The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

Friends,

While MAGA Republicans in the House attack and investigate what they dub Biden’s “weaponized” federal government and blast Democratic mayors for being “soft on crime,” they are blatantly ignoring the crimes of their allies in plain sight.

After Rep. George Santos was arrested and charged with 13 federal crimes — seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making false statements to Congress — what did Speaker Kevin McCarthy do?

Nothing. In fact, he said he would not act to remove Santos.

After ProPublica investigations revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose, as required by law, luxury gifts from a Republican megadonor — including expensive vacations, a rent-free house for Thomas’s mother, and tuition payments for a child Thomas was “raising like a son” — what did McCarthy do?

Nothing. He said he had no concerns, “not at all” about Thomas. House Republicans have made no move to push the Supreme Court toward a code of ethics.

What of the former guy’s innumerable transgressions?

After Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg brought charges against Trump, McCarthy attacked Bragg. 

Since Trump was found by a jury to have sexually harassed and defamed E. Jean Carroll, McCarthy has said nothing. Nor has Florida governor Ron DeSantis commented, nor former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley or Senator Tim Scott, both of whom have launched a 2024 exploratory committees.

Meanwhile, most Republican lawmakers continue to deny that Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election and instigate an insurrection.

***

An earlier generation of conservatives worried about what it saw as a breakdown in social norms in America. They feared the loss of “guardrails” that kept people in line. They fretted about “law and order.”

In a famous essay, political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George L. Kelling noted that a broken window in a poor community, left unattended, signals that no one cares if windows are broken there.

Because nobody is concerned enough to enforce the norm against breaking windows, the broken window becomes an invitation to throw more stones and break more windows. 

As more windows shatter, other aspects of community life also start unraveling. The unspoken norm becomes: Do whatever you want here, because everyone else is doing it.

This earlier generation of conservatives found the moral breakdown to be mainly in poor and predominantly Black and Latino communities.

In 1969, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged to have an automobile without license plates parked with its hood up on a street in the Bronx and a comparable automobile on a street in Palo Alto, California. 

The car in the Bronx was attacked by “vandals” within ten minutes of its “abandonment.”

The car in Palo Alto sat untouched for more than a week. Then Zimbardo smashed part of it with a sledgehammer. Soon, passersby joined in. Within a few hours, the car had been destroyed.

Wilson and Kelling concluded that because of the nature of community life in the Bronx — its anonymity, the frequency with which cars are abandoned and things are stolen or broken, the past experience of “no one caring”— vandalism began much more quickly than it did in rich Palo Alto, where people had come to believe that private possessions are cared for and mischievous behavior is costly.

But once communal barriers — the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility — are lowered by actions that seem to signal that “no one cares,” lawbreaking can take root anywhere. Even at the highest reaches of America.

What we are witnessing today is a breakdown of norms at the top. In a former president who still has not been held accountable for his attempted coup. In a Republican speaker of the House who refuses to hold his allies accountable for violations of law. In a recently elected member of the House who has been arrested and charged with numerous federal crimes. In a Supreme Court justice who has accepted jaw-dropping gifts without reporting them as required by law.

They are breaking windows right and left. And in doing so, they are inviting more broken windows — implicitly telling America that it’s okay to do whatever you want to do, even if unethical, even if illegal — because people at the highest levels of responsibility in America are doing it.

As McCarthy and House Republicans focus their ire on their putative political enemies — seeking examples of lawbreaking and ethical breaches where there are none, while turning a blind eye to lawbreaking by their allies — they are normalizing lawbreaking across the land. 

Unless this breakage is stopped and its perpetrators held accountable, every window in America — the rule of law itself — is vulnerable. 

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

On Sunday I experienced the perfect antidote to the resurgent Trump and Trumpism. I met with Tennessee Representative Justin Jones right after he gave an inspiring talk to our graduating UC Berkeley public policy students.

As you may recall, Jones and another young Black Tennessee legislator, Justin Pearson, were expelled last month from the state’s General Assembly for protesting Tennessee’s failure to enact stronger gun controls after a shooting at a Christian school in Nashville took the lives of three nine-year-olds and three adults.

Now, he and Pearson are back. And their expulsion has caused a groundswell of support for them and the causes they’re fighting for, in Tennessee and elsewhere around America.

A half century separates us. He’s 27, at the start of his career. I’m about to be 77, nearing the end of mine.

He’s a young Black man. I’m an old white guy.

He’s tall. I’m very short.

We grew up in radically different times.

But I came away from our discussion profoundly optimistic about the future of this country. In talking with him I felt as if I were passing a generational baton to someone who will be fighting the good fight for the next half century — a new generation that will be more successful than mine in achieving social and economic justice, that will lead the nation toward a strong multiracial, multiethnic democracy.

He and Pearson, who took office in November and January, respectively, are community organizers and social justice advocates. Jones has described himself as an activist.

“I think our presence as young Black voices for our constituencies, people who will not bow down, those who will not be conformed, that’s what put a target on us the day we walked in the Tennessee General Assembly. … I mean, this is the first time in Tennessee history we had a completely partisan expulsion by predominantly white caucus — all but one member of their caucus is white out of 75 members — and we are the two youngest Black lawmakers in Tennessee. … And so what we saw was a system of political hubris. This was not just an attack on us, it was an attempt to silence our districts.”

He believes the biggest challenge his generation faces is the growing assault on democracy.

“The Tennessee House Republicans’ attempt to crucify democracy has instead resurrected a movement led by young people to restore democracy, to build a multi-racial coalition … . The message is that we will continue to resist, that this is not the end. Their decision to expel us is not the ultimate authority, but the people will hold them accountable.”

Jones is optimistic.

“We have an old saying in Tennessee that a mule kicks hardest when it’s dying. They’re fighting us so hard because they realize their power and their systems are dying.”

I was also impressed by his candor about the psychological toll the fight was taking on him and others. “Your generation went through the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement,” he told me backstage,

“but you didn’t talk about what those fights demanded of you, how the hate they aroused hurt you. Some of you burned out. My generation is different. We recognize the pain, and we find solace in communities that are engaged with us. The opposite of oppression is community. We know the fight will be long. We can’t burn out.”

Amen.

[With thanks to Tom Lofthouse and Michael Lahanas-Calderón]

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action, and my former student), when we review the highs and lows (and sometimes very lows) of the week.

This week we focus on:

— Donald Trump’s horrible lie-fest on CNN. Why did CNN give him a full hour in front of a fawning audience of Trump fans?

— E. Jean Carroll’s courtroom victory over Trump, as a Manhattan jury awards her $5 million in damages and finds him liable for sexually abusing her in the mid-1990s. Will she sue Trump again for calling her claim “fake” and a “made-up story” on CNN?

— The George Santos indictment. Will Republicans expel him from the House?

— The negotiable non-negotiable debt ceiling. Why did Biden sit down with Kevin McCarthy this week? What should Biden do?

Grab a cup, pull up a chair, and (if you’re so inclined) take our poll.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

Retiring from the university means I have to vacate my office. The university has already scheduled a cleaning and new paint job (as if my years of habitation have somehow infested it).

What to do with my books? I’ve accumulated several hundred over the years, now scrunched together on shelves running floor to ceiling. I’ve considered carting them to the student common room with a sign reading “free books” but can’t yet bring myself to part with them. Many are like old friends. They’re filled with my underlinings and marginal notes. A few have traveled with me for 50 years. How can I just put them out?

The biggest immediate problem is my Cabinet chair — the chair I sat in at Cabinet meetings when I was secretary of labor.

By tradition, Cabinet members purchase their Cabinet chairs when they leave the government. When I left the Labor Department 26 years ago, my staff bought the chair for me as a going-away gift. I was touched at the time. Now, I’m befuddled.

It’s heavy and ugly — a clunky late 18th century design that’s been standard in the Cabinet room since William Howard Taft was president.

It’s also huge. When I sit in it, my legs shoot straight out like Lily Tomlin playing Edith Ann.

And it’s personalized. When you join the Cabinet, a small engraved brass plate is attached to the back of your Cabinet chair showing the date you started (in my case, January 21, 1993). Another is attached when you leave, with the date of your departure (January 12, 1997).

Together, they feel like a tombstone.

There’s no place for my Cabinet chair in my home. Even if there were, I wouldn't ever sit in it.

What should I do with it? Craigslist? Too undignified. eBay? Inappropriate. Auction it off and give the proceeds to charity? Too complicated.

It would be best, I think, if the White House would just take it back and reuse it for another Cabinet official (minus my tombstone).

I called the White House switchboard yesterday, but the kindly person on the other end of the line didn’t know how to respond.

“Hello, I’d like to return my Cabinet chair,” I said.

“Which Cabinet office would you like to be connected with, sir?”

“Sorry, you misunderstood me. I want to give back my Cabinet chair.”

“We don’t dispose of chairs, sir.”

“It’s a Cabinet chair.”

“We don’t dispose of cabinets, either.”

“No, I want to recycle the chair I sat in when I was in the Cabinet.”

“You want the White House to recycle?”

“Just my Cabinet chair.”

“Sorry, sir, we cannot handle your request. Thank you for calling the White House.”

***

Anybody want a big, ugly, heavy, former Cabinet chair?

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

The same Republican state lawmakers who are prohibiting transgender care for young people and barring them from using school bathrooms or playing on sports teams according to their gender identity — all in the name of “protecting children” — are actively subjecting children to more gun violence and pushing younger children into more dangerous jobs.

Consider Arkansas, which in April 2021 became the first state to outlaw transition-related medical treatment for minors.

A few month ago, after children were found working at a factory owned by Tyson Foods, Arkansas’s second-largest private employer, state lawmakers repealed restrictions on work for 14- and 15-year-olds and eliminated a requirement that children under 16 get a state work permit before being employed.

Arkansas also has some of the weakest gun laws in the country and one of the highest rates of children killed by guns. Republican lawmakers in the state now allow concealed guns to be carried at universities.

Or consider Iowa. Weeks ago, Republicans there prohibited doctors from giving gender-affirming care to transgender minors and barred transgender people from using school restrooms or locker rooms that don’t align with their sex at birth.

Yet these same Iowa lawmakers are lifting restrictions on children employed in hazardous jobs — allowing children as young as 14 to work in meat coolers and industrial laundries and drive themselves up to 50 miles to and from work between 5:00 am and 10:00 pm, and teens as young as 15 to work on assembly lines.

Iowa Republicans have also repealed a longstanding state law requiring handgun background checks.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has portrayed transgender medical care as a major threat to the wellbeing of Florida’s children. At the same time, DeSantis has relaxed child labor rules. And he just signed into law a bill allowing Floridians to carry guns without a state permit.

And so it goes across America.

In just the last year, the number of children employed in violation of child labor laws has soared 37 percent. Meanwhile, 10 states have recently introduced or passed legislation expanding work hours for children, lifting restrictions on hazardous occupations for children, allowing children to work in locations that serve alcohol, and lowering the state minimum wage for minors.

Many of these same states are also making it easier to buy guns, even though firearms have become the number one cause of death for children and teens in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

Republican hypocrisy? Yes, of course.

But it’s worse than that. Follow the money.

These Republican lawmakers are taking boatloads of campaign donations from corporations that need workers but would rather hire children than pay higher wages to adults, and from gun manufacturers seeking more business and bigger profits.

The quid pro quo? Dismantle child labor protections and allow just about anyone to get and carry a gun.

The Republican war on transgender youth is bad enough. It also deflects attention from these other Republican initiatives that are threatening the lives of all children.

These same Republican lawmakers are harming children by refusing to extend Medicaid, cutting school budgets, unraveling safety nets, and subjecting children to harsh poverty. And, of course, by forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t afford in the first place.

The rest of us must act — against the easing of gun laws, against the easing of child labor laws, against cutting school budgets, against increasingly restrictive anti-abortion laws, and against the cruel targeting of transgender children. And we must organize and mobilize against gerrymandering and other Republican efforts to entrench their minority rule.

Please spread the word.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

Welcome back to another Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse (executive director of Inequality Media and my former student) where we look at the highs and lows and even lowers of the week.

Today, we examine:

— Joe Biden’s unsurprising announcement that he’s running for reelection. But what does it really mean, and what are his chances?

— Kevin McCarthy and the radical House Republicans’ gonzo demands for raising the debt ceiling. What are Biden’s options?

— Radical Republicans in Montana, preventing a transgender lawmaker from speaking. Why are Republicans across the nation targeting transgender people?

— Goodbye to Tucker. What happened, and where is he going?

— Bob’s last class!

Please pull up a chair, grab a cup, and if you’re inclined, take our poll.

Loading...

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

Ever since word got out that I’ll be retiring from teaching at the end of this semester, people have been asking me what I’ll be doing next?

I try to respond politely, but the question annoys the hell out of me.

I’m reminded of singer-songwriter Willie Nelson’s response to a fan who asked him when he’ll be retiring: “Retiring from what?”

Most people who “retire” usually stop what they call “working” and begin what they call “playing.”

But what if your work is also your play? What if it’s your calling? What if it’s deeply meaningful to you? What if you don’t want to do less of it?

I’m one of the lucky ones. Most Americans don’t especially enjoy what they do on the job. My father spent most of his working life anxious about earning enough for his family to live on. The moment he turned 65 he stopped working and began collecting Social Security, and he spent the next 31 years playing golf.

The original meaning of the word “retire” was to find a secluded or private place. Judges still order juries to “retire” to consider a verdict.

This doesn’t describe what I’m doing, either. The last thing I’m looking for is seclusion.

So why am I retiring from teaching?

I love teaching. I’ve been at it for 42 years. But it seemed better to quit when I’m still able to give students what they deserve. I owe it to them to do it well.

[A few of my graduate student teaching assistants]

Yet I’ll miss it. Teaching is the most generative thing I’ve done in my life, apart from being a father.

I had my yearly doctor’s appointment yesterday. My doctor is a young woman, not much older than many of my graduate students. Everything checked out fine. When she asked me what was new in my life, I told her I was about to retire from teaching. She congratulated me. I burst into tears.

I’d been hiding from myself just how much I’ll miss it.

Retirement is often confused with aging, but I think the relationship is the reverse. Meaningful work — work that’s more play than work — can lead to a longer life. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. — poet, writer, educator, and physician — once said, people “do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing.”

I won’t any longer be teaching entire courses, but I won’t quit playing.

***

By the way, please join me for my Wealth and Poverty course, right here on this page. We’ll be taking a deep dive into the jobs of today and the likely jobs of the future. If you missed the first several classes, no problem. You can pick up anywhere, or retrieve class previous classes from here.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, when we consider the lows and lower points of the week. Today we look at:

— The latest revelations about Clarence Thomas’s corruption — financial gifts from Harlan Crow that by law must be reported. Will Thomas finally be held accountable?

— The district court ruling in Texas that overruled the FDA’s decision that a major abortion medication is safe and effective, which has gone to the Supreme Court. Why did the Supreme Court ever think it could rid itself of the abortion issue?

— Why the Republican position on abortion will be the end of the Republican Party.

— The Dominion Voting Systems $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox News starts Monday. What’s the best way to ensure that Fox viewers learn that Fox News lied to them about the 2020 election?

— My last few weeks of my last class — now on Substack.

Please grab a cup, pull up a chair (and, if you wish, take our poll):

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

The $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News — which starts Monday, with jury selection tomorrow — has uncovered a trove of damning text messages and emails showing that Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham knowingly lied to their viewers about false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election. A few weeks ago, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that the evidence made it “CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” and that the statements from Fox News that are challenged by Dominion constitute defamation “per se.” 

Today, Judge Davis said he was imposing a sanction on Fox News and would very likely start an investigation into whether Fox’s legal team had deliberately withheld evidence, scolding the lawyers for not being “straightforward” with him. The rebuke came after lawyers for Dominion revealed a number of instances in which Fox’s lawyers had not turned over evidence in a timely manner. The judge also said he would likely appoint a special master to investigate Fox’s handling of discovery of documents and the question of whether Fox had inappropriately withheld details about Rupert Murdoch’s role as a corporate officer of Fox News.

Doesn’t look good for Fox.

But one key group of people haven’t heard the revelations about Fox News: Fox News viewers. There’s been a near-total blackout of the story on Fox News, and Fox host Howard Kurtz has confirmed that Fox higher-ups have issued orders to ignore the story. Fox has even rejected paid ads that would have alerted viewers about the lawsuit. Other Rupert Murdoch-owned properties, like the New York Post, are also keeping their readers in the dark. Fox News has even filed a motion arguing that the court should maintain the confidentiality of discovery material already redacted by the network, shielding it from the public.

So today’s Office Hours question: If the court finds that Fox News defamed Dominion, will Fox viewers ever know the network knowingly lied to them about the 2020 presidential election? And will the judgment force Fox News (and other news media) to change the way they cover the news in the future?

What do you think? (I’ll chime in with my own view later today.)

**

My two cents:

IMHO, most of you nailed it. As long as there’s big money to be made by selling lies, weaponizing Trump viciousness, and peddling conspiracy theories, Fox News will continue to do it. The network will appeal any verdict that goes against it, and even if it ultimately loses on the law it will negotiate damages lower than $1.6 billion — and quickly make it up in future revenue. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t give a fig about the public interest or even the opinion of most of the public as long as he can continue to inject profitable toxins into the brains of his viewers (and readers). And he has rounded up sufficiently venal and unprincipled hosts — Tucker Carlson et al — who will also sell dangerous lies as long as they make big bucks doing so.

Advertisers don’t care, either, as long as Fox News viewers continue to watch the network’s appalling content.

I very much like Marilyn Anderson’s idea that, if Dominion wins the lawsuit, part of any settlement should specify that Fox News make a statement of transparency about the litigation they lost and why.

But the basic question here is whether lawmakers are willing — and courts are willing to let them — impose any special responsibilities on cable networks, as they did with the old “fairness doctrine” as once applied to broadcasters who utilized the public spectrum. I doubt it.

Wish I could be more optimistic about this, but profiting off of dangerous lies has become a big business in America. This is one of the core challenges to the future of democracy.

RR

Reminder to please join me Friday for the second session of my course on Wealth and Poverty. (If you missed the first session, you can find it here.)

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

Friends,

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we examine the lows and even lowers of the week.

Today we look at:

— Consequences of the Trump indictment: The Grifter-in-Chief rakes in more money and surges to the top of the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

— Tennessee’s return to Jim Crow: The legislature throws out two Black Democrats for protesting the state’s weak gun laws.

— Progressive victories in the Midwest: Surprise wins for mayor of Chicago and a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

— The disgrace of the U.S. Supreme Court: What to do about Clarence Thomas’s flagrant violations of law?

Please grab a cup, pull up a chair, and take our poll.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe