Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
Maya Kornberg
The average age now in the House is in the 50s and in the Senate is in the 60s. That's not reflective of the American population. And that's a problem for the same reason that it not being representative of the American population is a problem in terms of race and gender and ethnicity and religion and all the other characteristics. And I think that one of the things that is key to this conversation, that is often left out is campaign finance reform is what we're saying we have to make it easier for people with less access to wealth if we want young people to be able to run.
- [00:35]
Bob Crawford
You've reached American History Hotline. You ask the questions, we get the answers. Leave a message. Hey there, American History Hotliners. Bob Crawford here. Thrilled to be joining you again for another episode of American History Hotline. It's the show where you ask the questions and keep those questions coming. You guys are amazing. And we read every single one. Send those queries to americanhistoryhotlinemail.com that's americanhistoryhotlinemail.Com okay, today's question is about Congress. Well, if it still exists. I mean, Article one, can you hear me? I'm calling you Article one. The question comes from Marlee in Atlanta, who sent us this question. She writes, why is everyone in Congress so old? Can't we just vote them out? It's clear they're not getting anything done. I get it, Marley, and it's a great question, and I think I have the perfect person who can help us. Well, try to answer this question at least. She is Maya Kornberg. She's the author of a new book titled How Money, Media and Violence Prevent Change in Congress. Maya, thanks for joining us today.
- [01:58]
Maya Kornberg
Thank you so much for having me, Maya.
- [02:01]
Bob Crawford
I want to get to Marlee's question, but let's just get a sense of what's happening in Congress right now. According to a Gallup poll, Congress's approval rating is around 10%. The historic low is 9%. Is Congress broken right now or stuck?
- [02:23]
Maya Kornberg
How would you say it to the listener's question about whether or not we could just vote people out and fix things that way? I think, unfortunately, the answer is a lot more complicated. And there's a lot of focus I see in conversations that I'm having with people about the elections coming up in November and getting out there and promoting a candidate that you believe in. And certainly that's part of the problem is who's there. But the other part is that even when people are elected, we can't magically assume that they can change things when they're faced with the realities that members are faced right now. And that's what the book unpacks. And it shows how hard it is to be a member today who has to dial for dollars all day and depend on, on donors. And how hard it is to be faced with a reality in which you can't do a town hall with constituents without fearing for your safety. What that means in terms of what people can get done and how hard it is today to operate in a chamber in which hearings are increasingly theatrical. There's a lot of pressure to fundraise online and create these sound bite moments. And at the same time, power, actual legislative power, is centralized right now in Congress in the hands of just a select few party leaders. So it's really hard, I think, for members of Congress right now to operate and create change in that landscape. And I'm happy to talk more about it, but I think that we have to be thinking about the day after the election. We can't just think that elections are going to solve this problem.
- [03:57]
Bob Crawford
The subtitle of your book, How Money, Media and Violence Prevent Change in Congress. Let's start with money. I had a congressman who's since passed away, really nice guy I became friends with. He told me money is the mother's milk of politics. Does this all go back, when we talk about the money aspect, does this all go back to Citizens United?
- [04:27]
Maya Kornberg
So certainly I think a lot of it we can connect to Citizens United, but my book actually takes it a little bit further. Okay, the 1976 Buckley v. Vallejo Supreme Court decision. So really, in the last 50 years, the landscape of money in politics has changed dramatically. Dramatically. And this started, I would say, with 1976. So the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Buck Levy, Vallejo, is a ruling that says that spending limits are unconstitutional in campaigns. And as a result of that, we see money start to flood campaigns. And then this is amplified, as you're saying, by Citizens United in 2010, when there's a ruling that says that we can have unlimited outside spending in campaigns. And as a result of that, we see headline after headline about campaigns breaking records in terms of fundraising. And I think that a lot of people who are plugged in are aware of that, just how much it costs to run for Congress. But what a lot of people don't realize, and what I think the Congressman's words speak to, is that also money is becoming, in the last 50 years, increasingly central to how people build power once they are elected. So in 1976, that decision comes down. And at the time, Henry Waxman, who has just joined Congress, was trying to become a committee chair. And so he realizes, oh, well, money is the name of the game now. I represent a safe and wealthy district of Beverly Hills. I'm going to start a leadership pack which will allow me to donate money to other members, more money than I could from my campaign committee, and in that way, to curry favor and to kind of campaign for the position. He indeed wins that committee leadership position. And fast forward 50 years, almost every member of the House now has a leadership pack, and you basically donate to other members in order to build relationships. And in addition to that, now, unlike 50 years ago, you're expected to pay dues to the party according to leaked documents. Sometimes that's millions of dollars that you're paying to the party. And this is central to you campaigning internally within your party and within what's called party steering committees that decide on things like committee assignments and leadership positions. So you basically have to pay to play now. You have to pay to get onto certain committees. A lot of it is about fundraising. And that I think people don't realize because it's very opaque how that works in Congress. That I think should be equally shocking to us because not only do you have to raise astronomical amounts to get there and to get reelected, now you're having to raise money to actually make a difference once you're there and to build power and clout in the chamber.
- [06:57]
Bob Crawford
We had Megan Gorman on last year. She wrote a book called all the President's Money. She talked about how you practically need to be a millionaire to be able to run for president. What about for Congress? You know, once you get there, you can begin to, you know, form your own pack and begin to throw around your own patronage or whatever it is. But, but to. To be in a congressman or a senator, do you need to be starting already as a. As a millionaire these days?
- [07:28]
Maya Kornberg
Well, I mean, we could just look at what Congress is now, and, and. And the majority of members of Congress are millionaires. And so I think that speaks to your point. And part of that is because of these rulings, part of that have to raise so much money in order to run. And that advantages people who have personal wealth. But it's worth noting it also advantages people who have more access to wealthy networks. And that's where people with less access to those networks, you know, and people with less access to wealth in this country, including, you know, younger people and women and people of color and working Americans, are further disadvantaged in terms of access to fundraising networks. And I think that that's also a structural disadvantage that they face when they're trying to pay dues to the party. So my book has a story of Marcia Fudge, who represented a largely working class community in the Cleveland area, saying to a staffer, listen, I don't know how I'm going to leverage that fundraising base to pay dues to the party. This is not a member saying, how am I going to get reelected? How am I going to raise what I need to get reelected? This is a member saying, how am I going to pay off my debt to the party with the working class community that I represent? So it the distortive moneyed pathways in the chamber now are recreating structural disadvantages that are faced by these groups when they fundraise to run also.
- [08:53]
Bob Crawford
So to button up the money aspect of this for thinking money, media violence, how do we break that? How do we break the money stranglehold?
- [09:04]
Maya Kornberg
Well, certainly my book argues for the urgency of things like ending Citizens United, which I would argue could not be more important right now, but also in the interim or alongside pushes to get big money out of politics, which I think could not be more important. Things like small donor public financing, which help level the playing field. These are programs that exist in places like New York City and New York State where members can raise small dollar donations and those are matched by public funds. And we know that women, for example, are more likely to fundraise from a large group of small donors versus a few mega donors when you compare them to men. And so it's a great equalizer for different groups running for office. And again, things like that, different campaign finance reforms I think can help get us part of the way.
- [09:57]
Bob Crawford
Let's talk about the media. I think a lot about how we live in our hermetically sealed media silos, right? We get to choose what we hear and who we hear it from. So talk about the ways that the media landscape is jamming up Congress.
- [10:20]
Maya Kornberg
So as I mentioned, there's a tendency now towards these theatrical soundbite moments. Now, part of that it's worth noting is because of a dynamic in which fundraising is increasingly happening online and with a viral moment, you can fundraise. And so the book gives the example of Joe Wilson yelling, you lie in the middle of Barack Obama's address to Congress, using that clip to fundraise because it gets attention and we see that elsewhere. But also it's a way for members to build a public profile in a Congress in which and kind of exert public power in a Congress in which a lot of times they get there and they are shocked by how little power they have when they arrive. I just did an event with a member of Congress. He just retired from Congress actually a few months ago after over a decade there. And he compared freshman members. He said they were relatively relegated to the role of a potted plant. That's about as much power as they have when they get there. And he told me he got there and he had all these visions of what he was gonna do. And it's really hard to do that when you get there because right now, the system is that bills are frequently just written by a handful of party leaders with some lobbyists and pushed down to a vote. Some members are saying, I don't even have time to read a bill before they have to vote on it. And so in that context, it's very hard to think about building legislative. And so leaning into what I call in the book, this kind of prophetic power of the megaphone, where you can become a social media influencer and you can elevate and raise public awareness about an issue without ever having to touch a bill, I think is important. And the point that I would want to make to listeners who want to understand Congress is not that this is not a really important kind of power that elected have. They do, they're public officials, but that it does not translate neatly into legislative power. And frequently the people whose names we know, the people we see on social media, the people we see on television, those are not necessarily the people who are behind closed doors. Dr. Major pieces of legislation.
- [12:20]
Bob Crawford
We've had guests on this program who talk about technology and the tech oligarchy and how they might be the biggest. The tech oligarchs. Oligarchs may be the biggest threat to democracy. How does big tech play into congressional dysfunction?
- [12:41]
Maya Kornberg
So I think big tech is both something that I would shine a light on in terms of creating the problem. And I think kind of speaks to. Which I'll get to in the second part of my answer to you, speaks to kind of how Congress is the problem in its inability to regulate it. I do think that, as I mentioned, social media, which Congress has struggled to regulate, has become both something that is an incentive structure for eyeballs and acclaim for members for this start started with television cameras being introduced to Congress and it was accelerated with social media. But also it's become a major vector for abuse for electeds, not just members of Congress, but elected. And candidates at all levels have told me, and we know, based on our research, are suffering from a lot of harassment and abuse in a social media landscape that is largely unregulated and in some instances algorithmically problematic in terms of encouraging this kind of behavior. And, and the other thing that I would point to in terms of Congress's inability to handle this issue is that it speaks to how Congress is just not organized to regulate the modern economy, including a huge growing emerging sector of the economy, which is the tech sector. The last time that Congress reorganized its committee jurisdictions was before the Internet existed in the 70s. And so frequently when we have hearings on AI or hearings on the tech industry in Congress, it's half of Congress is there and each committee maybe does one hearing on it. And you've worked in organizations, I've worked in organizations. When everyone is in charge of something, no one is in charge of something. And so we need a committee, a tech committee. I've been arguing this for quite some time and every chance I get I make a pitch for it. We need a tech committee in the House and in the Senate that has jurisdiction over the tech industry and has staff experts that have expertise in tech. And we need to simultaneously be thinking about reining in the power of the tech lobby again and the power of it that is amplified if we don't end Citizens United and continue to allow moneyed interest to disproportionately sway policymaking. So I think that again, Congress needs to take some steps to effectively regulate this industry.
- [15:05]
Bob Crawford
When I think about Marlee's question about all the 80 year olds in Congress, it makes you realize that, that they're dealing with tech and they don't even understand tech.
- [15:17]
Maya Kornberg
Right.
- [15:18]
Bob Crawford
They're so disconnected from it that how can they legislate on it when they don't really, they don't get it. Do you think that the advent of cameras like C Span, which started in 1980, maybe 1979, do you think that that has helped our democracy or hurt our democracy?
- [15:41]
Maya Kornberg
I think it's a double edged sword that we need to reckon with. So when C Span and you know, when television cameras were introduced into Congress, folks like Newt Gingrich, former member, former speaker of the House, are known to have made speeches to an empty floor because they knew that someone on C SPAN was watching. And members will tell me this, they know that people are watching them in particular in hearings that will get attention. So when we think about, for example, why oversight hearings and you know, confirmation hearings for nominees seem so theatrical, that's because they know that, you know, in the case of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. There's tens of millions of viewers. I was recently looking at articles about, you know, Sandra Day o' Connor was the first nominee whose confirmation hearings were televised in, in the 1980s. And the journalists were dumbfounded by the fact that, oh, there's questions that seem to be gotcha questions. They don't seem to actually be inquisitive questions. You know, now we kind of see that that's commonplace. And Representative Lauren Underwood, who I interviewed, called this an incentive structure that is about eyeballs in a claim rather than substantive policymaking. So I think we have to reckon with that. And I would argue that the solution is to create more spaces for members to interact and have conversations that are off camera in addition to having the on camera spaces. Because, of course, transparency is really important for our democracy. And I think especially in the context of the low trust and low approval ratings that Congress is suffering from right now, it's really important to have a place like C Span that people can go to to understand and see what's going on, even if they don't always go to it. It's important to have that. And I think it's an important accountability measure also for democracy to have transparency. So I just think that we need to think about the ramifications and perhaps be in creating more spaces for organic conversation as well.
- [17:26]
Bob Crawford
I don't want to take us off the topic of Congress, but just curious, what do you think about cameras in the Supreme Court? Should we have cameras in the Supreme Court?
- [17:35]
Maya Kornberg
You know, I think that's a tricky question, and I'm not a Supreme Court expert, but I do think that that's a different kind of dynamic from the dynamic that, for example, I study in Congress. And I think that again, my gut reaction would be that transparency is good in these conversations. But again, if we look at the dynamic of Congress, we just have to be aware of all the ripple effects of that and, you know, the spaces that we need to create for to be having organic conversations. But I think in general, transparency is, is healthy for our democracy.
- [18:10]
iHeart Podcast Announcer
This is an Iheart podcast. Guaranteed human.
- [18:14]
CarMax Advertiser
Do you want to find a stress free way to buy your next car? Start at CarMax and shop your way. And if you want to browse with confidence, get pre qualified online with no impact on your credit score and shop cars within your budget. From luxury cars to family rides rides, CarMax has options for almost every price range, including more than 25,000 cars priced under $25,000. So, hey, want to get started? Just head to CarMax.com for details and get pre qualified today. Want to drive Carmax?
- [18:47]
Glynn Washington
I'm Glynn Washington, host of the Snap Judgment storytelling podcast from kqed. Every week Snap deals a new card. Like the San Francisco girl selling weed brownies after school who uncovers a a secret. Or the open man who invented the wave and never got his credit. Or even the actual Lake Merritt monster. What? Pick a card, any card. Snap Judgment with kqed new episodes every Thursday. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [19:17]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [19:35]
Maya Kornberg
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3
- [19:38]
Wells Fargo Advertiser
month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee, full terms@mintmobile.com Picture this me, Reese Witherspoon in London ordering fish and chips so often they might start wrapping me in paper. I'm traveling with my Wells Fargo Autograph Journey card. So I earn rewards wherever I book travel five times points with hotels, four times with airlines, three times on restaurants and other travel and one point on other purchases. Imagine getting rewarded for eating a toad in the hole. Wait, what is a toad in the hole?
- [20:12]
Bob Crawford
Visit Wells Fargo.com autographjourney Terms apply. This is American History Hotline. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Today my guest is Maya Kornberg. She's the author of a new book titled How Money, Media and Violence Prevent Change in Congress. We're talking about Congress, the thing that people like less than anchovies on pizza, which I agree I hate anchovies on peach. I actually like pineapple on pizza. Some people don't. Maya, do you have an opinion?
- [20:48]
Maya Kornberg
That's a hot take. I am not. I've never understood the pineapple on pizza myself. But you know, I respect different viewpoints. That's what we're about.
- [20:57]
Bob Crawford
That's right. It's democracy. Remember to send us your burning questions about American history. Record yourself using the voice memo app on your phone and email it to AmericanHistoryHotlinemail.com that's AmericanHistoryHotlinemail.com back to our show. Let's talk about the violence that we're seeing. The rise of violence. We're seeing just politically related violence throughout the country and directed in Congress and at members of Congress. I'd like to shout out Joanne Freeman and her book the Field of Blood, because she talks about the history of violence in Congress. How is political violence stopping Congress from doing its job?
- [21:42]
Maya Kornberg
Yeah. So first of all, just to lift up what you said, I think Field of Blood is a great book because it talks about just the. The incidents of violence, again, are not new in American politics.
- [21:54]
Bob Crawford
We don't have politicians walking into a session of Congress covered in blood because they were just a second at a duel.
- [22:01]
Maya Kornberg
Exactly. Or caned.
- [22:03]
Wells Fargo Advertiser
Or caned.
- [22:04]
Bob Crawford
Yes, caned.
- [22:04]
Maya Kornberg
All of these examples he talks about in that book. So certainly I'm not arguing in my book that political violence is new to this country. And Field of Blood is just one example of many things that have been written about the long history of violence in this country. But I do think that it's manifest in different ways now. And this is partially a result of social media, as I mentioned, becoming a major vector for abuse of members of Congress, partially a result of changes in gun ownership legislation and patterns, and partially a result of the fact that violence, which has always been gendered and racialized in this country, is manifesting in different ways now that we have an increasingly diverse Congress. So my book gives three ways. Examples of three ways in which it's distorting lawmaking. Firstly, I've had members say to me that they're afraid to engage with constituents. As I said at the outset, Ilhan Omar was just attacked at the town hall. I quoted Representative Scanlon in the book, who I interviewed, saying, how could we not have the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords at a Congress at your corner event in the back of our minds when we do a Congress at your corner event? And so we're seeing, especially after Covid, also members cancel town halls or move them online. One member said she's afraid to go to parts of her own district because she does not feel safe. So, you know, we live in a representative democracy. And to have a representative democracy where you cannot engage with constituents is extremely dangerous. I think secondly, members are saying that they're rethinking whether it's worth being in public office. Angie Craig, who I interviewed for the book, who was assaulted by a man in her apartment building in 2023, said she thinks violence is the biggest deterrent to getting people to run. And the book also quotes Nancy Pelosi's memoir where she says that when she talks to young, dynamic people thinking of running For Congress, what they tell her is that they are afraid of what happened to Paul Pelosi. They're afraid of the violent attack against him in their San Francisco home, and that that's a major reason why they're not running. So I think that we have to think about a public attrition problem. And we know from research that violence has a disparate impact on women and people of color in office. These are already underrepresented groups. And so we have to think about the public attrition problem. I think, particularly in the context of groups that are being dissuaded from running or remaining in office, that that disproportionately bear the brunt of violence. So there's that angle which I think, again, is harmful of representation. And then lastly, members are saying that they're afraid to vote their conscience or afraid to take on hot button issues. They're afraid of violence. So there's a quote in the book from Liz Cheney saying that she has had members say to her that they would have voted to impeach the president, but they were afraid for their safety or the safety of their families. So I really think that. That we have to be shocked by all three of those things, because all three of those things, not being able to vote your conscience, not being able to remain in office, not being able to engage with constituents, are dangerous for the future of our democracy.
- [25:24]
Bob Crawford
Well, clearly Lindsey Graham gave that speech the night of January 6, early morning of January 7, that he was done with the president. He was along for the ride. He was done. And then he was accosted at the airport flying back to South Carolina, and he changed his tune. Maya, Congress has had some low points in its history, throughout its history, but it's also had some high points. Your book begins immediately after the Watergate scandal. Let's go back to 1974. What was happening in Congress in the wake of Watergate?
- [26:03]
Maya Kornberg
So this was a time which I think similar to the election cycle that we're in now, was really animated by a lot of frustration and anger with the status quo and people saying that we needed to clean up Washington and that we needed to change things. And so this wave of new reformers comes into Congress in 1974, about 90 new members, and really shake things up in terms of the way that the institution runs. But this is also a time where Congress is not just changing internally, it's also standing up to the president in ways that I would argue that we can learn from. Today Congress is passing the 1973 War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war powers. Congress is passing the 1974 Empowerment Control act to try to reign in the power of the purse that it has the constitutional authority over. But the President was usurping at the time and refusing. President Nixon was refusing to spend congressionally authorized funds. So, you know, again, a lot of the same things that Congress is still struggling with in terms of its authorities it was taking hold of. And again, the laws that it passed at the time, I think provide a direct framework that Congress can look at now. And in fact, they are informing the conversations now about how it can strengthen its own authority.
- [27:35]
Bob Crawford
Those, those reformers that you're talking about, they were young blood. They were young blood. So to go full circle to back to Marley's question, you know, we've touched on this, I think, throughout our conversation, but we do have a situation where we have a lot of members of Congress who are very old and we're not being. I'm not being ageist. Age. I am, I don't know how to say it, 55 years old. I'm age positive because I'm not going to get any younger. Okay. But it's not, you know, look, there's one person who's 80 can sometimes be a different 80 than another person who's 80. Right? Like what I'm trying to say is all 80 year olds are not the same. And so how do we deal with that? Should there be term limits? Should there be an age limit? What is the way to continually renew Congress with youthful members?
- [28:44]
Maya Kornberg
Right. So actually all three of them, the wave elections that the book is anchored in, because it's anchored in these kind of three wave elections. All three of them were younger than the average members. The classes of 1974, 1994 and 2018, which were huge wave classes which came and shook up the institution. And the average age now in the House is in the 50s and in the Senate is in the 60s. That's not reflective of the American population. And that's a problem for the same reason that it not being representative of the American population is a problem in terms of race and gender and ethnicity and religion and all the other characteristics. And I think that one of the things that is key to this conversation that is often left out is campaign finance reform is what we're saying. We have to make it easier for people with less access to wealth if we want young people to be able to run. And simultaneously, I've also been arguing for raising congressional pay. There has not been a pay raise in Congress for 15 years. Not even a COLA adjustment, cost of living adjustment. And if we don't want only people with independent access to wealth to be able to afford to have the job, then we need to be thinking about that. It's a tough case to make in the context of Congress being so unpopular to say pay them more even though they're so unpopular. But it's a vicious cycle because if we don't pay them more, then you're just going to have a Congress full of millionaires, which is what you have right now. So I think there's that element of it. And I do think that we need to be thinking about age limits in Congress. We have that for different roles, like judges. Other countries have age limits for different roles. And I think that that can make sense. And I also think that it's important to, in the context of how long people can serve, which is different from their age, actually give people the chance to build expertise. Because as I mentioned, a lot of freshmen that I speak to get there, and they have no idea what they're doing. Tom Davis, a freshman from the class of 94 who I interviewed for the book, said, we didn't know what the hell we were doing. Right. We were freshmen. So. So that comes up a lot.
- [30:55]
Bob Crawford
They were potted plants.
- [30:57]
Maya Kornberg
Exactly right. That comes up a lot in the book. So we do have to allow for them to be there in order to learn how to do a job, just like with any job. But. But also, again, we do need some guardrails. And I think things like age limits, campaign finance reform, raising congressional pay can all help help create a more representative and functional institution.
- [31:16]
Bob Crawford
People feel angry about politics right now.
- [31:18]
Maya Kornberg
Yep.
- [31:19]
Bob Crawford
They feel like problems aren't being solved. Problems aren't even being addressed. The authoritarian executive approach is not working. Do we need a functioning Congressman? Sorry. Do we need a functioning Congress to solve our country's problems? Like, can the unitary executive do better than Congress?
- [31:43]
Maya Kornberg
I think Congress is really the linchpin of solving our problems, which is why I study it. I think that the framers intended for Congress to be the central branch. And it is as most legislatures are, which is why I study legislatures. They are the most representative. They are the closest to the people. They are the people's branch. And so we cannot have a truly representative democracy. I think, without this branch. Also, in our checks and balances system, we need a strong Congress in order to provide a check on the executive. I make this point to people all the time. You can't just yell at Congress and be mad at it for not doing things. We need to think about how to strengthen it if we want it to be able to stand up. I make this point to people all the time that Congress today has several thousand fewer staff members than it did a few decades ago, and it has gutted its own internal expertise. And what we know in legislative politics, the study of legislative politics internationally is that legislatures without independent access to expertise are going to have a lot harder times conducting oversight of the executive. So we need a strong Congress with the brain power and the organization that it needs in order to both provide a check on the executive and to actually be passing policies that truly represent people. Because, again, it's meant to be the branch. It was designed to be the branch that is closest to the people and that is most kind of attuned to what policy changes are actually going to benefit ordinary Americans.
- [33:18]
Bob Crawford
Article one.
- [33:20]
Maya Kornberg
Exactly.
- [33:22]
Bob Crawford
So as we look towards the 2026 midterms, and let me just say this is my last question, I want to thank you for your time today and thank you for being here. Really appreciate it.
- [33:33]
Maya Kornberg
Thank you so much for having me.
- [33:35]
Bob Crawford
As we look towards the midterms, which everybody I know is really tense, there's a lot of tension. We have a lot of redistricting going on right now, and no one quite knows what's going to happen. What do you think the 2026 midterms are going to look like? And do you think this will be a reform year?
- [33:57]
Maya Kornberg
Mm. So I'm, you know, I don't have a crystal ball to say if it will be a wave election. I certainly think that a lot of the kind of general ethos and feelings that animated the elections that I did look at in the book in the 70s and the 90s and the election in 2018 that I see that today, again, a lot of the anger and the frustration and the desire to shake things up and elect people who don't look like the people who are already there. I think that that is certainly something that we. I think that we're seeing a desire to rein in executive abuse of power and stand up to that and have a Congress that can do that. And so in that context, I think it's certainly similar to kind of the setup ahead of other wave elections that we've had. But regardless of whether or not it's a wave election, the one thing that I would want your listeners, and I say this every time I talk about the book to think about, is that it is not enough to elect people. We have to, as much as I think the elections are on everyone's mind. Now we have to think about the day after the election, because if we elect a whole bunch of new people who are just a bunch of potted plants, then we're not really going to get anywhere. If we don't solve the structural issues that are making it really hard for people who are elected to actually make change, then we're not going to get nearly as far as we need to get. So that's what I want us to be thinking about. I want us to be thinking about the day after the election and how we can be setting up people who are elected, whether it be a large group or a smaller group. But there will be newly elected folks there setting them up for success.
- [35:32]
Bob Crawford
Our civic duty does not end at the ballot box.
- [35:35]
Maya Kornberg
Exactly.
- [35:36]
Bob Crawford
I've been talking to Maya Kornberg. She's the author of a new book titled How Money, Media and Violence Prevent Change in Congress. Do check that out, Maya. It's a great book and it's the perfect time for it. Thank you for joining us today on American History High.
- [35:55]
Maya Kornberg
Thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation.
- [36:02]
Bob Crawford (closing remarks)
You've been listening to American History Hotline, a production of iHeart podcasts and Scratch Track Productions. The show's executive producer is James Morrison. Our executive producers from iHeart are Jordan Runtal and Jason English. Original music composed by me me Bob Crawford. Please keep in touch. Our email is americanhistoryhotlinemail.com if you like the show, please tell your friends and leave us a review in Apple Podcasts. I'm your host, Bob Crawford. Feel free to hit me up on social media to ask a history question
- [36:40]
Bob Crawford
or to let me know what you
- [36:41]
Bob Crawford (closing remarks)
think of the show. You can find me Obcraword Bass. Thanks so much for listening. See you next week.
- [36:55]
Sean Duffy
I'm U.S. transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. We all get distracted when we drive, but how we handle these distractions can be a matter of life or death. Please put your phones on silent and take a mental note to focus on driving Paid for by NHTSA Maintenance Fee
- [37:12]
iHeart Podcast Announcer
Overdraft fee Minimum balance fee Maximum balance fee Banking fees are just a part of modern life. Or are they? They're not at Ally Bank. At Ally bank, there are no tricks, no hidden fine print or jumping through hoops for better rates. They just want to help you save automatically while you spend with spending accounts and savings tools with great rates. No tricks, no hidden fees. Banking built for life today. Learn more@ally.com Ally bank member FDIC Honestly, honestly, honestly.
- [37:44]
HIV Prevention Announcer
No one wants to think about HIV, but there are things that everyone can do to help prevent it. Things like prep. PREP stands for Pre Exposure Prophylaxis, and it means routinely taking prescription medicine before you're exposed to HIV to help reduce your chances of getting it. Prep can be about 99% effective when taken as prescribed. It doesn't protect against other STIs, though, so be sure to use condoms and other healthy sex practices. Ask a healthcare provider about all your Prevention and visit findoutaboutprep.com to learn more.
- [38:11]
Paramount/BET Advertiser
Sponsored by Gilead, Paramount is now the home of all your BET favorites.
- [38:16]
Maya Kornberg
What?
- [38:17]
Paramount/BET Advertiser
Yes, with all new episodes of Tyler Perry's Divorce Sisters you've always liked, a little drama plus a whole new world of movies like Gladiator 2.
- [38:25]
Glynn Washington
Now I will control an Empire Original
- [38:28]
Paramount/BET Advertiser
series like the Shy.
- [38:29]
Maya Kornberg
Just make sure we protect each other
- [38:31]
Paramount/BET Advertiser
and live sports like ufc.
- [38:33]
Bob Crawford
Welcome to to the history books.
- [38:35]
Paramount/BET Advertiser
New home, same family. Your BET favorites are now on Paramount plus subscribe now.
- [38:42]
iHeart Podcast Announcer
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.