Robert Reich already knows the state of our union -- and it's abysmal; so he is tuning out on Donald Trump's address and encourages you to tune it out, too

(imgflip)

Robert Reich, former labor secretary under Bill Clinton and longtime professor of public policy at the University of California Berkeley, is one of our most astute political observers. In fact, Reich is so astute that he already knows our state of the union, and he confesses that he has no intention of listening to Donald Trump bloviate in tonight's State of the Union address, which is expected to be heavy on no-shows in the midst of a blizzard that has hit D.C. (plus possible Democrat boycotts) and surely will be light on facts as Trump seeks to provide cover for his failing presidency. Reich recommends that we all follow his lead by ignoring the address, perhaps giving Trump record low viewership that is likely to blow his increasingly demented mind.

Reich spells out his plan for tonight in an opinion piece at AlterNet titled "I already know the state of the union -- it's abysmal." I like the way Reich gets right to the point -- and he is a straight shooter, one who is disinclined to play softball when Trump deserves to have hard balls zinging by his head -- so let's follow along as Reich encourages us not to show Trump the kind of respect we would offer most any relatively normal president in  modern history:

I’m not going to watch the State of the Union address Tuesday night. I urge you not to, either.

I hope Nielsen (or whoever makes such estimates these days) will find that far fewer Americans watched Trump’s State of the Union than have watched any other State of the Union in recent memory. It will drive Trump nuts.

There are plenty of other reasons for not watching.

First, he doesn’t deserve our attention. He’s abused and defiled the American presidency, even worse than he did in his first term.

He’s openly taken bribes. He’s blatantly usurped the powers of Congress. He has overtly used the Justice Department to punish people he considers his enemies and pardon people loyal to him. He has willfully rejected the rule of law, broken treaties, literally destroyed part of the White House, thumbed his nose at our allies (including our closest and heretofore loyal neighbors), and utterly failed his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He lies like most people breathe. He’s a fraud and a traitor.

See, I told you Reich would not play softball with a charlatan like Trump. Reich also has little patience for Trump's fractured relationship with the truth -- and the impact his incessant lies have on our democracy. Reich writes:

Second, we already know what he’s going to say because he’s already stated and restated his lies every chance he gets. He says the economy is in wonderful shape, that he’s settled six wars, that he’s brought peace to the Middle East, that he’s made America safer and more secure, that the 2020 election was stolen from him, ad nauseam.

He assumes that if he repeats these lies often enough, people will believe them. Why should we give him more of an audience for his lies?

The answer, of course, is "we shouldn't." The tube will be off in the Legal Schnauzer household tonight, and we hope it's off in yours, too. Reich is a shrewd analyst, one who makes one good point after another -- but this might be my favorite of all his insights regarding Trump:

Third, [Trump] refuses to be president of the United States, [instead focusing] only on the people who voted for him in 2024.

Reich is making a profound point here -- that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president and never should have sought the job or been elected to serve. In short, Trump's view of the presidency is directly at odds with language embedded in our founding documents.

Here is how the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History (GLIAH) describes the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence: "The Second Continental Congress declared that all human beings shared natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Legitimate governments were founded through consent of the governed, and a people retained the right to resist tyrannical governments that threatened natural rights. The Declaration helped justify separation from Britain and the establishment of a new government. Its concepts were drawn from the pages of philosophical, political, and legal books and shaped by conditions in the colonies. No concept, however, was more potentially transformative, or more consequential to later generations, than the idea that “all men are created equal.” 

Note that our government receives its authority through consent of the governed -- that's all those governed, not just the ones who voted Republican or declared fealty to the MAGA movement. Robert Reich's words make it clear that Trump never intended to respect consent of the governed.

As for the U.S. Constitution, consider these words from the League of Women Voters, which compared Trump's actions to the oath of office he has taken twice: "[Trump] has sworn—twice—to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Yet, during an interview with Kristen Welker of Meet the Press, when asked whether he would uphold the Constitution, he said, “I don’t know.” Let that sink in: the president of the United States publicly admitted he doesn't know whether he would uphold the Constitution. It isn’t optional. It isn’t a choice. It is a mandate. He promised. He swore. He affirmed. He lied. Trump’s response? That his “brilliant” lawyers will “obviously follow what the Supreme Court says” (but not necessarily the Constitution itself)—but that he didn’t know whether he would. His oath wasn’t to his lawyers. His oath was to the Constitution.

This is a lawless man, a lawless administration, and a lawless movement.

This also is a deeply unserious man, one who never intended to do the job he was sworn to fulfill. Is it any wonder that Robert Reich holds Trump in such contempt? Here is more from Reich's opinion piece:

[Trump] talks in glowing terms about “my” people while denigrating “them” — those of us who didn’t vote for him, who still disapprove of him, or who refuse to give him whatever he wants.

He won’t even fund so-called blue states. So far this year he’s axed over $1.5 billion in blue-state grants, contrary to the wishes of Congress.

If he doesn’t believe he’s my president, why should I treat him as my president and watch his State of the Union?

Reich concludes with a zinger aimed directly at Trump and the soul of the MAGA movement (assuming MAGAs have souls):

Fourth and finally, I already know the real state of the union. It is s----

The economy has been good for big business and wealthy Americans but s----- for small businesses and average working Americans.

Although Trump repeatedly promised that his tariffs would reduce U.S. imports, shrink the trade deficit, and lead to a revival in American manufacturing, the opposite has happened. The annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high. And U.S. manufacturers cut 108,000 jobs.

In the 2024 election, Trump also promised to bring down prices, but inflation is still steaming ahead. Prices grew at an annual rate of 3 percent in December. He’s so out of touch with what most Americans are enduring that he calls the crisis of affordability “fake news.”

He promised to control immigration, but 6 out of 10 Americans think he’s gone “too far” by sending federal agents into American cities, causing mayhem and murder.

He promised to avoid foreign entanglements, but he abducted the president of Venezuela, killed more than 150 Venezuelans, and is now planning to attack Iran.

His menacing the Middle East has created another inflation risk: The possibility that a key oil export route will be disrupted has caused the price of Brent crude to soar.

For all these reasons, I’m not going to watch Trump’s State of the Union. I recommend that you don’t, either.

Your senators and representatives in Congress should boycott it, too. You might call their offices to suggest this. (Some Democrats are already planning to skip it, opting instead for a counter-programming event on the National Mall dubbed “The People’s State of the Union.” Good!)

And why the hell should justices of the Supreme Court show up, especially after [Trump] says he’s “ashamed” of the six who decided his tariffs exceeded his authority — calling the three Democratic appointees a “disgrace to our nation” and the three conservatives who voted against him “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats,” “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” “swayed by foreign interests,” and “an embarrassment to their families”?

Boycott the State of the Union. It’s the least we can do.