Patrick Ottman (3:42)

Would you say that these talks that.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (3:44)

Are going on right now are fruitful? So far, yes.

Michelle Martin (3:47)

Fruitful.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (3:47)

Things like enrichment, things like ballistic missiles, things like proxy forces in the region.

Patrick Ottman (3:53)

Is that completely out of the question.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (3:55)

For you or is that something you could at least talk about? President Trump said no nuclear weapons and we are fully agree. We fully agree with that. That could be a very good deal. Of course, in return we expect sanction lifting so that deal is, is possible. Let's do not talk about impossible things.

Patrick Ottman (4:14)

What do you think the consequences would.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (4:15)

Be if there was a full on military confrontation between Iran and the United States? If war starts, that would be a disaster for everybody. In the previous war, we tried hard to limit the scope of war between Iran and Israel. This time, if it is between Iran and the U.S. since the U.S. bases are spread all over the region, then inevitably, you know, many parts of the region would be involved, engaged and that could be very dangerous. Being prepared doesn't mean that we want war. We want to prevent a war.

Bianna Golodrigo (5:01)

Meanwhile, the brutal crackdown that killed thousands of protesters last month appears to be almost forgotten. Let's get into all of this now. Abbas Malani is an Iranian American historian and author of the landmark biography of the former Shah which I'm almost through reading right now. It is a phenomenal book. And he's joining me now from California. Abbas, thank you so much for joining us. I mentioned there in the introduction that the murder of thousands of protesters is all but forgotten. I know that's not the case with people like you, with so many of those Iranians who have fled the country, who are living abroad, and for so many of the Iranians that remain in, in Iran right now, watching things unfold. On the one hand you have a massive show of force as we have reported the President even calling it a massive armada ready for action. On the other hand, you have efforts being made for continued diplomacy and talks. Steve Witkoff headed to the region now, perhaps even further talks with other US Officials and Iranian officials later this week. How are you interpreting this? Is this Washington looking to prevent military strikes or just stays away from commencing them?

Abbas Malani (6:16)

I have a hard time understanding why and what Washington is trying to do. If you carefully listen to what Mr. Aloft just told your interviewer, this is a discussion that is absolutely destined to Fail. The minimum conditions the US has set are three. Aravchi basically said they won't accept any of them. The minimum conditions, the French foreign minister has said, are even more. He says human rights, the death of these people, the tens of thousands who are now in prison, must be on the table. Arakchi says we can guarantee that we won't build a bomb. Well, they have guaranteed that they won't build a bomb for 35 years, and they have lied. They three days ago went on television and said, we can build the bomb overnight if we want to. So I don't understand the logic of this meeting. Maybe only, as you said, they're trying to prepare all the place army in place. But to the people of Iran, who have suffered enormously, giving this regime another chance at lying is betraying the trust that they have put in the international community to stand for them. People did not go to their death so that the US can get a better deal. People went to their death and are still fighting in order for a democratic Iran. Without a democratic Iran, this regime will make another deal and will cheat as they have on every deal that they have made over the last 35 years, including nuclear deals.

Bianna Golodrigo (8:08)

And on the nuclear front, it's hard to see how President Trump views it as a victory that he walks away with, even if Iran agrees to once and for all end its nuclear enrichment program. Because the president just described the same program as completely obliterated just a few months ago following the strikes by the United States. So that may be difficult for the president to view as something that he walked away with without having to go to war or strike Iran again. But to your point about the Iranian people not taking to the streets because of the nuclear program, what is it, in your view that the United States should be doing right now? Even in terms of the language from the president on down, and then you know your thoughts on whether you think a strike is an appropriate response.

Abbas Malani (9:00)

I think what the United States and the international community should do right now until is tell the Iranian regime that this will not stand. You cannot kill thousands of people, arrest tens of thousands and think it's normal. Mr. Khamenei went on television the other day and declared that these people who came to the street, these tens of thousands who came to the streets, some would say several million, were part of a coup d' etat and ISIS like coup d' etat, and they were rightfully suppressed. His president says these were innocent Iranian people that should make peace with them. The international community should tell Khamenei that this is not a coup. This is a massive resistance against a corrupt, despotic, incompetent regime. The economy is collapsing. People are suffering in Iran. That's what the international community should be, I think, in a unified language. Tell this regime read, I suggest Mr. Witkoff read some of the material that has been put on Khamenei's website within the last 48 hours. I read those. It's very clear they think they're not going to give up any of those three things. And the idea that they will give up the bomb, as Arafc says, is repeating the lie that they have been telling the international community for 40 years. The International community should build its effort towards making a democratic Iran, not by military attack. The people of Iran want to have democracy. Help them make the playing field more equal instead of putting lifelines to a murderous regime that right now, again, I say go to their website. Go to Khamenei's website. He said we won the 12 day war and we'll win this one. And we're not going to give up any of these. We won't give up proxies, we won't give up enrichment, we won't give up missile program. So what are you negotiating for?

Bianna Golodrigo (11:09)

Yeah. President Trump publicly put down a red line and the Ayatollah bulldozed his way over it weeks ago. That was January 3, when the President said that there would be a response if more civilians were killed. And the Supreme Leader all but ignored that and continued to mow down his own people. In terms of what a democracy in a day after could look like, I want to get your thoughts on what was written in the Economist by a dissident, Amir Hossein Ganbashq. And he says the key is dismantling the Islamist theocracy and the Ayatollah himself right now. And that the solution in terms of what tomorrow looks like in toppling the Ayatollah would be something he describes as a coalition from Pahlavi to Mousavi, and that is uniting the crown prince also living abroad here in the United States, Reza Pahlavi with the former prime minister to push a referendum forward for a new constitution. He says that would give them more legitimacy with the Iranian people. Is that, do you think, a plausible bridge or is it fantasy?

Abbas Malani (12:23)

Well, in the way he is articulating it, I think it is a fantasy bridge. But the idea has been around for several years. Many people have been arguing that what can dislodge this regime is what is historically called a pacted transition, like something that happened in South Africa, something that happened in Poland, something that happened in Chile, where the opposition agrees with the regime. Some in the regime, some in the regime who realize the game is up, they can continue, and they together find a path forward towards democracy. I think that is an idea. But right now, I think the situation has become radicalized by Mr. Khamenei's killing of thousands. I think part of why he went to this extreme action, why he killed so many people and so brutally and so brazenly, is precisely to make that impossible. He wants to radicalize. He wants to polarize. Mr. Mousavi, that he refers to just issued a very brave announcement, basically saying he is willing to support a referendum, basically saying that Khamenei has to stop, has to be stopped, basically saying something even more important. He asked the Iranian military to put down their guns and not kill the people. But then he said, we want to go back to an Islamic state. And that has caused the ire of thousands. Go on social media and see how they have attacked this guy who's been in prison for 14 years now for even Rauchin died of an Islamic state. That's how angry people are at this regime. And anything that even smells of Khamenei and his regime. But that idea, I think the idea of a transition that connects the Iranian diaspora now more than ever, united around Prince Reza Halabi and the opposition in Iran. People like Mousavi, people like Nargis Mohammadi, people like Nasrina. So today there are many people who have fought this regime for 40 years. Everybody has to come together and I think get rid of this regime, which will then and only then solve the nuclear problem. The nuclear problem has one solution. Iran's nuclear problem has one solution, a democratic Iran, nothing else.

Bianna Golodrigo (14:55)

And to your point about the goal here from Khamenei, to sort of radicalize people, that is something that is already being described as potentially the groundworks for a civil war in the country. I'd like to read from the reporting from the Economist in their take on this. And they write, the mayhem that followed the Western toppling of tyrants in Iraq and Libya also offers a cautionary tale. Nor is the exit of Mr. Khamenei likely to be enough to satisfy the regime's opponents. They want the edifice he built to fall with him. Meanwhile, Iran's rulers have seen the consequences of eviscerating the ruling class, as happened in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's overthrow in 2003. In Iran, too, expect them to fight to retain their power and assets. Either way, chaos looms. Of course, Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Iraq. But do you share those concerns?

Abbas Malani (15:52)

I share those concerns, but I also share very firmly that Iran is not Libya, Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a country that has been fighting for 150 years for democracy. Iran today, as we speak, as one of the most remarkable women's movement anywhere in the world. In the world. Iran has a civil society. Iran is Internet savvy. Iran has developed a discourse of pluralism inside Iran and even outside Iran, there are people outside Iran. There are people inside Iran who want to continue this bloodshed, who want to kill, talk about killing every Mullah and every IRGC commander. That's not going to get us to a democratic Iran. We have to allow people who want to change their ideas, to change their sides, to join people, to get rid of this curse that is called the lay at fatigue or the rule of the clergy.

Bianna Golodrigo (16:50)

And what is the. Obviously, this is something that has to come internally, but it's pretty clear at this point, and the President has said as much, that the US Will respond if these atrocities continue, which they did against Iranian people. And the threat of Iran remains pernicious to its neighbors and the world. So what is the best thing that the United States can do right now in terms of effectively aiding Iranians to that democracy you speak of?

Abbas Malani (17:21)

Again, as I have said even in your program before, I think right now we need to equalize the playing field. This regime is having a go at the Iranian people at will. We have to stop it. We have to give people access to Internet. This regime has created literally a social media iron wall around Iran. The Internet is shut down, phones are shut down. The assets of this regime, the oligarchs connected to this regime, have to be frozen. These things more than any attack, will give the people of Iran hope that the international community is helping.

Bianna Golodrigo (18:00)

And final question quickly. When Khamenei says that an attack on Iran would trigger regional war, if this is an existential threat for him and his regime, is that a bluff or is that something that you think should be cautioned by the United States? And what does a regional war look like?

Abbas Malani (18:22)

I think it should be taken seriously because I think Khamenei does feel existentially threatened and he is the kind of a murderous ruler who is willing to destroy the country, kill thousands more if it prolongs his power. But I think the military has possibilities for that. This regime is far more diminished now than it was two years ago when it was making these threats. So the threat has to be taken seriously, but we must also be aware, and I think that was evident in what President Trump suggested, that of course he's going to make threats. Of course, if you're being threatened and you're a bully, as this regime is, you're going to make threats to make people afraid of attacking group. They should be worried about this, but they should realize that this is a much, much, much diminished regime than it was ever before.

Bianna Golodrigo (19:15)

And a regime that, you know, given Iran's long history, is relatively young, 46, 47 years old. All of this can be found again, more detailed in your phenomenal book, which I highly recommend. Abbas Malani, thank you so much for joining us. And later, thank you. Later in the program, with Nicolas Maduro in custody, what lies ahead for one of Venezuela's closest allies? Patrick Altman reports from Havana on how life in Cuba is beginning to change. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, we've talked a lot about how AI affects teenagers, their social development, their schoolwork. We were taught how to use AI as a tool to grade our essays and get feedback on them. And we were taught very specifically, like, the line between, like, this is feedback, this is cheating. But what about their futures when it comes to college applications and career planning? How has AI entered the conversation? Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. Now. In Venezuela, one month after the capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, there appears to be a sense of stability as the United States asserts its presence and power. The government has approved a new law enabling easier foreign investments into the country's oil reserves. But meanwhile, Trump is trying to cut off Cuba from this lifeline, threatening tariffs on any country supplying the crucial resource. Cuba's government declared an international emergency as without oil, Cubans face very harsh living conditions. Correspondent Patrick Ottman reports from Havana.

Patrick Ottman (21:08)

In the US attack on Venezuela to capture Nicolas Maduro, over 100 people were killed, among them, 32 Cuban soldiers, including Maduro's closest bodyguards, operating there in secret. Now Cuba's closest ally and more importantly, its biggest oil supplier appears to be under de facto American control. And this is sending a chill through Cuban society about what maybe next. Cuba is really a nation that's very close to failing. It is a prediction many US Presidents have made. But the revolution founded by Fidel Castro has endured. I've been a foreign correspondent in Cuba for 14 years, a country that suddenly feels very different to me. And I want to find out what the operation in Caracas means for the future of 9 million Cubans who live in this island nation. The Cuban government received the remains of their fallen soldiers from Venezuela with a hero's welcome after decades of denying their presence there. Thousands of people lined the streets that day and waited hours to pay their respects. This direct confrontation between the US and Cuban soldiers, that's not something we've seen for decades. And it's left many people here wondering the loss of their ally in Venezuela and how is that going to impact them? Outside in the line, I meet Ileana Medrano. What would happen if there was an invasion of Cuba by US Troops? Cubans are no strangers to economic hardship. Since Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution, they have weathered America's embargo and their own government's disastrous economic missteps. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Venezuela emerged as Savannah's lifeline. Here's how the agreement worked. Cuba sent thousands of doctors, teachers, sports trainers, as well as military and intelligence officials to Venezuela in return for oil. Now, with Maduro and Jalen out of the picture, it's not clear if Venezuela can or will continue the oil shipments that the Trump administration has vowed to block. To make matters worse, Havana's second largest oil supplier, Mexico, has also reportedly suspended oil shipments. Already we are witnessing the impacts. It can take weeks to get a spot in a gas line using an online system. Gerardo tells me he's waited 29 days. As night falls, many here will be left in the dark. And so longer and longer apagones blackouts are becoming the new normal in many parts of the island. The power is off more hours a day than it is on. Some people tell us they are fed up, but they're too scared to speak to us on camera. Others, like angel, who sells his coconut sweets on the street, say they are resigned to a worsening power situation. The Trump administration vows the pressure will continue on Cuba. For now, the Cuban government is defiant, calling for one of the largest demonstrations outside the US Embassy in Havana in years. Even some of the younger people in the crowd, like Ivan, say they feel the mood in their country has changed. When you saw bombs falling on Caracas, how did that make you personally feel.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (24:57)

In the 21st century, seeing this kind of actions, violating totally the international, international law, acting unilaterally?

Michelle Martin (25:06)

That's something very worrying.

Patrick Ottman (25:08)

For those of us who cover the normalization of diplomatic ties between the US And Cuba under the Obama administration, there's a sense of whiplash. I've even heard from a US Embassy source that diplomats there have been advised to, quote, have their Bags packed as the Trump administration explores new ways to destabilize the communist ride government.

Bianna Golodrigo (25:31)

Patrick Altman reporting there. When contacted for comment, the U.S. state Department said that it would not comment on internal meetings, but that there were no indications of any embassy drawdown in Havana. Let's get more on this now. Michael J. Bustamante is an associate professor and chair in Cuban studies at the University of Miami, and he's joining me now from Miami. Michael, it's good to see you. This is obviously a regional, a country you have covered well for years now. You are still talking to sources there in Cuba, obviously a large Cuban population, many dissidents and family members of those who fled the country still remain in Florida and in the Miami area. What are they telling you about what life has been like and what's changed since early this year when the president of the United States ordered the raid and the seizure of Maduro? And then now obviously the focus the blockade on Cuba.

Michael J. Bustamante (26:34)

It's good to be with you. I'm hearing all kinds of things, from excitement and even hope to real worry and a grave sense of preoccupation. I'm in touch with family who are still on the island, friends who are still on the island, and lots of family and friends also who have left the island in more recent years. So I think it's a real mix. It seems the lead in reference the normalization period from 10 years ago, and that just seems like such a lifetime ago. Cuba's in such a different place and there are some real hard choices facing the Cuban government and the Cuban people right now. It strikes me, whether they like it or not.

Bianna Golodrigo (27:07)

Well, President Trump now says that the United States will, quote, work a deal with Cuba as he cuts off their lifeline to Venezuelan oil, putting additional pressure on Mexico to do the same. Will this coercive pressure work? And I guess more importantly, what does a deal with this regime look like?

Michael J. Bustamante (27:29)

That's the million dollar question. I mean, traditionally, the Cuban government has always rejected the idea that they would make any changes to their internal political or economic order in a kind of course of negotiation with the United States. They have always insisted that they are willing to negotiate in good faith with the government of the United States, but on the basis of mutual respect. The days of mutual respect are over under this administration. We're seeing a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. The Donro Doctrine is being called the exertion of unilateral force. And Cuba is, is outmanned and outgunned, simply put. So the question of sort of just Resistance indefinitely comes with really, really grave risks. As to what a deal could look like, I'm not sure, because unlike in Venezuela, to use that comparison, there's not such an obvious natural resource space that the United States wants access to. Unlike in Venezuela, at least, it seems there's not such a clear figure like we have in Del Rodriguez that comes from within the current Cuban government that would be seen as an honest broker by that government and also someone to sort of carry a situation forward. And I'm not sure that for Cuban American elected officials or the Secretary of State, that the idea of dealing with any remnants of this government in Havana is appetizing, certainly something that they've opposed for a long time, for the entirety of their political careers. So it's really hard for me to envision what the shape of that negotiation might look like and what might satisfy the Trump administration's demands.

Bianna Golodrigo (28:55)

Well, this comes under the direction now and leadership of Marco Rubio. The president has made that clear. The president's secretary of state, national security adviser, and himself a Cuban American, his family fled Cuba and moved to the United States. And he has made clear throughout his political career that the focus on Cuba, regime change there, bringing democracy, restoring democracy to that island, has been a prime primary foreign policy focus for him. And when he was asked about what the day after plan, what the US Plan in general is for Cuba, as recently as last week when he was testifying before the Senate, he didn't really give concrete answers. Here's what he said.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (29:42)

Regime change?

Michael J. Bustamante (29:43)

Yes. Oh, no. I think we would love to see the regime change.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (29:45)

We would like to.

Bianna Golodrigo (29:46)

That doesn't mean that we're going to.

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (29:47)

Make it change, but we would love.

Michael J. Bustamante (29:48)

To see it change.

Bianna Golodrigo (29:50)

Does that suggest to you that there's a plan? Is it reassuring? I mean, I'm not expecting that he would divulge everything to his former colleagues there in the Senate, but there wasn't much detail.

Michael J. Bustamante (30:04)

I agree. There wasn't much detail. It seems to me that the Secretary of State in those remarks was in a way saying something he said all along, which is that he and others would like to see regime change in Cuba, but sort of keeping their options open. I think one thing that Venezuela thing has made quite clear and is quite interesting is that this administration and the Secretary of State have determined or recognized that in order to perhaps get a political transition in Venezuela, they're going to have to deal with some remnants of the Maduro government. It's sort of a transition period, they're calling it in Cuba. I would argue something similar would have to take place. There would have to be some kind of a pact. But when the sort of foreign policy position of your entire career has been based on the idea that any negotiations at all are sort of morally objectionable, it's hard to see what a negotiation with Cuba in particular would look like.

Bianna Golodrigo (30:53)

And what somebody like Delsey Rodriguez would look like. I mean, Cuba has got a tighter state security, a weaker civil society, and not much of an opposition at all. I mean, we've spent so much time focusing on the weekend opposition in Venezuela, but it is still alive and kicking. We don't have that same factor in Cuba. So does that make the option of some sort of defector or somebody that will actually work with the United States, does that eliminate that option?

Michael J. Bustamante (31:26)

I don't know if it eliminates the option so much as makes it the only way forward. You're right that to compare, it's difficult to compare the state of the opposition for Cuba without a Venezuela. There is a Cuban opposition both on the island and in the diaspora, but a great part of that opposition has been either exiled or imprisoned. So they are in even a less of a position than the Venezuelan opposition was to sort of force a transition that they might like to see, which it seems to me, leaves the US Government just a couple of options. Either you're trying to use pressure to force a negotiation with a Cuban government insider and some sources suggest that US Diplomats are suggesting that that's one of the things they're exploring, or you are actually trying to precipitate a kind of humanitarian crisis that would then bring about the need for a more forceful US Action. I think the latter is something that the White House would certainly want to avoid. But whether they can find a negotiating partner inside Havana, that's still, as I've a huge question mark here.

Bianna Golodrigo (32:27)

Well, and the White House is reportedly considering now a naval blockade as well, which would essentially mean direct military intervention. How significant and how risky would that be given the 1962 missile crisis? I mean, this is something clearly that Donald Trump doesn't want to repeat from jfk.

Michael J. Bustamante (32:48)

Yeah, I think there was some news stories last week suggesting that an actual military naval blockade was under consideration to block oil shipments. They opted for, I guess, a less dramatic step first, which was to threaten tariffs, which of course is still a very dramatic step in its own right. You know, it seems that that one of the primary targets of those tariffs, Mexico, which remained a significant oil supplier to Cuba, is backing off. So maybe the Trump administration will conclude that they've gotten what they wanted to. I think it's still a question. One country that is in a position to ostensibly provide some oil relief for Cuba, which again, that oil is critical for its energy system, is Russia. And in a scenario in which you have an actual naval blockade and Russian steamers ships heading toward Havana with oil shipments, it does give one a sense of deja vu from 1962. I don't think we're there yet, but, you know, cooler heads prevailed then and hopefully they would now if we find ourselves in a similar scenario.

Bianna Golodrigo (33:44)

Yeah, but if we were to follow Russia's reaction, response to Venezuela and an ally there didn't really come to Maduro's aid. And now we see things, things unfolding with regards to Iran. The two aren't necessarily allies, but they clearly have cooperated. And Russia has relied a lot on Iranian drones throughout its war on Ukraine. And so it would be interesting and quite stunning if Moscow did intervene when it comes to Cuba. We've also seen the Cuban military now perform drills and really ratchet up its own rhetoric and propaganda on television. Is this fear from your perspective of this administration, or is this an administration in a regime that has gone through past crises and feels that it can survive yet another day?

Michael J. Bustamante (34:37)

To me, these military mobilizations or exercises seem largely performative. I think in a circumstance of actual military confrontation, there's no question which side would win. This is about trying to sort of rally the population around the idea of national defense and around what are objectively challenges to international law as it's typically understood. But I think there is a sentiment. What I hope is that there's a sentiment in Havana that, like it or not, this time is different and that, you know, cutting a deal of some kind might be the way to a great avert greater catastrophe. I would note that despite the sort of strong intransigent rhetoric coming from Havana, initially yesterday there was a much cooler statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign affairs suggesting that they are willing to negotiate and want to cooperate with the United States on issues of national security. I don't think it's too much to really get this administration's attention yet, but the shift in tone was noticeable and perhaps lends credence to some of the rumors that are circulating that there are perhaps some quiet talks happening somewhere.

Bianna Golodrigo (35:39)

Weil, I know you are hearing from so many Cubans and Cuban Americans and those that are that are on the island right now commending the president and his focus on Cuba. Now, if they were or if you were to advise this administration on one thing, to avoid this turning into a massive humanitarian crisis and backfiring against the U.S. what would that be?

Michael J. Bustamante (36:07)

Well, it's difficult to just advise one side of this conflict without advising the other. It takes two to tango. I'm very concerned that the actions that the United States is taking in the pressure on oil shipments, for example, are going to have grave humanitarian consequences. Humanitarian consequences are going to be felt by Cuba's people, by and large, more than its government, certainly in the short term. So I would urge any US Administration to try to keep a focus on humanitarian issues, to try to create wide exceptions, to try to target whatever pressure you might want to exert and however objectionable others might find it on individuals within the government and to not use the Cuban people as sort of cannon fodder. But on the other token, I would advise the Cuban government that, you know, part of the reason they are so vulnerable to this kind of pressure right now is that for 30 plus years since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have delayed deeper reforms. Their economic and political model that they need not because the United States says it, but because Cubans say it and Cuban economists say it. So I think some, some, some willingness to move the ball forward internally would also help the dynamic with Washington.

Bianna Golodrigo (37:11)

Michael Bustavante, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for the time and your expertise. Appreciate it. And still ahead for us, what can the Democrats learn from Maga Pulitzer winning journalist Charles Dugan on how the left can build a broader coalition?

Charles Duhigg (37:36)

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. The problem is if I ask the next 100 people I'm going to meet today, how do you get cavities?

Iranian Official (possibly Abbas Arakchi) (37:44)

They're all going to tell me, of course, if you don't brush your teeth.

Charles Duhigg (37:47)

And eat a lot of sugar, your mouth is more Complex. That's Dr. Kami Haas. He is a dentist. He's an orthodontist specialist. He's also author of the book called if youf Mouth Could An In Depth guide to Oral health and its impact on your entire life. We're gonna talk about Dr. Haas approach to oral health, what he recommends as the optimal routine to fight cavities and to keep your entire mouth in tip top shape. We're also going to dive into the fluoride debate. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

Bianna Golodrigo (38:23)

This week on the Assignment with me, Audie Cornish. Pew Research says anyone born between 1981.

Michelle Martin (38:30)

And 1996 is considered a millennial.

Bianna Golodrigo (38:34)

I'm 84 you're 84, whereas I'm like.

Michelle Martin (38:37)

Late 70s, which is how I ended.

Bianna Golodrigo (38:39)

Up feeling like an elder millennial, but.

Michelle Martin (38:41)

Not making the cut, quite literally.

Abbas Malani (38:43)

Yeah.

Charles Duhigg (38:43)

When I have to think about those timeline points of how we came of age, it's like, all right, we had a big foreign policy event with the Twin Towers, we had a big financial event with the recession. Things like that will continue to happen to all kinds of folks at all ages. But I think what separates us going through that from Gen Z going through that is that they are always online consuming those big hits.

Bianna Golodrigo (39:11)

Listen to the assignment with me, Audie Cornish. Streaming now on your favorite podcast app. Now, could Democrats learn from the MAGA movement? That's the question our next guest is asking. In his latest piece for the New Yorker, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Charles Duhigg argues that recent right leaning movements have building local networks with lasting community impacts. While on the other hand, he says Democrats have focused on large, flashy shows of force that have failed to produce durable impact. He explains to Michelle Martin what he believes it would take for the left to build broader, more resilient coalitions.

Michelle Martin (39:53)

Thanks, Bianna. Charles Duhigg, thanks so much for joining us.

Charles Duhigg (39:56)

Thank you for having me.

Michelle Martin (39:58)

You know, your writing for the New Yorker often kind of unpacks the way systems work, right? How does the system actually work? In your latest piece, it's titled what MAGA Can Teach Democrats about Organizing and Infighting. What made you think about that?

Charles Duhigg (40:15)

Well, I was really curious about why Democrats have obviously been turning people out into the streets for the last eight years and in some of the largest protests we've ever seen. And yet Donald Trump's victory, most recent victory, and the fact that MAGA has such a sustainable life around it made me curious what was going on because I didn't see a lot of MAGA protests. And as I got deeper into this, I realized that there was a science behind social movements. There's a science behind why some movements attract millions of people and sustain and why others are a flash in the pan and disappear.

Michelle Martin (40:50)

You make an interesting point because you remember when Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their debate. You know, Kamala Harris, the Democrat correctly pointed out that Trump's rallies weren't that successful. Like they were having to find smaller venues. They were. A lot of people would leave early and a lot of people sort of saw that as a sign as kind of waning interest. And that turned out not to be true at all. And as a tool of analysis, you open the piece by contrasting dare, which is this nationally funded, top down anti drug program that spread rapidly through the schools in the 1980s. And you contrast that with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is a volunteer driven group that grew locally, grew unevenly after a personal tragedy. What made you think of those two groups?

Charles Duhigg (41:43)

Well, I think they're perfect examples of what are known within the academic literature about social movements of, of mobilizing and organizing. DARE was really good at mobilizing, right? They could get millions of people to show up for rallies. They got President Ronald Reagan to declare the first National DARE Day. They got lots of donations. But over time, the program just kind of petered out. It wasn't very effective at changing people's behavior and much more so schools just abandoned it. Matt, on the other hand, was really good at what's known as organizing, pushing down leadership, training local people to build communities and become leaders their own, right? And in doing so, building these durable communities that end up having prolonged impact. And when we look at the contemporary politics, what we see is the same thing. Democrats are very, very good at mobilization, right? They're very good at turning people out into the streets and having these large rallies. But when everyone goes home, they stop talking to each other. They don't make new connections at those rallies. They feel like they've done their part and so they stop, they stop working hard. Whereas on the Republican side, very much under, under noticed and quietly, MAGA has spent years and years building a network of small groups that work on local levels that have empowered tens of thousands and millions of people to become leaders of the conservative ideas within their own community. And in doing so, they've built a very sustainable, very durable movement that will frankly outlast Donald Trump.

Michelle Martin (43:15)

You write for a social movement to create real change, it helps to be skilled at both mobilizing and organizing. But that doesn't mean that both skills are equally important. How did you kind of come up with that idea?

Charles Duhigg (43:29)

Well, there's a academic I Love named Liz McKenna at Harvard who says that protest is a tactic in search of a strategy. And what she means by that is that that when we protest, it should be the outgrowth of a community that's built together and has become outraged and wants to take to the streets. The protest is not the goal of the movement. The protest is a symptom that you have a community that's coming together and is getting stronger and stronger and stronger. Now, when you prioritize that protest, when you push people into the streets, when you use Twitter and the Internet to organize and thereby scale very quickly, but Sidestep the infrastructure building. That's really, really important to making a movement. Dur, that's when you get what we have right now, which is that people feel very passionate on the Democratic side about being anti Trump and standing up against ice. And yet we're not seeing the widespread change that those people had hoped for because they're also not at the same time organizing and building those communities that allow people to work day in, day out every week with their neighbors to create change.

Michelle Martin (44:35)

That's one of the weird ironies that you point out in your piece is that many right leaning groups studied and adapted strategies, strategies that were first perfected by Democrats. How did the right leaning groups figure out what to do? And how did Democratic or slash left leaning groups lose it?

Charles Duhigg (44:55)

Absolutely. I think in a lot of ways for the contemporary period, we can go back to Barack Obama's election in 2008, right at the time, Barack Obama basically turned campaign conventional wisdom on its head by saying, instead of telling volunteers what we're going to do, we're just gonna make them into franchisees of the campaign and say, do whatever you think is best. Take the leadership initiative yourself. Go out, experiment with things. And as a result, they were able to get over 2 million volunteers who turned to their neighbors over 25 million times to encourage them to vote for Obama and brought about one of the sweeping victories for Democrats in both the legislature and the White House. But at that moment, two things happened. First of all, we start to see the roots of the Tea Party. And the Tea Party was a very decentralized movement that ended up being very, very successful. And also you saw folks like the Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, look at the Obama election and say, look, they're out organizing us. We got to get better at this. So what Ralph Reed did is start an organization known as the Faith and Family Coalition that very much was modeled on the Obama playbook, but for the right. And in fact, one of the things that many of these groups do, including Turning Point usa, the Charlie Kirk organization, is that when a leader joins their group, they make them read this book called Grass Groundbreakers, which is all about the Obama campaign and very glowingly about the Obama campaign. And they say, don't pay attention to the ideology, just steal the ideas about organizing. And so with the Tea Party and groups like the Faith and Freedom Coalition and Turning Point usa, we saw a prolonged emphasis on creating these small groups across the nation of neighbors who are coming together in order to be active, not just on politics, but on all Types of Faith and Freedom has expanded by focusing on evangelical churches and gun clubs and homeschooling organizations. And in doing so, what they've learned is that when neighbors have one issue they care about, like guns, then it's much easier to persuade them when the election rolls around to vote for your. To vote for the Republican candidate. But the point is they're doing year round organizing.

Michelle Martin (47:01)

But the other point that you make in the piece is that maga's strength comes in part from a tolerance for internal disagreement. And this is something that you're hearing Democrats compl about constantly, particularly national Democrats. Is this sort of astringency around opinion that is enforced.

Charles Duhigg (47:19)

Yeah, a purity test.

Michelle Martin (47:21)

But you look at the Women's March, for example, which fell apart, which is a huge mobilization in the wake of Trump's first election. Huge mobilization, far outstripped in numbers the people who attended his first inauguration. And, and the group fell apart over all these sort of internal disagreements about who was right and issues like sort of Israel. You know what's interesting though, is that you really. I'm based in Washington, so I don't get the sense that Donald Trump tolerates a lot of disagreement about anything. So it's interesting that you're saying that the actual organizing structure that keeps him alive and viable politically actually does. Can you say just a little bit more about how that works on the ground?

Charles Duhigg (48:05)

It's important to distinguish between MAGA and Donald Trump. You're exactly. Donald Trump brooks no dissent within his group. And yet if you look at the MAGA movement, they welcome almost everyone as long as you're willing to put on the red hat. Right. And for many of them, they actually opposed Trump when he first rose up in the first presidential campaign. And they've now come around to being boosters of his because he's the guy who's winning. It's great to jump on his coattails. But MAGA is a very different movement from Donald Trump as himself. And you're exactly right. MAGA says if you wear the red hat, you're allowed in. We don't care who you date. We don't care who you love. We don't care if you're pro choice or pro or pro life. We don't care if you're pro trans rights or anti trans rights. As long as you wear the red hat, you're welcome within our camp. And if we contrast that with what's happening oftentimes on the left, what we see are these purity tests, right? That if you, if you are a pro Life Democrat, you are excluded from almost every social organization that. That would. That should be welcoming you. If you're someone who has questions about DEI initiatives or January 6th or says, you know, I don't like Elon Musk, but maybe shaking up the government, maybe there's something there. There's no place for you to really participate in the Democrats. And they make you feel like you are excluded. What we know about political movements and political parties is that they succeed when they become big tents. And MAGA is very focused on being a big tent. All you have to do is say you're gonna vote for the guy at the top of the Republican ticket and you're a member. Democrats are much more focused on ideological purity, and it's to the detriment of the party.

Michelle Martin (49:44)

How did that start? How did it happen that somebody like Obama led this movement that was very inclusive and then all of it became sort of ossified into these purity tests? How did that happen? Do you have a sense?

Charles Duhigg (49:55)

I think two things happened. I think that first was the election of Donald Trump. Trump was such an overwhelming shock to the Democratic system that Democrats started saying, we absolutely have to be unified against Donald Trump. We have to show that there's no dissent within our ranks, because we feel like that's the way that we prove that we are the resistance. And that's an understandable instinct, but it's exactly the wrong thing to do. And then on top of that is Covid and the racial reckoning that happened after Georgia George Floyd. There was a lot of upheaval in how we thought about social issues. And you'll remember during COVID that it became a sign of faith on the left that you should absolutely wear a mask and that we should close the schools. And states, Republican states that didn't enforce mask wearing and didn't close their schools were almost demonized. And now we know, looking back, this is a complicated issue. It's a sophisticated issue. Some people should be wearing masks, others don't have to. Maybe in some places we close schools and other places we shouldn't close schools. But there was this emphasis on unity on the left that became dogmatic, and we still haven't grown out of that. In fact, the fact that Donald Trump won by being anti woke is evidence of how much this perception of a need for ideological purity still exists either. And people are either endorsing it or reacting to, in contrast to it. But it's important to note that this hasn't always been true. As you point out, it wasn't true Under Obama, it wasn't true under Clinton. We all remember the sister soldier moment, right, when Clinton very visibly broke with some of the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. This used to be something that we saw as a good sign that a party is alive and is breathing and is changing. And the Democrats need to get back to that if they want to.

Michelle Martin (51:43)

And what about Minneapolis? I mean, we've seen an intense kind of grassroots mobilization. These are people saying, this is unacceptable to me. My neighbors are being harassed and persecuted. I'm not tolerating this. And this is, of course, after two US Citizens have been shot by federal agents under circumstances that the people who witness this consider absolutely unacceptable and that many people have now seen seen for themselves. So what do you make of it? Did you think this has some meaningful impact or not?

Charles Duhigg (52:13)

Absolutely. And what's interesting about Minneapolis is that it's not all groups on the left that have ignored the wisdom of grassroots organizing. And in fact, in Minneapolis, we see a number of groups that for years now have been organizing grassroots in local communities. One of my favorites is a group named Isaiah, which has brought together child care workers, college students, East African refugees, Islamic centers and churches, groups that normally would never come together. Isaiah has been bringing them together for over a decade and has been helping them organize among themselves and saying, look, you share values together and if we work together, we become stronger. And those are the groups that right now are leading this mobilization. A social movement can't exist without both organizing and mobilizing. That mobilizing is really important. But what's happened in Minneapolis is that the organizing has been going on for a decade on the left. And so now when they mobilize, it's not just a one day show up and blow your whistle. It's a prolonged, consistent attempt to change what is happening in that city and in this nation. And it's that durability, those unsung heroes of local people who show up and take out their phones and blow their whistles day after day after day because they see their friends there, because they see their, their, their neighbors there. That is what creates real change.

Michelle Martin (53:36)

Charles Duhigg, thanks so much for talking to us.

Charles Duhigg (53:39)

Thank you for having me.

Bianna Golodrigo (53:41)

And finally, home at last. 5 year old Liam Ramos and his father returned to Minneapolis after being held for more than a week at an immigration facility In Texas, some 13, 1,500 miles away from where they live. Seized from their driveway earlier this month, the incident drew outrage when images of Liam in his blue bunny hat and Spiderman backpack went viral. Their release does not ensure they won't eventually be deported. But the family's attorney says they are in the US Legally as they pursue a claim for asylum. Democratic lawmaker Joaquin Castro picked them up from the detention center and escorted them home. And in a note to Liam, he said this I hope you will judge America not by your days at Dilley, the detention center, but by the millions of Americans whose hearts you have touched even as a young boy. You have moved the world. Hopefully, Liam is reunited with his friends and classmates as well. All right. That does it for now. Thank you so much for watching. And goodbye from New York.

Charles Duhigg (54:51)

News cycle making your head spin.

Patrick Ottman (54:53)

The have I Got News for you? Crew is here to help with a.

Charles Duhigg (54:57)

Comic take on the week's headlines. New episodes, Saturdays at 9 on CNN. And next day on the CNN app.