:00:00. > :00:20.Welcome to HARDtalk. It is now all but certain. Hillary Clinton will be
:00:21. > :00:23.the Democratic party candidate in November's US presidential election
:00:24. > :00:29.after the latest batch of primaries. Her lead over Bernie Sanders looks
:00:30. > :00:34.insurmountable. But even now for Bernie Sanders' campaign, radical,
:00:35. > :00:39.antiestablishment and crowdfunded, he refuses to admit defeat. My guest
:00:40. > :00:43.is Robert Reich, former labour secretary and Bill Clinton's
:00:44. > :00:47.administration, now a prominent supporter of Senator Sanders. As the
:00:48. > :01:18.centre of gravity in the Democratic party shifted? -- has the centre.
:01:19. > :01:26.Robert Reich, in California, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Would you
:01:27. > :01:33.acknowledge that the game is now up for your man Bernie Sanders? Well,
:01:34. > :01:37.the game is never up. This is a very unusual political season here in the
:01:38. > :01:43.United States and Sir nobody is out until they really are out. The odds
:01:44. > :01:47.are shrinking of a Bernie Sanders nomination because Hillary Clinton
:01:48. > :01:51.has won a number of delegates and has also what are called super
:01:52. > :01:55.delegates, insiders who have told her that they will vote for her
:01:56. > :02:02.nomination at the Democratic convention in July. So it will be
:02:03. > :02:04.extremely difficult. I wouldn't say insurmountable, but very difficult
:02:05. > :02:11.for Bernie Sanders to get the nomination. Even he has described it
:02:12. > :02:15.as "a very narrow path" that could lead into the nomination. Frankly,
:02:16. > :02:19.we all know that is not going to happen. So would it not be best for
:02:20. > :02:25.all Democrats, and of course you are a Democrat, for all Democrats to
:02:26. > :02:31.advise Bernie Sanders to throw in the towel, to start the process of
:02:32. > :02:38.unifying and healing after a pretty bitter primary campaign season?
:02:39. > :02:42.Absolutely not. I think it is very important for Bernie Sanders is to
:02:43. > :02:47.stay in the contest. Hillary Clinton stayed in the contest in 2008. It
:02:48. > :02:52.was also a somewhat bitter contest in the Democratic primary, but her
:02:53. > :02:56.staying in made Barack Obama a better candidate and kept a lot of
:02:57. > :03:04.her followers in. They ultimately voted for Barack Obama. The Bernie
:03:05. > :03:09.Sanders phenomenon is not just a candidacy, it is also a movement to
:03:10. > :03:16.reclaim American democracy from what are called the moneyed interests,
:03:17. > :03:18.the big banks and financial institutions, the big corporations,
:03:19. > :03:22.the billionaires who have overrun American politics, and it is also a
:03:23. > :03:27.movement that has attracted unprecedented numbers of young
:03:28. > :03:32.people who would be very, very disappointed and feel very let down
:03:33. > :03:36.if Bernie Sanders was to leave. I think that movement is going to
:03:37. > :03:40.continue right through the convention and beyond. I want to
:03:41. > :03:45.talk about the meaning of the movement in some detail. Before we
:03:46. > :03:49.get there, let's stick with Sanders and the policy has to make about how
:03:50. > :03:55.he conducts himself in a monthly the upto the Philadelphia Convention in
:03:56. > :04:00.July. He says he is not the guy for politics as usual, he is a different
:04:01. > :04:06.sort of politician, and get what he is doing now, and I will use this
:04:07. > :04:14.rather brutal word, trashing parts of Hillary Clinton's record, it is
:04:15. > :04:17.politics as usual. In last he has said she is "unqualified" to be
:04:18. > :04:21.president. You are one of his supporters. Do you think that
:04:22. > :04:27.ill-advised? It is ill-advised. I don't think he should say she is
:04:28. > :04:31.unqualified. I think that if she continues to take large money, if
:04:32. > :04:35.she is in the pockets of Wall Street, which I don't think she
:04:36. > :04:40.is... With respect, she has continued to take large amounts of
:04:41. > :04:44.corporate money. There was one of those dinners recently, $350,000 per
:04:45. > :04:50.plate for the privilege of sitting near George Clooney. I wouldn't pay
:04:51. > :04:53.$350,000 for the privilege of sitting... I wouldn't pay $10 for
:04:54. > :04:59.the privilege of sitting next to George Clooney. My point is... That
:05:00. > :05:03.the sort of corporate politics that Hillary Clinton is playing and
:05:04. > :05:11.Bernie Sanders appears determined to continue this ferocious assault on
:05:12. > :05:14.Mrs Clinton's connections to Wall Street and corporate interests when
:05:15. > :05:18.I am telling you that maybe it would be better for the party if he backed
:05:19. > :05:23.off. I think there's a distinction here that's very important. Bernie
:05:24. > :05:27.Sanders continues to rail against big money and politics, big
:05:28. > :05:31.corporate money, the billionaire money, money coming from Wall
:05:32. > :05:35.Street, and it is not and should not be interpreted, I don't believe, I
:05:36. > :05:39.don't believe it is wise for him to say it in any way that can be
:05:40. > :05:43.interpreted as an attack on Hillary Clinton personally. It is an attack
:05:44. > :05:47.on a system that is out of control and I think it is a perfectly
:05:48. > :05:50.legitimate attack. I do think that one of the reasons it is important
:05:51. > :05:56.for him to continue in the primaries is because this line of attack, this
:05:57. > :06:00.line of argument, is so important to be heard in the United States. You
:06:01. > :06:05.have in your analysis of this political season, you have described
:06:06. > :06:11.it as very much an antiestablishment political temperature right now.
:06:12. > :06:14.Would you accept that one of Hillary Clinton's biggest problems is that
:06:15. > :06:24.you cannot imagine a woman with a more establishment record banshee?
:06:25. > :06:26.-- than she? You are right in the sense that she has taken a lot of
:06:27. > :06:32.money from Wall Street and big corporations and her husband, when
:06:33. > :06:37.Bill Clinton was president, by the way I was in that administration and
:06:38. > :06:43.very proud... I know you were. They published a great deal. But for our
:06:44. > :06:46.audiences who don't remember, Robert Reich, it is worth remembering that
:06:47. > :06:48.you sat in the Clinton administration as a voice on the
:06:49. > :06:51.progressive left and you had many fights with other members of the
:06:52. > :06:57.team because while they were talking about pragmatism, what oration, you
:06:58. > :07:03.said, we are liberals. It seems to me that you and the Clintons have
:07:04. > :07:08.always been at odds to a certain extent on that point. Well, not on
:07:09. > :07:15.the meaning of the word liberal. I think Bill Clinton... I think you
:07:16. > :07:18.published a very important -- very important things when he was
:07:19. > :07:21.president of a like to think that I helped him, which important things.
:07:22. > :07:25.But there was tension in that administration, it was healthy
:07:26. > :07:28.tension between those who were most concerned about getting the budget
:07:29. > :07:33.deficit down and shrinking the size of the government and those of us
:07:34. > :07:36.you might call us the liberally progressive left who wanted to do
:07:37. > :07:40.more, who were more ambitious in terms of helping the problems of the
:07:41. > :07:46.poor, reducing inequality and so forth. And that tension continues to
:07:47. > :07:50.exist in the Democratic party, I say a healthy tension because people
:07:51. > :07:53.don't come to blows as they do in the Republican Party. These days the
:07:54. > :07:58.Republican Party is a bunch of warring factions. The Democratic
:07:59. > :08:04.party is made up of many of my close friends, people who very strongly
:08:05. > :08:07.disagreed with me when I was in the Clinton administration, and they are
:08:08. > :08:12.now supporting Hillary Clinton. Are they establishment? Well, to some
:08:13. > :08:19.extent absolutely. I think this is an antiestablishment surge, both in
:08:20. > :08:22.the Democratic campaign and also in the Republican primary campaign. I
:08:23. > :08:26.promise you, we will get to the content of the sort of meaning of
:08:27. > :08:33.antiestablishment and progressive and words like that when it comes to
:08:34. > :08:36.politics in just a moment. One last question about the Hillary Clinton
:08:37. > :08:42.factor on a more personal level. She is being questioned on her judgement
:08:43. > :08:49.by Bernie Sanders. He points to her support for the Iraq war, he points
:08:50. > :08:53.to... Well he actually doesn't, but many of her supporters point to the
:08:54. > :08:57.use of personal e-mail in official business, which clearly was a
:08:58. > :09:01.mistake and she has apologised for. -- of his supporters. There is a
:09:02. > :09:04.judgement factor which Bernie Sanders has introduced, which
:09:05. > :09:09.interestingly Donald Trump is now hammering home as well. So here is
:09:10. > :09:12.the question. The more Bernie Sanders keeps this up the more he is
:09:13. > :09:18.helping the Republicans and in particular Donald Trump. Well, I
:09:19. > :09:24.don't think that's true. Certainly if Bernie Sanders tries to go after
:09:25. > :09:29.or assassinate in some metaphorical sense Hillary Clinton's character
:09:30. > :09:35.personally that would be damaging and that does help the Republican
:09:36. > :09:40.challenger. But as long as Bernie Sanders keeps his criticism to the
:09:41. > :09:47.side that I was suggesting a moment ago, to the general problem and the
:09:48. > :09:54.large problem of money big money, in politics and the domination of the
:09:55. > :09:59.interests of big corporations, Wall Street and billionaires over the
:10:00. > :10:02.interests of average working people, that's a valid criticism and I hope
:10:03. > :10:06.that Hillary Clinton here is that criticism for what it is and
:10:07. > :10:11.continues to move in the direction of Bernie Sanders -- that Bernie
:10:12. > :10:17.Sanders has been urging. As she has during this entire primary season.
:10:18. > :10:21.Interesting point. A lot of people say that because of the pressure
:10:22. > :10:26.coming from Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton has modified her position,
:10:27. > :10:29.she has moved leftwards in a way that leaves many people confused
:10:30. > :10:33.about what she really believes. Here is a simple question for you. Is
:10:34. > :10:41.Hillary Clinton in your view a progressive or not? Here we get back
:10:42. > :10:45.to what you wanted to delay in this programme, the definition of what
:10:46. > :10:50.all of these words mean. Indeed. I have known her since she was 19
:10:51. > :10:56.years old. She deeply cares about the plight of the underdogs, the
:10:57. > :11:01.people who are poor, working class, lower middle class in America. She
:11:02. > :11:04.has been fighting for better education opportunities for entire
:11:05. > :11:11.life for people who don't have very many good educational opportunities.
:11:12. > :11:15.And I have no question about her values. Even as you listed... Sorry
:11:16. > :11:19.to interrupt. Even as he listed those things that she cares about,
:11:20. > :11:23.you have left me a little bit confused. On education Bernie
:11:24. > :11:29.Sanders is the guy calling for free college education for all. Hillary
:11:30. > :11:33.Clinton says that's ridiculous and it won't work. Bernie Sanders is
:11:34. > :11:37.calling for a $50 minimum wage across the country. Hillary Clinton
:11:38. > :11:41.says that would work. -- $15. Bernie Sanders is to rip up the trade deals
:11:42. > :11:45.that are bad for American workers. Hillary Clinton has in the past
:11:46. > :11:47.supported them and says it has Pacific partnership that Bernie
:11:48. > :11:54.Sanders hate so much was a golden opportunity. -- hates so much.
:11:55. > :11:58.Explain to me, how can she be a progressive with all of those
:11:59. > :12:01.positions? She has moved on all of those positions. She is now very
:12:02. > :12:07.much in favour of a $15 minimum wage. The fight for 15 she has
:12:08. > :12:10.endorsed. She has backed down on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and says
:12:11. > :12:14.it isn't such a good idea and needs to be re-examined. On many other
:12:15. > :12:18.positions... Why would we believe her then? If she moves around
:12:19. > :12:29.according to the political wind, why would we take her seriously? --
:12:30. > :12:38.political Sanders pragmatism isn't a bad thing in a president. We get
:12:39. > :12:44.this means-end continuum. I've been around politics for about 40 years.
:12:45. > :12:48.I do see politicians, the best of them, struggling with means and
:12:49. > :12:52.ends. They want to hold fast to their principles but at the same
:12:53. > :12:57.time they want to be pragmatic. Bernie Sanders has pushed Hillary
:12:58. > :13:01.Clinton very hard towards the ideals that Bernie Sanders feels are very
:13:02. > :13:05.important. I happen to share his ideals, which is why I am supporting
:13:06. > :13:12.him in the selection, and he is forcing Hillary Clinton to make a
:13:13. > :13:20.slightly different way in perhaps offer pragmatism against these
:13:21. > :13:27.ideals. -- weighing. If she and when she gets the nomination will see
:13:28. > :13:30.move back towards the pragmatic, let's put a quote around it, centre,
:13:31. > :13:37.because we haven't defined these terms yet. Maybe, but that doesn't
:13:38. > :13:40.mean the ideals are meaningless and it doesn't mean she is not
:13:41. > :13:45.principles simply because she is pragmatic at the same time. Will you
:13:46. > :13:47.endorse her wholeheartedly and unreservedly when, as seems
:13:48. > :13:52.inevitable, she finally gets over the top and has this nomination
:13:53. > :13:56.completely sewn up? I certainly will. I don't pick it is inevitable
:13:57. > :14:01.but I will certainly endorse and I will try to make sure she president.
:14:02. > :14:05.The Democratic party and her candidacy, if she becomes the
:14:06. > :14:09.candidates, present and the American public a far better set of
:14:10. > :14:13.alternatives than what the Republicans are presenting. I think
:14:14. > :14:17.the Republicans really are quite out of their minds. Let's just talk
:14:18. > :14:21.about the legacy that Bernie Sanders will leave behind, assuming that
:14:22. > :14:26.Hillary Clinton does take the nomination. He has caused a ours and
:14:27. > :14:32.has a lot of young people involved in politics for the first time. -- a
:14:33. > :14:36.buzz. But if you look at his failure to reach out to minorities, his
:14:37. > :14:39.failure to look at small stream conservative Americans who
:14:40. > :14:42.repeatedly say they want smaller government and lower taxes, what is
:14:43. > :14:52.Bernie's long-term legacy? Bernie Sanders put squarely on the
:14:53. > :14:56.public access and connection between great wealth and concentration of
:14:57. > :15:00.incoming wealth and also the concentration of political power in
:15:01. > :15:07.the United States, in the hands of a relatively few people. Mostly
:15:08. > :15:10.billionaires and corporate executives and Wall Street
:15:11. > :15:15.executives. I have been in and out of politics for 40 years and there
:15:16. > :15:19.has been a huge difference. I have seen any quality become almost
:15:20. > :15:24.record level in the United States and with that any quality has come
:15:25. > :15:29.the dominance of a moneyed elite over American politics. Bernie
:15:30. > :15:34.Sanders has eloquently brought to the public's attention what that has
:15:35. > :15:38.meant for American democracy and also for our economy. But that is
:15:39. > :15:42.interesting, the bottom line is that he isn't going to win. So just
:15:43. > :15:47.leaves his supporters deeply frustrated and with a feeling that
:15:48. > :15:53.the system remains loaded against them. But as you undoubtedly know,
:15:54. > :15:58.any movement to change a political system, to change the allocution of
:15:59. > :16:04.power, takes years and years. Bernie Sanders is and will be one of the
:16:05. > :16:08.movement's leaders and there are other leaders. Elizabeth Warren,
:16:09. > :16:11.other progressives who are sounding the same alarm. People need to be
:16:12. > :16:18.mobilized and organised and this is the beginning of what may be 4-8-12
:16:19. > :16:23.years to begin to reverse the concentration of income and wealth
:16:24. > :16:26.and political power. Or there is an alternative and actually you have
:16:27. > :16:31.posited it your self not long ago in a response to a media question and
:16:32. > :16:34.that is that a lot of the anti- establishment feeling that we have
:16:35. > :16:40.talked about in this interview, the raw anger of somebody Americans that
:16:41. > :16:44.their lot doesn't seem to be improving, that feeling is actually
:16:45. > :16:47.channelled into Donald Trump's campaign. That he is the other anti-
:16:48. > :16:51.establishment guy in this election season alongside Bernie Sanders and
:16:52. > :16:56.that bizarrely, though he is certainly not coming from the left,
:16:57. > :17:01.Donald Trump may well Hoover up some of Bernie Sanders' discontented
:17:02. > :17:04.supporters. That is certainly possible and we see not only the
:17:05. > :17:12.United States but also around Europe, that discontent, anxiety in
:17:13. > :17:18.terms of jobs, wages, more economic and security, has led to a welling
:17:19. > :17:22.up of anti- establishment and also xenophobic and also unfortunately,
:17:23. > :17:26.quite bigoted politics. That is what we have on the writing United States
:17:27. > :17:29.and that is what Donald Trump represents. In other words, anti-
:17:30. > :17:33.establishment feeling can take either a positive direction in terms
:17:34. > :17:39.of a fundamental political reform of the democratic nature, and that is
:17:40. > :17:44.Bernie Sanders, or a kind of authoritarian populism, which we see
:17:45. > :17:47.in Donald Trump. And that is the choice in America in the future. It
:17:48. > :17:52.is the choice in many countries in the future. But the bottom line in
:17:53. > :17:55.that response is that there is a populist appeal to Donald Trump as
:17:56. > :18:02.there is to Bernie Sanders, which Hillary Clinton doesn't have. Well,
:18:03. > :18:07.I think Hillary Clinton, if she faces Donald Trump in the general
:18:08. > :18:14.election in the United States, will win. My concern and my fear is that
:18:15. > :18:19.that doesn't, in and of itself, deal with this upsurge of populism, both
:18:20. > :18:23.authoritarian populism on the Donald Trump side and also the more
:18:24. > :18:29.democratic, progressive populism on the left. She will need, as a
:18:30. > :18:35.candidate and also, certainly as a president, were she elected, she
:18:36. > :18:38.will need, and the Democratic Party and Republican Party for that matter
:18:39. > :18:44.will also need to acknowledge this upsurge and begin to address the
:18:45. > :18:49.underlying problems of widening inequality, a shrinking middle class
:18:50. > :18:53.and economic insecurity. Let's pick up on that point. So far we have
:18:54. > :18:57.talked about the political season and the standing of the candidates
:18:58. > :19:01.and the parties. Let's leave aside party politics for a moment and
:19:02. > :19:07.think about the state of America today. Not so long ago, you wrote a
:19:08. > :19:10.book called Saving Capitalism. Do you believe that the political
:19:11. > :19:14.system in the United States today and the range of choices offered is
:19:15. > :19:20.going to come anywhere close over the next four years of saving
:19:21. > :19:28.capitalism? Of restoring America to health? Well, my book and my
:19:29. > :19:33.philosophy, as it were, is that the only way that you can have a buoyant
:19:34. > :19:38.and healthy capitalism is if you have a growing and buoyant
:19:39. > :19:42.middle-class. The poor can ascend into and also can provide enough
:19:43. > :19:47.aggregate demand to keep an economy going. That is not the direction we
:19:48. > :19:50.are going into now and politically, to get there, you have to have
:19:51. > :19:58.changes in the rules of the game that make it possible for a buoyant
:19:59. > :20:02.and growing middle class to thrive. Right now, our politics and United
:20:03. > :20:06.States is totally dysfunctional. It is polarized and angry. If Hillary
:20:07. > :20:08.Clinton were to become president tomorrow, there is very little that
:20:09. > :20:12.she would be able to do legislatively to the middle class to
:20:13. > :20:18.turn both politically and economically, the country around. If
:20:19. > :20:23.I may say so, we have talked party politics. If I look at your writing
:20:24. > :20:27.and your thoughts, you are not really confident that anybody can
:20:28. > :20:32.deliver the sort of structural, fundamental structural change
:20:33. > :20:35.America needs. To quote you, this extraordinary concentration of
:20:36. > :20:41.income wealth and political power in the United States at the very top
:20:42. > :20:44.imperils all else. Our economy, our democracy, the revival of the
:20:45. > :20:48.middle-class, the prospects for poor people and people of colour, climate
:20:49. > :20:53.change, even a sensible foreign-policy. You seem to be
:20:54. > :20:57.saying that the any quality in the United States today, the growing gap
:20:58. > :21:03.between the superrich and everybody else, is corroding the entire
:21:04. > :21:06.system. And also corrupting the entire system politically. That is
:21:07. > :21:12.exactly right. And then you might want to ask, where do I get my
:21:13. > :21:15.optimism from? Because I am a very optimistic fellow. I think it will
:21:16. > :21:21.be corrected because I look at American history, I look at the
:21:22. > :21:26.1830s, I look at the period, the progressive period between 1901
:21:27. > :21:33.-1916, the 1930s, the new deal and also to a significant extent, the
:21:34. > :21:40.1960s and what you see in the United States is a really remarkable
:21:41. > :21:42.resilience, a corrective mechanism where people put their ideology
:21:43. > :21:47.aside, roll up their sleeves and get on with what has to be done to save
:21:48. > :21:52.capitalism from itself. You seem so hung up these days on inequality and
:21:53. > :21:56.using legislation and regulation and dusting the big banks and the
:21:57. > :22:02.healthcare providers to, in your view, deliver a new form of
:22:03. > :22:05.equality. Equality isn't really an American ideal. The American dream
:22:06. > :22:10.isn't about ensuring that you have just the same as your neighbours, it
:22:11. > :22:13.is about ensuring that you have the possibility of rising up and that
:22:14. > :22:19.your kids can rise up even further. Why are you now so hung up on
:22:20. > :22:23.inequality? Stephen, I am not hung up on equality. I am hung up on the
:22:24. > :22:29.problem of any poll wealth and power in the United States. We have not
:22:30. > :22:39.seen this degree of inequality since the 1890s, the so-called gilded age
:22:40. > :22:47.where you had connection with the concentrated income at the wealth.
:22:48. > :22:51.But the American dream has always delivered any quality. Is really
:22:52. > :22:55.what America is about. Oh wait a minute, Steven. That's absurdly
:22:56. > :22:59.wrong. Americas about upward mobility and you can't get that if
:23:00. > :23:02.you have too much any quality. We have seen that repeatedly and
:23:03. > :23:07.economic studies confirm that. In fact, if you lose your middle-class,
:23:08. > :23:10.there is no place for the poor to ascend into. If you lose your
:23:11. > :23:15.middle-class, and we are in the process of having a shrinking middle
:23:16. > :23:19.class, the median wage and the median household incomes are
:23:20. > :23:23.actually dropping adjusted for inflation, if that occurs, it is
:23:24. > :23:27.much harder for anybody to move upward and that is what this whole
:23:28. > :23:31.battle is about. That is what Bernie Sanders is about and his whole
:23:32. > :23:35.phenomenon. It is a lot of what is fuelling Donald Trump, about the
:23:36. > :23:40.fears and insecurities of a middle class that is freaking. Are you sure
:23:41. > :23:45.you are still optimistic? Yes I am optimistic. I am optimistic because,
:23:46. > :23:51.again, look at the young people. When I'm not in politics, IT can
:23:52. > :23:56.surround myself with young people, 18-28 years old, who are
:23:57. > :23:59.extraordinarily idealistic. And they are the inheritors of this system.
:24:00. > :24:04.They are the ones who are going to make the changes that are required.
:24:05. > :24:14.Robert Reich, weevil and not with a positive thought. -- end with a
:24:15. > :24:17.positive thought. Thank you for being on HARDtalk. Thank you very
:24:18. > :24:37.much. Some of us have seen snow
:24:38. > :24:41.so far this week, but the risk of