Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America

by Robert B. Reich

For anyone who believes that liberal isn’t a dirty word but a term of honor, this book will be as revitalizing as oxygen. For in the pages of Reason, one of our most incisive public thinkers, and a former secretary of labor mounts a defense of classical liberalism that’s also a guide for rolling back twenty years of radical conservative domination of our politics and political culture.To do so, Robert B. Reich shows how liberals the focus of the values debate from behavior in the bedroom to malfeasance in the boardroom .Remind Americans that real prosperity depends on fairness .Reclaim patriotism from those who equate it with pre-emptive war-making and the suppression of dissent If a single book has the potential to restore our country’s good name and common sense, it’s this one.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Political Science, Audiobook, History, Social Science

272 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

Robert Bernard Reich is an American politician, academic, and political commentator. He served as Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. Reich is a former Harvard University professor and the former Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. He is currently a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy. Mr. Reich is also on the board of directors of Tutor.com. He is a trustee of the Economists for Peace and Security. He is an occasional political commentator, notably on Hardball with Chris Matthews, This Week with George Stephanopoulos and CNBC's Kudlow & Company.

Reviews

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book saddens me a bit more than anything else. I don't know much about Mr. Reich except what I know from the media and what he says about himself. I believe from the way he writes that he may be sincere in his beliefs that leftist policies are the way to go to improve life for the majority of people. He goes to great lengths here to point out that being a "liberal" (and he talks about that definition also) doesn't mean a person is in favor of "larger government" but is more concerned with "what government does". He then goes forward with his arguments for things that will not only increase the size of government but it's intrusiveness.

His arguments seem to (attempt) to set up a dichotomy between personal rights (or liberties) and life's necessities. (Chapter 1 "The Revenge of the Radcons" page 15 in the edition I read "But the Great Depression taught America that unemployment and bad luck could be just as harmful to personal freedom as tyranny. Protection against these required a larger role for government.")

I don't however rate the book low (1 star) simply (only) because I disagree with his arguments (though I do) or believe he comes to erroneous conclusions (which I think he does), but because he is flat incorrect (wrong) about some things. Notably he sets up a "straw man" opponent to argue or "fight" against. He creates the class "Radcons" or "Radical Conservatives". These "Radcons" are in favor of interfering in the lives of all other people. They want to "prevent sex before marriage", Require (note that REQUIRE) prayer in public school....squelch dissent about foreign policy (something more common in the left from my own observation)...restrict civil liberties for the sake of national security.... These are only a few, he's got a list.

But, it seems that anyone who is conservative is in his opinion a Radcon. Whether I hold all the positions he names (which by the way I don't) or even something close I get painted with "the brush". Either Mr. Reich is misinformed, under-informed, or writing propaganda. In the end we end up with an assessment that the American people will turn away from all the evil Radcons (Conservatives) and join the left (and if they won't do it based on the information out there then the left needs to be sure that the information provided supports the cause).

As I said possibly sincere but a lot of misinformation.

[Joe Robles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was really good and well argued. Written in 2004 it's wickedly prescient about the events of today. Like any good manifesto it states the facts as they are, then gives actionable items for what we liberals need to do. It almost seems as if Obama did follow some of these suggestions and that's how he got elected but, unfortunately, none of the other democrats followed them.

I wanted to share a passage that I thought was spot on.

This one was about tax breaks for the rich. He argues that it is anti-conservative to support policy that is unproven, "For example, even if you believe that giving giant tax breaks to rich people who are already fabulously wealthy will cause them to invest the extra money in new factories and machines, and hence grow the economy, you've got to admit it's a big gamble. If the Radcons [radical conservatives] are wrong about this, a lot of things go wrong: The federal budget goes bust, long-term interest rates go sky-high, and baby boomers don't get the Social Security or Medicare they're counting on."

Well, that's what happened, the federal budget is going bust and conservatives are trying to get rid of social security.

He also explained why conservative brought up William Ayers during the Obama campaign (4 years before they did it). It's the obsession of conservatives with the 60s left. The conservatives hate what they see as the radical 60s (free love, anti-american) and they paint liberals with that brush as much as they can. With Bill and Hillary, who were students in the 60s it was easier, but President Obama was born in 1961 so he couldn't have participated in the 60 radical movements, so they had to find someone to connect him to no matter how tenuous. Reading this book was like having a guide to the conservative playbook.

He also points out one of the biggest problems with Democrats is that we're not unified. The democratic party and liberals in general are too all over the place when it comes to issues. We have some who are big on the environment, others on abortion, still others who make minority issues their top priority. But they don't all stand together on everything. Though most regular people may have different views about what's most important to them when it comes to being a Republican, the party stands firm with an all or nothing view. If you're a Republican politician you will oppose abortion, gun control, tax increases, and be tough on immigration. You'll proclaim that science is "iffy" if it doesn't support your views. Democrats don't stand a chance.

It's a great book and I highly recommend it to liberals who want some guidance. Perhaps we should purchase a copy for all of the Democrats in Congress.

[LG · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a good argument for the strengths of Liberalism. The one place I differed - or possibly need more information - was his ideas on where future jobs are. The two areas of growth include - problem solving jobs and services jobs. My problem is that problem solving jobs can be sent to other countries. The US does not have a monopoly on these jobs. I expect a stronger and more thoughtful argument from the former Sec. of Labor.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well the book has jalf way through the Neoconservatives running out of gas, but the book doesn't really see the decay of both parties, and the other 'mentalities' with the two parties....that may likely be be worse or better....

basically he's strongest on civil liberties and the looseness with corporate tax breaks, and the erosion of social services.

But does he see the neoliberalism within his own party, or globalization embraced by both (it's one of his strongest points in latter years, when he seemed to just give up in his earlier works on that), or by going after the neocons, he doesn't see the changes in his own party where they are sometimes neocon-lite.

Pretty much, not seeing the flaws in your economic and foreign policy and seeing basically your party in decade from the glory years of the 1930s to the 1970s, and the slow erosion and change for the worse in 70% of your policy for the next 40 years.

.........

The dumbest part of the book?

The stuff in the blurb says it all....

"He calls on liberals to close ranks and maintain a permanent platform that can grow in power. He provides clear answers to the barrage of accusations (of communism, of elitism, of anti-Americanism) with which Radcons have been pummeling liberals for at least two decades. He analyzes the propaganda savvy, the commitment, and the organization of the Radcons, and what liberals can learn from each. He suggests how liberals can wrest the sole ownership of patriotism from the Radcons...."

a. we need to grow in power
b. we have a problem with the guys wrapping themselves up in the flag, who are radicals

"He calls on liberals to recognize their strengths. He wants them to remember their unfaltering protection of the central American invention: a society (ours was the first in history) that allows no aristocracy and hence belongs to all its citizens. And he wants liberals to recall how, twice in the last century, liberalism’s dedicated reforms rescued American free enterprise from its own excesses: first from the robber barons in the early 1900s, then in the depression-devastated 1930s."

a. the citizens own our government - big deal - and most people are apathetic to real change, or people choose political parties and compromise on change and policy to actually improve things

b. yeah we changed things from the days of the robber barons, and it's still not perfect - perhaps better economy policy and education would help?

Honestly you're going back 100-250 years to get this as the strength of 'liberalism'? And even those forces who did those changes, really arent the modern parties of 'now'....

"He demonstrates, with quotations from the most respected opinion polls, how far the radical conservative agenda is from representing the national will. And he tells why he believes that once again–assuming the readiness to take action–American liberals are on the verge of winning the battle for America."

Well, i'd like to say that there isn't a lot of great opinion polling on both parties since Nixon and Vietnam really... and LBJ not running for reelection....

and how much of the polling will reflect political polarization, and how, the other party is the 'enemy' and if maybe things turn into a total war.... depending on which party has the most issues you might agree with more than 'others'.

I think the problem is Reich doesn't understand what the mentality of the Conservative Democrats are, who are more centrists, or radical centrists. FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, i think fit there....

and how so much of the Founding Fathers, loved by the Republicans were influenced by French liberalism....

So my issue is Reich is just doing a 'rah rah' book for liberal+democrat and we'll show them all we're patriots too....

Basically, you're telling people you're on the verge of winning again, but that's mostly due to the neocon policy that Huntington Warned about in the Clash of Civilizations a deacde ago, as being one of the most dangerous policies to have?

[Huntington thought global monoculturism was a problem - like the Cheneyoids and Rumsfeld neocon policies]

[and Huntington thought national multicultualism was the other problem - the USA is NOT the United Nations]

pretty much you can't have diversity within a nation enforced with immigration, and fracture your national fabric

and you can't have monoculture over the globe (unless you're gonna kill em all off)

.........

[and oddly looking 15-20 years ahead, liberals only win the battle when you have voters liking Trump, who hated the neocons and hated immigration, which pretty much 'wins that battle for america'

and how did that come about?

The old republican views imploded

Reich likes to think 'ooh our side is winning'
rather than not realizing, you only win sometimes because the other person, falls over drunk, and well is that really a win on the better policy?

A lot of Democrats have been voting since the days of NAFTA, and the Bush era and the Obama Era, by holding their nose saying, well our side isn't something i'm terribly enthusiastic about what we're doing, but we're clearly better than the other party.

If you have the Republican Party that was even more loyal to Keynesian Economics, and dropped Abortion issues, and kept the gun control and free speech (rather than free speech only for our side) and a realist Foreign Policy, they'd be unbeatable...

So in light of that, it's almost like abortion is probably the reason that puts the Republicans going back three spaces in the game of Monopoly.

And well Trump, gave the Democrats a favor, he killed off the neocons, killed off globalization, in the minds of Republican voters - but in a way that's given people less reasons to like the democrats...

Trump did something in six months that took the Democrats like 20 years to do.

............

Basically Reich doesn't think more than 5 years ahead, and goes on with ancient history, like the robber barons (but were people pleased when Obama seemed to be in bed with Wall Street?)

and well, it's more a confidence builder for Democrats, rather than a serious think about how to improve things. Which often happens when you look at what you're doing wrong.

///////////

Now lets look at one of the most critical views on Amazone

Amazone


Total Drivel. Robert Reich completely distorts, obfuscates, and deceives both himself and his reader in his discussion of America's contemporary problems.

For example

1. Reich imposes a totally false dichotomy on the political spectrum between radcons (radical conservatives) and liberals or supposedly true patriots. Reich admits that not all radcons agree on all issues. But we are supposed to go for the dichotomy because radcons are the same in fervor. In particular radcons are supposed to be militant and repressive hawks on the war on terror. Reich does not discuss the views of Patrick Buchanan except for one personal insult. Other disagreements within both the liberal and conservative camps are ignored. I have the feeling that many if not most Americans would not fit into Reich's dichotomy.

2. Reich stacks the deck in proving his favored New England liberals are the good guys. For the 1950s he discusses Joseph McCarthy and quotes his supposedly heroic newscaster Edward Murrow. Of course Reich chooses to call the era of Franklin Roosevelt a time of selfless freedom loving patriotism ignoring the relocation camps and sedition trials of the period.

3. Reich exaggerates the threat of terrorism. Supposedly agreeing with the more extreme neoconservatives Reich quotes as examples of the hated radcoms, the threat of terrorism is equal that of communism in the cold war. Oh come on, a bunch of terrorist gangs is the equal of the Russian Empire that controlled numerous captive nations and possessed thousands of nuclear weapons.

4. Reich demands the reimposition of the draft and mandatory national service. Get real Reich. The draft is unfreedom. America at its best is freedom. And the draft means many more military casualties as draftees replace trained military professionals. The draft wastes human talent by forcing people to work at assigned jobs when they can be more productively employed elsewhere.

5. Reich attributes opposition to statism to greed. Supposedly this is the case with opposition to higher tax rates. Yet lower taxes encourage business investment and provide economic growth and employment.

In short the conception of patriotism to Reich is an impoverished heavily militarized country dominated by an elite group of faddish secularized New England lawyers. I would hope most Americans would strongly resist this demented scheme. In the end Reich is neither rational or patriotic.

Crosslands

//////////

I wouldn't agree totally, but it shows that Reich can't really formulate a more convincing economic and tax policy.

And the whole thing of the draft, basically can 'scare' people about the implications of the neocons, and fighting in the Middle East, but it can basically get most people to throw your book away and tune out completely.

Basically talk of the draft is a way of Reich saying, okay, i alienated 99% of my readers, and you might as well ignore me from now on.

.............

Basically the book is just a desparate puff piece about trying to take down the neocons, and though i like Reich half the time with many of his views, he just feels tone-deaf and hamfistedly foolish in getting his 'good points across'.

And well it's why i think Huntington wrote much better stuff, and Reich, half his books are going to be half-forgotten embarassments.

............

Why?

The Clash of Civilizations was summed up in The New Yorker magazine in one sentence in the article 'Patriot Games'.

quote

"Huntington is a domestic monoculturalist and a global multiculturalist (and an enemy of domestic multiculturalism and global monoculturalism)."

the essay did make one good point

"His book therefore appealed both to people in the West who were anxious about the diversification or erosion of Western culture and to people outside the West who wanted to believe that modernization and Westernization are neither necessary nor inevitable."

a. basically changing the world can be unwise if you aren't very careful
b. basically changing your own culture can be unwise too

.........

Huntington wrote a different book in the same year 2004

Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity

Huntington argues that it is during the 1960s that American identity begins to erode. This was the result of several factors:

1 The beginning of economic globalization and the rise of global subnational identities

2 The easing of the Cold War and its end in 1989 reduced the importance of national identity

3 Attempts by candidates for political offices to win over groups of voters

4 The desire of subnational group leaders to enhance the status of their respective groups and their personal status within them

5 The interpretation of Congressional acts that led to their execution in expedient ways, but not necessarily in the ways the framers intended

6 The passing on of feelings of sympathy and guilt for past actions as encouraged by academic elites and intellectuals

7 The changes in views of race and ethnicity as promoted by civil rights and immigration laws

...............

Reviews?
best for last

............

Kirkus

To the barricades, liberals: according to former Secretary of Labor Reich, your hour is at hand.

Americans, Reich (The Future of Success, 2001, etc.) argues, tend to be socially moderate, if not liberal; certainly they are not “radcons,” or radical conservatives, by inclination.

In support of this assertion, Reich offers a series of public-opinion surveys showing that a majority of people favor a woman’s right to choose, America conceived of as a secular nation, environmental protection over short-term economic gain, and liberty and justice for all.

Yet—and here’s the rub—even though Americans “have had enough of the radical conservatives—their intolerance, their mean-spiritedness, their moral righteousness, their arrogance toward the rest of the world”—Americans seem to have no problem putting such people in office.

This, by Reich’s account, is because the progressive or liberal wing of the Democratic Party has failed to provide any kind of agenda that speaks to the “large, anxious middle and lower-middle class” and has instead stood by as others within the party have pushed it rightward toward an imagined center.

“Centrism is bogus,” Reich thunders. “The ‘center’ keeps shifting further right because Radcons stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway.”

Thus Clinton’s embracing an economic boom that benefited only a few; thus the Democrats’ having so little vision that the only thing they could think of to do with the budget surplus of a few years’ back was to retire the national debt early.

Stuff and nonsense, Reich argues; it’s time to unfurl the liberal flag and proudly own the name, recognizing that the largest political group in the country is not Republicans or Democrats or “swing voters,” but those Americans who, out of apathy or disgust, just don’t vote at all.

That’s the audience to court, Reich insists, for winning it will bring on a liberal restoration.

All remains to be seen. But Reich offers a persuasive, and spirited, view of the present political landscape and how it might be remade.

/////////

I'd say that 20 years later Reich is probably noticing his party is on life-support, much like the party of Reagan and Bush, with some very wacky conservative democrat called Trump running things...

Trump in my mind, hates both parties, and 95% of the Democrats wouldn't have him and 30% of the Republicans don't want him either...

And he's like the weird mixture of the worst of Nixon with the worst of Kennedy. Sorta like a weird mixture of Archie Bunker, Pat Buchanan, Kennedy and Nixon, all in one.

back in the 1980s to the 2010s, i told people, if you had the republicans give up the abortion fight, they could be unstoppable, and if the democrats gave up the gun control fight, they could be unstoppable. But we're seen the parties decay so badly, that it's amazing we're still around with the Economic and Foreign Policy Blunders we've been doing 70% of the time endlessly since the End of the Cold War.

we really are sleepwalking through policy, and sleepwalking through history

[Libby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been a fan of Robert Reich's no-nonsense commentary on Marketplace for quite some time, so it was no surprise to me that I enjoyed his 2004 book on the rise and predicted fall of radical conservatives ("Radcons"). What makes Reich's arguments so persuasive and effective is that he refuses to frame issues in terms that have been solely defined by Radcons. For example, he refuses to measure America's prosperity in terms of Gross Domestic Product, as Radcons do. In challenging what Radcons see as the fundamental indicator of American prosperity, he not only refuses to let them reduce the discussion to only the things that are bought and sold, but also expands the definition of prosperity to include things like quality of life, and the state of the environment.

Reich systematically dismantles other sacred platforms of Radcon rhetoric that liberals have been reluctant to touch, like public morality, by pointing out that immoral behavior in the board room has a far more devastating impact on America than "immoral" behavior in the bedroom. He recasts patriotism not as refusing to ask questions of leaders, but the willingness to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes, to improve the common good.

It's also hugely refreshing to have a writer who can profoundly disagree with someone like Robert Bork and still respect him. I highly recommend this book for liberals who prefer to be moved to political action by the hope and promise of their own ideals rather than by anger or outrage at Radcons.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just read Robert Reich's new book, Reason, which carries the subtitle "Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America." It doesn't actually go too far beyond arguing why liberals should win the battle for America (mostly trying to show that people would agree with liberal values, if only they were expressed clearly), but at the same time, it's an interesting reevaluation of the terms liberal and conservative in the context of current politics. Reich shows that the current administration is comprised of "radical conservatives" and that liberals cannot approach them as they did good old fashioned conservatives. Indeed, he says that one of the main differences is the absence of civility and decency among the radical conservatives--which he counters by taking the high road throughout this book. The nastiest thing he says is, "Baloney."

Most original is Reich's discussion of the Vietnam War and how it remains a divisive issue among the Baby Boomers now in power. This is the strongest thread running through the book.

[Philippe Malzieu · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reich was the US labour Secretary of Bill Clinton. It was an happy time. World was prosperous. The President plays saxophone and listen to rock. Communist danger and nucléar risk disappeared. And we dream of the end of History with Fukuyama. I bought his first book in 1996. Reich was the bard of the happy globalization, the herald of liberalism. It was like the description of "brilliant future" of Zinoviev. There was one pure positivism in this faith in the progress. The crisis of 1991 gave a shower to our hopes.
And now after 2008 crisis, can we read this author? Is the only interest of this book its sociological and historical aspoects?
I think it was an collective illusion. And conséquences of illusion are always tragics in politicy.
100 years ago began the First World War. The illusion of the victory had for consequence the dreadful treaty of Versailles. And thus Hitler.
The only one remedy which I know about the illusion in policy is to read and to read again "Président Wilson" of Sigmund Freud

[Will Byrnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reason is Reich’s argument that the Radical conservatives, Radcons, will and must ultimately fail in their efforts to radically change the country to an image of what it was before the Progressive era in the beginning of the 20th century. He sees this group as waging an all out assault on political freedom and any sort of equitable sharing of the burdens imposed by a reasonable society. Reason is the basis for our nation, and for our policies. The Radcons’ assault on reason is an outrage, and must be defeated. I sure hope his optimism is merited.

It is loaded with quotables and has the great benefit of being a rather quick read. He also provides a considerable reading list that is definitely worth a look.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first book I've read from Robert Reich, the former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor, who is much beloved for his commentary and books by many liberals. This one was published in 2004 and it has all of the hallmarks of a popular lefty book from that time, for good or for ill.

Reich's tone throughout is mostly high-minded, granting a certain respectability to conservative arguments and seeking to marshal reason/facts/logic in response, as the title of the book indicates. I mostly find this mode of discourse annoying, though some of it is of course necessary. The idea of defeating your political opponents with facts and logic is one of the items that feels very 2004 to me. People do not vote with facts and logic but with emotion and group identity.

Reich also coins the term "radcon" which he uses throughout the book as a shorthand for "radical conservative." Again, this feels like a very 2004 concept; the idea that we can separate conservative voters into more and less radical camps and make appeals to them based reasoning appeals directed at internal fissures in their movement. Again, I found the use of radcon to be annoying.

Reich urges liberals to adopt a posture similar to conservatives in making arguments based on a type of moral reasoning. Instead of directing moral outrage of individuals who violate sexual mores, for instance, liberals should stir up moral outrage over business practices that amount to theft and mistreatment of employees or the public (Enron, Worldcom, and other assorted business accounting scandals were in the news back when this book was new). Religious rhetoric can be used in support of efforts to help the poor or disadvantaged. Liberals should deploy patriotic language and not allow conservatives to have a monopoly on draping themselves in the flag, etc. It's all...fine, I guess, but hardly world-shaking. It is, once again, extremely 2004.

I will say on the more positive side of the ledger that Reich's training as an economist does give him some insight and authority on fiscal and economic matters that isn't always present in partisan books of this sort, and he writes with good humor and self-deprecation that one does not always find among our more committed partisans. Reason is a real time-capsule back to the time of its writing; if you are a person who can become nostalgic for the early aughts, then there is some enjoyment to be had here. Certainly to me, who was young and working on political causes back at this time, it's a trip back in time to some of the kinds of things that were commonly being said or that I was probably even saying myself.

[Stan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've consumed two other works by Reich, and I enjoyed them. This book was written much earlier than those other pieces, and that might be one reason why I did not enjoy this one as much. I'm a conservative, but never afraid to listen to the liberal argument--that's why I read this book. Unlike his other works I read, this one was much more argumentative and inflammatory, and full of rhetoric. And unconvincing. There were multiple cases where he summed up his argument by saying, "It's just common sense", or "It stands to reason."

There were many paragraphs of the book where you could have done a Search and Replace function, replacing RadCon (radical conservative) with Leftwing Liberal, and the paragraph would totally make sense. Much of his argument against the evil RadCon movement is the exact same argument I hear from far-right extremists.

I think Reich has matured as a writer. His later work seemed much more balanced.

In any case, there are still were some interesting learnings in the book. And while I believe liberals are winning the culture war, this book did not convince me as to why that is happening and will continue to happen.

Also, he does not have as many answers as I'd like. He states the problems, and perhaps tosses out a one-sentence solution, but there is no depth there. For example, he states that the rich need to be more willing to pay their fair share. But he does not say what that figure should be. And I could easily argue that they already pay their fair share. He claims that virtually all of corporate America is corrupt , but gives no real solutions as to how to rein them in. he thinks that the rich only want to maximize their return on their investment in Company A, but so do the lower and middle class who have their pensions invested in Company A.

So, all in all, I am glad I read it because I picked up a few good quotes and facts, but disappointed overall. I'd love to have him do a 2021 rewrite, as a lot has changed since this was written.

[Michael Loveless · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reich sets out to defend the liberal point of view and to criticize radical conservatives. By its very nature, the book has a strong bias, but Reich is a good spokesman for liberals, backing up his views with historical context and recent examples.

The book clearly states a liberal view of everything that is wrong with “Rad Cons.” Reich is persuasive by pointing to many specific examples of things that conservatives have said (pp. 19-20) or done (pp. 78ff).. He goes into some detail describing how laws have been written to favor the rich for instance (pp.116ff). I found myself strongly agreeing with many of the things he wrote and strongly disagreeing with many others.

The best parts of the book are his descriptions of the essence of liberal thought (pp. 6-7 and 14-15), his outline of the Rad Con agenda (p. 16), and his examples of how conservative policies have benefited the rich and powerful. He makes a strong case for morality being more than just private (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.). He argues that public morality (policies that benefit the majority, honesty in government, etc.) is even more clearly the responsibility of government (pp. 52ff).

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think I read this book in hard cover when it first came out. It was frightening then. Now it terrifies with it's accurate description of radical conservatives today, 20 years later. Reich's description of the venality of people driven by pure greed for money and power, while mouthing "democratic" values they do not believe, has been headline news for the last six years.
Reich also accurately points out that the Democratic party has lost its drive and cohesiveness. Even with the total loss of any moral standing, Republicans act out their clown show daily, while Democrats stand around, unable to construct an effective plan to shut down the show.
The remedies proposed by Reich all require concerted efforts to reestablish government procedures and norms abandoned since Reagan gutted the tax system. Waiting for aging racist boomers to die off isn't a good plan. Their undereducated spawn have sucked in so much dishonest rhetoric from the radcons that they are replacing their elders at an alarming rate... and they are getting away, sometimes, with murder and insurrection.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't agree with everything Reich shares here but I did find him to be generally reasonable. It's interesting to read something on this topic published in 2004 having now lived through the rest of the Bush presidency, all of Obama's, and now into Trump. I appreciate Reich's optimism but I struggle with his dichotomous use of the terms rad-con and liberal as if those were the only two perspectives. He is definitely more nuanced throughout the book but he keeps coming back to "this is what the rad-cons think and liberals need to save the day" which I don't find to be helpful rhetoric in bringing people together. Still, I enjoyed listening to him read the book and share his ideas.

[Beth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think Mr Reich is preaching to the choir, and anyone not already in his choir would not find his arguments to join very convincing. I did however find his chapter on "positive patriotism" to be very productive, as it identified positive actions that liberals can take to show support for their country and to call out "Radical Conservatives" for their shallow patriotism. E.g. Paying your taxes! rather than evading your responsibility to pay for services, and supporting a mandatory citizen service corps.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of his earlier 21st century books, even predating Who Stole the American Dream. Sadly he identifies many of the core issues. In particular, the "RadCon" agenda and it's organized machinery for gaining and maintaining control of the government for the benefit of the wealthiest; and the disorganized liberals who "compromise" by moving to the "center" which, because the "RadCons" don't move, moves the government to right, step by step. His anger shows through more in this book than the later ones.

[Leslie Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read. Very astute book that fully predicted what we are seeing now with Trump's Republican party. He calls them "Radcons" for radical conservatives but today we call them MAGA. Even though it is a few years old it is as applicable today as the day it was when written. Highly recommend to anyone who is trying to figure out our current political climate.

[John Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reich is one of my favorite economists to read. He explains concepts and makes them easier to understand.

[Mlg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Optimistic view from of the future of liberalism.

[Nate Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book written in 2004 by one of my favorite liberal authors. Decries the extremism and bad faith arguments by radical conservatives. Spoiler alert, it only gets worse as the years go by .

[Stephen Perlstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

20 years old and could have been written today about Trumpism. Wild. You think people would learn.

[Donovan Miske · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book should be mandatory for liberals and conservatives alike. it's hard to believe we've become the America we are today. Reich is one of my favorite economists and political commentators.

[Kurt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite its sub-title, this book's message is not particularly confrontational. The author simply lays out the arguments as to why liberalism has a great tradition of enacting the kinds of social changes that have made America great. He also points out that most Americans, when polled, actually side with the liberal philosophy on most major issues; but, due to the misrepresentation of the liberal position that has been occurring over the past many years by the right-wing talk show hosts, etc., many Americans don't even know what the true liberal positions on many issues are. He laments the fact that the current radical conservatives have managed to transform the meaning of the word `liberal' in the minds of so many Americans into something akin to the words `terrorist' or 'traitor'. This coup has been accomplished through the brilliant, aggressive, and organized utilization of the media by radcons who spread their message of contempt for all who disagree with them.

Much of this book is devoted to analyzing the disparity that has been growing between the have-mores and the have-lesses. This disparity also evidences itself at the polls and in political activism -- the have-lesses are less likely to vote and to participate in the political process in general. The author rightly seeks to reverse this trend. It is in the best interest of the have-lesses to become more involved. It is also in the best interest of all of us to become more educated and to have the courage to make our voices heard and to counter the misinformation that is so prevalent in our society.

Most everyone would benefit from reading this. No one will agree with everything the author talks about, I certainly disagreed with him on several points, but the overall message is that those who disagree with us may actually have some valid points and that a less-divisive America, where all sides of an issue can be heard and discussed rationally, is a much better America.

[Jerry Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book but it certainly falls into the category of many a similar tome - it will be read primarily by those sympathetic to the author's line of thinking. However Reich goes a little further than simply berating those he terms "radcons" i.e. radical conservatives and also critiques the Democrats for their failure to actively counter the radcons and advance alternative, arguable more mainstream lines of argument.

Much of what he writes makes perfect sense and illuminates the flawed lines of thinking that represent the stong conservative world view. All of it is well argued, but basically obvious to those who bother to take any time to analyze what they hear.

Reich characterizes the far right as basically smart political operators (not so the Democrats and liberals) who have managed to muster their constituents and dominate the political debate, as well as the vitriol that they manage to air via the likes of Rush Limbaugh. He characterizes them as fighting against "evil" and picking subjects like personal morality as their target, whilst having little to say about boardroom excesses and fraud.

He also has an interesting take on the patriotism vs. taxation issue and, rightly in my view, points out that it is easy to claim to be a patriot and hang a US flag outside your house, but when you do eveything you can to minimize what you pay in taxes, you are not supporting the very institutions (including the military) on what this country depends to make it what it is. This is an interesting argument indeed.

Interesting book, confirmed me in many of my beliefs but I am not as confident in the title as Reich appears to be but I hope he's right.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hear Reich a lot on NPR while driving in may car. He was the first Labor Secretary for President Clinton, and is a moderate liberal (I expect some are saying "He is a far-left liberal!" right now). He makes some interesting points in this book, and makes the hard to deny case that most Americans hold the moderate liberal values of tolerance, diversity, government safety nets and the like. He also does a good job describing how we got to the current state of political demonization of one side by the other, and lays most of the blame on the Republicans. But in a sense this book failed; I have no additional confidence that, given the apathy of the majority of Americans and the rightward tilt of modern political speech (did you ever wonder why it is that "liberal" is a dirty word and "conservative" a badge of pride?), that liberals will win (whatever that means) in the end. So what if we don't win? We go on anyway.

[Flannery Winchester · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in 2004, this book now reads like a prequel explanation of Bernie Sanders's rise to popularity.

"Nonvoters know you can't change a corrupt system by being polite. The only way to speak truth to power is with the moral fervor of a true reformer."

"The big differences in American politics today are between those with courage and those without it, those who inspire and those who can't. Among the former are [....] politicians with deeply held views who are passionate about what they believe. They don't care much about the polls, they love this country, and they have a fair degree of contempt for Americans who are powerful but don't really give a damn about America or about most other Americans."

"While [working, single, and well-educated women] don't have a lot of time to put into grassroots politics--their jobs and families consume them--they'd make time if they felt it was well spent."

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book probably should have been titled "Reason: How Liberals Can Win the Battle for America" rather than using the words "Why" and "Will". Written pre-Teaparty, pre-Obamacare, it doesn't seem that Liberalism has made much progress in the past 9 years. Reich outlines some good ideas of how people should think, but so far there is no passion from any leader, no one to rally the troops. Obama has fizzled, Hillary will be more of the same. Bernie Sanders is hot but too radical for anyone to listen to him. Elizabeth Warren is a good start, but we need more. I'm convinced that only a small minority of conservatives are actually evil; the rest are simply misinformed and/or deceived, and once we stand up to the Radcons and get the message out liberalism will triumph. But so far, sadly, it's not happening.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bold title and a bit obtuse. Essentially the book is a great read which secure liberal political leanings you already have. Reich conjures an optimistic future for liberals.

I like Robert Reich's smart, yet unpretentious study of the political world. Its no secret that my politics are rather closely aligned with Reich but more than that, I appreciate his tone in this book. He's not nearly as confrontational as the talking heads on television, some of the slam books written on both sides of the political spectrum. Reich offers a methodical dissection, but I felt it was without gratuitous bloodshed or below the belt shots.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert Reich explains the political agenda of America's "radcons" (radical conservatives), how they have seized power, how they have influenced national politics, and how this has affected the economy. Published in 2004, it describes the dilemma that we are still in, although we are now in the aftermath of the Bush administration that represented the worst of it. Obama is not mentioned, but Reich anticipated that Republican abuse of power would inevitably provoke discontent and a change in political direction, which he predicted would be influenced by a tradition of liberal thinking.

[Fatihah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally after months spent on this and in between other books.

Reading this while following the presidential primacy between Sanders, Clinton and Trump gives it a kind of hype and it is a well-written simple book to follow with simple premise. The only thing I hate about the book is how Reich managed to portray Muslims as the problem and the boogeyman that deserve to be alienated and spoken to as if the entire population is a child. It simply adds to the problem.

[Dan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book basically explains how the Neoconservative arguments are not based in reason. And how, eventually, people would reject Neoconservatism, because Americans are generally reasonable people.

Turns out Reich was right.

I read this book because my dad recommended it, and I was trying to make myself feel better because I was bummed that GWB won the election in 2004.