Air Date 8/13/2024
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.
Spirits among Kamala Harris supporters, Democrats, and anyone opposing Trumpism are at basically an all-time high right now. That is both fortuitous and crucial to the upcoming election. By the very nature of Trumpism, this election will be the most flagrantly contested in history, With far more Trump loyalists in place than in 2020 who are ready to throw wrenches in the works wherever they can. Nothing short of overwhelming victory for the Harris-Walz ticket is necessary to stave off a constitutional crisis.
Sources providing our Top Takes in under an hour today, include The Rachel Maddow Show, Legal Eagle, Democracy Now!, The Thom Hartmann Program, Justice by Design, and The Brennan Center for Justice. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more on five topics: Section A. The mechanics of [00:01:00] minority rule; Section B. The proponents of minority rule; Section C. The history of minority rule; Section D. A global perspective; and Section E. Activism.
Maddow points out frightening truth about Trump's lack of concern about votes - The Rachel Maddow Show - Air Date 7-29-24
RACHEL MADDOW: You probably heard this weekend that Donald Trump told an audience on Friday night that if they vote for him this November, if he's voted back into office this November, they will never have to vote again. He told an audience on Friday to, quote, "get out and vote just this time." He said, after this time, quote, "you won't have to do it anymore." You won't have to vote anymore. He said, quote, "In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good and you're not going to have to vote."
Now, this is not the first time Trump has told a campaign audience that they will never have to vote again once they vote him back in this time. And that is as alarming as it sounds for all the reasons that you immediately think it is, right? He's positing this like this is a happy thing. Oh joy, [00:02:00] never having the burden of voting again, right? The point of democracy is that we vote all the time. And we like it. That's how we decide what happens in our country. He's promising his followers that he'll end all of that. And it's exactly what you think it is.
But let me also point out something more strange, which has been happening at the same time and it hasn't had as much attention. The day before Trump made those remarks on Friday -- on Friday, he said, you're never going to have to vote again after you vote for me this one time. The day before that, on Thursday last week, he didn't say that people wouldn't have to vote anymore once he was elected this November. Now, the day before that, on Thursday, he told his supporters, not that they're not going to have to vote again, but that they don't have to vote this time. That they don't need to vote for him this November.
DONALD TRUMP: My instruction, we don't need the votes. I have so many votes. [00:03:00]
RACHEL MADDOW: My instruction, we don't need the votes. I have so many votes. He said that on Thursday last week. And it turns out this is something, when you look, he says this all the time now. Watch.
DONALD TRUMP: My instruction, we don't need the votes. I have so many votes.
We don't need votes. I tell my people, I don't need any votes. We got all the votes we need. I don't need votes.
We don't need votes. We got more votes than anybody's ever had.
You don't have to vote. Don't worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes.
RACHEL MADDOW: Don't worry about voting. Of all the weirdness around this campaign, this is a truly strange thing to tell people, right?
Don't vote. I don't need your vote. I don't want your vote.
I mean, all the surface level weirdness is, you know, worth noting. Having a new position on literally anything you can think of as soon as any random rich guy tells you to, that's a weird thing. Picking the eccentric billionaire's intern for your running mate, even though you apparently had [00:04:00] no idea who he was or what a disaster he is on television, all of this is weird.
But telling voters do not bother to vote for me, It doesn't matter if you do, I don't need your votes. That is a thing that should prick up your ears. Because what that means is that he doesn't think he needs to win the vote to win the election. He doesn't think he needs to win the election in order to take power.
He thinks something other than votes is going to determine whether or not he gets back in the White House.
At Rolling Stone today, they profile 70 different election officials who have been put into position in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, who are election denialists, committed election denialists, officials that have been put in place and all of those swing states to make sure that election results, no matter what they are, do not get certified in those states this year.
Quote, "At least 22 of these election officials have [00:05:00] already refused or delayed certification processes in recent elections." According to Democratic election lawyer, Mark Elias, quote, "I think we are going to see mass refusals to certify the election in November." Quote, "Republicans are counting on not just that they can disrupt the election in big counties; they're counting on the fact that if they don't certify in several small counties, you can't certify statewide results.
70 officials in place across just the swing states.
For all the surface-level weird behavior and language and strange choices and incoherence and odd donors in the Republican campaign, the serious core at the heart of it is that they are not planning on the vote being counted as normal. They are not counting on the election results being tallied as normal. They are not counting on the vote. And in fact, Trump is now repeatedly saying the vote will not matter. He doesn't even want [00:06:00] your vote.
The Republicans are counting on the election results not being certified, thereby creating chaos in Washington around the results.
Just like 2020, right? Just like January 6th, 2021. Except this time with no Mike Pence in the way, and with Republican officials already in place in multiple states saying, Yeah, you may not get any sort of official vote.
The weirdness of this campaign is astonishing, 99 days out. The dislocation from real campaigning, though, the dislocation from actually asking people for their votes, that means something. It means they are not trying to win this thing in a normal way.
So 99 days out, as Democrats stand up what by all accounts looks like a juggernaut traditional campaign under Kamala Harris, are they prepared for this level of weirdness after the votes are cast? Are they ready for [00:07:00] what's coming?
How Trump (Allegedly) Tried to Steal the Election - LegalEagle - Air Date 8-12-23
DEVIN JAMES STONE - HOST, LEAGALEAGLE: Prosecutor Jack Smith lays out a story that is as yet unproven in court, but is the most comprehensive look at the conspiracy to overturn and subvert the 2020 election to date. Now, this story takes place in two months between November 14th, 2020, and Joe Biden's swearing in ceremony on January 20th, 2021. The indictment says that the conspiracy started 11 days after the general election. Now, during that time, we got the worst gang of criminals to work with Donald Trump since Harry and Marvin Home Alone 2.
This cast of characters is enumerated in paragraph 8, starting with Co-conspirator 1 an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that defendants 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not. You guessed it, give it up for America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani.
Co-conspirator 2 an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the vice president's ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election. That is top Republican legal mind John Eastman.
Co-conspirator 3 an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the defendant [00:08:00] privately acknowledged to others sounded crazy. Nonetheless, the defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-conspirator 3's disinformation. You know her from shipwrecks of old, give it up for Sidney "The Kraken" Powell.
Then there's Co-conspirator 4, a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud. He was a lawyer in the Environment and Natural Resources Division until Trump offered to make him Acting Attorney General. Yes, this is Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey, "we'll call you when there's an oil spill" Clark.
Then there's Co-conspirator 5, an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct these certification proceedings. This is appellate lawyer and humorous name haver Kenneth Cheesebro.
Then there is finally Co-conspirator 6, a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct these certification proceedings. Co-conspirator 6 appears to be Boris Epstein, one of Trump's advisers, though this has yet to be [00:09:00] confirmed. Epstein is best known for writing Trump's controversial Holocaust remembrance day speech, in which he omitted any mention of Jewish people.
Yeah, this has not been a great day for the legal profession because all six of the co-conspirators may in fact be lawyers. These six co-conspirators could be indicted in the coming weeks or months, or they could be government witnesses. No one knows at the moment, and it may be up to them.
But the bottom line is Trump worked with this cast of co-conspirators to subvert the Electoral Count Act and stop Congress from certifying the election. The ECA governs the process of casting and counting Electoral College votes for President and Vice President and the statute sets forth a timeline for states to appoint presidential elections in November and for electors to cast their votes in December, and describes the process that Congress should follow when it counts the state's electoral votes in January.
These days, each state cast electoral votes based on their state's popular vote, and then sends their electoral votes along with the state executive's certification that they were the state's legitimate electors to Congress to be counted at an official proceeding. Now, the indictment says that Trump and [00:10:00] his cronies organized, "fraudulent slates of electors" in seven targeted states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, attempting to mimic the procedure that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the constitution and other federal and state laws.
The conspirators caused these fake electors to "meet on the day appointed by federal law on which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes, cast fraudulent votes for the defendant, and signed certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors." One day before Trump was indicted in D.C., 16 of these fraudulent electors were indicted in Michigan for participating in this scheme. And Trump also attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to launch a sham criminal investigation into voter fraud that didn't occur. This apparently included sending a letter outlining false claims that the DOJ discovered massive election irregularities, and recommending that these states call a special legislative session to determine quote, who won the most legal votes, and consider appointing a new slate of electors.
Now, some of the most troubling allegations [00:11:00] involve Jeffrey Clark, the environmental lawyer at the DOJ who Trump wanted to appoint as attorney general in the waning weeks of his term. Clark met secretly with Trump on December 22nd, failing to inform his superiors of the meeting, which, is of course, DOJ protocol. Now it's obvious why he didn't tell them. Trump and his allies allegedly tried to get acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen to sign a letter that made quote, "knowingly false claims of election fraud to officials in the targeted States through a formal letter under the acting attorney general signature, thus giving the defendants lies the backing of the federal government and attempting to improperly influence the target States to replace legitimate Biden electors with defendants."
Now, apparently Rosen wanted nothing to do with this, And on December 26th, he told Clark not to meet with Trump again without notice. Clark said the meeting was an accident and he would abide by Rosen's directive. But the next morning he had a three minute phone call with Trump, And afterwards, Trump met with Rosen and the acting deputy attorney general and told them that he was considering replacing Rosen with Clark. "People tell me Jeffrey Clark is great. I should put him in." when Rosen [00:12:00] refused to say the election was corrupt, Trump told him to, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." And of course people are pointing to this quote as evidence that Trump actually knew that the election was not fraudulent. On December 28th, Clark circulated the letter Trump wanted Rosen to send.
And it's important to note here how insane it is that Jeff Clark, who was still officially assigned to the environmental department, was suddenly running point on Trump's maneuvers with the DOJ. He was sending his boss, Jeff Rosen, the same letter that Rosen had already refused to sign. Clark proposed sending versions of this to battleground states that Biden won. And here's the claims made in that letter, which the government says are false. false. The Justice Department had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states. The Justice Department believed that in Georgia and other states, two valid slates of electors had gathered at the proper location on December 14th, and that both sets of ballots had been transmitted to Congress. That is, Co-conspirator 4, Jeff Clark's, letters sought to advance the defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the authority of the Justice Department to [00:13:00] falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors.
The Justice Department urged the state legislature to convene a special legislative session to create the opportunity to, among other things, choose the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors, but Rosen rebuffed Clark again and told him not to engage with Trump. On New Year's Eve, Trump summoned Rosen and other DOJ lawyers and told them he might have to change leadership at the DOJ.
Now, the Justice Department traditionally operates fairly independently from the White House. Presidents aren't supposed to order the Attorney General to make legal decisions, but here was Trump insisting that they send the letter. And on January 2nd, Clark continued his insubordination by asking his boss and others to sign the letter Trump wanted to send. He told them that Trump was considering firing Rosen and replacing him with Clark, but that he declined the job if Rosen would just cave and send the letter with false fraud allegations.
On January 3rd, Clark revised the fraud letter, changing its language about concerns to a stronger false claim that , "as of today, there is evidence of significant irregularities. that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states." Now that was apparently enough for [00:14:00] Trump to give him the acting attorney general job because the two met and Clark accepted the job. So Clark spent all day scheming with Trump and testing the limits of the new power. Now, apparently quote, "a deputy White House counsel tried to dissuade Clark from assuming the role of acting attorney general. The deputy White House counsel reiterated to Co-conspirator 4, Jeff Clark, that there had not been outcome determinative fraud in the election and that if the defendant remained in office, nonetheless, there would be 'riots in every major city in the United States'."
Jeff Clark responded, quote, "well, deputy White House counsel, that's why there's an insurrection act." Clark apparently then called his boss and told him that he was now the acting attorney general. Rosen "responded that he would not accept being fired by a subordinate and immediately scheduled a meeting with the defendant for that evening." But there was apparently a very strong push by the Justice Department attorneys to stop Trump and Clark from implicating the DOJ in overturning a valid election. In fact, Trump only gave up on his plan to install Clark as AG after, "he was told that it would result in mass resignations at the Justice Department and of his [00:15:00] own White House counsel." Of course, mass resignations are not something that happened every day, and if the Justice Department lawyers resigned en masse, then it would probably have blown the whistle on what the conspirators were trying to do.
As Tension over Venezuelan Election Escalates, the Left Debates Who Won the Contested Vote - Democracy Now! - Air Date 8-5-24
EDGARDO LANDER: There is no doubt that Maduro was overwhelmingly defeated by this elections. The electoral system in Venezuela, it’s — the technical part of the system is probably one of the best in the world. There’s hardly any possibility of interference with the results at the technical level. But there are many mechanisms incorporated into the system, including paper ballots, that are printed, and acts that are registered and signed by the witnesses at each voting booth that can be compared with the results presented by the totals of the Electoral Council.
All the steps [00:16:00] that secure the system that are checks established in the system were completely thrown out by the Electoral Council. They published a made-up data, so-called final results. They declared Maduro president before they had even finished counting. There were more than — almost 3 million votes that hadn’t been counted by the time they declared.
And it is a fact that the witnesses at the voting booths have copies of what actually happened at each voting booth. And it’s clear that these papers show that there was an overwhelming result. I directly know of several centers in — that had been radically Chavistas up to some short time ago where the results were against the government. This is really representative also of [00:17:00] a tendency where even the most Chavista centers in the country voted against Maduro. So there’s no doubt that Maduro lost this elections.
Maduro has now decided to ask the Supreme Court to check the whole process again in order to figure out what’s going on.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s go to Nina Farnia.
EDGARDO LANDER: It’s very clear that this is — this caused —
AMY GOODMAN: Edgardo, we’re going to get comment from Nina Farnia, legal historian at Albany Law School. You’re just back from Venezuela. You were an observer with the National Lawyers Guild. If you can talk about what you saw, and respond to Edgardo Lander?
NINA FARNIA: Well, thank you for having me on, Amy.
What we witnessed, by and large, was a free and fair election process, which explains why former President Jimmy Carter once called this system the best electoral system in the world. We were part of a large international delegation of election monitors that [00:18:00] included members of the African Union and the Latin American election experts, and we were quarantined with the rest of our delegation in a hotel that was separate from all the political activities. We attended days of trainings about the Venezuelan electoral system, about the laws that protect it, and then we were taken — prior to the elections, we were taken to polling stations around the country, where we saw the touchscreen voting machines. We saw the ballot boxes for the paper ballots. We met the directors of each voting center.
On the day of the election, our NLG delegation had the privilege of interviewing voters as they were going in and out of the voting room, and we also interviewed members of each of the parties that were there to monitor the elections, the polling stations. We also interviewed opposition voters. We didn’t hear any concerns from [00:19:00] any voters or observers. Every single person that we spoke with said that this is a free and fair process. They had faith in the system. And, in fact, what we saw was a ton of energy around each of the stations that we visited. People were proud to vote. They take that — they view voting as a pillar of the Venezuelan democracy and of the Bolivarian Revolution.
AMY GOODMAN: And your sense of what had happened before? The polls showed that González had won or was going to win by a landslide. Ultimately, what the Electoral Council announced was that — and, of course, we all know that polls can be very wrong — was that Maduro had won by 51%, Nina.
NINA FARNIA: Yes. So, exit polling is illegal in Venezuela, because it can — it has the effect of [00:20:00] altering votes. And also, a lot of the polling results that were used in the U.S. media, the polling predictions that were used in the U.S. media were discredited by Venezuelanalysis, a trusted news source in Venezuela, that has also been critical of the Maduro government.
We actually are very concerned by the claim that González has won. González was a diplomat in — a Venezuelan diplomat in El Salvador during the Salvadoran death squads. He was number two stationed there. He has blood on his hands. He has Salvadoran blood on his hands. And so, the idea that the Venezuelans would support a government, a president who executed U.S. foreign policy in El Salvador decades ago is shocking to us. It’s up, ultimately, to the Supreme Court to decide.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Edgardo Lander, you have said it’s clear that Maduro [00:21:00] lost. You are a leading left voice in Venezuela and, globally, one of the early leaders of the World Social Forum. Even in the United States, when they were demanding that the ballots be shown the following morning, they are not available, for example, in the United States, what happens, right after an election. In what way were these opposition shown ballots verified by anyone but the opposition? And what do you say, Edgardo Lander, to those fellow leftists who say this is a result of a longtime U.S. campaign to unseat Maduro, to destabilize his government with crushing sanctions?
EDGARDO LANDER: In the first place, the demand to have public access to the ballots [00:22:00] is not some weird demand that somebody made up. It’s part of the controls that are established in Venezuelan laws. According to Venezuelan laws, the Electoral Council has to publicly present the ballots at each voting center. And it has absolutely denied to do so. So it’s absolutely clear that they had presented a total result with no backing whatsoever, so the backing that’s expected and established by the law is completely absent.
The ballots that are in the hands of the González people are not the only ballots that are available, because different candidates and their witnesses get copies of the ballots at the voting centers. And all the ballots that are in the hands of this several other candidates show the same tendencies. They show the [00:23:00] tendencies that there was an overwhelming majority of people voting against Maduro.
I think that this is a test for the left internationally. If the left in many places of the world, in Latin America, in the United States, Europe, some sectors of the left, continue to call the Venezuelan government as a revolutionary leftist government, if this repressive, authoritarian, corrupt, extractivist government that is destroying the environment, and it’s in constant violation of human rights, is defined as left, if this is what’s presented as the offer for the future of humanity, then it’s clear that this left is contributing to increasing the [00:24:00] appeal of the right wing and the far right wing. This has ceased to be a leftist government a long time ago.
The conflict in Venezuela has not been in this election a conflict between left and right. It’s a conflict between a repressive government and a whole spread of positions in Venezuelan society that go from far right to left, that includes social democrats, that includes progressives, that includes liberals. It includes a whole spread of people who want to recover democracy, who want to recover the Constitution in Venezuela, which is completely violated by this increasingly authoritarian government. If this result is imposed on the Venezuelan society, this could be the nail on the coffin that will be the end result of these authoritarian tendencies that have been going on [00:25:00] for quite some time and establish a truly authoritarian government.
So it’s very important for the left in Venezuela to get as much solidarity from the left internationally in the recognition that this is not a U.S. conspiracy, that it’s not fascism. We reject U.S. intervention. The United States has no right to decide who won the elections. This is an issue for Venezuelans to decide. And the United States has been intervening in Venezuela for a long time. Sanctions have had a dramatic impact on Venezuelan society. The humanitarian crisis and almost 8 million people that have left the country because they see no future are basically the result of U.S. intervention and U.S. sanctions. So, it’s not in any way a support for U.S. position. We, from the left, reject U.S. intervention and insist on the fact that it’s not for the United States to [00:26:00] decide who won the election.
Why Millions Won't Be Able To Vote In 2024? - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 8-8-24
THOM HARTMANN: You're all familiar with this, how Republicans have been purging people off the voting rolls. For example, when the current governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, was Secretary of State, he purged about a half a million people off the voting rolls and Greg Pallas was able to demonstrate that over 300,000 of those people should not have been purged. They'd never moved. They just mostly happened to be Black people living in Democratically-voting districts. But so anyhow, I documented that last week and we talked about it. But those kind of things -- and this is happening in red states all over the country where they're just purging people like, left and right like crazy, particularly people who live in big cities.But that does produce some blowback. People get seriously pissed off when they show up at the polls and are told that the Republican administration, their state has removed them from the voting rolls. Now, at that point, it's too late to do anything about it other than fill out a placebo ballot, a provisional ballot.
And that's part two of [00:27:00] this story. Provisional ballots, they're counted a little more than half of the time, but a lot of the time, they're simply not counted. It varies from state to state. Provisional ballots came about as a result of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Bob Ney essentially invented them. Bob, who's been a guest on this program many times, a Republican congressman from Ohio. And, it was a good faith effort to make it easier for people to vote.
But here's the thing: your provisional ballot doesn't get counted unless you show up at the Secretary of State's office and prove that you are who you are. Even though you already did that the first time you registered to vote. You've got to do it all over again if you get purged, or, in the case of Texas, they've come up with this whole new scheme. I think you could call it passive aggressive voter suppression. Instead of showing up and being told that you've been purged from the list, which, like I said, just pisses people off, you show up and you're told that you've been put on the suspension list, or they call [00:28:00] it the suspense list, and you're given a provisional ballot. The problem, of course, is that provisional ballots are often not counted. And your provisional ballot won't be counted, unless you drive to the Secretary of State's office, which could be a hundred miles from you, and, present the ID that you originally registered to vote with and prove that you're residents and all that kind of stuff. Most people don't do that. Many people don't even know that they have to do that.
Now here's the kicker. Keep in mind, in Texas, most statewide elections are won by Republicans with a one, two, at the most three or four percent voter margin. Twelve percent, according to the Dallas Morning News, twelve percent of all registered voters in Texas are currently on the suspension list. Let that sink in. [00:29:00] Twelve percent.
Now, if they could just make it so that most of those people on that suspension list are Black or Hispanic or live in big cities and, we don't know because they don't publish the list, but I would be willing to bet money that's the case, then this is how Republicans maintain power in Texas.
Just put 12 percent of the voters on a list where their vote only gets counted if, after they cast their placebo ballot, their provisional ballot, they take a day off work and drive, within six days after the election, take a day off work and drive to the Secretary of State's office and prove that they are who they said they were and who they already proved they were when they first registered to vote.
This is just insane.
If you own a gun in Texas, and the state wants to take away your gun, they have to go to court. They have to prove that they have good reason to go to your house and take away your gun. [00:30:00] But if they want to take away your vote, if they want to put you on the suspense list or purge you all together from the voting rolls, they don't even have to tell you. It's just because you have a right to a gun, but you don't have a right to a vote? And this, by the way, these rules were established by five Republicans on the U. S. Supreme Court, in the Shelby County decision, I believe, was in 2012, Where they basically gutted the Voting Rights Act.
And, of course, in the recent gun control or, gun liberation decisions by these now six Republicans on the Supreme Court, in which they have established that you have a right to own a gun and you can carry it anywhere you want. And, you know, quack quack quack quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. quack So, uh, nearly 12 percent of Texas's roughly 18 million voters are on the suspension list.
This is how these guys expect to win an election.
In The Hands Of The Voters with Marc Elias - Justice by Design - Air Date 8-2-24
KIMBERLY ATKINS-STOHR - HOST, JUSTICE BY DESIGN: We have a candidate for president telling people, telling Christians specifically, [00:31:00] that if they vote for him, they never have to vote again. I know there is still some debate as to what he meant by that. I, for one, think it's as clear as possible, but can you respond to that, in helping our listeners understand, what is at stake here when we talk about the need to protect voting rights and protect our democracy?
MARC ELIAS: Sure, Thanks for the question. I think one of the biggest mistakes that has been made about Donald Trump in the last eight plus years is this notion that took hold in the 2016 campaign, that he should be taken seriously, but not literally. And I think that that honestly led to a culture in many parts of the media and society that his words don't matter. That he can say things that are completely outrageous and that somehow they are to be discounted. That he can denigrate democracy, he can engage in racist [00:32:00] statements, and that it doesn't matter because you have to discount the words.
But the fact is that what we have learned is that he means the words he says. So when he said he was not going to accept the results of a free and fair election, he didn't accept the results of a free and fair election. When he called on his supporters to go to the Capitol, they went to the Capitol. He tells us basically what he thinks and he means what he says. So when he says that there won't be a need for people to vote in four years, what he is saying is there won't be a need for them to vote in four years, in the same way that he said he wants to be a dictator.
Everything he is telling us is consistent. He does not believe in democratic norms and democratic institutions. He does not believe in liberal democracy, not liberal in the progressive sense, but liberal in the idea of freedom and the recognition of the importance of individual rights. He doesn't believe in any of that. He romanticizes strong dictators, because that [00:33:00] is what he believes he wants to be. And so we need to accept that not everyone in our political discourse starts with the same set of assumptions about the importance of democracy and free and fair elections, and he is one of those people who doesn't accept it. It puts democracy at peril. It is an existential risk to what happens if he is able to gain power. And it means that all of us need to be really, really clear eyed about what the stakes are this November.
KIMBERLY ATKINS-STOHR - HOST, JUSTICE BY DESIGN: I think that's exactly right. I get really frustrated, Marc, when people say, "democracy is not an issue that motivates voters in this election year. Democracy is amorphous and not something that people are really motivated by, that are really galvanized by." I think that's really selling Americans short, because I think democracy and the ability to vote is something that is so tangible because that's something that people do. Citizens vote, they know what that's like, and the idea of having barriers to that...
I talked a little bit about covering the Supreme Court [00:34:00] and covering the Shelby County decision in 2013, and at the time I lived in a community in Northern Virginia, and I remember in 2008, because I lived in a bluer part of Virginia, I waited in line in excess of two hours in 2008 to vote in the presidential election that Barack Obama was running in. And when I got into my polling station, there were paper ballots, but there were only four booths. There was no machine. It was a paper ballot and a pencil. They could have lined that place with 30 booths, but there were only four. And that was a choice made in Richmond. That was a policy decision to make people wait in line. A lot of people had to leave because they had to go to work.
And even in 2012, when they made early voting in Virginia more accessible, I voted early and still waited 90 minutes. Those are the kind of barriers that I thought of when Chief Justice John Roberts was saying, "well, you know, this isn't the 60s anymore. [00:35:00] Racism is in the past. You have to prove that there is racism today and Congress hasn't done that, so we're going to strip this whole section of the Voting Rights Act."
For people who don't understand the impact of the Shelby County decision and of the decisions that came after weakening, not just Section 5 but Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explain to us in layman's terms, in terms of what it means to them as they go to the polls, what the Supreme Court has done to voting rights.
MARC ELIAS: First of all, I want to say something about your experience because, it's something I talk about all the time. The fact is that when we talk about voter suppression, we don't always correctly conceive of it, because people think of it as an on off switch, —either you're allowed to vote or you're not allowed to vote. What voter suppression really is, is about putting barriers in front of people in their real world lives that they lead. And the fact is that one of the biggest forms of voter suppression in this country that we see from coast to coast in red States and in blue, in red counties and in blue [00:36:00] are wait times at the polls.
So I sued Georgia after the 2020 primary, and here's what the data shows. If you were in the six metro counties in Atlanta, and by the way, a number of these counties run by Democrats, this is not partisan, if you were in those six metro counties and you were in a precinct where the voter registration was 90 percent or more Black voters, you waited in line an average of 51 minutes. If you were in the same six counties—same resources, same officials, —and you were in a precinct that was 90 percent or more white, you waited an average six minutes. 51 versus six.
It is time that the media stop celebrating people waiting in line as a commitment to democracy, Because one of the things I always ask audiences, particularly when I'm talking to affluent audiences, when I'm talking to older audiences, when I'm talking to whiter audiences I ask them, how long would you wait in line to vote? You don't want to wait in line two hours to vote. Those images we saw of the college students waiting in line six hours, [00:37:00] you probably wouldn't wait in line six hours to vote. And you don't have the challenges that many of these voters have.
The allocation of voting equipment is the kind of thing that doesn't get a lot of attention. It doesn't grab the headlines. But the fact is we see it in county after county in red states and in blue states. There are racial disparities in wait times. There are age disparities—college students almost always wait in line longer than the surrounding community.
These are endemic in our system, And if you're not willing to accept the fact that we have a voting system, from top to bottom, that has winners and losers, and the losers are almost always Black, Brown, and young, and the winners are almost always old and white. If you don't accept that, even if you don't agree with me that it wasn't intentional. —let's just assume that we're going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, even if you assume that it was unintentional—that is the system we have.
You can look at absentee ballot rejection rates. In the state of Colorado, another blue state, in 2020, there were 29,000 [00:38:00] people who voted by mail who had their ballots rejected. Does anyone believe that there were 29,000 fraudulent ballots? How about 290? But when you look at who those people were, they were overwhelmingly young. In Washington state, another blue state, Black voters had a five times [higher] rate of rejection than white voters. That's before you start looking at states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, and Florida, and all of that.
So we need to recognize that our system of voting in this country does not accurately reflect a shared sense of democracy. On top of that now you put a U.S. Supreme court that believes that not only aren't there problems at all, but they don't believe that race is a problem. And look, my law firm brought lawsuits not 20 years ago, not two years ago But this year we won a case in alabama because black voters are being discriminated against in the drawing of districts Louisiana black voters are being discriminated It based on race in the drawing of districts. That's not my findings. Those are the findings of, by the way, in the case of [00:39:00] Alabama, three judges appointed by Donald Trump and a majority of the conservative Supreme Court.
So we have a lot of work to do on voting and that problem is still in front of us.
Resisting Minority Rule - Brennan Center for Justice - Air Date 5-30-24
ARI BERMAN: Wisconsin really became a laboratory for how Republicans wanted to govern after the 2010 election. I think this is so significant because, remember Natalie, this followed the election of the first Black president. And I think that was an electorate that was much more diverse and much more young, urban, progressive, and I think by changing the voting laws at the state level, the Republican party wanted to manufacture an electorate that was older, Whiter, and more conservative.
And the Brennan Center began cataloging this after 2010. I began studying this after 2010. And I think so much of the radicalization against democracy that gave birth to Trump happened first at the state level. And I think if we had been paying closer attention to what was happening in Wisconsin and those similar states after 2010, we would not have been [00:40:00] so surprised to see someone like Trump win the Republican nomination in 2016
NATALIE TENANNT - HOST, RESISTING MINORITY RULE: That's interesting. I mean, what do you think was happening and why there wasn't as close attention? I mean, and forgive me, I know you've written a lot, did you have a book about that? I was busy as Secretary of State trying to put in place the advancements that were coming along in elections and what would make it more accessible for people in West Virginia for rural areas.
So, you're right, I wasn't paying much attention to Wisconsin. All I remember are the pictures flooding into the capital and the union members being members in the capital. But that's interesting. While we weren't paying as much attention, and I was working on my aspect, they were continuing to make it this, you know... and you call it [00:41:00] a laboratory, either a laboratory of democracy or oligarchy. I often think, you know, has everything become an experiment or a tribe? But yes, it has. In a sense, it has. Because we're even watching, you know, 2020 to 2022 became a testing period for what might take place in '24 and even as election advocates and voting rights advocates were paying attention to what's happening in the primaries of elections in 2024 to be ready for it in the general election. So, um, go ahead, talk about that. I didn't mean to get off on election administration.
ARI BERMAN: No, but I know what you're saying, Natalie. I think, well, first off there was an economic crisis, right? There was one party in control of Washington. There were huge Democratic majorities in Washington, so all the focus was on that and big fights over things like health care. There was the rise of the Tea Party as a [00:42:00] reaction to Obama's election and to some of the economic policies, first of Bush and then Obama in terms of the bailouts and things like that. And I think people really weren't focused on what was happening at the state level.
But I think the Republicans looked at Obama's election and said, We don't want this to become the new normal. We want this to become an aberration as opposed to this becoming something that happens on a routine basis. Because remember, it wasn't just the election of the first Black president. Obama's coalition was called the "Coalition of the Ascendant". It was the idea that young people, moderate Whites, voters of color, this would be a new electorate that would push the country in a more moderate to progressive direction.
And so the elements of the Republican party wanted to fight a counter-revolution against this. And one of the major themes in my book is that often when there's moments of great progress, there's these significant backlashes against it. We see that during Reconstruction, for example, when we, after the Civil War, we elect the first Black office-holders in [00:43:00] the South, then there's a violent White backlash against it. After the Civil Rights Movement, when there's voting rights and things like that, that communities of color and African-Americans can enjoy for the first time, and then there's a "Southern strategy" to try to move conservative Whites against it. Then we saw that again after the election of the first Black president, that this is another moment of counter-revolution. And I think this begins to push American politics in a more radical undemocratic direction and I think starts to embolden the forces that later rally around Donald Trump.
NATALIE TENANNT - HOST, RESISTING MINORITY RULE: So, why aren't we seeing that from the other side? Why are we seeing, when we see positive reforms and positive steps being made, why don't we see it when there are not so positive steps? I mean, now, you're obviously pointing out and showing ways, pointing out what is taking place and showing the history of it, but not in the [00:44:00] same... it doesn't seem like the other side has been able to to keep that marching beat in a sense.
ARI BERMAN: Well, I mean, I think what's been interesting for me to watch as a journalist is there has been a steady erosion of democratic rights over the last decade. But there's also been a really robust emergence of a pro-democracy movement to push back against this, and you know this well from your work at the Brennan Center. But just take Wisconsin. I mean, the pendulum has swung dramatically in Wisconsin. There's a different governor now. There's a different state supreme court now. Gerrymandering has been struck down in Wisconsin which is such a huge thing because Wisconsin was a state where Republicans in this assembly in 2018 got 46% of the vote statewide, but 64% of seats in the legislature. I mean, that's inconceivable that something like that could happen. And that gerrymander has been struck down and there's actually going to be competitive elections in Wisconsin this fall for the first time in a decade and a half. I think that's really consequential.
I write a [00:45:00] lot about Michigan in the book, another really pivotal swing state that had a seemingly rigged state government. And beginning in 2018, ordinary people began putting initiatives on the ballot to do things like ban partisan gerrymandering, to do things like making it easier to vote through policies like election day and automatic registration. And this has transformed the politics of Michigan. And what's really fascinating, Natalie, and you know this from being in West Virginia, is so often when things are viewed through a D versus R context, right?, they become so politicized. Then you ask people directly, Do you want to ban partisan gerrymandering? Do you want to make it easier to vote? And there's overwhelming support for those kinds of policies. When they did those kinds of things in Michigan, even though it was close to a 50/50 state, these initiatives passed with about two thirds of the vote, meaning a lot of Republicans and a ton of independents also wanted to ban gerrymandering, also wanted to make it easier to vote.
So, if we could talk about things more in the context of whether it helps or hurts [00:46:00] democracy and less in the context of whether it helps or hurts Democrats, I think we'd be in a much better place when it comes to our democracy writ large.
NATALIE TENANNT - HOST, RESISTING MINORITY RULE: Yeah, you're right about that. And those are some of the words that I hear the president of the Brennan Center say, Michael Waldman. I mean, many times in 2018, when we talk about, and even in your book, the election for democracy and democracy won, that we have to show people what we are for and not what we are against. And kind of in that same vein, too, I've heard him say, you know, it took years and years to get the Voting Rights Act passed, and it's the same that we're seeing now with the Freedom to Vote Act or For the People Act. It died in '22. And, you know, there's still work being done on it now in hopes that something might happen in 2025.
So, you're right about that. And I think what I like about this book, too, Ari, is that it's like you're [00:47:00] reminding me of some of these things, and I think a lot of folks, a lot of people who are watching this and we're getting some questions, would be reminded like, Oh yeah, that's what happened in Michigan. And you said some numbers about Wisconsin, the same numbers hold true in Michigan. And from your book, I'll tell you, page 278 is one of my notes. And here's the book. They're going to put it up and tell people how to get it. But, you know, Republican state legislative candidates received 40% of the vote statewide and controlled, though, 54%.
So, anyone listening, it's hard to throw out numbers, but that one's pretty easy to see that, how was it so uneven? And with that, one of the other things that you reminded me of as I was reading, and I don't think that people, well, I can't speak for everyone [00:48:00] obviously, but I needed reminded [sic] about Flint and, I'll you talk about it since it is your book and you wrote it, but it's so fascinating how the governor of Michigan at the time, I think it's Rick Snyder, was able to make emergency appointments and there were more emergency appointments in the Black communities than there were the White communities. And one of them was Flint.
ARI BERMAN: Exactly. So, I think you talked about, what are the consequences of minority rule? In Flint, Michigan, the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, one of the worst environmental disasters we've had in recent times, was a direct example of the consequences of minority rule. Because Michigan had this ability to appoint emergency managers. And what was happening is the Republican officials in Michigan, who were largely White like the governor, were appointing these emergency [00:49:00] managers for these predominantly Black cities who would essentially control the city's finances. And this was viewed as something that was very undemocratic. And so what the voters of Michigan did was they actually repealed this emergency manager law in 2012. Then the state legislature stepped in, overturned the repeal of the emergency manager law, and basically made it impossible to overturn any laws the legislature had passed. Then it was after that that the emergency manager was appointed for Flint, Michigan, switched the city's water supply, and then we got the contaminated water in Flint.
And that made a lot of people really angry and it activated one of the activists I talk about in the book, Katie Fahey—who worked for a recycling nonprofit, she was very much an everyday person—she got really mad about gerrymandering and she said, What can I do to fix it? She quite literally Googled how you end gerrymandering in Michigan, realized they were one of about two dozen states that allowed citizen initiative ballot initiatives, and she got together a group, [00:50:00] started a whole new group, Voters Not Politicians, in 110 days she got 400,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to ban gerrymandering. And I think it was an example of, a lot of times, Natalie, as you know, these democratic issues can feel really abstract. Gerrymandering, right? But when you connect it to things that people really care about—clean water, clean air, people's right to control their own bodies—then it becomes a lot more concrete and people can understand that a broken political system leads to broken outcomes more broadly. And so I think the crisis in Flint became a rallying cry of we need to unrig this rigged system and everyday people have the power to do it.
Notes from the Editor on the importance of happy warriors
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips today, starting with the Rachel Maddow Show, laying out the threat of Trump and company planning to subvert the election rather than win it, LegalEagle recapped how Trump attempted to steal the last election, Democracy Now! looked at the post-election turmoil in Venezuela, the Thom Hartmann Program explained the mechanics of voter suppression. Justice [00:51:00] by Design explained some of the structural ways the voting system is tilted against would-be Democratic voters, and the Brennan Center for Justice laid out some of the dangers of minority rule and a call to action to unrig rigged systems.
And those were just the top takes, there's a lot more in the Deeper Dive section, but first, a reminder that this show is supported by members who get access to bonus episodes, featuring the production crew, discussing all manner of important and interesting topics, often making each other laugh in the process. To support all of our work and have those bonus episodes delivered seamlessly to the new members only podcast feed that you'll receive sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (there's a link in the show notes), through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast App. If regular membership isn't in the cards for you shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.
Now, before we continue onto the Deeper Dives-half the show, just a [00:52:00] quick note from me about the, maybe, second or third most popular phrase to have suddenly entered the political lexicon of the past couple of weeks. Obviously "weird" takes the top slot, but another that's being attributed to Tim Walz rather than popularized by him—"happy warrior."
It evokes basically the exact image that Walz exudes—happy, even playful, but willing to fight to achieve their goal. I think he was a good choice for plenty of reasons, but the attitude he's brought to the campaign. Is high on the list. Real high on the list. I mentioned the idea of the "happy warrior" now to highlight that it's the ideal, that all rank and file people who want to see Harris & Walz elected over Trump, need to embody. The past few weeks has brought out happiness and joy on the left stemming from a long suppressed but newly found sense of hope, but it's not enough to be happy and joyful content to cheer on the happy warriors [00:53:00] like Harris & Walz. Each of us must become happy warriors and do our own part to whatever extent we're for just over two and a half months before the election, and during what may be a very current time immediately after.
It's the only way we'll get the job done, and fear not! We have some suggestions on activism later in the show.
SECTION A - THE MECHANICS OF MINORITY RULE
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with Deeper Dives on four topics. Up next, Section A - "The Mechanics of Minority Rule," Section B - "The Proponents of Minority Rule," Section C - "The History of Minority Rule," Section D - "A Global Perspective."
And then Section E - "Activism." If you want to skip past all the potential horror and get right to the part about avoiding it, just go there.
Minority Rule Is Threatening American Democracy Like Never Before - Mother Jones - Air Date 4-12-24
We need to save democracy! Democracy is on the ballot! This election is between democracy and authoritarianism! Here's the response I have. To hell with our democracy. And before you clutch those pearls, Let me explain. I'm not talking about democracy, I'm talking about [00:54:00] the over idealized and old as shit American democracy.
Despite all the lofty rhetoric of democracy, when our political institutions were set up in the 1780s, they actually were set up to benefit, in large part, a propertied white male minority. A very affluent white male minority, many of whom were slaveholders. And in fact, the public were largely excluded from choosing the country's leaders and far from encouraging majority rule, the founding institutions of our country facilitated minority rule instead.
Minority rule. Now that is American democracy. So many of our institutions are being controlled by this shrinking and radical conservative white minority that's opposed. By a majority of Americans, but has taken power by taking advantage of the anti democratic institutions of American politics, and then using new anti democratic tactics like voter [00:55:00] suppression, election subversion, gerrymandering, the censoring of history, to make sure That their rule is indefinite.
That's Ari Berman, an expert who wrote the book on minority rule called Minority Rule. And it's this ploy still in place that is this ticking time bomb threatening to explode into something far more sinister for the future of our country. The founding fathers wanted to create A political system that benefitted people like themselves.
Intentionally built from the start, American democracy was never supposed to be for the people. Affluent white male property owners, many of whom owned slaves, most of whom owned a lot of land, they wanted to protect themselves from the masses. They viewed the public as something to be feared, and they viewed popular majorities as something to be constrained rather than encouraged.
And I think that remains the central flaw of American democracy, that the U. S. Constitution itself [00:56:00] was set up as something that was meant to constrain democracy rather than encourage democracy, and that legacy is still with us today. It's almost as if the Founding Fathers were a little scared of some revolution.
The fascinating thing about how the different branches of government were set up was that they were designed to prevent the public from having a major role in selecting the government's leaders. Yet despite the Some modifications and some reforms, pretty much all of the undemocratic features still stick with us today.
And that means that all of these protections for white wealthy people, they remain central to all of our institutions. Our basic governing institutions. How we elect our president, how we choose our members of Congress, how we select our Supreme Court justices actually aren't very democratic at all.
Let's go down the line here. The executive branch. Only three times before the 2000 election had the loser of the popular vote won the [00:57:00] electoral college, but it happened twice in the last 16 years. In 2000 Good evening. Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States.
In 2016, Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. It almost happened again in 2020. The Electoral College vs. the popular vote is just one part of what originated with the Founding Fathers to ensure that a conservative and white minority can stay in power even if a majority disagrees.
We have to stand against the tyranny of the mob. And the Founding Fathers understood that you have decentralized elections through the Electoral College and having states rights. The Electoral College is brilliant. The Electoral College has worked. It's one of the greatest firewalls against tyranny.
Which brings us to the next branch. Legislative. The level of inequality in the Senate today would have shocked James Madison. So, one of the things [00:58:00] that happened when there was these debates over the Senate, was that each state was given the same number of senators, which a lot of senators spoke out against about the time and war that would lead to minority rule.
Now to put it in some perspective, the first census was taken in 1790 and it named Virginia as the largest state in the country with a population of approximately 747, 000, which at the time was 12 times as many people as the smallest state, Delaware. Now, 200 plus years later, Delaware. The 2020 census confirmed California is the new largest state in the country, with a population of 39.
3 million people. That's 68 times the population of Wyoming, the country's now smallest state. And so because of how the Senate is set up, and because it hasn't been truly reformed since its inception, over time it's become biased towards those smaller, conservative, and wider states. And all of this leads us to the last branch, [00:59:00] The undemocratic features of the presidency and of the Senate have led to an unprecedented situation at the Supreme Court, where for the first time in U.
S. history, five of six conservative justices on the Supreme Court have been nominated by Republican presidents who initially lost the popular vote. and confirmed by Senators representing a minority of Americans. So over and over and over again, the Supreme Court has created these situations where it's protected the rights of powerful white people while undermining the rights of everyone else.
That's a fascinating and very scary situation where a Supreme Court that is a product of minority rule has then issued radical decisions on topics like abortion and gutting control and voting rights that are opposed by a majority of Americans. For example, overturning Roe v. Wade with Dobbs, or gutting the Voting Rights Act [01:00:00] with Shelby County v.
Holder, and of course letting billionaires essentially buy our elections with Citizens United. I think we're at a situation today where the Supreme Court is a legacy of the anti democratic distortions in American politics. That court has turned around and made America less democratic as a result of its decisions.
If there's anything all these years of all of these SCOTUS decisions have taught us, It really should be that. There's been this struggle throughout American history between white supremacy and multiracial democracy. And that fight has reached a fever pitch today. Like all things Republican now, the road leads back to Trump.
Because for the first time in U. S. history, white people are going to be the minority in this country. And for a lot of conservatives and pretty much all of the Republican party, that idea has them running scared. So there's these, these biases that are built into the constitution and the biases over and over are [01:01:00] in favor of more conservative areas, wider areas, more rural areas, that's the same constituency that likes Donald Trump.
There's this over representation of Trump voters in the political system at the expense of voters. Trump, which over and over and over have shown to be a majority of Americans. That's why they've been scheming and working for all of these years to strengthen their grip on this country through minority rule.
This shrinking conservative white minority. is exploit the undemocratic features of American politics while doubling down on a whole wide new range of anti democratic tactics like voter suppression, election subversion, gerrymandering, the censoring of history, to try to entrench their power. What they're really doing is retreating behind a fortress.
And while yes, Trump is definitely accelerating all of these anti democratic ideas, he's [01:02:00] also kind of the perfect product of an American democracy. Because our system is so anti democratic, it's so easily captured and diverted seamlessly into authoritarianism. Preserving the rights and freedoms we have today, which is what Joe Biden is largely campaigning on, democracy.
American democracy, and it's what the 2024 election is all about. We have to prove. But our model isn't a relic of history. It's not enough. It's incredibly important, but it's not enough. We have to reform the system that created Trump in the first place. Otherwise, we have these ticking time bombs that are built into American politics.
That bomb may or may not explode this year, as it almost 6th, 2021. It's just a matter of time before the anti democratic aspects of American politics explode. Get so bad that they're just somehow untenable. And I think that's the real risk here is that our political system itself [01:03:00] is a gateway in many ways to autocracy, to authoritarianism, to minority rule, and that the constitution far from protecting against a lot of those things.
Actually facilitates those kinds of things.
The Dangers of a Contingent Election with Beau Tremitiere and Aisha Woodward - The Lawfare Podcast - Air Date 10-30-23
Talk to us about this democratic deficit concern, the fact that democratic representation doesn't get channeled through the contingent election process. How does that true and what makes it maybe more concerning today than it may have been at the founding?
So representation and democratic legitimacy are key concerns here. In addition to the procedural issues we're going to discuss in a moment. I think people are accustomed to, to a degree, the way the Electoral College works. And there is, of course, a substantial criticism of the Electoral College that it's not representative and that it gives of the Electoral College.
More power to some states and less power to others. But setting aside that critique, the [01:04:00] contingent election system is shockingly non proportional. So, for example, think about California and Texas. These two states alone represent about 21 percent of the American population. And that's the, Almost exactly the same size as the 28 least populous states.
Uh, this sort of divergence in state population was, was not at all, uh, what we saw at the founding, I believe that the biggest and small states were at most, maybe a factor of six or seven apart. So there was not the sort of divergence and concentration of population. And so dividing up on state lines mattered much less at the time, but coming back to now, like, what does that actually mean?
How does that translate? So. In the Electoral College, California and Texas jointly have 17 percent of the Electoral College votes. When we move to the continued election process, where every state just gets one vote in the House, those two states have just 4 percent of all [01:05:00] votes. The 28 small states, again, which have the same population as California and Texas, have 28 percent of the votes in the Electoral College.
So, so more than the big states, but, but not a shocking amount more. But in a contingent election that goes up to 56%, so they control more than enough votes to determine the outcome. It's also important to think about Washington, D. C., which thanks to the 23rd Amendment has three electors in the Electoral College, but has no role whatsoever in House or Senate proceedings.
And it's also possible that based on the role adopted in the House, that Any number of states could fail to reach a decision and may not be able to submit a vote in favor of one or another candidate, which would effectively disenfranchise the people in those states as well. So I think it's really important to zoom out and think about those concerns in the moment where we are at [01:06:00] present.
We had an election in which tens of millions of people doubted the outcome when all objective observers were quite clear that Voting was done safely and securely and there was a clear victor. Uh, in this sort of scenario, there could be this enormous disconnect between how people in the electorate voted and how that's translated into the selection of a president.
And that is profoundly concerning given where we are in this democratic moment. So that's one bucket of concerns. I should tell us about the other bucket, the kind of procedural issues we're going to go through it in more detail in a minute, but give us kind of the 10, 000 foot view. What makes the procedural and technical aspects of this so challenging today?
So there are a few different ways, uh, in which this raises a number of procedural concerns and we'll get into them as you said, a little bit later, but let me sketch out some of the, maybe four buckets we would think about within this. specific area. The [01:07:00] first is the way in which a contingent election and the prospect of one, which would become really apparent soon after November 5th, 2024, would corrupt and potentially impact the election procedures that need to take place between November 5th and January 6th, 2025.
So that includes the convening of electors in their states and the possibility of faithless electors trying to throw their votes to sway the electoral outcome in some way. But that also includes the processes that Congress needs to go through when it convenes on January 3rd in 2025 and in joint session on January 6th.
Six to count electoral votes. And what I mean by that is that the house and Senate, um, but particularly the house, which is, you know, a new body every two years, we'll have to convene, select a speaker, seat members, establish rules, all of which in a narrowly divided house could open up the [01:08:00] process to.
Members being able to exert enormous influence on what might actually happen when the contingent election takes place that also feeds into another concern we have, which is about the actual rules that would be set up to govern the contingent election. And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, The Constitution and the 12th Amendment really only generally sketch out what the sequence of events should be, but give no real deep, substantive guidance on how the House and Senate are supposed to conduct these processes.
And you can imagine, for example, in the House, a real tension emerging between, um, uh, the who controls the majority of seats in the next house versus who controls the majority of state delegations. And if there's a difference in, in those two, um, answers, it could create some really scary, um, and challenging dynamics that members would have to navigate.
Uh, and similarly that the, how the Senate has its own, um, set of rules challenges, given the, likely applicability of the filibuster. [01:09:00] Another concern we have is around health and safety of both the members of Congress who would be called upon to conduct this contingent election and whose control of individual seats in this scenario would matter a great deal.
And given the, the way Beau has just sort of laid out how the, the process works and, and the, level of influence that small states have, which means small congressional delegations, any individual member, particularly in those small congressional delegations could face, uh, real concerns about, about their safety, but given the outsized influence they would have on this process, relatedly, the safety and health of the leading presidential candidates would be a concern.
And that is in part a concern. because of an issue we'll, we'll go into later on that makes it difficult to replace a candidate, if not impossible, um, if anything were to happen to them between a certain point in the electoral process in December and when Congress convenes on January 6 in joint session.
And [01:10:00] finally, the concern that we worry about. Related to all of these ones I just described is that because of the complexity of and, and opportunity for gridlock and, um, fighting over the process in January, it's quite possible that January 20th can roll around and neither the house nor the Senate will have been able to take action to fulfill their duty in the contingent election, which could trigger the presidential succession act.
Um, and there's a great deal of debate around this act. And while it's specific applicability to a vacancy on January. January 20th may be in less dispute, um, you could end up in a really unusual situation or even incentives to create a situation in which the Speaker of the House or the Senate, President Pro Tem, ascends to the presidency because Congress has been unable to act and fulfill its duty under the 12th Amendment.
Moore v Harper Democracy is Saved (For Now) w/ Eliza Sweren-Becker - Democracy Nerd - Air Date 7-9-23
Let's dig in to Morver's Harper a little bit. Let's start with the facts of the case and, and looking back a little bit, uh, even to a [01:11:00] 2019 case where the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts could not review, uh, partisan gerrymandered, partisan gerrymandered maps, but racially, uh, drawn maps were still under review of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Give sort of background facts that will be useful to inform the discussion. So that's right. In 2019, in a case called Rucho, the Supreme Court said that as far as partisan gerrymanders go, the U. S. Constitution has nothing to say about them, and the issue is non justiciable in federal courts. So essentially, the Supreme Court closed federal courthouse doors to claims of partisan gerrymandering, no matter how extreme, no matter how unrepresentative the matter.
At the same time, Claims that maps were drawn in a racially discriminatory way could still be brought in federal court. Um, including under section 2 of the voting rights act after the decision in 2019, um, [01:12:00] the North Carolina legislature drew new congressional districts in the state after the census and drew an extreme partisan gerrymander.
The litigants, the voting organizations, the voters in North Carolina said, Oh, hey, I know what to do. The U. S. Supreme Court told us what to do. They said in Rucho, we could go to the state Supreme Court and vindicate our rights. under our state constitution because in foreclosing federal court relief to partisan gerrymandering in Rucho, the court said, you have another answer.
You can get relief in, in state courts. And that's exactly what the litigants in North Carolina did. They went to their state courts. They said, this is an extreme partisan gerrymander. It's barred by our state constitution. You should strike it down. Ultimately, that's exactly what the North Carolina Supreme Court did.
They, the court struck down the partisan gerrymander and told the state legislators to go back and draw a new map. They drew another gerrymandered map, [01:13:00] um, and they were told that that violated the constitution as well. And so a new map was drawn at the direction of the court to be fair and representative of the people of North Carolina.
Rather than accept that outcome, um, Some North Carolina legislators asked the U. S. Supreme Court to bail them out, and they asked the U. S. Supreme Court to say that the state constitution and the state courts could not constrain them when they made rules for federal elections. And that is a profound and dangerous idea that the state legislators get to violate their own constitution, but that is precisely the idea at the center of the independent state legislature theory.
Independent state legislature theory sort of perfect chance to segue to that. What the heck is it? And I think I have some basic understanding, and my basic understanding is that they say what the state legislature says in a [01:14:00] state is primary, is ultimate, is the only thing that matters, unfettered by whatever a state court might say about it.
Uh, that's my sort of simplistic understanding of it. Give us a better understanding of it. And, and to the extent that simplistic understanding says anything, how the heck do they come up with that? So, yes. What is the independent state legislature theory? It is a seemingly benign collection of four words that all generally sound good and inoffensive, um, which I think is by design.
Oh, yeah, no, people like independent things. State legislatures, every state has them. What could be, we don't want a dependent, we don't want a tethered, we don't want a totally, uh, hidebound state legislation. We want them to be able to act independently, of course. Yeah, so it's a collection of words that sounds good that I think is meant to hand wave over the very, very dangerous, um, consequences that the theory would bring to bear if it were ever adopted.
Yeah. Um, [01:15:00] the theory arises from a, an interpretation of the elections clause of the U. S. Constitution, and that clause gives to states the power to regulate federal elections. Of course, that clause also gives Congress the power, the overriding power, to make or alter any laws that states make for federal elections.
and proponents of the independent state legislature theory. Read the word legislature as it is used in that constitutional provision to give state legislators near exclusive authority over federal elections. They believe that the elections clause would prohibit any other state entity. Like state courts or governors, or any constraints from state constitutions.
From placing checks and balances on the state legislative power. When the legislators are making rules for federal elections. The, that is a false reading of the constitution, but that is where the [01:16:00] idea comes from. How did they come up with this? Say more about where it comes from. When you say it's a false reading, make their case for them with or without a tongue in your cheek.
Sure. So the language of the elections clause reads the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed by each state and shall be prescribed by the each state and the legislature thereof. Excuse me. And so proponents say, Look, the elections clause uses the word legislature.
It has to mean legislature we all know what a legislature is. That's it. Of course. If you look at the rest of the provision of the Elections Clause, which also gives Congress to the power to make or alter those rules, nobody would ever say that Congress has the power to make rules for federal elections.
[01:17:00] Without any constitutional constraints from the U. S. Constitution or without needing to present legislation to the president for his signature or veto or without the possibility of review by federal courts, the word legislature, just like the word Congress. It's intended to be used as part of the ordinary lawmaking power in the state.
So just like Congress has to send bills to the president for a signature or veto, the state legislature has to send bills to a governor for signature or veto. The state legislature is constrained by their state constitution. The state legislature is subject to judicial review when it legislates on elections.
All of those things are equally true for states as they are for Congress. And when you look at the history behind the elections clause, it is absolutely unequivocally clear that the framers never would have given special unchecked authority to state legislators to make rules for federal [01:18:00] elections, the framers were deeply deeply distrustful of state lawmakers, and they were trying to figure out ways to corral and constrain them, not liberate them from the shackles of checks and balances.
The proponents of the state legislature. I'm gonna get to the roots. Who are these people? There are not very many. Um, and there are a handful of folks in academia who have advanced the independent state legislature theory. There are a handful of, uh, Supreme Court justices who have, um, expressed support for or interest in the independent state legislature theory.
And there were amicus briefs in support of the North Carolina legislators in the U. S. Supreme Court, but those briefs came from almost uniformly partisan entities, individuals. Um, and and and not from the historians, the election officials, the governors, the academics, the state [01:19:00] Supreme Court justices, the very many bipartisan folks who weighed in against the theory.
Any funding links to be aware of who's helping pay for the think tank. He's stuff to come up with this. There's, is it all coming out of the, the tower of the, you know, university or are there, are there more, as you would say, sort of partisan, uh, drivers involved. The theory really isn't coming out of universities or academic institutions and the entities that weighed in on in support of the theory are these partisan organizations that are, you know, right wing affiliated organizations, advancing, um.
Right wing political goals, so I don't particularly do research into the flow of money and how these things get advanced, but. This is not a theory that is. find support in the mainstream [01:20:00] or find support in academics who spent a lot of time looking into the history or reading language of the founders.
Um, this is really has been advanced in recent years by partisan interests, including, um, in 2020 by the former president and the RNC.
SECTION B - THE PROPONENTS OF MINORITY RULE
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now, entering Section B - "The Proponents of Minority Rule."
Marc Elias and Ari Berman - The Al Franken Podcast - Air Date 7-15-23
On the legal front, on the voting rights front, what I'm worried about is That the left has in many quarters decided to move on from the threats to democracy, but it is the central organizing thesis of the Republican party.
So let me give you a couple of statistics around this and then tell you what I'm worried about for 2024. Democracy docket, which is a website that I, I created, it tracks all voting litigation, not just litigation I'm involved in, but all voting litigation. In 2022, there were, uh, [01:21:00] 175 separate voting lawsuits.
This is excluding redistricting in 2020, by the way, there were 150, so the, we went from 150 to 175, so there was more litigation in 2022 than in 2020. And of course, in 2020 you had 65 cases after election day. So it's, the real comparator is 175 versus 85. But of that 175 lawsuits, a majority of them were actually filed by Republicans and conservatives.
The reason why I start with that is that I think most people listening to this. Are unaware that there are any lawsuits against states saying that voting is too easy, but yet there are actually more lawsuits right now, California is under lawsuit, Illinois is under lawsuit by conservatives who say voting is too easy and trying to repeal statutes that make voting more possible.
The Republicans have brought litigation against North Carolina to make voting harder. They recently lost a lawsuit in the [01:22:00] state Supreme Court of Arizona to try to ban mail in voting. And so when you look at that and you add on to that, the fact that you have legislature after legislature passing new voter suppression laws and election subversion laws, in some instances, these are the second or the third law on top of each other.
You get some picture of what the conservative and Republican playbook is, which is. They know they can't win through a majoritarian election, so their goal is to change the rules of voting to disincentivize or to dissuade or to suppress. Or to subvert the votes of black, brown, and young voters. And that's their strategy.
And they are doggedly at, they are doggedly at it. And I worry that on our side, you know, there is kind of like a generalized concern that these things are happening. Um, but they are not nearly as closely. Paid attention to other than frankly, by people like Ari, who is constantly writing [01:23:00] about it. Yeah, I would just echo Mark's point, Al, and say that pretty much every Republican controlled state passed some kind of new restriction on voting following the 2020 election.
And many states have passed multiple new restrictions on voting. And this will be the first presidential election that these restrictions will be in effect for. And the presidential election landscape is different than a midterm, right? We're going to have much higher turnout. In 2024, probably than we had in 2022, and there's going to be many more infrequent voters showing up.
And that's the kind of people who might be targeted by these kind of restrictions. And I think there's a feeling that because Democrats fare relatively well in 2022 because a lot of the election deniers lost. That means that we don't have a crisis for democracy anymore. And I think that's really dangerous because these laws are still into effect.
They're going to try to recruit smoother election deniers and last time they're going to try to [01:24:00] recruit people that are a little bit more sophisticated in terms of how they might try to overturn or alter the rules of an election, but they'll basically have the same election denier playbook. They'll try to pass more sophisticated efforts to try to subvert the will of the voters.
I'll just give you 1 example of something that was really disturbing to me. And I know Mark to the Texas legislature basically passed a bill dictating how elections would be run. In the state's largest County, Harris County, the largest blue County in Texas, where the legislature fired the election administrator at Harris County.
It was the only County in the state where they decided to fire the election administrator. And they said, is this where Austin is or where Houston is? Houston. So there's, there's, there's nearly 5 million people. There is the third largest County in the country. It's the largest county in Texas, the largest blue county in Texas.
So it really, in many ways, determines the swing of Texas politics. And they decided [01:25:00] to A, fire the election administrator only in this one county. And then B, they said, that if there were any kind of violations, even minor things like a voting machine malfunctioning and preventing someone from voting, that could have then allow.
The Republican appointed secretary of state to take over election operations in that county again, only Harris County. So, I mean, you, you had a legislature essentially dictating. This is how elections are going to be run in the largest blue county in the state. And if we don't like it. We're just going to take over election operations altogether.
I mean, that's exactly the kind of thing we were worried about happening in 2022 with all of these election deniers being elected, but it got a fraction of the coverage of someone like Carrie Lake running for office, for example. So I think they've become more sophisticated in the kind of things that they're doing now compared to what they tried to do in 2020.
Are they continuing? Of course they are to go with the, the, There [01:26:00] was a lot of fraud with that myth. Are they, are they trying to Harris County? There were, there were some election problems in 2022 because it was the first election where they used a paper ballot system. They also had new restrictions.
They had to follow based on the voter suppression law that the Texas legislature passed in 2021. So that created some problems in Harris County, where some polling locations ran out of paper ballots, but basically Republicans They did what Common Cause Texas called it, the Texas version of the big lie, where they basically said that Democrats who ran the county intentionally took away paper ballots from Republican areas so that Republicans wouldn't be able to vote and they would lose close elections.
Now, ironically, that's exactly what's being done in black and brown neighborhoods for decades, but nonetheless. Um, that's what they argued and basically they said, you know, all of the elections were fraudulent in Harris County because Democrats intentionally disenfranchised Republicans. There was no evidence that that happened, um, but that's kind of the argument they were using.
So it was fraud, but it was kind of like a, [01:27:00] a more of an iteration of the big lie argument they were using. Al, Al, I, I think we'd be making a mistake, at least with respect to the House of Representatives in control of these. Legislatures to not also note that there is another way you suppress voters, which is by engaging in the kinds of outrageous gerrymandering that we've seen Republicans.
And that's not over. You know, um, we're going to see Republicans redraw maps in several states. in ways that would have defied common sense or defied even imagination a few redistricting cycles ago. North Carolina, they're going to, they're going to redistrict. Uh, as an example, DeSantis redistricted in the face of, of so called fair district amendments in a way that specifically targeted Al Lawson, a black member of Congress.
And so it's part of a larger ethos on the right. To try to use the rules to affect [01:28:00] the outcomes and, and when, when did the Supreme Court say we can't, we're not going to get involved. We can't get involved in any partisan gerrymandering in 2019, 2019 in the Rucho decision. But the kind of things that Mark is describing are such blatant racial gerrymanders.
That it's pretty amazing that those kind of things haven't been struck down, which presumably they can be involved in. But I mean, I think the fear is that the Supreme Court is, is very shortly going to also make it very difficult, if not impossible to strike down racial gerrymandering to leaving many fewer options here.
And I think it's just amazing if you go back and you look at. The, the landscape for voting rights before the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and the landscape afterwards, it's just dramatically different. I mean, Republicans are doing things in states like Florida they would have [01:29:00] never considered before.
I mean, the fact that DeSantis tried to dismantle and did dismantle two majority black districts or districts in which black voters were able to choose their candidates of choice, that would have never passed muster under the Supreme Court. The Voting Rights Act as it was interpreted by the courts for nearly 50 years before the Supreme Court got it in 2013.
So I think Republicans are just going further and further to push the envelope here and they feel like they're going to get whatever they want from the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has already said. We don't care about partisan gerrymandering.
Judge Warns That Trump's 2020 Coup Attempt Was Just A Practice Run - Farron Balanced - Air Date 4-30-22
Judge Lutig warns us. That what we saw with Donald Trump and the attempted coup regarding the 2020 election and all of their attempts to overturn it, as well as the nonstop string of lies since then Ludwig explains that that was just a dry run.
I mean, that's literally what he said. The, the last presidential election was a dry run. For the next, [01:30:00] and he says their actual objective is to execute successfully in 2024, the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election. If Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest, he's not wrong.
I mean, this is something I have said before as well, plenty of other folks have said this, but you know, coming from a former federal judge, I think it carries a little bit more weight than when I say it or when anybody else says it, because these are people of course, who are trained to recognize what this kind of behavior is, what it does and what it leads to.
And that's why this warning Is so dire, but think about it for a second, folks, what we saw and what we're still learning. I mean, literally just this past week, all of the revelations that have come out, all of the text messages, all of the new characters that were involved in this. Those are the people that Donald Trump is going to put in charge.
Next time he runs [01:31:00] for president. And that is why he is hyping up his pro Trump MAGA people in this year's midterm races, because he wants to make sure that he has enough of his loyalists to displace the anti Trump people so that if it came down to it and they were the ones having to, you know, certify the electoral college results, he would have enough people To possibly actually overturn it.
All of the plans start to come together. When you start to look at it that way, folks, this isn't just about Trump wanting to punish people like Liz Cheney. It's because he needs to get Cheney out so he can replace it with somebody that will do whatever he wants them to do in case he loses again in 2024.
That's the plan. That's why people like Steve Bannon have been pushing his audience, go and run for these election boards, go and run for secretary of state. [01:32:00] And that of course is why Trump has been so invested in these secretary of state races that we have going on, but he's pushing these people because he knows where he went wrong last time.
He saw the weaknesses, the weaknesses in his plan, basically that he didn't have enough people all over the country to make this happen. So he's trying to write those wrongs right now, 2020 was in fact a dry run and they're getting ready for the real thing in 2024.
(Election standoff in Venezuela; Campaign Ketchup with 'Driftglass' and Frances Langum, 'Pro Left Podcast') - The BradCast w/ Brad Friedman - Air Date 7-31-24
In Arizona, I'm happy to report there was absolutely zero fraud. And zero problems for any voter at any polling place across the entire state. How do I know this? Well, because 2022 Republican gubernatorial loser and, uh, mini me, Donald Trump election fraud, conspiracist Carrie Lake.
Well, she won her primary election on Tuesday to become the [01:33:00] GOP US Senate nominee. So obviously this election since Carrie Lake won. Had no fraud at all. Everything's fine. That's right. The only legitimate election for Republicans are the ones that they win. Now, uh, Lake will go on to face Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego, who ran unopposed on Tuesday, uh, this November, for a, uh, U.
S. Senate seat that will be critical to determining majority control. chamber of the Congress this year after the seat, uh, the Senate seat is being vacated by the retiring, uh, let's call her right wing, former Democrat, uh, Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Now, there is a whole lot of vote by mail ballots cast in Arizona, so it may take a number of days for all All of the results to shake out.
Uh, much of the action on Tuesday was on the Republican side where there was a bit of a free for [01:34:00] all in a number of races, sort of up and down the ballot as the party continues, at least the party's primary voters continue to move even farther and farther to the right, many of the, uh, Contested Democratic primaries were for U.
S. House seats in a number of swing districts that are currently held by Republicans, but where Joe Biden won back in 2020 as Democrats hope to flip those seats in the U. S. House this November, but Republicans continue to really sort of eat their own, particularly in Maricopa County. Where some 60 percent of state voters live.
That's Phoenix. And it's a County where until Joe Biden in 2020, as I understand it, no Democrat had ever won that County for a presidential race since Harry Truman in 1948. Uh, with that loss for Republicans then in Maricopa and [01:35:00] across the state in 2020, as you recall, there were, there were a lot of wholly unproven and, or just completely evidence free claims of fraud.
None of them have, have ever been borne out in the nearly four years since, even after that, you may recall that wildly flawed. To put it nicely post election hand count that was headed up by the far right group calling themselves cyber ninjas, uh, who if anything actually proved that Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more votes than was officially certified.
But ever since then, the far right. In Arizona and in Maricopa has been blaming the Republicans who, by and large, control the county government in Maricopa, uh, control the government, control its election system for the fact that Republicans lost in 2020 there and then again in 2022. When [01:36:00] Democrats won almost all of the statewide posts from governor to secretary of state to attorney general.
And so to that end on Tuesday in Republican primaries in Maricopa, they unseated the Republican County recorder, the guy in charge of elections. They're a very conservative, by the way. But not insane in the least guy by the name of Steven Richer. He actually won the post as the county's election chief back in 2020, unseating a Democrat at the time, Adrian Fontes that year, who would then in 2022, he would go on to become Arizona's secretary of state.
And both Richard and Fontes have worked collegially together ever since. But Richer, who has defended the Maricopa County voting system and has been highly critical of the right wing election deniers calling out [01:37:00] Donald Trump for lying about the results, well, Richer was unseated by one of those deniers, State Rep.
Justin Heap, during the GOP primary on Tuesday in Maricopa. Richer accepted defeat in a social media post on Wednesday morning. He congratulated Heap. He noted on Twitter quote elections have winners and sadly losers and in this one It looks like i'm going to end up on the losing side of the column, but that's the name of the game Accept it and move on.
Seems like he's sending a little bit of a message out there to some of his fellow Republicans. I don't know. He will, uh, he, uh, he will now face Democratic attorney, Tim Stringham, who ran unopposed on Tuesday, uh, as many of the Democrats did, uh, he will face him in November. If, uh, Stringham ends up winning, of [01:38:00] course, that means Republicans will have given away a key post that they had held over the past four years.
On the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which is currently four to one Republican to Democratic, several of the top Republican officials there are retiring after facing years of death threats and harassment from, yes, Fellow Republicans after having overseen and standing by the 2020 election results there on Tuesday, election deniers were chosen by Republicans to take their place, though.
Now they will have to face several Democrats. Who yes also ran unopposed on Tuesday. And while there were a lot of interesting races, which is putting it kindly, and I don't have time to go into some of the details. There, there is one, uh, race for state Senate that I would like to quickly note here in Arizona's state Senate district one, former state [01:39:00] rep, Mark Fincham.
Fierce Trump loyalist. Uh, you may recall his name. Uh, he defeated incumbent Republican state Senator. And former Republican secretary of state, Ken Bennett for the GOP nomination in this otherwise reliably red district, uh, near Prescott Bennett, like the current democratic secretary of state, Adrian Fontes has been a guest on our program, and he has been working very hard in the state Senate in recent years for real.
Election reform in the state reform that would make it much easier for the public. Yes, including hard right conspiracy theorists to oversee election results to make sure that they are accurate. Fincham, on the other hand, who you may remember as having run out. And lost for secretary of [01:40:00] state as a Republican back in 2022.
Well, he was a prolific proponent of the lie that Trump lost his 2020 race because of fraud. Bennett, on the other hand, represented a more moderate choice for Republican voters. And yes, he was a real champion for election integrity. But now voters will have to choose between the far right Fincham and Democrat Mike Fogel, who ran unopposed on Tuesday in the, uh, in the general election this November.
Bennett, so far, appears to have been the only incumbent, by the way, in the state Senate to have been turfed out on Tuesday, though there is one other undecided race that there that could see another Republican tossed. Democrats will only need to flip one or two seats in the state Senate to take majority control from a very rabid far right majority in the chamber this November.
There are also a number of still uncalled races in the [01:41:00] Arizona state house primaries as well, where Democrats are also within, Just a seat or two from winning majority control this year in that chamber as well in which case You know if the election gods are with Democrats you could see a trifecta in Arizona of Democratic control of both both chambers of the state legislature along with the gubernatorial mansion with Democrat governor Katie Hobbs There right now.
SECTION C - THE HISTORY OF MINORITY RULE
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: You've reached Section C - "The History of Minority Rule."
How Minority Rule Threatens Democracy - Fresh Air - Air Date 4-22-24
Minority versus majority rule is complicated. I want to say I'm in favor of majority rule, but what about periods when the majority is racist or homophobic or patriarchal? Do you want that majority suppressing the rights of the minority? So it's kind of more complicated than it seems.
Would you agree? It is. And it's a fundamental Tension in a democracy, [01:42:00] which is how do you protect majority rule, but do so in the way that the majority protects minority rights? And that's something that the founding fathers struggled with 230 years ago, which is how do you balance? protections for different minorities with the idea that the majority should rule.
Now, the interesting thing is, is that when we think of the protection of minority rights, we think of vulnerable minority groups, right? Previously disenfranchised communities, for example, are those that have been persecuted in the past. What the founding fathers were concerned about was a privileged minority group themselves, basically white male landowners who were a minority within the country, but they wanted to protect them.
And what we see right now is the same kind of thing in which a privileged conservative white minority is trying to suppress the power of a much more diverse, multiracial governing majority. And [01:43:00] that's a very dangerous situation for American democracy. As an example of minority rule today, you talk about the Supreme Court and the conservative justices on it and how they were appointed.
Can you run through that for us? So, for the first time in American history, five of six conservative justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote initially and confirmed by senators representing a minority of Americans. So the Supreme Court is a product of minority rule, and it's a product of two skewed institutions.
It's how we elect. through the electoral college and how we appoint U. S. senators, both of which are flawed because they both violate one person, one vote in the electoral college. We have a ticking time bomb in which a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college and the Senate, we have a situation in which small or more conservative wider states have [01:44:00] dramatically due to Congress.
More representation than larger, more diverse, more urban states. And so the Supreme Court is a product of minority rule. And then it of course has issued very radical decisions in recent years on things like abortion rights. gun control, voting rights that are at odds with the majority of public opinion.
So we have a Supreme Court that is a product of minority rule that is then issuing decisions that deepen minority rule within the United States. And the two presidents you're referring to who did not win the popular vote were George W. Bush and, uh, President Trump. Yes, and those two presidents, George W.
Bush and Donald Trump, appointed five of six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, so a majority of the Supreme Court. And what we see is a decades long strategy by the Republican Party to use the courts to try to do unpopular things. And of course, they used very bare knuckled tactics to get that majority on the Supreme Court, including blocking Barack Obama from [01:45:00] filling an open seat on the Supreme Court eight months before that.
election and then appointing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just weeks before the election. So the Supreme Court really has been the epicenter of the Republican Party's drive for minority rule. Let's go back to the beginning. Some of the founding fathers wanted to curb the excesses of democracy.
What did they see as a threat? They were skeptical of democracy, both on the historical notion of democracy at the time, which was direct democracy in ancient Greece and places like that, which they thought had led to mob rule. But they were more concerned with America after 1776, when there were these quite democratic for the time state legislatures that were elected after the Declaration of Independence, when new state constitutions were granted.
And those state legislatures had a lot of power. Legislators were elected. Did annually, for example, they were very responsive to public demands, and the federal government, [01:46:00] in terms of the continental Congress, had very little power. It could not raise its own revenue, for example. And what happened was the states were passing populist policies that the framers didn't like, and there was a big economic crisis in the 1780s.
And what happened is states began to do things like debt relief and tax relief that benefited impoverished farmers for. example, but hurt wealthier Americans by leading to inflation. And basically, the framers felt like there was an excess of democracy in the states that were leading the country to the brink of collapse.
And that what they needed to do was they needed to create a strong central government and a strong central government that would not only restrain the people. Power of the states, but restrained the power of democracy more broadly. So instead of decisions being made by politicians who are influenced by the masses, decisions would be made by these elite white men that had a greater perspective and the greater public good at [01:47:00] heart.
Here's something John Adams said that you quote in your book. If a majority were to control all branches of the government, debts would be abolished first. Taxes laid heavy on the rich and not at all on the others. And at last, a downright equal vision of everything would be demanded and voted. Um, I was surprised to read that.
A pretty remarkable quote, right? I was surprised to read a lot of these things, too, because the Founding Fathers, as much as we worship them, were very honest that they were worried about what would Protecting people like themselves and that if we had pure democracy or a broader representative democracy, there would be these demands for things like equality, which the founding fathers didn't really favor.
They wanted to make sure the government first and foremost protected people like them. The founding fathers limited who could vote. What would you describe the limitations? Many states restricted voting [01:48:00] rights to white male property owners, which meant that poorer whites couldn't vote, of course women couldn't vote, African Americans couldn't vote, Native Americans weren't even considered citizens of the United States, so a majority of the country was excluded from voting at the time of the founding and after.
So there were restrictions on who could vote and you couldn't vote for all of the. People in the institutions of government, the president was voted on through the electoral college, like you voted for the electors who then voted for the president and that worked a little differently than it does today.
Would you describe, first of all, why the Electoral College was created? Yeah, and it wasn't even that you, you voted for the Electoral College. In, in most states, the state's legislatures just picked the electors. So the public had no say in terms of who the electors were. But basically, So who did you vote for?
You voted for I mean, a lot of people just didn't vote at [01:49:00] all. That's the big is that in the first election in which George Washington was elected, only 6 percent of Americans were eligible to vote. So most people just didn't vote at all. And then in certain states. Uh, but basically what happens is states nominated the electors and then the electors chose the president with very little input from the voters on who the electors were, who the president would be.
And why did the Founding Fathers want the Electoral College as opposed to a direct vote? Most of the founders were skeptical of the public's ability to elect the president directly. They felt like the best. The public would be uninformed, or it would be chosen by the largest states, or it would be chosen by free states in a way that would hurt the South.
One of the themes that runs through the book and runs through the founding is that these smaller minorities wanted protection. And when [01:50:00] I say smaller minorities, I don't mean minority groups. I mean the small states wanted protection. The slave states wanted protection. Protection and they felt like they would get that protection in the electoral college.
So they created this very complicated situation in which electors would elect the president instead of the people electing the president directly. Let's talk about the Senate. The Senate was created to counteract some of the Democracy of the House. Can you explain the debate over what the Senate should be and how the people in it should be chosen?
First off, senators were nominated by state legislatures and chosen by the lower house. So, senators were not directly elected by the people and there was basically unanimity among the founders. For that, but there were debates over who senators should represent James Madison and other prominent framers wanted the Senate to be based on proportional representation.
So they wanted to be based on population. [01:51:00] So larger states like Virginia would have more representation than smaller states like Delaware. But the smaller states rebelled. And there's this amazing moment at the Constitutional Convention where the Attorney General of Delaware gets up and he tells the likes of James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, if you don't give us the same representation, we're going to find a foreign ally who we're going to join with instead, and we're going to leave the United States of America.
And that was a stunning demand, the idea that they would go rejoin England or they would join France instead if they didn't have the same level of representation. meant that this larger states had no choice but to give into the demand of the smaller states to ratify the Constitution. But what Madison worried about is that it would allow what he called a more objectionable minority than ever to control the U. S. Senate. Because if the smaller states had the same level of representation as the larger states, that was inevitably going to lead to minority rule. And Madison worried that would get [01:52:00] worse as more states joined the Union. Of course, that's what's happened today, where the gap between large and small states is dramatically larger than it was back in 17 87.
How to Rig an Election: The Racist History of the 1876 Presidential Contest - Washington Post - Air Date 4-3-23
The most hotly contested election in our nation's history did not take place in the year 2000 or even 2020. It took place in 1876. The Civil War ended in 1865, but 11 years after Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, America was on the verge of another outbreak of violence between the North and the South.
A deal was made. To preserve the nation, the price, the end of reconstruction, and the preservation of white supremacy. In the decades following the Civil War, the United States emerged as an industrial giant. Railroads crisscrossed the country. Steel bridges connected cities. [01:53:00] Skyscrapers and ferris wheels.
Reached for the heavens. Electrical grids powered homes and businesses. Oil refineries fueled nationwide progress. The telephone and typewriter transformed communication. By the end of the century, we had coffee pots, escalators, elevators, cars, chewing gum, paper clips, and even jello.
New amendments to the Constitution created a land of promise and opportunity for many. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. The 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the United States, making formerly enslaved black people U.
S. citizens. And the 15th Amendment made unconstitutional. The use of race to prevent black men from voting. [01:54:00] Reconstruction, the effort to restore southern states to the Union, and incorporate 4 million newly freed American citizens into the United States, was working. Yet, the U. S. Army continued to occupy the South.
To enforce compliance with federal law, the country was united, albeit tenuously. In 1876, a centennial exposition in Philadelphia celebrated the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was also an election year. On June 17th, 1876, the Republicans, the party that guided the Union to victory in the Civil War, nominated Rutherford B.
Hayes for president and William A. Wheeler for vice president. Nine days later, the Democrats, then the party of racism and white supremacy, nominated Samuel J. Tilden and Thomas A. Hendricks. As [01:55:00] returns came in on the evening of November 7th, the nation held its breath. In the early count, Tilden appeared to have the lead.
The next morning, Democratic newspapers proclaimed his victory. Then, on November 9th, Republicans announced a Hays win. But this game was just beginning. Tilden won the popular vote, but results in three states were in dispute. Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Neither side would concede. The nation was thrown into chaos.
The Florida governor reported that a special train sent out to get returns had been coup cluxed and thrown from the track. Amid reports of fraud and armed threats, Then President Grant, the former commander of the Union Army, sent troops to the capitals of all three disputed states. Just 11 years [01:56:00] after the Civil War, it looked like it could start all over again.
Congress passed an act authorizing a commission to decide the winner of the 1876 presidential election. The bipartisan commission voted to give the electoral votes of the disputed states to the Republican, Hayes. In exchange, Democrats got something they wanted. Hayes agreed to withdraw union troops from the south.
With that assurance, the deal went through. Beginning the end of Reconstruction. So, despite winning the popular vote, Tilden lost the election, with 184 electoral votes to Hayes 185. And on March 2nd, 1877, almost four months after Election Day, Rutherford B. Hayes became the 19th President of the United States.[01:57:00]
President Hayes made good on his promise to withdraw the troops from the South. He kept the union together at the expense of the rights of black Americans. The criminal legal system quickly became a tool to control black people. By 1870, the prison population of Alabama went from 90 percent white to over 80 percent black.
By 1880, elected officials in more than a third of U. S. states were black. Enacted felony disenfranchisement laws, taking the vote away from people convicted of crimes. Poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests were employed to keep black men from voting. When that wasn't enough, white supremacists used violence and even murder to prevent black men from going to the polls.
Elected officials in states across the South passed Jim Crow laws [01:58:00] enforcing segregation. In virtually every aspect of American life.
The election of 1876 ended with a compromise that ensured the continuation of racism and racist violence in our nation's culture and politics that has lasted to this day.
SECTION D - A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Coming up, Section D - "A Global Perspective."
Politics & Human Rights: With the Politics or Against the Politics? Declarations: The Human Rights Podcast - Air Date 7-31-24
In your book, Judiciary, the accountability function of courts in new democracies, published in 2004, you discussed the role of courts in holding leaders of new democracies accountable and the risks of the trend at the time, which was a global movement towards strong constitutional government, placing more powers in the hands of judges who are not held accountable themselves.
In the 20 years following this, How do you think these predictions have played out? That's a very interesting question. Um, in some ways I think they have played out really well. I think some of the things that we were seeing was that more and more was sort of encompassed within the constitutional domain [01:59:00] and more and more issues and more and more contested issues being judicialized.
And that a lot of politics would go to the courts in more countries than in the global South. And this for sure has happened. It has happened in new democracies and it has happened in old democracies, including in countries like Norway, where I come from, where politics traditionally were not very much judicialized.
Of course, what we were worried about was that this would make, courts more politically visible and more politically contested, and that it would be very tempting for the governments to rein in the courts. And, uh, this has also happened in many countries with very strong courts. I think one of the first examples that was a very clear example was Hungary, where there was a very strong, very ambitious court and that, uh, [02:00:00] then where the government really, um, made the courts.
went for the courts and made them very weak. Poland more recently, although we've seen a bit of a turn there, and of course it has happened in many countries in these 20 years that there has been attempt to rein in the courts more or less successfully, but I think that in some ways courts have been more robust and more resilient than we expected.
And that even. Where, uh, governments have, uh, appointed loyalists to the courts. Um, they have managed to sort of gain a certain independence back. But there is something about the institutionalization of courts across societies that have been more resilient in some cases than we expected. Okay. Yeah, no, that's wonderful.
Um, and following on, I guess kind of a little bit exactly what you were saying. Have we observed any [02:01:00] unexpected or more promising outcomes in terms of judicial accountability and restraint of executive power? So I think maybe, um, some, some developments that are surprising, but not promising, not positive.
And I think. One of the things that we in a way saw, but didn't really sort of see how important it would be, was that courts are being used much more by autocrats. They become part of the dictator's playbook, if you want, or not only dictators, but politicians who are seeking to strengthen their power, use And use law and it's well, I've, I've been using the term autocratic law fair that they use that they've been using courts for impression for strengthening their, their grip on power, using changes to the law as well using rights.
And, and I think we didn't really realize [02:02:00] how important that would be. Uh, in sort of both in countries moving from democracy, backsliding into autocracy, but also in them in democracies, uh, where that remain democratic, but where, where courts are also used. So, I think that is, that's a bit surprising, but also, on the other hand, I didn't think that we would, that would be also see is that courts or have become 1 of the main areas for democratic resistance.
So, um, civil society, political opposition also use minorities, also use the courts and they use the courts to a lot of effect. So I think sort of that, that, so I think that this sort of both, if you want both the autocratic law and the democratic law fair, if, if, if we look at it that way in the courts, how it become, uh, or in a way surprising to.
So I think, yes, some surprising developments, but [02:03:00] going both ways. It's funny you say that actually because, um, my dissertation is kind of looking at, um, I did a survey kind of, of, uh, Scottish nationalists, and part of that was kind of looking at the gender recognition bill that was opposed, like, um, blocked by the UK government, and being in Scotland it's been interesting to see that play out in the UK courts and they're ruling that it was, um, lawful of the UK government to block it, but just the tensions and the, um, sense of self determination within Scotland and how that's kind of channeled through the courts, that kind of political element and a sort of agenda being pursued in the courts at the same time, both on the UK government, like the Conservative side and the Scottish side.
It's really interesting to kind of watch play out in real time. That's really, really interesting. And I think what you also see is that the court process, since it takes time, it focuses attention. So it makes a lot of politics happen [02:04:00] during that process. It creates a lot of media attention. It creates narratives.
that are strong, in a way on both sides, but particularly for, in a way, opposition groups or, um, groups that don't necessarily have a strong voice always. It's, it has been, it's really interesting and helpful because even if in the end, The court ruling is not so favorable. Uh, politics is in a different place.
That's one thing that we didn't really foresee as much 20 years ago, but that has been become very clear. The political space around courts are really interesting in terms of moving politics only in many areas. So, uh, LGBT rights for sure. Um, uh, abortion rights in many different directions. Yeah. Uh, climate change.
A lot. Um, [02:05:00] climate policy, putting it on the agenda in different ways, even if the rulings necessarily are not necessarily that spectacular. Sometimes there are rights and ecosystems, but also indigenous rights. That's something that we see in Norway, but also around the world in many ways, that it sort of, it changes, it changes the discourse, it changes what people see as political issues.
Uh, this, there, there is a book called When Mis Poor by Alicia Yemen. Uh, the, the title is When Misfortune Becomes Injustice. That's a very, very strong mechanism if you want, when our ideas of when things are just unfortunate and when it's an injustice that needs to be politically addressed. That's one of the things that we've really seen in the last 20 years.
Oh, and lots of issues have moved into that space. That's so interesting. Um, so following on, uh, what lessons do you think we can draw from the past two [02:06:00] decades in terms of the judiciary's role and, uh, in democratic consolidation and safeguarding human rights? So in terms of the judiciary's role, I think, so to, to sort of appreciate.
the function that it can play. And that is, for instance, this function of enabling political discourse, enabling political contestation, but also in some cases really sort of safeguarding rights as well. But I think we also need to understand that courts in themselves, uh, are limited, that courts, when they try to do too much, In a context that, uh, where they don't have sufficient support, uh, are vulnerable and can, can be reign in.
And I think, so I think that to realize that they're super, they're really powerful and important and robust, but at the same [02:07:00] time, they are fragile in this sense, or they are, at least the power is limited. They need, they, they, they can provide leverage, uh, they can provide a lot of leverage, but, but they also need, need to have the support.
in order to make, to make that difference. But that, but sometimes when they're not, or sometimes you see the courts shy away from the really, really hard decisions. Like in some, in a few cases where like, for instance, in Malawi, the courts, several levels ruled the last presidential election, uh, on the not free and fair and ruled a new and then ordered a new election.
And there was a, um, and then you can do that one. And that is very rare because that is so close to power that is so difficult to, and courts, when they do that, for instance, in Kenya, it happened before it didn't result in a change of power. [02:08:00] And, and, and it did sort of, it's hard for the courts to withstand the pushback that then comes.
But even in the cases where they can't go all the way, even if they sort of don't cross that line of power, they can still provide a space for a lot of important, uh, civil society, activism, political, that can provide sort of political accountability at a different level.
Making Sense of Bangladesh - Amanpour - Air Date 8-5-24
After 15 years in power, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasinam, has resigned from her post and fled the country. The announcement from the country's army chief coming after these extraordinary scenes of people storming the Prime Minister's residence.
It's an incredible development and the culmination of deadly protests that have rocked the nation for weeks. At least 91 people dying just yesterday after demonstrators clashed with police. Now, this all started over new quotas for government jobs, but quickly evolved into a much wider anti government protest.
Someone who's been closely [02:09:00] following the situation is Mujib Mishal, the New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief, and he joins us now from New Delhi. Uh, Mujib, quite a historic day for a country, we should remind viewers, the size of Illinois, but with a population of 170 million. Talk about the significance of this development.
Well, um, on the one hand, uh, there is sort of jubilation on the streets of Dhaka because it is the end of what was increasingly, um, a very authoritarian rule. Uh, Prime Minister Hasina, uh, in her early part of her career, she was sort of associated with hope. Um, she came from personal trauma because her family was massacred.
In the 70s, but then she was a symbol of how this country could turn things around. She offered, um, economic upliftment to, to a lot of, um, you know, a country that was deeply poor. And she sort of tried to reign in the military that was, um, [02:10:00] long in the, in the practice of, you know, coups and counter coups.
So, so at one point in her career, she offered this promise of hope, but in recent years, she was deeply authoritarian. So the end of her rule, As created, you know, this jubilation on the streets of Dhaka, but at the same time, um, there are deep concerns, um, because the country, as you mentioned, the huge country of 170 million people.
Um, it is leaderless right now, um, the law enforcement that could contain, um, what is deeply entrenched political animosities between parties, um, that law enforcement is very discredited. Um, so on the streets, there are still reports of violence, but there's also fear that, uh, extremist elements. Uh could take advantage of this vacuum.
So right now it's a mix of jubilation, but also deep concern Yeah, deep concern about what could come next and the issue of stability In the country as we heard from the army chief telling uh [02:11:00] citizens there keep your trust in the army quote We will restore peace Peace in the country. Please cooperate.
As you noted earlier there, there was a large level of distrust between the military and its citizens over the course of the last several decades. And you mentioned a number of coups there. Uh, when you hear that type of messaging from the army chief now, how should it be interpreted? Well, yes, the army has had a history of coups, bloody coups, including a coup that killed Prime Minister Hasina's family and her father.
But in recent years, it has been a more of a disciplined army for a couple of reasons. One was that Prime Minister Hasina sort of stacked the leadership with loyalists and made sure they don't stage a coup against her. But another reason is that the Bangladeshi army is a big contributor to the UN peacekeeping.
Uh, the U. N. Peacekeeping missions abroad, and that's a very lucrative [02:12:00] business for the senior leadership of the army, the officers. So that keeps them away from coups and and sort of reigns in some of the abuses as well. So now at this stage, um, it feels like although the army is controlling the situation, it has signaled that it wants to to, you know, hand over power to an interim government, a civilian government that could then, um, oversee elections potentially.
I mean, what is not clear is that the country's parliament is not dissolved right now. So the prime minister has fled and maybe a lot of her MPs and ministers have fled, but the status of the country's parliament is unclear right now and the future of What kind of government formation it could be is unclear, but the army has not signaled that this is a coup or that they're taking over.
The arc of Sheikh Hasina's governance, as you noted earlier, is quite interesting because it's evolved from one where there was a [02:13:00] sense of optimism. Uh, about the change in stability she could bring to the country, uh, then obviously years, uh, of questions, uh, about the, uh, openness, right, uh, of legal, in legality of elections in that country.
And here you have her first question. I think it's really useful to get a sense of where she stood on that front here. Here was part of their exchange. I said, CNN. And other international organizations have not been allowed to come to Bangladesh as journalists to cover this story. They have put very draconian conditions on us.
No, it is not true. It is true. No, no, no, no. Yes, yes, it is true. No, no. Bangladesh is [02:14:00] a free country. Ah. We would hope that. Listen, in our country, we have private television. What? If, if, no, tell me one thing. If it is prevented, then why I am talking to you? No, because I'm not there, Prime Minister. I'm not supposed to talk to you.
Prime Minister, I'm not there. If we, if we prevent you, no, no, if we prevent CNN, then why I am talking to you? Beats me. Then, okay, you stop it. You don't publish it. You see her defiance there, at times really seemingly talking past Christiane, not addressing her concerns and questions head on. Now, that was, uh, 11 years ago.
Um, when you look back at that now and see where things have turned today, uh, what is your takeaway? Well, I mean, it is, I'm not surprised by that exchange. I, I met her last year for an interview and, um, what, what tells, what that tells me is that there were two Sheikah Sinas. One was sort of the image to the outside world, right?
of this sort of [02:15:00] sheik, um, secular Muslim woman, uh, who stood up against Islamic militancy, who helped lift up her nation and brought economic improvement. That was one image of her. The other one was what she was doing to her political opponents, um, the way she was concentrating power and turning the country into a one party state.
For the longest time, she had sort of juggled both. Um, and she had figured out a formula where she could Completely a marginalized, her organized political opposition in a way where they were not a threat to her. But what brought her down, what brought the end of her was not necessarily the organized political opposition.
It was the wider public. It was students, right? And it was, it was mishandling, her mishandling of what was actually a peaceful protest. And it was sort of using the same playbook, right? Of crackdowns of force that she had used [02:16:00] her organized opponents against the wider public, and that that's created a cycle of anger, especially the dead bodies, right?
That's what I was going to say over 300 over 300 believed to have been killed in the past few weeks alone. Yeah, most of the people most not affiliated with political parties, right? So this was the general public and containing that anger turned out difficult for her.
Muhammad Yunus to lead Bangladesh govt as India evacuates families from the country - DW News - Air Date 8-7-24
On Tuesday, citizens gathered at the National Parliament building after the legislative body was dissolved by the President, who called for the restoration of calm. A day earlier, protesters stormed the chamber Demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Now her official residence is awaiting a new occupant, after Hasina fled the country, ending her 15 year rule. Curious citizens wandered through the ransacked rooms where Hasina clung to power. As more than 300 [02:17:00] people were killed in protests, which were brutally suppressed by security forces. We sincerely hope everyone gets justice.
Every death must be accounted for. As Bangladesh mourns the many killed in the unrest, changes are flowing fast. Former opposition leader Khaleda Zia has been pardoned and released from house arrest, one of thousands of critics detained under the previous government. I think the next ruler of the country should take lessons from the students that if anyone becomes a corrupted trader and gets involved in unsocial activities or takes any decision against the country, they will face the same fate.
We want them to chart the future, keeping the country in mind. The burnt out office of the former ruling party shows how quickly Sheikh Hasina's legacy [02:18:00] has been turned to ash. Many Bangladeshis are celebrating and awaiting the start of a new era.
I spoke earlier to Zima Islam, a journalist with the Daily Star newspaper in Dhaka. She told me why the 84 year old Mohammed Yunus is the person the protesters wanted to see as head of an interim government. I think, first and foremost, there is the fact that he is nationally and internationally celebrated for his achievements.
And that is, I think, um, One of the major reasons why he was selected is that this person has proven that through what he has done in his life that he is a worthy person to lead this country. But beyond that, there's one other reason is that he isn't a political person. He has not been linked with any mainstream political parties as of yet.
And that was a big thing. Reason why people want him because we are [02:19:00] tired off, uh, the mainstream political parties and the way that they have been governing the country for the last many years. And last time we had a public uprising of this nature was in 1990, which Give rise to the parliamentary democracy that we currently have.
We want a fresh start. That's what we want. And India has reportedly evacuated all non essential staff and their families from its diplomatic missions in neighboring Bangladesh. That is after the weeks of unrest that forced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to quit and flee. Reuters quoting two Indian government sources saying that all Indian diplomats remain in Bangladesh.
So let's get more on this from our correspondent Shalu Yadav in Delhi. Shalu, give us an update on this story.
Well, Claire, there were about 19, 000 Indians who resided in Bangladesh before all of this unfolded over the last three days. And the foreign minister of India shared yesterday that 9, 000 of those were [02:20:00] students and they came back to safety over the last few weeks. But he stopped short of sharing the details of any other evacuation plans for the rest of the Indians.
Uh, that remained in the country. He in fact went on to say that, uh, he expected the, uh, host, uh, government to, to look after the safety of, uh, Indian citizens and its, uh, diplomatic staff, uh, in the country. But we also, uh, knew that until yesterday, the Indian Air Force was on standby in the, uh, bordering state of Northeastern Indian state of Assam.
And now we're hearing that the, uh, that all the non essential, uh, diplomatic staff are staff along with their families, uh, have been evacuated from the embassy and the consulates. Uh, but the main diplomats, uh, they continue to, uh, remain in the country and the mission is reportedly, uh, functioning clear.
And is it possible to give us some insights into the reasoning behind this decision?
Well, you see, India, as well as Indians, are seen as pro Sheikh Hasina. And that was the reason why we saw this kind of anti India sentiment during the protests [02:21:00] in Bangladesh over the last few weeks, because, you know, the Bangladeshis felt that Indian government did not do enough to stop Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian regime and the atrocities that were committed by her government.
So, naturally, there are legitimate fears around the safety of Indian citizens. Uh, who remain in the country as a law and order situation is still, uh, out of hand. Uh, we've been hearing reports of mobs, uh, you know, out on Rampage, uh, not just attacking, uh, uh, the homes of Indians, but also the minority community of Hindus who lives there, uh, which is also, uh, of concern to the Indian government.
Uh, the foreign minister, ESJ Shankar yesterday also expressed, uh, concerns around the safety of the minority community. Uh, living in Bangladesh. There have been reports. So for their homes being targeted, uh, their businesses have been looted and their places of worship have been attacked. Uh, clear Bangladesh is a country where Islam is the state religion and Hindus living in the country are viewed as the supporters of the secular party of Awami League, the party of Sheikh Hasina.
And so [02:22:00] they've been, uh, you know, targeted by the Islamic radicals time and again. This is not the first time, but we're also hearing reports of the young Muslims who are It's coming forward and forming a, you know, chain of safety around Hindus homes, as well as their places of worship, before, you know, there's a let up in the situation on the roads in Bangladesh, you know, and until there is a semblance of safety in the streets of Bangladesh, the Hindus, they continue to remain, you know, inside their homes, and they're locked up, and you know, the Indian government is closely watching the situation, Claire.
DW's Shadow Yarov. Many thanks for that update. Let's get the very latest from Zima Islam, a journalist with the Daily Star newspaper joining us today from Dhaka. Welcome. So 84 year old Mohammed Yunus is really a towering figure of Bangladesh. He's been called in to head an interim government. Why was he the person that protesters wanted to see in this role?
[02:23:00] I think first and foremost, there is the fact that he is nationally and internationally celebrated for his achievements. And that is, I think, um, One of the major reasons why he was selected is that this person has proven that through what he has done in his life, that he is a worthy person to lead this country.
But beyond that, there's one other reason is that he isn't a political person. He has not been linked with any mainstream political parties as of yet. And that was a big. Reason why people want him because we are tired off, uh, the mainstream political parties and the way that they have been governing the country for the last many years.
And last time we had a public uprising of this nature was in 1990, which Give rise to the parliamentary democracy that we currently have. We want a fresh start. That's what we want.
Bear Market feat. Jeff Stein - Chapo Trap House - Air Date 8-5-24
The United States by imposing an economic blockade on roughly a [02:24:00] third of the world is putting that third of the world into the orbit of, you know, like bigger countries like China, Russia, who can provide some sort of banking or can provide what the, you know, U.
S. Dollar backed Global market would have in the past. This is like, is it like, is it, is it like pushing these countries closer together? And I guess like in your article, you have like the, the countries that are on the, under the highest level of sanctions, which are Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba.
Cuba has been under economic sanctions since 1962. The list of countries on that, I just want to read for a second, if you don't mind, the number of countries on that list, because like, I think just hearing it out loud is indicative. And this is not, this is an incomplete list of the number of countries under some form of U.
S. sanctions. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba, Yemen, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Burma, Libya, Sudan, Belarus, Lebanon, Mali, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That is a partial list of the number of countries we're talking about here. And like, so in [02:25:00] terms of like, let's say Iran or Venezuela, like what is the intended consequences of the sanctions regimes placed on those countries?
And then what are some of the unintended consequences that you're now referring to that? Like you mentioned in, in, in your piece, I think like the, the sort of the, the, the money paragraph. Paul quote, you say an occasion of a 2011 Hollywood, sorry, a 2011 holiday party at the hotel Harrington in downtown Washington, where Adam Zubin, then director of the OFAC saying the song, every little thing we do is sanctions to the tune of every little thing she does with magic
by the police. And I'm just wondering, you know, you know, you know, you see. When they're reworking the lyrics to popular songs to glorify their, uh, behavior and, you know, uh, justify their existence. I got this tip like six months ago, and I emailed this guy. I was like, hey, I heard you sang this song at the holiday [02:26:00] party.
Is it true? Can you confirm or deny that you sang? Uh, a version of every little thing that she does is magic, uh, at this holiday party. And he just didn't respond for months. And I was like, you know, every time you publish a big story like this, like you're very nervous that like, there's going to be something that you like may have gotten wrong or someone told you the wrong thing or the kind of detail off.
And this guy hadn't responded. And I was like, okay, I'd really like to know if he's going to contest that he's saying this song. And like a few weeks before the story published, he emailed me and was like, um, no, that's incorrect. I was like, okay, what is it? And he was like, no, no, no. You got the lyrics wrong.
I was singing every little thing they want to do is sanction. Not every little thing they want to sanction. I was like, okay, are you saying the song? I've noticed a lot of, uh, they really love song parodies in American interventionist foreign policy. It really do. I'm all, yeah. Everyone always brings up bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.
That's the McCain one. Yeah. McCain and Lindsey [02:27:00] Graham were doing that one. That that's awesome. I feel like like that would be a fun. Um, I don't know in the presidential debate if we can get the candidates doing doing versions of that, but like, so like at the top of the list here, you've got, you know, Russia, Iran and Venezuela like, and you know, U.
S. Policymakers are attempting to, you know, You know, without using our military directly enforce compliance in some way. What like, so like from their perspective, what is the intended effect of these sanctions? And now what are some of the knock on effects that are actually leading to a point where like us policymakers are beginning to worry that we've actually sanctioned too many countries?
One of my, one of my favorite. Things about Washington. I know you guys don't live here, but people are always like, wow, this food is really good. You know, it's like, it'll be like some food from some foreign country. And then it'll be like Afghanistan. It's like, oh, there's a new Venezuelan place. And like not realizing that the people they work for may have had a role in like [02:28:00] the new restaurant down the street that they're really excited about.
Yeah. That's how fat America is. Even foreign policy is GrubHub. Um, but I think Venezuela is like a really sad and striking example. And I think also like to get back to Felix's earlier question about like, when did this take off? I think it's partly the fault of the media, partly the fault of just people's attention spans where, you know, every American knew about what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Right. But like how many people know about the U. S. role in what happened in Venezuela? Like, I, I think it's probably, I mean, this is like totally made up. Like, I don't have any numbers behind this, but if you like, took the, even like my friends, like just average people, you were like, role did the U S have in Venezuela's economic collapse?
Like they probably wouldn't even know that much about like the Venezuela. Collapse generally, you know, and I think that like the way in which sanctions have [02:29:00] operated a lower profile than sending troops has enabled this whole thing to fly under the radar Venezuela. I mean, we did a whole separate story about this that came out right after our initial sanction story.
Um, we had, um, basically we broke the news that the Department of Homeland Security as Trump was tightening the sanctions on Venezuela, DHS was sending classified reports to the White House that were warning that the sanctions could exacerbate out migration in the region out out of Venezuela. And the mechanism there, of course, would be by impacting the economy broadly of Venezuela.
It would lead to more people having to flee the country and we've seen over 7, 000, 000 people leave Venezuela since the start of their economic collapse in 2014. Um, we reported, um, and I took some flack from a friend, uh, on the left who was, Disputing this conclusion. I think he's wrong about this. But, but what we [02:30:00] reported, it seems clear to me is that the economic collapse in Venezuela predates sort of the intense sanctions imposed by, by, by, by Trump starting in 2017 and through 2020.
That's really when we started squeezing their ability to issue debt on international markets, their ability to, um, to operate their number one source of revenue, which is Paravisa, the state owned oil company. Those sanctions really squeezed in 2017 through 2019, 2020, but to me, there's also very little doubt that those sanctions dramatically exacerbated this economic catastrophe, which I'm so staggered by, and even more staggered by the fact that there are so few people who know, seem to know about the extent of it.
We are talking about the single largest decline in, um, any economy in the modern era for any country not at war, and also larger than The economic contractions of some countries at war, including Yemen, Iraq in 2003 and Ukraine in [02:31:00] 2022. This is a 71 percent collapse of the Venezuelan economy, which is unfathomably large.
It's just enormous. And a lot of that seems genuinely to have started. I mean, you have inflation hitting over 600 percent before the sanctions are really tightened on Venezuela in 2016. But The sanctions, I mean, I talked to John Bolton, a top Trump White House advisor for this story, and he told me, like, the point of the sanctions was to hurt their economy and lead more people to leave in an attempt to get, uh, Maduro, the president to, to surrender and give up control.
Their strategy at the time was to basically say, we will target The Venezuelan economy in a way that leads the Venezuelan military to break ranks with Maduro and support why doe, um, who do you guys remember when Trump compared him to Beto O'Rourke? Yeah, yeah, that's what I knew was curtains for that guy.
Um, but that would be, that was, you know, what the conscious strategy was, was to make the economy of Venezuela [02:32:00] worse. Um, and our story reports that there were people at treasury at DHS were saying. If this doesn't work, you're gonna, you're gonna hurt a lot of innocent people and lo and behold, we now see a few years later that one of the top political issues, obviously, in the U.
S. is a surge of migrants across the U. S. Mexico border that didn't start until a few years after the sanctions bit. But this is, you know, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. Of migrants from Venezuela fleeing an economic catastrophe that the U. S. had a role in exacerbating. So, yeah, I mean, that that's to me one of the most striking examples of an unintended consequence, and to state the obvious, Maduro is still in power.
But yeah, it seems to me, it seems like there is a self contradictory. core, uh, with sanctions where like the state department will, whoever they're sanctioning, they'll say, you know, whoever it is. And sometimes this is kind of true. Sometimes it's like a complete projection, but if we're sanctioning them, we're saying that [02:33:00] the leader in question is a psychotic madman and he will do anything to stay in power.
And he, he doesn't care about his own people. We love that line. He did X to his own people. Because it's fine to do it to people overseas, but God forbid you do it to your own people. But, um, okay, so we're going to put pressure on the economy. So that he'll be so ashamed that he'll step down. You just said he'll do anything to stay in power!
And I know, you know, you, obviously, like, they want either the military or the intelligence apparatus, depending on the country, to, you know, play a very active role in getting rid of that guy. But, that, how many times does that actually happen? Right, you're treating them as a rational actor, the guy that you're saying.
Um, I think to sort of, um, riff on what you're saying here, one of the things that like the academics who've studied this closely will point out that I think is really [02:34:00] interesting is that like the people who could be rational actors in some of these horrific situations, take Syria for instance, often those are the people that the sanctions hurt the most, right?
Like the, the, Rival power bases for authoritarian leaders are often sort of the middle class, the private sector, civil society, groups that operate independent of the authoritarian regime, and when you cut off economic activity broadly in a country, that sort of weakens the power of those leaders. Sort of parts of the society to do anything on their own on their own volition, and that creates a vacuum that tends to be filled by the authoritarian leader himself.
SECTION E - ACTIVISM
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And, finally, Section E - "Activism."
Trump gives shoutout to his ‘pitbulls,’ Georgia election officials he hopes will obstruct results - Deadline White House - Air Date 8-7-24
That state's election board approved a new rule having to do with Republicans latest attacks on our democracy, on our election systems, the [02:35:00] certification process. The rule establishes new criteria for officially confirming election results in the state of Georgia. The certifying happens, quote, After reasonable inquiry that the tabulation and canvassing of the election are complete and accurate and that the results are a true and accurate accounting of all votes cast in that election.
Now, the New York Times explains what that actually means quote through seemingly innocuous, though, seemingly innocuous. The language implies that local election officials are awarded a level of discretion. in the certification process, a suggestion that runs counter to decades of settled Georgia law, delineating how results are officially certified.
State law dictates that officials shall certify an election, making the process effectively ministerial. Disputes over alleged fraud or major errors are typically left to recounts in courts. Now, attacks on certifying election [02:36:00] results have intensified since the 2020 election, and it is clear the ex president is gearing up to have certification questions play a major role this time around.
Over the weekend, Donald Trump called out the three Republicans on the Georgia State Election Board by name, who ended up voting for this new rule. I don't know if you've heard, but the Georgia State Election Board is in a very positive way. This is a very positive thing, Marjorie. They're on fire. They're doing a great job.
Three members, Janice Johnson, Rick Jeffries, and Janelle King, three people are all pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency, and victory. They're fighting. Fighting, fighting who? Fighting for what? Entire state election is administered by Republicans at the state level. Republican governor, Republican secretary of [02:37:00] state.
So again, why is he calling them out? And what is he talking about? What are they fighting against? Georgia passed its voter integrity law in 2021 despite the findings by Republicans that there was no widespread voter fraud in the state of Georgia during the 2020 election. That Joe Biden had legitimately won.
They did three counts. So, shouldn't they be bragging about the security and supremacy of their system? This fight isn't limited to Georgia. This may be the ballgame for Donald Trump this time. Reporting in Rolling Stone last week, I identified nearly 70 pro Trump election conspiracy theorists across several swing states currently working as county election officials who have questioned the validity of elections or delayed or refused to certify results.
According to the nonpartisan group Protect Democracy, since the 2020 election, members of state and local boards have voted against certification more than 20 times across eight states. Our friend and voting rights [02:38:00] attorney, Mark Elias, puts it like this, quote, with fewer than 100 days until the election, Republicans are building an election subversion war machine.
Protecting ourselves from that war machine is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite experts and friends. The aforementioned voting rights attorney, founder of the site Democracy Docket, Mark Elias is back, plus writer and editor for Protect Democracy, Amanda Carpenter's back, and New York Times reporter who has been reporting on this for years and specifically in a big piece with Jim Rutenberg in the last couple weeks, Nick Corsaniti is back.
Um, Nick, I've heard You've said this multiple times, but I think you've put the goings on in Georgia on the radar for us with your reporting there. Tell me what this board does to aid Trump in Trump's mind. He's calling them out at his rallies. Well, what they did yesterday is something that Trump and Republicans and his allies have been trying to do across the country, [02:39:00] and that is take the process of election certification, which, as we mentioned, and as you mentioned at the top here, is something that's always been ministerial.
And what that means is it's basically automatic. It's the law says shall, which means you must. Take election results. You, you know, you go through the normal process of checking them that you normally would, and then you certify them and pass them on. These county officials are not empowered by these ministerial duties to conduct their own investigations or insert their own opinions on the validity of these elections.
But a lot of Trump allies have been trying to do this across the country, as I reported a few weeks ago with my colleague Jim Bruttenberg, but they haven't been successful. They've been trying to do this through courts. That hasn't gone anywhere. They've been trying to do this through just having, uh, local officials refuse to certify and see if that gets them some precedent through a challenge.
That hasn't worked either. So what the State Board of Election did in Georgia yesterday was give that argument [02:40:00] its first sense of validity. You know, they are able to establish rules that local county officials all throughout Georgia are supposed to follow. They're not meant to be a lawmaking board. So it's highly possible that what they did yesterday is illegal and will be met with legal challenges, perhaps by some of the people also on on this panel, but they gave an opening to this idea that certification is indeed discretionary at the local level and what that could do if we were to rewind the clock.
Four years ago, when former President Trump was trying to overturn his loss in 2020. And, you know, he was calling election officials in Wayne County, Michigan County board members, excuse me, in Wayne County, Michigan, saying, please don't certify we were in an unknown about what that would do. Would that be able to forestall a loss?
Would that be able to change things? So they're trying to bring this back in an effort that, you know, to possibly short circuit a loss or anything like that. Bring this question of [02:41:00] certification into the realm of uncertainty. And that's what the Georgia State Board of Elections did yesterday. Mark Elias, I want to read what you wrote, but I, I just, for Trump, who's so obsessed with the size of his wins and, you know, wearing a superhero shirt when he survives COVID, it feels like this massive sort of.
telegraphing that he knows he's going to lose. Just talk about the tactic and what it telegraphs. Yeah, look, Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million votes. You know, every time someone would say Donald Trump won in 2016 and this is because of the American people. No, he won in 2016 because of the electoral college.
In 2020, he lost the popular vote by 7 million votes. Okay. He and the Republicans are running out of runway. They are running out of way to count on the electoral college and a bunch of other structural advantages that they have to, to counteract the [02:42:00] fact that more Americans want to vote for Kamala Harris than want to vote for him.
So what they are left with is two things. Number one, making it harder to vote, making voter suppression, which you and I have talked about. And then the second, which you and I frankly have been talking about for years now, it feels shorter, but it's been for years, is they want to be able to cheat after the election.
So they want to make it harder to vote and easier to cheat. And the way they are going to cheat, the way they tried to cheat in 2020, when I litigated against them and beat Donald Trump 60 times, 60 times in court. The way they tried to cheat is through what ballots get counted and what ballots don't get counted, and there's no better way to do that than through the certification process, which as, as, um, I was pointing, as Nick pointed out, they tried to do in 2020 in, um, uh, in Wayne County, uh, Michigan in 2022, they tried it again.
They tried in Arizona. My law firm, we sued Cochise County because Cochise County wouldn't certify the election results. We sued Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, because they wouldn't certify the election results. [02:43:00] And ultimately, we were able to win those lawsuits because this is a ministerial act. This is a ceremonial function.
This is not a opportunity for these people to conduct their own independent investigations. And what it says about Donald Trump is that he knows he's going to lose the popular vote. He knows he's probably going to lose the election if it is free and fair, but he doesn't care. He revels in the fact that it is an authoritarian, he admires the dictators and he is willing to do, and he has built a campaign and a party that is willing to literally do anything.
If they were willing to storm the Capitol to prevent certification on January 6th, what do you think they would do in a county in Georgia? What is the protection against that, Mark? So I think it's a few things. First of all, it is the great work that Nick and you and others in the media do who, who call attention to this.
It's one of the reasons why I started Democracy Documents, why we've written on this topic, because it is important for people to know this is going on because for [02:44:00] some of these elected officials or appointed officials, they have to live in these communities. They have to look at their neighbors and it is harder for them to do that if they're, if what they are doing is public rather than in the darkness of night.
The second thing is that there's a big obligation here for the legal establishment, you know, uh, lawyers like me, lawyers like, uh, like many others, like at Protect Democracy, you know, have a big obligation here. Every lawyer who swears an oath. to the law and the constitution has an obligation to fight against this kind of activity.
The First Step to Fixing the Electoral College - Robert Reich - Air Date 5-9-23
Should someone else's vote count more than yours? For 80 percent of Americans, that's exactly what's happening. Their vote for president isn't nearly as valuable as the vote of someone in a so called swing state. Most of us live in states that have become so predictably Democratic or Republican that we're taken for granted by candidates.
Presidential elections now churn on the dwindling number of swing states that could go either way, which gives [02:45:00] voters in those states huge leverage. The 2020 election came down to just over 40, 000 votes, spread across just 30 states. three swing states. 2016 came down to fewer than 80, 000 votes, also across three states.
In those elections, the national popular vote wasn't nearly that close. In fact, in the last five elections, the winners of the popular vote A popular vote beat their opponents by an average of 5 million votes. The current state by state electoral college system of electing presidents is creating ever closer contests in an ever smaller number of closely divided states for elections that aren't really that close.
Not only that, but these razor thin swing state margins can invite post election recounts, audits, and lawsuits, even attempted coups. A losing candidate might be able to overturn 40, 000 votes with these [02:46:00] techniques. Overturning 5 million would be nearly impossible. The current system presents a growing threat to the peaceful transition of power.
It also strips us of our individual power. If you're a New York Republican or an Alabama Democrat, presidential candidates have little incentive to try and win your vote under the current system. They don't need broad, popular support as much as a mobilized base in a handful of swing states. Campaigning to a smaller and more radical base is also leading to uglier, more divisive campaigns.
And it's becoming more and more likely that candidates are elected president without winning the most votes nationwide. It's already happened. Now, abolishing the electoral college should be the ultimate goal, but this requires a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible to pull off because it would need a two thirds vote by Congress, plus approval by three quarters of all state legislatures.
But [02:47:00] in the meantime, there is an alternative, and it starts with getting our states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Now, don't let that mouthful put you off. It could save our democracy. This compact would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide without a constitutional amendment.
How does it work? The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to its number of representatives and senators. As of now, the total number of electors is 538. So anyone who gets 270 or more of those electoral college votes becomes president. Article 2 of the Constitution allows state legislatures to award their electors any way they want.
So all that's needed is for states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes to agree to award All their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. [02:48:00] The movement to do this is already underway. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact, agreeing that once enough states join, all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner.
Together, states in the compact have 195 electoral votes. So we just need a A few more states with at least 75 electors to join the compact and it's done. Popular vote laws have recently been introduced in Michigan and Minnesota, which if passed would bring the total to 220. Now naturally this plan will face legal challenges.
There are a lot of powerful interests who stand to benefit by maintaining the current system. But if we keep up the fight and get enough states on board, America will never again elect a president who loses the national popular vote. No longer would 80 percent of us be effectively disenfranchised from presidential campaigns.
[02:49:00] And a handful of votes in swing states would no longer determine the winner. If you want to know more or get involved, click the link below to read about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If your state is not already a member, I urge you to contact your state Senators and Reps to get your state on board.
HERE IS THE PLAN TO REMOVE TRUMP, ELECT HARRIS. Steps 1, 2, and 3 - Rumble with Michael Moore - Air Date 8-5-24
So no more talk, no more yakety yak here. No more political rhetoric right now. We right now have only three months. From today before the election. That means that we must take, we all of us action every day. There's no way we're going to pull this off unless we do that. So I want to give you three quick things that you can do actually today.
All right, here's number one, go public, go public. You, yeah, I'm talking to you. I know you're not a public person, [02:50:00] but you have a few people in your life, right? You need to inspire them by proudly proclaiming that you're voting for Harris. And if we all do this, it may actually possibly save the country and change the world.
Again, it won't be the way you want it to be, but we're not voting for you. So let's get this right. Start it. So start by going public. And by the way, here's how you do it. You're online right now, right? Cause you're listening to me. Well, maybe you've got earbuds and you're on a walk. Okay. Well, when you get back home, but if you're on a computer right now, if you're on your phone, listening to me, then I want to ask you to do something right now.
I would like you to just pause this podcast and write a brief 20 word 50 word, maybe a hundred word, if you're like me, [02:51:00] your own thing that you call, let's just call it my declaration for president Kamala Harris. That's it. Just a note. And you're going to send it to 20 friends and family members. You need to tell them why, why you are probably not a political person necessarily.
And you don't usually send. Emails or texts like this, but today you've got to do it. You need to tell them why it's a new day in America for you. Why there's no more important job for any of us right now, from now until November 5th to stop Trump, to elect the first woman president of the United States.
Enough is enough. Make sure they feel that from you as you write these few sentences. Let them know we are not going back to the [02:52:00] 1950s. Our daughters will have complete control over their bodies and their lives. People in their 40s must no longer believe they will never own their own home. That is not the America I choose to live in.
Every American must have access to the care they need without having to consider the cost of it. Whether it's health care, dental care, mental care, elder care, child care, we need to stop living like this.
We are out of time. My friends invite these good people in your life that you're going to send this note to to join you in this, in this mission between now and November 5th. I [02:53:00] mean, seriously, and start a thread with them. Start a text thread with them. Right away. You can even name it. You can call it.
We're for Kamala, our Kamala crusade, hurry for Harris, whatever. I mean, just make up your own thing or have no name to it at all. Just start texting the, the 20 people, put them all on the thread. Most I think will join you. They love you. That's number one. Okay. You can do that right now. Number two today, make your own handmade yard sign. That's right. You're going to publicly declare you're for Harris. The usual ones, the campaign puts out because the campaign's only two weeks old. They're not ready yet, but they're printing them now. They say they'll be ready by mid to late August here.
We can't wait. [02:54:00] That's why you need to do one. You know, you need to get out a piece of cardboard and some magic markers. You're doing this because you're making the campaign yours. Now it's not just vice president Harris's or the party apparatus. It's you and me, you and me are going to make this happen.
You and me and a few million other Americans who are going to work their butts off, make this yard sign, make it festive, make it happy. Then go out and put it on your front lawn or, or if you live in an apartment building, put it in your apartment window, make a little ceremony out of it. You know, take the sign out in front of your house, bring your family out and invite a couple of neighbors, bring out your cats.
There's an unveiling ceremony taking place. Bring out a boom box, put on some Beyonce or Springsteen or whatever appropriate [02:55:00] music you think for the occasion. Because what you're doing. You're saving your democracy on your street, the very street you live on. And as soon as people in the neighborhood start to see this, you're going to find out friends you, you didn't know you had, will it upset a few people?
Yes. That's okay. You're not, you're not, you don't have an angry sign. You've seen the Trump signs as you've gone down the road, right? Take America back, make America great, make America great. Again, and again, and again, and again, big flags, angry flags using our American flag as a, as a way to be angry. No, that's not you.
You're going to put it out there. People are going to love you for it. And as soon as we get some bumper stickers, you're going to get a bumper sticker on your laptop and your car and your backpack because we have no [02:56:00] time to lose. Okay. So number one, right? First thing you're going to do. Is right to your 20 friends and family and tell them we're all in for Harris and we all need to get to work right now and sign up for this thing with Michael Moore because he's going to be sending us things for the campaign tool kit here.
Number two, you're going to go make a yard sign with your kids right now or make it by yourself. You know, I've already made mine. It's pretty bad. The nuns gave me a D in art. Unfair. I thought every year I thought unfair, but that's okay. They were good to me in many other ways. Um, that's number two, the yard sign.
Number three, you need to find out where the offices in your town, your neighborhood, uh, for the local Democrats, the local [02:57:00] democratic, uh, organization. Find out where that is. You probably can find it. Google it. And you need to go there today. Even if you don't have the time, just at least stop by there.
Pull up, pull in, walk into the place and announce yourself. There won't be Trumpets or anything just so when you announce yourself, you know, don't do it like you're, you know, Prince William or King Charles, you need to walk into that office and just say, put me to work. Now don't be too disappointed if they look at you like, who is this crazy person?
What are you talking about? Put you to work. We don't even know what we're doing here yet. That's okay. It's all early. All right. Um, but. Don't wait for them to say anything. Just go pick up a broom. There's a broom over there in the corner. Grab the broom. Start sweeping the place. Offer to make some calls.
Offer to make [02:58:00] some coffee. Make more yard signs. You already started that an hour ago. You're a pro at it now. I mean, trust me, my friends, just the doing the physical act of anything, something, whatever, it will feel exhilarating to you. Especially because you know that millions of others across the country right now are doing the same thing.
Credits
JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. I would love to hear your thoughts or questions about today's topic or anything else. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at (202)999-39912, or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from Mother Jones, the Lawfare Podcast, Democracy Nerd, the Al Franken Podcast, Farron Balanced, the BradCast, Fresh Air, the Washington Post, Declarations: The Human Rights Podcast. Amanpour, [02:59:00] DW news, Chapo Traphouse, Deadline, White House, Robert Reich, and Rumble with Michael Moore. Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Aaron Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet. Ken, Brian, Ben, and Andrew for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships.
You can join them by signing up today at BestOfTheLeft.com/Support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast App. Membership is how you get instant access to our impressively good and often funny weekly bonus episodes, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes, along with the link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion.
[03:00:00] So coming to you from far outside, the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name is Jay, and this has been the Best of the Left Podcast coming to you twice weekly thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.
