Who says American politics is gridlocked? A tidal wave of politicians from both sides of the aisle who just a few years ago opposed same-sex marriage are now coming around to support it.
By ROBERT REICH
Tribune Media Services
Elected officials who had been against allowing undocumented immigrants to become American citizens now want to chart a path for them.
Even those who were staunch gun advocates are now sounding more reasonable about background checks.
Its nice to think logic and reason are finally catching up with our representatives, but the real explanation for these changes of heart is more prosaic: public opinion.
Polls show greater support for marriage equality, a way for people in the United States illegally to remain if they meet certain requirements, and support for universal background checks of those purchasing a gun.
The exception is in the economic sphere, where public opinion seems beside the point.
Before Januarys fiscal cliff deal, at least 60 percent of Americans expressed strong support for raising taxes on incomes over $250,000. But the deal locked in the Bush tax cut for everyone earning up to $400,000.
Polls also show Americans would prefer that taxes be raised to reduce the budget deficit rather than have future Medicare or Social Security benefits cut. Yet the president has offered to cut future benefits.
Legislative deals require compromise. But why is it that deals over economic policy almost always compromise away what a majority of Americans want?
Some 65 percent of Americans want to raise taxes on large corporations. But both parties are heading in precisely the opposite direction.
Our politicians are sensitive to public opinion on equal-marriage rights, immigration and guns. Why are they tone-deaf to what most Americans want on the economy?
Because marriage rights, immigration and guns dont threaten big money . By contrast, any tinkering with taxes or regulations sets off alarm bells in our nations finely appointed dining rooms and boardrooms alarm bells that, in turn, set off promises of (or threats to withhold) large wads of campaign cash in the next election.
When political scientists Benjamin Page and Larry Bartels recently surveyed Chicagoans with an average net worth of $14 million, they found their biggest concern was curbing budget deficits and government spending ranking these as priorities three times as often as they did unemployment.
And no surprise these wealthy individuals were also far less willing to raise taxes on high-income people, and more willing to cut Social Security and Medicare. They also opposed initiatives most other Americans favor such as increasing spending on schools and raising the minimum wage .
The other thing distinguishing wealthy respondents from the rest of America was their political influence.
Two-thirds of them had contributed money in the most recent presidential election. A fifth of them had even bundled contributions.
That money bought the kind of political access most Americans only dream of.
This is just the wealthy of Chicago. Multiply it across the entire U.S. and you begin to see the larger picture . Nor does the survey by Page and Bartels include the institutionalized wealth of Wall Street and large corporations. Multiply the multiplier.
When it comes to issues such as same-sex marriage, undocumented immigrants and guns, our democracy seems to be working. Its far from perfect, of course. Certain special-interest groups like the NRA still have outsized influence.
But when it comes to economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes, American democracy isnt functioning at all. Big money talks, and its speaking more loudly now than ever.
Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.