Dear Robert,

Excellent suggestion, and I hope that many people follow it. However, I have a few questions/observations: I don't believe that Obama has "lost his confidence" as some people believe nor do I think that he is doing much different than what he first promised. What I do wonder is does he think that he is doing what is politically possible?

The President in the US is actually not as powerful a position as many people seem to assume. He is much less powerful, for example, than the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system. This is because everything - particularly domestic policy - must go through Congress. The US Congress is a right-wing institution. Democrats and Republicans occupy slightly different parts of the right wing spectrum. Obama can be very left-leaning in his personal inclinations, but that does not mean that he can force the Congress to do what he wants it to. Obama's major characteristic as a politician has been his pragmatism. Maybe, pragmatically, he is doing what he thinks can be done, and maybe he has a strategy for trying to push things more in the direction that he would like, over the longer term.

It appears that Obama's various efforts to go directly to the public is part of his strategy to do what Dr. Reich suggests and to put pressure on Congress to do what he wants it to do. But, again, we should probably be looking more closely at the political disposition of Congress rather than just trying to decode Obama if we want to understand what may be going on.

Sincerely,

Shaun

I like your handle, but as far as the U.S. goes, I think "fight the plutocracy" would be more appropriate.

I think you're right about the media, in so far as it goes, but that you're naive to think the only reason the majority of Democratic reps support pro-corporate anti-public interest measures is that they don't have effective media outlets.

In my opinion, a lot of them are working with a slightly more liberal spin for the corporations who have paid for their campaigns. The difference between the parties, unfortunately, is not that great, except for the notable exceptions: Kucinich, Feingold, Kennedy, Sanders, Dorgen, Brown, Harkin, Webb, and a very few others.

This from Robert Reich who supported repealing the Glass-Steigal Act and gave the architect of the destruction of the oh-so-necessary regulation of the US financial system, the right-wing fascist Phil Grahm, anything and everything he wanted under a DEMOCRATIC regime.

You, Sir, are the reason we are in this mess. We'll fix it with out your sanctimonious prattling. The last thing America needs to hear is, "I'm Robert Reich and I'm here to help."

Can you please put a poison apple in Robert Reich's hand?

That smile of his needs a poison apple in front of it.

Diner: My steak is seething with MAGGOTS!

Waiter: Would you like some ketchup?

Democrats must remember that political power is the means to an end, not an end in itself.

If Obama and the Democrats would exercize the power they have been given to further the interests of average Americans, the people would follow.

It's called leadership. Democrats seem to have forgotten the meaning of the term.

As it stands, congressional Democrats seem more like a group of independent freelancers -- devoid of leadership, common strategy, rhetoric or agenda -- and a political party in name only.

Are saying, in essence, "We liked the positions you took during the campaign and we didn't like the positions of the Bush Administration. We voted you into office to lead the nation in executing a program of political, economic, and social change that would bring our nation back to operating within the law and serving liberty and justice. We have lives to lead outside the political arena and trusted you to take the necessary action. Now we find that our trust has been betrayed and that your actions are contrary to what you said you would do, contrary to the needs of the people, and contrary to the Constitution."

So what's up with Obama, or any of the politicians in Washington DC, anyway? All my own letters are answered with thanks for my interest in an issue, then an explanation of why my congressman or senator is going ahead with his or her original approach to a specific problem (medical insurance reform, war, etc.) without regard to my opinion. Not exactly the most motivating response, is it?

Well, I, for one, am not going to vote for any of these liars and lackeys for the financial oligarchy anymore.

What's that you say?

You don't have ONE MILLION DOLLARS??

Then why would you think you can expect Obama to pay any attention top YOU????

Sir, I have enjoyed listening to you speak on the important issues over the years and I have found myself agreeing with your perspectives in just about every instance but, Mr. Reich, in this instance, you couldn't be more wrong. There are two basic deficiencies in the thoughts you've expressed here, one in your basic analysis of "the problem" and one in your prescription for correcting it.

First, you suggest that it's the nature of the environment, all that is Washington and the pressures of actually being in the office, that has caused the notable disappointment the Obama presidency has become. You seem to suggest that it was to be expected; indeed, it was inevitable that, as President, Barack Obama would begin to slide, to compromise on the important issues and principles. The necessary implication is that it was naive, perhaps even irresponsible, to expect this man to be different, that he would be able to stand up to the various special interests, and keep his many promises to dig in and work for the American people instead of those interests.

I reject the basic premise of your thought. I paid very close attention to what Senator Obama said to the American people thoughout his long campaign, as did many millions of Americans. I'd even bet that you were one of them. Candidate Obama acknowledged, repeatedly, his appreciation that "it won't be easy' but that, if the American people put him in the White House, he was going to fight for them. He told us more than once that we, the American people, would be first in his thoughts when he rose in the morning and last in his thoughts as he retired each evening.

Mr. Reich, it's quite simple. With those promises and others, Senator Obama made a contract with the American people. Just as simply, President Obama has violated that contract on some of the most important issues, violations like those you've listed in your article.

Sir, the American people are not to be faulted for the multiple 180's the Obama Administration has made on very important issues, the multiple compromises on principles too important to be compromised. Plain and simple, these failures are properly laid at the feet of the President and, most certainly, NOT at the feet of the American people. If this Presidency ultimately fails to achieve what it has professed to be its major goals, and that prospect becomes more likely each day, it will not be because of the American people. It wll be because the man failed to keep his promises and, relevant to the second deficiency in your analysis, because he failed to lead.

Yes, it is reasonable to expect the American people to support the President's agenda, enthusiastically, aggressively and wholeheartedly. That, sir, is exactly what the people have been doing, at least those who stuck with him through the campaign and into his presidency. There is no shortage of support for this President, at least, for what he promised the people.

The fact is that the people ARE motivated. They ARE communicating with their elected representatives and just about anyone else they can. They are doing as you suggest and it's not working. There are two basic reasons why that is so. The first is that the President keeps lowering the bar, changing his commitment, compromising on the most important of issues. Again, you've listed some of these in your article. All this, in the false name of bipartisanship, a concept that, quite literally, cannot and will not be achieved in the current political environment. Over time, one must begin to question the President's motives and dedication to what he promised.

Secondly, the President is simply failing to lead. At no other time in my 63 years has a president enjoyed such support for his professed agenda. The people, in huge numbers, are just waiting to be motivated, to be lead. They would rise up, en masse, and apply extreme heat to those in Congress who would obstruct and sabotage the President's agenda, if only the President would ask them.

Again, the President fails the American people by failing to call upon them, failing to coordinate their almost unlimited energy in support of the agenda he professes to have in mind for the country. Mr. Reich, the people cannot accomplish what you suggest unless someone leads them in their efforts. Their energies, their efforts, their willingness and readiness to act must be coordinated. President Obama should be leading the charge. He is not, again and ostensibly, in the name of a bipartisanship that cannot be achieved.

The people need a leader, Mr. Reich. So far, the President has not stepped up. For Barack Obama to lead and fail is forgivable. For him to fail to lead is not.