Robert Reich: The Choice of the Century

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/26911-the-choice-of-the-century

The President blames himself for the Democrat’s big losses Election Day. “We have not been successful in going out there and letting people know what it is that we’re trying to do and why this is the right direction,” he said Sunday.

In other words, he didn’t sufficiently tout the Administration’s accomplishments.

I respectfully disagree.

If you want a single reason for why Democrats lost big on Election Day 2014 it’s this: Median household income continues to drop. This is the first “recovery” in memory when this has happened.

Jobs are coming back but wages aren’t. Every month the job numbers grow but the wage numbers go nowhere.

Most new jobs are in part-time or low-paying positions. They pay less than the jobs lost in the Great Recession.

This wageless recovery has been made all the worse because pay is less predictable than ever. Most Americans don’t know what they’ll be earning next year or even next month. Two-thirds are now living paycheck to paycheck.

So why is this called a “recovery” at all? Because, technically, the economy is growing. But almost all the gains from that growth are going to a small minority at the top.

In fact, 100 percent of the gains have gone to the best-off 10 percent. Ninety-five percent have gone to the top 1 percent.

[lonestarnot]

1. And Mr. Reich thinks he has failed. He said that of himself in a documentary about himself. Truth

to power will sometimes do that to one.

[abelenkpe]

2. K&R

[woo me with science]

3. It was never a recovery. It was a restructuring on behalf of the One Percent.

The fact that they are obstinate about *calling* it a recovery shows that it is deliberate and that they have and had no intention of the outcome's being any different whatsoever.

This is oligarchy, not democracy.

[Auggie]

9. +1,000,000

[L0oniX]

11. +1,000,000

[ballyhoo]

13. Exactly right. They got what they wanted, aided

and abetted by the same people who will put a Republican in the Oval Office. And it will be no accident.

[riderinthestorm]

19. + 1000 nt

[takakupo]

4. Poor Little Guy

I think he was trying to meet a deadline or form a lead in that laymen could just pass over without a second glance. For example, how does Reich go from Obama expressing that his party didn't tout their policies enough to Obama didn't tout his accomplishments enough? The former idea means that Democrats and the president did not talk about what they were going to do, the latter is talking about things that they have already done. There's a clear distinction. Even when looking back on the campaigns, no one touted the economy except for Obama and that was only once. They didn't tout the economy because we actually are all aware of the gains going to the 1% and that wages are stagnant.

Specifically, I believe the president was speaking to the lack of unity on Immigration reform, equal pay for equal work, gun control, more stimulus, expanding medicare, etc; All ideas that have failed to gain any meaningful traction with Republicans.

[zeemike]

6. "All ideas that have failed to gain any meaningful traction "

And all ideas that will keep us distracted while they re shape the rest of the country to suite the oligarchs.
So don't look for any of those to catch on...we need the distraction.
And the real agenda moves forward bit by bit.

[ballyhoo]

14. And we know the distractions. They were designed for us.

[JDPriestly]

17. Obama's big mistake was staying neutral when Wisconsin Democrats and working people

were out there trying to fight for their rights to pensions and labor rights in the workplace.

Further, Obama did not acknowledge the truth of much of what Occupy was complaining about.

Obama appointed Wheeler to the FCC. He did not have to do that.

He appointed Geithner and Summers to his team of economic advisers. He did not have to do that.

He could instead have appointed people who would have better represented a dramatically Democratic point of view on the economy and the internet.

Bad choices in his appointments and not taking advantage of the opportunities that arose for him to dramatically take the side of working people against the conglomerate bosses.

That's what has gone wrong.

[yallerdawg]

5. Professor Reich is explaining why people voted for the Republican, sort of.

In the world of retail politics, especially with low-info electorate, those last minute mail outs and commercials sell the politician, or slap memorable negative branding on the candidate.

I don't believe an economic equality message would have helped Democratic candidates (who very often had that message, it just didn't resonate with the voters). The perception of the voters is Democrats have been in charge, and things suck. "The liberal Obama agenda (insert unflattering picture of Obama)" was tied to the Democratic candidates, and the "pissed off" electorate voted against the party in charge.

Bill Clinton won because the party in charge sucked. Barack Obama won because the party in charge sucked. Reagan won because the party in charge sucked.

For the last 6 years, the Republicans stood against every Democratic proposal and made the party in charge suck. Perception, not necessarily reality, sells.

If Obama spends the next 2 years spinning his wheels ineffectively, and we don't see real trickle down improvements for the people that change the perception, we are going to get a Republican president in 2016.

It's not the economy. It's how we feel.

[JayhawkSD]

8. You make the right point.

If you don't get anything done, it doesn't matter why you didn't get anything done. Blaming others for your failure doesn't work, because in the process you are merely reiterating your own failure. You say, "We failed because Rebublicans blocked us," hoping voters will hear the second part of the sentence and not notice the first part. They hear the "We failed..." part and stop listening.

[JDPriestly]

16. The economy to a great extent determines how we feel.

It IS the economy . . . .

And the fact is that Obama and his right-wing team bailed out the banks and not the homeowners although homeowners were not as responsible for the melt-down as were the banks and mortgage companies.

And then Obama is so enthralled with the TPP and other international agreements that cost and will cost American jobs (and not unique in that respect since Clinton signed NAFTA and Bush signed CAFTA and Reagan and Bush I started the whole free trade insanity) but have done nothing to soften the blow of job losses for the American people.

So I disagree with you. It is the problem with the economy. I even had to push my own children to vote. They are too busy trying to cope with the problems in their own lives. The Democratic Party is not giving working people a reason to vote, not any economic hope that if Democrats win things will really get better.

[mountain grammy]

7. It is how we feel, and the dark, negative ads are designed to make us feel depressed

voting Republican doesn't "feel" good, so just don;t vote at all. It's astonishing how many Americans still get their marching orders from the teevee news, which, a week ago, was all ebola, all ISIS, all the time.

[whereisjustice]

10. Exactly - Our two political parties only represent the 1%. They look past the rest of us. eom

[hollowdweller]

12. I think he's partially right

I live in WV and speaking from my history we got WAY more of what he is talking about during the Reagan era than now.

That was when WV lost a LOT of our good mfg jobs.

[JDPriestly]

15. Can't K&R this enough.

Except I disagree with one thing.

Reich said:

"It’s the choice of the century."

If our humanity is to survive in this country, it is the choice for the rest of the life of our nation, maybe a century, maybe longer. If we make the wrong decision, maybe a lot less than a century.

[woo me with science]

18. kick

[woo me with science]

20. kick