How Latino Voters Are Reshaping American Politics

Text us your questions!

We talk with political strategist, author, and Lincoln Project member Mike Madrid about data, culture, and why both parties keep getting the Latino vote wrong.

Mike takes us inside the Lincoln Project’s 2020 strategy and the personal costs of resisting Trumpism, then draws a sharp line between principled conservatism and punitive nationalist populism. From energy policy to border security to employee ownership, we explore how Democrats ended up carrying a slate of classically conservative positions and why that still isn’t landing with working class voters. The throughline is practical: housing, wages, and permitting timelines beat slogans every time, especially for a young, US‑born Latino electorate that’s increasingly moderate, less partisan, and focused on near‑term economic mobility.

We also discuss culture and faith, challenging lazy “machismo” tropes with the maternal core of Latin American Catholicism and a track record of electing women. Mike explains how generational change, not country of origin, drives political behavior and why Latino voters split roughly 50–50. That elasticity could be the system’s safety valve, if the parties learn to speak to pocketbook priorities instead of waging endless culture wars.

We also confront the rise in political violence. Mike argues we’re already in a civil conflict—more Troubles than Gettysburg—and that healing will be social before it’s political. The antidote starts local: honest conversations, community action, and leaders calling out extremism in their own ranks. Along the way, we have occasion to toast some tequila and hear about Mike’s storytelling project on the Cuervo–Sauza rivalry, expanding how Latino lives are portrayed beyond tired stereotypes.

If this conversation challenges and energizes you, follow, rate, and share the show with a friend.

=====

Want to support us?

The best way is to subscribe to our Patreon. Annual memberships are available for a 10% discount.

If you'd rather make a one-time donation, you can contribute through our PayPal.

Other important info:

• Rate & review us on Apple & Spotify
• Follow us on social media at @PPWBPodcast
• Watch & comment on YouTube
• Email us at [e-mail]

Cheers!

Episode Transcript

Randy (00:06):
I'm Randy, the pastor half of the podcast, and my
friend Kyle's a philosopher.
This podcast hostsconversations at the
intersection of philosophy,theology, and spirituality.

Kyle (00:15):
We also invite experts to join us, making public a space
that we've often enjoyed off-airaround the proverbial table
with a good drink in the backcorner of a dark pub.

Randy (00:24):
Thanks for joining us, and welcome to a pastor and a
philosopher walking to a bar.
And a huge part of thatfascination has to do with

(00:55):
people of color and their votesand why this statistics and the
data is telling us that blackAmericans and Latino Americans
and, you know, others swung moretowards Trump.
And I was reading an articleabout this because I'm just,
again, fascinated by it.
And I came upon this interviewwith Mike Madrid, historically a

(01:16):
Republican strategist and youknow, mines data and is a
classical conservative in manyways, but he wrote this book
about the Latino vote and howmisunderstood it is.
And I was fairly fascinated bywhat he had to say, and I just
thought, let me try to get thisguy on the show.
And turns out they said yes.

Kyle (01:32):
Yeah, worked out.
Worked out.
Yeah.
So the book's called The LatinoCentury, How America's Largest
Minority is TransformingDemocracy.
And it's fascinating.
And uh there's a lot of data init, and there's uh some really
compelling arguments for whyboth sides of the political
aisle are misunderstanding thisto their own detriment.
Correct.
Democrats are particularlyterrible at it at this
historical moment.

(01:52):
We get into all of that.
Uh we also talk aboutCatholicism and Mary and what it
means to be Latino in Americaright now, and why that's
confusing for so many things.
Yeah, right.
And you know, why they sp seemerratic in their voting habits
in in some ways.
Um it's not it's not erratic.
There's there's a rhyme andreason to it.
We talk about tequila.

Randy (02:12):
Talk about Charlie Kirk and the political violence that
we're seeing and this whether ornot we're in a civil conflict
or a civil war.

Kyle (02:19):
It was one of those conversations where I I was kind
of literally on the edge of myseat, like, I I want to know
what you think about this.
And not not very scripted,really.
Um and so I super enjoyed thisconversation.
I want to talk to him again.

Randy (02:32):
Yes, absolutely.
And I think you will too,friends.

Kyle (02:54):
Mike Madrid, welcome to a pastor and a philosopher walking
to the bar.

Mike (02:57):
Thanks so much for having me, guys.
I'm looking forward to theconversation.

Kyle (03:00):
Yeah, so first off, I just we're gonna have questions kind
of all over the map here.
Some of them are gonna be aboutyour recent book, some of them
are gonna be about the LincolnProject, some of them are gonna
be about recent politicalevents, some of them are just
gonna be about politics ingeneral, because we want to pick
your brain about severalthings.
I think that's okay.

Randy (03:14):
And maybe a few about booze and tequila.
Maybe some about tequila.

Mike (03:17):
I'm comfortable in that space, so sure.
Wherever we want to go with it,let's go with that.

Kyle (03:20):
Awesome.
First, I just want to ask aboutthe Lincoln Project, because
that's what caught my eye firstwhen Randy mentioned you to me.
How did you get involved withthat?
Um, if for listeners who mightnot know what it is, what did
you guys do?
And particularly I want to knowwhat you think it accomplished,
if if anything significant.

Mike (03:36):
It's been a while now.
I mean, Lincoln Project's kindof uh the the pages of the
Lincoln Project in politicalhistory are starting to yellow a
little bit.
It was about six years ago, Ithink, in December of 2020, um
eight political consultants, uhRepublican political consultants
kind of realized that um um thethe Republican establishment
was not going to kind of do itsduty, it's meet its oath to the

(03:59):
Constitution.
This was heading into the firstTrump impeachment, um, where he
was blackmailing VladimirZelensky in in Ukraine to dig up
dirt on Joe Biden.
And um a lot of us had you knowworked for a lot of these
Republican members.
35 years I've been working onRepublican politics.
And there was just, I think,this kind of aha moment that um

(04:23):
this is a time for choosing.
This is a time in Americanhistory where people have to
kind of stand up and be counted.
And the moment for us was um abigger moment in calling for our
country and for ourconstitution than it was for our
party and the businesses thatwe'd built and the reputations
and relationships that we'destablished.
And our goal was to beat DonaldTrump in the 2020 election.

(04:43):
And um, you know, I was thedata guy, uh, you know, and by
data, what I mean is, you know,my job is to get really granular
into the analytics and do thetargeting and try to understand
where the Republican votes werethat we could kind of pull out
and get into defect.
And from a data perspective, uhwe met, we actually exceeded uh
our objectives and what we weretrying to accomplish.

(05:04):
I think there's a lot ofAmericans uh who were kind of
watching it, political observerswho would say, you know, these
guys were just kind of makingfunny online ads and attacking
the president.
Um, but uh from an analyticdata perspective, what we were
publicly stating we wanted to doand accomplish, we exceeded,
and that was enough to win uhthe election.
What I will say is one of theone of the regrets I had was we

(05:27):
could see from the data and thenumbers that the Hispanic vote
was shifting to the right fasterthan most people were looking
at, and faster than theDemocrats, I think, could could
recognize and understand.
And we I was publicly sayingthat too.
And the reason I was sayingthat was because we were running
a real risk of getting enoughRepublican votes that we could

(05:50):
peel out, but losing so manyHispanic votes from the
Democratic Party that weredefecting to Trump that it would
offset it and Trump couldpossibly win.
And I don't know if you guysremember, but back in 2020, the
polls were showing a much biggergap for Biden winning than
actually materialized.
And the reason was becausenobody was watching the Hispanic
vote.
I was, that's what I've beenstudying for 30 years, and that

(06:13):
actually became the the umfoundational reason why I wrote
the book uh The Latino Centurythat I think we're gonna be
talking a little bit abouttoday, because the Democratic
Party was just kind of calcifiedin its perspective and its
outlook, and it wasn't makingthe adjustments it needed to do
it.
It it it became catastrophe in2024.

Randy (06:32):
So, Mike, I've heard you talk about the cost of your move
to the Lincoln project and awayfrom Trumpism and and all that.
I mean, to like your kidsgetting threats and you getting
threats and your livelihood.
Can you just tell our listenersa little bit of the cost of
what it meant for you to say, itfeels like we're in a moment
right now and I'm going toactually boldly step into

(06:54):
something new and resistsomething um that's gonna come
at a real cost for me?

Mike (06:59):
Yeah, I I think that we're all, all of us as Americans at
this moment being called tosomething bigger than ourselves.
Uh and I think that's probablyacross the spectrum.
I think for those of us who whofeel that there's um a moral
problem in this country, anethical values-based deficiency

(07:20):
that we're watching unfold.
That um it's become a biggerconsideration than politics.
And, you know, when I when Iwas asked, and I I was uh asked
by some of the others in thegroup to kind of come on and
join, eight of us.
Like I said, there were onlyeight that we could kind of
identify that could do the workthat we needed to do to get the
job done.
There was a very um keenawareness that we were going to

(07:44):
be attacked um in mi in a myriadof ways.
Uh constant technologicalattacks, attacked viciously
online.
Our children were my childrenwere threatened, you know.
I had uh the death threats werecontinuous and and serious and
credible.
Um and it in many times I thinkthroughout the course of doing

(08:11):
the work that I was doing, um, Iwould question, you know, why
am I doing this and is it worththe cost?
But I never got stuck there.
It it was so obvious andapparent to me that of course
this is what you do.
Like, this is isn't this whatwe all learned in grade school?
Like, this is the moment whengood people have to stand up

(08:34):
against bad things.
And and the goodness versus thebadness was so apparent.
It was so obvious.
And it was so obvious to somany of the Republicans that I'd
worked with for so many years.
You have to remember, DonaldTrump was a very unpopular
figure through most of theprimary in 2016, 2015, 2016.
Hundreds of people, literallyhundreds of people that I knew,

(08:58):
um, were vocally, publicly,aggressively anti-Trump, the
same way JD Vance was, the sameway Marco Rubio was, the same
way Nikki Haley was on and onand on and on.
Everybody knew this was a badthing.
And um, but every one of themkind of fell in line.
And there were there'ssomething very disturbing and

(09:19):
troubling to me about how easilypeople folded everything that
they claimed to have stood forat one point in time into this
void, into this nothingness.
And I think watching thathappen made me realize just what
a moral deficit we have.
And I don't know if it'sparticular to this time, I don't

(09:40):
know if that's just humannature.
I don't I don't know, but I doknow that 99% of the people, 98%
of the people that I workedwith for decades failed the most
basic test that you learn in inyou know grade school, which is
um why we teach history whenit's important to stand up and
do the right thing.
And this generation, thegeneration ahead of me, the

(10:04):
generation behind me, they'veall I think failed that test
miserably.

Kyle (10:08):
Do you think I want to ask this delicately, but kind of
bluntly too do you think yourbeing Latino had anything to do
or how much to do with your notfailing that test?

Mike (10:18):
Oh wow, that's a really interesting question.
Um Well, let me put it thisway.
We've seen a historic shift ofLatino voters to Donald Trump.
So so if there were anycultural proclivities of people
to kind of stand up and and uhyou know do the right thing,

(10:40):
it's probably not cultural, atleast not from an ethnic
perspective.
Um that's a that's a fantasticquestion.
I I don't I don't um I don'tthink so.
I don't know.
I will say this of all of theeight Republican consultants who
uh started the Lincoln Project,I am the only Republican

(11:01):
remaining.
And I I remember being askedthe question, why are you still
republican?

Kyle (11:05):
What's his deal?

Mike (11:07):
And the answer I think probably does come back to my
Latino heritage is because Ifought so hard in the Republican
Party for so many years to saythis is not who the Republican
Party is, that to have itactually reveal itself as being

(11:29):
exactly that forced me to make adecision which was I was never
in this party because ofeverybody else.
I was in this party because ofme.
And in the same way I say I'mI'm also Catholic, and uh the
Catholic Church there have beensome horrific, horrific things

(11:49):
that have been revealed in theCatholic Church that probably
run back centuries, butcertainly in modern times.
That doesn't change myCatholicity.
Because there are priests thathave done really awful things to
innocents, that doesn't thatdoesn't change my Catholicity.
Because my country, America,does really bad things and is
doing really bad things rightnow, doesn't make me less
American.

(12:10):
Um there are that I will be acritic of all of those, but
these are human institutions,all of them, and they fail.
And I think I take, sorry aboutthe long answer here, but it's
a really great question.
My favorite Republican, uhactually, I have a portrait
hanging over here.
It's not Lincoln behind me, itit's it's Frederick Douglass.
Frederick Douglass was aRepublican his whole life, but

(12:33):
he never had a comfortablerelationship with the Republican
Party because he never believedthat in the moments when the
important decisions needed to bemade that the Republicans would
do the right thing, and theReconstruction era proved him
right.
So, um, in many ways, I I thinkbecause he was a non-white
Republican, even during theabolition movement, he he

(12:56):
understood how deeply ingrainedthat sentiment is in us as human
beings and what it meant for apolitical party and political
power.
And I think that's why it'ssuch a great question.
I've never been asked thatbefore, but it's really
insightful.

Kyle (13:08):
So I appreciate that response and the candor of it.
I wonder I that kind ofresponse makes a lot of sense to
me as a Christian, because Istill am one, uh, even though I
know all the shitty things we'vedone and continue to do.
Um, and it makes sense to me asmaybe a conservative, um, that
kind of response.
And it certainly makes sense tome as an American.
I struggle to see it on thelevel of Republican, if I'm

(13:31):
honest.

Mike (13:32):
Um that's fair.

Kyle (13:33):
So can you make that connection for even Frederick
Douglass?
Republicanism was an entirelydifferent thing in his lifetime
than it is now.

Mike (13:38):
So yeah.
Um I um I I'm stillconservative.
I I haven't changed.
That's what the irony is, isyou know, and I'm a very vocal
critic of the party publicly bysaying this is not conservatism,
this is populist nationalism,what we're saying.
Trumpism is not conservatism.
And I have a certain amount ofplatform and gravitas and

(13:59):
credibility when I say that as aRepublican.

Kyle (14:01):
Right.

Mike (14:02):
Because I can say I have spent my entire life fighting in
this movement and this effortfor the things that I believe
in, and 90% of what I've foughtfor are not what this is.
So there's a practicalconsideration, which is if if
these are bad people and youdon't want to work with them and
they've shown themselves to becowards and enablers of
something bad, just leave.
That's legitimate.
You know, my my seven cohortsand partners in the Lincoln

(14:24):
Project did.
Um, I've chosen to stay.
And I don't know if that willchange, but for the moment, um,
I believe that once I leave, andonce I'm the last person to
shut the lights off and leave,then everything that I stood for
falls apart.
As long as there is one personwho holds up truth and holds up

(14:45):
the mirror and says this is whowe are and claimed to be, then
we're still that.
There's at least a part of usthat is still that.

Kyle (14:52):
Yeah.

Randy (14:53):
Can I ask Mike?
Um, you know, you say Trumpismisn't conservativism, it's
populism and nationalism.
Um but isn't, particularly inthe second second term here,
aren't a lot of the things thathe's doing th things that
Republicans have dreamed ofdoing for a long time, such as
dismantling the Department ofEducation and decentralizing it

(15:14):
and putting it back in thestate's control and the tariffs,
you know, the a lot of theforeign policy and the
interactions with NATO and theway that's gone.
And I mean, we could go downthe list of many things that
seem to be front and center forthe Republican Party for the
last 40 years, really.
Um but I'm a layman, I'm not anexpert at this.
But it seems to me a lot of thethings that he's doing are

(15:35):
actually conservative.

Mike (15:37):
I don't think I don't think there's a lot.
I think those two that youpointed out, I think are are
accurate.

I will say this (15:42):
I support the elimination of the Department of
Education, and I'll tell youwhy.
The Department of Education wascreated by Jimmy Carter in the
waning days of the 1980 electionbecause he needed something to
run on.
The Department of Educationjust moves paper.
It's it's massive inefficiency.
And the problem why it wasnever eliminated was because
politically you couldn't say wewant to get rid of the

(16:02):
Department of Education.
It it processes grants.
That's that's literally what itdoes.
There's a small civil rightspiece of it, but that civil
rights piece can and should beheld under the Department of
Justice, and all of thatpaperwork is better, more
efficiently administered, andfrankly, there would in other
ordin other circumstances havemore money available if you just
did it where it was bestapportioned.

(16:24):
So it was a political thing.
You know, this was a it's thenewest cabinet, with the
exception of Homeland Security.
I don't know if that's evenconservative.
I think it's just kind ofcommon sense if you take the
politics out of it, because it'sit's better for kids.
It's there's more money foreducation if you just get rid of
it.
Having said that, your youroriginal question um needs to be

(16:46):
be asked in the in the contextof, I think, the fact that the
Republican Party today um hasincreased taxes more than um any
president in living memory.
We are now the friends andallies of the Russians against a
freedom-fighting people inUkraine.
We now um oppose free markets.

(17:09):
We um are the party that is uhdramatically increasing law
enforcement officials, maskedlaw enforcement officials that
are cracking down on people,citizens and non-citizens,
without enabling due processrights.
Like these are the jack-bootedthugs that in the 90s were the
boogeyman of the American right.

(17:30):
So the Republican Party todayis exactly what I joined the
Republican Party to oppose.
There's very, very little thatit actually is supporting.
And those those that were thereis some overlap, and there is
some.
There's deregulate deregulationstuff, there's the Department
of Edge stuff.

(17:51):
I would disagree with you onforeign policy, but that's you
know, neither here nor there.

Randy (17:55):
Or just like decreasing the size of government and what
Elon was doing for the firstcouple months.

Mike (17:59):
Yeah, and that's the thing, is they're not decreasing
the size of government whenyou're talking about tripling
the size of ice, right?
We're increasing the size of adomestic, private, essentially
military under the control ofone man that is now larger than
the budget of the entire UnitedStates Marine Corps.
That like that is that is thenightmare of the conservative.

(18:19):
Literally, that is what Reaganwould be like horrified by this.
Goldwater, uh, you know,Buckley would be like, what are
you talking about in America,let alone in the Republican
Party?
So, you know, there's not, Iwould, it's not a conservative
party.
There may be conservativeelements, but there's
conservative elements in theDemocratic Party too on some
policy positions.
In fact, in many ways, theDemocratic Party is a more

(18:41):
conservative party.
In fact, in most ways, it'sprobably a more conservative
party than the Republican Partyis today.

Randy (18:47):
Can you explain that just briefly?

Mike (18:49):
Yeah, look, let me um under Joe Biden, for example, we
were drilling more domestic oilthan under any president in the
history of the country.
Um, you heard Kamel Harris uhrunning on a campaign, the
Langford bill, which was aRepublican bill, um, all the
border security provisions,which is quite draconian, um, is
now literally enshrinedofficially in the Democratic

(19:11):
plank.
The Democratic platform of theDemocratic Party is the Langford
bill.
Like if I work for George W.
Bush.
If George W.
Bush was running against aDemocrat saying the things that
the Democratic Party nowofficially stands for in their
party platform, he would saythat's anti-immigrant, that's
racist.
Yeah, because in many ways itis, right?

(19:31):
Yeah, look at Kamala Harris'sum opportunity uh economy plan.
It was based off, get this,cutting corporate taxes for
providing employees ownership inthose same companies.
Like that is Jack Kemp, RonaldReagan Republicanism.
Textbook.
Like that is textbook ReaganKemp Republicanism.

(19:53):
So, you know, whether it's theeconomy, whether it's energy,
whether it's border security,foreign policy, she said we were
gonna have the most muscular,you know, military in in the in
in all of human history.
The Democratic Party is theparty backing freedom fighting
movements in all parts of theworld while Republicans are

(20:14):
supporting risingauthoritarianism.
Like that that is 1980srepublicanism, right?
So in in those four major ways,most of their policy positions
more reflect the RepublicanParty of the 80s than the
current Republican Party does.

Randy (20:31):
Thank you.
Yeah.

Kyle (20:32):
It reminded me of a clip I saw of a I think it was a
Republican presidential primarydebate between Reagan and Bush,
the first Bush, and immigrationwas asked about, and they agreed
that like the best way to dealwith it is to improve conditions
in Mexico.

Mike (20:48):
The answer is like economic development, like build
up the middle class there.
I think there's a whole lot ofother nefarious reasons why we
don't, but that has always beenthe solution.
That is the solution.

Kyle (20:59):
So let's Yeah, let's talk about it about the book a little
bit.
So the Latino Century, howAmerica's largest minority is
transforming democracy.
So interesting book.
There's a lot of data in it.
I'm not a data guest, but Iappreciated uh reading.
Too much, a little too dense.
There were sections where Imight have zoned a little bit.
I'm gonna skip that chapter,yeah.
I'll skip these few pages.
I do want to ask you.

Mike (21:18):
Can I can I jump in real quick on that?
Because this is kind of funny.
Yeah, go ahead.
Um, I when I was writing thebook, the first draft of the
book was actually much moredense.
And I I took it to thepublisher, and Simon Schuster
was kind enough to publish thebook, and they said, We're not
we're not gonna publish thisbook.
And I was like, Well, why not?
They're like, Nobody wants toread this book.
Like, like, you and threepeople want to read this book.
And I was like, I don'tunderstand.

(21:39):
Like, this is why you wanted meto to write this book.
And what they said was, Howmany, how many political
consultants have worked at thehighest levels that you have in
Republican politics?
I was like, Yeah, maybe a fewhundred.
And they said, Well, how manyhave done that and also worked
at the highest levels ofDemocratic campaigns?
Because I've run, you know,governors campaigns for for

(21:59):
Democrats.
And I said, Wow, now you'redown to like maybe four, three,
four, five people.
And then they said, How manyare Latino?
And I said, Well, this is justme.
And they said, That's why wewant you to write the book.
There you go.
Throw the data out, man.
And it was like back to thedrawing board and had to like
re-redo the book.
But I did want to keep some ofmy data because I'm a data nerd

(22:20):
in there, so I apologize.
That's okay.
Totally forgiven for skippingover the data.
I just needed that to my ownlittle marker in the world, but
uh appreciate the uh the thefeedback.

Kyle (22:29):
No, it's it's important stuff.
And I do want to get your takeon um sort of the demographic
shifts that are happening andthat are going to continue
happening.
So describe that for ourlisteners.
How significant of a politicalforce are Latinos now?
How significant are they goingto be?
You call it the Latino centuryfor a reason.
So, yeah, what's what's goingon there?

Mike (22:46):
I I believe a lot of what's happening in this
country, the tension and theturbulence is really about the
extraordinary size and scope ofthe change that we're enduring.
Most of it technological, a lotof it economic for sure.
The gap between the haves andhave-nots has got to just
sinful, unprecedented levels inthis country, and it's getting
worse by the day.
But the third element is thisdemographic shift.

(23:08):
We are going to be a non-whitemajority country in about 10, 12
years for the first time in ournation's history, in our whole
in our story as Americans.
And that's going to profoundlychange the way we perceive
America and perceive ourselves.
And that that question hasalways fascinated me.
And I've I've been studyingLatino voters since the early

(23:29):
1990s when I was anundergraduate at Georgetown.
I could see this demographictransformation happening.
And I wanted to study it overmy lifetime and and document it
and do campaigns and be a partof it, knowing that by the time
I got to you know my lateryears, I would be somebody who
saw the before and after times.
Like that's a rare thing inAmerican history.
And I just that that just hasalways fascinated me.

(23:52):
But to the to answer yourquestion again more
specifically, the Latino voterthemselves has ch have changed.
And what I mean by that iswe're we're in this period where
immigration levels, most peopledon't realize this, immigration
levels really started to dropand slow in 2007 before the what

(24:12):
we call the Great Recession.
We look back, it was really adepression.
I mean, it was it was bad,right?
The housing crashed, the engineof capitalism was melting down,
and there was no work.
So so a lot of people left andthat and and stopped coming.
So from 2007 up until Biden'sfirst year, 2021, in office,

(24:33):
there was a 15-year lull,14-15-year lull in immigration.
And apologize for thenerdiness, but it's important.
What that lull did was itallowed for natural US born
births to dramatically increasewhile the foreign born
decreased.
And for all of the commentaryabout Latinos not being
monolithic and you know, Cubansare not Puerto Ricans or not

(24:56):
Mexican or not Venezuelan andblah, blah, blah, that's true.
But the real differentiator inLatino political uh decision
making is not unlike it was withthe Greeks, Italians, Poles 150
years ago at Ellis Island, it'sthe degree of generational
difference from the immigrantexperience.
And this US-born Latinooverwhelmingly identifies as an

(25:22):
American first and is startingto lose these ethnic ties with
the country of origin.
So when everybody's looking atall these polls saying more and
more Latinos support bordersecurity, more and more of them
are concerned about illegalimmigration, more and more
concerned more about the economythan all these other ethnic
issues.
Common sense, we're gonna lookback and 20 years and go, of

(25:44):
course that was what was goingon.
Right now it's kind of veryshocking, but when we look back
in history, it's gonna be like,well, of course that was what
was going on.
And that's what's going on.
And so I wanted to write a booksaying, you know, the next 30
years of Latino politics isgonna look very different than
the last 30 years when we kindof came up with this
stereotypical understanding andconceptualization of Latino

(26:05):
voters being recent migrants,Spanish speakers, working kind
of you know, field workers or oryou know, um, we are we are the
we are the blue-collar, youknow, working class, fastest
growing part of the blue-collarworking class in the country,
that is true.
Um, but we are also climbing upthe ladder economically, and
that upward mobility is changingthe whole political system and

(26:28):
it's challenging both partystructures.

Randy (26:31):
So that that phenomenon that you just described of
these, you know, uh native-bornLatino people who are have their
having their priorities shiftand immigration looks different
for them, and they're what whatthey're voting for looks
different.
Do you think this second Trumpterm is going to change any of
that?
Because it feels like there's awar on Latinos right now in our

(26:51):
country.

Mike (26:52):
That's such a great question.
And the answer is yes, but notto the extent that you think.
And let me let me I hope I'mnot getting too in the weeds on
the nerdiness of the battle.

Kyle (27:01):
Please keep going.
We're very nerdy, just notusually about data.
So this is fine.
Okay.

Mike (27:05):
Okay, good.
Fair enough.
So I want to take you back to2018.
2018 was the first Trumpmidterms, and in the political
environment looked like this.
There were ice raids andcrackdowns, not to this extent,
but there were a lot of thatgoing on.
I don't know if you remember,but it was a time when Fox News
was running 24-7 news coverageon the caravans coming from

(27:28):
Central America.
These caravans were coming.
And that was when the countrywas introduced to the Darien Gap
and all these people walkingthrough the Darien Gap and
thousands of people coming tothe horde to take over America.
That Trump was still doingrallies with the Build the Wall
champ.
Build the wall, right?
That was a big so all of thisanti-immigrant, anti-Latino
sentiment was very front, row,and center, and the economy was

(27:51):
in really good shape.
Well, in 2018, we saw thelargest Latino midterm turnout
in history and the mostanti-Republican in history.
But in the three electionsafter that, we saw equally
historic shifts to the rightbecause more and more of these
US-born citizens weredramatically exploding on the

(28:14):
rolls.
That takes us to this upcomingmidterms.
And I use 2018 as an examplebecause all three of those times
five are all happening rightnow.
We've militarized a lot ofstreets, there's ice raids and
crackdowns.
We're all seeing this on socialmedia.
Uh, but one thing is worse, andthat is the economy.
And yet Donald Trump's supportlevels amongst Latinos are still

(28:39):
higher than they were in 2018,at least at the moment.
It could change.
There's still a year to go, butthings are pretty significant,
pretty bad.
If you haven't budged by now onwhat's going on, probably not
going to budge too far.
And so the question becomeswhy?
Why?
What happened in thiseight-year period?
And the answer again is thisexplosion of US-born voters.
And to tell you how fast it'scoming, fully one-third of the

(29:03):
entire Latino vote, and it'sabout 16%, 15-16% of the
electorate will be Latinonationally, a third of those are
under the age of 30.
And over 80% of them are USborn.
So when we talk about likeDemocrats having a problem with
the youth and the non-collegeeducated and people of color,

(29:26):
the the concentric circle onthat is like almost the Latino
electorate.
Younger, poorer, less collegeeducated, and obviously Latino.

Kyle (29:37):
How many of them does that answer?
Does that do, yeah?
Thank you.
How many of them are voting?

Mike (29:42):
Well, that's a cool great question.
It's an even better question.
God, you guys are you guys aregood at this.
You must be doing it for aliving or something.
Strong hobby.
We wish.
Latinos have the lowest voterturnout of any ethnicity in the
country.
And the question then becomeswhy?
And a lot of people try toattribute Cultural reasons, I
don't attribute it to that atall.

(30:02):
What I attribute it to is thisrejection of both parties.
We have the weakest partisananchors of any ethnicity, the
most likely group to be notaffiliated, no party preference,
or an independent are Latinos.
And what um we're really seeingis a Democratic Party that has
ignored or failed to deliver onbread and butter economic issues

(30:25):
for their own working classbase, and this nativistic
anti-Latino Republican party.
And so a lot of Latinos arejust like, I'm not voting for
either of these guys.
First of all, it doesn't makeany difference because neither
of them are speaking to myconcerns.
I'm afraid of one of them, andI'm just kind of ignored by the
other.
So that's manifesting it itselfin a much lower turnout than

(30:48):
we're seeing um amongst anyother ethnic group.

Kyle (30:51):
Yeah.
So if you could, I know this iswild speculation, but if you
could wave a wand and the Latinovoter turnout is comparable to
white people, 70% or whatever,which way do you think it would
go?

Mike (31:05):
Again, a really good question.
Um I'm gonna dodge it by sayingit depends.
Let me let me set the frameworkfor that.
Latinos in the 2024 electionvoted uh 48% for Donald Trump
and 52% for um Kamala Harris,roughly.
I think there's one or twopoints off with our, but

(31:26):
essentially it's a 50-50 vote.
This is the only vote that's50-50 in the country.
Everybody else is prettyhyperpolar polarized.
Latinos are 50-50.
So when you say if turnoutincreased, my guess is it would
probably split about the same,right?
So it wouldn't advantage one orthe other.
And and and the reason why mybook is ultimately optimistic,

(31:48):
and I don't want to ruin it foryou, Pastor.
But when you read it, it endson a good note.
And and the reason why isbecause that 50-50, Latinos are
the moderates in both parties.
Latinos have more moderateviews than the average Democrat,
and they've got more moderateviews than the average
Republican.
This is the only way to solvefor the hyperpartisan problem

(32:08):
that is afflicting the country.
The solution are literally inour own American DNA, occupying
the roles faster and fasterevery day.
Is there's a rejection of theextremism.
We will vote against Democratswhen they fail us, the way
Kamala Harris and Joe Bidenlearned, and we will reject
Donald Trump when he attacks ourcommunities the way he learned

(32:30):
in 2018, and we'll see again inthe in the 2026 midterms.
So it's it's it's the swingiestvote, it's the most 50-50 vote,
it's the fastest growing vote,and it's the least partisan
vote.
So to me, that's hopeful.
Yeah.
Because that's that means we'rethe group that is still
operating the way the systemshould be operating before

(32:52):
everything got cemented into redand blue corners.

Randy (32:56):
So you may have answered this in the book that I'm the
douchebag who didn't read thebook again, right?
But um so I'm a formerevangelical.
Uh I say former now because2016 just took the any desire to
be evangelical out of me.
But evangelicals, my people, mymy tribe, or former tribe, I

(33:18):
would say.
Um Kristen Combus-Dumay haswritten a bunch about this.
There's many people who'vewritten about how this
patriarchal, strong,authoritarian leader that we
find in Trump is really kind ofready-made for evangelicals.
They kind of just flock to it,they're almost kind of
conditioned and programmed to beattracted to that kind of

(33:40):
person and that kind of leader.
Yeah.
Is there a similar phenomenonwith the Latino vote, would you
say, or what's what's is thereany correlation between this?

Kyle (33:48):
Can I combine this with a question I wanted to ask?
Because I think it's relevant.
Sure.
You talk a bit about um, Idon't want to call it a
matriarchal culture becausethat's reductive, but you talk
about gender a bit, and yeah, itsurprisingly um I don't know, I
don't know if egalitarian isthe right word either.
Surprisingly non-patriarchal isthe the way you describe it in
your book.
So combine that with what hejust asked, because I'm curious

(34:10):
your take on is there acorrelation there?

Mike (34:13):
Yeah, so a lot of a lot of this, I think, when people are
looking at it, they make acouple of stereotypes, and I
don't mean that in a pejorativesense.
It's no stereotypes is what wedo.

Kyle (34:21):
Yep.

Mike (34:22):
Um, people will be like, oh, it's a machismo culture,
it's a little bit moremisogynist, it's a racist
culture, and it's uh, you know.
So let me kind of dispel that alittle bit from from my
perspective, because I I I didspend a whole chapter on this.
And I I could write a wholebook and maybe I will, trying to
explain how Latin Americanculture is a much more feminized

(34:45):
culture.
It really does have thecentrality of the feminine much
more than we see in WesternEuropean cultures.
You could never, and I makethis example, you could never, I
don't think you could ever havethe the Virgin Mary, which is
the national symbol of all ofthe Americas, by the way, but
particularly Mexico, having thea female imagery of who you are

(35:10):
as a people.
Like that's an Uncle Sam image.
A lot of people say, well, youknow, Statue of Liberty.
Statue of Liberty was a giftfrom the French, right?
That wasn't us.
We didn't conjure that up.
And we do refer to America as aherd.

Kyle (35:22):
We haven't torn it down yet, though.
It's still there.

Mike (35:24):
Yes, good time.
But yeah, there is there is uma very different, as you said, a
patriarchal way that isstructured uh with with the
strongman, right?
And a lot of people will say,well, there's a the strong man
because of Latin America.
Most of the strong men in LatinAmerica have been, you know,
propped up by the by theAmerican government for for
commercial reasons.
We as a community, Latinos,elect women at higher rates than

(35:48):
any other racial or ethnicgroup.
There are more female electedleaders in the California state
legislature than there are maleuh Latino legislators.
And it's getting bigger.
And it's not just a Californiaphenomenon.
Texas is almost at parity,Florida uh is at parity, New
Jersey, far more women than men,and they're Puerto Rican, Cuban

(36:09):
in Florida, Mexican American,Texas, and California.
We also have to remember likethe two politicians that had the
highest support levels forLatinos, including Latino men,
were Barack Obama, a black man,and Hillary Clinton, a white
woman.
Kamala Harris, a lot of this,you know, pushback that people
got was, well, they didn't votefor her because she's a woman or

(36:30):
she's a black woman, Latinos,that's why they didn't vote for
her.
Kamala Harris's whole careerwas built on dramatically
overperforming in California for25 years by winning Latino
votes.
She beat Loretta Sanchez inLoretta Sanchez's own
congressional district, Hispaniccongressional district, when
she ran for the U.S.
Senate.
So there's there's justevidence and evidence and

(36:52):
evidence and evidence that thatthat that kind of um perception
doesn't stick.
Uh this is a very maternallyfocused culture.
And I think uh because it isyou know much more um communal,
it's more agrarian, I think thatprobably plays a big part in
it.
Um, but the the feminine playsa very, very significant role in

(37:13):
Latin American culture.
Okay, and I think that's thatstarts with sort of the
Catholicism.
The the Virgin Mary again isnot um one of the and sorry
sorry to go off on this againnerdy tangent here, but the
Virgin Mary is very important.
Claudia Schambaum, by the way,is the president of Mexico.
She was the first woman to dothe grito last night.
Today is today's MexicanIndependence Day, by the way.
So absolutely tequila.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

(37:35):
Um but the one of the greatironies, the way to best
understand Mexican identity, Ithink, is the the Virgin Mary
really tells the whole story.
She is both the symbol of theoppressor, right, as a as a
religion from the from the oldworld coming, who becomes and is
embodied as the sign ofrevolution.
She is what is called for uh onon Mexican Independence Day to

(37:57):
rally to her cause to freeMexico from the Spanish, and she
becomes the a national symbol.
She's she's a symbol of ofMexico and and the Americas.
I just could not, for the lifeof me, imagine that that would
be a Western European dynamicever.
Yeah.

Randy (38:15):
So is that just a racist trope then?
They're like trying to makethat connection between Latinos
and authoritarian patriarchal.
Where does that come from, doyou think?

Mike (38:26):
It's a little lazy.
I think a lot of it comes downfrom um, like the we use the
term macho too, even when we'renot talking about Latinos.
Like there's this macho ormachismo, right?
There's this male-dominated,you know, society.
Uh, the thing that there's acouple stereotypes that really
that shock me a little bitbecause they're they're really
180 degrees different.
One is machismo, the second isthe strongman stereotype that

(38:47):
Latin Americans just want astrong man.
And the third is that Mexicansare lazy, right?
Like and all of those do have athey have got a history that go
back to colonization, is whatis really what what they what
they are.
The strongman, the cabillo, wasusually US backed.
And you know, it was yourstrongman who's trying to take

(39:08):
over the U.S.
strongman, and that was theonly way is fighting tribal
chieftains.
And that structure workedreally well for the United
States when we were exploitingresources from Latin America for
a couple of hundred years.
That's where the Caldillo comesfrom.
And I think we just lazily inpart go, oh, they're just
looking for a strongman when itwas our strongman that was that
was making that system work.
The trope of the lazy Mexicanuh really comes, uh goes back to

(39:32):
the the Brusero programs andand even earlier when they would
try to bring Mexican workers upuh in the 1930s during the Dust
Bowl.
And the the US had an actualpolicy of removing Mexican
workers to make way for theOakies.
So we have the you know theOakies that came from the Dust
Bowl from the Depression.

(39:53):
We literally, literally inCalifornia from our Central
Valley, massive agriculturalspace, deported Americans,
Americans, uh Mexicans andAmericans by the thousands,
thousands of U.S.
born citizens of Mexicandescent were deported in the 30s
to make way for the Dust Bowlrefugees.

(40:16):
So a lot of the you knowSteinbeck novels about you know
the Oakies being poor anddestitute, they they were, and
and I'm not saying it's easywork, but they were still a
ladder in the rung above theMexicans.
And that the the the the thethe nomenclature of the lazy
Mexican begins there becausethat's not the first or the last

(40:36):
time we've done that.
We did it again duringOperation Wetback in
Eisenhower's era in the 50s.

Kyle (40:41):
Real name, not not a slur.
Literally called it that.

Mike (40:45):
The Eisenhower administration called it
Operation Wetback, like this isjust overt, ugly racism.
And so they would use these,you know, these are lazy
Mexicans.
This is Mexicans, of course,are the only ones who will do
this work now, and we're seeingthat, right?
These farms going bust inArkansas and in the Central
Valley, everybody going workwhere we have food rotting in
the field, groceries are aboutto explode in price because

(41:07):
there's no workers to pick thefood.
We can't rebuild Los Angelesafter the fires because there's
no construction workers.
Like this is the working class,and I mean the work is hard,
menial labor for very low wages,but the way we've used them and
treated Mexican labor requiredsome sort of justification, and
so that's where we came up withthe lazy Mexican nomenclature.

Kyle (41:29):
Yeah.
I just a couple more politicalquestions, I think.
And then you can go for it.
Why do Democrats have such ahard time with figuring out what
Latinos will vote for?
I guess that's the the simplestway to put the question.
And if you had an hour with theDNC to convince them to do it
differently, and maybe you havehad this hour, what would you
what would you say?

Mike (41:49):
Well, let me say the DNC both loves and hates me because
they've called me.
To their credit, the Bidencampaign called me a couple
weeks after the book came out.
I I've been a name that's beenaround.
There's not a whole lot ofLatino operators that have kind
of done the work that I've doneat the level that I have.
They also knew that as aLincoln project guy, I was on
their side, right?
So they called me, and to theircredit, they were they were

(42:10):
they listened to a lot.
And I'm not saying that, youknow, I'm the reason they made
the adjustments, but there'smaybe it was just a big
coincidence.
I'm not going to take creditfor it or say it, but you also
can't change the whole party in90 days and change the brand.
There's two real challengesthat the Democratic Party faces
right now.
And that the first is it'sreally central to their

(42:31):
orthodoxy of who they believethey are.
They believe foundationallythey are the party of the
working class, and they believethat they are the party of
non-white people.
And both of those groups arefleeing the Democratic Party
quickly.
And the question then becomes,why?
And this is, by the way, thatthat that really explains why

(42:51):
the Democrats have beenstruggling in the wilderness, as
we call it, with no control ofany levels of government right
now in finding their footing.
They don't know who they wantto be.
Do we want to be Mom Donnie inNew York, or do we want to be
Ruben Gallego in Arizona?
Because they're both gettingbig numbers of Latino working
class voters.
One's a Democratic Socialist,the other one's a centrist

(43:11):
Democrat.
Like, what do we who are we?
What are we doing?
Why isn't this working?
And again, the the challengefor the Democratic Party is it's
not, it needs to first fullyacknowledge and breathe in that
it is not the party of theworking class anymore.
And they have a real tough timewith that.
They just don't they stillbelieve they're the party of
FDR, and they're not at all.

(43:33):
And and and that that's bothcultural and it is primarily
economic.

Randy (43:39):
Now, can I ask real quick?
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I I completely agree with youthat the reality is that they're
the Democrats are not the partyof the working class anymore.
But I think I would still arguethat more of the Democratic
policies are helpful for theworking class more than the
Republican Party.

Mike (43:56):
Fair argument.
I'm not sure that I would agreewith that, but it doesn't
matter.
Let's let's accept that as truefor the moment.

Randy (44:00):
Okay.

Mike (44:01):
The problem is the working class, not since FDR has the
working class looked togovernment for economic
opportunity or mobility.
Let me give you a specificexample.
Joe Biden passes the largestinfrastructure bill in the ever.
Yep.
And it's hard hats, it'sbuilding bridges, it's doing

(44:21):
highways, it's tunnels, it'sblah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah.
These are all things that aregoing to come online maybe in a
decade, maybe in 12 years.
Working class people don't havethe luxury of thinking in a 10
or 12 year horizon.
Working class people oftendon't have the time if you grew
up like I did.
We don't have 10 days to thinkabout it.

(44:42):
You've got to pay you know rentin three days.
Like I say, God, the good weekswere when we were paycheck to
paycheck when I grew up.
Like we were, that was not myfamily.
And so I'm keenly aware ofthat.
You guys may be too.
That that is not likegovernment seeing the government
solve these problems issomething that hasn't happened

(45:02):
in decades.
That's why Ezra Klein wrote thebook he did on abundance.
Is the the Democratic Party isnot building anything.
In fact, it's designed to notbuild things because of the
pillars of, frankly, theenvironmental lobby and its
coalition.
And so these are at odds.
And the pro-growth segment ofthis country is the Latino.

(45:27):
They're the ones that areswinging hammers.
Get this.
One in five Hispanic men workin the construction trades or
related industry.
20%.
So when Joe Biden's presidentand interest rates triple, which
they did, and I'm not, it'ssome wasn't, he wasn't, he's not
the Fed, but it doesn't matter.

(45:47):
The buck stops here, right?
The interest rates triple andwe see this massive devaluation
of our currency because of theinflationary pressures year over
year.
Like housing stopped.
That's 20% of the Latino GOPjust shut down overnight,
especially men who are the mostlikely to leave, leave leave the

(46:08):
Democratic Party.
So the the working class, likeReagan, Reagan's policies, you
could make a great argument.
Reagan policies didn't help theworking class, but the we we
used to call them ReaganDemocrats.
These were hard hat, you know,lunch pail carrying guys who
were up on construction beams.
It wasn't just cultural,although there was a part of
that.
The other part was the openingup the economy to grow and

(46:32):
expand requires labor in thoseindustries.
And that's the way workingclass people see their
opportunities is hey, there's ajob I can go work at right now,
not a bridge in 10 years.
And so looking to government iswhat the Democrats do.
I'm not saying it's notvirtuous, it may be, but it's

(46:52):
not practical in the world ofpolitics, especially in the
current environment, where it'slike, oh, let's just do a bunch
of infrastructure spending,commit billions of dollars to
doing this, and then you got togo to a place like California
and actually go through theregulatory hurdles of getting a
bridge done.
Like that's gonna take maybe 30years in California to do a
freeway overpass.

Kyle (47:13):
Yeah.
So what did you tell them whenthey called you?

Mike (47:16):
I said you've got to focus on housing.
Like you got to get have ahousing plan, and they developed
the housing plan, right?
Housing is central to the wholething.
Because this is another thing Ifound too, which was really
fascinating.
And I did this, I did somepolling right after well the
short answer is this housing,housing, and housing.
If if if the if the HarrisBiden campaign had fixed

(47:37):
housing, there would they wouldhave had a shot.
Okay.
The border stuff was a bigmess, and we can talk about that
too.
It was really bad.
I just tweeted some stuff todayabout how the shifts uh in all
of the border communities fromCalifornia, San Diego, all the
way down to Brownsville, Texas,going through New Mexico and
Arizona, shifted from um a60-point swing away from the

(48:01):
Democrats from 2016 to 2024.
60.
Like I have never in my lifeseen that kind of a swing, a
realignment ever in decades,just massive.
Um, but but you know, housingagain, to to answer the question
very quickly, uh, we had a longtalk on housing and what they

(48:22):
could do for housing policy, andto try to kind of say that you
know we're going to be doingsomething on housing, but you
can't fix a housing problem in90 days.

Kyle (48:28):
No, so what is it?
You anticipated my next andlast question about this, um,
which is kind of what do youthink of that abundance
strategy, but also what do youthink of, and this is a a
distinct thing, um, but theMamdanni kind of thing.
Like, I've heard people say,I've heard the argument, I've
seen some data that seemssuggestive but not conclusive,
that maybe the best strategy forDems going forward might be to

(48:50):
lean into that a little bit morebecause the idea there is that
the mistake so far has not beenum they haven't been losing
people because they're tooliberal, they've been losing
people because they haven't beenlike showing what they can do
for them economically, right?
And the democratic socialistsare all about that.
So, like, what do Latinos tendto think about AOC?
And like, is this a areasonable path, do you think?

Mike (49:09):
That's a great question.
And the way I try to answerthis to Democrats, I speak to a
lot of Democratic audiences, um,and I'll speak to Republicans
too.
It's just they don't they don'treally have me much anymore.
But I'm not afraid to talkabout this for anybody because
I'm I'm I'm not really much of aRepublican or a Democrat
anymore.
I'm an advocate for workingclass people, and neither party
is.
As much as I'm saying theDemocratic Party isn't the party

(49:30):
of the working class anymore,I'm not suggesting the
Republicans are.
I'm saying Republicans are thebeneficiary of an exodus of
working class people from theDemocratic Party, and they
started at such a high levelthat they're naturally going to
pick them up.
And of course, they're at 50-50now.
And to me, that's the bestplace for the Latino community
to be, because as long as we're50-50, both parties will start
speaking to us and focus on ourpolicy agenda.

(49:53):
For example, the TexasRepublicans draw five new
congressional districts, threeof those are Hispanic majority,
which is they believe that theHispanic voter has moved to be a
central part of theircoalition.
I think they're making a bigmistake.
But to me, who somebody who'sbeen working on this for 35
years, to see that happening isan extraordinary, extraordinary

(50:14):
uh step, extraordinary moment.
So, to more to your question,let me answer by saying this.
Let's look at Latino workingclass voters in New York City,
for example.
Um, four years ago, theyelected a law and order
conservative Democrat named EricAdams, the current mayor,
right?
That they broke towards thecenter.

(50:35):
Two years later, they voted forDonald Trump in historically
high numbers.
They moved to a populist,nationalist, anti-immigrant,
anti-Latino guy, right?
Then eight months later, theyvote for Mom Dani in the primary
as a democratic socialist.
There's no ideologicalundercurrent there.

(50:56):
This is that populism I wastalking about when we first
started the interview.
There is an emergent Latinopopulism that is going to
redefine both parties.
So I'm not going to tellDemocrats it's Democratic
socialists or it's moderateDemocrats like Gallego.
They're both right.
As long as you've got a planand are actually talking about

(51:19):
it for once, you will get someof those votes.
The problem is Democrats,because again, they've been so
focused on things like climatechange, and climate change is
real, it's an existentialproblem.
It absolutely is.
But you you can't sacrifice onefor the other.
And and Democrats have to havea reckoning and realize that's
exactly what they've done forthe past 25 years.

(51:41):
And in that, they've gotten aton of environmental regulations
passed, but at the same time,they have lost their working
class base.

Randy (51:49):
Really quick last political question.
But um has the Democrats'seeming commitment to identity
politics played at all intotheir loss of Latino vote, do
you think?

Mike (52:04):
Yes, but not the way most people think.
How so?
The problem with theoveremphasis on identity has
created a relatability problem.
It's not that Latinos areagainst this stuff.
Some are.
I mean, of course.
But by in a way, when whenpeople are telling you in
polling data that it's economicand affordability concerns by a

(52:27):
wide measure for 30 years, andyou come back to them and want
to talk to them about racial andethnic identity, it's kind of
like, I hear you and I agreewith you, but that's not you're
talking in a different worldthan I am.
Like your reality is not myreality when that's what you
think my problem is.
You may be right, but that'sjust so inconsequential to the

(52:50):
reality of feeding my kids andand paying rent and making sure
the light stays on.
That's my reality.
Address that reality, and youknow, then I'll listen to you on
the other stuff.
It's kind of Maslow's hierarchyof needs.
So it's not that, like I said,and I tell this all the time,
it's not that the culturalissues, and I think the
Democratic Party hasover-emphasized cultural issues.
I think the Republican Partyhas framed them that way, uh,

(53:12):
you know, well, more than morethan them choosing to be.
Yeah.
Um, but they do take the bait,and and the Republican parties
are fully ensconced in culturewars, too.
That's all it is.
It's all it is.
There's no discernible ideologythere.
But that's why that it's such agood question because that's
why Latinos are the moderates inboth they're they're a working
class part com uh constituencythat is focused almost entirely

(53:34):
on economic issues.
Sure, there are someevangelicals.
It is a big part of the growingevangelical base.
Sure, there are people thatwant to say, call me Latinx and
want to reconquest America andreturn it to Mexico.
Sure, I get those extremesexist.
But the vast majority ofLatinos are in the middle
saying, What's the economicpolicy that's going to help the

(53:56):
industries that I'm in get abetter job or make more money or
not be taken away or help me,you know, uh help my family
members get a job.
Like that's once you get backto economic pocketbook issues,
you start to understand why thisis a the more moderate vote in
both parties.
And that's why the Democratshave trouble.

(54:17):
It's not because Latinos areopposed to those issues, it's
because Latinos don't prioritizethose issues.
They don't have the luxury ofprioritizing those issues.
They'll vote for a racist ifthey can help, if they believe
it's gonna help themeconomically, because they're
they're desperate.

Randy (54:31):
Okay.
Thank you.

Mike (54:31):
And they did.
Yeah.

Randy (54:33):
Good.
So switching gears, um, just tofinish finish off this
conversation, since we bookedthis interview, Charlie Kirk was
assassinated.
Not only that, but less thantwo months ago, I think less
than two months ago, right?
Re Representative MelissaHortman and her husband in
Minnesota were were killed by anextremist.
Um I mean, we could go throughall the things that have been
happening, you know, Shapiro'shouse and all the things.

(54:54):
I've heard you say that we arein the midst of a civil
conflict.
And you I've heard you say thatwe shouldn't wait for civil war
because we're in it right now.
This is what actually what itlooks like to be in civil war
today.
Um I've also heard you say thatthis political violence that
we're seeing regularly now isonly gonna get worse and might
be around for a decade or more.

(55:15):
Tell us about why you say thosethings.
Um I'm sure they'redata-driven.
I I would I'd tell us yourperception on those things and
the civil conflict, the civilwar, is it gonna get worse?

Mike (55:29):
Yeah, and look, I've been, I think, criticized a little
bit because people will say,well, I mean, you can't say
we're in the midst of a civilwar, but I I think people's
perspective and understanding ofwhat civil war is going to look
like is is kind of like old,you know, black and white
photographs of guys, you know,uh packing cannons and carrying
muskets down the field inGettysburg.

(55:50):
Like it's not that's not howthis war is going to look.
That's not how much warfare,with the exception of Ukraine,
and even then it's a drone warnow.
But you know, that's not that'snot what I mean.
What I mean is when you have acivilization like ours, whose
political system has collapsedto the point where violence is a
recurring phenomenon, uh, notunlike the troubles, for

(56:11):
example.
I made that comparison in uhIreland, which from 1969 to
about 1988, about 30 years, wasdefined largely by domestic
terrorism, terrorism itself, carbombings, shootings, guns and
gun running, um, electioncancellations, election rigging.
I mean, the whole thing.
Um, we are in a period where weare going to have contested

(56:33):
elections, where we areliterally rigging the systems,
both in Texas and in California,trying to in California, we
probably will, uh, to changeoutcomes, to cheat, to give
partisan advantage.
They're both cheating.
That's what gerrymandering is.
We are uh we don't believeelections, we're rigging the
systems in the elections.
We are seeing politicalassassinations, uh, we are

(56:54):
seeing attempts on people'slives, right?
Melissa Hortman and her husbandwere killed, but there was also
another state legislator notduring that same night who was
attacked in the middle of thenight uh in her house trying to
be killed.
Congressman Scalise,Congresswoman uh Gifford, um
Shapiro, the firebombing youtalked about.
I mean January 6th.
Like, I mean, uh on and on andon.

(57:15):
It's like at a certain point,like we keep going, is it
coming?
Is it coming?
And it's like, stop and turnaround.
We're in it.
This is what it looks like.
Now, and I believe that it'sgoing to, because of the nature
of the reaction of both sides toeach's action, that we are
going to see an a probably adramatic increase in this type

(57:36):
of behavior.
I think we're certainly seeingthat from the White House, which
is where it all begins.
And that leaves the Democratswith, at least from their
perception, uh, very fewoptions.
But the rhetoric on both sideshas dramatically escalated.
You know, New York governorKathy Hokel says we're we're in
a war.
Uh, I don't like the fight,fire with fire stuff that Gavin
Newsom is saying.
I noticed today, by the way,before I jumped on, he was

(57:59):
having his big national onlinerally where he changed the name
from FAFO, right?
They dropped that stuff.
They're kind of downplaying thefight, fire with fire stuff
after the Kirk assassination.
Uh, the the Republicans are wayover the top.
Way, I mean, they're in andlike I said, that we can get
into the who started it and andwho's worse, and it's not the

(58:19):
same.
And if you're making thatargument, I think you're kind of
it's kind of like thePalestinian-Israeli conflict.
Well, you killed us and wekilled you, and it's like at a
certain point, people are dying.
So when do we stop with theblame and start finding
solutions?
And that takes that takeseverybody's efforts to call out
the extremism on their own side.
That's the only way we get toresolution.

(58:41):
If we're still stuck in a phasewhere people are going, look,
the killer was MAGA or thekiller was leftist, trans, you
know, and trying to find andjustify why their side was right
or wrong, you're you're you'restill taking steps down the road
to violence.
That's what you're doing.
You're just you're trying tofind reasons to blame andor
justify.

(59:01):
And once once you start to seepeople exhausted by the violence
and starts to say, okay, itdoesn't matter, it's gone on too
far, I'll be the first one tosay that and acknowledge that
and extend my hands in peace.
Uh, you also have to have awilling partner.
I don't see that in the WhiteHouse right now.
I think if if if uh GavinNewsom were to say, I'll call

(59:23):
off the dogs and let's shakehands and be done with this, I
think you know, Donald Trumpwould, you know, punch him in
the face.
So I just don't think we'rethere.
I I think all the evidencesuggests that we're already in
it.
It's already happening.
It already meets all thedefinitions, at least from my my
definition of it.
And I I don't see think that weare anywhere near exhausted yet
as a country in this fight thatwe're going to do by destroying

(59:45):
ourselves.
I think we've got probablyanother decade before we can
even start thinking about it.

Kyle (59:51):
On that happy note.
Yeah, that's a little moretequila there.
Right, right.

Randy (59:56):
So I had a moment where I was driving, I can picture it.
Clear as day, driving with mydaughter, and we were listening
to the news, and Trump wassaying Trumpy things, right?
Violent, nasty, really, reallyjust ugly stuff.
And I turned off the radiobecause I just realized my
daughter, you know, she's 18now, but she was, I don't, maybe

(01:00:17):
fifteen then.
And I just realized this iskind of all she's known.
All she's known.
Right.
And so I turned off the radioand I was just like, I gotta
tell you, girl, it's not it's nit has not always been this way.
There Democrats and Republicanshaven't always liked each
other, but they sure werefriends and they sure were civil
with one another, and they suredid try to work with one

(01:00:37):
another for a long time.
Um I was watching, then fastforward to now me watching on
the the day that Charlie Kirkwas assassinated, I think last
Monday or something like that.
Um I'm watching Mike Johnson,Speaker of the House, talk on
CNN, and he's saying veryemotionally and passionately how
we have to turn down the ourrhetoric and we have to, you

(01:01:00):
know, tamp down all the violencein the way we're talking and
the way we see one another, allthe stuff that you're talking
about, really, to be honest.
Yeah.
In a ring so hollow to me,still does, it rings so hollow
to me, because he's a puppet ofDonald J.
Trump, right?
And he it just mystifies mewhen I hear this from from
politicians who obviously aresupporting and following leaders

(01:01:24):
that kind of I think I findresponsible for a lot of the
violence and the violentrhetoric that we see.
So question can can healing ofany sort happen with a person
like Trump in the White House?
And who do you think is next inin line for?
Like who is who are we going tobe voting for in the Republican

(01:01:45):
Party in you know t 2028?
Is it going to be J.D.
Vance, or do you see it getbecoming less populous, or are
we gonna go more to the to thatside?
Read your crystal ball for us alittle bit.

Mike (01:01:57):
Yeah, there's a lot there.
Right.
Uh well and look, and J.D.
Vance was on the Charlie Kirkshow, right?
There's some pretty vitriolicstuff.
Like we're going to come afterthe left, we're going to squash
it.
Stephen Miller is saying we'regoing to use the full force of
the government to shut down hatespeech.
Pam Bondi, the attorneygeneral, is now saying, you
know, we're going to investigatepeople who are involved in hate
speech, which means criticizingthe president.

(01:02:17):
That's that's what the hatespeech is now going to be
defined as if you say anythingbad about the president, that's
you know, you you're you hateAmerica, obviously, because
we're America and you're not.

Kyle (01:02:27):
For what it's worth, I saw a meme about that today with a
quote from Charlie Kirk denyingthat hate speech exists.
It was sad.

Mike (01:02:33):
Yeah.
So I you know, um I I my faithtradition teaches me that there
is no one that is beyondredemption.
I I don't believe that any ofthese people are inherently bad
people.
I don't believe there's anyevil people.
Uh I do believe you you have tobe you know contrite.

(01:02:55):
You have to want to beforgiveness, you want to change,
and then then then that canhappen, right?
I I just you you point out avery uh uh the everything you
outlined is why I don't believethat we're heading towards
better.
I think we're heading towardsworse, is because they are when
you have a guy like Mike Johnsonwho claims to be, you know, uh

(01:03:15):
maybe I shouldn't say claims tobe, but but pronounces that he
is a man of God, right?
A man of faith, and yet doesthe things that he does.
When um, you know, I I just Idon't think Charlie Kirk, I
think, was a very intelligentman.
I think he was in many ways abrilliant man.
But do I believe that Christwould be teaching that way?
Do I think that Christ would beusing the language that he was

(01:03:37):
and using the methods that hewas?
No, of course not.
I don't.
I don't think he was a good umrepresentative of the Christian
community broadly.
Um and and so look, we're we'reat this we're at this really
difficult inflection point inAmerican history.
We're we're not only strugglingover our American identity,
which is kind of the book Iwrote and what we've been

(01:03:58):
chatting about, but ourChristian identity is central to
all of that too.
Like, what is that?
What does that even mean?
And and when you're when youwhen you have to question what
that means, boy, you're alreadypretty far down the road on
trying to to find your way back.
But we have to remember that atour core, the one undebatable

(01:04:20):
thing, or maybe it's notundebatable, right?
It's like when you hear the waythey talk about immigrants or
the way they hear they talkabout Muslims, it's like these
are we're all children of God.
Like that, I think I thoughtthat that was like the basics.
Like we've got to agree onthat, right?
Like from there, we can startbuilding out different
variations of what our beliefsystems are.
But if we don't even believethat, and and worse, we're

(01:04:41):
starting to kind of bastardize aa beautiful faith into saying
that that, you know, yeah, Jesuswould be deporting these
people.
Jesus never, you know, said youcould come here illegally.
Like it's like it's just I Idon't I I think we're we're so
questioning some of the the coreidentities of what has made up
this nation for 250 years, withall of our failings, that we're

(01:05:06):
in this place where we're justkind of floating out there, very
unmoored and very unanchored.
And um I don't know thathealing is possible in this
environment, but what I do knowis this our political leaders
are not capable of leading usout of it.
I that I'm convinced.
Yes.
So the only way we get topolitical healing is through
social healing.
The only way we get to socialhealing is through our own

(01:05:27):
individual healing.
And if we are all better and webecome better stewards of who
we should be, we can change ourculture, we can change our
society, and then our politicswill reflect that.
But we can't our politicianscannot make this better.
They're they're incapable, notjust as people, although that's
also true, but systemicallythey're not capable of it.

Randy (01:05:46):
Yeah, yeah.
So that's that's a great seguethen.
So concretely then, because Ihear stuff like that that says
our our politicians areincapable of of healing this,
and I completely agree withthat.
If it's up to us, though, whatdoes that look like?
Because I feel very powerlessto change the the course of
conversation.
I mean, I'm a pastor, I cangive sermons and I can write
things and I can try to motivatepeople and all this stuff, but

(01:06:09):
most of us feel kind ofpowerless when it comes to
actually changing the course ofour political discourse, maybe,
or just being neighbors.
What does it look like to you,Mike, to be the origin of some
healing in our nation?

Mike (01:06:23):
Well, and again, just as a data guy, what I will say is
this we have been through thisbefore as human beings.
We've been through far worsethan this as a country.
And so when I say things aregonna get worse before they get
better, I want everybody tofocus on the fact that it's
going to get better.
It will, this is going to getbetter.
This dark, this dark era willpass.
Of that I am 100% convinced.

(01:06:43):
How long it will be is up tous.
And like I said, I usually lookfor a demographic reason or
explanation to understand that.
But this will absolutely pass.
The question is, who are wegoing to be when we emerge from
it?
And the only way we can answerthat question is by as much as
you feel disempowered by thefact that you're doing
something, you are doingsomething.

(01:07:04):
Like that's what's required ofus at this moment.
You're you host this podcast,you write, you talk, you reach
out to people, you serve as anexample, you're raising a
daughter who you're saying, I'mnot gonna shut this off and I'm
going to explain that this isnot right.
That's that's that's what itis.
And it may not feel like you'reyou're you know, you can affect
what Mike Johnson's gonna bedoing on whipping the votes, and
and that's problematic, butthat's literally how the healing

(01:07:27):
begins.
That that that's why it tookIreland 30 years, and and look,
the troubles were you know, theCatholic Protestant fight went
back for hundreds of years, butthe troubles itself, when when
when politics doesn't work, thedefinition of politics, you
know, uh is trying to is tryingto reconcile conflict by
peaceful means.

(01:07:48):
So when conflict falls apart,or when our structures for for
resolving conflict fall apart,violence is the inevitable
result.
So how do you solve that?
You create a scenario where youcan resolve conflict across
party lines, neighbor toneighbor, brother to brother,
person to person.
And as long as you're workingtowards that road, it may not

(01:08:10):
feel like you're seeing a votego the right way, but you've got
to heal society individuallyand one by one.
There's just no other way to doit.
There's no quick route aroundit.
There's no system, there's noprocess, there's no bill, no
politician is gonna come andsave us.
We are a sick society, we are abroken culture, we're not in
good shape, and it's kind oflike going to the gym.

(01:08:33):
You, you know, your yourphysician can tell you diet and
exercise, but until you get upand take the first steps and put
on the tennis shoes and startgoing for that walk, change
ain't gonna happen, and you'renot gonna see change happen for
a good long time because you'rereally not in good shape, and
we're not.

Kyle (01:08:51):
First first three months are gonna suck a lot.
Yeah, yeah.

Mike (01:08:54):
Yeah, but but what I will say is this this is also what
forges character in a nation,the same way it forges it in an
individual, and that's why I'mso optimistic.
I do believe that this countryhas it in our character, it is
in our nature.
You know, we have a longhistory of waiting till the last
minute to tackle major crisesin this country and and at

(01:09:16):
horrible human cost.
I mean, that's the story ofthis country.
We're gonna get there.
We will.
It's gonna take us far longerthan it should, with far more
destruction than needs tohappen, with far more deaths and
violence.
But we will get there and wewill be a better people for it
because that's that struggle iswhat makes you better.
Fighting for freedom, fightingfor equality, fighting for
racial justice, fighting to be abetter people instills that

(01:09:39):
virtue and characteristicbecause your daughter's going to
see you doing that.
And she is the one who willtake the torch to the next
generation, and that's that'swhat the whole American
experiment is about.

Kyle (01:09:50):
Yeah.
Well, in the spirit of doingthe small thing that you can do
at the moment, mine isencouraging people to try some
good tequila because nothinggreases the wheels with a
conversation with your neighboracross the political aisle, like
a good drama tequila.
Uh, and I happen to be sippingsome, and I wanted to ask you
because you said you werewriting about tequila.
Um what is your favorite andwhat are you writing about?
Wow.

Mike (01:10:11):
I like and I hate to be like the tequila snob, but I
like little artisanal batchesthat are kind of made.
Uh I I'm a big Siete Leguas isprobably my favorite.
It's a it's a Cuervo product.
Um Cieta Leguas is actually thename of Pancho Villa's horse.
It's a good uh it's uh I I likea good blanco.

(01:10:31):
Yeah.
I I I drink blancos.
I don't I don't really muchcare much for the aneos.
Um but yeah, I'm I'm umanything that's been you know
distilled and and set aside forgood good good run.
Um I'm I'm a fan of no sugarsin there, just give it to me
straight and let's uh get on thehorses and ride.

Randy (01:10:50):
Yeah.
So you're so you're working onthis book about the tequila
wars.
And tell us about the the thebook you're working on.

Mike (01:10:58):
Well, one of the a lot of what I've been working on now,
because I think our politicalsystem is so fractured, a lot of
people are like, what can we doto kind of fix the political
system?
Uh in a time of misinformationand disinformation and political
paralysis, all that reallymatters is story and narrative.
The stories that we tellourselves really matter.
And one thing that's reallyimportant to me is the lack of
positive aspirational charactersof Mexican or Latino descent on

(01:11:22):
our movie screens.
And it's always one of threestereotypes.
The stereotypes of Latinos arethere's either an undoc you are
undocumented, or you're agangbanger, or you're a narco
trafficker.
Those are the three storiesthat Hollywood wants to write.
And so in working with my agenton the on this book and talking
to some Hollywoodscreenwriters, I wanted to tell

(01:11:44):
a more epic story of uhentrepreneurs and vision and
people working to kind of bendhistory to their will, people
who were forged something grandout of nothing.
And the Mexican story that uhpopped up to me was the story of
the Cuervo family versus theSauza family, this rivalry that
begins in the early uhmid-1800s.

(01:12:06):
Uh the Cuervos have beenfarming agave um since the
1700s, but Sanobio Sausa, thethe scion of the of the Salza
dynasty, leaves the employ ofJose Cuervo and starts a rival
spirit.
And the story that thecenturies-long story of their
rivalry kind of ends duringProhibition in 1930.

(01:12:28):
Uh, but a long saga of youknow, employees being shot at
and killed, uh, Romeo and Julietromances, um, they were on the
opposite sides of revolutionarymovements, um, the prohibition,
uh, the way the margarita wasinvented, you know, how do you
how do you run tequila upthrough the border?
Some great stuff, it's greatstories.
And so, you know, it just youknow, people kind of um building

(01:12:51):
a business out of nothing uhinto this global empire.

Kyle (01:12:54):
Yeah, I've already pre-ordered it somehow.
It doesn't exist yet, butseriously.
Seriously.
We'll have you back on to talkabout that.
That's amazing.
Yeah.

Randy (01:13:01):
Uh Mike Madrid, can you tell our listeners where to find
you podcasts, books, all thethings?

Mike (01:13:06):
Yeah, if this has been of interest to you, um, I live
really on my substack.
It's called the GreatTransformation.
I call it that because I writeabout these topics all the time.
There's collapsinginstitutions, how history gives
us a guide because we have beenthrough these times before as
human beings.
I try to use historicalanalogies to explain the current
moment, um, as well as do a lotof political analysis, a lot of

(01:13:28):
polling data, like what'shappening at this moment.
And then I do throw in some ofmy own, you know, tequila
stories or stories aboutcemeteries or day trips that
I'll take or um trips around theworld to explore things.
So it's kind of a mishmash ofthings, uh, give you a whole
different perspective.
If you like this interview, ifyou're still with us, you'll
probably like the substack.
If you've checked out, itdoesn't really matter anyway.

(01:13:50):
Um, but you can also find me, Ido a Latino vote podcast with a
guy named Chuck Rocha, who wasBernie Sanders' campaign
manager, a Democrat andRepublican talking about the
Latino vote.
Uh, we've been going for aboutfour or five years.
It's kind of exploded, takingon a life of its own.
It's a fun place to talk aboutLatino vote.
Um, but yeah, I'm I'm around onyou know X and Blue Sky and all
those places too.

(01:14:10):
Awesome.

Kyle (01:14:11):
Well, thanks for talking to us.
It's been a good time.

Mike (01:14:13):
Guys, thanks for reaching out.
It was a real pleasure.
Hope you guys had as good atime as I did.
I know some of the tequila inhis hand is having a good time.
Absolutely.

Randy (01:14:20):
Absolutely, absolutely.
We'll hopefully we'll talkagain, Mike.
Take care.
Thanks.com slash a pastor and aphilosopher, where you can get

(01:14:45):
bonus content, extra perks, anda general feeling of being a
good person.

Kyle (01:14:49):
Also, please rate and review the show in Apple,
Spotify, or wherever you listen.
These help new people discoverthe show, and we may even read
your review in a future episode.

Randy (01:14:57):
If anything we said pissed you off, or if you just
have a question you'd like us toanswer, send us an email at
pastor and philosopher atgmail.com.

Kyle (01:15:05):
Find us on social media at PPWB podcast, and find
transcripts and links to all ofour episodes at Pastor and
Philosopher.puzzbrown.com.
See you next time.
Cheers