Confessions of a Guilty Freelancer

Robert B. Reich: Reason

A presidential campaign year has become, for political books, what Christmas is for toys: a time to sell, when everyone is prepared to buy more than usual. This extended campaign season has been good for the Democrats’s side, producing a number of best sellers: Kevin Phillips’s American Dynasty, Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose’s Bushwacked, as well as insider-fueled books such as Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty, and Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Robert B. Reich now weighs in with his own book. Reich, Bill Clinton’s first-term secretary of labor, wrote a critical insider book on the Clinton White House, called Locked in the Cabinet (1997), which came out during Clinton’s embattled second term. But it is President Bush who may have set the record for insider books appearing during a first term. Reich’s main target in Reason is not Bush, but the ideological force Reich calls “radical conservatism” and its shock troops: “Radcons,” for short. Reich is not trying to write the typical attack book, but a positive one, a call for a rebirth of a liberal ascendancy, instead of the conservative one we’ve all seen lately. The first third of Reich’s book could have been titled “Liberalism for Dummies,” for he is more or less introducRobert B. Reich: Reason 178 179 ing readers to liberalism, its present and past incarnations. America, Reich points out, was founded on liberal principles. Tolerance is its bulwark. Why have we come so far from that understanding? Reich offers :“Weliveinanerawhen‘liberalism,’agreatandessentialtradition, is mocked, and its meaning grossly distorted. Radical conservatives have made a point of doing so, akin to demonizing an enemy during a war. They have depicted liberalism as a caricature of the sixties left.” Reich lists and refutes the “liberal” sins often cited by Radcons: “moral laxity and sexual permissiveness,” “taxes on the middle class in order to spend money on the undeserving poor,” “the creed of ‘blame America first’ pacifists,” and so on. As befits a former secretary of labor, Reich spends a great deal of time on the effects of liberal economics: “American liberalism has also functioned like a balance wheel, saving capitalism from its worst excesses . It moved reformers at the turn of the last century to stand firm against monopolies and political corruption. It inspired progressives to battle for safety, health, and food and drug regulations. In the wake of the Great Crash of 1929, it led New Dealers to regulate banking and clean up Wall Street.” Though Reich is a booster for liberalism, his book does make clear how it has been undermined during the last two decades: “In the twenty-four years between 1980 and 2004, the Democrats controlled the executive branch for exactly eight. Now Republicans have taken it all over, including most governorships.” Who is to blame? Reich is not completely clear about that: it is not so much liberals’ failure, he contends, but the Radcons’ superior organizing and thirst for power: “Radcons began organizing two decades ago around a set of common values, with an eye on the long term. They recruited people who share their beliefs and who would run for local, state, or federal office. They supported the campaigns of these people 180 and held them accountable once in office. . . . They recruited broadcast pundits and writers, and supported them and spread the word. They created long-term alliances and coalitions with the religious right, smallbusinesses,tradeassociations,andkeylobbyistsinWashington.” Whereas, Reich points out, liberals have fragmented themselves, and, given the nature of liberalism, have resisted putting aside intellectual and doctrinaire differences to come together into one cohesive group: “The only time there’s even a semblance of a national DemocraticPartyiswhenDemocratscomeupwithapresidentialcandidate .” For die-hard liberals, Reich’s information is not often news, though his own synthesis is valuable. But it isn’t likely that this book will be read by many who wouldn’t want to be called “liberal.” In the heyday of the liberal ascendancy, pre-1980s, liberals were derided by theleftasmiddle-of-the-roadcopouts.Reichisallthat–middle-of-theroad –but these days, middle-of-the-road looks pretty radical. Throughout Reason, Reich offers insights based not just on his knowledge of liberal thought, but those generated by his own personal experience. He’s particularly sharp and fresh in his critique of Newt Gingrich, one of the leaders of the Radcon ascendancy: “[Gingrich] likedto...