#1698 Resistance is Not Futile: Support the collective revolt against Trumpism (Special Podcasthon!)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to this episode of theaward-winning Best of the Left podcast.

(00:03):
In this Special Podcasthon episode, we arejoining thousands of podcasts around the
world in the Podcasthon movement, takingthe opportunity this week to support a
cause or organization that we believe in.
In this time of fighting fascism,Best of the Left has chosen to support
Indivisible, the grassroots organizingteam that's working to resist Trumpism
and pressure Democrats to do the same.

(00:25):
Follow the link in the description of thisepisode, or simply go to Indivisible.org
to make a donation, but to also takea moment to find and join your local
Indivisible chapter to stay engaged.
Now as for today's topic, it's allabout resistance and highlighting
why any feelings of despair andhopelessness are very much premature.

(00:45):
For those looking very quick overview,the sources providing our Top Takes
in about 50 minutes today includesThe Rational National, Unf*ing the
Republic, The Intercept Briefing,Brian Tyler Cohen, Harper O'Conner,
and a speech by JB Pritzker.
Then in the additional Deeper Diveshalf of the show, there will be more in

six sections (01:03):
Section A, Strategy and goals; followed by Section B, Humor as
a tactic; Section C, Protest; SectionD, Boycott; Section E, Resources;
and Section F, Power structures.
But first, your Call ToAction for this week.
Hey everyone, Amanda here with yourweekly roundup of activism actions.

(01:25):
All links can now be foundat bestoftheleft.com/action.
A quick reminder that this isnot an exhaustive list, just the
largest nationwide opportunities.
As always, get involved in yourlocal community however possible.
First up, the March CongressionalRecess Week ends on the 23rd, so get
in touch with your local Indivisiblegroup, go to town halls, badger your
members of Congress to host townhalls, and or hold an empty chair

(01:48):
town hall to shame the no-shows.
FYI, there are also Democratsoffering to show up at empty chair
town halls in Republican districts.
Later this month, on and around March31st, plan to uplift and celebrate
the annual Trans Day of Visibility.
You can show your support in a widevariety of ways, but check your local
LGBTQ organizations for resourcesto share and advocacy opportunities.

(02:10):
In particular, support Advocates forTrans Equality's Freedom to Fly action
to protect trans passport access.
The State Department has openedcomments on three discriminatory
passport application changes.
Two out of the three comment periodsclose on Thursday, March 20th.
We also want to remind you aboutthe important elections in Florida
and Wisconsin in early April.
Florida will have special elections fortheir 1st and 6th districts on April 1st.

(02:35):
Look up candidates Gay Valimont andJosh Weil—that's W-E-I-L—to get involved
in the get out the vote efforts.
Then on April 4th, Wisconsin will holdits election for a Supreme Court judge
seat, which will once again dictatecontrol of the state's highest court.
Musk has targeted this racewith millions of dollars.
So anyway you can support theground game for the Democrat
backed Susan Crawford is helpful.

(02:56):
And finally, on Saturday, April5th, it's finally happening.
The big nationwide protestyou've been waiting for.
Indivisible, 50/51, Women'sMarch, and more have teamed up
to organize this National Day ofAction under the banner Hands Off.
You can find your local eventand check out their social
toolkit at handsoff2025.com.

(03:17):
Just a reminder that a core principleof the hands off mobilization is a
commitment to non-violent action.
The organizers "expect allparticipants to seek to de-escalate
any potential confrontation withthose who disagree with our values".
Remember that no one can do everything,but everyone can do something.
Finding community and taking actionare truly the best ways to deal

(03:37):
with everything being thrown at us.
We don't get to choosethe times we live in.
So we need everyone to actlike everything's on the line.
Because it is.
I'm trying to figure out whatleverage we actually have.
What leverage do we have?
They control the House, theSenate and the presidency.
It's their government.
What leverage do we have?

(03:59):
Inspiring words from minorityleader Hakeem Jeffries there.
Now, maybe he got -- this was a monthago -- maybe he got a big reaction
to how ridiculous it is to lay downand do nothing, that he thought
this time, all right, you know what?
I'm gonna stand up for my constituents.
I'm gonna stand up for humanrights for voters, and we are going

(04:19):
to do something to defy Trump.
Except he cracked downon speech disruptions.
So,
writing here -- it's from Axios -- "thatquote could be a sign, it could be
a shirt, it could be many things,the lawmaker said." So this is
somebody who wanted to do something.

(04:40):
"But our House Democrats closedour caucus meeting Tuesday morning.
Jefferies and others in leadershipdiscouraged the use of such props,
according to multiple lawmakers whowere present." Not even supporting
props, which I gotta say is reallydoing nothing, but to not even allow
the bare minimum is a little ridiculous.

(05:00):
Despite that, there were some in the inthe crowd there that did wear some props.
So some Democrats wore ashirt with "Resist" on it.
Again, how you feelabout this is up to you.
I feel like this doesn'treally do anything.
But some others held up signsthat said things like Musk Steals,

(05:21):
Save Medicaid, Protect Veterans.
All right.
Okay.
Colbert made fun of howridiculous all of this was with
his sign, Try Doing Something.
Very nice.
But there was one!
One man last night that actuallydid something, Al Green.

(05:42):
This is a representative from Texaswho stood up in defiance screaming out
during the early part in Trump's speech.
This is a great photo.
I wish I knew who took it.
I have not been able to find thephoto credit, but if I can find it,
I will link to them below the video.
Great photo here of Al Green.
Lemme get to the disruption, him beingkicked out, and then afterwards what

(06:06):
he said to reporters about what hewas saying there and why he did it.
Mr. Green, take your seat.
Take your seat sir. Take your seat.
Finding that members continue to engagein willful and concerted disruption of
proper decorum, the chair now directsthe Sergeant at Arms to restore order.

(06:28):
Remove this gentleman from the chamber.
Now, while we were watching thislive last night, we expected
this to continue happening.
I know maybe we expect too much,but I thought this was gonna be
like the beginning of constantinterruptions by Democrats.

(06:50):
That would've been a way toreally get under Trump's skin, as
well as just be a clear protestof everything Trump is doing.
But no.
Al Green was the only one.
And then he left.
So let me get to what he toldreporters about what he was
saying there and why he stood up.
So what were you shoutingto the president?

(07:11):
The president said he had a mandate andI was making it clear to the president
that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
I have people who are very fearful.
These are poor people and theyhave only Medicaid in their lives
when it comes to their healthcare.
And I want him to know that his budgetcalls for deep cuts in Medicaid.

(07:35):
He needs to save Medicaid, protect it.
We need to raise thecap on Social Security.
There's a possibility thatit's going to be hurt.
And we've gotta protect Medicare.
These are the safety netprograms that people in my
congressional district depend on.
And this president seems to careless about them and more about the

(07:55):
number of people that he can removefrom the various programs that have
been so helpful to so many people.
Is yelling during speech thebest way to get that across?
It is.
It is the best way to get it across toa person who uses his incivility, who
uses his incivility against our civility.
He is a person who has consistentlyused incivility against civility.

(08:19):
[Garbled] Is that what you said?
Well, look, I'm willing to sufferwhatever punishment is available to me.
I didn't say to anyone, don't punish me.
I've said I'll accept a punishment.
But it's worth it to let peopleknow that there are some of us who
are going to stand up against thispresident's desire to cut Medicaid,
Medicare and Social Security.

(08:40):
So were you saying you have no mandate?
Is that what you [garbled]?
That's what I -- he has nomandate to cut Medicaid.
None.
Is that is the only punishment,that you were kicked out,
sir? Is there something else?
I don't know, whatever the punishmentis, I'm not fighting the punishment.
This is about the people whoare being punished by virtue
of losing their healthcare.
This is the richest country inthe world and we have people

(09:01):
who don't have good healthcare.
We've gotta do better.
And now we are about to cutMedicaid, which is for poor people.
Healthcare has become wealthcare for many people, and we
can't afford to let that happen.
Is that the only thingthat you're protesting?
No, I have other things I'm protesting.
And I'm also working on myarticles of impeachment.
This president is unfit, heshould not hold the office.

(09:23):
34 felony convictions,two times impeached.
So, because Al Green was willing tostand up and protest, he's been getting
now media coverage about what thatprotest was about, which now has a
greater focus on the fact that Trump'sbudget includes cuts to healthcare.
This is why it's important for Democratsto make a noise, even if you feel like you

(09:47):
have no power, you have power in terms ofsetting a narrative and talking in media.
If you're able to set the narrativethe way that Republicans have for
decades, where Democrats are always onthe defense and having to react to what
Republicans are saying, if you insteadare able to set that narrative, then
you force Republicans to react to you.

(10:08):
The distractor-in-chief isunleashing a war of attrition on
reason and good taste, the likesof which we've never experienced.
For anyone who claims that Trump'sfaculties are diminished, think again.
He is at the height ofhis powers right now.
And even though it's only been acouple of weeks, he is wearing us down.
And that's the plan.

(10:28):
So here's our plan.
It's impossible to look away, so don't.
Take it all in and let it fuel yourdisgust and give you a sense of purpose.
And that purpose is, first,the midterms, and then 2028.

But listen (10:42):
The left is fucked right now.
The Democrats have no answers,no meaningful answers, at least.
The Dems are gonna hold press conferences,make the rounds on the TV circuit,
howl at the moon and shout at the rain.
The ACLU is gonna file somany motions their lawyers are
gonna have motion sickness.
And here we are out in the wilderness.
And I know what you're thinking.

(11:04):
What are we gonna do about this?
This guy is invincible.
He beats every rap.
And you're gonna getcaught up in the what-ifs.
What if he dismantles theDepartment of Education?
Well, he's gonna try.
What if he doesn't leave?
He might try and stay.
The what ifs are all very muchpossible, and they range from
bizarre to downright dystopian.

(11:25):
The point of this onslaughtis to keep us off balance.
So that's why I'm focused onthe fundamentals right now.
You might think that this is justrearranging deck chairs in the
Titanic, but there is importantwork to be done, right now.
And it starts with taking back thenarrative of the left, by establishing
what it means to be on the left.

(11:45):
See, right now, we're being blamed foreverything this administration is doing
and for the reason that they got there.
We are the "woke mob," the unpatrioticheathens who want to give everything
away, live off welfare, open theborders, and promote unqualified
people into positions of power.
As long as we focus ournarrative on counterattacks,
we're playing into their hands.
So what exactly does this mean?

(12:07):
Well, here's my contribution.
I'm finishing up our third episode on aseries centered on five non-negotiables
of the left, so it's my way of helpingto reclaim the narrative and get the left
aligned on certain fundamental principlesto mount an offensive instead of trying
to fight off the back foot and respondto every body blow and flurry from
the orange nugget in the Oval Office.

(12:29):
When all is said and done, this isthe primary critique of the Democratic
establishment and why we're inthis position: They stood -- and
still stand -- for nothing.
They offer nothing.
They allowed themselves to bedefined by the opposition and not
by responding with alternative plansin a clear vision for the future.

(12:50):
The Republicans just won by default.
But articulating a vision is actuallymore difficult than it seems.
And that's why narratives matter.
By coalescing around firm principlesand speaking with one voice, we
can help shift the narrative amongthe left and sympathetic liberal
core of the Democratic Party.
Now, I've offered my thoughts previouslyon efforts to build viable third parties,

(13:13):
and I'm with you, in the long run.
But the deck is stacked againstus today because of institutional
rot and Citizens United.
In order to change the politicaldynamics of the nation, we're gonna
have to seize the levers of power.
And guess who's gonna give usthe opportunity to do just that?
That's right.
The guy currently flooding the zone.

(13:33):
Hopefully, in tearing down theadministrative state and putting the
US economy in a precarious position,it will only serve to hasten the
economic decline in this country anddisengage him from his base of support
outside of the cult of MAGA at least.
And its simple math.
When it comes crashing down,clarity of purpose and vision wins.

(13:54):
So our moment, in my belief, is that it'scloser than you think, and the opportunity
is greater than it would've been hadsomeone like Kamala Harris overseen
the next phase of capitalism's decline.
But if you survey non-Republicansin this moment, what you'll discover
is a stunning lack of clarity.
We don't even know what to ask for.

(14:15):
We're as disorganized as we've ever been.

So here's the assignment (14:18):
Get focused on certain talking points.
The ones I'm offering are prettystraightforward, and there's a rhyme and a
reason behind what they are and the orderin which we're putting them out there.
And for that, you'll have to watchthe entire series to understand.
But on the top level, they're housingfirst -- which is the right to
shelter; a civilian labor corps -- theright to meaningful work; Medicare

(14:41):
For All -- the right to healthcare;campaign finance reform -- the right
to live in a proper democracy; andclimate scoring in legislation -- the
right to inhabit a livable planet.
Again, there's a rationale to this thatI hope you'll take the time to consider.
But getting these issues down andcreating a narrative framework that
informs a true leftist platform, onethat meets the moment and builds a

(15:03):
bridge toward an evolutionary system thatlooks like democratic socialism but for
the modern era, is only the beginning.
The hard part is amplifying ourmessage and bringing it out to
the masses, knowing that we don'tfind favor in the mainstream.
And that's where we have to be cleverand outwork them by using the tools
the tech oligarchs have supplied to us.

(15:24):
So if you have Google Meet or Zoom orany other platform that allows you to
confer with people you trust, you havethe ability to build an untrackable
hive of knowledge and advocacy.
It's time to go undergroundto spread the word.
Now, I've often referred to thispoint as the Empire Strikes Back
phase, and we're the Rebel Alliance.

(15:45):
But small groups can do big thingsif we can win over hearts and
minds by educating and empowering.
So I'm working on a fewcurriculum ideas to give away
and to help guide conversations,but there's no reason to wait.
You can start your own hive.
Find 3, 4, 5 people that are scared andinterested in, quote, "doing the work."

(16:06):
My suggestion is to start a weeklyhive meeting, couple of hours, with a
select group of people that you know.
It can be online or it can be in person.
And the best way to start is to "knowthy enemy." Not the screaming MAGA base;
they've been poisoned, and they'll be thelast to turn away from their dear leader.
But focus on who's behind these movements.

(16:26):
Here are three suggestions to getstarted, and yes, I am suggesting that
the way to get started on your radicaljourney is by starting a small book club.
Now over time it will evolve,but we gotta go back to basics.
And I'll leave the links inthe notes below to our bookshop
to help us get started.
So the first one is How The HeartlandWent Red by Stephanie Ternullo.

(16:47):
The second one is The Far RightToday by Cas Mudde, which provides
an overview of the fourth wave ofpost-war far right politics and
explains the far right renaissance.
And lastly, one of my faves,is Democracy In Chains.
So it is a personal favorite that I'vetalked about a lot on the show because it

(17:09):
details the radical right's stealth andlong-term agenda to take over America.
And there's nuggets in there that evenI didn't know about having studied
neoliberalism for, years and years.
So choose one, dig in.
And just get started.
The key is to read it aloudtogether and discuss each chapter.
And as we go, I'll help buildout a syllabus for us to follow.

(17:30):
And the only thing that I ask is that youtell me the name of your hive -- and try
to be creative -- but no other details.
That way I can call out your hivename on the show, but you and your
co-conspirators can maintain theunderground nature of our work.
We'll scaffold the effortproperly in the coming months,
but it is good to get started.
And one thing I wanna leave you withis this thought from Twitch streamer

(17:52):
and darling of the left, Hasan Piker.
Being a leftist is being on the rightside of history; being correct, but
too early; and also constantly gettingyelled at, constantly talking about
things that are directly at odds with thepowers, with the pre-existing hierarchy.
You're gonna lose a lot.
Okay, that's it.
So get ready for it.

(18:14):
Just as long as you know that yourmoral compass is correct and you don't
lose yourself to the whims of, I don'tknow, wanting a tiny bit of victory in
the short term, you just have to keepputting your best foot forward with the
knowledge that you're doing the rightthing and you're doing right by others.
He's right.

(18:34):
We're gonna lose more than we win.
And people will think you're nuts,that you're tilting at windmills...
until the shit hits the fan, at whichtime you'll be left standing as the
reasonable one with the answers to howwe got here and where we ought to go.
We have an opportunity for thefirst time in a very long time.
Actually, we had it during Covid andI would argue that we squandered it.

(18:56):
This is a moment of extraordinary ruptureand in moments of extraordinary rupture
people suspend their known ideas, theircalcified beliefs at an unconscious level,
and they are looking to make meaning.
They're looking to make meaningof what is happening, why is it
happening, what should happen next?

(19:17):
Who could do it?
And so in this moment of extraordinaryrupture, we have the opportunity to
actually tell a very different storyabout government in the form of these
federal workers that we're seeing, forexample, hang the upside down flag from
my own home state here in Yosemite, oneof California's fantastic national parks.

(19:40):
We have federal workers talking abouthow much their jobs mean, how much
they're serving the American public,doing this sort of proud to be public
fork in the road protests, and thatwould allow us to shine a very clear
and present light on, actually, wouldyou like to know what government is?
What's going on over there in theWhite House and surrounding the

(20:03):
broligarchy, that's the regime.
That's the ruling regime.
That is not the administration.
Let us not credit them with that word.
Because the administrationimplies continuity.
It implies the administrative state, whichin fact, they're trying to destroy and
gut and bend to their own personal will.
The government is the money that wecollectively pull together in order to

(20:24):
be able to go to Yosemite, in order tohave toilets that flush and have the
stuff go away, in order to send our kidoff to school and have a teacher who
knows their name is excited to see them.
And so the opportunity, if we were toseize it, is a recognition that the
only thing that has actually toppledautocracy, I would argue both in the US

(20:46):
past and also most certainly in othercountries, is civil resistance, is a
sustained, unrelenting group of peopleshowing, not telling, being out in the
world, demonstrating their resistance,their refusal, and their ridicule.

(21:07):
All three of those Rs are essential.
Yes, it is protest.
Yes, it is boycotting.
Yes, it is getting farmers topaint the side of their barn saying
'We don't fuck with fascists'.
Hopefully I'm allowed tosay that word on here.
Probably should ask first.
That's my own refusal.
And it also takes ridicule.

(21:28):
What the strong man—and that is thevein in which Trump is attempting
to govern and Musk as well—requiresis this belief in his, usually his,
infallibility and he cannot be challenged.
And that's where that cynicismthat you rightly raised comes up.
that's nothing that we can do.
This is a fait accompli.

(21:49):
In fact, this is the verydefinition of a paper tiger.
This man is the great and powerful oz.He is a bully, not a leader, and we just
have to pull his bluff by ridiculinghim and by just refusing to comply.
And when the people recognize, becausethey see other people doing it, that,

(22:10):
oh, actually you could just not go along,oh, actually the future is still made of
the decisions that we take together, thatis what makes the whole thing crumble.
And the possibility, not theinevitability, but the possibility of a
very different kind of governing regime.
You've written about the need forprotests in this moment, and there's

(22:33):
a movement making the rounds on socialmedia and group chats about an economic
blackout day later this week, whichis a grassroots movement targeting
economic resistance, governmentaccountability, and corporate reform.
Do you think this kind ofcollective action can be successful?
Yeah.
We have examples in our own history,obviously much, more localized,

(22:57):
but the kind of marquee one is ofcourse the Montgomery bus boycott.
Imagine just for a moment, ifyou will, the folks in Montgomery
who were being subjected to theseabsolutely horrific, very, very racist,
obviously, policies, thinking, youknow what we're gonna do here's how
we're gonna sort this out, friends.

(23:18):
We're gonna ask the Democratsif they would pretty, pretty
please acquire themselves avertebra, let alone a backbone.
Imagine the folks in the throesof the HIV-AIDS crisis dying of
prolonged horrific illness from thiskind of new thing that seemed to
have swept out of nowhere thinking,ya know what we're gonna do?

(23:39):
We should ask the Democrats ifthey would pretty, pretty please.
No.
In both cases, they recognize that theirown power existed within taking collective
action in the Montgomery bus boycott case,of course, economic power; in the Act
Up case, doing things like breaking intothe stock market and getting arrested and

(23:59):
doing die-ins, and putting the focus frontand center on the people who, as Sunjeev,
rightly lifted up, are actually in charge.
Right?
Government, these elected officials,they're a veneer over the people
who actually pay to put them intopower, and that veneer is getting
thinner and thinner and thinnernow that we have this oligarchy.

(24:19):
And so do I think that it can work?
It has worked.
Is it very, very difficult to pull off?
Absolutely.
Do we need to let athousand flowers bloom?
Yes.
Do we need to be pulling all levers?
Yes.
I'll jump into and just offer that Ithink that an economic blackout can
be powerful if it's the first step.

(24:40):
Because that sort of a blanket withdrawalof participation from the economy I
think ideally should be followed byconvening people to target specific
entities in different ways, right?
We want to put pressure on theoligarchy, the oligarchs themselves,
as well as the Trump administration.

(25:01):
and that means mobilizing in veryspecific ways to oppose them.
We've seen town hall meetings whereRepublican members of Congress have faced
very tough questions from the public.
And have been scaredand embarrassed by that.
That has been a powerful example.
I also personally think that theDemocrats who aren't doing enough or who
are talking about working with Trump orany of this nonsense, they also need to

(25:24):
face pressure and protest from the base.
Anat mentioned, HIV-AIDSprotestors historically pushing the
government, pushing for changes.
I remember when Al Gorefirst ran for president.
When he ran for president early on inhis presidential campaign, HIV-AIDS
activists disrupted his presidentialcampaign events because he was on

(25:46):
the wrong side of a pharma issuewith regards to access to AIDS drugs.
And because of their protests, he shiftedposture immediately in his presidential
campaign at the beginning of his race.
That's the sort of thing that Democratsalso need to face, in addition to a
primary focus on the Trump regime'sattempts to destroy our social welfare

(26:07):
safety net and transfer all thatmoney to Elon Musk and his buddies.
I'm glad you mentioned that, Sanjeev,because you recently wrote a piece
about how Senate Democrats couldpush Elon Musk out of politics.
So, how could that be accomplished?
And for both of you, what are theother strategies you would like
to see from this opposition party?

(26:28):
Just to that point, I'll say thatit is astonishing to me that you
have somebody you know conductinga slash and burn campaign against
the very source of his wealth.
And that is Elon Musk.
He's doing a slash and burn campaignagainst the federal government
while simultaneously having profitedenormously—enormously—thanks
to the federal government.

(26:48):
SpaceX, from my understanding, isthe biggest startup in the world.
And, who is SpaceX's biggest customer?
The American people.
The American people provideSpaceX with billions of dollars.
And so it's time for senators totake a stand against the government
contracts that are enabling the chiefarson, who with the backing of Trump

(27:09):
is destroying our federal government.
And that's Elon Musk.
But for senators to do that, theyneed to face pressure from the public.
They need to know that their old way ofdoing things, is not gonna work anymore.
And we've seen some senators playa leadership role in trying to push
for a broader shift in posture.
We've obviously seen SenatorBernie Sanders with his major

(27:31):
rallies, Senator Chris Murphy.
But more need to be pushed.
And if that comes from thecommunity, they'll get the message.
According to the Wall StreetJournal's Olivia Beavers, NRCC
Chair, Richard Hudson, just verydramatically told members to put
down their phones and listen.
He said, no one shouldbe doing town halls.
Likened it to 2017, said theprotests at town halls and district
offices are going to get even worse.

(27:53):
Another congresswoman got upand complained that they've
been picketing at her house andtargeting her kid, the sources says.
No one should be doing town halls.
In other words, Republicanmembers should not have to face
their own voters, their bosses.
Instead, they should just barrelahead completely unaccountable
to anyone other than, of course,the God king Donald Trump.
Because God forbid these Republicansforget who they're really there to serve.

(28:16):
But I want you to pay particularlyclose attention to what
Richard Hudson said about 2017.
In 2017, after Republicans begantheir assault on the Affordable
Care Act, Obamacare, it's true thatRepublicans across the country were
forced to suffer the indignity ofhaving to face their own voters.
And of course it was a disasterbecause, surprise, surprise,
stripping away healthcare fromAmericans is aggressively unpopular.

(28:38):
And importantly, that culminatedinto Republicans losing the house
in 2018 by the biggest marginin modern American history.
Republicans can very clearlysee what's on the horizon and
they're not happy about it.
Now, there's something called theStreisand Effect, where trying to prevent
someone from seeing something only shinesa brighter spotlight on that thing.
So, if Republicans are so hellbent onmaking sure that no one sees what's

(29:00):
happening at their town halls, thenhey, I'll use this opportunity to make
sure that everyone watching can see whatthose town halls actually look like.
When will you stand up tothem and say, that is enough?
[applause]
The end result of the fraud and abusethat has been discovered already.

(29:25):
[audience angrily talks over him]
Trump has issued a lotof executive orders.
I think by and large, this is movingvery quickly compared to other
administrations, and I think across theboard, he's done some very good things.
I think,
[loud

(29:46):
booing] uh, he's gotten ridof birthright citizenship,
[loud booing, then a womansays "illegal as hell"].
But what is going on right now todayis the House of Representatives
and the Senate are totallyabdicated their responsibility...

(30:09):
[applause] You stand there andsay, I'm not sure about that,
or I'm not sure about that.
You put up, frankly, some ofthese slides are very misleading.
Let's talk about the Trump tax cut.
How much of that deficit in thatjump from 22 up was the tax cuts to
the incredibly rich people of theworld who are now in our White House

(30:30):
and dismantling our government?
You are an attorney.
You are an officer of the court, inaddition to swearing in oath for our
Constitution, and yet, while you and somany of your colleagues are just sitting
around watching, well, I don't know.
We'll see what happens next month.
Here's a particularly telling one whereRoger Marshall straight up bails rather

(30:51):
than be forced to confront the reality ofwhat his own party is doing to veterans.
Right now as far as cutting outthose jobs, a huge percentage
of those people, and I even knowwhat you care about, the veterans.
For veterans.
Yes.
Mm-hmm.
And that is a damn shame.
Yes.
Yeah.

(31:12):
That is a damn shame.
Yes.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'mworried about the veterans, man.
Alright, well, I yield it to one of myelders and I appreciate his comments.
I think it's a great, I'm not gonna,we don't have everyone to stand up.
I do got two more commitments today.
Appreciate everybody making thedrive out and God bless America.

(31:34):
Thank you.
[loud booing]
We're gonna take pictures with you.
In fact, it's not evenjust the town halls.
Republicans are starting to recognize thatthey're gonna need to insulate themselves
from all voters everywhere if they wantto get away with their unpopular plans.
Here's JD Vance trying to travelto Vermont to enjoy a vacation

(31:56):
at the same time that hisadministration is putting thousands
of federal employees out of a job.
Vice President JD Vance is vacationingin a remote ski town in Vermont,
and we did see some protests todaylining the streets, including one
protestor who held a sign thatsaid, go ski in Russia, traitor.
There's some new video now wehave showing the vice president

(32:17):
being greeted by protestors,holding anti-Vance, pro-Ukraine
signs as he makes his way there toVermont for a ski resort vacation.
More protestors met the Vancefamily outside of the resort,
and the family ultimately had tomove to an undisclosed location.
And let's be clear,Republicans are taking notice.

(32:39):
Here's what Trump had to say aboutthese town halls in an effort to try and
reassure his party to not abandon hisunpopular agenda, despite the outrage that
we're seeing across the entire country.
"Paid troublemakers are attendingRepublican town hall meetings. It's all
part of the game for the Democrats, butjust like our big landslide election,
it's not going to work for them".
You know they're getting nervouswhen they start just accusing

(32:59):
everybody of being paid.
And speaking of nervous, here's Republicanrepresentative Lisa McClain attacking
voters for quote hijacking Republican townhalls to share their "sob stories" about
how Trump's policies are hurting them.
So, good morning everyone.
I wanna start with last week, videosof protestors yelling at members

(33:20):
of Congress went viral, right?
But the content focused on theconfrontation, not the why.
Some of the people that hijackedthose town halls are happy
with the bloated status quo.
They want the bloatedstatus quo to continue.

(33:43):
They don't want to getour country back on track.
Yet Democrats are soliciting sobstories from bloated bureaucrats
with six figure salaries.
Gimme a break.
Right, sob stories.
I'd love to see her say thatto the face of one of her own
constituents, but of course she won'tbecause, well, no more town halls.

(34:04):
God forbid, Republicans have to takeaccountability for their own actions.
Phew!
Despite Republican claims to thecontrary, these are not sob stories.
These are not paid actors.
These are not Democratic operatives.
These are nurses and teachers and retireesand veterans and healthcare workers.
These are everyday Americans whoare seeing prices go up under Donald
Trump, the economy slowing under Trump,their neighbors being fired without

(34:25):
cause, and America retreating aroundthe world and they want answers.
And as Americans who still live in whatremains a democracy, at least for now,
that is exactly what we should be doing.
The reality is that Republicans arefeeling the heat as well they should be.
The answer then is to not let up.
If you live in a district with aRepublican lawmaker or a state with
a Republican senator, call them,show up to their field offices,

(34:46):
show up to their DC offices.
Do not let them get away with thisbecause they've decided that they don't
have to be accountable to anybody.
They're hoping to get a free pass.
We are here to show themthat there is no such thing.
How can the left go from beingsmall, weak, and divided to
being large, strong, and united?
I believe the answeris coalition building.
The left needs people who canbridge the gaps between the labor,

(35:08):
anti-racist, environmentalist, andPalestinian movements among others.
But I'm not the one who came upwith the idea of a united front.
In an American context, this methodwas pioneered by Fred Hampton.
Under his leadership, the BlackPanthers formed what became
known as the Rainbow Coalition.
Hampton realized that these fragmented,individually weak movements could only

(35:29):
exercise, credible, social, economic, andpolitical power if they work together.

So that's step one (35:34):
growing by organizing the forces we already have.
Once we do that, we can move onto step two, and our coalition can
take on a broad variety of work.
In particular, I'm thinking aboutthree strategies, each of which
I'd like to go more into detail in.
Elections, messaging, and humanitarianism.
The benefit of elections is thatthey give us a much more official

(35:54):
platform on which we can discussour ideas, and particularly at the
local level, they can be successful.
That being said, while elections mightbe strategically useful in some cases,
they need to be part of a broaderstrategy, especially considering the
resource constraints that we're facing.
Here's the harsh reality.
Party politics can never be aviable option without substantial

(36:17):
electoral reform in this country.
We need to abolish the electoral college.
We need proportionalrepresentation in the legislature.
We need rank choice voting.
If we do that, thirdparties become viable.
Of course, the establishment wouldnever do that unless they were
facing overwhelming public pressure.
Which brings me to mysecond point messaging.
We need to make electoral reforma hot button issue, and the best

(36:37):
way to do that is to hammer on thebrokenness of the two party system.
Think about it.
Everyone in your life kind ofknows our system is rigged, right?
They understand that ordinary citizens arepretty powerless to change the status quo.
There is genuine frustration here, andthe most effective messaging simply
lets people understand the source of thefrustration they are already feeling.

(36:58):
Believe me, everyone feels themalaise of the current system.
We just need to give it a name.
Now, naturally you'll be wonderingwhat should this messaging look
like from personal experience, andof course I'm biased, I'd say short
form video is our best friend.
I'm no communications expert.
I'm no genius.
I don't have a team behind me.
But in just a couple short years, I wasable to reach quite literally millions of

(37:22):
people on TikTok, and I know for a factthat I've been responsible for hundreds,
if not thousands, of people starting toquestion the propaganda they've been fed.
So, why is short form so powerful?
Well, I think there's acouple reasons for that.
First, anyone with a phone can do it.
You don't need lighting.
You don't need to knowhow to edit like I do.
Second, these platforms have millions ofusers and it is really easy to reach them.

(37:45):
Because of the way the algorithmswork, you can go viral even if
you don't have many followers,provided you make a catchy video.
Third, it's easier to get acrossto people on a human level.
Some of these videos I've seen fromjust normal people sharing their
experiences with, for example, thehealthcare system or talking about
climate change, are really impactfulbecause it's, just, it's another person.

(38:06):
TikTok feels like you're taking aFaceTime video from your friend.
That's pretty powerful, and youdon't get that on a more impersonal
platform such as Twitter, and thatpersonal sort of connection can
start that spark of solidarity.
This recognition that, hey, we'reall going through the same thing.
We're all suffering in the same ways.
That's the beginningof class consciousness.
Follow other creatorswhose messaging you admire.

(38:28):
Tell your own story.
Confidently and clearly explainwhy the current system cannot be
reformed and needs to be replaced.
Again, public discontent with thepolarized two party system is our highest
point of leverage because basicallyeverybody resents the status quo.
If we can focus that discontent, allowpeople to realize it's true source,

(38:49):
and then present them with a realisticalternative, that's lightning in a bottle.
The goal is to make it so thatevery time somebody thinks about
how broken the political systemis, they immediately think of our
solution, which is that electoralreform platform I just mentioned.
If we can connect up thesetwo things, we're golden.
Now, for the fun part, this is where atrue left wing coalition differentiates

(39:11):
itself from political elites—Democrats—byimproving people's lives.
I think our priority in the nearterm needs to be outreach programs
such as school lunch drives, tenantand union organizing, infrastructure
redevelopment, housing construction,legal defense, establishing community
gardens, winter clothing drives, andwhatever else our communities need.

(39:33):
We need to show the people whoare neglected and exploited
under the current system that weare willing to fight for them.
Again, this is something that theBlack Panthers did incredibly well.
Of course, this work will most likelystart in cities, but over time, we can
and must reach out to rural communities.
A fantastic example of this is theMiddle Tennessee chapter of DSA,

(39:54):
which recently raised the money toerase over two and a half million
dollars worth of medical debt.
Let me repeat myself.
$2.6 million.
Imagine how much respect and loyalty wewould gain from the American people if
we were to do this on a nationwide scale.
Imagine if socialists were the mostactive members of our communities.

(40:16):
That would go so far encounteringthe decades of red scare propaganda
that Americans have been subject to.
Plus working together ishow we actually build those
coalitions I was talking about.
The ruling class wants us dividedand siloed, but when we work
together, we build real solidarity.
A strategy that focuses just onelections could never do this.

(40:37):
We need less talking and more doing.
Okay, so here's thestrategy up to this point.
We build a coalition from thebroad spectrum of left wing groups
operating in this country already.
Second, we go to work servingour communities and building
trust with the American people.
And that brings me tostep three, the end game.
Over time I foresee these coalitionsbecoming quite powerful and

(40:58):
autonomous, if we are successful.
I foresee a world where membership meansyour legal fees are paid if needed.
You have help covering rent if needed.
You have help organizingyour workplace if needed.
I foresee organizations that are robustenough to feed the hungry, to house
the homeless, to care for the sick.
I foresee great festivals and gatheringsfull of music and art, full of

(41:21):
freedom, freedom that prefigures thesociety that we are working to create.
Then once we're strong enough, wecan apply pressure for electoral
reforms through protests, strikes,encampments and, most importantly,
the discipline to withhold votes frompoliticians who won't work with us.
So, there's the actualthree step framework.
Rally our allies, win over theAmerican people, and then use that mass

(41:44):
movement to put pressure on the state.
I don't want to give you false hope, butdespite strong headwinds, I seriously
believe that we have a massive opportunityfor movement building right now.
The genocide in Gaza and the brutalcrackdown on people protesting that
genocide at home has woken up a lot ofpeople to the harsh reality of our system.
The climate crisis is only just beginning.

(42:06):
The cost of living continues torise, establishment politics are as
ineffective as they've ever been.
The public is primed tolook for an alternative.
We need to rally our allies.
We need to go where the fight is.
This is how we win.
I've been reflecting these last fourweeks on two important parts of my life.
My work, helping to build the IllinoisHolocaust Museum, and the two times that

(42:30):
I've had the privilege of reciting theoath of office for Illinois Governor.
As some of you know, Skokie, Illinoisonce had one of the largest populations of
Holocaust survivors anywhere in the world.
In 1978, Nazis decided thatthey wanted to march there.
The leaders of that march knew thatthe images of swastika-clad young

(42:53):
men, goosestepping down a peacefulsuburban street would terrorize the
local Jewish population, so many ofwhom had never recovered from their
time in German concentration camps.
The prospect of that marchsparked a legal fight that went
all the way to the Supreme Court.
It was a Jewish lawyer from the ACLU whoargued the case for the Nazis, contending

(43:17):
that even the most hateful of speechwas protected under the First Amendment.
As an American and as a Jew, I find itdifficult to resolve my feelings around
that Supreme Court case, but I am gratefulthat the prospect of Nazis marching
in their streets spurred the survivorsand other Skokie residents to act.

(43:38):
They joined together to form theHolocaust Memorial Foundation and build
the first Illinois Holocaust Museumin a storefront in 1981, a small but
important forerunner to the one Ihelped to build 30 years later here.
I do not invoke the specter of Nazislightly, but I know the history

(43:58):
intimately and have spent more timethan probably anyone in this room with
people who survived the Holocaust.
Here's what I've learned.
The root that tears apart your house'sfoundation begins as a seed, a seed
of distrust and hate and blame.
The seed that grew into adictatorship in Europe a lifetime

(44:21):
ago didn't arrive overnight.
It started with everydayGermans mad about inflation and
looking for someone to blame.
I'm watching with a foreboding dread whatis happening in our country right now.
A president who watches a plane go downin the Potomac and suggests without
facts or findings that a diversityhire is responsible for the crash.

(44:47):
Or the Missouri Attorney General who justsued Starbucks arguing that consumers pay
higher prices for their coffee becausethe baristas are too female and non-White.
The authoritarian playbookis laid bare here.
They point to a group of people whodon't look like you and tell you
to blame them for your problems.

(45:10):
I just have one question.
What comes next?
After we've discriminated against deportedor disparaged all the immigrants and
the gay and lesbian and transgenderpeople, the developmentally disabled,
the women and the minorities, once we'veostracized our neighbors and betrayed
our friends, after that, when theproblems we started with are still there

(45:33):
staring us in the face, what comes next?
All the atrocities of human historylurk in the answer to that question.
And if we don't want to repeat history,then for God's sake in this moment, we
better be strong enough to learn from it.

(46:12):
I swore the following oathon Abraham Lincoln's Bible.
'I do solemnly swear that I will supportthe Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the state of Illinois,and that I will faithfully discharge
the duties of the Office of Governoraccording to the best of my ability'.
My oath is to the constitutionof our state and of our country.

(46:36):
We don't have kings in America, and Idon't intend to bend the need to one.
I am not speaking up inservice to my ambitions, but

(46:57):
in deference to my obligations.
If you think I'm overreacting and soundingthe alarm too soon, consider this: it
took the Nazis one month, three weeks,two days, eight hours, and forty minutes
to dismantle a constitutional republic.
And all I'm saying is that when thefive alarm fire starts to burn, every

(47:20):
good person better be ready to man apost with a bucket of water if you want
to stop it from raging out of control.
Those Illinois Nazis did end up holdingtheir march in 1978, just not in Skokie.
After all the blowback from the case,they decided to march in Chicago instead.

(47:41):
Only 20 of them showed up, but 2000people came to counter protest.
The Chicago Tribune reportedthat day that the rally sputtered
to an unspectacular end.
After 10 minutes, it was Illinoisanswho smothered those embers before
they could burn into a flame.
Tyranny requires your fear andyour silence and your compliance.

(48:05):
Democracy requires your courage.
So gather your justice and humanity,Illinois, and do not let the tragic
spirit of despair overcome us whenour country needs us the most.
We've just heard clips startingwith The Rational National
contrasting feckless Democratswith those willing to take a stand.
Unf*ing The Republic laid out coreprinciples for the left to rally around.

(48:28):
The Intercept Briefing highlightedthe possibility of transformative
change during social rupture.
Brian Tyler Cohen discussed the Republicanplan to avoid talking to constituents.
Harper O'Conner argued forcoalition building among the left.
And NBC Chicago played a speechfrom Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.
And those were just the Top Takes; there'sa lot more in the Deeper Dive sections.

(48:49):
But first, a reminder that this showis produced with the support of our
members who get access to bonus episodesfeaturing our team of producers and
enjoy all of our shows without ads.
To support all of our work and havethose bonus episodes delivered seamlessly
to the new members-only podcast feedthat you'll receive, sign up to support
the show at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support(there's a link in the show notes),
through our Patreon page, or fromright inside the Apple Podcast app.

(49:13):
And as always, if regular membership isn'tin the cards for you, shoot me an email
requesting a financial hardship membershipbecause we don't let a lack of funds stand
in the way of hearing more information.
If you have questions or would likeyour comments included in the show, our
upcoming topics that you can chime in oninclude the assault on LGBTQ rights, and
a deep dive into the shifting internaldynamics of the Democratic Party.

(49:37):
So get your comments or questionsin now for those topics or anything
else, you can leave us a voicemailor send us a text at 202-999-3991.
We're also findable on the privacy-focusedmessaging app Signal at the handle
bestoftheleft.01, or you can simplyemail me to Jay@BestOfTheLeft.Com.
Now, as for today, as I mentioned at thetop of the show, we are taking part in

(50:00):
the Podcasthon Week of Action, which justmeans that we, along with thousands of
other podcasts, are taking the opportunityto support an organization of our choice.
And we chose Indivisible, becausethoughtful and well-organized
grassroots action is exactly what'scalled for in this political moment.
It's not enough to just sendmoney and then tune out, hoping

(50:23):
someone else will take care of it.
It's time to donate, yes, to supportthe infrastructure, but also to sign
up and get engaged in the real world,whether that's by calling Congress
or showing up at a town hall meeting,to join the chorus of dissent.
Go to Indivisible.org to yes, makea donation, but also to join your
local Indivisible chapter to keepyou in the loop as the political

(50:46):
ground shifts underneath us andopportunities for calls to action
are coming at us fast and furious.
And speaking of ongoing action, there'sa lot more in the show, so stay tuned.
Now we're gonna continue todive deeper on six topics.
Next up, section A, strategy andgoals, followed by section B, humor

(51:11):
as a tactic, section C, protest,section D, boycott, section E resources
and Section F power structures.
Many on the left have abandonedthe Democratic Party because the
Democratic party abandoned them andwe're living in this new reality.
This leads many to believe that bothmajor parties are so wholly corrupt

(51:32):
that only a third party can restoretrue liberalism in our system.
But as I've tried to demonstratethis is magical thinking.
The supposition is correct.
Both parties have beencorrupted by big money.
Donors are subject today, butthe conclusion they've drawn is
incorrect for the same reason.
The major parties have handedthe keys to the donor class, and

(51:54):
together they have erected barriersto entry for any third party.
That's why, as we pointed out inour prior episode, the Libertarian
Party, which has been around for morethan 50 years, and the Green Party
itself now 41 years old, have exactlyzero representation in Congress.
90 plus years collectivelyand nothing to show for it.

(52:15):
Why?
Because it costs too much money tobuild the kind of infrastructure the
major parties have already achieved.
Not to mention from a historicalperspective, we've had a two party system
since the earliest days of our founding.
When we were divided into Federalists andanti-Federalists, the two sides formalized
their opposition to one another in theform of parties, the Democrats and the

(52:36):
wis who eventually became Republicans.
So this is how it's always been.
And yet major reforms and strideswere made under these systems.
Now granted, some took hundreds ofyears, but others took far less.
The point is it's possibleto create meaningful reform
under a two party system.
The problem today isn't thatwe only have two parties.

(52:58):
It's where their bread is butteredand who's doing the buttery?
Get money out of politics and youcan change the entire apparatus.
Don't.
And we'll ride this thing toits inevitable conclusion.
Oligarchy,
tethering ourselves tofive non-negotiables.
Doesn't mean these are the ends.
On the contrary, they're the means.
A population that doesn't live ineconomic precarity makes better decisions.

(53:23):
Fascism rises in uncertaintyand praise on fear.
Eliminate these fears and fascismlies dormant and undisturbed until
the whole cycle continues again.
Okay, cool.
Now can you just sum all that up, please?
In English,
imagine you only have time to producea TikTok and not a three hour podcast.
Okay.

(53:43):
Think of it as a board game.
Beat the Republicans by usingthe weapons at our disposal.
Currently, the Democratic Partyhas them locked in an armory, so
we'll have to use theirs in orderto gain access to their weapons.
We'll need to install our ownpeople inside and on the perimeter.
We'll do it by holding our votes asransom unless specific demands are
met, shelter, work, and healthcare.
And once we're inside, we'll transformthe system and open the doors to allow

(54:06):
more people and parties into the castle.
But to do that, we'll have tocut off everyone's funding.
The only way to do that is to win overeven more people throughout the kingdom.
We'll need 67 senators, 290representatives, and 38 states to
go along with us, which means we'llneed really happy subjects throughout
the whole kingdom who are pleasedwith the way things are going.
And the only way to do that is tomake sure they have a roof over

(54:27):
their heads, a job they feel goodabout and access to healthcare that
won't force them into bankruptcy.
Ultimately, it becomes aself-fulfilling prophecy.
Deliver good services and we'lldeliver a good government.
We have a deep and powerfultradition of righteous American
protest right here in the us.
One that has chiefly been ledby Native Americans and black

(54:51):
people and other minority groups.
I. These protests were rarely spontaneous.
They were often done strategicallywith a lot of education and with
specific goals in mind, and what'shappening with the protests, like
Monday's gathering around the country
i.
Are kind of a way to put down amarker to let people see that there

(55:13):
are others like them out there whoare unhappy with what's going on.
But to grow to a size that can make realdemands, a lot more people are going
to need to reach out and connect withcommunities of those disaffected people.
We are gonna need teach-ins.
Some of them will be high profile ones,such as the ones that politics and prose

(55:35):
are setting up as part of a new series.
There'll be one on March 7th thatincludes David Cole, who's done tremendous
work on civil liberties in the us.
Kelly Robinson, the head of humanrights campaign, Jamie Raskin, the
Congressman, uh, locally here, lawyerAli Cole and Sky Perryman, who is
President of Democracy Forward.

(55:55):
Which is leading some of the courtbattles that are currently happening,
fighting the new administration.
That's a start, but we're gonnaneed even more teach-ins from
career community organizers likeMaryam Kaba and Kelly Hayes.
I'll put a link to some of theirorganizing materials and to the
politics and prose virtual broadcastin this week's Friday Roundup.

(56:17):
I'm telling you, it matters.
We are in the Wizard of Oz. They wantyou to think that it's this big green
floating head that is too big to confrontwhen they are little, little, little,
little men with little, little, little,fragile, fragile, fragile, rather big.
Big, fragile egos.

(56:40):
Just like every exercise of judicialindependence is useful, whether it's
making a tremendous difference yet or not.
Every public action of citizensand residents exercising the
right to express and work.
For the kind of society theywant to build is a step forward.

(57:01):
If the threat gets you to comply.
If you are afraid of martial law suchthat you choose not to exercise your
rights in a situation where your lifeand your liberty are on the line,
then we already have martial law.
It helps to stop the erosion ofrights and preemptive clamp down.
It will make those in power more nervousabout actually asserting themselves

(57:24):
against civilian demonstrations later,and these small steps are necessary.
Relationship building is asimportant as any other action.
Most people feel better after doingsomething anything than doing nothing.
And I'm thinking back to my daysteaching karate when people are

(57:45):
just learning to do pushups.
Sometimes even one is impossible, but youbreak it down into smaller pieces, they do
smaller parts, and almost everybody getsstronger in predictable ways over time.
As I saw on Monday, some protestors werejust stunned, fired federal employees

(58:07):
looking for a public outlet for griefover the losses of their jobs and
whole ecosystems of government service.
Others were moved by Musk egregiousrole in destroying a government.
He clearly doesn't understand on any level
I am become meme.

(58:27):
Yeah, pretty much.
I'm just, I was living the meme.
It is like there's living the dreamand there's living the meme and
it's pretty much what's happening.
You know?
You like, I think you're bigger.
I mean, do started out as a meme.
Think about it
now it's real.
Some felt moved by simple patriotismat odds with everything that seemed

(58:47):
to be happening since January 20th.
Julia Korff brought her guitar andsang a version of the Star-Spangled
Banner that ended unconventionally
I asked a woman with a sign that wasdecrying dictators, why she'd come out
and she said, because I'm an American.
This particular protest had ageneric rallying cry against

(59:11):
executive overreach against kings.
Some on social media havecalled these kinds of protests.
Boomer cringe.
What did they think they were doing?
What could possibly be accomplished?
But were only at the beginning fornow, especially for those who may not
have experience showing up is a lot.

(59:32):
I'm telling you, it matters.
Later demands will become more specific.
Danger will likely increase, butoften in history, defiance of unjust
government starts with saying not this.
Saying no is a first step, evenif it's just the first of many.
One of the key reasons that legislatorsare unable or unwilling to do as much

(59:58):
as people would like is that the samesystem that elected Donald Trump elected
them just as legacy newspapers are boundto the current US political and economic
systems in ways that make it difficultfor them to report in unusual times.
Current elected legislators areby and large bound to the current

(01:00:23):
models of politics in ways thatmake it difficult for them to work
against the current administration.
They do have an important role to playright now, but few of them will choose
to play it or even understand how to.
Which isn't to say that the publicshouldn't keep pressuring them to act.

(01:00:45):
It's just to say that we shouldn't waiton them if they don't lead the way.
In the end, whatever salvation wesee is likely to come from courts
saying no and specifying remediesand the people saying no and making
demands about how they're ruled.
This idea of bridge building, whichour listeners are likely familiar with.

(01:01:11):
It is, I think often talked aboutit in a more political context,
like bridging partisan divides.
And there's a whole field oforganizations that do this work.
But that seems to me that that is,I don't know if it's like all peace
building is bridge building, but not allpeace building is bridge building, like
one of those kinds of things, I guess.

(01:01:33):
How do you think about the therelationship between those two?
So I was careful to avoid the theterm peace building in this because,
again, like my exposure to peacecoming in the context of war, peace
building is often the way peopletalk about post war situations.

(01:01:57):
And so when I think of peacebuilding, I think of some
strategy, like a grand strategy.
I think of it as responsive to aparticular set of needs in a post
war, post conflict scenario thatit just has more boundaries around
it, even, like, temporally, right?
Like we're gonna, we did war fighting,and now we're gonna do peace building.

(01:02:21):
And I mean, I guess, to answer yourquestion, I think that bridge building
is a is a part of peace building.
But again, like, even with you.
Bridges that keeps us on eitherside of the river right, and we're
gonna come together in the middle,and we're gonna do this thing.
But what if, like, the writingthat I've done alongside this

(01:02:42):
book is like, what if we don'twant to set our differences aside?
What if we don't wantto forgive and forget?
What like?
Is there something we can do?
How do we build coalitions?
And coalition is the term that I like,I think, more than bridge building.
How do we build coalitions acrossdifference that sees our difference

(01:03:04):
as an asset, as opposed to liketrying to transcend difference.
And I think that that's something coolthat lent observed is that it wasn't
that these folks are like, comingtogether and singing Kumbaya and being
like, let's let bygones be bygones.
They aren't.
They're just they're still different,and that's okay, that they can, they

(01:03:28):
can coalesce in the community withoutgiving up that part of themselves.
And this is where I take this ancientGreek concept of phronesis, and I look at
it through the lens of intersectionality,which is like the language that was a

(01:03:49):
gift to us from black feminist scholarsthat recognizes that we are all this
constellation of identities related topower and privilege, and so then the work
becomes not, how do we set aside thosedifferences, or imagine that we all are
one or have This like, same identity,but like, how do we align ourselves in

(01:04:14):
a way that disperses or diffuses powerstructures so it accepts like we have to
work within the existing power dynamics?
How can we diffuse?
How can we co align ourselves in ways thatdiffuse some of that power, redistribute
that power, and so that's kind of why Ibalk at bridge building as a metaphor,

(01:04:39):
because I just think we've been talkingabout that for a long time, and I haven't
really seen it like a temporary outsideof a temporary, goal oriented thing,
whereas, like the piece that I'm talkingabout is just, it's more open, is less
in response to a particular situation.

(01:04:59):
It's just a way of being in the world.
As people are listening to this, I'm surethey're thinking, Oh, well, I would like
to get involved in in one of these kindsof things, if not, maybe start something
myself in my community, or maybe join upwith something that that's already there.
So I have a couple questions for youin that realm, like, what are some
of the things that prevent peoplefrom engaging in this kind of work?

(01:05:25):
I don't know if I have a goodanswer for that, in part because
there are a lot of answers, fear,laziness, lack of imagination.
Um, I, I think that's why Ihave risk in the subtitle.
It's called piece by piece, riskingpublic action, creating social
changes, because it is a risk.

(01:05:46):
What the folks in this bookare doing is irrational.
It's hard to explain.
It's not lucrative.
And so like we, especially inthe United States, have such a
distorted idea about success.
And so I think, you know, when peoplethink about doing something like this.

(01:06:13):
They're thinking not from like,is this the right thing to do?
They're thinking of like, well, howwill others perceive what I'm doing?
How will I explain this to myparents or my friends or loved ones?
But if you can kind of just let thatpart go and just do the next right
thing, even if it seems impractical.

(01:06:36):
I think that's how you start.
In America if there's this tradition orthis movement of bridge building, which
is bringing people together explicitlyacross lines of a political division,
as opposed to, you know, a businessleague or sports or a church or some
other way that that people come together.

(01:06:56):
I wonder how, if at all, you see that workof, you know, bringing people together for
the purpose of talking across politicaldivisions fitting into this picture.
And what we see in a lot ofplaces is there are different
reasons why people come together.
Some people are coming together tosolve joint problems within their
community, and so they're coming acrossdifferent faith lines or political lines

(01:07:20):
because they need to build a park intheir town, or they need to deal with
an education problem in their town.
And I think for many people who aremost focused on those local areas,
that is where you see those bridgesbeing built across lines when they
actually just have to get stuff done.
And that's where there is sometimes a verybig disconnect between what's happening

(01:07:40):
at the national level, where it's a lotof rhetoric and the local level where
things are being done, I think we'realso seeing a lot of places where people
are coming together just to talk aboutbeing in conversation with difference.
And what that is, it's an opportunity toalso talk about what binds us together,
which most often is the democraticexperiment that we're all part of, of just

(01:08:00):
saying, okay, part of what we are doing iscommitting to be in conversation about our
differences and not necessarily end thedifferences, but it is a way that people
are practicing a muscle that, in someplaces, has either never been developed
or never been used, which is that muscleto say, I can come together with someone
have radical different disagreements onone or a million things and Then just

(01:08:23):
engage them peaceably and then go on withthe rest of my with the rest of my life.
And I think that's the thing whichwe're seeing now, and when we have a
real opportunity in the United States,where that has been the practice in
many places, but we have to utilize thatand recognize what's at risk if we are
not building or practicing that muscle.
The alternative, really is that we canmove quickly into political violence

(01:08:46):
or increase polarization that makesus vulnerable to those toxic readers.
So the last thing I want toask about is this idea of of
incentives and political structures.
We touched on this a little bit earlier.
But you know, the other headline in thedemocracy space, at least from this,
this most recent US election, was thatvoters, by and large, rejected some

(01:09:08):
of the things that would have changedpolitical structures, things like open
primaries and ranked choice voting, andthe things that are often pointed to
as ways to fix the system or decreasethe influence that that the two parties
have, at least here, here in the US.
So I wonder what, what the twoof you make of of that, and if

(01:09:30):
there are other, perhaps prospectsfor structural reform that that
you're looking at moving forward.
I think that we're seeing, we're seeingplaces where that structural reform
has really worked, particularly rankedchoice voting, and we've seen it work
well in Alaska and a number of otherplaces where having a having a system in
which it is not winner take all, and someof the current primary processes which

(01:09:57):
push people into Much more polarizedsituation, you have far fewer people
coming to the ballot box in primaries.
I think we're seeing success in that.
I also think we're seeing in some places.
In the debate here in Washington hasbeen it's sort of a confusing system.
We're just going to stickwith what we've got.
We know it better, and wedon't need to have reforms.
And so I think we do have a challenge,really, to explain to the American

(01:10:22):
people, at a very grassroots level ofwhy some of these changes are needed,
and they will actually reinforce, makeus less polarized, and reinforce choice
among people, as opposed to, I think,some of the perceptions which they which
are that they are not allowing peopleto get the candidates that they want.
I would say the United Stateshas kind of a triple whammy in

(01:10:42):
terms of our institutional design.
We know that winner take allsystems are particularly given
to to political violence if thereare strong ethnic divisions or
racial divisions or what have you.
Larry diamond has written about that ona whole general study of democracy, that
that's the one kind of generalizable thingyou can say about institutional design is

(01:11:03):
if you have a country with deep fissures,don't have a winner take all system.
We also know that two party systems aregiven to polarization for obvious reasons.
It's easier to create an Asana tothem when you only got two choices.
And then we knowpresidential design systems.
Juan Linz, you know, the great democracyscholar that I got to study under,

(01:11:24):
writes about how few presidentialsystems survive more than a few decades.
Really, America stands in a verysmall group that has survived,
and that's because of the sort ofinherent structural tension between
a president and a legislature thatare of different parties and so on.
So the United States has allthree, and that is probably not

(01:11:48):
the strongest place to stand on.
And for a long time, people said,well, you know, we're doing fine, so
maybe none of these things are so bad.
And I would just argue thatAmerica had a very, very deep civic
culture of democracy, and thatcivic culture has been eroding.
You know, Robert Putnam writes aboutthis with Bowling Alone and so on.
That culture is notstatic, and it does change.

(01:12:11):
And we've seen much less people joiningthings, much less people speaking
across difference, much less peopleeven being willing to engage across
difference, not only political difference,but just in general, dealing with
social friction to get things done.
And as we lose those norms, thenlaws and design of the institutions
becomes much more important.

(01:12:31):
When the norms hold sway.
They're much stronger than thelaws in the institutional design.
But as they weaken those other thingscome to the fore, and the United States
is being hit with this triple problem.
Now, voters just rejectedthat whole argument.
I think it's a little wonky.
It also ran into the headwinds ofinstitutional parties, where you
got Michael Bennett in Colorado andother sitting leaders really speaking

(01:12:56):
against these changes, and that'sbecause, you know, whatever they
might do for democracy, people whowon in a system like that system,
because they know how to win in it.
So if you're a campaigner or apolitician who's been elected from
either party, it's not really partisan.
They tend to prefer to keep their system.
Now, what we do about it?
You know, I think there will be a lotof regrouping and a lot of thinking

(01:13:19):
about, how do we help the UnitedStates connect the dots between the
system that they have and these thingsthat they say they don't like, about
gridlock and extremism and so on.
And that's a real messaging challenge.
And I think a lot of folks need tomaybe get out of the rooms that they're
usually in talking to one anotherand start reaching out to voters

(01:13:40):
on the ground and seeing how theyexperience these different systems.
And I should add, none ofthem are silver bullets.
You know, institutional design can helpor hinder a good democracy, but it's
not going to decide the issue for you.
You people have to do the work ofchanging their civic culture as well.
When I was 19, which was about theage when I got engaged in activism,

(01:14:01):
I was actually anti activist.
I thought that activism is for old ladies,uh, who are fighting for dogs rights
or some bizarre thing, uh, like that.
Uh, but then we had this very badguy called Vic, uh, coming to power.
And within a few years,the country fell apart.
We moved from Yugoslavia tosix small ridiculous countries.

(01:14:21):
Uh, the high inflation kicked in.
My brother had to leave thecountry together with hundreds
of thousands of, of young people.
And, uh, basically everything Iknew as a normal world fell apart.
Uh, faced with that as ayoung person, you have.
Two choices.
You can fight or you can flee.
And such are stubborn people.
So we stand, uh, stand back and fight.
Uh, fast forward within six or sevenyears, I went from a street organizer to

(01:14:46):
somebody running the student movement,somebody running from a, from a city
office all the way to illegal movement,coth, which was officially proclaimed
by the Serbian government as a terroristorganization, uh, which was basically
labeled for everybody who was anti.
Mil at the time, we grew from11 people to 20,000 people.
Uh, we had this very interestingstrategy of mobilizing youth and

(01:15:08):
being cool and cocky in the sametime, and that really worked.
And we grew to 20,000.
Eventually.
In 2000.
Uh, we mobilized, uh, people to elections.
We persuade opposition to run together.
Finally, Milic was defeated late 2000,so that was a. Well, kind of instant
eight years of my life at, at one point.

(01:15:29):
But, uh, the basic is yes, you can do it.
And we figure out we will do it,uh, when we figure out that there
is nobody else to do it for us.
What I, I think what I love about yourstory is not only that sort of persistence
and that like we can do it, but youfound these incredibly unconventional
tactics that you use to make this happen.
Um, can you talk about some of theapproaches you found in that time?
Uh, well, first of all, Serbsare not really serious people.

(01:15:52):
So, you know, trying to be witted, tryingto be humorous, trying to mock everything
is a kind of our national mentality.
And that works great.
Uh, within the world of theactivism, uh, we were facing, uh.
Somebody who is kind of what wewould be, be probably categorizing.
Today as a dictator light or dietdictator, kind of that category

(01:16:13):
where, you know, you would arrestpeople but he'll release people.
He was not really a sad, you know,putting people in a mass graves,
but as he was losing support, hewas growing more out authoritarian.
Eventually he arrested 2,500 membersof my movement only in year 2000.
Uh, so, uh, he was also kindof this, this gray bureaucrat.
And because they were so boringand so serious and their language

(01:16:36):
smelled like that, uh, we figuredout, oh, we wanna be different.
We wanna be witty.
And because of our age, itwas kind of very appropriate.
We were also very muchrock and roll movements.
So what we were, we were doing a lot wasexperimenting with different tactics,
arranging from graffiti slogans.
Eventually ending in, in understandingthis pattern in which if you do something
witty and you hit the right target,then your opponent will respond and then

(01:17:00):
they will become the part of the show.
And this thing which we layer labeledas a dilemma action and build the whole
research on, uh, on a website calledTactics for Change, uh, which is we are
very passionate now to figure out howit works in different other countries.
But understanding that you can bewit and you can do something really.
Humorous, like making a cake forPresident's birthday and then, you know,

(01:17:21):
make a big mock out of it and invitejournalists and then the police arrives.
Uh, put the face of Mr.President on a petro barrel.
Invite people to hit him witha baseball bat and pay 25 cents
in Serbian dinners to do it, andthen see what is going to happen.
A lot of this was experimentation and itcontain this amazing part of dilemma where

(01:17:42):
your opponent has only two bad choices.
Uh, if they react to your prankand, uh, do something inappropriate
as arresting the petrol barrel andtaking it to the police station, which
actually happened in a real world.
Wait so slow.
Slow that down.
You mean, you mean that youliterally just have a barrel?
Yeah.
Yeah.
We were, we were pretty, we werepretty, we were pretty poor at the time.

(01:18:03):
We were a group of 15 people, sowe, we got the old petrol barrel
or gas barrel or oil barrel.
I don't remember whatwas originally in it.
And we had this artist who madea amazing face of Vic on it, and
then there was a hole on the top.
So like in a pinball game, and I knowyour, your listeners remember, but they
were actually video games where you put,uh, a coin and you can play a video game.

(01:18:25):
So it was very much along,along the line of that.
So you kind of earn your, your threehits, like the three balls in the pimble.
So you put the, the coin init, and immediately you gain
rights, do boom, boom, and boom.
Like three times, you hit the face andexpress your love for Mr. President.
And amazingly, we put this ina, in a main pedestrian zone.
I think that was the, the coolestpart of it was that we invited

(01:18:48):
non-political people to deal with it.
So this was not us doing it.
It was not opposition activists doing it.
It was like just this little greatexperiment, but you really, you know,
check what people will do with it.
So you're saying the police.
Arrested the barrel, isthat what you're saying?
Like they Oh, yeah.
What actually happened was that we putthis barrel in a, in a Belgrade version
of Fifth Avenue, and basically the ideawas to see what the police will do.

(01:19:11):
And the funny part was when theyarrived, they, they were looking for
us, but they were nowhere around.
And then they were looking at thebarrel and there's this mutilated face
of president getting swollen more andmore after a lot of these beating.
And eventually, because they gotthe command to stop this thing,
they had to rest the battle.
So they.
Drag the barrel into the police car.
And of course, everybody pulledthe camera out and start taping

(01:19:32):
them, and they become a punchline.
But the genius behind it isthe thing that we figured out.
By being creative, you aremaking your open and strength
working against him or herself.
And in this case, police, uh,was the most important part
of the mil oppressive machine.
And making them look ridiculous, uh,carried an extra value for itself.

(01:19:55):
John Stewart went fromskewering politicians to
becoming an earnest advocate.
There is not an empty chair on that stage.
That didn't tweet out.
Never forget the heroes of nine 11.
Never forget their bravery.
Never forget what they did,what they gave to this country.
Well, here they are.
Vladimir Zelensky, a comic,played a president on television,

(01:20:18):
then became a president.
In addition to his role on that satiricalTV show, Zelensky made a name for himself
in Ukraine as an actor and entertainer.
He won Dancing with the Stars in 2006, andhe was the voice of Ukrainian Paddington
Donald Trump.
The politician won on the basis of animaginary persona invented by others.
It's important to remember that whenthe Apprentice Premier back in 2004,

(01:20:40):
Donald Trump was a bankrupt punchlinein the New York tabloids, a guy who
inherited a real estate empire fromDaddy and then managed to lose it all.
And that is until he was cast in theApprentice by the producer of Survivor.
All around reality TV savant MarkBurnett, according to a fantastic
new profile, Burnett New Yorker,whereas others had seen in Trump only

(01:21:00):
a tattered celebrity of the eighties,Burnett had glimpsed a feral charisma.
Sylvi Berlusconi in Italy dominatedmedia as an owner before taking control
of Italy itself as Prime Minister.
While Trump was born into a familythat was already immensely wealthy,
Berlusconi was born into a middleclass family in Milan, normal parents,
normal education, and a normal life.

(01:21:20):
However, Berlusconi had something special.
He was fascinated by show business andwas the best salesman you could find.
In fact, Berlusconi'sbeginnings were as a singer.
That's right.
Scon started his career as acrooner who entertained parties
on cruise ships in the lake.
Vladimir Putin stages, buffoonishshowings of himself shirtless
on horseback or camping.
Like some aging film star chasing hislast bit at a Rocky sequel, a shirtless

(01:21:45):
Putin brave of the cold waters of amountain lake and the Siberian wilderness.
Didn't you wanna see that?
If everything becomes a showlike this, then nothing is real.
Entertainment has eaten politicsand humor is just a branch of
entertainment, which is not to saythat humor doesn't still have a role in
opposing oppression and overwhelmingly.

(01:22:08):
The authoritarian and the right in generalare terrible at using humor as an art.
My pronouns are USA.
My pronouns are USA.
How about it?
Huh?
My pronouns are Kiss
my Ass.
My personal preferred pronouns arefried chicken and collared greens.
My pronouns are patriot andass Kicker is a American.

(01:22:34):
My pronouns are I won.
Please don't shoot.
I'm a they.
It might not seem fair because if you'reagainst Trump, you sit and see Trump and
his associates all the time using humorin horrific and derogatory ways that

(01:22:56):
not only, don't bring us together, butactively demonize vulnerable groups.
I don't know if you guys knowthis, but there's literally a
floating island of garbage in themiddle of the ocean right now.
Yeah, I think it's called Puerto Rico.
But power has gotten more proficientat stealing and suffocating.
Its opponent's humorous resistance.

(01:23:19):
So in Serbia during the late 1990s,a pro-democracy group called UP Tour
Put a poster of PresidentLaban Ovitz face.
On an oil barrel, and they left a largestick near it in a shopping district.
The fun that shoppers had while waitingin line eventually brought police who

(01:23:40):
arrested the barrel and they couldn'tarrest the people standing around.
They didn't know who to put it there, sothey took the barrel and that went viral.
A group that started with only 20members became a movement of 70,000
people, tremendously expandingwhat they were able to accomplish.
And the group embraced this idea thathas since come to be called Lism.

(01:24:02):
The purpose of humor in, uh, inthis sort of street, uh, protest
action is to, uh, show that, thatthe regime has no legitimacy.
It shows the funny face of theregime, et cetera, et cetera.
But at the same time, it also showspeople that you can do something.
And, uh, get away with it.

(01:24:24):
Which is using humor as a part of alarger nonviolent strategy to break
the hold of political repression.
And this kind of physical action used tohumorous ends can be really effective.
In 1983 after a strike in Chilewhere minors were surrounded by
police and violence was eminent.
It was clear.

(01:24:44):
The government wanted to unleashbloodshed, and so the strikers called for
a different kind of demonstration in whichpeople on an assigned day walked or drove.
Half speed.
This was a form of protestby which people could join in
solidarity, realize their strengths.
Have little or no risk of arrest.

(01:25:06):
I love that example.
Beneath the mountains in the plusoutskirts of Santiago, despite the
vast national debt, the generalis building himself a new bunker.
It remains an open questionwhether he'll ever live in it.
Another one that it was really powerfulthat was a televised version, was that
two Italian satirists wound up blackballedfrom state programming leading Nobel Prize

(01:25:29):
winner, Dario Foe to condemn censorship.
In 2003, foe and his wife Fran Rame, puttogether a vicious, hilarious performance
that mocked Berlusconi directly a kind ofa puppet show, telling a tale where the
Prime Minister through a horrible accidentends up with part of Putin's braid when

(01:25:51):
Putin is assassinated by terrorists.
Humor allows the powerfulto level the playing field.
Opt founder, Sergio Popovic,said an interview about what's
happening more recently in Syriathat fighting Assad is like boxing.
Mike Tyson, you don'twant to box Mike Tyson.
Even the Mike Tyson that fought recently
You don't wanna box him.

(01:26:12):
You wanna challenge him at chess?
What does this translate to for Americans?
It's not enough to make Trump ridiculous.
He makes himself outlandish daily andthrives on both outrage and detention.
It's really about the thrillof the spectacle and defying
common decency for him.
Trump grows on hate from the left whenit binds his followers closer to him.

(01:26:34):
Even Belu in Italy was eventuallytarnished by the stories of
those infamous Bunga Bunga parties,uh, that Bescon used to throw
in an underage girl.
His political career onlyended with his death in 2023.
Think about it.
Berlusconi died on the 12thof June at the age of 86.
He was an old man.
Well, last year he appearedon TikTok with this video.

(01:27:03):
TikTok, we're not gonna go into whathe's actually saying in the message
of this video, but what I want toemphasize here is that the man you
just saw was an 85-year-old man whenthis recording was made, when he was
running again in an election in whichhe had a real chance of winning.
So Trump has to be wounded in ways thatunsettle him and tarnish his impunity

(01:27:24):
and his defiance of the laws in theeyes of his followers, the people
who admire him for his willingness toembrace corruption and trash norms.
The harms, his policies do.
Has to be made apparent in comic ways thatmight resonate even with the apolitical.
If you think about it, the conceptthat you could use humor for

(01:27:44):
significant social change justgoes against your gut instinct.
You think, Hey, this is serious.
I need people to take this very seriously.
So how could humor help that?
And the answer there is that whenyou have any sort of particular
activist, um, action, you have four.

(01:28:04):
Constituencies.
You have the activists themselves,you have your target, you have
the general public observing,and you have the security forces.
And what Liv does is it changes the entiredynamics of all of those structures.
So we know that activists aretypically portrayed as troublemakers,

(01:28:25):
as disruptors, as a problem, butwhen the activists incorporate
humor, they suddenly aren't scary.
Right there is a huge deal and changes it.
Then public perceptions thatusually look at activists like,
oh, these people are annoying.
They're, it's either annoyingor even worse, right?

(01:28:46):
And now the public islaughing with the activists.
So it's creating a bond anda connection and building a
movement and making it bigger.
So then you also have your target.
Typically, your target wantsto hold onto power, right?
It doesn't wanna allow you to defineit, but humor allows for this space.
So with the example of Milovich, ifMilovich is per portraying himself as

(01:29:10):
powerful, and now you use humor to sortof make fun of him, his whole image
gets restructured, where you reframethe narrative through this fund.
And then of course, the lastpiece is the security forces.
What are they gonna do?
When you show up at a protest and youknow that they're planning to water
cannon you, and you're bringing pooltoys and dressed in a bathing suit,

(01:29:32):
the security forces look like idiotswhen they're gonna water cannon you.
And so we are studying all of the waysin which humor is disruption, and so it's
disruption of these status quo narrativesin ways that are particularly powerful.
That is so powerful, as you just said.
And I'm curious to transition into dilemmaactions because I know that this is like

(01:29:57):
the bread and butter for people who arepursuing change when we're, when we're
planning campaigns and things like that.
Could you talk a bit about whatdilemma actions are and how
humor helps create that dilemma?
Um, while I'm saying that, I alsofailed to mention in the intro that,
uh, you two co-wrote one of my favoritelittle, little booklets about this

(01:30:18):
called Pranksters versus Autocrats.
Great title by the way.
It's super intriguing.
So could you talk a bit about dilemmaactions, how humor factors in.
So we had data on how nonviolentmovements are more effective
than violent so that we knew.
As a baseline.
Uh, the question was were thereparticular types of tactics that

(01:30:42):
nonviolent groups could use that wouldelevate and effectively make things
just, you know, uh, more likely toyield the concessions they wanted?
You might think in recent US historyof how much energy we've mobile
mobilized around particular proteststhat didn't quite get what we wanted.
So one of the things I'm interested inas a scholar is you're getting people

(01:31:06):
in the street, you're getting peopleout there to do things and they show
up, but we don't get any outcome.
So the dilemma action is designed torequire your opponent, your target, to
have to have some reputational cost.
So either they do nothing and lookbad, or they do something and look bad.

(01:31:31):
So one example is, uh, you're notallowed to protest in Russia, so you
are going to now set up Lego toys todo the protest for, for you and hold
the signs you wish you could hold.
And so now the question is, do thetoys get to stay and make their
protest or do they get taken away?
And so either option is goingto make the target look bad.

(01:31:54):
So what you're really tryingto do is to get your activists
to think the three steps ahead.
What can poke.
At the results you want.
And so what we decided to do was not just,again, take all of the years of experience
of Canvas, but really measure this.
So we measured inside an existingdata set, and we were able to prove

(01:32:15):
conclusively that these types oftactics have a measurable success rate
that's better than tra traditionalconventional protest tactics.
You've reached Section C protest.
Last time around, therewas a women's march.
The women's march was huge and amazing.
We had a people's march this timearound where we had smaller numbers,

(01:32:35):
but there were hundreds of thousandsof people out in the streets, across
the country, two days before theinauguration this time around.
Okay.
And, um, since then, now, after thefirst women's march, what happened was
people kind of went back to their homes.
A lot of them formed, youknow, chapters of Indivisible.
They formed, what do they call them?
Huddles of the Women's March.
Um, other groups were formed 10days after the first women's march.

(01:32:58):
There was the travel ban, and people gotriled up and started to mobilize, and
they started to go to town hall meetings.
They started to cause trouble andpushed back against their elected
officials in their communities.
We're starting to see something similar10 days after the people's march.
There was the federal freeze, right?
Yeah.
And all of a sudden we did see, we'veseen a lot of similar pushback as

(01:33:20):
we did to the travel ban since then.
We did not have a women's march.
We did not have thatbig day in the streets.
Although, to be honest, like the pointof those types of big days in the street
are all about giving people a senseto have like a collective grieving, a
collective moment of identity formation.
I don't know that we need that thistime around, to be honest with you.
The thing that I'm really afraid ofis that a lot of people are feeling

(01:33:42):
so personally attacked because theyhave, you know, trans kids who are
losing their gender affirming medicinebecause they are being, you know, fired
from the federal government because.
You know, all of these differentpolicies are being pushed back.
Mean because they work in DEI, right?
Yeah.
I mean like the list goes on and on.
Or they're a person of color whoworks for an organization that
suddenly had its DEI department acts.

(01:34:03):
Right?
Or they're, or they're, you know, arecent arrival in the United States
who came here because you know, we'resupposed to be this great melting pot.
And instead, even though theyhave citizenship, they're being
told that they are basically nothaving their citizenship honored.
How about that one?
Yeah.
Or they have family members.
I mean, I have so many people I knowwho have family members who they're
worried are gonna be deported.
Yeah.
I mean, all of these people are terrifiedand all of them are being affected in

(01:34:26):
ways that are really different from 2017.
I think that what we're going tosee is people working together
in a really different way.
But one of the things that myresearch has shown is that it's not
necessarily gonna be peaceful, andit's certainly not gonna be electorally
focused like last time around.
Mm-hmm.
Because last time around, theresistance really held the line and
was like, it's all about the elections.

(01:34:47):
It's all about the blue wave.
Right?
Well we got a blue wave.
Yeah.
And then we got Joe Biden,and here we are again.
Yeah.
So it's not like it was a mistakethat Trump won the first time around.
It was just, it was, it was a warning.
Yeah.
And we didn't really heed thewarning as well as we should have.
So now this is a bigger warning.
But it still feels thatthe response, I mean.

(01:35:08):
If you're saying that theprotests that we're having
now are, hey, they're sizable.
Mm-hmm.
The, the Women's March wassuccessful to some degree.
I mean, but it stillbrought us to this point.
Like, why would we think that theamount of protests and resistance that
we're seeing now would be any moreeffective than what happened in 2017?
Oh no, I'm saying thatthis is just the beginning.
Mm-hmm.
I think we are, but I'm saying that thereare people who are already protesting.

(01:35:30):
I think that we are gonna see floodsof people in the streets, and I
also think that we're gonna see massstrikes, which is really what we need.
Right.
Because the, the only way to pushthat back against authoritarianism
is like pushing back with powerof people we're pushing back with
violence and, you know, I'm reallyhoping we're not gonna see violence.
But I mean, one of the things that,um, that I did at the People's March

(01:35:51):
is I surveyed the people in the streetsand I ask these people, and these are
again, these are like, you know, yourmiddle aged, you know, engaged people,
most of them, and I'm highly educated.
And I asked them, you know, this questionthat we adapted from a, a national survey.
And the question was, um.
To what degree do you agree ordisagree with his statement, um,

(01:36:12):
that political violence may benecessary to protect democracy.
And a third of the people at thePeople's March said they agreed
or strongly agreed with thatstatement, which is a huge shift.
Wow.
From what we have seen back duringthe American Values Survey, the last
time they feel that it was only 8% ofDemocrats, and lemme just say it, the
people's March, it was 93% of the peoplein the crowds voted for Kamala Harris.

(01:36:33):
Mm-hmm.
So these are Democrats.
Yeah.
And they are startingto shift their opinion.
So that's the thing I'm worried about.
But I'm not saying we have enoughpeople in the streets right now.
I'm saying there are enough peoplewho are starting to feel threatened
that they're gonna push back.
And you know, what we can hope foris they push back in a peaceful way.
But one of the things that I wouldjust say for anybody who's feeling
like they're alone and their only oneunder attack, they need to look to
their left and look to their right.

(01:36:54):
Yeah.
Because so many people.
Feeling isolated and afraid right now.
And like we talked about lasttime, the best thing you can
do in that moment is get angry.
Yeah.
Because anger helps to unifyour energy and help us to
think through how we push back.
Or get angry with other people.
Don't get angry by yourself.
Right.
Scrolling.
Yeah.
Well, if you turn into Luigi, and that'snot that we don't, nobody wants that.

(01:37:17):
Well, well, let's just say thatsome, some people do want that.
I mean, you're talking about therise of political violence Oh yeah.
In America.
And like, you know, that killingwas an act of political violence.
Oh, for It was.
Oh, for sure.
Explicitly, uh, political assassination.
Well, I mean, and at the people's march,I can't tell you how many signs, pink
glitter signs that said Free Luigi.
That we see in the crowd.
Yeah.
It was.
Really surprising.

(01:37:37):
I mean, I did not expect that.
Right.
I expected the hats, I figuredthe hats would be back.
But, you know, I I, you shouldhave expected the free Luigi signs.
I mean, the man became a, a folkhero to, I mean, the comments of this
video are gonna be like, I love Luigi.
Feel free to pop.
Literally, like, if
you can give money to him now, apparentlyhe's taking donations while he's in jail.
I, I mean, it, it, that is, that says somuch about the mood in America, and that's

(01:38:00):
not a mood I'm gonna gonna contradict.
That's people's actual feeling.
Right?
Right.
Yeah.
Um, but what do you credit to, you know,average folks saying no political violence
might be necessary on a large scale.
Why would that shift happen?
I think it's happening because peopledon't believe in the elections anymore.
I mean, first of all, yeah.
I think that during the first Trumpadministration, lots of people

(01:38:22):
were feeling really uncomfortable.
And there were all these discussionsin the media, oh, why aren't
people having a general strike?
Why aren't people gettingviolent in the streets?
I mean, and it was likeMaddie Glaces was saying it.
Michelle Goldberg at the NewYork Times was saying it.
And you know, I was the person who waslike collecting the data in the streets.
So I always was called tosay, what do you think, Dana?
And I was like, well, I thinkthat people are really like
laser focused on the elections.

(01:38:43):
Well, we have now a person in theWhite House who said that the last
election in 2024 was the last electionthat anybody had to vote in, right?
Mm-hmm.
And we know that, um, kindof our democratic elections
are, you know, fraught.
And we know a lot of people are losingtheir jobs and losing their livelihoods.
And the idea that they're gonna belike, oh, I'll just wait until 2026.

(01:39:04):
It'll all be okay.
I can just hold my breath.
My kids don't need to eat till then.
That's like unfathomable.
Yeah.
So this shift towards violence makessense because we know from research that
when people feel like they have no otherchoice, that's when they get violent.
That's when they get aggressive, that'swhen they get really confrontational.
What my hope is that people choose like amore confrontational but peaceful option.

(01:39:24):
Nonviolent civil disobedience.
Let's give it all a try.
Let's go there first.
Right?
But there are a lot of guns in ourcountry and that's concern worthy.
JD Vance talked about this fascinatinglysaying, Christianity is about loving
your family first and then the nextlevel out your community and then
your town, and only them whatever'sleft over for the rest of the world.
This idea of a kind of qualifiedChristian Love to me is very different

(01:39:48):
from what I learned at school aboutuniversalism and it's creating.
A different world in their image,and I think we are all slightly being
dragged along behind at the moment.
Well, that's the point.
Should we allow ourselves to be dragged?
That's exactly the point, Tom.
That is where resistance comes.
I. If we allow ourselves to bedragged through and everyone that

(01:40:09):
we know, then we are capitulatingto this totally responsibility.
That is where I draw the line.
And Tom, you said they'redoing all of these things.
I I, I'm just gonna draw your attentionto the fact that they're trying
to do all of these things, right?
It's a good point.
And some of them, they may beable to do, and many of them,
they're not gonna be able to do.
And, and Drudges have been saying, no,you can't do this, and you can't do that.
And there's this newnarrative saying, well.

(01:40:31):
We're not gonna respectthe rule of law anymore.
Look, I I think that people need to focuson the level of corruption going on here.
You know, the, uh, the Trump meme coin,you know, when it was launched just before
the election, it raised about 14 billion.
You know, anyone canpay Trump for anything.
These are obscene levels of corruption.
One thing I wanna draw attention to.

(01:40:51):
A lot of people who should knowbetter are sort of saying, oh, well,
there's been a change in the mood.
You know, and I think, you know,we've probably gone a bit too far
on DEI and, and climate and transvalues, and I'm like, wait a minute.
What's DEI, Paul?
Uh, diversity, equity and Inclusion.
Thank you for the acronyms episode.
But I'm, I'm, I've seen climatecombined with, um, Marxism.

(01:41:11):
And transgender rights.
There's a real effort to try and, uh,mix things up and confuse, but I, I just
want to, I just want to warn I thinkmajor corporations, major investors don't
get so excited that there's some sortof marvelous new, uh, recovery of, of
animal spirits, of capitalism in the USA.
There may well be, uh, over themonths and years ahead, the exposure

(01:41:35):
of the most phenomenal corruption.
And, you know, you don't wanna be onthe wrong side of history here because
this stuff is serious and people will betaking it very seriously for a long time.
The obscenity of people who professthemselves is religious thinking
that there's something smart aboutdepriving the, the poor of, or,
or, or the vulnerable or the.
Ill of what they need to stay alivefrom the largest economy in the world.

(01:41:57):
Who should be able toafford a little bit of aid.
I dunno if anyone saw the obscene X orTweet or whatever from Musk who said,
you know, I could have gone to somecool parties, but I put the US A ID
in in the wood chipper at the weekend.
I mean, it's clear that people all overthe world are going to die as a result of
these cuts, and I do hope Elon Musk hastime to reflect upon the severity of that.

(01:42:20):
Well, we promised listeners atthe beginning of this episode
that we wouldn't only go downthis difficult, challenging route.
You know, there is a lot that can be done.
We are not beholden only towaiting for governments to kind
of come down from on high andsolve complicated problems for us.
And actually, as we know, havingspent years in the climate space,
governments are often the last to move.

(01:42:40):
They often shore up the progressthat is made by corporations,
investors, citizens, legal process,and other different elements.
So.
Given that the world is facing all ofthese difficult challenges right now
with government progress, and I agreeChristiana, that we've been talking about
Trump, which is us, but it is havinga chilling effect around the world.
Although we hope that other countrieswill still maintain their leadership,

(01:43:02):
but nevertheless, there are anenormous number of leavers of change.
There's technology, there'sbusinesses, there's mass engagement
of citizens as litigation.
We had a conversation about this whenwe were all together a few weeks ago,
and I started by asking Paul whichlever he wanted to kick off with.
This is kind of like the craziest subjectbecause the extent of investment in so

(01:43:24):
to say clean energy is extraordinary.
I mean, in fact, VIR at the IEA, perhapsthe most authoritative figure in the world
on this, the International Energy Agencysays we are kind of spending about $2 on
clean energy for every $1 on fossil fuels.
Hmm.
But that's an extraordinary number.
You've got renewable energy, you'vegot the investment in grids, you've
got the investment in storage.

(01:43:44):
And you've got theinvestment in efficiency.
A lot of people, uh, miss efficiency,but it, it has often been called the
first fuel and it, you know, it'sabsolutely extraordinary to consider the
capacity for us to just simply redesignsystems to, to make them more efficient.
This is a podcast, so we are denied theseextraordinary graphs I'm looking at for
wind generation, for solar generation, forelectric car fleets, for battery storage.

(01:44:07):
But they are all exponential.
I mean, wind and to some extentsolar growth, slightly slower
wind because it's so big.
But the electric car fleetsand the battery storage
really are doubling each year.
I mean, let's just reflecton that doubling each year.
That's an astonishing statistic.
And you think, and you might start froma small base, like one to two, two to
four, but then once you start going fourto eight, 16, you've done it basically.

(01:44:29):
It doesn't take long.
And I mean, there's a meta concepthere, which, which you, you've
heard me talk about before, whichI think is incredibly important.
This energy's free, youknow, energy from the sun.
This is what you taught me, Christiana.
The sun doesn't send you a bill,the wind doesn't send you a bill.
You know that that can costmore to install this material.
And then you have todeal with intermittency.
You have to have smart grids and storage.

(01:44:50):
But once you've made theinvestment, the energy's free Now.
Who are gonna be the free energysuperpowers, who are gonna be the
leaders of the free energy world.
I think China will and, and isextraordinary in its capacity to do this.
But we see so many opportunities forcombinations of things like grid,
liberalization, uh, energy policyregulations, but when they come together.

(01:45:13):
Extraordinary things can be achieved.
And that's why we're peaking fossilfuel consumption because so much of
this other stuff is working all right.
Technology, I mean, a hundred percent.
That's, and that's oftenwhat drives policy as well.
The Huntington Beach City Council hasbeen messing with the library for at least
like two years, two and a half years now.
And, um, it originallystarted with a book ban.
Uh, they wanted to ban a bunch ofbooks from the children's section,
uh, primarily L-G-B-T-Q books.

(01:45:34):
And so that's like, I, I wasspeaking out at that point 'cause
I'm like, Hey, this is not okay.
Like this is, this is aFirst Amendment violation.
Um, and then it proceeded from there towhere they got huge community pushback.
So like, okay, well we're gonnaestablish like a, a 23 person panel
that will review all the books in thelibrary and determine where they go.
And, and the bad books will go intospecial, like, adults only section.

(01:45:57):
It's just like, but that'sjust a book band, right?
That's, that's, that'sthe exact same thing.
So there was hugecommunity pushback on that.
And 'cause, 'cause theyactually established the panel.
So in response, a group called,uh, protect hp, they, they've been
fighting to, you know, keep them the,from, from fucking with the library.
They're like, we're going tostart a petition to where you are
gonna have to dissolve this panel.

(01:46:18):
Because they're like, we thinkthere's enough residents in this city
that don't like what you're doing.
And yeah, sure enough, they gotmore than enough signatures.
And um, that was actuallyone of the things also on
the agenda for that meeting.
I didn't, I didn't get to see it'cause I was in jail at that point.
But, but yeah.
So anyways, so, um, thepanel was established.
Then the next thing they triedto do is privatize the library.
'cause they're like, Hey, you know, wedon't like the way the library is run

(01:46:40):
because it's free and open and likeactually treating people with dignity.
We wanna sell it offand scrap it for parts.
And so again, huge pushback.
Another petition that was also onthe agenda last week or this week.
So finally we get to the MAGAplaque, which is just like.
Say those words again.

(01:47:01):
The MAGA plaque, did you say?
Yeah.
Yeah, the MAGA plaque.
So, so there was a, so Protect, HPsent out this email saying, Hey,
there's a library commission meetingwhere, you know, they, they, they've
come up with a plaque to honor the50th anniversary of the library.
It was like, great, you know,we should honor our library.
It's a fantastic library.
It's a crown jewel of Huntington Beach.
Like people come from cities allaround to go to this library.

(01:47:22):
Um, but the plaque that they hadproposed was this hideous, like
black and gold monstrosity, I'm surecoincidentally in Proud Boycots.
Like I'm, I'm sure thatwas just a happy accident.
Um, and.
It had an acronym or an acrosticin, in the middle of the
plaque, like fully displayed.
That spelled out MAGA going down.
And then I think it was like magical,alluring, galvanizing, and adventurous

(01:47:45):
where that were the actual words.
I don't know about you, butwhen I think of a library, I.
Alluring is not the first wordI wanna associate with it.
Yeah.
That gives me some skeevy vibes.
Totally, totally may
Maybe for the adult section, right?
Yeah, you gotta, you gotta take your booksout in a brown paper bag, so, so anyway,

(01:48:08):
so this library commission meeting likeit is, I was there for that one too.
Uh, over 90% of the people speaking were,and, and I mean, there, there was at
least like 30 or 40 people speaking, youknow, which is for a library commission
meeting, like that's a big turnout.
Mm-hmm.
And, and over 90% of thepeople speaking were like.
Yeah, no, don't, don't do this.
This, this is terrible.

(01:48:28):
This is really bad.
And the library commissionrubber stamped it.
Um, they, they sent it to the counciland like, not even any debate around
it or anything, they're just like,yeah, no, we approve the plaque.
And so the, the council meetingthis week was about like actually
adopting the plaque for the library.
And at that point, um, based onmy previous interactions with
this city council, like, it,it, it had become super clear.

(01:48:49):
They do not care about the community.
They don't, they don't care whatthe community actually wants.
They're only in office to tryto get more power and to try to
rise higher into Trump's orbit.
And, and, and it's illustratedreally clearly by our, our previous,
um, uh, city attorney, uh, whojust left us, Michael Gates.
Um, he has wasted hundreds ofthousands of our taxpayer dollars.

(01:49:10):
Um, trying to defend frivolouslawsuits, keeping the city from
building housing that's requiredby the state of California.
Like there, there's no waythese suits are gonna win in
court, like absolutely no way.
But he keeps fighting them becausehe know Trump's Li, he know, he
knows Trump likes that kind of thing.
And sure enough, now he's in Trump'sadministration, and, and, and then the
council gave him a rousing sendoff.

(01:49:30):
It's like he's doing great work.
So yeah, this, this is what they all want.
They, they want to springboardfrom their position to hire up in
the Trump administration and, andit's just a naked grab for power.
Like they, they really don'tcare about the community.
And so when I, when I saw, you know,the plaque issue, sorry, go ahead.
Oh no, please.
You finish, please.
Yep.
Yeah, so, so, so when I saw that theplaque was, you know, gonna be on the,

(01:49:53):
on the agenda for, for this week, Iwas like, okay, well I guess like it's,
it's time to actually like do something.
'cause you know, they're not gonna listen.
They've shown they're not gonna listen.
People know they're not gonna listenand, and there's this sense of
resigned frustration when people talkand give public comment in, in that.
They, they, they're angry becausethey want to make their voices

(01:50:13):
heard, but they know at the endof the day that the council isn't
even going to debate the issue.
Like they're not even gonna bringup the fact that so many people
are speaking out against it.
They're just gonna be like,Nope, we do what we want.
Fuck you.
And so that was when I was like,okay, well I, I guess I'm gonna
have to make them listen this time.
And then, yeah.
So I, I came up with the, you know,with my speech, which, which I, I

(01:50:34):
posted the full three minute one online.
Um, 'cause normally you're supposed toget three minutes for public content.
Uh, public comment.
Um, our, our.
Current mayor, uh, Mr. Burns, um, norelation to the Simpson's character.
Uh, he, he chopped it down to oneminute, um, at the, at the start
of, of session, which again made itclear they really weren't interested
in listening to the community.
And so I was like, okay, wellI'll, you know, cut out certain

(01:50:56):
parts to, you know, to make a fit.
But the, but at the end I knew,okay, I'm, I'm gonna go protest.
Like, I'm, I'm gonna go up on the,on the dais and, and force them to
arrest me because this is not okay.
Like it, it's.
Someone, someone has to take a standat some point and, and if our elected
officials aren't gonna do it, Iguess, fuck, I guess I gotta do it.
This is Section D boycott.

(01:51:17):
If you build scale, that youdrive down the cost, right?
And so if you drive down the cost,you broaden the market, right?
Sort of like what you'resupposed to be doing with EVs.
But the problem is, is that theFalcon nine did drive down the cost
of launch, at least in theory, but itdidn't create enough demand for it.
And so they have like 80% of the launchmarket, and yet half of their launches are
launching their own starlink satellites.

(01:51:39):
Because they can't find paying customersfor it, and that starlink loses money.
So it's like saying, well, if I have acar business and I make 500,000 units,
you know, I can sell 'em at this price.
If I make a million units, I can sell'em lower and the market will be bigger.
But you build that factory for amillion units and people aren't
buying them at the lower price, andso you have to sell 'em to yourself
to a rental fleet that loses money.
This is not a sustainable business.

(01:51:59):
That's essentially what Ithink is happening at SpaceX.
Yeah, we don't know becauseit's private back on track.
Tesla, it's only halfof his wealth on paper.
But it's really the only placehe has of getting cash, and
he has two ways of doing it.
He can sell the stock.
He did a little bit to fund theTwitter deal, but if he does more than
that, it's like a monkey trap, whereas long as he owns a big chunk of

(01:52:19):
Tesla, he's associated with Tesla andpeople buy it because he's involved.
If he starts to sell it signals,he's not confident in it.
And a lot of people are gonna takethat signal and sell as a result of it.
So he can't really sell.
Plus you'd have to pay taxes.
And so what he does ishe pledges those shares.
To get loans from Big Wall Street Banks,Morgan Stanley, kind of being the big one.
What that means is that a. He onlycan get so much cash out of it.

(01:52:42):
It's not one-to-one, right?
You have to pledge like any other loan.
You have to pledge a good amountof collateral for the loan.
And what it also means is that if thestock starts to go down, his collateral,
the value of his collateral goes down.
And if he has cash out fromthose loans, he has to put, he.
Collateral back in this is what'scalled a margin call, right?
And so what happens if the stock goesbelow the level that he needs it to be at?

(01:53:04):
He gets margin called.
He has to, in very short notice,put more stock or cash into this.
So what will happen is he'll have to sellthe stock, which will drive the price
down, which will continue to triggermargin calls while also signaling to
everyone else that he's on his way out andthat they need to get out while they can.
It switches the dynamic.
From greed to fear.
People don't understand.
They look at the number on his wealthand they assume A, that he can pull

(01:53:27):
all that out in cash and throw out atelections and throw out everything else.
He can't, the cash that he pullsout through these loans, he has
like three private jets likehis, his lifestyle is not cheap.
So not only can he not pull the cashout, but if that stock starts to go down,
if we trigger this fear cycle insteadof a greed cycle, there are these traps
built in and because of his loans, thatwill then create this like death spiral.
And so one of the thingsthat I'm really trying to get

(01:53:48):
people to understand is, again.
A, on the rhetorical level, he'snot good at business, but B, the
big numbers, those are actually thevulnerability, not his strength.
That's what makes him vulnerable.
There is a real scenario wherein theory, we could wipe out his
wealth in a matter of days or weeksif the right dynamic takes hold.
And so then what do you see as theopportunities to really hurt Tesla and

(01:54:09):
by extension Elon Musk in that way?
What are the actions that peoplecan take, or what needs to be done
to kind of sap this confidence inTesla so that you kind of scare.
The market and investors away from it.
The important thing for me isthat people just understand
that that is a viable strategy.
What I want is to see peopleunderstand that strategy and
start to align around it.

(01:54:29):
The tactical level ofhow you implement that.
I think there's a millionways it shouldn't be up to me.
You know what I mean?
I, I have a book to write.
I got other things going on.
I'm happy to explain the strategy ofthis, but I really think that Tesla
take down, by the way, check out the.
Hashtag Tesla takedown, you'll getplugged into the community that
that's already opening their eyes tothis and starting to work on this.
What I wanna make clear iswe can start with protests.

(01:54:51):
We can start every Saturday at 11:00 AMWe can go down to our local Tesla store
and we can go out there and we can letour friends and neighbors know that I.
Anything you do that puts a dollar intothis company is directly supporting Elon
Musk and that if we starve this companyof its revenue, and again, this is sales
of new cars servicing existing cars, andthis is charging at Superchargers, all
of these things support this company.

(01:55:12):
Every dollar that wetake outta their revenue.
Drives down the corefundamentals of their business.
Even worse, and this isthe important thing, right?
Boycotts have been done before.
Frankly, the record in thiscountry, in the US in particular
is not that great, unfortunately.
And, and, and I'm aware of that,but this is different because we
haven't had a boycott of a companythat is this precarious before.
And so part of it isthis overvalued stock.

(01:55:33):
That's built on fraud andthat we can switch from, it's
only psychology keeping it up.
There is no fundamentaleconomics keeping this up.
That's the important thing to understand.
The other thing is sales.
Uh, were down like 11% in Chinaand whatever sales they're getting,
their competition is so tough.
They're basically not making any money.
Sales are down huge in Europe,like 40, 50% in some of those
European markets, right?
Huge.

(01:55:54):
So US is it, this is the last place.
If we can drive down the sales here.
The core fundamentals ofthat business fall apart.
Elon doesn't have anything to getinvestors to believe that the core
business will improve for years.
He can show a new car tomorrow.
It'll be two years, at leastbefore that, that is actually
generating real like meaningfulcash flow or profit for the company.

(01:56:15):
And so anything that starves Tesla ofmoney that makes the brand toxic, that
lets people know that Elon Musk isvulnerable, is aligned with the cause.
And again, I don't wantto tell people what to do.
Whatever it is, whatever you wantto do, you know, if you want to
go out on the street and protest.
Do that.
If you think that's Boomer cringeand you wanna do some kind of online
advocacy, you wanna leave bad reviews.

(01:56:36):
You, I mean, there's again, I don'teven want to tell people what to
do because use your imagination.
People know how to fuck shit up.
All I'm saying is, is thatthis opportunity exists.
We don't get to vote for twoyears at all at the federal level.
We didn't get to vote for Elonin the first place anyway.
Our choices are literallydoom, scroll and feel helpless.
And fantasize about someone elsetaking care of this for us, or

(01:56:59):
we can do something ourselves.
And I'll tell you, you know, I hadmy eyes open in 2015 about this.
For the longest time I. I thought,oh, I'm just a little blogger.
All I have to do is sort of, Ithink we talked about this on
the show, you know, before, in apast episode, put up the flare.
Let people know, Hey,there's frog going on here.
There's bad things going on here.
The cavalry's gonna arrive, the grownupswill will show up and take care of this.

(01:57:19):
And it hasn't happened.
It hasn't happened.
Take it for me.
I've been running thatexperiment for a decade, right?
I have the data.
It doesn't work.
There is no cavalry, noone's coming to rescue us.
We do have this opportunity,frankly, you know, if people have
other ideas, I'm all open to them.
But strategically, I think this is theonly way we do something about this, and
there's a million ways that we can affect.
That.

(01:57:39):
Right.
And again, it can be art, itcan be protest, it can be online
activism, it can be organizing.
It can be just getting the word outand just be talking to your neighbors
about why they should sell the car.
I think it's really importantto say Canadians don't wear
our patriotism on our sleeve.
We don't like talking about our flag.
You know, we got American neighborsand we just don't do that thing.
Uh, we love our veterans.

(01:58:01):
Our people went and foughtin every dirty hole fighting
Nazis, but when they came home.
They just went about their lives.
It's something Canadianscompartmentalize, so we're not used
to this sort of rah rah flag waving.
But what Donald Trump did when hegot elected was he began to make
an attack on our sovereignty on ournation, saying that we didn't deserve

(01:58:24):
to be a country and that we were gonnahave to kiss his ring or he was gonna
cause unprecedented economic harm.
That changed everything.
Canadians said, you're gonnatake our nation from us.
I don't think so.
So the resistance began there andmy role in the resistance was the
morning after the Trump election.

(01:58:45):
I woke up like everyone else, withthe worst hangover on the planet.
I didn't want to get outta bed.
My wife, who's smarter than me,said, you haven't posted anything.
And I said, what's her to post?
She said, I don't care.
You gotta start rallying people.
And I was really thinkingof Antonio Graham.
She's line that we are now in the timeof monsters and that we needed language
to talk about the threat to democracy.

(01:59:05):
That this isn't, this isn'tjust disinformation, this isn't
just the right owning the libs.
This is something much darkerand more dangerous to democracy.
So I've been writing about that, speakingin parliament, trying to frame it.
And then when we saw his actions onJanuary 6th, his threat against Denmark,
uh, Greenland, his threats against Canada.

(01:59:25):
For some reason people turned to meand said, you've got the language.
So the resistance began there.
I started calling my page theresistance, because we are in
this not to win this trade war.
We're in this to defeat fascist tyranny.
Um, the United States will either go downin the darkness at this time or it will
come out, I don't know as a Canadian,but I sure as hell know that my country's

(01:59:47):
not gonna go down that hole with it.
That's brilliant.
And of course it's really interestingthat, you know, when Trump, first
of all, this is all illegal.
We know that.
And, and there's resistance not just inCanada, but in the United States, and
there's gonna be a big day of action.
But it seems that what he reallywants is, you know, I. Rare earth
minerals, all of that kind of thing.

(02:00:07):
So it's, it's got an economic, uh,definitely, you know, some sort of way
of enriching Donald Trump even more.
And Musk as well.
But maybe you could like talk alittle bit more about what tariffs
would mean in Canada and especiallylike in the different regions.
I mentioned that Ontario isgigantic, but what about other

(02:00:30):
provinces like say Alberta.
It's really important to know thatone of the reasons that Ontario
has such a massive manufacturingeconomy is because of this whole
notion of just in time delivery.
So Toledo, Ohio needssomething for their auto plant.
They're getting it from Kitchen Ontario.
Kitchen Ontario needs something toget a vehicle off the assembly line.

(02:00:53):
They're getting it from Buffalo.
This is the integrated system.
So.
If Donald Trump throws massive tariffs onthe auto sector, even if it's one sided,
but we've been talking to auto expertswho'll say like, within a week bowling
green goes down, Arlington goes down.
Definitely Toledo and Michigan plantsgo down because the system isn't built.
I to throw tariff walls up because wedecided, and I don't know if it was a

(02:01:17):
good idea, maybe back in the day, weshould have kept our plants and their
plants, but we all went along withReagan saying this was a great idea.
Yeah.
So there will be havoc and we knowif they throw 25% across the board,
it's going to cause havoc for us.
But he gave us no choice.
He said, I'm going to put havoc on you.
You're gonna break as a nationand become a state, well, we will

(02:01:38):
suffer any loss rather than that.
So what's happening now is in thelast Showdown, Kentucky Bourbon,
their main market is Ontario.
Every bottle of Kentucky Bourbonwas to pull it off the shelves.
Every bottle in my little town, 5,000people, I'm not gonna say how much
people drink, but it's working class.
Took five hours of pulling all thatKentucky bourbon off the shelves, and

(02:02:00):
they said, we've got all the crates.
We're ready.
To pack it up and sendit back to Kentucky.
So now the governor ofKentucky's speaking up.
So there the implicationsare, are very serious.
And then the grassroots started,ordinary people started canceling
trips and started sending messages.
And that's where I began tostart reaching out to people.
And what I was amazed at is this isway across traditional party lines.

(02:02:26):
I mean, when a woman reaches out tome and said she's canceled an eight
person golf tournament in Arizona.
I don't think she probablyvotes new Democrat.
Maybe she does, but for the love of hercountry, she's not going to Arizona.
You know, all our snowbirds in Florida,38% of Florida's money is Canadian.
I've got people saying, I lost my deposit,I lost the flights, but I would rather

(02:02:48):
eat that than give Donald Trump a dollar.
So.
The numbers we're hearing is a potentialloss of 140,000 jobs in the US if just
10% of Canadians hold the boycott.
And right now, from what we'reseeing, it's much higher.
People are really animated.
They're not buying anything on the,in the stores that are American.
They're insisting that we hold the line.

(02:03:09):
And this isn't just, if Donald Trumpbacks down, people think we've gotta
go the whole way until this regime.
Is ended because theyrepresent a fundamental threat
to our values as a nation.
I'm so glad you said that.
Can you talk a little bitabout, you know, the sort of
grassroots nature of this boycott?
You've just mentioned that it includesCanadians across the political

(02:03:32):
spectrum, and in a way, I guessyou can think, this is probably the
wrong word, Trump must, for unifyingCanadians at least on this issue, but
did it just come about spontaneously?
Is there, are there actions like days ofactions planned or No have taken place?
Um.
The political left didn't see this coming.

(02:03:53):
I saw it because people started reachingout to me because I was posting messages
about Canada and messages about ourvalues, messages about, you know, our
grandfathers and our uncles who lie andall the, the World War II battlefields
all over Europe fighting Nazis.
And I said, do you think thatour uncles fought and died?
So that we'd sell our countryout and people started sending
me pictures of their greatuncle where their dad is buried.

(02:04:16):
Like it was very emotional and Iwas realizing, I was talking to
people who come from veterans,families who come from rural Canada,
and it's a really unique thing.
And I just wanna say, Canadians,our main focus other than hockey
is fighting with each other.
We love to squabble French versus English,north versus south, east versus west,

(02:04:38):
indigenous, indigenous versus settler.
We love to whine and blame the others andurban versus rural, but when you threaten
our nation, suddenly everything changed.
And so suddenly everybodywas on the same page and.
I was a bit naive at first.
I remember being in a little coffee shopand I live in very, very working class,
you know, mining town, and the womenwere sitting there, they were like, right

(02:05:00):
on, Charlie, we're we got your back.
And I said, Hey ladies, youknow you're not supposed to buy.
And they said, don'ttalk to us about that.
We've been doing that for weeks.
I was like, yeah, you have been.
I just realized, and you'vealready been doing that.
So it's in a really unique, uh, momentof social action where it's not being
run by a group of organizers, planners.

(02:05:22):
It's super, super, supergrassroots and that's what's
going to make it indestructible.
Can we start with today'seconomic blackout?
Can you explain who got this goingand how you understand the actual
goals of today in particular?
Sure.
The blackout, as you well explainedin your intro, has been driven by
a group called People's Union andhas gained, I think, a significant

(02:05:45):
number of supporters today.
If you go on social media, you'regoing to see rock bands like Pearl
Jam, and activists, actors, others,stepping up and saying, I'm not
doing any business today or we're notselling things today, or whatever.
I think it's gotten atleast a baseline of support.

(02:06:08):
It comes in the context, Brian,of a broader boycott movement.
I know we'll talk about all sorts ofother things in a moment, but it's
very important to understand thatwe've had some boycott actions going
now for the better part of a month.
Nina Turner, the activist, launcheda boycott that said some gotten
some note against Target when itdropped some of its DEI programs.

(02:06:31):
Reverend Al Sharpton has also beenlooking at boycotts and actual other
actions related to dropping DEI.
There's roots there that go back a bit.
Just to let you know, obviously, we'retalking today about this boycott,
but there's an Amazon boycott, aNestle's boycott, a Walmart boycott,

(02:06:52):
another economic blackout, and aGeneral Mills boycott, scheduled
for the next month and a half.
A lot of people are kind of returningto this notion of a boycott as a tool
to pressure corporations with the notionthat doing so might actually influence

(02:07:12):
some of the broader actions of theDemocratic Party, the Republican Party.
A final thing I'll note is there's anaction called Tesla Takedown, which has
been organized by a number of folks,and it's actually been quite notable.
These are weekend protestsat Tesla dealers and in other

(02:07:32):
spaces related to Elon Musk.
If anything, that initiative seemsto have gotten a particular amount of
traction in many parts of the country.
Can you explain how participants hopethat boycotting private sector retailers
of any kind might help fight whatthey see as Trump and Musk trashing

(02:07:53):
the rule of law, being bullies onbehalf of billionaires, establishing
an authoritarian United Statesgovernment, little things like that?
How does that trickle upin theory or in practice?
Well, there is a sense that CEOs andbillionaires and such talk to each
other and that they take note ofpressures that one might feel, and

(02:08:16):
particularly if that one happens tobe in the government, like Elon Musk.
This is a way to speak to them in thelanguage that they understand, which is
money, that the accumulation of moneyor difficulty in accumulating money.
I think, again, that's why a group likethe Tesla Takedown folks have really
focused on, literally, I think in theirmessaging saying, "Sell your Tesla, sell

(02:08:40):
your Tesla, sell your stock, get awayfrom this," as a way of sending a signal.
Now, when you talk in the broadereconomy, that's a complexity.
It is not necessarily an easy way tospeak to power unless it gets very large,
and you get to a point where-- I'm notsure today will be that day, but if it's

(02:09:03):
an ongoing effort and you Keep buildingenergy, building strength, till you get to
a day where there really is a very notableacross-the-board impact on the economy.
Look, I've covered politics for way toolong, and I can tell you when the economy
gets shaky, even in these recent days,when we've seen the stock market having

(02:09:23):
a little bit of instability, that iswhen a lot of people in power, both in
economics and in politics, take notice.
Next up Section E Resources.
While I was reading Rebecca Solnit'sblog, meditations in an emergency,
she referred to a resistance list onChoose Democracy, us, and of course

(02:09:44):
I had to check it out immediatelyand what I found was an up-to-date
database filled with stories of people'snon-cooperation against Trump's coup.
And it included links to databases ofnon-cooperation as well as trackers of the
litigation and impact of the litigationagainst Trump's current infractions.

(02:10:05):
It's a great place to hope, scroll, andto look for some resources and stories
of people's non-cooperation that canideally inspire your own if you're able.
So of course, I'll includeit in the show notes.
But instead of reading from thatthread, I decided to click around
on the Choose Democracy US website.
Again, I've been there before, butI wanted to see how updated it was

(02:10:29):
since the last time I had checked itout, and there were some incredibly
valuable resources within the website,specifically on the page that says,
what can I do to fight this coup?
It says, quote, if you look, thereare people resisting at every level.
Blockades of freeways.
American Bar Association,urging to end illegal orders.
Past Inspector Generals penning op-edsall while the current inspector General

(02:10:53):
refuses to accept her illegal firing.
And don't forget the Popeslamming VP Vance's Theology.
We can't put everything that youcould do in this document, but they've
included some potential startingpoints on how to orient and help
fight the coup, and it felt reallyrelevant considering the last couple of
documents I've shared about the subject.

(02:11:15):
The first thing they suggestis to get with others to act.
They say when you're alone,it's too easy to freeze.
While keyboard warriors and protestattenders are important, you'll
feel the greatest strength if yougather with others semi-regularly.
To plan together, to sharetogether, and to act together.
This might mean creating an affinitygroup and a true affinity group is a

(02:11:37):
small group of people who come togetherto prepare for and take direct action.
They make decisions together and supporteach other during and after the action.
Sometimes these groups are formed justfor one action, but often they are
ongoing groups that organize and takepart in actions over a number of years.
The affinity between people in the groupis something that they have in common.

(02:12:01):
In general, people in an affinitygroup will be focused on taking
action on the same issues.
They'll share aims and tactics.
Some affinity groups may also bestructured around something else you
have in common, such as living in thesame area or sharing a particular skill.
The key to affinity groups is thatthey're organized along the principles

(02:12:21):
of non hierarchy and autonomy.
This means that decisions are madedirectly within the group by all members,
and responsibility and power is sharedso that everyone can have an equal voice.
I've included a link from Seeds forchange.org.uk about affinity groups.
That includes not only definitionsfor and ways to take action, but also

(02:12:44):
a guide for how to sustain the groupand how to deal with common issues.
But if curating an entire grouparound a shared goal just isn't
accessible to you right now.
Maybe you could just set up a fooddate with friends, plan a potluck, and
consider having planned actions then likewriting letters or postcards, or calling
your local representatives with notes.

(02:13:06):
Or maybe you just organize weeklystudy groups or care calls to
check in on your neighbors.
The second suggestion from ChooseDemocracy US is to pressure a
pillar of support to defect.
Coups are only successful when societybows to the orders of the autocrat.
These pillars of support aremilitary, the media, and corporations.

(02:13:27):
So pick a pillar you want to pressure,and every day do at least one
small thing to get them to defect.
Whether that's sharing articlesabout companies trying to exploit the
coup, or filing a formal complaintto the treasury about Musks.
Theft of our information.
I recently left a very nasty reviewon Google Maps about them changing
the name of Gulf of Mexico, andthat tiny glimmer of catharsis

(02:13:50):
only took me like 30 seconds to do.
I also want to re encourage you to joinboycotts called by reputable groups so
that we can make a boycott meaningful.
Boycotting target has been reallysuccessful where Walmart is the next
target, and of course, they suggestto organize within your workplace.
Plan, strikes and shutdowns.

(02:14:11):
Set up picket lines outside of stores.
Do actions dedicated to the CEOs, theexecutives, and the board members, and
focus on growing these boycotts in size.
If you're the chronically online type,maybe you can become a meme machine about
Elon Musk in his takeover of government,or you can flood the DEI snitch line.

(02:14:31):
If you're a federal worker, don't quit.
Stay inside and gum up the machine.
So if you are a federal worker or youknow someone who is, you can share a
resource that I've included in the shownotes that is specifically written for
feds that is both current and thoroughand incredibly insightful for anyone
going through whistle blowing or losingtheir job or needing legal support.

(02:14:55):
Or looking into other careeropportunities or contacting the press.
So if you know someone who works in thefederal government and aligns with a lot
of your values or is confused on whatto do, share this document with them.
Also, if you know anyone in the militaryremind them of their constitutional
obligation to refuse unconstitutionalorders, I've also included.

(02:15:18):
An incredible resource for membersof security forces that can
serve as a guide to supportingpro-democracy movements from within.
If you are interested in protestingspecifically, you can go to build the
resistance.org/actions, or the linkin the show notes to the same website.
To see if there are any protests oractions near you that you can get

(02:15:39):
involved in, or if you want somethingyou could do very quickly today.
You can use five calls.org to call yourelected officials and tell them that
you, their constituent is demanding.
They do something to stop Musk's coup.
Or if you're like me, a blue.in ared state, you can put up political
signs in your yard or in your window.

(02:15:59):
Indivisible.
DOT org has done a great job atorganizing some campaigns, and
they've also offered us a guide forpressuring your elected officials.
I've included links to thatguide in the show notes as well.
And if you've got extra money, donateto places like Democracy Forward and
the A CLU or Mutual Aid or bail funds.

(02:16:20):
Or of course, you can pick a morelong-term path like we discussed
yesterday through protecting people.
Or defending civic institutionsor disrupting and disobeying
or building alternatives.
The key is not to focus on everythingat once, but instead to focus on
something you can do to build moreconfidence and momentum so that you can

(02:16:41):
continue to do the next right thing.
As Timothy Snyder, the author of OnTyranny, reminds us, make sure you are
talking to people and doing something.
The logic of move fast and break things,like the logic of all coups is to gain
quick, dramatic successes that deter anddemoralize and create the impression of

(02:17:01):
inevitability, but nothing is inevitable.
Do not be alone and do not be dismayed.
Find someone who is doingsomething you admire and join them.
Jordan, you were talking about howGramsci paid a big price for rejecting
this dogmatic notion of, uh, howeconomic crises are supposed to.

(02:17:23):
You know, in a sense, almost a caricatureof Marxist thinking that they lead to
the, you know, sudden enlightenment ofthe masses who then pick up the red flag
and march off into the glorious future.
And that notion that a crisis isalways going to be this incredibly
propitious opportunity for.

(02:17:45):
The radical left may not be thecase, and certainly led to incredible
sectarianism in Germany by theGerman Communist Party in the lead
up to, um, Hitler's ascendancy.
Given Thatchy had.
Had a different understanding ofcrises and what they could do.

(02:18:06):
Can you tell us about how he sawthem in relationship to the rise of
reactionary forces, which of of courseis something that we are seeing now and
we'll talk about later in the program.
Out of the global economic crisisin a pandemic, we have also
seen reactionary forces arise.
How did GCI understand crises as this?

(02:18:31):
Highly complicated moment of bothpromise, but also great peril.
I think that one of the reasons thatthe late great gr she and scholar Joseph
Buttigieg argued that, uh, gr she wasa non-dogmatic, uh, democratic thinker

(02:18:52):
for our times was precisely for hisrefusal to embrace the vacuous leftist
sectarianism that you described, which hadfailed to, you know, develop an adequate
theory and practice to confront fascism.
It really distinguishes him, and it'sparticularly his approach to his method.

(02:19:17):
Um, I'll say more about this.
Let, let me just say this, you know, thelast time I was, uh, speaking with you
on the show at least, was in June, 2020.
And you asked me these really astutequestions about how the cycle of
rebellions that had been sparkedby the murder of George Floyd, the
COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis of globalcapitalism on a scale we hadn't seen

(02:19:40):
since the thirties was taking shape.
And as I was preparing for this,I was thinking about it, you know,
this is a, a turning point in thehistory of global capitalism and an
intensification of global social conflict.
That has to be thought about inrelationship to this resurgence of
the far right, though it has muchdeeper roots and so on and so forth.

(02:20:01):
It did jump scales I think in, indifferent ways in this moment and over
the last few years I've been trying todraw on Chy and Stewart Hall and and WB
Du Bois's and, and Ani Bje and AngelaDavis and other people's writings.
To really understand these dynamicsbecause as you say in the question,
you know, Gramsci saw the rise of thefascist far right as kind of the central

(02:20:25):
challenge of, you know, the post WorldWar I or into war conjuncture and he
theorizes, you know, the fascist farright or or fascism as a form of Caesars,
which is kind of short for the Romandictator, you know, Julius Caesar and.
He was using this as in a way,and he thought his audiences,

(02:20:48):
at least in the Italian context,would've understood that reference.
But he was, he was obviously alsofollowing the lead of, of, of
Karl Marx who had written thisimportant book on the 18th Bruer.
And, you know, looking atMarx's writings on, you know.
The Partisanism and, uh, authoritarianismin the 19th century that had modeled

(02:21:13):
for gramsci how to look at the balanceof forces, the political, the economic
in a concrete historicized way.
So Marxist conjunction analysis.
Monoism became a kind of model forwhat, for what Gramsci was doing
to understand the rise of fascism.
And, you know, this was, again, you know,I had said in my answer to your previous,

(02:21:37):
um, question that the Marxist Leninistparties had, you know, kinda reduced
fascism to the dominance of the mostreactionary forms of, of finance capital.
Argued that fascist ideology washomogenous and kind of solidly formed,
and therefore, for the most part, um,and not exclusively, I, I don't mean

(02:22:00):
to caricature people, there were somecomplicated thinkers, but again, these
are lines that people were following.
Um, and there were lines that Ingram,she's judgment, failed to consider
how it was that fascism had beenable to shore up a certain popular.
Consent to a capitalistresolution of a structural crisis.

(02:22:25):
Right.
And I mean, you know, there waspandemic, there was capitalist crisis,
there was war, there was civil war.
And we have to understand that itwas in that context that, that this
failure, that motivated grime, sheto explore how the fascist far right
had taken shape in response to whathe described as a crisis of hegemony.

(02:22:46):
A crisis of authority that followedWorld War I, by which he meant a
kind of, um, legitimacy crisis, uh,for capital in the state where the,
you know, the masses no longer, youknow, believe what they used to.
And he was also concerned with howMussolini and the fascist right, have been

(02:23:07):
able to absorb elements of the last focuson workers into the program of the right.
We should go back andthink about that, right?
I mean, Mussolini had comeoutta the socialist movement.
He's appropriating this discourse.
You know, this I think made Gramsciobserve that, you know, the social basis

(02:23:28):
though, for the fascist far right was thepetty bourgeoisie who had formed the core
membership of the National Fascist Party.
And so I think this is reallyimportant to understand that this
kind of crisis of liberalism.
Had led many Italians to give up ondemocracy and to live kind of vicariously
through authoritarian demagogueslike Mussolini, who are these strong

(02:23:50):
men like Caesar, uh, who, you know,promoted a kind of contempt for workers
and democracy as as common sense.
And this is what was leading, you know,gramsci to, you know, focus on precisely
what the right was up to ideologically,politically, and economically, and
offer a kind of non reductionist,non-dogmatic method for doing so.

(02:24:14):
A while back I stumbled upon a GoogleDoc titled, looking for What to Do,
some Actions to Stop Authoritarianism.
In it, it says, maybe you'rewondering, what should I do In these
times, what we have put down hereare some meaningful places to start.
Doable, local, impactful, and important.
It's not intended to beinclusive of all options.

(02:24:37):
It's not a place for theup to the minute protests.
We're trying to offer places.
We see people making impacts and avenuesthat as experienced organizers thinking
about these times, we see as worth doing.
Where possible we'll offer names ofgroups who are organizing such things
and can help you plug into theirstrategy no matter where you come from.

(02:24:59):
Here are some ideas.
If you wanna help stand for a worldwith tolerance and love, racial
justice and acceptance of all people.
They've also included alink to choose democracy us.
What can I do where you can signup for up-to-date newsletters
as well as another outline ofthings you can do to get involved.

(02:25:19):
I'll be linking both in theshow notes if you're interested.
But back at the Google Doc, the firstsuggestion is to find a path that
speaks to you, and then it offersus Daniel Hunter's categorization
from 10 ways to be prepared andgrounded now that Trump has won.
Which I did refer to in a pastepisode, but it's valuable and

(02:25:39):
helpful, and so I wanted to reread it.
And in the various ways to take actionas outlined by Daniel Hunter, there
are four paths in which you can take.
You can protect people, you can defendcivic institutions, you can disrupt and
disobey, or you can build alternatives.
Protecting people, of course,focuses on harm reduction.

(02:26:01):
And will include the people surviving andprotecting our own, especially focusing
on the protection of those directlytargeted such as trans folks, folks
in need of abortions and immigrants.
The next is to defend civicinstitutions by safeguarding democratic
institutions like the elections orthe Environmental Protection Agency.

(02:26:21):
We can create pushback for anadministration that wants these
systems to crumble so they can exertgreater control over our lives.
The next potential path is todisrupt and disobey, which includes
strategizing acts to supportdisobedience and protest policy.
Does go beyond protesting for betterpolicies and instead goes into the

(02:26:43):
territory of people intervening to stopbad policies or just generally putting
up resistance to the fascist regime.
And the final potential path isto build alternatives, whether
this be parallel institutions.
Or alternative party platformsor just creating a new culture
around the democracy, because wecannot and should not just be stuck

(02:27:06):
reacting to and stopping the bad.
We have to have a vision for the goodand the future that we could have.
This is the slow growth work ofbuilding alternative ways that are more
democratic, accessible and equitable.
Once you've chosen a path for you.
It doesn't have to be your foreverpath, but a path for right now.

(02:27:27):
Then you can pick your degree ofdifficulty based on how much challenge
you're up for, given your skills, yourtime, and your current life circumstances.
I. Easy actions, according to thisdocument, can typically be done alone and
with less time while we've categorizedharder actions as those that require
more time, more people skills, andoften a small group to launch with.

(02:27:51):
So once you've chosen your path andyour degree of difficulty, then you
can connect with a group if applicable.
This document whenever possible, has triedto identify groups that can plug you in.
But because this is a big, broadlist, it's often national groups,
but they encourage you to connectwith local groups whenever possible.

(02:28:12):
And the final step is to just do it.
You can plan all you want, butthat planning will mean nothing
if you never take action.
Now this document is broken up intospecific examples within each pathway.
The first being protecting people.
So we'll start there.
Quote, autocrats, don't wantus standing up for each other.
And an easy way to disobey is bysending signals into your community

(02:28:36):
that you care that you publiclystand with targeted communities.
And so here are some examples,starting with the easier things to do.
You can partner with a local pridegroup and ask local businesses to
put up signs, acknowledging that allfolks are welcome in their stores.
The Welcoming Project, which I'velinked in the show notes, provides
free signs and FAQ resources toencourage businesses, healthcare

(02:28:59):
service providers, organizations, andcongregations to display welcoming signs.
And then you can ask locations that yougo to to put up a sign if they don't
already have one shop, and then ask,attend a workshop somewhere and ask them.
If you take your kids to practicesor classes, you can ask there.

(02:29:19):
The medium suggestion for protectingpeople is to partner with a hospital or
clinic to start an abortion support fund.
Specifically for folks seekingout-of-state medical care.
I. You can find a local abortionsupport fund to support or create on
the national map hosted by the NationalNetwork of Abortion Funds, which
I've also linked in the show notes.
The next suggestion is to build abipartisan coalition to research,

(02:29:43):
expose, and educate the communityabout white nationalist threats.
They did this recently in Idahowhen Leaders United called out the
extremist culture of permission.
I've included a news articlewith that example in the show
notes if you're interested.
The next suggestion is to get yourschool board or city council, or
hospital commission, or any governmentagency to affirm that they are a

(02:30:06):
welcoming community to all people.
There is a network called the WelcomingNetwork with over 300 communities
that welcome immigrants publicly.
Ideally, you can get yourcommunity to join them.
The next is to get your religious group,school, or little league to make a
resolution in support of targeted folks.
For example, why vaccinationsare good practice or why everyone

(02:30:29):
deserves to play sports, regardlessof what gender was assigned at birth.
Or talk to your faith leaders and see ifyour faith institutions can stretch the
limits and see if police departments orlocal officials are willing to inform
them in advance what communities andwhat community members might be in
danger of being snatched for deportationso they can move to protect them.

(02:30:50):
The harder to do section includesthings like training volunteers in
your city and state based on safetyskills that could be used as white
nationalist violence ramps up.
I'll include some links in the shownotes with some training support on
action safety if you're interested.
I. You can run support or get involvedby connecting with Run for Something,

(02:31:11):
which is also linked in the show notes.
And the final suggestion is to campaignagainst book bans in your state or
town, even before they're proposed.
Join Penn America's book banscampaign, which is, you guessed
it, linked in the show notes.
The next pathway where they'veoffered us suggestions is to
defend civic institutions.

(02:31:32):
Autocrats love weak institutionsbecause they can twist them
to their personal goals.
Institutional ethics and valuesand bureaucracy can all be
used to resist these efforts.
We may often think of federal institutionslike the military, but a lot of
these institutions are really local.
Health commissioners, local scientists,schools, election officials, we

(02:31:55):
can seek to defend local civicinstitutions, particularly when they
are doing their job and refusing toengage in immoral or unsavory acts.
The easier to do things for civilservants specifically is to download
and read, serve the People, a CivilServants Guide to 2024 and beyond . In
it, you can ideally learn somestrategies for what to do in the future.

(02:32:18):
And finally, section F Power Structures.
I wanna, um, just commend topeople because there's such a
huge number of lawsuits, as yousaid, more coming every day.
I, I wanna just tell peopleto keep, uh, an open tab.
You can use just securitieslitigation tracker.
Democracy 2025 has a good one.
Court watch news has a good one.

(02:32:40):
But I wonder, judge, if you wouldjust take a minute and pan back
and just help us make sense of thesort of various columns of lawsuits
that are happening right now.
We've mentioned, uh, the impoundment,we've mentioned birthright, citizenship.
Can you give us like the very, very,very 40,000 feet view of the big buckets
of actions that are being challenged?

(02:33:01):
Well, there are issues withrespect to immigration.
A bunch of executive orders likethe order on birthright citizenship.
There are orders purporting toend sanctuary city policies.
Very vague.
Who knows what they're talking about?
And that has its ownconstitutional issues.
There are a bunch of issues about gettingaccess to immigrants and detention.

(02:33:23):
So there's a bucket that is immigrationrelated, which is what we anticipated.
There's no question about it.
And then there's a bucket that has to dowith executive action, which is first is
lawsuits challenging the reinstatementof Schedule F for career employees.
Schedule F was something that Trumptried before that would reclassify.

(02:33:45):
People protected by civil service topolitical appointees to make it easier,
no doubt for him to fire and replace them.
What's of course interesting is that withrespect to the FBI officials, they're not
waiting for Schedule F, the FBI officials.
That they are going after our career.
Employees who are protected by civilservice from being wrongfully discharged

(02:34:10):
or discharged on a political basis.
And then there are the variouslawsuits that came out of Doge.
Uh, I sort of wanna have a Star Trekscreen when I say this, you know,
um, which has to do with Elon Muskand his band of renowned trying
to get access to various OMB, theOffice of Management and Budget.

(02:34:32):
We've heard that he's trying toget access to Noah, the National
Oceanic and uh, uh, administration.
There's a lawsuit having to dowith the disclosure of people's
personnel records to Doge.
So access to informationis the second big bucket.
So there's immigration.
Access to information by Elon Musk.

(02:34:52):
And then there's a removal of the firingof individuals, one of which is the
likely firing of the FBI officials.
There are challenges to thepause quote called temporary
pause of grants and, and loans.
Those are the buckets.
I don't, for the life of me knowwhat hasn't been challenged, but
once it's announced, there is amobilization of lawyers to go into

(02:35:14):
court, because this is more than yourquestion, but I'm happy to go there.
There are three explanationsfor what they're doing.
One explanation is, is that theydon't even realize that it's illegal.
That's hard to believe.
That's hard to believe.
The other is that they know it'sillegal and they're likely to lose
in court on the illegal actions,but they basically wanna scare the
hell out of government employees.

(02:35:35):
So they leave.
And the third bucket is that they knowit's illegal and this is the scary one,
and they don't care and they don't.
Care and that they will therefore barrelon through knowing that it's illegal.
That third alternativeshould chill all of us.
This is a government intentionallyacting lawlessly, and as I said,

(02:35:59):
it's possible they don't know.
That doesn't make any sense.
It's possible that they'll go, whoops.
Frankly, as they did withthe impoundment issue, right?
They tried to impound funds.
A court said, you can't do that, or withbirthright citizenship, you can't do that.
They go, whoops.
But they have scared the hellout of people in the interim
or the third bucket is that theyare intentionally violating the law

(02:36:24):
and court orders will not matter.
Then we have full fledged coup.
Your response to Edelman and the largerpicture, uh, of the question of what
fights to pick in the Trump era kindof struck a chord with me, as maybe you
can tell, uh, for a number of reasons.
But first, focusing on just the Gulfof Mexico, the, the so-called fight.

(02:36:46):
Why is that a fight worthpicking as you see it?
I mean, I actually come at this froma little bit different perspective.
Mm-hmm.
Which is, which is right now, I thinkthe, the nature of, um, the situation
that we're in and the, the breadth anddepth of the ways that we're in trouble.
Mm-hmm.
And things are stacked against us.
And an an autocratic movement hascontrol of our entire government.

(02:37:09):
Much of the news media, um,much of the ways that people get
information, uh, online thingsare really stacked against us.
We are not in a situation in which thereare obvious, clear, easily discernible,
winnable fights that we can choose.
Mm-hmm.
And so this idea that, you know,people should, should only choose,
you know, fights that they can win,I, I actually think people should

(02:37:30):
choose the fights that that feel.
I. Right to them in the moment and thatthey can get, uh, something out of,
and we should, we should all be doing,uh, a little less trying to police
what fights other people are choosing.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, to engage in and more justfinding a place we can stand up.
Um, and, and, and.
And pick a fight where we can, andwe will probably lose it because

(02:37:51):
we will probably lose most of them.
Mm-hmm.
But sometimes in theloss, there's some value.
And in this one, there's some value.
There's some value in saying, look, wecan't stop Donald Trump from ordering
his government to refer to the Gulfof Mexico as the Gulf of America.
Mm-hmm.
But we can say we are notgoing along with that.
It is racist and dumb andhe can't make us say it.

(02:38:12):
And there's, there's value in, insaying that to ourselves in, in not
giving into his control of the Englishlanguage or his attempt to, and there's
value in, in showing our fellow, uh,you know, our fellow Americans that
we're not going along with that.
And that there's, there, there canbe a, a, some solidarity in that,
that I think is really valuable.
Again, kind of particularly forthe people who are the targets of.
What again, is this very racist move.

(02:38:33):
He's not trying to rename, um, youknow, the Gulf of Mexico by accident.
It's, it's specifically because it'sthe Gulf of Mexico that he's chosen it.
I, and I agree with thatin general actually.
I agree with that in whole, but there is.
Uh, and I wanna talk moreabout that in a second.
But there is really some very specificFirst Amendment implications here.

(02:38:56):
You know, this comes on a day that, um,Trump loyalist and MAGA merchandiser,
cash Patel has been confirmed asthe new director of the FBI after
recently declaring he would go aftermedia outlets that he didn't like.
So here you have.
The Associated Press saying, look,uh, we know it's a simple thing.

(02:39:16):
You're locking us out ofthe, uh, oval Office because
you don't like what we said.
But that's actually a First Amendment,uh, issue that kind of seems like
it needs to be stood up for here.
And I don't know, I was kinda surprisedthat the, uh, senior editor of the
Atlantic didn't even seem to address that.
Yeah, he, he seemed pretty confusedoverall about what his position even was.

(02:39:41):
I mean, as you noted, he concluded hispiece by acknowledging that Donald Trump
doesn't control the English languageand people can decide for themselves
what to call the Gulf of Mexico.
I. That's all the Associated Press did.
Right?
Um, and, and so Donald Trump and hisadministration trying to respond to that
by punishing the Associated Press fordoing nothing more than calling the Gulf

(02:40:01):
of Mexico, what it has always been called
Um, is, is pretty outrageous.
You know, Trump's Trump's renamingof the Gulf of Mexico only applies
to how the government refers to it.
Mm-hmm.
He has no legal authority to mandatehow the rest of us talk about it,
including the Associated Press.
So there clearly is a, a First Amendmentissue there and a Freedom speech issue.
And yes, I take your point thatit is bizarre for a member of the

(02:40:24):
news media, um, writing in theAtlantic to, to, to say that that's,
that's something that's not worth.
Standing up for,
and lemme go a little bit further.
Uh, there, the White House CorrespondenceAssociation, as far as I know, uh,
you know, some of us have calledfor them to, again, not the great
largest issue in the world, but Ithink it, you know, if you let this

(02:40:46):
one go, there's a lot more coming.
So, uh, you know, I've called forthe White House Correspondence
Association to back up AP in this fight.
Some have called for, uh.
For them to, you know, have theiraffiliates boycott White House press
avails, uh, in, in, in response untilAP is allowed back in, into the room.
If they have done that,I haven't heard about it.

(02:41:06):
Should they?
And, and if they have, if theyhave not, why wouldn't they?
My understanding and, and all I knowis from what I've, what I've read
in some of the reporting mm-hmm.
But is that they're, they're trying towork behind the scenes to push back on
this thinking that if they pick, uh,the correspondence association, that
is, if they pick a very public fightover this, uh, d Trump administration
won't only harden its position,but if they can perhaps behind

(02:41:28):
the scenes negotiate some sort of.
Satisfying resolution thatmight be the best outcome.
I, I'm willing to deferto their judgment on that.
They know better than I do whatconversations they're having.
Um, but to go back to a pointyou made a minute ago, um.
You know, about what, whathappens if we back down on this?
I think that actually is areally good argument for standing

(02:41:49):
firm on things like this.
Mm-hmm.
Like this is a relatively, um, lowstakes fight in, in, in re, you know,
relative to some of the other thingsthis administration is going to do.
Mm-hmm.
Like illegally deporting people, um,illegally harassing people via the IRS.
Right.
Uh, what happens if the Trumpadministration sees that people
won't take even a low effort?

(02:42:09):
Low consequence stand against theirdumbest and most unnecessary actions.
That's just an invitation toroll over a on everything else.
This is literally just a matter ofpeople using the phrase Gulf of Mexico
I tell folks all the time, you know, thepress we're not the enemy of the people,
we're defenders of the people and we're,we're here to hold their feet to the fire.
And one of the reasons why DonaldTrump behaves that way, he's still

(02:42:31):
behaving that way, is because, uh, one,he can't handle the hard questions.
And two, there's just apart of him that thinks.
We, the people don't have the right toask these kinds of questions, and he's,
and he's just wrong on both counts.
Um, and Ally, you've beendoing this for a long time.
Um, you, you know what, what wehave to do, we have a job to do and,
and we're gonna continue to do it.
And for the folks over at theWhite House right now, uh, doing

(02:42:54):
what we do for a living, myadvice to them is to stand firm.
Stand your ground.
Yeah.
You were writing about this exclusionof certain people from the pool and,
and most regular Americans are not.
Not really clear on what the pool does,why it's important, but it's this, you
know, when you gotta go into a smallspace like an airplane, or you're
traveling with the president or the OvalOffice where all the reporters can't

(02:43:14):
come in, um, we rely on these people.
They're from differentnews, uh, organizations.
You may not watch them on a regular basis.
M-S-N-B-C viewers get informationfrom, uh, a Fox reporter who's in
the pool because there's an agreementamongst you reporters that you will
report the information accuratelyif you're part of that pool.
When you remove people from that,you're taking control of something
the state shouldn't have control over.

(02:43:36):
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
I mean, look at what happenedto me after that exchange
you just played back in 2018.
The White House at that time took mypress pass away and we had to take
Donald Trump to court to get it back.
And it was a Trump appointedjudge, uh, who gave it back to me.
And you know, I think that you might seethe same sort of thing this time around.
I mean, first of all, we have to say.
You know, we're not the most popularpeople in the world, as you said.

(02:43:57):
Pain in the ass.
I've been called lots of things.
Ally, I'm sure you have as well.
Um, it goes with the territory.
If you wanna be liked, go be aveterinarian, as I like to tell folks.
Uh, but, you know, listen, I, the presspool is a very important institution.
I. Um, over at the White House, you havethe networks, uh, the television networks,
trading places every day as to who'sgonna be in the Oval Office, who's gonna

(02:44:17):
be on Air Force, one with the president.
You have print outlets like the NewYork Times and The Washington Post.
And then you have important institutionslike the Associated Press, who have been
kicked out of the Oval Office, kicked offof Air Force One because they won't do
something as silly as referring to theGulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
Something that Donald Trump justmade up off the top of his head.
I mean, I, you know, to me, we justshouldn't be in a situation where.

(02:44:39):
We're kicked out of the press poolbecause we won't, uh, succumb to the
warped imagination of the, uh, wanttobe autocrat in the Oval Office.
And I, I was glad to see theAssociated Press take him to court.
And my guess is in time when this, uh,makes its way through the process, a
judge, and perhaps it'll be a, a Trumpappointed judge, we'll say that the
White House can't get away with this.

(02:45:00):
Uh,
the, a lot of people get theirnews from sources that they don't
know they're getting it from.
So you just mentioned the wire services,Bloomberg, Reuters Associated Press.
Putting aside the fact that many of usas journalists use the Associated Press
style guides for how we determine how wesay things or what we put on the screen.
Um, but, but, but that stuffmakes it into your local coverage
without you actually knowing whatthe source of that reporting was.

(02:45:21):
That's the danger here.
It's not, it's not Donald Trumpcalling you and Peter Alexander rude
and things like that, because atleast that's out there in the open.
It's this.
Insidious removal of, of press passesof, of, uh, access to, to the presidency.
Uh, that's, I think the,the more dangerous part.
At least your stuffplays out in real life.
When people get to opine aboutwhether they think Jim Acosta should

(02:45:41):
get his press pass or not, you'regonna just see coverage disappear.
Yeah.
No, there's no question about it.
And, and listen, Ali, you and I bothknow all too, all too well, the ap,
um, is a critical, uh, part of the freeflow of information in American society.
They have reporters in,I think all 50 states.
Uh, they have reporters in somehundred countries around the world.

(02:46:02):
I think billions of people see their, uh,product and, and they're a cooperative.
It's not like they're out there.
Making tons of money.
They're, they're here for the journalism.
And keep in mind what took place theother day we're at the White House Ally.
Um, according to Andrew Feinberg ofthe Independent, uh, the White House
almost let a representative fromthe ta, Russian State Media News
Agency, um, into the pool spray andnot the Associated Press or Reuters.

(02:46:27):
And that was also confirmedby a Reuters reporter.
Over there at the White House.
And so what are we doing here in thiscountry where you have the White House,
you have press officials whose salariesare paid for with our tax dollars.
They're letting in tasks,they're letting in the Russian
media agency, uh, but not, uh.
The Associated Press.

(02:46:47):
I mean, this is just lunacy and it justgoes back to, uh, you know, Donald Trump
just having incredibly thin skin whenit comes to taking the hard questions.
He's just never been very good at it.
Ally, and I think you and I are both,are long time observers of this.
I, I think he wants the press to sortof function in the way that the Tablos
did in New York when he was a realestate magnet in, uh, in Manhattan.

(02:47:09):
And that's just not howit works in Washington.
We're here to dig.
We're here to get information.
We're here to ask the hard questions.
And, and, and honestly, it's whythe First Amendment is there.
And, and he can't just throwthat out the window willy-nilly.
Um, and, and have just, you know,fawning, propagandists and sycophants
in the Oval Office with him.
I mean, imagine if you just had a bunchof people in the Oval Office with him

(02:47:32):
asking questions like the guy the otherday who was saying suit to President.
Zel, why didn't you wear a suit?
Yeah, imagine.
Yeah.
Imagine if you just had a, a handfulof people doing that sort of thing.
What would be the reactionfrom the American people?
Yeah.
They would think this is likethe Muppet show or something.
They, they would just find it to be sheerlunacy or it just wouldn't make any sense,
or they get used to it over time.
That's the danger, right?
Because, because there are governmentswho do this, and then you get used to

(02:47:54):
the idea that, uh, it, that the, thesepress conferences not press conferences.
They're a parade of the.
You know, the ac achievements andaccomplishments of the dear leader,
Jim, let's talk about Friday and whathappened in the White House with Zelinsky.
Ironically, you're one of those peoplewho've been the subject of a very
public thing in which Donald Trumpdecides that he's just gonna go after
someone in the way that he does.

(02:48:15):
Uh, however, uh, like you zelinsky, uh.
Didn't seem to flinch much.
Uh, the guy's been at war for threeyears, so I don't know that Donald
Trump yelling at him is, or JD Vanceyelling at him is the biggest deal.
But experts tell me this may be anirreparable breach, that what is,
what happened on Friday is a, is arupture in a world order that we've
been familiar with for 80 years.

(02:48:38):
Yeah, I mean, I, I did a, uh, podcaston this, on Substack on Friday, wrote
a piece about it over the weekend.
I mean, ally, you know, I think.
Watching what unfolded on Friday,um, wa was, was a difficult moment,
I think, for a lot of Americans.
And because it's just not who we are.
Uh, we're, we're not the kindof country that turns its back

(02:48:59):
on, on friends, uh, turns.
Its back on countries fightingfor democratic, uh, freedoms
and that's exactly what.
Took place in the Oval Office onFriday to see Donald Trump and JD
Vance berating velo, Zelinsky andaccusing him of not thanking the
United States, which hello, fact check.
Um, he's thanked the United Statesdozens of times all the time.

(02:49:21):
He's done all the timepublicly, over and over again.
And so, I mean, but it, but it, it wasalmost like, and we're seeing this a lot.
Uh, during these early weeks of the secondTrump administration, almost everything
the president says, or the vice presidentsays, or top administration officials say,
sounds like talking points over on Fox.
It just comes out of the conservativeconspiracy theory, latent ecosphere, I.

(02:49:42):
That just leads them down the path of sortof Alice Wonderland stuff and, you know,
and it just felt like, you know, VeloMer Zelinsky was, was pulled into that.
He went down the rabbit holewith Trump and, and JD Vance.
And this is somebody who has beencourageously leading his country, um,
after was invaded by the Russians.
Yes.
It was invaded by theRussians three years ago.

(02:50:03):
And it, it, you know, I, I, that'swhat pained me almost the most in
hearing that reporter asking Zelensky.
You know why he wasn't wearing a suit?
Like, hello, have you, have youseen Elon Musk wearing his dark
MAGA hat in the Oval Office?
Did anybody have any questions about that?
You know, this is serious stuffand you need serious people in
the room asking real questions.

(02:50:25):
Republicans plan to give the RichedAmericans a fresh round of individual
tax breaks slash the corporate taxrate yet again and cut tax on capital
gains and dividends, which would lettheir Wall Street friends keep even
more of their winnings when they sella stock or are shower with dividends.
I don't understand how emptyyou have to be as a person.

(02:50:46):
For this to drive you.
Imagine already having all themoney in the world, all the money
you could, you wouldn't be able toeven spend it in a lifetime, in a,
in, in a hundred million lifetimes.
But you want to continue doing it again.
You need more and more and more and more.
While on the other side of that budgetcuts for programs that Americans

(02:51:09):
who are nowhere near your sort ofwealth and power and privilege.
You want to cut programsthat they need to survive.
So of course, including things likeMedicaid and snap, which helps more than
42 million families afford the groceries.
This gets to, uh, Bernie Sanders, whyhe's here, and what he wants voters
specifically in these areas to do.

(02:51:30):
So what we got right now isRepublican leadership as we
speak, are working on this bill.
Massive tax breaks for the rich.
Paid for by cuts to Medicaideducation, housing, and the
programs that working people need.
Now, it turns out that in the Houseof Representatives, there is right

(02:51:58):
now a reality where Republicanshave a very, very slim majority.
Republicans have, asI recall, 218 members.
Democrats have 215, havea three vote majority.
That is not much.
If two Republicans go to theSpeaker of the house and say, Mr.

(02:52:22):
Speaker, no way am I gonnabetray my constituents.
No way am I gonna make massive cutsin Medicaid and other programs to
give tax breaks to billionaires,if two Republicans do it, that.
Terrible Bill is defeated and whatI am asking you to do is make sure

(02:52:46):
that your congressman, Mr. Bacon,is one of those two Republicans.
This is the point of the specific.
Events is to target these voters inthese Republican districts to put
pressure on their representatives.
So one of them mentioned there was, uh,bacon, representative Bacon, the other
is, uh, representative Miller Meeks.

(02:53:06):
And the intention is to ensurethis bill doesn't go through.
Now, they're gonna have to contendwith the fact that, uh, Charles Koch
has launched a $20 million campaignbacking Trump's tax, Bri tax breaks.
So they're going to try and argue thatthis is actually good for people that.
It's great to give even moremoney to massive corporations and

(02:53:28):
billionaires and cut programs thatpeople, that regular people are using.
It's a great idea.
So, uh, and this is how they foolpeople for, for decades at this point.
I mean, the amount of money and timethrough avenues like Fox News Am Radio,
since, you know, the, the 1980s, thisis what has slowly turned people.

(02:53:49):
Turned, uh, conservatives intothese complete lunatics who have a
hard time even understanding whatreality is because they have been so
conditioned to believe this trash,that at some point, at some point
these billionaires are gonna help us.
And oh yeah, it's the Democrats thatare the elites, only them not, you know,
the billionaire cabinet that Trump has.

(02:54:11):
It is just, uh, insane, but.
These are the two links that Trump goeson to, um, mention in his speeches.
So the one for Omaha, it's berniesanders.com/nebraska and he encourages
you to call your representative, butsomething worth mentioning here as well.

(02:54:31):
Uh, I will attend an organized training.
I will host a meeting house party.
There's an attempt here to not justput pressure on representatives,
but also try and build some sortof organizing apparatus, at least
specifically in these, these areas.
And I'm sure he is gonna have, you know,more speeches in, in other districts.

(02:54:53):
And there seems to be an attempthere to try and really organize
people in these areas and how he'sgoing to, you know, maybe utilize
that in the future in some way.
It remains to be seen,but this is the start.
Knowing who your neighbors are, organizingwith them, understand that there is
a, a, a collective, uh, goal here.

(02:55:14):
And this is how eventually,uh, the people win.
It takes time, it takes organizing,it takes, uh, people power,
but it can't eventually happen.
And here's the other link,the one for, uh, Iowa.
This one, Bernie sanders.com/iowa.
So same thing here, but justdifferent representatives.
Very, uh, interesting start here.

(02:55:35):
So I assume he's gonna continue this.
Bernie Sanders is one of the few people inCongress who's able to, I say few people.
I think the only person reallythat is able to get these sorts
of crowds for an event that isn'ta campaign or a primary event.
Like it is wild to see these crowds.
So it's good to see him utilizinghis power in a way that organizes

(02:55:58):
people and isn't just about, a vote.
That's going to be it for today.
Thanks to Podcasthon.org for theirefforts inspiring collective action
for good causes this week, andthanks to Indivisible.org for their
efforts to help save our democracy.
Don't forget to getinvolved any way you can.
As always, keep the comments coming in.
I would love to hear your thoughtsor questions about today's topic or

(02:56:19):
our upcoming topics, which includethe assault on LGBTQ rights, and a
deep dive into the shifting internalpolitics of the Democratic Party.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.
You can reach us on the privacy-focusedmessaging app Signal at the username
bestoftheleft.01, or you can simplyemail me to Jay@BestOfTheLeft.Com.

(02:56:44):
The additional sections of the showincluded clips from Unf*ing The Republic,
What Comes Next?, Democracy Works, YourUndivided Attention, Hope and Hard Pills,
Factually with Adam Conover, Outrage andOptimism, The Climate Podcast, Edge of
Sports, Tech Won't Save Us, Jacobin Radio,The Brian Lehrer Show, Make Your Damn Bed,

(02:57:06):
Against the Grain, Amicus, The BradCast,Velshi, and The Rational National.
Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening.
Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Claytonfor their research work for the show,
and participation in our bonus episodes.
Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken,Brian and Ben for their volunteer work
helping put our transcripts together.
Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for allof her work behind the scenes

(02:57:28):
and her bonus show co-hosting.
And thanks to those who alreadysupport the show by becoming a member
or purchasing gift memberships.
You'll join them by signing uptoday at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support,
through our Patreon page, or fromright inside the Apple Podcast app.
Membership is how you get instant accessto our incredibly good and often funny
weekly bonus episodes, in addition tothere being no ads, and chapter markers

(02:57:51):
in all of our regular episodes, allthrough your regular podcast player.
You'll find that link in the shownotes, along with the link to join
our Discord community, where youcan also continue the discussion.
And don't forget to follow us on anyand all new social media platforms
you might be joining these days.
So coming to you from far outside theconventional wisdom of Washington, DC, my
name is Jay!, and this has been the Bestof the Left podcast coming to you twice

(02:58:13):
weekly, thanks entirely to the members anddonors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.Com.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#1698 Resistance is Not Futile: Support the collective revolt against Trumpism (Special Podcasthon!)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

#1698 Resistance is Not Futile: Support the collective revolt against Trumpism (Special Podcasthon!)

Dateline NBC