Is there anybody whose writing is as silly and fascistic as Robert Reich’s has become of late? He’s out flogging a “Corporate Pledge of Allegiance,” arguing that businesses that do not support his preferred public policies should be considered unpatriotic and disloyal.
He has written some very stupid words in the service of this very stupid idea. Here are some of them:
By flooding our democracy with their shareholders’ money, big corporations are violating their shareholders’ First Amendment rights because shareholders aren’t consulted. They’re simultaneously suppressing the First Amendment rights of the rest of us because, given how much money they’re throwing around, we don’t have enough money to be heard.
And they’re indirectly giving non-Americans (that is, all their foreign owners, investors and executives) a say in how Americans are governed. Pardon me for being old-fashioned but I didn’t think foreign money was supposed to be funneled into American elections.
Professor Reich plays an economist on television; in real life, he is a lawyer. And any law-school graduate ought to know that the First Amendment is a limitation on government, not a limitation on private persons or private organizations. To write that “big corporations are violating their shareholders’ First Amendment rights” is legally, historically, and constitutionally illiterate. The cheap xenophobia that follows — Egads! Dirty foreigners own shares in American businesses! — ought to be an indicator of where this kind of hate-driven nonsense is headed.
Here is his suggested Corporate Pledge of Allegiance:
We pledge to create more jobs in the United States than we create outside the United States, either directly or in our foreign subsidiaries and subcontractors.
If we have to lay off American workers, we will give them severance payments equal to their weekly wage times the number of months they’ve worked for us.
We further pledge that no more than 20 percent of our total labor costs will be outsourced abroad.
We pledge to keep a lid on executive pay so no executive is paid more than 50 times the median pay of American workers. We define “pay” to include salary, bonuses, health benefits, pension benefits, deferred salary, stock options, and every other form of compensation.
We pledge to pay at least 30 percent of money earned in the United States in taxes to the United States. We won’t shift our money to offshore tax havens and won’t use accounting gimmicks to fake how much we earn.
We pledge not to use our money to influence elections.
Good ideas? Bad ideas? That is beside the point: In the fevered mind of Professor Reich, pledging to impose his preferred severance-pay model is precisely the same thing as pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. Failing to embrace Professor Reich’s policy prescriptions is a form of unpatriotic disloyalty.
This man served in a Democratic cabinet and enjoys a tenured sinecure at Berkeley. He is considered to be part of the moderate, respectable end of the Left.
Never let it be said again that the title of Jonah’s book was hyperbolic.
"He is considered to be part of the moderate, respectable end of the Left. "
I've always found him to be somewhat of a b**b.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNobody is required to own a particular stock. It is unions where people are required to join if they want to keep their jobs. When government requires people to belong to a union it's a much better argument for first amendment violations as well (given how much money they're throwing around).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you, Griswell, for pointing that out.
I'm surprised no one else did.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseButt I am sure that Mr Reich recognizes that the same rules should apply to unions using their members money and will push for the same behavior there.
Right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReich is a little man, in more ways than one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think its interesting how Mr. Reich conflates money with speech. He doesn't give a hoot about speech, all he cares about is the uncontrolled spending by the corporations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is my sincere hope some graduate student wrote this on behalf of Mr. Reich and reich didn't bother reading it--
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Reich wrote that? he's gone effin' nutz. What next "Unt, ve vil bilde ze peopelz kar-- de VOLKSWAGEN! sieg heil ! sieg heil....!
Is it impolite to suggest that someone about 4' tall who has never broken a sweat in his life while veering between academia (where he harms youthful minds) and government (where his policy preferences have driven the country into the sewer) should shut his mouth on the issue of labor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Never let it be said again that the title of Jonah’s book was hyperbolic."
A decade or more past, I would have thought that the title was hyperbolic. But I've matured since then. I read the book and I watch what goes on in this country today and it can't be said enough:
Jonah was 100% SPOT ON!
Everything that used to confuse me about the Left and Democrats in this country, especially when I considered myself to be a moderate liberal, has finally been explained - they are American Fascists (Progressives). Basically Statists. And once people realize that, and realize they don't want any part of it, the faster the Democrat Party and the Left in this country will be relegated to permanent political minority status.
And then this country will prosper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just wish liberals would pledge that they recognize they have no right to other people's money.
Captch: "Stand Up Guy"
I read that not as a description, but as an imperitive statement to an already standing R. Reich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShorter version: "I pledge to sell an overpriced product made by workers with little incentive to do good work and will get killed by imported products made by rivals not working under these limitations." Of course, I am sure Reich's next proposal will be tariffs to deal with the cheaper imports.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL! You said, "Shorter version"!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Pardon me for being old-fashioned but I didn’t think foreign money was supposed to be funneled into American elections."
Mr. Reich, meet Charlie Trie, John Huang, et. al.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost large corporations are very big supporters of gay rights. So is Mr.Reich going to condemn them for their anti-traditional marriage efforts?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Mr. Williamson that referring to "the First Amendment" when discussing private conduct is, like referring to "the Religious Test Clause" when arguing that Mitt Romney's membership in the LDS Church should not be held against him, a misunderstanding of the difference between the Constitutional restrictions on government and the social, religious, cultural or moral restrictions on private conduct.
It is more accurate to employ the "principle" behind the First Amendment, the Religious Test Clause, etc. when arguing that someone ought not to interfere with another person's ability to speak, etc.
But by the same token, where's Mr. Williamson getting the "fascist" allegation? Whatever "fascism" may be, how is it possibly a function of a private person arguing that corporations or anyone else ought to pledge to do or not do this-or-that? You can plausibly argue that Mr. Reich is being silly, wrongheaded, etc. - but "fascist"?
Americans commonly argue that other people ought to do this-or-that (including pledging allegiance to the Flag) as a matter of morality, public duty, etc. But asserting that folks ought to do or not do something is not the same as arguing that the Government ought to force them to do or prevent them from doing this-or-that.
The world is full of people (including Mr. Williamson, based on just a cursory view of his posts on NRO) telling us what we or others ought to do and what's wrong with us if we don't do it. Throwing out the word "fascist" just because you find the suggestion wrongheaded or offensive dilutes the word into another one of our all-purpose-but-meaningless insults akin to "Nazi".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBart:
There's a difference between "I think people should do this," and "I think people should be made to do this." The latter is Professor Reich's position. Further, the identification of patriotism with support of a particular narrow political agenda is a hallmark of what Jonah rightly describes as "liberal fascism." Do read his book if you haven't. (And mine, too!)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's nothing in what you linked to from which one could conclude that Mr. Reich believes that corporations should be required to take or to abide by his proposed pledge.
Moreover, there's nothing in what you linked to from which one could conclude that Mr. Reich believes that "pledging to impose his preferred severance-pay model is precisely the same thing as pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. Failing to embrace Professor Reich’s policy prescriptions is a form of unpatriotic disloyalty."
Prior to setting-forth his proposed Pledge, Mr. Reich writes:
"But, hey, if the Supreme Court and regressive Republicans insist big corporations are people and want to treat them as American citizens, then why not demand big corporations take a pledge of allegiance to the United States?
And if they don’t take the pledge, we should boycott them. (Occupiers — are you listening?)
Here’s what a Corporate Pledge of Allegiance might look like: ..."
So where are you getting the "fascist" stuff?
For that matter, do you really think that "the identification of patriotism with support of a particular narrow political agenda is a hallmark of ... 'liberal fascism'"?
Because if you do, then you're diluting the term just as I charged.
Or you just got off the boat.
Flag burning, flag pins, supporting the President, the troops or the war, favoring particular immigration policies or policies dealing with immigrants, favoring our assistance to this-or-that other nation or foreign endeavor, tariff policy, buying American goods, favoring particular fiscal or tax policies, etc. - the list is endless and it's child's-play to find arguments - going back to the debates over rebelling from England - in which "patriotism" is identified with a "particular narrow political agenda."
It's kinda what Americans do.
Yes, I get annoyed by it. I don't like my patriotism questioned. But I probably get that way a bit myself when I deal with someone who burns a flag or who seems almost reflexively opposed to whatever stand the U.S. takes when the U.S. takes a stand on something.
But applying the label "fascist" (liberal, conservative or otherwise) to this practice dilutes the term almost to the point of meaninglessness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd agree -- if boycotts were all Reich supported. But he's perfectly content to use the force of law to get his way in these issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo when you want to argue that Mr. Reich is a "fascist" (and I find it dismaying how many folks insist on running around screaming that other Americans are "fascists"), you link to a post in which Mr. Reich doesn't actually make the argument that you say he supports?
Heck - why not just link us to Mr. Reich's views on what kind of cranberry sauce to serve at Thanksgiving dinner? It would be just as relevant to your point.
I have no idea what if anything Mr. Reich and I agree on - I certainly don't take his corporate "pledge" seriously. But I can read what he wrote and how you described what he wrote and discern that they aren't the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo: Reich writes the opposite. He says that corporations should do that, and that we should boycott them (i.e. not choose to buy their goods) if they do not. That's the free market.
He isn't calling on anyone to pass a law requiring this pledge. There is no governmental intervention or regulation suggested in his post. How is he saying "I think people should be made to do this"? Where's the fascism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse