December 5, 2024 • 23 mins
Dr. Jonathan Metzl returns to Woke AF Daily to discuss what direction the Democratic party needs to take in order to fight back against Trumpism and the MAGA agenda.
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 (00:11):
Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wik f Daily with
Meet your Girl Daniel Moody, recording from the Home Bunker, Folks.
Yesterday was the oral arguments being heard in the Scrammatic
case at the Supreme Court that are going to decide
(00:33):
transgender rights in this country. The case is being argued
by and openly trans attorney Chase Strangio with the ACLU.
And you know, with this six to three court that
we have, we can already predict what is going to
(00:57):
happen here. But what it got me thinking about is
humanity and that when will there come a time when
human beings are allowed to just be, to just exist,
(01:18):
free from oppression, from persecution, free from the opinions of
nine unelected black robes to decide whether or not you
deserve dignity and respect and a full and complete and
abundant and beautiful life. And I say this to you,
(01:40):
and I'm kind of choking up a bit because it
never ends. The targets just change, but it never ends.
And I think about Brown versus the Board of Education,
and I think about Plusy versus Ferguson, and I think
about the dread Scott decision, and I think about being
(02:00):
label three fifths of a human being. And I think
about all of the decisions that are made largely by
unelected bodies that get to decide whose body is worthy
and whose is not, and that for so long, those
that sat on high were straight white men making the
(02:23):
decisions about other people's bodies and their humanities, and nothing
has really changed. Sure, there are a couple of women
that are on the court and two people of color,
but really only one because we all know Clarence Thomas
hates himself and hates black people. But it just it
never stops. And so I think about being there as
(02:49):
a trans person and arguing about your right to exist,
your right to take hormones, right to identify in the
way that you choose. Why is it so hard? I
really don't understand why it is so hard, As Tim
(03:14):
Wall said, to mind your own fucking business. What does
a transperson taking hormones have to do with me if
I'm not the one ingesting them. What does someone marrying
someone of the same sex have to do with me
and my life if nobody is forcing me to marry.
Why can't we just acknowledge people as human beings worthy
(03:38):
of dignity and respect for no other reason than they
were born. I don't think that I'll ever live inside
of that world, but I really do hope that somebody does.
Coming up next my conversation with our friend, our in
house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel, offering up his reflections on
(03:59):
the last four years of our weekly conversations on WOKF
that have been such a guiding light for me through
some really dark times. And I'm just so grateful and
appreciative that Jonathan will be closing out the year with
us and with this show, and we will, dear friends,
(04:20):
have some exciting news on the horizon, because you know,
new space, new opportunities is what is coming our way.
So coming up next that conversation with our friend Jonathan Metzel, Folks,
I am always very pleased when I have the opportunity
(04:40):
to speak with our in house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel
as we close out Jonathan WOKEF at the end of
this year. I guess one of the first questions that
I want to ask you today, as I'm very much
in reflection mode as many people are, that's kind of
what the end of the year brings. We've been in
(05:00):
conversation for the last four years on a weekly basis
for four years, and we have been through a lot
during that time, and I guess I want to ask you, like,
what has stood out to you during this time of
less being in conversation during a global health pandemic and
(05:23):
insurrection like multiple One cannot count the amount of mass
shootings that we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
It was really that we realized that we were having
a conversation that wasn't happening in a lot of other places.
I think you know, you and I started talking during
the intense period of the pandemic, and we realized that
there just wasn't a space for like not just factual information,
but like processing everything that was happening and thinking about
how the frameworks that we bring to all this crazy
(05:53):
shit would help us understand and articulate it. And so,
I don't know, our conversation has felt like really honest,
because it's in part like, hey, why isn't the information
getting out, which is going to be even more important
as we destroy our information networks in society, But also
it's just felt very super validating in that way. And
so for me, what's stood out more than anything is
(06:15):
the emotional resonance of having these conversations and how important
that's been, and it's felt really honest, honestly, and so
for me that's I'm very very grateful. It's actually been
very personally meaning for me. Also.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
You know, it's really interesting that you bring up the
word honest, because as we're reflecting and still unpacking what
has happened over the last couple of weeks since the
election and as we move into this transitional period of
the Trump regime, one of the things that keep coming
up with regard to people's distrust in corporate mainstream media
(06:54):
is the fact that they don't believe that they're being
told the truth. That one of the reasons why Donald Trump,
of all people, has resonated is because he bucks systems
and people feel like he is authentic. And I want
to ask you about like our feelings around authenticity and
actual authenticity, because we all know, for instance, that Donald
(07:16):
Trump is an habitual liar. We all know that mainstream
corporate media gave up on fact checking him many years ago.
But the fact is is that people still feel like
the media is lying to them, but Donald Trump is
telling them the truth. Can you help us understand why
that is?
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, there's an olviator saying one man's authenticity is another
man's potato pancake. No, I just made that up.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
I'm like a lot. No.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
You know, there's a trick of a salesman, which is
to make people feel like they're being heard and then
twist that toward whatever. I mean, that's what politicians do,
and for whatever reason, Trump is exceptionally good at that, right.
In other words, people feel heard when he's in a rally.
People feel like he's connecting and talking to them. And
it's a moment now where people want they want their
(08:09):
anger reflected, they want their frustration reflected. You know, you
and I talked right when Kamala Harris became the nominee
about whether joy was going to sell, whether happiness was
to sumble, and I said at the time, I hope
that's the case, but I don't think it's going to
be the case, just because we're not. In a moment.
People want their anger or frustrations acknowledged. And Trump, for
(08:33):
all of his messed upness, is incredibly good at that. Right.
He's incredibly good at like feeling the room. It's not
like he stands for one thing. He can feel a
room and tell people what they want to hear. There
are democratic politicians who do that. So if we were
going to play that game, Kambala Harris would not have
been our nominee. You know, she's somebody who sounds like
an insider, and so, you know, everything else aside, it
(08:56):
was an election of two very different affects in a way.
So so I mean, I guess the question is is
that going to be the case whenever we have our
next election in twenty seven years or something like that.
But I can't say that Trump is very good at mirroring,
amplifying people's anger and rage and then twisting at prison thing,
which is again what good salespeople do. And given that
(09:20):
that was the tone of this moment, everything else aside,
Kamal Hairs was not that right. She was somebody who
sounds like an institutional luster or something like that. So
there are two very different frameworks.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
My thing is that because here's what Democrats are really
good at and what they're doing right now, which is
just a ton of finger pointing, a ton of finger pointing,
a ton of complaining and just doing the same things
over and over again and expecting a different result. Donald
Trump and Maga upended the political norms ten years ago,
(09:56):
and we're still grappling with like what that means, understanding
what that means as we're getting ready to go now
into a new wave that is now going to finish
the job that began in twenty seventeen to decimate our institutions,
to decimate credibility. And in that time span, it's as
(10:16):
if democratic not even as if they haven't learned anything.
And so while people are still saying, oh, well, Kamala
Harris sounded like an institutionalist, is that because she was coherent?
Is that because she showed that she understood how government works?
And what people want right now is just to break things.
I guess that's what I'm trying to understand. Because if
(10:37):
you're talking about this vibe check of somebody ushering in
joy and truth versus somebody that says I'm going to
break everything and I'm going to make people pay for it,
and that being what resonated, I don't know how you
would ever combat that, because again, we're trying to operate
(10:57):
in a place of fact and information and Donald Trump
is not.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I was on a panel for NPR right before the election,
and it was with Rachel bit Kaffer, who was saying
we're wasting all our money on positive ads. We should
just be doing negative ads all the time, because that's
the only way to combat this. And I've thought a
lot about this. I mean, you know, that's what you
do when you lose. When you lose, you figure out,
you know, what the hell how do we not lose again?
(11:26):
And so we are quite good at that. But also
I do think that there's a post mortem that is
important right now, right, I mean, there are different They're
just decisions we have to make now about how to
go forward. And so I don't think finger pointing is
I mean, I wouldn't call it finger pointing. I think
that there's a post mortem that needs to happen that
is instructive about I want to know where we went wrong.
(11:48):
And so I don't know. I mean, I guess you're right,
like should we have hired should we have just put
up somebody? I mean, it's all relative. We lost, So
you tell me how do we go forward?
Speaker 1 (11:57):
I mean I guess my question is, like, well, one,
I don't think that we're being honest. I don't think
that Democrats are being honest, and I don't think that
there is. Again, I think that you need to look
at quote unquote failure in a different way. Donald Trump
did not receive a mandate. He did not win overwhelmingly.
You're talking about like a percentage point. You're talking about
(12:21):
a handful of votes literally in a handful of states.
And so when you're competing with somebody that is telling
you that these people are to blame for your ills,
and I'm saying, no, they're not. It's actually the rich.
But that's not the message that Kamala Harris had. Her
message was We're going to reach across the aisle. I'm
going to put a Republican in my cabinet, but here
(12:43):
are the ways in which for black men, for Latino men,
I can make life better and offer up these different opportunities.
I think that people wanted a quick fix, and even
if that quick fix is a lie, that's what they
went for. And I wonder, though, in hindsight, if Kamala
Harris had just hammered home an economic message, which was
(13:06):
that the Biden administration didn't have anything to defend. We
have the best economy. You just saw. Of course, after
the election, Lois thanksgiving prices, Lois cost for dinner, like
jobs have returned all of these things. If you had
focused solely on that, on a progressive populist message as
opposed to linking arms with Republicans, that to me is
(13:29):
the only thing the message that should have been hammered
over and over and over again, and that wasn't. And
there was still this push to what no longer exists
as the center, which kind of made in some ways
Kamala Harris seem like Republican light.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah. Again, you know, it's just I mean, I guess
the question now is in response to the Democrats go
farther left or do they go toward the center?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I mean, this is there is no sense so that
like that's my argument now, is that like that is
a false question to ask because the center doesn't exist.
So you either continue to follow the extremists over a
cliff or you retain and reimagine what it is that
the progressive base actually wants.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I was reading an interesting article this morning that asked,
you know, would higher turnout have helped Kamala Harris? Was
this a question of turnout? And it's just funny because
it mirrored something that I've been thinking, which is it
just really felt like Republicans were playing by different rules
than we were for this election, and so there's something
about like winning hearts and minds. They were doing something else.
(14:42):
I don't know what it was, but yeah, I mean,
I hope you're right. I'm not gonna I'm not going
to push back except to say that I hope you're right.
I hope we get a chance to fix this. I
hope there's still a system in which we can fix this.
But let's see how that plays out.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I guess the fact is is that it isn't gonna
play out because I have said for the longest time,
and I hope to be wrong that I don't think
that we actually get another bite at the apple here.
Everyone wants to hold their breath and believe that there's
going to be an opportunity in mid terms. I'm going
to disagree with that statement. I don't think that there's
going to be an opportunity with midterms because I don't
(15:18):
think that we're having them. And so that being said,
if you have an entire now fascist maga movement that
has no guardrails, that is completely unleashed, the response to
that can't be centrist thinking. And I'm wondering in your
mind what it takes then for Democrats to realize that
(15:39):
they once again have been chasing the wrong dragon.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I mean again, the rules of everything, because of all
the dismantling that's about to happen, the rules are going
to be totally different. And so I do worry that
we have a lot of institutionalists who are still running
the party, and I think what we need right now
is outside the box people in a way. And so
I don't know, because I don't know there's some plan.
(16:04):
I mean, when you have somebody at the head of
the Department of Education and the FBI and every other
organization who's in place to basically destroy that organization as
it's been known and remake it, the rules are just
going to be totally different. And so I guess I
hope we have people who are nimble and force full
and bare knuckles enough to combat that. I just think
(16:28):
that the rules are different and we have to there's
something very responsive about it. So I'm not avoiding that question.
It's just we're about to create a new reality here.
I mean I feel it most deeply with health, for example.
I mean that's kind of where I'm consumed right now,
because dismantling all the health infrastructure that Kennedy and those
(16:48):
guys are going to do is going to be catastrophic
and it's going to create new realities. And so to
then say we just need to build things back the
way they were is not going to work.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
I feel like we need to be like everything is
going to be dismantled, and to be honest, I'm in
a place where I am recognizing that they were never
created to work for all people anyway. So while there's
going to be a lot of pain and there's going
to be a lot of harm that is going to
be done, I really wish that Democrats would be in
(17:19):
a place of imagination rather than reaction to what it
is that Republicans are going to do. Because the fact
is is that, like, if we're honest, this incremental shit
was not working. It doesn't work. People are still you're
talking about healthcare paying astronomical premiums. People are still having
to come out of pocket for costs that like the
(17:40):
insurance refuses to cover. So there are so many things
and for one me, being a person that pays for
their health insurance out of pocket, are strapped with so
many fucking costs that I'm like, so you get rid
of it. Yes, there's going to be a ton of pain,
but like, when are democrats ever going to move from
a place of creation rather than a place of reaction?
(18:04):
And I just don't know. It's still this dismantling is
going to be that aha moment.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It's just interesting, you know, because the health infrastructure that
we have is based on like shared cooperation. You know,
vaccines and public health and smoking bands and seat belts,
all these things work by people like cooperating. And that's
not the world we're about to enter. The world We're
about to enter as a very health libertarian moment from
(18:32):
a public health perspective, but also a financial perspective, and
so on the new show. Let's keep talking about this
because I think what health becomes, I think is going
to be incredibly, incredibly important, as many of these things are.
And I just I guess I agree with you that
we need people who are creative and who are setting
the agenda, not people who are trying to recreate the
(18:54):
past that's that's gone.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Because that's where I feel like democrats are right now
and where they continue to be, which is why at
this stage in my political career. I'm saying that it
is time to have real, honest conversations about a viable
third party because I do not think that Democrats are
here to meet this moment. I think that they are
fine with the way that things are and just ticking
(19:17):
away at that. And what Donald Trump is offering is
to destroy it. And I think that that is why people,
you know, the racism, the deep seated racism and misogyny.
In addition, I also think people are sitting back and saying,
you know what, this shit still doesn't work. It still
doesn't work for me. And so if he's coming in
(19:37):
with a sledgehammer, maybe that's what is needed.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Well. You know, the risk of a third party, though,
in our system, is that you just become a permanent opposition.
People always ask me, like, how could people support Trump
when he's you know, obviously abcd all these horrible things.
But you know, when Obama was president, the Republican Party
was in many places being kicked and the proverbial scrotum
(20:01):
and Trump came in and said, I said, proverbial, I apologize, yes,
And Trump came in and for all of his shit,
he said, like, we're going to win here's my model
for winning or something like that. And even though it
was wrapped in horrible bacon and it was all these
things and problematic, but people got addicted to like being
(20:23):
on the winning side again. And so you know, it
was strong man, maybe fall strong man, all these kind
of things, but it was like he was promising retribution
and victory and cleaning house and all these kind of things.
And so the question will be, is there going to
be somebody who emerges on the Democratic side who presents
a new model of winning.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Ah uh huh, yep, this is the question.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, because because let's be honest, if Trump or somebody
like Trump had been like a liberal Democrat and said
I'm going to kick the crap out of the conservatives
and we're going to implement everything we ever dreamed of,
and we're going to control the courts, I think a
lot of liberals would have followed that person. Yep, you know,
given any kind of baggage, because he was basically saying,
I want to get you retribution over your enemies, but
(21:10):
also I'm going to blow up the system and recast
it in a way that we're going to be winning
for eons and stuff like that. And so it's crazy
that he pulled it off, honestly, But the Democrats need
a model of winning, and I just my concern about
a third party is that it becomes like another Green
Party or even another like Democratic Party or a very
(21:33):
far progressive party, something that is always critiquing what's happening.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
But here's the thing. What we are facing right now
is a new Republican party. They absolutely rebranded, reconfigured, created
an entirely different ideology, created an entirely different mode. They
did it without quote unquote creating another Republican party. They
(21:58):
just deconstructed. And then I don't know what is it, Frankenstein,
the old party. And what I'm saying is that, like
if it isn't going to be a viable third party,
to your point, that just sits in opposition, Democrats do
need a new strategy for winning, and they need to
reconfigure the Democratic Party as it is.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yeah, Okay, I agree, whatever it is. I just I
don't want to be like I just always think of
the cover of the Bernie Sanders book, where like Bernie
is like this, It's just like, yeah, we're going to
be protesting against authority forever. And I'd rather have somebody
like Trump who's like, actually, here's what we can do
to win in this new system.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
So interesting. All right, well, we'll leave it there today.
But that is the what does a new strategy for
winning look like for the Democratic Party?
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Which is not how we thought about That's how they've
thought about it. We thought about that.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, okay, well, thank you, my friend. We will leave
it there today and pick up next week. Always appreciate you.
That is it for me today. Dear friends on Woke
af AS, always, power to the people and to all
the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.
Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wik f Daily with
Meet your Girl Daniel Moody, recording from the Home Bunker, Folks.
Yesterday was the oral arguments being heard in the Scrammatic
case at the Supreme Court that are going to decide
(00:33):
transgender rights in this country. The case is being argued
by and openly trans attorney Chase Strangio with the ACLU.
And you know, with this six to three court that
we have, we can already predict what is going to
(00:57):
happen here. But what it got me thinking about is
humanity and that when will there come a time when
human beings are allowed to just be, to just exist,
(01:18):
free from oppression, from persecution, free from the opinions of
nine unelected black robes to decide whether or not you
deserve dignity and respect and a full and complete and
abundant and beautiful life. And I say this to you,
(01:40):
and I'm kind of choking up a bit because it
never ends. The targets just change, but it never ends.
And I think about Brown versus the Board of Education,
and I think about Plusy versus Ferguson, and I think
about the dread Scott decision, and I think about being
(02:00):
label three fifths of a human being. And I think
about all of the decisions that are made largely by
unelected bodies that get to decide whose body is worthy
and whose is not, and that for so long, those
that sat on high were straight white men making the
(02:23):
decisions about other people's bodies and their humanities, and nothing
has really changed. Sure, there are a couple of women
that are on the court and two people of color,
but really only one because we all know Clarence Thomas
hates himself and hates black people. But it just it
never stops. And so I think about being there as
(02:49):
a trans person and arguing about your right to exist,
your right to take hormones, right to identify in the
way that you choose. Why is it so hard? I
really don't understand why it is so hard, As Tim
(03:14):
Wall said, to mind your own fucking business. What does
a transperson taking hormones have to do with me if
I'm not the one ingesting them. What does someone marrying
someone of the same sex have to do with me
and my life if nobody is forcing me to marry.
Why can't we just acknowledge people as human beings worthy
(03:38):
of dignity and respect for no other reason than they
were born. I don't think that I'll ever live inside
of that world, but I really do hope that somebody does.
Coming up next my conversation with our friend, our in
house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel, offering up his reflections on
(03:59):
the last four years of our weekly conversations on WOKF
that have been such a guiding light for me through
some really dark times. And I'm just so grateful and
appreciative that Jonathan will be closing out the year with
us and with this show, and we will, dear friends,
(04:20):
have some exciting news on the horizon, because you know,
new space, new opportunities is what is coming our way.
So coming up next that conversation with our friend Jonathan Metzel, Folks,
I am always very pleased when I have the opportunity
(04:40):
to speak with our in house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel
as we close out Jonathan WOKEF at the end of
this year. I guess one of the first questions that
I want to ask you today, as I'm very much
in reflection mode as many people are, that's kind of
what the end of the year brings. We've been in
(05:00):
conversation for the last four years on a weekly basis
for four years, and we have been through a lot
during that time, and I guess I want to ask you, like,
what has stood out to you during this time of
less being in conversation during a global health pandemic and
(05:23):
insurrection like multiple One cannot count the amount of mass
shootings that we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
It was really that we realized that we were having
a conversation that wasn't happening in a lot of other places.
I think you know, you and I started talking during
the intense period of the pandemic, and we realized that
there just wasn't a space for like not just factual information,
but like processing everything that was happening and thinking about
how the frameworks that we bring to all this crazy
(05:53):
shit would help us understand and articulate it. And so,
I don't know, our conversation has felt like really honest,
because it's in part like, hey, why isn't the information
getting out, which is going to be even more important
as we destroy our information networks in society, But also
it's just felt very super validating in that way. And
so for me, what's stood out more than anything is
(06:15):
the emotional resonance of having these conversations and how important
that's been, and it's felt really honest, honestly, and so
for me that's I'm very very grateful. It's actually been
very personally meaning for me. Also.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
You know, it's really interesting that you bring up the
word honest, because as we're reflecting and still unpacking what
has happened over the last couple of weeks since the
election and as we move into this transitional period of
the Trump regime, one of the things that keep coming
up with regard to people's distrust in corporate mainstream media
(06:54):
is the fact that they don't believe that they're being
told the truth. That one of the reasons why Donald Trump,
of all people, has resonated is because he bucks systems
and people feel like he is authentic. And I want
to ask you about like our feelings around authenticity and
actual authenticity, because we all know, for instance, that Donald
(07:16):
Trump is an habitual liar. We all know that mainstream
corporate media gave up on fact checking him many years ago.
But the fact is is that people still feel like
the media is lying to them, but Donald Trump is
telling them the truth. Can you help us understand why
that is?
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, there's an olviator saying one man's authenticity is another
man's potato pancake. No, I just made that up.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
I'm like a lot. No.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
You know, there's a trick of a salesman, which is
to make people feel like they're being heard and then
twist that toward whatever. I mean, that's what politicians do,
and for whatever reason, Trump is exceptionally good at that, right.
In other words, people feel heard when he's in a rally.
People feel like he's connecting and talking to them. And
it's a moment now where people want they want their
(08:09):
anger reflected, they want their frustration reflected. You know, you
and I talked right when Kamala Harris became the nominee
about whether joy was going to sell, whether happiness was
to sumble, and I said at the time, I hope
that's the case, but I don't think it's going to
be the case, just because we're not. In a moment.
People want their anger or frustrations acknowledged. And Trump, for
(08:33):
all of his messed upness, is incredibly good at that. Right.
He's incredibly good at like feeling the room. It's not
like he stands for one thing. He can feel a
room and tell people what they want to hear. There
are democratic politicians who do that. So if we were
going to play that game, Kambala Harris would not have
been our nominee. You know, she's somebody who sounds like
an insider, and so, you know, everything else aside, it
(08:56):
was an election of two very different affects in a way.
So so I mean, I guess the question is is
that going to be the case whenever we have our
next election in twenty seven years or something like that.
But I can't say that Trump is very good at mirroring,
amplifying people's anger and rage and then twisting at prison thing,
which is again what good salespeople do. And given that
(09:20):
that was the tone of this moment, everything else aside,
Kamal Hairs was not that right. She was somebody who
sounds like an institutional luster or something like that. So
there are two very different frameworks.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
My thing is that because here's what Democrats are really
good at and what they're doing right now, which is
just a ton of finger pointing, a ton of finger pointing,
a ton of complaining and just doing the same things
over and over again and expecting a different result. Donald
Trump and Maga upended the political norms ten years ago,
(09:56):
and we're still grappling with like what that means, understanding
what that means as we're getting ready to go now
into a new wave that is now going to finish
the job that began in twenty seventeen to decimate our institutions,
to decimate credibility. And in that time span, it's as
(10:16):
if democratic not even as if they haven't learned anything.
And so while people are still saying, oh, well, Kamala
Harris sounded like an institutionalist, is that because she was coherent?
Is that because she showed that she understood how government works?
And what people want right now is just to break things.
I guess that's what I'm trying to understand. Because if
(10:37):
you're talking about this vibe check of somebody ushering in
joy and truth versus somebody that says I'm going to
break everything and I'm going to make people pay for it,
and that being what resonated, I don't know how you
would ever combat that, because again, we're trying to operate
(10:57):
in a place of fact and information and Donald Trump
is not.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
I was on a panel for NPR right before the election,
and it was with Rachel bit Kaffer, who was saying
we're wasting all our money on positive ads. We should
just be doing negative ads all the time, because that's
the only way to combat this. And I've thought a
lot about this. I mean, you know, that's what you
do when you lose. When you lose, you figure out,
you know, what the hell how do we not lose again?
(11:26):
And so we are quite good at that. But also
I do think that there's a post mortem that is
important right now, right, I mean, there are different They're
just decisions we have to make now about how to
go forward. And so I don't think finger pointing is
I mean, I wouldn't call it finger pointing. I think
that there's a post mortem that needs to happen that
is instructive about I want to know where we went wrong.
(11:48):
And so I don't know. I mean, I guess you're right,
like should we have hired should we have just put
up somebody? I mean, it's all relative. We lost, So
you tell me how do we go forward?
Speaker 1 (11:57):
I mean I guess my question is, like, well, one,
I don't think that we're being honest. I don't think
that Democrats are being honest, and I don't think that
there is. Again, I think that you need to look
at quote unquote failure in a different way. Donald Trump
did not receive a mandate. He did not win overwhelmingly.
You're talking about like a percentage point. You're talking about
(12:21):
a handful of votes literally in a handful of states.
And so when you're competing with somebody that is telling
you that these people are to blame for your ills,
and I'm saying, no, they're not. It's actually the rich.
But that's not the message that Kamala Harris had. Her
message was We're going to reach across the aisle. I'm
going to put a Republican in my cabinet, but here
(12:43):
are the ways in which for black men, for Latino men,
I can make life better and offer up these different opportunities.
I think that people wanted a quick fix, and even
if that quick fix is a lie, that's what they
went for. And I wonder, though, in hindsight, if Kamala
Harris had just hammered home an economic message, which was
(13:06):
that the Biden administration didn't have anything to defend. We
have the best economy. You just saw. Of course, after
the election, Lois thanksgiving prices, Lois cost for dinner, like
jobs have returned all of these things. If you had
focused solely on that, on a progressive populist message as
opposed to linking arms with Republicans, that to me is
(13:29):
the only thing the message that should have been hammered
over and over and over again, and that wasn't. And
there was still this push to what no longer exists
as the center, which kind of made in some ways
Kamala Harris seem like Republican light.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Yeah. Again, you know, it's just I mean, I guess
the question now is in response to the Democrats go
farther left or do they go toward the center?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I mean, this is there is no sense so that
like that's my argument now, is that like that is
a false question to ask because the center doesn't exist.
So you either continue to follow the extremists over a
cliff or you retain and reimagine what it is that
the progressive base actually wants.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
I was reading an interesting article this morning that asked,
you know, would higher turnout have helped Kamala Harris? Was
this a question of turnout? And it's just funny because
it mirrored something that I've been thinking, which is it
just really felt like Republicans were playing by different rules
than we were for this election, and so there's something
about like winning hearts and minds. They were doing something else.
(14:42):
I don't know what it was, but yeah, I mean,
I hope you're right. I'm not gonna I'm not going
to push back except to say that I hope you're right.
I hope we get a chance to fix this. I
hope there's still a system in which we can fix this.
But let's see how that plays out.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I guess the fact is is that it isn't gonna
play out because I have said for the longest time,
and I hope to be wrong that I don't think
that we actually get another bite at the apple here.
Everyone wants to hold their breath and believe that there's
going to be an opportunity in mid terms. I'm going
to disagree with that statement. I don't think that there's
going to be an opportunity with midterms because I don't
(15:18):
think that we're having them. And so that being said,
if you have an entire now fascist maga movement that
has no guardrails, that is completely unleashed, the response to
that can't be centrist thinking. And I'm wondering in your
mind what it takes then for Democrats to realize that
(15:39):
they once again have been chasing the wrong dragon.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I mean again, the rules of everything, because of all
the dismantling that's about to happen, the rules are going
to be totally different. And so I do worry that
we have a lot of institutionalists who are still running
the party, and I think what we need right now
is outside the box people in a way. And so
I don't know, because I don't know there's some plan.
(16:04):
I mean, when you have somebody at the head of
the Department of Education and the FBI and every other
organization who's in place to basically destroy that organization as
it's been known and remake it, the rules are just
going to be totally different. And so I guess I
hope we have people who are nimble and force full
and bare knuckles enough to combat that. I just think
(16:28):
that the rules are different and we have to there's
something very responsive about it. So I'm not avoiding that question.
It's just we're about to create a new reality here.
I mean I feel it most deeply with health, for example.
I mean that's kind of where I'm consumed right now,
because dismantling all the health infrastructure that Kennedy and those
(16:48):
guys are going to do is going to be catastrophic
and it's going to create new realities. And so to
then say we just need to build things back the
way they were is not going to work.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
I feel like we need to be like everything is
going to be dismantled, and to be honest, I'm in
a place where I am recognizing that they were never
created to work for all people anyway. So while there's
going to be a lot of pain and there's going
to be a lot of harm that is going to
be done, I really wish that Democrats would be in
(17:19):
a place of imagination rather than reaction to what it
is that Republicans are going to do. Because the fact
is is that, like, if we're honest, this incremental shit
was not working. It doesn't work. People are still you're
talking about healthcare paying astronomical premiums. People are still having
to come out of pocket for costs that like the
(17:40):
insurance refuses to cover. So there are so many things
and for one me, being a person that pays for
their health insurance out of pocket, are strapped with so
many fucking costs that I'm like, so you get rid
of it. Yes, there's going to be a ton of pain,
but like, when are democrats ever going to move from
a place of creation rather than a place of reaction?
(18:04):
And I just don't know. It's still this dismantling is
going to be that aha moment.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It's just interesting, you know, because the health infrastructure that
we have is based on like shared cooperation. You know,
vaccines and public health and smoking bands and seat belts,
all these things work by people like cooperating. And that's
not the world we're about to enter. The world We're
about to enter as a very health libertarian moment from
(18:32):
a public health perspective, but also a financial perspective, and
so on the new show. Let's keep talking about this
because I think what health becomes, I think is going
to be incredibly, incredibly important, as many of these things are.
And I just I guess I agree with you that
we need people who are creative and who are setting
the agenda, not people who are trying to recreate the
(18:54):
past that's that's gone.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
Because that's where I feel like democrats are right now
and where they continue to be, which is why at
this stage in my political career. I'm saying that it
is time to have real, honest conversations about a viable
third party because I do not think that Democrats are
here to meet this moment. I think that they are
fine with the way that things are and just ticking
(19:17):
away at that. And what Donald Trump is offering is
to destroy it. And I think that that is why people,
you know, the racism, the deep seated racism and misogyny.
In addition, I also think people are sitting back and saying,
you know what, this shit still doesn't work. It still
doesn't work for me. And so if he's coming in
(19:37):
with a sledgehammer, maybe that's what is needed.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Well. You know, the risk of a third party, though,
in our system, is that you just become a permanent opposition.
People always ask me, like, how could people support Trump
when he's you know, obviously abcd all these horrible things.
But you know, when Obama was president, the Republican Party
was in many places being kicked and the proverbial scrotum
(20:01):
and Trump came in and said, I said, proverbial, I apologize, yes,
And Trump came in and for all of his shit,
he said, like, we're going to win here's my model
for winning or something like that. And even though it
was wrapped in horrible bacon and it was all these
things and problematic, but people got addicted to like being
(20:23):
on the winning side again. And so you know, it
was strong man, maybe fall strong man, all these kind
of things, but it was like he was promising retribution
and victory and cleaning house and all these kind of things.
And so the question will be, is there going to
be somebody who emerges on the Democratic side who presents
a new model of winning.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Ah uh huh, yep, this is the question.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
Yeah, because because let's be honest, if Trump or somebody
like Trump had been like a liberal Democrat and said
I'm going to kick the crap out of the conservatives
and we're going to implement everything we ever dreamed of,
and we're going to control the courts, I think a
lot of liberals would have followed that person. Yep, you know,
given any kind of baggage, because he was basically saying,
I want to get you retribution over your enemies, but
(21:10):
also I'm going to blow up the system and recast
it in a way that we're going to be winning
for eons and stuff like that. And so it's crazy
that he pulled it off, honestly, But the Democrats need
a model of winning, and I just my concern about
a third party is that it becomes like another Green
Party or even another like Democratic Party or a very
(21:33):
far progressive party, something that is always critiquing what's happening.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
But here's the thing. What we are facing right now
is a new Republican party. They absolutely rebranded, reconfigured, created
an entirely different ideology, created an entirely different mode. They
did it without quote unquote creating another Republican party. They
(21:58):
just deconstructed. And then I don't know what is it, Frankenstein,
the old party. And what I'm saying is that, like
if it isn't going to be a viable third party,
to your point, that just sits in opposition, Democrats do
need a new strategy for winning, and they need to
reconfigure the Democratic Party as it is.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yeah, Okay, I agree, whatever it is. I just I
don't want to be like I just always think of
the cover of the Bernie Sanders book, where like Bernie
is like this, It's just like, yeah, we're going to
be protesting against authority forever. And I'd rather have somebody
like Trump who's like, actually, here's what we can do
to win in this new system.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
So interesting. All right, well, we'll leave it there today.
But that is the what does a new strategy for
winning look like for the Democratic Party?
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Which is not how we thought about That's how they've
thought about it. We thought about that.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, okay, well, thank you, my friend. We will leave
it there today and pick up next week. Always appreciate you.
That is it for me today. Dear friends on Woke
af AS, always, power to the people and to all
the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.
Host
Danielle Moodie
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!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com