Reading Robert Reich, a “Wee Little Man”

“Zacchaeus Was a Wee Little Man” is a children’s song that those of us who grew up going to Sunday School sang and taught our children to sing. This blog post is about Robert Reich, who is a contemporary “wee little man” and also one of the most articulate political pundits in the U.S. today. (Note that he pronounces his name Rike, rhyming with bike and like.) 

Reich with Clinton in the 1990s

Robert Bernard Reich is a political economist, professor, author, and commentator who served as U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton (1993~97) and also served in the Ford and Carter administrations. He was named by Time magazine as one of the ten most effective cabinet members of the 20^th century. Next week (on June 24), he will celebrate his 80^th birthday. 

Reich was born with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, also known as Fairbank’s disease. That is a rare genetic disorder that affects bone growth and results in short stature. Reich stands 4 feet 11 inches tall, so he is 9 or 10 inches shorter than the average White U.S. male of the same age.

As Reich himself explained to NPR in 2023, his shortness is a kind of deformity in which the cartilage at the end of one’s bones that normally adds additional bone during growth simply doesn’t do its job. But that deformity didn’t keep him from doing his job as a professor at Harvard (1981~92), Brandeis (1997~2005), and the University of California, Berkeley, from 2006 to 2023.

Last year Reich published Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, referring both to his stature and to a country that he thinks has fallen short of its ideals.

Every day, I read four political pundits, the posts by Heather Cox Richardson, Reich, Joyce Vance, and Paul Krugman. Richardson usually posts after midnight, so I read her early every morning. Reich usually posts at least once every day, and I generally read one of his articles daily before noon also.  

I don’t know why it is, but so many public intellectuals, such as the ones just mentioned except for Richardson, are Jewish by heritage and identity but not by religious observance. This is clearly the case with Reich. His essays often echo the Hebrew Bible’s twin imperatives of justice and righteousness, such as those found in Isaiah 1:17 and Amos 5:24.

I find the posts by the scholars/commentators just mentioned are more beneficial than the curated articles in The New York Times and/or The Washington Post, of which I have cancelled my subscription as I no longer want to read a newspaper with a billionaire determining its editorial content.

In addition to reading Richardson’s daily newsletters, I also encourage you to read Reich’s Substack posts, which are also available at no charge. As one who is no longer receiving a paycheck from some institution, Reich can (and does) say what he thinks is most important, letting the chips fall where they may. Even though he is a “wee little man,” he certainly stands tall.

Reich’s June 16 Substack post is especially noteworthy. It is titled “Friendly advice I refuse to take.” (I encourage you to click on the link and read the entire article.) Next Wednesday will be Reich’s 80^th birthday, and the “friendly advice” was from an old friend of about the same age. Reich said he “lost it” when his friend told him, “You’ve got to slow down.”

The “wee little man” retorted, “We’re in a national emergency!” So, “That’s exactly why I’m not slowing down!” He goes on to say, “I’m doing what I do because—and as long as—I’m still able to.”

I am about eight years older than Reich, and to be honest, I am thinking about “retiring” in two years when I turn 90. But that is not definite at this point. Maybe I will keep on doing what I am doing, which is mainly writing three blog articles each month, as long as I’m still able to do so.

Gordon Cosby (1918~2013), the co-founder of the Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C., was widely regarded as one of the most influential pastors of the 20^th century. He is quoted as saying that “a minister never retires; we are simply reassigned to new forms of service.”

For Cosby, vocation was never a job description but a lifelong posture of availability—an openness to whatever work love requires next. Even in his nineties, long after most clergy had stepped away from public ministry, Cosby kept showing up in small, quiet ways: listening, blessing, encouraging, and standing with those on the margins.

So, like Cosby did and Reich is seeking to do, I want to keep on seeking to do good and trying to write well for as long as I am able.

[Note: Research and writing assistance was provided by Claude (Anthropic) A.I.]

Original Sin and the Supreme Court

Miguel A. De La Torre is an acquaintance with whom I have had delightful personal conversations and whose written work is always thought-provoking as well as (to me) questionable. “Rejecting Original Sin,” his article posted on Good Faith Media (here) on May 13, is no exception.*¹ 

“We must reject the heresy known as ‘original sin’.” Upon reading those opening words of De La Torre’s brief essay, I decided to write this blog article about it, but last week I altered considerably the content of what I planned to say in the envisioned article.

What Miguel rejects is primarily the traditional interpretation of original sin by Augustine in the early part of the fifth century and then by the Protestant reformer John Calvin in the sixteenth century. Both believed in the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve and the biological transmission of sin.

I agree with Miguel’s rejection of original sin as propounded by Augustine and Calvin. However, he did not deal with the neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr. They affirmed original sin but rejected the idea that it is a hereditary trait passed down from Adam.

Niebuhr emphasized the paradox of human nature, where humans are both created in the image of God and yet profoundly flawed. This duality explains why humans are capable of great good and great evil. I think that is a correct assessment—and it may not be so different from Miguel's point.

“I argue not for human depravity but simply for their stupidity.” Those are the striking words with which De La Torre ends his essay. Upon reading that, I wrote in the margin of my printed copy, Is he replacing original sin with original stupidity?

Perhaps we humans are not born sinful as declared by traditional Catholic and Calvinist theology nor born “righteous” (basically good) as asserted by much contemporary liberal theology. Maybe we humans are just born stupid.

Just as original sin doesn’t mean that all humans are equally sinful in how they manifest their sinfulness, neither does acknowledging “original stupidity” mean that all humans are equally stupid. Rather, we are all prone to think, say, and do stupid things.

And that is what led me to think seriously about the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on April 30, my blog post began with the adage called Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I conjectured that many of Trump’s followers may not be guilty of either.

But in analyzing the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, perhaps they were made not because of malice stemming from “original sin” but because of stupidity.

A “dangerous political heresy” were the words used by the new Republican Party regarding the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision issued in March 1857. That ruling by Chief Justice Roger Taney is widely regarded as the worst Supreme Court opinion ever.

In recent years, though, the Supreme Court has made a series of “stupid” decisions, beginning with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). Jimmy Carter called that ruling “the most stupid decision that the Supreme Court ever made.”

Back in November 2022, the eminent Robert Reich posted a Substack article titled ”Why I still think John Roberts is the worst Chief Justice since Roger Taney.”*² He says that Roberts was “the moving force” behind Citizen’s United.*³

Last month, on June 28, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturns Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That same day, environmental journalist Jameson Dow (here) wrote, “Among many incredibly stupid opinions the court has issued recently, this is among the stupidest.”

But just three days later, Donald J. Trump v. United States, a stupider decision was handed down, and especially because of that ruling, Roberts may well replace Taney as the worst Supreme Court Justice ever.

Decided by a 6-3 vote on July 1, Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that presidents could expect absolute immunity for acts related to key powers granted under the Constitution.

If because of the desire for power (an aspect of Eve’s “original sin”) of political agencies, domestic and foreign, and because of the ignorance of the voting public (“original stupidity”) of U.S. citizens, Trump is re-elected President, the nation will most likely soon see the disastrous effects of the Court’s ruling.

May it not be so!

_____

*¹ For biographical information about De La Torre, see this helpful Wikipedia article. As noted there, Miguel completed his Ph.D. at Temple University in 1999. My daughter Karen was also doing graduate work in religious studies at Temple at that time and received her Ph.D. the following year. It was through her that I first became acquainted with him.

In a December 2018 blog post, I was somewhat critical of De La Torre's emphasis on hopelessness. I was intrigued, then, by Brian McLaren’s quite positive reference to De La Torre’s ideas about hope/hopelessness in “Hope Is Complicated,” the fifth chapter of Life After Doom, which I wrote about in my June 29 blog post.

*² Reich (b. 1946) worked in the administrations of presidents Ford and Carter and was a Cabinet member of presidents Clinton and Obama. In 2008, Time magazine named him one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century. His Substack post can be found here.

*³ In 2013, Roberts wrote for the court’s conservative majority in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting the Voting Rights Act’s requirement of prior federal approval for voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. For those of us who believe that voter rights should be protected for all, that also was a “stupid” decision. 

Freedom's Orator

Freedom's Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s (2009) is the title of a book by New York University professor Richard Cohen (b. 1955). I have not read Cohen’s large tome (more than 540 pp.), but I am interested in its subject.

Mario Savio (1942-96), was the brilliant leader of Berkeley's Free Speech Movement, the largest and most disruptive student rebellion in American history. He risked his life to register black voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer of 1964 and did more than anyone to bring daring forms of non-violent protest from the civil rights movement to the struggle for free speech and academic freedom on American campuses.

Savio is most famous for his passionate speeches, especially his “put your bodies upon the gears” address given in front of Sproul Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, on December 2, 1964. That day after giving his speech in front of 4,000 people, he and 800 others were arrested.

In his 12/2/64 speech, Savio said, “There’s a time when the operation of the machine [of corporate society] becomes so odious . . . that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”

On 12/2/97, less than 13 months after Savio’s death, the steps in front of Sproul Hall were named the Mario Savio Steps. A Memorial Lecture Fund was also set up to honor Savio after his death. The first lecture was given by Howard Zinn in 1997, and other speakers include Cornel West (2001), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2008), and Elizabeth Warren (2010).

Robert Reich, 11/15/11

This year the Mario Savio lecture was given by Robert Reich, the Berkeley public policy professor who was Secretary of Labor (1993-97) under President Clinton. Reich (b. 1946) gave the lecture entitled “Class Warfare in America,” which can be heard at this link.

Reich, declaring that “the days of apathy are over,” linked the activities and interests of Savio in the 1960s to the Occupy Wall Street movement going on now. He praised the Occupy Cal protesters for their “moral outrage,” and said democracy depends upon “the ability of people to join together and make their voices heard.”

Not long before the 11/15/11 assembly on and around the Mario Savio Steps, Rachel Maddow had an 18-minute segment on her program comparing the OWS movement to the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. She included clips of Savio’s speech as well as an interview with Reich. If you haven’t seen that segment, it is well worth watching (available at various websites including here).

Right-wing radio hosts and even potential Republican presidential candidates continue to badmouth the OWS movement. A Fox News host recently referred to the OWS protesters as “domestic terrorists.”

Peaceful protests and “speaking the truth to power,” though, are terrifying only to the powerful and those who seek to maintain the status quo for their own benefit. Just as the country needed to hear the message of “freedom’s orator” in the 1960s it needs now to listen attentively to the pleas of the protesters in the OWS movement.