"what makes us a people. The most basic of such commitments are to democracy, the Constitution, equal political rights, equal opportunity, and the rule of law." These words define what it means to be an American' Wrapping one's arms around a flagpole and kissing the flag are not acts of patriotism, they are the acts of a clown shouting 'look at me'. That is not patriotic, that is desecration. I am an American by choice, not by accident of birth. Professor Reich's words are real patriotism, and thoughts I have always strived to follow from the day I became a citizen. Selfishness and greed are Unamerican. Kindness, tolerance, consideration, acceptance of differences, these are the characteristics of Real Americans.
Fay, beautifully said! I do wish some of the MAGA crowd could read what you wrote here. They are so wrapped up in the flag, they can't even see it anymore and what it means and meant to the people who fought, struggled, protested, and stood proudly under it. The flag in itself is nothing but cloth. When people live the ideas you describe here, then the flag and "national Anthem" have meaning. Without them, the flag and song mean very little, just a propaganda tool to be used by the unscrupulous.
It’s painfully obvious you aren’t a Veteran; Let alone someone who actually cares about the venerable flag and national anthem important virtues written in blood by true Americans and not the Cancel Culture Wokes!!!
Veterans didn't serve and die because of a flag and song; they did it due to what the flag and song represent. In America we don't have idols, we have values. The flag is just a symbol of all our firmly held beliefs of democracy. It is easy for anyone to walk around holding a flag and claim to be patriotic but to put personal sacrifice on the line for what that flag represents is true patriotism.
You are partially correct except our country is and has been a Constitutional Republic not a true democracy since its inception… Otherwise, it would’ve become led by Mob Rule instead of the work in progress we all share as citizens of the United States of America 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
That explains the disconnect in this country. Democracy is mob rule? Minority Rule "Democracy" as long as I get my way is good. Think,.. when more people vote against or don't want the President elected, we have the makings of revolution. This has been the case in most of our recent history. When the majority rise up you will understand why Authoritarianism in a flag or not, will not sustain.
Sorry to burst your progressive liberal bubble but the next thing won’t be a revolution but another civil war as has been happening since the infamous book called the Fourth Turning written by the renown William Strauss and Neil Howe … C’est la vie
As usual a conservative has it backwards. Sure we are a Constitutional Republic. But Democracy is far from mob rule. It's the self only attitude that you conservatives seem to embrace that leads to mob rule. You don't care about the poor and helpless. You have no consideration for human life. And you think that the rich will save us all somehow. So you want to give them welfare. And there are too many other examples to mention here. These are all examples that lead to mob rule. trump and his MAGAt followers exemplify mob rule. On the other hand Democrats want to help bring the poor out of poverty. When people get sick we want to help them. We want worldwide equality for every human on this Earth. Except for traitors like trump, who belong in prison. Democrats show true humanitarianism. It's the republicans who want another Civil War. Because they are not willing to compromise for the common good. They only want what they want. Even if it hurts everyone else. So tell us again how a true Democracy leads to mob rule. Give some relevant examples.
Jim, I call what Republicans in general and the MAGAs in particular want, "toddlerism." It is nothing like democracy or constitutional republicanism, or anything like them. It is acting like spoiled brats who haven't learned about sharing, caring, or any of the positive virtues that most toddlers do eventually learn, but these folks never did, possibly from bad parenting.
A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Obviously we are a republic or the president would be elected by a majority of votes rather than an electoral college via gerrymandering.
Charles, it matters little what kind of government we say our constitution describes. It is a government of, by, and for the people as Lincoln said and we need to do our best to keep that vision alive for our children and grandchildren, not let it be wrecked by a bunch of greedy powermongering jerks like Trump and Kump who would prefer fascism. What will we think of our flag and National anthem if Trump gets back into office? I'm guessing, not much!
Charles, nonsense! One does not have to have served in the military to value this nation and its people. I value both and as a disabled woman, I would never have been permitted to serve. That is not your concern, though. Believing that only people prepared to kill for whatever war we were involved in when you served does not make you better than anyone else. It may mean you were lucky to have a chance to serve or unlucky that you were drafted to serve and the fact that you served is appreciated, but not revered or worshipped as though only vets have a clue. The flag is a symbol as is the "National Anthem." I have sung it with the best of them and it was a good thing back in 1814 that our "flag was still there." People should sing it if they choose and not if they don't. Conservatives don't have a lock on the flag, although lately, their lock seems to be on the flag of the Confederacy. Civic virtue comes from caring about others' needs more than we care for our own wants, then, respecting the rights of all people in this nation, not just the ones that look like us or believe as we do, and the rest.
I am also a veteran, sir. And I am appalled at the idea that my time in the service of this country has led to where we are today. There is much to care about.
Well written Fay. Absolutely concur. When #45 wraps a flag around him he is most definitely trying to be funny and call further attention to himself. "Look at me" he is telling his Magas who worship him blindly. So sad to see this country so divided in this manner. The orange man and his cronies need to be held accountable for their many crimes against our democracy as would anyone else.
Fay, The republicans wouldn’t recognize a patriot. They would call a true patriot, weak. Pushing for equality is something they have fought forever. But we can’t get too rosy eyed about the American way. The atrocities committed by us are plentiful. The vision of what we should be is a beautiful ideal and most citizens used to strive for it. But we never fully corrected the outrageous treatment of the black population. Black singers unable to stay at the hotel where they entertained...and today, unfairly treated in many instances by police. We have invaded other countries to demand their resources since WWI. We have removed democratically elected leaders in South America and in the middle east. This was done by our CIA so it couldn’t be called a war nor did it need to follow laws.
So I hope one day we can stop cycling through failures and reach our written goals.
I agree, this country, republic or democracy for all it stands for in reality very hypocritical. Starting with our treatment of the original occupants of this country!!!
That’s quite an interesting oxymoron because America isn’t a true democracy but it’s a Constitutional Republic as far back as it’s own Founding Fathers by design for in God We Trust… Amen
God, according to the founders, had nothing to do with it. Not mentioned in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the minority. We have a right to vote despite the fact that it's not enumerated by documentation.
More plausible deniability by the people like yourself who aren’t an educated constitutional scholar such as myself and mentors… You really need to take off the tin foil hat and stop drinking all the Chinese Kool Aid before you can debate my venerable sheepskin… C’est la vie
Seems like you’re the one who is angry and cynical Woke whining profusely about Trump who isn’t even the current President… Now go find your adult pacifier and it’s past your bedtime L’il Snowflake!
I ha.ve no trust or faith in the false God that is now currently embraced. That God doesn't seem to really care about all us children. Indeed, many people who worship this God also look down on different people whether black, LGBTQ, or those of other religious beliefs.
You must be an agnostic lost soul who can’t see the difference of faith versus the Woke’s embrace of communism being the threat to organized and free exercise of religion provided by the Bill of Rights as it’s written in the U.S. Constitution… Stop drinking the Chinese Kool Aid !!!
Freedom of religion as is written in the constitution does not mean you have to be a devout christian and we all have to accept the Christian theology. Your righteous Christian beliefs do not mean you can subject anyone else to that nor do you have the right, according to your faith, to critique or demonize me or anyone. I believe Jesus was accepting of everyone.
I wish I could agree with you here - "Selfishness and greed are Unamerican.". They've been with us long before there was an "America."
But when I disagree, it is because I believe your choice to become an American - to make "kindness, tolerance, consideration, acceptance of difference" YOUR characteristics, changed America just a bit, adding one person to the 330 million or so who want these characteristics to be the Real America.
I'd much rather look at your virtues than the clowns posturing and screaming "look at me." Thank you for your comments, and your virtues.
Glad you have clarified that you weren’t born in the United States of America because you chose to earn your citizenship by the laws governing your righteousness to assimilate into the fabric of what makes Americans proud of the flag and its Constitution… Kudos
Perfect post! I couldn't have said it any better! Exactly what my concept has always been about what it is to be American & to follow the American ideals. Thank-you!
It's odd and strange. I, apparently, have discovered something pretty crazy over the past 8 years. I (and I hope you) have come face to face with the fact that Democrats and Republicans are very different creatures. We are even more different than we thought. Not only are we on different sides of the political spectrum, we are different to our cores. As surprising as it may be, not every Repub is a repugnant, greedy, self aggrandizing human being. (Most are, but that's another story) There are some decent Repubs, but at the very core, we are different. Repubs tend to think like Bankman-Fried about civic virture. Democrats, on the other hand, ascribe to Robert's common good theory of citizenship. Robert's writing has made this clear, at least in my mind. That's where the difference lies, and explains why I can say that all Repubs aren't bad people. Their core beliefs as they pertain to the common good are failed beliefs, and that's the reason they can fall for a con man like trump, the good ones anyway. They don't believe in the common good theory as put forth by Robert is this article. There's a major difference between Repubs and Democrats that goes beyond left vs. right. And that is our very basic thought about the common good, democracy and self government.
It's a big difference. It's an Earth shattering difference. It happens without critical thinking. It's probably an inherited way of thinking. It's dangerous for humankind.
Daniel, you are right about the witnesses against Trump being Republicans, but I can't help but wonder their motivation. I would like to think it is that they feel some responsibility to the common good and this nation, but I think most of them want to save themselves and if the country benefits, that's an OK side effect. I wish I were not so cynical, but watching this MAGA crowd for 8+ years, they have taught me a lot about self-interest that I knew existed, but had not seen in its breadth since the Nixon crew (OK, Reagan's Iran-contra crew was pretty bad too) and all three sets, Republicans.
If they were “common-good-minded” as RR defines it, the gop witnesses would have come out against trump on Jan 6, 7, 8, or at the latest 9th. But months, years later?!?!?!?!?
This applies to both sides! If DJT is the worst crook and criminal this country has ever seen, so be it. He deserves his punishment. But let us compare equal crimes with equal punishment on both sides! That seems to be missing this day and time.
Perjury is relatively easy to prove...the documentation is overwhelming. Represent3ed witnesses know that. In Federal court, DOJ has a 95% conviction rate.
Yes, there are definitely those trying to save their asses in that list. What gives me some hope is people like Cassidy Hutchinson who put hers right on the line before the Jan 6th committee. I think there may be many more like her and Liz Cheney who have so far been too cowed to come out.
I cannot get too romantic about any of these people who stuck with him, defended him, acted as if anything he did or said was right or acceptable through all these grueling terrifying years. I think of those sham White House Press Briefings and the disgraceful and pervasive nastiness and viciousness to reporters, the contemptuous and poisonous grimacing of those "press secretaries." Inasmuch as it is republicans who are testifying against him, I see rats jumping a sinking ship.
This whole MAGA group (not the big money funding most of this foolishness) but the majority that focus on FOX, et al, seem to be motivated by a mixture of fear, excitement and an almost desperate desire to be in lock-step with someone “bigger” than they to identify with. They see life like a poor TV script filled with violence and people getting away with most of the crimes they commit. There’s not a lot of introspection, I would imagine, mainly finger pointing.
That may be, but we have no idea about the party identification of members of the various grand juries who are hearing them. The release of juror names in Georgia makes me very nervous. I had no idea it was permissible in some jurisdictions.
In the NY defamation case, two members of the jury were MAGATs, who found against him after trial. Given the oath to be impartial, many prejudiced people do the right thing.
I agree, but I think the issue in Georgia is that people serving on the grand jury could get exposed to a lot of unwelcome outside attention and pressure
@ Progwoman. It’s complicated. Education, for example, is shown to mitigate inherited tendencies. Not every individual inherits the exact same genome, even in the same family. Being raised in a “red” community reinforces the community values for many children, but quite a few rebel and head to the cities. I wonder if the arc of history bends towards Justice because people, and our cultures are becoming more just?
I'm pretty sure the environment affects genes. They are huge bio chemicals and are built by the body which is definitely affected by environmental factors of all sorts.
There is supposedly a gene that predisposes to collectivism versus individualism. Is a gene more prevalent in Asia and less prevalent in the west. I’m afraid I don’t have the reference for that.
@Steve and Jan. It gets really interesting when you put anthropology into the picture and realize that different human groups had different mixes of ancient ancestors. Asians had more of Denisovan while Europeans had more of Neanderthal (both under 4% of DNA in today's populations); I wonder what kind of social tendencies or perceptual nuances might have come down the line from those archaic humans?
Very nice. I'm not qualified to critique, but I wonder if there isn't a possible cause/effect mix up in their work? It's terribly frowned upon to acknowledge that there are recognizable human groups (sometimes called races) which carry appearance features that are distinct, as well as morphological differences, and in this article identifiable genetic differences in something specific (serotonin transporter gene). Rather than having evolved as the authors posit, couldn't these differences have been intrinsic to the various distinct populations, e.g. part of what makes them distinct?
I still hold out hope that the "mean gene" isn't dominant... I like to think it affects only 30% to 35% of the general population—those majority Republikkans who worship Trump.
That’s quite a generalization of reality bites subjectively said in your own words being as it’s the Biden administration who’s just been exposed trying to coerce the social media companies to be censoring their members right to freedom of speech… Twitter (X) and Facebook have all started to come clean about this quagmire we as Americans are facing in the next general election in 2024 🇺🇸
It appears that the quagmire you speak of is all coming from the Repub side of the coin. Look at the choices they have made to try to unseat President Biden. One candidate will be running from a prison cell, literally.
Being a lifelong Democrat since 1972 and I’ll proudly be voting for a true blue Democrat RFK Jr. and Trump Derangement Syndrome is really clouding your sense of the reality of the Joe Biden’s Crime Family Syndicate… C’est la vie
Thank you! The level of agreed upon censorship by the legacy media and outlined by RFK, Jr, Glenn Greenwald and the others at the censorship round table is worth viewing. You Tube or Kennedy24.com. One example is TNI, started by the BBC; a group of media and social media entities agreed they would CENSOR anything that deviated from gov't orthodoxy. Notice the media does not call RFK, Jr's statements lies but misinformation. Misinformation is by their definition. More to the point, it is a big distraction of his core message - the takeover of our country by corporations stealing middle class wealth. Sadly, the democratic party is the opposite of the party of FDR and just another version of big money GOP.
Have you honestly viewed any of his numerous podcasts by invitation from both left, center and right hosts? Or just going along with the mainstream media's opinions? Notice how they don't site any facts just name calling of him. A career of 40 years successfully litigating against corrupt corporate theft of our commons and certain government agencies that are not following their mandate but doing the bidding of corporate donors.
We do not pay, respect ( or educate) teachers as well as we once did! I had such excellent teachers in my junior high ( (1967-69!) We memorized the Preamble, the Declaration and parts of The Gettysburg Address. And we discussed -- and I mean REALLY discussed by answering questions our teachers put to us! -- what these documents meant and HOW THEY EFFECTED OUR LIVES TODAY! My school, Holden Junior High, produced such knowledgable and engaged students from a supposedly " ignorant" coal camp town, that a Marshall University prof once did research on how it was that his brightest students came from such an unexpected place. He concluded that there were several factors, but the central one was the sense of community. Sense of community and education. Which comes first? Or do they both thrive and foster each other?
Very Good! This idea is fundamental to civilization itself. Where we see the world being destroyed by Climate Change, it is actually being destroyed by the people of the richer nations behaving without regard to the common good.
We must face the fact that we mere humans have no way of knowing how it is that we are creatures of Earth, circulating the Sun in the vastness of space. The scientific method of relying on our senses to come to agreement on our situation is all we have to go on. Life before or after death, and all the spiritual beliefs cannot be relied on to guide our actions, only what we all can sense in common can.
So, we come to the sad conclusion that all we can agree on is that we are an animal that has evolved on this speck in the universe, and that we must choose how we will act based on this uncertainty about existence. Sadly, there may be some like Putin or Trump, that decide they simply want to have infinity power over everything. That is everyone's prerogative. But people who care about the 'common good', will strive to set out a code of ethics that will promote a more pleasant future for all people, and recognize that we are only one species among the countless that have life.
The meaningless statement that : "What is good behavior is behavior that make the future better", needs to acquire substance and agreement on what a better future means.
The "survival of the fittest (meaning whatever survives)" got us to where we are through the powerful action of evolution, but that only applies to animals without the capacity to destroy the world. As members of humanity, we need to strive to define what a better future requires, and ensure that understanding is passed on.
Sadly, we are on the path of making life in the future much worse through war of course, but also through over consumption, over exploitation of nature, and climate change. Instead of a better future, we are creating just the opposite. Civilization is on the threshold of collapse due to our culture of selfishness.
Maybe in a hundred thousand years or so after we crash this paradise, civilization will rise again and not repeat our mistakes? Or, perhaps animals that arrive through the process of evolution are simply not compatible with an intelligent technically advanced society.
Capitalism is the result of the evolution of how a society governs. But society is still evolving. A system of capitalism can't remain democratic as we can easily see. We need to evolve to the next level of governance or we will perish. We can't rely on theoretical ideals of a common good and that "people" will not be greedy, take power, and leave the working man "blowing in the wind" as has happened since Reaganomics. Bidenomics may slow the disintegration of our society, but the long term solution lies with building a safety net into the system so that the few can't monopolize the resources and the power. Every person deserves what they need for survival as long as their society has the resources to provide it. Every person should not be in the position of accepting work that doesn't pay enough to provide the basic needs to live. Every person must have a basic minimum income without means testing. Every person deserves adequate healthcare. Passing laws like equal opportunity, oversight of workplace conditions, protection from sexual harassment, etc. sound great, but in the practical sense, the regulations are unenforceable because the ruling class doesn't have the will to provide the resources to monitor and enforce. The ultimate enforcement of the law, the justice system, is also a failure as we have seen. Watch Richard Wolff on You tube. He explains how we got where we are in terms easy to understand. But the change in the structure of our society needs to go beyond democratizing the workplace, although that is a good start.
For the first time in our history, the concept of public education as an equalizer is being torpedoed at its core - the trust between parents/teacher. The Far Right Republicans playbook of sowing doubts, fears, wedges of chaos and false accusations is the Achilles heel that is being exploited in every community, at the schools, costing us precious time and assets in educating the next generation. That is their goal.
Professor Reich is reminding us of the civic lesson, the covenant of what we owe one another as Americans.
I always think that Charity can be a cold cup, making the giver feel self-satisfied and 'virtuous' and the receiver feel uncomfortable. The idea of the common good where it is the norm to help each other is far better. And I find that, with certain religious people, they limit their charitable largess to people who toe the religious line…..and call the common good 'socialism' like it is disease.
Prof. Reich, you have exposed an area of confusion with ethics and virtue. To be fair, ethics is a very confused topic because people ingeniously look for ways to justify what they do. They invent theories such as effective altruism to dress up discredited ideas.
Effective altruism is a recent “rebranding” of Jeremy Bentham’s (1748 - 1832) idea of utilitarianism, which can be simply put that the ends justify the means. Utilitarianism is the guiding principle of our market-based economic system, like or not. The results of this type of thinking can be seen in the horrific mill towns of Northern England where the end of owner profitability justified oppressive labor condtions. It is also the basis of any business leader justifying layoffs and downsizing on the “greater good” of restoring profitability.
Curiously, the fact that three of the founding U.S. States were called “commonwealths” indicates that there were ideas opposing Bentham’s naked capitalism already at the time the U.S. was established. The meaning of commonwealth has some connotations of striving for a common good rather than just outcomes by any means.
Modern societies try to balance the harshness of utilitarianism thinking with two other models of ethics--Kantian ethics and virtue ethics. Kantian ethics is one largely rooted in the ideas of absolute rights and wrongs. We see this ethical model underlie our criminal justice system, which generally seeks to constrain the worst behaviors in a society.
Virtue ethics brings in the ideas of common good, which is about both good means and good ends. The EU has more effectively used this as a model through the foundational idea of a social-market economy. That idea emerged after WWII as a contrast to the results of naked capitalism and fascism that had led to the Third Reich. The U.S. model does not fully embrace a social-market economy and society. That is an area for improvement. Effective altruism is more of a diversion than an aid on the way to such a more just society.
I would say that Bentham (and Mill, also a utilitarian but of a different sort) is one big piece of market-based thought, but I really like Adam Smith's component: moral sentiments involve "men" (ahem) passing on a legacy and perhaps improving upon it.
Economists tend to shrug that off as "quaint." They forget millions of people took on the name "Miller" and "Smith" and other "last names" because of their trade or professional aspiration - the notion that a good "Miller" would pass on a real world mill.
"Effective altruism" of the Bankman-Fried model could be taken to mean, "I will sell you 1000 years of wheat from a mill that never existed and will never be built, in exchange for control over products from your mill that you will never actually grind" - a trade of nothing for something, but hidden by mathematical gambits designed to obfuscate that. When someone has a scam like that, they'll appropriate other people's traditions - like Bentham (or anyone else's)...but I don't think that's even a rebranding - just a fraud.
I have friends in Denmark. We don't see each other as often as we like these days, but we correspond. Denmark is a functional society. Danes accept a personal obligation to support their society and in turn are supported by it. But my Danish friends tell me that could never work over here. We are infused with a view of our nation, and to a great extent our society, as a capitalist competition to succeed. And the measure of that success is accumulated wealth. Obligations to society are extra burdens that are more often honored it the breech. In smaller units, like family or church or small towns we do tend to be more social and altruistic.
And then there is this Randian fear that everyone would freeload with their hand out and no one would produce anything. A fear that you rarely see anyone express openly outside of the Anglosphere, especially the USA. And prior to Reagan, even in the USA was not nearly as much.
To say that it would never work here is a bit too defeatist, IMHO. But it would of course be more challenging due to our culture's dominant mindset.
The moral examples Reich cites, from Madison to Lincoln to Jane Addams, have always had a countervailing power, (to use one of Reich's favorite phrases). For every Lincoln, et al, there was a Jay Gould. For every Jane Addams there was a D.A.R. member. Until very recently, the common good in America stopped at the boundaries of one's community, or sometimes one's state, but never transcended one's tribe. The balance between individual rights and the community got seriously out of whack in the Eighties (Ivan Boesky -- "greed is good") and remains skewed. It isn't just Trump or Sam Bankman-Freed. It's a long history of give and take, as much take as give, and it is us. To counter it, we need more stories of Givers, fewer of Takers, which dominate our 24/7 news narrative.
I don't feel like Samuel Bankman-Fried's effective altruism worked as many thought it would. We, as Americans, are open to new ideas but most of us stop short when this idea goes against our commitment to Democracy and the Constitution. I don't agree with Mr. Bankman-Fried's 'the ends justify the means'. All too often that belief leads you down a road to major accountability. These younger people growing up today have been bombarded with negativism about what their country is doing to them. The rappers use dark rhetoric, the reality shows get very nasty, and the parents don't seem to care what the kids are seeing and listening to. To teach our children what is so important about this country, parents need to show through civic actions and deeds. For example, collecting outgrown clothes and toys and donating them to families that need them. Donating food to the local food pantry. Registering and voting. Looking out for our neighbors. These types of actions show children the importance of the common good. It's important that our young do not grow up feeling entitled. All that being said, I still believe that a larger population of Americans who believe in our great nation do teach their children to know and understand that they are living in a country that allows them to pursue their dreams wherever they may lead. They also teach them that in order to continue to do that, it is important to learn how our Democracy works and what it takes to keep it going. We teach them while it is okay to disagree about politics, equal opportunities, and the rule of law, it is never okay to use violence or vile rhetoric to get our way. I see these ideas being taught at every baseball game, football game, hockey game and any other sport being played.
I am a conservative, who, most of the time, enjoys reading your articles so I can get a better perspective from the other side. You always have interesting points of view that I can mull over and think about. But I have to say, every article, no matter the topic, ALWAYS goes back to Donald Trump with you. It's very hard to keep an open mind and try to learn something when I can see how consumed you are about him. It taints your credibility and objectivity about the issues you write about.
I believe Robert Reich refers so frequently to Donald Trump because Mr. Trump presents an existential threat to our American democracy in a way that no one before him ever has. Mr. Reich's lesson here about the "common good" is one we Americans would all do well to re-learn and take to heart. If we do not do this, I genuinely fear for the future of our republic.
What terrifies me is not just Trump himself, but the mindset of his lackeys that propped him up; his followers that refuse to recognize the facts about his misdeeds; and his opponents who minimize the effort necessary to permanently remove him from politic office as and keep him out of party politics.
I get your point, I really do, but....it's very hard to talk about sin without mentioning the devil. Donal Trump is so far outside the Pale that he cannot form any part of the future government of this, or any other, country,
I'm not sure if that's true - references to the Devil are actually few and far between in the Old and New Testaments. It is possible to learn about sin without thinking about the Devil, by focusing on virtues we seek to manifest and what they look like. That's also how the Greeks did it when they coined many of the concepts of virtue as we know them...
BUT for all his nastiness, the Devil never had his finger on the nuclear button and the power to use human tools to destroy humanity. Trump did. Trump took his finger off the nuclear button to type in a Tweet as a joke - and his followers laughed, "haha, Rocketman!". When he did, that was an existential threat to America - and to the world. When they did, they embraced something hateful to humanity that might just as well have come from the Devil - laughing at the possibility of killing more people more quickly than Hitler - shrugging at it the same way they shrug about Jan 6.
Perhaps there are more important crises for Rhonda Yost to worry about that would restore her sense of objectivity...
Dear Rhonda, see Paul Buell's response below... Trump is the elephant in the room whom we cannot overlook, and as long as he is at liberty the American experiment is endangered! But congratulations on your bothsidesism!
If you read Mr. Reich writings you discover that the one group that he detests are bullies. Donald Trump is a bully who poses an existential threat to our country.
He embodies more than one existential threat to many countries, chief among which is the idea that bad American government and leadership are good for other governments -- horror.
Trump, for sure, has tainted public discourse, but until his threat is dealt with he cannot be ignored. Like the ad “ When you can’t breathe nothing else matters!”
Speaking as an outsider (Ireland), the main reason is the existential risk Trump poses, not just to America, but to the world. There has never been a President like him, not even Nixon comes close, and hopefully there never will be again. make no mistake, if he gets in again, it may very well be game over for all of us!
I think we would be curious to know how you define "conservative". In the old classic sense before American politics turned the word into a pejorative? Or are you part of the new conservative movement that seeks the destruction of government and eschews a level playing field for all people?
My definition as a conservative means that I want the best opportunities education, living conditions, jobs and job growth, family values, health and wellness, financial security, and global respect as a Republic. Utopian? You bet it is.
Striving for improvement, not perfection. Being accountable and being held to account as well as having responsibility to yourself, your family, your community and your country are ways, I believe, to achieve this.
You are in high demand in a nation that needs two political parties ( or more) ... parties with common goals (like yours) but different paths to get there. Such people can talk, negotiate and compromise. I miss that.
Yes, I do too and why I really do try to listen to what both sides are saying. I try not to blame, point fingers, name call, or keep my head in the the dark recesses of you know where. I am so surprised, dismayed, stupefied even at how at odds both sides have become when we all seem to want, (mostly), the same things! Discussions always seem to get heated, the yeah buts start, frustration sets in and the gloves come off. Knowledge is key. Understanding the facts, also important. Being able to admit being wrong, very important but so is having courage of conviction. I appreciate having these conversations. This was my first time commenting on RR's site but not the first time I've wanted to. Sometimes, having a dialog with someone can clarify an opinion, belief or idea, or can alter it. Either can be good.
My view on your idea of conservatism strikes me as what ought to be COMMON SENSE. Who, in their RIGHT mind, wouldn’t desire “best” for all concerned? I also find it hard to comprehend that this is the “best we can do”. With so much waste, indifference, and lack of any shame in so much gluttony it is no wonder that Americans are viewed with skepticism throughout many parts of the world. Having allowed such an individual to be our “leader”, our representative, has proven downright baffling, BAFFLING to many. It has opened many eyes to just how “ill” this body politic is. To have allowed such a toxic symptom to manifest itself and continue to be validated is truly a disturbing trend. Just what is it we want? To “win”, whatever this may mean? Pain and suffering are not part of some “game”. Devious behavior is affecting us all, “guilty” and “innocent”, alike.
Such is the way of things. Until, that is, WE come to some consensus as to just what it is we desire. For ourselves, YES, but, if we’re to understand and acknowledge ANY sense as to the relevancy of a self-sacrificing love, we’ll just become selfish narcissists. No compromise, only looking out for what benefits, or profits, ourselves. “Phlegm”(as I’ve referred to him) is merely the manifestation of this “ideal”.
Robert Reich has steadfastly written, and lectured, on NOT this symptom so much as to the SYSTEMIC issue that we are ALL accountable to. I think you’re a bit harsh in using the terms “pure hatred” in describing Roberts “feelings” for said “symptom”.
Like you, Rhonda, I also yearn for some type of “utopia”. At the least let’s strive for convincing persons they are more relevant than money, or profit.
I am hopeful… (label me a…DREAMER…?). Smiles, again.
Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your sentiments as we do have some common ground. We all seem to be very good at hashing out the problems, the bad changes that each side believes has happened, the frustrations we all feel. What is it going to take to change and make a difference so we can all feel better about our country? Where do we start? How can we learn to agree to disagree without the hatred and vitriol? This is where I am at. It's time to move forward. I will start with, please let's not vote for Donald Trump in 2024!
In that case, you're a classic Eisenhower kind of Republican, very compatible with most moderate & even progressive Democrats. At least we can work together to solve problems rather than treat each other as enemies.
I do not feel that Professor Reich always goes to Mr. Trump. To be perfectly honest, Mr. Bankman-Fried and Mr. Trump and many others do not adhere to the principles which founded this country. Our Democracy is a wonderful thing that so many want to come and experience. To be allowed the rights this great country offers means we also have to accept the responsibilities that go along with preserving those rights. Even though I am a Democrat, I am so happy to see that some conservatives are open to the other side and their perspectives. Professor Reich is the best place to go when trying to understand different points of view.
Rhonda, the longer I live the more I find a benefit in listening to others. The world is not so easily divided into Republican or Democrat, black or white. To be fair, there are some who see things in a duality...fine. But people are generally much more complicated. I truly appreciate your comment.
Rhonda Yost, there is nothing Professor Reich writes that isn’t true. He researches extensively and is a brilliant, kind man who cares about the state of our Democracy.
It comes back to Trump because Trump tried and continues to employ all his efforts to take over our Democracy. Prof. Reich is helping by using his high level of education (as an attorney), an educator (as a Professor) and his experience (working for the White House in multiple administrations), to educate us so we may be properly equipped to fight and spread the true facts.
And no, it does NOT tarnish Prof. Reich’s words in any manner or make him lose his credibility. That is a Republican MO - to attack any Democrat’s credibility, because they have no other defense or game plan.
Our Democracy is at stake NOW. That is why it comes back to Trump
Which of Reich’s words are tarnished? You are comparing a revered, hardworking, kind person of high intelligence and impeccable integrity with a liar, a cheat a self centered criminal who doesn’t read books.
Trust me, I am not defending Trump. I only meant that anytime I try to watch liberal main stream media on TV, it is dominated by Trump, Trump Trump! I was hoping to get some other perspective other than that which dominates and gets into the head of every Democrat it seems
I wish that, too, as there are many other Republican politicians, who are supporting him & his policies, who are antidemocratic & divisive, & are potentially as dangerous. Focusing on Trump only won't solve our problems. Removing him won't save our nation if someone just as bad replaces him.
Will Hurd is probably the most decent & traditional of all the Republicans running for President. But he gets barely 1/2 of 1% in the polls. The most decent candidates always get stuck on the lower end of the Republican primaries.
The Republicans have no credibility. We have ALREADY ALL SEEN and HEARD the things Trump has done. There is really nothing to reveal except what the witnesses have to say. And guess what - they are ALL Republican!
All the authors, poets, and commentators mentioned in this article were writing about their specific time in the American landscape, their relation to it, their understanding of it, and most importantly their hope that others around them would bind together with them to cement it for another bit of time. R. is writing about those same things and mentioning the danger to that landscape presented by those that have fundamental ideas of public life diametrically opposed to that American landscape. Misunderstanding the very point of the article is disingenuous in the least, and otherwise dangerous to miss the threat posed by those that wish burn that landscape to ash.
But it is perfectly planted to disrupt the applause we give RR for his insights. Have you started noticing this on the major progressive newsletters’ comment sections lately, also? This is a gop tactic being employed to disrupt the commenters. Perhaps we start doing it on gop newsletters posing as “average readers just happenin’ to notice (disingenuously) the meaning of the article”. Eyes wide open folks! 2024 is under way.
We should spread our views on right-wing sites as long as we do it with facts, reasoning, kindness & peace. Many of the readers & commenters on those sites never hear from progressive sources , only lots of propaganda, lies, conspiracy theories & hate against Democrats, liberals, & anybody associated with them.
Thank you for stating exactly what’s been sitting in the back of my mind for quite some time. I also consume RR’s writings for identical purposes yet know that Trump will eventually be circled in somehow.
It dilutes the integrity of the messages in my view when it’s a consistent component in intellectual writings. Yet I wouldn’t expect someone who requires multiple question marks in their own questions to have understood that.
Well, unfortunately, that's where we are right now at this very moment. He's front and center because he engaged in behavior with others that could have destroyed whatever semblance of democracy we have remaining. Sure, we can engage in other discussions on other topics. Important topics -- certainly. Like peace, the environment, gender equality, racial equality, healthcare, the economy. You mean those topics? Hopefully we will again evolve to the point that he is not front and center. But until we have come to some resolution and hopefully common ground, this guy will keep popping up. Because if our democracy is destroyed, the recognition and solving of any of those problems will be virtually impossible.
Personally I wish Reich would mention the names of other dangerous Republicans & billionaire donors that are no less of a threat to our future welfare, but Trump is a well-known & obvious illustration of what's wrong with America now.
Do you not think that "other billionaire donors" such as Sam Bankman-Freid, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and many others on the left, are no less of a threat when they put forth their funds to alter and change the welfare of our country? Wealth, in my view, never equated with intelligence, compassion, betterment for all the world. There always seems to be a ulterior motive for their own interests, not necessarily the country.
Hi Rhonda, I don't consider a big donor just because they donate to democrats' campaigns to be "on the left". Some donate as you say purely on self-interest so they hedge their bets. They see which way the proverbial wind is blowing and donate with the wind. As for the names, you referenced, I do not think that most believe that it is self-evident that all are created equal based on their words and business practices.
I cannot generalize and never will about wealthy people. As in any group of people, there are big rascals and there are very loving people, and all those in between on a continuum. Growing up, close relatives of mine were extremely wealthy, multiple homes, business and family trips all over the world, the most exclusive restaurants and golfing. But they were kind, generous, and down to earth with everyone. Their adult children are the same. They do not believe they are superior and so they consciously put love out into the world.
Did I say I didn't think so? And I'm not so sure some of those names, particularly Bezos, Zuckerberg & SBF, are as leftist as you seem to think. At least they've done little, if anything, with their vast wealth on behalf of progressive causes.
Sam Bankman-Fried is a con artist. Any others "on the left" who are putting forth their funds to "change the welfare" of the U.S. for the better can spend all the money they want. There probably is an ulterior motive, but so what. Wealth certainly does not equate to "intelligence and compassion" as you rightly observe. If these wealthy guys would just pay their taxes, it would go a long way toward helping society support its most vulnerable members. Of course, there must be some causes to which you object that these "lefty" guys are spending their money on. Maybe you could enlighten us as to which ones you find so objectionable.
Since you asked: Mark Zuckerberg notably donated upwards of 400 million dollars, "zuckerbucks" they were called to help change election and voting processes in several states to ensure Democratic victories. Georgia being one of states.
George Soros is also well known for financing and donating to many blue states Attorney General races. This I believe has contributed to the increased crime and lawlessness in the bigger cities in these blue states. Defund the police, no bail, no jail time. We all see it's working well!
Check out the Sixteen Thirty Fund. A well funded, political super PAC's of dark money from a large group of ultra wealthy unknown financiers.
I know none of these are illegal operations, donations or support. I know too that it happens on the right as well. Is it fair ? Is it right for that influence to change and alter somewhat questionably the outcomes? This is what I am opposed to, on both sides. It should always be we the people, not we the wealthy.
How was Georgia's "election & voting processes" changed to "ensure Democratic victories"?
What I know is Kemp used his position as Secretary of State to use the election & voting processes to ensure his own victory over Stacey Abrams for governor, & that the Georgia legislature has limited voting days & times to restrict Democratic voting, and restricted the number of voting places & machines to ensure long lines & waiting times in heavily Democratic areas & the banning of the provision of water & refreshments to people standing in line for hours in a cynical & sinister ploy to ensure some will either give up & go home or die trying to vote.
I’d suggest you read Maggie Haberman’s book, ‘Confidence Man’.
“What do you want me to say?” This was his response to Ms Haberman when she’d placed a call to him for a response to something in the news. It effectively reveals his true character - tRump is unprincipled.
He manages moment-to-moment with no grounding in anything remotely related to vision, character, ideals, or principles beyond what’s good for himself.
His daddy upbringing and idolization of Roy Cohn - never give up; litigate, litigate, litigate until your opponent gives up - helped shaped the monster most of us see.
It was a lot simpler for me. I don’t hold in high esteem anyone moored in the trappings of wealth and power. That tells me most everything I need to know about that particular individual.
At least you are headed in the right direction, but please think of the reflection of Trump as being the living breathing perfect example of wrongs you here are reading about. I would guess that you would say Hitler was wrong. I though we would never see that again. Trump has not only proved me wrong, but has done so in the same way. I would have never believed in such a prediction. jimD
I have never once believed Trump was not an egotistical, spoiled, big baby bully of a man. It pains me greatly to watch him at all. I am sorry there are so many on the right that idolize and worship him as the great hope of our country. That being said, I can't in good conscience believe the Democrats are doing any better at their offerings! Please! If we all want a better country, better representation, a worthwhile leaders and leaders,we have to do better! My worst political moment in the last few years was watching the debate between Trump and Biden! Who else besides myself said to themselves, "is this the best we can do? 360 million people in the US and this is the best we can do?" Let's find an answer! It starts with election integrity, term limits, limited lobbying rules, being held accountable in politics on all levels and all branches of Government.
I'm totally with you in regards to "is the best we can do?". Biden was no better than 10th on my list of best Democratic candidates in 2020. He only became nominee through machinations by establishment Democrats. I so wish he would retire after this term, even though I think he did better than expected or is generally given credit for. I have strong doubts that his health can hold out for 5 1/2 more years, & we need some new thinking to tackle our greatest crises.
And of course, I think there never has been a worse candidate or president than Trump.
I'm with you Rhonda. I have a suggestion add on to your., "It starts with...". You must know a company is treated like an individual, a voter... it can give big money to candidates. Can you imagine what congressman is going to vote against anything the "company" wants? I can't imagine any woman voting for "anything you want you can do it to them" kind'a guy. You may have some thoughts why some woman are okay with that? Lets all vote for that. Thanks for your words. jimD
Oh, it seems writers here are asking for upvotes these days. Maybe there is a reward of some kind. I don’t get or ask for anything now. With enough upvotes maybe I will. Please press the upvote button and we’ll see. Thanks, jimD
Robert - please consider turning some attention to the question of congress making rules or guidelines for the ethics of Supreme Court justices. How would this work, some practical considerations like can congress enforce such rules? How? Is there a downside to this? Would this open us up to a politicized congress going after judges who they politically don't like? Could they remove justices or only reprimand them? How does this effect the balance or separation of powers? And what else have I missed to think about regarding this issue?
The separation of powers in our Republic is what balances the workings necessary for smooth operation of government.
The balance is delicate from my view and even a slight advantage by one branch over the others would be hard to resist by the powerful individuals occupying those positions. It seems that the oath of office is not sufficient to insure integrity of those individuals. Perhaps less politically charged appointments would help in addressing these concerns. Certainly term limits would help in this matter. I join you in asking RR to speak to this.
"what makes us a people. The most basic of such commitments are to democracy, the Constitution, equal political rights, equal opportunity, and the rule of law." These words define what it means to be an American' Wrapping one's arms around a flagpole and kissing the flag are not acts of patriotism, they are the acts of a clown shouting 'look at me'. That is not patriotic, that is desecration. I am an American by choice, not by accident of birth. Professor Reich's words are real patriotism, and thoughts I have always strived to follow from the day I became a citizen. Selfishness and greed are Unamerican. Kindness, tolerance, consideration, acceptance of differences, these are the characteristics of Real Americans.
That was so beautifully said! You are absolutely correct and I hope that those Americans born here will read that and be humbled.
Be a jerk at home no need to expose the rest of world to your religious craziness.
Fay, beautifully said! I do wish some of the MAGA crowd could read what you wrote here. They are so wrapped up in the flag, they can't even see it anymore and what it means and meant to the people who fought, struggled, protested, and stood proudly under it. The flag in itself is nothing but cloth. When people live the ideas you describe here, then the flag and "national Anthem" have meaning. Without them, the flag and song mean very little, just a propaganda tool to be used by the unscrupulous.
It’s painfully obvious you aren’t a Veteran; Let alone someone who actually cares about the venerable flag and national anthem important virtues written in blood by true Americans and not the Cancel Culture Wokes!!!
Veterans didn't serve and die because of a flag and song; they did it due to what the flag and song represent. In America we don't have idols, we have values. The flag is just a symbol of all our firmly held beliefs of democracy. It is easy for anyone to walk around holding a flag and claim to be patriotic but to put personal sacrifice on the line for what that flag represents is true patriotism.
Also true: during the Vietnam war "woke" Blacks died in disproportionate numbers, because they could evade the Draft as easily as Whites could.
I think you mean "couldn't" for your first "could". Is that right?
Yes. They couldn't dodge the Draft is what I meant.
You are partially correct except our country is and has been a Constitutional Republic not a true democracy since its inception… Otherwise, it would’ve become led by Mob Rule instead of the work in progress we all share as citizens of the United States of America 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
That explains the disconnect in this country. Democracy is mob rule? Minority Rule "Democracy" as long as I get my way is good. Think,.. when more people vote against or don't want the President elected, we have the makings of revolution. This has been the case in most of our recent history. When the majority rise up you will understand why Authoritarianism in a flag or not, will not sustain.
Sorry to burst your progressive liberal bubble but the next thing won’t be a revolution but another civil war as has been happening since the infamous book called the Fourth Turning written by the renown William Strauss and Neil Howe … C’est la vie
As usual a conservative has it backwards. Sure we are a Constitutional Republic. But Democracy is far from mob rule. It's the self only attitude that you conservatives seem to embrace that leads to mob rule. You don't care about the poor and helpless. You have no consideration for human life. And you think that the rich will save us all somehow. So you want to give them welfare. And there are too many other examples to mention here. These are all examples that lead to mob rule. trump and his MAGAt followers exemplify mob rule. On the other hand Democrats want to help bring the poor out of poverty. When people get sick we want to help them. We want worldwide equality for every human on this Earth. Except for traitors like trump, who belong in prison. Democrats show true humanitarianism. It's the republicans who want another Civil War. Because they are not willing to compromise for the common good. They only want what they want. Even if it hurts everyone else. So tell us again how a true Democracy leads to mob rule. Give some relevant examples.
Jim, I call what Republicans in general and the MAGAs in particular want, "toddlerism." It is nothing like democracy or constitutional republicanism, or anything like them. It is acting like spoiled brats who haven't learned about sharing, caring, or any of the positive virtues that most toddlers do eventually learn, but these folks never did, possibly from bad parenting.
Please explain the difference of a republic and democracy. I find most people who distinguish between the two can't effectively define either
A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Obviously we are a republic or the president would be elected by a majority of votes rather than an electoral college via gerrymandering.
Charles, it matters little what kind of government we say our constitution describes. It is a government of, by, and for the people as Lincoln said and we need to do our best to keep that vision alive for our children and grandchildren, not let it be wrecked by a bunch of greedy powermongering jerks like Trump and Kump who would prefer fascism. What will we think of our flag and National anthem if Trump gets back into office? I'm guessing, not much!
Renie, thank you so much for your response. I tried to say that, but you nailed it. I appreciate it.
My father fought in WW2 and in Korea, and what he cared about were American principles not symbols
We have been warned of idolatry.
Thanks for your 'time served', but it's a shame that you wasted your time by not learning why you served
Charles, nonsense! One does not have to have served in the military to value this nation and its people. I value both and as a disabled woman, I would never have been permitted to serve. That is not your concern, though. Believing that only people prepared to kill for whatever war we were involved in when you served does not make you better than anyone else. It may mean you were lucky to have a chance to serve or unlucky that you were drafted to serve and the fact that you served is appreciated, but not revered or worshipped as though only vets have a clue. The flag is a symbol as is the "National Anthem." I have sung it with the best of them and it was a good thing back in 1814 that our "flag was still there." People should sing it if they choose and not if they don't. Conservatives don't have a lock on the flag, although lately, their lock seems to be on the flag of the Confederacy. Civic virtue comes from caring about others' needs more than we care for our own wants, then, respecting the rights of all people in this nation, not just the ones that look like us or believe as we do, and the rest.
I am also a veteran, sir. And I am appalled at the idea that my time in the service of this country has led to where we are today. There is much to care about.
Wow
Well written Fay. Absolutely concur. When #45 wraps a flag around him he is most definitely trying to be funny and call further attention to himself. "Look at me" he is telling his Magas who worship him blindly. So sad to see this country so divided in this manner. The orange man and his cronies need to be held accountable for their many crimes against our democracy as would anyone else.
Trump is the opposite of patriotism for he is trying to destroy the country and everything it stands for and is based on.
Fay, The republicans wouldn’t recognize a patriot. They would call a true patriot, weak. Pushing for equality is something they have fought forever. But we can’t get too rosy eyed about the American way. The atrocities committed by us are plentiful. The vision of what we should be is a beautiful ideal and most citizens used to strive for it. But we never fully corrected the outrageous treatment of the black population. Black singers unable to stay at the hotel where they entertained...and today, unfairly treated in many instances by police. We have invaded other countries to demand their resources since WWI. We have removed democratically elected leaders in South America and in the middle east. This was done by our CIA so it couldn’t be called a war nor did it need to follow laws.
So I hope one day we can stop cycling through failures and reach our written goals.
Very well said, SeekingReason. And very seldom pointed out.
I agree, this country, republic or democracy for all it stands for in reality very hypocritical. Starting with our treatment of the original occupants of this country!!!
Last refuge of a a scoundrel!
THANK YOU...
Unfortunately, I will NEVER look at our (THEIR) stars&stripes, bald eagle and "in god we trust"
as representation of the DEMOCRACY I strive for!!!
That’s quite an interesting oxymoron because America isn’t a true democracy but it’s a Constitutional Republic as far back as it’s own Founding Fathers by design for in God We Trust… Amen
"In God We Trust" is not mentioned in the US Constitution. It is written on our coins, because evidently we don't trust each other.
Thank You, Victor
God, according to the founders, had nothing to do with it. Not mentioned in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the minority. We have a right to vote despite the fact that it's not enumerated by documentation.
More plausible deniability by the people like yourself who aren’t an educated constitutional scholar such as myself and mentors… You really need to take off the tin foil hat and stop drinking all the Chinese Kool Aid before you can debate my venerable sheepskin… C’est la vie
You are full of it.
Seems like you’re the one who is angry and cynical Woke whining profusely about Trump who isn’t even the current President… Now go find your adult pacifier and it’s past your bedtime L’il Snowflake!
Guten Tag
I ha.ve no trust or faith in the false God that is now currently embraced. That God doesn't seem to really care about all us children. Indeed, many people who worship this God also look down on different people whether black, LGBTQ, or those of other religious beliefs.
I remember a God that was accepting of everyone.
You must be an agnostic lost soul who can’t see the difference of faith versus the Woke’s embrace of communism being the threat to organized and free exercise of religion provided by the Bill of Rights as it’s written in the U.S. Constitution… Stop drinking the Chinese Kool Aid !!!
Freedom of religion as is written in the constitution does not mean you have to be a devout christian and we all have to accept the Christian theology. Your righteous Christian beliefs do not mean you can subject anyone else to that nor do you have the right, according to your faith, to critique or demonize me or anyone. I believe Jesus was accepting of everyone.
Who said anything about being a Christian? For all you know that I could be Jewish, Buddhist or of the Catholic faith…
What's the difference, please explain yourself
I wish I could agree with you here - "Selfishness and greed are Unamerican.". They've been with us long before there was an "America."
But when I disagree, it is because I believe your choice to become an American - to make "kindness, tolerance, consideration, acceptance of difference" YOUR characteristics, changed America just a bit, adding one person to the 330 million or so who want these characteristics to be the Real America.
I'd much rather look at your virtues than the clowns posturing and screaming "look at me." Thank you for your comments, and your virtues.
Very kind of you
Glad you have clarified that you weren’t born in the United States of America because you chose to earn your citizenship by the laws governing your righteousness to assimilate into the fabric of what makes Americans proud of the flag and its Constitution… Kudos
Perfect post! I couldn't have said it any better! Exactly what my concept has always been about what it is to be American & to follow the American ideals. Thank-you!
....
It's odd and strange. I, apparently, have discovered something pretty crazy over the past 8 years. I (and I hope you) have come face to face with the fact that Democrats and Republicans are very different creatures. We are even more different than we thought. Not only are we on different sides of the political spectrum, we are different to our cores. As surprising as it may be, not every Repub is a repugnant, greedy, self aggrandizing human being. (Most are, but that's another story) There are some decent Repubs, but at the very core, we are different. Repubs tend to think like Bankman-Fried about civic virture. Democrats, on the other hand, ascribe to Robert's common good theory of citizenship. Robert's writing has made this clear, at least in my mind. That's where the difference lies, and explains why I can say that all Repubs aren't bad people. Their core beliefs as they pertain to the common good are failed beliefs, and that's the reason they can fall for a con man like trump, the good ones anyway. They don't believe in the common good theory as put forth by Robert is this article. There's a major difference between Repubs and Democrats that goes beyond left vs. right. And that is our very basic thought about the common good, democracy and self government.
It's a big difference. It's an Earth shattering difference. It happens without critical thinking. It's probably an inherited way of thinking. It's dangerous for humankind.
Virtually ALL of the witnesses against Trump are Republicans.
Daniel, you are right about the witnesses against Trump being Republicans, but I can't help but wonder their motivation. I would like to think it is that they feel some responsibility to the common good and this nation, but I think most of them want to save themselves and if the country benefits, that's an OK side effect. I wish I were not so cynical, but watching this MAGA crowd for 8+ years, they have taught me a lot about self-interest that I knew existed, but had not seen in its breadth since the Nixon crew (OK, Reagan's Iran-contra crew was pretty bad too) and all three sets, Republicans.
If they were “common-good-minded” as RR defines it, the gop witnesses would have come out against trump on Jan 6, 7, 8, or at the latest 9th. But months, years later?!?!?!?!?
They would never have been conned by trump in the first place.
Their motivation should be the oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
This applies to both sides! If DJT is the worst crook and criminal this country has ever seen, so be it. He deserves his punishment. But let us compare equal crimes with equal punishment on both sides! That seems to be missing this day and time.
Won't help because they will still lie.
Perjury is relatively easy to prove...the documentation is overwhelming. Represent3ed witnesses know that. In Federal court, DOJ has a 95% conviction rate.
Solomon
The DOJ evidently does not need with cases that can’t be won.
My dreams, therefore, are going to come true.
Yes, there are definitely those trying to save their asses in that list. What gives me some hope is people like Cassidy Hutchinson who put hers right on the line before the Jan 6th committee. I think there may be many more like her and Liz Cheney who have so far been too cowed to come out.
I cannot get too romantic about any of these people who stuck with him, defended him, acted as if anything he did or said was right or acceptable through all these grueling terrifying years. I think of those sham White House Press Briefings and the disgraceful and pervasive nastiness and viciousness to reporters, the contemptuous and poisonous grimacing of those "press secretaries." Inasmuch as it is republicans who are testifying against him, I see rats jumping a sinking ship.
a ship they themselves wrecked!
Have to be open to an epiphany.
This whole MAGA group (not the big money funding most of this foolishness) but the majority that focus on FOX, et al, seem to be motivated by a mixture of fear, excitement and an almost desperate desire to be in lock-step with someone “bigger” than they to identify with. They see life like a poor TV script filled with violence and people getting away with most of the crimes they commit. There’s not a lot of introspection, I would imagine, mainly finger pointing.
Self-interest is inherent in the US.
That may be, but we have no idea about the party identification of members of the various grand juries who are hearing them. The release of juror names in Georgia makes me very nervous. I had no idea it was permissible in some jurisdictions.
In the NY defamation case, two members of the jury were MAGATs, who found against him after trial. Given the oath to be impartial, many prejudiced people do the right thing.
I agree, but I think the issue in Georgia is that people serving on the grand jury could get exposed to a lot of unwelcome outside attention and pressure
This is nothing compared to the pressure put on the petit jurors in an actual trial on the merits. Jury nullification.
Including his own Vice President and the Chair of the RNC!
I think they know that Trump lost the election and he tried to make fools of them. He's so dumb he thought Southerners are as dumb as he is.
Or is it "virtue-ally"? 😉
Considering he surrounds himself with like minded people....
That makes sense. I'd guess most witnesses against a mobster are other mobsters.
They are all under extreme duress. I don't think they have volunteered. lol
That's why there are subpoenas.
Read “Red genes, Blue genes” by Guillermo Jimenez. He makes the case that big parts of political behavior ARE genetically based!
Hasn't met my family, obviously.
@ Progwoman. It’s complicated. Education, for example, is shown to mitigate inherited tendencies. Not every individual inherits the exact same genome, even in the same family. Being raised in a “red” community reinforces the community values for many children, but quite a few rebel and head to the cities. I wonder if the arc of history bends towards Justice because people, and our cultures are becoming more just?
I'm pretty sure the environment affects genes. They are huge bio chemicals and are built by the body which is definitely affected by environmental factors of all sorts.
There is supposedly a gene that predisposes to collectivism versus individualism. Is a gene more prevalent in Asia and less prevalent in the west. I’m afraid I don’t have the reference for that.
@Steve and Jan. It gets really interesting when you put anthropology into the picture and realize that different human groups had different mixes of ancient ancestors. Asians had more of Denisovan while Europeans had more of Neanderthal (both under 4% of DNA in today's populations); I wonder what kind of social tendencies or perceptual nuances might have come down the line from those archaic humans?
Hard to say. Serotonin transporter functional polymorphism. It was on the tip of my tongue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/
Very nice. I'm not qualified to critique, but I wonder if there isn't a possible cause/effect mix up in their work? It's terribly frowned upon to acknowledge that there are recognizable human groups (sometimes called races) which carry appearance features that are distinct, as well as morphological differences, and in this article identifiable genetic differences in something specific (serotonin transporter gene). Rather than having evolved as the authors posit, couldn't these differences have been intrinsic to the various distinct populations, e.g. part of what makes them distinct?
I don't know. You might like Inheritance by Moalem.
Thank you. I'll put it on the list. Sounds interesting.
Charlie, It's not often that I am amazed at something as well written as yours. But my Aha ! light went on when I read yours.
Thank you for your kind words. I get lucky sometimes. lol
I still hold out hope that the "mean gene" isn't dominant... I like to think it affects only 30% to 35% of the general population—those majority Republikkans who worship Trump.
I think we can agree there is a "mean gene." I hope you are right.
That’s quite a generalization of reality bites subjectively said in your own words being as it’s the Biden administration who’s just been exposed trying to coerce the social media companies to be censoring their members right to freedom of speech… Twitter (X) and Facebook have all started to come clean about this quagmire we as Americans are facing in the next general election in 2024 🇺🇸
There's a difference between free speech and hate speech
It appears that the quagmire you speak of is all coming from the Repub side of the coin. Look at the choices they have made to try to unseat President Biden. One candidate will be running from a prison cell, literally.
Being a lifelong Democrat since 1972 and I’ll proudly be voting for a true blue Democrat RFK Jr. and Trump Derangement Syndrome is really clouding your sense of the reality of the Joe Biden’s Crime Family Syndicate… C’est la vie
You'd better put that weed down. It's clouding your sensibilities.
Thank you! The level of agreed upon censorship by the legacy media and outlined by RFK, Jr, Glenn Greenwald and the others at the censorship round table is worth viewing. You Tube or Kennedy24.com. One example is TNI, started by the BBC; a group of media and social media entities agreed they would CENSOR anything that deviated from gov't orthodoxy. Notice the media does not call RFK, Jr's statements lies but misinformation. Misinformation is by their definition. More to the point, it is a big distraction of his core message - the takeover of our country by corporations stealing middle class wealth. Sadly, the democratic party is the opposite of the party of FDR and just another version of big money GOP.
RFK Jr.??? Really?! Wow.
Have you honestly viewed any of his numerous podcasts by invitation from both left, center and right hosts? Or just going along with the mainstream media's opinions? Notice how they don't site any facts just name calling of him. A career of 40 years successfully litigating against corrupt corporate theft of our commons and certain government agencies that are not following their mandate but doing the bidding of corporate donors.
He’s a nut job banking off of his family’s name, even the Kennedy family has rejected him and his ideas.
Definitely Yes!!! Our great nation really needs another Kennedy now more than ever to be the next President governing the future of America in 2024…
My grandfather boiled it down quite nicely - "You earn your rights, by fulfilling your resposibilties as a citizen."
We do not pay, respect ( or educate) teachers as well as we once did! I had such excellent teachers in my junior high ( (1967-69!) We memorized the Preamble, the Declaration and parts of The Gettysburg Address. And we discussed -- and I mean REALLY discussed by answering questions our teachers put to us! -- what these documents meant and HOW THEY EFFECTED OUR LIVES TODAY! My school, Holden Junior High, produced such knowledgable and engaged students from a supposedly " ignorant" coal camp town, that a Marshall University prof once did research on how it was that his brightest students came from such an unexpected place. He concluded that there were several factors, but the central one was the sense of community. Sense of community and education. Which comes first? Or do they both thrive and foster each other?
Very Good! This idea is fundamental to civilization itself. Where we see the world being destroyed by Climate Change, it is actually being destroyed by the people of the richer nations behaving without regard to the common good.
We must face the fact that we mere humans have no way of knowing how it is that we are creatures of Earth, circulating the Sun in the vastness of space. The scientific method of relying on our senses to come to agreement on our situation is all we have to go on. Life before or after death, and all the spiritual beliefs cannot be relied on to guide our actions, only what we all can sense in common can.
So, we come to the sad conclusion that all we can agree on is that we are an animal that has evolved on this speck in the universe, and that we must choose how we will act based on this uncertainty about existence. Sadly, there may be some like Putin or Trump, that decide they simply want to have infinity power over everything. That is everyone's prerogative. But people who care about the 'common good', will strive to set out a code of ethics that will promote a more pleasant future for all people, and recognize that we are only one species among the countless that have life.
The meaningless statement that : "What is good behavior is behavior that make the future better", needs to acquire substance and agreement on what a better future means.
The "survival of the fittest (meaning whatever survives)" got us to where we are through the powerful action of evolution, but that only applies to animals without the capacity to destroy the world. As members of humanity, we need to strive to define what a better future requires, and ensure that understanding is passed on.
Sadly, we are on the path of making life in the future much worse through war of course, but also through over consumption, over exploitation of nature, and climate change. Instead of a better future, we are creating just the opposite. Civilization is on the threshold of collapse due to our culture of selfishness.
Maybe in a hundred thousand years or so after we crash this paradise, civilization will rise again and not repeat our mistakes? Or, perhaps animals that arrive through the process of evolution are simply not compatible with an intelligent technically advanced society.
Capitalism is the result of the evolution of how a society governs. But society is still evolving. A system of capitalism can't remain democratic as we can easily see. We need to evolve to the next level of governance or we will perish. We can't rely on theoretical ideals of a common good and that "people" will not be greedy, take power, and leave the working man "blowing in the wind" as has happened since Reaganomics. Bidenomics may slow the disintegration of our society, but the long term solution lies with building a safety net into the system so that the few can't monopolize the resources and the power. Every person deserves what they need for survival as long as their society has the resources to provide it. Every person should not be in the position of accepting work that doesn't pay enough to provide the basic needs to live. Every person must have a basic minimum income without means testing. Every person deserves adequate healthcare. Passing laws like equal opportunity, oversight of workplace conditions, protection from sexual harassment, etc. sound great, but in the practical sense, the regulations are unenforceable because the ruling class doesn't have the will to provide the resources to monitor and enforce. The ultimate enforcement of the law, the justice system, is also a failure as we have seen. Watch Richard Wolff on You tube. He explains how we got where we are in terms easy to understand. But the change in the structure of our society needs to go beyond democratizing the workplace, although that is a good start.
Liberal socialism!
Responsible capitalism!
Looking for the door to the wormhole in space, to pass ourselves in time, maybe to do a Mulligan.
don't hold your breath!
@ Ted. IMO, exactly the right questions and concerns.
This is one of the most important and beautiful essays I have ever read. RR understands what the underlying intent of our founders was.
And now we can embrace that spirit of community and the common good - and include everyone. That is a more perfect Union.
For the first time in our history, the concept of public education as an equalizer is being torpedoed at its core - the trust between parents/teacher. The Far Right Republicans playbook of sowing doubts, fears, wedges of chaos and false accusations is the Achilles heel that is being exploited in every community, at the schools, costing us precious time and assets in educating the next generation. That is their goal.
Professor Reich is reminding us of the civic lesson, the covenant of what we owe one another as Americans.
I always think that Charity can be a cold cup, making the giver feel self-satisfied and 'virtuous' and the receiver feel uncomfortable. The idea of the common good where it is the norm to help each other is far better. And I find that, with certain religious people, they limit their charitable largess to people who toe the religious line…..and call the common good 'socialism' like it is disease.
Prof. Reich, you have exposed an area of confusion with ethics and virtue. To be fair, ethics is a very confused topic because people ingeniously look for ways to justify what they do. They invent theories such as effective altruism to dress up discredited ideas.
Effective altruism is a recent “rebranding” of Jeremy Bentham’s (1748 - 1832) idea of utilitarianism, which can be simply put that the ends justify the means. Utilitarianism is the guiding principle of our market-based economic system, like or not. The results of this type of thinking can be seen in the horrific mill towns of Northern England where the end of owner profitability justified oppressive labor condtions. It is also the basis of any business leader justifying layoffs and downsizing on the “greater good” of restoring profitability.
Curiously, the fact that three of the founding U.S. States were called “commonwealths” indicates that there were ideas opposing Bentham’s naked capitalism already at the time the U.S. was established. The meaning of commonwealth has some connotations of striving for a common good rather than just outcomes by any means.
Modern societies try to balance the harshness of utilitarianism thinking with two other models of ethics--Kantian ethics and virtue ethics. Kantian ethics is one largely rooted in the ideas of absolute rights and wrongs. We see this ethical model underlie our criminal justice system, which generally seeks to constrain the worst behaviors in a society.
Virtue ethics brings in the ideas of common good, which is about both good means and good ends. The EU has more effectively used this as a model through the foundational idea of a social-market economy. That idea emerged after WWII as a contrast to the results of naked capitalism and fascism that had led to the Third Reich. The U.S. model does not fully embrace a social-market economy and society. That is an area for improvement. Effective altruism is more of a diversion than an aid on the way to such a more just society.
I would say that Bentham (and Mill, also a utilitarian but of a different sort) is one big piece of market-based thought, but I really like Adam Smith's component: moral sentiments involve "men" (ahem) passing on a legacy and perhaps improving upon it.
Economists tend to shrug that off as "quaint." They forget millions of people took on the name "Miller" and "Smith" and other "last names" because of their trade or professional aspiration - the notion that a good "Miller" would pass on a real world mill.
"Effective altruism" of the Bankman-Fried model could be taken to mean, "I will sell you 1000 years of wheat from a mill that never existed and will never be built, in exchange for control over products from your mill that you will never actually grind" - a trade of nothing for something, but hidden by mathematical gambits designed to obfuscate that. When someone has a scam like that, they'll appropriate other people's traditions - like Bentham (or anyone else's)...but I don't think that's even a rebranding - just a fraud.
James Rachels' conception of "multiple strategies utilitarianism" seems to strike the right balance IMHO.
Worse, it is all too often a rebranding of Machiavellianism.
Of course there are those who simply do not feel a need to justify evil means!
Thank You for the excellent recollection of how the United States became the greatest country in the world and how Greedy people can tear us apart!
VIRTUE
noun
vir·tue ˈvər-(ˌ)chü
Synonyms of virtue
1
a
: conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY
b
: a particular moral excellence
2
: a beneficial quality or power of a thing
3
: manly strength or courage : VALOR
4
: a commendable quality or trait : MERIT
5
: a capacity to act : POTENCY
6
: chastity especially in a woman
7
virtues plural : an order of angels
Virtue
BY GEORGE HERBERT (1633)
Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright,
The bridal of the earth and sky;
The dew shall weep thy fall to-night,
For thou must die.
Sweet rose, whose hue angry and brave
Bids the rash gazer wipe his eye;
Thy root is ever in its grave,
And thou must die.
Sweet spring, full of sweet days and roses,
A box where sweets compacted lie;
My music shows ye have your closes,
And all must die.
Only a sweet and virtuous soul,
Like season'd timber, never gives;
But though the whole world turn to coal,
Then chiefly lives.
Ah, poetry lives!
@ Daniel. Intense, and relevant. Thank you.
How metaphysical.
A LOT to live up to?
I have friends in Denmark. We don't see each other as often as we like these days, but we correspond. Denmark is a functional society. Danes accept a personal obligation to support their society and in turn are supported by it. But my Danish friends tell me that could never work over here. We are infused with a view of our nation, and to a great extent our society, as a capitalist competition to succeed. And the measure of that success is accumulated wealth. Obligations to society are extra burdens that are more often honored it the breech. In smaller units, like family or church or small towns we do tend to be more social and altruistic.
And then there is this Randian fear that everyone would freeload with their hand out and no one would produce anything. A fear that you rarely see anyone express openly outside of the Anglosphere, especially the USA. And prior to Reagan, even in the USA was not nearly as much.
To say that it would never work here is a bit too defeatist, IMHO. But it would of course be more challenging due to our culture's dominant mindset.
The moral examples Reich cites, from Madison to Lincoln to Jane Addams, have always had a countervailing power, (to use one of Reich's favorite phrases). For every Lincoln, et al, there was a Jay Gould. For every Jane Addams there was a D.A.R. member. Until very recently, the common good in America stopped at the boundaries of one's community, or sometimes one's state, but never transcended one's tribe. The balance between individual rights and the community got seriously out of whack in the Eighties (Ivan Boesky -- "greed is good") and remains skewed. It isn't just Trump or Sam Bankman-Freed. It's a long history of give and take, as much take as give, and it is us. To counter it, we need more stories of Givers, fewer of Takers, which dominate our 24/7 news narrative.
https://www.theattic.space
I don't feel like Samuel Bankman-Fried's effective altruism worked as many thought it would. We, as Americans, are open to new ideas but most of us stop short when this idea goes against our commitment to Democracy and the Constitution. I don't agree with Mr. Bankman-Fried's 'the ends justify the means'. All too often that belief leads you down a road to major accountability. These younger people growing up today have been bombarded with negativism about what their country is doing to them. The rappers use dark rhetoric, the reality shows get very nasty, and the parents don't seem to care what the kids are seeing and listening to. To teach our children what is so important about this country, parents need to show through civic actions and deeds. For example, collecting outgrown clothes and toys and donating them to families that need them. Donating food to the local food pantry. Registering and voting. Looking out for our neighbors. These types of actions show children the importance of the common good. It's important that our young do not grow up feeling entitled. All that being said, I still believe that a larger population of Americans who believe in our great nation do teach their children to know and understand that they are living in a country that allows them to pursue their dreams wherever they may lead. They also teach them that in order to continue to do that, it is important to learn how our Democracy works and what it takes to keep it going. We teach them while it is okay to disagree about politics, equal opportunities, and the rule of law, it is never okay to use violence or vile rhetoric to get our way. I see these ideas being taught at every baseball game, football game, hockey game and any other sport being played.
Wonderful article today. Thank you
I am a conservative, who, most of the time, enjoys reading your articles so I can get a better perspective from the other side. You always have interesting points of view that I can mull over and think about. But I have to say, every article, no matter the topic, ALWAYS goes back to Donald Trump with you. It's very hard to keep an open mind and try to learn something when I can see how consumed you are about him. It taints your credibility and objectivity about the issues you write about.
I believe Robert Reich refers so frequently to Donald Trump because Mr. Trump presents an existential threat to our American democracy in a way that no one before him ever has. Mr. Reich's lesson here about the "common good" is one we Americans would all do well to re-learn and take to heart. If we do not do this, I genuinely fear for the future of our republic.
What terrifies me is not just Trump himself, but the mindset of his lackeys that propped him up; his followers that refuse to recognize the facts about his misdeeds; and his opponents who minimize the effort necessary to permanently remove him from politic office as and keep him out of party politics.
Yes, & as an obvious symbol & convenient reference to illustrate what is currently wrong with America & as the opposite of how we should be.
I get your point, I really do, but....it's very hard to talk about sin without mentioning the devil. Donal Trump is so far outside the Pale that he cannot form any part of the future government of this, or any other, country,
His guilt is as plain as your nose!
Funny think happens when witnesses get a subpoena and are administered the oath.
I'm not sure if that's true - references to the Devil are actually few and far between in the Old and New Testaments. It is possible to learn about sin without thinking about the Devil, by focusing on virtues we seek to manifest and what they look like. That's also how the Greeks did it when they coined many of the concepts of virtue as we know them...
BUT for all his nastiness, the Devil never had his finger on the nuclear button and the power to use human tools to destroy humanity. Trump did. Trump took his finger off the nuclear button to type in a Tweet as a joke - and his followers laughed, "haha, Rocketman!". When he did, that was an existential threat to America - and to the world. When they did, they embraced something hateful to humanity that might just as well have come from the Devil - laughing at the possibility of killing more people more quickly than Hitler - shrugging at it the same way they shrug about Jan 6.
Perhaps there are more important crises for Rhonda Yost to worry about that would restore her sense of objectivity...
Dear Rhonda, see Paul Buell's response below... Trump is the elephant in the room whom we cannot overlook, and as long as he is at liberty the American experiment is endangered! But congratulations on your bothsidesism!
If you read Mr. Reich writings you discover that the one group that he detests are bullies. Donald Trump is a bully who poses an existential threat to our country.
He embodies more than one existential threat to many countries, chief among which is the idea that bad American government and leadership are good for other governments -- horror.
Well yeah but its what most of the leading players in the US Establishment embrace, the philosophy of bullies, Exceptionalism.
Former AG Bill Barr commented on air a few days ago that it would be a bad thing for the country if Trump landed n jail.
Trump, for sure, has tainted public discourse, but until his threat is dealt with he cannot be ignored. Like the ad “ When you can’t breathe nothing else matters!”
Speaking as an outsider (Ireland), the main reason is the existential risk Trump poses, not just to America, but to the world. There has never been a President like him, not even Nixon comes close, and hopefully there never will be again. make no mistake, if he gets in again, it may very well be game over for all of us!
I think we would be curious to know how you define "conservative". In the old classic sense before American politics turned the word into a pejorative? Or are you part of the new conservative movement that seeks the destruction of government and eschews a level playing field for all people?
Wondering for a friend...
Great question we should be asking all self-proclaimed "conservatives", because there's a huge difference between the two.
My definition as a conservative means that I want the best opportunities education, living conditions, jobs and job growth, family values, health and wellness, financial security, and global respect as a Republic. Utopian? You bet it is.
Striving for improvement, not perfection. Being accountable and being held to account as well as having responsibility to yourself, your family, your community and your country are ways, I believe, to achieve this.
I like all that stuff. Sounds like you are a conservative Democrat!
I prefer to be considered a progressive Republican!
You are in high demand in a nation that needs two political parties ( or more) ... parties with common goals (like yours) but different paths to get there. Such people can talk, negotiate and compromise. I miss that.
Yes, I do too and why I really do try to listen to what both sides are saying. I try not to blame, point fingers, name call, or keep my head in the the dark recesses of you know where. I am so surprised, dismayed, stupefied even at how at odds both sides have become when we all seem to want, (mostly), the same things! Discussions always seem to get heated, the yeah buts start, frustration sets in and the gloves come off. Knowledge is key. Understanding the facts, also important. Being able to admit being wrong, very important but so is having courage of conviction. I appreciate having these conversations. This was my first time commenting on RR's site but not the first time I've wanted to. Sometimes, having a dialog with someone can clarify an opinion, belief or idea, or can alter it. Either can be good.
Smiles here…
My view on your idea of conservatism strikes me as what ought to be COMMON SENSE. Who, in their RIGHT mind, wouldn’t desire “best” for all concerned? I also find it hard to comprehend that this is the “best we can do”. With so much waste, indifference, and lack of any shame in so much gluttony it is no wonder that Americans are viewed with skepticism throughout many parts of the world. Having allowed such an individual to be our “leader”, our representative, has proven downright baffling, BAFFLING to many. It has opened many eyes to just how “ill” this body politic is. To have allowed such a toxic symptom to manifest itself and continue to be validated is truly a disturbing trend. Just what is it we want? To “win”, whatever this may mean? Pain and suffering are not part of some “game”. Devious behavior is affecting us all, “guilty” and “innocent”, alike.
Such is the way of things. Until, that is, WE come to some consensus as to just what it is we desire. For ourselves, YES, but, if we’re to understand and acknowledge ANY sense as to the relevancy of a self-sacrificing love, we’ll just become selfish narcissists. No compromise, only looking out for what benefits, or profits, ourselves. “Phlegm”(as I’ve referred to him) is merely the manifestation of this “ideal”.
Robert Reich has steadfastly written, and lectured, on NOT this symptom so much as to the SYSTEMIC issue that we are ALL accountable to. I think you’re a bit harsh in using the terms “pure hatred” in describing Roberts “feelings” for said “symptom”.
Like you, Rhonda, I also yearn for some type of “utopia”. At the least let’s strive for convincing persons they are more relevant than money, or profit.
I am hopeful… (label me a…DREAMER…?). Smiles, again.
Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your sentiments as we do have some common ground. We all seem to be very good at hashing out the problems, the bad changes that each side believes has happened, the frustrations we all feel. What is it going to take to change and make a difference so we can all feel better about our country? Where do we start? How can we learn to agree to disagree without the hatred and vitriol? This is where I am at. It's time to move forward. I will start with, please let's not vote for Donald Trump in 2024!
In that case, you're a classic Eisenhower kind of Republican, very compatible with most moderate & even progressive Democrats. At least we can work together to solve problems rather than treat each other as enemies.
I do not feel that Professor Reich always goes to Mr. Trump. To be perfectly honest, Mr. Bankman-Fried and Mr. Trump and many others do not adhere to the principles which founded this country. Our Democracy is a wonderful thing that so many want to come and experience. To be allowed the rights this great country offers means we also have to accept the responsibilities that go along with preserving those rights. Even though I am a Democrat, I am so happy to see that some conservatives are open to the other side and their perspectives. Professor Reich is the best place to go when trying to understand different points of view.
Rhonda, the longer I live the more I find a benefit in listening to others. The world is not so easily divided into Republican or Democrat, black or white. To be fair, there are some who see things in a duality...fine. But people are generally much more complicated. I truly appreciate your comment.
Rhonda Yost, there is nothing Professor Reich writes that isn’t true. He researches extensively and is a brilliant, kind man who cares about the state of our Democracy.
It comes back to Trump because Trump tried and continues to employ all his efforts to take over our Democracy. Prof. Reich is helping by using his high level of education (as an attorney), an educator (as a Professor) and his experience (working for the White House in multiple administrations), to educate us so we may be properly equipped to fight and spread the true facts.
And no, it does NOT tarnish Prof. Reich’s words in any manner or make him lose his credibility. That is a Republican MO - to attack any Democrat’s credibility, because they have no other defense or game plan.
Our Democracy is at stake NOW. That is why it comes back to Trump
#1 I highly respect Professor Reich.
#2 I do believe his comments
are somewhat tarnished by his pure hatred of Trump.
#3 I agree, our Democracy is at stake. I'm quite sure we are on opposite sides as to why.
#4 I wish Trump were completely out of the picture too.
Which of Reich’s words are tarnished? You are comparing a revered, hardworking, kind person of high intelligence and impeccable integrity with a liar, a cheat a self centered criminal who doesn’t read books.
Trust me, I am not defending Trump. I only meant that anytime I try to watch liberal main stream media on TV, it is dominated by Trump, Trump Trump! I was hoping to get some other perspective other than that which dominates and gets into the head of every Democrat it seems
I wish that, too, as there are many other Republican politicians, who are supporting him & his policies, who are antidemocratic & divisive, & are potentially as dangerous. Focusing on Trump only won't solve our problems. Removing him won't save our nation if someone just as bad replaces him.
Will Hurd is probably the most decent & traditional of all the Republicans running for President. But he gets barely 1/2 of 1% in the polls. The most decent candidates always get stuck on the lower end of the Republican primaries.
The Republicans have no credibility. We have ALREADY ALL SEEN and HEARD the things Trump has done. There is really nothing to reveal except what the witnesses have to say. And guess what - they are ALL Republican!
All the authors, poets, and commentators mentioned in this article were writing about their specific time in the American landscape, their relation to it, their understanding of it, and most importantly their hope that others around them would bind together with them to cement it for another bit of time. R. is writing about those same things and mentioning the danger to that landscape presented by those that have fundamental ideas of public life diametrically opposed to that American landscape. Misunderstanding the very point of the article is disingenuous in the least, and otherwise dangerous to miss the threat posed by those that wish burn that landscape to ash.
But it is perfectly planted to disrupt the applause we give RR for his insights. Have you started noticing this on the major progressive newsletters’ comment sections lately, also? This is a gop tactic being employed to disrupt the commenters. Perhaps we start doing it on gop newsletters posing as “average readers just happenin’ to notice (disingenuously) the meaning of the article”. Eyes wide open folks! 2024 is under way.
We should spread our views on right-wing sites as long as we do it with facts, reasoning, kindness & peace. Many of the readers & commenters on those sites never hear from progressive sources , only lots of propaganda, lies, conspiracy theories & hate against Democrats, liberals, & anybody associated with them.
Dirty tricks everywhere, and I don't do them ...
Thank you for stating exactly what’s been sitting in the back of my mind for quite some time. I also consume RR’s writings for identical purposes yet know that Trump will eventually be circled in somehow.
And how or why is that bad????????
It dilutes the integrity of the messages in my view when it’s a consistent component in intellectual writings. Yet I wouldn’t expect someone who requires multiple question marks in their own questions to have understood that.
@Stephen. I think it dilutes the message when you use the punctuation to go ad hominem…
Next time I will add cinnamon , more flavor.
Well, unfortunately, that's where we are right now at this very moment. He's front and center because he engaged in behavior with others that could have destroyed whatever semblance of democracy we have remaining. Sure, we can engage in other discussions on other topics. Important topics -- certainly. Like peace, the environment, gender equality, racial equality, healthcare, the economy. You mean those topics? Hopefully we will again evolve to the point that he is not front and center. But until we have come to some resolution and hopefully common ground, this guy will keep popping up. Because if our democracy is destroyed, the recognition and solving of any of those problems will be virtually impossible.
Personally I wish Reich would mention the names of other dangerous Republicans & billionaire donors that are no less of a threat to our future welfare, but Trump is a well-known & obvious illustration of what's wrong with America now.
Do you not think that "other billionaire donors" such as Sam Bankman-Freid, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and many others on the left, are no less of a threat when they put forth their funds to alter and change the welfare of our country? Wealth, in my view, never equated with intelligence, compassion, betterment for all the world. There always seems to be a ulterior motive for their own interests, not necessarily the country.
Hi Rhonda, I don't consider a big donor just because they donate to democrats' campaigns to be "on the left". Some donate as you say purely on self-interest so they hedge their bets. They see which way the proverbial wind is blowing and donate with the wind. As for the names, you referenced, I do not think that most believe that it is self-evident that all are created equal based on their words and business practices.
I cannot generalize and never will about wealthy people. As in any group of people, there are big rascals and there are very loving people, and all those in between on a continuum. Growing up, close relatives of mine were extremely wealthy, multiple homes, business and family trips all over the world, the most exclusive restaurants and golfing. But they were kind, generous, and down to earth with everyone. Their adult children are the same. They do not believe they are superior and so they consciously put love out into the world.
Did I say I didn't think so? And I'm not so sure some of those names, particularly Bezos, Zuckerberg & SBF, are as leftist as you seem to think. At least they've done little, if anything, with their vast wealth on behalf of progressive causes.
Sam Bankman-Fried is a con artist. Any others "on the left" who are putting forth their funds to "change the welfare" of the U.S. for the better can spend all the money they want. There probably is an ulterior motive, but so what. Wealth certainly does not equate to "intelligence and compassion" as you rightly observe. If these wealthy guys would just pay their taxes, it would go a long way toward helping society support its most vulnerable members. Of course, there must be some causes to which you object that these "lefty" guys are spending their money on. Maybe you could enlighten us as to which ones you find so objectionable.
Since you asked: Mark Zuckerberg notably donated upwards of 400 million dollars, "zuckerbucks" they were called to help change election and voting processes in several states to ensure Democratic victories. Georgia being one of states.
George Soros is also well known for financing and donating to many blue states Attorney General races. This I believe has contributed to the increased crime and lawlessness in the bigger cities in these blue states. Defund the police, no bail, no jail time. We all see it's working well!
Check out the Sixteen Thirty Fund. A well funded, political super PAC's of dark money from a large group of ultra wealthy unknown financiers.
I know none of these are illegal operations, donations or support. I know too that it happens on the right as well. Is it fair ? Is it right for that influence to change and alter somewhat questionably the outcomes? This is what I am opposed to, on both sides. It should always be we the people, not we the wealthy.
How was Georgia's "election & voting processes" changed to "ensure Democratic victories"?
What I know is Kemp used his position as Secretary of State to use the election & voting processes to ensure his own victory over Stacey Abrams for governor, & that the Georgia legislature has limited voting days & times to restrict Democratic voting, and restricted the number of voting places & machines to ensure long lines & waiting times in heavily Democratic areas & the banning of the provision of water & refreshments to people standing in line for hours in a cynical & sinister ploy to ensure some will either give up & go home or die trying to vote.
I’d suggest you read Maggie Haberman’s book, ‘Confidence Man’.
“What do you want me to say?” This was his response to Ms Haberman when she’d placed a call to him for a response to something in the news. It effectively reveals his true character - tRump is unprincipled.
He manages moment-to-moment with no grounding in anything remotely related to vision, character, ideals, or principles beyond what’s good for himself.
His daddy upbringing and idolization of Roy Cohn - never give up; litigate, litigate, litigate until your opponent gives up - helped shaped the monster most of us see.
It was a lot simpler for me. I don’t hold in high esteem anyone moored in the trappings of wealth and power. That tells me most everything I need to know about that particular individual.
Totally 100% agree.
I think it's easier to blame someone than realise maybe everyone had choices and didn't follow through.
At least you are headed in the right direction, but please think of the reflection of Trump as being the living breathing perfect example of wrongs you here are reading about. I would guess that you would say Hitler was wrong. I though we would never see that again. Trump has not only proved me wrong, but has done so in the same way. I would have never believed in such a prediction. jimD
I have never once believed Trump was not an egotistical, spoiled, big baby bully of a man. It pains me greatly to watch him at all. I am sorry there are so many on the right that idolize and worship him as the great hope of our country. That being said, I can't in good conscience believe the Democrats are doing any better at their offerings! Please! If we all want a better country, better representation, a worthwhile leaders and leaders,we have to do better! My worst political moment in the last few years was watching the debate between Trump and Biden! Who else besides myself said to themselves, "is this the best we can do? 360 million people in the US and this is the best we can do?" Let's find an answer! It starts with election integrity, term limits, limited lobbying rules, being held accountable in politics on all levels and all branches of Government.
I'm totally with you in regards to "is the best we can do?". Biden was no better than 10th on my list of best Democratic candidates in 2020. He only became nominee through machinations by establishment Democrats. I so wish he would retire after this term, even though I think he did better than expected or is generally given credit for. I have strong doubts that his health can hold out for 5 1/2 more years, & we need some new thinking to tackle our greatest crises.
And of course, I think there never has been a worse candidate or president than Trump.
I'm with you Rhonda. I have a suggestion add on to your., "It starts with...". You must know a company is treated like an individual, a voter... it can give big money to candidates. Can you imagine what congressman is going to vote against anything the "company" wants? I can't imagine any woman voting for "anything you want you can do it to them" kind'a guy. You may have some thoughts why some woman are okay with that? Lets all vote for that. Thanks for your words. jimD
Oh, it seems writers here are asking for upvotes these days. Maybe there is a reward of some kind. I don’t get or ask for anything now. With enough upvotes maybe I will. Please press the upvote button and we’ll see. Thanks, jimD
Like
Reply
Robert - please consider turning some attention to the question of congress making rules or guidelines for the ethics of Supreme Court justices. How would this work, some practical considerations like can congress enforce such rules? How? Is there a downside to this? Would this open us up to a politicized congress going after judges who they politically don't like? Could they remove justices or only reprimand them? How does this effect the balance or separation of powers? And what else have I missed to think about regarding this issue?
The separation of powers in our Republic is what balances the workings necessary for smooth operation of government.
The balance is delicate from my view and even a slight advantage by one branch over the others would be hard to resist by the powerful individuals occupying those positions. It seems that the oath of office is not sufficient to insure integrity of those individuals. Perhaps less politically charged appointments would help in addressing these concerns. Certainly term limits would help in this matter. I join you in asking RR to speak to this.