Taiwan 2020 Election: Tsai Ing-wen wins second presidential term

‘S been interpreted as a blow to beijing, as well. It was a landslide victory for Taiwan’s incumbent president. She won re-election. Her party, the dpp won a majority in parliament. On top of that, she broke a record. She won the highest number of votes since the first direct presidential election in Taiwan decades ago. Take a look.>>Triumph in Taiwan for incumbent president in a re-election landslide that seemed unlikely six months ago. The Chinese skeptic president declaring victory winning the highest number of votes since the presidential election in 1996. The results of the election carry an added significance, she says, because they show in our democracy our sovereignty is threatened, Taiwan people will shout our determination back even more loudly. Scenes of jubilation about the president’s supporters. Disappointment for the main rival. The candidate performs greater engagement with beijing and criticized China policy and the economic impact on Taiwan. After they took office in 2016, relations between Taiwan and China deteriorated. Taiwan lost diplomatic ties with a number of foreign governments and China suspended issuing Visas or mainland tourists visiting the island. Thai was down in the polls after her party suffered devastating local election results in 2008. That changed as more and more voters became propelled by the pressure from beijing.>>When we talk about politics, most important issue in Taiwan is the dependency of youification. Beijing by pressuring the world to turn the back on Taiwan, motivates people to return to support her.>>XI jinping declared Taiwan should reunify with China under one country two systems. Something she rejects. In her victory speech, she says I also hope China understands that our democratically elected leader and government will not concede to beijing’s threats. Last year as China flexed its muscle sending the aircraft carrier through the Taiwan straight, she employed her own form of soft power. Using an may-style imagery. A pair of cat ears in campaign posters, and putting her own beloved pet front and center.>>Not just the cat pictures or but her willingness to appear on YouTube shows with younger voters and show she’s trying to make a concerted effort to connect with the youth. Her passing of same-sex marriage in Taiwan helped with the info.>>She has been described as the iron cat lady but, Alisyn, make no mistake, she’s a former academic. She’s a tough, highly experienced tech karat who is

1994 elections: Is it the end of an era? — with Karlyn Bowman (1994) | THINK TANK

Ben Wattenberg: Hello. I’m Ben Wattenberg.
Last week American voters sent congressional Democrats to a crushing defeat. Does this
lopsided election signal a major realignment in American politics, or was it simply a natural
swing of the electoral pendulum? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
the consensus are E. J. Dionne, a resident scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars and author of “Why Americans Hate Politics”; Michael Vlahos, senior fellow
at the Progress and Freedom Foundation; Karlyn Bowman, a colleague of mine and a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Stephen Hess, senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution and author of “Live from Capitol Hill: Studies of Congress and the Media.” The topic before this house: the 1994 elections.
Is this the end of an era? This week on “Think Tank.” Why did Americans vote the way they did? And
where does this election fit in the American electoral history? Is it a post–New Deal
realignment, the rise of neo-populism, or did fed up voters just want to throw the bums
out? Nasty, aggressive, and very expensive election
campaigns were the rule on both sides in 1994, but American voters turned out to register
their displeasure chiefly with the Democrats. The Republicans picked up well over the necessary
40 seats to wrest control of the House from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years.
In the Senate, Republicans gained eight seats. Across the country, powerful politicians lost
to upstarts. Voters in the 5th District of Washington ejected Speaker of the House Tom
Foley. Dan Rostenkowski’s Chicago voters ousted him after 36 years. Some threatened
Democrats, such as Ted Kennedy, Charles Robb, and Dianne Feinstein, held on to their seats;
but in January, Republican Bob Dole will be majority leader of the Senate, and Newt Gingrich
will be the next Speaker of the House. E. J. Dionne, was this election and earthquake,
a tidal wave, a so-called realigning election that you as a young man will have to live
with the consequences for the rest of your life? E. J. Dionne: Well, I think it was a tidal
wave, but like a lot of tidal waves, you don’t quite know what the effects are going to be
when it hits. I think part of it, especially in the South, was part of a continuing realignment
toward the Republicans. And I think part of it was an expression of discontent that’s
been out there for some years and could continue to take different forms as time goes on. Ben Wattenberg: Steve? Stephen Hess: Well, obviously any election
that produces a Republican House for the first time in 40 years has to be at least a tidal
wave. I think I may be a good deal more skeptical than some of my colleagues about realignment.
An electorate that throws out Republicans two years ago and elects Democrats, two years
later throws out the Democrats that they’ve just elected and elects Republicans? Well,
who knows what they’re going to do two years from now? Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn? Karlyn Bowman: Tidal wave, tsunami, watershed
— I’m not sure what the appropriate word is, but I’m not sure I’ll see another
election like this in my lifetime. The last time the Republicans won a majority of the
popular vote for the House was 1946. Ben Wattenberg: That’s almost half a century
ago. Karlyn Bowman: That’s right. A major change. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Michael? Michael Vlahos: Well, it could be a realignment,
and it could be the beginning of a long Republican stewardship, but that is going to have to
be up to them to create the vision that follows the shift in Congress. This happened in the 1890s, and that’s Newt’s
favorite period. And he brings up Mark Hannah a lot. In the 1890s you had Democrats controlling
Congress for nine out of the 10 Congresses before then, and then suddenly it shifted
by almost 100 seats, more than 100 seats, in 1895. And that was followed up the next
year by a watershed presidential election, which decided the course for the country.
And — Ben Wattenberg: That was William Jennings
Brian versus — Michael Vlahos: Right. And McKinley. And basically
— Ben Wattenberg: Grover Cleveland — versus
McKinley, right. Michael Vlahos: But basically you had a struggle
going on between backward-looking populists and forward-looking sort of immigrant, urban
industrial Republicans, and the Republicans won out and set up 35 years of dominance. Ben Wattenberg: So what you’re saying is
that this will be a — may well be a realigning election only if a Republican wins in 1996? Michael Vlahos: No, no. No, only if the Republicans
capture a vision, and of course — Ben Wattenberg: Capture a vision? Michael Vlahos: Yeah, they could win in ’96
and still blow it, but — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, I understand. But if a
Republican president wins in ’96 and they keep control of both houses, Steve, would
you then — Stephen Hess: Well, when you talk — Ben Wattenberg: — be convinced that — Stephen Hess: Yeah, sure, because you’ve
got to have an event. When you talk about realignments, we talk about Jackson, we talk
about what happened in 1828 — Ben Wattenberg: Andrew, not Scoop. [Laughter.] Stephen Hess: Andrew, not Scoop. You talk
about a realignment that was the Civil War. You talk about the realignment that Michael
talked about with monetary and industrial policy after the panic of 1893. You talk about
the Great Depression producing an alignment. I don’t think that there is a comparable
issue today. I know Michael disagrees with me, but he does it by collecting a variety
of — Michael Vlahos: Issues aren’t always clear. E. J. Dionne: I think Michael’s right in
picking the 1890s as a relevant period, but I’m not sure we know it comes out quite
that way. Michael Vlahos: Yeah. E. J. Dionne: Because I think what we’re
going through now as a country is a kind of series of crises related to globalization,
technological change. That’s creating a lot of uneasiness among voters. It’s the
same kind of uneasiness that happened during industrialization in the period from the Civil
War to the 1900s. You can talk about the realignment toward
the Republicans with William McKinley, but that was also followed immediately by the
Progressive Era. And I think you can make a case that the country could move in one
of two directions. It could move toward a kind of conservative vision, or it could move
toward something like the progressives did in terms of reform, including social reform. Ben Wattenberg: Now, you talk about the globalization
of the economy and technological change, and I want to ask you all what caused the voters
to vote as they did. But I want to mention one or two polls beforehand so you might get
a slight clue as to what I think. Shortly before the election, a Washington
Post/ABC — E. J., you work for The Washington Post — an ABC — a Washington Post/ABC
poll showed 68 percent of the public regarded social issues as the most important problem,
while only 13 percent said it was economic issues. Michael Vlahos: But don’t confuse the two.
I mean, we’re in a period of economic transformation, just like the 1890s, and the social dislocation
that comes out of economic transformation is the issue that affects people. Their lives
are being torn apart. And that’s what’s going on. Ben Wattenberg: Hey, look, this social issue
stuff — I was just reading Barry Goldwater’s 1964 — Michael Vlahos: Right. Karlyn Bowman: Good choice. Ben Wattenberg: — speech to the convention.
He lists out the crime and the welfare and all of these social issues as if it was contemporary.
This is — this didn’t just start. Michael Vlahos: No, it didn’t, but now it’s
being — Ben Wattenberg: That’s 30 years ago. Michael Vlahos: I agree with you, and it didn’t
just start in 1896 either. That whole industrial transformation had been going on for decades
in the country. If you remember the labor disturbances of 1876, all the depressions
that went on — there were three depressions in the 1890s — it culminates over a period
of time. And what we’re seeing is that people are finally confronting a real watershed in
their lives, and the economic transformation, which we can call globalization, information
revolution, is all bound up in the change in American life. Americans are very uncertain.
They’re looking for a vision of where we go from here. Karlyn Bowman: But then I think — Ben Wattenberg: Let — Stephen Hess: Let’s have the micro picture,
though. Michael Vlahos: Okay, sure. Stephen Hess: We can get too macro about that.
We’ve just gone through an election where the polls, the most recent Washington Post
poll, showed that three out of four Americans couldn’t name their member of Congress,
where two out of three Americans who are eligible to vote didn’t vote — Michael Vlahos: Right. Stephen Hess: Where we have a uniquely unpopular
president, where 25 percent of the people simply detest him and detest him in a way
that’s very interesting. When they detested Ronald Reagan, it was ideological, so there
was a comparable group that loved him. There’s no comparable group here. These are really
very unique situations in which I think we have to be very gentle in looking — Ben Wattenberg: You don’t — Karlyn Bowman: Ben, I think you’re — Ben Wattenberg: Go ahead, Karlyn. Karlyn Bowman: I think you’re right that
issues involving moral disintegration of the society are weighing very heavily on people’s
minds. And if you look back to the ’50s, the last time this happened, Americans were
concerned about our science and technology — could we compete with the Soviets? And
now the overwhelming concern in the polls that I see is about moral fiber. I mean, that has many dimensions. It has economic
dimensions. Are we going to be able to compete with other people in Southeast Asia, for example?
But it also has a great deal to do with the problems we have here at home, the ones that
we are not very confident that government can solve. And that’s a sea change. Ben Wattenberg: Look, Steve, you said that
it was unique — a unique election in part because Clinton was so detested by so many
people. Stephen Hess: Yeah, so to that degree it is
a vote of confidence. I mean — Ben Wattenberg: Well, but wait a minute. Wait
a minute. Stephen Hess: The beloved Tip O’Neill was
not right that all politics is local. Ben Wattenberg: Right, but — Stephen Hess: Neither is all politics national.
But there was an awful lot that had to do with Bill Clinton in this election. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but — Stephen Hess: Bill Clinton isn’t going to
be around forever. Ben Wattenberg: You’re telling me. But the
— but suppose — I mean, isn’t there an ideological component to not liking a politician?
Suppose Clinton had governed as a new Democrat, and he got all the liberals angry. He coalesced
with the Republicans in the center. In other words, he governed the way he ran, as a new
Democrat. I think three-quarters of those who hate him would be hailing him. Michael Vlahos: Well, what if it goes beyond
ideology? I mean, what if the old paradigm, to use a 25-cent word, of government, a bureaucratic,
enlightened state that came out of the Progressive Era — what if that just doesn’t work anymore
and in this period of economic transformation people see that it doesn’t work and they
wouldn’t throw it out? Ben Wattenberg: Would you accept this distinction,
that it is not simply an anti-government vote, but it is an anti-what-government-does vote?
And — Michael Vlahos: And an anti-bureaucratic-state
vote, because the bureaucratic state is collapsing in business. Businesses are not like IBM and
GM used to be — pyramids. They are now adopting a totally different architecture of relationship,
and that’s going into government. And what’s happening in this election is a reflection. Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn? Michael Vlahos: But — Karlyn Bowman: Well, I think Republicans have
to answer the question about whether this was an anti-Washington vote or an anti-government
vote, and I don’t think that that’s clear. For example, if you look at a lot of Republican
governors who were elected, they think government could do many things and they can do it well.
They streamline government. It’s a smaller government generally. Michael Vlahos: Right. Karlyn Bowman: But I think Republicans have
to answer that question about what the mood is about the city of Washington. E. J. Dionne: And Karlyn is right about — in
pointing to the governors. Because if you look at the governors elections, you didn’t
have a lot of incumbents thrown out, with a couple of notable exceptions like Mario
Cuomo. And the range of governors who were reelected — Ben Wattenberg: And Ann Richards. E. J. Dionne: And Ann Richards, yes. Michael Vlahos: Right. E. J. Dionne: But the range of governors reelected,
they tended to be, with a couple of exceptions, quite a moderate lot: Roy — on the Democratic
side, Roy Romer of Colorado, Dean in Vermont. You had people — and then on the Republican
side you had people like Voinovich or Jim Edgar. These are problem-solving governors,
and I think — Stephen Hess: E. J., you didn’t have a lot
of senators thrown out either. You had Sasser and Wofford, two senators, thrown out. In
other words, look what happened there. George Mitchell decided he wanted to be commissioner
of baseball or something else. He would have been reelected. The seat went Republican. E. J. Dionne: Boren might have been — Stephen Hess: Boren wanted to be governor
— wanted to be president of Oklahoma State University. Ben Wattenberg: Boren may run primaries as
— Stephen Hess: Okay, he — Ben Wattenberg: — against Clinton in my
judgment, right. Stephen Hess: He would have won. If Lloyd
Bentsen hadn’t decided he preferred to be secretary of Treasury, he would be in the
Senate. E. J. Dionne: Al Gore. Stephen Hess: Yeah, Al Gore. So, you know,
we could be sitting here today looking at a situation in which there’s a perfectly
logical — E. J. Dionne: Yeah, but, Steve — Michael Vlahos: But this is part of what happens
in Washington a lot, and this is one of the things you saw before the election. People
thought — and I looked at the last Cuomo push, for example. It was a whole hour, and
they thought that having all sorts of famous actors endorsing him, trying to really manipulate
and control people from the old standpoint of this ruling elite in Washington knowing
how to control elections, and it blew apart this time. Stephen Hess: Can’t you just conclude that
somebody after being in office for 12 years is worn out, that it wasn’t a massive question
of industrialization, but just that the people of New York were tired of Mario? Michael Vlahos: Well, I’m sure people in
the 1890s were — Ben Wattenberg: Steve, when all the dominos
or almost all the dominoes — you point to specific things, you know, Cuomo was 12 years
and — Stephen Hess: Yeah, that’s how politics
is. It’s a lot of little pieces we put together and make — Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but you could put a
lot of little pieces on the other side, but when all the dominoes, or almost all the dominoes,
fall in the same direction, particularly in those open seats, where there’s no incumbency
advantage, and they all go roughly the same way — E. J. Dionne: Absolutely. Ben Wattenberg: I would say, you know, you’d
better start talking realignment. This is big-time stuff, particularly when you have
that lurking values issue that the Democrats had a shot at and Clinton blew it. Stephen Hess: But you started off by saying
that the Republicans are saying what Barry Goldwater said. All you did is have a party
that takes a majority. E. J. Dionne: But I think we — Stephen Hess: That’s not realignment. That’s
the party has been successful in basically what it stands for. It is a conservative party. E. J. Dionne: I also think one of the things
we’re going to have to look at more closely over time is what was the nature of the turnout
in this election. See, I think that Clinton and the Democrats have a very large internal
problem, that they got beat because they couldn’t come together around a coherent program of
government. And I think voters were angry about that independent of their ideological
position, although there is certainly some ideological component to it. And then Clinton’s problem in terms of his
unpopularity is that, if you think of the group that’s benefited most from the recovery,
they are by and large better-off people because they were in a better position to benefit
from the recovery. They didn’t like Clinton because he raised their taxes, or they were
Republicans. The people who would have been the natural Democrats — and I think many
of them didn’t vote — were the people who haven’t felt the recovery yet. So this
side is disappointed, and the other side doesn’t like Clinton’s policies. Ben Wattenberg: Speaking of this side, this
side of this panel is the technocratic side, all right? They say, “Well, there was all
these little” — E. J. Dionne: I would never have said that
— Ben Wattenberg: — “these little Rube Goldberg
machines, and it didn’t quite work. We didn’t quite get turned out.” And we some — E. J. Dionne: Oh, no, I don’t think it’d
be a Rube Goldberg — Ben Wattenberg: — ideologues over here. E. J. Dionne: No, no, no. I don’t think
it’s a Rube Goldberg problem. I don’t think this is, you know, pulling a few levers.
I think this is really a matter, a deep matter, of how can Democrats govern the country. Can — new Democrats have said you’ve got
to restructure the government; you’ve got to do a bunch of things differently. So-called
old Democrats have said we’ve got to solve some problems and use government. Clinton
promised a synthesis, which was, we’re going to reform government — that’s the new
Democrat side — and we’re going to use it — that’s the old Democrat side. And
it didn’t — Ben Wattenberg: Hold on. I want to hear from
some of the ideologues here. Karlyn? E. J. Dionne: Could I defend myself, though? Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn, was this election
a rise of conservatism, sort of round two of the Reagan revolution? Karlyn Bowman: I think we’ve seen a rolling
realignment, and I think the country is becoming more conservative over time, and — though
you don’t see that in the straight ideology numbers, but certainly you see that, I think,
in the election that we had last week. Michael Vlahos: It’s a different kind of
conservatism, though. It’s not fiscal conservatism. It’s not “let’s be 20 percent less than
the Democrats.” It’s not “let’s be 20 percent less than FDR.” It’s a different
kind of vision. You talked about governors. It’s because
people want to see power devolve to more local arenas. And when you look at realignments
in the past, at the time it occurs, it never seems as obvious as it does in retrospect. And basically, if you look at — you saw
the Times-Mirror survey, for example. You have different groups and constellation of
voters moving away from their former affiliations. The fact that Clinton was such a manifest
failure in his promise to keep the old coalition together is a sign of how far things have
gone. You have a whole group of Perotistas basically who are right there to be grabbed
by the Republicans. You have a divide that isn’t simply a divide of ideology; it’s
a divide of whether you look backward to the bureaucratic state or forward to a different
concept of American life. Ben Wattenberg: All right. E. J. Dionne: Can I — Ben Wattenberg: Wait a minute. Hold it. I
— Stephen Hess: I was writing that speech, though,
for Eisenhower, though. I mean, really, seriously. [Laughter.] Seriously. Ben Wattenberg: What did you say, Steve? Stephen Hess: I say I was writing that speech
for Eisenhower. Michael Vlahos: Oh, you still don’t get
it. [Laughter.] Stephen Hess: Let me say, is it not true that
in the South at least, as E. J. started our discussion, this is a continuation, the completion,
of a post — E. J. Dionne: It started in ’48. Stephen Hess: Certainly in ’52 when Eisenhower
took Texas and Florida and Virginia. E. J. Dionne: Virginia. Stephen Hess: So we had it at the presidential
level. Then it moved to the gubernatorial and senatorial. Now it’s at the House level. Ben Wattenberg: I should point out to our
audience that — Stephen Hess: We have completed — Ben Wattenberg: Stephen has — Stephen Hess: Yeah. Ben Wattenberg: Although he’s a man young
— short in tooth, a young man, started working in the Eisenhower administration. Stephen Hess: Yeah. Ben Wattenberg: He was three at that time.
But — and then you worked in the Nixon administration. Stephen Hess: Yeah. Michael Vlahos: Your micro-interpretation
is very persuasive at the micro level, but you have to understand, I would hope, that
there are these periods when things shift and break in America. Stephen Hess: Absolutely. But, Michael, I
— Michael Vlahos: And to deny that that’s
happening — Stephen Hess: No, no, no. Predictions — I
predict that tomorrow will be like today on realignments, which means that I’m only
wrong once every 40 years. Michael Vlahos: Right. Stephen Hess: I may be wrong now. Michael Vlahos: Okay. Stephen Hess: But the odds at least are with
me. Michael Vlahos: You see, the — E. J. Dionne: Could I throw one more element
into the pot? Michael Vlahos: Go ahead. Sure. E. J. Dionne: This is about a voter who realigned
in this election. I was on the phone with one of my oldest friends, a historic Democrat
who voted straight Republican on Tuesday, and he said he walked into his polling place
and he saw a lot of people hang around, mostly guys, he said — mostly middle-aged guys
— and he said these were people with kids. They were worried about bringing up their
families. They thought it’s their responsibility to do that. And he thinks a lot of these people
voted Republican simply as an expression of their deep belief that a certain kind of personal
responsibility should rule and that the government isn’t going to solve the problem that’s
in their heads. I think that — Michael Vlahos: You just hit it. Personal
responsibility is the — E. J. Dionne: I think that that — Stephen Hess: Did he move to the suburbs? E. J. Dionne: Well, yes. And exactly right. Michael Vlahos: No, wait. He said different. E. J. Dionne: I pointed out to him these were
people who didn’t need government at all — Michael Vlahos: This is a really important
point, though. E. J. Dionne: And that that’s the issue. Michael Vlahos: This is a really important
point. E. J. Dionne: That’s exactly right. Michael Vlahos: That’s the watchword of
the future, is individual — Karlyn Bowman: But government isn’t even
helping those people who need it, and I think that’s one of the most serious problems.
And that’s what part of this election was about. It’s not helping people who need
it. And people want to see responsibilities devolve to the states and local areas where
more can be done. New federalism may be back — Richard Nixon — long after his — Michael Vlahos: Yeah, individual responsibility
is really the watchword. Ben Wattenberg: Now, wait a minute. Hold it.
Let me just turn to something else. Who is going to be the next president and why? Karlyn,
you can tell us that, I know that. Karlyn Bowman: I wish I knew the answer. I
don’t know the answer to that question. Ben Wattenberg: How many party — how many
people are going to be running? Karlyn Bowman: Oh, I think you could see a
couple of independent candidacies. I think you could see Clinton challenged from both
the right and the left of his party. Ben Wattenberg: Who would challenge from the
right and the left? Karlyn Bowman: Casey in Pennsylvania. There’s
been some talk about that, that he might challenge from the right. Ben Wattenberg: Uh-huh. Karlyn Bowman: Jesse Jackson could run as
an independent. There’s been some suggestion that David Boren could run as independent.
Colin Powell — no one knows yet whether he’s a Republican or a Democrat. Ben Wattenberg: Bob Kerrey, we hear, might
challenge Clinton. Karlyn Bowman: Possibly. And the Republicans
have obviously a very large group, and it’s hard to — for me to see who wins. Michael Vlahos: Yeah, the Republicans have
two years to put together a vision, and whoever best offers that vision most forcefully and
most authentically will be the nominee. Ben Wattenberg: Is the — Michael Vlahos: No, no — Karlyn Bowman: I’d like to believe that
but — Ben Wattenberg: Go ahead. Michael Vlahos: No — Karlyn Bowman: I said I’d like to believe
that, but I think that who has a lot of money at the beginning of this process because the
primary process — Michael Vlahos: Hey, we all know that, but
let me finish on this though. Ben Wattenberg: Is the Contract for America
a vision? Michael Vlahos: The Contract for America is
something that was kind of a groundwork and a first step, but I think you’ve got to
go a lot farther than that. You’ve got to talk about what’s really happening to America.
But on the Democrat side, if Clinton moves to the new Democrat to outflank the Republicans,
you’re going to see a third-party candidacy probably, and you’re going to see — Ben Wattenberg: By Jesse Jackson — Michael Vlahos: The Democrats split up. Ben Wattenberg: Right. Michael Vlahos: So that’s a real interesting
prospect for the next election. E. J. Dionne: First of all, I think Clinton
could still be the next president. Karlyn Bowman: Yes. E. J. Dionne: I think we are in such a strange
and volatile mood that I do not think we should rule that out as of now. Michael Vlahos: No, no, absolutely not. E. J. Dionne: But I think the — on the Republican
side, a lot of people are going to end up looking at these governors, because I think
it’s very important to see this election as a reaction against Democrats in Washington,
but not against incumbents in the statehouses with those couple of exceptions, and that
somebody like Lamar Alexander is out there, I think, talking in very interesting terms
about how do you assemble a new Republican program. In fact, he’s gone back to the
Progressive Era, too, and is talking about Herbert Crowley — Karlyn Bowman: Absolutely. E. J. Dionne: And what does a new Republican
program look like? I think that’s very interesting. Karlyn Bowman: E. J., is it possible that
those Republicans could run as favorite sons? Stephen Hess: Well, yeah, I would say that
Clinton — Ben Wattenberg: Hold on. Let’s get Karlyn’s
question. We’ll come to you. Karlyn Bowman: My question to E. J. is: Could
these Republican governors run as favorite sons? Because the primary process is over
so early this time, about 60 — what? Sixty-five percent of the delegates are selected by March? Stephen Hess: You won’t find that anymore.
That was the way it used to be — Karlyn Bowman: They just won’t buy it? Stephen Hess: Before 1952. That’s — E. J. Dionne: I think that’s very hard. Stephen Hess: It’s interesting, but it’s
not going to — Karlyn Bowman: But could they agree to think
about it as a group and — E. J. Dionne: But you could have — Karlyn Bowman: It’s — I mean, it’s just
an interesting idea. E. J. Dionne: It’s an interesting question
in the sense that they wouldn’t be favorite sons in the old sense, but Pete Wilson could
well carry California. Bill Weld could well carry Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Karlyn Bowman: Exactly. Christy Whitman. E. J. Dionne: So you would have the effect
of favorite sons without real favorite sons. Ben Wattenberg: What about some of those Midwestern
governors who are so popular? I mean — E. J. Dionne: Engler, Thompson — Karlyn Bowman: Thompson. Ben Wattenberg: Engler, Thompson. Stephen Hess: Yeah, they’re all good — Karlyn Bowman: Edgar. Stephen Hess: — vice presidential candidates. Michael Vlahos: Yeah, you’ve got — Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, and therefore, couldn’t
they say to their voters, “Look, you know, let me represent you out there; just — I’m
only running in this state. There are so many votes — so many, you know, convention votes
here. Don’t vote for any of those guys; vote for me.” And have a real convention? Stephen Hess: I would argue that, if Colin
Powell turns out to be a Republican, he’ll be the Republican nominee. And it’s not
a vision where we’re looking for, but it’s a leader. We haven’t got two years for vision. Michael Vlahos: They go together — Stephen Hess: I would say that — Michael Vlahos: Every time in America. Stephen Hess: Bill Clinton, although he’s
likely to get the nomination, is also a possibility to be the first incumbent president since
Chester Arthur in 1884 to be denied the nomination. So want to play games? We can play it either
way. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Let’s — we
started with E. J. on a sort of round robin. Let us try that again as we close this discussion.
What do you distill from this conversation that you agree upon and disagree upon as a
panel here? What would — how would you — E. J. Dionne: I think — Ben Wattenberg: Sum up what we have just heard? E. J. Dionne: I think we agree that these
elections were a big, big, big deal, and we don’t quite agree on what that deal means.
I think that there is a sense that something is roiling the country out there. I think
everybody agrees on that. Ben Wattenberg: Values, E. J. E. J. Dionne: Yeah, I knew you’d say that. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, I know you knew — E. J. Dionne: And I think values is part of
it. I think the kind of economic change we’re going through is part of it and affects the
values. I think where we disagree is about how clear
the direction of this change is. My own view is that we’re in the middle of it, and we’re
not — it’s not clear, at least to me, what direction this change is going to take. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Steve? Stephen Hess: Well, I certainly think in the
short run, the next two years, that the president, blocked in terms of a legislative program,
is going to be ironically the foreign policy president and there invent government president. Michael Vlahos: Yes, absolutely right. Stephen Hess: And that otherwise we’ll go
into the 1996 election looking for vision on both sides. The vision that E. J. suggests
for Clinton sort of coming down the middle I think is much too subtle and nuanced. Ben Wattenberg: Karlyn, how do you distill
what we have learned this morning? Karlyn Bowman: I agree with the agreement
that we’ve just discussed thus far, but I think that the contract is a vision, albeit
an imperfect one. And there is some ground for Republicans to try to change things in
this city. But it’s a very imperfect vision at this point. Michael Vlahos: This was the last hurrah of
the progressive movement, and a historical era is finally over in American politics that
was protracted far too long. And whether or not you see the Republicans rise with a new
vision that carries them forward for 35 years of dominance or not, you’re still at the
end of an old era and the beginning of a new one. Ben Wattenberg: I agree we are at the end
of an era, which as Karlyn knows I’ve been saying for — what? How long? Fifteen years
that you’ve known me. Michael Vlahos: You’ve finally — [Laughter.] E. J. Dionne: You’re always in the middle
of a transition period. Ben Wattenberg: All right. Thank you, Stephen
Hess, Karlyn Bowman, E. J. Dionne, and Michael Vlahos. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our audience. Please continue to send your comments to New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20036. Or we can be reached via email at [email protected] For “Think Tank,” I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

Republicans spent years doing nothing to secure elections

Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not have found that President Trump colluded with the Russians according to Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress. But he did find that Russia interfered in the 2016 election both through ”a disinformation and social media” campaign “designed to sow discord” and by hacking the emails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. These findings are not new. The U.S. intelligence apparatus concluded the same — years ago. It should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 presidential election process. Yet, for over two years, some Republicans didn’t take these findings seriously. We mistake our response if we think it’s about accountability from the Russians. They’re another country; they’re going to spy on us, they do spy on us. They’re going to interfere with our elections. We also do the same. When I take look a look as a Chairman of Homeland Security, the threats that face this nation, I’m concerned about other things, that would be lower on the list. And even those Republicans who did take election security seriously, did little about it. Obviously, any foreign breach of our cyber security measures is disturbing and I strongly condemn any such efforts. Behind closed doors, the FBI began investigating Russian interference into the election in July 2016, according to former director James Comey. Then there were news reports about states seeing their voter registration databases hacked. In August, then-Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to the FBI urging the bureau to investigate Russian interference — the first public reference. According to then-Vice President Joe Biden, McConnell refused to issue a bipartisan statement condemning Russia’s actions ahead of the election. Other than that, the public knew little before voting. So help me god. Then Trump became president and the Republicans held on to House and the Senate. And we started to learn more about what had happened in 2016. Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? No doubt. Facebook admitting they were paid more than $100,000 by Russian companies during the election. 13 Russians and three Russian companies interfered online and in-person in the 2016 election. Fast forward to March of 2018 — 16 months after the election. Congress finally allocated funds — $380 million to be exact — to improve election security. It was the first big federal action since 2016. It was a downpayment on an improvement to the election security infrastructure across the country. The $380 million was simply not enough and we need the federal government to pay their share of ensuring that our election systems are more secure across the country. Vote yes on this amendment for your country! Four months later, House Republicans voted down a Democratic bill to increase that funding. It is now very, very clear that we have a threat that we have not done enough Outside of the $380 million that congress gave to the states to improve election security they’ve done little else in response to the Russian efforts to interfere with our election system, which is troubling. A member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Ron Wyden has been pushing legislation to keep electronic voting machines safe from hackers. We still don’t have the basic reforms that are necessary for 2020. I want to be clear, the bottom line has got to be hand marked paper ballots and risk limiting audits. After years of inaction on election security, Republicans are celebrating Barr’s memo. The Mueller report was great. It said no obstruction. No collusion. It could not have been better. And some are even re-upping the need to secure our elections. With another election right around the corner, it’s still not clear whether the Republican leadership in Congress will pair that rhetoric with action. If citizens go out there and say look, we can protect American democracy. What is more sacred than our franchise?

Bernie IS Biden’s BIGGEST Threat

>>Bernie Sanders has not only been rising
in the polls, but if you look at some of the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire,
he is performing incredibly well. In fact, he’s tied with Biden in some of these
polls. Now, the establishment-minded folks, first,
pretended like they were ignoring Bernie, didn’t take him seriously. But now considering the fact that he’s outraised
all of his opponents in the Democratic side, obviously, and he has the most small dollar
donors than anyone else on the Democratic side. Establishment Democrats are starting to panic
and that is noted in various pieces, but I’m gonna focus on the Associated Press and Politico. Now the Associated Press reported, establish
reminded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist
would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier
house, Senate and governors’ races. Less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses,
the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously. So they obviously should have taken him seriously
from day one, they should have taken him seriously since the 2016 election when he was able to
close this massive gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He was an unknown politician from Vermont. But it was his policies, it was his vision
that inspired voters to rethink what could be in this country, right? And so if they don’t want to take him seriously
that’s on them. But what I’m more concerned about is now that
they do take him seriously what kind of games are they gonna play to try to crush him? And he’s been incredibly resilient so far. I have a lot of faith in him. However, I also know that the corporate arm
of the Democratic Party is rather vicious and will stop at nothing to smear someone.>>The frustrating thing, we’ve seen over
the past couple weeks all these articles where they look at as polling, and they say, my
god, he’s actually, he’s performing pretty well. They look at the general election polling
showing him doing well, especially in some of the states that Hillary Clinton lost against
head to head against Donald Trump. You can’t look at his fundraising and not
be impressed by that. But they’ve only moved so far they’ve moved
far enough to, hey, Joe Biden or whoever’s that’s more, in their lane, you need to be
worried about this, but not to. And maybe that means something. Maybe the fact that Sanders is doing so well
actually represents something about the potential Democratic voters in a general election. Maybe it says something about, man, if we
really wanna beat Trump, maybe this is the guy to get behind.>>Yeah.>>They can acknowledge all these factors,
but they can’t acknowledge what it represents, all they can see is that it’s an obstacle
to Joe Biden.>>Absolutely, look, they recognize that there
is something that really resonates with Democratic voters and independent voters by the way. The only problem is what he represents conflicts
with what their donors want. And I think that’s the main reason why they
push back against him so aggressively. Every argument that you’ve heard from establishment
Democrats against Bernie Sanders is easily debunkable, right? And oftentimes doesn’t even make any sense. Their argument is, he’s so to the left that
he would have no chance in the general even though after the 2016 election, polling indicated
that he was the most popular politician in the country, okay? And there are Trump supporters who said they
would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders. So they ran Hillary Clinton. She lost to Donald Trump. What makes them think that this time around
someone who is arguably worse than Hillary Clinton, I mean, look at Joe Biden and hit
not only his record, but what he’s running on today. What he’s running on today is, I’m doing nothing
for you. I’m not gonna change anything. Right, anyone who dares to question him about
that, he responds in a combative angry way.>>Yeah, that you like your corn pop, won’t
come down, Joe.>>Right, exactly. And so what makes them think that he’s a more
viable candidate as opposed to Bernie Sanders. The truth is they don’t even believe that,
what they got they need to appease their donors. And that’s really at the heart of this. So let me give you more. And it goes beyond donors as well. I mean, they’re thinking about their own careers,
their own ambitions, and are they likely to get positions in Bernie Sanders administration?>>Change the tune fast, maybe.>>Let me just tell you, Neera Tanden is not
gonna be in Bernie Sanders administration. And she’s still real salty that Hillary Clinton
lost because she lost out on a cushy job in the White House, which is a great thing. So let’s move on to some of the specific statements,
okay. Phil Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in
on this and said, you need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters
and about battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases
under Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.>>No specifics, how? Why does it get harder? If he is able to outraise all of the other
Democrats, all the other Democrats with small dollar donations? He has more individual donors. He’s not funded by super PACs. He doesn’t average donation is $18. He’s outraise every single one of them. So what makes you think that he doesn’t have
a shot at beating Trump?>>They don’t have to say, unfortunately. I think it was the Washington Post. Everybody’s passing around that, I’m a Republican
and I think Democrats should give me someone I’m comfortable voting for, that op-ed that
just came out, and a lot of people read that headline. They’re like, who is that for? It’s around the manual. It’s for someone who actually still believes
that that strategy would work. Yes, to get swing voters you need a centrist,
like Hillary Clinton because it worked. It worked really well in 2016
>>Yeah, it’s ridiculous. No one believes this. No one believes the arguments that they’re
made>>By the way, and he worked for Obama. Obama was the guy who was trying to present
himself as far more left than he was. And Obama won in states that Hillary was incapable
of. So even on his face, even if he believes that
secretly you should campaign as a leftist, but then actually rule as a centrist. He can’t pretend that he doesn’t understand
the appeal of running a left campaign. Because he’s seen it work in practice.>>100%, exactly. I mean, Obama certainly presented himself
as a bold progressive. Now part of the problem was he didn’t have
much of a record as a Senator. The people could refer to see if he was telling
the truth. And look, 2008 was very different. People were desperate to get rid of Bush and
Bush era like policies. And so John McCain wasn’t a likable candidate
at that time and people took a chance and really believed Obama’s messaging. But now, I just think the electorate is different
and they’re looking for records, they’re looking for evidence, they’re looking for receipts,
and they want detailed policies.>>Yeah.>>So let me give you more. I’m gonna skip ahead and talk a little bit
about what these Sanders critics originally thought with Elizabeth Warren in the race. And I love this part of the story because
it was exactly what we predicted, right? Cenk and I talked about this a lot on the
show. Several Sander’s critics noted that he has
largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign. We all know that’s untrue. In part, because some assumed that Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, another progressive Firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would
cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain
momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned. So they were really relying on Elizabeth Warren
to destroy any chance of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee. But that didn’t work because unfortunately
Elizabeth Warren, kind of back pedaled on some of her progressive policy proposals,
specifically Medicare for all, I think that really tanked her campaign. So maybe don’t listen to the centrist advising
you and your campaign because I think the party, meaning the voters, have moved to the
left.>>Yeah, and I don’t think they predicted,
first of all, how many people would be in the primary. But of those people, how that would then shake
out in terms of who’s taking who’s support. It’s pretty easy to show that there’s at least
some overlap between Warren and Sanders. But there’s definitely overlap between Biden
and some of these other candidates, Buttigieg and things like that. And probably a little bit Warren, too. If she does back off some of the bigger, bolder,
progressive plans, then she’s not gonna lose the more centrist of her supporters, she’s
gonna drop some people that may go back to Bernie. But she’ll still hold on to the people who
are probably more likely to vote for Biden if she weren’t there.>>Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think that’s what happened already.>>Yeah.>>To some extent.>>And really fast.>>Yeah.>>I will say, this sort of candidate arithmetic
is very difficult to do. If you actually look at who second choice
is. One of the most mind-blowing things that’s
been consistent throughout the last year is that generally, like Bernie Sanders and Joe
Biden, people generally think of the other candidate as their second choice. I know it doesn’t make any sense to people
who pay attention hardcore to the news, but a lot of people who like Joe Biden also kind
of like Bernie Sanders and vice versa.>>Yeah, it is kind of incredible.>>It’s weird. Just take it up with the polls.>>There was this conversation that I heard
on Michael Brooks’ show, this is months and months ago. But it was such a good point that I think
we often forget, especially as people who work in the news and we eat this stuff up
every day. Look, most Americans who aren’t like hyper
aware and paying like super close attention to politics and everything that’s happening. If you give them a survey on various political
issues, it’s really like a hodgepodge of all sorts of different things that are inconsistent,
right? And so you can’t think that all voters are
consistent on all issues. People have different life experiences, different
preferences, different worldviews. And so, I mean, look, it might not make a
lot of sense to us, but people have different opinions on various policies, so I could see
how someone might like Bernie Sanders and then also later support Biden, vice versa. I don’t get it, but-
>>Yeah.>>People are not necessarily super consistent
on the issues. And I wanted to read a quick comment from
our member’s section. Lib says, it’s class warfare, period. I think you’re commenting in regard to this
story and I think you’re right, right? This is about an economic message that resonates
across party lines. That’s the thing about Bernie Sanders that
I think is incredibly powerful. He talks about how this economy is rigged. He talks about the frustrations and the anxieties
of Americans. And we feel it. We feel it every day, even if you have a stable
job and you’re not too worried about where you’re gonna end up at the moment. We see it around us. We see people living on the streets and increase
number of homeless people. We see people who are dying. Hundreds of thousands of people have already
died as a result of the opioid epidemic. Even in my neighborhood, I see people shooting
up heroin. And the homelessness problem is series like
we see poverty all around us and those economic anxieties are real. And while the Robin manuals of the world are
not worried about those things because there are, sitting up on their ivory towers and
they’re not concerned about all this stuff. The vast majority of Americans are and when
they hear a politician in a very intelligent and digestible way explain what’s happening
economically to them and how we can fix it. It’s powerful. It’s much more powerful than Biden getting
angry because someone’s asking him a hard question that he doesn’t like.

Bernie Sanders calls out Trump on Trade

And Mr. Trump has been going all over Ohio, he’s
been going all over America saying I’m Mr. Trump, I’m really concerned about outsourcing. But what the people of Ohio and America should
know is that this great concern of his about outsourcing apparently does not apply to the
companies that he owns. Mr. Trump today is employing people in Bangladesh
at 33 cents an hour. (Boos from audience) Mr. Trump is manufacturing
his clothing lines in Mexico and in China and building his furniture line in Turkey. So I say to Mr. Trump: it’s easy to talk the
talk, start walking the walk. If you are concerned about outsourcing, bring
those jobs back to America. (Crowd cheers)

Romney’s Sorry Sunday

Mitt Romney has had a tough week trying to
explain secretly recorded remarks he made at a fundraiser last May, in which he said forty seven percent of
americans don’t pay federal income taxes and think of themselves as victims.
They see themselves as victims. He now says that he’s really for the hundred percent in
America, is anybody going to buy that given that dim vision of half the country?
He seemed to write off, he didn’t say well these are people who are in hard times but they
want to get out of our times, he was basically saying they’re forty seven percent, they’re victims,
they feel entitled and they’re never going to vote for me anyway so i’m not
going to worry about them. if your quote “dependent on government” which includes
senior citizens getting medicare and the like, well then I
can’t really now expect your vote, it just, it was a blow.
People seeing themselves as victims and dependent on the government and all that,
it’s not true and therefore very unfortunate. One strategist who’s
been involved in a lot of these campaigns said when he saw that video it was the
first time he thought he was seeing the real Romney that’s a problem in your most uh…
troubled moment is the one people think is the most authentic moment.
This is a man who has said a lot of things that cause voters out there to go woah, he doesn’t get me at all including the forty seven percent.
This is a defining moment in the campaign who’s the real Mitt Romney? The one who said that he didn’t have
to worry about forty seven percent of the people, or the one who told us at
a Univision meeting that he wanted to be the president for
one hundred percent of americans? The problem is that back in
february if you remember in an interview with CNN, he also said that he was not
concerned about the very poor, so honestly as a journalist he has
to get out of that box. He offered political analysis but policy analysis
on forty seven percent of this country including a lot of republican voters people who receive entitlements through
social security and medicare that they paid into he’s talking about this group of people will not take
personal responsibility, it betrayed a lack of understanding of how the government
works, how america works, the american work ethic. Do you think he needs to go
beyond saying that this was inelegant, to saying that he was flat wrong?

The answer is participation

I was reminded why I was interested in
politics in the first place. I studied politics for a long time and there’s
this huge gap between what politics should be and how people perceive
politicians. And I think one reason for that is there are politicians who make
decisions to get elected. And there are politicians who say “where are my voters?”
“where are my potential voters?” “what decisions do I need to make in order to
win?” and that’s completely backwards. It should be: here are the things that I
care about and I want to win to ensure that the things that I care about are
implemented, and winning is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
Our job fundamentally is a difficult one in Ottawa, which is not to serve one
constituency, not to serve one riding, not to serve one base, as it were, but to
ensure that we are making decisions in the best interests of all Canadians at
all times. I’m happy to be the Liberal candidate in next year’s election to
seek another term. I’m very proud of a lot of the work that we’ve done.
I will say I don’t think the choice could be starker for our country as we head into 2019,
and as we’ve seen what’s happened in the province of Ontario, and for that
I think not only is the answer participation, but it’s not just the people who are here tonight.
We have to ensure that our neighbours, and and our friends,
and everyone gets involved and gets out and votes and participates to make sure
that we have another Liberal government after 2019.

Election Year Blues | Politics Are Not Funny | Pillow Talk TV

Guess what 2020 means? F*ck the past. A new decade.
All sins are forgiven! Language. 2020 is an election year. Shut your mouth… I mean. That means that… I know what that means. It is the worst possible thing ever. Everything is ruined now. Why so blue? Because it’s a goddamn motherf*cking
election year. Language. Incessant ads. Garbage candidates. Empty promises.
Friends turning on one another. And let’s not forget, a complete lack a moral decency. All of that is true. We mustn’t forget Trump. Language! I’m sorry. Just 2020 was supposed to be so special
and now everything is ruined. Science? I am not in the mood. Science dance? I said I’m not in the mood. An election year is a time of hope, a time of… Alright, let’s shift gears. An election year is a time of depression and agony. We as Americans are forced to pick sides. Turn on friends and family. All in the
name of the evil demon called democracy. Yes! You get me. How does one avoid losing all respect for family who vote for “that” candidate? It’s impossible. How does one shield themselves
from the onslaught of media? We must destroy our computers and our
televisions. Too soon. We must make smarter choices and avoid click bait. Exactly! We must stop engaging in social media arguments that end in deleted and
blocked profiles and shattered egos. Some of that is okay. Down with profiteering.
Let’s end big government. Wait! Wait wait wait wait wait.
Who’s show is this? What is going on here? You will not destroy 2020, ok! 420 is an entire month goddamnit. You’re ruining everything! Nobody’s ruining anything! You are! This is my show now. I win the election. Ow. Ow. In 2020, every 4:20 will be a mandatory smoke break. I’ve lost control. And the whole month of April will be forced vacation. She no longer respects my opinions. Tuesday nights, all men will have to cook dinner. Tacos. And Wednesday will forever be changed… Are you done? If I am elected host of the science show, Dan will forever do the experiments, And I will be the one laughing! Ha ha ha! I quit. I quit. Science! Pose.

Economic Update: What France’s Election Means

Welcome friends to another edition of Economic Update a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives our jobs our incomes our debts those coming down the road confronting us and those of course facing our children I’m your host Richard Wolff I’ve been a Professor of Economics all my adult life and I currently teach at the New School University in New York City. Before jumping into the updates for today I want to let you know because we’re quite proud of it that this program that many of you hear on the radio and through the internet is also available in video form that is as a television program or a video of us doing this program it is regularly broadcast by the MNN public access network here in Manhattan New York City and in a number of other places but most generally I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that you can see the video version of this program on YouTube by going to the Democracy at Work YouTube channel and you can also see it this is something new that we’re especially proud of at patreon.com/economicupdate economic update with economic update being one word so once again patreon.com slash economic update these are ways to see and to view the same program in a video format if you would prefer. So let’s turn to the economic updates for this middle part of May 2017 well we’ve just entered into the third week of a hunger strike by Yale University graduate students and because of the implications and meaning of this strike it bears some attention what the graduate students to do is to unionize after all as they explained they are cannot complete their studies to become a PhD recipient in the graduate schools unless they earn money because they have to eat and sleep and do all the other things that people of their age usually in the night in their 20s of their lives and must do as we can all understand in order to earn money to be a graduate student they are basically required to be what’s called teaching assistants that is to teach classes typically to undergraduates at Yale University people whose families pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for these young folks to get a bachelor’s degree it is of course an enormous ly profitable thing for Yale University to not pay a regular professor who would have to earn a regular professors salary and that’s in the neighborhood of seventy five thousand on up to hundreds of thousands it’s much better for Yale’s profits not to have to pay a professor to teach the course but instead to get a graduate student to teach the course because in effect they pay them a trivially small percentage of what a full professor a proper professor of fully-trained prefers professor would have to be paid and that’s the beginning and mostly the end of the story it is of course very bad for the graduate students they have to work hard they are busily at work taking classes or writing their doctoral dissertations highly stressful work and here they are being paid little or nothing for doing so this is a difficult situation and there’s no surprise at all that people in that situation working hard resent being paid so poorly that they have trouble making ends meet there are many graduate students around the country I don’t know whether it applies Yale who are eligible for food stamps and other supports because they are paid so poorly so what the Yale graduate students wanted to do was to form a union local 33 since other workers at Yale building and grounds people kitchen people clerks secretaries have already organized for many years into locals 34 and 35 at Yale University the graduate students wanted to be their own unit they had a election according to the rules of this process in the United States which they won several weeks ago but Yale is refusing to sit down and negotiate with them Yale’s lawyers are contesting the outcome because Yale lost and Yale can hire and has hired very high-priced union-busting type law firms to help them along and of course one can surmise that Yale is hoping that mr. Trump will sooner or later reconstitute the National Labor Relations Board and that may overturn the rule that allows graduate students at Yale and other places to form unions in short Yale University is a very typical employer here in the United States all its protestations to being the guardian of Western civilization notwithstanding and they are acting just like any other employer trying to prevent to stop to undercut an effort by its workers to get decent pay and to form a union to do that I’m particularly interested in this because forty years ago I was a graduate student at the same Yale University when we were trying for the exact same reasons to do the exact same thing so there’s nothing new here that’s going on my hat is off to the graduate students they are better organized than we were they are more clear in their interests than we were and they are more clear allies of the union’s than we were all of which has enabled them to be more effect recently particularly the women among the graduate students have added another demand that is for an end to the sexual harassment of women graduate students which was an epidemic when I was a graduate student at Yale and it is remarkable to see that the university has been either unable or unwilling to deal with that problem either in the intervening decades but there’s another reason to be interested in what these graduate students are doing because it shows that the kinds of workers you might have imagined could be exempt from the current austerity across the Western capitalist world the austerity that in Europe and in the United States cuts the services that the government provides people cuts the jobs that the government provides to people to provide the services to everybody else that these kinds of downsizing of a declining capitalism they might not affect university students they might be exempt they might not have to suffer what the Yale strike makes so clear is that the idea that anyone in the working class is more or less educated higher or lower paid that anyone will escape this process is now clearly not the case that unless the process is stopped we will all be victims sooner or later in one way or another yes at one end of the income distribution the people making less than $15 an hour are moving across the United States to try to get a minimum that allows them to leave to live but much higher paid much more educated people like graduate students at Yale University find themselves in the same boat being ripped off by their employer who thinks he can get away with it at this time in this country’s history by not letting them have a union by not paying them a decent wage and simply enjoying the extra profits that come from having a graduate student to whom you do not give reasonable amounts of money do the teaching instead of a professor the irony is it’s not good for the professors who have less work the fact or what the graduate students are trying to become it’s not good for the families who send their children to places like Yale imagining they’re going to get the best possible professor no they’re not they’re going to have graduate students palmed off on their students on their children graduate students who are busy working at some completely other activity mainly getting through the program themselves and getting a PhD hassled by the time and energy they have to devote to these other things it’s not good for the students it’s not good for the finished faculty and it’s certainly not good for these graduate students the difference is the undergraduates haven’t protested and the regular faculty haven’t protested but their graduate students and that’s why my hats off to them or doing something and in the process pushing back against the general decline in standards of living that is the capitalist program for the working classes across Western Europe North America and Japan staying with the same topic but approaching it from a different angle I came across the following news I want to share with you in July the federal government particularly the Department of Treasury has announced it will raise the interest rates on government loans to students before I go into the details I’d like to ask a rhetorical question is making it more expensive for students to borrow to get a college education is that part of quote making America great again do you think well here’s the specifics undergraduates will find that the government’s interest rate on loans to them for school go from three point seven six percent to four point four five percent to hefty increase for graduate students it’s from 5.3 percent to 6 percent may not sound like much but we’re talking hundreds of dollars extra per year for every year that our students are in debt and how many students present or past students are carrying debt something how many will be affected by this raising of the government’s interest rate you might be shocked to learn 44 million Americans currently carry student debt the total is over 1.4 trillion dollars and the average debt carried by a student debtor who borrowed for going to his or her college university $32,000 hanging over your head that you have to pay interest on and that you have to pay back well here’s a little side point as to who’s cheering on the government to raise interest rates clearly the students aren’t clearly their parents are and clearly those of us who care about the future of the United States have to wonder out loud why would a country that knows it has to compete in the world economy be making it more difficult for young people to get an education rather than making it easier but put all that aside here’s the people who are cheering the government on the private lenders the banks and others who lend to individuals who either can’t afford or don’t want to pay what the government is charging clearly as the government’s interest rates go up that’s good news for the private lenders that compete with the government making these loans and of course there’s a key difference students who borrow from the government enjoy all kinds of protections from being hassled afterwards from the costs of delays in their ability to pay protections that are not available to them if they borrow from private lenders so of course here is more damage to young people and their families who are thinking of college education and again the larger point I want to drive home is this namely that here is another sign of how a declining capitalism shifts the costs of that decline from those at the top to everyone else we saw it with what the graduate students at Yale are doing demanding a decent salary for the hard work they do but now we see it again in the tens of millions of Americans who will be charged more for their college loans than they used to be this is a way of shifting the burden from those at the top to everyone else the fact that it comes at a time when those at the top are getting richer and everybody else int only makes the story that much worse last week also saw another development that merits some discussion two senators Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Gillibrand from New York State combined to introduce two bills into the Senate that are interesting and that deserves some discussion the first bill is called worker ownership readiness and knowledge or the word wor K work as the name of this Act they have introduced for consideration by their fellow senators the second bill is called the u.s. employee ownership bank Act to make a long story short these two bills express the desire of senators Sanders and Gillibrand from Vermont and New York to support the ability and the incentives for workers to by the companies in which they work to convert these companies from their classical ownership by shareholders who decide what the Board of Directors is and what the Board of Directors will govern the company to do and to change all that and to make the owners not shareholders who are outside the company but to make the owners the workers themselves the workers become owners worker owned enterprises is this in advance over what we have now clearly from the point of view that this program originates from from everything that I have been trying to explain and to understand with you over the years yes because it’s a step in a simple democratic process instead of a tiny minority of people shareholders and boards of directors making all the decisions that affect every employee and therefore the communities the employees live in instead of a tiny number of people making unaccountable decisions that affect large numbers which is a violation of the very concept of democracy worker ownership at least takes us into this step where the workers also become the owners and in that sense part of their exclusion from decision making in the workplace is removed they are less excluded but having said that having welcomed these activities having praised Senators Sanders and Gillibrand for doing this it is also important to explain that this is just one step and it is very easy to see and to imagine how this step could unfortunately not be the beginning but also the end of the process of democratization of the workplace and that would be a tragedy and why am i concerned because we have many decades of experience in the United States with worker ownership we have the many ESP operations around the country employee stock ownership plan this is where companies have in fact done what their bill introduced by senator sander and Gillibrand seeks to do that is they have brought their workers into ownership positions by making them shareholders etc and what has been the problem in so many in clearly the majority of these cases that democratization has stopped there that workers who become owners still believe that they ought to put the actual running of the enterprise those key decisions about what to produce how to produce where to produce and what to do with the profits into the hands of a Board of Directors and so they have searched for people qualified to be boards of directors have found them to be the people who already are on the boards of directors of other companies this is very common in capitalism and so they have left the running of the business they technically own in the hands of people who have run them do run them and in all likelihood will run them like they were conventional capitalist enterprises making the same sorts of profit driven decisions that capitalist enterprises do that is why it is so important to understand that when workers become owners it gives them rights but right they have to exercise or else the whole project is stopped is stumped is stopped as it were in midstream what workers who become owners can do now that they are owners would be to transform the workplace from a top-down hierarchical structure run by a tiny minority boards of directors are usually 12 to 15 people in enterprises that can have a hundred a thousand or a hundred thousand employees the real question of democracy says no longer will a tiny minority be able to make all of the decisions what where and how to produce and what to do with the net income that decision could be and should be democratized it should be subject to a rule in which every worker has a vote an equal vote to make those decisions and no one who isn’t a worker does because you are without rights if you’re not a worker to make the decisions of what a worker owned and operated and directed enterprise would do oh sure a worker co-op which is what we’re talking about would have to work out a reciprocally acceptable relationship with its surrounding communities capitalist enterprises had to do that in their way too but of course it would be in a different way because workers themselves would be the citizens in the community and the owner operators of the enterprise when they get together with themselves to figure out how best to manage an economic system that put workers in the driver’s seat in the workplace which we have never seen in the United States before worker ownership we have seen worker ownership is a good step but it is just a step and it needs to be supplemented by the real serious business of giving working people in their workplace the Democratic right to control the decisions that affect their if I can end with a parallel it’s one thing to give everybody the vote in a political election it’s a completely different thing to provide the time and the support so that everybody who votes knows what the issues are has the time paid time to make politicians come before them and explain and justify what they’re doing and what they propose to do democracy means the real participation of people what good is it to give them the vote if everything else in the society blocks them from the kind of participation for which the vote at least in principle was intended the same thing applies to the ownership of shares in an enterprise unless we understand where that has to go the next steps we will be sorely disappointed by the results the last economic update we will have time for in today’s program has to do with a an event that happens every May in the United States and happened of course this May – namely Mother’s Day this year on the 14th of May a Sunday and so it led me to think about Mother’s Day I’m not a mother but I’m a father so I have direct experience of a good bit of this and it’s an important issue for me so here we go three reflections on Mother’s Day and the economics of Mother’s Day that may not have occurred to you and I want to thank MarketWatch which you can find that MarketWatch or one-word marketwatch.com a place that gathers interesting economic statistics and I found them particularly useful on the market watch website for March 14th first American population growth is now dependent on children born to immigrants that is American mothers who were born here in the United States are having fewer and fewer children the only way the population is growing in the United States is basically because of the decision to have children by immigrants in other words the growth in the American population the future of our working class which is the future of our economy has a lot to do with immigrants in ways you might not have thought about the second statistic I thought was remarkable released by market watch was that mothers whose family income exceeds $75,000 a year richer mothers take twice as much paid maternal leave as do mothers who earn who live in families that earn under 30,000 simple English rich people take more maternal leave than poor you know why because they want to because they need to because their commitment to Family Values says it’s good to take some time off before your baby is born and it’s even more important to be there in the early weeks and months of your baby as part of what it means to have quote/unquote family values and if it is true as the statistics prove that the more money you have the more you take advantage of this important opportunity the more horrible it is to have to recognize that the United States is the only advanced industrial country that does not have a law mandating paid maternal leave every other advanced industrial country has such laws with anything from six weeks to 40 weeks out of the year being the required maternally that employer must give to a mother while paying her every interesting the country that makes more noise about family values than any doesn’t support it when it comes to paid family leave finally in 1970 under half of American mothers were in the labor force in 2015 over 70% were that is a fundamental historic change it’s why the American family didn’t suffer a cut in each standard of living as badly as they might have over the last 30 years it’s because a second member of the family went out to work for millions of families and that wasn’t enough either which is why they all went into debt which all blew up on us in 2008 this year as we think about Mother’s Day let’s be honest we’ve made it harder not easier for the family to function mothers are out of the house many more hours of the day working because they have to as well as because they want to they need supports paid maternal leave and decent paid affordable child care and this country provides neither to the mass of its people and that is a failing of the capitalist system we’ve come to the end of the first half of our program please stay with us remember to use our websites our DeWulf comm and democracy at work dot info for more on all of this kind of analysis and four ways to communicate with us stay with us we’ll be right back Tamati Congrats on paying off all those student loans finally right how’d you manage that anyway I started tracking my spending changed a couple habits oh I’m kind of living paycheck to paycheck right now I don’t even know how I’m doing it well have you tried saving a little I want to where’s that money gonna come from bill collectors they’re the worst am i right when it comes to financial stability don’t get left behind get tools and tips for saving at feed the pig org welcome friends welcome back I should rather say to the second half of economic update I am very pleased in this second half – welcome to the microphones and to our audiences my guest for today Antonine plague a welcome Antonia thanks I’m thank you let me tell you who Antonian is and then we can jump right in Antonin Claudia has been a member of the new anti capitalist party NPA as it’s known in France which is a radical left organization that was founded in 2009 and Antonin has been part of that effort since its foundation he is also an assistant lecturer at the University of Paris Sorbonne the one in the centre of the city and the old center of the French university system and he’s currently at work in his studies on French colonial history I asked him to join us because as you know because we’ve discussed it there was a very important election in France for the presidency of that country a few weeks ago it happens in two stages eleven candidates if I if I’m correct in the first round and then the two top vote-getters contested in the second round between Emmanuel Macomb and marine lepen there was great interest here in the United States I thought let’s get someone right from the center of the French activity around the election to give us a different insight so let me begin by asking Antonin the following in the mainstream media the recent French elections were represented as a big defeat for something we call here populism and a great victory for the establishment or the political center of politics and it was almost as though the celebration because that’s really what it was in the American mass media it was a celebration of an election that looked or was made to look like it was Trump versus Clinton all over again with the satisfying result for the mass media that Trump lost and Clinton won in the sense that Trump was like lepen and macro was like Clinton do you agree with this take on the French election how do you see it if you don’t well in fact it’s not only in the US media that we have heard this interpretation in the French mainstream media it was also the case and yes if we have a look just on the election results it’s through 66 percent for macro and only 33 percent in favor of 9/11 but we have to look beyond the election Wizards and doing so it appears populism has not bid been defeated yet in France at least if we consider populism has an allegedly critical speech based on national people we should be opposed to foreigners or foreign capital if we do so if we define populism as such we have to consider the fact that Milan from one of the left candidate of rebellious friends can also be considered as appropriate and one of his main advisor also recognized and claimed that for Canada it was a populist one so taking into account this definition this election has not been a failure for populist ID this idea that in order to protect us against capitalism we have to proudly defend our border against immigrants people would say 9/11 or against German capitalism could say jean-luc menachem this ID has been repeated over and over during the electoral campaign and I think that both of these IDs wrong and are real dead end for the working class both of them both of them Yeshua this is a reason why with the new and capitalist party which Alan I’m a member militant we had our home candidate which named was Phillip Bhutto and Eva worker not a worker in cycling an American company well-known he thought the auto industry and let us strike a few years ago because his plant was going to close down so we chose this candidate in order to say again with these populist ideas we in that what our people basically said he said we workers have more in common whatever the borders or whatever the citizenships supposed to divide us then we have in common or we have we would be supposed to have in common with a nationalist national capitals all right so the his argument was if I understand you and please correct me if I thought that the working class of friends would be better off in some sense to make common cause with the very immigrants that marine lepen wanted – exactly exactly and that even Melo and Sean who was very successful in getting 20% of your first time around didn’t take that that not so clearly yeah was more like a Bernie Sanders or Social Democrat or something like that and that you make some important concessions on that question right but before we get into that I want to pursue that but before we get into that if you put into the camp of populist both lepen and Malone Xiong and perhaps some of the other smaller candidates in the first row then what percentage of the French electorate would be quote unquote populist by that definition monism foot psy person but close to half yeah but it’s not the same kind of populist understood yeah understood very different they had a strong disagreement I don’t know that but to say that populism was defeated at the same time that you point out that nearly half the people makes the argument that populism was defeated very strange because it would seem to me as an outsider and say my goodness populism was able to get against the mass media which denounced both the left and the right populism it was able to get half the French people to vote for this is a stunning achievement that will shake European politics no matter what pretenses are made that it was quote-unquote defeated anyway let’s go back there was a great deal of attention in the United States to marine lepen because of the similarities to Donald Trump to the fact that she came to see Donald Trump in part of her campaign and so on you are a French person you’re active in politics tell us what is the appeal of marine lepen to the French workers in the French population and based on that what what do you see is the future of the National Front in France I think there is two main reasons for this appeal the first reason is probably the social situation in France which is as you probably know quite difficult so 2008 crisis have considerably affected conditions of the working class five millions of people are unemployed which means approximately 10% and this is the official unemployment rate and the real one is going to be quite higher than this one the situation is getting worse because the crisis is deepening there is plant closures and working-class conditions I’ve been in the red tag is the socialist government in the past five years so people are upset they are angry and the right to be so because at the same time the government is giving subventions to big companies to the banks which people are becoming richer if you if I can give you just one example take bahama auto which is the first wealthiest person in France reduce virtual threat yeah he’s in the given in the world last year he owns the fortune of 34 billion of dollars and this year year and 7 billion more is to say yearns now he owns now 41 brilliant others and which makes an increase meant an increasing of 20% in a year no workers in general achieve that the past year so people see this and they are upset and I’m upset too of this situation for sure but the problem is it’s not enough to be upset you also have to understand how did we get so far and from this point of view governance for three decades one after the other every governments are ambiguous or even sometimes we open arguments against immigrants deeper such a way to explain the social situation in other words the reason workers are experiencing difficulty and a growing gap between rich and poor for three decades has been blamed on immigrants in somewhere somehow yes in fact our immigrant people in a way or another in the speech of the different governments have been responsible taken as responsible of the situation immigrants people should would be supposed to be in this discourse in this speech responsible of info insecurity responsible for unemployment they are supposed to be isn’t you know yet these kind of speeches as we’ve had that in this country is very shallow and the fact is that the national friend is a political party that is saying this the most clearly on the political stage so thanks to this three decades of social attacks alongside an immigrant on an anti-immigrant speech you get the popularity of the National Front okay do you think this is going to continue this is going to get worse is this a is this scapegoating we call it the scapegoating of the immigrant it isn’t I mean the image we get in this country this is a successful political program in the sense of getting more support and votes for marine lepen and for the National Front is that true and is that likely to continue in your judgment yeah if we pursue on this question of immigration I would like to say first that I think the beginning of the rules in Libya the words in 92 was in Libya in the past few years in which French government with American government have for different reasons major responsibilities since the beginning of this world Mediterranean Sea became increasingly it was already the case before that but it’s increasingly the place of a human disaster 5,000 people are dying every year in this print so we see the catastrophe and the policy of the European governments toward immigration directly responsible of this mass murder fortunately for her I have to say that it does exist important solidarity movement it’s not just the National Front so we go so NATO solidarity movement on this party associations some minionese and the far left is not isolated on this question so have been many demonstration on this issue and these are these are demonstrations of solidarity with immigrants is it because of a disagreement about the role of immigrants in the French economy or is it a critique of French government’s role in forcing the immigration by creating troubles in Africa Middle East and where does this solidarity come from I think the first reaction is probably a kind of humanitarian reactions to a disaster but this is also disagreement on the police’s and on the speeches that we were talking about okay let me push you one last time about this is this growing are the French people’s upsets about their situation making them more open to blaming immigrants in other words it is this sense of the other problem getting worse correct or would you disagree what’s your sense from your own experience I would say that it depends of the social and political situation I mean for example a few years ago we have had this great experience of a big undocumented workers strike six thousand undocumented workers went on strike in order to claim equality right equator of the right with the rest of the working class in France and this is a strong demand that can convince people that immigrant people and French working class should and how one working class that should work together and that could claim for the same rights as oh yeah do you think French French born native French workers understand that agree with that in other words is there a is there a sense that solidarity with immigrants is a strategy this move and met some solidarity my Randy strike it was not an isolated one and I think that is through the social movement that we can change people’s mind and we can convince them that both of them are common interests to fight against capitalism okay and if we do not do this for sure these feelings of anti-immigrant would grow so you say it could grow but it will depend on struggles to push a different agenda out of the suffering of French people yes thank you another feature of the French election which we found very interesting looking from the United States was the hostility that seemed widespread to the European Union to the notion that somehow France was not doing well in the European Union and would do better if it were out of it that was clear from marine lepen in the National Front but you could see many other politicians making noises like that and it’s clear that Emmanuel macron in his very first few days is also trying to project an image of focusing on France being somewhat critical of the European Union what is that about why why is the European Union a target for criticism in France now what what’s that about I would say that governments either their French government British government whatever governments don’t want to take the responsibility when they are adopting an unpopular law you know and the little policy intending to promote higher flexibility for example such as to say are your expectation of the working class and they say I’m not responsible of this policy I let it because the European Union is compelling me to do so you know but what is the European Union European Union is basically just a meeting of national government and the French government alongside the German government played a great role in the European Union and they decided all together the policies that they want to read together just to give you an interesting example last year concerning the whistle blower diagonal oh it was during whistle blowers as we call blower yeah just after the Panama paper last year European Parliament has adopted a law called business secrets in order to avoid this kind of scandal to happen again in the future and it’s interesting to know types to note that every single French representatives in European Parliament voted in favor of the slope except a few one from the Green Party but every other one had voted in favor of zero so with responsible of this policy of European Union this is European Union as such as I eat it French representative Ramon goes our representative so let me make sure I understand and our audience understand this would this is kind of a a political theatre in other words the national government in your case friends pushes through an unpopular law and then acts as though it had to do that under the pressure of the European Union because that way they are not held responsible so they get the law they want and they pretend they’re not to blame for it even though they are also the controlling forces in the European Union so this is a kind of a theatrical way to put their program through but the side effect of it then if I understand you is to make the European Union immensely and unpopular because the governments have blamed it for everything they wanted to avoid responsibility for and so the people this and this could be applicable to England too so that people vote against the European Union because they’ve been told that’s where the problem is but then they’re left with the national government which was behind it all along and therefore they’ve wasted their time exactly that’s what I wanted to say and you can bet that if there is any convictions in the two coming Montes on future whistleblowers you can bet that the very same one who advocate in favor of this law would accuse EU because it’s responsible of this situation okay all right let’s go back and for those people who will follow these things it was remarkable that someone like jean-luc mélenchon did as well as he did because it did suggest that there was a basis for a left-wing election success that the mainstream media had said wasn’t there and you have to remember that this comes out of the American experience where in the initial months of Bernie Sanders effort he was dismissed as someone who would get 1 or 2 percent of the vote he wouldn’t make any difference and he ended up surprising everybody so tell us what is this mellow song phenomena where does it come from and where does it go I think that the main ocean phenomenon we can mainly explain it with the collapse of the Socialist Party were leading the government in the past five years and the Socialist Party have chosen in the past five years to serve with a real loyalty interest of US border heat interest of the capitalist system and doing so politically speaking sever most committed suicide political sewers yeah yeah sure for the polling the polling results for Francois Hollande were unbelievable and he literally one had the impression that one had gone in a very short time from a socialist party that had won the presidency and the majority in both the Senate and the National Assembly to a party that nobody wanted to talk about or see or vote for was an amazing self-destruction yeah sure and you think Melo shall represent what in relationship to that main ocean has benefited from the collapse of the Socialist Party because former voters of the Socialist Party turns a vote in favor of men are consistent in men also know the world could be an alternative to the social spots or could be an alternative for socialist police I would say that I don’t think so and mainly for two reasons the first reason is that the notion for sure is on the left side of French politics so this for Instagram includes social measures that would benefit to the working class if they would be adopted and that’s a good point but we can also observe that while he was getting closer to the second round of the it was the presidential election he starting giving up key points of his program on social questions on an immigrant question Alexander II was attending in 2012 last present presidential election freedom of movement and we gave up this demon in his program he was defending rating of minimum wage but he finally specified that it would be only one thousand three hundred and fifty euros per month why the unions and the Celeste considers that 1800 817 the minimum to live with dignity so I don’t think he is this kind of legitimate or good and potential eternity the second reason why is not mention basically was saying vote for me and the social reforms will follow many of his supporters are aware that even do not need social we found require social struggles but if you want to prepare people a working class to this perspective like to say it and that is the reason why working-class need because it’s home candidate for this kind of elections with the new aunty capitalist party as I said before we decided to add our own candidate Philip Putin and as an auto worker you know workers can identify – he can identify to his pretty what did I really say basically say was we here to defend the vital demands of the working class raise wages normal firings and for this we need to organize we need to build our own organization we need to be the one party and we finally need to run ourselves this society if we want it to be better the good news for us is that this kind of candidate we are not the only one in in the world towards this policy to have our workers in in the stage on the stage in order to defend this kind of policy revolutionary policy we have developed for example here in the US strong relationships with an organization called revolutionary workers good and everywhere which why we are trying to develop and this kind of policy because if we want one day to want to be better we have to start here and now all right thank you very much I’m done in didn’t Antonian clay VA from France and I hope my audience enjoyed as much as I did your accent as well as what you had to tell us thank you in conclusion folks for today let me remind you that programs like this are the work of a group we call ourselves democracy at work and you can find out more about it by going to our websites democracy at work all one word democracy at work dot info or our DeWulf with two F’s calm those websites are maintained by us updated every single day they provide you with ways of following us on Facebook Instagram Twitter you tube and now also patreon.com slash economic update all of these places are places where you can either listen or watch this program the websites also provide you with means to communicate to us what you would like to see more of less of what you like what you don’t like the websites also provide you with ways of communicating to us if you’d like me to come and give a talk in your area which I like to do and I do several times a year as I travel around there are also ways for you to partner with us we are always looking for more stations to carry this program we are always looking for people who will make use of what we do and that’s what we mean by partnership and in that spirit I want to thank Truthout org that remarkable independent source of news and analysis that is also a partner for us in the sense of distributing and sharing what we do with many many others the United States is clearly if you read the headlines as we all do entering a period of enormous stress and turmoil we see it at the surface of our political life everyday but below the surface it is also going on there is a vast economic reorganization of the United States it’s in trouble it is facing the twin challenges of an out-of-control automation that is removing jobs in place in place of giving work to people it gives work to robots into computers and at the same time it takes jobs away from people who’ve spent lifetimes working at them who had decent salaries and moves them abroad to where wages are very low this is a society that does not know how to cope with its own problems in which the rich get richer and shift the costs of this problem of these problems onto those below them with every chance they get that’s why graduate students at Yale are striking that’s why we have the social conflicts building that threaten the future of this country we will be attending to all of this closely in the weeks and months ahead thank you very much for being with us and I look forward to talking with you again next week