Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Embracing Democratic Socialism; Tackling the Male Loneliness. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired November 08, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

WHITFIELD: Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. "SMERCONISH" starts right now.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Can you sell it in Lebanon, Kansas?

I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly Burbs.

There's a monument. It marks the dead center spot of the 48 contiguous United States. It's in Kansas, and thousands visit each year. They want to stand dead center in the USA. It's a long way from New York City, New Jersey, Virginia and California, where on Tuesday Democrats won the big prizes. New York City's mayoralty, plus the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, and California voters approved a redistricting measure backed by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Opposing President Trump and talking about affordability, that was a common thread for the victors of each of those races. But beyond those factors and a party label, there was quite a difference in approach. As everybody knows now Zohran Mamdani won in New York City as a self- described Democratic socialist who voted for himself under the Working Families Party label. In Virginia, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger adopted a more conventional, pragmatic, even moderate tone. Ditto for New Jersey's Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot.

For now and through the midterms, Democrats can be many things to many people. Since election day, there's been renewed use of the old expression big tent, but closer to 2028, the party will need to pick which path leads to the White House. The Spanberger-Sherrill model or something more Mamdani. Looming is an important question of semantics. Semantics over socialism. Political scientists describe Democratic socialism as a commitment to democracy coupled with skepticism about unfettered capitalism.

In practice, leaders like Mamdani and Bernie Sanders, they often advocate something closer to European social democracy. Capitalist economies with robust social insurance. And viewed that way, we already have many socialist aspects to American life. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, they're social insurance programs run by the government. Public schools, the postal service, police, fire, national defense, all publicly funded and managed services.

That's not the same as the state owning the means of production, but still, we already live in a mixed economy. And not all socialism here emanates from the left. Consider this argument from conservative writer Jonathan Last. He says some of President Trump's economic moves look like state direction of markets, from a golden share in U.S. steel to imposing a 15 percent government take on certain chip sales to China, to the government taking equity stakes in strategic companies.

His point, there's plenty of socialist policy on the right these days, too. Or, as he wrote, "So why is it so hard for people to just say out loud what is obvious? Donald Trump is a socialist who is trying to make the American economy function more like communist China."

Perhaps this familiarity with socialism is what's causing a closing of the gap on the respective favorability of socialism versus capitalism. In September, Gallup found that 54 percent of Americans view capitalism positively versus 39 percent who view socialism positively. But capitalism, look at that graph, has declined in the last 15 years by seven points, while socialism has gained three points.

Already, two-thirds of Democrats have a positive view of socialism, while just 14 percent of Republicans do. That number for independents is 38 percent. And only 42 percent of Democrats view capitalism positively. Only 31 percent of Democrats under 50 have a positive view of capitalism. Let me say that again. Only 31 percent of Democrats under 50 have a positive view of capitalism.

Current economic pressures, they're impacting our perception, for sure. The median first-time home buyer is now age 40, up from the late 20s back in the 1980s, and first timers have fallen to a record low share of home sales. And this comes amidst great job loss tied to artificial intelligence. UPS just cut jobs of 48,000 managers this year and Amazon is reported to be developing robotics that could displace as many as 600,000 workers over time.

No wonder, then, that pessimism is on the rise in the U.S., where nearly half say the country's best times are behind us. Meanwhile, the 2025 World Happiness Report again puts Nordic social democracies at the top. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, too, while the U.S. fell to 24th.

[09:05:02]

Those countries aren't exactly apples to apples comparisons with us, but they fuel the argument nonetheless. So Mamdani wins. Socialist policies already have a beachhead here. Democrats favor socialism over capitalism already. A.I. is upending our workforce, and those countries that are social democracies are happier than we are. It starts to sound like a plan.

Still, we're talking about socialism here. For years, the word has been used as a political slur in the United States. Since the Cold War, the word has carried tons of baggage here. For many, it conjures the Soviet era or Fidel Castro. We Americans, we tend to see ourselves as aspirational, rugged individualists. You work hard here, you're going to make it here. And if you don't work hard, well, then that's on you. We don't like to be told what to do either, no matter what it is. Not

too long ago, many took to the streets and they raised Gadsden flags. Don't tread on me, fighting for the right not to have health insurance. And of course there are taxes. Social democracies rely on broad based higher taxation, not just on the wealthy. Ask somebody in Kansas or Ohio or suburban Phoenix if they want to pay Scandinavian tax rates and the conversation gets short fast.

American politics is also much more about tribe than it is about policy. If the word socialism is perceived as urban, coastal, academic activist, then voters will see themselves as practical, rural or traditional, and reject it before even hearing the details.

So the question for Democrats isn't just which policies are popular in New York, Virginia or New Jersey. The question is, which story travels? Mamdani speaks to those who feel the system is rigged and needs restructuring. Spanberger and Sherrill, they speak to those who want to repair, not replace the system that we have. For now, both perspectives they live under that same tent. But in a country this large and this diverse, you don't win the White House by only winning the coasts. You got to sell it in Lebanon, Kansas.

And that brings us to today's poll question at Smerconish.com. By 2050, will the United States be best described as a democratic socialist nation?

Joining me now is Dr. Frank Luntz. He's a three-time "New York Times" best-selling author, one of the most sought after political consultants in the business. His specialty is messaging, and he's worked for years testing what sorts of words and phrases help sell an idea or a candidate.

OK, Frank, thank you for being here. This is purely an academic exercise because you're a Ronald Reagan Republican, I get it. But if you were tasked with selling socialism to middle America, how would you do it?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: The first thing I would do in this Veterans Day weekend is to thank our men and women in uniform. I'm actually talking to you from West Point right now, and to thank them for keeping us safe, for keeping us secure, and most importantly, keeping us free. So veterans out there, we appreciate you. We value you.

Second is I'm going to focus on four different areas. I need to individualize, personalize and humanize the sale. I need to ask rhetorical questions to bring people to my side. Third is that this has to be an issue of fairness, because in the end, that is a core American value. And fourth, it needs to be interactive. So I need to have a conversation.

And let me just start with the rhetorical questions. Is it fair? And I'm acknowledging I'm reading this. Is it fair that some people's children will be born billionaires without having to work a day in their life, while others will work two or three jobs just to put food on their table and a roof over their heads? Second, is it fair that some schools have all the technology, all the resources, and others can't even afford books or chalk? Why do I do that? Because you can see it. You can visualize it.

And third, does everyone in the sound of my voice, because I'm personalizing it, who works hard and plays by the rules, shouldn't they have a genuine shot at the American dream? These are the questions that you ask at the beginning to bring audiences over to you, and without asking those questions, you're cutting people out.

Back to you.

SMERCONISH: OK, Bernie Sanders is on line two for you because he's finding this pretty convincing. Like, where's Frank Luntz been all this time? I noticed that what you're not giving me, you know, you're so well known for saying to Republicans, don't speak of the estate tax. Speak of the death tax. Very effective politically.

Do you need to rebrand the word socialism so that many of the country don't think of Karl Marx or the old Soviet era, or Fidel Castro when they first hear the word socialism?

LUNTZ: Well, again, I'm going to give you specific language. You take a fact based approach to everything.

[09:10:01]

I'm not going to give you a ton of data, a ton of numbers. But if I give you facts, you'll believe them. Second is that it's the redefinition of freedom. For conservatives, it's freedom to own a gun. It's freedom to attend church. For liberals, for progressives, it's freedom from hunger or freedom from fear. It's the same word, but it's defined differently. Third, and only now do I get into the failures of capitalism and specifically corporate welfare, which even Republicans oppose, and not paying any taxes, which everybody opposes.

And only then do I start to get at the issues of making the case that we can do better. And so, no, I'm not going to use your word.

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: OK. Step out --

LUNTZ: I'm not going to -- go ahead. Yes.

SMERCONISH: Step out of this role because you're pretty damn effective. And this is purely been a shits and giggles exercise. Now I want to speak to the real Frank Luntz. And I want to know, how worried are you that socialism is here or is coming? You heard my poll question, by 2050, will the United States be properly cast as a democratic socialist nation?

LUNTZ: I'm petrified. And it's happening. I work with young people all across the country and go younger, go under age 30, and they prefer socialism to capitalism already. The 30s, they are about dead even. It's only when you get to be older 40 that you become more supportive. And we should be calling it economic freedom, not capitalism, because capitalism is about CEOs, it's about billionaires, and it's about Wall Street. Economic freedom is about main street, about the workforce and about the opportunities for the future.

And I want to give you one bit of language that whoever wins this wins the entire debate, whether it is capitalism or socialism. America should be a place for new ideas, better solutions and good people thrive. If we want to move forward as a country, as a people, and remain number one in innovation, ingenuity, genuine opportunity, real results, we will find more ways to work together side by side so that everyone benefits and no one is left behind.

Whoever controls that language wins the debate.

SMERCONISH: Frank, that was excellent. I think AOC, Mamdani and Bernie are all going to be clamoring for your services after the first part of our exchange. Thank you for participating. I appreciate it.

LUNTZ: They won't get it.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts at home? They won't get it, I heard you. Hit me up on social media. Follow me on X. Also, make sure that you're subscribing to my YouTube channel.

David, "Polls seem to match young generations' unwillingness to work for what they want. They despise people who work hard and smart, so- called rich."

I don't think it's that simple. I think, and I got to say, David, you've set me up beautifully for a conversation that's about to unfold here in the next block of this program, talking about, in particular, rudderless young men. I think it's very easy to see young people in that light. But did you hear the part of my opening commentary where I said that the first time home buyer in the '80s had been in their late 20s, and now they're 40, and they think that the system is rigged against them and that they will never, no matter how hard they work?

Because I get the mindset that says, you know, get out there and get a job and work. It's more complicated than that. And they've also got artificial intelligence working overtime against them. And the 40 percent of the stock market that has the most valuation. So it's complicated. But I appreciate that sentiment.

I want to know what you think on my Web site. It's Smerconish.com. This is today's Smerconish.com poll question. By 2050 will the United States be best described as a democratic socialist nation?

Up ahead, as I just described, fewer friendships, fewer relationships, and a growing sense of aimlessness. My next guest, Scott Galloway, has a prescription. His new number one bestseller at Amazon is striking a national nerve. We're about to discuss why so many men are struggling and how they can be helped, wait for it, by dancing, booze and sex. Get ready for that.

Is Scott smiling? I can't tell when he hears that. I hope so.

OK, sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com and you will get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:18:32]

SMERCONISH: It's a subject I've spoken about here at length. The growing concern over what's happening with boys and young men in America. Falling behind in school, struggling to connect, often feeling lost.

My next guest, Scott Galloway, says that crisis is reshaping families and relationships, and our economy. His new book, "Notes on Being a Man," is now the number one bestseller at Amazon. It's a semi- autobiographical look at what's gone wrong and how men can reclaim purpose, connection and meaning in a modern world that has left many of them behind.

Scott Galloway, he's the academic, the entrepreneur, the noted speaker, the co-host of the " Prof G Markets, Raging Moderates" podcasts joins me now.

All right, Scott, desire for sex often is cast as toxic masculinity. But in the book, you offer thoughts on dancing, drinking and sex. What do they have to do with this?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, AUTHOR, "NOTES ON BEING A MAN": Well, if you think of the three legs of the stool masculinity, I would argue the first is being a provider. I think in a capitalist society it's a good idea for a young man to take responsibility or at least believe he'll need at some point to take economic responsibility for his household. And to be clear, sometimes that means getting out of the way of your partner who's better at that money thing and being more supportive.

Two, immediately moving to protection. The most masculine jobs are firefighter, cop, military. What do they do at the end of the day? Protection. And Michael, to be blunt, some of the really disappointing things about the leadership, most valuable or wealthiest man in the world and our president, people you would naturally look to as role models or young men would look to as role models for masculinity, I feel like they've skipped the protection part.

[09:20:10]

I don't feel that's their first inclination. And the whole point of prosperity is protect people. And then finally, as you referenced, procreation. I think a man's desire or a young man's desire to have a relationship and sexual experiences has been demonized. And I believe that that is fire, if you will. It can be destructive. Too much time with porn. You can begin to objectify women, have unrealistic expectations, and sometimes those algorithms will take you to kind of near misogynistic or violent places.

But that fire most of the time can be captured in an engine and used for progress. Wanting to be attractive to women such that you can have relationships, I think makes most men better men. I think it encourages them to get out of the house, to work out, to groom, to have a kindness practice, to develop skills, have a plan, demonstrate excellence. So I think we need to stop pathologizing a young man's sexual desires and to a certain extent, celebrate it.

You know what I hear the most from women when I'm out is I'm here. I look fantastic, I'm obviously single and ready to mingle, and no one wants -- nobody approaches me. So let's celebrate the greatest alliance in history, and that is the alliance between men and women. And I know, I believe you agree with me that the most rewarding thing in life is the opportunity to find someone to procreate with and feel as if you're protecting them, noticing your partner and building a safe, loving household.

SMERCONISH: Why are these things not often so openly spoken about? Like, I'm mindful of the fact that some are going to hear this conversation and say, these are two bald, privileged white guys.

GALLOWAY: First, let's acknowledge that. The gag reflex, especially strong gag reflex, I think both of us received five years ago when we started talking about this, which, by the way, it's become much more productive. So I'm on Katie Couric yesterday. I'm going on with Oprah on Monday. There's a recognition by women that things have -- that there's a real problem.

But men of our generation, Michael, have had so much unfair advantage. From 1945 to 2000, America registered a third of the economic growth with just 5 percent of the population. So we had six times the prosperity and almost all of that prosperity was crammed into the one- third of the American population that was white, male and heterosexual. So an understandable gag reflex, a response of, well, Scott, you and Michael have had a 3,000 year head start.

That is understandable. The problem is, should a 19-year-old male who does not have the advantages we had. When I applied to college, UCLA, 72 percent admissions rate. This year 9 percent. Housing costs have gone up fourfold, while wages have gone up twofold. Education is up sevenfold, so they don't have nearly many of the on ramps to a middle class life for a man were -- have been taken away.

It used to be 40-60 female to male. When it was 46 we had Title IX. We weighed in with affirmative action for women. Now that it's 60-40 and more like 66-33, when you look at graduation rates, there's no discussion of anything resembling male affirmative action. We have a bias towards men in K through 12, 70 percent to 80 percent of the teachers are female. Boys are twice as likely to be suspended.

So the bottom line, Michael, is that these young men are paying for the price of our privilege.

SMERCONISH: I agree. I agree. Hey --

GALLOWAY: If you run them through a morgue --

SMERCONISH: Hey --

GALLOWAY: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Michael. SMERCONISH: The book is semi-autobiographical, which I think is a

large part of the appeal. And I want to tell people who don't know that Scott Galloway was raised by a single immigrant mother who, as you say, lived and died a secretary. You graduated, yes, from UCLA with a 2.27. You were lucky to get out. And while your father was an important figure in your life, he wasn't there for you. What specific advice do you have for fatherless boys?

GALLOWAY: Well, what I would say is the data is clear. The single point of failure for a boy is when he loses a male role model. When a boy loses a male role model to death, divorce, or abandonment, at that moment, he becomes more likely to be incarcerated than graduate from college. And what's interesting is a girl in a single parent home has a similar outcomes as a dual parent home.

All the research points to one conclusion, Michael. And that is, while boys are physically stronger, they're emotionally, neurologically much, much weaker. And there has to be a zeitgeist in our society that the moment a boy in our society loses a male role model that friends, mentors, the Boy Scouts, big brothers and other men get involved in their life. And unfortunately, Michael, men our age aren't stepping up.

There are three times as many women applying to be big sisters in New York as there are men, and there's a bit of a taboo about getting involved in a young man's life. And what I can tell you is someone who mentors young men, it's really easy to add value, answering basic questions.

[09:25:02]

No, you cannot live off of pineapple juice and creatine. You probably shouldn't move to Alaska right now if you have a good job. And believing you need to be a CEO or a baller, that's not true. You can have a lot of value just by your sheer presence. But in sum, if we want better men, we need to be better men. The ultimate expression of masculinity. Take care of yourself. Take care of your family. Take care of your community. Take care of your country.

But the ultimate expression in my view of masculinity is to take an irrational, passionately -- passionate interest in the well-being of a child that isn't yours. Step up. Get involved in a young boy's life. They are everywhere. They are struggling and they need our help.

SMERCONISH: There's another aspect of this that we have to get to with limited time. And it's this. You and I, in speaking about it, I feel like we have the same childhood. You on the West Coast and me on the East. But you and I didn't have the most valuable companies, as you like to say, in the world, working to convince us that we could have a facsimile of a real life. I mean, they are up against all of this artificial intelligence and as Scott Galloway speaks of 40 percent of the stock market.

So how do they combat that? What's the short advice?

GALLOWAY: We've connected rage and sequestering our young adults from the rest of society to the entire economy of the U.S. The entire economy is a big bet on big tech, and they do a lot of things, but primarily they try and sequester you from your relationships, take you online, keep you online by enraging you, and we end up -- we are developing, we are literally evolving, Michael, as species of asocial, asexual males.

We need to recognize that big tech is not our friend. And my message to any young person is the time you spend on a screen is inversely correlated to your economic well-being, your mental well-being, your romantic well-being. In some, the amount of time you spend outside is positively correlated to your success and your happiness in life. And these guys are not our friends. Their job, they have connected trillions of dollars in value to isolating you.

Resist. You want a rebellion? Rebel against social media and get out and meet people in person and touch grass.

SMERCONISH: I made reference at the outset of the program in my commentary to the impact of artificial intelligence on job loss, and something that I've had underscored by Scott Galloway, for me, and I think a valuable lesson for anybody men, women, anybody listening to this is get to the office because if those cuts come and you're not known, you know what I'm saying? Put it in your words in our final 30 seconds.

GALLOWAY: You're 38 percent more likely to be promoted if you go into the office, in some way, whether it's a promotion or who goes on a list for a layoff. The decider will make those decisions based on relationships. Who gets promoted or who goes on a list, and some, if you don't know the person and they work remotely, you're much more likely to end up on a list of who gets laid off.

Also, HR directors don't like to talk about this, Michael. One in three relationships begin at work. So where are men supposed to --

SMERCONISH: Right. Right. Yes.

GALLOWAY: Where are men supposed to demonstrate excellence to potential romantic partners? They're not going to work. They're not going to church. They're not going to school. The office for a young person is a feature, not a bug. And then going back to your statement about not drinking, I'm friends with the people in the anti-alcohol movement, I get it. But the risk to your 25-year-old liver of alcohol is dwarfed by the risk of social isolation.

Get out, drink more, make a series of bad mistakes that might pay off.

SMERCONISH: And, as I learned from you, and I'm 50 years too late, learn how to dance. The book is awesome. You don't need me to tell you that. It's the number one book in the United States. "Notes on Being a Man."

Thank you, Scott Galloway. We love it when you're here. Good luck.

GALLOWAY: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for all your support on this issue. SMERCONISH: Amen. From social media, from the world of X, we have

this. What do we have?

"Independent women do not want or need these needy men. Maybe their parents shouldn't have allowed them to spend formative years secluded in their rooms playing video games. They've never matured and never will, and are incapable of handling." Wow. "Who needs that?"

The Pessimistic Gardener, I would say to you that who most needs help in straightening out our men or our women? Because just look at the impact that it's having on them. By extension, younger women today marrying older men because the younger men are unsuitable as partners. It bodes poorly for all of us as a society. And I just think it's taken us too long to finally have the conversation where we're willing to say, wait -- I'll put it this way.

If there were any other constituent group among us as a society struggling as much as the data suggests our young men are struggling, there would have been all sorts of political and affinity groups support that hasn't materialized for the men because nobody wants to be perceived until Scott wrote this kickass book as being an advocate for men. It's in men's best interest and women's best interest that we help them get the ship righted.

[09:30:00]

All right. I want to remind you go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. I love today's poll question. By 2050, do you think the United States is going to best be described as a democratic socialist nation? I'll have results at the end of the hour. While you're there, sign up for the newsletter. It's free and it's worthy.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. Plus, for the first time in years, America's obesity rate is ticking down. Now, 37 percent of adults, down from nearly 40 percent just three years ago. It comes as weight loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy go mainstream. Economist Emily Oster says lower prices could make an even bigger difference.

And make sure, as I said, to sign up for the newsletter as you're voting because you also get the work of illustrators such as Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:21]

SMERCONISH: Here's some of the social media reaction to the program thus far. Follow me on X. Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

"Smerconish, promoting socialism should end any talk of comrade," right. I knew, I knew somebody would say it. I just wasn't sure if somebody was going to get put on the screen so quickly in the program.

Look, this is -- this is from my "New York Times." Oh, and he reads "The Times." I'm sure you're saying that, too. This is my "New York Times" today, which I snipped out and have already marked up because I'm going to talk about it on radio on Monday. And what's the gist of this? What I am saying, except I beat him to the punch because I wrote my commentary two days ago.

What a split screen this week. Elon Musk, I drive his car. I'm not anti-Elon Musk, the first trillionaire, and a democratic socialist elected in New York City. That's -- I mean, that's the split screen world in which we're living. And I'm trying to add value by analyzing which of these is going to win out.

We have a problem in this country. I'm re-reading a book from the Clinton era by Barlett and Steele called "America: What Went Wrong?" They won Pulitzer Prizes, you know, back in the day. They saw it all coming. When 31 percent of Democrats under 50, only 31 percent, have a favorable view of capitalism, we're headed for a collision. That's got to be righted. Somehow there's got to be some coexistence in all of this.

And like call me the commie because as an academic matter, I want to talk about where we're going to be in 2050s is just ridiculous. Frank Luntz came on the program. There's no better Republican wordsmith than to have Frank as an academic exercise. Just say, hey, could you sell it in Lebanon, Kansas?

Anyway, sorry, more social media reaction. One more. I'm sorry, I got long winded. What have we got?

"U.S. carries way too much debt." Yes, $38 trillion and U.S. citizens would not tolerate raising taxes high enough to sustain democratic socialism. Well, there's a disconnect in this country. It's like nobody pays attention to $38 trillion because it's hard to wrap your head around like, hey, I have a flat screen TV, why do I need to be worried about $38 trillion in debt? Sooner or later it comes for us all, and no politician wants to use the E word, entitlements, but they need to be dealt with.

All right. Don't forget to vote on the poll question. It's Smerconish.com. By 2050, will the United States be best described -- I'm not advocating for it. I'm just asking you a question. Is this where we're going? We will be a democratic socialist nation. Yay or nay?

Still to come, as the Trump administration touts its new deal and new Web site to slash the cost of weight loss drugs, the president himself shared an anecdote that he says underscores why Americans have been paying too much.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm in London and I just paid for this damn fat drug I take, I said, it's not working. They said -- he said, I just paid $88. And in New York I pay $1300. What the hell is going on?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: The Trump administration this week announced a major deal that could drastically lower the cost of weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Zepbound. Standing with the CEOs of Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, President Trump said the agreement will cut prices to as little as $149 a month and allow Medicare to cover some of these drugs for the first time.

The deal also lowers costs for state Medicaid programs and will offer these treatments directly to consumers at a discount on a new administration Web site TrumpRX.gov set to launch in January 2026. In exchange, drugmakers will get reduced tariffs and faster FDA reviews. The new prices they take effect mid 2026, and about 10 percent of Medicare enrollees could be eligible.

My next guest has covered this extensively and argues that making these drugs more widely available could save both money and lives. Her "Atlantic" piece, "Ozempic for All," laid out the economic case for covering GLP-1 medications under Medicaid.

Emily Oster joins me now. She's an economy professor at Brown University and CEO of ParentData.

Dr. Oster, nice to see you again. Will this price drop force states to cover GLP-1s like they would any other FDA approved med?

EMILY OSTER, CEO, PARENTDATA: So I hope so. In general, the restriction on coverage of these drugs has been through a waiver where states are not required to cover them the way they are required to cover other approved medications. But by dropping the price to this point there's a strong case to be made that state Medicaid programs can actually save money by covering these drugs because they will save money on the other costs of people struggling with obesity, like statins and other medications, which you may be able to lower the use of once you introduce GLP-1s.

SMERCONISH: I remember when you published the "Atlantic" essay initially, and you and I had a conversation and I said it reminds me of an old '70s commercial. You can pay me now, or you can pay me later, because if we don't take care of the folks who need this assistance now in the long term, right, we'll be paying for them through our insurance pools. And I asked you at the time, where do we get to a level where it's a wash, where it makes economic sense to actually pick up the tab today? Are we about to get there?

OSTER: I think we are. So I did some calculations in that piece based on what we know about the cost savings and the calculations suggested that the break even was something around $250 a month.

[09:45:04]

So if we lower prices to $150 a month, even though that is only for the lowest dose of the medication, I actually think there's a good case that we are getting towards where this is break even, or even potentially pay less now for more benefits later. SMERCONISH: You know that some are going to hear this conversation and

say, wait, wait a minute, my tax dollars are going to end up paying for weight loss meds? Why cant they go to the gym? To which you would say what?

OSTER: To which I would say, first of all, your tax dollars are paying for weight loss meds or they're paying later for something else. So actually this might save you money. But I also think as a practical matter, it is absolutely true that in principle, diet and exercise can result in weight loss. But in practice, people really struggle with that and we have not seen success. And when we look at what has happened for people with the GLP-1 reductions in metabolic disease, improvements in ability to exercise, reductions in alcohol abuse, reductions in drug abuse.

I mean, we are seeing so much evidence of benefits from these medications that could really have vastly positive impacts on society. And I think that's something that we should all value. And by making these cheaper and by expanding access to Medicaid and Medicare, we cover a set of people who are otherwise not going to be able to access these medications and for whom actually they may be the most effective.

SMERCONISH: I'm not denying that there's a behavioral component to this conversation, but at the same time, I'm saying to myself, if we were sitting here having a conversation about a cancer cure, I don't think dollars and cents would be any kind of a consideration, certainly not like they are in this. Your thought?

OSTER: Absolutely. I think that because we have imbued obesity with a kind of moral valence, we have this sense that it's somehow people's fault the way we wouldn't say cancer is your fault, and that means we come at it with this view that, you know, well, why should I pay for the drugs that will -- that will treat this?

Over time I think people have shifted to understanding a bit more that a lot of the components of what drives obesity are not actually behavioral, but I think purely as a practical matter, these medications are just really effective in improving people's health and in lowering their medical costs. And we have to just face that reality and kind of put aside whatever emotional weight we want to give to obesity.

SMERCONISH: A quick final question and not fair to you, because I'm sure it's a complicated answer. But with regard to the president's, quote-unquote, "fat friend," that's the way he described the friend, why is the cost overseas so much less than it is at home for these very meds?

OSTER: This is a very complicated question and relates to a lot of the ways that we negotiate drug prices in different places and in general medications in the U.S. do tend to be more expensive than medications abroad for a lot of different reasons.

SMERCONISH: OK, Dr. Oster, thank you so much. Here's some social media reaction from the world of X, I believe.

Follow me on X. Subscribe on YouTube. "No brainer. We have meds for all other addictions. Why not food? Arguably 10 times the crisis than other addictions."

Yes, it was -- I think it was, you know, fact check me on this. I think it was Fram oil filters. You can pay me now or you can pay me later. I mean, to those who say we shouldn't have a financial stake in helping the people who desperately need these meds today, well, OK, fast forward 20 or 30 or 40 years, because at that time, collectively, we're going to be assisting those folks with their long term care. Better that we help them today and enjoy them not only to lose weight, but to have a more enjoyable and healthy life for the next few decades.

You've still got time to vote on today's poll question. Go to Smerconish.com. Can't wait to see. And I have no idea how you're voting. It'll pop up on your screen when you vote. By 2050, will the United States be best described as a democratic socialist nation? Is that where we're headed?

While you're there, sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter. You get the work of illustrators such as Jack Ohman. Check that out. And Rob Rogers. He drew this one for the daily newsletter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:48]

SMERCONISH: So there's the poll results so far. 32,900 have voted so far. By 2050, will the United States be best described as a democratic socialist nation? Interesting. 57 percent say that's not going to happen. I don't know. I mean, for the first time, according to Gallup, for the first time, according to Gallup, you've got less than half of Democrats viewing capitalism positively.

And what did I say earlier? Under 50, those Democrats under 50, only 31 percent under 50 are favorably disposed or approve of capitalism. So on one side of the aisle, like that's the decided trend, as you saw in New York City this week.

More social media reaction, what do we have? From the world of X. "I am from Argentina. Believe me, socialism is a trap. I speak from experience. You will be apparently happier as a society in the short term, but poor and miserable in the long term. It's simply not sustainable."

Again, EDJO, I wasn't here to advocate for it. I was here simply trying to read the tea leaves and see where we're headed. But as I was doing my research, it did occur to me, hey, I was recently talking about the world happiness survey and those nations that practice democratic socialism or engage in social democracy on those metrics are said to be happier.

[09:55:10] One more, if I've got time for it, I think that I do. "No question that we are going to become more socialist. A.I. is going to lead to 30 percent unemployment." 30 percent. I had -- I had an academic on my radio show on Sirius XM, who said 99 percent. "That will lead to riots or guaranteed annual income." Right. I've been thinking about Andrew Yang recently and universal basic income. "How that looks is the question."

Right. We're living in very complicated times, right? You take a look at the job loss attributable to artificial intelligence, all the technological advance plus what we discussed with Scott Galloway earlier in the program, many of our young men being rudderless. And it's a witch's brew of sorts. It's a witch's brew of sorts.

So thank you for voting on the poll question today. Appreciate it very much. If you missed any of today's program, know that you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. We thank you for watching and we will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)