have to go there to learn something about democracy.
Another commentator compared elections to auctions, w ith the
prize going to the highest bidder.
T hey’ve never been much different from that, but yes, they’re
getting w orse. On the other hand, if the public responds—if, for
example, union organizing increases and grassroots organizations
develop—things w ill change. T he first change w ill be the political
establishment saying, Okay, we’ll be more benevolent autocrats. If
they’re pressured beyond that, w e can get significant social change.
Most people realize that the political parties don’t care about
them. Public disaffection is enormous, but it’s mostly directed
against government. T hat’s because business propaganda, w hich
dominates the media, directs it that w ay. T here may also be a lot of
disaffection w ith business, but w e don’t really know, since that kind
of question isn’t asked much in the polls.
W hat’s your take on campaign finance reform?
It’s not a bad thing, but it’s not going to have much effect. T here
are too many w ays to cheat. It’s like pretending to try to stop drug
importation. T here are so many w ays to bring drugs in that there’s
no stopping them.
T he real problem isn’t campaign financing—it’s the
overw helming pow er corporate tyrannies w ield. Campaign finance
reform isn’t going to change that.
Is corporate power invincible?
Let me run a couple of quotes by you. T he first is from Robert
Reich, Clinton’s former secretary of labor: “T he jury is still out on
w hether the traditional union is necessary for the new w orkplace.”
T he second is from Clinton’s former commerce secretary, the late
Ron Brow n: “U nions are OK w here they are, and w here they’re not,
it’s not clear yet w hat sort of organization should represent