:00:00. > :00:15.Welcome to HARDtalk it is Stephen Sackur.
:00:16. > :00:18.It is now all but certain that Hillary Clinton will be
:00:19. > :00:20.the Democratic Party candidate in November's US presidential election.
:00:21. > :00:23.After the latest batch of primaries, her lead over Bernie Sanders is
:00:24. > :00:28.But even now the Sanders campaign - radical,
:00:29. > :00:37.anti-establishment and crowdfunded - refuses to admit defeat.
:00:38. > :00:39.HARDtalk talks to Robert Reich, formerly secretary of Labor in
:00:40. > :00:41.Bill Clinton's administration, now a prominent supporter
:00:42. > :01:15.Has the centre of gravity in the Democratic Party shifted?
:01:16. > :01:26.Robert Wright should in Berkely California. Welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:27. > :01:30.Thank you Stephen. Would you acknowledge that the game is now up
:01:31. > :01:35.to your man Bernie Sanders? Will the game is never up and this is a very
:01:36. > :01:39.unusual political season here in the United States. So nobody is out
:01:40. > :01:44.until they really are out and the odds are shrinking of a Bernie
:01:45. > :01:50.Sanders nomination because Hillary Clinton has won a number of
:01:51. > :01:56.delegates and has also, what are called super delegates, Democratic
:01:57. > :02:01.insiders who have told her that they will vote for her at the nomination
:02:02. > :02:05.in July. It'll be extremely difficult but not insurmountable for
:02:06. > :02:10.him to get the nomination. Even he himself has described it as a very
:02:11. > :02:15.narrow path that could conceivably lead into the nomination. Frankly,
:02:16. > :02:21.we all know that that is not going to happen. Would it not be best for
:02:22. > :02:26.all Democrats, and of course you are Democrats, are all Democrats to
:02:27. > :02:32.advise Bernie Sanders to throw in the towel and start the process of
:02:33. > :02:38.unifying and healing after a pretty bitter primary campaign season?
:02:39. > :02:43.Absolutely not, Stephen, I think it is important to Bernie Sanders to
:02:44. > :02:47.stay in the race. Hillary Clinton stayed in the contests in 2008 and
:02:48. > :02:51.it was also somewhat a bitter contest in the Democratic primary
:02:52. > :02:58.but her staying in May Barack Obama a better candidate and kept a lot of
:02:59. > :03:05.followers in and they ultimately voted for Barack Obama. You see that
:03:06. > :03:10.the Bernie Sanders phenomenon is not just a candidacy, it is also a
:03:11. > :03:15.movement to reclaim American democracy from what I called the
:03:16. > :03:18.money interests, the big banks and financial institutions, the big
:03:19. > :03:23.corporations are the billionaires who have overrun American politics.
:03:24. > :03:29.It is also a movement that has attracted unprecedented number of
:03:30. > :03:34.young people who would be very disappointed and feel let down it
:03:35. > :03:37.Ernie Sanders was just to leave. I think that movement is going to
:03:38. > :03:41.continue right through the convention and beyond. Well I want
:03:42. > :03:45.to talk about the meaning of the movement in some detail. Before we
:03:46. > :03:48.get their let us stick with Bernie Sanders and a choice he estimates
:03:49. > :03:52.right now about how he conducts himself over the next few months
:03:53. > :03:58.leading up to the Philadelphia Convention in July. He says he's not
:03:59. > :04:02.the guy for politics as usual and he is a different kind of politician,
:04:03. > :04:09.and yet, what he is doing now and I will use his brutal word, trashing
:04:10. > :04:13.Hillary Clinton's record it is politics as usual. In the last month
:04:14. > :04:18.he is saying that she is I'm qualified to be president. You are
:04:19. > :04:23.one of his supporters, do you think that is ill-advised? It is
:04:24. > :04:30.ill-advised and identity he said say that she is unqualified. In context
:04:31. > :04:33.he said if she continues to take large money, it issues in the
:04:34. > :04:41.pockets of Wall Street, which I don't think she is... In respect she
:04:42. > :04:45.has taken large amounts of corporate money and there was a dinner that
:04:46. > :04:51.was $350,000 a plate for the privilege of sitting with George
:04:52. > :04:55.Clooney. I would not pay that money for the privilege, I would not pay
:04:56. > :05:01.for it $10 for the privilege of sitting with them. My point... That
:05:02. > :05:05.is the sort of politics that Hillary Clinton is playing an Bernie Sanders
:05:06. > :05:10.appears determined to continue this corrosion is assault on Mrs
:05:11. > :05:14.Clinton's connections to Wall Street and the corporate interests at a
:05:15. > :05:19.time when I'm telling you, maybe, it would be better for the party if he
:05:20. > :05:24.backed off. I think there is a distinction here, Stephen that is
:05:25. > :05:28.very important, I think the Bernie Sanders continues to rail against
:05:29. > :05:32.big corporate money and big billionaire money and money that is
:05:33. > :05:36.coming from Wall Street and it is not and should not be interpreted,
:05:37. > :05:39.and I don't believe and item that is wise that he should say anything
:05:40. > :05:43.that could be interpreted as an attack on Hillary Clinton
:05:44. > :05:47.personally. It is an attack on a system that is out of control and I
:05:48. > :05:50.thing is a perfectly legitimate attack and I do think that one of
:05:51. > :05:54.the reasons it is important to him to continue in the primaries is
:05:55. > :06:00.because this line of attack, this line of argument is so important to
:06:01. > :06:04.be heard in the United States. You have in your analysis of this
:06:05. > :06:10.political season described this as very much in antiestablishment
:06:11. > :06:14.political temperature right now. Would you accept that one of Hillary
:06:15. > :06:23.Clinton's is problems is that you cannot imagine a woman with a more
:06:24. > :06:26.establishment record then she? You are right in the sense that she has
:06:27. > :06:33.taken a lot of money from Wall Street and from big corporations and
:06:34. > :06:36.her husband, when Bill Clinton was president and by the way, I was in
:06:37. > :06:40.that administration and very proud and we are, should a great deal. But
:06:41. > :06:46.the point if I may the those who don't remember, it is worth pointing
:06:47. > :06:49.out that you sat in the Clinton administration as a voice on the
:06:50. > :06:52.progressive left and joined many fights with other members of the
:06:53. > :06:58.team because while they were talking about pragmatism, moderation is the
:06:59. > :07:04.third way, you said that we are liberals. It seems to me that you
:07:05. > :07:09.and the Clintons have always been at odds to a certain extent on that
:07:10. > :07:13.point. While not on the meaning of the word liberal and I think that
:07:14. > :07:20.Bill Clinton and I think e-commerce and very important things, and I
:07:21. > :07:23.like to think that I helped him, which some of those things, but
:07:24. > :07:27.there was tension in that demonstration and it was healthy
:07:28. > :07:30.tension between those who were most concerned about getting the budget
:07:31. > :07:34.deficit down and shrinking the size of the government, and those of us,
:07:35. > :07:39.you might call us on the progressive left who wanted to do more to a more
:07:40. > :07:44.ambitious in terms of helping the problems of the poor, reducing
:07:45. > :07:49.inequality and so forth. G continues to exist in the Democratic party. I
:07:50. > :07:53.stay healthy tension because people don't come to blows as they do in
:07:54. > :07:57.the Republican Party. The Republican Party these days is a bunch of
:07:58. > :08:01.warring factions. The Democratic party, a large dent, many of my
:08:02. > :08:06.close friends are people who very strongly disagree with me when I was
:08:07. > :08:11.in the Bill Clinton administration and they are now supporting Hillary
:08:12. > :08:15.Clinton. Are they a stab at? Well, to some extent absolutely and I
:08:16. > :08:20.think this is is in antiestablishment surge, both in the
:08:21. > :08:24.Democratic campaign but also in a Republican campaign. I promise you
:08:25. > :08:29.that we will get to the content of the meaning of antiestablishment and
:08:30. > :08:34.progressive words like that when it comes to politics in just a moment.
:08:35. > :08:38.But one last question about the Hillary Clinton factor on a more
:08:39. > :08:43.personal level. I mean she's been questioned on her judgement by
:08:44. > :08:49.Bernie Sanders, he points to support the Iraq war, he points to what he
:08:50. > :08:55.does not but many of his supporters point to her use of personal e-mail
:08:56. > :09:00.in official business, which clearly was a mistake and she apologised
:09:01. > :09:05.for. There is a judgement factor which Bernie Sanders has introduced
:09:06. > :09:11.which interestingly Donald Trump is now hammering home as well. Here is
:09:12. > :09:13.the question. The more Sanders keeps this up the more he is helping the
:09:14. > :09:22.Republicans, and in particular Donald Trump. And I don't think that
:09:23. > :09:28.is true Stephen. Certainly if Bernie Sanders tries to go after all
:09:29. > :09:32.assassinated Hillary Clinton's character and, personally, that
:09:33. > :09:36.would be damaging and that does help the Republican challenger, whether
:09:37. > :09:40.it is Trump or anyone else. As long as Bernie Sanders keeps his
:09:41. > :09:46.criticism to the side that I was suggesting a moment ago. That is to
:09:47. > :09:54.the general problem and the large problem of big money in politics and
:09:55. > :09:58.the domination of the interests of big corporations, Wall Street and
:09:59. > :10:02.billionaires over the interests of average working people. And that is
:10:03. > :10:07.a valid criticism and I hope that Hillary Clinton here's the criticism
:10:08. > :10:12.for what it is. And continues to move in the direction the Bernie
:10:13. > :10:18.Sanders is and has been urging. As she has during this entire primary
:10:19. > :10:22.season. Interesting point and a lot of people say that because of the
:10:23. > :10:25.pressure coming from Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has
:10:26. > :10:29.modified her position and she has tackled leftward in a way that
:10:30. > :10:35.leaves many people confused about what she believes. Here is a simple
:10:36. > :10:40.question. Is Hillary Clinton, in your view, a progressive or not?
:10:41. > :10:44.Will let us get back to what you want to delay in this programme is
:10:45. > :10:51.the definition of what all these words mean. I've known her censure
:10:52. > :10:58.was 19 years old. She deeply cares about the plight of the underdogs,
:10:59. > :11:01.the people who are poor and working-class, lower middle-class
:11:02. > :11:05.America and she has been fighting for better educational opportunities
:11:06. > :11:10.and entire life the people who don't and many good educational
:11:11. > :11:16.opportunities. And I'm no question about her values? But even as you
:11:17. > :11:21.listed, sorry to interrupt, even as he listed those think she cares that
:11:22. > :11:24.you have left me confused. On education, Bernie Sanders is the guy
:11:25. > :11:28.calling for Free State college education for all, Hillary Clinton
:11:29. > :11:33.says that is ridiculous and won't work. Bernie Sanders is the guy
:11:34. > :11:38.saying his call for a $15 minimum wage and Hillary Clinton says that
:11:39. > :11:41.just won't work. Bernie Sanders says report for those trade deals that
:11:42. > :11:44.are bad for American workers, and Hillary Clinton in her pastor
:11:45. > :11:48.supported them and says that the transpacific partnership that Bernie
:11:49. > :11:54.Sanders hate so much was a golden opportunity. That was one phrase
:11:55. > :11:59.that she used. Try to expect me that how she could be a progressive and
:12:00. > :12:02.all those positions I have outlined? She has moved on all those positions
:12:03. > :12:08.and she's very much in favour of a $15 minimum wage. The fight for 15
:12:09. > :12:11.she has endorsed. The transpacific partnership she has backed down and
:12:12. > :12:14.said that is not such a good idea and it needs to be re-examined and
:12:15. > :12:19.rethought. On many other positions... Why would we believe
:12:20. > :12:23.her if she packs around the political winds, why would we take
:12:24. > :12:29.seriously as anything other than the old style ragwort is? Well
:12:30. > :12:34.pragmatism is not a bad thing in a president. And I think here we get
:12:35. > :12:43.into this means and ends continue. I've been around politicians for
:12:44. > :12:49.about 40 years. I do see politicians and the best of them struggling with
:12:50. > :12:52.means and ends. They want to hold fast to their principles but at the
:12:53. > :12:58.same time they do want to be pragmatic. Bernie Sanders has pushed
:12:59. > :13:02.Hillary very hard toward the ideals that Bernie Sanders feels are very
:13:03. > :13:08.important. I happen to share Bernie Sanders's ideals and that is why in
:13:09. > :13:14.this election. And he is forcing Hillary Clinton to make a slightly
:13:15. > :13:20.different weighing perhaps of her pragmatism against these ideals, if
:13:21. > :13:26.she and when she gets the nomination, will she then moved back
:13:27. > :13:30.towards the pragmatic, let us put quote round centre, because we're
:13:31. > :13:34.not define these terms yet. Maybe that is what most presidents and
:13:35. > :13:37.presidential campaigns do when they are in the general election in the
:13:38. > :13:40.United States. But that does not mean that those ideals are
:13:41. > :13:44.meaningless and that she is unprincipled simply because she is
:13:45. > :13:47.pragmatic at the same time. Will you indoors her wholeheartedly and
:13:48. > :13:50.unreservedly when it seems inevitable that she finally gets
:13:51. > :13:54.over the top and has his nomination completely sewn up?
:13:55. > :14:01.I certainly will, I don't think it's inevitable but I will work my heart
:14:02. > :14:05.out to make sure she's president. The Democratic party and her
:14:06. > :14:09.candidacy, if she becomes candidate, present to the American
:14:10. > :14:13.public a far better set of alternatives than what the
:14:14. > :14:18.Republicans are presenting. I think the Republicans really are quite out
:14:19. > :14:22.of their minds. Let's just talk about the legacy that Bernie Sanders
:14:23. > :14:25.will leave behind, assuming that Hillary Clinton takes the
:14:26. > :14:29.nomination. He has caused a buzz, he's got a lot of young people
:14:30. > :14:33.involved in politics for the first time but if you look at his failure
:14:34. > :14:39.to reach out to minorities, look at his failure to appeal to mainstream
:14:40. > :14:42.small seed conservative Americans who actually repeatedly say they
:14:43. > :14:51.want smaller government and lower taxes. What is Bernie's long-term
:14:52. > :14:57.legacy? Bernie Sanders has put squarely on the public agenda the
:14:58. > :15:00.Nexus, the connection between great wealth, concentration of income and
:15:01. > :15:05.wealth and the concentration of political power in the US in the
:15:06. > :15:09.hands of relatively few people, mostly billionaires and corporate
:15:10. > :15:15.executives and Wall Street executives. I've been in and out of
:15:16. > :15:19.politics for 40 years. There has been a huge difference. I've seen in
:15:20. > :15:24.equality become almost record levels in the United States, and with that
:15:25. > :15:30.inequality has come the dominance of a moneyed elite over American
:15:31. > :15:34.politics. Bernie Sanders has eloquently brought to the public's
:15:35. > :15:39.attention what that has meant for American democracy and also for our
:15:40. > :15:43.economy. That's interesting but the bottom line is he ain't going to
:15:44. > :15:46.win, so it just leaves his supporters deeply frustrated and
:15:47. > :15:53.with a feeling that the system remains loaded against them. But as
:15:54. > :15:56.you undoubtedly know, any movement to change a political system, to
:15:57. > :16:02.change the allocation of power, takes years and years. Bernie
:16:03. > :16:07.Sanders is and will be one of the movement's leaders. There are other
:16:08. > :16:12.leaders, Elizabeth Warren, other progressives who are sounding the
:16:13. > :16:15.same alarm, people need to be mobilised and organised. This is the
:16:16. > :16:21.beginning of what may be four years or eight years or 12 to begin to
:16:22. > :16:25.reverse the concentration of income and wealth and political power in
:16:26. > :16:30.the United States. Or there's an alternative, and you posited it
:16:31. > :16:34.yourself not so long ago in response to a media question, and that is the
:16:35. > :16:38.album the establishment feeling we've talked about in this
:16:39. > :16:42.interview, the raw anger with many Americans that their lot doesn't
:16:43. > :16:47.seem to be improving, that feeling is actually channelled into Donald
:16:48. > :16:52.Trump's campaign, that he is the other antiestablishment guy in this
:16:53. > :16:56.election season, alongside Bernie Sanders, and bizarrely, although
:16:57. > :17:00.he's certainly not coming from the left, Donald Trump made hoover up
:17:01. > :17:05.some of Sanders's discontented supporters. That's certainly
:17:06. > :17:10.possible and we see not only in the United States but also around Europe
:17:11. > :17:15.that discontent, anxiety, in terms of jobs, wages, more economic
:17:16. > :17:21.insecurity, has led to a welling up of antiestablishment and also
:17:22. > :17:25.xenophobic and also unfortunately quite bigoted politics. That's what
:17:26. > :17:29.we have on the right in the US, that's what Donald Trump
:17:30. > :17:33.represents. In other words antiestablishment feeling can take
:17:34. > :17:38.either a positive direction in terms of a fundamental political reform of
:17:39. > :17:41.a democratic nature, and that's Bernie Sanders, or a kind of
:17:42. > :17:48.authoritarian populism, which we see in Donald Trump. I think that is the
:17:49. > :17:52.choice in America in the future. It's the choice for many countries
:17:53. > :17:57.in the future. The bottom line in that response is there is a populist
:17:58. > :18:01.appeal to trump as there is to Sanders, which Hillary Clinton
:18:02. > :18:07.doesn't have. I think Hillary Clinton, if she faces Donald Trump
:18:08. > :18:13.in the general election in the United States, will win. My concern
:18:14. > :18:19.and my fear is that that doesn't in of itself deal with this upsurge of
:18:20. > :18:24.populism, both authoritarian populism on the one side, the trump
:18:25. > :18:28.side, and also the more democratic, progressive populism on the left.
:18:29. > :18:33.She will need as a candidate and also I think certainly as a
:18:34. > :18:38.president, were she elected, she will need, and the Democratic Party
:18:39. > :18:42.will also need, and for that matter the Republican Party, will need to
:18:43. > :18:48.acknowledge this upsurge and begin to address the underlying problems
:18:49. > :18:51.of widening inequality, a shrinking middle-class, and economic
:18:52. > :18:55.insecurity. Yeah, let's pick up on that point then. We've so far talked
:18:56. > :19:00.about the political season and the standing of the candidates and the
:19:01. > :19:04.parties. Let's leave aside party politics for a minute and think
:19:05. > :19:11.about the state of America today. Not so long ago you wrote a book
:19:12. > :19:14.called Saving Capitalism. Do you believe the political system in the
:19:15. > :19:20.United States today and a range of choices offered is going to come
:19:21. > :19:26.anywhere close over the next four years of saving capitalism, of
:19:27. > :19:32.restoring America to health? Well, my book and my philosophy as it
:19:33. > :19:36.worth is that the only way that you can have a buoyant and healthy
:19:37. > :19:42.capitalism is if you have a growing and buoyant middle-class, the poor
:19:43. > :19:46.can ascend into and also can provide enough aggregate demand to keep an
:19:47. > :19:50.economy going. That's not the direction we're going in now.
:19:51. > :19:55.Politically to get there you've got to have changes in the rules of the
:19:56. > :20:06.game that make it possible for a buoyant and growing middle class to
:20:07. > :20:07.thrive. Right now our politics in the United States is totally
:20:08. > :20:10.dysfunctional, it's polarised, it's angry. If Hillary Clinton were to
:20:11. > :20:13.become president tomorrow there is little she would be able to do
:20:14. > :20:16.legislatively to help the middle class to turn both politically and
:20:17. > :20:22.economically the country around. If I may say so, we've talked party
:20:23. > :20:27.politics, if I look at your writings and your thoughts, you're not really
:20:28. > :20:32.confident that anybody can deliver the sort of structural, fundamental
:20:33. > :20:36.structural change America needs. To quote you," This extraordinary
:20:37. > :20:42.concentration of income, wealth and political power in the US at the
:20:43. > :20:46.very top imperils all else, our economy, democracy, revival of the
:20:47. > :20:52.middle-class, the prospects for poor people, people of colour, climate
:20:53. > :20:57.change, even a sensible policy". You seem to be saying that the
:20:58. > :21:02.inequality in the United States today, the growing gap between the
:21:03. > :21:06.superrich and everybody else, is corroding the entire system. And
:21:07. > :21:11.corrupting the entire system politically, that's right, Stephen.
:21:12. > :21:16.You might want to ask, where do I get my optimism from? I'm a very
:21:17. > :21:20.optimistic fellow. I think the optimism will be corrected because I
:21:21. > :21:26.look at American history, I look at the 1830s, I looked at the
:21:27. > :21:31.progressive period between 1901 and 1916, the 1930s, the New Deal, and
:21:32. > :21:37.to a certain extent the 1960s, and what you see in the United States is
:21:38. > :21:41.almost a remarkable resilience, a corrective mechanism where people
:21:42. > :21:46.put ideology aside, roll up their sleeves and get on with what has to
:21:47. > :21:52.be done to save capitalism from its own Nexis. You seem to hang up these
:21:53. > :21:55.days on inequality, and using legislation and regulation and
:21:56. > :21:58.busting the big banks and the healthcare providers to, in your
:21:59. > :22:06.view, deliver a new form of equality. But equality isn't really
:22:07. > :22:10.an American ideal. The American dream isn't about ensuring that you
:22:11. > :22:13.have just the same as your neighbours, it's about ensuring that
:22:14. > :22:19.you have the possibility of rising up and your kids can rise up even
:22:20. > :22:25.further. Why are you now so hung up on inequality? Stephen, I'm not hung
:22:26. > :22:28.up on inequality, I'm hung up on the problem of concentrated income
:22:29. > :22:34.wealth and political power in the United States. We've not seen this
:22:35. > :22:37.degree of inequality since the 1890s and the so called Gilded Age where
:22:38. > :22:42.you have a recording with and absolutely connected with that
:22:43. > :22:50.concentration of income and wealth at the top. The American dream has
:22:51. > :22:55.always delivered inequality. It's really what America's about. Wait a
:22:56. > :22:59.minute, Stephen, that's absolutely wrong, America's about upward
:23:00. > :23:06.mobility. You can't get upward mobility if you have too much
:23:07. > :23:08.inequality. Huizing that repeatedly, economic studies confirm that. If
:23:09. > :23:13.you lose your middle-class there's no place for the poor to ascend
:23:14. > :23:17.into. If you lose your middle-class, and we are currently having a
:23:18. > :23:21.shrinking middle-class, and the median wage and median household
:23:22. > :23:25.incomes are dropping adjusted for inflation, if that occurs it's much
:23:26. > :23:28.harder for anybody to move upward. That's what this whole battle is
:23:29. > :23:34.about, that's what Byrne and the Bernd Boente phenomenon is about.
:23:35. > :23:39.What's fuelling Donald Trump is about the fears and insecurities of
:23:40. > :23:44.a middle-class that's shrinking. Are you sure you're still optimistic?
:23:45. > :23:49.Yes I am, I am optimistic. I am optimistic because again, look at
:23:50. > :23:57.the young people. When I'm not in politics I teach, I surround myself
:23:58. > :24:00.with young people, 18-26, they are extraordinarily optimistic, they are
:24:01. > :24:04.the inheritors of this system, they're the ones that are going to
:24:05. > :24:09.make the changes required. Robert Wright, we will end with a positive
:24:10. > :24:11.thought, thank you very much indeed for being on HARDtalk. Thank you
:24:12. > :24:38.very much. -- Robert Reich. It's fair to say most of us are
:24:39. > :24:43.happy to see the back of April after