The most complete synopsis, for better or worse, comes from The Chicago Tribune.
"The reason that we're not getting things done is not because we don't have good plans or good policy prescriptions," Obama said. "The reason is because it's not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington—it's the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity."
Indeed, as history has taught us, good ideas can't work if they can't get implemented.
Obama cited the school's namesake, Teddy Roosevelt, and the 26th president's activities in busting trusts and breaking up monopolies as he sought to prevent wealth from accumulating in too few hands.
"We can't settle for a second 'Gilded Age' in America," Obama said in a reference to Roosevelt's time at the turn of the 20th Century. "Unfortunately, that's what we're seeing these days."
Obama said the country needs a president who does not see government as a "tool to enrich" friends and corporate interests, but serves as a "defender" for fairness and opportunity for ordinary Americans.
The article inaccurately characterizes this speech as a reaction to John Edwards. In fact, as I diaried last month, this has been a continuing theme for Obama:
As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons and oil magnates.
It was known as the Gilded Age, and it was made possible by a government that played along. From the politicians in Washington to the big city machines, a vast system of payoffs and patronage, scandal and corruption kept power in the hands of the few while the workers who streamed into the new factories found it harder and harder to earn a decent wage or work in a safe environment or get a day off once in awhile.
And once again, we are faced with a politics that makes all of this possible. In the last six years, our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play – a game played on a field that's no longer level, but rigged to always favor their own narrow agendas.
From Jack Abramoff to Tom Delay, from briberies to indictments, the scandals that have plagued Washington over the last few years have been too numerous to recall.
But their most troubling aspect goes far beyond the headlines that focus on the culprits and their crimes. It's an entire culture in Washington – some of it legal, some of it not – that allows this to happen. Because what's most outrageous is not the morally offensive conduct on behalf of these lobbyists and legislators, but the morally offensive laws and decisions that get made as a result.
Obama has been driving home the point that bad politics can't produce good policy.
In addition to producing an unprecedented series of pronouncements of how he would reform ethics within the first 24 hours as President, Obama has been the Democrats' key spokesman on ethics reform in Congress, working alongside people as diverse as Russ Feingold and Tom Coburn.
Obama today spoke of ethics reform being "a cause of my life." Today's New York Times provides ample documentation of this:
With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.
Reforming politics in Illinois was a tall, daunting challenge:
But Springfield was not ideally suited for such an approach. Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 37 to 32 in the Senate when Mr. Obama arrived. Power resided almost exclusively with the "Four Tops" — the Senate president, the House speaker and the minority leaders in each chamber. They controlled committee assignments, the legislative agenda, the staff. They even disbursed campaign money.
"It’s power politics, and it’s politics as a business, and it’s winning and control," said Kent Redfield, the political studies professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "The mind-set is, it is not the public’s business. That’s part of the culture: It’s about the politicians, and the politicians own the company."
The article notes how he was chosen to work on the issue of ethics reform by his party--a thankless job if ever there was one.
The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate president’s appointee, said, "Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus." On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, "They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they’d unload on Obama."
Up against such tall odds, not suprisingly he had to commit the ultimate sin and (gasp!) compromise:
Mr. Obama entered the discussions favoring contribution limits, said Mike Lawrence, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. But he realized they had no chance of passing. So the legislation, passed in 1998, banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.
"I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file members’ campaigns," Mr. Dillard said. "But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices."
So he failed, right? Wrong.
The disclosure requirement "revolutionized Illinois’s system," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, "put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown."
Obama proves that he can chew gum and walk at the same time on this issue. As he told the Chicago Tribune:
It's easy to bash Bush. It's harder to say to a Democrat, 'You know, I think we should stop keeping it a secret who's bundling money for us.'
UPDATE: In the comments, Nuisance Industry points out that Obama has been making this point since 2005.
Comments are closed on this story.