Robert B. Reich
A good solid political book, Reason actually gave me a little hope for the future of America. Reich shows how the Radical Conservatives diligently worked their agenda into the Nation’s premier tier and then savaged everyone, and plots his case to take the country back.
Reich’s belief is that because Liberals are the people who have reason, all we need to do now to squash the extremely radical conservative party in the US is to work hard and coherently as democrats.
I love the quote on the back cover:
In his utterly lucid and engaging new book, Robert B. Reich advances the novel idea that reason could be applied to the way our country is run. And it just might work. God knows, we’ve spent the last four years trying the complete opposite. Barbra Ehrenreich
Reich shows how Radcons believe that the country should be set on a merit based system, and how the rich should get everything. Their economics, he says, are just a shot in the dark – when Bush enacted his tax cuts he wasn’t sure whether the money given to the rich would filter back into the economy viably, but he tried it anyway.
“In America, says Robert Bork, ” ‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work.” Reason, 118.
For the most part all Radcons are, coincidentally members of the american rich. Are their ties to each other and other rich members of society based justly on their common life experiences, their working hard1 through law school, their “intelligence, imagination, and hard work”? Maybe they aren’t so virtuous, and just greedy. Maybe that’s the reason the richest 1% of americans, after Bush’s tax cuts, is as wealthy as the poorest 95% of americans2.
Reich outlines how the new economic system is replacing that of the 50’s, where the man of every family worked, in the majority of households, in a factory – building cars, machines, consumer goods – work which is now done by machines with very little human intervention.
The new types of laborers are the ‘symbolic analysts,’ and those who cater to personal services. Symbolic Analysts directly inflate the value of the industries they work for, the cities they live in, and are paid well. They are trendy, smart, and good looking. They are also well educated – and for that they have had to pay.
The personal service worker on the other hand get low pay, and can’t afford to be trendy or incredibly good looking3. Their jobs are easy to do, and require no more then a high school education. Most workers can’t afford to go to college and become a symbolic analyst.
How is this fair? When the povery line is drawn at those who can and can’t afford a college education, how can we charge so much for just four years of college? To go to a community college is much cheaper then a four year university, but still not cheap. And when the capitol of low income families is being drawn out from under them by the government, how can they afford to send their children to college?
Reich also proves the case against Nader and the green party.
Our Constitution created a “winner-take-all” system, where the presidential candidate with the most votes gets all a state’s electors, and the party with the most senators or representatives runs that branch of congress. This almost guarantees that politics will be dominated by only two major parties. Reason, 195.
I had been thinking about why Nader couldn’t just get his act together and attract more voters. Why can’t a third party ever win: I think this two party barrier might still be a little psychological limit of the american people, but the winner-take-all explanation at least provides a legitimate base for that barrier.
1 George Bush didn’t do shit, got by on family, which is the case for many of the elite Radcons.
2 I can’t find the cite for this statistic, but it was in the book – read and find it.
3 In a cultural sense: they can’t afford $1,555 dollar suits, or $400 glasses.
← Digital Fortress | Walden →