November 19, 2024 • 46 mins
Jon Stewart analyzes how Republicans exploit loopholes to gain political advantages while Democrats stick to the rules—and questions whether it’s time for a change in strategy. Jon sits down with Ruy Teixeira, co-author of Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, to explore how the party lost its working-class base, whether cultural politics are alienating voters, and why neither major party seems interested in building a true majority coalition.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
From the most trusted journalists at Comedy.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Central is America's only sorts for news.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the Daily Show with your Holy Show Stewart.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Hello, who everybody? How the Daly Show? My name is
John Shart.
Speaker 5 (00:54):
It has been two weeks since the election.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Two about the it was like two months.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's been fifteen years since the election.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
It's been I mean, this was me election night.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
Oh was I ever that young?
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Or I ever looked at?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And some?
Speaker 5 (01:25):
But Donald Trump is returning to power, and so once
again it is time to saddle up Lizzys Doll. Because
if you remember before Trump won the election, Democrats will
clear eyed about the stakes.
Speaker 7 (01:40):
It's times that fascism is called fascism in Americans know
exactly what they're voting for. He is paving the way
to become a Vladimir Putin or to become an Adolph Hitler.
Speaker 8 (01:51):
He is a threat to democracy.
Speaker 9 (01:52):
He is a clear and present danger to our democracy,
to our way of life.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The damage may be irreversible.
Speaker 10 (01:59):
To destruct could be unthinkable, and it would be a
betrayal of everything that our framers fought for.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
You're not even gonna look up You're not even gonna
you know, a little eye contact, a little inflection could
drive the danger thing. You give it a little urgency,
you know, Uh, I feel passionately. You know, we should
(02:47):
fight him on the beaches, in the field, god forbid
the streets, yastphalts and side.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
It's really all right?
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Is it sad that the only thing that really makes
it a Schumer impression is I put glasses on? Is
that was it really that? I mean, you applauded literally
just the glasses. I'm a pair of bifocals away from
being Chuck Schumer's.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Your bastards.
Speaker 5 (03:33):
Now, I assume now that the Democrats have lost to
the greatest fact we've ever faced as a nation, that
they will be forthright in acknowledging one the Democrats role
in this catastrophic defeat and two the bleak healthscape we
now face.
Speaker 9 (03:49):
Or we're proud of the fact that we've defeated more
House Republican incumbents than they've defeated House Democratic incumbents.
Speaker 7 (03:57):
We did flip three House seats from Republican to Democrat
and gain back almost all of those that we had
lost in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Yeah, almost is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yeah,
we almost gained back all we had lost. Almost is
kind of a load bearing adverb. Spin wise, finding a
positive and what is clearly not good news. You can't
parents good news. We gained back almost all of the
(04:31):
children we lost on the field trip.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Win win.
Speaker 6 (04:39):
It's a new dynamic.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
It is a wilful bright siding this shit show that
we celebrate in our new segment called the Audacity of Cope. Now, technically, yes,
Democrats have less seats, but have you heard who's in
those seats.
Speaker 8 (05:00):
In this freshman class alone? And I'm going to stop
for cheers for each one of these because they're remarkable.
We have our first trans member of Congress. We have
an engineer from an immigrant community in the San Fernando Valley.
We have the first Iranian American Democrat in Congress. We
(05:21):
have the youngest member ever elected to the House from
New Jersey.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
That's not a thing.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
How did you go from the reasonably impressive first Iranian
Democrat to hold the scene to the I think somewhat
reaching for youngest person ever from New Jersey, and then,
by the way, to the audience. If you think that
that framing is not that interesting. Wait till you hear
that this record breaking young phenom from New Jersey is thirty.
Speaker 6 (05:59):
Eight years old. Thirty eight years old? Yah, how come on?
How far are we going with this?
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (06:12):
In Illinois we elected a ginger.
Speaker 11 (06:15):
Oh hey yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
We elected the first representative from Washington State who looks
like he has a terrible secret. He ran on loneliness. Wow,
this is gonna be the most diverse group of Congress
people to ever get all their legislation blocked.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So inspired.
Speaker 6 (06:42):
But you know what, now it's fine.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
People, But you know what, those are just lonely House Democrats.
How well the head of their party, the outgoing president
man the ramparts. During this challenging and fraught peaceful transition
to fatism.
Speaker 12 (07:01):
President Biden is in Brazil, where he became the first
American head of state to visit the Amazon Rainforest. He
went there to highlight the dangers of climate change and
the need to turn away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
What the.
Speaker 6 (07:17):
No way that desk was there?
Speaker 1 (07:19):
No way, not a chance.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
In the middle of all this, he disappeared to the rainforest,
starring in what appears to be like four Pixar movies
in one mixed together.
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Clearly up is one of them.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
And in conto, I'm gonna say, there's a little moana.
Maybe Wally had a powerful anti consumer's message. Well, hopefully
listen Wally's down there. Hopefully he has some inspiring words
for us.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Mister president, History is literally watching us now.
Speaker 13 (07:56):
So let's preserve this secret place for our time and
for the benefit of all humanity. Thank you very very much.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Where are you coming? Where are you going?
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Just literally just walking away like that, mister President. I'm sorry,
the tribe has spoken. Extinguish your torch.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
What is happening?
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You know?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Maybe this is how we should do the transfer of power.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
The winner moves into the White House and the incumbent
just wanders off into the jungle so that his nutrients
may be returned to the soil. But of course that's
the democrats struggle. Donald Trump headed to Madison Square Garden
(09:02):
with his grab him by the pussy posse to do
his favorite thing, watch people submit.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
Trump likes submission in the octagon. He likes it out
of the octagon. He likes submission from his enemies and
even from his new friends. And by the way, it
doesn't take much of a transgression to warrant to ben
Denee for Trump. For instance, last week, Trump's newly minuted
Health and Human Services nominee hit Trump with a bit
of a lighthearted jab about his diet.
Speaker 10 (09:27):
The stuff that he eats is really like bad. It's
a campaign food is always bad. The food goes on
to that airplane is like just poison.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
That's a little friendly swipe boop, a little bit of ribbing,
gentle ribbing poop.
Speaker 6 (09:53):
And he will pay for his insudence, President Trump.
Speaker 14 (09:56):
Elon Musk, don jor RFK Junior, and speaker Mike Johnson
eating McDonald's on Trump's private plane.
Speaker 11 (10:03):
Hey yeah, hey, yeah, rabbit, come in here.
Speaker 6 (10:08):
You think that's poison?
Speaker 11 (10:09):
Yeah, eat it? Yeah, rabbit, eat the whole thing. Yeah,
in front of us, right now, eat the whole thing.
And by the way, when you're done eating the whole thing,
Grimas is gonna come in here and.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Grimis.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Hey, hey, Robert, he don't think Grimas can ask.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Why we're doing it. You gotta make eye contag with
him all the time. We're gonna film it.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
I was just gonna keep going with the premise.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
By the way, I know We're focused on the humiliation
of r F K Junior, But look at a poor
Mike Johnson there, poor Mike.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Johnson right there.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Oh, you didn't even get a seat at the cool
kids table. And the sad part this whole thing was
Mike Johnson's bachelor party. Meanwhile, Joe and Mika Brazinski Scarborough,
who famously warned of the growing threat of Trump's fascism,
also had an interesting announcement to make last Thursday.
Speaker 9 (11:18):
We expressed our own concerns on this broadcast and even
said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the
President elect himself. On Friday, we were given the opportunity
to do just that. Joe and I went to mar
A Lago to meet personally with President elect Trump. And
for those asking why we would go speak to the
(11:40):
President elect during such fraught times, especially between US, I
guess I would ask back, why wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
We because you said he was hitler?
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Okay, tap out. But look, we don't know what the
visit was. We don't know what the tone of the
visit was.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation,
threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
Oh, I bet you really lead down the gauntlet, Joe.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I bet you walked in there and just let him
have it, didn't you, Joey.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
I'm gonna do a one act play called Joe and
Mika go to Marlago. Mister President, your rhetoric is outrageous.
I cannot in good content those macarousa.
Speaker 6 (12:48):
The pick one is well bory. We've learned nothing, even
though it putting up resistance to Trump's agenda.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
Don't seem to understand who who they're dealing with.
Speaker 14 (13:01):
Senator Elizabeth Warren accusing President like Donald Trump's.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
Transition team of breaking the law.
Speaker 14 (13:07):
Is there are reported, mister deadline, devala required ethics pledge.
Speaker 6 (13:11):
Hear ye, hear ye, Hittler, mister reporting deadline.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
The war is over. I've said it before and I'll
say it again.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the
nurse's office because.
Speaker 6 (13:25):
They glued their balls to their thighs.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
That is what is happening.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
The election that we've just had was a repudiation of
the status quo, an overly regulated system that is no
longer responsive or delivering for the needs of the people
or their beloved beheaded squirrels, oh rip peanut. Government is
(13:54):
theoretically a constitutional system of checks and balances between equally
powerful branches.
Speaker 6 (13:59):
But what government actually is is an.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Overly complicated, byzantine, bureaucratic maze of rules, loopholes to those rules,
and norms, complex enough that a, if you want to
find a rule that keeps you from doing something, you'll
find it, and b if you actually want to do something,
you can find a loophole to get around said rule.
(14:22):
And then the norms are just how often you've had
to pull any of this shit.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
For example, Trump's.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
Let's be generous, provocative, and unorthodox cabinet picks. I don't
think Hulk Hogan's been nominated yet.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
I think he's going to be.
Speaker 6 (14:42):
The secretary of Take your vitamins. Democrats are positive.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
That the vaunted constitutional rules of the Senate shall be
the guardrail to this madness.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Certainly we can fight back.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
The president nominates, the Senate.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
Confirms we're a check in balance.
Speaker 15 (15:02):
We're there to be a guardrail.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent
on this nomination.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
Oh shit, you want Matt Gates mister President, prepared to
be advice and consented beyond. There is no way for
the Constitution to allow you to get past it.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
The Constitution does give the president a power to adjourn
the House and Senate on extraordinary occasions.
Speaker 10 (15:31):
To unilaterally install his most controversial nominees and bypass the
Senate confirmation process entirely.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
That is our government in a nutshell. The rules say
we can stop it. The loophole says that, and so
what are you left with the last refuge of losers
the norms. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't
think that's what the founders intended.
Speaker 15 (15:56):
That is not the customer.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Yeah, you can do it, and it's legal by whatever guy,
we're gonna think you're a day.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
Republicans exploit the loopholes.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
Democrats complain about the norms over and over and over,
and it has ghastly consequences.
Speaker 6 (16:23):
Remember when President.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell refused to give that a vote, saying, well,
it's only one full year before the election.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
It's too close.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Now you can make a case that Obama could violate
the norm say the Senate failed their advice and consent,
and appoint.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
Him anyway, and see whatever happens.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Fight.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
They just went, well, we never heard of that rule,
but okay, smash cut.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
Two months before a presidential election, Trump nominates Amy Coney
Barrett to the Supreme Court after the completely un foreseeable
death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as you can imagine,
the Democrats went right to the nearby kinkos.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Behind me is the McConnell rule.
Speaker 8 (17:09):
On February thirteenth, twenty sixteen, when Justice Scalia passed away,
Senator McConnell said, and I quote, this.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
And so Amy Connie Barrett was forced to head back
to her homestead, never to be heard from. Oh they
didn't give them. Oh all right, I forgot they didn't
give it. Look, let this show be the utterly ineffective
hypocrisy finders.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
I can tell you from experience. It does nothing.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
You guys be the loophole guys that figure out how
to get shit done. Because they don't give a about
your norms. They will exploit any loophole, even if they
have to go through clearly closed windows to do it.
You would think after Trump's presidency Democrats would have learned,
(17:58):
but they doubled down. When Biden tried to get immigration
reform into the Inflation Reduction Act and the Senate Parliamentarian
told them he couldn't. Did he respond to the rule
with the loophole or did he.
Speaker 9 (18:12):
That's for the parliamentarian to decide them, not for Joe
Biden to decide.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
No, that's for you.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Take the parliamentarian and you put them in a locker,
and then you bring Grimace in and have.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Him that's why you do.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Do you guys get what I'm saying. Perhaps a demonstration
is in order to get anything done. The Democrats feel
like they must thread the needle to make sure. Ooh,
we have to make sure each norm follows the overly
complex bureaucratic process that we created ourselves. Oh, the parliamentary
the Ooh, I can't do it because the norm said,
(18:53):
I can't get anything done.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
Meanwhile, the Republicans come in and all they have to
do is finger bang of donut.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
That's all I have to do.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Oh, how are we going to get Matt Gates in
if the advice and consent?
Speaker 10 (19:04):
Oh, right there.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Boom boom, yn there how he did well?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
He did?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Do I have to sleep with this? Now I've made
you all uncomfortable.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
Now Trump has the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judiciary, so
it's going to get hard or not easier. Democrats are
going to have to forcefully play the loopholes. But the
good news is you're well set up for it, with
the youngest Congressional representative ever from New Jersey, thirty eight
year OLDLR Monica McIvor. Unless wait, I've got a loophole.
(20:02):
What if Joe Biden got his vice president to not
certify that?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
No, No, President Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Wait, listen, listen of the plan, Joe, We'll be right
back with Roy.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
To Shara, don't go why no nod so I get tonight.
Speaker 5 (20:38):
Is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, co founder of
the Liberal Patriots Substack, and co author of Where Have
All the Democrats Gone?
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Please?
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Welcome to the program? Real Wait to.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Shara suck for joining us.
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Hey, my blood jog you your book is whereab all?
I don't even know what I'm holding it up to
your I'll just hold it up over here.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
Where of all the Democrats Gone? This was kind of
an expose I think on your recipe for how Democrats
lost their coalition.
Speaker 7 (21:23):
Written when we put it out last year, basically exactly
a year from this your.
Speaker 5 (21:30):
Question, did you send it to any of the Democrats?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
Not really, No, we hope they'd pick up with it.
I guess didn't happen.
Speaker 5 (21:41):
You know, you know, people aren't really readers anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Is there an audiobook?
Speaker 15 (21:49):
There is an audio book.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Maybe we should have sent that, Tom, or maybe like
a five slide PowerPoint deck.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Now you're learning the game right.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
First of all, it is a really interesting historical breakdown
context of sort of how the Democrats lost their more
populist economic instincts and can you can you go through
it sort of The Clintons probably began it in a way,
(22:19):
but even as far back as Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 7 (22:21):
Sure, yeah, yeah, I mean Jimmy Carter had a sort
of deregulatory, sort of anti populist approach toward economics. He
took on a lot of things that eventually found their
way into the Reagan approach in terms of deregulation and
so on. And of course with Bill Clinton, we have
you know, deregulation of finance, we have NAFTA eventually after
Clinton leaves, but you know, sort of he was pushing
(22:43):
it along. We have a session of China to the
WTO and you have the so called China Shock, which
really destroys millions of manufacturing jobs. So over time, you
saw a lot of working class people developing a sense,
particularly in the areas of the country that we left behind,
that we're dependent on you know, industrial growth, on you know,
resource extraction. I mean, they felt like Democrats didn't have
(23:06):
their backs anymore. They felt Democrats were you know, this
was a new world. We're all going to get educated.
You know, we were going to have a lot of
economic growth because we're moving into the new information economy
and forget that old manufacturing stuff.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
And there wasn't seemingly much difference other than maybe tax
cuts and tax heights, between neoliberal Democrats and standard republican
free trade policy.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (23:32):
Yeah, no, that was definitely true. I mean, I was
very noticeable at the time, and there's some Democrats who
pushed back against it, but they definitely lost the debate,
and the Democrats became you know, there's sort of this
third way thing in the nineties, right with Clinton and
Blair and people like that, and sort of they basically
put their chits down and we have to get government
off people's backs. We have to, you know, deregulate, we
(23:53):
have to just let a rip right with global trade,
and eventually it would all trickle down to the asses
of honest workers and peasants of America.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
It's coming people, It's going to trickle down. Yeah, a
few more decades.
Speaker 5 (24:08):
So then it's sort of you get the rise of
kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrent, there is this and
throughout it, you know, Paul Welson, a progressive wing that
wanted a more populist approach, but they could never win
the day. And you make the case it's because the
money that was coming into the Democratic Party was coming
(24:29):
now from business and not from labor.
Speaker 15 (24:32):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
I mean the influence of labor on the Democratic Party
just declined so much in the eighties and nineties. Of
course through our current day. I mean, it used to
be labor was the backbone of the Democratic Party. That's
what they relied upon for troops, for money to some extent,
and that really just becomes completely replaced in the eighties
and nineties, and even the culture of the Democratic Party
changes because there used to be much more contact between
(24:57):
the Democrats and the labor movement. You know, there's a
really close working relationship between them. Over time, the labor
movement gets pushed out because it's also declining at the time.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
So it's not I was going to say, what do
you think came first, the decline of the labor movement,
the decline of people participating in the labor movement, or
the Democrats moving away from that as a source of.
Speaker 7 (25:17):
Well, I think they were sort of an interactive negative
feedback loop, as it were.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I mean, fewer people.
Speaker 7 (25:22):
Of unions to kind of a death sprival if you
want to be melodramatic about it.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Really I do want to be melodramatic about Okay, well,
I don't know if you watch the first.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Act, but I punched my hand through a doughnut hole.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
Let's face it.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
I mean that thanks be done.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Better, I think now.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
But something that I feel like resonated with the audience
and has resonated with them in a while. My idea
of what happened with the Democratic Party is it was
a rejection of a status quo feeling that not just
in the working class movement, but in many movements that
(26:06):
democracy is by nature analog. We are living in a
digital world where you know, terminally online, the outrage and
the anger and the confusion is much elevated, and the
distance between those two points becomes untenable, especially if the
Democrats insist on, well, we have to keep I'd love
to get.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
You the help you need.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
But the parliamentarians really.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Been up my ass, like all night, right, Like I
feel like that's a real problem for them.
Speaker 7 (26:37):
Yeah, I mean the sense that the Democratic Party isn't
responsive to the needs of sort of ordinary the common
man and women in the working class, and they're too
caught up in other issues or they're too worried about
you know, sort of government regulations and parliamentary and stuff,
and they're not.
Speaker 15 (26:52):
Like laser focused on getting stuff done.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
And you know, even in places like New York City
where you have you know, very democratic, it's a sense
that they aren't pulling out all the stops to make
sure everyone gets good services and everything runs well, and
you know, effective government is.
Speaker 15 (27:08):
What people want.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
It's a system in some respects, there's two things. You
have to respond to what seems to be the immediate
needs and then lay the groundwork for the future. I
still think they did an effective job laying.
Speaker 15 (27:18):
The groundwork for the first part is what.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 6 (27:22):
Infrastructure built, Chick, those great things.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
But the new deal worked because it triaged the urgency.
Speaker 15 (27:29):
That's right.
Speaker 6 (27:31):
It seems like that problem.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
By the way, I don't think the Republicans do that either,
you know, in terms of.
Speaker 7 (27:37):
Let's see, I mean, look at these great cabinet picks
that Trump.
Speaker 15 (27:42):
They're ready, they're ten and ready for help.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Good people.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Wrong, I was warned about you.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Ruie to share is a dry son of a bitch, right, No,
dead on right. I almost think, and this is this
is a broader conversation, but if you look at sort
of European countries, they're satisfaction with government is higher because
it feels like they think the money they pay into
government returns in services they actually use. If you break
(28:14):
down people's tax bill, the first probably five tranches of
it are nothing that you use. You know, seventy five
eighty percent of it is it's military, Medicare, social Security.
It's stuff you'll use when you're sixty five or seventy,
but you don't use. Now, how do we get them
more responsive to what really is happening in people's lives.
Speaker 7 (28:37):
Well, you know, if I knew that, I would be
running the Democratic Party and they'd be running the table.
But first of all, I mean, you can't hit the
target unless you're aiming at it. Contrary to the Zen precept,
you actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people
in their daily lives and figuring out a way to
do it. Okay, you know they've got x percent of
(28:58):
the budget that's allocated these other things. But how can
we take what degrees of freedom we haven't use them
to help ordinary people say they feel it, Let's not
just pass a bunch of legislation that kind of sounds
good and may pay off in the long run, But
people don't really feel in their day to day lives.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
And I think they have a sense that they work hard,
they pay money into the system, and then that money
is Whether this is hyperbolic or not, I think it
is it goes to people who don't deserve it. It
goes to migrants, it goes to trans people, it goes
to the and it's they don't deserve.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
It, right, I deserve it?
Speaker 15 (29:32):
Right?
Speaker 7 (29:33):
Well, the mogrants thing became such a problem obviously because
of you know, the extent to which immigration spiked, and
then you had people turning up in overburdened urban areas,
and you know, you've had a lot of black voters,
for example in Chicago saying, why should I vote for
for for for Kamala Harris. I mean, you know, they're
they're giving away all this stuff to people, you know,
(29:54):
who just came in from out of the country that
are not even legal.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
And you know, but even that tells you though they
had an opportunity to do something three years about it,
they said they couldn't.
Speaker 6 (30:03):
I I was blowny, but I can't do it.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
I'm going to wait for First of all, that's the
type of language that I have seen.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Wait a minute, I saw your monologue that was I.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Don't know what happened there.
Speaker 16 (30:15):
It will get beleeved, okay, But but it is the
kind of thing like we can't overturn norms and things,
and you're like, well, how did you get to Kamala
Harris as the nominee that wasn't enormous?
Speaker 5 (30:28):
You overturned out And by the way, when you did,
there was an explosion of enthusiasm and excitement because they
suddenly felt like, oh, they're recognizing a reality that I owe,
now we have a chance, and now we have a chance.
Why isn't that more a part of the governance?
Speaker 7 (30:47):
Well, I think one. I mean, for example, look at
the immigration issue. Right, Yes, there were some tenuous excuses
why they they couldn't move on in earlier, But why
didn't they move in earlier? It was a lot because
the Democratic Coalition is so responsive. Biden was responsive to
the various elements of the coalition. You didn't want them
to do anything right. I mean, there were a lot
(31:07):
of advocacy groups, a lot of parts of the Democratic
Party that really thought things were fine. This is like
not really a problem, it's all made up, it's all
in Fox News. And and Biden didn't want to cross
I mean, and this is a part of the problem
with the Democratic Coalition today. There's too many parts of
the coalition have veto power undoing effect.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
You think you get into something interesting with that. And
it's something that I you know, rightfully, I think have
a blind spot on and that is this idea of
woke and dei and that the Democrats are too woke
and too dei and that's why they lost and it's
hard for me to wrap my head around that.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
Well it's not the only reason, but it was a
contributing factor, right, And if you look at like there's
been some data collected after the election by the Blueprint Strategy.
Speaker 15 (31:50):
Group that saw the show the top three reasons there.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
You know, I love their listicles listical.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Well in this listicle, the first reason was inflation, This
second reason was too much illegal immigration, and the third
reason was Democrats being too concerned about cultural issues and
not the welfare of the middle class. Right, I mean,
and there's similar data from other places.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Here's where maybe you can help me with this.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
But the idea of DEI and maybe I'm just working
off of a wrong the wrong definition of woke, you
know which is. And maybe that's the thing that I
don't understand. But like when they say all this DEI,
it feels like you're talking about like that one seminar
you have to sit in, Like that's like an hour,
Like I know, it's a little more it gets eye rolly,
(32:34):
but it's an hour.
Speaker 15 (32:36):
Right, Well, there's more to it than that.
Speaker 7 (32:38):
I think people have the perception that it's being used
as a way of allocating things that's different from merit,
and that's the real problem. I'm just saying, you know,
it doesn't seem to work that well. People don't like it,
you know, including non white working class people. So you
know that's yeah. I mean, there's there's a very reasonable
argument that we need to lift up people who've been
left behind by various heritages of vexed hair.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I don't even know why that's controversial.
Speaker 15 (33:02):
That's not that's not controversial.
Speaker 7 (33:05):
People are fine with helping out people who are disadvantaged.
I mean that there's people are good with that. I mean,
they don't think necessary.
Speaker 5 (33:12):
Here's where I'm lost, right, because you just said people
don't like that.
Speaker 6 (33:16):
So I guess is it is it because of.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
My DEI or reparations or whatever, I mean whatever kind
of a basket of things that sound to them like
they're going to give people stuff that they didn't you know,
sort of earn.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
What is it we're doing.
Speaker 6 (33:30):
Tariffs are there to repair the damage?
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Yes, Riffs are our.
Speaker 7 (33:38):
Economic policy that's supposed to make it, you know, sort
of more things made in America. It's supposed to help
manufacturing workers.
Speaker 15 (33:45):
Yes, and so on.
Speaker 7 (33:46):
Okay, so what do I suggest that people look at
class different from race.
Speaker 15 (33:50):
What can I tell you?
Speaker 1 (33:51):
It's just but it's all mixed together.
Speaker 15 (33:53):
It's all mixed together.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
So why are you yelling because you seem to.
Speaker 7 (33:58):
Be determined to Uh, I don't know. Just what's your point?
It's like race is more important than class.
Speaker 15 (34:04):
No, what's your point?
Speaker 3 (34:05):
No?
Speaker 5 (34:05):
My point is it seems that government's job is to
look at the systems that we use in this country
to create wealth and progress, sure, and then to look
at the natural areas where those systems create collateral damage
and repair as best they can the collateral damage of
(34:25):
those systems. And I don't understand why we've singled out
DEI as the devil and helping manufacturing as smart and
good like.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Isn't it all the same thing?
Speaker 7 (34:38):
The point about DII is is not particularly effective and
lift But.
Speaker 6 (34:41):
That's a different argument, does it not?
Speaker 15 (34:44):
No, it's not a different argument.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Basically, what I'm saying is that what if you want
to actually help people and materialist you want you want
universal policies that will disproportionately lift up stay black and
Latato poor people because they're more heavily concentrated among people who.
Speaker 15 (35:02):
Are will also be covinted that is what is popular.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
But they were explicitly disadvantaged, so why wouldn't we try
to repair that? But my point is if the government
picks winners and losers all the time. We have subsidies
for farming areas, and those aren't controversial because they say
the policies that we have in place have hurt farmers,
So let's get some subsidies in there to ameliorate the damage.
Speaker 6 (35:24):
That is a particular one.
Speaker 7 (35:26):
If you want to you want to help out people
who live in say, poor black areas of poor Latino areas, yes,
you can't just channel that money to people who are
Latino and black, because that's unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular.
If you want to lift them up, have universal programs
that actually help people live in those disadvents.
Speaker 15 (35:45):
Everybody's for that. Everybody's for that.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
That's not d I D I is really different.
Speaker 15 (35:50):
I think I know they're completely different.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
I think I think said I disagree with you that
everybody's for it because I think they view that as woke.
That what I just described they would view as woke,
and that is.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
Of a different that's all right.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I get the sense that in this country people look
at entrenched poverty in the cities and think that it
is a product of culture and vice, and they look
at entrenched poverty in whier areas and think that they
are victims of economic policies that they are not in
control of. I do think in this country it's viewed differently.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I just think it's.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
You know, here's what you didn't get, here's what you
didn't get during the crack crisis, deaths of despair, these
poor people. But in the federal Christness, rightfully, so you do.
And I think some of that has to do with
the populations. And so that's my point is why is DEI.
I feel like that it's a failure to describe what
(36:54):
we're trying to do.
Speaker 7 (36:55):
Okay, well, di I isn't the name for what you
want then.
Speaker 6 (36:59):
Because DEI is the only things allowed.
Speaker 15 (37:02):
Behind black and Latino.
Speaker 5 (37:03):
But the real things that would help entrenched poverty in
those cities aren't done in favor of Okay, we're not
actually going to do that, but we will let you
have an hour every three months where you get to
tell us.
Speaker 15 (37:16):
I agree with that. I agree with that.
Speaker 7 (37:18):
I think DII is a very poor substitute for those
kinds of programs.
Speaker 5 (37:21):
Could you just look into that camera and say that
do you think it is something that can be fixed?
Is it perception or is it reality?
Speaker 7 (37:31):
It is a matter of the kinds of programs will
have to be promulgated on a universal basis which have
a disproportionate effect on black and Latino working class and
poor people. That's how you do it, and it's possible
to build support for those, I really believe. Don't call
it DEI don't call it reparations, don't call it anything
like that because those are really unpopular. Call it you're
just trying to help people who are disadvantage and then
(37:53):
maybe complex historical reasons for it. And there's black people
and white people and Latino people all need that kind
of help.
Speaker 15 (37:59):
That is actually pretty popular.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Why do you think the Republicans don't have to play
by those same rules, Like if you're pro Palestine, they're
very happy going. You're a terrorist sympathizer, if you want
certain economics, you're a Marxist and a communist.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
They name call constantly. They do the.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
Same thing that you're saying they do, So why well
they don't seem to ever have like this if.
Speaker 7 (38:24):
They really wanted to seriously dominate the country in a
way that's different than taking advantage of fact people hated
the Biden Harris administration. They would have to like push
back on stuff like that. They would have to move
to the center themselves. That's the whole thing about the
political era we're in. We're in an era where both
Democrats and Republicans seem incapable, maybe even not interested in
(38:44):
forming a dominant majority coalition and sort of standing off
their rough edges, correcting the things they need to be corrected,
and really capturing the center of American politics in a
decisive way. And absolutely the Republicans have the same problems,
but they say and do a lot of stupid stuff.
It's a feeling on their support.
Speaker 5 (39:01):
Generally, the biggest movements in America that have done what
you're saying weren't centrist. The New Deal in FDR was
considered far left. Reagan and the Reagan Revolution was considered
far right. And it seems like the centrist Romney McCain,
those guys got their asses kicked.
Speaker 15 (39:17):
So I always was actually quite centrist.
Speaker 7 (39:20):
I mean really popular interest, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 6 (39:24):
Basically Norman Thomas and socialism.
Speaker 7 (39:26):
No, no, it was basically it was the institution of
economic talk in the country, and it was actually wildly
popular at the time. I mean, people revered FDR. They
what he stood up for the common man and woman. Well, okay,
but they still liked it.
Speaker 6 (39:39):
But it wasn't No, it wasn't.
Speaker 7 (39:42):
I'm not defining the center as being a particular ideology.
I'm defining it as what do people in the center
of the distribution want?
Speaker 15 (39:49):
What do they care about? What are their concerns?
Speaker 5 (39:51):
You mean like that you're talking about statistical Yeah, that's
you know, that's my thing.
Speaker 7 (39:58):
Sorry, guilty as charge.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
I didn't know statisticians were such argumentative sons and pictures.
Speaker 15 (40:07):
Are you pretty argumentative yourself?
Speaker 6 (40:10):
Can I tell you something super argumentative?
Speaker 12 (40:12):
Like?
Speaker 5 (40:12):
I actually don't like that about myself. I'm very contrarian too,
like and can get a little sanctumous. Yeah, I don't
know what I'm gonna do about that. I have the
feeling it's not going to get it's not going to
get any better. I'm gonna be one of those dudes
where people are just like, don't invite him, right right.
Speaker 6 (40:32):
You guys can check out Ruy's work.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Liberal Patriot Dot com ruin. We'll be right back after.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
That looks crazy.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
So they clean my glasses right before the show. I
already had them off up. Never put donuts on your glasses.
That is our show for tonight. Before we go, We're
gonna check in with your O. It's for the rest
of the week.
Speaker 2 (41:13):
Does he does it?
Speaker 1 (41:20):
So nice to see what's coming up this week?
Speaker 14 (41:23):
Well, John, we'll be talking about my weekend trip to
mar A Lago, where I went to reopen the conversation
with President elect Trump.
Speaker 6 (41:31):
Reopened the cup.
Speaker 14 (41:32):
Mm hmmm.
Speaker 6 (41:33):
Does he didn't you spend the.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Last year calling him a face?
Speaker 6 (41:38):
Let's not know how I remember it.
Speaker 14 (41:40):
No, but I wanted to go down there for unity.
I want to be unified with all the people who
he won't be getting revenge on. We had a great
conversation about mass deportation, and the bottom line is I
can tell you now that, uh, I'm gonna be okay.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
What about all the people being mass supported.
Speaker 14 (42:09):
Oh yes, I can tell them too that I'm gonna
be okay.
Speaker 6 (42:15):
Regulations, datsy?
Speaker 1 (42:16):
Does you like it?
Speaker 2 (42:17):
This week?
Speaker 6 (42:18):
Here?
Speaker 2 (42:18):
It is you moment to down.
Speaker 13 (42:22):
Then you can see him embracing Joe Rogan let's see him.
They're gonna get together in a second. Here it comes,
wait for it. He's walking and now he's gonna say hello,
there's Dana.
Speaker 6 (42:35):
Oh not quite.
Speaker 13 (42:36):
I think we'll get the Joe Rogan picture in.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Just a moment. Hang on, hang on, that's not quite.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching.
Speaker 10 (42:48):
The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (42:52):
Watch The Daily Show week nights at eleven ten.
Speaker 15 (42:54):
Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on
Paramount plus
Speaker 4 (43:05):
Paramount Podcasts
You're listening to Comedy Central.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
From the most trusted journalists at Comedy.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Central is America's only sorts for news.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the Daily Show with your Holy Show Stewart.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Hello, who everybody? How the Daly Show? My name is
John Shart.
Speaker 5 (00:54):
It has been two weeks since the election.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Two about the it was like two months.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
It's been fifteen years since the election.
Speaker 6 (01:05):
It's been I mean, this was me election night.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
Oh was I ever that young?
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Or I ever looked at?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
And some?
Speaker 5 (01:25):
But Donald Trump is returning to power, and so once
again it is time to saddle up Lizzys Doll. Because
if you remember before Trump won the election, Democrats will
clear eyed about the stakes.
Speaker 7 (01:40):
It's times that fascism is called fascism in Americans know
exactly what they're voting for. He is paving the way
to become a Vladimir Putin or to become an Adolph Hitler.
Speaker 8 (01:51):
He is a threat to democracy.
Speaker 9 (01:52):
He is a clear and present danger to our democracy,
to our way of life.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
The damage may be irreversible.
Speaker 10 (01:59):
To destruct could be unthinkable, and it would be a
betrayal of everything that our framers fought for.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
You're not even gonna look up You're not even gonna
you know, a little eye contact, a little inflection could
drive the danger thing. You give it a little urgency,
you know, Uh, I feel passionately. You know, we should
(02:47):
fight him on the beaches, in the field, god forbid
the streets, yastphalts and side.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
It's really all right?
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Is it sad that the only thing that really makes
it a Schumer impression is I put glasses on? Is
that was it really that? I mean, you applauded literally
just the glasses. I'm a pair of bifocals away from
being Chuck Schumer's.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Your bastards.
Speaker 5 (03:33):
Now, I assume now that the Democrats have lost to
the greatest fact we've ever faced as a nation, that
they will be forthright in acknowledging one the Democrats role
in this catastrophic defeat and two the bleak healthscape we
now face.
Speaker 9 (03:49):
Or we're proud of the fact that we've defeated more
House Republican incumbents than they've defeated House Democratic incumbents.
Speaker 7 (03:57):
We did flip three House seats from Republican to Democrat
and gain back almost all of those that we had
lost in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 5 (04:08):
Yeah, almost is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yeah,
we almost gained back all we had lost. Almost is
kind of a load bearing adverb. Spin wise, finding a
positive and what is clearly not good news. You can't
parents good news. We gained back almost all of the
(04:31):
children we lost on the field trip.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Win win.
Speaker 6 (04:39):
It's a new dynamic.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
It is a wilful bright siding this shit show that
we celebrate in our new segment called the Audacity of Cope. Now, technically, yes,
Democrats have less seats, but have you heard who's in
those seats.
Speaker 8 (05:00):
In this freshman class alone? And I'm going to stop
for cheers for each one of these because they're remarkable.
We have our first trans member of Congress. We have
an engineer from an immigrant community in the San Fernando Valley.
We have the first Iranian American Democrat in Congress. We
(05:21):
have the youngest member ever elected to the House from
New Jersey.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
That's not a thing.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
How did you go from the reasonably impressive first Iranian
Democrat to hold the scene to the I think somewhat
reaching for youngest person ever from New Jersey, and then,
by the way, to the audience. If you think that
that framing is not that interesting. Wait till you hear
that this record breaking young phenom from New Jersey is thirty.
Speaker 6 (05:59):
Eight years old. Thirty eight years old? Yah, how come on?
How far are we going with this?
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Oh?
Speaker 6 (06:12):
In Illinois we elected a ginger.
Speaker 11 (06:15):
Oh hey yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
We elected the first representative from Washington State who looks
like he has a terrible secret. He ran on loneliness. Wow,
this is gonna be the most diverse group of Congress
people to ever get all their legislation blocked.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
So inspired.
Speaker 6 (06:42):
But you know what, now it's fine.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
People, But you know what, those are just lonely House Democrats.
How well the head of their party, the outgoing president
man the ramparts. During this challenging and fraught peaceful transition
to fatism.
Speaker 12 (07:01):
President Biden is in Brazil, where he became the first
American head of state to visit the Amazon Rainforest. He
went there to highlight the dangers of climate change and
the need to turn away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
What the.
Speaker 6 (07:17):
No way that desk was there?
Speaker 1 (07:19):
No way, not a chance.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
In the middle of all this, he disappeared to the rainforest,
starring in what appears to be like four Pixar movies
in one mixed together.
Speaker 6 (07:35):
Clearly up is one of them.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
And in conto, I'm gonna say, there's a little moana.
Maybe Wally had a powerful anti consumer's message. Well, hopefully
listen Wally's down there. Hopefully he has some inspiring words
for us.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Mister president, History is literally watching us now.
Speaker 13 (07:56):
So let's preserve this secret place for our time and
for the benefit of all humanity. Thank you very very much.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Where are you coming? Where are you going?
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Just literally just walking away like that, mister President. I'm sorry,
the tribe has spoken. Extinguish your torch.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
What is happening?
Speaker 2 (08:37):
You know?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Maybe this is how we should do the transfer of power.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
The winner moves into the White House and the incumbent
just wanders off into the jungle so that his nutrients
may be returned to the soil. But of course that's
the democrats struggle. Donald Trump headed to Madison Square Garden
(09:02):
with his grab him by the pussy posse to do
his favorite thing, watch people submit.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Oh.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
Trump likes submission in the octagon. He likes it out
of the octagon. He likes submission from his enemies and
even from his new friends. And by the way, it
doesn't take much of a transgression to warrant to ben
Denee for Trump. For instance, last week, Trump's newly minuted
Health and Human Services nominee hit Trump with a bit
of a lighthearted jab about his diet.
Speaker 10 (09:27):
The stuff that he eats is really like bad. It's
a campaign food is always bad. The food goes on
to that airplane is like just poison.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
That's a little friendly swipe boop, a little bit of ribbing,
gentle ribbing poop.
Speaker 6 (09:53):
And he will pay for his insudence, President Trump.
Speaker 14 (09:56):
Elon Musk, don jor RFK Junior, and speaker Mike Johnson
eating McDonald's on Trump's private plane.
Speaker 11 (10:03):
Hey yeah, hey, yeah, rabbit, come in here.
Speaker 6 (10:08):
You think that's poison?
Speaker 11 (10:09):
Yeah, eat it? Yeah, rabbit, eat the whole thing. Yeah,
in front of us, right now, eat the whole thing.
And by the way, when you're done eating the whole thing,
Grimas is gonna come in here and.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Grimis.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Hey, hey, Robert, he don't think Grimas can ask.
Speaker 5 (10:34):
Why we're doing it. You gotta make eye contag with
him all the time. We're gonna film it.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
I was just gonna keep going with the premise.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
By the way, I know We're focused on the humiliation
of r F K Junior, But look at a poor
Mike Johnson there, poor Mike.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Johnson right there.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
Oh, you didn't even get a seat at the cool
kids table. And the sad part this whole thing was
Mike Johnson's bachelor party. Meanwhile, Joe and Mika Brazinski Scarborough,
who famously warned of the growing threat of Trump's fascism,
also had an interesting announcement to make last Thursday.
Speaker 9 (11:18):
We expressed our own concerns on this broadcast and even
said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the
President elect himself. On Friday, we were given the opportunity
to do just that. Joe and I went to mar
A Lago to meet personally with President elect Trump. And
for those asking why we would go speak to the
(11:40):
President elect during such fraught times, especially between US, I
guess I would ask back, why wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
We because you said he was hitler?
Speaker 5 (11:58):
Okay, tap out. But look, we don't know what the
visit was. We don't know what the tone of the
visit was.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation,
threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets.
Speaker 6 (12:15):
Oh, I bet you really lead down the gauntlet, Joe.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I bet you walked in there and just let him
have it, didn't you, Joey.
Speaker 5 (12:23):
I'm gonna do a one act play called Joe and
Mika go to Marlago. Mister President, your rhetoric is outrageous.
I cannot in good content those macarousa.
Speaker 6 (12:48):
The pick one is well bory. We've learned nothing, even
though it putting up resistance to Trump's agenda.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
Don't seem to understand who who they're dealing with.
Speaker 14 (13:01):
Senator Elizabeth Warren accusing President like Donald Trump's.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
Transition team of breaking the law.
Speaker 14 (13:07):
Is there are reported, mister deadline, devala required ethics pledge.
Speaker 6 (13:11):
Hear ye, hear ye, Hittler, mister reporting deadline.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
The war is over. I've said it before and I'll
say it again.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the
nurse's office because.
Speaker 6 (13:25):
They glued their balls to their thighs.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
That is what is happening.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
The election that we've just had was a repudiation of
the status quo, an overly regulated system that is no
longer responsive or delivering for the needs of the people
or their beloved beheaded squirrels, oh rip peanut. Government is
(13:54):
theoretically a constitutional system of checks and balances between equally
powerful branches.
Speaker 6 (13:59):
But what government actually is is an.
Speaker 5 (14:02):
Overly complicated, byzantine, bureaucratic maze of rules, loopholes to those rules,
and norms, complex enough that a, if you want to
find a rule that keeps you from doing something, you'll
find it, and b if you actually want to do something,
you can find a loophole to get around said rule.
(14:22):
And then the norms are just how often you've had
to pull any of this shit.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
For example, Trump's.
Speaker 5 (14:30):
Let's be generous, provocative, and unorthodox cabinet picks. I don't
think Hulk Hogan's been nominated yet.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
I think he's going to be.
Speaker 6 (14:42):
The secretary of Take your vitamins. Democrats are positive.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
That the vaunted constitutional rules of the Senate shall be
the guardrail to this madness.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Certainly we can fight back.
Speaker 7 (14:58):
The president nominates, the Senate.
Speaker 6 (15:00):
Confirms we're a check in balance.
Speaker 15 (15:02):
We're there to be a guardrail.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent
on this nomination.
Speaker 5 (15:09):
Oh shit, you want Matt Gates mister President, prepared to
be advice and consented beyond. There is no way for
the Constitution to allow you to get past it.
Speaker 7 (15:24):
The Constitution does give the president a power to adjourn
the House and Senate on extraordinary occasions.
Speaker 10 (15:31):
To unilaterally install his most controversial nominees and bypass the
Senate confirmation process entirely.
Speaker 5 (15:38):
That is our government in a nutshell. The rules say
we can stop it. The loophole says that, and so
what are you left with the last refuge of losers
the norms. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't
think that's what the founders intended.
Speaker 15 (15:56):
That is not the customer.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Yeah, you can do it, and it's legal by whatever guy,
we're gonna think you're a day.
Speaker 6 (16:14):
Republicans exploit the loopholes.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
Democrats complain about the norms over and over and over,
and it has ghastly consequences.
Speaker 6 (16:23):
Remember when President.
Speaker 5 (16:24):
Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell refused to give that a vote, saying, well,
it's only one full year before the election.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
It's too close.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Now you can make a case that Obama could violate
the norm say the Senate failed their advice and consent,
and appoint.
Speaker 6 (16:42):
Him anyway, and see whatever happens.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Fight.
Speaker 6 (16:46):
They just went, well, we never heard of that rule,
but okay, smash cut.
Speaker 5 (16:53):
Two months before a presidential election, Trump nominates Amy Coney
Barrett to the Supreme Court after the completely un foreseeable
death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as you can imagine,
the Democrats went right to the nearby kinkos.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Behind me is the McConnell rule.
Speaker 8 (17:09):
On February thirteenth, twenty sixteen, when Justice Scalia passed away,
Senator McConnell said, and I quote, this.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
And so Amy Connie Barrett was forced to head back
to her homestead, never to be heard from. Oh they
didn't give them. Oh all right, I forgot they didn't
give it. Look, let this show be the utterly ineffective
hypocrisy finders.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
I can tell you from experience. It does nothing.
Speaker 5 (17:38):
You guys be the loophole guys that figure out how
to get shit done. Because they don't give a about
your norms. They will exploit any loophole, even if they
have to go through clearly closed windows to do it.
You would think after Trump's presidency Democrats would have learned,
(17:58):
but they doubled down. When Biden tried to get immigration
reform into the Inflation Reduction Act and the Senate Parliamentarian
told them he couldn't. Did he respond to the rule
with the loophole or did he.
Speaker 9 (18:12):
That's for the parliamentarian to decide them, not for Joe
Biden to decide.
Speaker 6 (18:17):
No, that's for you.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
Take the parliamentarian and you put them in a locker,
and then you bring Grimace in and have.
Speaker 4 (18:25):
Him that's why you do.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Do you guys get what I'm saying. Perhaps a demonstration
is in order to get anything done. The Democrats feel
like they must thread the needle to make sure. Ooh,
we have to make sure each norm follows the overly
complex bureaucratic process that we created ourselves. Oh, the parliamentary
the Ooh, I can't do it because the norm said,
(18:53):
I can't get anything done.
Speaker 6 (18:54):
Meanwhile, the Republicans come in and all they have to
do is finger bang of donut.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
That's all I have to do.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Oh, how are we going to get Matt Gates in
if the advice and consent?
Speaker 10 (19:04):
Oh, right there.
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Boom boom, yn there how he did well?
Speaker 2 (19:09):
He did?
Speaker 1 (19:25):
Do I have to sleep with this? Now I've made
you all uncomfortable.
Speaker 5 (19:37):
Now Trump has the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judiciary, so
it's going to get hard or not easier. Democrats are
going to have to forcefully play the loopholes. But the
good news is you're well set up for it, with
the youngest Congressional representative ever from New Jersey, thirty eight
year OLDLR Monica McIvor. Unless wait, I've got a loophole.
(20:02):
What if Joe Biden got his vice president to not
certify that?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
No, No, President Biden.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Wait, listen, listen of the plan, Joe, We'll be right
back with Roy.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
To Shara, don't go why no nod so I get tonight.
Speaker 5 (20:38):
Is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, co founder of
the Liberal Patriots Substack, and co author of Where Have
All the Democrats Gone?
Speaker 6 (20:46):
Please?
Speaker 1 (20:46):
Welcome to the program? Real Wait to.
Speaker 2 (20:48):
Shara suck for joining us.
Speaker 6 (21:03):
Hey, my blood jog you your book is whereab all?
I don't even know what I'm holding it up to
your I'll just hold it up over here.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
Where of all the Democrats Gone? This was kind of
an expose I think on your recipe for how Democrats
lost their coalition.
Speaker 7 (21:23):
Written when we put it out last year, basically exactly
a year from this your.
Speaker 5 (21:30):
Question, did you send it to any of the Democrats?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
Not really, No, we hope they'd pick up with it.
I guess didn't happen.
Speaker 5 (21:41):
You know, you know, people aren't really readers anymore.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
Is there an audiobook?
Speaker 15 (21:49):
There is an audio book.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Maybe we should have sent that, Tom, or maybe like
a five slide PowerPoint deck.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Now you're learning the game right.
Speaker 5 (21:58):
First of all, it is a really interesting historical breakdown
context of sort of how the Democrats lost their more
populist economic instincts and can you can you go through
it sort of The Clintons probably began it in a way,
(22:19):
but even as far back as Jimmy Carter.
Speaker 7 (22:21):
Sure, yeah, yeah, I mean Jimmy Carter had a sort
of deregulatory, sort of anti populist approach toward economics. He
took on a lot of things that eventually found their
way into the Reagan approach in terms of deregulation and
so on. And of course with Bill Clinton, we have
you know, deregulation of finance, we have NAFTA eventually after
Clinton leaves, but you know, sort of he was pushing
(22:43):
it along. We have a session of China to the
WTO and you have the so called China Shock, which
really destroys millions of manufacturing jobs. So over time, you
saw a lot of working class people developing a sense,
particularly in the areas of the country that we left behind,
that we're dependent on you know, industrial growth, on you know,
resource extraction. I mean, they felt like Democrats didn't have
(23:06):
their backs anymore. They felt Democrats were you know, this
was a new world. We're all going to get educated.
You know, we were going to have a lot of
economic growth because we're moving into the new information economy
and forget that old manufacturing stuff.
Speaker 5 (23:20):
And there wasn't seemingly much difference other than maybe tax
cuts and tax heights, between neoliberal Democrats and standard republican
free trade policy.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (23:32):
Yeah, no, that was definitely true. I mean, I was
very noticeable at the time, and there's some Democrats who
pushed back against it, but they definitely lost the debate,
and the Democrats became you know, there's sort of this
third way thing in the nineties, right with Clinton and
Blair and people like that, and sort of they basically
put their chits down and we have to get government
off people's backs. We have to, you know, deregulate, we
(23:53):
have to just let a rip right with global trade,
and eventually it would all trickle down to the asses
of honest workers and peasants of America.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
It's coming people, It's going to trickle down. Yeah, a
few more decades.
Speaker 5 (24:08):
So then it's sort of you get the rise of
kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrent, there is this and
throughout it, you know, Paul Welson, a progressive wing that
wanted a more populist approach, but they could never win
the day. And you make the case it's because the
money that was coming into the Democratic Party was coming
(24:29):
now from business and not from labor.
Speaker 15 (24:32):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 7 (24:34):
I mean the influence of labor on the Democratic Party
just declined so much in the eighties and nineties. Of
course through our current day. I mean, it used to
be labor was the backbone of the Democratic Party. That's
what they relied upon for troops, for money to some extent,
and that really just becomes completely replaced in the eighties
and nineties, and even the culture of the Democratic Party
changes because there used to be much more contact between
(24:57):
the Democrats and the labor movement. You know, there's a
really close working relationship between them. Over time, the labor
movement gets pushed out because it's also declining at the time.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
So it's not I was going to say, what do
you think came first, the decline of the labor movement,
the decline of people participating in the labor movement, or
the Democrats moving away from that as a source of.
Speaker 7 (25:17):
Well, I think they were sort of an interactive negative
feedback loop, as it were.
Speaker 1 (25:21):
I mean, fewer people.
Speaker 7 (25:22):
Of unions to kind of a death sprival if you
want to be melodramatic about it.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Really I do want to be melodramatic about Okay, well,
I don't know if you watch the first.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Act, but I punched my hand through a doughnut hole.
Speaker 7 (25:35):
Let's face it.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
I mean that thanks be done.
Speaker 2 (25:39):
Better, I think now.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
But something that I feel like resonated with the audience
and has resonated with them in a while. My idea
of what happened with the Democratic Party is it was
a rejection of a status quo feeling that not just
in the working class movement, but in many movements that
(26:06):
democracy is by nature analog. We are living in a
digital world where you know, terminally online, the outrage and
the anger and the confusion is much elevated, and the
distance between those two points becomes untenable, especially if the
Democrats insist on, well, we have to keep I'd love
to get.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
You the help you need.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
But the parliamentarians really.
Speaker 5 (26:30):
Been up my ass, like all night, right, Like I
feel like that's a real problem for them.
Speaker 7 (26:37):
Yeah, I mean the sense that the Democratic Party isn't
responsive to the needs of sort of ordinary the common
man and women in the working class, and they're too
caught up in other issues or they're too worried about
you know, sort of government regulations and parliamentary and stuff,
and they're not.
Speaker 15 (26:52):
Like laser focused on getting stuff done.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
And you know, even in places like New York City
where you have you know, very democratic, it's a sense
that they aren't pulling out all the stops to make
sure everyone gets good services and everything runs well, and
you know, effective government is.
Speaker 15 (27:08):
What people want.
Speaker 5 (27:09):
It's a system in some respects, there's two things. You
have to respond to what seems to be the immediate
needs and then lay the groundwork for the future. I
still think they did an effective job laying.
Speaker 15 (27:18):
The groundwork for the first part is what.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 6 (27:22):
Infrastructure built, Chick, those great things.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
But the new deal worked because it triaged the urgency.
Speaker 15 (27:29):
That's right.
Speaker 6 (27:31):
It seems like that problem.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
By the way, I don't think the Republicans do that either,
you know, in terms of.
Speaker 7 (27:37):
Let's see, I mean, look at these great cabinet picks
that Trump.
Speaker 15 (27:42):
They're ready, they're ten and ready for help.
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Good people.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Wrong, I was warned about you.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Ruie to share is a dry son of a bitch, right, No,
dead on right. I almost think, and this is this
is a broader conversation, but if you look at sort
of European countries, they're satisfaction with government is higher because
it feels like they think the money they pay into
government returns in services they actually use. If you break
(28:14):
down people's tax bill, the first probably five tranches of
it are nothing that you use. You know, seventy five
eighty percent of it is it's military, Medicare, social Security.
It's stuff you'll use when you're sixty five or seventy,
but you don't use. Now, how do we get them
more responsive to what really is happening in people's lives.
Speaker 7 (28:37):
Well, you know, if I knew that, I would be
running the Democratic Party and they'd be running the table.
But first of all, I mean, you can't hit the
target unless you're aiming at it. Contrary to the Zen precept,
you actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people
in their daily lives and figuring out a way to
do it. Okay, you know they've got x percent of
(28:58):
the budget that's allocated these other things. But how can
we take what degrees of freedom we haven't use them
to help ordinary people say they feel it, Let's not
just pass a bunch of legislation that kind of sounds
good and may pay off in the long run, But
people don't really feel in their day to day lives.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
And I think they have a sense that they work hard,
they pay money into the system, and then that money
is Whether this is hyperbolic or not, I think it
is it goes to people who don't deserve it. It
goes to migrants, it goes to trans people, it goes
to the and it's they don't deserve.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
It, right, I deserve it?
Speaker 15 (29:32):
Right?
Speaker 7 (29:33):
Well, the mogrants thing became such a problem obviously because
of you know, the extent to which immigration spiked, and
then you had people turning up in overburdened urban areas,
and you know, you've had a lot of black voters,
for example in Chicago saying, why should I vote for
for for for Kamala Harris. I mean, you know, they're
they're giving away all this stuff to people, you know,
(29:54):
who just came in from out of the country that
are not even legal.
Speaker 5 (29:56):
And you know, but even that tells you though they
had an opportunity to do something three years about it,
they said they couldn't.
Speaker 6 (30:03):
I I was blowny, but I can't do it.
Speaker 5 (30:06):
I'm going to wait for First of all, that's the
type of language that I have seen.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Wait a minute, I saw your monologue that was I.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Don't know what happened there.
Speaker 16 (30:15):
It will get beleeved, okay, But but it is the
kind of thing like we can't overturn norms and things,
and you're like, well, how did you get to Kamala
Harris as the nominee that wasn't enormous?
Speaker 5 (30:28):
You overturned out And by the way, when you did,
there was an explosion of enthusiasm and excitement because they
suddenly felt like, oh, they're recognizing a reality that I owe,
now we have a chance, and now we have a chance.
Why isn't that more a part of the governance?
Speaker 7 (30:47):
Well, I think one. I mean, for example, look at
the immigration issue. Right, Yes, there were some tenuous excuses
why they they couldn't move on in earlier, But why
didn't they move in earlier? It was a lot because
the Democratic Coalition is so responsive. Biden was responsive to
the various elements of the coalition. You didn't want them
to do anything right. I mean, there were a lot
(31:07):
of advocacy groups, a lot of parts of the Democratic
Party that really thought things were fine. This is like
not really a problem, it's all made up, it's all
in Fox News. And and Biden didn't want to cross
I mean, and this is a part of the problem
with the Democratic Coalition today. There's too many parts of
the coalition have veto power undoing effect.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
You think you get into something interesting with that. And
it's something that I you know, rightfully, I think have
a blind spot on and that is this idea of
woke and dei and that the Democrats are too woke
and too dei and that's why they lost and it's
hard for me to wrap my head around that.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
Well it's not the only reason, but it was a
contributing factor, right, And if you look at like there's
been some data collected after the election by the Blueprint Strategy.
Speaker 15 (31:50):
Group that saw the show the top three reasons there.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
You know, I love their listicles listical.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Well in this listicle, the first reason was inflation, This
second reason was too much illegal immigration, and the third
reason was Democrats being too concerned about cultural issues and
not the welfare of the middle class. Right, I mean,
and there's similar data from other places.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Here's where maybe you can help me with this.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
But the idea of DEI and maybe I'm just working
off of a wrong the wrong definition of woke, you
know which is. And maybe that's the thing that I
don't understand. But like when they say all this DEI,
it feels like you're talking about like that one seminar
you have to sit in, Like that's like an hour,
Like I know, it's a little more it gets eye rolly,
(32:34):
but it's an hour.
Speaker 15 (32:36):
Right, Well, there's more to it than that.
Speaker 7 (32:38):
I think people have the perception that it's being used
as a way of allocating things that's different from merit,
and that's the real problem. I'm just saying, you know,
it doesn't seem to work that well. People don't like it,
you know, including non white working class people. So you
know that's yeah. I mean, there's there's a very reasonable
argument that we need to lift up people who've been
left behind by various heritages of vexed hair.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
I don't even know why that's controversial.
Speaker 15 (33:02):
That's not that's not controversial.
Speaker 7 (33:05):
People are fine with helping out people who are disadvantaged.
I mean that there's people are good with that. I mean,
they don't think necessary.
Speaker 5 (33:12):
Here's where I'm lost, right, because you just said people
don't like that.
Speaker 6 (33:16):
So I guess is it is it because of.
Speaker 7 (33:17):
My DEI or reparations or whatever, I mean whatever kind
of a basket of things that sound to them like
they're going to give people stuff that they didn't you know,
sort of earn.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
What is it we're doing.
Speaker 6 (33:30):
Tariffs are there to repair the damage?
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Yes, Riffs are our.
Speaker 7 (33:38):
Economic policy that's supposed to make it, you know, sort
of more things made in America. It's supposed to help
manufacturing workers.
Speaker 15 (33:45):
Yes, and so on.
Speaker 7 (33:46):
Okay, so what do I suggest that people look at
class different from race.
Speaker 15 (33:50):
What can I tell you?
Speaker 1 (33:51):
It's just but it's all mixed together.
Speaker 15 (33:53):
It's all mixed together.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
So why are you yelling because you seem to.
Speaker 7 (33:58):
Be determined to Uh, I don't know. Just what's your point?
It's like race is more important than class.
Speaker 15 (34:04):
No, what's your point?
Speaker 3 (34:05):
No?
Speaker 5 (34:05):
My point is it seems that government's job is to
look at the systems that we use in this country
to create wealth and progress, sure, and then to look
at the natural areas where those systems create collateral damage
and repair as best they can the collateral damage of
(34:25):
those systems. And I don't understand why we've singled out
DEI as the devil and helping manufacturing as smart and
good like.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Isn't it all the same thing?
Speaker 7 (34:38):
The point about DII is is not particularly effective and
lift But.
Speaker 6 (34:41):
That's a different argument, does it not?
Speaker 15 (34:44):
No, it's not a different argument.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Basically, what I'm saying is that what if you want
to actually help people and materialist you want you want
universal policies that will disproportionately lift up stay black and
Latato poor people because they're more heavily concentrated among people who.
Speaker 15 (35:02):
Are will also be covinted that is what is popular.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
But they were explicitly disadvantaged, so why wouldn't we try
to repair that? But my point is if the government
picks winners and losers all the time. We have subsidies
for farming areas, and those aren't controversial because they say
the policies that we have in place have hurt farmers,
So let's get some subsidies in there to ameliorate the damage.
Speaker 6 (35:24):
That is a particular one.
Speaker 7 (35:26):
If you want to you want to help out people
who live in say, poor black areas of poor Latino areas, yes,
you can't just channel that money to people who are
Latino and black, because that's unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular.
If you want to lift them up, have universal programs
that actually help people live in those disadvents.
Speaker 15 (35:45):
Everybody's for that. Everybody's for that.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
That's not d I D I is really different.
Speaker 15 (35:50):
I think I know they're completely different.
Speaker 5 (35:52):
I think I think said I disagree with you that
everybody's for it because I think they view that as woke.
That what I just described they would view as woke,
and that is.
Speaker 6 (36:01):
Of a different that's all right.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I get the sense that in this country people look
at entrenched poverty in the cities and think that it
is a product of culture and vice, and they look
at entrenched poverty in whier areas and think that they
are victims of economic policies that they are not in
control of. I do think in this country it's viewed differently.
Speaker 1 (36:28):
I just think it's.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
You know, here's what you didn't get, here's what you
didn't get during the crack crisis, deaths of despair, these
poor people. But in the federal Christness, rightfully, so you do.
And I think some of that has to do with
the populations. And so that's my point is why is DEI.
I feel like that it's a failure to describe what
(36:54):
we're trying to do.
Speaker 7 (36:55):
Okay, well, di I isn't the name for what you
want then.
Speaker 6 (36:59):
Because DEI is the only things allowed.
Speaker 15 (37:02):
Behind black and Latino.
Speaker 5 (37:03):
But the real things that would help entrenched poverty in
those cities aren't done in favor of Okay, we're not
actually going to do that, but we will let you
have an hour every three months where you get to
tell us.
Speaker 15 (37:16):
I agree with that. I agree with that.
Speaker 7 (37:18):
I think DII is a very poor substitute for those
kinds of programs.
Speaker 5 (37:21):
Could you just look into that camera and say that
do you think it is something that can be fixed?
Is it perception or is it reality?
Speaker 7 (37:31):
It is a matter of the kinds of programs will
have to be promulgated on a universal basis which have
a disproportionate effect on black and Latino working class and
poor people. That's how you do it, and it's possible
to build support for those, I really believe. Don't call
it DEI don't call it reparations, don't call it anything
like that because those are really unpopular. Call it you're
just trying to help people who are disadvantage and then
(37:53):
maybe complex historical reasons for it. And there's black people
and white people and Latino people all need that kind
of help.
Speaker 15 (37:59):
That is actually pretty popular.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Why do you think the Republicans don't have to play
by those same rules, Like if you're pro Palestine, they're
very happy going. You're a terrorist sympathizer, if you want
certain economics, you're a Marxist and a communist.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
They name call constantly. They do the.
Speaker 5 (38:19):
Same thing that you're saying they do, So why well
they don't seem to ever have like this if.
Speaker 7 (38:24):
They really wanted to seriously dominate the country in a
way that's different than taking advantage of fact people hated
the Biden Harris administration. They would have to like push
back on stuff like that. They would have to move
to the center themselves. That's the whole thing about the
political era we're in. We're in an era where both
Democrats and Republicans seem incapable, maybe even not interested in
(38:44):
forming a dominant majority coalition and sort of standing off
their rough edges, correcting the things they need to be corrected,
and really capturing the center of American politics in a
decisive way. And absolutely the Republicans have the same problems,
but they say and do a lot of stupid stuff.
It's a feeling on their support.
Speaker 5 (39:01):
Generally, the biggest movements in America that have done what
you're saying weren't centrist. The New Deal in FDR was
considered far left. Reagan and the Reagan Revolution was considered
far right. And it seems like the centrist Romney McCain,
those guys got their asses kicked.
Speaker 15 (39:17):
So I always was actually quite centrist.
Speaker 7 (39:20):
I mean really popular interest, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 6 (39:24):
Basically Norman Thomas and socialism.
Speaker 7 (39:26):
No, no, it was basically it was the institution of
economic talk in the country, and it was actually wildly
popular at the time. I mean, people revered FDR. They
what he stood up for the common man and woman. Well, okay,
but they still liked it.
Speaker 6 (39:39):
But it wasn't No, it wasn't.
Speaker 7 (39:42):
I'm not defining the center as being a particular ideology.
I'm defining it as what do people in the center
of the distribution want?
Speaker 15 (39:49):
What do they care about? What are their concerns?
Speaker 5 (39:51):
You mean like that you're talking about statistical Yeah, that's
you know, that's my thing.
Speaker 7 (39:58):
Sorry, guilty as charge.
Speaker 5 (40:04):
I didn't know statisticians were such argumentative sons and pictures.
Speaker 15 (40:07):
Are you pretty argumentative yourself?
Speaker 6 (40:10):
Can I tell you something super argumentative?
Speaker 12 (40:12):
Like?
Speaker 5 (40:12):
I actually don't like that about myself. I'm very contrarian too,
like and can get a little sanctumous. Yeah, I don't
know what I'm gonna do about that. I have the
feeling it's not going to get it's not going to
get any better. I'm gonna be one of those dudes
where people are just like, don't invite him, right right.
Speaker 6 (40:32):
You guys can check out Ruy's work.
Speaker 2 (40:34):
Liberal Patriot Dot com ruin. We'll be right back after.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
That looks crazy.
Speaker 5 (41:00):
So they clean my glasses right before the show. I
already had them off up. Never put donuts on your glasses.
That is our show for tonight. Before we go, We're
gonna check in with your O. It's for the rest
of the week.
Speaker 2 (41:13):
Does he does it?
Speaker 1 (41:20):
So nice to see what's coming up this week?
Speaker 14 (41:23):
Well, John, we'll be talking about my weekend trip to
mar A Lago, where I went to reopen the conversation
with President elect Trump.
Speaker 6 (41:31):
Reopened the cup.
Speaker 14 (41:32):
Mm hmmm.
Speaker 6 (41:33):
Does he didn't you spend the.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Last year calling him a face?
Speaker 6 (41:38):
Let's not know how I remember it.
Speaker 14 (41:40):
No, but I wanted to go down there for unity.
I want to be unified with all the people who
he won't be getting revenge on. We had a great
conversation about mass deportation, and the bottom line is I
can tell you now that, uh, I'm gonna be okay.
Speaker 1 (42:07):
What about all the people being mass supported.
Speaker 14 (42:09):
Oh yes, I can tell them too that I'm gonna
be okay.
Speaker 6 (42:15):
Regulations, datsy?
Speaker 1 (42:16):
Does you like it?
Speaker 2 (42:17):
This week?
Speaker 6 (42:18):
Here?
Speaker 2 (42:18):
It is you moment to down.
Speaker 13 (42:22):
Then you can see him embracing Joe Rogan let's see him.
They're gonna get together in a second. Here it comes,
wait for it. He's walking and now he's gonna say hello,
there's Dana.
Speaker 6 (42:35):
Oh not quite.
Speaker 13 (42:36):
I think we'll get the Joe Rogan picture in.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Just a moment. Hang on, hang on, that's not quite.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Explore more shows from the Daily Show podcast universe by searching.
Speaker 10 (42:48):
The Daily Show wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (42:52):
Watch The Daily Show week nights at eleven ten.
Speaker 15 (42:54):
Central on Comedy Central, and stream full episodes anytime on
Paramount plus
Speaker 4 (43:05):
Paramount Podcasts
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.