Opinion: It takes a movement
In 2008, when then-Senator Barack Obama promised progressive change if elected President, his primary opponent, then-Senator Hillary Clinton, derided him.
鈥淭he skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,鈥� she聽, sarcastically, adding 鈥淚 have no illusions about how hard this is going to be.
Fast forward eight years. "I wish that we could elect a Democratic president who could wave a magic wand and say, 鈥榃e shall do this, and we shall do that,鈥欌�� Clinton聽聽in response to Bernie Sanders鈥檚 proposals. 聽"That ain鈥檛 the real world we鈥檙e living in.鈥�
So what鈥檚 possible in 鈥渢he real world we鈥檙e living in?鈥�
There are two dominant views about how presidents accomplish fundamental change.聽
The first might be called the 鈥渄eal-maker-in-chief,鈥� by which presidents threaten or buy off powerful opponents.聽
Barack Obama got the Affordable Care Act this way 鈥� gaining the support of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, by promising them far more business and guaranteeing that Medicare wouldn鈥檛 use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower drug prices.聽
But such deals can be聽expensive聽to the public (the tab for the pharmaceutical exemption is about聽a year), and they don鈥檛 really change the allocation of power. They just allow powerful interests to cash in.
The costs of such deals in 鈥渢he world we鈥檙e living in鈥� are likely to be even higher now. Powerful interests are more powerful than ever thanks to the Supreme Court鈥檚 2010聽Citizens United聽decision opening the floodgates to big money.聽
Which takes us to the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don鈥檛 want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don鈥檛 heed those demands.聽
Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts 鈥� not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.聽
It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the 鈥渞obber barons鈥� literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.聽
The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president 鈥� his 鈥渂ully pulpit,鈥� as he called it 鈥� to galvanize political action.聽聽
Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?
Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama鈥檚. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.聽
After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called 鈥淥rganizing for America鈥� (now dubbed 鈥淥rganizing for Action鈥�), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.
So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.聽
Despite OFA鈥檚 public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the 鈥渇uture of the progressive movement鈥�), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.聽
In the interim,聽Citizens United聽had freed 鈥渋ndependent鈥� groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.聽
That鈥檚 the heart of problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.
(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I聽did about widening inequality, called 鈥淚nequality for All鈥� 鈥� but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors.聽 We refused. They wouldn鈥檛 show it.)
In short, 鈥渢he real world we鈥檙e living in鈥� right now won鈥檛 allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.聽
Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that鈥檚 fueling it isn鈥檛 really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.
It鈥檚 about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.聽
This article聽first appeared at .
