Thanks, Mike. There are many reasons we have reached this point as a society. But one is the deliberate selfishness and cynicism of principal actors interested only in profit and/or power -not in the well-being of our democracy or of our fellow citizens.
Reversing their damage will require collective effort. But that is within our power.
Wow. Can this be sent to every elected official , CEO, thought leader of conscience. Have not read a more succinct, insightful, wise, practical overview of how we got here and a hopeful road forward!
Thank you so much, Nancy. One of the biggest things we need is for citizens to engage, however we can. If that happens, I truly believe we can restore more widely shared opportunity and a healthier democracy.
Thanks Roger. I totally agree with you about the revision of the tax code, and public policy in general, to favor the donor class. As you will see, I also write extensively about Citizens United and its aftermath. If Trump is the principal character in our Democratic crisis, Chief Justice John Roberts has played a strong supporting role. Best, Ric
I was referred here by Robert Hubbell's Substack. Thank you for this excellent analysis and writing. I hope that you will make all subsequent essays in this series free and available to the public at large.
Absolutely, Kelly. I'm not doing this to be paid, and I am fortunate to have had a long and happy career. Like other readers of Robert's newsletter, I'm deeply concerned with saving our democracy and expanding opportunity for more Americans. As you may have seen, I will be doing this in weekly installments, some sections appearing over several days.Thanks so much for reading along with me! Ric
A lot to unpack here, Richard! I share many of your observations. To me, the differences between the left and right boil down to a tendency to: take care, vs. advantage, of others; foster opportunity, vs. opportunism; equality vs. superiority; us vs. me, ours vs. mine; common good vs. what’s good for me; having enough vs. having the most; and giving vs. taking. My tagline on my emails is: “Nothing worth anything comes at the expense of others.” I could go on, but you get the point.
One thing I’ll take exception to in your treatise is your criticism of “shareholder capitalism.” I was taught that the primary objective of any corporation is to “maximize shareholder wealth.” As cynical as it may sound, I’ve come to accept that as reality. However, it’s equally clear to me that corporate responsibility, stewardship of resources, fair treatment of employees, customer service, fair prices, high quality, and adequate supply are all good business, and good business maximizes shareholder wealth.
Thanks, Bob. I agree with you about what makes good business, and that it is good for shareholders.. Let’s hope that ethos becomes more widely accepted. The more widely we share prosperity, the more customers! Best,Ric
I think it's in the "packaging." Too often, we get so wrapped up on the negatives and fail to see potential positives.
I wrote a piece last week, the "Bizarro World of pmurt," where I noted that he's adept at adopting popular goals and rallying his base around them. That makes it difficult for us to be critical. Then he goes overboard with his implementation, and achieves his real goal. To him, the ends PRESCRIBE the means, and his followers go along with it.
Perhaps we need to be more proactive and creative in pushing back, by saying, "Obviously, but it must be done properly," and then exposing his methods and their likely consequences.
Your 1st paragraph, Bob, is a paragon of altruism at its best.
Your 2nd pp sort of turns it around for me. How can there Ever be effective Corporate monitoring and verifiable accountability, especially regarding workers conditions. We Know about Corporate Greed. The Bigger the organisation, the more the greed eats away at its insides. While stockholders get outsized wealth and the disparities grow.
I'm thinking of a maximum business size allowed, And a maximum income allowed beyond which pick your charities.
Hi Jessica. I think I may have lost you. My point is that doing the right thing is profitable for business and good for shareholders. To me that's a win-win. Some companies operate that way. Goodwill adds value to a business. I think what you described is how most companies operate, unfortunately.
To your last point, I'm not sure there's a way to cap either, but the government might be able to provide disincentives. But that ain't gonna happen under this madministration and Congress.
The government establishes the rules for corporate governance, and in America those rules need to be changed so that corporations, at least after they reach a certain higher level of capitalization, serve more than just the bottom-line interests of their shareholders. Germany has a different corporate governance structure that addresses community stakeholder interests and requires trade union membership on corporate boards. America's corporate governance structure is simply institutionalized greed.
Absolutely, John. Elizabeth Warren had some excellent proposals for improving corporate governance. Five years later, they may seem much more timely. We need to rethink how our economy works in a comprehensive way. Best, Ric.
I want to suggest that the division began when someone convinced Reagan of the virtue of "trickle down economics," which is a complete falsehood. Low taxes on the wealthy, and various exemptions written into law by corrupt politicians, e.g., inheritance stepup basis and the carried interest exemption, moved much of the tax burden to people who were already struggling. Not so obvious is that other taxes have stalled. For example, Social Security taxes are only collected on incomes up to about $176,000. If that ceiling has been increased in line with inflation, then employment income up to about $1.3 million would be subject to Social Security taxes, and we would not be facing a Social Security crisis. This is one of the many areas where a corrupt Congress has failed us. Because "Citizens United" has put our government up for sale to the highest bidder, there is now little to no real probability of correcting the wealth disparities.
Thanks, Roger. As you will see when I get to Section III , I very much share your viewpoint. The American economy before 1980 had much deeper shared prosperity – although, of course, there were pockets of poverty and discrimination. Best, Ric
I agree with you about Reagan. But the needs of the base since then have done a great deal to promote authoritarianism. Reagan would not thrive in today's GOP, remarkable as that may seem.
Rick, I agree with your assessment about Reagan! I have to admit, I have never been one of his admirers. I was a student when he was Governor and he hated out higher education system.
I read Hubbell’s daily essay and appreciated his referral to your essay. I’m actually doing well. I participated in my local Santa Monica No Kings protest, over 5K attended this peaceful event. We were fortunate in SoCal to have numerous protests in the greater LA County area.
Film directors loved Ronnie because he always knew his lines and delivered them with finesse. Reagan was just the first in a long line of politicians who took direction from a behind-the-scenes controller; Congress got the same guidance, and it's been 43 years of a gradually increasing shift of wealth to the ultrawealthy, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court.
Well, nothing new in the ideas presented here, but really impressed with the author's obvious inebriation with the exuberance his own verbosity. The common man, or woman would lose the ambition to read beyond the second paragraph given the overly clever therefore alienating language used, thus the message lost in those who need to understand it most.
You hit the nail right on the head. He's extremely impressed with his language skills which definitely alienated me from wanting to continue reading. I did skim more of the article but it's a shame that he feels he needs to impress us with needless verbosity. Also, he should have proofread this because there are a number of grammatical errors where he left out periods at the end of sentences. Or forgot to put a space between words.
I will admit to having the same thoughts. I also believe that all the things Richard lists as an action plan for the Left were in fact exactly what the Biden Administration did and was trying to do for the American people. The Harris campaign ran on those same principles and policy agendas as well. Good things did happen under Biden; and yet the Right’s massive and constant negative messaging and flat out lies colored those accomplishments as insufficient, weak, or worse, actually somehow bad for the country! Until Democrats figure out how to counter the Right’s messaging we continue to face an uphill battle I fear.
I agree with you about Biden- Harris. I think the Democrats need to reframe their economic message to boldly and directly address the concerns of working and middle class people. That means a comprehensive program, rooted in expanding opportunity, to improve their lines – not a program here or there -much more as Elizabeth Warren did. In short, progressive capitalism.
That means freeing themselves from donors who are perfectly happy to embrace liberalism on cultural issues, but resist reimagining our economy. I don't think we can restore democracy without much broader economic opportunity and security.
You have written a superb essay that we should all read and ask our children to read.Are you going to offer ideas that would help transpose your thoughts into suggest ions for us all to use if we try to move forward?
I absolutely will, Robert. The last and longest section will expand on the last part of my introduction. It would be pointless to decry our situation without pointing away forward. So, first, the analysis of what went wrong; second, a comprehensive consideration of solutions. In the meanwhile, thanks so much for your encouragement! Best, Ric
You have written about this crisis-- the word "existential" is overused but in this case it applies, the principles and institutions and legacies that Trump has attacked makes this crisis existential-- but you have written about it comprehensively and straight. What's more, you outline general ways for us to fight it, which is another way of saying, for us to survive it. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Greg. Coming from you, this means a great deal. Your experience certainly gives you perspective on how different a moment this is for America. I do believe we can turn this around with enough commitment from enough Americans to make us what we should be. Best, Ric
Excellent essay. One point of disagreement though. Yes definitely, shareholder wealth is important and necessary but so is employee wealth who provide the wealth to shareholders. There has to be a balance between the two so both entities can prosper. We certainly don't have that now.
Thanks, Corinne. Actually, we agree. More commonly shared prosperity is also good for corporate America. Much of what I’m going to write concerns restoring that balance. Best, Ric
Excellent! Thank you for your clear and thoughtful transcription of the saga, as to how we Americans got to where we find ourselves today, complete with solid advice towards a way back. I was born in 1946, so I recognize every landmark along the journey you have mapped. I am passing it along to my entire address book.
Thank you so much, Elen. You and I are pretty much in a demographic dead heat: I was born in 1947. So the two of us have a lot to reflect on in terms of how we got to this point. Frankly, as tough as the 60s were, I never imagined back then where we would be in 2025. But here we are, so we need to fight our way back. Best, Ric
I think I responded before, Mike, but I don't see any trace of that. So I will thank you again. What I said before is that, among the multiple causes of our current dilemma, there are malign and cynical actors who exploited our societal problems for their own profit and power. They need to be called out. Best, Ric
Thanks, Mike. There are many reasons we have reached this point as a society. But one is the deliberate selfishness and cynicism of principal actors interested only in profit and/or power -not in the well-being of our democracy or of our fellow citizens.
Reversing their damage will require collective effort. But that is within our power.
Best,
Ric
Thanks so much, John. I really appreciate this. Thinking through how we got here, and how to get out, is a pretty big task . Best, Ric
Wow. Can this be sent to every elected official , CEO, thought leader of conscience. Have not read a more succinct, insightful, wise, practical overview of how we got here and a hopeful road forward!
Thank you so much, Nancy. One of the biggest things we need is for citizens to engage, however we can. If that happens, I truly believe we can restore more widely shared opportunity and a healthier democracy.
Thanks Roger. I totally agree with you about the revision of the tax code, and public policy in general, to favor the donor class. As you will see, I also write extensively about Citizens United and its aftermath. If Trump is the principal character in our Democratic crisis, Chief Justice John Roberts has played a strong supporting role. Best, Ric
I was referred here by Robert Hubbell's Substack. Thank you for this excellent analysis and writing. I hope that you will make all subsequent essays in this series free and available to the public at large.
Absolutely, Kelly. I'm not doing this to be paid, and I am fortunate to have had a long and happy career. Like other readers of Robert's newsletter, I'm deeply concerned with saving our democracy and expanding opportunity for more Americans. As you may have seen, I will be doing this in weekly installments, some sections appearing over several days.Thanks so much for reading along with me! Ric
A lot to unpack here, Richard! I share many of your observations. To me, the differences between the left and right boil down to a tendency to: take care, vs. advantage, of others; foster opportunity, vs. opportunism; equality vs. superiority; us vs. me, ours vs. mine; common good vs. what’s good for me; having enough vs. having the most; and giving vs. taking. My tagline on my emails is: “Nothing worth anything comes at the expense of others.” I could go on, but you get the point.
One thing I’ll take exception to in your treatise is your criticism of “shareholder capitalism.” I was taught that the primary objective of any corporation is to “maximize shareholder wealth.” As cynical as it may sound, I’ve come to accept that as reality. However, it’s equally clear to me that corporate responsibility, stewardship of resources, fair treatment of employees, customer service, fair prices, high quality, and adequate supply are all good business, and good business maximizes shareholder wealth.
Looking forward to more!
Thanks again, Bob.
Thanks, Bob. I agree with you about what makes good business, and that it is good for shareholders.. Let’s hope that ethos becomes more widely accepted. The more widely we share prosperity, the more customers! Best,Ric
I think it's in the "packaging." Too often, we get so wrapped up on the negatives and fail to see potential positives.
I wrote a piece last week, the "Bizarro World of pmurt," where I noted that he's adept at adopting popular goals and rallying his base around them. That makes it difficult for us to be critical. Then he goes overboard with his implementation, and achieves his real goal. To him, the ends PRESCRIBE the means, and his followers go along with it.
Perhaps we need to be more proactive and creative in pushing back, by saying, "Obviously, but it must be done properly," and then exposing his methods and their likely consequences.
Your 1st paragraph, Bob, is a paragon of altruism at its best.
Your 2nd pp sort of turns it around for me. How can there Ever be effective Corporate monitoring and verifiable accountability, especially regarding workers conditions. We Know about Corporate Greed. The Bigger the organisation, the more the greed eats away at its insides. While stockholders get outsized wealth and the disparities grow.
I'm thinking of a maximum business size allowed, And a maximum income allowed beyond which pick your charities.
Hi Jessica. I think I may have lost you. My point is that doing the right thing is profitable for business and good for shareholders. To me that's a win-win. Some companies operate that way. Goodwill adds value to a business. I think what you described is how most companies operate, unfortunately.
To your last point, I'm not sure there's a way to cap either, but the government might be able to provide disincentives. But that ain't gonna happen under this madministration and Congress.
The government establishes the rules for corporate governance, and in America those rules need to be changed so that corporations, at least after they reach a certain higher level of capitalization, serve more than just the bottom-line interests of their shareholders. Germany has a different corporate governance structure that addresses community stakeholder interests and requires trade union membership on corporate boards. America's corporate governance structure is simply institutionalized greed.
Absolutely, John. Elizabeth Warren had some excellent proposals for improving corporate governance. Five years later, they may seem much more timely. We need to rethink how our economy works in a comprehensive way. Best, Ric.
I want to suggest that the division began when someone convinced Reagan of the virtue of "trickle down economics," which is a complete falsehood. Low taxes on the wealthy, and various exemptions written into law by corrupt politicians, e.g., inheritance stepup basis and the carried interest exemption, moved much of the tax burden to people who were already struggling. Not so obvious is that other taxes have stalled. For example, Social Security taxes are only collected on incomes up to about $176,000. If that ceiling has been increased in line with inflation, then employment income up to about $1.3 million would be subject to Social Security taxes, and we would not be facing a Social Security crisis. This is one of the many areas where a corrupt Congress has failed us. Because "Citizens United" has put our government up for sale to the highest bidder, there is now little to no real probability of correcting the wealth disparities.
Thanks, Roger. As you will see when I get to Section III , I very much share your viewpoint. The American economy before 1980 had much deeper shared prosperity – although, of course, there were pockets of poverty and discrimination. Best, Ric
I consider Reagan to be the “grandfather” of Project 2025!
Hi Janet,
How are you? Doing great, I hope!
I agree with you about Reagan. But the needs of the base since then have done a great deal to promote authoritarianism. Reagan would not thrive in today's GOP, remarkable as that may seem.
As ever,
Rick\
Rick, I agree with your assessment about Reagan! I have to admit, I have never been one of his admirers. I was a student when he was Governor and he hated out higher education system.
I read Hubbell’s daily essay and appreciated his referral to your essay. I’m actually doing well. I participated in my local Santa Monica No Kings protest, over 5K attended this peaceful event. We were fortunate in SoCal to have numerous protests in the greater LA County area.
Hi Janet,
When you have time, shoot me an email. I will catch you up on our news.
As ever,
Ric
Film directors loved Ronnie because he always knew his lines and delivered them with finesse. Reagan was just the first in a long line of politicians who took direction from a behind-the-scenes controller; Congress got the same guidance, and it's been 43 years of a gradually increasing shift of wealth to the ultrawealthy, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court.
Well, nothing new in the ideas presented here, but really impressed with the author's obvious inebriation with the exuberance his own verbosity. The common man, or woman would lose the ambition to read beyond the second paragraph given the overly clever therefore alienating language used, thus the message lost in those who need to understand it most.
You hit the nail right on the head. He's extremely impressed with his language skills which definitely alienated me from wanting to continue reading. I did skim more of the article but it's a shame that he feels he needs to impress us with needless verbosity. Also, he should have proofread this because there are a number of grammatical errors where he left out periods at the end of sentences. Or forgot to put a space between words.
I will admit to having the same thoughts. I also believe that all the things Richard lists as an action plan for the Left were in fact exactly what the Biden Administration did and was trying to do for the American people. The Harris campaign ran on those same principles and policy agendas as well. Good things did happen under Biden; and yet the Right’s massive and constant negative messaging and flat out lies colored those accomplishments as insufficient, weak, or worse, actually somehow bad for the country! Until Democrats figure out how to counter the Right’s messaging we continue to face an uphill battle I fear.
Hi Lisa,
I agree with you about Biden- Harris. I think the Democrats need to reframe their economic message to boldly and directly address the concerns of working and middle class people. That means a comprehensive program, rooted in expanding opportunity, to improve their lines – not a program here or there -much more as Elizabeth Warren did. In short, progressive capitalism.
That means freeing themselves from donors who are perfectly happy to embrace liberalism on cultural issues, but resist reimagining our economy. I don't think we can restore democracy without much broader economic opportunity and security.
Best,
Ric
You have written a superb essay that we should all read and ask our children to read.Are you going to offer ideas that would help transpose your thoughts into suggest ions for us all to use if we try to move forward?
I absolutely will, Robert. The last and longest section will expand on the last part of my introduction. It would be pointless to decry our situation without pointing away forward. So, first, the analysis of what went wrong; second, a comprehensive consideration of solutions. In the meanwhile, thanks so much for your encouragement! Best, Ric
You have written about this crisis-- the word "existential" is overused but in this case it applies, the principles and institutions and legacies that Trump has attacked makes this crisis existential-- but you have written about it comprehensively and straight. What's more, you outline general ways for us to fight it, which is another way of saying, for us to survive it. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Greg. Coming from you, this means a great deal. Your experience certainly gives you perspective on how different a moment this is for America. I do believe we can turn this around with enough commitment from enough Americans to make us what we should be. Best, Ric
Excellent essay. One point of disagreement though. Yes definitely, shareholder wealth is important and necessary but so is employee wealth who provide the wealth to shareholders. There has to be a balance between the two so both entities can prosper. We certainly don't have that now.
Thanks, Corinne. Actually, we agree. More commonly shared prosperity is also good for corporate America. Much of what I’m going to write concerns restoring that balance. Best, Ric
Brilliantly and comprehensively described.
Thanks so much, John. Yes, there are multiple tributaries to how we got here – and how we recover our democracy. Best, Ric
Excellent! Thank you for your clear and thoughtful transcription of the saga, as to how we Americans got to where we find ourselves today, complete with solid advice towards a way back. I was born in 1946, so I recognize every landmark along the journey you have mapped. I am passing it along to my entire address book.
Thank you so much, Elen. You and I are pretty much in a demographic dead heat: I was born in 1947. So the two of us have a lot to reflect on in terms of how we got to this point. Frankly, as tough as the 60s were, I never imagined back then where we would be in 2025. But here we are, so we need to fight our way back. Best, Ric
I have many more thoughts, but for now let me just say this reads somewhat like the famous Zola essay entitled "J'accuse". Parallel messages, indeed.
I think I responded before, Mike, but I don't see any trace of that. So I will thank you again. What I said before is that, among the multiple causes of our current dilemma, there are malign and cynical actors who exploited our societal problems for their own profit and power. They need to be called out. Best, Ric