Predicted CAP funding ($ per poor person) by targeting strategy
This book is the result of more than a decade of research and discussion. The conversations began in late 2009, motivated by an emergent pattern that we began calling The Obama Conundrum. Though the new Obama administration had been elected with a strong mandate for “Change We Can Believe In” and enjoyed filibuster-proof control of Congress, it was not delivering major progressive reforms. We began to see this pattern as reflective of a much bigger theoretical question: what are the obstacles to progressive political change in modern-day societies, and how might we overcome them?
Our answer has been shaped by our research and by an ongoing discussion among the authors, with input from a large circle of friends and colleagues. We wish to acknowledge the help, in one form or another, of Gilbert Achcar, Idil Akin, Ahmad Al-Sholi, Kenneth Andrews, Florencia Arancibia, Diana Baldermann, Fred Block, Vivek Chibber, the late Dan Clawson, Mary Ann Clawson, G. William Domhoff, Barry Eidlin, Louis Esparza, Crystal Fleming, Gabriela González Vaillant, Jeff Goodwin, Sebastián Guzmán, Tiffany Joseph, Wallace Katz, Richard Lachmann, Prita Lal, Clarence Lo, Matt Mahler, John Marciano, Mike Miller, Joya Misra, Aldon Morris, Joshua Murray, Fernanda Page Poma, Joseph Peschek, Frances Fox Piven, Charlie Post, Christopher Rhomberg, S.M. Rodríguez, Magali Sarfatti Larson, Kim Scipes, Diana Sierra Becerra, Marc Steinberg, Juhi Tyagi, Arnout Van de Rijt, Nancy Whittier, the late Jeffrey Young, and Gilda Zwerman; the attendees at conferences of the American Sociological Association, Eastern Sociological Society, Stony Brook University’s How Class Works, and the NYU Economic and Political Sociology workshop, where we presented early drafts of pieces of the book; and editors and reviewers at the journals Mobilization, New Labor Forum, and Politics and Society, where some of the material appeared in print. Finally, our argument about social movement strategy is indebted to numerous organizers, most of whom are not famous, who developed keen analyses of power and how oppressed people could reclaim it.
Abbreviations Used in the Text and Footnotes
| ACA | Affordable Care Act |
| AFL | American Federation of Labor |
| AHIP | America’s Health Insurance Plans |
| CAA | Community Action Agency |
| CAP | Community Action Program |
| CBA | Cost-benefit analysis |
| CDGM | Child Development Group of Mississippi |
| CFPB | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau |
| CFR | Council on Foreign Relations |
| CFTC | Commodity Futures Trading Commission |
| CIO | Congress of Industrial Organizations |
| CORE | Congress of Racial Equality |
| CRP | Center for Responsive Politics |
| DADT | “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” |
| DoD | Department of Defense |
| DoJ | Department of Justice |
| EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| FDIC | Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation |
| FERC | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
| GM | General Motors |
| HELP | Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions |
| HMO | Health Maintenance Organization |
| ICE | Immigration and Customs Enforcement |
| MAP | Mississippi Action for Progress |
| NAACP | National Association for the Advancement of Colored People |
| NAFTA | North American Free Trade Agreement |
| NBCH | National Business Coalition on Health |
| NCHC | National Coalition on Health Care |
| NLF | National Liberation Front (Vietnam) |
| NLRB | National Labor Relations Board |
| NYPD | New York Police Department |
| OCC | Office of the Comptroller of the Currency |
| OEO | Office of Economic Opportunity |
| OIRA | Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs |
| OTC | Over-the-counter (derivatives) |
| PhRMA | Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America |
| ROTC | Reserve Officers’ Training Corps |
| SCLC | Southern Christian Leadership Conference |
| SEC | Securities and Exchange Commission |
| SFC | Senate Finance Committee |
| SNCC | Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee |
| TARP | Troubled Asset Relief Program |
| TPP | Trans-Pacific Partnership |
| UAW | United Auto Workers |
| USCAP | US Climate Action Partnership |
Publications
| AB | American Banker |
| AJS | American Journal of Sociology |
| AP | Associated Press |
| APSR | American Political Science Review |
| ASR | American Sociological Review |
| BW | Bloomberg Businessweek (“Businessweek” up to 2009) |
| FT | Financial Times |
| LN | Labor Notes |
| NLF | New Labor Forum |
| NYT | New York Times |
| PAS | Politics and Society |
| TNY | New Yorker |
| WP | Washington Post |
| WSJ | Wall Street Journal |
Introduction: Shadow and Substance
In 1931, the philosopher John Dewey lamented that “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.” Government “in general is an echo,” and at times a direct “accomplice, of the interests of big business.”1 Dewey was writing in the early years of the Great Depression, as unchecked capitalism had plunged the world into crisis and his government was doing nothing to solve the problem. Today, as in Dewey’s time, big business’s control over the US government is an open secret. We have formally democratic institutions, but the 1% exercises preponderant control over government policymaking. Statistical studies show that the preferences of non-wealthy people have little or no influence on policy.2 The 99% are well aware of this fact. In polls, over three-quarters of the public consistently says that government is “run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” namely large corporations and the rich. In the years following the economic crash of 2008, around two-thirds agreed that the government’s response had benefited “large banks and financial institutions,” “large corporations,” and “wealthy people,” and that the rest of the population had benefited “not too much” or “not at all.”3
Critiques of plutocracy—rule by the rich—are not new. Even in Dewey’s time, the insight was hardly original. Marxists and anarchists had long denounced capitalists’ influence over government. Some liberals like Dewey had voiced similar critiques, dating back at least to Adam Smith’s complaint in 1776 that England’s “merchants and manufacturers” were “the principal architects” of economic policy, their interests “so carefully attended to” by politicians.4 And as polls suggest, the idea that government is “the shadow cast by big business” is old news to most of the public today.
But Dewey added a further insight: “The attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”5 In other words, electing politicians critical of business will not eliminate business’s power to shape government policy. History supports Dewey’s point. Governments elected with a strong progressive mandate, from Chile in the early 1970s to Venezuela and Greece more recently, have faced massive economic disruption—and often military coups—when their
