March 11, 2024 • 55 mins
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson breaks down the many failures of Sen. Britt’s SOTU rebuttal speech. Congresswoman Lori Trahan explores how she's fighting the Republicans' insane war on IVF. Author Maxwell Stearns details his book 'Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And Donald Trump has set himself up
for Egene Carol to launch a third defamation case. We
have such a great show for you today. Congresswoman Laurie
Trahan tells us about how she's fighting Republicans war on IVF.
(00:24):
Author Maxwell Stearns tells us how we could use a
parliamentary system to fix our democracy. But first we have
the host of the enemy's List, the Lincoln Project's owned
Rick Wilson. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Rick will Wali
Jong Fast.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I know I sound like leftover ass, because I for
the last severallys felt Mike leftover ass. But I'm here
with you as always to engage in our weekly festivities
and frolics and youthful hijinks.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
And this is right youthful hygiens. Rick Wilson was a little.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Bit I was. I got a little bit of a
there are got a little bit of a flu or
something I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Hugely successful live show, which somehow I did not get
whatever Rick Wilson had, despite the fact that I hugged him.
The luck of the Jong continues. You know who did
not have luck, Kitty Britt, Hey, you know who was
So it's the curse of the Scotus rebuttal, right, and
that's what it is. It is, Bobby Jindall continue.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Marco Rubio, think about it. There are so few people
who come out of Scotis rebuttal space, if you will,
are the so too rebuttal space with their pride and
dignity intact. Even the people when they go, oh that
was really impressive. That really knocked it out of the park.
That was a strong case against George W. Bush or
(01:53):
against Barack Obama by up and coming young leader. It's
not a partisan thing either. It's just that it's a
bad gig to get and especially if you're Katie Britt
from like the Yes, I'm a member of my local
dinner theater troupe and I know how to engage in
what they call acting, and oh my god, it was painful.
(02:18):
And look, I was a little bit out of it.
I was feverish. I legitimately I was laying on the
couch with a fever, and I was like, what the
hot fuck am I watching? What the fuck am I is?
This just me, and I swear to you. I went
to sleep that night, honestly, I was here by myself,
and I honestly went to sleep down and I woke
up in the morning thinking, man, I was like tripping
(02:40):
on cold medicine, because was that as crazy as I remember?
And so first thing I did I watched the clip.
I'm like, oh my god, oh my god. And I
wasn't an original thought. Everybody else obviously has seen it too,
but everyone said, this is snl worthy. This is like
she's parodied herself, and she really had.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Just looking up old state of the Union rebottles on Wikipedia.
So we had so Katie Britt this year. Last year,
Sarah Sanders, we had Sarah Sanders, Kim Rens.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Approaching from three hundred degrees of vision.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Kim Reynolds. So I guess, Tim Scott, so I guess.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's got work out for you by the state.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
I guess a good state of the Union rebottal is
one where no one remembers you.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I think that's the best you can know.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Bad one, Yeah, is what happened on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Let's just be really let's just be really blunt about it.
Katie Britt is a former staffer, she's an inside player
in Washington, all that stuff, and someone and I really
tried to run down who did it, because they're only
a limited number of Republicans speech and debate folks who
prepare people for these things, and it's it's one of
(03:58):
two or three people. And when I saw it, I
was just so blown away by how obscenely over theatrical
it was. What a farrago of lies and bullshit it was.
And it didn't even again. And I say this, the
first time I watched it, I was feverish and I
thought I was hallucinating some of the things. And when
(04:20):
I watched the video in the morning, I couldn't believe
how much overacted over dramatic, lying liar, who lies to
she was willing to engage in with for that.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The top line of that speech was that after the speech,
a guy called, hold on, I want to make sure
Jonathan kat oh true. Yeah. He used to work at
the Associated Press and he has a newsletter called The
Racket News. He just did a very simple video where
(04:54):
he found the person that Katie Britt was talking about
in the speech. Googled where she had found her. Turns
out she was sex trafficked this woman, But she was
sex trafficked. This rape story actually happened in Mexico during
the George W. Bush administration, So you're about as responsible
(05:16):
for this woman's terrible tragedy as Joe Biden is.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Right, listen to and look, once again, it was during
the Bush administration, Nanai on twenty years ago, which makes
me feel it is a cow then hell, and it
was also happening in Mexico now. And the idea that
even if you don't like George W. Bush, you thought
that he had a personal knowledge of every sex trafficking
(05:42):
case going on in Mexico and should deploy the entire
federal government to fix is ludicrous. And this is a
it's a horrible crime and it does happen. But once again,
what did Katie Brittan not take responsibility for being one
of the Republicans in the US Senate blocking the passage
of a border bill that would actually do things to
(06:04):
address sex trafficking in Mexico and address the security wrestle
of the border. Yes, her very carefully crafted, overly dramatic
moments in that rebuttal were very Regalan wrote a great
piece about it on his substack this weekend. This was
very much on brand for the modern Republican candidate who
(06:24):
wants to stay in Trump's good graces. Lie Lie, Lie Lie,
make it about some sort of thinly and extremely thinly
veiled racial thing, and when you look at it, and
when you look at it in total, it was so
discredited by the time she got off the set that
(06:45):
it just tells you they don't care. All she was
doing was trying to punch a ticket on the Trump
World thing. But again, let's also remember she is a
Republican hack staffer. She's one of my people. Okay, she's
She's the kind of person wid stuff like we do.
She was Richard Shelby's chief of staff and became this
(07:07):
DC operator type. And this wasn't someone he's act, just
some mom from Alabama who just happened to somehow decide
to run for office because I love America. No, she's
a political hack of the first order. Nobody should be
fooled by any of these shenanigans.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
And britt Her response was, I very clearly said I
spoke to a woman who told me about when she
was trafficked when she was twelve, So I didn't say
a teenager, and I didn't say a young worm. It's
just and she actually did say.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
The cats report seems to say that she didn't even
actually encounter the woman.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
I think she met her, but she met her at
the border with these two other senators when they went
down too. But the point is, I think the more
important point here is when she told the story, she said,
this is something you wouldn't even see in a third
world country, imply saying that it happened in the United States, which,
(08:03):
by the way, besides the fact that we don't use
the word, we haven't used the phrase third world country
in many years, it is also just a completely it's
just not It was implying something that was not true.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
The degree to which Katie Britt and any again, any
Republican who wants to be in Trump's good stead is
going to lie aggressively, particularly on the topic of immigration,
cannot be underestimated. There is no limit. There's no upper
boundary by which they say I'm going too far, I
should turn the bullshit knob down twenty five percent. It
(08:42):
doesn't exist. This is definitionally what they are now. And
she's and look, she's raising money off of it. Already,
and then the fundraise emails that she's putting out here,
like now they're trying to cancel me. Well, yes, because
you were. You came across as a lying psychopath. How
about that?
Speaker 1 (08:59):
But I also think it shows the problem that women
have in Trump world, right, the problem of defending a
guy who overturned row. And the reason they picked Katie Brett, right,
was because Katie Britt was the closest they have Republicans
(09:19):
in the Senate to like normal looking. You couldn't have six.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
She's the youngest, she's the youngest member of the Senate.
She's the youngest Republican ever elected to the Senate or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Right, and she looks, right, you can't have Cindy Hyde Smith.
I don't even know if she talks right, or Marsha
Blackburn half the you know, the Republican women largely are
not necessarily the kind of people you want out there
giving a speech. So you really do see how tough
it is. And then this morning on Meet the Bread,
(09:51):
not Meet the Press, on ABC, you had Stephanopoulos interviewing
Nancy Mason. Nancy Mace is saying she can't help herself,
She's trying she is stocked defending Trump despite the fact
that she's presenting herself as a sexual as a rape survivor,
which she's saying she's a rape survivor, and then somehow
(10:14):
having to defend Donald Trump, which is the nightmare of
this where this Republican Party is.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Ask Egen Carroll, this is not a man. This is
not a man that lends himself to close defense by
any woman inter out of elected office. In my opinion,
he is a guy with a at Look, we've now
had adjudicated that he engaged in a sexual attack on
Egene Smith, that our agen Carroll, that's just not even
a question. And yet the defense of him must be
(10:42):
brought that way because that's the culture of the Trump universe.
You can't acknowledge his faults or his character flaws or
his crimes. You must defend at all times. And the
best way for them to defend in their minds is
to devise this this lurid sort of this lurid sort
(11:03):
of criminal underworld of illegal aliens and sex traffickers. And
everything's very dramatic about these accusations, but a lot of
them are just made up, and a lot of them
are a way to take your eye off the ball.
The other reason, by the way they picked Katie Britt,
was that because Republican Party in total is in a
(11:26):
state of raw screaming queen horror movies panic, like they're
seeing the guy chase them through the house with the
sharp knife about IVF, and they're screw up on IVF.
Nancy Britt was on there, Nancy Brett, Katie Britt was
on there specifically to say one line, but no, Alabama,
(11:47):
now we're protecting IVF. Oh are you? Are you now?
Because you weren't when your Supreme Court a few days
ago took it apart.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
And the other saying about the Katie bred Alabama thing
is that I know that nobody cares about this, But
the actual language in the bill that was signed out
into law by doesn't actually by Governor k Ivy, does
not actually protect. It does not say a frozen five
(12:17):
celled embryo isn't a person. It just merely says that
if you kill a five celled blasticists, you're allowed to
do it if you're doing it for IVF, but not
for any other reason.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I can murder a guy for taking my parking space,
but not for other reasons.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It's this standard ground of fertility, of fertility excuses you
thought the guy was coming to your house to steal
your stuff. But I do think it is. It shows
just how Republicans haven't thought any of this legislation through,
so they find themselves continually in these situations where that
are unworkable, and you have women in parking lots waiting
(12:57):
until their miscarriage is bad enough so that they are
the doctor can say definitively that their life is in jeopardy.
None of this needs to happen. Republicans did this to
themselves by having no interest in crafting legislation that made
any sense.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Right, and you could easily and clearly draft legislation that specifically,
even if you were trying to leave the entire Alabama
the rest of their even if you were trying to
leave the rest of their abortion law in place, which
you ought not, but here we are, you could still
draft a better piece of legislative language to address IBF.
(13:36):
They chose not to, and that was a choice for
them not to do so.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I also think that fundamentally will find ourselves in a
situation where a lot of these Republicans actually probably couldn't
craft that legislation because they're not very smart.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
There's always bill drafting, there's always lawyers. They could if
they wanted, they.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Could find someone to do it. But the other thing
that happened this week is that Joe Biden really killed
it with the State of the Union. As I actually
have been saying.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
All along, well, you're right, we buried the lead today.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Yes, we really did.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
We buried the lead Joe Biden. Let's just be absolutely
flat out about it. Joe Biden fucking crushed it, killed it.
He And the most amazing part of it to me
wasn't just that he did very well, which he did
very well. The most amazing part to me with it.
In the process of doing so well with this thing,
he also lured the Republicans in for the second time
(14:33):
on live television to saying or doing something stupid, and
this time it was on and not raising or not
cutting taxes for multi billionaires and the relic and the
rebellion trap for a second time. And I'm thinking, oh wait,
and this guy's the slow one. I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Yeah. My favorite moment was afterwards seeing Chris Kobac complaining
about removing lad pipes, being like, we don't really need
to remove led pipes. There were so many moments when
Mike Johnson was like sitting there stone faced while Biden
was talking about things that Republicans believed.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
In five minutes ago.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Now, at one point the beginning of that speech, he
talks about Reagan. He doesn't even you'll remember liberal hero
Ronald Ray. Ronald Reagan, who's right, who said to mister Gorbachev,
please tear down that wall. And then he says, sharp
contrast to Trump, who said do whatever the hell you want.
(15:38):
And again like it's you don't think Mike Johnson loves
Ronald Reagan. It just he really put them in a spot.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Look, this was beautifully crafted, beautifully engineered as a trap.
And my son said the other night we were texting
about this. He said, you know what it is in
part the Republicans sorted they believed their own and they
started to set the bar so low. It's like Joe
Biden is a drooling, ancient, doddering old coat and he
(16:09):
can barely change his own pants in the morning, and
he's this and I guess what when when it comes
out there and spanks them. The contrast isn't between the
reality of Joe Biden in the performance. It's between their
fantasy and what the performance is going to be. And
even their own people even because when Fox were like, oh,
he's it was energetic, and when when their critique of
(16:30):
Biden in the speech is that he was too aggressive
and he pushed too hard and he spoke too fast.
Oh okay, that you guys have nothing nothing, Yeah, that.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Was really incredible. And he raised ten million dollars right
after the speech, which is a pretty good sign. And
none of that money will go to retainers.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
None of that money will go to paying legal fees
for his ninety one criminal charges that are brought to
him in four separate cases. And and although their triumph
of taking over the RNC this weekend, they're still flushed
with Laura Trump for running the interesting.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
You have a check, I have a check for one
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, you rob the bank with the bank's been closed
for two days.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
That's like how many hours of legal work? Ten hours? No,
not one hundred hours. How many hours of legal work
is that for the team?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Oh ship, there are so many teams now, it's it
it's mathematicians and scientists to calculate.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I don't even know anymore, honestly, but it's that's a
retainer for different for our case.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
And no, nothing year with the takeover of the RNC
is going to improve the life of any Republican candidates
anywhere at all. It is going to It is not
going to. No Republican woke up this morning and said, wow,
this really this changes it. Now. The RNC is going
to run like a well honed machine. It's gonna be
(18:03):
the smoothest, best fundraising operation we've ever seen in our
careers and nothing could go wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Thank you Rick Wilson for joining us.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
I'm happy, too, Sorry I sound so bad.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Congresswoman Laurie Trahan represents Massachusetts third District. Welcome too Fast Politics,
Laurie Trahan, thank you for having me. We're so excited
to have you so talk to us about IVF.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
You can't talk about IVF without first talking about fertility.
I mean, millions of women like me struggled or struggling
with fertility, and the statistics are something like one in
eight women receive fertility treatment of some kind to get
pregnant or to sustain a pregnant day. This one is
obviously personal to me. And you know, no woman ever
(18:59):
really wants to talk wants to think about that happening
to them. They don't want to talk about it. They
sure as hell don't want politicians inserting themselves into those
private conversations and decisions with their partner and their doctor.
And that's really what this is about right now, Republican
politicians who think they have some divine authority to make
the intimate health and reproductive choices that only women can
(19:22):
and should be making.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
Yeah, so you're a congresswoman. Talk to me a little
bit about your trajectory and how you become a real
advocate for IVF, and but I want you to first
talk us through a little bit about your career in Congress.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
So I was elected in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
So you were in that wave of anti Trump women.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Yes, I mean there were so many women who had
the same thought bubble that I had after the twenty
sixteen election that we needed more women walking the halls
of Congress. And you know, at that infamous picture of
so many men sitting around a table talking about healthcare
and there was no representation, There are no women around
that table, And so really, you know, got off the
(20:08):
sidelines at that point and ran for office. And I've
lived in the district that I represent. I represent Massachusetts
Third District, which borders on New Hampshire. I grew up
in Lowell and working class family. My grandparents came here
from Brazil and Portugal. My dad was a union iron worker,
and so really it was around we have to make
sure that Congress doesn't get sattled with gridlock, because when
(20:30):
that happens, families like the one I grew up in
are disproportionately hurt. But then, like anything else, you know,
you bring a whole lived experience with you to Congress
and you speak out on them because you know better
than most people who are making decisions or debating these policies.
(20:51):
And that's exactly what IVF is for me. It's a
very personal topic. It's something I never mentioned or talked
about in terms of my path to motherhood. But you
damn right, I'm going to talk about it right now
because it's at risk.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
You know, it's funny because I had the same exact thought.
We shouldn't have to talk about our IVF journeys, right,
I mean, that's it's such an insane thing that that
is this Alabama Supreme Court has brought us to a
place where we have to explain publicly things that really
are private things. The first thing I thought about was like,
(21:29):
I would not have my twins if I had not
had IVF. And you know, we had IVF because we
carried a rare genetic disease, which the kind of testing
that we would not have if we lived in this
theocracy that Republicans want. So I do think it becomes
a time when we have to really come out and
(21:49):
talk about our left experiences.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
That's exactly right, I mean, like you, like me, So
many women who yes, right, they struggled for a long
time to get pregnant or to have a healthy pregnancy,
they turn routinely to IVF as our last hope. So yes,
I mean, look, I underwent five years of treatment to
(22:11):
have my two daughters. They were more difficult than I
ever could have imagined. But like you, I wake up
every day so grateful that IVF gave my husband and I.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Two beautiful daughters. Who are you know, the joys of
our lives.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
And I just we just want to make sure that
other women who are struggling with their own fertility challenges
have the same chance.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
So Republicans had an opportunity to codify IVF, brought on
the floor by Tammy Duckworth, who is an incredible, incredible legislator,
but also a woman who has shared her own personal,
lived experience with IVF. Now we're in this world where
they refused, you know, Republicans refused to take it to
(22:55):
the floor. Cindy Hyde Smith. Now there are some like
lame messaging bills coming out of the House on this,
But will you explain to us this sort of weird
way Republicans are trying to obfuscate.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Yeah, I think the level of hypocrisy that we're seeing
from Republicans would be laughable if it wasn't so physically
and emotionally devastating for women.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Think about it.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Republicans right laws designed to strip women of the right
to make their own health care and reproductive decisions. They're
told what the consequences could be, and they do it anyway.
And then something with overwhelming support because you know, across
the political spectrum like IVF gets caught up in their
you know, dragnet of an abortion van, and what do
(23:40):
they do. They introduce a toothless resolution that expresses the
sense of Congress that they support IVF. No law, no
actionable language in the bill. Nothing. I mean, it's the
same kind of bill someone introduces when a Little League
team in their district wins the championship. That's the level
of experiencedness Republicans are applying to this mental attack on
(24:01):
our freedom, and so I think women see through this.
Right they had an opportunity to protect IVF in the Senate,
and they blocked it there. Right now are one hundred
and twenty five Republicans who are co sponsoring legislation right
now as we speak that it would effectively ban IVF
treatment in every state without exceptions. This is the kind
(24:21):
of thing people hate about politicians, and so we have
to call them out on this because it's just a
level of hypocrisy, and we can't let them get away
with saying one thing while they're doing another.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
What I'm struck by is the legislative problems that Republicans
keep having. So a lot of these bills, abortion bills,
and even this IVF bill it was written to relate
to this twenty seventeen fetal personhood statue, which in Alabama
they've been sort of trying to get going and fetal
(24:52):
personhood is this idea that a five cell frosen embryo
is exactly the same as a child. It's a person,
even though, oh, if you thaw it it dies, it
is a person. You know, if you thought it's not
it doesn't even die. If you though it is no
longer viable, ergo, it is not a person. So but
what I'm struck by is like, this is a leg
(25:12):
this is a moral problem, be stupid legislation, but it
really is a legislative problem. Like you really see how
bad Republicans are legislating? Can you talk to us? You
are in Congress so you get to see this firsthand.
Are you just shocked at how bad their legislation is?
And by bad, I mean you know, blunt and sort
(25:34):
of badly written and not careful and not and they're
sort of never playing out scenarios if this legislation ever
gets enacted.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Yeah, you know, you bring up a great point.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
I mean, I have this crazy approach to this job,
and it's one that my colleagues in the Republican Party
would benefit from. Where if I'm not an expert on
an issue like say, fertility treatments and the development of
babies in the womb. I ask the doctors who do
this for a living what they think. And when you
ask those folks, including reproductive doctors, I'm bringing a reproductive
(26:07):
endochronologist with me to the State of the Union as
my guests, what they think about life a conception and
what that means for fertility treatments. They either laugh you
out of the room or look like they want to rip.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Their hair out.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I mean, it's ridiculous that you have career politicians who
think that their religion tells them that they get to
override the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their entire
careers decades to helping couples like my husband and me
have the families of our dreams.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
So it's ludicrous to me. But it just goes to.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Show the larger problem how subservient the vast majority of
the Republican Party is that they feel like they have
to take their marching orders from these folks with such
extreme views to support legislation that imperils family creating treatments
like IVF.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yeah, some of the thing I often wonder about is like,
did they never think that any of this legislation would
be enacted.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
They can't square the I'm for IVF, and then you'll
readily have members say, oh, but I do believe that
a fertilized embryo is a person. It's like they can't
square that right, and so they are stuck at the moment.
I mean, look, we know that abortion bands have devastating
consequences for women, and I think the past two years
of Republican state abortions bands have proven that.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
We've seen across the spectrum, women experiencing severe or even
life threatening complications have been denied care at hospitals, sometimes
until they become septic, others even becoming forced to miscarry
at home.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
The stories about the women waiting in the parking lot.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Oh, it's unimaginable. And in states where Republicans banded abortion altogether,
including in cases of rape and incest, women have been
forced to carry their attacker's child to term. Early data
indicates and estimated sixty five thousand pregnancies from rape have
occurred in those states.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Those numbers seem cleansy to men.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Oh, all be so alarmed about what's happening. So the
fact that IVF treatment is now under threat is something
we knew could happen.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
We warned it was.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
Going to happen with the way these laws were written,
and I just refuse to believe that it's unintentional. Right,
How could I give those lawmakers the benefit of the
doubt when anti abortion activists have already replied to me
and messaged me saying that IVF condones murder. That doesn't
even make sense. But it's how some people on the
(28:29):
fringes think about this issue, and they're exerting outsized influence
over the Republican Party that is looking to make good
on their demands to eliminate abortion nationwide and sweep up
I VF in the process.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I want to talk to you about your congressional race. First,
I want to ask you one other thing, which is
it's a bill. I guess what the kivy signed into
quote unquote law. It doesn't, in fact say that a
five sealved embryo isn't a person, which would be the
sort of way to do that if you had a brain,
and in fact says it just indemnifies people doing IVF,
(29:06):
so it's okay to kill embryonic people. Right. This seems
like it's going to open the door for even more problems.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and imagine the shane that they're
placing on couples who are just trying to start a
family by framing the journey this way. Look great that
Alabama legislators moved to reopen access to IVF treatment in
the state, but we also have to acknowledge the damage
that's already been done. I mean, first to the women
(29:35):
who were in the middle of IVF and had their
treatment delayed or stop. Second to the women who were
about to begin their treatment, who now will be scrambling
for a second time to figure out what's next for them.
And we have to reconcile that with the fact that
there is a significant portion of the Republican Party who
don't actually support this move in Alabama. Right, people said
the Alabama Supreme Court decision was exactly what the had
(29:57):
in mind when the state wors band was passed. So
that's not a viewpoint that has not been relegated to
the fringes of the GOP anymore. It's very much front
and center when you hear their judges, their candidates, their representatives,
including many at the federal level, who support the so
called life that conception bills and other fertility that would
ban IVF and other fertility treatments nationwide. I mean, at
(30:18):
the end of the day, the only thing that will
really settle this issue is codifying ROW into federal law.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
We didn't have these issues when we had the protection
of Roe.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
So talk to me about your race and also what
it looks like and everything else.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
So I'm from Massachusetts, but you know, last year I
was elected as co chair of the Democratic Policy and
Communications Committee, and it's really designed to help the Democratic
Caucus with our messaging right as we head into November.
And you know this is central, right. I mean, we've
obviously had a record of accomplishment to talk about from
(30:57):
the last Congress and with the Biden and Harrison demistration.
You know, you've heard them all, all the accomplishments before Mali.
But it's the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the Chips and Science,
the Inflation Reduction Act, which literally capped insolent prices at
thirty five dollars, are lowering the cost of premiums for
middle class families. All of those things are going to
(31:19):
be incredibly important as we head into the election and
talk about what kind of path forward we want for
this country. More of that, more progress or rolling back
the cloth and freedom is at the center of this
campaign now.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Right the stakes in this election couldn't be higher.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
We've got a Republican nominee for president who was bragging
about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Row, whilst
you know, simultaneously working with dark money anti abortion groups
to craft even more restrictions on women's reproductive rights.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
We have a Speaker of the House who's supported a
ban on abortion.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
We have Senate Republicans who literally re kept our military
in their fight to prevent women service members from being
able to travel outside of Republican controlled states with abortion
bands to seek the care that they needed elsewhere. And
the bottom line is that the Republican Party is controlled
by people who are not just content with overturning Row.
(32:18):
They want to aband abortion myth of pristone and IVF
in every state in the country. And we just can't
let that happen. And I think that starts with re
electing President Biden and Vice President Harris. Certainly means maintaining
control of the Senate and taking back the House and
making a King Jeffrey Speaker every time I'm in a
(32:38):
room full of women, I just put it so clearly, like,
we have to make sure that our daughters, our granddaughters,
our sisters have more rights, not less than we grew
up with.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
And that's exactly what such stake in the selections.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
I will be a messenger for that, you know, sharing
my own story, elevating what's happening in these dates today
as people look to just have the family of their
dreams and are faced with this extreme movement of taking
that away.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Yeah, I mean, it's just such an insane thing. In
the year twenty twenty four, we are in this very
scary moment in American life where Donald Trump could in
fact become president again, which is actually quite scary, I
think to anyone who has lived through the first Trump presidency,
I was wondering if you could talk about how incredibly
(33:32):
it is important it is that Democrats went back the house,
because the really the only thing that can sort of
stop Donald Trump, or at least maybe keep him from
just completely destroying everything we hold dear, would be that
having a house, the house is a bulwark.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
Yeah, and all you have to do is go back
not that far in history to remember that the Democrat
majority in the House in twenty eighteen was the only
backstop to a destructive administration, right, and you know, to
think that, you know, we could be on a on
a path where you know, he is the nominee. We
(34:11):
are not far from retaking the majority, as you know,
like the Republicans have a very slow majority in the
House today, so we have to make sure that we're
just making the case. Republicans are lining up behind Donald
Trump right now as we speak, and the Senate is
you know, they're in a tough map for November, but
(34:32):
the House is so within reach and we have to
win full stop.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
So what I don't take.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
For granted is the memory of what those four years
were like, right, But I'm reminded today as we're walking
into the State of the Union that four years ago,
almost of the day, I mean, like our country was
in the midst of shutting down because we were literally
on the cusp of the COVID pandemic, and how functional
(34:57):
and chaotic those years were, how traumatic they were for
the one point two million families who lost a loved one,
and how we have just recovered right with the Biden presidency,
I mean, getting those shots in arms getting our economy
back on its feet. We are now in the strongest
(35:18):
economic recovery of any country in the world, and we
are continuing to make strides to you know, help folks
from the bottom up in the middle out. As the
President likes to say, but I like to say, families
like the one I grew up in, right, people who
actually needed government to work on their behalf and to
(35:38):
make sure that corporate reed wasn't having a detrimental effect
on their pocketbooks with through price gouging and increased prices.
That is the track that we must remain on if
we're going to make sure everybody has equal opportunity in
this country. And it is devastating to think what another
four years of Trump would be because not only would
we roll back the clock on our on our freedoms
(36:01):
and our democracy, but you would also just stop so
much of the progress that we've made in terms of
bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States, you know,
making sure that our seniors can afford their medication, making
sure more people had access to high quality healthcare. So
this really is I know we say it often, but
(36:23):
this really is the election of our lives.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Thank you, Mollie.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Maxwell Sterns is a professor of law at the University
of Maryland and author of Parliamentary America, The Least Radical
Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy. Welcome to Fast Politics, Maxwell.
Speaker 5 (36:48):
Sterns, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
So let's talk about this really cool book that you've written,
and this more more importantly really cool. Yeah, So, Parliamentary America,
The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing our Broken Democracy.
Talk about how you got to the parliamentary system as
an idea from being a law professor and sort of
(37:13):
where you came up with us.
Speaker 5 (37:14):
I'm a bit of an unusual constitutional law professor because
I use various tools a game theory, economic analysis to
study law and lawmaking institutions. And I noticed that a
lot of people were saying, we need to have a
third party. Somebody should start a third party, we should
have multi member districts to allow third parties. And I
(37:35):
looked at these proposals and I realize that.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
They wouldn't work.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
We do in this country phase what I call the
third party dilemma, which is that people really want to
support a third party candidate, but realize that when they
do that candidate, it's likely to operate against their interest.
If you vote for a third party candidate to the
left of the Democrat or right the Republican, it's a spoiler,
or if it's a candidate pulls in from both sides,
(38:00):
then you end up randomizing the outcome. But I realized
in one of to actually have meaningful third parties, third
parties have to play a role. They actually have to
be affirmatively valuable to those who support them, and in
order to do that, they have to give something back
in return for the support. Coalition systems give them that role.
(38:21):
So when a third party joins a governing coalition, even
if it's not leading the coalition, the third party will say,
you know, we'll join your coalition if you give us
these policy concessions, if you give us these appointments to
high offices, or even these appointments on the judiciary. And
the question then became, how do we structure a system
that worked with in our larger context that allows third
(38:43):
parties to emerge and thrive. And that was one of
the major motivations of writing this book, was to demonstrate
how that works and how we could make that our own.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Let's talk about the countries that have this kind of
coalition government.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
So one of the things that I convey in the
book is that there are two threats to democracy. One
is when you have too few parties. The other is
when you have too many parties. So one of the
reasons I take readers on a world tour in England, France, Germany, Israel, Taiwan,
Brazil and Venezuela is to show what works and what
doesn't work in terms of overcoming threats to democracy. So
(39:19):
the problem that we have in the United States is
that a small group of faction can take over one party,
as Trump and Maggot did with the GOP, and then
take over the government.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Right.
Speaker 5 (39:29):
But alternatively, if you've got too many parties, a small
faction can get more seats than any other party and
then roll over the parliament. Is that like Italy, Like
Italy Right and the lead up to Nazi Germany Right,
the story of how Adolph Hillery assume power in Brazil
has way too many parties too. So what we want
to do is hit that what I call Goldilocks principle, right,
(39:50):
not too hot, not too cold, not too few parties,
not too many that sweet spot in the middle, which
political scientists typically think is between four and eight parties
in the system. That is that it's actually designed to achieve.
That is called mixed member proportionality, and it was created
for Germany after World War Two. It's more complicated there
than it needs to be. But we can make a
(40:12):
version of that our own and actually hit that sweet
spot and actually encourage third parties to emerge and thrive
and reward people for supporting those parties.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
I think that Americans are too stupid to follow this,
but prove me wrong, so I don't.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
But let me explain this in a way that I
think will make a lot of sense. Imagine that you're
going in every two years to vote for the House
of Representatives. You cast one ballot for a district election,
just like we do now. Nothing has changed. We have
four hundred and thirty five members in the House of
Representatives represented by district exactly like they do now. But
we're going to add another group of equal size based
(40:48):
on parties. So your second ballot is going to be
for a party. So let's say that you are a
Progressive Democrat for the district. Ways you're likely to have
two major candidates, because what happens when you've got geographical
districting and elections is each side realizes that to win,
you have to fracture the other side and keep your
side intact. That's on both sides. That's how we end
(41:09):
up with two dominant parties, both in house races, Senate races,
and even for the presidency, even including with the electoral
college in the district race, you'll still have two parties
that dominate. But then if you're a progressive Democrat, you'll say,
I want the Democrats to form a coalition with the Progresses.
I'm going to vote for the Progressive Party.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Or if you're a traditional.
Speaker 5 (41:27):
Conservative, you'll vote for the GOP, but you might vote
either for the GOP as the party but not the
America First Party, which would maybe be the MAGA party,
Or you might even vote for the regular Democratic Party
but not wanted to form a coalition with the either
MAGA or the Progressives. And so you could get a
grand coalition between centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. So what
(41:50):
happens in my proposal is that every other election cycle,
just like the calendar we have now, every four years,
we have a presidential election cycle up to five parties.
The leaders of up to five parties will negotiate on
a scheduled calendar forming a majority coalition until a majority
coalition forms, and then their predesignated slate for president and
(42:12):
vice president assumes those offices. There's a backstop to make
sure it happens, so we don't have endless voting like
you see in some parliamentary systems. And what will happen
in this and just think about this as a voter,
Imagine the campaigns and how different did be Right now?
We're so dysfunctional in our politics and society, driven by
two camps that are growing wider further and further apart,
(42:35):
that those campaigns suggest that the other side must lack
basic intelligence or even be evil. We no longer credit
the other side with looking at the same information that
we do but coming to a different place. But in
this system, the parties would have to campaign on a
willingness and even enthusiasm to play well with others, to
(42:56):
form coalitions with others, because the only way you could
see exceed in this coalition system is to demonstrate that
you don't have to agree with everything that another party
embraces for you to actually form a government with that
other party. And that's going to change fundamentally the way
our campaigns are conducted, the way voters view parties and
(43:19):
view campaigns, and it's just going to make for a
more functional government. Like you go back to the Kevin
McCarthy debucle and everybody thought, well, all we have to
do is get the moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans together.
But we have to remember the way our system is
set up, the goal is always to divide the opposition
and keep your side intact. We had no institutional mechanism
(43:40):
for that to occur, and we can't just encourage people
to plain isser. We need to create institutional structures that
allow third parties to emerge and thrive. And that's why
I wrote this book because I could see why other
proposals would not do that, but I also saw how
we could do that.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Are there a few ways that would be easier? You know,
it's a brilliant idea, right because coalition governments are ten
times less crazy. But do you think that there are
closed primaries or open primaries and rank choice voting? I mean,
wouldn't those two things do a lot to curb extremism
(44:19):
or not, and why.
Speaker 5 (44:21):
It would not for a couple reasons. First, we have
to take rank choice voting. Rank choice voting does none
of the things that advocates of rank choice voting believe
that it does.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
Oh interesting, tell us why.
Speaker 5 (44:34):
There's a profound misconception about rank choice voting. So rank
choice voting operates on a premise, and the premises that
we're looking at a standard distribution. If you were a statistician,
you might call it a Guissian distribution, but people can
picture it like a Bell curve. And so what we
have is concentration in the center and then greater dispersion
(44:56):
at the extremes of liberal or conservative. The idea of
rank choice vot voting is to allow people to rank
the extreme candidates, whether it's on the liberal side or
conservative side, gradually towards the center end up with a
centrist outcome. The problem is that that's precisely what we
don't have, which is feeding our democratic crisis. We have
(45:16):
a bimodal distribution, and if you look at the Pure
Research data from nineteen ninety four to twenty seventeen, a
of this graph that shows although our parties used to
overlap considerably, they are growing further and further apart, and
they're doing it as a result of hyperpartisan gerrymandering, issues
with the way we receive news and news like information.
(45:37):
But they are growing further and further apart. And if
you look at the special congressional election from Alaska that
used a rank choice voting system and produce the result
of Peltola, this is not against Peltola. But here's the truth.
Studies have been done that have demonstrated the centrist candidate
was Nick baichic because the way people do the way
(45:58):
we do rank choice voting is all also called instant
elimination voting. And when you have a bi modal distribution,
as happened in Alaska, nick Baichick got knocked out. It
turns out that if a percentage of Sarah Palin conservatives
had just stayed home, Palin would not have knocked out
Baycheck and Baychick would have had a better chance of
(46:20):
defeating Peltala. The point isn't a criticism of pel Tla.
Nous voting advocates believe that they're getting a centrist result,
but you're not, because in a bimodal distribution, all you're
doing is speeding up getting to an extreme result. In fact,
Peltola got ten percent or so of the original vote.
The multi member district idea is a similar thing. Think
(46:41):
about this problem. A lot of these proposed reforms are
designed to replace sitting members of the House and Senate
with moderates. But we have yet to have a constitutional convention.
Every amendment to the Constitution has come through Congress thus far.
And imagine trying to get on board members of Congress
for a set of proposals the purpose of which is
(47:04):
to displace them with somebody else. My proposal is the
only proposal out there that leaves every sitting member of
the House and Senate and incumbent in their district or
state and actually gives them additional powers. And I think
that's vitally important.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Right, That's the only way you'll ever appeal to them,
because they're so obsessed with keeping power too.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Well.
Speaker 5 (47:26):
Absolutely, but you know what, Molly, let them become the
heroes of democracy. Imaginally, do have a constitutional convention, And
imagine the convention proposes all of these things. Suddenly Congress
can use these proposals as a pressure release valve and say, hey,
we have a better way to fix our democracy. And
you know, we may really dislike these members of Congress,
(47:47):
but I'm perfectly happy to let them be the heroes
of democracy if they produce a thriving multi party democracy
that lets us in future generations actually live in America
that truly finally embraces genu and democratic norms.
Speaker 1 (48:01):
I want to get back to the rank choice voting
for a minute, because this is really interesting. Is there
like a sort of come to Jesus' moment on ranked
choice voting? Do people get that it is not functioning
as intended? Or now?
Speaker 2 (48:19):
Dumb people but not most people.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
I mean, I would really love Andrew Yang to listen
to one of my podcasts that talks about this.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
That would be great.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
I don't think he's going to have that moment because
he's politically committed to rank choice voting. But there have
been thoughtful scholars who initially advocated rank choice voting and
then realize that it doesn't work, and who have abandoned
it and have been pleased to see that evolution, because
that's really important. The problem is that voters are getting
misinformation about what some of these reforms can and cannot do.
And the two central questions we have to ask ourselves,
(48:49):
is will the reforms solve the constitutional crisis that we face?
And are the reforms inactable? And ranked choice voting will
do neither the same thing with open primaries, right, because
the political parties are going to put the kobash on
open primaries, because the purpose of open primaries is to
rid them of their jobs and replace them with more moderates.
(49:10):
And we have seen examples of the two parties that
hate each other agreeing on one thing, which is keeping
the two parties together in the right. But what we
have to do is create a set of incentives that
actually motivate voters to support the third parties and motivate
groups within parties to splinter off where individuals can gain
(49:31):
greater power than they do in an existing party structure,
where it's either Trump's way or the highway.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
So I live in New York City, we have rank
choice voting. We got this insane mayor that no one likes.
What happenspened? I mean, so did he only get like
three percent of the vote? Can you talk us through
sort of the thinking there?
Speaker 5 (49:54):
I can't take you precisely through the New York mayoral election.
Speaker 2 (49:57):
I unfortunately don't have to doubt it.
Speaker 5 (49:59):
No, it's okay. I just don't have the data in
front of me, and I don't want to speculate and
run the mistake of making a mistake that somebody will
point out that I've missed it. Rather, you know, I'm
happy to talk about the Alaska when I actually talk
about that one in my book. I do want to
be clear about one thing. I don't want to suggest
rank choice voting can never have a place, right.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
But it's not the solve we thought it was.
Speaker 5 (50:20):
But it's not solving our national politics, the very problem
of which is that we don't have a standard distribution
and that's tearing us apart because the modes for the
two parties are pulling us further and further apart.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
So nuts, So how would you even start going along
with this? Like, what would be the first move?
Speaker 5 (50:40):
Well, the first move is this, right, I mean literally,
the book came out Today's Thursday, came out two days ago,
and I'm doing, you know, quite a number of podcasts,
public speaking events, talking to people, getting the word out there,
getting people to read it. I want to get it
in the hands of people who will read it, who
will write about it who will think about it, Because
the centerpiece of my book is a virtual world tour.
(51:01):
I take people to seven democracies to shell them that
this intuition that we grew up on in high school
and middle school, this American exceptionalism, is really a myth.
And what we need to recognize is that we can
learn from the experience of other nations that have successfully
or unsuccessfully face down their own threats to democracy. There
are better ways to do democracy in some of those
(51:24):
ways are ways that are quite adaptable to our system.
So the first step is education to explain how it
is that we can actually improve our system and how
it is that we can do it while getting buy
in as compared to other proposals with respect to the
people that really have the authority to bring these reforms about.
(51:46):
I don't know when it will happen, but we are
going to hit an inflection point where we are really
at the precipice of authoritarianism, which could be very close
or collapse. And what's vitally important is for the American
electorate to truly understand what the options are and what
options can and cannot achieve particular goals. And that's really
(52:08):
why I wrote this book, but the book is only
the first step. The second step is getting out there
and talking about it. And I'm going to spend as
long as I can educating the public about these ideas
and talking to people with influence like you. You've got
a big audience. And if folks in your audience buy
this book, read this book, talk about this book. That
is a huge first step in the direction of reshaping
the national conversation on what we must do to produce
(52:31):
a thriving multi party democracy.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
Thank you so much, Max well Sterns.
Speaker 5 (52:36):
It was an absolute pleasure.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
No moment, do you have a moment of fuckery or
you want me to go first?
Speaker 2 (52:46):
You go first.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
So my moment of fuckery is going to be the
Trump rn C table take up? Or can I do that?
Or now Rona again, these are not nobody here, is
everyone here. There are no victims, only volunteers. And you
(53:08):
don't end up surviving as long in Trump world as
Rona did without making a lot of compromises about your values.
That said, she found herself having trouble fundraising because people
didn't want to give money to Donald Trump's legal fees.
To pay Donald Trump's legal fees. And now she's out
(53:30):
replaced by Eric's wife, not even like the not even
like the kid that's like's a AIRB parent, but Eric
Eric's wife, And now she's got to raise money and
all that, and she's already said that most of his
money is going to go to legal fees. But the
pageantry of standing up there with the check and then
(53:50):
refusing to say where the check was from is really
peak Donald Trump. And that moment is my moment.
Speaker 2 (54:00):
Fuckery goes to Kelly Ann Conway and everybody else around
the Trumpet orbits because suddenly, I was told very clearly
for the last five years that Crooked Joe CCCP communist
Chinese chi coom Joe Biden wasn't blocking TikTok because he
(54:20):
wanted the insidious Chinese to brainwash our kids and to
turn them all into trans antifas. And now suddenly, because
a mega donor in the Republican super pac space named
jeff yass is a major investor in Byte Dance, the
parent company of TikTok, gave Donald Trump a ton of money,
(54:43):
Suddenly Kelly Ann is lobbying in favor of TikTok and saying, oh,
this is this is an essential cornerstone of our democracy,
or whatever line they're using this week, whatever line of
bullshit they're using this week. But all these Republicans are
out there now suddenly in love with TikTok, and as
Mark or as Elon Mussin, Mark zuckerschmuck. Oh really, you're
(55:07):
so subtle, Lelan, I can't get the message there. We'll
do better if we don't have TikTok. This is an exact,
perfect exemplar of the utter corruption of the Maga verse
because these people, these people know exactly what TikTok is.
Almost everyone understands there's a degree of social harm happening
on TikTok and that something ought to be done about it.
(55:29):
But the fact that the Republicans have done a complete
one hundred and eighty degreeturn on TikTok, that is my moment.
Speaker 1 (55:35):
It's almost like they don't believe it. Almost That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds in politics
make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
the conversation going. And again thanks for listening
Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And Donald Trump has set himself up
for Egene Carol to launch a third defamation case. We
have such a great show for you today. Congresswoman Laurie
Trahan tells us about how she's fighting Republicans war on IVF.
(00:24):
Author Maxwell Stearns tells us how we could use a
parliamentary system to fix our democracy. But first we have
the host of the enemy's List, the Lincoln Project's owned
Rick Wilson. Welcome back to Fast Politics, Rick will Wali
Jong Fast.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I know I sound like leftover ass, because I for
the last severallys felt Mike leftover ass. But I'm here
with you as always to engage in our weekly festivities
and frolics and youthful hijinks.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
And this is right youthful hygiens. Rick Wilson was a little.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
Bit I was. I got a little bit of a
there are got a little bit of a flu or
something I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
Hugely successful live show, which somehow I did not get
whatever Rick Wilson had, despite the fact that I hugged him.
The luck of the Jong continues. You know who did
not have luck, Kitty Britt, Hey, you know who was
So it's the curse of the Scotus rebuttal, right, and
that's what it is. It is, Bobby Jindall continue.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Marco Rubio, think about it. There are so few people
who come out of Scotis rebuttal space, if you will,
are the so too rebuttal space with their pride and
dignity intact. Even the people when they go, oh that
was really impressive. That really knocked it out of the park.
That was a strong case against George W. Bush or
(01:53):
against Barack Obama by up and coming young leader. It's
not a partisan thing either. It's just that it's a
bad gig to get and especially if you're Katie Britt
from like the Yes, I'm a member of my local
dinner theater troupe and I know how to engage in
what they call acting, and oh my god, it was painful.
(02:18):
And look, I was a little bit out of it.
I was feverish. I legitimately I was laying on the
couch with a fever, and I was like, what the
hot fuck am I watching? What the fuck am I is?
This just me, and I swear to you. I went
to sleep that night, honestly, I was here by myself,
and I honestly went to sleep down and I woke
up in the morning thinking, man, I was like tripping
(02:40):
on cold medicine, because was that as crazy as I remember?
And so first thing I did I watched the clip.
I'm like, oh my god, oh my god. And I
wasn't an original thought. Everybody else obviously has seen it too,
but everyone said, this is snl worthy. This is like
she's parodied herself, and she really had.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
Just looking up old state of the Union rebottles on Wikipedia.
So we had so Katie Britt this year. Last year,
Sarah Sanders, we had Sarah Sanders, Kim Rens.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
Approaching from three hundred degrees of vision.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Kim Reynolds. So I guess, Tim Scott, so I guess.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
It's got work out for you by the state.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
I guess a good state of the Union rebottal is
one where no one remembers you.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I think that's the best you can know.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Bad one, Yeah, is what happened on Thursday.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Let's just be really let's just be really blunt about it.
Katie Britt is a former staffer, she's an inside player
in Washington, all that stuff, and someone and I really
tried to run down who did it, because they're only
a limited number of Republicans speech and debate folks who
prepare people for these things, and it's it's one of
(03:58):
two or three people. And when I saw it, I
was just so blown away by how obscenely over theatrical
it was. What a farrago of lies and bullshit it was.
And it didn't even again. And I say this, the
first time I watched it, I was feverish and I
thought I was hallucinating some of the things. And when
(04:20):
I watched the video in the morning, I couldn't believe
how much overacted over dramatic, lying liar, who lies to
she was willing to engage in with for that.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
The top line of that speech was that after the speech,
a guy called, hold on, I want to make sure
Jonathan kat oh true. Yeah. He used to work at
the Associated Press and he has a newsletter called The
Racket News. He just did a very simple video where
(04:54):
he found the person that Katie Britt was talking about
in the speech. Googled where she had found her. Turns
out she was sex trafficked this woman, But she was
sex trafficked. This rape story actually happened in Mexico during
the George W. Bush administration, So you're about as responsible
(05:16):
for this woman's terrible tragedy as Joe Biden is.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Right, listen to and look, once again, it was during
the Bush administration, Nanai on twenty years ago, which makes
me feel it is a cow then hell, and it
was also happening in Mexico now. And the idea that
even if you don't like George W. Bush, you thought
that he had a personal knowledge of every sex trafficking
(05:42):
case going on in Mexico and should deploy the entire
federal government to fix is ludicrous. And this is a
it's a horrible crime and it does happen. But once again,
what did Katie Brittan not take responsibility for being one
of the Republicans in the US Senate blocking the passage
of a border bill that would actually do things to
(06:04):
address sex trafficking in Mexico and address the security wrestle
of the border. Yes, her very carefully crafted, overly dramatic
moments in that rebuttal were very Regalan wrote a great
piece about it on his substack this weekend. This was
very much on brand for the modern Republican candidate who
(06:24):
wants to stay in Trump's good graces. Lie Lie, Lie Lie,
make it about some sort of thinly and extremely thinly
veiled racial thing, and when you look at it, and
when you look at it in total, it was so
discredited by the time she got off the set that
(06:45):
it just tells you they don't care. All she was
doing was trying to punch a ticket on the Trump
World thing. But again, let's also remember she is a
Republican hack staffer. She's one of my people. Okay, she's
She's the kind of person wid stuff like we do.
She was Richard Shelby's chief of staff and became this
(07:07):
DC operator type. And this wasn't someone he's act, just
some mom from Alabama who just happened to somehow decide
to run for office because I love America. No, she's
a political hack of the first order. Nobody should be
fooled by any of these shenanigans.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
And britt Her response was, I very clearly said I
spoke to a woman who told me about when she
was trafficked when she was twelve, So I didn't say
a teenager, and I didn't say a young worm. It's
just and she actually did say.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
The cats report seems to say that she didn't even
actually encounter the woman.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
I think she met her, but she met her at
the border with these two other senators when they went
down too. But the point is, I think the more
important point here is when she told the story, she said,
this is something you wouldn't even see in a third
world country, imply saying that it happened in the United States, which,
(08:03):
by the way, besides the fact that we don't use
the word, we haven't used the phrase third world country
in many years, it is also just a completely it's
just not It was implying something that was not true.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
The degree to which Katie Britt and any again, any
Republican who wants to be in Trump's good stead is
going to lie aggressively, particularly on the topic of immigration,
cannot be underestimated. There is no limit. There's no upper
boundary by which they say I'm going too far, I
should turn the bullshit knob down twenty five percent. It
(08:42):
doesn't exist. This is definitionally what they are now. And
she's and look, she's raising money off of it. Already,
and then the fundraise emails that she's putting out here,
like now they're trying to cancel me. Well, yes, because
you were. You came across as a lying psychopath. How
about that?
Speaker 1 (08:59):
But I also think it shows the problem that women
have in Trump world, right, the problem of defending a
guy who overturned row. And the reason they picked Katie Brett, right,
was because Katie Britt was the closest they have Republicans
(09:19):
in the Senate to like normal looking. You couldn't have six.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
She's the youngest, she's the youngest member of the Senate.
She's the youngest Republican ever elected to the Senate or
something like that.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Right, and she looks, right, you can't have Cindy Hyde Smith.
I don't even know if she talks right, or Marsha
Blackburn half the you know, the Republican women largely are
not necessarily the kind of people you want out there
giving a speech. So you really do see how tough
it is. And then this morning on Meet the Bread,
(09:51):
not Meet the Press, on ABC, you had Stephanopoulos interviewing
Nancy Mason. Nancy Mace is saying she can't help herself,
She's trying she is stocked defending Trump despite the fact
that she's presenting herself as a sexual as a rape survivor,
which she's saying she's a rape survivor, and then somehow
(10:14):
having to defend Donald Trump, which is the nightmare of
this where this Republican Party is.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Ask Egen Carroll, this is not a man. This is
not a man that lends himself to close defense by
any woman inter out of elected office. In my opinion,
he is a guy with a at Look, we've now
had adjudicated that he engaged in a sexual attack on
Egene Smith, that our agen Carroll, that's just not even
a question. And yet the defense of him must be
(10:42):
brought that way because that's the culture of the Trump universe.
You can't acknowledge his faults or his character flaws or
his crimes. You must defend at all times. And the
best way for them to defend in their minds is
to devise this this lurid sort of this lurid sort
(11:03):
of criminal underworld of illegal aliens and sex traffickers. And
everything's very dramatic about these accusations, but a lot of
them are just made up, and a lot of them
are a way to take your eye off the ball.
The other reason, by the way they picked Katie Britt,
was that because Republican Party in total is in a
(11:26):
state of raw screaming queen horror movies panic, like they're
seeing the guy chase them through the house with the
sharp knife about IVF, and they're screw up on IVF.
Nancy Britt was on there, Nancy Brett, Katie Britt was
on there specifically to say one line, but no, Alabama,
(11:47):
now we're protecting IVF. Oh are you? Are you now?
Because you weren't when your Supreme Court a few days
ago took it apart.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
And the other saying about the Katie bred Alabama thing
is that I know that nobody cares about this, But
the actual language in the bill that was signed out
into law by doesn't actually by Governor k Ivy, does
not actually protect. It does not say a frozen five
(12:17):
celled embryo isn't a person. It just merely says that
if you kill a five celled blasticists, you're allowed to
do it if you're doing it for IVF, but not
for any other reason.
Speaker 2 (12:29):
I can murder a guy for taking my parking space,
but not for other reasons.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
It's this standard ground of fertility, of fertility excuses you
thought the guy was coming to your house to steal
your stuff. But I do think it is. It shows
just how Republicans haven't thought any of this legislation through,
so they find themselves continually in these situations where that
are unworkable, and you have women in parking lots waiting
(12:57):
until their miscarriage is bad enough so that they are
the doctor can say definitively that their life is in jeopardy.
None of this needs to happen. Republicans did this to
themselves by having no interest in crafting legislation that made
any sense.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Right, and you could easily and clearly draft legislation that specifically,
even if you were trying to leave the entire Alabama
the rest of their even if you were trying to
leave the rest of their abortion law in place, which
you ought not, but here we are, you could still
draft a better piece of legislative language to address IBF.
(13:36):
They chose not to, and that was a choice for
them not to do so.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
I also think that fundamentally will find ourselves in a
situation where a lot of these Republicans actually probably couldn't
craft that legislation because they're not very smart.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
There's always bill drafting, there's always lawyers. They could if
they wanted, they.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Could find someone to do it. But the other thing
that happened this week is that Joe Biden really killed
it with the State of the Union. As I actually
have been saying.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
All along, well, you're right, we buried the lead today.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Yes, we really did.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
We buried the lead Joe Biden. Let's just be absolutely
flat out about it. Joe Biden fucking crushed it, killed it.
He And the most amazing part of it to me
wasn't just that he did very well, which he did
very well. The most amazing part to me with it.
In the process of doing so well with this thing,
he also lured the Republicans in for the second time
(14:33):
on live television to saying or doing something stupid, and
this time it was on and not raising or not
cutting taxes for multi billionaires and the relic and the
rebellion trap for a second time. And I'm thinking, oh wait,
and this guy's the slow one. I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Yeah. My favorite moment was afterwards seeing Chris Kobac complaining
about removing lad pipes, being like, we don't really need
to remove led pipes. There were so many moments when
Mike Johnson was like sitting there stone faced while Biden
was talking about things that Republicans believed.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
In five minutes ago.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Now, at one point the beginning of that speech, he
talks about Reagan. He doesn't even you'll remember liberal hero
Ronald Ray. Ronald Reagan, who's right, who said to mister Gorbachev,
please tear down that wall. And then he says, sharp
contrast to Trump, who said do whatever the hell you want.
(15:38):
And again like it's you don't think Mike Johnson loves
Ronald Reagan. It just he really put them in a spot.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Look, this was beautifully crafted, beautifully engineered as a trap.
And my son said the other night we were texting
about this. He said, you know what it is in
part the Republicans sorted they believed their own and they
started to set the bar so low. It's like Joe
Biden is a drooling, ancient, doddering old coat and he
(16:09):
can barely change his own pants in the morning, and
he's this and I guess what when when it comes
out there and spanks them. The contrast isn't between the
reality of Joe Biden in the performance. It's between their
fantasy and what the performance is going to be. And
even their own people even because when Fox were like, oh,
he's it was energetic, and when when their critique of
(16:30):
Biden in the speech is that he was too aggressive
and he pushed too hard and he spoke too fast.
Oh okay, that you guys have nothing nothing, Yeah, that.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Was really incredible. And he raised ten million dollars right
after the speech, which is a pretty good sign. And
none of that money will go to retainers.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
None of that money will go to paying legal fees
for his ninety one criminal charges that are brought to
him in four separate cases. And and although their triumph
of taking over the RNC this weekend, they're still flushed
with Laura Trump for running the interesting.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
You have a check, I have a check for one
hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Yeah, you rob the bank with the bank's been closed
for two days.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
That's like how many hours of legal work? Ten hours? No,
not one hundred hours. How many hours of legal work
is that for the team?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Oh ship, there are so many teams now, it's it
it's mathematicians and scientists to calculate.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I don't even know anymore, honestly, but it's that's a
retainer for different for our case.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
And no, nothing year with the takeover of the RNC
is going to improve the life of any Republican candidates
anywhere at all. It is going to It is not
going to. No Republican woke up this morning and said, wow,
this really this changes it. Now. The RNC is going
to run like a well honed machine. It's gonna be
(18:03):
the smoothest, best fundraising operation we've ever seen in our
careers and nothing could go wrong.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Thank you Rick Wilson for joining us.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
I'm happy, too, Sorry I sound so bad.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Congresswoman Laurie Trahan represents Massachusetts third District. Welcome too Fast Politics,
Laurie Trahan, thank you for having me. We're so excited
to have you so talk to us about IVF.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
You can't talk about IVF without first talking about fertility.
I mean, millions of women like me struggled or struggling
with fertility, and the statistics are something like one in
eight women receive fertility treatment of some kind to get
pregnant or to sustain a pregnant day. This one is
obviously personal to me. And you know, no woman ever
(18:59):
really wants to talk wants to think about that happening
to them. They don't want to talk about it. They
sure as hell don't want politicians inserting themselves into those
private conversations and decisions with their partner and their doctor.
And that's really what this is about right now, Republican
politicians who think they have some divine authority to make
the intimate health and reproductive choices that only women can
(19:22):
and should be making.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
Yeah, so you're a congresswoman. Talk to me a little
bit about your trajectory and how you become a real
advocate for IVF, and but I want you to first
talk us through a little bit about your career in Congress.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
So I was elected in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
So you were in that wave of anti Trump women.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Yes, I mean there were so many women who had
the same thought bubble that I had after the twenty
sixteen election that we needed more women walking the halls
of Congress. And you know, at that infamous picture of
so many men sitting around a table talking about healthcare
and there was no representation, There are no women around
that table, And so really, you know, got off the
(20:08):
sidelines at that point and ran for office. And I've
lived in the district that I represent. I represent Massachusetts
Third District, which borders on New Hampshire. I grew up
in Lowell and working class family. My grandparents came here
from Brazil and Portugal. My dad was a union iron worker,
and so really it was around we have to make
sure that Congress doesn't get sattled with gridlock, because when
(20:30):
that happens, families like the one I grew up in
are disproportionately hurt. But then, like anything else, you know,
you bring a whole lived experience with you to Congress
and you speak out on them because you know better
than most people who are making decisions or debating these policies.
(20:51):
And that's exactly what IVF is for me. It's a
very personal topic. It's something I never mentioned or talked
about in terms of my path to motherhood. But you
damn right, I'm going to talk about it right now
because it's at risk.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
You know, it's funny because I had the same exact thought.
We shouldn't have to talk about our IVF journeys, right,
I mean, that's it's such an insane thing that that
is this Alabama Supreme Court has brought us to a
place where we have to explain publicly things that really
are private things. The first thing I thought about was like,
(21:29):
I would not have my twins if I had not
had IVF. And you know, we had IVF because we
carried a rare genetic disease, which the kind of testing
that we would not have if we lived in this
theocracy that Republicans want. So I do think it becomes
a time when we have to really come out and
(21:49):
talk about our left experiences.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
That's exactly right, I mean, like you, like me, So
many women who yes, right, they struggled for a long
time to get pregnant or to have a healthy pregnancy,
they turn routinely to IVF as our last hope. So yes,
I mean, look, I underwent five years of treatment to
(22:11):
have my two daughters. They were more difficult than I
ever could have imagined. But like you, I wake up
every day so grateful that IVF gave my husband and I.
Speaker 4 (22:22):
Two beautiful daughters. Who are you know, the joys of
our lives.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
And I just we just want to make sure that
other women who are struggling with their own fertility challenges
have the same chance.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
So Republicans had an opportunity to codify IVF, brought on
the floor by Tammy Duckworth, who is an incredible, incredible legislator,
but also a woman who has shared her own personal,
lived experience with IVF. Now we're in this world where
they refused, you know, Republicans refused to take it to
(22:55):
the floor. Cindy Hyde Smith. Now there are some like
lame messaging bills coming out of the House on this,
But will you explain to us this sort of weird
way Republicans are trying to obfuscate.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Yeah, I think the level of hypocrisy that we're seeing
from Republicans would be laughable if it wasn't so physically
and emotionally devastating for women.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Think about it.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Republicans right laws designed to strip women of the right
to make their own health care and reproductive decisions. They're
told what the consequences could be, and they do it anyway.
And then something with overwhelming support because you know, across
the political spectrum like IVF gets caught up in their
you know, dragnet of an abortion van, and what do
(23:40):
they do. They introduce a toothless resolution that expresses the
sense of Congress that they support IVF. No law, no
actionable language in the bill. Nothing. I mean, it's the
same kind of bill someone introduces when a Little League
team in their district wins the championship. That's the level
of experiencedness Republicans are applying to this mental attack on
(24:01):
our freedom, and so I think women see through this.
Right they had an opportunity to protect IVF in the Senate,
and they blocked it there. Right now are one hundred
and twenty five Republicans who are co sponsoring legislation right
now as we speak that it would effectively ban IVF
treatment in every state without exceptions. This is the kind
(24:21):
of thing people hate about politicians, and so we have
to call them out on this because it's just a
level of hypocrisy, and we can't let them get away
with saying one thing while they're doing another.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
What I'm struck by is the legislative problems that Republicans
keep having. So a lot of these bills, abortion bills,
and even this IVF bill it was written to relate
to this twenty seventeen fetal personhood statue, which in Alabama
they've been sort of trying to get going and fetal
(24:52):
personhood is this idea that a five cell frosen embryo
is exactly the same as a child. It's a person,
even though, oh, if you thaw it it dies, it
is a person. You know, if you thought it's not
it doesn't even die. If you though it is no
longer viable, ergo, it is not a person. So but
what I'm struck by is like, this is a leg
(25:12):
this is a moral problem, be stupid legislation, but it
really is a legislative problem. Like you really see how
bad Republicans are legislating? Can you talk to us? You
are in Congress so you get to see this firsthand.
Are you just shocked at how bad their legislation is?
And by bad, I mean you know, blunt and sort
(25:34):
of badly written and not careful and not and they're
sort of never playing out scenarios if this legislation ever
gets enacted.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Yeah, you know, you bring up a great point.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
I mean, I have this crazy approach to this job,
and it's one that my colleagues in the Republican Party
would benefit from. Where if I'm not an expert on
an issue like say, fertility treatments and the development of
babies in the womb. I ask the doctors who do
this for a living what they think. And when you
ask those folks, including reproductive doctors, I'm bringing a reproductive
(26:07):
endochronologist with me to the State of the Union as
my guests, what they think about life a conception and
what that means for fertility treatments. They either laugh you
out of the room or look like they want to rip.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Their hair out.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I mean, it's ridiculous that you have career politicians who
think that their religion tells them that they get to
override the expertise of doctors who have dedicated their entire
careers decades to helping couples like my husband and me
have the families of our dreams.
Speaker 4 (26:33):
So it's ludicrous to me. But it just goes to.
Speaker 3 (26:36):
Show the larger problem how subservient the vast majority of
the Republican Party is that they feel like they have
to take their marching orders from these folks with such
extreme views to support legislation that imperils family creating treatments
like IVF.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Yeah, some of the thing I often wonder about is like,
did they never think that any of this legislation would
be enacted.
Speaker 3 (27:00):
They can't square the I'm for IVF, and then you'll
readily have members say, oh, but I do believe that
a fertilized embryo is a person. It's like they can't
square that right, and so they are stuck at the moment.
I mean, look, we know that abortion bands have devastating
consequences for women, and I think the past two years
of Republican state abortions bands have proven that.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Right.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
We've seen across the spectrum, women experiencing severe or even
life threatening complications have been denied care at hospitals, sometimes
until they become septic, others even becoming forced to miscarry
at home.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
The stories about the women waiting in the parking lot.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Oh, it's unimaginable. And in states where Republicans banded abortion altogether,
including in cases of rape and incest, women have been
forced to carry their attacker's child to term. Early data
indicates and estimated sixty five thousand pregnancies from rape have
occurred in those states.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Those numbers seem cleansy to men.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Oh, all be so alarmed about what's happening. So the
fact that IVF treatment is now under threat is something
we knew could happen.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
We warned it was.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
Going to happen with the way these laws were written,
and I just refuse to believe that it's unintentional. Right,
How could I give those lawmakers the benefit of the
doubt when anti abortion activists have already replied to me
and messaged me saying that IVF condones murder. That doesn't
even make sense. But it's how some people on the
(28:29):
fringes think about this issue, and they're exerting outsized influence
over the Republican Party that is looking to make good
on their demands to eliminate abortion nationwide and sweep up
I VF in the process.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I want to talk to you about your congressional race. First,
I want to ask you one other thing, which is
it's a bill. I guess what the kivy signed into
quote unquote law. It doesn't, in fact say that a
five sealved embryo isn't a person, which would be the
sort of way to do that if you had a brain,
and in fact says it just indemnifies people doing IVF,
(29:06):
so it's okay to kill embryonic people. Right. This seems
like it's going to open the door for even more problems.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and imagine the shane that they're
placing on couples who are just trying to start a
family by framing the journey this way. Look great that
Alabama legislators moved to reopen access to IVF treatment in
the state, but we also have to acknowledge the damage
that's already been done. I mean, first to the women
(29:35):
who were in the middle of IVF and had their
treatment delayed or stop. Second to the women who were
about to begin their treatment, who now will be scrambling
for a second time to figure out what's next for them.
And we have to reconcile that with the fact that
there is a significant portion of the Republican Party who
don't actually support this move in Alabama. Right, people said
the Alabama Supreme Court decision was exactly what the had
(29:57):
in mind when the state wors band was passed. So
that's not a viewpoint that has not been relegated to
the fringes of the GOP anymore. It's very much front
and center when you hear their judges, their candidates, their representatives,
including many at the federal level, who support the so
called life that conception bills and other fertility that would
ban IVF and other fertility treatments nationwide. I mean, at
(30:18):
the end of the day, the only thing that will
really settle this issue is codifying ROW into federal law.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
We didn't have these issues when we had the protection
of Roe.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
So talk to me about your race and also what
it looks like and everything else.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
So I'm from Massachusetts, but you know, last year I
was elected as co chair of the Democratic Policy and
Communications Committee, and it's really designed to help the Democratic
Caucus with our messaging right as we head into November.
And you know this is central, right. I mean, we've
obviously had a record of accomplishment to talk about from
(30:57):
the last Congress and with the Biden and Harrison demistration.
You know, you've heard them all, all the accomplishments before Mali.
But it's the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the Chips and Science,
the Inflation Reduction Act, which literally capped insolent prices at
thirty five dollars, are lowering the cost of premiums for
middle class families. All of those things are going to
(31:19):
be incredibly important as we head into the election and
talk about what kind of path forward we want for
this country. More of that, more progress or rolling back
the cloth and freedom is at the center of this
campaign now.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Right the stakes in this election couldn't be higher.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
We've got a Republican nominee for president who was bragging
about appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Row, whilst
you know, simultaneously working with dark money anti abortion groups
to craft even more restrictions on women's reproductive rights.
Speaker 4 (31:52):
We have a Speaker of the House who's supported a
ban on abortion.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
We have Senate Republicans who literally re kept our military
in their fight to prevent women service members from being
able to travel outside of Republican controlled states with abortion
bands to seek the care that they needed elsewhere. And
the bottom line is that the Republican Party is controlled
by people who are not just content with overturning Row.
(32:18):
They want to aband abortion myth of pristone and IVF
in every state in the country. And we just can't
let that happen. And I think that starts with re
electing President Biden and Vice President Harris. Certainly means maintaining
control of the Senate and taking back the House and
making a King Jeffrey Speaker every time I'm in a
(32:38):
room full of women, I just put it so clearly, like,
we have to make sure that our daughters, our granddaughters,
our sisters have more rights, not less than we grew
up with.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
And that's exactly what such stake in the selections.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
I will be a messenger for that, you know, sharing
my own story, elevating what's happening in these dates today
as people look to just have the family of their
dreams and are faced with this extreme movement of taking
that away.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Yeah, I mean, it's just such an insane thing. In
the year twenty twenty four, we are in this very
scary moment in American life where Donald Trump could in
fact become president again, which is actually quite scary, I
think to anyone who has lived through the first Trump presidency,
I was wondering if you could talk about how incredibly
(33:32):
it is important it is that Democrats went back the house,
because the really the only thing that can sort of
stop Donald Trump, or at least maybe keep him from
just completely destroying everything we hold dear, would be that
having a house, the house is a bulwark.
Speaker 3 (33:51):
Yeah, and all you have to do is go back
not that far in history to remember that the Democrat
majority in the House in twenty eighteen was the only
backstop to a destructive administration, right, and you know, to
think that, you know, we could be on a on
a path where you know, he is the nominee. We
(34:11):
are not far from retaking the majority, as you know,
like the Republicans have a very slow majority in the
House today, so we have to make sure that we're
just making the case. Republicans are lining up behind Donald
Trump right now as we speak, and the Senate is
you know, they're in a tough map for November, but
(34:32):
the House is so within reach and we have to
win full stop.
Speaker 4 (34:36):
So what I don't take.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
For granted is the memory of what those four years
were like, right, But I'm reminded today as we're walking
into the State of the Union that four years ago,
almost of the day, I mean, like our country was
in the midst of shutting down because we were literally
on the cusp of the COVID pandemic, and how functional
(34:57):
and chaotic those years were, how traumatic they were for
the one point two million families who lost a loved one,
and how we have just recovered right with the Biden presidency,
I mean, getting those shots in arms getting our economy
back on its feet. We are now in the strongest
(35:18):
economic recovery of any country in the world, and we
are continuing to make strides to you know, help folks
from the bottom up in the middle out. As the
President likes to say, but I like to say, families
like the one I grew up in, right, people who
actually needed government to work on their behalf and to
(35:38):
make sure that corporate reed wasn't having a detrimental effect
on their pocketbooks with through price gouging and increased prices.
That is the track that we must remain on if
we're going to make sure everybody has equal opportunity in
this country. And it is devastating to think what another
four years of Trump would be because not only would
we roll back the clock on our on our freedoms
(36:01):
and our democracy, but you would also just stop so
much of the progress that we've made in terms of
bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States, you know,
making sure that our seniors can afford their medication, making
sure more people had access to high quality healthcare. So
this really is I know we say it often, but
(36:23):
this really is the election of our lives.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
Thank you, Mollie.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Maxwell Sterns is a professor of law at the University
of Maryland and author of Parliamentary America, The Least Radical
Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy. Welcome to Fast Politics, Maxwell.
Speaker 5 (36:48):
Sterns, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
So let's talk about this really cool book that you've written,
and this more more importantly really cool. Yeah, So, Parliamentary America,
The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing our Broken Democracy.
Talk about how you got to the parliamentary system as
an idea from being a law professor and sort of
(37:13):
where you came up with us.
Speaker 5 (37:14):
I'm a bit of an unusual constitutional law professor because
I use various tools a game theory, economic analysis to
study law and lawmaking institutions. And I noticed that a
lot of people were saying, we need to have a
third party. Somebody should start a third party, we should
have multi member districts to allow third parties. And I
(37:35):
looked at these proposals and I realize that.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
They wouldn't work.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
We do in this country phase what I call the
third party dilemma, which is that people really want to
support a third party candidate, but realize that when they
do that candidate, it's likely to operate against their interest.
If you vote for a third party candidate to the
left of the Democrat or right the Republican, it's a spoiler,
or if it's a candidate pulls in from both sides,
(38:00):
then you end up randomizing the outcome. But I realized
in one of to actually have meaningful third parties, third
parties have to play a role. They actually have to
be affirmatively valuable to those who support them, and in
order to do that, they have to give something back
in return for the support. Coalition systems give them that role.
(38:21):
So when a third party joins a governing coalition, even
if it's not leading the coalition, the third party will say,
you know, we'll join your coalition if you give us
these policy concessions, if you give us these appointments to
high offices, or even these appointments on the judiciary. And
the question then became, how do we structure a system
that worked with in our larger context that allows third
(38:43):
parties to emerge and thrive. And that was one of
the major motivations of writing this book, was to demonstrate
how that works and how we could make that our own.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Let's talk about the countries that have this kind of
coalition government.
Speaker 5 (38:58):
So one of the things that I convey in the
book is that there are two threats to democracy. One
is when you have too few parties. The other is
when you have too many parties. So one of the
reasons I take readers on a world tour in England, France, Germany, Israel, Taiwan,
Brazil and Venezuela is to show what works and what
doesn't work in terms of overcoming threats to democracy. So
(39:19):
the problem that we have in the United States is
that a small group of faction can take over one party,
as Trump and Maggot did with the GOP, and then
take over the government.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Right.
Speaker 5 (39:29):
But alternatively, if you've got too many parties, a small
faction can get more seats than any other party and
then roll over the parliament. Is that like Italy, Like
Italy Right and the lead up to Nazi Germany Right,
the story of how Adolph Hillery assume power in Brazil
has way too many parties too. So what we want
to do is hit that what I call Goldilocks principle, right,
(39:50):
not too hot, not too cold, not too few parties,
not too many that sweet spot in the middle, which
political scientists typically think is between four and eight parties
in the system. That is that it's actually designed to achieve.
That is called mixed member proportionality, and it was created
for Germany after World War Two. It's more complicated there
than it needs to be. But we can make a
(40:12):
version of that our own and actually hit that sweet
spot and actually encourage third parties to emerge and thrive
and reward people for supporting those parties.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
I think that Americans are too stupid to follow this,
but prove me wrong, so I don't.
Speaker 5 (40:26):
But let me explain this in a way that I
think will make a lot of sense. Imagine that you're
going in every two years to vote for the House
of Representatives. You cast one ballot for a district election,
just like we do now. Nothing has changed. We have
four hundred and thirty five members in the House of
Representatives represented by district exactly like they do now. But
we're going to add another group of equal size based
(40:48):
on parties. So your second ballot is going to be
for a party. So let's say that you are a
Progressive Democrat for the district. Ways you're likely to have
two major candidates, because what happens when you've got geographical
districting and elections is each side realizes that to win,
you have to fracture the other side and keep your
side intact. That's on both sides. That's how we end
(41:09):
up with two dominant parties, both in house races, Senate races,
and even for the presidency, even including with the electoral
college in the district race, you'll still have two parties
that dominate. But then if you're a progressive Democrat, you'll say,
I want the Democrats to form a coalition with the Progresses.
I'm going to vote for the Progressive Party.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
Or if you're a traditional.
Speaker 5 (41:27):
Conservative, you'll vote for the GOP, but you might vote
either for the GOP as the party but not the
America First Party, which would maybe be the MAGA party,
Or you might even vote for the regular Democratic Party
but not wanted to form a coalition with the either
MAGA or the Progressives. And so you could get a
grand coalition between centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. So what
(41:50):
happens in my proposal is that every other election cycle,
just like the calendar we have now, every four years,
we have a presidential election cycle up to five parties.
The leaders of up to five parties will negotiate on
a scheduled calendar forming a majority coalition until a majority
coalition forms, and then their predesignated slate for president and
(42:12):
vice president assumes those offices. There's a backstop to make
sure it happens, so we don't have endless voting like
you see in some parliamentary systems. And what will happen
in this and just think about this as a voter,
Imagine the campaigns and how different did be Right now?
We're so dysfunctional in our politics and society, driven by
two camps that are growing wider further and further apart,
(42:35):
that those campaigns suggest that the other side must lack
basic intelligence or even be evil. We no longer credit
the other side with looking at the same information that
we do but coming to a different place. But in
this system, the parties would have to campaign on a
willingness and even enthusiasm to play well with others, to
(42:56):
form coalitions with others, because the only way you could
see exceed in this coalition system is to demonstrate that
you don't have to agree with everything that another party
embraces for you to actually form a government with that
other party. And that's going to change fundamentally the way
our campaigns are conducted, the way voters view parties and
(43:19):
view campaigns, and it's just going to make for a
more functional government. Like you go back to the Kevin
McCarthy debucle and everybody thought, well, all we have to
do is get the moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans together.
But we have to remember the way our system is
set up, the goal is always to divide the opposition
and keep your side intact. We had no institutional mechanism
(43:40):
for that to occur, and we can't just encourage people
to plain isser. We need to create institutional structures that
allow third parties to emerge and thrive. And that's why
I wrote this book because I could see why other
proposals would not do that, but I also saw how
we could do that.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Are there a few ways that would be easier? You know,
it's a brilliant idea, right because coalition governments are ten
times less crazy. But do you think that there are
closed primaries or open primaries and rank choice voting? I mean,
wouldn't those two things do a lot to curb extremism
(44:19):
or not, and why.
Speaker 5 (44:21):
It would not for a couple reasons. First, we have
to take rank choice voting. Rank choice voting does none
of the things that advocates of rank choice voting believe
that it does.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
Oh interesting, tell us why.
Speaker 5 (44:34):
There's a profound misconception about rank choice voting. So rank
choice voting operates on a premise, and the premises that
we're looking at a standard distribution. If you were a statistician,
you might call it a Guissian distribution, but people can
picture it like a Bell curve. And so what we
have is concentration in the center and then greater dispersion
(44:56):
at the extremes of liberal or conservative. The idea of
rank choice vot voting is to allow people to rank
the extreme candidates, whether it's on the liberal side or
conservative side, gradually towards the center end up with a
centrist outcome. The problem is that that's precisely what we
don't have, which is feeding our democratic crisis. We have
(45:16):
a bimodal distribution, and if you look at the Pure
Research data from nineteen ninety four to twenty seventeen, a
of this graph that shows although our parties used to
overlap considerably, they are growing further and further apart, and
they're doing it as a result of hyperpartisan gerrymandering, issues
with the way we receive news and news like information.
(45:37):
But they are growing further and further apart. And if
you look at the special congressional election from Alaska that
used a rank choice voting system and produce the result
of Peltola, this is not against Peltola. But here's the truth.
Studies have been done that have demonstrated the centrist candidate
was Nick baichic because the way people do the way
(45:58):
we do rank choice voting is all also called instant
elimination voting. And when you have a bi modal distribution,
as happened in Alaska, nick Baichick got knocked out. It
turns out that if a percentage of Sarah Palin conservatives
had just stayed home, Palin would not have knocked out
Baycheck and Baychick would have had a better chance of
(46:20):
defeating Peltala. The point isn't a criticism of pel Tla.
Nous voting advocates believe that they're getting a centrist result,
but you're not, because in a bimodal distribution, all you're
doing is speeding up getting to an extreme result. In fact,
Peltola got ten percent or so of the original vote.
The multi member district idea is a similar thing. Think
(46:41):
about this problem. A lot of these proposed reforms are
designed to replace sitting members of the House and Senate
with moderates. But we have yet to have a constitutional convention.
Every amendment to the Constitution has come through Congress thus far.
And imagine trying to get on board members of Congress
for a set of proposals the purpose of which is
(47:04):
to displace them with somebody else. My proposal is the
only proposal out there that leaves every sitting member of
the House and Senate and incumbent in their district or
state and actually gives them additional powers. And I think
that's vitally important.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Right, That's the only way you'll ever appeal to them,
because they're so obsessed with keeping power too.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Well.
Speaker 5 (47:26):
Absolutely, but you know what, Molly, let them become the
heroes of democracy. Imaginally, do have a constitutional convention, And
imagine the convention proposes all of these things. Suddenly Congress
can use these proposals as a pressure release valve and say, hey,
we have a better way to fix our democracy. And
you know, we may really dislike these members of Congress,
(47:47):
but I'm perfectly happy to let them be the heroes
of democracy if they produce a thriving multi party democracy
that lets us in future generations actually live in America
that truly finally embraces genu and democratic norms.
Speaker 1 (48:01):
I want to get back to the rank choice voting
for a minute, because this is really interesting. Is there
like a sort of come to Jesus' moment on ranked
choice voting? Do people get that it is not functioning
as intended? Or now?
Speaker 2 (48:19):
Dumb people but not most people.
Speaker 5 (48:21):
I mean, I would really love Andrew Yang to listen
to one of my podcasts that talks about this.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
That would be great.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
I don't think he's going to have that moment because
he's politically committed to rank choice voting. But there have
been thoughtful scholars who initially advocated rank choice voting and
then realize that it doesn't work, and who have abandoned
it and have been pleased to see that evolution, because
that's really important. The problem is that voters are getting
misinformation about what some of these reforms can and cannot do.
And the two central questions we have to ask ourselves,
(48:49):
is will the reforms solve the constitutional crisis that we face?
And are the reforms inactable? And ranked choice voting will
do neither the same thing with open primaries, right, because
the political parties are going to put the kobash on
open primaries, because the purpose of open primaries is to
rid them of their jobs and replace them with more moderates.
(49:10):
And we have seen examples of the two parties that
hate each other agreeing on one thing, which is keeping
the two parties together in the right. But what we
have to do is create a set of incentives that
actually motivate voters to support the third parties and motivate
groups within parties to splinter off where individuals can gain
(49:31):
greater power than they do in an existing party structure,
where it's either Trump's way or the highway.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
So I live in New York City, we have rank
choice voting. We got this insane mayor that no one likes.
What happenspened? I mean, so did he only get like
three percent of the vote? Can you talk us through
sort of the thinking there?
Speaker 5 (49:54):
I can't take you precisely through the New York mayoral election.
Speaker 2 (49:57):
I unfortunately don't have to doubt it.
Speaker 5 (49:59):
No, it's okay. I just don't have the data in
front of me, and I don't want to speculate and
run the mistake of making a mistake that somebody will
point out that I've missed it. Rather, you know, I'm
happy to talk about the Alaska when I actually talk
about that one in my book. I do want to
be clear about one thing. I don't want to suggest
rank choice voting can never have a place, right.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
But it's not the solve we thought it was.
Speaker 5 (50:20):
But it's not solving our national politics, the very problem
of which is that we don't have a standard distribution
and that's tearing us apart because the modes for the
two parties are pulling us further and further apart.
Speaker 1 (50:32):
So nuts, So how would you even start going along
with this? Like, what would be the first move?
Speaker 5 (50:40):
Well, the first move is this, right, I mean literally,
the book came out Today's Thursday, came out two days ago,
and I'm doing, you know, quite a number of podcasts,
public speaking events, talking to people, getting the word out there,
getting people to read it. I want to get it
in the hands of people who will read it, who
will write about it who will think about it, Because
the centerpiece of my book is a virtual world tour.
(51:01):
I take people to seven democracies to shell them that
this intuition that we grew up on in high school
and middle school, this American exceptionalism, is really a myth.
And what we need to recognize is that we can
learn from the experience of other nations that have successfully
or unsuccessfully face down their own threats to democracy. There
are better ways to do democracy in some of those
(51:24):
ways are ways that are quite adaptable to our system.
So the first step is education to explain how it
is that we can actually improve our system and how
it is that we can do it while getting buy
in as compared to other proposals with respect to the
people that really have the authority to bring these reforms about.
(51:46):
I don't know when it will happen, but we are
going to hit an inflection point where we are really
at the precipice of authoritarianism, which could be very close
or collapse. And what's vitally important is for the American
electorate to truly understand what the options are and what
options can and cannot achieve particular goals. And that's really
(52:08):
why I wrote this book, but the book is only
the first step. The second step is getting out there
and talking about it. And I'm going to spend as
long as I can educating the public about these ideas
and talking to people with influence like you. You've got
a big audience. And if folks in your audience buy
this book, read this book, talk about this book. That
is a huge first step in the direction of reshaping
the national conversation on what we must do to produce
(52:31):
a thriving multi party democracy.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
Thank you so much, Max well Sterns.
Speaker 5 (52:36):
It was an absolute pleasure.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
No moment, do you have a moment of fuckery or
you want me to go first?
Speaker 2 (52:46):
You go first.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
So my moment of fuckery is going to be the
Trump rn C table take up? Or can I do that?
Or now Rona again, these are not nobody here, is
everyone here. There are no victims, only volunteers. And you
(53:08):
don't end up surviving as long in Trump world as
Rona did without making a lot of compromises about your values.
That said, she found herself having trouble fundraising because people
didn't want to give money to Donald Trump's legal fees.
To pay Donald Trump's legal fees. And now she's out
(53:30):
replaced by Eric's wife, not even like the not even
like the kid that's like's a AIRB parent, but Eric
Eric's wife, And now she's got to raise money and
all that, and she's already said that most of his
money is going to go to legal fees. But the
pageantry of standing up there with the check and then
(53:50):
refusing to say where the check was from is really
peak Donald Trump. And that moment is my moment.
Speaker 2 (54:00):
Fuckery goes to Kelly Ann Conway and everybody else around
the Trumpet orbits because suddenly, I was told very clearly
for the last five years that Crooked Joe CCCP communist
Chinese chi coom Joe Biden wasn't blocking TikTok because he
(54:20):
wanted the insidious Chinese to brainwash our kids and to
turn them all into trans antifas. And now suddenly, because
a mega donor in the Republican super pac space named
jeff yass is a major investor in Byte Dance, the
parent company of TikTok, gave Donald Trump a ton of money,
(54:43):
Suddenly Kelly Ann is lobbying in favor of TikTok and saying, oh,
this is this is an essential cornerstone of our democracy,
or whatever line they're using this week, whatever line of
bullshit they're using this week. But all these Republicans are
out there now suddenly in love with TikTok, and as
Mark or as Elon Mussin, Mark zuckerschmuck. Oh really, you're
(55:07):
so subtle, Lelan, I can't get the message there. We'll
do better if we don't have TikTok. This is an exact,
perfect exemplar of the utter corruption of the Maga verse
because these people, these people know exactly what TikTok is.
Almost everyone understands there's a degree of social harm happening
on TikTok and that something ought to be done about it.
(55:29):
But the fact that the Republicans have done a complete
one hundred and eighty degreeturn on TikTok, that is my moment.
Speaker 1 (55:35):
It's almost like they don't believe it. Almost That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds in politics
make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
the conversation going. And again thanks for listening
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.