Is your story and we encourage you to share the stories you hear this weekend on twitter, instagram or facebook. You can keep the spirit going by downloading the printers row app where you will find the Chicago Tribune premium book contents free and discounted ebooks for subscribers and that complete printers row schedule. Demo today and you get a free ebook and five dollars off merchandise. Todays program is being broadcast live on cspan twos book tv. We will leave about 10 minutes at the end for a q a session with the Live Audience here, so when the time comes if you have a question, please lineup at the microphone to your right so the home viewing audience can hear your questions. Lastly, before we begin this program i ask that you silence your phones and turn off the flashes on any cameras. With that said, i would like to introduce author thomas frank of listen liberal. [applause]. Howdy, folks. How are you all doing next thats my version of a chicago accent, howdy folks. I did live here for many years on the south side in hyde park and i know also said useful facts about the city. Did you know Williams Jenny bryant gave the gold speech about three blocks from where we are sitting right now . So, you talk about political history, man, this is the place. So, like i say i have lived here for many years. In fact, when i was living here i wrote a book 12 years ago called whats the matter with kansas. [applause]. Oh, youll know that one. Awesome. It was a book about all of the different ways that the Republican Party wrote in workingclass people with these different varieties, populace that the Republican Party is so skilled at an today as we look around us, i mean, basically we are watching before our eyes the rise of the greatest fake populace of all time. Donald trump. I mean, this guy is like huey long without the compassion. [laughter] do you know what im saying . As we watch this happen i want to talk about something that a wrote about in the kansas book, but that i didnt really go into in detail back in those days and its just that a large helping of that blame for the right wing backlash that i saw back then and that we all see today that a large helping of the blame has to go to democrats as well. The degree to which republicans have one these workingclass voters over is the same degree to which the democrats have abandoned them. Okay . So, think that this is the year to ask, whatever happened to the party the people. I mean, its a great question to be asking just a few blocks from where Williams Jenny bryant basically launch them on their career as the american part of the left, but, i mean, this question in two ways. First of all, how is it that the democrats came to abandon working people; right . The working people in this country and also why is it the democrats basically failed to respond to the greatest issue of our time . Now, what, i mean, i said that . What failure am i referring to . President obama has had and i agree with him that another chicago in, by the way. Every time i named check a chicago in the will pointed out. I met obama wants and we will talk about that later on. He was my state senator down on the south side. Right now im talking about obamas ideas and what he has done as president and he said that a couple years ago that end inequality is the defining challenge of our time and i think he was right about that. The defining challenge of our time, the sweeping statement, but when you think about it for more than a few seconds to realize that it isnt anywhere near sweeping enough. Inequality, i dont like this word. Is seems far too technical. But, its what we got, so im going to use it. Inequality is a kind of shorthand for all of the things that have gone to make the lives of the rich much more delicious year on year for three decades and also, its shorthand for all of the things that have gone to make the lives of working people in this country so wretched and so precarious. Inequality is visible in the ever rising cost of healthcare and college, in the coordination of wall street and the slow blading aware of it is you have to live. You catch a glimpse of inequality every time you hear about someone that has had to declare bankruptcy when one of their kids got sick or when you read about the lobbying industry that drives washington dc reader about the requirements that all about political candidates must either be billionaires favorites or actual billionaires themselves. Inequality is about the way that speculators and even criminals got a helping hand from uncle sam while the vietnam fed down the street from you loses his house. Inequality is the reason that some people find such incredible significance, such incredible meaning in the ceiling height of an entrance foyer or the hot content of a beer while other people will never believe in anything again. Inequality is a euphemism for the appalachia vocation of our world and i know i mean me of all people i know that if the republicans who bear the primary responsibility for this modern that we live in the other party that launched this country on our modern era of tax cutting and wage suppressing and these are the guys that made a religion out of the market and who fought so ferociously to open our politics to money at every level. I know all of that. But, just blaming the republicans one more time, turning the old tv set back to msnbc, folks, this is not good enough. Not anymore. The things i am describing represent a failure of the Democratic Party as well. Look, protecting the great and the class order used it to be what the democrats while about. This was that partys traditional mission. Once upon a time there leaders would have taken one look at the situation we are in today and they would have known exactly what to do. On not trying to lionize oldschool democrats. They had a lot of things wrong with them as we all know, but you take a guy like harry truman or Lyndon Johnson and they would have known precisely what to do about this current Economic Situation that we are in. These guys were screwed up in all sorts of ways, but one thing they were really really really good at doing was defending the middle class. This was shared prosperity with the democratic parties in the old days there greatest mission. It was their highest aim on the defending our middleclass world was a sacred task to these guys and they would never shut up about it. They talked about it all the time and to this day some bits of that, some vestiges of that still remains that democrats are the ones always pledging to raise the minimum wage and the taxes of the rich, but when it comes to tackling what president obama calls the defining challenge of our time, however, many of our modern Democratic Leaders falter. They acknowledge that inequality is this terrible thing, this awful thing and they know its out of control, but they cant find the conviction or the imagination to do what is necessary to reverse it. Instead, they offer the same, you know, highminded policy platitudes that they had been dishing up since the 1980s they remind us, they say there is nothing anything can do about technology or globalization. Globalization; right . That is the hand of god reaching down to rearrange human affairs. Nothing anyone can do about that, so they promise us you know what they promise us, Charter Schools onthejob training, student loans. They all shuttle out the student loans, but other than that they got nothing, folks. Lets start with some specific issues come in the mainline and you notice, the main issue of our century, of our dumb little century here, the wall street bailouts in 2008 in 2009. This was the great missed opportunity. This was the historical Inflection Point where our country could easily have changed course. But, our leaders chose not to. Remember what it was like back then, president barack obama had been elected on this massive wave of hope and enthusiasm. On election day 2008, there was this Amazing Party just a few blocks from here in grant park with thousands and thousands of people. Elected on this amazing wave, the country is at his back, all of the forces of history are behind him and he proceeded to continue the policies of president bush, essentially unchanged. Im referring to his policies towards wall street and the investment banks. No big banks were ever put into receivership. No bailouts were unwound no elite bankers were ever prosecuted. Obama and his democrats refused to change course when every sign was telling them to turn. When it would have been good policy to turn. When it would have been overwhelmingly popular to turn. When the country fully expected him to turn and when i say the country, i mean, that bankers themselves, the wall street bankers thought they were going to be taken to the wood shed and when it was fully within the president s and his partys power to steer this country in a different direction, they did not do it. What i am saying is that on this matter there was no conflict between pragmatism and idealism. This is a conflict we have been dealing a lot about during the primary season, the pragmatic candidate and idealism candidate. But, this id issue this is sure what to do at wall street, it was the practical thing and the helpful thing. It would have been good for the economy and the popular thing to the public learned them to do it. They were behind him with enormous numbers and he chose not to. Now, i know that the democrats are the good guys. For liberal like me, the democrats are the good guys or i should say the less bad guys, but when you start with Something Like that, this wall street issue the way i described its not a questions that all the economic aims of the recovery that happened since then presided over by democratic president , a president we are often told is the most liberal of all possible president if not an outright communist, the gains on the economic games games of this recovery have gone to the already wealthy. This is not or i should say not only because sinister diabolical republicans keep 40 the righteous liberal will. I know republicans are off when i know how they play the game. I live in dc these days. They are very good at it and are dedicated to obstructionism. Its like a philosophy for these guys, but what im talking about here is different. Is a straight up democratic failure. Obama played this issue the way he did because thats how he wanted to play. We have to get our heads around that. Now, call this a failure you know what the right word for it is. This is a betrayal. In the history of this betrayal goes back a long way when i was in the 70s and 80s the Democratic Party you read the newspaper and the Democratic Party was forever grappling with its identity. You know, arguing with one another over who they were, with the Democratic Party stood for. This went on for decades all through the 70s, 80s and up into the 90s. All these different factions of the Democratic Party basically fighting like cats and dogs, but they all agreed on one thing. All of these different factions agreed on one thing and that was what the democrats had to do was turn away from the legacy of the new deal with its fixation on workingclass people. Thats what they had to do. So, the man who brought this closure, lets say, to this long running Democratic Civil war was of course a president bill clinton and i think if we want to understand where the Democratic Party in the country are today, this is one of the turning points we have to look back at and how to scrutinize in some detail. Bill clinton brought a new kind of Democratic Administration to washington. Rather than paying homage to the politics of franklin roosevelt, which is what democrats used to always do, he was a patron saint allah sort or think. Clinton did the opposite. He did these kind of singular favors for fdrs old enemies, for the banks, the radio networks, the power company, basically the bosses. Shed deregulated wall street. And when i say he deregulated wall street it was not just one or two measures, it was throughout his presidency, item after item after item after item deregulated banks, finance and insured derivative securities would be traded without any kind of supervision. He deregulated radio and telecoms and he basically put an end to the federal welfare system. One of the things that he did that most people dont know about is that in 1997, clinton had a series of secret meetings with Newt Gingrich and they arrived at a plan to privatize Social Security. The meetings were secret at the time, but has since come out and its a known thing. People have written books about and its well documented and gingrich now talks about, but they had these meetings and they came up with a plan for privatizing Social Security and how they would roll it out and introduce the policy. Gingrich had the votes and clinton would sign it and clinton actually took the first step in their proposed plan in his state of the union speech in 1998. He said geez, what was it, we need to i, said we need to end welfare as we know, but thats not what it was. He said shoot, kill remember his exact words, but you know what happened. He had this great plan for privatizing and the very next day after his state of the union speech the monaco lewinsky scandal and we can thank her for saving Social Security system. [laughter] im quite serious. I think Monica Lewinsky is a hero. [laughter] bill clinton, interesting guy. He had this strategy as a candidate. He was running for the presidency and hid this strategy where he would go out of his way to insult or distance himself from some Traditional Democratic constituency like organized labor, minorities and thus assure the public that he was his own man picked the most famous example also happen in chicago. Jesse jackson, do you remember they called this the Sister Soldier moment where clinton arrange or contrived to insult jacks into his face before the cameras of the nation and democrats of the Clinton School had this kind of way of rationalizing this. It could insult these people with impunity they thought because remember this phrase, they had nowhere else to go. Remember that . Now, whats interesting about clinton is that this Campaign Tactic eventually became a fullblown philosophy of governance. Body slamming the people who got you elected. The classic example here is the north American Free trade agreement or nafta and you remember what this was a. George bush senior had negotiated it with canada and mexico, but could not get it through commerce because carvers at that time was controlled by old school democrats, but bill clinton could do it. He brought in your current mayor, ronnie manual who was his point man. Come on now, folks. I remember this vividly because i picture the time. I lived on 48 street and we will talk about that another time, but i would watch the debates on my stupid little tv set in that house. So, nafta, fascinating story if you think about it. When clinton got nafta passed he rammed through congress. He wasnt merely insulting his friends in organized labor who opposed nafta, he was conniving in their ruined. He was assisting in the destruction of their economic power. He wasnt just insulting them, he was materially injuring them. He was doing his part to undermine his own parties greatest ally. To ensure that management would always and forever now have the upper hand over workers whenever they tried to organize or go out and complain about something or basically anything because now management can always say we will move the plan to mexico. We close how that threat now. This is wellknown. They do it all the time and sometimes they even follow through on it. By passing nafta, clinton made the problems of working people materially worse. Now, nafta is interesting for a lot of reasons and one of them is that it was as close to a straight up class issue as we ever see in this country and it gives you when you look at the debate over nafta back in those days and 92, 93, it gives you an idea about what our modern democrats stand for and what to groups aiming to please. Like i say, i remember vividly watching these debates. The debate came down, you know, it was obvious he was on which side. Professionals and the rich were in favor of nafta, working people were opposed to it. People with graduate degrees were always very impressed to learn that 283 economists had signed a statement talk about how nafta would boost Employment Creation and Overall Economic growth. Now, ironically paradoxically whatever adverbial and to use the predictions of the unlettered bluecollar workers who oppose nafta turned out to be far closer to what eventually happened than did the rosy scenario of 283 economists and the road scholar at that in the oval office, president clinton. No matter, bill clintons admirers regarded this as his finest hour. They used this phrase all the time. This was a particularly brave act, his greatest moment as a president. You can find a version of this viewpoint admiring 1996 biography of bill clinton by the british journalist Martin Walker who said, yes, clinton had done a few things wrong, but these things were this is a quote from the book balanced and even outweighed by his part in finally sinking the untenable old consensus of the new deal and the crafting of a new one. Thats why this guy like tim. Thats why he admired bill clinton because he killed the new deal consensus. So, this new consensus that he talks about, this new consensus that came up to replace the old one, who were the heroes of this new consensus . Will come the same democratic thinkers are that period i have been describing who were always saying the party need to abandon workers in the new deal had the answer. Who should the Democratic Party served . What should democrats embrace . It was obvious, the emerging postindustrial economy and the people that the Democratic Party needed to identify with were the winners in this new economic order we were entering. Highly educated professionals who populated our innovative knowledge industries, lawyers, doctors, mass phds, write the derivative securities, biochemist that make the prescription drugs. If you can remember back in the 1950s, you will recall that professionals were once very solid republicans back in those days, but by the time bill clinton they had entirely shifted and today they are one of the most solidly democratic groups in the country. That is to the democrats are today. They are the party of the highly educated professional class. They have other constituencies, of course, minorities, women and the young. For example, these are the pieces of what they like to call the coalition of the ascendant, but when you read democratic literature you quickly realize that professionals are the ones who come first. These are the ones who technocratic outlook always prevails in Democratic Party arguments. Is their professional case in manners that are celebrated by liberal newspapers and is there particular way of regarding the world that is taken for granted by liberals as being objectively and obviously true. So, what im saying is that professionals dominate liberalism and the Democratic Party in the same way that ivy leaguers nominates the obama cabinet. So, a big part of liberal is reading democratic literature and they have these wonderful flattering phrases and terms of endearment for their favorite demographic. They call these high achieving professionals wired workers who will inherit the future. They call them a learning class that truly gets the power of education. I love that one, by the way, learning class, so some people are in the working class and other people are in the learning class. The one you are going to know, they are a creative class. Naturally rebels its fakeness and conformity and their innovation class that just cant stop coming up with awesome new stuff. Democratic leaders themselves are drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of this very same Demographic Group im talking about. Its not a coincidence that both bill clinton and barack obama and Hillary Clinton for that matter were all plucked from obscurity by prestigious universities or go look at bill clintons life story. Its sort of this classic tale of who the democrats are nowadays. This kid in hot springs, arkansas, goes to Georgetown University and at the doors of the world swing open for him and he becomes a road scholar and goes to jail law school. Thats who he is feared rock obamas life story is similar. Summary Democratic Leaders are. The time they spend it really fancy schools is what defines them. You look at their cabinet choices, either clinton or obama and his soul is the same kind of people. These successful professionals from a very limited number of institutions. Successful professionals whose wealth has been established by their achievement in college or graduate school. So, think about what i am saying here. The party has developed a theory of history with this group is like the winners. They are the heroes of history standing at the tivos, the endpoint of all of the great dialectics of history, the professional class they are the winners and the partys number one constituency and they are the Demographic Group from which all the Party Leaders are drawn. What im describing here is a basically a complete shift of allegiance from the traditional working and middleclass to this other group, professionals and this, i think, is what explains so much of what is frustrating about our modernday democrats. For example, this is what explains the palm of my started off with, sort of the vexing problem of obama and the banks. I was it that the obama team failed to do whats obviously needed to be done with the wall street banks . Why did they declare that wall street executives were going to be held to a different Legal Standard in ordinary criminals . They did declare this at the guy who said it had to resign immediately, but he did say it. It did come out. Whited team obama choose wall street over average people again and again and again and again . Every time there was a choice to be made they always want that direction. Y . Because for the achievement conscious people who fill the Obama Administration, invest the knickers than friends. These guys are classmates. These guys are peers. I mean, the two groups, Administration Investment banking, these two groups are essentially the same. They go back and forth through the revolving door in dc. There is a difference. Democrats in the leadership click, they look at wall street. They see its filled with these people love subtle minds, sophisticated jargon and extraordinary innovativeness, making up derivative securities, plucking wealth out of thin air. Is the most amazing thing in the world. This is exactly the kind of Creative Industry and creative individuals the Democratic Party theory tells us we must honor and respect. They are making these Financial Instruments that are so admirably complex. By the way, i have an addict out here. I that brent who is a Bank Regulator in the 80s, oldschool Bank Regulator and he had a hand in prosecuting a whole bunch of snl executives back in those days and he was telling me that when he used to do this stuff that he had his fellow Bank Regulators when they would look at a bank and see undue complexity like guys doing all sorts you know any. They would say red flag, fraud. They would zero in on it. They are up to something lets take a closer look at that, but when the obama team sees complexity its the opposite. They are like sophistication. They love that stuff. Is like financial rocket science. As one of Obama Administration official one set and by the way when he said it it was part of an explanation for why they had not prosecuted these guys. Financial rocket science. No one can understand it is the same for big farm now. So innovative you cant import generic pharmaceuticals, no, you have to protect these companies. Folks, meggitt ditto for silicon valley. An industry that can virtually do no wrong in the democratic eyes. Of course, meritocracy. The conviction that the successful deserve their success and that the people on top are up there because they are the best. This is the First Commandment of the professional managerial class. Everybody gets what they deserve and what they deserve is defined by how they did in school. Okay . Folks, this is wrong in about 100 different ways. But the only way im going to talk about here today is that this is not a good way to take on the problem of inequality. Indeed, this is not a doctrine for mitigating inequality. This is a way of rationalizing inequality. Right . You get what you deserve. You maybe you too bad youre struggling. When you didnt go to the right school or study the right subject or got the wrong college degree. Its a way of pushing it back on the visit inequality is not in the fault of the system. Its the fault of you. Theres no solidarity in a meritocracy. I its the exact opposite idea. Professional leaders like these guys in the administration and up a wall street, show this enormous respect for one another but have almost zero sympathy for the less fortunate members of their own discipline. Think about the white collar work play. When schwin is fired their colleagues dont go on strike or rally around them. They never do that. Could tell you my own story. I went and got a ph. D. Im a member of this class. When i got out of the ph. D program, turn it there were no more jobs in the humanities, we all had to work as the adjunct. Humanities are falling apart, what is this response of there still are people at the top of these disciplines with a lot of power. How much simple any for the adjuncts . Thats right. A big goose egg. That life doesnt shower its believe blessingsen people that cant make the grade. So, the story that i tell in listen, liberal is a happy and inspiring one. This is the gradual coming together. Kind of is. Its 19th century way. The coming together of money and the rich, of success and righteousness. This is the marriage of finance with political virtue, and virtue and righteousness are what being a liberal is all about these days. But in another sense, transformation of the Democratic Party has been a disaster. Left parties all over the world were founded about 100 years ago to advance the fortunes of working people. That why these parties exist. Look at the cross of gold speech. Right . Our left party here in america, one of our two monopoly parties, lest we forget, our left party in america that chosen over the last 30 years to turn its back on these peoples concerns and make itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, the creative class, that makes these awesome, info aviatetive things bike derivative securities and smartphone apps and the working people that the party used to care about had nowhere else to good. The famous formula for the clinton days. Folks, they have found somewhere else to go. By abandoning these people, democrats have made inevitable the economic desolation that you see in vast parts of the midwest, as well as a populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades. 12 years ago, i wrote about it and what it looked like in my home state of kansas, and today it is everywhere. Backlash is here. Its all over the country now. Forming out of the dee industrialized zone, screaming its bizarre and ugly slogans. Just think about the Political Choice that leaves us with this year. On one hand, angry rightwing intolerance, and on the other, inequality forever. Folks there has got to be a different way. Thank you very much. [applause] all right. Well take questions. Were going to tell chicago anecdotes. A few opinions. Im gary leavitt. You said your tv you watched was stupid. I dont know, since were on tv, maybe it wasnt a smart tv but this is important. Charles this is the way i talk. Just ignore it. I loved that tv. Drew lake drew weston and george have written books, political mind, a book about Charles Krauthammer said know thyselves is upraid. Neighborhoods led to crime and religious violence, and after 50 years of therapy they generally dont know what theyre doing and you wouldnt believe us. Be nice to kids and they think youre a pedophile. Why isnt there a nobel prize in psychology and could you nominate me to win it . You got is, man. Okay. I love chicago. Its a pleasure to meet you. Enjoy whats the matter with kansas. One question, do you think you might be too hypercritical in regards to the democrats and do you think the Democratic Party might be rolling back to its new deal roots . You mentioned, for example, the issue of privatization of Social Security. I didnt even hear that he that clinton and gingrich conspired to privatize they kept it secret. So Hillary Clinton is going to defend Social Security and expand it. Under obama we have gotten obamacare. They raised top rates for taxes. We did get dodd frank. At least it was something, do you think its rolling back . I think well, theres signs of hope. And i shouldnt the one mistake is that i think the one thing i will say about what you just described, they arent all the same. Hillary is different than bill, and barack obama is different than both of them. Barack obama heres a man whose heart is, i think, clearly in the right place. And yet, when you look at his great big three achievements as president. Stimulus, doddfrank and obamacare, and all of these are flawed in exactly the sort of the way ive been describing. Always reaching out for complexity when its totally unnecessary. Doddfrank you. Mentioned it. Its 20,000 pages long. And its getting longer by the minute. Theres this because they left it up to basically lobbyists and regulators to write this thing, and theyre in d. C. Right now working on the loopholes and exceptions and on and on. It would have been so much simpler to just choose a kind of elegant 1930s style solution. No, were breaking this industry in two. There it goes. It would have been so much simpler but that hey to reach for well, obamacare has the same flaw. So, its not that it think that obama is a bill clinton kind of figure. Think he is a different kind of president. As soon as i say that i pick up the newspaper and here he is pushing for the transpacific partnership. The thinks hes going to get that down. And im like, why . Why do it . So, every time i start to think, maybe ive been a little too hard on the democrats, they do Something Like that. Is. Thank you for being here. One of the selling points at the time with nafta was the success of put that in quotes of the u. S. Canada Free Trade Agreement from 1989. Seems in 2016 when the orange one attacks nafta, its more about mexico than canada. So i guess one of the things were missing in this discussion is enough of the flaw with the tpp. Its when you have countries of a certain economic strata competing with countries of a lower economic strata and being dragged down to the bottom instead of raising it. Im curious to get your perspective. If the u. S. Canada Free Trade Agreement just happened and mexico was not involved, would that have been a better example of free trade or can free trade only exist between countries you u. S. And canada are similar i understand i guess thats missing from the debate. Do you know what that deal did in canada . Canada hates it for many reasons. My canadian friends brought down the government there the voters were like, no way. Was it mull rooney . Yes. Down to two seats, and he had passed the baton to kim campbell and she lost her seat. Cataclysmic. Well deserves, mr. Mulroney. What people ondont realize and a half taste not the most harmel of the trade agreements. It was the first one we fought about. We had a big public debate. Its always remembered as the moment when this stuff happened. It wasnt it didnt by itself there were many, many free trade deals after that one but it was the big win. What people dont realize when they think at and a half tacoma tariffs in mexico were already very low. And tariffs with a lot of countries were very, very low. These deals are, like, and a half, is Something Like 2,000 pages long. If you wanted to do something that was like free trade with mexico it whoa be one page. Thats not what nafta did. Nafta is about securing the Property Rights of investors in mexico. It removes the mexican governments power to nationalize industries. So it made it so you could build a factory in the zone along the border and take advantage of all of their the labor laws and that sort of thing, laws is the wrong word but the Economic Situation there, and youre in no danger of the government coming in and nationalizing or doing any of the other things that government seems to do. Glory no danger of that happening. Thats what nafta changed. But tariffs were already low. You look at the transpacific partnership. Some of it is about lowering tariffs but a lot of protecting big pharma. And another thing i always have to remind people about trade agreements. We talk about globalization all the time. Everybody in d. C. Talks about globalization, as to the they know what it means. It means these people are winners, these people are losers and thats god doing that. Its the globe. Thats this power that we cant even question is doing that to us. But in fact, trade deals, which are how legal inization happens are written by humans. Theyre written bay specific category of humans. Theyre written by lobbyists, and theyre written to protect certain industries, defend certain classes of people, and to ruin other groups. I learned this when i was writing listen liberal. An economist friend of mine who talks about this constantly. He was around for the nafta debate. He talked about he knows the subject inside and out, and he loves to talk about how you could write a trade deal to ruin any class or category of americans and to protect any other category or class of americans. Professionals always think, globalization, its making me rich. Its not because the deals are written just because im so awesome. You can write a trade deal that would import enormous numbers of doctors and lawyers into the country, ensure they are qualified, and you would basically drive down the wages in those professions, like way, way, down. It would be great for people who consume medicine and legal services. You could do the same thing to education to any industry if you wanted, or any category. But thats never on the table. Its always, you and me that gets screwed, right . Sorry. I need to shut up. Im being told i need to shut up. Thanks very much for saying what you have said. I think if anything you have been moderate and cautious, and its what needs to be out there. No one ever says that but i try to be responsible. I try have a rope for saying the things i say. I was in working in a northwest india steel mill when nafta went down. Im one of those people. And we have been having this conversation for a long time about how we have two parties that both represent wall street. Theyre both devoted to wall street. When it first went down the Union Leadership said theres no way we are supporting clinton in 96. He has betrayed us. Guess what. But by the end it came to, well, we have to come to grips with this thing of having two parties of wall street but not this year. This year it is too dangerous. This year we could get bob dole for president . And then people would just be permanently replaced when they were going on strike . So, i guess Bernie Sanders is one of the names that hovers unspoken under this conversation, and i feel like the rebellion he launched is being told the same thing you have wonderful ideas and its so inspiring. Were so grateful to you. But you cant do it this year because this year is too dangerous. And so. I know. Eave year is too dangerous. When is going be