25 thoughts on “The Big Picture

      1. Short memory? The Clinton administration wasn’t that long ago.

        Reich is the most totalitarian politician in our lifetimes. And he was exceptionally nasty about it.


    1. Uh, as someone around here frequently asks. . . Where is he in error?

      The fact that you have a low opinion of him (is he “corrupt” too?) is evidence of NOTHING and is a very poor attempt to rebut the mostly obvious points he makes about the challenges we face.

      As a matter of fact, Reich is a distinguished public servant with a long and productive career. He has won many honors and much praise but maybe his greatest accolade is being called “nasty” by someone like you.


      Liked by 1 person

      1. Reich has an absolute hatred of anyone who has succeeded in the private sector, but no, I see no evidence of corruption.

        Hatefulness, envy, authoritarian to the core, but not corrupt.


        1. “Reich has an absolute hatred of anyone who has succeeded in the private sector”

          So, I cannot help but wonder where you got that “fact” from.

          In case you have not noticed you have responded to this simple assessment of where we are with nothing but various kinds of slime directed at the author. His thesis and conclusion are pretty straight forward, factual, and hard to rebut but if you admire the kinds of bullying that he speaks of, what else can you do but slime the speaker.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh, you thought there was something to respond to in that rant?

            Sure, his ‘thesis’ is that because some are more successful than others, the answer is to give government more power, ignoring 2000 years of history that tells us that power given to government is always co-opted by the powerful to extend their abuse.

            Reich’s envious ideology blinds him to reality.

            A government that excludes force and fraud(including external costs that can be measured) but otherwise leaves us free to pursue our aims provides the greatest freedom and prosperity. Certainly, some people will create more wealth than others, but in doing so, they create the opportunity for everyone else to prosper with them. Even the smaller shares will be adequate.

            But when government intervenes and tries to create equality of outcome(equity) the result is even greater concentration of wealth in the hands of those with political pull, and a diminished economy where true poverty is inevitable.

            It is true with feudalism, socialism, theocracy, or crony capitalism, in every case, the weaker the government, the more prosperous the people are. We would literally be better off with a weak king than a strong democracy.

            But Reich thinks the answer is for government to hunt down every inequity and correct it, no matter the consequences. He hasn’t changed a bit in 30 years, he’s still obsessed with government controlling every aspect of our lives lest someone enjoy their success.


          2. As usual, you read with little understanding and respond to what you want to find there not what is actually written.

            You do not like his actual thesis and do not address it for an obvious reason. You are on the side of the bullies whom Reich says that civilization is trying to restrain.

            You side with Trump as he tears our institutions to shreds and seeks to hold personal power with criminality, violence, and intimidation. You side with Putin whose authoritarian rule and brutal quest for personal power has ravaged countries and killed uncounted thousands of people. You side with the billionaires who crush anyone who tries to organize a union. You side with the out-of-control violence of police. You side with the theocrats who want to impose their religious views on everyone else. You hate democracy, people you do not consider part of European civilization, and yearn for the strong hand of authoritarian control. So, all in all, it is not surprising that you respond to this piece with more than your usual amount of your drooling hatred.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. There is virtually nothing in this piece that has ANYTHING to do with your response. It is about the abuse of power and holding that abuse in check and to account. It is looking more and more like you have not even read it before going off the deep end.

            You have totally dodged the earlier question. . . where is it wrong? And by “it” I mean this piece as written not some collectivist boogieman screed from your imagination.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Can you really be that dense? It is the intrusive big government that you and Reich want that makes the abuses of power you worry about possible. The more power government has, the more it will be co-opted by those bullies you fear. They could not exist without your support.


          5. You are the one who is dense – literally constipated on your doctrinaire hangups. The article is not even about our government.

            The only prescription in it is that to defend civil society and the liberty it provides we must stand up against bullies wherever we find them. Read the title of the piece. . . “We must fight powerful bullies, whether they are Putin, Trump, or tech billionaires.”

            Are you for kowtowing to bullies? Maybe that is what is going on. You have certainly advocated that we all kowtow to Putin.

            And, you have yet to say what is wrong in the article. What statement of fact is wrong? What suggestion for action is objectionable and why?

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Robert Reich says, “No individual can be free in a society devoid of justice. There can be no liberty where brutality reigns.”

    I think he means that no individual can be free in a society without laws, police, courts and prisons. But when you put it that way freedom doesn’t sound much like freedom anymore. It is certainly not freedom from laws, police, courts and prisons.

    Similarly, if brutality drives out liberty, then what — other than a superior force — can drive out brutality? Liberty is doomed either way.

    Reich is a very shallow thinker.


    1. The problem is not with Robert Reich. It is with you. You hate democracy, its institutions, and its norms of civil behavior. You people no longer like the “Rule of Law” which is how civilized societies cope with and contain brutality. Oh no. You people love the bullies and criminals. Trump. Putin. Xi Jinping. Orban. The “strong” men who think that obeying the law is for the little people.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “ It is certainly not freedom from laws, police, courts and prisons.”

      A nation without laws will be violent and lives would be “nasty, brutish and short”. Nothing startling or novel there.

      Our Constitutional framework and legislative laws are crafted to ensure a level of domestic peace and tranquility for all citizens from the most feeble in both mind and body to the most brilliant and fit. And to protect one from the other should a power imbalance bloom.

      The right wing is not happy with that contract and has been trying hard to erode the delicate balance of power among the branches. The recent attempt to usurp law as prescribed by an electoral process is a canary. With effort, we can keep the gagging bird alive and clean up the political pollution we are now all forced the breathe.

      Law is, then, the best route to freedom. And in a democratically chosen representative form of governance, we have the best, not perfect but the best, method of getting consensus for the laws we are willing to live under. And to change those we find onerous, lacking or unfair.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Only took reading a few lines to see the “clear” picture and that is Reich is an out of control polluted left wing nut of the worst sort. His article is full of unsubstantiated nonsense not worth an iota of response. It figures Paul would relate with this wacko.


    1. RE: “His article is full of unsubstantiated nonsense not worth an iota of response.”

      “Nonsense” is right. That’s why a response is needed, if I may say so.


      1. What I meant was each wild extremist assertion in the article doesn’t deserve a response not the article as a whole which, of course, I responded to with rolling eyes and a chuckle.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s