>>> HUGE NUMBERS VOTED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE LAST ELECTION EVEN AS HE PROMISED TO EXTEND TAX BREAKS TO THE RICHEST IN THE COUNTRY.

OUR NEXT GUEST CLAIMS TRUMP WAS ABOUT TO EXPLOIT WORKING CLASS ANGER TO WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL DESPITE SOME OF HIS SIGNATURE POLICIES HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE THEIR LIVES MEASURABLY WORSE.

MICHAEL SANDELL JOINS MICHELLE MARTIN TO DISCUSS WHAT HE SAYS IS THE WIDENING INCOME AND EDUCATION GAP IN THE U.S.

THAT'S HELPED FUEL TRUMP'S POPULOUS RISE TO POWER.

>> PROFESSOR SANDELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

>> AND CONGRATULATIONS BECAUSE ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE SPEAKING WITH YOU TODAY IS THAT YOU HAVE JUST BEEN AWARDED WHAT'S CONSIDERED A VERY PRESTIGIOUS PRIZE FOR PHILOSOPHY, THE VERGUAN PRIZE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A BODY OF WORK.

NOT JUST A BODY OF WORK, BUT A BODY OF WORK THAT HAS GLOBAL IMPACT.

IT'S SORT OF TIMELY TO SPEAK WITH YOU.

WE ARE IN A MOMENT IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE WORST IMPULSES OF BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR BUT AMPLIFIED.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT POLITICAL POLARIZATION, BUT WE SEEM TO BE SEEING IS POLITICAL HATRED.

IT ISN'T JUST PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH PEOPLE ABOUT TAX POLICY, LIKE WHAT SHOULD THE CORPORATE TAX RATES BE?

IF WE DISAGREE WITH YOU, YOU ARE EVIL, YOU ARE STUPID, YOU ARE WRONG.

AND I JUST WONDER HOW DOES A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER LIKE YOU THINK OF A MOMENT LIKE THIS?

>> WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT, MICHELLE.

OUR CIVIC LIFE ISN'T GOING VERY WELL.

WHAT PASSES FOR POLITICAL DISCOURSE CONSISTS OF SHOUTING MATCHES, OF IDEOLOGICAL FOOD FIGHTS WHERE PEOPLE ARGUE PAST ONE ANOTHER WITHOUT REALLY LISTENING.

AND SO PART OF WHAT I TRY TO DO AS A TEACHER OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY BUT ALSO WHEN I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD AND TO SPEAK TO PUBLIC AUDIENCES, ESPECIALLY REALLY INVITE THEM TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION NOT ONLY WITH ME BUT WITH ONE ANOTHER ON SOME OF THE MOST ETHICALLY FRAUGHT QUESTIONS.

THE MORAL AND CIVIC DILEMMAS OF OUR TIME.

AND WHAT I FIND IS THAT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, GIVEN THE OCCASION TO STEP BACK, THERE'S A HUNGER AMONG PEOPLE GENERALLY, DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS, BUT ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE TO REASON TOGETHER, TO ARGUE TOGETHER, TO DEBATE TOGETHER IN PUBLIC ABOUT BIG QUESTIONS THAT MATTER.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR POLITICAL PARTIES AREN'T REALLY ATTENDING TO THIS.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR THE MOST PART DOES NOT PROVIDE THESE KINDS OF FORUMS FOR SERIOUS PUBLIC DEBATE.

AND SOCIAL MEDIA ONLY MAKES THINGS WORSE.

SO WE NEED TO LEAN AGAINST THESE TENDENCIES, THE HOLLOWING OUT OF OUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE IF WE'RE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT REALLY MATTER FOR SELF- GOVERNMENT.

>> FORGIVE ME FOR ASKING A QUESTION IN THIS WAY, BUT YOU'VE SPENT MUCH OF YOUR CAREER, YOUR CAREER AT ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S MOST ELITE INSTITUTIONS.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW IT IS THAT YOU'RE SO CONVINCED THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE PRIVILEGE TO SPEND TIME AT ONE OF THESE ELITE INSTITUTIONS HAVE THIS HUNGER.

AS YOU SEE IT.

>> YES.

THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

FAIR ENOUGH, MICHELLE.

AND HERE'S AN UN-SCIENTIFIC SAMPLING BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE.

WHEN PEOPLE HAVE READ MY BOOKS ABROAD AND WHEN I GET A CHANCE TO TRAVEL AROUND, WELL IN THIS COUNTRY BUT ALSO IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD, I POSSIBLE TO FIND NOT ONLY UNIVERSITY AUDIENCES, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ATTEND PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITIES, BUT ALSO TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE GONE TO UNIVERSITY.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN BRAZIL WHERE I VISITED A NUMBER OF TIMES, I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO FAVELLAS, THE URBAN AREAS IN THE HILLS OUTSIDE DEL RIO WHERE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING WITH VIOLENCE, AND YET THERE ARE CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WHERE PEOPLE COME TOGETHER.

AND I'VE BEEN ABLE TO MEET WITH THEM, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE MEANING OF JUSTICE, COMMUNITY, CITIZENSHIP, VOICE, VIOLENCE, HOW TO CONFRONT IT, AND I FIND THAT WHETHER I'M SPEAKING TO STUDENTS AT HARVARD GENERAL PUBLIC, WITH OR WITHOUT COLLEGE EDUCATIONS, THERE IS THIS HUNGER.

I THINK PHILOSOPHY CAN SPEAK TO EVERYONE, AT LEAST THAT'S MY HOPE.

AND THAT'S MY AMBITION, MICHELLE.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS THAT SOMEBODY LIKE DONALD TRUMP BORN TO WEALTH, ACCUMULATED MUCH MORE OVER HIS TIME IN PUBLIC LIFE HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLAIM SO MUCH LOYALTY FROM PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM HIS?

>> I AM CRITICAL OF WELL- EDUCATED, WELL-CREDENTIALED ELITES WHO WERE COMPLETELY BLINDSIDED BY THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP IN 2016.

AND WE SEE THIS AROUND THE WORLD.

INCREASINGLY, THE DIVIDE.

AND THIS REALLY GOES BACK FOUR OR FIVE DECADES, MICHELLE.

THE DIVIDE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS HAS BEEN DEEPENING.

POISONING OUR POLITICS, SETTING US APART.

THIS HAS PARTLY TO DO WITH THE WIDENING INEQUALITIES OF INCOME AND WEALTH BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION.

IT'S NOT ONLY THAT.

IT HAS ALSO TO DO WITH THE ATTITUDES TOWARD SUCCESS THAT HAVE ACCOMPANIED THE WIDENING INEQUALITIES.

THOSE WHO LANDED ON TOP HAVE COME TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR SUCCESS IS THEIR OWN DOING.

THE MEASURE OF THEIR MERIT AND THAT THEY, THEREFORE, DESERVE THE FULL BOUNTY THAT THE MARKET BESTOWS UPON THEM.

AND THIS HAS LED TO, UH, A SET OF ANGER.

IT'S LED TO ANGER, RESENTMENTS, AND A SET OF GRIEVANCES, ESPECIALLY AMONG WORKING PEOPLE WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES.

THE DIPLOMA DIVIDE IS ONE OF THE DEEPEST DIVIDES NOW IN POLITICS.

A GREAT MANY WORKING PEOPLE FEEL THAT CREDENTIALED ELITES LOOK DOWN ON THEM.

AND HERE'S WHERE DONALD TRUMP COMES IN.

HE'S BEEN ABLE TO EXPLOIT THE GRIEVANCES OF WORKING PEOPLE WHO FEEL ELITES LOOK DOWN.

AND HE GOES AFTER THOSE ELITES.

IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT IN ONE OF HIS, AFTER ONE OF HIS PRIMARY VICTORIES BACK IN 2016, HE PROCLAIMED I LOVE THE POORLY EDUCATED.

>> WE WON WITH POORLY EDUCATED.

I LOVE THE POORLY EDUCATED.

>> IT WAS A CRUDE PERHAPS WAY OF ADDRESSING WHAT HE SENSED, WAS THIS WELLSPRING OF ANGER THAT HE'S MANAGED TO TAP INTO.

AND SO I THINK THAT TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO DONALD TRUMP, IT'S NOT ENOUGH SIMPLY TO SAY HE THREATENS DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS.

IT'S ALSO NECESSARY FOR PROGRESSIVES, FOR DEMOCRATS, FOR LIBERALS TO RECONSIDER THEIR OWN POLITICAL PROJECT AND TO ASK IF DONALD TRUMP REPRESENTS A THREAT AND IF HE'S AS DISAGREEABLE AS WE SAY HE IS, HOW COME PEOPLE WENT FOR HIM INSTEAD OF WHAT WE HAVE TO OFFER?

I THINK THAT PROGRESSIVES NEED TO OFFER A REIMAGINED POLITICAL PROJECT.

>> WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?

I TELL YOU, BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT, UM, I WOULD SAY THE CONTINUUM OF REACTION AMONG PROGRESSIVES IS UNEASE TO RAGE.

BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, THEY LOOK AT THEIR POLICY ACCOMPLISHMENTS, THEY LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ABILITY, AND THEY SAY 49 MILLION PEOPLE UNINSURED BEFORE.

IT'S DOWN TO SINGLE DIGITS.

NOT BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP AND HIS POLICIES BUT BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATS PUSHING FOR THIS LAW, PUSHING FOR SUBSIDIES TO HELP PEOPLE AFFORD THE LAW, AND YET PEOPLE DON'T SEEM, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY GRATEFUL, BUT THEY DON'T SEEM, IT'S NOT SORT PERSUASIVE ON THE OTHER HAND.

AND YET DEMOCRATS ARE SORT OF PUZZLED BY THEIR IDEA OF STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS, EVOKE THIS KIND OF RAGE, AND THEY LOOK AT THAT AND THINK WHY?

WHAT'S SO TERRIBLE ABOUT THAT?

I'M CURIOUS, HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> RIGHT.

AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY RIGHT, MICHELLE.

NOT ONLY IS THE DEMOCRATS WHO PRODUCED THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, BUT DONALD TRUMP IS TRYING TO GET RID OF THOSE SUBSIDIES.

>> AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS.

AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS, SINCE HIS FIRST TERM.

>> ON WHICH HIS VOTERS, HIS SUPPORTERS DEPEND, MANY OF THEM FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE.

WHAT THAT SUGGESTS IS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON HERE.

AND IT GOES BACK TO THIS IDEA OF ELITES LOOKING DOWN.

DEMOCRATS, ALONG WITH REPUBLICANS SINCE THE 1980s AFFIRMED AND PROMOTED A VERSION OF MARKET-DRIVEN GLOBALIZATION THAT DID PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER THE PAST FIVE DECADES.

BUT MOST OF THAT, MOST OF THE GAINS WENT TO THE TOP 20%.

AND ALMOST NONE WENT TO THE BOTTOM HALF.

THE MEDIAN, THE WAGE IN REAL TERMS FOR THE MEDIAN WORKER IN THE UNITED STATES WAS NEARLY FLAT, NEARLY STAGNANT FOR FIVE DECADES.

AND THIS WAS DURING A PERIOD WHEN DEMOCRATS, AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS PROMOTED FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS, THE DEREGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY, WHEN THE FINANCIAL CRASH CAME, THE WALL STREET BAILOUT, AND VALORIZED GETTING A COLLEGE DEGREE.

THE RESPONSE TO EQUALITY WAS IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE AND WIN IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, GO TO COLLEGE.

WHAT YOU EARN WILL DEPEND ON WHAT YOU LEARN.

YOU CAN MAKE IT IF YOU TRY.

BUT IT TURNED OUT THAT INDIVIDUAL UPWARD MOBILITY THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION IS NOT AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE TO INEQUALITY.

IN FACT, IT ADDS THAT MANTRA, I CALL IT THE RHETORIC OF RISING.

IT ADDS INSULT TO THE INJURY OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY BECAUSE IT SAYS TO PEOPLE IF YOU'RE STRUGGLING IN THE NEW ECONOMY AND IF YOU DIDN'T GET A DEGREE, YOUR FAILURE MUST BE YOUR FAULT.

THOSE OF US WHO SPEND OUR DAYS IN THE COMPANY OF THE CREDENTIALED CAN EASILY FORGET THAT MOST OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE A FOUR- YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE.

ABOUT 60% DO NOT.

SO IT WAS FOLLY FOR DEMOCRATS AND MAINSTREAM REPUBLICANS TO CREATE AN ECONOMY ON A FOUR- YEAR DEGREE THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T HAVE.

SO WITH THAT SUGGESTION, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE DIGNITY OF WORK, ASKING HOW TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVERY WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE COMMON GOOD, WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS THAT, IN YOUR VIEW, THE CENTER LEFT OR PROGRESSIVES ARE, AS YOU PUT IT EARLIER, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY THIS, BUT ALLERGIC TO INFUSING THESE SORT OF POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS WITH A MORAL SENSIBILITY?

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

>> WELL, IT'S NOT MERELY POLITICS, IT'S PRINCIPLE.

I THINK IT'S A MISPLACED PRINCIPLE, BUT IT'S THE IDEA, IT'S A CERTAIN VERSION OF LIBERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAT SAYS SINCE WE ALL DISAGREE IN PLURALIST SOCIETIES ABOUT THE MEANING OF VIRTUE AND THE GOOD LIFE, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND RIGHTS BY WHICH WE LIVE TOGETHER SHOULD TRY TO BE NEUTRAL TOWARD THOSE CONTESTED MORAL AND SOMETIMES RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES.

THIS IS THE WAY TO CONTEND WITH MORAL DISAGREEMENT ACCORDING TO A CERTAIN, UH, CERTAIN VERSION OF LIBERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

IT'S NOT JUST POLITICS.

IT'S THE PRINCIPLED CONVICTION THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO RESPECT DISAGREEMENT, MORAL DISAGREEMENT BY AVOIDING IT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

>> INTERESTING.

>> TO AVOID COERCING PEOPLE, TO AVOID IMPOSING VALUES ON THOSE WHO MAY DISAGREE.

BUT VALUE-NEUTRAL POLITICS IS NOT INSPIRING TO ANYONE.

PEOPLE WANT PUBLIC LIFE TO ADDRESS LARGER QUESTIONS OF VALUES AND MEANING.

AND SO I THINK THAT THEIR HESITANCY, EVEN THEIR ALLERGY SOMETIMES, AND THIS IS NOT TRUE OF ALL PROGRESSIVES, BUT IT'S A STRAIN WITHIN LIBERALISM, AND EMBRACE RATHER THAN AVOID MORAL ARGUMENT IN POLITICS.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE LEFT WHO YOU THINK IS DOING THIS OR THE CENTER LEFT WHO'S DOING THIS WELL?

>> WELL, IF WE CAN LOOK BACK TO RECENT HISTORY, I THINK WE CAN FIND EXAMPLES.

MARTIN LUTHER KING DREW EXPLICITLY ON MORAL AND SOMETIMES RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS IN HIS POLITICS, IN MAKING A CASE AGAINST SEGREGATION, JIM CROW.

HE DREW ON A MORALLY RESONANT, SPIRITUALLY RICH POLITICAL VOCABULARY, AND THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF HIS POWER AND APPEAL.

ROBERT F KENNEDY IN 1968, I DON'T MEAN THE JUNIOR.

I MEAN THE SENIOR RFK, HE WAS ON TO THIS WHEN HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE WAR IN VIETNAM AND POVERTY IN AMERICA.

HE WAS DRAWING ON MORALLY AND SPIRITUALLY GROUNDED POLITICAL RHETORIC, POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

AND IT WAS VERY COMPELLING.

AND SO THESE ARE TWO EXAMPLES.

>> WELL, THAT'S KIND OF DEPRESSING, THOUGH.

THOSE ARE BOTH GENTLEMEN WHO LIVED SOME DECADES AGO, AND THOSE ARE BOTH GENTLEMEN WHO MET AN UNTIMELY END BY BEING ASSASSINATED, IN PART BECAUSE OF THEIR, I MEAN, IN PART BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFORTS TO ADVANCE THESE BELIEFS.

>> WELL, WE DID HAVE ANOTHER GLIMPSE, AND I SHOULD MENTION THIS.

ANOTHER GLIMPSE OF POSSIBILITY AND SPIRITUALLY INFUSED PROGRESSIVE POLITICS, AND THAT WAS BARACK OBAMA DURING THE 2008 CAMPAIGN WHEN HE STIRRED A CIVIC IDEALISM THAT INSPIRED NOT ONLY AMERICANS BUT PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.

AND HE PROMISED, I MEAN BY HIS EXAMPLE AND HIS RHETORIC AND HIS ELOQUENCE DURING THE CAMPAIGN, HE GESTURED TOWARD A MORALLY MORE ENGAGED KIND OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE.

THEN THE TECHNOCRATIC KIND OF MARKET-DRIVEN DISCOURSE THAT DEMOCRATS ESPECIALLY HAD EMBRACED FROM THE '80s UP UNTIL THAT POINT, THAT WAS PART OF HIS PROMISE AS A CANDIDATE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, HE TOOK OFFICE RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.

AND APPOINTED ECONOMISTS WHO HAD BEEN PART OF THE NEOLIBERAL ORTHODOXY THAT HAD SHARED IN THE DEREGULATION AND THEN CAME THE WALL STREET BAILOUT, AND I THINK THIS DAMPENED AND DIVERTED HIM FROM THE CIVIC IDEALISM THAT HIS CAMPAIGN, THAT AMAZING CAMPAIGN SEEMED TO GESTURE TOWARD.

AND DEMOCRATS SLID BACK INTO MORE TECHNOCRATIC HABITS AND MODES OF POLITICAL ARGUMENT.

THERE WAS A GLIMMER THERE.

WHO KNOWS?

PERHAPS AS PEOPLE STRUGGLE WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW TO CONFRONT DONALD TRUMP AND MAGA, PERHAPS WE WILL HEAR AND FIND NEW VOICES AMONG PROGRESSIVES FOR THE POLITICS OF THE COMMON GOOD THAT TAKES COMMUNITY SERIOUSLY, THAT OFFERS A VERSION OF PATRIOTISM THAT CAN INSPIRE THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO ASSOCIATE PATRIOTISM MERELY WITH HOSTILITY TO IMMIGRANTS, BUT ALSO A MORE AFFIRMATIVE PROJECT OF MORAL AND CIVIC RENEWAL.

>> PROFESSOR MICHAEL SANDELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING WITH US, AND CONGRATULATIONS ONCE AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU, MICHELLE.