Home | About | Donate

Will the Democratic Nominee for 2016 Take on the Moneyed Interests?

#1

Will the Democratic Nominee for 2016 Take on the Moneyed Interests?

Robert Reich

It’s seed time for the 2016 presidential elections, when candidates try to figure out what they stand for and will run on.

One thing seems reasonably clear. The Democratic nominee for President, whoever she may be, will campaign on reviving the American middle class.

As will the Republican nominee — although the Republican nominee’s solution will almost certainly be warmed-over versions of George W. Bush’s “ownership society” and Mitt Romney’s “opportunity society,” both seeking to unleash the middle class’s entrepreneurial energies by reducing taxes and regulations.

#3

I am inspired by the example of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who has boldly stood for all humanity though his persistent, courageous fight against global warming and the fossil fuel industry. His proposal for a carbon tax is thoughtful, simple, and has outstanding potential. It boldly mirrors the higher taxes on the wealthy that Robert Reich proposes to pay for an enhance Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor.

The answers are within our reach, if we work together to demand them.

#4

Ha, ha, hah, hah, ha, ha...

The title of this article expresses exactly why writers like Reich are irrelevant. He might as well ask if Santa Clause is going to bring us each a pony for Christmas.

#5

The title is almost an oxymoron as the Democrat nominee will be based on the fact that they DON'T take on the moneyed interests. The corporate media is on the look out for any potential candidate that won't tow the corporate line. If such a candidate emerges, the MSM will swiftly move in to demonize, marginalize and ignore them until the average voter grows suspicious of that candidate. The democrats will play the gender card with Hillary much as they did the race card with Obama which we all saw how poorly that played out for African Americans!
Meanwhile third party candidates will find it more difficult than ever to just get on the ballot. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have little to no chance of being nominated despite their attempts to appear pro-military simply because they have discussed reigning in the moneyed interests. If any Progressive were only successful in campaign finance reform, at least the 99% would have a chance in the future to break free from corporate servitude, but this seems unlikely as most Americans still don't recognize corporate fundamentalism as the biigest threat to our survival. Instead expect the usual crap from our MSM about how 'unseen enemies' in far away places pose the biggest threat to our "freedom". Americans are simply not politically enlightened enough to make the transition from corpocracy to democracy as most people have bought into the mainstream narratives about economic growth, tax breaks, terrorism and patriotic slogans like "God Bless America" and "Freedom is not free!". Recent victories like the temporary stay of execution against net neutrality and the KXL pipeline, will be exploited to the max as the Democrats will use these small examples as proof of their commitment to the 99%. This 'gilded age' will prove far more resistant to change as their predecessors experienced over 100 years ago. Robert Reich knows this, but is really powerless to bring about the changes we need despite his articles and speeches. Nevertheless, it is good that the message continues to be put out there. Now, if only the people would pay attention, can we possibly hold out hope for our future.

#6

I wouldn't go as far as calling Reich "irrelevant" as his message is vitally important. The number one problem we have in America in our quest to establish a functioning democracy, is educating the public about who and what poses the biggest threat to the 99%. In this regard we need people like Reich to relentlessly trumpet the virtues of eliminating corporate fundamentalism permanently from the political picture. I agree with you that the chances of the Democrats nominating a real progressive to take on the moneyed interests is as realistic as me getting a pony for Christmas, but this still doesn't mean that his message is irrelevant.

#7

The only person that comes to mind is Bruce Springsteen.

#8

As per Emily's List speech last nite, Hillary is teaming up with Bill and Melinda Gates, to take on the moneyed interests?

#9

As long as big money from global corporations, Super-PACs,
wealthy families and individuals funds our political system,
there will be no change.
We need a Constitutional Amendment
stating that corporations are not people;
money is not free speech;
corporations and Super-PACs cannot contribute to political campaigns;
individual contributions will have a cap;
all candidates will have equal time, at no cost, on public airwaves;
public funding of elections will come from a transaction tax
on Wall Street.

#10

"It’s seed time for the 2016 presidential elections, when candidates try to figure out what they stand for and will run on."

In this sentence Reich defines the poverty of American politics. Candidates without principle, without core beliefs, empty suits, or empty pant suits, two years before an election looking for something to glom onto--seed time.

#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#12

And you know what else might happen? A certain economist might finally get a clue. Nah, that will never happen.

#13

I found it strange that Robert Reich failed to mention that a third party movement -- the Progressive Party, of course -- was required to enable Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson to take on the powerful moneyed interests of their time.

#14

I am all for a financial transactions tax, as a matter of social justice, to counter-act Wall Street's out-sized influence on the economy (especially its potential for causing so much economic harm). "Pay to play," if you will. But I would much rather have that money go to support the social safety net (in some way) than to pay for political campaigns.

#16

The question is posed as if it were a real possibility the the Democratic party could reform itself. Tell us where you get such an optimistic assessment Robert. Or is this just a ploy to keep us hanging onto the belief that a two party system , both parties bought out by corporate interests can reform itself into some thing. approaching a participatory democracy? I am afraid that the weight of evidence is not on your side. You are an intelligent man Robert, you must see the writing on the wall. Why do you defend the possibility of reform for the Democratic party? Please write a column on that and please show some honesty not evasion on what an enormous task that would be.

#17

"The big unknown is whether the Democratic nominee will also take on the moneyed interests – the large Wall Street banks, big corporations, and richest Americans"

Oh dear, poor fellow, you must be the only one on the planet for whom this is an "unknown" ...

#18

Jill Stein ....

#19

But when 3rd party candidates ARE on the ballot - will folks vote for them? And if not, why not?

#20

LOL! a lot

#21

Reich is a Dembot - methinks his heart is in the right place, but he can't wrap his head around the idea that the Dem Party has been hopelessly corrupted ... too bad ...

#22

He, like Kucinich, can't bring himself around to abandoning the party