Robert B. Reich, a co-founder of The American Prospect, is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His website can be found here and his blog can be found here.
The London Observer
Al Gore is finally on a roll. But where will it take him? This past week
he's been telling Americans 'we've got to put you first' and not 'the ones
with connections, the ones with wealth, the ones with power above and
beyond what the average family has in this country'. He's for the people,
while 'the other side' is for the powerful. It's good old-fashioned
hell-fire-and-brimstone political rhetoric. During the Thirties, Franklin D.
Roosevelt condemned the 'economic royalists' - America's big businesses
that, he said, were stomping on average Americans. In 1912, progressive
Republican Teddy Roosevelt blamed the 'malefactors of great wealth' for
subjugating the 'little man' of America. In the 1890s, prairie populist
William Jennings Bryan (who almost made it to the White House) railed at
the bankers and other 'powerful interests' who were 'bankrupting'
The Los Angeles Times
In this election cycle, those 'issues ads' he created last time are likely to be
exceeded by the GOP.
You'd be forgiven if you thought of the contest for the presidency as two
big battles--first, the primary battle to choose each party's nominee, which
this year is effectively over, and then the general election battle, which
starts just after the nominating conventions in August and runs through
election day. So you might suppose that now we'll have a 5-month
But you'd be wrong. One of the most important battles of the election will
be between now and Aug. 15. That's when each likely nominee will launch
intense barrages of televised ads designed to raise questions in voters'
minds about the suitability of his rival in the opposite party. The ads will be
paid for largely by big, unregulated donations to the Republican and
Democratic national committees-- "soft...
The Wall Street Journal
Pundits have a host of explanations for why Bill Bradley's and John McCain's
candidacies failed: Mr. Bradley failed to respond to Al Gore's attacks; Mr.
McCain blundered in attacking the religious right; Mr. McCain stole Mr.
Bradley's thunder; the public isn't that interested in reform after all.
The real explanation is simpler, and it lies in the dynamic of political
insurgency. Insurgents can't match the large-scale political organizations
that governors and congressional delegations give establishment
candidates like Al Gore and George W. Bush. Mr. Bradley and Mr. McCain
had to rely on ragtag armies of idealists with lots of zeal but little
experience. And since insurgents can't count on large reservoirs of cash for
advertisements, they are much more dependent on "free media" -- that is,
Therein lies the insurgent's trap. The media have only two basic stories...
The New Republic Special Endorsement Issue:
I worked closely with Al Gore in the first Clinton administration, and I admire
him. Gore is earnest and smart. For the past seven and a half years he's
taken on god-awful projects that no one else wanted to do--like
"reinventing government"--and has done them well. He's been loyal to a
fault. Contrary to his public persona, he has a droll sense of humor that
occasionally tips into deadpan sarcasm. So why do I support Bill Bradley?
And why do I continue to support him, even when his boat seems to be
sinking? Maybe it's because I kept clean for Gene, passed out leaflets as a
kid for Stevenson, and would have voted for Wilson in 1912. I'm a sucker for
decent, smart, soft-spoken idealists with lofty visions about where the
country should go and what we can do together. For good or ill, that
description fits Bradley, not Gore.
Start with the issues. I'll spare you the...
T his is the hour for reform, not recrimination. To view Ralph Nader as representing the "progressive left," in opposition to liberals and moderates inside the Democratic Party, is to commit grave error. The passions aroused by the Nader campaign have much in common with those elicited by John McCain and Bill Bradley in their primaries. Put simply, we are witnessing the birth pangs of a reform movement in America intent on ending the corruption of our democratic system by organized money. Nader and his Greens may fade, but the determination by millions of Americans to rescue American democracy will only intensify.
This may be the largest and most significant political groundswell since the antiwar movement of the late 1960s. It should not be confused with the rise of the corporate-bashing neoprotectionists, whose beliefs are lineally descended from late-nineteenth-century populism. The lineage of the campaign reformers is progressivism rather than populism. They...