If the Justice Department would stop dragging their feet by indicting and prosecuting Trump we could get past this. I’m absolutely confounded. What in the hell are they waiting for? Trump to literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue?
Ruth Sheets ; The pundits are already suggesting that even if he is a candidate, there may be reason to stop any charges! They are in cahoots with him. Follow the money.
If anyone thinks drumpf will simply fade away if we all--including media--"just say no"...i.e., ignore him, they are deluding themselves. We don't--or certainly shouldn't--ignore the signs of cancer, do we? drumpf is a metastasizing cancer and we ignore those signals at our peril.
Daniel Solomon : If tRump has not given enough evidence of his mens rea, or intent by now, what will? He is not going to go under oath, which seems to be the biggest excuse for not counting evidence of his obvious mens rea on TV , in the press, at his 'rallies' and Social media platform.
Looks like cumulative evidence, but he puts his head in nooses every day.
IMHO new counts of obstruction. Some crimes require specific intent, others general intent. Some are crimes in and of themselves, mala phohibida, and don't need a showing of intent.
Daniel Solomon : It looks like there are lots of technicalities to keep him from being prosecuted. Seems like he has been given 'plenty of rope to hang himself'. Maybe there is no will to really charge him. And that sucks. Why should anyone respect the DOJ now? He is obviously guilty. Only a finding of mental incapacity would justify any more time wasting. The excuse that he will be a candidate is pathetic. He fomented a Sedition!
The DOJ under Barr prevented the possibility of an indictment. In the meantime, Former District Attorney Jeoffrey,Berman in his book was clear about why tRump hasn't been indicted. AG Barr prevented it.
T.L., I agree Trump cannot be ignored, but it would behoove media to cut down on the number of times they include his comments in their reports, maybe doing a 1-minute summary of his shenanigans each week or so just so everyone will know what he is up to and that it is harmful to our nation to follow what an old man like Trump is spouting in his dementia. Trump has no new ideas, if he ever had any. He does not "love" his followers as he claims. He is ignorant of nearly everything except how to cheat and he does not seem to be able to discern between lies and the truth. The media helped set Trump up for success when they refused to identify his lies as lies and highly praised Trump on the few occasions when he acted civilly or presidential. From the time Trump entered the 2016 campaign, the media hung on every stupid, ridiculous word and claim the man made. He was either the first or second news story at every broadcast, even if he said nothing of value or that was "new." We all learned that name recognition, spouting hate and fear, and reality TV are powerful in getting scared white people to support someone, even someone with no experience, know knowledge, and a lack of care for anyone but himself. Cover Trump, but sparingly!
I don't disagree, but as long as drumpf coverage draws watchers, the media will continue to cover him and he knows it...however, they do now call out his lies as lies, and point out all the legal trouble he faces. It's a vicious circle, but I don't see the media voluntarily ceasing to cover drumpf...I'm afraid it is going to be up to the public to turn off the media coverage of the orange crud.
T L Mills ; I agree, but I would add, the media should stop with the big color photos of him. He loves that. If they must have pictures, don't flatter him with his 'best side'.But no pictures would be best.
I don't mind the media reporting on his doings or his "rallies" or grifting gatherings or whatever he calls them but, yes, like you, I'd prefer not to see or hear the big whiny overgrown toddler at all...but that won't make him go away, either.
You’re right that drumpf won’t simply fade away if we all start trying to ignore him. But that doesn’t mean we need to provide him with a megaphone. 

And you’re right they’re ignoring a cancer is a bad idea, but that doesn’t mean that you deal with it by feeding it so it grows larger. 
drumpf should be denied admission to as many platforms as possible, and the cancer he represents should be fought by using those platforms to broadcast messages that strengthen our democracy rather than undermine it.
Its not like Bob is advocating Trump's positions.....he's not in the least. But its good to have them put in context and to be reminded to never let up opposing him and the other Radicals on the right. After all, you do believe in free speech?
Thank you, this is GOOD!!! I would emphasize, that the extremest groups/organizations are being used by an Oligarchy of Plutocrats, who seek to divide and conquer the Majority in order to retain their wealth & power and simultaneously, gain more wealth & power... fueled by Selfishness/ Greed.
I agree! How many give David Duke the time of Day? How much do you see him on media anymore? Trump is a little more disguised, but it’s is in the same direction . The only thing I can see with Trump is in his pajamas put to bed with his Teddy Bear because he emotionally has never grown up.
Roxanna, yes, Trump and his teddy bear! He never had to grow up because there was always someone around who could cover for him, pay him out of a jam, pretend Trump has knowledge beyond how to cheat and keep him from accountability. When one never has to assume responsibilities of adulthood, they remain toddlers. Trump's handlers know he is a toddler, but the money or the intermittent rewards are good, so they stay. Power probably plays a big part in it too. It would help and does help whenever mainstream media point out when Trump is disjointed and not making sense or explain where he got something wrong. The media doing this is not common but should be. Maybe Trump's teddy bear should be loaded with an inspirational message that he should stay home, shut up, and play golf, leaving the rest of the country alone. Over and over, it might break through.
Yeah, I believe Trump is on the downside, on the way to his political grave. The interest now revolves around those Radicals vying to take his place. Such a shit show.
True, but he is still at it. I read in the Guardian this morning that the Reawaken Project is hot on the trail and expanding its mission for his run in 2024. Even tho I can’t imagine it, because I think he’s insane, many never thought he could win in 2016 either. Nothing ever surprises me anymore.
Totally agree! Certain Native Americans and other cultures around the world adopt the ERASE method of dealing with their criminals. The individual's name, story, history is simply removed from all records and never spoken again. THAT is how you remove Trump from society and it also happens to be the most painful punishment possible for a personality like Trump that thrives on attention of any kind!
Yes! Media has the power to make or break candidates, nominations, ideas, cultural and political trends. It’s a long list. tfg has been given a gift by msm from the beginning: free media coverage, which can be negative and true or even false. No matter to a narcissist who must revel in seeing his name in print. A billboard. And it works. Who doesn’t know his name? The repubs can and do support him because he still has a following. The media and repub party should be held and are accountable for the damage tfg and repubs wreak on our Democracy. His name in the history books. Another gift. A 2016 BBC news article:”Donald Trump: How the media created the President.” https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37952249
Thanks. Too bad the BBC hasn't done the same for the UK. They must have the most irresponsible media in the 'free' world. They'll hold anyone accountable as long as they're Labour. Tories get a free pass. Oh, lest I forget....and you won't see this on BBC....Richard Sharp, the current chairman of the BBC was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.
Hey, some of us find Trump’s rants entertaining and are glad to see him back on social media. He may not contribute much to public discourse, but some of what he says is quite amusing.
Though amusing, his underlying personality defects and criminality/preference to use violence are reasons to not give him the megaphone-too many out there who will slavish do/say/approve of whatever he does.
Jan 30, 2023·edited Jan 31, 2023Liked by Robert Reich
A few replies to Prof. Bork:
“How do you expect courts to measure political power?”
In an era decades before SCOTUS’s Citizens United decision, political power could be calculated by the dollar, and the government had the right to regulate corporations’ donations to insure that government did not become a wholly-owned subsidiary of those corporations.
“Employees are always free to find better jobs.”
So spoke a tenured-for-life professor who could be fired only for cause.
“Lower prices are good for consumers.”
Companies lower prices for one reason only: to build market share, ideally to the point that they acquire their competitors or force them to go out of business. At the point that they achieve overwhelming control of the market with no serious competitors, they then raise their prices. And raise their prices. And raise their prices.
“Also good for consumers. Large size means lower costs through efficiencies of scale.”
Efficiencies that are then passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buy-backs, and to top executives in the form of raises, bonuses and stock options. Lower prices do not follow lower costs as darkness follows day.
Brief and well said. A perfect synopsis of Bork's narrow and simplitic views. And thus we came to embrace Reaganomics "tinkled on" theory of Capitalism.
In something of a corollary to “you can fool all of the people some of the time,” etc. that may, or may not, have been said by Lincoln, meeting the needs of the many is complicated and messy, whereas serving the desires of the rich is simple. And serving the desires of the rich while merely giving the ILLUSION of meeting the needs of the many is invariably simplistic.
Avie, I like your idea that "serving the desires of the rich is simple." I hadn't thought of that as a principle conservatives cling to before. They do and they also want to think that serving the rich takes care of the needs of the poor too. That is nuts, but the truth is, conservatives choose to clamp onto the simplistic and try as hard as they can to mold it into something they can use to convince their followers that stupid stuff like tax breaks for the rich will somehow help them, the working-class person. It's a lie of course, but its simplicity woos a whole lot of the folks who are either too busy or too frustrated to think clearly and logically. When they do find they have been bamboozled, they can't accept it, so they double down and support it more strongly than before. It must work. Someone is keeping it from trickling down to me. They are right except that the plan is that nothing will ultimately trickle down to them which is just what the rich want. Bork and his ilk were totally OK with this scenario. Blaming the workers is an old trope that still works. The Fed is keeping it alive for this generation, blaming inflation on the rise in workers' wages.
I don't think for one minute that Republicans believe that serving the desires of the rich also takes care of the needs of everyone else. That a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats crap is just that: crap, a cynical catchphrase meant to swindle the consumers of lies they depend on to harvest votes, and they know it. All a rising tide ever does is submerge a boat deeper when the boat's got a hole in its hull, which describes the lives of millons and millions who live paycheck to paycheck and in debt; they're drowning, and Republicans don't care any more than their privileged masters do.
Rebekha, Bork was a tinkle-down economist. Business should be able to do whatever it wanted as long as it made profits and the workers, they should just either accept what the employers wanted to pay them or go elsewhere. Yeah, elsewhere when the corporate facility was the only business in town because it had bought up everything else! Bork actually was pretty ignorant of a whole lot.
Indeed. Unregulated capitalism ultimately leads to oligopoly/monopoly because one entity can always do something incrementally cheaper and drive out competition, leading to your last point. The next step is throttling the regulations and the regulators, the "administrative state" as it were.
Robert, workers were not exactly "free" to form unions. There were and are so many forces against forming unions, which is why so few workers have unions. Corporations can do a myriad of things to undermine unions and workers have few rights in the process. Bork knew well that unions were not going to come back as a powerful force as they were in the '40s and '50s. It's funny that Bork and company want the '50s back but of course, without unions and anything to get in the way of white male supremacy. They want a fantasyland where they are in charge and everyone bows and scrapes to them. I suspect there are some conservative white guys in power who are nice and respectable as Bork was to Dr. Reich, but that does not stop their desire to do as much harm to workers and our democracy as they can.
OMG! Abie, those were really good responses to Bork's flippant responses to the students' questions in Bork's classes. I am pleased the young people spoke up, but clearly they did not have any positive impact on Bork's thinking, perhaps even making him even more conservative by speaking his beliefs cemented them in his mind. It seems to me Bork proved that one can be a nice person, even a respected one while also having little respect for those who are not like him, who have to struggle to make a living. He clearly loved corporations and what they could do to and with workers. Having read Dr. Reich's article, I am still pleased Bork never got onto the SC. It is too bad his resentment turned into something even darker than his original antitrust positions.
A lot of the things said in describing Bork is what a lot of people say about Clarence Thomas, whose trajectory onto the Court was not interdicted by a vigilant Senate: on personal level a swell guy, but his statements and votes on the Court say he (and his wife) are nothing if not agents of the Devil.
Bork's entire stand on antitrust is nonsense as it is based on the conservative belief in power and thus by default rejects rights, such as the right of individuals to engage in commerce to support themselves through competition in the market place. This is an unenumerated right that is protected by the Ninth Amendment. Antitrust laws are necessary to control the aggregation of power obtained through mergers and acquisition, which is a normal consequence of economics, the aggregation of wealth and thus of power.
However, Bork in specific and conservatives in general reject the very concept of rights. There is no positive in conservatism. Bork was rightly denied a seat on the SCOTUS, all conservatives should be denied, but as conservatives have power in the electorate, they have a majority and that must be reversed if our liberal society is to progress.
You,ve seen the root of Miopic / Binary thinking from his own words. The ways of the simple mind can even be embraced by the well educated who lack any empathy.
Completely correct! It still puzzles me that so many apparently well-educated people don't understand that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)
He had been a registered Socialist, worked for the Socialist Party but switched allegiances to Stevenson in 1952. At the time he was living in Chicago, in Stevenson's home state. He became an acolyte of .the Freedman/Ayn Rand school of economics while a student at the University of Chicago.
IMHO his fatal flaw was that he valued economics over everything else. He couldn't rationalize his socialist past and accept the cultural revolution of the '60's. .
He certainly wasn't the first a-hole offered to be a justice. It started when Madison appointed Alexander Wolcott who was rejected.
Abe Fortas, friend of LBJ, became the first Supreme Court justice to resign under threat of impeachment. LBJ tried to name him chief justice, but conservative senators mounted a filibuster using as a wedge issue Fortas’ acceptance of a $15,000 fee for a series of university seminars. When supporters could muster only 45 of the 59 votes needed to end debate, Fortas asked the president to withdraw his name — becoming the first nominee for that post since 1795 to fail to win Senate approval. Fortas resigned after it turned out in 1966 Fortas took a secret retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client subsequently imprisoned for securities violations. The deal provided that in return for unspecified advice, Fortas was to receive $20,000 a year for life. Embarrassed, disclosure of the retainer effectively ended Fortas’ judicial career.
Nixon appointed Haynsworth, opposed by a coalition of Democrats (possibly in retaliation for the Republicans' rejection of Fortas as Chief Justice), Rockefeller Republicans, and the NAACP. He was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and of being anti-labor. Nixon nominated Carswell for the Supreme Court in 1970 after the Senate rejected his nomination of Clement J. Haynsworth in a battle over ethics and civil rights. The Senate rejected Carswell after reporters uncovered a speech in which he endorsed racial segregation as a legislative candidate in Georgia..
The Dork's supporters knew all of this. Ironically, many of them were and continue to be culture warriors. He opposed legalizing abortion, and the one-man, one-vote principle. He initially opposed what became the 1964 law guaranteeing blacks access to public accommodations, a keystone of the civil rights revolution. And he later defended Virginia’s poll tax, dismissing complaints that the tax discouraged black voting on the grounds that the tax was too small to have “much impact on the welfare of the nation.” So much for his socialist past.
Thanks, Daniel, for the history review. You and I are old enough to remember the Fortas imbroglio and the succeeding Nixon nominations. Fun stuff. Fortas took Arthur Goldberg's seat after LBJ convinced him to resign and take the UN Ambassador job. The machinations and revenge dynamics regarding SCOTUS appointments are obvious rejoinders to the "apolitical" idea of the judiciary. It's always about power, and it's always partisan. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Daniel, thank you for the info about Bork. I already found him unacceptable but didn't know that his past would have made him even less acceptable to me. I knew when Reagan nominated him that there must be some kind of underhanded reason. There were so many other people who would have been better (I can't remember now, but knew then), but he chose Bork who always sounded to me when I heard him speak, smug, overbearing, and dismissive. That may have come from his education or just that he actually did feel superior to everyone else. He didn't have the contempt in his voice that Alito has, but it was disconcerting hearing him anyway.
I awaited your post this morning with great interest. You seem to have found the words necessary to bring further context to today's discussion. thank you.
The spokesman for the Chicago school for most of our lives has been Richard Posner, former chief judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, author and a member of the faculty at U of C. He and the dork were symbiotic until recently, when he had an epiphany. Apparently he now recognizes that the little guy has no hope against the interests of big business. Maybe he took Robert's course. But he also may or may not have Alzheimer's.
Since I live within the Seventh Circuit, I have read some of Posner's opinions. I remember that, in one of them, he likened a school athletic director to a box of paper clips.
Interestingly, Bernie Sanders also graduated from the University of Chicago.
He was IMHO out of control -- and wrong -- on the basis of false assumptions. By rights he was the spokesman for conservatism and we should be grateful he was not named to SCOTUS.
Bit I am grateful that he now sees the error of the religion of "efficiency."
I think he is correct about the rule of law of immigration. Everyone needs to be represented by competent lawyers. I also think he had the "number" of Amy Coney Barrett, a little leaguer playing with pros. He should have been called as a witness at her confirmation.
Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings are a farce, and the Bork hearings are a good example. His roll in the Saturday night massacre was sufficient reason to deny Bork a seat on the court, but it wasn't the focus of the hearing.
The office of Supreme Court justice is an extremely political office. Many supreme court decisions are clearly attempts to rationalize and justify the justices' policy preferences. Yet candidates (both liberal and conservative) refuse to answer questions about how they would rule on pending cases on grounds that don't make much sense. The only way to end the charade wold be for senators of both parties to refuse to confirm a candidate who evaded policy questions. Fat chance.
Watching the confirmation hearings, one is struck by the fundamental dishonesty of all the candidates. They all claim that once on the court they will merely interpret the law, while even a cursory reading of many opinions shows that frequently the clear meaning of the statutes cited barely constrain their opinion at all. It's hard to have any respect for people who are either blatantly dishonest or completely blinded by confirmation bias.
Alan, I, too find the confirmation hearings problematic. I listened to parts of all the hearings that were televised or snippits from them since the 1980s. I believe you are right in your assessment that there is little to no honesty on the part of the candidates. I find more candor and "honesty" on the part of the Democratic nominees, probably because they are generally appointed because of the high quality of their work on previous courts. It has seemed that the conservatives are often appointed to "fix" a particular issue the Republican party wants taken care of: abortion ban, voting rights limitations, corporate power extended, religious rights extended for anti-LGBTQ persons, advancement of people of color and immigrants halted, etc. The conservatives have mostly been able to get their issues handled, while the "libarals" serve as the dissenters who try to say "no" to the loss of rights, but are impotent. It is sad, but this court is very similar to the courts of the 1850s and 1890s when some of the worst rulings came down, in my opinion.
What a truly fascinating read. I was unaware of your history with Bork. You have brought a nuanced understanding to his place in our political history. He never really understood the effect of power upon the disenfranchised. That attitude is what we "woke liberals" most despise, is it not? That the "entitled", or the "comfortable" among us simply are incapable of fathoming what their "objective" policies do to people not of their class or station or race. It's like they lack the empathy gene. Or, as is ceaselessly pointed out, these mostly "Christian" citizens who also espouse the erosion of the wall between church and state (with the aim of instilling "Judeo-Christian values" in our children at school) seem to have no clue what their proto-Christian hero actually preached. But you might say the same for other right wing luminaries, like William F. Buckley, for example. Clueless intellectuals without a heart.
Kerry, I do think they know at least some of the impact of their cherished policies. I do believe many of them are OK with the cruelty those policies show toward the poor and otherwise disenfranchised. I do believe cruelty is the point. The aim to be sure those people are kept in a state where they will never challenge the supremacy of the rich, mostly white males who espouse those policies. Cruelty is the point!
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is, and is often the only, protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Bork was absolutely the extremist Kennedy described, but like all of the extremists of the Reagan coterie -- the neo-Confederates who gave us the "Reagan Revolution" of tactical culture wars in service to the Republicans' strategic class war -- Bork carefully maintained a veneer of plausible deniability, including lip service to superficial approval of broadening civil rights. The only difference between Bork and Barr is that Barr's veneer is thinner and his abuse of power for the restoration and perpetuation of the United States' self-colonized principal organizing principle -- patriarchal White Christian totalitarianism -- is more transparent. Your view of Bork is far too generous based on your personal emotional proximity to him. He was a lying liar who was advancing White power even when he claimed it wasn't driving his ideology.
Bob, yes, Bork was a white supremacist who hid it in his discriminatory economics beliefs. He knew that what he wanted economically would be devastating to Black workers as well as poor workers of every race and ethnicity. He knew "Trickle-down" was a joke and that it was meant to pump up the rich, giving them more power they did not deserve. If this had not been the case, he would not have helped steer the ship of the cultural wars that arose in the late '80s and '90s. I suspect he was very proud of his efforts on behalf of white America, but just couldn't say it for fear he might not look like the poor scorned guy he saw himself as and wanted all Americans to see him as. Ted Kennedy had it right, although a bit dramatized. I still feel the Senate was right keeping him off the court. I wish the Senate had also kept Scalia and Thomas off the court back then too.
I liked this article Professor. While not fully understanding the issues at the time, the whole affair seemed somewhat off. And your article makes sense because you see through ideas and can look at the person and where they are coming from. We need more of that today. From my vantage, the Supreme Court Justice nomination fight with Robert Bork was not the cause of future incivility in our political discourse. Rather it was the excuse used to go full steam ahead with a policy of doing anything to achieve an end. I think even if Bork had been confirmed, we would be in a similar situation today with some other excuse being used to justify the same policy.
This is a wonderful essay! Thank you, Prof. Reich. There is great poignancy in the inability of the man for whom a new verb was created to comprehend the forces behind that verb.
As an aside. I am able to count on one hand the number of reporters and columnists who write about economics who actually have a degree or academic background in the field. Most of the people who write about it must be either learning on the job or just winging it?? Krugman comes to mind but he's the only one. If you know of anyone else I would be pleased to know.
99% of economists reject supply side economics. 90% reject trickle down theory.
However this is lost on business school and law school graduate programs. The Chicago school, ala Bork the dork, argued that legal rules and court decisions should be aimed at promoting efficiency. They believe that the role of the law is simply to alter the incentives of individuals and organizations to achieve that end.
This logic undermines the concept of justice. And our Constitution is not a "capitalist" document. As a matter of fact, we have always had a mixed economy. and it protects minority rights. The first thing the founders did was amend the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights.
I've grown to value the Preamble the most as it lists the 6 purposes of government....as originalist as it gets. Says nothing about efficiency or economics. And it doesn't mention corporations, just People. Hell, it doesn't even mention the form of government. Just the six purposes of
Corporations had little power until Rockefeller developed the law of trusts. That corporations are the same as people under the 14th Amendment is a fraud on history and on the public.
Daniel, I nearly always find it fascinating how easily so many people cling to crap theories that only a few people in a discipline espouse while ignoring what the vast majority of folks in the field do think work and that people will benefit from. That is not just in economics but also in science and other areas: COVID, evolution, global warming, statistics, and so much more. I guess there is an unhealthy strain in humanity that loves to be in the opposition when it comes to understanding how the world works. Flat Earth, really!
I found another in this morning's WP: HEATHER LONG, Editorial writer and columnist focused on the economy Education: Wellesley College, BA in economics and English ; Oxford University, master's in financial economics and medieval literature
Thank you for taking us back to the root of the matter with your own experience and your wisdom! This is not the first article in which you do this and I really appreciate how you have seamlessly threaded history for those of us who were born later, were too distracted by other things, or were born elsewhere.
I love reading about your experiences. The articles here would make a great basis for an autobiography. I also fully agree, from what I infer from your comments about several issues, with your moral philosophy. Although I too like some people with whose opinions I disagree (often vehemently), it's not easy; I think the nut to crack is identifying and understanding values. They come from deep inside and we have to garner the strength to constantly question and check them. Yes, Ted Kennedy went too far - for Bork. But his sentiments during that speech are my fears too.
Bork's inability and unwillingness to understand the cruelty, destructiveness, inequality, and stupidity in his world view was fundamental to people of his age group. What do you mean, not fair? He was asking. Not fair to whom? Blacks, women, Indians? They don't count. The appalling fact is how those stupid, cruel, etc views have regained the power.
Thank you for the enlightening perspective. Bork might have been treated unfairly in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but I don't think that alone marked the end of civil discourse in national politics and government. There was also Newt Gingrich in the House of Representatives agitating, successfully, with false and misleading accusations to have House Speaker Jim Wright removed from office.
If Bork thought dissatisfied or laid-off employees could easily find another job, he clearly did not anticipate non-compete agreements. Moreover, with a monopoly, there would be no other similar employer to move to. He may have been brilliant, but he seems to have lacked the imagination to envision the destructive nature of unchecked corporate power.
And if judges don't want to bother themselves with complex cases, then they should resign from the bench. As it is, these unelected judicial bureaucrats are substituting their uninformed opinions for the sound policies of those with expertise in their subject areas in Executive Branch agencies to unconstitutionally make government policy.
Open letter to the media,
Please stop broadcasting Trumps comments and speeches.
Trump manipulated people into participating in a violent insurrection to overthrow the government of the United States.
Doesn't that concern you????
Anytime Trump speaks publicly, it is for his own benefit.
He is trying to gain approval with the public in hopes that his next insurrection will succeed.
When his followers hear or see him in the media it boosts their confidence in him and makes them more apt to do what he wants them to do.
Every time you put one of Donald Trumps speeches or comments out to the public, you are participating in Trumps next insurrection attempt.
Please, With all due respect:
Stop giving Trump a megaphone.
If the Justice Department would stop dragging their feet by indicting and prosecuting Trump we could get past this. I’m absolutely confounded. What in the hell are they waiting for? Trump to literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue?
Todd, they are waiting for the 2024 election when Garland will throw up his hands and say, "sorry we can't do anything during an election year."
Ruth Sheets ; The pundits are already suggesting that even if he is a candidate, there may be reason to stop any charges! They are in cahoots with him. Follow the money.
If anyone thinks drumpf will simply fade away if we all--including media--"just say no"...i.e., ignore him, they are deluding themselves. We don't--or certainly shouldn't--ignore the signs of cancer, do we? drumpf is a metastasizing cancer and we ignore those signals at our peril.
Double edged sword. Hardens his base. Useful in fleecing his flock
But I think that every time he opens his mouth he exposes his mens rea - criminal mentality.
I'm sure that his lawyers don't want his diarrhea of the mouth to undermine any defenses for his many potential charges.
Daniel Solomon : If tRump has not given enough evidence of his mens rea, or intent by now, what will? He is not going to go under oath, which seems to be the biggest excuse for not counting evidence of his obvious mens rea on TV , in the press, at his 'rallies' and Social media platform.
Looks like cumulative evidence, but he puts his head in nooses every day.
IMHO new counts of obstruction. Some crimes require specific intent, others general intent. Some are crimes in and of themselves, mala phohibida, and don't need a showing of intent.
Daniel Solomon : It looks like there are lots of technicalities to keep him from being prosecuted. Seems like he has been given 'plenty of rope to hang himself'. Maybe there is no will to really charge him. And that sucks. Why should anyone respect the DOJ now? He is obviously guilty. Only a finding of mental incapacity would justify any more time wasting. The excuse that he will be a candidate is pathetic. He fomented a Sedition!
The DOJ under Barr prevented the possibility of an indictment. In the meantime, Former District Attorney Jeoffrey,Berman in his book was clear about why tRump hasn't been indicted. AG Barr prevented it.
T.L., I agree Trump cannot be ignored, but it would behoove media to cut down on the number of times they include his comments in their reports, maybe doing a 1-minute summary of his shenanigans each week or so just so everyone will know what he is up to and that it is harmful to our nation to follow what an old man like Trump is spouting in his dementia. Trump has no new ideas, if he ever had any. He does not "love" his followers as he claims. He is ignorant of nearly everything except how to cheat and he does not seem to be able to discern between lies and the truth. The media helped set Trump up for success when they refused to identify his lies as lies and highly praised Trump on the few occasions when he acted civilly or presidential. From the time Trump entered the 2016 campaign, the media hung on every stupid, ridiculous word and claim the man made. He was either the first or second news story at every broadcast, even if he said nothing of value or that was "new." We all learned that name recognition, spouting hate and fear, and reality TV are powerful in getting scared white people to support someone, even someone with no experience, know knowledge, and a lack of care for anyone but himself. Cover Trump, but sparingly!
I don't disagree, but as long as drumpf coverage draws watchers, the media will continue to cover him and he knows it...however, they do now call out his lies as lies, and point out all the legal trouble he faces. It's a vicious circle, but I don't see the media voluntarily ceasing to cover drumpf...I'm afraid it is going to be up to the public to turn off the media coverage of the orange crud.
T L Mills ; I agree, but I would add, the media should stop with the big color photos of him. He loves that. If they must have pictures, don't flatter him with his 'best side'.But no pictures would be best.
I don't mind the media reporting on his doings or his "rallies" or grifting gatherings or whatever he calls them but, yes, like you, I'd prefer not to see or hear the big whiny overgrown toddler at all...but that won't make him go away, either.
You’re right that drumpf won’t simply fade away if we all start trying to ignore him. But that doesn’t mean we need to provide him with a megaphone. 

And you’re right they’re ignoring a cancer is a bad idea, but that doesn’t mean that you deal with it by feeding it so it grows larger. 
drumpf should be denied admission to as many platforms as possible, and the cancer he represents should be fought by using those platforms to broadcast messages that strengthen our democracy rather than undermine it.
Its not like Bob is advocating Trump's positions.....he's not in the least. But its good to have them put in context and to be reminded to never let up opposing him and the other Radicals on the right. After all, you do believe in free speech?
Psyops are in control.
Jung would say there's a predisposition: collective racial subconscious. Social realism theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtfElCtAkWo
Thank you, this is GOOD!!! I would emphasize, that the extremest groups/organizations are being used by an Oligarchy of Plutocrats, who seek to divide and conquer the Majority in order to retain their wealth & power and simultaneously, gain more wealth & power... fueled by Selfishness/ Greed.
I agree! How many give David Duke the time of Day? How much do you see him on media anymore? Trump is a little more disguised, but it’s is in the same direction . The only thing I can see with Trump is in his pajamas put to bed with his Teddy Bear because he emotionally has never grown up.
Roxanna, yes, Trump and his teddy bear! He never had to grow up because there was always someone around who could cover for him, pay him out of a jam, pretend Trump has knowledge beyond how to cheat and keep him from accountability. When one never has to assume responsibilities of adulthood, they remain toddlers. Trump's handlers know he is a toddler, but the money or the intermittent rewards are good, so they stay. Power probably plays a big part in it too. It would help and does help whenever mainstream media point out when Trump is disjointed and not making sense or explain where he got something wrong. The media doing this is not common but should be. Maybe Trump's teddy bear should be loaded with an inspirational message that he should stay home, shut up, and play golf, leaving the rest of the country alone. Over and over, it might break through.
Thanks....I forgot about the Teddy Bear.
I didn’t see a mention of Trump in this article about Bork.
Robert Reich is essentially showing the path from Bork to today.
Yes
Yeah, I believe Trump is on the downside, on the way to his political grave. The interest now revolves around those Radicals vying to take his place. Such a shit show.
True, but he is still at it. I read in the Guardian this morning that the Reawaken Project is hot on the trail and expanding its mission for his run in 2024. Even tho I can’t imagine it, because I think he’s insane, many never thought he could win in 2016 either. Nothing ever surprises me anymore.
Totally agree! Certain Native Americans and other cultures around the world adopt the ERASE method of dealing with their criminals. The individual's name, story, history is simply removed from all records and never spoken again. THAT is how you remove Trump from society and it also happens to be the most painful punishment possible for a personality like Trump that thrives on attention of any kind!
AGREE! And our media "thrives" on ratings and anxiety. It is time to start eliminating it and get to real facts.
Yes! Media has the power to make or break candidates, nominations, ideas, cultural and political trends. It’s a long list. tfg has been given a gift by msm from the beginning: free media coverage, which can be negative and true or even false. No matter to a narcissist who must revel in seeing his name in print. A billboard. And it works. Who doesn’t know his name? The repubs can and do support him because he still has a following. The media and repub party should be held and are accountable for the damage tfg and repubs wreak on our Democracy. His name in the history books. Another gift. A 2016 BBC news article:”Donald Trump: How the media created the President.” https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-37952249
Thanks. Too bad the BBC hasn't done the same for the UK. They must have the most irresponsible media in the 'free' world. They'll hold anyone accountable as long as they're Labour. Tories get a free pass. Oh, lest I forget....and you won't see this on BBC....Richard Sharp, the current chairman of the BBC was an advisor to Boris Johnson during his tenure as London Mayor, and to Rishi Sunak as Chancellor. He has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party.
I concur with your comment completely!
My very thought. Thanks
Hey, some of us find Trump’s rants entertaining and are glad to see him back on social media. He may not contribute much to public discourse, but some of what he says is quite amusing.
Though amusing, his underlying personality defects and criminality/preference to use violence are reasons to not give him the megaphone-too many out there who will slavish do/say/approve of whatever he does.
They can't it's an addiction. There are so many news shows today that repeat and repeat the same news. Without him, they would seem even more boring.
AMEN!
But I certainly agree with your statement
A few replies to Prof. Bork:
“How do you expect courts to measure political power?”
In an era decades before SCOTUS’s Citizens United decision, political power could be calculated by the dollar, and the government had the right to regulate corporations’ donations to insure that government did not become a wholly-owned subsidiary of those corporations.
“Employees are always free to find better jobs.”
So spoke a tenured-for-life professor who could be fired only for cause.
“Lower prices are good for consumers.”
Companies lower prices for one reason only: to build market share, ideally to the point that they acquire their competitors or force them to go out of business. At the point that they achieve overwhelming control of the market with no serious competitors, they then raise their prices. And raise their prices. And raise their prices.
“Also good for consumers. Large size means lower costs through efficiencies of scale.”
Efficiencies that are then passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buy-backs, and to top executives in the form of raises, bonuses and stock options. Lower prices do not follow lower costs as darkness follows day.
Brief and well said. A perfect synopsis of Bork's narrow and simplitic views. And thus we came to embrace Reaganomics "tinkled on" theory of Capitalism.
In something of a corollary to “you can fool all of the people some of the time,” etc. that may, or may not, have been said by Lincoln, meeting the needs of the many is complicated and messy, whereas serving the desires of the rich is simple. And serving the desires of the rich while merely giving the ILLUSION of meeting the needs of the many is invariably simplistic.
Avie, I like your idea that "serving the desires of the rich is simple." I hadn't thought of that as a principle conservatives cling to before. They do and they also want to think that serving the rich takes care of the needs of the poor too. That is nuts, but the truth is, conservatives choose to clamp onto the simplistic and try as hard as they can to mold it into something they can use to convince their followers that stupid stuff like tax breaks for the rich will somehow help them, the working-class person. It's a lie of course, but its simplicity woos a whole lot of the folks who are either too busy or too frustrated to think clearly and logically. When they do find they have been bamboozled, they can't accept it, so they double down and support it more strongly than before. It must work. Someone is keeping it from trickling down to me. They are right except that the plan is that nothing will ultimately trickle down to them which is just what the rich want. Bork and his ilk were totally OK with this scenario. Blaming the workers is an old trope that still works. The Fed is keeping it alive for this generation, blaming inflation on the rise in workers' wages.
I don't think for one minute that Republicans believe that serving the desires of the rich also takes care of the needs of everyone else. That a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats crap is just that: crap, a cynical catchphrase meant to swindle the consumers of lies they depend on to harvest votes, and they know it. All a rising tide ever does is submerge a boat deeper when the boat's got a hole in its hull, which describes the lives of millons and millions who live paycheck to paycheck and in debt; they're drowning, and Republicans don't care any more than their privileged masters do.
Point!
Rebekha, Bork was a tinkle-down economist. Business should be able to do whatever it wanted as long as it made profits and the workers, they should just either accept what the employers wanted to pay them or go elsewhere. Yeah, elsewhere when the corporate facility was the only business in town because it had bought up everything else! Bork actually was pretty ignorant of a whole lot.
Dear Ruth,
As we all are from time to time.
Indeed. Unregulated capitalism ultimately leads to oligopoly/monopoly because one entity can always do something incrementally cheaper and drive out competition, leading to your last point. The next step is throttling the regulations and the regulators, the "administrative state" as it were.
Bork failed to bring up that employees were free to form unions.
Robert, workers were not exactly "free" to form unions. There were and are so many forces against forming unions, which is why so few workers have unions. Corporations can do a myriad of things to undermine unions and workers have few rights in the process. Bork knew well that unions were not going to come back as a powerful force as they were in the '40s and '50s. It's funny that Bork and company want the '50s back but of course, without unions and anything to get in the way of white male supremacy. They want a fantasyland where they are in charge and everyone bows and scrapes to them. I suspect there are some conservative white guys in power who are nice and respectable as Bork was to Dr. Reich, but that does not stop their desire to do as much harm to workers and our democracy as they can.
I considered mentioning collective bargaining , but it’s one more thing Bork surely wanted to find some legalistic justification for dismantling.
OMG! Abie, those were really good responses to Bork's flippant responses to the students' questions in Bork's classes. I am pleased the young people spoke up, but clearly they did not have any positive impact on Bork's thinking, perhaps even making him even more conservative by speaking his beliefs cemented them in his mind. It seems to me Bork proved that one can be a nice person, even a respected one while also having little respect for those who are not like him, who have to struggle to make a living. He clearly loved corporations and what they could do to and with workers. Having read Dr. Reich's article, I am still pleased Bork never got onto the SC. It is too bad his resentment turned into something even darker than his original antitrust positions.
A lot of the things said in describing Bork is what a lot of people say about Clarence Thomas, whose trajectory onto the Court was not interdicted by a vigilant Senate: on personal level a swell guy, but his statements and votes on the Court say he (and his wife) are nothing if not agents of the Devil.
So who got on the court in his stead? Souter?
Bork's entire stand on antitrust is nonsense as it is based on the conservative belief in power and thus by default rejects rights, such as the right of individuals to engage in commerce to support themselves through competition in the market place. This is an unenumerated right that is protected by the Ninth Amendment. Antitrust laws are necessary to control the aggregation of power obtained through mergers and acquisition, which is a normal consequence of economics, the aggregation of wealth and thus of power.
However, Bork in specific and conservatives in general reject the very concept of rights. There is no positive in conservatism. Bork was rightly denied a seat on the SCOTUS, all conservatives should be denied, but as conservatives have power in the electorate, they have a majority and that must be reversed if our liberal society is to progress.
You,ve seen the root of Miopic / Binary thinking from his own words. The ways of the simple mind can even be embraced by the well educated who lack any empathy.
Fantastic summary. Thank you!
Completely correct! It still puzzles me that so many apparently well-educated people don't understand that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)
Sorry Robert, but Bork was a dork.
He had been a registered Socialist, worked for the Socialist Party but switched allegiances to Stevenson in 1952. At the time he was living in Chicago, in Stevenson's home state. He became an acolyte of .the Freedman/Ayn Rand school of economics while a student at the University of Chicago.
IMHO his fatal flaw was that he valued economics over everything else. He couldn't rationalize his socialist past and accept the cultural revolution of the '60's. .
He certainly wasn't the first a-hole offered to be a justice. It started when Madison appointed Alexander Wolcott who was rejected.
Abe Fortas, friend of LBJ, became the first Supreme Court justice to resign under threat of impeachment. LBJ tried to name him chief justice, but conservative senators mounted a filibuster using as a wedge issue Fortas’ acceptance of a $15,000 fee for a series of university seminars. When supporters could muster only 45 of the 59 votes needed to end debate, Fortas asked the president to withdraw his name — becoming the first nominee for that post since 1795 to fail to win Senate approval. Fortas resigned after it turned out in 1966 Fortas took a secret retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client subsequently imprisoned for securities violations. The deal provided that in return for unspecified advice, Fortas was to receive $20,000 a year for life. Embarrassed, disclosure of the retainer effectively ended Fortas’ judicial career.
Nixon appointed Haynsworth, opposed by a coalition of Democrats (possibly in retaliation for the Republicans' rejection of Fortas as Chief Justice), Rockefeller Republicans, and the NAACP. He was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and of being anti-labor. Nixon nominated Carswell for the Supreme Court in 1970 after the Senate rejected his nomination of Clement J. Haynsworth in a battle over ethics and civil rights. The Senate rejected Carswell after reporters uncovered a speech in which he endorsed racial segregation as a legislative candidate in Georgia..
The Dork's supporters knew all of this. Ironically, many of them were and continue to be culture warriors. He opposed legalizing abortion, and the one-man, one-vote principle. He initially opposed what became the 1964 law guaranteeing blacks access to public accommodations, a keystone of the civil rights revolution. And he later defended Virginia’s poll tax, dismissing complaints that the tax discouraged black voting on the grounds that the tax was too small to have “much impact on the welfare of the nation.” So much for his socialist past.
Thanks, Daniel, for the history review. You and I are old enough to remember the Fortas imbroglio and the succeeding Nixon nominations. Fun stuff. Fortas took Arthur Goldberg's seat after LBJ convinced him to resign and take the UN Ambassador job. The machinations and revenge dynamics regarding SCOTUS appointments are obvious rejoinders to the "apolitical" idea of the judiciary. It's always about power, and it's always partisan. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Daniel, thank you for the info about Bork. I already found him unacceptable but didn't know that his past would have made him even less acceptable to me. I knew when Reagan nominated him that there must be some kind of underhanded reason. There were so many other people who would have been better (I can't remember now, but knew then), but he chose Bork who always sounded to me when I heard him speak, smug, overbearing, and dismissive. That may have come from his education or just that he actually did feel superior to everyone else. He didn't have the contempt in his voice that Alito has, but it was disconcerting hearing him anyway.
I awaited your post this morning with great interest. You seem to have found the words necessary to bring further context to today's discussion. thank you.
Gee thanks.
The spokesman for the Chicago school for most of our lives has been Richard Posner, former chief judge of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, author and a member of the faculty at U of C. He and the dork were symbiotic until recently, when he had an epiphany. Apparently he now recognizes that the little guy has no hope against the interests of big business. Maybe he took Robert's course. But he also may or may not have Alzheimer's.
Since I live within the Seventh Circuit, I have read some of Posner's opinions. I remember that, in one of them, he likened a school athletic director to a box of paper clips.
Interestingly, Bernie Sanders also graduated from the University of Chicago.
Compared judges like me with chicken processors.
He was IMHO out of control -- and wrong -- on the basis of false assumptions. By rights he was the spokesman for conservatism and we should be grateful he was not named to SCOTUS.
Bit I am grateful that he now sees the error of the religion of "efficiency."
I think he is correct about the rule of law of immigration. Everyone needs to be represented by competent lawyers. I also think he had the "number" of Amy Coney Barrett, a little leaguer playing with pros. He should have been called as a witness at her confirmation.
Not everyone got covid who was exposed to it. Natural immunity?
Posner's Epiphany. Sounds like a Phillip Roth novel.
A man of mystery . https://lawliberty.org/features/the-mystery-of-richard-posner/
You know the history- I’m impressed!!
Daniel is our legal, constitutional & history expert. Such a wealth of information! His surname is so appropriate!
Supreme Court justice confirmation hearings are a farce, and the Bork hearings are a good example. His roll in the Saturday night massacre was sufficient reason to deny Bork a seat on the court, but it wasn't the focus of the hearing.
The office of Supreme Court justice is an extremely political office. Many supreme court decisions are clearly attempts to rationalize and justify the justices' policy preferences. Yet candidates (both liberal and conservative) refuse to answer questions about how they would rule on pending cases on grounds that don't make much sense. The only way to end the charade wold be for senators of both parties to refuse to confirm a candidate who evaded policy questions. Fat chance.
Watching the confirmation hearings, one is struck by the fundamental dishonesty of all the candidates. They all claim that once on the court they will merely interpret the law, while even a cursory reading of many opinions shows that frequently the clear meaning of the statutes cited barely constrain their opinion at all. It's hard to have any respect for people who are either blatantly dishonest or completely blinded by confirmation bias.
Alan, I, too find the confirmation hearings problematic. I listened to parts of all the hearings that were televised or snippits from them since the 1980s. I believe you are right in your assessment that there is little to no honesty on the part of the candidates. I find more candor and "honesty" on the part of the Democratic nominees, probably because they are generally appointed because of the high quality of their work on previous courts. It has seemed that the conservatives are often appointed to "fix" a particular issue the Republican party wants taken care of: abortion ban, voting rights limitations, corporate power extended, religious rights extended for anti-LGBTQ persons, advancement of people of color and immigrants halted, etc. The conservatives have mostly been able to get their issues handled, while the "libarals" serve as the dissenters who try to say "no" to the loss of rights, but are impotent. It is sad, but this court is very similar to the courts of the 1850s and 1890s when some of the worst rulings came down, in my opinion.
What a truly fascinating read. I was unaware of your history with Bork. You have brought a nuanced understanding to his place in our political history. He never really understood the effect of power upon the disenfranchised. That attitude is what we "woke liberals" most despise, is it not? That the "entitled", or the "comfortable" among us simply are incapable of fathoming what their "objective" policies do to people not of their class or station or race. It's like they lack the empathy gene. Or, as is ceaselessly pointed out, these mostly "Christian" citizens who also espouse the erosion of the wall between church and state (with the aim of instilling "Judeo-Christian values" in our children at school) seem to have no clue what their proto-Christian hero actually preached. But you might say the same for other right wing luminaries, like William F. Buckley, for example. Clueless intellectuals without a heart.
Kerry, I do think they know at least some of the impact of their cherished policies. I do believe many of them are OK with the cruelty those policies show toward the poor and otherwise disenfranchised. I do believe cruelty is the point. The aim to be sure those people are kept in a state where they will never challenge the supremacy of the rich, mostly white males who espouse those policies. Cruelty is the point!
I like your post. Well written and with candor. Most Observant.
Christianist citizens.
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is, and is often the only, protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Bork was absolutely the extremist Kennedy described, but like all of the extremists of the Reagan coterie -- the neo-Confederates who gave us the "Reagan Revolution" of tactical culture wars in service to the Republicans' strategic class war -- Bork carefully maintained a veneer of plausible deniability, including lip service to superficial approval of broadening civil rights. The only difference between Bork and Barr is that Barr's veneer is thinner and his abuse of power for the restoration and perpetuation of the United States' self-colonized principal organizing principle -- patriarchal White Christian totalitarianism -- is more transparent. Your view of Bork is far too generous based on your personal emotional proximity to him. He was a lying liar who was advancing White power even when he claimed it wasn't driving his ideology.
Bob, yes, Bork was a white supremacist who hid it in his discriminatory economics beliefs. He knew that what he wanted economically would be devastating to Black workers as well as poor workers of every race and ethnicity. He knew "Trickle-down" was a joke and that it was meant to pump up the rich, giving them more power they did not deserve. If this had not been the case, he would not have helped steer the ship of the cultural wars that arose in the late '80s and '90s. I suspect he was very proud of his efforts on behalf of white America, but just couldn't say it for fear he might not look like the poor scorned guy he saw himself as and wanted all Americans to see him as. Ted Kennedy had it right, although a bit dramatized. I still feel the Senate was right keeping him off the court. I wish the Senate had also kept Scalia and Thomas off the court back then too.
Another apparent difference is that Bork seemed to have a certain degree of integrity, which Barr shows no sign of having.
Robert, that was one of your best letters. Thanks so much for your rememerance of this complex man.
I liked this article Professor. While not fully understanding the issues at the time, the whole affair seemed somewhat off. And your article makes sense because you see through ideas and can look at the person and where they are coming from. We need more of that today. From my vantage, the Supreme Court Justice nomination fight with Robert Bork was not the cause of future incivility in our political discourse. Rather it was the excuse used to go full steam ahead with a policy of doing anything to achieve an end. I think even if Bork had been confirmed, we would be in a similar situation today with some other excuse being used to justify the same policy.
This is a wonderful essay! Thank you, Prof. Reich. There is great poignancy in the inability of the man for whom a new verb was created to comprehend the forces behind that verb.
As an aside. I am able to count on one hand the number of reporters and columnists who write about economics who actually have a degree or academic background in the field. Most of the people who write about it must be either learning on the job or just winging it?? Krugman comes to mind but he's the only one. If you know of anyone else I would be pleased to know.
99% of economists reject supply side economics. 90% reject trickle down theory.
However this is lost on business school and law school graduate programs. The Chicago school, ala Bork the dork, argued that legal rules and court decisions should be aimed at promoting efficiency. They believe that the role of the law is simply to alter the incentives of individuals and organizations to achieve that end.
This logic undermines the concept of justice. And our Constitution is not a "capitalist" document. As a matter of fact, we have always had a mixed economy. and it protects minority rights. The first thing the founders did was amend the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights.
I've grown to value the Preamble the most as it lists the 6 purposes of government....as originalist as it gets. Says nothing about efficiency or economics. And it doesn't mention corporations, just People. Hell, it doesn't even mention the form of government. Just the six purposes of
government.
Corporations had little power until Rockefeller developed the law of trusts. That corporations are the same as people under the 14th Amendment is a fraud on history and on the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co.
Thanks. Good to know.
Mr Solomon I look forward to learning from you. Thank you!!
Daniel, I nearly always find it fascinating how easily so many people cling to crap theories that only a few people in a discipline espouse while ignoring what the vast majority of folks in the field do think work and that people will benefit from. That is not just in economics but also in science and other areas: COVID, evolution, global warming, statistics, and so much more. I guess there is an unhealthy strain in humanity that loves to be in the opposition when it comes to understanding how the world works. Flat Earth, really!
And how many Congressmen on important committees? The most uneducated are making decisions that experts in the field cannot.
I'm not aware of any in the House except Katie Porter or Elizabeth in the Senate. Otherwise I believe they mostly rely on their think tanks....or not.
Liz, it seems committee membership in Congress is often at an inverse proportion to knowledge in the committee's job.
It certainly is on the Republican side.
I found another in this morning's WP: HEATHER LONG, Editorial writer and columnist focused on the economy Education: Wellesley College, BA in economics and English ; Oxford University, master's in financial economics and medieval literature
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/27/tech-layoffs-google-amazon-economy/?
WAPO had that idiot Robert Samuelson as its economics editor for many years.
Oh my God, Samuelson is such a moron. If he had his way, we'd spend another 500 billion a year on the Pentagon.
Yes. but I don't believe he actually had a degree in economics.
Thank you for taking us back to the root of the matter with your own experience and your wisdom! This is not the first article in which you do this and I really appreciate how you have seamlessly threaded history for those of us who were born later, were too distracted by other things, or were born elsewhere.
Mr. Reich,
I love reading about your experiences. The articles here would make a great basis for an autobiography. I also fully agree, from what I infer from your comments about several issues, with your moral philosophy. Although I too like some people with whose opinions I disagree (often vehemently), it's not easy; I think the nut to crack is identifying and understanding values. They come from deep inside and we have to garner the strength to constantly question and check them. Yes, Ted Kennedy went too far - for Bork. But his sentiments during that speech are my fears too.
How is it that intelligent people such as Bork can be so ignorant?
One only needs to open their eyes to plainly see the evidence before them.
This current Gilded Age is severely undermining our Democratic Republic.
Who will the winners be?
Contrary to Mitch McConnells claim that the future will take care of itself, our future is very much dependent on what we do today, in the present.
Bork's inability and unwillingness to understand the cruelty, destructiveness, inequality, and stupidity in his world view was fundamental to people of his age group. What do you mean, not fair? He was asking. Not fair to whom? Blacks, women, Indians? They don't count. The appalling fact is how those stupid, cruel, etc views have regained the power.
Thank you for the enlightening perspective. Bork might have been treated unfairly in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but I don't think that alone marked the end of civil discourse in national politics and government. There was also Newt Gingrich in the House of Representatives agitating, successfully, with false and misleading accusations to have House Speaker Jim Wright removed from office.
If Bork thought dissatisfied or laid-off employees could easily find another job, he clearly did not anticipate non-compete agreements. Moreover, with a monopoly, there would be no other similar employer to move to. He may have been brilliant, but he seems to have lacked the imagination to envision the destructive nature of unchecked corporate power.
And if judges don't want to bother themselves with complex cases, then they should resign from the bench. As it is, these unelected judicial bureaucrats are substituting their uninformed opinions for the sound policies of those with expertise in their subject areas in Executive Branch agencies to unconstitutionally make government policy.
Hear Hear !!! Illuinating and interesting observation.
Ted Kennedy was prescient. Maybevwrong about Bork, but we are headed that way now.