The common good

Review by Choice Review

Reich (Berkeley), author of 15 books on current political topics, offers a short work about American identity that balances the common good against self-interest. His argument, supported by examples ranging from the 1960s to the present, is that the US has stopped reflecting on the common good as a principal goal of development. Selfish interests have filled the void, exemplified by scandals involving political and business leaders. Without pretending to make scientific presentation of the subject matter and by using major newspapers' vocabulary, Reich calls for reconsidering the present vicious situation as a first step toward bringing back the sense of commonness. Structurally, the book first identifies the common good and its impact on American society. Second, it analyzes the reasons for the decline of the common good in the US. Finally, the author suggests ways to reverse this decline. They include choosing political leaders who promote common values, honoring civic behavior that advances the common good, speaking truth in public, and educating children as self-expressing individuals and as citizens responsible for upholding common values. Summing Up: Recommended. All readership levels. --Simeon Mitropolitski, University of Ottawa

Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.

---

Review by New York Times Review

In recent decades, American public discourse has become hollow and shrill. Instead of morally robust debates about the common good, we have shouting matches on talk radio and cable television, and partisan food fights in Congress. People argue past one another, without really listening or seeking to persuade. This condition has diminished the public's regard for political parties and politicians, and also given rise to a danger: A politics empty of moral argument creates a vacuum of meaning that is often filled by the vengeful certitudes of strident nationalism. This danger now hovers over American politics. More than a year into the presidency of Donald Trump, however, liberals and progressives have yet to articulate a politics of the common good adequate to the country's predicament. Robert B. Reich's new book, "The Common Good," is a welcome response to this challenge. One of the most prominent voices among progressives, Reich has written insightfully about the changing nature of work brought about by globalization and the growing inequality it has generated. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, but in 2016 endorsed Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Reich's book diagnoses the decline of the common good in American life and suggests ways of restoring it. He begins by observing that even the term has fallen into disuse: "The common good is no longer a fashionable idea. The phrase is rarely uttered today, not even by commencement speakers and politicians." Reich defines the common good as consisting in "our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society." What binds us as Americans, he argues, is not birth or ethnicity but a commitment to fundamental ideals and principles: respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions, toleration of our differences and belief in equal political rights and equal opportunity. These ideals and principles, Reich says, are not political, at least not in the partisan sense; to affirm them is not to take sides in debates between Democrats and Republicans. "We passionately disagree about all manner of things. But we must share these commitments to each other because they are - or have been - what makes us a people." Reich attributes the erosion of the common good in recent decades to the breakdown of moral restraint in the pursuit of power and money. In Washington, the "whatever-it-takes-towin politics" that began in the Nixon years has led to the hyperpartisanship of today. In the corporate world, the single-minded pursuit of shareholder value has displaced the older notion that companies are responsible for the well-being of workers, customers and the communities they serve. The unbridled pursuit of power and profit has brought an enormous flow of corporate money into politics. The result is a rigged system that perpetuates inequality, enables economic elites to manipulate the rules of the game to their own advantage, undermines trust in institutions and promotes attitudes of unrestrained self-seeking in social life generally. There are several ways to revive the common good, Reich suggests. One is to recover the notion of leadership as trusteeship. Corporate executives should recognize responsibilities beyond maximizing profits, and public officials should resist the scorched-earth, anything-goes approach to politics. The essence of Trump's failure as a leader, according to Reich, is "not that he has chosen one set of policies over another, or has divided rather than united Americans, or even that he has behaved in childish and vindictive ways unbecoming a president. It is that he has sacrificed the processes and institutions of American democracy to achieve his goals." Reich also calls for a greater emphasis on civic education, including two years of mandatory public service, and efforts to resurrect truth from the miasma of political deceit and fake news. Perhaps the most distinctive measure Reich proposes is the redeployment of honor and shame. Rather than honor people for their wealth or celebrity, we should honor those who display genuine virtue, like whistle-blowers, firefighters, social workers and soldiers - people who perform hard or risky tasks that serve the common good. And we should shame those who, however wealthy, achieve their status through exploitative business practices or morally dubious financial dealings. Interestingly, in developing this theme, Reich favorably cites so-called "virtue conservatives" of the 1980s and 1990s. For example, he quotes William J. Bennett, the education secretary in the Reagan administration, who warned that "nonjudgmentalism ... has permeated our culture, encouraging a paralysis of the moral faculty." He also cites the conservative political scientist James Q. Wilson, who argued that neglecting broken windows in poor communities conveys a message of moral license, leading to an unraveling of social restraints and increased crime. Reich contends that people who get rich by exploiting norms of social trust - by evading taxes, say, or devising barely legal schemes of financial trickery - generate a similar unraveling. Against the grain of much liberal thinking, Reich acknowledges that promoting civic virtue requires being judgmental about what moral attitudes and qualities of character our public life should affirm and promote. This recognition of the role of moral judgment in politics is an important corrective to the liberal wariness of bringing morality into the public square. Reich's proposals would make a good starting point for a new progressive political project. What is puzzling, however, is his insistence that a politics of the common good can or should be nonpartisan. Time and again, he draws a sharp distinction between the common good he wants to revive and the competing conceptions of the common good at stake in everyday political debate - about tax policy, health care, the environment and so on. He insists his book is not about what messages Democrats or Republicans should convey or what policies they should pursue, but rather about restoring our shared commitment to democratic norms and principles. "It's our agreement to these principles that connects us, not agreement about where these principles lead." Reich seems to believe that the common good describes ground rules for a decent society, not the policies and purposes that citizens should pursue within these ground rules. But is it really possible to separate the two? Is the debate over how vigorously to regulate Wall Street about the ground rules of democracy or a policy on which Democrats and Republicans may reasonably disagree? Or consider immigration. Reich argues that the common good is "not about securing borders, erecting walls and keeping others out.... To the contrary, the common good is about inclusion - joining together to achieve common goals." But inclusion of whom - existing citizens of the country, Dreamers, other immigrants who hope to be admitted? Partisans on all sides of this raging debate invoke competing conceptions of the common good to support their position. As these examples suggest, the nonpartisan, above-the-fray conception of the common good that Reich proposes may be too high-minded to reinvigorate American public discourse in the way he wants. In the face of President Trump's serial violations of democratic norms, it is tempting to appeal to Americans, whatever their party or political persuasion, to reaffirm certain principles that all can share. But such principles, if truly detached from debate about where they lead, are so abstract that they can only serve as hortatory fare for commencement addresses and the Fourth of July. The best hope for reviving the common good is to invigorate moral argument in the messy, contentious domain of democratic politics. Rather them honor people for wealth or celebrity, Reich says, we should honor those who show real virtue. MlCHAEL J. sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard and is the author, most recently, of "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets."

Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [April 8, 2018]

---

Review by Booklist Review

Reich (Saving Capitalism, 2015) a former secretary of labor, professor of public policy, and lucid and prolific author of conscience gauges the deterioration of our understanding of and commitment to the common good in spite of the fact that our shared principles and civic interconnectivity comprise the very fabric of society. Truth itself is a common good, Reich asserts, as is public education, which should prepare us for informed participation in our democracy. He quotes Jefferson: Ignorance and despotism seem made for each other. We also need a robust free press to hold our government responsible. These and every other facet of the common good are now imperiled under whatever-it-takes-to-win politics and business, which have fused via the massive influx of corporate money into Washington. Trump in the White House, he argues, is the culmination of the suppression of civic values by celebrity, lies, greed, the abuse of power, and the stoking of fear and anger. Reich's lucidly defining and empowering call for revitalized civic awareness complete with an enticing list of recommended reading and discussion guide is an ideal catalyst for book-group conversations.--Seaman, Donna Copyright 2018 Booklist

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.

---

Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

Americans have gotten into the habit of looking out for number one at an overall cost to economic and political well-being, argues professor and former labor secretary Reich (Saving Capitalism) in this disquieting meditation. He believes Americans have lost their sense of connectedness, to one another and to larger ideals, leading to political self-destruction in the form of the Trump administration. As to the question of how this all happened, Reich sees Americans as having fallen prey to a whatever-it-takes mentality-whether applied to winning elections, maximizing profits, or rigging the economy. As a remedy, Reich urges a return to the historical ideal of a shared, common good. Most people, he points out, are set up for some degree of cooperation and compassion. Yet society has ended up with self-interested disaster artists such as Martin Shkreli, a former hedge fund manager recently convicted of fraud, who embody the steady erosion of a civic trust Reich sees being fully dismantled by President Trump. This manifesto is geared more toward describing the problem-if there is no common good, Reich points out, there is no society-than resolving it. When Reich asks whether the common good can be restored, he seems genuinely unsure, though he urges his audience to try. Clear-voiced and accessible, this is a provocative look at where the U.S. has failed, if not quite a map to future success. (Feb.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

---

Review by Library Journal Review

Former U.S. secretary of labor (1993-97) Reich (Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, Univ. of California, Berkeley; Saving Capitalism) examines what he sees as a divided America. His takeoff point is the call made 50 years ago by President John F. Kennedy for Americans to contribute individually for the common good. Reich despairs that instead Americans have become increasingly selfish. He harshly criticizes the freebooting of CEOs, the self-first philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the divisive presidency of Donald Trump. He chronicles societal changes that he says have resulted in national disunity, distrust, and hopelessness. Reich concludes that pulling together as a society is the only strategy for longterm mutual prosperity and that leaders must act as trustees for the common good. That those who do the right thing should be honored, and those who gain by underhanded means shamed, that fact-based truth must be demanded, and citizens must be both educated and engaged. VERDICT Very timely with discussion of the sexual harassment scandal in Hollywood and NFL kneeling protests, Reich's work is an important call for reform that should appeal to a wide audience disaffected with the status quo.-Lawrence Maxted, Gannon Univ. Lib., Erie, PA © Copyright 2018. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

---

Review by Kirkus Book Review

Reich (Public Policy/Univ. of California; Saving Capitalism, 2015, etc.) takes a note from Adam Smith and runs with it in this spirited defense of the public sphere.The best economy may be one in which unrestrained trade occurs in keeping with the laws of supply and demand, but it is also one in which human needs are met and externalities such as environmental costs are taken into account. In this new gilded age, writes the author, the common good is often ignored, even if a few interesting things are happening. For one thing, Donald Trump "has at least brought us back to first principles.Trump has got us talking about democracy versus tyranny." The president and his ilk have also gotten us talking about whether there is such a thing as a social contract or a public domain after all. In this brief but well-argued treatise, Reich contrasts shareholder and stakeholder capitalism, the excesses of the former often explained away by the notion that the executive has a fiduciary obligation to increase returns to shareholders no matter what the cost. "The argument is tautological," writes the author. "It assumes that investors are the only people worthy of consideration. What about the common good?" The enemies of the common good are countless, from latter-day slumlords to deregulated megabanks and untrammeled hedge funds, all of which disregard the rules society has evolved to keep transactions fair, "tacit rules that can be exploited by people who view them as opportunities for selfish gain rather than as social constraints." Reich examines the rise of ruleless society as a function of declining trust in social institutions. Against all this, among other thingsand now borrowing a page from Sandra Day O'Connorthe author urges a renewal of civic education to enable people "to work with others to separate facts and logic from values and beliefs," including, one assumes, the belief that it is acceptable to rob the public blind.Idealistic and stronger in description than prescription, but a provocative essay nonetheless. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

---

Introduction I was at the impressionable age of fourteen when I heard John F. Kennedy urge us not to ask what America can do for us but what we can do for America. Seven years later I took a job as a summer intern in the Senate office of his brother Robert F. Kennedy. It was not a glamorous job, to say the least. I felt lucky when I was asked to run his signature machine. But I told myself that in a very tiny way I was doing something for the good of the country. That was a half century ago. I wish I could say America is a better place now than it was then. Surely our lives are more convenient. Fifty years ago there were no cash machines or smartphones, and I wrote my first book on a typewriter. As individuals, we are as kind and generous as ever. We volunteer in our communities, donate, and help one another. We pitch in during natural disasters and emergencies. We come to the aid of individuals in need. We are a more inclusive society, in that African Americans, women, and gays have legal rights they didn't have a half century ago. Yet our civic life--as citizens in our democ­racy, participants in our economy, managers or employees of companies, and members or leaders of organizations--seems to have sharply deteriorated. What we have lost, I think, is a sense of our connectedness to each other and to our ideals--the America that John F. Kennedy asked that we contribute to. Starting in the late 1970s, Americans began talk­ing less about the common good and more about self-aggrandizement. The shift is the hallmark of our era: from the "Greatest Generation" to the "Me Generation," from "we're all in it together" to "you're on your own." In 1977, motivational speaker Robert Ringer wrote a book that reached the top of the New York Times best-seller list enti­tled Looking Out for # 1. It extolled the virtues of selfishness to a wide and enthusiastic audience. The 1987 film Wall Street epitomized the new ethos in the character Gordon Gekko and his signature line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." The past five decades have also been marked by growing cynicism and distrust toward all of the basic institutions of American society--government, the media, corpora­tions, big banks, police, universities, charities, religious institutions, the professions. There is a wide and pervasive sense that the system as a whole is no longer working as it should. A growing number of Americans feel neglected and powerless. Some are poor, or black or Latino; others are white and have been on a downward economic esca­lator for years. Many in the middle also feel stressed and voiceless. Whether we call ourselves Democrats or Repub­licans, liberals or conservatives, we share many of the same anxieties and feel much of the same distrust. We have nonetheless been cleaved into warring ideological tribes, and tribes within those tribes. Some of us have even been seduced by demagogues and conspiracy theorists. We seem to be a long way from when John F. Kennedy asked that Americans contribute to the well-being of all. We no longer even discuss what we owe one another as members of the same society. As I write this, I am now a septuagenarian and Donald Trump is president. In many ways Trump epitomizes what has gone wrong. But as I hope to make clear, Trump is not the cause. He is a consequence--the logical outcome of what has unfolded over many years. His election was itself propelled by widespread anxieties, and distrust toward our political and economic system. Say what you want about him, Trump has at least brought us back to first principles. Some presidents, like Ronald Reagan, got us talking about the size and role of government. Trump has got us talking about democracy versus tyranny. Some presidents, like Bill Clinton, invited a discussion of how we can make the most of ourselves. Trump, by dint of his pugnacious character and the divisiveness he has fueled, raises the question of what connects us, of what we hold in common. Hence, this book. Is there a common good that still binds us together as Americans? That it's even necessary to ask shows how far we've strayed. Today, some think we're connected by the whiteness of our skin, or our adherence to Christianity, or the fact that we were born in the United States. I believe we're bound together by the ideals and principles we share, and the mutual obligations those principles entail. My hope is that this book provokes a discussion of the good we have had in common, what has happened to it, and what we might do to restore it. Perhaps this book can even provide a means for people with opposing views to debate these questions civilly. My goal is not that we all agree on the common good. It is that we get into the habit and practice of thinking and talking about it, and hear­ing one another's views about it. This alone would be an advance. I should clarify from the start what this book is not. It is not about communism or socialism, although in this fractious era I wouldn't be surprised if the word "common" in the title causes some people to assume it is. It is not a book about what progressives or Democrats or Repub­licans ought to do to win elections, what messages they should convey, or policies they should propose. There is already quite enough advice to go around. And it's not a book about Donald Trump, although he does come up from time to time. It is a book about what we owe one another as mem­bers of the same society--or at least what we did owe one another more than a half century ago when I heard John F. Kennedy's challenge. It is about the good we once had in common--and, if we are to get back to being a far better functioning society, must have again. Excerpted from The Common Good by Robert B. Reich All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

---