NARRATOR: FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE 1930s, RECENT YEARS HAVE WITNESSED THE RENEWAL OF DISCUSSION IN AMERICAN POLITICS ABOUT AN IDEA WHICH CALLS ITSELF "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM."

WHAT DO THE NEW AMERICAN SOCIALISTS MEAN, AND WHAT ARE THE COUNTERARGUMENTS TO THEIR POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... WILLIAM AND SUSAN DORAN... UGI CORPORATION... NJM INSURANCE... CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION... RAZA BOKHARI... JOHN AND PATRICIA WALSH...

THE CHARLES KOCH INSTITUTE.

FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE AND, AT TIMES, A SUPERHEATED DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THE PROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY.

AT TIMES, THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS A POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES.

BUT AT OTHER TIMES, IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT OF AS AN AMERICAN CHAPTER IN A GLOBAL AND A TITANIC STRUGGLE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM ON THE ONE HAND AND CAPITALISM ON THE OTHER.

RECENT YEARS HAVE WITNESSED THE REEMERGENCE IN AMERICAN POLITICS OF PROMINENT FIGURES, LIKE SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS AND CONGRESSWOMAN ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS AND WHO CALL FOR A FORM OF SOCIALISM AS THE GOING-FORWARD BASIS FOR AN AMERICAN SYSTEM OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.

ON THE RIGHT, HOWEVER, THE VERY WORD "SOCIALISM" REMAINS ANATHEMA AND IS USED AS AN INSULT.

SO WHAT DO THE NEW AMERICAN SOCIALISTS WANT, AND ARE THEY RIGHT TO WANT IT?

WITH US TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE TODAY IS DR. MICHAEL KAZIN, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY AND CO-EDITOR OF "DISSENT" MAGAZINE.

MICHAEL IS ALSO THE CO-EDITOR OF THE BOOK "WE OWN THE FUTURE: DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM-- AMERICAN STYLE."

AND AMITY SHLAES, A "NEW YORK TIMES" BEST-SELLING AUTHOR AND CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF THE CALVIN COOLIDGE PRESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION.

MICHAEL AND AMITY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

THIS IS--I THINK THIS QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM IS A CURRENT QUESTION IN AMERICAN POLITICS-- VERY CURRENT.

AND I THINK THAT THIS-- I'M PERHAPS DATING MYSELF-- THIS COMES AS A SURPRISE.

MOST OF--THIS GOES BACK TO COLLEGE DAYS.

THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM AND SO FORTH DURING OUR COLLEGE ERA, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT ALL THAT WAS BEHIND US.

NOW WE HAVE MAJOR POLITICIANS-- BERNIE SANDERS, AOC, AND SO FORTH--EMERGING AND EMBRACING THE LABEL.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM" TODAY, OR IS THAT THE PROPER LABEL FOR WHAT IS BEING CALLED SOCIALIST POLITICS IN AMERICA?

WELL, DAVID, I THINK THERE'S 3 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOCIALISM, HISTORICALLY.

ONE IS THE KIND OF SOCIALISM THAT NO DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST OR OBVIOUSLY DEMOCRATIC CAPITALIST WOULD FAVOR-- THAT IS THE SOCIALISM OF CUBA, SOVIET UNION AND CHINA, NORTH KOREA TODAY.

IT'S AUTHORITARIAN KIND OF SOCIALISM, WHERE EVERYTHING'S CONTROLLED BY THE STATE.

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS THE ORIGINAL KIND OF SOCIALISM THAT WOULD HAVE SOCIETY AND ECONOMY RUN IN A COMMUNAL WAY, EVERYBODY BEING FAIRLY EQUAL.

PRIVATE PROPERTY WOULD BE-- YOU KNOW, FOR PERSONAL POSSESSIONS, IT WOULD BE PRIVATE.

EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE OWNED SOCIALLY.

AND THAT'S THE KIND OF SOCIALISM WHICH HAS NEVER EXISTED AND YOU COULD ARGUE IT NEVER COULD EXIST.

IT'S A RATHER UTOPIAN IDEA.

WHEN PEOPLE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS AND ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT-- CALL THEMSELVES DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS, WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS WHAT IN EUROPE IS CALLED "SOCIAL DEMOCRACY," A TERM WHICH HAS NEVER REALLY TAKEN OFF HERE.

WHAT THEY MEAN IS, THERE WOULD STILL BE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THERE WOULD STILL BE CAPITALISTS, BUT THERE WOULD BE A VERY STRONG, ROBUST WELFARE STATE, MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO WELFARE STATES IN THE NATION OF SCANDINAVIA TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, THE WELFARE STATES ONE HAS IN FRANCE AND IN GERMANY.

BUT WHERE THERE'D BE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, UNIONS WOULD BE VERY STRONG, HEALTH CARE WOULD BE VERY CHEAP OR--OR FREE.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, COLLEGE EDUCATION WOULD BE FREE.

AND SO THERE'D BE A VERY STRONG SAFETY NET.

AND A LOT OF WHAT NOW PEOPLE PAY FOR IN AMERICA AND THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD, LIKE MEDICAL CARE, LIKE HOUSING, LIKE EVEN TRANSPORTATION, ALL THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY AT VERY LOW COST OR FREE.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT SANDERS TALKS ABOUT, AND THAT'S WHY HE REFERENCES FDR, REFERENCES MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. REFERENCES LYNDON JOHNSON WITH SOCIETY, LYNDON JOHNSON AT THE VIETNAM WAR, LYNDON JOHNSON-- EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

'CAUSE HE SEES THEM AS FIGURES OF AMERICAN HISTORY WHO WERE TRYING TO PROMOTE, UMM... SOMETHING LIKE THIS WELFARE STATE, THOUGH NOT AS MUCH AS ONE HAS, SAY, IN SWEDEN OR DENMARK.

EISENHOWER: AMITY, YOU'RE AN AUTHORITY ON CALVIN COOLIDGE, WHO WAS RONALD REAGAN'S FAVORITE PRESIDENT.

HE'S TRULY ONE OF THE MOST, UH...

SIGNIFICANT, SEEMS TO ME, FIGURES IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY THAT JUST PREDATES THE AGE OF MASS MEDIA.

HE SERVED A VERY SUCCESSFUL-- COULD HAVE BEEN RE-ELECTED, I BELIEVE, IN 1928.

GAVE WAY TO HERBERT HOOVER.

HOW DID THIS LOOK FROM A COOLIDGE PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS, THE INTERVENTION OF THE NEW DEAL?

WAS THIS--WAS THIS A REVOLUTION?

WAS THIS A MODERATE SORT OF ADJUSTMENT TO DEPRESSION-ERA EXIGENCIES OR WHAT?

COOLIDGE WAS A POLITE MAN, SO HE JUST SAID, "I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT."

EISENHOWER: HA HA!

IT--IT--AND I NOTICE VERY SADLY THE DAY COOLIDGE PASSED AWAY, THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, THAT IS THE SOCIALIZATION OF A POWER PROJECT, WAS ON PAGE 1.

HE HAD OPPOSED THAT VERY VEHEMENTLY A COUPLE TIMES IN THE TWENTIES, AND I ALWAYS WONDERED WHETHER SEEING THE TVA BECOME REALITY, JUST AS PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT WAS BECOMING PRESIDENT IN 1933, GAVE COOLIDGE A STROKE.

BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T HAVE LIKED TO SEE THAT HEADLINE WHEN HE DIED IN JANUARY '33.

COOLIDGE WAS A TRADITIONAL FEDERALIST.

HE--IN THE COOLIDGE UNITED STATES, HARD AS IT IS TO IMAGINE, THE STATES AND THE TOWNS WERE A BIGGER PRESENCE IN THE ECONOMY THAN THE WASHINGTON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

HE SAID AMERICA-- HE ALWAYS SPOKE-- PRONOUNCED THE UNITED STATES IN PLURAL.

"THE UNITED STATES ARE MIGHTY, "AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, WELL, SMALLER AND THERE FOR WARS"-- EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

IN THE COOLIDGE VIEW, SO THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AMERICA.

AND WHAT A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE THIRTIES AND THE TWENTIES OF COOLIDGE.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT, BUT DID-- UH, WHAT I SAY-- WOULD COOLIDGE AND THAT LINE OF PRESIDENTS, HARDING TO COOLIDGE, WOULD THAT HAVE REPRESENTED A, UM...

STEP BACK FROM WILSON?

WILSON WAS SOMEBODY WHO ACTUALLY PUT IN PLACE, UH...

MANY OF THE INNOVATIONS THAT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WOULD CARRY FORWARD IN THE NEW DEAL.

DID COOLIDGE ROLL BACK WILSONIANISM IN ANY WAY?

YES, HE DID.

WELL, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, SIR.

IF YOU THINK OF PROGRESSIVISM AS A WAVE OR FLOOD, AND YOU PUT UP A WALL OR A DYKE, AND THEN THERE'S A HOLE IN THE DYKE, IT'S COOLIDGE'S THUMB THAT GOES IN.

HE PERSONALLY HELD PROGRESSIVISM BACK.

AND RECALL, THE PROGRESSIVES WERE IN HIS OWN PARTY.

THERE WAS A THIRD PARTY-- RIGHT.

THE PARTY OF LA FOLLETTE IN THE TWENTIES, AND MANY PEOPLE IN THAT PARTY WERE REPUBLICANS, ALONG WITH THE WILSONIA-- SOME WILSONIAN DEMOCRATS.

RIGHT.

AND HE SAID, "NO, THAT'S NOT HOW I SEE THE PARTY OR THE COUNTRY."

AND WHAT'S VERY INTERESTING, AND I THINK WE WERE CHATTING ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE SHOW GOT STARTED.

COOLIDGE BECAME PRESIDENT IN 1923 BECAUSE, TRAGICALLY, WARREN HARDING PASSED AWAY, BUT COOLIDGE HAD TO RUN FOR OFFICE IN 1924.

AND WHEN HE RAN FOR OFFICE, THERE WAS A MIGHTY THIRD PARTY, THE PROGRESSIVES-- RIGHT.

SO PEOPLE THOUGHT, "WELL, THE REPUBLICANS MIGHT LOSE, AS THEY OFTEN DO WHEN THERE ARE 3 PARTIES."

INSTEAD, COOLIDGE TOOK AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, NOT MERELY A PLURALITY.

HE TOOK MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATS AND THE PROGRESSIVES, WHO WERE SORT OF PEROT-LIKE, COMBINED TO WIN IN '24.

SO FOR THE MOMENT, HIS IDEAS OR THE IDEAS OF A MORE RESTRAINED FREE MARKET AMERICA WERE VERY POPULAR.

YEAH, THEY WERE POPULAR, AND I WOULD SAY THAT SOCIALISM, HISTORICALLY, HAS BEEN A KIND OF INSULT IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS A LABEL-- YES.

THAT YOU HURL AT SOMEBODY YOU DO NOT LIKE.

SO I GUESS AN INTERESTING QUESTION I WOULD-- OR A QUESTION THAT INTERESTS ME IS WHY DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS WHO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE REFORMERS IN THE MOLD OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT AND LYNDON JOHNSON WOULD EMBRACE THAT LABEL, IN OTHER WORDS A LABEL WHICH HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY VERY UNPOPULAR?

MAYBE I'VE GOT THIS WRONG, BUT IN THE 1930s, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS IN ALMOST COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE U.S. ECONOMY, MEANING WE HAD A NATION-- NATIONAL ECONOMY.

TODAY, WE HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY.

IF ONE SEGMENT OF THAT ECONOMY DECIDES TO RAISE TAXES, LET'S SAY, TO PROVIDE FREE SCHOOL OR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OR HEALTH COVERAGE AS A RIGHT, AND THAT TYPE OF THING-- ALL THESE THINGS, WHICH BEAR A LOT OF EXPENSE-- CAN'T CAPITAL JUST RUN AWAY, SORT OF DEFEATING THE PURPOSE?

AREN'T WE IN SOME SORT OF, UH... GOLDEN, ER-- WHAT--WHAT DO THEY CALL IT?

"THE GOLDEN STRAITJACKET"?

THOMAS FRIEDMAN DID.

THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO IN AN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY WITHOUT LOSING YOUR ECONOMY?

WELL, FIRST, A LOT OF OUR COMPETITORS ALREADY HAVE WELFARE STATES, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.

MUCH OF EUROPE DOES.

YOU KNOW, CHINA HAS A BAD ONE, BUT IT STILL HAS ONE.

UM...AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT, I THINK WE CAN AFFORD IT.

ALSO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE LAST-- OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF MANUFACTURING HAS ALREADY GONE OVERSEAS, AS YOU KNOW, UH, BECAUSE OF CHEAPER LABOR, BECAUSE OF LESS REGULATION.

BUT--AND IT'S BEEN REPLACED BY A THRIVING HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, EDUCATIONAL INDUSTRY, SILICON VALLEY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK TO THE DEGREE THAT OUR ECONOMY WAS DOING WELL BEFORE THE PANDEMIC AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL START TO DO WELL AGAIN THIS YEAR, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF PEOPLE ARE MORE, UM...UH...

WHAT SHOULD I SAY?

COMFORTABLE THAT THEY WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY GET SICK, THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GO TO SCHOOL PRETTY CHEAPLY-- PUBLIC SCHOOL, THAT IS, PUBLIC COLLEGES, AS THEY COULD IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES, BY THE WAY, WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS DOING VERY WELL BEFORE TUITION HIKES WENT REALLY UP AT PUBLIC COLLEGES-- THEN I THINK, ACTUALLY, WE'LL HAVE A HAPPIER WORKFORCE, A MORE PRODUCTIVE WORKFORCE, AND THE KIND OF INDUSTRIES THAT WERE THRIVING BEFORE WILL CONTINUE TO THRIVE.

WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE MASS MANUFACTURING, I THINK, GOING FORWARD.

UM...AND, YOU KNOW, THAT IS GOING TO BE-- DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ARE GOING TO BE PRODUCING ONE OF THESE GOODS MORE AND MORE, EXCEPT FOR SPECIALTY GOODS.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I'D RATHER TRY TO PROVIDE A DECENT INCOME AND DECENT JOBS FOR A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THAN WORRY ABOUT WHETHER THIS INDUSTRY OR THAT INDUSTRY WILL GO OVERSEAS TO A POORER COUNTRY IF-- AND MOST OF THESE, AFTER ALL, WITH THIS WONDERFUL, SOMETIMES WONDERFUL TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE, THE INTERNET, SO MUCH WORK CAN BE DONE, YOU KNOW, FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD ANYWAY.

SO YOU MIGHT FIND AMERICANS WORKING FOR AMERICAN COMPANIES LIVING IN SWEDEN, YOU KNOW, MORE AND MORE.

SO I THINK--LOOK, I'M NOT AN ECONOMIST, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE ECONOMY'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, BUT I DO THINK THAT MORE AND MORE OTHER COUNT-- CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DEMANDING MORE EQUAL SOCIETIES JUST AS AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK-- OTHER SOCIETIES ARE GONNA STAND STILL WITH MORE UNEQUAL SOCIETIES WHILE WE BECOME MORE EQUAL.

I DOUBT THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT SOCIALISM IS COMPATIBLE WITH OPEN BORDERS.

THAT'S WHAT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS, SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS, YEAH.

VERY IMPORTANT.

AGAIN, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION-- LOOK, SWEDEN HAS MORE BILLIONAIRES PER CAPITA THAN THE UNITED STATES, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A GREAT WELFARE STATE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO RUN VOLVO AND SAAB AND THE OTHER BIG SWEDISH COMPANIES, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE DOING JUST FINE WITH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

UM...SO, THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T AS WELL.

SO THIS IS WHAT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY MEANS.

WE'RE LOOKING TOWARD EUROPEAN EXAMPLES, CORRECT?

THESE ARE--YEAH, WE'RE LOOKING TOWARD EUROPEAN EXAMPLES, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS SOMETHING AMERICA, AT LEAST MY READING, DOESN'T DO VERY OFTEN.

WE DON'T LOOK OVERSEAS FOR MODELS VERY OFTEN.

WELL, ACTUALLY, THE PROGRESSIVES WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER-- AMITY PROBABLY KNOWS ABOUT THIS-- YOU KNOW, THEY ACTUALLY DID LEARN A LOT FROM WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN OR READ A BIOGRAPHY ABOUT.

HE SPENT TIME IN EUROPE-- RIGHT.

AND HE WAS--HE PRAISED-- STUDIED GERMAN.

...

OWNERSHIP-- RIGHT.

AND HE THOUGHT THE GERMAN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS A PRETTY GOOD PARTY-- RIGHT.

IT'S JUST THEY WERE ATHEISTS.

HE DIDN'T LIKE THAT.

BUT SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PROGRESSIVES, ACTUALLY, EARLY, THE ORIGINAL PROGRESSIVES DID LEARN A LOT FROM EUROPEAN MODELS.

NEW ZEALAND WAS A MODEL FOR SOME OF THEM AS WELL.

AMITY, DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE-- ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEORETICAL CONSISTENCY BETWEEN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND SORT OF OPEN BORDERS OR NOT HAVING A NATION.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS, AMITY.

DO YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY WITHOUT PROPERTY?

CAN YOU BE BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND-- I DON'T, I DON'T.

I THINK PROPERTY IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE CONVEY THAT IDEA POORLY, BUT I WANT TO PUSH BACK A BIT ON THE IDEA THAT THERE'S NOWHERE TO RUN IF YOU WANT TO BE A LESS-TAXED ENTREPRENEUR, SAY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY THOUGHT IN THE 1960s.

ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IN MY RECENT BOOK IS WALTER REUTHER, THE LEADER OF THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS, A VERY LOVABLE SOCIAL DEMOCRAT-- EISENHOWER: YES.

AND HE AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY, COMPLICIT WITH HENRY FORD, SAID, "NO ONE WILL EVER GO ANYWHERE.

"WHAT IS JAPAN?

"IT'S A PLACE WE MIGHT SELL SOME CARS.

IT MIGHT GET SOME UNIONS LIKE OURS."

AND WHILE WALTER WAS--REUTHER, AND IT'S A NAME WE HEARD ON THE RADIO EVERY NIGHT WHEN WE WERE GROWING UP AND ON TV, AND THE UAW AND THE BIG 3 OF DETROIT WERE BUILDING DETROIT AND A SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY OF THE VERY TYPE MICHAEL'S DESCRIBING.

THEY WERE RENDERING US UNCOMPETITIVE, AND THE TOYOTAS WERE ROLLING OFF THE DOCKS IN CALIFORNIA.

AND WHEN THEY LOOKED UP FROM BUILDING THEIR SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, THEY SAW THAT THESE FOREIGN AUTOMAKERS MADE BETTER CARS THAT WERE ALSO FAR MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT.

AND THIS DID LEAD US TO FLINT, FOR EXAMPLE.

THE REASON FLINT AND DETROIT ARE IN TROUBLE IS NOT BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL GOVERNOR OR MAYOR MESSED UP.

IT'S BECAUSE THE GROWTH IN THOSE AREAS FOR DECADES HAS CHOSEN TO STAY AWAY.

SO WHY WOULD TODAY BE DIFFERENT?

SOME UNPREDICTED, LESS-TAXED OR MORE FREE OR LESS-REGULATED PLACE WILL BE THE PLACE WHERE THE MONEY WILL GO, AND WE WILL LOSE OUT IF WE DON'T KEEP OUR REGIME COMPETITIVE.

I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER THING, WHICH-- AMITY, MAY I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND?

IT'S GENERALLY THE DISCUSSION THAT THE CURRENCY WE TAKE FOR GRANTED AND THE DOLLAR IS ALWAYS IT AND WILL ALWAYS BE THE CURRENCY OF RESERVE-- I THINK WE WILL FEEL THE PRESSURE AGAINST THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC STATE IN CONGRESS, SOMEWHAT FOR THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE THERE, BUT EVEN MORE STRONGLY THROUGH THE CURRENCY AND INFLATION, BECAUSE THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET WILL TELL US, EVENTUALLY, WE'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH AND WE'LL HAVE TO STOP.

IT'S--THE MONEY--AND IT'S FLOWS THAT WILL TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHEN TO STOP, NOT THE POLITICAL OPPOSITION.

OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS OR LONGER, PERHAPS EVEN 30 YEARS OR WHATEVER, WE HAVE SCALED DOWN TAXES, WE HAVE REDUCED REGULATION, WE HAVE MOVED IN THE DIRECTION OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM AND SO FORTH.

AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN GREAT...INEQUALITY, I WOULD SAY, SUGGESTING THAT WHEREAS, UH... SOCIALISM LEFT TO ITS OWN DEVICES OR WHATEVER LEADS TO AN EXTREME, WHICH MUST BE MODIFIED IN SOME WAY, DOES CAPITALISM REQUIRE A KIND OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY OF SORTS?

DOES IT REQUIRE THAT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CALL SOCIAL JUSTICE?

I THINK SO.

I THINK SO, YEAH, YEAH.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE MOST EGALITARIAN ECONOMY WE EVER HAD WAS BETWEEN 1930s AND THE 1960s-- EISENHOWER: CORRECT.

WHEN UNIONS WERE STRONG, WHEN REGULATION WAS STRONG.

AND SINCE--YOU KNOW, IT'S CALLED THE GREAT DEPRESSION-- EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

BY MANY ECONOMISTS AND HISTORIANS.

SINCE THE EARLY SEVENTIES, WE'VE GONE THE OTHER DIRECTION.

AS YOU KNOW, UNIONS HAVE GOTTEN WEAKER.

AND, UM... AND INCOMES HAVE STALLED FOR MOST AMERICANS.

THEY GO UP IN THE 1990s, THEN THEY WENT DOWN AGAIN.

UM...SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH...

YES, IN FACT, IF YOU WANT A MORE DECENT, A MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIETY UNDER CAPITALISM, I SAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MUCH MORE ASPECTS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

CAPITALISM DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IMMORAL, AND IT DOESN'T NEED SOCIALISM TO MAKE IT MORAL.

EVEN IF YOU GO BACK TO ADAM SMITH AND "THE THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS," MEN AND WOMEN MUST BE GOOD AND ARE GOOD, OFTEN, WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM TO BE GOOD.

WHEN WE LOOK AT SCANDINAVIA, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HISTORICALLY?

A NATION--NATIONS CREATED BY THE PROTESTANT CHURCH.

RIGHT?

AND EVEN TODAY, WHEN YOU GO TO SCANDINAVIA, WHEN YOU GET TO KNOW IT, WHATEVER PEOPLE SAY IT'S STILL ALMOST LIKE A CHURCH CULTURE THERE.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

WHEN THEY PROTEST ABOUT PRACTICING RELIGION, WE ARE A DIVERSE, WILDER COUNTRY.

RIGHT.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT ADAM SMITH SAID-- THERE IS SUCH A THING AS MORAL, A MORAL BACKGROUND-- TRUE.

WHERE ONE PERSON TRUSTS THE OTHER, WHERE THE COMMUNITY GETS TOGETHER AND DOES A LOT THROUGH CHARITY, AND THAT IS SIGNIFICANT AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT--THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN KINDNESS AND CAPITALISM AS TWO OPPOSITES, THAT IS A FALSE OPPOSITION.

ARE WE REALLY IN A FUNDAMENTAL DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY OVER THE WAY WE ARE GOING TO ORGANIZE OURSELVES GOING FORWARD?

DOES THE AOC/BERNIE SANDERS PHENOMENON SIGNAL A REAL CHANGE IN THE WAY WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT OUR ECONOMY AND OUR SOCIETY OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, OR HAS, IN FACT, HISTORY ENDED AND WE ARE JUST SIMPLY TINKERING AT THE EDGES?

IT'S CLEAR THAT NOTHING IS NEW.

IT IS JUST FORGOTTEN.

IT IS CLEAR THAT SOCIALISM-- THE TERM IS POPULAR NOW BECAUSE TOO FEW PEOPLE, TOO FEW ADULTS CAN RECALL WHAT SOCIALISM IS LIKE.

THE COLD WAR SEEMS MORE THAN ANOTHER CENTURY AWAY TO YOUNGER PEOPLE.

THE EXPERIENCE OF THE EAST BLOC, THE EXPERIENCE, EVEN, IN VENEZUELA SEEMS FOREIGN TO THEM.

SO THEY'RE UNWILLING TO CONCEDE THE EVIDENCE OF SOCIALISM, AND THEY'RE IDEALISTIC.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON WITH THE EARLY SIXTIES.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT SOCIALISM WORKS.

IT MEANS WE BETTER DO A BETTER JOB OF SHOWING WHAT SOCIALISM'S EFFECT IS.

EISENHOWER: BUT BY COMPARING--YES.

BY COMPARING THIS WITH THE 1960s, WHAT YOU'RE IMPLYING THERE, AMITY, IS THAT SOCIALISM IS A SENTIMENT... THAT THE EGALITARIANISM OF THE EARLY SIXTIES WAS A SENTIMENT.

THIS WAS SONG AND CULTURE, WHICH TURNED INTO THE ROARING EIGHTIES AND THE CLINTON ECONOMY AND SO FORTH.

SO IT TURNED INTO NEO-LIBERALISM.

SO IT WAS NOT A GENUINE, I WOULD SAY, IMPULSE IN AMERICAN POLITICS AT THAT TIME, BUT, MICHAEL, WHAT DO YOU SAY?

ARE WE--ARE WE DEBATING FUNDAMENTALS HERE?

THERE ARE 3 MODELS IN THE WORLD TODAY, I WOULD SAY.

ONE IS THE CHINESE MODEL, WHICH IS AUTHORITARIAN CAPITALISM WITH A MIXED ECONOMY IN SOME WAYS.

AND OF COURSE, THERE'S LOTS OF PEOPLE-- YOU KNOW, THE RUSSIANS ARE A POOR WAY OF HAVING THAT KIND OF ECONOMY IN SOME WAYS.

SOME OTHER NATIONS LIKE VIETNAM ARE TRYING TO DO THAT AS WELL.

THEN WE HAVE MORE NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMIES TO SIZE LIKE THE UNITED STATES, I THINK, HAS BEEN, AS YOU MENTIONED, FOR A WHILE, SINCE THE LAST 20, 30 YEARS.

JOE BIDEN'S ADMINISTRATION, I THINK, IS GONNA TRY TO MOVE IT AWAY FROM THAT.

AND WE HAVE MORE SOCIALLY DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES, MIXED ECONOMIES, LIKE [INDISTINCT] IN EUROPE, LIKE URUGUAY, COSTA RICA, A FEW OTHER SMALL COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHO WINS OUT.

A WONDERFUL DISCUSSION.

AS I SAY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TAKEN ME BY SURPRISE, GIVEN MY AGE, THAT IDEAS-- YOU'RE RIGHT, AMITY-- THAT A TRIUMPH THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE CELEBRATING FOREVER IN THE LATE 1980s WOULD SUDDENLY FIND CURRENCY WITH THE REBIRTH OF TERMS AND SO FORTH THAT WE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD LEFT BEHIND US FOR MANY YEARS.

AND WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICAL POLICY TERMS WILL PLAY OUT.

BUT THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TODAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

EISENHOWER: FOR PEOPLE OF A CERTAIN AGE-- MY AGE, FOR EXAMPLE-- THE RESURGENCE OF THE BANNER OF SOCIALISM IN AMERICAN POLITICS SEEMS QUITE STRANGE, BUT THE 21st CENTURY THUS FAR HAS BEEN A PRETTY TOUGH TIME FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM.

WE HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN RISING ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, LOWER LABOR PARTICIPATION RATES, AND LARGE SWATHES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM OLDER FOLKS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES, WHICH ARE INCREASINGLY ECONOMICALLY NON-VIABLE TO HIGHLY EDUCATED MILLENNIALS UNABLE TO EARN ENOUGH TO FORM FAMILIES AND BUY HOMES IN THE FACE OF LARGE STUDENT DEBT TO THE TRAPPED SENSE AMONG NON-COLLEGE-EDUCATED WORKING CLASS.

PERHAPS IT'S NATURAL, THEREFORE, THAT CALLS FOR BOLD AND BIG ACTION OF THE SORT THE UNITED STATES HASN'T SEEN OR HEARD SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

PERHAPS THAT MAKES SENSE.

WHETHER ONE CALLS STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY SOCIALISM OR NOT, ONE CAN HARDLY DENY THE UNDERLYING PRESSURES FOR CHANGE COMING FROM BOTH THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT OR THE POPULIST RIGHT.

IS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IN SOME FORM THE FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL ECONOMY?

SHOULD IT BE?

OF COURSE.

AS ALWAYS, WE LEAVE IT TO YOU TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS IN YOUR OWN WAY FOR YOURSELVES.

ONCE AGAIN, FOR "THE WHOLE TRUTH," I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... WILLIAM AND SUSAN DORAN... UGI CORPORATION... NJM INSURANCE... CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION... RAZA BOKHARI... JOHN AND PATRICIA WALSH...

THE CHARLES KOCH INSTITUTE.