I beg to differ, Arthur. His voice was heard clearly and frequently when it came to many of the positive initiatives made by Clinton such as family leave, tax credits and cuts for the poor, raising the minimum wage, etc
He was also clearly heard in his opposition to the Welfare Bill signed by Clinton and finally left the administration when he got fed up. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fw: The death of opposition in America > When he had a chance to act, to speak out--when he was in Clinton's > Cabinet--he was strangely silent. Seemed that the party line was just fine > with him. > > If values based governing is wanted, it is unclear what values the Dems > currently espouse, except for a burning desire to hold power once again. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Selma Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Fw: The death of opposition in America > > > A major hero of mine. His little book *I'll Be Short* pulls everything > together sooooo clearly. > > Selma > > > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:25 PM > Subject: The death of opposition in America > > > America's defeated Democrats need to deepen the analysis of their election > post-mortem. American democracy is in danger if they fail to remake the > culture of politics > > http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4567230,00.html > > The death of opposition in America > > Robert Reich > Sunday December 15, 2002 > The Observer, London > > The recent US mid-term elections saw the rarity of a presidential > incumbent's party gaining seats in both houses of Congress. President Bush > has gained control of the Senate and the House of Representatives and now > appears even less constrained in both domestic and international policy. > > The awful performance by the Democrats has led, as expected, to the kind > of post-election hand-wringing that occurred in 1980, 1988 and 1994. Each > occasion prompted the same tired question: Should Democrats move rightward > to the Republican-Lite centre, or move back to the Golden days of FDR? We > stand braced for endless conferences about "The Future of The Democratic > Party", after which everyone continues whatever they were doing before. > > Yet, if political opposition in the US is not to atrophy, then real change > is needed within the Democratic Party and American democratic culture more > generally. This change is important not just for the people of America, > but also, given US economic and military might, for the remainder of the > world. > > One problem is the lack of a national Democratic Party. The existence of > this is often incorrectly presupposed, for while people may call > themselves Democrats, there is no real national Democratic Party as there > is a national Republican Party. The Republicans have a network of > conservative think-tanks, which produce ideas that are marketed and sold > by a boatload of money and spokespeople. They recruit and train > prospective candidates who have the discipline to stick to a Party line. > > Contrast this with the Democrats' mixed message leading up to the recent > elections, where they were unclear on whether to support Bush on Iraq; > they fulminated over social security privatisation and health care policy. > Although they managed to agree that last year's giant 1.3 trillion Bush > tax cut was wrong, they failed to offer a coherent, alternative > suggestion. If the emerging presidential candidates do not produce clear > policies they can kiss goodbye to victory in 2004. > > But agreement on blandness will not suffice. Only opposition grounded in > conviction will create a real national movement that embraces all who have > been marginalised by big corporations and government, people who have > grown cynical about American society and its politics. It is worth > remembering that the party of non-voters is larger than either Republican > or Democrat. Many of those who vote have no strong party loyalty, but vote > for the person they despise the least after watching three months of > attack ads on television. > > The big differences in American politics today are between inspirational > leaders with courage and those without such qualities. Among the former > are the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Senator John McCain > of Arizona - politicians with deeply held and passionate views. They have > a fair degree of contempt for powerful Americans who do not give a damn > about their country or its citizens. On the other side is a large group of > hard-boiled poll-watchers who spend most of their time raising money. It > takes no conviction or courage to move to the Centre. If you want to be a > true leader, you define the Centre. You don't rely on pollsters to tell > you where it is, because you can't lead people to where they already are. > > The Democrats also need to be careful about their increasing reliance on > the elderly. It is true that over the next two decades the baby boomers > will be retiring as the largest, noisiest, and most demanding political > constituency in American history, as tens of millions of their bodies > corrode simultaneously. Worse is that most boomers have not saved a dime > for retirement. All the equity is in their homes and prices will take a > dive when they go to sell. > > Yet, who will represent and inspire the young, enabling them to feel the > joy of politics? Idealism isn't dead, it's just waiting to be ignited > (among young people, minorities and the poor) or reignited (among the > jaded middle-aged). Millions of Progressives, Greens, Democrats or > Independents are yearning to get involved and change the way politics is > practised. These groups want government to work better and for more > people. They yearn for political leaders who are authentic, who aren't > afraid to take on sacred cows and tell it like it is, who have new common > sense ideas. They are deeply worried about where Bush is taking the > country. They are a powder keg waiting to explode. > > These issues are bigger and more important than the future of the > Democratic Party. It is really about the future of democracy. American > democracy is in terrible trouble right now. Power is in the hands of a > tiny group of people. Large corporate entities are more politically potent > than at any time in living memory. > > I hope the opposition has learned from the mid-term elections. To me, the > clearest lesson is that Republicans, unlike the Democrats in opposition, > know exactly what and who they stand for. When you know what you believe > and for whom you exist, you've got a better chance of winning. I believe > that another era of progressivism is on its way and if the Democrats see > it and feel it then they will be the Party of the future. If not, well, > more the shame for democracy, America and the world. > > · Robert Reich is former Labor Secretary to President Clinton. This > article is draws from a speech given last week to the Institute for Public > Policy Research. > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
