Podcast appearances and mentions of joan claybrook

Ralph welcomes journalist Chris Hedges to talk about his new book "A Genocide Foretold: Reporting on Survival and Resistance in Occupied Palestine." Then, Ralph speaks to David Swanson of World BEYOND War about what his organization is doing to resist this country's casual acceptance of being constantly at war. Finally, Ralph checks in with our resident constitutional scholar Bruce Fein.Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He is the host of The Chris Hedges Report, and he is a prolific author— his latest book is A Genocide Foretold: Reporting on Survival and Resistance in Occupied Palestine.We not only blocked the effort by most countries on the globe to halt the genocide or at least censure Israel to the genocide, but of course have continued to sendbillions of dollars in weapons and to shut down critics within the United States… And that sends a very, very ominous message to the global south, especiallyas the climate breaks down, that these are the kind of draconian murderous measuresthat we will employ.Chris HedgesIt's a very, very ominous chapter in the history of historic Palestine. In some ways, far worse even than the 1948 Nakba (or “Catastrophe”) that saw massacres carried out against Palestinians in their villages and 750,000 Palestinians displaced. What we're watching now is probably the worst catastrophe to ever beset the Palestinian people.Chris HedgesIt's a bit like attacking somebody for writing about Auschwitz and not giving the SS guards enough play to voice their side. We're writing about a genocide and, frankly, there isn't a lot of nuance. There's a lot of context (which is in the book). But I expect either to be blanked out or attacked because lifting up the voices of Palestinians is something at this point within American society that is considered by the dominant media platforms and those within positions of power to be unacceptable.Chris HedgesIt eventually comes down to us, the American people. And it's not just the Middle East. It's a sprawling empire with hundreds of military bases, sapping the energy of our public budgets and of our ability to relate in an empathetic and humanitarian way to the rest of the world.Ralph NaderDavid Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, radio host and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He is executive director of World BEYOND War and campaign coordinator for RootsAction. His books include War Is A Lie and When the World Outlawed War.The biggest scandal of the past two days in the United States is not government officials secretly discussing plans for mass killing, for war making, but how they did it on a group chat. You can imagine if they were talking about blowing up buildings in the United States, at least the victims would get a little mention in there.David SwansonThe Democrats are the least popular they've been. They're way less popular than the Republicans because some of the Republicans' supporters actually support the horrendous behavior they're engaged in. Whereas Democrats want somebody to try anything, anything at all, and you're not getting it.David SwansonYou know how many cases across the world across the decades in every hospital and health center there are of PTSD or any sort of injury from war deprivation? Not a one. Not a single one, ever. People survive just fine. And people do their damnedest to stay out of it, even in the most warmongering nations in the world. People try their very hardest to stay out of war personally, because it does great damage.David SwansonBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.If there were really an attorney general who was independent, they would advise the President, “You can't make these threats. They are the equivalent of extortion.”Bruce FeinVigorous Public Interest Law DayApril 1, 2025 12:00 pm - 4:00 pm at Harvard Law School the Harvard Plaintiffs' Law Association is hosting Vigorous Public Interest Law Day with opening remarks by Ralph Nader. The program will feature highly relevant presentations and group discussions with some of the nation's most courageous public interest lawyers including Sam Levine, Bruce Fein, Robert Weissman, Joan Claybrook, and Pete Davis, to name a few. More information here.News 3/26/251. Starting off this week with some good news, Families for Safe Streets reports the Viriginia Assembly has passed HB2096, also known as the Stop Super Speeders bill. If enacted, this bill would allow would judges to “require drivers convicted of extreme speeding offenses to install Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) technology in their vehicles, automatically limiting their speed to the posted limit.” According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA, established by Ralph Nader, speeding was responsible for 12,151 deaths in 2022 and is a contributing factor in the skyrocketing number of pedestrians killed by automobiles which hit a 40-year high in 2023, per NPR.2. In more troubling auto safety news AP reports NHTSA has ordered a new recall on nearly all Cybertrucks. This recall centers on an exterior panel that can “detach while driving, creating a dangerous road hazard for other drivers, [and] increasing the risk of a crash.” This panel, called a “cant rail assembly,” is attached with a glue that is vulnerable to “environmental embrittlement,” per NHTSA. This is the eighth recall of the vehicles since they hit the road just one year ago.3. At the same time, the Democratic-controlled Delaware state legislature has passed a bill to “award…Musk $56 billion, shield corporate executives from liability, and strip away voting power from shareholders,” reports the Lever. According to this report, written before the law passed, the bill would “set an extremely high bar for plaintiffs to obtain internal company documents, records, and communications — the core pieces of evidence needed to build a lawsuit against a company.” On the other hand, “Corporate executives and investors with a controlling stake in a firm would no longer be required to hold full shareholder votes on various transactions in which management has a direct conflict of interest.” As this piece notes, this bill was backed by a pressure campaign led by Musk and his lawyers that began with a Delaware Chancery Court ruling that jeopardized his $56 billion compensation package. In retaliation, Musk threatened to lead a mass exodus of corporations from the state. Instead of calling his bluff, the state legislature folded, likely beginning a race to the bottom among other corporate-friendly states that will strip anyone but the largest shareholders of any remaining influence on corporate decision making.4. Speaking of folding under pressure, Reuters reports Columbia University will “acquiesce” to the outrageous and unprecedented demands of the Trump administration. These include a new mask ban on campus, and placing the school's Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department – along with the Center for Palestine Studies –under academic receivership for at least five years. By caving to these demands, the University hopes the administration will unfreeze $400 million in NIH grants they threatened to withhold. Reuters quotes historian of education, Professor Jonathan Zimmerman, who decried this as “The government…using the money as a cudgel to micromanage a university,” and Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, who called the administration's demands “arguably the greatest incursion into academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy that we've seen since the McCarthy era.”5. The authoritarianism creeping through higher education doesn't end there. Following the chilling disappearing of Mahmoud Khalil, the Trump administration has begun deploying the same tactic against more students for increasingly minor supposed offenses. First there was Georgetown post-doc student Badar Khan Suri, originally from India, who “had been living in Virginia for nearly three years when the police knocked on his door on the evening of 17 March and arrested him,” per the BBC. His crime? Being married to the daughter of a former advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, who in 2010 left the Gaza government and “started the House of Wisdom…to encourage peace and conflict resolution in Gaza.” A court has blocked Suri's deportation. Then there is Rumeysa Ozturk, a PhD student at Tufts who was on her way home from an Iftar dinner when she was surrounded and physically restrained by plainclothes agents on the street, CNN reports. Video of this incident has been shared widely. Secretary of State Marco Rubio supposedly “determined” that Ozturk's alleged activities would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” These activities? Co-writing a March 2024 op-ed in the school paper which stated “Credible accusations against Israel include accounts of deliberate starvation and indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.” The U.S. has long decried regimes that use secret police to suppress dissident speech. Now it seems it has become one.6. Yet the Trump administration is not only using deportations as a blunt object to punish pro-Palestine speech, it is also using it to go after labor rights activists. Seattle public radio station KUOW reports “Farmworker activist and union leader Alfredo Juarez Zeferino, known…as ‘Lelo,' was taken into custody by [ICE].” A farmworker and fellow activist Rosalinda Guillén is quoted saying “[Lelo] doesn't have a criminal record…they stopped him because of his leadership, because of his activism.” She added “I think that this is a political attack.” Simultaneously, the Washington Post reports “John Clark, a Trump-appointed Labor Department official, directed the agency's Bureau of International Labor Affairs…to end all of its grants.” These cuts are “expected to end 69 programs that have allocated more than $500 million to combat child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, and to enforce labor standards in more than 40 countries.”7. All of these moves by the Trump administration are despicable and largely unprecedented, but even they are not as brazen as the assault on the twin pillars of the American social welfare system: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is bearing the brunt of the attacks at the moment. First, AP reported that Elon Musk's DOGE planned to cut up to 50% of the Social Security Administration staff. Then, the Washington Post reported that the administration planned to force millions of seniors to submit claims in person rather than via phone. Now the administration is announcing that they are shifting Social Security payments from paper checks to prepaid debit cards, per Axios. Nearly half a million seniors still receive their payments via physical checks. These massive disruptions in Social Security have roiled seniors across the nation, many of whom are Republican Trump supporters, and they are voicing their frustration to their Republican elected officials – who in turn are chafing at being cut out of the loop by Musk. NBC reports Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance subcommittee on Social Security, said “he had not been told ahead of time about DOGE's moves at the agency.” Senators Steve Daines and Bill Cassidy have echoed this sentiment. And, while Social Security takes center stage, Medicare is next in line. Drop Site is out with a new report on how Trump's nominee to oversee the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services – Dr. Oz – could shift millions of seniors from traditional Medicare to the insurer-controlled Medicare Advantage system. Medicare and Social Security have long been seen as the “third rail” of American politics, meaning politicians who try to tamper with those programs meet their political demise. This is the toughest test yet of whether that remains true.8. The impact of Oscar winning documentary No Other Land continues to reverberate, a testament to the power of its message. In Miami Beach, Mayor Steven Meiner issued a draft resolution calling for the city to terminate its lease agreement with O Cinema, located at Old City Hall, simply for screening the film. Deadline reports however that he was forced to back down. And just this week, co-director of the film Hamdan Ballal was reportedly “lynched” by Israeli settlers in his West Bank village, according to co-director Yuval Abraham, an anti-occupation Jewish Israeli journalist. The Guardian reports “the settlers beat him in front of his home and filmed the assault…he was held at an army base, blindfolded, for 24 hours and forced to sleep under a freezing air conditioner.” Another co-director, Basel Adra of Masafer Yatta, told the AP “We came back from the Oscars and every day since there is an attack on us…This might be their revenge on us for making the movie. It feels like a punishment.” Stunningly, it took days for the Academy of Motion Pictures to issue a statement decrying the violence and even then, the statement was remarkably tepid with no mention of Palestine at all, only condemning “harming or suppressing artists for their work or their viewpoints.”9. In some more positive news, Zohran Mamdani – the Democratic Socialist candidate for Mayor of New York City – has maxed out donations, per Gothamist. Mamdani says he has raised “more than $8 million with projected matching funds from about 18,000 donors citywide and has done so at a faster rate than any campaign in city history.” Having hit the public financing cap this early, Mamdani promised to not spend any more of the campaign raising money and instead plans to “build the single largest volunteer operation we've ever seen in the New York City's mayor's race.” Witnessing a politician asking supporters not to send more money is a truly one-of-a-kind moment. Recent polling shows Mamdani in second place, well behind disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo and well ahead of his other rivals, including incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, per CBS. However, Mamdani remains unknown to large numbers of New Yorkers, meaning his ceiling could be much higher. Plenty of time remains before the June mayoral election.10. Finally, in an extremely bizarre story, Columbia Professor Anthony Zenkus reports “Robert Ehrlich, millionaire founder of snack food giant Pirate's Booty…tried to take over the sleepy Long Island town of Sea Cliff.” Zenkus relays that Ehrlich waged a “last minute write-in campaign for mayor in which he only received 62 votes - then declared himself mayor anyway.” Though Ehrlich only received 5% of the vote, he “stormed the village hall with an entourage, declaring himself the duly-elected mayor, screaming that he was there to dissolve the entire town government and that he alone had the power to form a new government.” Ehrlich claimed the election was “rigged” and thus invalid, citing as evidence “One of my supporters voted three times. Another one voted four times…” which constitutes a confession to election fraud. Zenkus ends this story by noting that Ehrlich was “escorted out by police.” It's hard to make heads or tails of this story, but if nothing else it indicates that these petty robber barons are simply out of control – believing they can stage their own mini coup d'etats. And after all, why shouldn't they think so, when one of their ilk occupies perhaps the most powerful office in the history of the world. Bad omens all around.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

On his show, Phil Donahue never shied away from questioning those in power, be they government officials or corporate CEOs. And there was no more frequent guest on his program than Ralph Nader. Along with guests Joan Claybrook, Michael Jacobson and Jeff Cohen, we pay tribute to a man Ralph calls “the greatest enabler and defender of the First Amendment right of free speech in American history.”Joan Claybrook is one of the public interest champions of the modern consumer movement, and she is president emeritus of Public Citizen. Prior to becoming president of Public Citizen, Ms. Claybrook was head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981. Before serving as NHTSA administrator, she founded and ran Public Citizen's Congress Watch division and worked for the Public Interest Research Group, the National Traffic Safety Bureau, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.[Phil Donahue] had the deepest understanding of the First Amendment of anybody I've ever met. And the reason is that not only did he have these voiceless leaders and victims on a show that other media would avoid like the plague—it would upset their advertisers, who would upset their corporate bosses—he would have people on whose views he vehemently disagreed with.Ralph NaderPhil [Donahue] knew that it wasn't just important to reach people on his show—that he had to have them accessible to materials that elaborated it in greater detail. And he did that for lots of people. But it all started with his sense of the purpose of the media and a public philosophy of justice for all.Ralph NaderDonahue was a great source of help to get information out to the public that they really wanted. And no one else would publicize it.Joan ClaybrookMichael Jacobson holds a PhD. in microbiology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and he co-founded and then led the Center for Science in the Public Interest for four decades. Dr. Jacobson is the author of Salt Wars: The Battle Over the Biggest Killer in the American Diet. And he is the founder of the National Food Museum.Phil really was one of a kind— where he studied up on the topic, he knew it thoroughly, he was smart, he was generous, kind, thoughtful, asked good questions. So it was just a wonderful, positive experience for various reasons to be on his terrific daytime TV show.Dr. Michael JacobsonJeff Cohen is Co-Founder and Policy Director at RootsAction. He is a media critic, columnist, documentary filmmaker, and retired journalism professor who founded the media watch group FAIR—Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting— in 1986. For years, he was a regular pundit on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC discussing issues of media and politics, and he is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. He was senior producer of MSNBC's Phil Donahue Show until it was terminated on the eve of the Iraq war.Management wrecked the show, and then they terminated the show three weeks before the invasion of Iraq. And remember, they terminated us right after the biggest anti-war marches in global history up until that point. And obviously there was a huge audience— if they had allowed Phil Donahue to be Phil Donahue and put on the experts that we wanted to put on. And we would have gotten huge ratings—but they ruined the show, they hurt our ratings. [And] when we were terminated—in spite of all of management's interference—we were still the most-watched program on MSNBC. Management doesn't usually cancel their most-watched television show, but they did it at MSNBC.Jeff CohenIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 8/21/241. Last week, the Kamala Harris campaign announced their first major policy proposal: “a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries,” per the New York Times. In a statement to reporters, the campaign said this policy would “[set]…rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries,” according to the Washington Post. Reporter Jeff Stein further elaborates that this plan is expected to include “[money] for small firms to compete [and will] Challenge [industry] mergers.” This policy stems from the Federal Trade Commission report published by the New York Times in March, that found “Large Grocers Took Advantage of Pandemic Supply Chain Disruptions …[and] used rising costs as an opportunity to further hike prices.”2. This week of course Kamala Harris is in Chicago for the Democratic National Convention. Just before the convention, Mother Jones ran a profile of progressive Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, in which he said “What's happening right now [in Palestine] is not only egregious, it is genocidal.” Chicago is the largest local government in the United States to pass a resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Further illustrating the success of pro-Palestine activism, Prem Thakker of the Intercept reports the DNC “will host [its] first ever panel on Palestinian human rights,” featuring Layla Elabed, co-leader of the Uncommitted movement, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, former Congressman Andy Levin, and Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, among others. Ms. Elabed and her compatriot Abbas Alawieh said in a statement “Our focus remains on policy change. Vice President Harris has an opportunity to unite the party against Trump…by turning the page toward a human rights policy that saves lives…We will keep pushing for our party's leadership to break away from its current financing of Israel's horrific assault on Gaza and military rule over Palestinians.”3. Yet another sign that pro-Palestine activism is shifting the center of gravity in the Democratic Party, last Friday dozens of congressional Democrats – including Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi – sent a letter to President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken “urging a halt to weapons transfers to Israel,” per AP. This letter referred to the Israeli strike on American aid workers with the World Central Kitchen relief group, saying “In light of the recent strike against aid workers and the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable to approve these weapons transfers.” Other signatories include Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Barbara Lee, and AOC. This letter comes on the heels of a series of state polls by IMEU and YouGov showing “A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states…are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee…if said nominee pledges support for an arms embargo to Israel,” per Zeteo. In Pennsylvania, 34% said more likely and only 7% less likely; in Georgia 39% said more likely and only 5% less likely, with similar numbers in Arizona. Put simply, it is clear that an arms embargo is both good politics and good policy. Even Pelosi knows it.4. A scandal is unfolding at the University of Florida, centering on a massive misuse of funds by the University president, former Senator Ben Sasse. The Alligator, the university newspaper, reports “In his 17-month stint as UF president, Ben Sasse more than tripled his office's spending, directing millions in university funds into secretive consulting contracts and high-paying positions for his GOP allies.” This piece continues “A majority of the spending surge was driven by lucrative contracts with big-name consulting firms and high-salaried, remote positions for Sasse's former U.S. Senate staff and Republican officials…[these] contracts have been kept largely under wraps, leaving the public in the dark about what the contracted firms did to earn their fees.” So much for the party of fiscal responsibility.5. A new piece in St. Louis magazine recounts the ongoing miscarriage of justice against Yolanda Greene. Ms. Greene was “fired from her job after being arrested—even though the police report that provided the basis of the charges against her is clearly contradicted by bystander video.” This piece continues “The police report says that Greene struck one of the officers ‘several times in the back near his neck, head, and shoulders with what appeared to be a closed fist.' [and that she] ‘actively assaulte[d]' a second officer.” Yet the bystander video shows “Greene on the ground and an officer [striking] her several times…A different video, captured by an officer's body camera, records another officer exclaiming, ‘Don't throw a strike'—even as the officer atop Greene does just that.” Mark Pedroli, Greene's lawyer, is quoted saying “I sent the tape over to [Wesley] Bell's office and said, ‘You're prosecuting the wrong people. You should be prosecuting the police for lying in these reports,'” yet Bell – who is nearly guaranteed a spot in the next congress after his successful AIPAC-backed primary against Cori Bush – is pressing ahead with these charges.6. Continuing its series on civil asset forfeiture, libertarian magazine Reason reports “A new class action lawsuit accuses Indiana law enforcement of seizing millions of dollars a year in cash from FedEx packages without ever informing owners of what crime they're suspected of violating.” This piece cites Sam Gedge a senior attorney at the “libertarian public interest law firm,” Institute for Justice, which claims “the Marion County Prosecutor's Office has sued to forfeit $2.5 million in currency from at least 130 FedEx parcels in transit from one non-Indiana state to another over the past two years. This scheme is one of the most predatory we have seen…It's illegal and unconstitutional for Indiana to forfeit in-transit money whose only connection to Indiana is the happenstance of FedEx's shipping practices.”7. According ProPublica, Arizona's experiment with school vouchers has failed spectacularly. As the publication explains “In 2022, Arizona pioneered the largest school voucher program in the history of education…any parent in the state…could get a taxpayer-funded voucher worth up to tens of thousands of dollars to spend on private school tuition, extracurricular programs or homeschooling supplies…Yet in a lesson for…other states, Arizona's…experiment has since precipitated a budget meltdown. The state this year faced a $1.4 billion budget shortfall, much of which was a result of the new voucher spending…Last fiscal year alone, the price tag of universal vouchers in Arizona skyrocketed from an original official estimate of just under $65 million to roughly $332 million…[and] another $429 million in costs is expected this year.” We hope this catastrophic budget implosion gives pause to the prominent Republicans and Democrats boosting the canard of “school choice.”8. The Federal Trade Commission has announced a new rule that will “combat fake reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase and allow the [FTC] to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.” FTC Chair Lina Khan adds “Fake reviews not only waste people's time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors…By strengthening the FTC's toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.” These types of much-needed, commonsense consumer protection rules are exactly why billionaires and corporate America are terrified of Lina Khan and have been mounting a shadowy campaign for her ouster.9. More Perfect Union reports “Ride share drivers in Massachusetts are now guaranteed a minimum wage of $32.50/hr, plus benefits.” According to the Verge, “The two companies also agreed to pay a combined $175 million, the bulk of which will be paid out to ‘current and former drivers who were underpaid by the companies,' [Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea] Campbell's office announced.” Despite these victories, Uber and Lyft drivers will still be classified as independent contractors instead of employees.10. Finally, per Huffington Post labor reporter Dave Jamieson, “The Culinary Union has reached a tentative agreement on its first contract with longtime Vegas Strip holdouts the Venetian and Palazzo [closing] a long chapter in which previous owner Sheldon Adelson successfully resisted organizing efforts.” In addition to the Culinary Union, the deal with the Venetian and Palazzo's new owners – private equity firm Apollo Global Management – also includes Bartenders Local 165, Operating Engineers Local 501 and Teamsters Local 986. As the Nevada Independent notes, “Combined, the Venetian and Palazzo have some 8,000 gaming and nongaming workers covering 7,100 hotel rooms, 225,000 square feet of casino space and 2.3 million square feet of convention space. It's unclear how many members of the workforce could be covered by the union agreements.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Contrary to the popular narrative, Americans overwhelmingly agree on a startling range of issues. So why is there such a disconnect between what Americans want and what Americans get?  Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen, and co-author of the book “The Corporate Sabotage of America” identifies the culprits and outlines what we, the people, can do about it. Then, Ralph welcomes Ambassador Chas Freeman, who brings his vast diplomatic experience and historical insight to bear on the ongoing collective punishment raining down on the people of Gaza.Robert Weissman is a staunch public interest advocate and activist, as well as an expert on a wide variety of issues ranging from corporate accountability and government transparency, to trade and globalization, to economic and regulatory policy. ​​For 20 years, he edited the Multinational Monitor magazine, and as the President of Public Citizen, Weissman has spearheaded the effort to loosen the chokehold corporations and the wealthy have over our democracy. He is the author, with Joan Claybrook, of The Corporate Sabotage of America's Future And What We Can Do About It.More than three in four people want to have CEOs held accountable for the crimes they commit. Eight in ten think the minimum wage is too low. Four in five support paid family leave, and on and on and on. By way of context, those are not regular numbers when you get polls. In fact, if you ask people, “Does the earth revolve around the sun?” only 80% of Americans agree that the earth revolves around the sun. So, when you get numbers in the 90% or 85%, these are extraordinary levels of national agreement.Robert WeissmanIf you step back from the immediate moment, I think the big-picture story is that the bounds of what's considered important—or the policy solutions that are considered acceptable or reasonable—are really constructed by corporations and their lobbyists, and that's the problem we face every day.Robert WeissmanAmbassador Chas Freeman is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia, acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. Ambassador Freeman is the author of several well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy, including The Diplomat's Dictionary, America's Misadventures in the Middle East, and America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East.I think one of the great pieces of collateral damage from this (Israeli/Gaza conflict) is the United Nations Charter, international law, and the credibility of these institutions at the UN. But more particularly, I think the next time Americans lecture foreigners about human rights, they're not going to laugh at us—they're going to sneer. Because this is such a tremendous demonstration of hypocrisy on our part.Ambassador Chas FreemanIt (the bombing of Gaza) is a gross violation of any standard of human rights. And the fact that we support it is discrediting us. We started out claiming that the eyes of the world were upon us, and we should shine like a city on the hill. I think much of the world looks at us now and they see dead babies in rubble, not a shining city on the hill.Ambassador Chas FreemanIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantis1. On Tuesday, political titans like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries rallied in support of Israel in Washington. While supposedly condemning antisemitism, the speakers were joined by Pastor John Hagee, a rabid Christian Zionist who wrote in his book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World that Hitler was a "half-breed Jew" he was sent by God, as a "hunter," to persecute Europe's Jews and drive them towards "the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have – Israel." John McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement in the 2008 presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the Intercept reports that the ADL plans to add Jewish peace rallies to their map of antisemitic incidents.2. Axios is out with a report on an “internal State Department dissent memo [which] accuses President Biden of "spreading misinformation" on the Israel-Hamas war and alleges that Israel is committing "war crimes" in Gaza.” Axios continues “The memo — signed by 100 State Department and USAID employees — urges senior U.S. officials to reassess their policy toward Israel and demand a ceasefire in Gaza, where more than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war.” This memo comes as the State Department is attempting to establish red lines on Israeli aggression, with Secretary of State Blinken stating “The United States believes key elements [for peace] should include no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. Not now, not after the war…No reoccupation of Gaza after the conflict ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. No reduction in the territory of Gaza,” per the Washington Post.3. Al Mayadeen reports that Colombian President Gustavo Petro will cosponsor Algeria's war crimes case against Israel at the International Criminal Court. Petro has previously voiced support for ICC action, stating “what is happening in Gaza are crimes against humanity.” TimesLIVE reports South Africa's Foreign Minister Zane Dangor is also calling for an ICC investigation of Israeli leaders for “war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide,” stressing that “Failure to do so will exacerbate the growing cynicism that international law is applied selectively for political purposes.”4. From the Huffington Post: “Staffers from more than two dozen Democratic [congressional] offices say they are receiving an unprecedented number of calls and emails demanding for members to support a cease-fire…“Let it go to voicemail” was the prevailing guidance in several offices, one staffer said.” Yasmine Taeb of Mpower Change, a Muslim advocacy group lobbying on behalf of the ceasefire resolution, said there have been over 380,000 letters sent to the House alone. Last week, more than 100 staffers staged a walkout calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.5. Journalists have also begun speaking up for Palestine. Over 1,200 journalists have signed a letter “condemn[ing] Israel's killing of journalists in Gaza and urg[ing] integrity in Western media coverage of Israel's atrocities against Palestinians.” The letter names many of the reporters injured or killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza, including Mohammad Abu Hassir, who was killed along with 42 of his family members in a strike on his home. The journalists write “This is our job: to hold power to account. Otherwise we risk becoming accessories to genocide.”6. Pro-Palestine protesters have also been taking the fight directly to the arms manufacturers. CT Insider reports protesters “blocked entrances at Colt…to protest…the gun manufacturer's sale of arms to Israel.”  Protester Mika Zarazvand is quoted saying that Israel is requesting 24,000 guns from the United States, and “we know that two-thirds of them are going to come from Colt.” In Arizona, the Tucson Coalition for Palestine staged a “die-in” blocking the roads to Raytheon's facilities, according to Arizona Public Media. Meanwhile in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 50 protesters chained themselves to the door of Elbit systems, decrying the company for profiting “from genocide” per NBC 10 Boston.7. Abed Ayoub, Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, reports that 5 U.S. citizens from Pennsylvania were “seriously injured after their bus out of Gaza was bombed. The family was on the State Department list of evacuees, and followed instructions.” Instead of speaking out for these victims, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman has instead been antagonizing pro-Palestine protesters. At a recent veterans protest in favor of ceasefire, Fetterman laughed at veterans being arrested and waved an Israeli flag at them, per progressive veterans group About Face.9. In other news, details of the SAG-AFTRA deal have been released. In a note to members, the Guild wrote “In a contract valued at over one billion dollars in new wages and benefit plan funding, we have achieved a deal of extraordinary scope that includes "above-pattern" minimum compensation increases, unprecedented provisions for consent and compensation that will protect members from the threat of AI, and for the first time establishing a streaming participation bonus. Our Pension & Health caps have been substantially raised, which will bring much needed value to our plans. In addition, the deal includes numerous improvements for multiple categories including outsize compensation increases for background performers, and critical contract provisions protecting diverse communities.” A full summary of the deal is available at SAG-AFTRA.org.10. Finally, ProPublica reports that for the first time, the Supreme Court has adopted a code of conduct intended to avoid improper outside influence on the Justices. This code establishes guidelines for acceptance of gifts and recusal standards, both of which have become major points of contention following ProPublica's reporting on Harlan Crowe's influence network targeting Justice Thomas. However, the publication is quick to note that this code does not come equipped with any sort of enforcement mechanism. Law Professor Stephen Vladeck is quoted saying “Even the most stringent and aggressive ethics rules don't mean all that much if there's no mechanism for enforcing them. And the justices' unwillingness to even nod toward that difficulty kicks the ball squarely back into Congress' court.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Ralph invites longtime colleague, Joan Claybrook, to the program to help him pay tribute to the work of the legendary, Michael Pertschuk, an individual responsible for an enormous amount of landmark, lifesaving consumer legislation. Then Steve and David interview Claire Nader about her book “You Are Your Own Best Teacher! Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination and Intellect of Tweens.” Plus, Ralph once again warns against falling for Medicare (Dis)Advantage.Joan Claybrook is one of the public interest champions of the modern consumer movement. She is president emeritus of Public Citizen. During the Carter Administration, Ms. Claybrook headed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Ms. Claybrook has testified frequently before congressional committees on many public interest issues, but with a particular focus on auto and highway safety.There is not anyone in this country who has not benefitted from what [Michael Pertschuk] did.Ralph Nader[Michael Pertschuk's] strategies were brilliant because he figured out how to get people to work with him, as opposed to against him… And he did that beautifully. He was a charming guy. Very sweet, very smart, and he didn't act like a “tough insider,” but he worked with people.Joan ClaybrookI think that every staffer and every member of Congress ought to read [When the Senate Worked for Us: The Invisible Role of Staffers in Countering Corporate Lobbies], because it shows how you can achieve a legislative goal and get things to the finish line, as opposed to just having hearings, or introducing bills, or voting on someone else's bill.Joan ClaybrookClaire Nader is a political scientist and author recognized for her work on the impact of science on society. She is an advocate for numerous causes at the local, national and international level. As the first social scientist working at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, she joined pioneering initiatives in energy conservation and the multifaceted connections between science, technology and public policy. Her latest book is You Are Your Own Best Teacher! Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination and Intellect of Tweens.[Tweens] will tell you what's on their mind, and you can't help but notice that they have no ax to grind. And you're asking yourself, as an adult “What is my ax?” And what's the difference if you don't have an ax to grind? Then you really focus on the problem, not any self-interest.Claire Nader, author of You Are Your Own Best Teacher! Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination and Intellect of TweensAARP comes across in its own promotion as a great consumer advocate for elderly people. But it was commercialized years ago. It's a nonprofit, and in 2021 it made over $800 million in profits by working with the UnitedHealthcare corporation, selling royalties off the use of its name and trademarks, etc, and it pays its CEO $1.3 million a year.Ralph NaderAll this is to warn listeners if you know elderly people that are being swarmed over with these deceptive brochures – tens of millions of people have been receiving them for several weeks – tell them not to go into Medicare Advantage. It's a snare and a delusion. And it's a cruel surprise when you're really sick, and you need to get those bills paid.Ralph Nader Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Senator Joe Manchin has been Congress's largest recipient of money from natural gas pipeline companies. He just reciprocated by gaining Senate support for the Mountain Valley pipeline in West Virginia and expedited approval for pipelines nationwide. Senator Krysten Sinema is among Congress's largest recipients of money from the private-equity industry. She just reciprocated by preserving private-equity's tax loophole in the Inflation Reduction Act. We almost take for granted big corporate money in American politics. But it started with the Powell memo. In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked Lewis Powell, then an attorney in Richmond, Virginia (and future Supreme Court justice) to report on the political activities of the Left. Richard Nixon was still president, but the Chamber (along with some prominent Republicans like Powell) worried about the Left's effects on “free enterprise.” Powell's memo — distributed widely to Chamber members — argued that the American economic system was “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups. In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of World War II — ensuring that corporations were responsive to all their stakeholders, not just their shareholders but also their workers, their consumers, and the environment on which everyone depends. But Powell and the Chamber saw it differently. Powell urged businesses to mobilize for political combat.Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.He stressed that the critical ingredients for success were organization and funding. Strength lies in … the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.On August 23, 1971, the Chamber distributed Powell's memo to leading CEOs, large businesses, and trade associations. It had exactly the impact the Chamber sought — galvanizing corporate American into action and releasing a tidal wave of corporate money into American politics. An entire corporate-political industry was born — including tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists, lawyers, political operatives, and public relations flaks. Within a few decades, big corporations would become the largest political force in Washington and most state capitals. Washington went from being a rather sleepy if not seedy town to the glittering center of corporate America — replete with elegant office buildings, fancy restaurants, pricy bistros, five-star hotels, conference centers, beautiful townhouses, and a booming real estate market that pushed Washington's poor out to the margins of the district and made two of Washington's surrounding counties among the wealthiest in the nation. I saw it and lived it. In 1976, I began working at the Federal Trade Commission. Jimmy Carter had appointed consumer advocates to some regulatory positions (several of them influenced by Ralph Nader). My boss at the FTC was Michael Pertschuk, an energetic and charismatic chairman. Joan Claybrook chaired the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission. Other Naderites were spread throughout the Carter administration. All were ready to battle big corporations that for years had been deluding or injuring consumers. Yet almost everything we initiated at the FTC, and just about everything undertaken by these activists elsewhere in the administration, was met by unexpectedly fierce political resistance from Congress. At one point, when the FTC began examining advertising directed at children, Congress stopped funding the FTC altogether, shutting it down for weeks. I was dumbfounded. What had happened? In two words, the Powell memo. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington had ballooned from one hundred in 1968 to over five hundred by the time I joined the FTC in 1976. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in the nation's capital. By 1982, nearly 2,500 had them. The number of corporate Political Action Committees mushroomed from under three hundred in 1976 to over 1,200 by 1980. Between 1974 and 1980, the Chamber of Commerce doubled its membership. (And remember, this was still thirty years before the Supreme Court's infamous Citizen's United decision.) It didn't matter whether a Democrat or Republican occupied the White House. Even after George H.W. Bush became president, the corporate-political industry continued to balloon. By the 1990s, when I was secretary of labor, corporations employed some 61,000 people to lobby for them, including registered lobbyists and lawyers. That came to more than 100 lobbyists for each member of Congress. Corporate money also supported platoons of lawyers who represented corporations and the very rich in court, often outgunning the Justice Department and state attorneys general. Most importantly, corporations began inundating politicians with money for their campaigns. Between the late 1970s and the late 1980s, corporate Political Action Committees increased their expenditures on congressional races nearly fivefold. Labor union PAC spending rose only about half as fast. By the 2106 campaign cycle, corporations and Wall Street contributed $34 for every $1 donated by labor unions and all public interest organizations combined. Wealthy individuals also accounted for a growing share. In 1980, the richest one-hundredth of 1 percent of Americans provided 10 percent of contributions to federal elections. By 2012, they provided 40 percent. Although Republicans mostly benefited from a few large donors and Democrats from a much larger number of small donors (more on this to come), both political parties transformed themselves from state and local organizations that channeled the views of members upward into giant fundraising machines that sucked in money from the top. Never in the history of American politics has one document — the Powell memo — had such nefarious consequences. *****For those of you who'd like to read it — and I recommend doing so, to get a full sense of its scope — I've included it here in its entirety:**CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUMAttack on American Free Enterprise SystemDATE: August 23, 1971TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of CommerceFROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.Dimensions of the AttackNo thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.Sources of the AttackThe sources are varied and diffused. They include, not unexpectedly, the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic. These extremists of the left are far more numerous, better financed, and increasingly are more welcomed and encouraged by other elements of society, than ever before in our history. But they remain a small minority, and are not yet the principal cause for concern.The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.Moreover, much of the media — for varying motives and in varying degrees — either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.Tone of the AttackThis memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the “American lawyer most admired,” incites audiences as follows:“You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear.” The New Leftists who heed Kunstler's advice increasingly are beginning to act — not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: “Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists.” Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system.A chilling description of what is being taught on many of our campuses was written by Stewart Alsop:“Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores of bright young men who are practitioners of ‘the politics of despair.' These young men despise the American political and economic system . . . (their) minds seem to be wholly closed. They live, not by rational discussion, but by mindless slogans.” A recent poll of students on 12 representative campuses reported that: “Almost half the students favored socialization of basic U.S. industries.”A visiting professor from England at Rockford College gave a series of lectures entitled “The Ideological War Against Western Society,” in which he documents the extent to which members of the intellectual community are waging ideological warfare against the enterprise system and the values of western society. In a foreword to these lectures, famed Dr. Milton Friedman of Chicago warned: “It (is) crystal clear that the foundations of our free society are under wide-ranging and powerful attack — not by Communist or any other conspiracy but by misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote.”Perhaps the single most effective antagonist of American business is Ralph Nader, who — thanks largely to the media — has become a legend in his own time and an idol of millions of Americans. A recent article in Fortune speaks of Nader as follows:“The passion that rules in him — and he is a passionate man — is aimed at smashing utterly the target of his hatred, which is corporate power. He thinks, and says quite bluntly, that a great many corporate executives belong in prison — for defrauding the consumer with shoddy merchandise, poisoning the food supply with chemical additives, and willfully manufacturing unsafe products that will maim or kill the buyer. He emphasizes that he is not talking just about ‘fly-by-night hucksters' but the top management of blue chip business.”A frontal assault was made on our government, our system of justice, and the free enterprise system by Yale Professor Charles Reich in his widely publicized book: “The Greening of America,” published last winter.The foregoing references illustrate the broad, shotgun attack on the system itself. There are countless examples of rifle shots which undermine confidence and confuse the public. Favorite current targets are proposals for tax incentives through changes in depreciation rates and investment credits. These are usually described in the media as “tax breaks,” “loop holes” or “tax benefits” for the benefit of business. * As viewed by a columnist in the Post, such tax measures would benefit “only the rich, the owners of big companies.”It is dismaying that many politicians make the same argument that tax measures of this kind benefit only “business,” without benefit to “the poor.” The fact that this is either political demagoguery or economic illiteracy is of slight comfort. This setting of the “rich” against the “poor,” of business against the people, is the cheapest and most dangerous kind of politics.The Apathy and Default of BusinessWhat has been the response of business to this massive assault upon its fundamental economics, upon its philosophy, upon its right to continue to manage its own affairs, and indeed upon its integrity?The painfully sad truth is that business, including the boards of directors' and the top executives of corporations great and small and business organizations at all levels, often have responded — if at all — by appeasement, ineptitude and ignoring the problem. There are, of course, many exceptions to this sweeping generalization. But the net effect of such response as has been made is scarcely visible.In all fairness, it must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it. The traditional role of business executives has been to manage, to produce, to sell, to create jobs, to make profits, to improve the standard of living, to be community leaders, to serve on charitable and educational boards, and generally to be good citizens. They have performed these tasks very well indeed.But they have shown little stomach for hard-nose contest with their critics, and little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate.A column recently carried by the Wall Street Journal was entitled: “Memo to GM: Why Not Fight Back?” Although addressed to GM by name, the article was a warning to all American business. Columnist St. John said:“General Motors, like American business in general, is ‘plainly in trouble' because intellectual bromides have been substituted for a sound intellectual exposition of its point of view.” Mr. St. John then commented on the tendency of business leaders to compromise with and appease critics. He cited the concessions which Nader wins from management, and spoke of “the fallacious view many businessmen take toward their critics.” He drew a parallel to the mistaken tactics of many college administrators: “College administrators learned too late that such appeasement serves to destroy free speech, academic freedom and genuine scholarship. One campus radical demand was conceded by university heads only to be followed by a fresh crop which soon escalated to what amounted to a demand for outright surrender.”One need not agree entirely with Mr. St. John's analysis. But most observers of the American scene will agree that the essence of his message is sound. American business “plainly in trouble”; the response to the wide range of critics has been ineffective, and has included appeasement; the time has come — indeed, it is long overdue — for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshaled against those who would destroy it.Responsibility of Business ExecutivesWhat specifically should be done? The first essential — a prerequisite to any effective action — is for businessmen to confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management.The overriding first need is for businessmen to recognize that the ultimate issue may be survival — survival of what we call the free enterprise system, and all that this means for the strength and prosperity of America and the freedom of our people.The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation's public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums.A significant first step by individual corporations could well be the designation of an executive vice president (ranking with other executive VP's) whose responsibility is to counter-on the broadest front-the attack on the enterprise system. The public relations department could be one of the foundations assigned to this executive, but his responsibilities should encompass some of the types of activities referred to subsequently in this memorandum. His budget and staff should be adequate to the task.Possible Role of the Chamber of CommerceBut independent and uncoordinated activity by individual corporations, as important as this is, will not be sufficient. Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.Moreover, there is the quite understandable reluctance on the part of any one corporation to get too far out in front and to make itself too visible a target.The role of the National Chamber of Commerce is therefore vital. Other national organizations (especially those of various industrial and commercial groups) should join in the effort, but no other organizations appear to be as well situated as the Chamber. It enjoys a strategic position, with a fine reputation and a broad base of support. Also — and this is of immeasurable merit — there are hundreds of local Chambers of Commerce which can play a vital supportive role.It hardly need be said that before embarking upon any program, the Chamber should study and analyze possible courses of action and activities, weighing risks against probable effectiveness and feasibility of each. Considerations of cost, the assurance of financial and other support from members, adequacy of staffing and similar problems will all require the most thoughtful consideration.The CampusThe assault on the enterprise system was not mounted in a few months. It has gradually evolved over the past two decades, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting (sic) from a gradualism that provoked little awareness much less any real reaction.Although origins, sources and causes are complex and interrelated, and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that the campus is the single most dynamic source. The social science faculties usually include members who are unsympathetic to the enterprise system. They may range from a Herbert Marcuse, Marxist faculty member at the University of California at San Diego, and convinced socialists, to the ambivalent liberal critic who finds more to condemn than to commend. Such faculty members need not be in a majority. They are often personally attractive and magnetic; they are stimulating teachers, and their controversy attracts student following; they are prolific writers and lecturers; they author many of the textbooks, and they exert enormous influence — far out of proportion to their numbers — on their colleagues and in the academic world.Social science faculties (the political scientist, economist, sociologist and many of the historians) tend to be liberally oriented, even when leftists are not present. This is not a criticism per se, as the need for liberal thought is essential to a balanced viewpoint. The difficulty is that “balance” is conspicuous by its absence on many campuses, with relatively few members being of conservatives or moderate persuasion and even the relatively few often being less articulate and aggressive than their crusading colleagues.This situation extending back many years and with the imbalance gradually worsening, has had an enormous impact on millions of young American students. In an article in Barron's Weekly, seeking an answer to why so many young people are disaffected even to the point of being revolutionaries, it was said: “Because they were taught that way.” Or, as noted by columnist Stewart Alsop, writing about his alma mater: “Yale, like every other major college, is graduating scores' of bright young men … who despise the American political and economic system.”As these “bright young men,” from campuses across the country, seek opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust — if not, indeed “despise” — they seek employment in the centers of the real power and influence in our country, namely: (i) with the news media, especially television; (ii) in government, as “staffers” and consultants at various levels; (iii) in elective politics; (iv) as lecturers and writers, and (v) on the faculties at various levels of education.Many do enter the enterprise system — in business and the professions — and for the most part they quickly discover the fallacies of what they have been taught. But those who eschew the mainstream of the system often remain in key positions of influence where they mold public opinion and often shape governmental action. In many instances, these “intellectuals” end up in regulatory agencies or governmental departments with large authority over the business system they do not believe in.If the foregoing analysis is approximately sound, a priority task of business — and organizations such as the Chamber — is to address the campus origin of this hostility. Few things are more sanctified in American life than academic freedom. It would be fatal to attack this as a principle. But if academic freedom is to retain the qualities of “openness,” “fairness” and “balance” — which are essential to its intellectual significance — there is a great opportunity for constructive action. The thrust of such action must be to restore the qualities just mentioned to the academic communities.What Can Be Done About the CampusThe ultimate responsibility for intellectual integrity on the campus must remain on the administrations and faculties of our colleges and universities. But organizations such as the Chamber can assist and activate constructive change in many ways, including the following:Staff of ScholarsThe Chamber should consider establishing a staff of highly qualified scholars in the social sciences who do believe in the system. It should include several of national reputation whose authorship would be widely respected — even when disagreed with.Staff of SpeakersThere also should be a staff of speakers of the highest competency. These might include the scholars, and certainly those who speak for the Chamber would have to articulate the product of the scholars.Speaker's BureauIn addition to full-time staff personnel, the Chamber should have a Speaker's Bureau which should include the ablest and most effective advocates from the top echelons of American business.Evaluation of TextbooksThe staff of scholars (or preferably a panel of independent scholars) should evaluate social science textbooks, especially in economics, political science and sociology. This should be a continuing program.The objective of such evaluation should be oriented toward restoring the balance essential to genuine academic freedom. This would include assurance of fair and factual treatment of our system of government and our enterprise system, its accomplishments, its basic relationship to individual rights and freedoms, and comparisons with the systems of socialism, fascism and communism. Most of the existing textbooks have some sort of comparisons, but many are superficial, biased and unfair.We have seen the civil rights movement insist on re-writing many of the textbooks in our universities and schools. The labor unions likewise insist that textbooks be fair to the viewpoints of organized labor. Other interested citizens groups have not hesitated to review, analyze and criticize textbooks and teaching materials. In a democratic society, this can be a constructive process and should be regarded as an aid to genuine academic freedom and not as an intrusion upon it.If the authors, publishers and users of textbooks know that they will be subjected — honestly, fairly and thoroughly — to review and critique by eminent scholars who believe in the American system, a return to a more rational balance can be expected.Equal Time on the CampusThe Chamber should insist upon equal time on the college speaking circuit. The FBI publishes each year a list of speeches made on college campuses by avowed Communists. The number in 1970 exceeded 100. There were, of course, many hundreds of appearances by leftists and ultra liberals who urge the types of viewpoints indicated earlier in this memorandum. There was no corresponding representation of American business, or indeed by individuals or organizations who appeared in support of the American system of government and business.Every campus has its formal and informal groups which invite speakers. Each law school does the same thing. Many universities and colleges officially sponsor lecture and speaking programs. We all know the inadequacy of the representation of business in the programs.It will be said that few invitations would be extended to Chamber speakers. This undoubtedly would be true unless the Chamber aggressively insisted upon the right to be heard — in effect, insisted upon “equal time.” University administrators and the great majority of student groups and committees would not welcome being put in the position publicly of refusing a forum to diverse views, indeed, this is the classic excuse for allowing Communists to speak.The two essential ingredients are (i) to have attractive, articulate and well-informed speakers; and (ii) to exert whatever degree of pressure — publicly and privately — may be necessary to assure opportunities to speak. The objective always must be to inform and enlighten, and not merely to propagandize.Balancing of FacultiesPerhaps the most fundamental problem is the imbalance of many faculties. Correcting this is indeed a long-range and difficult project. Yet, it should be undertaken as a part of an overall program. This would mean the urging of the need for faculty balance upon university administrators and boards of trustees.The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups.This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted. But if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a strengthening of both academic freedom on the campus and of the values which have made America the most productive of all societies.Graduate Schools of BusinessThe Chamber should enjoy a particular rapport with the increasingly influential graduate schools of business. Much that has been suggested above applies to such schools.Should not the Chamber also request specific courses in such schools dealing with the entire scope of the problem addressed by this memorandum? This is now essential training for the executives of the future.Secondary EducationWhile the first priority should be at the college level, the trends mentioned above are increasingly evidenced in the high schools. Action programs, tailored to the high schools and similar to those mentioned, should be considered. The implementation thereof could become a major program for local chambers of commerce, although the control and direction — especially the quality control — should be retained by the National Chamber.What Can Be Done About the Public?Reaching the campus and the secondary schools is vital for the long-term. Reaching the public generally may be more important for the shorter term. The first essential is to establish the staffs of eminent scholars, writers and speakers, who will do the thinking, the analysis, the writing and the speaking. It will also be essential to have staff personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the media, and how most effectively to communicate with the public. Among the more obvious means are the following:TelevisionThe national television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance. This applies not merely to so-called educational programs (such as “Selling of the Pentagon”), but to the daily “news analysis” which so often includes the most insidious type of criticism of the enterprise system. Whether this criticism results from hostility or economic ignorance, the result is the gradual erosion of confidence in “business” and free enterprise.This monitoring, to be effective, would require constant examination of the texts of adequate samples of programs. Complaints — to the media and to the Federal Communications Commission — should be made promptly and strongly when programs are unfair or inaccurate.Equal time should be demanded when appropriate. Effort should be made to see that the forum-type programs (the Today Show, Meet the Press, etc.) afford at least as much opportunity for supporters of the American system to participate as these programs do for those who attack it.Other MediaRadio and the press are also important, and every available means should be employed to challenge and refute unfair attacks, as well as to present the affirmative case through these media.The Scholarly JournalsIt is especially important for the Chamber's “faculty of scholars” to publish. One of the keys to the success of the liberal and leftist faculty members has been their passion for “publication” and “lecturing.” A similar passion must exist among the Chamber's scholars.Incentives might be devised to induce more “publishing” by independent scholars who do believe in the system.There should be a fairly steady flow of scholarly articles presented to a broad spectrum of magazines and periodicals — ranging from the popular magazines (Life, Look, Reader's Digest, etc.) to the more intellectual ones (Atlantic, Harper's, Saturday Review, New York, etc.) and to the various professional journals.Books, Paperbacks and PamphletsThe news stands — at airports, drugstores, and elsewhere — are filled with paperbacks and pamphlets advocating everything from revolution to erotic free love. One finds almost no attractive, well-written paperbacks or pamphlets on “our side.” It will be difficult to compete with an Eldridge Cleaver or even a Charles Reich for reader attention, but unless the effort is made — on a large enough scale and with appropriate imagination to assure some success — this opportunity for educating the public will be irretrievably lost.Paid AdvertisementsBusiness pays hundreds of millions of dollars to the media for advertisements. Most of this supports specific products; much of it supports institutional image making; and some fraction of it does support the system. But the latter has been more or less tangential, and rarely part of a sustained, major effort to inform and enlighten the American people.If American business devoted only 10% of its total annual advertising budget to this overall purpose, it would be a statesman-like expenditure.The Neglected Political ArenaIn the final analysis, the payoff — short-of revolution — is what government does. Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years. But the measure of how far this has gone is perhaps best found in the anti-business views now being expressed by several leading candidates for President of the United States.It is still Marxist doctrine that the “capitalist” countries are controlled by big business. This doctrine, consistently a part of leftist propaganda all over the world, has a wide public following among Americans.Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of “lobbyist” for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the “forgotten man.”Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen's views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to “consumerism” or to the “environment.”Politicians reflect what they believe to be majority views of their constituents. It is thus evident that most politicians are making the judgment that the public has little sympathy for the businessman or his viewpoint.The educational programs suggested above would be designed to enlighten public thinking — not so much about the businessman and his individual role as about the system which he administers, and which provides the goods, services and jobs on which our country depends.But one should not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information. Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.Neglected Opportunity in the CourtsAmerican business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.Other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute in exploiting judicial action than American business. Perhaps the most active exploiters of the judicial system have been groups ranging in political orientation from “liberal” to the far left.The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. It initiates or intervenes in scores of cases each year, and it files briefs amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in a number of cases during each term of that court. Labor unions, civil rights groups and now the public interest law firms are extremely active in the judicial arena. Their success, often at business' expense, has not been inconsequential.This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds.As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort.Neglected Stockholder PowerThe average member of the public thinks of “business” as an impersonal corporate entity, owned by the very rich and managed by over-paid executives. There is an almost total failure to appreciate that “business” actually embraces — in one way or another — most Americans. Those for whom business provides jobs, constitute a fairly obvious class. But the 20 million stockholders — most of whom are of modest means — are the real owners, the real entrepreneurs, the real capitalists under our system. They provide the capital which fuels the economic system which has produced the highest standard of living in all history. Yet, stockholders have been as ineffectual as business executives in promoting a genuine understanding of our system or in exercising political influence.The question which merits the most thorough examination is how can the weight and influence of stockholders — 20 million voters — be mobilized to support (i) an educational program and (ii) a political action program.Individual corporations are now required to make numerous reports to shareholders. Many corporations also have expensive “news” magazines which go to employees and stockholders. These opportunities to communicate can be used far more effectively as educational media.The corporation itself must exercise restraint in undertaking political action and must, of course, comply with applicable laws. But is it not feasible — through an affiliate of the Chamber or otherwise — to establish a national organization of American stockholders and give it enough muscle to be influential?A More Aggressive AttitudeBusiness interests — especially big business and their national trade organizations — have tried to maintain low profiles, especially with respect to political action.As suggested in the Wall Street Journal article, it has been fairly characteristic of the average business executive to be tolerant — at least in public — of those who attack his corporation and the system. Very few businessmen or business organizations respond in kind. There has been a disposition to appease; to regard the opposition as willing to compromise, or as likely to fade away in due time.Business has shunted confrontation politics. Business, quite understandably, has been repelled by the multiplicity of non-negotiable “demands” made constantly by self-interest groups of all kinds.While neither responsible business interests, nor the United States Chamber of Commerce, would engage in the irresponsible tactics of some pressure groups, it is essential that spokesmen for the enterprise system — at all levels and at every opportunity — be far more aggressive than in the past.There should be no hesitation to attack the Naders, the Marcuses and others who openly seek destruction of the system. There should not be the slightest hesitation to press vigorously in all political arenas for support of the enterprise system. Nor should there be reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose it.Lessons can be learned from organized labor in this respect. The head of the AFL-CIO may not appeal to businessmen as the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Yet, over many years the heads of national labor organizations have done what they were paid to do very effectively. They may not have been beloved, but they have been respected — where it counts the most — by politicians, on the campus, and among the media.It is time for American business — which has demonstrated the greatest capacity in all history to produce and to influence consumer decisions — to apply their great talents vigorously to the preservation of the system itself.The CostThe type of program described above (which includes a broadly based combination of education and political action), if undertaken long term and adequately staffed, would require far more generous financial support from American corporations than the Chamber has ever received in the past. High level management participation in Chamber affairs also would be required.The staff of the Chamber would have to be significantly increased, with the highest quality established and maintained. Salaries would have to be at levels fully comparable to those paid key business executives and the most prestigious faculty members. Professionals of the great skill in advertising and in working with the media, speakers, lawyers and other specialists would have to be recruited.It is possible that the organization of the Chamber itself would benefit from restructuring. For example, as suggested by union experience, the office of President of the Chamber might well be a full-time career position. To assure maximum effectiveness and continuity, the chief executive officer of the Chamber should not be changed each year. The functions now largely performed by the President could be transferred to a Chairman of the Board, annually elected by the membership. The Board, of course, would continue to exercise policy control.Quality Control is EssentialEssential ingredients of the entire program must be responsibility and “quality control.” The publications, the articles, the speeches, the media programs, the advertising, the briefs filed in courts, and the appearances before legislative committees — all must meet the most exacting standards of accuracy and professional excellence. They must merit respect for their level of public responsibility and scholarship, whether one agrees with the viewpoints expressed or not.Relationship to FreedomThe threat to the enterprise system is not merely a matter of economics. It also is a threat to individual freedom.It is this great truth — now so submerged by the rhetoric of the New Left and of many liberals — that must be re-affirmed if this program is to be meaningful.There seems to be little awareness that the only alternatives to free enterprise are varying degrees of bureaucratic regulation of individual freedom — ranging from that under moderate socialism to the iron heel of the leftist or rightist dictatorship.We in America already have moved very far indeed toward some aspects of state socialism, as the needs and complexities of a vast urban society require types of regulation and control that were quite unnecessary in earlier times. In some areas, such regulation and control already have seriously impaired the freedom of both business and labor, and indeed of the public generally. But most of the essential freedoms remain: private ownership, private profit, labor unions, collective bargaining, consumer choice, and a market economy in which competition largely determines price, quality and variety of the goods and services provided the consumer.In addition to the ideological attack on the system itself (discussed in this memorandum), its essentials also are threatened by inequitable taxation, and — more recently — by an inflation which has seemed uncontrollable. But whatever the causes of diminishing economic freedom may be, the truth is that freedom as a concept is indivisible. As the experience of the socialist and totalitarian states demonstrates, the contraction and denial of economic freedom is followed inevitably by governmental restrictions on other cherished rights. It is this message, above all others, that must be carried home to the American people.ConclusionIt hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. The first step should be a thorough study. But this would be an exercise in futility unless the Board of Directors of the Chamber accepts the fundamental premise of this paper, namely, that business and the enterprise system are in deep trouble, and the hour is late. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

On the 55th anniversary of the publication of Ralph’s landmark auto safety book, we welcome fellow traveler, Joan Claybrook, who has authored a report not only to celebrate the 4.2 million lives that have been saved in that time, but also on what more needs to be done. And Public Banking expert, Ellen Brown, joins us to talk about how public banks would be better than private banks at rescuing Main Street during this depression. Plus, Ralph answers listener questions!

Ralph gets the real story about the efficacy of autonomous vehicles from auto safety expert Joan Claybrook. And Harvey Wasserman joins us to talk about his new history book “The People’s Spiral of American History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia,” as well as giving us the key to beating Donald Trump in 2020.

Ralph gets the real story about the efficacy of autonomous vehicles from auto safety expert Joan Claybrook. And Harvey Wasserman joins us to talk about nuclear power, voting machine fraud, and his new history book “The People's Spiral of American History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia

Ralph gets the real story about the efficacy of autonomous vehicles from auto safety expert Joan Claybrook. And Harvey Wasserman joins us to talk about nuclear power, voting machine fraud, and his new history book “The People's Spiral of American History: From Deganawidah to Solartopia

Ralph talks to farm activist, Fred Stokes, about how corporate factory farms are abusing family farmers and damaging the quality of our food system; and long time colleague of Ralph's, Joan Claybrook, calls in to give us the latest on the fight to prevent enormous dangerous trucks from plowing down our highways.  Plus, Ralph answers more of your Facebook questions.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) did not exist before September 11, 2001. In this episode, we look back at the bills that created these new government agencies. Links to Information in This Episode Intro and Exit Music: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Music: Homeland Security Blues by Spartacus Jones (found on Music Alley by mevio) The Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (signed into law on November 25, 2002). Democracy Now episode from November 26, 2002: President Bush signs the Homeland Security Act into law. Contains an interview with Joan Claybrook, former President of Public Citizen The stated purpose was to consolidate all departments related to "homeland security" into one cabinet in response to the September 11 attacks. Twenty-two agencies were brought into the new department: New $4.5 billion Department of Homeland Security headquarter complex only houses the Coast Guard; they just moved over the last few weeks. The Homeland Security Act was passed after many members of a lame duck Congress had left for vacation; corporate friendly provisions were slipped into the bill. Section 201, paragraph 14 orders the Department of Homeland Security to start data-mining: "To establish and utilize, in conjunction with the chief information officer of the Department, a secure communications and information technology infrastructure, including data-mining and other advanced analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze eta and information in furtherance of the responsibilities under this section, and to disseminate information acquired and analyzed by the Department, as appropriate." Democracy Now episode from November 21, 2002 Contains a Pentagon press conference by Pete Aldridge, then Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, during which he explains the plan for Total Information Awareness Contains an interview with Gail Russell Chaddock, author of an Christian Science Monitor article about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security Total Information Awareness programs were split up and transferred to private contractors hired by the NSA. What are fusion centers? "According to government documents, the fusion centers collect cell phone numbers, insurance claims, credit reports, financial records, and names of relatives and associates. The information is shared among law enforcement officials nationwide." - Democracy Now, April 3, 2008 Fusions centers collect state and local information from license plate readers Secure Communities collects the fingerprints of everyone who has been arrested Private intelligence companies such as Stratfor do surveillance work for private corporations, the Department of Homeland Security, the military, and intelligence agencies. Democracy Now episode from October 3, 2012 Contains details on a Senate report that concluded Department of Homeland Security fusion centers to be "useless" [caption id="" align="alignright" width="275"] Border Patrol drones (Source: DHS.gov)[/caption] Democracy Now episode from May 4 2006 about immigration prisons Contains and interview with Judy Greene, justice policy analyst for Justice Strategies The Transportation Security Administration was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed into law on November 19, 2001. The act federalized airport security. Democracy Now episode from October 15, 2001 Contains information about the Bush administrations resistance to federalizing airport security Contains information on Argenbright Security, the private security company which failed to detect the 9/11 hijackers at Newark International Airport and Washington-Dulles International Airport. Watch the September 11 hijackers walked by - not through- the metal detectors monitored by employees of Argenbright Security. Huntleigh, the subsidiary of Israeli firm ICTS International, was the security firm at Boston Logan airport on September 11, 2001. Both of the planes that hit the World Trade Center in New York City originated from Boston Logan International Airport & all the hijackers went undetected through security managed by Huntleigh. After airport screening operations were federalized, Huntleigh sued the United States for it's lost business, calling the federalization "unfair". The Screening Partnership Program allows airport security operations to be re-privatized. Sixteen airports currently have private security. Section 147 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act limited liability for the owners and operators of the World Trade Center and New York City for the events of September 11: (b) EXTENSION OF LIABILITY RELIEF TO AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS- Section 408 of that Act is amended-- (1) by striking `air carrier' in the section heading; (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: `(a) IN GENERAL- `(1) LIABILITY LIMITED TO INSURANCE COVERAGE- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity, arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against an air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person with a property interest in the World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001, whether fee simple, leasehold or easement, direct or indirect, or their directors, officers, employees, or agents, shall not be in an amount greater than the limits of liability insurance coverage maintained by that air carrier, aircraft manufacturer, airport sponsor, or person. `(2) WILLFUL DEFAULTS ON REBUILDING OBLIGATION- Paragraph (1) does not apply to any such person with a property interest in the World Trade Center if the Attorney General determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the person has defaulted willfully on a contractual obligation to rebuild, or assist in the rebuilding of, the World Trade Center. `(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY FOR NEW YORK CITY- Liability for all claims, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity arising from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, against the City of New York shall not exceed the greater of the city's insurance coverage or $350,000,000. If a claimant who is eligible to seek compensation under section 405 of this Act, submits a claim under section 405, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, including any such action against the City of New York. The preceding sentence does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations.'; and (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following: `Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil actions to recover collateral source obligations. Nothing in this section shall in any way limit any liability of any person who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport sponsor.'. Domestic Security Bill Riles 9-11 Families, New York Times, November 26, 2002. Information regarding the history of the World Trade Center construction, New York City building codes, and the death tolls from the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were from The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer and Keven Flynn. Democracy Now episode from September 1, 2005: Hurricane Katrina exposed the dis-function of the Department of Homeland Security Contains an interview with Matthew Brzezinski, author of "Fortress America: On the Frontlines of Homeland Security-An Inside Look at the Coming Surveillance State." Representatives Quoted in this Episode Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin (clip from House floor, November 16, 2001) Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland (clip from House floor, November 22, 2002)

Can the stranglehold of money on politics be broken? Bill Moyers sits down with Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, and Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause, to discuss how Beltway business as usual may stand in the way of real change in Washington.

The Annenberg School's Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Brown University's Glenn loury on the final days of a historic election cycle. And, can the stranglehold of money on politics be broken? Bill Moyers sits down with Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, and Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause, to discuss how Beltway business as usual may stand in the way of real change in Washington. And, a Bill Moyers essay on the importance of the vote.

Former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey is making his case for a refocused mission in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission member and Vietnam war veteran tells Bill Moyers why having US military forces in Iraq is necessary in fighting terrorism, but calls for a bipartisan plan to end US policing and occupation in the war torn nation. One of Washington's most influential public advocates, Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, talks about what is at stake in the ethical reforms under consideration in Congress. Bill Moyers shares his perspective on the Vietnam war in an essay featuring archival audio of conversation between President lyndon Johnson and US National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy.