too early to say whether the Democrats will offer up a progressive, or a corporate candidate.
PB-In my view, it is the influence of the corporation itself that keeps any and all progressive candidates out of contention.
Then, as now, the financial elites will take a like-minded criminal–no matter his baggage–over anyone promising to return power to the people.
Chapdrum- in my view, if the public ever knew the criminality of the 535 Congress critters currently serving, the Duopoly would blow up.
Worst part is, they’ll never learn. Even if they did, they’d still vote for the criminals.
Elizabeth Warren needs her own Lee Camp. Such a gal or guy could point out Green New Dealers don’t even know how to downshift the paradigm they’re already into (don’t worry; I’m not ditch’n Sanders). Just say’n.
HERE ARE TWIN LINKS (two) TO EXPLAIN THE TWIN DEFICITS. Man, if you really look at these contrivances, and don’t realize Sanders, Warren, and Varoufakis are all MILD in their approaches…
- Add an “h” to this: ttps://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/de-dollarizing-the-american-financial-empire-dr-michael-hudson-408
Why is Reich still hopeful? Because he gets paid to be hopeful. He is part of the Progressive Industrial Complex - yes there is one. In the PIC you continually promote hopefulness in the face of empirical hopelessness. In other words, trying to succeed at doing the same thing that failed a thousand times before and expecting it to be different this time. There are careers to be had here. There’s lots of them: you know who they are! One of their main goals is to be gatekeepers, they manage what the CIA cultivates as the “compatible left.” They keep you locked to the Democratic Party (a warmongering imperialist and capitalist party, the other wing of the duopoly who is hell bent on crushing the working class and any even mildly progressive politics). They keep you from radicalizing in the face of radicalizing evidence. I will mention one person who has a column today on CD who is not part of the PIC: Chris Hedges.
If I’m a dualist, contemporary “philosophers” think I’m nuts. But if I simply say let the economy do a switchback and evolve again towards a thing with a real EPA, likewise it isn’t good enough.
Like I wrote above, greenies have a big enough job simply selling a lot of people on Warren’s reforms. I suspect a lot of folks with a louder mike than mine are not explaining economics very well.
Again, not that I’m ditch’n Sanders.
While Robert Reich has always brought a level of sanity to the discussion he is ignoring the real danger we all face. I realize that the scratched record syndrome has colored my outlook but from time to time he does cause one to think about the only thing left in Pandora’s box, hope. Without it we are all toast.
Yep, he’s changed a lot. Grateful for that.
I think that, perhaps subconsciously, a significant number of voters resonate with the criminal behavior (but would not want to be tarnished as criminal). Could be a large part of Don T’s appeal.
Perhaps we have repressed our own complicity with the inequality paradigm. Which becomes in each of us part of “the shadow.” We have to face this shadow, or there are consequences. Reading the late John A. Sanford on this. Sanford also wrote there are archetypes of evil, which I don’t think Jung maintained at all. At this point it’s easy to think JAS is right, but I’ve headed toward endorsing that anyway for a long while now.
The social media age also has us convinced we must have short ready made answers for all issues. But good positions are never such quick work. To have the short formulaic ones is the level on which both right & left & everyone now emulate their models. Thus we are all the same. But short answers indeed will never have all of us in any other state than at odds with one another. This state of affairs I find is in accordance with René Girard’s theory of undifferentiation.
You notice Biden is ready to state the script, and then stand there as if he’s one heck of a savy guy. But Bern is ready to rant.
It’s not really ranting though.
Warren also appears ready to give an involved answer. This appearance is ever so slightly