Transcripts

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award winning Best of the Left Podcast. Decades ago, the conscious decision was made to exacerbate any quality for the sake of economic growth that would supposedly lift all boats. What probably wasn't understood at the time is that the logical conclusion of that choice would be to break democracy and usher in oligarchy. Now, working people are left with only bad choices and empty promises.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our top takes in about 50 minutes today includes Confronting Capitalism, The Majority Report, Pitchfork Economics, Lever Time, The Marc Steiner Show, and The Dig. Then, in the additional deeper dives half of the show, there'll be more in four sections. Section A: Party Reckoning; Section B: Neoliberal Stranglehold; Section C: Crossed Wires with a Focus on the Reorganization of the Republican Party; and Section D: Solutions.

Workers Without a Party - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 12-11-24

MELISSA NASCHEK: One thing that you really point out in [00:01:00] your recent Jacobin article is a huge contradiction that this wing of the party is is going to have to confront or potentially continue losing.

So you write in your article that the Democratic Party is kind of putting an increasing amount of distance between itself and the working class. And the interesting thing that happened compared to 2016—there were some roots and signs of it there, but this dynamic really manifested in this election, in 2024—is that now this working class alienation is not just with the white working class that was so heavily demonized in 2016, but that working class alienation is extending across racial lines now.

What do you think are the roots of the Democratic Party's increasing alienation from the working class?

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: I mean, some of [00:02:00] these roots, I think, are not specific to the United States, they're specific to the political economy of advanced capitalism generally. And what that particular dynamic is, is that on the one hand, all the parties of the left within Europe, within the antipodes in the United States and Canada, all these parties have over the past 50 years shifted from being parties that fought for the interests of working people and then tried to manage the institutional constraints of capitalism.

They've transformed from that to being essentially managerial parties that are much more attuned to the preferences and the interests of the corporate class, and really are increasingly distancing themselves from their historical constituencies, which is the working class.

And you see across the board, workers losing confidence that these parties represent them, and one of two things that's been happening. They either are opting out of politics altogether. You see this everywhere. [00:03:00] working class people are just becoming so cynical that they are simply not taking part in the political process. And the others are shifting to alternatives, whoever they think might actually fight for them.

So the one root of this alienation has been the generic phenomenon of all the center left or left wing parties becoming managerial parties. Now in the United States, it has a particular trajectory. If you look at the historical Turnout and the electoral preferences of voters, there's been a decline in their voting for the Democrats or identifying in terms of their political identification with the Democrats really since I would say the late 70s it started to weaken, but there've been two really important episodes.

One was the mid 90s, really after NAFTA, where you see a huge drop in working class voting for Democrats in presidential and congressional elections. And the second is around the second Obama presidency when you see it. These are the two episodes in which [00:04:00] has happened in both of them. Same reason they saw their party, either in the case of NAFTA Clobbering them with the free trade agreement, or in the case of Obama turning away from all the promises he's made to them.

MELISSA NASCHEK: I want to talk a little bit more about NAFTA because this is something that you and some other left wing commentators have mentioned as a big turning point in both Democratic Party politics, their policy agenda, and specifically the party's relationship to the working class.

Can you explain a little bit more about what NAFTA is, and why it has such a big impact on the working class?

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Well, NAFTA stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement. And what it essentially did was removed a lot of the trade barriers between Canada and the United States and Mexico and the United States.

So, in removing those barriers, much cheaper goods came into the country, which American manufacturers couldn't compete with, and so it resulted in layoffs. The [00:05:00] other related factor here was what's called the China trade, which is cheap goods from China flooding the markets, which again, American manufacturers aren't able to compete with, which again, results in these layoffs.

Now, the important point here is it's under Clinton that both of these phenomena really start taking off. In both cases, he knew exactly what was going to happen. This is important because it's a conscious decision on the Democrats part to prioritize these economic policies over the predictable electoral consequences that came from them.

Now, why did that happen? In my opinion, it's because it was the midpoint of a longer term Democratic strategy of trying to orient themselves away from what they thought was a losing electoral constituency, which is the blue collar and low skill clerical working class, towards higher income groups.

Now why is it losing? There are analyses out there [00:06:00] that say, well it has to do with the demographic fact that workers are shrinking in size as a part of the electoral coalition. Kind of, but if they were really committed to a New Deal style redistributive politics they would adjust to the shrinking number of voters by crafting a wider coalition around those same goals, which is maintaining redistributive social democratic policies.

The question is, why didn't they fight to reintegrate themselves into a viable electoral coalition? It's because their political priorities have changed. So, in a very real sense, voters bolting from the Democratic party was not that much of a concern to them because, by that time, the Democratic party is trying to engineer a new electoral coalition anyway. And so, if the effect of NAFTA or free trade with China is to piss off working class voters so they don't [00:07:00] link up with the party anymore, the party kind of shrugs and says, we can live with that.

Democrats Bungled The 2024 Election WAY Worse Than We Thought - The Majority Report - Air Date 1-8-25

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: As we get more data out as to why Democrats lost, and I, and I phrase it that way specifically based upon the data. There's a good piece I think he's got a Substack, Michael Podhorzer, he was the former political director for the AFL CIO, now does data analysis. Long story short, the bottom line is that the election in 2024 was not an embrace of Republicans or MAGA beyond what it was in 2020, it was essentially a vote of no confidence in Democrats. And most of that vote of no confidence came by just staying home.

He's done an extensive report here, but essentially, the popular vote result was almost entirely a collapse in support for Harris and Democrats, not an increase in support for Trump and Republicans. [00:08:00] Essentially, most of Harris's losses were due to an anti MAGA surge voters staying home. The people who came out motivated by negative partisanship in 2018 and in 2020 and to some extent, less so in 2022, just essentially stayed home in 2024, and there's a couple of things that you can garner from that.

One is people didn't have a sense of what Trump's policies were or they weren't worried about it in the in the way to motivate them to come out and vote for Harris. They weren't motivated to vote for him, but they just they weren't motivated to leave and there was nothing that the democrats were offering or at least communicating as to what they were offering that [00:09:00] motivated these people to leave their homes and come out and vote for Harris.

Trump essentially got the same percentage of eligible voters as he did in 2020. And obviously that number goes up because our populations go up. Whereas Harris essentially got 19 million votes less or, or as to what she would have had she hit the same portion of eligible voters had voted for her.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: It's also the first time since the 1960s that a majority of Americans in the lower income voting block, which is voters earning less than $50,000 a year, voted Republican in terms of that majority share, and you can probably draw a line to when we see how Democrats lost so much ground in urban areas in blue states. Those are probably more low propensity Democratic partisans who didn't show [00:10:00] out. And the question is, then, why are we tailoring these campaigns to suburbanites? But also, frankly, how much did the genocide in Gaza and the administration's support of that, and how It just showed such a lack of regard for the lives of people who are not white or wealthy, really, how much that affected turnout.

I think that based on what we saw in AOC asking her constituents, she has a majority Latino district the exact kind of district they lost ground in, that was one of the many reasons that were listed and given to her as to why people didn't show up.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I think absolutely. And again, we've talked about this ad nauseum. I think it's like a there's a first order people who refused to vote based upon what was happening in Gaza. And then the second order in that a lot of activists who may have actually gone out and cast a vote for Harris, but were just less motivated and found it more difficult to go motivate people. And I don't know if we'll ever know specifically how [00:11:00] those break down. It's possible that the first order numbers could actually be higher than the second order, but certainly they combine. And then on top of that, you also have to remember, I mean, despite the fact that we've got Chuck Schumer saying this weekend that Democratic voters didn't know what Joe Biden did for them.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Whose fault is that? It's Biden's fault for being unable to communicate and hanging in there. And also, like, if that's the case, that's still a problem with the party structure, because you have to be able to do politics if you're a political party.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: But I would also argue that, There was also a failure to recognize a lot of the loss that took place under Biden, even from stuff that Biden and the Democrats provided in the first place, but to expect this cohort of voters to be savvy enough to know that something that they got, that came a month after Donald Trump left office and then was taken away two years into Biden's administration, they're [00:12:00] not going around going like, "it's a bummer about that $300 per child tax credit that I'm not getting anymore, but I know it was, it was Joe Manchin and it was Kyrsten Sinema."

This gets to, and we said this at the time, the failure of Biden to strike while the iron was hot in the spring of 2021, coming off the big win for the American Rescue Act, when Republicans were still talking about Dr. Seuss not publishing two of its books or something, and Joe Manchin was talking, maybe Build Back Better should actually be bigger than what Bernie says. Maybe it should be 6 trillion, that was the time to strike. But instead, what Joe Biden did is invite Republicans in to give them a proposal over the course of like two months. Then when that failed, invited Sinema and, and Portman to come in and provide their attempt at some bipartisanship for build back better. And this is a mistake that the Republicans will not make. They will not [00:13:00] make.

They have three more votes in the Senate than the Democrats did, but that's not enough to overcome a filibuster. And, and they may not have a Manchin and Sinema, but in the spring of 2021, Manchin was not Manchin yet. He was certainly latent, but this is why failures of actually legislation and legislating and leading implicate an election, I know this sounds crazy, three years later.

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (with Gary Gerstle) - Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer - Air Date 1-14-25

Nick Hanauer: Gary, as you must know, we talk about neoliberalism a lot on this podcast. Our podcast is largely devoted to tearing down neoliberalism and replacing it with a new thing. But for the purposes of this interview, it would be useful to start with your personal definition of neoliberalism. What do you think it is and we’ll proceed from there?

GARY GERSTLE: Neoliberalism is an ideology that calls for freeing capitalism from virtually all constraints, free the animal spirits of [00:14:00] capitalism and the market out of the belief that the greatest economic growth and thus, the greatest good for the greatest number of people will result from that kind of emancipation. And by freeing it from constraints, I’m thinking of regulatory constraints imposed by governments and states during the golden era of social democracy in Europe. And then we might say the golden era of the New Deal order in the United States. It was from the start, a global project. Dismantling control of capital has to be accomplished both domestically but also, internationally out of the belief that you cannot have the full yield of capitalist affluence unless the whole world is committed to this project. At the core of neoliberalism is a commitment to the free movement of goods, the free movement of people, the free movement of [00:15:00] information, and the free movement of capital across all borders.

It could not really become a global project and thus aspire to the success it had in the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century until the Soviet Union fell and communism as a relevant ideology in the world collapsed. Because central to the communist project was not just state management of economies in the public interest, but the exclusion of capital and capitalist penetration from any countries that were under communist rule. So, the 1989 to ’91 period of transition is crucial. I’ll say one other thing about it and then you can let me know your own thoughts about neoliberalism because you do talk about it a lot. Is it entirely an elite project? The proponents of neoliberalism acknowledge that it increases inequality in the world, that the gap between the rich and the poor would widen, but the supporters say that’s okay [00:16:00] because all boats will rise.

Everyone at the end of the day will be better off. That was the claim of neoliberalism. From that perspective, you can see it as an elite project in the sense that there would be benefits for everyone but the richest would have the greatest share of the benefits. There was not an acknowledgement of that there would be trade-offs, that this was a zero-sum game, that the gains of some classes domestically and some nations internationally would be at the cost of other nations or portions of nations suffering. That belief in the validity of neoliberalism and its value characterized the 1990s and first decade of the 21st century. It was believable and sellable as an ideology until the global financial crash of 2008, 2009, which gave a lie to the claim that all boats would rise and that no one would suffer under this new regime. There’s no [00:17:00] doubt that the neoliberal age dramatically increased inequality, left a lot of parts of the world, both in the United States and elsewhere to rot.

The world in which we’re living in now has to do with the consequences. But I also think that there is an emancipatory element of the neoliberal creed, which distinguishes my view of neoliberalism from some other people, that it carries with it a promise of freedom, of freeing the individual from constraints of allowing that individual to fully flourish. And especially in the United States, that has enormous appeal and that was part of Reagan’s popularity. You convert to my vision of market freedom, meaning Reagan’s vision of market freedom, you will be free. You will have opportunity that you did not have before. You’ll be free of artificial constraints, which are not simply imposed by large private institutions but by large public institutions as well. So, I talk about the new left of the 1960s and [00:18:00] ’70s, which opposed not just capital but big government and saw the New Deal as oppressive because in the language of the time, there was a system of corporation and government alliance, which was squashing the individuality and the individual opportunity of particular people.

There’s a cosmopolitan vision, which is part of the neoliberal dream, the ability of people to travel everywhere in the world, to mix with other peoples, other cultures, other ways of living, which the left finds enormously appealing. If you’re on the left, this is a world in which you want to live. So, there’s a component of the neoliberal world view which is appealing to people on the left side of the political spectrum. And there’s a kind of seduction that goes on that this will benefit not just corporate capitalists accumulating capital, but this promises an enlarged vision of freedom that a [00:19:00] lot of people can partake of.

How Democrats Can Win Back The Working Class - Lever Time - Air Date 11-8-24

ARJUN SINGH - SENIOR PRODUCER, LEVER TIME: Is there anything to the idea that there was an information ecosystem gap, if you will? And what I mean is that, in the closing days of the campaign, You saw Donald Trump and JD Vance go on Joe Rogan's podcast. Kamala Harris didn't go on Joe Rogan's podcast. She was appearing on podcasts like Call Her Daddy though. But basically that, to be able to reach not just a minority of voters, but what sounds like to reach a significant amount of voters, the kinds of voters who will be able to swing an election in one direction or the candidates have to go into these niche media ecosystem, whether that's Joe Rogan's podcast, Alex Cooper's podcast, the Undertaker's podcast. And that was somewhere that the Harris campaign either seemed to struggle with, or maybe more that the Trump campaign really excelled at.

But what do you think about the media ecosystem idea and that now [00:20:00] campaigns have to really look at the ecosystem as a constellation of different enterprises versus we're going to deal with the Washington press corps and then there's the local and regional press corps. Now you have to really look at it more as a map rather than a linear group of media organizations you're talking to.

JEFF WEAVER: Yeah, from the Bernie campaign, Bernie went almost anywhere they would have him, because he wanted to talk to people. He didn't care about the host or the host's views, he wanted to talk to the audience. He was criticized loudly by many the Democratic Party for being one of the first people to really go on a Fox. He did a Fox town hall in Pennsylvania. That was the infamous town hall when they asked the Fox-picked audience whether they supported Bernie Sanders socialist health care plan and everybody in the audience raised their hands to the shock of the of the moderators So , yes, there is.

I think the other problem is that the mainstream media is now viewed as a partisan. So you have Fox, which is clearly the Republican side. You've MSNBC They call it MSDNC, not [00:21:00] unfairly they call it that. CNN has had a Dr. Frankenstein problem since 2016 when they helped elect Trump. They've been trying to kill him since. If you watch Jim Acosta's show on CNN in the morning, the guy should be on Kamala Harris's FEC report. It's incredible. I support Kamala Harris and oppose Trump, but you just watch it as a political observer and you're like, "Holy smokes, this guy is a commercial for Kamala Harris." And, other forms of media just are not big enough in many ways to break through, but I do think it is a mistake to not talk to as broad a swath of voters as you can, with some kind of virtue signaling about Joe Rogan.

DAVID SIROTA: I would also add to that that there's a chicken or the egg problem here.

The Democrats and the Democratic infrastructure has been hostile to alternative media conduits in a way that the Republicans haven't, and that's been for I don't know 10 15 years. So the point is is that alternate independent media that the democrats could try to cultivate and [00:22:00] build is a longer term project to get to a point where engaging with them in an election is worthwhile and reaching a large audience. The Republicans have worked to create that. The Democrats haven't, and so here we are.

It seems like most democratic elected officials are most obsessed with getting booked on MSNBC, whereas Donald Trump is running around to anybody that's got any kind of audience to try to connect him with disaffected voters. I guess what it's saying is there's almost a class analysis in there, is that the Democratic elected leadership and party structure is interested mostly in talking with the kinds of voters that it did well among which are elite, affluent, upper-middle-class liberal voters, not necessarily interested in talking to a larger audience. Do you agree with that?

JEFF WEAVER: I do, but I would say this I think there's a lot of people who would take the Trump example at the Democratic Party establishment who would say that that's a dangerous thing. These platforms give someone like Trump a voice. [00:23:00] If you open it up on the Democratic side, you might be giving a left populist voice who would then displace them. Trump has displaced a lot of the traditional republican power structure. That's not a lesson learned for them, that's not a positive. You think the members of the DNC are really interested in having a left populist voice go out on the liberal or the Democratic blue media of some kind and blowing them away. I don't think so. Trump's success may reinforce the worst in those folks.

DAVID SIROTA: That's a really interesting point. What are the incentives of the Democratic party? Talk to us a little bit about that, this idea that the Democratic Party presents a brand of we're trying to win elections, but the internal dynamics of the Democratic Party are such that there is a lot of self preservation. That's any organization like Individuals are interested in preserving their own power, their own wealth, their own ability to make a living, etc, etc, but it seems like what you're alluding to is that there's a conflict of interest at the heart of the Democratic Party that [00:24:00] staying in power in the Democratic Party as it exists now, no matter how many elections it's winning or losing seems to be the top priority and the pervasive culture of the Democratic Party, not necessarily winning elections.

I guess what I'm getting at is, the idea of winning elections being more electorally powerful, but reshaping the party so that this the people who are in the party right now have less power. That's a battle because you're battling with self interest. You're battling with people who are trying to hold their territory. Is that basically right?

JEFF WEAVER: Well, it's true as an outsider. Those individuals are convinced that the presentation of the issues and their framing is correct. They believe it themselves that they're right and that the rest of the country is wrong. That's a difficult position to hold in a democracy and be successful.

Other countries, when you have bad elections, they replace leaders. In both parties in this country, that doesn't happen. You lose an election in England, the party leader who's in [00:25:00] the prime minister does not become the minority leader. That person is out.

DAVID SIROTA: I was going to ask about that. Zephyr Teachout wrote a piece in The Nation saying that Chuck Schumer needs to resign. And I think it's fair to say in most other countries when you get shellacked in an election, it's goodbye. That doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe it'll happen now. I guess it gets to my question of, if the Democratic Party can't change leadership now, after this kind of election, what does it say about the party itself? What does it say about American politics? How could it not have to change after what just happened?

JEFF WEAVER: Look, I think what a lot of people are going to rely on is trump self destructing. They're going to say, "oh, look, he got in there. People now are going to remember why they got rid of them last time. And if we just hold on, we'll win in the midterms and then we'll retake the presidency, and the insanity will be over in 2028. Of course, the insanity was supposed to be over in 2020, but the insanity will be over in 2028 and we'll move on". And these people have [00:26:00] convinced themselves that Trump is some kind of anomalous unicorn. Leaders don't make history, history makes leaders. And, he's taking steps now to institutionalize his brand of politics, Republican party, his vice presidential running mate would be probably worse for the country than Trump, I have to say, because he'll be more effective and more focused in an ideological way on changing the nature of government and its relationship to people.

Why Elites Love Identity Politics - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 1-1-25

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: But, make no mistake. Identity stuff didn't cause her defeat, but it absolutely sealed the deal on the defeat. It was a big factor, and to ignore that is just folly. So that then raises your question. How did she become, and her party become identified with it, and what role did it play? Why do I say it did play a big role? So let me try to address both things.

First of all, it played a big role in her defeat, because even though she steered clear from it, the last, I would say, six or eight years, the party has been propagating it in a really fulsome, in a very aggressive way.[00:27:00]

So, at the 11th hour, to suddenly not address it or to steer away from it, didn't fool anyone. And that's why Trump's ads were so effective in attacking her as somebody pushing identity politics down people's throats, was that they'd been doing it for eight years now. Why, in the recent past especially? Well, actually they've been pursuing it for a while. But again, with so many things in our political moment, it goes back to the initial Bernie Sanders campaign. The Democratic Party's answer to Bernie Sanders' propagation of economic justice and economic issues was to smear him as somebody who ignored the plight of what they love to call, their new term, marginalized groups, which is people of color, women, trans people, all matters dealing with sexuality. This is their counter to the Sanders campaign. They've done it assiduously now for eight years. So if in the [00:28:00] last two months they pull away from it, who do they think they're fooling? Literally nobody. So, that's why the turn away from it failed. Because it just seemed so ham handed and so insincere. Nobody bought it.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Right.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: The deeper question is what you just raised. Which is, why are they identified with it? Why have they embraced it? Well, from the moment of the Sanders campaign, it's clear why they embraced it, and we can come back to that in a moment to go deeper into that. But there's a longer historical legacy. They are or have been the party that's pursued race and gender equity for quite a while now. So why is that? It's, I think it's a historical legacy in two ways, okay?

The first is an obvious one. Coming out of the 1960s, when what's called the new social movements emerged, which is the antiracism movements, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, Coming out of the 60s, this was the party that upheld and supported those demands, even when they were real [00:29:00] demand, demands for the masses, not just for elites, this party supported them. So unlike the Republicans who were the party of the ancien regime, you would say, of the resistance to the feminist movement, the resistance to the civil rights movement. So that's one historical legacy.

The second legacy is slightly more subtle, which is that coming out of the New Deal era, the Democrats, as their most important electoral constituency, was the working class. And working class, and the unionized working class in particular, was located in the cities, in large urban centers, because that's where the factories were. Now, what happened after the 80s, as cities transformed because of deindustrialization and the rise of new sectors, was that the geographical location of that electoral base didn't change. It was still cities, but the cities changed. Whereas [00:30:00] cities used to be the place where blue collar workers and unions were centered, by the early 2000s, cities became reorganized around new sectors: finance, real estate—what's called FIRE—insurance, the services, more high end income groups.

So in a way, if the Democrats hadn't done anything, if they had just continued to say, let's focus on the cities, they would have found that their electoral coalition has shifted from workers in the cities to whoever is now living in the cities, which is more affluent groups. And that meant then that affluent groups became the base of the party, and race and gender became reconceptualized around the experiences and the demands of those affluent groups. Okay? These are the two big historical legacies.

Now, a less significant but still salient point is this. After the 70s, in the interim, between the 70s and 2000s, in [00:31:00] both of these groups, minorities and women, the movements declined. And the place that the movements had was taken over by elected officials and the NGOs.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Right.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: So, for example, take the issue of race. The Black working class had a voice inside the Democratic Party through the CIO, through the trade unions, and they brought antiracism into the party through the prism of the needs of Black workers. Now, when the unions are dismantled and the trade unionism in general goes into decline, who is voicing the concerns of "people of color", of Blacks?

It's not going to be the more affluent Blacks that have come up through the post-Civil Rights Era. It's going to be Black political officials. And those Black political officials, by the 2000s, are spread all across the country. There's a huge rise in the number of Black elected officials, mayors, congressmen, Et cetera, et cetera. [00:32:00] And they now no longer have any reason to cater to working class Blacks because they're politically disorganized. What they are now is captured by the same economic forces as White politicians are, but they get to have the corner on race talk.

So what happens then is by the time people your age are coming into politics, people in their 20s, in the early to mid 2000s, race talk and gender talk has been transformed to some degree catering to the needs of working women and working class Blacks and Latinos to largely being taken over by the more affluent groups who are the electoral base of the Democratic Party in the cities, the politicos who now have increased in number tremendously, the NGOs who do a lot of the kind of spade work and the consultancy for the party.

What's missing is 70 to 80 percent of those groups who happen to be working people. [00:33:00] The Democrats, then, as the party of race, as the party of gender, is actually the party of race among the wealthier minorities in the party of gender as conceptualized by organizations like NOW, which are essentially just, you know, catering to wealthier women.

That's the historical legacy, and that's why, within the party, this was the natural response to Sanders because they were able to draw on this experience and draw on this legacy since that legacy is real.

The failures of liberals and the Left have helped Trump's rise - The Marc Steiner Show - Air Date 10-30-24

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yeah, I think about this a lot since the Republicans are such inveterate norm breakers, the story a lot of mainstream Democrats say in return is that we have to uphold norms, right? I mean, if something bad is happening, you did the opposite of that bad thing. And there was a wonderful piece in New Republic by the Pulitzer Prize winning, historian, Jefferson Cowie, whose, if you haven't read [00:34:00] his Freedom's Dominion about how the word freedom became an alibi for coercion in American history through the experience of a single Alabama County, he pointed out that every time democracy truly won a structural victory against the court, the forces of reaction or stagnation, it was through a brazen act of norm breaking. If you think about the fact that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and the military reconstruction of the South, the laws that enabled that passed before any Southerners were let back into Congress. Right? I mean, can you imagine how like the Obamas and Clintons would freak out if you said, oh, well, we need to defeat fascism by ignoring, you know, the votes of the states that have become fascist. Right? If you look at something like, you know, Roosevelt's court packing plan, right?

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Yeah.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Nothing in the New Deal would have happened [00:35:00] unless he had threatened basically the Supreme Court with political, the existing Supreme Court, the incumbent Supreme Court, with political disillusion unless they allow something like the Social Security Act to be declared constitutional, you know? And then finally, this is a very obscure thing in history, most people don't know about this, but it's probably one of the most fascinating things that ever happened. In 1961, JFK realized that no liberal legislation would ever pass because the rules committee and the House of Representatives was ruled with an iron fist by a guy, you might remember this name, Judge Howard Smith, very reactionary Virginia conservative and a coalition he had of Democrats and Republicans who just turned it into a graveyard for every liberal legislation.

So he arranged for the size of the rules committee to expand and added three members without which Civil Rights Act never would have passed, the Voting Rights would never [00:36:00] would have passed, Medicare never would have passed, Medicaid never would have passed, any liberal's legislation would have passed. And it was just by cheating, really. So, unless we kind of figure out, within the realm of kind of under the Capitol dome, kind of top down institutional Democratic Party stuff, unless they kind of get over their kind of Boy Scout attitude and realize some judicious norm breaking might be required, we might be stuck in this miasma for all of our lifetimes.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: Let me just say this, Marc. Another way of putting what Rick just said is that when Michelle Obama said, "When they go low, we go high", that was, like, wrong. When they go low, when they go low, we snap the rug from under them and let them collapse.

RICK PERLSTEIN: When you meet them halfway, that makes it easier for them to spit at you.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: That's right. I mean, I think that the problem, [00:37:00] that, Rick, you just summed it up so well, this assumption of normality, the assumption that we have to be the adults in the room, you know, it's like, you remember the example I gave to you once, Marc, about the Battle of the Crater, Petersburg, Virginia.

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: You remember that?

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Yes.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: Right? I don't know if you ever heard this story, Rick. Do you ever know about, have you ever heard about the Battle of the Crater?

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: It's worth telling. Go ahead.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: So, what happened is, 1864, Union troops surrounded Petersburg, and Confederate defenses were very formidable. So, the Union troops developed a brilliant idea of building this tunnel underneath the Confederate defenses, loading it up with high explosives, and the idea when you set this off and blow the Confederate line. And in the explosion would be so massive, it would not only kill, but it would throw the Confederates into disarray.

So they do this, and the explosion was [00:38:00] massive, and it created this crater. And the Confederate forces that survived were running chaotically back towards Petersburg as a result of this. The Union troops went into the crater and stopped and they sat there and they looked around in marvel at the extent of this devastation, body parts and everything else, and at a certain point the Confederates realized they weren't being chased. They reorganized, came back and massacred the Union soldiers.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: The Obama administration blew a giant hole in the Confederate line, Republicans. And instead of us going through and chasing these guys to extinction. We sat in a hole, marveling over this great historical event, the election of the first Black president and him playing the [00:39:00] role of the braided belt in the living room, right? And we missed the moment and allowed the Confederates to reorganize and they came back as the Tea Party, and we've been paying the price ever since.

Democratic Dealignment w Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor - The Dig - Air Date 11-9-24

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: To close out, I think we can, I think we would both agree that the left has nowhere near the sort of mass organization that we require to govern, instead of sort of meekly petition the governing class. Where should we be focusing strategically our organizing efforts? I mean, two things that come to mind to me always are our labor and and housing.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: Well, I think labor is paramount and it's often missing in our discussions about what the future [00:40:00] holds. You know, we look at police brutality. We look at this campaign. We look at that campaign. But really, I think in order to make a qualitative difference, these campaigns actually have to be connected to the labor movement. And so, you know, I think Chicago Teachers Union has always been a powerful example of how you tie bread and butter issues to the broader social issues and what they and others describe as social movement unionism. And so, you know, I think there needs to be more discussions and collaborations like that.

I think Shawn Fain at the UAW is kind of a figure cut from that mold. And to what extent has Fain been drawn into some of these broader political conversations about where do we go from here? And not just, I know that there is, Fain has been instrumental in stacking [00:41:00] contracts for 2028, which I think is a, you know, exemplar strategy and how do we connect that to the social movements, right?

How do we connect that to the social questions, the political questions that will, we know in this period, find organizational expression. And so that is a key issue. And then, you know, I think that the question of labor and the insurgent union drives are important in the sense that these are often young people who are at work, but who are also connected to these other kinds of social questions.

And so to me, the big issue is the need to break through this wall that sees the labor movement as some kind of old thing over there, and the social movements that don't [00:42:00] really have the political, economic, or social weight to accomplish their goals. How do we bring these things together? And again, that is always the prob- those things don't happen out of good luck. They don't happen because they should. They happen because of political organizing. They happen because of political perspectives. And that is what we have to create the space for.

And that has been part of the ongoing frustration, is that we haven't created the spaces to map out those kinds of tactical, strategic political discussions that are linked to historical theoretical discussions about, 'What is it that we're fighting for? What are, what is the ultimate intention of all of this activism?' That has to be also integrated into the discussion about [00:43:00] how we- what kind of activism or movement facilitates the possibility of the kind of social transformation that we're talking about. And so these are multi level conversations because very quickly, there will be lots for us to respond to.

If we can think back, even though 2016, 2017 won't repeat itself, you know, in the same way, we have some indication, right? The part of Trump's strategy. In 2017 was, I think we described it as shock and awe, that there were just so many outrageous things happening at the same time as a way to really overwhelm the left, because you'd have to respond to the Muslim ban. He's appointing, you know, the CEO of Exxon to be the head of [00:44:00] the EPA. He's appointing some horrible New York developer to be the head of HUD. They will try to pass a, you know, abortion ban. They probably won't start with the abortion ban. They'll start with legislation that makes the morning after pill illegal.

I mean, there's- there will be an onslaught of things that we will be forced to respond to. But what can't happen is that the rapid response to the shock and awe, the Trump administration undermines these bigger political questions about organization strategy and tactics that have to take place. Because this is what always happens, right? It's the expedient response to the immediate issue in front of us. And then it feels like the next step to stop having to [00:45:00] respond to every single issue, means we got to get the Democrat in. So you already know that more likely than not, they're going to get the House. So they're going to have the three wings of government for the first two years of the Trump administration.

The pressure to stop every single thing anyone is doing to win back the House in 2026 is just going to be unbelievable. And this is what happens. And then 2026 comes, and then we know if Trump's not dead, that there'll be some Republican knuckle dragger who will be the worst thing that we've ever heard of, which means all hands on deck. Everything must end now to get Josh Shapiro or some other hack from the Democratic Party into [00:46:00] office. And so that's, we know that's the cycle. And everything that we do then, gets put on hold forever. Because there's never a good time, when the Republicans are always lurking, you know, in the shadows, there's never a good time to do the work that we need to do.

So this is part of the political challenge. These are the discussions that we have to be having now. How do we build these organizations? And how do we continue to engage with these conversations while having to attend to the inevitable crises that are unleashed by whatever Trump, Bannon, Stephen Miller, have in store for us.

Why Elites Love Identity Politics Part 2 - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 1-1-25

MELISSA NASCHEK: So now we're at kind of an interesting point where the Democrats have used this strategy to great success, at least, at crushing the left. [00:47:00] And now it's having a huge negative impact on the perception of the party and their reputation as a party that's going to fight for the downtrodden. So given how discredited identity politics has been, at least how the Democratic Party has practiced it, what kind of relationship should the left have to identity politics, if it should have any relationship to it?

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: The left should very aggressively and actively fight against social domination of any kind, whether it's gender, race, or sexuality. It has to do that. It has to, however, do it in a way that expands beyond the interests of the wealthy and actually addresses the interests of working people, working women, working minorities, right? Which means then that it should take advantage of this opening to bring race and gender justice back to what it was in its, what I would call, its glory days in the 1950s and 60s, [00:48:00] where it was actively a component of the working class movement.

So the way I think you essentially, people like Sanders, people like Shawn Fain, who's been behind the incredible resurgence of the UAW, I think that they're already doing this work where they're saying that we need to address the incredible race and gender disparities in this country, but the way we do it is by building a system cheap housing that's high quality, by making healthcare a right, by addressing the fact that poor schooling and poor jobs lock people of color into poverty for generations, and the only way out of it is not by addressing discrimination, but by addressing the quality of the jobs and the availability of jobs.

This was when the left actually moved the needle on racism in this country, when it actually affected the lives of millions upon millions of Latinos and Blacks. So, in my opinion, the left, the way it ought to respond to this opening, is to take up the [00:49:00] banner of race justice and gender justice. But don't call it identity politics, call it, you know, after school specials if you wanted to, call it something else. But in my opinion, you have to rhetorically separate yourself from this. It's been so long. There was a time when socialists used to look with contempt at the attempts of narrow elites to take over these movements. And I think my dream is for the left to regain the moral confidence and the social weight, and the only way that'll happen, the only way any of this will happen—we've talked about this before, and we'll keep coming back to it—the only way it happens is if socialists in this country become the voice of the left, rather than academics and politicos and media celebrities, and if socialists in this country come from these communities of working people, women and minorities, because they will have the confidence to tell these supposed spokespeople for these [00:50:00] issues to take a step back because they come from those populations, from those sectors that they're fighting for. So, we have to continue to try to promote working class candidates in elections. We have to continue to try to build trade unions. We have to continue to make sure that they're the ones expressing the demands along these race and gender lines, and it doesn't come from professors, from media celebrities, from politicians, because they will always steer it towards the narrow elite ends.

Note from the Editor on the path Democrats have charted

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Confronting Capitalism discussing the widening gap between the Democratic Party and the working class. The Majority Report explained why the election was more of a loss for Democrats than a win for Republicans. Pitchfork Economics explained the history of neoliberalism. Lever Time focused on the difficulty the left is having in messaging and maintaining an information ecosystem. Confronting Capitalism discussed the complicated role of identity politics in our shifting political landscape. The Marc Steiner Show looked at the strategic benefits of bending the [00:51:00] rules from time to time. The Dig discussed the need for greater connection with labor, for the left And Confronting Capitalism, using historical examples, showed the way to integrate both economic and social justice into organizing.

And those were just the top takes, there's a lot more in the deeper dive section. But first, a reminder that the show is produced with the support of our members who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads. To support our work and have those bonus episodes delivered seamlessly to the new members only podcast feed the you'll receive. Sign up to support the [email protected] slash support.

There's a link in the show notes through our Patrion page or from right inside the apple podcast app. And as always, 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. And also we're trying something new recently.

We're offering you the opportunity to submit comments and questions on upcoming topics. It takes us a little bit to put the shows together so I can give you a heads up. [00:52:00] And if it strikes your interest, you can send in your questions ahead of time. Next up we'll be tackling the LA fires and the broader interplay between fire and water in the age of climate change.

And then following that, we'll take a look at the apparent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and other updates on the region. So get your comments and questions. And now for those topics, you can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 2 0 2 9 9 9 3 9 9 1.

Or simply email me to J asbestos bluff.com. Now, as for today's topic, I have a few scattered thoughts first on the ongoing debate. Amongst the left between fighting discrimination with racial and gender justice frameworks, and the idea of economic populism that looks past structures of identity politics. I just want to echo what we've already been hearing and emphasize as strongly as possible that we can do both.

As evidence, one of the biggest and most accurate criticisms of the formal black lives matter organization coming from the right. [00:53:00] Is that it was full of Marxists. And it's true that there is a strong socialist thread running through the racial justice movement. And that should be all the evidence.

We need to see that there is not a conflict between the two, but a dovetailing that can easily link the movements. What we very much do not need is anyone attempting to divide us by pitting these ideas against one another as though they don't go hand in hand Socialist shouldn't think of social justice as a distraction from economic populism.

And we shouldn't believe anyone who argues that we can't take on the money to lead because doing so won't itself resolve racism or sexism.

Secondly on the topic of the democratic party, moving away from the demands of the working class. It's always important to remind people about the money primary. This is the bigger structural perspective. It's not just. How the Democrats work. It's certainly not about individual Democrats and how they feel. The money.

Primary is the structure that sits on top of our politics. We hold [00:54:00] primary and general elections to find our elected leaders, but before any of that happens, there's the money primary where potential candidates have to make themselves appealing to big money donors to find their campaigns. And all of that happens before any voters have a chance to weigh in. Now the misconception is often that politicians sell out their convictions for the sake of those big donors.

And that undoubtedly happens to some degree, but the reality is most people who are even in the room to make their pitch to those donors. Are already naturally appealing to big money and they don't actually have to change that much about themselves. There are people whose genuine beliefs don't include making drastic changes to the way capitalism is allowed to function in the country. Some of the big name, recent examples include after the housing market crash Obama. sort of famously told to the bankers that he was the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks to which [00:55:00] I have always said, get out of the way, what are you doing? Then Hillary Clinton and her run against Bernie Sanders was making sort of straw man arguments saying that she, she never changed her vote based on donor influence.

But of course, that completely obfuscates the fact that. She was able to bring in all of those big dollar donations from banks and private prison corporations and all of that. Because she was the type of bank friendly politician who didn't need to be bribed because she was already on their side. That's the same problem.

Just the flip side of the coin. And then finally come layers. Most recently, we all know, went the route of, instead of, you know, leaning into the economic populism that Biden kindest tried to get off the ground a little bit. She ended up touring with Liz Cheney and billionaire mark Cuban. So. There's good reason to argue that establishment Democrats have been putting big money, overworking people [00:56:00] for a long time. It doesn't then follow that Republicans will be any better.

They're sure to be much worse, but the anger directed at Democrats. He does have a foundation. And then finally, I just want to think back to the 20, 20 race again, and the backroom deals that were made when Bernie Sanders was leading in that primary race. Bernie was winning the first few states before the whole field of candidates dropped out and backed Biden.

But Bernie was only winning a plurality of votes, not a majority of votes in most cases. And in that field, Bernie really was an outlier in terms of policies. So I do think it's fair to say that votes going to other candidates could sort of collectively be understood as. Someone other than Bernie. Votes right. So it definitely wasn't the overwhelming enthusiasm for Biden. They put him ahead that didn't really exist. It was primarily an uneasiness with Sanders, more aggressive and populist [00:57:00] approach that put people off and made them want to vote for someone else.

Now, I bring this up, not to argue that. It was right for Bernie to have lost. I wish he hadn't. But I want to highlight that it wasn't just the establishment politicians who were going against Bernie. And what I would argue, not understanding the shifting mood of the country that was making someone like Bernie much more appealing. To a broad base of voters. It was the democratic party, primary voters as well, who didn't understand that. Many of those voters personally, like the types of policies that Bernie Sanders puts forward, but have the impression that other people fear radical average voters out there in the world, wouldn't like them.

So. To them, they were making this calculation and it felt like too much of a risk to support someone like Sanders, but But what they missed in that calculation is just how widespread the favoribility is for Sanders style, democratic socialism policies that help people. A [00:58:00] politics that actually delivers. Now, arguably Biden did more than the progressive left expected in terms of trying to shift our economics away from the neoliberal status quo.

And I'm appreciative for that. But their messaging was terrible. And even if their messaging was great, there were too many other mistakes being made That helped drown out the good that was being done economically. So the Biden administration efforts ended up being too little, too late. And here we are with working people, continuing to be stuck between two parties that they don't believe will deliver for them. And I continue to argue, at least for now that the democratic party is still the entity that can be bent and molded in a new direction to get back to unwavering support for people while welcoming the hatred of the economic royalists as FDR described them. But the fight for the direction of the party must be happening now. And in the intervening years, Not just during the [00:59:00] next election cycles.

SECTION A: PARTY RECKONING

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics, section a party reckoning followed by section B meal, liberal stranglehold Section C crossed wires focusing on the reorganization of the Republican party. And section D solutions.

Why Elites Love Identity Politics Part 3 - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 1-1-25

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: So in order to be able to understand or analyze identity politics, you've got to first define it.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Yeah.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: You want to define identity politics in as neutral a way as possible so that you're not seen to be building into the definition your criticisms of it.

So we want a definition that most people can recognize as being legitimate. Now, how do most people understand identity politics? Well, I would say there's a couple of things that people associate with it. The first is a attention on discrimination as being at the essence of race domination.

Discrimination disparities. By disparities, we mean you look at any occupation, any phenomenon like housing, any phenomenon like medical [01:00:00] care, and you see, do blacks and whites and Latinos and whites get equal outcomes? And if they don't get equal outcomes, you say, well, there's a disparity within it.

Similarly with discrimination. You want to find out if people getting Equal access to goods, to services, to social outcomes, things like that. Disparities, discrimination, this is one element. And then the other element is what we would call representation. Do we see black and brown faces and presences in social institutions at a level, at a number that you would expect, given what their place in the population is?

So representation, disparities, these are probably what most people think of when they think of identity politics. Thank you. All right, so why would anybody criticize it? You criticize it because it's not so much that these things don't matter, it's that they are most important for, and most important to, elite sections of minority populations.

So take the issue, for example, of disparities. [01:01:00] All right, so you think that there's a problem of housing availability and home ownership in the middle class. Fewer blacks in own homes within the middle class than whites do within the middle class. Look at graduation rates. Fewer blacks graduate or Latinos graduate than whites do.

You look at corporate boardrooms. There are fewer black managers, women managers, than there are male managers or white managers. These are all examples of disparities. Why should anybody have a problem with that? Well, you don't, but the issue is, across a number of phenomena, it's not the disparities in jobs, or wages, or housing that matters, but the very availability of it.

So, take wages, for example. You might say the lower ends of the job market, say, if you're working at Walmart, blacks get lower wages than whites do. That's true. Now, If you solve that problem, will it take care of the quality of life and the life opportunities for [01:02:00] Black Americans or Latinos? If you move them from, say, 13 an hour to what whites are getting, which is 15 an hour, will it solve the problem?

Well, it makes it better. But it absolutely doesn't solve the problem. Why then the focus on these disparities, if it doesn't solve the problem, it's that they loom largest for the elite sections of the population. Because for the elite sections of the population, they've already achieved an appreciable standard of living.

What they want to get is the full value of their class position. Whereas for the lower rungs, for the working class, They're not trying to get the full value of their class position. Their problem is the class position itself. Solving the problem of disparities for people in the lower rungs of the job market doesn't solve their basic dilemmas because for them, the problem is the job itself.

The quality of the job itself, the availability of the jobs themselves. So simply attending to the distribution of people in housing. Let's take housing as an example. One criticism is blacks don't [01:03:00] get mortgages at the same rates that whites do. By the same rates I mean they don't get as many. And they don't get it at the same interest rate.

Well, that's fine if you have the income to afford a house. But for most of the working class, the issue isn't mortgages. What they need is cheap public housing. But you never see this enter the debate on racial justice. So if you agree, as most people do, that identity politics has to do with disparities and representation, then the problem with identity politics is not that it Doesn't touch the lives of minorities is that it touches the lives most powerfully of a tiny section of the minorities Which is their elite sections and to move beyond that deal with the quality of life the life chances of the vast majority of minorities And women now you have to go beyond disparities and look at the actual Availability of social goods not the distribution and not the sorting of different races into those social goods

MELISSA NASCHEK: I think you're right that a big problem [01:04:00] In any discussion of identity politics, whether it's critical or otherwise, is that there are all these different meanings floating around.

So one recent interview I heard was saying that when people criticize identity politics, really what they're saying is, we don't support Black Lives Matter, we don't support pay equity for women, issues like that. And I think what you're outlining is that identity politics is not just I'm critical of this.

I'm critical of that campaign. It's a completely unique outlook on how to build political coalitions and how to understand the interests of racial and gender groups.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Yeah. So people on the left, socialists or Marxists. When they criticize identity politics, what are they criticizing? They can't possibly be criticizing the pursuit of racial justice since socialists have led the way on the pursuit of racial [01:05:00] justice for a hundred years and similarly on gender lines.

They can't be saying we should set aside matters of race. Then what are they saying? What they're saying is that Under the banner of race justice, identitarians pursue it in a way that leaves the interests and the experiences of the vast majority of people of color out of the political strategy, similarly with women.

So I think then that once we've defined it in this way, it makes it possible for us to analyze it in terms of where it comes from, why it's so popular, etc., etc. And I think that's what we ought to be pursuing next.

Democratic Dealignment w Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor Part 2 - The Dig - Air Date 11-9-24

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: Little study groups and sex, which some people I think really, actually, kind of perversely yearn to return to the comfort of. Because being in mass politics and organizing, say, you know, tenants in a building, Some of whom are Trump voters and you need every single person on board. That is what a tenant union looks like.

That is what a labor union looks like. [01:06:00] That's what

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: the working class movement. Yes.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: That's what the working class looks like. Yeah. And, and, and there really is, there is a certain type of identity politics that really does play into the right hands. And this is something that mainstream analysts, we were passing this absurd New York Times article.

Uh, we were discussing that ahead of the election that mainstream analysts have really glommed onto, but they've done so in a really. Really confused and confusing way because in fact the the upshot isn't selling out racial justice or trans people It's building a big movement that tells a cohesive compelling story about what's going on in this country and how to fix it and that invites everybody in

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: that has Solidarity at its core and the the old Knights of Labor Slogan that an injury to one is an injury to all And really explicating, uh, what that looks like and what that means.

And we were onto something with that in 2020. And that is part of the reason why the [01:07:00] backlash was so fierce. Um, I wrote about how Scott Walker, the former governor of Wisconsin, Said in 2022, when the Republicans were washed out, uh, in the midterm elections, that this is because of the multicultural curriculums and schools that, you know, if we don't change or address this, that The Republicans will never win, uh, another election.

And part of that was also not just critical race theory, not just that, but a reaction to young white people marching militantly in the streets against racism. And so that was, A critical opportunity to not just come out of 2020 having dumped Trump, but really building a vehicle that could grow. And instead, [01:08:00] all of that energy got diverted into getting Joe Biden elected, then got diverted again into the Georgia Senate races, uh, in, in, in January and then was demobilized really.

And so. If you think about it, Joe Biden, even as he was backing away from his promises, doing the bidding of, uh, uh, Republicans and deconstructing the emergency COVID state, faced no resistance, faced no opposition, the only hint of opposition and resistance to Joe Biden. Joe Biden came, uh, last spring with the eruption of the Palestinian solidarity protest, because it was the one issue that could not be co opted into the Democratic Party in ways that Black Lives Matter could, in ways that the immigrant rights movement could, in ways that certainly the LGBT [01:09:00] movement could.

And so, This is part of the problem, the demobilization. And so here we are faced with renewed, uh, political, uh, attacks, still lacking those vehicles to respond in a mass way, it doesn't mean that people won't respond and that we can't respond because people inevitably will when Trump tries to initiate deportations and all of the horrible things that he has promised to do.

But the left, we have big problems. The fracturing of the left, the lack of political vehicles, the entanglement with the democratic party, which meant that. You know, it's not like the Joe Biden just pushed a button and, Ooh, the left is demobilized. It's also about [01:10:00] how groups who believe that access within the democratic party gives them the air of officials in the democratic party, uh, and perhaps that is the most effective way to get change.

So. These are parts of, of political debates that need to, to happen, strategic debates, tactical debates about what it is that we should be doing and how it is that we build ourselves out, uh, of the current, uh, crisis that we're in right now.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: And I think we need to have those debates. in, if possible, a comradely fashion, and that really assesses the conjuncture and possible paths forward strategically rather than moralistically.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: Absolutely. Which probably means not on Twitter. Well, but that, I mean, I think that that is actually a big thing. Like, how do we Build our way out of this, are we going to do it on these online platforms? Can we get in [01:11:00] rooms together? Can we talk to each other? And some of it, it sounds like, what are you talking about?

This, this sounds so, is it touchy feely? I don't know, but there, there is a culture problem. And the left, the, the hostility, the intolerance, which I think has conclusively been proven, uh, to be a feature of online engagement. And so, something has to change, because there's just, there's not just going to be cycles of, Well, this is just like 2016, 2017.

Trump comes in, there's going to be a resistance and then we resist and resist and resist and have a confrontation and then funnel all of our resources to get, you know, Josh Shapiro, uh, elected as president. This is, it's not happening because the democratic party's core constituencies are breaking off, are falling out.

And so. [01:12:00] There's a real question about what can be done, what is to be done, what we can do that have to be seriously addressed. This is, there's this idea, I think, from liberals that, oh, this has happened before, we confronted this before, let's have a women's march. You know, in, in January and things are worse, things are materially worse for people.

I think that the Trump administration is not going to be surprised. They were just as surprised as everyone else when they won in 2016. Stephen Miller has been planning since 2020 about how to get back to the White House and get every Spanish speaking person in this country deported. So that Project 2025 is unfortunately a real thing.

Like they have a plan of governance. It doesn't mean that they can [01:13:00] go in and just hit a button and execute the entire thing, but, but they, this is not the surprise, Oh my God, we have power. This is, yes, we're returning to power. Yeah, we have plans

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: and they're no kind of old school establishment Republicans or deep state figures who are going to be in the room to mess it up for him.

They've got a they've got a team that's ready to go.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: They have the government. They have all the chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court. This is not 2016.

Democrats Bungled The 2024 Election WAY Worse Than We Thought Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 1-8-25

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: one of the myths that are going around is one that it was an, a, an immigration question because There's no evidence. That immigration drove more votes to Donald Trump because he got essentially the same share of the electorate as he did in 2021.

Excuse me, 2020. And I also want to say the same thing for the culture war against, wage against, uh, trans people. There is no, [01:14:00] uh, suggesting the idea that, uh, people were enraged about trans. Are Trump voters? Upset about trans people? Yes, that's their, uh, that's their, um, aggrievement du jour. But that didn't, that didn't create any new voters for Trump.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Right. In 2022, the Republicans without Trump at the top of the ticket were, like, did not do well running on transphobia as one of their central planks. Absolutely

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: not. And I just want to go over this AP. I mentioned this yesterday, but this is very important to understand because the people out there who are talking about, like, we have some type of social contagion, the people who are talking about like, you know, uh, trans rights are overcoming everything.

And, you know, you can't send your kid to school without, you know, coming out, uh, trans AP, uh, reports that, uh, JAMA, the, uh, Journal of, uh, American, uh, Medical Association, [01:15:00] Pediatrics, has um, done a study to try and assess how many children, patients, ages eight to 17, received gender affirming care. The data ranges from 2018 to 2022, five years.

2022 is the last year I think that they could get the full data as they were doing this study. Only 926 adolescents with a gender related diagnosis received puberty blockers over that five year period. Not nine, not nine thousand, not, not nine hundred thousand, nine hundred and twenty six. That's less than two kids, uh, excuse me, twenty kids per state over a five year period.[01:16:00]

Also during that time. About double that, almost 2, 000 received hormones. Again, this is from ages 8 to 17. This is over a five year period. The research has found that no patients under the age of 12 were prescribed to hormones. So only, uh, kids 12 to 18, 2, 000 of them over the course of five years. The study did not look at surgeries.

Other researchers have found those procedures are extremely rare. That's relative to the incredibly rare amount of, uh, kids who are actually getting gender affirming care in medications. And what that, uh, suggests, if it's not explicit, is that there are safeguards, that this isn't being done willy nilly.

Um, you know, that Johnny's

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: [01:17:00] not going to school and coming back jail or whatever, like Donald Trump has been saying. It's not a new

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: industry. Yeah, they're just sending kids to kindergarten. But even the people who supposedly are like, uh, listen, I'm for trans rights, but, um, But? I'm just concerned that we are, uh, castrating, uh, you know, the children and we are ruining children's lives willy nilly.

We are not. Despite the actual data. You can tell me that, uh, there's one whistleblower who ends up being considered a freak by everybody who, uh, came in, uh, touch with her at a hospital, causing bomb threats everywhere, saying that the procedures, uh, were, were too lax, but the actual data tells a completely different story.

Yep. This, and not to mention the studies that show that the people receive this care almost overwhelmingly, well, no, overwhelmingly, but almost totally. Um, we're happy they engaged in this care, and you can't find any medical procedure [01:18:00] or any frankly psychological treatment.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And this doesn't have any

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: better rate of less regret.

So, I mean, this is really important stuff to understand.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Right. And this is very similar data to the one that, uh, Joe Rogan pulled up some years ago, uh, I guess it was just two years ago at this point, when Matt Walsh came on to promote this documentary, where he was saying that there were millions of children in this country undergoing, um, trans affirming care, and this is somebody who supposedly toiled over this data and did a whole documentary about it.

When you see the reality of these numbers, just Just be clear, like, these are not people operating in good faith, they're smear merchants directing hatred towards people because they can't deliver on their politics for a majority of Americans. And when you engage,

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: when you engage in this culture war, all you're doing, all you're doing, you're not helping children, you're not protecting children, all you're doing is, [01:19:00] uh, creating more hate, you're creating more suffering, you're helping, uh, right wingers, and, um, you're perpetrating lies an aggrieve and just demonizing the next, um, uh, you know, cohort du jour that's going to be demonized by the right.

That's all you're doing.

SECTION B: NEOLIBERAL STRANGLEHOLD

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B neoliberal, stranglehold.

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (with Gary Gerstle) Part 2 - Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer - Air Date 1-14-25

Nick Hanauer: Gary, our focus is usually on the economics, on the academic economics, and you’re obviously taking a historical view. How does, do these two things relate? And were there historical drivers that led naturally to the neoclassical economic framework from which neoliberalism was derived? I guess the way we think about it is that you have got this layer, if you will, of neoclassical [01:20:00] economics, which is based on a bunch of underlying, theoretically empirical, scientifically verified assumptions about human behavior, about the dynamics of human social systems, about the origins and nature of prosperity, so on and so forth. And from that you derive neoliberalism, which is its ideological companion, right? The sort of social, cultural, political and moral framework from which we allow to govern ourselves. How does the academic layer, economic academic layer relate to the ideology? Which came first, for example? It’s sort of a chicken and egg problem a little bit, isn’t it?

GARY GERSTLE: You mean the other dimension referring to the cultural dimension, this dream of freedom? Is that-

Nick Hanauer: Yeah.

GARY GERSTLE: I think they both arose at the same moment. If the new left moment is the 1960s and ’70s, I would say the cultural component came first from [01:21:00] university students, many of them privileged, growing up in what they took to be a massively bureaucratized society that did not deliver on the promise of individuality and freedom that they had been led to expect would be part of their American birthright. This yearning for personal freedom was there in the ’60s during a moment of great affluence. But then you have the economic crisis of the 1970s, and that economic crisis is profound in terms of eliminating the dominance of a different system of economics, Keynesian economics, that have been integral to the new deal order. There are two sources of crises in the 1970s which upend the New Deal and Keynesianism, one is that America has serious industrial competitors in the world for the first time since prior to the Second World War. After World War II, the U.S. is the only [01:22:00] industrial economy still standing, and the world is its oyster.

It can do whatever it wants to in the world, or I should say in the non-communist world. One of the things it does is that it builds up the competitors it had defeated, Germany and Japan. And it needs to do this because it can’t sell enough goods to international consumers unless those consumers are out there. And in the 1970s, Japanese cars and electronics and German machinery and cameras and other things, they have become serious competitors to the United States. And the U.S. industry is not ready for it because they’ve had a 30-year period of control and oligopoly behavior where two or three firms which control entire industries. And over the long term, that’s not a good recipe for economic growth and prosperity because you dull innovation, the imperative of productivity. The other thing that [01:23:00] happens in the 1970s is a reordering of relations between consumers of resources in the global north and the suppliers of those resources in the global south.

And here, the critical event is the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which leads Saudi Arabia to boycott, refuse to sell its oil to the West. And the West’s prosperity had been built on the promise of unending supplies of cheap oil from the Middle East, which were still at that time under the control of Anglo-American oil companies and they made the decisions how much oil to extract from the ground and what price to charge. That ends in 1973 with the rise of OPEC and the determination that these resources belong to the producers and we are going to set the terms. That is part of a larger reconfiguration of relations between the global north and global south that makes the 1970s a [01:24:00] double whammy. Competition for the U.S. from industrial competitors and need to radically rethink the availability and cost of vital resources to prosperity. And that plunges the American economy into a very severe crisis.

It’s not just inflation, it’s the beginnings of massive deindustrialization of economic centers of the north and the Keynesian toolkit is no longer working. I have a idea, a theory of what I call political orders. And when a political order establishes itself, it is able to compel agreement from all parts of the relevant political spectrum. During the heyday of the New Deal order, the Keynesian tools were thought to be so powerful and so effective that when Dwight D. Eisenhower becomes the first Republican president to regain the presidency in 1952, the big question is he going to roll back the New Deal or is he going to endorse its core features? And he endorses its core features [01:25:00] because he feels there is no future for the GOP if he doesn’t do that. Well, that consensus explodes in the 1970s and these neoliberal ideas, versions of the neoclassical ideas that you talked about, which have been around and which had been incubating but had been utterly irrelevant to the conduct of American politics or of the American economy.

This is their moment when they can bid for power. They had a strategy for gaining power. They had think tanks. They were developing links between think tanks and politicians. They had a general who could command the field forces. Ronald Reagan was his name. They were ready for the opportunity that the 1970s gave them. In my theory of political orders, there are certain economic crises of such magnitude that they crack up the orthodoxy that have been dominant and allow ideas that have been considered till that [01:26:00] moment dangerously heterodox to enter the mainstream. This becomes the neoliberal moment of ascent.

Workers Without a Party Part 2 - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 12-11-24

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Here's the way I would put it is that with the white working class, they were overly confident that that class has nowhere else to go.

And whatever white workers they lose, they can make up by bringing in what they call the minority vote. Right. By which they meant Blacks and Latinos, okay? Yeah. So how do you bring in the minority vote? Now this is interesting. All these people are white. The people, these political leaders. So they have to figure out, well, what do the minorities want?

And they turn to not Black or Latino. Union leaders, Latino community organizers, Latino working class people, they turn to those sections of the minority population who, A, they trust, and B, more importantly, who won't, uh, roil their overall program, which is a corporate based program. So when they say, okay, we're gonna compensate by bringing in more minority voters, [01:27:00] What they, who they turn to is elites within the minority population.

Now that means, if you, if you think that minority populations are just a homogenous blob, then of course you can just pick up anybody at random and say, Hey, what do you people want? Right. Okay. But if you, if they are, in fact, economically stratified if they have classes and therefore different interests.

It's going to matter who you're asking as to what would please black and Latino voters enough that they would come to the party. Yeah. Okay. So who do they ask? Well, they ask Black professionals, Latino professionals, the non profit sector, and the corporate class, right? Yeah. What is the instinctive worldview of those classes?

It is not going to be to say, you should provide jobs, hospitals, education, and housing to these folks. Yeah. Because they are themselves economically dominant in those classes. And if they're the professionals, they don't, they don't care. They care about their own lives, which is, [01:28:00] a life in which economic issues don't figure prominently, but the cultural slights do, the symbolism does, and that's what you said that you're trying to substitute cultural gifts for material ones.

Well, what's the material basis for that? Why? Because it's not rocket science, right? So it's because the minority advisors who they turn to, are themselves of the same class as the white suburbanites, who they're trying to woo in their new electoral strategy. And the result is, they not only leave the white working class behind, they leave the black and Latino working class behind too, and you are now reaping the fruits.

of that strategy. Now, of course, numerically, Blacks still preponderantly vote for the Democrats. The Latino vote is close to evenly split. It would be folly to ignore the fact that the shift within those populations is at a historic high towards the Republicans, and it's especially concentrated In the working class, and that's a huge dilemma for the Democrats now,

MELISSA NASCHEK: right?

And I think your [01:29:00] emphasis on economic stratification with those groups is so important, because the way that most post election analysis is done is they just treat, you know, they treat them exactly like we're criticizing. The Democrats for treating him, which is these homogenous blobs.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Yeah, they'll say, you know, you're listening to an American commentator when they use the following expression.

Such and such policies hurt the poor and people of color. So people, people of color does not include classes within it, right? They're just assumed to be economically homogenous and. I should say this is an actively constructed trope by elites of color. Yeah. This notion that there are no classes amongst black Americans, there are no classes amongst Latinos is something that's been created by minority academics, upwardly mobile professionals, and the business community.

The only people who ever denied the existence of classes are the people on top.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Right. And I think as the Democrats are [01:30:00] trying to reckon with and understand what happened to Their so called demographic destiny, where racial minorities were going to just keep putting them in office in perpetuity. The right is also trying to craft a public narrative and explain their recent victory, which was unexpected, specifically in the, in this racial dimension.

And it's interesting listening to right wing commentators because they're also giving a lot of credit to culture and saying that. A big part of the reason that these voters are coming towards the Republican Party is because the Democrats don't represent their values anymore. So you know, I've been thinking about how we can respond, not just to the Democrats, [01:31:00] Narrative, but also the Republican narrative because I think it's equally important to explain why this dynamic is happening and explain why both sides aren't offering a real analysis of these dynamics,

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: you know, the Republicans are advantaged by a couple of things.

And those are not deep advantages. One advantage in this election was that it was in substantial measure, the election itself, So, it's hard to imagine Kamala Harris winning this election, given the economic trends of the last four years. And you see anti incumbency being really powerful across the electoral universe right now, around the world.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Right.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: So, odds are, she was going to lose no matter what. But on, in the longer term. What's been happening is that the Republicans have a second advantage, which is that not only the Democrats not delivered anything to the [01:32:00] working class, but when it comes to the way they relate, the way they present themselves to the poor, it's one of two ways, right?

If it's white workers, There's a substantial amount of derision and open condescension towards them. Right? Right. That you have to rid yourself. I saw this ad, I remember, it was on somewhere in, on YouTube or something, where essentially it was saying to people, You have an opportunity, a historic opportunity, to elect the first Black female president and I thought so the way you approach the electorate is not by telling them what you can do for them But what they can do for you, right and it encapsulated perfectly The way that the Democrats have reacted to their defeats of the past two or three electoral cycles, which is when you lose elections, you blame the electorate.

This is, this is really amazing, which is you tell them that they had a chance to step up to the plate and do something good and they failed you. [01:33:00] That encapsulates for the working class, especially the white working class, an incredible condescension, right? And then when you see the intelligentsia, if you look at MSNBC, if you look at CNN, all the, the, the major networks, when they talk about, The poor, how do they talk about them?

The poor are riven with these cultural deficiencies. They're racist, they're misogynist, they're imperialist, blah, blah, blah. Now, how do you expect them to react? On the one hand, you're not giving them anything. And on the other hand, while you're not giving them anything, you tell them they deserve nothing, right?

Because they're morally inferior. Now, when it comes to the minorities, then, you're not giving them very much, except quite literally, some letters. So you turn Latino into Latinx and you think that's going to win over, it's going to bring voters to you. So obviously, when the language you're speaking is the language of highly credentialed, overly educated, poorly socialized academics or professionals.

All the while doing nothing [01:34:00] for people's material lives. It's a, it's a very, one might say, toxic package, right? Yeah. That there's no sense in which they can connect to you. Now, you'd ask, how does the left react to that? The only way you react to that is, of course, first of all, more than anything else, you actually have to show that the party will fight for you.

It'll actually fight for you and do something for you. Right. But while it's doing that, your activists, your politicians, your candidates, they have to speak to them in normal, everyday language, not like they're coming out of some identitarian boot camp. Neither of those things is happening. So I think until people who call themselves leftists do away with the condescension and the derision and understand that material needs are not something that's gauche or vulgar but real, you won't get anything out of it.

SECTION C: CROSSED WIRES

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next section C crossed wires with a focus on some of the potential changes happening within the Republican party.

Democratic Dealignment w Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor Part 3 - The Dig - Air Date 11-9-24

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: I want to ask you about a major, uh, An increasingly weird [01:35:00] ideological challenge. I think we face exemplified by the role of Elon Musk on the Trumpist far right. And I think, I think it's important, including in terms of multiracial working class dealignment, because in the absence of a left populist alternative, what we're seeing, I think, is neoliberalism remaking So many people into wannabe entrepreneurs aspiring to make money from crypto or landlord ism any sort of escape from wage labor health through through hustling hard, achieving the new American dream of passive income.

What? What do you?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: That's that's what Harris was offering, right?

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: Yeah. So

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: crypto and weed.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: Yeah, that was to black men.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: Yeah.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: What do you? Ridiculous. What do you make of this? This fierce attachment, uh, this fierce attachment to these avatars of American capitalism at the very moment when people feel more crushed by American capitalism than ever.

And what kind of, like, model for being in the world [01:36:00] Are we putting forward as an alternative?

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: It feels like, it feels like the only way out, man. I will tell you one of the first demonstrations I went to when I moved to Chicago in the late 90s, early aughts. It was, um, Jesse Jackson organized this protest.

There was a public school that was across the street from a brand new juvenile, uh, jail that was huge. White, it looked, it mirrored building, it took up, I think, two or three city blocks, and it towered over everything. And so he had called this protest at an elementary school, um, because they only had one functioning toilet.

And so they would, the teachers in the building, would organize the students on the second [01:37:00] floor to make a trip down to the basement to use the bathroom once or twice a day. And so Jackson was drawing attention to the obvious contradiction of this multi million dollar facility. To jail black kids and this public school that had one functioning toilet in the basement.

And so why is basketball, boxing, MMA, wrapping? Why is all this pop? It's a way out. It's a way out. When. Nothing else seems to work in which you can't plausibly imagine anything working. If you go into your average working class black neighborhood school, there is no way in most of these schools that you walk in with any [01:38:00] expectation that you can walk out and be set on the path to success.

To having the kind of quality of life for you, for your family. No one thinks that. The jobs that are available to young black people just like the jobs that are available to young working class, rural, poor white people offer you no future, no hope. We wonder why there are deaths by despair, whether they are black people in despair or white people.

In despair, it's because we live in a society where there is no hope and it's true. It is absolutely true. People are bonded to debt with no job that can pay that debt. So it means a lifetime of shitty work that you don't want to do [01:39:00] that is meaningless. And that is the future that they have made for us.

So much so that Kamala Harris talked about for five minutes. A 5 percent rent cap until she realized that actually you can't guarantee something like that, right? Especially if you want to surround yourself with the Mark Cubans of the world, with the nice billionaires, the liberal billionaires, like they don't want to be hearing about rent caps.

And so we live in a society that guarantees you. The right to a job, can't pay your bills, to a place to live, that the rise in rent is unchecked, that a landlord can charge you anything he determines you're able to pay, that sees an increase in evictions, that [01:40:00] underfunds every aspect of its public sector.

And then we wonder why you want to be a rapper. You want to be a basketball player. You want to be Elon Musk. Who the hell doesn't want to be a billionaire when that is your social reality? And so clearly the way that you transform that is that people have to have hope that their lives can be different.

And hope is not a cheap religiosity that some divine intervention can change this. It's a union job. It's more than a living wage. It is capped rent, right? It's rent. That's 20% of your income. It's parks, it's libraries, it's healthcare. It's free college, not student loans, free college. It's transportation, it's vacation.

It's like peace of mind. It's quiet. It's connection. It's [01:41:00] friendships. It's relationships. That is what supplants. The stupidity of the kind of vapid, venal, billionaire psychosis with, you know, Trump and his gold sneakers, Elon Musk and his rocket phallus. You know, like, these are cartoon figures, but that they are animated through the hopelessness of the society as the way that it is.

And we know this. We know this as a society. That's why people have the polls with the huge majorities who want to use our public resources to make people's lives better. Like, ordinary people recognize this. If you, if you have a good life, you know, like, that is the secret to a long and meaningful life.

But that's hard to achieve in this society. for listening. That's hard to achieve in a society that [01:42:00] promises you absolutely nothing except the right or capacity to find a job that is utterly meaningless and that can't afford you or your family members a decent quality of life. And, you know, that's, I mean, that, that's what this struggle, uh, is about is, is how to have a good life and not a life of debt and meaningless work.

Strategist says young men feel rejected by the Democratic Party - MSNBC - Air Date 11-16-24

symone Sanders-Townsend - Host, MSNBC: Well, I heard from some of the, you know, the, the, the very fancy political streets that bro culture was actually like taking the term bro culture was, is, is, is to young men that Latin X is to the Hispanic and Latino community. I just want to throw down the table. Is that true? Like the bro culture, is it a backlash?

Let's talk about bro culture.

TERRANCE WOODBURY: I mean, look, I, I, I certainly don't feel like I'm a part of a bro culture, but there is a, there is a manosphere, right? There's a manosphere where, where these conversations are happening, where there, there [01:43:00] are conversations that are not happening in mainstream media, uh, conversations about masculinity, about how masculinity is evolving.

I get these, these texts from my dad and, and what's at groups all the time about how what we are eating is reducing masculinity. I'm like, dad, I promise it's not because I ate avocados , but, but that, right? So, so there is an environment. Um, where conversations are happening that Democrats are going to have to penetrate.

But when we get there, we're going to have to have a different conversation. And some of these conversations are complicated, right? This is what we talk about. We're claiming values like masculinity and spirituality. What does masculinity look like in a Democratic Party? Right. What is the role of masculinity?

It's not all toxic, but

MSNBC HOST: it's not. See, that's the problem. So I think you just jumped onto a false narrative. It's not about what masculinity is in a political party. It's what's masculinity in our culture and society. That's right. What does it mean for a young man to grow into a father to grow into a productive member of our community?

So this whole bro culture [01:44:00] bs It's a psychological warp game with young men telling them that they got to, you know, have a particular attitude about women. They got to look at, they got to look at situations, um, you know, through this lens where, you know, Josh Holly and others, Hey, we're going to shine some light on our groin and we're going to become more men.

What, what the hell are we talking about here? I found interesting

AARON SMITH: in our research is we asked young men, what does it mean to be a man? Number one thing was protecting your family. Number two thing was honesty. So this is a complicated group. There's 25 million young men. I wouldn't put them all in a box.

So they just

MSNBC HOST: voted for someone who is, in terms of protecting the family, is going to break up families. And in terms of being honest, hello, we're talking about Donald Trump here.

AARON SMITH: That's my point. There are young men who voted for Kamala Harris, who have concerns about feminism. And there are young men who voted for Donald Trump, who support abortion rights.

This is this true [01:45:00] swing group. You know, 7 million of them voted for Joe Biden in 2020. They can go back, but we have to We have to speak to them and realize that they're not fitting into these boxes that we're used to.

MSNBC 2: So after the election, you had a briefing, Young Men's Research Initiative, and your researcher said two things that I've been thinking about a lot.

One is that people say like, well, who listens to three hours of Joe Rogan? People who stock groceries, people who drive trucks, like it becomes a parasocial relationship. But also this idea that Democrats are so focused on the policy and the messaging and that is one piece of things and that is for the party to contend with.

But what your researcher said is, so long as whatever that policy and whatever that message is, is being filtered through the kaleidoscope of the media that folks are consuming, not just young men, right, just this powerful media force. They will find a way to say, well, doesn't that message from Democrats isn't for you, that policy from Democrats isn't for you.

So there's also from an infrastructure perspective in the progressive space, someone has to deal with the kaleidoscope [01:46:00] either by penetrating the kaleidoscope or by saying, here's some alternate forms of media where, yeah, we, it's fun and it's entertaining. And we talk about culture and we don't jam the vegetables into your mouth.

We understand you're a full person with a full life, and we can talk to you that way. Look, there goes the

AARON SMITH: avocado. Let's talk about, let's talk about the investment problem. It's a fruit. If you, if you go to the Democratic Party's website right now, they have a web, a page on who we serve. And it lists 16 different groups.

It says women, seniors, rural Americans. One group that's not mentioned is men. And I don't think that Democratic leaders are saying we are not for men. But the message is, is getting across. If you look at Dollar spent. Donald Trump in this campaign outspent Dems 4 to 1 in terms of online ads targeting young men, 10 to 1 in swing states.

So there's clearly an investment problem, and then we need to start thinking about these distribution channels. How do we actually get through the kaleidoscope and get those [01:47:00] messages that we want to be heard? to young men.

TERRANCE WOODBURY: A part of my concern, though, is not just that the Democratic, what you describe as like the Democratic message is not for these men, it's that far too often it feels like Democrats are saying those men are not for us, right?

If they don't, the partisan, the progressive puritanism, right? I tell people all the time in my household, my father is the head of household and my mother agreed with that, right? That there's that in a culture that has raised men to believe that men are head of household when they have questions about a woman as president.

It doesn't mean that they're no longer our voter. It means we have to engage them in a tough conversation about why, why, why the role, why gender roles are evolving, why our country is evolving. It's the same thing Barack Obama did in 2000 and eight. He didn't tell every white person that had bias. You're not my voter.

He engaged them in a conversation about how his grandmother, the person he loved the most, held bias to. And that's what Democrats are not doing. We are rejecting these men who have, who have opinions that are different than us, [01:48:00] who have, who don't hold our, our progressive puritanism and we're telling them that they're no longer our voter.

We don't want you here if you don't leave with your pronouns. We don't want you here. If you don't, uh, believe that a woman should be president, as opposed to our country is evolving, there's a role for you in it, and this is what it's going to look like.

AARON SMITH: One other thing that Obama did,

symone Sanders-Townsend - Host, MSNBC: was he showed

AARON SMITH: up everywhere.

I remember seeing Obama at world wrestling events, and he would talk to anyone, and he had that approach. The other thing is, I think we need to do a better job of listening. to what is going on online and what young men are saying. This is a rapidly changing landscape. The world in 2026 or 2028 could look very different.

And the first time voters there in high school right now. So we need to be prepared. It's not just the battle we're fighting right now. It's It's keeping our eye on what's going on so we understand what's coming.

symone Sanders-Townsend - Host, MSNBC: I think this head of household, um, uh, piece that you hit on and, and, and you and Aaron are dovetailing.

I, I really think that there is something there. [01:49:00] Y'all remember the weekend before the election, Wes, Governor Moore of Maryland came on our show and he talked about, you know, men need to stand up for their households, he said, and that is how he put it. Um, and He framed it as, you know, as a man, if you're the head of your household, like these are the things, you know, that I'm talking to men about in this election and what I've heard is that, um, some, some voters have felt that maybe the language that was used to speak about, um, men and, and, uh, in this election was a little condescending.

It's like, let's talk to the men. Um, and, and, and maybe we all need to rethink it. But I really think that when I talk to folks and they're like, oh, well, people just didn't want to vote for a woman. What you're saying is right, Terrence. In a culture where men have been young, young men and boys are raised to be the head of their household and they're saying, well, I don't know if a woman can be president.

We can't write that off. We need to engage it. It is painful though, because it's just like your mama raised you, but you, you don't think she, your mama been telling you what to do your whole life, but now you don't want, you don't want a woman running the country. It's painful, but you [01:50:00] got to have those conversations is what I'm hearing.

TERRANCE WOODBURY: That's right. And these are going to be painful conversations, but there's a way to get to, to hold our progressive values, right? Hold our progressive values and, and, and, and message them through these types of these types of lenses. Look, as the head of my household, it is incumbent upon me to protect my family from a government that tells a, that tells my wife or daughter, Who they can and cannot be.

If God grants everyone freedom of choice, then why should government grant my daughter any less than that? That is a different lens, that's a religious lens, a masculine lens for the exact same progressive values. We can do both.

How Democrats Can Win Back The Working Class Part 2 - Lever Time - Air Date 11-8-24

DAVID SIROTA: Yeah, uh, I absolutely agree. The idea of a smarter authoritarian whose personal behavior doesn't get in the way of implementing the authoritarian agenda, that is J. D. Vance. And his code switch, uh, in the debate to sort of normal guy. I think that, I mean, my take on Vance is it took him a very long time on the campaign trail to realize that he would be [01:51:00] more effective by code switching to normal guy rather than like MAGA base guy.

It was really weird, actually, because he was already the VP nominee, meaning he wasn't in a primary. And yet he was sort of running in the general as a as a primary presidential candidate appealing mostly to the base Something in his brain Switched or he got a good piece of advice. Hey, wait a minute I'm already in the general election.

I'm going to use this debate to code switch to like general election, normal guy. And it was really effective. And I think the answer is, and I say this not loving the answer because I don't want my kids to go to school and in a school that feels unsafe or where there are visible signs of security. But I unfortunately think that we have to increase security.

In our schools, we have to make the doors lock better. We have to make the door stronger. We've got to make the windows stronger. And of course, we've got to increase school resource officers because the idea that we can magically wave a wand and take guns out of the [01:52:00] hands of bad guys, it just doesn't fit with recent experience.

So we've got to make our schools safer. And I think we've got to have some common sense, bipartisan solutions for how to do that. Vance is just as, if not more, Dangerous than Trump because he, he comes off as a relatively normal person.

JEFF WEAVER: And I think he has an ideological foundation. You know, Trump doesn't really have an ideological foundation.

I mean, he's authoritarian. He jumps all over the place. It's not a coherent ideology that underpins his policies, but for the Vance, the risk

DAVID SIROTA: Vance. Vance has a way he sees the world. He's got a narrative that he tells. I mean, I just saw him, I saw a clip of him on Rogan, by the way, uh, talking about how the railroad companies hate him, uh, because he's the one who's called them out for socializing the costs of their misbehavior.

So I talked about this train disaster in East Palestine and, you know, the railroad companies hate me because I kind of went on a crusade against them afterwards. And what I realized is, think [01:53:00] of all the costs. of that disaster. Think of the healthcare costs, the welfare costs from people who lost their jobs, the declining home values in that community, just all of the costs absorbed by that community.

And the railroads are paying slap on the hand fines. And it sort of occurred to me that the reason they're not more serious about these train disasters is because they're privatizing the rewards, but when a major train disaster who picks up the tab. It's the local residents and it's the American taxpayer.

And that's something that fundamentally has to change. I listened to it and I was like Okay, this guy has a real analysis of the world, and I think that that raises another question. This realignment, if there is a realignment, there certainly was a realignment in the election. If this realignment is happening, are there opportunities for actual good populist policy to happen?

Under [01:54:00] a Trump Vance administration. And are you even allowed to say that there are possibilities for good things to happen, uh, without fear of being called like a Trump appeaser or a Trump supporter or, right, right. Like, like, like, like, are we allowed to even talk about this?

JEFF WEAVER: Right, right. Well, look, I, look, I do, I do think people want more, uh, honest talk.

Or what they perceive as honest talk and less sort of partisan talking points. Uh, so I mean, you know, let's be completely honest about it, you know, when COVID, uh, happened and places were being shut down, you know, it was Trump signed the PPP. It was Trump that signed off on the initial round of checks to people to keep them afloat during the, you know, Biden continued it wisely.

Um, but that certainly didn't happen in the 2000 and. Nine time period. Uh, those checks weren't going out to people. So, uh, you know, so there were, you know, like there were good things that happened. [01:55:00] Um, and you know, there are people on the, uh, among Democrats and Democrats worked on the PPP as well. I've been card and other people worked on that as well.

You know, Bernie was certainly out there pounding the table for a more direct payment relief to people. So, um, You know, are there ways where, where, where you, where you can do that? I mean, you know, the problem is, is that much of Trump's populism is a fae populism, right? Right. Uh, so when you get to tax policy and you get to deregulatory policy in some areas, you know, it's gonna be a complete corporate giveaway.

It's gonna be the reinforcing of the, of the corporate, uh, benefits.

DAVID SIROTA: C can we go back to the election for, for one more moment on that? Yeah, sure. The, the, the Latino vote, I mean, the Latino vote was in. A particularly big shift. And I think there are a lot of people who may be listening to this saying, I don't understand how the Latino vote shifted to Donald Trump when he ran all of these immigration ads [01:56:00] that That were in a lot of ways code for, uh, we don't like Latinos.

I mean, I, I, I, I think there's a, there's like a border argument on, on the, the policy of immigration. And then I think there's also, uh, you know, uh, at a deeper level, Donald Trump coding a kind of. Anti Latino or pro white message to white people by talking about border policy, right? It's, it's sort of dog whistle.

So I think a lot of people will look at the election results and be like, I don't understand. Donald Trump is like dog whistling anti Latino messages to white people. And he's rewarded by having an upsurge in voter turnout. Latino voters voting for him. What do you make of that?

JEFF WEAVER: You know, we had tremendous success in bernie's two campaigns really with latino voters I mean far beyond what anybody thought was possible.

I mean california in a fractured field You remember there was three [01:57:00] million candidates on the ballot california bernie got 50 percent of latino vote in california. So um You know, the Latino community itself is wildly fractured. So, you know, Central Americans and Mexicans on one hand versus Venezuelans and Cubans, you know, they're very, very different communities.

So let's talk a little bit about, um, Latino community in a sort of the Southwest part of the United States of sort of largely Central American and, um, uh, and Mexican, uh, uh, descent. You know, there were some, I did notice during the campaign, there were some subtle, you know, Changes in Trump's rhetoric at times where he started there was I remember one in particular he said well It's not really it's not just Latinos coming over as people from other places coming over people coming over from the Middle East people coming over from Africa and you know trying to I think it's some small way split some hairs Look Latinos like every generation of immigrant communities It's highly aspirational and if you could speak to those aspirations Transcriptions You will [01:58:00] get their support and that's what he did.

He spoke to their aspirations. Now, who's going to follow through on it? Probably not. Bernie spoke to their aspirations and, you know, it was also rewarded electorally. Um, the, the Democrats didn't have anything to say other than high prices. Um, and I think that's why they failed. You know, housing, housing's a mess, you know, the cost of housings.

Apartments are expensive. Houses are expensive. The interest rates are crazy. Uh, you know, at some point we should also talk, you know, another this show, because we don't have time, but, you know, the, the impact of high interest rates as an element of inflation and, um, the cost burden that people are feeling, you know, you, You remember during COVID when the credit card balances of America overall went down substantially people, I think there was periods where we had the lowest credit card debt we had had in a long time.

Now, those balances are higher than they've ever been. So people went from an environment where, uh, they, they were paying down their debt. To one in which because of high costs, uh, they were at high [01:59:00] interest rates, you know, more and more of their income is being eaten up by credit card bills and people paying 20 to 25, 28, even these are people with decent credit getting paying 28 percent on credit cards.

Uh, and what does that do to people's buying power?

The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order (with Gary Gerstle) Part 3 - Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer - Air Date 1-14-25

Nick Hanauer: very good strategy.

Anyway. Let’s talk about where are we now. Where are we now?

GARY GERSTLE: We’re in a whole lot of trouble.

Nick Hanauer: Yeah, that’s true.

GARY GERSTLE: For left liberal forces, this is a big defeat, but it’s not the end of the story.

Goldy: It’s not the end of history because I’ve-

GARY GERSTLE: It’s not the end of history. It’s not the end of the story. It’s not the end of the search for a post-neoliberal paradigm. Volatility still rules our moment, and it’s clear Trump… First of all, it’s not clear what Trump’s policies are going to look like economically. He also does not have the kinds of majorities that Roosevelt or Reagan had to usher in a different kind of political economy to the [02:00:00] degree that I think some of his supporters would like to accomplish. Let me first say that 2016 is a moment of real change in the United States and that it’s the moment that really breaks the hold of the neoliberal orthodoxy. You have Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, and it’s a one two combo that sort of explodes the neoliberal synthesis, privileging free trade, free movement of people, free flow of information, free movement of capital.

Those two figures are diametrically opposed in many respects but if you listen to a Trump and Sanders speech on the evils of free trade and why we should move away from a globalized world of free trade for the sake of some kind of fair or trade, some of their speeches are indistinguishable from each other. Until that moment, a protectionism had been a dirty word. If you utter, if you were [02:01:00] identified as a protectionist in American politics, you were out of the mix. Trump levies many tariffs and Biden doesn’t remove them. And the 2020 election is very important because it unveils an alliance between the left and center of the Democratic Party to really break from–Biden breaks under the influence of Sanders from his democratic predecessors, both Obama, and Clinton. And there’s a major effort to rethink the proper relationship of states to markets of what governments can do to control direct markets in the public interest. And this is where the middle-out discussion and synthesis began.

The Biden administration had major, major initiatives in this area. One of the mysteries to Me, and maybe you have an answer for it because I don’t have a good answer for it, is why these major initiatives of the Biden administration [02:02:00] have garnered so little popular support. Here I have in mind the reshoring of chips manufacturing, the trillion-dollar infrastructure project and the biggest investment in green energy in this country’s history.

Nick Hanauer: I think the answer is that nobody knew.

Goldy: It didn’t impact people. You have a political system where we have elections every two years, and you had an economic agenda which will take a decade, maybe decades to fully benefit people. This is a problem with democratic politics in general. You’re elected short-term, but the policies that you really need to do are long-term. And the fact that we had a New Deal order for so long allowed us to build all this infrastructure and build these social programs that paid off for decades. And now there’s no consensus on anything. If you’re going to switch [02:03:00] policies every two to four years, you’ll never get anything done.

SECTION D: SOLUTIONS

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section D solutions.

Workers Without a Party Part 3 - Confronting Capitalism - Air Date 12-11-24

MELISSA NASCHEK: But I think this brings us to something we are going to have to wrestle with, which is what can the left do in this current political climate?

Because to what you're saying about the way that the Democrats have really pursued the professional managerial class, and they code that as. The suburban vote, but we all kind of know what that means. How can the left relate in a productive way to the Democratic Party? I think especially because in American politics, you just have no choice.

But to have some sort of relationship to electoral politics, it's so central to the American political scene. On the other hand, we're talking about all these elements of the [02:04:00] Democratic Party that are really about fighting for a continued strengthening of capital and certain elements of the capitalist class.

So I think that presents kind of a conundrum for the left.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Yeah, it does. There are no easy answers. When you sit and think. objectively about what you're up against. If you're a social Democrat, an actual social Democrat or a socialist, it's daunting. The basic dilemma is exactly as you've laid it out, which is the Democratic Party is a party of elites.

And that presents a challenge to anybody trying to engage in politics through that party if they're on the left. But at the same time, the left cannot veer too far away from the Democratic Party because they become totally isolated. And We have since the 80s, the socialist left was in this sectarian wilderness where they were essentially little study groups on campuses getting crazier and crazier [02:05:00] every five years and more, more and more self satisfied, but more and more, uh, I think out of touch with what politics, not just strategy, but they became fundamentally, I think the socialist left by the 2010s was profoundly apolitical.

They had no idea what politics is. Okay. So you want to avoid that at all costs. How do you do that? You have to, in some way, kind of be guppies swimming around what the closest party is to your politics, which happens to sadly be the Democratic Party. Right. All right. So that being the case. What do you do?

I do not think that in the short term, there's any chance of actually changing the party. We don't have the strength and the parties has, it's, it's a weak party by historical standards, but compared to the strength of the left, it's very, very strong. All right. So that means then you have to have some kind of strategy where you use the party because it gives you [02:06:00] entree into people's living rooms, into their workplaces and into their consciousness and you try to fight.

For issues that you know people care about, but which the party isn't giving them. But you've, that's what, and that's, that's what Sanders did. But there's a second component to this, which is, I think, really important. There is this, I, I think there's a fantasy out there that says, if Sanders could just run again, or if another Sanders type candidate ran again, and we did it better, maybe you could win office.

If you build

MELISSA NASCHEK: it, they will come.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: Uh, yeah, it's a version of that, you know? And I, I think people are forgetting the, negative lesson of the Sanders campaign, which is that I do not think there is an electoral road to social democracy. If you think the way you do it is by from 30, 000 feet, issuing a program and hoping that it will energize people so that they come to the poll and vote for you because the fundamental, there's two basic problems [02:07:00] with this.

One is that most of your constituency. doesn't believe you. Most of the American working class, even when you show them that program, will say, yeah, it'll never happen. Yeah. Most of them have given up. Most of them don't vote. And the ones who do vote are essentially going to say, I'd love to vote for you, but you can't win it.

How do we know that? In 2069 and 2020, in the states where Sanders lost, ballot initiatives around the issues he was fighting for kept winning over and over. What does that mean? People wanted Medicare for all, people wanted a minimum wage, they just thought he would not be able to deliver it because once he got into office, either he'd be handcuffed or he'd never be allowed to get into office.

MELISSA NASCHEK: Which might not have been a terrible assumption, honestly.

VIVEK CHIBBER - HOST, CONFRONTING CAPITALISM: I think it was.

So, first of all, the cynicism, you can't overcome it. Secondly, you will never win against the bourgeois media. If you're trying to fight with them, because remember, the media isn't a [02:08:00] bunch of journalists trying to present the fact. It is the fourth or fifth largest corporate sector in America. And it's the media.

You saw when Sanders was running, they could no longer ignore him, but they went to plan B immediately, which was to deepen the cynicism of the public and tell them over and over, he's a great old man, he's a cranky old guy, love him, but he can never win. And here's why he'll never win. Now, when you present that to a population that's already dejected and cynical, it's hard.

And we saw that when he ran, Sanders kept saying over and over, I'm going to be able to. Achieve my goals because there's going to be a political revolution and what he meant by that was People are going to come out and they're going to vote for me because they see I'm going to fight for them And essentially what happened is they didn't come out now that means The road to changing the course of direction of the Democratic Party or politics isn't going to come through a more vigorous presentation of a populist economic agenda.[02:09:00]

The only way to do it is by integrating the left into the lives of working people so that they're not just coming door knocking every four years and telling them who to vote for. I mean, even that would be an achievement. You don't even have door knockers right now, but people think if we had door knockers, we could win.

And I'm telling you, you won't. You won't. The only way is if you also have organizations outside the Democratic Party who use the party when they can to gain visibility. to gain traction, but once that tide recedes of the election and the party leaves, you have to remain. You have to organize in the workplace and you've got to organize in the neighborhoods.

And that way, when the next election comes, even when they tell you it's not possible, or this guy's a liar or it can't work, you've got face to face interactions with people and you can actually communicate with them. You have to fit, you have to literally drag them out of their houses and bring them to the voting booth because they will not come otherwise.

Right. That means, so, just to [02:10:00] conclude here, Melissa, how do, how does the left react? There's, we have an opening right now. The opening is the class character, not just of the Democratic Party, but of what's called progressivism, the kind of intersectional miasma of crazed identitarianism, what's called wokishness and smatterings of economic justice.

This is what the corporate slash non profit complex has given us. And it is right now in retreat. It gives, I think, Real leftists, social democratic leftists, and opening to wage an ideological war, a propaganda war around what it means to be a progressive in America. That's a real step forward. For the first time we're not defensive in about five years.

Yeah. But, you cannot hang your hat on changing the Democratic Party. What you can do is fight within it to gain traction for yourself, but you have to use that party to build real organizations of the poor that are independent of that party. If you can do that, [02:11:00] then maybe in the next electoral cycle we can actually gain some traction, because I'm telling you, 2028 is going to be the Biden campaign redux.

And remember, Biden did not run on the policies that he eventually enacted. Right. He ran. As a I'm not Bernie candidate. It wasn't even I'm not Trump. I'm not Bernie Yeah So my prediction is we're going to see that in 2028 unless the left can reconstitute itself And fight within the party to drag it kicking and screaming towards a more populist agenda

Democratic Dealignment w Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor Part 4 - The Dig - Air Date 11-9-24

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: And this, you know, connects to what we were talking about earlier, which is how does the left become hospitable? And so in addition to that, I think we have to think about what are the entry points? How do we create on ramps, entry points into organization? Into discussions about this. And this is to me an important part of left culture that has to be regenerated, which is one [02:12:00] of political discussion and debate.

There are so many questions that not not just questions that people have that. Oh, You know, we're here to answer, but questions about politics, questions about history, questions about how do we, how did we get here questions about the nature of our society. And no place to engage with them. And so again, it means that the space within which these discussions happen are with Fox news, with cable news, those are the places where those discussions are happening.

And so of course you can get a podcast or you can, you know, get, uh, some kind of forum online, but this is, this is fundamentally different from bringing together. people together to talk about these things and then not just to talk about them, but to figure out what it is that we do. And so [02:13:00] that's one part of it.

To me, that's just basic organization building. Uh, how do we create climate culture where people can engage in debate and discussion? But then there's the other part about it that, you know, Seems daunting and overwhelming and who knows how to do this, but I mean, there's so many examples, but if this election season does not demonstrate that we have to figure out what the alternative to this Democratic Party is.

Like a real third party. I don't know what, what else needs to happen to demonstrate that. I mean, that in and of itself is a debate, right? Can we just take over the democratic party? I'm, I'm deeply skeptical, uh, about our ability. Uh, to do that because the Democratic Party is a party as a party is, is really a figment of our imagination.[02:14:00]

Um, it's, it's not a Democratic Party. It's not a party in which, uh, ordinary people can come into it, uh, act as a rank and file, um, and dictate, uh, and determine what the direction of that party is.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: The Republican and Democratic parties wouldn't qualify as political parties in any other electoral democracy.

No,

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: exactly. Exactly. And so the idea that, well, it's too hard to create an alternative. And so what we really need to do, uh, is focus on the transformation, uh, of, of the democratic party. I just, I don't see any precedent for that. I don't see. A route to that. And so while I can agree that a viable third party seems and feels very impossible, I don't know if it's any more impossible than the idea that somehow we can transform this utterly [02:15:00] corporate, utterly bought and paid for undemocratic party.

That we can transform that. I don't I don't see the route to that. And so I also think that creating a third party alternative is not something that you can just map out, create an outline. And, you know, we take 123 steps. We'll be there. I think that it's possible in a situation like we had in 2020 where you have millions of people, um, who are activated, who are marching and desperately trying to do something.

But I don't know exactly what the route is to doing that. I do know that That the Democratic Party, I don't believe is a receptacle that [02:16:00] we can take over and change. And yet, the sentiment and the desire for a vehicle that can bridge that gap that we talked about earlier. between what it is that people want and what is necessary to achieve it.

The desire for that exists, and we have to figure out what is the route to making that happen. What is the mechanism that is necessary to make that a possibility? Because this, this is not, this ain't it.

DANIEL DENVER - HOST, THE DIG: I'm not at all optimistic about taking over or transforming the Democratic Party, but I'm Maybe even more Pessimistic at least about the short or medium terms for a third party Both of us have been around for a while and I would put out as just like what I would argue is a stark point of comparison nadir 2000 which was my first big electoral involvement I was 17, I [02:17:00] couldn't vote, but I threw everything into that campaign.

I went to the mega rallies, it felt like the earth was moving beneath my feet. And then he couldn't even get 5%, I think he got 2 or 3 or something. And then, Bernie 2020 and 2016, running within the party, mobilized so many millions more people. To a left vision than we ever had been able to before, and certainly more than Nader did in 2000, which was really the high watermark for left third waterism, and it was a low high watermark.

So, I, my worry about third partyism is attempting to do that without building the organized workplace and social power first. First will be a sort of. cul de sac in which we pour a lot of energy without much result and please the Democratic Party in doing so because I [02:18:00] think that they would prefer us not to run Bernie's.

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: No, I, I completely, an initiative around a third party can't be a boutique project of a handful of left sex, uh, who want to get together Um, and then who can't agree on even like what to put on the agenda, right? Like that, that, that can't be the, the vision. Um, and so that, that's sort of what I meant when I was saying that it has to be something born out of a mass political situation, um, in the first place.

And yet also. There has to be organizing in the interim, because we know that in the midst of tens of millions of people, uh, uh, marching and, and being activated, you can't just throw, Oh, now we're going to have a third party, you know, you can't just throw that [02:19:00] together. And so I'm not a hundred percent clear, but I do know that Bernie's run.

In 2020, in particular, showed the potential on the one hand, but it also showed the extent to which the democratic party will close ranks in a heartbeat. To destroy an alternative in its midst. There's, you know, the working families party, which exists as a thing, but that also seems to also function, um, as an apparatus of the democratic party and not necessarily as an independent entity.

And so I don't know exactly what process or procedure we would look at To change these dynamics. But I do know that there is a desperate desire for a political alternative. [02:20:00] And it's not Trump will attract some people, but the bigger issue. Is just the bottom falling out and people just being frittered into the ether.

The failures of liberals and the Left have helped Trump's rise Part 2 - The Marc Steiner Show - Air Date 10-30-24

BILL FLETCHER JR.: Well, the one thing mark is that the white working class's gravitation to MAGA has been actually exaggerated

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: okay,

BILL FLETCHER JR.: the MAGA is a white movement overall it is Deeply rooted as was the tea party In the middle strata, and, uh, and that includes kind of the upper element of the working class.

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Okay,

BILL FLETCHER JR.: but it's not like the white working class is sort of disproportionately pro MAGA compared to other segments of white folks. And I think that that's important because if you don't get that, you can end up coming up with wrong strategy about how to deal with [02:21:00] this as well as who are potential enemies and friends.

Thanks. That that we're dealing with the the other thing is that there is opposition all over the country Um, but it's largely in small groups There are groups Ranging from at the national level the working families party to the local level groups like new virginia majority Or florida rising, right? So there are these groups that are there They are unfortunately less than the sum of their parts And, and that what we have not been able to accumulate is something that I've, I've dreamed about for years, which is a new rainbow coalition.

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Yeah,

BILL FLETCHER JR.: and, uh, that was, that was thinking at the national level and that also was aiming to build power at the state levels. Now, some of the groups I [02:22:00] mentioned are trying. New Virginia majority in Florida rising. I know that they're trying. They're trying to build this work and I'm not here to criticize them, but I think it's important to, you know, as, as the man said, tell no lies, claim no easy victories.

We have to be clear that we. I'm not where we should be. That's all. So, um, and, and I think that the, the, we, we have failed to understand that the right wing, the extreme right, or elements within it developed a multi decades plan to win and our movement, the left and progressive folks, have really vacillated on issue of fighting for power.

You know, it's like, like when we often think about and have thought, particularly since the seventies about fighting for power, it's either utopian in a sense of the only thing we can do is fight for socialism, that there's no intermediate thing. [02:23:00] Or, uh, you get this, Variations of abstentionism or what the green party is doing and and with all due respect to them And and so I think that that's that's what infuriates me that we've wasted an immense amount of time Because we don't pay attention as a movement to strategy Strategy and

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: organization.

So Rick, you want to jump in? I'm gonna, I'm gonna expand on what you just said there, Bill, but what are you about to say, Rick?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Why don't you, uh, why don't you take the lead there, Mark, and I'll go where you go.

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Okay, fine. Um, so, so the question is then, what, what can and should be the response at the moment?

I mean, if, if we see in the next few days that the MAGA right has seized power, political power in Washington, um, or even if they don't and the Democrats should win. The struggle is still going to be really intense and probably more intense, uh, whichever way it goes, but it'll take [02:24:00] different forms. So, um, what were you about to say, Rick?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yeah, um, so I, you know, I do this weekly column in the American Prospect, my one that I just filed for Wednesday. It's called, What Will You Do? And it's a series of questions about what all sorts of people will do. Should, um, I didn't really get into this, should either Trump win or, um, some kind of low grade civil war, you know, kind of happen in the next few months and, you know, the kind of questions I ask are kind of existentialist ones, you know, the kind of thing a Camus or a Sartre might come up with, you know, uh, in a moment of, you know, resistance that many of us may face choices that may be life changing.

You know, if you are a government bureaucrat and you're asked to sign off on some, you know, deportation order, you know, if you find yourself on a jury and one of these [02:25:00] abortion trafficking laws passes, like the one that's pending in Tennessee, which makes it illegal to drive someone over, over the border to get an abortion.

And And, you know, some grandma's, you know, arrested driving her granddaughter and, and she goes to court and she's nailed dead to rights. Are you going to be a jury nullifier? Right? Uh, if you're a cop, if you're a National Guard member, you know, if you are, um, I don't know, a bureaucrat at the National Security Administration, uh, I mean, the, um, the NSA, and you're asked to spy on one of Donald Trump's kids.

Right. opponents, right? So a lot of, you know, the organizational questions are, you know, profound and probably above my pay grade. But a lot of what will happen next is the kind of questions that, you know, all kind of citizens face under situations of authoritarianism. And as far as I can tell, this is the first time people have started asking these questions.

You know, um, there was, [02:26:00] you know, one piece, uh, by Bob Cutler and in the American prospect said, what about civil civil disobedience? Right? So, you know, what happens when all these things that we know can happen because the Trump people say they're going to happen? You know, what if they begin to, you know, mobilize the military, you know, to deport millions of people?

They can't do that without, um, complicity. And you start to think about that, you know, movie about Auschwitz, about the family that lives next, you know, like the, the, the, you know, the, the people who are just kind of living their lives over the other side of the fence. And I think everyone listening to this, you know, has to ask what kind of risks they're going to be willing to take.

Uh, and these are very hard questions, and they suddenly seem to kind of be dropping from the sky with no warning.

BILL FLETCHER JR.: What a build on that. You mentioned a movie. I, um, one of my favorite all time films,

MARC STEINER - HOST, THE MARC STEINER SHOW: Uh,

BILL FLETCHER JR.: with Burt Lancaster, Kurt Douglas, Ava Gardner, [02:27:00] and for your listeners and viewers that may not be aware of this, uh, the screenplay was Rod Serling from the Twilight Zone, 1963.

And it was interesting because it turns out that they were able to get access to the White House. Because Kennedy thought that the idea of a military coup was not beyond beliefs. He thought that the conditions were such that there could be a coup. But I mention it in part because of what you're saying, Rick.

That what's interesting in the film is that, is the role of individuals that make certain choices An admiral, for example, that decides I'm not going along with this coup. The director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played by Kirk Douglas, basically agrees with his boss, Burt Lancaster, but is [02:28:00] absolutely opposed to violating the Constitution.

And so a lot will come down to, as you're saying, what individuals will do. But I would add this, In the absence of organization, it becomes much easier for individuals to collapse. And to feel isolated and that's why we, we need and Mark, you and I've been talking about this for years. We need organization, not small sectarian organizations, but we need organization.

We need a broad front that people can identify with. And look to because there will be, like you mentioned about, um, immigrants. So, one thing that was, was raised with me a few months ago was what if there was a repetition, if there was an attempt to deport, what if there was a repetition of a, of May day, 2006.

A day without immigrants when you had this massive [02:29:00] stay away, but that takes organization and so we've got to be thinking about organization in order to give people the backbone to take the stands that they need to take.

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 our upcoming topics. We're working on the LA fires and the politics of water in the age of climate change, and looking at the apparent ceasefire in Israel and other updates from the region. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from Confronting Capitalism, The Dig, The Majority Report, Pitchfork Economics, MSNBC, Lever Time, and the Marc Steiner Show. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus [02:30:00] episodes. Thanks to our Transcriptionist Quartet—Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara—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 incredibly 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. And don't forget to follow us on any and all social media platforms you might be counting these days.

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.

1 reaction Share

#1684 The Last Honest President: The imperfect life and legacy of Jimmy Carter (Transcript)

Posted by · January 18, 2025 4:01 PM

Air Date 1/18/2025

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast. We look back on Jimmy Carter's life and legacy as a lens through which to more clearly see and understand the current state of our politics, our incoming president, the Middle East, the climate and more. For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our top takes in about 50 minutes today, includes Past Present, The Brian Lehrer Show, Democracy Now!, Facepalm America, Holy Post, and Today Explained. Then, in the additional deeper dives half of the show, there'll be more in four sections: Section A- Historical Context, Section B- Foreign Policy, Section C- Christian Nationalism, and Section D- Republican Rat Fucking.

Episode 364: Jimmy Carter Part 1 - Past Present - Air Date 2-28-23

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I think that it's important to keep Carter's presidency in the context of the particular moment in which he became president. That he wanted the presidency to be small and to not be cashing in and to not [00:01:00] be corrupt is very much a response to the Nixon administration and to Watergate and this idea that you needed to restore trust and confidence in American institutions. And that was far too big of a job for Carter to do. So it is not something that he necessarily succeeds at, but you can understand what he was trying to do and what he continued to try to do. And in some ways why he was the right person for the moment, because Americans had just seen this intensely corrupt and mean and at times really racist and antisemitic presidency.

And then here comes Carter, and he's modeling a very different way of approaching, not just the presidency, but things like foreign policy as well. I also think it matters that Ronald Reagan comes after him. And so Carter is often sort of redrawn in historical memory as the anti Reagan, right? Somebody who was like dowdy and was telling us to sacrifice and not calling for mourning in [00:02:00] America. When in fact he was, as Neil was saying earlier, he was like putting in place the conditions that would allow the Reagan presidency to thrive. Not only battling back against that image of the presidency as corrupt, but breaking the back of inflation, starting the trends toward deregulation and a kind of conservative politics and evangelical politics. A moral, sort of morality focused, if not morality obsessed politics that would follow in his stead.

NEIL YOUNG - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Yeah, and two of those points I want to build on, which is first, that absolutely, his idea that the American presidency should not be this, you know, elaborate pomp and circumstance demonstration, but there should be sort of a simple and small c way of being a president is absolutely shaped by Watergate and the era's sort of cultural sentiments.

It's also deeply tied to his faith. And you know, I just want to keep bringing us back to that because it's so core to him and who he is and understanding him. And I think, remember, you know, this is a president who wore sweaters and turned the thermostat down, right. And also sent his daughter, Amy [00:03:00] Carter-

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Like a grandpa.

NEIL YOUNG - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Yes. Then sent his daughter Amy Carter to public schools and was sort of criticized for that. And I think we should understand a lot of that plain living as tied to the sort of plain folk religion he came out of. That simple, ascetic, modest, self sacrificing sense of Christianity that he held consistent throughout his life. And I think again, what he was coming up against, what he was really colliding with was a religious right movement that understood religion and politics as a pathway to power, not as one of sort of self sacrificing Christian obligation and service to the nation.

And I think that that's really important to think about how his own sense of faith drove him, but also sort of drove him into the wall of this brand new political movement on the scene that became a tidal wave, to mix a couple of metaphors there.

NATALIA MEHLMAN PETRZELA - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Can I like pivot a little bit [00:04:00] in terms of precedent setting? I'm not sure, we should have like probably prepped this one. Maybe you two don't know off the top of your head. It is, how unique is it for a president to announce they're going into hospice? Because I feel like we're doing the whole obituary parade right now. And that is, I mean, I'm sure there's going to be much more to come when, you know, he passes, but it does seem, I don't remember doing this with other presidents.

NEIL YOUNG - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I thought George H. W. announced that he was in hospice at the end. I may be misremembering that.

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I think that it is at least, I mean, clearly unusual. We don't have that many former presidents. You know, Ronald Reagan announced his struggles with Alzheimer and sort of retired from the world stage, which is a little different.

I mean, that same piece that Neil mentioned earlier about Jimmy Carter being you know, the greatest former president alive had, I think, as its subhead, he's teaching us how to die with dignity or something to that effect. And there is that sense that in his kind of closing act he is [00:05:00] representing that same kind of dignity and calm that he has been associated with for much of his post-presidential life.

From the Archives: Former President Jimmy Carter on Women's Rights, Religion and Power - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 12-30-24

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: You and I have spoken about religion before in the context of your faith and your lifetime of teaching the Bible, so why point to religion now as a prime cause of what you call the most serious problem in the world?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well, religion and violence are the two generic causes of the abuse of women and girls around the world. It's a misinterpretation of some of the scriptures that result in abuse of women and derogation of them in the eyes of men because they are convinced that women are inferior in the eyes of God. For religious people even that are Christians, for instance, we know that Jesus Christ, in His ministry and His words, all the recorded words, He never discriminated against women.

In fact, he exalted women far above what they had ever been previously in history. [00:06:00] Even in the New Testament, where St. Paul began to write to the early churches, he wrote to individual, sometimes little, tiny churches that had 20 or 30 members. Some of his verses can be interpreted either way. For the first three centuries, in the Christian church at least, women played an equal role as Paul points out in his 16th chapter of Acts. After that, the men who ran the church began to say, "Why don't we select other verses, which show that women are not qualified to be priests or deacons in the church?"

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Can you give me an example of either of these verses on either side of this?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well, yes. In fact, Paul said to one of his small churches that women should always never adorned themselves, that women should be silent in church. There's even a verse that says women shouldn't teach men. On the other hand, he said that in the eyes of God, men and women are equal, as are slaves and masters and are Jews and Gentiles. They are equal [00:07:00] in the eyes of God.

As I just mentioned in the 16th chapter that I mentioned, he lists about 25 people who were preeminent in leadership roles in the early church. About half of them are women by name. You can interpret it either way you want to if you have a preference. There are 36,000 verses, more or less, in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew text, and in the New Testament. You can interpret any way you want to.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: In today's world, is this mostly a radical Islam problem? Certainly, we can find the conservative Christian and the history you were just describing, or the Orthodox Jewish or other religious practices that are sexist and cause harm to women and girls, but maybe there's nothing like the terrorist attacks and other military campaigns aimed at depriving girls in education and other things, Taliban, things going on in Nigeria, et cetera. A tiny minority of Muslims, we should say, involved in global terms, but still at a unique scale and intensity [00:08:00] compared to other religions?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well, I've studied the Koran probably more than most people have in the United States that are not Muslims. When they were holding our hostages in Iran, I really made a dedicated effort to understand the Koran. I had experts come into the Oval Office and teach me about the nuances of it. It's very difficult to find a verse in the Koran that doesn't emphasize the equality of men and women in the eyes of Allah as interpreted by Muhammad.

Obviously, they are interpretations of that by the Taliban and others that deprive women of an equal right. Most of the problems that afflict women and girls are not from religious texts, but sometimes that's the basis for them as I've already mentioned. For instance, I'd say the worst unknown crime against women and girls is the murder little girls [00:09:00] by their parents. When a girl is born, they strangle her because they want a boy. Now, with the advent--

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: For economic reasons?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: For economic reasons and also because some countries like China and India and others have put a limit on the total size of families. One is best, two is most. If they only have one child, they want to make sure that it's a boy. Also, they don't have Social Security like we do, so they want boys in the family so they can earn a living to support the parents when they're old age.

They look at a family in an area of poverty and they say, "We can only feed two children," so they strangle the rest of them. There's a new movie out called It's a Girl. It was premiered in November. There's a mother in India who very proudly says, in effect, she strangled eight daughters when they were born because she had to have a son. We know that in many areas, if there's only one opportunity to send a child to school, [00:10:00] they send a boy. If they have a limited amount of food, boys get first choice.

The other thing is that there are now about 160 million missing girls on Earth because either they baby at birth or the fetus in a selective abortion have been eliminated. This has resulted in China and India, in effect, in a very great shortage of women to be married to men or to satisfy the men's sexual desires in a brothel and so forth. This is another ancillary, terrible problem about it.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Am I right that you and Mrs. Carter left your Christian denomination of 70 years over women's issues?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Yes. In the year 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention deviated from its previous policy and ordained that women, being inferior, could not occupy the positions of pastor or deacon [00:11:00] or chaplain. They also even ordained it in some of the seminaries, which is the higher education level of Southern Baptist Church, that women couldn't even teach boys in a classroom.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: It's not even just that they're not coming along as fast as some other denominations. It's that even in the post-feminist era, if you will, they went the other way.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: They went the other way in the year 2000. My wife and I left the Southern Baptist Convention. We now belong to a Baptist church where I teach Bible lessons every Sunday, as a matter of fact. We've had women pastors and my wife is a deacon, the chairman of our board of deacons. The last time was a woman. We have a majority of deacons who are women. We treat men and women equally, which I believe that Jesus Christ always exemplified and promulgated as His policy.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Gee, if they don't want women teaching men and boys, maybe we can get more males into the teaching profession.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Well, you certainly can in the Southern Baptist Seminary.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: I guess so [00:12:00] [chuckles]

Jimmy Carter’s “Decency & Humanity” Came with Deadly U.S. Policies in Latin America: Greg Grandin - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-7-25

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Before we get into Panama, because it was under President Carter that Panama Canal was returned to Panama, the oversight of it, and before we talk about Salvador and Nicaragua, overall, President Carter’s legacy in Latin America?

GREG GRANDIN: Well, I think it was mixed, and it was confused. I mean, Carter was in many ways a transitional president that came to power having to deal with the combined disasters of both Vietnam and Watergate and rebuild trust and rebuild the kind of moral foundation on which the United States justified its exercise of power. And in many ways, Latin America was the place to do that.

And just to set the stage a little bit, set the scene, Carter comes to power, and he’s inaugurated in 1977. Pretty much all of South America is run by [00:13:00] anti-communist dictatorships that were installed or supported by the United States — the Nixon Doctrine, coups under Lyndon B. Johnson, coups under Kennedy. They brought to power one anti-communist dictatorship after another, largely in response to the Cuban Revolution, backing up even further. In Central America, there weren’t dictatorships, but there were insurgencies, revolutionary insurgencies, and anti-communist states fighting those insurgencies. And domestically, you had a very anti-imperialist Congress elected after Watergate and after Vietnam, that insisted that the United States start pulling back some of its support for dictatorships, for more of its unsavory allies. And Latin America seemed the place to do it.

And they did. They cut aid to Uruguay. They cut [00:14:00] aid to — they limited aid to Chile. They cut aid to Brazil, all the military to Argentina. And, of course, that became a kind of shining example of what the United States should be in terms of its foreign policy. The reality was actually more complicated. It was also the place where the United States started putting conditionalities on military aid. And obviously, we see that under Gaza, how that’s played out, but that the United States would — you know, there would be certain markers or certain checkmarks that countries had to meet in terms of human rights monitoring before military aid was released. In many ways, it was more symbolic than real. In a country like Guatemala, for instance, where the United States did cut off military aid, it didn’t cut off military aid that was already in the pipeline, so that continued to flow. Now, in Central America, where you had insurgencies, these were [00:15:00] kind of like a stress test for this new foreign policy, this new moralism that Jimmy Carter represented. And he didn’t at first cut aid off to Nicaragua, and he didn’t cut off aid to El Salvador.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Meaning, in Nicaragua, to Somoza.

GREG GRANDIN: To Somoza or to the junta in El Salvador.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Now, let’s talk about El Salvador —

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: — because you have Archbishop Óscar Romero, who has been canonized a saint by the Vatican, who was assassinated on March 24th, 1980. He appealed to President Carter, weeks before his assassination, to stop the flow of aid.

GREG GRANDIN: Directly, in a very impassioned letter that was — I teach that letter. And Carter didn’t respond. He left it to Cyrus Vance to respond. He didn’t respond. And they didn’t cut off aid. And even prior to that — Cyrus Vance was Carter’s secretary of state. [00:16:00] Brzeziński, Zbigniew Brzeziński, was his national security adviser. And in many ways, you can think of them as two sides. Like, Vance was considered more dovish, and Brzeziński more hawkish — a little more complicated than that. But Brzeziński was complaining to the Vatican about Óscar Romero, that he had been moved too far to the left. This was before the letter. So, you see that, you know, it’s not just Jimmy Carter; it’s the administration he presides over. It’s much more —

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And he — when Óscar Romero was giving his homily, that was broadcast throughout El Salvador, when he was gunned down, he was appealing to the soldiers of El Salvador, to the paramilitaries. He said, “I beseech you, I urge you, I plead” —

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: — “with you to put down your arms.”

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah. Actually, that was a day before he was assassinated. He was assassinated in a smaller church. It was a smaller Mass in a smaller parish in San Salvador. He was shot through the heart. But yes —

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: [00:17:00] By? By?

GREG GRANDIN: By a death squad that was trained by the United States and led by Roberto D’Aubuisson.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Who would later become president.

GREG GRANDIN: He would later become — he would later become the head of the ARENA party. I don’t believe he was president, but, no, he became the head of the party that ruled El Salvador, the ARENA party. But he became a very influential politician, Roberto D’Aubuisson.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Right. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly.

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, yeah. And he was a favorite of the far right. So, Jimmy Carter, in many ways, was a foil for the rising right in the United States, and his policies in Latin America kind of captured the contradictions — and I would use the word “contradiction” rather than “confusion” — of Carter’s foreign policy. You know, he came to power — he came to power promising to end the United States’s inordinate fear of communism. He gave a speech in Notre Dame that was considered a kind of a new kind of doctrine, that the United States [00:18:00] was moving away from both the ideological excess and the support for dictatorships that led to wars like Vietnam or coups in Chile.

But he fairly — pretty quickly, events got ahead of him, in many ways. In Central America, the rise of the Sandinistas and insurgencies led to contradictory policies. In El Salvador, he, for instance, continued supporting the military regime and its death squads. In Nicaragua, he cut off economic aid, but he continued military aid as he tried to kind of guide, you know, force Somoza out and lead to more democratic elections when the Sandinistas had the momentum. There was the Iranian Revolution in [00:19:00] the Persian Gulf, which led to the Carter Doctrine, which was written by Brzeziński and basically asserted that the United States would respond with military force to anything that they perceived as a threat to U.S. interests.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to play a clip of President Carter’s commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1977.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Democracy’s great recent success in India, Portugal, Spain, Greece show that our confidence in this system is not misplaced. Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism, which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, that was President Carter. The significance of what he was saying there when it relates to, for example, Latin America?

GREG GRANDIN: Well, that he was saying that he was going to deal with Third [00:20:00] World nationalism on its own terms, not as just a front for geopolitical Cold War politics, meaning the Soviet Union. But that gives way very quickly. I mean, we only have a few minutes, but we have to say that it was under Carter that the CIA began its operation in Afghanistan, began supporting the mujahideen. It was the Carter administration in July 1979, urged by Brzeziński to begin providing nonlethal aid to what becomes the mujahideen. All of these things led to what — the end of détente and the pulling of the Soviet Union deeper into Afghanistan and the weaponization of Islam as a geopolitical tool in the United States, that we’re still living with the consequences today. And for all of his decency and humanity, especially compared to orgastic — the wealth and [00:21:00] the clown circus that we’re living under now, we have to kind of look at how Carter — some of the more unfortunate legacies of Carter’s administration.

The Faith of Jimmy Carter - Facepalm America - Air Date 4-12-23

RANDALL BALMER: I think, there's another story that has to be woven into this that is not so pretty and that is when he ran for governor and second time in 1970, ultimately successfully. Toward the end of that campaign he was really quite afraid that he would lose the Democratic nomination. And to his shame, and he is ashamed of it, he courted the segregationist vote late in that campaign. And I'm not trying to give him a pass on that by no means whatsoever, but it does show humanity and human frailty, it seems to me. And I think the other thing that we have to take away from that, is the fact that when he was inaugurated as governor of [00:22:00] Georgia in January 12th, 1971, he famously said that the time for racial segregation is over. And part of that, I'm sure, was really doing penance for that campaign, which he was not proud of.

But also, again, I think you have to judge him by his actions, because he did make good on that pledge to try to put racial segregation behind him and behind his state. Through several acts of substantive policy changes that he inaugurated as governor, but also symbolically. He hung three, the portraits of three African Americans in the state house in Georgia during his governorship. And that's including Martin Luther King Jr. And that I think speaks to his sincerity.

BEOWULF ROCHLEN - HOST, FACEPALM AMERICA: What influence did his faith have on [00:23:00] his evolving racial beliefs, especially at that time?

RANDALL BALMER: Well, I think it was profound. That said, he often talked about the fact that his playmates growing up in Archery, Georgia, which is three miles down the road from Plains, Georgia, Archery, Georgia is, a nothing town really it's really a farm community. And not very large at that. But his playmates were African Americans. So he grew up really racially blind in many ways.

And he often talks about the day that he and his his two buddies were playing, they were both in their early teens at that point, and they were going through one of the garden gates there on the farm, and all of a sudden, they opened the gate for him and deferred to him to go through the gate 1st, and he thought at 1st, it was a prank that they were going to trip him or something. And he realized later [00:24:00] that this was a transitional moment that is when they were moving away from the innocence of childhood, in terms of racial matters, to adulthood when they had to observe the protocols of the South. So, in many ways, he was colorblind.

I think it's fair to say now I have to again mention the 1970 campaign as an exception. I do think it is an exception. But it's also true that his faith is certainly informed not only his racial views, but his other policies as well.

BEOWULF ROCHLEN - HOST, FACEPALM AMERICA: How did it inform his politics as governor, as president, and how was he considered also within the community of Christian evangelicals, and particularly Southern Baptists, as a Christian? Was he thought of as being too progressive during this time?

RANDALL BALMER: Yeah, to some degree. Well, you asked a complex [00:25:00] questions,

BEOWULF ROCHLEN - HOST, FACEPALM AMERICA: Feel free to take the time. I don't want to, I don't want to,

RANDALL BALMER: He was very interested in prison reform, noting that the overwhelming majority of the prison population in Georgia, as it is for the nation, of course, was people of color. And so he sought to make their situation better.

He also appointed a lot of people of color to state offices. And as president, he appointed more women and more people of color than all of his predecessors combined. So that would be one measure of how his faith informed his policies. In terms of his presidency, he recognized early on that if the United States was to have any meaningful relationship with third world countries, in particular, Latin America, that we needed to abandon our colonial attitudes.

And so very early in his presidency, he pushed very hard, and it [00:26:00] cost him dearly politically. But he pushed hard to revise and have the Panama Canal treaties ratified. And again, I think history looking back on it, the consensus is that he did the right thing. But it did cost him dearly politically. He also sought to move American foreign policy away from the reflexive Cold War dualism that had defined the US policy since at least World War II and toward a common, a concern for human rights and his policies on human rights, even though it angered a lot of our allies. His policies on human rights really did succeed in freeing a good number of political prisoners. It's hard to put a precise number on it, but I think it's safe to say thousands of political prisoners were freed because of his policies.

I mentioned his appointment of women and people of color. [00:27:00] But environmentalists also consider Jimmy Carter to be the best environmental president ever, because of his concern for the natural order, for the created order, God's created order.

BEOWULF ROCHLEN - HOST, FACEPALM AMERICA: And that's where it came from for him, presumably.

RANDALL BALMER: I think it did. Absolutely.

BEOWULF ROCHLEN - HOST, FACEPALM AMERICA: In a sense of stewardship, really.

RANDALL BALMER: Absolutely. I don't think there was really anything in terms of his policies that wasn't informed some level by his faith. His faith was very important to him. And, just to parenthetically, that's the reason I wrote Redeemer, my biography of Jimmy Carter, because I wanted to take his faith seriously. Because he took his faith seriously. And I think that's important to understand in any assessment of Jimmy Carter.

651: The Jimmy Carter Cudgel & Preparing for Mass Deportations with Gabriel Salguero - Holy Post - Air Date 1-8-25

PHIL VISCHER - HOST, HOLY POST: I said, Mr. Rogers, Donald Trump, which one is more like Jesus. If that is a controversial thing to [00:28:00] say, I need to have a talk with you offline.

ESAU MCCAULLEY: It's not a controversial thing to say. It's an easy thing to say. That's different. There's a difference. It's not controversial. It's an easy, it's easy...

PHIL VISCHER - HOST, HOLY POST: yeah. I didn't have any trouble saying it. Yeah. It's not.

SKYE JETHANI - HOST, HOLY POST: I don't think. First of all, I'm not making any assessment of Jimmy Carter's policies and whether they were Christlike or not. I'm not. I'm talking about the man. Yeah. And I think his humility is a reflection, it's a Christian value that I think we are called to emulate and I don't think that value went over well with most Americans and especially when there were challenges that came along like the Iranian Hostage Crisis and inflation and OPEC and some of the other things he had to deal with during his presidency. His humility did not go over well when he goes to address the nation and starts confessing failures and mistakes that he made. It's not great.

And I think at least in my experience in in the ministry subculture that I've been a part of, you hear people say all the time, Oh, I want a [00:29:00] pastor who's like Jesus. And I want a ministry leader who's like Jesus. Or even I want a president who's like Jesus. And I think when you really dig down, most people don't. They say that because it's what they're supposed to say, but when you really present them some of those qualities that mark Jesus's life, it's not what most Americans want from their institutional, political, or even religious leaders. They want people who are strong, who are confident, who are brilliant communicators, who are going to stick it to their enemies, who are going to be aspirational in their leadership because they exhibit the kinds of values that people want for themselves.

And in a lot of American Christian subculture, the values we want for ourselves are not the humility and suffering and self sacrifice that epitomized the good shepherd that we claim to follow.

PHIL VISCHER - HOST, HOLY POST: On that we agree.

ESAU MCCAULLEY: We'll agree. I mean, we agree.

PHIL VISCHER - HOST, HOLY POST: Okay. Okay. So what can we learn from the question? One is, what can we learn from Jimmy Carter [00:30:00] being really humble but also rather stubborn? He was extremely stubborn. It's not a good recipe for winning a second term as president of the United States. But what can we learn from the way the media treats Jimmy Carter? Esau, what do you say? Scott, what do you say?

ESAU MCCAULLEY: I mean, I think that we can take a lot from Jimmy Carter's, the way that he treated his wife, from what I can tell from afar, from the fact that he was faithfully married to his wife for his entire life. As far as I know there's no scandals attached to him there. I think the fact that he lived out his Christian faith by service in his local church. I think that's important. I think that you can see that he also lived out his faith and how he cared practically for other people. And I think all of those things are laudatory, and I think that that's a good example for anybody to follow.

If you happen to be married, treat your [00:31:00] spouse well and remain faithful to them. Don't cheat on them. Serve in your local church and practically express your faith by the way that you treat those people who don't have the resources to pay you back. I think those are things that you can learn from Jimmy Carter.

SKYE JETHANI - HOST, HOLY POST: Yeah, I agree. And I would summarize it this way. I think Jimmy Carter was an exceptional humanitarian and a somewhat crummy politician. And those are actually two compliments, because I think to be a really good, shrewd politician is a hard thing. It is a calling for some people, but it does require a willingness to compromise on some principles that I think Christians should find it really hard to compromise on. And he didn't. And that made him a poor politician at times.

PHIL VISCHER - HOST, HOLY POST: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Okay. Okay, well, there you go. I guess we're done. I guess we... but is it okay, Esau, that [00:32:00] the world is attracted to humanitarian Christians and ascribes their humanitarian work to their Christian faith without getting into doctrine?

ESAU MCCAULLEY: No, I get it. I get it. No that's not a bad thing. People should see, they would know you by how you treat other people, as like a common Christian idea. So, I don't think it's bad that someone says these Christians are people who care about the poor and who do things for the poor. I just feel like it's very easy for us to say, look at all the good things that Jimmy Carter did. Look at how Jimmy Carter embodied Jesus. Look at how these other people don't embody Jesus. And these are people who we didn't like before Jimmy Carter died. And so Jimmy Carter's death becomes an occasion for us to duck on the people who we already don't like. And I don't find that the most unique take, which is what the media did... in other words, it's not like Jimmy Carter's death was freshly revelatory [00:33:00] for certain elements of the Christian right. And so I'm not saying that we shouldn't praise Jimmy Carter. I'm saying that there is an obsession with here are the things that a certain segment of White evangelicalism has done wrong. And every single thing that exists is an example of that phenomenon. And I'm just tired of saying it. I'm tired of saying it. I've said it a thousand times. And so it may feel like I'm just like, afraid to praise Jimmy Carter, but it's like, yeah, I could praise Jimmy Carter and use Jimmy Carter's life as a cudgel for people who I might disagree with politically. And I'm trying to say in 2025, I'm going to put that cudgel down and try to have a better conversation.

When Carter called out America - Today, Explained - Air Date 12-30-24

SEAN RAMESWARAM - HOST, TODAY, EXPLAINED: President Carter called out what many think of as a central pillar. of American life: Cap-i-tal-ism.

KEVIN MATTSON: Consumerism and the want of things was creating an unsustainable world. And the oil crisis was making that clear to people and staring them in the face.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about [00:34:00] the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

KEVIN MATTSON: How many times have we heard a president in the past take on the selfishness of consumerism and say it's a significant problem for Americans? And the fact that he called individualism into question was, again, what made the speech exceptional. You usually don't use that line, you know, because Americans like to think of themselves as individuals. And here he was, you know, attacking that and showing his shortcomings. So I think that that's probably back to why I get more and more entranced in the content of the speech. I started wanting to kind of dig down deeper because I think I had never seen a president in the United States call into question the consumerist lifestyle that Americans are known for.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Why have we not been able to get together as a nation [00:35:00] to resolve our serious energy problem? It's clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper, deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession. And I realize more than ever that, as president, I need your help.

KEVIN MATTSON: It's July 15th, 1979. The thing that Carter just stated is pointing to something that's really disturbing to a lot of Americans, which are these long gas lines that are forming at gas stations.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: Anger and bewilderment are growing as more and more Americans cope with gasoline lines and empty pumps. For millions of Americans, this may be the worst weekend they've ever faced for finding gasoline to give them the automobile freedom they take as their due.

KEVIN MATTSON: And what happens on these gas lines, people are getting in fistfights, there's a woman who [00:36:00] puts these pillows up under her dress to make it look like she's pregnant so she could cut into the line and say, I need gas for me and my unborn child. And then these pillows fall out, people start to throw things at her. I mean, it's just total chaos.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: Gasoline shortages are spreading across the country. Odd even service, gasoline lines, and closed gas stations are becoming increasingly common.

KEVIN MATTSON: One of the things that they would do at these gas lines is that the gas attendant would take a poster and say, "Last Car" and put it on the window, where if they went past that, they would run out of gas and people would jump into the cars, take the signs, put them back 25 spaces so that other people could get gas. And it was kind of like individualism coming to the fore in a really ugly way. I mean, the threats of violence, the actual violence, people just looking for their self interest. I think that kind of was one of the key things that made Jimmy Carter really worry about individualism and consumerism is that it could lead to such awful fights that were being engaged in by normal ordinary Americans. That's I [00:37:00] think the foremost issue that's on Carter's mind that's happening in the streets of the country at this time.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: You tell that goddamn governor he's gonna police this goddamn gasoline situation. I will not take the blame for this thing. I will not take the crap and the harassment from these customers. Now let him police it or stop selling gas.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

KEVIN MATTSON: He did install solar panels on the White House. And I think it was kind of a practical thing. I mean, it would reduce energy costs, obviously, and reliance upon foreign oil. It reminds me also of an early episode in Jimmy Carter's presidency, and he's fairly famous for this, where he sits with a cardigan sweater with a fireplace [00:38:00] next to him. And he basically says, turn down the thermostats because we're wasting energy.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night, we could save half the current shortage of natural gas.

KEVIN MATTSON: It symbolized both, I'm the president of the United States, but I'm going to do something. He's doing stuff concretely in his own behavior. I mean, I can't read how Americans would respond to that, but I think they would think at least he's not a hypocrite. He's actually putting his money where his mouth is. And there's something to that, that I think makes Jimmy Carter attractive as we look back upon both him and what's followed in his wake.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: This is not a message of happiness or reassurance. But it is the truth, and it is a warning. These changes did not happen [00:39:00] overnight. They've come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy. We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible, and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.

KEVIN MATTSON: The distrust that he's, I think, talking about there amongst the general American public is really strong. And he's basically saying, we made mistakes. I made mistakes. We're [00:40:00] all making mistakes, which again shows the kind of radical nature of this speech is that he's sharing the blame but he's also saying that things like Watergate and Vietnam, you can't just slough them off They are things that leave a huge imprint on American political culture. So I think that there's a kind of growing distrust he's trying to address and trying to push back on.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not [00:41:00] satisfy our longing for meaning.

KEVIN MATTSON: He's got this mix of touting traditional values in contrast with the consumer culture that dominates at this time. To take that on, to put that front and center, saying essentially, you know, Let's stop paying attention to all the scenes in the gas lines. Let's get beyond that sort of stuff. And realize that there's something much deeper that's troubling, and that is a reliance upon consumer goods and trying to seek our own happiness out of all the things that we want to get.

Keep in mind that Jimmy Carter was notorious for teaching Sunday school. He has a kind of minister's tone in some of these passages. But I don't think that he's just simply blaming or scolding the American people, because he prefaces everything with pointing out to his own faults. Usually people who are scolding don't say, I'm also a part of the problem.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: We can manage the short term shortages more effectively, and we will. But there are no short term solutions to our long range problems. [00:42:00] There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

KEVIN MATTSON: We're going to have to sacrifice. I think that's the bottom line is what Carter is saying. He's calling people back to sacrifice and he's saying, you know, there are things we can do in our day to day lives. We can turn down the thermostat. We can try not to drive our cars everywhere we go. I think that he sees a way to get back to a better place, but it's going to take sacrifices. It's going to take people doing something in their ordinary lives.

And that's, again, a rarity. I think that, you know, where do we see our government actually interacting with ordinary citizens to actually push through a policy that includes, at least in part, sacrifice and living within one's means.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems. When the truth is that the only way out is an all out effort. [00:43:00] What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight and I will enforce fairness in our struggle. And I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act.

KEVIN MATTSON: You can really hear the war language there, you know: mobilize, I'll be your leader, but we have to sacrifice and pay attention to one another. What he wants to aim for is to build a kind of simpler society, maybe one where consumption wasn't so widespread and taking things over. But also at the same time, it's got to push back against our over reliance upon foreign sources of oil.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: We know the strength of America. We are strong. We can regain our unity. We can regain our confidence. We are the heirs of generations who survived threats much more powerful and awesome than those that challenge us now.[00:44:00]

SEAN RAMESWARAM - HOST, TODAY, EXPLAINED: He doesn't make it seem like that tall an order, though he's probably throwing out ideas that are very foreign to the American people.

KEVIN MATTSON: I think that that has to just be called a contradiction. I mean, the speech opens up with such a long treatment of all the problems that the country faced historically. To turn it around on the kind of optimistic note, if anything, that's the part in the speech that every time I read it, I'm like, eh, you know, you've set out a pretty difficult course to chart and to just kind of slough it off and say, well, we have the competence, we can do it. We've done it before. I think that's the part of the speech, at least for myself, that rings slightly hollow.

Note from the Editor on the supposed desire for truth

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Past Present, looking at the stark differences between Carter's presidency and those that came before and after. The Brian Lehrer Show pulled an interview with Carter from their archives discussing gender equality. Democracy Now! discussed Carter's foreign policy with particular focus on Latin America. Facepalm America looked into Carter's complicated [00:45:00] history on race. Holy Post analyzed Carter's faith and why it didn't help him when the Christian vote. And Today Explained dove into the legacy of Carter's attempt to address the oil crisis through unity and collective sacrifice. 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 produced with the support of our members who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads. 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 bestoftheleft.com/support. There's a link in the show notes, through our Patreon page or from right inside the apple podcast app. And as always if regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting any financial hardship membership, because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.

We've been trying something new and offering you the opportunity to submit your comments and questions on upcoming topics. It takes a little time for us to do all the research and prep shows, so I can give you [00:46:00] a heads up on what's coming. So you can be part of the conversation as it happens. Next up, we're working on the concept of de-alignment of labor and the left, as well as the self-styled realignment of so-called populist conservatives happening on the right. And then following that we'll be tackling the LA fires and the broader interplay between fire and water in the age of climate change. So get your comments and questions in now for those topics, you can leave a voicemail or send us a text at (202) 999-3991. Or simply email me to [email protected].

Now as for today's topic, I have some thoughts on the upsides and downsides of telling the truth. As we're hearing in the show today, Jimmy Carter was famous for promising to be straight with the American people. Up to and including telling them that wearing sweaters would help during the energy crisis. A couple of months ago, we had a discussion here on the members show, about this idea from a journalist Claude Cockburn. He died in the eighties. [00:47:00] He argued that we shouldn't bother speaking truth to power as is so often said, because he argued. The rulers of the earth, don't generally care about truth, which I think, you know, fair enough. It's more effective, he argued, to speak truth to the masses. So that they have a fighting chance in their struggle against the powerful. It's a nice idea. I like it. It rings true, et cetera. The only problem is that people really hate being told the truth. They think they like it. They think they want it. But the case studies of Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump tell the different story, I think.

Carter went out of his way to try to always tell the truth. And he was booted from office at the first chance. Trump has almost certainly broken the record for the most lies told by any American politician. And his supporters, many of whom know he's lying, are happy to follow him to the end of the earth. Perhaps literally. Trump's reputation among the MAGA crowd is that he tells it straight. Which [00:48:00] is definitely not true. Whereas Jimmy Carter was the actual president who told it straight.

The biggest difference that I can see, I mean besides Trump's lies and you got that giant disparity, is the presence of an enemy. A guilty party, those responsible for the bad things I'm telling you about. Carter would tell you straight about problems, but he didn't conjure a scapegoat the way Trump does. So people think they want the truth, but in reality, they want someone to blame. And they hope that that blame is true. You know, they want it to be real. But they really, much more, just want someone to blame.

So I got thinking about all this and wondered, well, okay, so what's my conclusion about this. And what came to mind was the old saying "In a democracy, people get the leaders they deserve." The sort of thing that people on the left generally say when the country elects politicians, we don't like, right? It's like, well, yeah, maybe this is what we [00:49:00] deserve. We're not the best. But then I wondered, well, wait, who said that? You know, I just had never looked it up before. So I looked it up and it's a French guy from the early 1800s, Joseph de Maistre said that back in 1811, according to Wiki Quote. But then I was just looking at the very next quote on that same Wiki Quote page by the same guy. And I couldn't believe the relevance to this topic. So maybe, maybe this is my takeaway point.

Keep Jimmy Carter in mind as I read this quote from the early 1800s: Joseph de Maistre

says, quote, "I don't know what the life of a rascal is like since I've never been one, but that of an honest man is abominable. How few men are there who's passage on this stupid planet has been marked by really good and useful acts. I prostrate myself before the one of which one can say 'he went about doing good.' The one who [00:50:00] had been able to instruct, console, and relieve his fellows, the one who made great sacrifices for charity, these heroes of silent charity who hide themselves and expect nothing in this world. But what is the ordinary man? And how many are there in a thousand who can ask themselves without terror, 'What have I done in this world? In what way have I advanced to the common good and what will remain of me? Good or evil?'"

SECTION A: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics. Next up Section A- Historical Context, followed by Section B- Foreign Policy, Section C- Christian Nationalism, and Section D- Republican Rat Fucking.

Episode 364: Jimmy Carter Part 2 - Past Present - Air Date 2-28-23

NEIL YOUNG - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I think he's a really seminal figure in this history and a lot of sort of unexpected ways. When he runs for president in 1976, he tells reporters that he's an evangelical and they don't know what that is. [00:51:00] And there's really, there's literally an account of New York Times reporters like getting out their dictionary and looking up the word evangelical to figure out what he's even talking about. Now that is inconceivable for us from the vantage point of 2023. But he was on the cusp of history that was literally unfolding in real time.

And he wasn't saying that for some sort of political gain. He wasn't inserting religion into politics as much as he was just speaking about himself authentically as a person of deep faith, who was introducing himself to the nation at a time when, you really had to do that as a presidential candidate. It wasn't the same sort of media space. And also his time in office coincided with the rise of the religious right and the politicization of religion in American public life. And a good bit of that, I've argued in pieces I've written and in my book, was a response to him because he wasn't the type of Christian in American politics that these newly energized, white [00:52:00] evangelical conservatives were expecting someone like him to be.

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I don't remember if Carter won the white evangelical vote in '76, or if he split it with Ford. But I do remember that there was a big "exit stage right" for many of the evangelicals who supported him in '76 when it came to the election in 1980. And I think that's worth just throwing out there because we so closely associate white evangelicalism with conservatism. But Jimmy Carter was this political presence on the national stage.

He was somebody who he wasn't conservative necessarily, although I think that he was the more conservative candidate in the democratic primaries in 1976, but he also just represented something different. Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon and Ford, they had all been creatures of Congress, and they were very much part of Washington, DC.

And Jimmy Carter represented the rise of the Southern or the Sun Belt [00:53:00] Governor as president. So he was a transitional figure. And that way, he represents this moment of real fluidity in the coalitions for both parties. And I think that the white evangelicals are just one place where you're seeing that play out. You're seeing it play out in white, blue collar workers and union members. You're seeing it play out among Catholics. There's just this sort of mushiness to the electorate in this moment, and you're not sure where it's going to go.

And I think one of the things that also sticks out to me about him is, Jimmy Carter was the only Democratic president between the time that Lyndon Johnson left office and Bill Clinton came into office. And so there, it strikes me that there has to be something kind of special about him to break through those years of landslide Republican victories. I know that he's largely remembered for the fact that he lost in 1980, but the fact that he won in 1976. That seems pretty impressive as well.

NATALIA MEHLMAN PETRZELA - HOST, PAST PRESENT: What do you make of his [00:54:00] southerness? I'm curious, like how that plays in and you two both with deeper southern roots than I have, are probably more fit. Nikki, I know you're a transplant, but I'm giving you that. But I feel like that has something to do with this, right? This is an era when we talk about like the sun beltification of America.

We often associate that almost entirely with the reddening of America and with conservatism, but doesn't his unique status as having been a Democrat who won in that time period, in the time that you sketched out, Nikki. Does that have something to do with his southerness and the palatability of a southern liberal at that in that period? What do you think?

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I mean, it absolutely does. Who are the two democratic presidents between Johnson and Obama? It's Carter and Bill Clinton. I think Neil can speak to this a little bit more as a native southerner. But there's also, at least from the political sense, he is an outsider. He is somebody who's not of Washington, DC. He's from elsewhere. He's seen more as a populist. Somebody who's outside of the establishment. He's [00:55:00] a farmer and a Sunday school teacher. And so he brings all of that to the table. As well as the way that his southerness, it takes the edges off of his liberalism.

NEIL YOUNG - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Just piggybacking on to what you had said a few minutes ago, Nikki, about the fluidity of this sort of coalitional politics and how it's shifting really in these years, it's also important to remember that a lot of Southerners are starting to split their ticket in this time. And they're starting to show up more as Republican voters on the presidential level, but really into the nineties Southerners are voting for Democrats at the local and state level, and a lot of them are keeping their registration as Democrats because that's where the more important elections are at the state and local levels throughout the South. Even, into the 1990s.

And so Carter winning the presidency in 1976 with a good chunk of southern states supporting him isn't all that remarkable. It actually ties it back to a longer history of the Democratic party in the South. Now he was a bit of a different candidate in some ways and in other ways not so [00:56:00] much. When he ran for governor in the early 1970s, there were some really unfortunate things, or really he spoke in coded language to appeal to voters in order to win that election. Although as governor, he did push Georgia in a civil rights direction. And certainly as a presidential candidate he was more clearly aligned with a civil rights tradition of the Democratic Party.

But there's a sort of fluidity within him as well, because there's a sort of political transformation that he's undergoing. that in some ways, butts up against the South's transformation and other ways still aligns with it.

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: I'm glad you brought up sort of the more complicated history around Carter when it comes to race and segregation and the South.

Because I do think that there is a tendency, particularly among Democrats who I think many have a soft spot for Carter to maybe not paint the fullest picture of him. In part because, his dedication to things like human rights, his [00:57:00] work for Habitat for Humanity, his work for peace at the Carter Center, and all of these other ways, the ways that he doesn't cash in on his post presidential sort of potential earnings, because he's not interested, as future presidents would be, in making millions of dollars because he once was president. I think all of those things put a kind of rosy glow around Carter. And in some ways, maybe keep us from fully reckoning with Carter as an ambitious political character, right? Because morality seems so central to his politics. I don't think we often allow him to be a politician in our memory of him.

NATALIA MEHLMAN PETRZELA - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Well, it's really worth reading this essay by Kai Bird, his biographer, who really in some ways, I think props up the kind of mythology, not falsehood, but the sort of image of Carter that you're talking about is this kind of humble guy who moved back to Georgia and didn't pursue all these, big money speaking [00:58:00] engagements. On the other hand, he talks about him as like this hard nosed politician. One on the issue of racial equality that, growing up as a Southerner, yes, he had this idealism of the urgency of solving racism and ending racial discrimination, but he also had a very pragmatic view about what it would take to get that done.

And then also at, even in his nineties, that he was like calling for 7 a. m. meetings and giving only 45 minutes or 50 minutes to his biographer to talk about his time at the White House and had a very sort of pointed way of dealing with people. Some people called him intimidating, even kind of mean. And so I do think all of that does absolutely push back on this sort of like avuncular, like, friendly, modest, like Southern grandpa image that you know, and nice Southern grandpa, not like old racist Southern grandpa image that I think some people perhaps rely upon a little too readily, especially at this point in his life. When he is, we, I don't even know if we said it, he's the longest [00:59:00] living president ever, right? He's been the longest time out of office than as any president, more than any president. And also he's the oldest.

NICOLE HEMMER - HOST, PAST PRESENT: Yeah. I think George H. W. Bush had also turned 94, but Carter is definitely the oldest ex president we've ever had.

Remembering the extraordinary life of former President Jimmy Carter - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 12-29-24

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: On the domestic front, the President grappled with an economy beset by spiking inflation and interest rates and an energy crisis.

Just two weeks into his tenure, a cardigan clad Carter urged Americans to conserve during a televised fireside chat.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: All of us must learn to waste less energy.

WOMAN: Why didn't they come out and tell us there was no gas?

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: But by the summer of '79, the public's patience was wearing thin.

WOMAN: I've been here since 4:30 this morning. It's ridiculous waiting on line here.

MAN: I'm in the line two hours in, I can't get gas. This is baloney. Carter doesn't get my vote next year.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: With his [01:00:00] popularity plunging, President Carter set out to turn the country's mood.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: So I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy. The threat is nearly invisible. In ordinary ways, it is a crisis of confidence.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: He never actually used the term, but it came to be known as the malaise speech. And it brought new ridicule. Then, in November of that year, half a world away, the great crisis of the Carter presidency began. The capture of 66 Americans in Iran, most of them at the U.S. embassy, all with the tacit backing of that country's new supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.[01:01:00]

In April 1980, the President authorized an ill-fated military operation to try to free the hostages. But the mission ran into mechanical troubles and one helicopter crashed, killing five U.S. airmen and three U.S. Marines.

It was the Iran crisis and the nation's deep economic trouble that haunted the Carter reelection bid. Senator Ted Kennedy mounted a primary challenge that lasted until that summer's Democratic convention.

Meanwhile, Republicans coalesced around former California Governor Ronald Reagan.

MAN: Good morning. How are you?

Judy Woodruff [voice-over]:

And Illinois Congressman John Anderson. And also ran in the GOP primaries, turned independent for the general election.

JOHN ANDERSON: Give me your help. Give me your votes on the 4th of November.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: For weeks, the Carter campaign declined to have the President debate both Reagan and Anderson [01:02:00] on the same stage.

JOHN ANDERSON: The man who should be here tonight to respond to those charges chose not to attend.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: But finally, just a week before the election, Mr. Carter did square off with Reagan, but found himself outmatched.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Now we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.

MAN: Governor.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: There you go again.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Reagan used the debate to disarm depictions of himself as an extremist and thus ease voters' fears. He closed with a simple question that summed up his indictment of the Carter presidency.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: And it might be well if you would ask yourself. Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Judy Woodruff [voice-over]:

Reagan would later call it a critical moment in the campaign. But in President Carter's eyes —

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The major factor in the election had nothing to do with that debate. It was the fact [01:03:00] that went through election day, which was the exact one year anniversary of the hostages being taken in Iran.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: By then, the Iranians had freed 14 of the original 66 American hostages. The other 52 remained captive and Iran refused to budge.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The parliament decided under Khomeini's pressure that they would not release the hostages. And this devastating negative news about hostages swept the country. But on election day, I've always been convinced that this was a major factor.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Whatever the reason, President Carter was trounced that night. And at 9.50 p.m., more than an hour before polls closed on the west coast, he conceded.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: I promised you four years ago that I would never lie to you. So I can't stand here tonight and say it doesn't hurt.[01:04:00]

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: He spent much of his remaining time in office trying to free the Americans held in Tehran while he still could.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: At 10 o'clock on inauguration morning, all the hostages were in an airplane ready to take off. And Khomeini held them until five minutes after I was no longer present. Then they took off. But that was one of the happiest moments of my life. Every hostage came home safe and free.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: The landslide election defeat returned the Carters to civilian life, but they set about on a new life of service that won new respect. In 1982, the former president and wife Rosalind Carter founded the Carter Center, their platform for advancing democracy, peace, and health policy beyond America's borders.

The work took them around the world to places like Nicaragua to monitor elections and Bosnia to try to end years of fighting. As he told the NewsHour during the 2000 Democratic [01:05:00] Convention, it seemed to be ideal work for a former president.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The best times of my life have been after the White House. You have served a great nation, the greatest nation on earth, and then you have freedom from political obligations. You have an almost unlimited menu of things that you can either choose or say no.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: His new agenda did lead to occasional run ins with his successors in the White House, as in 1994, when the Clinton White House balked at Mr. Carter's talks with North Korean leader Kim Il Sung on freezing his government's nuclear program, and in 2002, when he made waves in Cuba, meeting with President Fidel Castro and calling for an end to the decades long U.S. embargo.

He was also a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But his diplomatic work, including the Camp David Accords, ultimately won him the [01:06:00] 2002 Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He remained in the public eye through his final years, and he minced no words in his attitudes about President Trump.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: There's no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated, would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfere.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: In 2015, he was diagnosed with melanoma, a cancer that spread to his liver and his brain, but underwent a new treatment that sent it into remission.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: I've had a wonderful life. I've had thousands of friends, but now I feel, you know, that it's in the hands of God whom I worship, and I'll be prepared for anything that comes.

JUDY WOODRUFF - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Through it all, Jimmy Carter remained active, [01:07:00] especially in his well-known work for Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor, and he continued teaching Sunday school in his hometown of Plains.

(Latest details on L.A. fires and what it's like to evacuate; Jimmy Carter laid to rest) - The BradCast w/ Brad Friedman - Air Date 1-9-25

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: The world was in the grip of the cold war back in 1952 when a nuclear reactor began You melting down. That reactor located at Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, Canada, just over 100 miles northwest of Ottawa, had suffered an explosion on December 12th of 1952.

Radioactive material had escaped into the atmosphere and millions of gallons of radioactive water flooded into the reactor's basement. Now, thankfully, no one was injured in that explosion, but the Canadians needed some help to disassemble the reactor's Damaged and melting down core and obviously it needed to be done quickly somehow And hopefully, safely, [01:08:00] somehow.

The United States, at the time, sent a 28 year old guy by the name of Jimmy Carter to help out. Yes, that would be the same Jimmy Carter who is much better known for being the nation's 39th Commander in Chief. And until his passing late last month at the age of 100, the US 's oldest living president. But his service to the country began when he was a teenage plebe at the US naval Academy and continued for four decades after his presidency. According to Jillian Brockel for the Washington Post, back in early 2023, after Carter had announced that he would be entering home hospice care. Of course, only to go on to live for another nearly two years in the years after graduating from Annapolis in 1946, Carter was promoted to lieutenant in the Navy, and he took a dangerous assignment aboard a submarine.

He was away from his young bride, Rosalyn and their [01:09:00] growing family quite a bit. It was in those years that President Harry S. Truman desegregated the military. While, uh, Carter's submarine was docked in Bermuda, British military officials invited white members of the American crew to a party, and at Carter's urging at the time, the entire crew refused to attend because it was segregated.

In 1952, Carter was then selected to join an elite team to help develop the Navy's first submarine. first nuclear submarines. Once he had trained his crew and the submarine was constructed, Carter was to be the commanding officer of the USS Seawolf. Then the partial meltdown happened up at Chalk River.

And then Lieutenant Carter was one of the few people on the planet at the time who was actually authorized to go inside a nuclear reactor. Carter and [01:10:00] his two dozen men were sent to, uh, to Canada to help because of the intensity of the radiation, a human could spend only 90 seconds inside the damaged core, even while wearing protective gear.

First, they constructed an executive. Duplicate of the reactor nearby. Then they practiced and they practiced and they dashed into this duplicate quote, to be sure that we had the correct tools and knew exactly how to use them. Said Carter in a 1976 memoir, each time one of the men managed to unscrew a bolt in the actual reactor, the same bolt would be removed from the duplicate.

And the next man would then prepare for the next step bolt by bolt. Eventually it was Carter's turn. He was in a team of three, quote, outfitted with white protective clothes. We descended into the reactor. So it sounds like they were lowered into it, kind of like Mission Impossible, as I [01:11:00] understand it, and they worked frantically for their allotted time.

Which was, in this case, 1 minute and 29 seconds, where Carter had absorbed the maximum amount of radiation that a human can withstand in a year, at least according to the, uh, to the numbers at the time, as they understood them. The mission, however, was successful. The damaged core was removed, thanks to Jimmy Carter and his squad.

Within two years, that, uh, core had been rebuilt, and it was back up and running, for good or ill. For several months afterwards, Carter and his crew submitted fecal and urine samples to test for radioactivity, but quote, there were no apparent aftereffects from this exposure, Carter wrote back in 1976, just a lot of doubtful jokes among ourselves about death versus sterility.

But in an 18, in an interview with historian Arthur Milnes in 2008, Carter [01:12:00] was not as cavalier. He said for six months, Is urine tested positive for radioactivity? Quote, they let us get probably a thousand times more radiation than they would allow now, he said. It was in the early stages, and they did not know.

Carter returned to, uh, preparing to command a nuclear sub, but soon fate intervened in July of 1953. His final father died of pancreatic cancer. Uh, pancreatic cancer would also eventually kill his mother and all three of his siblings, uh, as the oldest child, uh, Carter sought an immediate release from the Navy to take over the family business after seven years of service and given what he did inside that melted nuclear reactor, I would say after seven years of incredibly brave service, he was honorably discharged in 1953.

But the impact of the incident had a. Lifelong impact on his views of nuclear [01:13:00] power. His biographer, Peter Bourne said that as a young naval officer, he had approached it in a quote, very scientific and dispassionate way. But Chalk River showed him the power of nuclear power to destroy quote I believe this emotional recognition of the true nature of the power mankind had unleashed informed his decisions as President said Bourne not just in terms of having his finger on the nuclear button But in his decision not to pursue the development of the neutron bomb as a weapon If only everyone with their finger on that button had such personal experience and could be trusted with that button.

The Legacy of Jimmy Carter - Ralph Nader Radio Hour - Air Date 1-11-25

RALPH NADER - HOST, RALPH NADER RADIO HOUR: In reading all the articles and obituaries on Jimmy Carter, In the major newspapers, there was very little about his performance in the area of consumer protection, which means, in effect, his work with the regulatory agencies and the people he appointed to [01:14:00] enhance the health, safety, and economic well being.

Of the American people, I found that rather strange, especially since I made a lot of calls trying to urge reporters to cover its consumer area. I was astonished one day during the campaign of Carter in 1976 to get a call from a reporter who said, you know what Jimmy Carter just said? I said, no, he said he wants to outdo you as a consumer advocate.

And he wants to take your recommendations as to who he should appoint to head these consumer regulatory agencies. I said to myself, what? You know, it's not something before or after that I was accustomed to. I thought it was just campaign rhetoric, and it turned out not to be the case. He meant what he said.

He accepted our invitation right after he was elected to address a huge Ballroom of civic advocates in a hotel in Washington, and no one's ever [01:15:00] done that before or since. And then he proceeded to nominate many of the people that I would have recommended. They had the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Auto Safety Agency.

And the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had the best nominees to date. So he meant what he said. And most prominently, he took a stand against the biggest lobbying effort that corporations have ever mounted against the Consumer Bill. This one was to establish a Consumer Protection Agency to intervene before other federal agencies and make them pay attention to the consumer interest in their deliberations.

Thank you. And if they were arbitrarily not doing that, they could take these federal agencies to court. This was a structural institutionalized proposal, and he supported it all the way. Unfortunately, too many of his Democrats in the Congress [01:16:00] voted against the agency, and it was narrowly defeated. But I wanted to ask you.

Because you poured through all kinds of archives and materials and writing your Jimmy Carter book that nobody reached, if you could comment on his work in this area.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: He was a very great admirer of Ralph Nader. You know, you had, by the early 1970s, really had a movement going around the country about consumer activism and advocacy and awareness.

And Carter was in your camp. Part of it was he saw that he had a distrust of big corporations and really big politics of Washington. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And he wanted to have a people's movement that people were aware of their right. And so you were one of those people, William O. Douglas was another that he just admired.

And, you know, you had political clout in 1976 and your message was getting across and [01:17:00] Carter wanted to adopt what you were doing and kind of integrated into his White House. And he did. But the bigger problem at the end of the line for him was what you just said, there weren't enough Democrats to back what Carter was trying to do.

I mean, you started losing on that issue, everybody, from Ted Kennedy liberals and muskies of the world to Scoop Jackson in Washington. He couldn't. Bill, the Democratic Party that could push forward a very righteous idea, which emanated from you.

RALPH NADER - HOST, RALPH NADER RADIO HOUR: It is amazing how he lost support among his Democrats. He couldn't even get the Congressman from the Plains, Georgia district in Georgia, a Democrat to vote for the Consumer Protection Agency.

In the last 18 months of his term, he was really overwhelmed by Paul Volcker's high interest rates, too. Try to tame down a spiraling inflation and there was the Iranian hostage crisis that went on. [01:18:00] For a year and was prominently noticed by CBS, Walter Cronkite every night, the end of his session, he would mention it and he was under great pressure to deregulate natural gas, which he finally did and lost his base more and more.

So it's amazing that he did not interfere with either Joan Claybrook, who he appointed as head of the Auto Safety Agency, or Michael Perchick, who appointed chair of the Federal Trade Commission, or Doug Kostel, who appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency. The ultimate tragedy was when Ronald Reagan came in.

He dismantled these agencies, he put in toadies for business interests, the level of enforcement went way down, and even tore off 32 solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House roof as a punctuation for his desire to convert our economy to renewable [01:19:00] energy. Did he ever criticize these Democrats?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: Yeah, he liked very few of them. When he came in, Ralph, in January of 1977, he said the Democratic Party is an albatross around my neck. And he did not care for the liberal wing, the musky Kennedy wing, or the Washington scoop Jackson. He had some fondness for a little bit for Gaylord Nelson and Frank Church.

He should have been able to get a little closer to church. They had a lot of in common. He was very close to meet Carter, to Idaho's secretary of interior, Cecil Andrus, and that was a very effective relationship, Carter and Andrus, because. They were able to do quite a bit with public lands, culminating largely in the big Alaska, December 19, 19, right before he left office in 1980.

But there's Southern Democrats that voted for Carter in 1976 in the Senate [01:20:00] because of, you know, he's a fellow Southerner. They abandoned him. They wanted nothing to do with him and it started really with the Panama Canal and they started distancing themselves and saying, I'm not a Carter Democrat, the national news medium, making fun of Jimmy Carter, his accent, the Washington Post did not like him because Catherine Graham and Ben Bradley really mocked Carter.

They were very much more involved with the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. And, you know, he didn't really make a lot of friendships along the way in his presidency. He worked hard, Ralph, from beginning all day long to the end of the day. If he had a dinner, he would eat, and then he'd say, I gotta get back to work.

And he wasn't worried about cultivating Washington relationships. Now, there are individuals in America he became very close to. Andy Young, his ambassador to the United Nations, but that's because Carter's the one that told Andy Young to meet with [01:21:00] the Palestinian leadership in New York, and it blew up that it was secretly done by Andy Young, and Young kind of took the sword for Jimmy Carter.

It resigned, but that came directly from Carter, and Carter knew that Young could have turned on him, and it didn't, and Admired young and they became friends from Georgia on issues of human rights and civil rights and beyond. And then later in life, he had a few psych friends, particularly Ted Turner, who doesn't get talked about, the founder of CNN, you know, is Turner created the Jimmy Carter that everybody's honoring of the post presidency.

Because when Carter would go to Sudan or would go to Chile. Or go to China. He would send a CNN crew to follow ex President Carter and get a report on the news. And that helped open stories up that weren't getting covered in the national news. And, of course, as you know, Ted Turner gave his famous big gift of a billion dollars, I believe, to [01:22:00] the United Nations.

Then he bought all this land, public lands, and Carter liked that land environment conservation issue. He had a very easy hand at that because he really, we call him a farmer, a peanut farmer, but he knew agricultural science and became a first rate conservationist, understanding botany and, and, you know, cycles of planting, and it interests me, Ralph, that that same little belt where Carter's from, you can do a short drive to Tuskegee Institute where, you know, The famous George Washington Carver was known as the peanut man, you know, for all of the agronomic innovations and replenitive or regenerative farming.

And Carter fell into that quite early, and it's very progressive to think around how to feed the world and issues like that, and how to save public land, have clean air, clean water.

Carter 77 - My History Can Beat Up Your Politics - Air Date 12-27-23

BRUCE CARLSON - HOST, MY HISTORY CAN BEAT UP YOUR POLITICS: The presidency of Jimmy Carter is an example of a phenomenon in American politics that is seen in 1977, the presidential honeymoon. The president is elected [01:23:00] conceivably with a large mandate. A little bit of fear in Washington of this new guy coming in who can make or break their political careers, who the American people might like and don't want you to oppose.

Get some respect from the Congress. They have a few months to achieve the maximum amount of their goals. It does seem that successful presidents accomplish things in the first few months. Maybe it doesn't have to be 100 days, but it's those first few months. Carter's story demonstrates the opposite, that if you don't accomplish in the first few months, the whole presidency might be in trouble.

A couple other notes about Jimmy Carter. He has, as you know, become one of the most successful ex presidents in his involvement with charity work in the Carter Center, several diplomatic initiatives, helping sitting presidents with foreign policy at different times, monitoring elections, resolving crises around the world. He's improved his image overall as a person. And polls that are taken [01:24:00] decades after his presidency even see his presidency in a greater light.

I believe that since we've experienced energy spikes in 2008 and again in 2021 and 2022, we understand Jimmy Carter in 1977 perhaps a little better now. As throughout the 80s and the 90s, all that anyone would look back and see the pain of the times associated with him. Maybe that view is controversial. Maybe there's some that think that a different person elected in 1976 somehow wouldn't have those same problems. The energy plan that Carter's going to pass in his next year, changes things dramatically in terms of energy policy. That strategic reserve is still there. We all, well, almost all see the merit in researching new technologies, solar wind, electric cars and hybrid cars and things like that. We see [01:25:00] the, I think it's apparent now, the foresight in those programs in promoting those programs using the bully pulpit of the office, whether it was successful or not.

Other parts of it, for instance, windfall taxes, which was simply removed from the programs, and some parts of the energy plan that Carter had just simply don't work. I mean, it would cry a whole podcast to go into that. You know, but I do think that when energy prices drop in the eighties, because the Saudis who had been holding onto their oil eventually by '83 want cash. And they want to start selling again, and they break the log jam. And that's one of the many reasons that prices go down a bit. And so when you're in a time when costs are less, it's harder to see a president in a time of sacrifice. In a time where energy supplies were limited here. And to look at that.

There's something else here. Presidents, per the Constitutional [01:26:00] Convention, were elected by the Electoral College, a group of supposedly wise men who would be picked merely for the purpose of selecting a president. The president was not originally elected by the people. Though there were proposals for it, it's not what passed. The framers of the Constitution didn't have anything like a mandate in mind. It was Andrew Jackson who started the concept of an election mandate. That produced a mandate that gave the president the idea of being the representative of the people. They're elected by the whole nation. They have a mandate to govern.

Carter takes that extremely seriously. And I think at times too seriously. And I think at times a person that was a democratic president and seen as somebody who's a fan of democracy, and he certainly is, I never thought he was anything else. But was a little, you know, seemed to be a little bit too [01:27:00] enamored with his own election and not the concurrent election of members of Congress, who also had a mandate in each of their districts.

Despite the frenetic energy, the pace of introduction of legislation by the White House, the calendar is the reality. 1977 must end. By the end of it, through all the trials and tribulations, you have a president with a 57% approval rating, which is not bad. And there's really very little reason to believe in 1977, I mean, partisan attacks aside, sure. Ronald Reagan's out there making all kinds of statements, but nobody thinks he's gonna be president. Maybe Ford comes back or something else.

I mean, you know, there's no reason to believe that this political situation won't work. That what Carter's doing won't work. That his approach, his fresh approach won't work. He's come down, no doubt, in [01:28:00] approval rating from 75 to 57 from inauguration day. But disapprove up from 8%, 30%. These problems are gonna linger. But as you end '77, there's no reason to think, no reason to think that this is a president in trouble.

Carter ends 1977 outside the United States. He's in Poland. And he's equating American and Polish aspirations on human rights. He's in the middle of the Warsaw bloc, nations that ostensibly are controlled by the Soviet Union. And indeed, the government of Poland receives aid, military support, and advice. In fact, gets orders from Brezhnev in Moscow. But they have some independence. And they have borrowed a lot of money over the 70s from Western nations. Carter said [01:29:00] he's grateful for the degree of religious freedom that exists in Poland. In Poland, the Roman Catholic Church has been made a partner with the Communist state.

"My own constant hope is that the nations will give maximum freedom of religion and freedom of expression to their people," Carter said. From the Associated Press, "President Carter, hatless and wearing a blue topcoat, pause for a moment in silent prayer today and placed a gloved hand to his face in a gesture of humility at the Warsaw Ghetto Monument, a black stone memorial to the thousands of Jews who held out in the walled ghetto against the Nazis during a shortlived uprising, in 1943. The president then walked over to shake hands with Poles, many of whom shouted "Carter! Carter!" Commenting on the ghetto uprising, Mr. Carter told the crowd, "They died alone, but they live in our conscience.""

SECTION B: FOREIGN POLICY

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering [01:30:00] Section B- Foreign Policy.

The handover of the Panama Canal - Witness History - Air Date 12-12-24

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: I'm taking you back to 1999 and the handover of the Panama Canal.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: We were all looking for, you know, after 85 years, the day when Panama was going to be all by ourselves in charge of operating and controlling the Panama Canal.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: That's Alberto Aleman Zubieta. Who was an administrator for the canal when it was transferred from American to Panamanian rule in December 1999. Panama is a very small country, smaller than the US state of South Carolina. Despite its size, it plays a huge role in global shipping. The 80km Panama Canal is a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.

A ship traveling from New York to San Francisco through the waterway covers a distance of about 9, 500 kilometers. That's less than half the distance of going around Cape [01:31:00] Horn. Used by around 13, 000 ships a year, it's an amazing sight. As described here by the BBC, just after the handover.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: The Panama Canal is one of the engineering marvels of the world.

From the brilliant floating lock gates, to the enormous artificial lakes and dams that supply the huge quantities of water, all in all the canal has been an enduring success. Built, run and protected by the USA for the last four score years, the vital waterway has just been handed over to the tiny, relatively poor country of Panama.

It changed everything.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: First, because we proved to the people of Panama that we have the capability and I think that we can show the world that if we put our heads and minds together we can do and achieve whatever we decided to do. I feel that I've been very lucky and blessed to be allowed to do this.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: So, going back to the early history, it was finished in [01:32:00] 1914, but as the result of a treaty eleven years before. The United States had rights to the land surrounding it, known as the Canal Zone, and also controlled the waterway itself. Fast forward to 1977. I'm responding to years of Panamanian protest. US

President Jimmy Carter and Panama's General Omar Torres signed two new treaties that meant Panama would get full control. The signing took place in Washington, D. C., with President Carter making a passionate speech.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The American people are big enough and strong enough, courageous enough and understanding enough.

To be proud of what has been accomplished.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: The Panama Canal Treaty was signed on September 7th of 1977, uh, with a 23 year period basically to transfer the canal and all this land back to [01:33:00] Panama.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: And I believe that this treaty can open up a new era of understanding and comprehension, friendship, and mutual respect throughout, not only this hemisphere, but throughout the world.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: It's an example of two countries, you know, getting together and, and provided a very unique process that ended up in a transfer that was, actually there were more people concerned about the year 2000 problem, the Y2K, than actually the ships continued to move. Obviously there was a lot of concerns, I would say worldwide.

From the, uh, shipping industry, how Panama was going to run the, the canal, if we were going to continue to invest, if we were going to do the maintenance of the canal as required. Panama, we created this institution with a set of rules that allows the canal to operate very independent from party politics in Panama.

It has its own [01:34:00] budget, the way that we contract the people and so on. It's a very unique institution.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: The Canal Zone was abolished in 1979. The handover of the actual canal, though, was confirmed as being the last day of the millennium. But, as Alberto mentioned, there was concern worldwide about Y2K and what was known as the Millennium Bug. It was anticipated that there could be problems with the global infrastructure because of the date change.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: We have the Y2K problem, so there was not going to be any presidents present at the exact date and time when the transfer was going to happen. And therefore, Panama decided that we were going to have this ceremony. Uh, that was going to be held in the locks of the Canary Miraflores on December 15th.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: Jimmy Carter rode into the famous 50 mile waterway on a mule, the machine that tows ships into the locks. A [01:35:00] crowd of thousands watched.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: Well, uh, it was a very important day. We have President Carter, the King of Spain, and we have oldest president of the region. President Carter gave a fantastic speech.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: Jimmy Carter acknowledged that the original canal treaties were unfair, and he told the crowd that handing the waterway back to Panama was the right thing to do.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: But we must pledge ourselves on part of the United States of America to be a full partner, a harmonious partner, an equal partner in answering any request that come from Panama to make the operation of the canal even greater.

It's the next millennium.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: Although Jimmy Carter attended, questions were asked over why the current president of the USA, Bill Clinton, wasn't there. There was, though, a unifying speech from his Panamanian counterpart, Murray Moscoso.

MIREYA MOSCOSO: [01:36:00] To the whole world, I say that the carrying out of the Panama Canal treaties is proof that the mutual understanding between nations and diplomatic negotiation are the right ways to resolve conflict between countries.

Everything else only breeds pain and destruction.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: It was a beautiful moment. We have a huge ship moving through the locks. As the president was providing her speeches to the people who were all assembled there because we were already in a very festive mood.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: Not everyone was in a festive mood though. There was still some unrest.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIPS: Outside, protesters rung in the event their own way. These demonstrators were angry about America's 75 year control over the canal. The handover culminates the 31st, when the canal officially becomes Panamanian.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: It was, uh, you know, [01:37:00] people getting warmed up for the date that for us was, let's say, the important date.

From here on, the canal is run only by Panama.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: The end of the millennium was approaching, alongside the end of an era for the canal.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: We raised both flags every day at the Panama Canal Authority building, that is a very majestic building. On December 30th, when we lowered the flags, and the flags were actually handled, the U.

S. flag to the US ambassador, and the Panamanian flag to the President of Panama, Miriam Moscoso. Because that was the last time where the two flags were going to fly together.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: The most memorable moment for Alberto was the day the canal was transferred from the USA to Panama. December the 31st, 1999.

ALBERTO ALEMAN ZUBIETA: It was kind of drizzling, so we kind of got wet.

For me, rain is a [01:38:00] blessing. At noon, we raised the Panamanian flag and was the only flag flying. on Panamanian territory. People start running towards the post where the flag was being raised. It was amazing to see the people, the reaction of the people of Panama. It was very emotional and actually it was a very beautiful moment in history.

GILL KEARSLEY - HOST, WITNESS HISTORY: The Panama Canal is still as important today as it was then.

Christian Zionism With Daniel Hummel Pt 2 - American Prestige - Air Date 2-27-24

DEREK DAVIDSON - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: Carter is an interesting guy. He occupies the only lane I think as an evangelical leftist, or left of center president in American history. And I'm curious how that evangelicalism, of that bent, kind of frames the question of Zionism in Israel. He's also an interesting guy because he's, really, the president, where US policy toward Israel has advanced so far that the US has begun doing foreign policy on Israel's behalf with the Camp David Accords, which is a trend [01:39:00] that obviously has accelerated quite a bit in recent years.

But Carter then goes on after his presidency to be maybe the only anti Zionist US, ex-US president. It's sort of, fascinating kind of trajectory that he has, but maybe we could start with the notion of a left evangelical president and what that means in terms of Zionism.

DANIEL HUMMEL: Yeah. And there was a lot of, I, I think I remember one document I was looking at. It was in the American Jewish Committee archives, and it was from 1978 or '79, and he was reading Carter as the wave of what evangelical politics is gonna be. And it was a, there was a line in there that said, "we need to prepare for a million Jimmy Carters in the 1980s." And it's like, wow, what a misread of where the Evangelical politics was going.

Anyway, yes Jimmy Carter's interesting. I mean, part of this is realizing that Jimmy Carter, sure, he was an evangelical, or more precisely in 1976, he was a born again Christian, which was the [01:40:00] big term that was being bandied about that year. He was also a Southern Baptist, and this, he, and maybe that's as important as born again for someone like Jimmy Carter.

And back in the 70s, this is before the Southern Baptist Convention swung to the conservative side in the late 70s and then on until today. The Southern Baptist Convention was very broad in the 70s. It had what was, what were called the moderate wing and then the conservative wing. And Carter was definitely on the moderate wing. And so, you can see even in in the 70s Southern Baptists aren't voting like they do later on in the 80s and 90s so far to the conservative side. So in some ways, Carter was representing a constituency. Now because of the religious politics, the denominational politics and then the broader evangelical developments in the 70s and 80s, Carter becomes this representative of a left evangelicalism, though there's even people further to the left of him, but certainly a more moderate evangelicalism.

He definitely has a different frame for thinking about the Middle East than someone like [01:41:00] Jerry Falwell does, who is a fellow Baptist, but much different in his theology and politics and Carter. I think that the easiest way to think about Carter's view is it's a very religious. I think everything Carter did flowed out of his identity as a Christian. But he saw the Middle East as the homeland of the Abrahamic faiths. And he would use that term very often, particularly strategically in Camp David, because he found it very significant that it was him, a Christian, it was Anwar Sadat, a Muslim, the head of Egypt. And then it was Nakim Begin, a Jew, the head of Israel, that were coming together to try to find peace. And he found that to be very biblically resonant and very, as he would say, Abrahamic resonant. And so if you take the Abrahamic fate- the frame versus say a Judeo-Christian frame, which you can put a bunch of presidents in that one, you can see how there'd be a much different, there'd be a multipolar conversation that would lead to a much different type of politics, a much different expectation of give and take between the different parties than a Judeo Christian [01:42:00] framework, which really sees Muslims and the broader Arab world as outside of the sort of in group or the children, the religious children that are part of this.

So that's the first thing to say about Carter is that he's coming at this maybe with a much different religious frame than even other evangelicals would.

DEREK DAVIDSON - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: So what's the characterization of Camp David among, let's say the mainstream evangelical community and by that I mean the conservative wing, how do they regard what Carter is doing? Are they pleased that this is gonna maybe work to Israel's benefit or maybe a little bit miffed at the idea of giving up Israel giving up land or what is the, what's the sort of impression that they have?

DANIEL HUMMEL: They're mostly skeptical. They are observing Carter making critical remarks in press releases or in press conferences and elsewhere, about settlers, even in, 1977, 1978. So, they're already skeptical that Carter is not on board with that. [01:43:00] They know that he is theologically different from them. So, he doesn't have the dispensational theology. He doesn't have much conservative Baptist theology. He's a more moderate Baptist in that sense. But they're also torn because Menachem Begin is engaging in these talks as well and they tend to like Begin. And so there's often the dynamics of the sort of public conversation is demanding that Begin get- not be boxed in that begging get room to negotiate. Ultimately, this is what I was saying before about the deference to the Israeli perspective. Ultimately, most evangelicals, particularly those who are involved in organizations that are trying to work in Israel or work with the Israeli government, they are ultimately skeptical and critical whenever they feel like Begin is not getting his fair share. And so that, of course, plays into a deeper sort of a deeper level of politics where Begin is then leveraging these critics, or these potential critics, in the US to try to get what he wants as well and try to put pressure on Carter [01:44:00] through those channels as well. But ultimately when the deal is signed the evangelicals accept it. They don', try to force a change or anything. But they are disappointed, among other things, that Israel's giving up so much historic, or seemingly biblical land, including the entire Sinai Peninsula. Also, there's a few settlements that are have to be evacuated because settlement activity had already started in the 70s in the Sinai Peninsula. And they're critical of that as well. And that'll be a pattern as well as, this is one of the areas where there's a big tension with the Israeli government is because when the Israeli government does decide to somehow give up land or pull back settlers, they do this in Gaza in 2005 as well, you get critiques from certain quarters of Christian Zionism that this is going against God's plans, or this is going against the covenantal relationship. And now those are, tensions that they have to negotiate.

DEREK DAVIDSON - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: Just as a final, my final question on Camp David, there was this two-pronged approach that Carter took at Camp David. One was to [01:45:00] negotiate a direct peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. But the other was this framework for Middle Eastern peace that he was pushing. That Begin and Sadat both kind of said, "yeah, yeah, sure we're behind that," and then they didn't do anything with it, and they just negotiated the direct peace treaty.

I have to imagine that evangelicals in the US were at least happy that the framework for Middle Eastern peace didn't go anywhere, and that this was limited to just an Egypt-Israel process.

DANIEL HUMMEL: Oh, yes, of course. They, for certain theological reasons, they're skeptical of the idea of a framework for peace being achievable. That there is, for many of these evangelicals who believe in a certain end time scenario, like the Middle East is just going to be, plagued with wars and destruction until Jesus comes back. And so they're skeptical of peace in that way. There's also part of their particular prophetic beliefs is that there will be a false peace deal that is [01:46:00] imposed on the region from the Antichrist. We're getting into real real left behind territory here, but the Antichrist will force a peace deal on the entire region that's ultimately a false peace and ultimately leads to Israel's destruction. And so you get references to these types of things when you, when any president starts talking about a framework for peace in the Middle East, this is one of the canars that comes up from the more , the certainly the more bold Christian Zionist sectors is that this feels like the "false peace" that we need to watch out for and we need to mobilize against.

Carter's was a version of that, but it was it was so unenthusiasticly picked up by the parties themselves, like you mentioned by Egypt and Israel that it never really even became, a reality that they could respond to.

Jimmy Carter Championed Human Rights But Also Funded & Armed Indonesia's Genocide in East Timor - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-10-25

BRAD SIMPSON: I think that we should recall that in 1975, the United States effectively pulled out of Southeast Asia just as Indonesia was invading East Timor, with U.S. support, on December 7, 1975. Shortly after President Ford and then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger left Jakarta, Indonesia invaded East Timor. Over the course of the next year, [01:47:00] they killed upwards of 10% of the population, an invasion that was entirely financed and armed by U.S. weapons. The CIA estimated that about 95% of the weapons used by Indonesia in its invasion were provided by the United States.

And so, when Jimmy Carter became president in January of 1977, he confronted an ongoing genocide, which many officials and journalists were already describing as the worst human rights crisis in the world at the time. And Jimmy Carter, like his top officials, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzeziński, were primarily concerned with reassuring right-wing allies in the region, such as Indonesian President Suharto, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean government, that the United States was still committed to providing military and economic assistance. And we see this right from the start, that when Carter was evaluating his policies toward Southeast Asia, his national security [01:48:00] adviser, Zbigniew Brzeziński, reassured his staffers that the Carter administration would not be and should not be prioritizing human rights in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia and the end of the Vietnam War.

And throughout Carter’s administration, although Carter himself may have been sympathetic to human rights in other parts of the world and actually did curtail U.S. military assistance to governments in Latin America and was very good, for example, in enforcing an arms embargo against Rhodesia, in Southeast Asia, Carter really continued the policies of the Nixon and Ford administration. Between 1977 and 1979, the Carter administration more than doubled U.S. military aid and sales to Indonesia, precisely at the moment when the atrocities that Indonesia was carrying out, which included mass murder, the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, and starvation and disease that killed tens of thousands, was escalating into [01:49:00] a genocide.

And the Carter administration’s response, at least those of his top officials, was to lie before Congress. In the spring of 1977, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke and his deputies lied to Congress and said that Indonesia had effective control of East Timor, that the situation was calm, and that the majority of those who had died had died before Indonesia’s invasion. And they used these lies to justify continuing to expand military assistance and weapons sales at a time when congressional human rights supporters and some human rights supporters within his own administration, including the new assistant secretary of state for human rights, Patricia Derian, were calling on the Carter administration to halt weapons sales and weapons aid to Indonesia because of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in East Timor.

And the Carter administration’s response was pretty illuminating. The CIA, in the spring of 1977 and [01:50:00] into 1978, told the Carter administration that Indonesia was literally running out of weapons, running out of bullets and bombs, because of the intensity of its bombardment of East Timor, and that the Suharto regime was requesting a doubling of military assistance so it could more effectively prosecute that war. And in 1978, the Carter administration actually increased military sales to Indonesia, including the provision of ground attack fighters, such as OV-10 Broncos, A-4 and F-5 ground attack fighters, which the administration knew would be used to bomb and attack the defenseless civilian population of East Timor.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Brad, we just have a minute to go. If you can summarize the presidency to the post-presidency, the post-President Carter, and the human rights framework he put forward, that was applied and not applied in [01:51:00] different situations?

BRAD SIMPSON: I think we should acknowledge that President Carter was the first president to elevate human rights to an idea that should guide U.S. foreign policy, at least in theory. I think what he also showed is how difficult it is for even well-intentioned presidents to support human rights, when the vast majority of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus believes in a more hawkish foreign policy that’s designed to support military dictators around the world with U.S. military aid and sales. And the fact that Carter was not able to sort of elevate human rights as he might have wished in East Timor and Indonesia is a reminder of the challenges that activists and human rights supporters in the U.S. and around the world face in trying to get the United States to actually support human rights and do more than give lip service to the idea that human rights should be a guiding principle in U.S. foreign policy.

Camp David's Failures: Jimmy Carter's Opposition to Israeli Apartheid Wasn't Enough to Secure Peace - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-10-25

STUART EIZENSTAT: Jimmy Carter’s most lasting achievement, [01:52:00] and the one I think he was most proud of, was to bring the first peace to the Middle East through the greatest act of personal diplomacy in American history, the Camp David Accords. For 13 days and nights, he negotiated with Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, personally drafting more than 20 peace proposals and shuttling them between the Israeli and Egyptian delegations. And he saved the agreement at the 11th hour — and it was the 11th hour — by appealing to Begin’s love of his grandchildren. For the past 45 years, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty has never been violated and laid the foundation for the Abraham Accords.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: The Abraham Accords are the bilateral normalization agreements between Israel and, as well — and the United Arab [01:53:00] Emirates and Israel and Bahrain, signed in 2020.

In 2006, years after he left office, Jimmy Carter wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s former racist regime. It was striking for a former U.S. president to use the words “Palestine,” let alone “apartheid,” in referring to the Occupied Territories. I went down to The Carter Center to speak with President Jimmy Carter about the controversy around his book and what he wanted the world to understand.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: The word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that’s occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated. The Palestinians can’t even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory. The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the [01:54:00] Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers. So, within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of “apartheid” is, one side dominates the other. And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Why don’t Americans know what you have seen?

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is going on inside Palestine. It’s a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective [01:55:00] analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries, or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good-faith peace talks. There hasn’t been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out as I’ve just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: President Jimmy Carter. To see that whole interview we did at The Carter Center, you can go to democracynow.org.

For more on his legacy in the Middle East during his presidency and beyond, we’re joined in London by historian Seth Anziska, professor of Jewish-Muslim relations at University [01:56:00] College London, author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo.

What should we understand about the legacy of President Carter, Professor Anziska?

SETH ANZISKA: Well, thank you, Amy.

I think, primarily, the biggest lesson is that when he came into office, he was the first U.S. president to talk about the idea of a Palestinian homeland, alongside his commitment to Israeli security. And that was an enormous change from what had come before and what’s come since. And I think that the way we understand Carter’s legacy should very much be oriented around the very deep commitment he had to justice and a resolution of the Palestinian question, alongside his commitment to Israel, which derived very much from his Southern Baptist faith.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And talk about the whole trajectory. Talk about the Camp David Accords, for which he was hailed throughout the various [01:57:00] funeral services this week and has been hailed in many places around the world.

SETH ANZISKA: Well, I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about the legacy of Camp David is that this is not at all what Carter had intended or had hoped for when he came into office. He actually had a much more comprehensive vision of peace in the Middle East, that included a resolution of the Palestinian component, but also peace with Syria, with Jordan. And he came up with some of these ideas, developed them with Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state, and Zbigniew Brzeziński, his national security adviser. And in developing those ideas, which came out in 1977 in a very closely held memo that was not widely shared inside the administration, he actually talked about return of refugees, he talked about the status of Jerusalem, and he desired very much to think about the different components of the regional settlement as part of an overall vision. This [01:58:00] was in contrast to Henry Kissinger’s attitude of piecemeal diplomacy that had preceded him in the aftermath of the 1973 war. So we can understand Carter in this way very much as a departure and somebody who understood the value and the necessity of contending with these much broader regional dynamics.

Now, the reasons why this ended up with a far more limited, but very significant, bilateral peace treaty between Egypt and Israel had a lot to do both with the election of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977, as well as the position of Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and also the role of the Palestinians and the PLO. But what people don’t quite recall or understand is that Camp David and the agreement towards the peace treaty was in many ways a compromise or, in Brzeziński’s view, was a real departure from what had been the intention. And that gap between what people had hoped for within the administration [01:59:00] and what ended up emerging in 1979 with the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty also was tethered very much to the perpetuation of Palestinian statelessness. So, if we want to understand why and how Palestinians have been deprived of sovereignty or remain stateless to this day, we have to go back to think about the impact of Camp David itself.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Interesting that Sadat would be assassinated years later in Egypt when Carter was on the plane with Nixon and Ford. That’s when they say that cemented his relationship with Ford, while they hardly talked to Nixon at all. But if you could also comment on President Carter and post-President Carter? I mean, the fact that he wrote this book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, using the word “Palestine,” using the word “apartheid,” to refer to the Occupied Territories — I remember chasing him down the hall at the Democratic convention when he was supposed to speak. This was the Obama Democratic convention. And it ended up he didn’t speak. And I chased him [02:00:00] and Rosalynn, because —

SETH ANZISKA: Remember that in 1977, there was a very famous speech that he gave in Clinton, Massachusetts, talking about a Palestinian homeland. And that raised huge hackles, both in the American Jewish community amongst American Jewish leaders who were very uncomfortable and were already distrustful of a Southern Democrat and his views on Israel, but also Cold War conservatives, who were quite hawkish and felt that he was far too close to engaging with the Soviet Union. And so, both of those constituencies were very, very opposed to his attitude and his approach on the Palestinian issue. And I think we can see echoes of that in how he then was treated after his presidency, when much of his activism and much of his engagement [02:01:00] on the question of Palestine, to my view, derived from a sense of frustration and regret about what he was not able to achieve in the Camp David Accords.

And his commitment stemmed from the same values that he had been shaped by early on, a sense of viewing the Palestinian issue through the same lens as civil rights, in the same lens as what he experienced in the South, which is often, what his biographers have explained, where his views and approach towards the Palestinians came from, but also a particularly close relationship to biblical views around Israel and Zionism, that he was very much committed to Israeli security as a result. And that was never something that he let go of, even if you look closely at his work in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Some of his views on Israel are actually quite closely aligned with positions that many in the Jewish community would feel [02:02:00] comfortable with.

The fact that people criticized and attacked him for that, I think, speaks to the taboo of talking about what’s happening or what has happened, in the context of Israel and Palestine, in the same kind of language as disenfranchisement around race in apartheid South Africa. And, of course, as Carter said in the interview you just ran that you had done with him when the book came out, the situation is far worse in actuality with what is happening vis-à-vis Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

SECTION C: CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next Section C- Christian Nationalism.

Preparing for War with Bradley Onishi - The Lawfare Podcast - Air Date 12-7-23

KATHERINE POMPILIO - HOST, THE LAWFARE PODCAST: I wanted to also talk about, you know, your comparisons of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. I thought those were especially interesting. You know, it seems like if you were a white Christian nationalist, you couldn't have asked for A better candidate than Jimmy Carter, but as you write, you know, he was the quote wrong type of Christian.

What made him the wrong type of Christian? What went wrong there? And why did so many Protestants and Catholics vote for [02:03:00] Reagan instead of Carter?

BRADLEY ONISHI: Yeah, I think this is an obviously an especially pertinent pertinent question in the in the wake of Rosalyn Carter's death and Jimmy Carter entering hospice.

We have. this situation where Jimmy Carter seems like he's made in a lab. If you're a white conservative Christian, like if you were in a video game and you wanted to create a character for the white conservative Christian in the United States to vote for, it's like Jimmy Carter's your man, right? I mean, Jimmy Carter is born to a Southern family who are farmers.

They live in rural Georgia, not Atlanta, rural Georgia. They are Southern Baptists. They are, uh, folks who prioritized reading the Bible. I mean, Jimmy Carter, uh, had a conversion experience in his teen years and he went on to be somebody who rarely left the house without his Bible. Who did Jimmy Carter marry?

His high school sweetheart, Rosalind Carter. Well, what did they do, uh, when they got of age? I don't know. He joined the military and became a military [02:04:00] officer. So we have a lifelong Southern Baptist from the deep South, born into a rural farming family. He's a family man, never leaves the house without his Bible.

And what more could you ask for? When his daddy dies, he goes home and takes over the family farm, eventually runs for school board. And then in a lightning in a bottle kind of career becomes president. Oh my gosh, this is the guy why would you vote for Ronald Reagan? Ronald Reagan was a divorced hollywood actor like hollywood is the den of sin If you're like a white conservative christian in this country He is not somebody who was really dyed in the wool as an evangelical.

He had various stances on abortion when he was Uh governor of california Not a great relationship with his older children. And if we go back to that whole family values idea, uh, Nancy Reagan, you know, there's a lot of reports that say that, you know, when she was in the white house, she had an astrologist follow her around and kind of help her, uh, navigate life.

No, nothing against astrology on my part, [02:05:00] but most white evangelicals see astrology as, uh, the work of the devil, right? Okay. How does Ronald Reagan become your man? Well, Ronald Reagan. Articulated a vision for white christian nationalist america. He said, I will put your values and your policies first. What were those values?

Those values were a hawkish foreign policy. They were opposition to abortion. They were minimizing the federal government. Taking people off what he called the welfare state and so on and so forth. Jimmy Carter, while he was president didn't do that. He appointed more women and people of color to the federal judiciary than anyone before him.

He would not come out with a vehement stance against abortion, even though personally he seemed to be against it. He was not somebody who was a hawk when it came to foreign policy. In fact, he was Really into diplomacy and negotiation, uh, successful or not. He also was just not a [02:06:00] hardline anti gay politician.

He just would not engage in that kind of rhetoric in ways that Jerry Falwell's of the world wanted him to. My argument would be that Jimmy Carter Was too much of a Christian and not enough of a Christian nationalist for the religious right and Jerry Falwell. And so in a way that completely foreshadows this group voting for Donald Trump in 2015, 16, we have Jimmy Carter, this man who never leaves the house without his Bible, teach a Sunday school, and, uh, is a dyed in the wool Southern Baptist who loses.

The vote of white Catholics and white evangelicals to a divorced Hollywood actor who really only discovered religion late in life and was wishy washy on abortion and didn't have a great relationship with his kids. It totally, totally foreshadows what happened with the rise of Trump.

KATHERINE POMPILIO - HOST, THE LAWFARE PODCAST: Yeah. So I want to get into that, you know, we, based off of this, and I think we've covered the myth of Trump.

The Christian nation. How does Donald Trump fit into here? [02:07:00] You said that voting for Trump was once in a lifetime opportunity for many Christian nationalists. Why?

BRADLEY ONISHI: Yeah. So I just want to emphasize the idea that, you know, if we, if we take Christian nationalism, white Christian nationalism, especially as a desire to return the country to its proper order, that, uh, for the white Christian nationalists, the country should look a certain way.

It should feel a certain way and since the 1960s, it has not, whether that's because of abortion, whether that's because of, uh, queer rights, whether that's because of immigration, whether that's because of having a black president with a black family. However you want to talk about it, it seems to them that America is out of order and not working.

So they have put their hope in various people. Ronald Reagan was one of them, and by the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency, they were frustrated. He did not do everything they wanted, and they were a little bit disillusioned. Then we get to the the 90s and the presidency of Bill Clinton, [02:08:00] which was of course something that they did not approve of.

George W. Bush I think is is actually a really good Case in point as to what sets up Trump, George W. Bush wasn't evangelical, George W. Bush was thoroughly conservative in policy. He was a hawk. We don't have to relive all of the details of Iraq and Afghanistan during his presidency to know that. But yet, when he got done, it felt like the itch had not been scratched.

Like there were still gay people in the country and they were just gaining more and more representation. And the country just kept getting more and more like black and Brown and Asian, and, you know, less and less Christian and less and less white. And it just felt like they were losing on every issue, whether it was abortion, whether it was gay marriage, whether it was, uh, anything else, right.

Like we just can't seem to get our enemies in line. And then all of a sudden Barack Obama comes, he's a man named Barack. [02:09:00] He's a man named Hussein, black family, dad from another country, dad from an African country, raised in, in Kansas, but also raised in Hawaii. Like is Hawaii even part of the union? I don't know.

I think so. You know, do we have to change our money to go there? Uh, yeah, I can't remember. Right. Is he, is that even America? Like, I mean, Missouri and Georgia, that's America. I mean, Iowa. Yes. But Hawaii, I don't, I don't trust people. I mean, he's president now. That's weird. Okay. If Jimmy Carter was built in a lab, For the white conservative christian. Barack obama was built in a lab for them to be scared of like to just think this is everything wrong with the country so once obama got into place.

To me, something clicked. It was this. The next guy we, we vote for is not going to be just a Christian. He's not going to be just a politician who, who makes promises like Reagan did. We need a bully. We need the guy that will brutalize the enemies, that will take out the people [02:10:00] causing trouble, and that will put everything in order, policy and law and process and tradition be damned.

We don't need that. What we need is someone to take care of business. We, I don't care if he's nice. I don't care how often he attends church. I don't care if he knows the difference between two Corinthians and second Corinthians. I don't care how many times he's been married. God can use him to save this nation.

And the support was there in 2016. It only grew in 2020. And there's really no indication it's going to wane in 2024.

Straight White American Jesus Weekly Roundup: Jimmy Carter vs Elon Musk Part 1 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 1-3-25

DANILE MILLER - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Randall Balmer, a friend of the show, a very well known historian of evangelicalism, we've talked with him on Straight White American Jesus before, wrote a piece in Politico, and one of the things he noted is he said that Carter's death symbolically represented the end of what he called "progressive evangelicalism." And what he meant by that was a kind of evangelicalism that was concerned with what we would now call social justice. It was concerned with, to put it in biblical [02:11:00] parlance, the least of these, or in prophetic language, the poor, the orphan, the widow. It was a vision that said that part of what it was to be a Christian in the world is to create a more just and equitable society, that that was part of the Christian mission.

Now, the people who don't like Carter, they would say he's woke. That's what it would be. Ron DeSantis or somebody like that would say that he's just a woke politician. That's who he was. That's if we wanted to contextualize him now. And it's just as a reminder that relates to this and Brad, I know you've talked about this a lot. We've talked about it. You write about it and discuss it. What really caused the break between him and the religious right was the threat to take away the tax exempt status of Christian schools over the- that were segregated. He was forcing desegregation. That was part of this vision of a more just, equitable social society and so forth.

So we know all of that. We've talked about that. What I want to think about here is just how evangelical and traditionally Baptist Carter was. Because I think it's easy to look at him and say, "Well, he's a guy [02:12:00] who had personal faith, but didn't bring it into his politics." And I think that that's not the right read. I think that if we understand Carter and contextualize where he was coming from, in the 1970s, in Southern Baptist life in the 1970s, he was a very, very committed Southern Baptist president. And I think that that's, I think it's a thing to know and to see.

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: So one comparison point would probably be Tim Walz. So Tim Walz is Evangelical Lutheran, and by all accounts, he's a regular church goer. But when you do deep dives on Tim Walz, he's kind of the guy that's like, "Yeah, I'm a Christian, but I don't really talk about it." And I think what you're saying about Jimmy Carter is, he was definitely a Christian. He definitely talked about it, but just not in the ways that we expect.

DANILE MILLER - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Or even Biden, who would talk about, "I'm Catholic and I have these views on abortion," back when, he was more sort of moderate on abortion and he'd say, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, carry out the laws of the land and the will of the people and so forth.

That wasn't really, I think, how Carter sort of fits into this model. So the first point I want to bring out is just specifically how Baptist he [02:13:00] was. His politics and his administration clearly embodied and expressed a separation of church and state. He did not have a vision of simply appointing Christians to government. He didn't want to govern from the Bible. He wasn't quoting scripture passages and saying this is the law of the land or things like that. They all expressed a form of secularism, but it was a secularism that had deep roots in his own religious tradition. And I know I've talked about this in the past, but it sort of continues to surprise people.

But Baptists in the 18th century, Baptists in the 17th, 1700s rather, they were proponents of separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson's famous line about a wall of separation between church and state, it's not in the Constitution. It was in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association, and he wrote it because Baptists had supported the formation of the First Amendment. They supported separation of church and state. And not just Baptists, there were other non conforming religious groups like Quakers, who also affirmed separation of religion and state because their own religious traditions had undergone [02:14:00] persecution. So Baptists believed then, that it was the responsibility of the church, not the state, to convert people to Christianity.

That if their God was who they said their God was, and their gospel was as true as they thought it was, that was their job. And that was God's job to go and convert people, not the state. And they also felt that the state should be neutral with regard to religion. And I say this all the time, this was not a view that said all Christians should be created or treated equally. There were Baptist thinkers in early centuries who said, it applied to Jewish people. It applied to Muslim people. It applied to freethinkers, or what we would now call atheists or humanists. They had a broad vision of this. So in not imposing this vision of Christian America, or what now passes as a vision of Christian America, Carter was being a good Baptist.

And I think part of the interesting thing about this is that he also reflected battles going on within the SBC at the time. So, In the 70s, the Southern Baptist Convention, largest Protestant denomination in the US, we talk about people like Al Mohler and [02:15:00] others who are central figures in this super conservative denomination.

In the 1970s, it was controlled largely by theological moderates. Their opponents called them liberals. They were not liberal by any sort of contemporary theological standard. But Carter's Christianity reflected that strain of Southern Baptist life. In 1979, conservatives within the denomination took control. They won the highest post in the denominational hierarchy, they appointed conservatives. And that began a long process that is still ongoing of moving the whole denomination pretty far to the right. That's what coincides with the formation of the religious right. That's what brings about the Southern Baptist Convention we have now. That's what brings about, I mentioned Al Mohler, somebody who far from now arguing for separation of church and state as a traditional Baptist doctrine, is busy talking about the Augustinian city of God and, having to have a theocratic society and so forth. So, all that, some of the Southern Baptist stuff, I got a couple things to say about the social vision, but I want to jump in to see if you have [02:16:00] Quaker or other perspectives on Carter and separation of church and state, and what that means for a religious person, a person of deep religious commitment to affirm the separation of church and state.

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Yeah, there's a lot to say here, and I want to turn to Amanda Tyler, friend of the show, leader of the Baptist Joint Committee. Somebody who's written a book called How to End Christian Nationalism. I've interviewed Amanda and spoken with Amanda and appreciate Amanda very much. She wrote in Time this week about Carter as somebody who did exactly what you're saying, Dan, in terms of the separation of church and state.

And I just she included in her piece some great quotes from President Carter himself. So let me read a couple of those. "'I think that prayer should be a private matter between a person and God,' then President Carter told a group of news editors in 1979 concerning Supreme Court rulings against mandatory government sponsored prayers in public schools in 1962 and 1963."

Quote, "I think the [02:17:00] government ought to stay out of the prayer business and let it be between a person and God and not let it be part of a school program under any tangible constraints, either a direct order to a child to pray or an embarrassing situation where the child would feel constrained to pray."

He told the editors that he made these statements because he was a Baptist, exactly as you're saying, Dan. And so, I think one thing, there's a lot of ways to remember Jimmy Carter. He was not a perfect person, there's things we could talk about in terms of Central America and other things. He was not the most effective president, and so on and so forth.

But I think what stands out in these- this moment, as we remember him, is the ways that he was able to articulate a Christianity as part of his identity that recognized that Christianity and the kingdom of God were about, not forcing or constraining, but about persuasion and acceptance.

And, this quote really exemplifies that. I'll give you one more here that speaks to your point, and I'll throw it back to you [02:18:00] before I jump in on some other issues later. 2010 Autobiography, A Full Life, Reflections at 90. This is Jimmy Carter. "My religious faith had become a minor issue during the 1976 campaign when I responded yes to a reporter's question, 'Are you a born again Christian?' Some reporters implied that I was having visions, or thought I received daily instructions from heaven. My traditional Baptist belief was that there should be strict separation between church and state. I ended the long standing practice of inviting Billy Graham and other prominent pastors to have services in the White House, and our family assumed the role of normal worshipers in a church of our choice."

Of all the things about Jimmy Carter that I appreciate, this is in the very top. In a time, Dan, when Billy Graham was a regular at the White House, whether you were Richard Nixon or any other president. At a time when Jerry Falwell was touring the country holding I Love America rallies, where at the end of those rallies he had an altar call, but it was for America.

At a time [02:19:00] when the more- what would become the moral majority was ascendant and there was a, basically a civil war and a takeover happening in the Republican party, Jimmy Carter is the kind of guy that doesn't soft play it. He's like, Hey, Billy, guess what? Not invited anymore. You can stay home. Why don't you you go see your wife or, hold a rally? You don't need to come over to the white house anymore.

Like that takes guts, man. And because. There are so many lobbyists and power players in Washington, Billy Graham at the time was one of them. To say no to Billy Graham was to say no to a whole lot of people that would have glad handed Carter, helped him get a better image among the evangelical right, and so on and so forth. And Carter was just like, 'nah, I'm good, bro. I actually need to catch up on some things tonight. So don't come over, Billy.' That's just- that's the thing. And I appreciate it. I don't know if I can convey here briefly and succinctly, what it took to say no to the evangelical power complex in that way. And he did it. And it's something I remember.

SECTION D: REPUBLICAN RATFUCKING

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally Section D- [02:20:00] Republican Rat Fucking.

AP x Nonzero - Jimmy Carter vs. Donald Trump w/ Robert Wright - American Prestige - Air Date 1-10-24

ROBERT WRIGHT: I get there is justifiably I think an awareness of the contrast between a Carter and a Trump in terms of just sheer decency You know and that's like an old fashioned word.

I I have not spent much of my life complaining about a decency. Believe me I have many forms of it i'm actively in favor of but You know, it really is a word that captures a lot of what drives me crazy about trump He's just not a decent human being in many senses of that word Carter's obama with

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: his kill list a decent human being this is what drives me mad like obama Every tuesday would look at the kill list.

I mean what if you run the imperial states I think it's worth asking to what degree you can be a decent human being. And that's what I would say about Jimmy Carter. Uh, and this is basically, you

ROBERT WRIGHT: can, you can define it strictly enough to exclude all presidents and all human beings if you want, but I mean, and, uh, and as far as Carter, You know, he was a conscientious, [02:21:00] look, of course he's a, uh, behind it all is a lot of raw ambition.

He became president. Of course there is. And of course, people who worked for him can tell stories about how he wasn't always a Sunday school teacher, but you know, he really, uh, you know, he was kind of, I would say a serious Christian in the sense that he really worked hard to abide by what he saw as like the rules of the Christian life.

Yeah. Yeah. And, uh, I, I, I just respect people who take morality seriously. Trump does not, he is not in any sense, a moral human being. And, uh, I would contend. And so that's the big contrast. I mean, as for, uh, that it's the first thing that comes to my mind, and I think it's a lot of people, it struck a lot of people maybe without them.

articulating it in exactly that way. Um, you know, his foreign policy, uh, you know, I just learned that there, uh, I, I only for the first time read up [02:22:00] on kind of the intramural struggle before he appointed his people over who the people would be. And apparently George Ball was in running for, uh, running for secretary of state.

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: It's

ROBERT WRIGHT: a big was big started off as national security security

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: advisor. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and Cyrus Vance was the Cyrus Vance

ROBERT WRIGHT: was who you know I don't really know that much, uh, about him. Um,

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: well, I mean, what do you think? Okay. So here's the argument against Carter basically introduced neoliberalism and ended detente.

So that's the argument against Carter from the historian's perspective. I think pretty much everyone likes his post presidency.

ROBERT WRIGHT: Ended detente in the sense of doing the Afghanistan intervention or started launching that.

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: Spig was very, very anti Soviet and did, did basically did everything he could. To basically bring detente to the end, setting the stage for the second cold war of Ronald Reagan of the early days, I

ROBERT WRIGHT: mean, that's

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: his criticism of him

ROBERT WRIGHT: was in some ways, I think a very smart and wise guy.

I mean, wise in the good sense, wise in [02:23:00] the good sense. You know, if you listen to some of the things he said after 9 11, some of the things he warned against Brzezinski. They were, he was smart. He, you know, he said like, look, here's what's going to happen. Every country around the world is going to convince us that they're, the local, whatever local insurgency they're dealing with is part of the global war on terror, and they're going to suck us into it, which is exactly what happened.

And we fell

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: for it hook, line, sinker. And, but,

ROBERT WRIGHT: but he did, perhaps because of his Polish heritage, I don't know, he did have You know, Jimmy Carter also gets credit for the phrase inordinate fear of communism. Well, unfortunately, Zbig had it, at least when it assumed the form of Soviet communism. He fucking hated

DANIEL BESSNER - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: communism.

I mean, he was Polish. But he

ROBERT WRIGHT: had a thing about the Soviet. Yeah, I mean, remember the Carter years on the China front? This is when, uh, the kind of, uh, the various policies that are now being questioned by China hawks. Uh, kind of took [02:24:00] shape. I, I, sure. I mean, the one China

DEREK DAVIDSON - HOST, AMERICAN PRESTIGE: policy comes out of right out of Carter's administration.

Sure. So, so, but even that, I mean, even that was, was a strategic move against the Soviets, right? I mean, to cozy up to China. That's

ROBERT WRIGHT: what I'm saying. He's big head of penis bonnet about the Soviets. And that I think worked the whole thing. That's the verdict of the presidency.

Why Trump Must Be Punished For Criminal Behavior With Danielle Moodie - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 3-21-23

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, MUCKRAKE: This article came out this weekend and it should basically be on every corner on every wall. Peter Baker came out, he had talked to, um, Um, uh, Ben Barnes, who came out and said that back before the election of 1980, that him and the former governor of Texas, who, by the way, I think Nick is going to have something to say about this, John Connolly had gone over to the Middle East and repeatedly met with Middle Eastern leaders to tell them to get a message to Iran, to hold on to 52 American hostages until after the 1980 election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Uh, this [02:25:00] article is very, very thorough. It's been backed up. Also, it seems that the Reagan campaign knew full and well what was happening, which, again, let me check my notes, uh, amounts to treason.

Now, before we go around talking about this, I want to go ahead and say, I think even if this wouldn't have happened, that Reagan probably would have beat Jimmy Carter. I think that that was going to happen in 1980, but we'll never know! We have literally no idea how that would have played out. This is unthinkable.

Absolutely maddening. Danielle, how did you feel reading this? Did you feel like you'd been taking crazy pills?

DANIELLE MOODIE: I, is this, I, all I can think to myself is like, is this what Republicans mean when they refer to, we need to go back to the Reagan years? Like, is this, is this it? Because so foundationally as a value point, they have always been putting party ahead of country.

Right. Like as a, so you go to Nixon. Yeah. And you're saying you prolonged the [02:26:00] Vietnam war. Do you know how many Americans died in the Vietnam war? You go now to this 1980 bombshell and learn that again, to score political points, they were willing to hold the lives of 52 Americans. For just a little bit of time to buy an election.

I just you know It's amazing that we think to ourselves That the party over country is something New when it is as old as time itself for republicans But yet we have allowed them to to cede and control words like Patriotism, they're the flag waving party and they don't know a goddamn thing about anything that the flag actually [02:27:00] stands for.

So, you know, you say, Jared, as you're laying it out, like it's a bombshell and we'll have repercussions. Well, check my time machine. We're like 40 years past this. No one was ever held accountable. Nobody will be held accountable, right? Reagan will still be there. They're not going to change the airport name.

Right. In Washington DC, he'll still be, you know, held up as a hero and as a, and as the Republican when he's same lying ass, just like George W. Bush, just like Nixon, just like Donald Trump. That will do anything to win an election, and to your point, Yes! I think he would have won!

Right? So, I, like, It don't matter. It's amazing to me that they're going to the lengths that they're going to now to erase history. Where, to your point, no one gives a shit about history. Right? [02:28:00] Because we're not going backwards. And I know we're gonna talk about Iraq soon too. We're not going backwards to actually hold people accountable for their treason.

Right? And lies and destruction of entire country. We're not doing that.

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, MUCKRAKE: By the way, Nick, I, I, I'm going to give it to you in just a second. But I also, I I've been waiting to hear what you have to say about this for a couple of days. I know, I know a lot of what's getting ready to happen, but before we do, I want to point out part of the reason that why that has happened is because Fox news, the Republican party, the media that, that has been bought and sold.

Most of the people will never hear about this. Yeah. They will never ever encounter. It's not going to be talked about on Fox news. Ronald Reagan has become a mythical figure. They don't even deal with who he actually was and what he actually passed. They have no idea who he is. They have no idea that he gave amnesty to immigrants.

They have no idea that he, he ran up deficits left and right. It's a completely mythical fake version of him. And so this will [02:29:00] never even come on the radar. Now, my good friend, Nick Houselman, give it to me and give it to me. Good. I cannot wait.

NICK HAUSELMAN - HOST, MUCKRAKE: So you have to forgive me if, uh, I'm a little bit all over the place because this is a, you a near dear to my heart of subject to it.

The very quickly I wanted to mention that, you know, Swar Schwarzenegger in 2004 used, uh, Richard Nixon as an applause line, and that signaled to me that, okay, all bets are off. These people are gonna be rehabbed and nothing they did that was bad will ever be considered bad. And then the myth just keeps growing.

And then it's not surprising that, of course, Reagan, of all people. By the way, the reaction when you try and point out anything that Reagan might have done wrong to people who were like Reagan, it is like, uh, an affront to their, their entire, uh, family, you know, like the, it's really kind of, uh, frightening how, how, uh, belligerent they can get.

But here's the thing we've known about this October surprise for forever. The evidence has been very compelling. Probably. I mean, I even think that Carter mentions it in his biography or autobiography that I read where he had [02:30:00] already negotiated the entire release of the hostages. Everything was all set in the place.

Don't forget. They got released on the day of the inauguration. It's not like Reagan came in there and I'm like within an hour and like to somehow negotiated the whole thing. So we knew this. It was very compelling on both sides, Iranians and Americans.

Weekly Roundup: Jimmy Carter vs Elon Musk Part 2 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 1-3-25

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: He was born and raised a Southern Baptist, served as a missionary. Supported his church at every turn and married his one and only love. Carter's politics, on the other hand, were not aligned with the vision that Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell and others had for the United States. They felt he didn't represent the power of the nation.

I just want to stop and say one of the things that dogged Carter as president is that people like Jerry Falwell and other warmongers labeled him as not manly enough. He was a man who listened, a man who wanted diplomacy, a man who wasn't always talking about control and violence and nuclear weapons.

It's in the same ways that Obama was labeled this guy who wears mom jeans and that whole thing, it's very similar. In essence, Carter was Christian enough, but not nationalist or patriarchal [02:31:00] or warmongering enough to satisfy other Christians. The man who embodied family values was characterized as hating the traditional family.

The man who was an officer in the Navy was castigated as unpatriotic when it came to foreign policy. He brought the cross into the White House, but according to his critics, he left the flag outside of the sanctuary. So in 1980, Christian conservatives supported a divorced Hollywood actor with a mixed record on issues surrounding, quote, "family values" and a history of supporting abortion over the Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher who married his high school sweetheart, served with distinction in the armed forces, and often brought his bible with him when leaving the house.

It was the election that made clear that the cross wasn't enough for Christian nationalists. The cross must always be accompanied by the flag. This leads to one final lesson to be learned from the Carter/Reagan election. When it came to voting for Donald Trump, Christian nationalists had precedent for prioritizing politics over morals, and policies over identity.

[02:32:00] Jimmy Carter was born to a poor family in a tiny town in rural Georgia. Donald Trump was born to a rich real estate magnate in New York City. Jimmy Carter was a dyed in the wool evangelical from the time he left the womb. He was baptized as a teenager and committed himself to Jesus Christ wholeheartedly. Throughout his life, Donald Trump has rarely attended church, and to this day, he is religiously illiterate.

Jimmy Carter joined the Navy and became an officer. Donald Trump avoided the draft in Vietnam because he claimed he had bone spurs. Jimmy Carter's father, Mr. Earle, as they called him, was a pillar of his community who helped out his neighbors in ways that would only go noticed after his death. Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, was arrested after a KKK rally in the late 1920s.

In 1963, Jimmy Carter ran to be part of the Georgia State Legislature, In part, to prevent segregationists from shutting down Georgia schools after the 1954 Brown v. Board Supreme Court decision. In 1989, Donald Trump took out a full page ad in the New York Press, decrying the Central Park Five and calling for the death [02:33:00] penalty. They were later exonerated, of course.

Jimmy Carter built his presidential campaign out of the conceptions of justice inspired by the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and his friend Bob Dylan, (slash Timothy Chalamet). Donald Trump modeling himself after Andrew- modeled himself after Andrew Jackson. Dan thinks that's so funny.

DANILE MILLER - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I wasn't expecting that. Sorry. I didn't mean to break in there.

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Jimmy Carter appointed more people of color and women to the federal judiciary than any other president before him. Trump employed open white nationalists in his cabinet, including Stephen Biller- Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.

When Jimmy Carter became president, he put his peanut farm in a blind trust, giving up control of his financial portfolio. As president Trump has used, as president Trump used his power to promote and grow his various businesses across the world. When Carter left the white house, he was badly in debt because those who had managed his blind trust had done so poorly. By the time Donald Trump left the white house, his children earned [02:34:00] nearly a billion dollars of private income while he was in office, and not to mention Jared Kushner's deal for multi billions after Trump left office. After leaving office, Jimmy Carter helped to build 4, 000 houses for those in need through programs related to Habitat for Humanity. Since the end of his presidency, Trump has lived at the private golf resort he owns in Florida.

One of the things I'll just say, and I want to really launch us into Musk and Trump and all that, is Jimmy Carter was also, Dan, in some ways, the last president Middle Class president. So we might get an email here or two about Obama and that's fair, but the Bush family, the Reagan family, no, not even close. Okay. The Trump family, no, he's a fake billionaire, but still he's lived a life of upper class luxury for his entire existence. The Obamas when they entered the white house, yes, I think we're middle class. And I think you could, I think you could probably say that Obama and [02:35:00] Carter came from the same kind of class background in some ways. But, what I'll add to that though, and of course the Obama's being black I'm not going to overlook what the economic challenges that this country has posed to black Americans at every turn, whether it's enslavement, Jim Crow, redlining, and so on. So not overlooking any of that when it comes to the Obama's.

Jimmy Carter was born on a farm. I mean, he was the first president born in a hospital, but he's a farmer, Dan. Tim Walz, I think was notable for a lot of us, because he came off as this like regular guy, a teacher, a military guy, a dad, go out and fix your car, go out and go hunting for turkey. I think a lot of people found Tim Walz endearing because he felt like somebody they might know. Jimmy Carter was one of those people. And you cannot even imagine that. Now, I mean, the Clintons I, come on, by the time Hillary Clinton ran, they were, they were millionaires a hundred times over.

So. I think that's there. Anything else on Carter before we go to some [02:36:00] contemporary stuff here with Musk and Trump and everybody else?

DANILE MILLER - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I think, to echo your point about not- have nothing but respect for the achievements of the Obamas, but you also have the University of Chicago educated Barack Obama, I think is another contrast even between, somebody like Carter.

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well Ivy League law education.

DANILE MILLER - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: So I just to make that point is I think to reinforce that, that, if you wanted some sort of middle class credentials now I think you'd be really hard pressed to find anybody who could have fit that better than somebody like Carter.

BRADLEY ONISHI - HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well, and this whole idea of class and money and corruption and, the guy put his family's peanut farm in a trust and the whole time he's president, he's like, 'don't tell me about it. I don't, I legally don't want to know about it.' And when he gets out, it's like he's in debt. So I've said this before in the show, Dan, can you imagine being president and you lose and you're like, well, got to leave the white house and take my solar panels with me, right?

He brought solar panels to, I mean, we haven't talked about it, but he brought solar panels to the white house. And then you're like, well, let me see, let's open [02:37:00] up the books, take a look at the business. And it's like, we lost this much in the last four years. I'm now president and I'm in debt. You want to talk about like identifying with real Americans, real Americans know what it feels like to have debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, credit card debt.

So that's the thing. And it leads me to the clip that I played at the top, which is Governor Sununu of New Hampshire. Okay. And in that clip, he says that Elon is working as an outsider in Washington. Okay? And I want to break down this clip, Dan, because it really speaks to everything we If you just think of everything we just said about Jimmy Carter, and then we bring in Elon Musk.

He's like, 'Elon's an outsider.' And first of all, Dan, Elon has like billions of dollars in government contracts. He has subsidized so much of his business. His business in many ways relies on government contracts, whether it's in this country, whether it's in Shanghai, whether [02:38:00] it's in other places. He is somebody who gets a lot from the government.

That's number one. So you can call him an outsider. Cause what he's not somebody who's like ever run for office or something. Sure. Whatever. Okay. So there's that, but then Sununu says, 'I'd rather have something successful.' And I liked that. I think I liked that. He's successful. Okay. Dana bash says, 'don't you see a conflict of interest?' And Sununu says, 'everyone has a conflict of interest.' I just want to stop on that point. We've reached a place in our politics, whether it's with Christian nationalists, presuppositionalist theologies from reformed circles those who would say there's no such thing as neutrality, and I just want to point this back to Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter, as a religious person, is like, 'keep God out of the government.' As a financial actor, he's like, 'when I get to the White House, I want to have no financial interest. I want no way for me to gain or lose money that [02:39:00] I know about. When I go to bed at night, when I am president and I have a quiet 10 minutes, I don't want to wonder if I've made money today or think about how I could make money today. I'm done with that."

And here's Sununu saying, 'well, everyone has a conflict of interest.' And my point is like, I totally get it, Dan. You and I have been through the philosophical ringers. Everybody wants to talk. Is there such thing as objectivity? We have said on this show that everybody has feeling and affect and embodiment.

I I understand all of that. It does not mean that as a leader, you can't strive to say, 'I'm going to do everything possible to serve the people of this country, of this community, of this state, with the same status and respect and voice.' You can try that. You can do things to practice that. You can cultivate that.

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 our upcoming topics: the disconnect between labor and the left, [02:40:00] and the LA fires and the politics of water in the age of climate change. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from Past Present, the PBS News Hour, The Bradcast, the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, My History Can Beat Up Your Politics, Witness History, American Prestige, Democracy Now!, The Lawfare Podcast, Straight White American Jesus, and The Muckrake Political Podcast. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our Transcriptionist Quartet—Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara—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 [02:41:00] bestoftheleft.com/support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple podcast app. Membership is how you get instant access to our incredibly 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 a link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.

1 reaction Share

#1683 Oligarchy Unmasked: President Musk, the crackup of capitalism, and the MAGA meltdown (Transcript)

Posted by · January 15, 2025 12:06 PM

Air Date 1/15/2025

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast. Elon Musk is leading the way for his class of tech broligarchs anxious to take over the MAGA movement and shape it to their own ends of deregulation, tax cuts, and lucrative government contracts. The disappointment that is inevitable for the MAGA populists is coming even faster than expected. For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our top takes in about 50 minutes today includes The Reidout, Democracy Now!, The Muckrake Political Podcast, No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, Bad Faith, Straight White American Jesus and Left Anchor.

Then in the additional deeper dives half of the show, there will be more in four sections: Section A, the Oligarchs; Section B, the MAGA Fracture; Section C, Global Influence; and Section D, Organizing.

The long con of America's ultra-wealthy elites - The ReidOut - Air Date 1-2-25

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Back in the 1980s, Rush Limbaugh became a radio powerhouse by enthralling mainly white working class men, truck drivers, cops, [00:01:00] and other non college educated blue collar types who spent their work days in their cars or other places where they could tune into AM radio for hours.

AM radio network saw the potential profit in this and syndicated his show to hundreds of rural and small town AM radio stations to pump the Limbaugh show for hours a day, so Rush Hudson Limbaugh III of the prominent and affluent Limbaugh's of Girardeau, Missouri could lean into his golden microphone and tell his audience of ditto heads, as he called them, that real Americans like them were having their pockets picked by the welfare queens, the Brown immigrants and the feminazis. They were the ones making White working class men's lives worse. Not the Reagan revolution, which ended pensions, gutted unions, and slashed away at Lyndon Johnson's great society programs.

No, no. It's the poors who are the problem, not the rich. He was so good as a broadcaster, one of the best ever in the business, frankly. He even helped radicalize Clarence Thomas, according to a [00:02:00] documentary by PBS Frontline.

CLIP: He would listen to Rush Limbaugh as he was doing a long commute and he would have court staff tape record it so he could listen to it when he was commuting.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Limbaugh, who ultimately became a billionaire, fit the 80s and 90s perfectly. The lifestyles of the rich and famous era, when Americans practically worshipped the financially successful. Even making a star out of pretend billionaires like failed real estate developer Donald Trump, who was born rich and promptly squandered his fortune on failed real estate deals before he was bailed out by banks and Russia, allegedly.

Rush spawned a slew of copycats, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz, Sean Hannity, and more. Each of whom had the same general message: poors bad, affirmative action bad, Brown immigrants bad, feminism definitely bad. But the wealthy and oil companies and big business? Good.

CLIP: Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free market for over 50 years.

This should send a chill down the [00:03:00] spines of everyone out there who's watching Fox now. Because if you dare to question, you might not have the money of the Koch brothers to defend yourself.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Rush was followed by Roger Ailes, who went to work for billionaire Rupert Murdoch, building Fox News, which took his same message that White American voters should focus on crime. No, no, not mass shootings. Black crime. Brown crime. Sexual minorities that make them uncomfortable and illegal immigrants. That's the problem. Not billionaires like say, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. They deserve the tax cuts and deregulation. We promise it will all trickle down. But we gotta get rid of the welfare, affirmative action, equal opportunity, DEI, CRT, ABCDEFG. That's the real threat.

And as long as you keep focusing on that, we are good. In the modern era, billionaires branched out from bankrolling talk radio and cable news to funding right wing online ventures like Breitbart News, initially bankrolled by the billionaire Mercer family. There's also conservative organizations and think tanks active on college campuses like Turning Point USA, the Federalist [00:04:00] Society, the Young America Foundation, and Americans for Prosperity, which was the Koch money fueled pro-corporate backbone of the Tea Party movement. As well as up and coming podcasters like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro, who offer a younger, slicker feel, but the same message. Poors bad, Brown immigrants bad, blacks and especially Black history and affirmative action bad, DEI bad, Black Lives Matter bad, feminism bad, insurance companies, oil companies, drilling, and rich people? Good.

And while hating on immigration is a core part of the right wing media ecosystem, these right wing outlets have found a form of immigration they do like, namely the migration of rich foreign nationals with inherited wealth into the U. S. where they can buy up tech companies, gobble up small businesses into giant conglomerates and reduce competition and create monopolies while building massive defense contractors that eat up taxpayer subsidies so their billionaire owners can buy up even more companies, lay off people, and traffic in stock buybacks.

In the process, a small group of super wealthy families have gained breathtaking control over [00:05:00] the courts, including the Supreme Court, thanks to Leonard Leo and the Heritage Foundation, and over politicians, through the unlimited donations, the Supreme Court cleared the way for in the Citizens United decision.

They control what we eat, how we shop, and even how much we pay for housing because the super rich own literally millions of acres of farmland and millions of units of housing through private equity firms, making them America's biggest landlords.

They also increasingly control information, what Americans are allowed to know. Jeff Bezos doesn't just control a lot of what we buy via Amazon. He controls the Washington Post. Ditto the South African billionaire who owns the Los Angeles Times, who is even more aggressive about pushing a friendly, pro-rich point of view.

And of course, there's Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire who controls probably the single most powerful disseminator of right wing groupthink ever created, the aforementioned Fox News. The small group of families, the Mercers, the Cokes, the DeVosses, the Ulines, the Bradleys, the Wilkes, and more, plus America's [00:06:00] billionaires and mega corporations, own so much. And you've probably never even heard of most of them, which is kind of great for them.

And then there are the tech entrepreneurs, like Peter Thiel, the born-rich immigrant from South Africa who invested in PayPal, got even richer, and went into private equity, where he employed a Yale graduate who wrote a book dissing Appalachians who changed his name to JD Vance. Thiel also controls a company called Palantir that helps the government surveil you. So yay.

And there's Vivek Ramaswamy, the first generation American son of Indian parents who took Soros money to start his first company, but reps a party that hates liberal billionaire George Soros. Vivek recently lectured Americans about our culture of mediocrity, ranting that a culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math Olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian will not produce the best engineers, a culture that venerates Corey from Boy Meets World, or Zack and Slater over Screech in Saved by the Bell, or Stefan over Steve Urkel in [00:07:00] Family Matters will not produce the best engineers.

Which is weird because the culture he described produced the internet and Facebook. The Winklevoss twins and Mark Zuckerberg created the app after Zuck dropped out of Harvard having basically digitized Harvard's freshman Facebook so men could find dates easier. Ramaswamy, who graduated from Harvard, once had a failed company to supposedly cure Alzheimer's. Here he is selling it on CNBC.

CLIP: I actually think the potential opportunity here is really tremendous for delivering value to patients.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Yeah, that company failed. Though somehow, Vivek and his mom made a lot of money by cashing out. And did Vivek try to replicate Steve Urkel along the way? Nah. Here's Vivek mimicking a key aspect of the American culture he'd find so terribly mediocre on the campaign trail.

Yeah, lose yourself indeed. He also did [00:08:00] that act as a college student at Harvard long before running to be president of this supposedly mediocre nation. And then there's Vivek's partner in the pretend agency to cut government spending, Elon Musk, who controls the app formerly known as Twitter and used it along with 200 million dollars to put Trump back in office.

He's now gotten Trump to come out wholeheartedly for visas for lower paid foreign workers to replace Americans in Silicon Valley jobs because you know, Hey, because he's the richest man in the world and Trump needs the money. And what value has Elon created? He was born rich in South Africa, came to America after apartheid fell, and he and his brother got 3 million dollars to invest in their tech company called Zip2. Ever heard of it? Yeah, me neither. Also, his brother says they were working illegally in the U. S. at the time, which Musk disputes.

CLIP: In fact, when they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants. Well, I'm sure it's a gray area. Yeah. Yes, we were. I was, we were illegal immigrants. Haha.[00:09:00]

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: It's a gray area. Yeah. Okay. And while his super fans worship Elon, like MAGAs worshiped Trump and used to worship Jesus, Elon didn't create Tesla's or the technology behind them. Elon became the company's CEO. He invested in the company, became the CEO, and then he bought the company out, which is actually created by two American engineers from California, Martin Eberhard and Mark Tarpening, who probably grew up watching Saved by the Bell in the nineties.

Crack-Up Capitalism- How Billionaire Elon Musk's Extremism Is Shaping Trump Admin & Global Politics - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-6-24

QUINN SLOBODIAN: Well, this is really a fixation of Musk that echoes throughout other Silicon Valley thinkers, too, which is a fear that demographic decline is coming more quickly than many of us realize. And that gets read in sort of two ways. On the one hand, as he frequently says, you know, there will be no human civilization if there are no humans. So there’s this kind of universal fear of the reality of sort of long-term slowing birth rates leading to literally fewer humans on Earth.

But more importantly for him is particular humans on Earth. So, if you look at the [00:10:00] kind of conversations he’s had, especially in Italy with members of the Brothers of Italy, the fascist-derived party from which — you know, which Meloni now heads, the fear is the loss of populations of a discrete culture. So he’s worried about the decline of particular European civilizations, particular European cultures, the Italian culture, the British culture. He has endorsed the “great replacement” theory, this notion that liberal politicians are encouraging immigration from nonwhite populations to build their own support, but also, too, to kind of dilute and disorient the native or autochthonous population. So, his pronatalism is not a kind of a general one that sort of hopes that humans can propagate themselves to produce hopefully more solutions to human problems, but it’s the defense of particular human populations which he sees as endowed with more capacity for kind of economic productivity, economic intelligence and sort of economic [00:11:00] performance.

So, his immigration policy and his immigration language is now — in the last two weeks has taken a very hard-right turn. Many people have noticed that. In December, you could have seen him still posting about meritocracy and the idea that anyone can make it in the United States if they work hard enough. Since January 1st, almost exactly, the stream of his posts has been dominated by the faces of men who have been charged with sexual crimes, who are from Muslim-majority countries. He is doing everything he can to sort of hype up very clearly racially coded fear of sexual assault and crimes coming from immigrants on non-Western backgrounds, and pairing that with this idea of immigrants from non-Western backgrounds as sort of welfare dependents who are not feeding into the mainstream economy. So, his demographic fears are very much also part of his kind of hard crime, hard borders policy that is now starting to come to the fore [00:12:00] as his primary talking point.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Let me ask you something. I’m looking at a piece in the Financial Times. “Elon Musk lived in apartheid South Africa until he was 17. David Sacks, the venture capitalist who has become a fundraiser for Donald Trump and a troll [of] Ukraine, left aged five, and grew up in a South African diaspora family in Tennessee. Peter Thiel spent years of childhood in South Africa and Namibia, where his father was involved in uranium mining as part of the apartheid regime’s clandestine drive to acquire nuclear weapons. And Paul Furber, an obscure South African software developer and tech journalist living near Johannesburg, has been identified by two teams of forensic linguists as the originator of the QAnon conspiracy, which helped shape Trump’s Maga movement. [Furber denies being 'Q'.] In short, four of Maga’s most influential voices are fiftysomething white men with formative experiences in apartheid South Africa.” Can you comment on this, Professor Slobodian?

QUINN SLOBODIAN: Absolutely. This is something I’ve written about in a couple of my books. The centrality of southern Africa for [00:13:00] the far right and for neoliberals is quite extraordinary. Rhodesia, of course, has been seen as a kind of a lost cause for the hard right. People might remember Dylann Roof, the far-right mass murderer, talking about his allegiance to the Rhodesian cause. South Africa, in the time of apartheid, was seen as a kind of a last bulwark against the Black socialism of postcolonial Africa. In the time of transition, in the time of Mandela, in the move to “one person, one vote” universal suffrage, in the end of apartheid, it was cast by the far right and by sort of libertarians and neoliberals as a kind of prosperous site of gold production and manufacturing that was now under assault by a socialist, Black-majority government, the ANC.

And for Musk himself, the experience of growing up there with a very authoritarian, dictatorial father [00:14:00] was a very dystopian one, from the way that his biographer recounts it. There’s memories that he recounts, perhaps a little bit gleefully, and perhaps through fabrication, of sort of walking through puddles of blood on the way to rock concerts. He saw it as a kind of a social Darwinist, sort of all-against-all-type environment, which I think has now very much implanted into his mind. I think he discovers that again in the online world of brutal, so-called dungeon-crawling video games, where he spends much of his time, and also in the kind of cyberpunk world of science fiction and films and novels.

So, I think that extrapolation, which is in part based on the reality of very intense intercommunal conflict, but also becomes something that he can kind of embrace to kind of give — to permit his own sort of vision of nihilism, really, and this belief that all alliances are kind of [00:15:00] provisional, you need to defend your own. As we know, he’s sort of been clear about sort of building compounds to which he can retreat, expanding his own genetic pool through, you know, a very large family, using the federal government when it’s useful, you know, tapping into federal budgets, becoming effectively a techno contractor for NASA through SpaceX, selling his services as Starlink, but always, I think, very much with this exit end game in mind, the same way that many people in South Africa have their own kind of gated communities into which they can withdraw, if they can afford it, with their own water systems and their own sort of power supplies. This kind of Octavia Butler Parable of the Sower-type reality is one that someone like Musk has sort of sadistically embraced in a way.

And I think that his sort of accelerationism, by which he makes alliances recklessly, one after the other, with whichever kind of far-right politician appears [00:16:00] on his video feed and has a kind of a distinctive appearance — you know, Tommy Robinson does look like he might have stepped out of a video game. Naomi Seibt, the Alternative for Germany influencer, who he has done so much to boost, sort of cultivates this sort of anime-like appearance. So, I think that, for Musk and Thiel and others, the experience of apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa has, for them, filled this role of a kind of a bad future, which is also inevitable and from which they have to just do everything they can to kind of, you know, hunker down and shield themselves, while also tapping into, of course, the extraordinary profits that are available in doing things like providing surveillance systems, as Palantir does, Thiel’s company; providing weapon systems, as Anduril does, the Palmer Luckey-owned company that Thiel helped back; and the various other ways that the old-fashioned military-industrial complex, I think, is now just being extended with a new kind of Silicon Valley kind of headquarters.

GOP Already At Each Other's Throats While Musk Gloats - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-24-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Nick, on the weekend or last week, we were [00:17:00] covering the fact that Elon Musk absolutely scuttled the funding bill in Congress, basically single handedly. Congress eventually passed the funding bill after Musk basically blew this entire thing up. We had an inter party war with the Republican Party over multiple things. Most of the bill ended up getting passed, except for, you guessed it, cancer research, especially cancer research for children. Nick, there is a lot, I think, that we can look at here in terms of how this whole thing played out, the sort of inter party dynamics of it all. Maybe there's some strategy to be gained from this. What was your take of finally seeing the government shut down being averted and the Republican Party sort of going to war with each other?

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: I just think it's going to prepare us for what's going to be in store but, you know, a lot worse. It's just the very, very beginning of how unruly this is all going to be. That said, the process of pulling apart all the different things that they had shoved together in one big, basically omnibus bill, maybe that's not the [00:18:00] worst thing, right?, to be able to do that sort of more separately and then be able to address everything like that.

My fear is that someone's going to be able to have some weird argument like that saying, Look, all the things that Musk and Trump are doing are, those things actually work, you see, and then they manipulate whatever they do to make it seem like it works. And so that might be my biggest concern out of all of this.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: I want to say, first of all, the fact that we have this debt ceiling thing is absolutely ridiculous. And along the lines of a broken clock being right twice a day, Donald Trump pushing for unlimited debt is both telling in terms of what the Republican Party actually cares about, what their principles are, but also, we shouldn't have this. We should not have these showdowns where Congress gets in a room and the government is either going to shut down or it's not based on who gets what. In this case, this was Musk carrying out a power play, going ahead and previewing for everybody that he basically has control over the Republican Party, and that Trump is more or less just an avatar, a dancing clown out in front of all of this.

So, the MAGA-GOP rift at this point, it's already [00:19:00] showing us one thing that we covered in the first Trump administration, what we always talk about, which is, far right authoritarian movements are dysfunctional. They destroy each other, they attack each other constantly. That is one of the weaknesses, but I do not think that people should take a look at what happened here and think, Oh, it's not actually going to be that bad. It is still going to be very, very bad, but there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited if we're looking at an opposition that actually wants to exploit them, which the Democratic Party, it depends on the day, it depends on the coin flip.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: You know, it's funny, if you look at it that way, in terms of the debt ceiling and whether or not debt really means anything to a government like the United States and the economy, like capitalism. Obviously we'd want more efficiency, right? We want to eliminate waste, but you don't need to use the boogeyman of your kids are going to be have nothing. the country is going to be destroyed with too much debt. And when you wrap your head around why they want to use that specific reason to cut the budget, you start to get a handle on why they're doing it, [00:20:00] right? It's never been about the debt. It's always been about getting rid of entitlement programs, right? Freeloading people and the people on the couch who don't want to work and all that bullshit. So, you know what I mean? Like, so it just becomes even more clear when they use that kind of line of reasoning and you hear Musk and all those people do it, who'd have no connection to anybody who struggles check to check or month to month to make ends meet. They don't understand anything like that or what the value of what the government does bring to people like that. So, it's, just really enlightening and revealing of where they really are coming from.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: It's revealing in the way that traditional politics, the narratives that we get through liberal media, especially corporate liberal media, is the idea that, oh, we really wish we could fund all this stuff, like I would support it in a heartbeat, but we really need to take care of the debt.

Meanwhile, one of the reasons that we have a national government is to take on debt, is to go ahead and do these things. And meanwhile, the Republican Party doesn't care about debt when they're creating a war, when they're giving historic tax cuts to the wealthy. It's a cudgel.

And more or less, it's a language that's [00:21:00] been created between the right and liberal moderates. Which is, you can go out and say that you want to take care of this stuff, like again, cancer research for children. This is something that the government should fund, one of the few places where it actually does get funded. But, meanwhile, what's actually happening here, Nick, we go ahead and get the military taken care of, particularly in this bill, Musk had his relationship and connections with China. That was the main thing, making sure that Tesla was going to maintain all of their little inner workings with the government.

Meanwhile, all that happens is that the budget is always going to run the deficit up in the way that the Republicans want it to, and moderate liberals are able to shrug and say, well, you know, we just got to take care of the debt.

Meanwhile, what is happening? The wealth class continues to get their checklist marked off one thing at a time. And again, you see the rift here between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. One person's out there talking about buying Greenland or trying to do something with the Panama Canal. I never thought I would hear about that again. And you have [00:22:00] another guy who is essentially privatizing the government and turning it into an organ for his own enrichment and empowerment.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: For sure. For what it's worth, the Panama Canal could very well be related to the fact that the Trump organization is being sued in Panama now for not paying taxes.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Ding, ding, ding.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: You know, and so, this is the other reason why the conflict of interest is so ridiculous because we saw it already when they put Qatar, as I think it was, on a terrorist watch list because they wouldn't give money to Jared Kushner's fund. And as soon as they did, they were magically taken off that list, right?

So here's another kind of thing where they're going to leverage. And we know about Greenland is because there's minerals there. Guess who needs minerals, Jared?

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Well, I mean, you know, what's funny about it is actually so much of our politics revolves around resource extraction and who is able to get a hold of that. That is also one of the reasons why there's a right wing authoritarian international movement, because we need to make sure that certain countries have their resources and minerals available for the wealth class to extract and extort. And by the way, let's just point out the Greenland thing also has [00:23:00] implications when it comes to eco fascism, which is basically rearing its ugly head right now. But you have one guy, in Trump, who's just out here going wild, which is what he does, and you have Musk who is playing the long game and pulling the strings behind the scenes.

MAGA civil war explodes between Elon & Trump faithful - No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 12-29-24

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: So Elon Musk's honeymoon in the Trump administration seems to have ended before the administration has officially begun. While most of us were celebrating the holidays, Elon's been waging a fight with the very people whose voices he spent months elevating. So he's been publicly advocating for offering more visas to highly skilled foreign workers via the H1-B program. And he tweeted, "I am referring to bringing in, via legal immigration, the top 0. 1 percent of engineering talent as being essential for America to keep winning. The number of people who are super talented engineers and super motivated in the USA is far too low. Think of this like a pro sports team. If you want your team to win the championship, you need to recruit top talent wherever they may be. That enables the whole team to win." And he was backed up by his Department of Government Efficiency co-chair, Vivek Ramaswamy, who tweeted, "A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers." [00:24:00]

Well, I'm sure you can imagine how that went over with Trump's 'America First' base. Matt Gaetz, for example, tweeted, "We welcomed the tech bros when they came running our way to avoid the third grade teacher picking their kids gender, and the obvious Biden/Harris economic decline. We did not ask them to engineer an immigration policy."

He was joined by Ann Coulter, who tweeted, "American workers can leave a company, imported H1-B workers can't. Tech wants indentured servants, not high skilled workers." Laura Loomer, who would ultimately have her Twitter verification stripped away by Elon over this very argument, wrote, "Vivek Ramaswamy knows that the Great Replacement is real, so does J.D. Vance. It's not racist against Indians to want the original MAGA policies I voted for. I voted for a reduction in H1-B visas, not an extension. And I would happily say it to their faces because there's nothing inflammatory about what I said. Everything I said is true. If India was so high skilled people would stay there instead of flocking to the U.S., you're not going to shame me into tempering my thoughts. I really am past the point of giving a fuck. The tech billionaires don't get to just walk inside Mar a Lago and stroke their massive checkbooks and rewrite our immigration policy so they can have [00:25:00] unlimited slave laborers from India and China who never assimilate."

And so then, Elon started clapping back, tweeting stuff like this, quote, "The reason I'm in America, along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that made America strong, is because of H1-B. Take a step back and fuck yourself in the face. I will go to war on this issue, the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend ."To which Steve Bannon replied, "Someone please notify Child Protective Services. Need to do a wellness check on this toddler."

And this was all just a tiny sampling of the hundreds of tweets that consumed Twitter over the holiday on this very topic. Now, first of all, just as a quick aside, imagine being the richest person on the planet. You can quite literally do anything on Earth and you spend the holidays fighting with random racists on Twitter, whose voices you elevated, by the way? Like, if you ever needed to disabuse yourself of this notion that money buys happiness, all you gotta do is look at Elon Musk, because my god, this dude really does have a pathetic existence.

Also, this is what you spend Christmas doing? Aren't you part of the administration whose entire M.O. is that Trump is [00:26:00] bringing Christmas back? Those evil communist Marxist Democrats stole Christmas from the department stores, and yet now Trump is entering office, and you spend that sacred holiday fighting with strangers on the internet?

This is what we brought Christmas back for? Okay, but Elon's sad little holiday aside, the broader irony here is that Elon paid hundreds of millions of dollars to help Trump, who ran on a xenophobic platform of deporting immigrants, win the presidency. And yet now he can't understand why the rabid base of unrepentant racists that he emboldened continues to be racist?

'Man votes for Leopards Eating Faces Party did not think leopards would eat his face too.' And look, of course all of this is a hill that Elon will die on. He's a former H1-B visa immigrant who owns businesses that I'm sure largely rely on H1-B visa recipients to function. It's also a hill that the MAGA faithful will die on, though.

Trump's agenda is America First, and his campaign handed out Deport Them All signs at his rallies. And so look, my take on this is that they both got fooled. The MAGA loyalists probably took it worse, recognizing now that they just installed into power an unelected oligarch [00:27:00] who's going to use Donald Trump to expand immigration programs that they hate, and there's probably nothing they can do about it, because if Elon is the de facto president, but Elon is also a sad little man who desperately craves the approval of the MAGA base that he has spent the better part of a year nurturing.

He needs them to keep petting him and massaging his ego, and now he's recognizing that his little foot soldiers are just racist assholes who are happy to accept the financial help, but don't actually agree with his worldview and instead want to elevate white Americans and no one else. So not great for either side.

Now, it goes without saying, but the H1-B program is good. We should absolutely bring the best and the brightest talent to the United States, and if they don't come here, the talent goes to other countries. There is actually a 100% quote unquote America First incentive to do that. Now, of course, MAGA doesn't care, because for them it's more about promoting white Americans than actually helping America as a whole.

The irony of all of this, though, is that Democrats understand this, but Elon decided to throw his lot in with the deport them all guy and just hope that everything would work out from there. If Elon is looking for the party that would [00:28:00] actually embrace and welcome high skilled labor from other countries, that would be the party that he himself helped ensure would be shut out of power.

But hey, I'm sure it's gonna be plenty easy convincing Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz that suddenly immigration is good.

Elon & Vivek's H1-B Crash Out - Bad Faith - Air Date 1-2-25

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: So just to step back for a second, for people who aren't aware of what H1-B visas are, they are visas that are extended generally to tech companies use them more, PMC class, I guess you could frame it, visas to get foreign workers into the United States of America. And the question is, one of the central questions that I think there's a lot of debate on, is whether or not there's an actual need. So we've framed this up as a, you know, do you care more about kind of industry and the ability for a company like Tesla to grow and get the workers that it needs because there is ostensibly a deficit of U. S. workers that can do this job? Or do you care more about just kind of a protectionist attitude in preserving the job opportunities for American workers? But people have been making the case that that is not in fact really the contours of this debate, namely because there are in fact sufficient U.S. workers to fill these posts that there have been record layoffs in the tech sector over the last year or so. And that in fact, this is [00:29:00] very similar to the broader immigration debate, which understands that allowing sort of open borders has negative implications for the U.S. job market, and this is ultimately a bid to be able to hire lower workers at lower pay who aren't going to go on strike, who aren't going to rabble rouse because they risk being deported from the country.

IRAMI OSEI-FRIMPONG: Yeah, is there a meaningful difference between an illegal immigrant laborer who's undocumented and a guest worker who is documented but is vulnerable? Because one of the major problems for an American worker and an American labor force is that undocumented workers are so vulnerable that they're less likely to organize, they're less likely to demand higher wages, they're less likely to demand better working conditions, they're less likely to raise the floor for what an American worker is.

And that's the same criticism you can land at the guest worker programs, who are also less likely to organize, less likely to demand higher wages, because if they do any of that stuff, and for some reason, and [00:30:00] Netflix is famous for this, they just get fired. Then they end up, like, functionally deported or on borrowed time.

So, that installed vulnerability, as a workforce, is the problem. Not necessarily the legal versus illegal. At least in my view, that's the problem. So maybe we should be talking about, like, getting rid of guest workers, and maybe guest workers is a problem for American democracy. Because the workers are not just workers they're also people and property owners and all of that stuff so we need to talk about what it means to be a guest worker. Because you don't just come over here as a coder. You're also a whole person who buys things and has ideas about things that you might want to share but you can't share because if you get fired you might, because if you tick off your boss, you might get deported. So I think I might have a problem with guest workers.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: This is the part what's so interesting about this conversation, I think, because you're getting conservatives who, frankly, oppose the H1-B visa program less because of kind of labor rights issues, but more because of these kind of nativist cultural arguments that get thrown around, many of which are racist, there's been a lot of anti Indian [00:31:00] smearing and slurring happening on the internet, talking about how these workers are coming from an inferior culture, all of this kind of stuff, which has been really revealing on a number of fronts, right?

On one level, there are a bunch of kind of liberals who are eager to point out that Republicans who argue that their concerns about immigration weren't about race, but were in fact about kind of the worthiness of the immigrant have had that sort of exposed by the extent to which these are as worthy quote unquote immigrants as you can get in terms of being highly educated, having jobs, contributing to the economy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but there's still an antipathy for them, apparently, based on them being quote unquote, culturally unfit. At the same time, though, there is a, what's fascinating about this to me is that you have all these conservatives kind of walking up to making what are ostensibly left arguments about the labor interests of American workers. About the use of foreign workers to drive down labor, about how less competitive American workers are because they have student loans and therefore need to be paid higher rates. And the fact that there is this willingness to tip tap right up to the edge of these arguments does sort of start to feel like it's a little [00:32:00] bit of an opportunity for the left here.

Our Moment is Approaching - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-31-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: And speaking of the class, and I'm glad we reframed it through this thing. I put out a thing on Substack because I realized that In the wake of the 2024 election, not only has class politics gotten more and more muddled, it's just gotten completely contorted for a variety of reasons, which we'll get into in a little bit.

And actually, what has happened is I actually believe that the tech oligarchs have carried out an incredible run around. Like what is actually occurred is that they have more or less supplanted the wealth class, the donors who created the modern Republican Party, got rid of the regulatory state, destroyed public education, science, and you name it, they have actually captured basically all the means of production in the country.

There's not a corporation, there's not a business that doesn't use their tools at this point that doesn't then feed into them and give them more and more historical wealth, which is now going to even fracture the class system even further. I [00:33:00] call them the burger class because basically the burger class, the Trump supporters who have the private jets and the boats, they, you know, basically you've got your regional used car lot magnates, right?, who used to basically run the country. And they have been alienated from power, they've been supplanted by the wealth class, who are people like your Kochs, who have these major international corporations and have closeness to energy manufacturing, basically everything, and they've controlled politics now for decades.

The tech class has now climbed above them. And they're pushing the wealth class down underneath them. They'll be fine. Like, those people who have hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even touch around the billion, couple of billion dollar mark, they're going to be totally fine. But everybody down that ladder is going to get crushed over the next few years.

And I don't actually, and, It's actually funny, Carl, because I think there are parallel structures within both parties. The Democratic Party has a [00:34:00] base that yells at them constantly. They've been told that they're wrong and that they're going to cost them elections. And meanwhile, they've, worked hand in hand with the wealth class in order to carry out their agenda.

The Republican Party has been now even more compacted with the tech class, which recognized that the Republican Party and right wing, nationalistic, racist, White supremacist groups around the world are their best chance to finalize their takeover of governments and the economies and to go ahead and extract the resources that they need to further their products and their agendas into the future.

And so what you have is the vast majority of Americans have no idea what the fuck is going on. They have no idea how politics actually works. And the MAGA people are now going to get a hard lesson in this. But, and the problem is here, and this is something we're going to have to work against if we're going to defeat them, they have built in cognitive dissonance machines. They have everything from their media to their conspiracy theories to their delusions, you name it. That's what's going to blame the deep state and conspiracy theories and woke and all of that for all the economic travails. [00:35:00] And meanwhile, it's going to elevate people like Musk to become the first trillionaires and have widespread, probably international power over politics and economies. And so meanwhile, underneath them, you have a lot of other people who are just being controlled or basically being disenfranchised. And I think we're watching that in real time at this point.

KARL FOLK: Yes, I think, what's been interesting is seeing all of this, right? Like this huge gearing up for the plundering of the American public. And at the same time, we have stuff like the assassination of a UnitedHealthcare exec. And it's polling better than both political parties. And so, we're set up right now in such a way where people know or have a feeling that something's amiss here, right? As someone who is a glutton for punishment and I'm trying to understand the far right a little bit better, you know, [00:36:00] I perused the comment section of terrible people on social media and on YouTube and I'm sure a lot of people who listen to this saw some of the screencaps coming from places like Ben Shapiro.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Oh, Ben Shapiro's audience is on board.

KARL FOLK: Yeah, well, and that's the thing, this is where Bannon understands the game better than the rest of the write, is he knows that that anger is very real...

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: incredibly real.

KARL FOLK: And it's very much an onion skin beneath the surface. And he can see the same thing that I think a lot of us see, which is this cabinet of billionaires and a White House that is being designed by billionaires for billionaires, there are only two routes here. And that's actually a problem for the far right.

They need a multiple option kind of buffet of ways that they can turn when things go poorly. And You can't really [00:37:00] turn on the wealth class now for them in any fundamental way. And the reality is most people are on board with doing so much better with our economic situation that they're not at all against a targeted assassination.

Which these are huge shifts. These are historic shifts in America's trajectory socially. And they're being coupled with this massive, like I said, getting ready phase for the plundering and those two things together are shocking, right? this is something this country hasn't seen in 120, 110 years, where you have like actions against the wealthy on the street. And then you have the rise of this authoritarian sect of capital. That's not just like, Oh, we're going to be authoritarian, but like, Thank you for playing, but now it's all ours. And that, [00:38:00] we haven't had a makeup like this in, a long time. So we're really setting ourselves up here for a couple of huge fights at the same time that sit side by side, but aren't going to be the same fight.

And I've been talking with people recently about how we are actually going to have to navigate both. Incredibly rough fascist politics. And the fact that they are going to start to lose support at a rate that's almost unimaginable once some of these things start to hit. And we're gonna have to be forward thinking enough, let's say, to go and pick some of these people up and say, Look, we all got the short end of a stick here.

You voted for a fascist. This is what we were trying to tell you about. But we also Are going to have to figure out how to get you and me and everyone else out of this hole now And that's not going to happen Without [00:39:00] us figuring out how to do that together And I think you know i've been watching this and saying okay This is going to be really tough, but we might also actually have a chance here to change the direction again. Because people do understand, like this is a class problem not a race or gender problem. And The people who were stuck in those information silos with the far right, in some cases, are starting to say, hold up, this is a problem.

This isn't the direction to solve that problem. This is the direction to keep us from actually dealing with it. And, you see that now in comment sections where prior to the assassination and prior to Trump's winning and then lining that with the White House cabinet with billionaires, just wasn't there.

Weekly Roundup Jimmy Carter vs Elon Musk - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 1-3-25

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: All right, Dan in my book, I do discuss Carter quite a bit. And one of the dates that you threw out there was 1980. It's a sore point [00:40:00] for me, Dan. And I just want to address it so that we don't have any issues later. You said it was a long time ago. It happens to be the year I was born. So, I'm just going to try to,

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I'm just doing a math. Yeah.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I just had my birthday and I'm feeling a little older, but that's fine. 1980 is also the year Ronald Reagan wins the White House and Jimmy Carter becomes a one term president. Most of you listening know the story: the religious right sided with Ronald Reagan. And I want to just read a bit of what I wrote about all of this that did not make it into the book. This is stuff that was on the cutting room floor. So here we go. "In retrospect, the evangelical breakup with Jimmy Carter was the result of a number of complex issues, but all the details lead back to a central theme.

Though Carter was one of them, his policies didn't fit their agenda. His faith was unquestionable. He was born and raised a Southern Baptist, served as a missionary, supported his church at every turn, and married his one and only love. Carter's politics, on the other hand, were not aligned with the vision that Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell and others had for the United States. They felt he didn't represent the power of the nation." [00:41:00]

I just want to stop and say one of the things that dogged Carter as president is that people like Jerry Falwell and other warmongers, labeled him as not manly enough. He was he was a man who listened, a man who wanted diplomacy, a man who wasn't always talking about control and violence and nuclear weapons. It's in the same ways that Obama was labeled this guy who wears mom jeans and that whole thing. it's very similar.

"In essence, Carter was Christian enough, but not nationalist or patriarchal or warmongering enough to satisfy other Christians. The man who embodied family values was characterized as hating the traditional family. The man who was an officer in the Navy was castigated as unpatriotic when it came to foreign policy. He brought the cross into the white house, but according to his critics, he left the flag outside of the sanctuary. So in 1980, Christian conservatives supported a divorced Hollywood actor with a mixed record on issues surrounding quote, "family values" and a history of supporting abortion over the Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who married his high school sweetheart, served with distinction in the armed forces, and often brought his Bible with him when leaving the house.

It was the election that made clear that the cross [00:42:00] wasn't enough for Christian nationalists. The cross must always be accompanied by the flag. This leads to one final lesson to be learned from the Carter/Reagan election. When it came to voting for Donald Trump, Christian nationalists had precedent for prioritizing politics over morals and policies over identity. Jimmy Carter was born to a poor family in a tiny town in rural Georgia. Donald Trump was born to a rich real estate magnate in New York City. Jimmy Carter was a dyed in the wool evangelical from the time he left the womb, was baptized as a teenager, and committed himself to Jesus Christ wholeheartedly.

Throughout his life, Donald Trump has rarely attended church, and to this day, he is religiously illiterate. Jimmy Carter joined the Navy and became an officer. Donald Trump avoided the draft in Vietnam because he claimed he had bone spurs. Jimmy Carter's father, Mr. Earl, as they called him, was a pillar of his community who helped out his neighbors in ways that would only go noticed after his death.

Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, was arrested after a KKK rally in the late 1920s. In 1963, Jimmy Carter ran to be part of the Georgia State [00:43:00] Legislature, in part to prevent segregationists from shutting down Georgia schools after the 1954 Brown v. Board Supreme Court decision. In 1989, Donald Trump took out a full page ad in the New York Press decrying the Central Park Five and calling for the death penalty.

They were later exonerated, of course. Jimmy Carter built his presidential campaign out of the conceptions of justice inspired by the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr and his friend Bob Dylan, / Timothy Chalamet. Donald Trump modeling himself after Andrew, modeled himself after Andrew Jackson." Dan thinks that's so funny.

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I Wasn't expecting that. Sorry, I didn't mean to break in there.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: "Jimmy Carter appointed more people of color and women to the federal judiciary than any other president before him. Trump employed open white nationalists in his cabinet, including Stephen Biller, Steve Bannon, and Stephen Miller. When Jimmy Carter became president, he put his peanut farm in a blind trust, giving him control of his financial portfolio. As President Trump used his power to promote and grow his various businesses across the world. When Carter left the White House, he [00:44:00] was badly in debt because those who had managed his blind trust had done so poorly. By the time Donald Trump left the White House, his children earned nearly a billion dollars of private income while he was in office, not to mention Jared Kushner's deal for multi billions after Trump left office.

After leaving office, Jimmy Carter helped to build 4, 000 houses for those in need through programs related to Habitat for Humanity. Since the end of his presidency, Trump has lived at the private golf resort he owns in Florida."

One of the things I'll just say, and I want to really launch us into Musk and Trump and all that is, Jimmy Carter was also, Dan, in some ways, the last middle class president.

So, we might get an email here or two about Obama, and that's fair. But the Bush family, the Reagan family, no. Not even close. Okay? The Trump family, no, he's a fake billionaire, but still he's lived a life of upper class luxury for his entire existence. The Obamas, when they entered the White House, yes, I think were middle class, and I think you [00:45:00] could, I think you could probably say that Obama and Carter came from the same kind of class background in some ways.

But, what I'll add to that though, and of course, the Obamas being black I'm not going to overlook what the economic challenges that this country has posed to black Americans at every turn. Whether it's enslavement, Jim Crow, redlining, and so on. So, not overlooking any of that when it comes to the Obamas.

Jimmy Carter was born on a farm. I mean, he was the first president born in a hospital, but he was a farmer, Dan. That, I mean, Tim Walz, I think was notable for a lot of, for a lot of us, because he came off as this, like, regular guy, a teacher, a military guy, a dad, go out and fix your car, go out and go hunting for turkey. I think a lot of people found Tim Walz endearing because he felt like somebody they might know. Jimmy Carter was one of those people, and you cannot even imagine that. Now, I mean, the Clintons I, come on, by the time Hillary Clinton ran, they were, they were millionaires a hundred times over.

So, I think that's there. Anything else on Carter before we go to some contemporary stuff here with [00:46:00] Musk and Trump and everybody else?

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I think to echo your point about not, I have nothing but respect for the achievements of the Obamas, but you also have like, was at University of Chicago educated Barack Obama, I think it's another contrast even between, somebody like Carter.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well, ivy league law education.

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: So I just to make that point is I think to reinforce that, that, If you wanted, some sort of middle class credentials now, like, I think you'd be really hard pressed to find anybody who could have fit that better than somebody like Carter.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well, and this whole idea of class and money and corruption and, the guy put his family's peanut farm in a trust and the whole time he's president, he's like, don't tell me about it. I don't, I legally don't want to know about it. And when he gets out, it's like he's in debt. So I've said this before in the show, Dan, can you imagine being president and you lose and you're like, well, got to leave the white house and take my solar panels with me.

The Oligarch Class - Left Anchor - Air Date 1-3-25

ALEXI THE GREEK - CO-HOST, LEFT ANCHOR: Maybe we should shift to some of the solutions here, because I think we're juxtaposing these private individuals who are lionized and debauched and all these things, and it's been this [00:47:00] way for so long, how do we reverse that course? I mean, we've talked about feudalism. Some people think maybe this is neo feudalism. What's your analysis in the book about the path to reverse this kind of inequality and change the ruling class to rule by the people? That's a small question.

PROF ROB LARSON: Yeah, I know the answers to all these questions. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot that we can see would work because it works historically, which is a good start. Like, we did have for many years in the past, a New Deal, Great Society period that did accomplish a lot.

It had like reforms that are not necessarily reformist, like little gestures and crumbs to keep the working class from rebelling, but reforms that make it easier, or not necessarily easier, but kind of prepare the way for more like real activism or organization. So things like, take something obvious, like the National Labor Relations Act that creates the NLRB that they're always trying to get rid of these days, but gives workers, plenty of limited and boss-favoring tools as well.

But several real allowances that any [00:48:00] local or union organizer will tell you are incredibly important. I'm my union local's council rep. So I can tell you these things really matter. And things like the minimum wage and the Civil Rights Act and voting rights, I think like lots of real, real achievements there that are like very positive and very constructive for us, but at the same time, I would say like those things also left the main thing intact, which is private ownership of resources and capital, you know? So for like broad, it's at the broadest level, how we try to deal with or you know, begin to address getting out of this kind of condition that we're in, with incredible, just incredible wealth in the US certainly, and globally, and just no one can have any of it, except the already spoiledest, completely diluted ruling class goons.

I mean, there's things that worked historically. We got those gains historically through a big fat labor movement. Reagan and Clinton really killed labor in the US along with a million decisions by corporate investment boards, the ruling class of capital. People who decide "We're going to close down all the factories in this country and put them in this country, unless you give us 50 prizes." Like that's, that's like a major change, and that kind of hurt labor enormously, giving capital global mobility, but [00:49:00] certainly not labor. "We can't have you f f f f f foreigners coming in here and doing jobs. We're just gonna bitch about there not being any workers. No one wants to work anymore." "We will work, señor." "F f f f ugh! Foreign People!" It's amazing to watch that response, but like labor could be rebuilt.

We have like a modest labor renaissance happening now. We should push that as hard as we possibly can. A couple of hundred organized Starbucks stores, maybe not recognized with contracts yet, but that organization is the beginning. Recent victories for the UAW in, like, southern auto plants, which is about some of the worst territory you could be organizing in. Tiny amounts of victories against Amazon. Microsoft has collective bargaining units because it's bought up a bunch of gaming studios. These things, like, are existing, and you still have a lot of organization in some sectors, like in the railroads, in construction the public sector, where I work.

So these things exist. That's important. We should try to get back to where we were at least before when union density peaked in 1953 at around a third of the workforce under collective bargaining agreements. It'd be great to get back to those days and indeed exceed them. We also need something that goes beyond just, organizing for better pay [00:50:00] and vacation days and health insurance. As important as that stuff obviously is. And that's where it's great to get actual, like, socialist, nationally visible political representation. Which, for I can only tell young people trying to help move socialism forward today, if you think this is a terrible era, you should have tried before 2016 when I mean, like, "Oh, socialist, what have you done since the Berlin Wall fell?" Just like, aging, boomer, instant put downs, ignoring anything you say after that, no matter how popular your socialist ideas are, from reforms like Medicare for all, all the way up to, like, much more broad measures, but having people like The Squad, at least those who have survived the AIPAC shooting gallery lately. Or Sanders himself, of course.

Like, these people have put left wing and even really socialist ideas in front of the national public and back in the conversation again, which is on its own a huge contribution beyond what they've been able to influence in legislation, which, exists but is debatable. So to me a much stronger labor movement, visible and real socialist representation would be the things we need. But to me, the real thing that we would want to do this time that never happened before is [00:51:00] expropriation of capital is all it is. I would say that's where the liberal or social democracy line is drawn between that and like democratic socialism or like real more radical ideas. Fundamentally, the New Deal and Great Society in the US and the big social democratic welfare states, which went well beyond what we did in Northern and Western Europe.

Real achievements there. People don't want to give up their national health insurance. I wish we had gotten it, so like real valuable things there that people love. But they left, with a few exceptions, like other than health specifically, transportation, and energy in a few countries. Other than those, and things like ports, other than those, private property remained private property.

Might be regulated a lot during that period. Lot higher taxes, no doubt. But it's your oil refinery. It's your giant tractor plant, it's your huge agricultural estate. Most of the time antitrust doesn't require you to break it up just because you're big, you have to be proven to be monopolizing, it's a lot more specific. I've been writing about all these antitrust cases on tech for Jacobin. It's interesting, fingers crossed, [00:52:00] Google's a monopolist, that's what happened with Microsoft.

On the other hand, Microsoft beat getting broken up and is the biggest company in the world today, so who can tell if that will work? But the point is, those huge fortunes and the physical capital assets remained in the hands of the corporate world and the ruling class that owns their stock. And that's why they were in a position, eventually, in the 70s and especially 80s and 90s, to mount that neoliberal attack on us and use their ownership of media to give us a bunch of right wing ideas for the Republicans and Democrats to adopt. They were able to move their capital overseas when NAFTA kind of opened up, and increasing telecommunication power opened up the doors for doing that. Like, we left them in charge of economic assets and investment fundamentally. Despite the significant and real regulations and like public planning that existed to an extent in these countries.

And they were able to come back with it. Like, we never ultimately took their main source of power in their hand. We said, "You can keep your ring, Sauron, but you better be good." He's like, "Oh, totally." For 30 years, until the labor movement's tired, and people are sick of 70s inflation, and you can roll in a handsome actor who says, "All this happened because we [00:53:00] chained up poor Sauron. We should let him use his ring more freely." And now, back in charge. So, unless, next time we have a socialist movement, just throw the damn ring into the lava so we can have some freedom this time. It's definitely a concrete piece of advice that's very helpful that I'm giving, so you won't regret it.

Note from the Editor on the rehashing of the anti-democratic argument for extreme wealth for the benefit of humanity

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with The Reidout laying out the history of right-wing influencers from Limbaugh to Musk. Democracy Now! looked at the impact of growing up in apartheid South Africa on Elon Musk. The Muckrake Political Podcast examined Musk's impact on the Republican Party through campaign finance threats. Brian Tyler Cohen on No Lie looked at the MAGA civil war over H-1B visas for skilled workers the tech lords want for their companies. Bad Faith continued the discussion on H-1B visas. The Muckrake Political Podcast looked at the big picture of the wealth classes influencing politics. Straight White American Jesus contrasted Jimmy Carter with Donald Trump. And Left Anchor zoomed out even further to discuss the historical context of inequality [00:54:00] and the shortcomings of past efforts to combat it.

And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in the deeper dive sections. But first, a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads. 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. And, as always, 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.

And recently we've been trying something new, offering you the opportunity to submit your comments and questions for upcoming topics, not just current and past ones, so I can give you a heads up on what's coming. Next up, we're working on the topic of the legacy of Jimmy Carter with a focus on where things currently stand on some of his top issues like environmentalism, housing for the [00:55:00] poor, and so on. Then we're also going to be tackling an idea that I think will be new for a lot of people, which is the de-alignment of working people with the left, driven by the impact of neo-liberalism as well as the tentative realignment of the right to include a bit more economic populism, At least among their supporters, if not their actual politicians and policies, as we have seen play out. And finally, we will definitely be tackling the LA fires and the broader interplay between fire and water in the age of climate change. So, get your comments or questions in now for those topics. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-399 1, or simply email me to [email protected].

Now, as for today's topic, it just so happens that The Daily podcast from The New York Times took up this issue of Silicon Valley and Trump this week. So. I had a listen. Turns out their focus was on Marc Andreessen, another [00:56:00] high profile tech billionaire. He's slightly less high profile than others. But anyway, you know, he's one of the guys who switched over from being a sort of moderate Democrat. to a Trump supporter. And one of his big ideas is what he calls "the deal". And the basic "deal" he proposes is that taxes and regulation should be stripped down to the minimum to allow for super wealthy people to do great things with their wealth, which will benefit all.

Now, it's unclear, but it seems like he doesn't often or maybe ever mention that Andrew Carnegie propose d basically the exact same idea in the late 1800s. So, this is nothing new. The difference between the two, maybe that Carnegie's idea was that great wealth should be accumulated and then given away in the form of philanthropy, which is how we got thousands of Carnegie libraries around the world, as well as Carnegie Hall and untold numbers of other things that stemmed from Carnegie foundations. Andreessen's [00:57:00] idea seems to be a lot less about philanthropy and a lot more about simply using wealth to build tech companies because tech companies themselves are such a great benefit to society that it's basically like philanthropy. It's like, we're doing capitalism and getting extremely wealthy, but the work we're doing is for everyone and it's all good. That seems to be his idea. So, the end goal of benefiting humanity is the same, but the path is different for these two.

Given those two ideas you may be thinking well, you know, I guess Jay probably prefers the Carnegie method of actually spreading wealth around than just building ever more tech companies and simply framing your wealth accumulation as inherently good for humanity. And, yeah, maybe, I guess,

But really, the answer is, that's the wrong question. And both ideas are bullshit. Andrew Carnegie famously laid out his idea in an essay titled "The Gospel of Wealth". And within the very first paragraph, he falls into multiple [00:58:00] logical fallacies and presents multiple painfully flimsy arguments. So, talking about the technological progress over the past few hundred years leading up to the late 1800s, Carnegie says, "But contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us today measures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race that the houses have some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better, this great irregularity, than universal squalor".

Okay. Let me stop you right there. This [00:59:00] either/or framing is a classic misdirection that artificially limits the scope of the debate and the discussion, and even the imagination of where people go in their minds when they think about ideas like wealth inequality. This, Do you want for there to be untold inequality and have arts and literature, or Would you prefer that there be no culture at all, and for literally everyone to live in squalor? That is absurd. Ridiculous. Those are not the options.

And then his next line caused me to have to do a little bit of research. He says, "Without wealth, there can be no Maecenas" I'm like, okay, what or who is Maecenas. I was not familiar with that. So I did a deep dive by reading the first paragraph of Wikipedia, which says "Gaius Maecenas who lived from about 68 BCE to 8 BCE"—just barely missed Jesus; [01:00:00] shucks!—this man was "an important patron for the new generation Augustan poets, including both Horace and Virgil. In many languages, his name is an eponym for 'patron of arts'... During the reign of Augustus, Maecenas served as a quasi-culture minister to the Roman Emperor".

So, Carnegie's point is that only by being wealthy was Maecenas able to patronize artists so that they could create their great works, which we still appreciate today. But as I've already pointed out, that's an artificially narrowed perspective that precludes other possibilities of how society might be organized. So, it's true that Maecenas' being rich allowed him to patronize the arts. But it doesn't mean that in order for the arts to be patronized, there must be obscenely rich people. That is another logical fallacy.

And highlighting any benefit that is created by the wealth of these [01:01:00] kinds of oligarchs, again, narrowly focuses the discussion. It becomes a question about the outcome of the patronage rather than a discussion or debate about how things might otherwise be organized compared to the wealthy philanthropy patronage system.

To start at the most basic unit of wealth accumulation, it is always built on the exploitation of laborers. So that always needs to be calculated in. People died in Carnegie's steel mills and he hired the Pinkertons, basically a private army, to break up efforts to unionize. And then today we think of tech workers as nerds making six figures while living in the Bay area in California. But the subcontracting that supports those big tech companies are often built on people all around the world, living in grinding poverty, while doing profoundly menial but essential tasks that those companies require in order to provide the services that they do. So the difference between now and 130 years [01:02:00] ago in terms of labor is not actually as stark as you'd imagine. But look, I'm sure the oligarchs would wave that away and just say, well, you know, Those are the eggs you need to break to make omelet.

So fine. You can't force people to care about the humanity of others. So forgetting for a moment those who suffer directly for the accumulation of wealth by the very few, the bigger issue is how philanthropy in almost every form bypasses the democratic process and robs people of the ability to have a say in how society is impacted by those flows of enormous wealth.

It's an inherently paternalistic mindset that sees the wealthy as uniquely qualified to make decisions that will impact everyone without the legitimacy that comes from being elected or having ideas run through a democratic process of debate. And you don't have to cast aspersions on any particular rich person and say they are going to make the wrong decision. You just have to understand the effects on the whole. [01:03:00]

And it's easy to understand that philanthropy in general, and with very few exceptions. Is given in a way that may sort of soften the edges of society, shave off some of the sharp corners that are particularly objectionable. But philanthropy never truly challenges the status quo, no matter how much public support there is for change. There's a reason why rich people are far more likely to patronize the arts ban support the establishment of universal workers' rights or healthcare, widely popular ideas that would also help everyone.

So, if the idea is to help everyone, you would think, Oh they should be in favor of, you know, directly helping everyone. But that's not how philanthropy works. Even though some good can unquestionably come from philanthropy. It is also. Basically just another way of artificially narrowing the scope, but not just of a debate or a discussion, but in how society can choose [01:04:00] to shape itself. It's been described as a sort of benevolent authoritarianism with the rich deciding what's best for everyone else and saying in effect. Trust us. We know what's good for you.

Now to wrap up, I'll mention that the only alternative is not necessarily taxation and spending through government appropriations. The Best of the Left producers had a discussion on our show for members that will be coming out soon about the benefits of citizen councils that bring together a random, but representative group of people to help sort through options and make decisions. These can be used to propose solutions to a particular problem that an elected council wants to address. But they can and have been used to help decide how to distribute large sums of money from the private sector, just a rich person who wants to give their money away, but doesn't want to be in charge of it themselves. Doesn't want to do it in a paternalistic way, wants to give a democratic process the option to give that money away.

So that's just one [01:05:00] small idea of how wealth could be managed slightly differently. Of course, we could have a bigger discussion about avoiding having wealth accumulated in such vast sums to begin with. But in short, the big idea is don't be fooled into allowing our options of how to design society to be narrowed by the whims of the ultra wealthy. There are other options that we can imagine, if we just widen out our perspective.

SECTION A: OLIGARCHS

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now. We'll continue to dive deeper on four topics. Next up section a. The oligarchs followed by section B, the maca fracture. Section C global influence and section D organizing.

The Oligarch Class Part 2 - Left Anchor - Air Date 1-3-25

ALEXI THE GREEK - CO-HOST, LEFT ANCHOR: You know, it might be a good place, since we're talking about that, because you have such a nice, simple definition of capitalism and socialism, and I'm sure we'll get to the plan at the end to combat all the ills and evils of these nasty characters and what they've done over history. But speaking of productive wealth maybe you could distinguish between productive property versus as you say, petty [01:06:00] private or personal property, and why that distinction matters so much for growing inequality and for the political and economic social power.

PROF ROB LARSON: Yeah. That's a great one, man. Definitely. When you talk to people who are in the political mainstream, people who are more conservative or more liberal, they're going to refer to socialism in scary terms, and they'll refer to it as being tyrannical, which is kind of funny, if you look at the history of it. But primarily the first thing that conservatives always refer to is like, oh, you know, socialists, they're coming and they're going to take my gun and my truck and my gas burning stove. They're going to come and take my pants and my pets and my toothbrush. Like, no one wants your petty personal property.

ALEXI THE GREEK - CO-HOST, LEFT ANCHOR: They're going to come for your truck nuts. They're going to take your

PROF ROB LARSON: Should we connect? Literally castrating the working class. Yeah, it's about productive wealth that we usually talk about. I mean, your personal money, your little petty middle class house and cars. I mean, you're drawing on social services. You should [01:07:00] pay a tax assessment to fund those. I mean, sure. But this is not like the wealth of society. When we talk about "socializing the means of production" or "nationalizing capital," we're talking about those big pieces of productive capital that we talked about, that I mentioned a moment ago, again, like housing stock is kind of intermediate.

Usually a lot of socialists like to draw the line at expropriating your second home and up. But if, you're working on your mortgage on your home, I mean, you paid for it with your actual working class labor. That's not where the, it's not because you have a personal house or condo unit that the working class is oppressed.

It's because we have tiny ownership of all the productive capital of society. And it puts those owners in a position to decide who gets a job or not. It's like, that's a real distinction. And that's very different from, well, if there's, if Bernie is president, is he going to take away my Xbox? You know, he won't. It's not, it's productive property we care about. That's the important thing. And just to kind of connect it to Ryan's first question about wealth because I just feel this one point is so important. So I'm always kind of lunging to make it. One thing I mentioned in the chapter on the [01:08:00] wealth itself and the numbers in the book is again, we talk about different kinds of wealth and owning it.

The main thing that makes up the giant fortunes of the real high end of the wealth distribution and the ruling class, as it were, it's financial assets. And that includes things like bonds and, every kind of financial tool from, derivatives to futures contracts to everything else, but the big thing is ownership of that corporate property. That big capital we mentioned, and we should just mention that the oil refineries, the data centers, those things belong to Corporate America, they're corporate property, they belong to Microsoft or Chevron or whichever.

Well, those corporations and, we on the left or have a long history of being skeptical of these powerful corporations and their incredible ability to control political events and so on. We should just recognize too, though, that those corporate empires have owners. They belong to their (sarcastically) "equity investors," their shareholders and shareholders are very tightly concentrated across the economy.

So, whereas [01:09:00] if I can just turn to some wealth data here. All the data I'm referring to here is from the WID, the Wealth Inequality Database, which is a great resource that everyone listening should check out. You can pull up the World Inequality Database. It includes all of your hotshot economists who study the wealth gap, Piketty, Zuckerman, Saez. If you know who I'm talking about, you'll be very excited. If not, that's okay. Very good data visualizations. See the share of income held by the rich versus like the bottom 50 percent and they have that distribution visualized for your convenience for almost every individual country in the world. So you can pull up like Algeria, or South Africa, or Bolivia, or Canada's wealth or income distributions over time. Pretty cool. So I just want to plug them since I'm stealing all of their work.

So they found that the US in 2021, last year we had numbers for, the wealthiest 1% of households owned about 35% of wealth. Which is an outrageous crime against a human spirit, [01:10:00] so that's bad. However, I would point out, that richest- that same richest 1% of households owns 40% of all stock, of all that corporate equity. And those traded stock assets, 40%. And the richest 10% of households own 84% of it, like most of it. Now if you're like some, "professional class" person like myself, a community college professor, you may have a full time job that may come with a tax advantaged retirement vehicle of some type, mine does.

And when you sign up for the job, you get a little retirement plan and you pick basically a mutual fund. Which a mutual fund, you can buy shares in a fund and they own shares of companies. So it's shares of something real. This is what finance is all about. If you're excited by this, you should go into finance, listeners.

But the point is, all that big capital and productive wealth we're talking about, it's corporate property. Of this same ruling class, that's all. I just feel like sometimes people don't [01:11:00] necessarily have that connection between the super rich households and billionaires and the giant global corporate empires that they disproportionately own. People like me may own little shreds of stocks, and I have a, modest little retirement plan there, but it's a minority of households, and we certainly own a strong minority of the stocks. So I just want to mention that we talk about petty property. Petty property's important. Your comforts of life.

The productive property is represented by ownership of an investment portfolio and representing a bunch of real productive wealth. So I think that's the distinction people should see. Are we talking about your personal wardrobe in your closet or this portfolio that means you own half of South Africa? Like, that's a real distinction.

Zuckerberg Stops Licking And Puts Trump's Entire Boot In His Mouth - The Majority Report - Air Date 1-7-24

CLIP MARK ZUCKERBERG: Hey everyone. I want to talk about something important today, because it's time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram. I started building social media to give people a voice. I gave a speech at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting free expression, and I still believe this today.

But a lot has happened over [01:12:00] the last several years. There's been widespread debate about potential harms from online content. Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A lot of this is clearly political, but there's also a lot of legitimately bad stuff out there. Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.

These are things that we take very seriously, and I want to make sure that we handle responsibly. So we built a lot of complex systems to moderate content. But the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes. Even if they accidentally censor just 1 percent of posts, that's millions of people. And we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship.

SAM SEDER - HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: Pause it one second. All right. The one thing, and this is maybe a little bit tangential, but this is always there with this. These conversations understand when he talks about these complex systems, creating mistakes, et cetera, et cetera, it is because they do not want to hire. Human beings who could do [01:13:00] this on the regular basis because the number of human beings they would have to hire would inhibit their profitability and make it harder for him to become chasing after the wealthiest man in the world.

EMMA VIGELAND - C0-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And what he borrowed from Elon Musk was also that labor model. Like, Elon came into Twitter and he fired a bunch of folks. And you know what Meta did, uh, just a few months ago? They laid off a lot of people, too. They're copying the community notes thing. Like, we made fun of how incompetent Elon Musk is, but the reality is, is he's making a lot of money and he's trying to make sure that he's as profitable as possible.

This is what the board of directors at Facebook is going to say like, Hey, let's, let's, let's take some of that stuff too.

SAM SEDER - HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: I don't think that's what I, because frankly, Musk is not making a dime on Twitter. It is a complete loss leader. He's made the money back in terms of, uh, what he's going to get in tax cuts from Donald Trump.

Facebook and Google had been doing this [01:14:00] for, for a decade. Um, um, and Their moderation sucks because they don't want to pay people to do it. The trick for them has always been the challenge has always been, how do we do this without paying labor? And so their complex system is so complex because you don't have a human being You can go like, oh, wait a second, this person's criticizing racists, not promoting racists, which a human being could do.

Right. Good.

CLIP MARK ZUCKERBERG: Point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship. The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech. So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.

More specifically, here's what we're going to do. First, we're going to get rid of fact checkers and replace them with community notes. We're Similar to X, starting in the U. S. [01:15:00] After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote non stop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth.

But the fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U. S. So over the next couple of months, we're going to phase in a more comprehensive community notes system. First off, also, this is all

SAM SEDER - HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: bullshit. Because, I mean, we have seen, uh, where he's gone, uh, what's happened in terms of, um, you know, economic sentiment.

People have biases. And they, it begins to, um, uh, uh, change their perception of facts. And when bird flu, if the bird flu comes, and there's a problem, um, Um, it should not be an up or down [01:16:00] popularity vote by community notes of a platform that has been designed to attract a certain type of, uh, of viewer as to whether, um, what the R value in terms of like the ability of bird flu to be spread from person to person is or what the morbidity rate is for the bird flu.

EMMA VIGELAND - C0-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah, I mean, he, this is the, did you notice how he, what the things he listed there that, um, were threats to the platform? Drugs, childhood exploitation, and terrorism? It sounds like he's literally just Taylor, Taylor making his message for the conservatives with the whole like Terrorism and drugs coming over the border and then hey QAnon There's also this sex trafficking here too in the same way that earlier on last year his letter to Jim Jordan and the Republicans Basically framed it and said we were quote, [01:17:00] repeatedly pressured by the Biden administration to remove social media content that, uh, would have been critical of them.

So he, in addition to also donating to the inaugural fund, this is a full capitulation to Donald Trump because Donald Trump in a book that he put out, what was that, uh, earlier the around the same time it had a quote. That he said that he would put Zuckerberg, quote, spend the rest of his life in prison.

SAM SEDER - HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: Right, read that whole thing.

EMMA VIGELAND - C0-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Former President Donald Trump writes in a new book set to be published next week that Mark Zuckerberg plotted against him during the 2020 election and said the Meta chief executive would quote, spend the rest of his life in prison if he did

SAM SEDER - HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: it again. What an amazing coincidence that, uh, that, uh, just days before Donald Trump is inaugurated right after he is made president again, that, uh, Mark Zuckerberg does this.

EMMA VIGELAND - C0-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And you know, another coincidence is that Meta has an antitrust lawsuit in front of the government in April. What a complete coincidence that he would be sucking up to [01:18:00] conservatives during this time period. Um, this is Lena Kahn actually this morning asked about it on CNBC.

CLIP REPORTER: What do you think though of the relationship that we're seeing between Big Tech and the next administration?

What do you make of the meetings, uh, and pilgrimages with which we're seeing Mark Zuckerberg go to Mar a Lago? Or we're seeing a Jeff Bezos interview? Bezos or Tim Cook. I mean, this is a very different kind of relationship than the administration. The Biden administration had and specifically what you represented to the business community.

CLIP LINA KHAN: So I approached my job with a focus on faithfully enforcing the law and making sure we were doing that across the economy without fear or favor. There has been, as you know, a lot of concern. Um, and he's an even as we've seen the president elect announced some of his future appointments, he's noted that he's making these [01:19:00] appointments with a view that they're going to continue to maintain a tough line against some of these big technology companies think

CLIP REPORTER: they are given the meetings that we're seeing, given the million dollar donations to the inaugural.

I mean, I'm on a very personal basis. You know, there's only eight business days left in your role. What What do you make of that?

CLIP LINA KHAN: Well, I can't predict what future people in my position are going to do. It is true that the FTC has been very successful, including in its ongoing litigations against Amazon and Facebook.

And so it's only going to be natural that those companies are going to want to come in and see, can they get of sweetheart deal, right? Can they get some type of settlement that's cheap that settles for pennies on the dollar and gets them escape? Let's them escape from a liability finding in court.

CLIP REPORTER: You see that happening?

Is that what you think is happening?

CLIP LINA KHAN: I hope it won't. But again, I can't predict that. And we are set to go to trial against Facebook this spring against Amazon and fall of 2026. Of course, they would want a sweetheart deal. And I hope [01:20:00] future enforcers wouldn't give them that.

The Oligarch Class Part 3 - Left Anchor - Air Date 1-3-25

RYAN COOPER - CO-HOST, LEFT ANCHOR: Yeah, what you're describing basically is like Downton Abbey, like a, like an aristocratic household, where there's a family of very, very, very rich people and a lower class of people who need, or can be induced to be servants and that's what they are. And like, that was not a great system, but I think what stands out about what you're talking about in your book is the Americans are kind of allergic to the type of class differences that constituted the British aristocracy.

You know, it's like the people who are born into this stuff, like most of the time they are literal, like peers of the realm or whatever. And that came with a certain, noblesse oblige. And one shouldn't romanticize that system, of course. But I think that from what I've read, I'm not an expert in the history of the British aristocracy or anything like that. But the way that Americans think they deserve it. [01:21:00] They deserve the money that they got, whatever, even if they inherited it, probably, especially if they inherited it, they think, oh yeah, that all this money, all this vast wealth that I have, this is mine and nobody else has any claim on it and therefore I get to do whatever I want. I get to order my servants around however I want, whereas I think in the British system, despite the horrible inequality, like there was a sense of I'm just sort of in this position, I'm the lead, and that comes with certain duties. Sort of legacy of the medieval system where like, you can't be that terrible to the servants. Or just acknowledging that, if you're hiring someone to like, wash your balls for you or whatever, that is, you have to behave in a responsible fashion. You have to take account for the needs of the people who are doing the work for you.

And whereas now it's like the absolutely fucking absurd tasks like having your butler drive six hours to go pick up some dirt so your [01:22:00] dog can take a shit. It strikes me as more common. I don't know. I mean, I haven't done any studies on this, but I think that American aristocrats is what they are. This sort of unshakable, permanent ruling class absent, massive economic transformation. They're like aristocrats who think they aren't aristocrats. They think they're self made bootstrapping entrepreneurs. And so they get to push people around whoever they want. And it makes him even more sick than, Lord Baron von Palmerston on Higgins or whatever the fuck.

PROF ROB LARSON: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. It is worse. It was, you look back at, yes, the upstairs/downstairs Downton Abbey-era, and, it is hideous. It's the worst, the most grotesque entitlement you can have is when people are born into it, who are, like, I'm gonna say, literally entitled. And I am using "literally" correctly. You actually are entitled. You have the title of the Baroness of, yes, friggin Pizzly Wiggles or whatever the hell it is in, Central Britain or something. It's true. Then, though, at least, [01:23:00] yeah, there was this noblesse oblige you have obligations, you're supposed to be providing employment, sure, but also it's this whole idea that you're living the fine life, because only a few people can afford it. Because it's pre capitalism for most of this era. And only a few people can live a fine life and have art and learn French and read, learn to frickin read, and stuff like that. Whereas now, these people have, whatever the opposite of a sense of obligation is what these people have.

And when you feel something like that, you make a foundation and you put your big, fat, dumb name on it and you go, "It's hooray for me, the Professor Rob, I Saved All You Penniless Africans from AIDS foundation." And we can get into the philanthropy if we wish but that is like the way that these guys burnish their reputations. I mean, certainly for everyone else, but for themselves too. Like a lot of these people, when you like look at their biographies, I talked a lot about this in Bit Tyrants, my last book specifically on the tech people, like they're aware that there's a certain amount they deserve and it's not $30 billion. And so you make a foundation and it makes you look better while [01:24:00] the government's antitrusting you, which is important. And also you could say, you know, that's mainly what I do is helping people. And it does work. If you look at the Wikipedia biographies for Bill Gates, Rockefeller, you name it, it's businessmen and philanthropists. Like the main thing they did was just giving money to people.

ALEXI THE GREEK - CO-HOST, LEFT ANCHOR: It works to make them look good. It's not necessarily a good use of our resources.

PROF ROB LARSON: I should be clear. Oh no, it's demonic. I should be clear. It works to make them look and feel better. It destroys the world, of course, around us. Yes, that is accurate.

But it is amazing, because, yeah, it means that today's aristocrats are, like, significantly worse than even the landed gentry, historic aristocrats, or even people depicted in the joke, the aristocrats. That's the level that has been reached by today's billionaires.

Big Tech Backs Trump to Cut Taxes, Boost Crypto, Replace Workers with AI- Roger McNamee - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-27-24

AMY GOODMAN: So, they are clearly extremely interested in tax cuts and deregulation. Can you talk about the significance of this, what this means for the health of the nation?

ROGER MCNAMEE: So, Amy, I think here’s the fundamental [01:25:00] challenge, that Americans for too long have trusted Silicon Valley. You know, for 50 years, the products that came out of the valley made us more capable. They made us more productive. That is no longer the case. And we have maintained this increasingly tight relationship with technology products, essentially treating everything new as though it would automatically be better than what came before. That has not been the case since the iPhone was introduced in 2007.

And so, the point I would make to everybody is I think we need to change our relationship to technology. You know, what you’re seeing in this space is exactly what the professor just described going on at foreign affairs, which is there are a lot of distractions, a lot of things being thrown out there to grab your attention. But the core things come down to displacing workers with artificial intelligence, displacing the currency with crypto, and getting rid of any kind of taxation on wealth that might come up. [01:26:00] And that’s the agenda. It’s really straightforward. And the only power we have as citizens — and I think it’s a huge power — is to sit there and say, “You know what? We’re not going to use your products anymore.” And we have been accepting all kinds of invasions of privacy, all kinds of surveillance, all kinds of manipulation in exchange for convenience. I think it’s time for us to look at that relationship and ask, “Could we do with less convenience for a while in exchange for regaining human autonomy?” That’s a trade I made a number of years ago, and I’ve been encouraged others to do, and I just think it’s really the only option that we have for at least the next four years.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the relationship of these tech billionaires or oligarchs with workers. I mean, you have Amazon workers out all over the country on strike. Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post Of course, Bezos and, what, Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, stopped the endorsements of their editorial [01:27:00] boards for Kamala Harris. But the significance of how they deal with workers and what this administration will mean?

ROGER MCNAMEE: Well, if you go back, the great Meredith Whittaker at Signal wrote an essay, I don’t know, maybe a year and a half ago, about the history of computing and how, even back to the 1850s, the predecessor technologies that led to computing were all about control of labor. And it started on plantations and controlling slaves. And you have seen a steady evolution. It was broken — temporarily, it turns out — by the personal computer, which, in fact, empowered people. And then the internet did the same thing.

These guys have been attempting to revert to centralized control ever since, and so that their goal is really, really simple. If you watch artificial intelligence, for example, the mania for AI began — and I do not think this is a coincidence — when Silicon Valley workers [01:28:00] resisted going back into the office after COVID. And the first market they tried to sell it to was Hollywood during the writers’ strike and the Screen Actors Guild strike. And I think it’s really simple. There are ads in San Francisco right now about how you should not employ any more humans. You know, you can employ AI instead of humans. And I sit there and ask a really basic question: Who does that serve? You know, our children are being lured into using ChatGPT for school. And in what way does that benefit them? It doesn’t prepare them for a future in which they’re empowered. It prepares them for a future in which they are disempowered.

AMY GOODMAN: Roger McNamee, how is all this going to be powered? Microsoft wants a nuclear power plant like Three Mile Island. Explain the role of nuclear power, AI and cryptocurrency.

ROGER MCNAMEE: Amy, this is such an important question. You know, even if you thought that artificial intelligence was useful — [01:29:00] and to be clear, it is not at all obvious that the utility of it is anything like as valuable as the cost, but the starting assumptions are totally flawed. So, the industry starts by stealing all copyrighted information, as well as all the personal information that all of us have in cloud services. So, if you think about things you might have in Google Docs or, you know, that you might have in an email server or in an app that does your productivity apps, you know, all of those things are being absorbed. So that’s a theft.

But the second problem, the really huge one, is what it does to natural resources. If you look at Microsoft and Google in particular, both have made commitments to carbon neutrality by 2030. Both in the past year abandoned those commitments, because their power consumption has gone nonlinear, up 30, 40, 50% over the last few years, simply to power artificial intelligence. The same thing is going on with water. A lot of these processing plants, both [01:30:00] for the data and for semiconductors, are located in deserts, and so they’re consuming massive amounts of water.

And the public has had no voice in this. The companies have acted unilaterally. And they’re at the point now where they’re literally talking about restarting Three Mile Island, in Microsoft’s case, or building floating nuclear plants in the Northwest, in the case of Amazon. And I would simply observe that the public really should have a voice in this. And what we decided in this last election is that we were going to forgo that vote and let the industry have control of it. And, you know, I seriously have no idea how this is going to turn out, and I think the only power we have is to say no.

AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, Roger, but, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Elon Musk’s worth soared over 70% to $450 billion after the presidential elections. The significance of this?

ROGER MCNAMEE: Well, everything about Trump appears to be pay to [01:31:00] play, right? All of these executives are giving a million dollars each. These are rounding error numbers. This is money they find between the cushions of the couch in their living room. But, you know, it’s basically a protection payment. And in Musk’s case, the investment he made in Trump, which was a quarter of a billion dollars, or the investment he made in Twitter, which was like $44 billion, those have paid off, obviously, many, many times over.

I believe that Trump and Musk will eventually part ways. I mean, I don’t know Trump at all, but he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would put up with someone who competes at the level that Musk competes at. But we’ll have to see how that turns out. My point here is that —

SECTION B: THE MAGA FRACTURE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B the maca fracture.

Elon & Vivek's H1-B Crash Out Part 2 - Bad Faith - Air Date 1-2-25

Q ANTHONY ALI: I think the issue here is that the tech people, or rather, the nativists, are expressing this, and the tech people are just flabbergasted they can't understand it. Most people don't want to have to do that much shit just to live. That's the long short of it. The big problem is here, we're acting as if every single person should have the drive and determination to [01:32:00] want to out hustle all of their pure competitors and have the best job possible. Everybody should shoot for being a CEO.

But that's just not what life is like for most people all over the world. Generally, people want to be able to wake up, sit down for breakfast with their family, see their kids off to school, go to work, work the amount of hours that they agreed to when they signed their work contract, come home, watch TV for a couple of hours, read the kids a bedtime story, and then go to bed themselves.

That's all people want to do. They want to be able to barbecue on weekends, they want to be able to hang out, have fun, do things that don't involve their life revolving entirely around their work. But the issue is, these people in the tech industry have so bought into their own line of thinking, their own ideology, their own tech futurism, that they think everybody should be plugged in all the time, that everybody should be trying to out-hustle everybody else.

That's not how they live. They would like you to think that, but that is just not how they live. Everyone thinks that Elon Musk, running six or seven or eight or ten, I don't know how many different companies that he runs, he's not actually [01:33:00] running it. Essentially, he's just overseeing production for all of these companies. That is not how he lives. That's not how his peers live, but that's how they want the average American to live. And I think the nerve that they struck for a lot of these MAGA nativists is that they don't want to live like that. That's not how their lives, growing up that's not how they saw their lives shaking out. That's not how they want their lives to be, but they see that their lives are being forced in that direction by people that are degrading the standards of the labor market.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: I think that's such an important point. If I were to also just frame it a little bit differently, it feels like we all know as leftists (blah) that there are all these kind of systemic barriers. That we have top six people in the country that have more wealth than the bottom 6%. That someone like Elon Musk (denies it, but it is true) inherited this emerald mine, or his father had this emerald mine and had all this wealth that he used to buy Tesla. He didn't start anything from the ground up.

And now these people that are incredible elites, who ran scams like Vivek Ramaswamy to earn their money, turn around and tell the rest of the [01:34:00] masses that they are culturally unfit, that they're undeserving, that they're not hustling hard enough. And the cherry on top is someone like Vivek saying, "And if you hustled as hard as someone who's coming from another country, where they have many fewer opportunities, then you too could succeed."

And no one's asking the question, "Well, do we really want it to be that kind of a dog eat dog world?" Isn't the whole point of America to your point, Q, that you should be able to have a chicken in every pot and a reasonable middle class lifestyle without having working 80 hours a week. And this is, again, what seems like such an interesting opportunity for the left to demonstrate why our analysis is so much superior to that of the right.

You have Matthew Knowles. You know Matthew Knowles. He's one of these conservative commentators. He tweeted a few days ago, "Tired: meritocracy is bad. Wired: meritocracy is good, inspired, the very notion of meritocracy conceals a conception of justice and politics that is dubious upon close inspection." Wait, is he doing CRT?

Q ANTHONY ALI: I was just going to say, that's Critical Race Theory!

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: Like, this is one of those, I'm pretty [01:35:00] sure he's like a hardcore anti-CRT, anti-woke, blah, blah, blah guy. But they're all kind of coming to this realization.

Q ANTHONY ALI: Hang on a second. We just got white Derrick Bell, that's crazy.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: Exactly. What do we do with this? We have people like Laura Loomer out here again, doing these woke discourses again, not totally woke. She's being like super racist while she's doing it.

Q ANTHONY ALI: No, she's being right wing woke is what it is. She's a woke right winger.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: How would you describe that? What is Right Wing Woke Q?

Q ANTHONY ALI: Right Wing Wokeness, their third eye has just decalcified, like their third eye has just opened up and they're now starting to see the world for the way it is and not, not- they don't have the blinders over them. So now they're drinking, like, peanut punch. They're drinking the mineral water and whatnot to decalcify themselves. No, seriously, they're gonna be drinking rainwater. They're already on the anti fluoride. But it's be so much worse than that. Now they're actually seeing that there is a class divide. They're actually starting to understand that.

That there's rule by elites. And the people that they thought were elite [01:36:00] previously, were generally like coastal academic liberals. Now they're beginning to understand that the actual true elite are the corporate and financing overlords. The people that they previously used to look up to and worship, they're now beginning to understand, now wait a second, the world that they envision for themselves doesn't include me. I'm just a cog in the machine. I'm just a battery to be plugged in.

What they're actually waking up to is that there is a tangible and variegated class difference, differences in class interest, whereas for them being working class people, they don't intend on being CEOs. They don't intend on commanding multimillion or multibillion dollar salaries. They want to have a comfortable life, raise their children and be able to have fun Christmases 30 or 40 years down the road with their grandkids. They don't aspire to be tech overlords or finance overlords.

But what they're seeing is that these tech and finance overlords have essentially gotten together since the late [01:37:00] 1970s and the 1980s. It's actually really interesting that Jimmy Carter has just passed away, where he was essentially the one that ushered in this neoliberal age that we're in right now with massive deregulation, financialization of almost every industry, and then shipping work either south or overseas. What they're beginning to understand is that they don't fit into the grand scheme of American labor practices.

Essentially, their jobs are going to be so far abstracted away from being able to actually make anything that is of tangible value. They're just going to be sitting at a desk, working a useless email job or simply unemployed altogether because everybody from overseas is going to be brought over to work those useless email jobs.

That's right wing wokeness, but the way that they express it is not through talking about class differences. They're not talking about exploitation of labor, et cetera. They're talking about, they want us to be a bunch of street hitters.

BRIAHNA JOY GRAY - HOST, BAD FAITH: Although I will say some of them are getting pretty close. Tell me, who do you think said this?

Noam Chomsky or Laura Loomer? [01:38:00] "The biggest threat to our country, our freedom and humanity is the unchecked power of technocrat billionaires who have God complexes, access to defense contracts, and openly declare war against dissenters. This should freak you out."

Q ANTHONY ALI: You know, it's actually kind of wild. She's the one that I think blew the whole lid off of all of this, because she was the one that just straight up called out Elon Musk and said that he's a stage- she called him a stage five clinger. He's basically a hanger on to the incoming Trump administration. And what he's doing essentially is just prying the door open for all of his tech buddies, Peter Thiel, Mark Andreessen, David Sachs, et cetera, prying the door open for them to come in and implement their own version of tech futurism in America, but that doesn't leave any room for the ground level people, the people that were there from the very beginning, like the prototypical MAGA-ites. They're pushing people like her out the door. But the way that she expressed it, I think, kind of, like, struck a nerve in working class MAGA Americans to the point where they realized, like, wait a second, these people don't really [01:39:00] give a shit about us.

With the kinds of appointments that Trump was making to his incoming administration, I think what they saw was something that they did not recognize as being originally part of that movement. And it turned them off so much that she was the one that actually gave a voice. It's a very strange combination of racism and class consciousness. It struck that note with many of them. And that's why there was this huge revolt over the past four or five days.

Our Moment is Approaching Part 3 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-31-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Like, they honestly do not understand what Donald Trump is, or what Donald Trump represents. Because he just basically, gestured to them in order to capitalize on basically a niche that existed within our politics In order to get himself in a place to become a grifter king more or less Yeah, and it was just oh you you guys want white national absolutely like i'm actually for white nationalism But meanwhile, i'm just going to go in and serve the wealth class and and worsen this condition meanwhile And Carl, this is the thing [01:40:00] that I keep trying to, to, to get into people's heads.

What Musk is doing is on a whole other level from anything that we've actually seen in the modern era whatsoever. Like, even the rise of the fascists and the Nazis and the authoritarianism of the 20th century, it was a group of industrialists that were pushing this thing. They basically wanted them out there in the streets in order to go after socialists and to take over liberal democracy.

Musk has recognized, much like how Trump recognized within the Republican Party there was an opportunity, Musk has recognized that MAGA, which he paid a couple of hundred million dollars for, That's the wildest thing. He didn't even pay that much for it. He's now trying to take over germany through alternative for deutschland He's also going to try and take over the uk through nigel farage and hopefully some sort of tory alternative And so what has happened?

Is that all of these people who literally believe that they were in a project for a white ethnostate, and yes, they are ideologically Nazis, but they're not even [01:41:00] like the actual neo Nazis. Like, they understand, and that was something that I was tracking for years, which is, as Trump was coming to power, like the actual Nazi groups, the paramilitary groups, the separatists, the accelerationists, They all recognized that Trump wasn't going to give them a white ethnostate.

They thought it was, uh, uh, advantageous to get people radicalized through Trump and bring them over to their side. These people are sort of caught in the middle of something that I don't think that they understand whatsoever, which is that Elon Musk bought MAGA. In order to basically assimilate the United States government, which he's now on the precipice of doing.

On top of that, the, uh, the media structure is not going to side with them. Fox News is not going to have Laura Loomer and Steve Bannon on to give, like, an articulated criticism of Elon Musk. They're not even going to give this any sort of airspace. The Ben Shapiros, all those other people who are being paid by right wing oligarchs, and also Russia, While we're on the [01:42:00] subject are not going to give this their party and their movement got sold off from underneath them, and they don't understand that this has happened.

It just so happens that their racism and Elon Musk's racism, and he is racist, and he has been very openly racist. They do not intersect because their goals have never actually been in line with each other outside of the prioritization of rhetoric and speech and ideology that is white supremacist and patriarchal.

Meanwhile, they're on the outside looking in before January 20th even gets here and are having to come to understand that they are dispensable unless they go ahead and kiss. Musk's boots. Donald Trump is going to push them away and MAGA is going to move on without them because MAGA is now subservient to the wishes of the oligarchical class as opposed to all these other things.

So they can basically, they can shut up and eat shit or they are going to get exorcised [01:43:00] from all of this stuff. They are, they are finding out some real material condition lessons at this point. And that's what's happening as opposed to a major, major schism that's going to derail any of this.

KARL FOLK: No, no, absolutely.

And like, that's the thing, right? Like this is no vert shift in what the goal is because they've achieved a couple of their bigger goals. And for the new right, specifically the techno fascist side, like their whole goal has been to amass enough wealth to then, as you said, assimilate governments, right?

And for them, like the, the neoliberal order. The same way is for modern fascists like Trump has been a really good way for them to get into our lives, right? And For better or worse, you know, we have kind of seeded ground to the tech oligarchs in really [01:44:00] strange ways, right? That even 10 years ago, I think a lot of people might've asked questions about and that money, I mean, I did some quick tape back of the napkin math the other day at, uh, at dinner.

And you know for the price that musk paid both for twitter and for maga He's gotten exactly the return on investment. He

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: was

KARL FOLK: oh, he's already profit off

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: of both of them.

KARL FOLK: Yes Exactly. And and so You know if the goal was never to actually You know, really have Trump be the thing for these people. He was always an avenue for them to get in and then take over, essentially.

Um, they're going, they're well on their way to achieving that as well. And like, Trump's base hasn't figured it out. And [01:45:00] many others haven't. But like, they're gonna get squeezed the hardest. Yes. By what these people are planning to do. And a couple days ago, you know, they, I believe it was Trump, you know, put up a post on, through social media.

That basically laid out the argument for why the economy was not going to fare well while he was a president. And, you know, you start to put all these together, and it becomes more and more clear that some of the more outlandish stuff that the, Silicon Valley new right had been thinking through is really stuff now that might be on the table for them and at least in their mind, right?

So that means they're going to work to enact those goals and like in tech acceleration is as laid out by both. [01:46:00] Yarvin and land kind of the, you know, the, the two kind of minds, two of the bigger minds, the horsemen of

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: the, uh, the fascist at this point.

KARL FOLK: Yeah. Um, you know, their, their whole thing is basically using capitalism and economics as a tool for them to shape society into something that bends to their will, not the other way around.

And so, you know, at the end of the day, like, These people are going to do maximum harm to those who are already the most harmed. And like, you know, as much as none of us like to admit it, like Trump supporters. Not the, uh, four boats and private jet Trump supporters, but like the run of the mill, small town America, Trump supporters, they're going to get just smacked in the face, but

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: they're going to get destroyed.

SECTION C: GLOBAL INFLUENCE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next section C global influence.

Weekly Roundup Jimmy Carter vs Elon Musk Part 2 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 1-3-25

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: We've reached a place in [01:47:00] our politics, whether it's with Christian nationalists, presuppositionalist theologies from reformed circles, uh, those who would say there's no such thing as neutrality. And I just want to point us back to Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter as a religious person is like, keep God out of the government. As a financial actor, he's like, when I get to the white house, I want to have no financial interests. I want no way for me to gain or lose money. That I know about when I go to bed at night when I am president and I have a quiet 10 minutes I don't want to wonder if I've made money today or think about how I could make money today I'm done with that and here's Sununu saying well, everyone has a conflict of interest and my point is like I totally get it, Dan.

You and I have been through the philosophical ringers. Everybody wants to talk. Is there such thing as objectivity? We have said on this show that everybody has feeling and affect and embodiment. I, I, I understand all of that. It does not mean that as a leader, you can't strive to say, I'm going [01:48:00] to do everything possible to serve the people of this country, of this community, of this state with, The same status and respect and voice.

You can try that. You can do things to practice that. You can cultivate that. Let me, I mean, you want

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: to jump in. I was just going to say, this is like such a fallacy and it's a really common one. I run into it with students all the time because I will say there's no way to not have a perspective on something, especially if it's something important.

If it's something you care about, you know, you and I teach and sometimes we're teaching about stuff that's really, really impactful to us. It's something that we care about. I have a perspective and it's going to color how I teach it. And people should know, I don't teach in the classroom with the voice that I use in the podcast.

Every now and then I'm like, you should be, people are like, you should be ashamed of yourself. And I'm like, I'm not indoctrinating my students. I'm not just there like throwing out my ideas. But there's a difference that the fallacy from we all have interests, we [01:49:00] all have desires, we all have perspectives to therefore, I guess anything goes, right?

There's nothing wrong with, with grinding your own axe or pushing your own agenda. It's a fallacy for the reason that you're hinting at is that we can be aware of that. We can reign that in. We can put that on the table. We can put that out front and say, I have this perspective. And I think it probably colors how I look at things.

I'm, I'm open to hearing others. I want to hear other perspectives or just recognizing that it's, it's a fallacy that gets inserted and it really throws people because it's, I think it's a false alternative that you either have some sort of pure neutrality or objectivity or it's just pure subjectivity, whatever anybody thinks is of equal value or equal worth.

It's a false choice, but it's one that gets put out all the time. It's one that Sununu is putting here. And what it does in this case is it licenses the worst impulses within a kind of advanced American capitalism, which is part of what Musk is [01:50:00] within this technocratic elitist wing of the MAGA movement, it unleashes and licenses the worst.

Elements of that because it accepts whether, whether, you know, strategically or ignorantly or whatever, it accepts that false alternative. And I just want to put that out there. People have to know that that's a false alternative. The last example I'll give is, you know, you teach philosophy classes sometimes, and there's certain questions people have been arguing about, but like, as long as people have been arguing about questions, right, they might feel unresolvable.

And one of the things I tell students is I'm like, you know, just because we're not sure what the right answer is. Doesn't mean we don't know what some wrong answers are. And I think it's the same kind of thing. Yes, there may be perspective. Yes, there may be interests that sneak in. Yes, we may, in retrospect, realize that we had perspectives that we didn't know were there or biases and so forth.

That doesn't mean we can't identify those biases and seek to mitigate them and have that eye out moving [01:51:00] forward for just the knowledge that, you know what, maybe I will bring my perspective in here in a way that I don't want to or that isn't fair to others. So, I don't mean to hijack that, but it's just, it's such a fallacy and we find it not just in the classroom or in abstract philosophical discussion, but in the concrete discourse of somebody like Sununu.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well, and everything you said is so spot on because what Sununu says is the guy's worth 450 billion dollars. So I don't think he's doing it for the money. He's doing it for the bigger project and bigger vision. What else is

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: he doing

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: it

DANIEL MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: for? I'm, sorry, like 450 billion dollars. Everything you have ever done is for the money like that.

Ah, sorry, like

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: dan dan dan Calm down because you know what I need to tell you is there's something that I know about rich people Okay, they're the kind of people that they they make a lot and then one day they they sit up in bed and they're like I think i've done enough I no longer need this much.[01:52:00]

That's all the rich people I've ever met have, have always just been the kinds that are like, once I've hit this amount of power and influence, I will stop. And so I, yeah, of course that's what's in it. No. So a couple of things here. I don't think he's doing it for the money. He's doing it for the bigger project and the bigger vision of America.

So here's the deal, y'all. Here's the deal. Jimmy Carter, rest in peace, a hundred years old, a unique life that will never be. Ever be repeated the first resident born in a hospital. I mean jimmy carter dan lives from Like the roaring twenties to all the way to the point where we have supercomputers in our, in our pocket.

And we just talked about the ways that he was not doing it for the money as president. He lost money as the president of the United States as a farmer, a farmer was president and he lost money serving the American people. Was he the perfect president? No, but just a, that's a [01:53:00] B. He was a thoroughly committed Christian who said God should not be part of the government.

So Elon Musk, if you're doing this for. The country for the bigger vision of america step down right now step down Step down as leader of every company. You have cash out get your your Let somebody hold all of the power when it comes to the government contracts the the corporate interests tesla spacex starlink get yourself out and then Continue to live at mar a lago and then continue to do what you're doing.

I'll just say dan that You He, we don't have time to go through it today, but Musk wrote an op ed for Die Welt on AFD, which is the neo Nazi party in Germany. And he made so many falsehoods. He overlooked so many things and the editor of that newspaper stepped down because they published it. But one of the things he says in there is, I [01:54:00] think I have, I am not German and I do not live in Germany, but I think I have the right to appear in, in like Germany's paper of record as an op ed writer.

Because I have invested so much in the country. Do you know what he's saying there? I am so rich, I deserve a voice. I am so rich, you get to listen to me now. That's why I get to pop up into your feed if you're a German. Because I don't live here. I've never lived here. I'm not a citizen. And I'm not really somebody who's ever planning to have anything but a financial interest in your country, but you still have to listen to me.

Does that sound like a guy who's doing it for the bigger project and bigger vision of Germany? Then why would I ever think he's doing it for the bigger project of America? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, Sununu, okay? And I have to say it for the second time in this podcast. Sununu, Sunono, okay?

That's what I'm saying. Sorry, Dan. It's a new year. It's a new year. I'm feeling As spry as I [01:55:00] can feel right now. And all of that, this leads to what Laura Loomer said, and I want to play a clip from Laura Loomer. And this is really the epitome of the civil war that's happening between Laura Loomer versus Elon Musk, Ramaswamy and the tech magnate.

So here's Laura Loomer.

CLIP: And what we need to have a conversation about is what is it going to mean for the future of our country, our national security and the incoming trump administration. If we have a bunch of technocrats who are also essentially welfare queens because their companies are receiving government subsidies and they want to take over our defense industry.

If you have a bunch of tech bros with billions of dollars and direct unfettered access to the vice president and the president of the United States, and then they are also, you know, very cordial with our adversaries as in China and Iran. We see that Elon Musk is having these meetings off the books with Iranian [01:56:00] officials, with Chinese officials.

What does that mean for us and the future of our constitutional republic?

Is Elon Musk Heir To Nazi Dream of World Conquest- w- Jim Stewartson - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 1-7-25

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: An operation paper

JIM STEWARTSON: was a classified program that, uh, the U S intelligence services, um, uh, executed, um, The end of World War Two, um, and for, um, years after, uh, and it brought over at least 1600 Nazi engineers, scientists, and others, um, over to the United States, uh, to, uh, help fight the, the Cold War.

And one of those Nazis, uh, was a guy named Werner von Braun. Uh, and Werner von Braun, um, Invented the V2 rocket, which was otherwise known as the Vengeance rocket, uh, and it terrorized London and Antwerp at the end of World War Two. Um, and this guy who [01:57:00] created the, the V2 rocket, um, was part of Operation Paperclip and he's, uh, uh, relevant.

It's part of Operation Paperclip. It seems to the richest man's life in ways that are surprising.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Yeah. So he comes to America and while he's here, he writes a book called Mars Project in German, uh, at Fort Bliss, Texas, and publishes it in 1952 in English. Tell us about the science fiction novel that Verner Von Braun wrote.

JIM STEWARTSON: Yes, well, it's a science fiction novel, but it's a very technical science fiction book the whole last third of it is real technical drawings, etc Rocket scientist it was by one of the most famous rocket scientists in History. He was a Nazi, but he was a legitimate rocket scientist, but he wrote this science fiction book, um, called Mars project.[01:58:00]

And in the book, um, there is a, a sort of, uh, figure on earth, um, who demands that we become multi planetary. which is something Elon Musk says constantly, um, and that, uh, we have to, um, colonize Mars. Well, it turns out when you get to Mars, there's a colony there already. And in the lead with that

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: in the novel,

JIM STEWARTSON: yeah, in the novel.

Yes. I was not, we're not breaking news here. Uh, yes. In the, in the novel, you get there and there's a colony and the leader of the colony is. a lot.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: E. L. O. N.

JIM STEWARTSON: E. L. O. N. The alarm. Um, and, and so you may think, well, that's a strange coincidence. Um, and you know, I kind of heard this story and thought, you know, Hey, maybe it's apocryphal.

But [01:59:00] then I went and started listening to Errol Musk, who is Elon Musk's father. And Errol Musk said out loud that as a, a child growing up in apartheid South Africa, he was taught, uh, these science fiction books that they, he was a, a, you know, huge rocketry fan and that he did in fact, name his son after the Allah.

So he's Elon Musk's father says this is Elon

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Musk is named after the guy who ruled the colonies on Mars in the novel written by the Nazi rocket scientist, Werner von Braun, and to make it even weirder. Those colonies did not live on the surface. Now, Elon has this company called the Boring Company that drills tunnels.

Tell us about how the people lived on Mars. The in the in the novel. Well, yes, there's

JIM STEWARTSON: also do you remember Hyperloop? Oh, yeah. [02:00:00] Hyperloop. Yeah. Well, you

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: tell people what it is for a lot of people. You know, I remember a lot of people don't know what we're talking. It

JIM STEWARTSON: was this, it was this project that was meant to create a, a high speed, um, railway of sorts between, um, San Francisco and LA.

And it was going to be in a tunnel, in a, in a closed. Loop. And, um, which is very reminiscent of the tunnels on Mars that Wernher von Braun said the Alon was in charge of.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Because people couldn't live on the surface because the surface is so hostile. So this entire society on Mars that they discovered when the Ameri when, you know, humans got there, was living underground in these tunnels.

JIM STEWARTSON: That's right. Living underground in these tunnels, which tells you that even back then, Werner Von Braun knew that trying to colonize Mars was not going to happen unless somehow you were able to create a [02:01:00] subterranean planet. World, right? Right. Um, uh, one other thing that I think is important to understand is that this colony underground was a technocracy.

So it was, the Alon was, was basically the dictator, but his court of jesters, as it were, and people around him, um, were all technocrats, engineers and scientists, et cetera. Um, because, uh, he considered those people to be the only people who really should be involved in such, you know, difficult, kind of a benevolent dictatorship, essentially.

Exactly. And, and, uh, something to know about Elon Musk is that his. Maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was literally the leader of a pro Hitler fascist movement in the 30s and 40s called Technocracy Inc. You can, this, again, it's [02:02:00] crazy. You can look it up. And what they did, what they wanted was a society that was ruled by By technocrats,

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: by engineers and scientists, et cetera.

Just like the Society on Mars. And this novel run by the Elon. By the Elon.

JIM STEWARTSON: Exactly. And one thing to know also about Elon Musk, uh, to give you an idea of how sort of deep this this goes with him, is that on his SEC filings for Tesla, he's not the CEO, he's not the CTO, he's the techno king of Tesla.

Interesting. Literally, that's his title, according to the Security and Exchange Commission. And the reason for that is because, you know, that's how he sees the world. That's how he sees himself, as this sort of benevolent dictator, as you said. There's a full lot of these billionaires have latched onto.[02:03:00]

called long termism. Um, it's also called effective altruism. And it's basically the idea that billionaires are so much smarter and more powerful and capable than everyone else, that they should make these decisions for us. They're going to make the hard choices and let the, you know, the, the citizens just take their medicine.

Unfortunately, you know, for the rest of us, one of those, those, you know, um, imperatives for Elon Musk is literally going to, he doesn't care who gets hurt on earth in the process.

Crack-Up Capitalism- How Billionaire Elon Musk's Extremism Is Shaping Trump Admin & Global Politics Part 2 - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-6-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: The power of Elon Musk cannot be underestimated, from here in the United States — and we’re going to talk about the Trump administration — well, many are calling him, of course, “President Musk” and “Vice President Donald Trump” — to, well, the latest kerfuffle in Britain and his support [02:04:00] for the AfD in Germany. If you can talk about the significance of all of this?

QUINN SLOBODIAN: Yeah, it’s a pretty extraordinary situation to find ourselves in, right? I mean, if you think back to 2017, there was a lot of concern and attention to the efforts of Steve Bannon to create a kind of transatlantic coalition of far-right actors and parties. Imagine now here we are only a few years later, and there’s a Bannon-like figure but who also happens to be the wealthiest man in the world, overseeing some of the most profitable companies in the planet, who is leading that sort of effort to create a transatlantic coalition. So, the stakes are much, much higher. They are being dealt with with perhaps even less kind of care than someone like Bannon, which is an extraordinary thing to say. But Musk, I think, has entered this field of politics as a kind of [02:05:00] scaled-up version of his video game play, with no real thought to the kind of consequences of the disruptive effects that he’s creating, from here to Britain to Germany and beyond.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And let’s talk specifically about the conversation we’re having on this day, on January 6th, when the vice president, Kamala Harris, who presides over the Senate, will essentially certify her own loss, and this fourth anniversary of what took place January 6th,

QUINN SLOBODIAN: 2021.

Well, I think that, you know, the January 6 is apropos for a couple reasons. One is kind of silly but also meaningful, which is, if you look at the character that Musk uses when he plays the game Diablo IV, which he describes as giving him life lessons and allowing him to see the matrix, [02:06:00] the guy kind of looks quite a bit like the QAnon shaman, so well known from January 6. So, January 6, in a way, kind of, I think, opened this new era in American politics where the kind of surreal, fringe, often online communities have sort of entered the world of sort of high politics and have scrambled the kind of coordinates of average rules of the game and the normal sort of protocols. I think that Musk is someone who is really a product of that kind of crossover effect, where building up a kind of huge online community, building up the sort of status as a global media influencer, has now the capacity to actually shatter existing coalitions, shatter existing standards of what normal politics is. And his connections now to people like Nigel Farage, until recently, Tommy Robinson, [02:07:00] the AfD, Giorgia Meloni, these are signs of kind of a willingness to shatter existing traditional party systems, to embrace disruption kind of for its own sake, and to really harness especially the power of the internet to make possible things that had been previously impossible, so to make certain forms of speech possible, to make certain forms of mobilization possible, and to make things like, you know, the attempted coup d’état in January 6 something that could actually be followed through to its conclusion.

And I think that, you know, the kind of — the horizon of what the kind of politics in real life that someone like Musk is aiming at is broadcast by him frequently on his own Twitter account. Most recently, for example, he celebrated Nayib Bukele, the leader in El Salvador, as having done something that has [02:08:00] happened in El Salvador and will happen and must happen in the United States, which, in El Salvador, has been to imprison 2% of the adult population as an absolutely draconian way of cracking down on crime. So, this vision of sort of authoritarian strongman on politics, sort of gloves-off mass incarceration crackdowns, on the one hand, and then a deregulatory kind of unleashing of the free market, on the other hand, is — produced this kind of curious combination of, on the one hand, Elon Musk posting Milton Friedman memes all the time, on the other hand, scaremongering about the, quote-unquote, “genocidal rape tactics” of nonwhite immigrants in the U.K. So, he’s produced this sort of surreal effect, I think, of sort of the strong state and the free market turning the sort of Thatcherist vision, grafting it onto all kinds of online aesthetics and kind of video game [02:09:00] dynamics in ways that have really, I think, blindsided, for good reason, sort of mainstream, normal politicians, like Olaf Scholz, Keir Starmer, Biden-Harris, who don’t know how to deal with this kind of chaotic energy, which, unfortunately, has a huge amount of legitimacy behind it, not only his multimillion-dollar — or, multimillion number of followers on social media.

But keep in mind, I mean, he oversees Tesla, which is a car company that is worth more than all the other car companies in the world combined, whose valuation has gone vertical since Trump’s election, whose stocks are held in the portfolios of many, many, many Democrats who might otherwise find Musk, as a person, and his politics objectionable. So, he is a kind of a locomotive who has sort of attached himself to the very dynamics of both the online sort of meme market, but also the very much offline stock market, in ways that makes him hard to reckon with and hard to actually oppose.

GOP Already At Each Other's Throats While Musk Gloats Part 2 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-24-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: And I do want [02:10:00] to take a second in the midst of all of this conversation. You brought up Greenland. Like, there is an effect in how all of this stuff sort of takes place.

Like, for instance, you know, we didn't even talk about the fact that the Canadian government is on the brink of falling apart. Justin Trudeau, very, there's a very good chance he's going to have to resign and will be replaced by a right wing government Simply because Donald Trump said some things about tariffs with Canada, which is going to set in motion, you know, the countries that are underneath the American sort of tree.

We've talked about how countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, they're sort of straddling the line between, you know, the Russia, China, uh, coalition and the United States of America. So they can get away with whatever they want. Meanwhile, you have other countries like Canada that basically have to fall in line based on something that Trump will say.

He's being used as a, as a battering ram. And then, meanwhile, while we're talking about this, we also have to talk about the fact that Germany, which is in alignment with the United States of America as part [02:11:00] of that Western liberal democratic sort of coalition, it's starting to fall apart as well because of far right tropes, conspiracy theories, and put, uh, all the stuff that's happening, uh, with, with their plans and strategies.

What is Musk doing now? He is voicing support for Alternative for Germany, which is a far right, neo Nazi adjacent group that is gaining power, much like all these places. It's gaining power in France, gaining power in England, gaining power in Germany, and now in Canada. All those places that are aligned with America.

And we're hearing now that he is planning on maybe throwing 100 million towards Nigel Farage in the UK. In Germany, we're seeing the ascendance of this as they're coming into alignment with Russia, China, and the right wing international movement. And what are we seeing with it? We're seeing in Magdeburg, there was a terrorist attack on a Christmas market that killed at least five people.

And it was carried out by a guy who is a huge fan of Elon Musk. He's a huge fan [02:12:00] of Alex Jones. He's listened to all these conspiracy theories. And what does that do? It creates a more violent environment in which right wing authoritarians are able to gather more and more power. It's, it's a domino effect.

And what we're seeing take place right now is a lot of these dominoes are starting to fall.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: I just want to go a little deeper into the, uh, the terrorist attack in Germany because Appears like they'd be a Muslim and from a Muslim country, but was actually virulently anti Muslim and having been living in Germany since I think 06.

So to see the, um, it's not Koch, what is it? The seed of the right wingers who can't, Use that right. They want to be able to say, look, this is a Muslim extremist who's driven a car into a nice people in Germany. And they can't do that. And you can see them getting just upset about it. That's what's so disgusting about all these things.

And you, and I have, I guess I'm dip my toe back into Twitter a little bit. And it really had, I had, you've been doing this Jared at all. If you'd be going back to Twitter. Um, you know,

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: I, I've been off the grid, so [02:13:00] I've been as far away from social media as I possibly can, but yes, I've been keeping an eye on Twitter, which has been turned into a propaganda organ, so unfortunately, yes, I have to study that damn place.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: It's far worse than it ever has been, even though I gotta tell you, Blue Sky is kind of like, it had a big influx, and it's sort of Nick,

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: I'm glad you brought this up, because just, I want to let people know, I talked about this a little bit on the Discord, it's There is a huge operation that's taking place on Blue Sky, and I think it has a lot of implications.

I've been studying it, but yes, it's more or less been flooded with a lot of accounts that are trying to spread disinformation, and also to continue sort of the liberal coalition rift that we've talked about in the past. So yes, it's sort of being infiltrated in much the same way that Twitter

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: was as well.

Yeah, I mean, and the sky is blue, but, but, uh, it's the, it's the engagement too. Like there was a lot of engagement, like I was getting more engagement on my political blue sky than I ever had on my Twitter, blue sky, Twitter account. Even though my Twitter account had many more followers. Right. And I have to, I'm going to choose to believe in my conspiracy adult [02:14:00] brain that, you know, I would tweak Musk all the time.

And I'm convinced that like, they put me on some sort of thing where like, you know, those tweets don't go anywhere. Of course they don't. But it's starting to do something there too. So it's frustrating because yeah, one, one little dip of my toe back on the Twitter and it's really disgusting. So, but again, it's important for our work because we need to monitor what they're saying, what they're feeling and what the, you know, the news on that end is, is reflecting, um, however, you know, soul killing it can be, uh, just so, cause other people probably listen to this, don't aren't as connected to that.

And it's really a fascinating how, The scapegoat of trying to use Muslim extremism for terrorism when in reality, like in our country, it's usually white people who commit these horrible, you know, uh, the mass shootings and stuff. It, it's, it, it really is, um, indicative and, and a problem.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Well, a lot of what we're seeing here, and, and for the record, the way that this misinformation sort of works and the way that the propaganda works is you do multiple things.

There's going to be one group that's very frustrated that they can't use it for their [02:15:00] traditional purposes, and another group's just going to do it. We saw that, of course, in, uh, Great Britain, where there was an attack, and they instantly, like, blamed it on, you know, uh, one person, when it turns out it was another person.

That's one of the reasons why this guy who carried out this attack in Germany carried it out was because he had been inundated with Alex Jones style conspiracy theories that framed it in a different way, uh, and included Tommy Robinson, you know, one of these far right shitheads who is part of this whole sort of ecosystem.

So, what's happened over time, Nick, is something that I, I was afraid of going back into, I would say 2016, 2017, which was the Overton window started to change, the environment started to change, people started getting affected by this, even if they understand it's bullshit, it sort of moves things around, which has now led to a place Where again, you have an international authoritarian movement, China, Russia, North Korea, uh, Turkey is on that list, you name it, Venezuela, whatever.

They, they have this sort of coalition that's moving more towards autocracy, and now the [02:16:00] liberal democracies are naturally being moved in that direction on purpose, you know, again, France is falling to it, Germany is falling to it, the United States of America re elected Donald Trump, Canada is starting to go in that direction.

It is an assimilation, and the propaganda and misinformation that we're talking about right now has done its job. I mean, it's, it is the equivalent, again, of playing a completely rigged game in which one team isn't playing all that hard, and the other team is not just playing a rigged game, they've been playing a multi faceted, eight dimensional chess game.

So we're starting to see this stuff move around. That doesn't mean it's a fait accompli. It does mean that we're going to have Push back against this stuff and it starts with being aware of it and covering it as opposed to just acting like everything is happening in a vacuum, which again is one of the reasons we do this podcast in the first place.

SECTION D: ORGANIZING

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section D organizing.

Our Moment is Approaching Part 4 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-31-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Well, and, and speaking of the Mangione thing, we didn't have a chance to cover it because of the, the certain amount of time that we were recording and going on, uh, holiday and all that. [02:17:00] They've already made the concession to the billionaire and the millionaire class on that. The DOJ went ahead and charged him with terrorism.

And what are we going to see? Undoubtedly, we're going to see Trump push more of that. We're going to see more and more money thrown at law enforcement. This will probably be one of the reasons why we'll see like even more buildup in law enforcement and surveillance. Then what happens at the lower level is this.

They like Trump like people like where I'm from in southern indiana. They like Trump because he's not politically correct, because he says that the elites are crooked, he knows that all of this shit, like that's why they're into that. The racism is part of it, the patriarchal shit is part of that as well.

But they are similarly troubled by Elon Musk. They don't want a wealthy tech, you know, uh, pharaoh, they don't, they don't want that, they want Trump to be that. And there's already an obvious sort of division here between Trump being a figurehead for this tech fascist push that's [02:18:00] taking place. And what you brought up is important, and it gets a little squishy here, Carl, because as you and I, who are both working behind the scenes, we don't need to talk about what it is that we're doing in a private forum.

Why? Because we're in the middle of a class war. And I just want to make it clear that actually one of the things that works to our advantage is the people that you and I are talking about, whether it's Bannon or Yarvin or any number of these people, including the wealth class and their think tanks and their institutes, they have broadcast Everything that they have wanted to do that is one of the reasons why we know what they're doing They've been very exactly about it.

So we can't talk about it. We can't talk about it explicitly, but I will say this Anybody who is a leftist or even going back to the progressives who fought this battle a century ago? What they recognized was that there are class contradictions when it comes to power and particularly within capitalist countries.

You have to understand them, you have to learn to [02:19:00] communicate about them, and you have to look for moments of opportunity. And what you just brought up is exactly the right point, which is, this thing isn't going to resolve itself. This thing's not just going to go away But it's also not going to tear MAGA apart and ruin trump's second administration in the plans of elon musk There has to be pressure put upon it.

There has to be organizing that's used against it You have to use every opportunity to talk to people who quite frankly have been duped And you're also going to have to talk to some racist people, and some sexist people, and some xenophobic people, and some gay and transphobic people. It doesn't mean that you tell them that what they're saying is okay, because it is not okay.

But you need to be able to talk to them about the fact that their prejudices have been used against them. And the evidence is right there for everyone to see. Which is This fight right here. They say they're for free speech. Well, they're taking away the free speech rights of all the people that disagree [02:20:00] with them constantly.

Oh, they say that they're for a white ethnostate. Well, look what they're doing here. They're looking to bring in an underclass of controllable workers from another country, which is what they've claimed that liberals in the deep state were doing all along. That's what they want to do to help them. You have to be able to talk about this stuff and give them an alternative that gives actual solutions as opposed to the bullshit that Trump and all these people have peddled towards them.

KARL FOLK: Exactly. Exactly.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: This is what we've been shown in the past. This is the only thing that works against this stuff. Unless, of course, you want to go to war with them. And you want to have a world war where those things get settled and actually those differences just kind of get taken care of and it goes underneath the surface.

But that's not particularly where I want to go with this thing.

KARL FOLK: No. No. No, no. And I mean, that's just it, right? Like you have to give people viable options that aren't up here above their head, right? Like you have to give people. Options that are right in front of them and you have to be able to give [02:21:00] them real world examples of how and why it's worked the way it has.

Right? Like the thing that I think for a lot of people that we have a very hard time in this country specifically talking to other people we think we may not agree with and it's gotten worse. Right? So that's tough. A lot of that's based on good reasoning, right? A lot of the politics have gotten to a point where it is dangerous to talk to other people, depending on where you are and who you are.

100 percent true. But there are going to be moments where you're going to have an opportunity literally to say to someone, look, you got screwed. I got screwed. We're actually in the same boat. I don't really, you know, you don't have to probably say it, but like, I don't really like you or your politics. Do you know who else got screwed?

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Gay, trans people of color. Exactly. Women got [02:22:00] screwed. Exactly. All

KARL FOLK: of us are in the same boat together.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Yes.

KARL FOLK: They just happened to get you to believe that they, that you were in a different boat, which you were not. And that was always the goal. Right. And so people, people want. Material change in the positive for them.

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 our upcoming topics: the legacy of Jimmy Carter and his biggest issues, the disconnect between labor and the left, and the LA fires and the politics of water in the age of climate change. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from Left Anchor, The Majority Report, Democracy Now!, Bad Faith, The Muckrake Political Podcast, The Thom Hartmann Program, and Straight White American [02:23:00] Jesus. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our Transcriptionist Quartet—Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara—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 incredibly 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. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.

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 [02:24:00] podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show, from bestoftheleft.com.

1 reaction Share

#1681 Trump's American Imperialism: Threatening Friends and Annoying Neighbors (Transcript)

Posted by · January 08, 2025 6:05 PM

Air Date 1/8/2025

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

Trump's first term was marked by all of the friendships he built with some of the world's worst, most oppressive leaders. His second term is getting an early start as he has begun making threats toward traditional allies and friends, including Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and Panama so far.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes The Geopolitical Economy Report; The Wall Street Journal Opinion: Potomac Watch -- surprising, I know; DW News; Politics Unpacked; Democracy Now!; and The Muckrake Political Podcast.

Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show there'll be more in four sections: Section A. Panama; Section B. Manifest Destiny; Section C. Elon Musk and Section D. Trump 2.0.

Make US imperialism great again: Trump threatens to colonize Panama, Canada, Greenland, Mexico- Geopolitical Economy Report - Air Date 12-27-24

BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: There's a popular narrative claiming that Donald Trump is [00:01:00] supposedly an isolationist who's against war and intervention. In order to believe this, you have to ignore his extremely hawkish foreign policy during Trump's first term, when he killed the top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, and tried to overthrow the Iranian government.

He also killed a top Iraqi military commander and occupied Iraq, refusing to withdraw US troops from Iraq. He expanded the war on Yemen, brutally bombing Yemen. He expanded the war in Afghanistan. He boasted of selling offensive weapon systems to Ukraine.

DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. I didn't. I'm the one that gave Ukraine offensive weapons and tank killers. Obama didn't. You know what he sent? He sent pillows and blankets.

BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: He backed a coup attempt in Venezuela and waged economic war against Venezuela.

DONALD TRUMP: Venezuela. How about we're buying oil from Venezuela? When I [00:02:00] left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door.

BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: He backed a violent coup in Bolivia that overthrew Bolivia's elected government. He waged a trade war against China and he even boasted of leaving US troops in Syria to take its oil.

DONALD TRUMP: And then they say he left troops in Syria. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil.

BEN NORTON - HOST, GEOPOLITICAL ECONOMY REPORT: So that was Donald Trump during his first term as US president. Well now he's coming back to the White House in January 2025. And what is he pledging to do in his second term? Again, very interventionist, hawkish policies. It's the opposite of isolationism. Donald Trump is threatening multiple countries, including he wants to colonize Panama and take over the Panama canal, in a [00:03:00] blatant violation of the sovereignty of the Central American nation.

Donald Trump also wants to expand the US empire and take over Greenland, which is an autonomous territory. It was a colony of Denmark and it has a large indigenous population. They do not want to be a colony of anyone. They want their own sovereignty.

Trump and his nominees are discussing plans to invade Mexico, the US southern neighbor, another blatant violation of sovereignty. And Trump is even talking about potentially annexing Canada and making it the 51st US state.

Now, Trump supporters claim this is a joke, it's not serious. But he's threatening the northern and southern neighbors of the US. He's threatening China. He's threatening Iran. This is the opposite of isolationism. This is extreme imperialism.

Trump made an extremely bizarre post on Christmas on his website, Truth [00:04:00] Social, in which he threatened Panama, China, Canada, and Greenland. Christmas is supposed to be about peace and love and family. But instead, Trump insisted that the US will take over Greenland. He once again said that Canada should become the 51st state, which, again, is a not so subtle threat to annex Canada. And then he falsely claimed that Chinese soldiers are operating the Panama Canal, which is completely false, but Trump is trying to provide a justification for colonizing the Panama Canal, which he said very clearly he wants to take over. And he's using China as a boogeyman to try to justify that.

And meanwhile, some of the biggest pro-Trump right wing accounts on social media are talking about expanding the US empire, colonizing Mexico, colonizing Canada, colonizing Cuba and Nicaragua. These huge [00:05:00] pro-Trump accounts on Twitter that have millions of followers, largely because they're constantly promoted by Elon Musk, who's going to be a top official in the second Trump administration. They are invoking Manifest Destiny. This is blatant colonialism. Again, this is the opposite of isolationism. They're saying they want the US empire to colonize sovereign countries, and they're portraying this as base. They're saying, oh, if you are opposed to imperialism and colonialism, it's because you're "woke."

This is not isolationism. This is blatant colonialism, and warmongering.

Another example of this was Donald Trump's former undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Ezra Cohen, who is one of the top officials in the Pentagon in Trump's first administration, he quoted Trump's comments threatening to take over the Panama canal, and Ezra Cohen wrote in all caps, quote: MAKE THE MONROE DOCTRINE GREAT AGAIN [00:06:00] end quote. Again, this was one of the top officials in Trump's Pentagon the first time, he's very likely going to come back in Trump's second administration. He's also worked with the CIA and previously with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA This is a former top US government official who oversaw the war machine's intelligence apparatus, and he's invoking the 200-year-old colonial Monroe Doctrine, which essentially claims that Latin America is the so-called backyard of the US empire.

These people are blatant neo colonialists. And yet Trump and some of his allies claim that they're right wing populists who are against neoconservatives, but they're showing that they're just as imperialist as neocons. They're threatening many countries with war, invasion, conquest, occupation, and colonization. And they can say it's jokes, but a lot of countries around the world are very scared [00:07:00] because the US empire has invaded dozens of countries just in the past few decades. The US military has intervened in the vast majority of countries on Earth.

So when the president-elect talks about annexing Canada, and invading Mexico, and taking over the Panama Canal, that's not seen as a joke, that's seen as a threat, given the historical precedent, which I'll be talking about today.

Let's start with the Panama canal. This is one of the most important trade choke points on earth. About 5 percent of global maritime trade passes through the Panama canal. And Donald Trump wants the U S to colonize the Panama canal to take it over, given the historical precedent that previously it had been US colonial territory until 1999. So on the 21st of December, Donald Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, he said, quote, "We will demand [00:08:00] that the Panama Canal be returned to us in full and without question. To the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly," end quote. This is a threat to a sovereign country. And in order to justify this threat of colonizing part of Panama, Donald Trump pointed to China. As always, he fear mongers about China. The Panamanian government condemned this threat by Trump and Panama's president, Jose Raul Molino, said, quote, "Every square meter of the Panama canal and its adjacent areas belongs to Panama and will continue belonging to Panama." End quote.

Now what's ironic about this is that Molino, the president of Panama, is from a right wing party and he's been a very pro US politician. He's not in any way an anti-imperialist leftist. But even right wing US allies in Latin America are scared now because the [00:09:00] US president-elect is threatening to colonize and take over their territory.

Panama's president Molino stressed that, quote, "The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power." End quote. In response to that, Donald Trump, once again threatening Panama saying, quote, "We'll see about that." End quote. And then Trump posted a photo with a US flag over water. And he said, "Welcome to the United States canal."

Again, this is a direct threat to colonize sovereign territory of a foreign country. And yet Elon Musk, the richest oligarch on earth, who helped to fund Donald Trump's presidential campaign and is going to be a top official in the second Trump administration, he tweeted, quote, "2025 is going to be so lit [laughing emoji]" With this, these [00:10:00] images of Donald Trump threatening to colonize Panama. So he thinks this is hilarious. He thinks this is funny that the US is threatening to colonize a foreign country.

I should point out that Elon Musk is a blatant colonialist. He doesn't hide it. In fact, back in 2020, before he bought Twitter, before it became his property, Elon Musk infamously tweeted in response to a critic who condemned Elon Musk for backing the far right coup in Bolivia under the Trump administration in 2019 that overthrew Bolivia's democratically-elected left wing president, Evo Morales. And Bolivia has large lithium reserves. So a person on Twitter criticized Musk and said, quote, "You know what wasn't in the best interest of the people? The US government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could get the lithium there." End quote. And then Musk responded saying, quote, "We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it." end quote. This is the world's richest oligarch [00:11:00] saying, Yeah, we'll organize a coup wherever we want. We'll overthrow any foreign government.

I mean, these people are colonialists. They don't believe in sovereignty. They don't believe in independence. They believe that the US empire has the supposed right to colonize any country they want and to install puppets and to take over their resources and their territory.

This is not isolationism. This is blatant colonialism.

Donald Trump’s New Manifest Destiny - WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch Part 1 - Air Date 12-26-24

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: I tried to brace myself for anything, but this one really came out of the blue for me, particularly going after Panama.

I mean, the Canadian rhetoric is really just provocative. Obviously, Canadians have no interest in being part of the United States, and Trump is just blowing off steam.

On Panama, though, I think it's more troubling, because Panama is one of our few allies in the region at this point. I mean, so many countries have fallen to the hard left, and here we have an ally that runs a going concern very well, the Panama Canal, and [00:12:00] all of a sudden he's picking a fight with Panama. And it doesn't make much sense. I think he might at some point realize it doesn't make much sense, but he's not going to back down. He's not going to turn around and say, "Oh, I was wrong." So we're going to have to go through some kind of a kabuki dance between Panama and the United States until he can find his way out of this one.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, for listeners who are as old as I am, they can probably remember the debates of the 1970s over whether or not the US should cede the Panama Canal in a treaty to Panama. There's a great debate on the American right about it. Ronald Reagan said, "No, don't turn it over." Bill Buckley and some others, William F. Buckley Jr. said, "Well, it makes sense to do it, because there's no reason we should have to control it. It can be run well enough by Panama." And Jimmy Carter managed to negotiate a treaty and it passed the Senate, ratified by the Senate 68 to 32, which is only one vote above the two-thirds majority needed. And pretty much it's been not a huge issue ever [00:13:00] since. Let's listen to Trump talking last weekend about how he sees the Canal now.

DONALD TRUMP: You got to treat us fairly and they haven't treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question. I'm not going to stand for it. So to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: The Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, quickly said, "We have no intention of turning the Canal over," and said Panama would defend his interest. And to which Donald Trump replied on Truth Social, "We'll see about that." That sounds like a threat. Mary, what do you think? First of all, does Trump have a fair complaint about the fees?

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: I think he does not. And I'll start with the fact that all ships and vessels, no matter [00:14:00] the flag they fly, pay the same fees, and those are based on tonnage and type of vessel. They have nothing to do with singling out the Americans to gouge them. The one problem he may be hearing about from shippers is that the drought, which was an El Nino drought, which went from June of 2023 until about the middle of this year, caused the big lake, Gatun Lake, to go down in volume, and that meant there was less water and they could bring fewer ships through the Canal. So they ended up creating something they called the Express Pass, which was an online bidding system for ships that wanted to go faster through the Canal, they could pay more, and other ones who didn't want to pay that would have to wait longer. And obviously, that made a lot of shippers unhappy, but it also wasn't good for the Canal. They lost an estimated $1 billion in revenue during that time. So, they have no incentive to slow down the ships or raise the [00:15:00] prices, because they give up their own interests as well. But that was just a reality of nature. They also have to run the Canal, which means not only keeping it maintained all the time, but they have to also put investments into capital expenditures. And one of the strategies they're thinking about is building new reservoirs to deal with this uncertainty of water supply. And if they do that, it's going to cost them probably more than $2 billion. So again, the Canal Authority is run like a business and it's an autonomous institution, and they have to care about their bottom line. So this idea that they're somehow able to gouge Americans with no regard to the outcomes is just blatantly false.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Trump also suggested in a Truth Social post, I guess, that the US somehow investing billions of dollars in this. Is that true?

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: No, it's not true. The Canal Authority has to basically run out of its revenue, not just regular maintenance, but [00:16:00] also expenditure. So the third set of locks, which started in 2016, was completely done by the Canal Authority, and they issued bonds which were backed by the Panamanian government, but they were Canal Authority bonds, and so they did the whole thing on their own to create those set of three new locks. It is true that the United States widened the Canal before the handover, they put money into widening the Canal.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: That was in 1999, was the handover.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Right. So it was before that it was widened. But since it's been handed over, the Panama Canal Authority has been the only one responsible for maintaining and investing in the Canal.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: If the fees aren't a problem, if management here has been run more or less like a business, although it does kick any excess profits to the government of Panama, there's some suggestion that Trump is worried about China and its influence there in the Canal. Of course, China has expanding its influence throughout [00:17:00] the Americas, Latin America in particular, and Trump suggested that Chinese soldiers are helping to operate this? It's the first I've heard of that.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Again, not true. And actually the Panamanian President answered that on either Christmas day, or the day after Christmas, saying that there are no Chinese soldiers in the Canal zone. There are five cargo ports and two of them are run by a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, which is a Hong Kong company traded on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The other three ports are run by US, Taiwanese and Singaporean commercial interests. But there are no soldiers in the Canal zone from China.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Is China, what about overall Chinese influence, right? Hutchison Whampoa is a Hong Kong based company. It used to be an old British trading company, and now local, I believe the shareholders are Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, and Hong Kong does answer now to China. How much should we be worried about that?

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, I [00:18:00] think it's something we definitely have to keep an eye on, because as you say, the influence of Beijing over Hong Kong and the so-called private sector in Hong Kong is something to worry about. But when I look at that problem and I think, okay, if that is a threat, what Trump should want to do is bring the Panamanian government closer to him and try to work with them to ensure security in the Canal. Instead, he's alienating a center right government, and Venezuela is sticking up for Panama right now. So I don't even understand the chess game. I mean, if he's trying to outsmart them, he's not doing a very good job.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, so that's an important point, which is the bullying here plays into the old El Norte, gringo imperialist, and the left in Latin America will make a lot of hay out of this. But what's the goal here? I mean, does Trump want to renegotiate the treaty? If he does, of course he'd have to [00:19:00] resubmit it to the US Senate. Does he want to lean on Panama to be able to make sure that it gets rid of those two Hutchison Whampoa concessions? And how's he going to do that if Panamanians say, "Well, you can't bully us, we're not going to cooperate," then what's his leverage?

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, I'm suspecting that someone complained to him about the price of getting through the Canal, and he took that complaint and he decided to tweet about it, and complain about it to the public. What I suspect will happen here is that he will say that he forced a negotiation, not unlike what he did with Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement. In the end, what he renegotiated with Mexico was very, very similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, but he declared victory and went home. So if he forces Panama to make some concession, who knows what it is, he will say that he won.

Why Elon Musk interferes in politics around the world - DW News - Air Date 1-3-25

DW HOST 3: Musk is supporting the far right [00:20:00] AFD party, even though it seems on par with Trump. Just a very thin look at their policies, that they are against bilateral partnerships with the USA, or even promoting electric vehicles. With that in mind, what do you think it is that Musk wants from this relationship?

JONATHAN KATZ: Yeah, well, one: Mr. Musk is not shy about endorsing or getting into the mix of the political fray. Particularly in US-allied countries like the UK and Germany, we've seen him try to play a role in Brazil and elsewhere globally. And he has reportedly and engaged with autocrats as well, like Mr. Putin and others. So, this is not a surprise that he's engaged. But one thing is certain, he does have the ear of incoming president Trump. And it's somebody that foreign leaders will certainly have to figure out how to deal with. But his interests in far right political [00:21:00] parties in Europe and globally is quite disconcerting. But it's pretty much par for the course from what role he took in the Trump reelection campaign that just passed as well. So I think Germany is getting a little bit of a dose of what the United States just went through, but other countries as well, including partners and allies.

DW HOST 3: Jonathan, you mentioned quite rightly what he got out of the US election campaign. Looking at what he achieved in the US, do you at least understand tactically why he would at least try and find another political ally in Germany, home to a very slowly adapting car industry?

JONATHAN KATZ: Yeah, I think there's the Elon Musk, his own economic interests and what he is seeking with partners globally. And then there's one that's playing this role with President Trump in his right ear or left ear. And I think the two don't really meet together in the middle. And he'll have to make a choice in 17 days when President-elect [00:22:00] Trump is inaugurated, about what role he's going to play. Cause you can only imagine, with President Trump's seeking to end the conflict in Ukraine, trying to address challenges posed by China and other issues globally, that you can't have somebody like Mr. Musk, who's traveling around the world creating problems for partners and allies that you're going to need to solve problems. So I think what you're seeing is that Musk has his own interests, but then there's the interest of the United States, and I think these things are going to come head to head. And so Mr. Trump will have to make a decision what role he wants Musk to play.

DW HOST 3: Jonathan, do you think he can achieve the same amount of clout in Germany or Europe as he enjoys in the U. S.? Is the German system really built to withstand a billionaire who seeks influence?

JONATHAN KATZ: When you look at polling numbers in Germany for the upcoming election in February, you've seen a very steady state in terms of polling. I think it's very unlikely in Germany, specifically, that [00:23:00] Musk will have the outsized influence he may have had in the U. S. election, and that's even debatable as well, in terms of his overall impact. And so I think it's really, Germany is a strong democracy. Citizens in the country have been through multiple elections before. There's strong politicians, political parties. Some may even like to see conflict with somebody like Musk publicly to gain more attention and to show a contrast between other political parties. But when we look at the numbers, I don't think this will have a huge impact on the outcome of the German election. AFD is unlikely to come to power in any which way based on the polling that we're seeing, and I don't think Musk will be able to push that polling number high enough for AFD to take power.

Is Musk Flirting With Fascism? - Politics unpacked - Air Date 1-3-24

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Let's talk about a man for whom consensus and cooperation and harmony is at the centre of his entire being. I'm referring, of course, to Elon Musk. He was spraying [00:24:00] more attacks against the government last night. Michael, a former Washington correspondent as well. It's got all sorts of things going on here in terms of Elon Musk's relationship with British politics and the UK's relationship with the US. It's the most, I would almost say, unprecedented thing we've seen. We've had people, obviously, like, Kennedy's father backing the Nazis and so on, you have kind of people with extreme views in America who have big impacts on European politics, but this is crazy.

MICHAEL BINYON: Well, we've never seen something like this before, particularly coming from somebody who thinks he is very well placed and close to Trump—I wonder how long that will last—but also is the world's richest billionaire, the richest man in the world.

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: I think he's the richest man that's ever lived.

MICHAEL BINYON: It's just mind boggling, more money than most countries have in their national budgets. In fact, more than almost anywhere outside, the Western world or China. But one wonders, why is he doing this? What is his aim? Is he trying to be a sort of [00:25:00] global statesman? Is he just shooting his mouth off to glorify himself? He's actually said things that are going to be deeply embarrassing to the Trump administration, particularly what he said about the AFD, the far right party in Germany, which has caused anger and fury there and doesn't really help anybody.

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: And the vice president, JD Vance, in fact, was invited to comment and said, I don't comment on foreign elections.

MICHAEL BINYON: Well, he is quite right, and sensible, and one wonders, What's the point of this? He does seem to have it in for Britain in a fairly old way. His father apparently was from Liverpool, so why is he so furious with Britain? I don't know. And particularly, ad hominem attacks on Starmer, accusing him of not pursuing the grooming scandals that went on around Rochdale and Northern England about a decade ago or so. It's just absurd. Why is he trying to bring discredit on the Labour government. What is it? And at the same time praising a convicted criminal, Tommy Robinson, who's in prison, saying that he should be [00:26:00] released, a far right extremist. You begin to wonder, is he flirting with fascism?

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Well, Gabby, Michael asked the question, What is Elon Musk up to? There's part of me that thinks this is a man, a very powerful and rich man, with an extremely warped sense of humor. Because we all rise to this. He says some things which are, in my view, utterly unacceptable, particularly the stuff about Tommy Robinson and the AFD. They are unacceptable. But a man that wealthy, who frankly doesn't have to give a fig about pretty much anything, maybe he's just doing it for the giggles, in a kind of perverse and weird way. Is there a strategy here?

GABY HINSLIFF: I think it looks to me like a sort of form of trolling on steroids, really, as if that form had to become its owner, almost. He, Musk acts like, it's like a kind of giant spinning Catherine wheel, that just goes round and round and round, sparks flying off in all directions, setting fire to things, almost at random. [00:27:00] And it's all about engagement, it's all about feeling. Is there something cultish about the way a lot of X users or certainly blue check users, the ones who've signed up to the whole monetizing package, think of Musk, it's almost, there's this kind of cult of reverence towards him and this feeling that I think he clearly enjoys being leader of the gang. There's something about Musk that wants to be, has always been seen as a bit of an oddball, has always been seen as dislikable, doesn't quite enjoy, has all this money but doesn't enjoy the respect for it, I think, or the kind of status that you perhaps might expect for that position of wealth and power from other people in business and kind of wants to be liked by someone and has found this crowd that does latch on to his every word and does go with everything he says.

I think the question for the British government in handling Musk, what do they do about Musk, is how long is this actually [00:28:00] going to last? And, Michael hinted at this. You've got two ginormous egos in a bag when you've got Trump and Musk in the same room, with very different agendas. Musk [has] not always been MAGA, he's not a true believer, he's criticised Trump in the past, you feel like he's got his own agenda, he's in it for commercial reasons, gives him a lot of protection to be allied with the US president, makes regulators in Europe think twice about going after him. So, how long does that partnership... but isn't really a partnership? How long can that last without one or other of them trying to set fire to the other?, is the kind of question. And in that case, to some extent, I think the British government is sitting back waiting to see how that plays out.

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: I think that's right. Donald Trump has already commented on whether Elon is after his job. And the fact that, in theory, Donald Trump will step down after this presidency, it's very telling that he felt compelled to do it. And I think it gave a kind of insight into what is going on [00:29:00] in Trump's head as much as Elon Musk's head. Clearly, obviously Elon Musk. is going to have a big impact on British politics if he carries on in the way he is. There is this talk of this 80 million pounds to Reform, and there's also potentially the kind of idea that Trump and Musk together normalise what Reform is going on about. Part of me thinks that if he does give the money to Reform, there'll be a kind of Great British backlash to foreign interference. What do you think, Michael?

MICHAEL BINYON: I think I agree entirely. I think it will look very tainted. It will look pretty shabby. And I think Farage would be very wise to keep his distance from that, particularly if Musk starts shouting about all sorts of other things, sounding off his opinions on, well, the far right in general. And equating Reform with some quasi-fascistic kind of ideas that he seems to be spouting. That's not where Reform want to go. They want to pull the mainstream-right over to them. They don't want the far-right. They don't want the nutters as part of [00:30:00] their image.

I also think there's, questions of law. Would they be allowed to accept such a massive donation? How would they declare it? How would it be processed through the normal channels. I actually, I don't think that's going to happen. But, yeah, he is trying to interfere. And one wonders why? It'd be interesting to see whether Lord Mandelson as the new ambassador in Washington, who's got this delicate task of trying to sweet talk Trump and make Labour appear the loyal friends of America that Britain always has been, how he's going to finesse the relations with Farage and also with obviously Musk.

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Absolutely. I mean, Gaby, if it wasn't so impactful and important to all our lives in some ways, what is going on is completely fascinating. It's interesting, we do endless opinion polls: Labour's up, Labour's down. We should be doing opinion polls about Elon Musk.

GABY HINSLIFF: Someone has, that's the interesting thing. And actually, his approval [00:31:00] ratings in the UK have fallen over the time that he's been in charge of Musk because people have reacted I think before all this, if you people thought of Elon Musk, they maybe thought about, you might have had some admiration for what he'd done with Tesla, or you might have thought he was doing interesting things with rockets, or you might have thought of him as a kind of tech pioneer and a bit mad, but, eccentric boffin. And now he's someone who's actively promoting fascism across Europe, and that's how he's primarily in people's heads. I think it's interesting this, I would suspect over time there's going to be a backlash, a commercial backlash against Tesla, against Musk, but it's, Do you really want to be seen driving something...?

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: Well, it is interesting that Tesla sales have declined. It may be because the Chinese are producing more cheap electric vehicles. It's very interesting the texts that are coming into the show. A lot of people saying we're getting it wrong about Musk and Musk represents mainstream opinion. But in terms of opinion polls, Gaby, [00:32:00] I was thinking, there should be an opinion poll now about if Musk gives Reform money, will it make you more or less likely to vote Reform? I'd be fascinated to see what that came out with.

GABY HINSLIFF: I guess it doesn't have a huge propensity on Reform voters because that's not, primarily, what's in their heads when they're choosing whether to revote [sic] Reform or Tory. I think probably this is more of a calculation, as Michael said, for Reform about what kind of strings come attached with that kind of money. And the sums that have been talked about, a hundred million pounds, I don't think any party should be getting a hundred million pounds from one single source. I don't care if that single source is Mother Teresa, not that she obviously has a hundred million pounds, that's not the point. You shouldn't be that dependent on one person because that person then effectively...

ED VAIZEY - HOST, POLITICS UNPACKED: [overtalking] Oh yes, well as the Tories found out to a certain extent... yeah, they...

Imperialist Fantasy: Historian Greg Grandin on Trump Threat to Retake Panama Canal, Invade Mexico - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-27-24

GREG GRANDIN: This is classic Trump. There’s no way the United States is going to fill out greater America. This is red meat for the Trump base. If you go to [00:33:00] Twitter, you can see all of these MAGA maps in which greater America is filled out from Greenland down to Panama. And it’s a fantasy. There is not going to be a kind of return to territorial annexation in any significant way. I mean, the United States is not Israel, right? In Israel, there is a Greater Israel actually being created. In the United States, it exists more in the kind of fantasy life of his rank and file. And I think that some of that is what is going on.

And let me just add, it’s Panama. Panama is one of the largest offshore money-laundering shelters in the world. By some accounts, some $7 trillion exists in these offshore accounts. And if he really wanted to make America great again, he would go after not the Panama Canal or worry about immigration, he would shut down — he would shut down the [00:34:00] ability of these offshore financing to function, and he would tax that money. And then we’d have high-speed trains. We’d have healthcare. We’d have a nation, as he likes to put it.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Well, just as we talked about Greenland and China and the U.S. interest in Greenland, what about the Panama Canal and the possibility of a larger canal being built through Nicaragua, and the role of China versus the U.S.? Is Trump seeing it in this context?

GREG GRANDIN: I think, I mean, obviously, Latin America and its relationship with China is always a geostrategic concern for national security types. And it has been, and has been for quite a while. And in terms of the Panama Canal in particular, there are alternatives on the table. [00:35:00] Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico has talked about creating an interoceanic corridor, a combination of roadways and trains, in that thin kind of waistband area of Mexico, that would compete with the Panama Canal. Nicaragua, of course, is run by a degraded version of the Sandinistas, but they’ve been in talks with China. But this has been going on for decades, so it’s unclear how real they were.

The thing about building alternatives to the Panama Canal is that this happens whenever — it’s been going on for quite a long time, for at least a century, because, of course, the problem with the Panama Canal, it’s not a — it’s a lock canal. It’s not a sea level canal. So it takes a long time to fill up the locks, bring them down, bring the ship across. And that’s [00:36:00] why the tariffs are so high. That’s why the fees are so high. It’s an enormous operation. So there’s been a dream of a sea level canal for over a century. And maybe the will there is to build it either in Mexico or Nicaragua, but, you know, it’s not anything I would hold my breath for, waiting to see happen. We’d probably have high-speed trains in the United States before that happened.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Interestingly, Trump’s pick for the ambassador to Mexico is Ron Johnson, whose military career began in Panama. In the '80s, he was stationed in El Salvador as one of 55 U.S. military advisers as the Salvadoran military and paramilitaries were killing thousands of Salvadorans. He was a specialist in covert operations, became a member of the elite U.S. Special Forces, informally known as the Green Berets, a highly selective unit that also included figures like Trump's pick for national security adviser, [00:37:00] Michael Waltz. He has pushed for the U.S. also invading Mexico, Greg, as we wrap up.

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, these are bad signs. Ron Johnson just brings us back to Iran-Contra, I mean, right into the heart of it. I mean, he was one of the so-called 55 military advisers on the ground in El Salvador while the United States was helping El Salvador build a death squad state. I mean, he’s got — and then he had a career in the Green Berets and onward to the CIA. He’s been — you know, he’s seen some things. And to name him ambassador to Mexico is, again, sending a strong signal.

Again, Mexico is Mexico. It’s stubborn. It has a strong commitment to sovereignty. On the other hand, it’s poor, and it needs capital, and the United States is the largest trading partner. Claudia Sheinbaum seems to be very astute [00:38:00] in not — you know, where we see obsequiousness on the part of Justin Trudeau, Sheinbaum has come back quite strongly, at least rhetorically, on Trump. But on the other hand, Mexico has cooperated with the United States on all sorts of things having to do with migration, and including helping the United States enforce a hard line on migration. I imagine that’s going to continue, no matter what the rhetoric of Sheinbaum. But Mexico does have a — has a much stronger commitment to the idea of sovereignty because of the history, where, you know, you started talking about territorial annexation. I mean, a third of Mexico was lost to the United States. Texas was lost to the United States. The United States almost took the Yucatán in 1948 along with Texas — 1848, along with Texas. So, that history is there.

And, of course, the people that Trump has put in, Marco Rubio as secretary of state, [00:39:00] Ron Johnson, Mike Waltz, I mean, they might as well move the State Department down to Mar-a-Lago or down to Tampa. I mean, it’s basically a Florida-based operation, which suggests that we’re going to see a lot of interesting rivalries or a lot of interesting conflicts with Latin America, which will not necessarily be — which might reveal some big cleavages, because one of the things that the Trump people want to do is build an alliance with right-wing Latin Americans. And you ain’t gonna do that by threatening to take back the Panama Canal.

The Weekender: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Destruction Part 1 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-27-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Within these wild fantasies, what we're now watching is the liberal permission structures, including places like CNN, New York Times, The Washington Post, we're now watching them begin to take Trump's rantings and treat them seriously.

And in that moment, what happens is that it activates [00:40:00] fantasies of American exceptionalism, and I want you to think about what America has felt like over the past half century or so, and it's been a depressive period because America has gone into decline as neoliberal globalism has taken over the consensus. And it's been what we're looking at now is a moment of manic imagination.

And this is one of the reasons, and Nick and I have talked about this particularly in our discussions about the movement from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, and the movement from the New Deal consensus to the neoliberal consensus. Just by going out and talking about American exceptionalism and its morning in America, it activates one of the defining frameworks that made [00:41:00] America such an aggressive and destructive nation.

This also includes White supremacy, chauvinistic nationalism, which basically says, of course, that the universe, it favors us. And as a result, we should be able to do whatever it is that we want to do. And it creates this illusion and delusion that is able to be taken advantage of by the wealth class, as they want to gather resources and further their extraction of wealth and consolidation of wealth.

Here, a lot of this has to do with climate change, the fact that we are inching up on an, an existential crisis that none of the shareholders and none of the wealth class actually want to take care of, because, of course, they have [00:42:00] created the situation in which climate change has grown as an existential threat. But also all of their incentives are based on cashing in on those problems.

So, because disaster capitalism means that this is going to take place unless something radical changes and shifts, what we have now is a mad dash to go ahead and gobble up as much stuff as humanly possible. So, of course, Panama Canal is about controlling access to shipping and resources. But when it comes to Canada and Greenland, there are a lot of people on the right who want to go ahead and gobble up some of that colder territory so that when things get warmer, America has more access to some of the more temperate places, as well as access to more resources and more labor.

Mexico is... man, [00:43:00] I got to tell you, I feel a lot of energy growing in terms of an American excursion, a limited war with Mexico, whatever they want to call that, which would include, as I talked about on a prior episode, teaming up with elements within Mexico to fight the drug cartels who are armed with American weapons and money to go ahead and take over a large part of their production and distribution.

I could see this stuff happening. And one of the reasons it could happen is because when Trump says this shit and when they push this absolute madness, like we should be looking at this and saying... this is the type of stuff that if you heard people screaming about it in a grocery store, you would get as far away from them as humanly [00:44:00] possible. But because Donald Trump has won the presidency a second time, and because the American foundation relies on normalizing power, particularly at that level, we now have to grant it permission. And places like CNN talking about this, and anybody listening to the Muckrake podcast knows that this is absolute horseshit. This is crazy horseshit. But a lot of liberal America, which is starting to normalize Donald Trump, and is starting to just move further and further to the right, while also being granted permission by places like CNN, even, MSNBC and the Democratic Party and a lot of these liberal platforms like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and The Atlantic for that matter, they're getting permission from them to go ahead and accept this stuff.[00:45:00]

And so as that happens, it becomes more possible. Reality starts to shift. It becomes more malleable. And for anybody who questions whether or not this is possible, all you have to do is go back to the beginning of the 21st century. And, where George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neoconservatives, who have all come under the umbrella of the Democratic Party now, had widespread support by all these liberal structures. Blame for the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror, it now largely goes to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, even as they've been laundered of any guilt of killing millions of people and raiding America's resources and then destroying the economy. It's just become this [00:46:00] blob, like we don't really talk about like how it happened or how it took place. We don't talk about the fact that the New York Times was one of the leading drivers towards that, or that after September 11th, it wasn't just Fox News that was pushing for this aggression. It was CNN. It was MSNBC. It was the Democratic Party.

So, that moment of mass psychosis, that is the environment that, if we're not careful, we are going to find ourselves in once more. And that environment, it only fuels this stuff. It only makes it more and more possible that it's going to happen, and quite frankly, and I want people to understand this, there is a relief among many people, even among liberals, there is a [00:47:00] relief when a strongman and chauvinistic policies start to take over.

Nobody wants to live in a declining country. Nobody wants to think about how the country that has defined them as, people and define their realities, no one wants to live in this sinking ship. So as a result, it suddenly becomes very exciting for some, the idea that we're going to have a reinvigoration of the American project.

This is one of the reasons why Ronald Reagan was able to win two terms so convincingly and why the Democratic Party was more than happy to become more conservative and more and more dedicated to neoliberalism.

Note from the Editor on the baby-brained ideas of the far right

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with the Geopolitical Economy Report exposing the farce that Trump is an isolationist. Wall Street Journal Opinion discussed Trump's play for the Panama Canal. [00:48:00] DW News looked at Elon Musk attempting to hold sway for the far right in Germany. Politics unpacked discussed Elon Musk flirting with fascism. Democracy Now! spoke with Greg Grandin about Trump's imperialist fantasies. And The Muckrake Political Podcast discussed the nature of media to normalize the radical ideas Trump is floating.

And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in the deeper dives section, But first a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads 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. As always, 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 we're trying something new and offering you the opportunity to submit your [00:49:00] comments or questions on upcoming topics. Since it takes us a bit of time to do all of the research and get everything together, I can actually give you a heads up about what's coming. And so you can potentially join the conversation as it's happening rather than after the fact. So next up, we are working on the topic of the so-called 'broligarchy' of super wealthy Silicon Valley and influencer bros making waves in the MAGA movement. Also, we have just started talking about the legacy of Jimmy Carter with a focus on where things stand today on some of his top issues, such as the environment, human rights, and housing for the poor. So, get your comments or questions in now for either of those topics for a chance to be included in the show. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

As for today's topic, I just have to mention a recurring issue for me. I feel like this happens a lot, but I first noticed it back in about 2009 during the debate over [00:50:00] healthcare, as Obama was pushing for reforms and listening to the counter-arguments against government healthcare. There was a lot of talk about the poor, helpless employees of the private health insurance companies who would be at risk of losing their jobs. The reason being, government administered, single payer insurance would be so much simpler and streamlined that billions of wasted dollars and thousands of unnecessary bullshit jobs could be removed from the system. For the individuals who may need to look for new jobs, I have compassion, but overall it seems like a small price to pay for such a massive benefit that would help everyone. Even those who just lost their jobs would at the very least. have health insurance coverage, something that can't be said now for people who find themselves unemployed. Hearing the conservative arguments about the need to save those wasteful jobs reminded me that I had had the very same thought when I was about [00:51:00] 10 years old. As a totally uninformed child, I'd heard that same piece of propaganda probably as part of a campaign against Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform proposals in the nineties. And I had been swayed by it. So, in 2009, I wondered if this is basically what right-wing beliefs are: ideas that make sense only to uninformed children. Well, this isn't only the second time, as I said, this happens a lot. But learning about Trump's approach to foreign policy has given me another flashback. As a child, I learned a collection of facts that I put together in a very logical way, I thought. I learned that the US had bought land from France in the Louisiana Purchase and from Russia when it bought Alaska. I also learned that the US was quite wealthy compared to other countries And had the general idea that, you know, the occasional civil war not [00:52:00] withstanding, countries more rarely go to war with themselves than with other countries.

So, I took all that information and asked, so why doesn't the US just keep buying more and more land, buy other countries, and make those countries part of the United States for the benefit of peace and stability?, I thought. So, a s a ten-year-old imperialist, I was at least doing it, I think, for humanitarian reasons. And I want to say, that it was pretty rock solid logic, for a child. But again, here we come to find that there are actually some on the far right, the president-elect included apparently, who have approximately the same grasp of the nature of the world, the people in it, and how they might feel about being colonized, as a child. So, it feels like this shouldn't be necessary to say, but it also seems like this needs to serve as a word of warning to [00:53:00] anyone who hears a conservative idea that sounds vaguely plausible. Just remember that their ideas are designed not necessarily by, but definitely for people with about a third grade understanding of any given issue. And they should be treated as such.

SECTION A: PANAMA

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics today. Next up Section A: Panama, followed by Section B: Manifest Destiny, Section C: Elon Musk, and Section D: Trump 2.0.

FLASHBACK: President Jimmy Carter Holds Signing Event For The Panama Canal Treaty - Forbes Breaking News - Air Date 12-29-24

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Mr. Secretary General and distinguished leaders from Throughout our own country and from throughout this hemisphere. First of all, I want to express my deep thanks to the leaders who come here from 27 nations in our own hemisphere 20 heads of state for this historic occasion. I'm proud to be here [00:54:00] as part of the largest group of heads of state ever assembled in the Hall of the Americas, Mr.

Secretary General. We are here to participate in the signing of treaties which will assure a peaceful and prosperous and secure future for an international waterway of great importance to us all. But the treaties do more than that. They mark the commitment of the United States to the belief that fairness and not force should lie at the heart of our dealings with the nations of the world.

If any agreement between two nations is to last, it must serve the best interests of both nations. The new treaties do that, and by guaranteeing the neutrality of the Panama Canal, the treaties also [00:55:00] serve the best interest of every nation that uses the canal. This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations now and in the future.

Under these accords, Panama will play an increasingly important role in the operation and defense of the canal during the next 23 years. And after that, the United States will still be able to counter any threat to the canal's neutrality and openness for use. The members of the Organization of American States and all the members of the United Nations have a chance to subscribe to the permanent neutrality of the canal.

The Accords also give [00:56:00] Panama an important economic stake in the continued safe and efficient operation of the canal and make Panama a strong and interested party in the future success of the waterway. In the spirit of reciprocity, Suggested by the leaders at the Bogota Summit, the United States and Panama have agreed that any future sea level canal will be built in Panama and with the cooperation of the United States.

In this manner, the best interests of both our nations are linked and preserved into the future. Many of you seated at this table have made known for years through the organization of American states and through your own personal expressions of concern to my predecessors in the White House, your own strong [00:57:00] feelings about the Panama Canal Treaty of 1903.

That treaty, drafted in a world so different from ours today, has become an obstacle to better relations with Latin America. I thank each of you for the support and help that you and your countries have given during the long process of negotiation, which is now drawing to a close. This agreement has been negotiated over a period of 14 years under four presidents of the United States.

I'm proud to see President Ford here with us tonight.

And I'm also glad to see Mrs. Lyndon Johnson here with us tonight.

Many Secretaries of State have been involved in the negotiations. Dean Rusk can't be here. He's endorsed a treaty, but Secretary of State William Rogers is here. We're glad to have [00:58:00] you, sir.

And Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is here.

This has been a bipartisan effort, and it's extremely important for our country to stay unified in our commitment to the fairness, the symbol of equality, the mutual respect The preservation of the security and defense of our own nation and an exhibition of cooperation which sets a symbol that is important to us all before this assembly tonight and before the American people in the future.

This opens a new chapter in our relations with all nations of this hemisphere and it testifies to the maturity and the good Judgment and the decency of our people. This agreement is a symbol [00:59:00] for the world of the mutual respect and cooperation among all our nations. Thank you very much for your help in making this happen.

The Rise and Fall of the Panama Canal - Code Switch - Air Date 4-17-24

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: What was easiest to find out, by far and away, was how the United States felt about the canal and what it was like for Americans to be there. That is very well documented. I mean, there was a newspaper called The Canal Record, which was sort of an indispensable source material for me because it was created specifically to document every new development of the canal construction, right? And it had everything in there from, like, how many cubic yards had been dug in a certain week to all the new clubs that were being formed, the play that the YMCA was putting on in the Canal Zone, like, all of the new things that this commissary in this particular town now stocked [01:00:00] as of this date, the train schedules. Like, it was every part of life in the Canal Zone for white Americans.

So then I was looking for, what was life like for Panamanians? You know, being half Panamanian myself, I wanted to understand what it was like to live through this time. One of the interesting things that I learned fairly early on, because I kind of came into it assuming that Panamanians had worked on the canal themselves.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yes, that's what I assumed, too.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: And I was disabused of that notion very quickly.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah. That was one of the most surprising things, like, oh, yeah, this is not - there is an army of brown people here...

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yes.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: ...But they are not necessarily Panamanian. That was really surprising.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. I mean, of - the reports vary, but 50,000 people who were on the, like, workforce at the canal, 357 were Panamanian.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Wow.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Right?

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: So you're talking, like, less than a percent, like, a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny...

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Like, [01:01:00] minuscule. And I was like, well - so this begged the question for me of, like, why, first of all, right?

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Mm-hmm.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Some of it was a feeling that Panamanians were indolent, lazy. There's a quote from a U.S. congressman who's unidentified, but it's in a report from William Sands, who was a diplomat, and he - the quote is, "these people are of no more use than mosquitoes and buzzards. They ought all to be exterminated all together."

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Whoa.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. I mean, so the feeling toward Panamanians was not one that was very positive.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Then there's also reports, oh, well, there weren't enough people in Panama; they didn't have actually enough of a population to draw from, which was also true; and they didn't speak English, which was also true in many cases. So if the United States were going to be the ones who were the foremans running the show, they needed people under them who could [01:02:00] understand when they were giving orders in English.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: OK, so fine. Now I understood Panamanians didn't work on the canal, but I also still just wanted to understand - this is happening in their country. It's the Panama Canal.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Right.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: So what is it like to live through a time when your country is being actually, you know, like, cut in half? And there was not a lot of material on that, and I found myself in a position where I was just basically forced to imagine it, which is - you know, that's what - the job of a novelist. I'm imagining other people's lives all of the time. But, yeah. I mean, I understood that there were sort of some people in Panama who were interested in the canal happening. They thought it would benefit Panama in the end. There were equally just as many people who were very suspicious of the United States coming in and building this canal, who didn't want to attach themselves [01:03:00] to this kind of world power in this dependent way. And so I just wanted to try to represent both of those sides a little bit, which you see through Omar, who is the 17-year-old boy.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: And Francisco.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: Yeah. And then Francisco, who's the opposite side of that.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Because that's one of the central conflicts in this book - right? - between Francisco and Omar. Francisco is a fisherman. He's a widower, and he absolutely detests the canal. He calls it La Boca because he sees it as this, like, gaping, rapacious mouth that the Americans will use to swallow up Panama. But Omar is his teenage son, and he's drawn to the canal, drawn to the prospect of working there, mostly because - the way you write him is he's bored with his life, And he sees it as an opportunity to do something bigger. And so this giant cleave in the land has run a giant cleave in this family. Did you find a lot of those divides in your research?

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: I mean, I found some. I found enough to be able to feel confident that I could write these characters and that both of them would [01:04:00] speak to a certain kind of perspective from that moment, right? I mean, I think for - in Omar's case, he's bored. And he's also just very lonely.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Yeah.

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: He's grown up in this house kind of at the outskirts of the city. And it's only been he and his father for all of his life. And he just wants to be part of something. And this happens to be the biggest something in the world at that moment. And so, you know, he wants to go and join it, much to the dismay of his father, who calls it the mouth - believes that it's going to swallow Panama. But, yeah, I felt like I needed to represent both sides of that through the Panamanian story.

But the other thread was the West Indians who came. And one day, I stumbled upon this trove. It was this most amazing discovery because in 1963, the Isthmian Canal Commission sponsored a contest where they asked people to submit letters [01:05:00] recollecting their time on the Canal Zone, like, during the construction. And they are the most amazing sort of insightful view into what it was like for these men as they were working on the canal. And it's in their voices. You can hear them coming off the page. You understand something about their whole lives. They talk about the reasons that they had come - the reasons that, in some cases, they stayed, because by 1963, you know, some of them were still in Panama and writing these histories. That was, like, a sort of turning-point moment for me in terms of the research and being able to understand the real, like, human element behind the canal.

GENE DEMBY - HOST, CODE SWITCH: Was there a specific story that, like, really jumped out to you that you remember?

CRISTINA HENRIQUEZ: I mean, there were specific lines, right? Like, it was amazing to me how many of the people didn't complain about the conditions. Like, they stated them very matter-of-factly. And then they would say - they would end their letters with things [01:06:00] like, you know, thank God to the Americans for the Panama Canal. And it's, like, reading that and then knowing, on the other hand, like, the number of deaths that had occurred - right? - and, like, the kind of danger that they were in at all times and that specter of death that was haunting them, that was shadowing them the whole time that they were working on the canal, and yet, to come out of that feeling, like, thank God to the Americans for the Panama Canal was always sort of amazing to me to see.

There was a line that is often quoted, but I found it very poetic and arresting, where one of the men says, the flesh of men flew in the air like birds many days.

But that just - it's like, OK, as a novelist, to read a line like that and to understand what they were up against, you know, and the reality day to day of, like - there was another one who said, one day, you see, like, Johnny in the morning; in the afternoon, he's dead. Like - it's like, that was how quick that things were [01:07:00] happening. Every day on the line, you would be friends with someone, and then they were gone.

And I think coming face to face with that as a novelist and then trying to, like, situate those characters within that context and think about then what it's like to wake up every day, walk down that mountainside and do this work for something that isn't even your country - for the benefit - like, many of them believed they were doing it for the benefit of all humanity. To have that kind of purpose and drive and doing this thing that was very dangerous and could cost you your life pretty easily

Mexico expresses support for Panama following threats from Trump - DW News - Air Date 12-23-24

DW NEWS: There are several issues relating to the canal. There's, of course I suppose, Trump's major worry, which is the Chinese management of two ports at canal entrances. Could you help us understand the significance of this Chinese presence, especially during what's coming, Trump's presidency?

MARIA BOZMOSKI: Panama [01:08:00] has a very close relationship with a number of countries, not just the United States, not just China. Panama was one of the first, was the first, actually, country in Latin America to join the Belt and Road Initiative back in 2018. And China does manage, does operate a Hong Kong subsidiary company, operates two of the ports in the Panama Canal, but I think it's important to remind the audience that the Panama Canal itself is operated by the Panamanian Canal Authority, which is an independent government agency, actually. It has a governing board of directors. The Panama Canal administrator is elected such that he or she overlaps administrations. So there's some sort of continuity despite whoever is president in Panama. And it's operated by [01:09:00] Panamanians, Panamanian engineers. And it has been the case for many years.

We see with the appointments that the incoming Trump administration has made that at the state department, it'll be very Latin America focused. And we're starting to see where that will go in the next four years. The secretary of state nominee, Marco Rubio, has a long career in the Senate, and is very much focused on Latin America.

DW NEWS: Right. Just wondering, as time goes on, what options does Panama have to address this issue? Because, of course, there is a seeming confrontational stance from the U. S., but it also depends very heavily on this for its economy.

MARIA BOZMOSKI: Yeah, like I said, Panama is a very open economy. It's an economy that has relations with a number of countries, not just the United States, not just China. The United States is actually the number one customer that goes through the Panama Canal. But the Panama [01:10:00] economy itself is focused on services. It's an economy that is focused on that industry, the services industry, the tourism industry, the logistics industry.

And I appreciate that the Panama canal is now making headlines around the world because it is such a vital piece of global infrastructure, around 6 percent of global trade goes through the Panama canal. And recently we've seen with the droughts and then the heavy rains that the canal has been having challenges. And so it is time to start to think holistically about how to optimize the operations of the canal, because the traffic that goes through there is so vital to global trade.

HOST, DW NEWS: Well, let's get the view from Panama, from Annette Planells, the publisher and president of La Prensa, joining us today from Panama City.

Welcome. Tell us, first of all, what kind of reaction there's been there [01:11:00] to Trump's sudden interest in the Panama Canal.

ANNETTE PLANELLS: Well, we received that information with concern and surprise, because there isn't anything new in the Panama Canal administration. There's not a thread of truth in what he's saying about a different kind of price for the American ships or that the Chinese are in any way administering the canal.

HOST, DW NEWS: Why do you think this has come up now? Were you surprised to hear the president-elect's comments?

ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yes, we were very surprised and we don't know what's gonna happen because we're a small country and our economy depends on foreign investment. And this kind of declarations can affect our economy in a deep way.

HOST, DW NEWS: So you're saying even the fact that Trump is even suggesting this could be damaging to Panama's economy. We know Panama's president has [01:12:00] roundly rejected Trump's comments. He's called it "an assault on Panama's sovereignty." What are people there making of his comments?

ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yeah, of course. We support the president of Panama 100 percent in this.

The Panama Canal has been part of our history from the day we started being a country in 1904, 1903. And the transition for the administration of the canal from the United States to Panama took at least 15 years where we prepared. And Panama has been very successful managing the canal. And we even increase its size for bigger ships, and it's a big part of our budget.

So his comments about Panama, even though they are not likely to be come through, it's it's very prejudicial to Panama's [01:13:00] economy.

HOST, DW NEWS: Tell us more about that. So you're saying that if Trump continues to make this an issue, regardless on whether he acts on it or not, it would have consequences for Panama's economy?

ANNETTE PLANELLS: Yes, it will. It will. Because Panama's economy is based on service and logistical around the canal and also financial services. We depend on the investment of other countries. So when he says something like that, people are going to be afraid to invest in Panama, and that's gonna cause us a lot of troubles in the economy.

SECTION B: MANIFEST DESTINY

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B: Manifest Destiny.

“We’re Not for Sale”: Greenlandic Member of Danish Parliament Responds to Trump’s Vow to Buy Island - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-27-24

AAJA CHEMNITZ: I have been representing Greenland in the Danish Parliament for almost 10 years, and I was a member of the Parliament back then, as well. I used to be a member of our own Parliament back home in Greenland before that.

And Greenland is not for sale. Greenland has never been for sale. Greenland will never be for sale. And it’s quite clear. The prime minister of Greenland has said that. And we would like to have [01:14:00] U.S. engagement. We would like to have collaboration with the U.S. But it’s very clear for us that Greenland is a self-governing country. We have our own Parliament, our own government. And anything, any decision that has to do with Greenland is something that is up to the Greenlandic people. And we have a saying in Greenland, which is, “Nothing about us without us.”

And I think it’s very important both for Trump but also for the U.S. to understand that Greenland has the autonomy for a lot of areas that we’re covering back home in Greenland ourselves. So, I’m representing Greenland on the areas that Denmark is covering in Greenland. So there’s a good and a close collaboration. And, of course, it could be better. That’s the way it is. But I think, in many ways, Greenland is really — you know, we’re taking care of our own business in many ways back home in Greenland.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, explain for people what this is all about. I mean, the first time when he was president, he was going to Denmark. [01:15:00] He canceled his trip, calling your prime minister at the time, a woman, a “nasty woman” for saying “no” to the possibility of the U.S. taking Greenland.

AAJA CHEMNITZ: It was because she was saying that it was an absurd idea. I still think it’s a crazy idea. And I think it’s, quite honestly, crazy to talk about expanding your empire. You can look at different places in the world right now where people are trying to expand their empire. I think that’s a crazy thing to even talk about.

So, back then, we said we’re open for business, we’re not for sale. That’s the way it is still for Greenland. And Greenland has a lot of autonomy ourselves. And therefore, the decision on what should happen with the future of Greenland is up to the Greenlandic people. And we have our own government, our own Parliament, and the decision is, therefore, something that should be discussed back home in Greenland. But [01:16:00] Greenland is not for sale, so it’s not going to happen.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to ask you about the strategic significance of Greenland for the United States. It’s valuable for what? Vast reserves of zinc, copper, iron ore, uranium. Can you talk about how the U.S. and China have competed for these reserves, including uranium?

AAJA CHEMNITZ: We have almost any kind of rare earth minerals that the U.S., but also EU, is looking for. And in many ways, we need investments when it comes to rare earth, but also raw materials. And we have almost any kind of raw materials in Greenland. So, I think it’s about having a collaboration both with Denmark, with EU, but also with the U.S., in order to make sure that we have a stronger position on the market when it comes to rare earth, because right now it’s more or [01:17:00] less a monopoly from the Chinese side. And therefore, I think it makes sense to collaborate on rare earth, but also on tourism, on education, on business development in total. I think that would make sense to have a bigger U.S. engagement. But to do it in that sense that Trump, the president-elect, has been doing it has been very disrespectful. So, in many ways, this is really something that the people of Greenland don’t like. And I think, in many ways, it just brings us further away from each other. So I really think we need to have a more diplomatic approach when it comes to collaboration with Greenland, which has a lot of autonomy already and is a self-governing country.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Aaja Chemnitz, as a member of the Denmark Parliament, can you talk about the Thule Air Base, which is now a space base? [01:18:00] The air base was owned by the United States. In 2013, Greenland lifted a ban on mining radioactive materials. How does that all connect?

AAJA CHEMNITZ: Pituffik Space Base was renamed from Thule Air Base a couple of years ago, and it was in respect for the Greenlandic people and the Greenlandic language. We’re an Indigenous community, and in many ways, it’s very important for us to focus on community, family, and then me. And in many other Western communities, it’s the other way around, so it’s me, it’s family, and then community. So I think it’s very important to understand that the Greenlandic way of living can be a little bit different from the Western way of living.

And in many ways, we have a modern good society. We have a lot of welfare. We have a lot of business development in Greenland, but we would like to see much more. We have said no to [01:19:00] uranium. This was the last election for the Parliament back home in Greenland. And it was very clear from the voters that we said no to uranium, because it’s an open-pit mine in the backyard of a city where there’s quite a lot of people living there, in South Greenland. But we’re pro-mining. We’re pro-business. We would like to see much more development going on in Greenland, and we would like to see U.S. and EU engagement to a larger extent than what we’re seeing right now.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And finally, we just have 30 seconds, but you’re chair of Arctic parliamentarians. If you can talk about how climate change has impacted Greenland? I mean, earlier this year, a study found Greenland’s ice cap is losing an average of 30 million tons of ice every hour due to the effects of the climate crisis. You have a president-elect now, Trump, who often, at the [01:20:00] end of many sentences, will say, “Drill, baby, drill.”

AAJA CHEMNITZ: You know, the climate change is affecting the temperature and the climate in Greenland four times as much as the rest of the world. And so it is in the Arctic, as well. So this is really affecting our everyday life. It’s affecting our hunters, our fishers, which are living off of this. And I think, in many ways, it’s really trying to understand climate change is not something that we have a discussion about is it really real. We know it’s real. We can see it’s real.

And in many ways, I think it’s important to do much more when it comes to the climate. So Greenland has signed up for the Paris Agreement, because we would like to do much more when it comes to a green transition. So, we’re investing in power, hydropower, in Greenland, to name just one example. So, it’s very important for us to have a much more green transition in order to make sure that we are not [01:21:00] polluting more than we should do.

Donald Trump’s New Manifest Destiny - WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch Part 2 - Air Date 12-26-24

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: You mentioned the teasing of or the bluster against Canada, calling Justin Trudeau a governor of the 51st state. Obviously meant to be cutting against Justin Trudeau, who the President doesn't much like and may be on his way out as Prime Minister of Canada. But there's the serious side of this, which is the threat the President made for 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports if they don't do enough to control the border on migrants coming over the border into America, and that threat seems to be roiling Canadian politics. Chrystia Freeland, the Finance Minister, resigned not too long ago from Trudeau's government. Trudeau's government is in danger of toppling, and let's listen to the Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, talk about Canadian exports to the United States.

Doug Ford: I want to sell more electricity, more power to our US friends, and closest allies in the world, but that's a tool that we have in our toolbox. [01:22:00] We power over 1.5 million homes in Michigan, and companies in Michigan and New York state, and Wisconsin. That's the last thing I want to do. I want to sell more energy to the US. I want to sell more critical minerals to the US. Again, we are the closest trading partner, closest allies. We do $1.3 trillion of two-way trade. That's more than Japan, China, UK, and France combined. I just feel we aren't the enemy.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, a little implication there, Mary, that if Trump would impose 25% tariffs, Canada has a couple of levers too.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Yeah, it's going to get mighty cold in upstate New York if Quebec Hydro cuts off the electricity supply. I think what Trump doesn't seem to really think about before he opens his mouth is this concept of reciprocity. And lots of our trading partners have used it over the years to reverse special interests, like remember the [01:23:00] steel tariffs that Bush put on, and American agriculture felt the response from Mexico very sharply, and those tariffs were removed pretty quickly. So if he wants to start a trade war, I guess what Premier Ford is saying is that Canada is ready.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Yeah, I didn't know that Ontario exported that much electric power to Wisconsin, Michigan on the whole.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Quebec Hydro also.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: That's the whole northern tier. New York State's interesting. He brought that up, because with New York State government not allowing the development of fracking and blocking pipelines to deliver natural gas from the Marcellus Shale to New York State and New England, you could end up with a real shortfall there. And it's not inconceivable, it could be blackouts.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: It's not the only response that either Canada or Mexico will have. Also, there'll be lots of other opportunity for reciprocity and could get ugly.

PAUL GIGOT - HOST, POTOMAC WATCH: Well, Donald Trump is unpredictable and he [01:24:00] often, it's fair to say, pops off to try to get attention, try to drive an agenda, and it's sometimes very difficult to figure out what his real goal is. And in this case, I'd say the Greenland thing makes a certain amount of sense if he could be persuasive to the Greenland people. But the way he's going about Panama strikes me as counterproductive and something that could create a fair bit of trouble if he doesn't do it in the right way.

MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY: Well, he has to find a way to climb down from this. I mean, he's made it such a big issue over the Christmas holiday that everybody's watching, and as it becomes more and more clear that a lot of what he's saying isn't true, he probably will have to back off. I'm not sure how.

WTF?! Trump Threatens NEW WAR...with MEXICO?! - MeidasTouch - Air Date 11-28-24

BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: This is the new reporting out of Rolling Stone headline. Team Trump debates, quote, how much should we invade Mexico? In Trump's government in waiting, the only question is how massive the U. S. assault on Mexican drug cartels should be. I want to emphasize here, that's not if we should invade Mexico, which [01:25:00] would be crazy enough, but, quote, how much should we invade?

Mexico. I'm going to get into this new reporting in just a minute, but first I want to remind you that this is not the first time Trump has suggested this. Here's a clip from 2023 of Republican James Comer saying that we should have our military on the border and troops in Mexico. He also said that Trump.

Ordered the military to bomb meth labs in Mexico, but they refused to follow orders. And he said that that was a mistake. Watch this.

REP. JAMES COMER: I believe we should have a military presence at the very least on the southern border, if not across the border. One of the things we learned post Trump presidency is that he had ordered a bombing of a couple of, uh, Fentanyl labs.

Uh, uh, crystal meth labs in Mexico just across the border. And for whatever reason, the military didn't do it. I think that was a mistake.

BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: In 2023 Trump ally, Republican Lindsey Graham said he couldn't think of a better use of our military than to bomb Mexico. Watch [01:26:00] this.

SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: They're at war with you. You need to be at war with them.

I can't think of a better use of our military than to blow up labs. In Mexico, killing young Americans.

BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: And if you remember back in 2022, there was a whole lot of reporting out there saying that Trump frequently asked about bombing Mexico while he was president. There was this piece about reporter Maggie Haberman's book that said, quote, Trump weighed bombing drug labs in Mexico after he mistook advisor

new book shows. Then there was Trump's former secretary of defense, Mark Esper, who came out with a book called a sacred oath. And in that book, he also mentioned that Trump spoke about attacking Mexico. Per Esper, Trump wanted to bomb Mexico and then lie about it. Esper wrote, quote, On at least two occasions in the summer of 2020, once in the Oval Office and a second time in his private room just off the Oval, the President approached me about a sensitive issue.

Slightly [01:27:00] hunched over with his hands motioning in front of him, like a quarterback gesturing for a long snap, he asked me if the military could, quote, shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs and take out the cartels. Standing close to me. Yes, he spoke. The president complained that the Mexican government isn't doing enough, getting irritated as he spoke and adding quote, they don't have control of their own country.

If we could just knock them the drug labs out, he said, this would do the trick. What do you think? He said. He asked. These conversations were quite troubling, to say the least. On one hand, I shared his concern about illicit drugs being trafficked into our country and respected his passion for wanting to stop this dangerous trade.

But asking the U. S. military to shoot missiles into a sovereign country, and worse yet, our friend and neighbor, definitely was not the way to go about it. Working hard to conceal my shock at this idea. I said, Mr. President, we could do that. And as much as I want to stop these drugs to shooting missiles into Mexico would be illegal.

It would [01:28:00] also be an act of war. I recommended that we look for more ways to help the Mexican government deal with the problem. Problem, such as increasing the training, intelligence and equipment that we are providing them. We should also take another look at ideas that were tabled in the past. But to simply launch air or missile strikes into Mexico would not only violate International Law.

It would also destroy our relationship with Mexico and damage our global standing I said. Trump took these objections piercing his lips as he. He listened. He then suggested we could just shoot some Patriot missiles And take out the labs quietly, adding preposterously that quote, no one would know it was us.

He would simply deny that we launched them. I had seen Trump spin his own reality before, so I had no doubt he was confident in his ability to persuade people. We had not launched the attacks. However, we did not live in a world where the United States could strike another country and no one would believe the missiles were not ours.

I also couldn't imagine the president would resist. [01:29:00] Taking credit for the attack. Anyway, it was nonsense, plain and simple. If I hadn't seen the look on the president's face, I would have thought it was all a joke. He wanted to get this planned and done by labor day around. Then he said, just a few months away, I was speechless.

Trump thought this was the only way we could really stop this terrible trade. I took a long pause and then said again, quote, this would be an act of war, Mr. President. And there would be no way. To keep it quiet, Esper then went on Fox and Fox host Brian Kilmeade, of course, tried to justify these comments by Trump.

And Esper again reiterated that what Trump was suggesting was illegal and an act of war. Watch this.

MARC ESPER: With regard to shooting missiles into Mexico, yes, I thought that was an act of war. It was illegal. It should not happen. And those things should be discussed. And we did have a meeting, a National Security Council meeting, I describe it in a book.

Where we sat around the situation room and discussed how to address the issue with cartels.

BRETT MEISELAS - HOST, MEIDASTOUCH: Within Donald Trump's government and waiting, there is a fresh debate over whether and how thoroughly the president elect should follow [01:30:00] through on his campaign promise to attack or even invade Mexico as part of the war he's pledged to wage against the powerful drug cartels.

Quote, how much should we invade Mexico, says a senior Trump transition member. That is the question. It is a question that would have seemed batty for the GOP elite to consider before, even during Trump's first term, but in the four years since, many within the mainstream Republican centers of power have come around to support Trump's idea to bomb or attack Mexico.

Trump's cabinet picks, including his choices for secretary of defense and secretary of state have publicly supported the idea of potentially unleashing the U. S. military in Mexico. So has the man Trump has tapped to be his national security advisor. So has the man Trump selected as his borders are.

Thanks so much. To lead his immigration crackdowns. So have various Trump allies in Congress and in the media. Trump who has routinely and falsely promoted himself as the candidate who would stop endless wars now wants to lead a new conflict just south of [01:31:00] our nation's border. But at this moment it is in the words of one Trump advisor, quote, unclear how far he'll go on this one.

The source adds, quote, if things don't change, the president still believes it's necessary to take some kind of military action against these killers. Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a quote, soft invasion of Mexico in which American special forces, not a large theater deployment, would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.

Indeed, this is a preliminary plan that Trump himself warmed to in private conversations. This For this story Rolling Stone spoke to six Republicans who have each talked to the twice impeached former and now future president about this topic. Some of these sources have briefed trump on these policy ideas in recent weeks.

These proposals of varying degrees of violence severity Include drone strikes or airstrikes on cartel infrastructure or drug labs, sending in military trainers and advisors to Mexico, deploying kill [01:32:00] teams on Mexican soil, waging cyber warfare against drug lords and their networks, and having American special forces conduct a series of raids and abductions.

of cartel figures. In some of these private conversations, including during this presidential transition period, Trump has told confidants and some GOP lawmakers that he plans to tell the Mexican government that they need to stem the flow of fentanyl to America somehow in a span of several months or else he will send in the U. S. military. As Rolling Stone has reported since at least last year, Trump has solicited specific battle plans and different military options for attacking Mexico.

SECTION C: MUSK

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next, Section C: Elon Musk.

Musk continues to attack Starmer over handling of historic child abuse - Channel 4 News - Air Date 1-3-25

HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: Now, for the second day in a row, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, has been criticising the Prime Minister on his social media platform, X. The row has escalated since yesterday, when it was revealed that Home Office Minister Jess Phillips had rejected calls for a government led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation in Oldham, saying [01:33:00] instead it would be better for the UK.

For local council to commission it themselves, as Rotherham and indeed Telford had done previously. Now Musk has taken aim at Zakir Starmer's time as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Kemi Nzerem joins me now. Kemi, what's, what's afoot? Alex, as you say, Donald

KEME NZEREM: Trump's current right hand man has been sending a barrage of increasingly incendiary tweets, criticising.

Sakhir Starmer in connection with the prosecution of, uh, child rape gangs. Uh, today, uh, the tweets intensified, a particularly inflammatory one using very strong language, I must warn you, uh, accused, uh, Sakhir of being, and I quote here, complicit in the rape of Britain. Now, all of this obviously presents number 10 with a bit of a, a conundrum, to respond or not to respond.

So far, they have said. Nothing, but the health secretary this morning, before Mr. Musk really got going, um, had this to say [01:34:00] about actually working with Mr. Musk.

WES STREETING MP: Some of the criticisms that Elon Musk has made, I think are, um, are misjudged and certainly misinformed, but we're willing to work with Elon Musk, who I think has got a big role to play with his social media platform to help us and other countries to tackle this serious issue.

So if he wants to work with us and roll his sleeves up, we'd welcome that.

HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: Because it's not quite clear whether Elon Musk's assault on Exxon are helpful or unhelpful to Labour. Actually, you can make a case either way, but of course it's not just the Labour Party affected, is it? There is another party in all this.

KEME NZEREM: It's not just the Labour Party. Recall that Mr. Musk recently met with Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, reportedly offered to bankroll Reform too. Well, he's also been tweeting about, rather controversially, I must say, about the jailed, uh, Far right agitator Stephen Yaxley Lennon, who you and viewers may know better as Tommy Robinson.

Well, this evening, Reform began a series of [01:35:00] events, conferences, mini conferences, if you like, ahead of the local elections. And Mr. Farage was asked, directly, whether he agreed with what Mr. Musk has been tweeting.

NIGEL FARAGE: He has a whole range of opinions. Some of which I agree with very strongly, and others of which I'm more reticent about.

Oh, having him as a supporter is very helpful to our cause. I mean, goodness me. I mean, he's an absolute hero figure, particularly young people in this country. So yes, he's very helpful indeed. Now look, everyone says, well, what about his comments on Tommy Robinson? My position is perfectly clear on that. I never wanted Tommy Robinson to join UKIP.

I don't want him to join Reform UK, and he won't be.

KEME NZEREM: So there remains an unanswered question here. Consider the special relationship. Well, Donald Trump will be president of the USA again in less than a fortnight. To what extent does it really matter to UK diplomacy, to UK politics, what Elon Musk thinks?

HOST, CHANNEL 4 NEWS: One of many unanswered [01:36:00] questions, I suspect. Kemi, thanks very much indeed. Now, when I spoke earlier to Sir David, I asked him what he made of Elon Musk's comments. very much.

SIR ED DAVEY MP: I think, uh, he's wrong. Uh, he doesn't really understand what's going on in, in our country. Um, his comments, for example, on these gangs, shows he doesn't even understand the facts.

So, uh, I, I hope we won't give him, uh, any more attention because he, he doesn't understand our country. Uh, and, uh, I think we as politicians and, and, and the media here. should have the debate focused on people who do understand what's going on.

Elon Musk drives Trump towards 'war' with Europe - Time's Radio - Air Date 1-3-25

HOST, TIMES RADIO: The U. S., uh, President elect, I should say, has announced that Britain is making a very big mistake, a very big mistake with its windfall tax on North Sea oil producers. Donald Trump, who has pledged to increase U. S. oil and gas production, has called on Britain to open up the North Sea, open up the North Sea and get rid of windmills, which is a very Trumpian thing to say, I guess.

Uh, but what has sparked Trump's outrage at the UK government. We're going to talk, of course, [01:37:00] to Theo now, uh, about this. Why is, is this strategic, or is this just Trump sort of sitting on the toilet saying the first thing that comes into his head?

THEO USHERWOOD: It's part of, I guess, a, an America First strategy, and it relates to a US based firm, uh, which has the rights to, um, or has the rights and is to explore for, uh, and drill for oil and gas in the North Sea.

Um, and of course there has been, um, um, The windfall tax was put up, um, by Rachel Reeves in the budget on oil and gas profits in the North Sea to the tune of, uh, so we now have a headline rate of, uh, 78, uh, 78 million pounds. So in terms of, Where we find ourselves, it's uh, only January the 3rd, but the government has got itself into its second transatlantic, uh, round.

This time it's with the man himself, Donald Trump, who is venting his anger, as I said, uh, at the U. S. oil, as the U. S. oil companies pulled its operations, uh, from the North Sea amidst surging taxes on oil and gas. Now, [01:38:00] he was commenting, Mr. Trump was commenting on an article that the U. S. oil giant, Apache, uh, was quitting the North Sea because of, Uh, the windfall tax on his profits.

Mr. Trump then wrote on, uh, Truth Social. This is not on X. He wrote, uh, the U. S. is making a very big mistake. Open up the North Sea. Get rid of, uh, the windmills. Uh, of course, this is a man who boiled down his energy policy during the presidential election to the simple maxim, uh, drill, baby, uh, drill. And, uh, he campaigned on a promise to increase oil and gas production, uh, during his second term.

Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, of course, since taking office, have taken the UK in the opposite direction since the election. The Labour government is committed, remains committed, to banning new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea. At the same time, as I said, Rachel Weaves, the Chancellor, increased the windfall tax on rising energy profits introduced by Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, incidentally.

Uh, Jeff, following, uh, Russia's invasion of, uh, Ukraine, [01:39:00] uh, it's Octo in October's budget, uh, the, uh, the windfall tax jump from 35 percent to 38%, increasing the headline, uh, rate of tax on North Sea Line and gas to 78%, so I was just correcting myself, um, from earlier, move, uh, which has been extended to, uh, 2030, and it's prompt and it's that rise which has prompted Apache, based in Texas, To announce plans that it plans to end all production in the North Sea by December 2029 because of what it calls, and I'm quoting here, the onerous financial impact of the energy profits levy.

The broader picture is not much better either because Offshore Energies UK has previously warned that the windfall tax could result in the loss to the UK economy of around 13 2029, putting 39, 000, 30, 000. 35, 000 jobs at risk.

HOST, TIMES RADIO: So I guess there might be some sympathy for the idea that these windfall taxes are anti competitive.

You could see why strategically Trump might choose to manoeuvre [01:40:00] around this issue. But when you look at saying something like get rid of windmills, that's just nakedly, that feels potentially nakedly provocative. Yes, and,

THEO USHERWOOD: and, and, you know, it comes off the back of what, uh, Elon Musk, who is, of course, leading Trump's, uh, Department for Government, uh, Efficiency, uh, has been tweeting over the last, uh, couple of days.

As I said, this is the second row, uh, Jeff, between the incoming Trump administration and the UK, uh, government after Elon Musk, uh, hit out at the decision by the Home Office Minister Jess Phillips, uh, not to grant permission for a public inquiry into Trump. Into the grooming scandal in Olden. The question really is, where does it go from here?

Is this a pattern now that we're gonna see throughout, uh, 2020, uh, five? And I just point you, um, if I can just to Patrick McGuire's common co column on page 19. The Times, of course, you can, uh, read it with a subscription, uh, on the. Times app, which offers some clues as to how Downing Street is thinking about, um, this, uh, particular, uh, problem.

Now they can either engage, as Patrick writes, with, uh, [01:41:00] Elon Musk, uh, the bill the billionaire, uh, tech op entrepreneur, or Elon Musk, the internet troll. I think they want to do, uh, both. Uh, the former, and that's what, you know, Patrick's writing, uh, about, because that's what interests Rachel Reeves and, uh, Wes Streeting, who both have a, hold a great deal of store about when it comes to new technologies, and particularly, uh, AI, uh, they've got Peter Mandelson, the incoming, uh, UK ambassador to Washington, uh, who's looking to build bridges potentially, but not formally, of course, using the services of Nigel Farage.

Or indeed, possibly he could turn, uh, to Tony Blair, but that's not going to happen. Do

HOST, TIMES RADIO: you, do you think when you talk about building bridges that there might be some regret in the Ostama administration of not inviting him to that investment seminar?

THEO USHERWOOD: Yes, I think Because it does

HOST, TIMES RADIO: seem to have accelerated how Elon Musk feels about the UK.

THEO USHERWOOD: I think, I think there's also some, you know, If you look back, um, when it comes to, when it comes to not just Elon Musk, but Donald Trump, you know, they sent over advisers to campaign with the dem sent over activists to campaign voluntarily, [01:42:00] albeit with the Democrats during the election campaign. That was seen as being an unwise move.

Yes, it had been done before, but we're in a new world order now, aren't we? And I think also, there are comments which, You know, previously made by the likes of David Lammy, uh, Sadiq Khan, were being very critical of Donald Trump, and they, they hadn't made, they hadn't had the forethought to think that being in opposition, and then there's a jump between being in opposition and then being in government, and there's also a jump, of course, um, where you come from Donald Trump going from being the outgoing president, uh, left office in 2020 under a cloud, and then he's come back.

And I don't think anybody within Labour had anticipated that that was going to happen, and now they find themselves having to deal with him.

HOST, TIMES RADIO: But it feels like at the moment the policy from Labour is to say very little in direct response. response to some of these more inflammatory statements. How long can that go on for?

Is there a point where it's politically wise for them to get on the front foot in reaction to some of these? Because let's be honest, some of the things, Elon Musk has a lot of fans, but some of the [01:43:00] things he's been tweeting are downright inaccurate.

THEO USHERWOOD: Yes, and there's also frustration, I think, on the right, and there's a report out this afternoon saying there's some quite senior figures on the leading, uh, On the right of British politics who are saying that Elon Musk, you know, trying to get to the team Trump to advise Elon Musk not to tweet support for Tommy Robinson, that there's a recognition that that is not helpful, that Tommy Robinson is beyond the pale, and that actually they need to keep, you know, they respect the support of Elon Musk.

Of course, Elon Musk has been talking to Reform UK about large donations and support by using his platform X. But actually, by Tweeting support, you know, tweeting support for Tommy Robinson, who is in prison having breached a court order and serving an 18 month jail term. That is not something that is particularly helpful to the cause of the right.

HOST, TIMES RADIO: I mean, for a government that already, you know, generally feel on the back foot, are going into 2025 quite embattled, it feels like one of those things that might just take up a hell of a lot of budget. bandwidth, uh, this year and it'd be quite exhausting. It feels like at some point will the Starmer [01:44:00] team have to come up with a more active strategy.

THEO USHERWOOD: I think, I think when you, when you look at just how inflammatory and you mentioned, Jeff, just how inflammatory some of those tweets are from Elon Musk. They are, when you read them, they can be read no other way that they're looking to destabilise the British government. And we're, we're not alone in this, he's gone after Olaf Schultz's uh, Twitter feed.

The Chancellor of Germany has gone after his left leaning government, he's taken aim at other European leaders as well. And there is going to, you know, there is a hope, and Patrick writes about this towards the end of his column, there has to be a hope that at some point, you know, Donald Trump has to make a strategic decision about whether his government is going to be right or wrong.

for Europe, that Europe is going to be an ally, uh, European nations are going to be allies of the United States, or in effect, is Elon Musk going to be allowed to continue, uh, his efforts to destabilize those governments and find the U. S. in effect, by dint of the fact that Elon Musk is within the, the, the tent, the Donald Trump [01:45:00] tent, is in effect declaring, you know, in a war with, with Europe, to put it, to put it mildly, because of the way that he's going after the, the, the Stalmer administration.

SECTION D: TRUMP 2.0

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, Section D: Trump 2.0.

A Geopolitical Check-Up - Open Source with Christopher Lydon - Air Date 12-26-24

CHAS FREEMAN: It is now almost 80 years after the end of World War II. It is 80 years after the end of World War II in Europe. And yet the United States still garrisons it and takes responsibility for its defense. We treat NATO as our enemy. sphere of influence in Europe, uh, which is precisely why the Russians objected to it appearing in Ukraine.

Everywhere that NATO expands, American troops and weapons follow. Uh, so basically we were asking the Russians to accept the equivalent of a Chinese military presence in Mexico or Canada. Uh, which obviously we would not accept. I think Mr. Trump is right that the relationship with Europe needs a fundamental readjustment.

Europeans must take more [01:46:00] responsibility for European defense. They cannot continue to have a free ride and to avoid decisions by depending on the United States. And he has broken a cycle which is important, and that is, we have had a habit of saying to the Europeans, you must do more in defense, but then adding.

But if you don't, we'll do it for you, which deprives them of any incentive to get their act together. Uh, in effect, there is a danger that the United States by adopting a more America first posture is not increasing its influence in the world, not leading, not making America great again, but diminishing American influence in isolating us from the fastest growing economies

and fastest, most effective incubators of technology in the world. And here, uh, the policy toward China is a case in [01:47:00] point. China now has something over one fourth of the world's STEM workers, scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians. It is innovating in a remarkable way, not just in the military arena, although that is notable, but But in terms of many, many other aspects.

So, Uh, we are not effectively responding to a world in which Anglo American or trans Atlantic hegemony is being displaced by the rise of other economies and peoples and the resurgence of those who had been battered down, like the Russians. So, We've lost political influence. Militarily, we remain strong, but the balance of power militarily has shifted toward China.

Their own modernization. Their own military modernization has in many ways outpaced ours. Uh, they have rail guns on their ships. We tried to develop that [01:48:00] technology and could not do so. Their air to air missiles outrange ours. Their air force is a match for ours now in the region. And maybe beyond that, uh, they have developed radars that can penetrate our stealth technology, or so they claim.

And they are modernizing their nuclear forces and expanding them in response to our expansion and modernization of our nuclear forces. I just heard that the outgoing American ambassador to Beijing, uh, Nick Burns, who's a very, very fine and accomplished diplomat, in his farewell address. assessment of his own activities, claimed that U. S. China relations had been stabilized. But ironically, as he said that, the Chinese were running the largest exercise against Taiwan and the American forces coming to its aid that they ever have done. All three regional commands in China on the coast participated in this. Uh, there were [01:49:00] hundreds of vessels and aircraft in the air and they were deployed not just to intimidate.

or invade Taiwan, but they were deployed beyond Taiwan to prevent anyone coming to Taiwan's aid. So how this can count as stabilization is quite beyond me. And I think Mr. Trump faces a real problem. He may be dealing with it creatively. He has invited Xi Jinping, the president and the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party to attend his inauguration.

This is unprecedented. Have we heard back yet? I don't think we will. I think this is a symbolic gesture by Mr. Trump, and it has two positive elements. One, he's signaling to the Chinese that even if he's about to mug them with tariffs, he wants to keep the possibility of a deal open. That is positive. And second, he is in tune with his own philosophy, arguing that problems with China can only be solved at the top, uh, that [01:50:00] his entourage, his Secretary of State designate, uh, Marco Rubio, uh, you know, can take care of other problems, but that he himself will engage, uh, with the Chinese.

So this is a gesture, a symbolic gesture. I don't think, however That he's correct, that the Chinese can wheel and deal at the Xi Jinping level. Xi Jinping is primus inter pares, he is the core of the Chinese leadership, but that leadership is collective. China has politics too.

CHRISTOPHER LYDON - HOST, OPEN SOURCE: It's my cue to reframe the conversation around your own rather amazing history with China.

You made your bones as a diplomat as a very young man. U. S. Foreign Service Officer, still in your twenties. Interpreting Richard Nixon in this way. And Mao Zedong to each other in those breakthrough talks in 1972, that week in Beijing that changed the whole world. But there [01:51:00] was this puzzle that was not solved in 1972, the matter of what's to do with the other China, which claims sovereignty of the whole place.

Nationalists who repaired to the island of Taiwan and have thrived incredibly ever since. But it's now Donald Trump's puzzle, his riddle, his answer. To wrestle with, and I want to know how you'd advise him. I'm also trying to picture Donald Trump as a, as a reversioning of Richard Nixon. It was not a popular move Richard Nixon made at the time.

He was a gambler. It was a long shot in a certain way. And I wonder if Donald Trump could ever conceive of himself as being in something of a similar spot. Time for a very bold, improbable move.

CHAS FREEMAN: Well, Mr. Trump is clearly capable of that, as he demonstrated in his handshake and embrace of Kim Jong un, the North Korean leader [01:52:00] in the DMZ at Panmunjom, and his unsuccessful efforts to produce a rapprochement between Pyongyang and Washington.

So he shares with Richard Nixon an indifference to protocol. Uh, and a willingness to break precedent in the broad interest, but he's a very different individual. Uh, Richard Nixon was also a rather strange personality, but he was a successful politician for many years and he grew into a statesman. He was intimately familiar with international affairs.

Uh, he had traveled the world, he had debated our adversaries. He was a gifted advocate in the courtroom. And, um, very different personality. He also had the benefit of, uh, of a compelling strategic incentive to reach out to China, namely his realization that Soviet threats to attack and [01:53:00] subdue China would remove a key piece from the geopolitical chessboard and had to be prevented.

He was determined to place China once again under American protection, as we did in World War II, when we had very little expectation that Chiang Kai shek's government would make any gains against the Japanese who had invaded China. But, They could serve the purpose of tying down an enormous number of Japanese troops and diverting Japanese attention while we conducted our war in the Pacific.

So, we made China essentially a protected state. Uh, we declared that its continued survival was essential to our strategic interests. And Richard Nixon did the same with the People's Republic of China in 1972. But those compelling strategic arguments have been replaced by other arguments that few people [01:54:00] find quite as compelling.

It's compelling because they're not military. Climate change. China is in the lead internationally in dealing with climate change. Its technology is the most advanced in the renewable energy area and it annually installs solar and wind power that is equal to the existing stockpile of all the rest of the world combined.

It is way in the lead in that and we could learn a great deal and we could benefit a great deal from harnessing that technology. But guess what we've done? We have embargoed silicon from Xinjiang on human rights grounds, which are pretty dubious. And we accused the Chinese of genocide in Xinjiang when they re educate people but don't kill them.

And we say that there is no genocide in Gaza when people are being murdered en masse. So this has no credibility, but just recently the Biden administration just put massive tariffs on [01:55:00] imports of solar panels from China. That may help us develop our own industry, but it will not be as advanced nor will it be as economic as what the Chinese produce.

We have gone out of our way. to block Chinese companies from other markets. But in the process, we've overlooked the fact that they have developed those markets. And we are now a declining factor in their international trade. So the influence we once had from interdependence with China is attenuated.

They don't want to have a trade war with us. But they know how to deal with one, and they have begun to do so. They have just embargoed under export controls exports of rare earths, which are essential for our defense industry and for us to make semiconductors here, and it will take us years to overcome these impediments, they are [01:56:00] replicating with us what we have done to them, uh, because we have been embargoing, blocking, export controlling, and cutting supply chains with them like mad.

And they're now reciprocating, which they hadn't done before. So I think it's fair to say that we are now in full economic war with China, with only Mr. Trump's arrival on January 20th, uh, needed to escalate it.

The Weekender: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Destruction Part 2 - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-27-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: The Republican Party has taken its marching orders largely from Fox News and largely from the institutes and think tanks that are funded by the wealth class that helped give birth to the new oligarchical class.

Going back to the George W. Bush era, there were daily talking points that were handed down from Fox News in terms, they were all designed by these think tanks and institutes and then given to Roger Ailes and the Fox News rank and file, of how to talk about things, [01:57:00] what positions to take, you name it.

That was a tightly constructed, permission structure that was a tightly constructed political agenda and propaganda machine. The liberal permission structures are a lot looser. It's moderates talking to one another and giving each other permission to move further and further right over time. Now, that comes with a lot of other incentives that are taking place.

CNN is hemorrhaging viewers. One of the things we've heard from them, uh, you know, each time they keep bringing in new heads of the network, every single one of them says, Well, we, we need to be less of a, of an echo chamber. We need to, we need to be, you know, a lot more independent. And that doesn't mean bringing in voices from the left or even progressives, of course, that means bringing in more and more right wing voices and figures and coverage.[01:58:00]

So, as they're hemorrhaging viewers, they are most definitely going to move towards the right. They're going to have articles and opinion pieces that treat Donald Trump's rantings as if they're normal, that do not critique Elon Musk and other members of the oligarchical class. So they themselves are engaged in their own battle against cognitive dissonance.

I mean all the people who run those networks and run those platforms who are from the wealth class and who are much incentivized in order to carry out the actions of the wealth class, that's what they're doing. But the water in the pot Is being turned up and up and up into a boil until these things are no longer, well, we're just asking questions.

Well, we're just covering both sides. Then all of a sudden we start hearing about invading Canada, invading Mexico, [01:59:00] buying Greenland, taking over the Panama canal. We're not even to January 20th yet. And all we're seeing articles and coverage It goes ahead and creates permission structures for liberals and moderates to go along with this stuff.

CNN is hoping to bring along more Republican viewers. Best of luck with that. They're going to continue moving towards the right. MSNBC, which is similarly hemorrhaging viewers. I mean, I don't even know what's going to happen with them at this point. They very well could be sold in, um, you know, these upcoming mergers and acquisitions that we're getting ready to watch take place during the Trump administration.

These people are just licking their lips and sharpening their knives. They are so excited. And if you pay any attention whatsoever to what executives are saying about what they expect, it's just one larger merger and acquisition after another, consolidating and creating media monopolies, which is all that they want to do, and they were biding their time during [02:00:00] Biden's administration.

This thing hasn't even started, and it's already off to a galloping start. Going through that list again. Ford, which God knows how much money they've got trying to get their electric vehicles off the ground because of the Biden administration. Facebook. We've seen Mark Zuckerberg trying to go full MAGA even after him and the Democrats were, you know, basically playing footsie underneath the table for years.

Amazon. Jeff Bezos was, you know, doing the same thing that Zuckerberg was. Goldman Sachs. I mean, my God, Kamala Harris basically campaigned with Goldman Sachs. General Motors, another EV beneficiary and another corporation that's been in bed with the Democrats, AT& T, the exact same. Not only are they giving money to Trump at this point, trying to bribe him and curry his favor.

They're also bringing in MAGA and GOP consultants to go ahead and quote unquote de [02:01:00] woke themselves. Getting rid of DEI statements, getting rid of ideological, and I'm putting giant scare quotes around that, ideological statements of purpose that they've had on their websites and in their corporate documents.

They're getting prepared. They're getting ready, they're setting the table for what is coming on January 20th. We're already seeing the bleed of the second Trump administration into the days before Trump even takes the oath of office.

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 were questions about today's topic or our upcoming topics—the role of the billionaire bros on our politics and the legacy of Jimmy Carter on his biggest issues. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at (202) 999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from Forbes Breaking News, Code Switch, DW [02:02:00] News, Democracy Now!, Wall Street Journal Opinion, the MeidasTouch, Channel 4 News, Time's Radio, Open Source with Christopher Lydon, and the Muckrake Political Podcast. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara 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 all 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 incredibly 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 [02:03:00] community, where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.

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 twice weekly thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.

1 reaction Share

#1680 The US puts the Hell in Health Care: For-profit insurance, Pharma, and the hatred and conspiracies they breed (Transcript)

Posted by · January 04, 2025 12:06 PM

Air Date 1/4/2025

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

The murder of a health insurance CEO being met with widespread approval, and the risk of going backward on life-saving vaccines in the country, pretty much sums up the current state of our approach to healthcare in the US.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes Straight White American Jesus, Serious Inquiries Only, The Majority Report, The ReidOut, and The Lever. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more in four sections: Section A. RFK Jr.; Section B. Luigi Mangione; Section C. United Healthcare; and Section D. Health care history.

Luigi Mangione and the End of Civilization - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 12-13-24

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: So we are going to talk about Luigi Mangione and the killing of the United Health CEO, Brian Thompson. We're then going to talk about Pete Hegseth and the military and also [00:01:00] just the general target that Trump's nominees and Trump himself have put on immigrants and queer folks, including and especially trans folks. So we will go there too with some updates in that whole arena. But we are going to start today with Mangione and I think the story that has really captivated the nation this week.

I think Dan, in a media landscape that we have now, where everyone is so fragmented, it's hard to think of a story basically being universal, like reaching every corner of the internet and broadcast news and everything else, but this one really has. I feel like I haven't done story time in a while and I, there's going to be a part of me here that wants to really get moving, but I feel like we're also going to have a chance to dissect an article that came out in the last two days and do something we haven't done in a while, which is kind of our grad seminar, "let's look at key quotes and break them down," mode of operating, which Dan, I really miss. And if there's something I miss about grad school, it's that, right? Sitting in a room, breaking down texts. It is really, [00:02:00] really enjoyable to me. All right, here's what's going on friends, you all know by now that the alleged killer of the CEO, Brian Thompson, the healthcare CEO, is a young guy named Luigi Mangione.

He has kind of captured the internet, he has polarized people, but some people are treating him like a folk hero, he's saying that he's very good looking, he's young, he is something like Robin Hood, something like, somebody who, you know, deserves to be somehow emulated or revered, and so on. One of the questions I'm sure some of you have, and I know that some of you already know this, but I think it's worth repeating, is what does the motive seem to be here?

And Robert Evans at It Could Happen Here said it this way a couple days ago. "His friend lived with him at an intentional community for digital workers in Honolulu in 2022. Confirms that Luigi suffered an injury shortly after taking a basic surfing class. After moving there. This laid him up in bed for about a week, unable to move, and his friends had to help him with the [00:03:00] special bed for the pain.

In general, we have ample confirmation that he was someone who dealt with a series of escalating health issues that changed him from an extremely active, physically fit young man, into somebody who felt like they were no longer able to do or enjoy the things they had previously been able to do and enjoy.

Now, this is most of what we know about the health history of Luigi Mangione as of December 10th. One of the things that, I mean, we can go into his manifesto, we can go into more here, but I'll just summarize. He seems to be somebody who had back pain for a long time. It seems to have gotten worse over the last couple of years.

And that, in many ways, radicalized him. The episode that they did over at It Could Happen Here was, Luigi Mangione was radicalized by pain. And I want to hold on to that phrase. I think it's a very apt phrase and I think they did a great job with that over at It Could Happen Here pod and their whole outfit. He was radicalized by pain. We can verify, they say that Mangione suffered from chronic [00:04:00] back pain. He had five different books in his Goodreads that he read about dealing with back pain and healing from back pain as well as other chronic health issues. If he is the shooter. Then we can confirm he also chose to act out by targeting an insurance CEO.

So Dan, I think there's, as soon as people heard us start talking about this there, are we going to take sides? Are we going to sit here and say that he's a hero and he's this or that? I want to try to do something with a little nuance, which is something we've always gone for on this show.

And I want to try to analyze something that I think is really important about this whole set of events. I'm not going to celebrate murder. I'm not going to sit here and say that what he did was good, or right. I'm not going to condone random interpersonal violence and I'm not going to encourage my kids to look up to him.

Okay, now, saying all of that, Brian Thompson was a human being. We can say that because of the role he played in the health [00:05:00] insurance system, that he was perpetuating some of the worst harms of that system and so on and so forth. There are kids though today that don't have a dad and so on. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm totally, let free Luigi. I'm not going to do that. Okay. What I am interested in is however, and I want to legitimize and I want to recognize, and I want to see what it means is the overwhelming outpouring of grief, anger, sadness, and pain, by those who've either sympathized with him or celebrated him.

Dan, there have been so many memes, so many tweets, so many Bluesky, whatever a Bluesky is skeet. It's called a skeet, which I'm just not, man, I'm, we have to draw the line. Am I supposed to call it a skeet? Is that what we're doing? I don't know. That seems, there's just a nineties kid in me that doesn't feel like that's appropriate, but whatever.

People have basically, used [00:06:00] this set of events to express their pain, right? If Luigi was radicalized by pain, people have used his actions to express their pain and basically express the tragedies and ravages of our healthcare system. What I want to notice and what I want to analyze is not whether or not he should have done this.

I don't want to ask that question. And it's not a question that I think is open for me. I don't think that we should encourage people to sneak up on others behind them and shoot them. If that is what he did, that's what he allegedly did. That's okay. But what I am interested in is this led to Dan and outpouring, right?

It felt like it was some kind of event that people, it was a canvas. It was a landscape. It was something where people could go find themselves, throw themselves, project themselves. I'm going to stop. I got, if I get going, you're going to not be on the mic here for another 50 minutes. So, any further reactions just to the events themselves, to what I'm saying, to the kind of internet culture [00:07:00] that's now surrounding this whole set of events and so on?

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Yeah, I mean, it's not even just so called internet culture, right? You had the mainstream legacy media stuff reaching out and saying, we want to hear your stories about, the healthcare system or how you feel about this. And they got just flooded, again, inundated with people who, even if they didn't like, sort of condone this, they felt like they understood it. They felt like this was somebody who reached a breaking point that I think a lot of people, maybe I would say it this way, talk about being radicalized by pain, it appears that he reached some breaking point that a lot of people could imagine reaching that they might not live it out. They might not carry it out. I think most people won't. And again, we wouldn't condone that, but I think for a lot of people, this, they were, they understood this. I don't know if that makes sense. And it's a distinction I make sometimes for my students. That I think is worth looking at here of the difference between explaining something and justifying it.

And I think that's what we're trying to do is explain this to try to understand it. We're not [00:08:00] justifying it. We're not telling people everybody who's been denied a claim by something to go out and, kill somebody. But I think that there's, I think what this does is it makes an act that in the abstract is outlandish and violent and something that nobody, some regular people would never do. And I think there are a lot of people that say, you know what? I don't know if my circumstances were different, if I am radically different from that. I don't know, this isn't an act that feels completely foreign to me, that feels impossible, and I think that, I don't know if I'm articulating that well, but I think that that's a strange, affective place to be. And if people are listening, and you've ever been in that space where there's something that, in the abstract, you'd be like, nope, not me, not ever, and then you find yourself in a circumstance where you're like, oh, I'm not doing that, but I kind of get it. And I find myself getting it and I feel weird that I get it.

I think a lot of people have that kind of conflicted reaction as well. But I think all of that is real and is very much on display with everything that we're hearing and the, as you say the kind of [00:09:00] internet ecosystem that's taking place or taking shape around this, the constellation of responses.

You Dont Actually Need to Condemn the Murder of the CEO Guy - Serious Inquiries Only - Air Date 12-12-24

THOMAS SMITH - HOST, SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY: Thing one: You don't need to condemn the murder of the healthcare CEO, of the insurance guy. You don't need to. I'm gonna do you a favor. You don't need to do it. You don't need to say, well, murder is bad, I condemn the...you don't need to. It's not a thing you need to do. There's lots of murders every day. Do you condemn those? No. You don't. There's lots of bad things that happen every day. Do you condemn them? No, you don't actually need to. That might seem flippant, but it's actually, I've been thinking a lot about this, and maybe this is just the way my mind works, but I've come to realize it's almost like a mathematical thing. It's the way that the status quo perpetuates itself, and that privilege works, and that systemic injustice continue, like, we do this thing, where it's climate change all over again. We've got one [00:10:00] climate change denying scientist, and we've got one climate, like, actual scientist, and those are even, we do the same thing with this. Because what I keep hearing is, Yeah, okay, of course the health insurance situation, not great. there's lots of suffering, but murder, you can't murder. And this guy was a father and this was a human being and he's been murdered, and there's that kind of thing.

None of that is untrue, but you've put it now at a 50/50, you've now, and in some cases, depending on your emphasis, you've maybe made the murder more important because you said... it depends on the thing, I've noticed it's the thing you say first, and I'm guilty of this too, because same thing will happen with October 7th. Yeah, October 7th was awful, but now look at everything that's happened since then, and I'll own that. I don't care as much about October 7th as I do about the genocide that happened after. Doesn't mean I don't care about October 7th, [it] means, relatively speaking, [00:11:00] it's not my priority. And I think it's really telling which order you do that in. All right. Yeah. Healthcare. It's bad. I get it. I get it as bad, but like, this is a murder of a thing... that tells me where your priority is. Your priority is in criticizing and shutting down people who are maybe vocally supporting the murder, maybe joking about it, and I understand why you're doing that, but I'm here to say you don't actually have to do that.

And doing so is part of the injustice that continues. I mean this seriously, because what we're not doing is expressing our terms properly. We're not putting things on equal footing. If the thing we need to do is properly condemn all the deaths involved, then what that would... and I, this might seem ridiculous, but I've actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced of it. This is right. What you should have to do is go through every fucking example of someone who died because of bad healthcare, or at least got fucked over, someone who didn't [00:12:00] get their pills, someone who suffered. You should have to go through every single example first. And be like, yes, I condemn that person who was denied their cancer treatment, and then they died a preventable death because of UnitedHealthcare. And yes, I condemn this person who's had to pay way too much. They went bankrupt because UnitedHealthcare denied their coverage, and now they're bankrupt. Now they're homeless. Now I denounce what happened here. You should have to literally go through all of it. You should have to go through both sides of the ledger and condemn every single instance on the other side of UnitedHealthcare fucking people over. And what it did to them. And then, and only then can you say, and I also denounced this killing of their CEO. Like, that should be how it works.

I have no idea how people will receive this argument of mine. It may seem ridiculous, but I'm more and more convinced. This is actually what needs to happen. Because we suck as humans at doing this. We suck at properly evaluating large [00:13:00] numbers of anything, but of suffering, especially. We see a headline that a million children are starving. We're like, Oh man, fuck that sucks. It's not like we're happy about it, but we're like, man that, boy that's awful. And then we see a detailed image of one person being shot. And we're like, fuck that hits us the same or more, actually hits us more. I mean, there's studies about this, like more numbers, if the numbers get too big to where we think there's nothing we can do about it, we start to just not care. It's hard. It's human. It is. I'm not saying anyone's like evil for accidentally doing this. It is very clearly our human biases. And what I'm coming to realize, if I hadn't already, was that these very biases are a major reason why this awful status quo continues, because we have to do this fucking thing where this murder happens and we got, look, okay, the health insurance situation, not great. Not [00:14:00] great. But murder. You can't murder.

I'm serious. You should, if you're going to fucking do that, you should have to go into detail. You don't get to just say, in the same way that if you want to talk about the three scientists out of a hundred who don't accept climate change. Okay. You should have to go into detail. Okay. This person accepts it for these reasons. This person, this expert says, yes, it's happening. Like, you should actually have to go through the proper weighting of the sides. That's how you would actually arrive at an accurate feeling and actually an accurate emotional gut feeling as to what's going on. That's our problem as humans. We don't do that. It's too easy for us to use language, this great human thing, to be like, Yeah, okay, all kinds of suffering over here? Sure, granted. You know? Oh, I accept it. Yeah, no, I know. It's awful. It's all kinds of stuff. But then there's a murder. And then, just like that, we've put them on equal footing.

They're not on equal footing. They're not. [00:15:00] The stuff that the insurance company is doing is worse. The stuff that Israel did after is worse. They're not on equal footing. If you, the thing you do where you're like, well, yeah, okay. That they're not prosecuting the war properly, but like the terrorists. Yeah. Okay. We should have to go through each and every child... let's do it. Let's do it. I condemn. Let's start, let's keep, we'll do one in one. Here's what we'll do. We'll do one in one. I condemn this death of this Israeli on October 7th. And now we go over. Okay, now I condemn this child that was killed. This Palestinian child that was killed. We'll go one for one and we'll keep going until we've done all that. We've condemned all of them. And then wouldn't you know it? What will happen is we run out of the October 7th pretty quickly. And then we have tens of thousands left over of Palestinian children to talk about after that. And only then, if we actually went through that fucking process, would we have a proper [00:16:00] emotional feeling of what's going on there. We're just, we don't do that as humans. We're not good at it. And it causes so many problems.

The Dark History Behind RFK Jr.'s Health Policies - The Majority Report - Air Date 12-11-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I want to admit, I know Emma wants to talk a little bit about, the other sort of players who represent a similar thing in this, but what and Musk and others,

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: really, but,

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: but what, where, how do you approach it from this perspective? Because like, okay. The KKK, for example wants universal health care.

RICK PERLSTEIN: The KKK thing was super weird. I had a pamphlet from the 1920s. It was a KKK pamphlet saying the government should give away free health care because they believed in the germ theory, right? And all these immigrants were so dirty and diseased that unless everyone could go to a doctor for free, we'd all die because of these diseased immigrants.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, okay. I disagree with their their reasons for it, obviously. And with Kennedy, there's no sort of structural answer to what he's talking about. It's all he knows the right person to put in these [00:17:00] things and magically he's going to get the Republican Congress to outlaw certain chemicals and production. I mean, but, part of me is like, well, that would be good. Like, all right, the KKK is pushing for a single payer health insurance, let's say, or free government sponsored health insurance. That would be good. How do I, as someone who does not want the rest of the program that would come along with these people, how do I respond to this?

Because I'm looking at Bernie Sanders is saying to Musk, "I want to cut the military," and I want to cut the military too. But in, in my reaction to Kennedy saying like he's going to get he's going to regulate, I mean, cause there's, he doesn't say the word regulate, but that's the only way if you're going to get this, these chemicals out of food, you got to pass laws that say these chemicals don't belong in food anymore. And I like the idea of yes, let's regulate the hell out of corporations and introduce that concept and mainstream it. But how do you respond? [00:18:00]

RICK PERLSTEIN: This is why it's all talk, Sam. And this is why, they're just not trustworthy vectors for this sort of thing.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I agree. But what's the problem?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Sam Rayburn was one of the legendary politicians of the forties and fifties. He was LBJ's mentor. He was the Speaker of the House. And he said, he had a very wonderful saying that you should never forget, which is that "Any jackass can knock down a barn, it takes a carpenter to build something." These people are all jackasses and they want to knock down, this kind of, these sets of public health, bureaucracies that have been built up over a very, very, very long time. And, sometimes they failed us and sometimes they succeeded, right? They definitely need reform. They definitely need fixing. All bureaucracies need reform and fixing. But if you just kind of knock them out with a meat ax, right? The Vivek-Musk, "Oh, we're going to get rid of half of all public employees." You're just [00:19:00] destroying decades of accumulated expertise, right? Decades of accumulated knowledge, wisdom strategic capacity, institution building, you know? And the idea is, this is kind of the fascist idea that you can just kind of build a new world by scratch. By having the proper people in there with the kind of proper ideas.

And that's, that's the, any jackass can knock down a barn, right? It'll cause chaos, right? And it'll turn everyone who works within this bureaucracy which is just basically ordinary folks who work hard and generally have the public interest in mind, into extensions of the will of very bad people. Right? And they're just not trustworthy.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Right. All of that makes sense to me. But I'm saying like from the, and maybe it's more of an issue for people like you or I, right? [00:20:00] Or Emma. What, how do we, how do we, is it just simply we reject all of this because we know they're not going to do it? Or do we also, or is there also an element of "that's a good thing, but they won't do it." How does the part of society that doesn't want it, because I was looking at the clips of people up in AOC's district. There's been a couple of different reporters who have gone up there and interviewed people, one locally, and you can hear the way that people are talking about, or you hear there some people say, "No, he's only going to get rid of the criminal immigrants and not other immigrants." What's the job of those of us who don't want the authoritarianism, to use their promises for issues that we support. So that if we get past this stage, those issues [00:21:00] still have a resonance and, or that their failure to deliver ends up costing them.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right, right. I mean, I think that I would point to the 900,000 unnecessary deaths that happened under Donald Trump's presidency, in the year 2000 (2020), if that was, I refer to 900,000 specifically, because that was a study that was done if we had the same rate, of deaths during COVID, as Australia had we would have saved 900,000 lives.

And Australia was a country that actually was, the prime minister was a conservative. He was actually a global warming denier, but he just did the kind of the normal things of turning it over to these boring public health bureaucracies. Turning it over to boring fricking experts and said, "You guys are in control. You [00:22:00] guys are in charge. I'll listen to you instead of you listening to us," right? And it's a tricky thing, Sam. It's really kind of one of the contradictions, the paradoxes, of small-d democracy that you do have to defer to experts and expertise is not always democratic, right? It's, the kind of "do your research" stuff that populism is very compelling, right? "Do your research" often, unfortunately means you do a Google search and the bad guys know how to manipulate search very well. And, they search, do search engine optimizations. So if Google trans and the first thing you come up with is the trans person who wants to play on the volleyball team, not the person who almost died from gender dysmorphia, right? So, I mean, we have to kind of, there's no magic bullet because you have to do this difficult thing of saying you have to defer to experts who know more than you.

Vaccine skepticism: Will the new Trump admin axe the polio vaccine - The ReidOut - Air Date 12-13-24

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Facing a likely contentious confirmation hearing, RFK Jr., Trump's pick for [00:23:00] Secretary of Health and Human Services, will head to the hill next week to meet with Senators. The New York Times is reporting that Kennedy's lawyer and noted vaccine skeptic, Aaron Siri, joined Kennedy in questioning and choosing candidates for top health positions, deepening concerns about vaccine hesitancy, taking the wheel and driving us back to when we had to be concerned about diseases like the measles, diphtheria, and polio. The New York Times adds that in 2022, Siri petitioned the government to revoke its approval of the polio vaccine, saying that because the clinical trials relied upon to license this product did not include a control group, the FDA, therefore, must either withdraw or suspend the approval of this product, adding, quote, "it is likely and wrongly believed that this product can prevent infection and transmission." Late today, RFK Jr. 's spokesperson responded to this report, telling NBC News in a [00:24:00] statement that the polio vaccine should be available to the public, and thoroughly and properly studied.

And properly studied? It's worth a reminder that by the mid 20th century, polio was killing or paralyzing over half a million people a year around the world. But after the vaccine became widely available, cases decreased by a reported 99 percent since 1988, which helped to prevent an estimated 20 million cases of paralysis in children.

Before the vaccine, polio afflicted many unnamed people, and some people you're familiar with, like FDR, and in more recent history, Senator Mitch McConnell, who was treated for polio as a child.

Now, ahead of the transition, some fear that history is starting to look a little bit more like a prequel, with noted vaccine skeptics in an administration filled with multimillionaires and billionaires, people who may look at diseases as a way to turn a profit, people gearing up to make America go back to worrying about communicable [00:25:00] diseases, as if Trump's handling of COVID wasn't bad enough.

Joining me now is Dr. Erwin Redlener, MSNBC Public Health Analyst and Founding Director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. Dr. Redlener, thank you so much for being here. I want to start with this claim by Mr. Siri that the polio vaccine, because they didn't use a control group, I guess meaning allowing some people to get polio and see what happened, the vaccine is not safe and should be taken off the market. Your thoughts.

ERWIN REDLENER: So, yeah. Hi, Joy. I'm astounded that we're having this conversation. Medicine has been all about, we have a disease that's killing people or injuring people. We try to treat it and then we try to prevent it. It's been a steady progress for 50 to a hundred years now.

And the great triumphs of medicine are mostly about vaccinations. They've prevented millions and millions of people from suffering [00:26:00] lifelong paralysis or death or brain injuries. And it's just amazing to me to even think about having a control group where some children got the polio vaccine and some didn't, exactly what you're talking about. Which children will we not give the vaccine to? Since we know for an absolute fact that it prevents the disease. It is extraordinary, really, and it's hard to even grasp how absurd this entire position is. Vaccinate, vaccinations in general. Yeah, so no, that is, it's crazy.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: The idea of a clinical control group, that was the Tuskegee experiments, just letting some people get whatever the disease is and seeing what happened. It's extraordinary that people want to do the Tuskegee experiments on the whole country.

Mitch McConnell, it's not as if people, we don't know anyone that ever had polio. Mitch McConnell had it as a child. This is what even he said. And he's as hard right MAGA, helping Trump as it [00:27:00] gets. "The polio vaccine has saved millions of lives and held out the promise of eradicating a terrible disease. Efforts to undermine public confidence in public cures is not just uninformed, they're dangerous. Anyone seeking the Senate's consent to serve in this incoming administration would do well to steer clear of even the appearance of association with such efforts."

Now, if I trusted that he would actually vote against RFK Jr., I would actually compliment him for that. But they wanna do more than just mess with the polio vaccine, potentially. Pre-vaccine annual cases of the measles, 530,000; after the vaccine, 13. Diptheria, 200,000; now zero. Mumps, 162,000; we don't even hear about mumps anymore; 621. Rubella, 48,000; goes down to six. Smallpox, 29,000 to zero. Polio, 16,000 to zero. We could go back to the numbers on the left hand of that screen, right, doctor, if we get rid of vaccines.

ERWIN REDLENER: We absolutely would go back and, one of the things that's so interesting about the Senate, [00:28:00] Joy, is that the senators know that polio vaccine prevents polio and then the other vaccines prevent the other diseases.

I think there's a conflict here where they think somehow that requiring children to get these life-saving vaccines will somehow violate their freedom or their parents' freedom to make a choice. And it's not that at all. We're talking about the public's health. If your kid is not going to get vaccinated and many other kids are not going to get vaccinated, that actually puts a lot of other people at risk.

So, if you break your leg and you don't want to get treated for it, good luck to you. I'm sorry for you. But if you don't get vaccinated, you're not just endangering yourself or your child, you're endangering my children and my grandchildren. And that's what the senators really need to realize.

I wish I could sit down with all of them, Joy, and just say, Listen, we understand the freedom issue. We're not disputing that. But right now [00:29:00] we're talking about the public's health and well being. We cannot go backwards in medicine. That would be an absolute disaster for the country. And the fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. even hangs around with somebody like Aaron Siri is a warning sign to senators, please exercise your responsibilities. Do not let these people into America's healthcare system. It's many, many steps backward, Joy.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Yeah. Rich dilettantes with no scientific training, deciding they can decide public health for all of us because they've got a vibe that they don't like vaccines.

It's a terrifying reality.

Weekly Roundup Luigi Mangione and the End of Civilization Part 2 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 12-13-24

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I know how I would say this in France, but -- and I've never heard Adrian's last name pronounced in English, I'm not cool enough to hang out at Atlantic dinner parties and cocktail hours and stuff, so I don't know. But anyway, it could be Lafrance. It could be La France. It could be Laference. Maybe it's Laference. I don't know how you say [00:30:00] this in the United States of America. I'm not making fun of the name. I'm saying, I don't know how one is supposed to render this name in English. Okay.

This, article, Dan, created a sense of complete outrage online. There were so many people angry. And I think this is an article that you can read the headline and just get super angry and start being snarky without reading it. Don't get me wrong. I don't like this article at all. And I don't like the argument here. But I want to go through some key points and see what you and I come up with.

So here's the first bit. "The line between a normal functioning society and catastrophic decivilization can be crossed with a single act of mayhem. This is why, for those who've studied violence closely, the brazen murder of a CEO in midtown Manhattan, and more important, the brazenness of the cheering reaction to his execution, amounts to a blinking and blaring warning signal for a society that has become already too inured to bloodshed in the conditions that exacerbate it."

Now, I do think there's some [00:31:00] nuance in this article. And I do think there's a little bit of trying to recognize certain factors and conditions. But I will say, Dan, that this opening line did not evoke sympathy for me for the argument because, one, you're talking about one event leading to catastrophic breakdown of society. The point, the example here is, of course, what happened in Manhattan this past couple of weeks, and the cheering reaction to that.

It's the same week Daniel Penny was exonerated for killing a man on the subway. And as many people have pointed out, we live in a society where people are cheered on for killing protesters. Does anyone remember Kyle Rittenhouse?

So there is -- I'm not going to lie -- from paragraph one, seemingly to me, a disconnect. There is one of those moments where you're like, this sounds like an elite who is zooming in to American life, and there's a lot of folks who are going to think [00:32:00] about school shootings and the killing of migrants, the killing of trans people, all kinds of murders and violence that is cheered on, that is not this one.

And so that's my reaction to that first paragraph. We're doing our grad seminar. You want to jump into the conversation here, Dr. Miller?

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Yeah, I, agree. it was going to make essentially the same point, that it reads like the elite who's suddenly scared shitless because, oh, this was an elite who is shot. This wasn't kids in a public school where i'm not going to send my kids because i'm an elite person. This wasn't somebody on the subway that I don't ride because i'm an elite person. This isn't somebody who lives in a dangerous neighborhood that I'm not going to live in, because i'm an elite person.

I think there was a strong dose of that, as you say. And I think it's always worth questioning when people decry quote unquote "violence." What violence is being decried and what violence is being overlooked as just the price of being an American? And you listed a whole bunch of those. And on the [00:33:00] political right, many of those are actively celebrated at present.

So I think that I shared that same disconnect with you when I first read it was like, Oh, so this is the act of decivilization? Like this is the warning signal, not the mass shootings that don't even make the news anymore. Not the targeting of migrants, not the threat that's going on right now that, Oh, well, hey, Donald Trump says we might just need to deport families, including the citizens, like the whole family might need to be deported. All of that. None of that's decivilization, but this event is. That question, I think, of what makes somebody take an event as the seminal, defining event, that's always a point that should be questioned, and I think that it stands out here.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Well, Lindsey Graham saying that, you know, should turn Palestine into a parking lot. Come on.

Okay. This leads to a paragraph a little further down in which the author defines what they mean by "civilizing." "These conditions and the conditions," she mentions, "before this, are wealth [00:34:00] disparity," which I agree with, "declining trust in democratic institutions," yes, "heightened sense of victimhood, intense partisan estrangement, rapid demographic change, flourishing conspiracy theories, violent and dehumanizing rhetoric." so these are things that can create conditions like that of the Gilded Age or ours and a society that is on the brink of unraveling. "These conditions run counter to spurts of civilizing." I don't think I ever thought I would say the words "spurts of civilizing." That would be a really good ska band, Dan Miller, if you want to talk to me later about a little side project. "Spurts of civilizing in which people's worldviews generally become more neutral, more empirical and less fearful or emotional." I hate this sentence so much. I am trying to be professional. And I'm trying to like. I am so suspicious of the word [00:35:00] "civilizing" to start because it carries such colonial overtones of British, India, the Southeast Indian company --

The white man's burden.

Yeah. All of it. Algeria.

So civilizing to me is a word that I'm always like, do we need to be, is that the word? Is civilizing really the word to use? And then when you define it as people who are neutral, empirical, less fearful and emotional, it's -- I understand what you mean by empirical. Yes, I'm somebody who would like us to be empirical in terms of following science when it comes to vaccines and pandemics and gun violence. I don't know. You want people to be neutral? What does that even mean? Not emo-- I mean, Dan, we spent so much time talking about emotion and the disconnect with emotion that leftist and progressive -- and leftist is the wrong word, mainly liberals and neoliberals -- have with the American public.

Anyway, I'm going to stop. I hate this sentence. What do you think? [00:36:00]

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: It's why I laugh. My students in some of my classes, it turns into this kind of running joke because they like to see me just go apoplectic about a sentence that some author writes or something. And this is one of those that would do that.

I often say this: I think that -- I don't want to fall too far into the rabble here -- but I think that neutrality is maybe the most pernicious concept there is when it comes to talking about our social life together, when it comes to thinking about ethics, when it comes to thinking about politics. Because I don't think that neutrality is a thing. I don't think it's real.

And we know this. We know that beings, for example, empirical or data driven, are saying, I don't know, should we mandate vaccines? Maybe let's understand the science of it and public health and so forth. If there's anything the last few years have shown us, there's nothing neutral about that, right?

Anything can be politicized. And so even the notion that we should value all lives equally, that's not about neutrality, right? Because there are lots of [00:37:00] people who don't value all lives equally. The, notion that, I don't know, everybody should be able to use a locker room or a bathroom where they feel safe, that fits their identity, right? A place that they don't have to be worried about being assaulted or accosted or something like that. That's not neutral, right? That's a highly, I don't know if partisan is the right word, but it's a highly invested position to take.

What neutrality often does is mask the fact that social life is always about power dynamics, it's always about the distribution of resources, it's always about who gets to count as part of that society and who doesn't, who has access to rights and who don't.

And whenever I hear somebody decry a loss of neutrality, what I think that they're actually decrying is some structure of privilege that has now been threatened, that was masquerading as neutral.

So I'm really, really suspicious when I read that. I can't say all of that is present here. But if we had a lot more time and wanted to dig into this, I think we could.

So I'm so suspicious every time I [00:38:00] hear appeals to neutrality or objectivity, for all of those reasons.

The Health Care Crisis Is The Democracy Crisis - The Lever - Air Date 12-17-24

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: All of these indignities are the product of a government filled with politicians who are bankrolled by insurers, and who use their power to block the most basic reforms. Stuff like a public health insurance option, or an option to buy into Medicare, or simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

What's so frustrating is that politicians have spent decades, decades saying they recognize the problem, and they make promises to do something about it, and then almost nothing happens.

Think about the last 50 or 60 years of history. After JFK and LBJ's pressure resulted in Congress creating Medicare, the push for universal health care popped up in the early 1990s with the Clinton administration.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Under our plan, every American would receive a health care security card, [00:39:00] that will guarantee a comprehensive package of benefits over the course of an entire lifetime, roughly comparable to the benefit package offered by most Fortune 500 companies.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: The healthcare industry famously killed that initiative with a ton of lobbying and campaign cash.

And the healthcare industry profiteering continued, sparking outrage and new promises of reform from Democratic Party rising stars, like this guy from Chicago.

BARACK OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14%, 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim's talking about when he says, everybody in, [00:40:00] nobody out. A single payer health care plan, universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately, because first we've got to take back the White House, and we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back Congress.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: So there it is. There's Barack Obama saying he supports single payer. But when Obama himself took back the White House, with huge Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, his administration deployed its Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to promise that single payer wouldn't even be considered in any health care reform.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: This is not single payer. As you know, there have been a lot of congressional advocates who say, Why not? Why can't we have a single payer? That's not what anyone is talking about. Mostly because the president feels strongly, as I do, that dismantling private health coverage for the 180 million Americans that have it, [00:41:00] discouraging more employers from coming into the marketplace is really the bad direction.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Eventually, what became the Affordable Care Act included massive taxpayer subsidies for the insurance industry, and Obama's promised public health insurance option being excluded from the final bill.

And though the Affordable Care Act did include some very important reforms, the health care crisis continued, as did Americans' anger, much of which was channeled into Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign for Medicare For All.

But that campaign ran straight into a wall, known as Hillary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON: And the bulk of what he is advocating for is a single payer healthcare system, which would probably cost about $15 trillion. It's a bit concerning to me because it would basically end all the kinds of healthcare we know. Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP [00:42:00] program, children's health insurance, TRICARE for the National Guard, military, Affordable Care Act, exchange policies, employer based policies.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: When Sanders' campaign nonetheless surged towards a win in the Iowa caucus, Clinton doubled down, insisting that Medicare For All was impossible, and that voters basically shouldn't ever expect anything better than the current healthcare system.

HILLARY CLINTON: Health emergencies can't wait for us to have some theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: By the time the 2020 election rolled around, even as researchers estimated that a Medicare For All system could have saved 200,000 lives during the pandemic, Joe Biden, by that point, was running for president on a promise to veto Medicare For All legislation if it ever got to his desk.

JOE BIDEN: I would veto anything that delays providing the [00:43:00] security and the certainty of healthcare being available now. My opposition relates to whether or not a) it's doable, 2) what the cost is, what the consequences for the rest of the budget are. How are you going to find $35 trillion?

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Side note: The Republican-led Congressional Budget Office found that Medicare For All would actually save Americans $650 billion by 2030.

Biden did promise that one of his first initiatives would be a public health insurance option. But once an office, he never mentioned the idea again.

And then, of course, came the 2024 campaign, in which the healthcare debate was essentially this: [sound of crickets] That's right. Nothing. There was no healthcare conversation at all. A reality summarized by a New York Times headline, which read, "The campaign issue that isn't: [00:44:00] Healthcare reform."

Basically, in deference to their healthcare industry donors, both political parties message on healthcare seems to be that line from the doctor's office scene in the old Jack Nicholson movie.

CLIP: What if this is as good as it gets?

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Not surprisingly, lots of Americans being bankrupted by healthcare simply don't accept that this is the best we can do.

Which raises the question, why can't we do better? Out of all the challenges facing our country, why does this one issue, decent medical care for everyone, seem to be such an impossible problem? Why haven't we solved this problem once and for all? How is it, as JFK once said, we are behind every country in this matter of medical care for our citizens? He said that more than 50 years ago. And we're still at this impasse. How [00:45:00] could that be? What will it take to finally get the humane health care system that we deserve?

Vigilante violence is not the solution. The solution is a renewed focus on using our democratic institutions to force lawmakers to change the system.

As the old saying goes, power concedes nothing without a demand. This past week's primal screams of outrage at the health insurance industry are the demands for change.

The health insurance industry is undoubtedly hoping that that noise quickly dissipates, like everything else on social media. But the rest of us need those demands to get louder -- right now.

Note from the Editor on the racist history of opposing universal health care

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Straight White American Jesus discussing the impact of the killing of the United Healthcare CEO. Serious Inquiries Only examined why the demands to condemn the murder helps perpetuate injustice. [00:46:00] The Majority Report discussed the difficulty of supporting good ideas that are being pushed by people who also support terrible ideas. The ReidOut looked at the potential impact of vaccine skepticism in the country. Straight White American Jesus broke down the arguments around decivilization. And The Lever dove into the history of the fight for universal healthcare.

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 produced with the support of our members, who get access to bonus episodes and enjoy all of our shows without ads. To support 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.

As always, 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 [00:47:00] more information.

Now I thought I would try something new, do a little experiment for a little while, and offer you the opportunity to submit your comments or questions on upcoming topics, not just the current topic or past topics. Since it takes us a little bit of time to do the research, I can actually give you a heads up about what's coming, so you can potentially join the conversation as it happens.

So next up, we're working on the topic of Trump antagonizing many allies of the US, often in bizarre ways, such as Mexico, Canada, and Greenland. And also we have just started thinking about a topic on the so-called "broligarchy" -- super wealthy Silicon valley and influencer bros who are all making waves in the MAGA movement. So, if you have thoughts on either of those topics, get your comments or questions in now for a chance to be included in the show. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

Now [00:48:00] as for today's topic, I thought I would just replay the comments I made during a recent throwback episode, which was going out during the holidays, in the immediate wake of the United Healthcare CEO killing. I thought I said what I wanted to say pretty well, and I figured not everyone will have heard it in a rerun episode, particularly in the middle of December. So here it is.

It's been pointed out by some that Thompson is survived by a family that loved him, as a way of highlighting the injustice of having the sins of an industry fall on the shoulders of an individual. It doesn't take too much imagination to realize that the vast majority of people who have suffered needlessly, weathered stress, bankruptcy, and sometimes died from having to fight a health insurance company to have their care covered, also have families that love them.

As far as I'm concerned, assuming for a moment that Thompson really was targeted for his role as CEO, rather than a personal grudge, he should be considered a victim of the system more than of the individual, because a health system as unjust as [00:49:00] ours is bound to cultivate such levels of resentment, that violence should be understood as a predictable outcome.

The biggest difference between Thompson and the healthcare victims of his insurance company is not that one was killed with a gun while all the others were killed with paperwork. The biggest difference is that Thompson was in a position to help change the system. One of our mantras here at the show is to aim higher. If you're angry at a customer service rep, aim higher -- the manager? Aim higher. The CEO? Maybe you're getting there. Is there anything higher? Maybe the Board of Directors. But ultimately, it's the system itself.

So I recognize that even powerful individuals within the system cannot singlehandedly change that system. But they can either work for change, or work to maintain their power, or resign in protest and work to rally change from the outside as Wendell Potter did, when he quit his position as a health insurance executive to become an [00:50:00] advocate for healthcare reform.

People are going to act with the power they have. If those with great power use it only to maintain it, rather than for the benefit of those they have the power to help, then the powerless can be expected to take action. Most will simply advocate for better policy through the proper channels. But it should be expected that a small number may turn to violence. This was inevitable. It's part of the system we've built and that Thompson helped maintain.

If anyone should be expected to understand a statistical analysis of expected outcomes based on a given set of circumstances, it's an executive of an insurance company.

SECTION A - RFK Jr.

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics. Next up section a RFK Jr. Followed by section B Luigi Mangione, section C United healthcare and section D. Healthcare history.

The Dark History Behind RFK Jr.'s Health Policies Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 12-11-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Let's talk about your latest piece in The [00:51:00] American P rospect first. Anyways, I want to start there, Dr. Strange Kennedy, and this notion, because I see this, I mean, you refer to it is how to worry, how you should learn to worry more about a liberal politics in liberal guys. I'm seeing this also too, in the context of of populism. And we see various people sort of subscribing to specific nuggets within the agenda of what we're seeing in this administration. Positively. Well, like, just give me a sense overall of what you're talking about here.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Well, I mean, I guess it would be kind of like, if we're going to go like reductio at Hitler, I am right off the bat. You know, Hitler built the Audubon kind of deal, right? Mussolini made the trains run on time, right? My bottom line is...

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: the KKK you cite the KKK promoting universal health care. And, what was [00:52:00] the other one? The...

RICK PERLSTEIN: Well, I mean the Kaiser of Germany, Kaiser Bismarck.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yep. Bismarck,

RICK PERLSTEIN: Wilhelm Bismarck was the guy who invented, unemployment insurance, because he wanted the working class to support him when he took over Africa and, mowed over the Catholics of Germany.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah. And I just want to say there's a version of this that I think they're trying to copy here on the right with Victor Orban, right? Where he offers some social services, and under the guise of trying to help people out, but it's really explicitly to reinforce, a patriarchal system anti LGBTQ system.

RICK PERLSTEIN: It's one of these old playbooks, right? And, the foundation of it that is, as I've been thinking about this, recently, and trying to put things together in a systematic way is that right wing politics whether it goes by the name conservatism or authoritarianism or what they used to, probably call in the early 20th century fascism, really is about hierarchy and authority, the right people being in control, people knowing their place.

And, if that's the bottom line, really, [00:53:00] the kind of policies that you use to get there are just tactical, ultimately. Conservatives have been for big government. They've been for small government, right? I mean, the first big government agency in America really was the FBI, what became the FBI, and it was kind of created out of a moral panic about white slavery, which was kind of like the QAnon of, the 19-teens, right?

They can be for social policy, or they can be against social policy. They can be for law and order, or they can be for, the kind of whatever it is that Trump does, where, like, his friends are all criminal are all innocent, and he's all criminals, right? So You know, in the case of a RFK Jr., a couple of points can be made. One is that, even though, a lot of what he says is very enticing and sounds quite humanitarian, taking apart Big AG, nailing Big Pharma to the wall, which is also a big part of Project 2025. Even though it sounds enticing, [00:54:00] it often means kind of eviscerating the kinds of institutions that it actually requires to do those things. But the other point I made in the piece is that actually, there's actually a long tradition on the right of this kind of purity, bodily purity politics. Which is actually one of the scarier kind of fascist traditions on the right. And I gave as you know the example from the early sixties the right wing crusade that held that fluoridation of water was a communist block, right?

So anyone who's seen Dr. Strangelove knows that hilarious scene in which the right wing general says that the communists are trying to sap our purity of essence. And have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water, right? And I also gave the example of, back in the nineties when I was, researching Before the Storm. All of a sudden, Phyllis Schlafly, who I was yakking with on the phone, as one does.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well just remind people who Phyllis Schlafly was, because I think you and I remember, but I'm not sure anybody else does.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Queen of the anti feminist movement of the 1970s, almost single [00:55:00] handedly defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. And there's a wonderful mini series about her Mrs. America that you can see on Hulu I think, maybe it was Netflix. Anyway, she was basically one of the most powerful reactionaries and successful reactionary organizers ever. And she died in 2016, a huge Trump fan. She kind of spans the era from McCarthy to Donald Trump.

And she was on the phone and she was just suddenly out of nowhere telling me about how pure the food was that she fed her children, right? So like health food, making fun of health food was a thing you made fun of the John Birch Society before hippies got ahold of it, right? So all these kind of scrambled ideological associations, shouldn't fool us to the fact that, RFK Jr. is a crazy conspiracy theorist. And if you actually kind of dig down into how he thinks about how we're going to fix the food system and fix the pharma system, it really is quite creepy in that it kind of [00:56:00] creates two classes of people. These kind of superior people and untermenschen, right? The superior people who eat the right foods, which are often, very expensive, right? Who do the right exercise regimes, which are also very expensive. Who take the right drugs, which, don't have anything to do with the democratic process of peer review, but are basically dictated from above often with people who have financial interest in those drugs, right?

So we look at that weird culture of, right wing food supplements and all that sort of thing. And they're superior, and we're all inferior for kind of messing around with this sort of rabble public health. The kind of stuff that evil people like Dr. Fauci, mess around with. Basically don't buy it. RFK could be the guy who presides over more deaths than a nuclear holocaust if he has his way. I mean, if we go back on something like the polio vaccine, one of the things I learned , recently, making these arguments on the dreaded [00:57:00] Twitter, is that it used to be when people were studying public health, or maybe they still do, students would go on walks of cemeteries. And you guys know why they, why public health professors would teach their students, take their students on walks of cemeteries on the first day of class? To show them what happened in the 1950s when the polio vaccine came about. That, how many babies died before widespread vaccination became a thing. So we're going to go back into this world where cemeteries are going to be full of infants if RFK Jr. and Donald Trump has their way.

Top ally of RFK Jr. petitioned FDA to revoke approval of polio vaccine - All In w Chris Hayes - Air Date 12-13-24

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Joining me now is someone who has closely followed the anti vaccine movement, senior reporter for NBC News, Brandi Zadrosny.

It's great to have you here and I'm so glad to have you here because when this news went, I was like, oh, I have not heard of this guy. And you were like, I have heard of this guy. In fact, I know him quite well. Who is Aaron Seery?

BRANDY ZADROZNY: Aaron Seery, I like to think of him as the brains behind the anti vaccine movement.

Anti vaccine, um, Activists were largely an ineffective, um, group of folks, especially Robert F. Kennedy and his, uh, [00:58:00] communications director Del Bigtree, who runs the second largest anti vaxxer called ICANN. Um, they were just sort of like petitioning local governments. They were trying to get, you know, states to do away with vaccine mandates for children.

And they just wasn't working until they met. Aaron Seery. And Aaron Seery is a lawyer. He worked, has a New York law firm. And in 2015, he started dabbling in vaccine mandate for children cases. That got him linked up with Del Bigtree and with Robert F. Kennedy. And they started trying cases together. There was a case in Tennessee where a child was, um, they argued that the child had been affected by a vaccine and been caused to be autistic.

The courts did not find, um, that same thing. Uh, they disagreed. The court disagreed. Um, but so from there, Aaron Siri became the Um, but he has [00:59:00] raked in the cash, basically acting as part of a propaganda arm, filing crazy FOIA requests. Requests and then misrepresenting what those, the denial of those FOIA requests means for vaccines, filing lawsuits.

Like he was the man who overturned religious exemptions in Mississippi. He was the lawyer on that case, that sad, sad case in Mississippi. Um, he's all over. And, and then he was a huge part. Uh, I think 000 to represent, um, Kennedy and his campaign. You know,

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: one of the things that is striking here when you talk about this petition to revoke authorization is that the rhetoric they will use is we're pro choice, anti mandate, right?

Um, and here's, here's the times on this. Mr. Siri insists he does not want to take vaccines away from anyone who wants them. You want to get the vaccine, it's America, free country. He told Arizona legislators last year for laying out his concerns about the vaccine for polio and other illnesses. He did not mention the petitions he has lodged on behalf of ICANN, the organization he just said, with the FDA, asking regulators to withdraw [01:00:00] or suspend approval of vaccines not only for polio but also for hepatitis B.

Continuing, Mr. Siri is also representing ICANN FDA to pause distribution of 13 other vaccines. Combination products that cover tetanus, diphtheria, polio, and hepatitis. I mean, that's a, I mean, I think mandates are a good idea and I think choice is overrated in this aspect, but that is a long way from even that.

That's. Stop the government from like revoke.

FAIZ SHAKIR: It's all of them, Chris. It's all of the vaccines. There is not a vaccine that Kennedy thinks is safe or effective. These folks don't believe the polio vaccine actually stopped polio. They think it's true. They think it's a combination of sewage, better sewage of refrigeration.

Yes, absolutely. They are polio truthers. That is what they Robert F. Kennedy has told me this. And so Absolutely. They want to get rid of all of them and not just get rid of all of them. They say, we don't want to get rid of any vaccines. We just want to test them. Well, let's talk about what [01:01:00] their testing is.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Yeah. What is it? Because today Kennedy comes out with a statement being like, Oh, again, there's all this like weird doublespeak. Yeah. Oh yeah. We just, we should just, it should be studied. That's what he said. I was like. Yeah. I think we've got the studies, like, I think we've studied it pretty damn well. Do we have iron lugs in America?

No, we don't. Okay.

FAIZ SHAKIR: This is the only thing that we'll do for Kennedy and the folks that he surrounds himself with. These double blind, controlled studies, which means that he wants to get a big group of kids together and give, you Half of them, the vaccine and half of them not, but not tell anybody which is which and then determine on a longitudinal basis.

So follow these groups for 20 years, their whole life and decide if there's any more positive outcomes for the people who've gotten the vaccine versus not the vaccine backs versus unbacks. The problem is. Quite obvious with that, right? Who do you withhold the vaccine from? That is completely unethical.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Right. The other thing is that we do randomized control trials and double blind randomized control trials in the process of approving all the [01:02:00] time. That is how we get them. That's how we know if they're safe and effective.

FAIZ SHAKIR: A hundred percent. A hundred percent. And we can talk about like the trials that happen along the way and it's very complicated and that's why thankfully we have scientists and doctors and public health officials who study these things very, very closely.

And the problem is you have folks like Del Bigtree and Robert F. Kennedy and they're through their lawyer, Aaron Seery, who come and dismantle that using the courts as a weapon.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: But this, I mean, this is not, it's one thing if you've got a guy filing things in court. This could be the general counsel at HHS.

HHS oversees the Food and Drug Administration, if I'm not mistaken, and the National Institutes of Health and the Centers on Disease Control. That guy is the chief lawyer and the brains overseeing the federal health infrastructure.

FAIZ SHAKIR: I wonder if he would let go of his payday that he certainly has right now to come work for the government.

But having said that, I do wonder that. But, um, I, It's [01:03:00] terrifying. Terrifying.

SECTION B - Luigi Mangione

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B Luigi Mangione.

These Guys Are SO Out Of Touch On Healthcare CEO Shooting - The Majority Report - Air Date 12-9-24

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And, and then that's where we can bring it back to what the reaction was.

The reaction of universal, like, meh, let them get away with it from a lot of people I think took some folks, liberals, by surprise. But also conservatives. Because everybody in this country has to deal with, unless you're incredibly wealthy, a for profit healthcare system that in some way has affected their family.

Maybe you, your family member had cancer and they had to go through all their savings to undergo treatment. Maybe you were denied care because of a pre existing condition prior to Obamacare, which by the way did ban that and the Republicans tried to repeal it, um, and you were thought you were eligible for this kind of surgery, and then you weren't able to get it.

But although that kind of stuff still happens to this day, just via other means as well, everybody has a kind of understanding about how [01:04:00] messed up this system is, unless you're a guy like Ben Shapiro. Now let's read the comments before we get to his commentary on this front. Um, he's not really ready to meet any of, uh, the real realities of the people in his audience that aren't making millions of dollars every year like he is at the Daily Wire.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: That's his job not to.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Um, so his, his reaction, the evil revolutionary left cheers murder. We'll get to his reaction to Daniel Penny getting off in just a second, but anyway. These are some of the comments to claim. It's just it is just the American left. That's been cheering this on social media is delusional.

I don't know what you're trying to keep why you're trying to keep pushing. This is a left issue. It's clearly across the board. These are separate Ben Shapiro fans.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Another one. I'll you could we can rotate a sorry Ben lifelong conservative and don't have an ounce of sympathy for the CEO. How many Americans have died because of this company's greed a very good question for even a lifelong conservative to wonder

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: [01:05:00] exactly.

Um, this isn't a party, uh, base issue. This is a class based issue. I don't like violence, but let's not pretend that the insurance companies haven't been committing some, blah, blah, blah.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Matthew, agree with Engel's point there?

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I mean, go to his actual video and we'll see. Are these comments because, hey, Matt Bernstein of, uh, he screenshotted that on December 6th.

Today we're, it's December 9th. Perhaps the Ben Shapiro, these were not real Ben Shapiro fans, and now The real ones are trickling in to give up, give their guy support. Whoops. Nope. Uh.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Top one. We got conservatives and liberals hugging each other in a comment section before GTA 6. Yeah. Saw my lifelong hard, this is, this is why people who think that there should be some kind of temperance about this.

Saw my lifelong hardworking father become bankrupt as a result of claims being denied after getting cancer. You are out of touch, man.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yep. I mean, we can ignore the one with, you know, like, that may, here we go, it's not left or [01:06:00] right, it's black or white, it's rich versus poor, your true colors are showing.

Um, the comment section is humanity making sense for the first time in years. Remember guys, Ben has more in common with that CEO than he has with any of us.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: True of anybody in media who is trying to, uh, take this tack.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Um, Wow, I don't think I can justify supporting Ben anymore.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I also just want to ask, like, hey, what were you thinking you were watching when you were watching Ben Shapiro?

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, they were in it for the racism and the resentment towards liberals, sure. But this is a universal experience for Americans. So now, with all of that context and with everything we've said about the systematized violence that our healthcare system really, In, uh, in genders and in bodies. Here is Ben's commentary.

Facts don't care about your feelings, he says.

BEN SHAPIRO: The real question in all of this is how Americans respond. So Taylor Lorenz, we talked about her yesterday. She is a psychotic former [01:07:00] reporter for the Washington Post and the New York Times. She's totally insane. She was insane on COVID.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: So you know what, Ben?

Here's why the comments section has a complete disconnect with what you're trying to do here. Is because he's trying to put Taylor up there because she's been, she's had some takes I disagree with, but, but largely, she's mostly just been an object for the right to hate on as some sort of liberal woman that they can attack.

He is trying to make it as, He's painting a narrative that it's just like these liberal women, coastal elite reporters that are, or people that you already have resentment towards are the ones that are making this case. But as was clear in his comment section, and as was clear in the reaction to this video, it's not just like that.

It's liberal Taylor Lorenz. It's your viewers.

BEN SHAPIRO: The Washington Post and the New York Times. She's totally insane. She was insane on COVID. She was insane when it came to the supposed predations of people on the right who ought to, [01:08:00] she said, be shut out of media and particularly social media. Now, she's

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: full scale.

So again, like there are certain takes, I've seen Taylor runs call people COVID deniers. I don't think we're COVID deniers. With regards to what she's saying about this, um, uh, Uh, issue. She's exactly right that the rage is justified. And I'll just say, when we're talking about people being, uh, I don't know, is what Ben Shapiro is saying, hysterical or lunatics.

Ben Shapiro said that the majority of the world's Muslims are terrorists, are radical extremists that want to kill people for believing in Judaism or Christianity. He is the hysterical loser in this proximity right now.

BEN SHAPIRO: out of media and particularly social media. Well, now she is full scale rallying in favor of the murderer.

So she tweeted yesterday on Bluesky, which is a weird left wing echo chamber form of Twitter. There was a [01:09:00] post put out by blue cross and blue shield, all about whether it was going to pay for anesthesia under its healthcare coverage. And she then tweeted out quote, and people wonder why we want these executives dead.

So openly. Cheering the death of Brian Thompson. That wasn't her only post. Somebody put out a statement saying, quote, Legislation idea. Healthcare executives and their families must be on the cheapest plan their company offers and they aren't allowed to seek other care. And she wrote in all capital letters, Endorse.

Then, she put out a post that showed a graphic of a happy star. A star with a happy face and balloons and the caption CEO down. And she wrote, Woke up to see this spammed in my group chats. She said, I am not alone, that other people were doing the same thing. Then she reposted a post from left wing agitator Ken Klippenstein saying, Today we remember the legacy of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

And what exactly was that legacy? He claimed denial rates by insurance companies. And of course, it's not just Taylor Lorenz, [01:10:00] socialist. It's your comment section. Nathan Robinson, a complete useless leech on the ass of society, posted himself, quote, Live your life in such a way that people will be sad when you die.

That was above a screencap of a New York Times headline. It's a torrent of hate for health insurance industry follows CEOs killing. That piece from the New York Times is all about people who apparently were perfectly fine with the murder of Brian Thompson on the streets of New York City. According to the New York Times, none of this stopped social media commentators from leaping to conclusions and showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children.

Thoughts and deductibles to the family. Read one comment underneath the video of the shooting posted online by CNN. Unfortunately, my condolences are out of network. A TikTok user wrote, I'm an ER nurse. And the things I've seen in dying patients get denied for by insurance that makes me physically sick.

I just can't feel sympathy for him because of all those patients and their families. Yeah. And these sorts of messages were incredibly common. But, sorry. Across the internet.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I, uh, this is what people need to [01:11:00] hear that, uh, and I'll agree with Ben Shapiro's, uh, perspective on things. When you tell me, That I need to think about the families of that fucking, uh, freak.

Uh, I think, what my brain does, is think about all the people who lost somebody, or saw their dad go bankrupt because of decisions by these parasites. And just one thing to deal with the Blue Cross Blue Shield sort of pedantry thing, that I'm sure some people are in on, like, Actually, they wanted to do this, blah blah blah.

Not their fucking decision. They shouldn't exist. None of these institutions should exist. There should not, this is not an antitrust problem. This is a, there should be one insurance pool. And it should be controlled by the government. And no decision, whether it's technocratically good or not, is valid by any of these leeches, to use Ben Shapiro's word.

None of them.

Weekly Roundup Luigi Mangione and the End of Civilization Part 3 - Straight White American Jesus - Air Date 12-13-24

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: (The) author goes on to say, "Over the centuries, humanities become more civilized, largely drifting away from violent conflict revolution. And to be clear, I mean, [01:12:00] civilized in the spirit of Elias's definition, the process by which The use of violence shifted to the state and de-civilization to suggest a condition in which it shifts back to individuals." So, just to be clear, if you read the article the main source here is a 1939 book by a medieval scholar, a scholar of medieval Europe.

So A- there's been a lot of books written about medieval Europe since 1939, and it really is one of the, if not the only, source that's referenced in the entire article. Nonetheless, this idea of violence being shifted to the state, I think reflects the privilege you're talking about because you're basically saying, 'Well, society is civilized as long as the violence that the state perpetrates is not aimed at me or people like me. It may be aimed at those incarcerated at rates that are disproportionately high. It may be aimed at those who the state sends to bomb or to drone. It could be [01:13:00] any number of people, but as long as the state is doing the violence, it's okay.' There's nothing here that questions, like, whether or not that the state itself might be uncivilized because of the way that it commits acts of violence, whether internally or abroad. So I think that's there.

The author goes on then to talk about society reaching a point at which public, people publicly celebrate the death of a stranger murdered in the street. That is the point, Dan, of de-civilization. They do mention January 6th, the US Capitol, and people playing that down, but I'll just go to the end because we're going to run out of time.

So, you cannot fix a violent society by simply, let me actually read a different quote, because it's just too important. So let me just back up. Here we go. "In the weeks after a sharply divided election ahead of the return to power of a president who has repeatedly promised to unleash a wave of state violence and targeted retribution..."

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Sorry, a wave of what kind of [01:14:00] violence?

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Yeah, civilized.

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: State violence. Civilized violence. Yeah.

BRAD ONISHI - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: Civilized. Civilized violence. "And targeted retribution against his enemies. Also civilized, since he is the state. Americans have a choice to make about the kind of society we are building together." Now who's the we and who are the Americans, if not the state?

Is the state not the Americans? Okay. "After all, civilization is, at its core, a question of how people choose to bond with one another and what behaviors we deem permissible among ourselves." So, The state is civilized if it does violence, but we have to be civilized apart from the state and bond with one another and among ourselves, like some kids in a tree house whose parents are gone for the weekend, you know, figuring out what's permissible and what's not.

There really is this sense here of like the kids need to behave. If we want civilization to survive, because the state is going to do what it needs to do to survive, and that [01:15:00] may mean violence and retribution, as just mentioned. But we are the ones that really need to stick together here and not let things get uncivil.

Let me read one more sentence, Dan, and I'll shut up and it's all yours. The process of de-civilization may begin with profound distrust in institutions and government, but," children, sorry, the children was me. "That distrust gets far worse in a society where people brutalize one another. Take it away.

DAN MILLER - CO-HOST, STRAIGHT WHITE AMERICAN JESUS: I don't even know where to start. So if I was like, I mean, you mentioned grad seminars, right? One of the things you would do is one of the things I say, this is not grad seminars. I work with undergraduate students, but one of the things I often say is don't make huge grandiose claims you could not possibly defend, right? I teach in religious studies. You teach in religious studies, which means you've gotten essays, Brad, that start the same way that mine do, sometimes, from students that say, "For as long as human beings have stared into the sky, they have pondered the..." I'm like, stop. Stop. You don't get to say things about all human beings, you don't get to say things about all time, you don't get to [01:16:00] make big statements about... right?

So, what the hell is civilization here? What qualified we've seen it's equated with the state. Here it seems to be equated with "the people," which seems to imply some sort of notion of popular governance or maybe democracy. That would lead into what Rousseau and others identify as the paradox of democracy and the people, right?

That a democracy can only work. With the authorization of the people, but the people itself is constituted by democracies. You have this kind of chicken/egg thing that comes along. We were making fun about the statement of Trump, right? Who's going to use state violence. If you're going to say that violence by the state doesn't count as uncivilized violence or somehow not violence, how can you criticize Trump if he has the mechanisms of the state, like on and on and on and on.

Another sentence that you didn't get a chance to throw in there says, "You cannot fix a violent society simply by eliminating the factors that made it deteriorate." Really? It seems like that would [01:17:00] be a really good place to start fixing a violent society, to me. You identify the factors that made it deteriorate and you address those factors.

I mean, maybe it's not going to be automatic and things like that, but it sure sounds like that would be something that you could do. Just on and on and on this is just a bunch of I think you know words that sound good; "civilization," "violence," "choosing to bond with another," "what behaviors we deem permissible among ourselves," and so forth.

A last point, back to this point about elitism and what counts, is a lot of Americans seem to deem mass shootings as permissible. They don't want to do anything to stop them. A lot of Americans deem transphobia and violence against queer people as permissible. They don't want to do anything about it.

Right? So don't give me this stuff that that just automatically makes us a civilized society just because there's some sort of majority view or consensus about, you know, what is permissible among ourselves. That's why I say this is not about neutrality or [01:18:00] any of that. My, my vein's going to pop on my forehead, so I'll throw it back to you to let you go apoplectic now.

SECTION C - United Health Care

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Up next section to see United healthcare.

Was United Healthcare CEO a Psychopath - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 12-9-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Uh, three days after Brian Thompson was assassinated. The CEO of UnitedHealth Group, which owns UnitedHealthcare, uh, Andrew Witte, uh, told, uh, circulated a, uh, two and a half minute video, um, to his employees.

Uh, which is kind of bizarre. I mean, it's it's, uh, the independent is writing about it. Just Justin Rorlich. He writes, um, United Health Group CEO Andrew Whitty told underlings that their work was quote critical in preventing the U. S. medical system from providing quote unnecessary. care he claimed would eventually drive up costs to a quote unsustainable level as he complained about the quote vitriolic media coverage of the shooting.

Of course, he's talking about social media where, um, it seems I, I [01:19:00] haven't seen any official numbers. I'm not sure any, there's any official agency that tracks this kind of stuff, but it certainly seems to me like 10 of the social media posts I've seen that have to do with the assassination of Brian Thompson have been, Basically cheering on the shooter, which is a really sad commentary on the state of the American health care system that so many people are so angry about this system that basically has turned, you know, the fate and future of Americans lives over to, you know, unelected corporations who then extract literally billions of dollars in profits and pay their executives literally millions of dollars, uh, in order to, uh, uh, You know, have their profits, I guess.

The two minute 45 second speech, you know, as I said, followed the assassination. UnitedHealthcare reportedly has one of the highest denial rates in the entire healthcare industry, was last year sued, [01:20:00] I'm reading from the Independent here, for allegedly using a flawed AI algorithm to systematically deny care coverage to seniors.

That would be through their Advantage program. Aye. The Mr. Whitty told employees that Thompson was dedicated, uh, to the goal of United Health Care's mission, which he says is to truly make sure that we help the system improve by helping the experience of individuals get better and better. I'm guessing many, uh, United Health Care, uh, policy holders would, uh, disagree with that.

Probably many would agree with it as well. It's, uh, if you're not in the 32 percent who've been, or the, the, I don't know what percentage have had denials. It's apparently it's 32 percent of all claims. Um, but he claimed few people in the history of the U. S. healthcare industry have had a bigger positive effect on American healthcare than Brian.

And I can just see people kind of gagging all over the country as they, as they hear that. [01:21:00] He said, we guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe care, Or for unnecessary care to be delivered in a way which makes the whole system too complex and ultimately unsustainable. Well, the system is too complex and is unsustainable.

It's going to cost us 55 to 60 trillion over the next 10 years if United Healthcare and their peer companies continue to play the major role in providing our health care and paying for our health care. Whereas if we went to Bernie Sanders, single payer health care system, it would cost 32 trillion.

There's a big difference between 50 trillion and 32 trillion over a decade. There's a huge difference. By the way, we also learned that the backpack that the shooter left, uh, in Central Park apparently, had, uh, was filled with Monopoly money. Now what's that about? My guess, if I had to make a guess, and I suppose I might as well, is that he intended to sprinkle the money over the body of the guy he shot, but that he [01:22:00] just, you know, decided to flee instead.

Yeah. by way of saying, I'm killing you because of what you did for money. You know, we'll see. I mean, you know, in, in my, in my article today, there is a one sentence that I really struggled with. But ultimately, this is how I wrote it. Essentially, United Healthcare's CEO, Brian Thompson, made decisions that killed Americans for a living in exchange for 10 million a year.

He and his peers in the industry are probably paid as much as they are because there is an actual shortage of people with business training who are willing to oversee decisions that cause or allow others to die in exchange for millions in annual compensation. And this is a, this is a theme that, you know, we've delved into many times in this program, including with.

Uh, a number of guests who were psychiatrists, which is that, you know, there are studies that show that as many as one in five American CEOs are actually psychopaths, that [01:23:00] psychopaths become some of the most successful business leaders because they just don't care what their actions do to average people.

They only care for themselves and their company. They're singularly focused on that, which is, you know, in essence. Capitalism or corporate capitalism is psychopathic. It doesn't care. Corporations don't care what happened to their customers or what happens to the people that they interact with, or even their impact on the local community environment until or unless it impacts their profits.

It's the only context in which they care. And I think that you could correctly define that as psychopathy.

You Dont Actually Need to Condemn the Murder of the CEO Guy Part 2 - Serious Inquiries Only - Air Date 12-12-24

THOMAS SMITH - HOST, SERIOUS INQUIRIES ONLY: So just to, you know, I don't want to bum you out too much. It's sort of a happy ending for this person, I think. But this, this poor guy was a college basketball player, um, tall, athletic, you know, and I only say this because, you know, the contrast when, when, you know, terrible healthcare stuff happens is very sad.

Tall, in [01:24:00] shape, fit basketball player develops. severe ulcerative colitis. This is, this is horrible. This is just one of those bad fucking moral luck things. You know, it's just, it's just bad luck. This it's precisely the reason we should all want. To be covered health care wise, we should all want to be covered health care wise, because there, but for the grace of the fucking spaghetti monster, go I there, but for the grace of God, go any of us, we could just one day be like, boop, alternative, all sort of colitis or whatever, any number of things.

But in this instance, it's that this poor guy went from being a college athlete. To not being able to leave the toilet. It's, it's horrifying. It's, it's, it's absolutely horrifying. You know, bloody diarrhea 21 times a day. Uh, or more this poor guy, um, real, really shit stuff to, it wasn't even trying to make a joke, shit luck.

[01:25:00] I'll say, and like, this is, this is so sad. It's the kind of thing that like, if this happens to you, your life is so fucking ruined. You know, you go from living a normal life to like, this guy can't leave his house. This guy can barely function. This guy has lost weight. He's got other really bad, you know, there's all kinds of bad health outcomes from this.

Now you'll never guess what happened. See. United Healthcare was looking at their fucking spreadsheets, looking at their numbers, looking at their financials. It was like, Hmm, we love this part where people pay us money. Love that. That's great. Well, isn't that such a great part of it where they're like, Hey, we'll pay you money just because we want to hopefully someday get coverage for our healthcare.

That's awesome. A plus love that. We're looking at this other line item that says where we pay for people's healthcare, but that's, well, it's not as fun. We don't like that part. That part, it's like a, it's a red number. It goes down for us. We don't, we don't like our numbers to go down. And, uh, they identify in their spreadsheet.

This one guy on this Penn state health [01:26:00] plan was costing them a lot of money because he had a really bad condition. And so wouldn't you know it because of that. And because of nothing else, because of no medical reason, because of no moral reason, because of no good fucking reason, but because of a number reason, A bad number for them.

Lots and lots of money it's costing this this health insurance company. You know health insurance companies? The company whose entire purpose is to provide money when you need health care because what you've done and what others have done have paid into the system when you don't need it? Yeah, they don't like that second part, the part where they have to pay back out.

They don't like that. Ah, that sucks. Ouch. Owie. Don't like that part. Not as good as just receiving money. And so they found, started finding all kinds of ways to get rid of this guy. They're like, this guy's costing us a lot of money. If we can get rid of him, we're making more money. Now, what complicates this a little bit is, unfortunately, the only thing that was working for this guy, after going through lots of treatment, this guy's life was, again, ruined.

Imagine it. I mean, this is [01:27:00] ulcers, like, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcers in your digestive tract, it's got no cure, and ongoing treatment to alleviate symptoms, that's all you got. It's all you got. Otherwise this person, he lost 50 pounds, bloody diary up to 20 times a day, severe stomach pain. I mean, if you've experienced some, some small amount of this, you, it's, it's life ending.

I mean, just, if, if, if you have that kind of bowel pain, which I've had a time or two, uh, because of my, not this, but like other digestive problems I've had, you're not living, you know, you're not, you're just, You're just on the floor. You're just curled up. You're just waiting for it to go away. It's it's horror.

It's awful It's really sad and it's something that could just happen to fucking any of us And so like once again, that's a reason we should you know Have a system where anyone would be covered for the few unlucky people. There's no [01:28:00] moral thing This guy did there's no thing, you know, even if there were by the way, I wouldn't care But like for those who think there's always odd people always deserve it.

Nope, just You It happens. Shit happens. God, I keep accidentally making a pun. I'm not even trying to do it. Uh, stuff happens. Now, he goes through a lot of treatments. They don't, they aren't working because he has a severe case. For some mild cases, these treatments do work, you know, reasonable enough. When you have a more mild form of it, the normal medications might work.

This guy, wouldn't you know it, mathematically, there's always going to be some people who have the worst kind of thing. That's just how stats and people work and math and numbers. This person happens to be the unfortunate. Person who has a bad kind of this and so with a doctor who seems to be really good, they're trying to figure out what to do and eventually his doctor says, Okay, we've tried a lot of stuff.

We tried the usual stuff. Not working. This is awful. Let's try. A certain course of treatment that has potentially worked in other [01:29:00] cases, where you take these biologic drugs that I don't totally understand, uh, and pin in this for, I don't know, someone who knows more about this, I don't think these should cost so fucking much.

I don't know why they do. That's another question. Um, but that's a separate issue because for now, the important thing is these biologic drugs, as they call them, for some reason, they cost a shitload of money. There I go again, not even trying to do it. I just, I'm now realizing how much of my normal speech involves shit related words.

So I will try to cut that out. So I'm genuinely not trying to do it. Um, but for some reason, these costs a bunch of money and, um, another unfortunate thing. In order for this treatment to work, they have to do very high doses of them that are not the normal amount. So already, I'm sure anyone who's had experience with insurance companies is thinking, Wow, this is, you're fucked.

Like, because those exact things are the kinds of things that are very hard to get insurance companies to cover. It's a, it's not the usual drug. And furthermore, it's [01:30:00] two of not the usual drug. And furthermore, they're doing high doses. But here's the fucking thing. This works. It works. He tries this treatment.

This very expensive treatment and it works. The guy starts having a normal life. Can you imagine going from bloody shit 20 times a day, not living to having a life that's priceless for any human, for any person, uh, not priceless for an insurance company that has a cost to it. But wouldn't, but boo fucking hoo because hey, that's the job you're in.

That's the industry you're in. That's the sector you're in. Sometimes, you get people who do nothing but pay into your little system, to your little fucking scheme. They do nothing but pay you money all their lives, and then maybe they're hit by a car and die, never having used their health care treatment.

Do we ask for their money back from you? No, that doesn't happen. Sometimes health insurance companies, I [01:31:00] know this is hard to hear, but I got to give you a little, like, no nonsense brass tacks, you know, sometimes health insurance companies, you have the opposite where someone hasn't paid in very much, but they have a very expensive treatment and hey, It ultimately all works out in the end because mathematically you make sure it does.

That's how your business works. You make sure that you always make money. You mathematically make sure it's called whatever the factuarial tables or whatever the fuck that is. That's how you do it. You will always make money, but that's not enough. That's not enough for these companies. They always, because of capitalism, Have to be trying to make more.

And because of, you know, CEOs that get paid hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options and all that, they have to be trying to make more. How do you make more? Well, let's find a way to get rid of the ones that are on the other side of the thing. Don't want to get rid of the ones that just pay us money and then don't use the stuff.

That they're great. Let's find more of those. Um, but let's get rid of the ones where we have to print money out. Cause that isn't as fun for us. And so they start doing these reviews over and over this poor guy. Who's finally living his [01:32:00] life again.

These Guys Are SO Out Of Touch On Healthcare CEO Shooting Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 12-9-24

BEN SHAPIRO: We discussed yesterday a Columbia professor who wrote something very similar. Unfortunately, bubbling under the surface of all this is something very serious. Really serious. What is that serious thing? The revolutionary left. It's creeping into the mainstream. Yesterday, we talked about liberals versus the left. Liberals are people who disagree with me on public policy, but aren't in favor of, you know, the murder of their opponents. The left is a different thing. The shooting of Thompson has unleashed a wave of evil from members of the left. Thompson was not a criminal.

He wasn't even an advocate of death, the way, for example, abortion or euthanasia advocates are. And by the way, murdering an abortionist or an advocate of euthanasia would be unjustifiable morally in a democratic system. Brian Thompson's great sin, according to these people, is that he was the head of a company that exists within a mix of private/public healthcare framework.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, that's just one question. That actually led to get passed unremarked. Ben Shapiro cutting in close because I think they had to film it later where he said, by the way, don't go kill abortion providers. Violence has been used against abortion providers. [01:33:00] Where pro life movement is right now, it would not be if it wasn't for the use of violence.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah, and, I mean, let's just pull up his tweet from this morning because we had two breaking stories in these cases. Daniel Penny, who held down unhoused Jordan Neely on the subway for over five minutes in a chokehold, and that resulted in the death of Jordan Neely, has been acquitted after, like, nearly 24 hours of deliberation by the jury.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: A long time for deliberation, I'll say that. Wrong decision.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah, I mean, it's a high standard, I understand, but yeah. Ben Shapiro, there's video of this, of Daniel Penney holding down Jordan Neely for over five minutes and it becoming clear as his body goes limp what is happening.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Thanks to all the people who never ride the New York subway for telling us how to feel about that shit, by the way.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah "America needs more men like Daniel Penney. America needs fewer prosecutors like Alvin Bragg." So, [01:34:00] which one is it, Ben? Is killing somebody wrong? Is killing somebody wrong? Or, do you confer a humanity onto wealthy people, onto wealthy white people, that you don't confer onto someone like Jordan Neely, who has been failed by society, who has had issues himself, but whose humanity is no lesser than the United Healthcare CEO just because he's a wealthy person. And you see, like, this is the divide, oddly.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yep.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Like, this is the real divide. And for all the talk of right wing populism, I think it's completely insincere because it's really Ben Shapiro's mentality is what Republicans really think and what right wingers, power players really think, but let's talk about the voters here.

If you are somebody who, is uncomfortable with the reaction to the killing of the United Healthcare CEO, but you are also somebody [01:35:00] who is making some case that Daniel Penney needed to get off and was innocent or was doing his civic duty for society. You're just a racist. That's the reality.

Because, you see the audience, his Ben Shapiro fans, they understand why. They've had that experience, and I'm sure some of them were cheering on Daniel Penney, and all of that, but they still, at the very least, at their core, know the pain that's behind our healthcare system. If you're an elitist and you're a racist, if you're having- you are pro Daniel Penney and then also like chiding leftists about their reaction and other people, just regular people about their reaction to this killing.

SECTION D - Health Care History

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section D healthcare history.

The Health Care Crisis Is The Democracy Crisis Part 2 - The Lever - Air Date 12-17-24

CLIP: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Kennedy was recognizing a universal truth in human history. Social [01:36:00] stability, the rule of law, and civilization itself will eventually break down if a population is immiserated for too long while a handful of elites profit. And just two months after that speech, JFK honed in on the healthcare crisis in America, pressing for the passage of what would become Medicare.

CLIP: The fact of the matter is that what we are now talking about doing, most of the countries of Europe did years ago. The British did it 30 years ago. We are behind every country, pretty nearly, in Europe in this matter of medical care for our citizens.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Kennedy's speeches on the survival of democracy and the need for health care reform seem more relevant than ever right now. The connection between the two seems more obvious than ever. Think about what's happened in the last few [01:37:00] weeks.

All of a sudden, after the murder of United Health CEO, Brian Thompson, everyone seems to be talking about healthcare and yet a discussion of healthcare was almost completely absent from the presidential campaign. This is the democracy crisis staring at us in the face. A public that is rightly angry at a massive policy failure.

And yet politicians and the media making sure that that failure is not even being discussed in the election that's supposed to be where we the people make our voices heard. It all feels like what JFK was warning about. As evidenced by all the anger expressed at health insurers after the shooting, many Americans clearly believe that elections and the political process have become so corrupt, so overrun with health care industry campaign cash, and so broken, that [01:38:00] democratic institutions like Congress and the White House have become obstacles to fixing something like the health care system. And that has prompted some to cheer on vigilante violence.

CLIP: The shooter got out from behind a parked car, pointed a gun at Thompson's back, and then shot twice.

DAVID SIROTA - HOST, LEVER TIME: Let me be absolutely clear. Extrajudicial murder is not good. It's not laudable. It's not justified. Violence is not justifiable. The shooting is not something to be cheered on. There is no rationalizing, excusing, or honoring murder. And there is no virtue in getting yourself social media clicks by cheering that kind of thing on.

Nobody should be valorizing anyone who engages in vigilante murder. Democracy and civilization itself is based on the idea that we do not settle our differences through violence against people we disagree with. [01:39:00] Violence is not only vile and immoral, it makes it more difficult to achieve progress. But I also fear that JFK's warning is relevant here.

While the shooting is deplorable and heinous, and unacceptable and counterproductive, I fear it's also an example of the kind of chaos that may become inevitable in a country whose political establishment has spent decades tearing up the social contract, legalizing and normalizing another kind of violence: Murder by Insurance Industry Spreadsheet. Murder by Spreadsheet may sound like an exaggeration. But it IS our reality. Right now, studies suggest around 60,000 Americans die every year because they lack access to decent medical care. We have insurance companies using artificial intelligence to systematically deny their customers medical claims, even as the [01:40:00] average family premium in an employer based health care plan now costs more than $25,000 a year.

14 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 100 million Americans face a combined total of $220 billion of medical debt as just one of many horror stories. A recent study found that 42% of cancer patients see all of their life savings depleted within two years. This is horrendous for most Americans, but a jackpot for the health insurance industry.

As The Lever reported this week, the largest insurers raked in $371 billion in profits since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and they also spent $120 billion on stock buybacks, enriching their shareholders and their executives. Amid increases in premiums and increases in [01:41:00] claim denial rates, seven health insurance CEOs were paid $335 million in a single year.

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 our upcoming topics: Trump antagonizing our allies, and the role of the billionaire bros on our politics. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from The Majority Report, All In with Chris Hayes, Straight White American Jesus, The Thom Hartman Program, Serious Inquiries Only, and The Lever. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for the research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken Brian, Ben, and Lara for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes [01:42:00] 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 sending 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 incredibly 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. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.

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.

1 reaction Share

#1679 The Middle East War Process: Syria's Transition, Israel's Expansion, and Beyond (Transcript)

Posted by · December 28, 2024 9:25 AM

Air Date 12/28/2024

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

Decades of dictatorial rule in Syria has come to an end, leading to something else to be determined. Israel sprang into action, taking control of Syrian land on their border. And no one seems to care what the US thinks of all of this, which is telling.

For those looking for a quick overview, our sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes The Muckrake Political Podcast, Middle East Eye, American Prestige, The Take, Democracy Now!, and Double Down News.

Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more in three sections: Section A. The Syrian people; Section B. Israel; and Section C. Historical context and the proxy war.

Assad Ousted From Syria - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-10-24

JARED YATES SEXTON: I found out that Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria had fallen. Assad had fallen to his regime, which by the way, his family has been in control.

For [00:01:00] 50 years, more than 50 years, Assad himself has been in charge for 24 years. There's been 13 years worth of civil war in Syria. It's been one of the largest humanitarian crisis we've seen in the modern era. Rebels have taken control of Syria. Assad hopped a plane and went and hung out with his buddy Vladimir Putin.

I hope the two of them have a lot to talk about in Moscow. This is a big, giant story. There's a lot of stuff that has occurred in the past couple of days that we need to get people up to speed about what was your initial reaction to finding that Assad was finally deposed in Syria?

NICK HAUSELMAN: I mean, I think obviously it's extremely encouraging and positive to be able to have an authoritarian dictator like that removed or leave or be forced out.

Like that

JARED YATES SEXTON: shit bag. Yeah,

NICK HAUSELMAN: I mean, remember, he used chemical weapons against his own people. This was some sort of red line in the sand that Obama never really did anything about, which also caused him issues politically. And yeah, we're seeing footage now of the dungeons that they had kept. There was a guy who was released after 43 years of [00:02:00] being in prison for doing basically nothing.

And so the repairing of the country is going to take a long time and you can feel, however excited that they might be to be able to have freedom. It's going to take a long time to repair the psychic healing of that. And the. De stabilization in the area is really, really concerning, especially because, things aren't going that stably right now, everywhere else right around that.

JARED YATES SEXTON: Yeah and I'll go ahead and start with your last point and then I'll work my way out. Nick, one thing that we've been covering over the past couple of years is the decline of the American empire. There was one hegemonic country that basically was the world's policeman, carried the big stick, whatever you want to call it.

And now that we've entered decline, the American order has started to disintegrate and weird stuff happens when that occurs. When it comes to, and by the way, Assad, like. I, the only thing I'm sad about in this is that he got away because dictators who kill their own people. And by the way, we're talking up to half a million people who were killed in the civil war [00:03:00] civilians.

We're talking about tens of millions of refugees. God knows how many more there's going to be people like that, who torture their citizens and kill their own citizens, they shouldn't be able to hop a flight to Moscow. You know what I mean? Like there, there is an end that these people usually meet and Assad deserved it.

When we talk about this story though. This was a proxy for Russia. The only reason Assad was able to hold on to any power over the last 13 years was because Russia took care of them. And one of the only reasons this was allowed to occur was because of the invasion of Ukraine, right? So we talk a lot about moments of sorting, how the American order is being pushed against and how this access of other countries is starting to coalesce and do all kinds of things.

There's going to be weird movements in all of this. There's going to be weird associations. Israel's already trying to take advantage of this. They've already sent in troops that are meant to try and take as much land and resources as they possibly can. Meanwhile, like we don't know exactly what's going to happen from the rebels taking over.

[00:04:00] You know what you don't find in any story, Nick. Do you know where these rebels came from? Do you know where they got their training and they got their motivation for things?

NICK HAUSELMAN: ISIS, the word, they get it. That'd be

JARED YATES SEXTON: Al Qaeda. This is an Al Qaeda adjacent group. You'll notice that all of the coverage of this just always talks about them as.

Rebels. They don't talk about how the HTS has as its beginnings in Al Qaeda and radical, Islamic groups.

NICK HAUSELMAN: Well, what's interesting is that they took over in about a week, right? An entire government that was backed by Russia falls in a week to rebels who don't have planes. They don't have long range bombs, right?

They don't they just kind of swept through and it sort of tells you you just, you're describing the decline of the United States, but you're describing the client of Russia on an even steeper path. And so that's really what was probably the most interesting thing to me there was how easy it was for, rebels to take over an entire country.

JARED YATES SEXTON: Yeah, I want you to imagine Assad. And by the way, like dictatorial assholes like this guy, I want you to put yourself in his mind for a second. As you start to [00:05:00] realize that Russia is getting ready to push this offensive with North Korea into Ukraine and you read the writing on the wall. Right? And all of a sudden, all the Ashton Martins that you have used blood money to buy, they're not going to make you safe anymore, right?

You suddenly realize the priorities have changed. I imagine, Benito Mussolini in Italy had a sudden realization that the Third Reich was going to let them in. Things fall apart for him and you start realizing where you are on the pecking order. And meanwhile, there's all kinds of other weird things that are happening here.

Nick, we've got Turkish militias that are taking place in here. We have no idea what's going to happen to the Kurds in Syria. One of the, one of the main like components in all of this was Iran's relationship with this regime. Iran has to be looking around saying what in the hell is going on?

Things do not feel good. And the whole point that I want to bring forward, because this is. As we talk about all this stuff the fall of the American empire and the emerging axis opposed to America, there's going to be a lot of [00:06:00] weirdness that takes place everywhere and things start destabilizing.

And I keep talking about flashpoints, Nick, you'll remember, I, God, what was it? Three or four months ago, we had a conversation and we. counted them up. There were like seven major flashpoints around the world that at any given moment, you had different multiple nations belligerence that were in a place where something could go wrong at any given moment.

We have just now had one of the flashpoints actually become a larger flashpoint. It's a vacuum where a lot of people are going to try and fill stuff. We're going to We don't know what's going to happen in Syria. We don't know if this is going to be a happy ending overall. All we know is that Bashar al Assad is out of power and that in and of itself is a good thing.

What happens after it up in the air?

NICK HAUSELMAN: You know, it's funny because I think we felt pretty fortunate while Trump was in office last time that we didn't have a ton of these flashpoints happening all at once. Like it's weird, isn't it? Yeah. So we were like, and I know we were thankful for that. Cause I don't think he would have handled any of those things like that very well.

Well, he's going to take office in the middle of this now. And God, [00:07:00] Lord knows what is going to happen, especially because he's continuing to try and prop up Russia. He's continuing to prop up the old world order, even though he claims to be, an isolationist. The other thing that's interesting to me is that the last time we had something like this with a Russian backed dictator being ousted was Yanukovych.

Yeah. In Ukraine of all places. And so what happened to Ukraine? Well, they experienced democracy. They are reawakening and the country was taking itself back. And then sure enough 10 years later, whatever, 12 years later, Russia invades. So I'm now I'm trying to figure out if there's any kind of path that that's going to happen with Syria.

I like, are they now right for someone else in the nearby and nearby to, to overrun them and try and take them off?

JARED YATES SEXTON: No idea. None. We really don't know where this is going to go, but again, I think a couple of things can be true at once. The world has one less murderous asshole dictator in it. That's a good thing.

What happens after we don't know, but also Nick American leadership in all of this. Pretty quiet. They're taking stock of it, but there's no real push for American leadership and what's [00:08:00] happening. And that is again, a symptom of this larger shifting order that we're watching take place right now.

Assad downfall: Is the Arab Spring back from the dead? - Middle East Eye - Air Date 12-14-24

DAVID HEARST: Are we witnessing a revolution bursting into flames again from the embers of a fire that was never fully stamped out? Books have been written, careers launched on the premise that the Arab spring is dead. And there's lots of evidence for it.

13 years have passed and the split that tore the coalition of revolutionaries in Tahrir Square apart is still there. And what happened in Tunisia? Didn't they think themselves so much more sophisticated than their brothers in Egypt? And haven't they followed Egypt down the same path to jail and dictatorship?

Back then, in 2011, Syria was hailed as the object lesson Arabs were told to avoid. Every government told its people not to rock the boat, to avoid the bloodshed taking place in Daraa. But it is here that the revolution could be starting up all over again. [00:09:00] It's the same scenes of toppling statues, ripped pictures, the joy of protesters climbing on tanks, the horror of discovering emaciated prisoners in Sednaya prison.

I was in Doha at the annual forum at the time all this was taking place, and you could see the tectonic plates of the region shifting in the body language of the delegates. The blood seemed to drain from the face of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who became intensely uncomfortable fielding questions about Syria and demanded to talk about Russian success in Ukraine instead.

The Iranian delegation rushed in a huddle through the corridors of the Sheraton Hotel, ashen faced. Conversely, the Turks were ruling the roost. Almost overnight, the Syrian revolution had turned Turkey from a distressed observer into a player once more in the Middle East. Hakan Fidan, the foreign minister, and Ibrahim Kalin, the man in charge of Turkey's intelligence [00:10:00] organization, were stars again.

There is still fighting in the north between the Turkish backed Free Syria Army and the U. S. backed YPD Kurds, but so far the toppling of Assad has been peaceful. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham reassured the Christians of Aleppo. It handed over governance to policemen as soon as rebel troops could Sayyida Zainab Shrine in South Damascus untouched and did not confront Iraqi paramilitary groups.

The rebels kept the road open to Latakia for retreating Syrian army generals to flee. Learning the lessons of Iraq, they stopped looting and told the cheering crowds to respect government property. HTS leader Abu Mohammed al Jolani gave his victory speech in the historic Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, which is adjacent to the resting place of Saladin.

Absolutely no one in the Muslim world, or indeed the Arab world, would have lost [00:11:00] the significance of these symbols. The reaction of the pro Iranian secular left in the West has been to tar the HTS as unreformed jihadis, head cutters and oppressors of minorities, all trained by the CIA and now working in Israel's interests.

However, the Palestinian militant groups, most of whom have been funded by Iran, had a very different reaction, and no one can accuse Hamas of being CIA or pro Israeli. Hamas said that Syria will continue to play an historic and pivotal role in supporting the Palestinian people. And a senior Palestinian source who knows the thinking inside the movement told me every free person in the world should be happy about what happened in Syria, whether they're Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, because the situation in Syria was very, very clear. This was the worst example of genocidal attacks towards a people whose only crime was to call for reform, freedom, and social justice.

Now Hamas concedes that Assad's fall is bad news for Hezbollah and [00:12:00] Iran, both comrades in arms. But it continues to think the relationship between Hamas and these groups will not change. There is no arguing that the collapse of Assad is a major strategic loss for Iran.

However, the axis of resistance is far from dismantled because Hezbollah and the Iraqi armed groups like Katib Hezbollah and Ansar Allah, the Houthis in Yemen, are still functioning fighting forces. But what would be a greater threat to Israel's plans for a messianic hegemony to dominate his neighbors would be the emergence of a successful Islamist neighbor, to show the Arab people how the weak can topple the strong. Which is why Israel's first reaction was to occupy the demilitarized border zone and strategic mountain peak in Mount Hermon range between Syria and Lebanon. They claim their presence is temporary, but temporary in the Middle East can last a very long time.

If this does indeed turn out to be [00:13:00] the start of a new chapter in the Arab Spring, at least one lesson will have been learned. The revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia were not revolutionary enough. Armed revolt was not in the Muslim Brotherhood's DNA. Quite the contrary. They kept being seduced by false assurances from the Egyptian military that the army would allow a freely elected government to rule. Their tools were political only. They attempted to assemble this flat packed kit called democracy by dutifully reading the instructions and screwing it together piece by piece.

Meanwhile, the generals laughed and kicked down this cardboard construction with hobnail boots. The Syrian revolution, if it indeed continues as it started, toppled the army, the deep state, the secret police, the prisons, by force of arms. If it does succeed, Syria could provide a powerful lesson in how a rebel movement gains national legitimacy. And success in this brittle region is contagious.

[00:14:00] That is why right now there must be more than one despot quietly plotting how to derail the experiment as they so successfully did a decade ago. Or is their counter-revolutionary toolkit out of date? To a large extent, that depends on the Syrian people themselves. But it is well past the time that Egyptians, Jordanians, Tunisians, Iraqis rethink their understanding of revolutions. They wax and wane, but they don't die.

Syria's Transition, Biden Migrant Detention Facilities Part 1 - American Prestige - Air Date 12-13-24

DEREK DAVISON: The new government, such as it is, which is largely being run by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the former al Qaeda group that was controlling Idlib province and now is the dominant force in Damascus, its leader, the man formerly known as Abu Muhammad al Jilani, but now calling himself by his given name, Ahmed al Shara, appointed a new prime minister earlier this week, Muhammad al Bashir, who happened to be filing the same role in the so called Salvation Government that [00:15:00] HTS has set up to run Idlib province back in 2017. So he takes over the country at this point. They release the names of a number of cabinet ministers as well, interim cabinet ministers. They interestingly have not yet appointed a foreign minister or a defense minister. We'll have to see how that shakes out. They have appointed an economy minister. And Danny, I know you'll be happy to know he is going to implement free market reforms, so that should work out great for everybody. He's intent on that. But right now the plan is for a suspension of constitutional rule and of the Syrian parliament until March. I don't know what's going to happen in March. The transition government that they've set out has a mandate that runs through March 1st. I don't know what they're planning to do on March 1st. They've [00:16:00] said a lot of the things that you would expect if you were calibrating your rhetoric to a Western audience, they've said a lot of the things that you would expect them to say, like, we're going to have a representative government, there's not gonna be any oppression of minorities or religious or ethnic minorities. Everyone will be represented. Everyone's gonna have a seat at the table. I assume that means some kind of election, but to organize an election on a national scale in a country that is, as we'll get into still pretty much torn apart, in pieces, that's not gonna happen by March. One would assume there's gonna be some effort at rewriting the Constitution. That's also not gonna happen by March. So, this March date, I really don't know what the plan is. When we get there we'll have to see if they elucidated a little bit more over the coming weeks, but right now it's just, [00:17:00] they're thinking three months ahead, or I guess two and a half at this point, they've got the transition government in place and they're dealing with some more immediate things like getting public services back up and running in Damascus and other places where this group is in control, which is not, again, not the entire country. And reestablishing relations with a lot of countries that had cut them, during the Assad years, Qatar, for example, became, the last of the Gulf states finally to reopen its embassy or announce that it was reopening its embassy. The other five Gulf Cooperation Council states had already reengaged with the Assad government. So, they've just rolled over to the new one. But Qatar had remained the lone holdout and they've now reopened their embassy. So, that kind of thing is happening There's some talk of getting out from under UN sanctions, US sanctions at some point, the Caesar Act, I'm quite certain that [00:18:00] Syrian leaders would like to get out from under that. There's been a move to repatriate refugees. I know the Turkish government opened the border to allow refugees to be processed out and go back to Syria. A number of European countries that are positively vibrating at the chance to do this are considering just on mass denying any asylum requests that they're getting from Syrians or any open cases. The UN has cautioned people to pump the brakes a little bit on that process because it's still not necessarily safe for people to go back to Syria and the Syrian government, Bashir, cleverly, I think, this week gave a little televised address in which he linked the idea of repatriating these refugees to Syria's foreign currency deficit to the fact that the syrian pound is pretty much worthless and that the Syrian economy is in tatters. So, I think he was nudging European governments to drop their [00:19:00] economic penalties to restore ties with Damascus as quickly as possible and pump money into the Syrian economy in order to facilitate what they would love, which is the return of these Syrian nationals to Syria.

DANIEL BESSNER: What about the fighting between the Syrian Democratic Forces and Turkish proxies?

DEREK DAVISON: This has been going on mostly in, the north, after the HTS and the Syrian National Army seized Aleppo. there was a moment where the Syrian National Army and the Turks kind of moved off to the east. They dislodged the Syrian Democratic Forces from Tel Rafat, which is a nearby town, and also pushed them out of Aleppo city. They had seized, I think, the SDF had taken the airport and was holding a little bit of territory there. They pushed them out of that as well. They then moved on the city of Manbij, which has been held by the SDF for years now. They did, [00:20:00] on Tuesday, negotiate an agreement for the SDF to leave Manbij and cross from the western side of the, Euphrates River over to the eastern side where the rest of its forces are. Al Monitor, which is a site I read pretty regularly for Middle Eastern news, reported that this was the result of an ultimatum that the SDF got from the United States, which is, of course, its main patron, whereby the U. S. basically said, if you don't leave Manbij, the U. S. brokered this deal with Turkey that said, if, you, the SDF will leave Manbij and cross over to the eastern side of the Euphrates River, if you guys, agree, Turkey and its proxies, agree not to continue pressing your attack against the SDF on the eastern side of the river, and supposedly they agreed. For how long, who knows? But the SDF was hesitant initially to do this. And it apparently got to the point where the U. S. said, look, either you, leave Manbij and cross the river or [00:21:00] our relationship is no longer going to be of use to you or we're no longer going to protect you. Not that they're doing a very good job of protecting them so far. But that, according to this piece, at least was the terms of the deal. So the SDF has now left Manbij. Turkey has taken it over. The next target, if the Turks decide screw this we're going to continue you know, we're going to go over the river and continue to attack the Kurds, would be Kobani and Kobani is symbolically a pretty important place for the SDF. That's where the Kurds made their a big stand against Islamic State, which was getting tacit help from the Turks, by the way, many years ago, during the early years of the Syrian civil war. They lost a number of people, killed defending that city and ultimately were victorious. And so it's difficult to imagine that they would be as a blase about giving that up to the Turks as they were with the, I don't want to say they were blase about Manbij, but as sanguine, let's say, about [00:22:00] giving up Kobani as they were about giving up Manbij. So, that could be a big fight if it, if things progress to that point. The SDF has also after briefly taking control of the city of Deir ez-Zor, which is the capital of Deir ez-Zor Province in eastern Syria, has left that city, turned it over to groups affiliated with the new, government such as it is in Damascus. I have seen reports that basically one of the main Arab elements within the SDF, the Deir ez-Zor military council, just quit the group and went over to this new Syrian government. So, under those, circumstances, the SDF was unable to hang onto the city, but they did sweep in a few days ago as Assad's forces were leaving, as the then Syrian army was leaving the city and falling back. So that's another setback really for the SDF, although, admittedly, they hadn't controlled Deir ez-Zor prior to that, so it's not a huge setback. Manbij [00:23:00] would be the bigger deal here, but they are getting pressured from a number of different angles, and I'm not sure that their relationship with the United States is going to save them, particularly when Donald Trump, who, as we know, is no fan of either the SDF or the U. S. military presence in Syria comes back into office.

Why is Israel bombing Syria? - The Take - Air Date 12-17-24

MALIKA BILAL: Aymenn, you've described what the impetus is from Israel. The Israeli government says that this military deployment to the buffer zone between Israel and Syria is temporary, and says the collapse of the "Syrian regime created a vacuum on Israel's border". I'm interested in what you think 'temporary' means here. How temporary could this actually be?

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: I think it's temporary, at least until there's a clear idea of what the new government is and who leads it. Because right now it's still in a transition stage where we don't know yet. Are there going to be elections? When are elections [00:24:00] going to be held? What parties are going to be running for the selection? What's the role of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Abu Mohammed al-Golani, in particular, its leader.

REPORTER: Syria's de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, said on Saturday that Israel was using false pretexts to justify its attacks on Syria. He also said he was not interested in engaging in new conflicts as his country focuses on rebuilding.

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: You have to remember also that there is some context. So, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, of course, was ruling parts of Idlib and its surroundings in the northwest of the country before they had this lightning offensive that brought down the regime. The discourse from there was very pro Palestinian. I mean, they'd have rallies for Palestine, you've had fundraising campaigns for Gaza. Also, I have to say this, also, that there was a lot of solidarity, too, with Hamas and its Katāʼib ʻIzz al-Dīn al-Qassām, the armed wing that fights Israel in the Gaza Strip.

So I'm sure the Israelis noticed [00:25:00] these kinds of things, and some U. S. analysts noticed these kinds of things, and they might look at that and say, hmm. how influential is this Hayat Tahrir al-Sham going to be in the new government? And are they going to be, are they going to want to be at war with us? Are they going to try to support Palestinian resistance to the occupation? So I can understand from the Israeli perspective why there might be some concern or worry about that from their side, but I think it's temporary at least until they have a clear idea of what the new government is.

And it is possible, of course, also that they want to use this buffer zone as a levering, as a bargaining chip to say, we'll withdraw in turn for your recognition of the Golan Heights as Israeli territory. They might do that. And I wouldn't count out actually the U.S., for example, pressuring the new Syrian government on issues like sanctions as well, and saying, we'll lift sanctions [00:26:00] and we'll ease restrictions and make things easier for you if you normalize ties with Israel.

MALIKA BILAL: Wow. So, Aymenn, the Golan Heights has been claimed by Israel for decades, but it is Syrian territory captured during the war. As we mentioned earlier, no country other than the U. S. under Donald Trump in 2019 recognizes Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. But that hasn't stopped Israel and the Israeli government from approving a plan as late as just Sunday to double the population in the area. So let's get into who currently lives there and how that came to be.

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: Yeah. So right now, the Golan Heights, relative to the rest of Israeli controlled territory, is quite sparsely populated. There [are] multiple Israeli settlements there, inhabited by Israeli Jews. And these settlements tend to be quite small. Now, all the [00:27:00] original Syrian inhabitants were expelled from the Golan, except for three villages in the north of the Golan Heights, which are, they're inhabitants from a minority religious community, the Druze, it's an offshoot of Shiism, ultimately. And they live in three villages. One is Majdal Shams, which is right on the border, on the side of the Syrian controlled territory. You have another called Buq'ata, and then you have another called Ein Qiniyye. Majdal Shams is the largest of them. These Druze people, broadly speaking, over the years, they've retained a Syrian identity, so they actually rejected Israeli nationality, broadly speaking as a community. And actually, most of them still do not have Israeli nationality. But, in recent years, there's been a slight trend towards more of them acquiring and taking Israeli nationality for reasons, for, say, [00:28:00] pragmatic reasons, for example, that they think that it would always be better, life would always be better for them under Israeli rule than it would be under Syrian rule.

But with what Israel is trying to do now, as I say, Israel's own policy is very much now that we want to retain the Golan and they have no interest in or desire to give it back to Syria. And an increasing number of settlers would cement that, but there will be other interest too fulfilled by expanding the Israeli presence within the Golan. For example, Israel's housing market is very notorious for its ridiculously high prices. Property in the Golan would be cheaper because it's more space, less pressure, less competition.

MALIKA BILAL: Aymenn you have sprinkled this conversation with your conversations with people who are in some of these villages. So you visited the villages.

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: I've been to the Golan area. Yes. And, [00:29:00] I've, following the Syrian war, I also came to know quite a lot of people on the Syrian side of the border too, going right from Hadar, which is this Druze village, which is just opposite Majdal Shams, but on the Syrian side, right down to this Jemla village, which is in Deraa province, but on the border with the south of the Golan Heights and that's a certainly Arab locality. So yeah, I've come to know people on both sides of these borders.

MALIKA BILAL: And so what are you hearing from people in these communities currently when it comes to the Israeli potential expansion, when it comes to who might rule Syria moving forward, when it comes to what they're feeling right now?

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: So this varies according to the place you talk to people. I have to mention that there is this controversy that's emerged within social media and also Israeli media picked up on this too. So this village of Hadar [00:30:00] I just mentioned, which is Druze, like Majdal Shams, but it's on the Syrian controlled side of the territory. They were talking about Hadar and other nearby Druze villages in Syria wanting supposedly to be annexed to Israel. Now this is based on a video clip in that emerged of a speaker who appeared to be suggesting something like that, that the Druze community can't trust the central government that's going to emerge in Syria and that they would have better survival chances by joining up with Israel.

Now, the Israeli media that then took this to say these villages have declared to want to be annexed by Israel. That's a very big exaggeration of what actually happened. I know several people in the village of Hadar, and none of them support the idea of wanting to be annexed by Israel. And the local notables in the village also put out a [00:31:00] statement saying that we reject the idea of parts separating from Syria and that we're an indivisible part of Syria. And I think there are a minority of people in the village, in Hadar, and some of these other Druze villages that would be concerned because there's the worry about the nature of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the center of power, and also the fact that in the course of the war they did stand by the regime. Hadar, for example, I documented all of the people from that village who died during the war fighting on the government side. It goes to over a hundred people. And that's not an insignificant number. So, I could understand some concerns among some people there about what their future is under a new post Assad order in Syria. On the other hand, this does not mean the village as a whole has declared it wants to join Israel. There are people in that village also [00:32:00] who have lost relatives because of Israel.

MALIKA BILAL: Well, finally, Aymenn, I wonder where this could go from here?

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: That is the question I think that we'd all...

MALIKA BILAL: Million dollar question, right?

AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI: Yeah, because we'd all want to know the answer. I think that for now, just at least, that it's Israel continues this sweeping along the border region, trying to clear out, to continue to search for, try to make people hand over weapons. But, in the meantime, here, Tahrir al-Sham finds its hands a bit tied. But I don't see an all out war breaking out between Israel and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

“Lawless”: Marwan Bishara on Israel Bombing Syria 800 Times & Expanding Occupation of Golan Heights - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-16-24

MARWAN BISHARA: Israel is setting new precedents in the Middle East. It has been doing so for the past 75, 80 years, but this week, in the way it’s acting so lawlessly against Syria, [00:33:00] as a rogue state basically, bombing the hell out of its neighbor, simply because there has been a change of rulers in Damascus attempting a peaceful transitional governing there, taking care of the people, and sending all kinds of signals that they have absolutely zero intentions of getting into war with anyone. And yet, this what’s called “strategic opportunism” on the part of the Netanyahu government, also political opportunism just while he’s on trial for corruptions and the rest of it, being a war criminal also, he’s stealing the show by deflecting from what’s going on in Israel, attacking Syria everywhere in Syria, while at the same time expanding in the southern part of Syria beyond the already-occupied Golan Heights. And, as you said, he’s trying to double [00:34:00] the illegal settlements in the Golan Heights. So, all in all, Israel, Netanyahu are sending exactly the wrong messages, doing exactly the wrong provocations, and at the same time setting precedents for rogueness, that I think it might not come to bite them soon, but it probably could later.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And your response, Marwan, to the summit that was held in Jordan over the weekend? What do you think came out of it, and especially Secretary of State Blinken being there?

MARWAN BISHARA: the first impression is to remember back the leaders’ parole, parole, parole. You know, sometimes things like only words, words and more words come out of Arab leaders and Arab summits, especially those with the United States. But then, if you look a little more [00:35:00] deep into it, you would know that a lot of those people who — a lot of those leaders who were convening the summit in Aqaba have already been normalizing relations with the former Assad regime, despite its murderous corruption, despite its narco-state criminal kleptocracy. They’ve invited him back in the Arab League in 2022 and embraced him in 2023, and they were actually strengthening economic relations in the most of them. But now they were suddenly meeting together and to talk about human rights and peaceful transition and minority rights in Syria, as if, moving forward, or as if the past 60 years, it was merely the majority rights that were violated in Syria by the Assad dictatorship.

Be that as it may, I think while they sing from the same sheet, I think they have very different approaches to what security means, [00:36:00] to what stability means in Syria, to what even terrorism means. They don’t agree on this, that and the other thing. And, in fact, each and every one of the major powers in that meeting supports different militia, different military force in Syria. Just to give you a simple example, we have now what? Five or six military forces in Syria. We have the Free Syrian Army; we have the National Syrian Army; we have the militias, Syrian forces in the south; we have the Syrian Democratic Forces; and we have, of course, HTS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — all in addition to Assad’s forces that remain there, as well as ISIS. A lot of these groups are supported by some of these people convening, including the Turks and the Emiratis and the Jordanians and so on and so forth. So, it’s going to be a very complicated way forward, and I remain doubtful that the Arab regimes are serious about [00:37:00] assisting the Syrian people, moving forward.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to turn to President Biden speaking last week after the fall of Assad.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: So we carried out a comprehensive sanction program against him and all those responsible for atrocities against the Syrian people. Second, we maintained our military presence in Syria, our counter-ISIS — to counter the support of local partners, as well, on the ground, their partners, never ceding an inch of territory, taking out leaders of ISIS, ensuring that ISIS can never establish a safe haven there again. Third, we’ve supported Israel’s freedom of action against Iranian networks in Syria and against actors aligned with Iran who transported lethal aid to Lebanon.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: That was President Biden taking credit for the fall of Assad. Your response, Marwan?

MARWAN BISHARA: I tell you, it’s [00:38:00] mind-boggling, mind-boggling, trying to whitewash genocide by saying, “Well, after all, 15 months of genocide, maybe, we were on the right track after all. Look at us. we are so great,” and basically tapping himself on the shoulders after all the war crimes that were committed in Lebanon and in Palestine. And now he’s taking credit for some change that happened in Syria by the Syrian people — by the Syrian people — despite the complicity and the conspiracies against the Syrian people, and despite the embrace of the Assad regime by Biden’s allies in the region.

The second thing that came to mind is that, Blinken and Biden keep warning us about ISIS, without mentioning that ISIS is basically the creation of the American invasion and occupation in Iraq, of the stupidities committed by everywhere from Bush to [00:39:00] Obama, how they dealt with the question of Iraq, including the de-Ba’athifications, including the dissolving of the Iraqi military, that basically led directly to rise of ISIS. So, really, American intervention in the region, whether it is in Iraq or in Syria, and certainly in Palestine, has been catastrophic. Trying to claim credit for what happened in Syria or could happen in Syria is just beyond the pale.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I wanted to turn to the spokesperson Matt Miller, who was questioned by journalists recently.

MATTHEW MILLER: So, we support the work of the ICC. I know that, obviously, we have disagreed with their —

MATT LEE: Wait a second.

MATTHEW MILLER: Hold on. Hold on. I’m going to — let me address it.

MATT LEE: No, you support the work of the ICC —

MATTHEW MILLER: We do support —

MATT LEE: — until they do something like with Israel.

MATTHEW MILLER: We — so, we have had a lot — let me just answer the question.

MATT LEE: And then you don’t like them at all, or the U.S.

MATTHEW MILLER: You know what, Matt? Let me — Matt, let me answer the question, because I was addressing that before you interrupted me. We obviously have had a jurisdictional dispute [00:40:00] with them as it relates to cases against Israel. That is a long-standing jurisdictional dispute. But that said, we have also made clear that we support broadly their work, and we have supported their work in other cases, despite our jurisdictional dispute when it comes to Israel.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, that’s State Department spokesperson Matt Miller being questioned by AP’s Matt Lee, talking about why he would support Assad being brought up on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court but doesn’t feel the same way about Netanyahu and Gallant. In fact, that was just a few days after Gallant had been in Washington, D.C., even though the ICC has issued this arrest warrant, meeting with U.S. officials. Marwan Bishara?

MARWAN BISHARA: You know, Amy, it’s funny, right? each and every era has an image that speaks to it, that represents it, that reflects it. This [00:41:00] was one of them, laughing out, laughing at the State Department spokesperson, the Biden administration’s spokesperson, for again underlining, emphasizing and basically speaking clearly to his double standard and hypocrisy.

But, as an international relations observer, let me tell you, America does not have double standard in the Middle East. It has a single standard. And that’s American interest, American-Israeli interest. So, it’s not really a double standard. global powers, empires, and notably the United States, it looks like, for us intellectuals and others, moralists, that there is double standard, but in the end of the day, they have a single, narrow American strategic, Israeli strategic interest, and they’ve always spoken to it, defended it, justified it.

So, that’s why for 15 months we’ve [00:42:00] seen — at Al Jazeera, we’ve reported from — live from Gaza the unraveling genocide, the war on doctors, the war on journalists, the war on children, on schools and hospitals. And a lot of this has trickled down to the American media, and we’ve seen it. And I think the Biden administration understands that there is a genocide, trying to get off technicality. Of course, again, this was exposed to be the total hypocrisy which it is. It’s OK for Putin to be taken or indicted by the ICC, and Assad, it’s OK, even the Myanmar generals, it’s OK, but not the Israeli leaders. It’s hypocrisy and double standard for the rest of us. For America, it’s the one single standard: American-Israeli interest.

Syria: Western Hypocrisy, Israeli Expansion & The Fall of Assad - Double Down News - Air Date 12-20-24

DAVID HEARST: Western policy is all over the place and has nothing to do with values in the Middle East. The West supports regimes just as brutal as the Assad regime. Sisi's Egypt, the Emirates under the presidency of Mohammed bin Zayed, Saudi [00:43:00] Arabia under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The murder of my dear friend, Jamal Khashoggi, personally ordered by Mohammed bin Salman, seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

All of these people have tortured, killed the opposition, and mounted a vicious counter revolution against the Arab Spring. So there's total hypocrisy about the West's sort of values. When it's convenient to them, it funds the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and when Al Qaeda is formed, they declare that the number one terrorist group.

Western policy is shot through with hypocrisy. Terrorists one minute, are your allies the next. Israel's role in this has been incredibly negative. Israel wants to smash its neighbors, not coexist. Their immediate reaction was to seize the demilitarized border area and to push tanks to capture a strategic peak of Mount Hermon, a mountain range that [00:44:00] divides Syria from Lebanon.

And their tanks now are 25 kilometers from Damascus. They have conducted over 300 air raids on military assets, and they've destroyed the Syrian fleet. And it's now basically created a fourth front in Syria. What they want to do, if they can't have a pliant dictators, is to weaken the country so much.

That it won't raise its head again. Israel is behaving in exactly the same way to Syria as it did to the West Bank and as it has done to Gaza. It basically smashes its neighbors up. I was at the Doha forum when all of this was happening, and you could physically tell from the body language of the foreign ministers present how the tectonic waves were moving.

Plates of the region were shifting almost as we were speaking and the speed of the rebel advance was written all over the faces of the foreign ministers. There was Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. He was floored by the collapse of Assad and didn't want to talk about it. There was the [00:45:00] Iranian delegation who, ashen face, hurried around the corridors without speaking to anyone.

And then, of course, there were the Turks, full of confidence, smiles, greeting everyone and organising a rally. The communications with the new rebel leaders of Syria. Turkey had gone from being a distressed observer of the Middle East to a major player. It is to be noted how well equipped and trained the rebel force was.

And I think Turkey played no small part. part in that. But Turkey tried very, very hard to get Assad to the negotiating table. Erdogan called him three times to set up a meeting and he refused each time. And latterly, through Iraqi Prime Minister Sudani, Assad told Erdogan, I'm not negotiating with you if I have a gun to my head.

Turkey was very frustrated by Assad because Turkey did want to normalize relationship with Assad. There were lots of guarantees. There was money involved of it. There could have been an understanding with Assad about the Kurds. That was Turkey's primary concern. And [00:46:00] Assad refused to talk to the rebels, let alone start negotiating with them.

So, absent Russian bombers who are all engaged in Ukraine, absent Hezbollah who's just taking a battering from Israel, absent Iran preparing for a confrontation with Israel, then you've just got Assad and his troops.

They were on a wage that they couldn't live on, and so Assad's army melted away, and the speed of the advance was lightning. I think it's very bad news for the Gulf dictators who sense this general, popular, very contagious feeling of revolt. All of them, by the way, brought Assad back into the Arab League, and particularly Mohammed bin Zayed, the president of the United Arab Emirates, was promising Assad lots of money and support if he kicked out the Iranian militias.

So, not only did Iran not turn up, or [00:47:00] Russia turn up, but possibly for good reason. They said, why should we fight to save your skin? When you were in the process of making a dirty deal with the Emiratis. If there's any parallel with history about what's actually happened in Syria, I go back to 2011 and the Arab spring.

The conditions have always been there. The embers of a revolt have always glowed in the Arab street and the dictators and the reasons and the oppression. It's still there, probably more so now than it was under Ben Ali's time or under Mubarak's time. Now one argument is that where the Muslim Brotherhood went wrong in Egypt and Tunisia was because it was non violent, because they were Democrats who were interested in having constitutional assemblies.

And then free elections, all of which sabotaged by the generals who were still in place, who simply kicked this construction down with their hobnail boots. All the leadership in Tunisia is now back in a jail. Now what can be said in HDS's favor [00:48:00] is it is an armed rebellion and they have got rid of the army.

So in theory, they've got the power to rebuild a state from the bottom up without feeling that a deep state is there to sabotage it. Well, Al Julani himself is quite an interesting provenance. His defining moment was 9 11. He was inspired by the attack on the Twin Towers. That is when he began circulating in Al Qaeda circles in Iraq.

He managed to distinguish himself. Because of his Syrian heritage, in the eyes of Abu Bakr, who was then the leader of Islamic State, at a moment when the Islamic State wanted to expand from the Iraqi desert into the Syrian one, and Jalali was the man to do that, he started a group called Nusra. which was linked to Al Qaeda.

He broke with Al Qaeda and ISIS. And then when Nusra was dissolved, he and his group formed the HTS, which is [00:49:00] a Syrian nationalist force. He has, at least on paper, abandoned transnational jihad. There is a question mark over how tolerant The HTS is, it's the most disciplined of Syrian rebel groups, but it did put down an insurrection in Idlib in September last year, and there were reports of people being tortured and killed in jail.

So the HTS are certainly not pussycats. There also are reports about intimidation of journalists. Will HTS do the same as the lead group of a national government? The jury is out on that question. Now Iran itself is in a really quite difficult phase because this axis of resistance had been constructed over decades.

They're now finding that communications at least are being dismantled. There was a lot of missiles and military kit that came through the mountainous area that Israel is now occupying. However, the communications have been cut, but that still leaves [00:50:00] Hezbollah as a fighting force. And the Houthis. still have their missiles and their combat power.

And Kataib Hezbollah still has its drones and its missiles in Iraq. So all the constituent elements of the Axis resistance are there. The communications between them are much, much more difficult. And if that situation isn't complicated enough, Netanyahu has just gone on trial on corruption charges. Plus, the army is now getting war weariness.

and is saying that they want to cease fire in Gaza as well. So you've got three, four, five different crises, none of them being solved, all happening simultaneously, weakening Iran's position, but not totally. And Israel suffering fatigue from a 14th month war in which they just keep on opening up new fronts.

So can the Israeli army with its dependence on reservists, keep this up on four fronts for that much longer. That is [00:51:00] also a factor in analyzing how one can start de conflicting a region that is completely aflame. I think the outside forces will have to spend a period of reflection and time readjusting to the realities of Syria.

I think Syria will face real difficulties forming a national government that is independent of its backers. I think the region has been so battered by the events of the last 14 months. Israel has now opened four active fronts in their war to establish a greater Israel and to crush the Palestinian cause once and for all.

We have to wait and see how these various concurrent crises play out before deciding whether or not Netanyahu will have his way in reordering the region. The West should beware of making the same mistake again and again, which is to impose its simplistic view on an extremely nuanced, educated and [00:52:00] battered Middle East.

Note from the Editor on closing out the year

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with The Muckrake Political Podcast discussing the fall of the Assad regime. Middle East Eye looked at the historical context of the Arab Spring. American Prestige examined the ongoing transition period in Syria. The Take focused on Israel's military action inside Syria. Democracy Now! further discussed Israel's actions and the US's double standard on war crimes. And Double Down News gave a big picture assessment of Western policies in the middle east. And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive section.

But first, one last pitch as we close out the year. This podcast will be turning 19 years old in January. And It started as a hobby, but I knew from the very beginning that a project like this one, that takes as much work and research as it does, would always have to be a team effort if it were to survive. From the very beginning, I started asking for volunteers to help gather the raw material that would go [00:53:00] through my sort of curation grinder and come out as episodes on the other end. After a couple of years, I figured out about the idea of a membership program that would eventually allow me to do this full time. Only in the past few years did I finally manage to bring on additional research and production help. And I have no doubt that they are the reason I heard from a longtime listener recently saying that all though they really loved the show 10 years ago, they manage to find it even better today.

All of this only continues with strong support from members. We do run ads on the show, but it's far less dependable and can fluctuate wildly. So it's absolutely imperative that we have a solid base of support from members.

If you get value out of the work that we put into this show, curating news and progressive opinion in a way that, we think, provides more clarity than can be found elsewhere for any given topic we tackle, then think about becoming a [00:54:00] member, Increasing your monthly or annual pledge if you're already a member, or give a membership as a gift.

And if you need one more enticement, our winter sale is on, making memberships 20% off through the end of the year. All the relevant links are in the show notes, or just go to BestOfTheLeft.com/support. There you'll also find links to bookshop.org for Dead Tree Books and their sister site leebro.fm for audio books. Both are certified benefit corporations that help support brick and mortar bookshops, while you get the benefit and convenience of online shopping.

Again, head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support or follow the links in the show notes to grab your own membership, currently on discount, or snap up some memberships or books as gifts.

Thanks to everyone who already supports the show and to everyone for listening. Hoping the best for all of us in the coming year.

SECTION A - THE SYRIAN PEOPLE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on three topics. Next up section a. The Syrian people followed by section B. [00:55:00] Israel and section C historical context and the proxy war.

What Syria's Political Future May Look Like | Emma Beals - Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters - Air Date 12-11-24

Speaker 13: I have to imagine That you have been just in constant contact with your friends, contact sources in Syria. Is there like a particular anecdote that someone has told you that you think is particularly illustrative of this moment?

Speaker 12: There are really two. Many to be honest over the last few days since kind of a Sunday morning where this became a reality where Assad had left the country where people started not to be afraid again and some of the most profound things for me were people who. Have not been able to call me when they were inside of the country, you know, they would have to leave to call me because I have a certain sort of profile or what have you just freely texting with me that they were happy that this was happening.

And suddenly having those moments of realization of, Oh, you can call me whenever you want. Let's just get on the phone [00:56:00] and have a chat. And then also people that I've worked with for such a long time have done so undercover, have done so without their faces showing without their full names, you know, secretively and doing a really important work, suddenly being able to use their name, put their photo.

Speak on camera to the media as this was, was happening and just some of those little things that you don't even really think about when it's not you and then just imagining how difficult that has been for folks to navigate. But yeah, just people that you've known for so, so long, seeing them able to just do things that you and I take for granted, you know, use our full names and our pictures on our Twitter accounts and.

Call our friends back home whenever we feel like it.

Speaker 13: And just, there's like joy I can sense in your voice having been on the receiving end of these kind of calls that, you know, after having existed under such a totalitarian system for so long, it's [00:57:00] seemingly like emanating from your context to you, this kind of relief.

Speaker 12: Well, not just emanating from them, but actually feeling it myself. As you mentioned, I've worked on Syria pretty much since the beginning. And this kind of work, you hold a lot of space for people's pain and people's suffering. You know, you're talking to people all of the time. I've been investigating the Syrian detention system, the security state.

I've been working with the families and survivor groups to try to find out what's happened to their loved ones. Having lost their loved ones myself in Syria, you know, some of these things are really personal. I've, I've debated endlessly with officials about refugee return policy and peace process policy and, you know, how much weight we should be giving to elements of security for Syrians or their sort of broader protection.

And so, you know, It's not, it's not, not personal. You know, all of the things that we've seen come out [00:58:00] over the last couple of days, since that sort of very joyful part have just been, there's been this emotional rollercoaster there where it's been this anger that all of this was true. Everything I was saying was true and people didn't believe me or thought me naive and idealistic and was sort of prepared to send people back to, to risk these things.

But even then the joy for me, like a feeling. Like, all of those hours of work were actually worth it. I went to a celebration on Sunday. Obviously, I saw a lot of people I knew who were just crying and hugging. But just seeing people who are in exile with children, suddenly with the weight of the world lifted off their shoulders, knowing they could go home and visit family if they wanted to, knowing their children can see the country that they're from, knowing that this intergenerational trauma has been lifted.

And it's not very often that you get to it. See that in such a sort of dramatic way, you know, normally these changes are incremental in this sort of work It's a tiny win or it's the double negative or whatever it is You don't see the harm that [00:59:00] wasn't done that you prevented or whatever. So you don't normally see That and so not only was their joy infectious, but I felt an enormous amount of joy enormous amount of relief but also an enormous amount of grief and before the moments of joy, there were those moments of Seeing the names of these towns That were besieged where we had been working with people who were living in extraordinary circumstances, where there were military campaigns, where we documented what had happened to people.

And so all of those memories flooded back as well. So, you know, sitting with my joy, sitting with the joy of all of those people that I've worked with, but also everyone I've been talking to, it's been sitting with a flood of memories with anger, with feeling justified in a lot of things, as well as the joy and the hope.

Speaker 13: I mean, for me, at least, and I don't mean to make this, like, personal about us, this is not about us, and we'll, we'll move on in a minute, but for me, just as someone who kind of covers conflict and crises from afar, I'm [01:00:00] used to seeing, like, streams of cars and people fleeing a conflict, and it was so moving to me, at least, To see just traffic jams of people trying to return home after having existed as refugees for so long to me, at least that's like the visual manifestation of a lot of what you discussed.

Speaker 12: Yeah and for me it came in the inbox hundreds of messages from people going with i'm going home i'm going home or i've received videos of people who got home for the first time in years crying and showing me the insides of their houses and you know all of those kinds of. You. Of things. Yeah. It's just normally the other way.

They normally crying when they pack everything up and leave and sort of are telling you they don't know where to go and what to do. So to see people reuniting with each other and with their places of origin and their homes and their special memories was, I can't even describe.

Speaker 13: So I'm interested in getting your expert take on how this came to be.

I mean, [01:01:00] there had been this essentially like a status quo in Northern Syria for many years that was seemingly and rather abruptly broken just over the last couple of weeks. And now Like the conventional wisdom, which I find compelling, and I'm curious to get your take is essentially that the Assad regime was left exposed by the fact that Iran and Russia were distracted by Israel and by Ukraine.

And then Hezbollah had been degraded. And in that context, HTS led this kind of improbable military campaign. I mean, it's probably too simplistic, but is that generally Broadly speaking, your interpretation of what happened,

Speaker 12: I mean, that is certainly one big part of it. Because if you remember, um, the previous military campaigns, air power played a huge role, you know, Hezbollah did some of the most brutal sieges, Russia flew the planes and [01:02:00] was doing a lot of the air power and that had an enormous impact on the military campaigns and ability to it.

Yeah. Take and hold territory, but it's not the whole story. And I think that it's a mistake to think that it is. A lot of us have been warning that a frozen conflict is not peace, that the levels of violence have been ticking up gradually over the last wee while. But I think what's also important is the regime has not offered any kind of peace dividend or sensible form of governance in their areas.

And so people talk about, you know, the fact that the, uh, the Army kind of gave up their positions and they did, you know, people did not want to fight. They were defecting or withdrawing quite rapidly, which is partly how HTS took so much territory so quickly and with so little fighting really for what was a military campaign, but also communities did as well.

So, you know, there were notables negotiating with HTS to sort of say, yeah, come through. We won't fight you. And those weren't necessarily decisions [01:03:00] taken, you know, the military side, but the community side as well. What you have to understand is the regime, a lot of the fighting around Damascus and in their areas had finished in 2016 or 2018.

And people expected some sort of benefit for their children having, you know, fought for the Syrian army and believed all of the things about Assad being the only form of stability. But instead, what he did is continue to have a corrupt, kleptocratic, highly securitized dictatorship. And people would see their young men being arrested.

They would see the contracts going to the regime cronies. You had an economic shock. You had COVID where they didn't really go and help anyone after the earthquake. They were terrible at helping anybody. And so you had these schisms in Syria. Society and what we've seen with the coast and with Damascus as well is these supposedly stronghold areas where Assad was said to have had all this broad support just weren't really interested in him sticking around either.

So it was a combination of those big geopolitical events, you know, Russia [01:04:00] and Iran being tied up elsewhere, but also all of these really interesting dynamics within Syria itself as well.

US officials in 'direct contact' with Syria's HTS rebels - DW News - Air Date 12-15-24

Speaker 14: U. S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says American officials have been in, quote, direct contact with Syrian rebel group Hayat Tahrir al Sham, that despite HTS being on the U. S. terrorism list. Blinken has been in Jordan for talks with officials from several Arab countries. Turkey, as well as the EU and the U.

N. They've agreed to support a peaceful transition process in Syria and urged the country's new rebel leaders to protect citizens rights. The Islamist group HTS has promised to govern inclusively after toppling Bashar al Assad's dictatorship a week ago. So let's just listen to what Anthony Blinken had to say.

Speaker 15: Yes, we've been in contact with HTS and with other parties. We're, we're watching, uh, this very closely. As I said earlier, we're also communicating directly, uh, with those in [01:05:00] positions of, um, of authority in Syria. And I hope that today's agreement, the, uh, the, the collective word of so many countries who will be important to Syria's future, uh, carries weight and helps, uh, communicate clearly to the Syrian people.

That we're there to support them, but communicates also what we expect and hope to see going forward.

Speaker 14: Your Secretary of State Antony Blinken there and for more, I'm joined now by DW's Aya Ibrahim who is in Damascus. So Aya, there's a lot of international diplomacy going on as we've just heard. And of course, it's been a week since the Assad regime has been toppled.

Tell us, what's the mood in the Syrian capital now?

Speaker 16: Very much euphoric, as was the case, uh, about, uh, a week ago, but we are at the beginning of the week and, as you can see behind me, the Damascus [01:06:00] traffic is now, uh, coming back in full force and we can see everywhere as we walk through the streets of Damascus that normal life, some kind of normalcy, is coming back.

Schools are reopening today. Universities, uh, are reopening, uh, uh, subsidies have been lifted off of fuel. So the price of transportation has gone up, but at the same time, inflation, uh, has, uh, gone down at the same time with the sort of uncertain situation that this new government might bring. There are, of course, we are hearing concerns from, uh, minorities, for example, about what the new Syria could mean for them, because even though, uh, HTS has And HDS leadership have been making inclusive, general statements about what the new government will look like, specifics, we've yet to hear, uh, specifics, but so far, uh, things are coming back to normal.

One thing that you wouldn't normally see here is people like me able to do their job on the streets, uh, freely. There are a lot of journalists here as well. And so that [01:07:00] that is something, Monica, that would have just simply been unbelievable a week ago that this amount of journalists would be on the streets, uh, getting a sense of what life is like.

This was simply unheard of under the Assad regime.

Speaker 14: Now, uh, you already mentioned that HTS, of course, uh, being, uh, also called a terrorist group by the United Nations and the U. S. Uh, and, uh, they are in charge of Syria now, and you, uh, you mentioned about the sort of, uh, worries that, uh, some of, uh, the Syrian civilization, uh, or the people there, um, have about what's in store for them.

Uh, has there been any, um, sign yet, you know, about sort of Islamist rules being imposed on them? Or do we know anything about the HTS plan for Syria?

Speaker 16: There haven't been any sort of, you know, concerning signs on the ground here [01:08:00] in Syria that would indicate, uh, that, uh, you know, the HDS has some sort of, you know, sinister plans in store for Syria's minorities, but that doesn't mean that they're not concerned because you have to keep in mind the history of this country.

And the history of how minorities have been treated. And of course, there is, you know, we have been dealing with decades of Assad rule. And people are just living through an uncertain time because there aren't any, uh, concrete answers or concrete, uh, plans yet. But it remains to be seen really what the, what this new government, uh, does, uh, for, uh, minorities.

Speaker 14: All right, so still uncertainty there, but we know that Israel continues to occupy a buffer zone in the Golan Heights and that it carries out airstrikes against military facilities near Damascus. Uh, do we know how the HTS will deal with that?

Speaker 16: Well, we've heard HTS leader Al Jolani say that he does not seek that Syria under Uh, his leadership and his, uh, group's leadership does not see conflict with Israel.

And this is really expected because you have to think about the momentous [01:09:00] task that this group now has to maintain basically stability in this country. And the last thing they need would be a full out military confrontation with a military uh, group. Power like Israel. And he has said that international diplomatic effort, international diplomacy has to really come together in this moment to make sure that there isn't an all out conflict between Syria and Israel.

As Syria really enters a phase where everything is huge. All

Mass Graves Discovered as Syrian Families Seek Answers to Loved Ones' Disappearances Under Assad - Democracy Now! - Air Date 12-19-24

HIBA ZAYADIN: Upon arriving in Damascus, one of the first sites that we decided to visit was that of the heinous 2013 Tadamon massacre, which a video of had leaked in 2021. We had been investigating this crime for a long time now. We had confirmed the exact location of the mass grave and decided to go confirm it for ourselves.

But what we found there, you know, we were not prepared for what we had found. We were not prepared for what we were going to see, even [01:10:00] though we knew, from conversations with residents earlier in 2021, that it was the likely site of other summary killings, as well. But when we arrived, what we saw was scores of human remains, of fingers, of a part of a skull, pelvic bones, strewn across the surrounding neighborhood. We saw families — you know, families had brought to us bags that they had collected of bones from the rubble in dilapidated stores in the area. We saw children toying with these bones. It was not anything that we had expected, that we had expected to see.

And we spoke to more residents and found out that this was the site of so much more horror than we had expected. You know, I had spoken to a resident who was forced at the age of 15 — this was back in 2016 — [01:11:00] to dig graves and to dump bodies, corpses into those graves. We had found — we had spoken to an ambulance driver who was tasked to retrieve bodies from that area in 2018 and 2019. I spoke to countless families who had missing loved ones that they did not know what had happened to and had no answers for.

And so, you know, it was really important that we highlight how imperative it is to protect and to secure this site and many others like it. There are mass graves across Syria, and this was just one of them. And we had visited others, as well. We had seen desperate families visiting these sites, sometimes taking matters into their own hands, digging the graves on their own, trying to find anything about this. We saw them at the morgue, where there were several unidentified bodies, families [01:12:00] clutching pictures of their loved ones, pushing it into the camera to try and show it to the world, to try and get any sort of information.

We also visited some of the most notorious detention facilities, that we had for a long time worked on and documented abuses and torture in. And, you know, what we found there, too, was quite upsetting, in that there was intentional destruction of documents, of evidence. There was looting. There was total insecurity for the first couple of days that we were there, with people coming in, retrieving files, leaving with them, tampering with the evidence. And we know that the Assad government operated a chilling bureaucratic system whereby they documented every crime. They documented it in detail. And that evidence had existed in these detention facilities, in the military courts, in the prisons [01:13:00] themselves.

And every minute that passes where there is inaction, where these documents, these sites are not being preserved and not being secured, is just one more family possibly never knowing what happened to their loved ones. And it also means that there are officials who have perpetrated some of the most horrific atrocities over the past decade that will go free and that will not be brought to justice because of just how quickly a lot of this evidence is disappearing.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I’d like to read from a Financial Times article headlined “The Syrian neighbourhood at the heart of Assad’s killing machine,” which is the neighborhood that you’ve just spoken about, Tadamon. The article begins saying, quote, “In Tadamon, the children know the difference between a human jaw and a dog’s. So inured are they to decomposing remains, a consequence of living in this desolate Damascus suburb, that the [01:14:00] boys casually toss around skulls and fractured femurs.” So, Hiba, if could speak — you just talked about the importance of protecting these sites. I mean, many have said that Assad’s regime has just fallen, and this work is only just beginning, the work of excavating these mass graves. Are there concerns that these sites will not be protected? And if not, where will the — who will damage them? How will they somehow be disrupted?

HIBA ZAYADIN: Definitely, there are concerns right now. I mean, we have seen that for transitional authorities, this has not been a top priority. And our presence in Damascus was to call for the preservation of this evidence, was to make it clear to transitional authorities that this must be a priority and that it is of the utmost urgency, because now is the time — yesterday was the time, a week ago was the time to be protecting these sites. [01:15:00] And as I had said earlier, every day that passes, we’re losing more valuable information. And, you know, it is a priority, or it should be a priority, to transitional authorities not just because of justice and accountability efforts, but also because you have thousands upon thousands of families who are seeking answers, who deserve answers, and who have no idea what the transitional authorities are doing about this right now.

They need to be raising awareness about what it means to tamper with this evidence, what it means to retrieve documents from an area without preserving the chain of custody, because, you know, once you take these documents out without documenting exactly who and how and from where they were taken, none of this is going to stand in court. And this is what we’ve been impressing upon transitional authorities. This is what we’ve been calling for [01:16:00] U.N. bodies, relevant bodies to arrive at the scene as soon and as urgently as possible. We’ve been calling on international rescue teams to also arrive on site and for Syrian groups to really be at the forefront of this, of this massive, massive effort.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: This is State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller speaking earlier this week.

MATTHEW MILLER: When you look at the evidence that is coming out of Syria in the now 10 days since the Assad regime fell, it continues to shock the conscience. And I’m referring not just to the mass graves that have been uncovered, but information that we have been gathering inside the United States government, including information that’s not yet publicly known.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Can you respond, Hiba, to these remarks, in particular, Matt Miller suggesting more will be revealed about abuses by the Assad regime?

HIBA ZAYADIN: So, I mean, [01:17:00] absolutely, more will be revealed. And I think, you know, there have been documents in detention facilities that remain intact. And there is movement. You know, we have seen a bit more of a stepping up in the security of some of these detention facilities. But there is no coordinated effort right now to preserve these documents. And it is really important to stress that these documents belong to the Syrian people. This evidence belongs to the Syrian people, and they need to be at the forefront of these efforts to preserve and secure — obviously, with the help of U.N. relevant bodies, obviously, with the help of international actors. But these documents belong to the Syrian people. The evidence belongs to them and needs to remain with them and in their hands. And that’s what I would stress in response to some of these remarks.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Hiba, what is Human Rights Watch looking out for when Israel intensifies the attacks on Syria, expanding its occupation of the Golan Heights? You’ve said that [01:18:00] Israel bombed the only facility in Syria that had DNA equipment that would allow for the identification of remains in these mass graves. Can you explain?

HIBA ZAYADIN: Yes. So, I mean, Israel’s strikes in Syria come on the heels of its brutal military campaigns in Lebanon and in Gaza, where we’ve documented war crimes, crimes against humanity and, as my colleague has just been saying on your show, acts of genocide in Gaza specifically. You know, Syria is right now in a very fragile state, and the Israeli strikes have almost completely decimated its defense capabilities.

But also this has had repercussions and consequences for the issue that we’re speaking of right now, the preservation of evidence. Some of these strikes have hit vital facilities, including the Air Force intelligence branch, you know, [01:19:00] the institute where these DNA machines were being housed, other security branches, military security branches, that contain vital evidence. And so, these strikes are also adding to the quite upsetting situation that we currently find ourselves in, in terms of just preserving evidence, making sure that some day, hopefully, every family can learn what the fate of their loved ones had been, where they may have been buried, and to really be able to give them a decent burial.

Will Syrians return home? - Today, Explained - Air Date 12-14-24

NOEL: You are Syrian-American. Do I have that right? Can you just tell me about your ties to Syria?

AMANY: My heritage is Syrian. My parents are Syrian, but I grew up in the US my whole life, so I grew up in the Midwest.

NOEL: And where are we reaching you today, Amany?

AMANY: I'm in Gaziantep, Turkey. So for those unfamiliar, it's in the southeast of Turkey, one of the cities that was the epicenter, actually, of the [01:20:00] earthquakes that hit last year.

NOEL: I want to get a sense of the scale of movement that happened as a result of Syria's decade-plus-long civil war.

AMANY: Mm hm.

NOEL: There were people who left the country. There were people who moved around inside the country. What are we talking about in terms of numbers and where did people tend to end up?

AMANY: Let's talk about outflow first.

SCORING IN <Neutral Irene - BMC>

This is a country that has probably 6 to 7 million refugees outside of the country, one of the highest for those that have been following Syria for the past decade plus. This is one of the highest numbers of refugees across the world, now probably closely tied with Afghanistan and Ukraine. But for quite some time it was Syria. A lot of these refugees ended up in surrounding countries.

UN: Syria civil war has left more than 130,000 people dead and forced millions to flee to neighboring countries like Jordan.

PBS: As fast as Turkey’s government could build the dozens of refugee camps along its borders [01:21:00] with Syria, they were filled to capacity.

Almost four million Syrian refugees have settled in countries neighboring Syria: Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

AMANY: And then the rest ended up many, many places: Europe, the UK, the US, Canada

Euronews: Migrants and refugees received a warm welcome after arriving on a train from Austria to the German city of Munich. “How do you feel about being in Germany?” “I feel happy. We from Syria.”

CBS: The 10,000th Syrian refugee is about to land in the U.S. today.

WIVBTV: In Canada the government is taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees and groups are already arriving in Toronto.

AMANY: But I would say the bulk really of refugee hosting countries for Syrians have been the surrounding ones, including Turkey, where I reside right now. And then in terms of inflow within the country, across the various governorates, the majority of displaced communities have been in the northwest. This is one of the highest displaced populations across the [01:22:00] world right now. Within the country, it's about six or so million displacements. And in the northwest, it's housed about 4 million. So these 4 million have come from other parts of the northwest as a result of aerial attacks to civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics, schools, marketplaces. Some were fleeing forced military conscription, particularly young men of military age. So really a mixture of reasons. But the northwest in particular, I would say, really housing the majority of the displaced.

NOEL: What are you hearing from Syrians who were displaced outside of the country now that Bashar al-Assad is gone? Do they want to go home?

AMANY: I think yes, but there's a caveat. So absolutely. I think without, you know, getting emotional about this, you can feel the hope and you can see the [01:23:00] resilience of the Syrian people across the world right now. Scenes of people celebrating in almost every country and and real solidarity. I think, this is a moment in history, this is a moment in time for people and, before discussing kind of what's next, the apprehension that others might be, you know, questioning Syrians about is, let's, let Syrians have this moment. Let's let them celebrate, rejoice. Feel the joy. Feel the pain. Feel the suffering. Excuse me. Feel the loss and the family separation, the detainment, the persecutions. This is a bittersweet moment for a lot of people. And I think it's it's really important to let them process all of this. But on the other hand, when a lot of Syrians are now either wanting to return or, at a minimum, just get [01:24:00] permission to enter the country, to reunite with parents that they haven't seen for ten years, young men and women that had to leave the country, separate from their families, out of safety or simply because of how much economic deterioration there was. It's also for me, I'm very cautious about what this means when, you know, many say they want to return. Is the time necessarily now? No. Is there a firm timeline? I also don't know. What I would say, especially to host countries is, you know, this is not a moment to exploit asylum policies. This is not a moment to sort of weaponize this, you know, critical point in time and immediately start discussing returns, especially if they're not, you know, this trifecta: voluntary, safe and dignified for people.

NOEL: This has been a contentious issue in some European countries. Have any European countries come out since Assad was forced out and said, we actually plan to do things differently now?

AMANY: [01:25:00] So it's been a dizzying few days. I believe Austria has. I am cautious to mention names of other countries, but even prior to this moment in time, a few countries have been looking at their migration policies. So this is this is not a secret. Anyone can Google this. Germany has been looking at its migration policies. Holland has been looking. Denmark previously is really trying to understand what are the conditions in Syria so that they can also, I don't know if it's reframe or recalibrate their own migration policies, and determine, is it safe for returns and can Syrians be sent back now.

NOEL: If people were to choose to go back, what are they going back to? What is Syria look like now?

AMANY: That's really hard. I mean, a lot of people, it's just home for them. It's just I'm going back home. I'm going back to, you know, mom and dad or my brothers and sisters that were, [01:26:00] you know, five years old before. And now they're teenagers. Like the heartwarming stories. So many of my colleagues, my team, you know, are going back right now and reuniting with family. And it's so touching. I think a lot of people had lost hope. There was a clear disillusionment, I would say, with the international system, very demoralized before this. But I do worry that what people are going back to now, you know, the country needs reconstruction. It needs development. It's been destroyed. So there really isn't, in certain areas, much to go back to. That's not the case for all parts of Syria. Um, inflation has hit the country hard. So generally, economic insecurity in Syria and outside, which is also adds to some of the the push-pull factors for some Syrians that have struggled also outside of the country, especially in neighboring countries, unable to afford basic services, basic amenities. You have decimated infrastructure. So [01:27:00] public infrastructure, schools, very little job prospects. And across the health system, obviously, and I'm a public health practitioner. So this has been my area of focus for many, many years now is the hospital and health care infrastructure that's almost completely collapsed in certain areas.

NOEL: We talked to a young man named Omar earlier in the show who's 29 years old. He said his hometown is the most beautiful place in the world, but he's been in Europe since he was about 19 or 20. He has a whole life there. And so this is going to be a very, very hard call for someone like this young man. I imagine you're going to hear those types of stories again and again and again over the coming months and years.

AMANY: Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think a lot of people now are grappling with this, especially, you know, I think of a lot of my colleagues and friends who've had children that have been born in other countries now. And there's this identity, you know, where we know, we hear there's something called Syria that [01:28:00] we're originally from there. What that actually means, you know, they may be too young to process that.

It's a tough decision then to kind of uproot them all over again, especially when some people, you know, some of the ones in Jordan and Lebanon, you know, they're on their fourth or fifth, sixth displacement. They've started their lives over multiple times. So some also just want stability in any form. So to then also be introduced to a different form of stability all over again. And I think it's just there's only so much a person can handle.

Where Is Syria Going After Assad and What’s Next for the Middle East - The Socialist Program with Brian Becker - Air Date 12-19-24

VIJAY PRASHAD: This is very complicated because we live in a world where Islamophobia is rife and, you know, people see a t shirt with Arabic writing and they think you're saying something terroristic. It's got to that stage of ridiculousness, you know, your t shirt might have your name on it, or it might even say the Boston Red Sox in, in Arabic, you know, as a joke, but somebody will say, my God, what does get this guy off the plane? We live in that kind of [01:29:00] context globally, where there is this deep Islamophobia. Now, on the other hand, it is also true that from roughly the 1970s, you know, I've written about this at great length, how the Central Intelligence Agency worked with the government of Saudi Arabia.

And other, you know, of what Tariq Ali calls the petrol stations of the Gulf, you know, like Kuwait and so on, you know, these countries to build an organization called the world Muslim league, uh, where they effectively was set up, you know, to bring Pakistani Bibles and distribute them in what was known to them as Central Asia.

Or in, in Dagestan, parts of the Soviet Union, where there was a Muslim population, the same thing they did in Western China, where they were coming in and preaching to, uh, the weaker population of Western China against communism and, and for a kind of Islam incubated in the, um, in Saudi [01:30:00] Arabia, Wahhabi Islam, uh, very much a sectarian Islam.

against any kind of so called apostasy. Um, this becomes more and more popular in parts of, of the Muslim world and it increases sectarianism. Sectarianism isn't a normal thing. You know, people can have line differences in religion just as they have line differences in politics. But that doesn't mean you go and slaughter people, you know, because there's a difference in understanding of the tradition and belief and so on.

Hezbollah, interestingly, coming out largely of the Shia tradition has a very tolerant understanding of differences because Hezbollah also is incubated in, in Lebanon, which is a very pluralistic society. There are Christians, there are Druze, there are Sunnis, there are Shia. There have been Palestinians there since 1948.

In fact, before then. And so on, very pluralistic country. It was impossible for Hezbollah and its leader. Aya Hassan Nara understood that it would be impossible for them to have a [01:31:00] sectarian politics. They always said, we believe what we believe. You don't have to believe what we believe. Uh, we respect your right to do things like drink and, and so.

We are not going to do it. You can do it, but we don't want you to impose it on us. We won't impose it on you. It's a very interesting form of pluralism. I respect that. I don't necessarily agree with all other people's beliefs, but I don't need to impose things on people as long as they are not imposing it on the body politic.

I think that's A formula that Hezbollah has basically had, has basically followed. Well, Hayat Harir al Sham has tried to differentiate itself from its, its origin in Al Qaeda, in Jabhat al Nusra, um, in, you know, a faction that becomes ISIS, um, in Mr. Zarqawi in, in Iraq. That faction comes straight out of Saudi hardcore sectarianism, where the framework, uh, for them is Those who are nearest are the [01:32:00] worst.

In other words, Islam, people who call themselves Muslims, but have created their own path are worse than those who are not Muslims. You know, it's a very peculiar understanding of the world. So for them, for instance, the Shia are a greater threat than a Christian. Um, but Christians are also a threat. And it's interesting, you know, when, ISIS started to behead people in, in the north of, of Syria and Raqqa governorate, um, you know, in, in the early part of ISIS's appearance, um, the Western press focused on the beheading of, of Americans and British journalists.

You know, I mean, I knew Uh, at least one of the people who was killed. I knew him personally, a very good reporter. Um, he had got his degree from UMass Amherst, uh, you know, had been kidnapped previously and so on anyway, but there was cause of Syrian Arab army soldiers who are being mass executed in the most brutal style by these same groups, because not because they were [01:33:00] Syrian army.

Uh, if you watch the videos, you'll, you'll listen to these guys. Call them the biggest slur words, you know, against the Shia. I don't even want to repeat those words. They massacred people based on their religion. That's their tradition. You know, it's not that it's not their form of Islam. It is Wahhabism of a worst kind, you know, The kind that is incubated and goes to Al Qaeda and so on.

Um, now by criticizing them, one is, I hope not being Islamophobic because that kind of argument suggests, you know, that if I critique Israel, I am being antisemitic. You know, for God's sake, there's got to be room to criticize people like Al Qaeda. There's got to be room to criticize people like Jabal Nusra.

And I would like to say there's got to be room to critique. Which it has now been reported in Italy was running a state form where they were saying no music allowed, no, [01:34:00] this allowed, no, that allowed, um, sounded a lot to me like the Taliban, uh, in, in Afghanistan. And, and, you know, for those who say, well, but the Taliban is following Afghan traditions.

furthest from the truth. Afghanistan has the most heterodox tradition of Islam, complicated, wonderful, beautiful forms of Islam. The Taliban imports that ideology from the camps and teachers in Pakistan, most of them trained in Saudi Arabia. Um, in Iraq, in the north, There was beautiful heterodoxy. I mean, anybody who had visited Aleppo or Idlib even will, will be able to talk about the shrines to different peers and, and important figures of historical Islamic interests.

All of this is considered apostasy by this tradition. So yes, uh, Hayat Tahrir al Sham comes out of that tradition. Now, when Jolani arrives at Umayyad mosque in Damascus and says, we don't want to hurt anybody. Nobody [01:35:00] should go in and attack the Zainab, you know, the, the Sayadaw Zainab shrine, um, that's there in outside Damascus.

Sayadaw Zainab shrine is a, is one of the most important shrines for, for the Shiite community around the world. Uh, I was worried that this shrine might be destroyed. That would open up enormous can of, of battle around the Middle East. Fortunately, the shrine is still intact. There are occasionally rumors of smaller shrines getting attacked, but Jolani did say to his credit that we should not attack other communities.

Now, how long this is going to continue and is he going to be able to control his forces? Is this a deal that he has made with. The Israelis and Americans and so on for the public. Let the public lose interest and then they go after these communities. My friends, for instance, who live in Syria, that is their feeling.

Their feeling is there is an interlude while the international media is paying attention. . Uh, the moment the television cameras disappear, these guys are [01:36:00] going to go harsh on the minorities.

It's very difficult to say for the sake of Syria. I hope that Mr. Jolani is being sincere and is not going to unleash, um, that ideological scene. Against the people of Syria. I

SECTION B - ISRAEL

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B. Israel.

If the US were to withdraw its 900 troops in Syria, what might happen? - DW News - Air Date 12-15-24

Speaker 7: Israel is to double the population of the occupied Golan Heights, a disputed strip of land along the border with Syria. Israel began building settlements there in the 1970s, and effectively annexed the territory a decade later. Israeli troops have moved into a buffer zone in the area since the fall of the Assad regime in Syria a week ago.

Israel has also stepped up attacks on Syrian military installations, saying the new rebel leaders still pose a threat.

Speaker 8: Ships at Syria's Latakia port lie slumped in the water, destroyed by Israel's latest airstrikes. Since the collapse of Bashar al Assad's regime, Israel's military is estimated [01:37:00] to have struck Syria more than 450 times.

It says it aims to keep military equipment out of the hands of extremists and is targeting weapons depots and air defences. But the cross border attacks have prompted international condemnation, including from the UN.

Speaker 9: The Secretary General is pretending particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli airstrikes on several locations in Syria, stressing the need, the urgent need, to de escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country.

Speaker 8: Israel has occupied most of Syria's Golan Heights region since 1967, but now it's expanding its reach, sending troops further into a UN patrolled buffer area. They've taken over an abandoned Syrian military post. Israel claims the move is to protect its security.

Speaker 11: There was a country here that was an enemy state.

[01:38:00] Its army collapsed, and there is a threat that terrorist elements could reach here. We've moved forward so that these extremist terrorists will not establish themselves right next to the border. We are not intervening in what is happening in Syria. We have no intention of managing Syria.

Speaker 8: The rebel group Hayat Taqiyya al Sham, or HTS, which toppled Assad's regime, said on Saturday that Israel's advance, quote, threatens new and unjustified escalation in the region. But it added that the general exhaustion in Syria after years of war and conflict does not allow us to enter new conflicts.

Despite their moderate messaging, Israel maintains Syria's new regime could threaten its security. On Sunday, it announced plans to double the population in the occupied Golan Heights in what it says is a bid to strengthen the state [01:39:00] of Israel.

Speaker 7: Okay, Stephen Simon is with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

He previously served on the National Security Council during the Clinton and Obama administrations. Thanks for joining us. To what extent is Israel exploiting the power switchover in Syria to its own advantage?

Speaker 10: Well, of course, it's exploiting the situation in Syria to its advantage, uh, uh, from an Israeli perspective, it would be irresponsible, uh, to do, uh, otherwise, um, Israel, uh, has long favored, uh, a weak and divided Syria, uh, as, uh, the best kind of Syria to be its neighbor.

Uh, and, uh, that policy is, uh, is simply being extended, uh, now that, uh, uh, Assad is gone, and there's this new, uh, uh, regime. And from an Israeli perspective, they want to be living next to, in effect, a demilitarized neighbor, which [01:40:00] is why they've gone to such great lengths to destroy the endowment of weapons, especially heavy weapons and chemical weapons production facilities that, um, Uh, the new regime inherited from the departing, uh, Assad regime.

Speaker 7: Yeah, in that context, Israel says it sees an increasing threat from Syria. Are the new rulers in Damascus a greater danger to Israel than Assad was?

Speaker 10: Uh, I don't really think so. Uh, certainly not now. Um, where, uh, you know, a situation where they lack the weapons that were once, uh, in Syria. Uh, I think, uh, you know, Ashara, you know, the guy who is, who is now running, uh, Syria on behalf of, uh, HTS, uh, Hayat Tahrir al Sham, is, uh, Uh, is quite right when he says that the, uh, Syrian people can't sustain another war.

I mean, they've had it, and they're certainly not going to go to war against, uh, Israel at this, at this stage. On the other hand, uh, [01:41:00] Israelis, uh, look at the very weakness of the new regime, and they ask themselves, well, suppose there are splinter groups, uh, more radical. Uh, jihadists, um, uh, or Islamists who, who really want to take on Israel and, and inflict some damage on it or draw, draw Israeli blood.

Um, and, uh, that's, they have to. They have to take that view, I would have thought. So what they're doing right now is establishing a buffer zone, or extending a buffer zone between Israel and, and, and Syria. Uh, in the hope that this will give them, uh, some, give Israel more strategic depth against, uh, these kinds of privatized threats.

Speaker 7: Yeah, this is, so, what you're saying there is this is about trying to cut off Hezbollah from getting its supplies through Syria.

Speaker 10: Well, I think that's, that's effectively done. Um, I think what they're worried, uh, more about [01:42:00] are, uh, Sunni Um, uh, extremists who want to attack Israel now that they've managed to seize Syria from from Assad.

I don't think that HTS itself, the group that is ruling Syria in the wake of Assad's departure, wants to do this. I, um, I very much, I very much doubt it. But I also, uh, a question, and the Israelis probably question, uh, the ability of the new government to control all of the forces that were part of the coalition they led to bring down Assad.

And if they can't control them all, there might be some who want to, um, uh, Uh, now that they're flush with victory over the Assad regime, want to, you know, start, um, attacking, uh, Israel and HTS, um, uh, understands that this is not a good thing because it will give Israel the excuse to, uh, advance, uh, territorial claims.

Um, [01:43:00] gains that Israel has already made at Syria's expense since Assad's departure.

Speaker 7: We know that the outgoing US government has been in direct contact with HDS in Syria. What do you know about whether Israel is also establishing some kind of line to them in Damascus?

Speaker 10: I would be very surprised if the Israelis were not talking, uh, to the new regime in Damascus.

I think they each have a lot, have a lot to discuss because they have to work out some ground rules, um, uh, to avoid, uh, any kind of escalation or attacks, uh, across the line, uh, against, um, uh, Israeli settlements in the Golan. So, yes, I, I, I would have thought they're talking.

Greater Israel Explained: The Israeli Plan to Conquer the Arab World - BreakThrough News - Air Date 10-4-24

Speaker 43: What is Greater Israel? This recently came up after this article in one of the main English language Israeli newspapers, the Jerusalem Post, went viral. The article was called, Is Lebanon Part of Israel's Promised Territory? And it [01:44:00] explains the origins of a concept called Greater Israel. The article reads, In the last generation, the term Greater Israel has come to the forefront.

It's sometimes used in political or religious discussions about the ideal or future borders of Israel, often in the context of messianic or Zionist aspirations. Some interpret it as a call for the reestablishment of Israel's biblical borders. However, the concept varies in meaning, ranging from symbolic or spiritual interpretations to literal geographic claims.

Greater Israel has been a topic of discussion, especially after Israel's attacks in Lebanon, which revealed a deeper desire within Israel's extreme right to actually begin Jewish settlement in Lebanon. The so called Israeli Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon posted a map of the sites of prospective Jewish settlements, with all the Arabic names replaced with Hebrew names.

This ideology has had a resurgence lately, largely because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed his coalition government with Messianic Zionist parties. There's a whole [01:45:00] documentary by TRT about this called Holy Redemption, Stealing Palestinian Land, and it's worth watching, but this video will focus on the history of the concept.

The article in the Jerusalem Post was taken down, but you can read it by using an internet archive site like archive. org, and the article says, quote, Greater Israel refers to the concept of the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel as promised to the Jewish people in various parts of the Torah.

It's often associated with the land described in the Covenant with Abraham, which stretches from the River of Egypt to the Parat River. And then it quotes a Torah, when Hashem, God, promised Abraham the land of Israel, the verse says, On that day, God made a covenant with Abraham, saying, To your descendants, I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the Great River of the Euphrates, which is Mesopotamia or modern day Iraq.

While it has religious origins, the Greater Israel concept is referenced from the very first days of the Zionist movement. The Zionist movement was the movement of European Jews who wanted Jews in Europe [01:46:00] to move to Palestine to create a Jewish state. One of the first mentions of Greater Israel is written in the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl's diary, in 1898, just one year after the first Zionist congress.

On page 711 of his diary, Herzl describes the geographic proposal for a hypothetical Jewish state and says that the area demanded will be from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates. He then goes on to describe how this area will be slowly transferred from an Arab majority to a Jewish majority. The Zionist movement first presented this map showing what a future Jewish state would look like at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the conference where the WWI surrender terms were being signed.

The empires that had won the war, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, were dividing up the colonies of the losers, the Ottoman and German empires. One of the territories the Ottoman Empire lost was this area here, the Levant. The Levant is the heart of 3, 000 years of Arab civilization. For centuries, they lived under the Ottoman [01:47:00] Empire, but the empire's collapse during World War I brought hope that Arabs might finally be able to govern themselves.

Instead of that, however, the Allied powers took over and created entirely new countries based on completely arbitrary boundaries. The map of the Middle East we know today was literally drawn with pencils and straight edges at a meeting at 10 Downing Street in London, which is the British Prime Minister's office, by two British and French diplomats named Mark Sykes and Francois Picot.

Under the all too familiar colonial guise of protecting minorities, The European powers drew states that intentionally divided the region along the lines of sect. This is deeply ironic, because Arabs are often accused of being sectarian, that religious and ethnic conflict is just part of their culture.

But these distinctions between Christians and Muslims, Shia and Sunni, Arab and Kurd, were really exploited and exaggerated by the British and French, not Arabs. They literally tried to [01:48:00] bake conflict into these countries, a legacy which still hasn't gone away today. This divide and conquer strategy is the textbook strategy of colonialism, and can be observed in just about every single colonial situation in history.

Part of the British strategy in Palestine was to hand over their mandate to the pro Western, pro colonial Zionist movement. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, where the British and French were dividing up the spoils of World War I, is where the Zionist movement first presented its proposal for the borders of a future Jewish state.

The map presented by then leading Zionist activist, and future first prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, was drawn by the World Zionist Organization and included the East Bank, which is the eastern side of the Jordan River, part of southern Lebanon, and the Egyptian Sinai. The map was rejected by Britain and France, and what followed was a long debate over what the borders of the future Jewish state should be.

One of the leading proponents of expansive settlement was this guy, Zev Jabotinsky, a leader of the hard right [01:49:00] revisionist wing of the Zionist movement. At the 1931 Zionist Congress, Jabotinsky actually split the Zionist movement over the question of Transjordan being included in a future Jewish state because he felt it was such a crucial aspect.

This is notable because Jabotinsky is considered the ideological forefather of the Likud party, the party of Benjamin Netanyahu. His most famous writing, The Iron Wall, is an essay he wrote in 1923 that argued that there would never be a voluntary agreement over European settlement in Palestine and that there would Because, in his own words, there's never been a historical instance of a colonial project getting consent from the native population.

He argued the only way a Jewish state could be established is if Jewish settlers create an iron wall which the natives couldn't breach. The essay is only seven pages long, and it's definitely worth reading. Israel declares independence in 1948, but in its entire history, Israel's never actually defined its own borders.

Israel's borders have changed almost constantly in its [01:50:00] 70 year history because it's always conquering or trying to conquer more land. In 1948, Israel expelled Palestinians into neighboring countries to create a Jewish majority state. In 1967, Israel fought the Six Day War. The popular Israeli narrative of this war is that all of the Arab governments woke up one day and randomly attacked Israel because they hate Jews.

But the truth is, Israel provoked a war with the Arab states intentionally. This was openly admitted by several high level Israeli generals after the war. Matthew Pelled, one of the Israeli commanders in the Six Day War, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz the thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967, and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence, is only a bluff, which was born and developed after the war.

In the 1967 war zone. Israel conquers all of Historic Palestine, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Syrian Golan Heights, more than doubling its territory. The UN does force Israel to [01:51:00] return the Sinai, but Israel refuses to leave the Syrian Golan Heights, which is still under Israeli occupation today. One of the major turning points for Israel is its 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

It was Israel's first attempt at a major occupation of a country outside of Historic Palestine. But even before Israel's invasion, it had been using Christian sects in Lebanon as proxies to fight the Palestinian liberation fighters in the south of the country. Lebanese Christian fascists famously served as the trigger pullers in the Israeli orchestrated Sovereign Shatila massacres, where 3, 000 Palestinian refugees were executed over the course of a day and a half, in what the UN General Assembly condemned as an act of genocide.

One of the visions for Israel's long term strategic outlook to come out of this invasion was laid out by an aide to the Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, Ariel Sharon. The strategy paper, called the Strategy for Israel in the 1980s, which was published by the World Zionist Organization's ideological journal, [01:52:00] Hivunim, or Directions in Hebrew, Explains in thorough detail how Israel should exploit the sectarian divisions in other Arab countries as they did in Lebanon in a larger strategy to fracture the Arab world.

It says, quote, The Muslim Arab world is built like a temporary house of cards, put together by foreigners without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, All made of combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Muslim state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some, a civil war is already raging.

Then it goes on to say Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon. The real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sun Majority and the Shia Allo White ruling minority testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble. Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although it's majority is Shia, and the ruling minority is sun.

It then lays out its strategy for what it calls the Eastern Front. The dissolution of Syria and [01:53:00] Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target. In the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target, Syria will fall apart in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure.

This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, meaning for Israel, and that aim is already within our reach today. If you observe the strategy followed by Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his career, it follows this strategy almost exactly. In 2002, he urged Congress to invade Iraq over the weapons of mass destruction it never had.

The U. S. occupation plunged Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war by manipulating balances between the Shia and Sunni Muslims. In Syria, Israel held an official position of neutrality, but later admitted to arming the mostly Sunni rebels while simultaneously carrying out regular attacks against the government, which was controlled by Shia Alawites, in a situation where neutrality actually meant for Israel [01:54:00] And of course, in Lebanon today, we see Israel collectively punishing the Lebanese people and then telling non Muslims to blame Muslims for Israeli airstrikes.

News - Hottest Year on Record, Syria's Transition, Biden Migrant Detention Facilities Part 2 - American Prestige - Air Date 12-13-24

What is Israel doing in Syria? Israel is, uh, seizing a bunch of territory, which, uh, you know, they say is, is temporary. And of course we can believe them because it's not like Israel has ever seized. Syrian territory before and then refused to hand it back.

Um, no, but they, they have moved into, uh, southern Syria beyond the occupied Golan into, uh, the entirety of the buffer zone that was set up in 1974, an agreement that ended Syria's, formally ended Syria's involvement in the Yom Kippur War. Uh, there was a buffer zone set up on, uh, Uh, along the in Syrian territory, really along the goal on, uh, they've now seized all of that.

And I believe gone past that there was one report. I saw that they were 20 kilometers [01:55:00] away from Damascus. At one point, uh, the Israelis have denied going that far, but, uh, it's, it's, uh, entirely possible that they are, uh, so they appear to be occupying a pretty significant swath of Southern Syria. At this point, they are claiming that this is necessary because they need a buffer zone to protect.

The Golan, under the circumstances with chaos in Syria, they don't know who's in charge or what might happen. Uh, the Golan, of course, was a buffer zone when they first seized it in 1967. Uh, so they need a buffer zone for the buffer zone, and I'm sure they will need another buffer zone for the new buffer zone at some point, and we can just keep going on and on.

The other thing the Israelis have been doing is they have been absolutely pounding Syria from from the air. They've hit hundreds at this point of targets. Um, all of them apparently connected with the former Syrian military heavy armaments. Um, possibly chemical weapons sites. This is another thing that the U.

S. Is really pushing is to get control of whatever chemical weapons stockpile Syria might have had [01:56:00] left and destroy them. Uh, but places, you know, with, with advanced weaponry that the Israelis, you know, as much as they, um, viewed Assad as, as not a, a great guy, they also viewed him as somewhat stable and somebody who would not pop off and suddenly attack Syria.

And I don't think they have the same, Feeling about the new government. They're they're they're clearly very concerned that uh, Some of this hardware might fall into hts's hands and so they are destroying it systematically. I think For they they struck 480 targets, uh at the last The last time I checked and that's probably that number's probably gone up since then So yeah, they are they are just uh systematically going through and taking out all these sites, which is interesting I mean it reveals how much they apparently knew about the syrian military You Uh, and also I think, uh, kind of reveals what their feelings were about Assad, despite the, you know, seemingly surface hostile relationship.

I think they regarded him as, um, as I say, a source of at least [01:57:00] reliability, if not, uh, you know, uh, friendship or anything like that. Uh, and they, they seem to be a little bit nervous about, uh, the new status quo. Israel has incredible intelligence capabilities. I mean, that is a lesson of the last year. Plus it's wild how much they know in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Syria.

It's very interesting how they have such in Iran. They have such large and incredibly capable intelligence services. I wonder what it is. All right. Uh, we shouldn't maybe talk to someone about that. Anyway, let's move on to Israel Palestine and let's talk about this concession that Hamas has made vis a vis the ceasefire.

There were, there have been reports of a new stab at a ceasefire for several days. Now, the Qatari foreign ministers ministry said earlier this week that it was assessing the potential for, uh, inviting the whole gang to Doha again, uh, for a new round of talks. The fact that Qatar is even involved at this point, uh, is interesting because of course they withdrew from their [01:58:00] mediating role.

Uh, some time back out of frustration that there had been no progress and that they were kind of, you know, left holding the bag and to some degree, uh, publicly. So, you know, clearly they feel there's some, uh, potential for a deal here. Uh, now we've gotten the same. Disjointed response from the Israeli government, as we've gotten in every round of talks, which is, um, ministers, you know, one minister, another, in this case, Gideon Saar, the, the new foreign minister, uh, saying positive things he, Saar said, uh, you know, we're, we're optimistic for there's reason for optimism, uh, about the possibility of a deal only for Benjamin Netanyahu to turn around and tell reporters like, no, there's not, I'm not going to cut a deal in no way, uh, which he's done again here, uh, that said, uh, the wall street journal.

Uh, reported on, uh, I believe Wednesday, Wednesday evening citing Arab mediators, which could mean the Qataris could mean, um, Egyptians, who knows, uh, that, uh, reported that Hamas [01:59:00] has essentially dropped one of its demands, which is that the Israeli military withdraw from Gaza in the early Initial phases of a ceasefire deal, they've now accepted that there would, there could be an Israeli military presence in, uh, on the Netzerim Corridor, which is the, the, uh, road network and, and, uh, kind of, uh, area zone of control that they've established in central Gaza to divide the territory north and south.

And on the Philadelphia corridor, which lies along the Egyptian border. So this is, this has been a big sticking point in talks. If you recall, uh, sometime back there was supposedly a deal on the table. Supposedly Joe Biden told us that the Israelis had accepted it. Then Hamas said, okay, we accept it. This was, you know, like May, June, I think, uh, we accept it.

And then suddenly Netanyahu turned around and said, Oh no, no, no, wait, that deal isn't good enough. We have to have a permanent, uh, or, you know, indefinite military presence in Gaza and it's quite. Um, so the [02:00:00] Hamas is apparently now given up on, on the idea that the Israelis would leave at least in the initial stages.

As I say, there, there would be, could be a longer term outlook here. Um, we'll have to wait and see if that's enough for Netanyahu or if he comes up with some other reason to, to squash the deal, probably the latter. But who knows, uh, but as it stands, this is a pretty significant concession.

SECTION C - HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND THE PROXY WAR

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section C historical context and the proxy war.

The Art of War: Proxy Warfare Part 1 - Warfronts - Air Date 8-19-23

Speaker 17: At its most basic level, a proxy war is a contrast to a traditional war. A war in which Nation A and Nation B are mad at each other, so Nations A and B gather up their respective militaries and go and have a bit of a fight. A proxy war, then, is a war in which Nations A and B Don't go head to head, but instead lean on a third party to do the fighting for them.

Those third parties could be allied nations, formal or informal protectorates, non state groups, insurgencies, or even civilian protesters. But in general, a proxy conflict will take one of three basic forms. [02:01:00] If we imagine that Nation A's smaller subsidiary ally is Nation A 1, and Nation B's ally is Nation B 1, then we might see Nation A fighting Nation B 1, or Nation A 1 fighting Nation B, or Nation A 1 fighting Nation B 1.

The whole point is that Nation A and Nation B never meet directly in open combat. Now, that's not to say that either Nation A or Nation B would ignore a proxy conflict. Far from it. Instead, these major powers partner together with the minor powers. The minor power is the one sending troops into battle, but the major power could be providing anything from financial support, to weapons to training, to safe haven, or, in some cases, taking away their own troops uniforms and. The major powers involved in proxy conflicts do end up spending their resources on a war, and both sides will typically give their all to attain victory.

But neither of the major powers should ever be able to hold each other directly responsible for the damage that the war brings. It's [02:02:00] not a secret that both major powers are involved, at least not usually. But that isn't the point. The point is that neither of the major powers actually wants to bear the costs of going to war with each other, but both sides are able to stomach the significant, but lesser damage of a bit of a side conflict.

Now, there's a few key reasons why major powers would generally elect to pursue a proxy war. Perhaps the most obvious is that the nation would rather not send its own citizens off to die if it doesn't have to. At other times, it's a matter of cost. Where waging a major war would be prohibitively expensive, especially for countries that can't foot the bill of moving troops between regions or even continents at scale, or in the case of the largest proxy conflict in history, the Cold War, the two major powers involved could do some truly unacceptable levels of damage to each other if they ever met in direct conflict.

As we'll discuss at length, just about any cost is worth avoiding a full on, world ending nuclear exchange, a consensus that the US and the Soviet Union thankfully agreed upon. Proxy warfare gives each side just enough plausible deniability that such a potentially [02:03:00] devastating outcome can be avoided. In other cases, proxy warfare offers real advantages that major powers often can't get.

For example, if you'd like to bring down some third world dictator in a remote, difficult area to navigate, it's far more likely that a knowledgeable local insurgency can have success rather than a group of your own special operators. And finally, there's the matter of solidarity, be it a question of politics, religion, shared ethnicity, or anything else.

A major power can advance its own goals or ideologies by helping its smaller foreign partners advance themselves. The other side of that coin, though, is that if the major power we're discussing has an equally powerful army, then that enemy is going to want to make sure they don't get their way. We've seen long term proxy wars play out like this, to pit Communism against Capitalism, Shia versus Sunni Islam, Catholicism against Protestantism, and, well, a whole lot more.

So, with a clear view of when and why proxy warfare takes place, it's only right that we should [02:04:00] now discuss the how, the tried and true methods that pop up again and again when proxy wars are being carried out. Unlike an alliance between two nations who simply want to fight a war alongside each other, proxy wars are strictly hierarchical.

The minor powers involved probably wouldn't be fighting at all, or might even not stand a chance, except that it's acting on the will of its larger ally. Depending on which party you ask, this relationship might be described as benevolent, or transactional, or exploitative. Really, it depends, but typically it's a short term and highly conditional partnership.

do what the big boss says and you'll be rewarded. Go off script or fail to keep up and the big boss will find someone else worth their time. The major powers support can manifest in a number of different ways In some cases, they'll train a smaller nation or an insurgency's troops or physically provide heavy duty weapons and equipment that they wouldn't otherwise have had.

At other times, they might supply crucial intelligence or tactical support in planning and carrying out attacks. They might provide large sums of money and let the smaller partner have the rest of themselves, or they [02:05:00] might handpick some of their own elite soldiers and tell those soldiers to go and help out the smaller nation as mercenaries.

It's not uncommon to see a major power offer logistical support or organize recruitment drives or help out with creating propaganda or organize other recruitment drives where fighters from around the world are convinced to travel on their own and go and help out. As for how success is defined, There are a range of options.

The proxy war can be won outright, or the smaller nation might grow powerful enough to carry on the fight without help, or the situation can settle into a stalemate, or a balance that everyone could just learn to live with. And lastly, we should also lay out just how risky proxy warfare is as a method of engagement.

Although entire global conflicts have been decided by proxy battles in the past, those same attempts at proxy warfare have just as often deteriorated into direct major power confrontation or otherwise gone way off course from what was supposed to be happening. Just as an example, leaning on a smaller power or a non state actor requires that to be [02:06:00] trustworthy.

And, often, those allies aren't quite as trustworthy as a major power might think. Just take the Afghan Mujahideen, who used US supplied armaments to fight the Soviets in the 1980s, but turned them back against the Americans just a few years later. At other times, proxy forces might not show up to battle in nearly the numbers that their sponsor had hoped, or they might become overly reckless, willing to take risks or make tactical errors because they know that their sponsors can get them out of a bad situation.

And finally, Proxy conflict has a nasty tendency to create situations where the end justifies the means. Take for example a major power that trusts a regional leader to shut down dissent or political opposition, but chooses to ignore the fact that this leader is torturing and disappearing their population in order to keep them in line.

Proxy conflict is chosen almost invariably, because it is the lesser of two evils. But being the lesser of two evils absolutely does not make something good.

The Middle East's cold war, explained - Vox - Air Date 6-17-17

Speaker 3: The most famous Cold War was fought for 40 years between the United States and [02:07:00] Soviet Union.

Speaker 5: Looking forward to the day when their flag would fly over the entire world.

Speaker 3: They never declared war on each other, but clashed in proxy wars around the world. Each side supported dictators, rebel groups, and intervened in civil wars to contain the other.

Like the U. S. and Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia and Iran are two powerful rivals. But instead of fighting for world dominance, they're fighting over control of the Middle East. In order to understand the Saudi Iranian rivalry, let's go back to the origins of each country. In the early 1900s, the Arabian Peninsula was a patchwork of tribes under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

After World War I, the empire collapsed, leaving these tribes to fight each other over power. One tribe from the interior, the Alsad, eventually conquered most of the peninsula. In 1932, they were recognized as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Six years later, massive oil reserves were discovered in Saudi Arabia.

And in an instant, the Saudi monarchy was rich. That oil money built roads and cities all around the desert country, and it helped forge an [02:08:00] alliance with the U. S. On the eastern side of the Persian Gulf, another country was emerging, but having a much harder time. Iran also had massive oil reserves and an even bigger Muslim population, but constant foreign intervention was creating chaos.

Since the 18th century, Iran had been invaded by the Russians and the British twice. In 1953, the U. S. secretly staged a coup, removing the popular prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. In his place, they propped up a monarch, Reza Shah, who was aggressively reforming Iran into a secular, westernized country.

But he harbored corruption and terrorized the population with his secret police, the Saavak. By the 1970s, both Saudi Arabia and Iran had oil based economies and had governments heavily backed by the U. S. But the feelings among each population were very different.

Speaker 4: Ultimately, at the end of the day, the Shah of Iran, powerful as he was, simply didn't have the same control over his people or ultimately the same legitimacy and affection that the Saudi people felt toward their monarchy at that point [02:09:00] in time.

Speaker 3: That's because Iran's Muslims felt stifled by the Shah's reformations. And by the end of the decade, they finally fought back.

Speaker 5: Iran's Islamic Revolution overthrew a powerful regime that boasted military might and the

Speaker 4: It's really in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah, that the real tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia began.

Speaker 3: Ayatollah Khomeini was a Muslim clergyman who preached against Western backed secular monarchies. He advocated for a government that was popular, Islamic, and led by the clergy. And in 1979, he led a revolution to establish just that. It was a massive international event that prompted reactions around the world, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Speaker 4: The Iranian revolution terrified the government of Saudi Arabia. They were fearful that Ayatollah Khomeini would inspire their populations to rise up against them exactly the way that he had caused the Iranian population to rise up against the Shah. [02:10:00]

Speaker 3: And there was a religious threat, too. Up until now, the Saudis had claimed to be the leaders of the Muslim world, largely because Islam's two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, are in Saudi Arabia.

But Khomeini claimed his popular revolution made Iran the legitimate Muslim state. And there is another divide. Saudi Arabia's population is mostly Sunni, the majority sect of Islam, while Khomeini and Iran are mostly Shia.

Speaker 4: Westerners always make a mistake in drawing an analogy between the Sunni Shia split and the Protestant Catholic split.

The Sunni Shia split was never as violent that in much of the Islamic world when Sunnis and Shia were living in close proximity, they got along famously well.

Speaker 3: So while the Sunni Shia split was not a reason for the rivalry, it was an important division. After the revolution, the Saudis fears came to life when Iran began exporting its revolution.

This CIA report from 1980 details how the Iranians started helping groups, mostly Shia, trying to [02:11:00] overthrow governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Speaker 4: And they prompted the Saudis to redouble their efforts to fight against Iran.

Speaker 3: They bolstered their alliance with the U. S. and formed the GCC, an alliance with other Gulf monarchies.

The stage was set for conflict.

Speaker 6: On September the 22nd, Iraqi planes attacked Mehrabad airport outside Tehran. Iraq was gambling on a short, sharp campaign. The rise

Speaker 3: of Iran as a regional power threatened other neighboring countries as well. In September 1980, Iraq, under the rule of dictator Saddam Hussein, He was hoping to stop the Iranian revolution, gain power, and annex some of Iran's oil reserves.

But they didn't get far. The war bogged down into a stalemate, complete with trench warfare, chemical weapons, and heavy civilian casualties. When Iran started winning, the Saudis panicked, and came to Iraq's rescue. They provided money, weapons, and logistical help.

Speaker 4: And so it becomes critical to the Saudis that they build up Iraq and build it up into a [02:12:00] wall that can hold back the Iranian torrent that they have unleashed.

Speaker 3: The Saudi help allowed Iraq to fight until 1988. By then, nearly a million people had died. The Iranians largely blamed the Saudis for the war, and the feud escalated. Fast forward 15 years, and Iraq again became the scene of oppression. In 2003, the U. S. invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Neither Saudi Arabia or Iran wanted this to happen, since Iraq had been acting as a buffer between them.

But problems arose when the U. S. struggled to replace Saddam.

Speaker 4: The United States has no idea what it's doing in Iraq after 2003, and it makes one mistake after another that creates a security vacuum and a failed state and drives Iraq into all out civil war.

Speaker 3: Without a government, armed militias took control of Iraq, splintering the population.

Sunni and Shia militias suddenly sprang up all over the country. Many were radical Islamist groups who saw an opportunity to gain power amidst the chaos. [02:13:00] These militias were ready made proxies for Saudi Arabia and Iran, and they both seized the opportunity to try and gain power. The Saudis started sending money and weapons to the Sunni militias and Iran the Shia.

Iraq was suddenly a proxy war, with Saudi Arabia and Iran supporting opposing sides. That trend continued into the Arab Spring, a series of events. anti monarchy, pro democracy protests that swept through the Middle East in 2011. And this had very different consequences for Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Speaker 4: That is terrifying to the Saudis, who are the ultimate status quo power.

They want the region stable, and they don't want anybody rising up and overthrowing a sclerotic autocratic government. for fear that it might inspire their own people to do the same. The Iranians are the ultimate anti status quo power. They have been trying for decades to overturn the regional order.

Speaker 3: Each country threw their weight behind different groups, all over the Middle East. Just like in Iraq, the Saudis began supporting Sunni groups and [02:14:00] governments, while Iran helped Shia groups rise up against them. For example, in Tunisia, the Saudis backed a dictator while the Iranians stoked protests. In Bahrain, Iran supported Shia leaders seeking to overthrow the government.

Saudi Arabia, in turn, sent troops to help quash the unrest. Both got involved in Libya, Lebanon, and Morocco as well. As Saudi Arabia and Iran put more and more pressure on these countries, they began to collapse. Now the feud has gone a step further, with both countries deploying their own militaries. In Yemen, the Saudi military is on the ground helping the central government.

They are fighting the rebels called the Houthis, who are an Iranian proxy group. And the reverse is happening in Syria. The Iranian military is fighting side by side with militias, some of them extremist groups like Hezbollah, in support of dictator Bashar al Assad. They are fighting rebel Sunni groups who are Saudi proxies.

The more civil wars that broke out in the Middle East, the more Saudi Arabia and Iran became involved.

Speaker 4: Neither the government of Saudi Arabia nor the government of Iran are [02:15:00] looking for a fight. But the problem is that these civil wars create circumstances that no one could have predicted. Both the Iranians and the Saudis feel their vital national interests are threatened, are in jeopardy because of different things going on in these civil wars, things that they blame me.

Speaker 3: Now the Cold War is drawing in other countries. The Saudi government is threatening Qatar, a tiny Gulf state that was developing ties with Iran. Meanwhile in Syria and Iraq, the terrorist group ISIS is nearing defeat, and both the Saudis and Iranians are angling to take control of that territory. It's a Cold War that's becoming incredibly unpredictable.

The Art of War: Proxy Warfare Part 2 - Warfronts - Air Date 8-19-23

Speaker 17: By and large, the Cold War was made up almost exclusively of proxy conflicts between these two global superpowers. In some cases, like Vietnam and Korea, American troops ended up fighting on the battlefield directly, opposed not by the Soviets, but by Soviet backed opposition movements. The same thing happened in reverse in Afghanistan.

The Soviets weren't getting shot at by Americans, but they were getting shot at [02:16:00] by American weapons in the hands of Afghan militants. But in most of the era's conflicts, both the US and the Soviet Union would throw their support behind opposing sides in civil wars, or a border dispute, or a recently inflamed but very old cultural or tribal disagreement.

Those sorts of engagements were far lower impact, generally involving the loss of a lot fewer lives, but they were far greater in number than the instances where either American or Soviet troops were drawn into battle directly. Just as important were American and Soviet efforts to prop up various dictatorships and regional allies to ensure that certain parts of the world remained under their control.

For example, the United States spent the 1970s and 80s orchestrating Operation Condor, a coordinated intelligence sharing app that allowed authoritarian regimes across Latin America to hunt down dissidents on each other's soil. Likewise, the Soviet secret police spent decades hard at work trying to root out any American attempts to subvert their authority on Soviet soil.

As such, the conflict between the Americans and the Soviets was largely decided by the results of their proxy wars, with the United States [02:17:00] proving able to weather a war of economic attrition while the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed under its own weight. But alas, proxy warfare didn't end when the Cold War did.

Instead, the sovereign state of Russia largely pivoted into the major power vacancies that the Soviet Union had left behind. In the 1990s, NATO and Russia ended up on opposing sides of the Georgian Civil War, and each side did quite a bit of puppetry behind the scenes to figure out where exactly each new post Soviet state would align itself.

During these years, Russia, Ukraine, and Greece also entered into a sort of proxy war with Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, who had chosen to put aside their differences and fight toward the breakup of Yugoslavia. Pakistan and Iran also ended up facing off against Russia during a civil war in Tajikistan, while the US and France ended up being major players in major conflicts in Congo, Nepal, and on the Ivory Coast.

Rounding off our historical examples, the first Libyan civil war in 2011 was practically the proxy war to end all [02:18:00] proxy wars, as a massive US led global coalition sought to support the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, and a smaller, more ragtag coalition of mostly leftist states worked unsuccessfully to keep the mad dictator in power.

In the modern era, though. No proxy war has played out quite so visibly as the Syrian Civil War, a multidimensional and quickly evolving conflict that is almost unrecognizable in 2023 from what it had been in the early 2010s. From the start of the conflict, many countries around the world had at least some skin in the game.

The regime of Bashar al Assad was seen as a stabilizing influence. region as well as an economic partner and geopolitical ally for countries like Russia, Iran and China, while western powers like the US, UK and the European Union had hoped that Syria would become yet another victory for the Arab Spring movement.

But since then, the innumerable Syrian factions on the ground and the military contributions of foreign nations have turned the Syrian civil war into a conflict that, at times, has seemed to only nominally be about deciding the fate of [02:19:00] Syria. Instead, it's been a forum for US backed militias to clash with Russian backed ones, for Israel and Iran to do other things.

Much of the same for Turkey to force the world to take sides in its long running conflict with the Middle East's Kurdish population and for disputes between secularist and Islamist governing principles to be settled with blood. The rise of the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria has just muddied the waters further, as the many, many proxy wars going on in Syria had also to take place against the backdrop of a very real, very direct war.

state the Islamic State. Overall, the civil war has appeared to resolve mostly in Russia's favor, with the Assad regime seeming to be on the precipice of victory at the time the script for this video was written. But this has been at the cost of millions of dollars per day for Russia, and on the occasions when Russian forces Clashed directly with the Syrian militias that opposed them.

Those battles have resulted in thousands of dead Syrian civilians, including by some estimates, nearly [02:20:00] 2000 children who were directly killed by Russian forces. Many of the Russian troops who gained experience in Syria now fighting Ukraine either for the Russian military itself or for the paramilitary of Arner group.

Then there's the Second Libyan Civil War, which, despite being the quieter of the two conflicts as it raged alongside the Syrian Civil War, has been even more of a geopolitical mess than Syria ever was. We've done a separate video on this channel detailing the wars in Libya, so do check that out if you'd like to learn more.

But to put it as simply as we can, Libya's precious oil reserves have prompted most of the world's major military nations to pick a side. The conflict has seen Iran working for the same goals as the Americans and the British. It's seen France split with the rest of the European Union, and join Russia on the opposite side of the conflict, and it's seen Israel and Saudi Arabia work together for common goals, even as Libya itself has splintered into a patchwork of militia controlled territories.

That's not to say that all sides have thrown in military support. Some, like the US, have stayed mostly focused on [02:21:00] counter terrorism operations in the region. But, even still, the battle has The control of Libya has been entirely dependent on foreign funds and support, without which all parties would probably have collapsed a very long time ago.

And much like Syria and Libya, Yemen's ongoing civil war has turned into a proxy conflict with a Saudi Arabian led coalition, including support from the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, America, the UK, and Germany have battled an Islamist movement known as the Houthis, who for the most part fight their own battles on the ground, much like the North Vietnamese of the Vietnam War.

However, they solicit ongoing support from an opposing coalition spearheaded by Iran and backed up by Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Russia. The Yemeni civil war is just one in a long series of proxy conflicts between Saudi Arabia and Iran who have fought a cold war of their own for some 45 years. They've shown up on the opposite sides of conflicts, from Lebanon to Iraq to the Caucasus and the Balkans, and although China and Iraq have recently begun to help Iran and Saudi Arabia restore [02:22:00] diplomatic relations, there's no long term consensus yet on whether that peace will hold.

And finally, there's the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the question of whether or not the conflict truly qualifies as a proxy war has been a subject of heated debate in the last year and a half. Now, we certainly aren't going to try and settle that debate once and for all, but it does bear pointing out that the prior stage of the conflict, a low grade war that was waged for years in Ukraine's Donbass region, was very much a proxy conflict.

In those years, Russian backed but Ukrainian led separatist movements were responsible for fighting the Ukrainian state, not Russia directly. Since Russia invaded, of course, the conflict has been very clearly fought between Russia and Ukraine. Although Russia has claimed that large numbers of NATO troops are fighting in Ukraine, those claims are, to put it kindly, complete bulls t.

The more relevant question is whether NATO's support for Ukraine, and on the other side, China's evidently growing support for Russia, is enough to consider the war a true proxy conflict. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. On the one hand, Western [02:23:00] financial and military support for Ukraine has absolutely bolstered the Ukrainian defense, so much so that it's an open question what the situation would look like today if that support had never come.

But on the other hand, the war is very much a war of Ukrainian independence versus Russian annexation. And the two principal actors in that question, the two countries with the biggest stake in the answer, They're battling it out directly. Thus, even if both sides of the war receive backing from international partners, neither side would qualify as a proxy force acting out the will of a sponsor nation or coalition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly invoked the idea of the Ukrainian invasion as a proxy war with the West, even a so called defensive one. But this defense does little to excuse Russia's decision to invade a sovereign neighbor.

As major and regional powers continue to grow more and more militarily fearsome, the question of proxy warfare has become increasingly pragmatic in recent years. Although it's still regarded as a low or even shameful form of [02:24:00] warfare in some circles, other experts have advocated for a more focused development of proxy warfare doctrine from Western nations.

Basically, the thinking goes that as the world's advanced militaries become More and more capable of doing massive damage to each other, proxy conflicts actually get more and more attractive as a less devastating alternative. Following from that, if nations are going to keep engaging in proxy warfare, then they should at least have guiding principles and doctrine prepared for when they do so.

As our recent historical examples have made clear, the world certainly isn't at a loss for good proxy war tactics, but there's a lot of room between what we've currently got and a world in which powers like the US or the European Union develop proxy war skills as robust as, say, Iran. There's also potential for this to develop into yet another arms race, too.

If you'll accept a fairly loose definition of the term, as China and the West both pivot toward proxy conflict in advance of a new Cold War that many experts believe has already begun. China has remained conspicuously absent from many of the proxy wars of the last half century or so, and has [02:25:00] often chosen to play the role of peacemaker rather than a belligerent or sponsor.

But this may well change as China continues its evolution into a more Hi, welcome to the next major player in the proxy wars of the world, it seems entirely likely that the rest of the world's larger powers will continue to be drawn toward proxy warfare to suit their own goals. The United States and Russia have both proven continually willing to engage in this sort of warfare.

And as Russia becomes more and more isolated on the world stage, perhaps even crossing into the territory of a pariah state like Iran or North Korea, it may begin to rely on proxy warfare even more to exert its power abroad.

How the First World War Created the Middle East Conflicts (Documentary) - The Great War - Air Date 12-8-23

Speaker 2: While the heated discussions were going on at the League, the U. S. Congress changed its mind, and even though the League was President Wilson's idea, the U. S. refused to sign the peace treaty or join the League when it officially came into being in January 1920. For the British and French, this was an opportunity. [02:26:00] At the San Remo conference in spring 1920, they formalized the military reality on the ground.

France became the mandatory power for Syria and Lebanon, while Britain did the same for Mesopotamia, Transjordan, and Palestine. This allowed them to indirectly rule while not officially taking these regions on as imperial possessions. In the words of historian Michael Provence, The populations of the mandated territories thus assumed all the responsibilities and none of the benefits of national sovereignty.

One question the conference did not resolve were the borders. They would have to wait until a peace treaty could be signed with the Ottomans, who still ruled but in name only. The League did say France and Britain had to consider the wishes of the population, but British and French administrators mostly ignored local petitions.

The American King Crane Commission's survey received conflicting results. Some people wanted democracy, some wanted a greater Syria including Lebanon and Palestine, some wanted British oversight, some French and [02:27:00] some American, and some wanted a Hashemite king. A majority did not want the mandates at all, and 99 percent were opposed to Zionist settlement in Palestine.

After all the wartime deprivations and sufferings, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and a lack of a stable New World Order, it isn't surprising that there was widespread violence in the Middle East after the Great War ended. Egypt rose in a failed revolution against British rule in 1919, and there were clashes between religious and ethnic groups in Lebanon.

There was a major war in Anatolia between the Turkish Nationalist forces under Mustafa Kemal and allied, mostly Greek, troops, which resulted in the creation of the Turkish Republic and the formal dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. In Persia, the British wanted to counter Bolshevik Russian influence and secure access to oil, so they supported a coup by future Shah Reza Pahlavi, who took control of the country in 1921.

But the violence that was the most intractable and arguably impacted the troubled future of the region most of [02:28:00] all occurred in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. In Palestine, the British Mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and British authorities encouraged Jewish settlement. Some 35, 000 Jewish settlers arrived between 1919 and 1923, hoping for a better life.

International Jewish organizations often helped settlers buy land, some of which, but not all, was previously infertile. Some also declared their desire not just for a Jewish homeland, but a Jewish state, which stoked tensions with Palestinian Arabs, as did the British administration working closely with Zionist groups.

Some British officials and Jews wanted to curb settlement, but when enthusiastic Zionist supporter Herbert Samuel became British High Commissioner in Palestine, British support for settlement became more explicit. The British and some Zionists argued that settlement would benefit Arabs through economic improvements, but most Arabs saw things differently.

Writer Moussa Kazim al Husseini complained to Colonial Minister [02:29:00] Winston Churchill in August 1921. Jewish settlers depreciate the value of land and property and at the same time manipulate a financial crisis. Can Europe then expect the Arabs to live and work with such a neighbor? In response, Churchill reiterated his support for Jewish settlement.

Things turned deadly with Arabs rioting in Jerusalem and an organized firefight at Tel Hai in 1920 claiming the lives of a handful on both sides. Tensions fully boiled over in May 1921 in the town of Jaffa. A fight between rival Jewish socialist groups near a mosque spun out of control and led to deadly rioting between Jews and Arabs.

Arabs killed 47 Jews and the next day, Jewish groups and British police retaliated, killing 48 Arabs. A British commission mostly blamed the Arabs, but admitted that their grievances stemmed from quote political and economic consequences of settlement and perceived pro Jewish bias of the British.

Zionist [02:30:00] Ze'ev Jabotinsky felt that the time had come to build a metaphorical wall around the settlers. Zionist colonization can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population, behind an iron wall which the native population cannot breach. French rule in Syria and Lebanon got off to a violent start as well.

Hussein's son Faisal had led Arab forces into Syria in 1918 and announced his claim to the throne of a Syrian kingdom. But the French would not give up control, so French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau and Faisal agreed that Syria would become a de facto state under the French mandate. Faisal's Arab Nationalist allies of the Syrian National Congress, however, wanted full independence and control over Lebanon and Palestine.

A Nationalist society informed Faisal of their position. We are ready to declare war on both England and France. Faisal's [02:31:00] priority was becoming king, so he reluctantly agreed to cancel the deal with the French and was crowned King of Syria on March 7, 1920. France threatened to invade, so Faisal now accepted their terms, but his answer arrived late, so a French army invaded Syria anyway from its base in Lebanon, and defeated the ragtag Arab army at the Battle of Maissaloun in July.

Faisal fled to Mesopotamia, but Maissaloun became a symbol for Arab nationalism and resistance to European imperialism, as Ali Alawi has written. It was a military disaster, but its name has gone down in Arab history as a synonym for heroism and hopeless courage against huge odds, as well as for treachery and betrayal.

Faisal's position between the French and the Nationalists and his own family's ambitions have caused lots of historical debate about whether he was a power hungry opportunist, a sincere pan Arab nationalist, or both. In Mesopotamia, the British were also struggling. Their military was stretched thin [02:32:00] across the region, bureaucrats fought departmental turf wars, and politicians argued about how much independence Mesopotamia would have, and whether it would be one, two, or even three states in the future.

One thing soon became clear the population was divided. Some of the urban elite were not against British control, while the ex Ottoman Officers Association and much of the tribal countryside was. In June 1920, a local Arab politician warned British administrator Gertrude Bell. You said in your declaration that you would set up a native government drawing its authority from the initiative and free choice of the people concerned.

Yet you proceed to draw up a scheme without consulting anyone. That same month, the Iraqi Revolt, also known as the Iraqi Revolution, began. From a local tribe resisting British troops imprisoning one of their own, the unrest spread across the Middle Euphrates region. Tribal forces besieged several British garrisons, captured Najaf and Karbala, and [02:33:00] defeated multiple British relief columns.

It took the British until November and 450 dead to put down the revolt, and the settlement included a vague promise of an independent Arab kingdom that had yet to be defined. The fighting, though, caused some in Britain to question the mandate. How much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for and do not want?

The British defeated the Iraqi tribes, but they didn't understand them. Bureaucrats wrote reports that blamed the revolt on a conspiracy between Turkey and Faisal, a conspiracy between the Germans and the Turks and possibly the Bolsheviks too, the machinations of the American Standard Oil Company, Panislam, or the Jews.

Tribal leader Said Mussin Abu Tabigh was more pragmatic. The British hastened the revolt's timing by their ignorance about the proud personality of the Iraqi and [02:34:00] the numerous political mistakes they committed across the country. There is a historical debate about the Iraqi revolt or revolution as well.

Some see it as a rebellion of different groups who were upset at British rule because it was foreign and heavy handed. Others emphasize the role of former Ottoman officers who supported Faisal as future king. Still others consider it a national revolution that laid the foundation for a modern Iraqi identity and eventual independence.

The shape of the modern Middle East became more clear by 1921, even though formal peace only came in 1923. At the Cairo Conference, the powers agreed that Faisal would rule over the Kingdom of Iraq, his brother Abdullah would become King of Transjordan, and Britain would continue to support the Zionist project in Palestine.

Though Britain would still have significant influence, the new kingdoms enjoyed more autonomy than the British had intended thanks to the Iraqi Revolt. Independence, though, would have to wait. The French soon divided Syria and Lebanon into [02:35:00] five separate states, which they would rule for years to come.

They also decided to create greater Lebanon by attaching several Muslim districts to mostly Christian Mount Lebanon, creating an unfamiliar and volatile mix. And so the First World War had swept away the centuries of Ottoman rule and created a new Middle East. It was a region of fragile new states, supposedly on their way to independence thanks to the League of Nations, but in fact under British and French imperial control.

There was violence between religious and ethnic communities, and there was violence against foreign domination. And in Palestine, there was the uncertainty of the Zionist project. Would it result in the creation of a Jewish state, or would it result in perpetual tensions in Palestine? Or, perhaps, both.

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 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the [02:36:00] show included clips from Global Dispatches; DW News; Democracy Now!; Today, Explained; The Socialist Program; American Prestige; Breakthrough News; War Fronts; Vox; and The Great War. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken Brian, Ben, and Lara 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 all 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. Memberships let you get instant access to our incredibly 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 [02:37:00] 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. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms that you may be joining these days.

1 reaction Share

#1678 Trump's Total Dominance Over the Republican Party and the Resistance Efforts Already Underway (Transcript)

Posted by · December 20, 2024 10:25 AM

Air Date 12/20/2024

Audio-Synced Transcript

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award winning Best of the Left Podcast. Now, there's no denying that things are about to get bad. Trump and company have had years to prepare for their next turn in office, but those preparing to resist also have the benefit of past experience, resulting in a response to Trumpism that looks very different this time around.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our top takes and about 50 minutes today includes Citations Needed, Boom! Lawyered, Democracy Now! The Majority Report, The Daily Blast, The Impact Report, and The Rachel Maddow Show. Then in the additional deeper dives half, there'll be more in three sections. Section A, immigration intimidation. Section B, bending the knee, and Section C, resistance.

The Shallow, Power-Flattering Appeal of High Status #Resistance Historians Part 1 - Citations Needed - Air Date 12-3-24

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah. Well, Gaza just explodes the whole liberal resistance myth in many ways, and it has baleful effects in forcing, basically [00:01:00] decent people to wind up supporting actions like the expansion of the military industrial complex and uncritical support for proxy wars.

Basically, as you said, it started in 2016 as a reaction to Trump. Some of it's understandable, people had a reaction to Trump. Trump does seem to be outside of expected decorum and protocols. And so there was this natural tendency to cast him as outside the mainstream, but the number of scholars and pundits who position themselves as intellectuals, immediately jumped on this bandwagon of positioning Trump as some kind of authoritarian or a fascist or compromised by ties with Putin and Russia. I mean, there's so many iterations of this argument and, some of them may have some basis in fact. And certainly Trump is an authoritarian, there's no doubt about that.

But what it does [00:02:00] by talking about it in a certain way, is that it obscures and denies the fact that everything that they say Trump is, has deep roots in U. S. history and culture and politics. And you don't have to look at Putin to understand the rise of Trump. You have to look at Bill Clinton and U.S. historians who had access to MSNBC and were very prominent in pushing a narrative, are totally incapable of doing. They're totally incapable of understanding how, say, Clinton's militarization of the border or the crime bill or his terrorism bill or his end of welfare bill or NAFTA, led to Trump and Trumpism and basically what sociologists calls the de-pacification of society with the deep polarization that's happening in the United States. You don't have to look outside.

And then, of course, this is then expanded and extrapolated where domestic pathologies within the United [00:03:00] States then become civilizational, becomes about the West, right? That, this struggle over territory in the Ukraine and the expansion of NATO becomes existential as writers like Applebaum and Snyder would have it. And it's really a way to deny the culpability of domestic actors, political elites. As I said, you don't have to look to Russia for foreign influence. If you want to look at foreign influence, and this is where Gaza just explodes the whole liberal resistance narrative. You could look at Israel and AIPAC. They've had a much more direct bearing on the shaping of domestic politics and political culture than Russia has.

ADAM JOHNSON - CO-HOST, CITATIONS NEEDED: I want to hook into this because I think some people they listen to this and they think, okay, like y'all are just being a bunch of hipper than now leftists, but there's actually a prescriptive element to this, which I want to get into, which is the goal is to prevent future Trumps, [00:04:00] then you have to understand the antecedents. This is not just an academic exercise. That this has real world consequences about how a 2025 #resistance may be different than the #resistance of 2017. And that the 2017 one leaned heavily into this. And again, because big donors loved it. Reid Hoffman, all these kind of democracy think tanks, the high minded stuff, all the sort of rebranding of Bush-era neocons. It had a hook of this kind of Russiagate lawfare thing. And I, again, I don't think there's anything wrong with investigating Russiagate initially because it's, there's some weird shit that happened, but ultimately it kind of was a big nothing burger and wasted a lot of time and resources and it pumped money and influence into some of the worst people on earth.

That there is a prescriptive element to this, which is, okay, how do we prevent the 900 Trump clones coming down the right wing conveyor belt? You have to really understand the initial causes to really have a long term actual quote unquote resistance. Why is understanding this history and Trump's [00:05:00] antecedents necessary in terms of orienting opposition to his frighteningly appealing message?

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah. I mean, there's no doubt that The way that it's framed by, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC or resistance historians shut down and preclude coming up with a more comprehensive, robust strategy for defeating Trump. It's a fact that you don't beat fascism by calling fascists fascists. That's not how... I work mostly in Latin America. And it has its share of fascists. You know, they don't have a fascist debate. Who isn't a fascist? They call the right, they call the conservative right fascist and the left defeats it usually when it can, in those moments when they win electorally by offering a robust social democratic program that speaks to the material conditions of people's lives. And just the way so much of the political discourse, look [00:06:00] already the autopsy of the 2024 election is taking shape you know it's basically you know blaming this micro voting group or that micro voting group or whether you know whether woke is a strategy or not. But nobody talks about what actually wins elections or at least what could shape the political terrain in a way and might entail losing elections until the terrain is reshaped is pushing forward a robust program of social rights and universal welfare programs.

I mean, when they pick Tim Waltz to be the vice president, I thought that that was where they were going. I thought that was what the Harris campaign was going to do, because that's basically what Minnesota did coming out of that former labor tradition. They passed a whole series of, not means tested, not tax credits, but universal programs like, everybody in school eats breakfast and lunch for free, no matter what your [00:07:00] family's salary is. And, you know, it took a long time to get to that point, but they got it through. But then this is what circles back to Gaza. Gaza put a lot of limiting pressure on what kind of campaign Harris could run.

She couldn't run a center left campaign, the kind Biden ran in 2020 and beating Trump by a slim margin. The whole kind of running on a campaign of Trump is an authoritarian and Trump is a fascist. And it's, and the choice that stands before us as fascism versus democracy is such an abstraction. It didn't mean anything for most voters. And it pushed. the Harris campaign into basically rehabilitating, turning the 2024 election into a celebration of the Cheney family. Which is just, amazing. So you see the way that this liberal resistance narrative that sees all evil as coming from outside the United States, that doesn't see it as, see it as an attack on the [00:08:00] institutions and society that we have rather than emerging from the institutions and societies.

Can Trump Really End Birthright Citizenship? - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 12-12-24

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to end birthright citizenship, saying that he is quote, 'Absolutely planning to halt birthright citizenship on his first day in office." He called the practice ridiculous and claimed that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship, which

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Excuse me? That's not even true. I mean, look, I know we don't expect the man to tell the truth on anything, but that's just, I don't know. There's a country called Canada. Has he heard of it? Tariffs, buddy.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right. It's just factually inaccurate. And he went on to say, quote, "We're going to end that," (birthright citizenship) "because, it's ridiculous." And that quote, "If somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don't need to on our land, [00:09:00] congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America," which actually is not what birthright citizenship is. It's not as soon as you dip a toe on to the American border, then suddenly you're a citizen.

Like you really have to be born here. You got to escape the uterine Bastille on these shores and then you're a citizen. It's not just, oh, I got a toe across the border. Woo. Woo. I just. He also suggested that he might attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive action, stating, quote, "We're going to have to get it changed. We'll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it."

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It's going to be such a ridiculous four years. Just. Yeah, I mean, let's talk about what birthright citizenship is. But you hinted at it, right? It's not like dipping a toe in.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right. I got my toe across the border. Woooo I'm an American now!

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Birthright citizenship automatically grants citizenship [00:10:00] to individuals born in the U.S. irrespective of their parents immigration status or citizenship status. It's a right guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the United States constitution. That amendment that we're going to be talking so much about in the Trump administration. And it states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside."

Pretty straightforward. Applies to anyone born. On U. S. soil, including children of undocumented immigrants. And it's based on the concept of jus soli, meaning the right of the soil, which grants citizenship based on place of birth. And it contrasts with citizenship acquired through other means, such as naturalization or jus sanguinis. It sounds sexier than it is. It's citizenship by blood. [00:11:00]

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And birthright citizenship is not a new, it's not a new concept.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: No.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And the attack on birthright citizenship is based on a willful misreading of case law and legislative history, specifically the phrase that you mentioned, quote, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

And to get into this, we're going to have to talk about a case from 1898 called Wong Kim, called United States versus Wong Kim Ark, right? In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed the principle of birthright citizenship, meaning if you're born here, you are a citizenship here in this case, Wong Kim Ark. And we should just go over the facts of the case a little bit.

Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States to Chinese parents who had been living and working in this country for a long time. He left the United States and then was denied reentry into the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act. And if that sounds super hella racist to you, it's because the [00:12:00] Chinese Exclusion Act was super hella racist. It excluded and restricted Chinese immigration and prohibited immigrants from China from becoming naturalized citizens. Now Wong Kim Ark challenged the U.S. government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and he won. Right? In a 6-2 decision, the court decided that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States because he was born on American soil.

The court specifically clarified the meaning of the phrase, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, right? The court held that setting aside Native Americans, who have their own sovereign and sovereign tribal immunity or sovereign tribal status, and excluding diplomats who also enjoy sovereign immunity in the United States, the 14th amendment extends citizenship to everyone born here.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It's such a simple concept yet the United States tried to argue that a person of Chinese descent [00:13:00] is not a citizen of the U. S. even if he was born in California. Because his parents were 'subjects of the emperor of China' and that their kid, Wong Kim Ark, was not subject to the political jurisdiction of the general government of the U.S. and the Supreme Court said no. It just said, no, the Chinese Exclusion Act could exclude or expel Chinese people born in China, but could not be applied to citizens, irrespective of their race or color.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: This case has been settled for about 125 years. So the question becomes, what are the chances that the Supreme Court is going to upend it? Because at the outset, people really seem to believe that it is unfathomable that this country would end birthright citizenship. But if it actually did, it wouldn't be unfathomable. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary because it would be following in the footsteps of other countries, like in the UK, where the right of the blood, that sanguine is sexy language, supplanted right of the soil [00:14:00] when it comes to granting citizenship, right.

In England and in Ireland and other places that have seen this really expansive growth of anti-immigrant sentiment on the rise, citizenship was changed so that it would be tied to blood and not to soil in order to prevent immigrants from just, you know, stepping a toe on the soil, having a kid, and then having that kid be automatically a citizen.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Yeah, I mean, the question of whether or not the court is going to up end precedent at this point, with this court, we're still asking that?

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I mean, come on. And so Trump could completely YOLO birthright citizenship in an executive order that would land the case before the Supreme Court pretty quickly. He would test the loyalty of the people that he installed on the Supreme Court. This is a reach. I mean, Dobbs and Rowe was a reach. Birthright citizenship and just going for it is a reach of a different magnitude. But don't, I [00:15:00] mean, you know, don't challenge Trump on that because he seems pretty intent to doing it. And, to get the court to go along, it would require a tortuous reading of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, right? And this would have to go against that straight textualist stuff that they love, that's their, like, juice, right?

Rep. Delia Ramirez- Trump's Immigration Plans Are -Un-American, Unconstitutional & Undemocratic - Democracy Now! - Air Table 12-11-24

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Ramirez, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can start off by talking about this promise that the mass deportations will begin in Chicago? And what will happen to the Chicago mayor?

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: Yeah. I mean, Tom Homan decided to come not just to Chicago to make those promises, but he came to my very own district, the district of Guatemalan immigrant — daughter of Guatemalan immigrant and congresswoman. And I’ve got to tell you, the level of disrespect is clear.

But I will say to you [00:16:00] that a number of us have said it very loud and clear. You can come to the 3rd District. You can come to any part of the city and the state of Illinois. In Illinois, we understand the impact and the contributions of immigrants, and we will do everything in our power to protect the families that have created the fabric of our country.

I mean, look, I know that he’s going to try to target the mayor, the governor, myself and others. But we also recognize that when he’s talking about deporting, he’s talking about deporting people who have been here decades — decades — and raised children, put them through college. And it’s absolutely unacceptable that he begin thinking about and targeting cities like Chicago, where we understand that we have thrived in the way that we have because of its immigrants.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Homan, who Trump has dubbed the “border czar,” saying that he would prosecute the city’s Democratic mayor if he impedes them? How exactly, do you understand at this point, people are going to [00:17:00] be rounded up?

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: Yeah. I mean, look, it’s really difficult, because they keep saying they’re going to do this, they’re going to do that. He’s talking about, on day one, he’s going to end birthrights for U.S. citizens. And we know that it’s constitutional, he can’t do that.

The reality is, what I think he’s going to probably attempt to do is attempt to take and deport people who are already in detention centers. I mean, look, if we’re talking about people who have a criminal record and have a felony, they’re already in order of deportation proceedings to be deported out of the country. I have a feeling that what they’re going to end up doing is going into detention centers and begin the deportation. But, of course, no one — no one — is safe under Donald Trump. And so, I could imagine that they’d attempt to go to courthouses or where people have appointments, people who are abiding by law every single day, whose only crime, according to Donald Trump, is to have entered this country unauthorized [00:18:00] or have overstayed a visa because of our broken immigration system.

In the state of Illinois, we passed legislation years ago, actually, in his first presidency, stating that in the state of Illinois, through the TRUST Act, we would not have ICE working closely with local police to deport families and individuals whose only crime is to be undocumented in this country. I suspect that we will continue to do that work under Governor Pritzker and under Mayor Johnson to ensure that families and individuals are protected, in a time where we know that we’re trying to understand the jurisdictions of what he can and can’t do. Clearly, Donald Trump doesn’t know what he can and can’t do. And so, really making sure that people like me, a daughter of immigrants, is protecting them and is working with organizations and legal organizations to do so will be incredibly important in this moment.

Can Trump Really End Birthright Citizenship? Part 2 - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 12-12-24

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And I also think it's important to remember that immigrants in immigration court are not entitled to lawyers the way that you are if you're convicted, if you're [00:19:00] prosecuted for a crime. You can hire a lawyer. But if you don't have the money for it, or if your case hasn't grabbed the attention of an immigrant advocacy group, then you may very well be deported to a country you've never been to. And then you're wandering around the streets somewhere trying to figure out how to get back home.

And, we have to talk about how undergirding all of this is just, it's just racial animus, right? We got to talk about how this is being driven by the white nationalist forces in this country that are scared of being replaced by "furriners," and are trying to make sure that they can increase the domestic supply of white infants. These folks have embraced the idea that the United States belongs to white people. When it comes to Black people, it's I guess "we can stay since we didn't really ask to be here." But when it comes to "invaders," these "illegal aliens" that are "invading the border," "people who are coming to this country and taking our gerbs," if you remember that South [00:20:00] Park episode, right? Well, the United States has to protect itself from these invaders, right? The working class, the white working class needs to protect itself from these furriners taking their gerbs.

That's what these people think. They think that white genocide is a real thing.

So there's a really big push to make sure that so-called "anchor babies," which is probably one of the most offensive terms that I can think of -- "anchor babies" won't take over the country. This is a blatant effort to whiten America.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It absolutely is.

And to do that, conservatives have to rewrite the 14th Amendment so that it applies to certain people and not others. Like Amani, what is the 14th amendment? You like to say this all the time.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It's a Black ass amendment.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And they have to rewrite it so that it favors certain people in this country over other people in this country. And that has real implications when it comes to fetal personhood, right? [00:21:00]

So if citizenship is tied to your parent rather than your place of birth, for example, it's that much easier to redefine life starting at conception, because it's not about being born per se, but about where you come from, right?

It's not the expulsion from the uterine Bastille, right? It is absolutely a return to determining ownership via pregnancy and birth. And I don't know, man, that sounds like fetal personhood. Life begins at conception under the 14th amendment to me.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Yeah. And just to get back to the "how" of it all, like how would this play out? Let's not forget that an executive order isn't the only way that conservatives and Trump can attack birthright citizenship.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Mm hmm.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: A constitutional amendment would get it done.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Oh Christ.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: As would a constitutional convention under article 5 of the Constitution.[00:22:00]

And right now, there are millions and millions of dollars being poured into an effort to mount a constitutional convention. And we're talking people like the Koch brothers, the Mercers, right? All of these muckety-muck rich people have been gagging for a constitutional convention for decades.

And I wouldn't be surprised if ending birthright citizenship and implementing personhood were are the main features of a constitutional convention. And what has to happen for a constitutional convention? Well it's kind of unclear, but 34 states have to apply in some capacity to ask for a constitutional convention.

And here's something funny I read in a law review article recently, that there are some conservatives who are trying to argue that when states like New York back in 1798 applied for a constitutional convention, that that application [00:23:00] translates to 2024. So if they get a bunch of states that want to have a constitutional convention in New York, it's like "we're out, because we're not into personhood and birthright citizenship," they might look back to an application made in 1798 when New York was trying to call for a constitutional convention for some other purpose and say, Oh, no, that counts. That's where we're in the upside down, where they're just finagling the rules and the institutions in order to come out with the result that they want.

And I just have to say, I've been saying it on BlueSky quite a bit: If your job depends on institutions holding, then you are unlikely to be able to admit when these institutions have failed. I got into a friendly back and forth with a law professor out of Texas. It started aggro, but then I pulled it back because I'm trying to be nicer now.

But you know, I said, Look, I'm sorry, but you are a professor of law. Like, how can you do your job if you don't believe in the institution that you are teaching these kids about? [00:24:00] And I understand why that is, but also I can see that you may not be able to understand how badly things are going, because your job depends on trying to prop up these institutions that have already failed.

Centrists Signal Capitulation After Trump's Victory - The Majority Report - Air Date 12-16-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: So much of Trump's ability to do what he's going to do is going to be a function of two or three things. One, the pliability of the 270, 80 judges and justices that he put on the courts four years ago. The willingness of the Senate and the House to capitulate to what he wants.

Now remember, there's only going to be a two-person majority in the House and there are two of those people who voted for impeachment. Who knows where they are today in terms of these things. And of course everybody he's appointing all around him are there specifically because they are people who will say yes to him and never say no And you really [00:25:00] don't need that much talent at those jobs if you want to bring the wrecking crew in.

So this stuff is gonna be important. And how do you maintain discipline for a House member? It's not that hard because you don't have that much resources. Maintaining discipline for Senate members are trickier. And we know Elon Musk has already been out there saying If you don't approve all and rubber stamp all of Trump's appointees, I'm gonna marshal the forces to primary you, because he's got the money.

Here is, No Labels, their --

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: No Labels?

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: --name of an organization.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: How are they still around? Weren't they supposed to field the presidential candidate this time around and nothing came of that?

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well thank goodness. But their buddy Joe Manchin was in sitting with Trump and Vance right after he had sunk the [00:26:00] ability of Joe Biden to appoint and control the National Labor Relations Board until '26.

But here is, at No Labels, Lisa Murkowski. And addressing the idea of why won't any of your fellow Senators laugh a guy who has been credibly accused of sexual abuse, of being so drunk that he can't even function at functions for that matter. And the guy who has no particular experience in running the world's largest essentially institution by on a dollar amount, in the world.

Nevermind the anti-vaxxers, et cetera, et cetera. Here's Murkowski.

LISA MURKOWSKI: I think it's going to be hard in these next four years, because you have [00:27:00] an administration coming in that has had an opportunity to see how things work, what didn't work. And now we've had four years to think about it. And the approach is going to be everybody toe the line, everybody line up. We got you here. And if you want to survive, you better be good. Don't get on Santa's naughty list here because we will primary you. We are seeing that play out in real time right now with the nominees. The nominees who have just been named, there's been no committee process on any of them. They're just doing their courtesy calls right now. And my friend, Joni Ernst, who is probably one of the more conservative, principled Republican leaders in the Senate right now, is being hung out to dry for not being good enough.

And you're getting --

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah, except for -- this is where Sam gets to take a little victory lap -- Ernst caved, or I would say folded [00:28:00] very quickly and basically because she has, she's a survivor of sexual assault and she's running in 2026, so she's up for reelection in 2026. She said, Oh, maybe I'm walking back my disapproval of Hegseth as a sexual assault survivor.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: The irony of this conversation is that she's not mentioning the billionaire Elon Musk who would finance these things.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Mm hmm.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And, which makes it virtually impossible for any of these Republican senators to get any, maintain and even pretend that they have independence. Usually what you'll see these senators do is pretend that they have independence or pretend that they have a contrarian view. And then reasonably get there.

What we're going to be in, they're all going to be in the mode within, I think, several weeks of running over each other to be [00:29:00] seen as conforming with the president's wishes. And what's really interesting about this too, it strikes me, is that there is probably no single organization, political organization -- I wouldn't know if I would call them a party, but, something like that -- that is more associated with a higher concentration of its constituents being billionaires or multimillionaires. The dynamic that she's not mentioning is that there is such an enormous amount of money being controlled by certain individuals, that just with a switch, that money can flow literally overnight. There's no fundraising that's going on. There's none of that. Elon Musk will just dump $40 million into any one of these races and completely capsize anything. And she will not bring that up, because everybody who is invested [00:30:00] or involved -- well, it's really the same thing -- in No Labels is just Elon Musk with a little bit less money.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: It opens up a whole can of worms for them because Republicans are always kowtowing to the interests of capital, of the donors that are funding their campaigns. But it's a little more crude in this instance because Elon Musk is basically just acting as a mob enforcer for Donald Trump in the form of -- instead of punching people out, or beating them up, it's about money, we'll take you out, we will take you out of your seat if you don't abide by his wishes, and it's less associated with a specific industry group. It's more of like bend the knee to the monarch, to daddy. And Elon Musk thinks that he'll be able to be the number one power player and even the shadow president in this administration.

There was just a story in about Tesla, I guess in Reuters, that Trump is [00:31:00] looking to scrap car crash reporting rules that has been hindering Tesla, because their cars are crashing all over the place and killing people.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And I just want to make one more point on this. Both parties are beholden to money. But what's playing out in the Republican party now, which is slightly different, and this is a problem we have society wide, is that there is such massive concentration of wealth that you don't even have competing interests amongst the money.

Money is always going to dictate our politics as it's structured right now, for the most part, not always, but, but for the most part. But on the Republican side, it's not even just money. It is a person. Literally a person, like you say, who is just Trump's enforcer. Now, of course, he gets his beak wet too. It goes both ways. But we're going from an oligarchy to just like a full on monarchy. And this is just Trump's little [00:32:00] Duke who has the army. And that's what's going on here.

Pay attention to this because at one point these centers are going to stop even pretending that they're going to issue some type of independence. I mean, honestly, the only person I think who's in trouble is Tulsi Gabbard, because she's had a couple actually decent votes in the past. I also think she's done. And so they have an easy, ready made excuse.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Maybe RFK if Mitch McConnell keeps pushing the polio stuff.

Trumps Rage at FBI Takes Dark Turn as GOPers Signal They Wont Resist - The Daily Blast - Air Date 12-13-24

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: Making that even worse and more difficult, the Times reports that figures like Steve Bannon and JD Vance, behind the scenes in particular, are in a frenzy of anger over GOP senators who are exercising their advice and consent role and scrutinizing Trump's nominees as they're supposed to. These MAGA figures are operating from the premise that Trump can't afford a defeat now, so they're whipping up the rage of the MAGA masses at these senators. And there are signs [00:33:00] that it's working, Will, with opposition softening to the insanely unfit Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for defense secretary. The same thing is going to happen with Kash Patel, but Patel is being picked expressly to put Trump above the law and use the law against his enemies.

Will, where are Republican senators going to come down on that? Will they be just fine with it?

WILLIAM SALETAN: So Greg, I used to be at The Bulwark, the pony guy, which meant that I was always looking for the pony under the pile of you-know-what. And so I was the optimist. And I've been cured of that. I've been thoroughly cured of it by, among other things, the election we just had.

But the behavior of Republican elites, of Republican politicians, senators in particular -- I don't think there is anything in the track record of these people on which to base any optimism about their behavior.

This is fundamentally now an authoritarian party. It has successively abandoned all of the elements of what used to be the Reagan [00:34:00] Republican platform. These were, whether you agreed with them or not, they were principles, they were ideas. And it has become the party of doing whatever Donald Trump wants. And so this pressure from Bannon and others to approve any nominee Trump puts forward, it is, part of that.

And it is notable that the message is not necessarily anything in particular about the qualifications of a given nominee. It is simply that Donald Trump chose this person. They can be a Fox News host with no administrative experience and a serious drinking problem who is in denial about his drinking problem. They can be a guy like Patel who has expressly declared that he is going to prosecute and punish Donald Trump's enemies, to put that guy in charge of law enforcement. It's an insane proposition. But the ethos of today's Republican party, and I'm sorry to say including just about all of the senators, is do whatever Donald Trump wants. And that's what we're [00:35:00] seeing.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: Well, you could even add to that. Another reason that MAGA is pushing for these figures are because some of them are pro-Putin.

And a third reason that they're pushing for these figures is because they will put Trump above the law. It's not just that Trump has said, I like that person. It's also that MAGA believes that they can be trusted to put Trump above the Constitution and to carry out whatever orders he, and by extension MAGA, through the kind of MAGA God-King, want carried out, right?

WILLIAM SALETAN: Right. Absolutely. I fully agree with that, Greg. And the term that codes for that in Republican parlance is "Deep State." And Deep State, you hear this as the bureaucrats who don't serve the people. Well, in Republican terminology and Republican ideology today, serving the people means serving Donald Trump. And the fact that Donald Trump just got reelected unfortunately reinforces this narrative.[00:36:00]

So the idea is: anyone who stands up to anything Donald Trump says is part of the Deep State and those people have to be purged, those people are in the way, and that somehow they have a mandate to do whatever this guy says because he was elected, and that's pretty much what they're going to pursue in every agency.

The Shallow, Power-Flattering Appeal of High Status #Resistance Historians Part 2 - Citations Needed - Air Date 12-3-24

NIMA SHIRAZI - CO-HOST, CITATIONS NEEDED: Yeah, I think that's such a critical point. And as a historian yourself, I'm curious about what you think about this, this idea that the Monday morning quarterbacking of the 2024 election as we're seeing it play out, and as we will continue to, I'm sure, in this Applebaum-esque contextualization of authoritarianism personified by Trump and Trumpism, uses history, uses context in a certain way, while, similarly, shutting down a vision that could be different. So it's looking at history and the consistency of history rather than the change of history, and as [00:37:00] a historian yourself, who's documented, whether it's slavery in the United States or imperialism and colonialism in Latin America and elsewhere, what do you see as the lessons that are consistently not learned, yet pushed forward by ostensibly what's going to be the resistance, the center liberal resistance over the next four years that don't seem to be learning from the past. They maybe recognize the past, they maybe harken back or they contextualize Trump within a certain kind of past, maybe a Cold War past, yet refuse to then use that knowledge to look to a different future where maybe doing the same thing is maybe not the winning strategy, but rather have a different way forward.

How do you see the kind of historians take on the past and their analysis for the future playing out across our media?

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, clearly the biggest mistake, the biggest thing that they miss is you don't defeat fascism by calling [00:38:00] fascists fascists, you defeat them by offering a political alternative. We all have ideology. They have ideology, we have ideology. But if we deny that we have ideology, and our ideology should be a social democratic ideology in which everybody's equal, everybody deserves a dignified life, and the government, should be capacitated to deliver effective means for people to survive catastrophes and to survive the routine traumas of just everyday life, through social security, through to national health care, through rapid response to climate change catastrophe, flying squads, whatever that might be, there's a whole slate of positive actions one could imagine in a progressive policy program that would defeat fascism.

Maybe not the next election because, you have to push the window, you have to push the Overton window back to the left. Like they've done so long. All of these things that the Republicans are doing, they lost election after election running [00:39:00] on them until they started winning, and the Democrats have to do the same.

In terms of history, there's two ways of thinking about history. I mean, there's a lot of ways of thinking about history, but history as analogy, it's always 1938 and, and we're always in danger of being Neville Chamberlain giving away Czechoslovakia , and we're always ready with pea and we can't do that. Or there's history as cause and effect. Like, how did we get here? What were the things that were done in the past that got us here? And cause and effect is never a simple process, there's multiple chains of causes and effects that lead to the present, but certainly one of them we've talked about is the transformation of the Democratic Party, the de-alignment from a party that had overwhelming working class support to a party that supported WTO, NAFTA, all of the stuff that we talked about in the 1990s.

And even if they are the lesser of two evils, and they still, on some platonic ideal, [00:40:00] represent the closest thing the United States has to the social democratic polarity of politics, the reality is that, the Democrats have become a party of the suburbs, a party dominated by consultants, by wealthy donors that has no political imagination, that all reform is talked about in terms of tax credits or means testing. There's no big vision. There is no vision of the future.

If there's one thing that we can learn from the past, how one defeats fascism, is that you have to have a vision for the future. What's going to happen after you defeat fascism? FDR had a vision for the future, he was the world leader in confronting fascism and his vision for the future was a social democratic future. And that's what people fought for. And the fact that none of these people who are on the fascist gravy train, publishing their books and whatnot and talk about that, talk about, you need an ideology to defeat an [00:41:00] ideology, and you have to know what your ideology is. You have to know what your morality is. You have to know what you care about. You have to have an alternative. And they offer no alternative.

Ravi Mangla on Building Community Power From Political Communication to Climate Action at Working Families Party - The Impact Report - Air Date 11-25-24

RENE YOPER: So hopefully in the coming days and weeks we will have a clearer picture of the "how" and the "why" Americans voted for who they did, and Ravi I know you have a perspective on this, so we look forward to hearing more from that. But before we hear it, I'd like to share something with our listeners that deeply resonated with me that I read from the Working Family Party's website, and it's your belief statement. So I will take a moment to read it.

So it says, "we believe together we can make the future and build a country where everyone can thrive. We believe that no matter where we come from or what our color, most of us want the same thing. We want to earn enough to thrive, not just survive, and leave a better future for our kids. We want healthy food and clean water, [00:42:00] safe neighborhoods, and a safe world. We want to be free."

And in reading that, I immediately thought about our, the Bard Graduate Programs of Sustainability, our definition of sustainability. And simply stated, it's shared well being on a healthy planet. So I was like, okay, direct correlation there, makes so much sense. So just wants to share that with our listeners as the backdrop for our conversation, and as we jump in, Ravi can you help us to understand who the Working Family Party is, what you all exist to do, and then after that, Jackson, can you share from your perspective, why this conversation is an important one to have, and especially in the context of sustainability?

So, Ravi, over to you.

RAVI MANGLA: Yeah, absolutely. I'm so grateful to be here and talk a little bit about the Working Families Party. So we've been in existence for 26 years now. We were founded in 1999 as a independent political party. And in those early stages, we were made up [00:43:00] of a lot of labor unions, a lot of grassroots activists, a lot of people who felt like neither party was representing the interests of working people. So they came together to try and create a multiracial, working class political party.

And in New York State, we have something that's called fusion voting. A candidate can be cross endorsed by multiple parties and run on multiple party lines. So it allows us to be a third party and an independent party without playing the role of a spoiler.

And we consider ourselves a quote, "non-delusional third party", which is that we never want to hand power over to the Ravi, but we want to be able to advocate for the issues, for the values that really matter to us. And fusion used to be popular and commonplace in many states around the country. And as working class people and progressives started to gain too much power, it was banned for many states. So currently, only a [00:44:00] handful of states, New York, Connecticut, Oregon, I believe, are states that still have fusion voting where a single candidate can run on multiple party lines.

And what that means is, for us, we advocate for certain values. We've been big around climate investments, climate protections, and a transition to full renewable energy. And when a candidate receives a significant portion of their votes on our line, it means that those issues are important to voters. The values that we are espousing are important to voters, and for that candidate to continue to receive the votes that come through our party, they should be standing up and fighting for those values.

So it's a very interesting political system that does not exist in many places, and there's not a lot of education in New York, frankly, to really educate people around the fusion system. We run up against questions all the time. If people vote for a candidate, [00:45:00] for instance, in this past election, we had Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as our candidates on our line. If they're voting for those candidates on our line, do those add towards the total vote? And yes, they do, but voting for those candidates on our line is espousing that you want them to fight for economic equality, for deep climate investments, for racial justice, for criminal justice reforms, for things that create true equality and level the playing field among working people in this country.

So that is a little bit about fusion and a little bit about the Working Families Party. As my director, Mo Mitchell, often says, we cook with what's in the kitchen. In many states, we engage and try to intervene in what we think is the most strategic way where we are not splitting the vote, we are not inadvertently handing power to the right, but we're able to advocate for our values within the rules of the system that we're in.

[00:46:00] So that's a little bit about us.

Blue state governors network to erect firewall against Trump's threat to democracy - The Rachel Maddow Show - Air Date 11-19-24

RACHEL MADDOW - HOST, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW: So, Donald Trump has been adamant that his plan to put millions of people in camps and start deporting whole families, start raiding workplaces. He says that will all start on day one at noon as he's being sworn in on Inauguration Day, January 20th.

If they're really trying to make that happen, you'd have to start preparing well in advance of the inauguration, right? But that means so does the work to stop him from doing that. Today in federal court, the ACLU filed their first lawsuit, seeking more information about Trump's plans to deport millions of people from this country once he takes office. As far as the ACLU is concerned, now is the time to sue. Now is the time to try to expose those plans in order to try to stop them from being carried out. Go time, in other words, is not the moment Trump becomes president; go time is now.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has called a special session of that state's legislature, asking them to appropriate more funding [00:47:00] for California's state legal challenges to federal policies in the next Trump term. The Democratic governors of Colorado and Illinois, Jared Polis and J. B. Pritzker, they're leading another group called Governors Safeguarding Democracy. Essentially, it's a network of governors who are agreeing to pool resources and work together to try to oppose the policies of Trump's White House. The group's top staffer is Julia Spiegel. She says that when governors of different states come together, they can become "essential force multipliers".

and firewalls against threats to our democracy. Joining us now is Julia Spiegel. She's the founder and CEO of GovAct, which oversees this new Governor's Safeguarding Democracy initiative. Ms. Spiegel, it's nice to meet you. Thanks very much for being here.

JULIA SPIEGEL: Great to meet you. Thanks for having me.

RACHEL MADDOW - HOST, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW: Can you help me and our audience understand some of the practical ideas behind how this would work? The idea is Governor's Safeguarding Democracy, but what does the group actually plan to do? [00:48:00]

JULIA SPIEGEL: As you noted, Rachel, Governor's Safeguarding Democracy was launched by Governors Pritzker and Polis last week, but also to your earlier point, the work has been ongoing for several weeks. What the governors are doing in coordination with governors across the country is working together to pool their resources, the best expertise out there, the best staff to make sure that they are prepared for all the possible contingencies, whatever may come, but also to make sure that the state institutions of democracy are delivering for the people in the states. And that's really the central premise of what Governor Safeguarding Democracy is doing.

And just to note, this isn't a novel or new method. It was actually pioneered by Governor Newsom in the aftermath of Dobbs, when Roe was revoked by the Supreme Court and Governor Newsom rallied other governors together and a whole host of them have worked collectively for two years now to work across state lines to protect reproductive health care, including doing novel things like stockpiling abortion medication that hadn't been done previously. So, we've taken that model and are really building it out now around safeguarding various [00:49:00] contours of democracy.

RACHEL MADDOW - HOST, THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW: You know, Julia, one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you tonight is because even before this initiative came about, you have talked about the fact that governors have power when they come together. And we think of ourselves as either atomized, 50 different states, or the United States as one big thing. But you've talked about this idea that governors in smaller groups can be, as you say, both a firewall and a force multiplier. Can you talk more about that, about how a dynamic between a small group of governors, or maybe a medium sized group of governors, can be more effective than any of these governors could be on their own?

JULIA SPIEGEL: Governors have these extraordinary powers, some of which are very public, like the bully pulpit, but they also have [this] other suite of tools like the budget, signing legislation, executive authority, agencies that they oversee and run. That in and of itself is this wealth of authorities, but it's so much more powerful and impactful when those authorities are paired with each other across state lines.

There are lessons learned, practices that can [00:50:00] be adopted from one state to another, and coordinated strategy that can be undertaken to make the whole so much greater than just the sum of its parts. So that's really the premise of this work and that Governors Polis and Pritzker are leading now in the democracy context, but across a range of offices and are eager to work with anyone who is engaged in the work of safeguarding democracy.

And I do want to note, Rachel, this work is critical no matter who sits in the White House. It's really about nurturing, supporting, and protecting the institutions of democracy. Either way, that work was undergoing years ago, and it should be undergoing years from now.

Note from the Editor on the importance of scheduled maintenance for democracy

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips, starting with Citations Needed looking at the historical framework that led to Trump. Boom! Lawyered discussed Trump's threat to birthright citizenship. Democracy Now! looked at some of the impacts of mass deportation. Boom! Lawyered looked at the big picture of White nationalism in Trump's policies towards immigrants. The Majority Report examined to the political dynamics in Congress, keeping Republicans in line. The Daily Blast described how the boogeyman of the deep state is [00:51:00] being used to threaten anyone who opposes Trump. Citations Needed highlighted the importance of having a strong alternative to fascism rather than just calling it out. The Impact Report explored the benefits of fusion voting with the Working Families Party. And that the Rachel Maddow Show looked at some of the efforts already underway. To resist Trump's agenda. Through the courts and states.

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 here discussing all manner of important, interesting topics. And a reminder that our winter sale on membership is currently going on. They're 20% off until the end of the year, so you can support independent media and get the bonus show for yourself, or as a gift for the holiday. Discounts and gifting are available both on our site and through Patreon, so whichever you prefer, go for it. All the relevant links are in the show notes, or just go to BestOfTheLeft.com/support.

There, [00:52:00] in addition to all the members and the gifting and all of that, you'll also find bookshop.org, they do dead tree books, and libro.fm, they're the sister site that does audio books. Both are certified benefit corporations that help support brick and mortar bookshops, while still providing an online. Book shopping experience. In short, they're are decidedly non evil compared to most of the other online bookstores. And shopping through our links. It helps support the show as well. Again, head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support or follow the links in the show notes to grab a membership for yourself or as a gift, particularly while they're on discount.

As always if regular membership just 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, just a couple of quick thoguhts to add on today's topic. This week's bonus show, I think is quite relevant to [00:53:00] this discussion. We dive much deeper into the topic of why the left needs to put more focus on fixing the government, rather than just defending it. And this is coming from people who understand the instinct to defend. With the right laser focused for decades on calling for the government to be torn to shreds or drown in a bathtub, it is understandable why the reflexive reaction would be to defend rather than to look critically at parts of the government. What can we do to make things better to serve the people? The instinct is defend, defend, defend. I think the same dynamic is playing out with the Democratic party. For many, present company excluded, I'm sure, the focus has been on defending and propping up the party while resisting calls for change as though any change could be destabilizing and a threat to the Democrats' electoral prospects. Well, with an across-the-board loss in the Presidential, Senatorial, [00:54:00] and House elections this year. I can think of no better time to start looking inwardly to find what reforms and improvements could be made to improve the electoral prospects for the left.

We've heard already today about the Working Families Party and fusion voting, and there's going to be a bit more in the Resistance section of the show, still to come. As part of the prep for today's episode, I give a little deeper on fusion voting and I came across this passage about the role of political parties that I found actually sort of refreshing.

It says, "Parties are the essential infrastructure of a healthy representative democracy, just as roads and bridges and railways and airports and electricity grids are the infrastructure of a modern economy. Similarly, we want better roads and bridges, not merely because we enjoy driving. Rather, we say we want better infrastructure because of what else it makes possible—a thriving economy not bogged down by potholes [00:55:00] and closures and traffic snarls. The same is true of political parties. We want better political parties, not for their own sake, but because parties are the institutions that connect citizens to the government. When they function poorly, many citizens feel disconnected and isolated."

I'll link to the full article. It's a long piece about fusion voting and the benefits of it, that's just a tiny, tiny piece of it. But, calls for reforms. Shouldn't be seen as adversarial or accusations. "The party is bad and your bad and you need to fix it or you need to get out of there." That gets people on the defensive and even more determined to defend the status quo. But put into that framework I just described about it's just being infrastructure, reforms should be seen as normal and necessary maintenance. All [00:56:00] systems need tune-ups, all those elements of the sort of structures of the economy need maintenance, so we should understand that parties. Kind of need that same sort of regular maintenance as well.

For the Democrats, the last of the two major parties to sort of, half-heartedly continue to work on upholding democracy, one of the reforms they should be supporting is fusion voting. The major parties have worked to squash the idea in the past to protect their duopoly on the system, but for a party that makes it claim to support democracy and has a major image problem at the moment, supporting a mechanism like fusion voting that allows in third party energy without running into the problem of the spoiler factor in first-pass-the-post elections, fusion voting can actually be the answer to multiple problems.

For the left, or anyone [00:57:00] supporting a more robust and dynamic democracy, fusion voting is just the mechanism. And particularly for the left and Democrats who desperately need an injection of progressive economic focus on benefiting working people, it's the Working Families Party that is the organization that would stand to benefit from the expansion of fusion voting to new states where they could help put pressure, healthy, much needed pressure, on Democrats across the country. Just some scheduled maintenance for democracy to keep it running smoothly. Or, you know, maybe to bring it back from the brink in the event that Trump doesn't drive the whole system completely into the ground.

SECTION A - IMMIGRATION INTIMIDATION

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now, we'll continue to dive deeper on three topics. Next up, Section A - Immigration Intimidation, followed by Section B - Bending the Knee, and Section C - Resistance.

Rep. Delia Ramirez- Trump's Immigration Plans Are -Un-American, Unconstitutional & Undemocratic Part 2 - Democracy Now! - Air Table 12-11-24

AMY GOODMAN: Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. How would President Trump get around [00:58:00] that?

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: Well, look, first of all, this whole day one thing he likes to say so that he can get all the hits he can is ridiculous. It is a constitutional right for anyone born in this country to have U.S. citizenship. And as you heard previously, it is the 14th Amendment. You can’t get around the 14th Amendment. He would have to go to the Supreme Court, which, in this case, unfortunately, he has already stacked with his very conservative, only-do-whatever-Donald-Trump-says Supreme Court justices. But that means he can’t do it on day one. And if he wanted to do it through congressional action because in the House he has one-vote majority, first of all, it would be very difficult even if it was just by one vote. But, Amy, it would require a constitutional amendment, that requires two-thirds votes for that constitutional amendment, and there is no world that this Congress would give him those numbers. So, look, it won’t happen on day one.

But the idea that he would say this is so un-American, unconstitutional [00:59:00] and undemocratic. Think about it. Millions of us, we are doctors, service members, members of Congress. And you’re saying you’re going to take their citizenship away from them? We should be asking ourselves as the American people: First, U.S. citizens who are first generation, then who is next? Who is American enough for Donald Trump?

AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about who’s next. During a recent interview on 60 Minutes, Trump’s pick to be border czar, Tom Homan, said that mass deportation campaign could also target U.S.-born children born to undocumented parents. He was being interviewed by Cecilia Vega.

CECILIA VEGA: We have seen one estimate that says it would cost $88 billion to deport a million people a year.

THOMAS HOMAN: I don’t know if that’s accurate or not.

CECILIA VEGA: Is that what American taxpayers should expect?

THOMAS HOMAN: What price do you put on national security? Is it worth it?

CECILIA VEGA: Is there a way to carry out mass [01:00:00] deportation without separating families?

THOMAS HOMAN: Of course there is. Families can be deported together.

AMY GOODMAN: So, there is Homan saying of course there’s a way not to separate families that are of — that are both legally in the United States and not: Just deport them all.

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: Amy, it’s so interesting — right? — and hypocritical. Tom Homan’s ancestors are not originally from this area, from this region, from the United States. When his ancestors came — and I’m sure the Statue of Liberty was welcoming them — they didn’t have to go through a bunch of paperwork to enter this country. Some would argue that in that time borders were very different. Some would even define it as even more open borders. Give me your tired, give me your hungry, and we will take them in, and we’ll make this country the beautiful country it is.

It is cynical to me for this man to be the same man that says he represents a future [01:01:00] president that cares about families and saying, “Simple. Have them get deported with their parents.” They have nothing else, these children, than the United States as their country. They are as American as Tom is, as American as Tom’s parents are, as American as Tom’s family is. And yet here he is: “Simple. Just go ahead and have them deported.”

This is a moment for Democrats and for people who remember how this country’s economic opportunities were built, those that perhaps their parents came in the early 1900s, Italian Americans to New York, or those that came 25, 30 years ago or now, to ask themselves, “What kind of country are we? Are we going to say that children whose country is the United States, we’re going to send them to go die in a country that they don’t know?” This is a moment for us to be fearless and courageous, to take a stand for every single person [01:02:00] that Donald Trump is attacking, if it’s trans kids, if it’s women, if it’s immigrants, because he’s coming for every one of us that he believes and he deems not American enough.

AMY GOODMAN: What can President Biden do in these last weeks of his administration that would protect undocumented immigrants?

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: Yeah. Well, look, I think there’s a number of things and a number of executive orders, that you perhaps have heard from a number of advocacy groups, that have been sent to him. There’s renewals of DACA that could be done. People who have DACA and maybe their appointment is in February or March, why not just make sure that they’re renewed, if all the paperwork is correct. There is no criminal record, by the way. If you are a DACA recipient, you have to have a clean record, no criminal background. Already we vet all those things. Give those automatic renewals. Extend protections for people who are already on parole. Extend the TPS for [01:03:00] those that are about to have their TPS expire. There’s a number of things we could be doing. We still have the White House. And if I’m President Biden, I am working every breathing moment between now and the change of power to protect as many Americans as I possibly could.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you’re not President Biden, so do you know what he is actually doing?

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ: I am not President Biden. I am very clear and aware of that. Look, I understand that they are looking at a number of things. I don’t have clear direction on what those are and what has been, in fact, approved. But I’ll guarantee you, Amy, I’m calling his office, and I’m calling the secretary of homeland, on a regular, every single day. There is no holiday party here that I’m interested in. I am interested in making sure that we’re extending the protections to as many people as we can as we still have the White House and the Senate.

Can Trump Really End Birthright Citizenship? Part 3 - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 12-12-24

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And, but here's my question.

Doesn't originalism, right? Like Sam [01:04:00] Alito and Thomas and all these conservatives are just dry humping originalism, right? And it just seems to me that originalism. Cuts against the outcome that they want here, right? Because now in this post Dobbs, post Bruin, that's the guns case from New York, right? Where everything has to be rooted in history and tradition.

Doesn't it seem like ignoring 125 years of case law that says if you're born here, you're a citizen. How does ignoring that jive with this originalist. Interpretation. Right? Like, do they really just say, well, we weren't being invaded by the Chinese in the 1880s and we're being invaded by Latin Americans in 2024.

And that's how it's different. Is that really just what they're going to say?

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: What would the founders think? Think, Imani! Honestly, it really doesn't matter because you're expecting them to make sense when [01:05:00] they're only concerned about outcomes that match the conservative agenda, right? Like, think about that man, James Ho, for example, only for a moment, okay?

James Ho has done a 180 on birthright citizenship in this video. In this issue in 2006, he wrote a paper where he mounted and that originalist defense that you're talking about of the well established interpretation. The birthright citizenship says that if you're born here, you're a citizen and argued the only way it could be restricted was through a constitutional amendment.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: But I mean, was James Ho sitting on the Fifth Circuit in 2006, or was he just writing papers? He was just writing papers, man. He wasn't really consequential. Cut to 2024, he's, you know, a, he's a big, a big, bigwig, I guess we'll call him, on the Fifth Circuit, and he's now claiming that Yes, his original, originalist interpretation of birthright citizenship, this thing that he wrote about in [01:06:00] 2006, that still made sense.

That makes sense. But at the time he wasn't thinking about an invasion, right? And that's what he thinks is happening now. That's what conservatives think is happening now. We are being invaded. And here's what he said, quote, Birthright citizenship is supported by various Supreme Court opinions, both unanimous and separate opinions involving Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others.

But birthright citizenship obviously doesn't apply in case of war or invasion. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can't imagine what the legal argument for that would be.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I can't. I can't. I mean, invading armies. So you and I know this is psychophantic bullshit.

It is. But he's laid out the legal argument, and every conservative judge in the federal judiciary has their [01:07:00] marching orders. I mean, can't you see this James Ho sitting down and writing an opinion that says, Arc is distinguishable because here we are at war on the border and we are trying to beat back an invasion of criminals and Hannibal Lecter types and those stakes weren't at issue back in 1898.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: can. Absolutely. I mean, if you think about population demographics, when white folks were freaking out about the number of Chinese immigrants around 1880, the percentage of Chinese immigrants in the U. S. population was about a quarter of a percent. Right now, the immigrant, immigrant population is about 15%.

So it's just a different level of scale. And I think that that's more than enough for the Supreme court to hang its hat on. Because even though the same nativism and racism and xenophobia drove the Supreme court's decision in Wong Kim arc. One can argue that opposing that sort of nativism and racism [01:08:00] is rooted in the history of this country, right?

Like, there's a counter argument that this is an emergency unlike the founders had ever faced or would have ever conceived.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Yeah, and as the conservative legal movement is wont to do, they're breadcrumbing that argument already, right? And so we can expect to see that as the buttress for whatever Trump pulls.

So now that James

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Ho, Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, is worried about his name, right? How does Trump ensure that a case challenging his executive order on birth right citizenship ends up in the Fifth Circuit? Could he? Like here's a crazy thought, could he issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship and then immediately seek a declaratory judgment in the fifth circuit, right?

A declaratory judgment is when you just say, I want to know what the law is. I'm not really suing anybody. I just want some clarification. Could he do that? Or is he going to just. Forget about [01:09:00] even trying to go to the courts and just immediately start up raids in Texas, say Amarillo, Texas, so that anyone who sues him saying that, you know, you can't deport me because I'm a citizen, they end up before Matt Kazmarek, or Reed O'Connor, or any of those Trump You know,

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: what is this, what's the process here?

I mean, that's an excellent question because we're trying to game play strategy on rewriting the 14th amendment by executive Fiat. And if you've got the wherewithal to try and do that, I don't think you care very much about the process beyond that. Right? Like the point is the chaos. So engage in mass deportation efforts, maybe a lawsuit gets filed, you know, I saw folks on blue sky saying like that first person who gets swooped up, man, they're gonna sue for an injunction, maybe,

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: right?

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Maybe they are. It depends on who we're targeting, right? [01:10:00] And in the meantime, none of that lawfare matters because we are terrorizing. People, including U. S. citizens and separating families and engaging in a domestic terror campaign. So there doesn't necessarily even have to be a judicial blessing to cause a lot of harm.

Richard Wolff Trump's deportation plans will destroy the economy - The Real News Network - Air Date 11-23-24

RICHARD WOLFF: The Department of Homeland Security says there's somewhere between 10 and 12 undocumented, million, undocumented immigrants in the United States. So as an economist, let me make one thing clear. We are a rich country of 330 million people.

The economic problems we have, which are severe, could not ever have been caused by 10 to 12 (million) of the poorest people on the planet. The notion that the immigrants are a cause of the problems we face is stone cold ridiculous. It may be a clever [01:11:00] scapegoating, it may work to get you votes, but it has nothing to do with reality.

Number two. There are certain industries that concentrate undocumented immigrants. Agriculture is a big one. The restaurant business is a big one. Construction is another big one. And then there's a whole host of other industries, but those are the big ones. In those industries, undocumented immigrants are a major part of the labor force. Not only that, they are a more important cause of the profitability in those industries than their mere numbers would tell you. Why? Because an undocumented immigrant can be and is regularly abused by the employer. For the obvious reason, which if you have any contact with these folks, they'll tell you ten [01:12:00] different stories, I've heard them all. It's Friday afternoon. Everybody's going to pick up their check at the front office before they go home. Jose arrives. He stands in line, waits for his check. The boss says, Jose, we've had a terrible week. We didn't make the money. I can't pay you this week. But if you come back next week, I can be sure to pay you.

What is Jose gonna do? Answer. Nothing. He dare not go to any government office. Because he's an undocumented, he can't show a paper, he can't show a residence allowance, nothing. He's terrified of going anywhere near the labor office. There's nothing he can do. And the employer knows it. The employers look for these people because of this. And I'm not going to here, take your time and mine to talk about the abuse, sexual and other, that this situation invites in all the ways you don't need me [01:13:00] to tell you about.

Okay, now let's imagine you deport them. First of all, that costs billions, because you're talking about 10 to 12 million people. You have to house them, you have to move them, you have to feed them in the process, you have to deal with the umpteen million lawsuits that will immediately crop up around all of this. This is going to take time, and it's going to cost personnel, and it's going to be an immense expense. But that's the least of it. Here comes the big one. Every one of those industries is a crucial player in the inflation level of the United States. Who's going to pick the lettuce? Who's going to pick the fruit? Who's going to do all that work? Who's going to clean the dishes in the back of the restaurant? Who's going to clean up at the end, you know, the evening when the patrons of the restaurant go home? Well, the answer is you either close the restaurant, and that has economic consequences, or you [01:14:00] close the farms, and that's really not an option, or you're going to have to hire Americans.

And Americans won't be afraid to go to the labor office if you don't pay them. So you're going to actually have to pay them. And you're probably going to have to pay them a good bit more than the immigrant for all the reasons you normally pay immigrants less than native workers. Which means the cost structure of these industries is going to take off.

And you know what they're all going to do? Those employers, they're going to raise their prices. They're going to want to do that to recapture the extra costs that will come. And the government has not proposed anything that will substitute here.

I've heard one professor tell me, oh, we don't have to worry, AI will take care of this. You know what AI does? It makes people like you and me superfluous. But are we ready to go and wash dishes at the back of the [01:15:00] restaurant? Are we ready to pick apples? Really? You're gonna cause social upheaval. You're gonna cause inflation. Mr. Trump can't do that. Inflation is half of why he got elected. How can he turn around and then be the person who has to go on TV and try to explain why he promised to deal with inflation, only it's gotten worse? And he won't be able to tell the truth, it's because I'm deporting everybody, because then the argument will be as clear as day for people. So you're gonna have to watch now as the various cabinet secretaries, bizarre though they are, have to undo what it was he's promised.

SECTION B - BENDING THE KNEE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B - Bending the Knee.

Trumps Rage at FBI Takes Dark Turn as GOPers Signal They Wont Resist Part 2 - The Daily Blast - Air Date 12-13-24

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: So, Will, I want to go back to your big point about how we can't forget this.

Um, let's go big picture. As you write, Trump was not exonerated in any sense. [01:16:00] In fact, the administration of justice is not being permitted to run its course. A jury won't actually hear the evidence against him and pass judgment on it. So, he's not exonerated because we didn't get the process. But here's what's disturbing.

Trump has the story exactly backwards as we said, but in a very real sense, he gets to say what the story is. His victory ends the prosecutions of him prematurely. Uh, and he can just say that he was exonerated. He will pardon who knows how many of the January 6th rioters. He's gonna just rewrite it all as kind of an outpouring of patriotism.

January 6th as we understand and know it. A violent criminal insurrection against the country is just getting disappeared. Do we have any recourse here? Well,

WILLIAM SALETAN: it's going to be a challenge Pardon me. I'm listening to you and i'm thinking well when you put it that way I mean It's true that we we have this ideology of democracy in this country and all of us at the [01:17:00] bulwark uh and new republic and everybody we all fully support this but Just because you've won an election doesn't mean everything you say is true.

And so we're going to have a difficult time sort of getting that message out. But it is, it is still true. This is what happens in authoritarian countries, right? That the government puts out a message about what happened in the past. They just rewrite the history and everyone, because they control the media in that case, people just end up believing it.

And all of the great literature about fighting authoritarianism, there's always that this is, this is one of the great struggles. And I believe what. It was what Orwell said, right? You have to see what's in front of your face. It's a constant struggle that they're going, they are lying already about the past.

The claim that Trump was exonerated, that, uh, the FBI is evil, that the raid on the search actually of Mar a Lago was, was without warrant, which is total bullshit. Um, and especially Greg, what you bring up about January 6th. I [01:18:00] mean, he said, wasn't it in the Time interview, he said he's gonna like, right away he's gonna start pardoning these guys.

That he's gonna try to turn upside down the story of January 6th. And I remember thinking during the hearings that, um, you know, Liz Cheney and that, that, that committee, I thought they were just beating a dead horse half the time. They just, but in retrospect, those two years that they were able to tell the truth and the documents they were able to put together, the evidence they assembled, that's all going to be extremely important in laying a groundwork for us to maintain, you know, the little candle of truth that they're trying to blow out with all this, with all of the, the lies about, you know, about what happened.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: Yeah, I agree 100%. It was really a very important moment for those reasons. Let's finish up on Kash Patel for a sec. If there's any hope of being able to kind of hang on to the right side up story and not let it get erased and replaced by [01:19:00] the upside down story, part of that, not all of it, but part of it is going to reside in these Republican senators.

I, I understand that you're very pessimistic about, um, where that could all go. Republican Senators really look as if they probably will, um, green light Cash Patel and probably Pete Hegseth too, potentially. Don't know about RFK or Tulsi Gabbard. I think that, uh, Uh, Tulsi Gabbard's going to be a tough one, but anyway, we could really have Kash Patel.

And what happens though, when they actually start to prosecute people without cause, prosecute Trump's enemies without cause, can't we make Republican senators own that at that point?

WILLIAM SALETAN: Yeah, I think we can make them own it. Um, the, uh, the, the outer limit of the question that I, that you're getting at is, is there some.

Is there some point at which reality intrudes, uh, you know, they're, they're going to try to do what the, what authoritarian regimes do, which is [01:20:00] to lie their way through everything. We have a model for what's going to happen, which is what they did in the last few years. Jim Jordan and others, uh, tried to make, uh, the villains, the heroes and vice versa.

They, they, uh, they're going to, uh, They're going to be prosecuting the investigators and the prosecutors who looked into Donald Trump and his various accomplices. Um, I don't know how far Patel's going to take this, but is there a limit to the lies they're going to be able to tell? Um, and I, I guess that remains to be seen, but, um, we're all going to have to do what we can to, you know, to, to marshal the truth and to remind people of it.

Cause it's so easy to forget. I you and I, we're like, You know, political nerds and we keep track of this stuff. But we saw in the election that people weren't paying attention to a lot of this and, and, um, we're going to have to just sort of keep these stories alive. Um, but as to your question about the Republican Party, Greg, I just, I, at this point, I expect nothing from them.

I honestly [01:21:00] think that when the history of this time is written, if we are lucky, we If the good guys win in the end, the Republican party under Donald Trump will just be viewed as an authoritarian party that did whatever he wanted to. And that's going to include about 50 of these 53 senators. Um, And I, I, I expect them to wave through Patel and, um, Kelsey Gabbard and all the, and all the others.

And maybe, maybe if we're lucky, what happens is Patel then undertakes some assault on the rule of law that is just so obvious that, uh, or they just screw up. deportations and it's a logistical disaster. A totally plausible scenario. At that point, do people turn against Donald Trump? I don't know. And I don't know the answer to that, but the thing that worries me most is the lying and the, the ability of a president with an entire party behind him to spread a narrative that is just [01:22:00] complete bullshit.

And whether that will overpower all of the assembled, what we used to call mainstream media and all of the truth tellers.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: Well, I got to say, it seems really grim when you put it like that. We're going to have a lot of work to do. Um, and you know, the truth of it is that the outcome is uncertain. Yeah. Yeah.

I sometimes,

WILLIAM SALETAN: Greg, I think about, uh, what would happen, I'm not enough of a Batman aficionado, but I think there are various versions of the Batman story where like the Joker becomes mayor of Gotham city. And that's where we are, man, that the Joker is the mayor and you know, we're, it's going to be a completely upside down, bizarre world for the

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: next four years, at least.

ABC News Sudden Surrender to Trumps Rage Stuns Experts Disturbing - The Daily Blast - Air Date 12-14-24

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: In your piece you write that Trump is adopting a standard authoritarian tactic in a more general sense, which is to prepare the public to accept an authoritarian role for the state. It seems like we're seeing something similar, uh, right here. Uh, can you talk about that broader tactic?

ANNE APPLEBAUM: So, yeah. I mean, Trump, during the election campaign, used all kinds of [01:23:00] language from calling his, his, uh, his opponents enemies of the, of the people or enemies of the state, uh, calling immigrants vermin, uh, using language that hasn't really been part of American politics before.

Um, he issued, uh, endless threats towards individual journalists, towards the media more broadly, towards particular judges, towards. various enemies. Um, and of course he kept doing that and has been doing it even more loudly since the election. And some of the purpose of this is not just, you know, letting off steam.

Um, what he's doing is making other people afraid to criticism or to criticize him or afraid to hold him to account. So he's creating around himself this atmosphere of anger and menace. Uh, and It looks like in a number of cases it's succeeding. And, um, you know, ABC is one example. There are a number of other examples from Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post, um, you know, to, uh, you know, to, to the, to [01:24:00] the head of the LA Times of other news organizations or news owners saying, right.

You know, let's back away or let's not pick a fight or let's concede something in advance because they, they don't want to be in the, in the, in the, involved in some kind of open fight with the president. And it's particularly notable that this is happening in the case of news organizations whose owners have other businesses.

So that would be true of the LA Times, the Washington Post, and also ABC, which is owned by Disney. So they have other businesses. They have lots of interests with the federal government, um, they have regulatory issues and that it looks like they're making concessions in advance so that they, so that they don't run into trouble down the line.

And, um, since I, I can anticipate what your next question would be, which is, Is this a pattern and is it something that we've seen before, uh, in other declining democracies? And of course, the answer is yes, it is. Um, that the, the [01:25:00] way in which it's not so much censorship, but media control and intimidation works in a place like Hungary or Turkey, uh, is not just government censorship.

You know, the government doesn't tell people what to write. Instead, the government finds ways of putting pressure on the owners of media, sometimes on journalists, Um, in, in order to make them, um, think twice before they say anything critical.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: Well, in fact, the larger story here with ABC News really underscores what you're saying there, the story you're, you're telling there.

Um, remember, uh, during the campaign, Trump viciously attacked ABC News in particular for fact checking him during the one debate and, and at the time, Trump threatened to retaliate for that against ABC by revoking broadcasting rights. By the way, I should note that the New York Times reports that ABC executives have met with Trump transition team officials at Mar a Lago.

God knows what was discussed, but here's what we have. Trump [01:26:00] attacks ABC for telling the truth about him. Threatens direct retaliation if he wins, Trump sues for defamation, now ABC decides not to fight even though news orgs do this generally, um, and instead will donate 15 million dollars to something that lionizes Trump.

ANNE APPLEBAUM: Um, it, it, we'll see how other news organizations, um, react, uh, and it's going to be particularly interesting, uh, those that are smaller, that have. that have fewer conflicts of interest, whether, whether they'll be able to hold out. But, you know, many people assumed in the past that, you know, the news media in the U.

S. was too big and too diverse and too complex to be intimidated the way The Hungarian news media is a Hungarian news media by comparison is a little, is tiny and, um, you know, and, and, and weak, but we are, this is a moment when, um, for other reasons, the, the business model of much media [01:27:00] is, is in trouble.

Um, a lot of them are either unprofitable or not as profitable as they were a lot of both broadcasting and, and, and newspapers. Um, you know, it's not true of everybody, but it's true of many. And you have an enormous amount of churn and uncertainty. And at this particular moment in history, um, it means that, that, that owners are, are more likely to be wary.

You know, if we were at a moment when the media was making lots of money, as it, as it once did in the past, or when it was expanding and everybody was hiring, It might, things might feel different, but right now it feels like things are shutting and closing down and staff are being let go. And I think that adds another layer to the, to the current circumstance.

It has nothing to do with Trump, but Trump is able to take advantage of it, clearly.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: So, on Friday, Trump had this to say about the media during an appearance on Wall Street, and I think it goes directly to what you're saying. Uh, listen to [01:28:00] this.

DONALD TRUMP: We did a good job. We had a great first term, despite a lot of turmoil, uh, caused unnecessarily.

And, but the media's tamed down a little bit. They're liking us much better now, I think. If they don't, we'll have to just take them on again and we don't want to do that.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, DEEP STATE RADIO: And this looks to me like Trump knows that the media is in a vulnerable and precarious spot and he's really putting them on notice to a greater degree that more of this is coming.

The Shallow, Power-Flattering Appeal of High Status #Resistance Historians Part 3 - Citations Needed - Air Date 12-3-24

NIMA SHIRAZI - CO-HOST, CITATIONS NEEDED: You know, and this kind of gets back to the classic Chomsky critique when the U.S. does something objectively authoritarian or violent or evil is painted as a deviation from the natural state. Whereas when these bad guy countries do it, it's existential to their nature. It is their true essence. And it gets to what you've been saying, Greg, about Trump being seen as an individual who has been pathologized with, fascism and authoritarian tendencies, if not deeper than just tendencies, but that it is an individual pathology, and not [01:29:00] one that reflects the pathology of a nation state, unlike, say, Russia, China, Iran, which are pathologized as entire entities.

And so it kind of gets us back to this idea of trust in institutions and how the assumption is that these institutions that we have here are noble and just need to get back to what they once were, if this individual infection is removed from our nobility. Can you talk about the need of these pundits and this perspective to pathologize an individual rather than zooming out and looking at the historical context of our entire society and how we got here?

GREG GRANDIN: There's a political theorist named Corey Robin, who, I mean, he's been making this argument for almost a decade now, since 2016, that what that misses, focusing on the institutions and holding up the institutions and positing a kind of, Trump as a [01:30:00] violator of proceduralism and institutionalism, what that misses is that the way repression in the United States and exclusion and anti democratic political culture emerges out of the institutions that we have profoundly anti majoritarian institutions, anti democratic institutions, the Senate, the filibuster, the electoral college, the judicial system, the Supreme Court. None of these are particularly, expansive tribunes of expanding democratic rights. The way that the United States has maintained power, and the way power functions, is through the institutions.

So right there, there's a kind of original mistake among these liberal resistance historians and posing Trump to the institutions. Trump is, those institutions are primed to work and deliver on the Trump agenda without violating their function. I mean, look at the Supreme Court. So there's that, and then yes, there's a [01:31:00] way in which Trump is seen, and nation states are seen, as outside of the virtuous circle that the United States and only a few other nations comprise, and in some ways is a kind of, there's scales of degradation, scales of decline. At the beginning of the Cold War, when the United States searched around for trying to figure out how it could justify support for authoritarian regimes while fighting the Soviet Union, justifying the Cold War, it came up with the dichotomy, it's associated with Hannah Arendt, but other people, other philosophers and political theorists also kind of contributed to this idea that there was a distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, that authoritarianism allowed civil society to function.

So it allowed the possibility of change and democratic movements to challenge the autocrat, [01:32:00] whereas totalitarianism eliminates civil society and leaves no buffer between the total state and the masses of people, and there was no space for democracy to take root. And therefore it had to be contained and counted.

That was basically the ideological framework that justified supporting Somoza in Nicaragua or the military regime in Argentina or Pinochet in Chile. But opposing Fidel Castro in Cuba, or not to mention the Soviet Union, and of course, this is the framework that is highly ideological and that had no real bearing on the facts on the ground.

But it was at least it was something of a justification. Then Jean Kirkpatrick rehabilitated is during the Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nation, which was elevated to a cabinet level post. And, she rehabilitated that argument. to justify the Contra War and Reagan's Central American policy.[01:33:00]

But there's long been a way in which the United States found ways to justify complete support for Saudi Arabia, say, and complete opposition to Iran, and that's where we are today. I mean, I, we're locked in this kind of, foreign policy that makes gestures towards civilizational struggle, towards defending the West or defending universal values.

But the hypocrisy of it is so glaring. During the Cold War, you could point out the contradictions and the irony and the hypocrisies like somebody like Noam Chomsky did, the decade after decade after decade. But the Cold War, the ideology corresponded somewhat to the reality in terms of what the United States stood for. And I'm not carrying any water for Cold War United States but compared to now, right, where the United States has [01:34:00] completely gutted itself, basically the United States came out of the Cold War and treated itself as if it was an occupied nation and its citizens were belligerent.

That's what the Clinton administration was. It basically, in the past soldiers came back from wars to a country that was building itself, building its social capacity, building its roads, its bridges, its social compact, expanding, however imperfectly, the promise of liberalism to more and more people. But starting with the first Gulf War, soldiers came back to a country that was literally taking itself apart. Physically moving factories from Detroit to Mexico, but also taking apart its social contract.

And that's the context. That explains Trump and where Trump is. And meanwhile, as all of this was going on, the political class continued with the same rhetoric of exceptionalism, the same soaring rhetoric of freedom and liberty, and the [01:35:00] hypocrisy became more apparent, I think. And I think that that's the space that Trump fills. In a way he's turned us all into a nation of, or at least half of the nation from citizens into basically the Joker, where they see the only response to the bullshit is to tear it all down.

SECTION C - RESISTANCE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, Section C - Resistance.

Ravi Mangla on Building Community Power From Political Communication to Climate Action at Working Families Party Part 2 - The Impact Report - Air Date 11-25-24

JACKSON THOMPSON: Yeah, when Renee read the mission statement of the working families party, I, I feel like that is something that would resonate with everyone beyond political ideology.

It's about equity. It's about living a good life, basically. But one of the biggest takeaways from this election has been that the Republican Party has essentially become the party of the working class. And there's the same party that's advocating for tax cuts to billionaires that's endorsed by the richest man in the world.

So it's a bit of a shock. So I'm wondering where that disconnect is, why working class people are moving to the [01:36:00] Republican Party. And away from a party literally called the working families party.

RAVI MANGLA: Very good question. I would say that, uh, the working families party, for instance, has continued to grow. We've had a greater number of voters on our ballot line with each successive cycle.

We've continued to add. new members and new registrants as years have gone on and as people become disgruntled or dissatisfied with the two party system. So we found a lot of room to grow, but the right has been able to peel off many working class voters, and a lot of it is by communicating by messaging in a way that really resonates with people.

Sometimes it means preying on people's fears or using social issues as wedge issues, To try and drive people apart, and that's a scary and dangerous thing, and what we need to do as a working families party, what Democrats need to do, what anybody who is in a pro democracy movement needs to do to fight back [01:37:00] against the right.

Is to be able to be in spaces with working people another quote from my director Mo Mitchell. If you're in a room, uh, where everyone agrees with you, you're not in a big enough room. So, how are we also getting into spaces and having conversations with working people and getting outside of our bubbles?

And how are we messaging and communicating in a way that really shows that we are fighting for working people? A lot of time, our messaging can be very wonky. It can be very tied up in One thing I was told when I was, got my start in communications was that Democrats will tell you a recipe, and Republicans will just give you a cupcake.

That's right. And it's something I think about all the time, and we need to be better about it. Baking a cupcake, presenting something that people can see and know what it is immediately.

JACKSON THOMPSON: That's the follow up question that I had was one of the big [01:38:00] focuses of democratic messaging, particularly in this election, was the threat to democracy.

And then we have other overarching themes of climate change and these big problems that are big problems, but are they too big? Are they too big for the average voter that is more concerned, potentially, with putting food on their plate or paying rent or paying their bills? I

RAVI MANGLA: think that's absolutely true.

And one thing we've found from polling and message testing around climate is that when we message it in a, in terms of the big picture, the kind of catastrophic impacts, it can actually be very paralyzed and could be very hard to act. And it could be very hard for people to know what to do. And when we message it in terms of, pollution in your community of, of heat waves.

I think about last year when the wildfires in Canada brought smoke into people's communities and they could see and feel the worsening impacts of climate in a very real [01:39:00] tangible way. We need to be messaging it in terms of things that people are interacting with every single day, and sometimes when we zoom out, it becomes very difficult to grasp onto.

So, I fully agree with you that for us, we want to always be messaging of terms, in terms of how is this impacting me on a day to day basis. And speaking in the kind of micro and not the macro of job reports or employment numbers or how many degrees Celsius the planet is warming, how do we actually connect it with people's lived experience?

RENE YOPER: That's something, Ravi, that deeply resonates with me and I always say, and Jackson, I'm sure you've heard me say this several times in class, I always say, so what? So what? There's, we talk about all of these big, grand, big things, and at the end of the day, what is the so what of it? What does it mean to me?

What does it mean for my family, for my community? And then ripple outwards. But if we cannot answer the simple, so what, [01:40:00] I feel like folks are lost. You'll be lost. So what? And then now what? What do I do with, now that I know the so what, now that I can answer the so what, now what do I do with that information?

Interesting. Jackson, do you want to ask any other questions or shall I bring us to a close?

JACKSON THOMPSON: I guess the last thing that I want to ask is how do we make our voices heard? We at the Bard MBA are constantly talking about how to make business more sustainable, how to improve the world and people's lives through sustainable business.

We talk about big things like macroeconomics. We have facts and we have ammunition that we can use in this fight. To maybe disprove or downplay some of the rhetoric that's out there and that's just us and there are a lot of informed people out there. But how do we cut through the noise? Are there specific organizations we should get involved in?

Should we be doing our own podcast? There's so many people talking, but like, how [01:41:00] do we make our voices heard?

RAVI MANGLA: That's a fantastic question and I think what you are doing by having a podcast, by being able to use your platform to talk about these ideas is. Fantastic. It is great, and it's what we need. I think people should join organizations.

Like, if we are all going off and doing things independently, we're never going to build the power that we need to be able to push back, to be able to create a, majority. So finding an organization that resonates with you, and I'm not telling you what that organization needs to be, but something where you can be in community with people who share your goals, share your values.

I think that's very important. And I also think that people do not often know how accessible their elected officials are. I won't say that every elected official is accessible, but you can call up your elected official and say, I'd like to set up a meeting with five of my friends. And grab a group of people [01:42:00] and be like, here are some of our concerns.

We're constituents, we live in your district, here's what's going on right now. And being able to tap into, bring your community into those spaces where decisions are being made. And, I, even though I work in the Working Families Party, we connect with elected officials in a professional capacity all the time, I still call up my congressional rep about what I am dissatisfied with or what I am happy with.

Usually every week, I will make a call to my rep's office, and I think it's also important not just telling them when they're wrong, but what you like. If you see them fighting for something that you really like, that you appreciate. I think that feedback is good and I know from working with government staffers that they are always collecting that information from constituents and passing it along.

That is not the be all end all, but is a very simple thing that people can do during their day [01:43:00] that does not take too much time or energy.

RENE YOPER: And so, speaking of recommendations, Ravi, what advice could you give to future policy makers, right? We're in the business of education over here at Bard, and so we're, we have policy graduate students and as well as business students.

So what advice would you give to future policy makers?

RAVI MANGLA: My advice is think generations ahead. It becomes very easy to make decisions in the moment, to get caught up in the politics of the moment. And to do things because everybody else is doing them. And to think forward to the future and how my decisions now, how the policies I'm pushing now, are going to impact people five or ten years down the line.

I think that if we take a long sighted view of things, how it's going to affect the next generation and the generation beyond that, we would not be grappling with many of the problems that we are dealing with today. So my best advice is to take a long sighted view of things.

Congressman Calls For Seoul Style Protest Against Trump Inauguration w- Rep. Mark Pocan

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Also curious your thoughts on, on what just happened in Seoul, [01:44:00] South Korea.

I, I'm gonna rant about this in the next hour. My take is that, um, Yoon, President Yoon, uh, declaring the state of emergency, and then failing, and now he's facing calls for his impeachment. Um, that the reason he failed is, Because in April, the Parliament was taken over by the opposition party, kind of their equivalent of the Democratic Party.

He's kind of their equivalent of the Republicans. And, um, so he didn't have the political power in Congress that he needs. Trump doesn't have that problem. And, uh, although he did run, you know, as a xenophobe and, and as a Basically a woman hater. I mean, you know, his, his, he's, he's referred to as South Korea as Donald Trump.

Um, he never really got the, the members of his party to come and, and, and bow down and kiss his ass the way that Donald Trump has this steady stream of people coming to Mar-a-Lago, um, you know, to, to, to get on their knees. And I'm, I'm, it [01:45:00] just seems like. Probably Donald Trump is taking the lesson from this that, you know, he needs to really solidify his power before he declares a state of emergency and starts, you know, having the military take over the promote your thoughts.

REP. MARK POCAN: Well, don't forget that he's been through this before, right? So he's learned some lessons from what he couldn't get some things done in the last presidency, which I think is a is one of the problems, right? He's more prepared. He's come out with all his cabinet picks much earlier. Now, granted, he's actually getting some resistance.

Which given how wild these pics are, you know, it's it's such should be expected, but you know, given how little people will speak out against Donald Trump within the Republican Party, it was a little surprising, but we need more of it. Um, but you know, they're going to have the ability to move some stuff.

Now, the good news, Tom, is I think now with the most recent member of the house Republican caucus being kind of grabbed for the administration or for other pics that he's They can't lose one member in the first [01:46:00] several months of the year on any bill or else they can't pass it if they're going to continue to operate the way they have, which is they have to have the votes to pass any legislation.

So a window of getting things done legislatively is going to be gone right in the beginning. And then by the second year, of his administration's election year. Usually people proceed a little differently because they can lose the party in charge often loses and fall. So at least the window is tightening for legislative action.

But you know, we know there's going to be executive orders and other agency actions that we're going to have to be able to respond to. So I'm still real nervous. Um, I think we all should be. I think we should be ready to buckle up. It's going to be a wild ride. But I think most important once everyone One is over the anger and the sadness of what happened at the election.

I want people to be ready to fight because we are going to have to have everyone organized. The inauguration day is also Martin Luther King day. What a better contrast. I think we need to highlight that. And I don't know of a national group organizing around this yet, Tom, but what a great day to organize in contrast to [01:47:00] the inauguration of Donald Trump to organize around the country around Martin Luther King jr.

Day. I, I just. I hope that something can happen around that front because we need people to be ready and active to try to stop his agenda.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Yeah, I'm with you. You say fight, what do you mean?

REP. MARK POCAN: Um, to fight back on every single thing that they do. That's an overreach, you know, like right now, putting someone from Fox News head of defense was obviously ridiculous.

We may now be succeeding on that. Matt Gates was just a bad pick because of Republican internal politics. But this one actually, um, Pete Hegseth, I think is even more important. It's really important in that, um, it really is showing a really bad pick for an important position shouldn't happen, but we have Tulsi Gabbard and we have, uh, maybe RFK Jr.

and some others too that aren't the best picks, but he's going to do executive orders right away, and he's going to do things that are going to hurt people across the country, so we need to be able to stand and put pressure on our elected officials, uh, and, uh, and the media to, to really try to put [01:48:00] pressure on Donald Trump, so we've got lots of work to do.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Yeah, that's another statement. Uh, and, and, uh, as a member of the press, I'm, I'm very concerned about, uh, you know, they're, they're both him and Musk saying that they're coming after us, but we'll see how it shakes out. We'll see how it shakes out.

Biden Can Stop Trump's Political Prosecutions By Pardoning EVERYONE

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Last night I was on Dan Abrams show nine o'clock Eastern six o'clock Pacific time on News Nation. And in fact, we opened the show and it was a debate between me and this person, I'll just leave it at that, who was arguing that Democrats want to blow up the rule of law by pardoning the people who are in Trump's crosshairs.

And that will forever prevent any investigations of Joe Biden or anybody and his crime family, etcetera, which is nonsense. The simple reality is that Donald Trump is not a normal president. And won't be, has promised not to be, a normal president. If Mitt [01:49:00] Romney was about to be sworn into the White House, I would not be having this conversation with you. I would not have written this op ed for hartmanreport.com. And in fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Mitt Romney is an old fashioned Republican, the kind of guy who wants tax cuts for the billionaires, deregulation for companies, of course. Who thinks that social programs, is horrified by the fact that only about half of Americans earn enough money to pay taxes.

He's not concerned about how much they earn. He's concerned that, the lower income Americans don't have to pay taxes. And he does. But, he doesn't want to tear down the republic. He lost an election and gracefully said, I lost. Barack Obama's, second term is here. God bless him and I wish him well. And he showed up for the inauguration. Mitt Romney was a normal guy. Donald Trump is not Mitt Romney.

Donald Trump has said that he wants General Mark Milley executed. He said he wants to see how [01:50:00] Liz Cheney would feel if guns were pointed, nine guns were pointed at her head, and if she was in front of a firing squad. He just on Sunday, said she should be in prison. As well as everybody else in the January 6th committee. Benny Thompson, the chairman of the January 6th committee, has come out and said, "Yeah, if he gives me a pardon, I'll take it." And I think that's true of everybody else on the committee.

Now, giving everybody a preemptive pardon is not going to prevent investigations. Contrary to what my debating opponent last night on News Nation had to say it's not, in fact, I fully expect that both the House and Senate will be having investigative committees that will be looking into the crimes of Democrats during the Biden administration. It's going to be a crap show. It's going to be it's gonna be a circus. Of course, I mean, Republicans have to do this because they have nothing else. They don't want [01:51:00] us talking about what they're doing to Social Security. They don't want us talking about what they're doing to Medicare. They don't want us talking about how they're going to gut Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare coverage away from millions of people.

They don't want us talking about how they're going to get rid of the banking regulators and dispose of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has recovered some 20 billion dollars from financial institutions that have ripped off average Americans. They don't want us talking about any of that. They don't want us talking about ending net neutrality. With Brendan Carr now, as the starting in January, starting as the commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, they don't want us talking about the crimes that they're committing basically against democracy. What they do want us talking about is, Oh, my God, you mean during the Biden administration that happened?

And, of course, "that" will be spun as something just, way out of proportion from what it really is. And if you think I'm exaggerating, if [01:52:00] you think this is not a legitimate concern, that when, if you think that when Elon Musk says, my pronouns are prosecute Fauci, but he's just joking, if you think that there's no need for these preemptive pardons, then I refer you to Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was facing some 40 years in prison. And David Weiss, the inquisitor who had been appointed by Bill Barr and Donald Trump during his last term, and who Merrick Garland stupidly allowed to continue in his job after Joe Biden was inaugurated, David Weiss, was prosecuting him and they worked out a plea deal.

I mean, well, let me actually, I'll give you the details in just a second. But they worked out a plea deal where Hunter Biden didn't have to go to jail. He just had to admit that he screwed up, that he broke the [01:53:00] law. That he didn't pay his taxes and that he checked the box on form 7430 70C, the federal form that asks if you're a drug user when you want to buy a gun.

And here's what he was charged with. Millions of Americans every year, an estimated 20 million Americans actually, buy a gun and fill out the federal form and check the box saying I do not use illegal drugs when they are in fact using pot. And in obviously in many cases other drugs as well. But pot is the most common one, the 20 million Americans using pot because it's legal in so many states, or available everywhere. None of them have ever been prosecuted, one guy, well, with one exception, one guy was prosecuted for just for checking the box.

Now, about a hundred people a year get prosecuted for checking the box, as an added, as an addition to their sentence. But they are always being [01:54:00] prosecuted for things like running guns, or ghost guns, or whatever, for bigger crimes, and they're just looking for ways to keep them in jail longer. So they use the check the box thing. The one guy who was prosecuted for checking the box and checking the box alone, although this started with a drug bust, he was smoking pot in a state where it was illegal, it was in Louisiana. His name was Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr. And his case was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

So this is a non-crime, basically, that Hunter Biden was charged with. And yet David Weiss wanted him to go to jail charging him in a way that could, that could be the outcome. That was charge number one. Charge number two was that he didn't pay his taxes for two years. The federal government actually has a program where if you are an addict and you don't pay your taxes, you get a pass on going to prison if you pay your taxes in full and you pay the interest on the taxes that you owed, and it's a pretty high rate, and you pay [01:55:00] massive fines for having not paid your taxes. Hunter Biden did all of those things. The IRS recovers billions of dollars a year from people who didn't pay their taxes, and then when they got nailed by the IRS, they pay up, they pay the fines, they pay the interest. And everything is good. They have to plead guilty to having screwed up, but everything is good.

But David Weiss wanted to send Hunter Biden to prison for that, too. If they're going to go after Hunter Biden, who had nothing to do with politics, he was never elected to anything, he never crossed Donald Trump, he didn't investigate Donald Trump, he didn't prosecute Donald Trump, he wasn't Jack Smith, he wasn't Alvin Bragg, he wasn't Letitia James. If they're going to go after Hunter Biden, they'll go after all these other people. And so I am of the opinion that It would be a good thing if Joe Biden, President Biden were to preemptively issue blanket [01:56:00] pardons for all of these people who were involved with prosecuting Trump, investigating Trump, Bob Mueller, everybody on his team, the people at the FBI who raided Mar-a-Lago Jack Smith and his team, all the members of the January 6th committee, and anybody else. And the 50 or so people on Kash Patel's enemy list that he published in his book. Pardon them all.

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) 999-3991 or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from Democracy Now! Boom! Lawyered, The Real News Network, The Daily Blast, Citations Needed, The Impact Report, and The Thom Hartmann Program, further details are in the full show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show [01:57:00] and participation in our bonus episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken, Brian, Ben, and Lara 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 or through our Patreon page. Either of which will let you sign up with a discount through the end of the year, or send gift memberships to anyone on your list. Membership is how you get instant access to our incredibly 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 a link to join our Discord community, where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms you may be joining these days.

So, coming to from far outside, the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name [01:58:00] 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.

1 reaction Share

#1677 Dems Can't Have Their Billionaires and Beat Them Too: The politics of anti-elitism (Transcript)

Posted by · December 17, 2024 10:06 AM

Air Date 12/17/2024

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

Changing the direction of a political party doesn't happen overnight, and it usually takes a major disrupting event to shake it out of its well-worn groove. The loss of a Harris campaign to Trump and the evident desperation people have for a new economics that actually works for people might finally be enough to put Democrats on track to a more full-throated support of progressive economics.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes The Daily Show, The Majority Report, The Kyle Kulinski Show, The Muckrake Podcast, and Pod Save America. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more in three sections: Section A. Why Democrats lost; Section B. Time to fight; and Section C. Moving forward.

Jon Stewart On What Went Wrong For Democrats - The Daily Show - Air Date 11-11-24

JON STEWART: There was a method to the Democrats' madness.

CLIPS: Democracy and freedom are on the ballot. Our democracy is on the [00:01:00] line. We have to protect democracy. We have to work even harder to make sure that we defend our democracy. We don't get to choose when we're asked to defend democracy. We just have to do it. And this is not a drill.

JON STEWART: Noble words. And I'm glad to say Democrats did protect democracy. Just for the other side. Because when all is said and done, we had a free and fair election, in which the Democrats had been prepared for almost every scenario... but one..

CLIPS: The Harris campaign has built probably the most sophisticated, robust, impressive voter protection program in the history of presidential politics. We have millions in the bank ready, lawyers all over the country that are ready. Democrats have been planning on every one of these options for four years. Are Democrats ready? You bet they are. We have county clerks ready to go, secretaries of state ready to go.

JON STEWART: So it's all lined up. What are we [00:02:00] forgetting, people? What? We got the lawyers, we got the protecting the d-- What do we got? So, uh, Oh, uh, Jimmy, did you bring the voters? Oh, I thought you were bringing the voters. I brought the "Hate has no home here" posters. Nobody brought the voters? Where are the f***ing voters? It turns out the election was stolen. By more people voting for Donald Trump. It's quite a caper. Ocean's 74 Million. So so now, as many on the left fear the future, as they should, many others rue the past.

CLIPS: Joe Biden should have dropped out earlier. There should have been an open primary. People never got to know Kamala Harris. They spent too little time talking about the economy. Wildly overestimated the power of the abortion issue. Chose the wrong VP. Managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos. Abandoned the working class. Democrats need a new way to talk about urban America. Do that Joe [00:03:00] Rogan podcast.

JON STEWART: Trump spoke, Trump spoke to the people. Democrats never once mentioned Arnold Palmer's c---. Never once!

Yet focus group after focus group said, Got anything on Arnold Palmer's c---? If not, can you at least stand there and sway to Ave Maria for like an hour? Can you at least do that? But it's a delight to hear about why it happened, from so many people who were so wrong about what was going to happen. And everyone has their own pet theory.

But there's one theory that a lot of people seem to be coalescing around.

CLIPS: They were too woke. Insisting that people use the term Latinx. Too far to the left on transgender rights. You have to say they. No, you have to do this. Stop with the virtue signaling. Step away from woke. Focus less on who is woke and more on who is broke. [00:04:00] Social justice issues take a back seat when your son is in the basement vaping and playing video games and can't find a job.

JON STEWART: I feel like that last guy was really venting more about his son. Everybody else had sort of a broader point, but his was just so specific. You really gotta focus on, let's say, a kid in your basement vaping and just jerking off all over the couch, night after night!

But point taken. Everyone's talking about this wokeness theory. From cable news to the op ed section. And sometimes the op ed section being read on cable news.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, HOST, MORNING JOE: We want to get to the Maureen Dowd piece. Maureen Dowd's piece for the New York Times entitled Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics.

JON STEWART: Ooh! That was Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski discussing a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd on how [00:05:00] to escape the liberal bubble.

I guess I'll just have to get the Times and read it myself unless there's another way to make this less entertaining.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, HOST, MORNING JOE: We're going to read the entire piece, but it's worth it.

JON STEWART: About wokeness? I couldn't even stay woke through that whole f ing thing. Why don't you read us the Wordle?

I only have one problem with the woke theory. I just didn't recall seeing any Democrats running on woke shit. These were the commercials I saw for the Democrats.

CLIPS: Sherrod Brown is working to fix our border crisis. Mondaire Jones is working to secure our border. Pat Ryan is restoring order at our southern border. I'm Laura Gillen and I'm here at the border of Nassau County. We're 2,000 miles from Mexico, but we're feeling the migrant crisis almost every day.[00:06:00]

JON STEWART: In Nassau County? By the way, Suffolk County, make my f ing day. You want a piece of our strip malls? You're gonna have to go through Laura Gillen. Those are the Democrats! The Democrats! I gave the police more money than they even wanted! I gave them planes and tanks! I built a moat around the country and filled it with alligators and chlamydia!

They didn't talk about pronouns. They didn't say Latinx. It was the opposite.

CLIPS: We can't let China steal Wisconsin jobs. Benefits for illegal immigrants? No way. Blocking support for white farmers? I mean, look at me. Standing with law enforcement against defunding the police. I've owned a gun my whole life. Let me be clear. I don't want boys playing girls sports. You all know me. I've never pushed for sex [00:07:00] changes.

JON STEWART: Well, that's just a weird one at the end there. Come on, guys. You know me. He's like George Bailey in It's a Wonderful Life. I'm not the guy who wishes sex yet. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm in your shops every day. Every day. Mary, Mary, it's me, George Bailey. I'm not trying to get you to get a sex change. I'm just wishing I was dead.

And don't forget about Kamala Harris. It's not like she was exactly waving around her NPR tote bag.

KAMALA HARRIS: I have a Glock.

They didn't do the woke thing. They tried. They acted like Republicans for the last four months. They wore camo hats and went to Cheney family reunions. Do you know how dangerous it is to wear a hunting hat around Cheney's? [00:08:00] Do you have any idea? I thought I had one more rip in me. I didn't.

Democrats were mostly running against an identity that was defined for them, based on a couple of months of post-George Floyd, Defund the police, #MeToo Instagram posts from four years ago. What happened was the country felt like government wasn't working for them, and the Democrats in particular were taking their hard-earned money and giving it to people who didn't deserve it as much as them.

So the Democrats got shellacked. I'm sure any robust examination of better policies is very welcome. But I just want to please assure people, this isn't forever. This is the map in 1984 when Ronald Reagan won. That's the map. The only state the Democrats [00:09:00] won was Minnesota. Yeah. Everyone thought that's the end of the Democrats, but eight years later, there was a Democrat back in office. We don't know what's going to happen in four years, at all. The only thing that is certain is this:

CLIPS: You all know me. I've never pushed for sex changes.

The Democratic Party Is A Rudderless aShip - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 11-21-24

DAVID DAYEN: Democrats are somewhat well positioned to take back the House at least. The Senate's going to be a much taller order given the map, and the various inadequacies of Senate apportionment and and just the real difficulties that Democrats have in even lightly red states.

So there's no reason that Democrats could defer this conversation once again and muddle through and win the House in '26 and then come back and have that primary in '28, and do what they do.

What I would [00:10:00] say is that Democrats have a massive tendency towards conflict aversion. We see that in the inability to have any conversation about the House and Senate leadership right now. Nobody is talking about the fact that Chuck Schumer, who famously said if we lose two blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, then we'll gain two suburban moms and we can do that across the country -- the very strategy that has now locked Democrats out of a majority coalition in the nation. The fact that there is no, outside of random people, no institutional calls for a leadership election there. Same in the House. There is a bias towards not having these hard conversations, not having these discussions.

And finger pointing and recriminations is not having the discussion, by the way. It's one thing to just say the party should get more progressive, the party should get [00:11:00] more moderate, or we should throw out this part of the tent, or we should throw out this member of the coalition. That's actually not having the discussion. That's just restating their priors.

The truth is that we had a national swing away from Democrats at every level in every subgroup. Democrats don't get to play the fun game that they play every time they lose an election where they get to just pick one subgroup and blame them. It's their fault, kick them out of the coalition, then we'll be better off. Never works. But Democrats can't do that now. They lost among everybody. They lost more in big cities than they did in small towns. They lost more among subgroups of color than they did among white people.

So like you can't slice and dice on this and try to put the calculation together for a majority.

There is something structurally wrong. And until you actually have the conversation about it, we're just going to be spinning our wheels.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: [00:12:00] That structurally wrong thing, is it really, is it a policy thing, or is it a communications? I mean, I just remember in 2012, in the wake of the 2012 of Obama winning, that the Republican Party was like, we're doing an autopsy. And I just remember Sean Hannity going, Folks, we've got to be more open to immigrants. And that lasted for three or four months. And then all of a sudden they realized actually, no, we don't. And then they went on a, what is now a 12-year crusade to demonize immigrants, and it worked. It worked. Like to the point where --

DAVID DAYEN: They got Democrats to help them.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: They basically pulled the Democrats into that vortex. I mean, look, Obama deported a tremendous amount of people. Their strategy was supposedly [00:13:00] in service of trying to help DACA and DAPA and get to some type of piece of legislation that would rationalize the whole process, etc, etc. That's poor tactics. Broadly speaking, their strategy was to welcome immigrants, even though in their minds, they're like, the way only way we can legitimately do it is to deport a ton as well.

Aside from that, obviously not working, is it a question of reorientation of the-- part of their communication strategy, frankly was belied by the fact that, they were both like Mark Cubans out there and they're running on an anti-corporate record, like, how do you, it's tough to square that circle, I guess.

DAVID DAYEN: Yeah, that's what I said about internal contradictions. Do you guys get mad when everybody's out there saying, what we need is a liberal Joe Rogan? And you're like, come on, man. We're right here.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: She should [00:14:00] have probably done just the Rogan that was there because it's a problem. Does it bother me? No, there's no way to have the exact same thing as them on the right. I've been down this road with Air America. Do we need more communication? Without a doubt. Of course.

But there is a fundamental misunderstanding, it seems to me, within the campaign professionals. Because, you have people who are saying, we mentioned Joe Scarborough saying, we can't be the party of woke and what not. Kamala Harris was so, I think, effective at avoiding any of those conversations. People knew that she was a black woman, and I have no doubt that that accounts for a significant percentage of votes against her.

Like she's not going to say -- she could say the sun is shining at 12 noon, and there's still going to be some skepticism, like [00:15:00] some irrational skepticism of her, whatever, however it is, because there are people who have --

DAVID DAYEN: They also had her on tape saying a bunch of stuff in 2019 as part of her presidential race.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: But the fact is, is that their ability to run with that was, at first, stifled by the whole "you're weird" thing. Because she's not running on this. She said it, yes, on tape. And we have Donald Trump saying that he's going to be a dictator on tape. We have Donald Trump saying, I'm going to grab, people's vaginas and I can get away with it on tape.

But the reason why they're able to have a huge portion of their electorate believe that the agenda of the Democrats is to turn everybody transgender, as opposed to we just believe in rights for everybody is because there was no response. And the proper response to them saying that is "You're weird. We're not talking about that. [00:16:00] You're the ones who are talking about that. We don't have a plank that says we're going to impose transgenderism on everybody. You're the ones bringing this up" and they did not --

DAVID DAYEN: That was a great messaging strategy that ended about two weeks after they started it and they never put Tim Walz on television.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Exactly. I think in the Clinton loss, there was probably six, seven, "but fors," right? The margins were close enough that if Comey later doesn't come out, maybe she wins. If she campaigns in Michigan, Wisconsin, maybe she wins. There's literally, I think a half dozen of those.

In this instance, I think there's no one thing why she lost. There were too many things that contributed to it, because the margins were too big. But there were mistakes made that I think are indicative of a fear of confrontation, that they were overtaken by the people who wanted to be seen as bipartisan.

‘BERNIE WAS RIGHT!’: Corporate Democrat ADMITS DEFEAT - The Kyle Kulinski Show - Air Date 11-18-24

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, THE KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: He was very hostile to the [00:17:00] idea of Bernie Sanders being the future of the Democratic Party, or I should be clear and say Bernie Sanders ideas being the future of the Democratic Party. Because remember, this is the guy who helped run Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, and he, in some ways, he's the pioneer of the new Democrat strategy, the triangulation, which basically means Democrats agreed to start taking corporate money and be more like Republicans in order to win.

And Bill Clinton did that, and he won. So conventional wisdom for a generation became, oh, Democrats need to run as centrists, as moderates, as still helping out corporate donors while doing tweaks around the edges to help regular people, right? But James Carville appears to have had some semblance of a change of heart watching Kamala Harris go down in flames. Now, some of his take and his criticism I don't really agree with but other parts of it I think are spot on. So, here we go. Look at this. This is quite [00:18:00] an admission.

JAMES CARVILLE: I think Senator Sanders has some of a point here. And that is, there were things we could have run on harder that, that have affected the minimum wage. It passes everywhere by 70%. I mean, I know that President Biden was for it and Harris is for it, but we didn't put it front and center. What about taxing the incomes over $400,000 and taking that money and putting it in a first time homebuyer's mortgage relief fund? I mean, there were things that Senator Sanders would favor that we could have put more front and center.

You know, there are a lot of things that are just popular that Democrats are for it. They're popular with every kind of Democrat in the country. They also happen to be popular with independents and even some Republicans. And we should run on a popular thing. A popular thing was not continuing the Biden administration. That was clearly not what people wanted. I think he's a great guy, but people didn't want more of that. And that's what we gave them.

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, THE KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: Damn. Never did I think he would ever give Bernie credit on anything. But look, his point is undeniable. When you look at these direct ballot initiatives in states all across the country, including in red states, [00:19:00] oftentimes, you have very clear progressive issues pass with like 60% or more of the vote.

And even in red states, that happens a lot. Raise the minimum wage, paid time off actually passed recently in some states in the last election. And, look, I will give him credit for one thing. He was a corporate democrat triangulator, which I hate, but he was also the guy who gave us the, "It's the economy, stupid." Right? And so, there is some semblance deep inside of this man, there is some semblance of an economic populist trying to get out. But I don't think he realizes that there's a little bit of a contradiction there between being a corporate democrat and being a populist. It's hard to marry those two things together.

Like, for example, this is a guy who's vehemently against Medicare for All. He's stated that over and over throughout the years. But, James, the exact same reason you say, "Hey run on raising the minimum wage," is the exact same reason why you should also say "Run on universal health care," right? And the part [00:20:00] that I think he misses and I don't think any corporate democrat will ever get this is you genuinely need a politics of division. You need a politics of enemies You need to portray yourself and your voters as the protagonist in a grand narrative in a grand story where you're taking on the evil doers who are dragging this nation down and for Democrats and liberals and leftists, it has to be the billionaires, the multinational corporations, the big money donors who give so much money to politicians and then politicians represent them and screw over you.

But look, take a dub where we can get one, man. This is a dub right here. This is James Carville, legendary corporate Democrat strategist, who's like, "You know what? You know what? Raising the minimum wage, maybe you should have put that front and center, that seems like a good idea. I think Bernie Sanders is right about some things. I think Bernie's right about some things." But the even more important point, and this is probably Kamala's fatal flaw, was when she literally didn't even try to [00:21:00] distance herself from Biden even a little bit. I mean, that's really, In retrospect, that's the thing that I think everybody agrees on. That, you know, you didn't distance yourself from Biden even a little bit.

You had no answer when asked, what would you do differently? And that could have been, I mean, that is no matter what else you say, you're also signing up as the status quo candidate in that respect. And so people went for Trump's anger and Trump's incorrect answers over no answers, right? And so that's how we ended up where we are, but it's a cold day in hell y'all. It's a cold day in hell because James Carville just said something true. Now, he didn't bring it up in this clip but there's also, he's also been going around blaming wokeness. Look, take it from a guy who has, who I'm on the left, and I have been categorized as an anti-woke leftist, right? That's how I've been viewed, is Kyle's an anti-woke leftist.

Take it from somebody who's in that category. Wokeness did not lose this election for Democrats. It just didn't. [00:22:00] Like I said, Kamala never mentioned race, never mentioned gender, never mentioned trans people, or pronouns, or Latinx, or cancel culture, or political correctness, or anything that you would associate with wokeness.

None of it was mentioned, and she lost, so you just can't blame wokeness. It makes absolutely no sense. And so he's wrong on that part of the analysis, but he's right on the, it's the economy, stupid, and minimum wage being front and center would have been a big thing. But more than that is really about having a narrative, and being angry, right? Trump believes in Trump, there's no denying that, and Trump is very angry, there's no denying that. And perhaps you need anger, and you need something to believe in, and a narrative, and a story, and people just weren't buying, they just didn't think Kamala was authentic and believed in much of anything, I don't think.

Right, so, we could all Monday morning quarterback, which I'm sure we'll continue to do endlessly, but look, write it down, write it down, cause this matters. David Brooks, David Brooks, elite, moderate, said, "You know, maybe Bernie was right." [00:23:00] James Carville, "Yeah, yeah, maybe Bernie was right." Jen Psaki, "Yeah, maybe Bernie was right."

There's people, like Jon Favreau, the Pod Save bro, some of them at times, yeah, yeah, maybe Bernie had a point, right? So you're getting a number of people now, who are kind of waking up a little bit to the reality. But I will say, that is counterbalanced with the exact same number of people, if not more, who are saying, let's just throw trans people under the bus and that's how we win. Like, Jesus Christ, that's dark and that's loathsome.

Assad Ousted From Syria - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 12-10-24

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: A new report in the times from Nicholas Nahamas, Maya King, and Zolan Kano Youngs with a report out of Philadelphia where the democratic party underperformed, leading to the state of Pennsylvania, one of the main swing states in the election ended up falling.

Organizers have been reaching out and particularly organizers in communities of color who deal with Black and Latino voters. They have come out to say that they were so worried about the lack of outreach to voters of color by the Harris [00:24:00] campaign that they went rogue, that they started doing it themselves without permission, and over the time they said that thousands of voters in these communities of color said that they hadn't heard from the campaign, they didn't feel like the campaign cared about them, and that instead the focus of the race was on, not only digital ads, but digital ads and outreach that was focused on White suburban voters, White professionals, and basically that they weren't allowed to do their job that they traditionally do. Quite frankly, I think this report is very convincing and it sounds a lot like reports that I've heard from around the country so far.

NICK HASSELMAN - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Well, I think we've spent a lot of time in denial during the campaign, honestly. And I think part of it was it seems to me that there were huge sections of people of color who didn't trust Kamala Harris, for a variety of reasons. Looking at this reporting, and showing how they put all of their resources... cause it's really damning. when you're talking about having campaign offices in the inner city areas that don't have [00:25:00] any paper, they don't have office supplies, and then they have to go to the nice areas and raid them for supplies. That speaks volumes to why maybe they didn't trust her.

So I suspect that to see this now, and we can expect all sorts of, people lighting the campaign on fire who were part of the campaign, but this one really hit hard, because the Harris campaign had purported to be standing up for marginalized communities and people of color and trying to use her identity as part of that campaign, and they were justified in feeling of that distrust for her.

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Yeah, there's a couple of things going off of what you were saying that I just want to highlight. The first thing is this, when Harris took over as the nominee from Biden, I had said, I will learn a lot about what's going on with how long the Biden campaign team stays in control of the Harris campaign, which happened the entire time. We're now hearing a bunch of reports that Harris brought in a couple of people that she felt close to, but that [00:26:00] mainly it was the Biden campaign team that took care of things. That isn't necessarily a Kamala Harris decision, that isn't necessarily about Harris as a candidate. I don't think she had much control over the campaign, to be honest with you. And by the way, not winning a primary kind of does that sometimes, to just get the baton and then run with it.

When you have a primary, we've talked about the Barack Obama campaign back in 2008, he effectively wrestled control of the Democratic party away from the Clinton machine, and then restructured it, which we're still dealing with. What we are seeing here is the consequence of a couple of things —the Biden team, you might remember when we covered it, Nick, they held calls back whenever the red States, the Republican States were starting to gerrymander stuff and take purge voting rolls of Black people, Black community said, we need your help, and they said, "Hey, good luck out organizing us." And what did they say since the election, they've said over and over that the problem was the base. It was all of these interest groups that got [00:27:00] too "woke". And what is "woke"? It's a code name for saying we actually care about people of color and oppressed peoples.

Meanwhile, this entire apparatus of the Democratic Party is basically controlled by a group of technocratic analysts and strategists who got rich off of this. It was the strategist and all of the analytical groups that they worked with, and they didn't see people of color as one of the bases they needed to take care of, they took them for granted. And reporting like this, the actual on the ground experience of this stuff, and we're starting to see things floating up about Harris campaign staffers, people of color, who say that they were discriminated against by this campaign.

There was a Black woman at the front of the ticket, but the people behind the scenes were the same old White retread campaign strategist that were behind Joe Biden and have controlled the party for a while. And they've taken this space completely for granted, which is one of the reasons why Donald Trump was able [00:28:00] to change the demographics of the electorate

His campaign, as bad as it was, as bad as the ground game was, they went into these places. We've said on this podcast, we said, he's going into New York City. He shouldn't be in New York city, that's not a place for him to be campaigning. But a lot of what happened here, it reflects a larger problem in the democratic party that is only getting worse at the moment.

NICK HASSELMAN - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: He went in front of the national Black journalists association to question her race and nothing happened to him. That would have been a campaign ending blunder of all blunders...

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: 20 years ago, yes.

NICK HASSELMAN - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: ...instead, he increased that electorate. What does it say about the Harris campaign that he can increase electorate after saying shit like that? I don't know if you were aware, but I was talking to someone who was intentionally connected to the Harris campaign. And they were saying to me the other day that the internal polling before the Biden debate was really bad. He was going to get waxed by 20 points, something like that.

And by the way, when I heard that, I was like, that's interesting, because that wasn't what we were [00:29:00] seeing necessarily in the front page.

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Nick, I saw an archived internal poll before the debate that had Biden down 11 points.

NICK HASSELMAN - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: What that tells me was that they, and the Biden campaign wanted the debate early, and I think I questioned this when it happened, but the only explanation for that is because they knew that how bad it was going to be and they need to get him out of the race. And then the fact that if they had, they'd done it in a normal time, Biden wouldn't have dropped out. Cause again, the reason why I bring this up is that Harris campaign continues to rest in their laurels that they were so far behind when they started that look, we got all the way...

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Oh we won. We actually won by losing.

NICK HASSELMAN - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Yeah. It's but That said, she had a four point lead at some point in a month and a half out, and then every day 0. 1% lower every day. There was an inexorable leaking of votes they could not stop, couldn't do anything. And they had six weeks to do something and they couldn't.

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: That graph is, "Oh, we're going to take care of prices. Oh, they're weird. Those people shouldn't be doing that. Oh, Goldman Sachs, Liz Cheney. Dick [00:30:00] Cheney. Economist are behind me." It was so obvious what happened, but the people behind this have not reckoned with anything that you and I have been talking about or anybody who's even been tangentially related to the campaign. It was an absolute disaster, and we're talking about this, not because it's the 2024 campaign, but because this can't happen again. It has to change. Going back to the previous segment, you can't pardon Trump and talk about how it was a political hit job.

We talked about it on the weekend or for Friday. You can't pardon everybody in the administration and be like, "our bad. I guess we committed some crimes according to some people, we need to be careful." The Democratic party is in a moment of crisis and this type of stuff is an invitation to accept reality and change course, because if this doesn't get fixed, oh, it's going to get real bad.

Can Ben Wikler Fix The Democratic Party? - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 12-4-24

BEN WIKLER: The soul of the Democratic Party is the fight for working people. Ours is the party that built the middle class, that won breakthroughs on civil rights and [00:31:00] women's rights and workers rights and freedom and opportunity for all. It's the party that welcomed me as a high school student in Wisconsin to volunteer for Tammy Baldwin when she first won a seat in Congress.

Today, the country that we love needs the Democratic Party to be stronger, to unite, to fight and to win. I'm Ben Wickler. I'm the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. I've spent my life working in politics, advocacy, and new media. In Wisconsin, we built a permanent campaign. We organize and communicate year round in every corner of the state; rural, suburban, urban, red, blue, and purple areas alike.

Since I've been our state party chair, we've flipped our state Supreme Court majority, reelected our great Democratic governor, Tony Evers, and in this very tough year for Democrats nationwide, a six point swing towards Trump. We closed that gap to a point and a half. Making Wisconsin the closest state in the country. We sent Tammy Baldwin back for a third term in the U. S. Senate, and we flipped 14 state legislative seats that put us on track for majorities in both [00:32:00] chambers in 2026. When the polls are within the margin of error, we win by the margin of effort. And what has made a difference in Wisconsin can make a difference everywhere. We need a nationwide permanent campaign.

A 50 state strategy in every state and every territory across the United States. That means raising a ton of money and bringing together millions of volunteers.

CLIPS: Ben Wickler is doing an extraordinary job. You've done a ridiculous job. Ben Wickler, he knows how to organize. Wisconsin Democrats have outraised republicans 4 to 1 this year.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Listen, we didn't see more of the ad, but look, this is gonna be voted on by members of the DNC, I think there's what, like 500 or so members. You can go is it benwickler.com to help.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: He's definitely the best of the candidates right now.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yeah. I mean, look, I think there's a lot to be said for Ken Martin, who is the head of the Minnesota DFL. I'm not as familiar [00:33:00] with his work but I can tell you, like, I know, I think every job that Ben Wickler has ever had, frankly. Starting, he was a producer for Al Franken at Air America and then went on to move on, then went on to Avaz. He's from Wisconsin. People were surprised when, I think, when he decided to run for Wisconsin chair. Because he hadn't been there in a while, and he just came in and he just hit it out of the park.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I mean, the headwinds that he was facing, like, the proof is in the pudding if the Democrats are serious about winning and we know that's an uphill climb. But the Wisconsin, after Obama was elected in 2008, became the laboratory for right-wing politics, almost in what we're seeing in Florida right now.

Where it's a different flavor, but they gerrymandered the hell out of that state. They led the way under Scott Walker with his Koch money on right to work and busting [00:34:00] unions, and they rigged the game in such a way that, the Republicans had a significant advantage in the state of Wisconsin. And within 12 years, they've really turned that around.

As he mentioned in his ad, Harris performed best of all of the swing states, which she lost all of them, in Wisconsin. And I think that he can make that case. This is the kind of pick that would be rational if the DNC chooses to be rational. But they did just pick Jamie Harrison, who's retweeting Mueller She Wrote and things like that. So if they really want to say we've learned a lesson, this is the kind of pick that you go with. I mean, Martin O'Malley, I don't know what he's doing. I don't know what leverage he thinks he has, but.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: He, I mean, he's been the chair. He's been the running the social security administration, which is, great.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Great, great.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I'm all in favor of that. People know I love, but what Wickler has been doing has been exactly what you want somebody to do on a national level. He has been [00:35:00] facing a well financed Republican movement. And he has dealt with gerrymandering. He has dealt with supreme court races. He understands the importance of all these things and how they translate nationally. And he's done it in a state that has been, as sort of like teetering as can be over the past, I think five, six years that he's been working on it. It's benwickler.com.

And Penny in New Mexico says, "Do you understand what donations would go to if we donate to Ben's campaign to DNC chair?" I'm not 100% sure, but my, I suspect you've got to reach 500 people. And I would imagine what you want to do is send out mailers, you want to call, you want to maybe you want to travel and visit. This is all speculation on my part. You want to visit a different key members of the DNC who may have sway with [00:36:00] four, five, or six, or ten other people. I don't know. This is all, I'm just guessing. But it's a good question. But I imagine it's something of that nature. And, Noah from Tampa says, "The best argument for Wickler is that Republicans are afraid of him. Always go with the people the Republicans are most afraid of." I mean, look, for me the most important aspect is that he has a proven track record of winning in a rather inhospitable situation.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Exactly. And, he, I think, would actually use the DNC to coordinate with state parties. Like, this has been an issue really since Obama. And Jamie Harrison, (thank you) did, I think they started to donate more to state parties.

But this needs to be a national strategy that is cohesive. Because like, out of this election, we understand, The Democrats message is incoherent. They're the party of people making over $100,000 a year, but they also have [00:37:00] Shawn Fain coming and speaking. Like, what is the coalition you're trying to build? How can you make it so that it works nationally, where people know what the Democratic Party brand is? Because right now the brand is toxic, as Bernie Sanders told John Nichols in that interview, where he encouraged people to run as independents when it makes strategic sense, and I think that does make sense in rural white states right now, and then go from there. But, that's the problem right now, is that there isn't necessarily a coordinated message or strategy. And like we know every, for all the stuff with Trumpism, their one thing is like it's immigration, immigration, immigration, immigration. And if you were to ask the average person what the Democrats stand for, they don't know.

“Get These Incels to Work” (feat. Hasan Piker) Part 1 - Pod Save America - Air Date 11-27-24

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: There's no moment at which we say, "all right, we've had the fight. We've had the debate. We disagree on a whole bunch of stuff. Hey, everybody, we're going to get together and we're going to make sure that we stop Donald Trump. We elect Joe Biden or we elect Kamala Harris." That moment doesn't [00:38:00] come. I'm not saying that Democrats in power aren't in part responsible for that, I think part of what we need to do is figure out a politics that brings people in. Everyone is responsible.

HASAN PIKER: Just as I was very critical of Bernie Sanders' campaign despite still loving Bernie because he was nowhere near as aggressive as he could have been in the primaries and should have probably gone on more independent media route in a similar vein to Donald Trump. Because I blame the fault on Bernie's campaign strategies in the primaries, despite recognizing the structural hurdles of a left wing populist coming out of a Democratic party primary where it's the laser focused audience that goes out and votes at those things are the MSNBC watcher base that is objectively terrified of someone like that because people are saying he's going to start executing wealthy people, it's still his fault. And it's still the campaign's fault in this regard as well.

And that's why I brought forward the point that you can have a billion point five. You can have ground game. [00:39:00] None of that matters if the message is not actually addressing the real issues that Americans are facing. And the reason why I think the Republicans can go out and vote for the Republican party and don't usually sit it out, and instead are able to suck it up and say, yeah, we're still going to vote for Donald Trump is because there are single issue voters out there and they know that Trump is going to protect it.

People that like guns are going to be like, "I like my guns. I want my guns to be protected. I want to be able to marry my gun. I want to be able to have sex with my gun. I know Donald Trump is going to be the guy that lets that happen. And I know the Democrats are going to shun me for wanting to have sex with my gun, that guy is going to go and vote for Trump regardless.

On the other side though, if your top line communication and your major policy prescriptions are like, "We have to preserve these institutions, we have to preserve civility, and we have to preserve democracy," at a time when Americans are like, I don't give a fuck about democracy, just lower the price of eggs, Then, There's no way that I could [00:40:00] outflank the Democratic Party and get people to vote for Kamala Harris in a way that sticks, in a way that is going to be successful, no matter how much influence I wield.

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: Yes, take your point.

HASAN PIKER: Most people are just not voting, that's the problem.

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: The challenge is that let's say you say there's these three kind of media ecosystems. There's the right-wing one, there's the kind of mainstream one, and there's the left one.

The one on the right, is built to attack Democrats. The one in the middle is built to attack Washington and politics, and the one on the left is built to attack Democrats. It is. I think they're trying to pressure Democrats to be a more moral and just version of itself.

HASAN PIKER: I probably spend more time shitting on the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, but yeah.

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: But I'm saying when we're talking about right-wing media, it is trying to be a team player, and it is attacking Democrats and supporting Republicans. The middle is attacking both, and the left is attacking Democrats and Republicans. There is no big, fun, exciting, media environment, outside of, fucking, this table, where you have a lot of people that are critical of the Democratic [00:41:00] Party, annoyed by the same things we're talking about, but ultimately it's just we got to win, and we have to get behind these people.

HASAN PIKER: But again, it is because, for many people on the right-wing ecosystem they have their toys, they have their treats, and the Republicans are giving them those toys and those treats. Whereas, the Democrats are offering, what? What are they offering?

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: No, I know, we gotta fucking figure it out.

HASAN PIKER: It doesn't matter to me I'm rich. Okay, I probably might go to prison if Project Esther gets kicked in, or if they denaturalize me or something. Who knows? We'll see.

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: You can be rich abroad.

HASAN PIKER: That is true, but my point is I like being here. I like trying to solve some of the problems in America, at least. But, overall the point is not that I'm rich, the point I'm making is that, I care about my fellow Americans. I care about them, their lives getting better, improving their material conditions. And I recognize that, if Democrats keep losing, then Republicans are going to keep ruining this country further, and I want the Democrats to win. I want to be the [00:42:00] most regime pilled propaganda minister you've ever seen. But I can't do that if the Democratic Party is not offering anything.

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: And I think that's all fair. I guess what I'm trying to see is what is the path to the Democrats creating the kind of story that's backed by candidates, that's backed by message, that's backed by policy, that's backed by having the right enemies, telling that kind of story, and then in concert with that, we do need a virtuous circle where then more and more people in left media start to accept that the vehicle for changing this country for the better is the Democratic party.

HASAN PIKER: I mean I can't speak for everybody else on the left I don't know who you're talking about when you say this, but like I can speak to my friends that are over at Drop Site News, former Intercept guys like Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim. I can speak to a Majority Report that was way more in the tank for Kamala than I was for sure. Like they were very openly more excited at the prospect of Kamala Harris. I was definitely a lot more [00:43:00] depressed by no matter who wins, we're still cooked it was my attitude, but like certainly understanding and recognizing that Donald Trump is going to be far worse than Kamala Harris, of course, and Chapo Trap House.

So these are some of the largest media companies out there on the left, outside of the orbit of the Democratic party. Every single one of these outlets, myself included, talked more about the Biden administration's accomplishments with the NLRB, with Lena Khan at the FTC with trust busting, and numerous other accomplishments that the Democratic Party actually brought forward than they did, and it didn't matter.

My point is there was, we always defended, we always, always defended the Afghan withdrawal unconditionally. You never saw that on even, you barely saw that on MSNBC. We always defended that. We always defended Lena Khan. We always defended the NLRB. We always defended the walking, the symbolic move that Joe Biden made when [00:44:00] he went to the UAW picket line. We didn't forget that. We talked about that. It didn't matter.

It's not enough, especially when there's so much that Joe Biden did, I think, outside of the economic pressures that Americans were experiencing that was certainly going to play a pivotal role in the election, but there's so much that he did in the month of October in 2023, that just completely wiped that, that made it impossible to defend him, because the major focus of a lot of people and there's nothing you can do in that moment when people are seeing exactly what's going on and getting frustrated.

He unveiled the right-wing immigration bill on October 5th, 2023, I might be getting the date wrong, but it was like literally two days before October 7th, he did that, and then October 7th happened, and he went and he bear hugged Netanyahu and kept giving unlimited weapons to Israel over and over again, never restraining Israel. Everybody knew exactly what was going to happen. It had happened [00:45:00] before and it was going to be much worse. And yet, no restraint whatsoever.

It has, I think, diminished America's soft-power capabilities on the global stage further. It has eroded America's influence and soft-power capabilities in the Western world. Obviously the Global South already knew what was up, they've always known, but they have no power. They have no voice. It doesn't matter. The populations in Western Europe recognizing what was going on and actually starting to protest against it, I mean, that's different. I'm saying this as someone who's been an advocate for Palestinian emancipation for the past 10 years publicly. I've never seen this groundswell, this massive sea change, this attitude shift in such a dramatic fashion over the course of the last 12 months, and they did not address that at all. And instead they hugged and kissed neocons and talked about, even in the VP debate, Israel having the nuclear first strike capability. What an insane conversation we're having after 12 months of genocide.

Americans fancy [00:46:00] themselves to be peaceful people. It's a lie. America's foreign interventions are anything but peaceful. Even then the media ecosystem usually just shelters Americans from the genuine devastating impact of America's actions globally, but for that reason, Americans can at least feel like they're peaceful doves. Which is why Donald Trump, despite never being a peaceful dove, was able to effectively communicate that he was actually anti Iraq war against Hillary Clinton in 2016, which was a resilient message that actually showcased him as more moderate than Hillary Clinton in the eyes of many Americans.

Note from the Editor on the Democrats perception gap and Ben Wikler for the DNC

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with The Daily Show breaking down the failures of the Harris campaign. The Majority Report discussed messaging and strategy challenges for Democrats. The Kyle Kulinski Show looked at the shifting sentiments of centrists who are beginning to recognize the electoral benefits of progressive economics. The Muckrake Political Podcast criticized Democrats' failure of proper organizing and overdependence on [00:47:00] technocratic strategists. The Majority Report praised the candidacy of Ben Wickler for DNC chair. And Pod Save America spoke with Hasan Piker about key failures of Democrats.

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 here discussing all manner of important and interesting topics, often making each other laugh in the process. And a reminder that our winter sale for memberships is currently going on; they're 20% off until the end of the year. So support independent media and get bonus shows for yourself or to send us a gift for the holiday. Discounts and gifting are available both on our site and through Patreon, so whichever you prefer, go for it. All the relevant links are in the show notes, or just go to BestOfTheLeft.com/support. There you will also find links to bookshop.org for Dead Tree Books and their [00:48:00] sister site, libro.fm for audio books. Both are certified benefit corporations that help support brick and mortar bookshops, while you get the benefit of the convenience of online shopping. In short, they're decidedly non-evil compared to other online bookstores, and shopping through our links help support this show as well. So again, head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support or follow the links in the show notes to grab your own membership, currently on discount. Or snap up a gift membership for this wintry gift-giving season.

Now I have a couple of thoughts to add to our topic today.

The first is about the perception gap that Democrats are suffering from. I think this is important context. Without a doubt, those who say the Democrats have gone too far to the left have two [00:49:00] problems. First, they're definitely talking about social issues: your trans rights, your abortion rights, anything that they put under the wokeism umbrella. It's very unlikely they're talking about economics. So any suggestion that people like Bernie Sanders are wrong about taxing the hell out of billionaires because people don't like wokeism should be understood as completely nonsensical. That is a non sequitur. Those are not on the same spectrum. Those are two different elements of the left, rarely intersecting.

Secondly, they're not even right about how much Democrats support those woke issues that people seem to be somewhat annoyed about. The perception gap has been built by Democrats allowing themselves and their positions to be more effectively framed by the opposition than from themselves.

Biden actually had some pretty good economic policies, but the whole party was crap about bragging on those [00:50:00] things. And it's not because they were spending all of their time talking about trans kids. People just got the impression that that's what they were doing, because they weren't saying anything interesting enough to break through the messaging cycles. Meanwhile, Trump and company framed them as woke fascists, without much response.

So a strong, full-throated embrace of economic populism wouldn't just be good policy and good politics; it would be good messaging that would help drown out the bullshit from the other side, because it would be interesting enough that people would take notice.

Now the second note I have for the show today is about Ben Wickler. And I don't often meet with powerful and influential people. Some of them, listen to the show, but I don't meet with them. But I did have a meeting with Ben Wickler. Now fittingly, the meeting took place before Ben became any degree of powerful or very -- [00:51:00] maybe he was a little influential. We both produce podcasts way back in the day. I still do. I don't think he does anymore. And the first iteration of his show is called The Flaming Sword of Justice, which is a great name. And then that show sort of morphed into a show called The Good Fight, not to be confused with another show by the same name, but with a different host. Very old school listeners from, I think more than 10 years ago now, may have heard some clips from Ben's shows played on Best of the Left.

Well, Ben and I met up, talked podcasting shop, and I came away from that meeting feeling lazy, unprepared, and unambitious, because Ben came prepared with written questions for me, and very impressive answers to some of the questions that I had that demonstrated how that sort of meeting was the norm for him. Meaning he [00:52:00] was obviously regularly meeting with people who he felt could give him some advice or suggestions that he could turn around and use to make his work better, more effective, more impactful.

Now it turns out this wasn't a one-off. I sorta got the sense that it wasn't. But similarly, while prepping for this show, I came across an article by Thom Hartmann, who we feature regularly. And the article was titled "Ben Wickler for DNC chair." And Thom starts with a very similar story. It says, "I don't recall the year, I think it was 2008, but I remember well, Louise and I am meeting Ben Wickler over snacks and drinks at a small party at John Nichols' home in Madison, Wisconsin. As we left, Louise remarked to me, 'That kid's going places; keep an eye on him.' Ben has more than fulfilled her prediction, leading Wisconsin Democrats to victory after victory. This weekend, he announced he's running for head of the DNC. This is a [00:53:00] truly big deal." End quote.

So here's how I now think about Ben and that meeting I had with him. This is just for context. Some people are social climbers. They try to get in good with the right people to elevate their own social status. And then you have the corporate climbers, those who do what they can to get ahead in business and finance to improve their own financial status. Of course, those aren't mutually exclusive. But Ben is a progress climber. He really cares about making a difference, building power to change policy for good. And he recognized, apparently a long time ago, that meeting with people, asking for advice, taking meticulous notes, learning best practices, and then implementing that into his work was the best way that he could take a role in making that progress happen.

So in terms of being excited about Ben running to lead the DNC, it's [00:54:00] not just about the policies that I know he supports. It's about how he goes about his work -- always learning, always trying to improve, putting that into action, and repeating the cycle. The results he's had in Wisconsin seem to be bearing that out.

So, if you can get a message to one of the few hundred people voting on that leadership position, please pass this message along. And just for fun, here's one of my favorite old clips of Ben Wickler on the good fight.

Let us whisper of a dream - The Good Fight - Air Date 11-21-13

BEN WIKLER: Everyone has a dream. Some kids want to become citizens. Some adults want to retire with dignity. Me, I have a dream too. I've always dreamt of a string of man-made private islands that spell out my own first name in the Pacific Ocean, within chopper distance of my corporate headquarters. But now, I may not get a chance to realize [00:55:00] my dream.

Hi, I'm Bradley Scaife Koch, healthcare entrepreneur. For years, my network of cut-rate insurance companies, for-profit emergency care centers, and especially my medical debt collection agencies have been making my dream come true. We're almost done with the letter B, and it's a sight to behold.

But now, thanks to Obamacare, all of that may come to an end. Obamacare makes preventative healthcare for free. Free cancer screenings, free physical exams, free vaccines. Free, I mean, to you. But for me, and for all of us who profit when preventable conditions go unprevented, this so-called freedom isn't free at all. You see, I can't stock my island chain with menageries of sequined bedecked endangered species with the kind of money you make from early [00:56:00] detection.

If you want to fall asleep to the sight of a chimpanzee in a reflective neon pink unitard shimmering in the light of a solid platinum disco ball, as I do, then you need the kind of profits that can only be reaped from full-blown medical emergencies.

Obamacare's tragic focus on preventing tragedies may turn America, this hallowed land of opportunity, into just another unmarked mass grave full of the corpses of the hopes of people like me. Because achieving my American dream, that's a preventable condition too. Next time you think about giving healthcare.gov another whirl, think about that mass grave. Think about my islands never existing. Think about my chimp without his unitard. And join me at [00:57:00] StopThisObamacareMonsterBeforePeopleStartPreventingHighlyProfitableEmergencies.

org.

That B's getting lonely. It's time to put a Radley in the Pacific.

SECTION A - WHY DEMOCRATS LOST

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on three topics today. Next up, Section A- Why Democrats lost, followed by Section B- Time to fight, and Section C- Moving forward.

Man Oh Man: Why Male Voters Shifted Right - The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart - Air Date 11-21-24

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: I almost think that for men it is like a cultural comfort It's that idea of that the locker room has been taken from us You And you can't do what we used to do in the locker room, which is, uh, incredibly scatological and, uh, perverse and anti gay rhetoric.

Like all that sort of stuff has been taken away and you're almost seeing it. You know, now if a Christian Pulisic scores a goal, he does the Trump dance. If somebody scores a touchdown, they do the Trump. Like there is a, and I haven't seen this before, a celebratory reaction from men that I hadn't seen [00:58:00] before.

Like there is a zeitgeist. There is a cultural moment for men and for Trump that I think liberals and Democrats especially are like, wait, what we had Beyonce. Like now you got everybody doing the, the Trump dance on things. I think there's a, a shock that's occurring. Do you think that's correct, Danny?

ANNIE LOWREY: Yeah, and I think that the fact that you are seeing millennials is perhaps the kind of like peak liberal generation and Gen Zers are shifting back the other direction as really interesting. You know, I think when you talk to the, to liberals or to Democrats and they, you know, 15 years ago they might have said like demography is destiny and like we're going to become a solid majority party because the country is becoming, um, less white, more Latino, more black, uh, more Asian.

And this is our future. And I think that even now, right? You know, there's a sense of like, we have all of the young people. And once the old people have died off and we got all the young people, then we're going to win for forever.

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: Hard thing [00:59:00] to wait for, but okay.

ANNIE LOWREY: Right? Like these people, you would, you would hear this kind of derisiveness about Republicans about, you know, well, they're racist and they're sexist and they can't even do policy.

They don't do policy. They didn't do the ACA. People come to their senses and recognize that, you know, And I think that Democrats lost sight of just what voters were telling them. I really feel this way about inflation. I really feel this way about the unlikability of candidates. They were kind of constructing these intellectual arguments about how voters would come home and they didn't.

And voters were very clear throughout the entirety of this election that they were not crazy about Joe Biden, that they didn't think the economy was great. And that they felt that whether it was fair or not, and who cares, you know, that they felt like they, the culture had shifted in a way that they hadn't Liked, right?

And so I think that, you know, probably for Democrats, there's just like a lot of listening to, and a lot of, you know, belief that if you're saying that, well, like good people vote for us and bad people vote for the other guy,

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: right?

ANNIE LOWREY: I think that's kind of a hard message.

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: You have to take it out of that moral component.

You have to take it out of that righteousness. It [01:00:00] almost sounds like, like if, if you're making arguments to people that we're moral and you're immoral boy, that's, that's not going to play great. And is that what, In some ways men were reacting to Richard. I

ANNIE LOWREY: think so.

RICHARD REEVES: Yeah. And I think like to put it bluntly, a lot of men felt like the message from Democrats wasn't that men had problems.

It was the men are the problem. Oh, that's, that's interesting. And I don't want to overstate this. And I think this is related to this triumphalism thing you're just talking about, John, which is this sense of like free at last, like in a way. And the question is like, Free at last to be, what, a rampant misogynist who wants to roll back women's rights, et cetera.

That is not the, that is not the median 24 year old man who voted for Trump, right? That is not what they were. But it is a kind of like, okay, I can, we can have a joke. I can, you know, I have a certain, I'm not going to be told I'm toxic. I mean, it is interesting that the term toxic masculinity was basically born in 2016.

Um, and has been a big part of the kind of culture for those, and eight [01:01:00] years is a long time in the life of a 24 year old or an 18 year old. And so I think what's happened is that partly as a result of the first Trump term, we're in a like a pinball game of backlash. We've had the backlash, to the backlash, to the backlash, and I've lost count, I don't know where we are at this point, but It's a Bo Burnham song, for God's sakes.

Right, it's like, I don't know where we are, but it's like, and so a lot of men, a lot of the young men that I know and I kind of talk to and feel about, it's like, it's not that they're actually against gender equality, or a lot of these things, they're just kind of over the earnestness. They're just over it a bit.

They they want to just be able to just be a little bit

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: and maybe it's the the lack of Of grace, but the the difficulty is in in the moment that we're in Social media wise there's really no position liberal conservative anything that isn't attacked Viciously like you know by everybody, you know, it's how do you get at it?

How do you get people to not feel like that when? It feels like on [01:02:00] Twitter or on Facebook and those things, everybody is poised to attack at all times. It's not just men that are attacked. Women are attacked. Liberals are attacked. Conservatives are attacked. Everybody attacks.

ANNIE LOWREY: Yeah, it's really hard. And I think it's really hard for liberals and Democrats when they're like, well, look what the Republicans say about us.

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: That's, that's my point. Yeah,

ANNIE LOWREY: exactly. It's, it's like, it's not fair. Like what? You're, you're saying that, um, you can

JOHN STEWART - HOST, THE WEEKLY SHOW: call me a terrorist sympathizer, but I can't call you racist. You're

ANNIE LOWREY: like dunking on gay couples and gender diverse little kids and mixed status families and. People who just want reproductive freedom and people who would go march for somebody else's rights, right?

Like, what's wrong with that? It's um, it's a very tense and tough moment. And I think that you're right, John, to bring it back to the fact that yeah, Trump stoked white nationalism. That is just true. Right? Uh, he doesn't dog whistle. He openly uses racist language, sexist language, um, constantly, constantly.

Um, [01:03:00] and it's not just nativism. It's not just about immigrants, right? It's like literally othering people. And so I do think that we're in this, you know, kind of dissonant moment. Um, uh, that's like hard for both sides. Um, and I agree that, you know, I don't, I'm not sure that social media, it's one of the ones where I'm like, I'm not sure if we went back and we just didn't invent it.

I actually think it would be better. I think so. I'm not, I'm not a hundred percent sure on that, but I think so. Right,

Why Kamala Harris lost (according to regular people) - Garrison Hayes - Air Date 12-9-24

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: I think the takes that I encountered for why Kamala Harris lost can be broken down into three categories. Let's call the first one perception.

SPEAKER 1: Hi, excuse me. The

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: very first person I talked to was a guy named Rich, an older white man who splits his time between Florida and Georgia.

Why do you think that Kamala Harris lost the selection?

SPEAKER 2: I think, uh, Kamala and the Democratic Party, they, uh, they assume everybody that votes for Trump is a Nazi or evil, and they don't understand that they're just regular people, but they talk down to them, and I think that caused a lot of Trump votes.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: Rich's perspective for better, [01:04:00] or for worse is probably more common than many folks in the Democratic Party would care to admit. This idea that Democrats are too judgmental, too high and mighty, too accusatory of Trump supporters, this take has come up often in the conversations that I've had with Trump voters over the last year.

year. So I'm not surprised to hear it in this context as well. You're saying Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party more broadly, is this something that you think has been going on for some time or is this more specific to Kamala Harris?

SPEAKER 2: No, I would say it goes back to when Hillary ran.

SPEAKER 5: You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.

SPEAKER 2: Bill Clinton didn't do it. You know, he was a Democrat. Uh, I'd say back to Hillary.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: The problem, I think, is that Kamala Harris ran an intentionally inclusive campaign. She reached across the aisle, campaigned with Republicans. She condemned Joe Biden's garbage comment explicitly. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.

KAMALA HARRIS (2): I [01:05:00] strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for. for it. And I've made that clear throughout my career, including my speech last night before I think this all happened.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: But for rich, and I suspect for many others, it's hard to separate Kamala Harris from that broader, long standing idea.

SPEAKER 2: Both sides are divisive, and that bothers me. But I I think the Democrats are a little more divisive because I call people names more than I get from the Republicans.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: I'll be honest, I wasn't really sure what to say to this. The only way you can come to the conclusion that Democrats are the only people doing name calling is if you exist in a media bubble that doesn't show you this stuff.

She's

GRANT CARDONE: a fake, a fraud. She's a pretender. Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country. Kamala has imported criminal migrants from prisons and jails. She is the devil, whoever screamed that out. She is the [01:06:00] anti Christ.

SPEAKER 4: She is some sick bastard, that Hillary Clinton, huh?

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: Again, my goal isn't really to criticize any of the people that I spoke to.

These are regular folks. The only reasonable assumption is that they're doing the best they can with what they've got. But a lesson I've learned time and time again in my reporting is that perception is is everything, and right-wing media is excellent at shaping narratives about anyone to their left, all while shielding Trump supporters from understanding, seeing, facing the grossest elements of his political movement.

Between now and the next election, what would you say to Democrats on how to speak to a voter like you?

SPEAKER 2: Just move a little closer to the center and convince me that you want the whole country to get together.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: Do you think it's possible for Democrats to change? in a way that would, you know, benefit them in upcoming elections.

SPEAKER 3: I don't think that the issue is Democrats.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: That's [01:07:00] Dehate. He voted for Kamala Harris and had a very different perspective from Rich.

SPEAKER 3: I think that's like asking, to me, do we think institutionalized racism would change? It could, but is it actually going to change?

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: Which brings me to this guy on a horse. Did you vote for Donald Trump?

Yeah. And, and, and I mean, this is interesting. What motivated you to vote for him?

SPEAKER 1: Uh, change, change, mostly, uh, what we got going on, all this craziness, all that. So yeah. When you say craziness, what comes to mind? All this stuff about, you know, the kids in school and, you know, all types of just, you know, nonsense that we shouldn't have to deal with, or our kids having to deal with, so yeah.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: And did you feel as though Kamala Harris was promoting that? Of course she was.

SPEAKER 1: In what way? In plenty of ways. You've seen a lot of those interviews, so that speaks for itself. You see, it speaks for itself. A lot of those interviews she did, that's [01:08:00] what they stand for, so. And I ain't with it. I think he's

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: referring to the interview cut into this ad.

KAMALA HARRIS (2): Every transgender inmate would have access.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: Kamala's for they them. President Trump is for you. I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approve this message. That interview was from 2019. And the insane thing about this ad To me is that the gender affirming care for prisoners policy that she's referring to that policy, according to the New York Times, was the law during Trump's first term.

But for some voters, this is perceived as a stain on Kamala Harris, all because she saw the law as a good thing. And did you feel as though Kamala Harris was promoting that? Of course you will. I cannot emphasize enough the chasm, the gap between people's perception of basic facts in this election. What would, like, the Democratic Party have to do to get a person like you to vote for them?

SPEAKER 1: Change their whole perspective of all that stuff right there, you know, cut out a lot of that. You know, that's the main thing. [01:09:00] When you say that stuff, I think what comes to my mind is like, LGBTQ. Is that what? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, see, well, outrage won't get down like that.

Man for woman, woman for man. That's it. Bottom line.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: What do you say to someone who's like, you know, what's, you can be with a woman, but what's stopping like somebody else from being with who they want to be with? Ain't

SPEAKER 1: stopping nobody from being us. They just, they got their belief and I got mine and that's all it is to it.

So they can do what they want to do. Everybody got the answer to God.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: And you, and for you, like homosexuality or transgenderism is like a sin. A sin, definitely. Okay, So reason number one Is perception. And I think based on the conversations that I had, reason number two is disengagement. I won't spend too much time here, but the most common answer that I got from folks, both on camera and off camera was I'm not into politics.

SPEAKER 5: Wrong person to ask. Not into politics. No, that's real. That's real. Thank you for it. No, thank

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: you for your time. Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump by about a percent. And a [01:10:00] half low voter turnout absolutely played a part in this election. In fact, there's this map floating around the internet that shows who'd win each state.

If didn't vote was a candidate that non existent candidate would be president. Right now, Philadelphia saw about a 3 percent decrease in turnout. That 3 percent represents tens of thousands of votes in a heavily democratic city. Compare that with the 2. 1 percent increase in the rest of the state, and it becomes clear why Kamala Harris lost Pennsylvania.

Michigan tells a similar story. Detroit saw a 4 percent decrease in turnout compared to 2020. And truthfully, I blame Democrats for this. I think Kamala Harris ran a pretty good campaign which, in hindsight, was almost always destined to end in defeat. Between the ongoing US funded genocide in Gaza, the Democratic Party's failures to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, their failure to effectively inform the public about what they've done, the truth is that Democrats came up short in giving the electorate something [01:11:00] to vote for instead of just giving folks something to vote for.

Against.

SPEAKER 3: I also feel like a lot of people are from my peers that I spoke to. A lot of people are indifferent about the two and a lot of people didn't vote. A lot of people didn't show up, so that's another huge part of the problem as well.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: I think Dante represents the third and final reason. I heard for why Kamala Harris lost America has a problem and that problem.

Is that we are impossibly divided. Whether it's some combination of sexism and racism. Uh, honestly, they didn't elect a white woman. I wasn't surprised they didn't elect a black woman.

SPEAKER 3: People weren't willing to change. People don't want change. People are, we say racism is dead, but it's really not. Whether

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: it's homophobia or xenophobia.

I think

SPEAKER 5: as a woman, I'm interested in protecting my own rights. I'm interested as a queer woman, protecting my right to marry. Y'all

SPEAKER 1: see, well, our race won't get down like that. Man for

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: woman, woman for man. Whether it's. Our diverging views of the economy and what it takes to lift people out of

SPEAKER 5: poverty. And I just think generally she had a better plan for [01:12:00] someone like me and everyone else who may not be as fortunate.

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: The problem that has become sharply apparent to me while traveling the country throughout this election cycle is that many of us live in what feels like totally different worlds. There's this like conversation about all the young white men who are. You know, breaking for Trump and what are your thoughts on on that dynamic specifically?

SPEAKER 4: Uh, yeah, I don't, I don't know about that. I'm, I'm not, I'm neither. I mean, I'm white, but I'm not young and I'm not, I didn't vote for Trump. So

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: yeah. Yeah. But anybody in your life or people that, you know, maybe some of the reasons why I'm

SPEAKER 4: from California. So, you know, I'm not, I'm, I'm fairly out of touch with that.

And

GARRISON HAYES - HOST, GARRISON HAYES: we don't watch the season. Where, where, where do you get your political information when you are looking at politics? Family. And friends. And did you vote this election? Yes. And while it may feel like the different worlds we are living in are irreconcilable, the truth is that we actually live in the [01:13:00] same world.

We have to share this thing. So, I asked Dehate how, in his opinion, We could move forward post election and I really appreciated his response. What would you say to this country then as it relates to moving forward? I mean, what's your message to America post election?

SPEAKER 3: I don't know if I have a message. Can I have a second to think about that one?

Yeah, of course. Of course. Of course. My

message to America going forward is to be mindful, be vigilant. And move as if it's you, even if it's not you, um, everybody says they voted for what benefited them best, but did you actually, um, and then to me, a lot of people, especially from the religious perspective said they voted for Trump because he was a more faith based or Christian candidate, but the Bible often talks about free will.

And that's a huge principle. Um, so if God gives us free will, why are you looking to take that away from others? Um, so just to be considerate until and consider, you know, When it could be your rights or [01:14:00] the rights of your kids and your loved ones and move based off that, move with empathy, move with grace and be mindful.

Going after the elites (with George Packer) - Stay Tuned with Preet - Air Date 12-12-24

PREET BHARARA - HOST, STAY TUNED WITH PREET: There's an important cognitive dissonance here for members of the establishment like me. I'm not going to speak for you. As you write in the piece, Trump's basic appeal is a vow to take power away from the elites and invaders who have imposed these changes and return the country to its rightful owners: the real Americans. And he is, I have a caveat with respect to what I'm about to say, but he is populating the cabinet and his brain trust in particular with the most elite, most wealthy people who have ever walked the face of earth, right? Literally, the most wealthy people who've ever walked the face of the earth. How they are not elites I'm not sure. I do think, by the way, that maybe part of the answer is that there's a hypocrisy when Democrats talk about [01:15:00] billionaires being bad people in some sense, because Democrats have billionaires too. And you had someone during the Democratic National Convention, if I recall correctly, who was invading against the scourge of billionaires after a Democratic elected billionaire had just been at the lectern.

So, if you want, you can address either one of those. If there's hypocrisy on the Democratic side with respect to wealth and success and billionaires, but also this revolution or this, this tantrum, or this reaction, whatever you want to call it. Is it real or is it just bullshit?

GEORGE PACKER: I think there is a fair amount of bullshit to it. And you've kind of put your finger, sorry to say, on the bullshit.

PREET BHARARA - HOST, STAY TUNED WITH PREET: Well, that'll get me in trouble.

GEORGE PACKER: That's unpleasant. Yeah, there are, we're talking about different kinds of elites. When the Republicans talk about elites, when MAGA goes after the elites, they're talking about [01:16:00] professional elites. Educated professionals, people in media, in academia, in the professions, people with college degrees or more.

Republicans have their own elites. They're mostly business elites. They're mostly people who actually make more money than a podcast host or a staff writer. But they somehow try to claim that they're not really elites because, why? Because they are going after the institutions, higher education, journalism, law, that the other elites occupy and defend. And Trump is the perfect, you could say, avatar of this because yes, he may be a billionaire, although we're not sure about that, but he's full of resentment of the elites going [01:17:00] back to his days as a Queens real estate developer or the son of one.

PREET BHARARA - HOST, STAY TUNED WITH PREET: But he also inhabits or in him inhabits a contradiction depending on what you think of elite. So this same guy has gigantic apartments. He puts names on the buildings that he owns. He has a gold plated toilet, but he also eats a Big Mac, right? He also puts ketchup on his steak.

GEORGE PACKER: And he has a Queens accent.

PREET BHARARA - HOST, STAY TUNED WITH PREET: And he has a Queens accent. How does all that work?

GEORGE PACKER: Well, he has been a self styled outsider all his life. God knows it may go back to actually secretly hating his father. I don't know. But he has been someone who is ready to disrupt and trash and trample on all of our sensitivities, on our values, on our norms, and get away with it. And he, here he is getting away with it in really the biggest way [01:18:00] imaginable. And I think in his resentments and in his willingness to trash, he sort of releases an energy in people with far less money and far less celebrity who also feel as if that society has somehow either left them behind, or screwed them over or put other people in place ahead of them who don't belong there.

And so Trump is able to speak for them when he said in 2016, I am your voice. That really resonated with his followers. It didn't resonate with people who think of him as a fraud because it sounded more fraudulent. But, it's a powerful message. And so what I'm saying is you don't have to be poor to go after the elites.

You can be a billionaire and get away with it. But I think the key thing here is Republican elites are economic elites and Democratic elites are cultural elites. And so if politics is [01:19:00] played out on the terrain of culture, it's the Democrats who end up having to defend things that people want to get rid of. And that's why that long period of the Reagan revolution was so terrible for the Democratic Party. Even though the party won presidencies over and over again, they gradually lost the support of all those people making less than $100,000 or $80,000. Who saw the party as caring about issues that they didn't care about and not caring about them. Because even though you could stand up and say, I'm for paid family medical leave, I'm for a higher minimum wage, I'm for this and that. If people don't see a change in their economic lives and in their well being and their optimism about their children's well being, they don't care what your policy positions are. And for a lot of reasons, there haven't been the kind of changes people have wanted [01:20:00] for decades now, and that seems in the end to benefit someone like Trump.

“Get These Incels to Work” (feat. Hasan Piker) Part 2 - Pod Save America - Air Date 11-27-24

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: It's like seared in my mind of Trump being on Joe Rogan because of how like my path of understanding it because what I saw first were a bunch of people taking clips and saying, wow, Rogan really didn't like Trump.

Trump is a mess on this show. He comes across terribly. Rogan was like giving Trump space to hang himself rhetorically, and then I watch it, and I'm like, Trump did fucking great in this interview.

HASAN PIKER: Yeah, he's very telegenic. That's the thing that, like, a lot of people, I guess, refuse to factor in for some weird reason, is that yeah, he, he definitely rambles on, he likes to call it the weave, and even Joe Rogan made fun of him for that a little bit in the process, but like, There is something to be said about, uh, a, a relatively telegenic person who is able to portray himself as, I like to call it, uh, honestly dishonest.

Yeah, yeah. Where, like, [01:21:00] everybody knows he's a bit of a scumbag, but he's your scumbag, and he's able to get that across to a lot of people, and, and, uh, I don't think that there is Really, anyone with that level of, of television presence on the Democratic Party front, I think like the most skilled orator in the Democratic Party's ranks in the last Uh, you know, last couple of decades was obviously Barack Obama and outside of that, I don't, I think like in a lot of instances, purely from an optics point of view, Democrats track is like technocratic, elitist, too serious about everything that they talk about.

And there's certainly a lot of that on the Republican party side as well. And we've seen failed initiatives from establishment Republicans that tried to recreate the Trump phenomenon with, uh, the likes of Ron DeSantis. And that was a massive failure, but ultimately, I think this goes beyond podcasts.

This is something that I've been talking about quite frequently. I know the podcast thing is like the [01:22:00] most, like, that's the one that got everyone's attention. But I said this on CNN last night that, uh, you can't really podcast your way out of this problem. There was that one tweet saying like, Oh, we just got to have a hundred pot.

Save America's, but they all have to look like Hassan. Like, that's not, that's not how this works. Oh,

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: you think that one, that one tweet might've been wrong, but the, uh, so I agree with that. You know, it became this, the couple, the kind of like, I don't know, like just have had this devastating loss to trump and everybody's looking for these sort of little explanations that all feel, they just feel silly, like, oh, we need a joe Rogan of the left and even saying, like, I don't even want to talk about how stupid that is anymore because even that has become Stupid, but I'm like I I do agree that like people are like, oh well, she should have gone on Rogan All right.

Yeah, sure. I I think so too.

HASAN PIKER: That would not have changed the outcome of this election

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: There's a larger problem to what you're getting at Which is like why don't we have figures and where like we think they would do great on that show? And why is [01:23:00] someone like Joe Rogan now who was four years ago open to Bernie now suddenly open to Trump like that's the deeper problem like you look at like successful democratic messengers or progressive messengers over the last like decades and you think alright well Bill Clinton obviously was successful and he like ran against the The Democratic Party in some way.

Barack Obama did the same thing. Bernie does the same thing. AOTC does the same thing. Not on, I'm not talking about on policy, but you

HASAN PIKER: don't mean it like also in the same direction of running. No, no, no, no,

JOHN LOVETT - HOST, POD SAVE AMERICA: but running against the establishment in some way and just saying, and and what the reason I connect them is because they all did something which is Demonstrated that they were not part of the democratic establishment, both like on policy and rhetorically, right?

Like, that's what they all did. And I'm just wondering, like, what there's a place where there's like kind of an alignment. Of like the Seth Moulton critique of the Democratic Party and the lefty critique of the Democratic [01:24:00] Party, which is just like, it's fucking annoying and like, kind of, I don't know, like pedantic in some way.

HASAN PIKER: Here's the thing. I think it's an incorrect interpretation, an incorrect autopsy to look back at a thing that the Democratic Party did not do at all. And then say, it's actually that reason. It's not anything that we did so far. It's not that we tacked to the right over and over again. Despite people like myself and many others saying like, don't do this.

You're going to hemorrhage the base. You're going to hemorrhage the base of support. You are going to cut away at your turnout. You're going to cut across, uh, many different constituencies that you rely on to create an effective coalition. And it's, it's a very dangerous gamble to assume that you can decouple a lot of these people in the suburbs, a lot of like white women specifically away from the Republican party and vote for you instead.

I know that they're high propensity voters, but it doesn't matter. Uh, there's still plenty of low propensity voters that you have to rely on to win. And that's [01:25:00] precisely what the democratic party did. They hyper focused on these key constituencies. Despite the fact that polls were seemingly deadlocked after 30 million dollars of ad spend in key suburbs, right?

Like it showed at least for I said this time and time again, it showed someone from the outside looking in that the message was not working and you can have the best ground game possible. You can have, you know, hundreds of thousands of people all across the country door knocking, but if the top down message that you're communicating is not resonating with people, then you're not going to be able to win an election.

You're not going to have the effective turnout necessary to win this election. And that is precisely what happened. Now, does that mean that Trump's messaging was good? Of course not. It wasn't, it was actually pretty bad. And I would even go so far as to say the anti trans ads were actually a distraction and not good.

It was only effective in the DC bubble, I think, and the consultant bubble and the, and the media class that saw those ads and were like, Oh my God. [01:26:00] This is an incredible ad. Like, they really ruined Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris had a silly answer to an ACLU questionnaire. Okay, that just shows that she is not the most experienced politician.

This was all the way back in, I believe, 2020, right? She literally had to drop out of the primary. Anyway, at that time, that's one thing. Okay, but that should not be a campaign killer. If you personally think that that's a campaign killer, then your campaign is weak. This message across the board should never be able to end a single campaign.

Then Teflon Don is real. I mean, the man, uh, had the, the grab him by the pussy tape come out as the October surprise in 2016, and he still won. And since then, there's been a litany of different controversies, including, but not limited to straight up undermining American democracy by doing January 6th. And yet people are still.

Voting for him. And one must ask the question, why? And I think overall, the same exact problems that persisted in 2016 when the economy was seemingly very [01:27:00] good, right? Especially as opposed to like the post COVID economy and its recovery. People were still very frustrated with what was going on. The notion that, uh, in the wealthiest nation on earth, we have 600, 000 people sleeping outside every night.

The idea that, you know, we have a, we have the concept of medical bankruptcy is an insane phenomenon that doesn't exist in any other OECD nation. Like the, the fact that 60 percent of the American public doesn't have 400 in emergency spending. Like these are all very real. Economic anxieties. I'm using that term specifically because, you know, it's a, it's one thing that people like to hyper focus on that, that creates volatility, that creates instability and it creates a, a, a base of, of angry people.

And if the democratic party is not addressing that anger and addressing their material problems and earnestly telling them, like, we're going to fix that shit. Okay. And the other side. He's looking at that anger and saying, we're going to channel your anger. [01:28:00] You have every right to be angry and you know who you should be angry at?

Those who have less than you, you know, you should be angry at the working poor, the homeless people that are doing crimes left and right, uh, black and brown people, undocumented migrants that are doing incredible amounts of crimes. They're killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and trans people. And, and the democratic party only cares about those people.

And they don't care about you. And that message resonates with a base of support, not because they are, uh, intrinsically evil, that message resonates with a base of support because they're angry and one of the two major parties is not even remotely interested in addressing that anger and trying to tell them what the solution to that anger actually is and what the real problem is.

SECTION B - TIME TO FIGHT

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B- Time to fight.

Where do the Democrats go from here? - BBC News - Air Date 12-7-24

SARAH SMITH - HOST, AMERICAST: There has been plenty said about what's gone wrong, and it really is important now that they start looking ahead to see how they can put it right. But of course, there's great disagreement over that. I mean, it was reported yesterday that [01:29:00] the Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, who's also a member of the Democratic leadership, that he said anyone who has a grand strategy is full of crap. But he thinks that Democrats need to keep things simple. Now, maybe it's not the most elegant language, but he probably has summed up what one of the problems for the Democrats is there, that nobody has a grand strategy. They've got to identify the problem first, I think, before you can come up with the solution. And Anthony, to what extent do you think they have identified what went wrong?

ANTHONY ZURCHER: I think they understand that they're having issues with working class voters, blue collar voters, and not just white working class, which was Donald Trump's base in 2016, but also Hispanic and some Black working class voters. And part of that is a reflection of the economic circumstances this year. And that will, in theory, resolve itself over time, or at the very least, if the public's still angry, they're not going to blame the Democrats for it. They'll blame the Republicans for it. And so I will say almost they don't need a grand strategy, right?

Being the [01:30:00] opposition that's not in power and criticizing Donald Trump could be their strategy, at least in the short term. It worked for Donald Trump. That was essentially his strategy over the past two years was saying "The Democrats have botched it all up. Send me back in and I'll fix it." That could be their message until we get to the presidential primary process after the midterm elections where you're going to have candidates trying to paint a vision for the future and you're going to get contrasting visions. And you'll have what I think is probably going to be a robust contest for the nomination and it's the democratic voters and all these primary states that are going to decide what the party should do going forward.

SARAH SMITH - HOST, AMERICAST: There are lots of critics and people who would say, I think we even know some of them, who would say that the issue was wokeness, that the Democratic Party had been infected by a woke mind virus, and that they were obsessed with talking about what pronouns people were using, about whether transgender men were competing in women's sports and getting into the dressing rooms, and that they were obsessing over diversity and inclusion [01:31:00] at the expense of talking about things people really cared about. To what extent is that legitimate?

MARIANNA SPRING: Yeah, Sarah it's the kind of conversation that has very much dominated the online world since the election including X, Musk's X. And I think, therefore, it kind of is on the minds of the Democrats, regardless of whether it matters so much or not.

Issues that are considered too quote "woke" and to what extent the Democrats are seen as being or were seen as being sort of out of touch with what a lot of people care about. I think some of that comes down to, as we've chatted about quite extensively, like messaging on issues that people care about, like the economy and immigration.

But nonetheless, you know, the question of, using pronouns or some of the things that the Democrats have perhaps been associated with, including in attack ads that were targeted at them by Trump's campaign. It will be really interesting to see going forward where that ends up. And you guys might have seen in some conservative or right leaning media outlets, there were some stories about [01:32:00] Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the Democrat who they were suggesting or alleging that she'd removed the pronouns she/her from her social media account from X in particular. It's not entirely clear whether she made the decision to do that, whether there are changes to her profile and that just sort of happened.

But I think it is interesting to think of whether someone like her is, who is considered a left leaning Democrat and who has been very vocal on kind of progressive issues, whether she also, is thinking about how to tailor that messaging in a way that has kind of mass appeal rather than appealing to a group of people perhaps who are used to doing things like that, like using their pronouns when there are a lot of Americans who won't be doing that and aren't used to it.

I mean, I don't know how much we think that they will change the kind of entire tone of their discussions , the Democrats, off the back of some of those issues you just spoke about, Sarah.

SARAH SMITH - HOST, AMERICAST: Well, or whether they need to, because although the Republicans did attack them for this a lot, and there was that ad that ran in Pennsylvania extensively saying Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald [01:33:00] Trump is for you, making a point about the pronouns.

She didn't campaign on any of this stuff. She didn't say any woke things, didn't even make a point about being a female candidate or a Black candidate either. And I didn't see or hear coming from the Democrats any of this stuff. It was all from the Republican side saying they're too elitist and they're too woke.

ANTHONY ZURCHER: Right. I remember when we were in Chicago, well, we were remarking how transgender issues, and even gender issues full stop, were not really highlighted by any of the speakers at that convention. So I think it's the ghost of 2019 and 2020 and what Kamala Harris ran on in her failed presidential bid that year, that really came back to haunt her. And that is, may not be something that comes back to haunt the next Democratic presidential nominee. I think it will certainly be something. That Democratic voters will keep in mind when they're picking a candidate in 2028. And if you look at the Democrats who won across the board in congressional elections, [01:34:00] they actually did pretty well. They won all the battleground states except Pennsylvania in the Senate races.

They picked up a seat in the U. S. House of Representatives. We're going to have a very narrow margin in the House of Representatives as 220 to 215 with the Republicans in control. And because three Republicans have moved on to the Trump administration or yeah, in one case just dropped out and disappeared off the face of the earth.

It's gonna be 217 to 215. So, Democrats know how to win elections and they won elections this year. It was just the top of the ticket where they took it on the chin. And you're right the top of the ticket, that one ad in Pennsylvania, other swing states, about the, they/them really did hurt. And it probably is not something that Democrats are going to be exposed to the next go around.

SARAH SMITH - HOST, AMERICAST: Maybe they'll be better at stamping on it and saying, it's Republicans who are obsessed with whether or not transgender boys are playing in girls sports and say, look, stop obsessing about the sports team. Don't worry about whether the schools are funded properly, whether the children have got the books to [01:35:00] read and whether they've got I've got enough to eat to be able to learn, and that you're the guys who are obsessed with transgender sports. But yeah, they didn't stamp on it well enough, but it's a mistake, I think, to say that they campaigned on it.

Henry Wallace & the Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party w/ John Nichols - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 5-21-20

JOHN NICHOLS: So imagine this, just within the Democratic Party. In 1968,

the leading vote getter in the primaries they had, and they didn't have as many primaries then, was Eugene McCarthy. He got 38 percent of the vote nationally. The number two vote getter was Bobby Kennedy, who got 31 percent of the vote. And then, um, you know, you had some independent African American candidates and in some other places or African American leaders in places like DC, who also were getting substantial numbers of votes for an anti war civil rights, social justice agenda.

And so when you pull all of these components together, you can say without a question, that, you know, the anti war movement, uh, in those primaries, in that process of choosing a Democratic nominee in 68, it got around 70, 75 percent of the [01:36:00] vote. Hubert Humphrey got 2 percent of the vote in the primaries.

Hubert Humphrey got nominated and he lost. Right. The polls show, the polls show that had they nominated McCarthy, he was well ahead of Nixon. And so there the party chose its status quo. It chose not to embrace movements. It chose not to go forward and it crumbled and at a critical point. And now the movements continued.

And so 1970, who do you see getting elected to Congress? Beating Democratic incumbents, Ron Dellums, a radical out of Oakland and Berkeley, uh, Bella Abso. a radical out of New York City. Two years later, Elizabeth Holtzman beating, you know, one of the senior Democrats in Congress. I mean, you, these movements continued and they continued both in the streets, but also to try and fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.

72, a grassroots movement taking advantage of changes in rules, nominates George McGovern for president United States. Um, he is backed [01:37:00] by a multiracial, multiethnic coalition. It is quite remarkable what McGovern did and immediately. After he's nominated, elites in the Democratic Party, a huge number, we're talking about cabinet secretaries, former cabinet secretaries, governors, senators, members of Congress, mayors around the country, form Democrats for Nixon.

They actively campaign, buying full page ads in newspapers, TV, radio, against their nominee. Because their nominee was trying to move them forward, right? So you saw this incredible battle along the way for the soul of the Democratic Party with the establishment power not giving up an inch. And I mean, fighting as hard as it could.

And I read all about this in the book, how these battles go back and forth. And it's a tremendous struggle. Yeah,

MICHAEL BROOKS - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

JOHN NICHOLS: Yeah, go ahead. I'd say ultimately, Um, the neoliberals, the corporatists were always looking for a way in, you know, a way to, to do it. They changed rules, [01:38:00] they canceled midterm conferences, they created superdelegates, they began to open the flood of money into the party.

And I would argue that last thing, opening the flood of money into the party, really, tipped the balance, uh, for a substantial period of time, you know, through the 80s into the 90s, uh, toward really a stark neoliberalism, uh, and, and it was, you know, at that period, it can be safely said that for a substantial period of time, uh, the soul of the Democratic Party was lost.

MICHAEL BROOKS - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I think the big concern too is, is, is how did some of these same trajectory, you know, that, that, In parallel to this process that labor unions started to get blamed for Vietnam and bashed for McGovern and, and so this demonizing of the really important and positive legacies of the New Deal of the Great Society that were right and correct, uh, in terms of [01:39:00] economic policies and, and basically if you understood it.

You know, a Philip Randolph's agenda was we're going to get rid of American apartheid and we're going to have a social democracy for everybody. I mean, that's, that's, and that's, I think basically still the thing that if you have the kind of politics we have, you're still fighting against the multitude of forces today.

Cause you have to fight against, you know, the, the, you know, the brutality and the, and the xenophobia and everything else, the Republican party, you have to fight against the, you know, woke nonsense, neoliberals. In the 90s, you had to fight against the Clinton Democrats. So I guess my, my, my, I want to just speak to that too, because somehow it seems like this class that came in, in the 70s in Congress, that some of them were great and they kind of became important, almost like gadfly kind of figures like Dellums was, you know, he would put out a peace budget in the 80s and it was great and it was cool, but he didn't have much, you know, [01:40:00] power.

In the Democratic Party. And then, you know, some of these other folks came in with, again, a certain kind of liberalism and anti Vietnam, uh, sentiment. But, by the time you get to the 90s, they had made their peace with foreign interventions. And, all along the way, they were actually very comfortable with attacking New Deal and Great Society programs and, and kind of embracing Reagan economics.

And, you know, maybe even Joe Biden kind of comes in here because he would be kind of part of that class.

JOHN NICHOLS: Well, he certainly was at, at periods along the way. Um, that's a terrific question. Because it gets to the real kind of heart and soul struggles that took place. And a lot of my book is devoted to, to that period.

Um, and there are many heroes, right? Plenty of villains, but many heroes. Jesse Jackson fought against this whole thing. When they formed the, uh, uh, Democratic Leadership Council, which was the neoliberal, you know, force, uh, that Clinton and others were [01:41:00] associated with. Um, Jesse Jackson called him Democrats for the leisure class.

And he continued to put forward a vision. of economic and social and racial justice that was deeply linked to peace and that was deeply linked to environmental concerns. Um, and, and here's the interesting thing about again, how the democratic party by closing its door, right, by, by pulling in rather than being open to movements, uh, here they had this amazing thing.

The rainbow coalition came into being and what anticipated the future more than the rainbow coalition, right? This idea of You know, this, this multiracial coalition that brought trade unionists and uh, and civil rights campaigners and women's rights campaigners and LGBTQ community folks that reached out to Arab Americans and said, you too can be a part of these coalitions.

Uh, you know, this was, this was big deal stuff. And in 1988, uh, no less a figure than Johnny Apple, the great, uh, New York [01:42:00] Times writer Um, and, and others, many, many good writers at that time said the dynamism of the 88 campaign was Jackson. He was the guy who really excited people. He didn't get the nomination.

And my book is not about winners always. You know, a lot of times, a lot of people I write about lost. But they, they didn't lose merely, they didn't lose because their ideas were bad. They lost because structural challenges were in their way. And the interesting part was that in 88, Jackson gave what was arguably the best speech ever at a Democratic National Convention.

I would argue his speech to that convention was miraculous. It was amazing. I invite people to go back and listen to it. Um, and it was electric. And what did they do? It was great. they turned around and said, Oh, well, hey, thanks a lot. And, uh, by the way, instead of you, the guy who came in second, very strong, young, dynamic figure with a lot of following, um, who really could expand the base of the party being thought about [01:43:00] as vice presidential candidate.

We're going to choose Lloyd Benson, the Senator closest to bankers, a guy who literally had spent his life fighting against and defeating progressives in Texas. Uh, we're gonna make him the vice president because that's going to be how we win this out. Right? They, this whole concept. Well, what did they do?

They lost Texas and every southern state, right? But they also lost California and Vermont and, you know, all sorts of states that would quickly become very liberal places. And, and in the book, I asked the question, I ran the numbers. What if you put Jesse Jackson on the ticket in 88? You might not have won.

But I, these narrow defeats they had in all sorts of states across the country, I think a very good chance they would have prevailed and you would have had a different course for the Democratic Party. The tragedy of it is, is that I think there are people who at that period were involved in the Democratic Party who were more willing to lose than to give up control of one of the two political parties for purposes of their status quo [01:44:00] vision. Their, you know, maintenance of a conservative, frankly, economically conservative, neoliberal, and often neoconservative vision.

Why We Can’t Play Nice With the Democratic Party - The Bitchuation Room (with Francesca Fiorentini) - Air Date 12-10-24

JONATHAN SMUCKER: Trump's 2024 campaign was weaker than his 2016 campaign, but it's working because the Democrats are so committed to not disciplining any kind of a message about fighting for working class people.

And, and, you know, whenever I say stuff like this, people are like, Oh yeah, but like Kamala had all these great ads in Pennsylvania about raising the minimum wage, et cetera. That's true. There was some good stuff, right? They don't have an ounce of the message discipline that the Trump campaign has. Right?

And I'm not just talking about message, right? Because I think message, it all weaves together. But I'm also not just talking about policy. I think that there's a, there's a tendency. on the left and among liberals to, to be like, wait, how does [01:45:00] this populism stuff work at all? Because if you look at policy, Trump is antithetical and the Republicans are antithetical to the working class.

That's all true, right? I think it's still fundamentally true. I think Michael Moore really got it right in 2016 in his description of Trump is a human Molotov cocktail. That a lot of people who feel left behind by an economic system in a political system that's been rigged for the few against the many, they feel that they can, they can throw that human Molotov cocktail into that system.

And when then Democrats are campaigning on defend democracy. It sounds like defend the status quo. Yes. Yes. And, and, and that every time the Democrats do something good, which honestly Biden did a lot of really good things like Biden broke from neoliberalism in very important ways. Right. But every time vocal Democrats try to fight it and defeat it or, and it, it creates this muddled message problem where.

People don't know [01:46:00] away from it.

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI - HOST, THE BITCHUATION ROOM: He doesn't plant his flag on the, on the victories that he did have, or he doesn't, when he's, you know, blocked from, you know, sweeping student loan debt relief, like he doesn't, you know, blame these whatever activist judges or like these, you know, astroturfed organizations and, and, and court cases that are trying to undo it all.

Like, and again, and I think we've talked about this before. Many people have talked about it and not being able to squarely say, It is corporate greed that is, you know, causing all of us to suffer and that needs to be reigned. And I'm not afraid of naming that. And of course, Kamala Harris cozying up to things like even the crypto industry, um, and having sort of like the opportunity economy, which is so like if, if Biden was a break from neoliberalism, nothing sounds more neoliberal than saying opportunity economy in my book.

Um, yeah.

JONATHAN SMUCKER: And I mean, the, the problem of inflation is huge right now. I mean, you talk to, this is in the piece too. My dad's just [01:47:00] talking about like all the people he knows who are struggling to pay their rent and. You know, what Biden and Kamala and the Democrats had to do was to articulate that crisis.

Like have it be less about just the, the, the price of eggs and milk and more about these fundamental costs of childcare and housing and education, um, that have, have taken people to the brink that then when the price of groceries goes up on top of that, right. People are past that point and and and and not just articulate the crisis in a way that resonates with people But name the culprits name the price gouging name the developers and the landlords and the the The thing is she did,

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI - HOST, THE BITCHUATION ROOM: Jonathan.

Like that's the thing is she totally did. The problem is, and I think this is like the sad truth, is that we didn't really believe her. Like, I don't think [01:48:00] that people, I mean, there's many, many factors that it was the Democrats to lose. There's many factors. Biden should have gotten out, gotten out of the race way earlier, but she talked about housing.

She talked about corporate price gouging. She talked about the cost of She talked about All of these things. But we didn't believe, I think the majority of people did not believe her because again, without kind of a broad vision, without a fighting spirit, without a, the reason we don't have these things is because we keep on doing like, you know, we keep on giving subsidies to these same corporations that I'm allegedly trying to go after that.

We're like, there's no seriousness there. And then you add, obviously, you know, the Gaza, you know, Ridiculousness in terms of not listening to the bass, but yeah.

JONATHAN SMUCKER: And parading around the country with Liz Cheney and

FRANCESCA FIORENTINI - HOST, THE BITCHUATION ROOM: 100%. I want to ask you really specifically on the trans stuff and the cultural stuff that I think you're right to say are getting conflated because they're such easy distractions that the right is using.

What do you think? What do you think is [01:49:00] the method to combat that? Do you think you, as I think Kamala Harris did, sort of like tried to not talk about the issues and sort of come with her own message, or do you think you talk about it head on and put it in a framework that can neutralize some of the bite of these so called cultural issues?

What do

JONATHAN SMUCKER: you think? First of all, you know, some of this, the, the stuff that, that's gone around with, you know, Matt Iglesias and the Pod Save people and, uh, whoever else have kind of like thinking that the Democratic Party has gone too woke. It's absolute bullshit, right? Like one, like there are social movements raising issues.

Um, you know, the, the, the, the article that kind of kicked this off, uh, You know, in name, Sunrise Movement and Working Families Party. These are organizations that have pressured the Democratic Party to take popular positions on things like a Green New Deal, massive economic, um, uh, investment, uh, reigning in [01:50:00] Wall Street, getting corporate money out of, out of politics.

Like these are popular positions and those organizations in particular, Sunrise Movement and Working Families Party, have only pushed The Democratic Party to take on popular economic positions, right? So this piece, we just have to like put this to bed. This is bullshit. The Democratic Party tacked right on these issues.

They didn't listen to a lot of these groups. I mean, especially on immigration and on Gaza on foreign policy. Right. Um, and you know, the, the, the second thing is, you know, the Democratic Party is a broad coalition made up of a lot of groups that have particular grievances based on their identity as people of color, particular, you know, black people, Latino people, um, LGBTQ people, right?

And they join into this coalition because they have a set of issues that are very important to them. And it's not a winning strategy to say, Hey, come to the table, but shut up about the thing you [01:51:00] care the most about. That's not going to get us anywhere, right? That's, that's a politician problem to figure out how you are going to fight for the issues that are important to members of your coalition in a way that is popular, right?

It's not on the social movement groups and the outsider organizations to make it palatable electorally to you. That's on the Democratic Party, right? But they're not going to get somewhere by just throwing groups under the bus.

SECTION C - MOVING FORWARD

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally Section C- Moving forward.

Trump’s Gilded Cabinet - The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich - Air Date 12-7-24

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: Trump, the individual used the simplest, biggest messages and behind him is the very specific evil policy wonks of Project 2025, going straight down the list of every agency they want to cut, and every government employee they want to harass.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: But the point is that Trump campaigned as a strong man. And the unstated premise, and sometimes stated premise, was I will do it. I am tough. I'm a thug. I will break through everything else and I will do it and I'll do it on your behalf. That's what his [01:52:00] message was. It was very simple.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: Also, I feel like if you do polling from people after this whole thing and you say, what do, people have probably done this, but what does Trump, what did Trump stand for? What did Kamala stand for? I mean, this is overly reductionist, but in three words, it would be interesting to see if there was more variation, I would think, on the Kamala side. I mean, to your point about we want to know, we want to feel it exactly. We want to feel that you are pushing things, that you have our backs, and it felt like it almost was piecemeal without a unifying thread somehow.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: Well and in fairness, she only had three months.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: I know and she was fabulous I'm, just thinking here we are on the...

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: I think on the debate stage she was the best that I've ever seen. But I think you're pointing out something that is really important Heather and that is that Kamala Harris never said the word inequality. I mean, she never talked about corruption. She never talked about the influence of big money in politics. She never talked about the themes [01:53:00] that really are underlying the dysfunction of our entire system. The themes that get people to, not celebrate the death of a CEO of a healthcare, but at least, not ridicule a healthcare system.

And United Health, and bring out the anger that people have. Trump responded to that anger. She did not.

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: Well, I have a question to pose to the both of you then. Because I think this is a question I hear a lot among my peers. Regardless of whether or not Ben Wickler gets 448 DNC delegates who are nameless individuals, party elites that, to the best of my knowledge, I don't really know.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: By the way 448, just so we're clear.

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: Oh, 448. Thank you.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: That's the number of people who are voting...

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: On the committee.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: February 1st. That's a fairly tiny number of people. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry.

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: Forgive my cynicism in bringing up that number. I think it was, as someone who's not involved deeply in Democratic Party leadership race knowledge, it was kind of surprising [01:54:00] to me. I mean all of this talk you were just saying a minute ago, about how there are no mass membership clubs and no direct involvement with the members, I think that, getting back to my point, this is why so many people feel disconnected, right? Even for us to say Ben Wickler would be a phenomenal candidate to run the DNC, and he would be, I don't know what the mechanism is directly for me to influence that.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: And contrast this with the MAGA, the hats and the buttons. And the membership I mean, this is a membership organization. People love to talk about it. It's I'm a MAGA. What do they say with Democrats? Nobody says I'm a Democrat.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: No, they say *whispers* "I'm a Democrat."

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: They say *whispers unintelligibly*

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: Exactly. But that brings me to the question then, is the Democratic Party still the way forward? I'm not saying I have a strong opinion on that necessarily at this point, but I think that it's a question I hear a lot of my friends ask me. They feel let down, or they feel disappointed, or they're not sure that the Democrats are going to stand up to Trump in this [01:55:00] next administration, even in the way that they did in the first one.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: Suppose AOC tomorrow was going to say, "Okay, I'm going to start a new party of young people who are progressives, a young progressive party." And here she lists access to housing, and access to college, cheaper access to college.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: Healthcare.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: And healthcare.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: Student debt out.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: Student debt. So, what then? Would your friends be excited?

MICHAEL LAHANAS-CALDERÓN: I think they would be excited to hear somebody who is expressing interest in their, what they're interested in, and what they want, right? And I think that having members on the periphery of the democratic leadership, historically, saying those sorts of things has never felt fully satisfying. And it feels like there's always half measures or attempts to introduce it and say, well, no, well, we can't go too far. You know, we can't, let's not get crazy. We're not going to advocate for it.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: Listen, Bernie Sanders in 2016. Now you were not yet born, but in 2016, Bernie Sanders did run for president and he had a very elaborate [01:56:00] and cogent and coherent and powerful platform. And the Democratic National Committee cut him off at the knees.

HEATHER LOFTHOUSE: Yeah. And what about the people who say that's too, we, the stakes are so high. That's too radical. That's too, we have to be careful. Let's just make smaller steps. Let's do a little of those things that you mentioned, Michael, because they are important, but let's stay where we are. Let's not ruffle too many feathers.

ROBERT REICH - HOST, THE COFFEE KLATCH: Well, the problem is you sound like you by not ruffling feathers and by being so careful, you are protecting the status quo. You are the establishment, and we, this, the most powerful movement in American politics today is anti-establishment anger at a system that seems rigged against average working people. I mean, that's it.

Reconfiguring the Democratic Party - Woke AF Daily - Air Date 12-4-24

DANIELLE MOODIE - HOST, WOKE AF DAILY: Here's what Democrats are really good at and what they're doing right now which is just a ton of finger pointing a ton of finger pointing a ton of complaining and Just doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result. [01:57:00] Donald trump and maga Upended the political norms 10 years ago and we're still grappling with like what that means and understanding what that means as we're getting ready to go now into a new wave that is now going to finish the job that began in 2017 to decimate our institutions to decimate credibility and in that time span.

It's as if Democrats, not even as if, they haven't learned anything. And so, while people are still saying, Oh, well, Kamala Harris sounded like an institutionalist, Is that because she was coherent? Is that because she showed that she understood how government works? And what people want right now is just to break things?

I guess that's what I'm trying to understand. Because if you're talking about, This vibe check of somebody ushering in joy and truth versus somebody that says, I'm going to break everything and I'm going to make people pay for it. And that [01:58:00] being what resonated. I don't know how, how you would ever combat that because again, we're trying to operate in a place of fact and information and Donald Trump is not,

DR. JONATHAN METZL: I was on a panel for NPR right before the election and it was with um, Rachel Bitkafer who was saying, we're wasting all our money on positive ads.

We should just be doing negative ads all the time because that's the only way to combat this. And I, I've thought a lot about this. I mean, you know, that's what you do when you lose, when you lose you. Figure out, you know, what the hell, how can we not lose again? Uh, and I, and it's true, we are quite good at that, but also I do think that there's a post mortem that is important right now, right?

I mean, there are different, they're just decisions that we have to make now about how to go forward. And so I don't think finger pointing is, I mean, I wouldn't call it finger pointing. I think that there's a post mortem that needs to happen that is instructive about, I want to know where we went wrong.

And so. I don't know. I mean, [01:59:00] I guess you're right. Like, should we have hired? Should we have just put up somebody? I mean, it's all relative. We lost. So you tell me, how do we go forward?

DANIELLE MOODIE - HOST, WOKE AF DAILY: I mean, I guess my question is like, well, one, I don't think that we're being honest. I don't think that Democrats are being honest.

And I don't think that there is. Again, I think that you need to look at quote unquote failure in a different way. Donald Trump did not receive a mandate. He did not win overwhelmingly. You're talking about like a percentage point. You're talking about a handful of votes, literally in a handful of states.

And so when you're competing with somebody that is telling you that these people are to blame for your ills. And I'm saying. No, they're not. It's actually the rich, but that's not the message that Kamala Harris had. Her message was, we're going to reach across the aisle. I'm going to put a Republican in my cabinet, but here are the ways in which for black men, for Latino men, I can make life better and offer up these different [02:00:00] opportunities.

I think that people wanted a quick fix. And even if that quick fix is a lie. That's what they went for, and I wonder, though, in hindsight, if Kamala Harris had just hammered home an economic message. Which was that the Biden administration didn't have anything to defend. We have the best economy. You just saw, of course, after the election, lowest Thanksgiving prices, lowest cost for dinner, like jobs have returned, all of these things.

If you had focused solely on that. On a progressive populist message as opposed to linking arms with Republicans that to me is the only thing the message that should have been hammered over and over and over again, and that wasn't and there was still this push to what no longer exists as the center, which kind of made in some ways Kamala Harris seemed like Republican liked.

DR. JONATHAN METZL: Yeah, again, you know, it's just, [02:01:00] I mean, I guess the question now is in response to the Democrats, Go farther left or do they go toward the center? I mean, this is

DANIELLE MOODIE - HOST, WOKE AF DAILY: there is no center So that like that's my argument now is that like that is a false question to ask because the center doesn't exist So you either continue to follow the extremists over a cliff or you retain?

And reimagine what it is that the progressive base actually wants

DR. JONATHAN METZL: I was reading an interesting article this morning that asked, you know, would higher turnout have helped Kamala Harris? Was this a question of turnout? And it's just funny because it mirrored something that I've been thinking, which is, it just really felt like Republicans were playing by different rules than we were for this election.

And so, there's something about like, Winning hearts and minds they were doing something else. I don't know what it was. But yeah, I mean, I hope you're right I'm not gonna I'm not gonna push back except to say that I hope you're right. I hope we get a chance to fix this [02:02:00] I hope there's still a system in which we can fix this.

Let's see how that plays out

DANIELLE MOODIE - HOST, WOKE AF DAILY: I guess the fact is is that it isn't going to play out because I have said for the longest time and I hope to be wrong that I don't think that we actually get another bite at the apple here everyone wants to hold their breath and believe that there's going to be an opportunity in midterms I'm going to disagree with that statement I don't think that there's going to be an opportunity with midterms because I don't think that we're having them and so that being said.

If you have an entire now fascist MAGA movement that has no guardrails, that is completely unleashed, the response to that can't be centrist thinking. And I'm wondering in your mind what it takes then for Democrats to realize that they once again have been chasing the wrong dragon. I

DR. JONATHAN METZL: mean, again, the rules of everything because of all the dismantling that's about to happen, the rules.

Are going to be totally different. And [02:03:00] so I do worry that we have a lot of institutionalists who are still running the party. And I think what we need right now is outside the box people in a way. And so I don't know, because I don't know there's some plan. I mean, when you have somebody at the head of the department of education and the FBI and every other organization, who's In place to basically destroy that organization as it's been known and remake it the rules are just going to be Totally different.

And so I guess I hope we have people who are nimble and forceful and bare knuckles enough to combat that. I just think that the rules are different and we have to, there's something very responsive about it. So I'm not, I'm not avoiding that question. It's just, we're about to create a new reality here. I mean, I feel it most deeply with health, for example.

I mean, that's kind of where I'm consumed right now, because dismantling All the health infrastructure that Kennedy and those guys are going to do is going to be [02:04:00] catastrophic, and it's going to create new realities. And so to then say, we just need to build things back the way they were is not going to work.

Democrats shuffle leadership in prep for Trump fight; Raskin takes mantle of democratic lodestar - Alex Wagner Tonight - Air Date 12-6-24

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Generational politics is obviously always present in Congress and in the country, but I think what's really happening is that the Democrats, uh, feel that we are in the fight of our lives and we want to deploy and redeploy people to different. positions to get ready for the fight to defend our democracy, our freedom and our constitution.

And I think that's really what's going on right now.

ALEX WAGNER - HOST, ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT: Is everybody on board with this sort of changing of the guard? If you will. I know that leader Hakeem Jeffries says only the caucus is working its will and we're doing it in a cordial fashion. Now I will say, I know that's supposed to be a non position, but not doing anything about, you know, changing leadership roles is, it's not.

A position in and of itself.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Yeah, well, I think it's true that it's cordial, but it's, um, it's democratic with a small d. That is, it's all based on conversation [02:05:00] and dialogue. I've had hundreds of conversations with my colleagues about how best to arrange ourselves for the coming fight. I mean, you've probably noticed, Alex, that there is a, a robust Republican trifecta right now.

The margin in the House is razor thin and the thinnest it's been in like a century, but they still have a tiny majority. And we need to figure out the best strategies to either pull over moderate Republicans in districts that Biden won or Harris won. Um, to side with us on issues like gun safety and women's right to choose.

Um, and we certainly need to be messaging a lot more effectively to America about what it is we're standing for and what we're fighting for. Um, and so that means we need to be messaging more effectively, uh, to your audience and then even beyond the MSNBC audience to the rest of America and some people who are watching Fox News right now.

ALEX WAGNER - HOST, ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT: Can I ask, um, you know, [02:06:00] because the news today is that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is throwing her hat in the ring for the, uh, ranking seat on the, or, sorry, the Democratic, uh, top Democratic seat on the Oversight Committee. Do you think she would be a good choice?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Um, I think she'd be an excellent choice. Um, I think, um, think that, uh, you know, our colleague from Virginia, Jerry Conley, would be an excellent choice, and they offer, uh, different strengths, um, and, uh, you know, different visions, but they've worked closely together, and we've all worked closely together as a team.

Um, AOC, of course, has been my vice ranking member, so she's very familiar with my style. Uh, Jerry Connolly has been on the committee for a lot longer, and he's familiar with the history and evolution of the committee. So we're gonna have a really interesting conversation about what we want to happen on the oversight committee, both in minority and when we take the Congress back in 2026, what we're gonna do.

with the Oversight Committee to make sure that the government is an instrument for the people and not a plaything for [02:07:00] billionaires. I think we already have a record number of billionaires who have been nominated or assigned by Donald Trump to his new cabinet. Uh, there's a name for that and it's called oligarchy or plutocracy.

It's government for the wealthiest and not for the working people, and I know that was their big pose during the campaign, but America is in for a cold shower here when we see who's really benefiting from the government they're putting into place.

ALEX WAGNER - HOST, ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT: Yeah, I think if you take even non Senate confirmed positions in the Trump administration, it's the net worth is like 340 billion to, to your point.

But I do want to go back to something that you said about what this moment demands. And you mentioned, you know, Democrats need to talk to and appeal to people who aren't just watching. our fabulous channel, but are also watching other networks like Fox. And when you think of someone like, for example, AOC, who is an incredible voice in the democratic party and who has, I should note, worked in a bipartisan fashion across the aisle on some key [02:08:00] initiatives.

She's worked even hand in hand with Matt Gaetz, not exactly known as, um, uh, uh, uh, liberal squish. But the impression is that she is, you know, liberal firebrand. And in the context of appealing to more people from across the aisle, you know, does that hurt the broader effort to, you know, widen the aperture, if you will, if you have someone like her sitting atop one of the most powerful committees in Congress?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Yeah. I mean, I think tough questions like that are going to be asked during this process. And I know they were asked, you know, in, in my, um, campaign for the Judiciary Committee position, um, uh, which still continues. We've got several more days before the actual election takes place. Um, and you know, we have to have those kind of hard soul searching, um, soliloquies and meditations as we go through this.

And I think Do you want to have one right now on air?

ALEX WAGNER - HOST, ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT: And tell me what you think. [02:09:00]

REP. JAMIE RASKIN: Well, you know, the AOC who's in her third term as a representative is very different from the AOC who first entered. Inevitably, you become like that when you're a member of Congress and you've got to deal with the people.

the right-wing Republicans and conservative Republicans and liberal members of your caucus and conservative members of your caucus and a hierarchy and so on. And I'm sure, you know, Jerry Connolly, our other candidate, is a very changed, uh, candidate from when he first began on the Oversight Committee.

And he's somebody who was in a swing district and is now in a very blue district. So, uh, Um, these things change, but I do think that the times call upon us to be able to figure out how to expand the Democratic Party and to make us really the party of democracy because after all, that's what we are. The GOP does not even claim to be standing for democracy anymore.

They are arranged on quasi monarchical principles, and uh, their leader is surrounded by a [02:10:00] bunch oligarchs. That's a very different form of government than what we've got here. And I agree it's more difficult on our side because we really are a party based on pluralism and diversity. We bring in people all across the racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, geographic spectrum, and so on.

And we are traditionally the party of the working class, the middle class, um, in America. So, uh, we got to put, uh, uh, A lot of different elements together to deal in this new environment, which is complicated by really segmented and decentralized media systems.

ALEX WAGNER - HOST, ALEX WAGNER TONIGHT: You know, President, former President Obama talked, I think quite eloquently about the work ahead, that it's not just for the woke, but for the waking, that this is about a generational effort to begin to trust each other again.

BREAKING: HUGE announcement about Democrats' future - Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 12-1-24

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: Ben, what would you change about the way that the DNC is currently run?

BEN WIKLER: I am really grateful for the extraordinary folks who work at the DNC for Chair Jamie [02:11:00] Harrison. I also think we need more. We need a bigger operation. It'll take more resources to do it, and we're going to need, uh, Those folks all over the country to chip in, to become monthly donors, to support that effort.

And we need more people power because I think the opportunity is for the Democratic National Committee to partner with all the states, to build the kind of plan that we've been executing in Wisconsin and that you've seen in some places in states around the country. We need to do that everywhere to think through not just how we.

Get ready for the midterms and the, and the, and the presidential race in 2028. But to look at things like Supreme court races, if we had, uh, had not lost the Supreme court majority in North Carolina a few years ago, then Republicans wouldn't have been able to gerrymander that state. That cost us three.

Democratic house seats, and we would have had a majority in the U. S. House right now. If it weren't for state Supreme Court losses in North Carolina years ago, I think we need to be winning those kinds of fights. And so I think the big shift is to help to grow the Democratic National Committee's capacity and focus to [02:12:00] be able to engage in planning it for the long term.

In these races that are far from the national spotlight with all of the states so that we can build and fight up and down the ballot in every kind of community in every kind of county in the way that we've been doing in Wisconsin and can do nationwide.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: Now you'd mentioned fundraising and I know that this has been a bit of a pressure point here with with Democrats across the country.

So what do you do about the fundraising situation? Because I know a lot of people watching this are tired of the request. They feel that the requests are relentless. Um, and it makes us feel like Pawns in some big money up money making operation where they basically just exist to squeeze every dime out of us until we're no longer Able to give any money and then the relationship turns sour so it's not not exactly a you know What I would consider a healthy relationship here that said I understand that all of this costs money Especially when the other side has someone like Elon Musk who's willing to just write a blank check.

So, how do you reconcile this?

BEN WIKLER: So I think the beginning of successful fundraising [02:13:00] relationships, both for the people chipping in a few bucks a month and for the folks who then spend that money is trust and respect that that affects how you communicate about what is happening. I think having transparency and having honesty about what you're actually raising funds to do, being able to report back to people about how their funds were used and the kind of effect it had if you fall short.

Talking through what you do differently. And if, if you succeed actually analyzing what things worked, spending money as efficiently as you can. So I think if you run an efficient operation, it is actually possible to make it bigger because people like to, to donate, if they feel like their money is actually being put to good use to have a real effect and that is what we do.

I think the feeling of exhaustion and being hammered and being, you know, pulled apart. It comes from getting a relentless flood of messages, all which are kind of hair on fire and, you know, the polar coaster and, and give people a sense that maybe it's, maybe it's all BS. Maybe it's not real. If you, if you started from a position of, We're on this journey together, and, uh, we need your time as volunteers.

We [02:14:00] need funds to be able to, to hire folks so we can better use your time as volunteers. You know, here are the, here are the fights that we're engaging in. Here's the result of those fights. My experience in Wisconsin, we've raised more money than any other state party in the Democratic, uh, side over the last, uh, Uh, from folks who have been here for the last six years, as far as we've been able to calculate.

Uh, but we hear a lot from donors after elections that they feel really good about having contributed to the work, because they can see the effect that it had and they're hungry for the next fight right now. We have a state Supreme court race in Wisconsin in the spring of 2025. We're, it is urgent that we have the resources to fight there because that will affect the future of the U S house majority.

Wisconsin state led us through the majorities, reproductive freedom, workers rights, public education in our state. It's a big high stakes fight and we're up front about all that and asking people to support it. That's the kind of thing that I, you know, we absolutely, I want to ask folks for support of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

And I think we bring that same lens to the national party's fundraising. And I think the DNC should work with ActBlue, with our, with our, uh, partner campaigns and candidate committees to, to, uh, Really rethink [02:15:00] how we do democratic fundraising in general to try to, uh, to, to make a better experience for folks that are investing because people tend to want to do more of things that feel good when they do them.

And it should be a great experience to, to contribute to Democrats to fight for our shared values.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: There, there does seem to be something of an issue where there are certain races because they might be higher profile, might be sexier, um, that, that garner a lot of money. And they might be completely unwinnable.

I mean, if you look at, if you look at the amount of money, for example, that went to Amy McGrath, the amount of money that went to Marjorie Taylor Greene's opponent, if some of that money went to other campaigns, other candidates who are running across the country who could have really used it and whose races were Clearly, objectively, much more winnable than going up against Mitch McConnell in Kentucky or Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia.

Um, it, it, how do you view that and is there anything that, that you would look to do as DNC chair that might rectify some of those kind of inequities?

BEN WIKLER: So, donors [02:16:00] give for lots of different reasons. Sometimes they give to throw up a middle finger to someone that they just absolutely loathe, even if it's going to be tough to defeat them in the, in the election and I get that.

I think that the job of the Democratic National Committee Chair, and, uh, for, for folks in leadership positions in state parties across the country, a key part of the job will be to make what's important, compelling. To make what's effective, also viral. And sometimes that's a cultural strategy, sometimes that's a communication strategy.

But to me, you know, communicating here's, here's what we're going to try to do to win. Here's why this race, here's why this fight, here's why this new approach to data, whatever the thing might be, here's why it's absolutely essential to the things that you and I both care about that can help to, to bring attention to things that, that need to grow.

And I think we've been able to do that really effectively in Wisconsin. We've been able, because of that, to invest, for example, in the state legislative races in this election cycle. Uh, we were able to, to raise and support state legislative candidates with 20 million. And that has put us on track to potentially win majorities in both legislative chambers in [02:17:00] 2026.

Uh, Republicans. I went from a, an 11 seat majority to just having two more seats, uh, that, that Democrats need to win to be able to win a majority in that chamber. Um, and in the state assembly, they had 15 seat edge. Now they only have five. That kind of work in races that, you know, are not the thing that people wake up and open their favorite, uh, you know, uh, uh, micro blogging app, whatever blue sky and Twitter and threads are this month, these days, uh, they might not be the things they think about first, but I do think that.

If we, if we can bring the focus of our movement to the things that, that really make a difference and people throw everything they can at them, and then we win, then we have a shared sense that we did something important together, and that gets people fired up for the next fight. What brings disillusionment is when people feel like, What they did didn't count, or they feel like they did it on false premises and they were, they were focusing their attention and their work and their effort and their hard earned money on things that actually made no difference at all.

That, that is incredibly frustrating. But when you feel like [02:18:00] you're a part of something that, that actually made a difference about the things you care the most about, then it becomes something that you, you want to make a part of your life for years to come.

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 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Garrison Hayes, Stay Tuned with Preet, Pod Save America, BBC News, The Majority Report, The Bitchuation Room, The Coffee Klatch, Woke AF Daily, Alex Wagner Tonight, and Brian Taylor Cohen. Further details are in the show notes.

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 or through our Patreon page. Hurry while memberships are on discount through the end of the year. Membership is how you get instant access to our incredibly 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. And don't forget to follow us on any and all new social media platforms that you may be joining these days during the Xodus.

So coming to 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 twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.

1 reaction Share

#1676 The Incompetence of Authoritarians: Trump's cabinet picks are all loyalty, no ability (Transcript)

Posted by · December 13, 2024 2:49 PM

Air Date 12/13/2024