The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

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

Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, executive director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student), where we look at the highs and lows of the week. But since today is Christmas Eve we thought we’d talk about what Christmas means to us. Please grab a cup and pull up a chair. And also take our poll. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

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

Friends,That Donald Trump is now hawking digital trading cards featuring images of himself as a superhero for $99 each tells you all you need to know about Trump and about NFTs.The recent implosion of Samuel Bankman-Fried’s FTX crypto market offers another case in point. Months ago, FTX was huge. Now it’s a hole in the pockets of countless people who had put their money into it. (Until a few week ago, Bankman-Fried was one of the world’s richest people.) Crypto as a whole is proving to be little more than a giant zero-sum game. Like NFTs, crypto’s current value depends on whether buyers believe future buyers will be even bigger suckers. A large and growing sector of the U.S. economy produces nothing of value. Nada. Zilch. Every winner comes at the expense of a current or future loser. The only things this “zero-sum” sector produces are many of the nation’s ultra-wealthy. Money moves from one set of pockets into another — mostly upward, into the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. Much of Wall Street is expanding this zero-sum economy. Derivatives, private equity, hedge funds, and funds of funds, are creating a few fabulously wealthy people who could vanish tomorrow and be barely missed for all the net value they produce. Corporate law is another part. High-paid lawyers representing one corporation battle high-paid lawyers representing another. Huge sums of money are spent on these escapades. But there are no societal gains unless you equate one corporation’s victory over another with justice.Management consulting? Advising corporations how to make more money by cutting payrolls, abandoning communities, busting unions, outsourcing abroad, and pushing more jobs into contract work doesn’t add value. Some economists dub these “efficiencies” but if the social costs inflicted on everyone else are included, it’s zero-sum. Public relations? How much value is created by convincing the public that a particular corporation or wealthy individual is nicer or worthier than we otherwise believe? Then there’s the so-called “wealth management” industry — advising rich people where to park their money and how to avoid paying taxes. More zero-sum games. In reality, the vast and growing zero-sum economy costs us dearly. It uses the time and energies of some of the nation’s best-educated people. They do it because zero-sum work pays so much compared to, say, teaching or social work or healthcare or journalism or art or science or many other things that improve peoples’ lives. You might think a rational society would heavily tax zero-sum work while subsidizing work that generate lots of social good. But you’d be wrong because the political power of the zero-sum economy generates an even bigger zero-sum game.At this moment, for example, lobbyists for big corporations and private equity are pushing Congress for a retroactive tax break that would repeal limits on how much corporations can deduct in interest payments on their debts. (The limits went into effect this year as part of the compromise that gave us Trump’s big 2017 giveaway to the rich.) If the lobbyists get their way, the revenue loss could be about $20 billion per year, or around $200 billion over 10 years. A big portion of that windfall will wind up in the pockets of private equity mavens who take over companies using piles of debt they then deduct from the companies’ income in order to minimize tax payments. These individuals already get special treatment in the tax code because they’re allowed to treat their incomes as capital gains subject to a lower tax. I just got off the phone with a staffer for the House Ways and Means Committee who told me she thought it likely that this tax break will be attached to the omnibus funding bill now working its way through the last days of this Congress. She admitted there was “no justification” for it but sighed “that’s how the game is played.”And who do you suppose pays more in taxes to make up for what these corpulent felines don’t pay? The rest of us. Zero-sum. 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 Congress ends its first post-Trump term, the biggest political question hanging over America is this: When will the GOP finally reach its anti-Trump tipping point — when a majority of Republican lawmakers disavow him?Again and again, it looks like the tipping point is near but the GOP remains under Trump’s thumb.What about last month’s dinner at Mar-a-Lago, with Ye, formerly Kanye West, the man whose fame as a rapper has been dwarfed by his antisemitic and racist declarations, along with infamous Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes?It didn’t come near tipping the scales. What about Trump’s December 3 declaration that the “Massive Fraud” of the 2020 election would allow for the Constitution to be “terminated?” Nope. Both events caused grumbling among a few Republican lawmakers but most avoided criticizing Trump (as they’ve avoided it in the past — as they avoided doing so the moment the furor over January 6 had died down) for fear of his wrath.But what’s to fear, now? Didn’t the midterms reveal how weak he is? After all, most of his endorsees flamed out, including celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Tim Michels in Wisconsin, Blake Masters in Arizona, Adam Laxalt and Kari Lake also in Arizona, and Herschel Walker in Georgia. (Walker’s campaign even asked Trump to stay away in the final weeks.)Many election-deniers hit the skids. Michigan’s legislature swung to the Democrats for the first time since the 1980s.Democrats defied almost all doomsday prophesies as well as the historic pattern of presidents losing midterms — and why? In large part because so many voters fear and loathe the former president. Nearly as many viewed the midterms as a referendum on Trump as who saw it as a referendum on Joe Biden. As Mitch McConnell explained, voters “were frightened” by the Trump-induced GOP rhetoric, “and so they pulled back."And it’s only going to get worse for Trump, right? His business has been found guilty of criminal fraud. Investigators have found more classified documents in a storage unit near Mar-a-Lago. A criminal case is pending in Georgia. The January 6 committee is likely to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department, whose special counsel is already building a criminal case against him. Several leaders of the January 6 attack have already been convicted of seditious conspiracy.Even the kingpins of the GOP, including the rightwing media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, have switched their allegiance away from him — to Florida governor Ron DeSantis or Ted Cruz or another GOP hopeful.So why hasn’t the Republican Party as a whole tipped? Why aren’t almost all Republican lawmakers publicly disavowing the former sociopath-in-chief?  In two words: The base.Utah’s Republican senator Mitt Romney, no friend of Trump, put it bluntly last week:“I think we’ve got, I don’t know, 12 people or more that would like to be president, that are thinking of running in 2024. If President Trump continues in his campaign, I’m not sure any one of them can make it through and beat him. He’s got such a strong base of, I don’t know, 30% or 40 % of the Republican voters, or maybe more, it’s going to be hard to knock him off as our nominee.”That’s the problem in a nutshell, folks. It’s not so much the size of Trump’s base. Even 40 percent of Republican voters is a relatively small group nationwide, especially considering that fewer than 30 percent of all voters are registered Republicans. It’s also the intensity and tenacity of their support, which gives them effective control over the Republican Party. They worship him. They won’t budge.But until they budge, most Republican lawmakers won’t budge either (Romney and Liz Cheney being notable exceptions, and we know what happened to her). The problem isn’t some highfalutin moral issue, such as Republican lawmakers putting their party over their country. It’s something far more prosaic. They want to keep their jobs.Which means the GOP continues to rot as a political party, as a governing institution, and as a moral entity. That may be good for Democrats in 2024, but in the larger sense it’s bad for us all. 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 week’s highs and lows. Please grab a coffee and pull up a chair. Today, we consider:Kyrsten Sinema’s exit from the Democrats.Raphael Warnock’s embrace by the Democrats.Donald Trump’s latest disgrace.Heather’s and Bob’s views about the holidays. Plus much more. And please take our latest 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,Texas has sued the Biden administration over its order to immigration agents to prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies rather than deport all undocumented immigrants. Texas argues that federal immigration law requires the government to deport every undocumented immigrant. The Biden administration says it doesn’t have the resources to deport the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, so it must develop priorities. The controversy reminds me of something that happened thirty years ago, soon after I became secretary of labor. Child labor laws bar fourteen-year-olds from working past 7 pm on school nights. Weeks before I became secretary of labor, a vigilant Labor Department investigator discovered that the Savannah Cardinals, a Class A farm team of the Atlanta Braves, had hired 14-year-old Tommy McCoy to be their batboy. On balmy evenings extending beyond sunset, Tommy selected each player’s favorite bat and proudly delivered it to him in the batter’s box. Next morning, Tommy went to school. The investigator threatened the team with a stiff fine. The team did what it had to do: It fired little Tommy. Tommy liked being a batboy. His parents were proud of him. The team was fond of him. The fans loved him. As long as anyone could remember, every kid in Savannah had coveted the job. Tommy did well in school. But now little Tommy was out of the best kid’s job in town. Well, you can imagine the furor. It seemed as if the whole city of Savannah was up in arms. The Cardinals were about to stage a “Save Tommy’s Job Night” rally, featuring balloons, buttons, placards, and a petition signed by the fans demanding that Tommy be rehired. ABC News was doing a story on the controversy — which was how I first heard about it. ABC wanted an on-camera interview with me that same evening, explaining why Tommy had been fired. They couldn’t wait to show America the stupidity of the government (and of its new secretary of labor). What was I to do? I tried to hold ABC off. They said they were running with the story with or without my interview. I called an urgent meeting with the Labor Department’s top inspectors. I explained the situation to them, suggesting we let Tommy have his job back. They wouldn’t hear of it. “It would look like you’re caving in to public opinion,” one of the chief inspectors said. “But,” I asked, “isn’t it the public whom we’re here to serve?” They said the law was clear: Children under 14 could not work past 7 pm on school nights. “The Savannah team broke the law and it was our responsibility to enforce the it.” “But shouldn’t we have priorities?” I asked. “We have a limited number of inspectors. I can understand hitting a building contractor who’s hiring kids to lay roofing, but why go after batboys and girls?”They said child labor was a serious problem. Children were getting injured working long hours. “Exactly,” I said. “So let’s focus on the serious offenses and ignore the less serious.” They warned that if I didn’t support the Department’s investigators, the staff would become demoralized. “Good! If they become demoralized and stop enforcing the law nonsensically, so much the better,” I said. They said that if I backed down, the Labor Department would lose credibility. “We’ll lose even more credibility if we stick with this outrageous decision,” I said. They said there was nothing we could do. The law was the law. “Nonsense,” I said. “We can change the regulation to make an exception for kids at sporting events.”But we’d invite all sorts of abuses, they argued. Vendors would exploit young kids on school nights to sell peanuts and popcorn. Stadiums would hire young children to clean the locker rooms. Parking lots would use children to collect money. “So we draw the exception tighter and limit it to batboys and batgirls!” I said. I was getting nowhere. World News Tonight would broadcast the story in minutes. And then it hit me, like a fastball slamming into my think head: I was Secretary of Labor. I could decide this by myself. “Thank you,” I said, standing. “I’ve heard enough.” I turned to my assistant, “Tell the Savannah team they can keep Tommy. We’re changing the regulation to allow batboys and girls. Put out a press release right now. Call the producers for World News Tonight and tell them I’ve decided to let Tommy have his batboy job. Tell them our investigator was way off base!”“But World News Tonight is already on the air!” my assistant said. “Call them now!”I turned on the TV in the corner of my office. ABC’s anchor, Peter Jennings, was already reading the news from his monitor. Within moments, he got to the story I was dreading:The United States Department of Labor has decided that a fourteen-year-old named Tommy McCoy cannot serve as batboy for the Atlanta Braves farm team in Savannah, Georgia. The decision has provoked outrage from the fans. Here’s more from …As Jennings turned it over to ABC’s Atlanta correspondent, he appeared to be smirking. S**t. I looked around the table at the inspectors. Did they understand that in seven million living rooms across America people were now saying to each other “How dumb can government get?” Did they care that the Department of Labor was about to be known as the Department of Laughable Decisions? After two excruciating minutes during which ABC’s Atlanta correspondent detailed the story of little Tommy and the Labor Department, it was back to Jennings:But this tale has a happy ending.My heart skipped a beat.The Labor Department reports that Tommy will get his job back. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has decided that the Department was — quote — off base in invoking child labor regulations under these circumstances. Joy! Relief!The inspectors sitting around my table were dismayed. I tried to explain it to them exactly what the Biden administration is now trying to explain to the courts and to Republicans in Congress.Laws cannot be enforced without setting priorities for enforcement. Inevitably — intentionally or unintentionally — people in charge of enforcing laws must determine which cases merit attention and resources and which don’t. In doing this, they should use common sense. Target employers who are hiring young children and putting them in dangerous jobs over, say, a baseball farm team hiring a kid as a batboy. Prioritize undocumented immigrants convicted of felonies over, say, a Dreamer who was brought to America as an infant and has been hardworking and law-abiding for her whole life. 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

Hello friends,Sometimes I feel like screaming at the mainstream media for failing to alert people to crucial (although complicated) issues affecting our democracy coming from different parts of government simultaneously.Case in point: Moore vs. Harper, argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, and the Electoral Reform Act, which must be enacted before the end of this Congress because Republicans won’t touch it once they control the House.The two are intimately connected but you wouldn’t know that from the mainstream media, which is treating them as two separate stories. Let me make the connection. In Moore, North Carolina Republicans aim to restore a redistricting map drawn by the GOP-led legislature but rejected as violating the state constitution by North Carolina’s supreme court.North Carolina bases its argument on the bonkers “independent state legislature” theory, which interprets Article I Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (authorizing state legislatures to prescribe “the times, places and manner of holding elections") to give state legislatures sole authority over elections, without interference from state courts.The theory sprang from the head of Justice William Rehnquist in 2000, who wrote (in a concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore) that “the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance.” Since then, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch have all endorsed aspects of the theory. Notably, they didn’t disavow it in yesterday’s oral argument.Not only would the theory open the door to extreme gerrymandering, allowing one party to virtually entrench itself in a state. It could also allow state legislatures to reject the results of a presidential election.Which is where the Electoral Reform Act, now before Congress, comes in.Article II of the Constitution requires states to appoint presidential electors “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” And the Electoral Count Act of 1845 allows state legislatures to choose a new manner of appointing the state's electors if the vote for the presidency has “failed” in the state.But what does “failed” mean and who has the authority to declare a failure?This wasn’t an issue until the 2020 election, when Donald Trump exploited the Act's vagueness to claim he could overturn the will of the voters.He pushed state legislatures to appoint electors for him regardless of the popular vote. (Fortunately, they refused.) He pressured congressional Republicans to object to Joe Biden’s electors. (Trump partly succeeded, but not by enough to throw the election his way.) And he pushed Vice President Pence to illegally delay the electoral count so Trump could continue pressuring states. (Thankfully, Pence refused.)American democracy survived by a whisker. But add in a Supreme Court ruling affirming the independent state legislature theory, and what do you get if Trump (or any other anti-democracy candidate) tries the same thing again? A democratic disaster.This isn’t wild conjecture. Just weeks ago, after Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake contested her loss based on absolutely nothing, the election board in GOP-controlled Cochise County refused to certify the results.Eventually Cochise came around. But in a future presidential election, a GOP-controlled state legislature -- armed with a broad "independent state legislature" theory from Moore v. Harper -- could seize on this kind of resistance to declare a “failed” election and appoint a slate of fake electors. And neither Congress nor a Vice President could stop them. This time, democracy wouldn't survive. Which is why the Electoral Reform Act – now before Congress – is so important.  It would require state legislatures to appoint presidential electors exactly as they’ve been appointed before. So if a state’s laws require that electors certify the person who has won the popular vote, a legislature can’t use the “failed” election loophole to appoint electors for anyone else.  Other provisions require that governors certify the correct electors by a hard deadline before Congress counts them, and allow an aggrieved candidate to trigger expedited judicial review.Where is the Electoral Reform Act at this point?Ten Republican senators tentatively support it but Trumpsters are pressuring them to withdraw their support. With so little time remaining in the lame-duck session, the measure may be attached to the end-of-year spending bill.But how many close calls like this can a system of self-government endure? And if the media doesn’t adequately report on issues like this, how can a free people govern themselves to begin with?  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

Freinds,Welcome back to my Saturday coffee klatch with Heather Lofthouse, Executive Director of Inequality Media Civic Action (and my former student, years ago). Grab a cup and pull cup a chair. Today, we talk about:— Biden and the Democrat’s decision to stop railway workers from striking. — Elon Musk’s decision to allow almost every hateful, deceptive person in the world to spew poison on Twitter (except Kanye West). — House Republican’s upcoming decision over whether they’ll try to do serious things or use their two years in control of the House sowing more divisiveness. — Plus Heather reveals a special talent that you won’t believe. And please take our poll: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

A producer at ABC recently asked if I’d be willing to be interviewed for a documentary they’re making about Bill Clinton. I agreed. Then I asked when they’re planning to show it. “After he dies,” they said.“What!? Is he dying?” I asked, shocked. “Oh, no,” they said. “It’s for the archive.”“You mean, it’s for whenever he dies, even if that’s twenty years from now?”“Exactly.”“Even if you and I are long gone by then?”“Yup.”I was relieved, but flummoxed. Was I supposed to talk about Clinton in the past tense? Should I give only the sort of glowing tribute accorded former presidents when they pass? Would it be inappropriate to say anything even slightly critical of him or his presidency? I just did the interview from my office at Berkeley. At first it all seemed weirdly morbid but after five minutes or so I forgot the weirdness and just talked. I met Bill Clinton in September 1968 on the USS United States, sailing from New York City to Southampton, England. We were 22 years old. He and I, along with thirty other young American men, had won Rhodes Scholarships to study at Oxford. (Had women been allowed to compete then, I doubt either he or I would have won.)We were heading to England by ship because that had been the tradition for newly-selected Rhodes Scholars. Six days at sea was supposed to give Scholars time to get to know one another. But on this voyage, the crossing was so stormy that most of us spent a good part of the time alone in our cabins, seasick. I stayed in my bunk and tried not to think about food. Then a loud knock on my cabin door.I staggered over to open it. There was a tall, curly-haired fellow with a big grin, holding a bowl chicken soup.“Hi, my name is Bill,” he said in a syrupy southern accent as the ship rolled and the soup sloshed. “I hear you weren’t feeling well. Thought this might help.” He handed me the bowl. (He didn’t say “I feel your pain” – that came later on his presidential campaign.)“Well, that’s awfully kind of you,” I said, taking the bowl in both my hands while trying to steady myself and not barf on him. “I’m Bob,” I stammered. “I’d invite you in, Bill, but …”“Oh, that’s okay. We’ll have time later… I’m from Arkansas.” “Well, that’s really great. I’m from a little town in New York State.” “It’s amazing, isn’t it?” he grinned. The soup was sloshing over the sides of the bowl, and I desperately needed to use the john. “Er, what’s amazing?”“Small town boys. Did you ever think you and I would be here?”“No. But sorry, I’ve got to….”“Don’t worry, I’ll be gettin’ on.” He turned and walked off, his hand on the wall of the corridor as the ship rolled.“Thanks, again,” I called after him. “Very nice of you.” I was genuinely touched. He waved as he walked away. Despite the rough seas, the journey felt restorative — an escape from a nation that seemed to be losing its mind and moral compass. Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated a few months before. Gene McCarthy’s presidential bid had gone nowhere. Democrats were about to nominate Lyndon Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Republicans were nominating the abominable Richard Nixon. Several American cities were in flames. The Vietnam War continued unabated. My other recollection from that voyage, by the way, occurred in the ship’s stateroom, on one of my few outings from my cabin. The stateroom was almost empty except for a pale, gray, thin man sitting at a far table, smoking a cigarette. I sat down and introduced myself. He told me his name was Bobby Baker. Of all the people to be on this ship, he was the last I expected — or wanted to talk with. (If you don’t remember, Baker had been a crony of Lyndon Johnson’s. He was secretary to the Democratic Party when LBJ was Senate Majority Leader — until Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, exposed Baker’s alleged deals with organized crime and Baker was forced to resign. Kennedy’s investigation led to allegations that Johnson himself received kickbacks from military contractors. It was rotten stuff, even worse when several newspapers found evidence that Baker had also been involved in procuring women for JFK.)We exchanged a few words and then I excused myself, pointing to my stomach. He said he understood. I headed back to my cabin. That Bobby Baker had chosen to travel to England on this particular ship seemed a cruel joke — as if to say there was no real escape. Days later, after landing in Southampton and taking a bus to Oxford, Bill and I were assigned “digs” at the same Oxford college — called University College. (Legend has it that the college was founded around 866 by King Alfred. I recall a disagreement among the faculty over whether it should celebrate its 1,100th anniversary in 1966 — detractors grousing that once they began celebrating every hundred years there’d be no end to festivities.)Bill and I spent much of the the next two years talking about Vietnam, American politics (he already had his eye on becoming governor of Arkansas), food (he liked British hamburgers, which I found revolting), and British girls. And he had an endless stream of stories about people he knew from Arkansas, Arkansas politicians, and odd and funny bits of American history he’d picked up along the way. Oh, and we did not inhale together. To say that Bill Clinton at the age of twenty-two enjoyed people and conversation is to understate the voraciousness of his appetite. We were so young then — boys, really — and we were out of America for the first time in our lives. It was glorious. That’s the start of what I told ABC about Bill Clinton. More to come. 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