Posted on 07/24/2016 3:55:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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 doesn’t – at least not yet.
A Democratic operative I’ve known since the Bill Clinton administration told me “now that she’s won the nomination, Hillary is moving to the middle. She’s going after moderate swing voters.”
Presumably that’s 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But this view is outdated.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, it’s 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. It’s 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.” There’s no longer a “center.” There’s authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism (which had been Bernie’s “political revolution,” and is now up for grabs).
And then there’s the Republican establishment (now scattered to the winds), and the Democratic establishment.
If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t recognize this realignment, they’re in for a rude shock – as, I’m 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, “you’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t 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 isn’t trade itself. It’s a political-economic system that won’t cushion working people against trade’s downsides or share trade’s upsides. In other words, a system that’s rigged.
Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal, although he’s 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 Court’s 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 doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” In fact, such a move could hurt her if it’s 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 Trump’s 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.
A staunch Catholic who "personally opposes abortion", yet votes for every pro-abortion law?
An "American" VP candidate who delivers his initial address in Spanish?
What position does he hold that is any way "moderate"?
A big nothing article.
Only partially. It’s becoming more about crime and corruption versus law and order.
I don’t think there are but a handful of rats who are “moderates” and I don’t disagree with you. Kaine is represented by the MSM and talking heads as a moderate Read the descriptions. I don’t view anyone who supports abortion as a moderate.
The choice clearly indicates where Hillary believes she needs to go - politics 101. She is going to try and run for the middle and make Trump out to be an extremist. It won’t work on either count, but I believe that is now her strategy because she is getting nowhere fast with the Sanders crowd.
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. “
It is impossible for Hillary Clinton to do this credibly.
Impossible.
But it’ll be funny watching her try.
Amen!
They are free-trade deals only in the titles. They are mercantilist in substance. Free trade is no relative to government deals with other governments. Free trade is simply taking off the restraints to trade, eliminating the regulations and the regulating agencies; minimizing or eliminating business taxes. Free trade is unfettered trade, not negotiated and defined and controlled trade. England grew rich when it declared free trade. England did not negotiate bilateral agreements with other governments. When trade is tree Americans will prevail. Europeans are the most inventive and entrepreneurial peoples on earth. Germanic language speaking Europeans are the most inventive and entrepreneurial peoples in Europe. English speaking people are the most inventive and entrepreneurial people among the Germanic language speakers.It is possibly a genetic thing and probably partly related to the language. The other group that fits that description is the Jews and those in Israel are mostly conversant in English.
Reich is right.How is "I am your voice" authoritarian?
If I am your voice, you should just shut up and listen. If I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.
</authoritarianism>
“[the problem is] a political-economic system that won’t cushion working people against trade’s downsides”
I wish Reich, an economist, would give specifics on how to do it. If he did, he’d sound like Trump.
“Donald Trump’s authoritarian populism is a dangerous gambit”
I just don’t see that.
“... and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.”
He’s feeding us pablum. I expected more from him.
I don’t see that.
OK, am I the only one who has a problem with the idea of “Tacking to the middle”. It means, You lied before. And now you are going to tell the voters a different story, just to get elected. If the press understood morality, they would know this is the same as lying. But of course the press has no morality anymore.
Trumps first huge mistake. Reagan made the same mistake.
Free Trade with the sellout globalist corporatists who exploit the USA non existent tariffs leads to international labor arbitrage and the de industrialization of the USA. Bad mojo all the way around.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Robert Reich is such a comedian.
Like he actually believes this tripe.
This is too rich coming from Robert Reich!
Not to be argumentative, but the Indiana governor wasn’t head of CIA, just saying.
You indicate that you don’t know what free trade even is nor are willing to learn. None of the agreements in force or contemplated constitute Free Trade. Decry the agreements, not Free Trade that made England and America rich and powerful. I know there are people who can only think in slogans and Free Trade makes for some dandy slogans because the term is used totally inappropriately by the politicians and the corporatists. If you can get past the slogans then you will understand how things work.
In the history of the nation the protective tariff system has ever justified itself by restoring confidence, promoting industrial activity and employment, enormously increasing our purchasing power and bringing increased prosperity to all our people.
The tariff protection to our industry works for increased consumption of domestic agricultural products by an employed population instead of one unable to purchase the necessities of life. Without the strict maintenance of the tariff principle our farmers will need always to compete with cheap lands and cheap labor abroad and with lower standards of living.
The enormous value of the protective principle has once more been demonstrated by the emergency tariff act of 1921 and the tariff act of 1922.
We assert our belief in the elastic provision adopted by congress in the tariff act of 1922 providing for a method of readjusting the tariff rates and the classifications in order to meet changing economic conditions when such changed conditions are brought to the attention of the president by complaint or application.
We believe that the power to increase or decrease any rate of duty provided in the tariff furnishes a safeguard on the one hand against excessive taxes and on the other hand against too high customs charges.
The wise provisions of this section of the tariff act afford ample opportunity for tariff duties to be adjusted after a hearing in order that they may cover the actual differences in the cost of production in the United States and the principal competing countries of the world.
We also believe that the application of this provision of the tariff act will contribute to business stability by making unnecessary general disturbances which are usually incident to general tariff revisions.
I know economics. You should learn history. I know that the USA is de industrializing and becoming socialists as Marx predicted it would. Anyone trying to separate economics from politics is just plain silly . Like I said if Free Trade means that much to vote for Hillary.
Just so yo know the Republican Party was founded on tariffs. The founding fathers were all for tariffs. I will stick with George Washington and not neo loser globalist hacks. You stand informed.
So I take it you will be voting for Hillary.
Yeah. Sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.