The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My friends,It has been quite a year. Some of the regressive forces undermining our democracy, polluting our planet, widening inequality, and stoking hatred have been pushed back. This is a worthy accomplishment and cause for celebration. It offers hope that the Trump years are behind us and the hard work of building a decent society can resume. But this is no time for complacency. No one should assume that the battle has been won. The anti-democracy movement is still fulminating. Trump is still dangerous. Corporate malfeasance continues. The climate catastrophe is worsening. Inequality is widening. Reproductive rights have been dealt a major setback. The haters and bigots have not retreated. These regressive forces have many weapons at their disposal — lobbyists, money to bribe lawmakers, giant media megaphones, the most rightwing Supreme Court since the 1930s, a GOP that has lost all moral bearings and, starting soon, a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But their most powerful weapon is cynicism. They’re betting that if they can get most of us to feel like we can’t make a difference, we’ll stop fighting. Then they can declare total victory.We must keep up the fight.Here’s the thing to keep in mind. Notwithstanding setbacks, we are better today than we were fifty years ago, twenty years ago, even a year ago. We’ve strengthened labor rights and LGBTQ rights. Most Americans are intent on strengthening women’s rights and civil rights. Most also want to extend Medicare for all, affordable childcare, paid sick leave, and end corporate monopolies and corporate dominance of our politics. We have clean water laws and clean air laws. We’ve torn down Confederate statues and expanded clean energy. And we’ve got a new generation of progressive politicians, labor leaders, and community organizers determined to make the nation and the world more democratic, more sustainable, more just. They know that the strongest bulwark against authoritarianism is a society in which people have a fair chance to get ahead. The fights for democracy, social justice, and a sustainable planet are intertwined. The battle is likely to become even more intense this coming year and the following. But the outcome will not be determined by force, fear, or violence. It will be based on commitment, tenacity, and unvarnished truth.It is even a battle for the way we tell the story of America. Some want to go back to a simplistic and inaccurate narrative where we were basically perfect from our founding, where we don’t need to tell the unpleasant truths about slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all the other injustices. But there is another story of America, one of imperfection but progress. In this story, which is far more accurate, reformers have changed this nation many, many times for the better. From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Ruth Bader Ginsberg to, more recently, Stacey Abrams, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chris Smalls (who led the victory of Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse workers), Jaz Brisack (who led Starbucks workers), and Maxwell Alejandro Frost (the first Gen-Z elected to Congress), and many others — individuals have repeatedly changed the course of history by refusing to believe that they could not stand up to repression, bigotry, and injustice. You don’t have to be famous to be an agent of positive change. You don’t have to hold formal office to be a leader. Change happens when selfless individuals, some of whose names we will never know, give their energies and risk their livelihoods (and sometimes their lives) to make the world more humane. Small actions and victories lead to bigger ones, and the improbable becomes possible.Look, I know: The struggle can be exhausting. No one can go all in, all the time. That’s why we need to build communities and movements for action, where people give what effort they can, and are buoyed in solidarity with others. That’s what we’re doing in a small way in this forum. Building community. Sharing information and analyses. Fortifying our commitment.The reason I write this newsletter is not just to inform (and occasionally amuse) you, but also to arm you with the truth — about how the system works and doesn’t, where power is located and where it’s lacking, and the myths and lies used by those who are blocking positive social change — so you can fight more effectively for the common good.Here’s my deal. I’ll continue to give you the facts and arguments, even sprinkle in drawings and videos. I’ll do whatever I can to help strengthen your understanding and resolve, and give you the information you need. In return, please use the facts, arguments, drawings and videos to continue the fight. To fight harder. And enlist others. (And, if you can, support this effort with a paid or gift subscription.)If at any time you feel helpless or despairing, remind yourself that the fight for democracy, social justice, and a sustainable planet is noble. The stakes could not be higher. And we will — and must — win.Wishing you a good 2023. 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