For our series Conversations on the State of Democracy, I sat down with Robert Reich near the Berkeley campus where he has spent a portion of his career. Reich was the Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Cabinet, served in the Ford administration and was an economic advisor on Obama’s transition. He’s taught public policy at Harvard, Brandeis and Berkeley, co-produced viral educational videos on wealth and power, co-produced two award-winning documentaries on the political economy and along the way authored 19 books, many of them bestsellers. Now in his 81st year, Reich remains one of the most prolific and effective pro-democracy advocates in the country. His Substack column has more than a million subscribers, he writes a column in The Guardian, hosts a YouTube channel with over 200 million views, and collaborates frequently with the grassroots advocacy group MoveOn around economic inequality issues.

Hamilton Fish: Secretary Reich, welcome to the pages of The Washington Spectator. I’d like to start by asking if you would single out three principal risks to American democracy.

Robert Reich: One major risk is money, big money. We’ve seen that big money risk coming mostly from large corporations and wealthy individuals increase logarithmically over the years. Much of it began in 1971 with the Lewis Powell memo to the Chamber of Commerce advising big corporations to spend much more on politics. I saw the result. You know, I was in Washington in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s, and I saw Washington change from a seedy backwater to a gleaming metropolis of money.

The second danger, I would say, is the Trump Republican Party, which is based upon widening inequality. Let me make that slightly clearer. For the last 45 years, much of the working class and an increasing portion of the middle class have not participated in the growth of the American economy. They are angry, frustrated, and stymied. They were ripe for the picking in terms of a demagogue who came along and told them that he would represent them, and protect them, and be their voice.

Trump has exploited that anger and dismay for his own personal ends. He and his followers have used it to wreak havoc on American institutions, including American democracy. He’s attracted, along the way, a lot of bigots and crazies, who are further undermining the strength of our basic institutions.

A third problem has to do with education. Democracy depends upon people understanding it and valuing it and being willing to sacrifice for it. We no longer have the kind of civic education, both formally and informally, that a democracy depends upon.

HF: Do you have any thoughts about remedies? First, you mentioned the flood of money in the political process.

RR: The hardest is to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to big money, because a constitutional amendment is very difficult.

HF: Can you do that without relying on the Court?

RR: Yes, it’s possible, number one through state law, because states really do authorize corporations to do or not do a number of things. And Hawaii, little, tiny Hawaii, has already passed a law that limits what corporations in general, and Hawaiian corporations in particular, can do in Hawaii. But it really depends, I think, on states like California and New York.

Secondly, matching small dollar donations with public money has been tried successfully in many jurisdictions. In fact, we even had it for the presidency until Barack Obama decided he would do better without it.

HF: What happens if you don’t need the matching funds, and you reject that option—is that enough of a stigma to compel those running for office to opt in?

RR: Not now. But it should be and it could be. But in order to make the matching funds work, they’ve got to be generous enough. It ought to be national and it ought to be the PRO Act. You remember the PRO Act? There but for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, we could have got it. It’s not easy, but it can be done.

HF: Next then, inequality.

RR: Here I’m more optimistic. I think there will be at least one positive aspect to the very quick advent of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is going to take away so many jobs and cause so much of the professional class to worry that we’re going to have to come up with some mechanism or a series of mechanisms, maybe universal basic income combined with universal basic shares of stock.

HF: You sense there will be a compensating reaction.

RR: Yes, some big compensating reaction. Because you see in all of these areas, I think that the question is political will. It’s not what the mechanism could be. It’s when do you have a substantial number of Americans who are willing and eager and able to push the political system to do any of these things. Otherwise, you’ve just got a chicken and egg problem. You know, you’ve got anti-democracy forces that are overwhelming pro-democracy forces. And the pro-democracy forces can come up with as many ideas as they want. But ideas are cheap.

HF: Your third concern was education.

RR: I think we’re almost there. That is, if you talk to people, and I do around the country, about the importance of civic education, everybody says yes. There is a deep revulsion against what’s happening now, and that is the systemic effort to erase our national history, the shameful history of slavery and genocide. So I think we’re ready, at least in the curriculum department, for formal curriculum, civic education. I’m less optimistic about the broader question of civic education. I mean, on my optimistic days, I really do think that this dark period we’re in, this Trumpian darkness, will itself generate a backlash. And it’s not just in California or in Berkeley. Every time I’m invited to go to a red state to speak, I go. And I have noticed a change.

HF: Did you ever imagine that Trump in this second term would be able to consolidate so much power? And can you imagine a restoration of the checks and balances that have enabled the system to function?

RR: No and yes. What really astounds me is that I never envisioned a president—and a political party—that would be so amoral. That would be bound by no constraints whatsoever, that would not think of the law and even of norms as constraining conditions.

In other words, no loyalty to a functioning society whatsoever. All of us as tiny children were taught right and wrong. That’s how we were brought up. The notions of right and wrong are embedded in us. You don’t need to get to high questions of public morality. And so to have a president, and indirectly a political party, that have no conception of right and wrong, that is far beyond my comprehension.

HF: And the restoration of a system that recognizes these imperatives, is that imaginable?

RR: Well, it’s either that or complete loss of any semblance of decency.

HF: And a loss of democracy?

RR: Yes, and democracy. I think we’re on the edge of a backlash against Trumpism, in which everything we’ve talked about becomes very central. And the public has learned through this long night some very important lessons.

HF: As you travel and as you absorb the reactions to your—can we call it—evangelism, do you conclude there’s a constituency for democracy?

RR: Absolutely. Now the word democracy is a word that not everybody understands. And that’s one of the problems. So to ask whether there’s a constituency for democracy is an epistemologically complicated question.

HF: We used to joke that we were skeptical of putting the First Amendment to a vote, being unsure of the outcome.

RR: Exactly. It really does start at the kitchen table. I think people are so upset with feeling powerless that we are at a point in our nation’s history where they really do want agency. They want to feel that they have some say over their lives. And that is one step away from the fundamental idea of self-government. Now how that leap is made, and whether it’s made—I don’t know. But if you look at the history of this country, we do tend to have this extraordinary rubber band effect where we stretch in one direction, and then we sort of bounce back.

I used to use a metaphor of a band that would be stretching to such an extent that either it snaps back, or it snaps entirely,

HF: That speaks to a resilience which for a long time we’ve had a near religious faith in. I remember when Watergate was cited as an example of the resilience of American democracy, its power of self-correction. That narrative seems to be veering more toward the myth of American democracy, at the moment.

RR: Yes and no. The largest political force in America right now is populist anger at elites. You see that inside both parties. The best outcome is for populist anger on both sides of the aisle to come together in a progressive way. We are right now in the middle of a populist revolution, but it’s being led ironically by an oligarch. In fact, it’s being led by multiple oligarchs, although most people don’t see it. The question in the years to come is, can we take this populist revolution and make it into a progressive rather than regressive revolution?

HF: I hear the voice of a teacher.

RR: Well, I love teaching. I taught university students for 45 years. And I like to think that I continue to teach. It’s very hard for people to understand this moment. Many people come up to me and say, “How did we ever get to this point where you have an ignorant billionaire heading up an administration filled with crackpots and bigots? And, you know, leading the world in bizarre ways.”

Even this new round of tariffs, starting with Canada, it’s based upon the Tariff Act of 1930, which was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff [Herbert Hoover’s protectionist policy that raised tariffs on thousands of goods, triggered foreign retaliation, and is widely viewed to have deepened the Depression—ed]. Is there no sense of history? Do we not understand?

And of course, a lot of people come up to me and they say, “Well, not only is this all bewildering, but why can’t we do anything about it?” I mean, the fact that we are stymied, the fact that we continue to live under this utter craziness, and there seems to be no way out, that itself is mind-boggling. So, what I try to do as best I can is explain to people what’s happening as I see it and in ways that they can understand.

HF: Shifting back to politics, do you think that Trump will try to overturn the results of this coming election if he doesn’t like the outcome? And if he does try, can he be resisted?

RR: I don’t think there’s any question he’ll try. We’re a little bit better prepared than we were last time in 2020. But I don’t think he has any respect for our democratic system, small d.

The genius of the system is how decentralized it is. It’s very difficult for any dictatorial personality from Washington to impose his will on the entire nation when it comes to voting. Now the courts are going to be involved. There’s going to be a huge amount of litigation. Armies of lawyers are already being prepared. I expect Democratic cities in red states will be places that will be ground zero. For example, Phoenix, Maricopa County. But I have the utmost faith that the system will hold. We held in 2020 when we didn’t even expect anything like this.

HF: Without the same amount of preparation.

RR: Without any preparation.

HF: Regarding the worst court cases—you already mentioned Citizens United. This Supreme Court has contributed to an enormous expansion of presidential power, even as we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence from the English king, and without irony. Do particular court decisions in the last decade stand out in your mind?

RR: The Roberts Court has been a profound failure. It’s almost a perfect storm that we get a Roberts Court, we get Trump and Republican majorities at the same time. It couldn’t be worse in terms of preserving the values that are important. But you know, we’ve had much worse Courts. In the ‘30s we had a very bad Supreme Court. What’s interesting to me, and maybe this is because I’m a quarter cup full guy, is the number of Trump judicial appointees in the Court of Appeals and in the district courts who are deciding against him. That says a lot. Not all of them, but it’s interesting.

You know, to be trained in the law is to be trained not just in a system of thought, but also in a system of values, about the Constitution, and about the rule of law. And once you are cloaked with authority, particularly as a judge where you’re not answerable to a sociopath, your integrity really does have a chance to kick in.

HF: Would you advise an incoming Democratic president to change the composition of the Court?

RR: My first piece of advice would be term limits, because a strong case can be made that under Article 3 of the Constitution, even though they are in their positions for their lifetimes, judges don’t have to remain in exactly the precise Supreme Court positions they were appointed to. It does say, “Hold their office for life,” but that can be interpreted as any judicial office.

FDR was not successful trying to expand the number of justices. I doubt that a new president would be, even if you had an accommodating Congress with a majority of Democrats. But it could be that the reaction to what has happened is so strong that you get enough political will to add some seats to the Court.

HF: Let’s say you get that Democratic majority, what achievable economic reforms would you encourage a new Democratic Congress to adopt out of the gate.

RR: Raise taxes on the wealthy, to what they were in the 1950s. The top rate under Eisenhower was 91%. And, after all, Eisenhower was a Republican. Even with all the tax credits and deductibles, it was still considerably higher than it is today. But you also have to have a wealth tax, because capital gains are where the action is. Either a wealth tax or get rid of the stepped-up basis at death rule, which allows dynastic wealth to pass from generation to generation without any capital gains treatment whatsoever.

HF: Would you reform the inheritance laws?

RR: If you can’t get at the stepped-up basis at death rule and you can’t get an adequate wealth tax, yes, obviously the next place to look is the estate tax. But I think that we may be able to get enough, I say we, because I think that there is a majority, a substantial majority in favor of substantial tax reform. This all has to do with the backlash. I don’t think I’ve ever talked with so many people and seen so much evidence of anger at the super wealthy.

Tax reforms are critical. We’ve already talked about a universal basic income. We also have to get—and here I’m not sure this is an economic reform, but in many ways it is—single payer, or I believe Medicare for All.

HF: Trump has shown that the slenderest of majorities, with discipline, is enough.

RR: Well, he’s also showing that the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome the filibuster is one of the few remaining constraints on him. And this is why he’s desperately trying to get the Senate to change its rules. I don’t think the Senate will because I think the Senate is so aware that in the next administration, the shoe is on the other foot.

But going back to our basic theme here. I think the next president will either be a carbon copy of Trump, let’s say a J.D. Vance or a Marco Rubio, or it will be the opposite of Trump. That is, somebody who is distinguished by his or her humility and concern for social justice.

HF: Are there economic reforms on your wish list that may not be achievable, but in the best of all possible worlds you’d like to see them be part of the discourse and taken up by the legislature?

RR: Oh, sure. We need a minimum wage that is around $25 an hour. A re-employment system so that if somebody loses a job for whatever reason, they can very quickly and easily find a new one that pays at least as much as the old one in their own geographic area. We need much stronger unions, and we need to make it far easier to form and join a union. And stronger and more effective anti-trust laws and enforcement.

There are so many ways in which the rules of this economy have systemically favored the rich and rigged the system against everybody else. You can’t separate economics and politics. And there’s almost no way you can have a democracy without a very large middle class. Most of the economic reforms I’m talking about are focused on recreating a very large and growing middle class.

HF: You’ve referenced values multiple times. Is that an emphasis that our politics at this juncture would be receptive to?

RR: I think so, yes. The public is crying out for values that are not just formal religious values but have to do with the common good. When I say the common good, I’m not talking about an abstraction. I’m talking about something that is very, very powerful and meaningful to people. Here again, as I travel around the country, I’m pleasantly surprised, sometimes shocked at how many people will say the same things when I ask them about what this country is about.

HF: Using the same vocabulary?

RR: Not exactly. But we’ll get to, in a short conversation, the same vocabulary. I don’t start conversations talking about political parties. Never start them talking about Trump. I start them talking about people’s jobs and their lives. And when you start with their jobs, you get immediately to questions of power and security or insecurity, anxiety or hope or despair.

HF: I remember growing up one of the most traumatic developments in our region was when people who worked for IBM were laid off. The idea at IBM had always been that you were a lifer, it was cradle to grave. If those folks were vulnerable, then everyone was.

RR: Remember too the big change in the American economy that happened in the ‘80s with the advent of the hostile takeover. Nobody had ever imagined that one company could take over another that didn’t want to be taken over or that it was possible—and desirable—to make money by taking over a company and firing people.

HF: Though then it became accepted.

RR: Oh, it was more than accepted, it was seen as a virtue. You had a whole bunch of economic apologists starting in the 1980s, Chicago economics was part of it. Milton Friedman was part of it, but it was also Harvard Business School. They all said, “Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.” That’s the goal, and somehow everybody would come out fine.

I remember having public debates with George Gilder, and he even said that it was inconsiderate and mean to people to keep them in jobs. The economy could do better, and they might even do better elsewhere. The ruse of highest and best use.

The whole greed is good era came out of this. The economic premise was that greed is good for the economy. This is Ayn Rand squared, triple, quadruple. And the amazing thing to me is that when she was actually in her prime in the ‘50s, she was regarded as a crank.

HF: It took Reagan to rehabilitate her.

RR: Yes, we tend to regard Reagan now as either harmless or in positive terms, compared to Trump. He seemed like such a lovely man. But the deterioration really began with Reagan.

HF: Thinking about the architecture of democracy, Trump appears to have succeeded in sidelining Congress. It seems like he only really seeks their approval when the outcome is of no particular consequence, and he’ll ignore it if he doesn’t like it anyway.

RR: Yes, he’s intimidated them because he figured out in his first term that the key in America is the primary election. If you can polarize the country more and more, then the primaries become the arena of power and the exercise of power. So not only has he figured that out, but the crypto lobby and the AI lobby and AIPAC, they’ve now put all of their firepower into the primaries of both parties.

HF: The rise of the primary is also a result of gerrymandering, because in a lot of those districts, the primary is the contest that decides who will eventually be the representative.

RR: Yes, and one of the reforms has got to be to take the decision about the shape of congressional districts out of the hands of state legislatures and put it into non-political, independent commissions,

And while we’re talking about structural reforms, another would be to move from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism. That is, you give shareholders less power, and their representatives in the form of big institutional investors less power, and you give more power to workers and to communities. That’s easier said than done, but that’s what we had in the 1950s and ‘60s and ‘70s, when we had a giant middle class.

HF: You mentioned that an ironic benefit of the AI emergence is the potential for a backlash, providing a greater motivation for reforms that address the inequalities AI itself is creating. Are we looking at the greatest upheaval that we’ve faced? Or is it another milestone on an unending road? Where do you place the present state of the digital revolution?

RR: I don’t think it is going to be nearly as dramatic as many people are saying. I think the breakout will be the professional class because they’re the ones who stand to lose the most. Because in the analog world, and even in the digital world, it was the working class whose skills were replaced. Through globalization, it was the working class and the lower middle class whose skills were replaced. But with AI, it is the professional class. And that’s where political power is lodged.

Right now, it’s a little bit up for grabs because of what Trump has done, given the populist revolution that I alluded to before. But still the professional class has disproportionate political power. And when they see their jobs disappearing, and they will disappear if there are no limits on AI, I think we’re going to see a lot of political action. I alluded before to systems like universal basic income, and there will be other attempts not only to regulate AI, but to overcome what will be wild inequalities. If for no other reason that the AI companies themselves, the big ones, are dependent on there being consumers that have money in their pockets to buy all the wondrous things that AI can create. If you lose your working class and your middle class and your professional class, who’s going to buy all this stuff?

You’ll have no customers. Put aside the political realities, you also have that economic nugget to contend with. Here again, I don’t think we can take the beginning of a trend and assume that it’s going to stay and continue to move in that direction.

HF: If you reflect on the first year and a half of this administration, what stands out in your mind in terms of your own ongoing education about our democracy?

RR: The courts are stronger and a larger force for constraining dictatorship than I expected. Congress, and particularly the Republican Party, is not only weaker, but has almost no role to play. The media are obviously extraordinarily important. This is why, for example, the Ellison’s attempt to take over Warner Brothers becomes so pivotal. Because if you’ve got CNN and CBS News and all of the others under the control of Trump cronies, we’re in trouble. Here’s another thing that surprised me. The cowardice of the presidents of American universities, and the leading partners in some major law firms. I was amazed and appalled.

HF: Will the university survive this period? The attack on the campuses is multi-pronged. It only seems that the focus is the headlining issue of antisemitism. But clearly the attack on higher education has a broader ideological motivation.

RR: It has nothing whatever to do with antisemitism. Antisemitism is a cover for getting rid of what the Trumpers call equity, diversity and inclusion. What does that really mean? That means affirmative action, and all other efforts to give people of color a little bit more of a boost. There’s no more of an ideology there than a form of bigotry. But ultimately Trump’s efforts to attack higher education will not succeed. And it’s regarded by universities as a huge irritant, an inconvenience. Their university budgets are being strained, but universities are not in trouble. They really aren’t. But the cowardice of the presidents of universities is amazing to me because I lived through a period of civil rights and Vietnam where the presidents of universities actually were moral spokespeople and key actors in civil society.

And the other area of cowardice that I shouldn’t be surprised by, but I still was, is the CEOs who have given up their integrity and sucked up to Trump. People like Jamie Dimon who made a point in years past of trying to be the moral reflection of American business, who now have basically sold out completely. They not only will not say anything contrary to Trump, they’ll also publicly compliment him. It’s disgusting. So in those dimensions, I’ve been surprised.

HF: Though in many ways this feels like more of a starting point than a conclusion, we have to end there. I’m very grateful to you for allocating your time.

RR: Thank you very much, I’m grateful to you for being interested.