captiong sponsored by public affairs television >> this week onill moyers jonal. >> moyers: conservatism, iit dead or ive? >>he paradox of conservatism is tt it gives the signs, the overt signs of energand vitality, buthe rigor mortis is still there. >> moyers: sam tanenha. an who's fighting for working people? >> we are in a systethat is walkinover working people, ndreds of thousands, if not millns of working people. and rking people need a voice. >> it's a fight foa different way of being aountry, a fight to care foeach other. >>oyers: bill fletcher and michael zweig, stay tud.

>> fromur studios in new york, bill moyers. >> moyers: welcome to the journal. and to an explorion of what's happening with two perful movements american life: unions othe left, and coervatives on the right.

>> you work r us! you wo for us! moyers: cservatives were out in forcen washington over the weeken they hadome to express their opposition to big governnt, to taxes and wasteful spendg, and heal care reform they fear would lead ta nightmare of burecracy. max blumenthal, thor of "replican gomorrah," waded intoheir midst to sample opinions. >> so you'reaying if the govement eliminates social securi and medicare then you'll get out of e program? >> n i said if they get out of my life. >> out of your sial security and. >> no, out of evything. >> moyers: buthey had also come to deplore and denounce president obama-in their minds a tyrant akin to stalin, mussolin hitler, and saddam hussein. i'm afraid he's going to do what hitler cod never do and that'sestroy the united states of america >> and what's the obama revoluti, what's going to ppen? >> similar to germany,ike what hitler did. he took over the ao industry, did he not? he took over the banking, d he not? and hitler had his ownersonal

cret service police, acorn i extension of that. >> moyers: they hafound a new hero ijoe wilson, the south carolina republican whosshout ard around the world was now the rallying cryf the weekend. >> you l! you lie! >> moyers: glenn bec their favorite punt, had promoted this march and waseveling in its success. >> this is a colleion of americans who but wantoth parties to stowith the corrupon, stop with the spending and start lisning to the peop. fox's grf jenkins is there now in washington d.c., y griff. >> glenn its unbelvable, thousands anthousands of people, look at th crowd right there. do you guys have something y want to say to gnn beck? >> moyers: watchg those protestorsou would have to say there's a lot of fht left on the right, a you wouldn't be wrong. this ring tide of populist resistance to obama-- e anger over theassive government ilout of wall street and big failedorporations-- have

raised repubcan hopes for a comebackand it has democrats scratching their head wonding how to rpond. so what doe make of this new bo titled "the death of conservatism?" has the author samanenhaus spent his time and consirable talent on a premature obuary? m tanenhaus edits two of the most influenti sections of the sunday "new rk times," the book review and the week i view. he's h had a long fascination with conservativesnd conservative ideas. he wrote this acclaid ography of whittaker chamber the journalist who spiedor the ssians before he became ercely anti-communist and a hero to conservaves. now tanenhauis working on a biography of the conservive icon willi f.buckley jr. >> moys: welcome to the journal, sam tanenha. >> oh, my pleasure to here, bill. moyers: so, if you're right about the decline and death consertism, who are all those people we see on telision? >> i'm aaid they're radicals. conservatism has been vided for a long time.

this is what my bo describes narratively between o strains. what iall realism and revanchism. we're seeing the revanist side. >> moyers: what doou mean revanchi? >> i mean a politi that's sed on the idea that america has been taken away from its true owners, and they have t restore anreclaim it. th have to conquer the territory that's been taken om them. revanchismeally comes from the frenchord for "revenge." it's a politics ofengeance. anthis is a strong strain in modern conservatism. like t 19th century nationalists w wanted to cover parts of their country that forei nations had invaded and occupied, these racal people on the right, a they include tellectuals and the kinds of personalies we're seeing on telesion and radio, and also to me extent people marching in e streets, think america has gotten ay from them theirs is a politi of reclamation and restoratio give it back tus. what we sometimes forget ithat e last five presidential

elections, democrats w plalities in four of them. the ly time the republicans have won, in recent memo, was wh george bush was re-elected by the narrowest margin in dern history, for a sitting president. sowhat this means is that, yes,onservatism, what i think of as a radil form of consertism, is highly organized. 're seeing it now. they are ideologically in lockstep. they agr about almost everything, and theyave an orthodoxy that gerns their rldview and their view of politics. so, they a able to make incursions. and at times when libera, democrats, and modate republicans aruncertain where to go, yes, th group will be out in front, very organiz, and dominate our conversion. >> moyers: what givethem their certaiy? you know, ur hero of the 18th century, burke, ednd burke, warned against extremism and dogmat orthodoxy.

>>ell, it's a very deep strain in our polics, bill. some of our greahistorians, like richa hofstadter and rry wills, have written abou this. you go back to the foundations of our rublic, first ofll, we have two documents-- "creedal documts" they're sometimes called--ore or less at war witone another. e declaration of independenc sa one thing, and the constitution ss another. >> moyers: theeclaration says.. >> ...says that we will ben egalitarian society in wch all rights will bevailable to one and all, and the cstitution creates a complex polical system that ops that change from happening. so, there'a clash right at the beginning. now, what we've en is that certain groups among us-- an sometimes it's been the ft-- have bn able to dominate the conversation and transform politi into a kind of theater. and that's what we're seng now. >> moys: when you see these people in e theater of television, you callhem the insurrectionis, in your book, what do you thk motivates them >> one of the interestg velopments in our politics, just the past few mohs, although you could see signsf

it earlier, the emergence of the demographic we always erlook in our youth obsessed lture: the elderly. that was t group that did not support barack oba. they voted for john mcca. it was also the oup that rose up a defied george w. bush, when he wanted to add privat soal security accounts. itas a similar kind of protest. moyers: there's a paradox there, right? i mean, they say they're ainst governme and yet the majority of americans-- aording to all the polls-- don't want the vernment touched. you know, there we people at these town hall meetgs this summer, saying "don't toh my medicare." you know, keep t government out my social security. >> yes. this is interesting argument. because 's very easy to mock, and we see this lot. "oh, these fools these d codgers say the government won't take my medicare away. don't knowedicare is a govement program?" that's not really wh's going oni think. i ink there's something different. a sensabout how both the left and the right grew skeptic of eat society programs under lyndonohnson, and the argument

was everyone was becomg a kind of client or ward the state. that we've bome a nation of patronlient relationships. and a collgue of yours, chard goodwin, very brillian politicathinker, in 1967 warned, "we all pect too much from government." we expect it to create a the jo. expect it to rescue the economy. to fight the wars. to ge us a good life". so, when pple say, "don't take my medicare ay," what they really mean is, "we're entely dependent on thigovernment and we'rafraid they'll take one thing away that we've gott used to and replacit with something th won't be so good. and ere's nothing we can do about it. we're poweess before the very guardian that protects us. >> moyers:o, how do you see this contradicon playing out in the health care debe? where what's the domant force that's going to prevail re at the end? it going to be, "we want reform and we want the govement involved?" or are we gog to privatize it thway people on the nservative side want to do? the insurance companies,he drugompanies, all of that?

>> i thi what we'll see is a kind of incremental reform. look, we know that hlth care has become the thirdail of american polits, going back to theodore rooseve. the greatest retail politici inodern history, bill clinton, could not sell it. but here's another thingo think abt. in the book, i disss one of thmost interesting political theoriesf the modern era, samuelubell's theory of the solar system of politi. and what he says is wh we think of as an eally balanced, two-party system, iseally a roting one-party system. either the republica or demoats have ruled since the civil war r periods of some 30-36 ars. and those periods, all the great bates have occurred within a single rty. so, if you go back tthe 1980s, which some would sayas the peakf the modern conservative period, the fight's about hoto end the cold warhow to unleash rket forces, were really republan issues.

day, when we look at the gre questions, how to stimulatthe economy, how to provide and expand and improve a susinable health care system, the fighis taking place among demrats. so, in a sense what publicans have de is to put themselves the sidelines. theye vacated the field and left it to t other party, the democratic par, to resolve these issues among themsels. that'sne reason i think conservatism is in troub. >> moyers: you write in re that they're n simply in retreat, they're outded. they don't a like it, you ow? >> they do and ty don't. what i also say in theook is thathe voices are louder than ever. and i wrote that bacin march. alreadwe were hearing the furies on the right. remember, ere was a movement within the repubcan party, finally scotchedto actually rena the democrats, "the democrat socialistarty." this started from the ginning. so, the noe is there. williabuckley has a wonderful

expression. he says, "thpyrotechnicians and noise-makers have always been the on the right." i think we're hearing mo of that than are serious ideological, phisophical discussion aut conservatism. >> moyers: howo you explain the fact that the news agend today is driveby fox news, talk radio, and e blogosphere? whare those organs of infoation and/or propaganda so powerf? >> well, there's been a transformati of the conservativestablishment. and this has beegoing on for some time. the foundatis of modern conservatism, e grea thinkers, were actually ex- counists, many of them. whittaker chambers, thsubject of my biography. the great, brillia thinker, james burnm. a less knownut equally brilliant figure, willmoe kendall, who was aentor, oddly enough, to both willm buckley and garry wills. these were the origina thinkers. and they were essentially philosophical their outlook. now, there are conservate

intellectus, but we don't thinof them as conservative anymore-- reed zakaria, francis fukayama, andrew sullivan, michael lindthe great columbia profess, mark lilla-- they've alleft the movement. and so, it's become minated instd by very monotonic, theatrically impressive voes and faces. >> moyer well, what does it sathat a tradition that begins with edmd burke, the great politicathinker of his time, moves on over the year the decas, to william buckley, and now the icon is rush lbaugh? >>ell, in my interpretation it means th it's ideologically deplet. at what we're seeing now and hearing arthe noise-makers in buckley'phrase. there's a very important incident described in this bk that occurd in 1965, when the john birch socty-- an organization these new americanist groups resemble- the ones who are marchg in

washington and holding t parties. essentially, very tremist revanchist groups at view politicsn a conspiratorial way. and the john bch society, during the peak ofhe cold war ruggle was convinced, and you're well aware of thi that dwight eisenhower waa communist agt, who reported to hibrother milton, and 80% of the government was dinated by communists. communists werin charge of american education, americ heth care. they were fluoridati the water to weaken our brains. all of ts happened. and atirst, buckley and his fell intellectuals at national reew indulged this. they said, "you kn what? their arguments are absurd, t they bieve in the right things. they'ranti-communists. and they're helping ou movement." because many othem helped barry goldwateget nominated in 1964. and en in 1965, buckley said, "enough." buckley himself had matured politicay. he'd run for may of new york. he'd seen hopolitics really worked. and he said, "we c't allow

ourselves to be discrediteby our own fringe." so, he turned ov his own magazine to a denunction of the hn birch society. more iortant, the columns he wrote denocing what he called its "drivel" were circated in advance to three of the grt conservave republicans of the day, ronald reaganbarry goldwater, sator john tower, from your home state otexas, and tower read them the floor of congresinto the ngressional record. in other words, the tellectual and litical leaders of the right drew a line. and th's what we may not see if we don't have tt kind of leadership on the rit now. >> moyers: to what extent is race an irrint here? because, you kw, i was in that era the '60s, i was deeply troubled as we med on to try to pass the civil rightsct and the vong rights act of 1965 by william buckley'seeming embrace white supremacy. it seemed to me taint... to

leave something in the dna o the modern conservative moment that istill there. >> it is and one the few regrets bill buckley er expressed was that s magazine had not supported e civil rights act. >> moyers: reay? but you may remember that i the la '70s, he supported a national holiday for martin luther king... >>oyers: yeah, i remember that. >> ...where meone like john mccain didot. i on heard buckley give a lecture-- brilliant lecte in new york city-- abt the late 0s in which he talked about the importance of relion in americanivil life. and it wasartin luther king who s the object. >> moyers: what changehim? i mean, becae he was writing in the natnal review about, endoing the white supremacy scheme of the country at tha ti. >> well, he actuly did that, bi, a little bit earlier. >> moyers: ¡50s? >> ¡50s. he did more of i inhe early '60s, even a great thinker and iter like garry wills, who was still part of e "national review," though supported the civirights movement, thought it mig

weaken the institutial structures of societ if it became too ferve a protest. now,hat the republican party did was to maka very shrewd polical calculation. a kind of faustianargain with the sout that the southern ites who resied civil rights legislation-- and asou know, ndon johnson knew, when he signed thoseills into law, he might lose t solid south as it had been called, the democra ght lose them for a generati or more. and yes,he republicans moved right , and they did it on the basis of a state'sights gument. now, however convincinor unconvcing that was, it's imrtant to acknowledge that republans never-- conservatives, i should y, northern republicans are different, but conrvatives within the republican pay, because e two were once not, you know, idencal-- thought that a hierarchical society d a nd of racial difference, a sensof racial difference, esblished institutionally, was not so bad a thing.

th were wrong. they were dead wrong. but that sense of animuss absolutely strong toda look who some ofhe great protestors are against bark obama. three of them come frosouth carolinathe state that led the secession. joe wilson and senat demint, ma sanford, who got in trouble. these are south caronians. and thers no question that that side of the insurctionist south remains in ourolitics. >> moyers: when you hearjoe wilson shout out, "you l," and you saw who it was, diyou think, "the voice of conservasm today"? >> no. i thought "this man needto read his edmund burk" edmu burke gave us the phrase "civil society." w, people can be confused abt that. doesn't mean we have to be nice to each otherll the time. bill buckley was not nice his political opponents. what it ans is one has to recoize that we're all part of wh should be our harmonious culte, and that we respect the politicainstitutions that bind

it together. edmund bur, a very interesting passage in his great boo the "reflectio on the revolution in france," uses theords "government" and "society" almost interchangeab. sees each reinforcing the other. it is our stitutional paimony. whenomeone in the floor of congress dishonorsdisrespects, the office of the present, he's actually striking however briey, however slightingly-- a blow against the instutions that our society is founded . and i think edmund burke mht have some trble with that. >> moyers:here's long been a fundamental ntradiction at the heart of ts coalition that we call "conservative." i meanyou had the edmund burke kind of conservatismhat yearns for a saed, ordered society, bound by traditionthat protec both rich and poor, againswhat one of my friends calls the "libertarian, robb baron, citalist, cowboy america. mean, that marriage was doom

to fail, right? >> it was. first of all, is is absolutely right, in the tes of a classicaconservatism. and here is the fire i emphasize in my book is njamin disrae. what he feared-- the rolution of his time, this is the fnch revolution that concerned mund bue-- half a century later what conrned disraeli and other consertives was the dustrial revolution. that dicns wrote his novels about... that children, thvery poor becoming viual slaves in work houses, thathe search for money, for capital, for capil accumulati, seemed to drown out all othevalues. at's what modern conservatis is partly chored in. so, how do we t this contradiction? >> moyers: why isn it standing up ainst turbo-capitalism? >>ell, one reason is that americ very early on in its history, reached a kind pact, inhe jacksonian era, between the govement on the one hand and privatcapital on the other. that the goverent would actual subsidize capitalism in

america. that's what the rit doesn't often acknowledge. a lot of what think of as the unleasd, unfettered market is, in fact, a govnment supported market. someill remember the famous debate between dick chey and joe lierman, and dick cheney said that s company, hallurton, had made millions of dolla without any help from the government. it all came from t government! theyere defense contracts! so, what'sappened is the american ethos, whh is a different thinfrom our political order. that's the rugged invidualism, the cowboy, e frontiersman, the robber bar, the great explorer, the nqueror of the content. for that aspect of our myt the market has been the enginef it. sowhat brought them together, is what we've se in the right is what i call a politics organized cultural enmity. erybody-- >> moyers: accusatory prott, you call it. >> accusatory protest. with liberals as the enemy

so, if you a a free-marketeer, or y're an evangelical, or a social cservative, or even an authoritarian nservative, you can all age about one thing: you hate the lerals that are out toestroy us. and that's a very eful form of political organization. i'm nosure it contributes much to ourovernment and society, but it's politically useful,nd we're seeing it again toda >> moyers: it wasn't lg ago that karl rove was saying th coalition was going to diver a new republic majority. what hapned? it finally came apart. why? >>ell, i believe it had come aparearlier than that. i reallyhink bill clinton's viory in 1992 sealed the end of serious cservative counterrevolion. we fget that election. it seems like an anoma, but conser, bill clinton won more eltoral votes than barack obama, despitehe presence of one of the most succsful third party candidates, h.oss perot, another texan, in erican history. but that's not the mt importanfact. the mostmportant fact is that george h.wbush got less of the popular vote i1992 than

herbert hooverot in 1932. at was really the end. but what happed was the right was so institutional successful that it conolled many of the levers, as y say. so, whatappened in the year 2000? well, the coervatives on the supre court stopped the democric process, put their guy into office. then september 11th came and thright got its full first blanslate. they could do really whaver they wanted. and what we w were those eight years. anthat is the end of idlogical conservatism as a vital formative and contbutive aspect of our politics. >> moyers: why? >> because ifailed so badly. it wn't conservative. it was rical. it's interesting. manyn the right say, "george bush brayed us." they weren't sing that in 2002

and 2003 he was seen as someo who would colete the reagan revolution. i think a t of it was iraq. w, i quote in the book a remarkablyrescient thing. the ve young, almost painfully, 31-year-o, benjamin sraeli wrote in 1835, he sai you cannotxport democracy, even the to lands ruled by despotic priests. and he happened to mean cathol, not islamic priests. but he saiyou actually have to have a civil socie established in advan. he sd that's why the united states h become a great republic so ortly after the revolution. we had the law of engliscustom here. you see? so, we werprepared to become a demoacy. there were conservates who tried to make that argument before the war in aq. francis kayama was one, fareed zakaria was another. they're both wl outside that movement there were people in the bus administration who tri to are this. they were marginaliz or

stripped of power. whatmerica saw was an ideological renchism with all the kns turned to the highest volume. the imrial presidency of a dick chey and all the rest. and we saw whe we got. >> moyers: here's another puzzle. back to what we were talng about rlier. u say in "the death of conservatism" that, ven as the financial collapse dve us to the brink, conseatives reined strangely apart, trapped in the irrelevt causes of another daydeaf to the actualonversation unfolding across the ld." and the parax is, it seems to me, th are driving the convertion that you say they don't hear. >>ell, you know, they have many mouths, bill, buthey don't ha many ears. e great political philosophe hannah aret once said, in one of h great essays on socrat-- whom she wrote about a lot-- that theign of a true statesmen, maybe pticularly in a democracy, ithe capacity to listen. and that dsn't simply mean to

politely grow te while your adversary talks. means, in fact, to try to inhabit the thoughts a ideas of the oth side. barack obama is perhapa genius at this. for anyone who has n heard the audio version of "drea from my father," it's a revelati. he doeall the voices. he does e white kansas voices, heoes the kenyan voices. he has an extraordary ear. there's an auditory side t litics. and that cacity to listen is at enables you to absorb the arments made by the other side and to have a kind of bate with yoursel that's the way our deliberive process is supsed to work. right now, at a time o nfusion and uncertainty, the ideological righis very good shouting at us, and rallyin the troops. but, you know, one othe real contbutions conservatism made in itseak years, the 1950s and '60s, i think as an tellectual movement, is that it repudiad

the politics of puic demonstration. it was the left that was marchi in the streets, and carrying gun and threatening to take the society down, callinpresident johnson a murder. remember it was william bucky, who said, "wre calling this maa murderer in the name of manity?" it was the conrvatives who used politic institutions, political campaigns, who raled hind traditional candidates produced by the party apparas. theyevitalized the traditions and the instruments anvehicles of our democracy but now we've reached a poin quite li one richard hofstadter described som40 years ago, whe ideologues don't trt politicians anymore. remember during e big march in washinon, many of the protestors odemonstrators insisted they were not demonstratg just against barack obama, buagainst all the politicians. that's why some republicans wouldn't support it. they don't believe in politi as the medium whereby our

society netiates its issues. >> moyers:hat do they believe in? >> they lieve in a kind of revolutiona cultural revolution. they tnk the system can be what some woulsay hijacked. they wld say maneuvered, controlled, that they caget eir hands back on the levers an important thing about the right in ameri is it always considers itself minority position and an embattle position no mattehow many of the branch of government they dominate. sowhat they believe in is, as willmoore kendall, ts early philosopher said, is politics of battle lines, of wa >> moyers: so, here, at is very criticamoment, when so much is hanging in the balce, what is the paradox nservatism as you see it? >> the paradoxf conservatism that it gives the signs, th overt signs energy and vitalitybut the rigor mortis i described still there. a philosophy, as a system o

governmentas a way all of us can learn from, as a meansf aluating ourselves, our soci responsibilitiesour personal obligations and responsibilities it hasright now, nothing to offer. >> moyers: now, ey disagree with you. they think you have issued a call for unilaral disarmament on their part, that bras knuckles and sharp elboware part of fighti for what you believe in, and therefore, u're calling for a unilatera disarmament. >> wel you know, that's what chard hofstadter called the paranoidtyle, is when it's always living on the ver of apocalypse. thatefeat is staring you in e face, and the only victori are total ctories. because even thelightest viory, if it's not complete, meanthe other side may come ba and get you again. this is not serious reonsible argument. much of my book actually about the failures of beralism in that noonme period of the 1960s.

and many of e conservatives simply ignore that part of t argume. >> mers: how to explain this long fasnation you've had with conservative ide, and the conservative movent. why this fascination? >> well, ihink it has been the domina philosophy, political philosophy iour culture, in america, forome half-century. what particularly ew me first to cmbers and then buckley is the idea that these wereerious tellectuals, who were also m of action. conservatives have kind of suppli us in their best periods-- the dayshen "natiol review" and ommentary" and "the public interest" we tremendously vital publications, se- examining, developing ne vocabularies and idis, teaching us all how to tnk out politics and culture in different way, with a diffent set of tools. they were contribung so enormously to who we were americs. and yet, many liberals were t payingttention. many libers today don't know that a gat thinker like garry

wills was a product of the consvative movement. it'sstonishing to them to learn it. they just asme, because they agree with him now, was always a liberal. fact, he remains a kind of consvative. this is the richness in the philosophy that atacted me, anthat i wanted to learn more about, to educe myself. >> moyers:he book is "the death of conservatism." m tanenhaus, i thoroughly enjoyed this cversation. thank you for joining me >> oh, it's my gre pleasure to be here. >> and yete are being told that a goverent bureaucrat is going to tell whether we need to get the blue pill or e red pi. >> you guys e absolutely incredible, you think ngress can hear us? >> we need to stand as a nati and uphold the principles of freedom, lirty and justice r all our people. >> mers: as those conservative protesters were aving washington, members of the country's rgest body of unions, the afl-cio were arriving in pisburfor their annual conventn.

they elect the former coal minerichard trumka to be their new present and heard from the man they had worked ha last year to nd to the white house. >> thank you, l-cio! >> moyers: but all is t well with organed labor. midway through theast century unions represented me than a quarter of america's workfce. that's fallen tobout 12 peent today, when earning a living wage couldn be harder. just last week theensus bureau reported that americans e geing poorer, their median usehold income suffering the biest decline since 1991. abou40 million people now live below e poverty line, with the poverty rate at an eleveyear high. where is organized lor? why are unio so impotent when rkers are so exploited? that'shat i want to know from my next twguests. bill fletcher is a long-time labor and commity organizer who was once an official of e afl-cio he now works for t americ federation of governmentmployees, although

he ihere speaking for himself and nohis organization. he is also the co-auth of this nebook "solidarity divided: thcrisis in organized labor and a new pathoward social justice." michael zwg has been at this ble before. he is tive in his own union, the united uversity professions. heeaches at the state university onew york at stony brook,here he also runs the centeror study of working claslife. his st recent book is this one, "what's classot to do witht: american society in the 21st ctury." weome to both of you. bi fletcher, we just heard in the earlr part of this broadcast,am tanenhaus talk about the ath of conservatism. is it time to wre the obituary of organized labor? >> no. not no stretch. but ornized labor remains in a crisis. and a low point ry much of a low point right now. and the question forrganized labor is whether or not it actually can bece a class moveme. a movementf workers.

and nosimply unions representing people inifferent workaces. becae i think that that speaks to some of the anger that's t there among woers who feel at they're unrepresented. that the socie's crushing them. and they're lookinfor a vehie. theye looking for someone to be the champion. meone to channel their anger and if it's not unio, my fear is tt these right wing populists are going toust grab onto this. >> moyers:ell, much of the anger we saw lasweek in that march washington were was came from ordinary people o are upset with what's ppening in their own lives. but they're going ward the coervative movement and the republican pty, not toward the unions. >> wel who's leading them to the unns? who's calling themo the labor vement? the problem is that don't think thathe labor movement can successfullyrganize in paicular places without a ntext of a broad social movement that addresses the power of capal. not ju in the particular workplace, but in the sociy as

a whole. and if there isn't thacontext a social workers movement i don'think it's possible to go shop by shop and rover the strength of the bor movement. >> moyer so, what's a union for if it can't improve th living standardsf ordinary peop? >> well,t's for improving the living standardsf ordinary people. it certainly for that. but order to do that, it has to have a broader enda. >> one of e things that struck me whei interviewed people that were acve in the 1930's and '40s is that eveif you if you were progressive, ev if yoweren't in the unions, you had a sense thathe union movement or least a good section of iwas supporting ogressive causes. that it was ere. it was not jusabout organizing workers at a particular but that the unions we part of this broad effort of pgress. anthe problem that's happened, and it'seflected in the these teresting polls. where workers will sayonunion

workers ll say on occasion thathe unions are good for their mbers, but they're not necessarily good for other peop. and i feel like when hear when i ar that, it's an incredible indictment on the kindf unionism thawe have. we have leaders nothat are payingore attention to getting acss to political leaders or holding handwith the head of lmart. rather than actually gting and iniring workers, irrespective ofhether they're our members right now. to engage in a suggle for justic >> moyers: those conservate prottors we saw are not afraid of confrtation. they're willing to use sha elbows and brass knuckles fighting for wt they believe in why isn't labomore confrontational in behalof those very people, t working pele of this country? >> well, part of iis that there's i know peoplwon't appreciate my sayinghis. but among ma of the leaders, the's really a fear of losing respectality.

i mean, you have leade that have now gainethese positions and they're rely afraid that if they shake the table to much, that ty will be exclud. >> what has haened is that the corporations and the corpote elite ha structured what this country is, what's valuable, what's iortant, how we organize ourives. d labor has not come forth withn alternative set of values. >> moyers:ut why haven't they? now, that's... >>ell, there i think because we useto have that. and all the labor moveme did have that. >> moyers: solidarity rever, right? >> well, and theabor movement had a very mitant, very aggressive stance in the '30 '40s, '50s thachallenged capital. that got tremendoubenefits. you knowthe labor movement is thpeople who gave us the weekend. let's not forget the labor movement is what. >> moyers: the eight hour da >> ...got us the eight hr day, d the social security, and a the other thgs that we think are so very imrtant, but are just natal. that came out of a lab movement, but a labor vement that was led by ople and was fueled by people who understd

that there was antagonm. at there was a battle that theyere involved in. this was not just, ¡let's sit do and have lunch and figure out what's the best thg to do for amera.' this was, ¡here's a group of people who ruthe cotry and run businesses. and they have a certaiset of interests. and they do not have our interests at mind at heart. they are not for u' >> mers: for the working people. >> for the working people. we have toe organized and be a contrary for, a counterforce that's a real force. that isn't just debating society. that dsn't just have resoluons that it passes. >> moys: a real force to take on capital >> to take on capital. >> moys: and power. >> and pow. >> moyers: and why have ey lost that? >>well, because they got crushed. >> moyer no one. >> becausehe people who tried to do that. and e people who did do that were leftist. they were people who had alass analysis of society. many of em were socialists and some of them were commists, but not al but that stiment, that understanding ofhe basic struure of society as divided by class intest.

that there's a worng class that's a majority of the population ithis country. and they havinterests. and they hava set of values that that nvey those interest that are very different om the corporations. they're very dferent from pital. and if theeople who held those views and mobilized the bor movement at earlier point in our story. those people werpushed out. and theyere pushed out by the labor movement, inteally, because there wagreat division and splits. and so then the bor movement got drawinto an era of cooperation. an era of,well, let's all sit down anwe'll all be reasonable. we'll all figure out wt to do that's best r america." and it turnsut america is not one thing. america is divid by these deep class antagonisms at we are now living with. >> moyers: and yet, working class has disappeared from t language. i an, there... >> we' all working. >> moyers: yeah? >> see, that's the thing. palin ed working class. moyers: sarah palin. >> sarah palin ud the term

working class morehan obama did the 2008 election. but her noon and those the notion of many other coervatives, when they use the term wking class. they're not really talki about the same working class tha we're talking about. they're not really talng about latinos,frican americans, whites, asians. they have a certain sort of stereopical idea of the white worker. but sothey will use that term. and that's the ironyf our mes. but i want to go back to one thing. >> moyers:eah. >> i realized thisaking up this morng. th is the 60th anniversary of when t congress of industrial organization began a processf purgg, wholesale, unions that were led by people on thleft. and is exactly what mike was talking abou that theseurges are came they folled the passage of the taft-hartley act. led to this incrible cold war witch hunt against anye to the left of thattila the hun. so that the people that werehe

most militant, that had thmost advanced viewsn organizing. o were anti-racist, ended up being pushed outf organ the ficial organized labor. and were put pushed to t margs in many cases. and in some casethe unions were actually destroyed. the unions tharemained in the ciand then merged with afl. adopted the view thamichael was descring. they adopted the sense tt we had somehow come to peacin our time with capital. th we did have a place at the table. d that if we rocked the boat tside of an occasional strik that we will be excluded we will be no long relevant. and this purgewe are living with the legacy ofhat purge of thleft. >> but see, this is a procs that takes a long time tdo. when this began in t 1940s and 1950s with this an-communist witch nt. and with this redirection

what laborhould be about. there was the niceop and the nasty cop in tha the nasty cop was th mccahyite investigations. and the puing of the left. but the ce cop was the invitation to come iand sit at the table and be reasonable. >> moyers:yndon johnson. come now, leus feast together. >> moyers: he'd say tohe presidenof the national association of manufactung. would say that to the head the afl-cio... >> over. >> moyers: under grge meany. >>ver when george meany was proud at he never walked a picket line. and he said so. and then when lane kirkland died, who was the presidt of thafl-cio. then you the wl street journal had an obit for him. and under hilittle picture it said, ane kirkland, anti- communis" that's what the labor movent was known for. it because they were able push out a certa segment. but then to comen with another kind of leaderip. an affirtive statement that "we are ing to be cooperating now with the cporations and th the corporate elite. we are going to be lika junior

paner at the table." >> moyers: buto you see any green spouts of confrontion, militancy, defiance gring on e left, among unions, that w see on theight? >> yes. >> moyers: where? >>ell, first of all, i think thathe election of richard trumka has a great deal potentl. cause... moyers: the new president o the afl-cio. >> t new president of the... >> moyers: why? >> because tmka comes out of a history of militcy. he you know, in terms of his vision of the united mine workerthat he led. his emphasis oorganizing. his clariton the nature of the economic crisis that we' been facing. and whate has articulated so far. and all i can say, this is hope, is the notion at we have to engage in that nfrontation that you're deribing. we have to do much more maive organizi. particularly of the poor, e increasinglyoor sections of the workg class.

so, i thinthat there's a sion here. and i cat overstate this issue of vision. because it'sot simply the techque of unions putting resources into organizin peopleave to feel compelled that there's a vision of success, but a visn of a different nd of country. d indeed, a different kind o world. >> it'also a different understandinof how you do politics andow you exert power. it'sne thing to say, "i'm the lead of an organization of eight d a half million workers. i'm the head of e afl-cio. we have eit and a half million members in our affiliate" ani'm going to sit down at a ble. and i'm going say, "i have eighand a half million members out ther" it another thing to have eight and a half millionembers out there, whore in the streets, whare not just sending in letters and nojust signing petitis. but who are active engaged in exercising power, building power in t streets, in the communitie in the schools. moyers: and we don't see th happening. why? why n't that happening? >> b see, i think that rich trumka understan something

about e need to do this. and we'll see wherthis goes now. but, you know, it's hardo ange culture. >> rig. >> it's hard tchange the way we underand how things should happen. >> moyers: you began by taing about ass. the fact of the matter is ere has been a classar for the last 30 years this country. >> that'right. >> moyers: and the working css lost. >> thas right. >> moyers: so, if you' been deated, where do you how do you come back? >> wl, let me give two answers to that. one is that that ilarge part beuse of the cold war witch hunts, aually even using the te class within organized labor. >> moyers: that's righ >> for up until the mi1990s led to people being condemd of being communist. i mean, it was absolutely absurd. so, it's theulture and the psyche that mike is taing about, still infts many of the leers, unfortunately. but i wanto say that people are struggling but you have the gat... >> moyers: you mn that-- i know people e struggling just to make meet their dly needs.

you mean... >> strugglinand succeeding. rkers are fighting back. >> moyers: wre? >> for example in the smithfld plant in... in north carolina. >> in nortcarolina. >> tar heel, north carolin >> right. >>..was the biggest pork processing plantn the country. >> moyers: mostly hispanics. they were... black and latino. and the united fd and commercial workersut reurces. they had a briiant strategist who was directing it. and they succeeded. it doesn't get a gat deal of attention. the communication workers of america-- >> it succeeded afte14 years. >> right. >> but the workers that we fighti for 14 years at smitield. or the commucation workers of america members in texas o miissippi that have been fighti for... in the public sector for years these fightsre going on. what's missinghough is this sense coherence. that this is notimply a victory at smithfield. or a fight that's goinon in knoxville. but that this is aight for social justice. and that is wh... >> moyers: meaning aight for...

>> a fight for health care reform. a fight against a racial differentials and alth care and education. a fight for housing. the policy towards theities! >> but see, i thk it's more than just a policy list. it's a fightor a different way of bei a country. a fight toare for one another. >> moyers: well, it usedo be a fight. >> fight to take care of one another. >> moyers:t used to be a fight to take on capital, righ labor was a al force in trying to bring to tame the wildns of capital. >> of capita that right. >>oyers: and we've seen what happen over the last few years when capit went wild. >> tt's right. >> moyer without any kind of... >> tt's right. >> moyers: withoutabor, can the ttle for social justice be fought and wonn this country? >> i don't thinko. you know, the's this story abt the cat that goes and eats the mice at night. you know and the mice g together and say, "what a we going to do? we have to save ourselves om this evil cat th's eating us up. and one night one mouse ys, "i know what we're going to d we're going to p a bell around thneck of that cat. right.

and when the cat comeswe'll he the bell, and then we'll all n away and be safe." great idea. who will bl the cat? right? who's ing to put that bell on th cat? who's gointo put the bell on capital in t united states? there's only one for. there's only one set of ople who can do tha that's working people. that's t majority of the people in this coury. >> and unfortunately, ma workers real do believe that they're in this fit alone. that they're beingrushed not because of some the rger dynamic of capitalism. ey're being crushed because they're t working hard enough. that they have ovepent. th they are in too much debt. theye not understanding th the problem is not them. even if they have oblems. thproblem is systemic. and this vision needs be ticulated. and needs to come out of organized labor. to remind people the probl is not them. we are ia system that is walking over wking people.

hundreds of thousands not millions oworking people. and the woing people need a voice. and they neea mechanism, as mike isaying in order to say, "y, i'm part of this fight. and i'm prepared to fight r social jusce." >> moyers: so, whe are we? martin luther king tald about the arc of hisry bending toward justice. ishe arc of this present moment, nding toward justice? >> well, you know president obama in his campaign lked about tharc of history is long, but it ben towards justice. and it's long. it takes aong time. the emphasis there, yoknow, is seven... what is it? from seneca falls in 184to the 19 amendment in 1920 to get women the right to vote. the women's movement was2 years. so, it takes a long ti to get the ght hour day from 1886 in hay maet to 1938. it's long time. so, is it bending toward juste? at's up to us to do. we havto go out there and bend that arc. it doesn't just happen and the way to bend it inow to

understand the importancof class. we have an africanmerican president. that's a gre advance for this country. we have anfrican american on the unit states supreme court, clarence thomas. that's also a great advae for this country. now the question is: whi african amican? and that question is question of class. are they going to be an afcan american that's therto advance the terests of working people? or are they going toe there to advae the interests of corporations? which woman isoing to be in the white house? ist going to be hillary clinton? or is it gng to be sarah palin? two women, just becausthey're a woman, that's great that they're there. and a representative of e success of theeminist and the women's movement to geto a potion where a country can have that. but at's not the-now, that' not the full qstion. nowe have a new question. what woman is going represent what interest? is it going be the interests of working people or the intests of the corporations?

and thatest is a test of p... of class? >> moyers: dwe know where oba comes down on this? >> it depends where thworking class is. >> that's right. >> as an organiz force. anobama himself said, "i can't this alone." he was campaigning on th progressive agendand he said, "i cannot do thialone. i need a social vement." you know, that's what weave to push. and if corporate elites arwe know they'reushing. anif there isn't any pushback, that where he's going to go. >> ihink that his heart lies with working people. but i think that he believ fundamentally at he has to make sure that capitism is functioning in a certain w. and that mea that he has to pay attentn to the corporate elites. and fothat reason, what mike raised is absoluly on the money.

th we have to push him and int out to him that an econo should be rving working people. an ecomy where you have an announcement that e recession is eing, but we have more than ten peent unemployment, probab between 10% and 20% unemoyment. d you in addition, you have this suctural unemployment in places like mden or flint. where peop are never going to work permane jobs. that's no kind of economy. you know and we don't need president that is simply goi to pay attention to making surehat the stk market is going up, whilthe rest of us are going down. but i want tgo back to one thing. i want to say abouthis arc. i sometimeget attacked, bill, for being a prophet ofoom or something. buwhich i think is an unfair criticism. but i'm worried. i really am. i ink that we really are at

one of those crical moments, when that arc uld move towards rbarism. not simply moving in a consertive direction. wh i see people bringing ar- 15s to rallies wh the prident. when i see this innity behind the birther movement. and questis about the president's cizenship. i realize that the strength the irtionalist right is something that we haveo contd with. and at these are people that could bring evything down in ways thacould be quite castrophic. so, i put it more in a difrent way. my hope is that the arc is moving tards justice. but i think that iwill only successfully move ere if we push it. >>hat's right. >> and that really ds come down to what mike was raisg. that wcannot sit back and

beeve fatalistically in the inevitability progress. the only thing inevitablis death. what we do will ma the fundamental diffence. if we push thaarc in a certain way, we will have social justice. but we cannot at means among othethings with the union movementbreaking with old ways of thinking,ld ways of operating. and recognizg that there are people out there thaare litelly and figuratively dying for leadership, at wish a vehicle to speak for tm. that really-- whe the message resonates. that's our job. >> moyer bill fletcher and michael zweig,hank you very much for joing me. this haseen a very interesting discsion. >> thank you very mu. >> thank you very ch. >> it waa pleasure. >> moyers: that's it forhe journal thiseek. remember to loonto our website at pbs.org, click on "ll moyers journal." there you can e a web- exclusive essay prompted b those protestsn washington, and yocan hear more from the next generation of conservatis, as well as from

me of the movement's stalwarts. you'll also be able toind out about thchallenges facing the youngest american woers. th's all at pbs.org. i'm bill moyers, unt next time. captioningponsored by blic affairs television captioned by dia access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org