Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nelson 20240705

Today Nelson Lichtenstein presenting his book a fabulous failure the Clinton Presidency and the chance formation of american capitalism. Professor lichtenstein, Research Professor in the department of history at uc santa barbara, where he directs the center for the study work, labor and democracy. He is the preeminent 20th century historian of u. S. And is the author or editor of 18 books, including the most dangerous man in detroit. A biography of the uaw leader walter ruther. And also state of the union a century of american labor, which i commend to anyone to understand the Labor Movement in the century. He has served on the editorial of numerous journals and writes frequently the popular press as well for academic journals and is the recipient of too many awards and fellowships for me to enumerate. Im also delighted to introduce alex hurdle fernandez, who will serve as the discussant today. He is associate professor of International Public affairs at columbia university, where he also serves as vice dean for curriculum and instruction and as codirector of the labor lab at the center for political economy. Professor hill fernandez is the author of two terrific books, including state capture how conservative activists big business and wealthy donors reshaped american states and the nation, and has published numerous articles in leading Political Science and impact journals, popular outlets. We are very to have alex back with us at columbia. He is just returning from in the Biden Administration in the department of labor and the office of management and budget. So with that is in productions. Let me thank you both again for being with us today and ill turn it over to nathan. Thank you very much. Now, is this okay . Thank you, indeed. And i guess. I should take this off. Lately. Okay. Well, thank you very, very for being here. Im so happy youre delighted to to meet some of you that i havent met before. And really happy. Kate is the moderator. Shes the way we need a lot more labor scholars, labor, legal like her and another. Another 30, i think, would transform the country thats what i think. So im. Well, the book has just come out and im really happy that delighted to about it. Ive labeled my record my reconsideration of bill clintons presidency a fabulous failure because i dont think can comfortably label that president and of his close collaborators either corporate democrats or neo liberal ideologues who are dlc shills. You know on day they marched into the white house or their years before that as well. There their ambitions were, i think, more progressive, even if the execution, many of their initiatives fell short, some by wounds. This give the study that judith inaugurated and ive completed some contemporary relevance today in the United States in in the United States where were in year old president is pushing forward people and programs that challenged much that fallen under the neo liberal rudy rubric. Neo liberalism is now a kind of overused term, but occasionally ill use it. But im open to too many. Questions about that and that that rubric, you know, means trade, corporate, laissez faire, state austerity. Let me just say a word about judith stein, a wonderful scholar. I a great historian. She she wrote numerous to book two great books on the post on the sort of the political economy, the in the late 20th century, a running still running america. Then the pivotal decade shed. A study of the Administration Just begun it done some research to kind of sketch of it when she died of you know unfortunately in may of 2017 and i wrote an obituary about her and id been a friend of hers and a colleague for decades and then they asked me take over and i and i you know if you read the youll see i mean part of it i agree with her on many things we agreed on some things you know, and we were going the same, you know, but the book know is also a big expanse pension and maybe some differences with her. But, you know, i cant interrogate now about that. Anyway, i do i owe and we owe a great debt to judith stein, a wonderful person. The Biden Administration has thus picked up some of the ideas opposed and abandoned during the first months and years of the clinton era. For many in his campaign that the management and reform american capitalism would hardly and should hardly be left market alone. It was a task that required plan and purpose one could glimpse that expand tive. Oh, heres judith. Excuse me. Heres judith. There she is. And this is i her one of her very best books running still running america. I urge you to very readable and very important to read today and here is the a meeting bill clinton and al gore and others convened in december of 1992. They put more than 300 of the nations leading economists, politicians, policy entrepreneurs in rock for an economic summit. Almost all with with campaign strategist. James carvilles now famous catch phrase, the economy, stupid. It was time for the government to offer a forceful set of initiatives designed to increase the productivity of capital and labor, transform key Industry Sectors and enhance the quality of american life. We must revitalize and rebuild our economy, said the president elect. But we clearly face structural that today threaten our ability to harness the energies all our people on. Were an adventuresome of ideas about what do now that the democrats once again controlled the white house and the congress. After more than two decades of frustration, defeat and economic dislocation and under every president since lbj, there were plenty of corporate in attendance. Not so much to balance the academics and think tank liberals with a more conservative outlook, but to demonstrate that the underperformance of American Economy was so debilitating, that they too had a stake in a fair in efforts to rehabilitate industry, jobs and enterprises, especially those threatened by new competitors and burdened by growing Health Care Expenses at home to them. And i think everyone at that conference, the end of the cold war, hardly generated a sense of triumphalism and certainly not an end of history. Massachusetts democrat paul sanders capture. Captured much of this angst during his brief campaign run for the democratic president ial nomination in that year. The cold war is over, he asserted. Japan and germany won. Enemies go. Oh, heres a great little picture of the clintons. I think running in 1978. I think, you know, there quite, quite young. Right. And ill get to arkansas in a second. I mean, this was this was his laboratory. Here is James Carville and the putting people first was a kind of man of fastow, kind of drafted by robert reisz and Ira Magaziner with, you know, bill and and bill clinton and and al gores name is on the cover. Heres a at the at that economic i i here is you know just one index of the problem. You can see real wages are in decline after really 15 years and clinton arrives the scene in the early nineties and know they got a problem in that that that was one manifestation of it they all very well aware of that i mean heres though heres what i want to show you the this this they agree this is this is this is not not triumphalism all that there were other variety is of capitalism. Now thats an academic which is but but i think that the clintonites were were thinking about in the world more competitive dynamic and socially cohesive than the version championed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would prove a powerful motivating impulse for an effort to manage american. During the first years of the Clinton Presidency, clinton had been governor of a poor southern rural spending. The bulk of time. And by the way, he spent 12 years in the in Governors Mansion in arkansas, eight in the white house. By 12 years, i was, you know, a learning experience. He was very young when he got the got in there there, you know, trying to attract industry raise wages and increase worker skill and education. Clinton, germany, japan, italy and south korea looking for models and investments. He was for amenable to an industrial policy that, deployed state policy to advance economic development. Clinton appointment of several of the most high profile profile advocates of such a program. Let me just show you. So here of course, is that hysteria about japan, right . In the early 1990, the eighties and nineties. And this these are a couple of ones. Michael christian is is a novel but japan is number one by vogue was a is a kind of study so there we go and here are the robert reich and Ira Magaziner. Ill talk about our a little bit more. I mean they were the advocates of industrial policy not precisely the way we would think about it but they were they that was what they were doing and here they are i i talk a little more about them. Well, here is a laura tyson who. Clinton appointed the first woman to be chair, the council of economic advisers and. She was she she she beat out Larry Summers and paul krugman for that job. She was not as distinguished an economist or as mainstream as they were, but she and she was an advocate, managed trade and industrial policy. She had a whole operation in berkeley. Here is one of his key trade negotiator was jeffrey garten, who a cold piece is it america, japan, germany and the struggle for supremacy. And and here, of course, is is robert reich, a prolific all during the eighties. And you know and arguing for, you know, a kind of more of a more of a state directed and certainly enhancement of education and skills that he he certainly that was absolutely important. So these are some of the people that that clinton put in his administration now, they were not the dominant group. I admit i admit that. And i make that clear ill get to the dominant group a bit. The Robert Rubins of this. But they were there. They were there. And thats think says something about some the views that clinton was you know to begin with from the get go just a dlc shill today. This aspect of the Clinton Presidency has been discounted if not forgotten. Most liberals see his presidency as a betrayal of the progressivism that was once the hallmark of the new in the great society. Bill clinton was first democratic president since fdr to win two consecutive terms, but that accomplishment seems merely a product of his accommodation and to an ideology that privileged trade liberals, liberalization, financial deregulation, privatization of government and the growth of class inequalities. His ends and journalists have labeled president the democratic eisenhower, the popular leader of a political whose electoral success was predicated upon an accommodation down to the ideology and the praxis of its opponents. Clintons 1996 declaration that the era of Big Government is over, seemingly ratified reaganite conservatism and in the process transformed, the politics and policy of that conservative president into a hegemonic ethos that liberated Global Finance and eviscerated keynesian liberalism. But this neo liberal project, if thats what we want to call it, never unfolded in a seamless fashion and certainly not as an ideology springing blown from the mind of a friedrich or a milton friedman, the capitalist world, quote, stumbled towards neo liberalism through a series, quote, gyrations and chaotic experiments, wrote david, who more than anyone made popular the word itself. Harvey recognized that neither bill nor tony blair were entirely true believers, emphasizing degree to which these two, quote, third way politicians found themselves in a political world where their room for was so limited that they could not help but advance that neo liberal project if some if sometimes against own better instincts as hall famously put it, hegemony is hard work. My work therefore explains why and how clintonite progressives ended in failure and why that failure haunts us still. The failure was actually twofold. In the first instance, clinton, clinton liberals faced defeat where when seeking to enact progressive reforms from Health Insurance to labor rights, from industrial policy at home to a managed trade abroad not only because of fierce opposition from republicans and conservatives, but because the political and economic terrain upon which they hope to construct a more progressive america was growing more problematic while they came to champion a technologically innovated Innovative New economy. See where new economy thats valley inspired vision proved a far less weight than the more prosaic economic shift exemplar by the demise of General Motors and the rise of walmart and by the breakup of 1880 and the rise pizza hut. But an even greater failure may, well, have arisen from what the Clinton Administration actually did accomplish, creating a surplus in the federal budget, downsizing the government workforce, enacting an ambitious crime control law, passing the north American Free trade agreement, constructing a pathway for china to join the World Trade Organization and deregulating both wall street finance and americas vast telecommuting infrastructure. Wall street boomed and dropped. But in the end, none of these developments the nation toward the economic, social equality and the global democratic resurgence that the president and his chief economic advisers had promised trade with china they had prophesied. And it is all over the place in the would undoubtedly be create the conditions for a free press entrepreneurial freedom and the autonomy individual and organizational necessary to sustain a robust civil society. In that ancient nation, a democratic effervescence was sure to accompany all those new cell phones. Stock markets and supermarkets. And i dont want to be a cavalier here. The argument made by Charlene Barshefsky and others, she was the trade representative was, look, you have a stock market, you to have accurate reports. You have to have accurate commentary. You know, thats then you then youre on your way to a free press and you know, and that argument was made clinton and clinton adopted that. So that was part of their. Okay. Moreover, virtually every legislative victory scored by the Clinton Administration, and especially in the years after 1994 was achieved over the strong objections of a portion of his own party on many Clinton Initiative moves, especially those involving trade and financial deregulation. The white house relied on republi can votes while a large of the democrats sometimes, even a majority stood in opposition to their own president. Clinton was a dreadful leader. I think worse. Obama actually, i would. Okay, im missing here. Okay, well, lets see. Toe to illustrate some of these themes themes, id like to offer portraits. And im going to abbreviate this section of to individuals who played important roles in the Clinton White house. The first is Ira Magaziner, an old friend of bill who led the effort to design and pass clintons Ambitious Health provision reform. And the second is robert rubin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who, as chair of the Council Economic advisors and then treasury secretary, would unquestionably become the most influential figure in the clinton cabinet. Magaziner is thought and work embodied many of the industry or policy and industrial policy ideas that had animated the Clinton Campaign and and the excitement he generated upon being president. Rubin, on the other hand, proved a sophisticated advocate for balanced budgets, free trade capital, mobility and deregulation of banking and finance. When he retired, we returned to washington. When he returned to wall street in the mid 1999, president clinton declared him the greatest secretary of the treasury. Since alex hamilton, thanks to you. Okay . Yeah. Yeah. Heres hillary with the majority leader, gephardt pushing the health care plan. Magaziner well, he came of age, you in the new left like clinton came out of brown and he went to a gritty brockton to try to transform that Old Industrial town. He he dropped out of oxford to to organize against the vietnam. He was you know, he was part of that that world. But but and it wasnt he was always interested, you know, in kind of reviving, you know, you know, class america in in gritty new england. And so he was hired by the boston consulting when he was 25 years old. You know to sort of okay lets bring some new left thought and and and and ideas and you know a subversion here to to to figure out what we can do. And so he became a kind of expert on the steel industry. He went Ira Magaziner went to japan, wrote about it was was it was a you know thought the japanese industrial in which there was a close coordination between the government, the finance ministry and the industry sources was a way to go and or in the 1970s and eighties, japan was was was was booming and seemingly eating eating our our lunch. And he and he was, you know, a critic of, you know, of american, you know, management and its what he thought was in is out go to motive ideas. He he he is conception of industrial policy was to urge foreign governments and especially that of the u. S. To the same kind of Strategic Thinking that the Boston Consulting Group had proffered to individual companies management, after all, was still a visible hand a planning apparatus that mobilized capital where was thought to do the most good the outlook might well work for nations. It wasnt new deal planning where the government built tva and oak ridge, but it was a way creating incentives. Ed and using credit to, you know, what was thought to in the national interest. Yes. Were picking winners and losers that he thought you could do you could do that. And i, i he. So the clintons, you know, were friends with magaziner. Lets see, do i have and they put him in charge of of the Health Reform that they pushed forward. He hed done some of that work in rhode kind of a laboratory. And he was and he and the clintons i magaziner and other sort of Health Reform as an industrial policy because, you know, ford and gm were spending more money on Health Insurance steel and and this seemed to be a burden to industrial america. And so they you the crucial thing i think terms of the the demise the Clinton Health care plan was the failure of the Industry Sectors they were counting on to really the sustained and motivated and powerful for a Health Reform which would have helped their bottom line. And so in the process of constructing it and putting it forward, it wasnt that it was too long, you know, or that it was government takeover. It wasnt all they called it managed competition. But magaziner numerous negotiations and and cooperative and constructive with the chamber of commerce, with the National Association of manufacturers, with the insurance for that much he was trying they were trying to a corporatist deal out where they would you know you know one sector of capital would be in support of this reform. And ive always thought that what major in American History that you always have to have at least a slice a slice of the elite slice of capital has to you know see that in their own interests. And i think and so and magaziner was you know he he knew about American History and america about the structure of the economy to do that. And so that seemed to be an even even of a section of the Republican Party. Bob dole, among others, said, yes, were going to have Health Reform. We will make some modifications to it. But what were going to have it. So but happened, i think and this is i have to be very schematic on this is that i think the clintons they the what was the real structure of the American Economy at that time. So the manufacturers were for Health Reform but not retail. By the way i always have an anecdote in the fortune 500 kept the retailer is you know out of it they who are retailers they just sell they dont make anything. So retailers not allowed on the fortune 500. And then in 1995, about the same time as this is the habit, they said, well, maybe we so bingo, walmart appears number four on the on the fortune 500 and by the year 2000 their number one and so that that was the kind of world that that that magazine entering the clintons were dealing with. Retail was a lot more powerful and they were low wage, low benefit. You know on that question union versus nonunion the union sector was shrinking, labor was in at its most unpopped ular and ideologically weakest moment, really, i think, in American History. Capital intensive versus labor intensive, obviously labor intensive. Therell be a burden. Health care, which was in this tab, employer mandate would be a burden on those labor intensive. And then in terms of the health, the industry, Health Care Provider is versus really the the freeloaders, the cherry pickers, the the smaller companies, you know which who their Business Strategy was. Send me your young and healthy. And i went to an answer anyway so these were some of the divisions that i think this is what really i go into this and in two chapters in the and i think and its sort of an xray on the american political economy and and i think and the thats really what is the demise of the health care plan. It wasnt hillarys being arrogant or or know or or the thing big complex. One of the most interesting things i think about it was the clintons presented this, oh, were not we are not going to be the state operation. Were going to have manage competition. Were going to use the market kind of the rhetoric of the market. But when the plan was presented to the Congressional Budget Office and Robert Reischauer is a very sophisticated, he said, what is this competition . This is a pig in a poke. We are competition. We know what thats going to whats going to look like in of prices. What i want what the cbo require, if you want us to to cost out the health plan, we want the exercise of sovereign power, you know you know like you know to to you know, to set to set prices to, you know, to to actually cartel the industry. And magaziner understood that. And hillary did to hillary know, you know, she she understood that her private moments she said, yes, we single payer and the the the the magazine plan moves to the left in the first year because they understood that that the market was not working it would not and it moved to the left. They put price limits, caps on it. They do they do limit who who will offer Health Insurance. They knew what they wanted to liquidate all the small Insurance Companies, of course, they they they raised you know, they raised bloody hell. And of course, its these these famous those of you of a certain age, or maybe not know about these harry and louise ads, these of course, were financed and put on by the cherry picking Insurance Companies who were going to be basically wiped out if the clinton plan was put into effect. And so there they are. And then, of course, you have right wing of the Republican Party, which is beginning to feel its oats and its in those days was was bill kristol, you know, this quote is famous and i mean its so remarkable to us today hes not singing that song. But this you know, this i think tells you where the kind of the ideological push against the robert doles who are willing to cut a deal. But you know, kristol and gingrich, you know, militant and theyre winning and they win. So the the Clinton Health care plan does go down to defeat, but the point of it is that i think it was an effort at industrial policy ultimate. Lee obama learned a lot from the clinton and he learned if you want to be a corporatist if you want to cut corporatist deal you got to get all your ducks a row. So obama, you know, gives to the insurance industry, gives billions to pharmacy pharmaceutical companies. And so when the obama plan is actually being debated, the Republican Party was entirely opposite in opposition, complete opposition. But industry, american companies, including walmart, which was, you know, could see it really now as a subsidy to workers. They were on board. They were on board. So obama learned that and that and i think that was the more important than the even the militant opposition of the republicans. So the next guy im going to just briefly talk about, because i dont want to take i think i have 3 minutes. So i would just say, is robert rubin and rubin is an interesting figure. Hes not a capitalist with a with a black top hat on. Hes welfare state democrat. His mother voted for henry wallace. Campaigned in south florida for civil. He voted for and raised for george mcgovern. He was a racial liberal. He opposed actually oppose the clinton welfare plan, which was very controversial. So he said, look, capitalism produces, winners and losers and some people are losers and we have to take care of them. And he you know, he was hated and he didnt buy into that. Oh, you lets incentivize work and thatll thatll be solution to everything. He said no. So he was so he was very charming and that was and he was very popular. But what believed in was absolute mobility and liquidity of capital. Hed spent 25 years at Goldman Sachs, the arbitrage desk. And what that meant was, you know, you you went to companies are going to merge. You know, you figured out, you know, where the imperfections he knew there were imperfections in the market and you you know place your bet on that as it were. And that and to make that really work, you had to have complete that that was essential. Otherwise everything went chaotic. So he was favor of lack of liquidity, of capital. Its its its a trans you know but internationally nationally and he also thought thought this war you know if we can get low Interest Rates and liquidity of capital would mean that the japanese and the chinese buy our bonds and Interest Rates would go down. And also if we had balanced the budget, this would convince bond traders, you know, Interest Rates be low then then wed enormous investment he and so robert reisz is advocating a very modest 50 billion Stimulus Program in 93 and rubin says thats chicken feed thats feed. How if if we balance the budget, get Interest Rates really down well have 1,000,000,000,000 of investment, a trillion. But of course, the issue was that investment would not be guided. It would not be, you channeled. It would be just, you know, whatever speculation, stock buybacks, you name it. And rice, very acerbic on that question. Clinton of at one point, you know, here i have an angry picture. Hes talking to george stephanopoulos. You know, he famously said, what you know, im being basically controlled by the bond traders. You know, i, i mean, what am i you know, and carville would say, when i when i am reincarnated, i dont want to be a 400 baseball player. I want to be the bond market because he controls everything. And so this was this was rubins view. Now, it turned out it out. And rubin admitted this in his in his memoirs that Interest Rates were declined. And this is sort of it, you know, from the volcker shock on Interest Rates were declining regardless of whether the budget was was balanced or not. I mean, of course, biden is sort of shown. It was shown that he did have a little bit of a spike Interest Rates with the fed. But basically we had gigantic deficits today anyway. The interest were decline. They were in a secular decline mainly because labor was weak and because the american america was in a very safe place for all of countries to park their money. And youre going to park your money in american bonds. Then the then the Interest Rates are going to be able to decline. And so and and would actually admitted that in his in his memoirs in memoirs. The i do think that i show, you know, i mean, he wins. Yeah. Rubin wins one of the one of the i have a discussion in my book about the east asian crisis in which was caused by the absolute mobility of hot money coming in and out of thailand, indonesia, south korea. And by the way, in the crunch in the crunch. Rubin, i remember i think i. One minute. Im sorry. Rubin you know, would use governmental power to know to to sustain the bond the treasury publishes a book called a Little American finance of the 21st century, which rubin and others say what we want to do is not prevent economic crises. We want to manage them after theyve taken place. And really, i think he was really here channeling hyman minsky, the marxist who was who was saying, you know, the nature capitalist markets is for boom and bust and and increasingly so whats happening and i dont know. Rubin had read minsky i but i think that was actually what the treasury was saying. And of course, here is the famous cover of time magazine. You know, where you have greenspan and summers who who is rubins acolyte, who would take over treasury after him and rubin, the committee to save the world . Well, you know, anyway, so look. So im going to and i that the there was a clinton boom there was low unemployment. But i think that the it was built on sand. It was built on sand. And the the bubbles that burst, you know, in the 21st century dot com. And then 2008 and and others i think were indicative that so im going to stop and i really look forward to the commentary on this your questions as well. Thank you very much. I guess i wish i could sit here. Great. Well, thanks for those remarks in even more. Thank you for this really fantastic book. I am appreciative of the opportunity to offer some brief comments to to tee up our discussion and just wanted to start by thanking columbia world projects and the center for political economy, especially madeleine for making this event happen today. It was a pleasure to review the book. A couple of reasons. One is that i have been a fan of nelsons work for a long time. I mention state of the union, which i read in college for the first time and really sparked my imagination about the Labor Movement which continues to present day and second and i think more relevant for book as kate mentioned i just returned from working in the federal government where part of the work i was engaged in at the office of management and budget was updating clinton era executive orders around the regulatory review process and thinking about how to embed equity and into this process. So of a very salient top of mind thinking about the through line of Economic Policy over this era. So as nelson mentioned, this is an unusual caliber but one that i think has yielded really an eminently readable and engrossing narrative of Economic Policy. And i think really stresses as as nelson mentioned, its his remarks on how these battles are have these deep roots in the shifting political economy the shifting mix of industries and occupations and contestation over ideas and ideology. So i wanted to do quick things in my remarks. First is to situate this book amongst several other books that have been published on the Clinton Administration and neoliberal ism and would love to hear. Nelson your thoughts on how how it engages with work by cristol and lilly geismar, which has come out recently. Second is to point out a couple of the key contribue and intellectual moves that i think nelson makes in this book. Without giving too much away, i feel like this be more of a teaser than trying to summarize the great work in the book and then end with a couple of questions that i would love for us to focus on in nelsons remarks. And then, of course, for you all to engage with as well. So thinking first about how this is situated against gary bristols the rise and fall the neoliberal order and lilly geismar left behind. You know both of those books similar to this one stressed the consequence is of key Economic Policy decisions that were made during the Clinton Administration deregulation of some key sectors welfare reform, privatization of government and these trade agreements. But there are a couple of areas where id love to explore of the differing emphases. So, you know, one thing that stood out to me revisiting was perhaps of an emphasis on the new left during and both before and then during the Clinton Administration thinking about the role of ralph nader led Consumer Rights organizations pushing for deregulation and market reforms. You know, he was targeting not just big business, but also agencies that were viewed as being captured and supportive of reforms that bust those iron triangles between, the regulated industries and agencies. So wed love to hear more about the role of that during. The Clinton Administration. Shifting gears to willie geist for his excellent book, left behind. My reading is that theres more of a continuity in the account that she offers of some of these areas of market oriented reforms that clinton pursued in arkansas through present. You know, shes thinking about the role of Small Businesses, entrepreneur in economic mobility reduction that clinton pursued first in arkansas and then carried that philosophy into the white house and see that in the welfare, housing and education reform initiatives of the Clinton Administration. Wed love to tease that out a little bit more. So shifting gears to some, the key intellectual moves and contributions. I see this book making. I think, and this was reflected in nelsons remarks. One of the most important lessons coming out of this is stressing that while hindsight, we can look back at the Clinton Administration and see it as a high point for what we now call the bundle of policies, ideas and worldviews that we label neo liberalism. Read foreword. Clintonism was much more contingent and complex. It was a mix of differing ideas and impulses. Some of which align with this conception of neo liberalism, some of which dont. And i think in two important ways, the is reminding us that that campaign actually came into the white house with some pretty bold ideas as laid out by putting first not the deregulation reduction or welfare retrenchment that we later saw. And second, the book does, a really nice job of excavating these debates between different camps in the Clinton Administration, between these different personalities like laura tyson and robert as well as others in the health and Human Services department. In addition to serving as a reminder that there was not a unified for Economic Policy in the administration, offer some great capsule biographies of these personalities and more about their intellectual formation too, which i found really fascinating. Nevertheless, i think you also point a couple of areas where there was continuity and the one that really stood out to me, perhaps unsurprisingly, was on labor. The fact that dating back to arkansas, you know, clinton had a rather cool attitude towards the Labor Movement. And i think do a nice job of pointing out that as attorney general, governor, you know, in key episodes, he really sided with some of the low wage antiunion businesses in the state. You know, the walmart tyson hunt, transport, as well as going up against Public Sector labor unions on educational reform and really tracing that through the attitude of the Clinton Administration, the Labor Movement, once in office. The second contribution that i think this book does a really nice job with spelling out the long term political and economic consequences of these decisions that were made and not made the sins of commission and and i really thought here of political scientist Suzanne Mettler has a nice concept of the policy scape, you know, the sum total of the policies pursued or not that structure the way that subsequent lawmakers think about political opportunities that structure the incentives and attitudes of members of the public and organized. And so i really thought that we could see clearly in this book how the Clinton Administrations choices shaped that policy scape through to present day. Im thinking again about the both political and economic consequences and one of the ones that stood out to me that i think you do a really nice job of illustrating is with nafta that, you know, passage this agreement during the Clinton Administration had these significant economic and political consequences at the time. You know, dividing the Labor Movement, the administration, weakening the Labor Movement in coming years and weakening the Democratic Party in subsequent election. So this is an area where my cpa, bonior washington, has actually done some research that shows that the geographic areas, the United States that were hit hardest, the trade shocks from nafta, were exactly the areas where working class voters started to turn away from the democratic. And interestingly, at the individual level, it appears to be individuals who held more conservative and racial views that were more likely to be pushed away from the democrats at that time. So theyre really enduring consequences that have laid the groundwork, i think, for of the transformation of the Republican Party that we see today. The final contribution that i want to lift up, i think you also heard reflected in nelsons summary is how book takes seriously this interplay between the mix of industries and political economy of the u. S. And these policy decisions that that the clinton was pursuing. I think theyre episode of Health Care Reform that nelson walked through nicely illustrates how the fact that although it the Ford Motor Companies the xeroxs that were engaging with the Clinton White house and were these on the of the strongest allies if uneasy allies at moments that really informed the design of that plan to some extent didnt matter because the emergent industry, the real dominate industries at the time were the ones in the low wage Service Sector, the burger kings or the walmarts that were deeply opposed to this and were able to exercise power in key business associates. I think the other episode, which i was less familiar with, which was really powerful, was the deregulation episode. And i think you do a great job of tracing out the downstream political consequences of that were creating whole new group of strongly low wage antiunion telecommunications that then of course have knock on effects for opposing stronger labor standards and going forward. So having laid out moves that that nelson makes, i to end with a couple of questions for discussion. And so first is going to something that you say motivates the book and id love to dig into it more, which is youre really thinking about whats contingent and whats not in these different episodes. And wed love to hear a little bit more about you. Which of these episodes were cases where . There was more room for doing more ambitious, bold reforms than others. So were thinking about those counterfactuals. And then second on this point of counterfactuals, as a political economist who thinks a lot about institutions, i would love to hear you share a little bit more about how you see some features of the american state playing into the constraints and opportunities that the clinton faced. And ill throw out couple that sort of emerge through the narrative. One is the role of the courts and unsurprisingly, given the history labor reform, they emerge in the context labor efforts that the clinton tried to pursue that were struck down by by the courts. Wed love to hear more about that. The structure of congress in particular filibuster in the senate, but also the distinctive representation of particular interests, the fragmented nature, the executive branch with these different agencies have different regulatory authorities competing with one another, providing Different Power Centers in an administration. The fragmented nature of american federalism comes through in the episodes of welfare reform, where the states are pursuing the race to the bottom as theyre given these new monies as a result of block granting of of tanf. And then the singular cultural, economic and political power of the fed, you know, really emerges, especially in these episodes of financial reform, trade policy has been such a key mover. And so wed love love to hear a little bit more about that last you know, wed love to pick up where you end in the epilog, which with the Biden Administration and turn from the set of policy choices that the Clinton Administration pursued. And wed love to hear more about how we ended here. You hint at the importance social movements, sort of indicating that. Thats why i think to some extent weve seen these moves, but would also love to hear some of the other causal factor is that you see as being responsible for bringing us to this point. Weve seen, you know, massive expansions of, the welfare state, albeit temporary, undercovered a new antitrust regime, ambitious labor policy and trade policy. So ill end there and really looking forward to your comments and, the audiences as well. And thank you again for for such a terrific book. Thank you. And want to join in know yes. In the just have to just to advance this one little thing. Yes. So that we appreciate. Its not im over. No, we dont know where we want to go. I want you. Here it is. Thats right. The last slide. Okay. Okay. Boy, i wasnt taking notes. Should have, but to remind me as i so on on the historiography. I thought it came i a good friend of gary certainly and i thought he wrote terrific book showing what was attractive about neoliberalism you know cosmopolitanism flying to dubai you know, to have a tennis, you know, you know, i mean, all that, you know, thats very attractive, i think. Rubin attractive in that way. He was a cause powerful figure, a liberal figure. I mean he of course, he wasnt the only one. So i think that that was very good. And also well and right theres this theres now a number of things to study showing the new left. Its suspicion of government. The you know a of not that not that nader became a right winger or anything but but was a kind of that was it was that the book by sabin at yale on on the way in which Environmental Lawyers you know they couldnt attack corporations but they could attack the state you know for failing to regulate. So i think theres that all in there and thats in garys book as well the one little thing that gary i disagreed on was the cold war. And heres well, the cold war, the berlin wall falling, you know. Oh, well, that you know. And yes theres a way in which we no longer have to be social democratic, you know, to to a as prophylactic against, you know, communist or whatever. I just think that the the end of the cold war or and certainly the demise of the communist bloc, any sort of attractive, you know, thing certainly in the west and, maybe even in the third world, had long since been discounted, you know, before actual fall of the and as i indicated the the democrats a lot of democrat, not all of them and a lot of people were not triumphalist, you know, at the at the you know, so that was was one thing lilys book i mean, everything she says there is right. And clearly mean clinton is i mean were talking to ira magazine said well yeah of course he was imperfect but he was our vehicle, you know. And yes he would and he would in arkansas he would he were he would visit these places visit these communist machine shops endorsement italy wanted to translate that back to arkansas. But but yes, he he yes he had hillary did you know push you know that was one thing they pushed a Small Business entrepreneurial ism that was and she she identifies all of that absolutely true but it was a lot more theres a lot more having i mean she doesnt talk up i mean what about you know capital mobility you know in the far east you know what trade policy what both managed trade but i think they had a serious effort to manage trade with japan and then of course other things so. So its more going on than just that. And i and i have to say. Well that you know, you can walk you can find anything. You well in clinton speeches, you can find a lot. Its all over the place. But i do think there are these other larger things that i do think the health plan was a kind of serious effort, which i had a chance of success. So but, you know, okay, so there is this one little we do have one little disagreement lately. Guys are my hope she does take the dlc is own rhetoric at face value they owe clinton is our man you know clinton is he wasnt their man he the deal democratic leadership of congress which was designed to basically preserve the influence of southern democrats. Thats what it was he he used them much as they used him and i found these memos in the first year or two years of the clinton where out from his head of the dlc it just hey bill, you know. What are you doing . Yo, you should dance with the, you know, the one who brought you. You know, you were what are you doing there . You know, and so or william got galston, whos one of the more sophisticated dlc people saying, oh, in the Clinton Administration, i was sort of like a a in a bowl of rice was sort of, you know, my you know, an odd, odd man out. Then after gingrich comes in, oh, things are much better. And i look what for for the dlc, you know, and i love this one quote by lane carmack at dlc she my job was squeeze all the socialist junk out of the Democratic Party you know and that was that was their thing. I should also the dlc had a theory which was they denounced liberal fundamentalism, which they really meant that social democracy thats what they meant. And instead everything was cultural, everything was a cultural. And we have to accommodate that. Know, i think theyd be chasing the republican right to the, you know, on cultural forever. You know i think you know, i mean you can make the argument that culture is very, very important and etc. But but the dlc said we just have to accommodate that. And i thought, you know, they even saw like balance budget. They saw it in cultural terms. So thats a side of responsibility, they anyway and okay. So then you had the question about if there are contingent moments. And yes, were there places where they could have. Yeah, i mean, i do that. Nafta was a blunder and i say a blunder or it means a mistake. There was nothing kind of driving it. There was not a Business Capital lobby really pushing it. They already got a lot of them got what they want. They were they were already the market maquiladoras. And there was, you know, a clinton and many in his in his his in his circle, hillary and and others said, no, thats postpone this this that. The thing is a george bush initiative. And it was. Lets postpone it. Its not your baby. Lets postpone it. And clinton had given Campaign Speeches saying, well, ill be for my after if its the right kind of nafta, so lets postpone it. He saw, i think, again, a kind of too clever by half tactical. He said, well, he just got this first budget pass where they did raise taxes. Party line vote clinton. Ive got to have a bypass as in victory, you know, and ill go with but i think that was a blunder. Now, nafta was not as important economically as the china the mexico had a gnp size of southern california, but of course, in terms of race and in terms of immigration, its toxic and and i think theres barely veiled in perots and others you know its there so it was a more it was a toxic political and and whats a gavin you know very well a very good kind of institutional economist hes you know makes the argument that nafta is the thing that. Subverted the chances of of the Democratic Party and especially southern democrats. There were a lot of moderate southern democrats. They were so great. Sometimes theyre terrible, but they were democrats and they were, you know, sustaining a majorities and they were just wiped out by that. But people like that, were not the the the northern, you know, industrial, you know, the liberals of it was the southern democrats who were wiped out. The white ones. The white ones. So thats one for sure. I, i also i think welfare reform. He, i, he certainly the law that passed was not his originally and he was going evinced by morris and things oh you got to pass this welfare reform if you want to win in 96 there were other you said no we i look at you know now you dont have to do that you know dont do it. And again, welfare reform was it was it was the one law that people resigned. You know, Peter Edelman and his his friendship that hillary bill had with Marian Wright edelman of more than two decades was just broken. So that was a that was a kind of and i think he lost you know, i mean, maybe i dont know how i dont know terms of, you know, mask. But he certainly lost the, you know, people a lot of people in this room that question and others that so yeah i think there were there were i think there were other things i think where i almost baked and i think like you know china is becoming a giant partner and is he pretty hard to, you know, stop that opening there and . Rubin was, you know where he played a role, which i dont fully understand. But boy, Goldman Sachs and all the wall street firms, what they really wanted was to be able to to capitalize. And at market ties, the Chinese State enterprises, you know, and that was like a and then the Chinese Government wanted to do that and they wanted to do that. It was a kind of almost overdetermined. So i could, you know, other things as well. And what you had so other yeah, maybe we can take one more of mine and then i want to make sure we get to the audience so, so Political Institutions so you thinking about the structure of the american state, what really they were to institute is completely not in control of the president. One is the Treasury Department. It is i mean, a every democratic president feels. They must appoint a wall street or head the treasury. I mean, actually, yellen is not. But theyve always thought that because, you know, took to the confidence of the markets and alan blinder, who is a kind of a moderately liberal keynesian, he was in the council of economic advisors. He has an oral history. He says when theres a dispute between and the council of economic advisers doesnt matter whos right does it matter whos got the right . The data treasury wins period. And there were a number of times clinton, you know, wanted to do a little more progressive, a little you know, whether it was he wanted a second bretton woods, he thought we should do that or the east asian, you know and the treasury has, you know, a hundred economists who are ready to write memos as to why thats wrong, you know, and and so treasury is a kind, i think, an independent agency there. And the second is the federal reserve, which is completely, you know, ever since the meg taught me that the treasury of treasury fed accord important in the early fifties is is you know, is its own independent and and you know, and clinton is negotiating with greenspan, you know, like to get foreign diplomats, you know, and i just said, well, ill stop for now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate. Great. And so now i think we turn it over to you all and kate will moderate that and wed like to take questions from the audience just after you wait for the night to come. You know, im interested in the question of were these making policy because they thought that was better for the republic or were they making money to survive because they needed donors to get reelected . Were selling policy or were they making policy with a vision that was know well, i mean, kind of both, really. I mean. Right they they they they thought i mean i mean, think about i mean in 96 i mean, clinton made a lot of enemies for sure. And fact know the republicans did very well and continue to do well because there was, you know, donors you know, a certain substantial group of them. All of them, of course, you thought, hey, we want to stop whatever clinton wants to do in its tracks and i mean, i guess its sort of both. I mean, you think that they were not radicals. They were not revolution. They they yes. They wanted to have a relationship to the business community, wealthy people. And i think they saw all the reforms that again as i said some sector some slice of the elite will support this. I mean, i think they always thought that, you know, actually, one thing about labor, you mentioned this. I mean, the labor is at its nadia for that year in terms of power, but even more so in terms of image and ideology and sort public sentiment. In the 1980s and nineties and and clinton was aware of that he would to aids and others. Dawn, i wish i had a lift. I wish i was the left that was pushing me, you know and the labor was malad maladroit and in every way i mean robert reich is just excoriated toward the leadership of labor. It revives a bit under sweeney and a kind of a new group that comes in. I was very active in some of that. But but the structures american you know Business Capital law, the courts labor law, you know, are just so overwhelming that even a kind of more energetic figure like sweeney and those who brought, you know, couldnt really stem the tide on that one. So i mean that yeah. I mean today the labor is still weak today its very weak. But culturally, ideologically, politically, you know, it has sort of momentum on its side gives it gives me anyway hope. Thanks for this great talk i want to know where you think the crime bill fits into this story you know like you have Melinda Cooper arguing that you know, punishment is the other side of the coin of neo liberalism. You have sort of the gilmore argument that its addressing a structural crisis of unemployment, even though thats going down by the late nineties, and particularly of whats the clintonite lefts view that like, is there like a sort of master theory or is it ad hoc and unrelated . Right clinton actually a big fan of William Julius. He makes that point a of times. He thought thats the solution. You know, lets have a jobs for black men now, he was you know, he was that undoubtedly that was he thinking, you know and you know and industrialize the inner city he thought of that and and his original the original again many of these were the original piece of legislation were sort of better than what ended up. But the crime bill was i mean this, was again, the famous quote by hillary of what they call predators youthful predators, which really her in trouble and rightly so in the in later on she she gets that from these neo kind of social policy people like william not like wilson whats her name . James. Q wilson and others. Similarly, i clinton like clinton like William Julius wilson. And i call him up and oh, and william, did he like clinton too until he passed the crime bill and and welfare reform. But nevertheless, it was the people driving the kind of ideologically that they were the James Q Wilson that like that and the Charles Murrays and it heres one of those cases where you, you, you almost get a kind of, you know, underclass, you know, reports in the new yorker by i forgot journalist about the underclass you and then the i mean im not quite willing to put this crime bill and the mass incarceration of which it began and continued after as sort of a structural feature of modern capitalism. I dont think its quite it quite rises to that. But nevertheless its a moment when, when lots of liberals are supporting this crime. Bernie sanders votes for the crime bill. Biden votes for it, and so does two thirds of the black caucus. They vote for that. Why did they do that . Well, there was a violence against women there, a provision there which which which which many some liberals liked. But biden makes this horrible statement. He says, from now, you know, when it comes to building prisons, its going to be liberal. You know, were ones we want to take credit for that. I mean, so theres this moment of almost hysteria and it by the way this occurs before gingrich over in congress, it was it was, i think, 94. And interestingly enough, that time the crime bill was not that controversial, it would become much more and again, hillary would be would be saddled with this predator comment which came out National Review. I actually almost traced in an article in the National Review about predators circulates in white house and hillary picks it up and she gives it in a speech about two months later, the welfare bill, which was extremely controversial. So at that time in 96 became has partly became less controversial, not because people like it, but because the liberals have gone beyond, you know, welfare as a kind of thing for, you know, we just family assist, Family Support period. You know, we had the the welfare covered the covered welfare state. I mean, unfortunately, its collapsing. But at least we had that and that had nothing to do with work required ants or anything of that sort. So but but these remain among the most controversial of all things, unquestionably. And in clinton moment, which. Yeah. Hi. Now i wasnt here at the very start was i participated 515 health care yeah paul staff the discussion they focused much more on dynamics the Health Sector yeah and youre talking about Union Industry nonUnion Industry yeah i wonder if you could situate your argument in relationship those kind of liberal commentators and what wrong. Yeah, i mean yeah. I mean. I think that there was a clearly a reflection in congress of some of these shifts by industry. And you could see in the committee run by i think its a dickens the Health Care Advocate from michigan is it dingell bingo. I mean who he thought he was he really had you know had, the votes and everything and when some people some of these sort of Service Sector labor elements begin to mobilize and they do mobilize and they use the National Federation of independent business, which is really a a front for fast Food Industry and the National Restaurant association. You begin to really mobilize and you can and you can you can that the way in which certain congressmen democratic congressmen just begin to peel off. So, i mean, i just think in at this that the that the congressional sentiment is a function of whats happening out there in terms of both the Insurance Companies and and and i see that not that thats a that were not that there werent you know some republicans again the the the bill kristol republican who just said no no no compromises nothing but you know, they basically, you know, saw the writing the wall and the thing, of course, dies by the summer of 94, which is before gingrich takes over. But its really defections of of of democratic moderates and of these southern democrats as well. They were not they were not staunch in any way. They they could see also that their chances of surviving the 94 election were pretty thin. And so they tended to, you know, vote more conservative as that year went on. But i do, i but i just reading, looking at it, i just think that the looking at whats going on in industry is more important. And i do think the obama, as i said, is the proof that prove that because the republicans were entirely against it. You know, and some democrats, were equivocal. But he had the the big players on his side. You know, so just really quick follow up. Oh, sorry. We have not go. Well, just a quick, quick follow up, then. Your reading of the of the Clinton Administration is very different. My friends in the antimonopoly. And youre a much less sympathetic toward the stated pretensions Small Business and much more sympathetic toward the kind of corporatist impulses. Yes, yes, absolutely. Yes, i im more of a corp. Im more of a corporatist. Absolutely i do. I yes. Im not im not a im not a i dont know, whatever us im a corporatist. I mean, not i mean not ultimately, but i do think that that is the way reform does tend to take place in america. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, you seem nelson to be describing clinton as an opportunist. Oh, yeah. Yes. Thats so then how would situate him . I mean in terms of you say he did in fact accomplish certain things and didnt accomplish other things, but he seems to have accomplished only what felt like accomplishing and felt could be accomplished any moment in time, not terms of any large vision of what. Well i think it was both an opportune i mean, you know, he was a politician, succeeded to the white house that required a large level of opportunities and some he did some Disgusting Things in arkansas which i which theres just no redeeming social value. On the other hand opportunism i just want to defend that moment because its a way of of but ive that where are the social forces that i can rely upon and theres a strong Labor Movement thatll be great. But if theres a reformist bloc in the industry, you know, rely on that as well. And so, you know, clinton is looking around in that respect for for those kind of, you know, that that that that kind of support i do think i think in reading it, i can see that he has these impulses that are there that are you know, reformist and and you know and i wrote a piece of the l. A. Times about corporate responsibility. And its problems. And clinton and rice were saying, oh, yeah, we got to talk about that. And and robert rubin is saying, no, thats a word. Thats another word for class warfare. Know the and he sort of stops that. But clinton had this impulse and thats when i mentioned the Treasury Department or the federal reserve. These are structures that that that that imprisoned him. Whatever his his sentiment is. And i mean, im not trying to write an apology for clinton at all by the by the second term. Hes just going completely, you know, and he says to rubin and here i have a conversation. And he i have a full employment my full employment policies, balanced budget, you know, and austerity. Thats what he says, really. So he goes, you know, he he in that respect, his his ideas are not he he and then on the new economy are on the new economy. I had one slide on that in the in that economic. Conference at the very beginning in december the keynote speakers all liberal keynesians robert solow is the is the big you know he you know invents growth economics. Hes keynesian then they have the year 2000 a conference on the new economy. Whos the keynote speaker abby . Joseph cohen the sachs you know, most brilliant, a trader, you know, so, yeah, clinton goes of the wind theres no doubt about that. Absolutely. You know, and the winds are against him. I and thanks a lot. This is what you can come in on that some of this to cover i teach it to. Oh yes you too. Yeah yeah. So i, i really appreciate the i want to maybe try another sort of like social force in the background on you, which is the changing make up of whos in the Democratic Party and the real basis of electoral support and that it starts like you even under carter and youre seeing this pivot once they lose the south and theyre pivoting towards college suburbs, that the actual base of the Democratic Party is no longer, the social base that it once and that the Clinton Presidency is like a reflection of that and that they lose the house, you know, and as a party, the pivot of the party is we to get the presidency back and then they lose the house for the First Time Since 1952. And so that of other thing besides the social forces and industry, theres actually a real political in terms of who the party is catering to and who is its representing that clintonism is the expression of just one little item there, and maybe you should put that that clinton could have captured the perot vote. He could that was 90 of the vote. I mean, that would have been a huge he could have captured it and all but but of course policy is politics and so he goes with nafta and perot everyone thinks oh, al gore won. The debate with with perot. There was a famous debate, 93. It didnt matter. I mean, you know, he lost he he really lost the consolidation of the perot vote, which could have which would have been hugely conservative, culturally but, you know, he loses. So, i mean it wasnt just inevitable. The says make you know changes in the in society were things he could have done you know on question thats just one example. Yeah i mean i think you know, playing this out a little bit more under and out of all that, weve seen this big shift in coalition for the Democratic Party where at the high point instance of a correlation between education formal Educational Attainment and democratic partizan affiliation, but thats the case. And we think that would constrain the redistributive ambitions of policy makers. You know, why has it been that the Biden Administration has been able do so much even with that, even with that base, i guess i would push back a little and wonder how mechanical that relationship is between, the changing class composition, the opportunities for redistributive policy. But curious if you. Yeah im ira. All right so. I want you to play a speculative counterfactual counterfactual yeah know bush v gore bush this is not pretty al gore as president first, how would you situate al gores preferences within this framework of your and second, i broadly, temperamentally and politically with you your analysis of lets call it neo liberal second term of clinton, but he had some manifest at least on the data. They were within ten years of wiping out of federal debt. Yeah the is balanced unemployment low and then comes not 2008 instantly but a administration that cuts taxes that raises deficits that in effect undid the strategy you and i probably dont share not liking but it was a strategy so when you say the results were use the phrase built on sand are we sure and how do we know that. So the two barrel question one situate gore in this story imagine a gore presidency not that hard to imagine its not big counterfactual and and that to the policy six cesses of at least by any by many measures of late years of the clinton. Well yeah one thing to say about that is when you do have these budget surpluses by, that point clinton is well party that the republicans there and hes he saying you know i mean what you would do the democrats you know do all this work you know, to have a surplus so they could, you know it for their the welfare state or some other you know thing that moderate left would like clint and what does clinton say with this story so afraid of republicans having a giant tax cut with which bush will have . He says, lets put it in a lets devote it all to Social Security and save Social Security and really, that is doing is giving ideological support to those people who thought Social Security was going to, you know, collapse, which a right wing thing. So he says save Security First gore is stuck with that. So when gore is campaigning, his is, you know, put the Social Security lockbox, which is not okay. Whats in fact, what the lockbox, you know, where to wear it. What is that . Gore not come out with a well, you know with it with a kind of bold campaign. And i was talking to margaret omara, who, you know, the historian, very good historian. She was an aide in the white house in the summer of 2000 that we were so bored with gore. Well, if they were bored with gore matter, imagine the rest of the country anyway. So he he doesnt have a program, really. Gore does not have a program. And so, therefore, its its a close election. I mean, gore would have won overwhelming if it were more substantially. I think if said, yes, we have a surplus and were going to do x with it. What biden you know, in effect, without a surplus, were going to do what were going to do with it. So thats one thing. Obviously, if gore had won here, of course, the courts and, you know, had the institutional structures is comes into play. But at goard well you know maybe there have been the iraq war, you know, but i do think a lot of deregulation would have continued. Gore was an advocate of that deregulation telecom in particular actually also hollowing out of the government. Gore was the guy who was in favor. It was called reinventing government. So he would have done a lot of that. The he would have brought in im not sure exactly would have been brought in, but he would have done a lot of that. But but look, not having the iraq war might have been quite a important thing. You know, so that thats one thing, you know, i wonder if the two of you wanted discuss where think the Biden Administration compares to the Clinton Administration and where you may agree with each other and where you disagree with each other. Dont you begin. Well, i think what you if you answer the last question of like why did we get here, maybe here, maybe thats all right. Yeah, well, i there were i mean, i maybe the biden people did learn and some of them, the same ones who were in obama and in clinton. Gene sperling there, same guy. Maybe they learned some lessons and realized, you know, democrats, you know, being good citizens and and and creating, you know, you know, you know, raising trying to raise taxes and then having a sort of moderate to to finally get the budget know in shape. And then the republicans cut the taxes so that maybe that finally said, to heck with that. Lets just, you know, do lets just lets just have big deficits. And i do think i think the the whole theory of crowd out of i deficits generating and generating high interest and therefore inflation i do think that has hasnt worked out the at least in the years since the volcker shock that has been the case. I mean, who knows whats going to happen in the future, but that has maybe they you know finally look at the charts and realize that know, what are you going to i mean, i was really struck as i was starting to read book by the aspirations of industrial policy that the Clinton Administration was trying to execute on that it feels like were getting pieces of now. Now, granted, its enabled by these massive that were passed by congress, but it also requires a lot of new capacity to be built within the federal government, which which Biden Administration is attempting to do now. I wonder how much of that is going to last and endure beyond this moment. But thats open. Question but i was struck by how of that agenda is being executed right now. I mean, the other place where ive been really and and i admit im biased in this, but that ive been really pleased has been labor. And id be curious to hear your take on labor in the Biden Administration obviously dol fantastic team i have i would not criticize it a bit there, but i think one of the biggest changes that ive seen is the degree to which other agencies now oriented towards increasing labor standard and worker power in a way that was not true in the obama administration. It makes a difference that there is someone, the department of agriculture or the of transportation whose full time agenda how do we raise wages worker and improve working standards for the folks in the industries that are affected by . Those particular those particular departments and you also think about regulatory enforcement agencies like the ftc and doj, staffing up on labor and doing rulemaking in the labor space. I think you didnt see that previously . So and of course, add that to the nlrb is a fantastic work too. But curious what you think about that. Well, i know i totally agree with that. And i am a big fan of lina khan and the and the kanter the dog antitrust you know and theres theyve had these memorandums with that in the nlrb. I think thats thats a way to go it may be stymied by the courts and whatnot in politics but thats thats a good thing. Look, clinton did have a moderately good nlrb, but again, institutionally, i mean, the whole labor law has been you know what we have you had a lead, a seminar on that. I mean, you know, has been blocked out, you know, and so so where we, you know, fearful that this terrific nlrb today, you know, some of this stuff will end in the courts and, you know, who knows whats going to happen. So but but i do i just want to reemphasize guys the gri to which in the 1980s and and and 90 certainly the first have a nice labor is deservedly in the doghouse theyre just theyre just not thinking in broad ways that would have any attraction to the rest of the and kirkland is only interested in Eastern Europe while i was a big i was a big fan of solidary and etc. But thats you know you know anyway it was selfinflicted and and therefore clinton i cant take them seriously and that none of the even the liberals in the in the clinton there were there were a few labor liberals, but obviously they had very little power. But i think we have time for one more question. So i know its a hazard of being a professional historian being asked. Okay, well, about counterfactuals and call it moral agency in because the response is often well it was contingent things could have gone one way or another and its hard to run the counterfactual with all of the variables. But one question thats been submerged present but not fully is at what point can you point out Clinton Administration actually not exercising, lets say a progressive direction because weve got in a lot of emphasis on Structural Forces constraining them and the impotence of labor and their lets say their lack of strategic new but im just curious what are episodes they failed demonstrably to be. Yeah i mean i do think by this by the well really after 94 and increasingly after 96, clinton just comedy and other people, even laura tyson, you know, joseph stiglitz, whos big critic of rubin and, other people, they leave, you know, and theres a you know, a rise has gone. So know it. Clinton and clinton accommodate its the the right and you know and his own way tries to to kind of give a progressive to it. Can i tell one little story here just so this is my lewinsky story, which is enough is this is clinton is is. Having a secret negotiate in the white house with Larry Summers and a new Newt Gingrich and think bill bill archer whos the key on this . The beginning of the privatization of Social Security in 1997 and then clinton why is he doing this . I mean. Well, okay, maybe ill they cut a deal with gingrich on. Some other question. You know, hes just doing it mean theres no opposition to it he has a bowles a whats bowles his first name. What Erskine Bowles is is a very conservative chief of staff, is sort of, you know, helping do that. And its to happen really. Well, then the lewinsky comes and basically by the fall of 98, clinton needs liberal democrats to defend him. And among the most important are barney frank. Barney frank, there was a thing or two about sex, and he knows a lot about, you know, and he is, you know, and maxine walters, who became will become head of the House Banking Committee committee. She knows stuff, you know, so theyre his defenders and. So clinton at one point says, i dont know who maybe. Well, ive labor enough. You know, i you know, cant do it anymore. I, you know, and and the that beginning of privatization and it just vanishes. I mean, the you know, it just isnt there. So i mean, thats sort of the dynamic, you know, thats thats there, you know, so and that anyway, had to get a lewinsky story there just the three very quickly follow. Sure yeah, go ahead. Yeah, i do. Just a little bit. So it does seem to me that youre being too kind to clinton and that and that particularly the response to the about Clinton Biden the clintons who are clinton and biden. But biden has has a at least a call it a new deal vision of some kind, whereas clinton the opposite. I mean, in other words, you know, if had any principles at they were certainly not principle supported either labor or poor. But at least has those principles. So to answer yeah yeah it seems to me that you need to acknowledge that as a difference between them. Well i think the i think in my book therell be a, theres a great deal of denunciation of of what clinton had. And if you, you know, in terms of things like, well and and derivatives mean derivatives, which, you know, explode and and even the way they did china and lots and tons of that i mean i think he does collapse he its that you can call it the moral collapse is is not just with with you know monica and other you know things of that sort but its a moral collapse, terms of political economy and think that the clintonites will not be happy about this this book in fact i know they i know will im having a little debate with will marshall, the the economist or the dlc and he is not happy about this this you know so but i see, i heres the thing. I do think that the people on the left, liberals have to understand that just good impulses are not enough. You know, youre in a structure of politics and political economy. And thats so thats a lesson that i think that the maybe the biden people and others are learning from from this failure this failure and fabulous. And i think thats i think thats and then you need you need that are going to sustain themselves. By the way, the the the fabulous from a book written by janet yellen and alan in the year 2000 a little book called the fabulous decade they liked unemployment a low unemployment great they like the you know well they didnt have a stock market but. You know, poverty was declining, you know. Well, but it wasnt it wasnt really built on a kind of structure that that i think, you know, the new deal and the great society, you know, were there. And so that that could that could could evaporate or go bust in the next decade. And by the way, when 2008 comes along all, the clinton people say near cuba they all say it. They all say, well, i think learning lessons from the and the importance of structures and a changed political economy is a is a good place for us to end here. So first, i wanted to thank all the staff, the forum for helping us set this up and special thanks