Skip to main content

tv   Steve Hilton Positive Populism  CSPAN  November 6, 2018 12:54am-2:07am EST

12:54 am
>> next we focus on the positive populism author and fox news host examines what populism
12:55 am
stands for and how he thinks it can affect american lives. >> welcome to the heritage foundation. on the assisted director of the lecture seminars i want to remind everyone attending in person to silence their cell phones e-mail questions to the speaker appear digital torque to because the six the bernard fellow here at the heritage foundation. >> good morning and welcome to the heritage foundation. it's my pleasure to introduce
12:56 am
steve and the host of the popular fox news show the next revolution, which broadcasts from the west coast every sunday night [inaudible] >> steve is the director of strategy and one of the most influential advisers in the decade. with a mission of fighting big money in politics and putting power in people's hands he is the author of more human designing a world where people come first. he studied at new college at oxford university and has been a prominent supporter from the european union on how to speak alongside a member of the
12:57 am
panel's. the revolutionary ideals to rebuild economic security for the family in america. please join me in welcoming steve hilton. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming along and thanks for watching wherever you are. it's a great pleasure to be he here. the first place we met was the discussion that we had i think a few months before. >> it was just a very exciting time to talking about it with the knowledge that it might be happening and it was an exciting moment in the club to see you again. i would like to talk about populism. and i'm going to get into some details in a moment, but i want
12:58 am
to set up why i've written this book and the main thing that i want to achieve with it is to try to define it a little bit because we hear the word populism it's been throwing a lot and attached to all sorts of political phenomena over the placall over theplace and actuan brexit people started really talking about it and then the election of donald trump and the bernie sanders campaign as well with various political contests end of the old order but is often described. but i really want to do is give it a bit of coherence. it's what populism is against them is against the elite and
12:59 am
its against the trade deal. what is the agenda, the coherent agenda for the positive populism? that is the purpose of the book. the reason this movement whether it is splintered in this direction from the left or the right whatever the reasons you are seeing this emerge in a really powerful political force i think is the place i would like to start. the simple answer to that end of thandthe argument i make in thek more than the last few years but the last few decades the voters
1:00 am
are very conscious of this and it ties directly to the donald trump success here but regardless of who has actually been elected in the same agenda they seem to be in power and that is the strong sense that rich get richer and we get screwed. ..
1:01 am
1:02 am
. >> government here in the us and the centralization in the economy squeezing out competition of uncontrolled immigration they are the key
1:03 am
characteristics that i call that elitism because the people at the top of the roughly 20 percent or so. we have done incredibly well with those booming urban centers that has been a real success for some people so incomes gone down communities ripped apart and to give rise to the populism and to write
1:04 am
this book with quality reforms rather than just rage. that characteristics of populism first of all,, it's very pragmatic to solve problems like donald trump in the 2016 campaign coming across the ideological politician you can argue whether or not that has been done but that has resonated with people that we are not driven by ideology that helping working people and working people improve their
1:05 am
lives. but more specifically with this practical approach actually try to help with those who have been hurt the most. and pro- community and those are the key elements so what i would like to do now to with those responses and questions so to give a couple of examples how i come to these views and in hungary my parents are hungarian but that
1:06 am
that there are 27 specific ideas to address the problems i have outlined that's why i call them ideas so to turn around these long-term trends with corruption in government but these are ideas to start the conversation we have sketched them out to give a flavor with these four ideas that we think about education, health it is pretty
1:07 am
central. but i want to start with schools what is a positive populist have to say about schools? so the biggest principle of this approach that i am setting out is that concentration of power that i talked about earlier that defining characteristic the power has been taken away from the businesses and bureaucracies for things that matter supporting power in people's hands is key throughout this book that is relevant to the whole idea that i will talk to about and the other factor the way social proclivity has stalled in america to rise through
1:08 am
education. so what we have got to do is rethink our approach to education in schools because it's just not working to get worse and worse it is the nature of the change of the labor market that jobs are more temporary. . >> so the current school system is in equipped to do it. talk about radical school reform you have to make clear the public school system there are schools that do a great job of course, that is true but overall the factory school system that we have an operation basically a model invented in 19th century prussia big schools children taught the same thing
1:09 am
according to their age in a very industrialized way is completely hopeless for the skills that our children need for the future it is much more about character and less about knowledge and problem solving and creativity because above all we need innovation that experiment with different ways of teaching children the skills. so i propose so we do have some innovation like charter schools and in the private schools like in silicon valley i want that experience for everyone and a total school
1:10 am
choice but completely removing government from the operation of delivery of education. so basically to have a voucher system that enables any parent to go to any school that in turn inspires entrepreneurs to set up schools to have this education of total school choice and that connects what i was talking about to put power in people's hands. second to apply that exact same model to health care. just the same with critical one - - credible medical innovations with all these new
1:11 am
developments but all this factory approach of a giant hospital with the delivery of health care here in america in particular are actually moving towards a uk style consolidation that's happening in the health care marketplace with insurance companies completely dominating and then talk about a market for health care in america but getting less of a market. at the same time working people with massive financial insecurity as the way we approach health insurance too much of the ideological approach has been taken with the approach anything resembling government run health care or what we think about single-payer gives
1:12 am
people that peace of mind we don't want runs date health care but we have two very distinct parts of the debate to treat health insurance and health care. of course, it's true people want choice and health care that will lead to innovation to have choice more than any other sector but that with the insurance part of the equation if you get sick you want to be treated so i am proposing the free market health care that yes it is taxpayer-funded the total free market choice combining in the ideological way of the populist argument
1:13 am
of single-payer and the free market approach. the third idea is the topic of incomes and low wages. one of the things that i think should outrage conservatives more is the way a key phrase that conservative politicians use over and over how they are the hard-working people doing the right thing. the fact is for many adults those hard-working americans work full-time so as a result we have top up bureaucracy this is what they are working for. those that are actually
1:14 am
working but also receive government welfare one form or another. even the tax credit that is still welfare. or food stamps. taxpayer people trying to live off of what they earn so they should be outraged that is really a taxpayer subsidy to the employer they pay their workers at a level so the taxpayer tops it off. now the less populist approach you have seen in the last week that what they say they pay their workers a level that
1:15 am
they cannot pay on - - live off of so we will tax them that amount. that is a less populist approach my approaches the business living friendly wage so let's require all employers to pay the employees a living wage depending on housing costs and transportation wherever there is. but in order to make that affordable for businesses they have to do that to bring in the robots so that cuts the
1:16 am
taxes by the equivalent amount basically reduce the tax burden but in the process you eliminate the need for that government worker who is taking money off the system so now they're taking from the companies and handing it to their workers with the top off that is ridiculous or just get rid of it so the work relationship is between the worker and the employer. and one other idea in this book which is about family considered to be the single most policy area that i worked on ten downing street and i argue in the book it is a foundational issue because if
1:17 am
we can achieve something that is incredibly simple to say is not very hard to achieve and practice that every child should be raised in a stable and loving home if we can achieve that, so many of the social economic problems that give rise like government intervention and regulation which is the biggest fear, now a lot of work has been done about the breakdown and the incentives from the government systems to encourage parents to raise children without being together or marriage or they suspect that it's very
1:18 am
clear for children to have two parents the marriage is very strong but more likely they stay together it isn't about preaching by fax if you look at the data of one family's breakup, he find something really interesting which is the peak moment within the first year of the child in a very human practical pragmatic you don't get any sleep it is a nightmare without the results of the family connections so what we see from a practical nonideological way that there
1:19 am
is real interventions to help parents and that difficult time to make it much more likely they stay together which is a benefit to society as a whole that the program the whole approach was pioneered in the uk but one of the best evaluators of social policy but the nurse family partnership program what were these interventions about? home visits professional nurses going into the home of parents with a young child to help them with a practical and emotional questions and then
1:20 am
to be transformative the different to all the different kinds of interventions where there is something about that trusted person that makes a huge difference so if currently deployed at the at risk way with obama care actually so those families become a small proportion that's fine and it would be transformative and that's why i talk about the universal home visiting service not necessarily delivered by the state or government but also institutions and similarly that approach of education to
1:21 am
guaranteed by the state to be delivered by the market for private sector for nonprofits or a combination. just because it is by the states it doesn't have to be delivered by states but home visits can have a huge positive impact in working people and on families and on all of these issues like income inequality that have been a part of this populist uprising so that is a flavor of the book and there are 23 others if there any topics you want to raise but i have touched on i would be happy to do that or debate these four specific ideas but would rather to work with people on this agenda because i think it's incredibly important as a
1:22 am
way to make it more relevant and applicable for real political disruption and rapid change. thank you very much. [applause] . >> thank you i think this will spark a lot of debate in washington and we are a part of that here. so before we take questions from the audience i do have a question for you on t five but the proposal has been very controversial that teresa may
1:23 am
and president trump was critical to say that brexit could threaten the trade agreement and later backed off but that significant intervention so could you give us your thoughts of what this means for brexit and the prime minister as well? . >> i am delighted to do that. sure. with the president he was right and she was wrong. but let me go back a little bit to the campaign and then
1:24 am
catch up where we are so through the brexit campaign as i've been in california six and a half years so i do feel this is our home but i go back to the uk to campaign for brexit so in that campaign, there was a real coherent thought put forth by the leaders from the conservative party side specifically myself and boris johnson and we all made the argument outward looking pro enterprise approach to be free of the shackles of the e.u. that was the theme and the feel of
1:25 am
brexit but then those various reasons they are taking over that they campaigned against it. so it seems to me what is going on political leadership in the bureaucratic apparatus but not an opportunity to be seized and exploited but a problem to be mitigated and somehow this disaster has to be handled. so i remember early on that attitude was taking hold where the discussion at the time was hard brexit are soft brexit to get out and make that transitional arrangement
1:26 am
dealing with the e.u. or soft make it less of a break and i made the argument then of course, it needs to be hard because anything that hard means that we are still there kind of participating and kind of having a transition leaving but not really. you don't have the freedom to take advantage of those opportunities so the real question is is it open or closed? that means engage with the real world and rolled out the red carpet let's cut the corporation tax and just really make it the number one destination for business
1:27 am
investment. that's the argument i made then and none of that happened and now here we are so it's worse than anybody imagined with the adjective would be but certainly the what they thought from not really leaving and also that during this period the actions that could have been taken to make a long-term success to be a signal to the world the uk is a fantastic place to do business but the infrastructure but to go out to the world to sell the uk and the entire focus of the
1:28 am
british establishment was around the e.u. but most of the things were done regardless of the e.u.. second of course, that wants to make exit - - brexit as uncomfortable as possible they are trying to punish the uk for leaving so that idea you could negotiate a deal i always thought was ridiculous. just leave. leave and figure it out. all these arguments that you hear how it will be chaos turned out to be rubbish my favorite may have been a political leader the phrase used falling from the sky
1:29 am
because airplanes will fall out of the sky that was the phrase that was used that would never happen that's ridiculous we will figure it out. but enough of these stories of consequences of just leaving are horrible and the nature of the debate that people believe them. and they wanted to believe them so bringing us up to date it would be in britain's interest but the deal is to have a change of prime minister's which i think should happen but i don't know if it will because of the british conservative party but
1:30 am
i do think with brexit to take the policy actions to make the uk the attractive number one place in the world with corporate infrastructure and roll out the red carpet but there's no signs of anything happening right now with that change of leadership. >> thank you very much. very well said. we have talked about this on many occasions that's an important interest for us as well. so now i will invite into the audience to ask questions.
1:31 am
>> i apologies if this was addressed as i was a little late but with the popularity of jeremy this is another uk -based question quick. >> i think that is part of it populism story. i think there are two things. of substance and policy-based if you can believe it and a conservative to be taken seriously with the economic hardship of working people the
1:32 am
non- beneficiaries automation centralization and then not working in the knowledge economy. it's really important we understand the deep deep pain that is caused over the years and the resentment of inequality. one of the most important concepts that at any moment it could all come crashing down that it could derail my whole life. the federal reserve.
1:33 am
i don't know a huge proportion of americans cannot handle that on - - unexpected expense so that insecurity with globalization but there are whole sections in my book of noncompete clauses because nearly 20 percent of american workers are under noncompete this was designed for top employees with unique scientific knowledge now applied to people at mcdonald's? so there is a real unfairness of the view they have of the economy and in the uk the labour party really spoke to that where those contracts are
1:34 am
it with employers and that's good for them but it is insecurity and unfairness that plagues so many people and really spoke to that. so that's what people have not had it with those conservative ideas and yes some of that happened so i think that is substantive to the appeal of those very left wing messages not those who may vote later but that personality aspect it is a comparison to make like donald trump not like usual slick politicians you like the
1:35 am
fact he looks like a mess and stumbles and rolled his eyes. so i really understand that. the other side the conservatives need to get that in many the left populist wood damage and hurt the working people but you have to understand that appeal and this is what i'm trying to do in the book i wouldn't call it conservative maybe pro- market is a big characteristic pro- market populism and that's
1:36 am
another really big theme in the book that so many industries are now noncompetitive that isn't conservative with a pro- market argument or much greater competition. >> thank you. thank you for what you did on the brexit vote i was one of the members for the economist for brexit i was on the same side of that campaign but just to push back on the living wage idea. something i argued a lot with some of your former bosses so i will ask the simple principle question so why is it the responsibility of companies to compensate for rent and fuel bills versus the
1:37 am
value that they give to the business wouldn't it be better if it was the first do no harm to actually look at undoing the genuine negative effects in terms of housing are what drives up the cost of housing or childcare regulations for the cost of childcare or protectionism driving up grocery bills would that the better approach for government to undo these damaging policies without lamenting the companies don't pay people enough quick. >> great question. i agree with nearly all of what you said in another part of the book i talk about housing but when a policy wonk
1:38 am
you try to think of a name for everything basically to say every piece of land should be marked for development or nature that's you get rid of all control there was an interesting model that we did implement the uk government and actually it turns out if you give neighborhoods control they feel like it's being improved by the external bureaucracy with no real control but i totally agree and the other cost points. but in relation to the cost of living aspect perhaps we should do that but those structures take a long time to bear fruit so i keep coming
1:39 am
back to the pragmatic approach so while we wait for that to happen you have got people in this bureaucracy that we should hate in the other principle that i would articulate back you should be able to live off of what you earn that is a disagreement i don't think we can settle that i think it is a premium assertion that rings true for those people so what is worse? employers should live off what they earn bearing in mind the cost of living for how the government do it that makes people independent that
1:40 am
relationship feels like it could we could be a reasonable relationship if you depend on the government to live that's worse. . >> i agree with that but those that our dependent on the state even working full-time. . >> i do agree a worker who was working full-time should provide for his or her family but also to bring up a couple of concerns of the living wage idea so how is that different than a taxpayer subsidy like a
1:41 am
welfare program? if you opt in for businesses and if not are you concerned this could increase the role of government in a different way is different from the subsidy because the government doesn't requirement they don't get any money from the government between food stamps or whatever the government is not a part of it. but in terms i'm sorry you're talking about the operation of it? . >> again these are ideas for discussion. also actually thinking about the implementation you may
1:42 am
want to use younger workers to incentivize other goals howl marriages penalized maybe this is the opportunity to have that living wage system the cost to hire if you have a family if you are married maybe that's too bureaucratic but these are just ideas but in order to be real it would have to be demanded just like the minimum wage but it just needs to be decentralized approach because the cost of living varies greatly. so this would be applied even on a city by city base is not state-by-state it would not be the law. that's not the concept of this.
1:43 am
>>. >> from conservatives abroad here in dc thank you very much you must get this question all the time but if you got the call to go to downing street what would be the three-point strategy and in the coming years to execute quick. >> execution of the strategy is a different conversation. >> i'm not sure this is coherent but one of the most
1:44 am
important things they seem to convey i will not be like the other politicians i will shake things up. one of the things that would demonstrate that is the delivery of promises. i think actually there are two things that perhaps less structurally important but significant in terms to say see? i'm different and i did what i said the most famous promises simple and famous phrases drain the swamp and build the wall. those are two of them. there is something more important that i will get to i'm getting those out of the way but just to deliver those build the wall is very straightforward in that sense
1:45 am
whatever we may think of it i've always been a supporter of that that is a sensible things to do but getting it done i don't know why so difficult to get it done. the argument about congress funding i don't understand. the federal government spend so much money on other things i don't understand why that cannot be done. immediately drain the swamp. i think that was resonant because everyone understands how deep corruption is it's true they actually had a list of drain the swamp pledges there were four or five things on their in about four or five are technically being done but if you ask anyone has a culture change?
1:46 am
not really i wrote a number of ideas how you really stop corruption like ending conflict requiring legislators to recuse themselves from activity that relates to the interest of any of their donors. you can say that then why would i give them money? lie would be on that committee then? that's how it works but it's total corruption and they are totally funded by wall street which is total corruption so really to get at the heart of the corruption but the real one the big one think why he was elected the overwhelming one was get the economy
1:47 am
moving, jobs, american manufacturing, that was the story. c were certainly seeing some of that happen with more deregulation remember president trump in the campaign and said this is serious we should take this serious and the second policy document he publishes a text with 15 percent corporate taxes so with that business confidence so the other element that is missing is really important it connects the issue of incomes and wages of those working americans who put him into office is infrastructure and that's important because in parallel with wage stagnation you have productivity and economist can
1:48 am
scratch their head about productivity because of infrastructure so that infrastructure promise was just not in terms of building for creating jobs but really good infrastructure leads to productivity which means wage rises you actually sing this now from the private sector with big increases since the corporate tax cuts and starting to contribute to the wage increases because of that expenditure leads to productivity so that is something around the infrastructure story there is interesting ways you can do
1:49 am
that through financing but getting it done. . >>. >> one more point on infrastructure i am upset they did not do that first because i think the whole presidency could have gone a very different direction because that interestingly was one of the areas you have political agreement with democrats and republicans now probably disagreement how you finance that sure. but they can come to some type of agreement one of the first to declare running for the president talked about how to finance the infrastructure through offshore money so to
1:50 am
get creative agreement between democrats and republicans and it hasn't turned out like that now is incredibly divisive politics right now and the infrastructure thing could be a way to bring people together to have unity back. >> thank you for your presentation today and the one i'm interested in is the family. on the recent transplant here from jacksonville and from the area you mentioned income disparity between communities and as i drive through crystal city and not the good part of dc i really see some of the
1:51 am
issues our country is facing somebody coined the phrase so goes the family so goes the nation. we could almost say some of those issues that we see poverty and income and crime directly relates to those issues of the family. so that my question is, you mentioned every child should have a stable home and wouldn't that be a beautiful thing? the particular question is looking at our community across the nation a vast amount of kids in the foster care system i am 100 percent of reunification for children with their families i have a fundamental issue with parents who are not equipped but the
1:52 am
government mandates that the we have to give them back some of your thoughts and ideas on that issue quick. >> i could talk all day i completely agree with what you said i'm just at the beginning actually launching a new business in this exact area you are talking about and i talk about it in the book. when you first hear about it conservatives think this is nanny state even as i'm about to say it i understand that but bear with me that parenting education. i spend a lot of time working on these issues and the trump
1:53 am
family program which was very hands-on intervention of those families that were going off the rails with dysfunction you would not believe i spent time so shocking when we did an audit of each family and i remember thinking the average number of children in these families was five. it is so chaotic i don't want to go into details but so we started to do something by the way all the families were on the receiving end so most intervention is like government and that's the
1:54 am
problem they are disconnected with 16 different poking at them health worker and social worker and this and that but nobody takes responsibility and no one is really focused on helping the family turned around so our approach is to take that away to have one dedicated family worker who gets them out of bed to get them going in the morning. that was a very progressive government program yes it's nanny state for this particular group that is exactly what they need is a nanny so i totally defend that. but more broadly parents right across the scale and myself in that category to look at the policy research with parenting classes and typically parenting classes are required
1:55 am
of parents when their children go off the rails your teenager got in trouble. they have some juvenile punishment so now you will go to a parenting class as your punishment i have spent many hours in them a really consistent thing emerges that the words that they use i was dragged kicking and screaming here and did not want to come but almost from the first moment if i had this seven years ago my life would've been completely different so there is a real value to it it's not the instruction like
1:56 am
how to get the baby to sleep for your teenager or enforce bedtimes that are part of a loving household. so there is practical instruction but the real power is in the conversation and the parents and talking and listening and realizing the struggles that they have are not just their own that everybody finds this difficult and they can actually talk to each other. it's a very powerful process. there is evidence now that literally the way you are a parent is the single biggest determine her more than the
1:57 am
economic phases the way the parents parent make a difference we are wrong to think it cannot be taught or improved. it can and i have seen it. so that's another idea in the book to again not with government delivering thi this, community groups, and nonprofits private sector i'm about to start a private-sector business that will do this not government but to make parenting education and turn it around that is seen as negative for punishment something that is positive for parents and aspirational. we started the parenting voucher program in the uk as a
1:58 am
pilot and it took off. but again i did put it in the book it's about helping working families and working people was an answer that work? parenting education really works and it's something i would like to spread much more widely than it is at the moment to turn from a negative to a positive. >>. >> i really want to applaud your focus on the family and education because those two areas almost underpin all the
1:59 am
problems we face in society but i want to push back on the idea of the living wage or the economic idea because i don't really think that holds up with reality in the world because you yourself talked about how wages increase with productivity but the proposal in fact, would disconnect productivity and wage rates at the lower end of the scale because you pay everyone up to a certain level the same wage essentially so the problem we have in our society going back to family and education a large number of potential workers coming out of the school system that can do basic mathematics thor that are practically illiterate with standard english but yet you would say any business
2:00 am
that hires those people is required to pay them whatever the living wage is a by the estimates - - estimates i have seen is significantly higher than the minimum wage or proposed 15-dollar amount that is popular in the united states right now. 's you suppress the wage and force them to hire people that don't have the basic skills to be productive in any way it sounds very appealing that anybody works full-time should earn a living wage but at what? i would love to spend 40 hours a week writing poetry so does somebody owe me a living wage if i choose to do that? do we take away the choice to work at whatever endeavor they ?
2:01 am
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on