Although having the opportunity to interview Robert Reich was an undeniable honor, I was still disappointed in the lack of deep conversation about the underlying nature of American liberalism, capitalist political economy, the fundamental problems with the University, and other topics that do not ordinarily come up in standard political discourse. Of course, this can mainly be attributed to the fact that this was my first interview of any sort, formal or informal – so I suppose I should be pleased that I didn’t screw up any of the basics, and not get so hung up on not producing a ground-breaking and exclusive philosophical discussion. In addition, Reich was also fighting off a cold, and hadn’t eaten anything all day – not ideal conditions under which one would want to deviate from standard and rehearsed statements.

Anyways, I am using this essay as an opportunity to use the contents of the interview as a foundation on which to expound and elaborate on my own political views, which tend to be much more radical than Reich’s. And since the total reflection turned out to be rather long, I’ve decided to divide the reflection into three parts. This is Part I, which goes over the politics of the election, and the general philosophy behind democracy and politics. You can read the full transcript here, and you can pick up a free copy of Caliber to read the feature article on the interview.

Politics of the Election

Reich’s position as a center-leftist wasn’t surprising, although I was a tad thrown off by how strongly he seemed to emphasize his allegiance with the Democratic Party. I myself am none too fond of Obama and the Democrats. To me, they seem like cowards at best, and shameless neoliberal corporatists at worst. I think that when taking in account the stances on the entire range of political and economic issues – domestic security, militarization, climate change, ecology, energy, welfare, immigration, drugs, etc., the political differences between the Republicans and the Democrats becomes rather small. Obama has thus far been a complete failure in terms of revamping drug policies – arguably one of the most destructive set of laws to afflict American society during the past thirty years – and has been little more than a stooge when it comes to dealing with Wall Street. And just last week, a Democratic legislator in California abruptly resigned, in order to pursue a more lucrative career with Chevron – a classic example of the bipartisan nature of revolving-door politics. So why on Earth would anybody be cheerful about picking either a Democrat or a Republican, when either individual will probably use public office as an extended interview for a lucrative corporate job?

Not to say I wasn’t pleased during election day either – like Reich said, there was potential disaster on the horizon – but I have never been one to glow with pleasure at the victory of the lesser of two evils.

Reich dismissed Romney primarily on the grounds that he views the world “through the lens of the financial markets. But I wonder what Reich makes of the fact that Obama had the full backing of Wall Street during the 2008 elections – does that not imply that Obama, too, was afflicted with “the lens of the financial markets?” Though of course, I should also make it clear that Wall Street abandoned Obama in favor of Romney during this latest election – unsurprising, since although Obama’s policies were obscenely favorable to Wall Street, Romney would have probably given them much, much more.

Overall, I remain confused as to why Reich remains a resolute Democrat. While it wasn’t especially apparent in the interview, Reich’s books and lectures paint a portrait of a thinker who is far more leftist than the official Democratic Party platform. Perhaps he wishes to remain accessible to the moderates?

On Democracy

A bit later, Reich expressed dismay that many Berkeley students seem to view politics as “somehow dirty,” and that he wished that people would still have faith in America’s political system and partake in what he calls “the applied form of democracy.” But does Reich really think that viewing politics as “dirty” is an unwarranted opinion? After all, today’s generation of students came to political consciousness during the Bush regime – an administration that was just about as corrupt as they can get.

Was this corrupt and violent administration a result of not having enough “talented young people in politics?” Perhaps, but this formulation places an undue emphasis on the mere ethical qualities of individuals in creating corruption and exploitation, rather than questioning whether the system itself was responsible for its own failures. In other words, I would argue that the very logic of American liberal democracy lead to the rise of the Bush administration, by the means in which American democracy structurally excludes the participation of the lower social stratums (gerrymandering, necessity to work long hours), and upholds the ability for moneyed interests to dictate policy (lack of public election funding, the legality of lobbying, the two-party system). It wasn’t a fluke that many of the top personnel in the Bush Administration were intimately connected with defense corporations; the same political and economic forces that lead to that situation have lead to the current situation, where many of Obama’s head honchos have intimate connections with Wall Street (especially Goldman Sachs).

Of course, one could still argue that we need to still work within the proper legislative and political channels in order to rectify these systemic problems within society. But given that those who most want to see systemic change are precisely those who are marginalized from political activity, how can one claim to be able to use the system itself for reform – unless the argument is that we should focus on top-down political solutions, rather than the organization of the masses? I, for one, would reject this path – historically, top-down reforms have typically had the quality of creating the illusion of reform (Hope and Change, anybody?), while still maintaining the power and privileges of the social, political, and economic elites who created the problems in the first place.

What this means, then, is that in order to truly “apply democracy”, we ought to look to political struggles outside the scope of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and instead focus on spaces where “people power”- radical popular mobilization – can still be harnessed. We should be investigating forms of organizing that allows individuals and communities to be independent from the corrupt power struggles of Washington and the economic hegemony of multinational corporations. Instead of attempting to win elections and lobby politicians – actions that are decreasing in their cost-effectiveness, and do nothing to uproot the fundamental problems – perhaps we should instead be organizing strikes, non-hierarchical unionization, mass demonstrations, and the development of locally-based economies. I believe that these, and other radical forms of political struggle, are a much more authentic application of democracy than legislative politics could ever be. After all, what better upholds democratic principles than the rejection of a stagnant status-quo, in favor of a radical expansion of democracy’s scope?

Trending Articles: