Air Date 7/30/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. The Republican party is making it sound like they're trying to transform themselves into the party of working people. There's a mountain of evidence suggesting that you shouldn't believe them, but there's also plenty of reason to sit up and take notice of the situation. 

Sources providing our Top Takes in under 45 minutes today include Democracy Now!, Deconstructed, Parallax Views, The Majority Report, The Thom Hartmann Program, and The Real News Network. 

Then, in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there'll be more on three topics: 

Section A - the Teamsters speech and false populism. 

Section B - pro-worker legislation. 

Section C - J.D. Vance and the center-right.

“He’s a Fake” Robert Kuttner on How J.D. Vance Disguises His Anti-Worker Views as Economic Populism - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-16-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Tell us who J.D. Vance is and the significance of Donald Trump choosing him, who would be the youngest-ever vice president if he were to win, at the age of 39, the former marine and venture capitalist.[00:01:00] 

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, he’s a very dangerous fake. And his whole history, from writing Hillbilly Elegy to doing a 180-degree pivot from being a critic of Trump to being a loyalist to Trump, to pretending to be very favorable to working Americans, when in fact all of his votes have been the opposite, suggests both that he’s a fake, and he’s an attractive fake. He’s personally likable. I hate to say that. He’s an intellectual. He knows how to engage issues. He knows things that Trump is completely ignorant of. He’s young, whereas Trump is old. And when I wrote this piece yesterday morning, before Trump had made his selection, I wrote that if Trump is shrewd, he will name J.D. Vance, but I’m not sure [00:02:00] that Trump’s own narcissism will let him do that, because the risk for Trump is that Vance will upstage Trump.

And let me say a word or two about Hillbilly Elegy, because this was a classic case of bait-and-switch. So, the story is that he’s got a dysfunctional family, they move from southern Ohio to Kentucky, and supposedly the book is expressing great compassion for his kin and his neighbors, but the actual message of the book is that if you’re not doing well in Kentucky, it’s because of your own bad behavior. You’re taking too many drugs. You’re selling your food stamps. You’re not able to hold a job. You’re not doing right by your children. It’s the old conservative narrative that poverty is the fault of the poor. It’s all behavioral. It’s not structural. It’s not industry being outsourced or the coal mines closing. [00:03:00] No, it’s just your behavior is bad. \

The right-wing foundations invested in a guy called Charles Murray, who wrote a book in the ’80s called Losing Ground, which basically said that poverty is the fault of the War on Poverty, and poverty is the fault of the welfare system, and poverty is the fault of spoiling the poor. And in the review that I wrote of his book, I described Vance as “Charles Murray with a shiteating grin.” And when I met Vance at a conference the following year, he quoted that line back to me and engaged intellectually and was very self-reflective and thoughtful and likable. And I said to myself, “Uh-oh, this guy is really going to be trouble.”

And so, what they did last night, they repositioned the Republican Party as the party that’s pro-worker, even though this is complete nonsense. But because Vance [00:04:00] is so adept at these head fakes, and because he’s got this fake compelling life story, he’s the ideal guy to try and represent that. And they were so cynical, they even put Sean O’Brien on the program, who sort of threaded the needle between talking about what we needed to do to give unions a fighting chance, without quite mentioning that Biden was the one who was in favor of this, and it was the Republicans who were blocking this. 

This is very clever on the part of Republicans to reposition themselves, at least for the purpose of the convention, and maybe for the campaign, from being the party of hatred to being the party that cares about workers. It’s nonsense, but Vance is a very good symbol of that. And that’s why he’s so dangerous.

Normally, it really doesn’t matter who the vice president is. You have to go all the way back to 1960 to point to a vice president, Lyndon Johnson, who really made a difference in an election [00:05:00] outcome—he helped Kennedy carry Texas and maybe won the election. But other than that, the vice president doesn’t matter very much. In this case, where you’ve got very closely fought races in Wisconsin and in Michigan and in Ohio—well, not Ohio, but Ohio where Sherrod Brown is concerned, anyway—and western Pennsylvania, Vance could actually make a difference.

The only silver lining—and I hate to call this a silver lining—is it makes it even more urgent for the Democrats to find somebody more effective than Biden who can beat these guys. 

Trump, Vance, and the New Right at the RNC - Deconstructed - Air Date 7-19-24

RYAN GRIM - HOST, DECONSTRUCTED: So first of all, Emily, what would you call it. What is the name that people who are of the J.D. Vance variety prefer to call themselves? Or are there multiple names and we could pick from a couple? 

EMILY JASHINSKY: As we're recording this, there was a new name, a powerful suggestion for a new name actually floated this morning by Saurabh Amari, who has been at the center of the discourse over what the new-right is, if there needs to be a new-right ever since he [00:06:00] wrote a viral article against David French, who was at the time a National Review columnist and has since been elevated to New York Times columnist, and said, "it's not the new-right, it's the new-center." And I find that very interesting because the new-right, I think, comes with a lot of cultural baggage. And I say that as somebody who's probably part of the cultural baggage, who's, staunchly anti-abortion and has deeply held conservative religious beliefs, and I think new-right has come with that.

And J.D. Vance is a convert to Catholicism. Like a lot of intellectuals in the right wing space are. He's a student of Rene Girard who is Peter Thiel's favorite philosopher and is big in those venture capitalists, Silicon Valley circles. So. What we saw from J.D. Vance at the convention, I think accurately describes as a new-center as opposed to a new-right, because when you attach Trump to the new-right, I think you [00:07:00] lose some of the cultural baggage. 

And the new-right that just convened at the National Conservatism Conference a week before the Republican National Convention kicked off... and I also think the left should consider that because all of this fear mongering about it is missing that there are some genuinely interesting shifts on labor and on trade in these spaces, but perhaps it's incumbent on republicans and new-right movement people to figure out how to deal with that cultural baggage. 

RYAN GRIM - HOST, DECONSTRUCTED: From a marketing perspective, trying to claim the center is actually quite smart. I mean, most people out there who are not politics junkies tend to think of themselves as in the center, whether they are or not. They think "my views are the sensible ones." That's why they hold those views because they believe they are sensible. And the directions of left and right almost by their nature are self marginalizing. So that is an [00:08:00] interesting attempt to gather people around this new-center idea. but what is the new-center? What would you say are the things that characterize it, and how does it rank its hierarchy of issues that it cares about?

EMILY JASHINSKY: That reminds me, one thing I like about what we get to do, Ryan, is that right before I started taping with you, I was interviewing Kevin Roberts, who is the president of the Heritage Foundation, a friend of J.D. Vance's, and asking him about Project 2025. And I asked him about Sorobomari referring to the new-center instead of the new-right. And he said, basically, I don't like labels. Kevin Roberts is somebody who has spoken at NatCon and said, I'm not inviting you into the conservative movement. I'm here as the conservative movement to tell you, you are the conservative movement. I think he and J.D. Vance, now that J.D. Vance is firmly ensconced in Trump world, would describe it as mostly in terms of populist economics, but would also probably bring into it the parents right movement that sprung up after Covid. You should have the right to know what's being taught [00:09:00] in classrooms. They probably wouldn't frame it in the terms of you hear a lot about pornography and you hear a lot about, LGBT issues. They would probably say parental rights. Glenn Youngkin is being here at the RNC. Everyone's very excited about that. So I think that's how they would attach cultural issues to the suite of economic issues.

For example, the 10%. tariff, or I'm sorry, the 100 percent tariff, right? What's Trump on now? I was just reading his interview with Bloomberg, but they would talk about protectionism vis a vis China. They would talk about industrial policy when it comes to chips manufacturing. When it comes to the defense industry, they would talk about ending forever wars. Foreign policy is a huge component of the new-right. There are basically no supporters left of the Iraq war left anywhere, but even in the Republican party, I went back and looked at the speeches from the 2004 Republican convention just last night. It was all about the Iraq war. 

RYAN GRIM - HOST, DECONSTRUCTED: Oh, that whole thing was organized around "stay the course". That was Bush's entire argument, stay the course. [00:10:00] So where do the cultural issues that Republicans were rising on the last 10 20 years fit in, whether it's, trans issues, briefly you had this little reactionary move against marriage equality. Do those take something of a backseat there, despite the fact that Vance himself is a Catholic convert who, has a pretty strong personal views on abortion. Where do they fit in? is it more of an economic trade and foreign policy type of tendency, or is it married to the cultural stuff? How do we think about that? Do they want to put it in the backseat? Is it leading? What is the Positioning there?

EMILY JASHINSKY: I think that is the question that bubbled to the surface in the proverbial smoke filled back rooms this week when Donald Trump went full send and picked J.D. Vance as his Running mate and Vance wasn't someone who was at the top of the list. A lot of people expected Tim Scott or Doug Burgum, Marco Rubio was on the short list, but when he went with J.D. Vance, I think right now as [00:11:00] Trump is trying to figure out post assassination attempt, how to be a unifier, we've heard the word unity all the time at the RNC. What does that look like? Is that new-center or new-right? And that's why abortion has basically been absent from this RNC. 

The trans issue has been front and center at the RNC, because Republicans feel like that is a real winning issue now, but you haven't heard a lot about pornography in schools. You haven't heard a lot about marriage. You haven't heard a lot about some of those really red-meat issues that even as they fell out of fashion with the broader public, were still very much in vogue with the Republican party.

The other huge component we're leaving out is immigration. That's big. And so right now, I think as we are speaking, people in the Republican party in the Trump circles are trying to figure out how to sell J.D. Vance's populism, and Trump's populism, honestly, as a unifying centrist message. And obviously there are some Pretty clear ways to do that. There's [00:12:00] a lot of consensus on immigration, but, being directionally opposed to the Biden immigration policy does not make you in favor of J.D. Vance's immigration policy, as it has been, articulated in the past. 

So that I think is like literally in the process, like the sausage is being made right now as we're speaking.

JD Vance, Phony Populism on the Right, the Republican National Convention, and Democratic Party Messaging w_ Ben Burgis - Parallax Views - Air Date 7-22-24

BEN BURGIS: So what the PRO Act would basically do, most of it is just reversing some of the most egregiously anti-union parts of Taft Hartley. The existing structure of American labor law, as I'm sure most people are listening to this know, but just really quickly is just crazily tilted against workers trying to organize unions, go on strike, all that stuff. And when I say that, I don't just mean compared to my wishlist as a bright eyed socialist. Compared to Canada. Just compared to normal Western democracies, US labor law, graded on that curve, is tilted crazily against workers trying to [00:13:00] organize unions and go on strike and all that. You can have these captive audience meetings where workers , during their working hours, are required to go to meetings to be barraged with the anti-union propaganda, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure people know all this stuff. 

So the PRO Act is just this very basic initiative to reverse some of the worst, most anti-worker part of existing American labor law, and the fact that Hawley and Vance and Rubio, these people won't even support that to me says everything. It's such a minimal standard. I saw that thing where J.D. Vance was giving his reasons for not supporting it.

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: I have it pulled up right here. I was going to ask you directly about it.

So Vance, this Saurabh again was the one to interview him about this. Vance says that he supports a regime of sectoral bargaining, like the ones that prevail in continental Europe, rather than shop-by-shop organizing bequeathed by the New Deal. He also noted that as it is the existing mainstream labor movement is [00:14:00] irreconcilably hostile to Republicans and that more trust building is needed before a comprehensive rapprochement can take place.

And that second part alone just says to me, this is just excuse making. If you want the Republicans to be more labor, they have to give something to labor, in order to get labor on their side, but they don't actually want to do that anyways. So to me, that's just excuse making, but go on.

BEN BURGIS: Yeah, totally. The second part really gives away the game. 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: And I'd say the same thing if some Democrats...

BEN BURGIS: Yeah, of course. The second part is just " they don't like us for some reason. We're not going to make it easier for them..." 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: I couldn't imagine why. 

BEN BURGIS: Yeah, exactly. And then yeah, the first part, I think also 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: The sectoral bargaining stuff,

BEN BURGIS: it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously because I think it fits into a larger pattern with Vance, and this is a big part of what I was writing about in that 2022 article for The Daily Beast, which is that, Vance in particular, his party trick, is that he has really mastered the ability to come up with populist sounding ways to [00:15:00] concretely come down on the same side as the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

So my favorite example of this is when Vance was on Tucker Carlson's old show on Fox. He said that Medicare for All would be a giveaway to the professional class because the government would essentially be paying doctors. This is the perfect example of a J.D. Vance argument. You start to dig into it at all. It's nonsensical. It's Oh yeah. Weird then that the AMA doesn't support Medicare for all. I wonder why not. But in fact, doctor, salaries would probably go down a bit, if we had Medicare for all, which, I'm fine with, I think they're unusually high, by standards of comparable nations. If doctors could be making a bit less money and it would still be a very desirable career. If you paired it with free college, it would also be less of a big deal, but it's silly.

Oh, that's why you don't support Medicare for All, because you're just not willing to give anything to doctors because that's a middle class profession. There was another one where he described Universal free [00:16:00] daycare as class war against ordinary people on the grounds that there's polling where people who didn't have college degrees were more likely than people who did have college degrees to say the arrangement they would prefer most is one parent staying home with the kids while the other one works.

Although again, not even that dramatically, and I think not even an absolute majority, I think it was like 44 percent of non college people versus 35 percent of college graduates said that was their preferred arrangement. And of course, again, 10 seconds of thought should tell you that if the state is paying for daycare, that doesn't actually mean you have to take it. It just gives you more options. Nobody's going to come to your door and be like, "why hasn't your child reported to daycare? You're not allowed to stay home with them." But it's an excuse. 

Again, he's coming up with a populist sounding reason to oppose giving people free daycare, and this is just the same thing that he's doing for the PRO Act, like with that first reason. He's saying "Oh, I don't like the PRO Act cause [00:17:00] I want to go even further." One, no, you don't. I see no reason to believe that you're serious about that. If a bunch of Democrats were out there pushing sectoral bargaining I don't believe for a second that, J.D. Vance would be on their side. And the reason I don't believe that is if he wanted to go even further, why wouldn't you support this? Because look, that's not normally how J.D. Vance decides his votes that it's like, "if it's less than the full thing that I want, I'm not going to support it." He supports all kinds of things that he thinks should go further. Every Senator does. 

My last thought about this is just, I'm a little suspicious of if you do to believe for the sake of argument serious about this, I think any version of sectoral bargaining that J.D. Vance would support would likely suck. When you talk about sectoral bargaining in Nordic countries, for example, that's based on you having these incredibly strong industrial unions, that they're doing the bargaining. So I want to know who would be the representatives with the [00:18:00] workers' interests if he actually got this in this bargaining process, and if it's unions, then yeah... 

None of this I think makes that much sense, but I think even trying to sort out the mechanics misses the point. The point is that he doesn't actually want to do anything that would upset Peter Thiel in policy terms, but at the same time, he wants to do his populist shtick even though anybody whose memory extends all the way back to 2016 knows how strange it is that he sounds like this now.

Teamster President’s RNC Both-Sides Pandering Fails Miserably - The Majority Report - Air Date 7-17-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: There's an easy litmus test as to whether they actually support unions, and that is things like voting for the PRO Act, which died because Joe Manchin, Kristen Sinema, and then all the Republicans. 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: 48 co sponsors in the Senate of the PRO Act. They were all from one party. 48 co sponsors all caucus with the Democrats in the Senate.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Also, in the American Rescue [00:19:00] Plan, Biden administration included $38 billion that saved the pensions of hundreds of thousands of Teamsters. 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: 350,000 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Hundreds of thousands of Teamsters. And do you know how many of the Republicans voted for that? Zero. 

But, we get stuff like this. So we'll do the bad stuff first. Here is O'Brien. Now. I get it. You get up there. You want to say things that will make the audience feel you're on their side. It's called getting in the circle of trust before you deliver some of the harder stuff. 

There's two audiences for this. There's the people watching the Republican convention, and there's Teamsters who are getting their information from their president about how to perceive the different parties. 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: But it [00:20:00] is funny, speaking of the audience that's in front of him, to see how Republicans responded in the crowd. They didn't really know how to respond.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Here's the first part. 

TEAMSTERS PRESIDENT: I know that no window or door should ever be permanently shut. In my administration, the Teamsters reached out to eight Republican senators who stood up for railroad teamsters over our fight for paid sick leave. Josh Hawley was one of them.

We started talking. Senator Hawley changed his position on national right to work. Then we started walking. Senator Hawley walked a Teamsters picket line in St. Louis and a UAW picket line in Wentzville, Missouri. More than that, I want to recognize Senator Hawley for his direct, relentless, and pointed questioning of corporate talking heads, [00:21:00] lawyers, CEOs, and apologists.

He has shown he is not willing to accept they're pillaging of working people's pocketbooks. I know from a career in negotiating that you get nowhere by slamming your fist on the table. The first step is to listen. The Teamsters and the GOP may not agree on many issues, but a growing group has shown the courage to sit down and consider points of view that are funded by big money think tanks.

Senators like J.D. Vance, Roger Marshall, and Representatives Nicole Malliotakis, Mike Lawler, and Brian Fitzpatrick are among elected officials who truly care about working people. [00:22:00] And this group is expanding and is putting fear into those who have monopolized our very broken system in America today.

There are far too many people on both sides of the aisle still caught up in knee jerk reactions to unions who subscribe to the same tired clap trap that unions destroy American companies. Take a moment to consider United Parcel Service. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Pause it for a second. Alright. Aside from the fact that none of the people he mentioned, those senators, voted for anything, that was in any way pro-union. Nothing. 

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Hawley changes posture on right-to-work. That's the one thing he cited there. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: No vote. There was no voting to associate that, because there wasn't going to be. 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: He did some performative questioning. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And we'll get to the, visiting the picket lines.

But the idea [00:23:00] that on both sides, there are still many people who have a knee-jerk reaction to unions. Is that true? Is that true on both sides? Okay, Joe Manchin, now is an independent. Kyrsten Sinema, now is an independent, not running for re election. Josh Gottheimer. Many people on both sides who are knee jerk against unions? No. 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: No. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: No! That's just an undeniable fact. Do Democrats go as far as we would want them to? No. But, let's be clear, 48 co sponsors for the PRO Act. If Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema had co-sponsored that as well, we'd have the PRO Act. Jennifer Bruzio would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be appointed General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board under [00:24:00] a Republican, administration.

She would never, ever, ever, ever get past a Republican Senate. I'm sorry, this type of both-sidesism is just factually wrong. Now, I know that O'Brien goes to Donald Trump and makes a deal with him. When they had that meeting, whatever it was a month or 2 ago, and the deal was, you got to help us with Amazon. That's what it was. Is Donald Trump going to follow through? 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Who knows? 

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I mean, that's the tough thing. The immediate situation is, you said the election's close, O'Brien might be betting that Biden's lost. So what do you do as a union leader at that point is try to prepare for being under the worst case conditions. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: You got to protect your members.

MATT LECH - PRODUCER, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Exactly. And like we talked about with Lainey Newman, Theda Scotchpaul, the book Rust Belt Union Blues, these unions, especially the folks who don't go into [00:25:00] them with college educations, are increasingly moving to the right. Now, I don't know if that justifies what O'Brien's doing here, but it is something in the political role that union leaders, it's something that they have to face and it's something to deal with.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, it's fascinating because I was talking to somebody who's, husband is an electrician and is in a union and his perception was that, he votes however the union tells him to vote and he was sad to see potentially Joe Biden step aside because he's been the most union president in his lifetime, he was saying, in the lifetime, before that as well. And that's undoubtedly the case, which is what makes this an odd decision here by Sean O'Brien, to say the least is because Biden. For all of his flaws has actually delivered on this front. whether it be through being, more aggressive and cracking down on union busting, whether it be through CEMEX, that rule that, makes it much easier for union elections to be held without there being, management or corporate [00:26:00] crackdowns that would be illegal under a Republican administration or even under Obama or Clinton.

In the past, perhaps you could have made this case more. I still would have been against it and disagreed, but it would have been a little bit more salient to say that there were issues on both sides. But the Democratic Party under Biden has, and I think it's probably the strongest feature of his administration, decided to be more pro-labor in both action and in rhetoric.

Why Hiking Tariffs Actually Protects Americans - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 5-14-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: This is amazing. As you know, those of you who have listened to the program over the last 21 years, I am a big advocate of protectionism, of economic protectionism, of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. I think America, but I think generally this is true of every country in the world, countries should be able to stand on their own two feet. If China cut us off tomorrow, we would be in a world of hurt. Every Walmart in America would be empty in a week. You wouldn't be able to buy half, literally, three quarters of the stuff that we buy right now, if China [00:27:00] cut us off. And China's threatening a war with us over Taiwan.

Anyhow, Joe Biden just slapped a 100 percent tariff on Chinese made cars, electric vehicles. Why? Because they're made with slave labor, they're heavily subsidized by the Chinese market. China's only capable of selling right now around 20 to 23 million electric cars a year in their own domestic market. But they're manufacturing over 30 million. Because, they're following Alexander Hamilton's advice to George Washington—become an exporting powerhouse. 

Before Ronald Reagan came into office and imposed neoliberalism on America, we sold things all over the world. American toasters, American televisions, American computers, American cars, American clothing. They were sold in Europe. They were sold in Africa. They were sold in Asia. They were sold in South and Central America, Australia. All over the world american goods were the pinnacle, the best you could get. [00:28:00] And then, Reagan with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and then George Herbert Walker Bush negotiating NAFTA, which then Bill Clinton signed into law. The three of them basically just blew a hole in American manufacturing. 20,000 factories moved to China and Mexico. Excuse me, 15,000 factories, 20 million jobs. 

So anyhow, Biden is doing something about this. 100 percent tariff on the cars. He raised the tariff on lithium batteries from 7.5 to 25 percent, from 0 to 25 percent on critical minerals, from 25 to 50 percent on solar cells, and from 25 to 50 percent on semiconductors. On aluminum, steel, and personal protective equipment, the tariffs went from 0 to 25 percent. I see this as a good thing. 

The citizen's trade campaign released this notice. "These tariff increases will help prevent cheap imports, which are all too often made with forced [00:29:00] labor, sweatshop labor, or under other unfair conditions from undercutting quality jobs and sustainable development at home and around the world. Diverse supply chains are critical to a rapid clean energy transition. As such, the Biden administration's latest efforts to fight the monopolization of clean energy technologies," by China "is the right move for working people and the planet. Allowing any single country or region to dominate the production of clean energies like EVs, batteries, and solars will eventually lead to higher prices, increased supply chain disruptions, stifled innovation, and a fracturing of the coalitions we need for ambitious climate action."

And basically Joe Biden is doing it. He's doing it. 

Sean O'Brien faces criticism from Teamsters Vice President for RNC appearance - The Real News Network - Air Date 7-19-24

MAXIMILLIAN ALVAREZ - HOST, THE REAL NEWS NETWORK: Now, I really don’t want to ask you to try to speak for everyone here—you guys are a big union with a lot of members—but what can you tell us about how the union is reacting right now?

JOHN PALMER: Well, in large part, the bubble of people that I speak to are very upset about this. People that are dialed [00:30:00] in — you don’t have to be an official, either. If you’re a job steward, working, you understand what happened during the Trump administration. Some of your rights as a job steward were stripped away by the board. You see the effects of this. Anybody that’s had to deal with the Labor Board knows how difficult it is.

What we need in this country, and you alluded to it, we’ve got two parties, and there’s issues with both of them. And I understand, we’re stuck with a two-party system, which I frankly think is problematic, because they’re owned by corporate America. There is a stark difference in the two parties, but change is going to come. Unions are agents for change, and that’s the very reason that we shouldn’t be doing this.

My position has been, as a veteran, as my dad is [00:31:00] a retired first sergeant , and every male member in my family served in the military. Everybody has the right to vote. People died that we might have that right. But as a labor leader, both on the international and local levels, I think it’s our responsibility to garner the facts and relate that to our members.

Now, people are going to do what they’re going to do, but if we fail to educate and inform people as to why it’s harmful to support Donald Trump and the Republicans as they are currently made up, that’s our fault, and we’re failing ourselves and our members. I think that’s where we’ve really failed.

We’re career politicians. Many of my peers on that executive board draw multiple salaries. They live a very good life. [00:32:00] Most of them are, frankly, removed from the life of, let’s say, someone at a meat packing plant in Colorado who’s exposed to all kinds of hazards, and contaminants. You can only imagine, I’ve seen that work.

Now, those folks aren’t making $300,000 a year. Those folks are probably making $50,000, $60,000 a year. They need our help. And they don’t need a party coming to power that’s made it clear in their Project, 2025 writings that the plan is to weaken labor unions and create faux unions in the workplace.

We’re just now making gains in getting on top of wages outstripping inflation. And that’s because the last few years, labor unions, including my own, have done a nice job of winning wages. But [00:33:00] we’ve got a long ways to go, and if they destroy the unions, and without unions, there’s nobody to pull the safety standards and the wage standards. And we all want to live that middle-class lifestyle.

MAXIMILLIAN ALVAREZ - HOST, THE REAL NEWS NETWORK: I want to pick up on that point you made about educating your members, about what this is all really about beyond the surface level stuff. Because that’s all I’m seeing on mainstream media, and I’ve been watching it obsessively. It’s my job, which sucks, but every time I turn on the TV, so many mainstream media pundits and politicians out there, they keep talking about this election, and electoral politics in general, but this election specifically, as if it’s all just a matter of people with differing opinions campaigning passionately for different visions for the country’s future. But they never really talk [00:34:00] about what the real world consequences will be if and when these opinions become policy. 

So let’s bring this down to the shop floor level, here. What would a second Trump presidency mean for your members and for working people in general on a real, tangible day-to-day level?

JOHN PALMER: Well, for one thing, I know that Sean was impressed with the election denier J.D. Vance and the insurrectionist Josh Hawley and their commitment to not supporting right-to-work legislation. First of all, I don’t know of any time that I’ve watched Donald Trump tell the truth, literally, and I don’t know of any time in my working career as a Teamster that the Republican Party did anything that would benefit labor. That goes all the way back to [00:35:00] Reagan, union busting, firing the air traffic controllers. So those are really emblematic of who we’re dealing with. You learn people after a while. I’m 65 years old, and I know who to trust and who not to trust. And there’s no reason to trust these folks. Based on their past behaviors, I would expect that first of all, right-to-work, unless something odd happens, I think it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get it. So that’s not our biggest issue.

Our biggest issue is getting rid of career people that do good work in places like the EPA, the DOL, the DOT, the National Labor Relations Board, all these places that are backstops for working men and women, [00:36:00] safe, clean drinking water. And then replacing them with lackeys, political lackeys, and people without any... … What was the guy from Bush’s administration, a horse judge or something that did the Hurricane Katrina relief thing? We might’ve learned something from that, I hope, but it’s really important that most of these people, like the people in our building at the International Union, these are career people that are there because they want to do a good job and they really don’t want to get caught in the politics.

But these are dangerous precedents, and they’ve made it clear what they want to do. It’s 900 pages, Project 2025. But if you just step back, and there’s plenty of places to summarize it, quoting much of the language. If you’ll read this, it will tell you what they intend to do.

And card check, [00:37:00] we should be getting card check neutrality, where, in many countries, if you get enough cards to sign workers up, they’re in the union. You sign a card, that’s part of your election process. And now they get beat up from us by a union buster. This union busting’s not going to stop. It’s only going to get more intense. And our rights are going to be more difficult to maintain in the auspices of the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act. By the way, you mentioned the rail strike, and that’s a very different venue, the National Mediation Board. The processes are very different. It’s very hard to get the right to strike. And that’s not fair to these workers. If people understood what they were really fighting for, they would sympathize with them.

And there we go. We should be educating the public about all the things that go on. So I don’t see anything historically that would give me any [00:38:00] confidence in these people as truth tellers and as advocates for labor. I mean, that’s just not the Party.

Final comments on the shifting political epoch toward pro-worker policies we're witnessing

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Democracy Now! discussing J.D. Vance and his claims to be pro-worker. Deconstructed looked at the concept of the new-center marketing term the right is trying to occupy. Parallax Views debunked the false populism of the right. The Majority Report broke down the speech given by the president of the Teamsters at the RNC. The Thom Hartmann Program laid out some of the ways Biden and Democrats have been delivering for working people. And The Real News Network interviewed the vice president of the Teamsters giving his perspective on the president speaking at the RNC. And those were just the top takes there's a lot more in the deeper dive section. 

But, before we continue on I want to talk about what I think may be an epoch shifting moment we're living through regarding political party stances on economics, going all the way back from the New Deal Through neoliberalism and [00:39:00] now maybe to something beyond To start, I would say that any criticism of republicans for being insincere in their interest in promoting more pro-worker policies that's based on a perceived notion that they could never change may end up being right but for the wrong reasons. The fact is that political parties can and do change, and in fact, we should be hoping that both parties are in the middle of a shift toward pro-worker policies right now.

For evidence of this possibility of change, this from progressive commentator Jim Hightower. 

Let's adopt the GOP's national platform - Jim Hightower - Air Date- 3-6-13

JIM HIGHTOWER - HOST, JIM HIGHTOWER RADIO: Well now, here's some unexpected news. It comes from what purports to be an official document of the National Republican Party. And wow, the policy positions it contains show that the party leaders really are serious about coming to their senses and rejecting the plutocratic extremism and far right wackiness that has stained their recent presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial campaigns.

Right at the [00:40:00] top, this 18 page manifesto proclaims that "our government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose." All the people. Forget last year's ridiculous pontifications by Mitt Romney and others dividing America into virtuous creators, like themselves, and worthless moochers, like you and me. This document abounds with commitments to the common good. "America does not prosper," it proudly proclaims on page 3, "unless all Americans prosper." Shazam! That's downright democratic! And how's this for a complete turnaround? "Labor is the United States. The men and women who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country, they are America." Holy Koch brothers share the wealth?

Yes, and how about this? "The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Republican [00:41:00] Party." Eat your heart out, Scott Walker, and you other labor bashing GOP governors. The document also supports the Postal Service, the United Nations, equal rights for women, expanding our national parks, vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws, and raising the minimum wage.

New Enlightenment in the Grand Old Party! Hallelujah! This is Jim Hightower saying, Can all this be true? Yes, except it's not new. This document is the Republican Party Platform of 1956.

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now, I would argue that even back in 1956, Democrats were still the party of the working people, carrying on the tradition of FDR and the New Deal, while the GOP, influenced by the overwhelming popularity of those policies, we're willing to give lip service to unions and workers, maybe even feeling it somewhat genuinely, but never following through to the same degree as Democrats did.

For the past several decades, since the Reagan revolution, [00:42:00] the GOP stopped bothering to give lip service to workers and went all in on union busting and showering the rich with tax cuts, all while calling them job creators. That dynamic is what allowed Democrats to get away with only giving lip service to workers and unions while not really delivering all that much in the past few decades. Ever since Clinton, they've needed to keep good relationships with Wall Street and Silicon Valley to balance out the massive corporate fundraising the GOP is capable of from all the fossil fuel companies and every other anti-union business out there. 

With the GOP pivoting to at least giving lip service to workers, Even though they will almost certainly not deliver on any of those promises, it puts pressure on Democrats to actually deliver, which they have just begun to do anyway. That, in the big picture, is a good thing. It'll definitely be a good thing for working people, but it may even be a good thing for the Democratic Party to regain some legitimacy in the minds of people [00:43:00] who have thought, for good reason, that Democrats have been more focused on pleasing their big donors than working people recently.

I would say that the Democratic lip service reached its peak when Barack Obama said, during his first campaign for president, if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States." And that was proven to be only lip service when the opportunity came and he did not show up. 

However, I would also say that sometimes lip service and broken promises may lay the groundwork for actual progress in the future. Joe Biden did become the first president to stand with workers on the picket line when he stood with the United Auto Workers, and there's actually been policy to back that up during his term. 

Without getting swamped in details, here's one headline "Biden’s labor report card: Historian gives ‘Union Joe’ a higher grade than any president since FDR". [00:44:00] And the sub headline is, "President Joe Biden came into the White House intent on being 'the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.' Four years later, he has shown a lot of progress."

it hasn't been a spotless record to be sure, but i'll take that as a win and not just a win But a move in the right direction that we should expect and demand to continue That article points out that every president is limited by the context in which they are governing, they didn't just fall out of a coconut tree after all, and that Biden has been blessed with the most pro-union sentiment in decades—now it's at about seven in ten americans supporting unions generally—has helped in making the progress that he's been able to make. That has been the wind at his back, while at the same time Primarily GOP appointed courts have been ruling against unions. The article concludes quite rightly, "Historically, U. S. judges have had [00:45:00] at least as much say in determining labor rights as presidents." So, it's not just about who we put in office, it's about who sits on the bench. 

So, the MAGA Supreme Court we have right now doesn't bode well for workers, but since we know the conservative justices are really just political hacks, that's all the more reason to hope that the sentiment among Republicans starts shifting back to being pro-worker, even if what they have to say about it is just pablum. 

One last thing, though. If you do a search right now about how the Republicans of the 1950s really felt about economics, unions, and workers, it's not terribly easy to find. The reason is that those keywords will instead bring up all of the stories about how modern Republicans longed to return the country back to the 1950s.

Now, for those of us who know, we know that the big part of that, even if unconsciously, is envisioning a world in which women and people of color knew their places in the gender and racial caste system of the [00:46:00] country. But I think we'd be wrong to not also recognize that what they're longing for is actually the same thing people on the left have been longing for, an environment of political policies that empowers workers enough to demand wages in line with their productivity. I mean, that's not how they would say it, but the end result of those policies is what gave the 50s that glow that people long for. 

And it was during the Reagan years that that connection between wages and productivity was broken. Before that, productivity and wages went up in basically parallel lines. After Reagan, productivity continued to climb, but wages flattened out. And then you add the globalization that kicked off in the 90s, and a realignment of the Democratic Party, and Influenced again, just like how Republicans were influenced by FDR, Democrats were influenced by Reagan and they ended up picking up the mantle of neoliberalism and converted into a party that only managed to give lip service to workers without much to back it up. [00:47:00] You take all of that and you've got a perfect recipe for widespread precarity and nervousness about economic insecurity. 

That's where we are right now, and it's no wonder that people would look back to the 1950s and see an economic landscape worth longing for. It needs to be the job of the left to lean into this titanic shift in sentiment toward working people that we're experiencing right now and actually deliver on the kind of economic populism that people are starving for, all while leaving the white supremacy and patriarchy of the 1950s in the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Now before we get back to the show, this is your last reminder that july is our membership and awareness drive. If you get value out of this show, Let this be the time and there are just hours remaining to decide to chip in and help sustain the production of the show and tell some people about it, all while getting a discount. Of course, you're free to sign up for a membership anytime you like. When I say that we need your support, it's really not in the abstract. We [00:48:00] don't have big funders or any kind of institution or media outlet backing us up, so it's really just you, the listener, deciding to chip in and make the show possible.

As thanks, members get ad free versions of every regular episode and bonus episodes featuring the production crew in conversation. And this month, with just hours to go, memberships are 20 percent off. So sign up now. and keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. Just head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support to grab that membership and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: TEAMSTER SPEECH AND FALSE POPULISM

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now, we'll continue with deeper dives on three topics. Up next, Section A, the Teamsters Speech and False Populism. Section B, pro-worker Legislation. And Section C, J.D. Vance and the Center Right.

JD Vance, Phony Populism on the Right, the Republican National Convention, and Democratic Party Messaging w Ben Burgis Part 2 - Parallax Views - Air Date 7-22-24

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: That's, uh, one of the big things that I've been thinking about a lot lately with, this is with regards to, uh, Democratic messaging, you know, a lot of Democrats are talking more and more about, um, Project 2025, the, you know, the Heritage Foundation, short of [00:49:00] agenda lists that they have, uh, for when Trump gets into office, and then Trump has, I think, Agenda 47, which is similar, but he's tried to distance himself from Project 2025, but what I find interesting is if you read Project 2025.

And I know Sarabha Mari, who I don't always agree with, uh, has pointed this out, but if you look at that heritage foundation wishlist, a lot of it's like deeply libertarian stuff, you know, it's all about getting rid of OSHA, hurting the workers, you know, letting, you know, companies do whatever they want, corporations do whatever they want, getting rid of like, Water safety.

They want, you know, it's, it's just insane, but that's not what anyone's talking about when it comes to the conservative agenda. I mean, I think we should be talking about immigration and, um, you know, LGBTQ rights, uh, abortion, but I also wish more people would talk about like justice clearance. Thomas just said he wants to get rid of OSHA.

You know, um, I wish more people would talk about the project 2025 stuff [00:50:00] about that would affect, um, you know, trying to. Deal with the forever chemicals problem because there's been a scientific American article on that and it feels like we're not really talking about what a Trump term would mean both for, uh, you know, just consumers and also workers.

Do you think that's an issue that Democrats should maybe, um, push on more, especially in light of the main topic we're going to be covering, which is the phony economic populism of J.D. Vance. Sorry if that was long winded. No, 

BEN BURGIS: no, no. That was great. I absolutely, I mean, yes, the answer is yes. I think that it's, uh, it's crazy to me that.

They are kind of allowed to, um, change the subject as much as they are away from all of this, because, um, you know, Every issue that you mentioned is, is important. Uh, I, I would, you know, I think that, [00:51:00] um, you know, it's like, certainly it's terrible that, um, you know, that, that, that. Justices that Trump appointed, you know, essentially, you know, robbed women and, you know, many states of, you know, bodily autonomy, uh, during, uh, during, during pregnancy.

That's disgusting. Uh, but, you know, they, they're sort of, you know, on a strategic level, if you think about this, um, That I think that the I think that the stuff that you're talking about is is actually where Republicans are the most vulnerable because people kind of know that they're that they're anti abortion.

And in fact, I think Trump has has had, you know, in his sort of usual way. Uh, you know, he has this kind of good animal instincts, uh, to, uh, to, to sort of veer away from that a bit, right? Like he, um, [00:52:00] uh, you know, he actually really did this, like, sort of in a way, I mean, I guess, you know, it was kind of funny.

But like he, he did this sort of very Stalinist, uh, dictating of the RNC platform, you know, usually there'd be like a platform committee that would like, you know, that would like wrangle over all these different provisions and stuff. And he essentially said, now here are some thoughts I had in the shower.

This is the RNC platform, no discussion. And you know, everybody just kind of fell into line. Uh, and it really does read like that, like one of them is we should have a giant missile dome over the entire country and all, you know, made in America and it's like all caps. And, um, and, and in that, right, he, uh, he, he veers away from talking about abortion.

Uh, he, he, he very pointedly does not include a national abortion ban, uh, which, you know, I think he realizes would, would kill him in the election. He. Um, he's like, [00:53:00] yep, I did my job. It's up to the states. Uh, he veers away from saying that he wants to take away a gay marriage. Uh, the, he just has like, uh, the only sort of bone to the social conservatives is like, uh, this very ambiguous phrase about believing in the sanctity of marriage, but you know, which marriages?

is left, you know, is left open. But, you know, certainly like, you know, trans stuff, I could, I could definitely imagine very easily a, you know, a second Trump administration finding some ways to, to be really performatively cruel about that. But again, I think people kind of know that, whereas I think, you know, That they are like, for 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: instance, real quick, I just wanted to get this out there because I've been wanting to mention it.

So I have this scientific American art club project, 2025 plan for Trump presidency has far reaching threats to science and buried halfway in it. Is the project 2025 recommendations would also limit what is considered a pollutant or a hazardous chemical in particular, they make the call to [00:54:00] quote revisit the designation of PFAS.

Those air uh, the forever chemicals that people were talking about. Um, like this affects our drinking water, man. Like, and I just, I don't hear people talking about that, uh, or the OSHA stuff. And that's. I'm just frustrated that that's not because that affects everyone. So I think you can pull swing bars, you know, or whatever.

BEN BURGIS: Absolutely. I mean, this is the thing. And this is the kind of thing that we should actually be very confident that Trump is going to do. Right. So, yeah, because 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: it's 

BEN BURGIS: deregulation. 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: It's the deregulation agenda. Yeah. 

BEN BURGIS: Yeah, exactly. Right. Because this is like anything. You know, like anything that's about like stuff that he might do now that he's like promising to do now that he didn't do before.

It's kind of anybody's guess how serious he is about it, you know, this time around. But also Trump was president for four years already. Everybody seems to have sort of forgotten that. And, and we [00:55:00] know what he would do. Cause he, he did it right. And, uh, the, the first four years of Trump were this like nonstop orgy of, you know, deregulation, union busting, uh, you know, tax cuts for rich people.

He did, uh, Uh, I mean, like, I remember in, like, December 2020, seeing this New York Times piece about how there were these Trump officials who were sort of taking the opportunity of their last weeks in office to weaken safety regulations for long distance trucking, right? So it's like, yeah. Undermine workplace safety undermine, you know, environmental protection, make it easier for companies to poison the air and water.

I mean, like, that's the kind of stuff that it's like, that's just the given. That's the baseline. 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: Did you hear what just happened where I'm at in Florida? What happened back in April? What happened? Ron DeSantis, uh, got rid of, um, Any possibility of having like water breaks based based on municipalities. Oh yeah.

I remember when this was first coming up. Yeah. Yeah. [00:56:00] They're prohibiting municipalities from like forcing companies to allow for water breaks and shading for, uh, Oh, my lights just went out. Anyways, uh, they're, they're, uh, prohibiting municipalities from forcing corporations to, you know, allow water breaks, uh, shading.

It's like there's no, it's like contempt for workers that have, you know, uh, risks associated with heat exposure. Just, none of that matters. It's all just being ignored. They don't care about, like, the risks of heat exposure that some people have, no accommodations being made, and I mean, to me, this kind of thing is like, I mean, it's horrible, and if DeSantis is doing that, and if that's the agenda here in Florida, I mean, I think we know what the Republican agenda is nationwide.

Teamster President’s RNC Both-Sides Pandering Fails Miserably Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 7-17-24

TEAMSTERS PRESIDENT: We need meaningful bankruptcy reform. Today, corporate vultures buy up companies like Yellow Freight with the [00:57:00] intent of driving them into bankruptcy and feasting on their remains. The courts leave workers begging for crumbs as third tier creditors.

Labor law must be reformed. Americans vote for a union but can never get a union contract. Companies fire workers who try to join unions And hide behind toothless laws that are meant to protect working people, but are manipulated to benefit corporations. This is economic terrorism at its best. An individual cannot withstand such an assault.

A fired worker cannot afford corporate delays, and these greedy employers know it. There are no consequences for the company, only the worker. We need corporate Pause it for a second. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Now, now. Okay. He thinks he's at a democratic convention because that's where you would hear the screams. He's sitting there knowing full well there will not be a single [00:58:00] solitary even attempt to increase or reform labor laws in this country in a way that is positive.

For unions under a Republican administration, not, not in two years, not in four years, not in five years, not in 10 years, probably not in 20, maybe, maybe long after I'm dead. But it's just not happening. And he knows that. And he stopped for a moment anticipating an applause line and it's just some scattered stuff going like people.

What the fuck is he talking about? Hopefully we just get some votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin. Go ahead. 

TEAMSTERS PRESIDENT: This is for the company, Only the Worker. We need corporate welfare reform. Under our current system, massive companies like Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and Walmart take zero responsibilities for the workers they employ.

[00:59:00] These companies offer no real health insurance, no retirement benefits, no paid leave, relying on underfunded public assistance. And who foots the bill? The individual taxpayer. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country of corporations, and this is real corruption. We must put workers first.

What could be more important to the security of our nation than a long term investment in the American worker?

In 2021, Teamsters Nationwide elected me to fight for them, and that's precisely what I'm doing. Thank you. Something is wrong in this country and we need to say it out loud. I will always speak for America and the American worker, both union and non union.[01:00:00] 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Okay. Um, I mean, fun that this is being said, uh, in a Republican, uh, convention. uh, chance that down the road this plants a seed and some of these people realize like, oh, I'm supporting a party that is completely against just about everything he said. And maybe in the event that Trump wins, it helps with, uh, he helps with, uh, Amazon organizing.

But if it costs 5, 000 votes, 10, 000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. That may be a problem and let's just be clear again. Billions nearly 40 billion dollars saving the pensions of over [01:01:00] 350, 000 Teamsters 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: by Biden 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: by buying the 

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Democrats. Yeah, there also is this myth. I think we talked about it like there are a lot of white working class people that support Trump.

That is a big part of his base. But the Washington Post did an analysis in 2016 that below the national median income in terms of white voters, yes, 58 percent, uh, support Donald Trump, um, but in terms of above the median, it's also 60, 65 percent in terms of percentage of, um, white voters who support Donald Trump.

So there is some, a good amount of working class support for Donald Trump. The people that stormed the Capitol, too, that were coming in on flights and things like that, they were business owners. They owned a pool cleaning company in their local town. They are, above the median income level, business owners with concerns related to that.

So it's just a bit of a different constituency and, uh, [01:02:00] than is sometimes always portrayed in, like, the media that was, in the wake of 2016, talking about how J.D. Vance is the whisperer to understanding this particular class. 

Responding to Tim Scott & J.D. Vance on Poverty - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 7-16-24

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: So would it be right to say that you're trying to expand the definition of who is poor in America to many people who might be generally referred to in the media as white working class? 

REV. DR. WILLIAM BARBER: Exactly. Because that is one of the misdirection. I've been thinking a lot about how extremists, uh, and, uh, persons who call themselves conservative.

I really don't think that's a good thing. Good title, but certain politicians, whether it be J.D. Vance or, or, uh, Tim Scott, and they will say working class Americans and, but what they don't want to deal with is the 52 to 55 million of those working Americans make less than a living wage because the minimum wage is only 7.

[01:03:00] 25 an hour. And so they are working poor, they are low wage workers, and any of the best economists in this country will tell you, you have to measure that to talk about poverty, to deal with it, uh, and, and, and, and look at who else would be extremely poor if we did not have certain things, uh, supplemented.

I mean, in this country, the way we do our military spending, you have persons who have been in the military. And serve this country, who then have to go on food stamps. You just think about that for a second. They have to end up on food stamps. During COVID, we called people essential workers, but then treated them like they were expendable.

So you're essential, but we're not going to pay you a living wage. We're essential, but we're not going to guarantee you health care. Or we may guarantee to give you some Medicaid expansion during the high times of COVID, but as soon as it's over, we're taking that back. We may give you some child [01:04:00] tax credit and reduce child poverty by 60%, But as soon as we see that there's some ending of COVID, we're taking that back as well.

What we're saying is expand understanding of poverty and low wages. And we're saying you have to look at race and poverty, uh, not either or, but both. And this is not a way to dismiss dealing with the issue of systemic racism and policy racism, but as a moral leader, as religious leader, uh, servant leader, I cannot.

Go to Appalachia and East Kentucky and visit, say, white coal miners in East Kentucky, some of whom I've known who have died since we've been in this movement, who have watched politicians allowed their coal mines to be taken over by multinational companies. And, and do away with their union rights. Uh, I can't go in those areas and then ignore that, and we can't ignore it in [01:05:00] America either.

And when Dr. King, who actually started the Poor People's Campaign because of welfare rights, women came to him, and they were black, and they were white, and they were women of all different geographies and races, and they said, Poverty has to be listed as one of the three evils. We suggest today that systemic racism, systemic poverty, ecological devastation, denial of health care, the war economy, and the false moral narrative of religious nationalism have to be seen as the five interlocking injustices that requires a multiracial movement to address them.

And the first thing we have to do. And stop lying about the reality of poverty in this country and deal with these facts. Over 135 to 40 million people are poor. Low wage poverty kills 800 people a day, 295,000 people a year. There are over 87 million people, either uninsured or [01:06:00] underinsured. There are millions of people every morning can get up.

And buy unleaded gas and can't buy unleaded water. And these are some of the realities that exist in this country that do not have to exist. And we could really be talking about abolishing poverty, not just adjusting poverty. 

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: And to get explicitly to what we heard at the Republican convention last night in the clip we played from Senator Tim Scott, uh, I guess you've already indicated that You, uh, who came to prominence in North Carolina and Senator Scott from South Carolina have somewhat different takes on racism in America or the role of government and politics in lifting people out of poverty.

Where would you start? 

REV. DR. WILLIAM BARBER: Well, there's so much there. And, uh, you know, Tim Scott is an interesting, uh, person. Uh, he, he loves to talk about poverty. Being raised poor and being black, he even has talked about how he believes in the ideas of Dr. King. And the [01:07:00] thing we have to learn, though, in where these politics have learned misdirection is to unpack what they're saying.

Now, for instance, we had heard that they weren't going to be divisive. Well, what he just said was very divisive. And not only is it divisive, it's not true. It's just a lot of persons who have needed to be lifted up. Uh, through certain social uplift programs are not engaged in victimhood. They are trying to survive.

We live in a country that gives more corporate welfare to corporations than we ever have given to poor people who, who, who merely need some food stamps just so they can survive. I've met white women in Appalachia. Who work low wage jobs, who, who have to sell tacos on the side of the road during the course of the week in order to put a fund together to support one another during the course of the month.

That's not victimhood. Those are people that are victims of [01:08:00] policies because there's, they're senators in that same state and in that same, uh, or Congress. People like Tim Scott. On the one hand, tell people to vote hard, but Tim Scott voted against living wages. He voted against raising the minimum wage to a living wage of at least 15 an hour indexed with inflation, which would, which in 1963 at the March on Washtenaw, remember Dr.

King and all of the folk that gathered there, they wanted to raise the minimum wage to 2 an hour indexed with inflation, which if they had. The minimum wage would be about 17, 18 an hour today. So, what he's saying is, is such a mismatch of, of, of, he needs to be fact checked. The reality needs to be fact checked.

The programs that were put in place, uh, that help lift people up, like food stamps, like, uh, Public housing, uh, have actually, uh, reduced poverty or at least reduced abject [01:09:00] poverty in some major ways when we, when social security was put in place, it reduced our white poverty, you know, by a large, large percentage.

And you think about people like Tim Scott when they see things like, even like social security, they see that as social welfare program as rather than a nation being responsible, he comes from the south, but one third of all poor people live in the south. One third of all poor white people live in the south and you don't hear him in any way.

Talking about limited wages and union rights, and he's talking about cutting public education and not funding public education. So just because he happens to be black and stands up in an audience and says, Uh, America is not a racist country, you know, that's wordsmithing. America is It's like America as a country, the whole country is not racist, but there is plenty of evidence of policy racism, whether you look at it in terms of housing, whether you look at it in terms of [01:10:00] inequity, uh, in, in, in, in, in wages and equity in, uh, the way in which environmental injustices impact community, but even beyond that, yeah.

Beyond that, this is what I want to say to Tim Scott, you know, you get up and say that in an audience to get them applauded, but you're also dismissing the millions of white people, the hundreds of thousands of white people in your own state, who are the majority of the persons that benefit from what you call welfare.

And the fact of the matter that he would racialize poverty is again one of those mythologies that we live in and then would suggest that his mama taught him to not be a victim. But I would bet you if they were poor and you go back and really fact check his history. They benefited from government programs in some way or another to help them make it through life and to get where they [01:11:00] are.

SECTION B: PRO-WORKER LEGISLATION

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: Pro-worker legislation.

Surprising Reason West Virginia May Vote Blue In November w Troy Miller - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 7-25-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: My old friend, Troy Miller. Troy has edited several of my books. He was a producer for our television program for years and years. Uh, he's, he worked in our studio. He worked on this radio show. He's a great guy. All of us love him and he lives in West Virginia. That's where he's from. And, uh, he's a DNC delegate and a DN a member of the DNC platform committee.

And he also writes about, uh, West Virginia politics on his Substack, which is BlueRidgeBreakdown. Substack. com. Troy, welcome back to the program. It's been on Troy for West Virginia Day uh, Troy, F O R W V. com. Um, that's your, uh, campaign site, right, Troy? 

TROY MILLER: That is my campaign site. I am also running, on top of all those things you listed, I'm also running for West Virginia House of Delegates here in District 98, which is our lower chamber, hundred district, single member districts.

And, um, we have a real chance to win this race for the first time and flip this seat for the first time in a decade, along with a [01:12:00] couple of other seats neighboring me. So it's a, it's a really exciting time to be a Democrat here in West Virginia. And, uh, it's a really exciting time to be a Democrat in, in the United States, I think.

Yeah, for sure. For sure. Yeah. So, 

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: so, uh, you just, you just had some significant influence, I believe, on your, uh, state party. You just, uh, came out, your state convention just finished. You guys came up with a pretty good platform. 

TROY MILLER: We came up with a really good platform. Um, one of the things that really stands out from other platforms is it is designed as a slide deck.

It's uh, more like a powerpoint than anything else. Because we intended for um, people to be able to, party leaders to be able to use that in their counties to get people involved because I think one of the Things that, as Democrats, especially in rural areas, we've lost is sort of that, um, key thrust of who we are and what we're fighting for.

And one of the central things that we got, um, into our platform and started as a resolution with our executive committee last year, which was [01:13:00] reaffirmed again this year by the broader convention, and now formally codified into our platform, is the 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights that Professor Harvey Allen Kaye and Alan Minsky, um, First sort of proposed as a unifying, a document based on FDR's 1944 second Bill of Rights or economic Bill of Rights, and it includes 10 very straightforward universal Um, uh, rights that we are aiming to secure and, um, those are the right to a job and a living wage, the right to a voice in the workplace through a union and collective bargaining, uh, the right to comprehensive quality healthcare, the right to a complete cost free public education and access to broadband internet, the right to decent, safe, affordable housing, the right to a clean environment and a healthy planet.

The right to meaningful resources at birth and a secure retirement. The right to sound banking and financial services. The right to an equitable and economically fair justice system. And the right to vote and otherwise participate in public life. And that's not the [01:14:00] entirety of the platform, although I personally think it is.

Um, I think when you look at our platform and what is being drafted and will be proposed for the DNC's platform, even though this language is not formally codified in that national level, we'll keep and continue working on that, is that pretty much everything we're fighting for falls under one of these categories.

That is great. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. 

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: You and I are both going to be at the DNC, and we just have a minute and a half here. You and I are going to both be at the DNC, and I'm hoping you can drop by the show and keep us up to date, but you're on the platform committee. Do you have any insights? I mean, have you heard anything from your colleagues, your fellow delegates to the convention, about who the vice president might be, or what's going on, or what the process is going to be, or when we might even hear?

TROY MILLER: You know, that is still, um There's a lot of talk, and a lot of it is the same talk that you'll be seeing at the national media. I will say my personal preference when [01:15:00] I'm talking to people, I think, um, Governor Andy Beshear would be a fantastic, um, sort of antidote to J.D. Vance, and I think what we're seeing is Appalachia has really become a salient political force.

In, um, our American politics, whether you're looking at what the North Carolina Democratic Party is really achieving across their rural areas, including rural Appalachia, whether you're looking at Governor Beshear in Kentucky, what he's been able to deliver, um, and as these areas are living through the real impacts of climate change and having to transition out of a fossil fuel economy, an extractive economy, Um, we need people who are really leading on that.

Um, and so that process is, I think, going to look a largely like it will, um, the, the, uh, Vice President Harris will vet a lot of candidates and she will come forward with a choice. And I think we'll, we have a lot of great choices on that vice presidential picket. I will just say here and use the microphone I have with you and your [01:16:00] audience to say, I think, um, um, Governor Beshear would be a great choice.

And I think really investing in Appalachia and rural Democrats here and understanding that we are, um, we are real, there are a lot of us, um, there are people ready to join the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party can continue to stand for and build on the things that we, they've delivered on for the last four years.

Responding to Tim Scott & J.D. Vance on Poverty Part 2 - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 7-16-24

REV. DR. WILLIAM BARBER: Well, he's exactly right. Dr. King said in 65 at the end of December, the Mount Thumb remarks, the greatest fear of the greedy oligarchy in this country would be for the masses of black people.

with the masses of poor white people and form a voting block that could fundamentally reshift the economic architecture of the country, which is one of the reasons with these mythologies. One of the mythologies we talk about in the book is that only black people want change. Uh, uh, that, that, that uh, You only have commonality if you're of the same color, another mythology.

Uh, another mythology [01:17:00] is that poverty is just a black problem. All of these are ways of, of, of pitting people against one another. Uh, we talk about how in the book that oftentimes people have offered people whiteness rather than a cure, uh, for the issues of poverty and, and low wages. You know, J.D. Vance, he did that in his book when he, he, he talked about coming from.

Appalachia, but then he blames the problems of the hillbilly on their personal morality and not on the public policy that actually continues to extend poverty. But to my brother's point, we're in a place now. The flip side of those horrific numbers, 135 million, 140 million poor low wage in this country, 800 dying a day, 295,000 a year.

The flip side of that is that poor people now make up 30% of the electorate across this country and in battleground states where the marginal victory for the presidency was within 3% [01:18:00] poor and low wage. People make up. Over 43 percent of the electorate. So there is not a battleground state where if just 10 percent of poor and low wage people organized around an agenda.

And when we had that massive assembly on DC, we didn't come there with just a venting March. The voices you heard were poor and low wage people from across the country, not people speaking on behalf of them, people of every race, color, creed, and sex, rather, and they laid out a 17 point agenda. You can go to poorpeoplescampaign.

org and pull it to say that if you want these votes, they're for you. 87 million poor and low wage voters in this country, 57 million voting in the last election, 30 million were infrequent voters. We're reaching out to 15 million of them to say, it's time for you to demand to be heard. And you have the power to unite together around an agenda.

And if you vote in such a way, you can force our, uh, society to talk about right [01:19:00] now. You can have presidential debate at the presidential debate. One of the reasons we saw the debate, it. The reason for that as a failure was not the personality of the two candidates or who, uh, you know, maybe flubbed a word or who told a lie, was that the commentator didn't ask one question to them about how will you address this reality of poverty, the fourth leading cause of death?

How will you address the issue of living wages? What poor low wage people are doing in the movement are coming together and saying, wait a minute, we hold this massive voting bloc. We can unite together. In most places, if just 20 percent of poor low wage folk were mobilized around the agenda that happened voting in the last two elections, they could change the outcome.

For instance, in Michigan, in the last election, the margin of victory was about 10, 000 votes. There were over a million poor low wage voters. So less than, you know, a few percentage points organized could shift. In North Carolina. [01:20:00] Uh, that's how Obama won in 2008. We didn't endorse candidates with those issues in Kentucky when poor and low wage people that we met without an East Kentucky, Harlan County, uh, has the county heard the truth and organized and joined with people out of Louis, Louisville.

They took out an incumbent Republican governor who had cut healthcare, who refused to fight for a minimum wage increase, who fought against their union right. And they won in Kentucky. And we didn't endorse a candidate. We endorsed issues and several of the counties that were considered red counties or whatever you want to call them, go look at the voter map.

They flipped. So it is possible in a moral fusion movement, but what you have to do is deal with these mythologies up front, and then you have to recognize the power that you have. It's not about mobilizing everybody, but what we do know from the new data that's out, that that poor low wage people, let's stick that 50, [01:21:00] 000 a year or below and a family of four tend to vote progressive when they vote.

That's how, if you look at Georgia, for instance, the last election, if you pull out Poor low wage folk that voted for progressive ideas. Do you have a different outcome in Georgia, both in the Senate and in the presidential race? If 

CALLER: you, 

REV. DR. WILLIAM BARBER: if you, if you look at, uh, uh, other places where you saw chapter, you look at it in Pennsylvania, pull out poor and low wage folk, but then recognize If it was in Pennsylvania, the margin of victory was about 40, 000, but some 2 million, almost 2 million poor and low wage infrequent voters didn't even vote.

In Wisconsin, the margin of victory was about 20, 000, but over a million poor and low wage voters did not even vote. This is the largest potential swing vote in the country. 

SECTION C: JD VANCE AND THE "CENTER" RIGHT

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section C: J.D. Vance and the Center-Right.

JD Vance, Phony Populism on the Right, the Republican National Convention, and Democratic Party Messaging w Ben Burgis Part 3 - Parallax Views - Air Date 7-22-24

No, I agree. And you mentioned O'Brien mentioning Josh Hawley, and I wanted to use [01:22:00] Senator Hawley as an example of, um, sometimes people like Hawley can say something that may sound Oh yeah, I, I, as a leftist I agree with that.

That sounds crazy, but for instance When he was pushing the copyright clause restoration act, I actually do think it's ridiculous that you can extend copyright, uh, like 95 years, come on, you know, uh, gone with the wind should be in the public domain at this point, right? But that bill would have only affected entities 150 billion, which means for practical purposes, You know, it's only intended to punish the Walt Disney Company, you know, so it's not really about truly changing the copyright laws, you know, 

BEN BURGIS: which is kind of funny because in a way that's like, this is like the, uh, you know, this is like the stuff you expect from Democrats that they roll out something that sounds good and then there are like 100 caveats at the end of it.

[01:23:00] You know, it's like, oh yeah, we're going to forgive student debt for people who have. Operated small businesses and minority communities for at least three years and, you know, have one brown eye and one green eye. And, you know, like, it's like, okay, never mind. Right? Like, uh, it's very much like that. But it's like, yeah, look, Josh Howley.

has a few good votes in the Senate. Uh, but like to, to make this concrete, the AFL CIO puts out legislative scorecards where they, um, you know, where they, they give politicians, you know, percentages of like how many sort of pro labor votes, uh, they, uh, they did, like how many times they voted on the right side of issues affecting labor.

And, uh, Josh Howley's AFL CIO legislative scorecard is 11%. Which, granted, makes him Eugene Debs compared to most of the rest of his caucus, but like, it's 11%. [01:24:00] Like, that was like, pretty miserable. 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: Vance didn't get a good scorecard either, did he? 

BEN BURGIS: Oh, Vance is actually 0%. So, uh, Vance is, Vance is doing worse than Ali is.

Uh, Vance is another one, by the 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: way, not to interrupt you, but you know, I looked at the real safety bill and I was like, Oh, that's good that he's working with, uh, Sherrod Brown or other Democrats to, to deal with real safety in light of East Palestine, Ohio and what happened there. But then I look into it more and Jacobin has a whole article about this, uh, by Julia Rock, uh, entitled J.D. Vance has weakened his real safety bill at lobbyist requests.

You know, so Republican Senator J.D. Vance quietly amended his rail safety bill to allow the same unsafe tank cars that leaked chemicals in East Palestine and Ohio to continue circulating through U. S. cities until as late as 2028, just as rail and chemical lobbies asked. So even though it seemed like he was doing something good at first, you know, then [01:25:00] he weakens the bill.

Also, by the way, 

BEN BURGIS: like,

why is Trump's record on rail safety as president? Like not part of this discussion, right? Yeah, well, that's the 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: elephant in the room. 

BEN BURGIS: You know, but yeah, yeah, exactly. Like even the stuff that's this good, right? Uh, like I always talk about rail safety is like doing some work at that. Then you look at the details and it's kind of like, uh, yeah, nevermind.

Um, and yeah, I mean, it's, it's in general, the van stuff, like, you know, you know, granted advances 0 percent is just for 2023. Cause that's the only full year that he's been in the Senate. Yep. Right. Maybe he could get that up to 11 percent over the course of a few years. But, um, uh, it's, it's also, you know, I think it's also meaningful that it's a 0 percent for 2023 and, and like, yeah, uh, people, people like Vance and Howley have, [01:26:00] have mastered, um, the art of, of sounding like populace, uh, when they talk about economic issues.

But then. You, you really start digging into the details and, and it's just ridiculous. Like, um, you know, even, even Josh Howley with his, a few good votes, right. Which is what you can honestly say about this. Um, that, you know, he voted against stopping the, the, the rail strike. There are a few, there are a few good votes, but like, um, but look.

You know what? He doesn't support the proact, which would, and 

J.G. MICHAEL - HOST, PARALLAX VIEWS: neither does Vance and Vance has given reasons for that, that I'm not convinced by, but go on. 

Trump, Vance, and the New Right at the RNC Part 2 - Deconstructed - Air Date 7-19-24

RYAN GRIM - HOST, DECONSTRUCTED: and Trump still has. Enormous number of oligarchs in his ear trump is susceptible to pressure whoever talked to him last What what have you?

So much depends on who trump picks as chief of staff. Let's say in a trump any trump presidency [01:27:00] Let's assume that for the sake of this question that he wins So much depends on who he picks as chief of staff and kind of how he staffs up and approaches things in the beginning what's your sense of what the trump circle is now and like where on the kind of The, the based scale, you know, uh, the door that on the J.D. Vance scale, his inner circle is how solidified is it?

How fluid is it? Like, what's your read of that? That world that has now had kind of 8 years. Eight or nine years to kind of develop an ecosystem that was nascent when it first, you know, shocked everybody, including himself by winning. 

EMILY JASHINSKY: I mean, there was nothing and you remember this like there was a heritage foundation that was raking in money from big tech, um, alongside, you know, the American Enterprise Institute alongside this suite of Koch funded Koch brothers funded think tanks that were staunchly anti labor and had been the backbone.

Of the tea party movement. So there really was absolutely nothing. And now [01:28:00] what's sprung up are groups like American compass and a couple of others. Um, but what's interesting about those groups, and this is what's fascinating about Trump in general, is that it's a, it's a mix. Ideologically, because the primary litmus test ideologically is whether you're on board with Donald Trump.

And that sounds like a line that is like kind of tired and like elite media spaces, but there's actually some truth to it. Like they're doing this vetting process for personnel and a potential Trump administration and their litmus test is loyalty to Donald Trump himself. Nobody's looking for like what maybe you said about policy, you know, five years ago, you could be Anthony Scaramucci.

You could be, let's take our favorite example, Stephanie rule. And if you had been nice to Donald Trump and said good things about him, you could have those politics. You can be art laugher or Larry Kudlow and have Donald Trump's ear, uh, in the same way that J.D. Vance does in the same way that people in those circles, uh, Marco [01:29:00] Rubio, you know, it's, it's just really a mix because the primary litmus test is loyalty to Donald Trump.

Now, people who have loyalties to Donald Trump tend to be. Those people that are also on board with like the new-right policy agenda, um, you know, Peter Navarro, Bob Lighthizer, people who are sort of quote, based on trade protectionist on trade. Um, obviously you're not going to see John Bolton in another Trump administration, but you might see Mike Pompeo who is here at the RNC this week talking about.

How, you know, Trump will ultimately control J.D. Vance, I think is a quote that's I'm paraphrasing a quote he gave to RealClearPolitics, but like, it's just about loyalty to Trump and Trump is floating what Jamie Dimon as his treasury secretary. It's about him. Uh, and so, you know, that tends to be more new-right than not, but also a lot of the really powerful people in his ear, to your point, Ryan, are oligarchs or oligarch adjacent.

“He’s a Fake” Robert Kuttner on How J.D. Vance Disguises His Anti-Worker Views as Economic Populism Part 2 - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-16-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: But, Robert Kuttner, if you could say how they’re against it? [01:30:00] Show, through their records — Vance, a senator, of course, Trump, former president, — how they’re anti-worker, because this right-wing populist appeal, the Teamsters president addressing, seeing the reactions of the presidential and vice-presidential candidate, was very powerful.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, you look at everything, from Biden’s executive orders that make it easier for workers to organize, to Biden’s executive orders requiring federal contractors to pay a living wage, to decisions by the NLRB on unfair labor practices, to raising the minimum wage, to defining Uber and Lyft workers as regular employees. I mean, you go down the entire litany of things that unions want, the Republicans have opposed every one of them, either in court or by statute [01:31:00] or in reported votes or Republican appointees on regulatory commissions.

And although Vance once walked a picket line with the UAW, he has not done anything to support the labor agenda. It’s all image. It’s all fakery. It’s all political stunts. And the more that comes out into the open, the more people realize that the Republican effort last night to present itself as the pro-worker party is nothing but posturing. And they need to be held to account on that. It should be a very major issue in the campaign. The more Republicans try and make their alleged pro-worker stance a high-profile posture, the more they need to be held to account.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: If people were just reading the script of Sean O’Brien’s speech, it could have been one given by, oh, [01:32:00] independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Are the Democrats at risk here of dismissing this level of right-wing populism? And can you talk about why it appeals so much, especially in the states, the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where we are right now?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, what’s truly dangerous about Vance, if you compare Vance with Trump — so, the Trump of 2016 posed as a populist, but it was cultural or social or racist populism — it’s all the fault of Mexicans, it’s all the fault of immigrants, it’s all the fault of, you know, DEI. This was a kind of an attempt to play into the feeling [01:33:00] of white working-class people that they have been disrespected. And it was a racist, nationalist, cultural brand of fake populism.

Now, what Vance brings to this is he tries to add economic populism: Not only are we going to seal up the Mexican border, but we’re actually going to help you earn a living wage. And Trump didn’t really do that, other than raising tariffs on Chinese goods and being anti-China. Trump didn’t follow through on that. It was left to Biden to complement the tariffs with a real industrial policy. Trump was opposed to that. Whereas Vance is much more effective at connecting Trump’s cultural and social and racist populism to what [01:34:00] looks like pocketbook populism, except it’s a fake, so that if you’re a worker in Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania, and your living standards have gone to hell, and you can’t send your kid to college because your child would have to go into debt, and you can’t afford to buy a house, and your health insurance is going down the drain — those are pocketbook issues. And to the extent that Vance talks a good game on pocketbook issues, that shores up Trump’s rather thin cultural populism. So, it’s dangerous.

And I come back to the fact that the Democrats have got to do better than Biden, if they’re going to contest this. I mean, Biden has done great stuff, but the number of Americans who think he’s too old, he’s too fragile, he’s too feeble, the fact that he can’t keep his lines straight, and the fact that Vance, by the way, is an excellent debater. [01:35:00] And we’ve got to do better than the current Democratic ticket, or these guys are going to win. And they’re cynical enough to carry out all their threats. And we really will cease to be a democracy, and you can change the title of your program to Democracy Then.

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 at [email protected]. 

The additional sections of the show included clips from Parallax Views, The Majority Report, The Brian Lehrer Show, The Thom Hartmann Program, Deconstructed, and Democracy Now!. 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 Andrew for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show [01:36:00] 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 and get 20% off this month only at BestOfTheLeft.com/support or through our Patreon page. 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. 

So coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington DC. My name is Jay!, and this has been the best of luck podcast coming to twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com.

Air Date 7/26/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. 

It's clear where the vast majority of violent rhetoric is coming from in this country. And it's clear which party is a cult of personality and which puts country before personal power. This is the state of play in our politics. 

Sources providing our Top Takes in under an hour today include Democracy Now!, The Thom Hartmann Program, The Atlantic, The Weekly Show with John Stewart, and Today, Explained. Then in the additional Deeper Dive half of the show, there will be more on Biden stepping down, violence and violent rhetoric, the RNC in all its glory, and conspiracy for good measure.

Jeff Sharlet on Trump Assassination Attempt, Authoritarian Violence & Project 2025 - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-15-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You posted on social media, “Calling Trump a 'threat to democracy' is in no way 'violent rhetoric.'” Can you take it from there? I mean, you have this situation where Trump was injured, [00:01:00] his right ear grazed. He’ll be speaking at the Republican convention tonight. One man was killed. Another two are critically injured. The shooter was shot. It is unclear how the Secret Service, clearing the site, which was a large field, where only this building overlooked it, overlooked this building, even as spectators were pointing to him climbing up the side of the building and then on the roof, and saying, “There’s a shooter there.” This is before he opened fire.

JEFF SHARLET: Yes. And I think to connect that to the idea of calling Trump a threat to democracy is the depth of cynicism. And I’ll go and take up Senator Vance’s challenge, too. Trump is fascist authoritarian. That’s a threat he poses. Naming that doesn’t call for violence. It calls for a vibrant democratic response.

And I think, in some [00:02:00] ways, what’s dismaying is this kind of tit-for-tat. Was the gunman a Republican, or was he motivated by some delusional version of what he imagined were left ideas? The clear division line here for that gunman, for that kind of action, is between violence and democracy. An assassin is anti-democracy. He is pro-violence.

And Trump is speaking as a candidate for a pro-violent movement that speaks explicitly and frequently and openly — and I didn’t go to Butler, but I’ve been to plenty of Trump rallies, and the invocation of violence is a constant drumbeat there. So, the depth of the cynicism of the idea that defending democracy is somehow calling for violence is kind of a new low for the Trump campaign, and that’s saying something.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to play for you, Jeff, a recent comment by North Carolina’s Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson, who’s running to be [00:03:00] governor and is planning to speak this week here at the Republican National Convention. This is Robinson speaking at a church in North Carolina last month.

LT. GOV. MARK ROBINSON: There was a time when we used to meet evil on the battlefield. And guess what we did to it. We killed it! We didn’t quibble about it. We didn’t argue about it. We didn’t fight about it. We killed it! … Some liberal somewhere is going to say that sounds awful. Too bad! … Get mad at me if you want to. Some folks need killing. It’s time for somebody to say it.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: “Some folks need killing,” Jeff Sharlet. Robinson is expected to be speaking here at the Republican National Convention.

JEFF SHARLET: Yeah, I was thinking about him this weekend. I was thinking about Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, recently elevated by Mike Johnson to the Armed Services Committee despite the fact that last year [00:04:00] he called for, basically, full-on militia resistance to the Biden administration. I was thinking about the megachurches that I encountered traveling in the country for The Undertow, that are forming militias, that actually are forming militias, that are armed. I was thinking about a church in Omaha, Nebraska, led by a prominent religious backer of Trump, where I was escorted out at gunpoint for asking questions.

So, I don’t like to do the thing like, “You did it first.” Instead, I think what we need to look at and sort of say is that the Trump campaign and this kind of authoritarianism is driven by not just the use of violence, not just the invocation of violence, but a kind of reverence for violence, a redemption through violence. You look at Project 2025, which we’ve all heard about now, and I think one of the things that hasn’t been talked about enough is it begins with four pillars, the principles that they’re moving [00:05:00] forward. Number one is protect the children, language that they’re taking directly almost from QAnon. The idea, it’s an invocation of innocence. And again and again at Trump rallies, in Trump’s rhetoric, you hear the idea of their innocence, which therefore justifies any violence in response. Calling that dangerous is not an incitement to violence. It’s an incitement to build a vibrant democratic culture that can push back against that nightmare dream.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, you raised the Project 2025. And not everyone may know what it is, this 922-page blueprint, written by the Heritage Foundation, for radically reshaping the federal government along what critics describe as authoritarian and Christian nationalist lines, the document proposing attacking unions, climate action, [00:06:00] universal healthcare, abortion access and more. Now, in recent weeks, Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, even though many of his advisers helped write it. He wrote on social media, quote, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” However, in 2022, Trump openly praised the Heritage Foundation’s work.

DONALD TRUMP: Our country is going to hell. The critical job of institutions such as Heritage to lay the groundwork, and Heritage does such an incredible job at that. … This is a great group. And they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for what exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save [00:07:00] America. And that’s coming. That’s coming.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, that was in 2022. It came. The Project 2025 is out. And even as we broadcast today in Milwaukee, one of the events that’s being held is by the Heritage Foundation. So, if you could talk further about that and compare that 922-page document to the much shorter, less than 20-page Republican platform that has just been put out?

JEFF SHARLET: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, I think that Trump’s denials in saying, “I don’t have nothing to do with this document,” that several dozen of his senior former aides have put together, is absurd and silly. But on the other hand, we also don’t have to doubt that Trump is telling the truth in only one regard: He did not read a 900-page document. The document for Trump and the strongman authoritarianism, the document serves Trump; [00:08:00] he doesn’t serve the document. And I think that’s what he’s saying. That’s the message his people are getting.

And he’s even able to say some of it he finds ridiculous. One of the things that’s been called attention to is the document calls for banning pornography. Trump’s not going to ban pornography. He has Amber Rose, the founder of OnlyFans, as a speaker at the rally. He’s going to be introduced by Dana White, the CEO of the Ultimate Fighting organization. Blood and sex is a part of the rally, right?

But if you look closer at Project 2025 and the way that document works and the way it creates a blueprint not for just his action but for what we think of, the thousands of little Trumps that trickle down from the top all through the administration, starting with the replacement of the civil service, which is one of the things that it outlines — you look at the banning of pornography. They’re defining pornography as transgender ideology. [00:09:00] So, oh, this is an attack on trans people. They’re defining it as librarians who distribute pornography, librarians who distribute regular books, Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home or Gender Queer. Suddenly those people are subject to criminal prosecution. Now we see the project, and we see how the project aligns with the Trumpist movement.

Who Really is Stoking Violence in America? - The Hartmann Report - Air Date 7-15-24

THOM HARTMANN: I just want to share my take on this, 'cause I'm not hearing this from anybody else, and I think we should, frankly. 

This kid, he's a school shooter. He was the bullied loner in school who everybody hated, nobody got along with, and he was obsessed with guns. When he shot at Trump, he was wearing a t-shirt for a YouTube channel about guns and explosives that has 11 million followers.

And I'm convinced that this kid was probably preparing to shoot up his local school, and Trump comes to town. I mean, Trump literally came to his backyard. And it's like, oh, well, if I'm gonna go out and blaze a glory shooting up my school, [00:10:00] what better than to go out and blaze a glory shooting the president? Then they'll really remember my name. 

Because, keep in mind, most school shooters are suicidal. They're essentially depressed, bullied, outcast, loner young men. And that's him. 

So all this stuff about, oh, it's politics, no, it's Democrats. Well, first of all, you've got a concerted Republican effort going on right now, right across the board -- and this is what my op ed today at Hartmann Report is all about -- saying, "Democrats, quit talking about Donald Trump and violence." Quit saying -- there's a tweet by Joe Biden that says, Donald Trump is truly dangerous to America. And Republicans are retweeting that, saying, How come he hasn't taken this down yet? In other words, Democrats, damn well better shut up. 

It's not Democrats who've been calling for violence. It wasn't Democrats who in 2016 said, Maybe my Second Amendment people will take care of Hillary Clinton. It wasn't Democrats who made fun of Paul Pelosi being beat with a hammer. It wasn't Democrats who retweeted on Truth Social a [00:11:00] picture of Joe Biden with a bullet in his forehead tied up in the back of a pickup truck. No, that was all Donald Trump. 

And that's just the beginning. There's a list of -- there was one on Daily Kos over the weekend. Forty five times Trump has called for violence. Yeah, hit him, knock him hard, I'll pay for your legal expenses, everything. 

You haven't heard Democrats do any of that stuff.

At the last CPAC, they had a plastic dummy of Joe Biden that you could kick. And people were in line to kick him. 

This "both sides" BS that we're hearing in the media. "Oh, both sides need to tone down the rhetoric." I'm sorry, the Democrats have not done been promoting violence. They have not been. They have not been at any point. This has solely been the province of, not so much the Republican Party, because you're not hearing violent rhetoric from people like Mitt Romney or Mitch McConnell, but it's coming out of the MAGA movement, Trump's neo-fascist movement. Pure and simple.

And, that's what they're trying to do. By the way: [00:12:00] crazy bit of history. This is just nuts. 80 years ago this week, exactly to this week, 80 years ago this week, there was an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. And the only injury he sustained was to his ear. He was, for the rest of his life, he was deaf in one ear as a result of the explosion where they tried to kill him. They set off a bomb in his conference room. And, fortunately for him, the table that it was underneath was made of three-inch-thick oak or something like that, and it just absorbed the blast. But it blew out one of his eardrums. 

So, is history trying to tell us something? I don't know. It's just that kind of falls into the category of crazy alert, of wacky stuff. 

But, anyhow, in the Hartman Report today, the headline is, "How Trump and the GOP will use this opportunity to demonize and shut up Democrats." And it's already started.

 This is very different, by the way, from how Reagan dealt with being shot. And I [00:13:00] think that's worth pointing out. Because, Republicans love to lionize Ronald Reagan. Well, let's look at what happened when John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan. It was quite some time before they figured out that it had anything to do with Jody Foster. For all they knew, John Hinckley was a Muslim terrorist, or a Democrat, or, fill in the blank of somebody who Republicans love to demonize. And yet, Reagan and his people didn't come right out and say, Oh, the Democrats caused this. In fact, what Reagan did is he said, and I'm quoting, He said, "Perhaps coming so close to death made me feel that I should do whatever I could in the years God has given me to reduce the threat of nuclear war." He woke up in the hospital, and there was a friend of his with him. There was a number of people there. And he said to this one guy, he said, "I'm going to dedicate my life to peace." And he did! Three days after he left the hospital, he wrote a note to Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, saying, again, a quote, "We would like to work together for a meaningful and constructive [00:14:00] dialogue which will assist us in fulfilling our joint obligation to find lasting peace." That's how Reagan reacted to being shot.

Now, I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan, right? I didn't like his policies. But he wasn't trying to start a civil war. He wasn't encouraging Proud Boys to stand by and stand back. He didn't ask a couple thousand people to attack the Capitol building, hang the Vice President, and murder the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Donald Trump did all that. Okay, he didn't explicitly call for Mike Pence to be hanged or Nancy Pelosi to be murdered. He simply mobilized the crowd. But he watched TV as he could hear the crowd saying "Hang Mike Pence." He could see the video of the crowd going after Nancy Pelosi. He didn't do a thing for three hours. That's an endorsement of that kind of violence. 

And they want Democrats to shut up? 

J. D. Vance yesterday tweeted out, "The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian [00:15:00] fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination." B. S., I'm telling ya. This kid who did this, who tried to assassinate Trump, this guy who tried to kill Trump, was a school shooter. He was the bullied loner who wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, and he was probably planning, with his dad's AR-15, he was probably planning on shooting up the local school, and then Donald Trump showed up and he thought, Hey, if I want to go out in a blaze of glory, this is a better opportunity.

And by the way, why aren't Democrats right now introducing legislation called the Save President Trump Act to ban assault weapons? The kid was able to get off multiple shots very rapidly because he had an AR-15.

The Long Simmer of Political Violence in America - The Atlantic - Air Date 7-15-24

Harris: So what does this most recent instance say about the undercurrent of political violence in America?

LaFrance: I think Anne is exactly right that the signs of a society becoming more [00:16:00] comfortable with political violence have been all around us for a while now, concerningly. It’s terrible. You mentioned the UC Davis study. They found a small but substantial percentage of Americans believe that lethal violence is justified to get to their preferred political ends.

You see more Americans bringing weapons to political protests in recent years, political aggression often expressed in the rhetoric of war, the building of political identities around hatred for the other or hatred of one’s political foes rather than articulation of whatever value someone might have.

So this has been in the air, in addition to the concrete examples that Anne provided of actual violence. Anyone who tracks this has been warning for years that we’re in it and that it’s getting worse.

Harris: And you mentioned something that, thinking about weapons and how guns factor into all of this—what is the sort of ramping [00:17:00] up of access to firearms meant for the forms that political violence can take in American society?

LaFrance: One expert who I talked to in recent years—you know, I had been asking about where we should anticipate there to be violence, because the nature of political discourse is so dispersed. Often you hear people invoke the possibility of another civil war. And for Americans, I think you think of the Civil War of the 19th century understandably. But the kind of fight we’re having politically is different today. It’s just the way society is organized is different. And this person that I asked—I had asked, “Where should we look for the threats of violence?”—and I remember more than one expert telling me that it’s likely to be in places where there are already militia groups emerging, where people who do disagree strongly with one another bump up against one another, where there’s heightened partisanship, and in particular swing states.

So the states that came up again and again in those conversations were Michigan, Georgia, [00:18:00] Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona. And so you know, I think guns are broadly available in America, generally, but with an incident like this, you have to ask about access to the weapon that was used.

Harris: And so as Adrienne mentioned, we often bring up this idea of a civil war, kind of around when we’re thinking about political violence, because that’s our sort of touchstone example. But is that the right way to be thinking about political violence in America?

Applebaum: It’s funny, I saw the movie Civil War, the one that came out recently, and although it was better than I thought it was going to be, it struck me as wrong. Because for those of you who haven’t seen it, there are sort of two sides fighting, and they have big weapons—they have tanks and helicopters, and there’s a literal war inside the United States with teams of people shooting other teams of people. And that doesn’t feel to me like what could happen here.

I think the better idea of what could happen here is something that looks more like civic breakdown, [00:19:00] and a really good example might be Northern Ireland. So Northern Ireland was a very, very bitterly divided community in which people literally had different identities. Some people felt themselves to be Irish; some felt themselves to be British. And that wasn’t reconcilable. You couldn’t find a halfway point in between where you were half and half. And what you had in Northern Ireland was a low-level, constant violence. So bombs, murders, assassinations, explosions. So the province was roughly ungovernable.

And over the years there were different phases—I don’t want to overgeneralize it. There was a British police force that tried to bring calm to the situation. There were many years of negotiations. But that seems to me the kind of world that we could wind up living in, or maybe parts of the country could wind up living in. As you say, maybe Pennsylvania. Arizona seems like a good possibility given how many death threats have been made to Arizona [00:20:00] election officials and other nonconformist Republicans in Arizona, some of whom I’ve talked to.

And that’s a model of a society that feels ungovernable, and people are frightened to go out of their house at night—not because of crime but because they might be assassinated by the other side, or even assassinated by their own side if they’ve been insufficiently partisan. Northern Ireland also felt a little bit like a gang war.

People who tried to reach out to the other side or who tried to become peacemakers could also become victims of violence. Anybody who was in the center, or anybody who wasn’t a participant, became a target. And that’s actually where I see the United States going, and in some senses, we’re already there.

If you hear stories, as I say, from elected officials and others in states where they haven’t conformed to whatever the partisan rules are, you hear them afraid of violence. I was actually in Tennessee a few months ago, and I [00:21:00] met Republicans there who didn’t go along with the MAGA version of Republicanism that’s prevalent in Tennessee, and some of them were afraid.

I mean, you can’t say it in public. You have to be careful how you talk in front of your neighbors. It’s even worse, of course, if you’re a Democrat. And people are afraid to participate in politics. They’re afraid to work for political campaigns. It’s very hard to get Democrats even to be candidates for the state Senate and legislature in parts of Tennessee because it’s so dangerous to be a Democrat.

And I think we’re already there in a lot of parts of the country.

Harris: What would that sort of chilling effect on people’s ability or willingness to want to go into politics—what does that mean for our broader democracy?

Applebaum: It means that, you know, politics become, instead of a forum for civic participation and a place where we can iron out our difficulties and our differences through dialogue, it becomes something that’s fraught with danger.

People want to stay away from it. Maybe people become [00:22:00] cynical and nihilistic. This is what happens in authoritarian countries—people don’t want to participate in politics because it just feels like everybody is corrupt, everybody is violent. The extreme language puts a lot of people off—not just from being a candidate but from participating in any way, even from voting or even listening to the political news.

And by the way, I’ve heard that a lot in the last few days, from people who are not journalists, or not in politics. You know, I just don’t want to hear what’s going on. I don’t want to listen to the news.

Harris: It’s almost like I just want to tune it out.

Applebaum: I just want to turn it off.

Harris: Adrienne, you’ve reported recently on the sort of rise of political violence in America.

One thing that you said you learned in your reporting was how other cultures managed to endure sustained political violence and how they ultimately emerged with democracy still intact. And I think that’s the thing that’s kind of on all of our minds, like, how do we keep this democracy intact? So what are the necessary next steps to ensure that democracy sort of lives on?

LaFrance: I think Anne hit on [00:23:00] it exactly. I mean you need people who are willing to participate in the project of self-governance, and that requires capable people to lead at all levels of society.

It requires, in my view, voters who are willing to say, Enough, we are not going to tolerate violence, and we are going to elect people who unconditionally reject violence as a way of governing or as a way of life. I mean, the tricky part is, the history is not tremendously hopeful, and there isn’t one blueprint. You know, when I set out to report the story you referenced, Anne and I actually talked about this a lot in the early stages of my reporting, in part because I wanted to hear from her about sort of what are the other countries that got it right, and what can we learn from conflict resolution in Ireland or elsewhere?

And the truth is, once you’re in endemic political violence, it can take generations to get out of it. I mean, I certainly hope that’s not the case for us here, but it’s the sort of messy, almost boring, day-to-day work of democracy that needs to be done, and that’s exactly what’s declining.

In “Unity” Speech, Trump Demonizes Migrants, Spreads Lies & Embraces Authoritarianism - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-19-24

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Donald [00:24:00] Trump accepted the Republican nomination on Thursday night, just five days after surviving an assassination attempt. Trump gave the longest acceptance speech in convention history, clocking in at over 90 minutes. He began by recounting what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday after a bullet grazed his right ear as he was giving a speech.

DONALD TRUMP: I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of Almighty God. In watching the reports over the last few days, many people say it was a providential moment. Probably was.

When I rose, surrounded by Secret Service, the crowd was confused because they thought I was dead. And there was great, great sorrow. I could see that on their faces as I looked out. [00:25:00] They didn’t know I was looking out. They thought it was over. But I could see it, and I wanted to do something to let them know I was OK. I raised my right arm, looked at the thousands and thousands of people that were breathlessly waiting, and started shouting, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”

CROWD: Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: During his acceptance speech, Trump repeatedly demonized migrants seeking refuge in the United States. Trump vowed to carry out the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history.

DONALD TRUMP: The greatest invasion in history is taking place right here in our country. They are coming in from every corner of the Earth, not just from South America, but from Africa, Asia, the Middle East. They’re coming from everywhere. They’re coming at levels that we’ve never seen before. It is an invasion indeed. And this administration does absolutely nothing [00:26:00] to stop them.

They’re coming from prisons. They’re coming from jails. They’re coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. I — you know, the press is always on me because I say this. Has anyone seen Silence of the Lambs? The late great Hannibal Lecter, he’d love to have you for dinner. That’s insane asylums. They’re emptying out their insane asylums. And terrorists are coming in at numbers that we’ve never seen before. Bad things are going to happen. …

That’s why, to keep our families safe, the Republican platform promises to launch the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Donald Trump was introduced by Dana White, chief executive of UFC, Ultimate Fighting Championship. The evening also featured musician Kid Rock and the wrestling [00:27:00] legend Hulk Hogan.

HULK HOGAN: But what happened last week, when they took a shot at my hero and they tried to kill the next president of the United States, enough was enough! And I said, “Let Trumpamania run wild, brother! Let Trumpamania rule again! Let Trumpamania make America great again!”

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Hulk Hogan’s appearance at the RNC may surprise many, but he actually has something in common with Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance. Both have ties to the right-wing billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel. Thiel reportedly spent as much as $10 million to help Hulk Hogan sue the website Gawker.com. The successful [00:28:00] lawsuit brought down the website. Thiel also spent $10 million to help J.D. Vance get elected to the Senate in 2022.

We’re going to begin with Maria. What is stunning, and it’s not just last night, Thursday night, when President Trump, the former president, hoping he’ll be not only 45 but 47 — which was on everyone’s baseball caps — it was not only his longest speech in convention history, but in almost all of the references of speakers throughout the week, if there was a theme, it was attacking immigrants every which way — as murderers, as drug dealers, the assault, the invasion from the border. Can you talk, overall — you were just in Milwaukee — about the significance of what has just taken place here?

MARIA HINOJOSA: [00:29:00] My god, Amy. You know, if I let it actually get into my heart, I would want to start crying, which I’m not going to do because I’m a seasoned journalist. But when you kind of lay it out that way, Amy, that’s the reason why I wasn’t tuning in every night, because it is all — and I’m sorry to say — but it is lies. Right? That’s ultimately what we’re talking about here.

What we do know is that the Republican platform under Donald Trump is very clear. It is, over and over and over, about attacking immigrants, refugees, migrants and travelers. What we don’t have on the other side, in terms of the Democratic Party, is a response to that, right? There isn’t a response to “build the wall,” which is precisely what we need.

In the case of the Republican National Convention, you know, having been in Milwaukee — which, by the way, is a hugely immigrant city. Milwaukee — I don’t know you, you probably haven’t had the [00:30:00] opportunity — has an extraordinary street food culture of tacos, very particularly tacos. They love their tacos in Milwaukee. And so, this notion that you have a Republican convention in a city that has a huge immigration population, undocumented and documented, but somehow everybody’s safe in Milwaukee, it does not jibe with the narrative, the constant narrative of what Donald Trump says about who we are.

And again, Amy, what we know — it’s not me. Of course, I travel across the country. I’m at the border. I talk to immigrants and refugees every single day of my life. But we know what the Justice Department has said. We know what the FBI has said, that crime over the past three decades has decreased by 49% in the United States. And meanwhile, what the Congressional Budget Office has said is that immigration and immigrants are [00:31:00] going to grow the American economy by $7 trillion over the next decade. You cannot have it both ways.

The role of the journalist is to not repeat the lies of an authoritarian. That’s why what’s happened at this Republican National Convention is so problematic for me as a journalist, because we cannot be the ones who are repeating these claims and then not doing the work of constantly doing the fact-checking. It’s impossible to do, with a convention that we have now seen is, essentially, specifically on the question of immigration, lying over and over and over again.

It’s — again, I’m sorry I got emotional. I hate when that happens. But when you kind of hear it one by one by one — and I’m just like, “Where do I live? What country do I live in?” Because if everything that he said is true, then our American economy would be tanking, right? And, actually, there would be rampant crime across the streets. That is not the truth. And even [00:32:00] Trump supporters can say that, because if they just open their eyes, they know that’s not the truth.

Jon Stewart on Biden 2024: It Is What It Is? - The Weekly Show With Jon Stewart - Air Date 7-11-24

TOMMY VIETOR, POD SAVE AMERICA: That was an ass kicking in the sense that Obama wasn't sharp, he didn't have his message down. He didn't seem like he came ready to fight and make a case against Romney. This was bad in that Biden struggled to speak coherently and get sentences out and make an argument. And that to me was chilling. 

JON FAVREAU, POD SAVE AMERICA: It would have been like, if in that first debate with Romney, Barack Obama went out and said, Look, I wasn't born here, but let me tell you something -- I'm not from here. I'm not from this country, everyone who's been wondering. 

JON STEWART: Bakari, I imagine you didn't watch the debate and think to yourself, he's killing it! But you had a very different response to what you were seeing. Do you want to talk about that? 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: Yeah, no, I think he got his ass kicked up, down, left, right, and sideways. I also don't think elections are won in June. I think that there is a great deal of just over excitement by a lot of my friends on the left or over concern. I mean, it is what it is. People are talking about, people are engaging in this fantasy [00:33:00] fiction of this off ramp, this proverbial off ramp where there's not one. People are talking about this open convention where there's not going to be one. If in fact there is an opportunity for someone else to replace Joe Biden, the only person who has the infrastructure, the cash in order to do that or at least give us a chance to last four months would be Kamala Harris.

But I'm just very soberly saying we got our ass kicked in the debate. First and foremost, we can have all of these conversations about Joe Biden needs to do this and Joe Biden needs to do that. But after July 22nd, if I'm not mistaken, or 25th, whenever we have the roll call, he is our nominee. So then what are you going to do?

I'm resolved to the fact that we have three choices. We have Donald Trump, we have Joe Biden and the couch. And whether or not I was at Essence Fest or whether or not I was fishing with my good friend, Jared Lodehold off a dock in Orangeburg County last week, the people I talked to are all saying the same thing: let's just get on with it. We know what we're going to do. We know who we're going to choose and it is what it is. we have bigger things that we're fighting for other than going back and rehashing the fact that our candidate is 81 years old, probably eats [00:34:00] at Denny's, goes to bed at four o'clock and changes tennis balls on his walker.

JON STEWART: You just described my perfect weekend. Thank you, Bakari!

So I want to talk about -- because I think, Bakari, you bring up a really interesting mindset and I want to talk about that because I am of the opinion that democracy is not just under threat by authoritarians or by a Supreme Court that has decided maybe we shouldn't have left England in the first place and a monarchy is actually slightly preferable. But I want to talk about the phrase, "it is what it is." Because I think that that is a complacency that I've seen in the Democratic party for a very long time. That includes Ruth Bader Ginsburg not retiring on time. That includes Merrick Garland not going after Donald Trump for January 6th on time. That includes not being able to get Merrick Garland onto the Supreme Court. That includes allowing Amy Coney Barrett to get onto the Supreme Court. That includes not [00:35:00] being responsive to urgency and to new information and just saying, "It is what it is, guys" and shrugging. 

And I think my point is, there is opportunity here. It may not be open convention. It may not be a new person to take on to the ticket. But there is a vibrant and I think ultimately positive at least conversation and acknowledgement to be had, that is not being had because "it is what it is", and "what are you going to do?" So I want you to respond to that. 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: Yeah, I don't actually mind the conversation. I'm not somebody who wants to put you and Axe and Tommy and John and the guys and Tim, put you guys on an island and just ship you guys off. 

JON STEWART: White guys' summer, white guys' summer! 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: White boys' summer! You and Chet Hanks. I know.

So I'm not somebody like, I appreciate the thoroughness in which you're having this [00:36:00] debate. I'm kind of looking beyond that. And to your "it is what it is," you're kind of a monologue there. Look, the fact that you can go back to Rahm Emanuel, not putting the impact on, or the emphasis on the judiciary as he should have and Barack Obama not doing what he should have done at the judiciary or codifying, uh, Roe v. Wade or whatever he could have done when we actually had the House and the Senate in 2008. Those type of things, we can go back and re-litigate those things under that mantra of "it is what it is." 

What I'm talking about right now is very practically the choices we have before us. And so I am geared up trying to prevent project 25. I'm geared up trying to make sure that the things that we're talking about, the Chevron ruling, which I know that people are caught up on presidential immunity. Sure. The Chevron ruling, in my opinion, was more devastating to the fabric of democracy than anything we've seen in recent history. 

JON STEWART: He's talking about the ruling from the Supreme Court, which made it much more difficult for federal agencies to regulate, whether it's the EPA or SEC or any of those agencies to regulate the people that they're charged with regulating, that they undercut those decisions, from the Supreme Court. 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: And they did [00:37:00] what they did similarly in Dobbs, they overthrew decades worth of precedent, which the Supreme Court is not necessarily known to do, unless you're like Clarence Thomas and you're getting flowed out by your billionaire donors all over the country. 

And so, yeah, I think there are a lot of people who sit in my seat and they have a very sober look at where we are practically and say, I cannot afford in November to go back any further. We felt like 2020, we were on the precipice of a third reconstruction and we missed that mark. And since that time, we've actually been going backwards. And I know that people just don't want to backslide anymore. And I feel like having -- 

JON STEWART: Biden is the President. If we're backsliding under Biden, you're saying we're -- 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: No, but I can go through his list of achievements. But what we're talking about are the attacks on DEI. We're talking about the attacks on Affirmative Action. We're talking about how in Arizona, they passed an abortion bill from the 1800s, how they passed Dobbs, how we just went through presidential immunity. I mean, there are cultural and policy initiatives that firmly make me believe that we've gone backwards. I mean, look at Black home ownership. 

JON STEWART: No, I'm not, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying the administration is the administration right now. But Jon and [00:38:00] Tommy, I want you to address this because what Bakari is suggesting is that he's being strategic, that this isn't about noticing that the President may no longer be up to the job. This is about staying with the status quo because strategically, I guess -- and Bakari tell me if I'm misrepresenting this -- that gives us our best opportunity to win. And I think my point is, I don't know that that's the case. I think I would disagree that that's the best strategy, but, but what's your thought?

JON FAVREAU, POD SAVE AMERICA: I mean, you would disagree and literally all of the polling and data available would also agree with this position as well. But it's not fiction at all that Joe Biden could step down tomorrow. He could announce that you know what? I have a important job to finish. I'm doing two jobs right now. I'm President of the United States and I'm running for President, and President of the United States is too important and I want to focus on that. And I can pass it off to Kamala Harris, or we can have an open convention, whatever he wants to do. He could easily do that tomorrow, and the [00:39:00] idea that we cannot influence -- 

JON STEWART: Bakari, Bakari just got very sad.

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: Well, no, that's not a real thing. 

JON FAVREAU, POD SAVE AMERICA: It is a real thing. Bakari, why is that not a real thing? 

TOMMY VIETOR, POD SAVE AMERICA: Yeah, why is it not real? 

JON STEWART: Is it not a real thing technically, or is it not a real thing, you think, emotionally or technically it's not a real thing? 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: I think technically, emotionally -- first of all, the way this works is, and I love the kind of land that we're living in where one can assume that Joe Biden can say that I don't have the ability to run for reelection, after I've already announced that I am, after I've done all of these things, raised all of these monies, have the infrastructure around the country, but yet I don't have it in me to finish this campaign. 

JON FAVREAU, POD SAVE AMERICA: No, he can say I can't win. I can't win because all the polling says he can't win. 

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN: Yet I can still be president of the United States. So those things are not, those things don't fly.

TOMMY VIETOR, POD SAVE AMERICA: He can't win. One's a multi month job and one is auditioning for a four year job. 

JON STEWART: I'm gonna also jump in and say look, nobody actually knows. Now things are looking dire for the President, but four months, I think any of us would agree in a modern media timeline [00:40:00] is for fucking ever. It really is. I think we confuse this idea. You know, we just saw France lose terribly in the parliamentary elections. Macron jumps out with a snap election. Weeks later, they've stemmed the tide of Le Pen. I mean, it can be done. And that's my point, Bakari. We are complacent. And that complacency sets in a cynicism with the American public. And I think you're giving us a binary choice that's not real. I don't necessarily agree, oh, Biden can't win or Kamala can't win. We just don't know. And the world changes so quickly and we don't know about those things.

But here's what I do know: it's not a binary choice. President Biden's defiance, I don't think is the right strategy. I think the idea of not acknowledging the progressive and degenerative nature of what he's [00:41:00] dealing with is gaslighting anybody who supports him. And this idea of have him going out there with bromides about "Joey, my dad said to me, Joey, it's not about how you get knocked down, it's about how you get up." And you're like, I don't know that you can get up, sir. I think that's really not the metaphor you want to go with. And there's no shame in that. We all get there. So I don't understand. 

There is an opportunity here to have a more honest, adult, sophisticated, fuck the media, fuck whatever they're going to say. You are in control of how this goes down. And I think they're bungling even the response.

You did it, Joe - Today, Explained - Air Date 7-22-24

SEAN: Has anything like this ever happened before, Andrew?

ANDREW: You know, in one sense, this is unprecedented. Um, In the modern era, certainly no presidential party has changed its apparent nominee so late in the process. People point to Lyndon [00:42:00] Johnson choosing to step aside in March, 1968 as one precedent. 

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president. 

ANDREW: But I also think of the way this played out as quite similar to something that actually happens pretty frequently, which is a scandal plagued politician begins hurting the party and then faces a tragedy. Pressure campaign that could be quick. That could take longer, but designed to force them to step aside. And you know, that's something we just saw it in New York with Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2021. It also happened with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Governor Elliott Spitzer. New York Democrats do this a lot. But The idea is that, you know, the primary voters had [00:43:00] their say, such as it was with the limited options they were presented with, in part because of the party elites falling behind Joe Biden. But there is a conceptual problem of what happens when the primary voters make their choice, but new information emerges after the primary. I think everyone knows that if a time traveler sent back a recording of how Donald Trump and Joe Biden's first debate of 2024 went, uh, back into 2023. I don't think he would have, uh, waltzed to the nomination with only token opposition. Uh, it was simply not well understood or accepted, uh, that he would perform so badly and he tried to, um, prevent that from being known by limiting his availability for high profile, high stakes interviews; for avoiding any debates in the primaries. And, uh, because of that, the primary voters lacked [00:44:00] some information that now the general electorate has. It's also worth mentioning that back during the primaries, many polls showed that a large majority of Democratic voters did not think Biden should run for a second term and they would prefer someone else. But nobody else who was significant and credible ended up running.

SEAN: Biden submits a resignation letter to the American people yesterday. In it, he does not lay out a path for his successor. Although he does then issue, I believe, a tweet in which he endorses his vice president, Kamala Harris. Why didn't he endorse her in the resignation letter? Do we know why there's two statements, essentially?

ANDREW: I have no idea. It's, uh, It's an interesting question.There was some uncertainty before this about whether there would be this rapid consolidation of Democratic support around Harris. Uh, this could have [00:45:00] been, you know, Biden's endorsement was a big part of this, but, you know, it wasn't. The deciding factor necessarily, uh, it's more indicative, all the endorsements we've seen rolling in, are more indicative of the mood in the party that they're kind of desperate for unity.

After the past few weeks of chaos, they don't want a big open process, uh, and the potentially other credible contenders who would, one might think, get involved in this process have mostly already endorsed Harris and said they're not interested in going for it this time. Now, this does pose the risk that Democrats are kind of repeating the same mistakes they made with Joe Biden's run in the first place in clearing the field and consolidating around someone whose strengths and weaknesses really have not been tested yet.

SEAN: If the candidate ends [00:46:00] up being Kamala Harris, do we have any idea who her, her Veep will be? Can she pick Joe?

ANDREW: Theoretically, she could. I don't see why she would, but, um, I think probably the platonic ideal is like white men in a swing state. This is what Democrats are thinking, not myself, but like they, they view this as, like, a good balance to Harris at the top of the ticket, and like they want someone who swing voters will perceive as, as non threatening and normal. Like, this is kind of said in a joking way, but also not necessarily so joking. But people point to Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. Both of those are important swing states. Uh, also in the mix, Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky.

SEAN: What's Vice President Harris saying to potentially allay concerns in her party?

ANDREW: She said she's running. She says she's running to win and that she would like to earn the nomination. And, [00:47:00] you know, it's, it's a little vague about how these next steps will actually play out. We all know that the nominee will be put forward and confirmed at the Democratic Convention the week of August 19th and be, uh, technically chosen by the, uh, A couple thousand delegates who are attending that convention, but whether they will have a actual choice between multiple competing options, uh, who are are realistic, who have an actual shot, the reality is that it is entirely possible Harris will lock up the vast majority of party support well in advance so that there is effectively no real alternative and no realistic alternative wants to even, uh, try.

SEAN: Do we have any idea how those potential tickets stack up against the former president and Republican candidate, Donald Trump?

ANDREW: I don't think the polling right [00:48:00] now is worth very much, uh, particularly I don't think the Veep typically doesn't make much of a difference.

But we do have a fair amount of Harris vs. Trump polling, and that polling is not fantastic for Harris. It generally shows her losing. Just like Biden. 

FOX 5 WASHINGTON:  Now the Trump Harris poll is interesting. They have Trump at 51% and Harris at at 48%.

ANDREW: So again, Democrats are tremendously excited right now. They're jubilant uniting around Harris. The Democratic fundraising platform Act Blue had a record day raising an enormous amount of money yesterday. Clearly, the base is very excited about this historic pick and, and about Harris as a candidate. But if we look at the polling right now. She starts as the underdog. Their argument, she can turn it around, and, uh, sure, she can turn it around, it's certainly possible [00:49:00] she could win, but I would caution, you know, people not to get too carried away in, you know, assuming that she is a surefire winner when, when that is very far from the case based on the polling we've seen.

Final comments on why it's OK to have a bit of hope even if it's uncomfortable

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Democracy Now! differentiating between those actually calling for violence and those warning of fascism. The Thom Hartmann Program pointed out the connection between the assassination attempt and school shooters. The Atlantic took the long view on political violence in the US. Democracy Now! discussed the anti-immigrant vitriol endemic at the RNC. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart discussed the choice of Biden stepping out of the race before the decision was made. And Today, Explained looked at the situation in the wake of Biden's announcement to not seek re-election. And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive section.

But before we continue on, I wanted to share a few thoughts about the discomfort you might be feeling right now. That [00:50:00] feeling, if you are experiencing it, may be related to the concept of hope.

If you're not familiar, you're not the only one, as we tend to focus on the negative things happening in the present and worrying about things that may happen in the future. Even during the 2020 election, I don't know that hope would have been the right word to describe anyone's feelings. Probably more like white knuckling followed by intense relief. But hope? There are probably people listening who are actually too young to have ever experienced the sensation. So if this is new to you or it's just been a while and you're not sure how to handle it, I have suggestions, thanks to a Daily Beast article I saw recently: "I feel hope right now. It's so embarrassing."

Near the top, it talks about how liberals tend to over emphasize our awareness that literally all politicians are egocentric weirdos who don't actually deserve our praise, even when we want to say something nice about them.

It's a signal that we're not naive, and, in this day and [00:51:00] age, we're definitely not cultishly devoted to anyone, least of all a weirdo politician.

And normally, we'd be talking about the problems Kamala Harris has too, not to tear her down, but to be part of the effort of pushing her to change her positions or, improve in this way or that or whatever. And the best case scenario right now is that we'll have the next four to eight years to do just that. 

But for now, there actually is cause for some hope, and from the very limited amount we've seen of her on the campaign trail at the top of the ticket so far, she's sounding good. Her first speech didn't focus entirely on Trump, though she did go on a solid attack. She also laid out a positive vision beyond "stop the bad orange man" that people need to hear, and not just to get people out to the polls, but for people like us, who are political nerds to an unhealthy degree, and need to kindle some actual hope from time to time with a positive vision. 

[00:52:00] And those are just the specifics of the tone she's setting for the campaign, but the general matchup of a prosecutor versus a felon and a crook, and the reproductive rights advocate versus the overturner of Roe vs. Wade, it all just sort of writes itself in a way that feels good.

And then here's the line from that article that stuck in my head. It says, quote, "If you're still reading, it's about to get worse, because I'm going to write a sentence that would look great on a decorative pillow. Yeah, I'm gonna live, love, laugh the hell out of this article. Here I go: 'Hope is a choice.' I'm going to make the executive decision to hope. Because why not? It's not like guacamole. It doesn't cost extra. And, contrary to popular belief, it won't hurt less if Harris loses because I get to say I knew it afterward."

So, we here at the show have also been giving ourselves permission to feel hopeful, at least for a little while. I mean, [00:53:00] after the past few weeks, not to mention the last decade, we deserve it.

Now, before we get back to the show, a quick reminder that July is our Membership and Awareness Drive month. If you get value out of this show, and I hope you do, let this be the time that you decide to chip in and help sustain its production and tell some friends about it to grow our base of support. Unfortunately, the decade that I just described of political horrors and, frankly, the lack of hope, I think has left a lot of people running from politics, and that has taken a real toll on our listenership, our membership, and the income that we're able to generate to keep everyone paid for the work they do keeping the show going.

So, it is up to you, the real hardcore political nerds, who are white knuckling it, slash maybe finding hope for the first time in a while, who we really need to step up. Because when I say that we need your support, it's not in the abstract. We don't have big funders or any kind of institution or media outlet backing us [00:54:00] up. It's really just you, the listener, deciding to chip in and make the show possible.

As thanks, members get ad free versions of every regular episode and bonus shows featuring the production crew in conversation.

For this month, memberships are 20 percent off, so if you sign up now, you'll keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. Just head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support to grab that membership, and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: BIDEN STEPS DOWN

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on four topics. Next up, section A: Biden steps down. Followed by section B: Violence and violent rhetoric. Section C: the RNC. And section D: Conspiracy.

“Beating Donald Trump Is Vital”: Mehdi Hasan on Joe Biden Dropping Out, Kamala Harris, Gaza & More - Deomcracry Now! - Air Date 7-22-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You kind of predicted what would happen, Mehdi. Earlier this month, you wrote a piece for The Guardian headlined “Kamala Harris may be our only hope. Biden should step aside and endorse her.” Interestingly, the piece begins, “I have never been a fan of Kamala [00:55:00] Harris.” Can you talk about how you came to your position?

MEHDI HASAN: So, very briefly, I criticized Harris a lot in 2019, 2020, when she was trying to run for the Democratic presidential nomination, specifically around her record in California as an attorney general and as a DA. She did some things — and I’ve outlined them in the past for The Intercept, when I was there at the time — to do with convictions and to do with criminal justice reform which I thought were pretty right-wing and pretty unfair, and I think there’s a lot of issues there with that record from a progressive point of view, although she also did some progressive things, too, and I applauded it at the time. But I wasn’t a fan of her campaign. And, you know, to be honest, I was right at the time. Her campaign melted down. She withdrew before a single vote was cast in the primaries. But then she got lucky, I think it’s fair to say, when Joe Biden decided to forgive her for attacking him on the debate stage and made her his running mate.

This time around, you know, we’re in a very different world — right? — four years later. For me, Biden stepping [00:56:00] aside was very important, because he clearly wasn’t up to the job of defeating Trump. And I know people talk about open conventions, contested conventions. I just think that’s not going to happen. I don’t think it’s helpful right now. I think there are lots of legal, financial issues with that. And for me, in early July, it was: Get Biden out of the way; there’s a perfectly good candidate who can beat Donald Trump. By the way, her polling — and that was at the beginning of July — it’s gotten better since. Her polling was showing that she was matching Trump. She was doing better than Biden with Trump. She was actually leading with independents, according to a CNN poll.

So, for me, it was a no-brainer. You’ve got a younger, more energetic candidate ready to go in the wings, already on the ticket, already won with you in 2020, might be better on Gaza — we can talk about that — than Joe Biden, although it’s not hard to be better than Biden on Gaza given how bad he’s been, and actually has a good record as a senator, as an attorney general. So, why wouldn’t you go with Kamala Harris, who is also, by the way, a history-making candidate, will bring enthusiasm from the base? And I was right about that. Look at the last few hours, Amy. There’s record-breaking [00:57:00] donations to the Democratic Party since she was endorsed by Biden yesterday. She would be the first Black woman president, the first South Asian president, the first woman president.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I think ActBlue reported something like raising, in a number of hours, $50 million. Now, you just mentioned that perhaps Kamala Harris is better on Gaza. Why don’t you go into her record and what you can discern, as she is the vice president there working with the president?

MEHDI HASAN: So, look, when I say — I just want to be very clear to Democracy Now! viewers and listeners. When I say “better than Biden,” I don’t mean that she’s going to become president and say, “Time for an arms embargo on Israel.” No, she’s not going to make major changes in policy, and that’s a tragedy. People are dying, Amy, even as we speak. The people in Gaza have not stopped being killed just because the media’s attention has moved on. And I think that’s important to say at the outset.

However — right? — with all these things, there are important [00:58:00] differences. One of my big criticisms of Biden has not just been his unconditional support for Netanyahu and the sale of 2,000-pound bombs, 500-pound bombs, etc. It’s the rhetoric, right? It’s the idea that he doesn’t even show empathy — the guy who’s known for his empathy — for the Palestinian people, since the beginning. There’s been an erasure of Palestinians. Remember, he put out a statement on the 100 days after October 7th, didn’t mention any Palestinian deaths. Remember, he questioned the Palestinian death toll. And I think that’s a problem.

And Kamala Harris, actually, if you look at the reporting since October the 7th, she was a voice in the administration trying to take a stance which humanized Palestinians a little bit more, tried to criticize Israel a little bit more, was dragged back by the White House. There was a lot of reporting about how the White House was trying to change some of her speeches to make them less critical of Israel. She was calling for a temporary ceasefire, at least, earlier than Joe Biden was. And I spoke to an official in the administration who’s been in the room for some of these conversations. They said, “Look, there’s no doubt Kamala Harris is better on this issue than Joe Biden is.” And I wrote that in The Guardian earlier this month.

And interestingly, Amy, Politico put out a piece last night quoting [00:59:00] some of the people who have quit the Biden administration, some of the officials and appointees who have quit in recent months in protest of Biden, and even they’re saying, “We’re cautiously optimistic that she might be better than Biden on this.” And as I say, it’s not hard to be better than Biden on this. But, look, I hope she comes out and says, “Reset, course correction, ceasefire now,” in a way that Biden never really has with his heart.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to turn to a voter in California named Faraz Rizvi, responding to President Biden’s decision.

FARAZ RIZVI: I am glad that Biden stepped down. You know, we’ve been really concerned about his policy towards Palestine and his, you know, full-throated support for Israel and the ongoing genocide against the Palestinians. So, you know, we’re really — I mean, I’m relieved to see another candidate that might not have the same policies and that has, you know, not backed the brutality against the Palestinians. You know, I think there are still a lot of questions on Kamala and what her policy is going to be, but I think, [01:00:00] for a lot of voters, you know, a lot of people in my community — I’m Muslim and Pakistani — this has been like the biggest issue, the singular issue that we’ve been paying attention to.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, Mehdi Hasan, if you can respond to that California voter?

MEHDI HASAN: I think he makes very good points. Look, we need to keep the pressure up on Kamala Harris, those of us who care about what’s happening in Gaza. As I say, she’s not going to come in and transform American foreign policy. Let’s not be naive or ridiculous. But at the same time, we can, I think, pressure her in a way that we failed to pressure Joe Biden to change his policies on this. I mean, Netanyahu is in town this week, Amy. He’s going to be speaking in Congress. He’s going to be meeting Biden at the White House.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: He’s going to be meeting with Kamala Harris. And it’s not clear: Will he be meeting with Biden at the White House, given that Biden is in isolation in Rehoboth?

MEHDI HASAN: Good question. It’s a good question. That was always planned for Monday. I don’t know what the latest is on Biden’s COVID. By the way, hilariously, Donald Trump has been posting over the weekend that Biden faked his COVID to get out of the race. You’ve got to love Trump’s posts.

Look, [01:01:00] to respond to the voter, it’s not just California. California at least is a safe blue state. Go to Michigan. I talked to a lot of people in Dearborn and Detroit, Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, young Michigan voters, who are furious about Gaza — the uncommitted movement that came out of Michigan. And the question is: Does putting Kamala Harris at the top of this ticket instead of Joe Biden help the Democrats hold on to Michigan, for example? Do people say, “You know what? Our hate” — you know, the Abandon Biden — there’s a lot of hatred for Joe Biden personally from a lot of these constituencies over Gaza. It was called Abandon Biden. He’s called “Genocide Joe.” Whether you like it or not, the antipathy is very much focused on Biden. And I think just getting him out of the way allows Democrats to say, “All right, look, there’s a possibility of a fresh start.” But that won’t happen unless we keep up the pressure on Kamala Harris, make it clear what she has to do to win back some of those constituencies in order to take a state like Michigan, which is going to be so close and so crucial in November.

Fox News MELTS DOWN Over Kamala Harris - The Rational National - Air Date 7-22-24

Republican talking heads are losing their damn minds over the fact that Joe Biden has withdrawn [01:02:00] and endorsed Kamala Harris. So I have a few fun clips to share with you, and I'll get to my favorite near the end of this video with Sean Hannity.

Wait for that. He's got nothing. It's fun to watch. But first, Stephen Miller, who was on with Laura Ingraham, and is really, as I said, just losing his mind. They held a primary! People, they had ballots! They filled out circles! They went to the voting booths! They spent money on advertisements! And, as President Trump said, the Republican Party spent tens of millions of dollars running against Joe Biden!

Now they just woke up one morning and said never mind, we're cancelling the entire primary. We're getting rid of our candidate and we're pretending the election has never even happened, and we're going to let donors handpick a new nominee. They're publicly admitting that they are an oligarchy. They are not running a democracy.

They are not running a representative republic. This is an oligarchy controlled by business interests [01:03:00] and the democratic convention is the private corporation that represents those business interests. This is as full frontal and attack on American democracy as we've ever seen in the history of America's major political parties.

I really hope they go with that line. I really do because it will just continue the conversation That they were the ones that try to steal an election. Trump still to this day is denying that he lost an election. And you're going to try and claim that this is an attack on democracy. There wasn't even a proper primary.

They canceled some of the primary states. This was an incumbent president. Insane to try and argue this, but please continue making this argument as it'll just remind everybody that your candidate tried to steal an election. And on the point about, uh, Oh, this is the party of oligarchs. Are you out of your mind?

JD Vance, the VP pick for Trump was picked because of his connection to big money. Tech, this is from the Guardian, Tech Broligarcs are lining [01:04:00] up to court Trump and Vance is one more link in the chain. Peter Thiel has been close buddies with Vance forever. This what, this is exactly why Vance is in the position that he is in, despite the fact that he was talking shit about Trump in 2016 because he thought at the time that was the way for him to make it big.

But J. D. Vance chasing power realized after Trump won, hey, I could just go with this party. And lie my way to the top. And that's exactly what he did this. Look at this. Peter Thiel and Trump right here. Are you kidding me? Not to mention just last week, Elon Musk said he is committing around 45 million a month.

One guy committing 45 million a month to a pro Trump super PAC. The party of oligarchs? Right here. Unbelievable. Insanity. Let me get now to Kellyanne Conway, who is, this argument is rich. She had disastrous staff turnover as vice president. I check it on the [01:05:00] daily. Her public schedule, gentlemen, is Rarely has anything on it or one or two things on it.

She does not speak well. She does not work hard. All right Let me ask you and she should not be the standard bearer for the party. Yes, sir. The projection here is absolutely incredible Doesn't work hard donald trump spent almost an entire year Playing golf during his presidency 307 days of his presidency was spent playing golf What?

You're gonna complain about somebody else's work ethic? Not to mention here, this is Kellyanne Conway's ex husband, George Conway. Not everyone can express themselves as eloquently and with such exquisite turns of phrase as Donald Trump. That's, of course, to her argument that she, uh, doesn't speak well.

Like, why are you making arguments that are just reminding people about how terrible Donald Trump [01:06:00] is? Unbelievable. And in terms of the staff turnover, are you kidding me? Again, it's projection after projection after projection. Trump overall between Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, Obama, Trump. The highest year over year turnover.

And then, of course, when it comes to the cabinet, not even close. Clearly, the most turnover. You're gonna complain about somebody else's staff turnover? What? Insane. Let me get to the Sean Hannity clip now, cause this one is just, you gotta laugh at how ridiculous this is, because it is about laughing.

Here's just one reason that voters seem to detest Kamala Harris. You decide. And[01:07:00] 

is that a socialist or progressive perspective? No. I thought we were supposed to conserve things. I couldn't reconcile it. Now I can.

Yes, you're giggling, Vice President. This is primetime Fox News. Sean Hannity is supposed to be making some strong arguments against Kamala Harris because that is his job as the Fox News guy in prime time. Her laughing? This is your central point? But Kamala Harris likes to laugh. is a person shows human emotion.

Un freaking believable how insane this is. And to bolster this point, [01:08:00] uh, you likely already saw this, but this is Donald Trump's nickname for Kamala Harris. From the moment we take back the White House from Crooked Joe Biden and Kamala. I call her laughing Kamala. You ever watch her laugh? She's crazy. You know, you can tell a lot by a laugh.

No, she's crazy. She's nuts. She's not as crazy as Nancy Pelosi. Crazy Nancy. I call her laughing Kamala. She, she laughs too much folks. She is too happy as a person. You're fucking minds. Oh my God. This is going to be a fun campaign. This is going to be hilarious. Uh, here's another one. This incredibly popular policy.

Single payer health care. She once supported it. As a senator, she co sponsored a bill with Bernie Sanders that would force Americans into socialized single payer health care, that kind of system. So Kamala Harris co sponsored a bill with the most [01:09:00] popular politician in the country, Bernie Sanders. This is 2017.

Still the most popular sitting politician in the country. She co sponsored a bill with this incredibly popular guy for an incredibly popular policy. This is your big argument against her. Please continue, continue making these arguments. It'll work out well.

SECTION B: VIOLENCE AND VIOLENT RHETORIC

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: Violence and violent rhetoric.

What Does "Turning Down The Temperature" Mean? - Brian Lehrer: A Daily Politics Podcast - Air Date 7-15-24

 When Biden and Mike Johnson call for people to turn down the temperature in our politics, what does that actually mean?

Is Biden doing that himself in a way you can describe? Are congressional Republicans doing that to heed Mike Johnson's call in a way you can describe? So what I will say is that in the immediate hours, Twitter was a dumpster fire of anger and blame. And. And it was not good. Um, and that then after that, Mike Johnson came out and [01:10:00] said, Calm the temperature.

President Biden spoke on the phone with former President Trump. We're told it was a respectful call. The DNC chairman called the chairman of the RNC to express condolences and also to talk about the fact that political violence is not acceptable in any forms and the need to turn down the temperature.

So I think that after this immediate call, Uh, burst of really bad social media. There has been an effort to calm things. Uh, former president Trump, uh, in an interview with the, um, the New York Post, um, is saying that he is throwing out his speech, which was going to be very tough and because of, uh, the experience that he had, this near death experience, he intends to, to deliver a speech that is more about unity.

What I will say is that former president Trump has through his career, often talked about unity, um, But his vision of unity is, is generally people agreeing with him. Um, and his vision of unity is that unity comes through success. [01:11:00] And once there's success, people will just fall in line. That has not proven the case throughout his political career.

And the country is more divided than it has ever been. Um, but, uh, if he is, Uh, you know, not if he if he is at least nodding to the idea of unity, then we don't know. We don't know what this convention is going to look like and what tone it is going to take. But I do think that there has been at least some shift in the rhetoric in these 48 hours in terms of President Biden, who I cover more closely.

He is, um, he canceled one event today that was supposed to be in Austin, Texas, but, um, he is still going to do his interview with Lester Holt on NBC News tonight. And then he is going to Las Vegas where he's going to speak to the NAACP convention and the UnidosUS convention. He also has, um, other campaign events that he's doing.

We'll see what the tone is like. Um, he is not, Um, shying away. The campaign has told me that he is not going to stop to stop talking about what he [01:12:00] sees and what what many Democrats and beyond Democrats see as a is a dire threat to democracy as we know it, uh, that is on the line in this election. Um, so that is still going to be part of what he is saying, but exactly how he says it and whether that is different.

I'm not sure because Friday night, um, he really He really changed his stump speech, and he was going directly at former President Trump in, um, pretty stark language, uh, in stronger language than he's used before, and I don't know what happens to that stump speech. Yeah. We may learn, uh, Trump's vice presidential pick today, and you're covering the convention in Milwaukee.

The three names mostly mentioned are Senators Marco Rubio or J. D. Vance or South Dakota Governor Doug Burgum. Some people say Senator Tim Scott is also still on the list, and maybe none of those. But Vance's, Vance's post shooting statement was typical. He wrote the central premise of the Biden campaign is that president Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be [01:13:00] stopped at all costs.

That rhetoric led directly to president Trump's attempted assassination. Now. I don't think that's a direct quote of Biden. I don't think Biden ever said at all costs or by any means necessary or anything like that. Uh, or fascist for that matter. Oh, but a lot of people do say fascist, but I don't know. I don't think president Biden does.

Got it. Um, and I don't know if that counts what JD Vance wrote as turning down the temperature. We have You know, he wrote that before the calls to turn down the temperature. He hasn't taken it down, but uh, President trump's uh, former president trump's campaign, uh, Manager, uh, or i'm not sure his exact title chris la civita his lead Um advisor had also written a pretty inflammatory twitter post and then he took it down.

Why political violence and violent threats are on the rise in the United States - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 7-14-24

ALI ROGIN: This was a shocking event in a horrible tragedy for many Americans the first time that they've witnessed the attempted assassination of somebody who served as president. But of course, there have been many other acts of political violence in recent [01:14:00] memory, including the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul, in 2022. There was the congressional baseball practice shooting that injured Congressman Steve Scalise and 2017 plus many other attacks against local officials. Why are we experiencing this uptick in political violence?

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Director, Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab: Well, first, I have to say it should be condemned. Of course, we have to condemn the attack on former President Trump. You know, one of my earliest political memories was the assassination attempt on President Reagan. I think we are back in an era in which political assassinations are becoming a tactic again of in which people seek a solution to what they think are their political problems.

And that's part of the rising violence that we're seeing across the board politically, and also part of the rhetoric that has been increasing on polarized lines that positions us versus them and existential terms, so that the [01:15:00] other starts to seem like a threat that has to be eradicated. So it's a problem at the elite level, and it's a problem among ordinary conversations as well.

And you mentioned the rhetoric, members of both parties have been coming out saying that both sides need to tone this down. How much of that is at issue here?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: The issue of political rhetoric that's divisive and even violent among elites is a huge problem. And it has been a huge problem for many years on both sides. However, I'm actually just as concerned about what I'm hearing from people I know and love even seeing on social media, things like you reap what you sow in response to this event. That's just as problematic.

You have a lone actor who is not only motivated by elites who mess up, but also by ordinary citizens who give up and who lean into the idea that violence is a solution to any kind of political ideas or problems.

ALI ROGIN: One of NewsHour polls found earlier this year that one in five respondents believe Americans [01:16:00] may have to resort to violence to get their own country back on track. That seems like a high number. What's your take?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: It seems high, but it's accurate. I mean, that's exactly the kind of data that we've been seeing. We're seeing increasing support for political violence and also increasing willingness to engage in it among ordinary Americans. And that's what I mean about everybody seeing this as a moment of reckoning for themselves and their own behavior, not just to wag fingers at the elites, and politicians who are behaving badly.

But to think about what you do across the dining room table, what you're doing in your classrooms, what you're doing with your colleagues and your neighbors. Because anytime you're justifying that kind of violence, you never know who's going to overhear that, or how that contributes to the overall climate in which violence is seen as a solution.

ALI ROGIN: And to that end, do you think that everybody has a role here in lowering the overall temperature that's got us to this very tense point?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Absolutely. I think everyone has not just a role, but an obligation to lower the temperature to see our [01:17:00] basic humanity to see that no one deserves to be shot, no matter how much you disagree with what they say politically. And to also take steps to kind of curb things like misinformation, stop retweeting it, I mean to be critical consumers, and good citizens about what you share. I think that's one of the big takeaways here is that people have a role to play and an obligation to do it.

ALI ROGIN: And in terms of response to this, this particular event, what are you concerned about happening in terms of people perpetrating potential violent responses?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Another thing that ordinary people can do is to be a little bit vigilant in the coming weeks and months, because unfortunately, an event like this does create the risk that you have both kind of militant groups who see now that they may have to step up, they think and protect this candidate, as we've seen in the past, and you also see the risk of reprisal attacks.

And so, this is a real moment for people [01:18:00] to pay attention to be vigilant, if you hear someone you know, saying something, tone it down, you know, try to correct their statements and their behaviors and steer them away from the idea that violence is a solution to anything.

SECTION C: THE RNC

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Next up, section C: the RNC.

After Trump assassination attempt, what's in store for the RNC? | The Take - Al Jazeera English - Air Date 7-14-24

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: On Saturday, July 13th, former President Donald Trump narrowly escaped an apparent attempt on his life while speaking at a rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania. 

News Archival: Take a look at what happened. Down, get down, get down, get down.

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: A witness at the rally spoke to Al Jazeera. 

UNNAMED INTERVIEWEE: On his right cheek was a teardrop of blood right here. Then when he turned, you could see the right ear, from the top of the ear to the bottom, blood. Wasn't pouring blood, but it was blood. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: The suspected shooter is Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20 year old from Pennsylvania. Secret Service agents shot and killed him at the site. A [01:19:00] 50 year old man attending the rally was also killed, and two others were injured. Before being rushed from the stage, Trump raised a fist and addressed the crowd with three words: fight, fight, fight. 

This week, Trump says, he still plans on joining thousands of Republicans in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the start of the Republican National Convention. He's set to be nominated as their candidate for President of the United States. 

Al Jazeera correspondent Patty Culhane is reporting from Milwaukee. 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: Block after block after block, barricades and fences assembled in a large ring around the arena where the Republican National Convention will be held. The Trump campaign insisting the event will go ahead.

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: And some protesters, like Omar Flores, are there already. 

OMAR FLORES: We're doing this because we don't want the Republicans here. We're fighting for immigrant rights, for reproductive rights, for Palestine. And ultimately, [01:20:00] they're just the opposite of everything that we want to see in this country. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: Isaiah Holmes is there too. He calls Milwaukee home. 

ISIAH HOLMES: I was born and raised here. My family has lived here going back, I don't even know how many generations on both sides. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: He works there reporting on his hometown. 

ISIAH HOLMES: I'm a reporter at the Wisconsin Examiner. I became interested in police interactions with the community and journalism and documentary film.

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: Much like the rest of the country, he was taken aback by what unfolded Saturday evening. We first talked to Isaiah last week and checked back in with him on Sunday. 

ISIAH HOLMES: So, in terms of the vibe in Milwaukee and in Wisconsin, it's not a good one. I mean, it really wasn't before this incident. It isn't now.

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: Since we first heard from him, he's been preparing for Trump and tens of thousands of Republicans to arrive in his hometown. 

ISIAH HOLMES: The U. S. Marshals just did a big warrant, fugitive roundup of folks, arrested [01:21:00] a bunch of people. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: And driving outside the city, Isaiah saw reinforcements on their way in. 

ISIAH HOLMES: Your anxiety kind of goes up when you're driving on the highway and all of a sudden you see three Humvees drive past and you know where they're going. There's a lot of concerns about how police may interact with protesters or how Republican convention goers or people supporting those folks may interact with people within the city who don't agree with the convention being here. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: Isaiah knows the city, and its people, pretty well. 

ISIAH HOLMES: Close to 70 percent of all Black people who live in Wisconsin live within the city of Milwaukee. Milwaukee also has the highest concentration of Native American people who live in Wisconsin. It's a democratic city, and it's also regarded as one of the nation's most segregated. There's definitely a very strange vibe in the city right now. And you can sense that buildup for sure. It feels like kind of the quiet before the storm. Hopefully there is no storm. [01:22:00] 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: Well, I will tell your listeners that for the very first time in my life, I am bringing a flak jacket and a bulletproof helmet to the Republican National Convention, because you will see people walking around with AR-15s. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: On Friday, before the shooting in Pennsylvania, and before Al Jazeera's Patti Culhane left for Milwaukee, she was making preparations as well.

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: I was like, Oh my God, I haven't had one of these on since Iraq. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: But there is business to attend to at the convention and an election ahead. So we wanted to talk to Patty about that, too. 

So, Patty, this convention, or RNC, happens every four years and is a chance for the Republican Party to nominate their candidate for president, in this case, Donald Trump.

DONALD TRUMP: As the world can see, we are under the leadership. The Republican Party is bigger, stronger, more vibrant, and more united than ever, [01:23:00] ever, ever before. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: The Democrats will have their convention in a few weeks, and I know that you've been to a political convention before, but for those who haven't, walk us through the pomp and circumstance that comes with these four days. What's the atmosphere like, and what actually happens? 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: Well, it's really joyous. It's a coronation, it's a celebration. Unlike the Democrats, there's no question about who's going to be the candidate at the end of the convention. I mean, the people who go there are the true believers, the huge supporters. There's a lot of drinking, at least in the skyboxes, and where the media tends to go. And it's a chance for everyone within the party to network. It's also a chance for the rising stars, they get speaking time before the candidate actually comes up. And so there's speeches throughout the day. Then there's competition to see who gets the prime time, the nighttime speeches, and they're going to vote on the platform and [01:24:00] that's going to be their official document. This is what we stand for.

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: We know that this RNC is a little bit different from most already. And that starts with who is putting it on. Several committee staff members were replaced, including the RNC chair with Trump loyalists. And one of the replacements-- 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: The daughter in law. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: Laura Trump. Exactly. Now the co-chair, Trump's daughter-in-law. And according to a Washington Post report, staff at one point had a special screening test before they were hired. What do we know about the movings and shakings inside of the RNC? 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: This has been widely reported. The RNC denied it in couched language, but basically they fired a bunch of people. And then they made people apparently reapply for their jobs and they were asked if they believed the 2020 election was stolen. And some of the staffers told the media they felt like they had to say it was stolen, even if they didn't believe it because they wanted the job. So I think for your audience, you might be asking, Wait, how is this [01:25:00] possible? So you have a candidate who's been charged with 90 plus felonies. He's been found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and then defaming the woman who he sexually assaulted according to the jury. And he's charged with stealing classified documents, leading an insurrection on the Capitol to try and subvert the peaceful transfer of power. And he's their candidate. And he has 100 percent made the RNC in his image. They are a hundred percent Trump loyalists. I think John McCain wouldn't recognize the Republican party as it is right now. And it just, it is what it is. 

MALIKA BILAL, THE TAKE: I wonder if people listening might think, isn't that what a party does? How unusual is that to try to stack this Republican National Committee, which puts on this convention with people who are loyal to the nominee? 

PATTY CULHANE, AL JAZEERA: It's, well, look at the Democrats right now, right? Normally, there's back and forth. There's [01:26:00] people are saying Joe Biden can't be president. Joe Biden's camp is saying he can be president. There's usually some dissent and some -- it's not like a loyalty test to a person. It's a loyalty test to principles. And what we've seen in the past, I think Republicans would say this is normal.

Trump’s VP Pick Supported the Idea of Project 2025 BEFORE it Was Even Thing - The Humanist Report - Air Date 7-16-24

 When it came to Mike Pence, you know, he was the establishment choice, the evangelical choice that kind of made up for the areas where Trump lacked or was vulnerable, whereas with J. D. Vance You know, Trump isn't accounting for any weaknesses. He's kind of just picking somebody who is the light version of him.

So it's arguably a risky choice. Although if Trump were to win, then that would benefit him greatly because, you know, he'll have a vice president now with the same brand of politics as he does, but who's much more loyal. Now, deep down, JD Vance doesn't actually care about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's MAGA agenda.

He's just playing a character for purposes of political [01:27:00] expediency. And I say this because his past comments about Trump, both public and private, they reveal what he actually thinks about him. And spoiler alert, he fucking hates the guy.

For example, in a leaked text, he said, I'm not surprised by Trump's rise. And I think the entire party has only itself to blame. We are, whether we like it or not, the party of lower income, lower education, white people. And I have been saying for a long time that we need to offer those people something and hell maybe even.

to working class black people in the process, or a demagogue would. We are now at that point. Trump is the fruit of the party's collective neglect. I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad, and might even prove useful, or that he's America's Hitler.

Now those comments were obviously made before Trump became president, but it turns out the guy who said that would one day become the successor to America's Hitler. Now, he's not running to just be Trump's VP. Trump is essentially crowning him as the heir to the MAGA throne. [01:28:00] So, you know, when the Trump era is over, JD Vance is going to prolong the Trump era, or at least try to.

Now, the negative comments that he's made against Trump in the past, They've been long documented. You've said I've never, I'm a never Trump guy. Never liked him. Terrible candidate. Idiot if you voted for him. Might be America's Hitler. Might be a cynical a hole. Cultural heroine. Noxious and reprehensible.

So there's a lot there and Democrats tried to use those comments against him when he was running for the Senate to kind of prove that he's not actually loyal to Donald Trump, but all of those attacks fell flat because what they misunderstood is that when it comes to the MAGA cult, it doesn't really matter where you came from, what matters is where you're at right now, and so long as you're swearing fealty to Trump right now, You're in, right?

Now, regardless if J. D. Vance believes any of the shit he's saying, which he doesn't, Trump knows that he's gonna be a loyal soldier for him and he's gonna say and do whatever he needs to to [01:29:00] appease Trump and the MAGA cult. That's the one thing that Trump cares about. Loyalty. So if that's your only criteria in finding a VP, Trump made a pretty solid choice.

Also, in terms of galvanizing his own base, It's a great pick, but they were already on lock. There's not going to be a single Trump supporter in the country who says, um, I'm not going to support Trump because I disagree with the VP pick, right? So one would think Trump would really try to lock down the lead that he has right now over Biden by trying to pick somebody with more appeal to swing state voters and more suburban white voters, uh, like women who came out to vote for Donald Trump.

But He's not doing that, which kind of tells you a little bit about Trump's mentality right now. He's feeling good. He feels like he doesn't really need to pick somebody to account for his weaknesses and vulnerabilities, because he has a pretty comfortable lead against Biden. So he doesn't really feel the need to do that.

And he may be right. [01:30:00] With that being said, though, Vance does kind of compound some of the biggest issues that's already a political liability for Donald Trump, namely abortion. J. D. Vance is an anti abortion extremist for all intents and purposes. He compared abortion to slavery, and on top of that, he doesn't support exceptions, even in the cases of rape and incest.

Now, on top of that, he signaled support for a national abortion ban on his website, calling for an end to all abortions. And to make matters worse, he even signaled opposition to no fault divorce. And this is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is this idea that, like, well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy.

And so, you know, Getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they changed their underwear. That's gonna make people happier in the long term. And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skeptical, but it really didn't work out for the kids of those [01:31:00] marriages.

So, I mean, what's the conclusion? Are women supposed to stay violent marriages for the sake of the kids? I don't think that that's a really healthy environment for the children either, but you know, he's not. policy prescriptions, but a rhetoric like that doesn't necessarily instill the most confidence in people, and you kind of get to see where he's at mentally.

Oh, he, he's very regressive, he doesn't actually care about choice for women in any regard, seemingly, and he's just kind of a piece of shit, right? So, you know, that's gonna hurt him among some people if they take stock of, you know, the vice president. See, Americans, they don't want abortion to be banned and Republicans have paid for Roe v.

Wade being overturned at the ballot box or battle box if you're Joe Biden. But putting that aside, you know, you know, it's a, it's a liability. But, JD Vance isn't gonna be the president, Donald Trump is. Having said that though, this is a bad choice from a campaign standpoint. But, if Trump wins, and this proves to not really be that [01:32:00] big of a deal, well, As I said, he has a loyal servant willing to implement his entire agenda, including Project 2025 on day one.

So it's a bit of a risk reward situation for Donald Trump, uh, but for everyone else, it's terrible news. Um, now, on the subject of Project 2025, J. D. Vance essentially endorsed the core tenant of project 2025 back in 2021. So, you know, what project 2025 aims to do is dismantle the administrative state, consolidate power in the executive, so that way the president can kind of implement his entire agenda unilaterally speaking.

Now, this is something that's been floated in right wing circles. But here's what JD Vance was saying back in 2021. I tend to think that we should seize the institutions of the left and turn them against the left, right? We need, we need like a debathification program, uh, but like a de wokification program in the United States, right?

So like, let me give you a couple examples. So one of the things I've always been very sympathetic to is [01:33:00] this idea that we don't have a real constitutional republic anymore. What we have is an administrative state, right? The administrative state controls everything, right? So to the point that, like, when Donald Trump wins, he can't even sometimes get his people in core positions of authority in the administrative state.

It's like, well, do we have a constitutional republic? The Founding Fathers actually created a very powerful chief executive, a very powerful president, but if he can't even fire the people in his own administration, he can't even get his people in his administration. Like, is this really a successful republic?

Um, so, so, a lot of conservatives have said we should deconstruct the administrative state. We should basically eliminate the administrative state. Uh, and I'm sympathetic to that project, but another option is that we should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes. We should fire all of the people.

I mean, I, you know, like I think Trump is going to run again in 2024. I think he'll probably win again in 2024, uh, and, and, and, and he'll win by a margin such that he will be the president of the United States, uh, in, in January of 2025, I think that what Trump should do, like if I was giving him one piece of advice, [01:34:00] Fire every single mid level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and when the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

Because this is, I think, a constitutional level crisis. So Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, but now he has a running mate who explicitly endorsed the hallmark of this entire agenda. So, yeah, there's that. Also, for marginalized people, J. D. Vance is horrible news, so let's talk it through.

As Aaron Reid reports, J. D. Vance is the primary sponsor of a national ban on trans healthcare done through a ban on teaching about gender affirming care in higher education, including medical schools. Now, to be clear, we're talking about a ban on all trans healthcare. Children, adults, doesn't matter. All trans people will no longer get the care that they need, meaning [01:35:00] they will forcibly detransition or they would be forced to forcibly detransition if that bill passed.

But if Project 2025 actually comes to fruition, Trump can do that via executive order. Trump also supports banning healthcare for all trans people. So, we're in a situation where you have two people, who are very, very hell bent on forcing all of us to live in their own dystopian reality. They don't actually care about the other half of the country.

All they care about is winning, and conquering, and crushing the opposition. Right? Now again, I don't know if JD Vance actually believes the bullshit that he's espousing, but it's really a distinction without a difference, because it doesn't matter whether he believes it or not. He's dangerous, and Trump choosing him as his running mate is a pretty big red flag.

"Normal Trump is batsh*t crazy" - Mehdi debates on the RNC speech - Zeteo - Air Date 7-19-24

In the wake of the attempted assassination attempt against Donald Trump, you published an [01:36:00] article suggesting that maybe Trump would have a change of heart, writing, A brush with death has at least temporarily ushered in a more reflective Trump. Um, he has been quick to praise God, saying that it was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening.

Um, you published that article, and then last night, Thursday night, uh, Trump, uh, Basically was back to usual Trump crazy Nancy Pelosi invasion at the border China virus. They cheated with kovat He didn't sound very reflective to me. Yeah. Well, I'll just note in that column I did say that this was a fantasy.

Okay, it's good for us to fantasize for a moment No, no, I believed it was possible, but I also just qualified and said I'm skeptical It's probably not going to happen. But anything is possible and You know, historically, we have seen how near death experiences can actually lead to mini conversions or even just people mellowing out a little bit.

I mean, he had a [01:37:00] near death experience before. COVID almost killed him. I will say that there was some change of tone, especially in the first part of Trump's RNC speech. We did see a more somber, reflective Trump, and over the course of the past week, he has talked about God. And again, I don't want to say that this is going to change his governing style if he wins and becomes president, but it is striking to me that he's talking about God with what seems to be real feeling in a way that we haven't seen before.

And again, I don't want to, I don't want to make this into more than it actually is. So just to be clear, where we stand today, Friday, you accept that Trump's RN speech, RNC speech on Thursday night, he didn't sound like a unifying or moderate or change man. He was the Trump of old for most of that 90 epic minutes that he kind of bored us with.

Yeah, but, but it is worth noting that when he was reading off the teleprompter, and that [01:38:00] shows that at least the Republican Party itself is trying to choreograph and like humanize Trump. But do you know, Charlie, surely you hear how you sound, at least when he was reading off the teleprompter for like 10 minutes of the 90.

Okay, but look, I mean in, in my column, I'm not, I'm not here to necessarily like, Advocate and say I'm not I want I'm someone who wants to explore questions around religion and politics It's a big part of what I focus on in my work. Trump is not a religious man. He never has exactly Yeah, but I mean that's what makes it interesting to sort of like spec, you know What how will this have an effect on him and what I did in the column I looked at past assassination attempts Erdogan, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in 1954, Reagan in our own country.

And assassination attempts can radicalize people and make them more oppressive and that's what we saw with Nasser and Erdogan. So there is still a chance that Trump will really go back to full Trumpism if he actually wins and governs and be more vindictive against [01:39:00] his enemies if he follows on those footsteps.

Reagan, though, did mellow out and did actually talk about dedicating the rest of his life to God. Maybe Trump will be somewhere in this nebulous in between. Who knows? But what I want to do, because I've been so despairing of our politics, I'm trying to kind of think more positively. And I don't think there's any harm in doing that.

And of course, Trump I mean, there is a little harm in that you're imagining things that aren't there. I mean, that's harm, right? You're saying, ah, Trump's maybe better than we thought he was, even as he continues to give speeches that are batshit crazy. Yeah, well, look, I don't think the speech, the speech in the RNC that he gave was batshit crazy.

It was just nor a lot of it was just normal Trump. But that normal Trump is batshit crazy. This is the mistake you're making. You're basically You're basically saying oh because he's denied the election before and said they cheated using covid. That's normal trump That's not a normal thing to say in any democracy that your opponent's cheated using covid to yeah You don't believe the 2020 election was cheated.

No, this is this is [01:40:00] true I mean, I guess what i'm trying to say is that trump is trump and it's a low bar And that's what we got to work. Well, some of us some of us are trying to raise the bar so After Trump's almost assassination, the editorial board at the Washington Post, which you're part of, put out a piece in which you all wrote, Every participant in our civic life needs to conduct some soul searching.

When I read a sentence like that, it feels to me, correct me if I'm wrong, if there's a bit of what we call both sides ing going on. As if, you know, Everyone in our political spectrum is equally responsible for kind of violent rhetoric, incendiary conduct, you know, ratcheting up the temperature, that the Democrats, the left are as responsible for incitement as the right, but they're not.

Like, factually, all of the extremist related murders in America in 2023 were carried out by the right. All of the extremist related murders in 2022 were carried out by the right. 75 percent of extremist related murders in the U. S. over the past decade or so, carried out by the right. 4 percent by the left.

I mean, the problem of violence and [01:41:00] incitement and incendiary rhetoric is a almost exclusively right wing problem in this country. Well, I would just, well, first of all, we, we didn't both sides in, in that editorial, but also in others. I mean, we didn't draw moral equivalency and we, we do always try to acknowledge.

that Trump and the Republicans are worse. Yeah, okay. When it comes to this kind of rhetoric and talking in vindictive ways about punishing their enemies and all of that. But I do think it's also important to look inwardly on our, on our own side, if you will. And to the extent that we are on the center, or those of us who are writing about the center, center left, we're not going to have a lot of impact with MAGA folks, but we can have impact.

With Democrats and left leaning people and I think there, there is necessity for reflection because I think when we E. G.? When we For example, what would you reflect on? Oh yeah, yeah, I mean, we as Democrats, we do talk, unfortunately, a lot about how Trump is going to destroy America and make America into [01:42:00] an authoritarian, fascist state that democracy is about to die.

And as you know from some of our past debates, I have been and still am critical of that kind of approach. I don't think that Trump presents an existential threat. I think if he wins, it'll be a pretty bad four years, and I'm dreading that. And that's one reason I've been so I went back to listen to our last discussion before this one, and I couldn't quite work out listening to you then, and I want to clarify now.

Is it your position, because you just said a moment ago, I don't think that's a, I think it's a helpful approach or right approach. Is it I don't, I don't know if I'm talking to a journalist or a politician activist, because are you saying that we shouldn't say these things because they're untrue, or we shouldn't say these things because they're received in a way that's not good for America?

Those are two different things. Both. I, on the level of truth, I don't actually believe that Trump is an existential threat in the sense that I believe America and our institutions that we're strong enough to and resilient enough to withstand the pressures that Trump will throw on us. And I, I think it's also [01:43:00] odd to say, well, American democracy is so weak, we have so little faith in our own country that we think Trump can topple our democracy in just a matter of four years.

Let's also be clear, Trump cannot run for a third term unless he changes the U. S. Constitution, which is basically impossible, because he would need bipartisan support for that. So we will So I'll come back to that in a minute. Where I meet you halfway is clearly It's not good for America if we're always talking about the end of democracy authoritarianism fascism My counter to that would be what am I supposed to do, as someone like you who explores these subjects writes about this stuff speaks about this stuff when that is what the available evidence is seems to be telling us, right? That's where I differ from you in that I agree that it would be great if in this country we all stopped talking about the end of the world.

It's not great for our mental health. It's certainly not good for my mental health. I wish I could talk about tax rates and minimum wage and not these existential questions. But I look at the evidence and I do see U. S. democracy under threat. And since the last time you and I argued [01:44:00] Oh yes, it might be under threat.

I just don't think it's existential. When we use that word existential, we're talking about It's a subjective word, existential, because again, what would you describe as a threat to democracy that was tolerable, right? So, when you and I discussed last time, that was 2022. Since then, we've And I just went through the list as I was thinking of this discussion with you.

Since we last spoke, Trump has called for the termination of the Constitution that you mentioned a moment ago. He said he wants to be a dictator. His words. For a day, of course. Only a day. Picked a running mate, J. D. Vance, who says he would have overturned the 2020 election had he been in Mike Pence's place.

He didn't need Ford. Yes. They could have done it on that day. And, of course, we have a Supreme Court that's literally given Donald Trump immunity for all crimes committed in office that are official acts. And, of course, he has a hand picked judge in Florida who just threw out his classified documents case.

And, of course, Project 2025, they're now saying, look, it's not just about Trump. We have a ready to go authoritarian roadmap.

Trump & The RNC Just Turned 'Idiocracy' Into Reality - News Dump - Internet Today - Air Date 7-19-22

 The Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, a convention that Earlier this week, vowed to adjust their [01:45:00] messaging and promote peace and unity among all Americans.

And um, how's that going? He will arrest the criminal illegal immigrants and put them behind bars, send them back.

And then last weekend they tried to kill him and there he is over there alive and well. After four years of Joe Biden's disastrous America last agenda. Our country is more dangerous, vulnerable, and impoverished than anyone had thought possible. Under Biden Harris, America has fallen sicker, lonelier, and poorer.

That's some hope there, that not all college students have gone woe. And a whole army of illiterate, illegal aliens stealing the jobs of black, brown, and blue collar Americans. They put them right on your front doorstep. Wow. [01:46:00] I'm convinced. Everything has changed. They are the party of unity. No, it actually seems like the rhetoric coming out of the Republican Party is just as angry and divisive as it's ever been.

And they might not actually truly believe in the things that they are promoting publicly. We need to come together as a nation, except for the people we hate. Yeah. Also, the last guy that you saw in that clip compilation was Peter Navarro, who was part of the Trump administration, tried to turn over the 2020 election, was arrested and charged with contempt of Congress and was released from prison just in time to receive that wonderful round of applause from the so called Law and Order Party.

I mean, he literally left prison and came to the Republican National Convention. Yeah. To a round of applause. Also included in that clip, uh, that the RNC played during a promotional video Was a clip of an edited version of a longer video where a frat bro from the University of Mississippi mocks a black woman by jumping around and making ape noises.

The RNC played that clip [01:47:00] as a shining example of Not all college students going have gone woke. Yeah, some of them are racist just like us. Yeah So, you know, the kids are alright, I guess. Oh, but yeah, it wasn't all fire and brimstone Republicans still had plenty of time to publicly Embarrassed themselves with awkward appearances, false statements, so many lies, cringey humor, and a generally loose grip on reality as a whole.

And we showed a few clips in our most recent episode including, uh, Jim Justice. Governor of West Virginia and his bulldog Just perfect timing by the C SPAN producers And then we had Rudy Giuliani getting into a drunk driving accident while walking. Impressive But here's a few more clips taken from the past few days starting with former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who attempts to persuade Gen Z into thinking that, um, actually it's pretty freaking punk rock to be a conservative these days.

Yeah, don't we [01:48:00] all agree? And our message to Gen Z is this. You're going to be the generation that actually saves this country. You want to be a rebel? You want to be a hippie? You want to stick it to the man? Show up on your college campus and try calling yourself a conservative. And I assume that the camera obviously missed him trying to do metal horns and instead doing this.

That means I love you. Hey, we all love rock, don't we folks? Well, there's nothing more punk rock than joining the Republican Party. It's like the scene in Inglourious Basterds where he does the three instead of the three. He's an ARC! Anyway, here's Don Jr. 's girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, claiming that the heroes that stormed the beaches of Normandy We're fighting communists.

It is no wonder that the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy

say country anymore. Hmm. [01:49:00] I'm gonna have to go back and fact check my, my World War II history. Um, didn't know that the Soviets had already captured France. Yeah. Pretty cool. Mm hmm. And yeah, if you're wondering what was weird about that clip, uh, yeah, the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy, they were fighting The Nazis.

Fascists. Yeah. Not communists, but you could understand why I guess she might intentionally switch the two based on the people she was addressing. Yeah. Who, I don't know, might have, uh, some sympathies towards the people who were on those beaches. They might not come out and say it, but they, uh, Demonstrably have aligned with a lot of those viewpoints.

Yeah. It's JD Vance, 2016. Trump is Hitler. JD Vance, 2024. Trump is Hitler. Yeah. As people have pointed out online, another Simpsons predicting the future where he's running against another kid and, and yeah, a vote for Bart is vote for anarchy. Yeah. Uh, of course we got, uh, we do have an update on Matt Gates looking very, very strange.

Clearly [01:50:00] having received some last minute cheek fillers and Botox. I mean, you know what, let's play at least one clip again because he just looks so bizarre and you definitely need, uh, to have your mind refreshed on this. Democrats have been hiding the real Biden for years. We saw people in the witness protection program more often than we saw unscripted Biden.

Under Biden, Harris, America has fallen sicker, lonelier, and poorer. Okay. Incredible eyebrows. Yeah. Now, after Matt Gaetz's speech where he looked like the plastic surgeon from Escape from LA, Kevin McCarthy joined CNN to comment on that whole speech, and he certainly did not hold back. You know, he looks very unhinged.

I mean, a lot of people have concerns about him. And I'm not sure if he was on something, but I do hope he gets the help that he needs. But more importantly, I hope the young women get the justice they deserve when it comes to him. Anyway, the final day of the convention. Brought out all the stars. [01:51:00] All the stars are here!

So obviously, obviously, you had Kid Rock performing. And lip syncing? Um, we can't play the audio obviously because it is copyrighted music. It's the worst song I've ever heard. But we'll show some a little bit later. It's the one about going platinum selling rhymes. Devil without a cause. And it just goes on for what feels like hours, but I think it's like two and a half minutes normal song length Yeah, so you had Kid Rock up there then you had UFC president Dana White and of course You gotta have Hulk Hogan when they took a shot at my hero

And they tried to kill the next President of the United States! Enough was enough! And I said, Let Trumpamania run wild, brother! Let Trumpamania rule again! [01:52:00] Let Trumpamania make America great again! He is a real American. And he will let you know that he picked up Andre the Giant Yeah, the first like, minute or so of his speech was a bunch of references that you would only get if you were a, uh, a WWF fan in a very specific period of the 1980s, otherwise it would just sound incomprehensible.

I would assume a lot of the people in the Republican Party, especially the ones who are attending the RNC, would find the entire concept of pro wrestling beneath them. And Kid Rock, like It was funny, Kid Rock singing that terrible song and just all these like, 70 year old, like, white people just like Arhythmically clapping and shaking their fists and it was just a strange scene and and obviously For the past 10 years at least everyone has been comparing the United States government and presidential elections and everything to idiocracy But I think we we did [01:53:00] it.

I think this might actually have beat the Idiocracy. Between Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan, I think we got more than even that movie could come up with.

SECTION D: CONSPIRACY

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

Trump’s Rhetoric Has Accelerated Violence And Conspiracy In The US - The Majority Report - Air Date 7-17-24

It has been, 72 hours since one person died, two people critically injured and a, uh, the Republican nominee was nearly assassinated by a difference of maybe an inch and a half. And it seems like it's become a sort of a backseat story. Um, I mean, we talk about how the news moves fast these days. Is there not a better example of this?

We're like, we're already kind of shrugging off. It seems like the assassination attempt on Trump, in part because the Republicans have no narrative against it. Because they're, they don't want to limit guns. They don't want to go down that road. And As we're going to get into here, the guy that [01:54:00] attempted the assassination was a white guy with, it seems like, many Republican and conservative leanings based on classmate accounts and based on reporting.

That's beginning to trickle out at this point. I can't, I can't find the number of the, what number it is, uh, this video. Um, this is a, uh, report. What number is it? Uh, this is a report from, uh, local news. In, uh, Pennsylvania, WPXI. Uh, news reporter, uh, who don't have her name, but they are at the Trump's, uh, Shooters Street in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.

And this is what she reports. Investigators dressed in plainclothes as well as FBI agents approach this house. That's where the family of Thomas Crooks lives, which is right here on Milford drive. Then we started to see those agents going door to door, canvassing the neighborhood and speaking with people who live here.[01:55:00] 

They're trying to get answers to the many questions that still remain. Crooks is motive is still unclear. Records show he is a registered Republican and neighbors today told us that they've actually seen it. Trump signs outside of the home over the course of the last few years. Investigators. All right.

And there's, you know, Uh, I don't think you need to be, you don't need to rely on conspiracies here to start to, uh, you know, ask questions as to like, why hasn't there been a little bit more diligent reporting on this? For instance, like. Where is the official medical report on Donald Trump going to the doctor?

I mean, I imagine that he went to the doctor, but like there were reports initially that it was the teleprompter that shattered and then it was that he was shot in the year. I imagine that's all relatively straightforward again. It appears like he was nearly assassinated in an inch or two. [01:56:00] Um, that's not something that you would in, in a million years.

If you're Donald Trump, say like, yeah, no, I trust you. Uh, just shoot two inches away from me. I'd be like, Hey, we're up by Joe. Maybe we don't do the thing where you shoot a bullet right next to my brain. But it is, and you know, they have been unable to find, uh, uh, social media accounts, uh, for this guy. It's also possible that he wasn't just, uh, doing too much social media.

I mean, he was clearly part of this, uh, YouTube gun, uh, community. And I think the head of that community, you know, was shocked and came out and I'm horrified by it, et cetera, et cetera. But um, there should be questions asked when the theme coming out of this assassination attempt is that people need to tamp down rhetoric.

There should be some legitimate questions asked. Like what was this guy's agenda? Because what has grown in this country since the rise of Trump [01:57:00] and concurrent with the rise of Trump, but in some parts because of Trump, but in some parts simply Trump was delivered because of a rise of this on the right.

Is this notion of a civil war that needs to happen in this country? And I think it's important to note that in the wake of having the first African American president, there was a lot of people who, uh, became angry at what was happening to the white majority in this country. And that anger takes a bunch of, uh, forms.

Some of it is, uh, racialized, much of it, but a lot of it is also becomes like conspiratorial and the idea of a one world order and, you know, Alex Jones, uh, type of territory, which a bunch of these right wingers are drifting into. Or accelerationism, which you hinted at yesterday. You get [01:58:00] organizations like, uh, the, uh, Boogaloo boys.

I think it's really important that we have a lot of people who are out there. Um, and hold sort of a myriad of positions. But all of them end up pointing towards what's going to create sort of a, um, a, a, a civil war and a reckoning that will ultimately bring us some type of, you know, quasi fascist libertarian, uh, paradise.

And so the, these things are all sort of like, you know, loosely connected. Do I think that, uh, that, that, that, that this guy was anything but, um, uh, a lone shooter? No. Um, but do I think it's possible that he was immersed in this sort of like ideology that says, uh, we need to, uh, create some moment where, you know, uh, the, the, uh, the civil war happens?

Yeah. It's possible. I mean, I think the most likely [01:59:00] explanation remains, uh, he was a guy who had suicidal ideation and thought this is going to be the most sort of like consequential thing I can do with my life ever and decided to dedicate the, the, the shorting, you know, the short remainder of his life to that point.

But, uh, These are important things to know because when the narrative is both sides need to calm down their rhetoric what we're doing is covering over a certain reality of what's going on in this country about a right wing Movement in this country That takes multiple forms but one of it is in the form of Peter Thiel and one of its in the form of you know, the Boogaloo boys and the it in in We're going to talk about this in terms of the RNC, but half the people who were involved in the, you know, the [02:00:00] accoutrements of the RNC last night, whether it was like, you know, saying the pledge of allegiance or doing other things, uh, were arraigned for trying to storm the Capitol and convicted for trying to storm the Capitol.

It's a problem. And, and we'll talk about the. The other half of that problem, which is, you know, we've got a guy who's holding on to, uh, who's driving this bus and white knuckled hanging onto the steering wheel and nobody can seem to get them out of the driver's seat. Even though he's careening down the highway.

So we can articulate these, these very real concerns and dangers, obviously. All right, we'll say, uh, just a quick, I ran Paul tweet from 2016. Uh, why do we have a second amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical. Yeah. I wonder where, where this comes from in the right. 

The Conspiracy Theory Election - What Next: TBD | Tech, power, and the future - Air Date 7-21-24

Speaker A: In past elections, even very recent ones, social media companies invested deeply in content moderation.

 But now, through ownership changes and a series of deliberate [02:01:00] choices, the Internet is a posters paradise.

Speaker B: There was a span of time that was maybe six to eight years, I guess, certainly around 2016 and the years after when the platforms were, they would at least try.

 Sometimes they were aggressive, but they would at least try to really moderate content like this.

 They would see a bunch of people spamming a certain hashtag or spamming a piece of content or photo, and they would try and moderate it.

 They would employ people to watch the trending topics list.

 We’ve had a big change in that on the platform level.

 There’s been a couple different explanations.

 One, you look at Twitter, which is now called X, its owner, Elon Musk.

 So he specifically has said, I don’t want to moderate because moderating is against free speech, which is his argument, from my view, from spending hours on this stuff.

 X was by far the main platform for people trying to lie to other people.

 It was just [02:02:00] loaded with bogus B’s garbage.

 There’s even been some research that found 5% of the content about this stuff that was actually wrong, had a note appended to it saying, actually, this was false.

 Stuff was just going rampant there totally unchecked.

 In the past, Twitter at least feigned to have some moderating capability.

 But then you look at somebody like Facebook and Instagram, where they don’t have an Elon musk at the wheel, but they have their own reasons for sort of taking a step back.

 The executives feel like, we tried this, it was expensive to moderate.

 We were getting yelled at for moderating too much.

 We were spending time and resources elevating news content and current events, and nobody liked us for it.

 And so now we’re just basically going to sort of wave our, you know, just kind of shrug our shoulders and let it go.

Speaker A: Has that increased post January 6?

Speaker B: It has, [02:03:00] actually.

 I mean, so January 6 was a really terrible event.

 We saw how much of it was egged on by social media.

 We had this Jan.

 Six committee in Washington that basically laid out how central social media was to the problems there.

 And after that, there were definitely some moves, like taking down QAnon posts and that kind of thing.

 But just in the years since, you’ve seen some kind of superficial moves from the platforms, and you kind of do have to distinguish between an ex, where it’s like basically malicious dismissal of a desire for wanting correct content just because of Elon Musk’s personality, and something like meta, where they just feel like logistically, they would rather focus their attention on building audience, getting creators, making something like threads that’s really popular for fashion and celebrity news, but just totally backing off of current events.

 And so in the [02:04:00] middle are just kind of normal people who are going onto these platforms and really not getting that moderated environment anymore.

Speaker A: Okay, let’s talk about the powerful people, not all of them named Elon, who were amplifying and in some cases, like, stirring the pot here.

 What is going on with your power users who were running with not entirely accurate narratives?

Speaker B: I guess we’ll start with Elon.

 I mean, Elon, very quickly after the shooting, said he endorsed Trump.

 He was replying and sharing some stuff that was totally not supported.

 And in one piece that I can remember, he basically called out the secret service, which, again, was not perfect.

 We are still trying to figure out how they messed this up so badly.

 But he said either this was just a giant mess up, or it was deliberate and he was starting to give [02:05:00] energy to this growing conspiracy theory that the Secret Service had stood down because they wanted Trump to get hurt.

 Basically, he is somebody who has, I don’t know, 180 million followers or something like that.

 His posts are basically algorithmically implanted onto everybody’s fees just by the virtue of him owning the joint.

 And so everybody was seeing that.

 And again, that coupled with the trending topics and with people trying to reply to him, sort of supporting them, it helped really juice that idea.

 But beyond Elon.

 I mean, on the right, you had, you know, people like Roger Stone, longtime Trump confidant, a big following all of his own.

 Like, Trump is big on social media who was not just sort of buying into some of these, you know, conspiracy theories, but actually, like, sharing names.

 Like, he gave a specific name and photo of this guy who he said, like, yeah, this is the guy.

 This was the shooter.

 And he shared a news story that [02:06:00] had the names and photos of these guys who had been, like, they were anti Trump protesters who had been arrested at a rally, like, years ago.

 And I don’t know where he got these names from, but of course, they were totally wrong.

 I mean, they were totally different from the prison law enforcement has identified.

 And yet he was basically summoning a mob to attack these people by name based off nothing.

 And for a while, even the name of that misidentified man was trending on Twitter.

 But then on the left, I also have to say there’s been a rise of what my colleague Taylor Lorenz called Blue Anon.

 These are people who are on left who evoke this conspiratorial view on the news in some of the same ways as QAnon was on the right, where they feel like Trump is also this secret mastermind.

 And we’re [02:07:00] buying into a lot of these conspiracy theories and that the media is in on it to take down Biden and that Trump is just really getting one over on us.

 And so kind of on that blue and on side, you had a lot of these, I would say, left wing kind of liberal influencers who were sharing a lot of stuff about, again, that this event was staged, that in some ways the media was in on it, that this was all to take attention away or really lock in Trump as not just the nominee, but as, like, the, the president and win the election for him.

 And so you just saw a bunch of, like, muck.

 It just kind of showed that conspiracy theories are not a single partisan phenomenon.

 Anybody can buy into them because, you know, they make us feel good.

Speaker A: Well, there’s also this crossover effect, right?

 It is not just fringe people posting wild theories or memes.

 Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee, [02:08:00] now MSNBC talking head, basically went on tv and questioned the ear wound, where it feels like there’s a, I don’t know, some portal has opened between conspiracy world and real life, and we don’t know how to close it.

Speaker B: Part of this is, you know, there’s a lack of trust in the media.

 There’s kind of a questioning among a lot of people in the public that, are we getting the full story?

 Is the media paying attention to the things we want them to pay attention to?

 Are they asking all the right questions?

 They’re being too tough on our side, and both sides, quote unquote, will say that.

 And so there’s a finite amount of information about an event like this, and our demand for it in a social media age oftentimes feels infinite.

 And so you have people who have these giant platforms who are sometimes influencers or sometimes politicians or celebrities or whatnot, who are seeing all the same [02:09:00] information as us.

 They have access to all the same information as us, but they’re perceiving it in different ways, they’re sharing it in different ways, and they’re using their platforms to share just bogus stuff.

 And it’s really hard to fact check claims like this, because these conspiracy theories, as we know, I mean, they morph, they evolve over time.

 They take on lives of their own to where any new piece of information or news can be either applied to that theory, to kind of, like, give it an extra wrinkle that, again, validates it, or it can just be totally dismissed. 

Why people think the Trump shooting was a conspiracy - If You're Listening | ABC News In-depth - Air Date 7-19-24

The little brother of President Kennedy was following developments from his home in Virginia with the CIA director, John McCone. Parkland Hospital has been advised to stand by for a severe gunshot wound.

Bobby Kennedy picked up the phone, listened briefly, and then put it back down. He's dead, said Bobby. The two men sat for a moment, and then went for a walk in the garden. [02:10:00] Bobby's son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was 10 years old. He told Fox News that he saw the two men talking, and heard what they were saying. My father was walking in the yard with John McComb, and my father was posing the same question to him.

Was it our people who did this to my brother? So it was my father's first instinct. That agency had killed his brother. This isn't just a story that RFK Jr. tells, by the way. There are multiple sources indicating that Bobby Kennedy asked the CIA director directly, Did you do this? Now, why would he ask that?

Bobby Kennedy wasn't just like getting the jump on the conspiracy theorists here. He was acutely aware of what the CIA was capable. He had, in fact, personally approved many of their operations and been briefed on many others in his role as attorney general. And once you've heard the details. of some of these operations.

You might also find yourself crafting a fedora out of [02:11:00] tinfoil. The CIA's primary obsession at the time was Cuba. Castro marks the second anniversary of his revolution with the biggest military parade ever staged in Cuba, featuring tanks and other heavy weapons from Russia and Red Czechoslovakia. The US government really didn't like having a heavily armed communist country 90 miles off their coast, and were hellbent on overthrowing the leader, Fidel Castro.

And yet Castro proved very difficult to get rid of. According to the Cubans, he survived more than 600 assassination attempts, including an exploding cigar and other bizarre plots. The Americans sent poisonous pills and cigars to anti communists or to the mafia or to Castro's lovers, with instructions to figure out what to do.

A way to get them into Castro's mouth. They developed a poisoned wetsuit and an explosive seashell. Apparently Castro liked diving. On the day JFK was shot, an American agent was handing a [02:12:00] poisoned pen to a high ranking Cuban official, hoping that it would be used to kill Castro. These things aren't conspiracy theories.

They are real plans that the CIA cooked up. All of the documents have now been declassified. None of these plans worked. Unable to take out the leader, the CIA cooked up a plan to create a pretext for an American invasion of Cuba. Fake a Cuban attack and claim that they were provoked into toppling Castro for America's own safety.

The plan was called Operation Northwoods and it's bonkers. They could blow up a US Navy ship or shoot down a US fighter jet. They could create a fake terrorist campaign in Miami or dress up in Cuban military uniforms and fake an invasion of some other nearby country. They could rig a dummy passenger plane to blow up over Cuba and claim that [02:13:00] Castro had killed American civilians.

It was a plan for a false flag operation to create the pretext for war. We have a bulletin coming in. We now switch you directly to Parkland Hospital. Then The President of the United States is dead. I asked the father, is Mr Kennedy dead, and he's quote, he's dead alright. Denied his agency had anything to do with it.

He was as shocked and confused as anyone else. So who did do it? The Dallas police arrested a suspect and they were pretty confident that he was the right guy. A reclusive, abusive, depressed, narcissistic, ex marine Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald. He was quite suspicious. He had tried and failed to defect to the Soviet Union.[02:14:00] 

He had handed out pamphlets and talked on the radio about his sympathy for Cuba and Castro and had recently applied for a Cuban visa. The CIA has made monumental mistakes. And its relations with Cuba. The F-B-I-C-I-A and KGB all had files on him, but all thought that he was too odd to be either useful or a threat.

Oswald denied any involvement in the assassination of JFK. I don't know what this is all about. I killed a black guy. What time? I'm just a party president. But before anyone could really figure out whether that was true, Oswald was shot. Dead on live TV by a local nightclub owner. The basement floor of the Dallas City Hall, that's a scuffle on the basement floor.

The whole thing stank. Something must be up. You're trying to tell me that a lone crazy guy with connections to the Soviet Union and Cuba [02:15:00] shot the leader of the free world and then was killed in police custody? New President Lyndon Johnson knew that he had to get out ahead of the theories springing up about what happened.

And commissioned the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to get to the bottom of it. The Chief Justice asked that the work progress as rapidly as possible in the interests of informing the people and uh, anyone throughout the world as to what really happened. While the CIA promised to cooperate fully, they didn't.

At all. See, they had filing cabinets full of pretty questionable stuff. Those plans to assassinate Castro, with Wetsuits and seashells. Operation Northwoods. They really didn't want these to come out. So they gently steered the Warren Commission away from Cuba. Who cares, right? In their eyes, it wasn't relevant.

They couldn't find [02:16:00] any evidence that indicated that Oswald was innocent or part of a conspiracy and the commission was going to find him guilty anyway, so why air all their dirty laundry? They weren't alone though. The FBI and the Secret Service also weren't entirely forthcoming, hoping to cover up mistakes that both agencies had made which led to the assassination.

In the long term though, Oswald's It was a catastrophic mistake. The Warren Commission report was handed down a year after the shooting. The report found that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had in fact slain President Kennedy. The report became an instant bestseller the world over. The full report, all 26 volumes of it, was 16, 000 pages long.

After its publication, a poll found that between 45 and 50 percent of Americans did still think that it was a conspiracy. The But that was down from 62 percent beforehand. Of course, there were folks out there doing their own research into the [02:17:00] assassination, but not that many. It was hard work without the internet.

Well, I've been at this now for more than three years. I've made many trips to Dallas, nine trips now. But cover ups, particularly ones that involve large groups of people, never hold together for long. While the US government almost certainly didn't cover up evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, they did cover up evidence of all sorts of other things.

With every year that went by, more and more information that was kept from the Warren Commission became public. And with each revelation, belief that the JFK assassination was part of a conspiracy, potentially a CIA conspiracy The CIA's actions a decade ago are a stain on our value and on our history.

Since then, the CIA has covered up all sorts of things. Drone programs, illegal arms sales, mass surveillance On American citizens. Torture. Detainees [02:18:00] being waterboarded. Detainees being hung by their arms for more than two weeks. One detainee was kept awake for more than a week. When you actually are doing illegal or immoral things and lying about it, who is going to believe you when you say that you didn't fake the moon landing, or a terror attack, or a mass shooting at an elementary school, or whatever this is?

I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay! And when you've got a reasonably large proportion of your population with that level of distrust in the government, you've got a problem. In the last 20 years, Polls asking people about conspiracy theories have shown an interesting shift.

In a poll done in 40th anniversary of JFK's death, 73 percent of Democrats believed that the assassination was a conspiracy, compared with 58 percent of Republicans. Sort of makes sense. Kennedy was a Democratic president after. But by 2023, on the 60th [02:19:00] anniversary, after all of the classified files on the JFK assassination had been finally released to the public, it had flipped almost exactly.

Now, way more Republicans thought that the government was somehow responsible for JFK's death. That's thanks in large part to one of the most successful conspiracy theorists of all time, Donald Trump. It's really very curious as to what's going on with our president. It started with allegations that Barack Obama wasn't born in America.

Why doesn't he show the birth certificate? Then he said that his 2016 Republican primary opponent Ted Cruz's father was connected to the JFK assassination. His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being.

But it's gone so much further than that. He's promoted or invented conspiracy theories about his rivals for president, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He says that climate change is a hoax. It's a hoax. [02:20:00] I mean, it's a money making industry, okay? It's a hoax. He's endorsed conspiracies about Muslims. Latin Americans and Jews.

He said that vaccines cause autism and wind turbines cause cancer. And of course, there's this. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. The biggest conspiracy theory of all, that the 2020 election was stolen from him. This is a major fraud in our nation. We will win this.

And as far as I'm concerned, we already have won it. That conspiracy has had Real world consequences. It's believers stormed the US Capitol, trying to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The master of calling everything fake news has spread more fake news than possibly any other American. Is it any wonder that when Trump himself was shot last weekend, both Republicans and Democrats immediately reached for conspiracy theories to explain what had happened.

In many [02:21:00] ways, The US government did this to itself. After decades of trying to cover up evidence of unethical government programs, they've created a movement of millions of Americans who only trust Trump, a man who lies. We still don't know what motivated Thomas Matthew Crooks to shoot at Donald Trump, but I'm sure you have a theory.

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!, The New Abnormal, The Rational National, The Brian Lehrer Show, The PBS NewsHour, Al Jazeera English, The Humanist Report, Zeteo, Internet Today, The Majority Report, What Next: TBD, and If You're [02:22:00] Listening. 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 Andrew—for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today and get 20% off your membership at bestoftheleft.com/support or through our Patreon page. 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. 

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 [02:23:00] coming to twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show, from bestoftheleft.com.

Air Date 7/20/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. 

Extremism comes in many forms, and we live in an era in which way too many of them are on display simultaneously. But it's not a coincidence. The far right has been working toward an extremist Supreme Court for decades. Christian nationalists have similarly been trying to impose their rigid view of far-right Christianity on the rest of us for a very long time. The far-right Heritage Foundation now deems this to be the time to attempt to radicalize the federal bureaucracy, and far right calls for political violence and lax gun laws resulted in an environment where no one was really all that surprised about the assassination attempt against Donald Trump.

Sources providing our Top Takes in under an hour today include Amicus; Boom Lawyered; Today, Explained; The Readout; No Lie with Brian Taylor Cohen; and the PBS NewsHour. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there will be more [00:01:00] on the Supreme Court, Project 2025, political violence, and Christian nationalism.

And just a quick note before we get started: once again, I have more thoughts on the current state of politics in the US as reports are beginning to fly that Biden stepping down as the Democrat's nominee is more a matter of when rather than if. But I'll save those comments for the editor's note in the middle of the show.

Opinionpalooza The Supreme Court End-of-Term Breakfast Table - Amicus with Dahlia lithwick - Air Date 7-6-24

MARY ANNE FRANKS: So listen, I want to gauge where everyone's head is at. We are taping this show on July 2nd, just about 24 hours after Trump immunity comes down. Most of us have probably read it through carefully at this point, once or twice. And I'm experiencing it as seismic, no more and no less, for many reasons, not least of which is that the president can now kill people if it's an official act, but also, not just because of what it allows a future President Trump to do to democracy itself, but I'm just sitting with what this decision signals about how [00:02:00] six members of this Supreme Court look at the Trump presidency, the events of January 6th, the threats that Trump speaks every single day, Project 2025, separation of powers. We got hyper focused, I think, in this media cycle on Donald Trump himself, but I would really like to talk about what this says about the court. Steve, do you want to start?

STEVE VLADECK: Sure. I think when we did this last year, we talked about how the word of the term was arrogance. I think we've gone from arrogance to DGAF is my term for the October 23 term, not just because of the Trump case, Dahlia, but just I'm struck by the message that the court has sent over and over again in almost all of its major rulings, that it just doesn't care about how half the country perceives it, that it just doesn't care. 

In the Fisher case, for example, that its decision is going to be held out as some kind of massive victory and exoneration of the [00:03:00] January 6th defendants. And it just doesn't care in the administrative law cases that it's going back on things that has taken for granted for 30, 40, 50 years.

And it doesn't care because Dahlia just doesn't fear any retribution. It doesn't fear any consequences. Joe Biden's not running against the court in the election, he's running against Trump. And so the court is just, I think, doing what it wants, when it wants. And what's remarkable to me is sometimes the other five conservatives are going so far that it's too far even for Justice Barrett. When Justice Barrett is the one saying, why are we doing this?, I think that is quite a revealing and alarming signal. 

MARY ANNE FRANKS: Marianne, do you have a gloss on the DGAF court of 2023 term? 

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: I think that that's largely right. But I think my take away mostly was when you look at cases like Rahimi and you look at cases like the FDA case about Mifepristone, you also see the court avoiding its own messes, right? So it's a [00:04:00] version of this, but it's saying: We basically created, through Bruen and through Dobbs, we've created all of this havoc, and then with the natural and entirely predictable consequences of that havoc start to appear, the court then says that's obviously not what we meant; clearly people are getting this wrong. We don't know where the misunderstandings are coming from. 

So you see over and over again that this court has created these monsters. The monsters are coming home. And when it seems really bad for the court -- and what I mean by really bad is that it just seems to be unseemly. There's the domestic abuser who's involved in multiple shootings and he really wants to keep his guns. The court's embarrassed by this. Except for Thomas. He's never embarrassed. I suppose he's unembarrassable. But you have them really sticking to this idea that they're being consistent and they're offering something real and legitimate with this history and tradition idea. But you look at a case like Rahimi and that Thomas writes the Bruen opinion, and then you get a majority, the conservative majority [00:05:00] agrees with it. Rahimi comes up and it's a predictable consequence of Bruen. And really, if you apply Bruen, Rahimi should win. And you've got all of the justices now saying that's not how Bruen needs to be applied. And you've got the author of Bruen saying, of course it is.

So the idea that originalism, history, and tradition gives something settled for us, gives us something outside of activism or just judicial chaos monkeys should be something that we are now abandoning, but I don't know that we are. 

MARY ANNE FRANKS: Marianne, one tiny gloss on what you just said that I think is so interesting is I hadn't seen the through line until you just pointed it out, that the court's language in Rahimi, which is like, "I don't know why all the lower courts are getting this wrong. We were perfectly clear that we didn't mean what Clarence Thomas wrote in Bruen" is exactly the language they used when they adopted the quote-unquote "ethics code" this year, the unenforceable feelings ball ethics code that every jurist gets to decide for him or herself. And it was that same [00:06:00] language of "we've always had this binding code. We don't understand why the people are too dumb to understand that it applies to us." And by the way, it's also the vibe that they directed at the critiques of Steve Vladeck and other people who were pointing out the abuses of the emergency docket, which is like, "we don't abuse the emergency -- you guys must be too stupid to understand how scrupulously we apply our own procedures."

So there is this kind of persistent, persistent, not just like "cleanup on aisle four" vibe, but like, "why did you all spill the pickle juice all over aisle four?" when it's their stinking pickle juice? 

Okay, Mark, your turn. 

MARK JOSEPH STERN: I guess I sense that we are feeling the lack of any true swing justice in a lot of different ways that are speculative admittedly, but feel true to me at least.

There's no Justice Kennedy there who could sometimes moderate the conservatives. There's certainly no Justice O'Connor who could build [00:07:00] these bridges or give the conservatives reason to tone down their rhetoric or their positions to try not to alienate her. And Chief Justice Roberts looked like he was emerging as a swing vote toward the tail end of the Trump years, in part because there were a few cases like the census citizenship case, the DACA case, where he sided against the Trump administration, largely because of its sloppy lawyering and poorly concealed lies. 

But now I feel like there really is not any justice, who sits in the middle, who can legitimately be won over by the liberal bloc in any meaningful way, and the conservative majority sees no reason to temper its goals and ambitions to try to limit the alienation that a swing justice might feel.

An example here is what's been happening with Barrett. Barrett, as Steve pointed out, has taken a somewhat more moderate stance in some of these cases, right? But she has still never joined with the Chief [00:08:00] Justice in a 5 to 4 decision where the liberals, the Chief, and Barrett are in the majority on the merits, and the others are in dissent. Every time she hedges in this way, it's to pick nits with aspects of the conservative majority's opinion, but ultimately sign on to some or much of it. That was true in the Trump immunity case where she said, well, I don't think it's true that we can't bring in evidence here in this particular discreet circumstance, but I'm signing on to everything else, cause I might not agree with the framing, but I agree with the bottom line. It was true in the Anderson case, where she said, I don't agree with the court's decision to answer this particular question, but I'm still going to sign on to the bulk of the majority's opinion, 'cause I don't think Trump can be removed from the ballot.

She is still, I think, spiritually very much in the conservative camp. And so the men don't feel the need to do anything to temper. their ambitions, I think, to win her over. And there's just the three liberals perpetually in dissent, increasingly refusing to pull punches, which I admire. I think Justice Sotomayor's dissent in the Trump case is one [00:09:00] of the most terrifying, brutal, blunt pieces of judicial writing I've ever come across. But that is just creating a growing chasm between the two blocs, and I'm not seeing anyone making any effort to build bridges, at least on the right. And that is leading to a court that's totally untempered by any internal dynamics that used to exist, that kept its most extreme temptations in check.

STEVE VLADECK: So this is Steve. I agree with all of that. I would just say that Mark's frustration with Justice Barrett, I would just direct to her ironically right at Chief Justice Roberts. Because I think the real individual story of the term is John Roberts is done trying to be an institutionalist.

Opinionpalooza This SCOTUS Decision Is Actually Even More Devastating Than We First Thought - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick - Air Date 7-13-24

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: So Lisa, welcome back. Thank you for making a quick return. And I wonder if we could just start by sketching out the field. Maybe, can you just give us like day one of admin law when you're trying to explain to [00:10:00] people the rise of the administrative state and regulatory agencies, and just walk us through what drove the rise of these agencies? What do these alphabet agencies do? And why do they do so much of the bulk of the regulatory work right now? 

LISA HEINZERLING: Administrative law is all about the agencies. Administrative law is a subject that governs the work agencies do, and how they do it, and how they're supposed to come to their decisions. So it's a huge field. It governs all of the agencies in the United States. And so most people, even without ever knowing about administrative law or what an agency is, have run across the work of an administrative agency, in either the drugs they take -- that would be the Food and Drug Administration; the air they breathe -- that would be the Environmental Protection Agency; the investments they make, perhaps they buy stocks -- that would be the Securities and [00:11:00] Exchange Commission; and on and on down the line.

Agencies are basically used by Congress when it passes statutes to implement Congress's direction. So you'll often hear about the administrative state. You'll often hear that the president is going to go it alone without Congress or act alone or use an executive authority, but that actually almost never happens. That's very rare. What the bulk of agencies work actually starts with Congress. Congress creates an agency, like the FDA or the EPA; funds the agency; and gives the agency instructions about what work to do and the parameters for that work. 

And so, administrative law basically governs that relationship. It also provides for court review, judicial review of agencies' decisions.

And so, the term that just ended [00:12:00] really continued a trend that's been going on at the Supreme Court for a few years now, which is, really, I think it's fair to say that the court is is either dismantling or destabilizing the administrative state. Certainly destabilizing it, but I think dismantling is a fair word as well.

And what the court's doing is it's taking aim at the structure of the agencies, the way that they interpret those laws that Congress passes, and the way they need to go about their work. So let me say one word about each of those. 

On the structure of agencies, what the court is doing is it's trying to make the heads of agencies, and even judges at the agencies, more responsive, essentially, to presidential both appointment and removal, and so bringing the agencies closer to the political apparatus of the government. And that may sound kind of technical, but it's really important, because one of the [00:13:00] reasons we have the agencies -- think about the agencies I mentioned, the FDA, the EPA, the Securities and Exchange Commission -- those are given those jobs partly because they have experts on the subject matters they deal with. So that becomes really important in administrative law to, oftentimes, Congress will decide to make them independent of the president. And that's one of the targets of this Supreme Court. And that's effectively one of the issues in the Jarkesy case, is who has to decide whether someone violated the law. Can the agency do it with its own judges, or do the federal courts have to do it? And in that case, they said the federal courts have to do it. 

The second big issue has been how do agencies interpret their statutes? They're given a statute that tells them you should clean up the air. You should make sure drugs are safe. You should make sure that the cars that people drive are safe. And they say that to the agency, that's your mission. And [00:14:00] here's some parameters for that work. And for so many years, for 40 years, and I would say longer than that, the courts really deferred to agencies. If they had an unclear statute, a statute that's just hard to figure out exactly what it meant, then the agency's view of that statute would prevail as long as it was reasonable.

And so this is the piece of the process I mentioned before, which is judicial review. If an agency makes a decision and says, we're making this decision based on this understanding of the statute, for many, many years, courts would say, all right, if the statute's unclear, then the agency really gets to make the call. As long as it's reasonable, it makes the call. And that's what went by the boards in the Loper Bright case you mentioned at the outset, Dahlia, which is that the court overruled that deferential principle, announced in a case called Chevron, and replaced it with a court-centered kind of [00:15:00] interpretation. The courts figure out on their own what the best interpretation of a statute is.

And then just the last piece, because there's activity here too: agencies alone among the institutions of the federal government have to actually explain themselves when they make a decision. And when they explain themselves, they have to do so in a way that people can understand and follow and understand why they did what they did. It's not remarked on a lot of times in public commentary on agencies, but it's a wonderful feature of the administrative process, which is that the agency explain itself to the public in terms the public can understand. 

Now, if the courts drill down too much on the agency's explanations, it becomes just a way to undo a lot of agency's work. And that is a separate case this term, a case called Ohio versus EPA, in which the court rejected an EPA rule on interstate air pollution because it [00:16:00] thought that EPA hadn't explained itself well enough. And that tightening of that requirement of reasoned explanation I think is going to come back to make agencies work a lot harder.

And I think all this work is occurring, in my mind at least, as part of a kind of anti-regulatory campaign on the part of the justices and even some lower court judges. They don't like how much power those agencies I mentioned have, and they're taking it away. 

Just Decide the EMTALA Case Already, You Cowards - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 6-27-24

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: So immediately what happens in the EMTALA fight is that this case goes back to the lower courts for further proceedings. Like Amani said, the Supreme Court jumped in on this fight before the Ninth Circuit could even go into it. Okay. And in the short term, I want to be very clear: that is good, because the situation in Idaho, with the state being able to enforce its ban in the face of EMTALA was clearly awful. And our job is to help through humor shine some clarity in these moments, but we're not by any stretch trying to diminish [00:17:00] the healthcare crisis and suffering that's going on. It's bad. 

There's also this terrible Fifth Circuit decision in place that deals with Texas's ban, and just logistically speaking, that decision affects millions more people. So, to underscore, and not to put the people in Idaho pitting them against the folks in Texas and the Fifth Circuit, that's not the point. I'm really just trying to underscore that this is a punt. It's not a win. And the Biden administration has appealed that Fifth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, and they're just waiting. So we'll see what they do with that.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And that can mean that this term, the Supreme Court says, yeah, we're taking up EMTALA after the election, let's say Biden wins, they're like, all right, I guess we got to do this shit again. And so they're going to take up this case and we're going to do it and hear it again. If Trump wins, as you said, we're in Project 2025 department of life territory, and none of this matters. 

I would just like to take a moment to pat myself on the back. Because if you type in the words, "Fetuses [00:18:00] can't consent to healthcare" into Google -- and I went into incognito mode just to make sure it wasn't my cache playing around with me -- my article that says, "by the way, fetuses can't consent to healthcare" is the first article that comes up. That was an article that talked about specifically the Texas v Becerra case. This EMTALA case that's pending in the Fifth Circuit, which as you pointed out, has a lot of really gnarly personhood language. And as I already mentioned, with respect to the purposeful misreading of the statute as applying to a pregnant woman and her unborn child, as opposed to a pregnant woman or her unborn child, it doesn't even make sense. The Fifth Circuit and Sam Alito's reading of the statute doesn't make sense. Because there's no way that a fetus could tell a doctor whether or not they wanted to be terminated in order to save the life of the person carrying it.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right. 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: The healthcare decisions that are made under EMTALA are made by the pregnant patient. And sometimes that pregnant [00:19:00] patient will choose an abortion in order to save their own life, to save their organs, to save their fertility. That is their choice to make. Congress has allowed them to make that choice. It's not about what the quote, "unborn child" wants, no matter how much Sam Alito wants it to be. 

So I just really want people to understand as we start refocusing on Texas v. Becerra and our good friend, Mattie K., right? Because that was a Matt Kazmarek decision. We're going to see the same, the exact same arguments. And I just need people to realize that these justices are willing to lie to get their way because they have an agenda and they are backed by billionaires like Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo and any other dark money group that is shoveling money into this court. So that's really, really critical.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: That point is so important. And I remember in the oral arguments in this EMTALA case, Solicitor General Preligar was so It's so good on that point, that the health care decisions flow through the pregnant person [00:20:00] and don't exist independently and autonomously to a developing pregnancy. And so thank you and congratulations, by the way, I wonder if she read your piece.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I hope so. That would be amazing. Honestly, every time I write about Sam Alito, I'm using his full God-given name in the hopes that it shows up on his Google alerts-- 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Because he's going to be at a speaking event in Rome and call out Imani Gandhi. Let's hope. 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Fly to Rome and shake that man's hand and maybe slap him across the face real fast.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: No, please don't. The Secret Service will deal--

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: No, that's bad. I don't want to end up in jail. 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: But, I keep complaining to you about this Department of Life. And I think maybe I want to give you an opportunity to talk a little bit more about what the Department of Life is. Because when you say it to me, my mind, I know it exists, but my mind is like, Department of Life is ridiculous. And maybe our listeners aren't aware about how bad it could get if Project 2025 is implemented. 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Really, truly. And the Department of Life sounds as dystopian as it is. Roger Severino, remember [00:21:00] that jamoke? He is all over this and the thing is with a potential second Trump administration, we're going to see everything old new again when it comes to their assaults on the ways that the federal government operates in this space. And we're already starting to see it in the way the antis are spinning the EMTALA decision. 

But what they would do is just read EMTALA differently here. They would issue a different guidance. Cause remember, that's the fight is over the guidance that the Biden administration issued after the Dobbs decision.

And based on Alito's dissent, what we've seen in the Fifth Circuit, what they've said in the Project 2025 documents, that would use EMTALA to advance a fetal personhood framing, just like if there's a Trump administration, Project 2025, the Department of Life would be urging the FDA to repeal access to Mifepristone altogether.

So really, this is the path that the Supreme Court has carved for us at the end of its term. And it [00:22:00] is completely and entirely electoral. If there is a Biden victory in the presidency, then we will see these cases reanimated in some way, shape or form, and the Supreme Court will rule on their merits. If there's a Trump win, then he does their dirty work for them, and this all goes away via agency action. 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Ugh. And just -- I know we're running out of time -- and just real quickly, we are waiting for a case, for a couple of cases about agency action, about who it is that is going to interpret ambiguous statutes regarding agency action.

And everyone, everyone that I know is expecting the Supreme Court to essentially pickpocket Congress and take agency power out of Congress's power and out of the power of the agencies and shuffle it to the Supreme Court, so that it won't matter if the Biden administration issues a guidance or any administration issues a guidance about EMTALA, because it will be the [00:23:00] Supreme Court that decides, ultimately, what the statute says and how it is any individual federal agency should be implementing statutes that create them. And that's a real problem. 

What is Project 2025 - Today, Explained - Air Date 7-11-24 (1)

NOEL: I’m Noel King, with Shelby Talcott, who’s covering the 2024 presidential election for Semafor. These days Shelby has been writing a lot about Project 2025.

 

SHELBY TALCOTT: It's essentially this massive, organized, multimillion dollar effort to establish an administration in waiting for Donald Trump.

SCORING IN <Crafty Sneakers [c] - APM>

 It's headed up by the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank that has been really instrumental in conservative policies throughout the years. When I talked to the project's head last year for this, he said that what fundamentally unites our coalition is deconstructing the administrative state.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: Our common theme is to take down the administrative state, the bureaucracy and you're gonna, [00:24:00] um yeah. <applause> It's, it's not as easy done as it is said. The bottom line is that we need to have an army of conservatives ready to march in day one.

SHELBY TALCOTT: The way that they're trying to do this is through this multipronged, years-long initiative that involves vetting a number of staffers that theoretically could be in the next Trump administration. It involves making sure that those staffers know how government works, so training them. It involves this massive 800-plus-page policy book that essentially outlines the major conservative policies of today. And then the last prong is, of course, diving into this 180-day playbook that Project 2025 is currently developing to hand Donald Trump, should he win in 2024, that he could implement initiatives, executive [00:25:00] orders and policies, in his first year in office.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: We are gonna be prepared, day one, January 20, 2025, to hit the ground running as conservatives, to really help the next president.

 SCORING OUT

NOEL: Who's in the coalition that you mentioned? You talked about Heritage. Who else?

SHELBY TALCOTT: Yeah, there's over 100 coalition partners. And actually they reached that number at the beginning of this year. So SBA Pro-Life America has signed on, the Conservative Partnership Institute, Claremont Institute, TP USA, which is Turning Point USA, which is focused a lot on younger voters. So most of the major conservative organizations in the country really are a part of this effort.

NOEL: How unusual is it for the Heritage Foundation to have a thing like Project 2025? Is this unprecedented?

SHELBY TALCOTT: It's not unusual for there to be some kind of organization. They usually have this Mandate for Leadership that they will give an upcoming conservative president. 

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: Heritage got on the book-, on [00:26:00] the marker as, as an organization by delivering the first Mandate for Leadership in 1980 to President-elect Reagan.

<CLIP> 

Ronald Reagan: Heritage has transformed itself from a struggling and valiant coterie of conservatives to, well, a struggling and valiant coterie of conservatives -- [laughter] -- though today the influence and importance of Heritage is widely recognized in Washington and, indeed, by policymakers around the world.

SHELBY TALCOTT: But this scope and level of organization and the years that it has taken to plan and lay out this specific Project 2025 is really unique and really has never been done before. So in that sense, just the scale of this operation is unprecedented.

NOEL: Okay. But the Mandate for Leadership has been a thing in the past. Now, when Donald Trump was elected the first time, how much of their mandate for [00:27:00] leadership did he take?

SHELBY TALCOTT: He used a significant amount. So in early 2018, the Heritage Foundation came out with a press release saying that Donald Trump had, as of that moment, used over 60% of their policy proposals.

<CLIP> 

Former VP Mike Pence: I mean, from right in the transition we went to work availing ourselves of the resources available from the Heritage Foundation. We laid out plans for this administration. We drew on the scholarship and the resources of this historic think tank.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And so that just sort of gives you an idea of, A, how influential historically the Heritage Foundation is, but B, how much Donald Trump may or may not, you know, rely on this Project 2025 and the proposals that they put forth this time around.

Project 2025 would allow Trump to target his enemies through the judicial system - The ReidOut - Air Date 7-10-24

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Melissa, anything I missed in there? Anything else we should be concerned about for the average American with that kind of DOJ?

MELISSA MURRAY: That was a really comprehensive list, and it really does cover most of the 900 pages of Project 2025, which is essentially the [00:28:00] authoritarian's playbook. One point that I do want to mention here, though, is that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, which was announced just a week ago, has really given a major assist to Project 2025.

One of the things that this decision made very clear is that when the president is communicating with the DOJ or issuing orders through the DOJ, because the DOJ is viewed as an extension of the executive—of the president—those actions are immunized. Project 2025 ramps this up, puts it on steroids, makes it impossible, essentially, to prosecute the president or indeed anyone working through the DOJ for those acts because they are official acts within the perimeter of those official duties. It takes the unitary executive theory and really amps it up and makes the president essentially a king. So the court has laid a foundation to make project 2025 not just palpable, but indeed something that will last and be lasting throughout our history of Donald Trump as president.[00:29:00] 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: And Ruth, then how would we be any different from say Russia or China or any other authoritarian country? 

RUTH BEN GHIAT: Not much, and you know the very definition of authoritarianism is when the executive branch overwhelms or politicizes or hinders from being independent the judiciary—the other branches of government.

And so, what's interesting is all the parts of project 2025 work together because you also have to have a compliant civil service, because fascists and authoritarians—they have to destroy to create. So they're going to take apart the DOJ as an independent body and make it into something else.

That something is a body that will protect the president and his cronies from investigations, from prosecution, but it's not enough for the president to have immunity. You have to have a compliant civil service. So there [00:30:00] we have the Presidential—the training academy that's going to create what they call an "army" (they use that word) of vetted conservatives to go to work on day one. 

 So all of these things have to come together and when you have a politicized civil service—and in the nazi context Hannah Arendt called these people "the desk killers"—the people who signed the orders to harass and repress people and, of course later, in the German, context to do the Holocaust. But, all of these things must come into play. 

The last thing that you must do is turn the public against the press—against journalists—so that any claims they make about prosecution, things that might be worthy of prosecution are no longer believed by the public.

 Donald Trump has already been able to do that. 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Yeah, and then maybe just start arresting members of the press. Let me play something that is, in a way, sort of funny and absurd, but actually deadly serious in another way. This is Stephen [00:31:00] Miller's America First legal organization. This is one of their advertisements.

STEPHEN MILLER: I am here today with an urgent message. America's biggest corporations and universities are illegally discriminating against Americans based on race and sex. These corporations and universities have adopted so-called "diversity, equity, and inclusion" policies that punish Americans for being white, Asian, or male.

If you or a loved one were denied a job, raise, promotion, or professional opportunity as a result of diversity quotas, equity mandates, affirmative action, or other racial preferences we want to hear from you. 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Melissa. It's sort of a one part ambulance chaser ad and one part "NAAWP" Legal Defense Fund. Right? But what he's doing there is what the civil rights division of the Justice Department would change it to, right? A place where the whole mission would be [00:32:00] to defend white privilege. 

MELISSA MURRAY: That's exactly right, joy. Obviously, enforcement priorities shift from administration to administration. And we've seen, for example, under Republican administrations, there's been less enforcement of voting rights, for example, or less prosecution of voting rights claims.

But Project 2025 explicitly says that the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education will be dedicated to dealing with what they call "reverse discrimination"—so DEI measures in corporate America and in public institutions and in universities and colleges.

Basically, the real racism to be fought is the racism and the racial injuries that are endured by white men, principally, and those who are outside of what they view as the affirmative action spectrum. 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Let's go on to the sort of apologists for this—people who are sort of trying, Ruth, to make this sound like it's not that big of a deal.

So, Bloomberg is reporting that the CEO of Warner brothers, David Zaslav has said regarding the presidential election. Asked about the upcoming [00:33:00] presidential election, he said it mattered less to him, which party wins. As long as the next president was friendly to business. We just need an opportunity for deregulation, he said, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to do better.

So of course they want lots of deregulation, meaning they'd probably be fine with having Trump. But I just want to remind Mr. Zaslav and others the way that this works in a country like Russia, because you said we'd be no different from that. The Kremlin has said that Vladimir Karamazov is "stable in a Russian prison hospital," but we're not even sure that that's true.

A Russian playwright and theater director was sentenced to prison for writing a play that Putin didn't like, and Russia has issued an arrest warrant for Yulia Navalnaya, who is the widow of Alexei Navalny, who they killed or allowed to die in a gulag. That's how it goes, right? If suddenly don't like—Donald Trump doesn't like what David Zasloff has on his networks, he goes from being somebody who gets juicy deregulation and tax cuts to somebody who's living like the Navalny's. 

RUTH BEN GHIAT: Yeah, but it's way beyond that because, he could say, "Well, I'm not a dissident," but Putin's state [00:34:00] is a kleptocracy as, to various degrees, most authoritarian states, they thrive on corruption.

By 2018, one out every sixth Russian business person, if their business was prospering, the state would come after it to either seize its assets or make money because they would, find some kind of new—fabricate some tax charge crime, and so they prey on businesses.

It's the same in Erdoğan's Turkey where, you know, the state has plundered and seized assets worth over $40 billion since the 2016 coup attempt. And so, authoritarianism is not good for business. It is often the small businessmen as well as big corporations that come in for the equivalent of hostile takeovers. Especially if they're in entertainment or the media.

That's what Putin did. And that's what every—and that's what Orban has done too. The media, including big [00:35:00] properties, is 85 percent domesticated now. So these people are misinformed and they're living in a world of illusions if they think that they're going to be safe with these plans at the scale at which Trump wants to enact them.

Republicans issue vile reaction to Trump shooting - No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 7-15-24

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: So, let me say first that violence is not the answer. It is never the answer, and part of why I, and I'm sure so many of you, are working so hard to prevent Donald Trump from taking power again is precisely because we don't want to validate the use of violence as a political tool, which Donald Trump has obviously done throughout his presidency.

Numerous times—from promising his supporters that he would pay their legal bills if they beat up protesters, all the way to the events of January 6th. Violence is not the answer. It makes this whole thing more dangerous for everyone, myself included, and it is not why any of us got into this. I've watched the responses to the shooting, and just as sickening as the shooting itself, has been the response to it.

There have been a number of Republicans who, without skipping a beat, have exploited these events to attack [00:36:00] Joe Biden or the Democrats. Mike Collins, a Republican lawmaker from Georgia, tweeted, "Joe Biden sent the order." Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, "We are in a battle between good and evil. The Democrats are the party of pedophiles, murdering the innocent, unborn violence and bloody, meaningless and endless wars. The Democrat Party is flat out evil. And yesterday they tried to murder President Trump."

J. D. Vance wrote, "Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

And of course, Lauren Boebert posted this: 

LAUREN BOEBERT: I do believe that Joe Biden is responsible for the shooting today, Kyle Clark. An innocent supporter of President Trump, someone who loved President Trump and was there exercising their right to support him lost their life today. Everyone who has called him a fascist, everyone who has called him a threat to democracy, who said that [00:37:00] he should be put in a bullseye as Joe Biden said, they need to have some very deep reflection tonight before another tragedy like this takes place.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: First of all, the Democratic Party and Joe Biden did not try to assassinate Donald Trump. The shooter was a registered Republican. In fact, because that's inconvenient for the narrative, now conservatives are saying stuff like this. 

JESSE WATTERS: Don't read too much into the political affiliation because James Comey—also a registered Republican.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: Apparently, political affiliation is only exploitable if it fits the Republican narrative. Otherwise, if it doesn't bolster Jesse Watter's claims, then it's suddenly a moot point. Do you think that Jesse would have been claiming that political affiliation isn't important if he was a registered Democrat?

And beyond that, reporters from the Philadelphia Inquirer spoke to classmates of the shooter, and they were very clear about the fact that the kid was a conservative. One passage from the reporting says that a classmate of the shooter recalled a mock debate in which their history [00:38:00] professor posed government policy questions and asked students to stand on one side of the classroom or the other to signal their support or opposition for a given proposal.

"The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side. That's still the picture I have of him, just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other." 

So I wanted to make that clear right off the bat, because the right has a long, long history of scapegoating Democrats for things that Democrats have nothing to do with. Why a conservative would try to assassinate the conservative candidate in this race is beyond me, but certainly had nothing to do with Joe Biden or the left. But to J. D. Vance's tweet, this idea that calling Trump a fascist led to his assassination attempt, let's discuss that.

First of all, Donald Trump is a fascist. That doesn't mean assassinate him, but he is a fascist. He wants to consolidate power into the executive branch. He wants to use the military as a weapon to suppress dissent. He wants an army of loyalists to do his bidding. He wants to be a [00:39:00] dictator. He wants to suspend the Constitution.

Those are his words, by the way. Things that he said. So yes, he is a fascist, but Vance has unilaterally decided to reverse engineer a way to blame the left, and that is by pointing to the things that the left is absolutely correct and justified in saying, which is acknowledging the objective reality that Trump is a fascist and deciding that because that's now the cause of the shooting that everyone on the left who said it is suddenly responsible.

That's not only insane and dangerous, but it's just a bad faith way to absolve the people who are perpetuating the violence while blaming the people who have long since condemned the violence. 

It's not the Democrats or Biden who told rally goers again to beat up protesters and that we'd pay for their legal bills. That was Trump. It's not the Democrats or Biden who laughed at Paul Pelosi being bludgeoned with a hammer. That was Trump. It's not the Democrats or Biden who called for military tribunals for Liz Cheney. That was Trump. It wasn't Democrats or Biden who called for General Mark Milley to be executed. [00:40:00] That was Trump.

It's not the Democrats or Biden who posted a baseball bat photo with Alvin Bragg and threatened "death and destruction" if he was charged. That was Trump. It's not the Democrats or Biden who reposted images on the Truth Social showing Biden hogtied in the bed of a truck. That was Trump. It's not the Democrats or Biden who laughed off a kidnapping plot against Gretchen Whitmer. That was Trump. 

We don't want Trump in power because we don't want violence. So let's not get it twisted. In fact, you want to see the difference on display? Here, for example, is the left's reaction to this shooting. AOC: "There's no place for political violence, including the horrific incident we just witnessed in Pennsylvania. It is absolutely unacceptable and must be denounced in the strongest terms. My heart goes out to all the victims, and I wish the former president a speedy recovery." Chris Murphy: "There's no room in America for political violence. We should all condemn what happened today, and I'm hoping for the health of the former president and everyone else at the rally."

And Joe Bide: 

PRESIDENT BIDEN: There's no place in America for this kind of violence, or for any violence, ever. [00:41:00] Period. No exceptions. We can't allow this violence to be normalized. 

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: Meanwhile, here's how the right reacted when it's a Democrat who's the victim. Paul Pelosi's bludgeoned with a hammer and Don Jr. posts, "Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready."

Here's Marjorie Taylor Greene getting her audience to boo Paul Pelosi at a rally. 

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: Where Americans are robbed. stabbed, raped, kidnapped, carjacked and murdered. But only the only crime victim you hear about from Democrats in the media is Paul Pelosi.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: And of course, Trump himself poking fun at Paul Pelosi after he was attacked. 

DONALD TRUMP: And we'll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi who ruined San Francisco.

How's her husband doing, by the way? Anybody know?

And she's [00:42:00] against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn't do a very good job. 

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: So no, both parties are not the same. Let's not pretend that one doesn't immediately and unequivocally condemn violence while the other one holds it. The only difference is that the pearl clutching on the right only begins when the violence happens to them.

And therein lies the real difference here. The left doesn't want any political violence, while the right is fine with it, so long as it doesn't impact them. There's also the fact that, had the Democrats gotten their way, guns like this wouldn't even be available to the general public. It is the Republicans who block any and all efforts to ban assault weapons like the one that was used in Pennsylvania.

They did it at the federal level when Senate Republicans blocked the legislation, and Pennsylvania Republicans, to use this state for example, did it at the state level when a Democrat controlled Pennsylvania House committee passed a bill banning the sale of assault weapons against the unanimous opposition of Republicans on that [00:43:00] panel, only for the legislation to be tabled in the Pennsylvania Assembly once it faced opposition from the state's Republican lawmakers and the National Rifle Association, the NRA. 

In fact, Trump himself signed the bill revoking Obama era checks for people with mental illness. He wanted mentally ill people to be able to buy guns. Not the left. Not Joe Biden, but Donald Trump. So again, remember that if Democrats had their way, these guns wouldn't be available for sale, and certainly not to the mentally ill.

But Republicans ensured that this wouldn't happen. And so now, a clearly disturbed 20 year old had access to a weapon that he used to try and assassinate a politician from 150 yards away, All thanks to policies backed by the GOP and the very politician whose life was almost taken. I would hope that would serve as a proof point to pass common sense gun reforms that 90 percent of this country would agree with, but you and I both know that Republicans aren't interested in doing that.

So, I'll end with the same message that I started with. Violence is never the answer, and that is precisely [00:44:00] why we are working so hard to make sure that Trump and Republicans do not take power in November. It's because we don't want to validate the preferred tool of a party that for years has used it as a cudgel against the left.

Project 2025 would allow Trump to target his enemies through the judicial system Part 2 - The ReidOut - Air Date 7-10-24

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: We've talked about the embrace of religious fervor on the religious right—I mean on the American right—and why it is dangerous. The Republican Party in this era of Donald Trump has allowed a small fringe white Christian nationalist movement to control the way the party and much of this country operates.

And so now, proud Christian nationalists are having their moment. Not just creeping into the culture, but seeking to revamp and define it. Charlie Kirk, professional troll and founder of Turning Point USA, embraces Christian nationalism and says things like, "Christians need to view the election as a spiritual struggle to save Western civilization," and that "Trump is crucial to restoring morality in America."

Right. The convicted felon sexual abuser equals morality. It's the kind of stuff that makes your [00:45:00] brain hurt because it makes no sense. Then, there's the interesting choice by the New York Times to platform a far right Christian extremist's musings on why he doesn't vote, which is code for, hey, maybe you shouldn't vote.

Matthew Walther, editor of a right wing Catholic literary journal, writes, "Why does anyone vote? I ask myself. The answer cannot be that we believe that by doing so, we will influence the outcome in an election." No, actually, that's exactly why I vote and why everyone votes. As it turns out, though, the New York Times has since made a correction after internet sleuths pointed out that this op ed writer did in the two most recent election cycles—wait for it—vote. 

Not voting, of course, means choosing a devastating agenda for LGBTQ people, women and girls, brown and black people, basically anyone who doesn't look like Charlie Kirk or Matthew Walther. That is exactly what these statements under the guise of Christianity or bad opinion headlines are really about.

These guys are everywhere writing creepy op eds about Taylor Swift [00:46:00] letting down America by not being married with kids and giving even creepier commencement addresses. But the scarier ones are those who would run this country. The ones with offices on Capitol Hill, like Senator Josh Hawley—insurrectionist, fist pumper, and Missouri Republican who assured the National Conservatism Conference that he is a Christian nationalist.

JOSH HAWLEY: I'm sure some will say now that I am calling America a Christian nation. And so I am.

And some will say that I'm advocating Christian nationalism. And so I do. 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: What a little phony. Marjorie Taylor Greene also said it during a Turning Point USA conference in Florida saying, "We need to be the party of nationalism and I'm a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."

Lauren Boebert was more blunt saying, "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. [00:47:00] The Republican party is openly embracing the ideology and Project 2025 wants to make it part of the next administration. Politico reported recently that an influential think tank close to Donald Trump is developing plans to infuse Christian nationalist ideas into his administration.

Spearheading the effort is Russell Vought, who served as Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget and has remained close to him. Vought, who is frequently cited as a potential chief of staff in a second Trump administration, is president of the Center for Renewing America, a leading think tank in the conservative consortium preparing for a second Trump term.

He's also an advisor to Project 2025. The dangerous agenda we've been highlighting that would usher in one of the most conservative executive branches in modern American history. But he isn't even the one with the creepiest agenda. There's a Wisconsin pastor who is calling for churches to form militias, who says that being gay should be a crime and who defends the [00:48:00] murder of abortion providers.

Once so fringe, he remained in the background. His book is now being quoted by politicians and former Trump officials.

What is Christian nationalism and why it raises concerns about threats to democracy - PBS Newshour - Air Date 2-1-24

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: Brad Onishi is a former evangelical minister who once identified as a Christian nationalist himself. He left the church in 2005 and began studying religion from the outside, including extremism. He now hosts the popular podcast Straight White American Jesus, and is the author of Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism and What Comes Next. I began by asking him what that term actually means.

BRAD ONISHI: Christian nationalism is an ideology that, uh, is based around the idea that this is a Christian nation, that this was founded as a Christian nation, and therefore it should be a Christian nation today and should be so in the future. According to survey data, Christian nationalists agree with statements like, "the federal government should declare the United States of America a Christian nation"; "Our laws should be based on Christian [00:49:00] values"; "Being a Christian is important if you want to be a real American". 

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: Onishi tracks a number of subgroups and ideas under the umbrella of White Christian nationalism, including what's known as the New Apostolic Reformation. 

BRAD ONISHI: Well, the New Apostolic Reformation is notable for a number of reasons. 

One: it's built around the idea that Christians are called to a new transformation or reformation of the United States. These are Christians who want to revolutionize the way that our country looks and to make it "great again" in terms of being a Christian nation. 

They also are deeply invested in the notion of spiritual warfare. The idea that we are called as Christians to fight a cosmic battle between good and evil and that it's our duty to be boots on the ground for God in that conflict. 

What this has led to, some decades later, is the New Apostolic Reformation leaders—the [00:50:00] Apostles and the Prophets that are really at the head of this movement—were some of the earliest to support Donald Trump in 2016, and they've remained steadfast in that support. They were at the very avant garde of trying to get the 2020 election overturned in the wake of Joe Biden's victory and mobilizing folks to be at January 6th. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of new apostolic reformation Christians at January 6th, as an example.

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: We know that two thirds of White evangelicals sympathize or adhere to White Christian nationalist beliefs. So, where do they fall within this larger movement? 

BRAD ONISHI: I think White evangelicals are the group we think of when we think of White Christian nationalism, and for good reason. These are folks who, when we think about the Iowa caucuses. In 2016, Trump's White evangelical voters were about 20% of his share of voters in that cycle. Just a few weeks ago, in 2024, that grew to well over 50%. White evangelicals remain committed [00:51:00] to the MAGA movement, and one of the key indicators of why is Christian nationalism. 

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: Are there leaders across these subgroups of White Christian nationalism that are tied to the former president directly or to his larger network?

BRAD ONISHI: Yes. For example, a group of New Apostolic Reformation leaders—Apostles and Prophets and others—were present at the White House a week before January 6th. Speaker Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation. Speaker Mike Johnson is somebody who's sought the counsel and the friendship of Timothy Carscadden, who is a New Apostolic Reformation pastor from his home district in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Timothy Carscadden is a close associate with Dutch Sheets. Dutch Sheets is perhaps the most ardent Trump supporter in the New Apostolic Reformation. He's the one who may have done the most of any Christian leader in the United States to mobilize folks to try to overturn the 2020 election and to make sure to attend [00:52:00] January 6th.

One of the most frightening things, I think, about Mike Johnson is the flag he hangs outside of his office: An Appeal to Heaven flag. The Appeal to Heaven flag goes back to the Revolutionary War, George Washington, it was inspired by John Locke. But over the last ten years, the Appeal to Heaven flag has been popularized by Dutch Sheets.

Dutch Sheets sees the Appeal to Heaven flag as a symbol of Christian revolution. If you look closely at January 6th, you will see dozens of Appeal to Heaven flags. It may have a long history, but in the contemporary context, it has a very specific meaning. So, the fact that Mike Johnson has it hanging outside of his office, to me signifies how he understands his role as Speaker of the House in terms of being a Christian and being an American.

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: In a statement to the NewsHour, a spokesperson for Johnson's office said, "The Speaker has long appreciated the rich history of the flag. Any implication that the Speaker's use of the flag is connected to the events of January 6th is wildly [00:53:00] inaccurate". 

But Onishi says the concerning links go beyond the conservative politicians themselves. Last month, Lance Wallnau, a key New Apostolic Reformation figure, announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, the influential right wing activist who leads Turning Point USA. 

BRAD ONISHI: They're going to be visiting and focusing on swing states: Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania. They claim they've already signed up 2,500 churches and they want to mobilize those churches directly for a political involvement and specifically to get Trump reelected. The two of them together signifies a crossover. It signifies a joining in a way that promises, I think, to be quite potent. 

LAURA BARRON LOPEZ - REPORTER, PBS NEWSHOUR: Meanwhile, some have mobilized around what GOP leaders have labeled an "invasion" at the southern border. I asked Onishi about a protest convoy, calling itself "God's Army", currently making its way to Texas.

BRAD ONISHI: I think the end goal for the convoy is to kind of play a part, or play a role, in what they take to be the [00:54:00] story that is unfolding in the United States. Christian nationalists understand themselves to be playing a character. They are drawn into a narrative that says, You are at the last battle. You have a chance to do something that is much bigger than you. Will you answer that call? Will you come to DC on January 6th? Will you ride with us to the southern border? Because these are the moments, these are the battles that will shape our country. This is the cosmic war between good and evil. Are you really going to sit on the sidelines?

Some of us can laugh that off, we can think that that's a fringe ideal, but January 6th was not something to laugh off. And some of the events we've seen since then, the SWATing of judges houses, the evacuations of capitals due to bomb threats, so many more examples, little fires everywhere, are not things we can laugh off. And so I think the trucker convoy has cosmic goals as it plays a part in a very earthly standoff between Governor Abbott and the Biden Administration. 

Final comments on what should come next for the Democrats

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips [00:55:00] starting with Amicus breaking down several cases handed down by the Supreme Court. Boom! Lawyered discussed the interplay between the court and federal agencies looking to restrict reproductive rights. Today, Explained explained Project 2025. The ReidOut looked at the power Project 2025 is hoping to give Trump. Brian Taylor Cohen on No Lie discussed the assassination attempt and the broader scope of violent political rhetoric. The ReidOut described the religious fervor on the right driving the Trump movement and the GOP toward Christian nationalism. And the PBS NewsHour explained the dangers of Christian nationalism. And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in the deeper dive section. 

But before we continue on to the deeper dives half of the show, I have continued thoughts on the process working itself out within the Democratic Party. This is an awkward time to be recording because, as I speak, all of the reporting is that Biden may be deciding exactly when and how to resign as the Democratic presumptive nominee [00:56:00] and release his pledged delegates to vote their choice in the upcoming Democratic National Convention. By the time you hear this, that may have already happened and, then again, it may never happen. But here are my thoughts on what I would like to see happen in the event that Biden willingly steps aside.

The process of finding a replacement candidate really needs to be an open process rather than some sort of coronation. I have no horse in this race. My perspective is that everyone should simply want the best candidates with the best chance of winning to take the top two spots on the ticket. And the only way to find the best candidates is to have a friendly competition in which people get to make their cases. 

Any talk of loyalty and succession pointing to Kamala Harris as the heir apparent is the same kind of thinking that got the party into this problem in the first place. Plus, it will be widely seen as reeking of backroom deals and all of the seedier sides of politics that people dislike. The inverse of that is a [00:57:00] democratic process; as Biden's kingmaker, Jim Clyburn, described just after the Trump Biden debate, a "mini primary". He also said that he would support Harris, but thought it should be done through a scaled down primary process. 

That sounds perfect to me. I have no problem whatsoever with people getting out in front and endorsing Kamala Harris. I've heard plenty of arguments for why she would be a fantastic candidate to meet the moment, Most prominently, people fantasize about a former prosecutor facing off against Trump, the convicted felon. Perfectly fine, sounds great, but do it in a democratic way. 

Secondly, for those worried about the process being logistically complicated, I actually see that as a positive. People have been so sick of politics for so long, a messy last minute scramble for the nomination would be exciting in a way that would get people engaged and paying attention. Any effort to smooth and subdue the process by attempting to [00:58:00] coalesce around an heir apparent would kill all the fun and suspense.

Now, speaking of suspense and excitement, I just want to boost one story that I've seen, like, percolating up a bit over the past few weeks. First, it was just in an Arizona paper, so I didn't give it much weight, but I think the idea of Arizona Senator Mark Kelly being considered at least for Vice President is actually gaining traction and is sort of interesting. Like Kamala Harris having a particular background well suited to this moment, Mark Kelly is being recognized in a similar way, particularly in the wake of the assassination attempt. He's got built-in hero vibes from being a military pilot and astronaut, but his wife also happens to be Gabby Giffords, who was also shot in the head in a case of political violence. So, it's an interesting choice that could meet the moment in a way that others on the shortlist don't. Also, he's from a swing state, so there's that. That said, I haven't seen him speak much, which is why we need a mini [00:59:00] primary. We need to be able to analyze these people before the coronation. 

And one last note on progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC standing with Biden while criticizing those calling for him to step down, I suppose it's impossible to know their true thoughts, but I can share what insights I have. Immediately after the Trump-Biden debate, I saw an opinion piece calling on progressives to stay out of this fight, in essence, saying that it simply was not the proper role of progressives to attempt to influence Biden's decision. Instead, it's clear that they've been using what leverage they have, where they can, on policy. This is from a piece in The Nation on July 18th: "Under siege, Biden has become a born again progressive, perhaps even a leftist. Over the last two weeks, he's announced support for a wide swath of policies tailored to please left wing Democrats: new rules banning medical debt from being used in credit ratings and a [01:00:00] push for total medical debt relief, term limits and an enforceable ethics code for the Supreme Court, and new legislation limiting rent increases from corporate landlords to 5% per year, among other newly elevated proposals". And who's been giving credit for Biden's shift, Bernie Sanders, AOC and The Squad, and the Congressional Black Caucus, all those standing steadfastly behind him.

That's all great, and I support those policy proposals, but—although I would say that it's clearly too late to save Biden's candidacy—it's never too late to start moving the Overton Window. For all we know, this may have been the plan all along for progressives. And I don't mean to sound conspiratorial, [but] it's just, like, they may know where their power lies and where it doesn't. Knowing that they wouldn't be influential on the question of Biden's place in the race, they pivoted to a strategy of steadfast support combined with demands for progressive policies. [01:01:00] And just getting the conversation started and given legitimacy by the sitting president supporting things like Supreme Court term limits, will help boost them into the platforms of whichever candidate ends up taking his place. If that's how it plays out—in which case the progressives along with every other Democrat will wholeheartedly endorse the new nominee—they will have played their role to perfection and come out relatively clean on the other end. 

Now, before we get back to the show, a quick reminder that July is our membership and awareness drive. If you get value out of this show, let this be the time that you decide to chip in and help sustain its production and tell some friends about it to grow our base of support. Unfortunately, the same sort of Trump resistance exhaustion that is causing so many to retreat from politics in general has also taken a real toll on our listenership, our membership, and the income that we're able to generate to keep everyone paid for the work they put in to keep the show going. So, when I say that we need your support that is not in the abstract. We don't have big funders [01:02:00] or any kind of institution or media outlet backing us up. It's really just you—the listener—deciding to chip in and make this show possible And as thanks, members get ad free versions of every regular episode and bonus shows featuring the production crew in conversation. And for this month, memberships are 20% off, so sign up now and keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. Just head to bestoftheleft.com/support to grab your discounted membership, and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: SUPREME COURTWhy Gay Marriage Will Be Illegal Next Year - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 6-25-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Like the Supreme Court justices are getting ready to overturn the Obergefell decision. That's the decision that granted the right to gay marriage to, uh, queer people all across the United States instead of just in the, uh, 15 or 20 or some odd blue states that had already granted that right to people.

And, uh, the clue to this, uh, came in the dissent written by Justice Sotom Sotom Sotomayor. Excuse me, Sonia [01:03:00] Sotomayor, uh, in the Department of State versus Munoz decision that was handed down day before yesterday, I believe, um, maybe it was Friday, yeah, it must have been Friday. Her, the first sentence of her dissent is, uh, literally lifted from the Obergefell decision.

Which is, uh, I, I think, uh, Sotomayor's way of, like, waving a flag, you know, a pride flag, but a flag, and saying, look out, this is coming. Now that, the Obergefell decision was a 5 4 decision. And at that time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court, she's been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett. Which is a major change in the direction of the court.

And Anthony Kennedy, who is an advocate for gay marriage, even though he's a Republican appointee, he was on the court. He was the guy whose son signed off on a billion dollars worth of [01:04:00] Deutsche Bank loans to Donald Trump that I believe Donald Trump threatened to publicize or somehow otherwise harm.

Kennedy's son as a way of convincing Kennedy to retire from the court. Because Kennedy was in great health. He's still around. I mean, you know, he's just doing his thing. But he's gone now. Uh, replaced by Brett Kavanaugh. These were both, uh, members of the court. Who should not have, in my opinion, should not have been replaced.

I don't think Kennedy retired, you know, voluntarily, frankly. I think he was blackmailed into it. And, uh, Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, you know, within weeks of the election. And traditionally, that means that that Supreme Court justice is going to be up to the next president. But, of course, uh, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump jammed Amy Coney Barrett through the, through the, uh, through the Senate.

But in any case, uh, she, she says, basically, this is, this is what's [01:05:00] coming. She says the, the majority could have easily disposed of this case, the Munoz case, by just saying, you know, the guy, Munoz got all the, all the, uh, due justice. Uh, excuse me, all the due process that he was due. Uh, she writes, that could and should have been the end of it.

Instead, the majority swings for the fences. In other words, what they're doing in this case is they're setting up the rationale to overturn gay marriage. Now, she writes, the majority made the same fatal error Dobbs, requiring too careful a description of the claimed fundamental liberty is interest. And, by the way, this is the same, uh, issue that, that had to do with Obergefell.

You know, basically, Sonia Sotomayor is telling us, this is coming. They are coming for gay marriage. Not this year, but next year. [01:06:00] And the Republican Party is with them. Aaron Blake writing for the Washington Post. GOP support for same sex marriage has declined from a high of 55 percent in 21 22 to 49 percent, less than half in 2023, and now to 46 percent In 2024, a nine point drop over just two years.

What has happened? Well, we're starting to see right wing hate media talk about the queer community in, in, uh, slanderous terms, in negative, in negative terms. We've had all this rhetoric about groomers and, and, uh, you know, drag queens, and trans people, and trans sports, and trans kids in bathrooms, and All this, you know, basic hate mongering that's been coming out of the right now as just a steady stream of hate for, what, the better part of a decade now in a big way.[01:07:00] 

And I'm telling you, one year from now, gay marriage is no longer being, going to be legal across the United States, unless Congress and the President next year, next spring, Make some big changes in the Supreme Court, and I'd be astonished if they happened that fast. The number, the percentage of Republicans who describe same sex relations, not marriage, but just, you know, people having relationships, as, quote, morally acceptable, was at 56 percent ten years ago, it's now 40%.

Forty percent. Six out of ten republicans, three out of four republicans, no, what's that, three out of five republicans say it's, say that gay, gay relationships are morally unacceptable. I mean, you got the Don't Say Gay Bill down in Florida. You got all this talk about groomers. [01:08:00] You got all these efforts to restrict trans rights.

By the way, the Supreme Court just picked up a case that has to do with trans rights. And everybody is fully expecting that they're going to strike down the ability of, of, uh, trans people, particularly minors, to, uh, to become trans people.

You know, so much for small government. Right, so much for the Republican mantra that we believe in limited government. They want government big enough to fit inside women's uteruses, and they want government big enough to tell you what you and your children can do, and how you have to live, and who you can marry, and who you can have relationships with.

This is not limited government. This is not, you know, small government. This is not conservative government. This is radical, reactionary, hate filled Republican rhetoric. And it is [01:09:00] damaging the lives of people in the United States. We are soon going to be back to a point where one of the highest public health risks for the queer community is suicide.

I mean, we're, we're, we never left it, really.

Gay, trans, lesbian youth are more likely to commit suicide than pretty much anybody else. It's been that way forever.

Opinionpalooza The Supreme Court End-of-Term Breakfast Table Part 2 - Amicus with Dahlia lithwick - Air Date 7-6-24

MARY ANNE FRANKS: Marianne, one of the big, big stories, Steve mentioned it, it was the theme of last term, but now it's like supercharged is the court's self aggrandizement this term.

And this month we've literally seen the justices weighing in on granular details about air pollution and how guns work and, you know, emergency room stabilization protocols for miscarrying women and homelessness, like there's nothing they're not experts on. If there were ever any doubt about it, the Supreme Court is the policymaker for all [01:10:00] policies in the country, and the conservatives are really comfortable just announcing that they're experts on clean water and air pollution.

Are we supposed to believe here that there's something scientific and methodologically sound that is happening when the justices do this? Or is this just, we all, you know, sort of legal realists. Now, this is just politics by another name. I mean, how do you, as somebody who thinks about the court, think about justices who have not just sort of structurally arrogated all this power, but feel, as Steve says, like no shame, perfectly comfortable in waiting in and telling us how we're going to regulate drugs now.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: It is an amazing move on the one hand that you have this degradation, uh, this contempt for actual expertise, right? In any number of fields, whether that's history or whether that's science or whether that's medicine. And at the same time as you're saying the court is also putting itself in the position to say, well, none of these experts know anything, but the court gets to [01:11:00] decide everything.

And it's been more embarrassing this term than most because of course, this has been the term where the justices have made mistakes about what chemicals are talking about. about and about, you know, how to even refer to certain types of procedures. They expose the fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

And here I should clarify the conservative justices because the liberal justices have been pretty good about saying we actually do think expertise matters. So yes, you can never get a consistency from the far right of the court except in the sense I always go back and think about the phrasing in 2016 when The election results were looking uncertain and Trump was asked, you know, are you going to respect the outcome of this election?

He says, I will respect it if I win. And I think that that just has defined this entire moment we're living in. It's where the conservatives say, I will respect whatever it is, science, expertise, law, whatever it is, if we win and that's it. And it's really depressing for me as a law professor to have [01:12:00] to confront that because it seems.

You know, as a professor, we like things to be interesting and complicated and not just naked power grabs. And it's a story about a bad, um, you know, the bad guy doing bad things. And it's such a boring and really depressing villain narrative, but it's really that clear. It's any rule that they want to set up is purely for the sake of can the far right in America use this to their advantage?

That is the rule that they will endorse. And as soon as it might be used by the other side, they will find a way to say that we didn't mean you guys. Um, and I just think that that's one of the most. incredibly depressing things about the cycle, even though we've seen it happen for some time. And of course, it was never the case that the judicial branch was free of this sort of bad motivation.

But it's so clear now to say, well, we are holding the courts hostage, and therefore we can just take all the power for ourselves. We can take the executive, we can take the legislative, we own everything. And we will make sure that we are the final arbiters of what gets. Caste is not just, you [01:13:00] know, law, but truth itself, all the time, over and over again.

And there's no shame about that. There's no shame of these justices saying, we can do this better than experts. We can do this better than scholars. We can do this better than scientists because we are somehow, you know, divine, I guess is what they're actually trying to communicate to us. 

MARY ANNE FRANKS: I love what you're saying because it's a really crisp answer to the question everybody was asking on Monday, which is how is the same court that has fundamentally dismantled the administrative state creating an imperial presidency?

And your answer is no, in both of those moves, they created an imperial juristocracy, right? Like they gave themselves the power to both dismantle the parts of the executive branch and also, uh, uh, immunize others. And that's. In the end of the day, there's one player here, Mark. Did you, I feel like you had a thought or am I misreading your face there?

MARK JOSEPH STERN: I mean, I just keep going back to Neil Gorsuch in his opinion, blocking the EPA's plan to [01:14:00] limit ozone pollution, repeatedly mistaking nitrogen oxide. which is the pollutant that causes smog, with nitrous oxide, which is laughing gas, resulting in an opinion that repeatedly purports to limit the EPA's ability to regulate laughing gas in upwind states.

If you needed a clearer illustration of why the Supreme Court should not be seizing these deeply in the weeds policy decisions, let But for itself, like you couldn't look at a better one than that. I also think it's really interesting that Barrett dissented in that case, but joined so many of these other decisions that are awarding the judiciary more power and stripping it away from the executive branch and from Congress.

And I just think that goes to how she's so fundamentally conservative, but she has a limit for BS. This is the frame I always look at her through as like Professor Barrett, like sometimes when she's dissenting, it's like she's grading a bad student's. paper and like taking her red pen and [01:15:00] explaining all of the mistakes.

That was her EPA dissent. I feel like looking at Gorsuch and being like, Oh wow, you are a C minus student at best. Um, but when it comes to the broad stuff, giving the court all this power to keep issuing C minus decisions, blocking agency rules, she's on board. So it's like, she's still got one foot to go.

firmly planted in this camp of total judicial supremacy over the other branches. And the Supreme Court should be deciding every agency action for now and forever. But then when the court starts to get into the weeds, sometimes she's showing signs of rationality. I wonder if that is room for evolution for her, if there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance she's perhaps experiencing when the rubber hits the road and the court actually has to decide these issues and does so poorly, or if she's still just very much learning on the job and at the end of the day, Professor Barrett still can't see a C minus paper and let it pass without comment.

Opinionpalooza The Supreme Court End-of-Term Breakfast Table Part 3 - Amicus with Dahlia lithwick - Air Date 7-6-24

STEVE VLADECK: It's so much bigger. And so I actually [01:16:00] think the defining moment of the term, and you guys are going to laugh. Cause this is such a me thing to say was the court's unsigned, unexplained five, four order in January in the razor wire case. So just to remind folks, right, this was a dispute about whether the Biden administration could remove the razor wire that governor Abbott had placed along.

The US Mexico border in Texas and, you know, should have been an open and shut, straightforward case. The Fifth Circuit did a Fifth Circuit and made it messy. And what's striking is not that it was a five, I mean, it was striking was by four with Barrett and Roberts. Hey, Mark, there's one non merits example, right?

Joining the three Democrats in the majority. What was striking to me was the reaction. So by that afternoon, if not the next day, you had Chip Roy, Congressman from Texas, Ted Cruz's former chief of staff on Fox news, urging Governor Abbott to defy that ruling and that didn't get a lot of play nationally.

It didn't get a lot of attention. But that should have been a five [01:17:00] alarm fire for the justices that a prominent well liked at least in certain circles right wing member of Congress with a lot of sway is going on national television telling the governor of Texas to ignore this Supreme Court. That's the future.

And it's especially the future in a second Trump administration in those cases in which the court finds its backbone. And if I were a Supreme Court justice, I would be terrified that that became more than just an isolated event. So, you know, Dalia, to your point about sort of the court's view of itself and its relationship with all of the other institutions in government, that should have been an inflection point.

And everything that happened in the five months since has suggested to me that no one on the court seems to have gotten it. And certainly none of the six Republican appointees. And I'll just say, I really hope we never find out how much of a mistake that was and how short sighted it was on their part to not care more about their credibility, [01:18:00] even among those who don't usually agree with the court, because If you start having, you know, President Trump supporters in the second Trump administration saying, why do we follow this court that so many other people have already criticized?

You know, I'm not sure who's going to be left to stand up for the court at that point. 

MARY ANNE FRANKS: I'm not sure if my heart can take two more answers to this question, but, um, 

MARK JOSEPH STERN: Let me just try to infuse some, some fight and spirit into mine, and then we'll kick it to Marianne and she's going to make us all feel better, right?

Um, I think that what we've seen, especially over the last few weeks, shows how unfortunate it is that Democrats have chosen, by and large, not to run against the Supreme Court in 2024. Not just the president, but senatorial candidates seem to have decided that it's just too confusing and attenuated to run against the court and that they should run against Trump and MAGA instead.

I increasingly think that MAGA and the Supreme Court are one in the same, and that the Supreme Court is very much committed, as you noted earlier, [01:19:00] Dahlia, to implementing the Trump agenda, a kind of Project 2025, whether or not Trump wins, and that If somehow Democrats pull off, even say a huge victory in 2024, that they will be confronted with a Supreme court.

That's going to be living in an alternate world in which Donald Trump won and all of his powers were just sucked into the judiciary. There will be Trump appointees like Matt Kazmarek, all over the lower courts, blocking every single agency action before it can even be published. Right. There will be Fifth Circuit decisions that make the crazy ones from this term look reasonable.

And the Supreme Court itself will have five or six votes to frequently embrace these rather extraordinary, hardcore conservative decisions. And so I'll say like, for me, what I want. Progressives to do is look at the Supreme Court and recognize that it is restructuring government without any kind of mandate from the people, without any of those justices, obviously, ever getting [01:20:00] elected or winning a single vote, and realize that that is the most existential threat to democracy, that a single decision like The Trump immunity case is horrible and it's terrifying, but it has to be seen as part of this broader pattern of the United States Supreme Court restructuring representative democracy to make it less representative and less democratic.

And that is where the fight needs to be. It isn't there now, but there's still time left. 

MARY ANNE FRANKS: Marianne, I think I'm going to give you the last word with the caveat, two caveats. People are exhausted and they're sad. I am exhausted and sad, but I don't think anybody has. Help me understand better than you what happens in a world where the rule of law is dismantled and oligarchs and men with guns roam free, and there is no law protecting the rest of us.

And it does feel to me as though we tilted into further into that world this term. You don't [01:21:00] have to give us hope that Mark did a very good job reminding us that it's not the end. Ultimately, up to the court, whether this happens or not, but I would love to just have your thoughts on this question of what do you do when the court has become And An echo of the voice that wants to shrink government down to the size that you could drown it in a bathtub.

I mean, that's full on the language of this court now or the majority. I'm not 

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: sure. And when I think about what could change the tide here, when I think about just how much shit. It has become obvious how cruel the consequences of these decisions, you know, how vivid these these consequences are, and it doesn't seem to matter, right?

The people who are responsible for them and the people who are supporting them are confident. They are absolutely confident that the cruelty will never come for them. So I guess one way of thinking about that. Thanks. Trying to change the path is what if people understood that the [01:22:00] cruelty will come for them.

Is there a moment where there is a popular understanding that when you have an unprincipled thoroughly untethered from any kind of rule of law, any kind of moral code, any kind of consistency, when you have that in place. Of a functioning democracy that no one is safe. Can people understand that, that, that they too, will not be safe at some point?

The problem I think right now is that when you have this power grab, this is the best version of the far right saying, we will make sure that they never have to worry about that. That they will always be kept safe. But you know, I think. No one should trust any form of government, right? That includes the courts, that includes the federal government, that includes the state governors, right?

Trying to locate some of that sense of suspicion that power concentrated in this way just purely on the whims of the powerful, isn't going to serve the people's interests and for people to understand that. The other thing that I think might happen, because so much of this is tied up with a certain kind of patriarchal resurgence, [01:23:00] is to understand that this is a position of weakness, this kind of theocratic.

Thoroughly partisan cruelty is weakness. So when you mentioned before about how there's this disparagement of the female justices as being emotional and hysterical and, and just responding to sort of feelings, that is in fact, of course, every accusation is a confession, right? That is exactly what is characterizing the far right right now.

They know they can't win unless they cheat. They know they can't win if the rules apply to both sides. So we're back to this statement, right? We're back to the Trump. Be in sentiment that I only respect the rules when I win. That's also another way of saying I can't win if the rules are in place. I would like to believe that there is some subset of conservatives out there that are actually quite angry about that idea that they can't compete, that if there's a fair chance.

That they would lose over and over and over again, and that they'll get angry enough about that that it will push them towards the concept of reciprocity [01:24:00] that that you and I talked about before with my my previous book in the Cult of the Constitution, because that's the only democratic principle, the idea that we have to have the same principles for everyone.

The same rule applies to everyone. And the fact that you're losing doesn't mean that that means the game is rigged. You might have just lost, and you should have lost. So will there be some attempt on the part of some conservatives to say, we don't want to be losers all the time, we don't want to have to admit that we're losers and have to change the rules every time.

We actually think we can compete if the rules are fair and the principles are real. I think that's actually our only chance. 

Opinionpalooza This SCOTUS Decision Is Actually Even More Devastating Than We First Thought Part 2 - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick - Air Date 7-13-24

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: You started to talk about this, Lisa, but I'd love for you to develop a little further. I feel as though we've now inured our listeners to, uh, being afraid when I ask you a question about the Administrative Procedure Act. But you make the point, and I think it's really central to understanding, that the APA becomes the cornerstone of Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion.

LISA HEINZERLING: Yes, it's so important. So the court was asked [01:25:00] to hold that this Chevron principle violated the Constitution, that it violated the separation of powers, that is the division of power between Congress, the executive and the courts. And that's been an argument for a long time against Chevron, again, since, since about the administration of Barack Obama.

So. They could have decided that, and indeed Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in separate opinions said that they believed that Chevron violated the separation of powers. Now what would that mean? That would mean that even if Congress wanted to change the interpretive principle as the Supreme Court's side.

It wouldn't be able to. If it violates the Constitution for courts to defer to agencies interpretations, then there's no fixing it in Congress. And what the court did instead is it said, it starts with this long exegesis, this long discussion [01:26:00] of, uh, what courts normally do and always have done in its view with respect to interpreting statutes.

But that doesn't actually decide the case. It's this long kind of constitutionally, uh, inflected discussion. But when it comes to saying, why is it that legally Chevron was terrible? Why is it that Chevron itself was unlawful? It turns to the Administrative Procedure Act, which has said, is the default kind of governing framework for administrative agencies work.

And it turns to specifically one sentence in that statute, and that sentence is talking about how courts are to review agency actions of various kinds. And that sentence says, the reviewing court shall decide all questions of law. It has other things in that sentence, but that's the key point. That's the key passage.

The reviewing court [01:27:00] shall decide all questions of law. And the court thought, that, that means. And has meant for 80 years, since the Administrative Procedure Act was passed, that reviewing courts may not defer. Congress told us reviewing courts may not defer. They need to be the ones to make the interpretation, and, um, and they don't do that if they defer to an agency's view.

It's, that's, that's quite astonishing in a number of ways. It's noteworthy they didn't decide on the constitutional. It's also surprising that they would find that authority for them to undo Chevron in an almost 80 year old statute that has never been understood that way. It's never understood. that way.

And it's a little bit reminiscent, a couple of years ago, the court created something called the [01:28:00] Major Questions Doctrine, where it said that if an agency is making a decision of great economic and political importance and interpreting the statute to allow it to address an issue of that magnitude, um, Congress needs to have spoken really clearly, super clearly.

before the agency is allowed to address that kind of an issue. And the court said, we really think that if a statute's been around a long time and the agency has never exercised this authority, that's really a sign that it doesn't exist. Well, one could say that about the Administrative Procedure Act and the Loper Bright case.

This is a statute that's been around, again, for over 80 years. Nobody has understood, or almost 80 years, nobody has understood the statute this way. And it doesn't have to be. Understood that way. A court can decide a question of law about a statute's meaning and still give deference. It's still deciding that whatever the agency did fits within the broad parameters of the statute.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: [01:29:00] So this actually comes up at oral argument in January, where the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogger, starts to warn the justices that if they overturn Chevron, and let's be clear, this is like Dobbs, that we've had lower court reliance on Chevron for a really long time, and what she warned at the time was that throwing it out could lead to having to reconsider a whole panoply of other cases.

As she said at the time, there's about 80 cases out there that need to be challenged if you're going to do away with Chevron. And we got a lot of like, they're there, but in practice, what was she suggesting is going to happen? 

LISA HEINZERLING: Well, that's exactly right. There are, as like you say, approximately 70, 80 cases at the Supreme Court level.

That we need to think about. Are those still good law? And the court says, Well, we're not disturbing those cases because those cases will still be respected as precedent. But this is in [01:30:00] the middle of disrespecting the precedent that underlies them all, right? So there's a certain degree of like, really sort of, uh, do you mean it kind of attitude that that might inspire.

In other words, it's hard for them really to tell us to bank on stare decisis, which is the principle that you stay with precedent unless there's really good reason not to, that bank on that principle, um, in a case that is disrespecting that principle. Right. Also, the Supreme Court is only talking about, in those paragraphs, where it's saying, don't worry, this doesn't touch our decisions, well, okay, there are thousands of decisions in the lower courts that are relied on Chevron.

What happens to them? It will be up to the lower courts to decide whether to stay with them. And they might not. I mean, how solid can they be in sticking with their own precedent when the Supreme Court has abandoned its own precedent? So, that's a [01:31:00] big worry. I'll say even further, if I may, there's another context that I think is very much undermined Loeb or Bright.

In addition to the principle that courts are supposed to defer to agencies interpretations of statutes that they implement that are passed by Congress, there's also a principle that courts defer to agencies interpretations of their own regulations. It's a principle called Our deference, A U E R, if you want to imagine the case, that's the case, one of the cases it came from.

And I think that the lower propriet decision really undermines the basis for that kind of deference as well. So, because given the theory of the Administrative Procedure Act that the Chief Justice is working with, that reviewing courts decide all questions of law, That would equally undermine the principle of [01:32:00] deference to agencies interpretations of their regulations.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: Yeah, this is a piece of it that I think, uh, slid out in the initial reaction to Loeb or Bright, which is this is not just doing violence to Congress's ability to regulate. This does violence to the Agencies. I mean, it's really a kind of one two punch because it's irrigating power, both that is conferred upon Congress and that is conferred upon the agencies.

And that's a really good way of explaining it, that it sort of leaves open that the courts can just, you know, kind of push it. Pick through both statutes and agency interpretations of statutes. And really in, in both senses, the court is like, we're the decider, right? I mean, this is a huge, huge irrigation of powers that are conferred in other directions.

Opinionpalooza This SCOTUS Decision Is Actually Even More Devastating Than We First Thought Part 3 - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick - Air Date 7-13-24

LISA HEINZERLING: So, there are deadlines for filing challenges to agency rules, and statutes can set their own deadlines, but the review that takes place [01:33:00] under the Administrative Procedure Act, which we've heard about quite a lot so far, that statute says you need to file within six years.

of the time the action accrues. And the Supreme Court said that an action accrues not when the action becomes final, not when an agency issues a final rule, it's effective, and then you have six years to file a challenge. That's the approach taken by all the lower courts, and that's approach that makes some sense so that you can actually have some finality and know after six years, we know the legal status of this rule.

What the Supreme Court said instead is it accrues when a party is first injured by the rule. And in that case, it was a truck stop that was incorporated after the six year statute had passed, but was only injured when it became incorporated. And the court said, you can sue. And that sounds, again, may sound kind of arcane, maybe even a little dull.

It's hugely important. Why? Because the court has just [01:34:00] fundamentally changed the way courts must review agencies understanding of their own laws. And it said, and by the way, if you're newly injured, you can sue at any time, as long as it's within six years of your injury. So you can, as in court or post, incorporate a new company, for example, and then say, hey, we're injured now, and so we want to sue.

In those cases, it's just hard to imagine a court with a new lawsuit applying Chevron And so apply the new interpretive principle that the court has come up with in Loper Bright. And so even now, I know that industry lawyers are combing through the federal registers, that is the sort of daily newspaper, if you will, of the federal government with all the rules and announcements of rules in it.

They're combing through that. Going back probably decades to find rules [01:35:00] that they either didn't challenge because they thought they'd lose under Chevron or did challenge and the agency won under Chevron and thinking, you know what, we can file new challenges. 

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: How does that impact things like the MIFA Pristone decision?

Uh, well, there was no decision. They decided at the end of the day to not decide. But how does this changing of the statute of limitations affect MIFI? 

LISA HEINZERLING: It's so interesting and troubling because in the Myth of Pristone case, as you know, the anti abortion parties had challenged even the original 2000 approval of Myth of Pristone.

And the only reason that didn't get brought up to the Supreme Court or wasn't an issue at that time is the Fifth Circuit said, no, you're out of time. It's way past the statute of limitations for that challenge. Well, it's not anymore, right? It's not anymore after Corner Post. And the same law firm that represented the [01:36:00] little truck stop in Corner Post has represented parties in cases involving reproductive rights.

And so I don't think There's any chance that they didn't know the relationship between those two cases, and I'll be surprised if there isn't a fresh challenge to that original approval of Mithra Pristone in the case that the court can cite in accepting it as corner post. 

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: You know, Justice Kagan has been sounding the alarm about what's going to happen to Chevron and the kind of hungry, hungry hippos approach to admin law.

In Loper Bright, Justice Kagan writes, quote, In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue, no matter how expertise driven or policy laden involving the meaning of regulatory aid. law. And then I think in the sort of gut punch sentence, she adds, as if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country's administrative czar.

And I always, in my head, I hear [01:37:00] the echo of Kagan writing in a 2019 case, where she really warned us that if this incredibly narrow view of agency authority were to be allowed to prevail. She wrote, quote, Most of government is unconstitutional. Can you sort of tie together this theme of judges as kind of free range administrative czars?

We saw it in the Ohio EPA case. We saw it, I think, in the Bumpstock case. You know, we're seeing it in the Mifflin Pristone case. All right. And all of these cases, you know, we mentioned jarcossi, we mentioned the Clean Air Act case from two years ago, Clean Water Act case from last year. It feels to me, and this goes back to your very first point, that if agencies have both the ability to be replaced electorally, right, that's the idea that if you hate what the EPA is doing, you can vote them out, but [01:38:00] also they have expertise and they can act nimbly.

And that, as you said at the very beginning, Lisa, they have to explain themselves. Now it just feels like this term in the aggregate is just a huge invitation for not just endless, infinite litigation, but endless, infinite judicial sort of supplanting. of information, of knowledge, of expertise, of science with kind of their own feelings and that that only ratchets in one way.

LISA HEINZERLING: Yes, that last part about ratcheting in one way is really important because Chevron itself could go both ways. It became more deregulatory in its later years, but it could mean that a president of either party could Really make a mark in terms of regulatory policy and their own, um, political agenda of either party.

Right. But today, the [01:39:00] combination of the courts being in charge and the courts being motivated by really an anti government That, that kind of theme and mood runs through these cases, this distaste of the so called bureaucrats, this distaste of the agencies, and underlying it less explicitly acknowledged but also true of this distaste of Congress.

So that they are really putting themselves in charge and putting themselves in charge not only citing some words in the APA or the Constitution for this proposition or this Power grab, but also really sending a signal with their attitude towards government. They don't like government very much, it seems.

They really are creating chaos in some of these decisions, but not allowing anybody to create order. 

Just Decide the EMTALA Case Already, You Cowards Part 2 - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 6-27-24

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: So it's another procedural ruling on [01:40:00] a big marquee abortion rights case that the court took up and then decided, You know what?

No, maybe we shouldn't be here right now, right? I think that's something. So while it's a procedural ruling, The court did give some pretty big hints as to how it's thinking about this issue of state abortion bans and their relationship to federal law, right? Let's start with the bright spots for a change on this podcast.

We're going to start with the good. That's Justice Jackson. 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Justice Jackson did not come to play. No, she, she knows what's going on. Like she knows that she is, I can tell, I can tell I'm a black woman. She's a black woman. We have meetings that she knows that she is part of a corrupt body and she is writing opinions as if.

She's writing them for the future, right? She's writing them for justices in the future. So they will know what happened during this, whatever we're going to end up [01:41:00] calling this era, this period of time in the Supreme court. And so she called them out, right? She called them out. Basically she called them all bitch asses, right?

Like she agreed with, with Kagan and with Sotomayor about the fact that she, she agreed with them on the sort of the merits of it, but she wrote a separate opinion saying, I agree with them. But also we should not be dismissing this case as improvidently granted because quite, quite frankly, it was providently granted, right?

All of the issues have been laid out. All of the people have made their arguments. There are pregnant people who are still, still suffering as a result of this law and will continue to suffer as a result of this law as other states start passing laws that bring MTALA and their state abortion bans into conflict.

And she's absolutely right. And I want to read. A little bit of what she wrote. Yes, please do. So to be clear, today's decision is not a victory for [01:42:00] pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.

This court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty. To this tragic situation and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price because we owe them and the nation and answer to the straightforward preemption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent, boom, that's a whole word.

That is, that is, that's what we Black folks like to call a read. 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It's amazing. And she's honestly emerging as one of the strongest writers on the court by far. I [01:43:00] mean, she's really giving Kagan a run for her money there. And I think, Not only is it clear, and I love that she brings Texas into this, and we'll talk about why that matters in a minute, but because not only is it so clear, but there's also such clear subtext in the passage that you just shared, because this delay and this dawdle is is an election ploy, right?

What we have is a Roberts court that has pivoted to full Trump campaign mode by the end of its term, if it wasn't already there in the beginning. And this is a coward's decision, right? Because if we do end up in a Trump administration, then As I have been sharing with Imani, we're gonna get a Department of Life.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: God, I hate when you say that. I'm 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: so sorry. It's not 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: my phrase. I know, but I, but you keep saying it at me. I know. You keep typing it in Slack at me. I'm so sorry for that. 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I'm so [01:44:00] sorry for that, but we need to look. Like, we need to look at what is a possibility pretty squarely in the face, and a Department of Life means an end to this particular EMTALA fight because it's full steam ahead into fetal personhood.

It is full steam ahead in letting states enforce abortion bans that have zero exceptions whatsoever. 

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Yeah. Yeah. And then there's Sammy the Leak Alito. There is. I really, I, I've been sort of apoplectic over the past 24 hours as I read the leaked opinion yesterday at how much this man is a liar. Yes. And if there's one thing that you should remember from this particular decision, it's that Sam Alito is willing to rewrite a statute to suit his agenda.

And that is concerning in myriad ways, right? Here's what he wrote. The government's preemption theory is plainly unsound. Far from requiring hospitals to perform [01:45:00] abortion abortions. Emtala's text unambiguously demands that Medicare funded hospitals protect the health of both a pregnant woman and. Her unborn child.

That's not true. And that's not just me being like, Oh no, you can interpret the statute a bunch of different ways. And I don't think it's true. No, it is a blatant lie because the statute doesn't say that Medicare funded hospitals are supposed to protect the health of a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

It says Or her unborn child, or, and, and are two different words. I don't know. Did you know that? That or and and are two different words. They are. So here's, and here's why it's a problem. Because the statute EMTALA was amended to add this provision requiring pregnant people in labor to be given stabilizing treatment, even if they themselves don't need the treatment, but their fetus does.

Yes. Because hospitals were dumping pregnant patients out on the street because their [01:46:00] lives weren't in danger, but maybe their fetuses lives wasn't. They didn't want to have to deal with that. With paying for all of that, it's expensive. They didn't wanna do, they were dumping pregnant patients just as Idaho has been dumping pregnant patients all year.

So this idea that the statute is supposed to protect both the pregnant woman and her unborn child is not born out by the statutes plain text norby the amendments, norby any of the legislative lead up to this statute. It is a lie and frankly. And later in his dissent, he actually, he actually relays what the statute actually says.

He relays that it says, uh, or her, excuse me, or her unborn child. He says that, but then later says, Oh, but it's an unambiguous that it's and her unborn child. So I just really, I just really want people to know that you cannot trust this man as far as you can throw him. 

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: No, and he's breadcrumbing, right?

Because, and we'll talk about the Texas decision too, the, that misread of the statute that you just described is the read [01:47:00] of the statute that the Texas District Court in Fifth Circuit is trying to emplace on Mtala. Bingo. Thank you. Please talk more about that. Well, I mean, it's what Sam Alito does. I mean, what he does is campaign from the bench, right?

And he uses judicial opinions, majority or dissent to call out for the conservative legal movement, what the next case should be, how it should be framed, and functionally how to get at least five votes. And to your point, you know, he is merging amendments to the statute and a sleight of hand to the statutory text and just privileging a read that gets to his political agenda

SECTION B: PROJECT 2025

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: Project 2025.

What is Project 2025 Part 2 - Today, Explained - Air Date 7-11-24

NOEL: Okay. Now, it's worth noting that the Trump campaign could decide it doesn't want to do any of this. Right. So there's, there's nothing saying Donald Trump, if he were to be [01:48:00] elected president, has got to carry out this plan. When you talk to people inside of the campaign, do they want to carry out this plan?

SHELBY TALCOTT: I think it depends on who you talk to, honestly. 

NOEL: Huh.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And what's notable is there was a slew of reports that came out earlier this year and, and towards the end of last year about, you know, Donald Trump's plans if he went into office again and they used a lot of people from these groups and from Project 2025, and the campaign very quickly came out and issued a pretty strict statement saying, we're appreciative of everything that Project 2025 and these other groups are doing, but they don't speak for the campaign. Donald Trump and the campaign speak for us. And these initiatives, if they come from Project 2025, are not coming from Donald Trump. And so I think that's notable. But I also do think it's important to remember that there are a lot of [01:49:00] former Trump officials involved in Heritage Foundation in general and in Project 2025. And last time around, Donald Trump used so much of their policy proposals. And a lot of these policy proposals that they're putting forth are pretty common policies and pretty popular within the conservative movement. So I would expect at the end of the day that Donald Trump uses this project in some form or another.

NOEL: Alright, so Shelby, how and when did the Biden campaign start responding to news of Project 2025?

SHELBY TALCOTT: They really took notice of it just a few months ago.., 

 SCORING IN <The Neck [Harpsichord Stomp]>

 They started seeing videos coming out about the project and denouncing the project.

<CLIP> 

thedevilsdaughter162: What’s Project 2025? It’s a nightmare. That’s all I can say. It is an absolute nightmare.

<CLIP> 

caseyincontext: Anytime someone posts a video about Biden potentially losing in 2024, the top comment is always [01:50:00] about Project 2025.

<CLIP> 

heathergtv: Welcome to part two of our series Project 2025: How Democracy Dies!

SHELBY TALCOTT: And so they saw that and thought, well, this is perfect. And that's when they started putting out their own videos, going after the project, highlighting the project.

<CLIP> 

bidenhq: It’s all a part of their Project 2025 agenda, which is a set of extreme policy plans that they have for a second Trump term: things like banning the distribution of abortion medication, declaring that marriage doesn’t apply to same-sex couples, and undoing the historic progress that President Biden has done fighting climate change and forgiving student debt.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And it's interesting. There's TikToks sort of doing explainers. They have a TikTok where AOC is speaking about Project 2025.

<CLIP> 

AOC: This is exactly what Republicans have been going for. You have the Heritage Foundation, you have lots of folks, who are on record…

SHELBY TALCOTT: Of course, that's notable because AOC is one of the younger lawmakers who often appeals to younger voters. And she has also [01:51:00] been critical of Joe Biden in the past.

<CLIP> 

AOC: Not only do they want to go after abortion, not only do they want to go after reproductive freedom, they’re going after IVF, they’re going after contraception…

SHELBY TALCOTT: And so having her come out and talk about it and putting that video up on TikTok is notable. And I'm told that those TikToks are some of their best performing videos as well. So it is resonating with that sect of voters that, quite frankly, they've been struggling with in the polls.

 SCORING OUT

NOEL: Okay. So the Heritage Foundation, this is not unprecedented, they ordinarily do have some sort of guidelines, things the Heritage Foundation would like you to do if you're elected president. Are you surprised this election cycle that this is getting so much attention?

SHELBY TALCOTT: I think I am a little bit surprised just because, again, it's such a dense DC type thing, right? 800 plus [01:52:00] pages. But for whatever reason, I think in part because of the drastic changes that this project is hoping to implement, it has really resonated with a group of voters that in a way I, I'm not sure it would have in years past.

NOEL: Lemme ask you about something I think when I skim these 800 plus pages. Donald Trump, during his first term, used to talk a lot about the deep state. 

<CLIP> 

Trump: Unelected deep state operatives who defy the voters to push their own secret agendas are truly a threat to democracy itself.

NOEL: And people say, well, the deep state is just experts who are already in DC and they know what they're doing. I gather that the Heritage Foundation probably doesn't call it the Deep State, but does this 800 page book seem to speak at all to Donald Trump's idea that government itself is the problem?

SHELBY TALCOTT: Absolutely. And I think that goes back to [01:53:00] that comment from Paul Dans when I interviewed him a year and a half ago or so, where he said, what fundamentally unites our coalition is deconstructing the administrative state. And I think that goes back to Donald Trump, sort of one of his ultimate goals that he never really could fully do during his first term.

NOEL: So let's say Donald Trump is elected and he decides that he wants to take Project 2025 on full bore, right? He's going to go in on it. How much of this could a Trump White House actually execute, given that we have a Congress that could be split, that could be fully democratic, given that we have a Supreme Court. What do you think? How seriously should we take this?

SHELBY TALCOTT: I think this should be taken really seriously, just in part because it is such a big effort that has been going on for so many years. And because we've seen Donald Trump use Heritage Foundation in the past, and because there's so many former Trump officials [01:54:00] involved in this who still remain close to the former president. Now, the question of how much could actually be implemented, I think, really depends on what they're trying to implement. I do think that they anticipate that some of this will receive pushback, and they are also preparing for that. They're preparing for, you know, sort of potential legal issues and potential legal pushback. They're prepping for a long fight to get what they want done in government.

NOEL: And let me ask you lastly, so Democrats, at least some of them are freaking out about this, on TikTok and elsewhere, in opinion pages, etc. But of course, for Republican voters, this could be very appealing. ‘Hey, we've got a plan. And when we get into office, if you vote us into office, we're going to execute that plan.’

SHELBY TALCOTT: Absolutely. And that's really the ultimate pitch when this whole thing started.

 SCORING IN <Meiji de Tokasu - BMC>

 ‘We're ready, we have the [01:55:00] money, get on board, help us figure all of these policy plans out so that we are never unprepared again, as we were in 2016.’ And so that's been the pitch to Republicans. And these are conservative policies that a lot of conservatives agree on. And of course, on the flip side, Democrats are going to be wildly upset about this. You know, these are policies that they don't agree on. And so we can expect that should Donald Trump take office again and tap Project 2025, that Democrats are going to fight with whatever means that they can to try to make it more difficult for these sorts of policies to be implemented.

What is Project 2025 Part 3 - Today, Explained - Air Date 7-11-24

NOEL: SCORING IN <Neutral Irene - BMC>

SHELBY TALCOTT: There are a number of significant proposals. So one of them, they of course talk about abortion restrictions. They include in their policy book a reference to the Comstock Act, which is a long-inactive 19th century law that banned birth control and abortion pills by mail. 

<CLIP>

Mary Ziegler: [01:56:00] Conservative groups are arguing that the Comstock Act makes it a crime to mail any abortion-related item…

SHELBY TALCOTT: Broadly, a number of their policies are aimed at expanding presidential powers while shrinking the executive branch. So getting rid of the White House Gender Policy Council, domestic climate policy, getting rid of the clean energy demonstrations in the Energy Department.

<CLIP> 

CNN's Jake Tapper: He also would refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs he does not like, and he would remove officials he does not like from intelligence agencies.

SHELBY TALCOTT: So all of these efforts at, as they said, deconstructing the administrative state. There's also a lot in there about immigration. They want much stricter immigration proposals.

<CLIP> 

Charlie Kirk: When Trump is president again as the 47th president of the United States, how do we deport 30 million people?

SHELBY TALCOTT: They'd like to bring back a failed effort from Trump to implement a citizenship question on the census. They want to mandate that the DOJ start legal action against local [01:57:00] officials who choose not to prosecute in part because of immigration status. And so there's all these sort of policy agendas that span across really every aspect of what conservatives are interested in. 

<CLIP> 

Ali Velshi: The radical plan calls for defunding the Department of Justice, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. It also aims to consolidate power by placing agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under direct presidential control.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And the last part of this that I would pull out as notable is, of course, their social policies. They talk a lot about getting rid of DEI. They want to stamp it out.

<CLIP> 

Mike Gonzalez: The American people are waking up to this threat that DEI poses to our freedoms, to our way of life, to our peace of mind…

SHELBY TALCOTT: They talk a lot about anti-wokeness, critical race theory, gender ideologies in schools. 

<CLIP> 

Donald J. Trump: On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, [01:58:00] transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And so these are sort of just some of the overarching policies that this massive book is, and I do mean massive, is focused on.

 SCORING OUT

NOEL: Okay. So 800 pages of policy ideas. One American president that they want to carry them out. Who's helping? Who, who are the people that would be involved in implementing Project 2025?

SHELBY TALCOTT: That is their second pillar. And that was sort of what they really first started working on was this LinkedIn for conservatives. But the goal is they'll have a number, 10,000-plus staffers that have been vetted by the Heritage Foundation, by Project 2025, that they can then hand to the Trump administration and say, these staffers are good [01:59:00] to go if you want to hire any of them. In addition to this LinkedIn for conservatives, they're giving the approved staffers the option of either online training, or if they're more advanced, in-person training on everything from the basics of governments to teaching them how to make sure that they can get into office and implement the plans that conservatives want.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: What we’re doing is systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state.

SHELBY TALCOTT: When I talked to the leaders who are heading up this project, and when I spoke to Heritage Foundation on a number of occasions, they've always been quick to say this is in part because we were unprepared after Trump's 2016 win, conservatives did not expect him to [02:00:00] win. The country really didn't expect him to win. And so Donald Trump came into office and there wasn't really any sort of platform to help him.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: President Trump was an outsider. This is a very insular city. So it’s not going to be welcoming to outsiders. Outsiders have to come into this place prepared and know what the game is.

SHELBY TALCOTT: And so they've essentially said that they've taken a playbook out of Democrats’ past plans.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: We take a lot of exception with, with Joe Biden but the one thing I do credit his team with was being prepared. So they were signing things all week long the first week and we are going to be doing the same. 

NOEL: And so the idea is day one, we've got our people. Our people are trained. Nothing in government ever works within the first 24 hours though, right? So like these, these are big policy proposals. How are they going to get done quickly?

SHELBY TALCOTT: Of course. I think the plan is some of them are going to be, right, executive orders that presumably the president could sign on day one, on the first week, on the first [02:01:00] month…

<CLIP> 

Donald J. Trump: We love this guy. He says, ‘you’re not gonna be a dictator, are ya?’ I said, ‘no, no, no, other than day one.’

SHELBY TALCOTT: …but others are going to be guidance and regulations that presumably could be implemented within the first 180 days of Donald Trump's presidency.

NOEL: And is there any other kind of worldview behind this, underpinning this?

SHELBY TALCOTT: You know, as I was reading through, one of the things that stood out to me was a sort of summary from the head of the Heritage Foundation, and he noted that the authors of this book have broad consensus over four sort of pillars. And the first is restoring, – and I'm reading this as a quote – restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children's children. The second is, as we've talked about, dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people. The third, defend our nation's sovereignty, borders and bounty against global threats. And the fourth is [02:02:00] to secure our God-given individual rights to live freely, what our Constitution calls the blessings of liberty. And so I think, if you read those four, you get a sense of the sort of religious undertones that are also making up a lot of these policies and a lot of this book.

<CLIP> 

Paul Dans: I think of conservatives as focused on God, country, and family, not government. But progressives spend 24 hours a day redesigning government. Now we see that government is directed against God, directed against family, directed against this country. So it is our charge now to get back and take over the government.

SECTION C: POLITICAL VIOLENCE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Next up, one clip in section C: political violence.

Long Legacy of U.S. Political Violence- RNC Begins in Milwaukee After Trump Assassination Attempt - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-15-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, if you can respond first to the attempted assassination of President Trump?

JOHN NICHOLS: It’s horrible. Look, political violence, when it occurs in any country at any time, is an awful thing. [02:03:00] And when it is in the context of a campaign, this has a real impact, because it causes people to question whether they might go to a campaign event — right? — whether they might participate in the democratic process. So, no matter what you think about Trump, no matter what you think about Biden or any of this, to have an incident like this occur at a campaign rally is a big deal. It’s a big deal for this country.

By the same token, I would tell you it’s not the first. This is very much something that we have seen really throughout our modern history and going backward. We’ve had four presidents assassinated, killed in office.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Name them.

JOHN NICHOLS: What?

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Name them, if you can.

JOHN NICHOLS: I certainly can. Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John Kennedy, killed while serving as president. We have had a prominent presidential candidate killed at a campaign event where he accepted his victory in the California primary in 1968, Robert F. Kennedy. We [02:04:00] have had major candidates killed or harmed in other settings. We have had candidates for president badly injured. George Wallace was shot on the campaign trail in Maryland in 1972, permanently paralyzed. And in this city, in this city of Milwaukee, in 1912, October 14th, 1912, Teddy Roosevelt, the former president of the United States, was shot in the chest as he was coming out to campaign and deliver a speech, literally in one of the buildings adjacent to where this convention will be held.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: In fact, where the Hyatt is right now, where we got our press credentials.

JOHN NICHOLS: That’s where he was shot.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: That’s the new building that replaces the old hotel where he was speaking.

JOHN NICHOLS: That’s precisely right. And —

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: But he gave the speech anyway.

JOHN NICHOLS: Yeah, it was a fascinating speech. In fact, I went back and read it over the weekend, because it was such an amazing moment. Remember, Roosevelt is a former president of the United States. He had already displaced the Republican Party. [02:05:00] They didn’t nominate him for another term, and so he was running as a third-party candidate. It was a very intense campaign. And he knew that Wisconsin was a big state for him.

And so, literally, he assessed himself. He knew he had been shot in the chest muscle, but he had had a 50-page speech folded three times in his pocket along with a glasses case. The bullet went through the speech, hit the case and then lodged in his chest muscle. He determined that he could make it through. He wasn’t coughing up blood, as he said. So he went and gave a 90-minute speech. And incredibly, it was about the incident. And he talked about violence. He talked about political violence. And what he said at the end of the speech was that, as a country, we have to learn to get over economic and social divisions so that we don’t have more incidents like this. It was really quite a remarkable moment.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I mean, he was a hunter, so he knew [02:06:00] biology well and said, “No, it’s not in my heart or my lungs.” And he had that bullet in him for the rest of his life.

JOHN NICHOLS: Rest of his life. He made it through a 90-minute speech, though. And if you read the speech, it’s chilling, because he literally said to the people, “Look, I’ve been shot. But, I want you to understand, that doesn’t mean a thing to me.” He was a tough guy. He was a strong character.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: “Bull Moose.”

JOHN NICHOLS: Yeah. He said — in fact, that’s where — “A bullet doesn’t take down a bull moose.” But what he said was fascinating, because he says, “It doesn’t mean a thing to me because of the importance of what we’re talking about for this country and the importance of getting beyond violence, getting beyond the divisions in this country.” Remember, Roosevelt was running that year to the left of the Democrats and the Republicans in order to create what he referred to as a new nationalism, which was an effort to actually begin to address a lot of the economic inequality in the country.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And ultimately, though, Teddy Roosevelt did not win that campaign.

JOHN NICHOLS: No, he did not. And nor was George Wallace, who was shot on the campaign trail. It’s a very interesting thing. There is a tendency after a shooting like this to [02:07:00] assume it’s going to have a huge political impact — and it may. I’m not dismissing that. But what I will tell you is that there’s history that suggests that the country is horrified, the country reacts with sympathy, but it doesn’t necessarily say, “Oh, well, we have to elect this wounded warrior or this wounded candidate.”

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt had replaced McKinley, who was assassinated when he did become president.

JOHN NICHOLS: Who was killed, absolutely. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was one of those — it was a remarkable story there, because he was assassinated — McKinley, his predecessor, was assassinated shortly after becoming the president in the second term. And so, Roosevelt ended up almost with two full terms as president because of an assassination. And again, this is one of the things I think people need to understand. It is not a good thing. It is a deep tragedy. It is a horrific reality that assassinations, political assassinations, and attempts have been a [02:08:00] part of our history.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to read to you another columnist, Juan Cole, a piece that he wrote, the headline, “From 'Hang Mike Pence' to 'Paul Pelosi Hammered' to 'Shooting Trump' — Political Violence Is Deadly to Democracy.” He writes, “American politics has entered the most dangerous phase of its nearly 250-year existence. …

“Although the Right is blaming the political left for the violence, saying that its meme that Trump has dictatorial tendencies is responsible, the fact is that he did try to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, and some of his acolytes, at least, brought guns and ammunition to Washington, D.C, for the purpose, including the Proud Boys. It seems clear that the lives of Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and others in the Capitol had been in danger that day, had security not whisked them to safety.

“The mob called into being by Donald J. Trump chanted 'Hang Mike Pence,' which was a call for an assassination. Insiders have reported that Trump expressed support for the sentiment.

[02:09:00] “As it was, a deranged follower of Trump came looking for Pelosi at her house in San Francisco and tried to kill her husband Paul with a hammer when he found she wasn’t there.”

And, of course, Donald Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., mocked Paul Pelosi, as, ultimately, President Trump — President Trump has continually made fun of Pelosi around this.

JOHN NICHOLS: Mm-hmm. Look, I think the thing to understand is that after an incident like this, there’s often an effort to point fingers of blame, say, you know, that something Joe Biden said or something the Democrats said caused this to happen, and vice versa, right? This is the nature of our politics.

But one of the things that I think is important to understand is, we’re still very early in an investigation into what certainly looks like a security meltdown at that rally. Right? We don’t know what this young man was thinking. We don’t know much [02:10:00] about him. We’re starting to get a little bit of it. And so, I think it is the height of irresponsibility to try and say, “Oh, something somebody said caused this to happen.”

The much better response — and frankly, I’ll remind you that we’ve been through moments like this before. 1968, you saw Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated in April, you saw Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June. Imagine that moment that we were in. And you saw people — liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans — basically saying, “Hey, let’s try and chill this out. Let’s try and calm this down.” And I think that’s the right place to go.

What I will counsel, though, is, we are in a very charged moment. You just read through a list of realities of our moment, things that have been said, things that have been done. I remember on January 6th, I was in Madison — right? — and watching that, you know, those events play out. And you do, you know, say, “Where are we at?” I remember that chill of, like, “Wow! What is going on here?” And I think a lot of Americans [02:11:00] have been through that. In a sense, we have been through three years, or longer, maybe even 10 years, of incredible turbulence in our politics. This is an unstable period. And if we pause and think about that, you know, we ought to be careful about who we blame.

But this is one last thing I’ll say on this that I think is important, and that is that my sense is that the individual, the candidate, who can pull us back from this, who can actually say — as I think Biden tried to do last night — can say, “Hey, this isn’t who we want to be. This isn’t where we want to go,” has a real potential to connect with people, because I think people are feeling overwhelmed by the moment they’re in.

SECTION D: CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM

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

Project 2025 would allow Trump to target his enemies through the judicial system Part 3 - The ReidOut - Air Date 7-10-24

PHOEBE PETROVIC: So he comes from the anti abortion movement, the rescue movement of the nineties and, uh, early two thousands where people were blockading clinics.

Um, and he had, I [02:12:00] would say an international reputation, certainly a national reputation for that anti abortion militant, uh, militantism back, uh, Several decades ago, um, in 2013, he wrote a book taking up the 16th century Protestant doctrine and using it to argue, as you said, that government officials today in America have a God given right and duty to defy law, policy, court opinion, um, that they believe violates God's law.

Um, and since that book came out, the rise of the tea party, um, the rise of Trump and MAGA. Uh, he has been increasingly embraced by Republicans on the right from school board members to county commissioners, state lawmakers, governors, all the way up to former Trump officials and pastor Trella's goal. It's really important to note, um, is that he wants a theocracy and he wants a very particular type of theocracy under a strict interpretation of his interpretation of, uh, uh, biblical law that emphasizes [02:13:00] the Old Testament.

And so, as you said, death penalty for LGBTQ people. Um, and he tones down his message when he comes and talks to local county groups, county Republican parties, and he is not as extreme as he is in his writings, um, or in his church services on Sundays. And 

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: he also doesn't believe women should be in politics at all, that women should simply, uh, be in the home and they shouldn't, uh, he sort of got a Taliban view of women.

Yeah. 

GUEST 7: Women in government, to him, is sickening and perverse. Those are both quotes, almost as sickening and perverse as sitting under the headship of a female pastor. Um, and so when I started reporting the story, people were posting my screenshot or screenshots of my headshot saying, quote unquote, matriarchal hell, um, because I was a woman reporting the story.

JOY REID - HOST, THE REIDOUT: Of course. I'll note that ProPublica, you're in your reporting. You've talked about former President Trump's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, the one who got busted by the FBI messing with the Russians. He's praised Trujillo's book several times, extolling it [02:14:00] as a masterful blueprint showing Americans how to successfully reduce tyranny.

Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign lawyer, cited Trujillo's work as a solution to government overreach in her 2015 book calling for a biblical interpretation of the Constitution The polling is very clear. Republicans believe that the Bible should have a fulsome influence on the laws of the United States.

Two thirds of Republicans believe that. They think 33 percent a great deal. Some Democrats do not believe that. There's a sharp divide here. So this has become part of the mantra of the party, right? What he thinks is fairly normal in the Republican Party now. 

GUEST 7: Well, I spoke to people, um, Republicans who were around in the nineties and two thousands for this story to get a sense of what.

What his reputation was back then, and some of them said, No way. Why are you reporting this story now? There's no reason you should be doing this. This guy sounds very fringe. And I would say to them, Waukesha County Republican Party has hosted Torello twice where he has talked about succession [02:15:00] openly and they post his book on their website and promote it.

And it says very clearly that the laws of the nation should reflect the laws of God. Um, and so, you know, Waukesha County is the heart of Republican politics in a very important electoral state in Wisconsin. Um, and so, uh, I think this reflects the sort of larger fracturing and infighting we see in the Republican party where there are MAGA folks and people who are openly embracing Christian nationalism and other folks saying that that doesn't quite mean what is, that's not quite what conservatism really means.

Um, but certainly he is far more mainstream than extremism researchers who started tracking him 30 years ago ever thought possible.

Is This the End of The Separation of Church & State - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 7-1-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Louisiana. The governor of Louisiana just signed legislation yesterday or the day before, I believe it was yesterday, that, um, requires every classroom in Louisiana to have a piece of paper that is in large enough type that every student can read it from their desk [02:16:00] that starts out, I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto themselves any graven images. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. What does this have to do with American law? There are only two things in the Ten Commandments that are at law in the United States. Don't kill.

Don't steal. That's it. That's it. You can even covet your neighbor's wife. I mean, you know, look at this. Donald Trump has done it his whole entire life. It's not illegal any longer in the United States. So it's not like, Here's the 10 rules for, for, you know, being a good citizen. These are the 10 rules for being a good, well, originally a good Jew.

And then, you know, now today, a good Christian and I believe a good Muslim. I I'm not sure, but I, I believe so. Well, we'll find out when we talk to Dean Obeidallah today. And back in 1971 in Lemon versus [02:17:00] Kurtzman, the Supreme court said it was unconstitutional for the government to pay teachers in private religious schools in that they were, they were just.

You know, parroting, uh, James Madison's 1811 veto. Um, the court also applied what it called the Lemon Test. Government action has to have a, quote, secular legislative purpose. In other words, government can't do things for religion. And, uh, but here's Jeff Landry, the Republican governor down in Mississippi, or Louisiana.

He says, if you want to respect the law, you got to start from the original law giver, which was Moses. Well, you know, Moses, uh, it, it, it was not one of the founding fathers. And, uh, Landry says he can't, you know, he wants to be sued. He wants this case to go to the Supreme Court. See, the Kentucky case in 1980, uh, that was a 5 4 decision.

that schools can't publish, can't post the 10 commandments and you can't have public prayer. [02:18:00] But, um, the Supreme Court overturned that in 2022 to a large extent in that case of the coach, the coach who had his team praying on the 50 yard line. Remember? And the Supreme Court said, well, it's not coercive, so he can do it, which was nonsense.

As as the coaches, students would tell you. Um, so what we've got now is, you know, a bunch of people on the politicians on the Supreme Court who are hell bent on imposing their their Catholicism. Actually, I mean, they're all Catholics on all the rest of us, and I just find it terrible.

Why Trump Is Partnering With Christian Nationalists - Robert Reich - Air Date 6-25-24

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: Donald Trump is portraying himself as a religious savior. He says election day will be Christian Visibility Day. Trump has repeatedly compared his criminal trials to the crucifixion of Jesus, promoted videos calling his re election, quote, the most important moment in human history, and that describe him as a divinely appointed ruler.

A shepherd to mankind who won't ever [02:19:00] leave nor forsake them. So God made Trump. He claims, to be a holy warrior against an imaginary attack on Christianity. 

DONALD TRUMP: They want to tear down crosses, but no one will be touching the cross of Christ under the Trump administration, I swear to you. He's even selling his own version of the Bible.

We must make America pray again. 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: Trump is playing to a rising white, Christian nationalist movement within the Republican Party. 

LAUREN BOEBERT: I say it proudly. We should be Christian nationalists. 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: Christian nationalists believe that the law of the land is not the Constitution. But instead, the law of God, as they interpret it.

Trump supporters are increasingly overt in their calls to replace democracy with a MAGA theocracy. 

LAUREN BOEBERT: The church is supposed to direct the government. And I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk. 

CLIP: We're meant to be a Christian nation. We should be a Christian nation. Welcome to the end of [02:20:00] democracy.

We're here to overthrow it completely. We didn't get all the way there on January 6th. But we will, we will endeavor. To forget, to get rid of it and 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: replace it with, with this right here. That was a cross he was holding. The idea that the will of voters is irrelevant because God has anointed Trump was a recurring message in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Because 

CLIP: it is not Joe Biden that rules this country. Jesus Christ is the king of everything in this world. Christ is king! Christ is king! Christ is king! 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: In previous videos, I've highlighted how MAGA Republicans have embraced core elements of fascism. The combination of fascism and Christian nationalism is called Christofascism, a term first used half a century ago by the theologian Dorothy Zola.

Fascists rise to power by characterizing their opponents as subhuman. Christofascists take it a step further by [02:21:00] casting opponents as not just subhuman, But actually demonic people like 

CLIP: Nancy Pelosi, she's a demon. 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: Framing opponents as enemies of God makes violence against them. Not only seem justifiable.

but divinely sanctioned and almost inevitable. 

CLIP: We are going to put on the armor of God.

Then maybe strap on a Glock on the side of us, just in case. When we take power, they need to be given the death penalty. And these people that are suppressing the name Christ. and suppressing Christianity, they must be absolutely annihilated when we take power. 

ROBERT REICH - HOST, ROBERT REICH: Christofascists want to strip away a wide range of rights Americans take for granted.

Former Trump staffers involved in developing plans for a second Trump term have called for imposing biblical tests on immigration, overturning marriage equality, and restricting [02:22:00] contraception. And MAGA aligned judges are already setting their dogma ahead of the Constitution. In his concurring opinion on the case that declared frozen embryos are people, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker cited God more than 40 times and quoted the book of Genesis and other religious texts.

Nothing could be more un American than the Christian nationalist vision. So many of America's founders came here as refugees seeking religious freedom. The framers of the Constitution were adamant that religion had no role in our government. The words God, Jesus, and Christ don't appear anywhere in the Constitution.

And the very first words of the Bill of Rights are a promise that, quote, Congress shall make no law. respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Christofascism, or any [02:23:00] religion based form of government, is a rejection of everything America has aspired to be. A secular, multiracial society, whose inhabitants have come from everywhere, bound together by a faith in equal opportunity, democracy, and the rule of law.

Beware. 

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 Amicus, The Thom Hartmann Program, Boom! Lawyered, Today, Explained, Democracy Now!, The ReidOut, and Robert Reich. 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 Andrew, for their volunteer [02:24:00] 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 and get 20% off your membership at bestoftheleft.com/support, or through our Patreon page. 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. 

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.

Air Date 7/12/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

 

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the Best of the Left podcast. Recent elections in the UK, France, and Mexico span the spectrum from confirming inevitabilities to completely up-ending expectations, but they each have lessons for politics in the US. Sources providing our top takes in under an hour today include TLDR News. Zeteo, DW News, Novara Media, Today in Focus, Democracy Now!, ABC In Depth, and The Hill. Then in the additional deeper dives half of the show, there'll be more on France, the UK, a nd Mexico. 

Now, just a quick note before we get started. Once again, I have more thoughts on the current state of politics in the US in the wake of the attack on Donald Trump at his rally in Pennsylvania, but I will save those comments for the editor's note in the middle of the show.

The UK Election Results Explained - TLDR News - Air Date 7-5-24

 The key event from last night occurred at 10pm, when we got our first indication of what was to come in the release of the exit poll. Now, the most [00:01:00] shocking thing to note in the exit poll here was the number of expected Reform seats.

The exit poll predicted that Reform would get 13 seats, significantly higher than most of the MRP polls in the run up to the election. However, there were some wobbles through the night with some polls suggesting that the exit poll had overestimated the number of seats. The more observant of you will notice that it turns out that the exit poll had indeed overestimated, and in the end Reform achieved only four seats.

The other shocking find from the exit poll was the number of predicted Tory seats. Prior to election day, many of the MRP polls were predicting below 100 Tory seats, while the exit poll predicted that the Tories were going to win 131 seats. What followed was deeply chaotic, and something that made writing this video through the night even more difficult.

As the results started coming in it appeared that the exit poll was slightly wrong, although the BBC and ITV couldn't quite agree in what direction. In the wee hours of Friday morning the BBC updated their prediction, with [00:02:00] them suggesting that the Conservatives were going to win more seats, while ITV updated theirs and predicted that they would, in fact, win fewer. As things stand, it appears that the Tories have won slightly fewer than originally predicted, but not significantly.

Anyway, overall results aside, the night was also particularly interesting when it came to individuals. There were two properly shocking and unexpected results. The first was Jonathan Ashworth unexpectedly losing his seat to an independent candidate. Ashworth has previously been the Shadow Health Secretary and, up until today, was the Shadow Paymaster General.

It appears that the loss of his seat has been a result of Labour's stance on Gaza, something that could cause problems for the incoming Labour government more generally. The second unexpected result was Jeremy Corbyn's election in Islington North. Having been deselected as a Labour MP, Corbyn opted to stand in his constituency as an independent.

He did, however, make the decision to stand rather late in the election cycle. Something that led to a decent proportion of [00:03:00] journalists and pundits to believe that he was going to lose the constituency to the new Labour candidate. This wasn't the case though, and Corbyn secured himself a pretty decent majority.

So, now that we've gone through exactly what happened through the night, it's worth going through what this all means for the main parties. Now, the most interesting party to discuss right now are the Conservatives, who, as we've just discussed, lost some pretty major figures through the night. At the time of writing, Sunak has not yet announced his resignation as Conservative leader, although he is expected to either this morning or in the coming days and weeks.

This will naturally kickstart a Tory leadership election. The question now is who would take over? While it's a little too soon to tell, there are some candidates that are in a particularly strong position right now. Kemi Badenoch is in the strongest position. She's got a rather strong following among right wing Tories, both in Parliament and among the membership.

What really bolsters this position is the fact that one of her key rivals for the leadership, Penny Mordant, [00:04:00] lost her seat last night. It is worth mentioning, though, that there has been an issue in Badenoch's constituency with postal votes, and if this is challenged in the courts, it could cause problems for her candidacy in the Tory leadership election. 

Anyway, someone else that there's some chatter about in terms of taking over the Tory leadership is Nigel Farage and his potential defection from Reform UK in order to lead the Tories. After all, he now has a seat in the House of Commons, and there are some relatively senior members of the Conservative Party who have gone on the record as saying that they would like Farage to join their party.

Only the next few weeks will show exactly what happens here, but if you do want to stay informed on this, make sure you subscribe to the channel. Anyway, what happens next for Labour is quite simple. The new prime minister, Keir Starmer, will meet the King and agree to form a government in his name. He'll take office at Downing Street, assemble his first cabinet, and could even represent his party in a PMQ session before the imminent summer recess.

They will soon begin implementing their policy platform as outlined in their [00:05:00] manifesto. Whether they're successful at implementing this is not yet known though, and something we'll need to keep an eye on through the next few years of Labour government. Regardless, this is clearly a monumental election for Labour and the UK.

Shocking French election results- What you need to know - Zeteo - Air Date 7-8-24

RIM-SARAH ALOUANE: I was holding my breath the whole time. And finally, my reaction was: Wow. Crisis averted. We escaped the worst all over again. But until when?

So the next couple of weeks are going to be crucial. That will be a formation of the government. So it will be a coalition government. And multiple factors are at stake. Macron will have to make a choice -- a critical choice with the left. There are people on the left with whom he clearly does not want to deal with or to govern with. So you will have a lot of compromises being made. And that's a bit the point of the coalition. And the left, even within [00:06:00] the left, there are a lot of divisions in between parties, even though they were united for this election.

So the question is, what topics, what projects are going to be compromised or left aside to be able to be part of the government? And it will be a sort of game of thrones because in the end, Macron still has a lot of power and we'll have -- and this is a novel situation in this country, even though we had cohabitation before, but we had cohabitation coexistence with more conventional parties. It's the first time we have it with a far left party as well. So it's going to be interesting on a constitutional level to see what is possible.

I would say that President Macron's legacy will be one of achieving a full normalization of far right policies. And he put a lot with the snap election that took everyone by surprise -- really nobody, very few people were expecting this -- put people in a dire situation, and when you are a genius [00:07:00] you do not put people in dire situations even more if you are the president of the republic.

And when I mean putting people in a really dangerous situation, I mean vulnerable minorities have been attacked, including physically. The racism has been out even more than the usual. You would hear things that you would have heard before, but not at this level. And if that was his plan to take over control of the situation, then I don't think it's a genius move. I think it's it's the move of a spoiled child who just want to keep power. And this is not how you run a country. And you don't put democracy at stake when you are president. And that's what he did. 

The traditional party system as we know it is no more. Really, I think that's the end also of centrist parties. The political landscape in France has been deeply polarized, deeply [00:08:00] divisive, and we have seen that with the right wing, which barely hides its connection with the far right. There has been issue within the Republican party and also with the left.

So now we have some sort of new political landscape. Now we need to be careful to not fall into another new establishment. I think the people have been clear: they are tired. They do not trust the establishment. They do not trust traditional political parties. They want something new. They want politicians -- I would say regardless from which political side they are from -- to listen to them, to actually be concerned with their daily struggles. And Macron's new government, or whoever is going to be prime minister next, needs to take this into account, because it cannot be just a short momentum. 

The far right may not have won this time, but keep in mind that their policies are already into place [00:09:00] and we shall be careful for 2027, which is coming very soon. And if nothing is done, we are all over again giving them a possibility of taking power on a silver platter.

The biggest problems Mexico's first female president Claudia Sheinbaum is facing - DW News - Air Date 6-3-24

ALEXANDRIA WILLIAMS, DW NEWS: Mexico's biggest election in history has produced a unique winner. Claudia Sheinbaum is set to become the country's next president. Cheers and jubilation decorated her celebration speech. The former mayor pledged an office that leads for all.

CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM: We will govern for everyone, men and women. But as a humanistic principle of our movement, for the good of everyone, first take care of the poor.

ALEXANDRIA WILLIAMS, DW NEWS: Her win has resonated with the public. 

PERSONS ON THE STREET: We are proud that we are giving way to a [00:10:00] woman to govern us. You can see that she is well prepared, and that is very satisfying. 

I feel very happy, very proud, and fully represented as a woman, because for the first time in 200 years, we have a female president.

ALEXANDRIA WILLIAMS, DW NEWS: Sheinbaum looks set for a landslide victory over her main opponent. Xóchitl Gálvez, a businesswoman from an indigenous background, conceded defeat, with a final request.

XOCHITL GALVEZ: I would like to emphasize that my recognition of the results comes with a firm demand for solutions and outcomes to the serious problems the country faces. 

ALEXANDRIA WILLIAMS, DW NEWS: At least one person was killed at a polling station in Puebla State. And more than 30 presidential candidates were assassinated ahead of Sunday's vote, making [00:11:00] it the most violent election in Mexico's history.

Tackling crime will be a top mandate for Claudia Shainbaum's office. But she also addressed other major concerns for Mexico's public. 

CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM: We will be austere. Corruption won't come back, nor the privileges, nor the presidential airplane, or the retirement pensions for former presidents, or the presidential state guard.

ALEXANDRIA WILLIAMS, DW NEWS: Mexico's constitution only allows one term presidencies. This means Claudia Sheinbaum has six years to take forward the issues on her agenda when her time in office begins on October 1st.

PHIL GAYLE, DW NEWS: Jason Marczak is Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center. Give us an idea, if you would, of who Mexico's first female president is. What's her background? 

JASON MARCZAK: President-elect Scheinbaum was [00:12:00] head of government of Mexico City. She served as Minister of the Environment in Mexico City. But also importantly, she's a scientist by profession, she's a technocrat. She has a PhD at at the UNAM in Mexico, so she is somebody who will approach the presidency from a very pragmatic, technical perspective. 

I'll tell you what, when I first met with her team, when she was head of government of Mexico City, they showed me a 220-page plan of government that was put together immediately when she took office as head of government in Mexico City. And my understanding is on a regular basis, perhaps even a weekly basis, she was asking her team to say the extent to which those government plans were being addressed and implemented. 

I expect a president who is incredibly methodical, very detail oriented. At the same time, a president who is the handpicked successor to the current president, who is very popular, and will largely continue, as your report showed, with [00:13:00] the policies of President López Obrador. 

PHIL GAYLE, DW NEWS: And from the outside it looks as though domestic security, especially drugs-related violence, is the biggest problem in the president's entrée. Is it? 

JASON MARCZAK: Yeah, security, violence were the top issues as part of the campaign. The last presidential debate squarely focused on security. President-elect Scheinbaum has vowed to continue with the security policy of President Lopez Obrador, which is focused on essentially hugs and not bullets which is to find ways to prevent violence, social programs, education programs. 

But at the same time, there is going to be a real focus and a real need for the president-elect to be able to extend even beyond some of the policies of the current president, because we've seen homicide rates continue to increase in Mexico under the previous six years. And we saw one of the most violent campaigns in history, as your report [00:14:00] showed, with upwards of 30 different candidates, largely at the local level, being killed as part of this campaign season. Luckily, the weekend was free of major violence, and we didn't see that at the polling stations either. But this is going to be her priority focus, not only for Mexico, but also for the United States, for Mexico's northern neighbor, where security, especially fentanyl trafficking, is a priority in the bilateral relationship.

PHIL GAYLE, DW NEWS: And so why is cartel violence such an intractable problem in Mexico? 

JASON MARCZAK: There's been different approaches to try to combat cartel violence over the years in Mexico. Back 20 years ago, the early 2000s, the president at the time had a strategy to try to go after the kingpins. That just resulted in even more violence because the different cartels ended up fighting among each other.

It historically goes back to the fact that there are areas of the country that don't have as much support from state security, and also the ways in [00:15:00] which state security is divided between the federal government, the local government. 

Also important to point out the fact that Mexican cartels are no longer just Mexican cartels. Criminal organizations have become transnational criminal organizations. So you see Mexican cartels operating all across the Western hemisphere, and that gives them further power within Mexico itself. 

PHIL GAYLE, DW NEWS: Okay. Mexico also has a problem with gender-based violence, and so one wonders, is the election of the country's first female president likely to have much of an effect on those disturbingly high gender-based violence rates?

JASON MARCZAK: Yeah Phil, I hope so. I think that Mexico is known as a country that is historically more machista. And so the fact that Mexico now has its first woman president, hopefully that will be a sign writ large across Mexico of the need to respect [00:16:00] the rights of women. And Claudia Steinbaum as well will likely continue with policies now in the presidency that will address some of the challenges that women have faced.

I think there are certain things that could be done at a micro level as well, things like economic empowerment that helps to reduce gender-based violence. But having those policies so that women have greater ownership over their own lives and there's less control by the men in the household that helps to hopefully reduce the gender-based violence that is unfortunately prevalent in Mexico.

Labour Wins Massive Majority On Low Vote Share, Gaza Costs Starmer - Novara Media - Air Date 7-5-24

MICHAEL WALKER, NOVARA MEDIA: Labour have won a stomping majority, not because they massively increased their support, but because their opponents were divided. And they also won their seats efficiently. Now that means not piling up votes in safe constituencies, but rather winning just enough in each seat to maximize overall wins, so you're spreading out your support very efficiently.

Now that has clearly been very effective in this instance, that's why Labour have this massive majority. It [00:17:00] also means that majority is somewhat vulnerable, though. This chart from The Times shows the winning margin in each seat in the last three general elections. As you can see, in both 2019 and 2017, there were a lot of seats with massive majorities, running up to over 40,000 in the case of, Labour. In 2024, however, the vast majority of seats have majorities of under 10,000. Now, according to The Times, the average seat majority in 2024 is 6,700. That compares to an average seat majority of 11,200 in 2019.

Aaron, so much going on here. Obviously, you've got this, the story about Gaza with these independents. But the broader story seems to just be Labour, they've done well, the plan has worked, they've got a massive majority, but really on not a very impressive vote share at all. As we're gonna speak about in a moment, turnout was down. Does it make any sense to talk about a party with a 170 seat majority as being vulnerable?

AARON BASTANI, CO-HOST, NOVARA MEDIA: Yes. 'cause they [00:18:00] are vulnerable. The next election that majority could actually disappear. That's easier said than done, but often when people get a big majority, and I don't mean like 2019 with the Tories, this is a very big majority. This is not, this is on a pass slightly smaller than Blair in '97. That generally takes more than one election to wind down. The next parliament could be a hung parliament. It seems very unlikely. You'd need lots of strange things to happen, but it's quite plausible. 

One thing I would push back on though, Michael -- and how dare I do this against the great John Curtis -- is that this idea that reform voters would have otherwise voted Tory, I just don't think that's true. My experience of speaking to reform votes is yes, many of them are 2019 Tory voters. That's absolutely the case. Three quarters of them; I think that's what the data suggests. And the Tories need to get those people back if they want to win. Absolutely. But the idea they would have voted conservative if reform hadn't stood a good campaign simply isn't true. They just wouldn't have voted, I think. And that's the experience I saw here in Portsmouth, North, Labour won, Penny Mordon lost, [00:19:00] Reform, they did quite well. I know many people who voted Reform. I know of many people who voted Reform. And they weren't people who otherwise would have voted conservative. They had for the most part turned off from the conservative party. 

So look, that's obviously contributed to the scale of the majority, but this idea that, oh no, if only reform hadn't stood, the Tory vote would have been very healthy. Yeah. You know what? Maybe a third to a half of those votes would have gone with the Tories, but actually many people otherwise wouldn't have voted, or they might have voted for an independent or maybe even some would have voted Labour 

But this idea that you just need to get those people back and it's all right, no. The conservatives had very big problems with turning out their vote, whether or not Reform stood, whether or not Nigel Farage and his band of merry what men won five seats, which is what has happened 

MICHAEL WALKER, NOVARA MEDIA: The result could speak in a couple of ways to potential problems regarding the legitimacy of our democracy. So first, the turnout was absolutely atrocious. So it was 60%. This was [00:20:00] the second lowest turnout since 1885. It was only lower in 2001 when it was 59%. So it's basically, the same as that. Very, very low. And this is supposed to be a big change election.

Second, the result is more disproportionate than ever. So Labour won a stomping majority on the lowest vote share of any post-war single party government. So any party that went on to form a single party government, so not a coalition, Labour have the lowest vote share compared to all three wins of Tony Blair, compared to the Conservatives in 2015 and 2019.

And you might imagine that supporters of other parties could feel justified in feeling a bit aggrieved. This is the breakdown of vote share versus seat share. So Labour on a third of the vote won two-thirds of their seats. It's somewhat proportionate when it comes to the Conservatives. So they won 24 percent of the vote and got 19 percent of the seats. It's most disproportionate when it comes to Reform, who got 14 percent of the [00:21:00] vote and 1 percent of the seats. The Lib Dems, theirs was fairly proportionate this time around: 12 percent of the vote, 11 percent of the seats. The Green Party on 7 percent of the vote and 1 percent of the seats. Until sort of a couple of hours ago, it did look as if Reform and the Greens had won the same number of seats. Reform actually in the last couple of hours won their fifth seat because they won the freeway contest in Basildon and Billericay between the Conservatives, Labour and. themselves. 

Aaron, I saw today Nigel Farage in his big press conference saying he is going to be fighting really strongly for electoral reform at this, in the next parliament, I suppose he said he'll stand with anyone who's willing to campaign with him on it.

My general assumption -- I'm a big supporter of electoral reform -- my general assumption is that there are very high barriers to achieving it. And no major party is -- well, the two major parties -- have no interest in it, but at the same time, I think it's going to be difficult to, for anyone [00:22:00] to win many seats on a constitutional question of this sort. It's quite nerdy. 

So even with a campaigner like Nigel Farage alongside the Green party now with four MPs, I think the unfairness of the system is obvious to people. Can it be changed? I'm still skeptical, even if I would like it to be changed, of course. 

AARON BASTANI, CO-HOST, NOVARA MEDIA: It can be changed because of course, many countries have PR. These countries didn't emerge from the womb with PR. So obviously people have changed electoral systems and they've become democracies and they've tried different things. Italy, I think has had several electoral systems over the last 15 years. 

I think you're right though, of course, particularly Labour don't stand to benefit from PR right now.

What I would say though, is Michael, the Liberal Democrats have had their best election, if you include the Liberals, of course, it's 1923. So that's really significant that you're going to have a party of that size supporting PR, push up the Greens, you have Reform too. 

Here's the big thing though, and it's not going to change from what we can see right now.

First past the post [00:23:00] creates relatively, relatively fair outcomes when you have two parties. However, in terms of the largest two parties and the share of the vote they got yesterday, below 60%, I believe -- we can check that, we need to double check that, I'm a bit tired -- but it's the lowest it's been since 1918.

And the problem is, Michael, once the two largest parties get that smaller vote check, it's the majority of the vote share, but it's not where it should be, then you start to create all kinds of weird outcomes. And if that's the new normal of British politics, you've got the Liberal Democrats, you've got the SMP, you've got Reform, you've got the Greens. And I don't think those parties are disappearing anytime soon. I think in all likelihood Reform and the Greens will win more seats at the next election, then it's going to continue to throw out really strange results. And I think in this instance with a big majority, I agree with you. But as soon as we have this long term pattern of the big two not having that large share and we get a hung parliament with parties that want PR, I'm [00:24:00] thinking the Lib Dems, the Green party, Reform, then I think it does change things somewhat.

Look also, if you look at the number of MPs and the vote share of Reform, the Greens put together, so I think between the more than 20 percent of the vote, when it's the Green party into Reform, they got nine MPs on 20 percent of the vote. Not remotely fair or just. 

And here's the irony. I think if we had PR, we would have probably had in this election a traffic light coalition. Labour, Lib Dems, Green. Somewhat like what they had in Germany. Although, don't hold that against me in terms of political judgment because that government's been awful. But actually, the politics of that wouldn't be so radically different from Keir Starmer's offer in this election -- slightly more left, perhaps, not radically -- but it would have a lot more buying and consent.

And importantly, Michael, what PR does for me is it provides stability, because you don't have massive majority for this party one minute, massive majority for that party the next minute. You can actually have [00:25:00] people saying, we want to govern, solve these problems, address these challenges over a 10-, 20-, 30-year timeframe. 

And I know you're saying about it being wonky, but I actually think the electorate really likes that, Michael. And if that argument can be made, and we get a hung Parliament in the next parliament or two, given that trend I've spoken about with regards to large two parties shrinking in terms of the overall share of the vote, then I think we can get PR.

France’s leftwing alliance beat the far right, but what now? - Today in Focus - Air Date 7-8-24

MICHAEL SAFI: What are the next steps in trying to figure out who on Earth runs the French Parliament? 

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: Well, France is coming into a period of huge uncertainty. Usually, well, for the past 50 years, when France holds an election, voters at least know the next morning which party will be in government and what their political agenda will be. But this time it's different. The New Popular Front came first with 182 seats. It does have a little bit of room for manoeuvre, but it's very far off the 289 absolute majority that you need to form a government. So there's going to be horse trading. 

Now, Emmanuel Macron's centrist grouping who were [00:26:00] in government before, they came in second place, only 14 seats behind the left's New Popular Front, and they suffered significant setback. They lost over 80 seats. But Macron's entourage saying, you know, we're reduced in number, but we're still standing. The problem is, there was a lot of anger and rejection of Emmanuel Macron during this campaign. And there was a lot of comments made by the centrist camp attacking the left. 

Is the left now expected to form some kind of coalition with a hugely unpopular centrist grouping of Emmanuel Macron? And if they don't, can the centrists somehow divide the left and cherry pick some centre left to stand with them rather than the further left party of La France Insoumise? It's extremely hard to predict because I can't imagine now that the New Popular Front have had this strong standing that they're going to immediately break up and jump into bed with the centrists.[00:27:00] 

MICHAEL SAFI: So, it's like, at this stage, it's a lot of questions, but not many answers. 

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: It's a lot of questions, not many answers, and, of course, we are less than three weeks away from Paris hosting the Olympic Games, and no nearer to having an idea of who the government might be and who the prime minister might be. The first session of the new parliament is on the 18th of July. It may be that only at that point will there be a clear idea of who could sit together in a potential coalition. 

Don't forget that the French political system is not designed for coalition, and no one has any experience of this in the modern immediate history. We've got a hugely strong president. And the political system, which is really conflictual and pugnacious, where parties are constantly fighting each other and slagging each other off, is really not the type of place where coalitions have been made in the past. Will they be able to be made now?, is the big question.

MICHAEL SAFI: Help me to understand this. France is a country with a [00:28:00] president, a prime minister, and a parliament. Now there is a scramble to see who will become the prime minister. How would he or she fit into this system? What kind of powers do they have? What kind of powers does the President, Emmanuel Macron, have?

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: Well, the president of France nominates the prime minister, so in theory Emmanuel Macron could choose whoever he wants to be prime minister, but it's a parliamentary system as well. So you still need to have, if you're prime minister, the biggest section, the biggest grouping in parliament, otherwise you're simply going to be voted down every few minutes.

So, there is a proper sharing of power between the president and the prime minister. And it has been the case before that a president from, for example, the right has had a parliament from the left, if there've been midterm elections and the parliament has changed. The problem here is this broadly equal split between three groups: the left, the center and the far right. And that is what's causing the [00:29:00] problem. How do they come up with a prime minister who can unite enough people behind him or her in parliament, not to be voted down every few weeks? 

MICHAEL SAFI: I mean, it sounds like this is a system built for two big blocks competing for power, whereas now we have three of those blocks. They're all relatively equally balanced and nobody quite knows what happens now. 

What if, Angelique, they can't come to an agreement? What happens if no governing alliance forms? 

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: Well, when Emmanuel Macron made this shock announcement at the beginning of June after European elections that he was going to dissolve parliament and call elections, what became clear constitutionally was that is his power that is within his remit to do, but you cannot call another election for another year. So, whatever happens, France is stuck with this permutation of parties. 

The way the constitution works in France is that you can govern without an absolute majority, but what you have to do is make sure that [00:30:00] you don't have an absolute majority of opposition united against you, because in that case they can collapse the government. So, it's going to have to be a careful question of mathematics done in terms of how, for example, a budget could be agreed on in the autumn. 

MICHAEL SAFI: It's not clear what combinations will form the next French government, but can we at least say that it's unlikely to include the far right, unlikely to be led by the far right?

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: The far right and its allies have scored so far away from an absolute majority that they could not scrape together support to have a majority. So, what we're looking at now is everyone but the far right. And everyone but the far right is, of course, an enormous rainbow going from this left alliance into the center, also into the traditional right, Les Républicains. And most of these people refused to form a coalition last time round with Emmanuel Macron. [00:31:00] And so, it's difficult to see how they might do it this time round. 

MICHAEL SAFI: And what is the worst case scenario from all this, if these negotiations don't go well? 

ANGELIQUE CHRISAFIS: I think the worst scenario would be complete deadlock stretching on for months because France is in economic difficulties over its debt, we're facing the war in Ukraine, EU issues, there's a lot going on and people do not want to see stalemate. The left are saying, fairly, you know, we came first, we can slightly boost our numbers. We don't now want to be knocked back into a remote distant position if the right somehow clubbed together with the centre right.

So, what seems certain is that the makeup of this parliament, which voters are voted for has to be somehow respected and has to take into account the fact that the left alliance has got the largest number of seats, even if it's far off the absolute majority. I think any radical change [00:32:00] whereby Emmanuel Macron's centrists didn't reflect this new shape of parliament would be unacceptable for voters.

"The North Needs to Learn from the South": Mexico Poised to Elect First Woman President - Democracy Now! - Air Date 5-29-24

MARIA HINOJOSA: The reason why two women end up being the two front-runner candidates is not just, like, Oh, it just happened. There was a tremendous, decades-long work by feminists in Mexico, along with feminists all over Latin America, pushing for equality, pushing for equity for women. In the face of violence, in the face of impunity, the feminist movement in Mexico and Latin America just kept on pushing, to the point where you were able to make it by law that there had to be parity in the government, and this leads to both women ending up as candidates. And it is historic. You know, I’m asking the question. It’s a little — you know, a little — but which country is more machista? The United States, that has two old men, one accused of strange and weird sexual and cover-ups, etc., and fraud, etc., [00:33:00] and the other one, who’s just quite elderly? And in Mexico, you have two women. And so, what they’re talking about in the political debate in Mexico is really, frankly, light years away from the political debate that we’re having in this country. Mexico — strangely, Mexico, Amy, becomes like a North Star. When would I have said that? I could have never imagined. I’ve watched the entire political process. I’m not Pollyanna. Impunity and violence against women, corruption, the assassination of multiple candidates, it’s a real problem. But Mexico has a different political debate happening now.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Maria, I wanted to ask you if you could talk a little bit about the major differences between the two candidates policy-wise. Clearly, Claudia Sheinbaum is being supported by the current president, AMLO, and appears to [00:34:00] have a very big lead in the polls. But your sense of their differences?

MARIA HINOJOSA: So, they will both say that they are from the left. Xóchitl will say that she’s center-left. Claudia Sheinbaum will say that she’s obviously more to the left. The policy differences have to do kind of with the historical differences between their two parties, as it were — the Morena party, which was a street activist movement, that now has ended up in the presidential palace, versus you have the PRI and the PAN. These are the two oldest parties in Mexico. It would be like the Republicans and the Democrats getting together to support a candidate. It is a very strange coalition. And so, what they represent is actually these two very different parts of American history.

Having said that, there’s a big critique that Claudia Sheinbaum will continue the policies of AMLO. She responds in a retort [00:35:00] that’s saying, “That’s a misogynistic question. You’re saying that because I’m a woman, I’m only going to follow what a man has done before me.”

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to some of the clips, the interviews you’ve done. This is Xóchitl Gálvez speaking to you, Maria, about her experience with gender violence.

MARIA HINOJOSA: [To Xochitl] How do you define feminism?

[Translating Xochitl's answer] She believes in equality for all women in terms of political, economic and reproductive rights. And to emphasize why this matters to her, she told us she suffered violence as a child. This story has become a part of Xóchitl Gálvez’s stump speech. Her father, she says, was a violent man who terrorized her as a child. One time, she tells us in the interview, he pointed a shotgun at her mother and threatened her. She says that they escaped, but that this experience marked her. And then I asked her what she thinks the solution might be for this kind of gender-based violence in Mexico. [00:36:00] What Xóchitl said to us was that women in Mexico need a support system in cases of violence, and that men need to know that if they commit violence against women, they will be prosecuted.

AMY GOODMAN: This is another clip of Latino USA’s interview with Claudia Sheinbaum. Futuro Media executive producer Peniley Ramírez asks her about her presidency, what it would mean for Mexico. She spoke to her at a campaign rally in Mexico City.

PENILEY RAMIREZ: What’s going to be unique about your government?

CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM: Well, you know, I’m a scientist, so I’m going to put a lot of effort in science and development. We’re going to go for women’s rights. And we’re going to continue bringing education, good health system for the people, housing and what I call the rights for the Mexican people.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Claudia Sheinbaum. They both call themselves feminists. Women got the right to vote [00:37:00] in Mexico, when?, in 1953. And what about abortion?

MARIA HINOJOSA: So, abortion right now, actually, is more progressive in Mexico than in the United States. This is actually not like a primary issue in the presidential campaign right now, unlike here in the United States, because what’s happening in Mexico is trending towards legalization across the entire country. There are parts in Mexican states where it is legal, but it’s nof the kind of abortion politics that we’re having here, where you would expect, Amy, a Catholic country to be making the decisions on abortion like the ones that are being made in the United States, that says it has no relationship with the church in its politics.

So, right now, again, for women, on the issue of reproductive rights, more progressive, but on the issue of violence, on the issue of impunity, the number of female candidates running in different parties in [00:38:00] different states, lower, much lower down the ballot, being assassinated. It’s really a huge issue. And this is the primary contradiction for Mexico. You’re going to nominate — you’re going to elect a woman, but you still haven’t resolved the fact that women are being murdered at the rate of about 10 to 11 every single day, and the impunity that comes with it.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And, Maria, in terms of this issue of Mexico electing a woman president, several Latin American countries have already done so: Chile, Honduras, Argentina, Brazil, and now Mexico. And yet here in the United States, the potential for electing a woman president still will have to be postponed for another four or eight years. I’m wondering your sense of the difference, especially with the United States supposedly claiming to represent a much more forward-looking view on equality between the genders.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Well, Juan, you won’t be [00:39:00] surprised when I say that the North needs to learn from the South. There’s always this perspective that the North, the United States, is leading the way, is the way to go. And in fact, what the United States and the feminist movement in the United States needs to do is to look at what happened in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. The number of countries that have elected a woman president in Latin America is stunning, considering the fact that the United States is still at about a third of women in Congress. You have countries like Rwanda that have legalized parity in political representation, and our country is lagging behind. 

It is huge, Juan. On the issue of immigration and whether or not Claudia or Xóchitl — more likely it will be Claudia who ends up as president — will do something profoundly different, fresh, stand up to the United States, say, “No more 'Remain in Mexico',” begin to do kind of political battle on the issue of immigration — as you know, this is one of my key issues as an immigrant journalist in the United [00:40:00] States — to be seen. 

The thought, though, of a Claudia Sheinbaum, who, frankly, you know, Stanford-educated, speaks perfect English, sitting down in any kind of meeting with a potential Donald Trump is — it messes with the brain, although she — I don’t think she will take things sitting down.

AMY GOODMAN: And it’s very interesting. There were just major protests in Mexico City outside the Israeli Embassy around Gaza, and AMLO, the president, and the Morena party supporting Mexico joining South Africa in its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, and Claudia Sheinbaum, the front-runner, following AMLO, is a Jewish woman.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Correct. This is extraordinary, because the fact that she is a Jewish woman, but she doesn’t really — she’s a scientist, so she’s not very religious. [00:41:00] But she is a Jewish woman, and her name is Sheinbaum. It’s not a big issue, which is fascinating in and of itself. In some ways, you know, my colleagues, Mexican journalists, in many ways, are leading this conversation of how you cover politics, and you don’t play into authoritarian and propaganda games. For example, there might have been journalists who wanted to kind of fuel the fire of saying, “But she’s Jewish. She’s Jewish.” It hasn’t really been an issue. And what’s more interesting is that Claudia Sheinbaum and Xóchitl Gálvez, both of them wearing huipiles, which is the traditional Indigenous Mexican — you know it because of the embroidery — this is — the fact that both of them are like, “We love Indigenous women. We love our Indigenous roots,” again, fascinating for Mexican politics, which, again, to me, that would be the word that I use in terms of Mexican politics right [00:42:00] now: “fascinating.” That is not the term that I would use when discussing U.S. politics at all.

Who Broke Britain- Part 4- The Tories Are Out - If You’re Listening - ABC News In-depth - Air Date 7-5-24

MATT BEVAN: In the last few years, two massive things have changed. Firstly, Britain isn't in the EU anymore, thanks to a campaign led by Boris Johnson, which promised to...

BORIS JOHNSON: ...take back control of our borders with a sensible, fair and impartial system. 

MATT BEVAN: And secondly, extra security measures at the channel tunnel and ferry terminals have actually started to work. 

But of course, now that they're not coming through the tunnel, the migrants are getting on boats. In 2018, a couple hundred people attempted to cross the channel on small boats. In 2019, it was nearly 2,000. In 2020, it was more than 8,000. In 2021, it was 28,000. So, in 2022, Boris Johnson's government, dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation from Europe, started to look at the Australia model for solutions. 

PRITI PATEL: We will [00:43:00] stop those who come here illegally making endless legal claims to remain in our country. At the expense of the British public. 

MATT BEVAN: They did a deal with the tiny African nation of Rwanda. The UK would pay them hundreds of millions of pounds and Rwanda would take the asylum seekers off their hands. 

BORIS JOHNSON: The deal we've done is uncapped and Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead. 

MATT BEVAN: By this stage, Boris Johnson, who had led the Tories to a landslide victory in 2019, was wildly unpopular. After lying about it for quite a while, he admitted that actually yes, he had been getting his par-tay on at Downing Street, after ordering the entire population of Britain into COVID lockdown. Much like John Howard in 2001, Johnson looked to be leading his party towards inevitable election defeat. 

BORIS JOHNSON: We must find a way to stop these boats now.

MATT BEVAN: He said this was all about preventing [00:44:00] people from drowning at sea and stopping human trafficking. 

BORIS JOHNSON: So, we must halt this appalling trade and defeat the people smugglers. 

MATT BEVAN: And the way to do that was to copy John Howard's plan. Everybody who comes by boat goes to Rwanda. Nobody wants to go to Rwanda, ergo, nobody gets on a boat. It's a deterrent. 

BORIS JOHNSON: We will do whatever it takes to deliver this new approach. 

MATT BEVAN: But he had a problem. The UK is a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had already in the past prevented British authorities from deporting people to unsafe countries. Rwanda is a country which was in the midst of a genocide 30 years ago. It has poor systems for processing asylum seekers and a history of deporting people to their country of origin, even if they are likely to be persecuted there. 

So, Rwanda is unsafe. Can't send anyone [00:45:00] there. Unless, you say this. 

BORIS JOHNSON: Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.

MATT BEVAN: Okay, so Rwanda is safe? In that case, it's not really a deterrent, is it? Johnson foresaw this issue. 

BORIS JOHNSON: We expect this will be challenged in the courts. 

MATT BEVAN: And it was. Immediately. The government was left in a paradox. They had to convince the courts that Rwanda is a great place, but they had to convince asylum seekers that Rwanda sucks. Meanwhile, they had to convince British voters that a few hundred thousand migrants travelling on boats were a serious threat, and convince them that the government had it all under control. 

None of that worked. The courts intervened and stopped the first plane from deporting failed refugees to Rwanda. To try and convince voters that they were doing something, the British [00:46:00] government hired a barge called the Bibby Stockholm and began housing hundreds of asylum seekers on board. 

NARRATOR: This three story ship that can accommodate 500 people has been compared to the notorious prison ships used to house convicts in the Victorian era.

MATT BEVAN: And it cost of tens of millions of pounds. The rate of boat arrivals increased. And the polls kept getting worse for the Tories. Less than three months after announcing the policy, Boris Johnson resigned as prime minister under the weight of several swirling scandals. The Rwanda plan was someone else's problem now.

In the lead up to the 2024 election, the new prime minister Rishi Sunak was left in a tricky situation. With polls indicating that his party was headed for an electoral wipeout, he had to decide what issues to campaign on to try and save as many seats as possible. 

It wasn't as though the conservative party [00:47:00] had no achievements to tout during the coming election campaign. During their 12 years in government, they had legalised same sex marriage, years before Australia did, and without a plebiscite. They had led the G20 in fighting climate change. They had started construction on the on a high speed rail route from London to the north of England and led the most effective COVID vaccination program in Europe. Don't make me compare them to Australia on those issues. They'd provided global leadership when it came to pushing back against Russia's attack on Ukraine and in 2019 they had convinced millions of Labor Party voters to vote for them, often for the first time, by promising to deliver Brexit, which they then did. 

In October last year, at a speech to the Conservative Party in Manchester, it was time for Rishi Sunak to lay out his plan to avoid electoral catastrophe.

AKSHATA MURTY: Now it gives me the greatest [00:48:00] pleasure to introduce you to a wonderful, wonderful father, my best friend, and your prime minister, Rishi Sunak. 

MATT BEVAN: In his hour long speech meant to lay out his vision for the future of Great Britain, he made it clear that his vision was incredibly narrow. He promised to stop children from smoking. 

RISHI SUNAK: I propose that in future, we raise the smoking age by one year every year. 

MATT BEVAN: He promised to slightly alter the way end of school tests were run...

RISHI SUNAK: ...bring together A levels and T levels into a new single qualification for our school leavers. 

MATT BEVAN: He randomly took a pot shot at trans people. 

RISHI SUNAK: A man is a man. And a woman is a woman. That's just common sense! 

MATT BEVAN: He blamed the crisis in the National Health Service on the pandemic and strikes by healthcare workers.

RISHI SUNAK: They continue to demand massive, unaffordable pay rises. 

MATT BEVAN: He didn't mention climate policy. He had wound back the [00:49:00] government's emission reduction plans weeks earlier. And the big reveal: he promised to stop building that high speed rail project. 

RISHI SUNAK: I am cancelling the rest of the HS2 project. 

MATT BEVAN: He didn't offer a plan to deal with the cost of living crisis, or the energy crisis, or the housing crisis. He didn't mention his predecessors, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, or Liz Truss. In fact, none of them were anywhere to be seen. And then he said what may be the most extraordinary thing that I've ever heard a UK leader say. 

RISHI SUNAK: At the next election, the choice the people face is bigger than party politics. Do we want a government committed to making long term decisions, prepared to be radical in the face of challenges, and to take on vested interests? Or do we want to stand still and quietly accept more of the same? 

MATT BEVAN: Sunak is the leader of a government that has been in power since 2010 offering to stop kids smoking and not [00:50:00] build a train line. Is that being radical in the face of challenges? When it came to the challenge of asylum seekers on boats, though, he doubled down on the Rwanda plan. 

RISHI SUNAK: Know this. I will do whatever is necessary to stop the boats. 

NEWS REPORTER: This vision, release by the home office, shows border agents raiding properties across the country. Others have been bundled into vans after showing up for routine check-ins. 

MATT BEVAN: On the last day of April this year, a man arrived at Kigali International Airport in Rwanda on a plane from London. Rishi Sunak's government had paid him three thousand pounds and given him free accommodation for the next five years if he got on the plane and went to Rwanda. He took the deal. 

After two years and more than half a billion pounds were spent trying to get this plan up and running, he is the only person who has been deported to Rwanda. And now that the conservatives have lost the election, [00:51:00] he is the only one who ever will. Labor has promised to repeal the policy. 

Everyone has an ideology, a way they think the world should work, a set of beliefs that guides their opinions. Sometimes it takes abandoning parts of your ideology to get elected. That's populism. But leading is something different. Leadership is knowing when your ideology isn't working, or is harming people, or making things worse, and then having the courage to abandon it. 

David Cameron came to power in 2010 promising to fix broken Britain. He thought his ideology, small government, would fix it. His priority was to bring down national debt by cutting government spending and increasing economic growth by encouraging people to work more. But when his austerity program began to drive [00:52:00] millions of Britons to rely on food banks to feed their families, and saw life expectancy flatline, and saw prisons fill to bursting, and saw schools begin to crumble, he didn't waver. When his welfare cuts saw people have to leave the workforce to care for children, the elderly, or people with disabilities; when hundreds of libraries closed; when councils went bankrupt; when economic growth stagnated, he didn't have the courage to adapt. His leadership abilities were shown to be woefully inadequate when he accidentally upended 50 years of economic policy and brought about Brexit.

Since then, populism has run rampant. Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have repeatedly abandoned their ideologies for the sake of staying in power. When we ask, who broke Britain? The answer begins with David Cameron. The others often blamed for Britain's decline, Nigel Farage, Boris [00:53:00] Johnson and others, only gained prominence because of Cameron's failures of leadership. Of course, they only stayed in power because of the colossal ineptitude of their opposition, who lost four elections in a row before finally winning one this week.

First Woman President- Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum Faces Border And Drug Cartel Challenges - The Hill - Air Date 6-16-24

Mexican president elect Claudia Sheinbaum has drawn massive media attention as the first woman and the first Jewish person elected to the top office. But when she takes office on October 1st, she is going to have to hit the ground running. One of her top challenges is will be dealing with the United States and with the one issue that's engulfed US politics: migration. 

Sheinbaum won the election on June 2nd in a massive landslide, promising to keep President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's policies. Lopez Obrador has essentially become the continent's top migration cop. He's been cutting deals with both the Biden and Trump administration [00:54:00] to limit how many migrants move north and to take some third country nationals back when they're expelled from the United States.

So similarities aside, Lopez Obrador spent his first two years fielding Trump's threats and the next four years talking it out with Biden. In a nutshell, Trump threatened Lopez Obrador to cooperate or else. Biden, he used more orthodox diplomatic means. Now, we'll never know if Trump would have followed up on his threats. The pandemic came and migration basically froze.

Sheinbaum has said she wants the United States to invest serious money in development programs in Mexico's south and throughout Central America. She wants to take the jobs to would be migrants and not the other way around. That pitch might fly with a second Biden administration. But if Trump is elected again, Sheinbaum will almost certainly have to change her tune.

But in the broader US-Mexico relationship, migration is just [00:55:00] the tip of the iceberg. For starters, the two countries have the single biggest bilateral trade relationship on earth. In 2023, the two countries traded just under $800 billion. It's still short of the $817 billion of commerce between the United States and China in 2018. But US-China trade has since dropped under 600 billion. US-Mexico trade numbers are expected to keep going up as companies keep focus on nearshoring (that's setting up shop in Mexico instead of Asia). That sounds like great news for Sheinbaum. But there are a series of bubbling trade disputes, many of them a direct consequence of López Obrador policies, that promise to strain relations between the two countries.

And global financial markets, they aren't thrilled at her win either. Sheinbaum's landslide was huge. She basically beat the opposition candidate by a 2 to 1 ratio. López Obrador's [00:56:00] political party, Morena, also won big, and it might even get a constitutional supermajority. And that's what markets don't like.

López Obrador wants to pass a series of constitutional reforms to weaken the judiciary before he steps down. And that makes investors jittery. Since Sheinbaum's election, the peso has dropped from 17 per dollar to 18.40 per dollar. That'll make Mexican imports cheaper in the United States, but it'll make US-made goods more expensive for Mexican families. That could drive more migration, as it has in the past. 

Financial concerns aside, Sheinbaum will also have to juggle bilateral cooperation on organized crime, including human, drug, and arms trafficking. How she juggles everything from October 1st onward will almost certainly have an effect on the US election in November. And the results of that election will determine if she needs to prepare for Trump or for [00:57:00] Biden.

French Far Right HUMILIATED By Left - Owen Jones - Air Date 7-8-24

Vive la France! What do you reckon? Pretty good. No? In the last few years, the far right have been on what seems like an unstoppable march across Europe and beyond. Take your pick guys. Been pretty bleak. Germany, let's be honest, not a country which has come to terms with its past. The AFD—the far right—are in second place. In Italy, the heirs to Benito Mussolini run the place. In Austria, they're on course to win the election later this year. Spain and Portugal seem to be immune to the far right's epidemic for a long time, but then far right parties emerged there with big support as well. 

And so it proved for France as well. The far right National Rally have surged under their figurehead Marine Le Pen and the polls suggested they were on course to win the legislative elections this weekend. This did not happen. Instead, they came third. Oopsie daisy. They were defeated by a left wing alliance which came first, whose most prominent figurehead is the radical leftist Jean Luc Mélenchon.

Now, for a [00:58:00] British audience, this alliance was a bit like Jeremy Corbyn, allied to the Green Party, and Ed Miliband. Now, the program they stood on was unashamedly social democratic. In contrast, it must be said to Keir Starmer's offer here in the UK, including taxing the rich, public investment, reversing attacks on pensions, hiking public sector wages, and so on.

Now, as we will discuss, this is not a time for complacency, but there are huge lessons in France, for Britain and beyond. What is frankly beyond galling is watching centrist types in Britain try and claim this victory as their own and as a victory for Emmanuel Macron himself. One former BBC journalist tweeted about the result: "An absolutely huge shock and delight for Macron, who can argue his gamble paid off". To which I respond, WTF. Now, to be clear about what happened here, Emmanuel Macron called a legislative election, which was completely unnecessary after his centrist party, Renaissance, got a kicking in the European elections. He did so expecting the French left to be fragmented and divided, [00:59:00] um, thinking that would force the electorate in France to treat this as a straight choice between his so called centrist and the far right.

Given his disapproval rating is hovering among between two thirds and three quarters, this was a slightly unfortunate gamble. What actually happened is the fragmented left defied the expectations and got their act together. So Mélenchon's France Unbound, the rump of the old socialist party, the greens, the communists, and others formed alliance, actually within about 24 hours, the New Popular Front, record time. Mélenchon correctly has declared that the French Republic was saved by the left—le gauche—not by Macron, who nearly frankly caused catastrophe. 

Now, Macron's brand of so called centrism paved the way for the far right in lots of different ways, and it really goes to show that the so called horseshoe theory, that the so called extremes of left and right are morally equivalent, is a load of self serving shit.

This rot didn't start when Macron became president in [01:00:00] 2017. I mean, we should look actually five years earlier when François Hollande took the presidency of France promising to break the austerity. No such thing happened and Hollande shattered the Socialist Party as a consequence, in fact that they nearly collapsed entirely as a political force.

He appointed Macron as his finance minister about two years in. He was attached to a right wing economic policy. But when Macron became president in 2017, the so called centrists in Britain and elsewhere treated it like Christmas on steroids. "Macron is the antidote to the right wing populist virus". That was the New European in May 2017. Very excited. "Now Macron can help Europe win the war against populism". That was Mathieu Laine, advisor to Macron in May 2017, writing in The Guardian. "Macron, the populist antidote to populism", subheading "France's leader came to power on a tide of change and is best placed to tackle the nationalism taking hold in Europe" . That was Philip Collins—not Phil Collins, the singer—the speechwriter for Tony Blair, and also for Keir Starmer, back in May 2018. "Emmanuel Macron [01:01:00] offers the populist antidote to nationalism". That was Philip Stephens, former head of the Financial Times editorial board. "Rebranding the center: Obama-backed Macron cast as populism slayer in France elections". That's CBC News in May 2017. 

What actually happened? Narrator, not that. When Macron won power, the far right had just six seats in the French legislature. Sorry, eight seats. They'd gone up by six seats in that election, so they had about eight seats. Five years later, they won 89 seats in the French legislature. This week, the far right won 142 seats. Not what I'd call a great record in smashing the far right. In fact, the far right have boomed and thrived under Macron. What happened there then? 

Well, for a start, Macron pursued a strategy of responding to the far right surge by taking on their rhetoric and slightly watered down versions of their policies. Indeed, France is where the horseshoe theory goes to die. Macron's strategy for defeating the far right menace adopts their rhetoric and slightly diluted versions of their policies. After first securing the presidency, he clamped [01:02:00] down on asylum seekers. More recently, he drove through an immigration bill which, among other things, restricted social security entitlements to migrants, made it harder to bring over loved ones, and stopped giving automatic citizenship to children born on French soil to foreign parents. His government railed against the so called Islamist Hydra and Islamist separatism, and his government portrayed any form of Muslim religiosity as a menace, while Macron himself denounced woke culture. 

Now, all of this was wrong in principle, but it didn't do what it was supposed to do. It merely legitimized the far right, shifting the political conversation onto the terrain they thrive in, and leading Le Pen to accurately describe all of this as an ideological victory, thus putting more wind in her sails. Now, it goes beyond that. Now, as the France based, journalist Cole Stangler tells me, Macron pursued unpopular economic policies that have hurt working class people and favoured the well off, fuelling resentment that the far right has been able to capitalise on.

It's true that in the end, many of Macron's centrist so-called alliance stood down in the second round of [01:03:00] parliamentary elections for leftist candidates in a Republican front to head off the far right, but the damage was done by left bashing was done. Just 43% of French Macronists voted for Mélenchon's bloc to stop Le Pen's party in the second round with the fifth opting for the far right, while 72% of Mélenchists opted for Macron's vehicle to do the same.

Now, what prominent Macronistas did is equates the left with the far right. So, for example, Bruno Le Maire, who's the finance minister, under Macron, he savaged France Unbound, Mélenchon's party movement, as being a danger to the republic alongside the far right. So, he was saying they were equivalent. And the left was savaged as being a cesspit of antisemitism, even though they were up against a National Rally, which is defined by racism. Does that sound familiar? Yes, well, quite. As you can see, the horseshoe theory claim is just [01:04:00] risible nonsense. It's the so called centrists who took on board, who adopted the rhetoric and policies of the far right, they're the ones who paved the way for the far right and their policies, which drove economic insecurity, which the far right feed on, and it was the left who blocked the path of the far right, after Macron nearly handed them the Republic of La Plata.

There's so much to learn from because our Macron is Keir Starmer. Indeed we should note that in Germany it was Olaf Scholz of the German Social Democrats who came to power in late 2021 forming a coalition with very similar politics to that of Keir Starmer but failing to tackle the growing crises within German society the far right grew instead.

Joe Biden was supposed to be the The grown ups taking over in 2020, finally laying Trumpism to rest. Well, I don't really need to discuss that, do I? So, the bet amongst the centrists is that start up will be different. Even as, for example, there's a 20 billion a year black hole in Britain's finances, which needs to be filled just to stand still in our current dire state, which is public services falling apart. And that's without mentioning an ageing population, for example. But Labour's kept the Tories fiscal rules and ruled out the tax hikes on the rich [01:05:00] we need to fill the gap. Indeed, the Labour offer is exceptionally thin, even though Britain is in a far worse state than in France when Macron took over in 2017.

We can also anticipate Starmer responding to the rise of reform by doing the same sort of migrant bashing that Macron indulged in with the same results as in France. So here's a warning to us in Britain, because here we have Farageism and reform came second place in 98 seats, 89 of them held by Labour, ready to take them, to sweep in at the next election.

But the Greens are also behind Labour now in dozens of seats. So, here's what I think we need. In Parliament, the Labour left, the Greens, and the new left wing independents need to work together in a progressive caucus, for example. The Labour left MP should now be much more emboldened. After the independent success and the Green success, they'll be less likely to Be purged.

Do they really want Labour MPs defecting to the Greens, for example, and boosting their profile and relevance, lifting the Greens vote share nationally, and therefore threatening other MPs? Doesn't strike me as a good idea, but, you know, they should feel the beats. That could be our new [01:06:00] popular front, in any case.

But everything needs also to be thrown at the dozens of seats where the Greens came a solid second behind the Labour party. Like in Bristol Central before the last election, the Greens were second behind Labour in the nominal boundaries after the 2019 election, but it's very considerably behind. But they got a 28 point swing and took the seat from Labour in this election. The same can happen here. 

But if the left don't get their act together in the UK, then the right will. In France, the far right could still take power. There's a deadlocked parliament, they'll exploit that. So there's a lesson and a challenge for all of us. And, whether we take that on or not, well, do we want to stop the far right or not?

Editors note on how to react to the current political moment and all of the many moments to come

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with TLDR News explaining the immediate fallout of the UK elections. Zeteo looked at the French defeat of the far right and why they may still come back in just a few years. DW News discuss the biggest problems facing Mexico's new president. Novara Media explained how the voting system in the UK impacted the [01:07:00] outcome. Today In Focus looked at the gridlock in the French parliament. Democracy Now! discussed why the Mexican election came down to two women. ABC News looked back at the policies and practices that led to the conservatives' loss in the UK. And The Hill considered what impact the Mexican and US elections will have on the border between the two countries. 

Now, before we continue onto the deeper dives, half of the show, I just have a quick reminder that a week is a very long time in politics. If there has been any week or two in recent memory that confirms this, it has been in the last two weeks. So, for all those who are taking perverse comfort in embracing the inevitability of a Trump victory in the election, remember that these next few months will be some of the longest of our lives. 

That's not to say that I don't have a complicated set of swirling feelings at the moment and a relatively dim view of the near future. I get that [01:08:00] instinct. But one article I read asked if anyone else was feeling a sort of numbness in the wake of the shooting of Donald Trump. And that's what resonated the most with me. It wasn't like full on despair or anything else. It was a sort of numbness. 

But I fully expect for that to be a temporary feeling that will shift as these incredibly long weeks continue to pass. For every article stating that the attempted assassination has changed everything, there is another, often pointing to historical evidence, arguing that there's every chance it'll change surprisingly little. Like, surprisingly little. It feels right now, like, of course this is going to be hugely impactful. And then when it turns out not to be, we will be surprised, if that is the case. You know, iconic photos of a bloody Trump seem like they're going to take up all the space in the collective consciousness from now until the election, but chances are they won't, because weeks are [01:09:00] long and a lot can happen. 

But even with the proven possibility of large change in a short period of time, and with the legitimately dire concerns over a second Trump presidency, the best description of the mood of Democrats I've seen comes from the article titled "The Democratic Party's strange attraction to defeatism. After the Trump shooting, another post-9/11 moment takes hold". And it took me a minute to realize, like, what comparison are we making here? Like, what elements of post-9/11 are being referred to? Like, what is happening that is similar? And then it all clicked in about halfway through the piece. It says, "The spirit of the last two days is strikingly reminiscent of the post-9/11 atmosphere. Democrats decided en masse that national unity required withholding all political criticism of the Bush administration. Democrats actively praised bushes leadership, putting aside [01:10:00] all questions of his administration's failure to heed warnings of the attacks. The news media followed suit, pulling Phil Donahue—at the time, the only liberal voice on primetime cable news—off the air in favor of a flag-waving message. The mainstream media painted George W. Bush as a transformed man, jolted into seriousness and elevated to statesmanship by the call of history. Republicans proclaimed he had been divinely chosen to lead the nation. While it has been forgotten in embarrassment, the Bush personality cult rivaled the current Trump cult in its scope and quasi-theological character. Republicans used the moment to de-legitimized all critiques of their leader as unpatriotic. Many Democrats, carrying out what they believed was their responsible institutional role, complied. The result of this dangerously unbalanced equation was a comprehensive political and moral disaster", obviously [01:11:00] referring to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

What we are hearing from Democrats speaking anonymously to reporters right now is the result of panicked depression. A feeling that is perversely soothed by simply submitting to it, rather than working to fight it off. We're hearing quotes like "we're so beyond fucked", "the presidential contest ended last night", "now it's time to focus on keeping the Senate and trying to pick up the house and that's the whole fucking election", "every image from that is iconic and couldn't have been created in a Hollywood movie". It literally feels better in the moment to give up than to face the task of continuing to fight. And I'm not even going to object to that reality. I get why people would be saying that a day after the shooting, but I highly doubt that feeling will persist. And that's what we need to be looking ahead to. 

As for the argument that Democrats were having about Biden in an attempt to [01:12:00] give themselves the best bet of winning the election, a reporter speaking to Democratic insiders says this: " Those Democrats who have concerns about President Biden are now standing down politically, will back President Biden because of this fragile political moment, All of that talk of the debate faded almost instantly among my top Democratic sources as this unfolded. They say it's time for the country to stick together and that means Democrats sticking together as well". And then the writer of the piece referring to that quote sums it up as well as I could, so I'll just read it. " This rationale is incoherent, even contradictory. The country sticking together means something different from, and close to the opposite of, the parties cohering internally. President Biden is deeply unpopular. There is no theory of national unity that requires Democrats to stand behind a president disliked by the [01:13:00] entire Republican Party and most Independents unless the theory is to give up on trying to win the election and let Trump have it". 

Meanwhile, the lives of real people, hang in the balance. Longtime listener Erin from Philly commented on our Discord community recently, and I asked if I could quote her. She says, "I refuse to admit defeat in advance. I don't have that luxury. I'll fight from now to November 5th and longer, if I have to. After working at the polls, I was in the streets in 2020 when they were counting the votes in Philly and we turned it into a week long democracy party. I'm more than ready to do that again". 

And as far as the struggle between submitting to depression and getting active, I can vouch from personal experience that the advice I've been giving for a long time now really does work. The antidote to feeling depressed and powerless is to take action. I don't mind saying that I have had the feeling of [01:14:00] wanting to simply take a nap in the middle of the day, rather than think about politics for one more minute. But then I remembered the advice and decided to take it myself. Tuning out, rolling over, avoidance, all of these things dull the pain, but do not counteract it. Only taking action actually feels genuinely good. I took on a project, separate from the day-to-day producing of this show, and while focusing my energies on something tangible and productive, all of the feelings of helplessness and depression literally melted away. I did not think about them. Could not feel them. 

So, this isn't the time to be collectively wallowing in premature grief. It's the time to be picking each other up, reminding ourselves what we're fighting for—that the fight isn't over until it's over—and that fighting has the double benefit of making us feel personally better at the same time as we increase the likelihood of producing a better [01:15:00] outcome for all. After all, the far-right in France was believed by everyone to have an absolute lock on the election, right up until they didn't. 

Now, before we get back to the show, a quick reminder that July is our membership and awareness drive month. If you get value out of this show, let this be at the time that you decide to chip in and help us sustain its production and tell some friends about it to help grow our base of support. Unfortunately, the same Trump resistance exhaustion that is causing so many to retreat from politics in general has also taken a real toll on our listenership, our membership numbers, and the income we're able to generate to keep everyone paid for the work they put in keeping this show going. So, when I say that we need your support, it is not in the abstract. We don't have big funders or any kind of institution or media outlet backing us up. It's really just you, the listener, deciding to chip in and make the [01:16:00] show possible. 

As thanks, members get ad-free versions of every regular episode, plus bonus shows featuring the production crew in conversation. And for this month, memberships are 20% off. So, sign up now and keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. Just head to bestoftheleft.com/support to grab your discounted membership, and then tell someone about us. 

SECTION A: FRANCE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on three topics. Next up, section A: France. Section B: Great Britain. And section C: Mexico.

"The Whole Country of France Has Won": Far Right Blocked from Power as Left Surges - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-8-24

AMY GOODMAN: Talk more about why Macron did this. I mean, he — and the significance of him not accepting the resignation of the prime minister today. Will he remain president of France?

ROKHAYA DIALLO: I think he did this — it was a gamble, because he didn’t win the European election, and he thought that it was a way for him to reshuffle the power. Actually, many [01:17:00] people still struggle to understand why he made that choice, because it was very dangerous. It was at a moment when the far right, the National Rally, was gaining more and more power. So, it’s still a mystery to me, because it was such an irresponsible move.

And today his decision to maintain Gabriel Attal is because we know that nobody really won the election. The Parliament is kind of in between several different forces, and none of them has an absolute majority. So, I think that he hopes that he will be able to build a coalition around the center — so, the center-right and the center-left — and so that would make him able to keep Gabriel Attal the prime minister in power and not to lose the capacity of be the one forming the government.

 I [01:18:00] wanted to bring Marjane Satrapi into this conversation, French Iranian filmmaker and author. Can you talk about what’s going on in the streets right now? Were people themselves as surprised as the media was around the world at what took place? And what does this mean? Is this meaning a hung Parliament? What power will Marine Le Pen’s party have in all of this? You came to Paris, what, some 30 years ago and were taking on Jean-Marie Le Pen, her father.

MARJANE SATRAPI: I think that this election is — actually, the whole country of France has won. France has succeeded. The values that are defended in France are the value of the human rights, are the value of, you know, actually accepting people, having them, giving them shelter. So, this France is very contradictory with the France of Marine Le Pen.

Then, [01:19:00] it’s about 30% of the French population that actually went to vote for the extreme right, and that is not something new. We have that since many years. They made a big deal, you know, in the European election, which is bizarre, because the people of the extreme right that are in the European Parliament, they don’t do nothing. They’re actually — most of the time, they’re absent. People, they actually voted for them, but, then, you know, we always have this idea that we really have to defend the republic. And the extreme right is against the republic.

I heard people saying, “Oh, we never tried, you know, the extreme right. So let’s see what it gives.” We actually have tried the extreme right. It’s called the Régime de Vichy. It’s called what has happened on the Second World War, where they were extremely active, more than what the Germans, they asked them, you know, in the execution of the Jews and the communists. And, you know, they collaborated. So, yes, we have that. And I think the danger of the extreme right in the whole world today is [01:20:00] equal. I mean, people, they don’t have the excuse of not knowing what the extreme right gives. Nobody has the excuse of, you know, this, a lack of knowledge. We all know what happened in the Second World War. We know that that was the extreme right, and we know what is the result of the extreme right. So, anywhere in the world, in the democratic world, that is a vote for that is actually a vote for dictatorship. And French people, basically, most of them, they didn’t want.

Now the situation is somehow complex. But you talk a lot about Jean-Luc Mélenchon. I don’t think that he is actually — he’s a representative of this united left, because, unlike what is said, he’s not a progressive leftist. He’s a radical leftist. I think he’s antisemite. You know, his relationship with Hamas is quiet; we don’t know what it is. [01:21:00] His relation with Putin is uncertain. He has been in awe in front of all the dictators of, you know, the South American. You know, he was in love with Chávez. He loves all these dictators.

I think this coalition, you have four parties. One of them is the party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, where the big heads of, actually, this party, they have left it, because they couldn’t stand him anymore, people like Clémentine Autain or Ruffin or all this big power they have left. You have the communists. You have the socialists. You have the ecologists. So, you have this coalition.

But the most important, that was a slap in the face of the extreme right. But also, during this one week, I think people in the television and in the interviews, they saw the candidate of the extreme right. And, you know, it’s a joke as a candidate. None of them they have a program. I mean, it’s always easy to be against. It’s always very [01:22:00] easy to be in opposition. But once it comes to governing a country, you have to have some knowledge. You have to have an economical program. You know, just saying, “Oh, the immigrant people, they do this and that, and they come” — you know, the immigrant people also work. I mean, I work in France. Each film that I made in France, I made — I don’t know — hundreds of French people work. We bring money. We pay our taxes. We are parties of this society. And French people, actually, they celebrated that. So, yeah, it’s a victory of France.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask Rokhaya Diallo if you share that assessment of Mélenchon. Certainly, Jeremy Corbyn, who we just spoke to, who won back his seat as a member of Parliament in Britain and is a friend of Mélenchon, did not feel that way. Your assessment and where this all goes?

 

ROKHAYA DIALLO: So, I think, first of all, the issue is not about Jean-Luc Mélenchon. It’s about the left, which managed to build a coalition. I don’t agree with the fact of classifying the France Unbowed, the party of Jean-Luc [01:23:00] Mélenchon, as a radical left party, since the Supreme Court of France, le Conseil d’État, classified the protests, and the only party that is classified as being extreme is the far-right National Rally. So, all of the left parties are labeled as being from the left.

And the other thing, to me, which is important is that we — I think it’s important to tamper the joy of the fact that the National Rally, the far right, didn’t win, because even if they didn’t make it to have the absolute majority, they had opened the floodgates of racism. During the campaign, we’ve seen many people being abused, being assaulted, being insulted because they were LGBTQIA, because they were minorities, because they were foreigners. You know, they have been physically and verbally insulted, even assaulted, even people who were very famous and visible journalists. So, I think that we need to address what was at the heart of the campaign of the far right, which is racism.

So, of course, there is an issue of [01:24:00] antisemitism that needs to be addressed on the left, and not only, according to me, in the party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. I think this is an issue, but I think they have been demonized because of their pro-Palestinian stance and because they are the only party to actually address Islamophobia. And I think that the left in France needs to address Islamophobia, because the anti-Muslim sentiment is very, very widespread. And it’s the reason why the National Rally has been able to be — has been normalized, because the Islamophobia is so normalized now today in France that it’s easy for the National Rally to just appear to be respectable.

So, I think that the next step for the left will be to be explicit on how they want to address racism and actually systemic racism.

How France’s left stopped a far-right surge - The Story - Times Radio - Air Date 7-9-24

 This time last Monday. At the time there had [01:25:00] been protests in Paris overnight because the far right had done so well in the first round. Last night, there were celebrations. What a difference a week makes. Just explain how France sort of swerved what looked like a certain far right victory.

Just talk us through, what were the results in the end of round two? Well, let's say the results of round two were completely unexpected. Uh, they were completely unexpected for me. They were completely unexpected for the pollsters. And they were completely unexpected, I think, for most people in France. And that was that we had the first round, the right wing, far right national rally, got by far the largest number of votes.

In that first round, then we came to the second round, and surprise, surprise, the winner, at least in terms of seats in the National Assembly, the lower house of the French Parliament, has been the left. Something called [01:26:00] the New Popular Front, which is a kind of a temporarily put together coalition of the socialists, the communists, the greens, and a far left party called France Unbowed.

They ended up with 182 seats in parliament, with Macron's bloc, President Macron's bloc, actually in second place with 163. And the national rally, who we thought was going to win, who we thought might even get an absolute majority, ended up with just 143. And Peter, I mean, I love how in France you have the communists and then you have the far left.

But as you said, those were the numbers in terms of seats. But in terms of votes themselves, how did the far right do? Well, in terms of votes, the far right actually did rather well. In the first round, they got 33%. In this second round, they actually got 37 percent of the votes. So they got more votes. While the, the vote [01:27:00] for the left bloc, the new popular front, that actually went down.

Because in the first round, they got just over 28%. This time round, they got They got 25. 8. Really quite perverse, but it just shows how the French electoral system, rather like the British electoral system, doesn't always reflect in terms of seats the, the number of votes that have been cast. So in terms of seats they've won in terms of the popular vote.

Actually, the far right did better than in the first round. Will there be a bit of upset about that? Will people be quite annoyed at the electoral system not reflecting that? Well, let's say the national rally itself is very, very annoyed indeed. Jourdan Bardella, the man who was hoping to become prime minister, Marine Le Pen, who's the sort of essentially the boss of the party.

They've both railed against the electoral system, but there's very little they can do about it. That's just the way that the electoral system works. [01:28:00] What have they been saying? What has the reaction been? Well, the mood at what was intended to be the National Rally's victory party on Sunday evening was very, very grim indeed.

They were expecting to have won this election and when the exit polls came through just after 8 o'clock French time, there was a slightly muted reaction.

The National Rally has today achieved the most important breakthrough in its history. Sadly, the alliance of dishonour and the dangerous electoral arrangements made by Emmanuel Macron and Gabriel Attal, with the parties of the far left Deprive tonight the French of the politics of redress that they had overwhelmingly voted for Putting us first in the European election and after the first round of voting last Sunday with roughly 34 percent of votes casted They had expected, I think, so much to win that, you know, they had put a lot of [01:29:00] serious work into drawing up cabinet.

They'd been behind the scenes, they'd been sounding out people, not just from their own party, but from also, sort of, non aligned people, to serve in what they were hoping would be their first government. Wow. And so, you know, they, they were faced ultimately. It was a slightly odd situation because in terms of votes, they had done very, very well and certainly compared with their result in the previous election in 2022, they'd also increased their number of seats quite considerably.

'cause they'd gone up from just 88 to 143, you know, which by any measure would be seen as being. a great result for any party. But compared with expectations, they've done a lot, lot worse than expected. And Marine Le Pen obviously trying to put a positive spin on what happened, saying our [01:30:00] victory has only been delayed because everyone here is looking forward to the 2027 presidential election because it's the president in France who wields, you know, considerable power.

I'm not disappointed. I've got too much experience to be disappointed. I'm looking at the results kindly, coldly. I see that our number of MPs has doubled. Today, the National Rally is the largest group. The largest party in terms of number of MPs.

So for Marine Le Pen, this is, you know, we didn't win tonight, but this prepares the ground for the presidential election and the next parliamentary election, which will come with it. But for their opponents, this just shows that the national rally can be stopped if everyone else gets together and joins forces against them.

Was it also, partly though, because of Le Pen's party itself that they've lost some [01:31:00] of these seats, you know, the additional scrutiny, the sense that perhaps they hadn't? detoxified their brand enough? Yes, it was. I mean, Marine Le Pen's great achievement, I think, has been that since taking over the party from her father just over a decade ago, she has embarked on this policy of what you rightly call detoxification, which is essentially taking a party that was very much on the fringes of French politics, dragging it towards the mainstream, getting rid of Some of the more unsavory far right characters that used to play an important role in the party, including her father himself, whom she sort of rather brutally pushed aside.

And, you know, that policy over the years has proved an enormous success in increasing in election after election, the share of the votes that her party has got. However, in this election, there were problems because, you know, on [01:32:00] the one hand, they fought a very, very disciplined campaign. They fought on increasing the standard of living by cutting taxes on fuel, essentially.

On household bills, on curbing immigration and on taking a tougher line on law and order. However, a number of their policies on immigration just went too far for mainstream French voters, I think. And then secondly, as is often a problem for parties like the National Rally, they had a number of individual candidates with very, very unsavory views, uh, views that came across as sort of overtly racist, completely unacceptable to mainstream opinion.

These were all picked up by The French media, which is relatively hostile to the National Rally, and that again confirmed the [01:33:00] impression that despite the, the sort of the smiling facade that Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella have put on the party, among the ranks of the candidates, there were some people with just very, very extreme far right ideas.

French left defeats far-right in huge election shock - LBC analysed - Air Date 7-8-24

 Marine Le Pen's party came in third place.

Um, she's still got a big block of seats in the National Assembly. So, you know, she's not a fringe phenomenon. But, uh, she's not, she didn't come top, which everyone was pretty much expecting her to do. Instead, we've got the left finger lines at the top, and we've got Macron's centre, which held onto quite a lot of seats and makes him the, his, his group the second biggest.

So that's, that's the look of the National Assembly. What are you most surprised by this morning? Sorry, carry on. Oh, well, I was just going to tell you this morning, we've had the resignation of the prime minister. Now that's a kind of technical event in a way, because he went to the Elysee Palace. He presented his resignation to the president.

The president has asked him to stay on effectively in a kind of care. You know, there's a feeling here that, [01:34:00] um, we are days, if not weeks away from seeing a next government and therefore he's going to be, you know, Occupying that job, but not actually passing any legislation, obviously. Um, what were you most surprised by out of those three results for those three groupings?

Um, I think the order that was what? Struck me and I think a lot of people I mean you should have seen the faces on the Uh of the of marina penn's deputies when they saw the results coming through they were really uh, Taken aback. This was a party. Don't forget that was thought it was about to govern. Um, they thought they'd come top.

They did come top in the first round. France has this two round voting system. And so in the first round, they, they absolutely scooped up first round positions across the country and they were ready. You know, they were talking about who they would nominate as their finance minister, who they put in the foreign ministry.

This was the kind of conversations they were having. And then suddenly they came in that was a shock to them. [01:35:00] Um, a relief to others. And then the left wing alliance doing incredibly well. I mean, I think all it's the order of, of the, of the results that's taken everybody by surprise. Um, important to understand a little more about the French electoral system.

So the second round differs from the first round in that the choice is reduced and even more reduced this time than ever before because of some of the deals that were done before the ballots opened. That's exactly right. So you have this two part, uh, trans system. There's 577 constituencies and it's effectively the second round.

It's a first past the post, but in order to get to the second round, you can be elected actually in the first round. You know, if you get over 50 percent of the vote, Marine Le Pen, she was elected. She got 58 percent up in the north of France. So she was elected outright. A number of people were. But then if you go over, get over a threshold, you go on to the second round.

And what happened there, and what often happens is that you have three qualifiers. But that in between the two rounds, there are kind of [01:36:00] deals, tactical deals done between parties. And in this case, the deals were done between, uh, the centrist, Macron's centrist movement. Alliance. And the point of all of that is to stop the vote being split the anti far right vote being split.

So whoever came third in the qualifier, in other words, was sort of invited stroke, expected stroke, kind of ordered to stand down. And in some cases, that was really complicated. I mean, we, we had a couple of people from government who made it into the second round in their constituencies and Macron actually had to literally, you know, ask them, please, can you now step down?

You're in third place. We've got to let the left wing go through to take on the far right. So you can see how irritating and actually this makes, for the far right, this is. They feel like the choice wasn't really put before the voters, but it was a very effective way of stopping the far right from getting a majority.

So not unlike our [01:37:00] experiences. over here. This is more about rejection than it is about support. I think so. I mean, in a way, I sort of see these two rounds as, as you could almost sum it up as kind of two little referendums. The first referendum was on Macron and people absolutely rejected him. There's no doubt about that.

Uh, the vote vote massively heavily for the far right. But the second one was almost like a little mini referendum on the far right. And this time it was, well, we don't like Macron, we don't like the far right either. And so we've ended up with this hung parliament, which is what it is. With no, no majority, no, no single bloc dominating.

And that's kind of a good reflection of the country. It's a very divided France. Um, how left wing is the left wing grouping? Uh, it depends who you ask. It's an incredibly broad coalition, which goes from the sort of, I suppose the best comparison for the UK would be a kind of Corbynist left that's under this, uh, leader called Jean Luc [01:38:00] Mélenchon, who was once upon a time a Trotskyist and is an absolute kind of radical.

And it goes all the way to the very moderate left, the socialist party. There's a character called Raphael Glucksmann, who is. Honestly, he could be sitting in Macron's party. I mean, he wouldn't like me for saying that, but he could, um, and Greens as well. So it is an incredibly broad church. They disagree on almost everything, everything from sort of NATO to arming Ukraine to, uh, nuclear power.

I mean, it's, it's, it's almost a miracle. Or that they managed to put together this alliance, which they did. And they have, they, and it stuck for the election. But it's because, because they agreed on now they agreed on the importance of keeping lap pen's lot out. That would that be pretty much the only thing that they agreed on it?

Um, yes, but I would say more than that. I would say that they saw this as a chance for them to become a player again. I mean, don't forget that Macron's project over the last seven years in France has pretty much been to crush. the left and crush the right. And [01:39:00] that's been very bruising, especially for a party like the Socialist Party, which was just performed so poorly.

And then suddenly there were they sensed in the, in the, in the, um, after the European elections, which were on June the 9th, they sensed this, this kind of wind in their sails and they really didn't want to let that go. So they saw a chance of them becoming a kind of major player again in, in, in, in French politics.

And, and overrode all the differences between them and they managed to stitch this alliance together very fast. Thank you Sophie. Finally, where does this leave Macron and, and where does it leave his gamble? Because it, it, well, there's a, you could read it as having paid off a bit because the, the, um, far right, the National Rally are not providing the next prime minister, but equally everything looks very messy.

I think that sums it up. I mean, in one respect, he has, he's kept out the far right and that, in that sense, that has paid off. But he [01:40:00] has certainly not emerged stronger as a result of this. He had, the centre hasn't collapsed, but he has lost, um, a lot of deputies, about roughly a hundred deputies. So that's not a good result for him, but his party, his bloc in the centre remains a player in all of this.

And given that no one has a majority, It actually puts them in a position potentially to be the kind of kingmaker, uh, movements, which could determine whether or not there is a majority government in the, in the future. So it depends how you look and how you measure his gamble, but it certainly isn't a disaster that, um, that some people, uh, saw it as being when he first called that snap election.

SECTION B: GREAT BRITAIN

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: Great Britain.

MPs Sworn In To The Commons, Greens & Farage Give First Speeches - Novara Media - Air Date 7-9-24

Last week's election was unusual in a number of ways. One of them is that we have a ton of new MPs. Another is that the opposition now consists of a host. of parties, featuring not just the Lib Dems and the SMP, but four Green MPs and five [01:41:00] from Reform. And of course, it saw Labour win their second largest majority ever, after Keir Starmer's party won 411 seats.

Today saw that latest set of MPs arrive in the Commons to select the Speaker of the House, Lindsay Hoyle. After his selection, party leaders were invited to speak. And first up, Mr Speaker elect, you preside over a new parliament, the most diverse parliament by race and gender this country has ever seen.

And I'm proud of the part that my party has played in that, and proud of the part that every party has played in that, including in this intake, the largest cohort of LGBT plus MPs of any parliament in the world. I want to go over to you on this actually very quickly in a moment, Helena, but I, I find this, I find this stuff strange.

Um, because frankly, and as I said, as somebody who's Afro Iranian, I care about [01:42:00] the background of these people economically, I care about the kinds of jobs they come from. If you say we have a very diverse parliament, but they all come from consulting, they all come from lobbying. Uh, Helena, quickly, am I being unfair?

I think I actually do disagree with you here a little bit, Aaron. I think that broadly having any amount of representation is good, especially when you have a diverse country. Making sure that there is some level of representation is good for social cohesion, I believe, rather than having kind of a single entity only represented, or a single demographic only represented in Parliament.

Regardless, like, When Rishi Sunak became prime minister, my thought was, I mean, it's good that we finally have, you know, an ethnic minority prime minister. I think that's a good thing. It's just a shame that it had to come from the Conservative Party. But of course, that is second, as you say, to the policy and to the ideology behind what they do in government.

But I think that you don't necessarily have to separate those two things out. You can definitely, certainly care more about the latter, but still pay attention to the former. Yeah, I think I was probably being a bit hyperbolic. I obviously do [01:43:00] care, but I just think it's entirely secondary. And on the point of LGBT MPs, you know, I find it concerning when you have anti trans rhetoric policy, and yet people talk about this stuff, and it's You know, again, that's a very large community.

It's not a monolithic community. Anyway, we'll talk about that more later. We'll talk about that for many years to come, I'm sure. Stalmer went on to address one Labour MP in particular. Given all that diversity, Mr Speaker elect, I hope you will not begrudge me for a slight departure from convention. To also pay tribute to the new mother of the house, Diane Abbott.

Who has done so much in her career over so many years to fight for a parliament that truly represents modern Britain. We welcome her back to her place. We welcome her back. No, Keir, you tried to block her from standing again. Fess up! Uh, anyway, he had egg on his face then and he's obviously changed hack now.

Here's how Keir Starmer finished up. [01:44:00] And now, as in any new parliament, we have the opportunity and the responsibility. To put an end to a politics that has too often seemed self serving and self obsessed. And to replace that politics of performance with the politics of service. Because service is a precondition.

for hope and trust. And the need to restore trust should weigh heavily on every member here, new and returning alike. We all have a duty to show that politics can be a force for good. So whatever our political differences, it's now time to turn the page. Unite in a common endeavour of national renewal.

and make this new parliament a parliament of service. Thank you. Powerful message, the idea that politics should serve the people and not the political class. I suppose the question is, is that borne out in [01:45:00] Keir Starmer's actions? Is he for the people or for a small clique of people around him in London?

Helena, what do you think? I think I'm going to echo a sentiment you probably heard quite a lot recently, which is that Keir Starmer looks a lot more comfortable now that he's prime minister. He's certainly not a campaigner. He certainly, as he continues to tell us, was the Director of Public Prosecutions.

And we know that that was a role that he definitely felt a lot more comfortable in, in a role where he's not having to, he's being, you know, there was a brief that he's already got there rather than having to continue to campaign and try and attack people. He was very kind of nervy in the dispatch box when he was the leader of opposition at PMQs.

A couple of bits of hypocrisy though, as you touched on, first of all, like the absolute lies that he told about Diane Abbott and the, desire of the people that he'd subcontracted out within the Labour Party to try and do the selection of MPs, to try and oust her, and then praising her the first thing during his speech in the Commons, and on top of that, coming [01:46:00] off of the back of his statement about wanting to their, to restore trust in politics, to restore trust in politics, when he's then just blatantly going against what he said previously, on top of all of the other lies that he's told up to this point, and what was, as has been described by many people, a very, very dishonest election campaign, and also even, not just from, from Keir Starmer or the Labour Party, from lots of different sectors of our political class, continues to be very dishonest on loads of different occasions, but especially Gaul incoming from Keir Starmer himself.

As Labour Wins in U.K., Ex-Leader Jeremy Corbyn Wins as Independent in Revolt over Gaza Policy - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-8-24

JEREMY CORBYN: Labour has clearly got a very large parliamentary majority and mandate from this election. There’s no question about that. There are over 400 Labour MPs. However, if you dig into the results, you find some quite interesting differences in this. The actual Labour vote nationally was less in this election than it was in 2019, and much less than it was in 2017. [01:47:00] What’s happened in this election is the Conservative vote has collapsed, and much of that vote has gone to Nigel Farage and his far-right Reform party. They got over 4 million votes, even though I’m not sure they even contested every single constituency. And so, whilst Labour has this huge parliamentary majority, their national share of the vote was only around a third of all votes cast. It’s a very low mandate for a government to govern. And in fact, I think it’s the lowest mandate any government has ever had in Britain. So they need to be cautious about that.

The Labour vote went down in many constituencies, particularly in our urban areas, largely because of the stance on Palestine and Gaza, but also because they don’t think the Labour economic offer really meets the needs of the time. So, there are some huge issues going on here.

On my own case, I, as you know, was leader of the Labour Party until 2020, and [01:48:00] I was denied entry to the parliamentary caucus of the Labour Party after an inquiry in later that year. And so I’ve been an independent MP, but a member of the Labour Party, ever since that time. The party then announced that I was not eligible to even apply to be the Labour candidate for Islington North. Many of my constituents were very angry about this and lobbied me to put my name forward as an independent, and say, “You cannot take this. We cannot take this. Please stand as an independent.” So I did.

And from nothing five weeks ago, we built an enormous campaign and won with 49.4% of the vote, not quite 50%, but almost there. And we had hundreds of volunteers come in from local communities, but all over the country. And we won the election on the principal positions of a [01:49:00] ceasefire in Gaza and recognition of Palestine, on an economic strategy of redistribution of wealth and power by reducing taxation of the poorest, increasing taxation for the richest, and an absolute commitment to a Green New Deal and environmental policies, but particularly housing and stress issues in my constituency. So, we’re very proud that our constituency voted differently and gave me that mandate.

I’m joined now in Parliament by four other independents who were elected in different parts of the country. And we will be holding the government to account. I’ll be speaking out for local issues, but, crucially, we’re going to be establishing a local forum in which I will report every month on what I’ve been doing, but also all the local community campaign organizations will also be taking part. So, it’s a different form of politics. And I’ve now been elected 11 times from my constituency, and we’re very proud of the result we [01:50:00] achieved.

AMY GOODMAN: So, in one of your first acts after your reelection, Jeremy Corbyn, you were out in the streets with tens of thousands of others. I’m wondering your response to the conversation that apparently the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had with Prime Minister Starmer, who reportedly said an urgent need for a Gaza ceasefire but also vowed the U.K. would continue its, quote, “vital cooperation with Israel.”

JEREMY CORBYN: Well, it sounds to me like there’s a contradiction in that conversation. Either you have a ceasefire or you don’t. And if you have a ceasefire, that means an end, surely, to the supply of arms to Israel, because we are complicit, as is the U.S.A., in the supply of weapons to Israel which have been used to bomb Gaza.

Forty thousand people have died in Gaza. Probably half of those are children. And the bombing has restarted again this [01:51:00] morning. And many more are dying from hunger, malnutrition, dying from wholly preventable conditions like diarrhea and dehydration. And so, it is an absolutely urgent need.

And if the new government and the new foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the prime minister, Keir Starmer, really want to bring about a ceasefire, then they’ve got to say to Israel, “We will no longer occasion and supply you with weapons to bomb Gaza, and this ceasefire must be accompanied by withdrawal of Israeli forces both from Gaza and from the West Bank.” Otherwise, what’s going to happen? Is Israel going to start bombing again? Are those troops going to start moving tanks around in Gaza again?

This is a desperate humanitarian crisis brought about by the bombardment by Israel. And I’m not alone in saying this. I’ve had calls from people in Israel, even members of the Knesset — Ofer Cassif, for example — saying they [01:52:00] absolutely agree with everything that we said at our rally outside Parliament on Saturday afternoon. The issue of Gaza has had a massive effect on the general election in Britain, and it’s not going to go away.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, let me ask you about Starmer saying that the Rwanda deportation policy is buried and dead?

 

JEREMY CORBYN: I’m very pleased that the Rwanda policy is finished. It was always a horrible idea of, essentially, outsourcing our human rights responsibilities to refugees by deporting not all, but some of them, to Rwanda — very expensive deal in which the Rwanda government was given over 200 million pounds to facilitate this. I’m pleased that is over.

But — and this is a big “but” — the language used by some of the Labour front-bench leaders in the election about desperate people crossing the Channel to try and find a place of safety [01:53:00] in Britain and about the issue of refugees in general was very, very unfortunate and very bad. We are in the midst of a global refugee crisis. Surely, the responsibility of the wealthiest countries in the world is to do two things: look at the causes of why people seek refuge, and, secondly, treat them as human beings, not as enemies or unwelcome arrivals. And the language that was used by the far right in France and other places and by Farage in this country is horrible and divisive and dangerous.

But I’m very pleased that the elections in France yesterday at least rejected the Le Pen far right. It doesn’t necessarily mean all of the migration policies in France are going to change overnight, but I think it’s a very important sign that when the left comes together, as it did through the alliance that was formed very rapidly in order to fight the second round of the French elections, they can both offer hope [01:54:00] to working-class communities that have seen their living standards fall — in this case, in this country, by 20% in the past decade or so — and also stand up for human rights and the needs and rights of refugees.

The refugees come from countries where there’s been war. They come from Afghanistan, from Iraq. They come from Syria. They come from Libya. They come from places that have been subject to war and bombardment. And so, we need to wake up. Are we going to allow this decade to go on with wars in Ukraine, in Sudan, in Congo, in — obviously in Gaza, or are we going to be serious about bringing peace? And I would hope that there’s going to be pressure on the NATO summit next week to bring peace rather than more weapons and more war.

SECTION C: MEXICO

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section C: Mexico.

What Claudia Sheinbaum's historic election win means for U.S.-Mexico relations - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 6-3-4

Geoff Bennett: So how do you view the significance of this moment, Mexico electing its first female president?

Pamela Starr: I think it's enormously significant, especially for young [01:55:00] women who are of Mexican heritage or living in Mexico.

It's extraordinarily important to see someone in a position of importance that is the same gender of you. But at the same time, I don't suspect that Claudia Sheinbaum will be a feminist president, although she does self-identify as a feminist.

She's a traditional leftist. And by that, I mean, she focuses on lifting up all of those who are in this lower socioeconomic strata and not focusing on individual minorities in society, or, in this case, women, who are the largest majority in Mexico, the largest segment of the population.

I do, however, think she's going to put a little more attention into violence against women, which Lopez Obrador didn't, the former president didn't give much attention to, and potentially to things like day care and such.

Geoff Bennett: Well, as we said, she won with a sweeping mandate, more than 58 percent of the vote. Why was she so successful? What was it about her, her background, her overall approach that seemed to resonate with the Mexican [01:56:00] voting public?

Pamela Starr: More than her, it's what she stands for.

She was chosen by Lopez Obrador, handpicked to be his successor. The campaign was run as a continuation of Lopez Obrador's presidency. As she said, she's going to build the second level on the transformation of Mexico that Lopez Obrador initiated. So it wasn't so much a vote for Claudia Sheinbaum as a vote for continuity in Mexican politics.

Geoff Bennett: Let's return to the issue of violence, because these elections in Mexico have been historic for another reason. They have been the most violent. In the run-up to the elections, more than 30 candidates were assassinated. Mexico has one of the highest homicide rates in the world.

What is she aiming to do to address it?

Pamela Starr: Her overall proposal is try to adapt the strategies she implemented in Mexico City, which did significantly reduce crime and violence in the city, to a national situation.

In Mexico City, she increased the wages and [01:57:00] working conditions for the police. She used greater intelligence in police activities, and she more very carefully collaborated or guaranteed collaboration between law enforcement and the attorney general's office. She will try to do something similar at the federal level.

That said, she's not going to return to civilian policing with regard to federal criminal problems, like organized crime. She's going to rely on the militarized National Guard, although she is going to try to expand its size, increase working conditions and wages, and increase their use of intelligence and collaboration with the attorney general's office.

Geoff Bennett: What about immigration, which is a major issue in this election? How does she plan to coordinate with the U.S., and has she articulated a plan for how to deal with the migrants who make their way through Mexico toward the U.S.?

Pamela Starr: She didn't talk about — much about foreign policy in the campaign.

Indeed, there was a debate segment that was focused on foreign policy, [01:58:00] and really none of the candidates spoke a great deal about foreign policy.

In terms of migration, I suspect she will continue Lopez Obrador's strategy of trying to cooperate with the United States while protecting Mexican sovereignty, knowing that cooperating with the United States generates the goodwill of the U.S. administration, and gives Mexico more freedom of action areas of greater importance to Mexico like domestic politics.

Why Mexico Is Militarizing - Bloomberg Originals - Air Date 5-31-24

The Mexican military is composed of three key forces. The Army, the Navy, and the National Guard, founded by AMLO in 2019. The National Guard is a force that President López Obrador created to replace the Federal Police, which he considered too corrupt to function. The gutting of the Federal Police was initially welcomed by some.

When we set up the National Guard in 2019, we came to an agreement. The National Guard is a civil body. But then in 2022, President López Obrador [01:59:00] moved it to the Defense Ministry, essentially making it a military institution. In 2023, the Mexican Supreme Court declared the move unconstitutional and said that it should be reversed.

But in practice, the National Guard still responds to the Defense Ministry. By transferring them, these new functions that belong to civilian authorities were actively violating the Constitution and the Constitution. And we're actively undermining the rule of law. López Obrador views the military as the most trustworthy, least corrupt, and most efficient institution to carry out the large infrastructure works that he views as his legacy. Some data does reflect popular opinion of the military to be good. About 71 percent of Mexicans Say they trust the army and the navy. That's more than the government or the police.

Lopez Obrador is kind of pragmatic leader. He don't like no as an answer. And the soldier is being trained to answer, Yes, sir. That is the kind of answer he's [02:00:00] looking for. What we're having is something that we didn't have in the past. Now we have, uh, business, military elite in Mexico. Since Lopez Obrador came to power in 2018, the combined budgets of the armed forces grew by 150%.

Compared to the federal police that AMLO disbanded, the National Guard has almost tripled the membership, yet it's detaining fewer people and seizing less drugs and weapons. We thought the National Guard will fight federal crimes, narco traffic, organized crime, kidnapping. The rates and the effectivity of the National Guard is so low.

We are talking about 50, 000 disappearances during the López Alvarado administration. Considering the modern history in Mexico, those are the worst numbers. We used to have a kind of state relationship between the armed forces and the government. Now what we are having is a political relationship, which is [02:01:00] really dangerous for our democracy.

The armed forces are, by definition, armed corporations that can use the legitimate violence of the state against any enemy that they define. And having them performing these many functions increases the risks of human rights violations, arbitrary detentions, 

president Lopez in a very smart move changed the constitution to force the next president to actually keep on using the armed forces and the military on public security matters until 2028, and that's gonna be very difficult to reverse. Mexico's next president will have to reckon with what López Obrador created, a richer, mightier, and larger military that's more deeply ingrained in private business and government than it's ever been.

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 [02:02:00] 202-999-3991, or simply email me to [email protected]. 

The additional sections of the show included clips from Democracy Now!, Owen Jones, Times Radio, LBC Analyzed, Novara Media, The PBS News Hour, and Bloomberg Originals. 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 Andrew for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift and memberships. You can join them by signing up today and get 20% off your membership at BestOfTheLeft.com/support or through our Patreon page. 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 [02:03:00] 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. 

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.

Air Date 7/12/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. From solar scams to controversial congestion pricing and the smart grid that's needed to connect it all, we look at the messy and difficult path to a low carbon future. Sources providing our top takes in under an hour today include Today, Explained, The Energy Gang, DW Planet A, VOX, 99% Invisible, Democracy Now!, and The Brian Lehrer Show. Then, in the additional deeper dive half of the show, there'll be more on energy policies, the intentional solar scam, and public transportation. 

Now, just a quick note, like so many others I've been glued to the ebbs and flows of the fate of the Joe Biden candidacy. And even though that's not what we're here to cover in depth today, I did have some additional thoughts. Maybe even just for the sake of commiseration, I'll say that I have gone from actually quite hopeful, from the day right after the debate, now to like legitimate feelings of depression. [00:01:00] Like millions of others, I thought the debate was so bad that it was incredibly likely that Biden would bow out of the race, which made me hopeful at a time when most were still wallowing in despair. But the last week of news about Biden's reaction to the outcry been so blind to reality and the arguments being used by the Biden camp being so flimsy and pathetic, I now fear that he really will allow his ego to bring down his party and the country along with his doomed candidacy. So that's where I am right now, but I do have some more thoughts to share, including a small amount of hope that I'm still hanging on to. But I'll save all that for the editor's note in the middle of the show.

When solar power leaves you feeling burned - Today, Explained - Air Date 1-2-24

ALANA SEMUALS: My name is Alana Samuels and I'm a senior economics correspondent at Time. My husband and I bought a house in Beacon, New York, and moved in in July. We were told that there was a lease solar system on the roof, which we were excited about. And we had called the company beforehand, [00:02:00] and they told us, here's how you find out how much the panels were producing. We logged on to the site, it said they were producing a decent amount. And then we got a high energy bill. And it didn't seem quite right to me since we had solar panels on the roof. So I called the solar panel company, which did not respond. I called them again and the person on the other line told me that they had actually been disconnected some time ago and were not even hooked up.

So it was a solar lease, which is something that was really popular in the last 10 years. 

BARRACK OBAMA: Over the past few years, the cost of solar panels have fallen by 60%. Solar installations have increased by 500%. Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar. 

ALANA SEMUALS: It was basically the people had agreed to lease these solar panels for 20 years. And they had only done this eight years ago or so. So, when they sold us the house, [00:03:00] they said, Hey, can you take over this lease? We looked at it and said, Eh, this doesn't look like the greatest deal. How about we split it? So, we each paid about $6,000 to split the remaining cost of the lease. And the reason we did that is so that the company that owned the panels could keep maintaining them and make sure everything was fine. We just didn't really want to have to deal with that. 

The company that sold it to the previous homeowner went out of business. And this is pretty common, that the company that sold the solar panels initially goes out of business. 

NEWS CLIP: A solar company has gone bankrupt, leaving some customers here in West Michigan with systems that don't work.

The solar panels are on the roof, but they aren't producing any energy at this home in Compton.

Thomas Yagi of Kailua said he noticed one of his panels was not working, but the company he used is no longer in business.

This system cost about $82,000, and right now it's not producing any usable energy.

ALANA SEMUALS: Our lease had been taken over by this company called Spruce Power, and it's [00:04:00] actually the largest privately-held owner and operator of residential solar in America, basically buying up all these leases across the country and collecting money from people and supposedly maintaining the panels.

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: But yours were not maintained. 

ALANA SEMUALS: They were not maintained. It's still a little unclear what happened. They say that the previous owners had stopped paying the bills, and so they disconnected them. But they also sent a third party repair technician to come, and he said he thought it was that squirrels had chewed on our wires.

So something happened that made the panels not work anymore. I'm still a little unclear on what it was. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: You write that one of the problems here was that the company that originally leased the panels to the other homeowner had gone out of business. How big of an issue is that? 

ALANA SEMUALS: A lot of installers have either gone out of business or just dabbled in installing for a little bit and then decided to do [00:05:00] something else.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I didn't know people would do you like this. 

ALANA SEMUALS: There was one study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that estimated that about 8,700 different companies installed at least one residential solar system between 2000 and 2016, and only about 2,900 were still active by 2016, and that number is probably even a little bit smaller now.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I don't expect it's fair for me to pay a company that didn't finish the job. 

ALANA SEMUALS: So you had thousands, literally thousands of companies that did this, maybe on one roof, maybe on a hundred roofs, and then stopped doing it, or went out of business. 

There's the cost of the financial pieces of it, but then just the stress of all the rest of it, too.

It's been a lot. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Eventually, I would imagine Spruce Power fixed your solar panels? You had, in fact, paid for them, right? So you've given them the money. What are they giving you? 

ALANA SEMUALS: Right. We've given them the money for the next 12 years, [00:06:00] supposedly. They basically ignored me at first until I said I was a reporter.

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Ha! Nice trick. 

ALANA SEMUALS: Yeah. I wish everyone could use that trick. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: After letting Spruce know he was talking with the I Team, Phelps says a crew came out and fixed his blacked out panel. 

ALANA SEMUALS: Then they sent the repair company. The repair guy came, climbed up on the roof, said, I can't fix everything, I'm gonna have to come back.

Then another guy, repair guy, came back at 6 in the morning and still couldn't fix it. So, most of them are working now, and Spruce gave me some money back for the months that they didn't work. To my knowledge, they have not given any money back to the previous homeowner. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: So what you and your husband experienced in Beacon was terrible. Let's pull back from the terrible to talk about how common this is in the United States broadly. How many people in the US have these rooftop solar panels on their homes? 

ALANA SEMUALS: So around 4 million US homes have rooftop solar, that's up from about 300,000 a decade ago.

[00:07:00] So I started looking up some of these solar companies, including Spruce, and was really surprised to find that a lot of them have Fs from the Better Business Bureau. 

NEWS CLIP: Harness Power has a slew of negative reviews on Yelp, after customers claimed they were left with inoperable solar systems. This review says they took my down payment seven days before they closed their doors.

ALANA SEMUALS: And if you go online, you find these threads on Reddit and these groups on Facebook of people who are just really upset about their experience having solar panels installed on their roof. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: And one common thread, the inability to get in touch with Spruce. The complaints say things like "awful to work with," "cannot get a live body on the phone."

And since the Spruce company took over, it has been a nightmare. 

ALANA SEMUALS: Lots of different companies, lots of people from all over the country, and I was just really shocked at how many people were having this problem, and some of the stories were just even worse than mine. The [00:08:00] FTC has this database where you can complain about what you think is fraud or, you know, shady business, and there were more than 5000 complaints containing the words "solar panels" submitted on report fraud at FTC.gov in just the first nine or so months of 2023. And that's up 31 percent from 2022, and 746 percent since 2018. And that's just people who complained to the government. There are people that maybe did not go through that step, but are still having problems.

How can we develop new energy technologies and get them deployed at scale - The Energy Gang - Air Date 3-5-24

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: And in this first section of the show, what I want to do is talk a bit about policy and to think about different types of approach to energy policy and climate policy and to think about the Inflation Reduction Act and so on. But just before we get into any of those practical details, if you were to summarise your views on what the evidence shows about how best to support innovation, how you can drive innovation and get [00:09:00] deployment of new technologies, particularly, I guess, in an area like energy, where it is so important to accelerate the deployment of a whole raft of new technologies, what does the evidence tell you? 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: I think this is really the key question, right? We have limited time. There's always constraints on our financial resources for addressing the challenge of climate change. And so it's really important to put our time and our efforts and our financial resources into promising solutions. But then you're always dealing with uncertainty, you know, which technologies are going to take off, which ones are going to be beneficial. There's always downsides to any technology. Can we anticipate those? Can we limit those? So, those are all the kinds of questions that we try to work on in this research area and that I'm particularly interested in.

I mean, I guess one relevant insight, if we think about the role of policy, let's say, in encouraging innovation and clean energy technologies, you know, what is [00:10:00] that role and what's worked in the past? How did we get to where we are today with cheaper, high performing solar energy, wind energy, batteries? You know, how did energy efficiency improve and so forth? So, what have we learned about what worked there? We know that policies around the world were rather piecemeal. There wasn't as much global coordination as we might've liked, but nonetheless, there's been substantial technology innovation. So, we looked at this and kind of developed a methodology—I won't go into too many details, but—for looking at, you know, what really worked and what can we learn for the future? And so we started with looking at the level of the devices, the physics, how did they improve? And then from there we can actually learn about what we call higher level mechanisms that drove these improvements. 

Now, we know that a lot of this started with policy because there was no incentive for the private sector to invest on its own, aside from some companies [00:11:00] that felt this was important decades ago to start developing these clean energy solutions. But on the whole, there wasn't enough incentive for this market to really get going. So, policy was critical there, and one of the important things we have learned from this research is that both government funding for research and development and government policies that stimulated market growth were very important, because they drove different kinds of innovation.

So, they were complementary to one another, and this goes back to a long standing debate about whether government should be stimulating markets or should it focus entirely on research and development funding, but when you start with that engineering level, you see that both kinds of policies really play an important role, in that market expansion policies kick-started a lot of private sector competition and innovation. So, it wasn't really policy or the private sector, there was actually this really [00:12:00] interesting effect of policies jumpstarting a lot of innovation that led to improvement. 

MELISSA LOTT: Can I say one thing that I've learned about innovation here in the last couple of decades of doing this? Putting it out there, so you all disagree with me if you see it differently. The tech is cool. You have to get the ecosystem right. The ecosystem, I'm talking about policy, regulations, education, like, there's so many components. I'm an engineer, first love right there. I do policy as well and I have degrees in that. But, the tech is cool. You got to get that ecosystem. Agree, disagree, shades of color on that statement. What do you guys think? 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: I definitely agree, Melissa. I think we can spend all of our time working in the lab, developing cool technologies, but what do people want? What do consumers value? What is going to take off and be adopted and so forth. I think that's really important and that's really where that bridge to the private sector is key.

Government-funded research can also support those kinds of analyses to really anticipate what technologies are going to be desirable to people, but bringing in the private sector [00:13:00] is critical. And, you know, what we've seen from what's worked is really that policies that stimulated that interest in the private sector were very important.

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: And is it the case also that different types of policy are appropriate for different stages in the life cycle of a technology? So, if I think about photovoltaic solar, for example, so that starts in the 50s, I guess, when they're putting solar panels on satellites, and then it's, whatever it is, $10,000 per watt. And it comes down and down and down, and it gets to, I don't know, $100 a watt or $10 a watt, whatever it was, I mean obviously, where are we now, then 20 cents a watt or something like that if you get a low cost Chinese panel. But the subsidies and support for innovation and R&D and so on are a good idea for getting from $10,000 a watt down to $1,000 a watt. If you want to go from $1,000 to 20 cents, that's when—and it certainly was the case with solar—things that made a huge difference were Europe putting in place all of these feed-in tariffs, [00:14:00] creating this very generous subsidy regime for solar power. And then also having basically open markets and the Chinese industry responding massively, having a huge increase in capacity and just working really aggressively to drive costs down to take advantage of that market, which was opening up first in Europe in the 2010s and then increasingly around the world as well. Have I just described the story of kind of solar development and solar innovation accurately, or was there more to it than that? 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a good overview. We see that market growth was pretty steady from the early days, you know, the 70s, 80s. So, you actually saw at the global level, roughly exponential growth going way back. So, that early market growth was really important, too. And you had Japan with important policies that started these markets. And then you had Germany taking over, as you said, with the feed-in tariffs. China. The US also played a really important role in funding research and development throughout this period.

So, [00:15:00] I agree with you that these different policies are important at different points along the development trajectory of these technologies. We do, though, see that it's beneficial to have continued investment in research and development along the way, some from government. I mean, that depends on the different technologies and the mechanisms that are important, which, by the way, we can analyze and try to anticipate, but you do see generally that R&D both from government funding and private sector investment is important along the way. But economies of scale really started to dominate the cost decline in solar in the last couple of decades. Overall, though, research and development was really important and, you know, that continued investment in research and development was important. 

So, I think the traditional picture of innovation and what's driving it has all of the important components. The interesting thing we see when we look at the details of these [00:16:00] technologies is that you see some more research and development-driven changes really being important all the way along the trajectory.

This is what's REALLY holding back wind and solar - DW Planet A - Air Date 6-2-23

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: The 15th of January, 2023, was a strange day for Germany. It was windy in the north--so windy that the thousands of wind turbines studded across land and sea were spinning at full force. At times, there was almost enough wind energy to power the entire country. Well, theoretically, because practically it couldn't get to where it was needed.

Eventually, the wind turbines had to be slowed down, meaning cheap and clean electricity got wasted. 

In the south, meanwhile, people were urged to save energy. Neighboring countries were asked for backup capacity, and dirty coal power plants fired up. 

So while one half of the country was drowning in electricity, the other was taking precautions not to run out of it.

What happened here highlights probably the most overlooked challenge [00:17:00] of shifting to renewable energy--not just in Germany, but everywhere. Building wind parks and solar farms is one thing. Another is to get electricity to where it's needed, when it's needed. So, what exactly needs to happen? And why?

When's the last time you plugged in your phone and it didn't charge? Well, depending on where you live, this might have never happened. 

KELLY SANDERS: And we kind of take it for granted that most of the time, electricity is coming out and your device works. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: This is Kelly Sanders. She's an engineer who researches how energy systems evolve.

KELLY SANDERS: But what's going on behind the scenes is actually quite complex. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: The electricity you use is only generated as you use it. And to get to you, it travels through an intricate network of wires, cables, and transformers called the grid. 

The grid is made up of the generators that create the electricity, like gas or nuclear power plants or wind turbines. The transmission lines that carry it [00:18:00] to so-called substations, which transform it to a lower voltage. And the distribution lines that finally deliver to homes and businesses.

All this needs to be in perfect balance at all times. The supply or generation must exactly match the demand or load. If there's too much power, there can be a surge that damages infrastructure. If there's too little, there can be a blackout. To make sure this doesn't happen, there's a grid operator. 

KELLY SANDERS: You can think about that as the conductor of all the power plants and all of the loads, making everything come together very seamlessly. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: And this has become a lot harder recently, because to stay in the metaphor, some new musicians have joined the orchestra.

KELLY SANDERS: So, solar panels and wind turbines, they kind of have a mind of their own. So we can't quite control them as well as we can these dispatchable generators that we've had in the past. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: Dispatchable means electricity sources we have available pretty much on demand, [00:19:00] like coal or gas power plants. 

KELLY SANDERS: You turn them up and turn them down according to how you want them to operate. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: Solar and wind are the opposite of this, non-dispatchable. We need the sun to shine and the wind to blow for them to work. And this flakiness has changed the way our grids are managed. 

TIM MEYERJURGENS: I wouldn't say it's so much a problem, but it's a different challenge that we have compared to the years, 20, 30 years back.

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: This is Tim Meyer Jürgens, the COO of one of Germany's four grid operators. In Germany, more than 40 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources. It's supposed to reach 80 percent by 2030. So, what challenges does a high share of wind and solar throw up? Well, for one, they make you depend on the weather.

TIM MEYERJURGENS: It's more difficult to exactly forecast what we can expect the next day. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: We have fortunately gotten a lot better at this, but even the best forecast can't change the weather. [00:20:00] The German word Dunkelflaute, dark doldrums, describes times when there's little sun and little wind--a grid operator's nightmare.

And even on days with plenty of both, they might not be there exactly when they're needed. Look at this graph charting solar energy supply throughout a typical summer's day in California. During the day, when the sun is up, it covers a good share of total demand; that's the blue line. But towards the evening, as the sun starts setting, it quickly plummets, widening the gap between supply and demand.

KELLY SANDERS: Somebody has to be waiting in the wings from a generation resource to turn on really, really quickly. And so that, unfortunately, here in California, becomes natural gas. So you have these little combustion turbines that are really, really dirty. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: And then, remember that story from Germany, when the North had to throw away electricity while the South was running short?

TIM MEYERJURGENS: The renewable energies, if you like, look at Germany, for example. are not always there where [00:21:00] you have to load. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: Germany produces most of its wind energy in the north, most of its solar energy in the south. There's currently no way to get large amounts of wind energy down south, where there's a lot of demand from industry, or much solar energy up north for that matter.

It's a similar story in the US. Most wind energy is generated in the middle of the country, but more than two-thirds of the population live here, within 100 miles of the border. So that's where the demand is. Consequently, wind and solar are causing grid operators a whole lot of headaches. But what if they aren't the problem, but the grids?

PATRICIA HIDALGO-GONZALEZ: For the last 100 years, we have been expanding and designing our grid as a centralized exercise. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: This is Patricia Hidalgo Gonzalez. She researches how to best build more renewables into our energy system. Historically, we've put power stations close to our cities and brought fuels like coal or gas, or later, uranium, to them. The electricity usually didn't have to [00:22:00] travel far. 

Solar and wind, on the other hand, have to be put where they're fuel, so sunshine and wind is most abundant. And utility companies aren't the only ones generating power. 

PATRICIA HIDALGO-GONZALEZ: Of course, we have the infrastructure of this centralized grid and we'll continue having it because it's cost effective to have this type of system.

But now we also see that there's a lot of distributed energy resources. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: People are putting solar panels on their roofs, for example. Traditional consumers are turning into generators of electricity. Things have changed since the old days, but our grids haven't. They don't fit the energy system we're trying to build.

And that leaves us with basically two options. One, we forget about all those renewables mumbo-jumbo, and just stick with good old fashioned coal and gas--which would be an interesting choice, given we're in the middle of a climate crisis. Or, option number two, we make our grids more flexible.

How to fix clean energy’s storage problem - VOX - Air Date 4-27-23

REPORTER, VOX: This is the typical demand for electricity on a spring day in California. It starts growing around [00:23:00] 6am, then rises again around 6pm. Now, this line shows when wind power feeds the California power grid. Wind is variable, but often picks up at night. Solar panels, on the other hand, kick into gear around 7am, generating a lot of electricity until the sun sets around 7pm. On most days, neither comes close to meeting the peak demands of the day. So, the power company relies on fossil fuels, like natural gas, to make up for the gap, which widens significantly when people use electricity the most. Since the power company can't store the solar and wind energy it has to use fossil fuels at these times, which can be stored in barrels and tanks.

NEEL DHANESHA: It's kind of the big gap in our renewable energy system right now. If we don't figure out a way to store renewable energy, there's a chance that we're going to be still dependent on fossil fuels. 

REPORTER, VOX: So how do we store some of this solar and wind energy for later? Right now you might be thinking, "Just use a battery."

And you're not wrong. Batteries have improved immensely over the past few years, [00:24:00] particularly lithium ion batteries, which use a chemical reaction to store energy. Individual homes that have solar panels often use lithium ion batteries to store energy. 

NEEL DHANESHA: But there's a few reasons lithium ion isn't perfect for the grid.

REPORTER, VOX: This is Neel Dhanesha, a founding writer at Heatmap, a climate news site, and he wrote about this for Vox in 2022. 

NEEL DHANESHA: One is just the scale that's needed. We would need a lot at a level that we just don't really have right now. 

REPORTER, VOX: That's a challenge because lithium is only found in a few places on earth. 

NEEL DHANESHA: But more importantly, like we need lithium ion batteries for other things. Lithium ion battery is really good for stuff that moves because it's relatively light. 

REPORTER, VOX: Meaning it's better suited for things like electric cars and portable electronics, not power grids that stay still. Luckily, there's another energy storage solution that's actually been around for a long time.

CLIP: This is the site for the first pumped storage hydroelectric station in Southern Ireland. 

REPORTER, VOX: This is a type of energy storage called "pumped storage hydro." They were first built in Europe. The US built one in [00:25:00] 1929. And many more were built in the 1970s and 80s as a way to store nuclear power. Today, these facilities are all over the world.

There are 39 of them in the US and they store energy in a really fascinating yet simple way. When energy demand is low renewable or fossil fuel energy is used to pump water from a reservoir or river up a mountain into a higher reservoir, basically converting this energy into what's called potential energy.

NEEL DHANESHA: So potential energy, you might remember from high school physics. When a thing is up at a height, it has stored potential energy. When it's let go, it turns into kinetic energy. 

REPORTER, VOX: When that energy is needed, the water is released down the mountain, where it's converted into kinetic energy that spins a turbine and generates electricity for the grid.

It's a way of combining water, a mountain, and gravity into a battery, and it can be about 90 percent efficient, meaning only 10 percent of this energy is lost in the process. Pump storage hydro works really well, but it's difficult to build more. 

NEEL DHANESHA: Uh, well, for starters, you need a mountain, uh, and you need to hollow [00:26:00] out a mountain to put pumps inside it, and it takes a lot of money, and we don't have mountains everywhere.

REPORTER, VOX: So the ideal way to store renewable energy would be something that's cheaper and smaller than a pump storage hydro plant, but works in roughly the same way. One company, Energy Vault, is also using gravity to store renewable energy, but without the water or mountain. Instead, renewable energy is used to lift heavy blocks of concrete up into the air where it becomes potential energy. Then, when it's needed, the blocks are released, spitting a turbine which converts the potential energy back into electricity. Energy Vault calls this "gravity energy storage." And while it's still being tested, the company claims it could be more than 80 percent efficient.

A company called Quidnet is working on a different version of the same principle. Their geomechanical pump storage unit uses renewable energy to pump water underground into a pressurized hole, where it can be stored as potential energy, then released back up to the surface to spin a turbine [00:27:00] and generate electricity.

Both techniques are betting on potential energy as a solution for storing renewable energy for the grid. 

NEEL DHANESHA: I think this partly because potential energy has shown itself to be pretty efficient. Also, realistically, fewer moving parts. If all you're doing basically is using gravity to work with you, you have a pretty massive force of nature on your side right there.

REPORTER, VOX: But potential energy isn't the only possible solution. Other companies are using renewable energy to superheat salt, insulating it, then releasing that heat to create steam or hot air to drive a turbine, basically storing renewables by converting them to thermal energy. Then there's a company that's betting on…rusted iron?

NEEL DHANESHA: They're called "iron air batteries" and what they do is they utilize the chemical reaction that creates rust to store and discharge energy. This thing that we all think of as an inconvenience could be really useful. It's just beautiful to me. 

REPORTER, VOX: Right now, these ideas are all in various stages of development, but they are attracting investors, and the hope [00:28:00] is that several will work, because one might not fit every power grid. 

NEEL DHANESHA: The grid, like renewable energy overall, is going to be a sort of patchwork solution. The more we try these solutions, the closer we get to figuring out exactly what the right mix is for what we need for the grid of the future. 

How can we develop new energy technologies and get them deployed at scale Part 2 - The Energy Gang - Air Date 3-5-24

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: And you were just looking at some data. You were talking about this before we came on. There's some new data out on what the US is doing in terms of progress on emissions reduction. 

MELISSA LOTT: Yes. This is the fact sheet I was mentioning or the fact book by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. So, they talked about 2023 emissions in the United States and how emissions in the US from the energy sector fell even as the economy grew. I think overall that the number was that the US economy grew by 2.4% percent and emissions dropped by 1.8%, falling in every sector but, drum roll please: transportation. It was interesting. So, they broke it down, you know, record sales, record renewables, all this stuff. When it came to renewables, they talk about setting new highs and also how coal's contribution to [00:29:00] power generation is down to just below 16 percent in 2023. That, for someone who started looking at these numbers in the US 20 plus years ago, that's just, wow. To read that number out loud is pretty incredible. 

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: Absolutely. It's fascinating, isn't it? Wasn't it, I mean, as recently as 2010, it was about 50%, right? 

MELISSA LOTT: Yeah. So, Ed, if you look at the numbers and where it's gone, one thing I will highlight is they said point blank in this fact book that coal's contribution to power went down to just below 16%, it was 15.8 they said, on their numbers. And it was largely replaced with natural gas. Another statement that 15, 20 years ago, I would've been like, Hmm? Gas prices aren't that low. But of course we all know what happened there. But two things I'll flag. One: transportation was the one part of this energy sector analysis where emissions didn't go down, but the numbers are saying that electric vehicle sales surged nearly 50% to one point almost five million vehicles sold in 2023. And there's those new federal EV incentives, there's price cuts, there's more models released. I would say as an EV owner, there's also more infrastructure to connect to, which is [00:30:00] huge in my decision to actually buy that vehicle and use it. 

But putting it in broader context, if we look at the pace of emissions reductions, we're still not on track for climate goals. I'm hopefully celebrating, you know, what has been done. Like that's impressive. That's great. If you asked me 15 years ago, if we'd be here, again, that 15 percent number? No. Natural gas replacing coal, all these things, like, I would have bet against me saying these phrases. But, under the Paris Agreement, the US committed to reducing 50-52% compared to 2005 level baseline. And when we're looking at it, we're sitting at something like 16-18% below 2005 levels. 

So, those are big differences. But, for me, going back to the headline number, economy grew as emissions fell. That's not insignificant. And all the stuff underneath it is really encouraging. And it goes back to just a ton of innovation that happened over decades of investment that led us up to this place where we are now, whether it's fracking, solar, battery chemistry, all the above. It's a lot of work behind all that. 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: Yeah, definitely. And I think about all the people we don't hear about that did that work, you know, the [00:31:00] champions of policies at the subnational level, you know, city, state level, federal level as well, people working on these technologies. That's what we see actually when we model technology evolution is you really see the signature of the work that many people did in getting policies enacted and working on the manufacturing floor, working in research labs. It wasn't a single innovator that brought us to where we are now. So, I totally agree with you, Melissa, that was a lot of work by many different people that went into that. 

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: So let's talk about EVs a bit, because I do think that issue of transport, as you say, Melissa, is very interesting in that, as of last year, emissions were not falling, but there's some pretty positive trends in terms of EV sales.

I've been really struck by what seems to be this huge disconnect between the narrative and the data on EVs. Prevailing narrative has been, you know, industry is a disaster, everything's going terribly wrong, and so on. I mean, certainly it is true that growth in sales last year perhaps [00:32:00] was not as great as some people hoped it would be.

But still, it's pretty remarkable. As I look at the data, these are the Argonne National Laboratory's figures, and that has sales of battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, so what you might call plug-in vehicles, in total, up to about 1.3 million in the US last year, that's up 54%, and that compares to 47% growth in 2022. So, it's actually an acceleration, not a slowing down of growth. And it is true that we've seen some of the manufacturers scaling back their targets, people thinking perhaps they were over optimistic a couple of years ago. I see Mercedes just recently said that they've now expected only about 50% of its sales to be EVs by 2030. And three years ago, they were saying they hoped to maybe possibly be at 100% EVs by 2030. So, perhaps the pace of the transition is slowing, but still it does feel like there is a big change happening and it is still making progress in quite a remarkable way. 

Melissa, what do you think? [00:33:00] What's your sense of it in terms of where that transition to EVs is heading?

MELISSA LOTT: I mean, there's a lot of momentum behind EVs. It's not just because of climate. It's not just because they're fun to drive. It's not just because the cost makes sense. It's not just because the maintenance is really nice. It's not just because of any one thing. There's just a lot of stuff that's putting wind in the sails of EVs.

We can hyper focus on individual companies at individual moments in time, but when I just zoom out a lot, there's a lot of EVs on the road now in the United States and around the world, and they make a lot of sense on many, many different levels. They are certainly key—a key technology—to bringing emissions down over time. But where I think of it is—and I'll just focus on the US because those are the numbers I was talking about earlier—we have a lot of electric vehicles going into the system, and we're now pressure testing our systems, and we're now putting a lot of additional impetus between figuring out how are we upgrading our grids. And I'm not just talking about the big wires. I'm actually not talking about big wires right in this moment. I'm talking about the small wires that connect to the individual charging stations that connect to our homes. We might have a home charger. I mean, this week is full of, uh, whether you're on Bluesky, Twitter, other [00:34:00] things, lots of discussion about transformers and, you know, distributed energy systems and all of that for a lot of obvious reasons. And within that, it's are we actually investing enough in our power system, the backbone of our future energy systems, to actually ensure that it's affordable and reliable? 

So, I think we're still not far enough along in those conversations, the practical conversations of what we need to do and how we need to do it. But I'm not in the camp of... the evidence is not pointing me towards a place where I think that these systems are going to prevent EVs from continuing to deploy. It may slow a few things down, but it won't prevent them from deploying. 

The Lost Subways of North America - 99% Invisible - Air Date 5-21-24

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: One of the most famous transit systems in the US is, of course, the New York City Subway.

New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority, or MTA, has the largest and busiest subway system on the continent. New Yorkers love it. They hate it. They love to hate it. They love to love it. And whether you love it or hate it, you ride the subway. 

JAKE BERMAN: The subway is indispensable. It's something that needs to be there, and New York cannot function [00:35:00] without a working subway.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: By and large, for over a century, New York's transit system has stood as a shining example of what works. It's the one place where you're usually better off taking the train as opposed to driving to get from point A to point B. A big reason for this success is that most of New York's subway system was built pretty quickly and efficiently. The first New York subway lines started getting built in the year 1900. And by the time it opened in 1904 the train ran from city hall—downtown—all the way to Harlem. By 1940, the New York subway system had over 400 stations. 

By the mid 20th century, after going through a series of mergers, financial challenges, and a decline in ridership, all that construction basically ground to a halt. Since 1950, New York has added only 30 more stations, and as of today, the city has been trying to finish just one additional subway line—the [00:36:00] 2nd Avenue Subway—for almost 100 years. 

JAKE BERMAN: They were promising to build the 2nd Avenue Subway in the 1930s. They would tear down this elevated line—which was ugly, old, noisy, kind of an eyesore—and replace it with a clean, fast, underground subway line.

That didn't happen. And for the bulk of the 20th century—World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, Apollo 11, the Berlin Wall, 9/11—they still hadn't finished the 2nd Avenue Subway! 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: What's the current status of the 2nd Avenue Subway? 

JAKE BERMAN: The 2nd Avenue Subway has a mile and three quarters right now, and they promised 10.

Neighborhoods like Spanish Harlem, the East Village, the Lower East Side, they were promised this really great service to the East Side for decades, and it still hasn't happened [00:37:00] yet. And it became a kind of municipal joke among New Yorkers, such that there are snippets on Mad Men, where people are shopping for apartments on 2nd Avenue, and the real estate agent is saying, "Oh, this is on 2nd Avenue! When the 2nd Avenue Subway gets here, you'll make a mint." And I'm thinking to myself, "Aha. I get the joke. This thing is set in 1965. Got it." 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: After almost a hundred years of the 2nd Avenue Subway planning, all that New York's got to show for it are three new stations on the Upper East Side, which were finished in 2017.

It's the perfect example of a system that is so close to having it all. It could be fast, frequent, reliable, and widespread if it weren't for a political gridlock that sets it apart from functional systems all over the world. 

JAKE BERMAN: Being able to do these kinds of things at scale requires extremely patient planning at the front end.

But once you make a decision to go, you do [00:38:00] things as quickly as possible. So, if you think about a place like Madrid, they built subways in bulk for decades, and so they got very good at it. They have all of this institutional knowledge and they have the capacity to do this within their own bureaucracy.

That's not really the case in the United States. Instead, you have a million different changes once the plans get released in New York. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: In other words, Madrid makes a plan and moves forward with it quickly at large scale. But that's not the case with New York. Because even if the MTA started out with the best plan imaginable, there's often too many factors slowing things down.

For one, there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Decisions about the subway system have to be made jointly between the mayor, the governor, and various government consultants and contractors, who all have to agree on the same plan. 

JAKE BERMAN: Everyone wants to have their two cents, even though everyone agrees that this subway line really [00:39:00] needs to get built, or at least there's a political consensus that these subway lines need to get built.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: To make matters worse, doing things so slowly is expensive. By building piecemeal instead of all at once, the MTA loses out on the economies of scale. Each station ends up being built to its own unique blueprint rather than a standardized layout. And instead of having experts on staff, the MTA hires different sets of contracts on a "per project" basis, which means that a mile of subway track in New York costs six times more than in Berlin or Tokyo.

It's just too expensive and too slow to grow in the way that riders need it to.

NYC Congestion Pricing Advocates Slam Hochul for Halting Plan to Reduce Emissions, Fund Transit - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-25-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: When you heard the governor speak and cancel this program, that she had long advocated for, as the governor before her and beyond, what was your response?

KEANU ARPELS-JOSIAH: It was outrage. I mean, this is a program that Governor Hochul, as you mentioned, has spent the past five years advocating for. And all of a sudden, just weeks away from its implementation, just weeks away of the [00:40:00] traffic, of the cameras, the toll cameras, coming on in Lower Manhattan, she completely reversed it.

And that completely fits with the governor’s general policy on climate. She has been failing our generation on climate across the board. In her State of the State address back in January, she only spent one sentence of the hourlong address talking about the climate crisis. And that fits with the amount of action her administration has been doing on climate.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You know, we’re talking on Primary Day. This is a primary —

KEANU ARPELS-JOSIAH: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: — in Colorado, but also here in New York. Very significant she canceled this just before this primary. But if you can talk about the climate effects? You know, today we wanted to have two generations on, from David Jones, you know, an icon here in New York, to you, Keanu. You just graduated from high school. You’re wearing a pin that says “Climate Can’t Wait.” You’re, for your age, going to be 19 tomorrow, a longtime climate activist, which is amazing. What [00:41:00] does congestion pricing have to do with the climate?

KEANU ARPELS-JOSIAH: Yeah. So, the climate crisis, as we know, is here and now, as you mentioned. The air quality in New York City is getting worse and worse. And we know that we’re at a dire point in the climate crisis. The U.N. head of climate recently said we have two years left to save the world, and that is not exaggeration.

In New York City, we’re the third-biggest emitting city in the world, and 25% of our emissions come from vehicles. So, that’s what congestion pricing aimed to tackle. It aimed to begin to cut down those emissions. It aimed to begin to actually meet our climate goals. We know we have to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 here in New York state, and we’re far, far below that. So, congestion pricing aimed to begin to do that.

And with Governor Hochul’s cancellation of this program and her failure on climate across the board, she continues to refuse to sign critical climate legislation to make fossil fuel companies pay their fair share, like the Climate Superfund Act, and [00:42:00] she’s failing our generation across the board. And it really brings us to a moment where one of the biggest blue states in America, New York state, one of the biggest economies in America, is failing on this issue of climate. And my generation is horrified.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Well, we have David Jones on the phone with us right now. David Jones, if you can talk about what this means for the MTA? You’re an MTA board member, also president and CEO of Community Service Society. You’re talking about billions the MTA is losing. Who would have gained from congestion pricing, David?

DAVID JONES: Well, [inaudible] congestion pricing was passed in 2019 by the Legislature, signed by the governor at the time, Andy Cuomo. And up until about a week and a half ago, it was about to be implemented at the end of this month. It was going to mean a [00:43:00] tremendous boost to the capital needs of the MTA, in not only subways and buses, but the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North. And basically, it was only going to capital. So, this was going to be state of good repair, as I’ve said repeatedly, so the wheels don’t fall off, but also the 2nd Avenue subway, something that had been promised to the people of Harlem decades ago. It also was going to mean making accessible, pursuant to numerous lawsuits, ADA accessibility for the handicapped. And all of that now has been put into question.

But it also, obviously, as your speaker before me mentioned, not going to deal with congestion that’s in the central business district in New York, which leads to trucks, buses and cars idling for literally hours [00:44:00] and spewing out fumes that impact air quality.

JUAN GONZALEZ- CO-HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Both David and Keanu, I have to confess to you, I have long been a skeptic on the congestion pricing in the decades that it’s been proposed in New York City for two reasons I’d like you to respond to. One, Keanu, on the pollution issue, why not just do what Mexico City has done for decades, which is limit cars coming into the metropolitan — into the city by license plate numbers? And Mexico City sharply reduced its pollution as a result of that kind of policy. And, David, to you, I respect you immensely, but the MTA is notorious for wasteful spending of billions of dollars on capital projects. How are we to expect that the new revenue from a regressive tax, largely on working-class and middle-class people, is going to make the MTA [00:45:00] more efficient in its use of public dollars?

KEANU ARPELS-JOSIAH: Yeah. So, I’d like to respond to that first, if I can, just on your presumption that the tax is mostly a regressive tax on lower- and moderate-income New Yorkers. It’s, first of all, not a tax. It’s a toll, right? And second of all, that is not beared out in the statistics. Fifty-five percent of workers traveling into the central business district zone, which is what the congestion pricing plan affects, are higher-income. Eighty-three percent are higher- and moderate-income. So, that means also if you look at the statistics for how low-income New Yorkers are traveling into Lower Manhattan, for every one New Yorker who might be traveling via car into the central business district, there are 50 who are waiting for a delayed subway, waiting for a delayed bus. Every New Yorker has a story of waiting for a bus or subway for extreme amounts of time.

And the solution to affordability in New York, as the governor has herself been saying for 50 years, [00:46:00] is not canceling congestion pricing. It’s funding the MTA. It’s giving us reliability. It’s giving us accessible subway stations. That’s really what congestion pricing is about. It’s about what future we want for New Yorkers. Is it one where we have reliable subway? Is it one where we have air that we can breathe without getting asthma? Is it one of climate and environmental justice? Or is it one where we have to wait on hours in gridlock traffic?

Comptroller on Congestion Pricing's Indefinite Pause - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 6-17-24

BRAD LANDER: I get that it's hard to envision a city with fully accessible mass transit, with better transit that people feel comfortable and safe and accessible taking. There's no substitute for getting New York City there, and we can't do that without the resources to invest. I really think when we have a 95 percent accessible system, so many people will be able to use it, and this is the resource we have to do that. 

Now, most of the people on that list that I heard say "I come in frequently" are more business related users like that freelancer. [00:47:00] For those folks, the reduction in congestion and in traffic, I think will actually be a great boon for their businesses. People will be able to make more deliveries, and get more business if the traffic isn't moving at six or eight miles an hour.

So, my hope is that folks that are coming in for work and who may do it on a more frequent basis will see the benefits of reduced congestion and that the folks who are coming in once or twice or three times a year will benefit over time as those trips become more possible via the Mass transit and as the city has the economic health that comes from better mass transit as well.

Look, no one wants to pay for the things we all need, but we're not able to fund our mass transit system just on the fares alone. Those resources have to come from somewhere and funding them while reducing traffic and emissions is the way cities around the world have done it. [00:48:00] There's always those feelings like you just read right before it goes into effect, but in the places around the world they've implemented it, where it works, congestion comes down, transit gets better, and people's anger diminishes over time as they see the real results. 

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: And listeners, I'll just say as an aside, that that's our first example of bringing some of your responses to the question in our newsletter onto the show. We will continue to do that on a regular basis.

And again, if you want to sign up for the newsletter, which is going to go out. To people's inboxes every Thursday. You can do so. It's free, obviously. WNYC.org/BLNewsletter. Listener writes just now, Comptroller, in a text message, "Why has the MTA put such weight on congestion pricing for its budget? What were other funding options for accessibility upgrades to the subway?" 

BRAD LANDER: It's a great [00:49:00] question. Unfortunately, what the MTA has done in the past is borrowed a lot of money without clear revenues to fund it and then gotten in real trouble. That's why the MTA was facing a fiscal crisis and it could be again.

Unfortunately, no one has put on the table a really good, solid, fair revenue source. Otherwise, the one that the governor proposed a payroll tax really hits the economy and hits workers, and I don't believe is a good idea at this moment. I'm open, you know. Maybe you can use the newsletter next week, and if people have creative ideas, of course, we'll consider them. 

I will say none of—in addition to this $15 billion hole—none of the ideas for funding would reduce congestion, reduce traffic, reduce emissions. We're about to have a heat wave this week with poor air quality, and this, in addition, is one of the steps we can take to reduce emissions and to reduce traffic congestion, which will reduce crashes [00:50:00] and make our streets safer.

I'd like to see us use some of the street space that will free up in Manhattan to try new things like micro mobility lanes to get the mopeds and the ebikes like in dedicated lanes—and enforce that they have to be there rather than on the sidewalks. So, there's real opportunities here. That said, we're all ears if people have other ideas.

We just have not seen a real plan B. 

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: I think a lot of people listening right now, because we get so many calls also on the dangers of the mopeds and the ebikes going every which way on the sidewalks and the streets, wrong way on one way streets, in ways that cars would never do or hardly ever do—how would those micro mobility lanes work?

I can just hear the voices of drivers in my head saying, "Wait, we already have fewer driving lanes on many city streets because of the bike lanes. Are we now going to have a sidewalk, a bike lane, a micro mobility lane, and then something for cars?" 

BRAD LANDER: [00:51:00] Well, look, we've got so many more ebikes and mopeds than we did a couple of years ago, and we just have not evolved our rules, our enforcement, or our infrastructure to catch up, and that's why they're running like haywire. 

This really is a management challenge. Unfortunately, the city has not stepped up. The mayor and city DOT haven't stepped up to say, "Let's have a real and comprehensive plan." Congestion pricing—where it has been implemented—results in, and we project here, about a 20 percent drop in traffic in lower Manhattan, and that is streetscapes that you can use for things to pilot micro mobility lanes.

That's got to go along with enforcement because people have to then stay in those lanes, and that means making sure people have the licenses if they're a moped or an ebike that is effectively a moped. That means making sure the businesses that are employing them are held accountable. And that means some real enforcement as well.

But infrastructure is part [00:52:00] of the solution, and congestion pricing creates one opportunity to try something to get control of what has indeed become chaos that pedestrians, and drivers, and cyclists all feel. 

Editors Note on how to make the case to Biden to step aside

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Today, Explained describing the scam filled rooftop solar industry. The Energy Gang, in two parts, discussed the policies and infrastructure to get new energy technologies deployed at scale. DW Planet A discussed the obstacles to wind and solar. Vox looked at the solution of energy storage. 99% Invisible told the story of the New York subway. Democracy Now! examined the controversy of congestion pricing in New York. And The Brian Lehrer Show also discussed congestion pricing. And those were just the top takes, there's a lot more in the deeper dive section. 

But before we continue on, more on the slow moving train wreck that is the Biden campaign and his refusal to [00:53:00] withdraw. It really is the worst case scenario, as he muddles along in interviews and public appearances, not being quite as bad as he was at the debate, giving hope to the Biden diehards, but not actually instilling any confidence in anyone else. And the arguments they're making are so thin, so desperate. What it shows me is that they're basically willing to say or do anything to make the case, maybe even just to themselves, for him to stay in the race, which completely strips bare the claim that he always wants to do what is best for the country rather than himself. 

Which brings us back to ego. Of course, an ego is a prerequisite for anyone who runs for president, but there are still a range, and I think where he falls on that range as being exposed right now. From everything I've read about Biden in the last week, including the apparent reality that the more people tell him to drop out, the more it makes [00:54:00] him determined to stay in. That is certainly troubling. 

It reminds me of a concept that I am only tangentially aware of, maybe someone out there knows better than me and will actually like send me a message and fill me in. Because I feel like I find myself referencing this a lot in my personal life and conversations, but I it's one of those factoids, I don't actually know the details of. But anyway, it goes something like this. Many, maybe actually nearly all cultures around the world have something akin to the concept of saving face. So I heard this in relation to Japan, where there is a very high value put on saving face, but it can certainly be applicable elsewhere. 

And the vague concept involves a style of argumentation that utilizes maybe an extreme degree of restraint in order to allow one's opponent to maybe recognize defeat and gracefully back down without admitting fault or losing face in the process. Now the outcome may not be as [00:55:00] satisfying as forcing your opponent to admit that you're right or admit that they're wrong, but you actually get the end result that you want or need, which is more important. 

A lot of the talk about Biden is emphasizing how he's embarrassing himself, letting the country down and so forth. And these things may all be true. I mean, in my opinion, sure, but that's not where the discussion can end. I already said before that my ideal scenario would have been for Biden to have announced his intention to be a one-term president from the beginning. And some say that's not advisable because of how you're seen in office, but I disagree, particularly after the circumstances or during the circumstances of 2021, and Biden's advanced age. I think he could have actually pulled it off as a power move rather than being seen as weak, but, you know, bygones. 

That said, the next best thing would have been for him to have recognized the writing on the wall and taken the [00:56:00] initiative by focusing on a plan to step down that would have been graceful and driven by selflessness. Now we're in the worst case scenario where he's basically challenging people to pry the presidency from his cold dead hands, and any attempts to do so would leave him with no possible opportunity to save face. Given that his pride and ego are all wrapped up in this whole mess, his attitude can't be overcome with brute force or logical argumentation that doesn't take face saving into account. 

Now as depressed as I am right now about the state of affairs. I think the best thing that could happen is for the conversation to be allowed to cool down for a bit. Hopefully not too long, but long enough for tempers to settle. Then the case needs to be made to him by very kind, emotionally intelligent people. Probably, not because of the nature [00:57:00] of men versus women, but because of a Joe Biden's perspective, I'm guessing. Probably women should be the ones to confront him, because I think he would find them more disarming, whereas the presence of men, I imagine, would challenge his male ego simply by being in the room. And this caucus of emotionally intelligent women working behind the scenes should make the case for him to leave the race with all of the focus on how to go about it in the most pride-preserving way possible. 

As an example, and I'll give a friend of mine credit for the idea that Biden should take some quiet moments of contemplation in a church or something like that, but probably a church, before announcing his change of heart. So they can use it as part of his story about how he changed his mind. He needs to be able to say that he came to the conclusion himself without being forced. Talking to God and seeing the light or quiet contemplation and realizing, that the [00:58:00] greater good, whatever, those are all great excuses for things like this. He said this week that no one is going to force him out. And I believe him. But that doesn't mean that he can't be led. To come to the right conclusion himself without feeling like he's been forced out. And without losing face. 

Now, before we get back to the show, a quick reminder that July is our membership and awareness drive. So, if you get value out of the show, let this be the time that you decide to chip in and help sustain its production and tell some friends about it to help grow our base of support. As thanks to those who make this show possible, we release weekly bonus episodes in which the production crew here takes center stage and holds conversations on serious topics while remembering to laugh, even if it's just so we don't cry. 

In the most recent episode, we strayed pretty far off our planned topics to talk about how we were feeling after the debate and the reason Supreme Court rulings. It was not a good week. We were not [00:59:00] feeling very good. And that definitely came through in the episode, which we hoped was cathartic for listeners. 

Plus of course members get ad free versions of every regular episode, and for this month, memberships are 20% off. So sign up now and keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. Just head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support to grab your discounted membership, and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: ENERGY POLICIES

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on three topics. Next up, section A: energy policies. Section B: the intentional solar scam. And section C: public transportation. 

When solar power leaves you feeling burned Part 2 - Today, Explained - Air Date 1-2-24

ANDREW MOSEMAN: Think about a big solar farm out in the desert, like we have here in California. At certain times of the day, we're already making so much solar energy that we can't even use it all. And so some of those solar panels are simply turned off and we can't get it to other places where it might be used.

And it means the potential of a lot of the solar infrastructure we already is simply going to waste. And then [01:00:00] On the flip side, there's also the scale of an individual home with solar panels. What's happening is you're starting to see a pushback against some of the incentives, economic incentives that allow people to do that in the first place.

This generally happens through an effect that's called net metering. And what that means is if you've got a big setup of solar panels on your home and you know, it's sunny out, you're not using a ton of energy at your house. You might be able to make more solar energy than you're consuming, at which point, if you're connected to the grid, you can just sell that back to the grid.

The way that that's typically worked is you make back the exact amount you would have paid per kilowatt hour for energy. Now that more and more people are getting solar on their rooftops in more and more states, you're starting to see governments and power companies push back against that. Trying to reduce the amount of money that people get paid for selling their own solar back to the grid.[01:01:00] 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Because there's too much. Is that right? 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: Well, that's part of it. It's, it's a complicated issue. There's technical infrastructure issues. Yes. When you can sort of have a grassroots distributed energy system of all of us making our own energy, it does get more and more complex to figure this all out. 

NEWS CLIP: And so until we overcome the problem of permitting reform of building transmission lines, allowing new power plants of any kind to be built, we're not going to get to that promised land of having a clean energy superpower. We're going to be stocked really with what the kind of assets we have now, 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: there's also a flip side, which is sort of a political argument. And what you'll normally hear in this case is basically an argument of fairness, which is if you have solar panels, you're not only not paying the power company for energy, you're not paying for the upkeep of power lines, the grid infrastructure, basically all the maintenance fees that's built into [01:02:00] the power bill that the rest of us pay at the end of the month.

Okay. 

NEWS CLIP: Those poor people struggling, some of them in subsidized housing, trying to put food on the table and still pay the light bill, they don't need to subsidize. Solar panels for those who can afford to have them. 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: And therefore, as more and more people get solar, more and more of the burden is going to be placed on everybody who doesn't have it.

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Gosh, that's really interesting. So when I get my power bill in the mail, this had never occurred to me. I'm not just paying for the electricity that I use. I'm paying also to support the electrical grid, to improve the electrical grid, to keep it working. Okay. So California, the state from which you wrote this piece, the state that you were focused on, it has two problems.

There's too much solar power and the people who are getting solar power and selling it back to the grid, they aren't kicking in their quote unquote fair share. How is the state of California responding to those two problems? 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: Well, we'll start with [01:03:00] the latter. Because that's sort of the most pressing one right now, which is despite having been one of the leaders in the rooftop home solar industry, California is really putting on the brakes right now.

NEWS CLIP: A decision by the California Public Utilities Commission will make it much more expensive to get rooftop solar starting on April 15th. 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: The new rules that the Public Utility Commission put out slashed the amount of money that people can get paid for net metering by about 75%. 

NEWS CLIP: Under the new plan just approved, homeowners who install solar can expect to save 100 a month on their electricity bill, paired with battery storage, 136 a month.

So everybody else 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: who, you know, has already had them for years is grandfathered in. They, you know, in perpetuity probably are going to be making That sort of retail rate of electricity. 

NEWS CLIP: Current solar panel owners pay or save based on the power they generate. And in many cases, they don't have to pay anything because their solar panels [01:04:00] absorb enough sunlight to cover their entire bill.

And owners even get paid by the utility companies if they generate excess power. But 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: now, if you go and put solar panels on your house, you're getting paid. a fraction of that, a quarter of that, if these new rules go into effect. Because of this, you've already seen a huge slowdown in the, in the number of, um, new homes getting panels, because without net metering or with a much lower rate of net metering, uh, it's just going to take you much, much longer to recoup the major investment of putting that in.

ALANA SEMUALS: The market in real time under the new net metering is 80 percent below where it was last summer. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: So California is a sunny state. It creates a lot of power through solar sources, too much of it, in fact, as you've laid out. Why can't it send it over to, I don't know, Washington State, famously rainy? What's preventing California from sending its excess electricity there?

ANDREW MOSEMAN: Hey, well, [01:05:00] Washington state doesn't necessarily need it because they have a ton of hydropower. So they're actually doing okay on renewables. They have one of the greenest grids actually, but your point stands. So basically what stands in the way of doing this is that it's insanely hard to build power infrastructure.

Building something across such a vast distance requires too many stakeholders to be in line, you know, landowners, governments, power utilities. When you cross state borders, you're dealing with, you know, a new power bureaucracy. That's just where we are, that the Biden clean energy buildout is putting out funds for and calling for more transmission lines to be able to, to do this, to get renewable energy where it needs to go.

So it's not wasted. It's just an insanely difficult thing to do politically. 

NEWS CLIP: I want to join my other colleagues talking about it. bipartisan permitting reform. It's something we have to do in order to achieve whatever the future looks like in terms of green energy. It's going to require building things.

We have to talk [01:06:00] about permitting reform in a reasonable period of time, uh, to get things done. 

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Is California the only state having this problem? We have too much solar energy? 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: Uh, no. I don't know the stats on some of the other states, but, uh, Texas has the exact same problem, but primarily with wind. The reason is obvious if you start to think about it, you know, the, the place you'd build big wind farms to take advantage of the, the breeze on the high Texas plains is way out.

Out west where there's not a lot of people and there is a lot of land. But that means that you've got to get all that energy across the state to, you know, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas, where all, you know, the majority of the people are, the majority of the energy is going to be used. And so at varying points, Texas has had this exact same problem they had it 20 years ago when they first made a big push into wind.

And the legislature actually did manage to sort of come together and create these special zones for new lines to be built, and they managed to sort of solve the problem [01:07:00] then. But those lines they built then can't handle the amount that they've got now, and so they're coming back around to the same problem.

NOEL KING - HOST, TODAY,EXPLAINED: Washington state is good. It has the hydropower. California has too much solar. Texas has too much wind power. Did we just move too quickly? On the clean energy transition without first asking what are we going to do with all of this clean energy? 

ANDREW MOSEMAN: I wouldn't say that. No, there is something to that, obviously, since we're talking about having built out more capacity than we can use, but I wouldn't say that for one thing.

It's it's not all all of the time. Summertime here in California because of the energy demand for AC and stuff like that. You're not seeing that same effect where. 10 percent or more of the solar energy is getting wasted because we just need it. And at the end of the day, I think it's sort of a cart before the horse question.

It's like, yeah, we need all this extra renewable energy capacity [01:08:00] to fix our energy sector and move it to renewables. And in order to take advantage of that stuff, we also need to build out our grid infrastructure and, and really get more sophisticated in the way that we do it.

How can we develop new energy technologies and get them deployed at scale Part 3 - The Energy Gang - Air Date 3-5-24

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: And what does that history of lithium ion batteries show? 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: Well, you know, it's interesting. It's not all that different from solar modules. The role of policy is a bit more complicated because of course lithium ion batteries are used in.

Many different devices and there were market forces driving their development, you know with the development of information technology and so forth But policy was also important for lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles But you know, we really see and this is work I did with Micah Ziegler who a former postdoc in my group that I just started on the faculty at Georgia Tech and is doing great work in storage.

What we see when we look at that trajectory is just how important research and development was all along the way in developing these technologies. Now I say these technologies because we [01:09:00] have different kinds of lithium ion batteries that came online. Now we do see again, as we saw with solar modules, that economies of scale had a very substantial impact in driving costs down.

In the last couple of decades, so it's something somewhat similar, but not exactly the same as solar. And then the other thing is, of course, energy densities were important to develop in the case of lithium ion batteries. 

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: So in the context of that, then let's think about what the U S government is doing today and the inflation reduction act in particular, given what we know, given what your research has found about history of innovation, what it takes for energy innovation to be successful, to drive down costs, to accelerate deployment.

When I think about the inflation reduction act, I think about it as having two kind of key salient features. One is that it's all about carrots rather than sticks. So it's about. trying to incentivize low carbon energy rather than increase the burden on high carbon energy. And the other factor is that it's got a [01:10:00] lot of detailed provisions for different types of technology.

And so there'll be production tax credits and investment tax credits for wind and solar and storage. Then there's a different set of tax credits for low carbon hydrogen and different credits for carbon capture and storage and different credits again for nuclear, different credits and other regulatory.

incentives for EVs, which again are all changed by domestic content requirements and how much the manufacturer has done within the US and so on. Does that make sense as an approach, do you think? If you were designing an optimal policy for the energy transition in the US, would you do it this way? 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: Uh, yeah.

Well, you know, of course one has to be pragmatic in terms of what policies are people willing to accept. We have limited time. Let's go with what works. I think that makes sense to a certain extent with technology specific policies, people may have an easier time seeing what's coming down the pike, so to speak.

So that may be one reason why [01:11:00] they're more acceptable in some context. So. You know, the policies that you described, Ed, are targeting specific technologies. It could be that that's, you know, something that's more acceptable, more popular because we can kind of see what's coming. But of course, a carbon price does have some advantages, you know, and that it's more flexible.

It allows for more competition. So I guess what I mean by flexible is it allows for the market. to select across demand side changes like energy efficiency and supply side changes like different types of power plants. However, even when selecting a carbon price, we know to some extent, at least in the near term, what technologies will be favored.

And that's because we know their costs in different markets. We know their carbon intensities. So it's actually pretty clear, so you can't actually get away from selecting technologies. Now the argument is that you select a carbon price that's equal to the societal costs of those emissions, but that [01:12:00] also requires making some forecasts about technology specific evolution pathways.

And then we come back to essentially what's required in designing technology specific policies. You have to make these forecasts about what technologies are going to do, how they're going to perform and deem which ones are more favorable. So there is still that challenge about evaluating and forecasting technology, even with a carbon price.

ED CROOKS - HOST, THE ENERGY GANG: Right. That's a really interesting point. You mean, effectively, there's no such thing as a genuinely technology neutral policy, even if you're kind of trying to be technology neutral and just saying, well, this is the carbon price and then let a thousand flowers bloom and let everyone do what they want to do to adjust to that price.

In practice, you're actually taking some views on which technology is favorable and which aren't. 

JESSIKA TRANCIK: Yeah, that's right. I mean, when you're estimating those societal costs of carbon emissions, that's going to be. At least in part determined by technology [01:13:00] innovation. If you're selecting a carbon price at a given point in time, if it's 10 or 100 a ton, you know, pretty well.

What effects that's going to have in terms of which texts the market will select.

This is what's REALLY holding back wind and solar Part 2 - DW Planet A - Air Date 6-2-23

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: And there's a number of ways we can do that.

TIM MEYERJURGENS: So we have to transport the electricity from where it's produced to where it's needed. Uh, so we have more transport of energy than we had in the past. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: This means we have to better connect our grids. That's why grid operator Tenet is building SüdLink, a 700 kilometer high voltage transmission line connecting Germany's north to its south.

When the sun doesn't shine in the south, it could get wind energy from the north. At least that's the idea. 

KELLY SANDERS: Building out those transmission lines, those very, very large transmission lines, is really difficult. So, you have property rights issues, you have issues over, you know, people that are concerned about endangered species and environmental [01:14:00] impacts.

So, building those projects take a really long time and they become really, really expensive. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: SüdLink is a case in point. It was originally planned as an overhead line in 2012. But amid huge public backlash against the monster line, politicians in 2015 decided it was to be built underground. 

TIM MEYERJURGENS: We had to start from scratch again.

Because a cable route looks different than an overhead line route. So that alone, only this line. Decision was at least three years. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: It also roughly tripled the cost of the project to 10 billion euros, and it's still facing resistance, especially from farmers and landowners. By the end of 2022, when Zoot Link was originally supposed to be finished, not a single cable had been laid.

It's now scheduled to be finished in 2028, but despite these challenges. Building infrastructure to shift renewable energy to where it's needed is a key part of making the grid more flexible. Another is to build storage [01:15:00] into it, to supply energy when it's needed. To cover shorter periods, huge battery packs are already popping up more and more.

KELLY SANDERS: Shining or discharge it when those solar resources or wind resources wind down. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: Some grids also store energy with pumped hydro. You use surplus electricity to pump water up a hill. and let it run down through a turbine when you need it back. Both these solutions can only shift a few hours worth of energy though.

For days or weeks, for example, to cover a dunkelflaute, we need other solutions. Like hydrogen. We can make it from renewable electricity and then burn it in power plants without any CO2 emissions. 

TIM MEYERJURGENS: That doesn't mean that we should, uh, burn hydrogen all the time because it's not a very efficient way. But for certain [01:16:00] situations, we will see.

Still need it. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: And then there's another part of the solution, which up until recently hadn't really been discussed. 

KELLY SANDERS: We could be the opportunity. So you can increase generation to meet demand. You can also lower demand to kind of meet supply somewhere in the middle. 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: We could, for example, hold off on doing our laundry or running the dishwasher when the grid is stressed and instead do it when there's plenty renewable energy available.

Some utilities already offer their customers lower rates for doing exactly this. And we could let grid operators tap into the electricity from the solar panels on our roofs or the batteries of our electric cars. 

PATRICIA HIDALGO-GONZALEZ: But now with distributed energy resources, we're thinking about a two directional flow, where now not only from generators to consumers, but now from consumers, which now we would be calling them prosumers, because they would be producing electricity, and then supplying a backup stream to a transmission network when it would need it the most.[01:17:00] 

MALTE ROHWER-KAHLMANN - REPORTER, PLANET A: The vision is to build a technology driven smart grid that gives operators a lot more information to flexibly balance supply and demand. If all this sounds incredibly challenging and expensive, well, that's because it is. This industry study calculated that, to hit our net zero targets, grids worldwide need 1.

1 trillion dollars of investment. Every year until 2050. And that's excluding new solar panels and wind turbines. Changing the grid is a monumental task. But it's one we need to tackle if we're serious about quitting fossil fuels. 

TIM MEYERJURGENS: Because in the end, our grids are the backbone of the energy transition. So if we are not successful, the energy transition will not be successful.

And for me, this is a race we must win. So there's no alternative.

SECTION B: THE INTENTIONAL SOLAR SCAM

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: the intentional solar scam. 

The Solar-Powered Scammer - Scamfluencers - Air Date 2-5-24

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: Things are pretty rough for a while, but then one day in 2007, Jeff has a conversation that [01:18:00] changes his life. He's talking to his neighbor who's building a vacation house. The neighbor wants to power his new place with solar panels, but he's worried that someone might steal them off the roof when he's not there.

So Jeff has an idea. What if there was a trailer covered in solar panels powering the house instead? That way, his neighbor could roll it into the garage or hitch it to his truck and drive it home with him. Jeff draws a simple trailer design on a napkin. He doesn't know it yet, But this little sketch is going to make him incredibly rich.

It's 2008, about a year after Jeff comes up with this trailer idea. By now, Jeff actually has a prototype and he's ready to show it off to potential investors. Like Dave Watson. He's a Silicon Valley software consultant, the type of guy who wears a fleece vest everywhere he goes. He and his friends are looking for new technology to invest in, which means they're used to getting pitches in stuffy boardrooms.[01:19:00] 

But today, they're huddled in a parking lot to see something different, an invention by the guy who used to fix Dave's car. Dave and Jeff met a while back when he got his car repaired at Roverland, and they've kept in touch even after the shop closed. The last time they talked, Jeff told Dave about his mobile solar powered generator.

Dave thinks it's a compelling idea. They could be used in places where there's no other way to get power, like remote disaster relief areas or movie sets. Most generators are diesel powered. They burp out ugly black smoke, and they're awful for the environment. Dave knows that if someone could actually build a workable solar powered generator, they could turn a serious profit.

The US government is offering all kinds of money to green energy companies, and he wants in on it. 

COMMERCIAL: Despite being a nihilist, this does sound like a really good invention if they can get one that that doesn't spew out black tar every time you [01:20:00] use it. 

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: Yeah, I mean it actually is a good idea. And when Dave and his friends see Jeff's new gadget in the parking lot, it looks pretty straightforward.

It's a trailer with some solar panels on it. Fun fact, when Jeff eventually files a patent for this thing, he literally calls it trailer with solar panels. But it also has a few bells and whistles. Like he's attached the panels to rotating beams, which means it can catch the sun as it moves. Dave and his buddies talk for a few minutes.

Then they give Jeff the good news. They want to invest. They lend Jeff almost 400,000 and set up a company to help sell his new invention. Dave even comes on as VP of sales. With this seed money, Jeff is ready to grow his new business and get his life back on track. And he's about to meet someone whose vision is bigger than anything he could have imagined.

It's 2010, two years after the [01:21:00] parking lot meeting. A lawyer named Forrest Milder is sitting in his office in Boston. Forrest is a middle aged guy with a ginger beard and professor vibes. He kind of looks like Walter White before he breaks bad. He's a big time tax lawyer who's been working in the field for 30 years.

He's got degrees from Boston University, Harvard, and MIT. He also practices a very specific type of law at his firm, Nixon Peabody, helping corporations maximize tax credits. And he's really good at what he does. He bills clients 900 an hour just for advice. Or at least he used to. Since the recession, Nixon Peabody has been struggling.

Forrest's boss has started telling his employees to try new strategies for drumming up business, like offering free consultations to potential clients. So when one of Forrest's friends offers to hook him up with a small business owner named Jeff Karpoff, Forrest is immediately [01:22:00] interested. And when he looks up Jeff's company, which is now called DC Solar, he's impressed by what he sees.

Their solar power generators have made their way onto Hollywood film sets. Leonardo DiCaprio is a huge fan and has been talking about them in interviews. He says he's pushing the CEO of Warner Brothers to use more solar power, which could mean more trailers and more business. Forrest also knows there are huge tax incentives for businesses to invest in green technology.

They can get back a full 30 percent of the money they spend on things like solar generators. Together, Forrest and Jeff figure out a strategy for attracting big corporate buyers. They know that these buyers are primarily looking for tax breaks and don't necessarily even need the generators, so DC Solar decides to offer them a deal.

If a corporate buyer puts up the initial funding to order and build generators, DC Solar can then lease them out to people who actually want to use [01:23:00] them. At sporting events, film sets, and anywhere else. The money they make off the rentals will get split between DC Solar and the corporate buyers. 

COMMERCIAL: That sounds a little convoluted to me.

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: Yeah, it's a confusing plan, but corporate investors aren't asking a lot of questions. All they need to know is that they'll rake in a lot of money, and it's nearly risk free. Companies that buy these generators don't even need to use them if they don't want to. They just pay for the generators, let DC Solar rent them out, and when their loan is paid off, sit back and collect money.

And all the while they get to brag about their investment in renewable energy. Obviously, Jeff loves the idea. He even tells Forrest that they should value the generators at 150, 000 each, which is 50 percent higher than the price he initially proposed and more than 10 times what the generators are actually worth.

He thinks clients will be attracted to the higher price tag. because it means they'll get a bigger [01:24:00] tax credit. Forrest is skeptical about this at first, but eventually gives in. And Saatchi, it actually works. They start pitching the deal around to different companies, like the insurance company Progressive and East West Bank.

And a lot of them are, uh, Very interested between Jeff's great invention and forest's brilliant tax scheme, this unlikely duo is about to launch D. C. Solar into the stratosphere, but Jeff is about to learn that even at a solar energy company, you can fly too close to the sun.

The Solar-Powered Scammer Part 2 - Scamfluencers - Air Date 2-5-24

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: in 2017, DC Solar Reports record breaking sales. The company tells our investors in employees they've sold over 5,000 generators and made nearly $750 million. They've also gotten new digs to prove it. About a year earlier, D. C. Solar moves into a brand new office just across the bay from Martinez. The office is lined with [01:25:00] security cameras.

Jeff's wife, Paulette, walks around with two Belgian melon wads. They're named Diesel and Fou. Here's a picture of Fou with Paulette. He's trained to attack people on command. Uh, he looks like he's being held hostage. This 

COMMERCIAL: dog is a man in a dog costume. He's so big. Yeah, he's the size of a small horse 

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: and he looks like he just wants to be set free.

Yeah. By this time, DC Solar has also started sponsoring NASCAR races and leasing out equipment to its racetracks. The optics are great. DC Solar's generators are so popular that they're being used by race car drivers. Jeff uses this deal to drum up more business for DC Solar, but he hides the fact that this contract is a joke.

It says that NASCAR only has to pay for the generators if DC Solar dumps tons of money into sponsoring and advertising for them. Even though Jeff is effectively losing money on these generators, he's [01:26:00] still throwing tons of cash around, literally. Employees say he pulls stacks of hundred dollar bills out of his pockets during meetings and gives it to whoever can guess how much money he's carrying.

He and Paulette buy a box at the Raiders Stadium in Vegas and invest in a winery in Napa Valley. They buy real estate in places like the Caribbean and Mexico and a subscription to a private jet service. service. And Jeff returns to his childhood roots. He buys a baseball team and an ice skating rink for his hometown of Martinez.

He also pours huge amounts of money into his first love, cars. By now he's got roughly 150 of them, including a handful of Chevy pickups from the 1970s, a bunch of gangster era Cadillacs, and for some weird reason, Nearly two dozen Dodge Rams in the middle of all this crazy spending, Jeff and his inner circle are clearly getting nervous.

They've started moving millions of dollars [01:27:00] into offshore bank accounts and they buy a 5 million house in the tax haven of St. Kitts and Nevis. They call it the Sea Grape Villa. The sale happens to make them eligible for a government program that grants citizenship to homeowners. They reportedly even asked their office manager to take photos for new passports that they want to have fast tracked.

And they're right to be paranoid. They don't know it yet, but one of their former employees went to the SEC in July. And there aren't enough attack dogs in the world that can protect them from what's coming next. In December 2018,

about Four months after Jeff and Paulette purchase Sea Grape Villa, they throw a huge company party. They even hire Pitbull to perform. The day after that, Jeff goes on Twitter and posts a photo from the holiday concert, calling it epic. He writes, quote, Thank you to all the people that work hard to make my dreams a reality.

Had a fantastic time [01:28:00] celebrating with my team. But the good times are about to come to an end. Because two days after that, D. C. Solar is raided by the FBI, the IRS, and the US marshals Service. One team ransacks D. C. Solar's headquarters. When Jeff calls the office and hears that the agents have taken his and Paulette's brand new passports, he yells, Oh fuck, and hangs up.

Agents find almost $2 million in cash in the office. When they search Paulette's Purse, they find another 18 grand. 

COMMERCIAL: Sarah, is it a crime to have $18,000 in your purse that you stole? Is that really a crime? No, it's in cash. How do they know where she got it from, right. If it's in cash, it doesn't count.

That's girl 

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: math. Exactly. And the other team goes to Jeff's house and finds, among other things, a warehouse filled with his massive car collection. About nine months later, the US attorney films a video of [01:29:00] Jeff's car collection. Here he is listing out types of cars. 

JEFF CARPOFF: Big work trucks, muscle cars, small little put putt cars, uh, an amazing collection, uh, that should prove a great value to people interested in purchasing them.

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: But when they try to start them, the agents learn that almost none of the cars have any battery power. Those cars aren't the only things that are totally out of juice. Jeff May have managed to keep this crazy scheme going for years, but he's finally run out of road. Just a couple days after the FBI raid, Jeff calls a high school buddy turned employee named Joseph Bayless.

Joseph has been writing all those fake vehicle inspection reports. Jeff tells Joseph to meet him in a Burger King parking lot. Nothing 

COMMERCIAL: good ever happens in a Burger King 

SARAH HAGI - CO-HOST, SCAMFLUENCERS: anywhere. When they meet, Jeff tells Joseph to buy a burner phone, head to the warehouse where DC Solar has been keeping all their fake VIN stickers, and destroy [01:30:00] everything.

He also tells him to keep his mouth shut when the feds come calling. But that plan only works for so long. Eventually, there's too much evidence for even Joseph to deny. In October 2019, he pleads guilty to conspiracy to commit an offense against the federal government. So does Ronald Roach, who's slapped with an additional charge of securities fraud.

Two months later, Rob, DC Solar's CFO, pleads guilty to the same conspiracy charge plus a charge of beating and abetting money laundering. Finally, in January 2020, the karpovor themselves fess up to their crimes. They both plead guilty to money laundering among other charges. When all is said and done, The SEC says that DC Solar made almost 3 billion from deals and took in more than 900 million from investors.

And the US attorney says that the government was robbed of 1 billion in tax revenue. Even after the election. [01:31:00] actual billionaires were swindled. Warren Buffett's investment firm, Berkshire Hathaway, blamed DC Solar for a 377 million loss in the first quarter of 2019. At a sentencing hearing, Jeff tries to defend himself by saying he could have never come up with a tax evasion scheme on his own.

He actually tells a judge that DC Solar was just on the verge of being able to pay its back. I believe him. I believe him. Okay. Sure. Yeah. He could have paid them back a million times with all that money. And the judge snaps back that Jeff is selling air. He's sentenced to 30 years in a medium security prison in Victorville, California.

He's also ordered to pay almost $800 million back to his clients. The government ends up recouping $8.2 million just by selling Jeff's precious car collection. Paulette gets 11 years and three months in prison. Despite the letter, Jeff writes to the judge pleading for a [01:32:00] softer sentence. It ends with the words sent from my iPhone.

Ronald and Rob each get sentenced to about six years in prison. Joseph, who cooperated with the feds, gets off with a three year sentence. Ari, the outside counsel, is indicted on federal charges in October of 2023. He pleads not guilty. A bunch of DC Solar's former clients also get together to sue everyone involved in the scheme, including Nixon Peabody.

They deny wrongdoing and settle for an undisclosed amount. Forrest was never charged. And actually, he's still giving out tax advice. He writes a monthly column about renewable energy for a journal about tax credits. Saatchi, At the end of the day, no two Ponzi 

COMMERCIAL: schemes are really alike, you know? Upon reflection from this entire story, it just sounds like they had a bit of an idea, they saw how maybe it could work.

Instead of doing it, they [01:33:00] didn't do it, but they did lie to everybody about doing it. And then they got caught. Like, it's really so simple in how dumb it is. 

SECTION C: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, section C: public transportation.

The Lost Subways of North America Part 2 - 99% Invisible - Air Date 5-21-24

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: The next city on our list is Atlanta, Georgia. There was a time when Atlanta was so close to having a really amazing subway system. But ultimately, it was derailed by the same force that had tanked initiatives in many, many other North American cities. And that is plain old racism. 

JAKE BERMAN: I don't think it's an accident that the big turn against public transport coincided with the period of desegregation.

There's no Other way to slice it. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: Back in the 1950s, post war Atlanta was booming. Along with other American cities in the Sun Belt, Atlanta experienced a rise in population after World War II. Cheap and widespread air conditioning brought a solution to the [01:34:00] unbearably hot summers, and many manufacturing jobs were moving to cities in the South.

Atlanta wasn't just booming, though. It was proud. As the most racially progressive city in the former Confederacy, Atlanta called itself. The city too busy to hate. As people flooded into Atlanta, city planners decided to build a new expressway so all these people could move around the city. But a lot of residents opposed the highway construction.

There was an Atlanta anti highway movement that sprung up in the 1950s, along with calls to build a new state of the art Atlanta metro. 

JAKE BERMAN: And the fact was that the anti freeway and pro metro movement had both black and white supporters and in particular the kinds of rich white folk who were opposing the freeway network were on board with this.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: Across racial lines, people wanted this subway. That is, until desegregation. When Atlanta's buses were desegregated [01:35:00] in 1959, many white people, even in the city too busy to hate, stopped taking the bus. 

JAKE BERMAN: So much public transport cut down during the era of desegregation. Atlanta's bus ridership dropped by double digits when the buses were desegregated.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: It turns out many white people only wanted public transportation so long as they didn't have to share it with black people. Before the metro could actually be built, white support petered out and the idea was dead in the water. The lesson being that ultimately it doesn't matter if the subway you're building is fast, frequent, reliable, and goes everywhere people want to go if half the population refuses to use it.

JAKE BERMAN: Atlanta's not the only place where this happened. You also see this in Detroit, where the northern suburbs of Detroit fought for decades to not take 600 million in federal money to build a subway, because there was a lot of fear in [01:36:00] the northern suburbs of Detroit to having Black people come into these otherwise white neighborhoods.

Even in places like, say, the San Francisco Bay Area, you have a major cut down of the BART system due to racism in San Mateo County, which is immediately to the south of San Francisco. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: San Mateo County, by the way, was 96 percent white in the 1960s when this was all happening, and the people that most vocally resisted BART very much wanted to keep it that way.

JAKE BERMAN: Which meant that the lines beneath Geary Boulevard, across the Golden Gate Bridge, and to Marin County, as well as the line to Palo Alto, where Stanford is, both got canceled because there was no money. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: For any city to have a comprehensive and successful public transportation network, it is so important that the communities that make it up are willing to fund it and use it.

So every time a white suburban neighborhood bows out of a subway line, it shakes the very foundation of the city's entire public transit. [01:37:00] And too often, the result is a much scaled back system that can't go everywhere people want to go.

Comptroller on Congestion Pricing's Indefinite Pause Part 2 - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 6-17-24

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Are you going to court for congestion pricing? 

BRAD LANDER: Very likely, yes. Look, Governor Hochul took a disastrously wrong turn when she halted the implementation of congestion pricing. Leaves a 15 billion hole in the MTA's capital program.

We can't modernize our decades old signal technology. We can't install the elevators we've been waiting decades for. decades to make the system accessible. That's a legal obligation on the American with Disabilities Act. Congestion pricing is the law of New York State. Governor Huckel does not have the unilateral authority to cancel it.

We actually saw that on Friday when the federal government sent their final approval. Um, so we've assembled this broad coalition of legal experts and plaintiffs who have been harmed by this decision. Um, and we are preparing to help take their cases to court. 

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: And as often happens, when we just say [01:38:00] the words congestion pricing, our lines are exploding, so I want to make sure that everybody has the phone number.

Pro, con, mixed, just questions. Other topics for Brad Lander, they are welcome too. 212 433 WNYC, 212 433 9692. Call or text as some of you already are. Um, you said plaintiffs who have, who are being harmed by the delay in congestion pricing. Who are some of those plaintiffs and how are they being harmed? 

BRAD LANDER: So it's a real mix.

Number one for me are New Yorkers with disabilities. It's been a four decade struggle to get a real commitment from the MTA to make almost all, 95 percent of the 472 subway stations accessible. It's still planned to take another 30 years if we delay congestion pricing. It won't happen. Those are folks 20 percent estimated of our neighbors who [01:39:00] really can't use the subway system and they're relying on those resources, but it's residents of the central business district who are impacted by the emissions, uh, businesses in the central business district that are impacted by congestion.

Uh, one of my favorites here, I think, a, a potential claim is, comes from some MTA board members. They voted on a capital plan counting on congestion pricing revenues and they have a reasonable expectation, uh, that the state will comply with their responsibilities under the law. 

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Um, why haven't you filed yet?

And I guess you're not looking for an immediate injunction against the governor so the toll can go into effect. on June 30th as planned? 

BRAD LANDER: So the actions that need to take place, uh, that haven't yet happened are still coming. The state transportation commissioner needs to sign the final tolling agreement.

That was always going to happen in the coming days. The MTA [01:40:00] board is anticipated to vote on June 26th. So it'll be helpful to have more clear information about what is and is not happening in the coming days. There's an argument that simply by her statement, The governor has violated the 2019 law, but there'll be a clearer and better case as we see what happens over the next few days.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, THE BRIAN LEHRER SHOW: Which means this is not happening on June 30th, right? 

BRAD LANDER: Unfortunately, the governor's action is definitely is going to be an indefinite pause. It's not going to happen on June 30th. I mean, hope springs eternal. I still hope she'll change her mind. There's still time now. We've already spent a half billion dollars on the infrastructure.

The cameras are up. It's ready to go. Um, but I suspect it will be delayed, uh, at least some, uh, hopefully our lawsuits and public pressure and clarity that we need those resources and the heat we're going to have this week with bad air quality days and the clarity we need. The emissions reductions [01:41:00] will turn things around very soon.

The Lost Subways of North America Part 3 - 99% Invisible - Air Date 5-21-24

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 changed the game.

Coming off the tail of World War II, the US government believed that America needed big roads spanning the country in order to move troops should there be a ground invasion in the future. So, under the act, the government subsidized almost the entire cost of building new highways. We never did have that ground invasion, but we're still dealing with the consequences of the act for one It did provide an easy way to move between cities But it also incentivized cities and states to literally bulldoze many black neighborhoods to make way for all the new development It also happens to be one reason that America really loves cars But there's a notable place in North America where the Federal Aid Highway Act didn't apply, and that would be Canada.

As highways went up like crazy in post war America, Canadian cities saw a cautionary tale in all this. So when Seattle built highways in the 1950s, [01:42:00] Vancouver, just across the border, decided to do things differently.

I want to talk about Canadian cities and, and how they kind of had this sort of benefit of seeing what highways did. When they were planning, um, can you talk about that a little bit? 

JAKE BERMAN: So, Vancouver got started late on its freeway system. And, for a point of comparison, Seattle got started with its freeway building extravaganza after World War II.

Vancouver didn't really get started with the planning process until the 60s. So there was about a 10 to 20 year gap in there where Vancouver could see the results happening in its neighbor three hours to the south. And what they found was they didn't like those results. They didn't like the smog, they didn't like the pollution, and further afield, they saw the results in Los Angeles.

There was a strong political contention that used the specter of [01:43:00] Vancouver turning into the next LA that ultimately defeated all of the freeway plans for Greater Vancouver. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: Wow. And so what did they end up with? 

JAKE BERMAN: Well, then they ended up with the famous Skytrain, which was the product of a weird confluence of circumstances.

Vancouver bid and won a World's Fair for 1986, and it was a World's Fair about transport. Now Vancouver didn't have anything special in their transport department, and so the provincial authorities had to go scrambling to find a transport system that they could build between 1980 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: Without really any other options, Vancouver asked the government of Canada for help building a train system in their city before the big event.

And basically, the Canadian government said, yes, but under one condition. They planned to use the World's Fair as a product placement for a Canadian rail car company that had been floundering for years. 

JAKE BERMAN: And the government of Canada decided that [01:44:00] This was a perfect opportunity to bail out a failing rail car manufacturer that was owned by the province of Ontario.

The province of Ontario had developed this automated subway system that nobody wanted to buy. As a result, the government of Canada said, Fine, we will fund your World's Fair, we will fund your construction of your subway, but you must use this technology. Like, the company is based in Ontario, and not even the Toronto Transit Commission wanted to buy this thing.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: The new system was so hard to sell in part because it did have this one major drawback. It required non standard components, which meant cities wouldn't be able to easily switch vendors down the line. 

JAKE BERMAN: Thankfully, it worked and the SkyTrain is a huge success, but It had huge risks to what they were doing at the time.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: And all because they were trying to impress, you know, like, or fulfill this mandate of this transportation based, um, expo. 

JAKE BERMAN: Oh, yeah. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: So could you [01:45:00] describe the SkyTrain, like, how it works and, you know, what it's like to be on it? 

JAKE BERMAN: So the SkyTrain is an elevated, like the one you have in Chicago. The difference is its trains are shorter and it's fully automated.

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: Meaning the SkyTrain runs without a driver. 

JAKE BERMAN: Yeah. So. Because they're automated, you can run frequent service all day. And as far as operating costs, this dramatically reduces them compared to having a manned system. 

ROMAN MARS - HOST, 99% INVISIBLE: How common is the automated system? Why doesn't everyone do that? 

JAKE BERMAN: Most modern subway lines can be designed with automation in mind, but it's very difficult to retrofit them to an existing subway system which was not designed without a driver.

For more information, visit www. FEMA. gov So in a place like Chicago or New York or Boston, or for that matter, Montreal or Toronto, it's really hard to convert a system from manual control to fully automated control. Um, in North America, Vancouver is really the best example of an automated system that works [01:46:00] well.

There are some in North America which were designed for partial automation, like Bard in San Francisco or the Washington Metro, but because these ancient systems haven't always been maintained the right way, a lot of them are still stuck on manual control. Interesting.

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 Today, Explained, The Energy Gang, DW Planet A, Scam Influencers, 99% Invisible, and The Brian Lehrer 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 episodes. Thanks to our transcriptionist quartet, Ken, Brian, Ben, and Andrew for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts [01:47:00] 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 and get 20% off your membership at BestOfTheLeft.com/support, or through our Patreon page. 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. In all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find a link to sign up in our show notes, along with a link to join our Discord community, where you can also continue the discussion. 

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

Air Date 7/5/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. China is an undeniable force in the world relating to several major political issues, and to address their influence without a deep understanding of the history, context, and current dynamics would be to invite 100 years of humiliation. 

Sources providing our top takes today include More Perfect Union, Siming Lan, the Financial Times, Our Changing Climate, TLDR News Global, Wendover, and Johnny Harris. Then, in the additional deeper dives half of the show, there'll be more on China's economic foreign policy, the EV wars, the tech and space race, and escalating tensions.

Joe Biden's Radical Worldview - More Perfect Union - Air Date 6-27-24

NARRATOR: In 2000, Clinton normalized trade relations with China, supporting the country's entry into the World Trade Organization. 

ALAN GREENSPAN: The addition of the Chinese economy to the global marketplace will result in a more efficient [00:01:00] worldwide allocation of resources and will raise standards of living in China and its trading partners.

ROBERT REICH: Chinese exports flooded America and really were responsible for a large percentage of the losses of manufacturing jobs in the United States. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: And when the jobs disappeared, the shops, the banks, the people, disappeared too. 

NARRATOR: Between 1998 and 2021, the US lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs due to trade policies.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: There's no future here with 75 percent of your refrigerators being built in Mexico. 

They promised basically jobs for our kids if they wanted them. That's not happening. 

RANA FOROOHAR: There was a real Faustian bargain that was made in the 1990s onward. We outsourced our entire industrial commons in exchange for cheap stuff.

We decided to stop making things and start consuming things. 

One of the [00:02:00] beauties in some ways of the neoliberal system, at least for those that were buying into it, is that it was simple. As long as share prices were going up and consumer prices were going down, there was no problem. As long as companies were getting richer, things were supposedly fine.

NARRATOR: Amidst all of that wealth creation, America's middle class saw its share of national income decline. 

RANA FOROOHAR: That's the sort of dirty little secret of neoliberalism, which is that, yeah, the pie got bigger, but fewer people got a slice of it. 

All the things that make us middle class: education, health care, housing, the price of these things didn't go down. Indeed, the price of these things rose. At the same time you get a lot of cheap consumer goods, you also get a cost of living crisis. So it's a very dangerous paradox. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Please welcome the next [00:03:00] president of the United States, Mr. Donald J. Trump! 

TODD TUCKER: It took, I think, essentially the 2016 election, where both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump critiqued that mainstream view for policymakers in Washington to really wake up to the reality of what they had wrought.

DONALD TRUMP: They say Trump is starting a trade war. I say, no, the trade war ended a long time ago, and the United States lost because our leaders didn't take care of our people and our companies. The era Of global freeloading and taking advantage of the United States is over, it's just over. 

RANA FOROOHAR: There was a kind of a "coming to Jesus" moment under Trump, but the problem with the Trump administration is it didn't have any policy prescription for the US itself. It simply said, China's bad, we're going to slap tariffs on China. 

NARRATOR: But at the same time, another, more ambitious policy plan [00:04:00] was being developed elsewhere. A senior advisor to Hillary Clinton was shaken by the loss in 2016. He traveled to Ohio, Colorado, and Nebraska to talk to Americans from across the political spectrum.

The result was a report, "Foreign Policy for the Middle Class," co-authored by Jake Sullivan. 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: My national security advisor, I choose Jake Sullivan, and it helps steer what I call a foreign policy for the middle class. 

RANA FOROOHAR: Biden comes in and says, we need an entirely new philosophy of growth. 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Is based on a simple premise that will reward work, not wealth, in this country. 

RANA FOROOHAR: He's created what some people would call Bidenomics, what some people would call a post-neoliberal world. 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I don't buy for one second that the vitality of American manufacturing is a thing of the past. 

RANA FOROOHAR: What this means is that he's decided to prioritize not just share prices and not just consumers, but jobs, [00:05:00] incomes, communities.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Today, we're getting to work to rebuild the backbone of America, manufacturing unions, the middle class. 

NARRATOR: Over the past four years, The Biden administration has quietly translated that worldview into a multi-trillion-dollar set of policies. 

TODD TUCKER: You have to go back to the 50s when the statistics were created to find anything comparable to the level of manufacturing investment that we see right now.

NARRATOR: That investment can be broken down into three pieces of legislation: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 

a massive infrastructure bill, 

the Inflation Reduction Act, 

helping to fuel a boom in clean energy all across the United States, 

and the Chips and Science Act, 

RANA FOROOHAR: boosting domestic semiconductor production.

We have not seen an infrastructure program this big since the Eisenhower era. We haven't seen ambition that government could do this much, I would argue, since FDR. 

NARRATOR: Under Biden, investment in manufacturing construction has surged to more than triple the average rate of the [00:06:00] 2010s. And those investments are flowing disproportionately to counties where unemployment is highest.

TODD TUCKER: It could be ultimately trillions of dollars that get invested in the economy, targeted not at what private industry is focused on in recent decades, like stock buybacks and other policies that redistribute income upwards. Instead, we're seeing companies invest in real places with real workers for the first time in generations.

MORE PERFECT UNION REPORTER: How's it been? How's it impacted your life? 

WORKER 1: Man, tremendously. My life completely changed, man. I got things now that I never thought I could have. 

WORKER 2: Now we're in a position to where we have 19-, 20-year-old people that are working and are thinking about their future. 

WORKER 3: It set you up for the future, medical, dental, vision, pension, something to fall back on when it's all over with.

NARRATOR: After decades of stagnating wages, these investments are creating well-paid jobs with good benefits. And that's by design. 

TODD TUCKER: There's something called the Investment Tax Credit that's a part of the Inflation [00:07:00] Reduction Act. 

NARRATOR: Think of it like layers in a cake. 

TODD TUCKER: What it does is say that the public sector will help businesses cover 6 percent of their capital costs if they are just investing in a clean energy technology that we find interesting.

But you can get five times that amount if you're also paying prevailing wages, and running apprenticeship programs. You can get an additional 20 percent of that if you're investing in a low income community, 10 percent if you are investing in a community that's been historically reliant on the fossil fuel industry, and an additional 10 percent on top of that if you are using Made in America supply chains.

If you take all of the layers in the cake, companies could see up to 70 percent of their capital costs covered. 

NARRATOR: These types of policies are an attempt to shift companies away from the financial logic that has dominated corporate behavior for decades. 

TODD TUCKER: Take an example like Cleveland Cliffs. This is one of the country's premier steel manufacturers. In recent decades, they've engaged a lot in stock buybacks, to [00:08:00] reward their shareholders. Now they're working with the United Steelworker Union to build clean steel in places across the country. 

NARRATOR: But in a global economy built by decades of free trade, what's to stop jobs like these from getting wiped out again?

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: You're about to get a clear view of China's capacity to build. 

This is a really big moment for the global economy. 

NARRATOR: The US has accused China of a practice called dumping: flooding the market with a surplus of goods, like electric vehicles or solar panels, at artificially low prices. 

JANET YELLEN: We've seen this story before. When the global market is flooded by artificially cheap Chinese products, the viability of American firms is put into question. 

NARRATOR: China has that surplus in part thanks to years of careful planning and massive government subsidies. But weak environmental and labor standards are also a factor.

TODD TUCKER: The worry is that if we are just importing the lowest cost [00:09:00] products, that it will undermine labor standards here at home, and undermine the US economy. 

NARRATOR: Biden has kept Trump's China tariffs in place and recently announced new tariffs on Chinese goods. 

RANA FOROOHAR: I thought Trump was right to put tariffs on China. I think Biden was right to continue them, not for punitive reasons, but because within the current system, China is not playing by the rules 

NARRATOR: of the game.

The Biden administration's tariffs on China are targeted in the same sectors where it's investing at home, like steel, semiconductors, and clean energy. The goal is to protect the jobs created in those sectors from being undercut by cheaper imports. 

RANA FOROOHAR: You simply cannot say, I'm going to outsource the entire clean energy transition to one country and not have any of those jobs in my own country and expect there to be a country left after that.

Just like it took 40 years for neoliberalism to play out, it's going to [00:10:00] take many years and even decades for the post-neoliberal era to play out. You look at, for example, in upstate New York, what's happening with the building of a semiconductor industry from the ground up. That's a 10-year process. 

Big sea changes, like the one we're going through, are complicated. They're complicated to message. 

It's hard to say we're moving from one political economy to another. That's not something that you message on Fox or MSNBC. 

NARRATOR: Biden's new economic worldview hasn't been at the center of most political coverage. Instead, we get coverage like this. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: During his speech, the president made a gaff, saying, quote, Let me start off with two words.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Made in America. Made in America. 

NARRATOR: But there is a coherent policy experiment happening here: a response to decades of neoliberal economics. Whether voters choose to continue that experiment could dramatically shape the future of the American [00:11:00] economy. 

TODD TUCKER: So I think after one term of Trump and one term of Biden, we have a decent sense of how they're going to govern.

Trump broke with the neoliberal era when it came to trade. But he kept in place a lot of neoliberal policies like cutting taxes for the rich and deregulation. 

ROBERT REICH: We've tried neoliberalism. What happened during those 45 years was that wages stagnated, Wall Street exploded, big banks got bailouts. Most Americans really came out on the short end.

And it pains me to say this because I was part of previous administrations. I was in the Carter administration. I was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. I think that these administrations accomplished a lot of good things. But, looking back historically, those administrations did not change the neoliberal consensus.

Joe Biden is changing it.

Why China Doesn't Identify with the West, Explained - Siming Lan - Air Date 9-23-22

SIMING LAN - HOST, SIMING LAN: A question that I got asked the most when I was living in England was: How [00:12:00] do you feel about China's CCP? And as a citizen, how could you put up with a dictatorship and not want to do anything about it? I always felt tongue-tied at the question because I could totally see where people came from. 

PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: The process of democratization 

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: with China's leaders about our deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights. 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The progress of those countries in the former Soviet bloc that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did not. 

SIMING LAN - HOST, SIMING LAN: On an intuitive level, I just knew China was different. But at the time, I couldn't put that in words other than telling people, well, I really wish you get to know China a little bit better.

And that is why in this video, I take it upon myself to explain why China's one party authoritarian rule gained so much consensus among Chinese people; and more importantly, why China seems so resistant to the criticisms from the West when it comes to its political system.

Before I do that, I just want to first point out the value and the thought tradition in the West because that is really important [00:13:00] to understand China and why we have such a big difference. Stay with me here, it will get more interesting. 

For those of you who live in a western democratic society, people tend to have a more independent and autonomous understanding of a person. People are born with natural rights and they have all the freedom to pursue what they want to do, given that they don't harm the interests of other people. If we dig a little bit further, this thought tradition can date back all the way to people like Hobbes, as he famously argued in Leviathan, "I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition: that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner."

Government exists out of consent from people who voluntarily give up their rights so that the government can protect their long-term interests. And so politics is about administering justice and securing human rights. 

The West's concern with the legitimacy of government is furthered by liberal [00:14:00] thinkers like Locke and social contract theories like Rousseau and Tocqueville. These people provide a plethora of intellectual foundation to make sure that the state does not have absolute state power. And that is why in the UK, neither the parliament, nor the judiciary, nor the monarchy has absolute monopoly over political authority. And in America's Constitution, the Bill of Rights, it protects civil liberties like freedom of speech, human rights, private properties, and limit arbitrary state power.

Okay, here's the thing. In China, our political tradition and system remained pretty much the same until 1911 when Qing Dynasty fell apart. And that was only because Chinese people finally realized that Qing government could not defend China from foreign invasion. 

For thousands of years, Chinese people had been living under an imperial system and an all-encompassing school of thought called Confucianism.

Back in the olden days, Confucianism is kind of like Christianity, but [00:15:00] nowadays in China, it is still permeating into every inch of the Chinese society, including politics. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Confucius taught us to think of ourselves in relation to something else: our family, our society, our community, and our country.

We have a moral code called filial piety. Under this ethical code, children are supposed to be obedient to their parents, wives to their husbands, and people to their rulers. People higher up in the hierarchy are considered as a benign authority, which means that they are meant to take care of their subjects in terms of their well being and happiness.

So that's why when it comes to the ruler of the state, just as a father was expected to make decisions on behalf of his family, so too was the ruler expected to make decisions on behalf of his people. The ideal government for Confucius was government for the people, not of or by the people. 

Naturally, the legitimacy of the government falls [00:16:00] upon its ability to take care of its people. It includes things like economy, safety, and livelihood. If you look at the word "country" in the Chinese language, which consists of two characters, goa and ja; goa means state, and ja means family.

First, we have the state, and then we have families. Without the state, families cannot survive. And that is why, culturally speaking, Chinese people are so used to the idea of knowing your places instead of demanding equal political participation. In a word, we don't have the tradition of citizen participation and democratic ideals. And that predisposes us to accept a strong authoritarian government that uses tradition to bolster its rule. 

Okay, I know now you might be asking, but what about Taiwan? Taiwan is both Confucius and democratic. So they aren't necessarily incompatible, right? 

The second piece of the puzzle is found in the 20th century mainland China. And there's something really important to know. [00:17:00] After the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911, the time you called "the century of humiliation," China's top priority has always been state building and fighting off the imperialist powers. China at the time was still marred by territorial invasion from foreign powers, burden from all kinds of indemnities from the loss of war, civil strife among the warlords and a raging inflation. On top of that, China did not have a political system to protect its people and reunite the country. We tried the Republic of China in 1912. We also tried constitutional monarchy in 1916. Both of these did not work. Finally, we have two political parties with a bit of power and some vision to rebuild China: the Kuomintang, the GMD, and the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. Both parties favored an authoritarian one-party government during the war, but for the GMD, Kuomintang, its goal is to use the [00:18:00] authoritarian government to rebuild the country and reunite people before it transitioned into a liberal democracy. For the CCP, its goal is to eliminate class struggle and create an egalitarian, classless Chinese society. Both parties didn't like each other and didn't really put their heart into building a coalition government. So they ended up going to a civil war after Japan was defeated.

At this point, you can safely assume that the direction China took had everything to do with the vision of the CCP. The party's leader, Mao Zedong, at this point was pretty much done with using democracy to save China. And in his famous piece, "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship," you can see this attitude.

From the time of China's defeat in the Opium War of 1840, Chinese progressives went through untold hardships in their quest for truth from the Western countries. In my youth, I too engaged in such studies. For quite a [00:19:00] long time, those who acquired the new learning felt confident that it would save China. But imperialist aggression shattered the fond dreams of the Chinese about learning from the West. It was very odd. Why were the teachers always committing aggression against their pupils? For him, the only path to restore China's greatness was to follow the path of the Soviet Union. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Mao comes for help to his old Soviet comrades. He is a classic Marxist. He wants Soviet money, Soviet machines, Soviet technicians. A 30-year friendship treaty is signed. China gets a $300 million loan. Later will come machinery and advisors. 

SIMING LAN - HOST, SIMING LAN: Through revolutions to create a classless society and eradicate all the imperialist powers inside China.

In China's early state building, it basically copied the system of the Soviet Union, including its constitution, one party dictatorship, the Leninist centralism to ensure the CCP control, and the land reform to [00:20:00] abolish the private property. The rest is history. 

China is the way it is, not only because it has an intellectual foundation, but also it is a result of wars, trauma, self determination, and international influence. It is also a representation of the proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union. 

I know at this point you might want to argue with me and say, well, all of that doesn't quite excuse the fact that China has suffered so many catastrophes under the CCP government, things like the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution. You know, things like that would never happen in a democratic country, because we have process, we have system, we have accountability. That is a solid point. And I won't even defend it. We have a very flawed system. But we are only looking at how China came about, and why it is still existing, and how it makes sense to its people.

Which lends on to my last point, the reason why China seems so resistant to the [00:21:00] criticisms from the West when it comes to its policies in foreign affairs, politics and economy is because Chinese people share a very, very nationalist narrative towards the past. Remember the term "100 years of humiliation" I talked about when I mentioned the Chinese history, the time when China was invaded by foreign powers, and were suffering from war. That is a big, big part of our collective memory and how we remembered our solidarity. It goes something like this: China as the Zhong Guo, the middle kingdom, had once fallen from grace. And we Chinese people had struggled through the war. Finally, we achieved independence and supercharged our economy. That kind of makes us entitled to having our own values and systems and ways of doing things. It's the interplay of culture, of history and national grievances that make up the [00:22:00] consciousness of the Chinese people today. 

Yes, you can say it: we are proud, resentful and have a boulder of chip on our shoulder.

Has China's Belt and Road Initiative been a success? - Financial Times - Air Date 10-30-23

YUNNAN CHEN: In this period following the global financial crisis, the Chinese government pumps a huge amount of capital into a domestic economic stimulus. So you see massive infrastructure construction, a huge domestic investment in heavy industries. And around, 2011, You're already seeing excess capacity and a bit of an overheated economy. In this period is when we also see the government trying to push companies and exporters to go out to seek more lucrative, better returns in international markets. They also inject capital into China's policy banks and financial institutions, which enables them to provide the financing to support Chinese companies to win these contracts overseas. 

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: It's really extraordinary that over 10 years, nearly a trillion US dollars has been [00:23:00] lent by these Chinese financial institutions for some of the recipient developing countries. Has this made a really big impact? 

YUNNAN CHEN: We've seen huge railway projects, some mega projects as they're called, in the form of standard gauge railways in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya. High speed railways in Southeast Asia, in the case of Jakarta going through Laos. Also several port investments in Kenya, in Pakistan with the China Pakistan economic corridor. And in a lot of these places, this hard infrastructure is also tied into wider investments, a lot of which has also come from Chinese state owned enterprises and private companies.

So you see the establishment of industrial zones, which are trying to bring in greater foreign direct investment. 

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: And so really, that seems like there's been a lot of very positive activity. Have you seen, clear impacts on the ground? 

YUNNAN CHEN: Chinese investments have brought, local employment. They have increased incomes in some [00:24:00] areas, and they also have transform the landscape of cities across Ethiopia, across Africa, for example, in providing this much needed infrastructure. 

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: But there has also been quite a lot of controversy around the BRI. 

YUNNAN CHEN: Infrastructure overall is a very high risk sector. They're very, very long term investments. They take a very long time to really come to break even or to even make money. But what they do serve is a bit more of a public goods function. That said, there have been a certain number of Chinese projects that, have really struggled once constructed in making that economic rationale make sense.

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: What we read about now is that the Chinese government is having to bail out quite a few countries that were part of the BRI. One of the consultancies that we quoted in the Financial Times recently said that over the three years from 2019 to [00:25:00] 2022, the Chinese government was paying out 104 billion US dollars to bail out countries that had fallen down on borrowing through the BRI. How does China feel about being the lender of last resort to these developing countries? 

YUNNAN CHEN: I don't think China is necessarily bailing out the recipient countries rather than bailing out its own banks. In the end, a lot of this finance, it's lent to the borrowing country, but ultimately it goes back into paying China's policy banks or commercial banks. And in the end it is the Chinese contractors that benefit.

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, that's a very interesting point. So in a sense, this money is being lent by China to prevent, defaults by countries to Chinese financial institutions that have lent to the BRI.

YUNNAN CHEN: Exactly. There's been a systematic issue of moral hazard with a lot of these infrastructure projects. You have borrowing countries that. [00:26:00] have wish lists of infrastructure projects that they want to construct. You have Chinese companies who want to win these contracts, and you have Chinese policy banks and financiers who want to support these companies to go out.

And so in all of this, we've seen a period of exuberance, particularly in the early part of the 2010s, and then a bit more of a pullback, particularly after 2016. The critical juncture is when China loses a quarter of its US dollar reserves after the 2015 stock market crisis. And after that, you really see a growing conservatism and a bit more of a pullback and a bit more of a reassessment of the risks the financial sector is taking overseas and also domestically. 

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: Going forward, do you think that the Chinese government is prepared to continue with these BRI bailouts? Are we going to see tens of billions of US dollars every year, being spent by the Chinese government to bail out these BRI projects, or are we going to see something different?

YUNNAN CHEN: Because of the way [00:27:00] in which these banks operate, they're also policy oriented institutions. What that has meant is that there's been a little bit of a kicking the can down the road approach when it comes to dealing with projects that are facing difficulties or borrowers who are struggling to repay the loans. Banks have generally been very unwilling to right down or make any kind of concession or debt relief that requires them to take a hit on their balance sheets. And in turn, I think what we've seen from the central bank is as well, trying to keep these financial institutions afloat and keeping them financially healthy so that they can continue to operate without having to agree to significant cuts or write downs in their portfolio.

Whether that's sustainable, I think, is to be seen. 

JAMES KYNGE - HOST, FINANCIAL TIMES: So what do you think comes now then? is China falling out of love with the BRI? Is China going to stop the lending, to the Chinese? [00:28:00] The BRI projects or are we already seeing actually a decline in the level of lending to BRI? What do you think the future holds for all of this?

YUNNAN CHEN: The impact of COVID, I think, was really already a tail end of a very dramatic decline in overseas official lending. And there's clearly been a bit more of a pullback and a greater risk aversion from China's policy banks, as well as the ability of China's policy insurer to finance and to underwrite this overseas lending.

I don't think this means the end of the BRI as a narrative, and certainly with the forum this month there is still a very top level political commitment to what the BRI represents in terms of China's relations and as a platform to engage with the global south and with developing countries. But the rhetoric has shifted already. We're seeing more mentions of small and beautiful projects, a greater emphasis on a green BRI that's more [00:29:00] sustainable and prioritizes cleaner, greener forms of infrastructure investment.

Why China Isn't the Problem - Our Changing Climate - Air Date 5-5-23

CHARLIE KILMAN - HOST, OUR CHANGING CLIMATE: Asia's most populous country is by far the world's biggest polluter. But here's a little secret, that wasn't always the case. For most of the last two centuries, ever since fossil fuels were siphoned out of the earth and burned into the air, China wasn't even on the map in terms of emissions.

England, and soon after the United States, spent most of the 19th century and all of the 20th century pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere well before China did. Emissions that have locked the world into soaring past the maximum amount of CO2 we can release for 1.5 degrees and even 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Winds stacked up against those two centuries of emissions, China's pollution seems a little less intense. 

This doesn't mean that China's current trajectory isn't worrying, but instead that when we consider carbon emissions, we need to consider them cumulatively. Carbon dioxide can linger in the atmosphere for up [00:30:00] to 300 to 1,000 years. When we look at it from this perspective, the United States and Europe are the real culprits. They account for the most communal emissions since 1750. The United States alone is responsible for a quarter of all the world's historical emissions, while China has emitted just half of that. 

So as much as politicians in the United States like to point at China's current annual emissions and claim that the country has to be doing more, the reality is that the US and its European counterparts were the ones that dug us into this deep climate crisis hole in the first place. That being said, US emissions have been dropping, and it seems like they're handing off the shovel to China, who's now furiously digging us deeper into a hole of climate chaos.

In 2008, China had a smog problem. The Olympics were right around the corner and Beijing looked like this. There were days upon days when people couldn't go outside because the air quality was [00:31:00] too low. But when you glance back through history, China's smog problem was nothing new. Beijing looked very much like LA in 1955 or London in 1952.

But China wanted blue skies for the 2008 Olympics, and in an effort to lighten heavy pollutants spoiling the air, they tightened air quality standards and restricted car use around major cities, initiatives that they continued sporadically and then in force after 2013. This seems to have worked.

While it still exists, China's smog problem has certainly improved as a result, but the coal plants at the source of these dark clouds are still firing away. It's here, at the heart of the coal furnace, where China's emissions problems lie. Coal powers China. Plain and simple. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: China's projected to build as much as 1,230 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity until 2025.

CHARLIE KILMAN - HOST, OUR CHANGING CLIMATE: To fuel the massive increase in energy consumption over the last two decades, China has turned to mining and burning coal in its three [00:32:00] northern regions of Shaanxi, Inner Mongolia, and Shaanxi. Deemed the coal triangle, these three provinces produce 70 percent of the country's 4 billion ton yearly coal output according to Carbon Breed. Coal that then gets shipped around the country to fuel heavy industry like steel production, as well as fuel the explosion of residential energy use. 

Because the fact of the matter is that China's energy use today is gargantuan. Taken all together, China's population uses 43, 791 terawatt hours of energy per year, which is almost double that of the United States. This coal soaked energy means that China's yearly emissions are substantial. China generated 11.47 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2021 alone, accounting for 27 percent of the whole world's emissions footprint. For perspective, the US accounted for 13. 5%. 

But here's the thing, China is also the most populous country in the world. It's home to almost four times more [00:33:00] people than the United States. So when you narrow down into emissions per person, China is actually pretty efficient. It ranks 48th against the per capita emissions of all other countries. The United States is 14th. So while China's overall emissions and energy use is certainly large, we can't ignore the fact that its people are creating significantly less impact than many other countries—especially if you factor in exports, because China is the factory of the world.

The carbon dioxide churning out of its coal plants is attached to phones and shirts that are bought up by Americans and Europeans thirsty for a good deal. As a piece from Carbon Brief notes, gleaning information from China's state media, the prefecture of Dongguan produces 1 in every 3 toys, 1 in every 5 smartphones, and 1 in every 10 pairs of trainers globally. So when we take exported goods out of the picture, China's emissions drop by 14%, while the United States footprint rises 7. 7%. 

But regardless of China's current emissions, per [00:34:00] person efficiency, or historical responsibility, the fact of the matter is, they are still on an unsustainable path. In part, this is due to their continued construction of bigger and bigger coal plants and expansion of oil pipeline infrastructure across the country, negating any renewable technology expansion, which we'll talk a little bit about later.

In a time when Chinese leadership needs to be doing the exact opposite, they are increasing fossil fuel output. Chinese coal production reached a record high in 2022. That is what's causing a graph like this. Emissions in China are still on the rise, and they need to be rapidly curbed in order to stave off catastrophic climate change, a fact which the Chinese government recognizes and actually seems to be acting on. The question is, are they doing enough? 

The Escalating Sino-Philippine South China Sea Dispute Explained - TLDR News Global - Air Date 6-26-24

GEORGINA FINDLAY - HOST, TLDR NEWS GLOBAL: The South China Sea is a 3.5 million square kilometre bit of sea that lies, unsurprisingly, south of China and Taiwan, in between Vietnam and the Philippines, and north of Brunei and Malaysia. It holds two groups of islands, the [00:35:00] Spratly Islands in the south and the Paracel Islands in the north. The dispute is basically a territorial dispute between those six countries about who has territorial rights in the area. And a lot of the tension revolves around China's somewhat expansive claim.

China claims historic rights to about 80 to 90 percent of the South China Sea via what's known as the Nine Dash Line, which is based on an unofficial 1936 map by Chinese cartographer Bai Meichu. China's claims are clearly inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which China is a signatory, which defines a state's territorial zone as being 12 nautical miles from a state's coast, and it's exclusive economic zone as being 200 miles. For context, the furthermost point of China's Nine Dash Line is about 1200 miles from its shore. 

Obviously, China's claim has also generated some tension with other South China Sea countries, not just because it contradicts their own territorial claims, but also because, at the moment, each of the six South China Sea countries occupies at least one [00:36:00] island in the Spratlys or the Paracels, which they sometimes have to defend from Chinese aggression.

Now in the 1990s and 2000s, this wasn't really a problem, and the various countries didn't really fight over the islands. However, since about 2010, tensions have steadily escalated, largely because that's when the CCP started militarizing and developing the islands, including dredging the nearby seabed to artificially make them bigger.

Now the CCP weren't actually the first to do this. Vietnam and the Philippines, for example, had engaged in similar practices in the past. But the scale of the Chinese program is unmatched, and in the past couple of years, China has also begun developing previously unoccupied features, in violation of an agreement signed by the South China Sea countries in 2011.

The CCP's increasingly forward leaning policy here is probably a reflection of their growing anxieties about trade dependencies. For context, the South China Sea is the second most used sea lane in the world, after the Dover Strait, and something like 60 percent of China's total trade and 80 percent of its oil imports transit [00:37:00] through the region.

Anyway, Chinese policymakers have long worried about the possibility of a trade embargo cutting off their essential imports in the event of a conflict, and controlling the South China Sea mitigates these risks. Beijing's anxieties here have only been exacerbated by the US, which started performing what it describes as freedom of navigation exercises around the area in about 2013, and then stepped up their frequency under Trump. This basically involves US vessels sailing near or around features claimed by China, essentially exercising their rights under the U.N. Charter on the Law of the Sea and asserting the Charter's legitimacy by violating China's illegitimate maritime claims. It's worth noting that this is pretty hypocritical, because the US senate hasn't actually ratified the charter, but it still goes around enforcing it. 

Anyway, tensions have subsequently been on the rise ever since, but things have become especially dangerous between China and the Philippines in the past few months. The China Philippines dispute mostly centers around the second Thomas Scholl, which is basically a protruding [00:38:00] reef about 200 kilometers from Palawan, but more than 1,000 kilometers from China's southern Hainan island. The shoal is widely considered part of the Philippines, and an international tribunal in 2016 ruled that China had no legal rights to the shoal, which lies within the Philippines exclusive economic zone.

The shoal has been occupied by a contingent of Philippine marines since 1999, when the Philippines deliberately ran a World War II era ship called the Sierra Madre aground on the reef to reinforce its territorial claim. These marines have to be resupplied every month or so, and for the past few months, Chinese ships have been trying to interrupt these resupply efforts using increasingly violent tactics, including water cannons, lasers, and even melee weapons.

This is probably because China suspects the Philippines of secretly reinforcing the Sierra Madre, which is sort of falling apart. While Manila denies this, last week the FT reported that officials close to the situation had privately admitted that they had indeed reinforced it. This has provoked irritation from the CCP, which has basically been [00:39:00] waiting 25 years for the ship to disintegrate so they can nick the shoal.

Anyway, things came to a head on Monday last week, when the Chinese Coast Guard rammed a Filipino resupply boat while brandishing makeshift spears, which ended with one Filipino soldier losing their finger. It's not clear from the footage whether or not the Chinese Coast Guard actually boarded the Filipino ships, but comments by Filipino soldiers claiming that their weapons were seized suggests they did, at least temporarily. This would be an unprecedented escalation, but not entirely unforeseen, given that just last week Beijing published new regulations allowing its coast guard to both board and use lethal force against foreign ships in its claimed territorial waters. 

Now, Manila have since said that they don't quite consider the incident to be an act of war. And Filipino President Marcos Jr. has in the past said that it would require the death of a Philippine service member or citizen, "by a willful act", for the Philippines to declare war. 

Nonetheless, this is deeply worrying for two reasons. Firstly, the two sides are stuck in an escalatory spiral. [00:40:00] While they've committed to a bilateral negotiation on the issue sometime in July, it's hard to see these talks coming to a productive conclusion, given that neither side has shown any willingness to give up its territorial claim.

Secondly, the Philippines has a 70 year old mutual defense treaty with the US with a NATO style Article 5 clause. And if Manila did deem Beijing's actions to constitute war, it would oblige the US to get involved. In March, the US secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin confirmed that the treaty extended to the South China Sea, and last week, US secretary of State Antony Blinken reaffirmed what he described as America's ironclad commitments to the Philippines. Whilst public comments suggest that China doesn't want war with the Philippines, let alone the US, and World War III still looks overwhelmingly unlikely, if the past few years have taught us anything, it's that escalatory spirals can be surprisingly hard to diffuse.

Why China's Economy is Finally Slowing Down - Wendover - Air Date 3-21-24

SAM DENBY - HOST, WENDOVER: From the perspective of China's central government, this did not appear to be the simple result of high demand clashing with constrained supply. After all, supply was at an all time high. [00:41:00] Almost a quarter of the country's housing units sat empty. There millions upon millions of completely habitable apartments bought and paid for but never inhabited. It just simply did not make sense for a country to simultaneously have some of the highest housing development rates in the world, some of the highest price growth rates in the world, and some of the highest housing vacancy rates in the world. Unless, of course, one considers the rather clear conclusion.

The value of housing had decoupled from its actual utility. It had become so attractive as a store of wealth that it was being traded based on its role as a financial asset, rather than its role as a place to live. This is a familiar and growing phenomenon across the wealthy world. Institutional investors are as involved in residential real estate as ever. But the extent of the issue in China was on another level. In 2018, a full 87% of home buyers already had another residence, indicating that, in a lot of cases, they were buying almost [00:42:00] solely as an investment. 

From the perspective of the central government, this presented two issues. The first was the obvious. Skyrocketing prices made it increasingly difficult for everyone but the country's rich to find a place to live, which, as anywhere, has downstream effects in contracting labor supply even where it's in high demand. But the second issue was the more pressing one. The rapid expansion in vacancy rates demonstrated that the sales prices of property were stretching far beyond their intrinsic value. The prices weren't supported by the actual utility of the housing itself, and they weren't even supported by constrained supply. Rather, they were almost fully supported by the belief that prices would only continue to rise further. That's to say, the housing market had formed into a bubble. So, to avoid letting it burst on its own, the only question was when and how to pop it.

The answer was August 2020. Then, the central government rolled out three red lines: [00:43:00] three rules the property sector would have to follow or else face severe growth restrictions. Each was about reining in financial risk. First, developers couldn't have more in liabilities than 70% of the value of the assets the company itself owns. Second, developers couldn't owe more in debt than the totality of what the company itself is worth in equity. And third, developers couldn't owe more in short term debt than what it has in cash at a given moment. Even if a developer did not violate any of the red lines, they'd be capped at 15% year over year growth in debt, while if they violated one, the cap would be 10%, two, 5%, and if they violated all three red lines, they couldn't grow their debt obligations at all. 

But these three red lines were far from a theoretical threat. Evergrande, after all, had a debt to liability ratio of 81% and a cash to short-term debt ratio of 67%. They were over-leveraged and short on cash, meaning they violated two red lines. And their net debt to equity [00:44:00] ratio was 99.8%, just a hair's breadth from the third red line. And thus, their cycles started to break. Evergrande had millions upon millions of apartments already sold to buyers, yet not completed. To pay builders and suppliers and others to complete these projects, they had to borrow more, yet faced with new restrictions due to their violation of the two red lines, they just simply couldn't. So, their cash reserves dwindled, their existing obligations remained the same, yet they had little ability to reverse course by launching new projects. And even if they could, the market had changed. 

China was both the first and last major economy with significant COVID restrictions. As much of the rest of the world regained a sense of normality, China elected to vaccinate its population with generally less effective, domestic-made, traditional vaccines, as opposed to the more effective, novel mRNA-based jabs used elsewhere. So, to quell the various outbreaks that still arose after widespread vaccination, the country [00:45:00] maintained far stricter COVID policies than the rest of the world. Overall, economic productivity declined, and therefore, the entire economy and each individual's finances took a disproportionate hit. Simultaneously, the country's migrant worker class reversed course.

Individuals who had previously moved from their rural hometowns to cities, seeking brighter economic prospects, returned home. During the pandemic, for the first time in recent history, the quantity of migrant workers in cities declined. While this was accelerated by lower demand for labor in cities during the pandemic, many also pointed to the high costs of housing as why the higher salaries in cities were no longer worth it.

And finally, decades of demographic change were catching up with the nation. The steady decades-long decline in birth rates meant those in China's notably young core home buying age, centered at 29 years old, were beginning to represent a smaller and smaller fraction of the overall population. Even if the overall population stayed steady, for the moment at least, the proportion likely to buy a [00:46:00] home had begun to shrink. 

So, Evergrande not only was prevented from taking on debt, it was also starting to struggle to generate money through additional sales of new projects. The two key money-generating stages in the cycle just were not working like they used to. But they still had debt to pay off and apartments to finish, so, backed into a corner, the company started rummaging for cash. Rather inexplicably, in 2018, it had established an electric vehicle manufacturing division that itself, perhaps even more inexplicably, included a major senior care division, but in 2021, it courted Xiaomi to see if they would buy a majority stake. Talks eventually stalled, and no sale was made. It also reportedly courted buyers for its stake in the championship winning Guangzhou FC soccer club, but considering Evergrande was losing millions of millions of dollars a year through that ownership, it also failed to sell. It was able to sell off its 18 percent stake in an entertainment joint venture with Tencent for $273 million, but this was ultimately a drop in the bucket [00:47:00] compared to what the company needed to right the ship.

So, ultimately, the death spiral began on Monday, December 6th, 2021, not with a bang, and not even with a whimper, but rather, with just simply nothing. That day marked the end of a grace period for already late payments on a set of bonds, but it came and went, without payment, or even an explanation of when payment might come. Then Tuesday passed with nothing more, and Wednesday, and by Thursday, with investors still unpaid, Fitch Ratings, one of the world's big three credit rating agencies, declared Evergrande in default. This was effectively the official, although largely ceremonial, signal to the financial world that they should not lend money to Evergrande, because they might not get it back.

As a property developer, a business model almost entirely centered around debt, default is pretty close to the end of the line. Even if the company could get loans, they'd be at such a high interest rate to offset the risks to the lender that the effective [00:48:00] cost of property development would be uncompetitive relative to the market. In fact, Evergrande did have an easier time than the average company in such a dire situation finding lenders, since many believed the company was too big to fail, such an instrumental part of the Chinese economy that the CCP would bail it out to avoid an economic crisis. 

But that bailout never came. After a year or two sputtering along, restructuring debt, shedding off assets, cost cutting, in January 2024, a court in Hong Kong determined that it was just simply impossible. Evergrande could not be saved, the cycle could not be restarted, and the only option was to strip it for parts and make creditors as whole as possible.

But the crux of China's challenge is that this isn't just an Evergrande issue. While it was the largest, most dramatic example highlighted in international media, the forces that slayed the giant are putting pressure on almost every single property developer. Country Garden, another giant, appears just [00:49:00] months behind Evergrande, and after years on life support, is teetering towards liquidation. Dozens of other developers are in default, and over a hundred billion dollars of debt payments from the Chinese property sector have failed to get paid. 

There are quite a number of forces putting pressure on the Chinese economy—their demographic shift, their deindustrialization, their increasing insularity—but the way the property sector has weaved itself so integrally through the nation means it serves to magnify every single one of those issues. At base, the fact that the sector accounts for an outsized portion of its gross domestic product means it simultaneously can account for an outsized drag on gross domestic product. But it also has a propensity for negatively impacting the demographics of people most central to China's economy. Stock market crashes, for example, have an impact on all, but impact those who have a higher portion of their income in the stock market most, which tends to be wealthier individuals and institutions.

The Chinese property sector, however, is a key [00:50:00] source of savings and investment for the nation's middle class. This demographic is the one most likely to have an outsized portion of their net worth tied up in a single Evergrande apartment that might now never exist. Money has just simply disappeared, and there's a gaping hole in the middle of the Chinese economy.

The Chinese property sector was always going to collapse. Its highly leveraged debt-fueled foundation was never strong enough to support itself in anything but the most gangbusters periods of growth. It was fundamentally flawed from the get go, so some sort of crisis always had to happen. So, what's happening in the Chinese economy is essentially a controlled demolition.

But this does represent a uniquely tenuous position for the central government. The Chinese social contract, unsaid but always understood, is that individuals sacrifice personal liberty in exchange for common economic prosperity. While dissent, of course, appears, since nobody truly gets a choice whether to make that trade off, a huge portion of the population [00:51:00] wholeheartedly believes in this social contract.

After all, it's hard to argue with the means when the end is 800 million people lifted out of poverty. But that's now history. If Xi Jinping can't deliver his end of the bargain, if the common economic prosperity wanes, then the question in everyone's minds is why they should have to deliver theirs.

Our New Global Economy - Johnny Harris - Air Date 12-20-23

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: People in the 90s would have never guessed what direction this story is about to go. The Soviet Union had just fallen. Free trade and global capitalism had unambiguously beat communism. And the magic of the free market was seen as the solution for pretty much everything.

Free trade had just ended global conflict between these great superpowers. Maybe forever. Free trade was eradicating global poverty. Free trade was pushing countries to adopt democracy. And here's Bill Clinton, giddy about how good it's all going, predicting that free trade would bring democracy to China.

BILL CLINTON: The more China liberalizes its economy, the more fully it will liberate the potential of its people. Their initiative, their [00:52:00] imagination, their remarkable spirit of enterprise. And when individuals have the power not just to dream, but to realize their dreams, they will demand a greater say. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: Free trade would prevent our age old human curse—war—by so deeply entangling countries in mutually beneficial deals that it wouldn't make sense to fight. After all, free trade had turned Europe from a continent ravaged by war to this tightly knit group where everyone's holding hands and smiling together. Why wouldn't this naturally just happen to the whole globe?

China continued to make stuff and send it to the United States. Our dependency on them and them on us continued to grow and that would surely prevent any conflict, right? Um, no. It's looking like that's not how it's what's going to turn out. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: The new tariffs from both sides went into effect earlier this morning.

The US has imposed 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. 

China is our military's most consequential [00:53:00] strategic competitor and pacing challenge. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: In a relatively sudden shift, governments around the world are undoing a lot of this globalization. This solution to all of our problems, they're rejecting it.

India is paying companies to keep their production within their own borders, especially for important industries like pharmaceuticals and electronics. South Korea is giving taxpayer money to companies to produce green energy infrastructure, instead of waiting for the free market to come build it. Japan is paying companies to move production back to Japan and to move their supply chains away from China.

Australia is using taxpayer money to encourage mining companies to establish the processing of rare earth mineral facilities within their borders instead of abroad. Nigeria is imposing restrictions on foreign goods that they want to see produced domestically, like rice and cement. They don't want to be reliant on other countries.

And then you've got Europe, where tons of countries are investing government money and protecting homegrown industries that have always been directed by the global economy, like energy, agriculture, and [00:54:00] cars. The government getting involved in these markets incentivizes companies and consumers to make and sell these products in-country as opposed to looking abroad at the global market.

And of course, leading out on all of this is the OG of the modern free market global economy—the United States—who is suddenly changing course from how they've been operating all the way up until, like, Obama. Like, Obama spent a great deal of his time trying to increase free trade, especially with Asia, then first under Trump and now under Biden, the US is overhauling its economic policy to turn back some of this free trade. And what's crazy is that both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that we should do this. And fast. 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: There is no reason. We have the capacity. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: Some of these policies include huge government spending bills like the CHIPS Act, which would allocate over 50 billion government dollars to companies that produce microchips here in the United States instead of in Asia where the free market had pulled them to set up.

This is also happening in other [00:55:00] industries that the government has deemed vital, like critical minerals, cars, and clean energy. But they're not just giving subsidies, like, it's not just government money washing down on all these industries. It's also barriers. Biden is imposing tariffs on imports, which protects domestic producers of certain industries because they no longer have to compete with the global market.

They're also banning American companies from selling certain products to China. They're increasing scrutiny on any investment that comes in from places like China. Like, this is a big shift. And the question is, what happened? How did we get from this—free trade heyday that was supposed to usher in world peace—to this?

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Markets have been whipsawed all morning and now afternoon by this ongoing trade war with China. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: The short answer is one word, the answer to all of this: protection. 

Here's my list of four "protections" that best explain this big shift in economic policy. First, workers, which we already kind of talked about briefly with the [00:56:00] China shock. For all the winners of the global economy, there were lots of losers. And a lot of them were communities who found themselves out of work as their jobs went to cheaper overseas locations. Now, listen: economists argue as to how big of a problem this actually was, and you can read all about it in my sources. But the point is that closed factories and unemployed communities in the Rust Belt have a major psychological effect on people who fear that their jobs might just disappear, either abroad or be taken over by AI. So the government is trying to calm people down by pumping money into certain sectors to keep jobs in America.

The next big realization about the global economy: it doesn't really care much about how much carbon it pumps into our atmosphere. Our world is barreling towards a very real climate crisis, and governments realize they're gonna have to force the market to get serious about things like electric cars, solar panels, and other green infrastructure. The free market is not going to incentivize this. And if it doesn't happen, we're going to have a much bigger problem on our hands. 

[00:57:00] One of the best parts of the global economy is that our products get made by materials that are being tossed around the globe at the perfect time, at the perfect place, to all come together to be made into a final product, all to arrive at a shelf at some store so that we can purchase it. These supply chains are insane, and they cross the entire planet. And it works great, until the world shut down in a global pandemic, leaving people around the world without the products that they either needed, or just kinda got used to having. 

Again, economists argue about how big of a deal this was. A lot of them are like, no, the supply chains held up really well during COVID. But regardless of what some academic economist is saying at MIT, all of us are left with a pretty bad taste in our mouth about supply chains after COVID. The system feels too fragile. A lot of us feel too reliant on a fragile system of far away global connections that could be rocked at any moment, which has led to these protectionist policies that these governments hope will bring supply chains back inside of their borders. 

Okay, finally, and perhaps the most [00:58:00] important explanation in all of this is that Bill Clinton was totally wrong. Free trade didn't incentivize China into a democratic revolution. The world did not join together in one big free trade market, too entangled to fight with each other. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. 

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Relations between the world's two largest economies are at their most tense in years. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: After joining the global economy, China got really rich really fast. They've kind of started to challenge the US at its own game, and now they have one of the biggest militaries on the planet, and they use that military to assert their influence around their region. They use their newfound wealth to project influence around the world by building stuff or giving loans to people. And they're kind of trying to dethrone the United States as the one who's calling the shots on the global economic order. 

I made a whole video about this that you can go watch if you want, but the big point here is that the US is worried about the rapid rise of their rival across the ocean. Especially when the rise of that rival is in part fueled by American technology, specifically, these [00:59:00] little silicon chips—microchips—that make weapons smart, and that will be the brains that power the AI revolution. A lot of Joe Biden's protectionist policies are actually just aimed right at China, trying to stop them from using our own tech to get ahead of us. (Again, I made an entire video about microchips, you can go into that. Kind of made a video about a lot of these things.) But yeah, Joe Biden is also trying to get the supply chains for these microchips out of China's neighborhood, meaning out of Taiwan, bringing them back inside our borders to places like New Albany, Ohio, nice and safe in the middle of our continent.

So, you're going to see a lot more moments like this with American presidents or politicians with hard hats on speaking at construction sites. 

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Folks, we need to make these chips right here in America to bring down everyday costs and create good jobs. America is back and America is leading the way. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: This last point is kind of a brutal recognition for a lot of people, including me, to be honest, that our [01:00:00] theory that we would all be more peaceful if we were more economically entangled is kind of wrong, at least for now. In fact, these economic entanglements are looking like they might turn into tools of conflict as opposed to preventers of conflict. Like, China has a near monopoly on a lot of the rare earth elements that we need to make a ton of very important products, including military weapons. And if push comes to shove, they could very realistically use this as leverage and cut us off in the exact same way that we cut them off microchips. I mean, this just happened. Vladimir Putin turned off the pipelines that pumped a natural gas into Europe, the gas that is needed to heat the homes and run the factories, showing us that economic entanglements can actually be a weapon and flipping this whole theory on its head.

But yeah, Joe Biden is pouring money into bringing production home and he has a lot of support from all sides of the aisle. This is like economic nationalism. The government is getting involved to undo some of what the free market did in its heyday, which was to distribute [01:01:00] production of stuff where it made the most economic sense, not where it protected people.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: That means we will invent it in America and make it in America. And we're going to make sure we include all of America. 

JOHNNY HARRIS - HOST, JOHNNY HARRIS: So, that's where we're at. The world is reacting to some weaknesses that they see in the global free trade system. They're putting up barriers in the name of protection. And no one's really sure what that means. Like, it's kind of hard to not look at this and draw some parallels with the 1930s, when a series of economic crises led countries to put up trade barriers in the name of protection, which then led to ever greater economic strife, leading to unrest and eventually culminating in the Second World War. But don't read too far into that. I'm not trying to, like, do one of those things where I'm like "every hundred years, history repeats itself". That's not what I think is happening here, but there's some similarities that we should probably just keep an eye on.

Final comments on how Joe Biden can become a hero in the wake of his debate with Trump

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with More Perfect Union, explaining the shift in macro economic thinking from Clinton to Biden. Siming [01:02:00] Lan described the history of China to give context for today. The Financial Times looked at China's Belt and Road Initiative. Our Changing Climate put China's carbon emissions into historical context. TLDR News Global explained the escalating tensions with the Philippines in the South China Sea. Wendover broke down China's housing market and their broader economic shutdown. And Johnny Harris thought about the consequences of our changing global economic system. 

And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive section.

But before we continue, I wanted to address the fallout of the Trump-Biden debate. It's all anyone can talk about, and so I thought I would too, because I think I have something to say that I am not really hearing anywhere else. 

So skipping past the panic and the circling of the Biden campaign wagons and not wallowing in all of the reasons to fear that Biden will not be reelected by voters, paving the way to a second and much worse Trump administration. [01:03:00] Not even spending time to talk about the extremely legitimate reasons why fans of Biden might not want to depend on him in his condition to be president, not just for the next seven months, but for the next four and a half years. 

Skipping past all that, I want to talk about how inspiring it would have been and still could be if Joe Biden were to fully embrace his role as the transitional figure he pitched himself as. 

He said he wanted to save the country from a second Trump administration and act as a bridge to the next generation. Well, he succeeded in the first goal in 2020. And as we're hearing in the show today, he's acting as much more of a transformational figure in the White House than anyone would have had the right to guess. You can look back in the archives of this show and find predictions dating back years saying that the age of neo-liberalism not only needs to end, but is [01:04:00] destined to end, and soon. And Joe Biden--though I would not have predicted it--met this moment in time and is acting, along with Congress and all of those in his administration whose job it is to actually execute policy priorities, to change the economic direction of the country after four or five decades of bipartisan consensus on free market capitalism. 

Now he's no Marxist and he certainly doesn't have the charisma that Obama did. But somehow his team is managing to deliver potentially era-defining change that is genuinely hard to believe in, and yet is actually happening. 

The ideal scenario for me would have been for Biden to announce that he would not be seeking reelection during his inauguration speech. It would have been inspiring as hell. "You know, I commit to you today four distraction-free years of getting [01:05:00] things done for the American people. I will not be wasting my time thinking about reelection or campaigning. I am here to do the job. Right?"

That's the message. That's what he could have said. 

Meanwhile, there would have been no ambiguity for those seeking to continue the work that he would have started. The American people would have been giving years to get to know the Democrats on deck, waiting to lead the next generation. 

Knowing that Trump would almost certainly run again, it would have been all too easy to guarantee that he would be seen as the old candidate, no longer fit for office, if he ever were, forced to stand opposed to relatively young and exciting Democrats, promising a slate of policies that the majority of people genuinely prefer. It could have been the first lopsided election in decades. 

Meanwhile, long before the debate, polls showed that sometimes as many as three quarters of Americans--so obviously lots of Democrats in there--Felt [01:06:00] that Biden was too old for a second term. Not necessarily too old for his first, not too old to finish out what he started, but too old to go again. And it was in this context that the structural forces of politics hanging on the single fulcrum of Biden's personal decision to run again prevented any would-be viable candidates from having the opportunity to mount a 2024 campaign, because mounting a campaign against Biden would have been fruitless and divisive, and everyone knew it. But a fresh campaign season with new candidates running with the blessing of the president would have been an injection of excitement that voters express themselves to be desperate for every single time they're asked. 

When you choose to run for reelection on the premise that democracy is on the line and start by going against the preference of 75% of the population, it should be immediately apparent that something has gone awry. 

But it's not too late to be an [01:07:00] inspiration. Knowing when to step away is often more heroic than stepping up in the first place. Think of George Washington's decision to not seek a third term as a lesson to the country about the need to move away from monarchy. Think about a parent's decision to step back and knowing that their child has learned the skills they need and is ready to succeed on their own. And the senior citizen who knows when it's time to hand over the car keys for their own safety and the safety of others. These are acts of heroism.

And in the context of democracy, adhering to the will of the people is never a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength to do what is difficult--maybe not what you would even personally want to do--to uphold the ideal of democratic input and representation that every citizen should hold dear. 

Biden has the opportunity now to be that inspiration, to fulfill his promise to be a bridge to the next generation, having completed a successful one-term presidency. Not one that I've agreed with on every issue, obviously, but [01:08:00] that's not the reasonable bar to describe success. 

Politically, these are the options we have before us. If Biden steps aside, he will be endlessly thanked for his service, and his legacy will be remembered in practically glowing terms. 

Under the circumstance, the result of the election could still go in one of two ways. For that eventual ticket of candidates, they will either be hailed as victors, or thanked for their effort, just as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were thanked for theirs in recent decades. You may have disagreed with him on some policies or campaign strategies as I did. But there was never the sense that their decision to throw their hats in the ring in and of itself was questionable.

Alternately, though, there is a much darker scenario that would not only irreparably tarnish Biden's legacy, but potentially tear the party apart in a way that made the dustup between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders look tame by comparison. [01:09:00] Not even considering for a moment the disaster that would be a second Trump term, the healing that would have to happen after a Biden loss to Trump would cause chaos in the party at the exact moment in time that the need for unity and resolve would be at its absolute height. And for all of his efforts, all of his decades of service, Biden would not even be thanked. In fact, it would be a large question as to how many people would be able to find it within themselves to forgive him. 

Now on that high note, before we get back to the show, a quick reminder that July is our membership and awareness drive. If you get value out of this show, let this be the time that you decide to chip in to help sustain its production, and tell some friends about it to help grow our base of support. As thanks to those who helped make the show possible, we release weekly bonus episodes in which the production crew here takes center stage to hold conversations on serious topics while also remembering to laugh, even [01:10:00] if it's just so we don't cry sometimes. 

Plus, of course members get ad-free versions of every regular episode. And for this month, memberships are 20% off. So sign up now and keep that discounted price for as long as you keep your membership. 

So, if that sounds like something you've been meaning to do for awhile, take this as your opportunity to support the creators you love and spread the word so that others can get the same value you do. Just head to BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support to grab your discounted membership and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: CHINA'S ECONOMIC FOREIGN POLICY

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on four topics. 

Next up section a. China's economic foreign policy. Section B the Evie wars section. See the tech and space race and section D escalating tensions.

Kidnappings and ghost towns on China’s Belt and Road: 10 years of Xi Jinping’s masterplan | Dispatch - The Telegraph - Air Date 9-7-23

SOPHIA YAN - HOST, DISPATCH: Khorgos was described as the new Dubai, a one stop shop that would revolutionize global trade, complete with factories producing goods for export, plus warehouses, shopping centers, hotels, and more. And at the center of it all, a dry port [01:11:00] with faster shipping times than routing by sea.

Asset Seissenbank is deputy CEO of the Special Economic Zone, where the dry port is located.

ASSET SEISENBECK: Dubai and Khorgos are located in the center, yeah. It looks same, background are same, yeah. So, yeah, I believe that with the impact of our partners, our government, we will reach the scales and the level of Dubai.

This is a huge strategy, it's a huge plan, infrastructural plan. I mean, I strongly believe that One Belt, One Road will bring For the developing countries, more and more chances to trigger the development of their economy. I believe that these projects will bring for the local people more and more business chances also.

SOPHIA YAN - HOST, DISPATCH: So far, China has emerged the main winner. Porgos allows China to [01:12:00] export more quickly its cheap goods, and export its technical know how. Representatives showed us a factory in the special economic zone backed by investors from Afghanistan. Chinese materials and machines churning out nappies and sanitary pads for export to Russia.

Signs are everywhere that Kazakhstan has not benefited in the same way. The village of Nurkent, built for people working along the border, is a far cry from the urban jungle of Dubai. Only a few thousand residents in a town that was supposed to house more than 50, 000 people by now. We drove around the small settlement in a matter of minutes.

Our footage shows just how little has been built on this side of the border. This monument marks the continued expansion of Nur Kent. The idea was that as border cooperation grew between China and Kazakhstan, that this whole region would flourish. But as you can see, ten years on, [01:13:00] after China launched Belt and Road, it hasn't really delivered on the promised benefits.

Most residents we met enjoy the small town life and prefer Nurkent to stay as it is. A warm community where everybody knows each other, with just a few shops and restaurants right across from the schools. More Chinese influence worries those living just miles from the border.

NURSAPA NURQADYR: I'm concerned because the Chinese do not invade by waging a war. They gradually enter the country, increase their population, and assimilate. They have the resources to buy many things, and they are interested in Kazakhstan land.

SOPHIA YAN - HOST, DISPATCH: Belton Road has been criticized as paving the way for China's regional and military expansion. In Tajikistan, a secret Chinese military base has been built right on the border with Afghanistan and China. BRI hasn't delivered on its promise, and many countries are struggling to [01:14:00] repay loans. Governments are estimated to have hidden debts of at least 385 billion.

China has even taken control of foreign assets when countries are unable to repay loans. One third of BRI projects have been plagued by corruption scandals, labor violations, environmental hazards, or public protests. Nations are now rethinking their involvement. Italy, the only G7 country to join BRI, wants to back out.

Some worry that China's BRI expansion will mean less natural resources for the rest of the world. Increasing use of water in China is just one example. drying up a river that flows downstream into Kazakhstan, Vladimir Muravsky, who leads birdwatching tours has witnessed the water levels fall. 

VLADIMIR MURAFSKIY: For agriculture, for fields.

So what you're in fields [01:15:00] mostly, you know, you've seen that land. So it's a good fertile land, but without water it's nothing, it's just the sand. But with water, yeah, so you can grow anything. 

SOPHIA YAN - HOST, DISPATCH: Are you worried about environmental damage here as China uses more and more water upstream? 

VLADIMIR MURAFSKIY: Sure I am, but, uh, you know, if I'm worried or not worried, Who cares?

Chinese don't care, for sure. Kazakhstan, it's always between, you know, between two empires, Chinese empires and the Russian empire. Here we, in Kazakhstan, we have so much land and area and stuff inside it and, uh, not too many people. 

SOPHIA YAN - HOST, DISPATCH: Those I spoke with fear growing Chinese Kazakh cooperation will put them at greater risk.

Has Africa gained from China's infrastructure plans? - Focus on Africa - Air Date 10-20-23

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: Beijing hosted a big meeting of [01:16:00] leaders from around the world , many of them from Africa. They all had one thing in common. They were part of the Belt and Road Initiative, a long term investment in infrastructure made by China. Chinese President Xi Jinping launched it in 2013 to bolster road, rail, and sea infrastructure in countries China had an economic interest in.

Beijing has invested nearly a trillion US dollars in the initiative, most of it as loans. So how successful has the Belt and Road Initiative, BRI for short, been for the countries that are part of it? The short answer is, it's mixed. We'll take a look at how Zambia fared in a moment, but let's first find out what the intention was of the initiative.

Damali Sali is a trade facilitation expert in Uganda. 

DAMALI SALI: China says that the Belt and Road Initiative is to ensure that there is global infrastructure development so that there is a global connectivity and to facilitate global [01:17:00] trade. So China, I would imagine from their mind, they want to open up bigger markets, probably for their goods and services so that they can access those markets.

In addition to that, they would like to open up pathways within which they can get raw materials to further their industrialization. Africa's perspective on the other hand is that Africa as a continent has a huge infrastructure gap. I was reading a report from Africa Development Bank which said that Africa's infrastructure gap is a hundred billion dollars per annum.

So Africa needs a hundred billion dollars per year to plug that infrastructure gap in order to connect. So we have a lot of trade Corridors like road trade corridors that are mapped out or railway trade corridors that are mapped out infrastructure corridors that are mapped out, but we don't have the funding to do so.

And the traditional funding that's available, say, for example, if you look at the IMF loans from the IMF, only 4 percent of loans. From the IMF actually go to the African continent. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: Are there different objectives in different African countries? You know, when they deal with China unilaterally, is it the same strategy that all African countries or Africa as a [01:18:00] region approaches China?

DAMALI SALI: I think it's not the same. And I feel like Africa as a continent, we need to come up, I think, with a framework within which we engage these major bodies. For example, like in East Africa, there are three major infrastructure pieces in which China is important. The first one is the Kenya standard gauge railway.

That's the railway that was supposed to come from Mombasa to Nairobi into Uganda, Kampala. It was supposed to go to Juba, South Sudan, and then go to DRC. Now, China was supposed to fund that entire piece. However, it's funded it from Mombasa to Naivasha. So it never did get to Uganda, won't get to Dubai, won't get to DRC.

Also, in addition to that, they say, at least the Kenyans, if you read any articles around that, they say that it was too expensive, very costly, and It may be difficult for them to repay it back because now it actually stopped, stopped midway. So there's no cargo going back and it was supposed to move cargo from Mombasa into the hinterland and back so that it can pay for itself.

So there is that negotiation that happened now with the Kenyan government and China, which may or may not result into the intended [01:19:00] purpose. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: If you look at China's objective in setting up the Belt and Road Initiative, specifically in African countries and African countries and what they had hoped to achieve by embracing China as a funder, as a lender, are there satisfied customers all around?

DAMALI SALI: Infrastructure development takes up quite a bit of time to be able to see the real impact, the real results and everything. In the short term, of course, some of the things that people are seeing or are complaining about is the cost of those arrangements. The cost of those loans, how you're required to pay back.

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: So what are the implications of that for African countries that China is almost the only option here because so many countries are so highly indebted to China and China's economy has been experiencing headwinds as well along with other economies around the world. That puts African countries that rely on China for funding of infrastructural development projects in a very difficult position, doesn't it?

DAMALI SALI: It absolutely does. We need more alternative financing sources because we still have that gap. And if you look at the Africa continental free trade area where we agreed as a continent to trade with each other, [01:20:00] currently Africa only trades with the. Each other only 15 percent of the goods that it actually trades globally only 15%.

If you compare it to Europe, Europe trades with each other 60 percent of the time, and yes, Africa only trades with the other 15 percent of the time. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: It's the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road Initiative. What would you say to optimize this relationship should be happening? 

DAMALI SALI: As a continent, we need to sit down and say, what are our asks from China actually in this infrastructure development for our continent?

What are the asks? What do we negotiate for? What rights do we negotiate for? What are the things we negotiate for around environment, around labor, environmental safeguards, around structuring the loans in a way that will not purely, purely exploitative to that whatever country. And as a bloc, we can negotiate better compared to one country going bilaterally to negotiate.

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: Damali Sali explaining that it's all about trading and negotiating with each other. But let's explore the big D. It's the question that comes up each time you mention Africa and China in the same sentence. Zambia is one of those countries facing a [01:21:00] debt crisis. Ishmael Zulu is a development economist based in Lusaka, and we turn to him to help us understand China's role in Zambia's current economic predicament.

ISHMAEL ZULU: The situation Zambia finds itself in is one in which it is not. able to service its debt. It's debt to GDP ratio had risen to over 100%. So put simply, when we look at the GDP, which refers to how much Zambia is producing as a country compared to what it owes, you find it's over 100%. So Zambia's Gross domestic product.

Well, the last statistic that we have, according to the world bank is 22 billion us dollars and our total debt stock. So this is including internal debt and external debt is over 30 billion us dollars. And most of that is owed to China. A significant proportion is owed to China. However, [01:22:00] our debt is mixed.

So we have euro bonds that we gave out as a country, which constitute a large share of our commercial debt. So it's not only China. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: So let's take China because the Belt and Road Initiative is 10 years old. What does China Zambia have to show for what it owes China. 

ISHMAEL ZULU: Yeah. So there have been several infrastructure projects.

Zambia relies, I think over 90 percent of our electricity is sourced from hydroelectric power. And, uh, one of the projects that China was funding is what is known as the climate. KA gorge, lower hydro power project. There was also dual carriageway, and so this is a road that goes from the capital city, Lusaka and Zambia, all the way to the copper belt, which is the mining province.

Another big one was the airport that we currently have the Can account International Airport. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: Would you say that for the debt crisis that Zambia finds itself in right now and what was done with the [01:23:00] money that it's worth it? 

ISHMAEL ZULU: It's mixed, so it's definitely mixed. A lot of the projects, so Zambia being a developing country, needed resources to fund its infrastructure development.

Otherwise, many of the developmental goals that we set out to achieve would not be met if we did not have the resources to fund them. However, there have been a lot of concerns, especially. around the transparency of these conversations and how the debt had been procured. Because you'd find that many people were not aware of how these deals were negotiated, what the terms are, what the interest rates are, when we're expected to pay this debt.

This information has not been publicly available for majority of the debts that were procured. And as a result, you would find that there'd been many cases because of that. Secrecy. We saw a lot of inflated prices where you see cases of corruption coming up. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: What's China's approach to Zambia's debt [01:24:00] distress?

Will they come down hard on Zambia if Zambia can't pay its debt? 

ISHMAEL ZULU: The challenge with responding to that question is the lack of transparency in the deals that have been signed. So in a positive light, we know that the Chinese president had committed to renegotiate about 6 billion of Zambia's debt. So it shows that there is that willingness and political will to look at the relationship that we have between Zambia between developing countries and China itself.

And there is that room to renegotiate some of those deals. 

AUDREY BROWN - HOST, FOCUS ON AFRICA: On balance would you say that it's been a beneficial relationship and it should continue? 

ISHMAEL ZULU: It's definitely one that should continue given the historical project successes, but definitely moving forward, there is a big, big call for transparency in the way that we are relating with China.

China-Africa Relations in the Era of Great Power Competition - The China in Africa Podcast - Air Date 5-9-24

C. GÉAURD NEEMA - HOST, CHINA IN AFRICA: The progress of an international community in the crisis that we see, for example, in Gaza, makes it really much more difficult today for the West to come with a [01:25:00] narrative to try to kind of lecture African countries.

And it's also opening doors for the narrative for China in Africa, when China is saying that we need to reform the international system. We need a new rule based order because the one that we have right now is much more US western centered than anything else. And because of how we see their behaving, this kind of narrative will start to take shape in Africa, where you have a lot of head of state who say yes, we really don't agree with the way the West does things.

And especially when we saw how they reacted with the war in Ukraine with Russia and the way they behaving right now in Gaza. face toward Israel, you kind of wonder why the double standard and African country when they see that when they listen to that, they're kind of like that makes sense that for us, the international rule based order is not really fair as we it was presented to be.

It's much more hypocritical kind of rule based order. And when China comes and say, you know, you need to support me to have [01:26:00] a new configuration of the rule based order, they kind of say, Yeah, we're gonna go with you. 

OVIGWE EGUEGU: Very good analysis, by the way. Very convincing. The first thing I want to say regarding to that is we don't even need the Russians or the Chinese to come tell us that the system is unfair.

Because since independence till now, generation after generation of leaders, even after independence, we could see how unfair several countries were treated, even in the decolonization process. The reason you have Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Having course today, I've seen all of the agreements and parks with France that they are counseling.

If you read those documents, there's no way you would agree that a sovereign country will sign this or this is even a fair arrangement. So overall, we on our own have been very, very vocal without any foreign partner telling us this is unfair. We know what unfair is because we actually went through colonialism and then the decolonization process.

Was very, very incomplete in several ways. And since we've seen Russia [01:27:00] and China with the West, having a lot of contention in their relationship with China, Russia, trying to build an alternative system, China doesn't, and many countries, I would even say do not recognize the rules based international order, as it is said, because.

Nobody knows what the rules are Exactly. You know, the international, the international law, which we know based on the UN charter, this is what all countries, at least countries who are in the UN system have agreed to. And that is very clear for everyone to see. We know what happens when there's a, where there's conflict somewhere, what organ the UN is supposed to act, and what the role of United Nation Security Council, they came up with United for Peace Formula several years ago.

That is well established, but the rules based international order comes across to anyone who has paid any attention to it, you know, as essentially, and I've described this in a discussion to say, it's like myself and my friends, we set up rules and then we're going to impose it on the [01:28:00] rest of the world.

Without them even knowing what the rules are. So we just decided what the rules would be and when and where it should be applied. So that's a challenge and African countries, in my opinion, they do not want to be cajoled and not, nobody actually wants to be cajoled into such a system. Some people want to play within it if they win.

I told this to a few friends during an event, actually with a US based organization. I said, look, if we had countries like Japan and South Korea in Africa, countries who won under the hierarchy and the system that was created post 45 and even post Bretton Woods, you will find many allies on the continent of Africa.

C. GÉAURD NEEMA - HOST, CHINA IN AFRICA: Definitely. No question asked. 

OVIGWE EGUEGU: But the way it is on the continent of Africa is that you can't find winners of the current system. So why would you not expect champions to emerge from a continent where there were no winners, right? So over the decades, all we've just had is countries who have not been able to industrialized or you're just told you know what you're just [01:29:00] going to be commodity suppliers.

That's fine. 

C. GÉAURD NEEMA - HOST, CHINA IN AFRICA: Let me stop you there for a moment. Is it the international system at fault or is it internal country bad governance at fault in that case? 

OVIGWE EGUEGU: Ah, that's a very interesting question and I would really like us to go in this direction. So let's look at When we left colonial era, many countries nationalized their resources, right?

So we had that in Ghana, we had that in Zimbabwe, in many countries across the continent, they saw that as a way to build some form of industrial base, and then piggyback off protectionism, then they progressively liberalized. There was not a single country that didn't face pushback from the West. And as at the time, the West, is the, and still is to a large extent, the home of foreign capital.

They were the ones that can give you access to technologies. They were the ones that can give you access to capital to invest. In the first place, in this moment, China was not the big player. Then for the USSR to some extent. was an actor, but overall, if the [01:30:00] model that was built when Germany, the United States, France were still industrial powers was importing raw materials from former colonies now to the factories.

Well, that's what African countries were faced with. When you nationalize the money to build your industrial supply chain, it's not going to fall from the sky. You still need to go to where capital was, and capital wasn't coming from the West because they do not want African countries to go in that direction.

So it is not written down as we will not let you industrialize. Or we will not let you go into the local refining of your resources, but it's just by withholding capital that is what you get where there was no alternative. But now if you look at Zimbabwe, for instance, just last week we saw news in Mokoto in Zimbabwe, see what they've been able to achieve, for instance, and what they're trying to do with steel, with lithium.

If you see what Indonesia is also doing with nickel, for instance, Indonesia is able to block nickel export role and say, we want to do this. But why are they able to do it now? Because [01:31:00] they have alternative people who can make those investments. If it was only the West that could put capital into Indonesia, they will not be able to succeed in doing what they are going to do.

C. GÉAURD NEEMA - HOST, CHINA IN AFRICA: So basically, China offered an option for many African producing countries now to kind of have a leverage to be able to exist in that international order by providing capitals to those African countries to start the refining, right? That's what you're saying. If I understand correctly, that China now basically China offered option to African country to have a certain level of agency.

I'm not sure that I agree with the president's statement that had the but withholding capital because I'm not going to get in that debate, but let's face it. Many African country had corruption. We had regime that was richer than the country. We had regime that was embezzling billions of billions of dollars that could have been used for the economy that could have been used for refining that could have been used for processing.

But you're going to see most of those country. I'm going to take Zaire, my country, [01:32:00] DR Congo today. We had president that we had, that was producing a lot, but millions of millions were just embezzled for personal wealth and personal gain. So we cannot just really say that it international rule based order was set against us.

I know it was not set for us for sure that for sure it was not set for us because we are not parts of it when the system was set, we are not parts of it. So basically when you're not there, if something is set, you can assume safely that it not set for your gain. That's. Quite clear for me, but we cannot also say that it was actively walking into making us and keeping us poor.

When we overlook the fact that many of our heads of state were just corrupted. They had money. You take a country like Gabon, you know, money's there, but the picture was there, but you have the bonus family with billions of billions having castle in Europe and everything. That's just beside the point to get back to what you're saying.

Yes, [01:33:00] China arrivals in Africa now today offers that opportunity for many African country producing country since you talk about resources to be in that space where they can now have urgency, they can now ask for refineries, they can now ask for processing Zimbabwe is now winning having first level lithium processing put into the ground last year, up to last year, they're like five to six now lithium processing that are running in the country, which is a good thing.

So Yeah, China has offered that opportunity that I think that many countries are now appreciating in Africa. 

OVIGWE EGUEGU: Yeah, of course, again, they don't offer the agency, all they offer is opportunity and that is why you find in many cases countries are saying, see, I will tell you, there are many, I've spoken to so many people across the continent that they come up as pro China, but to the extent that what they really want is Just to have the China option, because if you're in a system where you're only beholding to only one party kind of hegemony, which we've seen, and we've been at the bottom of the system that's currently changing now, you don't need to [01:34:00] tell an African what his place is in the current world order.

It's very clear. Just look at the last 50 years or having that option. It's precisely why you find so many takers for what China represents.

SECTION B: THE EV WARS

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: the EV wars.

Why China is winning the EV war - Vox - Air Date 6-7-24

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: The first major reason for why China's companies were able to develop their EV battery is due to a huge amount of government support. Roughly 20 years ago, China was on track to become the world's largest importer of oil, so electrifying its car fleet would help it become more energy independent. Not to mention a growing air pollution problem in China's cities, in part due to car emissions.

IIARIA MAZZOCCO: What the EVs had going for them was that the head of the Ministry of Science and Technology was a big believer in this and his sense was that Chinese companies were just never going to be able to compete on internal combustion engine technology. That's how you get this package of policies that really supported what Chinese government defined as new energy vehicles.

ZEYI YANG: Companies making the [01:35:00] cars Can get a subsidy whenever they sell a car. We're also talking about they're getting cheap, like, land leases from the government. They're getting cheap loans from the state owned banks. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: According to one estimate, from 2009 to 2022, the Chinese government gave out 29 billion in the form of subsidies, research spending, and tax breaks to the EV industry.

And starting around 2009, Local governments also gave Chinese companies an instant market by contracting them to electrify their bus and taxi fleets. The city of Shenzhen's fleet of 16, 000 buses was electrified by BYD before it became the world's largest EV company. To get consumers on board, governments offered them generous subsidies too, along with other benefits.

SEAVER WANG: Like discounts on charging. favorable parking, traffic congestion related policies that EVs get a break on. EVs actually have a different colored license plate even, so it's very visible. And so people see, Oh, that's an EV. They get all the special treatment. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: But the battery wasn't very good in the early days.

And so the Chinese 

IIARIA MAZZOCCO: government goes in and starts [01:36:00] introducing stricter standards on batteries. Saying, well, you only qualify for this credit if your battery density reaches this level. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: Consumer EV sales in China exploded. And when it did, the government did something important to protect their own battery industry.

When foreign car companies like GM and Tesla wanted to sell their EVs in China, the government made a rule that their cars must use Chinese made batteries to qualify for consumer subsidies. China's central government phased out consumer subsidies in 2022, but the demand had been created. In 2024, over half of new car sales in China were electric.

ZEYI YANG: This is like a milestone because half is a big thing. It means that the majority of the people are actually preferring EVs over 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: The second way Chinese battery companies became so dominant is through the supply chain for the battery components. The type of battery that typically goes into electric vehicles is called a lithium ion battery.

The forming components of the battery cell are the cathode, the anode, the electrolyte solution, and a [01:37:00] separator. The cathode is usually packed with nickel, cobalt, and manganese. The anode uses graphite, and the electrolyte is made up of mostly lithium salts. Over the past several years, Chinese companies started acquiring ownership stakes in mines around the world where these minerals exist.

ZEYI YANG: So they're sure that if we control the production, then we control the price. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: The effect is that Chinese companies control significant percentages of the world's supply of the minerals needed for batteries. But where China really controls the supply chain are the steps after mining. No matter who mines the minerals, China refines a vast majority of them.

This is the step where factories grind down raw mined materials and extract the desired mineral from it. 

IIARIA MAZZOCCO: It's pretty polluting. That's why you don't see that much refining happening in developed countries. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: Chinese plants then also manufactured the vast majority of the four components of the EV batteries, the cathode, the anode, the electrolyte and the separator and put them together to make the battery sell.

IIARIA MAZZOCCO: Because you already had pretty developed manufacturing for [01:38:00] batteries aimed at electronics. So BYD is actually one of those examples. They started by producing batteries for electronics in the 90s and then it got into producing EVs. 

SEAVER WANG: The US was never a battery manufacturing player. Historically speaking, in lithium ion, it was previously Japan and Korea, and China has now superseded both.

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: China's control of the battery supply chain is so encompassing that after the Biden administration passed a rule saying no more than half of the battery's components or minerals could be Chinese sourced to qualify for tax credits, only an estimated 20 percent of EV models qualified. With their market dominance, Chinese companies have been able to lead the world in battery innovation.

In the past two years, Chinese companies figured out how to avoid using the two most expensive battery minerals, nickel and cobalt. They did this by innovating on battery technology called Lithium Iron Phosphate, or LFP. In 2023, CATL announced an LFP battery that could power a car for [01:39:00] 370 miles on just a 10 minute charge.

And BYD has developed their own version of an LFP battery. P battery too. 

ZEYI YANG: It's called blade battery. It's like a very thin, very long blade. Um, but basically they're saying that by using that shape, it can bring more batteries into the same space. So in that way, like the same size of a car can travel farther.

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: Today, LFP batteries are a growing share of all EV batteries. And nearly all of them are manufactured in China. But not for long. CATL has built battery plants in Germany and has plans to build one in Hungary for the European auto market. And Ford ended up finding a home for its CATL battery plant in the town of Marshall, Michigan.

The project has triggered a US house investigation. But if it goes through, it will be the first LFP plant in the US all of these factors have made Chinese EV batteries virtually impossible to avoid in the global transition to electric vehicles. Was there not a viable alternative? 

JIM FARLEY: No, there wasn't. LFP technology is, [01:40:00] is very well developed.

The battery business is a global business. And, um, this was, there were no alternatives. 

LAURA BULT - HOST, VOX: There are some concerns about whether China's government support of the EV industry amounts to unfair global competition, as well as human rights and environmental concerns associated with China's battery industry.

The US is investing their own government support to build up its battery industry. Bloomberg estimated it would cost 82 billion for the US to meet their own domestic demand by 2030. So it might be possible in the future. But that's no help right now when we desperately need to transition to electric vehicles to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

And US automakers are struggling to give consumers affordable options. So for now, we'll have to decide whether our desire to keep our distance from China outweighs our goals of going electric.

EV Tariffs Won't Stop Chinese Cars - CNBC - Air Date 6-5-24

MICHAEL DUNNE: I'm not exaggerating when I say what China, the challenge that China is presenting the world, including the United States, is unprecedented. You know, in the case of the Japanese and Koreans, when [01:41:00] they came into the United States, We were able to persuade, maybe coerce a little bit, Hey, if you want to sell here, you have to build your transplant here.

But they could own it. And they were our allies and ultimately they were more dependent on us than we were on them. They were, they were more, in China's case, we don't have that kind of leverage with them. 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: China has the capacity to make half the world's cars, four times as many as the US typically makes.

Annual demand within the country is about 25 million units. That leaves 15 million cars for export. Nearly as many as the US can sell in a good year. China sent five million cars to over 100 countries in 2023, making it one of the largest exporters in the world. 

MICHAEL DUNNE: You see Chinese cars now in virtually every market except for the United States and Canada.

And because there's so much capacity at home and the market at home is, has a price war, the Chinese automakers [01:42:00] themselves are super motivated to To get out and push their products into Europe, the United 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: States. A mix of favorable policies and a booming economy got them to where they are today. China welcomed foreign automakers into the country beginning in the 1980s, and especially after some policy changes in the following decade.

Rules were simple. Foreign firms could sell cars in the country as long as they partnered with a local Chinese automaker. Chinese firms also made some cross border investments. Chinese automaker Zhili bought Volvo cars from Ford, for example. And finally, many companies are government owned, and even private firms receive generous subsidies.

Notes EV maker BYD received 3. 7 billion between 2018 and 2022, for example. 

MICHAEL DUNNE: In state capitalism, the objective is we're going to build a world powerhouse auto industry. To get there, we need great companies, but always, by the way, at the local, provincial and federal level, we'll also offer all kinds of help.

[01:43:00] So the Western auto maker, look at that and say, How in the world are we competing? 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: But Chinese 

companies have also built strong products. 

SAM FIORANI: When they came to the Detroit Auto Show 15 years ago, their cars were not competitive. You could see the quality issues with those vehicles as you sat in them, as you played around with them.

Now, the cars are much higher quality. They are very competitive once they're hitting the ground. 

BILL RUSSO: And they pay attention to all the configuration of every seat in the car, not just the driver's cockpit. That's what I think. obsoletes the traditionally designed and styled vehicle. 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: Bill Russo, a former Chrysler executive, says the Chinese have been extremely successful in developing new business models based around software and services.

Many recent entrants have backgrounds in technology, electronics, and mobile devices markets. 

BILL RUSSO: When the iPhone came, the Nokia products went away quickly. That's what's happening in China now in the car. 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: American consumers are also receptive to Chinese cars. [01:44:00] Nearly half of respondents in a recent survey said they are familiar with Chinese vehicle brands and 76 percent under the age of 40 said they would consider buying a Chinese car.

Consideration then declined significantly among older consumers. Grappling with this new reality, tariffs have become a popular political tool, especially with former President Trump beginning in 2018. Auto executives at the time, famously Tesla CEO Elon Musk, decried what they considered an imbalance between U.

S. and Chinese trade rules. Lately, it is the Biden administration who is focused on tariffs. First and foremost, EVs. Tariffs on them will increase from 25 percent to 100 percent in 2024. The administration says China's extensive subsidies and non market practices have led to substantial risks of overcapacity.

Chinese EV exports grew 70 percent from 2022 to 2023. They're also raising tariffs on an array of materials used in car making. Lithium ion batteries. [01:45:00] Graphite, magnets, steel, aluminum, and semiconductors. China controls more than 80 percent of certain segments of the EV battery supply chain, the administration said.

That leaves US supply chains vulnerable and risks national security and clean energy goals. Some politicians are pushing for even harder restrictions. The industry's response is mixed. Labor leaders are in support, for obvious reasons. So is the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. The auto industry's major trade association, Tesla CEO, Elon Musk criticized the tariffs, but even he had said earlier in 2024 that without trade barriers, most Western automakers would be demolished by Chinese competition.

They can sell EVs cheaper than the cheapest fuel burning cars. And according to some are way ahead of competition in software and tech, but Russo is skeptical of tariffs. The Trump era trade war may have been a missile aimed at Beijing, But it landed squarely on Detroit, [01:46:00] he once wrote. Two things happened.

First, the trade war drove up the costs of a lot of parts American automakers source from China or elsewhere. GM and Ford both reported that the Trump tariffs in 2018 saddled them each with an additional 1 billion in steel and aluminum costs. Secondly, it likely accelerated the globalization of Chinese companies looking to circumvent trade rules.

By making investments beyond their own borders. 

BILL RUSSO: They're, they're building factories in Mexico. They're building factories all over the world, Africa, middle East, Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southeast Asia. There's never been a bigger, uh, effort by China to de China eyes its supply chain than right now 

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: if elected Donald Trump pledged to place a 100% duty on any car made in Mexico by a Chinese company.

Policy analysts say doing so would violate the terms of the very agreement Trump made with Mexico. [01:47:00] It might also cause further friction with the country, which in 2023 became the US 's largest trading partner. In any event, executives like Russo argue that these measures are delaying the inevitable.

American firms need to face up to the fact that Chinese companies have extremely competitive and attractive products, and American consumers want them. If 

BILL RUSSO: you can make Aspirational products affordable with configurations that surprise and delight the users of that platform. That's a universal value proposition.

And sorry, Americans buy Chinese stuff and have been for decades, have been enjoying the benefits of that. And in terms of affordability forever, if you shut that off, all you're going to do is make it more expensive. 

MICHAEL DUNNE: There are alternatives. Take a page from what China did 30 years ago when it was just starting out and it said, Hey, you want to come into our market, the United States?

Welcome. But by the way, in order to sell here, you have to manufacture here. You have to build plants here. And when you manufacture here, you have to [01:48:00] form a joint venture with an American company that will own half of the business. Oh, okay. And, um, by the way, we'd like you to export from America too, so that we.

Get extra benefits of you being here. 

BILL RUSSO: We can do the same. That's called flipping the script. The problem isn't that we have to keep them out. The problem is we should let them in to give ourselves the benefits of the DNA that they've been able to create. And then, but do it under a guided process. Do it with policies.

And right now nobody's writing those policies. Nobody's writing policies that allow some of the benefits of globalization and scale and product configurations and technologies to flow back to the Western world. And that's going to really weaken the, it's not going to help the industry. It's going to weaken the industry if we, if we don't allow that to happen.

ROBERT FERRIS - HOST, CNBC: And even though there are no Chinese branded cars for sale in the US yet, more than 100 Chinese owned automotive companies have a presence in the United States [01:49:00] already. They are concentrated in Detroit and Silicon Valley, and there are Chinese auto suppliers scattered across 30 US states. 

MICHAEL DUNNE: But you'd never know it because we don't see Chinese cars on American roads, so it doesn't occur.

No, no, what? That can't possibly be true, but it is. They're here. They're getting ready for the time when it's right to enter and sell their cars to Americans.

The Real Reason The U.S. Doesn’t Want Chinese EVs - The Hustle - Air Date 5-7-24

CAYA - HOST, THE HUSTLE: Let's go back to the 1950s. This is a post war economic boom. Breeding ground for baby boomers and three car companies dominate the US car market. GM, Ford, and Chrysler. And suddenly, this new car company comes into the market in 1957, and then another one around the same time.

Nobody wanted these companies around. The big three didn't want competition. Americans in general were salty. You know, against their enemy from World War Two, so much so that Nissan actually had to change their name and slowly, but surely, these cars picked up popularity because these Japanese cars were reliable and affordable and fuel efficient.

European cars were added to the mix around this time as [01:50:00] well, but those were not your average family car. In 73, the oil crisis came, so US production had just peaked and all Arab exporting countries had banned exports of oil to any country supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Oil prices skyrocketed in America, and even though the embargo ended in 1974, oil prices remained really high through the decade.

And while consumers were happy, US car manufacturers were not. And with pressure from lobbyists and unions, the US government was not too happy about this Japanese car invasion either. In the 80s, Reagan ran his campaign on this agenda to slow Japanese car imports. And it kind of worked. He negotiated export restraints and convinced these Japanese companies to establish manufacturing plants in the US, which meant jobs and some tax money, at least until those workers eventually got replaced, not by other foreign car manufacturing companies, but by machines.

But that's another story. However, the silver lining of the story is that we ended up with better, more fuel efficient, more reliable US made cars. Competition helped the big three [01:51:00] step up their game. It's like the five stages of grief, which we're actually going to revisit soon. By the mid 2000s, Asian automakers accounted for a whopping 40 percent of US car sales.

Meanwhile, the US government was far behind. bailing out Detroit. It's a wound that the government and the economy remember vividly. Since then, American brands and Tesla specifically have acquired a large wedge of the US EV market share. But American brands and European brands have really struggled to make these cars affordable.

But China is a different story. Take BYD for example, China's star player and as of 2024, the largest EV manufacturer in the world. They started as a battery company in 95. This will be important later. They pivoted into cars in 2003, and finally they launched their debut BYDF three in 2005. You can cut a lot of costs when you make your own batteries and you know when you just copy another car's design.

But Peck works. Tesla made an average of $8,200 per car in 2023 and 18% gross margin. [01:52:00] DYD made about $1,700 per car on a 26% gross margin. So. How the hell do they get away with making a car at a fraction of Tesla's production costs? Take this example. This is the BYD Yuan Plus, their crossover SUV, the equivalent to a Tesla Model Y.

At the beginning of 2023, the estimated cost of materials and manufacturing for a Tesla Model Y was 39, 000. The Yuan Plus sells in China for just 16, 000. That is the sale price, which means that the cost of materials of making this car has to be around 13, 000. That's a third Of what Tesla's paying and how different.

You've got your touchscreen, comfortable space, nearly 300 miles of range, and honestly a very decent finish. Much better than what you would get from a 16, 000 car in the US so, is this car cooler than a Tesla? Okay, maybe no. Is there, uh, BYD car floating in space playing David Bowie? [01:53:00] Okay, no, but this is a perfectly fine vehicle.

It's affordable. It's available in Costa Rica and it has all the support and the warranty that you expect from a dealership. So in the case of Tesla, the 61 kilowatt hour battery in a Tesla Model Y is estimated to cost the company around 6, 200. They outsource those batteries to companies like Panasonic, LG, and rumor has it to BYD as well.

BYD was a battery company, remember? So. For the 50 kilowatt hour battery on their Yuan plus. They just make it themselves, and it costs them as little as 3, 000 per battery. Yes, of course, cheaper labor is a factor. Yes, Chinese government subsidies are a factor too. But the bottom line is that really affordable electric cars exist, and we just can't buy them in the US.

 This fresh version, 4x4. Well, it's doing something about it this time. During the 2018 trade war with China, Trump set an additional 25 percent tariff on Chinese made cars. But before you go out [01:54:00] and blame Trump for all this, we should say that the Democrats are very much on the same page about the tariffs to Chinese cars.

And there's a bill currently in the Senate. to raise those tariffs to 100 percent BYD has made it clear that they don't want to enter the US market and the reason is very simple these Chinese companies don't want the trouble of going to a market that doesn't like them that doesn't want them they have plenty of room to get cheap cars to the rest of the world and quite honestly they're making a killing at that market and they're getting stronger and dominating the world in the process so it seems that this time around the US is patching the problem with tariffs Rather than looking to innovate and beat the competition.

Latin American countries generally don't manufacture their own cars. So they are just consumers benefiting from cheaper alternatives. It doesn't really affect their job market, but Japan has also been invaded by Chinese cars and they do care about their own car manufacturing jobs. But instead of patching that with tariffs, they're looking to innovate.

For example, Nissan and Honda are teaming [01:55:00] up to develop their own EVs together. Their auto industry. needs to stay competitive. The US government seems to be playing this very poor balancing act between reducing CO2 emissions and then getting votes, getting re elected, especially from swing states like Michigan, the single state where the most car manufacturing jobs are.

And caught in the very middle of this balancing act, is the US government. is the rest of us as consumers. I mean, it's not an easy problem to solve. On one hand, you can just slap tariffs on the problem, stop Chinese car imports, which preserves American jobs, at least until machines replace them. But that's bad for consumers who have to deal with more expensive cars.

It certainly slows down the country's efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and the US is already far behind the rest of the world on this. But more crucially, I think it puts American car manufacturing at a disadvantage. You see this in Latin America a little bit. People who want a luxury car, they'll generally buy a European car.

And people who want an affordable car, they'll buy Asian. And American cars are kind of stuck in the middle of these two, and they're not winning at [01:56:00] either game. Sure, Michigan votes are crucial to the election. You have to keep those constituents and those unions happy. But this patch policy is handing EV dominance to China on a silver platter.

SECTION C: TECH AND SPACE RACE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Next up, section C: the tech and space race.

China's Space Program is Insanely Ambitious... Here's Exactly How - Astrographics - Air Date 6-14-24

SIMON WHISTLER - HOST, ASTROGRAPHICS: Today, we want to highlight Two missions, Shengzhou 8 and Shengzhou 9. Shengzhou 8, conducted in November 2011, was an uncrewed flight designed to test the docking capabilities of the Divine Vessel.

And where should a Divine Vessel dock? Well, that would be at a heavenly palace, of course. Heavenly Palace 1, or Tiangong 1, is in fact China's own orbiting space lab, active since September 29, 2011. In June 2012, it was time for a crewed mission, Shengzhou 9, to dock at Tiangong 1. Tiangong 1. Tiangong 1. The crew of three included China's first female aut Lou Yang and spent 10 days aboard the Heavenly Palace testing both automated and manual docking systems.

The small orbital space station measuring only 10.4 meters in length was designed to remain in service for only two years [01:57:00] and to remain un crewed for most of that time, Yangon one was DEF facto put in sleep mode in June, 2013 and officially shut down in March, 2016. In September of that same year, the CNSA and the CASC launched a second orbiting lab Ong two, also designed as a temporary state.

On October 19, 2016, the Second Heavenly Palace was visited by the 11th Divine Vessel, crewed by Jing Hai Pen and Chen Dong. The two Taikonauts spent 30 days aboard the tiny station, performing technical experiments and releasing a satellite. But as mentioned, the first two Tiangongs were not designed to last.

Tiangong 1 went through a controlled deorbiting process, eventually plummeting toward Earth and blazing up over the South Pacific on April 2, 2018. Tiangong 2 followed suit in July of the next year. The first two heavenly palaces were much needed dry runs. Transcripts for the establishment of a permanent, fully operational Chinese space station.

This next endeavor kicked off in April 2021, with the launch of the module Tianhe, or Harmony of the Heavens. In July 2022, Tianhe was expanded with the second [01:58:00] compartment, Wentian, or Quest of the Heavens, and the station was completed with its third module, Menqian, Dreaming for the Heavens in October 2022.

Harmony, quest and dreaming have thus completed this new station also called Ang Go. The Palace is under the administration of the Chinese Man Space Agency or CMSA, who has plans to keep it constantly crude by a minimum of three auts for the span of 10 years. Much like the International Space Station, Ang Go will be used to conduct a vast array of scientific experiments in fields such as stem cell and regenerative medicine, or quantum precision measurements in parallel to the Xang J in Tiangong missions.

The CNSA and CASC were also developing the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, named after the moon goddess Chang'e. The main characters in this first phase of the project were the uncrewed lunar orbiters Chang'e 1 and 2. Their role, successfully enacted in November 2007 and October 2010, was to develop a 3D map of the moon's surface to identify an ideal landing spot.

This was in preparation for Phase 2, with two more unmanned crafts, [01:59:00] Chang'e 3 the lead role. Number 3 launched on December 2nd, 2013, propelled into space by Airbus A320. A long marched 3B rocket note the reference to Mao's Long March, a key event of the civil war against Nationalist China. Chang'e 3 would not just orbit around the moon like those bums wanted to, oh no, it was time for a soft landing.

The craft touched down on lunar 14, before deploying its rover, Yutu. And fun fact, in Chinese mythology, Yutu is the pet rabbit of the goddess Chang'e. The engineers at CASC did not fully trust Chang'e 3 to succeed, and thus had kept another lunar lander as a backup. But due to No. 3's success, this humble benchwarmer was promoted to front line player and landed on the Moon on January 3, 2019.

Obviously, it brought along its own perra. But what made the Chang'e 4 mission impressive was the landing spot, the Von Kármán Crater located on the far side of the Moon. The Chinese space agencies had thus achieved a first for humanity, soft landing a craft on the Moon's hidden face. At the time of writing, this successful series has spawned two more installments.

[02:00:00] Chang'e 5 launched on November 23, 2020, and was the first mission in the entire project to return to earth after collecting 1.7 kilograms of samples from the moon's surface. Changi six took off on May 3rd, 2024, and is yet to return. Number six will return to near the Von Carmen crater on the moon's far side for another collection and subsequent delivery of samples.

But why stop at the moon on January the 23rd 2020, the Chinese space agencies launched their first independent mission to Mars Tian when one or Heavenly Questions the craft reached the red planet's orbit on February 10, 2021, from where it deployed a lander and a rover, Zhurong. More heavenly questions will follow.

Tianwen 2 is scheduled to launch in 2025 for a double mission, which may conclude only in the 2030s. The first part of the voyage will be dedicated to collecting material from an asteroid. Tianwen 2 will then sling around Earth for a second collection from a comet. The follow up mission, Tianwen 3, will also lift off around 2030, flying off to Mars.

Its objectives will be to collect rock samples from the Red Planet and return them safely Wave lead to earth for analysis. [02:01:00] Tian when for should follow shortly after with an even more ambitious destination. Jupiter, the remote controlled craft, will conduct flybys of Jupiter and its moons before settling in a around Callisto.

From there, the probe will conduct a rare flyby of the icy planet. In the 2040s, this intense schedule will be made even busier by an expansion of the Changi program scheduled to kick off in 2030. The Chinese space agencies are envisioning five consecutive launches after 2030, which will deliver the necessary components to assemble a permanent base on the Moon South Pole.

This will be entirely robotic at first, but will be joined by a crew of Ticanauts in 2036. This project is similar in scope and timing to NASA's Artemis and Gateway programs, which makes for an exciting race to establish a permanent human presence on the moon. So we're talking about at least eight major launch missions to take place between 2025 and 2036, without taking into account test runs, missions to Tiangong, and satellite launches.

It makes sense that one key priority for CASC is to enhance the cost effectiveness of the launch [02:02:00] phase. To achieve this, it's investing in rockets like the Long March 10 and 11, which are propelled by solid rather than liquid fuel. Solid fueled rockets, in fact, allow for the use of mobile launchers, which are more agile and way cheaper than traditional launch platforms used for liquid fueled rockets.

CASC has also kick started the development of a new version of the rocket Long March 9, which is due by 2030. This new incarnation of the number 9 should have The launch a payload of 150 metric tons to low Earth orbit, or 50 tons to the Earth Moon transfer orbit. More importantly, it will consist of three stages, one of which will be reusable.

And that's the key achievement, as reusability will allow for significant economies of scale. Clearly, making the most of available resources is high up China's agenda. And if you're going to explore space, you may as well make the most of what you find up there. CAI scientist Wang Wei has in fact already conducted a feasibility study to build an end to end logistics system which will scale.

Ban the entire solar system, this system to be operational by the year 2100 will harvest resources such as water from the moon, [02:03:00] or even metals and minerals from near earth, asteroids, Mars, and Jupiter satellites. In other words, it's a grand scale plan for extraterrestrial mining. So how realistic is this?

Only time will tell, but on a possibly more achievable scale, the Chinese Society of Astronauts Space Solar Power Commission, has announced another plan to harvest a less tangible energy source in the words of its director leaning in the future. We are looking at building a space solar power station, which according to the current plan, will possess the power capability of a billion watts.

So the gigawatt level and the mega project will be operational for commercial use. The future Space Power Station will likely have a scale of more than 10,000 tons programs described thus far. Are all rooted in a desire to further space exploration and technological advancement. However, as is often the case with space programs, the shadow of the military looms large.

The People's Liberation Army or PLA oversees many of these programs, and Tiger Norths are routinely recruited from the armed forces in a more direct way. The PLA has been active in developing [02:04:00] satellite systems dedicated to signal intelligence or to assist precision guided weapons. Just to quote a statistic, of all 585 2001 to 2020, 229 had military utility.

One of those launches was for the final satellite in the Beidou network, a navigation system managed by the PLA to rival the more widespread GPS system owned by the United States. And speaking of orbital rivalries in 2020, China unveiled its plans to develop a mega constellation of almost 13,000 satellites, GU Wang, which will challenge the starlink array set up by SpaceX.

The purpose of Gua Wang is to provide fast, reliable internet via satellite across the globe, especially in poorly serviced areas, according to an April, 2023 report by the Washington Post. However, there is. A risk for the Gua Wang Stalin rivalry to spill outside the boundaries of commercial competition.

According to the post Chinese military researchers are concerned that the Stalin Communications Network may quote, pose a major national security threat to Beijing following their successful use in the UK war, hence the Chinese military. May call for the [02:05:00] Guaweng project to be accelerated and weaponized.

According to unnamed Chinese sources, the PLA may call for Guaweng satellites to be equipped with laser and microwave weapons, which, quote, can be used to damage the reconnaissance payloads that may be carried by the Starlink satellites. Or more traditionally, to conduct cyberattacks to paralyze Starlink's communication network.

The Guowen Project and PLA's space capabilities are two topics we will need to expand on in future videos. In fact, every program we touched upon today deserves its own deep dive, so let us know in the comments which one you'd like to see next. For the time being though, we can only conclude that China's plans to explore and exploit orbital and transorbital space are unparalleled.

I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's a game where you have to keep up your game if you want to keep pace with the Chinese space agencies. Are we looking at a future space race? It's our opinion that a new space race has already started, one more complex and unpredictable than the good old variety between the US and the Soviet Union.

More global and regional players have now [02:06:00] entered the fray, besides the United States and China as rival or allies, Russia, Japan, the ESA, India, as well as private enterprises such as SpaceX are all getting in on it. Peace out. While there is the ever present risk of militarization of space, our hope is that an increasingly crowded market will stimulate instead cost efficiencies, research and development, and the advancement of all mankind.

This Is How Huawei Shocked America With a Smartphone - Bloomberg Originals - Air Date 11-17-23

ROSALIE E'SILVA - HOST, BLOOMBERG ORIGINALS: The chip industry distinguishes chips by referring to them in nanometers, or billionths of a meter. That's about half the diameter of a DNA double helix. 

IAN KING: Basically, the smaller you can make a transistor, the better you can make the capabilities of a chip.

If you're looking at Samsung's latest Galaxy, or obviously Apple's iPhone, These devices are going to be based upon chips that are using three nanometer technology. 

ROSALIE E'SILVA - HOST, BLOOMBERG ORIGINALS: US export controls were aimed at keeping China's tech capabilities eight to ten years behind the US but the Kirin 9000S chip found in the Mate 60 Pro demonstrated that it may only be four or five [02:07:00] years behind the world's most advanced technology.

IAN KING: This chip was, was made with seven nanometer production and that is a lot closer to where the industry is, to the state of the art, than the US had been hoping. The 

ROSALIE E'SILVA - HOST, BLOOMBERG ORIGINALS: So, how did Huawei and SMIC pull this off? In recent years, the majority of the world's most advanced chips have come from here, Taiwan. And there's one single company that makes most of them, TSMC.

In the past, the Huawei unit HiSilicon was able to design chips that it delegated TSMC to manufacture and import. The US sanctions stopped that. 

DEBBY WU: China does seem to be able to find its way to find its way. alternatives when there is a lack of Western technologies available. 

ROSALIE E'SILVA - HOST, BLOOMBERG ORIGINALS: The single most important piece of equipment for making the most [02:08:00] advanced chips is what's known as an extreme ultraviolet lithography or an E.

U. V. Machine. It took decades to develop, and each one costs more than 100 million. They're able to etch patterns into chips as small as three nanometers. Only one company in the world makes them. The Dutch firm ASML. ASML 

IAN KING: hasn't been allowed to export its EUV machines to China. Never. It has been allowed to export something called DUV, a different type of technology, an older type of technology.

It was thought that by basically limiting them to that type of technology that they'd never get beyond a certain stage. What we found, and this chip would appear to indicate, is that actually they were able to squeeze the capabilities of this DUV machinery to get way more advanced lines in those pieces of silicon than the U.

S. had hoped. 

ROSALIE E'SILVA - HOST, BLOOMBERG ORIGINALS: Bloomberg reporting [02:09:00] discovered that SMIC did actually use some of these older D. U. V. machines from A. S. M. L. But the key question is whether it can produce a component at scale and efficiently enough to make it cost effective. In fact, the reason the handsets sold out may have had more to do with supply, not enough chips, than demand.

It also means it may be harder to get to the next stage, below 7 nanometers. 

GINA RAIMONDO: I was obviously, I the right word, upset, brave, you know, when I saw the Huawei announcement. The only good news is, if there is any, is we don't have any evidence that they can manufacture 7 nanometer at scale. 

IAN KING: On what's called the China Hawk side of the equation, this is the last chance that America has to cut off China from access to advanced technology.

DEBBY WU: Some Republican lawmakers are now calling for the Biden administration to cut off Huawei and SMIC from American [02:10:00] technologies completely. In 

IAN KING: the short term, there's likely to be a degradation of their capabilities. But if you look at this from a long term perspective, you've given them Every, every incentive in the world to go out and do it themselves.

DEBBY WU: China remains the biggest semiconductor consumer and if the companies like Intel and NVIDIA loses this major market, that means that they could generate significantly less revenue and hurt their ability to continue to innovate and keep the US ahead of China. 

IAN KING: Chinese spending plans on semiconductor have been widely reported to be in excess of 100 billion.

That's three or four times the annual spending of a major chip maker like TSMC. Given that kind of capital, given that kind of patience, there is a chance that they will get to advance capabilities over time.

SECTION D: ESCALATING TENSIONS

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

Can We Compete With China While Avoiding War? - Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft - Air Date 5-28-24

KELLEY VHLAHOS - HOST, QUINCY INSTITUTE: One of the things that bugs you is that there seems to be a school of [02:11:00] thought that economic competition with China is completely divorced

from the security question. In other words, no one who is supporting, you know, no one who is supporting punishments against against Beijing, whether it be sanctions or against companies or exports into China or the pressuring of allies to isolate Chinese markets or talking about decoupling, whatever veer into the Security well realm when in fact, as you have pointed out to me, supporters of these policies, including the Biden administration, often use national security reasons to justify all of those actions.

The Chinese for their part, do the same thing. Um, you call it a security dilemma in the economic realm. Can you talk more about that? 

JAKE WERNER: I talk to people on both sides of the aisle, um, who, who think that we have real security problems with China. Um, they worry about the possibility of violent conflict. Uh, but they think that we can push [02:12:00] and antagonize China in the economic realm. Without any kind of limit, because it has no danger of building up towards some sort of, uh, war or conflict, uh, in, in some third country.

Um, I think that that, uh, that is quite unrealistic. Uh, we, we look at the history of major great power conflict over the last, uh, Uh, 120 years or so. All of those conflicts were rooted in economic competition. World War I came out of a competition over which country could dominate, uh, markets and raw materials in the colonized world.

 The conflict between, uh, Japan and the United States that led to Pearl Harbor that ultimately came out of a question of who would be able to dominate commerce in China. And of course, the Cold War was also really fundamentally about who would dominate the industrial capacity of Western Europe and Japan.

Um, so we see historically that economic tensions build into security conflict, the most disastrous global conflicts of the last century. [02:13:00] Um, and we see that happening now in the US china relationship. Uh, there is, uh, what is thought on both sides to be a zero sum game. Um, question over who is going to dominate the high value sectors in high technology industries, who is going to dominate the export markets for those goods and who will be able to dominate the sourcing of the raw materials that are necessary to produce those goods.

 Increasingly we're seeing the two sides, uh, in a sort of escalatory arms race in, in, in the economic realm. Um, so I actually, I actually agree with, um, What my co panelists have said, um, quite a bit, uh, actually, uh, the, the issue is rather that I think we need to take into the, into account the very real danger that even as we need to attend to the, the core economic problems in the United States, we also need to figure out a modus vivendi with China so that this doesn't spin out of control into the kind of global conflicts that, uh, that we've seen historically.

And, and how do you do that? I think, I mean, if we, Of course, in capitalism, economic competition is a fact of everyday life. It doesn't always [02:14:00] spin out into a world war that only happens every couple of decades or so. So what makes the difference between everyday economic competition, uh, and the kind of zero sum existential economic competition that leads to war?

Uh, I think it's the choice between, uh, between open competition. On the one hand and exclusion on the other in an open competition, you're constantly meeting your adversary, , in some space, whether that's a sports stadium or, or a political debate or in a commercial market, the competition is constantly renewed.

Uh, there's possibilities for the other side, even if they lose this game to come back and win the next one. Uh, it's an ongoing connection between the two competitors and exclusion is quite different than that. That is severing the connection between the two sides, making sure that there is no competition.

Uh, right now in D. C., everything that we do that antagonizes China, we call competition. But in reality, the vast majority of these things are exclusion. They're actually cutting off competition, whether that's preventing China, Chinese businesses from [02:15:00] buying advanced semiconductors, cutting Chinese businesses out of the American market.

 Making it illegal for Chinese citizens to purchase land in the United States. Um, uh, blocking, uh, the Chinese construction of undersea cables. These are, these are, these are really core vital interests that the United States wants to do these things precisely for, for the same reason that China thinks that they're core vital interests.

Uh, and when you pursue exclusion, around core vital interests, that is incredibly provocative, violently provocative. If it's in some realm that China is interested in and can just sort of like move its efforts elsewhere, fine. That's not a big deal. If it gets to vital interests, then China is going to respond in kind.

And we're already seeing that kind of, uh, escalatory spiral in the economic realm. So I don't, I don't dispute the problems that, uh, that Sagar and David have raised. Um, I, I think they, they require, uh, Very serious attention, but as part of our, our thinking through those things, we also have to find a way to accommodate the desire to grow and to improve the prospects of the people [02:16:00] of both China and the United States.

DAVID GOLDMAN: There's an old joke about the Austro Hungarian empire, that it was a tyranny tempered by incompetence. I think the same can be said about American technology policy towards China. We certainly impose serious costs on China. Yeah. But when, uh, president Trump, I believe in April of 2019, put a ban on higher end chips to Huawei, most American analysts said that will finish off China's 5g program that won't be able to roll it out without the higher end chips.

Well, six years later, China has 3. 8 million 5g base stations and we have a hundred thousand and their 5g is real 5g. It's about three or four times as fast as ours. And that's having a big effect in their industry. They've managed to work around it with lower end chips. Huawei shut down, virtually shut down his handset business because you need the better, the faster chips [02:17:00] to run 5g.

But then, uh, last September they demonstrated that they could produce domestically with the technology they had higher end chips that were good enough to run a 5g smartphone and they could kick the stuffing out of Apple in the Chinese market. So we have not really stopped the Chinese from proceeding with their plan.

We've imposed substantial costs on them. My guess is maybe even a half percent of GDP per year. It's a big cost, but they're willing to pay it. The chief technology officer of Huawei told me in an interview, oh, a year ago, you don't understand the Chinese. The guys are Australian. That's it. If we have a problem, we'll put a thousand engineers on it.

And if that doesn't do it, we'll put 10, 000 engineers on it. And China graduates more engineers than the whole rest of the world combined. So I've got a lot of them. So whenever you [02:18:00] put a specific problem in front of the Chinese, uh, they'll attack it and most of the time they'll solve it where we really shine and the Chinese don't is in the unknown unknowns and innovation. Uh, it's the kind of maverick eccentric antinomian problem with authority rebel that did most of the great innovations of the digital age in the United States. So I convinced that if we pick our spots and we put the resources behind innovation, the way we used to during the cold war, we'll leapfrog China in many areas, but it won't work to try to stay ahead of them or suppress them in every area. It's a matter of picking our spots and being excellent in really key areas. 

Will China And The U.S. Go To War Over Taiwan? - AJ+ - Air Date 6-30-24

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: China, officially named the People's Republic of China, is currently recognized by the UN and most [02:19:00] countries in the world. Taiwan, officially named the Republic of China, is only recognized by 12 countries and does not have a seat at the UN. And here's where it starts to get complicated.

The Chinese government says there is only one sovereign nation under the name China, meaning that Taiwan is a part of China. And the Chinese Communist Party is the government of that China, but the elected government in Taiwan insists that Taiwan is already its own country.

To get to the root of this problem, we have to go back in time to 1912, when imperial rule ended in China, and a new government, called the Republic of China, or ROC, was founded. The Nationalist Party became the ruling government of China, while also fighting the Communist Party in a civil war. After nine years of fighting, the two parties paused the conflict to fight against Imperial Japan, when it invaded and occupied the country in 1937.

The [02:20:00] Second Sino Japanese War was fought. Some estimates say that Japanese soldiers raped tens of thousands of women and killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians in China's then capital Nanjing.

The conflict is part of what China's government calls its Century of Humiliation, referring to the nearly 100 years of military defeats when China had to cede territory. 1945, foreign powers like Japan, France and Britain. Taiwan was one of the territories ceded to Japan by Imperial China. After Japan surrendered at the end of World War II, Taiwan was returned to the ROC.

When the Communist Party tells its own history, the return of these Chinese territories, including Taiwan, serves as a symbol of victory in its fight against imperialism. 

BRIAN HIOE: I, I think war just begets smart war, and I think with nationalism, oftentimes you just have past tragedies used to justify future military action. Brian Hugh [02:21:00] is a journalist and writer and a founder of New Bloom, an online magazine that focuses on Taiwanese politics and youth. And with regards to these contemporary claims from China over Taiwan.

That could lead to further tragedies, further warfare, and that's also in the name of nation, and territory, and land, and, uh, national glory in that sense. After Japan pulled out of China in 1945, the struggle for power between the Communist Party and the Nationalist Party resumed. 210, 000 Communists are dead or wounded in the battle, while some of the 50, 000 Nationalists wounded are evacuated by air to rear areas.

ARCHIVE NEWS CLIP: Despite the horde of Communist captives taken, the city All to the rest. The rest is history. The Communist Party's victory in the civil war resulted in the birth of the People's Republic of China, or PRC, and the Nationalist Party moved its government to Taiwan. But that is far from explaining why mainland China is recognized by most countries today and still wants [02:22:00] to claim Taiwan.

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: For the next few decades, the PRC and ROC were ruled separately across the Taiwan Strait under authoritarian dictatorships. Mao Zedong led Mainland China from Beijing until his death. On the island off China's southeastern coast, Chiang Kai shek imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan, despite local resistance.

That period became known as the White Terror. Those who didn't support a total war with the PRC were labeled and persecuted as communist sympathizers. Tens of thousands of people were arrested for holding different political views from the government. For And at least 1, 200 were executed. For two decades, the two governments exchanged fire across the Taiwan Strait.

The Nationalist Party wanted to retake China, and the Communist Party wanted to squash the ROC's leadership. Neither succeeded. And they both claimed to be the sole government of China. But what did other [02:23:00] countries think? The ROC, led by the Nationalist Party, governing both the mainland and Taiwan, was a founding member of the UN in 1945.

After the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, the UN continued to only recognise the ROC, even though it just controlled Taiwan. After the PRC's founding, other Soviet aligned countries quickly recognised it as the government of China. Later, more and more countries joined them. In 1971, most UN members voted to expel the ROC and instead approved the PRC to represent China.

Let's take a pause and zoom in here. Because the 70s were an important decade When the PRC joined the UN, the US still had not recognized it. In fact, the US has played a big part in the tug of war between China and Taiwan. 

BRIAN HIOE: Taiwan has historically played a role for the US in terms of, uh, regional containment policy.

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: [02:24:00] When Japan withdrew at the end of World War II, the Communist Party gained control of northern China. which had partly been held by the Soviet Union. And the US sent troops to make sure the Nationalist Party maintained control of southern China, including Taiwan. After the defeated Nationalists fled to the island, again, the U.

S. sided with them. 

BRIAN HIOE: I think particularly the US historically backed Taiwan in the interests of anti communism and propped up a right wing dictatorship here. 

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: During the Vietnam War and the Cold War, Nationalist Party led Taiwan provided regional and non combat military support to the US. American backing was crucial to the Nationalist Party's military and political ambition.

The ROC planned several military offenses on the mainland during the 60s, when Mao's China was suffering from famine and political turmoil. But the operations couldn't be carried out. Due to the lack of US support. Between 1949 and 1965, the US provided Taiwan with nearly 4 billion worth of military and [02:25:00] economic aid.

Before the PRC joined the U. N. in 1971, the US also deliberately delayed its membership from being approved. Then this happened. 

RICHARD NIXON: My hope out of, uh, the beginning that we have made on this journey that many, many Americans, particularly the young Americans who like to travel so much, will have an opportunity to come here as I have come here today with Mrs.

Nixon and the others in our party. In 1972, a US president visited the PRC for the first time after its founding. This became a turning point in US china relations. Entrenched in the Vietnam War and the Cold War, The American government saw an opportunity to finally form relations with the PRC and to isolate the Soviet Union when its rift with China was growing wider.

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: The United States recognizes the government of the People's Republic of China as a sole legal government of China. In 1979, 30 years after [02:26:00] the PRC's founding and eight years after it joined the UN, the US officially recognized the PRC. But in classic US tradition, the American government was still It signed the Taiwan Relations Act, which legally mandates the U.

S. to provide arms for Taiwan to defend itself, and says that any attempt to use force against Taiwan would be of grave concern. But it doesn't say whether the US would go to war. What followed after the ROC lost both its U. N. seats, and its official recognition from the US would change Taiwan's course completely.

With the world embracing the PRC, China's then paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, led economic reforms that made China a powerhouse in the US dominated global capitalist system. Meanwhile across the strait, in 1979, tens of thousands of activists and supporters gathered in Taiwan's second largest city, Kaohsiung, to demand press freedom and an [02:27:00] end to one party rule.

Police beat protesters and injured over a hundred people. Leaders of the protest were tried in military court and punished with harsh sentences, including life imprisonment. What is now known as the Formosa Incident kick started the democratic movement in Taiwan. Under public pressure, the government started allowing non nationalist party candidates to participate in national elections.

Martial law started loosening and eventually ended in 1987. For more UN videos visit www. un. org Since then, Taiwan has gone through numerous legislative and government reforms. 

BRIAN HIOE: At the day, there is this anxiety about distinguishing oneself from China. But then I think particularly in contemporary times, that is increasingly tied to that Taiwan is democracy and China is not.

I think a lot of contemporary Taiwan's political identity is very pluralistic, because there are all this diverse influences, whether from that the original Hapsar are indigenous, there's different ways of Han migration, that Taiwan went through the Japanese colonial period, and the KMT period, and so I think that [02:28:00] often leads to the framing that these are all different historical factors that some which are quite tragic contribute to the making of contemporary Taiwanese identity.

SAKHR AL-MAKHADHI - HOST, AJ+: Today, the majority of people in Taiwan identify as primarily Taiwanese, some as both Taiwanese and Chinese, and only 3 percent as primarily Chinese. This shifting identity is reflected in the fact that the Democratic Progressive Party won an unprecedented third term in the presidential election in 2024.

The party built its platform on supporting Taiwan's independence from China, while the Nationalist Party, which has long abandoned its dream of overtaking the mainland, is now seen as the party that favors closer ties with mainland China. The majority of people in Taiwan today want to maintain the current state of de facto, but not formalized, independence.

Though, support for pursuing independence slowly has also increased over the past few decades. 

Sarah Cook on China's Expanding Global Media Influence - Democracy Paradox - Air Date 9-20-22

JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: Can you provide an example that surprised you as you were putting together the [02:29:00] research where China clearly overstepped its bounds or did something new to influence media abroad?

SARAH COOK: So, there’s one individual example I can give, but I think part of what really surprised me was the constellation of certain things. So, one example that is new and would not have happened before and stood out and I think connects to the shock of what’s happened in Hong Kong is the fact that Hong Kong authorities are also getting into the business now of threatening news outlets and website servers in other countries. So, for example, one of the reports I actually worked on was the Israel report.

So, a Hong Kong government official wrote to a local web service provider in Israel, because they were hosting a website of Hong Kong democracy activists and asked them to take down the website. Part of what they did was they said, ‘The hosting of this website violates the National Security Law in Hong Kong and your employees could be at risk.’ Because the national security law actually [02:30:00] includes an extraterritorially broad provision. So, the company did initially take down the website. Then there was a brouhaha and a lot of public backlash and they put it back up. Which I think epitomizes the overall findings of the report in some ways of these more aggressive influence efforts but also the corresponding backlash in different countries.

Then I think that company actually said, ‘We’re going to institute better screening of these requests.’ So, then it actually built up a deeper, longer-term form of resilience. But I think that’s just one example of how what’s happening in China and what’s changing in China and Hong Kong does have ripple effects globally. I think the other thing that just surprised me in terms of overall findings is the sheer scale of content placements in mainstream media in country after country, we’ve counted over 130 news outlets of 30 countries that were republishing content that was produced by Chinese state media outlets or the Chinese embassy. So, [02:31:00] these state media outlets are actually formally under the control of the Communist Party’s propaganda department.

So, basically, they’re producing content that’s then being inserted, sometimes labeled, sometimes kind of labeled, sometimes not labeled or deliberately disguised into newspapers, television programs, radio to a lesser extent, because it’s just not as widely used around the world, in country after country in multiple mainstream media outlets. Just the sheer scale of that is really breathtaking. I think there’s other questions about how impactful it is, but that’s just something that a few years ago wasn’t happening on that scale. They’ve really put a lot of effort into it. In sixteen countries we found upgraded or new agreements that were what were facilitating that kind of injection of content. Just the sheer scale of readership and viewership of that is kind of mind boggling to be honest.

JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: When did China really start to expand its media footprint? I mean, it feels like it’s been in [02:32:00] recent years, but some of these media outlets like Xinhua have existed for a long time. So, when did it really kind of take its media operations global?

SARAH COOK: So, all of these media outlets for the most part existed within China for a long time. So, Xinhua is a core element of the domestic propaganda apparatus. The foreign influence really started in the Chinese language media space after the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, because there was so much support for the protestors among the Chinese diaspora. That really caught the Communist Party by surprise. So, they felt like, ‘Wow, we really need to do something about this.’

That’s when some of these techniques like the inserting of content which they call ‘Borrowing a Boat to Reach the Sea’ where Chinese state sources piggyback onto local media to reach their audiences. That first emerges in the Chinese language space. Getting friendly business people to buy out media outlets started happening in the mid-nineties with some outlets in [02:33:00] Malaysia and in Hong Kong. In the 2000s, you saw it in Taiwan. So, I think you definitely see this element of tactics and experimentation happening in the Chinese language. Then I think what’s newer is that over the last 5-10 years there has been an uptick in trying to expand this globally. Some of this precedes Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao, his predecessor, was actually the first one to really invest some serious money in expanding the Chinese state media outlets in telling them to quote, “Go global.”

Because of some of the filings from the Foreign Agents Registration Act, we know how much money an outlet like the state-run China Daily was spending on inserting content into local US media. There was a huge jump around 2009. It more than doubled in like a couple of years and then it stayed at a very high level of at least a million dollars a year, more than that, even $2 million a year since then. So, it started before Xi Jinping, but Xi Jinping has definitely [02:34:00] emphasized it more. I think in general Xi Jinping is much more aggressive. So, under Hu Jintao there was some of this kind of censorship pressure happening, especially in Chinese language media and major international media and pressure on foreign correspondents.

But now we found in 24 out of the 30 countries local journalists facing some kind of intimidation or pressure or cyber-attacks or cyber bullying related to coverage of China. When I did my first report 10 years ago that just wasn’t happening. So, that kind of evolution into the local mainstream media expansion into so many different languages with a more aggressive approach is something that’s much more recent, maybe in the last five years.

JUSTIN KEMPF - HOST, DEMOCRACY PARADOX: Has Xi Jinping changed tactics that they’ve used in terms of China’s media influence campaign throughout his tenure? I mean, how have you seen things change as Xi Jinping has been in power over the course of his 10 years?

SARAH COOK: So, I [02:35:00] would say, I think some of what happens outside China actually mirrors some of what’s happened inside China in that Xi Jinping actually gets the internet. He understands social media. He’s much savvier than his predecessors and he understands how to control it. So, one of the first things he did when he first came to power was there was actually a fairly vibrant social media space and conversation. There were heavily censored topics, but you still had breaking news that was getting ahead of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda apparatus back in 2011-2012. And these are all on domestic platforms, so like Weibo, which is kind of a Chinese version of Twitter, because Twitter is blocked. So, it was already pretty censored, but it was pretty freewheeling. There were some real political and social conversations and sharing of information critical of the government.

So, Xi just squashed that. He came in and basically issued new rules. He arrested and detained some really influential social [02:36:00] media people, even people like businessmen, people who weren’t necessarily political dissidents or anything like that. So, some of these platforms are just a shadow of what they were before in terms of the space for some of the public conversations outside of the control of the Communist Party. And I think that savviness does translate internationally. There’s been a much greater emphasis in investment on local languages, like I said. We’re not just talking about Spanish or Arabic. We’re talking about Hebrew, Romanian, Sinhala, and Swahili. They have accounts and in the 30 countries we looked at, we found at least one account or local diplomatic outreach that was in the local language and in many countries more than one local language.

So, I think that’s one element of savviness and engagement. Now some of that is very genuine about Chinese culture and Chinese food, but then you get some form of falsehood or disinformation or misleading content related to conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19 denials and mudding the waters about what’s happening in [02:37:00] Xinjiang or other kinds of anti-American narratives based on not quite full truths. So, I think it’s that there’s engagement, but it’s also more aggressive and covert. So, what we’re seeing overall is we find that the tactics are becoming more sophisticated, more covert, and more coercive. That just really came through as we were going across the sets of different countries and some of the sophistication is in how covert it is.

Some of it is, again, how do you tap into local influencers and get them to repost content? So, there’s often some trickery involved. Some of it is co-opting the local political elites and media owners to suppress coverage of the local outlets. That we found in 17 countries. So, that was actually relatively common where it’s not just the Chinese embassy picking up the phone and telling a journalist not to cover this, but a local official, a ministry representative, [02:38:00] or a media owner who either themselves got a call from the Chinese embassy or have their own business or other interests related to China and find that it’s not a good idea to be publishing this or that report at a particular moment.

Pentagon Ran a Secret Anti-Vax Campaign to Undermine China at the Height of the Pandemic: Reuters - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-20-24

JOEL SCHECTMAN: Basically, what we found was that when COVID-19 broke out in January, February 2020, obviously, the entire world was not prepared for what was going to happen next. But in certain areas of the national security establishment in Washington, immediately they saw this through the kind of prism of this kind of new cold war with China, right? And the issue is that that had already been heating up. And there’s this idea in Washington now that China and Russia have been just very successful with these kind of information operations, these kind of propaganda campaigns, of the type that the U.S. used to [02:39:00] also do a lot during the Cold War. But there’s this idea that Russia and China had really gotten ahead of the United States in the years since the Cold War. And, you know, in 2016, you have the hacking and leaking during the election to affect the outcome of the election. And there’s this idea that China has really been, like, getting ahead in that sphere, as well, in, like, influencing allies and spreading misinformation.

And that’s the backdrop to what happened in 2020, where COVID breaks out, and then, immediately, or within a few months of the outbreak, China starts spinning this narrative that not only was COVID not created in China, but that it was actually brought to China by the United States military, that maybe it came out of Fort Detrick or maybe it came through a military service member who was participating in a sports competition there. But they start spreading that narrative, and it starts — and, you know, from the Pentagon perspective, there was just [02:40:00] this, like, tremendous anger that this narrative was starting to take hold in other — in countries, you know, like the Philippines and Southeast Asia. And so they felt that they had to strike back.

And the other thing that was going on at that period was that even in the early days of the pandemic, the U.S. was starting to come up with a vaccine response, but one that was going to really put, like, America first. It was a very, like, America-first vaccine policy, whereas very, very early in the pandemic, China came out publicly and said that it was going to try to make its vaccines publicly available in the developing world, right?

And all of this starts to play out in the Philippines, which is a country that traditionally was a very close U.S. ally, right? And traditionally, it’s a very close U.S. ally, but had started to move away under President Duterte, had started to move away from the United States and started to move toward China anyway. And then the [02:41:00] pandemic breaks out, and Duterte cuts this deal with China that it’s going to be first in line for China’s vaccine that’s under development. And at the same time, Duterte says, “OK, I’m going to also get rid of these old U.S. military agreements that we have. They’re no longer relevant.” And so, within the Pentagon and within Washington, there was this fear that they were going to lose the Philippines, so to speak.

And so they launched this secret propaganda campaign in the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia to try to denigrate China’s vaccine. And what made it particularly controversial, I think, or controversial now — right? — to look back at it in hindsight, is that it’s not that U.S. was secretly — not just that the U.S. was secretly denigrating a vaccine at the height of the COVID pandemic, which by itself is kind of problematic, but it was doing this at a time that no other vaccine was going to be [02:42:00] available in the foreseeable future, right? Like, the United States’s vaccines did not become widely available in the Philippines for like 10 months — for 10 months after they got the Chinese one. So the Chinese one was really the only game in town in the Philippines for like almost the first year of — for almost an entire year.

And so, you know, you have Sinovac, which is really the only one that most Filipinos were able to access, and the Pentagon was using these kind of secret social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook to say that this vaccine was harmful, that it was dangerous, that it was at least ineffective, and that China caused the virus to start with, so, ergo, you know, how can he trust any vaccine that comes out of the country that created the virus itself, right? And they were using these kind of fake accounts that sort of purported to be Filipinos and [02:43:00] trying to really stir up this message that, you know, I mean, what’s your track record with Chinese products? Right? They’re all fake, right? You know, what have you seen in your own life? You’ve seen that Chinese products are fake. How can you trust a country that always creates fake products to make a real vaccine? The vaccines are — 

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I mean —

JOEL SCHECTMAN: — going to be fake, too. Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: This is extremely significant, given how many people died in the Philippines of COVID without taking the vaccine. I mean, you have that quote in your piece. “We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective. We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud,” said one senior military officer. How many people died in the Philippines?

JOEL SCHECTMAN: Yeah. So, I’m trying to remember, like, by the end of the — by the end of COVID, how many people passed away. But it was — I mean, you’re talking about a number that reached into — [02:44:00] you know, that reached far past the tens of thousands, right?

And there’s no question — it’s very hard to measure, like, the efficacy of a secret campaign like this and say, OK, how much did it move the needle. But I think if we judged it by its intentions — right? — like, the intention was to make people hesitant to take Sinovac — there’s no question that, to the degree that that was successful, it was incredibly harmful. There’s all kinds of public health research in the Philippines that shows that vaccine hesitancy, specifically towards the Chinese vaccines, led to a large number of deaths, because, again, that was the only vaccine that was available from like February 2021 almost 'til early 2022. It wasn't the only one, but it was almost the only one, right? Like, it was the only one you could reliably get at that point in the country. And the fact that people were so afraid of taking that because of their [02:45:00] history of sort of suspicion towards China really had like a very adverse impact. Now, it’s hard to say exactly how much the Pentagon throwing fuel on that fire, like, how much of an impact that had. But if you judge it by its intentions, to whatever degree they were successful with their intentions, it was incredibly harmful.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You suggest, toward the end of your piece, Joel, that there is a kind of broader move underway within the U.S. military to get more involved in clandestine propaganda to undermine adversaries like China and Russia — both of these countries, of course, criticized by the U.S. precisely for deploying these methods. Can you explain?

JOEL SCHECTMAN: Yeah. So, like I was mentioning earlier, there is this idea that the U.S. has been flat-footed in sort of responding to Chinese and Russian covert propaganda efforts. And there’s this idea that, you know, [02:46:00] we’ve been like a little bit too hesitant, a little too kind of moralistic in our response. And as a result, we’ve kind of, like, ceded this sort of information space battlefield to them. There’s this idea that we need to kind of fight fire with fire, the United States needs to take the fight back to the adversary in that realm, and that it needs to envision psyops, as they call them, as having a much bigger role in sort of shifting the — you know, kind of shifting the political dynamic — right? — that psyops, their role is not just in a hot, like, war, dropping leaflets, encouraging surrender, but it really needs to be part of this kind of ideological battle and potentially be used to kind of undermine civil society within, like — you know, within our adversaries.

 

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 [02:47:00] us a text at 202-999-3991 or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from The Telegraph, Focus On Africa, The China in Africa Podcast, Vox, CNBC, The Hustle, Astrographics, Bloomberg Originals, The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, AJ+, Democracy Paradox, and Democracy Now! 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 Andrew, for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing a gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today ay bestoftheleft.com/support or [02:48:00] through our Patreon page. And we're offering a 20% off discount for this month only. 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. 

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.

Air Date 7/2/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. 

Border security around the world continues to take turns for the dark and dystopian as right-wing sentiment against migrants and refugees continues to escalate to the extreme. 

Sources of providing our Top Takes today include Democracy Now!, It Could Happen Here, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the PBS NewsHour, and Your Undivided Attention. 

Then in the additional Deeper Dive half of the show, there'll be more on the politicization of the border, brutal border enforcement, the border industrial complex, and migrant stories.

First Illinois Latina Rep. Praises Biden's New Immigration Executive Order But Slams Border Shutdown - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-20-24

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: For more, we're joined by Democratic Congressmember Delia Ramirez of Illinois, where it's estimated one in 10 children in the state has an undocumented parent. Ramirez is the first Latina congressmember to ever represent Illinois. She's also married to a DACA recipient who'd benefit from this new [00:01:00] Biden executive action.

On Tuesday, she and her husband, Boris Hernandez, attended Biden's White House announcement. Congressmember, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you explain in detail what exactly President Biden has now put into effect and how it affects your own personal family? 

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ:: Yeah, Amy, it's a personal --it's an announcement that hits personally, right? I'm married to my amazing husband, Boris, who came at the age of 14, who is DACA. And we've been going through this process for about three years to adjust status. 

But here's the reality. There's an assumption that if you marry a US citizen, you automatically become a US citizen or a green card holder in this country. Most people don't understand that in order for you to be able to get permanent status here, you have to actually apply through a marriage adjustment status that requires, if you enter this country unauthorized, [00:02:00] like you just heard from the southern border, for you to pay a 10 year bar back in your home country.

So what that means is that if someone is married to a US citizen, as a family, they want to stay together. The current law requires them to go back to their country with absolutely no guarantee that they will be approved to re-enter the country. Anything can happen in that time. And in some cases, people are waiting 10, 11, 12 years back in Mexico, in Haiti, Ecuador or wherever their home country is--in essence, separating families and which is why there are over 500,000 individuals made up of these households who are still in the shadows. 

On Tuesday, that changes that. It means that no longer will you have to go back to your home country in order to be able to go through your adjustment status. You will be able to stay with your family here and raise your children and apply for your legal permanent residency [00:03:00] as well as a 3-year work permit. 

It's major. It literally means keeping families together in mixed status. It means that US citizens like me who are married to non-citizens won't have to worry that at any given time if they're in their DACA that the program ends and they'll be undocumented completely or if they're not DACA that at any moment in the shadows they could be deported.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want to ask you about the timing of this, both right before the presidential election debate between Biden and Trump, but also right after President Biden just issued one of the most restrictive immigration policies ever declared under a recent Democratic administration. It shuts down the US-Mexico border, denies asylum to most migrants who don't cross into the US via ports of entry, and limits total asylum requests at the southern border to no more than 2,500 per [00:04:00] day. Can you talk about what he's done now and what he did just a few weeks ago? 

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ:: Yeah, Amy, let's be honest, two executive orders that could not be more different from each other. One of them is restricting people's ability to seek asylum in this country, which I have publicly denounced, and I continue to denounce, I said to Secretary Mayorkas, this does not change the fact that that EO must be repealed as soon as possible. And then one, which is the one he should have done two weeks ago, which is giving an opportunity for families to stay together, helping Dreamers, particularly those that were not eligible through the timeline to be able to get DACA to finally get a professional visa.

Two different things. One is about what our Administration is doing about the southern border and actually reacting to Republicans who, which, by the way, I have said, it doesn't matter what you do on border, and it [00:05:00] doesn't matter how terrible you are or how great you are in immigration, Republicans will continue to attack Democrats on immigration because this is the number 1 issue that they are convinced will allow them to win the White House. And so I continue to say, be the administration that shows stark difference between Donald Trump and Joe Biden as it pertains to immigration.

Tuesday was a good step in that direction. What he did two and a half weeks ago was not. And so I think we need to be very, very clear. We have to continue to allow people to seek asylum is a human right in this country. Amy, I was in Panama. I saw the worst of the worst situations. Women with children seeking asylum, many of them have made it to our southern border and they should be welcomed. We should provide resources. We should ensure that we're working with our neighbor countries to also extend protections. And people like me or a woman who I just heard who is about to give birth to [00:06:00] her child, who is undocumented, who has gone to school here, should be able to stay with her family.

The system has been broken, Amy, since the 80s. And it's funny how Republicans continue to say, Biden is trying to extend through executive action amnesty. Last I checked, Reagan was Republican. And frankly, that's why my parents are US citizens today. 

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Congressmember Delia Ramirez, you are also the co-sponsor of the American Families United Act. Can you explain what that would do? 

REP. DELIA RAMIREZ:: Yeah, look, this is the comprehensive bill to be able to provide immigration reform. And that's actually, Amy, what we continue to work on. Tuesday was a great step forward, but Amy, let's be honest, there's so many people left behind. I knew, and it was mixed emotions, when we were at the announcement, that there are a number of family members who don't fit this category.

Frankly, Boris was [00:07:00] happy, but if you really asked him directly, he was so sad. Because for him, it extends protections, but for Wesleyan Hernandez, his brother, who's DACA, married to a non-citizen, his status does not change. And the program ends tomorrow, he is left in limbo. My tío chilano, he's still, after 34 years in this country, still left in the shadows.

The bill, what it does, it actually provides expansive, comprehensive immigration reform, bringing the largest number of people into status. Many of them, most of them, unless they're children, contributing to this country, paying taxes, it will provide them a pathway to legal permanent residency. Therefore, citizenship, work permits. And that is honestly the thing that we should continue to work on. 

But Amy, you and I both know that the Congress that I am in dehumanizes people that look like my husband, people like my tio chilano, and we don't see Congress passing that bill this year. But we should be doing everything in our power [00:08:00] to ensure that if we gain the majority, there's no BS excuses next time that we pass the bill.

EU Border Enforcement, Part 1 - It Could Happen Here - Air Date 6-4-24

MICK: Europe is no stranger to migration and migrants, and it is something that has been happening in waves over the past three to four decades. In the early nineties, there were multiple waves of migrants from Albania to other european countries. The main cause of this was the isolationist policies that were enforced by the communist regime that was in charge there. The unrest that followed at the end of the regime, and the crisis of Kosovo--for those unaware, Kosovo had a war with Serbia for independence and Kosovari people are largely ethnic Albanians with the same language. And because of this, it was easier for Albanians to merge with the Kostafari refugees and use that to migrate further and easier into Europe.

Other waves are close by. Other geopolitical events, such as the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, which I [00:09:00] think Mia and Roberts covered in their episode on self-immolation, and much more known to everyone, the wars in Syria and Libya.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: My interest in the border has always run parallel to my interesting conflict in reporting on conflict, and it's just become such a recurrent experience to either learn about conflicts at the border here because somebody is telling me about them, or learn about often like repression of ethnic or national or religious minorities because someone here tells me about them, or to go somewhere. I was in Syria in October, was in Iraq. And then return and see people from there at our border.

And as people will be aware, the asylum system--and we'll cover it later--the asylum system allows people who are very in danger of persecution for various categories to apply for asylum. It's not functioning. It's not functioning in the EU, it's not functioning in the US. I've seen that persecution with my own [00:10:00] eyes and the consequences of it, and I've seen people try and get away from it. 

Every single time I'm in somewhere like that, people will ask me for help, and it is fucking heartbreaking to be like, yeah, the country that you see flying the F-16s or the F-35s over your head, the planes that cost more than this entire town makes in a year. No, we can't have a functioning fucking immigration system. Like in the case of the US, it's this app which doesn't work and you can only use it north of Mexico City. 

And this broken system leads to people--they're not getting in a boat across the Mediterranean, crossing the Darién Gap, walking across the mountains in northern Mexico because they want to have a better iPhone. They're doing it because whatever the alternative is seems worse, and it's worth-- People are fully aware that they're risking their lives on these journeys.

It's not that they live without access to news and the internet. They know about the deaths in the Mediterranean, they know about the Darién Gap. When I talk [00:11:00] to migrants who haven't crossed the gap, like I was talking to group of Colombian migrants two or three days ago, and they were coming in to the US through an area east of Hocomber, which is very rugged and very mountainous, and they were coming into an open air detention site where border patrol holds them. And I was talking to them. I say, how many of you walked, how many if you flew? Most of them flew and then were able to walk forward. The ones who walked, everyone was like, oh shit, that's horrible, like you must have seen terrible things. They're very aware of how dangerous these journeys are. The reason that they're taking them is because it seems like staying at home would be more dangerous.

ROSE: Yeah, although I would like to add that it's not every migrant is a real refugee, and not every migrant has to be a real refugee. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yes. 

ROSE: At least as the definition was established in the fifties by a bunch of pretentious guys who decided this is a good reason to migrate and all other reasons are not.

At first, yeah, [00:12:00] at first I worked in Greece and that was mainly with people of what are considered objectively real or good refugees, like people from Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria. Whereas when I was working in Bosnia, it was mainly people from Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan. And a lack of opportunity can be a very good reason to move. I think most white people who moved to America did so because of that. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah. 

ROSE: Not because they were imminently bombed in their home countries, but because they wanted to make something out of their lives and they didn't have opportunities at home. 

And I think this whole concept of refugee is meant to distinguish between good and bad reasons to move, and good and bad people, migrants in the end. 

People can do really dangerous things for giving their children a better life, and if their children are not immediate danger.

And the other thing I would like to stress is that I think the migration regime that we see today is very [00:13:00] tightly connected to colonization and decolonization. For example, specifically in the Midlands, Surinam was a Dutch colony and one of the reasons why the Dutch government agreed with decolonization was because the Dutch society started to get worried about all the Black people showing up. And something similar happened with the independence war that Algeria fought against France. France preferred to give them independence rather than give them equal rights and access to the French territory. 

Creating those barriers and keeping people in the Global South after these countries became independent is very tightly connected with decolonization, but of course especially with new colonization and new ways of controlling people in the Global South and exploiting them.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah. If we look at the US context, the United States government has managed to engineer this compromise where capital travels freely across the Americas and people don't. So it's possible for them to exploit lower wage labor, for [00:14:00] US companies to exploit lower wage labor in Mexico and other countries to the south, but not for those people to come and seek a better way, a better way of living in the country that is consuming the products of their labor. 

And so this is obviously not new to people, this is a thing that's appartist had highlighted in 1994 and it's been the case for thirty years. 

But yeah, in the US because the United States and colonialism in a somewhat less overt way, although often in a pretty over way, it's facilitated undemocratic regimes and a low quality of life for people all across specifically the Americas, but also the rest of the world. And it's now seeking to prevent those people from coming here after it destabilized their countries, or in the case of climate change, again, like the consumption habits of certain countries that have had an impact on people all around the world, to include people in more dire economic circumstances. And it shouldn't be any less, we shouldn't have any less empathy or solidarity with [00:15:00] those people because no one's bombing them and they just want to chance for their kids to do the same shit. Like I moved to America and I was 21 because there weren't many jobs for me at home. 

ROSE: There's something very arrogant about thinking that you can decide whether someone else has a right to exist. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Totally. 

ROSE: And I think that's what migration policies are. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, and as you pointed out, they were established after the Second World War with a very narrow set of categories. Not only do you not include climate change, but also generalized violence, the generalized violence. 

ROSE: Yeah. Actually fleeing from a war is not making you a real refugee according to international law, which is something people don't know. So like an average Syrian refugee is actually legally not a refugee. They are fleeing indiscriminate violence, but they don't have a right to political asylum.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, or like people in Ecuador. I've talked to people from Ecuador a lot, and they'll be like, well, you've seen men, they took over the TV station. So there's some gangs took over a TV station there recently, and it's an armed takeover. And then as you can see, would you want your child growing up there if you had [00:16:00] children? And of course it's a very compelling argument. And if I was in their position with young children--a guy I met the other day, his son needed medical care that he couldn't obtain in his country. That's a perfectly valid reason for coming here. But none of those things count for asylum to those people that are either lumped into quote unquote "economic migrants," which is still like people have a right to a living wage and to be able to pay for their family, to have the things that they need to survive and thrive.

But you're right, the asylum system is very narrow.

Migrants & Refugees, the Pope & Volkswagen - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Air Date 5-26-24

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Our main story tonight concerns Europe. You know, that thing Belgium is in. If you've watched the news at all lately, you cannot have missed what has been happening there. 

NEWS CLIP: Europe's migrant crisis is getting worse by the day. 

A migrant crisis spiraling out of control. 

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are risking everything. 

A human wave washing over Europe's southern shores.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants have streamed into Europe, the largest influx there since [00:17:00] the end of World War II. 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Wow. The largest since the end of World War II. And remember, millions of people back then were searching both for a better life and for the booth where it was rumored you could slap dead Hitler.

And look, the scale of this story can be hard to get your head around. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the move just within Europe and another four million are being hosted in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. And when numbers get that high, they can be hard to comprehend. It's like when someone tells you the size of the audience of NCIS New Orleans: 17 million people? How's that even possible? How many Navy-based crimes could there possibly be in New Orleans? This doesn't make any sense! And when you are dealing with a mass of people that large, you really want to be a little careful with how you describe them. Unfortunately, David Cameron, noted alleged swine fallatio enthusiast, recently referred to a "swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean", and that [00:18:00] language matters. Because a swarm of anything sounds terrifying, no matter what it is. If I hear, there are a lot of kittens coming my way, I'm going to be delighted. But if I hear there is a swarm of kittens approaching, I'm grabbing a shotgun and I'm getting to high ground, because I'm not gonna let those furry fuckers take me alive.

And here in the U.S., some in the media have chosen to reduce the migrant population to one simple stereotype. 

NEWS CLIP: A new video surfaces online showing why some are worried Europe is opening its doors to potential terrorists. 

Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar. 

Those are reportedly Muslim refugees on a train in Europe chanting "Allahu Akbar" or "God is great". Now, to be clear, we're not saying that any of those people are terrorists or in any way affiliated with a terror group, but it does highlight just how many of these refugees who are fleeing violence in Iraq and Syria [00:19:00] are Muslim.

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Okay. Okay. First, you don't get to claim that you're not calling those people terrorists when your lower third says, "Terrorists inbound?" If you are really not saying they're terrorists, maybe change that to something more accurate like, "People take train", or "Some wear hats, others less so".

And second, describing that as a new video that sheds light on the migrant crisis is a little misleading, because in researching this story, we found a version of that same video uploaded onto YouTube, back in 2010, well before this migrant crisis even began. And if you are going to use misleading old footage to try and make people frightened of Muslims, why stop there? Just go the whole way and use a clip from True Lies. 

NEWS CLIP: Now, to be clear, we're not saying that any of those people are terrorists or in any way affiliated with a terror group, but it does highlight just how many of these refugees who are fleeing violence in Iraq and Syria are Muslim. 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: That's [00:20:00] only about ten percent more racist than what you did. So, look, let's just take a step back, because for the record, these people are coming from many different countries and fleeing everything from civil war to economic stagnation. And while each story is unique, many of them are heartbreaking.

NEWS CLIP: Noujain is 16 and from Kobane in Syria. Disabled from birth, she cannot walk, and made the dangerous crossing from Turkey last week.

NOUJAIN MUSTAFFA: I've been trying many things for the first time during this journey, like a train and a ship. So, uh, I just enjoyed it. 

INTERVIEWER: You enjoyed it? 

NOUJAIN MUSTAFFA: Yeah. 

INTERVIEWER: You're the first person I've met who said that. 

But to understand why, you must know the world she escaped from. 

NOUJAIN MUSTAFFA: Imagine you're 16 and you're always afraid to be dead at any minute.

INTERVIEWER: What is your dream? 

NOUJAIN MUSTAFFA: I have to be an astronaut to go out and see, and find an alien. Yes. So I [00:21:00] want to meet the queen. Yes. 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Oh, I think that girl absolutely deserves to meet an alien and the queen, and also, if she has time, a real human with feelings. But, unfortunately for Noujain and so many like her, Europe has yet to create an effective system to process this influx of people.

Every country has a different application process, and some are totally overwhelmed and underfunded. We actually got our hands on a couple of registration forms that were given to refugees upon arrival. This one was handed to a Syrian asylum seeker arriving in Greece on September the 5th. It tells him to return for registration on December the 21st. And that could be a tricky three month wait, because he's not allowed to work in that time. And yet, that is nothing compared to this form, given to an Iraqi refugee in Turkey, telling him to come back on June 15th of 2017. Which sounds bad, before you notice the pink sticky note added at the bottom, clarifying [00:22:00] that his actual date will be February 19th, 2020. And that is ridiculous. These people can't go five years without working. They're refugees, not René Zellweger. 

Tunisia, EU scrutinized for harsh treatment of migrants along route from Africa to Europe - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 8-7-23

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Risk death in the desert or drown at sea. Those are the terrible choices facing sub-Saharan Africans trying to reach Europe via Tunisia.

Twenty seven migrants are missing, feared dead, after their rubber dinghies capsized in rough seas south of the Italian island of Lampedusa this weekend. The Italian coast guard rescued 57 people and recovered the bodies of a young boy and a woman who succumbed to the waves before deliverance arrived. 

And this is the fate they were trying to avoid, being abandoned in the Sahara Desert, one of the most unforgiving places on earth. Other sub-Saharan Africans with the same European dream have been dying of thirst after being dumped by the Tunisian authorities on the Libyan border. [00:23:00] 

This mother and her small child are among the latest victims, lying next to an empty water bottle and not far from a man who also succumbed to extreme heat and dehydration.

LAUREN SEIBERT: Over 300 people that are still currently trapped at the Tunisia Libya border in the desert, and they've been trapped there for weeks. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Human Rights Watch. Researcher Lauren Seibert is an expert on the dangers facing migrants in Africa. 

LAUREN SEIBERT: You have children, you have women, you have deaths that are increasing. You do have Libya border guards that are reporting deaths every few days. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Fatemah Ibrahim from Nigeria is terrified as Libyan border guards approach.

"We won't hit you", says this officer, as he tells a colleague to give her water. "We won't hit you. Don't be afraid". As the Libyans dispense the smallest of mouthfuls, Fatemah Ibrahim explains why they're in peril. 

FATEMAH IBRAHIM: In Tunisia, the [00:24:00] police arrested us, beat us, and took our phones and all our money. They told us to go to Libya, and my people kept saying Libya is very bad. They left us without water and food. They put us there and then left. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Tunisia's authoritarian president, Kais Saied, is being blamed for what is turning into a 21st Century pogrom. Accompanied by a jaunty soundtrack on his Facebook page, Saied presents himself as an international statesman, greeting leaders such as Italy's right wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. But many critics condemn him as a dictator who propagates racism.

In February, Saied told security forces to stop all illegal migration and expel those without documents. 

PRESIDENT KAIS SAIED: We are African and we are proud to be Africans. We give help to those [00:25:00] who come to us, but we refuse to be neither a pathway nor a land to settle in. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: A campaign of arrests and expulsions created a wave of fear among sub-Saharan Africans and Black Tunisians.

Pro-refugee activists took to the streets of the capital, Tunis, to protest the new measures, but Saied was unrepentant. 

PRESIDENT KAIS SAIED: We are being subjected to vicious campaigns from mercenaries, traitors, foreign agents, and shady parties. Today they want to change the demographic composition of Tunisia. It's a plot and they get paid for it, and they got paid in other fields to attack the state and the Tunisian people and their identity

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Saied's remarks have been widely condemned for provoking racial violence between Tunisians and migrants. The death of a Tunisian in July was one of the catalysts that led to the expulsions to the desert. [00:26:00] Despite the clashes, European Union leaders had no qualms about visiting the presidential palace to do business with the man who seized power two years ago, crushing democratic aspirations of the nation where the Arab Spring began in 2011.

The European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, pledged 100 million dollars to help Tunisia police its own borders, with the lure of a further billion dollars in aid. 

URSULA VON DER LEYEN: We need to crack down on criminal networks of smugglers and traffickers. They are exploiting human despair and we have to break their reckless business model.

So we will work with Tunisia on an anti-smuggling operational partnership. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: The EU country which benefits most from this deal is Italy. The island of Lampedusa is just over 100 miles from Tunisia and has been a landing zone for tens of thousands of asylum seekers for years. Italy's Prime Minister, Giorgia [00:27:00] Meloni took office last autumn on an anti-migration platform.

GIORGIA MELONI: The partnership with Tunisia has to be considered as a model for building new relations with North African neighbors. All these, a few months ago, would have been unthinkable. And I want to say it with a level of pride, but also with a level of gratitude to the European Union. 

ANAND MENON: The rhetoric around this deal is a rhetoric of preventing people drowning, whereas everyone knows that the reality is about preventing people coming to Europe. That's the political priority in Europe. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Anand Menon is professor of European politics at King's College London. 

ANAND MENON: Europe has cash, and North African states have space to build these camps to house these migrants. We should remember that, of course, the European Union paid Colonel Gaddafi way back in the, sort of, 2009-2010 to do exactly the same thing, to make sure migrants didn't make the crossing.

So, politically, you see the rationale, but it makes the [00:28:00] European Union complicit in human rights abuses in these camps. What does this say about Europe? I mean, what it says about Europe is that Europeans and European politicians are terrified by migration from Africa and will do anything it takes to stop it, even if it means dealing with dictators such as in Tunisia.

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: These people were rescued from the desert by Libyan authorities. Their protest took place during a media facility with a border guard unit. 

IBRAHIM BANGUA: Some people are sick. We ask them for solution, no solution, every day they come with weapon for us. We are not fighting, we are just a migrant.

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Tunisia's actions are a welcome distraction for its neighbor, Libya, another country on the migrant trail with a dreadful reputation. 

NATASHA TSANGARIDES: Our legal advisors, who work with survivors of torture every day, describe Libya as armageddon. They describe it as complete hell on earth. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: Natasha Tsangalides is the Associate Director [00:29:00] of Advocacy with Freedom from Torture, a British non profit.

NATASHA TSANGARIDES: People experience such high levels of trauma and PTSD following their time in Libya, being subjected to open air slave markets, being sold off at auctions, being subject to rape and torture. 

MALCOLM BRABANT - SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, PBS NEWSHOUR: But for human rights activists, discussions about the morality and cynicism of the European Union and its North African partners are taking second place to the issue of life and death in the Sahara.

How do you see this ending? 

LAUREN SEIBERT: Honestly, if the Tunisian government does not take action to save these individuals lives by allowing humanitarian aid immediately to access the zone, and if it does not also facilitate the evacuation of these people, you're gonna see extreme numbers of deaths. And you've got children there. More children could die. It's just really catastrophic. 

Why Are Migrants Becoming AI Test Subjects? With Petra Molnar - Your Undivided Attention - Air Date 6-20-24

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, the UN and other types of international organizations are a key player in the kind of ecosystem of power and innovation and border tech because they're [00:30:00] really powerful actors. They set the agenda and the norms around, again, kind of what we see as innovation and why we should be collecting more data. That's kind of a given. If you go to a lot of UN policy documents and different pronouncements, data is in there, right? We need more data, we need to collect more information. But what's tricky from a legal perspective and a governance perspective is that international organizations are this kind of third space, right? They're not a private sector company and they're not a state. So, how do you regulate them? What kind of governance mechanisms exist? Oftentimes it's kind of an in-house, you know, ethics statement, for example, on biometric data collection. This all sounds really kind of up there and theoretical, so I'll bring it to the ground to the example you mentioned with Rohingya refugees.

So, Rohingya refugees have been escaping Myanmar for many years now and finding shelter or refuge in neighboring Bangladesh. The UN is active in Bangladesh and has been collecting data from refugees there, and it came out a couple years ago that [00:31:00] they inadvertently took this collected data and shared it with the Myanmar government, the very government that the refugees were fleeing from.

Now, if we are assuming that this is an accident, it's a pretty big one, because it's extremely sensitive personal information that often was also collected in situations that were maybe not totally driven by consent, right?, because the power dynamics are there. Can a refugee really opt out of data collection if they're in a camp that's administered by the United Nations, right? It's very different than you and I going to a grocery store and saying, oh no, you know, I don't want to participate in the survey or I don't want to give you my information, because you can just go home. That's not the dynamic, right?, that people on the move face. And the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees made such a big mistake is very telling. Because what's happening with other actors in the space, what kind of data retention practices do they have, or data sharing practices too, you know, what is really happening? So much of it, again, happens in that kind of murky, opaque [00:32:00] area that's very difficult to penetrate by journalists, by lawyers, by human rights monitors, because so much is done by third party actors like international organizations that don't have to report in the same way that states do, or even the private sector does.

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: You know, if I'm a country, I would say there's going to be some kind of border arbitrage that if I don't beef up my border, then refugees are going to be turned away from countries that have a beefier border, and they're just going to flow to me. So, I really don't have a choice anyway. So, I guess what would you say to them? And really what I'm looking for is, this is not a kind of binary answer. There's not a yes or no. This is like a way that we move. This is a verb. This is an adaptive process. And from your vantage point, what would be a better adaptive process? How would we be doing the process of deciding what is okay and what's not okay in a better way acknowledging how fast everything is [00:33:00] moving?

PETRA MOLNAR: You know, maybe this seems again too simplistic, but it's about talking directly with people who are impacted by the technology and who are hurt by it, because it is now, I would say, pretty robustly documented that border technology infringes on all sorts of human rights and has potentially even led to loss of life, right, at the U.S.-Mexico border.

So, if we know all of that, and then we also see this kind of race to the bottom that states are engaged in, I think that's absolutely right, of beefing up their borders, like, really strengthening border security and not wanting to be the country that says, oh, well, okay, my doors are open, like, what are the incentives there?

I think we need to have a conversation about some no-go zones, frankly, when it comes to technology. I mean, we tried that with autonomous weapons and that still hasn't happened, right? And that's really like the sharpest edge of this conversation. But yeah, what about robo dogs? What about predictive analytics for border enforcement?

What about data that's collected as part of a DNA sample? Are we [00:34:00] actually okay with that as a society? And if not, then we really need to draw some red lines under this. A moratorium at the very least, but a ban actually, I think, is definitely something that needs to be explored. And I think it's a little short-sighted too, actually, on part of a lot of what, you sometimes we call receiving countries, so countries like the United States or Canada or the EU that have been historically in the last few decades the receiving point for people on the move.

It's very short sighted to see migrants and refugees as a threat because a lot of people contribute very highly to countries that are their second home, right? And I think we've lost sight of that. Like, the fact that everything's now weaponized against this kind of specter of migration is incredibly shortsighted. Because if we are going to be dealing with larger and larger numbers of people on the move in the future, it's actually an opportunity to think about, well, how do we uphold people's human rights? How do we actually function as a society that respects human dignity [00:35:00] and, and wants to be a functional place where people can thrive and raise their Children and contribute to local economies? That's really what we need to be talking about here. 

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: I'm just curious, what, if any, are the bright spots, or the bright people, that you would point our attention to, for where we get hints of, like, trailheads for hope? Like, we, you know, we're gonna have more climate refugees. We wish we could choose about this, but we can't. There's gonna be more people on the move, and as you said, deterrence isn't gonna work because it is a matter of life and death. And so we need examples of, you know, integration working better, refugee camps working better, and ways that technology can play a positive and helpful role in that. Is there any other examples of that you want to mention?

PETRA MOLNAR: Sure. I mean, there's really inspiring practices when it comes to, for example, education technology and making sure that children in conflict zones are able to still learn when they're on the move or when they're in refugee camps. There's all sorts of really interesting projects out there that are kind of bringing the classroom to the child that's mobile.

You know, other inspiring [00:36:00] things that, that I can kind of think of are just ways again that, for example, you know, journalists are thinking about telling different stories and kind of focusing on technology as a way to level the playing field in the kind of vast power differential that we're talking about.

And that's something that we're trying to do at the Refugee Law Lab, which is kind of my academic hat. My colleague, Sean Rehaag, for example, he's more on the kind of data science side, but he's looking at, for example, using big data sets to crunch numbers and look at, for example, refugee decisions in Canada to create information for refugee lawyers to be better informed on how a particular judge might render their decision. Very, very helpful because again, you're dealing with attorneys who might not have the same level of resources as a government lawyer might. 

So, there are definitely bright spots when it comes to using technology as well to kind of meet in the middle and, you know, work against the kind of differentials in power and privilege and even the kind of norm setting that it comes to, like who gets to [00:37:00] innovate and why. We really need to find ways to kind of talk to each other more about this. 

Final comments on our summer membership drive

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with Democracy Now! discussing DACA and the American Families United Act. It Could Happen Here looked at some of the history of migration waves into Europe. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver discussed the Islamophobia rampant in the language used to describe migrants headed to Europe. The PBS News Hour reported on the harrowing trip to Europe from North Africa being attempted by desperate migrants. Your Undivided Attention drew the connection between border security and the spread of surveillance technologies. 

It Could Happen Here compared the tragedy inherent in the migrant experience with the profit of the border industrial complex. And Your Undivided Attention looked for new ways of thinking about how to manage borders. 

And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in the deeper dive sections. 

But first I need to kick off our summer sale membership and awareness drive. We make [00:38:00] the show here because we think that it's the kind of show that needs to exist in the world. Hopefully you listened for a similar reason, but, to keep the show going, we need to ask you for money every once in a while and, frankly, your help in spreading the word of the show. Podcasts like this one don't benefit from algorithmic recommendation engines the way shows do on video-sharing and social media platforms, and this show just doesn't translate to YouTube as well as others. So, that leaves us with the old-fashioned method of people who care enough about it telling others about it. 

 On the money angle, we're offering a little incentive to sign up as a member of this month with a discount offer. You can support the show and hear our full members-only bonus episodes along with ad-free regular episodes for 20% off. If you sign up this month, you will lock in that price for as long as you keep your membership.

As for spreading the word about the show, there couldn't be a better time. As election season is swinging into full gear. [00:39:00] This show is the antidote to the breathless barrage of up-to-the-minute updates that fill the 24-hour news cycle. We go deeper and on a broader range of topics than almost any other show all while highlighting the great works of others that can turn into a sort of roadmap for anyone seeking further media recommendations. 

To me. That sounds like the kind of show more people should know about. 

And to help you with all this, I happened upon a reasonably good idea in an Ars Technica article recently titled "Give Yourself a Day to Tackle All Your Recommendation and Subscription Guilt." Hopefully it won't take you a full day, but the underlying idea is pretty solid. The writer addresses the problem that so many of us have with the constant knowledge that there are independent creators out there who need and deserve our support. But we rarely take the time to give it. 

 To make that nebulous scattershot set of [00:40:00] thoughts about who you want to support that sort of comes to mind randomly more manageable, the writer recommends blocking out some time and knocking them out all at once. 

The article says, "Declare a tech guilt absolution day. Sit down, gather up the little computer and phone stuff you love that more people should know about, or free things totally worth a few bucks, and blitz through ratings, reviews and donations.

Pull your brain about the little phone, computer and email things you like and know could use a little boost (Ahem). 

This could be a one-time donation, a Patreon or newsletter subscription, writing out a couple of nice sentiments about something more people should know about, or taking the 30 seconds to log in and rate something, thumbs up or five stars."

But then, recognizing the issue with subscription fatigue, the writer also points out that this could be a time to reorganize priorities. "Subscription fatigue is real and little donations [00:41:00] add up, so go ahead and make a budget for this exercise. 

You might consider checking your existing subscriptions and cycling the money from canceling. 

One of them into something more relevant. I personally felt great turning the rest of the year's Hulu subscription into Patreon dollars for my favorite podcast." Very on point. I appreciated that. 

And then the writer concludes based on their experience of setting aside a bit of time to tackle this task—critical to the survival of those of us struggling in the attention economy—that it really does make the process much more manageable. So if that sounds like something you've been meaning to do for awhile, take this as your opportunity to support the creators you love and spread the word so that others can get the same value you do. 

To support us, just head to BestOfTheLeft.com/support and grab your discounted membership, and then tell someone about us.

SECTION A: POLITICIZATION OF THE BORDER

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now, we'll continue with deeper dives on four topics. Next up, Section A: "The Politicization of the Border," [00:42:00] Section B: "Brutal Border Enforcement," Section C: "The Border Industrial Complex," and Section D: "Migrant Stories."

Immigration with Alejandra Oliva - You're Wrong About - Air Date 6-11-24

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: So yeah, I thought that a fun place to start today would be with Ronald Reagan.

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: He's always fun. Reagan's never not fun. It's, you know, when we lose. Things on such a massive scale and on such a scale of civil rights and human rights, it feels like it's, it's also important to sometimes take a moment and just talk about, like, if we weren't fighting for just the basics, what the world could look like and how, for example, if abortion wasn't so politicized in America, which, you know, recently did a great job on our show explaining how suddenly that happened and who made it happen.

Like abortion could not just be a non life threatening experience in terms of the fear of, you know, being identified, being harassed, being in a clinic that gets bombed, but it could be nice [00:43:00] and people getting abortions deserve to be taken care of and pampered a little bit, you know, and have, what if, what if you had a nice robe?

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: And I think this also means that our communities look different than they might if immigration was something that was easy or natural or, you know, Even, like you said, like, having a nice experience of abortion, what if we provided a nice experience of immigration that didn't involve, like, being constantly threatened with deportation and miles and miles of paperwork?

What if instead you could, like, show up at a community center and have English classes taught by somebody who lived near you, and have somebody be like, hey, I'm gay. Don't go to that grocery store. That's the bad grocery store in the neighborhood. Come with me. We'll do our shopping at the good one. I'll show you like they have good deals on Tuesdays.

So that's when I go and just kind of have community and local welcoming and have richer, more interesting, more nuanced communities for all of us. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Oh my God. And so we're beginning with Reagan. I mean, I'm not surprised, but I am [00:44:00] intrigued. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Yeah. During the Reagan administration, Congress passed, and then Reagan signed into law, a huge, huge undocumented person amnesty that would allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented people to get on the path to citizenship, which, if you look at that from today's politics, if you think about what it would take for Not just a Republican president, but like the Republican president to pass that kind of legislation today.

Like, it feels unimaginable. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: What do you make of that? Like, how does, when did you learn that? And what was your, what were the stages of grief you went through? 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: So I can't remember, like, exactly when I did, but it felt like a window into a different world. Like, what could have happened? What could have changed so much that now the Republican, like, baseline argument is we should have a completely separate system?

[00:45:00] no passage of people just capital. But I want to take Nancy to 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Tijuana for clams. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Exactly. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Sorry. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Reagan also, he had the amnesty, but I think on a lot of other immigration issues or like, uh, foreign policy that creates immigration issues was a much, much more complicated figure than just like he said that people could be on a path to citizenship.

So I think we should start by setting the stage, especially because so much of this like foreign policy that was going on during Reagan's time is like what is leading to, for example, the tremendous amount of Central American immigration that we have coming to the U. S. today. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: And how much of that is Reagan's fault, actually?

I bet. So much of 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: it. Oh, God. We had, as a country, had kind of been involved in Central America since the 1960s when we decided that communism was the thing that [00:46:00] was happening there. But Reagan really like doubled down and a lot of those civil wars got notably worse in the 80s, I would say. The Civil War in Guatemala began sort of including this Widescale genocide of indigenous Mayan people who lived in the country, thousands and thousands of people died at the hands of CIA trained military Reagan support for the Contras in Nicaragua, I think, was one of his most direct interventions into the politics of one of these countries that didn't wasn't just like we're going to support people but basically he armed and funded and trained a group of separatists to unseat an elected socialist government The Salvadoran Civil War was going on at that time.

Why were we so upset about? Communism that we were sending that much money and that much support and why was this such a huge, huge deal [00:47:00] as we were funding all of this? It just seems wild. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: As Baby's sister explained in Dirty Dancing, the idea of the domino effect, and that if one country goes communist, all the others will fall and eventually America and the world.

And that's why we have to fund this horrible war. Yeah, these stories that forgive the sins that we commit in order to fight an imagined enemy never seem like enough. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Wars. are very good at several things, but one of them is creating displaced people and refugees. And so, kind of from the 1960s to the 1980s, we start seeing increasing numbers of people from the countries in which we are living.

waging these sort of shadow wars through funding, through weapons, coming to the U. S. and becoming visible presences in and around the country. So a lot of Central American people, a lot of Vietnamese people are coming. I [00:48:00] read some statistic at some point that before the Vietnam War started, there were like less than 100 Vietnamese people in the entire United States.

And by the time it ended, There were a lot more than that. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Setting aside all the bigger questions about the idea of borders and the idea of countries and, you know, not to hand it to John Lennon, we just, you know, in a more finite sense, if you destroy someone's home, then I don't know, shouldn't you give them a new one?

Isn't that your job at that point? 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Yeah, it's people that are coming to the U. S. because it's kind of seen as the last safe haven, the last line of safety. And we are, in some cases, giving people asylum, or in some cases, sort of giving them other kinds of protected statuses that don't put them on a path to citizenship, but do ensure that they're not being deported.

Or we're just, you know, deporting people immediately.

Migrants & Refugees, the Pope & Volkswagen Part 2 - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Air Date 5-26-24

NEWS CLIP: Disturbing cell phone video appears [00:49:00] to show migrants at the main refugee camp here being fed like a herd of caged animals in a holding pen.

It's a shocking video that has garnered attention from around the world. As waves of desperate migrants sprint from a holding camp in Hungary. A camerawoman appears to trip a man running with his child in his arms. The woman also kicks other migrants as they run, including a young girl. Now, the camerawoman is out of a job.

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Oh, I'm sorry, she lost her job. That's absolutely terrible. Don't worry, I'm sure she can find a new one on actualmonster. com. To be fair She later apologized, saying, I'm not a heartless, racist, children kicking camera woman. Which I can only presume means she's a loving, accepting, children kicking camera woman, because the children kicking part is not really up for debate anymore.

And even those countries who are offering to take refugees are sometimes making those offers in the most insultingly 

NEWS CLIP: selective way. [00:50:00] Slovakians saying that, um, that they're only going to give asylum to, uh, to Christians. They don't want, uh, Muslims, uh, migrants coming into the country, Muslim asylum seekers.

Not least because they haven't got any mosques. Oh, I'm sorry, 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Slovakia. You can't take Muslims in because you don't have any mosques. You do know you can build those, right? Mosques don't naturally occur in the wild due to erosion or particularly devout beavers. Muslims Muslims can live anywhere that other humans can live.

Muslims are not like dolphins trying to resettle in Scottsdale, Arizona. And when refugees Poles are not being excluded on the basis of religion. They're being accused of being lazy freeloaders. Just listen to one Polish MEP address the European Parliament. 

NEWS CLIP: If we abolished all benefits, then people who don't want to work and want to live from benefits wouldn't come to Poland and the rest of Europe.

People who want to work are precious, however [00:51:00] they are sent back and we accept only those who don't want to work. It's ridiculous policy leading to invasion of human trash. Let us be clear, human trash, human garbage that doesn't want to work. 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: Human garbage? Those are some pretty strong words coming from the Polish Six Flags guy.

And what he said is not just offensive, it's also wrong. Research has shown that while there is some small cost in the short term, eventually, an influx of lower wage immigrants into a community tends to raise wages for everyone else. And a working paper published last year by four economists found that immigration benefited local populations in 19 of the 20 industrialized countries they studied.

And think about that. Adding immigrants makes things better 19 times out of 20. That's a success rate matched only by Bacon and Paul Rudd. And incidentally, it's just a little hard to hear these migrants and refugees being called lazy, considering how hard [00:52:00] many of them have worked to reach Europe in the first place.

You really want to talk about lazy migrants, I'm a lazy migrant. I left a country by airplane, and the only things I was escaping were fog, public indifference, and an almost certain future as the turtle of Prince Harry's entourage. I didn't want to be royal turtle. I didn't want to be royal turtle. And the maddening thing, the maddening thing here is, Europe doesn't even need to do this for good reasons.

It can do it for selfish ones, because as a continent, it is in dire need of new citizens. 

NEWS CLIP: According to the U. N., the average woman needs to have 2. 1 children to maintain the population of a developed country. But in the European Union, every single country is below that 2. 1 level. By 2050, some countries, like Greece, Portugal, and Germany, will see their populations drop by double digit percentages, according to Pew.

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: That's true. If Europe doesn't open its doors to more [00:53:00] migrants, this is not the changing face of Europe they should be frightened of. This is. This one, right here. And look, not every single asylum seeker is going to be the perfect economic wellspring. But instead of worrying about the hypothetical downside of letting these migrants in, Countries should be more worried about the actual downside of turning them away.

If for no other reason that you might miss out on someone like Najeen, who seems like she would improve any country that would have her. Just listen to how she taught herself English. How did you learn to speak such good English? 

NEWS CLIP: At home with my favorite TV show. What's that? It's days of our lives with, uh, with this sunny nature struggle.

Yeah, I love them both. 

JOHN OLIVER - HOST, LAST WEEK TONIGHT: How can you not want this girl in your country? She loves days of our lives. She loves it. She loves days of our lives. And specifically, she loves EJ and Sammy. In fact, even after weeks of total hell, [00:54:00] mortal danger, and inhumane treatment, Najeeb's biggest complaint is that the show actually killed off EJ, who was her favorite character.

Immigration with Alejandra Oliva Part 2 - You're Wrong About - Air Date 6-11-24

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: So the bill was widely considered a failure by the right because the first election after this happens. California extremely decisively flipped from a red state to a blue state and everyone was like, ah, it was those damn immigrants.

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Because they've created a bunch of new voters who are going to vote Democrat. Is that why? 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Yeah. And like, I really think that that is why, for example, a lot of like the stuff that Obama tried to get past didn't work because they were all like, well, remember the amnesty in the 80s and how that went for us.

And so. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: And so then they were like, never again. Yeah, 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: it like really poisoned 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: it. It is interesting that like the most you ever hear politicians saying anything about anyone Latino is the Latino vote. What about the vote? Is the vote okay? Is the vote [00:55:00] ailing? How's the vote? Is he sick? Is he well? Is he struggling?

Are we taking care of the vote? How's the vote doing? Does the vote need help? It's like, what about the people making the vote? 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: So that is Reagan's amnesty. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: All right. They tried to do something. They decided they would never try it again, like me going to a Zumba class in 2012. Beautiful. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Oh, God. Yeah. So then, Up next, I kind of want to lump in Bush Sr.

and Clinton into one little lump. Clinton's going to get his own section later, but I want to talk about NAFTA. So NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Alliance, and it is a trade partnership between Us and Mexico and Canada and Reagan came up with it and Bush senior sort of negotiated all the fine points and then Clinton got all the credit because he signed it into law.

Classic case. I don't want to spend a [00:56:00] ton of time on this. It's not explicitly immigration policy, but I think it does. It did so much to change the way that we think about immigration in this country and especially like immigration and labor stuff. And it also changed a lot of extremely basic things about how people lived in Mexico and the U.

S. At the very basic level, if you are an economist, please don't email me. This is very, very basic. At the very basic level, NAFTA made it easier for money to flow back and forth across the border. So it made it easier for U. S. companies to set up the shop in Mexico. It made importing things like corn or pork or whatever.

for Mexico or doing the growing of the corn and the pork in Mexico and bringing it to the U. S. a lot cheaper. And it made it much, much harder for small farmers and landowners to keep doing the work that they had been doing because they were getting priced [00:57:00] out of the economy anyways. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Because fuck farmers, am I right?

Fuck farmers. Fuck little farmers, according to the American government. Yeah. Fuck farmers who aren't forced to use copyrighted seeds. We hate that. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: The interesting thing is that this affected farmers on both sides of the border. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: So 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: as big farmers are able or big farm, like Conglomerates are able to start doing this work in the U.

S. and in Mexico. U. S. corn prices rise. It's great if you are growing like a million billion acres of corn a year. It is less cool if you are. A small diverse farmer in the US who is trying to make a living. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: And 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: so you have this kind of two part shift. A lot of US jobs are going to Mexico and it's this very, very public, very visible, like we are closing down this plant in Ohio.

We are reopening it in like Reynosa or [00:58:00] Matamoros or like a border city. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: What a great way to create a sense of unity between two nations. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Exactly. And so I think you start seeing this feeling of like, Oh, Mexicans are stealing our jobs. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: If someone stole my TV from me and sold it to someone else, I would not call the new owner of it the thief.

I would call them lucky. And I would call the person who took it from me responsible. If I see it as a family, it makes sense to me, right? Where if you see your employer, the company you work for, maybe that your parents worked for as a parent figure, then it's like, it's harder to imagine a world where they're not in charge than it is to just blame someone who maybe feels more like a sibling.

It's like we're, I don't know. It feels like, yeah, the way that we are trained to see companies as caretakers. It's like we were so perfectly set up for this to be the next move. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: You know, you think about like a mid sized town in [00:59:00] Ohio where the company is kind of the only game in town. You work there, your dad worked there, all your neighbors work there.

Most of the people who are working a job are working in the same place, and then suddenly they close up shop, and it, yeah, it feels a little like a divorced dad starting a new family, and you're 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: like, And it's always the hot wife who gets blamed. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: But also, fuck those new kids. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Yeah. Yeah. Well, and like there are so many towns that exist because a company decided to build a factory there, right?

Like that it's so much a part of our history that we just call them company towns and it used to be so normal. It isn't anymore. And that again, kind of by the same token, like if you destroy someone's home because of a war that you created where they lived, then you're responsible for them in the same way.

I think that. If your company created a plant, you know, in a town that then perhaps even sprang up around it where there was nothing before, because suddenly you would create a [01:00:00] jobs, you know, created a world and, you know, maybe an entire intentional community meant for these workers, then you can't just leave, you know, and a stockholder would say you can just leave, but 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: yeah, 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: but human ethics don't say that 

Why Are Migrants Becoming AI Test Subjects? With Petra Molnar Part 3 - Your Undivided Attention - Air Date 6-20-24

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: It seems like one of the ways to motivate public action to regulate this is to show how, you know, what starts at the border to deal with, quote unquote, the other and the immigration that's coming into the country, then later can get turn around to be used on our own citizens. And in your book, you actually have talking about how the global push to strengthen borders has gone hand in hand with the rise in far right politics to root out the other.

And you talk about examples of far right governments who turn around and use the same technology tested at their border on their own citizens to start strengthening their regime. And you give examples, I think, in Kenya, Israel, Greece. Could you just elaborate on some of the examples? Because I think if people know where this goes, then it motivates how do we get ahead of this more?

Sure. 

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, I think it's important, yeah, to bring it back to political contexts because all around the world we're seeing the [01:01:00] rise of anti migrant far right groups and parties making incursions into, you know, the political space, sometimes in small ways and sometimes in major ways. And, you know, I think it's an open question what's going to happen in the United States this year, right, with the election that you guys have coming up.

What I've seen, for example, in Greece. is that parties that are very anti migration normalize the need to bring in surveillance technology at the border and test it out in refugee camps, for example, and then say, okay, well, we're going to be using similar things by the police on the streets of Athens, for example, you know, in Kenya, similar things with normalization of just the border.

kind of data extraction for the purposes of digital ID are then used and weaponized against groups that already face marginalizations like Somali Kenyans, Nubian community, and smaller groups like that. So again, I think the fact that there is this kind of global turn to the right and more of a fear based kind of response to migration.[01:02:00] 

motivates more technology and you again see this kind of in the incursion of the private sector kind of normalizing some of these really sharp interventions and say oh well you know what we have your solution here you are worried about migration and the other let's bring in this project and then all lo and behold you can actually use it on you know protesters that you don't like or sports stadium fans who are too rowdy and and you know groups like that as well 

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: okay so we just talked about kenya and greece in the context of other governments But what about Israel?

What, what's their role in all this? Are they using these technologies at their borders? 

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, for sure. I mean, Israel is definitely a nucleus in everything that we're talking about today. And I also felt compelled to go to the occupied West Bank for the book because it's really the epicenter of so much of the technology that is then exported for border enforcement in the EU and at the U.

S. Mexico border, right? But what is really troubling in how Israel has been developing and deploying [01:03:00] technology is that Palestine has become the ultimate testing ground, a laboratory, if you will. Surveillance technology is tested on Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, and then sold to governments around the world for border enforcement.

And, and all of these projects that are normalized in these situations then can get exported out into other jurisdictions.

SECTION B: BRUTAL BORDER ENFORCEMENT

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B: "Brutal Border Enforcement." 

EU Border Enforcement, Part 1 (Part 2) - It Could Happen Here - Air Date 6-4-24

MICK: I found a very nice scholarly article that breaks down

how the EU borders work and makes a very clear

distinction between the different layers that protect fortress Europe. These

layers will be called the paper border, which largely consists

of visa policies and similar bureaucracy that regulates movement to

the EU and within it. Then we have the iron border,

which is exactly what you imagine it to me, it's

the [01:04:00] physical structures and forms of control that we put

up to keep people out. And then we have the

post border, and that's about the reception of migrants, migrant

shelters and similar constructions that keep migrants and refugees ostracized

and isolated even after being allowed access into the EU

and having started a asylum process. For those stories, we

should turn to Rose when we get there, because she

is much more on the ground experience than I have

with this, So we'll start with the paper border. During

the mid eighties, the EU started to propose and enact

a series of treaties and policies that in effect strengthened

the external borders and loosened the borders within Europe. I

think no one is particularly interested in this series of treaties,

so I will name the only one is the Shangan Treaty.

This treaty essentially [01:05:00] unites the external borders under EU command

rather than as a task for individual states. In practice,

this also means that you citizens who have a proper

documentation can move really between countries who are who have

signed the sang In Treaty for holidays or work loose.

You and I we could move to Germany tomorrow if

we wanted to, and I have little to know obstacles

in terms of like documentary.

ROSE: Were economically independent though, like that is very crucial about

your friend. Enough movement is conditional on.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: You making money, yeah, having enough money to support yourself.

But you can move like this is very funny. Pissed

off British people who are living in Spain right when

they when Britain brexited, because they hadn't realized that they

would impact them. They you know, like.

ROSE: Was only the Polish that we yeah, like the undesirable migrants,

but yes, assume themselves to be desirable.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, well, yeah, [01:06:00] I don't think we use the word

expat right like Bridge would use the word expected its

describe a migrant from Britain to Spain like it's yeah,

it's reallyiculous. I mean, I've lived in front in Spain,

of fift in Belgium and I was, I guess, somewhat

economically independent. Made twelve thousand years a year as a

bike racer, but that was you know, I could do that.

It's very easy for me, but it is.

ROSE: I do think it's important because I think it's one

of those post border things that what we see for

some point in analyts is that most homeless people here

are not the undocumented migrants. They are not the refugees

or Dutch people that they're EU migrants. So people have

low paying jobs, break their legs, get kicked out of

their houses and their jobs, and are not welcoming to

homeless shelters because an endlands says, well, you are not

economically independent. There were, Yeah, so this is also part

of the migration regime, and this is also part of

keeping migrants exploitable. Even if you use citizens have the

right to work, they don't. [01:07:00] They're only allowed to work.

We only want them if they bring in econo profits.

We don't want them when they're sick or neat or whatever.

MICK: Yeah, and then mostly we want them for jobs that

we feel too good to actually do. When I was younger,

I used to work in a greenhouse, and there's an

immense amount of people from like Poland or other Eastern

European countries coming there because Dutch people tend not to

want to work in a greenhouse. It's one of those things.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: It's an extension of that, like a colonial perspective, right

that like, these are not jobs for.

MICK: Us exactly because you get your hands dirty and we

can't have that here. To put the whole thing about

the paper border into less academic term, the EU started

to act like a nation state and started to make

sharp distinctions between native and non native European citizens. I

think it's worth [01:08:00] pointing out that what counts as EU

is also a how was it? European identity. It's very

closely tied to geographical location and therefore also implicitly linked

to Christianity. Countries that are largely non Christian but connected

to Europe tend to be excluded. Turkey is partially in

Europe but not part of the EU, and Bosnia Herzegovina,

which is a majority Muslim country, is also excluded from that.

But much like Turkey is being tempted with the whole

maybe you can join if you do this and that,

but we're not really committing to that. That, however, is

a story for another time. Maybe The point that I

want to make here is that the visa program for

Europe is based on geographical discrimination. Countries outside the geography

of Europe are blacklisted and cannot gain access to the

papers that they need to [01:09:00] legally enter the EU. This

bureaucracy prohibits people from entering the EU before fences or

border guards have even entered the equation, hence the paper border,

since entering or crossing without a paper visa is nigh impossible.

€210 million EU-Mauritania deal Money in exchange for curbing migration to Europe - DW News - Air Date 6-7-24

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: Let's speak now to Hassan Oud Mokhtar, a researcher and consultant and the author of the forthcoming book, After Border Externalization, Migration, Race and Labor in Mauritania. Hassan, it's good to have you on the program. Welcome to DW News Africa. Now, North African countries, have been the main exit point for migrants going to Europe.

So give us some context as to why or how West African countries like Mauritania have become major hubs as well. Well, 

HASSAN OULD MOCTAR: Thanks for inviting me to be here. And I guess the context goes back to 2006 when for [01:10:00] Mauritania, at least Departures increased quite significantly from the West African coast to the Canary Islands upwards of 32, 000 people arrived on the islands over the course of that year.

And as a result of those arrivals, there have been a slew of measures, both militarized security measures on the part of European states and Spain in particular. In addition to more soft developmental measures like jobs at origin programs and youth employment programs all with the aim of preventing people from leaving the coasts of West Africa to Europe.

They have had various degrees of success over the years, but as the recent arrivals over the past couple of months and The latter half of 2023 in particular, as they indicate there is as of yet little little outright success in the prevention of those departures from West African 

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: countries like Mauritania.

And just clarifying, [01:11:00] so these people are both Mauritanians and people coming from other, uh, other countries as well, using Mauritania as a, as a route? Thank you very much. 

HASSAN OULD MOCTAR: Yeah, that's correct. Primarily people using Mauritania as a route. 

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: And, and so you're saying that this deal between the EU and Mauritania, uh, will not achieve its aim?

HASSAN OULD MOCTAR: Yes, in the immediate term, I think it might succeed in preventing departures, maritime departures. So from the coast of Mauritania to the Canary Islands but I think the broader aim of preventing so called irregular arrivals in Europe will not be achieved by this deal. I think people will continue to migrate through unauthorized channels most likely through the border post between the Moroccan western Sahara and Mauritania and travel overland and [01:12:00] that the roots will disperse in response to these kinds of deals.

And I'm saying this just on the basis of what has happened in the region since 2006, when, as I mentioned, the initiative to kind of externalize migration controls to Mauritania and to other countries in the region was initiated. 

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: And Hassan, if the EU were to still pursue this, um, this plan as, as it were to, to cut down migration numbers, is there a better way it can collaborate with countries like Mauritania at achieving this?

HASSAN OULD MOCTAR: Yeah, I think so. I think the first is vastly increasing the scope for legal migration into European territory. Um, this is something that is promised within the deal. There is one Aspect of it that calls for a [01:13:00] increase in, uh, I think both students student visas for Mauritanian nationals.

In addition to I think circular migration schemes. But given that, as we said earlier it's primarily not Mauritanian nationals who are trying to get from Mauritania to Europe. I'm not convinced as to how effective that particular measure will be because it's essentially promising a certain and very limited, it must be said, degree of mobility for Mauritanian nationals to Europe in exchange for non Mauritanian migrants who happen to be in Mauritania being policed and kept where they are.

So I think vastly increasing the scope for legal migration and of course the scope for Applying for asylum for international protection across the EU, not just in Spain, would reduce the number of people migrating through illegal channels. It's been long argued in migration studies scholarships that a restriction in visas and [01:14:00] avenues to migrate legally Increases, as I said, the costs, financial and human costs of the journeys to Europe rather than stopping them.

And it also, for those who do make it it has the kind of perverse consequence of Preventing them from going home because it will be that much difficult to come back. So, if it were the case that it were possible to migrate legally there would be less of an incentive to stay in a European context or any destination context 

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: once, 

HASSAN OULD MOCTAR: uh, 

TOMI OLADIPO - HOST, DW NEWS: one had arrived.

EU Border Enforcement, Part 1 (Part 3) - It Could Happen Here - Air Date 6-4-24

MICK: Okay, so the next part is the Iron Border. This

is very similar to what people already think of, but

but somehow worse. The Iron Border is a collection of fences, walls,

barbed and razor wire, or even fortified enclaves such as

Suta and Melilla in Spain. Sorry for butchering those names.

It is both the Trent and a performance. It's meant

to project [01:15:00] security for people within the walls. It shows

that EU uses an iron fist to protect Europeans from

irregular or illegal immigrant migration. What is more important to

highlight it also makes for very good outreach media for

right wing and fascist platforms. Refugees will continue to breach

those fences and the photographs and videos of it made

for very good propaganda about how borders need to be strengthened.

The fenced borders of Europe have increased from three hundred

kilometers in twenty fourteen to a shocking two thousand and

forty eight kilometers in twenty twenty two.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, that's substantially than the US we have. Of course

it's America, so it's miles. But the most generous estimate,

based on pre existing war repairs Trump wall building is

seven hundred and forty eight miles. That was actually I

would say about seven hundred and fifty because I've seen

[01:16:00] construction happening since then, so that's what like eleven hundred kilometers,

And it's you know, we're just just behalf of what

the EU has.

ROSE: And I think for me, like when I when I

was at the physical borders, like the border walls, I mean,

it feels like a military zone, like I was on

the Hungarian border. There's drones, there's super heavily weaponed soldiers

walking around, like helicopters flying around. It's like it's a

very intimidating feeling. But if you talk to the people

crossing the fence, the fence is kind of a joke

like you can just bring Yeah, you can just go

to a gardening shop and buy a stairs or like

a ladder and just put it over the fence. You

can buy a super simple scissor that you would use

in the garden to cut your vegetables and you kind

of cut the fence open with it. People were building tunnels,

like of course it is. It takes time to us

and it's so in that sense, it's it's a hindrance.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: But the [01:17:00] entire.

ROSE: Promise that if a wall holl stop people is indeed,

it's just a political game, and the politicians know that

it's not true. It's it's just a way to show

how tough they are and how rough they are. 

So most

of the European borders are equipped with razor wire, and

that is literally like knives wire, you know, like it

is like it's razors blades. Yeah, so the border in one hand is

kind of useless, but at the same time it is

really built to be as cruel and as harmful as possible.

And I know a lot of people with a lot

of scars on their bodies just from those razor wires.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, like Lbit Technologies has massive, multi tens of million dollar

contracts for border surveillance where I live. The raiser ware that you

mentioned is everywhere out here. Right. It doesn't work, it

gets cut eventually, it gets blankets thrown over it, but

in the meantime it hurts people [01:18:00] and the wall. It's right,

there's also walls between it's rail and Palestine, between Kurdistan

and Turkey. What they, at least these larger ones do

is is they force people. The US Wall is also

one that's entirely breachable. I've seen people climbing it. I've

seen people climbing again this week. I've seen people go

under it, I've seen people go through it. I've seen

people go around it. But what it does tend to

do is force people into the more remote areas where

they didn't build wall, and those areas are where you're

more likely to die. And every year that we've built

more wall, we've seen more deaths. And as someone who

engages in mutual aid, every year that they build more wall,

we have to think about where will people go, how

will they get there, what state will they be in,

How can we make this journey less deadly? And that

becomes harder and harder for us. You know, we did

a water drop on Sunday. It took us five hours

to hike a very small section of this trail that

people hiked in order to surrender themselves, just as they

would if they could come [01:19:00] through a port of entry.

No more deadly.

ROSE: Yeah, I think that's kind of sum sort of most

migration policies or migration like obstacles to migration in Europe

as well, they don't actually stop migrants, but they do

hurt them, and they do push them into danger or actual.

MICK: Deadly Yeah, because you're never going to stop it, but

you can use like quote unquote deterrens in the hopes

that will all slow down, but you're just going to

get people hurt and killed.

ROSE: Yea. Yeah, that is like how incredibly cynecle the border is.

I think that the main deterrence is the people dying,

and that this is part of the political game to

disencourage migrants.

SECTION C: BORDER INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Next up, Section C: "The Border Industrial Complex." 

Immigration with Alejandra Oliva Part 3 - You're Wrong About - Air Date 6-11-24

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Was our homeland insecure before 9 11? We just weren't worried about it. Presumably. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Yeah, so like [01:20:00] immigration stuff used to be kind of spread across the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor and like sort of, you know, are immigrants involved with like the immigration justice system? Are they looking for jobs?

Like what, what are they up to? And depending on that we will put them in a specific department. And now it is, it all sort of gets grouped up and put into the Department of Homeland Security and also given a ton more like enforcement responsibilities and funding. And so suddenly we get the existence of ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

And ICE was created to quote, prevent acts of terrorism by targeting the people, money, and materials that support terrorist and criminal activities, particularly as they were sort of like moving across borders. So like money laundering, um, terrorists moving across borders, things like that. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: All these terrorists that [01:21:00] suddenly were around.

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Yeah. And so when ICE was funded, a lot of people were like, wait, what exactly are you doing? What's the point of this? To the point that in 2004, a year after the Heritage Foundation, which is well known for its, uh, supportive organizations like ICE. We're like, why does this exist? And it's like, main mission is covered by other, by other organizations and other agencies.

Let's just fold it into CBP, Customs and Border Protection. Like they're not really doing anything unique. But instead we were like, oh, we'll just give them more money and they'll figure out what to do with it. And that is how we have the ICE of today. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Federal agencies always do better when they have a bigger sandbox to play in.

Yeah, and everybody's so thrilled with how that's gone. Yeah, 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: no, it's been really, really successful. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: If someone is like, I am a time traveler, what is ICE? [01:22:00] 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: It's an enforcement agency, which basically just means that they're like immigration cops. They have this really loose mandate, which means that they run the detention centers where people are kept while they are, you know, sort of in the immigration process.

They also do workplace raids. They also have been known to like, go onto Greyhound buses and demand to see people's papers. They will. serve out warrants to arrest people. Like they're very in public life and in public spaces kind of trying to catch out undocumented people, arrest them, and deport them.

Every new president that has come in and kind of been like, oh, I guess I like run this organization, has tried to give them different kinds of parameters to operate under. Like Obama was like, we're going to stop ICE from going after families. We're just going to make them go after people with criminal records.

And then Trump was like, ICE gets to get [01:23:00] deployed in sanctuary cities and liberal cities and they get to do whatever they want there. They get to arrest everyone. They get to do racial profiling. I don't care. Or like, I do care and I want them to do more of it. And the way this happened relates to to this funding question.

So in 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: 2009, 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: Congress gives them funding that says you have to maintain a certain number of beds in immigration detention at all times. Doesn't matter if there's anyone in those beds, you just have to like, we're paying for them. You should think about filling them. And suddenly ICE goes, Oh, okay. And those beds are partially in private detention centers, but they also contract with local, like, state and county jails.

So, the Freedom for Immigrants has this really great, like, interactive map where you can see whether your local county jail has an ICE contract and holds ICE detainees and [01:24:00] where your closest ICE detention center is, because there is one in just about every state. So, all of a sudden, they're responsible for all of these.

beds in jail and they start filling them 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: as one might imagine they would. 

ALEJANDRA OLIVA: It's, uh, there's actually this really interesting, relatively recent report from detention watch network called, if you build it, ice will fill it. And it shows that whenever I opens up a new contract or gets like a new detention center, In an area, the number of ICE arrests will go up in that area.

If there's a new ICE detention center in your town, suddenly more people from your town will be going to fill that detention center. 

SARAH MARSHAL - HOST, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT: Yeah, this is why we will never truly be able to learn about the world through narrative alone. Because not just the kind of stories that make it into like Netflix shows or biopics or, you know, pieces of fiction that everybody [01:25:00] is.

Is telling you to watch or based on a true story, but like even the kind of journalism that makes it to you, right? Because newspapers run on circulation or, you know, at this point, they run on clicks. Like, yeah, nonfiction narrative is affected by this as well. The fact that the stories that really tell us, I think the true depth infrastructural and it comes down to it.

Yeah. Stuff like this, stuff like, you know, prison contractors, right? The question of like, who is providing the meals for the people in the prisons and jails where you live? It's probably somebody who put in a very low bid and was therefore selected by the government because they promised to do it for a very low price because nobody cares what inmates are eating because they don't vote and the people who care about them don't matter as far as voting is concerned.

And so. Obviously, the best way to save money is to treat them as if they're not human and potentially endanger [01:26:00] their lives. And that's, that's not gonna work as a 2020 segment, right? It's not thrilling enough. There isn't an easy to pick out hero or villain. It's just another wheel. 

Why Are Migrants Becoming AI Test Subjects? With Petra Molnar Part 4 - Your Undivided Attention - Air Date 6-20-24

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: It strikes me that if I was a VC, I'd be looking at the UN's estimate that by 2050 there'd be 1. 2 billion climate refugees and saying, oh, that's a great market. There's a huge incentive for me to invest.

This border ecosystem is just going to grow. And so I'm curious right now, like, what are the actual, the companies that are in there? Um, let's dive a little bit into this, like, very perverse incentive. 

PETRA MOLNAR: For sure. I mean, It's kind of mind boggling the amount of companies that are involved. And some might be familiar to listeners, um, it's, it's the big players like Palantir, Clearview AI, Airbus, Thales, um, actors like that.

But what I found particularly disturbing is some of the [01:27:00] small and medium sized companies that kind of, you know, sneak under the radar. Pun fully intended, you know, and are able to present these projects in a way that are seen as inevitable. There's one company in particular that comes to mind, um, when you ask your question.

And it was a company that was started by a 20 some year old tech bro in Silicon Valley, if I can put it this way. And he thought it would be a good idea to put a taser on a drone and then have this drone fly around the U. S. Mexico corridor, picking out people and tasing them and waiting for the border patrol to come.

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Here's a clip from the demo video the company created when they were trying to market this. 

CLIP: When the drone detects an intruder, control of the drone is shifted to a human operator at a nearby border control office. Then the controller pilots the aircraft down and interrogates the suspicious person.

PETRA MOLNAR: Luckily this didn't get rolled out in real life, but he got VC money for this. [01:28:00] How can that happen? How is that even possible, right? Well, because it's lucrative and there are very few regulations that would prevent, um, a company like this from operating. 

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Do you want to talk about why, you know, there's more latitude for trying on more of these kinds of things here versus, you know, Silicon Valley not being able to deploy robodogs in the streets of San Francisco or L.

A.? You know, 

PETRA MOLNAR: I think a lot of this has to do with just the fact that we really are dealing with differences in lived experience. And I know that might sound a bit simplistic, but I do think it has a lot to do with the fact that the people who are thinking about and innovating and developing a lot of this technology, oftentimes don't interact with the communities that it's hurting.

You know, I sometimes when I talk to the private sector, I like to go around the room and ask, you know, who's an engineer? A couple of hands go up. Who likes to code? A couple more hands go up. Who's ever been in a refugee camp? Not many hands. And I mean, I'm simplifying it a bit because of course there's diversity in the private sector space too, but [01:29:00] what we're seeing is it breaks kind of along this power differential again.

And when you don't regularly interact with people who are on the move, who might be refugees, Or let's also broaden it out, who maybe have been victims of predictive policing or who have had to use an algorithm to see if they would be eligible for welfare. Again, it just becomes kind of divorced from the real life applicability of what is being done in the private sector for the sake of innovation and all of that.

And I do think, you know, I mean, there are clearly projects and companies that are being weaponized against people on the move and people who are marginalized or in war and things like that. Like the company we were talking about with the drone and taser. But I do think some of it is still going on.

about just lived experience and not having those kind of connections and and seeing what actually is happening beyond just the development and innovation phase. And we even see that kind of in these framings that are so common now, right? AI for good, [01:30:00] tech for good. But good for who? 

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Yeah, I think I read in your book that the industry is projected to have a total of 68 billion dollars by 2025.

Do you want to give any other numbers about just the size of the fortunes that can be made here? I think the fact that this is just a huge growth industry is important for people to get. 

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we've been seeing kind of this exponential rise of the border industrial complex. Um, and 68 billion is I think just scratching the surface because we're again talking about a very lucrative market where not only do we have to pay attention to the kind of border enforcement companies, but also military companies who are now making incursions into that space.

And so militarization of borders and using military type technology Transcribed like robodogs and all sorts of different things that are also making their way there is also again kind of inflating these numbers and the rise not only just in the U. S. but also at the EU level and the international level as we are seeing projected numbers of migration rise in the coming decades.

That's kind of inevitable at [01:31:00] this point I think. 

SECTION D: MIGRANT STORIES

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And, finally, Section D: "Migrant Stories."

EU Border Enforcement, Part 2 (Part 2) - It Could Happen Here - Air Date 6-5-24

MICK: Uh, it's a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which there would be improbable danger of persecution. Based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

That being said, I'm aware even like the Dutch government has sent like LGBTQI people back to countries where they could be like persecuted for that. So again, those rules seem to be very optional. So what follows now is two examples of border practices that I think are particularly egregious. So on October 3rd, 2022, Abdullah Mohammed, age 19, a Syrian refugee attempted to cross the Bulgarian Turkish border.

After being pushed back by border guards, they threw [01:32:00] stones at the border. I want to emphasize here at the border itself, not at the 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah. 

MICK: After this, a shot rang. and Abdullah fell to the ground with a bullet lodged one centimeter away from his heart. He survived and was interviewed by Lighthouse reports.

He states that there was an intent to kill when he was shot. That's his belief. The bullet also pierced his hand, which is now partially paralyzed. There seems to be no justification or reason whatsoever for border guards to have shot or to have shot with live ammunition. This was the first time that such an incident was caught on video.

If you want, you can find it linked on Lighthouse Reports, attached to the article about this incident. The video is not as bad as you might think, but watch at your own risk. As far as I'm aware, there have [01:33:00] been similar rumors before, but this was the first incident that has entered the public record. or the first time it was actually documented.

Uh, needless to say, no one should be shot for attempting to cross a border. Uh, I don't care about anyone's opinion or bad faith nuances. People have a right to apply for asylum. And as far as I'm concerned, this was a deliberate and calculated attempt at murder. 

ROSE: Yeah, I do think there have been quite a lot of videos of people being shot.

And definitely people making statements about it and just having the actual bullet in their body to prove that it happened. Yeah. It happened in Croatia. It happened in Greece. Greece has a habit of shooting at boats as well, and in that way making people drown. Yeah. And of course, apart from the shootings, which I would say on the European borders that they are still kind of rare, the, yeah, the pushbacks and the violence and the [01:34:00] torture is, yeah, the evidence of that is like, uh, an enormous pile.

Yeah. When I was working in Bosnia, I think that was in 2018 19, there was no video footage of a pushback and there was a journalist who volunteered with us for a while and they were the first one to film it. But in the past years, there have been like many, many horrible videos of people being beaten up and actual torture.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, of course, in the US under the pretense of protecting us all from the coronavirus, which still killed millions of people in this country. We, we have something called title 42, which allow border patrol to, uh, quote unquote repatriate. People to Mexico, even if they weren't Mexican, and just drop them back in Mexico to include laterally transferring them, which is a pseudonym for kind of trafficking them halfway across the country and then [01:35:00] dumping them in a place where they have no connections, no money, and no way of establishing themselves, right?

And this led to Massively increased a fatalities at the border because people are trying to avoid border patrol rather than coming in and surrendering themselves for asylum. It's like, as we see now and massively increasing counters at the border encounters don't necessarily represent unique individuals, right?

This is my I will beat this fucking drum until I die. But apparently Our colleagues at the New York Times haven't worked it out yet. Um, Wall Street Journal, almost every NPR, every big outlet in the United States that likes to commission border reporters who don't live on the border will tell you that, that like the number of migrants went up.

An encounter is an encounter. If someone crosses and then gets bounced into Mexico and then crosses again and does that five times, that's five encounters, it's the same person. Um, BP doesn't come, doesn't keep. records of unique individuals under title 42. We [01:36:00] didn't keep under title 42. We don't know how many people, but we know that more people tried to cross.

And we also know that every time you try to cross, you risk your life. And so we certainly know that more lives were put in danger because of this policy, because again, like turning someone back, it's not going to stop them, especially when you're dropping them in a country where they don't want to be and where they're not from.

Like the people aren't just going to be like, Oh, okay, cool. Um, I'll stay in Mexico. Um, like that has not historically been the case. 

ROSE: Yeah, we had exactly the same kind of juggling with numbers. I remember people in Bosnia, some of them would get pushed back like 40 or 50 times. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Damn. 

ROSE: And so they would be counted as individual stops.

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yes. 

ROSE: Indeed. So it would sound as if there was like, I don't know, tens of thousands. And I was like, It's really not that many though, you 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: know? Yeah, yeah, we were saying the same thing. So they would 

ROSE: just literally count the same person again and again and again. 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: Yeah, 

ROSE: and also I would like to say that, like, yes, it is the border, like the EU [01:37:00] border countries, but it is also much deeper into the territory.

So, we externalize the border towards, like, uh, Libya, Niger, and, and, and way further even. But we also internalize the border, so we would find, we would have people who had made it to Austria, uh, or Italy, and they would get caught in Austria or Italy, be pushed back to Slovenia. Uh, taken over by Slovenian police, brought to the Croatian border, taken over by Croatian police, often in Croatia, get tortured, and then be dumped on the Bosnian border, which would be the EU border as well.

So this, this is what they call chain pushbacks. And, yeah, I, yeah, so I worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is non EU, uh, so we would get the people after they had been, you know, Pushed back. Yeah, the, the things that people have done, like, border guards have done to migrants are, yeah, I don't, I don't know if you actually want to use this footage, but it's like, it's [01:38:00] really, really gruesome.

Like, in Bosnia, they would, there would be, like, snow for, like, they have very long and very cold winters. They would take away people's shoes and socks and like make them walk for five hours on their feet. So one of the main tasks of our volunteers, our medical volunteers was amputating toes. People would, yeah, people would come back with broken bones, broken skulls, people would be sent back with just their underwear at minus 20 degrees Celsius.

I don't know how much that is in the U S. 

€210 million EU-Mauritania deal Money in exchange for curbing migration to Europe Part 2 - DW News - Air Date 6-7-24

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: Lala grew up in Senegal and in Mauritania, where she has long dreamed of a better life. By the time she was 30, she'd saved enough to pay for a pirogue to take her from the capital Nouakchott to Spain's Canary Islands and a future in the EU.

It's hard for her to recount the ordeal she suffered. [01:39:00] 

LA LA (TRANSLATION): There were all sorts of nationalities, Senegalese. The police themselves came to take us to the beach. The big boat to take you to Europe is waiting out at sea. Small boats come to pick you up and take 20 people on board, 20 people, 20 people. Not everyone could get on because there were so many of us.

More than 100 or so people, only 80 were lucky enough to get on. I've seen people who almost went mad. Sometimes people fought with each other, but the captains have big knives. They threaten you and tell you to shut up, or they'll throw you on the beach and they're not kidding.

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: But it wasn't to be. After four days at sea, drifting without fuel, they ended up on a beach in northern Mauritania. [01:40:00] The foreign nationals will be deported, but Lala, as a Mauritanian, was simply released. I haven't been 

LA LA (TRANSLATION): able to sleep since I got back. 

When I sleep, I feel like I'm still in the boat that was rocking 

in the sea.

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: Ali knows all too well. He's a fisherman who has seen the hopeful and the desperate taking their leave by night. 50 migrants, he says, cramming themselves into a fishing boat designed for a crew of six. And the sea knows little mercy. 

ALI (TRANSLATION): Look, someone sent me this photo. Of a dead person. These are corpses.

Look, there's a little baby here.

He's such a powerful image.[01:41:00] 

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: Nouadhibou's port is full of pirogues, traditional fishing boats that the human traffickers have made into their business model. One smuggler wants to buy a pirogue for his next departure and agrees to tell us about the authorities and the restrictions. He too wants to conceal his identity.

The 

SMUGGLER (TRANSLATION): first one there is a police boat. The second is a coast guard. 

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: It's 

SMUGGLER (TRANSLATION): hard to get out of here illegally.

Look at that baroque there from Papafowl. That's a big baroque. You can put a lot of people in it. You saw it. For this kind of pirogue, there are controls to see if they're going fishing or for something else.

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: Mohamed arrived here two months ago. [01:42:00] He is a welder by trade and has one aim, to reach Europe. As a day labourer, he earns the equivalent of 10 euros a day, which he spends on food, water and somewhere to live.

MOHAMMED (TRANSLATION): You've seen the people here. We are looking for work. 

ALI (TRANSLATION): It's not easy. 

MOHAMMED (TRANSLATION): Morning and night we come and 

ALI (TRANSLATION): work. 

MOHAMMED (TRANSLATION): We don't 

ALI (TRANSLATION): earn. I've been here two months. I work anywhere. 

MOHAMMED (TRANSLATION): You travel part by part. 

ANNE-FLEUR LESPIAUT - REPORTER, DW NEWS: For Lala too, despite everything she has suffered and the huge sums of money she has spent, she is still determined. She tells us that however horrible her memories are of being at sea, she would do it all again to get to Europe, where she hopes to earn a living.

In this city of 140, 000 [01:43:00] inhabitants, more than 30, 000 are like Lala and Mohamed, waiting to leave. But many find themselves trapped for months. Even years, saving what little they earn to be able to afford a boat to Europe.

EU Border Enforcement, Part 2 (Part 3) - It Could Happen Here - Air Date 6-5-24

MICK: So, uh, I'm sure you've, you've heard this story before, but still, I think it's very much worth repeating. So, uh, on June 14th, 2023, Uh, the Adriana, a ship on its way to Greece, uh, capsized and subsequently sank.

The boat allegedly had the capacity for about 400 people, but carried around 750. Of all those lives, uh, 104 were saved. 82 were confirmed dead and up to 500 are missing and presumed dead, the majority of which are women and children. I'll refer back to the Lighthouse Report who did a reconstruction of the incident, which [01:44:00] makes this even worse that it already is.

Transcriptions and witness statements obtained by Lighthouse Report, Der Spiegel, Monitor, uh, S I R A J L P S, Reporters United, and the Times strongly suggest that the Greek Coast Guard attempted to conceal their own involvement in this tragedy. Nine survivors were asked to make statements, none of which appeared to blame the Coast Guard.

Uh, different suggestions were given for the capsizing, uh, blaming it on the age of the ship, or the lack of life jackets. Um, four of these statements contained near identical phrasing. It was later discovered that one of the translators was a coast guard himself. Uh, there were other translators, all of which were sworn in on that very day.

Uh, later in Greek courts, six of those nine stated that the coast guard did in fact tow the boats before it went down. Two [01:45:00] survivors told Lighthouse Reports that certain parts of their testimony was omitted in the transcription. To clarify that a bit. Because of what I said earlier, that migrants have or are obligated to apply for asylum in the country in which they arrive.

It's become a habit of like Coast Guard and Frontex to drag them to certain areas of water that are part of, for example, Italy or Greece. This particular one boat may have been, uh, An attempt to drag the boat to Italian waters, so the Greeks didn't have to take them in. So, to quote the report from Lighthouse, 16 out of the 17 survivors we spoke to said the coast guard attached a rope to the vessel and tried to tow it shortly before it capsized.

Four also claimed that the Coast Guard was attempting to tow the boat to Italian waters, [01:46:00] while Four reported that the Coast Guard caused more deaths by circling around the boat after it capsized, making waves that caused the boat's carcass to sink. End quote. Not great bedtime stories, um, if you ask me.

Yeah, I think that's fucking horrible. There's just no words. Like, yeah, 

JAMES STOUT - CO-HOST, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE: yeah. I got nothing. I got nothing to say. Like I don't think anyone should Be okay with it.

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 You're Wrong About, Last Week Tonight, Your Undivided Attention, It Could Happen Here, and DW News. Further details are in the show notes. Thanks to everyone for [01:47:00] 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 Andrew for their volunteer work, helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. 

You can join them by signing up today at BestOfTheLeft.com/support or on our Patreon page, where memberships are currently 20% off for the month of July. 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 our Discord community, where you can also continue the discussion. 

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 you twice weekly thanks entirely to the members and [01:48:00] donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.com

Air Date 6/28/2024

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

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. 

AI, like all technologies, won't be all good or all bad. In fact, my favorite understanding of emerging technologies is that they often bring simultaneous utopia and dystopia-- though many tend to focus on the benefits, while only discovering the drawbacks later. 

Sources providing our Top Takes today include Vox, Linus Tech Tips, TED Talks, Global Dispatches, the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast, DW News, Your Undivided Attention, and Tina Huang.

Then in the additional Deeper Dive half of the show, we'll explore more current uses of AI, potential uses of AI and the ethics we need to consider, and regulating AI. 

Interesting note before we begin: The first clip you'll hear today is from Vox, in which they explain the hidden ubiquity of AI. And as it happens, the video itself is an example of that, [00:01:00] as it was sponsored by Microsoft's AI Copilot program, and also Vox just signed a deal with OpenAI to repurpose their human-written journalism to train OpenAI's models. And part of that deal is for Vox to gain access to OpenAI's tech to develop their own strategies of how they want to incorporate AI into Vox. Classic.

We’re already using AI more than we realize - Vox - Air Date 2-28-24

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: Imagine a day like this: You do some exercise with a smartwatch, put on a suggested playlist, go to a friend's house and ring their camera doorbell, browse recommended shows on Netflix, check your spam folder for an email you've been waiting for, and when you can't find it talk to a customer support chatbot. Each of those things are made possible by technologies that fall under the umbrella of artificial intelligence.

But when a Pew survey asked Americans to identify whether each of those used AI or not, they only got it right about 60 percent of the time. 

ALEC TYSON: Some of these applications of AI have become fairly ubiquitous. They almost exist in the [00:02:00] background and it's not terribly apparent to those folks that the tools or services they are using are powered by this technology.

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: That's Alec Tyson, one of the researchers behind that Pew study. When Tyson and his team asked respondents how often they think they use AI, almost half didn't think they regularly interact with it at all. Some of them might be right. But most probably just don't know it. 

ALEC TYSON: We know about 85 percent of US adults are online every day, multiple times a day. Some folks are online almost all the time. This suggests a bit of a gap where there seem to be some folks who really must be interacting with AI, but it's not very salient to them. They don't perceive it. 

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: So, why does that gap exist? Part of the problem is that the term "artificial intelligence" has been used to refer to a lot of different things.

KAREN HAO: Artificial intelligence is totally this giant umbrella tent term that is now, it's become a kitchen sink of everything. 

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: That's Karen Hao. She's a reporter who covers artificial intelligence and [00:03:00] society. 

KAREN HAO: In the past, there were distinct disciplines about which aspect of the human brain do we want to recreate? Do we want to recreate the vision part? Do we want to recreate our ability to hear, our ability to write and speak? 

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: Giving a machine the ability to see became the field of computer vision. Giving a machine the ability to write and speak became the field of natural language processing. But on their own, these tasks still required a machine to be programmed. If we wanted machines to recognize spam emails, we had to explicitly program them to look out for specific things, like poor spelling and urgent phrasing. That meant the tools weren't very adaptable to complex situations. 

But that all changed when we started recreating the brain's ability to learn. This became the subfield of machine learning, where computers are trained on massive amounts of data so that instead of needing to hand code rules about what to see or speak or write, the computers can develop rules on their own. With machine learning, a computer could learn to recognize new spam [00:04:00] emails by reviewing thousands of existing emails that humans have labeled as spam. The machine recognizes patterns in this structured data and creates its own rules to help identify those patterns. When that training data hasn't been structured and labeled by humans, that method is called "deep learning." Most of the time people talk about AI now, they're not talking about the whole field, but specifically these two methods.

 Improvements in computing power, together with the massive amounts of data generated on the internet, made possible a whole new generation of technologies that leveraged machine learning. And existing ones swapped out their algorithms for machine learning too. 

KAREN HAO: A lot of the "how" in the back has been swapped into AI over time, because people have realized, oh wait, we can actually get an even better performance of this product if we just swap our original algorithm, our original code out for a deep learning model. 

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: Now machine learning and deep learning models power recommendation for shows, music, videos, [00:05:00] products, and advertisements. They determine the ranking of items every time we browse search results or social media feeds. They recognize images like faces to unlock phones or use filters, and the handwriting on remote deposit checks. They recognize speech in transcription, voice assistance and voice-enabled TV remotes. And they predict text in auto complete and auto correct. 

But AI is seeping into more than that. 

KAREN HAO: There has been this tendency over the last 10 plus years where people have started putting AI into absolutely everything.

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: Machine learning algorithms are already being used to decide which political ads we see, which jobs we qualify for, and whether we qualify for loans or government benefits, and often carry the same biases as the human decisions that preceded them. 

KAREN HAO: Are you actually automating the poor decision making that happened in the past and just bringing it into the future? If you're going to use historical data to predict what's going to happen in the future, you're just going to end up with a future that looks like the past. [00:06:00] 

CHRISTOPHE HAUBERSIN - HOST, VOX: And that's part of the reason why it matters to close that gap between those who knowingly interact with AI every day and those who don't quite know it yet.

ALEC TYSON: Awareness needs to grow for folks to be able to participate, In some of these conversations about the moral and ethical boundaries, what AI should be used for and what it shouldn't be used for.

AI is a Lie. - Linus Tech Tips - Air Date 6-13-24

LINUS SEBASTIAN - HOST, LINUS TECH TIPS: The classic definition of AI is probably best illustrated with fictional examples. It's what you see in sci-fi creations like Commander Data, HAL 9000, and GLaDOS. These are computers or machines that demonstrate a capacity for reason, however naive, twisted, or alien it might seem to us meatbags. 

Now, you'd be forgiven for thinking that that's still the definition of AI. A lot of people seem to think that it is. But in reality, the meaning of words is ever shifting, and we would now refer to these characters as having AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. What you're referring to as AI, then, is in [00:07:00] fact Narrow AI, or as I've taken to calling it, ANI. ANI is not a general intelligence unto itself, but rather another component of a fully-functioning system made useful by specialized algorithms and data processing utilities forming a complete artificial intelligence system. 

Didn't think I could make that point in the style of Richard Stallman's famous interjection? Well, I could--haha! But I also didn't have to. That previous paragraph was actually written by GPT for Omni. And this is exactly the sort of thing that modern AI does very well. And that's because most of the time when we hear the term AI, We're actually referring to machine learning, a subset of AI involving algorithms that can analyze patterns in data. They get trained on things like text, multimedia or even just raw number outputs, and using this training data, they identify patterns through statistical [00:08:00] probability. They can be further trained through reinforcement learning, then, by rewarding correct outputs and punishing incorrect outputs--kind of like training a hamster.

The results allow these algorithms to summarize, predict, or even generate something seemingly new. And in many cases, they are so impressive that a good machine learning system can be indistinguishable from classic AI or AGI. 

Well then Linus, if it looks like an AI and it quacks like an AI, what's the difference?

Well, artificial narrow intelligence is limited to specialized tasks. GPT 4 Omni, specifically, is a large language model, which means that it is trained to understand and generate natural language, like the words I'm speaking now. It's basically an autocomplete on steroids. What sets it apart from your phone's keyboard, though, is that it can also process information based on patterns that are learned during training, including definitions, [00:09:00] mathematical formulae, and so on and so forth. That makes it capable of generating unique output that wasn't part of its training data. GPT has traditionally been incapable of image, video or audio generation. There are other types of generative models, like Sora, Suno, or Dali, that feature their own specific talents, but most of them are incapable of operating outside of their specific niche, and all of them are limited by their training data in a similar manner.

And because they are limited by their training data, in many cases, the answers that they give resemble their training data, which, if you're an artist or a photographer and your work gets added to a model, is probably not your idea of fair use, much less a good time. Worse, when generative models are faced with a concept that they don't understand, or they simply run out of tokens, they can begin to hallucinate. That is to say, they just make things up as they go. Which is why sometimes you get eldritch abominations like these. 

With [00:10:00] that said, these limitations don't mean that machine learning AI is a dead end. It's been deployed very effectively for diagnosing diseases and in other highly complex scenarios where the data is dense and the conclusions require interpretation.

These specialized models are extremely useful. They're just also extremely not new. Simple neural networks have been in use for decades for things ranging from handwriting recognition to web traffic analysis. And yes, even video game AI and chatbots. The main difference is that they run much faster on modern hardware. 

If I had to distill down what artificial narrow intelligence really means then, I would say it's like having a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters with a thousand pieces of reference material for what the outputs are supposed to look like. With enough trial and error then, they do arrive at a point where they're likely to spit out a correct or at least correct enough solution. Then, we [00:11:00] take all those monkeys and we take a snapshot of the model state and we start feeding it inputs for both fun and profit. 

What ANI is to a brain, then, is kind of what a single app is to a computer. It's a building block, it's something your brain is capable of, but it's just one of its many, many functions.

Shifting gears a bit, then, what would artificial general intelligence look like? Well, it would need to be able to handle everything we've talked about so far, just like your brain can take some past experiences and turn them into a new creation. But again, like your own brain, it would need to be able to run many of these models concurrently and continuously train and iterate on them rather than relying on fixed snapshots. Only then would an AGI have the ability to truly learn and adapt to new things, bringing it closer to that classical definition of AI, and really blur the lines between machine learning and machine consciousness.[00:12:00] 

The problem is, even if we had software that sophisticated, we are nowhere close to being able to run an AGI, even on a modern supercomputer, let alone on your AI smartphone. 

But, all right Linus, you still haven't explained why any of this is even a problem. I mean, free range meat is just marketing bollocks too, so who cares?

Well, truthfully, in most cases, I don't. I mean, Cooler Master's AI thermal paste snafu: I was never bothered by it, because I never expected my paste to be sentient anyway. But, there are situations where this kind of marketing can have an impact on user safety, and therefore does matter. Let's talk about Tesla.

Mr. Musk has said, among other things, that any vehicle from 2019 onward will be able to reach full autonomy. And he's certainly put out some impressive demos, both canned and even in the form of public beta software that you really can use. And that's really cool. [00:13:00] But unfortunately, it isn't much more than that.

You see, to operate a vehicle safely, it's not enough to be trained with images of painted lines and traffic cones, stop signs, pedestrians, vehicle telemetry data. It's not even enough to be trained to predict the likely maneuvers of nearby vehicles and life forms. On the road, anything can happen, and by definition, by it's very definition, ANI is not capable of handling an edge case that it has never seen before. Even if it was, by the way, I have some really bad news for you Tesla owners out there: Hardware 3. 0 has about 144 TOPS, or trillion operations per second worth of processing power. For context, Windows 11 Recall, a feature that does little more than take screenshots and analyze your PC usage for search, asks for 40 TOPS.

Now to be clear, TOPS is not a be-all, end-all measure of performance, and there is no way that [00:14:00] Microsoft has optimized the code for Recall nearly as much as Tesla has for full self driving. But this should still illustrate the point that Tesla either did, or should have known, that a vehicle with the AI capabilities of a family of iPhone 15 Pro users would never achieve that kind of real-time contextual awareness that's required for complex situations like operating a motor vehicle, and they misrepresented its capabilities in order to sell more software that was never going to leave beta.

That is going to be a doozy of a class action. And it's a common story that has led to this current mess where fuzzy definitions and impossible promises have turned AI into this meaningless buzzword, like all the rest of them. All of them refer to legitimate, useful technologies, some of which have really come to fruition. But their meanings have become diluted with overuse. And it means that when computer cognition finally happens, we're gonna have to call it something completely [00:15:00] different in order to differentiate it from all of the marketing wank. 

What Is an AI Anyway? | Mustafa Suleyman - TED - Air Date 4-22-24

MUSTAFA SULEYMAN: Imagine if everybody had a personalized tutor in their pocket and access to low-cost medical advice, a lawyer and a doctor, a business strategist and coach--all in your pocket, 24 hours a day. But things really start to change when they develop what I call AQ: their actions quotient. This is their ability to actually get stuff done in the digital and physical world. And before long, it won't just be people that have AIs. Strange as it may sound, every organization from small business to nonprofit to national government, each will have their own. Every town, building and object will be represented by a unique interactive persona.

And these won't just be mechanistic assistants. There'll be companions, confidants, colleagues, friends, and partners as varied and unique as we all are. At this point, [00:16:00] AIs will convincingly imitate humans at most tasks. 

And we'll feel this at the most intimate of scales: An AI organizing a community get-together for an elderly neighbor. A sympathetic expert helping you make sense of a difficult diagnosis. But we'll also feel it at the largest scales: Accelerating scientific discovery. Autonomous cars on the roads. Drones in the skies. They'll both order the takeout and run the power station. They'll interact with us, and of course, with each other. They'll speak every language, take in every pattern of sense data, sights, sounds, streams and streams of information, far surpassing what any one of us could consume in a thousand lifetimes.

So what is this? What are these AIs? 

If we are to prioritize safety above all else, to ensure that this new wave [00:17:00] always serves and amplifies humanity, then we need to find the right metaphors for what this might become. 

For years, we in the AI community, and I specifically, have had a tendency to refer to this as just tools. But that doesn't really capture what's actually happening here.

AIs are clearly more dynamic, more ambiguous, more integrated and more emergent than mere tools, which are entirely subject to human control. So to contain this wave, to put human agency at its center, and to mitigate the inevitable unintended consequences that are likely to arise, we should start to think about them as we might a new kind of digital species.

Now, it's just an analogy. It's not a literal description, and it's not perfect. For a start, they clearly aren't biological in any traditional sense. But just pause for a moment and really think about what they already do. [00:18:00] They communicate in our languages. They see what we see. They consume unimaginably large amounts of information. They have memory. They have personality. They have creativity. They can even reason to some extent and formulate rudimentary plans. They can act autonomously if we allow them. And they do all this at levels of sophistication that is far beyond anything that we've ever known from a mere tool. 

And so saying AI is mainly about the math or the code is like saying we humans are mainly about carbon and water. It's true, but it completely misses the point. 

And yes, I get it. This is a super arresting thought. But I honestly think this frame helps sharpen our focus on the critical issues. What are the risks? [00:19:00] What are the boundaries that we need to impose? What kind of AI do we want to build, or allow to be built?

This is a story that's still unfolding. Nothing should be accepted as a given. We all must choose what we create, what AIs we bring into the world--or not. 

These are the questions for all of us here today, and all of us alive at this moment. For me, the benefits of this technology are stunningly obvious, and they inspire my life's work every single day. But quite frankly, they'll speak for themselves. Over the years, I've never shied away from highlighting risks and talking about downsides. Thinking in this way helps us focus on the huge challenges that lie ahead for all of us. But let's be clear There is no path to progress where we leave technology behind. The prize for [00:20:00] all of civilization is immense. We need solutions in healthcare, in education, to our climate crisis. And if AI delivers just a fraction of its potential, the next decade is going to be the most productive in human history. 

Here's another way to think about it: In the past, unlocking economic growth often came with huge downsides. The economy expanded as people discovered new continents and opened up new frontiers. But they colonized populations at the same time. We built factories, but they were grim and dangerous places to work. We struck oil, but we polluted the planet. 

Now, because we are still designing and building AI, we have the potential and opportunity to do it better, radically better. And today we're not discovering a new continent and plundering its resources; we're building one from [00:21:00] scratch. Sometimes people say that data or chips are the 21st century's new oil, but that's totally the wrong image. AI is to the mind what nuclear fusion is to energy: limitless, abundant, world-changing. 

And AI really is different. That means we have to think about it creatively and honestly. We have to push our analogies and our metaphors to the very limits to be able to grapple with what's coming. Because this is not just another invention. AI is itself an infinite inventor. And yes, this is exciting and promising and concerning and intriguing all at once. To be quite honest, it's pretty surreal. But step back, see it on the long view of glacial time, and these really are the very most appropriate metaphors that we have today. Since the beginning of life on earth, we've been [00:22:00] evolving, changing, and then creating everything around us in our human world today. And AI isn't something outside of this story. In fact, it's the very opposite. It's the whole of everything that we have created, distilled down into something that we can all interact with and benefit from. It's a reflection of humanity across time. And in this sense, it isn't a new species at all. This is where the metaphors end.

Here's what I'll tell Caspian next time he asks: AI isn't separate. AI isn't even, in some senses, new. AI is us. It's all of us. And this is perhaps the most promising and vital thing of all that even a six-year-old can get a sense for. 

As we build out AI, we can and must reflect all that is good, all that we love, all that is special about humanity: our [00:23:00] empathy, our kindness, our curiosity and our creativity. This, I would argue, is the greatest challenge of the 21st century--but also the most wonderful, inspiring and hopeful opportunity for all of us. 

How to Limit the Threat of "Killer Robots" and Autonomous Weapons That Are Changing Warfare - Global Dispatches -- World News That Matters - Air Date 3-13-24

MARK LEON GOLDBERG - HOST, GLOBAL DISPATCHES: Can you make this real for listeners who, again, might have a hard time wrapping their brains around what a battlefield use of AI drones 10 years from now might look like, and also why that might be a problem. AI, it's super intelligent, right? It should be able to distinguish combatant from noncombatant. 

PAUL SCHARRE: Yeah. I think in the near term, the uses will be probably isolated and the effects in the battlefield will probably not be massive. There is this time disconnect between what's happening out in the civilian space with AI and militaries, because it just takes militaries a while to adopt the technology. In the longer run, I think the odds are good that artificial intelligence and autonomy will [00:24:00] transform the battlefield in very profound ways. That may take some time, 10-15 years, maybe several decades, but one could certainly envision a future where there are lots of weapons that are operating autonomously, that are searching and attacking targets on their own. They're still built by humans and designed by humans and launched by humans, but once sent onto the battlefield, they have quite a degree of freedom that they don't have today, and have some measure of ability to operate intelligently. 

One of the concerns that people have raised is that these systems might get it wrong. I think anyone that's interacted with the computer knows that they make mistakes, and these could have very severe life and death consequences. Another concern is that this leads to a sort of slippery slope towards militaries maybe being more liberal or less concerned about civilian casualties and civilian harm. And you could have situations where militaries delegate that to the autonomy [00:25:00] and say, "the algorithm is handling that," but the consequences for civilian harm could be quite severe, and we could see a lot of civilian casualties. 

MARK LEON GOLDBERG - HOST, GLOBAL DISPATCHES: So in 2022, the United States declared that it would always retain a "human in the loop", for decisions to use nuclear weapons. I know the UK adopted a similar policy as well. Russia and China have not. Can you just explain the dangers of combining artificial intelligence and autonomy with the use of nuclear weapons. It seems obvious, but what are the scenarios that security experts like yourselves are particularly concerned about?

PAUL SCHARRE: The risks do seem obvious. I think there's been maybe more than one science fiction movie about the risks of plugging AI into nuclear weapons. So I think it's notable that the US and UK have made this statement. A couple of things are worth pointing out. One is that. It's not actually the case that there's no use of AI or autonomy or automation in nuclear operations In [00:26:00] fact, this is another area where various forms of automation have been used for decades, dating back to the cold war, but humans are very firmly in control of nuclear launch decisions. 

As we see more AI being adopted I think the value here is having a clear and unambiguous statement that humans will always be in control of any decisions relating to nuclear use. So what are the real risks here? I don't think it's that someone plugs ChatGPT into a nuclear weapon, no one's proposing that. But we have seen, for example, Russia and before them, the Soviet Union, design and build systems that I think would have a degree of automation and risk that many in the US and other defense circles might be quite uncomfortable with.

One is the perimeter system that the Soviets built, which Russian defense officials have said is still operational today, that's a semi automated "dead hand" system. So there's still a human in the loop, but the way that it's designed to work is that once [00:27:00] activated, if there were a first strike that wiped out Soviet leadership, this automated system would have mechanisms to automatically detect that and then pass launch authority to a relatively junior officer sitting at a bunker. There's still a person there, but that is certainly risky, and I think concerning when you think about nuclear stability to have those kinds of automated procedures in place. 

And then there's more recently, a uncrewed undersea vehicle, a robotic undersea vehicle that Russia is building called Poseidon or Status-6 that is reportedly nuclear armed—nuclear powered actually, nuclear reactor—and would be designed to carry out a nuclear strike. Again, I don't think the risk here is that the, robot would decide one day to put itself to see, but that you could imagine robotic systems or drones that have nuclear weapons on board them that get lost, that go astray, and that escalate attention or even lose a nuclear weapon [00:28:00] and all of which would be very troubling.

MARK LEON GOLDBERG - HOST, GLOBAL DISPATCHES: So what would be some sensible regulations that would limit if not prohibit fully autonomous weapons? 

PAUL SCHARRE: I think one of the challenges right now is a lot of the debate internationally, and countries have been coming together since 2014 through the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the CCW, has been painted in this kind of black or white distinction of either we could have a preemptive, legally-binding treaty that bans autonomous weapons, or we have nothing. And we just proceed where we are today, which is we have the law of war and they would apply to autonomous weapons, but nothing specific that's different.

And I think that both of those are options. There's, I think, downsides to doing nothing, and I don't think politically, really, that a comprehensive preemptive ban on autonomous weapons is likely, given where we are with the technology in the international sphere. 

So I think there's a couple different regulatory approaches that are also worth being [00:29:00] considered. One would be a broad principle in international law about the role of human decision making. We never had this before, we never needed it. But that's not a bad idea to have a broad principle like we have principles of proportionality and distinction to set a broad concept of what the role is that humans are needed in the use of force.

I think there could be rooms for a more narrowly targeted ban on anti personnel autonomous weapons that would target people. Those have some unique challenges. Certainly on the nuclear side, I think that's another area where some unique rules might make sense that are specific to nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is agreeing to have a human in the loop. 

I think some steps on improving reliability of AI enabled systems through better testing and evaluation would be useful to make sure that we reduce the amount of accidents or the risk of accidents. And then, it might be worse countries considering rules of the road for how drones [00:30:00] operate in contested areas as they have increasing amounts of autonomy to avoid potentially damaging incidents where we might see air or maritime drones interacting with one another and causing potentially dangerous and unwanted incidents.

MARK LEON GOLDBERG - HOST, GLOBAL DISPATCHES: Like an autonomous American drone confronting an autonomous Russian drone, and that's somehow escalating. 

PAUL SCHARRE: Exactly. Or even a drone encountering a crewed vessel somewhere else from a potentially competitor nation, and the autonomy takes some action. It does whatever it was programmed to do, which might have seemed like a good idea at the time it was programmed, but one of the really important distinctions between what machines can do in humans is machines just don't have the ability to see the bigger picture, to understand the broader context.

So you can give a human direction like, "hey, listen, you always have the right to defend yourself, but don't start a war." You can tell a human that, and they may not know exactly what that [00:31:00] means in an instant ahead of time, but they can take that sort of broad guidance of, "okay, this is the broader context I'm in. We don't want to escalate things if we don't need to," and they can use their best judgment. In some of these tricky environments that we see militaries operate in contested areas in the Middle East and the Black Sea and the South China Sea and elsewhere, and you can't tell it to a machine. It's just going to do whatever it was programmed to do, and that might not be what you wanted in the moment.

How Much AI Regulation Is The Right Amount? - FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast - Air Date 6-13-24

GALEN DRUKE - HOST, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT POLITICS: According to an Elon University poll, 54 percent of Americans describe their feelings towards AI with the word "cautious" and 70 percent of Americans believe that AI could significantly impact elections through the generation of fake information videos and audios.

I think there has been a lot of attention paid to the potential impacts of AI on this election. In fact, a little less than a year ago, we did an episode on this podcast that was titled something like the first AI election. So far, I think the general sense has been that the [00:32:00] anticipated or maybe worried impact of AI on the election has not born out. Obviously, as you cited, there was the case during the New Hampshire primary, but that this election has not thus far looked very different as a result of AI. 

Would you agree with that? Do you think that that would maybe be like coming to conclusions too soon? What is your take on that? 

GREGORY ALLEN: It's definitely coming to conclusions way too soon. Let me give you a few data points that strike me as really interesting. Folks might remember in the 2016 election, the Russian intelligence services were involved in creating a lot of disinformation based content, and that was coming out of the Internet Research Agency, if memory serves, it's definitely the IRA out of Russia. And that had hundreds of people working in an office in Russia, and every day they're waking up, they're clocking in, and they're cranking out deceptive information content. But there's a problem, which is most of them don't speak great [00:33:00] English. So a lot of the stuff that they're writing has the common hallmarks when English is your second language and Russian is your native language.

Well, just recently, OpenAI announced that they have detected both Russian and Chinese intelligence services using their platform to generate disinformation in advance of the election with a politically motivated intent. And I think what's really interesting there is that OpenAI/ChatGPT does not make grammatical mistakes, and OpenAI/ChatGPT does not require you to hire hundreds and hundreds of people.

And what we've seen in the text domain, which was already achievable before, now that same sort of synthetic media automatically generated stuff, highly customized stuff, it can be more audience targeted, audience calibrated, we can now bring that to audio, video, images at massive scale with capacity.

And I think there's two scenarios to think about here. number one is just massive [00:34:00] scale. What percentage of 4chan today, Is disinformation that to some greater or lesser extent, has its origins in potentially foreign content created by AI? I don't know. I don't think a reliable survey has been done or really could be done on that topic at the present time. That's a sort of scale based attack. The other attack that I would really be concerned about is just an incredibly precise, perfectly timed attack. 

GALEN DRUKE - HOST, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT POLITICS: Like the October surprise p tape or n word tape, or Biden falling down or appearing to have a stroke or whatever—in the 2016 or 2020 election, people would have a stronger sense of whether or not it was real, but today, whether it's real or not, people will just not know. 

GREGORY ALLEN: Yes, exactly. The right information, the right media at the right time can really be the hinge moment in really important moments in history. And my question then becomes, "could something actually make an impact on the [00:35:00] U. S. election?" As a starting hypothesis, I would say yes, it definitely could, and we should be taking steps now to make that chance go down. 

GALEN DRUKE - HOST, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT POLITICS: So essentially, even if we don't have the blockbuster use of AI that people might be afraid of, such as a deep, fake in October, there could be effects of AI that are a lot less sexy, which is just the kind of information that's being spread on the Internet amongst people using social media or whatnot. But also, given the nature of our election cycle and October surprises, it could be far too soon to come to any conclusions about the impact of AI on this election. 

GREGORY ALLEN: Yeah, just because something bad hasn't happened yet doesn't mean something couldn't happen. If the year before the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster, you said "there's never been a nuclear safety disaster, that means we'll always be safe." You'd be an idiot. And I think the same thing strikes me as the truth about election interference with AI. I don't know. It would be wrong of me to say that I know 100 percent that AI election interference [00:36:00] will be a big problem and a big phenomenon this year. But I do feel like I know that it could be a big phenomenon and a big problem. So I think that's enough to justify our taking steps to mitigate that risk. 

GALEN DRUKE - HOST, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT POLITICS: As you mentioned, it seems like the most immediate focus in Congress would be AI uses related to the upcoming election. But beyond that, is it clear that there is the political will to regulate AI in different ways when it comes to copyright? As you've mentioned, or what's mentioned in this roadmap, for example, is a privacy bill that will, of course, affect AI. Is there bipartisan support for those things? What comes next after we've addressed the upcoming election? 

GREGORY ALLEN: I think privacy is going to be really tough to pass at the federal level. At the state level, I think this is happening. It's already happened in some states. I also think at the international level, ChatGPT was briefly banned in Italy for noncompliance [00:37:00] with GDPR, the existing big European privacy regulations.

I mentioned that because all of these companies operate both in the United States and Europe, and usually when they're forced to comply with European regulation, they just do that worldwide because it's simpler than trying to calibrate what they do based on different jurisdictions. So that's, I think the story on privacy. I think that's a really tough one. 

Intellectual property. I think it's a really rough political debate. There's very entrenched special interests on both sides, but one of them might win. I think we'll probably have that fight in 2025, would be my guess. 

Here you have to separate the two types of AI systems that you might want to regulate. Historically, when we've been talking about AI, when the EU AI Act was first drafted, they did not have ChatGPT on their minds. The first draft of the EU AI Act predates ChatGPT. And the reason why I mentioned that is before large language models, most AI systems were [00:38:00] application specific. If you have an AI system that is a computer vision, image recognition system, if you give it a bunch of pictures of cats, it's going to be good at recognizing cats, it's not going to be good at recognizing military aircraft or tanks or something like that. Historically, AI systems are very application specific.

What's interesting about, ChatGPT and the other large language models is that they're not application specific. It will give you medical advice. It will give you legal advice. It will give you entrepreneurship advice. It will give you life coaching or psychotherapy, type of advice. And so you have these individual systems that are so diverse in the number of applications that they can do that you might want to regulate those as an entity. 

In the case of the EU AI Act, for example, they separate the sector specific regulations, which is the low risk, high risk, unacceptable risk, risk pyramid, and that's based on what the AI system is doing. But then they also have this set of regulations around what they [00:39:00] call general purpose AI systems that pose a systemic risk, and that's just regulating the technology because of its capabilities. 

Here's what's interesting, I think, there and in the United States and elsewhere. The regulations, at least in the legislation, mostly say, "thou shalt follow the standard" And by the way, standards coming soon, we promise. That's what's so interesting is they've actually, mandated the development of standards, and then they've mandated the following of those standards. So right now there is no existing standard for what constitutes the responsible development and the responsible operation of a super general purpose, super capable AI system like ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini, but those are coming. 

And I think that's what also the U. S. Kind of has to wrestle with is do we only want to continue this existing paradigm of application specific regulation? [00:40:00] Or do we also want to regulate based on the technology overall? So far, all we've done in the latter case is mandate some transparency and reporting requirements.

How AI causes serious environmental problems (but might also provide solutions) | DW Business - DW News - Air Date 4-29-24

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: aedifion is capitalizing on AI's ability to read and analyze data in a sliver of the amount of time it would take the world's best researchers to do the same.

This speed is what makes AI so valuable to researchers and scientists looking for solutions to the climate crisis. Scientists are now using AI to map Antarctic icebergs 10,000 times faster than humans, and to track deforestation in real time, to better predict weather patterns, and to suggest more efficient waste management systems. There's no doubt AI has the potential to do good things for the climate, but not everything about it is a gift to the environment. 

Take this hum, for example, which residents in Chandler, Arizona hear 24/7. It's the sound of a data center processing [00:41:00] the billions of requests it gets throughout the day. Think of AI as the brain and data centers as the body that supports the brain to work. There are more than 8,000 data centers in the world. According to the International Energy Agency, data center energy consumption is expected to double in 2026 to what it was in 2022. 

JESSE DODGE: When I started doing AI research a decade ago, I could run most of the AI systems I was using on my laptop.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: This is Jesse Dodge. He's an AI research scientist. 

JESSE DODGE: But today we're using supercomputers. Some of the large AI systems that people are familiar with, like the chatbots or the image generation systems, those run on really large supercomputers and consume a potentially very large amount of electricity.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: These very large amounts of electricity produce very large amounts of heat, and also that hum you just heard. To keep the data centers from overheating, they must be cooled down. [00:42:00] And this is usually done in one of two ways, using air conditioning or water, and lots of it. Let's say I engage in a 15 question conversation with ChatGPT over how I could be more environmentally conscious. Experts calculate I would be consuming about a half liter of fresh water. And this is where AI can be a little problematic. 

JESSE DODGE: Access to clean water is competing with local uses for it. 

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: This is what got Google into a bit of hot water soon after it announced plans to build a $200 million data center in the working class neighborhood of Cedillos in Chile.

SEBASTIÁN LEHUEDÉ: We all use Google search and other Google tools. So initially the neighbors were quite happy that Google had chosen this area for building their data center. 

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: This is Sebastián Lehuedé, an AI ethics and society lecturer at King's College, London. 

SEBASTIÁN LEHUEDÉ: They saw it as synonymous with progress, [00:43:00] development, a new pole of innovation in the area.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: But once they took a look at Google's environmental impact report for the data center, they were startled by what they learned. 

SEBASTIÁN LEHUEDÉ: They found out at some point that this Google data center was going to use 168 liters of water per second in an area facing drought. 

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: A drought that is now in its 15th year and caused elected officials to ration water in the capital of Santiago. But after fierce protests from the community, the permit was put on hold. A local environmental court told Google it needs to modify how it plans to cool its servers. And Google's plans for a data center in Uruguay also faced pushback when locals learned how much water it would consume. 

And water isn't the only natural resource that AI requires. It needs a lot of electricity too. And most of that electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels, which released the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. [00:44:00] Training a single AI model produces more than five times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions generated from a car in its lifetime. That's including the emissions to manufacture the car and its fuel consumption once it leaves the factory. It's an astounding amount. Training an AI model and then ensuring its continued existence through large data centers is a massive drain on natural resources and also drives up what researchers call embodied carbon.

JESSE DODGE: So that's going to be the amount of, carbon it took to build the hardware. Just starting by mining the rare earth minerals that goes into the GPUs, shipping that across the world to then be manufactured into a GPU, and then shipping that GPU to its final destination at a data center. That does incur a really large environmental impact.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: It's this impact that companies like Microsoft are trying to take into account as they set climate goals. Microsoft says it's aiming to be [00:45:00] carbon negative by 2030, not just neutral. but negative. And one way it's hoping to get there is through Bolivia. More than 9,000 kilometers from Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington, is a biochar facility operated by ExoMAD Green. It turns forestry waste into something that's called biochar, which is essentially charcoal. 

ExoMAD Green will produce the biochar, containing carbon dioxide, and bury it underground, where it can enrich the soil and keep CO2 from getting into the atmosphere. Microsoft has bought 32,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal credits, but that's a tiny fraction of its overall annual emissions. We don't know how much of that will grow with AI. 

That's one way that Microsoft can continue to expand its AI operation and data centers while saying it's still on path to being carbon negative. But is that effective enough, or is it just a [00:46:00] form of corporate greenwashing? 

JESSE DODGE: If we do something like bicarbon offsets, that doesn't negate the action that we took.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: Meaning that doesn't undo the carbon emissions that we've produced. 

JESSE DODGE: These two things don't cancel each other out. 

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: As AI advances, governments and regulatory bodies are trying their best to keep up. This year, new AI rules passed by the European Parliament will go into effect, impacting businesses like aedifion. The EU AI Act does reference the impact of AI on the environment. It asks that AI systems are developed and used in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner, though it doesn't really spell out what that means. Chile's AI laws, which were drafted before the EU rules, but aren't nearly as comprehensive, don't address environmental impact either.

SEBASTIÁN LEHUEDÉ: I think what's concerning is not only that this is not. being addressed enough, as it should, but also that the voice of the people affected by it is not considered. So [00:47:00] even if you look at research, the press, quite often they report on the environmental impact, but they don't report on how the situation can affect the livelihood or the wellbeing of the communities participating within the value chain of artificial intelligence.

EMILY LESHNER - HOST, DW BUSINESS: If operating a data center for your AI model Is the reason why a community doesn't have access to drinking water, is that still sustainable? 

SEBASTIÁN LEHUEDÉ: We need those voices to participate as well in the governance of AI. So if the UN, for example, is coming up with new regulation, it would be great to be able to hear those communities as well, because those communities, they're not against technology or AI, but that what they will say is that if we want AI, it has to be built in dialogue with local communities.

Why Are Migrants Becoming AI Test Subjects? With Petra Molnar - Your Undivided Attention - Air Date 6-20-24

AZA RASKIN - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: I really want to know about like, well, how does the technology diffuse? Like, what's the path? What are warning signs, if at all, of it going from the border to a broader society? Where have you seen that happen? I think people seeing that path, if there is that path, is really important [00:48:00] for understanding why we might want to get ahead of it now.

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, for sure. And, you know, when I get asked this question, I always think about how best to answer it because I do think it's important to keep the kind of context specific to the border sometimes, because it is this kind of high risk laboratory that really impacts vulnerable people. But at the end of the day, it doesn't just stop at the border.

And that's a trend that I've been noticing the last few years for sure. So, if we go back to the robodogs that were announced by the Department of Homeland Security for border purposes in 2022, just last year, I think it was May, the New York City Police Department proudly unveiled that they're going to be rolling out robodogs on the streets of New York City.

And one was even painted with black spots on it, like a Dalmatian. So, again, very proud of its kind of like surveillance tech focus. And I should say, the robodogs were before piloted in New York and in Honolulu during the COVID 19 pandemic for surveillance on the streets, and then after public outcry, surprise, surprise, were pulled.

So again, [00:49:00] the border tech stuff doesn't just stay at the border, but it then starts proliferating into other spaces of public life. And, you know, we've seen similar technology like drones and different types of cell phone tracking be deployed against protesters and even things like sports stadium surveillance. There is some work being done in the European Union on some of the technologies that are deployed for border enforcement and for criminal justice purposes, also then being turned on, you know, people who are enjoying a football game or a soccer game, for example. 

I think that's the interesting thing with tech, right? It might be developed for one thing and then repurposed for a second purpose and sold to a third purpose. And it just kind of flows in these ways that are difficult but important to track. 

AZA RASKIN - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Yeah, there's sort of a version of 'build it, they will come'. It's like build it and it will be used. You know, one of the other things we picked up from your book is you talked about a policy I'd never heard of called CODIS, which you say moves the US closer towards construction of a discriminatory genetic [00:50:00] panopticon, a kind of dystopian tool of genetic surveillance that could potentially encompass everyone within the United States, including ordinary citizens, when they've not been convicted or even suspected of criminal conduct. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, that's the other kind of element of this dystopia. The fact that, you know, your body becomes a border in a way, not only just with biometrics, but also with DNA collection. And there's been different pilot projects kind of rolled out over the years. Again, how is that possible, right? Like, have we agreed to this as people who are crossing borders? The fact that states are now considering collecting DNA for border enforcement is very dystopic. Because I think that's ultimately what it is about, the fact that each of these incursions is moving the so called Overton window further and further.

You know, we're talking, at first it's biometrics, then it's robodogs, then it's DNA. What is it going to be next, right? And I don't mean to just fear monger or kind of [00:51:00] future-predict or anything; this is based on years of work across different borders and seeing the appetite for a level of technological incursion that I don't think it's going to stop anytime soon.

AZA RASKIN - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Where have there been examples in the world where things have gone the other way around? Where it's not just a temporary, like, public outcry and robodogs get taken back, but, like, something really significant has happened, where a surveillance technology from the border gets rolled back because it really doesn't fit a country's values.

PETRA MOLNAR: I will say we are catching this at a really crucial moment because there are conversations about, well, how do we regulate some of this? Like, do we put some red lines under some of this technology? And there were some really, really inspiring conversations being had at the European Union level, for example, because it went through this really long protracted process of putting together an AI act, basically, the first regional attempt to regulate AI. And even though in the end it didn't go as far as it, I think, should on border technologies, there were [00:52:00] conversations about, for example, a ban on predictive analytics used for border interdictions or pushback operations or using individualized risk assessments and things like that.

I think traction on these issues can be gained by kind of extrapolating from the border and making citizens also worry about biometric mass surveillance and surveillance in public space and things like that, and finding kind of moments of solidarity among different groups that are equally impacted by this. And that is where the conversation seems to be moving, less from now we're fact finding and showing all these kind of egregious human rights abuses, which are still happening. But like, what do we then do about it together collectively?

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: It seems like one of the ways to motivate public action to regulate this is to show how, you know, what starts at the border to deal with "the other" and the immigration that's coming into the country, then later can get turned around to be used on our own citizens. And in your book, you actually have [talked] about how the global push to strengthen borders has gone hand in hand with the rise in [00:53:00] far-right politics, to root out the other. And you talk about examples of far-right governments who turn around and use the same technology tested at their border on their own citizens to start strengthening their regime. And you give examples, I think in Kenya, Israel, Greece. Could you just elaborate on some of the examples? Because I think if people know where this goes, then it motivates how do we get ahead of this more?

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, I think it's important to bring it back to political context because all around the world we're seeing the rise of anti migrant far-right groups and parties making incursions into, you know, the political space. Sometimes in small ways and sometimes in major ways and, you know, I think it's an open question what's going to happen in the United States, this year, right?, with the election that you guys have coming up. 

What I've seen, for example, in Greece is that parties that are very anti migration normalize the need to bring in surveillance technology at the border and test it out in refugee camps, for example, and then say, okay, well, we're going to be using similar things by the police on the streets of Athens, for example. [00:54:00] You know, in Kenya, similar things with normalization of just kind of data extraction for the purposes of digital ID are then used and weaponized against groups that already face marginalizations like Somali Kenyans, Nubian community, and smaller groups like that. 

So, again, I think the fact that there is this kind of global turn to the right and more of a fear-based kind of response to migration, motivates more technology. And you again see this kind of in the incursion of the private sector, kind of normalizing some of these really sharp interventions and say, Oh, well, you know what, we have your solution here. You are worried about migration and "the other", let's bring in this project. And then, Oh, lo and behold, you can actually use it on, you know, protesters that you don't like or sports stadium fans who are too rowdy and groups like that as well.

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: Okay, so we just talked about Kenya and Greece, in the context of other governments, but what about Israel? What's their role in all this? Are they using these technologies at their borders? 

PETRA MOLNAR: Yeah, for sure. I [00:55:00] mean, Israel is definitely a nucleus in everything that we're talking about today. And I also felt compelled to go to the occupied West Bank for the book because it's really the epicenter of so much of the technology that is then exported for border enforcement in the EU and at the US-Mexico border, right? But what is really troubling in how Israel has been developing and deploying technology is that Palestine has become the ultimate testing ground, a laboratory, if you will. Surveillance technology is tested on Palestinians, both in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, and then sold to governments around the world for border enforcement. And all of these projects that are normalized in these situations then can get exported out into other jurisdictions.

Big Tech AI Is A Lie - Tina Huang - Air Date 4-30-24

TINA HUANG - HOST, TINA HUANG: Back in 2023, Google came up with this very impressive demo of Gemini. 

AI DEMO: Tell me what you see. I see a squiggly line. What about now? It looks like a bird to me. What if I add [00:56:00] this? The bird is swimming in the water. It has a long neck and beak. It is a duck. 

TINA HUANG - HOST, TINA HUANG: Really impressive, right? But unfortunately, it came to light that this demo is a bit deceptive, but actually still pretty impressive. Which is why, when Gemini Ultra came out in 2024, I was really excited to try it out. I tried replicating the results of the Gemini demo by prompting Gemini with the same prompts and seeing what came out of it.

And, drumroll please, this. 

AI DEMO: The image you sent me now appears to show a drawing of a snake on a piece of white paper. The snake is long and slender with a small head and forked tongue. 

TINA HUANG - HOST, TINA HUANG: Right, definitely a snake. Now in a more recent conference, they came up with these new autonomous agents. Super fancy, really, really impressive. 

GOOGLE SPOKESPERSONS: Gemini for Google Workspace is our AI powered agent to quickly identify threats. You can use Gemini in security operations. We're seeing really interesting creative agents. 

TINA HUANG - HOST, TINA HUANG: But when I excitedly tried to replicate this with their Vertex AI builder: 

TH: Can you help me log my pet [00:57:00] into this system? 

AI: I can help you with that. Can you please provide me with your pet's name and ID? 

TH: My pet is a goldfish and does not have an ID. 

AI: What is its name? 

TH: My goldfish name is Bobby. 

AI: I'm sorry I'm having trouble creating a new pet profile for your goldfish. There is an error loading the agent. 

I was again sorely disappointed. Seems to be a trend.

Now, combine this together with a pop up message from Gemini, which states, "Your conversations are processed by human reviewers to improve the technologies powering Gemini apps". I don't know, one could maybe even start hypothesizing that maybe Google is faking its AI capabilities? 

And of course, they are not the only ones. Amazon has these just walk in stores where you're supposed to be able to go inside, grab anything that you need, and then when you walk out there is facial recognition technology and AI, of course, that's able to charge your credit card automatically, or so they say. According to the [00:58:00] information, there was in fact over a thousand Indian associates that were watching the cameras and labeling footage of shoppers: "An employee who worked on the technology said that actual humans, albeit distant and invisible ones based in India, reviewed about 70 percent of sales made in the cashierless shops as of mid-2022". 

It's just insanity, the amount of lies that we as a public are supposed to be able to tolerate. Like, seriously, what the f***. These companies are becoming more and more reckless, to the point that they're just blatantly disregarding, say, safety of the general public.

For example, one of the biggest ironies is the fact that Sam Altman's whole, like, ousting ordeal last year as the CEO of OpenAI was linked to concerns over AI safety. Yep, remember 2015? OpenAI was a AI safety research company. Seriously, I think this is really just crossing the line here, all for the sake of gathering more investor money. And it's like actually insulting by feeding the public this continuous lie about how they're still doing everything for the public, for the future of humanity, for [00:59:00] everybody. 

Trickle down economy is defined as a theory that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down and eventually benefit everybody. Like this. Filling the cup of the top wealthy people would eventually trickle down to all of us. 

Sam Altman, of course, is a big proponent of this. In his 2021 essay called "Moore's Law [for] Everything", he states, "The key three consequences of the AI revolution is to, 1), this revolution will create phenomenal wealth. The price of many kinds of labor, which drives the cost of goods and services will fall towards zero once sufficiently powerful AI 'joins the workforce'". 

And 2), "the world will change so rapidly and dramatically. that an equally drastic change in policy will be needed to distribute this wealth and enable more people to pursue the life they want".

And 3), "if we get both of these right, we can improve the standard of living for people more than we ever have before". The way that he proposes we should offset the job loss to the common folk is to have UBI, universal basic income, that is from [01:00:00] corporate and property tax rates alone. 

Yeah, I don't know about that. Since when has the rich ever wanted to give away their wealth and pay more taxes? We now know that so much of the philanthropy that these really wealthy people do is also for the sake of tax breaks. So, sorry to break that illusion, if you still have that illusion. I'm not an expert here, and that's like a whole other can of worms, but I mean, I'm not going to be holding my breath on that one.

In reality, trickle down economy works more like this. The cup of the wealthiest and the most powerful just keep getting bigger. Case in point, the recklessness that we've seen in these big tech companies trying to get more investor money, they're not exactly focusing on trickling it down to the rest of us and really actually helping us, you know, benefit society.

I mean, no wonder the employees in these companies, when you start asking them questions, they end up getting pretty uncomfortable. But hey, please let me clarify here: Iam not attacking these employees from big tech [01:01:00] companies. I mean, that would also make me hypocritical because I worked at Meta, a big tech company. I also know many people that work at these big tech companies, and I don't think that they're bad people, like they're willingly contributing towards this mess.

It gets really complex because as I'll talk about later, AI very much has this ability of bettering humanity and the people working at these technologies can clearly see that. But what leadership says that they're doing versus what they're actually doing just doesn't line up. 

So, before you click off this video full of doom, I want to show you that there is hope in AI doing tremendous good in this world. Actually, a lot of hope because there is no clear winner of AI right now. There is no company that has a monopoly. 

MOVIE CLIP: Truly open means open to everyone. 

TINA HUANG - HOST, TINA HUANG: Introducing the counter movement of closed source proprietary big tech technology: the open source movement. Open source refers to a type of software whose source code is made available to the public and can be modified and shared by anyone. It's built on principles of collaboration, transparency, and [01:02:00] community-oriented development.

It's basically the opposite of big tech AI. This movement's been around for quite some time now and there's been really big successes that we've seen from the open source community. For example, Red Hat, founded in 1993, became huge in supporting professional enterprise-level Linux distributions. The Apache Software Foundation founded in 1999 is also responsible for a lot of the open source software that are the foundation to the internet and many web technologies today. MySQL, PostgreSQL, anybody that uses databases are probably familiar with these open source databases. GitHub that really brought together the open source community. Coding languages. like Python, JavaScript, these are all open source and many of you all use it today. 

These are just a few examples. What makes me really happy now is that the open source community has really stepped up the game in this whole AI situation. If you just scroll through Hugging Face, which itself is an open source collaborative ML/AI platform, you'll see lots and lots of open source AI models. And people are developing open source consumer products as well. We [01:03:00] have the 01 Light, which is a voice interface for your home computer. It's open source and allows developers to build on top in order to create their own unique agents.

ChatDev is another very interesting open source agent initiative. It's a collection of intelligent autonomous agents that work together to form a software company. For example, a CEO agent, a CTO agent, a programmer agent, tester, etc, etc. These agents work together in order to accomplish a task that the user sets out. I really recommend that you play around with it. It's super easy to use and really cool how it works. 

Anyways, there is this open source AI push, and given the financial viability that has already been proven in other open source projects previously, many investors are also willing to invest in open source projects and companies. As individuals, you watching this video as well, I hope, will start thinking more about contributing towards open source. Whether that be just volunteering, contributing towards open source, using more open source products or even building your own businesses and startups, which by the way, is probably a lot easier than you think, especially [01:04:00] if you use AI to help you out.

Hey, at least check out the free HubSpot resource book. I think with open source, we'll be able to make a big step forward towards the realignment of AI innovation and development with the benefit of humanity as a whole.

Final comments on the nature of misalignment between AI and human wellbeing

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips today, starting with Vox, explaining that we're already using AI more than we realize. Linus Tech Tips explained the changing definitions of AI. The CEO of Microsoft's AI division that gave a TED Talk, which laid out a very rosy vision of the potential future of AI. Global Dispatches in contrast described how AI can and will be used by militaries on the battlefield, up to and including the automating of nuclear weapons. The FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast discuss the threat of AI to elections and the need for regulation. DW News explained the relatively hidden water usage of AI. Your Undivided Attention highlighted the use of AI technologies for surveillance. And Tina Huang critiqued big tech's [01:05:00] tendency to overpromise and underdeliver on AI projects, all in the pursuit of investor money. 

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 trying to make each other laugh in the process. 

To support all of our work and have those bonus episodes delivered seamlessly to the new members-only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support (there's a link in the show notes), through our Patreon page, if you like, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. If regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership, because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information. 

And now, before we continue onto the Deeper Dives half the show, I just wanted to talk a bit more about the deals being made between journalists accompanies and AI developers. 

I mentioned at the top of the [01:06:00] show that Vox had signed a deal, which was reported on, on the same day, I think, as the Atlantic signing something similar. Both publications wrote articles, actually critical of the move of their own parent companies, which has always fun to see. But the article from Vox laid out an old thought experiment and breathed new life into it, with additional analysis that I thought was worth sharing. 

So the article is titled, "This article is OpenAI training data," and it starts with a quick description of the old paperclip maximizer thought experiment. " Imagine an artificial general intelligence, one essentially limitless in its power and its intelligence. This AGI is programmed by its creators with the goal of producing paperclips. Because the AGI is super intelligent, it quickly learns how to make paperclips out of anything. And because the AGI is super intelligent, it can anticipate and foil any attempt to stop it and will do so because it's one [01:07:00] directive is to make more paperclips. Should we attempt to turn the AGI off, it will fight back, because it can't make more paperclips if it's turned off, and it will win because it is super intelligent. The final result: the entire galaxy, including you, me and everyone we know, has either been destroyed or been transformed into paperclips." 

Now there's a good chance that you've heard that one before, but it's worth repeating because it reminds us of the nature of maximization. When people or corporations or AIs attempt to maximize for one thing, there will always be trade offs, sometimes extreme trade-offs. In the case of the paperclip concept, the thought experiment is teaching that great care must be taken when programming an AI system that will be an efficient maximizer by its nature. 

But the lesson, just as the nature of maximization itself, can be extrapolated out into other realms. I would certainly put capitalism on that list. [01:08:00] Capitalism is designed to maximize wealth, which isn't inherently evil, just like figuring out the most efficient way to make paperclips isn't inherently evil. It's the trade-offs that end up tripping us up. Think runaway climate change. 

Now ideally, our economic system would be in perfect alignment with creating human wellbeing, human flourishing, human happiness, or, you know, if we were exceptionally enlightened, we would understand our own wellbeing to be an extricable be linked with all other aspects of nature, living and inert, and we would want to align our economy with a sort of whole-earth wellbeing. Instead, our economics is only concerned with financial wealth, which is only useful to humans, and is at best an approximate stand-in for wellbeing, but it is certainly not synonymous with wellbeing.

Similarly, there are businesses--this podcast included, frankly--that exist within our economic system that forces [01:09:00] their multiple priorities to be at least slightly misaligned. For instance, producing the best possible journalism and making the most amount of money are certainly not in alignment. Even way before the age of internet news and New York Times games like Wordle driving revenue, it was known that sports coverage and scandal brought in the funds to newspapers needed to subsidize the hard reporting efforts that cannot support themselves. 

And all of this brings us back to journalistic companies striking deals with tech companies, because they need the money. 

Back to the article. Quote: "I've seen our industry pin our hopes on search engine optimization, on the pivot to video, and back again. On Facebook and social media traffic. I can remember Apple coming to my offices at Time Magazine in 2010, promising us that the iPad would save the magazine business. [01:10:00] It did not. Each time we are promised a fruitful collaboration with tech platforms that can benefit both sides. And each time it ultimately doesn't work out, because the interests of those tech platforms do not align, and have never fully aligned, with those of the media." End quote.

But what I would like to point out is that in all of the time people have been worrying about the rise of AI and the dangerous potential for a small misalignment of intentions to result in a disaster like that of the paperclip thought experiment, precious few have thought to turn their gaze to the companies directing the development of AI systems. As we know, for-profit companies' incentives are not aligned with the longterm benefit of the planet and everything on it; far from it. 

So how will they design AI with the best alignment of incentives? And moreover, how can they even go through the process of developing that AI [01:11:00] without the trade-offs of the process being catastrophic in the same way that runaway climate change was the trade-off for all of the benefits we gained from fossil fuels? 

Back to the article. Quote: "AIs aren't the only maximizers. So are the companies that make AIs, from OpenAI to Microsoft, to Google, to Meta, companies in the AI business are engaged in a brutal race for data, for compute power, for human talent, for market share, and ultimately, for profits. Those goals are their paperclips. And what they are doing now, as hundreds of billions of dollars flow into the AI industry, is everything they can to maximize them." End quote. 

And as those companies maximize their profits, their goal will be to extract as much value out of the raw data and human talent as they can, so that their AIs are as capable as possible, so that they can maximize the revenue they generate. For [01:12:00] example, Google is including AI responses to questions that now disincentivized users from clicking through to source material. So Google still earned ad dollars from your search, but the humans who wrote the source material that that AI drew on for its answers will earn less, due to getting less and less traffic to their sites. 

So the article wraps up, quote: "If you can't connect to an audience with your content, let alone get paid for it, the imperative for producing more work dissolves. It won't just be news. The endless web itself could stop growing. Bad for all of us, including the AI companies. What happens if, while relentlessly trying to hoover up every possible bit of data that could be used to train their models, AI companies destroy the very reasons for humans to make more data. Surely they can foresee that possibility. Surely they wouldn't be so single-minded as to destroy the [01:13:00] raw material they depend on. Yet just as the AI and the paperclip thought experiment relentlessly pursues its single goal, so do the AI companies of today. Until they've reduced the news, the web, and everyone who was once part of it to little more than paperclips."

SECTION A: MORE CURRENT USES OF AI

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue with deeper dives on three topics. 

Next up section a. More current uses of AI. Section B potential uses of AI and the ethics we need to consider. And section C regulating AI.

Landlords Using Shady Algorithm To Raise Rents | Judd Legum - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 6-15-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Tell us about real page and then give us the timeline of what's been happening on that. 

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah. And, uh, and this was a story that was really broken open by ProPublica a couple of years ago, um, about real page, which is a, Software program that is used by many corporate landlords, particularly any large building with a bunch of units.

That's really what it's optimized for. And the [01:14:00] landlords feed in all of the information well, beyond what you could get on Zillow or publicly available information, vacancy rates, what they're actually charging all the fees, everything that there is. And then. This program spits back out a recommended rent for that unit.

But what's insidious about this process is that essentially so many corporate landlords are using it that they know. They don't need to go underneath that recommendation because the building around the corner is also using real page and is also going to be using these prices. And what we, what they found is, since the corporate landlords have adopted this, uh, in large numbers, the rents have gone up and up and up and up.

So, that's, that's essentially how this, how the system works is that it's, it's. [01:15:00] Effectively collusion via software where they can all they're not sitting in a smoke filled room, uh, fixing the prices of. Uh, rent in a given area, whether it's Atlanta or Seattle or wherever it is, but they're doing so via this software algorithm.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And I, I gotta say, like, I don't remember this element of the story until I read, uh, your piece on it. But if there's also sort of like a mafia quality to this where they say, look, if you're going to use this software, you cannot undercut the price that we give you because then you're screwing up everything.

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And that seems to be a big giveaway. 

JUDD LEGUM: Yes. They have people who are monitoring it, who are making sure you're in compliance with their recommendations. And actually, if you price your, uh, apartments too low, uh, too many times, you'll get kicked off. Uh, the the system [01:16:00] and so we actually have learned a lot more, uh, in the last 2 years since that ProPublica story came out because there's been a series of class action lawsuits.

There's also been lawsuits filed by, uh, the attorneys general in in D. C. and elsewhere too. So. That process has started to, um, reveal even more information about how the whole system works. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And, um, maybe you write that, um, um, uh, that it's deploying real paid software in, in one case, uh, in Houston, uh, resulted in pushing people out with higher rents, but ultimately increased revenue by 10 million.

So they're making a ton of money off of this. The landlords. But there, I mean, that's the beauty of like price fixing, right? It's like, I know I can sustain this higher than market price. If everybody sustains this higher than market price. 

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah, and it's [01:17:00] essentially gotten rid of negotiation. It used to be you could go to rent an apartment.

They sell you. Here's the price 3, 000 a month, whatever it is, you go into the rental office and you say, you know, I'd really like to pay 2900 a month. Um, now, part of that is there's a housing shortage. But the other part of it is RealPage has made it clear that you are not to negotiate these prices. And they, and the corporate landlords can feel confident because before they might know, well, if I won't give these people 100 or 200 off, they're just going to go around to a corner to another nice building and those people will do it and I'll be left with an empty unit.

But they know if those people code two blocks down, they're going to run into the exact same pricing scheme and the exact same reluctance to negotiate under any circumstances. So that's really what's driving the prices up. There used to be a say, get heads in beds. You know, when you, when you ran these big buildings, the idea is [01:18:00] keep them full, but RealPay just kind of, Uh overturned that philosophy and now they're they're really holding the line on prices Even if they have to keep a couple of units empty for a little bit 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Uh you cite in uh, one of those hours one of those lawsuits this one in arizona that in phoenix 70 percent of multifamily apartments units listed in Phoenix metropolitan area are owned, operated, or managed by companies that have contracted with RealPage.

Uh, a lawsuit in D. C. 60 percent of large multifamily buildings, 50 units or more, set prices using RealPage software. These numbers, I don't know, I mean, they may have gone up since then. Um, and we don't really know, I mean, we can't, do we know, like, I don't know. Can we look at boston at new york and at, um, the dallas chicago?

I mean do we have a sense of like just how ubiquitous this real page software is or is it? Only piecemeal information. 

JUDD LEGUM: Well, it's really piecemeal at this point [01:19:00] because Uh, you when the when their suits filed, they can do discovery, they can get information about what's going on. Uh, there's, there's are some ways to sort of to see, uh, and to and people have tried to collect data, but we don't have a full sense.

We don't know, um, what the full scope is. And by the way, there was a competing software company, uh, that. Had somewhat of a different approach to how it advise these corporate landlords to manage their properties. It was purchased by real page. So it's really the whole purpose of it. And they even say this in their marketing materials is you can charge.

More than the market price would bear otherwise, which, which is a pretty clear indication that you're doing something to subvert the actual competitive market. Um, and, you know, this is in the context of a housing shortage, so the prices would be going up anyway, [01:20:00] but the level of price increases that we've seen, especially in major metropolitan areas has far exceeded.

Even the inflation that we've seen in some other. Um, you know, uh, areas 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: and, uh, like you say in the piece to Jeffrey Roper, who created the real page algorithm explained that quote, if you have idiots undervaluing it, uh, if undervaluing, in other words, undercutting what they have all sort of agreed, they're going to charge.

It costs the whole system. I mean, the idea that that's the whole, they've sort of given away the game at that point, right? Because the whole system that they're saying all these different landlords, they shouldn't be in a system. Uh, I mean, if it was up to me, maybe we would just like, uh, nationalize some of these places, uh, or have, uh, uh, the city or state takeover, and then it would be a system, but there shouldn't be a private, uh, cartel essentially, um, [01:21:00] Saying what undervaluing is at that point.

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah, and it works on so many different levels because one of the ways that you used to be able to get a good deal on an apartment is people move in and out randomly. So, at certain times, there might be a flood of apartments that become available just just out of random chance. If you come in during that time, you might be able to get a good deal because all the buildings are competing with each other.

But in addition to setting the prices at a high level and keeping the moving up and up and up the, through the software, all the different buildings make sure that there's not too many units. Available at any given time, they'll hold them back so that it's always an artificially constrained market, which is pretty classic as far as if you're going to collude and price fix, that's what you might want to do.

AI Edits from Landlords Using Shady Algorithm To Raise Rents | Judd Legum - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 6-15-24

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Tell us about real page and then give us the timeline of what's been happening on that. 

JUDD LEGUM: This was a story that was really broken open by [01:22:00] ProPublica a couple of years ago, about real page, which is a, Software program that is used by many corporate landlords, particularly any large building with a bunch of units.

That's really what it's optimized for. And the landlords feed in all of the information well, beyond what you could get on Zillow or publicly available information, vacancy rates, what they're actually charging all the fees, everything that there is. And then. This program spits back out a recommended rent for that unit.

But what's insidious about this process is that so many corporate landlords are using it that they know. They don't need to go underneath that recommendation because the building around the corner is also using real page and is also going to be using [01:23:00] these prices. Since the corporate landlords have adopted this, in large numbers, the rents have gone up and up and up.

So, that's essentially how the system works it's. Effectively collusion via software where they're not sitting in a smoke filled room, fixing the prices of. Rent in a given area, whether it's Atlanta or Seattle or wherever it is, but they're doing so via this software algorithm.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And I gotta say, like, I don't remember this element of the story until I read, your piece on it. But if there's also sort of like a mafia quality to this where they say, look, if you're going to use this software, you cannot undercut the price that we give you because then you're screwing up everything.

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And that seems to be a big giveaway. 

JUDD LEGUM: Yes. They have people who are monitoring it, who are making sure you're in compliance with their recommendations. And actually, [01:24:00] if you price your, apartments too low, too many times, you'll get kicked off. The system and so we actually have learned a lot more, in the last 2 years since that ProPublica story came out because there's been a series of class action lawsuits.

There's also been lawsuits filed by, the attorneys general in D. C. and elsewhere too. That process has started to, reveal even more information about how the whole system works. 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: So they're making a ton of money off of this. The landlords. But there, I mean, that's the beauty of like price fixing, right? It's like, I know I can sustain this higher than market price. If everybody sustains this higher than market price. 

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah, and it's essentially gotten rid of negotiation. It used to be you could go to rent an apartment.

They sell you. Here's the price 3, 000 a month, whatever it is, you go [01:25:00] into the rental office and you say, you know, I'd really like to pay 2900 a month. Now, part of that is there's a housing shortage. But the other part of it is RealPage has made it clear that you are not to negotiate these prices. And the corporate landlords can feel confident because before they might know, well, if I won't give these people 100 or 200 off, they're just going to go around to a corner to another nice building and those people will do it and I'll be left with an empty unit.

But they know if those people code two blocks down, they're going to run into the exact same pricing scheme and the exact same reluctance to negotiate under any circumstances. So that's really what's driving the prices up. There used to be a say, get heads in beds. The idea is keep them full, but RealPay just kind of, overturned that philosophy and now they're really holding the line on prices Even if they have to keep a couple of units empty for a little bit 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: You cite in one of those hours one of those lawsuits this one [01:26:00] in arizona that in phoenix 70 percent of multifamily apartments units listed in Phoenix metropolitan area are owned, operated, or managed by companies that have contracted with RealPage.

A lawsuit in D. C. 60 percent of large multifamily buildings, 50 units or more, set prices using RealPage software. These numbers, I don't know, I mean, they may have gone up since then. Can we look at boston at new york and at, the dallas chicago?

I mean do we have a sense of like just how ubiquitous this real page software is or is it? Only piecemeal information. 

JUDD LEGUM: Well, it's really piecemeal at this point because when their suits filed, they can do discovery, they can get information about what's going on. There's, there's are some ways to sort of to see, and to and people have tried to collect data, but we don't have a full sense.

We don't know, what the full scope is. And by the way, there was a competing software company, that. Had somewhat [01:27:00] of a different approach to how it advise these corporate landlords to manage their properties. It was purchased by real page. So it's really the whole purpose of it. And they even say this in their marketing materials is you can charge.

More than the market price would bear otherwise, which is a pretty clear indication that you're doing something to subvert the actual competitive market. And, you know, this is in the context of a housing shortage, so the prices would be going up anyway, but the level of price increases that we've seen, especially in major metropolitan areas has far exceeded.

Even the inflation that we've seen in some other. Areas 

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: and, like you say in the piece to Jeffrey Roper, who created the real page algorithm explained that quote, if you have idiots undervaluing it, if undervaluing, in other words, undercutting what they have all sort of agreed, they're going to [01:28:00] charge.

It costs the whole system. I mean, the idea that that's the whole, they've sort of given away the game at that point, right? Because the whole system that they're saying all these different landlords, they shouldn't be in a system. I mean, if it was up to me, maybe we would just like, nationalize some of these places, or have, the city or state takeover, and then it would be a system, but there shouldn't be a private, cartel essentially, Saying what undervaluing is at that point.

JUDD LEGUM: Yeah, and it works on so many different levels because one of the ways that you used to be able to get a good deal on an apartment is people move in and out randomly. So, at certain times, there might be a flood of apartments that become available if you come in during that time, you might be able to get a good deal because all the buildings are competing with each other.

But in addition to setting the prices at a high level and keeping the moving up and up and up the, through the [01:29:00] software, all the different buildings make sure that there's not too many units. Available at any given time, they'll hold them back so that it's always an artificially constrained market, which is pretty classic as far as if you're going to collude and price fix, that's what you might want to do.

Lavender & Where's Daddy: How Israel Used AI to Form Kill Lists & Bomb Palestinians in Their Homes - Democracy Now! - Air Date 4-5-24

YUVAL ABRAHAM: Lavender was designed by the military. Its purpose was, when it was being designed, to mark the low-ranking operatives in the Hamas and Islamic Jihad military wings. That was the intention, because, you know, Israel estimates that there are between 30,000 to 40,000 Hamas operatives, and it’s a very, very large number. And they understood that the only way for them to mark these people is by relying on artificial intelligence. And that was the intention.

Now, what sources told me is that after October 7th, the military basically made a decision that all of these tens of thousands of people are now people that [01:30:00] could potentially be bombed inside their houses, meaning not only killing them but everybody who’s in the building — the children, the families. And they understood that in order to try to attempt to do that, they are going to have to rely on this AI machine called Lavender with very minimal human supervision. I mean, one source said that he felt he was acting as a rubber stamp on the machine’s decisions.

Now, what Lavender does is it scans information on probably 90% of the population of Gaza. So we’re talking about, you know, more than a million people. And it gives each individual a rating between one to 100, a rating that is an expression of the likelihood that the machine thinks, based on a list of small features — and we can get to that later — that that individual is a member of the Hamas or Islamic Jihad military wings. Sources told me that [01:31:00] the military knew, because they checked — they took a random sampling and checked one by one — the military knew that approximately 10% of the people that the machine was marking to be killed were not Hamas militants. They were not — some of them had a loose connection to Hamas. Others had completely no connection to Hamas. I mean, one source said how the machine would bring people who had the exact same name and nickname as a Hamas operative, or people who had similar communication profiles. Like, these could be civil defense workers, police officers in Gaza. And they implemented, again, minimal supervision on the machine. One source said that he spent 20 seconds per target before authorizing the bombing of the alleged low-ranking Hamas militant — often it also could have been a civilian — killing those people inside their houses.

And I think this, the reliance on artificial intelligence here to mark those targets, and basically the [01:32:00] deadly way in which the officers spoke about how they were using the machine, could very well be part of the reason why in the first, you know, six weeks after October 7th, like one of the main characteristics of the policies that were in place were entire Palestinian families being wiped out inside their houses. I mean, if you look at U.N. statistics, more than 50% of the casualties, more than 6,000 people at that time, came from a smaller group of families. It’s an expression of, you know, the family unit being destroyed. And I think that machine and the way it was used led to that.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You talk about the choosing of targets, and you talk about the so-called high-value targets, Hamas commanders, and then the lower-level fighters. And as you said, many of them, in the end, it wasn’t either. But [01:33:00] explain the buildings that were targeted and the bombs that were used to target them.

YUVAL ABRAHAM: Yeah, yeah. It’s a good question. So, what sources told me is that during those first weeks after October, for the low-ranking militants in Hamas, many of whom were marked by Lavender, so we can say “alleged militants” that were marked by the machine, they had a predetermined, what they call, “collateral damage degree.” And this means that the military’s international law departments told these intelligence officers that for each low-ranking target that Lavender marks, when bombing that target, they are allowed to kill — one source said the number was up to 20 civilians, again, for any Hamas operative, regardless of rank, regardless of importance, regardless of age. One source said that there were also minors being marked — not many of them, but he said that was a possibility, that [01:34:00] there was no age limit. Another source said that the limit was up to 15 civilians for the low-ranking militants. The sources said that for senior commanders of Hamas — so it could be, you know, commanders of brigades or divisions or battalions — the numbers were, for the first time in the IDF’s history, in the triple digits, according to sources.

So, for example, Ayman Nofal, who was the Hamas commander of the Central Brigade, a source that took part in the strike against that person said that the military authorized to kill alongside that person 300 Palestinian civilians. And we’ve spoken at +972 and Local Call with Palestinians who were witnesses of that strike, and they speak about, you know, four quite large residential buildings being bombed on that day, you know, entire apartments filled with families being bombed and killed. And [01:35:00] that source told me that this is not, you know, some mistake, like the amount of civilians, of this 300 civilians, it was known beforehand to the Israeli military. And sources described that to me, and they said that — I mean, one source said that during those weeks at the beginning, effectively, the principle of proportionality, as they call it under international law, quote, “did not exist.”

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, there’s two programs. There’s Lavender, and there’s Where’s Daddy? How did they even know where these men were, innocent or not?

YUVAL ABRAHAM: Yeah, so, the way the system was designed is, there is this concept, in general, in systems of mass surveillance called linking. When you want to automate these systems, you want to be able to very quickly — you know, you get, for example, an ID of a person, [01:36:00] and you want to have a computer be very quickly able to link that ID to other stuff. And what sources told me is that since everybody in Gaza has a home, has a house — or at least that was the case in the past — the system was designed to be able to automatically link between individuals and houses. And in the majority of cases, these households that are linked to the individuals that Lavender is marking as low-ranking militants are not places where there is active military action taking place, according to sources. Yet the way the system was designed, and programs like Where’s Daddy?, which were designed to search for these low-ranking militants when they enter houses — specifically, it sends an alert to the intelligence officers when these AI-marked suspects enter their houses. The system [01:37:00] was designed in a way that allowed the Israeli military to carry out massive strikes against Palestinians, sometimes militants, sometimes alleged militants, who we don’t know, when they were in these spaces in these houses.

And the sources said — you know, CNN reported in December that 45% of the munitions, according to U.S. intelligence assessments, that Israel dropped on Gaza were unguided, so-called dumb bombs, that have, you know, a larger damage to civilians. They destroy the entire structure. And sources said that for these low-ranking operatives in Hamas, they were only using the dumb munitions, meaning they were collapsing the houses on everybody inside. And when you ask intelligence officers why, one explanation they give is that these people were, quote, “unimportant.” They were not important enough, from a military perspective, that the Israeli army would, one source [01:38:00] said, waste expensive munitions, meaning more guided floor bombs that could have maybe taken just a particular floor in the building.

And to me, that was very striking, because, you know, you’re dropping a bomb on a house and killing entire families, yet the target that you are aiming to assassinate by doing so is not considered important enough to, quote, “waste” an expensive bomb on. And I think it’s a very rare reflection of sort of the way — you know, the way the Israeli military measures the value of Palestinian lives in relation to expected military gain, which is the principle of proportionality. And I think one thing that was very, very clear from all the sources that I spoke with is that, you know, this was — [01:39:00] they said it was psychologically shocking even for them. That’s the combination between Lavender and Where’s Daddy? The Lavender lists are fed into Where’s Daddy? And these systems track the suspects and wait for the moments that they enter houses, usually family houses or households where no military action takes place, according to several sources who did this, who spoke to me about this. And these houses are bombed using unguided missiles. This was a main characteristic of the Israeli policy in Gaza, at least for the first weeks.

The AI Revolution is Rotten to the Core - Jimmy McGee - Air Date 9-15-23

JIMMY MCGEE - HOST, JIMMY MCGEE: There are hundreds of schemes for machine learning at this point, but neural networks are the most popular, and most of the concepts behind neural networks apply to everything else in the field, too.

Neural networks are simplistic models of brains. Networks of neurons. A very low resolution picture of our brains is that we take in some stimulus, Say the [01:40:00] light bouncing off a painting, then something happens in the brain, then we feel an emotion or sensation. There's an input, an output, and something in the middle.

And that's exactly how every beginner course describes a neural network. A layer of input nodes, one or more hidden layers, then a layer of output nodes. Hidden layer is kind of a misnomer though. The hidden layers themselves aren't a black box, and tweaking them is a big part of developing a neural network.

The data that these hidden layers produce Usually isn't meaningful to us, though. It's only used by the network, and that's probably where the hidden comes in. Explainability. Figuring out why an AI makes decisions the way it does is a big problem in machine learning, because AI doesn't follow a line of reasoning the way a person would.

Nodes are another abstract concept. There's no obvious correspondence between a node and what the computer is actually doing. Really, node just means function. And in machine learning, nodes are usually taking a vector, doing something to it, [01:41:00] and passing it on to the next layer. We could have each hidden node add up the values of everything connected to it, for example.

The secret sauce is in weighing the inputs. In real brains, some connections between neurons are stronger than others. There are still lots of questions about the human brain. But the idea is that these connections and their strength affect our thoughts and actions somehow. Since an artificial neural network is just functions sending and receiving numbers, you can multiply each of these by some factor to make it bigger or smaller, more or less influential.

The network on screen is a toy example, but neural networks are always made to achieve some goal. Let's say our input is a picture of a letter, where the brightness of each pixel is an input, and the output is a guess for what letter it is. This is just a big pile of math. It's cool that we can make a machine with billions of adjustment knobs, but we're not going to do all that work by hand.

Thankfully, neural networks can be trained to adjust their own parameters. If I have a [01:42:00] photo of a letter that I know is a B, then I can compare that to what the network guesses. This pair of image and text is a piece of training data, and big networks will go through millions or billions of them. Weights are usually randomized at first, So the network will probably say the letter is an A, X, P, and C all at once.

But we can calculate how wrong the network is, and use this to adjust the weights, so it gets a little bit better every time. If it's 20 percent confident that the letter B is the letter A, then we need to reduce the weights that influence that guess. Gradient descent is the piece of statistical magic that made the AI revolution possible.

If you're on a hill, The gradient where you're standing is an arrow, or a vector, pointing in the steepest direction. Following this gradient is the fastest way to climb the hill. Going backwards from the gradient is the fastest way to go down the hill. An error function is like a hill that represents how wrong each of our weights is.

So if [01:43:00] you take the gradient and go backwards, the network will slowly move toward zero error. In my example, it gets better at guessing letters. It's a pretty goddamn cool idea, but there are no miracles here. The concept I just described was laid out in a paper from 1958 as a theory for how the human brain works.

So, it's not exactly revolutionary, but layers of interconnected nodes still make up the structure of all those headline grabbing AI systems we see today. You would hope that that example network, the letter classifier, would learn to recognize patterns in the strokes of letters, or at least do something intelligible.

But the weights that a neural network comes up with look just about random, and a lot of the architecture behind neural Today's machine learning systems is based on somebody trying something new that happens to work. Sometimes, you can say that they make the whole gradient descent process more efficient.

But with current setups, there's never going to be some obvious improvement reflected in the hidden data [01:44:00] itself. You're never going to get a line of reasoning from AI. Famously, you can use these things to generate media, like images and music, from a text description.

Google's Deep Dream was one of the first generative models that made headlines. It started as a network for classifying images, but they were able to sort of run the system in reverse, and have it hallucinate nightmarish faces in existing pictures. The original model was made for an image recognition contest that ImageNet ran in 2014.

ImageNet made a dataset of just under 15 million images, which it doesn't own the licenses for. With new technology, the line between research and commerce is growing. And big companies often use this fact to just manifest destiny whenever they want and make us live with the consequences. Scraping millions of images and sticking them in a public dataset is a huge ethical question mark, even in an [01:45:00] academic context.

But once an economy springs up around these datasets, they're hard to get rid of. This is a lesson we've learned over and over. Companies rush to market with leaded gas or asbestos insulation, and by the time we understand what they've done, entire swaths of the planet have brain damage and lung cancer.

Google mastered this principle with AdSense, a surveillance system that probably knows your heart rate and body temperature right now, google's data harvesting operation became a load bearing piece of the internet before the public understood digital privacy, and now we can't get rid of it. ImageNet popularized scraping the internet for training data, and the project has all the same problems that we're dealing with now.

It's very biased. They stole all the pictures, and they use questionable labor practices to label them all.

Amazon's Mechanical Turk bills itself as a micro task marketplace, a place for simple, short jobs that still require a human to complete them. I wanted to join the program as a [01:46:00] worker, but Amazon didn't bother approving or denying my request. The site is apparently so bad that workers have to use a bunch of extra scripts to actually do their jobs.

And you can't get any decent work there until you've done hundreds or thousands of human intelligence tasks, also known as HITs. A platform like that was a perfect fit for the ImageNet project, and they used it to label early versions of the dataset back in 2008 or 9. They gave workers a set of pictures and some objects to identify.

Workers would mark each picture if it contained the target object. If that sounds familiar, it's exactly like solving a CAPTCHA. In fact, we've all been helping Google train its neural networks for years. These companies have a very dubious concept of consent, and we'll see a lot more of that later. You literally have to help train an AI to access many websites.

At least ImageNet paid the Turkers. But with that said, Mechanical Turk's workforce does skew toward people with no other [01:47:00] options. Oscar Schwartz, writing for IEEE Spectrum, rightly identified that mTurk is designed to make human labor invisible. Jeff Bezos called them artificial artificial intelligence, and Turkers are described offhandedly as a horde, in an article that I read creaming itself over ImageNet.

Turkers were earning a median 2 per hour in 2018, and the situation hasn't really changed in the years following. These people are invisible, poor, and very easy to exploit. Mechanical Turk is slavery as a service, but it was also the first of a new breed. Turkers are generalists, but the AI revolution needed specialists.

Appen is one of many companies specifically selling data labeling for machine learning. Their crowdsourced labor came mostly from Kenya and the Philippines at first, but when Venezuela's economy collapsed, they started snapping up jobless refugees. A journalist for MIT profiled a [01:48:00] Venezuelan app and worker.

And the situation seems pretty dire. Workers have no line of communication with the company, they have to be constantly at their computers ready to accept tasks, and like Mechanical Turk, the site barely works. Appen can afford to push people as hard as they want, because there's a huge labor supply and the workers have nowhere else to go.

They congregate in discords and write scripts to make things tolerable. Because its workers are contractors, Appen pays out like a slot machine. Some tasks offer pennies, some don't even work, and some will offer hundreds of dollars, a relative fortune. I think a good rule of thumb is that any company that has to write a slavery policy is probably up to something.

SECTION B: POTENTIAL USES OF AI AND THE ETHICS WE NEED TO CONSIDER

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B: potential uses of AI and the ethics we need to consider.

Reimagining A.I. | John Wild - Planet: Critical - Air Date 5-16-24

JOHN WILD: Tsiolkovsky studied kind of the physics of his time and et cetera. And he developed some of the first practical device, uh, designs for like the space [01:49:00] rockets and the, the equations required to, for space travel.

And he did this in 1896. This, these kinds of like developments in kind of the technology of space travel emerged from following Federer, realizing that if you ended death and resurrected the dead then the planet would get overrun quite quick. So it was, so it becomes necessary to leave the cradle of the earth.

Does that make sense in the logic?

RACHEL DONALD - HOST, PLANET: CRITICAL: As logic? Sure.

JOHN WILD: The reason this becomes interesting is because Tsiolkovsky is basically the founder of the Russian space program and the former Soviet space program. His rocket designs are currently like, I'm not, not exactly the same, but are, are [01:50:00] the forefathers of our current rocket design. So you've got this link between kind of quite fascinating and crazy.

Uh, futurist imaginaries linked with technology, which ultimately developed the, uh, US space program, but how does this link with Silicon Valley? Well, if you look at say Ray Kurzweil, so you know, Ray Kurzweil is kind of the profit for Google's AI 

program 

I think he's probably the chief engineer.

Yeah. But he also believes in, uh, moving towards immortality. He wanted to be the first person to kind of end death. So, it, there's, like, a lot of these ideas that came from cosmism. I've been translated directly into the kind of AI tech circles, [01:51:00] which circulate. So, so Kurzweil is a serious technique, uh, player within the AI world, particularly in Google.

And this idea of extending life or eradicating death is part of the discourse which circulates within, within this community. Uh, that, that would be, uh, kind of groupings, which call themselves extropia, extropianism, extropianists. So that's not sure how you say it properly, but these ideas link directly to actual technical production.

So, so things like the Fitbit and the quantitative self movement. So the idea of like monitoring your health and maximizing health. Which you must have come across because that's part of the kind of like tech scene. 

RACHEL DONALD - HOST, PLANET: CRITICAL: Human optimization. 

JOHN WILD: Exactly. This human optimization comes out of this attempt to extend [01:52:00] life and eradicate death.

So you can see how the kind of cosmism is kind of like part of it. Kind of plagiarized really right into these kind of like tech ideas, which then like find themselves being sold on Amazon as Fitbits or various other optimization technologies. Uh, Kurzweil himself. In an interview in a film called, I Human, declared that one of his driving force for developing artificial intelligence, and you've got to remember that this is a chief engineer, is to resurrect his own father. 

RACHEL DONALD - HOST, PLANET: CRITICAL: Oh my god. 

JOHN WILD: So, so it's, so you've got Federer repeating himself right at the top of the kind of Google development chain.

RACHEL DONALD - HOST, PLANET: CRITICAL: Oh, God. 

JOHN WILD: And, and, and taking a kind of slightly, uh, uh, a slight side move here. But when we talk about artificial [01:53:00] intelligence, uh, in tech circles, it gets broken down into, Uh, three different areas. The first one's narrow artificial intelligence, which is what we, what we have at the moment, which, uh, it's, it's mainly what we call machine learning.

So it's narrow in that it can do very intelligent activities, such as playing go or chess or predicting texts, but in a very narrow domain,

the next, like the day to day of. Uh, company like OpenAI. Is the development of artificial general intelligence. Now, artificial general intelligence is in Google AI terms, kind of the equivalent of human intelligence. So it's this, this ability to [01:54:00] abstract and apply intelligence to multiple domains. So, it's wider. But this idea of a general intelligence, which is, is what people are striving for an artificial general intelligence.

When you look at what a general intelligence is, then that's actually rooted in the uh, statistic statistician, Charles Spearman and the idea of the G factor, but Charles Spearman. Was a eugenicist and his reason for developing this, ranking of general intelligence was to rank human intelligence for selective breeding, et cetera.

So you've got this, you've got this kind of, this drive for artificial general intelligence. But when, when you actually work out what general intelligence is I mean, Spearman developed this to support his colonial policies, et cetera.

Trying to prove that perhaps other humans were less intelligent for various reasons. [01:55:00] So you've got this kind of hierarchical drive within artificial intelligence for basically a superhuman, or an intelligence, which is beyond human in that kind of way. And just to link him back to the cosmist kind of ideas.

You see that the idea of colonizing the solar system or spreading intelligence to the solar system is, is something which is a core concept. Within AI development circles. I mean, it's also the reason why tech billionaires are building their own spaceships. If you think of space X, blue origin, they're all, they're all influenced by, by these imaginaries. And I'm sure there's probably a lot of people saying I'm over exaggerating this at this point, but I just want to give you a couple of quotes. So this is from, Jürgen Schmid, Schmidhuber, who developed the, uh, natural language [01:56:00] model, which is used in Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa. This is his understanding of what he's doing. He says, so, I'm not a very human centric person. I think I'm a little stepping stone in the evolution of the universe towards a higher complexity. It is clear to me that I am not the crown of creation, and that humankind as a whole is not the crown of creation.

But we are setting the stage for something bigger than us, that transcends us, and will go out there in a way where humans cannot follow and transform the whole universe, or at least the regional universe. So I find the beauty and awe in seeing myself as a part of this much grander theme. 

How will AI change the world? - TED-Ed - Air Date 12-6-22

STUART RUSSEL: There's a big difference between Asking a human to do something and giving that as the objective to an AI system. When you ask a human to fetch you a cup of coffee, you don't mean this should be their life's mission [01:57:00] and nothing else in the universe matters. Even if they have to kill everybody else in Starbucks to get you the coffee before it closes, they should do that.

No, that's not what you mean. You mean all the other things that we mutually care about, they should factor into your behavior as well. And the problem with the way we build AI systems now is we give them a fixed objective, right? Algorithms require us to specify everything in the objective. And if you say, you know, can we fix the acidification of the oceans?

Yeah, you could have a catalytic reaction that does that extremely efficiently, but you know, consumes a quarter of the oxygen in the atmosphere, which would apparently cause us to die fairly slowly and unpleasantly over the course of several hours. Um, so how do we avoid this problem, right? You might say, okay, well, just be more careful about some of these things.

specifying the objective, right? Don't forget the atmospheric oxygen. And then of course, some side effect of the reaction in the ocean poisons all the fish. Okay. Well, I meant don't kill the fish either. And then, well, what about the seaweed? Okay. Don't do anything. That's going to cause all the seaweed to die [01:58:00] and on and on and on.

Right. And the reason that we don't have to do that with humans is that humans often know that they don't know all the things that we care about. If you ask a human to get you a cup of coffee, you know, and you happen to be in the hotel Georges Sank in Paris where the coffee is, I think, 13 euros a cup, it's entirely reasonable to come back and say, well, it's 13 euros, are you sure you want, or I could go next door and, you know, get it.

And it's a perfectly normal thing for a person to do, right? To ask, you know, I'm gonna repaint your house, is it okay if I take off the drain pipes and then put them back? We don't think of this as a terribly sophisticated capability, but AI systems don't have it because the way we build them now, they have to know the full objective.

If we build systems that know that they don't know what the objective is, then they start to exhibit these behaviors, like asking permission before getting rid of all the options in the atmosphere. In all these senses, Control over the AI system comes from the machine's [01:59:00] uncertainty about what the true objective is.

It's when you build machines that believe with certainty that they have the objective. That's when you get a sort of psychopathic behavior, and I think we see the same thing in humans. What happens when general purpose AI hits the real economy? How do things change? Can we adapt? This is a very old point.

Amazingly, Aristotle actually has a passage where he says, Look, if we had fully automated weaving machines and plectrums that could pluck the lyre and produce music without any humans, then we wouldn't need any workers. That idea, which I think it was Keynes who called it technological unemployment in 1930, is very obvious to people, right?

They think, yeah, of course, if the machine does the work, then I'm going to be unemployed. If you think about the warehouses that companies are currently operating for e commerce, They are half automated. The way it works is that on old wayhouses, where you've got tons of stuff piled up all over the place, and the humans go [02:00:00] and rummage around and then bring it back and send it off, there's a robot who goes and gets the shelving unit that contains the thing that you need, but the human has to pick the object up.

out of the bin or off the shelf, because that's still too difficult. But, you know, at the same time, if you make a robot that is accurate enough to be able to pick pretty much any object, and there's a very wide variety of objects that you can buy, that would, at a stroke, eliminate three or four million jobs.

There's an interesting story that E. M. Forster wrote where everyone is entirely machine dependent. The story is really about the fact that if you hand over the management of your civilization to machines, you then lose the incentive to understand it yourself or to teach the next generation how to understand it.

And you can see Wall E actually as a modern version where everyone is enfeebled and infantilized by the machine, and that hasn't been possible up to now, right? We put a lot of our civilization into books, but the books [02:01:00] can't run it for us. And so we always have to teach the next generation. If you work it out, it's about a trillion person years of teaching and learning and an unbroken chain that goes back tens of thousands of generations.

What happens if that chain breaks? And I think that's something we have to understand as AI moves forward. The actual date of arrival of general purpose AI, you're not going to be able to pinpoint it, right? It isn't a single day. It's also not the case that it's all or nothing. The impact is going to be increasing, so with every advance in AI, it significantly expands the range of tasks.

So, in that sense, I think most experts say by the end of the century, we're very, very likely to have general purpose AI. The median is something around 2045. I'm a little more on the conservative side. I think the problem is harder than we think. I like what John McAfee, who was sort of one of the founders of AI, when he was asked this question, he said, well, somewhere between five and 500 years, and we're going to need, I think, several Einsteins to [02:02:00] make it happen.

AI and the future of humanity | Yuval Noah Harari at the Frontiers Forum - Yuval Noah Harari - Air Date 5-14-23

YUVAL NOAH HARARI: I guess everybody here is already aware of some of the most fundamental abilities of the new AI tools--abilities like writing text, drawing images, composing music and writing code. But there are many additional capabilities that are emerging, like deep faking people's voices and images, like drafting bills, finding weaknesses both in computer code and also in legal contracts, and in legal agreements. But perhaps most importantly, the new AI tools are gaining the ability to develop deep and intimate relationships with human beings. 

Each of these abilities deserves an entire discussion. And it is difficult for us to understand their full [02:03:00] implications. So, let's make it simple. When we take all of these abilities together as a package, they boil down to one very, very big thing: the ability to manipulate and to generate language, whether with words, or images, or sounds. 

most important aspect of the current phase of the ongoing AI revolution is that AI is gaining mastery of language at a level that surpasses the average human ability. And by gaining mastery of language, AI is seizing the master key, unlocking the doors of all our institutions, from banks to temples. Because language is the tool that we use [02:04:00] to give instructions to our bank and also to inspire heavenly visions in our minds. Another way to think of it is that AI has just hacked the operating system of human civilization. 

The operating system of every human culture in history has always been language. In the beginning was the word. We use language to create mythology and laws, to create gods and money, to create art and science, to create friendships and nations. 

For example, human rights are not a biological reality. They are not inscribed in our DNA. Human rights is something that we created with language by telling stories and writing laws.

Gods are also [02:05:00] not a biological or physical reality. Gods, too, is something that we humans have created with language by telling legends and writing scriptures. 

Money is not a biological or physical reality. Banknotes are just worthless pieces of paper, and at present more than 90 percent of the money in the world is not even banknotes; it's just electronic information in computers passing from here to there. What gives money of any kind value is only the stories that people like bankers and finance ministers and cryptocurrency gurus tell us about money. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, and Bernie Madoff didn't create much of real value, but, unfortunately, they were all [02:06:00] extremely capable storytellers.

Now, what would it mean for human beings to live in a world where perhaps most of the stories, melodies, images, laws, policies, and tools are shaped by a non-human, alien intelligence, which knows how to exploit, with superhuman efficiency, the weaknesses, biases, and addictions of the human mind, and also knows how to form deep and even intimate relationships with human beings.

That's the big question. Already today, in games like chess, no human can hope to beat a computer. What if the same thing happens in art, in politics, economics, and even in religion? When people think about [02:07:00] ChatGPT and the other new AI tools, they are often drawn to examples like kids using ChatGPT to write their school essays. What will happen to the school system when kids write essays with ChatGPT? Horrible.

But this kind of question misses the big picture. Forget about the school essays. Instead, think, for example, about the next US presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of the new AI tools that can mass produce political manifestos, fake news stories, and even holy scriptures for new cults.

In recent years, the politically influential QAnon cult has formed around anonymous online texts known as Qdrops. Now, followers of this cult, which are millions now in the US and the rest [02:08:00] of the world, collected, revered, and interpreted these Qdrops as some kind of new scripture, as a sacred text.

Now, to the best of our knowledge, all previous Qdrops were composed by human beings, and bots only helped to disseminate these texts online. But in the future, we might see the first cults and religions in history whose revered texts were written by a nonhuman intelligence. And of course, religions throughout history claimed that their holy books were written by a nonhuman intelligence. This was never true before. This could become true very, very quickly, with far-reaching consequences. 

Now, on a more prosaic level, we might soon find ourselves conducting lengthy online discussions [02:09:00] about abortion, or about climate change, or about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with entities that we think are fellow human beings, but are actually AI bots.

Now the catch is that it's utterly useless--it's pointless--for us to waste our time trying to convince an AI bot to change its political views. But the longer we spend talking with the bot, the better it gets to know us and understand how to hone its messages in order to shift our political views or our economic views or anything else.

Through its mastery of language, AI, as I said, could also form intimate relationships with people and use the power of intimacy to influence our opinions and worldview.

Now, there is no indication that AI has, [02:10:00] as I said, any consciousness, any feelings of its own. But in order to create fake intimacy with human beings, AI doesn't need feelings of its own; it only needs to be able to inspire feelings in us, to get us to be attached to it. 

Now, in June 2022, there was a famous incident when the Google engineer Blaik Lemoine publicly claimed that the AI chatbot Lambda, on which he was working, has become sentient. This very controversial claim cost him his job. He was fired. Now, the most interesting thing about this episode wasn't Lemoine's claim, which was most probably false. The really interesting thing was his willingness to risk and ultimately lose his very lucrative job for the sake of the AI chatbot that he thought he [02:11:00] was protecting. If AI can influence people to risk and lose their jobs, what else can it induce us to do?

SECTION C: REGULATING AI

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally section C: regulating AI.

Current, former OpenAI employees warn company not doing enough control dangers of AI - PBS Newshour - Air Date 6-5-24

GEOFF BENNETT - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: So tell us more about who is behind this open letter and what specifically they're asking for.

BOBBY ALLYN: Yes it's a number of current and former OpenAI employees.

I actually spoke to one of them just today. And what they're saying is really loud and clear. They think OpenAI is too aggressively in search of profits and market share and that they are not focused on responsibly developing A.I. products.

And, remember, this is really important, Geoff because OpenAI started as a nonprofit research lab that was — its aim when it was founded was to develop A.I. products, different than, say, Meta or Microsoft or Amazon, which are these huge publicly traded companies that are competing with one [02:12:00] another, right?

OpenAI was supposed to be a nonprofit answer to big tech. And these employees say, look, it looks like you're operating just like big tech. You're pushing out products too quickly and society just isn't ready for them.

GEOFF BENNETT - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: The letter lays out a number of risks and warnings, including — quote — "the loss of control of autonomous A.I. systems, potentially resulting in human extinction."

Human extinction. What do these folks know that we don't?

[Laughter]

And how seriously should we take this concern?

BOBBY ALLYN: It sounds pretty dire, doesn't it?

And it goes back to this kind of nerdy phrase that A.I. researchers like citing known as P[doom], P meaning what's the probability and doom being — well, we know what doom means. And they like bringing this up because the theory is, if A.I. gets really smart, if it becomes super intelligent and can exceed the skills and brainpower of humanity, maybe one day it will turn on us.

Now, again, this is kind of a theoretical academic exercise at this point, that these sort of [02:13:00] killer robots would be marching around cities and at war with humanity. I don't think we're anywhere near that. But they are underscoring this, because, look, that's sort of a hypothetical risk.

But we're seeing real risks play out every single day, whether it's the rise of deepfakes, whether it's A.I. being used to impersonate people, whether it's A.I. being used to supercharge dangerous misinformation around the Web. There are real risks that, according to these former employees, OpenAI doesn't care enough about and isn't doing much to mitigate.

GEOFF BENNETT - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Well, in other OpenAI news, the media world seems to be split over whether to partner with the company.

The company recently announced paid deals with the Associated Press, "The Atlantic," Vox Media, which allows them to gain access to these media outlets' content to help train their A.I. models. Meantime, you got The New York Times suing OpenAI over copyright infringement.

How do you see this all shaking out and what are the arguments on both sides of this debate over whether [02:14:00] to actually work with OpenAI?

BOBBY ALLYN: Yes, OpenAI has publishers by the scruff of their neck.

OpenAI systems were trained on the corpus of the entire Internet, and that includes every large broadcaster and newspaper you can think of. And there, as you mentioned, are two camps emerging now. In the one camp are the publishers who say, you know what, let's strike licensing deals, let's try to bring some revenue in, let's play nice with OpenAI, because we have no choice. This is the future. OpenAI is going ruthlessly towards this direction. Let's try to make some money here.

And then you have newspapers like The New York Times who are in the other camp and have chose the other direction, which is, no, no, no, OpenAI. You took all of our articles without consent, without payment. Now you're making lots of money off of the knowledge and reporting and original work that goes into, say, a New York Times article. We don't want to strike a licensing deal with us. In fact, your systems are based on material that was stolen [02:15:00] from us, so you owe us a lot of money and we do not want to play nice.

So, the way it's really going to shake out, I think, is, you know, some publishers are striking these deals. Others will join The New York Times' crusade to go after OpenAI. But it's a really, really interesting time, because, no matter what, they have this material, right, Geoff?

I mean, ChatGPT, every time you ask it a question, it is spitting out answers that are based in part on New York Times' articles, Associated Press articles, NPR articles, you name it. So that's just the future. So the question is, do you strike a deal or do you take them to court? And we're just seeing different sort of strategies here.

Former OpenAI Engineer William Saunders on Silence, Safety, and the Right to Warn - Your Undivided Attention - Air Date 6-7-24

TRISTAN HARRIS - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: If you try to ground this for listeners, like, you, you're taking a big risk here with your colleagues at OpenAI, and you're coming out and saying, We need a right to whistleblow about important things that could be going wrong here.

So far what you've shared is sort of more of a technical description of the box and how do we interpret the neurons in the box and what they're doing. Why does this matter for safety? What's at stake if we don't get this right? 

WILLIAM SAUNDERS: I think, you know, you can take suppose we've like taken this box and it like [02:16:00] does the task and then, you know, let's say we want to take every company in the world and integrate this box into every company in the world where this box can be used to, you know, answer customer queries or process information.

And let's suppose, you know, the box is like very good at, you know, giving advice to people. So now, you know, maybe CEOs and politicians are like getting advice and then maybe as things progress. Into the future, maybe this box is generally regarded as being, you know, as smart or smarter than most humans and able to do most jobs better than most humans.

And so now we've got this box that nobody knows exactly how it works, and nobody knows sort of how it might behave in novel circumstances. And there are some specific circumstances where, like, the box might do something that's different and possibly malicious. And again, this box is as smart or smarter than humans.

It's right in OpenAI's charter that this is, like, what OpenAI and other companies are aiming for, [02:17:00] right? And so, you know, maybe the world rewards AIs that try to sort of, like, gather more power for themselves. If you If you give an AI a bunch of money and it goes out and makes more money, then, you know, you give it even more money and power and you make more copies of this AI, and this might reward AI systems that, like, really care more about getting as much money and power in the world without any sense of ethics and what is right or wrong.

And so then, suppose you have a bunch of these questionably ethical AI boxes integrated deeply into your society, advising politicians and CEOs. This is kind of a world where you could imagine, gradually or suddenly, you wake up one day and like, humans are no longer really in control of society. And, you know, maybe they can run subtle mass persuasion to, you know, convince people to vote the way they want.

And so, it's very unclear how rapidly this kind of transition would happen. I think, you know, there's a broad range of possibilities. But some of these are [02:18:00] on timescales where it would be very hard for people to sort of realize what's going on. This is the kind of scenario. So, that keeps me up at night, that has sort of driven my research.

You want some way to learn if the AI system is giving you bad information. But, we are already in this world today.

AZA RASKIN - HOST, YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION: I think what we've established is a couple things. One is that, like, William, you're right there at the frontier of the techniques for understanding how AI models work and how to make them safe. Um, that I think what I'm hearing you say is There's sort of like two major kinds of risks, although you said there are even more.

One of them is if AI systems are more effective at doing certain kinds of decision making than us, then obviously people are going to use them and replace human beings in the decision making. If an AI can write an email that's more effective at getting sales or getting responses than I am, then obviously I'm sort of a sucker if I don't use it.

[02:19:00] The AI to help me write that email. And then if we don't understand how they work, something might happen and now we've integrated them everywhere, and that's really scary. That's sort of like, risk number one. And then risk number two is that we don't know their capabilities. I remember, you know, GPT 3 was shipped to at least tens of millions of people before it was, uh, anyone realized that it could do research grade chemistry, or that GPT 4 had been shipped to 100 million people before people realized it actually did pretty well at doing theory of mind, that is, being able to strategically model what somebody else's mind is thinking and change its behavior accordingly.

And those are the kinds of behaviors we'd really like to know before it gets shipped, and that's in part what interpretability is all about, is making sure that there aren't hidden capabilities underneath the hood. And it just leads me actually to sort of a very personal question for you, which is, if you've been thinking about all of this stuff, like why, why did you want to work at OpenAI in the first place?

WILLIAM SAUNDERS: So one, you know, one point to clarify interpretability is certainly not the only way to do this, and there's a lot of other [02:20:00] research into sort of like trying to figure out what are the dangerous capabilities and even try to predict them. But it is still in a place where nobody, including people at OpenAI, knows what the next frontier model will be capable of doing when they start out training it or even when they have it.

But yeah, uh, the reasoning for working at OpenAI came down to, um, I wanted to do the most useful, cutting edge research. And so both the research projects that I talked about were, you know, using the current, like, state of the art within OpenAI. The way that the world is set up, there's a lot more friction and difficulty if you're outside of one of these companies.

So if you're in a more independent organization, You know, you might have to, you have to wait until a model is released into the world before you can work on it. Uh, you have to access it through an API. And there's only sort of like a limited set of things that you can do. And so, the best place to be is within one of these AI labs.

And, uh, that comes with some strings attached. [02:21:00] What kinds of strings? So, while you're working at a lab, you have to worry about if you communicate something publicly, will it Be something that someone at the company will be unhappy with. In the back of your mind, it is always a possibility to, you know, be fired.

And then also, there's a bunch of, you know, subtle social pressure. Like, you don't want to annoy your co workers, the people you have to see every day. You don't want to, like, criticize the work that they're doing. Again, the work is usually good, but the decisions to ship, you know, the decision to say, like, we've done enough work, we're prepared to put this out into the world, I think is a very tricky decision.

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 section of the show included clips from The [02:22:00] Majority Report, Democracy Now!, Jimmy McGee, Planet Critical, TED-Ed, Yuval Noah Harari, the PBS NewsHour, and Your Undivided Attention. 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 Andrew, for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. And 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 [02:23:00] show notes, along with a link to join our Discord community, where you can also continue the discussion. 

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.