« The Weeds

The Massive Policy Stakes of 2016


You may not know it from watching cable news — but both Trump and Clinton have very clear and very different policy visions for America. Ezra, Matt, and Sarah dive into their plans to change the country in the last pre-election episode. 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This we support, is also sponsored by Nature Box, gotta, nature, Baxter, Comstock, weeds for fifty percent off your first order. The following podcast contains explicit language emails, yet else emails alone, let them endless: let's do it alone, another restarted: the weeds boxes, policy podcast on the panoply network, a Matthew Glazier spent by my colleagues here cliff and as recline. It is spring again in Washington. These the sun, is shining, it's like degree, not think it is sparing. Thank you it's very warm we're just outside. Meanwhile, sunny as there has been here in the Pike S cave, our doing other shows promise you it is quite mingled, warmth is ignored. Five days from the election, yes and I'm not mentally prepared for it. I keep reading people
They can't wait for this election to end, but I feel like it's: it's like the only life I've ever now prepared for this brave new, warm I'm ready for this election end, but before it ends before it ends, we at the weeds are going to talk through one more time with feeling the policy of this election so what what we wanted, these days left and no one is talked about. I know that is the point where we want to do today, is- there is amazing staff that came out of last week that the major network newscasts had devoted more time to Hillary Clinton emails that you all policy issues combined so that is where we have been in this election. It has not been as wheezy as I think that we all would have preferred, and we wanted to pull out the frame a little bed,
really looking at these two candidates from the perspective of their proposed policy agenda, not how they would in the White House not just what they have said? Not they're, not Donald Trump, is reckless or Hillary Clinton Secretive, but really what have, if you just take their propose. the agenda seriously. What would they do? What would they do for the country? What would the country look like after their presidency if they were successful, because I think You do that. You get a fairly different view, then Broad media narratives would Show- and I think it's worth starting here with Donald Trump, because in some as I think that he diverge is the most Matthew. You had a good piece on that this week. The main thing of peat of the peace was that we ve had very little coverage of trumps policy proposals and the coverage that we have had has mostly focused on his more unorthodox
OX views on trade policy, which will do differ from from most Republicans. I M has been almost no coverage of the fairly extreme sort of Libertarian Escher agenda that focuses on the on the domestic economy. There's a busy we'll break with the free market consensus on farms Reed, but that has so colored. All coverage of tromp he's been relentlessly covered as this. This populist candidate, this working class candidate, because that's what he talks about and then in the press. We talk about what he talks about a but he's he's proposing for started, attacks, cod that is broadly similar to that kind of thing. Republicans have been running on for decades, which is to say it cuts taxes a lot. It cuts access for rich people a lot more than it cuts taxes for, for other people, about twice the size of the tax got that Paul Ryan has proposed, which itself
is twice the size of of Georgia. Be bushes. Tax cuts complete world back of financial way nations sense since the crisis, so we would go back to. Made arts era levels of a bank regulation. We will undo the Obama administrations, climate change type actions, there would be a complete FED a moratorium on new regulations of all kind. There would be a blot granting and cutting of Medicaid funding. That's along the lines of what house Republicans have proper was the similar. I implications like that for four other kind of social safety net proposals. So you know we would be looking at if, if Trumbull wine, and if Trump did what Trump says he would do
some I release case. I think it's worth noting what the Republican Party would want him to do. Yeah I mean exactly I e if he has indicated not a deep personal passion for these policies, but a support for the policies that Paul Ryan has indicated a deep personal passion for and would have the votes to pass. So people would wake up. You know a couple months into the trouble administration. We don't know what would be going on in certain other friends, but I'm like a boring Washington policy front you'd be wake him to a wheel transformation in which social support for low income people is very sharply reduced. Regulation of all businesses is reduced. Regulation of banks, in particular, is really sharply reduced rate. It would be a
enormous win for for the banks, which is a note because people often seem to have a different impression of this was a fascinating Washington Post, ABC newspaper, while back showing the only place where Millennials trusted Donald Trump, more than Hillary Clinton was on bank regulation with which I dont think means. Millennials are soup financial deregulatory generation. I think those confusion about what Donald Trump believes here. I think most people do not think that campaign policy promises are important. I think the number one thing difference of opinion that I have with people who I talk to is that I think- and I think the research support that people, presidents and politicians generally try to enact their stated policy agenda and they sometimes fail because of institutional impediments. But then area. Like this, where Paul Ryan says he wants massive deregulation of the financial Sector and Donald Trump has on paper that he favours massive deregulation of the financial sector.
I think that is what will happen. Conversely, I think that when Hillary Clinton says she wants somewhat tighter regulation of the financial sector, that is also what will happen. I think the way most people think about it. Hillary Clinton Many friends in political allies who work in banking. Donald Trump has a very poor personal relationship with major banks, because over the years they have mostly cut him off from loans because he has screwed them so many times by by defaulting right. So I mean there oh they're stories going back to Trump in the in the late nineteenth and early odds, and he wants to get loans for large, go construction projects and he can't Donald Trump doesn't like people who have wronged him in the past. So people are completely right to say that, like at a dinner party, Hillary Clinton is more likely to have friends who work at Goldman Sachs, but their stated policies are are very, very different and- and I think you know worth paying attention to
and people would people would be surprised right. I mean if Trump comes into office and he starts rounding up undocumented immigrants, some people will cheer and some people will be horrified, but everyone will say we had a fair amount talk in the campaign about Donald Trump feelings about immigrants. We really did not have much talk about Donald Trump Plan Fer to take hedge fund managers, income tax rates, cut them to fifteen percent and lift all regulation on their business activities. If you're anything like me, you know sometimes you
a snack end. If what's a wound snack on his junk food, you gonna eat junk food, and it's it's not great. So if you want a short and live a healthier life, he would start snacking healthier with nature box. It makes next that actually taste great and their better for you, the creator with high quality ingredients that are free from artificial colors flavors of sweeteners. You can feel ok about smacking. I like some their dried fruit stuff. They got great apples, grey hairs. They also have some in a slightly more indulgent, principally things and there that that I also call for- and they recently made their service even better. You can order as much as you want, as often as you want with no minimum perched required and you can cancel at any time I. So it's really simple you than a nature box, dot com. You check out their snapped catalogue. There's over a hundred smacks to choose from there always adding new stuff.
Choose what you want. They deliver read your door. It's easy, but nature max you never get. Bored is new stuff there, each month, it's inspired by real customer feedback and for some reason something comes you don't like it. They will replace it for free, that's a good opportunity to try something new, I'm so right, now, you're, safe, even more because nature boxes offering offence fifty percent off your first order. If you got a nature box, dot, com, slash, reads: she's, gonna, nature, box, tat, complex weeds that we get credit you get. Fifty percent of the first order, Nature Baxter Slash me, you think through the scenario where, if you do have a Trump presidency like that is a very favourable scenario where presumably he is working with a republican House and our people, in Congress in these paths towards policy makings. That gives every thing a generally. with you that either president's run agendas they try and pursue those agendas. They often stymied by not having the political support, but you think through the scenario in which, over from president, presumably it is one we're Republicans have a lot of
trawl over policy making in Washington, and so a lot of these ideas you know, do exist and white papers that are like out there, but dont cat discussed as matches. Mentioning some of these numbers. That is We'll have a somewhat clear path through policy making. What things I think we Missy, I think you guys touched on this a little bit in a lot of ways trump is very orthodox republican, sometimes more scaled back of some of the folksy ran against in the primary. I was just looking at this end tax calculator, Burgstead earlier this election cycle. Looking at how the candidates text plans, what effect you and in that you put in my comments. You earn and gives you sense of higher taxes would change it is, but in one million dollars for one person to be symbolic and you're doing great I'm just when you do. You have actually that I'd like to work advisers. Who knows what can happen for you? Will you look at the Trump TAT can someone someone who earns a million dollars would pay a hundred and twenty three
thousand less under Trump, but there A hundred and ninety four thousand less under crews so We're we're like this is like not the edge of like the pilot granted like cruises plan like I think you can find rocks articles from a year ago. Now is even talking about how this is moved very far. action, but this is not lake out of the ordinary in away. Some of the is the policies related to immigration might be like. This is squarely we're Republicans of land. Ought I think, right, although I do want to note that one has a bit unusual about Donald transplants. Is it there, ambiguities in them worth trillions of dollars, and so I just do do want to say that it's a little bit hard to calculate the plan is, they will tell you. Tat, things depending on the day, and so, can be his bungalow anywhere from quite large, but not the largest to the craziest,
cut anybody has ever considered in America. Julia S, words made it. It's like a very funny dimension. The Ce Mark about what? What this mean ambiguity is right. So so trumps plan calls for a fifteen percent corporate income tax where which is also what Paul Ryan's tax plan says, is a fairly a consensus republican plan. That would be a very large reduction from the current thirty five percent But corporate income taxes only apply to companies that pay corporate income tax? So you make your profits, you pay your tax, then you have the money in the corporate treasury and then you can pay dividends or or whatever and there's another of taxes applied to it. Trump sometimes tells people that he would apply that fifteen percent rate to partnerships.
Which is the kind of thing where you currently just pay tax at the individual income. Actually you don't pay corporate income tax at all in partnerships and other passed. Two entities Trump has told many people, but not the tax policy centre that he will apply. the fifteen percent rate to partnership income. I tend to believe trump when he says he wants to do that, because that would be a very, very big reduction in the tax rate that Donald Trump pays. So I don't think there are a lot areas of public policy. Where you can say, ok, Trump doesn't really care about this he's you know he's trying to people on his tea, whatever whatever. I do think that the aspect of public policy that most directly impacts Donald Trump personally He probably does understand exactly what he is saying here, and it does mean it is clear that Congress would go along with this. So, but one effort to model that says it would cost a trillion dollars, but that's based on
looking at partnerships that exist right now, mostly big real estate companies, hedge funds, private equity funds, and assuming that they get this giant tax cut the reality is that if you open up a loophole where you can pay a fifteen percent rate, if you characterize your income as small business partnership income. A lot of wealthy people would change up there contractual lines. It is you need a dynamic as we, so I think the revenue laws could be potentially like cataclysmic by We really have no idea so loud a model. Let me pull this big, I do on also bring Clinton's policies into India makes about. I want something I think is very important about the champ policy agenda and very unique about it, which is that it is directly opposite from Donald Trump claims about his own
policy agenda, and this is spoken in a small way by the pass through income issue, but in a big way on taxes and on health care. Very particularly here you go back. The primaries end, even after the primaries knew. You you'll hear couple thanks for Trump. He had a number of fight in debates with the other Republicans where they would say you know we have to repeal Obamacare Babo bought and don't trumpets, eight, we absolute Do but where I disagree with other publicans, is I'm not gonna? Let you die on the streets. I think the government has to take care of everybody and pay for it, and then he brought out his health care, land which look as though you double down this again and again and again saying that on sixty minutes he sang I want anyone, Diana Slick government will pay for yes, so this is like repeated throughout prattling up until his speech am just this week on Tuesday saying I'm gonna have,
quality, reliable healthcare for everyone's? This is like not just like a one off slip. Donald Trump makes a very clear claim to government provided funded fully universal health insurance and then he brings out a plan that Pino as best we can tell would rip health insurance from roughly twenty one million people from presents himself is being much more generous Republican on Healthcare and is actually a much more cruel Republican on health. And the same is true of stocks plan. He came out a number of times, also on sixty minutes. If I'm remembering this correctly and said that his plan, which shock everyone, because it would raise taxes on the rich- So because a lot of reporters don't understand tax policy, all that well, when the plan came out dad. I'm pretty sure, Matt wrote about this at the time there were a bunch of headlines say because Donald Trump said his plan raise taxes on the Rich Donald Trump new plan raises taxi rich and then, when you looked at it, it was a massive tax cuts for the rich
and there are a lot of interpretations of this one- is it tumbled? Trump has gestures towards policy idea, and then he had a pre doctrinaire policy. but she then never paid money too, and they laughed, but nevertheless they created pretty standard issue. Public policies another, is it he's a liar? Another Is that what he does doesn't know what he's talking about, changes it up depending on the day, but I do just want to note that a a difficulty with Trump is that, while he does have a pretty clear policy agenda and he's not cared enough about the policy, but he does have a clear policy agenda. He is not heard enough about it to make sure that what he is saying reflects what his power is actually are, and this kind of let off the hook. Can a little way of exerting. Does you something I've thought about it? I have covered the healthcare part of this where I've been watching kind of this disconnect between what he says: it is, I think, one of the ways he kind of gets off the hook with people dont there's. This policy document
put out in March? That is seven point healthcare plan that I started, calling trump care that doesn't do they get, for instance, like almost feels to skimpy to be called healthcare plan, because it's like short and the title of it is like health care in Amerika great again, and it almost in a weird way by not like flushing, out by not saying you know by real like you know, when you look at Clinton, there's lots of white papers and, like her plan, is very specific on health care and how it change. Tax credits, and this in that by doing this, like very, am very broad plan, it almost seems like give a lot of media licence not to cover it seriously. Oh, that's just outlines like that's like not a real public gets out a white paper like that's, not a real Thing, and it's been a weird dynamic to watch this race, which I think is quite different than the dynamic and other races. I've cover that our member, covering like Romney
Obama and their legs very specific fights than about odors Obamacare cut Medicare unlikely did did unlike Romany, was right and like we were blog posts out those at the old bloggers there and I used to work. Like knows better ties. The loudly tax plan fights are two thousand and twelve are like the naive times within you like we're talking about each candidates, but they talked about John you like aligned with what was on their website and what their policy proposals were. I think you're you're right, as when there is an as much of our understanding of policy. The trumps almost create space, where his policy plans I dont, get taken seriously because some of them, like you, know the building a wall, their deporting. All Muslims are so out there that it feels it could almost trickles over to this kind of very thin the care plan that that is written off as like Well, that's not an actual real healthcare plans that doesn't factor into completely opposite of this is Hillary Clinton agreed who eyes so I found a piece statistic is from September, so it's a couple months old, but they found that here
Clinton had really sixty five policy fact cheats totalling more than a hundred and twelve thousand words of detail or Donald Trump had seven totalling nine thousand words. That is the gap in policy detail between these two get it so dull Matthews has a great peace that, by the time this podcast he's out will be up at vocs and he really goes through Clinton's policy agenda and in what he shows. Having very conclusively is Clinton's reputation. Four incremental ism, which I think is to some degree a function of running against. On the one hand, a little democratic socialist in the primary that, on the other hand, Donald Trump, who wants to make Mexico build a wall in the general is very undeserved, Dillon
frames. What she has, as in a term, I think, is pretty good a minimal, viable product for social democracy in America and then the point is making he said. If you compare America to nordic countries, there are a couple of places where our social compact doesn't exist, but there is, is it quite significant one, is around maternity paid maternity leave. Is around child care and practically pre K and Clinton really goes forward to try to fill in these sort of family oriented gaps in the structure and another, is around college to action and between these three or four things were, then is doing, is actually quite radically changing the compact between America and its citizens in a Hillary Clinton World a world where she was able to enact our agenda. It would be the states duty to make sure that if you made, I forget exactly the income cut off as a hundred twenty five thousand. I think if you made less than a hundred,
Eighty five thousand, you would get free tuition to estate college. If you, a child you get paid maternity leave and the government guarantee Is you a certain amount of pre k and guarantees might be spending more than ten percent of your income on child care and those are a series of promises at other countries make that we do not make right now Clinton's Bundestag all the way to wear a France's or Denmark is on these points, and she is much more oriented towards means testing and doing programmes that are beginning as opposed to sort of the full you don't wraparound, cradled, gray welfare state. But it is nevertheless a fair very ambitious, expansive agenda. To say nothing of all the other things in it from public options, and care by UN and infrastructure spending and tax increases and the rich. I'm in this. A lot going on in the Clinton policy Work
but she had is from the perspective of particular children and people who have children really trying to fill in pieces of the welfare state. They don't exist in America, but our common everywhere else. I think that it is an important thing that that that you mentioned there, that is worth dwelling on it a little bit, which is that most people who produce and consume this sort of like wonky policy news and engage in like high level ideological debates are at, A reasonable level of of economic comfort in life and for those people there is this yawning gap between life in the United States and life Northern Europe in which we pay, Sir Upper middle class professional types? The United States paid drastically lower taxes,
then? Similarly, situated danish people pay and also receive drastically fewer government services? You know, and Clinton's plan does not alter that right, eaten by design right. She, feels across the board that asking non wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes is basically a non starter and means that while she can raise a lot of tax revenue, she can't raise like a nordic amount of terrorists revenue, but wants to do all of the things that are nordic welfare state does right, take care of tiny babies, take care of sick people take care of, college students all those ambitions, but she doesn't have that much revenue. So how does she do? It will show, does it by targeting the assistance at people who have real financial need, and so one option of
is that these very dramatic transformation? then she would enact- in the lives of economically struggling. The people who would get out of nowhere a huge amount of financial assistance with child care We can programmes college tuition boost in their income through earned income tax credit is a little bit invisible to the like kinds of people who make programming decisions on cable television or who, at it even like left wing, journals you. You know that kind of thing, so that its it, I saw, I understand the politics, I understand the political thinking behind Clinton's plans, but it also creates a weird situation in which she doesn't get the credit for doing this kind of stuff. Because she would not be providing these social services to the kinds of people who decide like what is it we should talk about when we talk of
Politics where's, where's, Bernie Sanders would have done at right like, but my taxes would go up like a wad under Bernie Sanders and then an exchange. I would get a lot of new social services, whereas I would be spared from most anything couldn't wants to do on the revenue side and then, conversely, like not receive very much because you be deep into the phase out curves of of everything but to the extent that we care about poor people, which I think many people claim to, I particularly to the extent that we care about the economic, Anxiety is of working class Americans had struck communities, which has often been a subject of discussion during this campaign. It it's like worth noting that there would be a truly drastic turn about in the financial fortunes of lower income families with children.
right that for middle class people and or childless people, there would not be a big change. But you know if you're, if your poor and have kids, it would be like really night and day if this stuff were enacted, which of course, it probably wouldn't I don't see later that's. How does the I dont Jones Peace was great and really together. Allow these things in a way I hadn't thought through, and I think you can almost like the reverse, of what you're saying I'm trump we're Trump everything is like big and, like everything is declared as like, build a wall or like kick out everyone or like these big declarations, and that with Dylan pointed out that I didn't really thought through as clearly was that it is not very often gets. the words incremental list and pragmatist often get lumped together that you knew, if
monochromatic, pragmatic one is often being incremental as well, that their ticking smaller steps when he kind of points out that this is a not like a small step that we're talking about like when you take like all these kind of pragmatic steps that you said that respond to these I'm just do not wanting to go. Four fold- Nordic whenever you might want to call it with our social welfare system that that after London as incremental, because it taking part of a more pragmatic approach to Welfare systems in the? U S when the two are actually can be quite distinct, and I think one of the things that becomes a card to rapid, mind around as American is kind of like look like sweet Little ignore countries even look at Canada. You think like they have this thing like there's this thing in Canada that I have in the U s- and that's like this big massive system that exists when Others were built incrementally too, like if you look at the canadian single parents system, for example like that started with one province deciding
wanna, do we universal health care and a kind of builds outcome? they are in a series of other programmes, and I think, looking at these fully built now we just kind so that all of you know that's the thing like that's like what a social welfare looks at, and it can be hard from this vantage point to see that there are lots of different policies that come together in different ways to make add up to this large. thing that we see another kind of social Security Medicare in the. U S both have that that quality and have progression to something that I do think is interesting here is that Henry Clinton I really like the point you don't make about incremental some pragmatism, getting conflated but another piece of it. isn't it. Donald Trump has very few policies on his website
must I looked. It was seven, it might be a couple more now and when I looked at, he had seven into them repeated. It was like the wall and immigration is out or teen us off of Aragon anyway, but what he has done, I think, quite effectively is emphasised a couple of them when you think about Donald Trump. You feel intuitively that you have knowledge of what he would focus on coming into office, that the knowledge might be wrong. Writing my come Adolphus into something really different. But you have Donald Trump stands for the wall. He stands for, shut down, a muslim travel to the United States. He stands for whipping up in doing different, concentrate deals and, and people gotta get that Heller. Could it has so much and she talks about so much of it that one I think people discount its scope and ambition. Is it the shoe mass makes clear that not all this will happen. I mean to somebody very little that but likely happen with Republican House, but so people now have a good sense of what she would focus on so
no two things on this one is that I do think she's been fairly clear, that She comes in with our public in Congress of any kind. Even a republican house she's can be looking to make a deal that combines a corporate tax reform to be international corporate tax reform with a large restructure investment in the. U S, but also I think it would be something that would be wise for the clinic campaign to do, which is that the place right do think they have sort of unique emphasis in american politics, and it comes, I think, a little bit from Clinton's historical interests. Pencilly something she sensitized who because of her gender, you know: she's really focused on family and child policy and has a basket of ideas there that origin, and change in the american state. I would actually like to get the signal that that was where they were going to focus, because to me that is really the place where their policies more interesting. I think that we have a system that is very poorly built for modern, fair
we have a system, a labour market and a and just A social safety net that is really still built for families have a single parent that their single parent households and we just forced dual earner households to adapt, and I think One thing that Clinton is doing is trying to modernize. I and it I think it often gets talked about as a sort of a social policy. Right like a nice thing to do, but is also a way of raising labour market participation by women is also a way of making it more possible for people to take. You cannot make risks and- and I think, a lot that is important practical. If you believe the trends we are seeing around, you know the direction of it.
family formation and and and and labour participation are going in this country. I also think stepping back and looking at this war, ass of policy documents and looking through I've had the opportunity to browse some some wiki leaks about like how some of these six came together, and I watched many many many Hillary Clinton speeches over the course of this campaign. I think there is a profoundly like wrong, headed thought about politics under girding alot of this, which is that she seems to feel that would she needed to do during the campaign was right. Clinton, Kane Transition Team white papers that take into account the objective political situation as it stands in the winter of twenty sixteen twenty seventy in and then she needs to take those transition, team statements- and here
them to her speech, writers and force them to like right. A speech off this like dogs, breakfast of like little thing when drugs and the way you run for president, is you're supposed to sit with your speech, writers and maybe your pollsters and stuff, and talk about what does Hillary Clinton, to do for America and then right some speeches about that. And then, if you win the election, you give the speeches over to the transition to you and you tell them that they now have the problem of making a dog's breakfast of specific policy proposals. Out of your comment thence to the american people right. So they you talk about how the evolution of such security right from what it was in nineteen thirty, three to what we know it now took like twenty year, is that, where a million legislative changes, the actual programme that was enacted, was actually really small left out huge numbers of people, but if you look at Franklin Roosevelt's speak
proposing the social security. It's not dislike, tedious thing about, eleven carve out her like you have to go. Look at my white paper He said that he wanted a system that everyone would pay into and that would provide retirements security for elderly Americans. He did not get that what he got was who even you know like it had to go through the committee, Ringer and white supremacist didn't want it in the word fiscal concerns, and, unlike but of people, they created a programme that was cold social security, which is what he said. The protectorate security people should be called, and eventually we built the programme that he said we should build right and an that's good. and I think that's like how politics actually works and that there is this
You see emails in Wikileaks, whether wrestling with Bernie Sanders early in a campaign there like really upset because Bernie is promising that he's gonna do things that really he can't do, but not that he's promising to do impact simple things right is something like Bernie was saying, but we're gonna have like weekend trips to Mars. When he was just saying he was gonna. Enact legislation that, like everyone who knows Congress knows Congress wouldn't pass and they were like really. They would like. They didn't know what to do about an end say on some other, like that was not cheating on his part to just like a lay out aspirational strategies like Barack Obama did not pass the climate change proposals, that he campaigned on in two thousand eight and that's cause Congress and want to pass. But, like that's, ok I did say he should have gone back in time and then like
we're going to do nothing on this in Congress, but there's gonna be a bunch of weird regulation like that would have been down like this is not how you how you campaign for office it's totally ok, then he ran saying what he wanted to accomplish. On climate change, and then he did his best to to accomplish those things that you shouldn't lie in your campaign, but I think it's like nothing along with over promising and that their unwillingness to sit down and say. I think that the american government needs to take into account the needs of modern Emily is unlike say what that would entail. her opinion and then like leave the question of what bills do we pass to like be worked out and in Congress, and I think it was a really profound mistake and has created a excessively confusing portrait
What does Hillary Clinton stand for? I don't think you're giving her like a fair shake fur writing out details and our policies like when I think of a day like this basket of like family policies. I think you have this push fur paid maternity leave and liking universal appreciate that those are like significant ideas. They do have contours to them: but- but I like those in and out to me as like big things that, if they were pursued, would likely get like watered down and People get left out of the maternity leave, and maybe it gets scaled back like fewer weeks- are like less pay it kind of so tell me back to like the Trump conversation we're having where I feel like. On one side, the Trump has decided to make these promises that have nothing to do with these very thin. policies that he is He is laid out on his website, but you know has like all this detail and like almost our nordic unfairly singing her for her.
the detail when there is like a larger ambition to these things that that their working on that, to be like that, I don't think I don't hear her like maternity messages, like you know, like granular, unlike well we're going for these people, not that people like it still feels like there's a top level agenda item there. That would be, like a big add on to the welfare state. so think maternity leave is an example of of hurt. Doing that's right, it's not bad that she has details but which great about her maternity leave plan. Is that, like she thinks there should be paid family leave for everyone, and she thinks it shouldn't just be from arms. It should also be for dads and it shouldn't just be for birds that should be for adoptions. It should, the elder care, and so she just says all that you now and then the plan fails at him with details if she's not sloppy and she's, not a liar, but she's Britain, She chief has like an ambitious plan there. The
the pre k plan now and then some of the other ones there are. It feels to me like they're, like two inside their own head it like doesn't. stay instead of saying like what America is supposed to look like in the pre Kate Tokyo, It has like a lot of like nitty gritty like How are we going to make this affordable enough? One congressmen pass any pre k plan like it doesn't matter It would be interesting to educate people about like what her thought is on this subject. rather than just unlike what some guy. At centre for american progress. Thought would be a good sliding scale to generate enough affordability at a low enough SK, as it doesn't matter. Although one of the things about Clinton, one thinks about her whole policy agenda is that she tends to create policies it through a process of wide consultation, with relevance colors. I think a lobby here we're talking about our speeches even more than her policies and one thing she is doing
speeches is calling out specific things for all these different stakeholders, which has the downside of making for boring speeches, but the upside of pretty broad raised both coalition and interest groups. I'm sorry interest group and advocacy groups being bought into what she is posing now, as you say, I am sceptical that our public congresses is going to perform in any this block. The Republican Party is planned we melting down. So who knows what kinds of governing equilibria caught him could end up? during the course of one or two terms and ended I do think it is important to kind of see them as having very, very different policy. Architectures envisions correctly. They do a point you ve been making Matt The Clinton made a choice in this election to run against Donald Trump as an unfit aberration. Yet right she chose. Two,
Besides the ways in which he was maybe a dangerous temperament for the presidency was easily baited was reckless was confrontational. She d not to end, and similarly, he did not, by the way run a campaign really trying to define him on policy terms. In contrast to her on policy terms and one, I think a product that is it just people really dont, know what they're gonna get with either of them. Now they made knock it. Much at all costs. The basic mechanisms of american governance are broken, but to the extent that over a period of time marking in the american presidency. They will take different opportunities to move different balls forward. I do think people have missed how much of a quite conservative republic, in Trump is on economics, and also how much of a quite liberal Democrat Clinic is on economics and domestic policy. I is probably true with Clinton where I think a lot of liberals. Heaven have an impression of Clinton formed from
foreign policy in the post, Iraq war period and that, in contrast to Bernie Sanders on domestic policy, both which could have created a misleading impression of centralism. But Hillary Clinton is white liberal on these issues and has a quite aggressive vision. You may think that's good, you may think it's bad, but it is but she's going to be trying to push things in it farther laughed and farther in a social democratic direction, then I think even many for supporters realize. I would also say if we happened to have any and young people and in the audience said the one thing that happens with contempt- and that gives me whiplash and makes me feel like like an old man honestly, is that the terms of debate inside the Democratic Party have trends armed extremely rapidly over the past ten years and what Was in my youth of you now being I don't know in my late twenties,
What was defined as these centrist wing of the Democratic Party has simply gone into non existence. the policy proposals that were considered? The left of the Democratic Party are what Hillary Clinton is now running on, and there is this new and much more left wing agenda, which is which has gained a lot of steam. So sometimes you hear very high level discussions that amount to people simply having different reference points. You know so, like I will say, Hillary Clinton. Is it Very liberal Democrat that, like when she was senator her Guida, be nominated score, put her on the left, most fifteen percent of the costs that she, running on this slide down line progressive agenda which wants to move the policy status quo to the left and every single issue that she discusses, like Bob Bob Bob Bob Bob there's like
hang in there at all about the urgent need to bend the cost curve on healthcare spending. You know it's. It's a much more aggressively left programme than we really saw from Burma initiative as an aid. It has zero nods whatsoever to like an old deal, see vision of poles policy and then other people just kind of like take this, like Obama era reset for granted, and just say well look: there's like an argument between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren warning Bernie Sanders and she is on the more conservative side of that argument. So, like she is a centrist Democrat and I don't know, that's like one those imponderables semantic disputes, but to people who were not like enmeshed in turn all Democratic party policy controversies in the bid arts. Just like you should know if you are out there. like in the relatively recent past, like dinosaurs, stop
The land of the Democratic Party who thought that proposing a universal healthcare programme of any kind was a mistake right. I thought the Democrats should try to cut pub spending. One of the weird things going on here, too, is equally universal: average has been one of these quests, the liberal movement. For decades. They like not been able to reach, Eve and like a something that was huge and like the two thousand eight campaign and is such a clear thing to talk about about, health care for everyone. In such a way. The United States is quite different from other countries. And that's not really like a thing. can be included as well as any more like Obama. Past Obama, and like this is like this big liberal policy that all of a sudden, you know she talks changing the tax credits and, like this a mad but they're pretty grim the changes to the Asia that I don't remember the exact content of this but they're, not as memorable like make health care available to everyone
So I think that also colors. Like the last time, we had a new democratic candidate for president Do you even running on this very clear agenda of pursuing universal cover and then someone unexpectedly was able to pass the affordable care act and pass this law that a lot of his predecessors has not been able to, and that really takes out this big thing. That was very like this plank. That was so central and easy to understand. That no longer is like a thing you can, but you can t by changing the Asia tax credits, but it's not quite as exciting about you know. Ending Briggs and conditions in, creating this insurance option for everyone, yeah yeah. I mean that that certainly true we meet again, I think people don't just don't get that like it was a controversial proposition at one time like. Should there be any kind of universal health care idea like if you look at John, carries two thousand for healthcare plan
It will be considered so comically, reactionary or Howard deeds yes or how Indians bite by the standards of the Clinton versus Sander Stairway right in two thousand nine went when Obama was already president, like one big question was: should we do something to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Most Democrat said yes, we should do something. Many Democrats, though, said no, we should like Evan by. He did not want to sign on two Obama's cap and trade bill and he did not have an alternative proposal. he thought about Emmy. These articles about his politics in other areas and surrounded by like his view, was just now. Let's not do anything, whereas now I mean again Clinton's like yes, let's do many things is considered the more right, democratic position and, like the true progressive view, is that there should be
fossil fuel extraction. Ever, although an interesting dimension of this, I think- and I am not sure if this is true- but I think this is that the Democratic Party and politicians speaking to these much grander hopes in creating much more ambition within the electorate's. Persuading the electorate that much more is possible also has a tendency to create more deep disappointment. Yes, I think if John Kerry had been elected had done anything at all. It would have been a surprise given the agenda he was running on, which is like. Let's build fire houses. Here instead of in Baghdad, whereas Barack Obama, you know, promised a wholesale change of a man in politics got a tremendous amount done, but also left a lot of liberals feeling that Morris promise link immigration or form that didn't happen and that that was a real let down, and I think Clinton stands. To potentially repo worth version of that where there is even more in the agenda and even less of it is likely
to pass through and, and I think that will be an interesting tension between the democratic between top palpable democratic politicians, and the base right now as the base becomes persuaded, that more wholesale change, necessary and as kind of table sticks for running democratic primary, become higher, it's not the case it it's getting easier to pass big laws through it echo political institutions, if anything, it's probably getting harder and so that the gap between expectation. in reality. My white among some of this has to do with the growing sort of demographic segmentation of the electorate right, If you are under thirty or black or latino, you probably did not spend a ton of time talking with white people over the age of fifty. I personally don't spend a great deal of time talking with white people over the age of fifty. There are very many such people illegally. states, and they themselves probably do not spend a lot of time talking to young asian women about what they think about the issues, and so people
You know- and we see this on a number of dimensions right I mean there's the book at the big sword about neighbourhoods of people live in Facebook lets people live more and more in their own sort of media bubbles, and- and things like that, so you can. It's very easy to exist in a world where it is common sense that climate change is the most urgent problem that we face as a nation that police whence against young men of color is a very pressing, so the issue that Northern Europe is a very successful social model that we ought to aspire to and in which you not only know a lot of people socially, who agree with all those things. But your understanding of what is in the news is stories that reflect all of those kinds of opinions and just not really realise like how many people there are who don't agree with any of that stuff, because I I do feel what, when I see sort of commentary, these in turn a sense
was. I think, a lot of people start to simply discount disagreement and persuasion as relevant variables in american politics. it's true that elected officials have a fair amount of autonomy to pursue their agendas and its true that lobbyists, Florence Matters Elite, ideas matter, but it is also true that public opinion matters. If the media in American had the opinions of the median thirty year old, like things would be different, different policies would be passed, but they all right and it is simply challenging you can't just go inside the bubble of people who already except that climate change is an urgent problem and then debate internally. How drastic you're aspirations, be you have to address the fact that many people dont think that I dont have like a great idea exactly four
it is you do to do that, but the existence of a large block of opinion that hears Donald Trump stand up and say that climate change is a chinese hoax designed to cripple american manufacturing, and they don't immediately laugh at him like. That is the problem. The problem is Trump per se. It's the fact that, like a huge swathes of people, things, that's like a credible idea to have when I think it's crazy. I bet most of the people, listen to the weeds, It's crazy but like we are just not the kind of overwhelming preponderance that you would have to be to build a political consensus for it for a drastic change, we'll go. There now we're building our audience exactly. That's all you got to share the package fascinating problem for the next president, but but but, as you vote, think about these policy. These different policies, maybe in the inaugural address Hilary can recommended that they can travel. and are shedding so next week. Are going to vote on Tuesday. We are going,
record on Wednesday morning and then later that day you will have fresh. We with which to consider definitely go vote. Whether your voting for it is an important thing to to actually do end and go this. This is a in, and I know that is not reflected reflected our topic choice, but go figure out what you're eight and local election measures are and vote on them. They are very important and they they often get this to end derided and overlooked, but you can have a big effect on them. They will. They will change a lot alive, so it's definitely make sure do not stop at the top of the ballot. Listen to the way it does. You walked in share it with people, as you walked here, look beyond a nine and you're fine. I recommend your favorite positive and thank our producers, theme Shapiro and Box Stockholm and Panoply for putting on his wonderful pod. Guess what you'll be back with all of you find people next week,
Transcript generated on 2021-09-14.