We can’t just be against Trump. It’s time for a bold, progressive populism | Robert Reich

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"The Need for a Bold Progressive Populism Beyond Opposition to Trump"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

As demonstrations against Donald Trump intensify, the call for a bold, progressive populism becomes increasingly urgent. This movement must not only oppose Trump's regressive populism, characterized by cruelty and bigotry, but also articulate a vision for a more equitable United States. Robert Reich emphasizes that merely returning to pre-Trump politics is insufficient, as prior to Trump's presidency, the influence of big money in politics had already undermined democracy, with wealthy individuals and corporations shaping public policy to their advantage. Research by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page highlights that the preferences of average Americans have minimal impact on policy decisions, which have historically favored the wealthy. The Citizens United ruling exacerbated this issue, drowning out the voices of the average citizen and allowing the richest 0.1% to dominate campaign financing. This trend has led to a general distrust in major societal institutions and a sense that the system is rigged in favor of the elite, leaving many Americans feeling disillusioned and marginalized.

Reich argues that the anti-establishment sentiment fueling Trump's rise could have manifested in a more constructive form, rather than the regressive populism that scapegoats immigrants and minorities. He points out that Democratic leaders, with few exceptions, have failed to propose a progressive alternative that holds the wealthy accountable. Instead, they often align with corporate interests, further alienating the working class. To counteract this, a new progressive populism should focus on dismantling the power of large corporations, reforming Wall Street practices, and ensuring that economic gains are shared more equitably among all Americans. This includes advocating for policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy, universal basic income, and stronger labor rights. As protests against Trump continue, it is essential to also advocate for a future that enhances democracy and prioritizes the needs of the many over the few, thereby creating a more just society for all.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article outlines the growing opposition against Donald Trump and emphasizes the need for a constructive vision that goes beyond mere resistance. It argues that a "bold progressive populism" is essential to address the inequalities exacerbated by Trump's brand of politics. The piece highlights the significant influence of wealth on American democracy, pointing to research that shows how ordinary citizens have minimal impact on public policy compared to the wealthy elite.

Purpose of the Article

The main objective is to encourage readers to not only oppose Trump but also to advocate for a more equitable and democratic society. The article seeks to mobilize support for progressive policies that challenge the status quo, which is portrayed as having been detrimental even before Trump's presidency.

Public Perception

The article aims to create a perception of urgency around the need for systemic change. By framing Trump's populism as "regressive," it positions progressive populism as a necessary counterforce. This likely resonates with individuals disillusioned by the political landscape, fostering a sense of community among those who share similar frustrations.

Concealment of Information

While the article is primarily focused on advocating for progressive populism, it may downplay the complexities of political dynamics and the diversity of opinions within the American electorate. The narrative could oversimplify the challenges that progressive movements face, potentially masking the need for broad coalitions and compromise.

Manipulative Elements

The article presents a moderate level of manipulation, primarily through its emotive language and framing. By using terms like "cruel," "bigoted," and "tyrannical," it aims to evoke strong emotional responses against Trump. This language could polarize opinions rather than fostering constructive dialogue.

Credibility of the Claims

The data referenced from political scientists Gilens and Page strengthens the article's credibility. However, it risks oversimplifying the relationship between wealth and political influence by not addressing counterarguments or the roles of different demographic groups in shaping policy.

Societal Implications

The call for a bold progressive populism could energize grassroots movements, potentially leading to increased political engagement and activism. This could have far-reaching impacts on future elections and policy-making, particularly in areas like healthcare, education, and economic inequality.

Target Audience

The article likely appeals to progressive activists, younger voters, and those disillusioned with traditional political structures. It aims to galvanize support from communities seeking to challenge economic disparities and advocate for social justice.

Impact on Markets

While the article focuses on political narratives, it may influence market sentiment indirectly. Companies aligned with progressive values or those affected by regulatory changes could see fluctuations in stock performance, especially in sectors like renewable energy, healthcare, and technology.

Global Context

The themes discussed in the article reflect broader global trends concerning populism and economic inequality. These issues resonate not only in the U.S. but also in other democracies facing similar challenges, thus contributing to ongoing discussions about the future of governance worldwide.

AI Involvement

It is unlikely that AI played a significant role in the article's writing, as the style and analysis appear to reflect a human perspective grounded in political theory and personal opinion. AI models could have been utilized for data analysis or research but not in crafting the narrative.

In conclusion, this article serves as a rallying cry for progressive change in the face of perceived threats to democracy. Its persuasive language and reliance on research aim to mobilize citizens toward a more equitable future, while also presenting a critical view of the current political landscape.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Demonstrations againstDonald TrumpTrump are getting larger and louder. Good. This is absolutely essential.

But at some point we’ll need to demonstrate not just against the president but alsoforthe the United States we want.

Trump’s regressive populism – cruel, bigoted, tyrannical – must be met by a boldprogressivepopulism that strengthens democracy and shares the wealth.

We can’t simply return to the path we were on before Trump. Even then, big money was taking over our democracy and siphoning off most of the economy’s gains.

Two of the country’s most respected political scientists – professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University –analyzed1,799 policy issues decided between 1981 and 2002. They found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, lawmakers responded to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns. And “when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.”

Notably, Gilens and Page’s research data was gatheredbeforethe supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in Citizens United.After that, the voices of typical Americans were entirely drowned.

In the election cycle of 2016, which first delivered the White House to Trump, the richest100thof 1%of Americans accounted for a record-breaking40%of all campaign donations. (By contrast, in 1980, the top 0.01 percent accounted for only 15% of all contributions.)

The direction we were heading was unsustainable. Even before Trump’s first regime, trust in every major institution of society was plummeting – including Congress, the courts, corporations, Wall Street, universities, the legal establishment and the media.

The entire system seemed rigged for the benefit of the establishment – and in many ways it was.

The typical family’s inflation-adjusted income had barely risen for decades. Most of the economy’s gains had gone to the top.

Wall Street got bailed out when its gambling addiction caused it humongous losses but homeowners who were underwater did not. Nor did people who lost their jobs and savings. And not a single top Wall Street executive went to jail.

A populist – anti-establishment – revolution was inevitable. But it didn’t have to be a tyrannical one. It didn’t have to be regressive populism.

Instead of putting the blame where it belonged – on big corporations, Wall Street and the billionaire class – Trump has blamed immigrants, the “deep state”, socialists, “coastal elites”, transgender people, “DEI” and “woke”.

How has Trump gotten away with this while giving the super-rich large tax benefits and regulatory relief and surrounding himself (especially in his second term) with a record number of billionaires, including the richest person in the world?

Largely because Democratic leaders – with the notable exceptions of Bernie Sanders (who is actually an independent), AOC and a handful of others – could not, and still cannot, bring themselves to enunciate aprogressiveversion of populism that puts the blame squarely where it belongs.

Too many have been eating from the same campaign buffet as theRepublicansand dare not criticize the hands that feed them.

This has left Trump’s regressive populism as the only version of anti-establishment politics available to Americans. It’s a tragedy. Anti-establishment fury remains at the heart of our politics, and for good reason.

What would progressive populism entail?

Strengthening democracy by busting up big corporations. Stopping Wall Street’s gambling (eg replicating the Glass-Steagall Act). Getting big money out of politics, even if this requires amending the constitution. Requiring big corporations to share their profits with their average workers. Strengthening unions. And raising taxes on the super-wealthy to finance a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and paid family leave.

Hopefully, demonstrations against Trump’s regressive, tyrannical populism will continue to grow.

But we must also be demonstratingfora better future beyond Trump – one that strengthens democracy and works on behalf of all Americans rather than a privileged few.

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is atrobertreich.substack.com

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian