Robert Reich: Meet the Future of the Democratic Party

[FakeNoose]

Link: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/heres-how-democrats-are-responding

Last Thursday, populist Democratic candidate Graham Platner shook up the Democratic establishment when his primary competitor, Maine Governor Janet Mills, suspended her Senate campaign amid polls showing her badly trailing Platner, an oyster farmer who had come out of nowhere to win a national following.

Platner is the latest example of the rise of anti-establishment outsiders in the Democratic Party — a trend that also includes self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who last year defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor.

Yet the Democratic establishment — corporate Democrats, wealthy Democratic donors, entrenched Washington “centrists,” the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer — still don’t get it.

Hell, the Democratic establishment didn’t get it a decade ago when Hillary Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee (and, not incidentally, Jeb Bush was considered a shoe-in for the Republican nomination).

I remember interviewing voters about their political preferences in the late spring of 2015, in the Rust Belt, Midwest, and South, for a book I was then writing. When I asked them whom they wanted for president, they kept telling me Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. Often the same individuals offered both names. They explained they wanted an “outsider,” someone who would “shake up” the system, ideally a person who wasn’t even a Democrat or a Republican.

The people I met were furious with their employers, with the federal government, and with Wall Street. They were irate that they hadn’t been able to save for their retirements, indignant that their children weren’t doing any better than they had at their children’s age, and enraged at those at the top. Several had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the financial crisis or the Great Recession that followed it.

They kept reiterating that the system was “rigged” in favor of the powerful and against themselves. They didn’t oppose government per se; most favored additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and roads and bridges. But they hated “crony capitalism” — large corporations using their political clout to gain special favors and changes in laws that often hurt average people.

... Something very big was happening in America: a full-scale rebellion against the political establishment. ... The Democratic establishment still doesn’t see the groundswell — or is actively fighting it.

- more at link -

Robert Reich makes some very important points here, how the Democratic Party has been losing touch with voters over the past 10 years. This has to change because we can't allow the American voters to elect any more Chumps as a result.

Please read the rest on Robert Reich's substack. (OP link.)

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Reagan's election began this trend of shoveling money UP the income scale.

Reagan enacted IRA's and a trend toward self-responsibility, but that eroded existing safety net programs public and private. Within 10 years pensions were flagging, defined benefit plans ending. The middle class was hollowed out and corporations and wealthy portfolios were the beneficiaries. Meanwhile politics became about money that resulted in Citizens United. The GOP had a plan, Democrats trudged along for the working part of the population.

We need to tap MAGA anger. MAGA loyalty to Trump is emotional and soft on context or issues.

Even if we can grab independents and some part of MAGA, how do you run a party without adequate money? We depend on corporate donations. I will say social issues were never a good bet. We didn't stand on civil rights broadly, we used specific issues and got tarred and feathered with them.

[FakeNoose]

4. "Big money" always backs a safe media star

That's what we learned with Reagan ... they like the guys who are willing to follow the script and not think too hard.

[RainCaster]

7. Reagan wasn't the first

Eisenhower installed the Shah in Iran, overthrowing a legitimate elected leader. All for the benefit of Big Oil.

[multigraincracker]

2. Add Dr Abdul for Senator in Michigan.

He seems to be taking off in Michigan
Doesn’t take one penny from big business.

[gab13by13]

3. I have been saying for a very long time that Democrats should nominate a non-politician for president in 2028

Orban lost because his opponent was anti-government, because he was a fighter who promised to support the working class.

Hungary didn't throw out Orban because he was a dictator, Hungary threw out Orban because someone ran against him who promised to fight for unwashed Hungarians.

When I see so many articles that claim that the GOP knows that it is going to lose the midterms, I shudder. The Schumer strategy that Krasnov will burn it all down and then people will vote for Democrats is a bad strategy.

Miles Taylor - Malcolm Nance - 2028. There will be no fights between moderate and progressive Democrats. Nominate fighters.

[PatSeg]

8. I'm not so sure about that though

A "non-politician for president" didn't work out so well for republicans or for the country. Some of our best leaders over the years have been politicians. Clearly some politicians are better than others.

[FakeNoose]

13. Reich makes the distinction between a Bernie Sanders-type politician

... vs. those who would gladly follow the big money/big oil scripts. He suggests that Hillary Clinton would have been one of those, but I'm not so sure. (We're not supposed to be kicking over old rocks on DU.)

[PatSeg]

15. There are certain aspects to politicians

that can be a real turnoff, but those same traits are what get them into positions of power where they can make a difference. It is their primary motivations that are important.

Some people really do go into politics to serve and make a difference; right now, I feel that we have a lot of those in the Democratic party, many who don't get nearly enough credit.

I'm not sure about Hillary either, but I do think she believed in her causes wholeheartedly - children, women's rights, healthcare, etc. And I believe those causes were her primary motivations when it came to politics.

Meanwhile, it does take a pretty big ego to pursue a political career and at times that isn't terribly appealing.

[slightlv]

27. Yes, it takes a big ego to get into politics, I agree...

but too often that big ego is tied into a dark myriad of other anti-social thoughts and behaviors. Arrogant but humble? I've yet to see the type in real life. Someone who is self-effacing, regardless of their station in life, is much more charismatic to the common person.

I hold no balance on the politician vs non-politician for prez scale. The person, him/herself, what they've done in their life, their history of actions and words... these are what matters most to me. Show me what a person was like as a kid, and you'll get a pretty good idea what they're like as an adult, IMO. Kids who hurt small animals, pets, or siblings often grow up to become multi-millionaires, but at everyone else's expense. Prime example is the moron in the WH now. Give me someone who grew up poor or middle class, who didn't have all the breaks handed to them. Give me the person who worked his/her way in whatever the chosen career and you'll usually find (tho not always) someone who has empathy for those below them on the ladder.

One thing I absolutely do agree with, tho... the Democratic apparatus in all its forms, better finally listen to its' constituents. We've had over 10 years of trauma and violence done to us by the R's. But we're not going to vote D just "because." There are too many things people need and want for there to be a dearth of good talking points for Democrats. Mamdami is an excellent example... putting the walk in the talk. We need champions. There are no saviors, unfortunately, but we sure as hell we a fighter for what is right, moral, and ethical (and can keep his pants zipped - a shoutout to the last dem male politician I placed so much hope and work into... only to find him as bad as any of the others). I am very tired of being disappointed. Schumer and the others need to understand just how deep the violence done to us actually goes. They need to understand our deepest need for community and tolerance for all. It's as important to us as are the kitchen table issues. Although those are becoming practically paramount now. I've been working towards eating just one meal a day to make things last until the next SS check. And sure enough, it lands 3 days later than the one last month. I can't prove anything, but my gut tells me they're playing games with our money more than just 1 billion dollars on a ballroom.

Give me a fighter... give me a young Martin Sheen in real life. Give me a JFK (even with his unforgiveable foibles). Give me a Statesman and someone I can look up to and proudly say "That's my President!" I do so look forward to that day.

[KPN]

19. So I guess you count Reagan as a politician. For me, that's a stretch that could go either way. If he was a

politician, he was just barely.

[PatSeg]

20. Yes, Reagan popped in my head as well as

the current occupant of the White House. Reagan was an actor and actually he was quite good at portraying an American president. They are/were both performers who could be persuasive to many voters, but both lacked the political and administrative skills to be effective leaders. Essentially, there simply is no there there.

Then I look back at those presidents that I would consider great leaders and they were very political people - Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, to name a few. I think a nonpolitician would be less inclined to get as far in politics as these men.

[slightlv]

28. Reagan was excellent as a politician

because he was already senile, straight into dementia land. But Nancy, Reagan, Rumsfeld, and others covered for him most excellently (snark). Although I think Nancy leaned more on her Astrologer than any other "politician" to tell Ronny what to do. What was her name? Jeanne (something). I forget. Astrology leaned on for all the wrong reasons.

[NNadir]

5. I'm not entirely sure Platner won't be another Fetterman but...

...when Robert Reich speaks I listen.

As long as "concerned" Suzie is gone and hope for the best with Platner.

[KS Toronado]

6. We need more people running for office with a Bernie Sanders type attitude

[slightlv]

29. I absolutely agree! If we had a younger version of

Bernie Sanders, R's could just park it in pickup truck and sit there 'til Doomsday. I tell ya, even today, as old as he is, I'd take Bernie over any Repug or Independent... and even some Dems (like Fetterman).

[ChicagoTeamster]

9. Rahm needs to go. Too many ties to banking and he served in the IDF as a civilian volunteer.

If he were to be the nominee he would drive away the younger voters

[intheflow]

10. Funny that when I post that the DNC shoved HRC on the voters, it gets alerted on

and removed for "fighting the last election," even though that was two presidential elections ago. But I guess it's okay if Robert Reich says it.

(This is to say, I agree with Reich 100% here, including some folks at DU who want to live in denial that the 2016 outcome was partially our own fault because DNC leadership refused to see the writing on the wall.)

[JT45242]

12. The DNC did not force Hillary on the voters -- that is a myth

Bernie won caucuses and lost primaries. He did well in Iowa (where I lived at the time), but who the fuck cares what Iowa wants in a presidential election. Don't let little states early determine who gets to the states that actually win or lose elections.

I lived and voted in Ohio from 1988 through 2012 presidential primaries and elections. Not once did the Ohio primary matter to who won the Democratic nomination. But whenever democrats lost Ohio in those general elections, we lost the presidency. i HATED the primary because my vote did not matter -- it was already decided when it got to me. Make every state that normally votes republican and tiny states (less than 8 ellectoral college votes) go to the end of the line in primaries.

Get rid of all caucuses. They reward candidates who do really well with people who don't have anywhere to be on a rando weeknight with limited parking (seriously, I parked one mile away from the jr high was for the 2016 caucus)

Yes, push out the old guard because they have largely played nice and not done enough.

The party needs to push for what people want
1. Fully fund social security (get rid of the cap on high earners)
2. Make the rich pay their fair share (individuals and companies)
3. Make health care affordable
4. Keep energy prices down as much as possible (ideally cheap reliable internet like the rest of the industrialized world as well)
5. Provide the services that we need on time (schools, roads, weather response, etc)

ideally we would break up oligopolies and promote real competition because that would drive costs down because the three chicken suppliers and 5 grocery chains that control 95% of the market couldn't raise prices because of some disaster and leave them there forever gouging prices long term because they should have to compete with each other.

[intheflow]

14. Really? I'm a DNC voter and I felt the party pushed HRC on me.

But fuck my direct experience, right? And also: there were signs that the leadership completely dismissed because they said it was HRC's time.

[FakeNoose]

17. Please be careful ... and I understand there are disappointments and some hard feelings

We can't be fighting old battles from 10 years ago here on DU.
Please realize we have to drop this.
Thanks for understanding.

[intheflow]

21. I do understand.

And I support that.

But it's really annoying when someone tells my lived experience is a myth. I have not problem supporting the Democratic party. I do have a problem supporting a Democratic party that refused to examine their own culpability in 2026 and our (still) dismal approval numbers. Lots of people will probably vote D in November, but anyone not of the faithful is only voting because they hate Trump, not because they think the Democrats are wonderful. Thankfully, the party seems to be catching on that corporate centrism has gotten us nowhere in the last 30-40 years, writ large in the Orange Asshole's second term. Better late than never, I guess!

[JT45242]

22. Vote totals 16.9 million to 13.2 million ; 55 percent to 43

Your feelings may have been hurt but it was not the superdelegate total or anything else. She won the primaries.

She beat him. She would have won the general election if the Russians hadn't manipulated Bernie Bros and large portions of the African American community to either vote third party or stay home.

She supported those policies I listed above.

[intheflow]

24. She won Nevada by a voice vote.

it sounded like Bernie won it. Sanders supporters asked for a show of hands, which was first refused but ultimately called for after many Bernie supporters had left in frustration. The DNC worked hard against him, and people on DU told me he wasn't even a Dem even though he voted with the party 98% of the time and always caucused with us, and had changed his affiliation to run that year. My big problem with HRC is that I don't think the US should encourage political dynasties, they reek of cronyism.

So I'm sorry you don't remember the shenanigans, but at this point I've been a faithful D voter for 45 years and the entire time the Ds have told me they've been hostile to far left of the party. I, for one, am delighted the DNC seems to be getting a clue that centrism as a 40 year plank has suuuuucked for the party as a whole, and we're actually talking about things I've been dreaming about for decades.

[Skittles]

25. what is REALLY annoying

is how he contributed to what we have today

[angrychair]

11. This is the era of the progressives

We are tired of status queue. Tired of insider trading. Tired of billionaires and corporations having so much influence on our lives.

I used be the "incremental change" guy but I could see all around me that "incremental change" wasn't really happening. We need Democrats that are going to weld the power of Congress to protect women, children, people of color and our LGBTQ+ family.

We must work to improve the lives of Americans and convince the world that 30% of our population is not representative of our entire country.

[KPN]

16. Wow. Only 58 recs? Either not many folks have seen this, or most don't like Robert Reich or are not happy

with is take on Platner et al , or both I guess.

Me, I think it's great he spoke up. His views are spot on for me. But there's also some good news - bad news aspect in what he's describing. The question is: if more progressives do win primaries and get elected with the help of independent voters, will the Democratic Party actually respond and work in a way that actually achieves conspicuously visible, tangible and substantive benefits for the working class? That's a legitimate and big question in my book ... and therein lies the rub. Will the Democratic "establishment" as Reich called it get on board? Is the Democratic Party sufficiently committed to helping the middle class as a chief priority? Will they have the courage to risk their political careers by taking on big money in the process of bettering the lives of working Americans, or will they try to thread the needle and fall short on that in attempting to have it both ways via "compromise" as they have in the past?

If it's the latter, I would say Reich's take is bad news. Voters vote because they want results. I'm rooting for progressives. I'll be thrilled if they win primaries. It may end up being bad news down the road based on results, but I'm willing to take that chance. What we've been doing the past 40+ years has not worked -- at least on the economic front which is a common denominator among middle and lower class Americans.

[FakeNoose]

18. Well it's early yet

I agree that Robert Reich is definitely one that I check regularly.

However I'm retired so I have the luxury of posting stuff in the morning hours. The DUers who aren't retired probably won't get to this stuff until later on, or maybe even tomorrow.

[Joinfortmill]

23. Yup, I've been telling my family that Trump and his band of bandits

are going to push the country left. Glad to know it seems to be happening.

[CozyMystery]

26. I vote Democrat, no matter what. But...

Except for Jimmy Carter and Obama, I have never felt all that good about voting for anyone. Both times Bernie ran and got snatched out of the race, I was astonished. I had been looking forward to voting. With Carter, I was a neophyte and I voted for him because he was from Georgia and because I felt sorry for him since he was a poor peanut farmer. I'd seen all the people on the side of the road selling boiled peanuts in cotton field country, and all the falling apart shacks people lived in when I was a kid! Yeah, yeah, I was set straight on him not being impoverished. I also think that he was the only totally honest president in my lifetime. I'd be gobsmacked if he was found to be like most politicians are. I, frankly, would rather be known as an ambulance chaser or a used car salesperson than a politician.

If the party got with it, got current, and did what likely most Dems want, I would be happy with that, even if the candidate wasn't my favorite. Because we would be doing something significant. It would also thrill me beyond words if the Dems could figure out how to make us a country of laws that prevent us from ever getting into this situation with Trumpism again. Something besides torching another political party.

Please don't point to Obamacare. When Mass had a similar plan, our insurance cost went down and we were very happy with it. For the first year, After that it went Way Up. So when I found out that the Mass idea was what Obamacare was based on, I knew it would end up being expensive for the middle class. That makes me unhappy.

I am just so so tired of being unhappy with our government. Not just federal, state, local ... they mostly seem like a bunch of crooks and liars.

[slightlv]

30. This!

If the party got with it, got current, and did what likely most Dems want, I would be happy with that, even if the candidate wasn't my favorite.

I fear with the Democratic apparati we have, the money influence is too great a temptation against us, the common people. The people in charge (and I'm not talking politicians, but institutional leaders, are older and have been born and bred in the ways of the 1950's. I wouldn't even call them boomers! They're before WE were born. And that's the problem. It's the same as the office manager who doesn't count you working unless he can see your butt in your seat. Those old days are long gone; we've moved into the era where the ultra rich control every aspect of our life. We need newer blood (even younger Boomer blood) who've lived through Reagan and Bush's recessions. Who remember the bailouts for everybody but we, the American people. Who remember and understand how we've suffered since the 1960's on the poor end of the pendulum. We want that pendulum to swing back towards US, the American people... those who have been disenfranchised for decades and more... POC, women, immigrants. We want these people to be celebrated for their accomplishments, not imprisoned or murdered for being just who they are.

I apologize. I've had a bad lupus day, the Raynauds is acting up and I'm on the edge of both despair and wishing I could hope. I apologize if I've offended anyone. It truly wasn't my intention.