>> He earned a reputation as one of the most polarizing governors in the nation, and he's not done yet, this week on "Firing Line."

>> Hey, hey, ho, ho!

Scott Walker has got to go!

>> Reviled by some, revered by others, Governor Scott Walker became a darling of the conservative movement thanks to his reforms in Wisconsin.

>> We have bill collectors waiting, and it's time we step up.

>> After his presidential campaign went south... >> Mr. Trump, we don't need an apprentice in the White House.

>> ...Walker reluctantly got behind Donald Trump.

But his reputation in his home state was damaged, he lost the governorship, and in his last days in office, he was accused of a power grab against the incoming Democratic governor.

>> Republicans, after the loss of Governor Scott Walker, accused of a legislative coup.

>> As he gears up for a new battle... >> How do you take on big challenges?

How do you push big reforms?

>> ...what does Scott Walker say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... ...and by... >> Governor Walker, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thanks for having me on, Margaret.

Appreciate it.

>> You were a presidential candidate, you are a -- >> Short-lived as it was.

[ Laughs ] >> A two-term Republican governor of a state that is eminently important for Democrats to win back in 2020.

And you implemented some conservative reforms in a state that voted Democrat in seven straight presidential elections.

You have been in state politics for many years there.

Wonder if you can just explain to me and to the audience what made you think that Wisconsin, a state that is very blue on paper, would be right for the kind of conservative labor reforms that you implemented as soon as you got to the State House?

>> We had both an economic and a fiscal crisis, and I really governed like I had one term.

I figured I got to fix things.

Most politicians talk about them and don't fix them.

I fixed them and didn't talk about it as much.

I learned, in the end, you got to do both.

We had a $3.6 billion budget deficient.

Remember, eight, nine years ago, the economy was in the tank, not only Wisconsin but across the nation.

And so, I wasn't gonna raise taxes 'cause that would hurt the economy, wasn't gonna lay off 10,000 to 15,000 public employees 'cause that would be devastating.

So instead, we changed collective bargaining, which actually started in, of all places, Wisconsin.

The progressive movement, collective bargaining, all that started in Wisconsin.

But yet we knew that was the only real alternative we had.

And what it really was about was about taking power out of the hands of the big-government special interests and transferring it into the hands of the hardworking taxpayers.

>> You are the only governor who has survived a recall election, and, in fact, you won your recall election by a larger percentage than you won your first election for governor.

But given your resiliency... >> [ Chuckles ] >> ...were you surprised at what happened this November when you lost by 29,000 votes?

>> I knew it would be close, and that was just 'cause you've got the larger dynamic of what's happening nationally.

You've got all this hate and anger on the left, and we needed to be able to counter it.

>> What's different in 2018 than was different in 2014?

Let me give you a hint.

>> Yeah.

Well, I think it was focused on Washington, right?

>> You're being polite when you refer to Washington.

But President Trump is a factor.

>> There's no doubt about it.

There's just a lot of anger that goes beyond results.

Maybe I'm old school.

I look at actions more than I just look at words.

And I may not like the tweets or the words sometimes of the President, but when I look at the tax cut, saves a typical family in my state more than $2,500, I look at the regulatory reforms that help farmers and manufacturers, I look at the benefit it's had on the people of the state of Wisconsin and across the nation.

What he's done, and his administration's done, is very good.

>> Let's talk about your legacy in Wisconsin.

>> Yeah.

>> One of the first things you did when you got to the State House is you proposed legislation that conservative reformers really admired.

And what that legislation did was, it asked civil servants to pay a portion of their pension benefits and their health benefits.

>> Right.

>> And this was viewed as a massive power grab from the unions, to the extent that you sustained weeks and weeks of more than just colorful protests in the State House.

Do you feel even looking back that is your major legacy?

>> Well, it ties into everything else since then.

We've saved, just schools alone, billions and billions of dollars they could pour right into the school districts, right into the classroom because of our reforms out there.

Wasn't just about saving money, though.

Schools can now hire based on merit.

They can pay based on performance.

That is transforma-- It's probably, arguably, in the last 25 years or more, the biggest education reform in the state and one of the biggest in the nation out there.

And I look back, if I had it all over to do again, I'd do it.

I just went in and just tried to fix the problem I saw.

For eight years, I was a local government official, and I knew how difficult it was when your hands were tied as a local official because of the unions.

We wanted to put the power not only back in the hands of the taxpayers but of the individual workers who had the freedom to choose.

>> I wonder, do you think that if the protesters had been less colorful and less outrageous that you may have had less success?

>> It was really over the top.

A number of death threats against me, against my family, against some of our state senators, and people from all across the country.

I was thinking about that being here today to come in for this show.

I remember, about a month after our reforms had been passed and I signed them into law, I was here in town for something else.

I get out of the vehicle, a guy across the street yells, "Hey, Governor Walker!"

And being from the Midwest, I said, "Hey.

How are you?"

He said, "You suck!

You are scum of the earth.

I hate you.

I went to Madison to protest you."

The poor guy he was with, I thought, was gonna pass out he was so embarrassed, and I just looked at him and said, "See?

They weren't all from Wisconsin."

>> They weren't even from Wisconsin.

That's the thing.

I mean, that was -- The point, I think, is that the extremes of either side end up alienating a reasonable force in the center of the country and certainly in the center of Wisconsin.

And that's why, for most of your gubernatorial tenure, Independents stayed with you.

>> Yeah.

>> Is there a road map in what you did in Wisconsin for other blue states?

>> Oh, absolutely.

I think anywhere could do it.

I think they're starting to do something in Iowa, they're starting to do something in Kentucky, elsewhere.

This just says, "Hey, the people we elect to run our cities, our towns, our villages, our school boards, and our state government, they should be the one that we're accountable to, not some special interest off on the side.

Those commonsense conservative reforms can work.

>> What is your view about the future of labor unions in the United States?

>> Well, I think they can be very positive if they offer something positive for their members.

See, to me, this wasn't about being anti-union.

It was actually being about pro-worker and pro-taxpayer.

>> What is the right role for a labor union in the 21st-century economy?

>> Well, I think particularly in the public sector -- Remember, even Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed public -- In fact, I got Politifact on saying that, because nobody believed that that was true, but FDR opposed public employee unions 'cause he said, "Who are you protecting against but yourself?"

But in the private sector, it makes sense.

Today, I think the most effective unions, at least in our state and the ones I see around the country, are in the trades, where they actually offer some value -- training, expertise -- in ways that do that, as opposed to what too often the public is, it's ways of defending the weakest link.

I mention in my book one of the worst examples of what I was trying to fix was, a teacher, a year before I was elected governor, she was the Teacher of the Year, the Outstanding New English Teacher in the state, and yet she got laid off.

Why?

'Cause she was one of the last hired.

Last hired, first fired.

Last in, first out.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

That is gone in the state of Wisconsin.

That makes the state better and any other jurisdiction that does the same.

>> You must know that Governor Chris Christie, who was on this program recently, suggest in his transition plan to President Trump that you would be a suitable Labor Secretary.

Would you be Labor Secretary if you were asked?

Would you serve again?

>> Oh, I got talked about it, but back then, it was more important for me to stay governor, 'cause there's no better job in America if you want to have a positive impact not just in your state but in the country as a whole, than being governor.

And right now, I think -- You know, to me, you shouldn't join the Cabinet in a spot unless you think you can really make a difference.

And for now, the best difference I can make is speaking out -- >> As a private citizen?

As a private citizen living in Wisconsin?

>> I actually think one of the biggest things missing out there is, there's a huge gap, at least those of us center-right, talking about economic and fiscal policy.

It's one of the things I loved about Ronald Reagan.

It wasn't just that he did it but that he inspired people like me and Paul Ryan and Reince Priebus who all grew up in South Central Wisconsin to really be not only conservatives but optimists because of the way he governed and the way he spoke about it, and that's the sort of thing I want to talk about, going forward.

'Cause the results work.

I just think Republicans, myself included, have done a lousy job of reminding that we're the ones that believe in you, the individual, you're the ones that want to get government and other things out of your life.

We've just done a bad job of articulating that.

>> Well, you said you want to talk about federalism, and then you mentioned Ronald Reagan.

Federalism emphasizes the idea of returning federal power back to the states.

Ronald Reagan is one of your idols.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> You and your wife were married on Ronald Reagan's birthday.

>> Yeah.

>> So you celebrate your anniversary and Ronald Reagan's birthday every year.

>> I like to say I remember Ronald Reagan's birthday 'cause it's my anniversary.

>> And your wife likes to joke the opposite.

>> Yeah, she likes to say it's the other way around.

>> So, in 1967, Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of California, was on this program with William F. Buckley Jr., and he talks about the importance of federalism with William F. Buckley Jr. Let's watch.

>> Yeah.

>> ...because if it passes a certain point, the people just pack up and move to another state where things are better.

>> So right.

Five months before I was born, couldn't have been said better today, more than a half century later.

>> So, why do you think the case for federalism isn't being made right now?

>> I talk about it all the time, but I don't call it federalism, 'cause unfortunately, most Americans think that federalism is more federal government.

I tell them it's simple as this -- where do you want this dollar sent?

Do you want it sent to Washington, or do you want to keep it back at home?

You want to send it to Washington, where you get pennies on the dollar back, or would you rather keep it back at home to fund your schools, to fix your roads, to take care of your seniors, your parents, your grandparents, and others?

I think most Americans would rather keep that money right back at home?

Unfortunately, though, the federal government has taken on more and more and more, and they do it so lousy -- state governments, local governments much more effective, much more efficient, much more accountable.

It's just not sexy enough.

You really want to drain the swamp?

We hear it all the time -- drain the swamp, drain the swamp, drain the swamp.

The best way to do it is send power to the people in the states.

>> That dollar that you just held up, and you said that dollar going to Washington, Republicans just had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

And I'm curious, because you really fashioned yourself, especially early in your career, as a fiscal conservative.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And you instituted fiscally conservative reforms.

How would you grade the Republicans at the federal level, in terms of their fiscal stewardship in Washington?

>> I think if you had to pick a grade, it's probably a C-plus, B-minus.

>> Not an F?

>> Well, I wouldn't give an outright F. I think it's all relative, right?

>> I just want you to know, Mitch Daniels gives them an F. >> Well, I'm a huge fan of Mitch Daniels.

A lot of things we supersized out of Mitch.

I suppose I'm being generous.

I think that, in the last few years, the tax cuts have been good, but they need to match that with changes, in terms of spending out there.

And not just spending but I would tie in -- >> Well, that's exactly my point, because they haven't been conservative, fiscally, when it comes to spending, right?

They did the tax cuts, but they've added to the national debt.

>> The 10th Amendment says, if it's not spelled out in the Constitution, it is inherently the rights of the states and, more importantly, the people.

So, my argument with that is, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, national defense, ensuring our borders are protected, I'd send almost everything else back to the states.

>> Why do Republicans do it, too, when we get to Washington?

>> Oh, I think it's clear that anybody who goes to Washington -- It's part of the reason why I've advocated for years for things like term limits and other things out there, because once you get into office, no matter what party, some worse than others, but in the end, you get into office, and you start justifying reasons to keep you around, you better be -- >> Do you think that's the case with Paul Ryan?

I know he's your friend, and he's been on this program, but he was the proponent, I mean, the guy who advocated for entitlement reform for his entire career and ultimately ended up supporting a Trump agenda that said, "There's no way he was gonna touch Social Security."

Here's my question -- is there a constituency in the Republican party anymore -- and I'm looking at your state, as well -- for fiscal conservatism?

>> I think there is, without a doubt.

>> But where?

With Trump in the White House, he's not advocating for it, and tone does come from the top.

The Republicans in Congress, and they just had both branches of government... >> Right.

>> ...didn't make those decisions, the ones that you and I are talking about right now.

Where is the constituency for fiscal conservatism on the right?

>> Well, this past year, when they asked me about the election, I said, "Well, I hope to be remembered as a reformer -- on budget reform, tax reform, wealth reform, education reform.

Quite frankly, I might've reformed myself out of a job, and what I meant by that, as much as it got a chuckle from the press at home and elsewhere, is the fact that voters, particularly in the middle, tend to go toward big, bold ideas.

>> I'm still asking, where are the fiscal conservatives, Governor?

>> I think they were there.

I just think they became complacent.

>> But the ones in Washington?

>> Well, Washington's a whole nother matter.

>> And they're representing people all across the country, conservative constituencies across the country.

And those constituencies are not the same Tea Party uprising that is demanding fiscal conservatism that it did in 2010 after the government bailout.

>> Well, I think there's no doubt about it, and I think there was a pushback and there was some reining in early on, but the President hasn't made that the priority.

I hope, going forward, particular in the -- >> I think he's made a political calculation that there is no support for those set of ideas.

That's my concern.

'Cause these are hard decisions that have to be made.

You know about making hard decisions.

I don't see anybody coming up on the horizon on the conservative side, the party that used to be for fiscal responsibility, making the case.

In fact, I see Howard Schultz, prospective Independent candidate, calling out the left for some of their egregious fiscal policy.

>> If you take almost everything else they do that the federal government currently does, beyond Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- although Medicaid I would send back to the states.

So, really, just Social Security and Medicare, which I think are two commitments the federal government has made to the American people, particularly over a certain age, combine that with national security, in the purest sense, I'd send it back to the states.

And I don't know if the President's one way or the other on that.

It's just his priority has been about border security and about dealing with trade.

It hasn't been saying no to those things.

It's just, he hasn't lifted it up to the top of the list.

>> He's just not a fiscal conservative.

You talked about how Independents had stayed with you for most of your term, Governor, and it seems to me that it was after your 2015 foray into the presidential field, when Independents began to fall away from you, you took some positions that were in contradiction to some of your earlier positions when you were governor, specifically on some of the social issues.

Is it possible that some of the statements you made about LGBT equality -- you called the Supreme Court's decision to allow marriage between same-sex couples a grave mistake -- that that's part of what helped lose Independent support for you?

>> I don't think so in the 2018 election.

I think it was more around a couple -- >> The numbers began softening in 2016.

>> I think the biggest thing with the presidential election is that, if you decide to run for an office and then you pull back, the people are upset.

They're saying, "Hey, wait a minute.

We thought you were this.

Now you're running for that."

Our numbers were in the tank back then.

>> So you think it was because you ran for president too quickly after winning your re-election in 2014.

Did your actual personal rules change when you ran for president, or was it a political calculation?

I just observed you as a governor not talking about these issues until you ran for president.

>> There's no doubt about it, because when I ran for governor, the two biggest issues I had to tackle were an economic crisis and a fiscal crisis.

>> But you were not a social warrior.

>> When I ran for office at a different level, the questions that people had broadened beyond just those issues because people wanted to know where you stand on every issue out there.

I mean, as governor, I didn't talk about the problems I have with Syria or Iran or other places around the world because that's a whole different universe if you're running for federal office.

>> Foxconn is one of the largest technology companies in the world.

It's a Taiwanese company that has made a very significant economic deal with the state of Wisconsin on your watch and with President Trump's help to bring as many as 13,000 manufacturing jobs back to Wisconsin and invest billions of dollars in the state.

Do you believe that through deals like this, manufacturing will return to the Midwest like the glory days?

>> There's no doubt about it.

As long as we have a workforce.

I think that's the number-one challenge.

>> Foxconn is now saying that labor costs are just gonna be too high in the United States, and there's been some back and forth between the President, and I'm sure you are privy to those conversations, and the CEO of Foxconn.

Can a technology company afford to make products in the United States with our high labor costs?

>> Well, I think those things are starting to level off.

You go to places -- I've been on trade missions in the past, even in places like China, and you see a rising middle class.

Previously, part of the appeal for many manufacturing companies, global companies, was to go there 'cause of lower costs.

Well, those costs are starting to go up.

Technically, we've got more positions open than there physically are people unemployed looking to fill them.

That means you're not only gonna have to do more to train people to fill those positions, there's gonna have to be automation, there's gonna have to be artificial intelligence.

>> This job's not gonna be instead in engineering and research and development rather than actual sort of "working with your hands" manufacturing?

>> Well, I think that changes not just in terms of companies like Foxconn.

The job my grandfather had, a machinist for 42 years, that's not gonna be there.

It's gonna fundamentally change.

Instead of operating one piece of machinery, you might be in charge of four or five out there, so it's gonna take a whole different level of skills and training.

>> Let me ask you about one last controversy in the last days of your administration.

>> Yeah.

>> There were two pieces of legislation that you signed, one that constrained the powers of your successor, Tony Evers, as governor.

And I wonder if you could respond to the criticisms that you were changing the rules on your way out the door in order to keep him from having the same powers that you had as an executive.

>> Well, the interesting thing is, most of what we signed into law codified what we had done for eight years.

>> But the question is, why didn't you do it before, right?

>> I didn't need to 'cause I did it.

This just says you have to do that, going forward.

So this really doesn't constrain in the sense that the legislature is still, even when I was governor, had to sign off on a budget that included those things.

>> The legislature was gonna sign off on what you wanted because it was a Republican legislature, and you were a Republican governor.

>> Well, it prevents egg on the face for the state of Wisconsin in the sense that, if you ask the federal government for something, and the Republican legislature weren't gonna go along with it, it really makes Wisconsin look bad.

>> There's still no doubt, though, that that bill did curtail the powers of the incoming governor, right?

>> I don't think there's anything the governor wanted to do that has fundamentally changed with those changes in law, other than it makes them work together now instead of having a blow-up about it later.

>> It's your administration making decisions for the next administration.

>> Well, except for the fact that the voters didn't elect me to finish on November 7th.

They elected me to finish on January 7th.

>> That's your justification for jamming something through in a lame-duck session.

>> Anything he wants to do is not prohibited.

He just has to work with the legislature to make it happen.

>> Okay.

There was one other piece that was about voting, and the second piece of legislation that was controversial, one that made national news, constrained early voting in some districts in Wisconsin.

And it seem to me Republicans -- >> It made it fair.

It actually made them fair, and I'll tell you why.

>> Okay.

>> So, the previous law said you can have as many as six weeks of early voting, but it could be, in some cases, as little as two.

>> And it was not even all over the state.

>> Big jurisdictions that had a lot of money and could afford it would start as early as six weeks out.

Smaller, typically rural communities that couldn't afford it didn't have the bodies to be able to do it, were constrained to two.

One vote should be the same in every jurisdiction -- anywhere in America, not just in Wisconsin.

This just says, "You're gonna do two weeks early voting.

It's the same everywhere else.

You can do it."

>> I'm just thinking, the guy who's making the argument for federalism, don't you want the local communities to decide when to have their elections?

>> Not when it's not fair to the same voter.

Can anyone look us in the face and honestly say that two weeks is not enough time to do it out there?

>> Republicans generally have an optics problem when it comes to voter participation and voter engagement and making voting easy and accessible for everyone.

>> Well, we want to make it easy to vote but hard to cheat.

So when we done voter I.D.

-- >> But how much voter fraud do you have in Wisconsin?

>> Have had significant amounts.

Even if you have one, that's the only -- And you're right about the optics.

Many, many people in the media make it sound like they're targeting certain folks out there.

>> But the truth is, what we also know, as Republicans, is that early voting, when it is extended, it tends to help Democrats more.

And that's just true, and I think, as Republicans, we need to figure out a way to make voting as accessible for everyone even if they're not gonna vote for us.

And so the optics of shrinking the early voting makes it look like it's a Republican power grab.

>> I would agree that's how the media's portrayed it.

I would tell you, I don't care whether you're Republican or Democrat, Republicans need to do a better job of going out and aggressively getting people to vote early, which we've done in the past in Wisconsin, and signing up new voters.

You know, you're right.

It's difficult sometimes to argue the logic of something when someone else plays on the emotion of trying to say that this is taking away the ability to vote, when people forget that for most of the time that I've been alive, the only day I could vote on was on election day.

>> Well, we have expanded the franchise.

Let me turn to 2020.

What is your advice to Donald Trump, in terms of holding Wisconsin in 2020?

>> Well, I think a key part of it is, show up.

I mean, that may sound silly -- >> But does showing up in Wisconsin if you're Donald Trump help?

>> The reason I say that is, in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton never came back to Wisconsin after she lost the primary that spring to Bernie Sanders.

And I gotta tell you, in a swing state like Wisconsin, it sounds silly, but there are voters who just say, "If you don't care enough to show up, you're not gonna earn my vote."

So, first off is, show up.

Secondly, my argument would be, make the case on the economic side of things.

I think, no matter what you think about the President's comments on occasion or his tweets are out there, it's hard to argue the merits about the economy.

If he spent more time talking about the real benefit to actual working-class American citizens in Wisconsin and across the country, I think that really connects them.

>> Is talking about the economy gonna be enough, or are there other issues surrounding Donald Trump that make him vulnerable -- highly vulnerable -- in a state that seven presidential elections previously voted for Democrats?

>> Well, I think it's the economy, and it has to tie in, and I think it's a contrast.

When you look at people like -- >> So it depends on who the Democrats nominate.

>> Senator Harris is talking about entirely eliminating your healthcare insurance.

>> She had to walk that back.

>> I mean, my goodness.

Most citizens in my state would say, "You're gonna take away my health-insurance coverage?

No way, no how."

When you talk about Medicare-for-all, people liked it until they say how much your taxes are gonna have to go up.

Well, suddenly, if you start saying, "Wait.

My taxes are gonna go up?"

people walk away way, way back from that.

I think it's gonna be incumbent upon the President to talk about what he's done, what he wants to do, going forward, and then the contrast that with, I think, some pretty scary policies that the people on the -- We're getting pushed further and further to the left, pushing amongst the likely Democratic candidates.

>> Do you think his character is vulnerability in upcoming election?

>> Well, no more so than it was in '16.

And so I think the bigger problems people have on issues like that is, if someone pretends to be something that they aren't, if someone pretends to be a certain way, and then you see evidence that they're not, if these are things that you say, "Hey, I know what I'm getting with this person --" >> Hypocrisy is the unforgivable sin of politics.

>> Right, no matter who you are.

And I think, in the end, that's what people just didn't get about this.

It doesn't mean -- I've said for years if you asked me about the President, he wasn't my first choice.

I was my first choice.

I didn't even help him win the primary in Wisconsin.

>> He wasn't your second choice or your third choice.

In fact, you bailed out of the race, arguing, making a case, that Republicans should unite against Donald Trump.

>> That's absolutely true, and in the end, though, there's just no way, no matter what I thought about any personally, that I could justify voting for Hillary Clinton or staying out, which, by de facto, is a vote in a close election in a state like mine -- >> Hillary won't be on the ballot this time.

Will you campaign for Donald Trump?

>> Yes, because I think, in the end, if you look at the long list of Democrats running that they are the same or worse than Hillary Clinton on the policies.

>> Scott Walker, thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> Good to be with you.

♪♪ >> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... ...and by... >> You're watching PBS.