tavis smiley t . good evening from los angeles, i am tavis smiley, tonight a conversation with naomi klein since the election of donald trump, the world has seen various forms of resistance to this presidency. naomi klein had been following the trump's movement and laying out a plan and her new book knows it is not enough. we are glad you are joining us, a conversation with naomi klein, coming up in just a moment. ♪

and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ so please to welcome naomi klein, the author with a new book "no is not enough." naomi it is great to have you in this program. >> great to be here >> good to see you. you regard of trump's election as a corporate take over, unpack

that for me. >> well, he ran for the campaign promised to be the savior of the white working class and taking on wall street and said he was so rich that he did not need anybody's money and attacked his rival and hillary clinton for being in the pocket of goldman sachs. he was going to drain the swamp and take lobbyists out. what has he done? he's not the first president to spend that revolvining door but never to that degree. appointed ceo of exxon to be secretary of state which there are so many shocking events in the trump presidency and we can forget how shocking that is, the largest oil company, a company that's under investigation by the united states for knowing about climate change doing its research in climate change and deceiving the public and shareholders and on and on. there are many examples of this where it is just like they cut out the middleman and there is

no, the mask is off and it is kind of like the idea where if you want something done right, you do it yourself. >> yeah. >> that's what's happening with trump's cabinets millionaires and billionaires pushing through the wish list of this transfer wealth of systematic and lower income to people of the 1%. >> i think you are going there now. it is one thing to define a corporate take over by the personnel that one chooses. that's different and can be different than the policies they advance. you would expect in a corporate take over. >> and once again very different from how trump campaigned. >> right. >> he did promise to negotiate in trade deals and it turns out of his idea of re-negotiating

nafta making it better for corporations and worse for workers a workers. frankly, i don't think we have seen the work because if they get their tax cuts through, they're going to create a budget crisis and run out of money and that'll become the pre-tax for going after social security even more a radical agenda. >> let me detour and i will come back to the text in a second. what do you make of the fact that given that everything you laid out is true, by that i mean he's governing some what different than what he campaigned and not just govern differently than he campaign, he's governing in a way that's going to hurt the people ultimately who he said he's going to help and every poll and survey and study that i read, continues to under score the fact that none of those persons at yet of any significance has

turned against donald trump. i see this all the time and i am kind of baffled by the fact that again, some body can get in the office and do a 180. at some point that the people will turn against will turn against you but there is no sign of it right now. the base that got behind him and the person that supported him have not yet turned against him. how do you read that? >> there is a couple of things going on. one, trump's relationship with his basis not a traditional relationship of the politicians and the people elected him of constituents which is the relationship of some accountability, right? >> sure. >> the idea that politicians are working -- he enters politics by the rule of celebrities and branding. the rules of branding are you have to stay true to your brand.

trump's brand is impunity through wealth and living the dream. this is what he's been selling on "the apprentice" and "trump 101" really back to the deal. the more he gets away with, the more he's reenforcing h is brand. the other issue is he's vulnerable on these questions. you will not see that kind of probing investigation applied to these economic appointments or his economic policies on the whole. you won't hear it from the leadership of the democratic party or the experts or in of the news networks. so you know i don't think his

base fully understands what he's done. the reenforcing of the russian narrative at the exclusion of everything else. sh >> sure. i think makes people voted for trump who identified with his brand and have his relationship with him, making them feel under attack. it is kind of like their team trump and team democrats who are attacking their team and they're protected against it and trump is reenforcing with the means he sent out pounding cnn and all of that. it is one team against another team and if you are not also pealing back what is economic project is and how he betrayed the promises and offering solutions, this is where the democrats come in and it is not about the media. this is a job about the democrats, this is how we really create jobs and a ferry and an economy and have a plan to that. i think they'll stay loyal to

him. >> let me tell you of a particular piece of what i heard you say and i am just curious whether or not you intended to say it. what i heard you say in the response is the media wittingly were complicit by helping him win the campaign, bernie could not get that. now, they're unwittingly complicit in getting him there. if they are not getting at the truth and disseminating that truth to his base and the rest of it for that matter, they maybe unwittingly complicit. did i hear you correctly? >> you know more about tv than i

do. >> ratings have never been this high so i think there is a kind of continuum from what we saw from the campaign trail where it was just the same thing. ratings were just -- you know, the locked camera on and empty podium just waiting for trump. >> sure. >> and then after the election, all of this sort of hammering, yeah, maybe we did give him too much attention and we did not think he would win and that was wrong and now though i don't think the lessons have been learned. there is still this addiction and i have talked to friends who work in tv news and it is like what are we supposed to do? we have to cover it when comey gets fired. >> i am going deeper than the addiction, we agreed on that. the addiction is one thing. what i am talking about of the point that you made is more - s

mormore - more -- the media of your addiction to him is still covering the wrong stuff. he's the president. i ain't got a problem if you cover him 24/7. that's your job. i get that. but the question is what are you covering and how are you covering it and what are you uncovering quite frankly? if you are not doing that, all the person that's duped by this guy would never know they are being duped to your point. >> that's my point. >> it takes work. you got to unpack it and you got to take time. trump called it the trump's show in the '80s. when he's creating his celebrities by turning his extramarital affairs into a life action soap opera. he said the show is trump and it sold out everywhere. he understood the power of distractions and now we got the trump show and trump is directing some of it.

some of it is imposed on him and being directed by others. all of it is reality of tv show and who's going to be voted out of the administration next. comey or steve abandon or trump himself will be voted out through impeachment. you cannot compete with that. that's the argue. this is so dramatic that how could we possibly spend ten minutes really unpacking the influence of goldman sachs on the administration and what his tax policy is going to mean todt to daily life. that requires qualifications. it does require digging in and that was not done during the election in terms of explaining the stakes. it is no t beit being done and g as it is reality tv show. trump knows that game and he knows it better than anybody else. >> that's what i mean, in this

instance of being unwittingly compl compl complicit. it raises two questions, let me ask you two questions and let you response. i asked this question rhetorically but not really. i want to ask you seriously on this program. how the media can get away with dissing the president and disseminating the tweets at the same time, i don't know how you do both of those. you cannot act like you are mad at this guy and calling it fake news. you are acting like you are really upset with this guy but you keep on dissimileminating t tweets. is the media really upset with trump. they act like they're really upsetting with this guy for dissing him and calling him

names and going after joe and mikah. are they really that upset at your point if they keep on covering him, how mad are they really? >> i think this is a reciprocal relationship and i think that look, this idea that they are standing up for the truth of the face of the president who's attacking the press, well, show us. lets dig into some truth here and see powerful investigative reporting. this is why it matters and i think honestly, we are seeing the fallout from treating news as a commercial business because if it is a commercial business and it is. then they're following their business imperative and following the ratings. we are all comlplicit in this. anybody turning onto this and

clicking on that bait instead of a little bit of a sexy sorry of the ind kaication of trump pull out of the paris accord. i think of a greater responsibility lies with the media. the real issues in terms of whether the media is pro-trump or antitrump. the leadership and the democratic party is fuelling this. if they wanted to turn the focus to the economic betrayal say and some of the polling really shows that when you put trump voters of how many goldman sachs executives he appointed, they really don't like it. why are the democrats making more out of this? maybe it had something to do with their own wall street and unwillingness to seize back the

economic populous ground and building a coalition around the promise of redistributing some of the wealth that's so stuck at the top and using it to pay for universal healthcare and up minimum wage and these things are residence. >> i suspect that nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and here and others, well, naomi and tavis we agree with you all then how do we get our message out. we are just politicians. the media does not cover our stuff. having said that, let me go back to the point you raise. how the democrats would do that even if they had media support? how did the democrats get their message out. how can they do that truthfully when they're behind goldman

sachs. i hear your point. i think you are right about that. how do you with a straight face advance that agenda now when the person you were behind taking the same money? >> this is about what the next step is. >> right. >> getting ready and this is why i called it no, it is not enough. it is not enough to expose trump as a fraud or a hypocrite, whatever it is. that's part of it. the other part is making an offer that this is the real thing and this is how we address the urgent need that trump was tapping into for jobs. >> they rejected. >> they did. >> that's my question. how about now, you see what i am getting to? >> luckily, it is not just up to them. there are voters and i came back in the uk, and spent some time with jeremy corbin and people around him came out of the election cycle where they did not win the election but they won historic number of defeat

and they did much better than expected. the whole idea of calling the snap election of the uk was wipe out corbin. putting forward a manifesto that did that and that put workers front and center and major investments in the universal public of a healthcare system that's been starved and better wages and taking climate change seriously and ending wars and really a transform tive agenda. you do need a trusted messenger and not anybody is carrying that. >> again, this is not about bernie per se. how is democrats now with the same leadership, how do they make the same pivot? >> well, i don't know if they will. this is what is so heartbreaking

and i think it is interesting that corbin had to fight a fierce battle in his own party including resisting and overthrowing him as leader. people fight to protect his model. this brings us to campaign finance and one of the reasons why democrats are so close to these corporate interest that they get in the way of putting forward of transform tive agenda. we are talking about transformations, we are talking about how elections are paid for this country. >> i believe at some point of this party fight inside the democratic party is going to have to happen. >> uh-huh. >> if it does not happen, the democratic party is doomed. at the end of the day what you have to have is a trusted messenger. this is a difficult question.

the democratic party as an institution has not yet decided they need new leadership. >> they still think they need hillary without the baggage. >> precisely. if the democratic party never gets around the party fight and even when they have it and i love tom perez, he comes out on top. if that fight never really had in earnest, what hope does the democratic party have. i am going to go on record and saying if people think that trump, if you think the answer is trump imploding, you are stuck on stupid. you are going to have a new messenger. and goes in search of that and trusted leader, i got bad news for you, come to the presidential election, i am not sure if this guy is going to be a one term president if you are not willing to have that fight

and going a different way. >> it is incredible dangerous to go in on this one impeachment narrative. >> absolutely. >> and also, the two things are related because republicans are never going to turn on trump so long as he has his base. he will continue to have his base so long as this idea that he's standing up for workers and remaining intact. the only way that it gets eroded and it is not always about russia but about economic portrayal. it is not just the no. we have the real plan and you are not going to get all trump voters. >> yeah. >> you get some of them and what's more importantly, activate and energyize people who did not vote, the staggering number of people, 90 million, eligible voters in the country decided not to vote. that's who we have to focus on, much less about just pealing away of trump voters. >> you said republicans are not going to turn on trump. there is one argument that i want to get your theory on.

there is one argument where one could see the republicans, maybe not in mass but a significant number starting to turn on him. there is a number of articles and i have been reading about it. that's the notion of trump being truth to his brand and given who he was in the city may start to do things here and there to tone down the hatred against him just a little bit. he maybe doing some things to placate democrats that may upset republicans and therefore end up getting some push back from his own party. >> he might. and we'll end up with pence. >> yeah. >> i agree with you that we cannot take for granted that he's one term but we also cannot take for granted that they ca cannot recover from losing trump. >> right. >> i think it is extremely reckless plan to just focus on this idea that either the republicans would turn on him or

that the public would be so horrified by what's coming out that they're going to vote for democrats so that they impeach donald trump as opposed to they represent a vision for the economy that meets people's most urgent daily needs. >> yeah, i am going to ask you, i got two-minutes left. we can do this more tomorrow night and talk about what the agenda is. we spent this conversation talking about the what ifs, i want to talk about tomorrow night what the agenda is, if it is not enough, we'll talk about that tomorrow night. let me close of this question which is, what is your greatest fear or what are your greatest fears of what is to come given the corporate take over that we have seen? what are your greatest fears, go all out for me. >> i always feel when i am giving speeches that we should end on a note of hope but you're messing with that a little bit here. >> no, we got tomorrow night.

>> you can bring the hope tomorrow night and we'll go to hope tomorrowow night >> ten years ago i wrote a book called the "shocked doctrindoct" it is about time of national crisis, that's when we see a radical regressive agenda getting pushed through and sought it after 9/11 and hurricane katrina when school systems were not there to protect their schools and parents and teachers, students gathered across the country. we have seen it after wars and we have seen it in the midst of the economic crisis is what i call a shocked doctrine. not the shock that trump is tweeting every minute. a shock that comes at this country whether it is a terrorist attack or financial melt down. these are things that this administration making it likely through their recklessness.

making the market crash like 2008 more likely and antagonize the world, you make a terrorist attack likely. when i look at the people who he surrounded himself with. mike pence, at the heart of that reengineering of new orleans afri after katrina and the goldman sachs guys who were so good at profiting from the 2008 crisis. there is what i call in the book a toxic to-do list. these are policies that are radical than anything they try to introduce. what i would worry about particularly in a wake of a security crisis, using that to say that well, protests are banned. it is a state of emergency and war on protests and just ramming through that agenda in that state of crisis, that's what scares me most and i want to prepare people for that. >> i can still tell you to keep the faith. >> you asked.

>> i can still tell you to keep the faith. tomorrow we'll get to the hope. there is always hope. i am not an optimist, tomorrow night we'll talk about what that hope is all about as we focus more on the agenda since no, it is not enough to resist trump's shock politics and win the world that we need. we'll continue this tomorrow night with the best selling author, naomi klein. until then, thank you for watching and as always. keep the faith. ♪ for more information on today's show, visit tavissmile tavissmiley @pbs.org. >> hi, i am tavis smiley, join me with author naomi klein, that's next time, we'll see you then.

♪ and contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪

good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. he'll weigh in on the g 20 summit in the latest allegations of another trump administration conn next to russia. then we'll speak with activist gail walker continuing her father use humanitarian efforts through a special pastors for peace. we're glad you joined us. our guests coming up in a molt. momenltlt. ♪ ♪. ♪ ♪