Beehaw's community for socialists, communists, anarchists, and non-authoritarian leftists (this means anti-capitalists) of all stripes. A place for all leftist and labor news and discussion, as long as you're nice about it.
Non-socialists are welcome to come to learn, though it's hard to get to in-depth discussions if the community is constantly fighting over the basics. We ask that non-socialists please be respectful and try not to turn this into a "left vs right" debate forum by asking leading questions or by trying to draw others into a fight.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Reminds me of Robert Reich, who makes his money railing against the evils of capitalism, but seemingly did nothing to change it when he actually had the power to do so in the Clinton Administration.
He's right though, it's just a bummer that he didn't find his conscience when he could make real change.
Well I mean, kinda. He does regrets not doing more when he was in government (as he has become significantly more left leaning) But I still wouldn't characterize Reich as doing nothing.
He did have major policy ideas that were stopped by Clinton's economic advisors, as well as the federal reserve (controlled by conservative ghoul Alan Greenspan, who Clinton kept on). Reich's initiatives and plans were effectively shuttered by the same ghouls who ended up ending Glass-Steagall, leading to the 2008 financial crisis and all manner of horrific economic consequences even today. So I would really attribute more blame to Clinton himself for not fighting the more conservative wings of his own administration (on health care reform, especially)
How much power did he actually have? He was leader, but lost the general. He could have reformed Labour, and maybe they would still have had their landslide, giving Britain a more progressive government, but that's conjecture.
Or is this about his voting record?