tv After Words Naomi Klein No Is Not Enough CSPAN October 9, 2017 3:26pm-4:24pm EDT
vidal. the within this years will be announced in new york city, and today on booktv you're hearing from all ten nonfiction finales, this year naomi klein, who wrote "no is not enough" offers her thoughts on shock politics and the 2016 national election. >> so, naomi, lovely to get a chance to interview you on a book i just found fantastic. i read it voraciously. i think in one long sitting, and found it absolutely fascinating and my first question to you is, how in the world were you able to write this so quickly? because you references things that just happened in april, may, and the book just came out. >> guest: thank you so much,
medea. it's great to speak with you. i'm glad you enjoyed the book. it was a bit of a frenzy to write this book. i usually take about five years to write books. that's been my average. i publish a new book about every seven years. i give myself a little break between but five full years. this book, i just -- i just wanted to get it out others quickly as possible. there's a -- there are a couple of chapters in the book focused on what we should expect if there's a crisis in the united states, if there's an economic crisis or a major security crisis and i felt so passionately that there needed to be some political disaster preparedness among progressives that i just wrote it -- and i
worked with a publisher that was really committed to getting it out quickly, too, because the publishing industry can be quite slow. usually you finish the book and then it sort of creeps along the production process and these stages for another four months, and in this case everybody just worked so hard to get it out in record-breaking time. so i'm lucky to have worked with a publisher who was as committed to this political moment as i am. >> host: i think it's a great contribution to millions of people who are looking at our political situation right now and thinking, what do i do? obviously from the title of the book, you give it away that, no is not enough. also see the book as an amazing coming together of your work that begins with the no logo and the branding, into the shock
doctrine and even with your climate work about this changes everything. it seems like you are the quintessential anti-trump and that you really embody everything that is the opposite of what trump stands for. so maybe we should start with what you start the beginning of the book which is looking at trump as the quintessential branding. >> guest: yeah. and the truth, medea, as you know, is that so many of us have been on this journey. some of my early work as a journalist before i published any books at all was focused on what i would describe as the underside of branding. focused on what is beneath the shine, the buffaloing goes goesd
transcendent marketing, marketing got better and better in 1990s and turned into high art in era of nike and michael jordan. as companies up the ante in marketing and design think divested from the world of work. they sold off factories and giving contracts to whoever was willing to produce their products as he could -- cheaper. we've been on this journey a long time. you work at global exchange in the '90s was part of the process of exposing the horrific conditions under which some of the most valuable brands in the world, nike, disney, were making their products. i look at trump as this hollow brand, and by hollow i mean a company that adopted this paradigm of we're not in the product business. this is what -- this was the big
shift i was tracking in no logo, used to be realup until the '80s that the iconic brands in the american marketplace were manufacture erred, made products and then branded the products with logos and marketed them. in the '90s the order flipped and you started to see companies anointing they were marketers first in the ideas business and they projected their big idea on to as many extensions of their brand as possible and started building these self-enclosed brand it cocoons, disney opened a branded town, celebration florida so you could live inside your favorite brand. and trump did this in reality. he start off as pretty traditional real estate develop-under but quickly went into this stratosphere of super brands. "the apprentice was an enormous
break through and became less about building buildings and more about building his brand and then selling his name, his brand, for very high prices, to other developers who wanted to have that trump name on the side of their condo tower, on the side of their resort, and like those other brands i mexed earlier, this often at the expense of workers women have heard many stories of terrible conditions for workers in trump-owned properties and also making trump or ivanka blanked clothing around the world. >> host: so heave you have a guy who can make millions of dollars in one building just by allowing hem to put his name on it, and then he becomes president. as you say in the book, it's impossible to really separate out trump and trump and his
family and the family businesses, including of course ivanka's clothing line, and the president now. so, groups that are trying to -- >> guest: i don't think they can separate it, medea. don't think trump knows where his personal identity ends endsd his commercial brand begins. >> host: i love the line in the book you can't disentan tell trump the man from the brand. those who entities, you say, mentalled long time ago. every time he sets foot in one of his properties, goal club, hotel, beach club, the white house press corps in to, he is increasing his brand value which allows his company to sell more memberships, rent more rooms and increase fees. so, yes, how could you possibly separate this man from the brand? >> guest: and the particular challenge of trump, he enters politics not playing by the traditional rule of the game but
playing by the traditional rules of branding. the only rue of branding is, stay true to your brand inch the 1990s, many activists exposed that companies like nike and disnye were betraying the promise of the plant, which maybe was empowerment for girls, or a family friendly and kid friendly ethos because their products were being made under conditions that were abusive to young people in those factories. so they were vulnerable on that front and had to be responsive. but trump is a different kind of brand because the big idea that trump has always sold was the idea of absolute power through wealth. this is the promise of the trump brand since the '8's,since the published his first brand extension which is "the art of the deal." selling the promise you can be -- he loves the word
"killer," somebody who is out for themselves. when he describes the art of the deal it's about screwing over other people and ending up on top. not coming to any kind of mutually beneficial agreement. so he is the guy who gets away with it, and he has a consumer base that wants to be him, that has an aspirational identity with them, a consumer bases that feels they have lost power and trump representsrepresents the t of the kind of power they want. that's the problem holding trump accountable. you catch him lying or cheating or being nasty, things that night hurt a traditional politician or even a brand whose
brand identity had mereth that aspirational component, trump is not hurt by any of this because it confirms him as the guy who gets away with anything because he is so rich. this is a challenge. the only way tohart the trump brand is by proving he is not as powerful as he seems to be. this is why he is bothered when people talk about president bannon or the strings are being polled by putinment hi brans identity is all about being the boss. >> host: this word eemoll youments -- >> guest: sound like moisturizer. >> host: now that there are lawsuits in court trying to say that donald trump is making money illegally from the presidency by -- i don't know if it's just foreign entities like governments and saudi aya and
others taking rooms and renting up his hotels as part of ill gotten gains, do you think there's anything to that? is that really illegal? >> guest: it may well be and it's been interesting timing with the release of the book because just as the book came out, actually the day the book came out, the news came that the attorneys general of d.c. and also maryland had launched a lawsuit alleging a violation of the constitution on those grounds, and then 190 lawmakers in congress filed a lawsuit of their own. that one is really significant but a what the constitution says is that the president cannot do this without the permission of congress. right? so the people who are -- there already was a lawsuit that had been filed by a d.c. restaurant, i believe, and also a restaurant
workers who were making this allegation but the significance of congress people filing their own lawsuit is that they are the ones who should have been consulted. had the most legitimacy to make this challenge we may well discover that trump is not as immune as he thinks he is and has been behaving as if he is. one thing i would just add, medea, is that lot of the examples we have heard how he is receiving gifts or benefits from foreign governments have focused on the hotel rooms and i think there is a case to be made that foreign governments are deciding to stay trump hotel, deciding to have expensive events at trump properties to engray shade.
thes to the president and hopefully get into his good graces, but there are other things to look at as well, including the fact that chinese government has been granding a wave of trademarks to trump and eivanka to sell products in china. i'm most disturbed by that the chinese government has detained labor monitors who were investigating conditions in one of ivanka's factories. that would seem to me to be a very tangible benefit and the allegationings not that these governments are being directed to do this by trump. it's that they see that this president has not divested, and they believe that these are favors they can do to get themselves into the good graces of a president who is clearly, clearly, very, very concerned about his personal and family
wealth. right so you don't need to prove that ivanka is on the phone going, arrest those people. no. that's not the allegation. the allegation would be that the chinese government would think it would be a helpful thing to do, to get rid of the pesky whistleblowers. >> host: one point in the book is this is not anything new, that you talk about the decades that the clintoneds had been using their foundation as a place where people could give money to curry favor with them. i wonder if you could tell us how the stage was set for trump. >> guest: right. this is -- i guess my overarching goal in writing the book, other than getting it out before there's a major crisis, is so try to challenge this -- i think this narrative, because trump is so unlike any kind of -- any president before, there's this idea that he kind of is a martian.
stormed an otherwise functioning system and if he could only be impeached, everything would be fine. i'm not saying that -- i'm not saying one way or another on impeachment. if he committed impeachable offenses, he should be impeached. that just getses where we were before trump and that's the grouped that created trump. it's nothing to prevent somebody else who combines it even more dangerous mix of these qualities that trump has from taking pour again itch see this as very much a bipartisan process, the table that was set for trump. aait's about media and news coverage, the table was set in so many ways and all he needed to do was show up because we were already treating elections like reality tv shows. we already had a media landscape
that was much more interested in interpersonal dramas between candidates than in-depth coverage of the issues. we already had democrats using the tools of corporate branding themselves, president obama was a fantastic brand. he used incredibly cutting edge marketing techniques and a lot of us felt there was -- that behind the claims that he was leading this deep change in and transformation, there wasn't enough change and that helped set the table for trump . something else was this liberal idea that the clintons were central to, which was all about how billionaires could use the great wealth they amassed in the period of deregulation and privatization, to fix problems that we traditional look to governments to solve. so, if you look to clinton global initiative and you
mentioned that currying of favor issue think even more significant is this whole model of what the clinton global initiative was doing is bring thing billionized the world together with policymakers and a big announcement from richard branson that he was going to solve crime -- climate change with the profits of his airline. turns out hi didn't make good on the promise of the money or certainly didn't solve climate change but there was no accountability, unlike government it's all voluntary, and so i think that model, bill gates has tremendous power over the u.s. education system. he has tremendous power over africa's health care system. he plays a role that is similar to what the world health organization used to do, and many people argue he is more powerful on than the world
health organization. bill gates does a lot of good things in the world but this idea of the billionaire savior complex creates a context where donald trump could stand before the american people and say, trust me because i'm rich, because we were already as a culture acting as if the able to make a lot of money in one area bestowed just kind of infinite wisdom on this tiny group of billionaires and even if they had no experience of health of ode case, they that tremendous power because of their wealth. how different is that from trump 's pitch to voters-i don't have any qualifications or experience in government that i'm so rich that you can trust me to fix america. >> host: you also talk about setting the stage in terms of going back to reagan, for example, as government being part of the problem, private is the solution. then you talk about the clinton
era and the deregulation of the banks and then the failure of president obama to do anything to hold the bankers accountable, and how this also set the stage for an economic system that has allowed the transfer of tweet be so enormously skewed in our society, and now you just have been talking about the people who enter into government and maybe you could talk about how the trump administration has taken it to extremes where you say they've eliminatedded the middle man, that you don't have to wine and dine the people in office anymore because the corporations are the ones in office right now. >> guest: right. so, once again, this is not a process that trump started but he is taking it into new territory. to a point, for instance, the ceo of exxon as secretary of state. there's certainly been sects of
state in u.s. history who had ties with corporate america. dulles probably most significant example. baker. this is not a new process. but -- >> host: cheney. >> guest: and cheney very significantly, right? i think the biggest difference is one of -- halliburton is a company most people had not heard of were cheney but it's not a highly brand company so appointing the ceo of exxon chase highly brand company but one of the most controversial companies in the world, under investigation by three states attorney general over allegations that it had misled its shareholders about how much it knew about climate change because ex-on had -- ex-on's own scientists had been
researching client change in '7s and and '8s and funned climate change denial. exxon was under a lot of pressure when trump appointed the ceo of exxon, rex tiller son, who has been at exxon his entire working life, worked there 41 years, and so it is a continuation of all of that. of that road. that same road from dulles to cheney to tillerson and trump himself. at least tillerson divested from exxon before becoming secretary of state. trump has just merged, it seems, the trump organization with the white house. >> host: sent as you talk about so eloquently in the book, this is now the ultimate giveaway to corporate america. so, maybe we should talk about
how the initial -- we're not even six months into this administration, and what has this administration been doing to go through the top wish lists of the fossil fuel companies, of the bankers, of the military industrial complex. what are the items we already see that has pleased corporate america. >> guest: sure and i do think that should be getting a lot more attention because there's a lot of focus on exposing what some people believe is a conspiracy between the trump administration and the russians, and surely that should be investigated. but there is also a kind of conspiracy in plain sight. there's this systemic and orderly transfer of wealth from the lower and middle incomes to
the one percent of the one percent. it really is the connective tissue of everything that the trump administration is doing on the economic front. so, if you look at the 15% corporate tax that trump has announced that he wants to introduce, obviously this is a massive gift to all of corporate america. getting rid of the estate tax, it's something that the -- only benefits the very wealthy and has been on the wish list of major republican donors for a very long time. trump may be the one that gets it through, precisely because so much attention is focused on what trump in the '80s called the trump show. it sold out everywhere and that's where he turned his extramarital affair into a live action soap opera.
he has always understand the power of distraction. some of otrumpment? show is being orchestrated by trump he likes to leak information about his palace dramas and much of it has been photoed on him. he doesn't like the russia investigation. all of this is drawing our eyes away from the economic front. it's a huge giveaway to the oil, gas coal industry, the deregulation. i mean, something like one of the first things he did was roll back obama's initiative to increase fuel efficiency standards. another one of this very early decisions was to go after new requirements introduced at the end of the obama administration to better document methane leaks
in the gas industry because we actually don't know the extent to which the gas industry in particular fracking is leading to a major spike in methane emissions because it's not tracked very well. so there were in measures companies would have to abide by and this is children first things trump moved to eliminate and we will not have accurate information about how much emissioners are going up under trump. the whole health care plan that trump celebrated in the rose garden is a back-door tax give away, back-door redistribution of wealth and it's unfortunate we have not focused on this enough. the budget attacks on social security and health care ump this goes against what trump promised on the campaign trail and his brand is vulnerable. the make america great brand had
a particular promise about bringing back jobs. another broken promise, another give away is what we'll see with trade. trump promised to renegotiate nafta and other trade deals so they would be better fork workers and a new era of fair trade. meanwhile his commerce secretary is re assuring business audiences they will re negotiate nafta to make it more like the trans-pacific partnership which is the deal that trump re up on one of his first days in office. this where is he is much more vulnerable, unfortunately it's getting a fraction of the attention it deserves because the trump show never stops and always sold up. >> host: trump met with 190 different exec-to-corporations in the first three months in office, and then when there were news reports about that, what
they decided to do is not make public the list of people who visit he white house anymore, and i totally -- >> guest: so much of this -- >> host: the focus on russia is taking our eyes off of so many things, on the military industrial complex front, the that that the already blowedded defense about is not bloated i've and he wants to increase it with another 154 billions and when he announce that the stock offered the weapons industry shot up. but there's no attention to that. >> guest: it's more than that. trump is basically a traveling weapons salesman. this is the sum total of his foreign poll i. goes to saudi arainy, praises them because they just purchased a whole bunch of u.s. weapons and sends a message to the world, this i how you get in america's good graces, buy a lot of weapons.
then -- so now qatar has done the same thing, just announced a huge knew weapons increase, and this is how they're trying cool down tensions with saudi arabia. goes to nato. and he lectures a nato members on quote-unquote nothing pulling their weight. i'm a dual canadian american citizen, and the canadian prime minister went home and announced the -- a massive increase in military spending. 70% increase. so, this is how the world unfortunately is responding to trump they're seeing that the way you get in the good graces of this administration is by buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons. so it isn't just about the military increase in the united states. it's global. >> host: let's also do what you do so beautifully in the book in
setting he stage, recognize it was under the obama administration that countries like saudi arabia became the number one weapons purchaser under obama, who bragged at the white house web site that they had sold $110 billion to this repressive extremist intolerant misogynist regime. there again we see the stage set by the democrats who preceded trump, and so here you have set the stage and you talked about people getting prepared for the shocks to come but you also talk about what people are doing to resist trump now, and the whole premise of your book, "no is not enough" does look at what has been done in the first several months of the trump administration with people rising up. so maybe we should spend a little time on that and then move to why that's not enough.
>> guest: uh-huh. so we have seen this incredible wave of resistance, and we have seen it can win. the travel ban most notably, and that amazing surge of people going to airports across the country and just saying, no, just rejecting this, and i think that emboldening local officials and congress people to also go to the airport, lawyers and maybe even give something courage to judges to stand up to trump. so that's one example i think. everybody who i know who is involved in political organizing is saying that they've never seen a level of interest, the more people showing up to rallies, obviously the women's march from day one, record-breaking numbers at the women's march. people want to get involved.
they want to understand their democracy better, they're educating themselves. a lot of white people trying to do internal work to understand their own internal racism, showing up more for racial justice. and this is really inspiring, and i think there's a sort of collective memory of september september 11th and a lot of people describe being in shock that this could happen, trying to respond in ways that deepen solidarity and make us more shock resistant and this is orbit. if there is heaven forbid a manchester like attack in the united states, we already know how trump would pond, at least in part because after they happened he immediately blamed immigrants. this is about immigrants flooding across the border even the bomber had been born in the
united kingdom after the london bridge attacks trump tweeted, this why we need the travel ban. so, there are lot of things that are still on the donald trump a, which of which have been stopped and some of which they haven't tried to do. betsy devos' education agenda its extremely radical. doesn't believe in public education. i'm concern about a security shock like manchester and also concerned about an economic crisis because of course they're deregulating the banks, making it more likely there would be another 2008 like crisis and that would then become the pretext to privatized social security to further attack the public education system and that's why i think it so is important for progressives, yes, we have to say no but i think we have to develop a common agenda that we will advance when these
shocks hit, or even if they don't, we need to be advancing a progressive agent. one thing i have fund from covering societies in cries is that saying no might be able to slow it down a little bit but it really is not enough. i think about being in greece after the 2008 financial crisis and how the people came together to force the bankers to pay nor crisis with flash wages and occupying plazas and electing another government, saying no in the poll and the streets but not enough of a bold vision for what kind of economy they wanted the instead. i make the case in the book, for us to do the work to come up with people's platforms forks
are forward-looking vision for real economic, racial and environmental justice. that is really bold, that can inspire people, because i think that is our best defense against demagogues, who are tapping into real pain, and mixing it with very insidious ideas, it's to hold out that promise of a better life, and we saw with the campaign of jeremy corbin in the uk when he issued his manifesto, a very bolt document that is about fully funded public health care, about getting rid of tuition fees, that's about a bold transition to renewable energy and creating green jobs, that spines people, particularly young people, to turn out in record numbers. >> host: i think also the fact they he took on the foreign policy issues and after the attacks in england, rather than just saying the platitude, he said we have to look at our
policies oversea, intervention in libya and overthrowing cad cad and that creates resentment at home which unfortunately there are not major politicians in the united states who have been willing to say that. >> guest: but that may change. i think people are paying attention to how the atmosphere has shifted. when jeremy corbin did that, talked be the underlying caws, he was absolutely savaged in british press and commented were described as monstrous by teresa may, and it might have helped him because they're an appetite for getting at the root causes just when bernie sanders talk about climate change as a security issue and he was mocked by the elite opinionmake erred
but resonated with voter. >> host: let's talk about the bernie sanders campaign and the kind of ideas he talked about that have become more common place and i want to quote from you, you're saying what for decades was unsayable is now being said outload, free college, tuition, double the minimum wage, 100% renewable energy, demilitarize the police, prisons no place for young people. refugees welcome here, wars make us all less safe. could you talk about how some of those ideas have become more acceptable and was it real groom bernie sanders campaign? >> guest: this is the moment we're in and it's an exciting moment from a progressive perspective, because for me i
grew up in the neoliberal era. my childhood was in the '80s, the era of reagan and thatcher and there's no alternative. that project was about advancing a set of radical so-called free market idead, privatization, deregulation, cuts to taxes spade for with cuts to spending, accompanied by huge expansions of the security state. and -- but that was sold on -- based on the idea that there is no alternative to it, and it was really a project that in so many ways was' constraining the collective imagination, and neoliberalism, that set of policies has been a profound crisis since the 2008 financial meltdown, for many reasons, not the least of which is elites had to break their own rules in the
open, and everybody saw that it was possible to intervene in the market to save the banks. suddenly they could final trillion outside dollar arizona we had been told there was no money for schools or daycares or hospitals. so, that -- the spell was broken, and we are in this period where now the progressive imagination was being unleased. the first stage was saying no to the austerity after the 2008 crisis and now the utopian imagination on the left is being rekindled. you see in documents like the vision for black lives comes another out the movement for black lives, an exciting, bold policy document that is about how to get the underlying causes pound police violence. it's really about changing the economy, changing society. with a racial justice at the center. i've been involved in a project called leap.org which is a
similar intersectional approach but just as progressive ideas are surging in popularity and we're saying the unsayable and candidacies like bernie's or jeremy corbyn or -- are doing better than -- the entire expert class predicted, it's also the case that farright ideas-white supremacist ideas, are also more popular than they've been at any point in my lifetime. see this as a race against time because when there is this vac call where this elite consensus used to be, and as it collapses a lot of things are shifting. >> host: another contradiction i see is that the progressive movement is way ahead of the democratic party, for example. you see a fight in baltimore where the people had won through phishing the city council the right to a double -- to $15 an
hour minimum wage, and the democratic mayor of baltimore then vetoing that. so i wonder what you think about how to move the democratic party that is supposed to be more progressive and yet doesn't seem to have caught up to the popular sentiment in a lot of these issues. >> guest: so, the energy is huge out there with more and more deep progressives committed to taking power, and seeing that it is possible. i think with bernie's campaign, bernie getting 13 million votes, carrying 22 states, that there's really the belief out there that i did not have at any opinion in belieftime until now that a winning progressive coalition is within reach. it is possible. and you know that bernie had
weaknesses he -- that many women of my and your generation didn't feel comfortable that he really got the -- how precarious women's rights are. many people involved in racial justice issues didn't feel that he fully integrated a racial justice agenda into his campaign, he got better but not enough to really capture -- if he had been able to capture 50% thief black vote in key state he would have been able to win. so it isn't that the democratic base is too right wing. there were key constituents he was not able to reach and if that changes next time around that winning coalition is out there and people know it, and i think if the democratic party does not come to its senses and keeps trying to fight off the tide of history, then people will leave the party.
this is what i'm hearing. there's very much a live debate about this. look at what happened in the uk, jeremy corbin was fought every single turn. woman the leadership and then -- they tried town seat him as leader and he held on and now after the election results, which so surprising, where he won i believe 32 seats when he was supposed to have been wiped out, people are having to admit that this is actually the way to win elections, and we'll see whether the democratic party learns from that or not. don't think it's going to come easily. think the lesson of the corbin campaign is it's going be a fight and there's people think it's not fighting within the democratic party, and we'll see. >> host: it's a tough one because there are so many other examples in europe which it hasn't been transformation from within traditional parties it's
actually been new parties that cropped up that have captured the public imagination and won tremendous victories whether it's in spain or greece or progressive parties in france or in portugal. so who knows how it will go. the hard thing in the united states is we have this winner take all system that makes it so rick. >> guest: that's the really hard part. i think if there was a different electoral system that allowed for coalition government, it would be a bit of a no-brainer in terms of starting a new party, given how much resistance there, but this is the system there is here. >> host: you brought up the issue of race and talk about it quite a lot in the book. you talk about the movement for black lives and you also talk about the indigenous community, and in canada you have a strong indigenous community on the forefront of the a lot of the
environmental struggles and you have a very compelling chapter in the book about your experience at standing rock, and i think your view about how we move to a different society is one where people of color and the wisdom of indigenous communities had to be in the lead. how did you come to that conclusion? >> guest: well, i guess i'm a journalist first and foremost and this book comes from talk to go a whole lot of people in movements, who are organizing, and this is the wisdom of our movement at this point, where the energy of organizing is. in canada, every single key environmental battle has always been led by indigenous people and this is true a large extent in the united states as well. that chapter on standing rock i wrote because it was so moving
to be there when i was there which is win the obama administration finally denied the easement. but trump had already won the election and so people understood this victory was really on borrowed time, that trump was going to go in and probably reverse it. but the reason why i wanted to clue that experience in the book is because the kind of leadership i saginaw standing rock and people i spoke to like madonna, cody two-bears, a standing rock council member, chase iron eye, the analysis was holistic and this was a racial justice battlele, that the pipeline had originally routed through bismarck, after overwhelmingly white city and had been reject because 0 of concern over water quality.
so it was moved to the -- to underneath the single dripping water source for the standing rock sioux. classic example of environmental racism. it was a piece of it but also very much about climate change and understanding that we cannot keep expanding expanding the fol frontier and have any hope of protecting a liveable present for our kids. and it was also profoundly about standing up to corporate power, about standing up to increasingly militarized police but a the water protection of standing rock were up against a police force that looked like an army, tanks and surveillance equipment and tricks and so -- i quote winona how it was all of it, and you can talk about intersectionallity, which is a
wonderful phrase from kimberly crenshaw, an african-american legal scholar and feminist who has given us this term that so many of us are using, and in standing rock it was just life and it's helpful sometimes to not talk about something in theory but to talk about it as a lived experience and how it is playing out on the land and on people's bodies. >> host: which you also binge up in the standing rock chapter and which i found myself having traveled there, sure, it was about winning the rights to the land and to do what they want with their property, burt it was also showing a different way of living together and how this is an experience that profoundly changed the people who came to see what it was like, to be in a struggle under the leadership of the indigenous people and how different that is than mean struggles have been, the
profound sense of connection to the land, even the language of water protectors, not protesters, and do you think that's will carry on or has had an impact on people who are part of this movement? >> guest: i think everyone who was there was changed by it, and standing rock also really embodied the title of the book "no is not enough" because as soon as the victory was won to stop the pipeline, it was a temporary victory but it's not over and they've also won an form legal victory that what trump has done in push through the pipeline without proper environmental assessment is illegal so they have not stopped fighting. but as soon as that ruling came down from the army corps of engineers, immediately everybody who i talked to wanted to say,
okay, now the real work starts. now we, turn this reservation into a shining example of a justice-based transition off of fossil fuel. we want to get to 100% renewable energy and start building the economy that would never need a new oil pipeline. and so it was like the no -- the no was necessary to be able to get to yes. right? and i think this is sort of where we are. we have to weave the no and the yes together and that was so inspiring. in terms of how this plays out, the truth is we don't know and i've been involved in social movements for long enough to never believe a movement obituary. our movements are always declared over, whether it's occupy wall street or -- everyone involved in these struggles know that the infrastructure, the idea, the teaching, the people part of earlier movements resurface,
reepersonal, learn from past mistakes. don't think movements die. they go into a period of gestation and reemerge and turn into something else, frying occupy wall treat turned into occupy sandy, hurricane sandy, and then many people from occupy went on to form the digital back bone of bernie sanders to p campaign and are continuing to learn new lessons, share information and evolve. so, we just don't know where those teachings go. >> host: i want to also emphasize that in your book, while you're not naive about how dangerous the trump administration is, i love the analogy you use to being in the automatic tennis things where you're being hit by the balls constantly and you're taking a swing and might get one or two but feel like you're always
being battered. on the other hand you talk about the trump agenda is not all controlling and the trump? space is not all-controlling. you say. ment they don't control what cities and states do. they don't even control what congress does a lot of the time. they certainly don't control universities, faith institutions, unions, they don't control what the court does -- yet "you haven't parent ceases -- don't control what other sovereign nation does and do not control what we do is a individuals and groups around the world. for me this is very inspikes, this sex of the book. you do lay out that we have a lot of spaces in which we do not have to just be saying, no, no, no, but where we are building up these alternatives, whether it's on the very small level of the way you luff your life, or whether it's on the global level of how we can reignite some of the global alliances that we have had in the past after
bush -- after trump said no, to the paris agenda, how the world community came together to say we're moving ahead anyway. can you talk a little about those spaces that trump does not control. >> guest: right. i think specifically because what trump and his administration are doing is so dangerous, with what they do control, and what they control is significant, the onus on us to do more in all of these untrump-fied spaces -- i was speaking at harvard, giving a lecture, early in the administration and there has been an absolutely ferocious fight at harvard over fossil fuel die divestmentedment hard rad has one hover the strongest
fossil fuel divestment movements and the also meteorologist has been -- harvard is so iconic and if they were to make the decision, it would help other schools and other institutions to also make a similar decision. and talking to some of the activists there i realize that the argument of -- during the obama years, that the school used to make, was, well, we don't really think divestment is the most effective dui fight climate change. we think it's more effective to have policy and there was a credible possible the own administration would spree douse policy that would be strong. the clean power plant that wasn't nothing, it's being up done by trump. because there is no credible prospect at this moment of federal legislation on climate
change, real carbon tax, fresh -- that argument is gone and anywhere we have power we have to use it. during the dnc when michelle obama said, when they go low, we go high, right? i think that was probably the best line of the convention. she was talking about tone and not wanting to join trump and his gang in the gutter of slurs and attacks. i think we should adopt that similar approach but at is riot lays to policy and action. at the trump administration goes rouge, we have to rates the bar everywhere where we have power, and an amazing example what's mayor of pittsburgh, after trump announced the paris withdrawal and invoked the city of pittsburgh saying he was elected by the people of pittsburgh, not the people of paris, the next dale you had the mayor of pittsburgh stepping up and saying, actually, pittsburgh voted for hillary and i'm going
to get the city to 100% rerenewable energy by 2035 which is the most am ambitious together in the country. portland is the only city with a target that ambitious. that's an example of people using the power they have to advance a powerful progressive vision. think we're seeing something similar with health care in california. the california senate moving one step closer to single pair precisely because what congress and trump are doing in health care is so dangerous. we may well be in a position to advance something similar when it comes to free trade. when they are seriously renegotiating nafta to make it more like the tpp, that's an opening for workers movements, for environmentalists, for everybody concerned, about our economy to come forward and say, this is how you write a fair
trade agreement, this is what it would look like, really say what we think it would look like. when were fighting these deals in the days we were pretty got eight no but not as good as saying yes. >> host: as we're winding down now, i want to as an activist, one, thank you for saying, now the lines are blurred that we have to all be activists, and, two, giving us this beautiful way of looking at the trump agenda not as something that is so enormous that we don't want to get out of bed in the morning because we don't even want to think about it, but as a challenge to us that we have to take extremely seriously, but that gives us a lot of not only spaces within which to work but whole new communities to work with, and i think as you go forward on your book tour, getting more and more people excited about being part of the solutions and showing the
enormous potential that these solutions have, we as a community, as a nation, and as a global community, will be much better at articulating the yes that we want to live in and so thank you so much for the work, the book, again, "no is not enough: resisting trump's shock politics and winning the world we need." thank you so much. >> guest: thank you so much. >> each year and since 1950, the national book foundation has selected what they consider to be the best books in poetry, young people's literature, fiction, and nonfiction. the winners of this year's national book airport with by announced november 15th in new york city. today on booktv you're hearing from all ten nonfiction nominees. one of this year's finalists is the economic policy institute's