time to get hostile: “the public is awake” says Sirota

Elana Levin

time to get hostile: “the public is awake” says Sirota

reporting back from our Campaign '06 event with David Sirota:

Saying "the system is legalized bribery - money goes in favors go out" David Sirota laid the ground work for the discussion explaining that what progressives must do is show Americans what government corruption means to the average person. He continued, "corruption isn't just Tom Delay and vote buying and bribery - it's everything that's legal that goes on every day and doesn't get reported on. Our political debate is preemptively limited to only include ideas that won't challenge the corporate status quo too much. The fact that things aren't being talked about isn't an accident [the problems created by NAFTA is one big example he cites] ... electeds have been told by the interests that are funding their campaigns NOT to go there. That's why the talk is limited."

Sirota explained how the system actually selects for people that are very good at shaking down moneyed interests with parties selecting people based on what money they can raise. Sirota's solution is public financing of elections. Not a system that bans money contributions (the Supreme Court has decided that money = speech.. of course these are the same people who decided that corporations are people too) but he thinks we need a system that allows a candidate that doesn't want to go thru the moneyed interest begging game to be able to run an independent campaign.

Sirota answered the common concern of whether under the current system it was even possible for a candidate to run for office and win while challenging these big money interests, insisting that while it's very, very tough, it is still possible. He fears that if we don't do something to save our democracy now however, it will soon be too late.

Publicly financed campaigns do cost public money but as Sirota said "you get the government you pay for". In terms of the public financing of campaigns Sirota says don't let the perfect get away from the good. Arizona's public system isn't perfect but he feels it's darn good.

Now on the topic of what's causing that middle class squeeze David reminds us that it was starting under Clinton that wealth disparity began to grow at the highest rate it ever has. He holds that NAFTA is the cause--free trade orthodoxy on both parties that doesn't take in to account that other countries keep their prices low by instituting slave labor, child labor and destroying the environment and our trade policy didn't include protections from these factors. Howard Wolfson insisted that most Democrats in office didn't want trade policy that didn't include human rights and environmental protections. Sirota retorted that even though the pro-NAFTA Dems said they didn't want a trade policy that ignored human rights, these electeds ended up voting for a trade policy that didn't include human rights implying that if these electeds really cared they would have held out for a trade policy that included human rights concerns.

Speaking of Howard Wolfson- Andrea asked the famed campaign guru if it is possible to run a successful campaign for office this cycle based on the message that corporate interests are feasting off the suffering of the middle class. He said he thinks the "hostile takeover issue" is a serious, winning issue this cycle though not the central issue. He predicts that come 2008 Democrats will be talking an awful lot about the role of corporate corruption causing the middle class squeeze (he cited fellow panelist Dr. Elizabeth Warren's work specifically). Wolfson thinks that Americans are not inclined to be resentful of success so the message can't be all about getting back at the corporations ("no pitchforks at the castle gates" as he calls it). The message will need to be that while a very few are doing very well everyone else is stagnating. Wolfson said he would advise a candidate to talk on the big money hurting middle class for sure (hey candidates, you heard it hear first!)

Wolfson also said that if he ruled the world he'd roll back the bush tax cuts and implement progressive tax policy.

Dr. Elizabeth Warren was really amazing, laying out the facts she's discovered through her research comparing middle class in the 1970's vs. today. On the wage front for the fully employed male income has gone down and the strategy of the middle class has been to send a second person into the workforce (hi working mom!). The addition of the second worker for each household is what gave us the inflated adjusted income an up tick.

Family spending has changed dramatically- we spend less on food today - including eating out than our 1970's equivalents did. We spend less on clothing than we did a generation ago. It has been the big fixed expenses like education and health care that are going up so high people can't stay afloat. The amount people spend on health care is 74% up in one generation in inflation adjusted and mortgages are up 80% some percent. At the current rate there will be 1.2 mil foreclosures this year. Dr. Warren says that the current operating philosophy of Congress these days is "how can we serve up the middle class to big industries?"

One thing it looked like everyone could agree on was Dr. Elizabeth Warren's 3 point plan of 3 things the government should do right away to get America's endangered middle class healthy again
1. free college education
2. Medicare for children (heck, covering children is much cheaper than covering seniors yet we cover seniors)
3. reign in the debt industry

The audience cheered in response to Dr. Warren's plan. I sincerely hope that some policymaker or candidate out there was listening. One person I spoke to said that he was ready to follow Dr. Warren's call out of the auditorium and into the street!

Offering an elected's perspective NYS Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat points out that in a heavily Democratic state like New York, the Democratic party is running the same kind of incumbent protection programs that the GOP is known for (wonder if he'd agree with this pair of DMI blog posts by Azi Paybarah who runs 51st State blog).

Because a forum on the 2006 elections is hardly a forum without someone asking "the Tom Frank question" Andrea asks if the problem is that no one had explained to the public what their economic self interest is in the first place.

Wolfson responds "there is more to life than money...Voters view their self interest as greater than the sum of their bank account. It doesn't behoove us to argue that the middle class GOP voters have a false consciousness."

Dr. Warren says that most bankrupt families hide their status because economic failure is something people are very ashamed of in this country. People internalize their economic struggles as being all their own fault, they beat up on themselves. When people see the consumer items denoting success in everyone's driveway and on tv they perceive that everyone is doing great - except themselves so they view it as a personal problem, not a social crisis.

Dr. Warren points to the Pew Center's 2004 election exit survey that showed that white, working class males - the very same ones that voted for Bush in huge numbers also agreed with the sentiment that the game is rigged by the folks in power. These voters seemed to lack the language to express what their suspicion was of exactly (i.e. the hostile takeover).

During the '04 primary election cycle Dr. Warren took her message on the middle class squeeze out to all the candidates for President to see how they responded to it. John Edwards was the only candidate that really entered into a discussion with her and seemed to "get" how to talk about this middle class squeeze message. Edwards said that he instantly liked her message but he feared he couldn't get the public to respond to it and wanted to learn how to deliver that message right. In September of '04 Edwards called Dr. Warren from Iowa to announce that "the middle class economic story is my money shot!" It was Edwards smash hit. Anyone up for hitting the replay button on that?!

Sirota's answer to The Tom Frank question is that people don't see a difference between the two major parties when it comes to economics and corruption. They don't see someone standing up for them in a big way. An Ohio exit poll showed that most voters there wanted a candidate to talk about NAFTA yet neither Bush nor Kerry really did. Sirota thinks that if people view both candidates as part of the corporate money machine they will just go ahead and vote on cultural issues instead.

Sirota points out that 80% of Americans think that they personally have the ability to become very rich. Sadly all the latest research shows that this is just not true, in fact America is one of the least socially mobile countries yet progressives haven't done a good job of educating people on this crisis.

Sirota also says that the left needs to get comfortable with anger. When he was working on Brian Schweitzer's successful campaign for governor he found that the lines that got the best applause in Montana were when he spoke about how specific companies had exploited and messed over town X or Y and that we are going to fight to make that company pay for it. That's righteous anger and that's standing up to bullies and people respond to that. Sirota things that Democratic Party leaders need to stop being scared of exploiting anger points - we've given them away to the screaming-heads of the GOP spokesmen for too long.
---
If you are looking for more campaign tips, Wolfson suggests that if you want to run for office against big money, netroots is the way to go.

Oh, and Assemblyman Espaillat who has just been appointed chair of the NYS reapportionment commission wants to dismantle it.
----
And with that I open the floor to debate and discussion and questions. Our panelists have agreed to answer questions on this entry for the next few days, so let 'em rip.

Comments

As I was listening to the presentation, it occurred to me that many of us are parts of "large corporations" that David Sirota identifies as the enemy. Elizabeth Warren is employed by one of the wealthiest institutions in the world. David Sirota writes books for Random House (a huge multi-national corportation). Andrea Batista Schlesinger is employed by an important think tank, and I am an officer of a very successful asset management company. Every policy is good for someone. If interest rates go up, that is good who are living off of their savings (retired people) and bad for people borrowing money. While there are some egregious exceptions, most policies are helping some of us. I find it very difficult to see the world in the black and white terms that Sirota (and many of our political leaders) see.

Posted by: Morris Pearl | May 11, 2006 12:54 PM

On Mortgages.

There are certain categories of borrowers (those with poor credit) where Doctor Warren said, 20% default on the mortgages.

Should we say to this group that all 100% are not allowed to buy homes, because a high percentage (20%) are expected to default? (Noting that we don't know in advance which people are in the 20%).

That sounds very paternalistic (I know better, so I'm not going to let you take that risk...) and intrusive (forbidding this interaction between two consenting adults).

I will also point out that much of the "investor class" as Sirota called which profits from the interest being paid by these borrowers it is actually mutual funds and pension plans which are supplying the retirement income for people. Yes, there are some executives getting seven figure bonuses, but there are many more dollars flowing to the ultimate investors (in aggregate).

Posted by: Morris Pearl | May 11, 2006 01:11 PM

In my humble opinion, Dr. Warren stole the show. She blew me away with her three point plan (did someone say blogger candidate?).

It was a great discussion with enough tension to make the panel engage each other.

My problem with the snap poll at the end was it wasn't clear if the panel was being asked if monied politics would play a roll in the 2006 elections. What wasn't defined was if we were talking about a positive or negative roll. Surely hostile corporate interests will continue to have a negative impact on the state of our democracy, but I don't take it as a given that any progressive candidates will be able to make the removal of money from politics an issue capable of driving debate this time around. I guess I'm more of a pessimist than the panel was...

Posted by: Philo | May 11, 2006 01:39 PM

... did someone say blogger candidate?

Dr. Warren 2008! I know the crowd at the forum was ready for it.

Posted by: Scott Shields | May 11, 2006 02:35 PM

Morris - if all those "two-sided" policies you speak of were so two-sided, than we wouldn't be seeing the greatest increase in the gap between the rich and the poor in American history happening right now and growing.

These "two-sided" policies are a wealth transfer away from most Americans and to a small group of shareholders. Writing for Random House isn't the same as owning a Exxon.

Posted by: hrm | May 11, 2006 03:49 PM

Nice op-ed in the WaPo today quoting Dr. Warren
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101779_pf.html

Posted by: elana | May 12, 2006 12:38 PM

I've found Dr. Warren's "bold" suggestion that we start Medicare for children (Nur fuer Kinder) as a solution to our health care crisis interesting. Apparently, American children don't need both insurance and parents, unlike, of course, children in other countries.
We need, of course, young, healthy labor force, and we need, of course, to continue our tradition of negative eugenics and 2/3 humans.

eurogem

Posted by: eurogem | May 18, 2006 06:55 AM

Posted by: eurogem | May 18, 2006 06:57 AM

Eurogem I hear you on this. Dr. Warren wasn't saying that adults don't need healthcare and that we should only put resources into future workers. She was saying that this is something we could easily build up support for across the political spectrum whereas universal healthcare is something progressive are trying to steer American towards.

I think that conservatives would be hardpressed to defend the right to keep children uninsured. Her suggestion was that this is something we could get folks all over the country to rally behind. Meanwhile we continue fighting for universal healthcare.

The fact that not all Americans yet understand why universal care is economicly sound and necessary should not delay us in providing children with coverage.

Posted by: elana | May 18, 2006 11:09 AM

"The fact that not all Americans yet understand why universal care is economicly sound and necessary should not delay us in providing children with coverage.
"
Not all do, but acording to Sirota's own book 60-70% of americans Already do suport universal healthcare, it's only the politcians, from both parties, who are taking the "legalized bribrey" from the health insurance companies that don't get it.

I'm tired of the half assed plans that just cover old people, kids, and the poor and vary widley from state to state. We should push for nothing less then full single payer health care for ALL Americans.

Posted by: Hasan Yildiz | May 18, 2006 10:52 PM

Dr. Warren mentioned exactly Medicare for children as one of her "bold" propositions. Nobody between 18 and 65 was mentioned (I was there). I don�t buy any of your arguments. Actually, I've noticed a trend among liberals: they assert that American people want the universal heath care (at least 60-70%), they mention how more expensive, and how much worse is American medical system than that in counties with universal health care, then with "voice distorted by sincerity" talk about children the same way they talk about the poor. I'd like to remind you that program for the poor (Medicaid) was introduced some 40 years ago, and since that time millions have died (sure, not relatives of Dr. Warren, and I guess not yours). I really don�t see any reason why not push for universal health care at this moment. We don�t need "all Americans" to understand the benefits of the universal health care � 70% sounds good to me for the beginning. And instead of fascist "Nur fuer Kinder" push for the universal health care.
Believe or not American children need their parents as much as children in other countries, and somehow I suspect that proponents of coverage "Nur fuer Kinder" care only that children in orphanages and shelters will be just very productive.

Posted by: eurogem | May 18, 2006 11:06 PM

Hasan, you're absolutely right.
I was busy typing my post when you posted yours. It's insurance companies, politicians and other servants (I'm polite, I'm not using "lackeys").

Posted by: eurogem | May 18, 2006 11:45 PM

As someone who has applied for medicare (and was thankfully hired while dealing with processing) and as someone who has taken jobs because of health insurance before I know personally the problems of the current system. I don't however understand why getting coverage for certain sectors is at odds with getting everyone coverage. Expanding existing programs sets up a better system for expanding it to everyone and changes public paradigms of what is possible. I too am tired of op-ed pages that insist that what the majority of the public believes is somehow unfathomable. But I don't see how covering children hurts the cause of universal care. If anything it sets a precedence of government and the public working in tandem to solve the crisis. Additionally we are pushing for universal healthcare. I'm not sure why you don't know that but we are.

If you have a plan on how to immediatly change the landscape so we can get universal care I want to hear about it. That's what the blog is for-- working out ideas.

Posted by: elana | May 19, 2006 10:38 AM

It is important to have good ideas to work on them, and work them out - believe it or not all ideas are equal, and, frankly, not all individuals are equal in intellectual and ethical terms. They all should, however, have access to medical care.
Talking now about Medicare for children is a bad idea, moreover, it a criminal idea.
I suspect that some people knew 40 years ago that covering some sectors only was a bad idea, and probably were silenced by insurance companies and their lackeys.
We already know that universal health care does work (the list of countries to learn from is long), and "patchy," "doughnuty" American way does not work. Moreover, American way costs millions of lives. Elana, I am happy that you have your coverage, but let me tell you approximately 60 (!) millions don't have. It means we don't have time for our brilliant, one step at a time movements (i.e. 3-step program Medicare, Medicare for children, Medicaid for the next 40 years or so). Unless, of course, the purpose is rejuvenation/gentrification of America. I have no doubt the corporate America would welcome that, or is actually, corporate America behind Medicare for children criminality?

Posted by: eurogem | May 19, 2006 01:59 PM

Gee Euro, I'm sure that you aren't the only person here that knows that 60 mil people don't have Medicare. That's why we're having this discussion.

But this is a tactical dispute and I don't see how calling people Nazis fits in to a debate over a tactical dispute.

What in god's name is the connection between a progressive think tank that is fighting for universal healthcare and some vast conspiracy to gentrify (?) America. You think that a monolithic corporate America is calling DMI on the phone and using subliminal messages to persuade them to allow people to die? Pause of a second and re-think your train of thought here. Do you think that Dr. Warren is sitting up in some board room with a monolithic corporate America getting tips on how to push their agenda? I find it hard to believe that you seriously think that.

Posted by: grassyrootsy | May 19, 2006 03:13 PM

- 60 million people don't have medical care (there is a difference between Medicare and medical care, just a hint). This is the only industrial country where some groups have medical care, some don't (just a hint). I really don't see any reason why there should not be health care for everyone not just the most ruthless (Social Darwinism, just a hint), and, condescendingly, for some groups for whom, the wonderful (i.e. the most ruthless) drop something
- since it is the last country which doesn't have the universal health care, the tactical discussion should be short, i.e. we have precedents.
- talking about covering children only invites certain suspicions
- I don't care whether Dr. Warren sits on boards, and on which ones. I just find her suggestion ridiculous
- what is progressive in your view, maybe is not progressive in mine
- I don't like the tone, level, and style of your message

Posted by: eurogem | May 19, 2006 05:42 PM