Activists of the grass-roots Democracy Spring and Democracy Awakening movement marched on the US Capitol last spring. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)
Sep 28, 2016
Despite liberals' best efforts at self-reassurance and Donald Trump's poor performance in the first debate, his anti-establishment messaging still holds great appeal for a large portion of our electorate.
This is hardly news, but what's the essential lesson for all of us?
That most Americans feel cut out. They're angry that they have no real voice in our democracy -- because they don't: Political scientists have found it's even more true than most of us would guess. A groundbreaking 2014 study covering the '80s and '90s by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page shows that most Americans have "near-zero" influence on public policy, while that of elite interests is considerable. Of course it's only gotten worse since.
Monday's debate moderator, Lester Holt, failed to ask either candidate about money in politics, or even reference it.
The failure to address this reality hurts Clinton and helps Trump. While she has not been a career politician, as Trump repeatedly suggests, she has been a longtime "insider." So Trump's attacks linking Clinton with virtually every ill-conceived policy of the past decades resonates -- valid or not.
Is Clinton therefore locked in this elite-at-the-expense-of-ordinary-Americans status?
Watching the first debate, it sure seems that way. Yes, she embraced cutting-edge progressive family-friendly policies, but she made little effort to dissociate herself from the reviled political class in the pocket of big money.
This is strange, because Clinton has done something no other recent president or presidential candidate has -- something that perfectly counters Trump's anti-establishment masquerading: She has taken a clear, strong stance in favor of key democracy reforms that together could actually enhance the power of struggling Americans.
She has endorsed publicly financing congressional elections and restoring the Voting Rights Act, and has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who will allow Congress to regulate money in politics and more. Her platform is so strong that the democracy reform group Every Voice (formerly Public Campaign) made Clinton its first-ever presidential endorsement in its nearly 20-year history.
No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics.
Moreover, her party's official platform includes one of the strongest sets of democracy reforms in its history.
So why not talk about it? No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics. A remarkable 85 percent of Americans want fundamental change in the way we fund our elections. And more to the point: What red-blooded American would admit that he or she doesn't believe that everyone should have an equal say in our democracy?
The only way to accomplish this, not to mention a host of other social and political changes many Americans endorse, is to radically reduce the role of money in politics.
Trump claims to be an outsider, and thus the best fixer-of-our-broken-system. Yet, as Clinton (and others) noted, the Republican nominee's tax plan skews heavily toward the already-rich. But in the debate, she missed an opportunity to point out it also would inevitably give the rich even more influence in politics.
By more enthusiastically donning the mantle of fighter-for-democracy, Clinton could win over more of the alienated voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nomination fight, precisely because he made ending the "rigged system" that's crushing so many of us a top priority.
The more Clinton embraces a pro-democracy platform now, the greater the post-election mandate for the already burgeoning Democracy Movement -- a movement of campaign finance reformers, voting rights activists, anti-gerrymandering citizens, constitutional amendment advocates and much more. (Skeptical that such a movement is actually forming? See the breadth of one part of it in our Field Guide to the Money-Out-of-Politics Movement).
So here is our humble advice to the Clinton strategy team: Showcase your already-endorsed proposals to empower ordinary Americans in our political process. They're not pie-in-the-sky. More than enough evidence shows that they can work -- so why hesitate?
The road to democracy reform could also lead to the White House.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Frances Moore Lappé
Frances Moore Lappé is the author of 20 books, beginning with the acclaimed "Diet for a Small Planet." Most recently she is the co-author, with Adam Eichen, of the new book, "Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want." Among her numerous previous books are "EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want" (Nation Books) and "Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life." She is co-founder of the Cambridge, Mass.-based Small Planet Institute.
Adam Eichen
Adam Eichen is the Campaigns Manager at Equal Citizens and co-author, with Frances Moore Lappe, of Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want (Beacon Press, 2017). Follow him on Twitter: @AdamEichen
Despite liberals' best efforts at self-reassurance and Donald Trump's poor performance in the first debate, his anti-establishment messaging still holds great appeal for a large portion of our electorate.
This is hardly news, but what's the essential lesson for all of us?
That most Americans feel cut out. They're angry that they have no real voice in our democracy -- because they don't: Political scientists have found it's even more true than most of us would guess. A groundbreaking 2014 study covering the '80s and '90s by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page shows that most Americans have "near-zero" influence on public policy, while that of elite interests is considerable. Of course it's only gotten worse since.
Monday's debate moderator, Lester Holt, failed to ask either candidate about money in politics, or even reference it.
The failure to address this reality hurts Clinton and helps Trump. While she has not been a career politician, as Trump repeatedly suggests, she has been a longtime "insider." So Trump's attacks linking Clinton with virtually every ill-conceived policy of the past decades resonates -- valid or not.
Is Clinton therefore locked in this elite-at-the-expense-of-ordinary-Americans status?
Watching the first debate, it sure seems that way. Yes, she embraced cutting-edge progressive family-friendly policies, but she made little effort to dissociate herself from the reviled political class in the pocket of big money.
This is strange, because Clinton has done something no other recent president or presidential candidate has -- something that perfectly counters Trump's anti-establishment masquerading: She has taken a clear, strong stance in favor of key democracy reforms that together could actually enhance the power of struggling Americans.
She has endorsed publicly financing congressional elections and restoring the Voting Rights Act, and has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who will allow Congress to regulate money in politics and more. Her platform is so strong that the democracy reform group Every Voice (formerly Public Campaign) made Clinton its first-ever presidential endorsement in its nearly 20-year history.
No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics.
Moreover, her party's official platform includes one of the strongest sets of democracy reforms in its history.
So why not talk about it? No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics. A remarkable 85 percent of Americans want fundamental change in the way we fund our elections. And more to the point: What red-blooded American would admit that he or she doesn't believe that everyone should have an equal say in our democracy?
The only way to accomplish this, not to mention a host of other social and political changes many Americans endorse, is to radically reduce the role of money in politics.
Trump claims to be an outsider, and thus the best fixer-of-our-broken-system. Yet, as Clinton (and others) noted, the Republican nominee's tax plan skews heavily toward the already-rich. But in the debate, she missed an opportunity to point out it also would inevitably give the rich even more influence in politics.
By more enthusiastically donning the mantle of fighter-for-democracy, Clinton could win over more of the alienated voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nomination fight, precisely because he made ending the "rigged system" that's crushing so many of us a top priority.
The more Clinton embraces a pro-democracy platform now, the greater the post-election mandate for the already burgeoning Democracy Movement -- a movement of campaign finance reformers, voting rights activists, anti-gerrymandering citizens, constitutional amendment advocates and much more. (Skeptical that such a movement is actually forming? See the breadth of one part of it in our Field Guide to the Money-Out-of-Politics Movement).
So here is our humble advice to the Clinton strategy team: Showcase your already-endorsed proposals to empower ordinary Americans in our political process. They're not pie-in-the-sky. More than enough evidence shows that they can work -- so why hesitate?
The road to democracy reform could also lead to the White House.
Frances Moore Lappé
Frances Moore Lappé is the author of 20 books, beginning with the acclaimed "Diet for a Small Planet." Most recently she is the co-author, with Adam Eichen, of the new book, "Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want." Among her numerous previous books are "EcoMind: Changing the Way We Think to Create the World We Want" (Nation Books) and "Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life." She is co-founder of the Cambridge, Mass.-based Small Planet Institute.
Adam Eichen
Adam Eichen is the Campaigns Manager at Equal Citizens and co-author, with Frances Moore Lappe, of Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want (Beacon Press, 2017). Follow him on Twitter: @AdamEichen
Despite liberals' best efforts at self-reassurance and Donald Trump's poor performance in the first debate, his anti-establishment messaging still holds great appeal for a large portion of our electorate.
This is hardly news, but what's the essential lesson for all of us?
That most Americans feel cut out. They're angry that they have no real voice in our democracy -- because they don't: Political scientists have found it's even more true than most of us would guess. A groundbreaking 2014 study covering the '80s and '90s by Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page shows that most Americans have "near-zero" influence on public policy, while that of elite interests is considerable. Of course it's only gotten worse since.
Monday's debate moderator, Lester Holt, failed to ask either candidate about money in politics, or even reference it.
The failure to address this reality hurts Clinton and helps Trump. While she has not been a career politician, as Trump repeatedly suggests, she has been a longtime "insider." So Trump's attacks linking Clinton with virtually every ill-conceived policy of the past decades resonates -- valid or not.
Is Clinton therefore locked in this elite-at-the-expense-of-ordinary-Americans status?
Watching the first debate, it sure seems that way. Yes, she embraced cutting-edge progressive family-friendly policies, but she made little effort to dissociate herself from the reviled political class in the pocket of big money.
This is strange, because Clinton has done something no other recent president or presidential candidate has -- something that perfectly counters Trump's anti-establishment masquerading: She has taken a clear, strong stance in favor of key democracy reforms that together could actually enhance the power of struggling Americans.
She has endorsed publicly financing congressional elections and restoring the Voting Rights Act, and has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who will allow Congress to regulate money in politics and more. Her platform is so strong that the democracy reform group Every Voice (formerly Public Campaign) made Clinton its first-ever presidential endorsement in its nearly 20-year history.
No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics.
Moreover, her party's official platform includes one of the strongest sets of democracy reforms in its history.
So why not talk about it? No single issue attracts larger bipartisan consensus than getting big money out of politics. A remarkable 85 percent of Americans want fundamental change in the way we fund our elections. And more to the point: What red-blooded American would admit that he or she doesn't believe that everyone should have an equal say in our democracy?
The only way to accomplish this, not to mention a host of other social and political changes many Americans endorse, is to radically reduce the role of money in politics.
Trump claims to be an outsider, and thus the best fixer-of-our-broken-system. Yet, as Clinton (and others) noted, the Republican nominee's tax plan skews heavily toward the already-rich. But in the debate, she missed an opportunity to point out it also would inevitably give the rich even more influence in politics.
By more enthusiastically donning the mantle of fighter-for-democracy, Clinton could win over more of the alienated voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nomination fight, precisely because he made ending the "rigged system" that's crushing so many of us a top priority.
The more Clinton embraces a pro-democracy platform now, the greater the post-election mandate for the already burgeoning Democracy Movement -- a movement of campaign finance reformers, voting rights activists, anti-gerrymandering citizens, constitutional amendment advocates and much more. (Skeptical that such a movement is actually forming? See the breadth of one part of it in our Field Guide to the Money-Out-of-Politics Movement).
So here is our humble advice to the Clinton strategy team: Showcase your already-endorsed proposals to empower ordinary Americans in our political process. They're not pie-in-the-sky. More than enough evidence shows that they can work -- so why hesitate?
The road to democracy reform could also lead to the White House.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.