March 16, 2021 • 36 mins
How close did we come to losing our democracy during four years of Trump — and what will it take to strengthen our democratic institutions? In this episode, Hillary speaks with two people who have tackled these questions. First, we hear from writer and journalist Masha Gessen, who reflects on the perils of autocracy and shares a bold idea for how to move forward.
Then, Hillary catches up with Rashad Robinson, who, as the head of Color of Change, has been on the frontlines of holding elected officials and corporations accountable to Americans.
Masha Gessen is a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of ten books, including Surviving Autocracy, the National Book Award-winning The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia, and The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin.
Rashad Robinson has been the president of Color of Change (COC), the nation’s largest online racial justice organization, since 2011. Under Rashad’s leadership, COC has expanded its reach from 1.7 to more than 7 million members.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You and Me Both is a production of I Heart Radio.
I'm Hillary Clinton, and this is You and Me Both.
Today we're talking about our democracy, which was really put
to the test over these last four years. I was
greatly relieved when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were finally
(00:21):
declared the winners of the election that they had won,
and I've been really encouraged by the steady way they've governed.
The significant COVID package that was passed by the Congress
sends a message to not just Democrats, but Republicans, independence,
every American that guess what, they have a government again
(00:43):
that cares whether they live or die, that cares whether
their kids are in school, that cares, you know, whether
their small business survives, or their local government is going
to provide essential services. So I'm deeply relieved, but I
think we have to be watchful because as we're speaking,
(01:04):
lots of states are trying to turn the clock back
on voting, So we still have to be vigilant about
our democratic institutions. I'm excited to talk to two people
who have thought about and contributed to the health of
our democracy. We'll hear from Rashad Robinson, one of the
most tireless activists I know. But first I'm talking with
(01:27):
writer and journalist Masha Guessen. Masha is someone whose career
I have followed for a long time. Masha grew up
in the Soviet Union and has written a lot about
the resurgence of autocracy in Russia, and the day after
the election was called for Trump, Masha wrote an essay
called Autocracy Rules for Survival that really captured my attention.
(01:53):
Masha told us we should be worried about autocracy right
here in the United States, which I know sounded alarmists
to a lot of people. I thought, however, that it
had the ring of truth. So I asked Masha to
join me on the podcast to talk about how our
democracy fared under Trump and where we are now. Well,
(02:18):
let me start by saying how really delighted I am
to speak with you, Masha. I have been an avid
reader and follower of your writing and speaking and appreciate
very much all of your insights into what's going on
in our world today. Thank you so much. It's just
(02:38):
such a huge honor to be talking to you. Almost
immediately after Trump was elected, you wrote an essay called
Autocracy Rules for Survival, in which you argued that our
laws are democratic ideals and institutions were at mortal risk.
(02:59):
How did you come to that realization so early? You know?
I mean I'd spent the couple of years before trump
selection writing a book called The Future Is History? How
to tell Aitarianism Reclaimed Russia? So I'd spent two years
actively thinking about that every day and thinking, you know,
how do you define to tell atarianism? What are the signs,
(03:21):
how do you know you're in it? How do you
know it's it's ending? And that was happening in parallel
with having all these conversations obviously during the election about
is he going to get nominated? Is he actually going
to win? But the conversation I'd actually spent the most
time thinking about was the conversation I'd had with somebody,
you know, one of those lunches where you say, oh
(03:43):
you think you know, do you think Trump can get elected?
And I sort of said something like, yeah, but you
know this isn't Russia, and the person I was talking
to said, oh, so you think our institutions are strong
enough to withstand someone like Trump? So do I? And
sort of biking back from that, I thought, wait, do
I think that our institutions are stronger than that. I'm
(04:04):
not sure I do. That was the exact question that
I've been thinking about and had come to the conclusion
they weren't. Do you have a kind of sense of
what did better than something else? Like, were there institutions
that withstood Trump's interference and his belittling and his undermining,
you know, better than others? How would you in effect
grade that? It's an interesting question. I think that our
(04:27):
institutions of checks and balances did not hold up at all.
I think that he really showed how well he could
use his legal and extra legal powers, you know, to
do things from firing the inspectors General to basically stonewell
in Congress, and of course the disastrous period after the
election when we saw, you know, it is Congress's actual
(04:51):
job to exercise a check on the presidency, and it
is what Congress failed to do. We've had, even after
the insurrection, more than a hundred Republicans in the House
vote against certifying the election, which I just think is terrifying,
So failing marks all around there. Um. I think that
(05:13):
he did an incredible amount of damage to the courts,
more than we realized at this point by packing the courts,
which is of course part of the autocrats playbook. And
if we move on to the media, I think we
you know, there's some there are a lot of failures.
There were also some incredible successes. I mean, I think
we saw investigative journalism unlike any that we have seen before.
(05:36):
We saw also and I think this has even more
important new collaborative models in investigative journalism that we wouldn't
have seen had it not been for Trump. And I
think probably the part of our society that held up
best is civil society organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union,
which is all they did for four years was fight Trump. Um.
(05:57):
Those kinds of projects there are integrity wasn't compromised. Yes,
I think civil society probably comes out of the spirit
stronger and then it went in And that's the only
part of our democracy that we can say that about it.
But I wanted to ask you now that we have
seen a real life insurrection in the United States, with
(06:19):
an attack on our capital, how would you, knowing as
much as you do about autocracy and totalitarianism, have handled it.
What else could we be doing or should we think about?
There are a couple of things that I want to
sort of take as su premises. At one you mentioned
that in the book, I tried to set out the
benchmarks for how an autocratic attempt happens. But I also
(06:43):
try to grapple with something which is that it never
happens overnight. The way that we learned history, you know,
we collapse events that happen over time into single events
like the reich Stuck fire. Right, we imagine that the
entirety of Nazi rule came into being with Reich style fire.
But the rech style fire happened in eight years before
(07:05):
the Holocaust began. There were things happening over the course
of those years that made it imaginable for Germans that
they would try to take over the world. And I've
always been obsessed with sort of what happens between the
beginning and the end of a historical event, you know.
So to me, looking at the insurrection and the outcome
(07:28):
of the election in general, a lot of people have
sort of breathed a sigh of relief and said, well, look,
you know, our institutions held up. And what I see
is that, well, look, you know, it takes time to
destroy institutions. In Russia. In we're seeing the dregs of
the court system still being used to jail Alexey Navy.
(07:49):
But they're still using something that they're calling the courts. Right,
it's like exactly founded them into the ground. They're holding
court hearings in a police precinct, right, are charging them
under nonexistent laws. But they're still using the remnants of
the institutions. So what I see is evidence that our
institutions haven't been entirely destroyed, but not that they not
(08:13):
They are holding strong. I think that's a very important point,
and I've often wondered about this myself, that authoritarians often
remain committed to the charade of institutions. You know, they
packed the courts, they change the laws, they subjugate those institutions,
(08:34):
but they don't eliminate them. And there still is a
recognition on the part of an autocratic regime that they
have to have these kind of in disease of normalcy
in order to run a government. You know, I always
was struck how when Allied troops were liberating the death camps,
(08:55):
the remaining Nazis before fleeing tried to destroy evidence. You know,
they tried to burn the gas chambers. They tried to
destroy the clear evidence of what they had done there
because they knew, despite all of the efforts to propaganda
e's and to brainwash and to turn them into cult members,
they knew that there was something that would not withstand scrutiny.
(09:19):
So what do we do? I mean, the long term
effects of the Trump presidency are still being I think
felt and assessed. So what are the rules for surviving
autocracy that not only we as you know, citizens, but
the press and other parts of society should be following.
(09:41):
I think we need a huge storytelling project. Interesting, it's
a crazy idea, but I mean it's not completely crazy.
It's even actually been tried in this country in the
nine right, there was a huge right during the w
p A. I think that's what we need, because what
do we know actually about surviving autocracy after the end
(10:02):
of autocracy is that countries that do best, societies that
do best, our societies that have a story, a story
that promises a sense of belonging, which I think is
so huge in the appeal of these past oriented autocrats.
That's so important. I want to underscore what you said,
because it's always an appeal to the idealized past, make
(10:26):
America great again. It used to be, it isn't any longer,
right Hitler's contemporaries Eric from the Great Psychoanalytic Social Psychologist
wrote a lot about that idea that the autocrat comes
in and promises return to this imaginary past when you
didn't feel this extreme level of anxiety. There is an
(10:46):
extremely high level of anxiety that of course gives us
autocrats in the first place, right, a sense of social
and economic displacement and a sense of profound uncertainty. And
what you need for that is a story about the
future that is as glorious as that story about the
past is grant And a lot of people were really
(11:08):
upset that, you know, politicians were saying, this is not
who we are when we're looking at the insurgency. And
I actually think that that's the seed of the kind
of story that needs to be told, That this is
not who we are should really be understood as aspiration,
as this is not who we are in the way
that we imagine ourselves. So how do we become, you know,
(11:29):
the America that we were promised, that we promised ourselves.
You know, in the book, I quote the Langston Hughes
Home America right where he says America has never been,
but America will be, which I think was echoed beautifully
by the inaugural poem Amanda Gorman, who clearly referenced it
and who I thought brilliantly talked about democracy as an aspiration,
(11:54):
right as a project for the future. She talked about
democracy if we're being out, but also a democracy can
be delayed, right, and by saying democracy can be deligious
saying democracy is always in the future. Democracy is the
thing we're going towards. Those are the seeds of a
kind of storytelling project that can be radically inclusive. I
love this, Masha, I love this idea. You know, it's
(12:17):
interesting to me how countries, how nations tell themselves stories.
And I have to ask you, what is the story
that Russians are telling themselves right now? Is there a
different story or do Russians have to wait until Putin
is somehow gone? And I think there is actually a
collision of stories right. The story that Putin has been
(12:38):
telling for years is this very nostalgic story about a
glorious past. It is centered entirely around the Soviet victory
in world War two. It's the ultimate legitimizing event of
the twentieth century for the Soviet Union. It's what made
the Soviet Union a superpower. And it also, by sort
of legitimizing the post war period of being superpowered, also
(13:01):
legitimized the pre war period of the Great Terror. Interesting,
but for the Great Terror, you would not have had
the victory exactly, and so that that manages to, you know,
sort of gloss over the entire twentieth century and create
this kind of beautiful story of victory and being right.
And I think Navalni has actually been telling a very
(13:22):
different story. He has this insistence on acting as though
Russia could actually be a country with an accountable government,
with transparent elections, with mechanisms that work. The basic story
that he is telling is the story that it is
possible to have good, accountable government in Russia, which is
(13:44):
a radical idea which does throw it into the future,
like you were suggesting, is one of the best ways
to counteract the organized look back nostalgia that autocrats rely on. Exactly. Yeah.
He uses this phrase the wonderful Russia of the future,
and he talks about what will happen in the wonderful
Russia of the future. We're taking a quick break, stay
(14:08):
with us. So I'd love to close with this because
I love talking to and maybe when we are all vaccinated,
we can continue this. But you know, you're an immigrant
(14:29):
and you're a refugee, and those are two parts of
your identity that have been long tied to the story
of America. But as you wrote in Surviving Autocracy, the
immigrant story was the story that the Trump administration abandoned.
And there are lots of stories that the United States
(14:51):
could tell now and moving forward, what do you hope
the American story would be again? Well, I don't have
to tell you that the immigrants story is at once
inspiring and problematic. The idea that this is a nation
of immigrants alliedes the story of those who came here
against their will, and also the story of those who
(15:12):
were here before the settlers exactly, and the extraordinary prejudice
against wave after wave of immigrants who came in the
years since. But you know that underscores the need for
some kind of reinvention of the story. Right, you know,
we are at a crossroads in terms of telling the
story of this country. How do we combine the story
(15:35):
of a country founded on a set of beautiful, abstract
ideals that also systematically failed to live up to those ideals.
And I hope it can be a story of these
ideals are still possible, these ideas are still the foundation
of our potential unity. I mean, I think we're so
(15:55):
close to actually being able to grab it as a
story and as a way to move forward, But it
has to be a huge national project with like visible leadership.
I mean, what I imagine is writers and facilitators going
out to every public library in this country when we're
all vaccinated and holding storytelling sessions, holding town halls. I mean,
(16:21):
we have these beautiful American rituals, and I think some
of the more interesting arguments about how we do the reckoning,
if we do the reckoning now, has had to do
with what kinds of rituals we employ. You know, do
we employ the Senate hearings, that we employ court hearings.
But I think we need to employ the existing rituals
of public gatherings in the in the United States, you know,
(16:44):
gather town halls, tells stories, come together in telling these
stories and figure out how we move forward and rebuild
on the basis of those ideas on which the country
was founded, which is a very different something sort of okay,
with the institution is held up, Let's go back to
normal and act like none of this ever happens, which
(17:08):
I'm really scared. I am scared about that too, and
I think it would be such a serious error, and
the next couple of years is going to be a
a real test. I actually think that Biden is well
suited for this period because of his personal story, which
is a you know, deeply human resident story about suffering
(17:31):
and redemption and and forgiveness and all that goes with it.
But the organized approach that you're describing could be exactly
what is needed. And so I, for one, I'm going
to be promoting the idea. I will give you full
credit for it. I don't need credit. I need somebody
(17:51):
who's an organizer like you and not an agitator like me.
So well to be continued, and thank you for your
incredibly and fightful and very important writing over the last
year's Thank you, secondary Clinton, It's been such an honor
to talk to you. Masha Guessen is a staff writer
(18:16):
at the New Yorker whose most recent book is called
Surviving Autocracy. My next guest is Rashad Robinson. Rashad has
been an activist his entire life, starting in high school
when he led his classmates in a protest against a
local drug store because of how it treated the students
(18:40):
who hung out there after school. These days, he leads
Color of Change, America's largest organization, helping people to take
online action in support of racial justice. I've known Rashade
for years, and I'm proud to say that Color of
Change was one of our first partner organism nations in
(19:01):
Onward Together, a group I founded after the sixteen election
to support the people and groups doing the really hard
work of repairing our democracy. Rashad is one of the
most energetic people I've ever met, and he's also known
for his trademark hats, which he's almost always wearing. I
(19:21):
was thrilled to catch up with him. Hi, Rashad, Hey,
how are you? I think they're calling me about a
grocery haddemic moments yet, no problem? All right, there we go. Okay, Well,
welcome to the show, Rashad. I am so excited about
(19:41):
having you as a guest on this podcast. Well, thank
you for having me. It's an honor and a pleasure.
I want to talk with you about what these last
four years have been like, because in many ways, what
color of change stands for, what you've been fighting for
has been really on the lawn because of everything happening
(20:02):
in our country, the threats to our democracy. What has
it been like for you personally, Well, personally, it's been
NonStop to see and to be in the midst of
so much suffering and to feel like the levers that
you relied on the poll, we're not there in so
many ways. You know, right after the election, we had
(20:26):
to figure out how we were going to move. You know,
we had spent years during the Obama administration pushing and
challenging right. We would you know, show up to d
O J sometimes with petitions in hand, pushing. We would
show up at hood or Education Department pushing right. It
didn't mean that we got everything we wanted, but we
knew that we were inside of a conversation. We recognized
(20:47):
very clearly that we had to shift strategies, that we
couldn't go hat in hand anymore, and that meant that
we had to really figure out who we were going
to be to actually build power, to not be inside
of what we talk about is magical thinking, right. Magical
thinking is like the stories we sometimes tell ourselves about
how change happens. Right. A petition demanding Mitch McConnell stand
(21:10):
up for firm and action is not a petition that's
going anywhere, no matter how many people sign it, right,
And so part of what we had to do was
figure that out, and we really built what I feel
was a new strategy that was focused not simply on
resistance but on opposition. What would it mean to not
just resist, but to build power to a post so
(21:31):
that we could get back to governing, focusing on winning
real world victories at the local level, while also recognizing
that the game was not fair, that the rules were raped,
and that we couldn't simply say that what happened in
was democracy. Uh, it was what happened, and we are
dealing with it, but we had to recognize it, fight
(21:52):
and challenge to build something new. Those are really important insights,
because you're right. Oftentimes when people get involved in any
kind of movement for social justice for progress, they can't
believe that just stating the problem won't get the results
that you're seeking, and it is a slow, hard boring
(22:13):
of hard boards. As Max Weber said decades ago about
politics and political change. You know, when we look at
what you had to face during the four years of
the Trump administration, in your opinion, how close did we
come to actually losing our democracy? Well, you know, I
(22:35):
think it's still under contention, right. You know, we right
after the election, we started going on white nationalist sites.
We work with the Southern Poverty Law Sitner, and we
look at all these sites and one thing I noticed,
and one thing my team noticed, was that you could
put your credit card number in or your PayPal number
it and you could donate money. You could and by
merchant by merchant guise, right, So we started calling the
(22:59):
credit card companies. We started calling these payment processing companies,
and you know what they told us. They said, oh,
we're with you, but you know, you have to talk
to the banks. And then the bank said, you know,
you have to talk to the credit card companies. So
we start building the no Blood Money campaign, and we
start building this platform, and you know, we're not quite
done with it all when Charlotte's Felle happens. But the
(23:21):
team goes in over the weekend, they like, get all
the tools together, and we start going public. We gave
the companies were like, we've been talking with you for months,
We've given you these lists of white nationalist groups, and
then within about twenty four hours they start sending us
a list of white nationalists organizations that they are cutting
off for processing fees. No law had changed exactly, and
(23:42):
so to the extent of what institutions will allow to happen,
that will put us all in harm's way because it
serves some sort of interest. We all have to recognize
that that hasn't gone away, and that part of what
we have to do is really a double down on
all of the vehicles that I believe actually get us
(24:05):
closer to real change. And I think that there are
no greater drivers right now than racial justice and gender justice,
not only because there are motivating forces if you think
about the Women's March, or if you think about the
uprisings over this summer, as some of the strongest vehicles
to actually getting people into the streets, to getting people mobilized,
(24:25):
but they also are forced multipliers and actually undoing the norms,
that practices, the ideas that got us into this in
the first place. And so we have to lead into
those things. Not because a true democracy produces gender justice
or produces racial justice. It's because racial justice and gender
justice actually get us to that true democracy. Moving towards
(24:49):
the private sector and corporate power was an incredibly smart approach.
But one of your biggest targets was Facebook, and I
think Rashad you understood before many many people did, the
really negative role that Facebook played and being literally an
(25:12):
organizing tool for the far right, for white supremacists, for extremists.
Explain to our listeners you know what brought that insight
to your mind and how you then proceeded. At first,
Black Lives Matter activists were being docked on the platform,
and so we sort of reached out and we started
pushing and we tried to get some action, and we
(25:34):
were getting all sorts of stalling that just didn't make sense,
like why wouldn't you just deal with this right And
then you know, there was a woman by the name
of Korean Gains, woman who was having a mental health episode.
She had her Facebook Live on. She was having an
interaction with police. Her young son was there in the
city of Baltimore, and the police called Facebook and had
(25:54):
them turn off her Facebook Live and Korene Gains ends
up debt and there's no video, and we were like,
what are the rules here? Like what like, what's the
rules around working with law on first? And we found
out that they were actually providing information to law enforcement
about activists without warrants, without you know, sort of the
(26:15):
proper sort of protocols. And seeing how this platform relied
on our data in many ways, mind our data and
then could sell it, could use it, could do all
sorts of things with it, we recognize that there had
to be new rules, and we were pushing Facebook around
a number of things, and we got them to agree
to do a civil rights audit, so we dealt with that,
(26:36):
and then we found out in eighteen that why we
had been at the table, I think of those end
of while we've been at the table, why I'd been
going back and forth with Facebook, they had hired a
pr for UH called Definers to attack us. And I
only found out from the New York Times. The New
York Times called us and maybe you have comment on
this story we just published, and like what story we
(26:58):
just published? And I at this point we had been
at the table. They had been talking about the uder
we have been working with them, and it was like
very clear that they had no intent on moving. It
was a charade, wasn't it. That's exactly what it is.
We will always lose with both Facebook and even with
big corporate power in Washington or in Silicon Valley, we
(27:20):
will always lose in the back rooms. If we don't
have millions of people lined up at the front door,
we'll be right back. We know we still face these
(27:41):
structural obstacles to democracy. All the progress that was made
in turning out voters and the huge numbers of black
voters who made the difference not just in in the
Georgia win for Biden, but in electing two new senators
in Georgia, uh Tino voters, Native American voters in Arizona.
(28:03):
You know, we saw what it means when voting actually
reflects the electorate of our country. So now we know
that there's a concerted effort in a majority of states
at this moment to try to make it hard again.
So what will Color of Change and all of your
allies be doing to make sure that your voice has
(28:24):
heard in this effort as well? Well, we are gonna
be there three d and sixty five days a year,
and so part of what we've already pivoted to is
the base building grassroots work and voter contact work and
engagement work we do year round, focusing on places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
(28:44):
and Georgia which all has Senate races, and focusing on
places that will have key races in the house around
the country, pushing the Biden administration like part of our
job is to hold the line between what a real
saluttions and fake solutions and make sure that a vast
administration with a lot of people doing a lot of
(29:07):
different things, is constantly focusing on giving us the narrative,
the tools, and the real change that we can go
out and sell. You know, one thing that I've you know,
told to focus in the administration is budgets are moral
documents more than anything that we say, and ensuring that
the budgets match the aspirations that if we say we
(29:30):
want to hold people accounting for corruption and stop prosecuting
low level crimes, that that actually has to show up
in a d o J budget, because prosecuting corruption is
actually more expensive than going after people who can't afford
lawyers and researchers and and um infrastructure to defend them.
And so that's what we're gonna be doing, and then
(29:50):
you know, to be very clear, we're gonna be fighting
against the rollbacks of this. And you know, one thing
that I've been thinking about since, you know, we led
our campaign against the American Legislative Exchange Council ASKS, which
was so instrumental in passing so many of those voter
ID laws, the discriminatory idea laws, you know, the one
(30:11):
in Texas that says you can vote with your gun
license but not your student I D which are like
really just on their face clear about what they're trying
to do. You know, we have been working to wold
corporations accountable. I just recently had a conversation with our
Reverend Barbera about this in North Carolina, about the corporations
in North Carolina that have stayed silent as their black
(30:35):
and brown employees are attacks on their voting rights. The
corporations in Georgia, the Coca Colas and Deltas and and companies,
what are they gonna say when their employee base are
being attacked in terms of their ability to vote and
cast a vote. And so part of this is, yes,
(30:56):
we've got to be in those legislatures, but I'm also
very clear that the political project of many of those
legislators is to like hold onto power as long as
they possibly can, even if the people don't want them
there exactly. And so what we have to do is
go to the institutions that say by our products, use
(31:19):
our services, and say that you can't come for our
money by day and take away our vote by night.
I love that well. I just can't tell you how
much I love talking to Rashad. I love your sensibility,
I love your strategic understanding of what we're up against
in the in the world today. I want to end
on a personal note. You've been, as I pointed out earlier,
(31:43):
on the front lines of activism. Now you lead really
one of the most consequential racial justice activist organizations in
our country in the twenty one century. What makes you hopeful?
I mean, how do you get up in the morning
and feel like sometimes it's pushing the same rock up
the hill that you're pushed yesterday and the day before.
(32:05):
But you just, you know, get your energy up, you
put on that hap that you know it's your trademark,
and you start pushing. How do you keep yourself motivated?
You know? So I have so much hope and optimism
in this summer. You know, being quarantined before the uprisings
was really top I'm a people person. I like to
be out in the world and spend most of my
(32:27):
time on the road in the other world, and so
it was really tough, and then the uprisings happened. Up
until the uprisings, the best that many of us thought
could happen was we would uplift investigative journalism and we
would clap outside of our windows for essential workers who
deserved all of the support and love. But it was
(32:48):
racial justice that got people into the streets, got people
motivated to see people of all races, all walks of
life coming into the streets. Employees incorporations pushing their companies
to have to say things that they previously did not
believe they had to, and certainly many of them did
not want to. You know, Color of Change does not
(33:08):
take direct corporate dollars. And every morning I was waking
up to all of these announcements of corporations giving us
money or you like, well, they can agree to the
things we max and to doo, but we're not going
to take this money. But it was like, you know,
but it was a surreal moment of saying, like, so
much is possible, right, and to think about the deep
(33:29):
pain that had to get there, but also the opportunity
to create generational change. And as I see millions in pond,
millions of Americans sometimes taking their first steps into activism,
believing that something new is possible. That gives me so
much hope. What a great way to wrap up our conversation,
(33:51):
and I hope our listeners will learn more about the
work of Color of Change because I so admire the
way you're on the front law nds of what real
change looks like. Thank you so much, Rashad. Thank you
so much for having its an honor. To learn more
about the incredible work Rashad and his colleagues are doing,
(34:15):
go to Color of Change dot org. And if you
want to hear more about Reverend William Barber, who were
shod mentioned, check out the very first episode of this podcast,
You and Me Both, which is about faith. It's one
of my favorite episodes, in part because Reverend Barber has
so many profound things to say about how his faith
(34:37):
fuels his work for racial and social justice. But I
want to end today's episode with a question for you.
What do you think about the state of our democracy?
Do you know someone who is working hard to make
it stronger? I'd love to hear from you with your ideas,
so please send an email to You and Me Both
(35:00):
pod at gmail dot com. You and Me Both is
brought to you by I Heart Radio. We're produced by
Julie Subran, Kathleen Russo and Lauren Peterson, with help from
Juma Aberdeen, Nicky Etour, Oscar Flores, Lindsay Hoffman, Brianna Johnson,
(35:22):
Nick Merrill, Rob Russo, and Lona Valmorrow. Our engineer is
Zack McNeice, and the original music is by Forrest Gray.
If you like You and Me Both, spread the word,
post about it on social media, send it to your friends,
and make sure to hit the subscribe button so you're
(35:43):
the first to know when a new episode drops. You
can do that on I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts. See you next week.
You and Me Both is a production of I Heart Radio.
I'm Hillary Clinton, and this is You and Me Both.
Today we're talking about our democracy, which was really put
to the test over these last four years. I was
greatly relieved when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were finally
(00:21):
declared the winners of the election that they had won,
and I've been really encouraged by the steady way they've governed.
The significant COVID package that was passed by the Congress
sends a message to not just Democrats, but Republicans, independence,
every American that guess what, they have a government again
(00:43):
that cares whether they live or die, that cares whether
their kids are in school, that cares, you know, whether
their small business survives, or their local government is going
to provide essential services. So I'm deeply relieved, but I
think we have to be watchful because as we're speaking,
(01:04):
lots of states are trying to turn the clock back
on voting, So we still have to be vigilant about
our democratic institutions. I'm excited to talk to two people
who have thought about and contributed to the health of
our democracy. We'll hear from Rashad Robinson, one of the
most tireless activists I know. But first I'm talking with
(01:27):
writer and journalist Masha Guessen. Masha is someone whose career
I have followed for a long time. Masha grew up
in the Soviet Union and has written a lot about
the resurgence of autocracy in Russia, and the day after
the election was called for Trump, Masha wrote an essay
called Autocracy Rules for Survival that really captured my attention.
(01:53):
Masha told us we should be worried about autocracy right
here in the United States, which I know sounded alarmists
to a lot of people. I thought, however, that it
had the ring of truth. So I asked Masha to
join me on the podcast to talk about how our
democracy fared under Trump and where we are now. Well,
(02:18):
let me start by saying how really delighted I am
to speak with you, Masha. I have been an avid
reader and follower of your writing and speaking and appreciate
very much all of your insights into what's going on
in our world today. Thank you so much. It's just
(02:38):
such a huge honor to be talking to you. Almost
immediately after Trump was elected, you wrote an essay called
Autocracy Rules for Survival, in which you argued that our
laws are democratic ideals and institutions were at mortal risk.
(02:59):
How did you come to that realization so early? You know?
I mean I'd spent the couple of years before trump
selection writing a book called The Future Is History? How
to tell Aitarianism Reclaimed Russia? So I'd spent two years
actively thinking about that every day and thinking, you know,
how do you define to tell atarianism? What are the signs,
(03:21):
how do you know you're in it? How do you
know it's it's ending? And that was happening in parallel
with having all these conversations obviously during the election about
is he going to get nominated? Is he actually going
to win? But the conversation I'd actually spent the most
time thinking about was the conversation I'd had with somebody,
you know, one of those lunches where you say, oh
(03:43):
you think you know, do you think Trump can get elected?
And I sort of said something like, yeah, but you
know this isn't Russia, and the person I was talking
to said, oh, so you think our institutions are strong
enough to withstand someone like Trump? So do I? And
sort of biking back from that, I thought, wait, do
I think that our institutions are stronger than that. I'm
(04:04):
not sure I do. That was the exact question that
I've been thinking about and had come to the conclusion
they weren't. Do you have a kind of sense of
what did better than something else? Like, were there institutions
that withstood Trump's interference and his belittling and his undermining,
you know, better than others? How would you in effect
grade that? It's an interesting question. I think that our
(04:27):
institutions of checks and balances did not hold up at all.
I think that he really showed how well he could
use his legal and extra legal powers, you know, to
do things from firing the inspectors General to basically stonewell
in Congress, and of course the disastrous period after the
election when we saw, you know, it is Congress's actual
(04:51):
job to exercise a check on the presidency, and it
is what Congress failed to do. We've had, even after
the insurrection, more than a hundred Republicans in the House
vote against certifying the election, which I just think is terrifying,
So failing marks all around there. Um. I think that
(05:13):
he did an incredible amount of damage to the courts,
more than we realized at this point by packing the courts,
which is of course part of the autocrats playbook. And
if we move on to the media, I think we
you know, there's some there are a lot of failures.
There were also some incredible successes. I mean, I think
we saw investigative journalism unlike any that we have seen before.
(05:36):
We saw also and I think this has even more
important new collaborative models in investigative journalism that we wouldn't
have seen had it not been for Trump. And I
think probably the part of our society that held up
best is civil society organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union,
which is all they did for four years was fight Trump. Um.
(05:57):
Those kinds of projects there are integrity wasn't compromised. Yes,
I think civil society probably comes out of the spirit
stronger and then it went in And that's the only
part of our democracy that we can say that about it.
But I wanted to ask you now that we have
seen a real life insurrection in the United States, with
(06:19):
an attack on our capital, how would you, knowing as
much as you do about autocracy and totalitarianism, have handled it.
What else could we be doing or should we think about?
There are a couple of things that I want to
sort of take as su premises. At one you mentioned
that in the book, I tried to set out the
benchmarks for how an autocratic attempt happens. But I also
(06:43):
try to grapple with something which is that it never
happens overnight. The way that we learned history, you know,
we collapse events that happen over time into single events
like the reich Stuck fire. Right, we imagine that the
entirety of Nazi rule came into being with Reich style fire.
But the rech style fire happened in eight years before
(07:05):
the Holocaust began. There were things happening over the course
of those years that made it imaginable for Germans that
they would try to take over the world. And I've
always been obsessed with sort of what happens between the
beginning and the end of a historical event, you know.
So to me, looking at the insurrection and the outcome
(07:28):
of the election in general, a lot of people have
sort of breathed a sigh of relief and said, well, look,
you know, our institutions held up. And what I see
is that, well, look, you know, it takes time to
destroy institutions. In Russia. In we're seeing the dregs of
the court system still being used to jail Alexey Navy.
(07:49):
But they're still using something that they're calling the courts. Right,
it's like exactly founded them into the ground. They're holding
court hearings in a police precinct, right, are charging them
under nonexistent laws. But they're still using the remnants of
the institutions. So what I see is evidence that our
institutions haven't been entirely destroyed, but not that they not
(08:13):
They are holding strong. I think that's a very important point,
and I've often wondered about this myself, that authoritarians often
remain committed to the charade of institutions. You know, they
packed the courts, they change the laws, they subjugate those institutions,
(08:34):
but they don't eliminate them. And there still is a
recognition on the part of an autocratic regime that they
have to have these kind of in disease of normalcy
in order to run a government. You know, I always
was struck how when Allied troops were liberating the death camps,
(08:55):
the remaining Nazis before fleeing tried to destroy evidence. You know,
they tried to burn the gas chambers. They tried to
destroy the clear evidence of what they had done there
because they knew, despite all of the efforts to propaganda
e's and to brainwash and to turn them into cult members,
they knew that there was something that would not withstand scrutiny.
(09:19):
So what do we do? I mean, the long term
effects of the Trump presidency are still being I think
felt and assessed. So what are the rules for surviving
autocracy that not only we as you know, citizens, but
the press and other parts of society should be following.
(09:41):
I think we need a huge storytelling project. Interesting, it's
a crazy idea, but I mean it's not completely crazy.
It's even actually been tried in this country in the
nine right, there was a huge right during the w
p A. I think that's what we need, because what
do we know actually about surviving autocracy after the end
(10:02):
of autocracy is that countries that do best, societies that
do best, our societies that have a story, a story
that promises a sense of belonging, which I think is
so huge in the appeal of these past oriented autocrats.
That's so important. I want to underscore what you said,
because it's always an appeal to the idealized past, make
(10:26):
America great again. It used to be, it isn't any longer,
right Hitler's contemporaries Eric from the Great Psychoanalytic Social Psychologist
wrote a lot about that idea that the autocrat comes
in and promises return to this imaginary past when you
didn't feel this extreme level of anxiety. There is an
(10:46):
extremely high level of anxiety that of course gives us
autocrats in the first place, right, a sense of social
and economic displacement and a sense of profound uncertainty. And
what you need for that is a story about the
future that is as glorious as that story about the
past is grant And a lot of people were really
(11:08):
upset that, you know, politicians were saying, this is not
who we are when we're looking at the insurgency. And
I actually think that that's the seed of the kind
of story that needs to be told, That this is
not who we are should really be understood as aspiration,
as this is not who we are in the way
that we imagine ourselves. So how do we become, you know,
(11:29):
the America that we were promised, that we promised ourselves.
You know, in the book, I quote the Langston Hughes
Home America right where he says America has never been,
but America will be, which I think was echoed beautifully
by the inaugural poem Amanda Gorman, who clearly referenced it
and who I thought brilliantly talked about democracy as an aspiration,
(11:54):
right as a project for the future. She talked about
democracy if we're being out, but also a democracy can
be delayed, right, and by saying democracy can be deligious
saying democracy is always in the future. Democracy is the
thing we're going towards. Those are the seeds of a
kind of storytelling project that can be radically inclusive. I
love this, Masha, I love this idea. You know, it's
(12:17):
interesting to me how countries, how nations tell themselves stories.
And I have to ask you, what is the story
that Russians are telling themselves right now? Is there a
different story or do Russians have to wait until Putin
is somehow gone? And I think there is actually a
collision of stories right. The story that Putin has been
(12:38):
telling for years is this very nostalgic story about a
glorious past. It is centered entirely around the Soviet victory
in world War two. It's the ultimate legitimizing event of
the twentieth century for the Soviet Union. It's what made
the Soviet Union a superpower. And it also, by sort
of legitimizing the post war period of being superpowered, also
(13:01):
legitimized the pre war period of the Great Terror. Interesting,
but for the Great Terror, you would not have had
the victory exactly, and so that that manages to, you know,
sort of gloss over the entire twentieth century and create
this kind of beautiful story of victory and being right.
And I think Navalni has actually been telling a very
(13:22):
different story. He has this insistence on acting as though
Russia could actually be a country with an accountable government,
with transparent elections, with mechanisms that work. The basic story
that he is telling is the story that it is
possible to have good, accountable government in Russia, which is
(13:44):
a radical idea which does throw it into the future,
like you were suggesting, is one of the best ways
to counteract the organized look back nostalgia that autocrats rely on. Exactly. Yeah.
He uses this phrase the wonderful Russia of the future,
and he talks about what will happen in the wonderful
Russia of the future. We're taking a quick break, stay
(14:08):
with us. So I'd love to close with this because
I love talking to and maybe when we are all vaccinated,
we can continue this. But you know, you're an immigrant
(14:29):
and you're a refugee, and those are two parts of
your identity that have been long tied to the story
of America. But as you wrote in Surviving Autocracy, the
immigrant story was the story that the Trump administration abandoned.
And there are lots of stories that the United States
(14:51):
could tell now and moving forward, what do you hope
the American story would be again? Well, I don't have
to tell you that the immigrants story is at once
inspiring and problematic. The idea that this is a nation
of immigrants alliedes the story of those who came here
against their will, and also the story of those who
(15:12):
were here before the settlers exactly, and the extraordinary prejudice
against wave after wave of immigrants who came in the
years since. But you know that underscores the need for
some kind of reinvention of the story. Right, you know,
we are at a crossroads in terms of telling the
story of this country. How do we combine the story
(15:35):
of a country founded on a set of beautiful, abstract
ideals that also systematically failed to live up to those ideals.
And I hope it can be a story of these
ideals are still possible, these ideas are still the foundation
of our potential unity. I mean, I think we're so
(15:55):
close to actually being able to grab it as a
story and as a way to move forward, But it
has to be a huge national project with like visible leadership.
I mean, what I imagine is writers and facilitators going
out to every public library in this country when we're
all vaccinated and holding storytelling sessions, holding town halls. I mean,
(16:21):
we have these beautiful American rituals, and I think some
of the more interesting arguments about how we do the reckoning,
if we do the reckoning now, has had to do
with what kinds of rituals we employ. You know, do
we employ the Senate hearings, that we employ court hearings.
But I think we need to employ the existing rituals
of public gatherings in the in the United States, you know,
(16:44):
gather town halls, tells stories, come together in telling these
stories and figure out how we move forward and rebuild
on the basis of those ideas on which the country
was founded, which is a very different something sort of okay,
with the institution is held up, Let's go back to
normal and act like none of this ever happens, which
(17:08):
I'm really scared. I am scared about that too, and
I think it would be such a serious error, and
the next couple of years is going to be a
a real test. I actually think that Biden is well
suited for this period because of his personal story, which
is a you know, deeply human resident story about suffering
(17:31):
and redemption and and forgiveness and all that goes with it.
But the organized approach that you're describing could be exactly
what is needed. And so I, for one, I'm going
to be promoting the idea. I will give you full
credit for it. I don't need credit. I need somebody
(17:51):
who's an organizer like you and not an agitator like me.
So well to be continued, and thank you for your
incredibly and fightful and very important writing over the last
year's Thank you, secondary Clinton, It's been such an honor
to talk to you. Masha Guessen is a staff writer
(18:16):
at the New Yorker whose most recent book is called
Surviving Autocracy. My next guest is Rashad Robinson. Rashad has
been an activist his entire life, starting in high school
when he led his classmates in a protest against a
local drug store because of how it treated the students
(18:40):
who hung out there after school. These days, he leads
Color of Change, America's largest organization, helping people to take
online action in support of racial justice. I've known Rashade
for years, and I'm proud to say that Color of
Change was one of our first partner organism nations in
(19:01):
Onward Together, a group I founded after the sixteen election
to support the people and groups doing the really hard
work of repairing our democracy. Rashad is one of the
most energetic people I've ever met, and he's also known
for his trademark hats, which he's almost always wearing. I
(19:21):
was thrilled to catch up with him. Hi, Rashad, Hey,
how are you? I think they're calling me about a
grocery haddemic moments yet, no problem? All right, there we go. Okay, Well,
welcome to the show, Rashad. I am so excited about
(19:41):
having you as a guest on this podcast. Well, thank
you for having me. It's an honor and a pleasure.
I want to talk with you about what these last
four years have been like, because in many ways, what
color of change stands for, what you've been fighting for
has been really on the lawn because of everything happening
(20:02):
in our country, the threats to our democracy. What has
it been like for you personally, Well, personally, it's been
NonStop to see and to be in the midst of
so much suffering and to feel like the levers that
you relied on the poll, we're not there in so
many ways. You know, right after the election, we had
(20:26):
to figure out how we were going to move. You know,
we had spent years during the Obama administration pushing and
challenging right. We would you know, show up to d
O J sometimes with petitions in hand, pushing. We would
show up at hood or Education Department pushing right. It
didn't mean that we got everything we wanted, but we
knew that we were inside of a conversation. We recognized
(20:47):
very clearly that we had to shift strategies, that we
couldn't go hat in hand anymore, and that meant that
we had to really figure out who we were going
to be to actually build power, to not be inside
of what we talk about is magical thinking, right. Magical
thinking is like the stories we sometimes tell ourselves about
how change happens. Right. A petition demanding Mitch McConnell stand
(21:10):
up for firm and action is not a petition that's
going anywhere, no matter how many people sign it, right,
And so part of what we had to do was
figure that out, and we really built what I feel
was a new strategy that was focused not simply on
resistance but on opposition. What would it mean to not
just resist, but to build power to a post so
(21:31):
that we could get back to governing, focusing on winning
real world victories at the local level, while also recognizing
that the game was not fair, that the rules were raped,
and that we couldn't simply say that what happened in
was democracy. Uh, it was what happened, and we are
dealing with it, but we had to recognize it, fight
(21:52):
and challenge to build something new. Those are really important insights,
because you're right. Oftentimes when people get involved in any
kind of movement for social justice for progress, they can't
believe that just stating the problem won't get the results
that you're seeking, and it is a slow, hard boring
(22:13):
of hard boards. As Max Weber said decades ago about
politics and political change. You know, when we look at
what you had to face during the four years of
the Trump administration, in your opinion, how close did we
come to actually losing our democracy? Well, you know, I
(22:35):
think it's still under contention, right. You know, we right
after the election, we started going on white nationalist sites.
We work with the Southern Poverty Law Sitner, and we
look at all these sites and one thing I noticed,
and one thing my team noticed, was that you could
put your credit card number in or your PayPal number
it and you could donate money. You could and by
merchant by merchant guise, right, So we started calling the
(22:59):
credit card companies. We started calling these payment processing companies,
and you know what they told us. They said, oh,
we're with you, but you know, you have to talk
to the banks. And then the bank said, you know,
you have to talk to the credit card companies. So
we start building the no Blood Money campaign, and we
start building this platform, and you know, we're not quite
done with it all when Charlotte's Felle happens. But the
(23:21):
team goes in over the weekend, they like, get all
the tools together, and we start going public. We gave
the companies were like, we've been talking with you for months,
We've given you these lists of white nationalist groups, and
then within about twenty four hours they start sending us
a list of white nationalists organizations that they are cutting
off for processing fees. No law had changed exactly, and
(23:42):
so to the extent of what institutions will allow to happen,
that will put us all in harm's way because it
serves some sort of interest. We all have to recognize
that that hasn't gone away, and that part of what
we have to do is really a double down on
all of the vehicles that I believe actually get us
(24:05):
closer to real change. And I think that there are
no greater drivers right now than racial justice and gender justice,
not only because there are motivating forces if you think
about the Women's March, or if you think about the
uprisings over this summer, as some of the strongest vehicles
to actually getting people into the streets, to getting people mobilized,
(24:25):
but they also are forced multipliers and actually undoing the norms,
that practices, the ideas that got us into this in
the first place. And so we have to lead into
those things. Not because a true democracy produces gender justice
or produces racial justice. It's because racial justice and gender
justice actually get us to that true democracy. Moving towards
(24:49):
the private sector and corporate power was an incredibly smart approach.
But one of your biggest targets was Facebook, and I
think Rashad you understood before many many people did, the
really negative role that Facebook played and being literally an
(25:12):
organizing tool for the far right, for white supremacists, for extremists.
Explain to our listeners you know what brought that insight
to your mind and how you then proceeded. At first,
Black Lives Matter activists were being docked on the platform,
and so we sort of reached out and we started
pushing and we tried to get some action, and we
(25:34):
were getting all sorts of stalling that just didn't make sense,
like why wouldn't you just deal with this right And
then you know, there was a woman by the name
of Korean Gains, woman who was having a mental health episode.
She had her Facebook Live on. She was having an
interaction with police. Her young son was there in the
city of Baltimore, and the police called Facebook and had
(25:54):
them turn off her Facebook Live and Korene Gains ends
up debt and there's no video, and we were like,
what are the rules here? Like what like, what's the
rules around working with law on first? And we found
out that they were actually providing information to law enforcement
about activists without warrants, without you know, sort of the
(26:15):
proper sort of protocols. And seeing how this platform relied
on our data in many ways, mind our data and
then could sell it, could use it, could do all
sorts of things with it, we recognize that there had
to be new rules, and we were pushing Facebook around
a number of things, and we got them to agree
to do a civil rights audit, so we dealt with that,
(26:36):
and then we found out in eighteen that why we
had been at the table, I think of those end
of while we've been at the table, why I'd been
going back and forth with Facebook, they had hired a
pr for UH called Definers to attack us. And I
only found out from the New York Times. The New
York Times called us and maybe you have comment on
this story we just published, and like what story we
(26:58):
just published? And I at this point we had been
at the table. They had been talking about the uder
we have been working with them, and it was like
very clear that they had no intent on moving. It
was a charade, wasn't it. That's exactly what it is.
We will always lose with both Facebook and even with
big corporate power in Washington or in Silicon Valley, we
(27:20):
will always lose in the back rooms. If we don't
have millions of people lined up at the front door,
we'll be right back. We know we still face these
(27:41):
structural obstacles to democracy. All the progress that was made
in turning out voters and the huge numbers of black
voters who made the difference not just in in the
Georgia win for Biden, but in electing two new senators
in Georgia, uh Tino voters, Native American voters in Arizona.
(28:03):
You know, we saw what it means when voting actually
reflects the electorate of our country. So now we know
that there's a concerted effort in a majority of states
at this moment to try to make it hard again.
So what will Color of Change and all of your
allies be doing to make sure that your voice has
(28:24):
heard in this effort as well? Well, we are gonna
be there three d and sixty five days a year,
and so part of what we've already pivoted to is
the base building grassroots work and voter contact work and
engagement work we do year round, focusing on places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
(28:44):
and Georgia which all has Senate races, and focusing on
places that will have key races in the house around
the country, pushing the Biden administration like part of our
job is to hold the line between what a real
saluttions and fake solutions and make sure that a vast
administration with a lot of people doing a lot of
(29:07):
different things, is constantly focusing on giving us the narrative,
the tools, and the real change that we can go
out and sell. You know, one thing that I've you know,
told to focus in the administration is budgets are moral
documents more than anything that we say, and ensuring that
the budgets match the aspirations that if we say we
(29:30):
want to hold people accounting for corruption and stop prosecuting
low level crimes, that that actually has to show up
in a d o J budget, because prosecuting corruption is
actually more expensive than going after people who can't afford
lawyers and researchers and and um infrastructure to defend them.
And so that's what we're gonna be doing, and then
(29:50):
you know, to be very clear, we're gonna be fighting
against the rollbacks of this. And you know, one thing
that I've been thinking about since, you know, we led
our campaign against the American Legislative Exchange Council ASKS, which
was so instrumental in passing so many of those voter
ID laws, the discriminatory idea laws, you know, the one
(30:11):
in Texas that says you can vote with your gun
license but not your student I D which are like
really just on their face clear about what they're trying
to do. You know, we have been working to wold
corporations accountable. I just recently had a conversation with our
Reverend Barbera about this in North Carolina, about the corporations
in North Carolina that have stayed silent as their black
(30:35):
and brown employees are attacks on their voting rights. The
corporations in Georgia, the Coca Colas and Deltas and and companies,
what are they gonna say when their employee base are
being attacked in terms of their ability to vote and
cast a vote. And so part of this is, yes,
(30:56):
we've got to be in those legislatures, but I'm also
very clear that the political project of many of those
legislators is to like hold onto power as long as
they possibly can, even if the people don't want them
there exactly. And so what we have to do is
go to the institutions that say by our products, use
(31:19):
our services, and say that you can't come for our
money by day and take away our vote by night.
I love that well. I just can't tell you how
much I love talking to Rashad. I love your sensibility,
I love your strategic understanding of what we're up against
in the in the world today. I want to end
on a personal note. You've been, as I pointed out earlier,
(31:43):
on the front lines of activism. Now you lead really
one of the most consequential racial justice activist organizations in
our country in the twenty one century. What makes you hopeful?
I mean, how do you get up in the morning
and feel like sometimes it's pushing the same rock up
the hill that you're pushed yesterday and the day before.
(32:05):
But you just, you know, get your energy up, you
put on that hap that you know it's your trademark,
and you start pushing. How do you keep yourself motivated?
You know? So I have so much hope and optimism
in this summer. You know, being quarantined before the uprisings
was really top I'm a people person. I like to
be out in the world and spend most of my
(32:27):
time on the road in the other world, and so
it was really tough, and then the uprisings happened. Up
until the uprisings, the best that many of us thought
could happen was we would uplift investigative journalism and we
would clap outside of our windows for essential workers who
deserved all of the support and love. But it was
(32:48):
racial justice that got people into the streets, got people
motivated to see people of all races, all walks of
life coming into the streets. Employees incorporations pushing their companies
to have to say things that they previously did not
believe they had to, and certainly many of them did
not want to. You know, Color of Change does not
(33:08):
take direct corporate dollars. And every morning I was waking
up to all of these announcements of corporations giving us
money or you like, well, they can agree to the
things we max and to doo, but we're not going
to take this money. But it was like, you know,
but it was a surreal moment of saying, like, so
much is possible, right, and to think about the deep
(33:29):
pain that had to get there, but also the opportunity
to create generational change. And as I see millions in pond,
millions of Americans sometimes taking their first steps into activism,
believing that something new is possible. That gives me so
much hope. What a great way to wrap up our conversation,
(33:51):
and I hope our listeners will learn more about the
work of Color of Change because I so admire the
way you're on the front law nds of what real
change looks like. Thank you so much, Rashad. Thank you
so much for having its an honor. To learn more
about the incredible work Rashad and his colleagues are doing,
(34:15):
go to Color of Change dot org. And if you
want to hear more about Reverend William Barber, who were
shod mentioned, check out the very first episode of this podcast,
You and Me Both, which is about faith. It's one
of my favorite episodes, in part because Reverend Barber has
so many profound things to say about how his faith
(34:37):
fuels his work for racial and social justice. But I
want to end today's episode with a question for you.
What do you think about the state of our democracy?
Do you know someone who is working hard to make
it stronger? I'd love to hear from you with your ideas,
so please send an email to You and Me Both
(35:00):
pod at gmail dot com. You and Me Both is
brought to you by I Heart Radio. We're produced by
Julie Subran, Kathleen Russo and Lauren Peterson, with help from
Juma Aberdeen, Nicky Etour, Oscar Flores, Lindsay Hoffman, Brianna Johnson,
(35:22):
Nick Merrill, Rob Russo, and Lona Valmorrow. Our engineer is
Zack McNeice, and the original music is by Forrest Gray.
If you like You and Me Both, spread the word,
post about it on social media, send it to your friends,
and make sure to hit the subscribe button so you're
(35:43):
the first to know when a new episode drops. You
can do that on I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts. See you next week.
Host
Hillary Clinton
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.