# Robert Reich nails it: This is what this election is about **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 27, 2016, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399 "2016-01-27T19:09:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/201 "2016-02-04T00:19:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, except that you pretty much can. I’m sure that the authors of the Gilens-Page study cited in the OP, or the authors of any of the books I cited, would be most amused to hear your theory that money doesn’t buy influence in politics to such an extent that it dominates the entire political system. The only thing your Jeb Bush example illustrates is that money on one side doesn’t necessarily prevail against money on the other side in exact dollar-for-dollar proportion in every single instance. If you look a little further you’ll find a Congress whose makeup has been overwhelmingly determined by money and the moneyed interests that they serve, as discussed in detail in the above cited documents. And state governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin or Sam Brownback in the Kochs own state, both elevated by the Kochs to positions of destructive influence. > > Or take the case of Bernie Sanders, a social democrat who has pitted himself directly against the interests of big money. His standing right now is the result of populist appeal, democracy at its finest. Big money will ensure that he has almost zero chance at the nomination, but in the very unlikely event that he does get nominated through some twist of fate, big money will go into high gear and rain down fear and damnation in such unceasing fury that his chances of actually being elected will be zero. For the same reason that the US remains the only country in the civilized world that still doesn’t have universal health care, even though it’s the richest and best able to afford it. For the same reason that health care reform turned out to be a great big handout to the insurance industry, and the public option had no chance of being passed. For the same reason that Congress cuts taxes for the rich and caters to their every need. People can also vote with their feet. If the social welfare states of the world are so sure of their model why not see how it scales with 200 million immigrants? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/202 "2016-02-04T01:28:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [shrug] By present U.S. standards, all of that – just bringing us up to the level of the other industrialized democracies, and nothing more – is revolutionary. And so is CFR. No. Just Incrementalism. Govt spending has been increasing for many years under your “conservative” and “neoliberal” boogeymen. Socialism lite tends to reinforce the status quo. If you were the wealthiest before socialism lite, you will not be challenged because the bourgeois cannot accumulate wealth in a way that threatens your own. This is one reason you saw socialism grow out of wwii Europe. The wealthy were concerned about up and comers threatening their status. Socialism lite is the way the wealthy leash the lower classes, especially the ascendant bourgeoise, who acquire wealth through capitalism instead of through government connections. Real deal socialism results in widespread death and poverty. It is the only revolutionary socialism there is. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/203 "2016-02-04T01:40:06Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m sure that the authors of the Gilens-Page study cited in the OP, or the authors of any of the books I cited, would be most amused to hear your theory that money doesn’t buy influence in politics to such an extent that it dominates the entire political system. The majority view of political scientists is that it has not yet been well-established that money influences electoral outcomes. And not for lack of trying to establish it! That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t, of course, but it does make this appeal to authority pretty hollow. I happen to think that progressives are badly misguided in focusing on campaign spending. The real influence happens at the regulatory level in agencies, through various mechanisms of regulatory capture. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/204 "2016-02-04T02:08:56Z")
Campaign spending is just the tip of the iceberg of money in politics, as distinct from overt and covert advocacy spending and direct legislative lobbying, and systems like public election funding and free air time on public broadcasters with large audiences that can neutralize the value of campaign spending to the point that some countries don’t even bother regulating it. The only way you could possibly argue against all this spending basically setting public policy is to take a very narrow view of something like campaign spending in isolation, and show that for instance there isn’t always a good correlation between dollars spent and election outcomes. But that’s not looking at the above big picture. The counter-argument is the actual existing set of public policies currently in existence in the US, compared with any other democracy in the world, which bears out all the literature that I’ve cited showing that the wealthy run the place to an extent not seen anywhere else that claims to be a democracy. The next president may be Hillary the covert corporate shill, or it may be some Republican who’s an explicit corporate shill, but it won’t be Bernie Sanders the social democrat. And the next Congress will be owned by corporate America just like all the previous ones. The US is an absolutely fantastic place to be wealthy in, not so fantastic to be poor or lower class, and an absolutely awful place in which to be poor and without health insurance. The Kochs and the Adelsons don’t care, they’re living the dream. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/205 "2016-02-04T02:31:08Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No. Just Incrementalism. Govt spending has been increasing for many years under your “conservative” and “neoliberal” boogeymen. > > Socialism lite tends to reinforce the status quo. If you were the wealthiest before socialism lite, you will not be challenged because the bourgeois cannot accumulate wealth in a way that threatens your own. This is one reason you saw socialism grow out of wwii Europe. The wealthy were concerned about up and comers threatening their status. Socialism lite is the way the wealthy leash the lower classes, especially the ascendant bourgeoise, who acquire wealth through capitalism instead of through government connections. > > Real deal socialism results in widespread death and poverty. It is the only revolutionary socialism there is. Whatever. The point is, most of America’s wealthy and PTB ain’t anywhere there yet attitude-wise, and the political and structural barriers they have built up against what you call “socialism lite” are so high and strong that it will take a paradigm-shattering **political** revolution, one even more sweeping and vigorous than that of the New Deal era, to overcome them. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/206 "2016-02-04T05:39:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Campaign spending is just the tip of the iceberg of money in politics, as distinct from overt and covert advocacy spending and direct legislative lobbying, and systems like public election funding and free air time on public broadcasters with large audiences that can neutralize the value of campaign spending to the point that some countries don’t even bother regulating it. > > The only way you could possibly argue against all this spending basically setting public policy is to take a very narrow view of something like campaign spending in isolation, and show that for instance there isn’t always a good correlation between dollars spent and election outcomes. But that’s not looking at the above big picture. The counter-argument is the actual existing set of public policies currently in existence in the US, compared with any other democracy in the world, which bears out all the literature that I’ve cited showing that the wealthy run the place to an extent not seen anywhere else that claims to be a democracy. The next president may be Hillary the covert corporate shill, or it may be some Republican who’s an explicit corporate shill, but it won’t be Bernie Sanders the social democrat. And the next Congress will be owned by corporate America just like all the previous ones. > > The US is an absolutely fantastic place to be wealthy in, not so fantastic to be poor or lower class, and an absolutely awful place in which to be poor and without health insurance. The Kochs and the Adelsons don’t care, they’re living the dream. If your message is compelling people will PAY to receive it. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/207 "2016-02-04T06:57:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Whatever. The point is, most of America’s wealthy and PTB ain’t anywhere there yet attitude-wise, and the political and structural barriers they have built up against what you call “socialism lite” are so high and strong that it will take a paradigm-shattering **political** revolution, one even more sweeping and vigorous than that of the New Deal era, to overcome them. Good job illustrating why the Sanders narrative is so toxic. It paints a picture of a situation within which incremental change is impossible–only a “political revolution” can achieve anything. Which then means every young person who buys into this narrative is encouraged to just give up altogether if that “revolution” doesn’t happen. So it’s not just a positive “reach for the stars” type message, but ultimately a really pessimistic and discouraging one. Bleah. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/208 "2016-02-04T10:27:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Whatever. The point is, most of America’s wealthy and PTB ain’t anywhere there yet attitude-wise, and the political and structural barriers they have built up against what you call “socialism lite” are so high and strong that it will take a paradigm-shattering **political** revolution, one even more sweeping and vigorous than that of the New Deal era, to overcome them. Raise the minimum wage! Whoa there buddy, you’re a revolutionary! Free college! You mean add on to subsidized daycare and free pre-k thru 12 and massively subsidized college? More Progressive income tax! You sound like a Stalinist. Bernie Sanders increases statism by 10%, instead of the regular 5%. That’s not a revolutionary. He isn’t challenging anything of note. He’s telling all the kids everything they were taught in govt schools is true and government is the answer to their ills. He isn’t even effectively challenging his own party establishment. When he loses he will undoubtedly back Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/209 "2016-02-04T10:32:32Z")
Short but correct. [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/210 "2016-02-04T10:35:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Short but correct. [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/democrats-are-not-socialists-and-neither-is-bernie-sanders/) Wow, an actual fair assessment of the democrats from an outlet with “conservative” in its name? Whodathunkit. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/211 "2016-02-04T13:58:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Right. > > That’s the hope and change part, you see. > > What was your point? That you can sell “hope and change” to moderates, whereas socialism works much less well. Most Americans do not hope for socialism, and do not wish to change to it. Had Obama tried to sell himself as a socialist, instead of allowing people to project whatever they hoped for onto him, he would have lost. This is for a number of reasons, not least because those who wanted “hope and change” had no definite idea as to specifically what the change was they were hoping for, beyond “I want a President who will fix the problems of the country”. That was the basis for much of Obama’s appeal to first-time voters and the politically naive. That’s why Sanders is not going to get the nomination. Most Americans, even Democrats, even the more partisan Democrats who vote in Democratic primaries, are not going to vote for a socialist. The SDMB is not very representative of the American populace. You in particular are way left of the American center. So Bernie Sanders can represent “hope and change” to you, in ways that he can’t, and doesn’t, to the American mainstream. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/212 "2016-02-04T14:55:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > He’s telling all the kids everything they were taught in govt schools is true . . . Well, I dunno about that, I rather suspect he would strongly agree with [James Loewen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me) on that point. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/213 "2016-02-04T17:49:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The only way you could possibly argue against all this spending basically setting public policy is to take a very narrow view of something like campaign spending in isolation, and show that for instance there isn’t always a good correlation between dollars spent and election outcomes. But that’s not looking at the above big picture. That’s a tautology. Yes, if you focus on one part, you are not focusing on the big picture. But that doesn’t make focusing on the part a bad idea. First, focusing on it shows that it probably doesn’t have the kind of effect Sanders claims. And second, if campaign spending isn’t an especially influential method by which the rich elite control politics, then progressives should stop focusing on it to the near exclusion of all other forms. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The counter-argument is the actual existing set of public policies currently in existence in the US, compared with any other democracy in the world, which bears out all the literature that I’ve cited showing that the wealthy run the place to an extent not seen anywhere else that claims to be a democracy. The next president may be Hillary the covert corporate shill, or it may be some Republican who’s an explicit corporate shill, but it won’t be Bernie Sanders the social democrat. And the next Congress will be owned by corporate America just like all the previous ones. Circular reasoning. You call Hillary a corporate shill because she receives corporate money. But the whole argument is over whether corporate money influences her policies or causes her to be elected instead of someone who favors different ones. Which policies do you think she disagrees with but shills for the money? ---
**Author:** ![Corporal\_Clegg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Corporal\_Clegg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corporal_Clegg)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/214 "2016-02-04T18:00:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > How specifically would nominating and/or electing Bernie Sanders reduce the political power of the rich? There are things he can do that he can’t say right now because they are political dynamite which mike bring the worst enmity down on him. But hint: he will have a Department of Justice. And unlike Obama who kept believing beyond rationality that the republicans will listen and cooperate–which seems to be Hillary’s message too–Sanders won’t be running for his second term the minute his first one starts. There are some elites who have gotten away with crime that has shaped Congress. I expect they’ll face justice with Bernie. Elizabeth Warren seems to have no problem with the idea of hand-cuffs for white collar criminals, I don’t think Bernie will have that problem either. And you’d be surprised how such a thing will shake up a party that is all duplicitous in some big respect. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/215 "2016-02-04T18:04:41Z")
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/216 "2016-02-04T18:25:43Z")
If money doesn’t buy influence then the corporate sector can keep their billions and spend it on more productive endeavors. I’m sure they’d appreciate that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/217 "2016-02-04T18:31:58Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > If money doesn’t buy influence then the corporate sector can keep their billions and spend it on more productive endeavors. I’m sure they’d appreciate that. Money certainly does buy influence. It just doesn’t do so by (1) “rigging” the outcome of election or even substantively influencing the outcomes of presidential elections; or (2) causing politicians to support legislation they would not otherwise have supported. The influence mostly comes from the content and agenda-setting effects of lobbyists and think tanks, the iron triangle of employment, and deep pockets for litigation. The trouble is that the progressive movement in general is wildly over-focused on campaign finance spending. I have my own cynical theories about why that’s the case, but whatever the reason, it is the reality. ETA: And as far as the “they are spending it, so it must work” theory goes, the truth is that for-profit corporations _don’t_ spend very much on elections. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/218 "2016-02-04T19:20:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. You already have, this is it. The smartest, the hippest…us! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/219 "2016-02-04T19:38:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > ETA: And as far as the “they are spending it, so it must work” theory goes, the truth is that for-profit corporations _don’t_ spend very much on elections. Well, [someone does, and it ain’t the small donors.](http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/theyre_all_bought_and_sold_american_democracy_belongs_to_the_billionaires_now_partner/) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399/220 "2016-02-04T20:57:47Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > If money doesn’t buy influence then the corporate sector can keep their billions and spend it on more productive endeavors. I’m sure they’d appreciate that. Money does buy influence, what it doesn’t buy is elections unless there’s a huge discrepancy. Kinda like how nuclear war has no winner once each side has more than a few hundred warheads, but there can certainly be a winner if one side has 10,000 and the other side has 10. So basically, politicians are the ones wasting their time. Trump’s smarter than the lot of them. He knows where the real power is, it’s with the media, and they don’t charge to get your name out there. BTW, if donating to a campaign buys influence, how much influence does giving money directly to a candidate’s personal bank account buy? How much did Goldman Sachs get for giving Hillary Clinton $675K? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robert-reich-nails-it-this-is-what-this-election-is-about/744399.md?page=12)