Focus 580; Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America

This morning in the first hour of the program we'll be talking about American politics and our guest is Robert Reich. He's a professor at Brandeis University and during the Clinton administration served as secretary of labor. He has to written a lot about American politics his writing has appeared in various places the New Yorker Atlanta Monthly New York Times Washington Post Wall Street Journal and this morning we'll be talking about a book that he's authored it's just out recently and has his 10th by the way. The title of the book is reason and the subtitle is Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America and it's published by I cannot find in the book he makes the argument that despite the fact that conservatism in this country seems to be in the ascendancy he says that most Americans on most issues are liberal and that the reason that. The left in this country hasn't been more successful politically is that it is disorganized and that the Republicans have done a much better job of organizing. He says that there are some things that Democrats can do so that they would be more successful in politics and not

necessarily taking over all of politics. But having a greater voice than they do now and he lays that all out in the book as we talk. Questions are certainly welcome. All we ask people is that they're just brief so that we can keep the program moving and getting as many people as possible but of course anybody is welcome to call here in Champaign-Urbana where we are. The number is 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line so that if it would be a long distance call use that number in eight days. Eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 at any point here if you have questions. You can give us a call. Professor Hello. Well good morning David how are you. I'm fine thanks and yourself. I'm great. We appreciate you giving us some of your time. Well certainly one thing that we know is that the voice of conservatives in politics in America is today very strong and it has been growing over probably the past couple of decades as part of a long project. People on the right

to have a strong voice and we know that they have organized well and they have done well in organizing and maintaining their base that they have a very strong voice now in the American media and all of this has meant for Republicans and for conservatives a great deal of success in politics. On the other side when we look at liberals Democrats it's virtually the opposite picture less well organized. Not quite the same kind of voice and in terms of you know the makeup of Congress who's in the White House maybe even how state legislatures look. Democrats liberals or whatever you know people on the left whatever you label you want to apply have not at least of late been quite so successful. I guess maybe. Let me ask first you could talk a little bit about what conservatives have done and what. Why it is that conservatives have been in recent decades so powerful and in how such a strong voice.

First David let me distinguish between what I consider to be radical conservatives or I call RAD cons in my book and traditional conservatives traditional conservatives for example are very prudent about fiscal policy they don't want to have big budget deficits federal budget deficits or state budget deficits. Radical conservatives tend not to be nearly as concerned about deficits in fact at the federal level right now we're running deficits in the order of 400 billion dollars year after year after year as far as you can see into the future. Secondly traditional conservatives were very very careful and wary about American foreign policy about the use of American force and military power abroad. They wanted to make sure we did it carefully we had an exit strategy we knew why we were doing it. We did it with our allies so we wouldn't be caught alone. But radical conservatives tend to be quite eager to use American military power even

without our allies and even without much of a pretext for doing so. With this Iraq and finally traditional conservatives were very concerned about the. Will it be a public discussion. They talk a lot about their concern in terms of the coarsening of American culture of the dialogue that trash talk. They didn't want to indulge in any of that. But radical conservatives seemed to be engaging in a great deal of mudslinging. They seem willing on their radio programs and television programs to do a lot of accusations a lot of kind of politics of resentment blaming various groups and various people for the problems that others have. I think radical conservatives have been successful because they have turned their politics into a movement. They have got very very strong funding from a couple of major family foundations such as Richard Mellon

Scaife from Sabai corporations. They have utilized right wing. Evangelical Protestant churches and denominations at the grassroots to help spread their message and they have really gone into lead in to some a measure with those who don't want to see a sharp divide between church and state in this country. And finally radical conservatives have honed the language of phrases such as tax and spend liberal or politically correct or class warfare or limousine liberal or any of the other phrases that come so quickly to mind. And these fragen phrases and slogans tend to define a political universe a way of looking at the world so that people don't. Have to think very hard. They can just use the slogan You know one thing that when we go to this question of Democrats are people on the left and their lack

of organization one thing that really struck me. Think this might have been last year on and I was looking at some polling that was done by the Zogby organization and what they were doing was they were looking back to the election of 2000 and looking at those people who had at that time supported President Bush and the then candidate Bush and those who had supported Vice President Gore. And I asked them questions about how they felt uncertain really signature issues that should say are you a liberal or are you a conservative and among the things they found one of the things they found was that things had changed very little. That the people who were defined as a Republican still wherein the people who were fined as Democrats to were. But the thing that really struck me was when you looked at people's responses to them and some of these hot button issues it seemed on the Republican side there was much more unanimity of viewpoint. They seemed all to be on the same page. You look at the Democrats and there actually was diversity of opinion on some of the some of the key issues things like abortion and gun control and those things that are

supposed to tell you definitely who you are one way or another. And it seemed to me that that is a real challenge for the Democrat Party Democratic Party that is there is more diversity of viewpoint and that makes it harder for everybody to get together agree on a platform and a strategy and candidate. Well that's true about hot button issues like gun control and abortion. You're absolutely right. Democrats have a much much wider kind of disparity a difference of opinion. And yet if you look at the fundamentals David for example should there be a strict separation between church and state. Almost all Democrats and many independents say yes we don't want to force anyone to add here to a stablished religion we don't want to require anybody to adhere to one particular religious faith. If you ask people Is it a good thing that corporations have. So much power in America that they're paying their executives five hundred times that what the average worker gets and and hiring

workers with impunity. Most Democrats and most independents in fact many Republicans would say corporations have way too much power. And then if you look at foreign policy if you look at Iraq all Democrats and many many independents and if you believe the polls quite a number of Republicans now are deeply worried most Americans now believe that our policies in Iraq are creating a greater danger of terrorism rather than a lesser danger. So you're right about certain hot button issues. Democrats have a great deal of of disagreement. But when it comes to the fundamentals of foreign policy domestic policy. COULTER I think there actually is a great deal of unanimity not only among Democrats but really among all of all Americans. Well that I think that gets an important point in this argument that you make in the book is that if you look at a broad range of issues and you go out and you ask people how they feel about these things you you're making the argument that in fact most Americans are

liberal. They don't call themselves that. Problem solved that was liberal because the term has taken such a bashing over the last 20 years. But when it comes to actually whether you believe in these liberal causes without labeling them a liberal most Americans do come around. For example the environment should companies cut pollution more. Most Americans say absolutely yes. Should there be affordable universal health care. Most Americans say yes even if that means that there ought to be a little bit less of the tax cuts. And by the way most Americans don't believe they got very much out of that. The Bush tax cuts. Most Americans believe accurately. It turns out that the lion's share went to people who were very wealthy over $200000 of income per year. Well let me ask you one for the question and I have a number of callers here well I want them to know I'll get right to them. And I'm sure that these are the same questions that everybody asks are right up front and any time that you talk about this

given the fact that if you look at their attitudes that most Americans do line up kind of on the liberal side of things even though as you point out that people don't identify that way. That if if they if that's their way their attitudes go why is it that Democrats have not been more successful politically if most people would be in harmony with the Democratic Party's kind of platform and orientation. Because Democrats have been have lacked organization. Many of them have particularly elected Democrats and lacked the courage of their convictions. Some Democrats too many in my view have been drinking at the same trough in terms of political contributions as Republicans depending upon large corporations and very wealthy people. And once you do that you are more reluctant to voice your opinion that for example large corporations have too much power in our

society and that has hurt the Democratic Party I think the Democratic Party if it's going to have a future has got to turn itself into a movement representing the needs and goals of average working people in this country. Well I think that a lot of people when they look at when they look at where the Democratic Party is positioned in the spectrum of American politics and if they are concerned and if they believe the party has lost some of its signature values and it has drifted toward the center. One guy that they finger is responsible for that drift is Bill Clinton who they would say not only did not it wasn't the party drifted. He grabbed it and dragged it over it to the center. And they also some people might also further argue that's why it is that he was successful and managed to get himself elected and I wonder if you if you think indeed. That either or both of those things is true. Well I was very proud to have been a part of the Clinton ministration presided over the most successful economy we've had in the post-war era

generated more jobs presided over an economy that generated more jobs than any other administration has presided over. Your point though I think is well taken. Bill Clinton did try to undertake what he called at the time I think Dick Morris called triangulation. Remember that term. That is a position yourself equal distance from the Democrats and Republicans. And I think it helped Bill Clinton because the public doesn't really like partisan politics. It doesn't like the president to be a strong partisan. And I think it helped him get reelected and he did reposition himself in a in a kind of the political center as it was then defined. I'm not sure it helps the Democrats to find themselves in fact in may have made it more difficult for the Democrats to define themselves I remember one instance in fact and I guess it was 1994 after Newt Gingrich and his group have been elected and taken control of the House of Representatives. I gave a speech in

which I railed against corporate welfare against all of the tax breaks the big corporations get and talk about how it would be better to use all of that money instead to provide people with better education and better health care. Well Democrats did not like that. I mean not only that the White House not like those that term corporate welfare but many Democrats in Congress thought that they were just two fighting words they were. I was being too provocative but ironically it was the Republicans who then took up the word. They were the ones who made a list of what they considered to be inappropriate corporate welfare and when I went after it and popularized the term and I think that that exemplifies maybe a lack of again a lack of courage among Democrat. It's some Democrats not all by at least any stretch there are some very courageous Democrats in Congress and elsewhere. But a lack of courage by many Democrats to stand up for average working people when again against the increasing concentration

of wealth and power in this country. We have a number of callers to bring into the conversation we will do that right now and let me introduce Again our guest Robert Reich. He's a university professor at Brandeis University. He's also a visiting professor at University of California Berkeley and he served as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton his current book is titled Reason Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America. It's published by time off and we have a number of callers the lines are full. So we'll get right to it first person in line here is in Normal Illinois. Line number four. Hello. Hello. Yes yes Dr. Wright. I'd like to talk a little bit about tax policy about when you make a massive tax cut like was made and then crease spending at the same time. Isn't this in essence a tax increase. We have to do with less services at state and local level or raise our taxes there plus the interest that we pay on this massive debt is approaching a billion dollars a day if I'm not mistaken. So we pay a billion dollars with nothing back in return. And don't the

conservatives gets part of this billion dollars when they buy the bonds of rich people in this country. I'll hang up and listen thank you. The caller's point is exactly right that when you run a huge budget deficit that is increased spending for example the military and other other things that the Bush administration has increased spending on homeland security. Maybe that's a scary. But at the same time provide huge tax cuts in the order of 2 trillion dollars. The lion's share of which go to very wealthy people. And then what you are really doing is not cutting taxes because average working people have got to pay more they have to pay more in terms of local services municipal services. State taxes often go up because the states don't have nearly enough money to deal with all of the problems that they have to deal with because the federal government is cutting back. Also the caller accurately stated that we pay more interest on the federal debts

the interest to the federal debt is paid by eventually by normal taxpayers average taxpayers. And where does it go it goes to people who buy government bonds and most of the people who buy government bonds are wealthy people who used to pay a lot more taxes. Now they support the government through especially lending the government money. Everybody else has to pay them back. So we do have at the time at a time in our nation's history when the gap in income and wealth between the top and bottom and fact every rung on the ladder of income and wealth is wider than it's been in over 100 years. We have a tax policy that is biased against working people often against the poor because so many social programs have to be cut and makes the rich even richer. Let's go to champagne the next. Color Line while yellow. I wanted to raise

the issue of Ralph Nader in the Democratic Party if I can briefly and then let's hear your response. Particularly this morning I saw an article in The New York Times which said that Ralph Nader is now receiving report support from the Reform Party from conservatives and actually from the Republican Party in various parts of the country where they're assisting him in getting on the ballot. So and yet at the same time. Ralph Nader seems to have support from the left wing of politics some people who used to be or still are Democrats and aren't happy with Kerry or whatever. So I'd like to hear your response. I'll hang up. I appreciate your speaking on this. Thank you. Ralph Nader is a friend of mine I've known him for many years. I am enormously impressed with the work he did in the 1970s 1980s and terms of making

consumer products safer. But. I think he's doing a terrible disservice to the nation right now. A vote for Ralph Nader is in effect a vote for George W. Bush for a second term. If anybody had any doubt about that they have only to look at the 2000 election. Al Gore would have won even by a larger margin. I mean he obviously did win the popular vote but the Electoral College went to George W. Bush. But George W. Bush would not have had a chance if Al Gore had got a large portion of the votes that went to Ralph Nader in 2000. So there may have been an excuse for somebody voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 who wanted to move the country a little bit more to the left. But there's no excuse now. We saw what happened. And anybody who votes for Ralph Nader who has basically liberal or progressive values is deluding themselves seriously deluding themselves. The caller noted correctly that Ralph Nader is now being supported by Republicans

conservatives of the reform party that supported Pat Buchanan last time around. There's no mystery as to why this is occurring because Republicans and conservatives and those who are Pat Buchanan type conservatives as well. They all know that I vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for in effect George W. Bush and they want to encourage. People on the left to vote for Ralph Nader this is a pernicious influence in politics it's going to hurt John Kerry I hope not too much. But again Ralph Nader is doing a major disservice to the country. Again let's go to we have a caller and cell phone line number two. Well you know I have not quite you have exceeded your own especially some of your statements and what you've done in the past and I want to congratulate you for bringing up the term corporate welfare because it's really it's been on reckoning age for several decades.

But what my point to getting back to your to your team here about Ali liberals are losing this battle. I think if we we. And I think Clinton had the right tone. I mean it was the first Democrat that went after the welfare system and. Going back to it in history well the Puritans had it they would arrange their government in certain way and they made a statement that they just don't want to rich to be too greedy and the poor to be too lazy. And that really puts everybody or at least a lot of people would probably agree on these types of situations but everybody in this country kind of identifies themselves with the middle class. And I think if we if the Democratic Party would maybe attach something onto their their own party as a Democratic Party for the common people common cause and common sense. I think a lot of people and then would probably maybe open up a

little bit more in this area. But I really think that that too. The unfortunate thing is when change occurred during the Great Depression because of the crisis and we haven't had a severe enough crisis to nor enough people to get upset enough to really think about the issues and to affection directly in the pocketbook over a precious long period of time which I think it's happening. Look at your comments. I like common people common cause common sense as a slogan and I and I also do agree with the caller in terms of the Democratic Party being being a louder and more effective on behalf of average working people. One issue that people care deeply about and are worried about is health care. Most people who do have health care and by the way

44 million Americans don't have health insurance at all. It's up from thirty eight million people when Bill Clinton put forward his proposal for universal health care before. But you have 120 million people who are paying much more for health care and health insurance than ever before. Employers are shifting the costs of health insurance onto employees. This would be a natural and important Democratic issue I think that's why John Kerry has embraced it and come up with a very ambitious health care plan financed by the way by rolling back the taxes that the tax cuts on people earning over $200000. Back to what they were under Bill Clinton which we're not confiscatory by any means. So again the caller is correct the Democrats have to have slogans but also the themes and policies that help average working people. Next callers are. Ran a line number three.

Hello I'm finding your discussion very interesting. I would like to take issue though with your definition. Conservatives have a traditional and so radical It seems to me that the group you call traditional are actually anywhere else in the world. They would have been considered as a center left or centrist and really liberal until the 1930s perhaps when Roosevelt defined those who were Republicans as conservatives at the time the Conservatives actually were almost entirely Democrats the likes of Bilbo and Strom Thurmond the banquette and these were the true conservatives still are the true conservatives although they're almost entirely Republican today. And the Republicans seem to be pruning out this group that you would call it traditional conservatives I would call them traditional liberals

because that's what they would be. Certainly they're much closer to the center left of Europe than they are to the conservatives of Europe. The Republicans seem to be pruning this group out of the election office. There are only a few left in New England and scattered around the Midwest today but they still have the bulk of both parties. As far as the rank and file membership and it seems to me that this constitutes a great instability in the Republican majority or near a majority. Actually it's very closely divided if you look at the house and the voting in recent presidential elections. That there is almost no commonality between the true conservatives the traditional old fashioned segregationist conservatives and the more progressive conservatives as you call them are they are traditional conservatives.

And the social conservatives who are really more closely aligned in interest with the populace and number of a leftist group than they are with the conservatives. Except for some weird you shoes which you seem to completely define their politics to dirty but I suspect cannot be maintained. Would you care to comment on this. Yes I think that the traditional conservatives and we can we can label these things I mean labels are difficult to pin down and I think it's more important that under labels what I try to do with the book is Get under the labels and expose the issues and expose what people really believe and why they believe it and where these currents came from. But to call southern Democrats of the 1920s 1930s traditional conservatives and to equate traditional conservatism with the segregationist and racist policies of Southern

Democrats and those of those dear days I think doesn't really do service or adequate service to the notions of traditional conservatism that date back to Edmund Burke the 17th century and early 18th century in Britain. Works great 18th century treatise on reflections of revolution in France called for instead of revolution a kind of slowing down of social change. The valuing of tradition of valuing of basically institutions of government a fear of a sort of disregard of those institutions. But what we see with with radical conservatives such as the people now in power are people who don't care very much about the institutions themselves they they care much more about the ends rather than the means. The end seemed to justify the means whether we're talking about tax policy or we're talking about domestic policy or foreign

policy. Most of the treaty obligations the Geneva Accords the United Nations many of the institutions that the United States has painfully developed over the last 20 years have been basically discarded by the radical conservatives who say well we only want to assert American power and that's our goal. Our goal is to get rid of terrorism as we define terrorism and well basically let's turn our back on the institutions we've so carefully crafted. Just another point the caller said that the traditional conservatives were similar too. Kind of left of center Europeans. I don't think that's quite right. The United States as a whole is and has been for many years even under Franklin D Roosevelt. You actually to the right of Europe and certainly this has been true over the last 25 years. The people who run Europe and most of European public opinion

is a democratic socialist that is Europeans take for granted that there should be a social state there should be social insurance. There should be cradle to grave social insurance. Most Americans would never tolerate anything this intrusive or the taxes that pay for this kind of a social state. So even the Democratic Party in this country is quite far to the right of the European Social Democrats. I'm going to jump in here because we are past our midpoint and I have a number of other callers I hope the last caller will forgive me as I want to keep going get in as many people in the conversation as possible and I also want to introduce Again our guest Robert Reich. He's a university professor at Brandeis University. He's also a visiting professor at University of California Berkeley and he served as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has authored a number of books whose most recent is titled reason the subtitle Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America K'naan is the publisher questions welcome. 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free 800 2 2

2 1 4 5. Let me just get back real quickly to you the comments you were making earlier about Ralph Nader because I know there are a lot of people in this area that supported him at least in the last presidential election and I'm sure would be unhappy with hearing what you have to say and not just you know a lot of people a lot of Democrats who are who are concerned with retaking the White House say the same thing they would say that look the reason that I voted for Ralph Nader and the reason that I might vote for him again is because I really believe that he's got the right idea about a lot of things particularly about corporate power. And I think I can imagine these people saying you're not going to get my vote by making the argument that says if you don't vote for John Kerry you're voting for President Bush the only way you're going to get my vote is for you. For you the Democratic Party to get where I am you know into two and in a sense adopt some of the same positions that Mr. Nader has taken which some people might actually even say

that's why. Really what Nader wants he doesn't think he's going to be president. He just wants that Democratic Party to get with the program. Can the Democratic Party do that. Well I would say two things First of all anybody holding that point of view and voting for Nader is being painfully naive about how a two party system works. I mean it is a two party system in this country because we have a winner take all system of electing our presidents. Perhaps we shouldn't. I for one think an instant runoff voting system would be far preferable but we don't have that yet. Maybe we could work for that. But right now it's a winner take all system as long as we have a winner take all system. It means that if you are sympathetic to progressive and liberal values and you do not vote for John Kerry you are in effect voting for somebody whose values are very very different from yours you're helping George Bush get elected if you want to move the Democratic Party to the Left my advice to you is to do what I've

tried to do for years and that is move it to the left from the inside. Be a loud voice on the inside of the party. It's harder to do. It may take a lot of time but it is much more effective than trying to do it from the vantage point of a third party third parties in America have almost never succeeded because of the winner take all quality that we face and it would be especially given what would happen in 2000. It would be just a terrible terrible painful result for us to endure just another loss. As Democrats to a Republican president who represents such conservative values. If people vote for Ralph Nader or even 4 percent of the likely voters vote for Ralph Nader instead of John Kerry all the callers have a couple people here list. In Chicago this morning so go there first line number four in Chicago alone. Oh you're talking to a painfully naive person. I'd like to make my first point

which is most Americans are not liberal most Americans just want to be comfortable which is why Mr Bush has been so successful. What is a policy of fear. And the fact that the statements that you made about Nader really pains me because they sound basically anti democratic. And the fact that so many Democrats are taking this line is really distressing because what I'm worry about is not the number of people who will vote for Nader but the number of people who will vote at all. I mean my greatest fear is that will will have only 35 percent of those votes eligible to vote. Vote this year because for most people they cannot see this glaring difference between. Bush and Kerry. And that's the real tragedy of John Kerry and probably why even if Bush implodes Kerry cannot gain strength. It's just not visible especially looking at his voting record since 9/11. Kerry

just doesn't stand out in this great difference except perhaps to white middle class men. Maybe he does for them but I think for the rest of the country he does not. So I think that if you need to if the Democrats need to do anything is that they really need to try to get people out to vote number one and then make sure that those who do vote that their vote is counted. Well I couldn't agree more with the caller. You know in fact one of the major points I make in my book is that if progressives liberals Democrats are going to have a voice at all they have to organize mobilize and energize the almost 50 percent of the voting public or the eligible voting public that does not vote. And the only way to get them mobilized and energized is to have the courage of our convictions and to be clear about what those convictions are. John Kerry has been quite clear I think the press has not picked up on what he said about health care his energy policy how he's

distinguished himself from Bush on Iraq and foreign policy. Listen very carefully because I just on the Political Junkie and I listen. But the press tends to blur the distinctions and only look at the fights of the bush to you know they the press likes the mudslinging. But just getting back to the caller's point about Ralph Nader I want to make it myself very very clear I'm I'm not making an anti-democratic point Small be I'm making a a very a point about the way our democracy functions. As long as we have a winner take all system as long as our electoral system our system for electing presidents basically is that you have the winner of a particular state getting all the electoral votes then inevitably a third party is going to be draining off votes from the major candidates

closest in political ideology and affiliation to that third party and that means that we saw exactly what happened in 2000. We could see it occur again I hope not. But anybody who thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 has to now have seen that of course there was a difference major difference. We would not be in our predicament in Iraq we would not be giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy. We would not be plundering the environment. We would not be assaulting civil liberties right now if there are if George W. Bush was a was a moderate was a compassionate conservative was was basically just like Al Gore. No there's huge difference. And let's not be fooled again. I'm sorry George Bush has been able to do what he did with a lot of Democratic votes in the Congress and we shouldn't ignore that. And the second point I'd like to make is as far as I know John Kerry has said we will stay in Iraq and he seemed to be after this failed policy or about definitely will fail policy of trying to get more

other nations involved which they would have actually have to be insane to get involved. So I really don't see this that difference. And that's all I'm going to think of I know a lot of other people want to speak but I'm sorry. Yeah I don't think it's just the press. I simply think that that that difference doesn't look that that to people other than white establishment mail. You know as a white male I hope I'm not a white establishment male Maybe I am. Having been secretary of labor but I don't I don't think I am. Let me just say very clearly that on Iraq a John Kerry has distinguished and very very sharply from George W. Bush. John Kerry has said number one we are distracting ourselves in Iraq and not really fighting the war against terror. Terrorists are not in Iraq persay terrorism is occurring all over the world and the only way we really fight terrorism is by going after the terrorists and especially the weapons of mass destruction that are in such places right now as Russia. We ought to be

spending money and time and energy making sure that those nuclear materials in Russia are carefully guarded. John Kerry wants to create in essence an international police capacity to watch weapons of mass destruction to prevent the spread of terrorism to prevent terrorists from getting access to those weapons to enhance homeland security and not to occupy foreign nations not to base a foreign policy upon going after. Saddam Hussein's legacy in Iraq. The only reason John Kerry is that we have to stay at least for a time in Iraq is because having done what we've done and he's very much against what we've done but having done what we've done to leave Iraq at this moment would just create chaos. We would end up inviting a bloody awful civil war imposing even more hardship on the Iraqis. As long as we've come this far Sadly we we have to at least internationalize it turn over authority as quickly as possible

and then get out. We have other callers and I believe we have another person calling from Chicago this is next in line number one. Oh hi. Let me make it through your four points very briefly I hope you'll. But the longer the time with respect to the Democratic Party. Essential Yes. If Sultanate solves through allowing the Democratic Leadership Council to essentially take control of the party and these these are a bunch of people led originally by Clinton and Lieberman and Gore to put the interests of the business interests first in order to raise money for the party. And and essentially they adopted many of the views of the business centrists which were very conservative No no more no less conservative and much of the Republican point of view. Now listen to this distain you try to make a distinction between

the traditional conservatives and radical conservatives like the Southern Democrats now and essentially this is a distinction without a difference. Basically the traditional conservatives have always been aligned with the radical conservatives the Southern Democrats. And these are the guys who have run the politics and national politics for the most part in the United States since they granted ministrations. Hey take a look at. For those who are interested retard like R R R R R Lyndon Johnson's biography. To see how that the Senate worked during the time that Lyndon Johnson was there and prior to that certainly with respect to the average American. Basically conservatives and I point to the United Auto Workers during a time of roots in terms of resumes. Leadership we're basically in the liberal camp but now you don't know

whether I stand petitioning when it comes to environmental problems takes time. Well some Republicans are afraid to make changes in the auto industry. And I suppose for a good reason because they fear for the rights of government basically dove stuff rather reactionary. With reactionaries as far as I Cocytus and with Republicans now are saying and just coast out to a book that you wrote back around 1979 a radio I forgot that the title were in something rather where you were you urged to use because of technological changes that have been made. We make an effort to educate the part of the population I guess. This is one point that you made on you know and I agreed to watch part with what you have decided except that you didn't go far enough and you pretty much ignored. About 30 to 40 percent of the working population. Because you have

didn't have very much to say about those in the lower levels who require reeducation and yet they may not be a possibility in the technological age for retraining them. And when there's no place else to put them you go as far as a number of points and we were really coming down to write a 7 8 minutes I lied just like you Dr Rush a chance to respond to some of what you had to say. There are so many points some of them are very good points and some I agree with. Let me start with the issue of the Democratic Party cozying up to business interests through particularly the Democratic Leadership Council. I tend to agree with that point I have not been a good advocate of the DLC and I am very concerned about the Democratic Party losing its soul by accepting contributions and soliciting and courting big. Businesses to the extent that it becomes very difficult for the Democrats to stand up for the little guys or stand up for ordinary Americans.

Secondly let me just say that and I say this to anybody who complains about the Democratic Party or complains about unions or complains about the direction we're going in. I think here as I go around the country a great deal of whining. Many people are just cynical or despairing are negative. They whine a lot about politics. And my response to those people is to say do something get off your butt. Don't just whine. This is your country it's your politics. You need to spend two or three hours a week and go to the Democratic caucus in your in your town get involved in in local politics get involved in in state politics don't just hold your nose and say I'm not going to do it and politics is is dirty no politics is the applied form of the mock. Prosy if you turn your back on politics you're turning your back on democracy.

And if you turn your back on democracy through cynicism and despair the other side wins. That's what they would like. They'd like all of us to say oh the Democratic Party is no good. I'm not going to try to reform the Democratic Party. Oh I do I think the unions are are basically conservative I'm not going to even bother with unions anymore I'm just going to I'm just going to sit and read my newspaper and basically complain. I know that won't do anymore. But the stakes are too large. It is absolutely vitally important in this election coming up is probably the most important election for this country since 1932 in terms of the direction that this country is going in. It's time for everyone to get engaged and involved. It's time for everyone to stop complaining and do something. Get out the vote get out the vote in your neighborhood. Make sure your neighbors are voting. Get out the vote among people who who don't normally vote and make sure that people are registered to vote and make sure that when they are registered and after they have voted after Election Day that whoever is

in power listens and is forced to listen to the rest of us and can't go off just doing the bidding of big corporations. This is vitally important. We just have a couple of minutes left. We have some other callers I want to try to get at least one more. This is someone listening in Avon Indiana. And number three. Hello good morning. Yes Dr. Raj thoroughly enjoy your comments particularly on Marketplace. Thank you or so than when you were in politics because you're able to you know even talk about you know what's on your mind. But I would also appreciate having your e-mail address also like to make a few comments every now and then about your your articles. Anyway my feeling about politics is that government is for the few and the elite. Joe six packs. You

know we really don't see that many benefits coming from government. They're given you know we do get benefits but then they're taken away. You don't see this happening with the upper structure particularly with the present type of administration that we have right now in the Congress White House and a lot of our state governments. We got to have change period. Europe your ideas please. Well I I completely agree that the only reason that the Bush administration was able to pass these tax cuts the lion's share going to very wealthy people earning over $200000 a year is because most Americans. Decided they just didn't care or were too cynical or assume the politics were in the hands already of the the fat cats and that it was no use by even bothering. The reason the Bush administration has been able to pull the wool over so many people's eyes with regard to Iraq

getting away with lies about weapons of mass destruction and the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is again most people just throw up their hands. What can I do about American foreign policy what do I know I have to trust that the president say most people again. I want to ask the caller to commit himself and others of you who are listening to commit yourselves to the extent you possibly can to at least two or three hours a week engaged in getting out the vote and registering people who are not registered to vote for this coming election. It's just it's not enough to complain it's not that it's not necessary that politics be just for the fact cats and the big guys and for the big corporations. If we get resigned if we become sort of despairing and cynical than the other side wins and we lose our democracy for good there we must stop because we have used our

time for people who would like to read more from our guests. Look at this recent book that we have been talking about it's titled Reason Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America it's published by Columbus a can off our guest Rush is professor at Brandeis University and as I have mentioned a couple of times I'm sure you know he was secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton a Professor Rice thanks very much for talking with us. Thank you very much David. Bye bye.