Rebuild the Dream

by Van Jones

  Getting big money out of politics is the closest thing to a silver bullet for changing the Inside Game and getting it to work for the 99%. But it isn’t the only type of reform that we can make to ensure a more democratic government.

  More than 90 percent of the time, the candidate who spent the most wins. Getting big money out of politics is the closest thing to a silver bullet for the 99%.

  Increase Transparency

  On January 21, 2009, newly elected President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government.” In the memo, President Obama called for an unprecedented level of openness in government, asking agencies to “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.” He entrusted the newly created position of Chief Technology Officer with coordinating with the heads of executive departments and agencies in order to achieve these goals.

  It was a good faith effort. E-government and e-democracy are just getting going, but the use of information technology and social networks offers great promise, in the interests of citizens and politicians alike. It allows citizens to become more knowledgeable about government and political issues, and to communicate directly with elected officials. It also helps voters to decide who gets their vote in the next elections. Interactive surveys allow politicians to see—almost instantaneously—how the people they represent feel about a given issue. The posting of agendas, contact information, proposed legislation, and policies makes government more transparent, which enables more informed participation both online and offline. As just one example, Rhode Island’s former treasurer Frank Caprio tweets the state’s cash flow daily.

  The nonprofit Code for America connects Web and tech geeks with civic leaders and city experts. The aim is to help governments become more connected, lean, and participatory. As two examples of CfA’s work, the Brigade helps local, community groups reuse civic software, while Open211 is an application that provides a crowd-sourced directory of social service providers. This enterprise is helping regular people get and use information about the public sector—to improve their own lives and strengthen democracy.

  Increased transparency and accountability have become more important as investigative journalism disappears, which is another casualty of media consolidation and falling advertising revenue.

  Fix the Filibuster

  The filibuster was originally conceived of as a tool to be used in extraordinary circumstances; it would allow debate to continue and a vote to be delayed. In 2011, according to Common Cause president Bob Edgar, the use of or threat of the filibuster, in which Senate Republicans delayed voting, affected 70 percent of legislation. Under Obama, the Republicans have taken obstructionism to record levels. The modern filibuster ensures that any piece of meaningful legislation requires a sixty-vote supermajority in the Senate, and with sixty Senate votes required to pass any piece of legislation, it is a wonder we pass any laws at all. There have been numerous attempts to reform the filibuster since 1917, and there is a general consensus among many lawmakers that the technique is being abused. One of the obstacles to reform is that many Americans simply don’t know what the filibuster is, don’t understand its history, and thus don’t advocate on behalf of reform. A large public outcry for filibuster reform might go a long way toward seeing it across the finish line.

  Possible solutions abound. Former vice president Walter Mondale made the case for reform in a January 1, 2012, New York Times essay that was entitled “Resolved: Fix The Filibuster.” He wrote: “Reducing the number of votes to end a filibuster, perhaps to 55, is one option. Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would also help. So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency—like eliminating the secret ‘holds’ that allow senators to block debate anonymously.”

  If we want democracy done right, these above five steps are important starting points.

  PLAY THE GAME: RUNNING 99% CANDIDATES AND BALLOT MEASURES

  Let’s face it. None of the previously mentioned reforms will pass without a massive sea change in the mindset of elected officials. The establishment started taking the Tea Partiers seriously when Tea Partiers developed the capacity to successfully challenge Republicans whom they considered weak on key issues. The 99% will be taken more seriously when it does the same thing, by developing the capacity to successfully challenge office holders and elect those who share the movement’s agenda.

  The 99% movement need not limit itself to supporting Obama’s reelection, or focusing only on Congressional races, nor should it confine itself to the Democratic Party. There are tens of thousands of elected offices that are available every election season at the state, tribal, and local levels. Many of these are nonpartisan races, so those in the 99% who equally dislike the Democrats or Republicans can run easily.

  My group, Rebuild the Dream, is working with organizations such as Progressive Majority, New Organizing Institute, the Working Families Party, and the Campaign for America’s Future to recruit thousands of such candidates for races up and down the ballot in 2012. We will find even more for 2014 and 2016.

  The key is that the candidates be seen as running to advance signature issues, for example: taxing the wealthy, getting money out of politics, or fighting the banks in the name of their economic casualties (for example, Millennials stuck with big student loans or homeowners who have underwater mortgages). At the same time, leading activist Deepak Bhargava’s organization, the Campaign for Community Change, will be promoting local ballot measures that support good jobs and fair taxes.

  This is not to say that national elections are not important. But given the state of disillusionment with national politics and politicians, good candidates running for national office will benefit most if there are grassroots candidates and ballot measures that are pulling people to the polls. Besides, it is easier for the movement to help and hold accountable, elected officials who come from within its ranks and who are serving close to home.

  WIN THE GAME: REBALANCING THE POLITICAL PARTIES

  Today, the major political parties function like Coca-Cola and Pepsi—two corporate brands that are owned and controlled by moneyed interests. A regular person might have a consumer preference for one or the other, but few have any influence over the decision-making process of either corporation, let alone a real ownership stake in those companies.

  The Tea Party movement has achieved something remarkable in its relationship with the Republican Party. Right-wing populists have essentially created a third party that functions inside and outside of the GOP.

  The people we now call Tea Partiers learned the hard lessons from the Ross Perot days in the 1990s. Back then they bolted from the Republicans to give their votes to Perot’s Reform Party. They succeeded only in hurting George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, thereby helping to elect Bill Clinton twice. Then they went back inside the GOP, to grumble, grouse, and chafe during the tenure of Bush-Cheney; small-government libertarians consider neoconservatives like Cheney to be “big government” conservatives. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, voting for their principles, without helping Democrats. The Tea Party movement has allowed them do so. Tea Partiers have all of the benefits of having their own quasi-party; they are able to develop their own policy programs, and campaign for like-minded people during the primaries. But during the general election, they don’t have to play the role of spoiler.

  This innovation has thrown the entire political process out of kilter, since the Democrats have no such offspring group anchoring them to a set of ideas, values, and principles. Both political parties—Republicans and Democrats—have been pulled sharply to the right by the presence and savvy of the Tea Party movement.

  Those close to the Democratic Party have yet to create anything similar to a Tea Party. Progressives are still reeling from 2000, when disillusioned liberals voted for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore. Though there were mult
iple factors that resulted in George W. Bush being selected by the Supreme Court to become president, many on the left came to the conclusion that third-party politics can lead only to heartbreak.

  Perhaps they are right. But the 99% can steal a page from the Tea Party movement. By mounting primary election challenges to officeholders who are beholden to the worst of the 1%, the new movement can provide a counterbalance to corporate domination. The key is to find authentic candidates who want to run based on issues, not build an apparatus around personalities or party loyalties.

  The 99% need not pursue this strategy inside the Democratic Party only; there could be circumstances under which it might make sense to mount primary challenges in the Republican Party, the Green Party, or other parties. The Working Families Party, in particular, has developed an intriguing model that lets it act as a principled third party, without becoming a spoiler. The WFP might become a logical electoral home for much of the 99% energy. The challenge will be to see whether some part of the 99% can capture a beachhead within an established party—without being captured itself. If it can succeed, the 99% movement will have the standing and the power to force the U.S. political system to be more responsive to the needs of everyday Americans.

  The challenge will be to see whether some part of the 99% can capture a beachhead within an established party—without being captured itself.

  IN MANY WAYS, THE INSIDE GAME is the most difficult part of the grid to inhabit, because the system itself is both complex and deeply corrupt. For a movement based on principles and fueled by passion, engaging with the system will require making hard choices and confronting tough dilemmas. It demands walking the fine line between strategic compromise and capitulation. The electorally oriented part of the movement must be able to claim small victories while never losing sight of the big changes we need. The entire movement must be open to finding common ground with unlikely allies. This kind of work is not for everyone.

  But all great movements—labor rights, civil rights, women’s rights, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender liberation, and the environment—have had to evolve accountable mechanisms to convert protest energy into political power. With its huge and transformative agenda, the 99% will be no exception.

  The good news is that the enthusiasm generated by the Occupy Wall Street protests already has begun to have a tangible effect in the voting booth. The positive outcomes of November 2011’s elections—in which voters in Ohio, Arizona, and even Mississippi rejected Tea Party overreach and punished right-wing extremism—proved that the rising energy can impact election dynamics. Ohio voters restored collective bargaining rights to its unions; Mississippians voted down the idea that fetuses must be treated as people. In an historic state senate recall election, Arizonians booted out Russell Pearce, the key force behind Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants. The victories of November 2011 should be only the beginning.

  Even if Occupy Wall Street activists choose, understandably, to function solely inside the lower quadrants, those who care about the 99% must resolve to occupy the entire grid.

  8

  OCCUPY THE HEAD SPACE

  THE HEAD SPACE IS THE QUADRANT where big ideas and big solutions matter. One of the main criticisms of the Occupy Wall Street protestors was that they allegedly lacked “clear demands.” In some important ways, the “no demands” criticism of Occupy Wall Street was sketchy. It was clear from the beginning that the protesters wanted the economy to be fixed and Wall Street to be held accountable for crashing it. It was also clear that the sources of the financial crisis and economic inequality are complex, as are the solutions. It was not the protesters’ job to engineer the answers—only to make the problems visible and salient. Additionally, the lack of demands was useful, as it let the protesters continue to point out the issues without having their “demands” denounced for being too large or ridiculed for being too small.

  The media’s insistence on demands was particularly strange, since both the media and elected officials routinely ignore “demands” by grassroots groups. In fact, every antipoverty, social justice, and labor-related think tank or group in Washington, DC, already has enough economic policy proposals (demands) to choke a brontosaurus. The power elite simply chooses to overlook them. In other words: if Washington has done nothing about jobs, economic inequality, or Wall Street’s betrayals, a lack of demands from social justice advocates could hardly be the culprit. One might blame instead a lack of interest by key decision makers. But policy demands literally fill bookshelves and storage cabinets throughout the nation’s capital.

  And yet the media began to act as if, unless some young protesters showed up with a comprehensive proposal for derivatives reform, nothing much could be done to respond to the economic pain they were protesting. It was ludicrous.

  Much of this kind of chatter was the outgrowth of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Wall Street protests were. They were not normal protests. After all, the demonstrators were not there to gain something. They are there to lose something: their silence, their fears, their loneliness, their submission, and their complicity in crimes against the future. They were not there to get something. They were there to give something: inspiration, beauty, joy, passion, truth, and some attitude. They were not there trying to get a gigantic bail out for themselves. They were there to bail out democracy itself. They were not there to tear the system down. (The plutocrats and oligarchs are already doing that.) They were there to build a new system up.

  In that regard, they were much like the 1960s youth, who risked their lives during the sit-ins and freedom rides. They did not know exactly which laws Congress needed to amend or what pieces of legislation President Kennedy needed to sign. They just knew that the status quo was intolerable—and they placed those intolerable injustices before the eyes of the world.

  That said, no movement can continue forever without an agenda. In a democracy, ideas matter. In a crisis, solutions matter. The 99% cannot rebuild the American Dream without a plan. Fortunately, a few good plans exist.

  INTRODUCING: CONTRACT FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM

  I was proud to help generate one plan a few months before the Occupy Wall Street protests broke out. Rebuild the Dream—an organization that I co-founded, along with Natalie Foster and Billy Wimsatt—and the American Dream network, which is the alliance that it anchors, helped to forge a jobs agenda that could put the country back to work without hurting essential programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. More than 131,203 people got involved, both online and in person. Participants generated 25,904 ideas, then rated and ranked them to identify the best ones.

  The outcome was a ten-point program called the Contract for the American Dream. It provides a conceptual framework for how to put America back to work and pull America back together. The fact that more than 311,837 people have signed onto this contract is a testament to the salience and appeal of the ideas. Opinion research suggests that all ten of the items are extremely popular, attracting between 55 to 80 percent support in various polls. Rebuild the Dream and its allies are now using the contract as a basis to evaluate candidates for elected office and as the core of a major public education campaign.

  The Contract for the American Dream would help put America back to work and pull America back together.

  In December 2011, the Congressional Progressive Caucus—made up of more than seventy Congress people—introduced the contract’s main ideas in the form of a bill: the Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act. The proposed legislation would create more than 5 million jobs in the next two years and save more than $2 trillion over ten years. The bill would put in place emergency job creation measures; establish fair tax rates; cut wasteful weapons spending; end overseas wars; and strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

  Other elements within the broader 99% movement could choose to adopt this blueprint wholesale or use it as a starting point to inform their own policy frameworks.

  Here is the prea
mble:

  We, the American people, promise to defend and advance a simple ideal: liberty and justice . . . for all. Americans who are willing to work hard and play by the rules should be able to find a decent job, get a good home in a strong community, retire with dignity, and give their kids a better life. Every one of us—rich, poor, or in-between, regardless of skin color or birthplace, no matter their sexual orientation or gender—has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is our covenant, our compact, and our contract with one another. It is a promise we can fulfill—but only by working together.

  Today, the American Dream is under threat. Our veterans are coming home to few jobs and little hope on the home front. Our young people are graduating off a cliff, burdened by heavy debt, into the worst job market in half a century. The big banks that American taxpayers bailed out won’t cut homeowners a break. Our firefighters, nurses, cops, and teachers—America’s everyday heroes—are being thrown out onto the street. We believe:

  AMERICA IS NOT BROKE

  America is rich—still the wealthiest nation ever. But too many at the top are grabbing the gains. No person or corporation should be allowed to take from America while giving little or nothing back. The super-rich who got tax breaks and bailouts should now pay full taxes—and help create jobs here, not overseas. Those who do well in America should do well by America.

  AMERICANS NEED JOBS, NOT CUTS

  Many of our best workers are sitting idle while the work of rebuilding America goes undone. Together, we must rebuild our country, reinvest in our people, and jump-start the industries of the future. Millions of jobless Americans would love the opportunity to become working, tax-paying members of their communities again. We have a jobs crisis, not a deficit crisis.