You're viewing part of a thread.
Not really, no. Would be extremely out of character and go against what he's been doing for all the rest of career to deliberately hurt workers.
He didn't leave the Clinton administration because everyone agreed with him and let him do what he thought was best without undue influence..
Yes, really, because you want to give him this huge benefit of the doubt when it's one of the few things where he actually had influence and what he did was the opposite of all the principles he professes. Occam's razor there is that it's just classic political hypocrisy, waxing poetic all day about your principles but then doing the wrong thing any time it actually counts.
No, I'm giving him the benefit of everything else he's ever done. That's not just doubt, that's evidence of a several decades pattern of behaviour that in no way fits your supposition.
As for it being "one of the few things where he actually had influence", that's overstating how much influence he ever had when Clinton set his mind to something while simultaneously ignoring his massively influential work in academia and documentary film making.
Occam would take his razor away from you since you obviously have no clue how it or indeed anything works.
OK, what were his other accomplishments, or points of big influence? Anything bigger than NAFTA?
First of all, NAFTA wasn't Reich any more than the IRA was Bernie Sanders; it had been in the works since 1988 and his involvement wasn't significant enough to merit a single mention in the Wikipedia article (unlike such people as Al Gore, Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson, Director of the National Economic Council Robert Rubin, and even Republican Congressman David Dreier, all of which were mentioned specifically by Clinton at the signing), so giving him the blame is absolutely ridiculous.
As for HIS actual accomplishments, this reply is already plenty long, especially considering that you have probably made up your mind and won't believe it no matter what, so I'm just gonna direct you to his Wikipedia article where you can see for yourself.
OK, so in other words:
- The Secretary of Labor's input on how NAFTA would affect U.S. labor was insignificant
- You're not willing to list what other accomplishments of his were more significant
Correct. He wasn't listened to much in that administration (that's why he left) and I've already provided a link to an exhaustive list of his accomplishments.
Pro tip for all the people reading, don't just double down when you're wrong.
Take your own advice. Also, leave me alone.