The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

Has it been six months already? I hadn’t intended to write every day but with so much going on in the world, I had no choice. One of my hopes when I began this newsletter six months ago was that you’d find sustenance here, particularly during these difficult times. The past six months have been grueling. I’ve felt the same anxieties many of you have felt, spilling over into some sleepless nights. Although the former guy is no longer in the Oval Office and the worst of the pandemic seems behind us (fingers crossed), the dark forces of authoritarianism, bigotry, and violence are still very much with us. I’m getting to be an older man. I’ve served in several administrations. I’ve known and worked with many fine people. I’ve taught two (getting on three) generations of wonderful students. Along the way I have encountered spin, hype, falsehoods, and outright propaganda. But I’ve never before experienced such blatant attacks on the truth as we are now witnessing — both abroad and in America. Getting the truth out and showing what’s really happening is a vital part of what I’m trying to do here. There is no simple solution, but part of the answer is to grow a community like you — people who believe in social justice, human rights, and democracy. Which is why I’m here and presumably why you are.When I post on social media, it feels one-directional. Here it’s more like a conversation. I enjoy reading your comments and am moved by the stories of what brings you here. A few of you, like Jason, who had once been Republican, are drawn here because of arguments that you find logical and clearly expressed. I'm a retired MD & lifelong Republican. I've been noticing a decline in ethics and reality in the Republican party for some time now but was especially stunned after the popularity of Sarah Palin. Then Trump seemed like Sarah Palin on steroids and was even more popular. Trump turned me into a Democrat though I've voted as an independent my entire life. (I've always voted for who I thought was the best person for the job regardless of party). I'm drawn to your posts because you seem to make complete sense and express it such a way as it's so easy to understand.Others of you, like Patrick, a union member, are here because you want to understand how the economy really works. I’m a member of the Teamsters Union and I appreciate your simple explanations of how the economy works. And your encouragement to have conversations with others who has a different perspective.Some of you, like Valinda, have come because you want to make a difference, and you find here a community dedicated to telling the truth and preserving democracy.Like so many others, I am frustrated with a status quo that the vast majority WANT to change, yet seem able to affect so little. Positive change seems so slow, and seems so quickly wiped out. I want to make a difference. I want to have contributed to making a more just and equitable society. Not to have simply grown increasingly bitter or apathetic. Living in Texas, it's particularly difficult to think lasting equality is achievable, and our governor, Abbott, terrifies me. He is as evil as the former guy, but far more capable of achieving his goals, and I suspect he has presidential aspirations. Forming a community aware of the implications of current events and dedicated to fighting growing authoritarianism is important to me. I am a former analyst in the Air Force; I worked to limit proliferation of WMD for 20 years. Now I am a retired/disabled veteran, a mother and grandmother. This is not the legacy I want to leave these new generations.Some of you tell me you enjoy my drawings, such as the Sunday caption contest. Some of you say you are getting a lot out of my Friday class on Wealth and Poverty. Many of you have offered helpful feedback (thanks, and keep it coming!). Whatever your reason for joining me on these pages, I’ve been overwhelmed by your enthusiasm and your kindness — and mostly by your determination to create a better world. Thank you. (And a special thanks to Kara Segal and Heather Lofthouse for their help and insights along the way.)But rather than make assumptions, please tell me: What does bring you here? Also please let me know how these pages can be even better: Don’t hold back on suggestions and constructive criticism! Finally, thanks to so many of you who have joined this community as paying subscribers. If you have found these pages useful but are not a paid subscriber, please consider becoming one (or giving a gift subscription) so we can do even more. And please share this newsletter with others.My abiding thanks,RR 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

Here’s the paradox: The higher you rise in any hierarchy, your decisions are likely to have larger and larger consequences. Yet the higher you rise, the harder it is to get accurate feedback about your decisions. I’ve worked with several presidents. All have made big blunders. I’ve also known and written about CEOs of big corporations who have made terrible mistakes. In every case, they had flawed systems for getting useful, accurate, and reliable feedback. Donald Trump (whom I didn’t work with but watched his every move) had no reliable feedback. Why? Because he surrounded himself with toadies and sycophants who didn’t dare tell him the truth. He demanded that everyone around him confirm his preferred self-image of invincibility. His White House was filled with fawning lackeys (he fired anyone who didn’t grovel). He refused to hear bad news. He rejected the validity of negative media coverage. As a result, Trump made among the dumbest decisions of any American president in history -- suppressing evidence of a potential crime, asking a foreign power for help with his reelection, inciting an attack on the Capitol. Some might say that all this was inevitable; it was built into his character. But his key character flaw was his unwillingness to hear anything negative. None of his horrific acts was necessary. Trump could have accomplished any number of goals far more easily had he not kept digging himself into ever-deeper holes. He was his own worst enemy.Vladimir Putin is in a similar position. He has isolated himself and banned dissenting voices. He has placed obedient lapdogs even in the Fifth Service, which is supposed to provide him intelligence. So, like Trump, Putin has no reality check. According to a new report by a respected independent reporter with sources inside the Kremlin, the Fifth Service was “afraid of angering” Putin, so “simply told him what he wanted to hear.”As a result, Putin’s attack on Ukraine has backfired terribly — on him. He badly overestimated the Russian military and underestimated Ukraine’s capacity to resist. Instead of weakening NATO, his attack has strengthened it. And now that the world’s democracies have cut off Russia’s access to the world banking system, Russia’s foreign exchange reserves have become nearly worthless.Dictators like Putin are particularly vulnerable to inaccurate feedback. Instead of independent truth-tellers, they’re often surrounded by truth-deniers. Rather than experts and investigative journalists, their world is filled with pseudo-scientists and propaganda. In place of a free press, they have agitprop and disinformation.Or look at China’s Xi Jinping. Why would he decide to enter into a “no limits” partnership with Moscow on the eve of Putin’s disastrous military campaign? Talk about blunders. Xi’s alliance with Russia has undermined China’s reputation and aggravated concerns among its neighbors about China’s global ambitions. It’s already prompted Taiwan to strengthen its defenses and pushed other regional powers such as Australia and Japan to declare their own interests in Taiwan’s security.Trump, Putin, Xi — these men aren’t stupid. What’s stupid is their systems for making decisions. They don’t include naysayers. They have no way of eliciting, recognizing, or assessing useful criticism. All are trapped in halls of mirrors that reflect back at them what they want to see and hear.The inverse relation between how high people rise in a hierarchy and the accuracy of the feedback they receive can be overcome if a leader aggressively seeks out dissenting views. But it’s almost impossible to find dissenting views in a totalitarian system where dissent is often punished. One of the great virtues of a democracy is its multiple feedback loops – its many channels for expressing alternative viewpoints and voicing uncomfortable truths. After all, American democracy stopped Trump from doing even more damage than he did.Yet when people like Trump, Putin, and Xi make terrible decisions, the world suffers. Worse: Putin and Xi have the power to blow up the world. 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

This morning I had coffee with my colleague Heather Lofthouse, who runs Inequality Media. We talked about generational change (boomers; millennials, and today’s children), and the idea of progress. Feel free to pull up a chair. I’ve enjoyed experimenting with this Substack newsletter — including sending you my written posts, drawings, and audio recordings, and exchanging comments with you. Would you find it interesting if I added informal conversations (such as this morning’s coffee klatch with Heather)? Please chime in with thoughts and ideas below, as always.  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

Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb today and suggest something that would have seemed utter nonsense as late as a month ago: I’m seeing the stirrings in Washington of a new era of … I’m not sure what to call it. “Unity” is way too strong. “Bipartisanship” is premature. “De-partisanship” is too clunky. But something new seems to be happening, and Vladimir Putin is responsible. Don’t get me wrong. Democrats and Republicans won’t join hands and sing Kumbaya anytime soon. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy will continue to ambush Democrats every chance they get. Expect bitter battles over background checks, immigration reform, civil rights protections, and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Trump won’t stop telling his big lie. Your Fox News-obsessed Uncle Bob will remain in his hermetically sealed alternative universe.Yet ever since the run-up to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I’ve noticed something in Washington that I haven’t seen since in three decades –- a quiet understanding that we’re on the cusp of a new Cold War, potentially even a hot one. Which requires that we join together in order to survive.  It’s a subtle shift – more of tone than anything else. I saw it yesterday when Volodymyr Zelensky addressed Congress from Ukraine. When he showed lawmakers a gut-wrenching video of the war’s consequences, many eyes filled with tears. The lawmakers shared, according to Maine’s independent Senator Angus King, “a collective holding of breath.” That Republicans and Democrats shared anything — that they were even capable of a collective emotion — is itself remarkable. With bipartisan support, Ukraine is receiving unprecedented military and humanitarian aid to fight Putin’s war, including anti-aircraft systems that many experts say can defend against bombs and missiles from Russia’s land-based weaponry.Beyond Ukraine, you can also discern the shift in a series of recent across-the-aisle agreements. After literally two hundred failed attempts, the Senate just passed an anti-lynching law. The Senate has also given sexual misconduct claims firmer legal footing with a new law ending forced arbitration in sexual assault and harassment cases. The Senate also just approved sweeping postal reform. And unanimously decided to keep Daylight Savings Time year-round. And it has given the green light to long-awaited reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as part of a massive spending bill.I’m hearing from Senate staffers that they’re close to bipartisan agreement to strengthen antitrust laws. Also on a measure to expand semiconductor manufacturing in America, as part of a new China competitiveness bill. And another measure to limit the cost of insulin.Okay, none of this is as dramatic as protecting voting rights or controlling prescription drug costs. But compared to the last few years, it’s extraordinary. (You may not have heard much about these initiatives because the media only picks up on bitter conflict and name-calling.)Something new is happening in Washington, and I think I know why.You see, I came to Washington in 1974, in the Ford administration, and then worked in the Carter administration. The Cold War was raging during those years, serving as a kind of silent backdrop for everything else. Democrats and Republicans had different views on a host of issues, but we worked together because it was assumed that we had to. We faced a common threat.The Cold War had produced an array of bipartisan legislation involving huge investments in America — legislation that was justified by the Soviet threat but in reality had much more to do with the needs of the nation. The National Interstate and Defense Highway Act was designed to “permit quick evacuation of target areas” in case of nuclear attack and get munitions rapidly from city to city. Of course, in subsequent years it proved indispensable to America’s economic growth.America’s huge investment in higher education in the late 1950s was spurred by the Soviets’ Sputnik satellite. The official purpose of the National Defense Education Act, as it was named, was to “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.” But it trained an entire generation of math and science teachers, and expanded access to higher education. The Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Administration served as America’s de facto incubator for new technologies. It was critical to the creation of the Internet as well as new materials technologies. John F. Kennedy launched the race to the moon in 1962 so that space wouldn’t be “governed by a hostile flag of conquest” (i.e., the Soviet Union). But it did much more than this for America. Then, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. And in December 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed.Just three years later, Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House -- and instigated the angriest and most divisive chapter in modern American political history. I was there. I remember the change in Washington, as if a storm had swept in. Weeks before, Republican members of Congress occasionally gave me a hard time, but they were generally civil. Suddenly, I was treated as if I were the enemy. Looking back, I can’t help wonder if the Cold War had held America together — gave us common purpose, reminded us of our interdependence. With its end, perhaps we had nowhere to turn except on each other. If the Cold War had not ended, I doubt Gingrich would have been able to launch a new internal war inside America. Had the Soviet menace remained, I doubt Donald Trump would have been able to take up Gingrich’s mantle of hate and conspiracy.Putin has brought a fractured NATO together. Maybe he’s bringing America back together too. It’s the thinnest of silver linings to the human disaster he’s creating, but perhaps he’ll have the same effect on the U.S. as the old Soviet Union did on America’s sense of who we are. What do you think? 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 to Wednesday, friends.Biden’s advisers are saying that the crisis in Ukraine presents a chance for a reset — Biden’s best opportunity to restore his standing before the November midterms. But what’s the message for the reset?Despite falling coronavirus positivity rates, a bipartisan infrastructure package, and rising employment numbers — and even foreign policy leadership — Biden’s approval ratings remain in the 40s. With inflation soaring and gas prices spiking, the Democrats could soon find themselves in the basement.Biden’s advisers point to the State of the Union address — which emphasized pragmatism over bold progressive goals — as a blueprint for his message in coming months. They note that, according to their research, cutting drug costs was among the most popular proposals in the speech. But this is a policy, not a message. The problem isn’t just Biden. To Democrats, a “message” consists of policies they’ve enacted or want to enact. Republicans don’t bother with policies. For seventy years they’ve stayed relentlessly “on message” with a narrative about Democrats as socialists and communists who want to take away peoples’ freedoms. More recently they’ve also used thinly-veiled racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia to suggest that Democrats are allowing the nation to be taken over by “them.”Democrats offer white papers and they talk in paragraphs. Republicans offer fearful stories and talk in bumper stickers.Republicans have their own message problems, of course. As long as the former guy retains his grip on the GOP, Democrats have a chance to remind up-for-grabs voters what is at stake this year and beyond.So today’s Office Hours question: What should be the Democrats’ message in coming months? (Please give us your thoughts in the comments section below. I’ve got some ideas, and will chime in as well.) 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, and welcome to Tuesday.This morning I filled my car with gas costing over five dollars a gallon. My car is a Mini Cooper that I bought years ago, partly because it wasn’t a gas guzzler. Now it’s guzzling dollars. But when I consider what’s happening in Ukraine, I say what the hell. It’s a small sacrifice. Yet guess who’s making no sacrifice at all — in fact, who’s reaping a giant windfall from this crisis? As crude oil prices hit levels not seen in more than 13 years, Big Oil has hit a gusher. Even before Putin’s war, oil prices had begun to rise due to the recovery in global demand and tight inventories. Last year, when Americans were already struggling to pay their heating bills and fill up their gas tanks, the biggest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, BP, and Exxon) posted profits totaling $75 billion. This year, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, Big Oil is on the way to a far bigger bonanza.How are the oil companies using all this windfall? I can assure you they’re not investing in renewables. They’re not even increasing oil production. As Chevron’s top executive Mike Wirth said in September, “we could afford to invest more” but “the equity market is not sending a signal that says they think we ought to be doing that.”  Translated:  Wall Street says the way to maximize profits is to limit supply and push up prices instead. So they’re buying back their own stock in order to give their stock prices even more of a boost. Last year they spent $38 billion on stock buybacks — their biggest buyback spending spree since 2008. This year, thanks largely to Putin, the oil giants are planning to buy back at least $22 billion more. Make no mistake. This is a direct redistribution from consumers who are paying through the nose at the gas pump to Big Oil’s investors and top executives (whose compensation packages are larded with shares of stock and stock options). Though it’s seldom discussed in the media, lower-income earners and their families bear the brunt of the burden of higher gas prices. Not only are lower-income people less likely to be able to work from home, they’re also more likely to commute for longer distances between work and home in order to afford less expensive housing. Big oil companies could absorb the higher costs of crude oil. The reason they’re not is because they’re so big they don’t have to. They don’t worry about losing market share to competitors. So they’re passing on the higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, and pocketing record profits. It’s the same old story in this country: when crisis strikes, the poor and working class are on the frontlines while the biggest corporations and their investors and top brass rake it in. What to do? Hit Big Oil with a windfall profits tax. Days ago, the European Union advised its members to seek a windfall profits tax on oil companies taking advantage of this very grave emergency to raise their prices. Democrats just introduced similar legislation here in the United States. The bill —introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ro Khanna — would tax the largest oil companies, which are recording their biggest profits in years, and use the money to provide quarterly checks to Americans facing sticker shock as inflation continues to skyrocket. (The bill would require oil companies producing or importing at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day to pay a per-barrel tax equal to half the difference between the current price of a barrel and the average price from the years 2015 to 2019. This is hardly confiscatory. Those were years when energy companies were already recording large profits. Quarterly rebates to consumers would phase out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or couples earning $150,000.)Republicans will balk at any tax increase on Big Oil, of course. (They’re even holding up the nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Fed because she’s had the temerity to speak out about the systemic risks that climate change poses to our economy. ) But a windfall profits tax on Big Oil is exactly what Democrats must do to help average working people through this fuel crisis. It’s good policy, it’s good politics, and it’s the right thing to do. 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

It’s like watching a three-hundred-pound bully beat up a kid half his size, for no reason — bloodying the poor kid, pulverizing him. Yet you don’t dare try to stop the mayhem because the bully has a gun that he’ll use on you if you intervene. You look for police, but there are none. You round up your friends, who join you in shouting at the bully. But he pays no attention. They threaten that if he doesn’t stop they’ll no longer go bowling with him or invite him out for drinks. Their threats have no effect. The bully continues beating up the kid. Your friends refuse to take further action. They don’t want to provoke his wrath. They’re as afraid of the bully’s gun as you are.By now the kid is desperate. You give him some water. He pleads for a knife. You slip him some brass knuckles. The kid puts up a good fight. You marvel at the kid’s courage and stamina in the face of such brutality. Maybe he can hold the bully off for a while, you think. But the kid’s resistance infuriates the bully even further. The bully clobbers the kid with everything he has. The barbarism is occurring in front of your eyes. It’s revolting to watch. Every moral fiber of your being shouts “do something!” Yet you’re paralyzed. It’s suicide if you intervene, but it’s moral suicide if you don’t. You want to believe the kid can force the bully to retreat, but you know the kid doesn’t stand a chance. You can no longer bear witness to this slaughter. You have to avert your eyes. Or you have to act. What do you do? 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

I used to believe several things about the twenty-first century that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s election in 2016 have shown me are false. I assumed:Nationalism is disappearing. I expected globalization would blur borders, create economic interdependence among nations and regions, and extend a modern consumer and artistic culture worldwide.I was wrong. Both Putin and Trump have exploited xenophobic nationalism to build their power. (Putin’s aggression has also ignited an inspiring patriotism in Ukraine.)Nations can no longer control what their citizens know. I assumed that emerging digital technologies, including the Internet, would make it impossible to control worldwide flows of information and knowledge. Tyrants could no longer keep their people in the dark or hoodwink them with propaganda.Wrong again. Trump filled the media with lies, as has Putin. Putin has also cut off Russian citizens from the truth about what’s occurring in Ukraine.Advanced nations will no longer war over geographic territory. I thought that in the “new economy” land was becoming less valuable than technological knowhow and innovation. Competition among nations would therefore be over the development of cutting-edge inventions.I was only partly right. While skills and innovation are critical, land still provides access to critical raw materials and buffers against potential foreign aggressors.Major nuclear powers will never risk war against each other because of the certainty of “mutually assured destruction.” I bought the conventional wisdom that nuclear war was unthinkable.I fear I was wrong. Putin is now resorting to dangerous nuclear brinksmanship.Civilization will never again be held hostage by crazy isolated men with the power to wreak havoc. I assumed this was a phenomenon of the twentieth century, and that twenty-first century governments, even totalitarian ones, would constrain tyrants.Trump and Putin have convinced me I was mistaken. Thankfully, America booted Trump out of office — but his threat to democracy remains. Advances in warfare, such as cyber-warfare and precision weapons, will minimize civilian casualties. I was persuaded by specialists in defense strategy that it no longer made sense for sophisticated powers to target civilians.Utterly wrong. Civilian casualties in Ukraine are mounting.Democracy is inevitable. I formed this belief in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union had imploded and China was still poor. It seemed to me that totalitarian regimes didn’t stand a chance in the new technologically driven, globalized world. Sure, petty dictatorships would remain in some retrograde regions. But modernity came with democracy, and democracy with modernity.Both Trump and Putin have shown how wrong I was on this, too.Meanwhile, Ukrainians are showing that Trump’s and Putin’s efforts to turn back the clock on the twenty-first century can only be addressed with a democracy powerful enough to counteract autocrats like them.They are also displaying with inspiring clarity that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s not what governments do. Democracy is what people do.Ukrainians are reminding us that democracy survives only if people are willing to sacrifice for it. Some sacrifices are smaller than others. You may have to stand in line for hours to vote, as did tens of thousands of Black people in America’s 2020 election. You may have to march and protest and even risk your life so others may vote, as did iconic civil rights leaders like the late John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr.You may have to knock on hundreds of doors to get out the vote. Or organize thousands to make your voices heard. And stand up against the powerful who don’t want your voices heard.You may have to fight a war to protect democracy from those who would destroy it.The people of Ukraine are also reminding us that democracy is the single most important legacy we have inherited from previous generations who strengthened it and who risked their lives to preserve it. It will be the most significant legacy we leave to future generations — unless we allow it to be suppressed by those who fear it, or we become too complacent to care.Putin and Trump have convinced me I was wrong about how far we had come in the twenty-first century. Technology, globalization, and modern systems of governance haven’t altered the ways of tyranny. But I, like millions of others around the world, have been inspired by the Ukrainian people — who are reteaching us lessons we once knew. 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

Among the most heartrending casualties in Ukraine are the children. So far, a million of them have fled the nation. Many are on their own, without parents or relatives to protect them. The 6 million who remain in Ukraine are in grave danger of being maimed or killed. Yesterday Ukraine accused Russia of bombing a children’s hospital. Of all the victims of war, children are the most innocent. If they survive, their physical and psychological injuries may last a lifetime. Children are also the most innocent casualties of poverty. I’ve been so fixated on Ukraine lately that I haven’t shared with you something important we’ve just learned about how to dramatically reduce child poverty here in the United States.From July 15, 2021 to December 15, 2021, the United States conducted a remarkable experiment. It was called the expanded Child Tax Credit. It featured direct monthly payments to families of up to $300 per child under 6 and $250 per month for children between 6 and 17 – phasing out for families earning more than $112,000 a year. We didn’t think of it as an experiment. It was simply part of the American Rescue Plan designed to help Americans survive the pandemic. It turned out to be a real-world experiment because we now know what happened before, during, and after it. This has given us an astonishingly precise understanding of its effects. Before the experiment, America’s child poverty rate was among the highest of all advanced nations. Nearly 16 percent of our children under 5 were impoverished. During the experiment, child poverty in America dropped by roughly a third, down to 12 percent. The number of households with kids reporting not having enough to eat also fell by about a third. After the experiment, the rate of child poverty rose again, from 12 percent to 17 percent. More than a third of families with children in the U.S. now say they are struggling to cover ordinary costs (food, utilities, housing).Naysayers predicted the payments would cause people not to work. That didn’t happen. In fact, researchers found that during these five months self-employment among lower-income families actually increased. Other naysayers said the cost of the program would be prohibitive. Not so. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that permanently expanding the Child Tax Credit would cost $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s less than what America’s rich and big corporations will save over the next ten years from the Trump Republican tax cut, which went into effect in 2018. Repeal it, and there’s plenty of money to pay for our children. Besides, the future cost to America of not reducing child poverty is astronomical, considering everything from social services to lost productivity.So why did the experiment end? Because the votes of 60 senators were needed to extend it (the filibuster requires sixty votes even to get to an actual vote), and 50 Republican senators and two Democratic senators didn’t want to. At this moment, millions of Ukrainian children are hungry or homeless. Tragically, there is very little we can do for them. At this moment, millions of American children are hungry or homeless. But we can alleviate their suffering. We now know how, because between July 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021 we conducted an experiment that worked. If we were a sane and decent society we would turn that experiment into the law of the land. We still can. Will we? 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

I’m becoming increasingly worried that a growing segment of the American public is pushing for a war with Russia. Needless to say, that would be suicidal. This morning I saw an open open letter to the Biden administration signed by a group of 27 foreign policy heavyweights, calling for a limited no-fly zone over Ukraine — “starting with protection for humanitarian corridors that were agreed upon in talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials.” The proposal sounds reasonable until you think about how this “limited” no-fly zone would be enforced. NATO would have to engage Russian forces that violate it. That would mean war. There’s also the question of whether Poland will donate to Ukraine Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jets, which Ukraine pilots know how to fly, in return for America supplying fighter jets to Poland. This also brings NATO frighteningly close to war with Russia. So today’s Office Hours question: Should we worry that America and the West are heading toward a war with Russia? If so, how do we avoid it?***Having read through your comments, I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness. I'm as spooked by this as any of you, having spent the first ten years of my life worrying that the Soviet Union would drop a bomb on America at any moment. I even remember urging my father to build a bomb shelter (to which his wise response was "not unless you, Bobby, are willing to kill neighbors who will want to crowd into it").American foreign policy is dominated by two metaphoric enemies -- either Hitler (whom appeasement only encouraged) and Ho Chi Min (whose nationalism had nothing to do with Soviet expansionism). Putin seems to exist more in the former camp, which means we need to do everything possible to make his invasion of Ukraine as painful as possible for him. But there's also an element of ethnic nationalism to his aggression, which suggests he might be willing to settle for Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine and not threaten NATO.I'm no expert in foreign policy, but I do think it important for us to be clear-eyed about all this and succumb neither to war-mongering jingoism that could lead to nuclear annihilation (as exemplified by today's letter from foreign-policy heavyweights calling for a "limited" no-fly zone) nor to a naive isolationism. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said today that the U.S. wants to get fighter jets to Ukraine “in the right way,” which leaves open the door to helping Poland supply them to Ukraine. Is this a slippery slope? At what point does the U.S. become a combatant?Like many of you, I trust Biden and his foreign policy advisers. I think they've done an excellent job so far. And I'm thankful that the former guy is far from the Oval Office. But I'm still deeply worried. 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