The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

Friends,Good morning, and welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action), where we examine the highs, lows, and even lower points of the previous week. Pull up a chair and grab a mug shot.This morning we’re looking at:— Trump’s arraignment in Georgia on Thursday, and his brazen use of imagery and marketing to circumvent rational thought. Is this the tactic of a fascist?— The Republican primary debate Wednesday evening, which exposed the GOP candidates’ extreme positions on abortion, climate, immigration, and education. Did any of them emerge as an alternative to Trump?— Biden’s “Goldilocks” economy continues, although Fed Chair Jerome Powell continues to insist that inflation is too high. If the Fed raises interest rates further, will it push the economy into recession?— Why Heather is a dog person and Bob is a cat person. Please respond in the comments and, if you wish, take our poll: 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

Friends,Good morning, and welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action), where we examine the highs, lows, and even lower points of the previous week. This morning we’re looking at:— Trump’s FOURTH indictment, this one in Georgia, and why it could be the one that sends him to jail. — The upcoming Republican primary debate, and why Trump’s simultaneous “counter-programming” with Tucker Carlson on Elon Musk’s Twitter/X may backfire. — The continuing tragedy on Maui, and why young people are leading the way in the fight against climate change. — The discovery of a videotape of my guest hosting Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News TV show in the late 1990s, and why I did that. Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and join us. And also, if you have a moment, please take our poll: 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

Friends,Good morning, and welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action), where we examine the highs, lows, and even lower points of the previous week. This morning we’re looking at:— Merrick Garland’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Will this hurt or help Joe Biden? — Judge Tanya Chutkan’s threat to take “whatever measures are necessary” to stop Trump from intimidating potential witnesses in his upcoming trial for seeking to overturn the 2020 election. What will Trump do next?— The tragedy in Hawaii and the mounting costs of climate change. Yet Trump is readying a “Project 2025” to roll back environmental regulations and spur more carbon pollution if elected. Hello? — The UAW’s demand in negotiations with the Big Three automakers that worker pay rise by the same percentage as CEO pay. What’s the back story here?— The truly remarkably great economy. Why isn’t Biden getting credit, and should we worry? — DeSantis bars Romeo and Juliet from Florida classrooms, and Ohio Republicans vote against a constitutional amendment that would have made it harder to protect abortion rights. What’s really going on with the GOP? Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and, if you wish, take our klatch poll: 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

Friends,Good morning and welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action), where we examine the highs, lows, and even lower points of the previous week. This morning we’re looking at:— The Trump arraignment in Washington on Thursday. What was notable? What does it suggest about Trump’s future?— Friday’s jobs report. Are we about to have a “soft landing” — getting inflation down to 2 percent while avoiding a recession? And if so, how responsible is the Biden administration for this Goldilocks economy? (And by the way, why isn’t Biden getting credit from the public, at least as yet?)— Elon Musk’s X threatens to sue a nonprofit that’s been monitoring hate speech on Twitter X. Is Musk out to make X into a major source of hate in America? Will he succeed?Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and, if you wish, take our poll: 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

Friends,Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch, where Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student) and I discuss the highlights and lowlights of the week.Today we share with you our discussion before a live audience at the San Francisco Arts and Lectures series. We focus on:— Parallels between what occurred in the midterm elections of 2022 and the midterms of 1954 (the first election I focused on, when I was eight years old). — How political communication has changed over the last half-century. — Why and how I got involved in social media, film, and video, including TikTok. — How young people are processing information online, especially information about public issues. — Questions from the audience. Please join us, and feel free to take today’s poll. 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

Friends,Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch, where Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student) and I discuss the highlights and lowlights of the week.Today, on our roster:— The pending Trump indictment for his attempted coup. When will it drop? What does it mean? Will it strengthen democracy or drive us farther apart? Where will this end?— The “unitary executive” theory that Trump will likely utilize should he be reelected, along with several Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. What is this theory, and why is it troubling? Where will this end?— The Republican Party’s emerging strategy for 2024. Will it be all about Democrats’ alleged persecution and prosecution of Trump? Where will this end?— The “No Labels” attempt at a third party. Is this going anywhere, and, if so, should we be pleased or worried, and why? Where will it end?— More sources of big money behind Clarence Thomas. Where will this end?— The hottest June on record. Where will this end?— The summer of labor activism. Where will this end?— Heather’s upcoming family reunion. 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

Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, where we examine the lows and even lowers of the previous week. Today on our roster:— The Hollywood strike, and what it really means for the new economy.— The FTC’s setback on its attempt to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision, and what it means for the new economy. — The good news on inflation, and what it means for Biden (and why the Fed should relax now and stop raising interest rates).— Special Counsel Jack Smith has called Jared Kushner before the grand jury, and what this means for Trump. — The Family Leader Summit in Iowa, and what it means for every Republican candidate except Trump. — We’ll also talk about why I’m so short.So please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and join us. (And take our poll, if you wish.) 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

Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, where we examine the lows and lowers of the previous week. Today on our roster:— Jobs, the economy, and Bidenomics. With everything going well, why are Americans so unhappy?— The presidential sweepstakes. Should we worry that Trump is even more outrageous but seemingly physically strong, while Biden is competent but seemingly frail? — The Supreme Court’s continued rightward drift. If it continues to move in a direction counter to what most people want, how does it maintain public trust?— Twitter versus Threads. Zuckerberg and Meta are now taking on Musk and Twitter. What’s the likely outcome?— Weather weirdness, all over America. Will it end in fire or ice? 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

Welcome back to our coffee klatch, where Heather and I discuss the lows and lowers of the previous week. Today we examine:— Inequality on the high seas. Billionaires’ yachts, unsafe submersibles, and dangerous crossings for migrants. Where will this end?— Inequality on the high court. Billionaires and the justices. Where will this end?— Inequality in Big Tech. Google, Facebook, and Twitter open for demagogues again. Where will this end? — How Republicans are undermining public trust in the Justice Department. And why the department’s decision to accept Hunter Biden’s plea deal is nothing whatever like the special counsel’s decision to indict Trump. — And how Republicans are weaponizing Congress. Look at the bizarre censure of Adam Schiff. And more. 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

Friends,Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch, where Heather and I review the highs and lows (and even lowers) of the week. Today we focus on:— Trump’s arrest. Why was there no violence, as many had feared? Can we possibly elect a president who’s in prison? — Trump’s promise to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after Biden and the entire Biden crime family” if Trump is reelected president. Do we need to take Sam Ervin’s advice after Watergate? — The GOP House loonies. Is Kevin McCarthy regretting the Faustian bargain he made to become speaker?— Candidates running for president on the Republican side who no one has ever heard of. Why are they running? — This week’s upbeat news — including Democratic “trifecta” states and the best series on television.Thank you to Deirdre Broderick / Corey Kaup and Joseph Lawson for today’s theme songs, and to all of you for listening. And now our weekly poll:So glad you joined us for today’s coffee klatch. If you’re receiving this free of charge, please consider a paid subscription (or a paid gift subscription) so we can do even more. 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student) where we discuss the highs and lows (and often, these days, even lowers) of the week. On tap for today:— The Justice Department’s momentous decision to indict Trump. What’s the likely political and legal fallout? — The Supreme Court’s decision to save Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Why did the court suddenly change direction?— CNN’s decision to fire its CEO, Chris Licht. What should CNN have learned from this disaster?— Last word: Heather’s “litotes” obsession. What’s your favorite example of litotes? 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

Lots of news this week, but we thought it a good time to push the pause button for a moment. We get so much mail from so many of you who are curious about, well, us — especially how we got to political views and values we have, and how our stories compare to yours. So we thought we’d spend today’s klatch on the personal and political. Among the issues we talk about are: — Our political “awakenings.” What were the triggers and circumstances?— How our political views have evolved. — How and why we got into the work we’re now doing.— What we’d tell a young person today who wants to make a difference, and how it’s different from what we were told. 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), when we review the highs and lows (and sometimes very lows) of the week.Today we focus on:— Ron DeSantis will be announcing his run for the Republican nomination next week. Does he have a prayer?— Trump’s Georgia indictment will likely be announced in August. Will it make any difference?— Joe Manchin is causing trouble again. Will he make a third-party run? — Kevin McCarthy’s showdown with Biden on the debt ceiling is imminent. Will the United States default and, if so, when?Grab a cup, pull up a chair, and (if you’re so inclined) take our poll. 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

Friends,While MAGA Republicans in the House attack and investigate what they dub Biden’s “weaponized” federal government and blast Democratic mayors for being “soft on crime,” they are blatantly ignoring the crimes of their allies in plain sight.After Rep. George Santos was arrested and charged with 13 federal crimes — seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making false statements to Congress — what did Speaker Kevin McCarthy do?Nothing. In fact, he said he would not act to remove Santos.After ProPublica investigations revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose, as required by law, luxury gifts from a Republican megadonor — including expensive vacations, a rent-free house for Thomas’s mother, and tuition payments for a child Thomas was “raising like a son” — what did McCarthy do?Nothing. He said he had no concerns, “not at all” about Thomas. House Republicans have made no move to push the Supreme Court toward a code of ethics.What of the former guy’s innumerable transgressions?After Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg brought charges against Trump, McCarthy attacked Bragg. Since Trump was found by a jury to have sexually harassed and defamed E. Jean Carroll, McCarthy has said nothing. Nor has Florida governor Ron DeSantis commented, nor former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley or Senator Tim Scott, both of whom have launched a 2024 exploratory committees. Meanwhile, most Republican lawmakers continue to deny that Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election and instigate an insurrection.***An earlier generation of conservatives worried about what it saw as a breakdown in social norms in America. They feared the loss of “guardrails” that kept people in line. They fretted about “law and order.”In a famous essay, political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George L. Kelling noted that a broken window in a poor community, left unattended, signals that no one cares if windows are broken there.Because nobody is concerned enough to enforce the norm against breaking windows, the broken window becomes an invitation to throw more stones and break more windows. As more windows shatter, other aspects of community life also start unraveling. The unspoken norm becomes: Do whatever you want here, because everyone else is doing it.This earlier generation of conservatives found the moral breakdown to be mainly in poor and predominantly Black and Latino communities.In 1969, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx and a comparable automobile on a street in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked by “vandals” within ten minutes of its “abandonment.”The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo smashed part of it with a sledgehammer. Soon, passersby joined in. Within a few hours, the car had been destroyed.Wilson and Kelling concluded that because of the nature of community life in the Bronx — its anonymity, the frequency with which cars are abandoned and things are stolen or broken, the past experience of “no one caring”— vandalism began much more quickly than it did in rich Palo Alto, where people had come to believe that private possessions are cared for and mischievous behavior is costly.But once communal barriers — the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility — are lowered by actions that seem to signal that “no one cares,” lawbreaking can take root anywhere. Even at the highest reaches of America.What we are witnessing today is a breakdown of norms at the top. In a former president who still has not been held accountable for his attempted coup. In a Republican speaker of the House who refuses to hold his allies accountable for violations of law. In a recently elected member of the House who has been arrested and charged with numerous federal crimes. In a Supreme Court justice who has accepted jaw-dropping gifts without reporting them as required by law.They are breaking windows right and left. And in doing so, they are inviting more broken windows — implicitly telling America that it’s okay to do whatever you want to do, even if unethical, even if illegal — because people at the highest levels of responsibility in America are doing it.As McCarthy and House Republicans focus their ire on their putative political enemies — seeking examples of lawbreaking and ethical breaches where there are none, while turning a blind eye to lawbreaking by their allies — they are normalizing lawbreaking across the land. Unless this breakage is stopped and its perpetrators held accountable, every window in America — the rule of law itself — is vulnerable. 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

Friends,On Sunday I experienced the perfect antidote to the resurgent Trump and Trumpism. I met with Tennessee Representative Justin Jones right after he gave an inspiring talk to our graduating UC Berkeley public policy students. As you may recall, Jones and another young Black Tennessee legislator, Justin Pearson, were expelled last month from the state’s General Assembly for protesting Tennessee’s failure to enact stronger gun controls after a shooting at a Christian school in Nashville took the lives of three nine-year-olds and three adults. Now, he and Pearson are back. And their expulsion has caused a groundswell of support for them and the causes they’re fighting for, in Tennessee and elsewhere around America. A half century separates us. He’s 27, at the start of his career. I’m about to be 77, nearing the end of mine. He’s a young Black man. I’m an old white guy.He’s tall. I’m very short. We grew up in radically different times. But I came away from our discussion profoundly optimistic about the future of this country. In talking with him I felt as if I were passing a generational baton to someone who will be fighting the good fight for the next half century — a new generation that will be more successful than mine in achieving social and economic justice, that will lead the nation toward a strong multiracial, multiethnic democracy. He and Pearson, who took office in November and January, respectively, are community organizers and social justice advocates. Jones has described himself as an activist.“I think our presence as young Black voices for our constituencies, people who will not bow down, those who will not be conformed, that’s what put a target on us the day we walked in the Tennessee General Assembly. … I mean, this is the first time in Tennessee history we had a completely partisan expulsion by predominantly white caucus — all but one member of their caucus is white out of 75 members — and we are the two youngest Black lawmakers in Tennessee. … And so what we saw was a system of political hubris. This was not just an attack on us, it was an attempt to silence our districts.”He believes the biggest challenge his generation faces is the growing assault on democracy. “The Tennessee House Republicans’ attempt to crucify democracy has instead resurrected a movement led by young people to restore democracy, to build a multi-racial coalition … . The message is that we will continue to resist, that this is not the end. Their decision to expel us is not the ultimate authority, but the people will hold them accountable.”Jones is optimistic. “We have an old saying in Tennessee that a mule kicks hardest when it’s dying. They’re fighting us so hard because they realize their power and their systems are dying.”I was also impressed by his candor about the psychological toll the fight was taking on him and others. “Your generation went through the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement,” he told me backstage, “but you didn’t talk about what those fights demanded of you, how the hate they aroused hurt you. Some of you burned out. My generation is different. We recognize the pain, and we find solace in communities that are engaged with us. The opposite of oppression is community. We know the fight will be long. We can’t burn out.”Amen. [With thanks to Tom Lofthouse and Michael Lahanas-Calderón] 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), when we review the highs and lows (and sometimes very lows) of the week. This week we focus on:— Donald Trump’s horrible lie-fest on CNN. Why did CNN give him a full hour in front of a fawning audience of Trump fans? — E. Jean Carroll’s courtroom victory over Trump, as a Manhattan jury awards her $5 million in damages and finds him liable for sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s. Will she sue Trump again for calling her claim “fake” and a “made-up story” on CNN?— The George Santos indictment. Will Republicans expel him from the House?— The negotiable non-negotiable debt ceiling. Why did Biden sit down with Kevin McCarthy this week? What should Biden do? Grab a cup, pull up a chair, and (if you’re so inclined) take our poll. 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

Friends, Retiring from the university means I have to vacate my office. The university has already scheduled a cleaning and new paint job (as if my years of habitation have somehow infested it). What to do with my books? I’ve accumulated several hundred over the years, now scrunched together on shelves running floor to ceiling. I’ve considered carting them to the student common room with a sign reading “free books” but can’t yet bring myself to part with them. Many are like old friends. They’re filled with my underlinings and marginal notes. A few have traveled with me for 50 years. How can I just put them out? The biggest immediate problem is my Cabinet chair — the chair I sat in at Cabinet meetings when I was secretary of labor. By tradition, Cabinet members purchase their Cabinet chairs when they leave the government. When I left the Labor Department 26 years ago, my staff bought the chair for me as a going-away gift. I was touched at the time. Now, I’m befuddled. It’s heavy and ugly — a clunky late 18th century design that’s been standard in the Cabinet room since William Howard Taft was president. It’s also huge. When I sit in it, my legs shoot straight out like Lily Tomlin playing Edith Ann. And it’s personalized. When you join the Cabinet, a small engraved brass plate is attached to the back of your Cabinet chair showing the date you started (in my case, January 21, 1993). Another is attached when you leave, with the date of your departure (January 12, 1997). Together, they feel like a tombstone.There’s no place for my Cabinet chair in my home. Even if there were, I wouldn't ever sit in it.What should I do with it? Craigslist? Too undignified. eBay? Inappropriate. Auction it off and give the proceeds to charity? Too complicated. It would be best, I think, if the White House would just take it back and reuse it for another Cabinet official (minus my tombstone). I called the White House switchboard yesterday, but the kindly person on the other end of the line didn’t know how to respond. “Hello, I’d like to return my Cabinet chair,” I said. “Which Cabinet office would you like to be connected with, sir?”“Sorry, you misunderstood me. I want to give back my Cabinet chair.” “We don’t dispose of chairs, sir.” “It’s a Cabinet chair.”“We don’t dispose of cabinets, either.”“No, I want to recycle the chair I sat in when I was in the Cabinet.” “You want the White House to recycle?”“Just my Cabinet chair.”“Sorry, sir, we cannot handle your request. Thank you for calling the White House.”***Anybody want a big, ugly, heavy, former Cabinet chair? 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

Friends, The same Republican state lawmakers who are prohibiting transgender care for young people and barring them from using school bathrooms or playing on sports teams according to their gender identity — all in the name of “protecting children” — are actively subjecting children to more gun violence and pushing younger children into more dangerous jobs.Consider Arkansas, which in April 2021 became the first state to outlaw transition-related medical treatment for minors. A few month ago, after children were found working at a factory owned by Tyson Foods, Arkansas’s second-largest private employer, state lawmakers repealed restrictions on work for 14- and 15-year-olds and eliminated a requirement that children under 16 get a state work permit before being employed.Arkansas also has some of the weakest gun laws in the country and one of the highest rates of children killed by guns. Republican lawmakers in the state now allow concealed guns to be carried at universities.Or consider Iowa. Weeks ago, Republicans there prohibited doctors from giving gender-affirming care to transgender minors and barred transgender people from using school restrooms or locker rooms that don’t align with their sex at birth. Yet these same Iowa lawmakers are lifting restrictions on children employed in hazardous jobs — allowing children as young as 14 to work in meat coolers and industrial laundries and drive themselves up to 50 miles to and from work between 5:00 am and 10:00 pm, and teens as young as 15 to work on assembly lines. Iowa Republicans have also repealed a longstanding state law requiring handgun background checks.Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has portrayed transgender medical care as a major threat to the wellbeing of Florida’s children. At the same time, DeSantis has relaxed child labor rules. And he just signed into law a bill allowing Floridians to carry guns without a state permit.And so it goes across America. In just the last year, the number of children employed in violation of child labor laws has soared 37 percent. Meanwhile, 10 states have recently introduced or passed legislation expanding work hours for children, lifting restrictions on hazardous occupations for children, allowing children to work in locations that serve alcohol, and lowering the state minimum wage for minors.Many of these same states are also making it easier to buy guns, even though firearms have become the number one cause of death for children and teens in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.Republican hypocrisy? Yes, of course. But it’s worse than that. Follow the money. These Republican lawmakers are taking boatloads of campaign donations from corporations that need workers but would rather hire children than pay higher wages to adults, and from gun manufacturers seeking more business and bigger profits. The quid pro quo? Dismantle child labor protections and allow just about anyone to get and carry a gun. The Republican war on transgender youth is bad enough. It also deflects attention from these other Republican initiatives that are threatening the lives of all children.These same Republican lawmakers are harming children by refusing to extend Medicaid, cutting school budgets, unraveling safety nets, and subjecting children to harsh poverty. And, of course, by forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t afford in the first place. The rest of us must act — against the easing of gun laws, against the easing of child labor laws, against cutting school budgets, against increasingly restrictive anti-abortion laws, and against the cruel targeting of transgender children. And we must organize and mobilize against gerrymandering and other Republican efforts to entrench their minority rule. Please spread the word. 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

Friends,Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media and my former student) where we look at the highs and lows and even lowers of the week. Today, we examine:— Joe Biden’s unsurprising announcement that he’s running for reelection. But what does it really mean, and what are his chances?— Kevin McCarthy and the radical House Republicans’ gonzo demands for raising the debt ceiling. What are Biden’s options?— Radical Republicans in Montana, preventing a transgender lawmaker from speaking. Why are Republicans across the nation targeting transgender people?— Goodbye to Tucker. What happened, and where is he going?— Bob’s last class! Please pull up a chair, grab a cup, and if you’re inclined, take our poll.Loading... 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

Friends, Ever since word got out that I’ll be retiring from teaching at the end of this semester, people have been asking me what I’ll be doing next?I try to respond politely, but the question annoys the hell out of me. I’m reminded of singer-songwriter Willie Nelson’s response to a fan who asked him when he’ll be retiring: “Retiring from what?” Most people who “retire” usually stop what they call “working” and begin what they call “playing.” But what if your work is also your play? What if it’s your calling? What if it’s deeply meaningful to you? What if you don’t want to do less of it?I’m one of the lucky ones. Most Americans don’t especially enjoy what they do on the job. My father spent most of his working life anxious about earning enough for his family to live on. The moment he turned 65 he stopped working and began collecting Social Security, and he spent the next 31 years playing golf. The original meaning of the word “retire” was to find a secluded or private place. Judges still order juries to “retire” to consider a verdict. This doesn’t describe what I’m doing, either. The last thing I’m looking for is seclusion. So why am I retiring from teaching? I love teaching. I’ve been at it for 42 years. But it seemed better to quit when I’m still able to give students what they deserve. I owe it to them to do it well. [A few of my graduate student teaching assistants]Yet I’ll miss it. Teaching is the most generative thing I’ve done in my life, apart from being a father. I had my yearly doctor’s appointment yesterday. My doctor is a young woman, not much older than many of my graduate students. Everything checked out fine. When she asked me what was new in my life, I told her I was about to retire from teaching. She congratulated me. I burst into tears. I’d been hiding from myself just how much I’ll miss it. Retirement is often confused with aging, but I think the relationship is the reverse. Meaningful work — work that’s more play than work — can lead to a longer life. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. — poet, writer, educator, and physician — once said, people “do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing.”I won’t any longer be teaching entire courses, but I won’t quit playing. ***By the way, please join me for my Wealth and Poverty course, right here on this page. We’ll be taking a deep dive into the jobs of today and the likely jobs of the future. If you missed the first several classes, no problem. You can pick up anywhere, or retrieve class previous classes from here. 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

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, when we consider the lows and lower points of the week. Today we look at:— The latest revelations about Clarence Thomas’s corruption — financial gifts from Harlan Crow that by law must be reported. Will Thomas finally be held accountable?— The district court ruling in Texas that overruled the FDA’s decision that a major abortion medication is safe and effective, which has gone to the Supreme Court. Why did the Supreme Court ever think it could rid itself of the abortion issue? — Why the Republican position on abortion will be the end of the Republican Party. — The Dominion Voting Systems $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox News starts Monday. What’s the best way to ensure that Fox viewers learn that Fox News lied to them about the 2020 election? — My last few weeks of my last class — now on Substack. Please grab a cup, pull up a chair (and, if you wish, take our poll): 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

Friends,The $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News — which starts Monday, with jury selection tomorrow — has uncovered a trove of damning text messages and emails showing that Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham knowingly lied to their viewers about false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election. A few weeks ago, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that the evidence made it “CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” and that the statements from Fox News that are challenged by Dominion constitute defamation “per se.” Today, Judge Davis said he was imposing a sanction on Fox News and would very likely start an investigation into whether Fox’s legal team had deliberately withheld evidence, scolding the lawyers for not being “straightforward” with him. The rebuke came after lawyers for Dominion revealed a number of instances in which Fox’s lawyers had not turned over evidence in a timely manner. The judge also said he would likely appoint a special master to investigate Fox’s handling of discovery of documents and the question of whether Fox had inappropriately withheld details about Rupert Murdoch’s role as a corporate officer of Fox News.Doesn’t look good for Fox.But one key group of people haven’t heard the revelations about Fox News: Fox News viewers. There’s been a near-total blackout of the story on Fox News, and Fox host Howard Kurtz has confirmed that Fox higher-ups have issued orders to ignore the story. Fox has even rejected paid ads that would have alerted viewers about the lawsuit. Other Rupert Murdoch-owned properties, like the New York Post, are also keeping their readers in the dark. Fox News has even filed a motion arguing that the court should maintain the confidentiality of discovery material already redacted by the network, shielding it from the public. So today’s Office Hours question: If the court finds that Fox News defamed Dominion, will Fox viewers ever know the network knowingly lied to them about the 2020 presidential election? And will the judgment force Fox News (and other news media) to change the way they cover the news in the future?What do you think? (I’ll chime in with my own view later today.)**My two cents: IMHO, most of you nailed it. As long as there’s big money to be made by selling lies, weaponizing Trump viciousness, and peddling conspiracy theories, Fox News will continue to do it. The network will appeal any verdict that goes against it, and even if it ultimately loses on the law it will negotiate damages lower than $1.6 billion — and quickly make it up in future revenue. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t give a fig about the public interest or even the opinion of most of the public as long as he can continue to inject profitable toxins into the brains of his viewers (and readers). And he has rounded up sufficiently venal and unprincipled hosts — Tucker Carlson et al — who will also sell dangerous lies as long as they make big bucks doing so. Advertisers don’t care, either, as long as Fox News viewers continue to watch the network’s appalling content.I very much like Marilyn Anderson’s idea that, if Dominion wins the lawsuit, part of any settlement should specify that Fox News make a statement of transparency about the litigation they lost and why.But the basic question here is whether lawmakers are willing — and courts are willing to let them — impose any special responsibilities on cable networks, as they did with the old “fairness doctrine” as once applied to broadcasters who utilized the public spectrum. I doubt it. Wish I could be more optimistic about this, but profiting off of dangerous lies has become a big business in America. This is one of the core challenges to the future of democracy.RRReminder to please join me Friday for the second session of my course on Wealth and Poverty. (If you missed the first session, you can find it here.) 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we examine the lows and even lowers of the week. Today we look at:— Consequences of the Trump indictment: The Grifter-in-Chief rakes in more money and surges to the top of the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.— Tennessee’s return to Jim Crow: The legislature throws out two Black Democrats for protesting the state’s weak gun laws. — Progressive victories in the Midwest: Surprise wins for mayor of Chicago and a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.— The disgrace of the U.S. Supreme Court: What to do about Clarence Thomas’s flagrant violations of law?Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and take our poll. 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), where we examine the lows and even lowers of the preceding week. Today we talk about:— Trump’s indictment, and what it really means.— Starbucks’ anti-labor strategy, and what we should do about it.— The Gwyneth Paltrow case, and why it’s gotten so much attention.— My course, starting next Friday right here on this Substack.So grab a cup, pull up a chair, and join us. Also take our poll: 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), where we talk about the lows and the absurdities of the week. So grab a cup and pull up a chair.Today, we look at:— What really happened to Silicon Valley and the other small and medium-sized banks that got bailed out.— Whether this signals the beginning of a period of financial tumult and chaos on Wall Street, in the stock and bond markets, and for global banks. — Whether the Fed is likely to raise interest rates next Wednesday.— What all this means for the bankers and for average people.What do you think? 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

Welcome back to today’s coffee klatch, where Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action and my former student) and I delve into the week’s highs and lows. So grab a cup, pull up a chair, and take our poll (if you wish). Today’s topics:— Friday’s jobs report, and why the big news is wages.— Thursday’s Biden budget, and why the big news is that it’s all a theatrical production designed to counter House Republicans.— Why Wall Street now regards good economic news as bad news. And what all this might mean for the 2024 presidential election. — Plus, our special guest ChatGPT! 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

Friends,Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (Executive Director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), as we plumb the depths of the past week. Grab a cup, pull up a chair, take our poll (if you wish), and join us. Today we explore:— Alex Murdaugh’s sentence for murder, and why the country is so fixated on this case.— The revolt of the citizens of East Palestine, Ohio, against the Norfolk Southern Railway, and how they exemplify what’s gone wrong in America.— The Conservative Political Action Coalition’s annual blowout, and why the GOP is coming apart.— Trump’s outrage with Rupert Murdoch for conceding that Trump has been pushing a Big Lie, and what Murdoch’s admission reveals about his non-news organization.— And more. 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

Friends,For nearly two decades, major corporations have touted principles known as E.S.G. (short for environmental, social, and governance factors), ostensibly by focusing their businesses on these concerns as well as on profits.But now Republicans are taking aim at this approach, calling it “woke capitalism” and using it to demonstrate that Democrats and progressives are trying to impose their views on the rest of society.In other words, the fight over E.S.G. is extending America’s culture war into the C-suites of big American corporations. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans, helped by two Democratic defectors, voted to block a Labor Department rule allowing retirement plan managers to include E.S.G. considerations in their investment plans. The vote is likely to draw President Biden’s first veto.Republicans are right about E.S.G. — but for the wrong reason. The problem with E.S.G. isn’t woke capitalism. It’s corporate capitalism. Corporate money has corrupted American politics so much that our democracy cannot effectively deal with environmental and social concerns.CEOs and pension fund managers who tout their records on E.S.G. are engaged in a kind of social greenwashing — designed to burnish their brands and attract investors (including retirees) who want to believe they’re doing good while they’re also doing well. But most of this is baloney. Investors don’t want to do good at the expense of doing well. They’re unwilling to sacrifice shareholder returns to advance their environmental and social values. They want high returns and they want environmental and social goals. But they can’t have both. They’d do more good by donating to nonprofits seeking to protect the environment and advance the social causes in which they believe. Corporations and institutional investors won’t deviate from maximizing short-term profits and shareholder returns unless they are required to do so by law. And even then, only when the penalty for violating the law multiplied by the probability of getting caught is higher than the profits from continuing with the illegality.When I was secretary of labor, big corporations would violate laws on worker safety, wages and hours, and pensions whenever doing so was cheaper than obeying the law. And they’d fight like hell against such laws to begin with, all the while telling the public what wonderful citizens they were.The soothing corporate and Wall Street talk about E.S.G. is designed to forestall such laws by creating the false impression that corporations are already doing what needs to be done for the environment or social issues, so there’s no need for more laws or regulations.In 2019, the Business Roundtable — one of Washington’s most prestigious corporate groups — issued a widely publicized statement expressing “a fundamental commitment” to the wellbeing of “all of our stakeholders” (emphasis in the original), including employees, communities, and the environment. The statement was widely hailed as marking a new era of E.S.G.Since then, the Roundtable and its members have issued jejune statements about all they’ve done to reverse climate change and alleviate poverty.Not incidentally, these were priorities in President Biden’s “American Families Plan” and “Inflation Reduction Act.” But the Business Roundtable didn’t lobby for these bills. It lobbied against them. Hypocrisy? Only if you believed the Roundtable rubbish about corporate social responsibility and E.S.G. in the first place. The pressures on companies to maximize their profits and share values — social responsibility and E.S.G. be damned — are coming from shareholders, top executives (whose pay is linked to stock performance), and retirement plan managers, even those who tout their commitment to E.S.G.It’s tempting to chalk this up to “greed,” but neither corporations nor retirement plans are capable of such emotions. They aren’t people, no matter what the Supreme Court says. They’re bundles of contracts. The specific people who enter those contracts on behalf of corporations, shareholders, and retirees have no interest or expertise in the environment or in any particular social issues. They’re simply doing what they understand to be their jobs — maximizing shareholder value.If we want these transactions to be better aligned with public needs rather than private profits, laws must demand this, and penalties for violating laws must be increased. Corporate taxes must rise to fund public investments in non-fossil fuels and social safety nets. Regulations must be strengthened to protect the public.But laws and regulations won’t do any of this if corporations continue to spend vast sums on politics.The most telling trends over the last three decades have been the growing share of the economy going into corporate profits — generating ever-greater compensation packages for top executives and ever-higher payouts for investors — and the declining share going to most Americans as wages and salaries.Much of the reason is the vast in

Friends,After Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” called Black people a “hate group” and said, “I don’t want to have anything to do with them” and that white people should “get the hell away from Black people,” media outlets have dropped his comic strip.In response, last Sunday Twitter chief Elon Musk blasted the media as being “racist against whites and Asians.” He offered no criticism of Adams’s comments.Later, Musk agreed with a tweet that said “Adams’ comments weren’t good” but “there’s an element of truth” to them. Musk then suggested that media organizations promote a “false narrative” by giving more coverage to unarmed Black victims of police violence than they do to unarmed white victims of police violence.Since Musk took over Twitter in October, the platform has seen a spike in virulently racist slurs. In November, Musk met with leaders of civil rights groups to assure them that he would not reinstate banned Twitter accounts until he established a clear process for doing so, and that representatives from civil rights groups would be included on a content moderation council to advise Twitter on these policies.But Musk never formed the content moderation council. Instead, he reinstated numerous banned accounts, including those of neo-Nazis and others previously banned for hate speech.Meanwhile, the public is being swamped with Musk tweets. When a tweet that he posted during the Super Bowl failed to achieve as much engagement as a tweet from President Joe Biden, Musk demanded that Twitter staff change its algorithm to artificially inflate Musk’s tweets by a factor of 1,000. Many people who have not chosen to follow Musk are being served his tweets in their feed through the “For you” tab of the app’s homepage.In sum, the richest person in the world used part of his fortune to buy one of the world’s largest media platforms, then reinstated previously banned neo-Nazis and peddlers of hate speech, then allegedly changed its algorithms to make his posts into the platform’s most popular, and is now defending a racist cartoonist and criticizing the media as being racist against white people. So today’s Office Hours question (and poll): What, if anything, should be done about this? (As usual, I’ll chime in later today.) 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

Friends,Artificial intelligence (AI) is finally hitting the economy and society big time. Bing’s chatbot (Microsoft plans a wide release soon) is capable of long, open-ended text conversations on virtually any topic. It’s caused a Times columnist to become “deeply unsettled, even frightened.” Google engineer Blake Lemoine was fired after claiming that the firm’s AI model, LaMDA, is “sentient.”It’s causing professors like me to wonder how to distinguish between student writing on exams and AI writing. It’s causing people who track online misinformation to worry it will undermine democracy. “This is going to be the most powerful tool for spreading misinformation that has ever been on the internet,” warned Gordon Crovitz, co-chief executive of NewsGuard, which tracks online misinformation. It’s causing philosophers and biologists to fret that it will eventually destroy human beings and take over the world (Hal? You still there?). But one aspect we’re not talking about enough is AI’s effect on work. We all know what happened when complex machines first began taking over jobs. Then mechanization replaced skilled artisans. Then automation replaced repetitive jobs that could be put into software code. Numerically controlled machine tools and robotics replaced assembly lines. More recently, big data processing has replaced much analytic work. Now comes AI — which will replace almost all professional work. At every stage, productivity (output per worker) has increased dramatically, so fewer workers have been needed to accomplish what came before. This has reduced the bargaining power of less-skilled workers to obtain high wages, while fueling the compensation of people who produce the labor-replacing technologies. We’re now approaching an inflection point when the financial returns to AI’s producers are heading into the stratosphere, even as professional jobs disappear. Wall Street is going nuts over AI. Venture capitalists are pouring hundreds of billions into it, driving up startup valuations. Microsoft’s rally on Bing pushed its market capitalization to above $2 trillion. Alphabet’s stock is expected to soar more than 20 percent on its AI investments. But after AI takes over almost all remaining jobs (including those of the venture capitalists who finance AI and the engineers who design it), what exactly will human beings be doing to make money? Or to put the matter more baldly, who will be able to afford any of the wondrous goods and services powered by AI if we no longer have incomes? My prediction: It will be the high-level professional class, including top business executives and the wizards of finance, who push for the most obvious solution: A guaranteed universal basic minimum income for everyone, financed by a tax on AI. A universal basic income could be a potential solution to ensure that individuals have a basic income to support themselves and their families. UBI is a system in which every citizen or resident of a country receives a regular, unconditional sum of money from the government, regardless of their employment status. The goal of UBI is to provide individuals with enough income to meet their basic needs, such as food, shelter, and health care.(The last paragraph, above, was generated entirely by ChatGPT. The rest of this letter came from me. Promise.) 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

Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch, where Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student) and I examine the highlights and lowlights of the week. Today we look into:— Kevin McCarthy’s decision to give Fox News’s Tucker Carlson exclusive access to 40 hours of surveillance video from January 6, 2021. Is this a way for House Republicans to plant a “false flag” narrative about what happened on that fateful day?— Two dangerous illustrations of corporations off the rails — the Norfolk Southern Railway derailment, courtesy of the Trump administration’s decision to trash proposed safety rules, and a Nebraska meatpacker that’s been hiring 13-year-olds to do hazardous work. So why do Republicans continue to demand “deregulation”?— Yesterday’s one-year anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and Biden’s historic (and dangerous) visit to Kyiv last Monday. Why did Biden do it? What’s his game plan from here onward?— Special Prosecutor Jack Smith subpoenas Ivanka and Jared to testify. Does this mean the Justice Department’s grand jury is on a fast track to prosecuting Trump?— Britain’s experiment with a four-day workweek. A good idea?And some final thoughts about President Jimmy Carter. Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and take our poll. 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

Friends,The two men most likely to square off for the presidency of the United States next Election Day have held notably different conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.On July 25, 2019, then President Donald Trump spoke with Zelensky from the White House residence, ostensibly to congratulate Zelensky on his election. During that conversation, Trump reminded Zelensky that “the United States has been very good to Ukraine.” Trump knew full well that Zelensky was desperate for some demonstration of support from the American president. Some 13,000 of Zelensky’s people already had been killed in the five-year conflict between Russian-backed separatists and government forces in Ukraine. Nonetheless, just days before phoning Zelensky, Trump froze nearly $400 million of U.S. aid to Ukraine. Trump continued:“I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it…. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it …. It sounds horrible to me.… I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.”Zelensky did not want to offend Trump but did not commit to helping Trump dig up dirt on the son of the person most likely to oppose Trump in the 2020 election.Fast forward. On February 20, 2023, the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden spoke directly with Zelensky in Kyiv, noting that “Kyiv stands. And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands.” For Trump, Ukraine was a pawn to get dirt on Biden before the 2020 election. For Biden, Ukraine is a critical ally in America’s fight against global tyranny. Trump’s goal in speaking with Zelensky in 2019 was the aggrandizement of Donald Trump. That was to be expected. As president, Trump had no agenda except to feed his monstrous ego. Trump described his 2019 call with Zelensky as “perfect” because Trump saw nothing wrong in suggesting that continuing U.S. support for Ukraine should hinge on Zelensky’s helping him win reelection.Yet that phone call posed a direct challenge to American democracy. The use of presidential power to solicit a foreign nation’s help in getting reelected is not only barred by law and the Constitution; it undermines public trust in our system of self-government. Biden’s goal in speaking with Zelensky in Kyiv was the opposite — to strengthen democracy against authoritarianism. As Biden explained, he made the dangerous trip because “I thought it was critical that there not be any doubt, none whatsoever, about U.S. support for Ukraine in the war. It’s not just about freedom in Ukraine. It’s about freedom of democracy at large.”As Biden said the next day in Warsaw, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine had tested “all democracies.” Over the last year “the democracies of the world have grown stronger, not weaker. But the autocrats of the world have grown weaker, not stronger.”For Biden, American policy — both foreign and domestic — should be premised on protecting democracy from authoritarian forces seeking to undermine it, whether that force is Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump. Biden’s speech in Warsaw came just hours after Putin gave his own address in Moscow. Putin characterized the war in Ukraine as an existential struggle against the West, which he claimed started the war. In response, Biden charged that “Putin chose this war,” and that “every day the war continues is his choice. " By traveling to Kyiv, the oldest president in American history also demonstrated the stamina and grit of someone decades younger. Biden departed Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington D.C. early Sunday morning, landed in Poland, took a 10-hour train ride from the Polish border, and arrived in Kyiv-Pasazhyrsky station roughly 24 hours after leaving Washington. He then met with Zelensky at Mariinsky Palace, joined him in laying a wreath at the Wall of Remembrance at St. Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery, and stopped by the U.S. Embassy to meet with staff before heading back to the Polish border by train and then on to Warsaw. The undertaking required courage and determination. Biden is the first president since Abraham Lincoln to venture into a war zone not under the control of American forces.Donald Trump’s notorious conversation with Zelensky in 2019 required neither stamina, nor grit, nor courage. It did show determination — but not to protect democracy. It showed Trump’s fanatical resolve to remain in power, democracy be damned. 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

Friends,Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch where Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student) and I discuss the highlights and lowlights of the week. Today we focus on:— The likely indictment of Donald Trump— Hypocrisy at Fox News— Why Nikki Haley doesn’t stand a chance— Senator John Fetterman’s clinical depression— Norfolk Southern Railway’s lobbying— Why the Fed thinks great economic news is awful— The U.S. Department of LaborPlease grab a cup, pull up a chair, and take our poll:Thank you to Janet Harsbberger for sending us her personal “visual” when she listens to the klatch, a painting done by her late sister Carol Baumann. 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

Friends,Last Tuesday, House Republicans stood for a 43-minute recitation of the United States Constitution. This came just after Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee instituted a requirement to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before each meeting. Further pledges, flag salutes, and Constitution recitations are planned. Why are Democrats allowing Republicans to blanket themselves with conspicuous displays of patriotism, especially when the GOP has become the party of traitorousness and treachery?Recall that eight Republican senators and 139 Republican representatives objected to the certification of electors in the 2020 election, based on no evidence. Many continue to deny the outcome of that election. Several are still repeating Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen from him.Last June, Rep. Liz Cheney charged members of her own party who continued to support Trump’s Big Lie with “defending the indefensible,” warning that “there will come a day when President Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”Well, Trump is now almost gone. His nascent presidential campaign is sputtering. But instead of ostracizing them, Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has given those who defended Trump plum seats on congressional committees. Democrats should repeatedly speak out against these Republican traitors. Democrats should also criticize Republican lawmakers who are equating patriotism with white Christian nationalism. In a recent speech, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — whose popularity in today’s GOP rivals that of Trump — called on Americans to “put on the full armor of God. Stand firm against the left’s schemes.” DeSantis has prohibited the teaching of Black history, prevented teachers from discussing gender identity, and made it easy for parents to remove books from schools. He is now asking state universities for the numbers and ages of students who have sought or received sex-reassignment surgery and hormone prescriptions.Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado says she is “tired of this separation of church and state junk” and “the church is supposed to direct the government.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says, “we need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”Democrats should make clear that Christian nationalism is the opposite of patriotism. America’s constitutional and moral mission has been to separate politics from religion — providing equal rights to Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, atheist, and agnostic. Real patriots don’t fuel racist, religious, gender, or ethnic divisions. To the contrary, patriots seek to confirm and strengthen and celebrate the “we” in “we the people of the United States.”Nor do patriots ban books or prevent teaching about the sins of our past. Democrats must also remind the nation that patriotism requires taking a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going — sacrificing for the common good. Paying taxes in full rather than lobbying for lower taxes or seeking tax loopholes or squirreling away money abroad. Paying America’s debts rather than using the threat of national default to extract political concessions from the other party. Above all, Democrats should be saying that patriotism involves strengthening our democracy — defending the right to vote and ensuring more Americans are heard rather than claiming without evidence that millions of people voted fraudulently. True patriots don’t put loyalty to their political party above their love of America. True patriots don’t support an attempted coup. Patriotism means refraining from financial contributions that corrupt our politics. Blowing the whistle on abuses of power even at the risk of losing one’s job. Volunteering time and energy to improving the community and country.And Democrats need to reaffirm that when serving in public office, patriots do not use their office to increase their wealth. When serving as judges, they recuse themselves from cases where they may appear to have a conflict of interest. When serving on the Supreme Court, they don’t disregard precedent to impose their own ideology.In sharp contrast to the superficial demonstrations of patriotism now being utilized by the Republican Party, Democrats must remind Americans that one of the major responsibilities of lawmakers and other public servants is to maintain and build public trust in the offices and institutions they occupy. Now is the time for Democrats to reclaim patriotism and affirm its true meaning. 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

Friends,At President Biden’s State of the Union address last week, Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene repeatedly yelled “Liar!,” Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles shouted, “It’s your fault!,” and another Republican yelled “B******t!”Fourteen years ago, Republican Rep. Joe Wilson was formally rebuked by the whole House after shouting “you lie” at Obama.Yet now, anything goes.Meanwhile, Rep. George Santos remains in Congress despite mounting revelations of outright lies, fabrications, and shady deals that years ago would have sent a member of Congress packing.We’ve also just learned about Jared Kushner’s quid pro quo with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). As Middle East adviser to his father-in-law, Kushner gave MBS everything he wanted — Trump’s first trip abroad, permission to blockade Qatar, a pass on imprisoning leading Saudi citizens until they paid him billions and another on killing and dismembering journalist Jamal Khashoggi (as Trump later put it, “I saved his [MBS’s] ass.”).Then, after Kushner left the White House, MBS reciprocated by putting $2 billion from the sovereign wealth fund he chaired into Kushner’s private equity company.Where’s the shame?Elon Musk’s concern about the dwindling number of people seeing his tweets prompted the zillionaire to convene a group of engineers last Tuesday to discover why his engagement numbers were tanking. When one of the company’s two remaining principal engineers explained it was likely due to waning public interest in Musk’s antics, Musk fired the engineer.We used to call such behavior shameless. Now, it’s just what the rich and powerful do.Shame once reenforced social norms. Through most of human history, survival depended on extended families, clans, and tribes. To be shamed and ostracized for violating the common good often meant death.Charles Darwin, in his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, thought shame may have evolved as a way to maintain social trust necessary for the survival of a group and, therefore, of its members.In a 2012 paper, psychologists Matthew Feinberg and Dacher Keltner and sociologist Robb Willer found evidence that shame and embarrassment function as a kind of “nonverbal apology” for having done something that violates social norms. A display of embarrassment shows others that the embarrassed person is still aware of the group’s expectations and is still committed to the group’s well-being.Four centuries ago, public shaming included scarlet A’s. “Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death,” wrote Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who also sought to put an end to public stocks and whipping posts.A more recent version of public shaming occurred in 1954 when Joseph Welch, then chief council for the U.S. Army, stood up to Sen. Joseph McCarthy before a nationwide television audience. During a hearing in which McCarthy accused the army of harboring communists, McCarthy attacked one of Welch’s young assistants for having once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild, which McCarthy considered a communist front.Welch responded: “Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness …. Have you no sense of decency, sir?” Millions of Americans watching the proceedings from their living rooms saw McCarthy as the dangerous bully he was. By shaming him, Welch shamed America for having tolerated McCarthy and the communist witch hunt he was leading. It was the beginning of the end of McCarthy’s reign of terror.But today, shamelessness has gained a certain elan. Audacity, insolence, and impudence are welcomed. Irreverence is celebrated. We hoot when someone gives society the bird. Many Americans love Donald Trump’s loutishness. Meanwhile, instead of being directed at behavior that undermines the common good, shame is now often deployed against people who don’t fit in. Social media unleashes torrents of invective on people for little more than saying something silly or looking different or being socially inept. Shaming like this can cause a sensitive teenager to take his or her life.Why are those who violate social norms now treated like Wild West outlaw heroes, while those who are different are ridiculed? Why are bullies now applauded while those at the margin are ostracized? 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

Friends,I don’t know about you, but I look at the next 20 months leading up to the 2024 presidential election with some dread. That’s not because I’m especially worried Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or someone equally horrific will be elected. I’m dreading the next 20 months because the entire process of selecting our president has become so fraught, divisive, and arbitrary that it threatens the foundation of our democracy. So today I want to share with you a little political hope — not my mother’s “all things will work out fine in the end” fantasy, but something doable and practical that could even have a positive effect on next year’s presidential election. A bit of background: About 80 percent of us have effectively become bystanders in presidential elections. That’s because most of us live in states so predictably Democratic or Republican that we’re taken for granted by candidates. Presidential elections now turn on the dwindling number of “swing” states that could go either way, which gives voters in these states huge leverage.In 2020, Biden owed his Electoral College victory to just 42,918 votes spread over Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump owed his Electoral College victory to 77,744 votes spread across Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.Contrast these slim margins with the results of the national popular vote. In the last five elections, candidates who received the most popular votes nationwide led their opponents by an average of 4.9 million votes — more than 100 times that of the razor-thin battleground wins.The current state-by-state, winner-take-all Electoral College system of electing presidents is creating ever-closer contests in an ever-smaller number of closely divided states for elections that aren’t really that close. These razor-thin battleground margins also invite post-election recounts, audits, and lawsuits — even attempted coups. A losing candidate might be able to overturn 42,918 votes with these techniques. On the other hand, overturning 4.9 million votes would be a nearly impossible task.As such, the Electoral College system combined with the dwindling number of battlegrounds presents a growing threat to the peaceful transition of power.And it’s become more and more likely that candidates are elected president without winning the most votes nationwide. It’s already happened twice this century.The Electoral College is an anachronism that should be abolished. But that would require a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to pull off — requiring a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate plus approval by three-fourths of state legislatures.There’s an alternative. We can make the Electoral College irrelevant by getting our states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Don’t let that mouthful put you off. It could save our democracy. The Compact will guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide without a constitutional amendment.How does it work?As you know, the Constitution assigns each state a number of electors based on its population (that is, the number of its representatives in the House plus two senators). The total number of electors is 538. So anyone who gets 270 electoral votes becomes president.Article 2 of the Constitution allows states to award their electors any way they want.So all that’s needed is for states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes to agree to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.If they do that, the winner of the popular vote would automatically get the 270 Electoral College votes needed to be president.The movement to make this a reality is already underway. So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have joined the Compact — agreeing that once enough states join, all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner. The current members of the Compact have 195 electoral votes among them. So if a few additional states comprising 75 electors join — agreeing to award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — it’s done.Popular vote laws have recently been introduced in Michigan (with 15 electors) and Minnesota (with 10), which would bring the total to 220. Naturally, this plan will face legal challenges. Many powerful interests stand to benefit by keeping the outdated Electoral College in place.But if we keep up the fight and get enough states on board to reach 270 electors and withstand the predictable legal challenges, America will never again elect a president who loses the national popular vote. No longer will 80 percent of us be effectively disenfranchised from presidential campaigns. No longer will a handful of votes in “battleground” states determine the winner — inviting recounts, audits, litigation, and attempted coups that threaten our democracy.If you want to know more or get involved, click here to read about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Welcome back to our Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we explore the highs and lows of the past week. Pull up a chair and grab a cup. On today’s docket: — Biden’s State of the Union address. Why we think it ranks as one of the best ever. — George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and other raving Republicans. Why have congressional Republicans gone stark raving mad? — The terrible tragedy in Turkey and Syria. Why isn’t help getting to people who need it?— Elon Musk plays Donald Trump again. Why is the richest man in the world firing employees who don’t reward his ego?— Tomorrow’s Super Bowl. Why is professional football good for America? — Plus: Heather’s report on her glow-in-the-dark axe throwing. Thank you to Corey Kaup and Deirdre Broderick for today’s theme song.And today’s poll: 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

My friends,As I mentioned last night, I thought Biden’s second State of the Union address was superb. It was one of the best State of the Union speeches I’ve witnessed — and I’ve witnessed many. Biden’s record so far has also been impressive — even though for the first two years of his presidency, the Democrats held a razor-thin congressional majority, and the Republican Party has become more traitorous and treacherous than at any time in modern American history. Yet despite Biden’s impressive record, only 42 percent of Americans approve of his presidency. That’s barely above the 41 percent at his last State of the Union address, and a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency than any president in 75 years of polling except for Trump and Reagan (who at this point was hobbled by a deep recession).Despite Biden’s significant achievements, fully 62 percent think he has accomplished “not very much” or “little or nothing” during his presidency. Majorities believe he has made no progress on his signature initiatives — from improving the country’s infrastructure to making electric vehicles more affordable to creating jobs.And even though jobs are being created at an almost unprecedented rate, unemployment is at its lowest since 1969, and inflation is dropping, Americans are deeply pessimistic about the economy.So what gives? Why the discrepancy between what Biden is achieving and what Americans think? Please share your thoughts. I’ll give you my take later today. Also, please take our poll:Let me add a few thoughts of my own. First, let me stress my belief that Joe Biden has been an exceptionally good president. The only reason I bring up his low ratings is to try to understand why, despite his achievements, most of the public doesn’t seem to share my view. Opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate, as we’ve all witnessed in the last major elections. Yet Biden’s consistently low ratings across almost all polls — and the bizarre fact that he’s polling no better than Trump did at this point in Trump’s presidency — can’t be blamed simply on inadequate polling methods.Many of you blame the media — both Fox News and its radical right imitators, as well as the mainstream — for minimizing Biden’s achievements and exaggerating his inadequacies. I largely agree. Fox News and other rightwing outlets continue to poison America. As to the mainstream media, as to anyone who reads this letter knows, I’ve been deeply concerned about its “two-sides” ism and absurd attempts to draw moral equivalence between Republicans and Democrats. That said, only a small fraction of the public is exposed to Fox News or to the New York Times or the Washington Post. The media alone can’t account for Biden’s low ratings. I want to suggest to you three other culprits that to my mind are playing a larger role. First is the legacy of Trump, along with the deeply cynical and angry divide he has spawned in America. Even if George Washington were president right now, some 40 percent of the public would likely despise him. Second is social media, which has become a cauldron of ever more extremist rage. Under Elon Musk, for example, Twitter has become less of a “public square” than a hell-hole of hate. No national leader is immune to such relentless battering.Third and perhaps most importantly is the continuing crises that most Americans find themselves in. Some two-thirds of us are living paycheck to paycheck. Almost no one has job security. Adjusted for inflation, the median wage continues to drop. COVID is receding but “long” COVID is taking a devastating toll. Fentanyl and related drug poisonings continue to rise. Joe Biden and his administration have made important progress. Their legislative victories are important. The American Rescue Act helped millions survive the pandemic. But most Americans are still hurting. Hopefully, by the fall of 2024, the hurt won’t be nearly as bad. RR 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

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), when we review the highs and lows of the week. Today we look at:— Friday’s extraordinary labor report, showing that 517,000 new jobs were created in January, almost double the number in December. How is the Fed likely to react?— Kevin McCarthy’s moves on the debt ceiling and on committee assignments in the Republican House. Why is he putting Marjorie Taylor Greene on key committees but excluding Ilhan Omar? — Waiting for other shoes to drop — Ukraine, Trump, and the economy. What can we foresee? Please grab a cup and pull up a chair. 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

Friends,Speaker Kevin McCarthy said this week that Republicans will not call for cuts in Social Security or Medicare as they wheel and deal over the debt ceiling. He has promised to take Social Security and Medicare cuts “off the table.”Here are 10 reasons why you shouldn’t believe him:1. It’s incredibly difficult to cut federal spending without touching Social Security and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare together comprise over a third of the federal budget. Everything else (except defense, which is a sixth of the budget) is tiny by comparison.2. Republicans don’t want to cut defense, but they haven’t said what they’d cut other than Social Security, Medicare, and defense. 3. A number of senior Republicans in the House — including Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), and Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) —have said they view the debt ceiling as a “leverage point” to extract concessions from Democrats, including potentially raising the retirement age and reducing Social Security benefits.4. Several Republicans who will serve on the House Budget Committee have explicitly said they plan to take aim at Social Security and Medicare. (Georgia’s Buddy Carter said, “Our main focus has got to be on nondiscretionary — it’s got to be on entitlements.”)5. In an appearance on Fox News, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) defended his party’s plans for “shoring up” Medicare and Social Security — using the false talking point that they are in a “crisis.” (I used to be a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and still keep up with the reports, and I can assure you they’re not in danger of running out of money.)6. The Republican Study Committee released a proposal last year calling for the retirement age to be raised to 70, for means-testing Social Security benefits, and for partially privatizing Social Security.7. Last April, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), chair of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, issued a multipoint manifesto calling for ending funding for Social Security, Medicare, and other so-called “nondiscretionary” programs every five years, unless a congressional majority explicitly voted to renew them. Scott’s plan would also “force Congress to issue a report every year telling the public what they plan to do when Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt,” a reference to the assumed (and inaccurate) depletion of its trust funds in a few years.8. Prominent Republicans continue to devise plans to burden Social Security. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) recently proposed financing parental leave by having working parents borrow payments from their future Social Security benefits. If a parent died before “paying back” their benefits, their heirs would be forced to pay it from what remained of the parent’s estate.9. Republicans have hated Social Security since its inception in 1935 and Medicare since it began in 1965. They called FDR a “socialist” for passing Social Security. They called Lyndon Johnson a “socialist” for passing Medicare. Before Medicare was created, Ronald Reagan warned of the existential dangers of “socialized medicine.” 10. Their opposition to these programs has not been merely ideological. They have been horrified at how popular these programs are with the public and how much the public relies on them — thereby justifying government activism for the benefit of average working people. Which is why former Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted Medicare “to wither on the vine,” why former President George W. Bush privatized parts of Medicare and sought to privatize Social Security, and why former Speaker Paul Ryan proposed annual budgets to turn Medicare into a voucher program and privatize Social Security.Be warned. 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

Friends,Good morning, and welcome back to another Saturday morning coffee klatch with my guest Heather Lofthouse, who runs Inequality Media Civic Action and was also my student long ago. (I recently did a back-of-the-envelope estimate on how many of my former students are out there after 42 years of teaching, and it came to 28,000!) Each Saturday we talk about the highs and lows of the previous week. This week it was mostly lows:Mass killings. Why can’t we seem to be able to do anything about this?Why is Kevin McCarthy putting bottom feeders like Marjorie Taylor Greene and George Santos on key House committees while kicking off dedicated public servants like Adam Schiff? Trump redux. Why are Twitter and Facebook allowing him back on, and should we be concerned? Please grab a cup and pull up a chair. And before you go, take our poll. 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

Friends, Weeks after Elon Musk’s decision to reinstate Donald Trump on Twitter, Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) yesterday announced it will allow Trump back on its platforms, too. “The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” wrote Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs and the U.K.’s former deputy prime minister, in a blog post announcing the decision.With due respect to Nick Clegg, this is rubbish. Trump is far worse than an ugly politician. He’s a dangerous traitor to American democracy. You know this, of course. You and I have lived it. We were there when Trump refused to concede the 2020 presidential election, based on no evidence. We saw how he used Facebook and Twitter to mount an attempted coup, which included an attack on the U.S. Capitol that left five dead.We’ve watched him continue to push his big lie. We’ve witnessed the ongoing violence his big lie provokes, even without the giant megaphones of Twitter and Facebook.Facebook says it has a “policy” of not fact-checking political candidates. This means it will make no effort to correct Trump’s future lies on its platform, because Trump has declared himself a candidate for president in 2024.So, the most dangerous traitor in recent American history gets back his giant megaphones because a corporate behemoth decides it’s time to have him back?This doesn’t seem right to me. America is still struggling with the damage Trump did to our democracy. We must not normalize it by calling it “free speech” or characterizing additional access to him as “hearing what our politicians are saying.”The deeper question is how the issue of whether Trump should get back his giant megaphones — a question with such important consequences for our democracy — should be decided.Meta’s and Twitter’s size and reach make them major players in our system of self-government. Trump’s “Truth Social” reaches only 4.8 million followers. That’s peanuts compared to his 34 million followers on Facebook when the attack on the Capitol occurred, his 23 million on Instagram, and his 88.9 million on Twitter. These platforms had significant political power by the time Trump attempted his coup — power they are now exercising in allowing him back. But how can such private power be reconciled with their lack of public accountability? It cannot. Even though Meta has made a former deputy prime minister its president of global affairs and calls its decisions “policies” (such as Facebook’s “policy” of not fact-checking political candidates), it is not publicly accountable. Its policies are not public policies. They don’t emerge from our democratic process. They are private, arbitrary, corporate. America has been shut out of the decisions to give back to Trump the loudest megaphones in the land and to let him to spout his lies unchecked — although we witnessed the public havoc he created just over two years ago when he used these same megaphones, unchecked. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t believe our democracy should depend on the decisions of capricious billionaires or a former U.K. official to allow a traitorous demagogue back on their giant platforms. And I don’t see why Twitter and Facebook should be allowed to exercise such extraordinary power over our democracy. What’s the alternative? Antitrust laws were enacted more than a century ago to protect our democracy from being undermined by giant corporations. Yet this what Twitter and Meta are now doing. In my view, we should reduce the size and reach of these huge corporate megaphones by using antitrust laws to break them up.What do you think? 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

Friends,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student). This morning we take a look at the past week, in particular:— The debt ceiling scare, and the House Republicans’ attempt to hold the full faith and credit of the U.S. hostage to their demands.— George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and other luminaries of the new Republican House.— Supreme Court leaks, who Sherlock Holmes would name as the probable leaker, and why the Court doesn’t have a code of ethics.Grab a cup and pull up a chair, and also take our poll. And per our discussion, a photo of me teaching eons ago: 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

Friends,My good wishes to you on this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. I live in California, near the coast. Since the week after Christmas, we have been pummeled by eight “atmospheric rivers,” a weather phenomenon that summons moisture into a powerful band and then unleashes intense blasts of precipitation.The stream next to my house has become a river and some of the roads I rely on are impassible. I’m one of the lucky ones. At least 19 people have died as storms continue to cause widespread flooding, mudslides and power outages. Another storm is hitting today. Millions of Californians are under a flood watch. Among the most vulnerable are low-income people who live in fragile structures or are homeless, disproportionately people of color. We don’t talk nearly enough about the consequences of climate change for the most vulnerable among us. If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, I’m sure he would be. Why is the media so tentative about attributing the devastation here in California to climate change at all? Or the climate havoc all over America, and the world?Saturday’s New York Times front-page story about what’s happening now in California didn’t even mention the words “climate change” until the 26th paragraph, the third from the last. Even then it didn’t blame man-made climate change but referred obliquely to climate scientists who “say” climate change “amplifies normal extremes” of drought and flooding. A review of coverage by national TV news in the weeks after the storms began found that (with one exception) cable news and national broadcast networks failed to link California’s devastating storms to the global climate crisis. It’s as if we’re living in two worlds carrying separate stories — in one, stories about the devastation occurring all around us; in another, stories about the findings and solemn warnings of climate scientists. Why aren’t they the same story, including the perils suffered by the most vulnerable? To be sure, it's difficult to directly attribute specific storms to climate change. Meteorology isn’t precise when it comes to causes and effects. But is there any doubt that the Earth is warming due to human causes, resulting in more extreme weather exactly of the sort we’ve been experiencing on the West Coast? Climate change did not directly produce the raging water that pulled a five-year-old boy from his mother’s arms as he was on his way to school in San Luis Obispo County last Monday, of course, but climate change was obviously behind this tragedy — as it’s been behind so many other tragedies that have been faithfully reported but whose underlying cause is being ignored or reported in the 26th or so paragraph. I understood years ago why editors, publishers, and TV producers were reluctant to wade into the political fight over climate change. It was too charged, too partisan, too many facts were in dispute, and Republicans were adamant in their refusal to concede that human-created climate change posed a clear and present danger. The media were content to report on climate catastrophes and leave the debate up to the politicians.But now? There’s no longer any legitimate dispute. News outlets have no excuse for temerity in connecting tragic weather events to the undeniable, violent changes in the Earth’s weather. It’s like journalists who report on the high rate of homicides in America without mentioning how easy it is to get guns in this country, or the reporters during the early stages of Trump’s presidency who didn’t want to come right out and say he lied. A failure to make such clear connections is itself misleading. Each climate calamity we endure is another learning opportunity for the nation to understand the existential threat of climate change and why we must take the lead in reversing it. For the media to avoid talking about it is a loss for democracy. 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

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student). In response to our discussion last week about work and family — and our New Year’s resolutions for how to better balance them — many of you asked how we actually spend our days. So that’s the topic of today’s klatch. (We’ll return to politics, economics, and all the other big topics next week.)Please grab a cup and pull up a chair. And also take our poll. 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

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we usually talk about the highs and low of the prior week. But with the new year just beginning and House Republicans tied up in knots, we thought we’d make today’s klatch a bit more personal: How we and others we know are trying to both do our work and still have a life. Grab a cup and pull up a chair. And please be sure to take our poll and add your comments. 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

Friends,Welcome to the challenges of 2023. Today I want to talk about one of the first. When the 118th Congress is sworn in tomorrow, Republicans will hold very narrow control of the House — 222 seats to the Democrat’s 213. The first thing they’ll do is vote for the next Speaker (who’ll determine the agenda for the House, what bills make it to the floor, the fate of critical legislation such as spending bills, and the House’s negotiating positions with Senate leaders and the White House).The most likely is the current Republican House Leader, Kevin McCarthy. He could squeak by with 218 votes, a bare majority of House members. But if just 5 Republicans vote against him, he won’t make it. (Technically, he could be elected with fewer than 218 votes if he persuades Republican lawmakers who don’t want to vote for him to instead vote “present” or to miss the vote entirely.)To get the votes he needs, McCarthy will have to cozy up to the MAGA “Freedom Caucus,” which includes bizarro extremists like South Carolina's Ralph Norman (who as late as January 17, 2021 urged Trump to invoke martial law), Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ohio's Jim Jordan, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene, Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, and some 30 others, none of whom you’d want to invite to dinner. For their support, the Freedom Caucus is demanding that any member be able to call a vote at any time to oust McCarthy (a “motion to vacate the chair”) if he strays from their hard MAGA line. (Under current rules, only party leaders can bring such a motion.)Which would put McCarthy on a very short leash controlled by the Freedom Caucus (with Trump indirectly controlling them). In effect, Trump and the Freedom Caucus would call many of the shots — on committee assignments, investigations (Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the FBI), and key issues like raising the debt ceiling (they’ll demand that McCarthy refuse — imperiling the credit of the United States and catapulting the nation into an economic crisis). Does this mean the rest of us have to sit back and allow a tiny minority of extreme rightwing MAGA House Republicans controlled by Donald Trump to hijack congressional Republicans, who in turn will hijack the entire House, and thereby much of Congress?No. There’s an alternative, and I urge House Democrats and the few remaining “moderate” Republicans to take it: Make Ohio’s Republican Rep. David Joyce the Speaker of the House. House Dems and moderate Republicans could come up with the 218 votes to put Joyce over the top. Why Joyce? He’s the new chairman of the Republican Conference Group, a group you probably never heard of (years ago it was called the “Tuesday Group”) because it flies under the radar. It’s a collection of the remaining 40 or so Republican moderates. I say “moderate” only in comparison to the rest of the Republican House. The Conference Group at least wants the government to function. Joyce would be acceptable to most current Republican representatives, even though the Freedom Caucus won’t want anything to do with him. During Trump’s presidency, he voted in line with Trump's stated position 91.8% of the time. And he voted against impeaching Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. In other words, But Joyce is not a MAGA Republican. He refused to sign the Texas amicus brief that tried to overturn the results of the presidential election. He was also one of the few Republican House members who did not object to the counting of electoral college votes on January 6, 2021. Since Biden became president, Joyce has voted in line with Biden’s positions over 30 percent of the time. He was one of 35 Republicans who joined all Democrats in approving legislation to establish the January 6 commission to investigate the storming of the US Capitol. He and 46 other Republicans voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying the right to same-sex marriage in federal law. Overall, Joyce’s politics are similar to Democratic Senator Joe Manchin’s. “Everybody’s a Joe Manchin,” Joyce said a few weeks ago. Joyce wants to keep swing-district Republicans out of the harm’s way coming from the Freedom Caucus and other MAGA conservatives. He saw what happened to Ohio Republican candidates viewed as too close to Trump’s MAGA wing: The state’s House delegation shrank from an eight-member edge for Republicans to just five because voters rejected several MAGA GOP candidates. “There’s some exotics that like chaos, they thrive in chaos because that’s how they get the media,” Joyce told the Washington Post. Given that the likeliest alternative will be a Speaker McCarthy beholden to the Freedom Caucus, Joyce should be Speaker — and he could be if House Democrats support him. I urge them to do so. 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

My friends,It has been quite a year. Some of the regressive forces undermining our democracy, polluting our planet, widening inequality, and stoking hatred have been pushed back. This is a worthy accomplishment and cause for celebration. It offers hope that the Trump years are behind us and the hard work of building a decent society can resume. But this is no time for complacency. No one should assume that the battle has been won. The anti-democracy movement is still fulminating. Trump is still dangerous. Corporate malfeasance continues. The climate catastrophe is worsening. Inequality is widening. Reproductive rights have been dealt a major setback. The haters and bigots have not retreated. These regressive forces have many weapons at their disposal — lobbyists, money to bribe lawmakers, giant media megaphones, the most rightwing Supreme Court since the 1930s, a GOP that has lost all moral bearings and, starting soon, a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But their most powerful weapon is cynicism. They’re betting that if they can get most of us to feel like we can’t make a difference, we’ll stop fighting. Then they can declare total victory.We must keep up the fight.Here’s the thing to keep in mind. Notwithstanding setbacks, we are better today than we were fifty years ago, twenty years ago, even a year ago. We’ve strengthened labor rights and LGBTQ rights. Most Americans are intent on strengthening women’s rights and civil rights. Most also want to extend Medicare for all, affordable childcare, paid sick leave, and end corporate monopolies and corporate dominance of our politics. We have clean water laws and clean air laws. We’ve torn down Confederate statues and expanded clean energy. And we’ve got a new generation of progressive politicians, labor leaders, and community organizers determined to make the nation and the world more democratic, more sustainable, more just. They know that the strongest bulwark against authoritarianism is a society in which people have a fair chance to get ahead. The fights for democracy, social justice, and a sustainable planet are intertwined. The battle is likely to become even more intense this coming year and the following. But the outcome will not be determined by force, fear, or violence. It will be based on commitment, tenacity, and unvarnished truth.It is even a battle for the way we tell the story of America. Some want to go back to a simplistic and inaccurate narrative where we were basically perfect from our founding, where we don’t need to tell the unpleasant truths about slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all the other injustices. But there is another story of America, one of imperfection but progress. In this story, which is far more accurate, reformers have changed this nation many, many times for the better. From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Ruth Bader Ginsberg to, more recently, Stacey Abrams, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chris Smalls (who led the victory of Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse workers), Jaz Brisack (who led Starbucks workers), and Maxwell Alejandro Frost (the first Gen-Z elected to Congress), and many others — individuals have repeatedly changed the course of history by refusing to believe that they could not stand up to repression, bigotry, and injustice. You don’t have to be famous to be an agent of positive change. You don’t have to hold formal office to be a leader. Change happens when selfless individuals, some of whose names we will never know, give their energies and risk their livelihoods (and sometimes their lives) to make the world more humane. Small actions and victories lead to bigger ones, and the improbable becomes possible.Look, I know: The struggle can be exhausting. No one can go all in, all the time. That’s why we need to build communities and movements for action, where people give what effort they can, and are buoyed in solidarity with others. That’s what we’re doing in a small way in this forum. Building community. Sharing information and analyses. Fortifying our commitment.The reason I write this newsletter is not just to inform (and occasionally amuse) you, but also to arm you with the truth — about how the system works and doesn’t, where power is located and where it’s lacking, and the myths and lies used by those who are blocking positive social change — so you can fight more effectively for the common good.Here’s my deal. I’ll continue to give you the facts and arguments, even sprinkle in drawings and videos. I’ll do whatever I can to help strengthen your understanding and resolve, and give you the information you need. In return, please use the facts, arguments, drawings and videos to continue the fight. To fight harder. And enlist others. (And, if you can, support this effort with a paid or gift subscription.)If at any time you feel helpless or despairing, remind yourself that the fight for democracy, social justice, and a sustainable planet is noble. The stakes could not be higher. And we w

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we look at the highs and lows of the week. But since today is Christmas Eve we thought we’d talk about what Christmas means to us. Please grab a cup and pull up a chair. And also take our poll. 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

Friends,Congress is on track in the coming week to give final approval to a national military budget for the fiscal year that is expected to reach about $858 billion — or $45 billion more than President Biden had requested and 8 percent more than last year. This is its highest level of military spending (adjusted for inflation) since the peaks in the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars between 2008 and 2011. It’s the second-highest military spending since World War II. It’s more than the budgets for the next 10 largest cabinet agencies combined. It’s larger than the military spending of the next 10 largest military powers in the world combined. Expect it to be even more. Congress is considering an extra $21.7 billion for the Pentagon to resupply materials used in Ukraine.Don’t fall for the myth that this humongous sum is going to our troops. What’s spiking is spending on weapons (including a 55 percent jump in Army funding for new missiles and a 47 percent jump for the Navy’s weapons purchases). All told, more than half of this giant spending budget is going to for-profit companies (such as Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, BAE, and Northrop Grumman) whose stock prices are surging. The profits are going into executive pay, shareholder dividends, and stock buybacks. This is the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned of *— on steroids. And yet, there’s almost no debate. Why? Most Americans aren’t aware of what’s happening. And many of those who do know aren’t tracking the humongous size of this relative to previous military spending. And no one is hearing any arguments on the other side.Yes, of course, America has to worry about Putin, China, Iran, and North Korea. But before deciding to spend so much, we might at least expect some, er, discussion. How on Earth are we supposed to believe we “can’t afford” paid family leave, an expanded child tax credit, Medicare for all, or universal pre-K when our politicians are willing to spend $858 billion on the military without batting an eye?Worse yet: No one knows where all this the money is going. The Pentagon just failed its annual audit for the fifth year in a row. “I would not say that we flunked,” said DoD Comptroller Mike McCord, although his office did admit that the Pentagon only managed to account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. The U.S. military is the only U.S. government agency to have never passed a comprehensive audit.Cost-overruns are legion. The Pentagon’s failed F-35 program has exceeded its original budget by $165 billion to date. It’s projected to cost more than $1.7 trillion. “Guns versus butter” is the old story. Now it’s extraordinary bloat versus unnecessary misery for American families struggling with a cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by inflation. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that most American workers have become poorer over the past year because their real wages haven’t kept up with inflation.Nearly two-thirds of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. So back to my question: Why no real debate? Because support for military spending is bipartisan. No lawmaker wants to be portrayed as weak on national defense. Democrats have been jumping onto the military spending bandwagon as fast as Republicans. Bipartisanship is not always good. In fact, it’s a problem when, as now, the lack of political conflict means no news. Absent political conflict, there’s no story. Without a story, there’s no debate or discussion in the media. Absent any debate in the media, most Americans have no idea what’s happening. We’re sleepwalking through history. ___* Eisenhower’s words from April 16,1953: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.". 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