#1701 Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Installing the Backbone Democrats Need

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):
Love them or loathe them, theDemocratic Party is the political
institution available to the leftto structurally take on Trumpism.
But we need a whole lot of new energyand new commitments to the fight
to turn them into an oppositionworthy of the moment we face.
For those looking for a quick overview,the sources providing our Top Takes in

(00:24):
about 50 minutes today includes All Inwith Chris Hayes, Kat Abughazaleh, The
Majority Report, Bean Thinking, and JBPritzker via the Human Rights Campaign.
Then in the additional Deeper Diveshalf of the show, there will be more

in five sections (00:37):
Section A. Failures; followed by Section B. Conservatives;
Section C. Energy; Section D. Pushbackto the failures; and Section E. History.
But first, we are in majorpromotion mode as we launch our
new weekly YouTube show, SOLVED!
That's all caps, exclamation point.

(00:58):
We really need everyhand on deck we can get.
So subscribe to the Best of theLeft YouTube channel, Watch, Like,
Comment, all of those things.
Our super supporters are even helpingto train the algorithm by watching
other progressive shows on YouTubebefore jumping over to ours, so that
the system knows who to recommend us to.
So thanks so much to everyonehelping us get off the ground

(01:21):
during this critical time.
We are really proud of the show and wantas many people as possible to see it.
Now as a sneak peek, I'm gonna sharea special piece of our most recent
episode, currently only available toBest of the Left members, but it's very
relevant to today's topic and I loveit so much, I can't resist sharing.
I don't think I've even mentionedit yet, but we're making songs for

(01:44):
the show, and they've been comingout better than I dared hope.
So definitely get ready for thatafter our Top Takes section today.
And now onto the show.
Some people think we are in aconstitutional crisis, that there
is a plan in place to impose adictatorship on this country that

(02:04):
is being executed as we speak.
And Senator Schumer does notthink we are quite there yet.
If democracy is at risk,that's a little different than
what we're talking about now.
Even a shutdown, as horrible asit is, we'll all have to stand
up and fight back in every way.
I think actually this is useful becauseI do think just in again, in a genuine
sort of good faith way, that there's alot of people, and I think I probably

(02:28):
count myself among them, who thinkthat that's where we are right now.
That the plan being deployed right now
-- Okay.
You may be right.
I don't think so.
We're there.
I think we're getting
-- You think we're not there yet?
Well, I think we're getting thereand we have to be really vigilant.
I just had a meeting today with theJudiciary Committee to decide how we're
working through this, as it goes further.
It hasn't been up to the SupremeCourt yet, which would be the classic,

(02:48):
if they disobey the Supreme Court.
We're on our way there, God forbid.
But I think we are.
And we'll have to go atit and at it and at it.
And that is different than anything else.
Different than anything else.
It's a quantum leap different becauseour democracy is then 248 years of
American democracy, the Magna Cartais out the window, and we will all

(03:09):
have to take extraordinary action.
I gotta say, I genuinely hope thatSchumer's read on this is correct, right?
But it makes it very hard to imaginea leader meeting the moment if they
don't believe the moment is here.
For me, Donald Trump's intentionsare really very clear at this point.
He is in the process of attemptingto undo the Constitutional Republic.

(03:34):
His executive branch is in the process ofovertaking, of reducing to subservience
the legislative and judicial branchesof the government, Congress and the
courts, so that he can act unilaterally.
Even within his executive purview,the president is purging anything,
anyone that falls short of pledgingunshakeable, loyal to him personally

(03:56):
and his personal political project,not the United States, not the
Constitution, and not We the People.
I mean from the FBI to the Departmentof Justice, to the Federal Trade
Commission, and on and on and on.
These institutions, day after day,are being cleared of officials,
career officials, who may favor therule of law over Trump's wins, and
they're being replaced with loyalists,all in open flagrant violation

(04:19):
of the law, like clearly illegal.
As the New York Times reports, Trump isusing the vast powers of the presidency
to hobble his political opponents aswell, including bogus investigations
into Democratic fundraising platforms,threats to shut down nonprofit
organizations he sees as oppositional.
And it's not just thegovernment or partisan entities.

(04:40):
Trump wants to dismantle allforms of public opposition to his
power grabs, starting with allsources of independent authority.
Any institution with credibilitymust either be bent to
Trump's win or destroyed.
That's the goal here.
I mean, again, he says this every day.
He's repeatedly threatenedindependent media outlets, including

(05:00):
this one, for coverage he deemsto be insufficiently fawning.
He said that he thinks it's illegal,that people should be in jail.
He is currently conducting anunprecedented attack on American
higher education, including justtoday, freezing $175 million in
federal funding to his own almamater, the University of Pennsylvania.
He's openly defying the Constitution.

(05:20):
He tries to deport a legal residentfor his protected political speech.
This is it, man.
This is, he's, trying it.
I'm not saying he is being successful.
I'm not saying that all is lost andthey're gonna win and doom and gloom.
But they're trying to do it.

(05:41):
They're trying to get rid of independentvoices of authority, purge them,
fracture a pluralistic civil society.
It is clear as day to so many of us,including, I will say, scholars of
authoritarian regimes and especially-- and this is pretty important -- lots
of folks who have lived through theseregimes, like people that have been in

(06:04):
dictatorships in Latin America or recentlyin Hungary or in Turkey or in Russia.
Listen to them.
And part of the issue, I think rightnow, particularly with Democratic
leadership and the role they're playing,in Democratic elected politicians,
stems from a legitimate concern whichties to how we got to this point.

(06:25):
As we heard last night, there's asense among Democrats, one that is not
totally wrong and based in some of thedata that democracy itself, preserving
the Constitutional order, is justnot a particularly salient political
issue, particularly for people thatare not super, super paying attention.
That's based on the facts that Democratsdid spend a lot of the 2024 election cycle

(06:47):
hammering their messaging about threatsto democracy and civil society, and
then they lost the election, ultimatelybecause voters, particularly those
voters on the most margins of payingattention to politics and news, were
most concerned about pocketable issues,specifically the high cost of living,
which is what they told every pollster.
And so because of that, I think a lotof Democrats in power, and political

(07:12):
consultants around the Democratic Party,have come to conclude that democracy
is a losing issue politically, and weshould -- they should -- talk about
Medicaid cuts, for instance, instead.
Every day we are hammering away at Trump.
And we have a simple, simplethought that unites the Democratic

(07:32):
Party from one end to the other.
He's asking the middle class to payfor tax cuts for the billionaires.
It unites us all.
Bernie Sanders like it, and mymost conservative members like it.
We're hammering away at that.
Today it was Medicaid.
Tomorrow's gonna be, in the nextfew days, it's gonna be tariffs.
He's raising those tariffs, raisingyour costs, Mr. and Mrs. American, by
$2,000 a year if he raises all thesetariffs, so that he can use that money

(07:56):
for tax cuts for the billionaires.
He's cutting your education funds and soyour kids don't get a great education and
your school taxes will go up for that.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I think that's good and clearmessaging and it, we do a lot of
coverage of the economic dynamicsand, destruction of Trump here.
I understand the instinct tostick to kitchen table issues.

(08:18):
I don't think it's necessarily the wronglesson to have learned from the election.
But again, the terrain has shiftedtoo much since November of 2024.
And I do fear Democrats arecaught fighting the last war.
All of those things you enumerated,which all sound like good politics
to me, are the kinds of things thatyou'd be doing if Mit Romney were

(08:40):
president, that there's this weirdasymmetry right now, which is that
-- No, because
-- They are acting in this totally new way
--Yes.
In which they are ambitiouslytrying to seize all power and
create a presidential dictatorshipin the United States of America.
Yes.
And the Democratic opposition is actinglike, well, if we can get their pool
rate down a few points, then what?
No.
No.
Then what happens?
Well, what happens is, look,first we get it way down.

(09:03):
He's gonna have much like -- thisworked in 2017, we say it didn't.
Now it's a different government.
It's different though.
My God.
Oh, it is different.
But healthcare, we beat him.
Taxes, we beat him.
And guess what we did?
Guess what we did, Chris?
We took back the House and won in theSenate and that got, and then we were
allowed to do all those good things.
Again, Senator Schumer understandspolitical strategy and he's

(09:23):
right about that history, andhe is right that that type of
resistance did work eight years ago.
And in many ways, that firstTrump administration just
politically was a failure.
I mean, it got a huget cutto billionaires, surprise
surprise, and corporations.
But again, it just -- when you arepaying as close attention as we are here
on this program, here at the network,and I think a lot of you watching at

(09:45):
home, it just does seem that now isthe time to break glass, that it's
not the time for politics as usual.
I mean, first of all, Trump is alreadyunderwater for the first time in his
career on the question of the economy,which is interesting, and I think
welcome news both for Democrats andthose opposed to what he's doing.
The state of the stock market amidTrump's trade war is doing a pretty

(10:06):
good job messaging pocketbookissues itself, along with the
terrorists that are coming April 2nd.
But more importantly, Iwould say, you don't have to
choose -- I strongly believe this.
It's all one thing.
It's all one thing.
The threat to democracy has become somuch more tangible than it was when folks

(10:26):
went to the ballot four months ago, inpart because this entire Mad King act
is wreaking havoc in every direction.
And with that in mind, a lot of leaderSchumer's Democratic colleagues believe
it's time to basically fight backharder, as Senator Chris Murphy of
Connecticut has been out there saying.
This moment requires us to break norms.

(10:48):
This moment requires us to take risks.
And I get it.
A lot of my colleagues said, shuttingdown the government, being in a
government shutdown, that's a risk.
That hands power to DonaldTrump and Elon Musk.
But how on earth are we gonnaask the American people to
take risks for us, right?
When there's a five alarm constitutionalfire, and we need them to be out on
the streets, not with hundreds, notwith thousands or tens of thousands of

(11:09):
people, but with hundreds of thousandsof people, if we're not willing to
show courage and take risks ourselves.
He's right.
Hundreds of thousands of people,that's what it's gonna take.
Honestly.
I think now is the time to takepolitical risks before it's too late.
Politico released this articleabout a Democratic retreat in
Loudoun County, Virginia last month.
Attended by staffers, consultants,electeds, and party leadership,

(11:30):
this group laid out 20 solutionsto win back the working class.
And all of them, at least theones listed in this article,
are various middle fingers.
Because instead of reflecting on wherethey went wrong in Harris's campaign,
like not differentiating her and Biden atall, or courting this mythical Liz Cheney
super fan, or putting a muzzle on TimWalz, these Democrats have decided it's

(11:52):
just easier to become Republican light.
Here are some actual quotes fromthis Democratic party "Victory Plan."
"Democrats should ban far left candidatequestionnaires and refuse to participate
in forums that create ideologicalpurity tests." This is a pretty obvious
dig at an ACLU survey in 2019 givento Democratic primary candidates.
Republicans exploited itfor culture war reasons.

(12:13):
I do think that that survey wasunnecessary and weirdly worded, especially
for a primary, but I'm not sure it's likethe main thing we should be focusing on.
Also, this point raises a lotmore questions than answers.
What counts as far left?
In this case, would it be the ACLU?
Why do you need to controlor ban these institutions?
And like how often is this an issue?

(12:35):
Are you spending all of your timedoing ideological purity tests?
When is the last timeyou saw your children?
Okay, this one's my favorite.
"Democrats should also move away from thedominance of small dollar donors whose
preferences may not align with the broaderelectorate." Excuse me, what the fuck?
Small dollar donors?
You mean the average American who canonly spare like five to 10 bucks 'cause

(12:58):
they're living paycheck to paycheck?
Motherfucker, that isthe broader electorate.
Also, if you think corporate moneyand rich people are the answers to
small dollar donors, guess what?
You're a Republican.
"Democrats should push back againstfar left staffers and groups that
exert a disproportionate influenceon policy and messaging." Once
again, what's the far left here?

(13:19):
Also, what groups?
That phrase is vague on purpose.

But here's a little secret (13:22):
Behind closed doors, a lot of powerful Democrats and
donors refer to the millions of diverse,complex lives that make up our country
as "the groups." And if that feelsdehumanizing, that's because it is.
Also, if you think transgenderpeople or Muslims or disabled
people had disproportionateinfluence over the last election,

(13:45):
I'd ask how they feel about that.
Candidates should get out of elite circlesand into real communities, like tailgates,
gun shows, local restaurants, churches.
Hypothetically, this could be good, butyou have to wonder what they mean by
"elites." Especially because we knowbig donors, i.e. rich people, are good.
As someone who monitors political andparticularly conservative media for work,

(14:05):
I can tell you what it actually means.
Academia, artistic communities,"the groups," you know, the
opposite of real America.
Also, how fucking insulting is this?
These devs watched one episode of Kingof the Hill, didn't understand what
the episode was actually about, andwas like, yeah, we're going with that.
If you actually want conservative voters,don't cosplay what you think they are.

(14:26):
They'll think you're disingenuous,because you're being disingenuous.
But if you actually wanted to make adifference, you could use some of those
big dollar donors to provide physical aidto people who have lost their jobs because
of Trump, who can't access their Medicaid.
You could be the tangible lifeboat tothe effects of the man they voted for.
That would change far moreminds than pretending that

(14:48):
you know how to shoot a gun.
But this leads beautifullyinto our last bullet.
"The party needs to own the failuresof Democratic governance in large
cities and commit to improvinglocal government." This is a right
wing dog whistle, plain and simple.
Conservatives constantly complain aboutDemocratic-run cities, so that way
they can spread racist narratives thatincrease police funding and surveillance.

(15:10):
It keeps their audienceparanoid -- just how they want them.
For Democrats to be saying that is scary.
I do agree, we need to supportand highlight local government
way more, but to do that youneed to look at large cities.
80% of America lives in urban areas.
Those people matter justas much as the other 20%.
This is not moderation.

(15:30):
It's soft radicalization.
We didn't lose to Trump becauseKamala Harris was too woke.
We lost to Trump because theDemocratic party refused to change.
They refused to have an actualprimary to give voters another
option besides Joe Biden.
And once Harris was in, theystalled her momentum, reigning her
in so she didn't go too far left.
And it's not because they didn't wannaalienate conservative voters; it's

(15:54):
because they didn't want those goals-- those far left ideas -- to happen.
Most progressive policies arewildly popular if you don't
market them like an idiot.
For example, the vast majorityof Americans would love for their
tax dollars to pay for the doctor.
The vast majority of Americans wantmore than a month off when they have
a baby, and to be able to affordchildcare when they go back to work.

(16:16):
They want their tax dollars spenton fixing roads and funding schools
and paying for their parents'social security rather than
bombs and corporate tax breaks.
There is no reason we can't have allof this, except for the fact that it
takes a lot of work, and corporationswould earn a little bit less in profit.
And I mean, we can't losetheir lobbying dollars, can we?
This is why a shit ton of peoplein Congress, regardless of party,

(16:38):
don't even try to make thingsbetter, and why even more people in
the media demonize those policies.
If these policies weren't popular,people like Rupert Murdoch wouldn't
have to spend billions of dollarsto convince you that they're not.
The Democratic party is supposedto be the opposition party.
Yes, we deserve more than a two partysystem, but we don't have that yet.
So this means right now, Democratseither need to step up or step down.

(17:02):
We don't need an opposition partythat tries to accomplish the same
stuff as the other guys, but alittle quieter, a little more polite.
There is one way to move the needle here,and we have to do it while we still can.
The answer is to primary everyDemocrat who is not doing their job.
And guess what?
You can do it.
You'll either win and then you can runin the general election, and try to

(17:22):
make your vision reality in Congress.
Or you lose, and that sucks.
But guess what?
Most incumbent Democratsaren't used to primaries.
And by running against them, you havejeopardized their access to power,
which is the only thing the vastmajority of Congress cares about.
You're starting to see polls out of areal dissent within the Democratic Party.

(17:44):
And to be clear, these polls, 40%,I think it is -- this is off the top
of my head -- 40% want the Democraticparty, to move towards the center.
I think it's 29% want to move to the left.
And I can't remember the thirdpercent feels it's just right.

(18:08):
All those people agree with Berniethe way that, in my opinion, the
center moderation stuff I don't buy.
Well, the thing is, is that it's verydifficult to quantify this, right?
Or to qualify it.
I have spoken to people many, manytimes who have said I was either
gonna vote for Trump or Bernie.

(18:30):
I have spoken to people who
considered themselves moderate Democratsduring the Biden years who supported
Bernie over Biden, and I'm like, yourealize you're to the left of Biden?
And they just didn't know.
It's just
-- That paradigm is not applicable.

(18:51):
Very difficult, but liberalmeans professional type of stuff.
Like Hillary saying "too bigto fail" won't stop racism.
That's what people are reacting against.
I'm convinced in those polls.
That's the "liberalism"that they're rejecting.
Let's put it this way.
It's very hard to assess when youstart talking about these isms.
But when you start talking about issues,and you go issue by issue, there is

(19:18):
absolutely no doubt that people aregoing to align themselves with what
AOC and what Bernie are talking about.
The vast majority of Democrats, andI would also argue a significant, if
not a majority of even Republicans,are going to subscribe to 80% of what

(19:39):
AOC and Bernie say in this respect.
But the base wants fightagainst the Republicans.
That's what's the polling reflects.
Here's the thing.
Okay.
Yes.
But, right now they'reassociating themselves with fight.
That's a good thing.
Yes.
Across whatever, however people identifythemselves ideologically within the
Democratic party, the one thing they allagree on is that we want more of a fight.

(20:01):
We want partisanship here.
And partisanship is the waythat you get to the win.
That's it.
You cannot, and you cannot pursueany of these ideologies, you cannot
pursue any of these policies untilyou're in a position of power.
And the one thing that is quiteclear is that the Democratic party

(20:23):
wants a party that is going to fight.
Here is AOC in Tempe, Arizona.
And lemme tell you something.
This isn't just about Republicans either.
We need a Democratic partythat fights harder for us too.

(20:45):
[long applause]
But
that means, here's what that means.

(21:06):
That means our communities, each andevery one of us, choosing and voting
for Democrats and elected officials whoknow how to stand for the working class.
And Tempe, I wanna give you your flowersfor a second, because you all have been

(21:27):
working overtime to make that happen.
In fact, one thing I love aboutArizonans is that you all have shown
that if a US Senator isn't fighting hardenough for you, you're not afraid to
replace her with one who will, and win.

(21:48):
Hint hint.
Oh, that's not a hint.
Well, actually, I wanna continue onwith just one more segment about that.
Before we do, though, she's clearlytalking about Kristen Sinema.
No.
She saw and then, but thehint is: me versus Schumer.
Oh.
yeah, I guess.

(22:08):
But she goes on specifically, hattip to Mark Kelly and Gallego.
And let's be clear here.
Mark Kelly, and Gallego, at least theway the Gallego has been functioning
since he's become a senator, arenot terribly aligned with AOC's

(22:30):
policies and Bernie's policies.
In fact, they could be close to on theother end about, as close to the other
end of that spectrum as you could find.
So what's fascinating here is sheis, and people have talked about
her filing down certain edges andnot challenging the supposed vow she

(22:54):
made to not challenge incumbents,to get that position, the committee.
She is on an agenda to amass as muchparty power as she can within the
context of this party, while maintainingas much of her agenda as she can.
That's what's happening.
And her status as a critic of the party,which when you heard in the audience

(23:17):
when she said that, that there is amassive appetite for overhaul of the
party and she's representing that.
I feel she's dissected endlessly and Ithink there's a lot of reasons for that.
And one of them does include her gender.
But this past month hasbeen a master stroke.
First of all, the fact that Bernie isstill kicking and making this a priority,

(23:41):
we have to give him his ultimate credit.
It's amazing the energy this guy has.
He has way more energy than Biden,with just a flashback over four years
ago to the concerns about his health.
But there's been a lot of discussion ofwho's the successor to Bernie, who is it?
And I think he's making it fairlyclear who he views as at least
one of his ideological successors.

(24:03):
And he's touring aroundthe country with her.
And Bernie did very well in bothtimes he ran, with Latino voters.
What was the constituency thatDemocrats lost the most ground with?
Latino voters thiselection cycle, arguably.
They also lost a lot ofworking class support as well.
Who does well with workingclass voters is also Bernie.

(24:23):
And so going to Arizona hereat the beginning of this tour,
I don't think is an accident.
I think they're trying to reenergizethat part of the party around the
issue sets that both of them represent.
Part of why Republicans have beenable to run circles around Democrats
is because Republicans are theones controlling the narrative.

(24:44):
Republicans say that they'reconservative and that Democrats are
on the left or even the radical left,but that claim doesn't match the
reality because our entire politicshas shifted dramatically to the right.
Conservatives want to conservethe current social order.
They wanna maintain existing institutions.
They're not totally against change,but any change should happen

(25:05):
carefully, slowly, gradually.
Essentially, they wannamaintain the status quo.
They value socialstability above all else.
Republicans are aradical right wing party.
They are fundamentally changingthe social order, really destroying
the existing order in orderto suit their own interests.
They're overturning decadesof Supreme Court precedent.

(25:25):
They're taking away civilrights and due process.
They're violating the Constitution.
And as for the left, thereis no left in this country.
There's no elected politician suggestingthat we should abolish landlords
or eliminate private property.
Bernie Sanders is advocating for socialdemocracy, which is a moderate position,
and it's no wonder that 70% of Americansagree with most of his policies.

(25:47):
Social democracy is the norm in everyother developed democratic country.
Bernie Sanders isn't the outlier, we are.
And let me remind you that Bernie Sandersis not a member of the Democratic Party.
So really when we're talking aboutRepublicans versus Democrats today,
we're talking about radical right-wingextremists versus conservatives.
When you understand this differencebetween the narrative and the reality, you

(26:10):
can understand why Democrats are readingthis entire situation completely wrong.
They're buying into theRepublican narrative.
They're believing, "Oh, Republicans areconservative and Republicans are winning
people over. Therefore, people mustreally want a conservative candidate,
so we should be more conservative."
False.
Republicans are radicals.
Republican voters have been taught tothink of themselves as conservative,

(26:33):
but don't be bamboozled by the branding.
The substance of what Republicanshave been pitching is radical change.
That's what's attractive to voters.
If you continue to run like aconservative, you'll continue to lose.
What's worse is that many Democratsare believing the Republican's
narrative as to why Democrats lost.
Democrats and establishment mediahave picked up on "woke" and "DEI"

(26:55):
as some sort of bad thing, as if weshouldn't try to include a diverse
range of people within society.
They allow Republicans to redefinewoke as a slur instead of saying,
"Yes, we are awake to the ways thatthe systems in this country are
keeping people down, because wewant justice and prosperity for all
people, not just for those at the top.
Yes, we are awake to how the zipcode you are born into can limit your

(27:19):
opportunities for success, becausewe recognize that fairness requires
not just competition based on merit,but also a level playing field.
Yes, we are awake to how theprivileged and the powerful within
our society are controlling the restof us, because we want everyone to
be able to control their own destiny.
Republicans want you to be asleepto how the system works so that

(27:39):
you can be more easily controlled.
So yeah, stay woke."
Nope, they couldn't say that,because Democrats are not the
party of making systemic changebecause they're conservative.
Republicans, on the other hand,being radical, are building
something completely new.
They're building out new interpretationsof the Constitution that say,
"actually, yeah, the executive issupposed to be a king." They're

(28:01):
building out a new media ecosystem withinfluencers and content creators that
can reach the public more directly.
And while Democrats are stuck in theold diplomatic way of doing politics,
Republicans have embraced to thenew coercive way of doing politics,
including mass deception that's beenenabled by that new media ecosystem.

(28:21):
To be a real opposition party, youwould need to both counter Republican
coercion and build something newyourself that speaks to your interest.
If Republicans are trying to say, yeah,the President should be a king, you
would need to say no, power is supposedto be with the people, and then would
need to work towards a system that ismore accountable and more representative

(28:42):
of ordinary Americans rather thanrepresenting corporate interests.
But that would require Democratsthemselves to be held accountable
and to be more responsive to theinterests of their ordinary voters,
which means giving up some of theinfluence of their wealthy donors.
If Republicans are doing campaigns ofmass deception through new media, then
Democrats would need to do campaigns ofmass education through new media, teaching

(29:04):
people, how does power actually work?
How does the economy work?
What's the difference betweenmarket freedom and human freedom?
And why does human freedomrequire social equality?
But that would mean that Democrats areteaching us to question their power
structure as well, and it would meanthey'd have to embrace the two-way
street of new media, rather than theestablishment media power structure

(29:26):
where they talk and we listen.
The problem is that conservatismcannot defeat destructive radicalism.
The conservative strategy isessentially non-action or very
minimal action; decorum, civility.
But civility is an agreementbetween all parties that will
be civil towards each other.
If one party is sitting still and beingcivil and the other party is determined

(29:49):
to drag everything to the far right, theneveryone gets dragged to the far right.
Even if you wanted to stand still, youwould have to have a countervailing
force that pushes things to the left.
If you have an opponent that's decidedto wage war, and you've decided that
you're only gonna act in peace, thenyou don't get peace, you get demolished.
Now, that's not to say that conservativesdon't have a role in society, they

(30:12):
do, but they're actually best asa counterforce to progressives.
Progressives who are always trying topush things forward and try something
new and experiment and innovate.
Conservatives are the ones thatsay, "Hey, slow down, not so fast.
Let's be cautious." It's like ifour society was our little house in
the middle of a big wide jungle, theprogressive might be wanting to go out

(30:33):
and explore and find something new andmaybe push us into new territory, but
the conservative would wanna stay insidethe house and say, "Hey, not so fast.
It's a jungle out there.
We don't know what's out there.
Maybe they're blood thirstyhyenas that are out."
Now, that makes sense if there were bloodthirsty hyenas outside of the house.
But if the blood thirsty hyenas are insidethe house then you've gotta get out.

(30:56):
You've gotta push for something newbecause the current house is not
working and hyenas are tearing it apart.
Different circumstances callfor a different strategy.
This is a time to act, not to clingto a false sense of security within
a status quo that no longer exists.
You can see this conservative approachin the entire Democratic strategy,
which has been, "Hey, don't you likenormal? Don't you like the stability

(31:19):
of the status quo compared to how scaryand dangerous Trump is?" trying to
convince people that normalcy is better.
You understand why Kamala Harris' campaignstarted off sounding progressive and
talking about freedom for all people andtalking about price gouging and picking
Tim Walz, and by the end of it, shewas running like a female Mitt Romney.
By the time the establishment got theirhands on her campaign, they had dragged

(31:42):
her into running like a conservative.
You understand Elissa Slotkin conservativeresponse to Trump's address to Congress,
why she praised Ronald Reagan and not FDR.
Why she talked aboutAmerican exceptionalism and
not justice or equality.
You understand Chuck Schumer'sconservative decision to try to keep
the government running as close tonormal as possible instead of taking

(32:04):
a risk and using the leverage he had.
Schumer believes in the current system.
Based on what he said, he actuallythinks that the courts could save us, or
that we'll have a chance to renegotiatein September, but we know how quickly
authoritarians consolidate power.
In normal times then maybe you playpolitics and try to wait for Trump's

(32:25):
approval rating to go lower beforeyou step in and play hardball,
but these aren't normal times.
We're already in somethingunpredictable and scary.
His only choice was betweenchaos, where he had leverage and
chaos, where he has no leverage.
You understand why a OC wasdenied a leadership role.
Sure, she has a huge following, but that'snot our established process for seniority.

(32:49):
Sure, she's the voice thatresonates the most with this moment,
but she has to wait her turn.
But when change is thrust upon you,you have to adapt in order to survive.
You have to be willingto try something new.
Now, what does thatsomething new look like?
I think it looks like progressive folksgetting together and setting the agenda.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk aredismantling our country piece by

(33:11):
piece, and so many Democrats seemcontent to just sit back and let 'em.
So I say it's time to drop theexcuses and grow a fucking spine.
I'm Kat Abughazaleh, and I'm running forCongress in Illinois' Ninth District.
Unfortunately, this party has becomeone where you have to look to the
exceptions for real leadership as themajority work from an outdated playbook.

(33:32):
We need a makeover, which means weneed a vision that's bigger than
what we've been told is possible.
There is absolutely no reason youshouldn't be able to afford housing,
groceries, and healthcare with somemoney left over, families should have
free childcare, social security shouldbe expanded, and our inalienable rights
shouldn't be dependent on who's in power.
That means standing up to authoritarians.

(33:53):
Not shrinking away whenthe fight gets tough.
And while current democratic leadershipmight be fine cowering to Trump, I'm not.
I've spent my entire careerreporting on the far right and
being attacked by them as a result.
In fact, just a few months ago, ElonMusk's lawyers deposed me here in
Chicago to ask about my mean tweets.
Look, I thought comedy was legal.
Again, this is all to say I'm notscared of standing up to these people.

(34:15):
I know how they think andI know how to beat them.
But my campaign itself is gonnabe different too, because I don't
wanna wait a year to help people.
We're focused on meetingconstituent needs with one simple
rule, what if we didn't suck?
My campaign and I would rather spendour money on book drives and clothing
exchanges and public events thanfancy fundraisers for rich donors.
I also want my campaign to beas transparent as possible.

(34:37):
That's why I'll be postingregular videos about the costs
and steps of running for office.
We all deserve better.
We deserve human rights andfinancial freedom and a party
that stands up to authoritarians.
We deserve to thrive, not just survive.
And I plan to fight for those ideals bothon the campaign trail and in Congress.
If you wanna know more about me and what Ibelieve, you can go to KatForIllinois.com.

(34:59):
I do need to mention that campaigns costmoney and ask you to contribute what you
can, but I promise your donation willnot be wasted on old ineffective tactics.
No spammy guilt trip texts, no focusgroups to test my views, and no
grifty consultants who care more abouttheir paycheck than actually winning.
It's time to challenge the status quo,and if our leaders won't do it, we will.

(35:20):
I'm Kat Abughazaleh, and I'mrunning for Congress because it's
time for Democrats to do more.
I've always embraced the norms andrules of decorum that have governed
our democracy for almost 250 years.
And as a Democrat, I believed thateven when the other side of the
aisle was periodically tossingthose norms to the side, we had a

(35:41):
responsibility to try and maintain theguardrails of our public discourse.
I maintained that posture of decorumthrough the first two years of my
term, which were the last two yearsof Donald Trump's first term, and
I maintained that posture throughthe entirety of the Covid Pandemic.
Now, I also maintained thatposture during the the four

(36:05):
years of Joe Biden's presidency.
But despite my own experience with thispresident back in 2019 and 2020 and my
own warnings to the public on the campaigntrail last year, I hoped that some part
of Donald Trump's cruel nature would bowto two and a half centuries of tradition.

(36:30):
For 10 years, ever since DonaldTrump descended that ridiculous gold
escalator, to announce his entranceinto the political world, I hoped
that the Republican Party wouldseek out and find its better angels.
Hope is a delicate and wonderful thing, aseed that we should never stop planting,

(36:52):
but I won't let hope be a blindfold.
And I won't continue to advocatethat we wage a conventional
political fight when what we reallyneed is to become street fighters.
Now let me be clear that the Trumpadministration and his Republican

(37:15):
lackeys in Congress are looking.
To reverse every single victory thiscommunity has won over the last 50 years.
And right now it's drag queensreading books and transgender
people serving in the military, buttomorrow it's your marriage license
and your job they want to take.

(37:38):
Bending to the whims of abully will not end his cruelty,
it will only embolden him.
The response to authoritarianismisn't acquiescence.
Bullies respond to one thing andone thing only, a punch in the face.

(38:00):
But you see that starts with fullyacknowledging what is happening.
The meme lords and the minions in theWhite House are intentionally breaking
the American system of government sothey can rebuild it in their own image.
They've shut down cancerresearch and HIV prevention.
They've eliminated drinking waterand clean air regulations, and

(38:22):
upended the lives of veterans.
They've said that a recession thatTrump is likely to cause will be
worth it, which is an assessmentworthy of Trump University.
At its core, what Elon Musk and DonaldTrump are doing isn't about efficiencies

(38:43):
or cost savings, it's about givingtheir wealthy friends a tax break and
making the middle class and veteransand public school kids pay for it.
It's a few idiots trying to figure outhow to pull off the scam of their lives.
Meanwhile, the scariest part isthat they're using the power of the

(39:04):
presidency to try to delight theirbase by targeting vulnerable people,
people they think can't fight back.
Calling them domestic enemies orclaiming they'll ruin American culture.
Remember their slogan.
Make America Great Again.
Authoritarians, targetvulnerable minority communities.

(39:26):
First because they think that if theycan conquer those that they deem weak,
they can show everyone else whoseboss, which is why we can't sit back
right now and wait to see what happens.
If we wait.
I guarantee you the battlewill have already been lost.
Donald Trump cannot take anything fromus that we don't choose to give him.

(39:49):
He and his henchmen don't wantpeople to realize that, but now
is the time for us to wake up.
The good news is, every day I'mseeing more and more people across
this country realize that theydon't want to give him much at all.
The question I get asked mostright now is, so what can I do?
What can I do?

(40:10):
And I'm gonna be blunt about this.
Never before in my life have I called formass activism, but this is the moment.
Take to the streets!
Protest!
Show up at Town Halls!
Jam the phone lines in Congress.
(202) 224-3121, and afford not a momentof peace to any elected representatives

(40:35):
who are aiding and abetting Muskand Trump's illegal power grab.
This is not a drill, folks,this is the real thing.
Seize every megaphone you have.
Go online and make a donation to thelegal funds fighting Trump, to HRC,
and to the candidates for Congressthat vow to take this country backward.

(40:59):
And don't limit your voice to thetraditional political channels.
Be like Lucy Welch.
When JD Vance went to vacation at theSugar Bush Resort in Warren, Vermont.
Lucy, who writes the Sugar BushDaily Snow Report, used her report

(41:21):
to defend her diverse and wonderfulcommunity ending by saying, quote,
"I am using my relative platform asa snow reporter to be disruptive.
What we do or don't do matters."
what we do and don't do matters.

(41:44):
It matters right now morethan it ever has before.
When my future grandkids look backon this moment, I want them to
know that my voice was one of theloudest in the room, screaming for
justice and fighting against tyranny.
And in the midst of this existentialfight, this battle that seems to

(42:05):
consume everything, well, let'snot take the soul sucking path of
sacrificing the most persecuted forthat which we de to be most popular.
I know that there are transgenderchildren right now looking out at
this world and wondering if anyoneis going to stand up for them and
for their simple right to exist.

(42:27):
Well, I am.
We are.
We will.
I know that amidst the ongoing assaulton our institutions, it is easy for
people to fall into despair about ourdemocratic system, but I love this
country too much not to fight for it.
You're here tonight because you do too.

(42:49):
And when I think about that love, I thinkback to all the times in our history when
our ancestors had to fight back againsttyrants and racists and those who couldn't
understand that freedom and justice areour foundational promises in this country.
That small group of peoplethat got together in Chicago
to found this country's firstknown gay rights organization.

(43:12):
It was called Society for Human Rights.
It was 1924 and theflicker of light was brief.
It only lasted a matter of monthsbefore social persecution and
criminal prosecution bankruptedthe promise of the group's charter.
But oh, that flicker ignited something.

(43:33):
By whisper and by word of mouth, folksaround the country started to catch wind
of the idea, and eventually it ended up inthe ears of a man here in California who
later said the idea of gay people gettingtogether at all was an eyeopener for him.
Well, that man's name was HarryHay, and a couple of decades later

(43:55):
he went on to found the MattachineSociety right here in Los Angeles.
It was the first sustained gay rightsorganization in the United States.
Harry said that he was first toldabout the Chicago group as a warning.
That the idea was too dangerousand nobody should try to pull

(44:15):
anything off like that ever again.
How lucky the world isthat Harry didn't listen.
When we say history repeats itself, it'snot because the villains and battles
don't evolve with the ages, they do,but the fight itself remains elemental.
It's always men who would be king,blaming the suffering of the masses

(44:38):
on those who look different, orsound different, or live differently.
And since the dawn of time, the triumphof good over evil has relied on those
who believe in empathy and kindness,summoning the steel spine needed to
defend those values, that by theirnature leave us vulnerable to attack.

(44:59):
This community knows that.
You have lived and breathedthis fight for generations.
Our hope, our hope, lies in this room.
The fact that we are still heretoday means that we have the
faith and courage that we will winthe battles that really matter.
Now, when I first ran for governor in2018, I started every single stump speech

(45:24):
by saying, and this will tell you whyDonald Trump doesn't like me very much.
I said, at the beginning of every stumpspeech, "everything we care about is
under siege. By a racist, misogynist,homophobic, xenophobic, Donald Trump".

(45:47):
And I ended every single speech with aquestion to the crowd, "Are you ready
for the fight?" So, here we are again.
Everything we care about is undersiege, so I guess I just have one
question for all of you tonight.
Are you ready for the fight?
We've just heard clips starting with AllIn With Chris Hayes discussing fears of a
looming constitutional crisis under Trump.

(46:10):
Kat Abughazaleh critiqued theDemocratic Party's recent retreat
in Loudoun County, Virginia.
The Majority Report discussed the internaldivisions within the Democratic Party
regarding their ideological direction.
Bean Thinking discussed how Republicanshave effectively controlled the
political narrative by brandingthemselves as conservative while
actually implementing radical changes.

(46:31):
Kat Abughazaleh announced her candidacyfor Congress in Illinois's Ninth District,
emphasizing the need for Democraticleadership to adopt a bold vision.
And JB Pritzker emphasized theimportance of fighting against
Donald Trump's authoritarianism,urged mass activism to protect the
democratic values and vulnerablecommunities, and invoked historical
struggles for justice and equality.

(46:53):
And those were just the top takes.
There's a lot more inour deeper dive sections.
But first, a reminder that this show isproduced with the support of our members
who get this show ad free as well asearly and ad free access to our freshly
launched other show SOLVED!—that's allcaps, exclamation point —which features
our team of producers discussing acarefully curated selection of articles

(47:14):
and ideas to then solve some of thebiggest issues of our day In each episode.
Members get the podcast of SOLVED!
first each week, but we're alsolaunching it on the Best of the Left
YouTube channel where episodes willcome out a week later, because we
don't wanna keep all of our great ideashidden behind a paywall indefinitely
To support all of the work that goesinto both of our shows and have SOLVED!

(47:34):
delivered seamlessly to the newmembers-only podcast feed that you'll
receive, sign up to support the showat best of the left.com/support.
There's a link in the show notes,through our Patreon page, or from
right inside the Apple Podcast app.
And as always, if a regular membershipisn't in cards for you, shoot me an email
requesting a financial hardship membershipbecause we don't let a lack of funds stand

(47:54):
in the way of hearing more information.
Now, if you have a question or wouldlike your comments included in the
show are upcoming topics you canchime in on, include the alignment of
Christian nationalism with the attackon education, and the realities of
the system of techno feudalism wevery much seem to be living under.

(48:14):
So, get your comments or questions.
And now for those topics or anything else.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.
We're also now findable on the privacyfocused messaging app Signal at the
handle BestOfTheLeft.01 or you cansimply email me to jay@bestoftheleft.com.
Now, as for today, to be honest wedon't get many voicemails these days.

(48:38):
We used to get a lot.
we don't get many anymore, whichis why you don't hear me play them.
Makes sense.
Uh, but we got a heartfelt messagein response to the recent episode
on trans rights that I wanna share.
Jay, this is David from Gaithersburgcalling the, um, last episode in your
section five on trans joy and resistanceof the, dehumanizing trans people is

(49:02):
always the first step for fascists.
I was so touched by theyoung people in that section.
It brought me to tears.
Jay, your curation is wonderful.
Thank you so much.

(49:24):
I just wanted to findout more about the kids.
I wanted to know what things theywanted to do, what they enjoyed.
Trans is so much of their life, but Ihope there's so much more in their life.
I wanted to know, do they like tennis?
Do they like soccer?

(49:44):
Do they like dance?
Do they like theater?
Do they like reading?
Do they like school?
Do they like math.
Anyway, thank you somuch for your curation.
Thank you so much for your show.
We thank David for that message.
It means a lot.
David also sent along a very nice emailalong with that audio and mentioned that
he'd be helping out with the YouTube show,helping juice the algorithm and all that.

(50:07):
So we very much appreciatehis help with that as well.
I said at the top of the show that I wasgoing to share a bit of the newest show
SOLVED!, all caps, exclamation point.
And this bit I wanna share iscurrently only available as audio
for Best of the Left members, butit will be coming to YouTube soon.
And I mentioned thatwe've been making music.
This is a relatively new idea thatcame to me, but it has been working

(50:30):
out so well that I quickly decided tomake it a permanent part of the show.
Now, none of us are musiciansand we can't afford to hire any.
So yes, I am using AI to make themusic, but it's much more involved
than just typing in a quick prompt.
And rather than explain all the gorydetails, just know that the song you're
about to hear incorporates a huge numberof references from the latest episode of

(50:50):
SOLVED!, because it's intended to not onlybe catchy and fun, possibly inspiring,
but also to help listeners remember thekey points we cover in our discussions.
The main theme of this one is aboutfighting a wildfire, and this is
a metaphor that came from SenatorMichael Bennett from a recent town
hall meeting where he was attemptingto reframe the current moment we're in.

(51:11):
He compared the actions of the Trumpadministration to a wildfire and admitted
that our ability to put an immediate stopto their actions is a bit like trying
to extinguish a wildfire from behind.
You can't do it.
It doesn't work.
What you need to do is regroup, rethink,and prepare to build fire breaks.
Other references you'll hear includeSchumer's pathetic attempt to chant

(51:34):
"we will win", Bernie's call for acollective action with his catchphrase
"not me, us", emphasis on the need foroverwhelming civic action combined with
labor and non-labor groups coordinatingtogether, and the long-term vision of
Plan 2028, which involves an ambitiousstrike across industries in 2028.

(51:56):
And requires the building of powerright here and now to get ready.
Here's the song.
In a time of wildfires,set by vengeful hands,
The old guard chants "We willwin" while the flames expand.

(52:21):
The smoke fills the sky, andthe air is hard to breathe,
We're trapped in the chaos,with no way to leave.
Oh, the fire’s raging,tearing through the land,
But we’ll build firebreakstogether, hand in hand.

(52:46):
It’s not me, it’s us, we’re theones we’ve been waiting for,
United we’ll rise,stronger than ever before.
They say drown thegovernment in the bathtub

(53:10):
While corporations gum up all the works
The poor and working people need a voice
But they keep dividingus with false choice
They've doused the forest, set it to burn

(53:31):
Fiddling with joy while ignoring concern.
But we'll hold the line, refuse to fall,
Our strength and spiritwill outshine it all.
Through unions' strength and civic might,
We’ll break their chainsand claim our right.
It’s not about one, it’s about us all,

(53:52):
Together we rise, we’ll answer the call—
Oh, the fire’s raging,tearing through the land,
It’s not me, it’s us, we’re theones we’ve been waiting for,

(54:16):
United we’ll rise,stronger than ever before.
Plan 2028, it's a vision, it's a call
Align the unions, the people,one movement for us all
We’ll come together in strength,with hope to guide the way,

(54:43):
And write a new tomorrow,born of what we dream today!
Oh, the fire’s raging,tearing through the land!

(55:04):
It’s not me, it’s us, we’re theones we’ve been waiting for.
United we’ll rise,stronger than ever before!

(55:34):
There we go.
That's pretty good, right?
So that's the kind of stuff thatwe've been up to over at SOLVED!
We are definitely having fun and we arereally proud of the work it's taken to
get to this point and extremely excited.
It's finally ready to launch, so pleasesupport our work any way you can.
Best of the Left members are currentlymaking it financially possible and they're
still getting both this show and SOLVED!

(55:55):
ad free, as well as getting SOLVED!
about a week before thevideo goes out on YouTube.
So consider signing up atbest of left.com/support.
But in terms of helping get the show tomore people, we would love if you would
help juice that YouTube algorithm withall the views and likes and comments
and subscribes that you can muster.
Thanks in advance.
And now we'll continue to divedeeper on five topics today.

(56:19):
Next up, section A Failures followedby section B, conservatives, section
C, energy, section D, pushback tothe failures and section E history.
Tell us, uh, broadly the, thebrief history of Indivisible
and what you guys, uh, do.
Yeah.
So we started shortly.
We started shortly after the,the first Trump election in 2016.

(56:43):
Um, look, we, we started both becauseTrump was promising a, a heinous
agenda, and also because there was a,a vacuum at the leadership level of the
Democratic party folks not recognizingthat they needed to fight back.
So people all, all over the countrywere saying, gosh, what do we do?
What do we do?
And my, my, uh, co-founder andspouse, Leah, we are former

(57:04):
congressional staffers, we saw the.
Impact of the Tea Party.
We disagreed with their radiology.
We disagreed with their violence.
We disagreed with their bigotry, but wesaw them organized successfully locally.
And we said, gosh, that's what we need.
We need people organizing locallyto push their elected officials,
fracture the MAGA Coalition andhelp Democrats find their spines.
And that's what we've beendoing over the last eight years.

(57:25):
Uh,
well, I mean, there's also,we need some more work, right?
Like here, and I know that, uh,Chuck Schumer is gonna come up
in a second, but why don't you goahead, Sam, and then I'll ask about
that.
Well, uh, part of that wa uh, spinestiffening, uh, started, uh, it seems
to me, um, several weeks ago in whichat that time, um, we heard, uh, minority

(57:50):
leader in the house, Hakeem Jeffries.
And, uh, I remember oneparticular article, uh, Richie
Torres, uh, Congressman, uh,from, is it The Bronx here?
Um, uh, were very upset that peoplefelt like they weren't doing enough.
And I wonder how much of a coincidenceis it that we saw them coalesce around

(58:16):
and take what is a pretty bold step?
I mean, at least.
In the great scheme of things over thepast couple of decades, the Democrats
voting against the continuing resolutionlike they did in the house a week ago.
I.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
I think one of the, one of thefeatures of grassroots organizing

(58:38):
and pressure campaigns like we do isvery rarely will the target of your
pressure admit, okay, it worked.
I've shifted positionsbecause you pushed me.
Congratulations, you've won.
No, usually it pans out this way.
Pans out this way.
First they ignore you, then theylaugh at you, then they fight you.
Then you win and they adopt your position.

(58:59):
So what we saw in the house was ahistoric level all around the country
of grassroots movement buildingbigger than we've seen since 2017.
What they were looking for were forDemocrats to start fighting back and
they were calling and showing up atthe congressional district offices
and showing up at the town halls ofDemocratic members saying, Hey, we'll have

(59:20):
your back, but you gotta fight for us.
You gotta fight for us.
And it was slow going initially.
Initially they were ignoring andinitially they were pushing back.
But look.
I've been plenty critical of HakeemJeffries over the last few months.
He whipped his caucus into shape.
They held firm on this, andwe should be praising them to
the rooftops for doing that.
And I do think that's a direct resultof organizing all around the country.

(59:42):
Uh, is there a differentchallenge with the Senate?
Is it the fact that, I mean, HakeemJeffries was in part, able to keep his
caucus together because everybody's up forreelection in two years, and they might
be concerned about a primary challengeeven soon, uh, closer or sooner than that.
And you know, when you look at thevotes in the Senate, uh, and who caved
on this, on this, uh, on this dirtycontinuing resolution, these are all

(01:00:06):
people who are far away from, uh,their reelection effort or retiring.
I.
Oh, obviously of, of course.
Look, the senate's a different body.
It's not a majoritarian institution.
They actually had leverage, unlikethe house, the house, you know,
it's a majoritarian institution.
The Republicans had it.
They were able to pass the bill withtheir own votes, the Senate, not the case.
They needed 60 votes to pass this.

(01:00:27):
And I think, I mean, your, yourpoint out something real here it is.
No coincidence.
That every single one of the 10Democrats in the Senate who happen
to vote for this bill, they happento not be up for election next year.
They just happen to just be thefolks who have a few more years
to build up their reputation.
Again, that's not an accident.
I guarantee you there are a lot of otherSenate Democrats who would've voted for

(01:00:50):
this if they needed to, but they didn'twant to face the pressure from the base.
So I think your point is somethingreal here, but the basic idea.
Of local organized grassrootspressure works the same in the
Senate as it does the house.
It just works on a different timescale.
Uh, let gi give me your sense, um, and Iwanna get to, you know, obviously you've

(01:01:11):
been, uh, critical and, uh, it's beenreported that, uh, Schumer in, um, what
appears to be an ongoing and frankly, um.
Degrading, I guess not just degradingpersonally to him, but literally the
exercise itself seems to be fallingapart, uh, as the further it gets out.
Uh, sort of like a, an apologytour or a rationale tour.

(01:01:33):
But before we get to that aspectof it, what do you think happened?
Because it's quite clear now thatwe have Nancy Pelosi coming out
that when Hakeem Jeffries was asked,do you think it's time for new
leadership in the, uh, in the Senate?
He said, next question.
Uh, a OC when she released astatement suggested that the, the,

(01:01:55):
the house members were blindsided.
Do you have a sense of a TikTok?
I. Of what happened to ChuckSchumer's decision making?
Was there any type of strategy involved?
I mean, what's your sense of this?
Oh, yeah.
Look, we were deeply involved.
We were working with members,uh, of the House Caucus and with,
uh, Senate Democrats as well.

(01:02:16):
Behind the scenes.
I will say there were a lot of folksin the Senate Democratic Caucus
who wanted to fight back and aboutfive or six weeks before this.
Came to a head, uh, in mid-March.
We put out a call and wesaid, look, Democrats should
be planning a flag right now.
They should be saying, we are notgonna give Elon Musk a blank check.

(01:02:37):
If Republicans want our votes, theyshould put in some safeguards against
Musk's rating of the Treasury andthe rest of the federal government.
And if Republicans refuse to agreeto that, Democrats should say, fine.
We will agree to a short term.
Clean funding bill toopen up negotiation again.
That was the plan that we put forward,and it's actually the plan that House
Democrats embraced That is indeedwhat they embraced to their credit.

(01:03:00):
Here's what I really think, real talk,what actually happened in the Senate.
I think Chuck Schumermisjudged the Republicans.
I think he thought they were going tofail to get their bill through in, uh,
in the house, and he thought therefore,democratic votes were going to be
necessary in just a different way.

(01:03:20):
So he wanted to cave, but he wantedto cave for a long-term clean cr.
That's my guess.
That is my guess.
Then Republicans managed to passthe bill on their own through
the house, and he was presented.
With this new reality, and insteadof updating his position and caving
just for a clean, long-term cr, hecaved for a Republican funding bill.

(01:03:42):
That's my best guess.
It was bad judgment at the outset, andthen he did not update his thinking
when the facts on the ground changed.
What was the point of the DEI bonanzain 2020 and now what is the point
of its destruction five years later?

(01:04:04):
And so I think on some level it'sobvious that corporations like Apple,
Amazon, soul Foods embraced these varyinginitiatives around DEI to basically get
out of the way of the ire of protests.

(01:04:29):
I think it's important to alwaysremember that these were historic
protests in 2020, what the New YorkTimes estimated to be upwards of
26 million people in the streets.
And so, you know, there was an obviouseffort as there was in the 1960s.
What they called it then wassocioeconomic capitalism.

(01:04:52):
Capitalism with a conscience.
These were efforts to avoid boycotts,to avoid protest and to make it seem as
if the largest corporations in Americawere on the side of, uh, black people.
Um, some went even, uh, furtherin ways that you could see how

(01:05:13):
there was also a realization thatDEI could be profitable for them.
JP Morgan Chase.
One of the reasons why they havecontinued with their DEI initiatives,
despite the pressure to jettisonthem, is because mostly that these
are loans that they agreed to make.

(01:05:34):
They agreed to expand their, you know,low income home ownership portfolio.
And so, uh, I think the 50 largestcorporations in the United States
made $50 billion in pledges to do avariety of DI diversity initiatives.
So that was obviously onemanifestation of the DEI bonanza,

(01:05:59):
but that wasn't all of it.
You know, I mean, most of the effortshave been centered around workplace
culture, how to create what theydescribe as a more equitable workplace.
And, you know, I mean, that is wheresome of the kind of conflicting.

(01:06:21):
Issues.
I think with DEI are legitimateand raise I important issues and
questions that we shouldn't kindof avoid, uh, talking about.
But I think sometimes whatgets lost is that this is in
reaction to real issues, right?

(01:06:42):
This is in reaction to real, uh, uh,racism in the workforce and on college
campuses, which is one of the reasonswhy I think that given the relentless
assault on these kinds of initiatives,they're actually not unpopular, right?
If you look at Gallup APU pollingadults in the United States, a

(01:07:05):
majority of whom support businesseshaving diversity initiatives.
And so I think that thatall has to be a part.
The discussion, real racism, thatthese are in reaction to, just like
affirmative action, uh, was a realresponse to real racism, um, in society

(01:07:27):
and workplaces on college campuses.
Do they go far enough?
No, but there are plenty of reformsthat exist within our society that
don't go far enough, that we don't say.
Thus, you should jettison them.
Roe v Wade didn't go far enough.
No one, you know, on theleft with any credibility.

(01:07:48):
It was celebrating its demise becauseit didn't go far enough and, you
know, drove a wedge between men andwomen, um, in the working class.
I mean, it's a ridiculous premise.
So, you know, I'll just, I'll,I'll say that to open things up.
There's more to say about it, butI think the context is important.

(01:08:11):
I'll just add one thing to kind ofunderscore the last point Cange just made,
you know, I think the, the argument thatDEI, that anti-racist, that, you know,
social justice policies in the workplaceare suspicious because they don't go far

(01:08:31):
enough, just strikes me as a particularlydisingenuous kind of argument.
Um, for, for exactly thereason Kanga just said, right?
Like, no one says that thatdental, you know, right.
No one in any part of the left thinksthat the working class is a 5% raise
away from dismantling capitalism, right?

(01:08:54):
We fight for things that are lessthan the full society we want because
we value those things, whetherit's, you know, dental, whether
it's, uh, pay raise, whether it'sbetter benefits, and whether it's.
Having less racism at work.
And those are all just things thatare independently valuable and

(01:09:19):
that we should not confuse withthe total victory of the class war.
But there's no reason to think thatwe should replace the total victory of
the class war with any of those things.
Yeah.
I would just want to add, I think areal, a real puzzle is why is it that
this bundle of things that are actuallyso completely different from from each

(01:09:42):
other have come to have this powerfulforce in our society politically, you
know, everything from cancel culture torace, prioritizing hiring and college
admissions, to sensitivity training, toeven, you know, watching a com commercial
and seeing somebody that appears queerto you and thinking, Ooh, that's woke.

(01:10:06):
Like how, how is it that all thesethings in our society have come to
have this political salience when wecan obviously recognize that they're
of all sorts of different sorts?
Right.
And I, I think, I think it's important tokeep in mind the, the role of liberalism
and the Democrats in this story.

(01:10:26):
To me, a key, a key part of the rise ofanti wokeness is precisely the emptiness
of liberalism and its own reaction.
To those movements and proteststhat Ang, um, was mentioning
that sparked off in 2020.
There's a really fascinating book.
It's written by a, a Japanese Marxistnamed Saka, June, it's called the

(01:10:49):
Japanese Ideology, published in 1935.
June was basically the grump she of Japan.
He was imprisoned, uh,under a fascist uh, regime.
He died because of histreatment in prison.
But he wrote this book andbasically he argues that liberalism,
it has basically three forms.
It has an economic form, apolitical form, and a cultural form.

(01:11:11):
The economic and political arebasically about sort of, you know,
freeness from the state, politicalor freeness in the, in the economy.
And when economic liberalism doesn'thave legitimacy or salience, it can
sometimes persist in its cultural form.
And its cultural form is allabout sentimentality and kind of
empty ideas about the individual'sfreeness to identify themselves.

(01:11:34):
What's interesting about thisbook and why I think it's actually
relevant to this discussion is thatafter, um, the protests kicked off
the response and the way they wereintegrated into political discourse, I.
By the Democrats and by liberals was ina de classed and a, uh, defanged way that

(01:11:56):
presented them as simply a sort of freeexpression of people's individuality and
their own I and, and their own identity.
And I think this, this kind of emptyspace, this empty reaction that
liberalism had to Black Lives Mattercreated the context for the right
to kind of subvert it and to turnthis into like a politically salient

(01:12:17):
and powerful issue in politics.
It was, it was precisely that emptiness ofthe Democrats in their response to Black
Lives Matter that created the groundsfor the right to sort of repurpose this.
And so I, I think we really needto think serious about like, why is
it that wokeness is even a thing?
Like why, why can somebody say that?
And, and, and we can kind ofassociate that with this bundle

(01:12:40):
of very different sorts of things.
And I think, again, we gotta,we have to tie that in some way
to the failure of liberalism.
It's not just that the Democrats got inline in order to pass this and once more.
I wanna remind everybody duringthe Biden presidency, I told you
over and over again, they, everyonewas like, oh, it's Joe Manchin.
It's Ki Sinema.
Those were the two people that were chosento carry that load because they were going

(01:13:04):
to be politically safe because of it.
The Democrats are always goingto wheel somebody in in order to.
Pass these votes in order to makethings run, because the Democratic
party is loyal to two things.
One is their billionaire donors inthe market that they represent, and
two is making sure that they're theparty that keeps this government
working, even if it's authoritarian.

(01:13:26):
The second part of this, and, andthis is what really enrages me,
Nick, there was no strategy here.
There was no negotiation whatsoever.
Schumer didn't get anything.
He didn't get a singledamn thing from this.
He was more than happy to rollover and show the Republican
party, his belly, and we have totalk about the fallout from this.

(01:13:47):
It wasn't just Schumer doing this.
It wasn't just Schumer saying,we're gonna find a place where
we have more leverage immediatelyafter, because it's Chuck Schumer.
He then went on to give an interview.
Why Nick?
Because he has a book coming out.
Got it.
He had a book tour that hewanted to go on, so he gives an
interview with the New York Times.
And in this interview, just a few choicehighlights, Nick, the this is it's, it's

(01:14:08):
like picking up a greatest Hits album.
You wanna listen to some Neil Young hits.
Put it on.
We got Old man, we've gotthe needle, we've got it all.
Let's just roll.
He reiterates his belief thatRepublicans will eventually come
around and work with the Democrats.
He comes around andsays that the Democrats.
We're on the right track now.
We just need better social media.
He blames Columbia for Trumpgoing after Columbia during the

(01:14:30):
whole anti-Semitic bullshit thing.
He then refuses to dedefend Mahmud Khalil.
He won't voice criticism ofEric Adams or Andrew Cuomo.
This was the quintessential Chuck Schumerinterview that we saw in order to try and
get his book tour back on track, which hasbeen canceled because he is loathed and

(01:14:52):
reviled and if he went to a single one ofthose book, book tour, uh, appointments,
he would have been roundly booed outof the place and chase down the street.
Nick.
Not only is it that he failed, notonly is it he that he capitulated
and collaborated, not only is itthat he couldn't even come up with
something decent to say about it.
Chuck Schumer remains completelyand utterly confident in

(01:15:17):
everything that Chuck Schumer does.
Yeah, I, I, I mean, again, it,it, I'm getting tired of saying
it, but it's been five years.
I think we should go back andfind out exactly when we started
calling for him to step down.
Um, it's just, it's, it'sover for him at this point.
Uh, and do you think is parentheticalto this, do you think that a OC
is going to try and primary him?

(01:15:37):
Well, I'll tell you this.
I have been talking with some of thepeople I know within Democratic politics.
This has resulted in one screamingmatch and breakdown after
another behind closed doors.
The Democratic Party is incomplete and utter disarray.
You have members who are pissedoff, particularly in the house
because they did their part.

(01:15:58):
They said no to this thing, and theyexpected their, uh, their Senate.
Colleagues to do their part.
So many people right now are talking aboutAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez, either primary,
and this would be in 2028 for the record.
Either primary Chuck Schumer for hisSenate seat or running for president.
And you're not gonna do both.

(01:16:19):
You kind of gotta choose one or the other.
But what we are seeing is thatthere is a revolt within the party.
There's one main issue here, Nick,and it's something that you and I have
talked about, uh, over and over againwhen it came to Schumer and Pelosi.
Schumer has his position because he's themost effective at bundling fundraising.
That's it.
Keeping democratic donors in line.

(01:16:41):
Again, the biggest problem for theDemocratic party in their minds.
It isn't alienating the base.
Everyone's pissed off.
By the way, a new poll,Nick came out from NBC news.
You, you wanna take a guess atthe, uh, the approval rating for
the Democratic Party right now?
20%. 27%.
Oh, and I'm shocked that it's that high.
A historic low.

(01:17:01):
65% of people say that they actuallywanna see some fight out of the
Democrats, the Democratic Party, theleadership, including Chuck Schumer,
they're not worried about those numbers.
They're not worried about small donations.
They're worried about the bigdollar donors at this point.
So the question is, can they exerciseChuck Schumer out of leadership?
Can they exercise him out of hisoffice while maintaining those donors?

(01:17:24):
And do you know what my answer is to that?
Who gives a fuck?
Yeah, who gives a flying fuck?
Get him outta there.
This cannot go on.
Here's the answer for you on that.
One is, uh, who raised more money?
Uh, Harris or Trump?
I. A Harris and by an order of magnitude.
Who won the race.
Yep.
So why do you think that these bigdonors are so important at this point?

(01:17:47):
Right?
If it's not gonna be about spendingoutspending your, uh, opponents and
win a race, then let's not, let'sput that aside and figure out how
to get people back on your side.
'cause again, that's what theydon't seem to acknowledge.
This is not even just likewe're fighting the good fight.
We're maintaining our, the sheenof keeping the government running.
You now need to go back and, and, and getdefectors from the Democratic party back

(01:18:09):
on your side, and you have to go back andhave town halls and listen to the people.
I I was almost trying to thinkwhat would the solution also be on
a local level because they don'tcontrol the federal stuff anymore.
Um, they need to be able to figureout ways they get wins on the local
level of, you know, uh, thingsbeing built that create jobs.
And they can have events aroundthat, that bring constituents there.

(01:18:29):
And they can also haveq and As and they can.
You know what I mean?
You can kind of bring people togetherto celebrate something and then expose
yourself to be able to listen to whatthey wanna say, what what they have
to say, and then do that part, right.
And not do what the DOP isdoing on their town halls.
You know what I mean?
I feel like that's the new level theyhave to get back to on boots in the
ground, real, um, folksy stuff, becauseif they don't, then these, this, the low

(01:18:51):
ratings are gonna translate into maybe noteven people switching to the Republican
party, but certainly not voting at all.
I think it's an important point thatyou make about the fact that the
Democrats are simply not willing tomove left even if there are electoral
gains to be got through through that.
Because some commentary that yousee on on the Democrats is couched
in terms of their incompetence.

(01:19:12):
You know that they're useless.
They dunno what they're doing.
But, but we've, we've seen thatthey can, in certain circumstances,
marshal their forces, be veryeffective, defeat their opponents.
And, you know, a a case in point wouldbe the defeat of Bernie Sanders during
his attempts to, uh, get the, thenomination and, you know, the mud that
was thrown, you know, the sort of Berniebro stuff, attempting to portray, uh,

(01:19:32):
Sanders voters regardless in fact of whothey were as motivated by chauvinism.
Going back to some of yourwriting on this topic.
I dunno if you saw this, but in arecent article in the Financial Times,
Jemiah Kelley had an article on theDemocrats in which she wrote that
there are tentative signs of change.
I. California Governor Gavin Newsomconsidered a likely candidate for

(01:19:54):
the Democratic nomination in 2028.
This week launched his ownpodcast promising to invite
guests he deeply disagrees with.
Now, in a recent article for TheIntercept, you took quite a different
position on Newsom's new initiative,particularly regarding the debut episode
of his show in which he interviewed.
Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of TurningPoint USA, A Republican party activist,

(01:20:17):
a man who's propagated anti-Semiticconspiracy theories and has spread
various falsehoods about the COVID-19pandemic and electoral fraud, and,
and has made many straightforwardlyracist statements as well.
I. Can you talk a bit about thatconversation between, uh, between Newsom
and Kirk and how it's perhaps indicativeof the kinds of conclusions that you
described that many Democrat politiciansseem to have reached about how they

(01:20:39):
can improve their electoral fortunes?
I.
Yes.
So California Governor Gavin Newsom, who,uh, turns out has actually two podcasts
running now and I think a TV show.
So really curious who's, um, botheringto run California, you know, within six
months of some of the most devastatingwildfires the state has ever seen, um,
as the federal budget gets hacked away.

(01:21:00):
So, uh, clearly Gavin should maybeget off the mic, but he is, yes.
I mean, every day there's a newreason to be ashamed of being
a podcaster, I should say.
It's
literally the worst industry.
No, being a governoris the worst industry.
Um, but, uh, Gavin Newsom, uh,is yes, very much setting himself

(01:21:23):
up, it seems, and he's notbeing particularly shy about it.
For a 2028 run.
The way in which he's doing it is inthis, this mode of turning to the right,
this classic gesture reaching across.
To find middle ground, butwhat it does is just say hello.
This extremely far right forceare fine, normal, and set.
What the middle is, and we've seenthis in Gavin Newsom's podcast.

(01:21:47):
I think he's now had three episodessince the first Charlie Kirk won.
The second was with SteveBannon the the very man who
helped advocate for, for the sort ofTrumpian disposition of politics and
mode of politics known as flood theZone with shit, which with receiving
in such aggressive doses right nowfrom Trump and Musk and what Gavin

(01:22:10):
is doing, and I'm calling him Gavinbecause I feel disrespectful is
sitting and nodding along with thesecharacters and you know, raising.
Mely mouth kind of challenges at acouple of points, but, but really
in e, extremely weak ways, notcalling out what are essentially.
Fascistic, harmful, discriminatory,violent wealth, interested hyper

(01:22:36):
capitalist, techno capitalistinterests of this group of people.
It is just this sort of performanceof getting along at the very moment
that the Republican administration,that these people have been
influential in propagating ideasfor, in supporting in agitating to
the right of ripping apart the very.

(01:22:59):
Means by which a parliamentaryforce could challenge them in
opposition in the first place.
So this is Newsom digging his own grave.
So what did they talk about?
They talked about the election and whenthey talked about the election, Newsom
congratulated the Trump campaign forgoing so, so viciously after Harris for

(01:23:20):
alleged support of, of trans people.
The example they broughtup was when Harris was, um,
attorney General in California.
She was just following a legal casethat said, under the constitutional
protections against torture in prison,trans prisoners are like other prisoners.

(01:23:42):
Required to receive adequate healthcare,and that includes by all scientific
consensus, gender affirming healthcare.
So yeah, when Harris was top prosecutorin California and, um, it was affirmed
as law under the constitution thattrans prisoners are, you know,
required to have adequate healthcare.

(01:24:02):
This was then used by the Trumpcampaign as a. You know, Harris
for, they them, Trump for you.
This was a highly successful campaign.
Sure.
And the Democrats failed to combat it.
They failed to demystify, they failedto challenge in exactly the same
way that when the Trump campaignruns on fearmongering around migrant

(01:24:23):
crime and America's incapacity totake in and care for millions more
people, which it well can work itto have different economic policy.
The Republicans Fearmonger andinstead of demystifying and
doing their job as politicalleaders, Democrats cater towards.
So this is what we've seenNewsom do throughout his podcast

(01:24:45):
episodes since he started them.
He also nod only nodded alongwith Kirk and congratulated
them on their devious campaign.
He said he completely agreed withKirk about trans women in sports.
Despite the fact that school districts,local authorities, state authorities,
municipalities have been managingand dealing absolutely fine with

(01:25:08):
transgender youth in sports for many,many years until this became a AstroTurf,
completely fabricated Republican issue.
And now you have the governor ofCalifornia who has always celebrated
himself as an LGBTQ plus, um, championwhen it came to things like gay
marriage is jumping, going out ofhis way to agree with a man who has

(01:25:32):
made his life about rolling back.
Civil rights protections.
So, you know, it's, it's, it's a strategyand you know, it's one of those ones
that even if it works, what a grim,miserable, cruel, and mean state of
politics, it is to win on that kindof acquiescence as opposed to building
an actual anti-fascist counterforce.

(01:25:53):
To take on the ways in whichthe Republicans are decimating
rights, lives, capacities forliving, modes of flourishing.
So yeah, it's, it's, it's grim anddisappointing, but also not surprising.
Trump is the logical extension of theDemocrats own policies over many decades.
I mean, when, when, uh, Carter came in,he was chosen when the US government

(01:26:18):
was in a state of collapse, and peopleworked at that time in mid seventies
talking about the empire being in decline,and people thought it was on the way
out, but of course, that was premature.
Uh, Carter came in as a, a handpickeddemocratic candidate who had no
connection to labor, unlike earlierpost World War II Democratic
candidates, actually since Roosevelt.

(01:26:41):
Then you had Bill Clinton in the ninetieswho adopted Ronald Reagan's program.
He said, we're gonna end big government.
We're gonna end welfare as we know it.
They eliminated 10 million people from.
Uh, public support overnight.
7 million of them were children.
Uh, it was who, uh, implemented the, theNAFTA agreement, uh, which was really

(01:27:03):
codifying neoliberal policies, allowingjobs to be crushed inside the United
States so that capitalist corporationsin the United States could make super
profits by exploiting low wage labor,uh, out outside the United States.
That was the beginning of the era ofso-called free trade, which is a stand-in
term for basically corporate looting,plundering, and pillaging, or what we

(01:27:28):
now call in a vernacular term that's notfully understood, but it's neoliberalism.
Mm-hmm.
The Democrats did all that, uh,when, when George W. Bush wanted
to go to war against Iraq based onlies, and everybody knew it was lies.
The Democrats went alongwith it when, uh, Bush, uh.
Sort of rounded up all of those Muslimand Arab and South Asian people.

(01:27:52):
After nine 11, the Democratswent along with it.
Uh, in the last years, right beforeTrump came into office, 25 million
people in the United States workingclass folks lost Medicaid coverage.
That was under Biden.
It was under Biden that the, uh,that the $300 a month per child

(01:28:12):
for families, that was initiatedas a covid relief, uh, program.
A, a program that, by the way,Eli, uh, reduced childhood poverty
by 50% in one year by giving,uh, families $300 per child.
Uh, Biden got rid of that.
So childhood poverty went up againby it doubled, and that showed
that childhood poverty was a po.

(01:28:34):
Uh.
A policy choice by theBiden administration.
So doing all of these things and thenwaging war, unnecessary, relentless proxy
war in Ukraine, uh, and, and banging thedoor, the, the war drums against China.
None of that is popular for thepeople in the United States.
So it's inevitable not to mentionthe feeble quality of the candidates

(01:28:57):
themselves, but their policies areantithetical to the needs and interests
of the working class in the United States.
That's why they failedand that's why Trump won.
Absolutely.
Could not have said it better.
And um, and so when you, when wehear Democrats and and supporters
of the Democratic Party talk aboutthem being the opposition party
resistance, we have to stop fascism.
We have to understand thatthey're completely complicit

(01:29:19):
in this entire process.
That ends us right exactly where we are.
And socialist, Marxist communists havebeen pointing at this out for as long as
I've been politically conscious that thisis where this whole thing was going to.
To end up and sure enough we're here.
You mentioned that you mentionedneoliberalism, and I think this, this
gives rise to a very interesting question.
Um, somebody like, um, verif AKIsfor example, talks about tech no

(01:29:43):
feudalism, and I have quips withthat because there certainly, there's
no shift in the mode of production.
This is still capitalism, but maybeit's helpful to think about capitalism
or US capitalism entering a new phase.
Maybe it's not.
So how do you think about this?
Is this an acceleration of neoliberalismor would we, can we start to see
the outlines of like sort of anew phase of, of capitalist rule?

(01:30:05):
Well, I think it's definitely a new phase.
I mean, you, when you think about therevolution in computer technology and
electronics, uh, and in transportation,that allowed the capitalist basically to
set up enterprises anywhere in the world.
Uh, and, and basicallyexport, uh, factories.

(01:30:25):
The, the means of production outsidethe Metropolitan centers, outside,
say the United States, where millionsof manufacturing jobs were lost
during this three decade period.
And those, uh, factories were takenoverseas and the capitalists could
make shirts in Bangladesh and sellthem back in the United States for like

(01:30:46):
$8 and still be making super profits.
So the technology itself, uh, allowedcapital to spread to all corners of
the planet, uh, and, and to do itin search of maximum super profits.
And so that had the effect ofeviscerating, uh, working class
communities and the working class writlarge inside the United States, for

(01:31:10):
instance, but also inside the othermajor advanced capitalist countries.
They were less devastated inEurope because there was a,
a wider social insurance net.
That provides basic thingsthat people have there that
Americans could only dream of.
So, um, this is a new stage and a newphase, but it's, it's still capitalism.

(01:31:30):
It's still driven by the same sortof basic principle of capital,
which is to seek maximum profit.
It's only that the place maximum profitcould be derived was for, for in the case
of the United States, largely overseas.
Um, then you had as a, as a consequencereally of the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the socialist camp, the abilityof US banks and western banks to impose.

(01:31:57):
Strict austerity programs on most ofthe formerly colonized or semi colonized
parts of the world, under what wascalled by the IMF structural Adjustment,
whereby basically emerging anti-colonialcountries or countries whose existence
was due to the anti-colonial projectafter World War II basically sold their

(01:32:20):
water systems, their sewage systems,their electrical systems, their natural
resources, um, to the highest bidder.
Or in some cases it was even the lowestbidder if the, if the bidder had a lot of
state power behind it, which was certainlythe case for American corporations.
Hmm.
So we saw a sort of a redistribution ofthe way production takes place and the

(01:32:41):
way, uh, distribution of goods takesplace, but still under the domination
of the US capitalist ruling class.
So a kind of a new cruelty.
Based on their ability to maximize,maximize profits by creating
a globalized sort of system ofproduction and distribution.
But when I think of globalization, I,I think about Christopher Columbus,

(01:33:05):
um, 1492, the discovery, so-calledby European Capital of the Americas.
That was, uh, the beginningof real globalization.
And then when we go through theintroduction of other technologies,
the compass, for instance, wherebypeople could navigate the Seven Cs
or other technologies, which under asocialist system could be emancipatory,

(01:33:29):
were used by capital to bring, uh,European capital to, to grab workers,
kidnap them, enslave them in Africa,and bring them to a third country
or a third location, north America.
For massive plantation or South Americafor that matter, massive plantation
labor for a global capitalist market.

(01:33:49):
So there, there have been these differentstages and phases of capitalism.
The, the problem isn'treally neoliberalism per se.
The problem is that, uh, theruling class, this tiny clique of
billionaires, and they're not allbillionaires, but they're very rich.
Mm-hmm.
Uh, they have a, a strangleholdover the resources.

(01:34:10):
They decide where oil will be pumped or ifit should be pumped, what should be mined.
They, they, they now in the UnitedStates own, it's not just in Latin
America, in the third world, theyown many of the water systems.
They decide if you haven't paid yourwater bill or your electric bill or your,
your gas bill, whether they can shut offwater or heat or lights to your family.

(01:34:32):
So it's.
It's the same, the problem is thesame, although we are in a different
stage of capitalist production.
Now entering Section B conservatives.
If Trump is as so many Democratpoliticians say he is a fascist and a
unique threat to American democracy.
How do you account for this persistentasymmetry where the Republicans are ever

(01:34:52):
more comfortable casting their opponentsas illegitimate actors whilst the
Democrats refuse to change their approach?
I think it's slightly differentfor certain, certain different
Democratic figures, but it'sa deep faith in institutions.
This idea that that the institutions mustbe upheld through the practices and norms

(01:35:12):
and conventions of civility, and thatthrough upholding those practices required
or expected of those institutions,the institutions will obtain, the
institutions will protect and defend.
That's a kind of basic, almost generousread of Democratic Center's delusion
because obviously like a, an institutioncan, can hold and do extraordinary harm.

(01:35:35):
Look at the state of theSupreme Court right now.
It is a, a right.
Destroying machine and yet thisrights destroying machine forged by
Republican will, and in many cases,democratic incompetence and line faith
in institutions serving them will bethe thing we now have to rely upon to
take some of the most crucial casesaround Trump's executive orders.

(01:35:57):
They will end up in this supreme court andyou know, that is the sort of institution
Democrats are trying to put all their.
Faith in and, and all theireggs in that kind of basket.
I think there's also a, a less generousread is that, you know, I think a
number of these people on the edgeof retirement, um, on the edge of
the end of their lives don't give ashit and are not willing to fight and

(01:36:19):
would rather play politics as usual.
Yeah.
I don't think this is apolitical class of, of.
People who are invested in change.
I mean, that shouldn't becontroversial to say at all.
They've pushed off change in many,many ways, and there are a lot of
sites of agreement, whether theycame about by virtue of ill thought

(01:36:40):
political strategizing to lean to some.
Imagined right wing, potentiallydemocratic voting, Liz Cheney loving
figure, or whether it is a genuineconservatism within the Democrats, which
is very much a party of conservation.
The result is the same.
You have a party very muchcommitted to refusing to move the

(01:37:00):
political needle, the economic.
Terrain, the economic status quo ina way that shifts the conditions of
possibility for the sort of right ringevangelism that we've seen refusing
to make people's lives consistentlybetter and refusing to reorient the
political economy of this country.
I. And when that in turn creates a massof deeply resentful people who can be

(01:37:26):
weaponized by a very well organizedRepublican party without any scribbles
at all, you don't need Democrats.
Appealing to institutions and the a ruleof law that doesn't seem to hold much
sway in the eyes of those in actual power.
You know, we've seen this just now,Chuck Schumer in the Senate and

(01:37:48):
10 other Democrats voted to allowTrump's continuing resolution budget.
To go through as opposed to lettingthere be a government shutdown.
Chuck Schumer's logic is, oh, youknow, the, the, what they really
want is a government shutdown.
That's chaos.
What we must do is keep going andlet their budget pass to avoid.

(01:38:10):
Chaos.
So we choose their chaos budget thatwe know for sure hands extraordinary
power of the purse to Trump and Musk.
Um, and this is the sortof Democrats we have.
We have democratic leadershipgoing against many even surprising
figures in the Democratic party.
Not just the AOCs and the Sanders,but even people like Rosa Delario

(01:38:32):
in the house saying, we, we shouldnot let them have this budget.
We should not pass this.
And then you have.
Chuck Schumer, Fetterman, SenatorGillibrand 10 Democrat Senators to
allow this vote to go through andfor this budget legislation to pass.
And it brings me no joy to sayit, but there just quite simply is
not a large liberal to left unitedfront against Trump's agenda.

(01:38:58):
I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but Idon't see a massive sea change in
Democrats away from this moderationabove all, continue as we work,
continue to genuflect to the right.
It's desperate that that changes,but I don't see it on the horizon.
Perhaps this is naive, but I supposeone reason, I guess why there might
have been some reason to supposethere would be a shift away from this

(01:39:20):
obsession with civility is that DonaldTrump is obviously such a personally
vindictive character and, and, andwe see, you know, an ever greater
radicalization of the Republican Right.
To the point where, you know.
Elite Democrat figures may have reasonto not fear for their personal safety
ne necessarily, but perhaps fear forsome of their financial assets that

(01:39:41):
clearly Trump is open to a bit of,you know, a bit of law and and so on.
And I guess the other thought thatoccurs is it can be quite easy to
think that the Republicans castingthe Democrats as illist act as is a
phenomenon just of the, of the Trump era.
But of course, I mean, this goesright back to at least to new
Gingrich and the attempt to impeach.
Bill Clinton.
And then of course we had the birtherismthing during Obama's presidency.

(01:40:02):
So it's not as if the Democrats haven'thad a long time to, you know, to, to
change course and re rethink this.
Um, I'm not, I'm not sure I reallyhave a question there, but, yeah.
No, but I, I, I see you say, and we'veseen an articulation of what the Democrats
think they're doing in the best possibleof ways in these moments, and that's,
you know, when Michelle Obama said,when they go low, we go high, which I
think is obviously a, a terrible way.

(01:40:24):
To take on a serious politicalopposition that is putting millions
of livelihoods and thousands oflives, hundreds of thousands of
lives and lives around the world, andan entire climate at extreme risk.
That is, it's very generous to say thatthey truly believe that this sort of
moral high ground is the way to win.
And I think, uh, I don't thinkwe should be that generous.

(01:40:45):
Um, I think more of the problemis that there are too many
actual sites of agreement.
There are too, no actual continuities.
Between democratic policy and Republicanpolicy over the last 30 years, obviously
I, I think Trump is making moves aroundgovernance control, executive power
that are absolutely extraordinary.

(01:41:06):
But you know, this is an exacerbationof focus on a border regime.
That was the rule of launder.
Clinton, Bush, Obama.
Biden and you know Trumpwon, and again, Trump two.
This is a deep continuity, violentIslamophobia and anti Palestinian
racism and state tools of repression.

(01:41:27):
The most extraordinary oppressionfrom rendition, extraordinary
rendition, deportation, jailing.
Expulsion harassment, surveillance allbuilt up since the War on terror and
given license by Biden in his oppositionto any sort of Palestinian solidarity
movement opening the door for Trump'sviolent actions now for the sort of

(01:41:49):
deportation regime we are seeing now.
There's a way in which theDemocrats claim to civility is all
a smokescreen in in terms of policy.
Even the collapse from Biden's BuildBack Better, which was a more robust
investment infrastructure plan.
I. And its inability to pass a veryconservative, even democratic led house

(01:42:12):
and Congress when you had figures likeSenator Manchin and cinema voting No
on public welfare and investments.
You know, you've got a Democraticparty that's been very willing to pass
very brutal, cruel, and support verybrutal, cruel and anti-social laws.
So civility has always beenlike a li a limited and very
unpleasant, I think smokescreen.

(01:42:35):
Know, I'd rather they be deeply unciviland actually fought for a greater good.
But that would be, this is not a shiftin the Democratic party, as you say.
This is a, a continuity, and it's all,it's really just a matter of style.
In substance there's been nothingmore kind of civil, in the broader
sense of the world of like towardscivilians, towards a, a civic society.

(01:42:56):
You could hardly say that's abadge of, of democratic politics.
We have to understand how wegot here and simply blaming
Republicans is not a strategy.
It's not the American people,particularly the Democratic party's base.
They're sick and tired ofthe hypocrisy in politics.
They're sick and tired of thehypocrisy among Democrats as well.
And until we change the Democraticparty and our republic will continue

(01:43:19):
to fall, and we must name the culprits,the culprits are corporate Democrats.
That's the obstructionismthat we need to overcome.
So let's start with some basic factson what Democrats actually believe.
More than 90% of Democrats believeclimate change is real, and it's
caused by human activity, particularlyby big oil companies like Exxon.

(01:43:42):
Not a controversial statement to make.
More than 90% of Democratsbelieve climate change is real.
More than 90% of Democrats believecivil rights are sacred and should never
be compromised for corporate profits.
Like if you're a Democrat,tell me if you disagree.
Are civil rights sacred?
Yes or no?
Okay, good.
We agree they are so, theyshouldn't be compromised.
More than 90% of Democrats believebanks should be regulated and

(01:44:05):
taxpayers should stop bailing outmajor corporations when they run
amuck and try to destroy our economy.
Let those banks fail.
Stop using taxpayer moneyto bail out billionaires.
Not a controversial statement to make.
More than 90% of Democrats believe thatcorporate money has no place in politics.

(01:44:25):
In fact, more than 90% of Americansbelieve that we want politicians
to be funded by people, notby corporate or super pacs.
Again, not a controversialstatement to make more than 70%.
Some say 80% of Democrats believe thathealthcare is a human right and they want
to join every developed nation on earthto ensure guaranteed universal healthcare.

(01:44:47):
More than 70% of Democratsbelieve in an end to the arms
trade causing global conflict.
In fact, 77% wanted the Bidenadministration to stop arming Netanyahu.
And while this is not an exhaustive list,each of these are wildly popular policies
among democratic voters that everydemocratic politicians should support it.

(01:45:09):
So when I talk aboutthis, it's not theory.
This is reality, and I wanna providein these last eight or nine minutes
a clear case study of one corporateDemocrat who if I didn't tell you
he was a Democrat, I promise youyou would think he's a Republican.
That question earlier, while a Democratsell better than every Republican,

(01:45:32):
keep that question in mind as Idescribe this corporate Democrat,
because the thing is he's not alone.
Too many corporateDemocrats follow this model.
It is an unsustainable model.
These saboteurs are complicit in thecollapse of our republic because they
betray the Democratic party principles.
They side with Maggard Republic intheir critical moments, and they

(01:45:53):
give Republicans covered a claim thatthey're cruel and sometimes fascist.
Yes, fascist policieshave bipartisan support.
So as I list out these receipts, Iwant you to consider why we tolerate
such politicians in our party.
How as politicians are the cause ofthe distrust voters have with the
Democratic party, and how much longerwill we tolerate them before demanding

(01:46:16):
they leave the party altogether,resign from their seats, retire, and
just kind of go off into the sunset?
So in our case study, I present to youCongressman Bill Foster, a corporate
funded multimillionaire politicianwho is on the wrong side of every one
of these issues I mentioned earlier.
Whose actively worked with Republicansto undermine our basic civil rights

(01:46:39):
and human rights for corporate profit.
Foster, who I think turned 70 thisyear, people like him aren't, is a
problem for the Democratic Party.
Their policies are a threat to ourdemocracy, and it does not hyperbole.
It's a factual observation ofhis eight terms in Congress.
Maybe it's nine terms.
His voting record, his financialties, his outright refusal to stand

(01:47:02):
for core Democratic party principlesreveals a really harsh truth.
He's effectively a Republicanhiding behind a blue label.
But again, here are the receipts.
Don't take my word for it.
For example, more than 70% ofDemocrats believe healthcare is
the human right fosters voting.
Record doesn't now credit were due.
He voted for the AffordableCare Act back in 2009.

(01:47:25):
Good on you, bill.
Then he took about a half million dollarsfrom big health and Big Pharma, and since
then he's voted at least three times withRepublicans to gut the a CA. He voted for
HR 33 50, which rescinds the protectionfor people with pre-existing conditions.

(01:47:47):
He voted for HR 35 22, which uh,would've rescinded the ban on charging
women more than men for healthcare.
He rescinded, he voted to, uh,uh, pass HR 1190, which would've
rescinded a protection on seniors.
Had these bills that Bill Fostersupported passed, it would've meant that

(01:48:08):
people like my, my own daughter, forexample, who has an incurable disease
that is fatal, if not treated, that isa preexisting condition, it would've
meant that she would be denied care andfoster opposes guaranteed healthcare.
He calls it unrealistic, even thoughevery developed nation on earth has it.
To him, it's unrealistic.
Oh, and his beloved donorsinclude United Health.
Yeah.
The Luigi Manji United Health, samecompany caught using AI to deny.

(01:48:33):
90% of Medicare claims were seniorcitizens, took their money, never
returned it, never apologized,continues to cash their checks proudly.
Is this who we want representingthe Democratic party?
Let's talk about climate justice.
'cause folks are like, well,bill Foster's a scientist if
you don't know this about him.
He's a PhD scientist.
He is a physicist.
He brags about his PhDdegree all the time.

(01:48:57):
You would think it'stattooed to his forehead.
You can't talk to him for morethan five seconds without him
reminding you that he's a physicist.
Good on you, bill.
But here's my problem withBill and his physics degree.
His voting records says otherwise hevotes with Republicans to expand offshore
drilling during a climate crisis.
He supports frackingduring the climate crisis.

(01:49:17):
He supports the junk science of carboncap capture the same trash that Exxon Big
Oil used to justify continuing pollution.
And speaking of Exxon, guess whoproudly donates to Bill Foster And
guess who proudly takes their money?
That's right.
Bill Foster is happily funded to thetune of thousands of dollars from Exxon,

(01:49:37):
and we are in a climate catastrophe.
California is on fire every year.
Bill Foster is too busy counting Exxon'sdollar bills in his campaign account
notice, and the thing is, it's scientistslike Foster that give climate destruction
a stamp of approval because it letscorporations like Exxon say, Hey, what
do you mean we're doing something wrong?

(01:50:00):
Bill Foster, the scientist supports us.
He's complicit in climate disaster.
Let's talk about the armstrade foreign policy.
Democrats want an end.
To the arms tree, they wantan end to perpetual war.
77% wanted to stop arming Netanyahu.
Bill Foster happily takes money fromdefense contractors and pro pro war
packs, happily fund a Netanyahu andvoted for more arms for him to commit

(01:50:25):
genocide and Gaza happily refuse toeven condemn the genocide or call for a
ceasefire or uphold the US Lehi laws oruphold international human rights law
if he can't stand up against war crimes.
When the International Criminal Courtand the International Court of Justice
confirmed these are war crimes,what does he actually stand for?

(01:50:49):
Rebecca, I'm telling you, his betrayalof international human rights translates
to his betrayal of domestic civil rights.
Foster is one of the lead abusersof civil rights in this country, and
I have the receipts to back it up.
The Americans With DisabilitiesAct was passed in 1990 as a
landmark piece of legislation.

(01:51:09):
To protect people with disabilities, toprotect disabled Americans from abuse, to
ensure they had accessibility under Trump.
HR six 20 was proposed to makeit more difficult for people with
disabilities to sue if they werediscriminated against more difficult.
Bill Foster not only voted for HR six 20,he co-sponsored it under a Trump regime.

(01:51:34):
He chose to co-sponsor this cruelBill Republicans in hopes that
Donald Trump would sign it into law.
Yes, apparently to Bill Foster.
Disabled Americans have too muchpower in this country, and Bill
Foster decided, you know what?
You disabled Americanshave way too much power.
We're gonna knock you down a size.
This is the cruelty of this man.

(01:51:56):
He voted to extend the PatriotAct to continue mass surveillance
on the American people.
Even now, he's been silent on thearbitrary arrest of Mamud Klio.
It's disgusting.
This is the man who is representingDemocrats in Congress, a person who wants
more government surveillance, a person whowants less rights for disabled Americans.

(01:52:20):
And by the way, he co-sponsorthat bill after taking thousands
of dollars from a lobbyistorganization working on behalf of.
Corporations and businesses whoare sick and tired of having to be
accountable to disabled Americans.
This is the kind of person that thisBill Foster corporate Democrat is.
So when you say, well, isn't itbetter to vote for a corporate

(01:52:43):
Democrat over a Republican?
My question to you is,what's the difference?
With respect to the State of the Union.
Holy hell, that was embarrassing.
I wish other countriescould not see this shit.
Republicans looked absolutelyblood thirsty and manic in
their fey to this creep, andthe Democrats looked bewildered.

(01:53:06):
They keep playing into his kabuki theater.
The tiny pre-made littlesigns, are you serious?
Only Bernie kept it real bystorming out at the end and telling
reporters follow me because he wasgiving the real response as usual.
He hit all the highnotes, Medicare for all.
Blowing the cap on social securityto preserve the trust and perpetuity,

(01:53:29):
making the rich pay their share, andincreasing retirement benefits to seniors.
Building housing on federalland to house the homeless.
Continuing to center climate changein our minds as we move forward.
Progressive taxation and so on.
It was all classicBernie, with a few tweaks.
It's kind of the foundation of our plan.
There are a million other thingsthat we can do once we take

(01:53:51):
back this country and show thesecharlatans for who they really are.
Instead of getting behind the mostpopular politician in the country who
just happens to caucus with the Democrats,they trotted out Alyssa Slotkin of
Michigan to give the official response.
And here's what we got.
I'm gonna give you the highlights ofher speech in bullet point form, and uh,
I'll link the transcript in the notesso that you can read it for yourself

(01:54:14):
and I'll editorialize as we go here.
So here are the pointsthat she made in order.
She was in New York on nine 11.
She joined the CIA, and then the militarymentions how George Bush and Barack Obama
both believed in this country, said,we need to stop losing jobs to China.
Okay.
Need to lower prices and get better jobs.

(01:54:34):
The tariffs are bad, thenational debt is too big.
National security is ofparamount importance, and we
need to secure the border.
Reagan, by the way, was a betterRepublican than President Trump.
We're a nation of innovators and risktakers, and that we as Democrats should
get engaged, do something other than doom
scroll.
How about this?

(01:54:55):
Go fuck yourself.
We don't need her hawkishRepublican light bonafides.
Don't give a shit that you are in the CIA.
In fact, I hate that.
And keep George Bush and RonaldReagan's names out your fucking mouth.
Don't say healthcare costsare too high, unless you're
talking about Medicare for All.
And hitting on national security,national debt, securing the border

(01:55:18):
that were risk takers and innovators.
Are you fucking kidding me?
How are we still leading withRepublican talking points?
This is how Kamala Harris just lost.
We litigated this already.
Even David fucking Brooks ofall people was like, maybe
Bernie was right all along.
I mean, you can't be fucking serious.

(01:55:41):
Now, for those who say it'sa pendulum, it'll swing back.
It won't.
Why would they destroythe economy on purpose?
They say, first of all, why doyou think they're all building
fucking spaceships and designingchips to put in their brains?
They're ready to piece out of this planetand they think they're gonna live forever.

(01:56:01):
And seriously, they don't care aboutyou or the economy or economic theory,
taxes, regulation, competition, whetheranyone will even be able to buy anything.
And I know this is the hardestthing to understand, right?
If they light it all on fire,won't they also go up in flames?

(01:56:21):
Well, no.
Actually, no.
That's not how it works.
Not for them.
Again, we don't haveto guess at this shit.
They wrote it all down.
The period of time in historythat they covet the most is the
second industrial revolution.
The mid 19th century is theirRoman empire, as the kids say.

(01:56:41):
All the trappings of a futile society inthe beginning stages of industrialization,
the haves and the havenots.
Please read your dickens.
Read hard times.
Read Jacob Reese, andhow the other half lives.
They don't want oneeconomy, they want two.
One for you to service the one for them.

(01:57:04):
See, they don't need all of you, just theones that will help them and they're not
gonna part with the penny to get there.
What do you think the AIrevolution is really about?
Think about the hundreds ofbillions of dollars being spent.
You got people like Larry Ellison outthere telling you, listen, leave it alone.
They're gonna cure cancer withall this money and research.

(01:57:24):
And sure, that might be part of it.
That's the moonshot, I guess.
Right?
But if they destroy the healthcaresystem, then who the fuck is gonna
have access to all these miracle curesfrom technology once they have them?
Don't you see the vast majorityof the money is going into labor
replacing technology that is you.

(01:57:45):
They're trying to fire you.
The guy they hired to run thingsgot famous for the catchphrase.
You're fired.
So if they live in gated communitieswith armed guards and service people
who take care of them, they don'tneed an economy that works for you.
They know this because mansionswere built in the mid 19th century.

(01:58:06):
People had servants.
They didn't pay income taxes.
This country was theirs.
That's the American dream in their minds.
That's why they're working so hardand so fast right now to dismantle
everything, and I mean everything.
They want there to be nothingleft to build by the time the
Democrats get back into office.

(01:58:28):
See, they're not even trying toprevent Democrats from getting there.
They know that they're gonna get there.
They just want everythingto be fubar when they do.
So does that mean we're screwedeven if we win the midterms?
Yes and no.
See, they're gonna drive theeconomy into the toilet and people
are gonna be fucking pissed.
But we can't just take back a fewseats and push that old pendulum back.

(01:58:51):
We need to crush them in the midterms.
We need to wipe 'em out in the housefor sure, but we also have to send
Susan Collins, Tom Tillis, JohnUsted, Ashley Moody, Joni Ernst,
Roger Marshall, Steve Daines, JohnCornyn, and Lindsey Graham packing.
We need to make things impossiblefor Donald Trump and show a blue wave

(01:59:14):
across the country that gives the houseimpeachment power and the Senate the
ability to eliminate the filibusterand stand up to the oval office.
I mean, make this guy'slife a living nightmare.
Bill after Bill across his desk that helpsthe American people, let him veto them and
then mock his giant veto signature thatovercompensates for his tiny little hands.

(01:59:37):
The way to get to Trump isn't torefute him, it's to mock him and
then beat him at his own game.
He can't handle it.
Democrats have to play hardballfor once in their political lives
and be like, Bernie, not Chuck.
I. It's our job now to show up atDemocratic Town Halls and demand
they get rid of this Alyssa Slotkinbullshit and run on Medicare for all,

(02:00:00):
housing First and Civilian Labor Corps.
Then once you're back in control, youcan await further instructions from
us, the people who put you there.
You wrote a column about how Senateminority leader, Chuck Schumer did
the right thing by not letting thegovernment shut down the floor Is yours.
Why was that the right move?
Well, because what were the other options?

(02:00:20):
I mean, people, you know, they,they, they want Democrats to fight.
I. And a shutdown would've beenan opportunity for a fight.
But I didn't see any of Schumer'sopponents actually walking through
what would happen next and providinga convincing story of why that
fight would produce a betterpolicy outcome for Democrats.
I think, in fact, Schumer has astrong argument that would've produced
a worse outcome, which is to sayif you shut down the government.

(02:00:42):
You hand the president a lotmore authority to decide what
operations of the government tokeep open, which ones to close.
'cause much of the government is supposedto close when the government is shut down.
Things that are essential keep operating,and there's supposed to be some
sort of objective standard for that.
But in practice, the president canbasically say, this is essential.
This is not essential.
All this stuff that Doge has beentrying to close and is getting tied
up with in the courts, he could justclose those things and furlough the

(02:01:04):
people and try to build exactly thegovernment he wants with only the things
he cares about, continuing to operate.
And because he'd have that power, he alsohas no particular incentive to want the
government to reopen once it is closed.
I mean, PE-people forget.
Donald Trump did the longest governmentshutdown in history 35 days, 2018
into 2019, basically just for funsies.

(02:01:25):
And that was even before he had ElonMusk there and was really actually
trying to dismantle the government.
So if you, if you want the government toshut down, which has been their effort
since day one of this administration,being handed a government shutdown
is actually helpful for that.
Meanwhile.
Democrats, if the governmentis shut down, muddy the water
about whose fault everything is.
I mean, you know, you have thepresident seemingly trying to induce

(02:01:46):
a recession in the United Statespursuing this unpopular trade war.
You're seeing the stock market tankand you're seeing a growing realization
that the stuff is, is his fault.
And so then if you have thisshutdown, then it makes it easier
for Republicans to raise questionsabout, you know, whose fault is all
of this dysfunction in Washington?
You, you don't want to get in theway of your opponent when he is
making a mistake and forcing ashutdown here would've done that.

(02:02:07):
Yeah, I, I think.
What we heard from some house Democratswas that passing this funding bill would
give Trump and Elon Musk carte blancheto keep dismantling the government
because the measure contained noprotections for existing spending.
But as, as you were saying, fromSchumer and others in the Senate,
we heard that shutting down thegovernment would help Trump and

(02:02:28):
Musk keep doing what they're doing.
So.
House Democrats are pissedin lack of a better term.
Why do you think that they are wrong?
Like what, what is going wrongin their logic about this?
Well, so I think there's acouple of things going on here.
You know, the, the, the flexibilitythat the president has because
we're will be operating under thiscontinuing resolution, is the same
flexibility that Presidents havefrom other continuing resolutions.

(02:02:49):
It would be good to have a full yearproper appropriations bill that would
set more restrictions, but we didn'thave those in place a week ago.
I think there's also something that'sa little bit cheap politically where
house Democrats are able to vote noon this and say they did their part
to block it and then blame the Senate.
Uh, and so, you know, the, when peoplein the Democratic base are angry and

(02:03:09):
they are very angry, getting them alsojoining in the chorus, people who are
mad at Chuck Schumer insulates themfrom, from political attack over this.
I thought it was very interesting,the other nine Democrats who joined
Chuck Schumer in voting for cloture.
'cause it was not a very ideologicallycohesive group of people.
You had some moderates, but you also had,for example, Brian Shatz, the, the senator
from Hawaii who's pretty progressive.

(02:03:31):
He's widely rumored to want tobe majority leader in the future.
And I think that was him showing,you know, I'm ready to take tough
votes that are unpopular, but in theinterest of the party in the long run.
And then the third reason I thinkthey're angry is that I think, you
know, while I think Chuck Schumerdid the right thing in the end, he
didn't telegraph it very clearly.
No, he did not.
No, he basically, uh.
You know, on Wednesday he came outand said Republicans didn't have

(02:03:53):
the votes to pass the spending plan.
And then on Thursday hesays he's gonna vote for it.
And I think, honestly, I think thatthat's part of why Democrats are so mad.
I mean, there are lots of reasonswhy we're gonna get to that.
There was a lot of mixed messaging.
Do you think that was afailure on Schumer's part?
Well, I, I think on Wednesdaythere was a failure.
I think, you know, up until Tuesdaywhen this passed the House Democrat's

(02:04:15):
strategy was, Republicans are incompetent.
They cannot line up their very narrowmajority together to agree on shared
priorities, and Republicans would've tocome crawling to Democrats to say, we have
to do a bipartisan bill because we're tooincompetent to do our own party line bill.
And in fairness to them, this, this hashappened a lot over the last few years.
Republicans have had terribleproblems with cohesion.

(02:04:36):
The problem is once.
The, the thing passed the house onTuesday, Democrats were just screwed.
They had no, you know, the, andthis is what happens when you lose
elections or it's ordinarily whathappens when you lose elections.
I think people have sort of forgottenbecause the Republican party has been
so dysfunctional for so many years,they've forgotten that normally when you
lose the election and the other partyis in power, they pass their agenda.
And that's a problem for you.
And it, and it sucks.

(02:04:57):
Like I, I, I get why Democrats are mad.
It sucks to lose elections.
Um, it especially sucks to lose electionsand then have the party that won.
Get its shit together andfigure out how to actually do
things that especially sucks.
So like I get that it's an unfortunatesituation, but the only thing to
do about that, I mean there's two.
One thing is that, you know, some ofthe things the administration is doing
are illegal, and that's a matter forthe courts, but ultimately the political

(02:05:19):
win where you become able to block stuffthrough Congress, you have to win the
majority back in the midterms next year.
And Democrats I think willwork very hard to do that.
But the problem is that.
Those elections aren't untilnext year and Republicans run
things for the next 22 months.
Yeah, I think that there aretwo separate issues here.
There's the micro issue ofthis cr, which sucks, but there

(02:05:39):
weren't that many options.
Right?
And then there's kind of the macroissue of people are furious and they're
furious at Congressional Democrats.
And Congressional Democrats aredesperate for a way to push back
against Trump, or at least be seenas pushing back against Trump.
And that's what you see from the house.
And I think that for many people.
I mean, you're hearing from pe, people aretalking tea party in a way that I haven't

(02:06:02):
seen Democrats talk in a really long time.
And the government funding plan, I thinkfor some people was like the first real
tangible piece of leverage that they had.
So if not this, then what I.
I think it's really funny when Isee people talking about, you know,
Democrats need our own tea party.
I think they should look a little bitabout how the Tea Party worked and

(02:06:23):
what it did to the Republican party.
You know, you know, from start in 2009,2010, when that movement starts, the
Tea Party has over many election cyclessaddled the Republican party with.
Unelectable candidates.
You have these revolts in Republicanprimaries insisting that you have
to nominate these quote unquoteideologically pure fighter people.
And then they lose general elections toDemocrats, even in places like Missouri

(02:06:46):
and Indiana because they, you know,they forced the party into nominating,
unappealing candidates and then they lose.
The Tea Party also created this dynamic.
In the Republican conference, in thehouse especially, and to a lesser
extent in the Senate where you havethese people who define themselves
by, I fight, I fight, I am obstinate.
I do not cooperate.
And that led to this dynamic thatthat persisted basically up until

(02:07:07):
this month where republicans couldnot get their ducks in a row, could
not agree on a partisan agenda, andactually pass it through the house
where they nominally had a majority.
And that empowered Democrats, so.
If you wanna rebuild that on theDemocratic side, if you want to go lose
general elections, if you wanna nominatepresidential candidates and saddle
them with platforms that will causethem to lose the presidential election.
If you want to not be able tohave an effective Congressional

(02:07:29):
majority, then go ahead.
Many of you will have seen RepresentativeAl Green, Democrat of Texas being
removed from the chamber when hedisrupted President Donald Trump's
joint address to Congress after he stoodup, shook his cane at the President
and accused him of lacking a mandate.
Many of you will have cheered AlGreen's protest of a president who
speaks and acts like an authoritarian.

(02:07:49):
But not 10 of his house Democraticcolleagues who voted with all
House Republicans to censureCongressman Green for his behavior.
When I saw one of those 10,Congressman , Democrat of Connecticut,
talking about the importance ofdecorum and civility, I tweeted,
we are 10 years into the Trump era.
Over a month into Trump term two,we watched a speech in which Trump
castigated Dems as radical left lunatics.

(02:08:10):
And use the racist jibeagainst the Democratic Senator.
And this Democratic representative,Jim Hymes, is still talking about demo
decorum and civility, really, really, towhich the congressman responded, really,
really champions for what is good andright, cannot win by suggesting that
what is good and right can be compromisedjust because the other side does it.
That's crappy moral reasoning.

(02:08:31):
And how you lose politically decorah maynot matter much, but what is right does,
let's continue that debate in person.
I appreciate Congressman Jim Hinesjoining me now here, uh, in the studio
with me to continue, I hope our goodfaith disagreement about the best
way to approach, uh, Donald Trumpand his authoritarian administration.
Um, in your own words.
Congressman, why did you vote tocensor your colleague Al Green

(02:08:54):
for doing something a lot ofgrassroots dems are glad he did?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And by the way, you can be glad he did it.
Uh, and I'm sort of ambivalent on that.
Okay.
And also vote to censure.
Why?
Okay.
And that may actually bethe way I feel about it.
Why it's not really aboutdecorum, incivility.
I put that in my tweet.
Decorum.
Incivility are importantparts of a functional system.
And yeah, I think we should be a littlecareful about the political aspects

(02:09:16):
of casting aside decorum and civility.
But what this is reallyabout is the rules.
Now I get this all the time, andas you might imagine, the last
72 hours, I've gotten it a lot.
Yeah.
Don't follow the rules.
Do not follow the rules.
Well, so then I ask, um,activists who take that approach,
what rules shall I not follow?
Shall I stop following therules against violence?
Can I, can I now lie regularly?

(02:09:37):
Because all of the rules are suspended?
And I ask those questions tomake the point that when we start
talking about breaking the rules,we have to be enormously careful.
And we have over a century structureda way in which we break the
rules and we feel good about it.
This is the traditionof civil disobedience.
And of course this was constructedby people like Moham Gandhi, Martin

(02:09:58):
Luther King, who said two things I.An unjust rule can be righteously and
in fact should be righteously broken.
Now whether the house procedures areunjust rules, we'll set that aside.
And then this thing, two part, andthis is the nodding to the importance
of rules and the concepts of the rulesas the thing that stop us from chaos.
You can break an unjust rule and thenyou happily accept the circumstances,

(02:10:23):
which by the way, is where Al Green was.
Yeah.
He said, I'm gonna get in the way andI expect there to be consequences.
And on Twitter, he put theresolution and he said, guilty.
So as a principle of reasoning, andthis is why I talked about crappy
moral reasoning, you can't say, andit's completely inconsistent with
the tradition of civil disobedienceto say you should break the rules,

(02:10:44):
but seek to evade the consequences.
So just to finish this thought,so why does Jim Himes vote for it?
Because I voted for the censure,um, of Joe Wilson when he
shouted at President Obama.
So now I get asked by a, let's,let's, let's sort of transition
this to a little bit of politics.
I get asked by an unaffiliatedvoter who isn't very online.

(02:11:07):
Wait, you voted to chastiseJoe Wilson, and then you didn't
vote In the case of Al Green.
In a world where everybody thinks thatpoliticians have no principle and believe.
That it's okay when our side does it.
That's a bad message to send.
So cut.
You said a lot there.
A lot of interesting points, fair points.
Just on one of them.
Even if you accept theconsequences of what you do.

(02:11:30):
The Republicans could haveall voted to censor him and he
could have accepted this cons.
He didn't need 10 Democrats to join him.
To use your analogy of Moham, Gandhi, ofthe Mahatma, you know, he accepted the
consequences of the British punishing him,but his own side didn't punish him too.
The question is, is punishment righteous?
And you can say, no, it's not.
Which is by which is inconsistentwith the traditional understanding

(02:11:51):
of civil disobedience.
And you can be angry at me forparticipating in that, which is
a bit odd if you believe thatthe punishment is righteous.
But what you can't do is to say, we get.
The one half of civil disobediencebreaking the rules, but we're
gonna seek to evade the other half.
Why?
Again, you're absolutely right.
I have thought about this a lot.
Um, I could have voted no, and I couldhave constructed an argument that would've

(02:12:15):
been about what is right and true.
The people who visited my workplaceon January 6th with the intent
to stop a procedure to get inthe way of the operations of the
Congress, horrible, horrible thing.
In that moment, they and their supportersbelieved that they were righteous.
So you can't simply rely on yourown belief of righteousness.

(02:12:36):
To say, I'm going to break the rules andI'm not going to accept the consequence.
I wanna push back and say, you kind ofcan, because it sounds like you're a
little bit both sides in this, right?
The people who came to Congressviolently to interrupt a illegal
proceeding were breaking the law anddoing immoral, dishonest things, right?
Whatever they believed in their heads, andmany of them who knows what they believed
in their heads, that is not the same thingas a congressman standing up against a

(02:12:59):
president who is being authoritarian isviolating the Constitution from day one.
Um, and taking what you said, you,you even began the interview saying,
I kind of admired what he did.
Uh, in a sense it was a goodthing maybe that he did it.
So I'm not sure.
I, I get this argument of saying if theydo it, it doesn't mean we should do it.
And this is gonna sound very partisan,but, but when they do it, it's wrong.

(02:13:19):
And maybe in this case it's right.
Yeah.
But, um, Medi, the wholeconcept of a society under law.
Yeah.
Is that you and me and no one else.
Not the young man.
He didn't break any laws.
Uh,
people on January 6th.
Broke laws.
What I understand what law understand.
I understand.
Rules.
Rules, decor rules.
I mean, Shannon, no, no, no, no, no.
Let's just go back to decor.
One second.
'cause you gave a very longanswer at the beginning.
You just bypassed the decorum.
Yeah.
You did bring up decor.
I did civility.

(02:13:40):
In your original remarks.
I did, I did.
Shannon Watts, who's a guncontrol activist, you may know her
founder of Mom's Demand Action.
She had this viral post, shesaid, democracy dies in decorum.
Kind of riff on the postDemocracy dies in darkness.
She's right, isn't she?
Democracy's on the line.
And people like you'retalking about decorum.
I think there's a lot of ways to fight.
Righteous battles.

(02:14:00):
Think of the civil rights movement.
Um, Malcolm X was part of that.
Stokely Carmichael.
Fairly radical, right?
Um, Martin Luther King criticizedby radicals for being way too
accommodating and moderate.
You know, who else was important?
John F. Kennedy.
And Lyndon Baines Johnson, I, Ithink it's a mistake to get into the
question of, do you wanna be John F.Kennedy, or do you wanna be Malcolm X?

(02:14:21):
All of those elements are reallyimportant, but I am gonna, and I'm
going to acknowledge that focusingon decorum is the wrong thing to do.
I probably should have said therules, and I'm gonna acknowledge that
rules and laws are different, but.
They are alike in the way that if weare to live in a society of laws and
rules, we have to take off the tablethat I can break a rule or a law simply

(02:14:45):
because I have strong conviction.
This is why a young man murdersthe CEO of United Healthcare.
He had strong conviction.
This is why to bring upanother potentially sore topic.
Too many people seek to justify.
The extremely aggressive, brutal waron Gaza Because of the horridness Yeah.

(02:15:08):
Of the murder of 1200 Israeli.
But those are, those are,those are killings and crimes.
We could disagree.
Al Green saying the presidenthas no mandate, is not in the
same moral or political universe.
You've reached Section C Energy.
When Alexandria was a kid,you correct me if I'm wrong,
she cleaned, uh, houses withher mom in order to make enough

(02:15:32):
money for the family to survive.
And then after she graduatedcollege, she was a barista,
working paycheck to paycheck.
But what she did as she looked around herand in her community in the Bronx, New
York, is she saw that change had to come.

(02:15:57):
And so what she did is decidedto run for Congress and people
said, what are you kidding?
The guy who represents thedistrict was one of the most
powerful members of Congress.
He had access to unlimited kinds of money.
How much money did youhave when we started?
You started None.

(02:16:17):
None.
Alright.
But she put, she did whatReal politics is about.
Real politics is not sittingat million dollar fundraisers.
Yes, it's working withpeople in your community

(02:16:41):
and she worked hard and her friends workedhard and she pulled off and major upset.
And since then she has beena great member of Congress.
But not only that.
She has been an inspiration to millionsof young people all across this country.

(02:17:11):
Now, the reason I say all of that is notjust to praise Alexandra and I love her,
but is to tell you andthe people of America.
That what Alexandria did, you can do.

(02:17:34):
There are millions of young peopleout there who love this country.
Who are disgusted withwhat they are seeing,
who are prepared to get involvedin the political process.
So Alexandria, thank youfor being that inspiration.

(02:17:56):
I think this is one of the more importantmoments to come out of these town
halls is this message to the audience.
Because these people that are,there are ones that are, that
want to be more politicallyengaged if they aren't already.
And having a OC there as an exampleof what you can do, I think is, uh,
a great way to, um, to message tothese people who want to be more

(02:18:19):
involved and understand that, hey,you could be a bartender and you could
take down someone like Joe Crowley.
One of the most important, or I shouldsay powerful Democrats at the time.
In Congress take, you can take himdown if you have an actual connection
to your community and you actuallyare willing to fight for people.
So it's a great message
We have heard quite a bit from theDemocratic caucus admonishing their own.

(02:18:47):
And how they choose toobject to Donald Trump.
I'm a son of the segregated south.
The rights that were enshrinedin the Constitution for me, my
friends and neighbors denied me.
I had to go to the back door and drinkfrom a colored water fountain, sit in the
back of the bus, and I had relatives whowere locked up in the bottom of the jail.

(02:19:09):
Uh, I, I have acclimated tothis kind of behavior, but quite
candidly, it is a double standard.
And it is a form of invidiousdiscrimination, but I, I was prepared
to suffer whatever the consequencesare when I decided that I would
engage in this peaceful protest.
I never used any sort of a profanity.

(02:19:31):
I never made any threats.
I merely said, you do not havea mandate, and this is true.
Is there another.
Pardon me.
Is there another extension of this?
Does, does your moment end up servingas a distraction to when your party
seems to be struggling to exercisea real cohesive approach here?
I believe what I didputs a focus on Medicaid.

(02:19:55):
I believe that this may be the means bywhich we can prevent Medicaid from being
cut, because I think it would be difficultnow for them to move forward to cut it.
Given that we have brought thisto the attention of the public,
I don't see it as a distraction.
I see it as a positiveaction to protect Medicaid.

(02:20:16):
Now, I would like to, uh, reassertmy feelings that rolling over and
playing dead does not a strategy make.
So if you aren't as outraged.
By seeing the rampant corruption that wehave seen just on the course of the last
couple of months, and seeing our democracynot only in decline, but in actual peril.

(02:20:40):
If you are not as upset as I am,then what are you doing in Congress?
We also, we also knew that it was onlya matter of time before those more vocal
members let their feelings be known and
we know who that was going to be.
It's really bad because not only are weenduring something we've never experienced

(02:21:04):
before, as we came up on the State ofthe Union address, we started to look
through history and figure out what doesone do when a dictator is coming through.
Like, I mean, like, we were trying tofigure out like what are the options
and, um, it is true that we are ina time that we've never seen before.
This actually reminds me of a tweetthat I saw this week that said, we

(02:21:29):
have no protections in our constitutionand in the way our, um, elect
our, uh, democracy is constructed.
We have absolutely noprotections against apathy.
We have all of these checksand balances in place.
But if people don't see fit to stand anddo their duty to protect those checks and

(02:21:55):
balances as set forth in the constitution.
Everybody has had that one jobwhere you knew the supervisor that
wasn't going to enforce the rules.
You, you know what I mean?
You, the, the rules don't reallywork when you have the supervisor
that, that doesn't enforce the rules.
And by the way, shout out to Jerry'cause I wouldn't have made it

(02:22:16):
through my early twenties without you.
All those, all those days.
I came in late smelling like mad dog.
But when it comes to our constitution,the stakes are a little different.
We have someone that does not believein co-equal branches of government.
And then we have people that areparty to those other co-equal branches

(02:22:38):
that have decided that they wouldseed their constitutional oath and
responsibilities, um, to kneel to,I don't even know if it's Trump.
Right?
Like, it, it feels as if Elon.
It is really like running everything and,and Trump is just hanging out, um, signing
whatever executive order somebody putsin front of him and when he is not doing
that, he's just posted up in Mayor Lago.

(02:23:01):
Um, you know, playing golf.
And what she just did in, in combiningElon Musk and, and Donald Trump is
obviously a sensible thing to do when yousee two people together more than most.
Middle-aged couples like that,that's, that just, that just
makes all the sense in the world.

(02:23:22):
But it's also why I have the bit ofenergy that I take towards the, the
magos that have found out recently.
Because even in their finding out,even in the find out stage, as we
saw with the farmers, as we seewith federal workers, they will
find a way to separate Donald Trump.

(02:23:45):
From Elon Musk.
Now, one of the reasons that you used to.
To elevate Donald Trump over KamalaHarris when it came to their, their
candidacy for president was that youneeded a strong man, was that you
need somebody that can stand up to,uh, the, the leaders on, on the world
stage and and advocate for America.

(02:24:06):
But you are perfectly fine for Elon Muskputting him in his pocket and leading him
around by his ear to the point that youabsolve Donald Trump of all accountability
for the litany of things you object toMusk and Doge engaging in, that's insane.

(02:24:26):
Elon hasn't seen all the waste 'causewe've, you know, spent a whopping
more than $10 million already.
On Trump and golfing and Mar-a-Lago,I'm sure there's a few things we
could do with that $10 millionthat would be more productive.
Um, and what's most concerning tome, and it's why I am so happy that

(02:24:47):
I'm specifically here with thisplatform, is that there is not only
an attack on us as Americans, andwhen I say us, it's not Democrats.
I specifically say us as Americansbecause there were those that
really thought that Donald Trumpwas gonna make their lives better.
And they went out and votedfor him because of that.
Right.
Right.

(02:25:07):
But right now they'relike, well, wait a minute.
Veterans are being fired and youknow what's gonna happen to the va?
Because they're talking about they wannaget rid of 80,000 jobs at the va. And if
you know anything about the va, peoplebeen telling us more and more is needed.
Not less.
Not less, less.
Right.
Yeah.
Um, or the people that don'tunderstand that when you're looking at
something like the Consumer ProtectionBureau, that they actually have.

(02:25:32):
Fees that they charge, and alot of those fees go to take
care of a lot of the salaries.
Like there are no savings reallythat we will see by firing people.
But I can tell you that by firingpeople and with costs going up
that a recession is upon us.
We do town halls all the time.
I haven’t had a town hallin the last couple of weeks.

(02:25:54):
We had a big telephone town hall,which we had 8,000 people on.
I had a Spanish telephone townhall that had 11,000 people on.
And we’re having some in persontown halls here in the weeks ahead.
So town halls are important, and everyoneshould be doing them, especially,
Republicans who are now choosing not to.
But beside those, by the way, whetherit’s the telephone town halls where
I’m shopping at the grocery store, notone single person has come up to me

(02:26:18):
and said, oh, by the way, you shouldlay back a little bit or be bipartisan
or you should find common ground.
No one has mentioned that to me.
Everyone says, fight harder or thank youfor taking on Elon Musk or please keep
calling out Donald Trump whenever you can.
Continue to be more aggressiveor be even more aggressive.
That’s what people are saying, and Iknow that that’s what people are hearing.

(02:26:41):
My other colleagues, by the way,are all hearing the same thing.
People want people want usto be aggressive and tough.
Okay.
I’m just going to make the argument onthe other side, not that I believe it,
but just to present it because I thinkit’s got some substance to it, which is
the argument on the other side is this isprecisely the problem that the Democrats
have been captured by the part of theirelectorate that are the kind of people

(02:27:02):
that vote in special elections, the kindof people that consume a lot of news, the
kind of people who are totally locked in.
That’s the core democratic constituency.
It’s a constituency that wentoverwhelmingly for Harris, but
precisely the reason that Harrislost the election is people who are
the most checked out went for Trump.
And so if you allow yourself tolisten to that most in tune group,

(02:27:25):
you will be alienated from themarginal folks that you need the most.
That’s the argument.
Yeah.
I don’t buy that.
I mean, look, I think first, wehave to always excite the base.
I mean, the base is something that Ithink we oftentimes don’t do a good
enough job exciting, by the way.
The reliable Democratic voter.
Obviously, we’ve got to do that.
We’ve got to do that by beingtough taking on Donald Trump
and do and being good Democrats.

(02:27:47):
All the folks that I believe weactually have to reach in the election,
those voters are casual voters.
We don’t do a good job of actuallyreaching them because they’re
not watching, like me or you.
They’re not watching MSNBC or CNNor the cable news all the time.
They’re not reading the “New YorkTimes.” What they’re doing though is
they’re watching maybe their favoriteYouTube show or pop culture or they’re

(02:28:07):
invested in entertainment media, andthose are the spaces where Republicans
have learned to reach that casual voter.
We can win those casual voters, butwe’re not going to win those casual
voters by just doing politics as usual.
I think we’re going to win them bytrying to get their attention by being
a little bigger, a little bit more indifferent types of spaces, and bringing

(02:28:30):
those folks in and winning the argument.
Now can we actually persuade themwhen we have their attention?
I think that’s somethingthat we’re going to find out.
I’m hopeful that we can.
I think we have the right people to do it.
I guess the thing I’m sort ofworking through is, like, okay.
So we agree it’s not normal.
We know that Democrats aresort of locked out of power.
So here’s my take on where things are,which is that elected Democrats are

(02:28:54):
just not that important to this moment.
That’s my feeling.
My feeling is that, like, forall the people that say, like,
what are the Democrats doing,and I have Democrats on my show.
I’m interviewing you right now.
What matters is mass publicopinion in civil society.
That’s really what matters.
And public opinion probablymore than anything.
A world in which Donald Trump’s approvalrating is 30%, a world in which frontline

(02:29:18):
members are like, really looking down thebarrel is a better world for the outcomes
it produces than the world we’re in nowin which its approval rating is 45%.
Like, I’m using these numbers,they’re just sort of rough estimates,
but public committee matters.
And the most important thing to do rightnow is to move public opinion against

(02:29:39):
the person attempting an authoritarianend to the democratic project.
I mean, that is a hundred percent.
And I also think that that’s where electedofficials or people with some megaphone
-- Yeah.
-- have a responsibility tobring him down, right?
So, look, there’s two ways we’regoing to actually start winning.

(02:29:59):
I think one is, the issues are goingto actually impact Donald Trump, right?
His approval rating is goingto be impacted by what?
When he makes these cuts to Medicaidand people actually feel it.
When tariffs actually raise prices,people are going to feel that.
When eggs don’t come down and whenpeople are going to the grocery store,
those things are going to impactDonald Trump’s approval and bring him
down and certainly keep at a minimum,it’s not going to let him go above

(02:30:22):
where he’s at right now, and you cansee his numbers continue to go down.
What else is going to bringthose numbers even lower?
Is those folks that have, particularlythose that have big megaphones,
Hakeem Jeffries, Alexandria.
Now, folks that are coming up likeJasmine, other people that can actually
take the mic and amplify a messageof bringing Trump down and bringing

(02:30:43):
truth the way he’s actually doing.
He’s cutting Medicaid.
He’s after Social Security.
They’re trying to cut programsin your in your public school.
That will also impact Trump, andit’s going to be amplified not just
by a few of us, but by all of us.
And so, where theDemocratic caucus comes in?
I agree with you.
First, it’s events that are happeningon the ground, his policies will

(02:31:03):
impact his members the most.
But where we can actually have animpact is to every single day is talk
about in as many spaces as we can
-- Yes.
-- and not just traditional media,what the hell Donald Trump is doing
and its impact to your family.
That’s what we’ve got to do.
This is Section D,pushback to the failures.
After 2020 Nevada caucuses, 'cause we werestill in the caucus system at that point,

(02:31:28):
uh, we actually were able to organize.
And win big for Berniein 2020 here in Nevada.
Um, a lot of people don't realizethat, but, but Bernie actually won
Nevada in 2020 and that was becausethe organizing, the huge organizing
effort we did on the ground.
Um, in past, in past election, the pastevents starting in 2016, a lot of times

(02:31:52):
we were unable to build on that momentum.
But after 2020, we decided we had todo something to keep people organized.
So the way we did that was to actuallyget all of his delegates, which was
over 5,000 delegates to attend thestate central committee meeting.

(02:32:12):
Right.
And so by doing that and bygetting them enrolled in the state
central committee, we were able to.
Affect the elections of the inner partyDemocratic party workings here in Nevada.
But that took a lot of effort.
I mean, organizing 5,000 people right, andsaying has a big effort and, and getting
them to understand the value of working.

(02:32:34):
Toward that goal of taking overthe Democratic party, and we were
successful in, uh, 2020 through2023, um, in controlling the party
and making sure that the, that weconducted everything above board.
Transparently and that we were ableto get young, progressive candidates

(02:32:54):
elected to our state legislature.
That was a big deal.
Right?
Um, and that wouldn't havehappened without that.
Uh, because the structures,there's so much dark money even
in our Democratic primaries, as.
So much dark money that that'swhat we're always fighting against.
And that's why we need peopleto organize around candidates

(02:33:14):
and to get these people elected.
Like the energy here today was amazing.
Yeah.
But what do we do next?
Well, that's my, Judith,that's my question for you.
Um, so in, in response to progressives,the, the more establishment side,
just for lack of a better word.
They weren't okay with you guyshaving control of the wheels.

(02:33:35):
My, so my next question is thatis how deeply did that affect
the Harris outcome in the state?
Because it was a very thinmargin that Donald Trump won by.
Right.
So.
All of that ugliness spilled over inthe Democratic party elections, the
Nevada Democratic Party elections.
And you know, they actually workedto make sure that progressives were

(02:33:59):
disenfranchised from the party.
And that young people, alot of young people were
disenfranchised from the party.
So when that happens, guess what?
You wasn't with razor thin marginsin your elections, like Senator Rosen
barely pulled it out and we lost Nevada.
We lost the governor's raceand we lost the President.
So that's a big deal.

(02:34:21):
It's a really big deal in a swing statethat for the last few cycles, swung blue.
Then all of a sudden,you know, vote for Trump.
That means you're, you're doingsomething wrong as a party.
And I think that the Democraticparty needs to take a hard look.
And how they're doing business.
You know, I do think that's part of it.
The Republicans win by simply suppressingthe progressive vote, don't they?

(02:34:44):
So if, if the Democratic partyappeals to its more corporate.
Arm.
Right?
And they talk about putting, youknow, not, not, I'm not talking about
reaching out to grassroots Republicanvoters that are angry right now about
Elon Musk and hurting financially.
We're talking about those individuals.
Some of those even guys evensupport Medicare for all.
Right?
Yeah.
We're talking about the corporateinterests, the big moneyed interests

(02:35:05):
we're talking about, you know, that sortof thing where, where these two parties
agree on that level, but if, if, ifthat is what's placated and not this.
Then it's enough to suppress progressprogresses from coming out because
the progressives are like, I, I'mnot gonna be down with somebody
that's anti-trans or racist.
That's not what I'm here for.
It's almost like Bernie made this,this, the divide isn't, is the

(02:35:27):
divide, isn't this, it's this.
What are your thoughts on that?
Deeper than that though, becausethe machine, the corporate machine
actually runs the Democratic party.
It's not being run by individuals.
It's being run byconsultants and lobbyists.
That are part of that machine.
So there's a lot of people atthe top still making a ton of
money whether we win or lose.

(02:35:49):
And that's what, that's what we've gottaget past that cycle of corruption, right?
Like we, when we have democraticprimaries, people should feel that
they have the right to elect their owncandidate, not have that choice taken
away from them by dark money that comes inand says, okay, we're clearing the field.
Only this candidate can run because thiscandidate has pledged loyalty to them.

(02:36:10):
The machine, that's what has to stop,and then people will start to feel
like they're franchised again to vote.
Right now, non-partisan voters make upthe majority of the electorate in Nevada.
People can't forget thatthe Democratic Party has
disenfranchised all those voters.
And they're not doing anythingto recoup those losses.

(02:36:32):
Like, why aren't we reachingout to Nonpartisans?
Why aren't we reaching outto small business owners?
I mean, isn't just aboutcorporate right in, in the state.
There are a lot of small businessowners that the Democratic
Party should be engaged with andsupporting as well as our unions.
There's this podcast that went onbetween Gavin Newsom and Tim Balls.

(02:36:55):
This is the, the first personwho's left of center that was
brought on by Gavin Newsom.
His, uh, first podcastepisodes were sloppy.
Steve Bannon, CharlieKirk, and Michael Savage.
Three hard right wingers.
And why is Gavin doing that?
Because he believes in the firstphilosophy I told you, oh, maybe
we got stuff to learn from him.
Like that dumb bullshit.

(02:37:16):
But what you're gonna see here is TimWalls, without even trying, really
ends up exposing how hollow and vapidGavin Newsom's approach to politics
is right now and why he's massivelyfalling out of favor with Democrats,
which I'll prove to you in a minute.
By the way, after we watch thisclip, um, and why Tim Walls is, is.
More on the, on the positiveside of the democratic base.

(02:37:38):
People are looking at him more favorablynow because of how he's been acting.
So let's watch and we'll break it down.
Base where we wanna, okay.
We challenge you to a, to a, a, you know,a, a wwe e fight here type of thing.
But it is, it's
a natural reaction.
I think it's one of the reasonswe're losing so many men.
And again, it's multiethnic.
It's not just white men.
Uh, we're losing them.
We're losing them to these guys online.
We're losing people that I'mbringing on this podcast as well.
That's why I brought,these are bad guys though.

(02:37:59):
These are, I brought Charlieguys, but they exist.
So who are they talking about?
Charlie Kirk.
Steve Bannon, Michael Savage.
People like that.
Oh, we're losing.
We're losing to these guys, bro.
So I'm bringing 'em on the podcast.
Now, if Gavin Newsom brought thesepeople on the podcast and fought them
tooth and nail, I'd be saying, great.
I'd be giving 'em credit.
I'd be covering the clips, but he's not.
He's playing fucking Pattycakes with them, right?

(02:38:21):
Look at Tim Wall's reaction whenthese people are brought up.
He's like, these are bad guys.
Which reaction is more in alignment withdemocratic voters in the Democratic base?
I think it's Tim's.
When you think of sloppy Steve andCharlie Kirk and, and Michael Savage.

(02:38:42):
These are bad guys isthe correct reaction.
All right, let's keep going.
And we could deny they exist.
They exist.
Not only they exist, they persistand they're actually influencing
young kids every single day.
How do push, how do.
Push some of those guys backunder a rock is what I think.
We have to first understandwhat their motivations are.
I think we have to understandwhat they're actually doing.
That's don think racism and misogyny.
I think there's a lot of that, butI don't think it's exclusively that.
When you talk to a guy like SteveBannon, I, you know, he reminded

(02:39:03):
me a little bit of my grandfatherwhen he talks about working folks
and he talks about how we hollowedout the industrial for this country.
I understand that, but soI, we can dismiss the notion
of, of election denialism.
We could completely dismiss whathe did on January 6th, but I don't
think you can dismiss, uh, what he'ssaying reminds me a lot of what Bernie
Sanders was saying reminds me a lot ofwhat Democrats said 20, 30 years ago.
I mean, he's arguing against,he, he hates Musk, right?
He hates Musk.

(02:39:24):
He hates Musk.
He hates the oligarchy.
He totally agrees with you on theconcentration of monopolistic powers.
Gavin Newsom is beingplayed for an absolute fool.
That's what you need to understandbecause here's the bottom
line, Steve Bannon is lying.
Gavin, he is lying to your face.
He virtue signals and poses like,oh, I'm on the economic left.
Actually, I'm like againstthe oligarchy and stuff, bro.

(02:39:46):
And then Donald Trump does a massivetax cut for the 1% corporations and
he doesn't say Dick to oppose it.
Nothing.
When Trump backs every single thingElon Musk is doing, cutting the
CFPB going after social security.
Going after flight safety officials.
He might take some shots at Elon,but then when Trump comes out and
says, I agree completely with Elon,Steve goes, yes sir. He's a posr.

(02:40:11):
He's a liar.
By the way, he also literally committed,committed a massive amount of fraud,
stole money from the MAGA base by tellingthem we're gonna privately fund the
border wall and just took the money.
This is a guy that you're doingwell, you gotta hand it to him.
No, you fucking don't.
You gotta fight him.
That's what you gotta do.
Completely.
Uh, dismisses the notion that we shouldextend the tax cuts for corporations and

(02:40:33):
the very wealthy he thinks we, and then
Trump
does it and he's got
Dick to say, and he still says, I want,he says, I want Trump to get a third term.
Even though Trump cut taxes for thewealthy in corporations in the first
term, they're gonna do it again in thesecond term as they're broadcasting
while raising taxes on the bottom.
95%. And Mr. Populist, I'm a populist.
He sees Trump do this two separatetimes and goes, he's still my guy.

(02:40:57):
Well then maybe just, maybeyou're not a populist.
Maybe you're not anti oligarchy.
Maybe you're not left wing.
Maybe you're a fucking liar who uses thoseissues to try to trick people into, into
supporting your fascist regressive agenda.
Lower taxes, uh, uh, for the middle class.
I want to see increase taxes.
Message.
I, I can't message to misogynist.
I can't message that women shouldn't have.

(02:41:17):
But I think if we say, so,
the point that the point that he'smaking is that like Gavin, these
people are like beyond the pale.
Like you have to acknowledgethat they're beyond the pale.
This is the point that Tim Wal is making,and this point is undeniably true, and
Gavin is refusing to acknowledge it.
And if anything, he's normalizing andhumanizing these fucking assholes.
So let me prove my point herefor you because this guys, I need

(02:41:38):
you to stop and think about this.
He had on three far right wingerson his podcast as the first guest.
One of them is Michael Savage.
A lot of you are probably too youngto remember who Michael Savage is.
He was one of the biggest radio hostsin the country during like the Rush
Limbaugh era, the Sean Hannity era, latenineties, early two thousands, right here.
Here's what you need toknow about Michael Savage.
He was banned from the UnitedKingdom for his extremism.

(02:41:59):
He said, quote, I was very disappointedin Trump attacking white supremacy.
He said, trans healthcarequote should be outlawed.
He said, Bernie andHillary are communists.
And then he used the famousquote of, first they came for the
rich people and I said, nothing.
I. To try to go after.
Uh, Bernie and Hillary, he said, putdown BLM protestors, like feral dogs.
He compared Obama to Hitler andsaid Obama is doing white genocide.

(02:42:22):
He mocked PTSD and depressionimplying it wasn't real.
He called Obama, quote, thenew leader of the caliphate.
He said Obama is spreadingEbola virus on purpose.
He said Trump savedwhite kids from slavery.
He defended torture.
He calls left-wingers Vermins.
He talked about wanting to reachfor his Glock to shoot lesbians.
He said, quote, our children arebeing destroyed by gay marriage.

(02:42:43):
He said, quote, the children's mindsare being raped by the homosexual mafia.
He.
He said, white people are the onlypeople that don't vote based on race.
He says Autism is a fraud, a racket,a brat who hasn't been told to
cut the act out in 99% of cases.
He said, quote, we haveto go to war with Iran.
He said, quote, our freedomsare choking us to death.
He got fired from M-S-N-B-Cbecause he screamed at a guy

(02:43:03):
to quote, get AIDS and die.
And then finally, his most controversialof all this controversial is one
way of describing him, he said, weshould kill 100 million Muslims.
This is who Gavin Newsomhad on his podcast with.
This is who he had on hispodcast, and this is who he
played fucking Patty cakes with.
And again, it'd be one thing if youbring him on a fight with him the
entire time until you're blue inthe face, dog, I'd be defending you.

(02:43:26):
You didn't do that.
You didn't do it.
You didn't do it.
Mainstream Democrats still haven'tdecided how to respond to the second Trump
presidency, but some on the left of theparty think the time for silence is over.
At last, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezand Bernie Sanders are on a
fighting oligarchy tour of America.
It's been drawing record crowdswith 34,000 people estimated to

(02:43:48):
have attended their stop in Denver,making it the largest rally of
either of their political careers.
And in Vegas.
The two politicians sat down withHassan Piker for an interview.
What are you guys, uh, trying toaccomplish with these rallies?
The kind of moment that we're in andalso something that Trump was able
to exploit was really practicing.

(02:44:10):
Even though he doesn't believe inworking class politics, they had a
very focused working class strategy.
And I think for a while, like democratic.
Party clearly didn't, wasn't affectedat that, wasn't successful at that.
And I think one of the things thatwe're here to do is to actually rally
a class conscious movement to bringpeople together and to show that

(02:44:36):
we can fight for a better future.
Not in marginalizing and attackingpeople, uh, you know, marginalized
people, but actually in rejecting thedifferences that we have to come together
in common cause and to organize folks.
To me this country faces, I.
The worst set of crises that we havefaced in a very, very, very long time.

(02:45:02):
Uh, we are looking at a nation, which isnow oligarchic, and they don't hide it.
I mean, I must give themcredit for, but you know, they
are, they're there out there.
Mr. Must, the richest guy in theworld is running all over the place,
cutting veterans, the needs of veteranscutting after Social Security, uh,
there are thir in addition to Musk.
He got 13.

(02:45:23):
Uh, nominees of Trump, the headmajor agencies are all billionaires.
So you got a government clearly noembarrassment of the billionaire
class by the billionaire classfor the billionaire class.
And then what is, I would hope, wouldbe upsetting to all Americans, no
matter what their politics may be.
You can be a conservative about this.
You got a president whois moving us very rapidly.

(02:45:44):
Into an authoritarian form of society.
I mean, you don't sue media in Americabecause they say something bad about you.
Alexandria and I got about500 lawsuits there, but we
happen to believe in democracy.
These rallies have generatedquite a lot of buzz.
Apparently there are like morepeople turning out than during

(02:46:04):
Bernie's actual primary run is.
Is that significant?
What do you think is in thefuture for these two, if anything?
I think it's incredibly significant.
This is a real kind of point ofinflection in democratic party
politics and where they want theparty to move moving forward.
And we are seeing a real sense of angeramongst the Democratic base, right, in
terms of what Trump is being allowed to dowith very little pushback and a bunch of

(02:46:27):
what was described by the Umani campaignin NYC as being a bunch of fossils
and free people like Chuck Schumer.
He, he's been, there's outrage,genuine outrage in terms of
what we're seeing at town halls.
Somebody said.
Clearly being nice isn't working.
Have you tried violence?
This is how angry Democratic partyvoters are with their own party.
And Chuck Schumer, his decision to try andwhip, uh, senators, democratic senators

(02:46:48):
to vote for the, the budget bill, theRepublican budget bill, to try and stop
their being a shut down, as if that wouldlook, make the Democrats look bad, rather
than the Republicans has made everysingle Democratic party voter who is.
Really angry at Trump personally andthe Democrats for not pushing back,
really feel disconnected with theirelected representatives in a way
they haven't felt in a long time.
Noah really is a time for there to be akind of democratic tea party moment, a

(02:47:11):
real taking over of the party to changedirection when the level to which the
people feel represented by Democraticparty politicians has never been lower.
They approve this is low approval rating.
The party they've not seen in.
Decades and decades and decades andat a time when people like Elisa
Slotkin are being chosen as thedemocratic representative to respond

(02:47:33):
to Trump X-C-I-A-A thesis slotkin.
Mm-hmm.
Giving a very kind of milk toast responsethat didn't mean anything really to,
as opposed to, uh, a OC and Sanders.
Drawing huge crowdstouring across the country.
Speaking about, frankly, aboutthe nature of billionaire capture
and, and control of politics andoligarchy, this is where the divide is.
It's grassroots politicsversus establishment.

(02:47:55):
Politics is the politics ofappeasement versus their politics
of opposition, and this is whatDemocratic party votes as one.
Do we think this beelectorally successful?
I have no idea.
I dunno what the long termfuture for this looks like.
But in the absence of any action, in theabsence of kind show themselves as being.
Hardworking political operatives ratherthan just being people sitting there

(02:48:17):
collecting their super PAC checks, right?
Sanders and a OC and people like, uh,Sean Fein, the leader of the United Auto
Workers Union, who's spoken at a previousSanders rally on his fight oligarchy tour.
These are the only people who areshowing some resolve, and there's a
reason why we're seeing record outof crowds and from apparent reporting
on the ground that I've looked at.
These aren't, you know, DSA members.

(02:48:39):
The DSA have just moved away fromendorsing a OC because she's moved
towards kind of the Democratic partyestablishment to, for better or or worse.
I will let viewers at home take theirown opinions on this, but the people
who are turning out to these rallies,these aren't hardened socialists.
These aren't people who've, youknow, these aren't Marxist ISTs out
there looking for a Vanguard party.
They're just normally lib wine moms whoare looking at the Democratic party and

(02:49:01):
seeing a pathetic bunch of appeases.
And any amount of opposition, and nowis the time to bring these people over,
and I can have so much sympathy withpeople who are angry with a OC and
Sanders for not being vociferous enoughin their criticism of Biden and of Harris
in terms of what's happening in Gaza.
I have that same criticism.
I can certainly empathize withwhat you are thinking here.

(02:49:21):
But this is, this is, thisis the five alarm fire.
This is, you know, this is Defcon one.
Right now, when we're looking at thedismantling of American democracy, people
being black bagged off the streets, weare seeing the potential for there to be
an authoritarian coup of the government.
We're seeing what's happeningwith Elon Musk and Doge now is
not the time for infighting.
Now is not the time for partisanship.
Now is the time for a popularand broad fund against fascism.

(02:49:43):
And if.
We are seeing a time when establishmentneoliberal corporate politicians
are doing nothing in response.
Now is the time to win people overand build bridges with people who
otherwise would be Normie Libs whowant to see some actual change.
And if we can use this point ofinflection to bring people to our
side of the aisle by reaching out andtrying to get them to understand our
anti-establishment politics that will,there will never be another time again.

(02:50:04):
So rather than I think whatI think is some short term.
Probably legitimate criticismof what Sanders and a C have
represented for the past four years.
Now is the time for reconciliationand thinking about what could
be and how we use these moments.
Just like we used the BLM uh, movementin the 2020s to rally people towards
that kind of progressive politicsand support of civil rights for the

(02:50:29):
minority communities in America, now isthe time to galvanize class conscious
politics and to re make people realizeinternally amongst liberal circles that
now is the time for class consciousnessand think that every single person
on the front line is somebody whocan get a hit by the elites tomorrow.
And finally, section E History.
A lot of the, uh, people who inthe Midwest, you know, middle

(02:50:50):
America, Heartland of America,people who used to have unions as
a place of, of gathering together,uh, feeling a sense of community.
They're going into the, to theNRA meetings now and into church
meetings and things like that.
What, what's your, uh, sense aboutwinning those people back into unions?

(02:51:12):
Well, as I said, union people have toorganize the unions where they are.
Yes.
Um, but, you know, filling that,I mean, I think one thing I, I
mentioned, um, in this piece youmentioned the dissent came out.
I wrote it just a couple days afterthe election was over, um, last month.
Is, um, people, peoplewant community, you know?
Yes.
Uh, people want a place to meetwith like-minded folks, um, and.

(02:51:36):
Um, and also I think they want a sense ofpower in their lives and, and to a certain
extent in the society as a whole as well.
And, uh, one of the things theDemocratic Party used to have,
uh, way back was local parties.
Sometimes they were machinesand they were authoritarian.
They were run by party bosses, butsometimes they were really more
participatory groups and, and, um.

(02:51:57):
One of the things that Ben Wickler,who's the, uh, chair of the
Democratic Party in Wisconsin Yes.
Has done very successfully, andhe's actually running right now
to be indeed head of the DNC.
Yes.
Is that the Wisconsin Republican Party hasoffices all over the state, including in
some of the most Republican rural areasin the state, as well as in Milwaukee
and Madison, which is the centers of, uh,democratic, uh, strength in, in Wisconsin.

(02:52:20):
People go to these, uh, places to ofcourse, you know, uh, help to elect uh,
local officials, but also they go therejust for recreation to a certain extent.
Sure.
And uh, um, and it's in a lot ofthese towns, there's not a lot
of places, uh, where you can go.
People just sort of live online, you know?
Um, yeah.
Um.
Not even movie theatersanymore in a lot of places.

(02:52:41):
So, so, um, this is not an answer tothe lack of a working class movement,
but it is an answer I think to theDemocrats being seen as this elitist
party that just, uh, has consultants andadvertisers and pollsters who, who try
to figure out what the ordinary Americanthinks and they sell it back to them.
Mm-hmm.
The way the way corporationsdo with consumer products.

(02:53:01):
Um.
Um, you know, I think, um, partiesin Europe, by the way, Senate left
parties and also www parties in Europedo have these local headquarters.
Uh, Uhhuh,
I remember one time I was talking to, um,uh, at, at, at, uh, ban who for a short
time was the head of the Labor party inBritain, and we had a, um, we had drinks,

(02:53:21):
uh, the House of Commons a few years ago.
Um, and, and he asked me, why don'tthe Democratic Party have members.
Um, and I thought, yes, that's right.
You know, I mean, people consumerthemselves to be Democrats, uh, with a
capital D, but there's no membership.
Uh uh you can give money, but there'snot a sense of you're a member
of a local party and maybe youdo something without local party.
And that's something I thinkDemocrats should, uh, should consider.

(02:53:44):
But look, in the end.
Movements are organized by peoplewho are most affected by them.
And, um, uh, democratic consultantswho make six figures are not
gonna organize people at Walmart.
Uh, they have to, they can encouragepeople at Walmart to organize, but you're
gonna have to have a, the development ofa working class culture that is friendly
to unions, not just friendly unions,but also wants people to take the time

(02:54:07):
outta their lives to organize unions.
Um, and on the positive side.
There's a lot of supportfor unions out there.
The Gallup poll.
Yes, there is, uh, recently showed,uh, over 70% of Americans, uh,
think unions are a good thing.
And, um, uh, even Donald Trump, um,uh, and some of his, uh, advisors
have said good things about unions.
Republicans like Josh Hall,he just got reelected.

(02:54:29):
Um, senator from Missouri, um,uh, is friendly with the Teamsters
Union in Missouri, which is animportant union in Missouri.
And as you know, uh, thehead of the Teamsters Union.
Uh, supported.
Well, he didn't support DonaldTrump, but he didn't support anybody.
Uh, in, in the election he spokeat the Republican Convention.
So, um, even if you're a Republicanworking class person, you know,

(02:54:50):
unions are, uh, are not, you know,anathema the way they, they, they
once were to almost all Republicans.
So.
That makes it possible, I think,to convince people across partisan
lines, to, to, to, to organize unions.
And once the unions are organized,then of course the Democrats have
to be the party that supports them.
And as Joe Biden tried to too,um, but, but first the unions have

(02:55:12):
to be there to, to be supported.
They do.
And his, his, as you say, Bidenwas the only president in history,
I believe, to walk a picketline, but that was one afternoon.
One of your suggestions in the articlein dissent is that Democrats should
quote, make their advocacy of unionscentral to their rhetoric and emphasize
it all year long, end of year quote,and that there can be no true left

(02:55:36):
populism without institutions thatrepresent and fight for the needs
and beliefs of the people themselves.
And I've heard stories about, uh,democratic politicians going into, uh,
uh, black, uh, barbershops once a year.
Just before the election, theygo into black churches once a
year, just before the election.

(02:55:58):
You cite one county in Pennsylvaniawhere the idea of, uh, fighting
for the needs of the people andconnecting with people themselves.
One county in Pennsylvania where thiswas put into action and it worked.
Tell us about that, please.
Um, unfortunately, your depiction of it isa bit too, it is a bit, a little too rosy.

(02:56:18):
Yeah.
Well, um, I mean, I, I was ca I wascanvassing in York County, which is
the southeastern part of the state.
Right.
York, Pennsylvania isthe, is the county seat.
And, and then Democratic party basicallywas, uh, from what I could tell a
little more then, uh, than the unions.
Um, uh, the canvassing, uh,headquarters was at a rather large, uh.
A building owned by the InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers.

(02:56:41):
Uh, one of the, one of the, you know,important building, building trades
workers, uh, building trades unions.
And it was a, a huge place.
And, you know, there were meals and therewere, uh, it, a childcare center and,
uh, it was kind of community center.
That's great.
Mm-hmm.
But.
York County is not a Democraticcounty, it's still a Republican county
because most of your county is rural.
And, um, and of course, most, most,most, uh, people in rural areas,

(02:57:06):
whatever their income are now votingfor, uh, right, for Republicans.
So, um.
But it does point out something which,uh, I mentioned this other article,
uh, in Descent, which is about,takes off from a very interesting
book called West Belt Union Blues.
Yes.
Wanted mention by, uh, by ThetaScotch Bowl, and, uh, can't
remember her co-author, uh, who'sa former undergraduate, a student
of first, um, Laney Newman.

(02:57:28):
Yeah.
Uh, thank you, um, lettingNewman and, and, and, and Newman.
Newman and, and Scott Poll point out that,um, one of the things that the same union,
the IBW does in Winsell Penn, Westernof Pennsylvania, which is what their
book is about, um, is it brings togetherelectrical workers and their families from
different parts of Western Pennsylvaniawho usually work separately because

(02:57:48):
they work in different building sites.
They sometimes work wiring up, uh,offices, you know, electrical workers
do a lot of, a lot of kinds ofwork in different, uh, work sites.
They'll work in factoriesfor the most part.
Um.
But they bring 'em together with, uh,softball games and with, uh, you know,
pizza parties and, uh, they have familyaffairs of, of various kinds as well.

(02:58:11):
And it gives those workers, uh, in WesternPennsylvania, electrical workers and their
families a place to gather a community.
And not surprisingly, um, because thoseworkers feel a sense of ownership of
their union and the union leadershipcares about them, um, and wants to help to
nurture a community of, of their members.
Uh, they tend to respect the politicalopinions and decisions endorsements made

(02:58:35):
by the leadership of the local unionand the local union, like most unions in
America, does support Democrats, uh, forstate and local and, and national office.
And so most IBW workers in that partof Pennsylvania vote for Democrats.
Whereas, um, Newman and Scotch Poleprofile, United Steel Workers Union,
which is one of the original CIOunions in the 1930s, a lot of the

(02:58:58):
people organized CIO unions wereradical socialists and communists.
Uh, but today the steel workers haveshrunken to a, just a small fraction of
its, uh, historic, uh, size 'cause steel,you know, steelwork steel has been made.
A lot of other countriesbesides this, uh, and um.
But also, uh, the steelworkers Uniondoesn't provide that kind of community,

(02:59:19):
doesn't define that kind, doesn't providethat kind of identity for steelworkers.
Steelworkers who stillexist in wins Pennsylvania.
And so the steel workers, as you saidearlier, um, in our interview, uh.
Gravitate towards other kinds ofcommunity groups, rifle groups, right?
Evangelical churches, right?
Conservative Catholic churches.
Um, now it doesn't mean they wouldn'tstill be members of those churches

(02:59:40):
if the union was providing them acommunity, but at least they have a, a, a
countervailing, um, place where they couldtalk about politics, learn about politics.
But the Steel Workers Union, um, has a,has a headquarters in Pittsburgh, doesn't
really go out to people much in the, uh,local towns where steel mills still exist.
Um, it's not a presence in their lives.

(03:00:02):
And, uh, we often forget that whenunions were strong, they were as strong
as important as political institutions.
Yes, as it were, as economic institutions.
Now, of course, if they hadn't done thejob of representing workers, getting
them better wages, better workingconditions, health plans, and so
forth, they would not have been right.
Trust in political either.
But, uh, but because they were trustedeconomically, uh, and they could make

(03:00:25):
the case that Democrats were doingthings for working people, whether
they were in unions or not, um, theywere trusted and, and, uh, union voters
voted overwhelmingly for, for Democrats.
Um, and that was true up until the1970s and 1980s when unions began
to weaken in the private sector.
The 37th presidential election in Americanhistory took place on November 8th, 1932.

(03:00:46):
A lot had changed since 1928.
Herbert Huber's time in office startedout so promising, but on October
29th, 1929, also known as black.
Tuesday, the stock market crashedand triggered a bunch of events
into motion that devastatedeconomies around the entire world.
During the Hoover administration,industrial production shrank by 46%.

(03:01:08):
Wholesale prices dropped by 32%, andforeign trade shrank by 70% while
unemployment increased by 600 and.
7%. One in four Americans couldn'tfind work, even though they often
moved across the country, sometimeson foot in order to find it.
Personal income tax revenue,and profits all dropped.

(03:01:30):
The crime rate increased as unemployedworkers often stole food to survive
suicide rates and alcoholism.
Rose marriages were delayed becausemany men wanted to wait until they could
actually provide for a family less.
Kids were born.
It just sucked.
It really, really sucked.
Today we call this periodof severe economic turmoil.
The Great Depression.

(03:01:51):
Hoover had the great misfortune ofbeing in charge when this happened, and
so therefore became a great scapegoat.
It's not like he didn'ttry very hard to stop it.
He called for billions of dollarsand taxpayer money for public
works programs to create jobs.
Ever hear of the Hoover Dam?
Yep.
That was named after him.
He called for strongerlabor regulation laws.
He called for the federal governmentto start bailing out struggling

(03:02:14):
industries to pay for this.
He called for more taxes.
Oops.
He also raised tariffs by signing theSmoot Holly Tariff Act, and many argue
that by doing all these things, Hooverwas actually making the depression worse.
Economists.
Still argue about this today,but the bottom line is, in
1932, Hoover was not so popular.
You could see this by the thousandsof World War I veterans and their

(03:02:37):
families camped out in WashingtonDC demanding payments of a bonus
that had been promised, or the slumsnicknamed Hoovervilles, built by the
poor people who couldn't find work.
Hoover had grown to hate thepresidency, but he didn't think any
other Republican could do a better jobthan him, so he decided to run again.
What's surprising is that theRepublican party overwhelmingly

(03:02:57):
supported his renomination.
Charles Curtis would also runagain as VP Baby Kansas represent,
although he barely got renominated.
The Democratic Partyseemed rejuvenated in 1932.
They had three candidatescompeting for the nomination.
Al Smith, the former governor of NewYork, seeking the presidency a fourth
time, his friend, but increasinglyvocal critic Franklin Roosevelt, who

(03:03:20):
now was the governor of New York.
And Speaker of the House, JohnNance Garner, who was from Texas.
The Democrats went with Roosevelt,with Garner as his running mate.
There were many third parties, butonly one really stood out much.
The Socialist Party they nominatedNorman Thomas, a minister from New York.
He also ran in 1928, but this timehad growing support as so many

(03:03:42):
Americans were unhappy with Hoover.
Yet also not satisfied with the Democrats.
The socialist nominated JamesMauer, a trade unionist from
Pennsylvania as his running mate.
On the campaign trail, Hoover didhis best to defend his record,
but the odds were against him.
Not only did many Americans blame Hooverfor the Great Depression, most now were
strongly against Prohibition, which wasalso associated with his administration.

(03:04:04):
Roosevelt now seemed like a rockstar,drawing huge crowds in inspiring hope that
he had solutions to end the depression.
While Roosevelt didn't offer manyspecifics solutions, he did get
specific when criticizing HooverRoosevelt criticized the Smoot Holly
Tariff and the Hoover administrationfor taxing and spending way too much.
His running mate Garner went furtheraccusing Hoover of quote, leading the

(03:04:28):
country down the path of socialism.
Toward the end of campaigning, thingsgot downright nasty between the two.
With Hoover calling Roosevelt achameleon and plaid and Roosevelt,
calling Hoover a fat timid capon.
A Capon is a castrated rooster bythe way, and here are the results.
No surprise here.
Franklin Roosevelt won becoming the32nd president in American history.

(03:04:52):
He received 472 electoral votesand 57.4% of the popular vote.
It was the first win for the Democratssince 1916, and an impressive one
of that Roosevelt received thehighest percentage of the popular
vote ever for a Democratic nominee.
Hoover got just 59 electoral votesin 39.7% of the popular vote.

(03:05:14):
Norman Thomas finished thirdwith 2.2% of the popular vote.
John Nance garner AKA cactusJack became the 32nd vice
President in American history.
This election was significant because itmarked the beginning of 20 straight years
of democratic control of the White House.
In fact, Democrats would be inoffice 28 out of the next 36 years

(03:05:37):
That's going to be it for today.
As always, keep the comments coming in.
I would love to hear your thoughtsor questions about today's
topic or our upcoming topics.
Coming up, we have the alignmentof Christian nationalism with
the attack on education, and therealities of the system of techno
feudalism we seem to be living under.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.

(03:06:00):
You can now reach us on the privacyfocused messaging app Signal at the
username BestOfTheLeft.01 or simplyemail me to jay@bestoftheleft.com.
The additional sections of the showincluded clips from the Majority Report,
The Dig, the Muckrake Political Podcast,Politics Theory Other, Revolutionary
Left Radio, Unf***ing the Republic.

(03:06:21):
the Rational National, Reese Waters,Why Is This Happening?, Status Coup,
Novara Media, Secular Talk, KeepingDemocracy Alive, and Mr. Beat.
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 SOLVED!.
Thanks to our Transcriptionist Trio—Ken,Brian, and Ben—for their volunteer work

(03:06:44):
helping put our transcripts together.
Thanks to Amanda Hoffman forall of her work behind the
scenes and co-hosting SOLVED!.
And thanks to those who alreadysupport the show by becoming a member
or purchasing gift memberships.
You can join them by signing up todayat best of the left.com/support,
through our Patreon page, or fromright inside the Apple Podcast app.
Membership is how you get ad free andearly access to our incredibly good

(03:07:06):
and often funny weekly show SOLVED!, inaddition to there being no ads and chapter
markers in all of our regular episodes,all through your regular podcast player.
You'll find that link in the shownotes along with a link to join
our Discord community where youcan also continue the discussion.
And don't forget to follow us onall the social media platforms.
We are new to BlueSky just like everyoneelse, but we're also finally making

(03:07:27):
the move to video on Instagram andTikTok to support the new show SOLVED!
So, please support us there.
Coming to you from far outside theconventional wisdom of Washington
DC, my name is Jay and this has beenthe Best of the Left podcast coming
to you twice weekly, thanks entirelyto the members and donors to the
show, from best of the left.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;}#1701 Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Installing the Backbone Democrats Need

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

#1701 Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Installing the Backbone Democrats Need

Dateline NBC