Uma entrevista com
Robert Reich
Jacobin
 |
| Robert Reich em The Last Class. (CoffeeKlatch Productions / Inequality Media Civic Action) |
Entrevista por
Ed Rampell
Ed Rampell
You’ve been known for advocating something like the Nordic model to help solve America’s vast economic inequality. But is that model really viable for America’s economy?
Ed Rampell
O novo documentário de Elliot Kirschner, The Last Class, narra os últimos dias do ex-secretário do trabalho de Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, como professor universitário antes da aposentadoria. O filme nos oferece vislumbres de Reich ensinando sua disciplina de Wealth & Poverty em Berkeley e suas interações com alguns dos mais de 40.000 estudantes que ele ensinou ao longo das últimas quatro décadas. O documentário também é uma reflexão profundamente pessoal sobre o envelhecimento, a aposentadoria e o bullying, enquanto Reich, aos setenta e nove anos, encerra sua carreira acadêmica.
Nesta conversa franca, Reich se revela como talvez o único membro de um gabinete presidencial na história dos Estados Unidos a defender abertamente o socialismo. Além de The Last Class, Reich discute o socialismo democrático, a crueldade do capitalismo, o regime de Donald Trump, o Partido Democrata, alternativas de terceiros e muito mais. The Last Class estreia nos cinemas no dia 27 de junho.
Ed Rampell
O que você acha do ataque de Trump ao Irã e da resposta?
Robert Reich
É uma violação da Constituição. Não houve consulta ao Congresso, nenhuma consulta — até onde sei — com ninguém. Trump está isolado. É uma jogada perigosa. Não há indícios de que ele tenha explorado todas as potenciais consequências negativas ou quaisquer saídas. Ficou claro desde o início que não seria um sucesso completo. Ele afirma que é um sucesso completo, mas afirma tudo. Quer dizer, não se pode confiar em uma palavra que ele diz. E não se pode confiar em uma palavra que ele recebe de ninguém, porque ele se cercou de bajuladores que não lhe dizem a verdade.
Claro, a retaliação já começou. O que tudo isso significa? Significa que ele ganha ainda mais poder para sua ditadura, porque não há nada como uma guerra para dar a um chefe de Estado um poder mais concentrado e tornar mais difícil para todos os outros, incluindo os tribunais, constrangê-lo.
Se posso falar presumivelmente pelos outros membros do gabinete de Bill Clinton, todos nós colocamos a lealdade aos Estados Unidos acima da lealdade a Bill Clinton. Não que haja necessariamente uma compensação com cada presidente. Mas você precisa entender que, se estiver em um cargo ministerial, seu trabalho é fazer o trabalho público. Você faz um juramento de fidelidade à Constituição. O público conta com você. Em nítido contraste, Donald Trump não entende isso, e nenhuma das pessoas ao seu redor parece entender.
You’ve been known for advocating something like the Nordic model to help solve America’s vast economic inequality. But is that model really viable for America’s economy?
Robert Reich
Let’s put it this way: not every aspect of the Nordic economic model is appropriate or relevant to the United States. It would be very hard to institute it here if what you’re talking about is a democratic socialism and very substantial social safety nets and substantial public investments. But having said that, there’s no reason we have to be the outlier among all capitalist nations and have the cruelest form of capitalism on the planet among all advanced nations.
American capitalism is so cruel to workers that it, in some sense, gave us Donald Trump. Donald Trump is almost a direct consequence of — and I lived these years — of fifty years of neglect of the working class in the United States, of fifty years of allowing more and more monopolization of big corporations, of fifty years of adopting neoliberalist responses and solutions to American problems. Fifty years of allowing American finance to run the economy. At some point, you’re going to fall off the cliff.
At some point, inequality is going to get so wide and so much big money is going to be infecting our politics that the public is going to say, “We want a strong man. We want a demagogue over all of this.” So, I could not have predicted Donald Trump himself, but I saw the road we were on.
Let’s put it this way: not every aspect of the Nordic economic model is appropriate or relevant to the United States. It would be very hard to institute it here if what you’re talking about is a democratic socialism and very substantial social safety nets and substantial public investments. But having said that, there’s no reason we have to be the outlier among all capitalist nations and have the cruelest form of capitalism on the planet among all advanced nations.
American capitalism is so cruel to workers that it, in some sense, gave us Donald Trump. Donald Trump is almost a direct consequence of — and I lived these years — of fifty years of neglect of the working class in the United States, of fifty years of allowing more and more monopolization of big corporations, of fifty years of adopting neoliberalist responses and solutions to American problems. Fifty years of allowing American finance to run the economy. At some point, you’re going to fall off the cliff.
At some point, inequality is going to get so wide and so much big money is going to be infecting our politics that the public is going to say, “We want a strong man. We want a demagogue over all of this.” So, I could not have predicted Donald Trump himself, but I saw the road we were on.
Ed Rampell
Have we surpassed Gilded Age levels of inequality?
Have we surpassed Gilded Age levels of inequality?
Robert Reich
Officially, and according to the data we have, we’re getting very close. Whether we’ve surpassed it or not is a difficult question to answer because some of the ways of measuring inequality, from the 1880s, 1890s, 1900, were different and a lot of assumptions have to be built into any one of these models. But let me just say that we are surpassing Gilded Age levels of inequality in the sense that the top one-tenth of 1 percent is running off with a huge amount of our wealth while the bottom 20 percent of Americans are in deeper and deeper debt. And the gap is huge and is growing.
CEO pay is out of control. It’s now 350 times the pay of the typical worker. It is — in my lifetime — it’s never been close to that. Taxes on the wealthy have continued to be cut to the point where, when I was becoming politically conscious in the 1950s, the top tax bracket was 92 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It’s now under 40 percent, but after tax credits and deductions, it’s way below that for the people at the very, very top. And what the remnants we have of a wealth tax, from the Teddy Roosevelt administration — I’m talking about corporate taxes and inheritance taxes and other forms of wealth tax — are basically gone.
So are we more unequal or less unequal than we were [during the Gilded Age]? I think a good case could be made that we’re more unequal than we were in the first Gilded Age — and we are in a second Gilded Age.
Officially, and according to the data we have, we’re getting very close. Whether we’ve surpassed it or not is a difficult question to answer because some of the ways of measuring inequality, from the 1880s, 1890s, 1900, were different and a lot of assumptions have to be built into any one of these models. But let me just say that we are surpassing Gilded Age levels of inequality in the sense that the top one-tenth of 1 percent is running off with a huge amount of our wealth while the bottom 20 percent of Americans are in deeper and deeper debt. And the gap is huge and is growing.
CEO pay is out of control. It’s now 350 times the pay of the typical worker. It is — in my lifetime — it’s never been close to that. Taxes on the wealthy have continued to be cut to the point where, when I was becoming politically conscious in the 1950s, the top tax bracket was 92 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It’s now under 40 percent, but after tax credits and deductions, it’s way below that for the people at the very, very top. And what the remnants we have of a wealth tax, from the Teddy Roosevelt administration — I’m talking about corporate taxes and inheritance taxes and other forms of wealth tax — are basically gone.
So are we more unequal or less unequal than we were [during the Gilded Age]? I think a good case could be made that we’re more unequal than we were in the first Gilded Age — and we are in a second Gilded Age.
Ed Rampell
You used the term “democratic socialism.” Do you support a form of democratic socialism?
You used the term “democratic socialism.” Do you support a form of democratic socialism?
Robert Reich
Yes. Absolutely.
Yes. Absolutely.
Ed Rampell
Has there ever been a member of a cabinet or even a US president himself, who has been an advocate of some form of socialism?
Has there ever been a member of a cabinet or even a US president himself, who has been an advocate of some form of socialism?
Robert Reich
[Roosevelt] comes probably as close as any. I’m talking about 1935, ’36, and maybe ’37. Because Roosevelt wasn’t afraid to experiment and he didn’t put labels on things. He wanted to really rescue the country from the ravages of the extreme capitalism that caused the Great Depression. He wasn’t afraid of regulation, of strong social safety nets. His labor secretary, Frances Perkins, my predecessor, was responsible for some of the most important social innovations in American history: Social Security, unemployment insurance, a forty-hour workweek, time and a half for overtime. Everything we take for granted really emanates from Frances Perkins.
[Roosevelt] comes probably as close as any. I’m talking about 1935, ’36, and maybe ’37. Because Roosevelt wasn’t afraid to experiment and he didn’t put labels on things. He wanted to really rescue the country from the ravages of the extreme capitalism that caused the Great Depression. He wasn’t afraid of regulation, of strong social safety nets. His labor secretary, Frances Perkins, my predecessor, was responsible for some of the most important social innovations in American history: Social Security, unemployment insurance, a forty-hour workweek, time and a half for overtime. Everything we take for granted really emanates from Frances Perkins.
Ed Rampell
What do you think of Zohran Mamdani winning NYC’s Democratic mayoral primary?
What do you think of Zohran Mamdani winning NYC’s Democratic mayoral primary?
Robert Reich
It’s an important victory, showing Democrats how to win over young people and at the same time respond to the economic concerns of working-class voters.
It’s an important victory, showing Democrats how to win over young people and at the same time respond to the economic concerns of working-class voters.
Ed Rampell
Any thoughts on Trump’s labor secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer?
Any thoughts on Trump’s labor secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer?
Robert Reich
Not very much, to tell you the truth. This administration — honestly, I don’t even call it an “administration,” I call it a “regime” — because it’s not as if they’re administering for the public. It’s just a group of people who are doing what Donald Trump wants them to do and who really are all about money and power. Gathering more and more money for themselves and gathering more and more power for themselves. And for Trump; especially for Trump.
Not very much, to tell you the truth. This administration — honestly, I don’t even call it an “administration,” I call it a “regime” — because it’s not as if they’re administering for the public. It’s just a group of people who are doing what Donald Trump wants them to do and who really are all about money and power. Gathering more and more money for themselves and gathering more and more power for themselves. And for Trump; especially for Trump.
Ed Rampell
The Democratic Party has moved left on economics. Yet it is now losing working-class voters to Republicans who pose as a working-class party. What are the Democrats doing wrong?
The Democratic Party has moved left on economics. Yet it is now losing working-class voters to Republicans who pose as a working-class party. What are the Democrats doing wrong?
Robert Reich
I don’t know what the fuck the Democrats are doing, quite frankly. Some of them are taking James Carville’s advice and rolling over and playing dead, expecting that Trump is going to automatically overreach. I think that’s just wrongheaded. I think Democrats have got to wake up. They’ve got to be a true resistance party.
They have a platform handed to them, because you’ve got Donald Trump surrounded by billionaires, cutting taxes for billionaires, and at the same time cutting Medicaid and food stamps and lots of things average working people depend on. Could you imagine a better and easier scenario to attract working-class voters back to the Democratic Party, if you really were interested in doing that?
I don’t know what the fuck the Democrats are doing, quite frankly. Some of them are taking James Carville’s advice and rolling over and playing dead, expecting that Trump is going to automatically overreach. I think that’s just wrongheaded. I think Democrats have got to wake up. They’ve got to be a true resistance party.
They have a platform handed to them, because you’ve got Donald Trump surrounded by billionaires, cutting taxes for billionaires, and at the same time cutting Medicaid and food stamps and lots of things average working people depend on. Could you imagine a better and easier scenario to attract working-class voters back to the Democratic Party, if you really were interested in doing that?
Ed Rampell
Is there room for a third party that could win? If so, how would it be different from what calls itself “progressivism” now?
Is there room for a third party that could win? If so, how would it be different from what calls itself “progressivism” now?
Robert Reich
First of all, it’s very difficult, as you know, to start a third party in America. Because you are inevitably drawing votes away from one of the two major parties that is closer to you ideologically. And every time a third party has been tried, going all the way back to Eugene Debs, you end up strengthening the party that is furthest away from you. So, I’m skeptical.
I think that inside the Democratic Party there can be, and has been, a larger and larger progressive caucus. But the second part of your question is, “What do we mean by ‘progressivism’?”
First of all, it’s very difficult, as you know, to start a third party in America. Because you are inevitably drawing votes away from one of the two major parties that is closer to you ideologically. And every time a third party has been tried, going all the way back to Eugene Debs, you end up strengthening the party that is furthest away from you. So, I’m skeptical.
I think that inside the Democratic Party there can be, and has been, a larger and larger progressive caucus. But the second part of your question is, “What do we mean by ‘progressivism’?”
Ed Rampell
And what’s your definition of that? That word is thrown around and is more often than not — and correct me if I’m wrong — but in the public discourse progressivism is almost used synonymously with liberalism.
And what’s your definition of that? That word is thrown around and is more often than not — and correct me if I’m wrong — but in the public discourse progressivism is almost used synonymously with liberalism.
Robert Reich
Almost, that’s true, Ed. I think progressives have to stand for a society in which democracy is much stronger, in which we get big money out of politics, where social safety nets really do make the life of average working people easier and more secure substantially. And we bring democracy to the economy in terms of the workplace. You’re right, there is confusion about “liberalism” and “progressivism.” But there’s also confusion about liberalism. I mean, what is liberalism today? I don’t know.
Right now, the fight is between democracy and fascism. There is no center point between those two. People who say they’re “moderates” — I don’t even know what they’re talking about in terms of moderates. Either we’re in favor of a system that is a true democratic system or we succumb to more and more centralization of authority in one person, a dictator like Donald Trump.
Almost, that’s true, Ed. I think progressives have to stand for a society in which democracy is much stronger, in which we get big money out of politics, where social safety nets really do make the life of average working people easier and more secure substantially. And we bring democracy to the economy in terms of the workplace. You’re right, there is confusion about “liberalism” and “progressivism.” But there’s also confusion about liberalism. I mean, what is liberalism today? I don’t know.
Right now, the fight is between democracy and fascism. There is no center point between those two. People who say they’re “moderates” — I don’t even know what they’re talking about in terms of moderates. Either we’re in favor of a system that is a true democratic system or we succumb to more and more centralization of authority in one person, a dictator like Donald Trump.
Ed Rampell
Ninety million eligible Americans didn’t vote in 2024’s presidential election. That’s more than the number who voted for either Trump or [Kamala] Harris. Isn’t it possible that a third party could galvanize a majority of those 90 million nonvoters to participate?
Ninety million eligible Americans didn’t vote in 2024’s presidential election. That’s more than the number who voted for either Trump or [Kamala] Harris. Isn’t it possible that a third party could galvanize a majority of those 90 million nonvoters to participate?
Robert Reich
Well, it’s possible. I’ve had arguments for years with people like Ralph Nader, who did mount a third-party challenge and contends to this day that he pulled people into the electorate. But the party of nonvoters has been bigger than either the Democratic or Republican Parties for most of the postwar era. This is not a new phenomenon. We don’t have people that are terribly excited about politics.
Is it possible if we had a third party that was really a working people’s party, that we could create the excitement and galvanize people who are now nonvoters to vote? Of course, anything’s possible. But I’m just saying that historically, it’s extraordinarily difficult to do that.
Well, it’s possible. I’ve had arguments for years with people like Ralph Nader, who did mount a third-party challenge and contends to this day that he pulled people into the electorate. But the party of nonvoters has been bigger than either the Democratic or Republican Parties for most of the postwar era. This is not a new phenomenon. We don’t have people that are terribly excited about politics.
Is it possible if we had a third party that was really a working people’s party, that we could create the excitement and galvanize people who are now nonvoters to vote? Of course, anything’s possible. But I’m just saying that historically, it’s extraordinarily difficult to do that.
Ed Rampell
How many years have you been lecturing all together?
How many years have you been lecturing all together?
Robert Reich
In terms of Harvard, Brandeis, and Berkeley combined, it’s about forty-two years.
In terms of Harvard, Brandeis, and Berkeley combined, it’s about forty-two years.
Ed Rampell
What are your views of Trump’s attacks on academia?
What are your views of Trump’s attacks on academia?
Robert Reich
Those attacks are shooting us, as a society, in the foot. I say this not as an academic. Our research universities are the most precious things we have in terms of global competitiveness and innovation. To take money away from our research universities and to tell them they can no longer have international students or international professors is nuts. It is committing suicide in terms of our future economy.
Those attacks are shooting us, as a society, in the foot. I say this not as an academic. Our research universities are the most precious things we have in terms of global competitiveness and innovation. To take money away from our research universities and to tell them they can no longer have international students or international professors is nuts. It is committing suicide in terms of our future economy.
Ed Rampell
Gostaria de acrescentar algo?
Robert Reich
The Last Class é realmente uma carta de amor aos meus alunos e uma tentativa de mostrar a estreita conexão entre educação e democracia. A democracia requer um público educado. Não é segredo que autoritários, tiranos e ditadores sempre buscam queimar livros, fechar escolas e atacar a educação, porque não querem um público informado. Deveríamos honrar nossos professores, investir mais em educação e facilitar para que todos os americanos, independentemente da renda, obtenham a educação necessária para se saírem bem. Mas também para que sejam membros plenos da nossa democracia.
Colaboradores
Robert Reich foi secretário do Trabalho durante o governo Clinton e é professor emérito de políticas públicas na Universidade da Califórnia, Berkeley. Ele é autor de vários livros sobre política econômica e desigualdade.
Ed Rampell é um historiador/crítico de cinema baseado em Los Angeles e autor de Progressive Hollywood: A People’s Film History of the United States. Seu romance sobre o movimento de soberania dos nativos havaianos pelos direitos indígenas, The Disinherited: Blood Blalahs, será publicado nesta primavera.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário