January 28, 2025 • 17 mins
Billionaires are rewriting the rules of democracy—should we be worried? Join us alongside my guest, Ohio State Representative Joe Miller, as we dissect the seismic shifts in political influence.
We tackle complex questions about transparency, the rise of dark money, and the ethical dilemmas posed by wealthy billionaires steering political narratives.
We explore Steve Bannon's "flooding the zone with shit" tactic, a strategy designed to divide and conquer public attention. We'll reflect on historical lessons, like the fall of the Roman Empire, to stress the vital role of strong institutions in preserving democracy, looking closer at what our Declaration of Independence had to say about authoritarianism.
This episode offers new interactive avenues for dialogue and drawing inspiration from Matthew Desmond's "Poverty by America." Let's rally for balanced political solutions and resist the pull of manipulated outrage.
sources:
Michael Lewis Article, Has Anyone Seen The President?
Heimler's History Citizen's United v FEC : This audio was shortened to fit for time, but the key points remain the same.
Survive Everyday on Bluesky
Adam on TikTok
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Donald Trump (00:05):
I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I
will faithfully execute theoffice of President of the
United States and will, to thebest of my ability, preserve,
protect and defend theConstitution.
I will, to the best of myability, preserve, protect and
defend.
Preserve, protect and defend.
Adam Gercak (00:27):
Welcome back to the Survive Everyday Podcast and
our special series Spark ofChange.
I'm your host, Adam Gercak.
In the last episode we doveinto money and politics and the
consequences it can have inpublic education.
We're going to continue ourconversation with Joe Miller and
go even deeper on the topic ofbillionaires in politics.
(00:48):
I guess the logical place tostart is Citizens United.
In an effort to explain it asfast as possible, here's a clip
from a YouTube channel calledHeimler's History about why the
decisions in Citizens United vFEC matters so much.
Hiemler's History (01:05):
As always, let's begin with the facts of
the case.
Now, this case is all aboutcampaign finance laws, and I
have a whole video going intodepth on that and you can see it
right over here for a morerobust history.
But here we're going to startwith the Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Act, or BICRA, passed in2002.
In addition to articulatinglimits for individuals
contributing money to politicalcandidates, there's really just
one thing you need to know aboutthis act with respect to the
Citizens United case Part of theBICRA law made it illegal for
(01:26):
corporations or non-profits toengage in electioneering
communications for 60 daysbefore an election or 30 days
before a primary.
So you want to pay a buttloadof money to smear a candidate,
fine.
But once we hit that 60 daysbefore the election, you gotta
shut your mouth hole.
Now, during the 2008 Democraticprimaries, a close contest for
the party nomination was heatingup between Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama, and a conservativegroup called Citizens United
(01:47):
decided to make a film calledHillary the Movie.
The film was full of damningaccusations against Clinton and
was intended to derail her bidfor the presidency.
However, by the time it wasready to be released, it was
already during that forbiddenperiod in which corporations had
to keep their mouth holes shutabout political candidates,
thanks to Bikram.
And so Citizens Unitedchallenged this portion of the
law and it went all the way tothe Supreme Court.
Ok, so why does this case matter?
(02:08):
Well, the perennial questionwhen it comes to campaign
finance is this; since moneyequals speech in the political
arena, is it fair for those withthe most money to have the
loudest voices?
In the Citizens United case,the Supreme Court essentially
said yeah, that's fair.
So now corporations and laborunions and non-profits and other
organizations can spend as muchmoney as they want, provided
they don't collaborate directlywith the candidate on political
(02:30):
communication right up toelection day.
The campaign finance reformlaws were put into place to put
the kibosh on corruption inelections, but the court ruled
that just because a friendlyorganization is spending a bunch
of money on a candidate'sbehalf doesn't necessarily mean
that the candidate owes themfavors, which is already illegal
under other laws.
At the end of the day, this isan issue that still ruffles
feathers and is far from beingdecided in the minds of the
(02:50):
American public, even if it isdecided in the courts.
Okay, that's what you need toknow about Citizens United v FEC
.
Adam Gercak (02:56):
Citizens United should kind of change the
dynamic right yes, it did.
How do you unring that bell?
Is it possible?
State Rep Joe Miller (03:04):
Sure.
So we're a three-branchgovernment.
We have checks and balances,which means that the Supreme
Court is not the end-all, be-all, is not the only.
However, they have a role ofinterpreting what the
Constitution means and what therights within the Constitution,
what the powers within theConstitution and what the powers
of the people are versus thegovernment.
They have ruled that the peopleshould be able to do whatever
(03:30):
they want, in any format.
They can come together andbring a bunch of money together
and utilize it to affectelections, and that would be
fine If I write a check, though.
Now, in this day and age, get onand use a credit card, it seems
, or I give you a donation.
You know where that comes from.
There's just so much dark moneyout there.
There's just so much moneythat's going into advertisements
, you know.
The biggest one, for example,was in this past election.
(03:50):
What they call the crypto brosor whatever they were calling it
.
They spent a ton of money, butyou know who they are.
And they came in, they createdtheir own little PAC and they
dumped a bunch of money into it.
It's hard to find out who, what, where, who's spending it.
It doesn't have to be told.
People don't know who's behindit.
And then they dumped a ton ofmoney into just a bunch of nasty
ads, which just seems to be thenew strategy, the new playbook
(04:13):
for politicians on both sides.
Hey, listen, if you want to saysomething negative or you want
to own it, you want to come outand make an accusation, then you
should own it.
They, you want to come?
out and make an accusation, thenyou should own it.
They're hiding behind thesewalls of money and it's
disgusting.
It's disgusting, Own yourstatement.
Adam Gercak (04:31):
If you remember what Joe said last episode, " I
don't think race is the biggestproblem right now, but I do
believe the gap between the richand the poor is causing the
most damage to our democracy.
So why is this so dangerous?
State Rep Joe Miller (04:45):
Should somebody have the ability to be
above the law because they havethat much wealth?
So I used to teach my studentsI'm like, listen, there's a
power equation, and they wouldlook at me kind of funny like
where's this in the textbook?
And I'm like, well, it's kindof the Miller power equation and
I talked about wealth being oneof the pieces of one of the
variables in the power equation.
And wealth, an exorbitantamount of wealth, can put you
(05:13):
above the law, can put you aboveeducation, can put you above a
lot of things of strength, LikeI can be the weakest guy, but if
I'm a billionaire I'll buy myarmy.
I'll buy my scientists, I'll buymy politicians.
I'll buy my scientists.
I'll buy my politicians.
I'll buy my judges.
I'll buy the law.
Who's sitting next to Trumpright now, buying their ability
(05:35):
to do what they want to do?
That makes me nervous.
Adam Gercak (05:39):
If you caught any of the inauguration coverage,
you probably noticed something.
You probably noticed who wasseated near the President Trump
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, MarkZuckerberg and Sundar Pichai
Some of the richest people onthe planet.
They sat right behind Trump'sfamily, but ahead of his own
cabinet nominees.
It might feel unprecedented tosee business moguls in such
(06:02):
close proximity to politicalpower, but it's not.
Throughout history, wealthyindustrialists have had direct
access to US presidents,especially in capitalist
democracies like ours.
Titans of industry like HenryFord, Andrew Carnegie and JP
Morgan were close to leaderslike Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson, shaping thepolicies that shaped the nation.
(06:25):
This kind of cozy relationshiphas always been a hot zone where
economic clout meets politicalstrategy.
There used to be limits.
Teddy Roosevelt, known as the"Trust Buster, took on the
monopolies of his day using theSherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
His administration broke upgiants like Rockefeller's
Standard Oil and JP Morgan'sNorthern Securities Railroad
(06:46):
Trust.
Later, during Woodrow Wilson'spresidency, the Clayton
Antitrust Act added more teethto the fight against monopolies.
It even gave labor unionsprotection, ensuring the right
to strike without being labeledmonopolies themselves.
Fast forward to today andbillionaires in the digital age
are playing by a different setof rules.
Their influence isn't justabout oil or railroads anymore,
(07:08):
it's about technology, data andglobal reach.
I guess it comes to.
The question is how do we takedown the walls that we built
around those pockets of wealth?
Because the billionaire isgoing to say well, joe, that's
all well and good, but I'llguarantee you, you tax me more.
One I'm going to donate to yourcompetitor.
(07:29):
That's one thing I'm going todo.
The One I'm going to donate toyour competitor that's one thing
I'm going to do.
The second thing I'm going todo?
State Rep Joe Miller (07:36):
is you're going to stifle innovation in
this country?
Well, I think there is.
Do you know how much innovationis being stifled by the amount
of human capital that's nevergetting a chance to be able to
make it through an educationsystem and not be incarcerated
and not be hungry, not die ofhealth reasons or societal
(07:58):
reasons?
I would say there's a lot moreloss there than there is in.
Hey, I could have had $5million more.
I couldn't invest it in newtechnology or whatever.
There's a lot of innovation inbacks, in garages, in the
basements, in little shacks orshops behind, like Edison behind
(08:23):
his house.
I mean seriously.
That argument falls for me alittle flat.
Okay, I don't know, for me alittle flat.
Okay, I don't know, just me, Imean.
Well, you're right, they'd comeafter us.
Adam Gercak (08:35):
Weren't we sending people to the moon under the
highest taxation of those?
State Rep Joe Miller (08:40):
Yeah, we were.
So we're still doing that.
Excellent point.
Adam Gercak (08:42):
Weren't we.
State Rep Joe Miller (08:43):
Excellent point, didn't?
Adam Gercak (08:45):
they come up with electric car back in the early
1900s, when they were taxingpeople more, you know.
State Rep Joe Miller (08:50):
I don't—.
Those innovations were there,weren't they?
Adam Gercak (08:52):
Yeah, but what innovations have happened, let's
say, since 1980 to today, thatweren't already in some form
started under that possibility?
Cell phones were still a thingback before 1980.
They were just government.
Only you know the small WANS,the internet.
State Rep Joe Miller (09:10):
I would say you made the point, you made
the argument and I wouldsupport that thesis.
For sure that you know thoseinnovations can still happen,
even if you're not sitting on anexorbitant amount of wealth.
You know listen thesebillionaires have so much money
they could take you out andnobody would know.
Adam Gercak (09:30):
Thanks to the Citizens United ruling,
billionaires already wieldingenormous power through their
grip on the economy now have anew weapon Unlimited money to
pour into their politicalcampaigns.
They can bankroll candidateswho will play by their rules and
if you don't toe the line,they'll fund someone else to run
against you.
It's influence on steroids.
But how does all this poweractually work?
(09:52):
How is it used to keep usdivided?
The answer came to me in anarticle by Michael Lewis from
2018.
He described watching the Stateof the Union address alongside
Steve Bannon, the strategistbehind Trump's 2016 victory,
over lunch with Lewis Bannonlaid it out bluntly, quote the
Democrats don't matter.
The real opposition is themedia, and the way to deal with
(10:15):
them is to flood the zone withshit.
So what does flooding the zonewith shit actually look like?
Fox News Reporter (10:22):
This hand motion looked like a Nazi salute
To do meet certain conditionsbefore they can get federal aid.
They decided to employ theirmoney and their means, and their
first person really was PeterThiel.
Donald Trump (10:34):
I think also he, you know he said, gee, did Biden
do this?
I think he wanted to set acontrast with Biden, you know,
by going sort of having thisrole.
Adam Gercak (10:44):
Steve Bannon might be long gone from the Trump
administration, but his playbookis still front and center.
In that same 2018 interviewwith Michael Lewis, bannon made
his vision clear it's not aboutethno-nationalism, it's just
nationalism.
He said We've got to makecitizenship as powerful as it
was in the Roman Republic.
Trump has taken this idea andrun with it, turning US
(11:07):
citizenship into something heopenly fetishizes.
Now he's making it a conditionfor providing aid.
Take California, for example.
Wildfires have just devastatedcountless homes in Los Angeles,
but Trump is tying reliefefforts to citizenship, making
it a pillar of his policy.
Donald Trump (11:24):
Voter identification.
You want to have proof ofcitizenship.
Ideally, you have one dayvoting, but I just want voter
ideas to start and I want thewater to be released, and
they're going to get a lot ofhelp from the US.
Adam Gercak (11:38):
What Steve Bannon conveniently ignores about his
obsession with Roman-stylenationalism is that the Roman
Empire didn't fall because itlacked strong citizenship.
It fell because of internalpolitical chaos, economic
decline and reckless militaryoverspending.
His glorification of the pastskips over the part where it all
came crashing down.
(11:59):
This is exactly what floodingthe zone with shit looks like
Throwing a barrage ofdisconnected controversies into
the biggest media outlets cablenews, social media and beyond to
distract and divide us.
The fuel for this chaos isanger.
They create a boogeyman andtell us the reason we're
struggling economically isbecause someone crossed the
(12:21):
border and stole our job, orthat a poor person is stealing
our money by being lazy and notgetting a job.
But here's the truth the onesrobbing us blind aren't crossing
borders.
They're sitting comfortablybehind the president at his
inauguration.
They own the social mediaplatforms we scroll, the
newspapers we read and thestores we shop at and the search
(12:43):
engines we rely on, and it'sbecoming clearer by the day how
much influence they have over apresident.
State Rep Joe Miller (12:51):
I don't think anybody should be near
government that has that kind ofmoney and, I think, government.
there should be a wall ofseparation between that, and you
know what that wall ofseparation is.
The fourth estate, thebureaucracy, the people who can
oversee it, the FBI.
So what do you do?
The CIA, the FBI, the AttorneyGeneral, the justice system all
those are set up to make surethat, regardless of how much
(13:13):
strength you have, how muchmoney you have, how much
knowledge you have, right, allthose things are not going to be
above the law, are not going tobe able to allow you to take
the rights away from others.
Well, guess what?
If you put those people inthose positions, you've now
stopped our system from workingand keeping people from being
(13:34):
above the law, and this becomesan oligarchy, this becomes an
autocratic system.
We better have a strongCongress I don't care R or D,
they better be constitutionallystrong, or this experiment is
going to be probably tested toits breaking point.
Adam Gercak (13:48):
Many episodes ago, I read the Declaration of
Independence and I want toremind you of what it says, and
perhaps a reminder to thepoliticians that took an oath to
support and defend theConstitution of the United
States.
(14:14):
Causes and accordingly, allexperience has shown that
mankind are more disposed tosuffer while the evils are
sufferable than to rightthemselves by abolishing the
forms to which they areaccustomed.
But when a long train of abusesand usurpations pursuing
invariably to the same objectevinces a design to reduce them
to absolute despotism, it istheir right, it is their duty
them to absolute despotism.
(14:34):
It is their right, it is theirduty to throw off such
government and to provide newguards for their future security
.
All this flowery language tosay this.
People are naturally inclinedto put up with problems as long
as they can tolerate them,rather than make drastic changes
to systems they're used to.
But when a governmentrepeatedly abuses its power and
aims to impose absolute control,it is not just the people's
(14:54):
right but their duty tooverthrow it and create a new
system that ensures their futurefreedom and security.
I think we're closer to it thanwe'd like to admit.
Fox News Reporter (15:05):
Well, that's where I'm told by police sources
that the UnitedHealthcare CEOis walking out this morning
around 645, heading to a veryimportant annual meeting here
for the healthcare company, whensomebody was waiting for him,
according to sources, outsideacross the street and shot him
not once but twice Once in thechest and once in his leg.
Adam Gercak (15:23):
The murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in late
2024 was a turning point, butnot for the reasons you'd expect
.
The outrage online wasn't aimedat the shooter.
It was aimed at the victim.
It's a chilling reflection ofwhere we are as a society.
If Congress, tech giants andbillionaires keep squeezing the
public, what do they think willhappen when people armed to the
(15:46):
teeth feel like they have noother options?
To everyone, glued to the news,pace yourself.
The outrage you feel is beingmanipulated, weaponized and
turned against you.
We've normalized a dangerousmindset that a win for our side
means a loss for theirs.
In politics, the idea of awin-win solution has been
(16:10):
completely erased.
I can't thank Joe Miller enoughfor his time and candor in
sharing his experiences with usand his thoughts.
Next time on Spark of Change,I'll talk to my friend Allison
as we delve deeper into thereality of community-level
poverty through the lens of adevastating medical crisis her
(16:31):
family is facing.
If you like this episode,please share it with your
friends on social media andsubscribe to the podcast in your
favorite podcast app.
Links to all articlesreferenced in this episode are
linked in the show notes.
We have a few new ways tointeract with the show.
Feel free to tag us on Blue Skyor you can now text us directly
through a link in the shownotes.
We've also brought the podcastto YouTube.
(16:54):
Although we don't use video,you can now listen to all our
episodes on YouTube.
This episode was written andedited by Adam Gerchak.
Music for the podcast wasprovided by Pixabay.
Special thanks to MatthewDesmond and his team for
providing a copy of his bookPoverty by America for our use
(17:16):
in this special series.
Spark of Change is a Survive,everyday Media podcast.
I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I
will faithfully execute theoffice of President of the
United States and will, to thebest of my ability, preserve,
protect and defend theConstitution.
I will, to the best of myability, preserve, protect and
defend.
Preserve, protect and defend.
Adam Gercak (00:27):
Welcome back to the Survive Everyday Podcast and
our special series Spark ofChange.
I'm your host, Adam Gercak.
In the last episode we doveinto money and politics and the
consequences it can have inpublic education.
We're going to continue ourconversation with Joe Miller and
go even deeper on the topic ofbillionaires in politics.
(00:48):
I guess the logical place tostart is Citizens United.
In an effort to explain it asfast as possible, here's a clip
from a YouTube channel calledHeimler's History about why the
decisions in Citizens United vFEC matters so much.
Hiemler's History (01:05):
As always, let's begin with the facts of
the case.
Now, this case is all aboutcampaign finance laws, and I
have a whole video going intodepth on that and you can see it
right over here for a morerobust history.
But here we're going to startwith the Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Act, or BICRA, passed in2002.
In addition to articulatinglimits for individuals
contributing money to politicalcandidates, there's really just
one thing you need to know aboutthis act with respect to the
Citizens United case Part of theBICRA law made it illegal for
(01:26):
corporations or non-profits toengage in electioneering
communications for 60 daysbefore an election or 30 days
before a primary.
So you want to pay a buttloadof money to smear a candidate,
fine.
But once we hit that 60 daysbefore the election, you gotta
shut your mouth hole.
Now, during the 2008 Democraticprimaries, a close contest for
the party nomination was heatingup between Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama, and a conservativegroup called Citizens United
(01:47):
decided to make a film calledHillary the Movie.
The film was full of damningaccusations against Clinton and
was intended to derail her bidfor the presidency.
However, by the time it wasready to be released, it was
already during that forbiddenperiod in which corporations had
to keep their mouth holes shutabout political candidates,
thanks to Bikram.
And so Citizens Unitedchallenged this portion of the
law and it went all the way tothe Supreme Court.
Ok, so why does this case matter?
(02:08):
Well, the perennial questionwhen it comes to campaign
finance is this; since moneyequals speech in the political
arena, is it fair for those withthe most money to have the
loudest voices?
In the Citizens United case,the Supreme Court essentially
said yeah, that's fair.
So now corporations and laborunions and non-profits and other
organizations can spend as muchmoney as they want, provided
they don't collaborate directlywith the candidate on political
(02:30):
communication right up toelection day.
The campaign finance reformlaws were put into place to put
the kibosh on corruption inelections, but the court ruled
that just because a friendlyorganization is spending a bunch
of money on a candidate'sbehalf doesn't necessarily mean
that the candidate owes themfavors, which is already illegal
under other laws.
At the end of the day, this isan issue that still ruffles
feathers and is far from beingdecided in the minds of the
(02:50):
American public, even if it isdecided in the courts.
Okay, that's what you need toknow about Citizens United v FEC
.
Adam Gercak (02:56):
Citizens United should kind of change the
dynamic right yes, it did.
How do you unring that bell?
Is it possible?
State Rep Joe Miller (03:04):
Sure.
So we're a three-branchgovernment.
We have checks and balances,which means that the Supreme
Court is not the end-all, be-all, is not the only.
However, they have a role ofinterpreting what the
Constitution means and what therights within the Constitution,
what the powers within theConstitution and what the powers
of the people are versus thegovernment.
They have ruled that the peopleshould be able to do whatever
(03:30):
they want, in any format.
They can come together andbring a bunch of money together
and utilize it to affectelections, and that would be
fine If I write a check, though.
Now, in this day and age, get onand use a credit card, it seems
, or I give you a donation.
You know where that comes from.
There's just so much dark moneyout there.
There's just so much moneythat's going into advertisements
, you know.
The biggest one, for example,was in this past election.
(03:50):
What they call the crypto brosor whatever they were calling it
.
They spent a ton of money, butyou know who they are.
And they came in, they createdtheir own little PAC and they
dumped a bunch of money into it.
It's hard to find out who, what, where, who's spending it.
It doesn't have to be told.
People don't know who's behindit.
And then they dumped a ton ofmoney into just a bunch of nasty
ads, which just seems to be thenew strategy, the new playbook
(04:13):
for politicians on both sides.
Hey, listen, if you want to saysomething negative or you want
to own it, you want to come outand make an accusation, then you
should own it.
They, you want to come?
out and make an accusation, thenyou should own it.
They're hiding behind thesewalls of money and it's
disgusting.
It's disgusting, Own yourstatement.
Adam Gercak (04:31):
If you remember what Joe said last episode, " I
don't think race is the biggestproblem right now, but I do
believe the gap between the richand the poor is causing the
most damage to our democracy.
So why is this so dangerous?
State Rep Joe Miller (04:45):
Should somebody have the ability to be
above the law because they havethat much wealth?
So I used to teach my studentsI'm like, listen, there's a
power equation, and they wouldlook at me kind of funny like
where's this in the textbook?
And I'm like, well, it's kindof the Miller power equation and
I talked about wealth being oneof the pieces of one of the
variables in the power equation.
And wealth, an exorbitantamount of wealth, can put you
(05:13):
above the law, can put you aboveeducation, can put you above a
lot of things of strength, LikeI can be the weakest guy, but if
I'm a billionaire I'll buy myarmy.
I'll buy my scientists, I'll buymy politicians.
I'll buy my scientists.
I'll buy my politicians.
I'll buy my judges.
I'll buy the law.
Who's sitting next to Trumpright now, buying their ability
(05:35):
to do what they want to do?
That makes me nervous.
Adam Gercak (05:39):
If you caught any of the inauguration coverage,
you probably noticed something.
You probably noticed who wasseated near the President Trump
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, MarkZuckerberg and Sundar Pichai
Some of the richest people onthe planet.
They sat right behind Trump'sfamily, but ahead of his own
cabinet nominees.
It might feel unprecedented tosee business moguls in such
(06:02):
close proximity to politicalpower, but it's not.
Throughout history, wealthyindustrialists have had direct
access to US presidents,especially in capitalist
democracies like ours.
Titans of industry like HenryFord, Andrew Carnegie and JP
Morgan were close to leaderslike Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson, shaping thepolicies that shaped the nation.
(06:25):
This kind of cozy relationshiphas always been a hot zone where
economic clout meets politicalstrategy.
There used to be limits.
Teddy Roosevelt, known as the"Trust Buster, took on the
monopolies of his day using theSherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
His administration broke upgiants like Rockefeller's
Standard Oil and JP Morgan'sNorthern Securities Railroad
(06:46):
Trust.
Later, during Woodrow Wilson'spresidency, the Clayton
Antitrust Act added more teethto the fight against monopolies.
It even gave labor unionsprotection, ensuring the right
to strike without being labeledmonopolies themselves.
Fast forward to today andbillionaires in the digital age
are playing by a different setof rules.
Their influence isn't justabout oil or railroads anymore,
(07:08):
it's about technology, data andglobal reach.
I guess it comes to.
The question is how do we takedown the walls that we built
around those pockets of wealth?
Because the billionaire isgoing to say well, joe, that's
all well and good, but I'llguarantee you, you tax me more.
One I'm going to donate to yourcompetitor.
(07:29):
That's one thing I'm going todo.
The One I'm going to donate toyour competitor that's one thing
I'm going to do.
The second thing I'm going todo?
State Rep Joe Miller (07:36):
is you're going to stifle innovation in
this country?
Well, I think there is.
Do you know how much innovationis being stifled by the amount
of human capital that's nevergetting a chance to be able to
make it through an educationsystem and not be incarcerated
and not be hungry, not die ofhealth reasons or societal
(07:58):
reasons?
I would say there's a lot moreloss there than there is in.
Hey, I could have had $5million more.
I couldn't invest it in newtechnology or whatever.
There's a lot of innovation inbacks, in garages, in the
basements, in little shacks orshops behind, like Edison behind
(08:23):
his house.
I mean seriously.
That argument falls for me alittle flat.
Okay, I don't know, for me alittle flat.
Okay, I don't know, just me, Imean.
Well, you're right, they'd comeafter us.
Adam Gercak (08:35):
Weren't we sending people to the moon under the
highest taxation of those?
State Rep Joe Miller (08:40):
Yeah, we were.
So we're still doing that.
Excellent point.
Adam Gercak (08:42):
Weren't we.
State Rep Joe Miller (08:43):
Excellent point, didn't?
Adam Gercak (08:45):
they come up with electric car back in the early
1900s, when they were taxingpeople more, you know.
State Rep Joe Miller (08:50):
I don't—.
Those innovations were there,weren't they?
Adam Gercak (08:52):
Yeah, but what innovations have happened, let's
say, since 1980 to today, thatweren't already in some form
started under that possibility?
Cell phones were still a thingback before 1980.
They were just government.
Only you know the small WANS,the internet.
State Rep Joe Miller (09:10):
I would say you made the point, you made
the argument and I wouldsupport that thesis.
For sure that you know thoseinnovations can still happen,
even if you're not sitting on anexorbitant amount of wealth.
You know listen thesebillionaires have so much money
they could take you out andnobody would know.
Adam Gercak (09:30):
Thanks to the Citizens United ruling,
billionaires already wieldingenormous power through their
grip on the economy now have anew weapon Unlimited money to
pour into their politicalcampaigns.
They can bankroll candidateswho will play by their rules and
if you don't toe the line,they'll fund someone else to run
against you.
It's influence on steroids.
But how does all this poweractually work?
(09:52):
How is it used to keep usdivided?
The answer came to me in anarticle by Michael Lewis from
2018.
He described watching the Stateof the Union address alongside
Steve Bannon, the strategistbehind Trump's 2016 victory,
over lunch with Lewis Bannonlaid it out bluntly, quote the
Democrats don't matter.
The real opposition is themedia, and the way to deal with
(10:15):
them is to flood the zone withshit.
So what does flooding the zonewith shit actually look like?
Fox News Reporter (10:22):
This hand motion looked like a Nazi salute
To do meet certain conditionsbefore they can get federal aid.
They decided to employ theirmoney and their means, and their
first person really was PeterThiel.
Donald Trump (10:34):
I think also he, you know he said, gee, did Biden
do this?
I think he wanted to set acontrast with Biden, you know,
by going sort of having thisrole.
Adam Gercak (10:44):
Steve Bannon might be long gone from the Trump
administration, but his playbookis still front and center.
In that same 2018 interviewwith Michael Lewis, bannon made
his vision clear it's not aboutethno-nationalism, it's just
nationalism.
He said We've got to makecitizenship as powerful as it
was in the Roman Republic.
Trump has taken this idea andrun with it, turning US
(11:07):
citizenship into something heopenly fetishizes.
Now he's making it a conditionfor providing aid.
Take California, for example.
Wildfires have just devastatedcountless homes in Los Angeles,
but Trump is tying reliefefforts to citizenship, making
it a pillar of his policy.
Donald Trump (11:24):
Voter identification.
You want to have proof ofcitizenship.
Ideally, you have one dayvoting, but I just want voter
ideas to start and I want thewater to be released, and
they're going to get a lot ofhelp from the US.
Adam Gercak (11:38):
What Steve Bannon conveniently ignores about his
obsession with Roman-stylenationalism is that the Roman
Empire didn't fall because itlacked strong citizenship.
It fell because of internalpolitical chaos, economic
decline and reckless militaryoverspending.
His glorification of the pastskips over the part where it all
came crashing down.
(11:59):
This is exactly what floodingthe zone with shit looks like
Throwing a barrage ofdisconnected controversies into
the biggest media outlets cablenews, social media and beyond to
distract and divide us.
The fuel for this chaos isanger.
They create a boogeyman andtell us the reason we're
struggling economically isbecause someone crossed the
(12:21):
border and stole our job, orthat a poor person is stealing
our money by being lazy and notgetting a job.
But here's the truth the onesrobbing us blind aren't crossing
borders.
They're sitting comfortablybehind the president at his
inauguration.
They own the social mediaplatforms we scroll, the
newspapers we read and thestores we shop at and the search
(12:43):
engines we rely on, and it'sbecoming clearer by the day how
much influence they have over apresident.
State Rep Joe Miller (12:51):
I don't think anybody should be near
government that has that kind ofmoney and, I think, government.
there should be a wall ofseparation between that, and you
know what that wall ofseparation is.
The fourth estate, thebureaucracy, the people who can
oversee it, the FBI.
So what do you do?
The CIA, the FBI, the AttorneyGeneral, the justice system all
those are set up to make surethat, regardless of how much
(13:13):
strength you have, how muchmoney you have, how much
knowledge you have, right, allthose things are not going to be
above the law, are not going tobe able to allow you to take
the rights away from others.
Well, guess what?
If you put those people inthose positions, you've now
stopped our system from workingand keeping people from being
(13:34):
above the law, and this becomesan oligarchy, this becomes an
autocratic system.
We better have a strongCongress I don't care R or D,
they better be constitutionallystrong, or this experiment is
going to be probably tested toits breaking point.
Adam Gercak (13:48):
Many episodes ago, I read the Declaration of
Independence and I want toremind you of what it says, and
perhaps a reminder to thepoliticians that took an oath to
support and defend theConstitution of the United
States.
(14:14):
Causes and accordingly, allexperience has shown that
mankind are more disposed tosuffer while the evils are
sufferable than to rightthemselves by abolishing the
forms to which they areaccustomed.
But when a long train of abusesand usurpations pursuing
invariably to the same objectevinces a design to reduce them
to absolute despotism, it istheir right, it is their duty
them to absolute despotism.
(14:34):
It is their right, it is theirduty to throw off such
government and to provide newguards for their future security
.
All this flowery language tosay this.
People are naturally inclinedto put up with problems as long
as they can tolerate them,rather than make drastic changes
to systems they're used to.
But when a governmentrepeatedly abuses its power and
aims to impose absolute control,it is not just the people's
(14:54):
right but their duty tooverthrow it and create a new
system that ensures their futurefreedom and security.
I think we're closer to it thanwe'd like to admit.
Fox News Reporter (15:05):
Well, that's where I'm told by police sources
that the UnitedHealthcare CEOis walking out this morning
around 645, heading to a veryimportant annual meeting here
for the healthcare company, whensomebody was waiting for him,
according to sources, outsideacross the street and shot him
not once but twice Once in thechest and once in his leg.
Adam Gercak (15:23):
The murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in late
2024 was a turning point, butnot for the reasons you'd expect
.
The outrage online wasn't aimedat the shooter.
It was aimed at the victim.
It's a chilling reflection ofwhere we are as a society.
If Congress, tech giants andbillionaires keep squeezing the
public, what do they think willhappen when people armed to the
(15:46):
teeth feel like they have noother options?
To everyone, glued to the news,pace yourself.
The outrage you feel is beingmanipulated, weaponized and
turned against you.
We've normalized a dangerousmindset that a win for our side
means a loss for theirs.
In politics, the idea of awin-win solution has been
(16:10):
completely erased.
I can't thank Joe Miller enoughfor his time and candor in
sharing his experiences with usand his thoughts.
Next time on Spark of Change,I'll talk to my friend Allison
as we delve deeper into thereality of community-level
poverty through the lens of adevastating medical crisis her
(16:31):
family is facing.
If you like this episode,please share it with your
friends on social media andsubscribe to the podcast in your
favorite podcast app.
Links to all articlesreferenced in this episode are
linked in the show notes.
We have a few new ways tointeract with the show.
Feel free to tag us on Blue Skyor you can now text us directly
through a link in the shownotes.
We've also brought the podcastto YouTube.
(16:54):
Although we don't use video,you can now listen to all our
episodes on YouTube.
This episode was written andedited by Adam Gerchak.
Music for the podcast wasprovided by Pixabay.
Special thanks to MatthewDesmond and his team for
providing a copy of his bookPoverty by America for our use
(17:16):
in this special series.
Spark of Change is a Survive,everyday Media podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!