Loading summary
Transcript127 lines
- [00:00]
A
There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we're here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit Capella. Edu to learn more.
- [00:15]
B
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, price estimates and read reviews all on the app Download today. Hey everyone, it's me, Sam Stein. I am joined by Brian Tyler Cohen. We're going to be talking about a lot of stuff happening in the world today, but predominantly I want to pimp his book. It's, it's a, it's not out yet. When does it actually come out? It's called the Day after. When. When can we get it?
- [00:52]
A
It comes out on July 14th. So two weeks.
- [00:55]
B
Oh man, we are close. You couldn't get up by July 4th?
- [00:58]
A
Ah, no. Probably for the best. I don't know how many people are going to be paying attention to a book Release on the 4th of July.
- [01:07]
B
Well, you know, they're not down on the mall in the heat at the Great American Fair. They're probably in the, you know, in their air conditioning in virals looking for a good read. I already done before out there.
- [01:17]
A
Who would be, I'm sure, I'm sure very interested in it.
- [01:20]
B
Well, congrats on the book, man. I don't know why you did it. It seems like an insane task to write a book just. But you know, you have a lot to say if arguments in it too. So I get it. Tell me a little bit about why you decided to write it though.
- [01:35]
A
So I wanted to write it because I think, look, the book has three major elements which are that Democrats have failed to wield power in the past, Republicans have abused their power in the past and in the current and really offer up a blueprint on how Democrats can use the lessons that the Republicans are putting forward to exercise power in a post Trump world. And I think it's important now because look, there is so much dissatisfaction with what Trump and Republicans are doing that, that Democrats have the ability to, to frankly go beyond like if you, here's the best way to put it, when I was in school it was, it would be like social suicide to not have supported Barack Obama, regardless of geography, regardless of socioeconomic status, whatever it may be. Like, Barack Obama had one culture in such a hu cut to 2024. That whole thing had swung. And so now Republicans own culture in, in, in a way that we, that I couldn't have imagined when I was in college. And you see the way that millennials are still the most liberal generation and you see the way that, that, that Gen Z had been so conservative prior to this. And generally, like, when you, when you have political affiliation, like, kind of stick to a generation, it's really hard to shake that off. But because Republicans and Trump have, we're presented on the left with an opportunity to do what otherwise would be really difficult to do, which is to gain those people back. But I think we have such a small window to do that because already we have so many people who are disaffected. You know, Gen Z is so disaffected, so disillusioned with politics. They gave Trump a chance. He's obviously not delivered anything worth keeping them on for. And so, you know, come 2028, we're going to have the opportunity, if Democrats win a small window, to show these people that government can work, that if they're not so disillusioned with Republicans and so disillusioned with Democrats that we can actually win those people back and bring them back, bring them back onto the left. But, but I think if Democrats fail to wield power effectively and actually deliver for voters, then you're going to lose that whole generation of people. Then you're going to have a whole generation of people who said, who said, you know, we went over to the right because the Democrats were feckless and ineffective. Donald Trump and Republicans didn't deliver. We gave the left a shot again against our better judgment, and they didn't deliver either. So we're just, you know, we're going to be politically homeless. And, and in that, in that void of, of, you know, trust in government, I think that's kind of where autocracy and authoritarian thrive anyway.
- [04:27]
B
So I got a quibble with one part. You say Trump hasn't given Gen Z a reason to stay with him. And I would just say he hasn't finished the ballroom yet, so you got to give him time. That's right. It's an. It's halfway done, if that. So, you know, seems like you're jumping to conclusions here.
- [04:45]
A
Yeah.
- [04:46]
B
And a more serious note, though, like, what makes you think that Gen Z wants to re engage at all with politics. And I guess my, my question would be put this way. Obama gave him hope, no doubt, but Trump said, let's burn this fucker down. Yeah. And start anew. Like, why, why would, if you were a young voter, why would you even want to engage?
- [05:05]
A
Well, so Trump said burn it all down on the pretext that burning it down would be an end to the status quo that had failed to deliver for these people. And so they didn't, you know, it's not burn the entirety of government down so that nothing works for anybody. It has burned the status quo down. That led to outcomes where like 40% of Americans can't, can't even afford a $400 emergency. I mean, Trump was out there talking about housing and rent and groceries and the cost of eggs. Like he got so granular that he was willing to talk about the price of an egg. And so this isn't somebody who was saying government is going to disappear. This is somebody who is saying government is going to finally deliver for the forgotten American, for the little guy. Of course he hasn't done that. I mean, like you, you, you jokingly mentioned the ballroom, but it's been more talk about the ballroom than just about anything else. I mean, there's been talk about, you know, the, the Triumphal Arch. We're doing a great American state fair where I think Michael Knowles was on stage Talking to a 10 year old yesterday about the Salem Witch trials. Like the things that this government is, is focused on are, are doing nothing for regular people. And so again, like, I think that in terms of, in terms of what people want to see, I don't think it's a burn it all to the ground because we don't want government to work at all. It's burn the status quo that hasn't been delivering for people down to the ground and figure out how to, from its ashes, how to bring about a government that actually does deliver.
- [06:40]
B
All right, well, there's this debate happening and you know this better than I do because you actually talk to people. And I just sort of sit here and, you know, turn my thumbs among Democrats. It's like, well, can you get people back? Can you, can you energize people who are disaffected and have kind of given up on politics and get them to re. To engage maybe for the first time, or should you spend your time trying to win over people who may have drifted away from you, who, you know, kind of like Trump? And they're in, they're already engaged in politics, but they've kind of soured on Democrats largely for cultural reasons, but maybe not just for cultural reasons. I'm not totally convinced it's an either or right. Like I think there are ways to do both, but it certainly is an either or when it taught, when it comes down to prioritization for Democrats. And I'm kind of curious where you come down on that.
- [07:35]
A
It's a great question. I've thought about this a lot. Like in the book I argue for proactive reforms and, and that includes like ushering in a just economy. It includes, I mean, I, I talk about health care reform and Medicare for All and how I think it's the time, the time has come for Medicare for all. I talk about voting reforms and, and basically an effort to bring about the Freedom to Vote act or, or Voting Rights Act. Obviously that's especially important given the fact that that Section 2 of the VRA was just gutted. But then there's also this idea of like tackling corruption and holding people accountable for the crimes that they've committed or the corruption that they've engaged in right now. And so I've thought about this question a lot of like, you know, how to walk and chew gum at the same time, how to both right the wrongs that are being committed as we speak and also bring about an agenda that, that is going to reach out to the, you know, that's going to reform the lives of so many people, help help so many Americans out there. And that is in effect what they're voting for. And the answer is that you have to do both. I think the important thing is we have these conversations now so that time isn't wasted when we actually do get into power because we have a tendency, Democrats have a tendency of starting the debates once they actually are in a position to do something about them. And then you've wasted so much time, you know, basically either debating or, or you know, engaging in process and, and before you know it, half of that precious sliver of time where you can actually deliver something is gone because you've been engaging in like, you know, some new iteration of, of what Democrats love to do, which is commissions and, and strongly worded letters and poll testing and just making everything as safe and risk averse as possible. And there was a point in Biden's administration, I think in the aftermath of 2020 where we had unified control of government and I do think at the end of Biden's term or the end of full control of government, we had a lot of great legislation that had been passed, but a lot of time was also squandered just deciding what to do and how to kind of whittle things down so that they would be most palatable for people. And we're seeing right now that the sacrosanctity of our processes is not so great that you cannot barrel through these things if there's a real desire to do so. Trump is using it for bad, but I think you can do it in a virtuous way.
- [10:04]
B
I would just add, it's funny you mentioned this, because I've been thinking a bit about this, too. I don't know if I agree with you. Democrats tend to overthink things. And I was a young reporter during Obama, and I go back and look at my notes from the Affordable Health Care act and the construction of that, and it's kind of crazy to think that that was like, you know, a year and a half long process and went through multiple committees, but it kind of had to. Right. Like that you need to get everyone's buy in. No one's ever done health care reform. Like that. I'll get back to in a second, but I just want to, it's not a pushback, but I just want to just note. Part of the reason that I feel like Obama and Biden, maybe to the outside observer, move slowly at the, at the beginning of their administrations, frankly and objectively, is because they were handed, like, piles of shit. Right? Like Obama had the Great Recession and his first act had to be getting the country out of that. And so he spent a lot of time on the stimulus and, you know, it went relatively fast. But, you know, then you had the auto bailout, and then you had to figure out what to do with the second tranche of TARP and all that stuff. And Biden obviously came in and he had Covid and he had to figure out how to, you know, the vaccine was already online, but he had to get it out and distribute it. And then he had to do the relief act for that, too. And so it's like they, they're inheriting real turds. You know, it's like, what do you do?
- [11:29]
A
Well, and, and, and this isn't so much an indictment of how Democrats have acted in the past, because I understand that they had to contend with those things, but this is more of a blueprint of what Democrats need to do now.
- [11:40]
B
Right. All right, let's chisel on that. So let's say you're, you're, you're, you make the case for Medicare for all. Let's let's just play around with that one.
- [11:46]
A
Sure.
- [11:46]
B
I mean it's, how does it, how do you, let's say everything goes swimmingly in 2028 and in 2029 we get a Democratic president, fairly healthy House majority. So you got like, you know, 10 to 20 votes to work with. And I think optimistically you get like at the highest level you get two to three Senate majority. Okay, I think we're in agreement there. How do you get Medicare fall passed?
- [12:13]
A
Look, I think, I think the, the, the onus then falls on, on folks like myself, people who want to advocate for this kind of thing to basically say, I mean like process aside. Because I think you are going to have to be in a position where you have to eliminate the filibuster. That's what this whole thing is like. This is to not to recognize that people voted for Trump and Republicans because they promised to barrel through these, these, a lot of self imposed barriers, hurdles, norms, the parliamentary and the filibuster, all of these things, none of them are in the Constitution. A lot of them are just there because of stasis. Right. And so the argument that, that I'm needing to make here and for people who agree with this is that these things are not so that you're not in government so that you can protect these processes. You're in government so that you can deliver outcomes. And I think there, there is some confusion or a change in priority when Democratic officials get into government because I think inherently they are institutionalists. Right. And because Republicans want to break everything down. The knee jerk reaction by Democrats is we have to stand everything up, we have to protect everything as it stands. I think that's the wrong approach. I think you can both, both, you know, protect the sanctity of the government itself and like of our system of government while still recognizing that a lot of these norms and processes that are in place are barriers to the outcomes that people want to see. And if the election of Donald Trump and Republicans has shown us anything, it's that people are not content with the status quo, are looking for some big swings and, and especially in health care where we are the envy of no one on this planet, certainly not any industrialized nation where more people go bankrupt because they're trying to just stay alive than any other country in the industrialized world. Like there needs to be some, some change here. And so look, even Obama had come out and this was 20 years ago and said that what he was initially looking for was single payer. And what we were left with was a Compromise and like, good on him. I'm not, I'm certainly not going to knock getting something which is better than nothing. And me at 26 years, you know, prior to being 26 years old, had health care thanks to Barack Obama and that, and have health care on the ACA marketplace right now. And I'm sure that there are people, you know in the comments and who are watching who have access to health care and health insurance even with preexisting conditions, and they might not be here if it wasn't for something like that. So, so those are monumental wins. But at the same time, like, you know, look, I just think that, that these institutions are not as sacrosanct as we've been led to believe. And I think Trump's rise is owed to the fact that he was willing to acknowledge that incrementalism on certain subjects was, it's just not enough anymore.
- [15:06]
B
Yeah, I, I hear you. I do remember the Obama debate where he start, he admitted, I mean, he was like, look, I, I would have loved to have started with single payer, but like he, but he almost copped to the fact that he couldn't get it done from the get go and didn't even try. And I remember they, they kind of conceded it. They threw a few breadcrumbs at the single payer crowd at the time. Would you. So I kind of raises the question because you talk about you gotta eliminate the filibuster, maybe, you know, deal with the parliamentarian. Trump wants to do that right now. Right? Like, would you be okay with that if Trump did it?
- [15:40]
A
Look, obviously, obviously that's the difficult part, I think, I think saying I'm not going to not advocate for Democrats to eliminate the fill. Obviously I wouldn't be happy if Donald Trump eliminated the filibuster, but I'm not going to not advocate for Democrats to, to eliminate the filibuster because all that would say is, okay, we're, we're content with the status quo. We are content with no advancement on health care, no advancement on climate change. Democrats won't be able to advance or keep in place any legislation that isn't a Republican priority, like the filibuster is eliminated for the two things that are Republican priorities, judges and tax cuts. Those are the things that they want. And so if we decide not to eliminate the filibuster, we're basically making the conscious decision that we are okay with the status quo, the same status quo that has lost Democrats, the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote. So I Understand that, that Republicans can benefit from the same thing that I'm advocating for Democrats to do. But if we're going to not do something for fear of Republicans abusing it, like they're abusing it right now. So we can either do something or do nothing.
- [16:50]
B
Yeah. There's plenty of Democrats I talk to who would be fine, honestly, with Trump getting rid or Republicans currently getting rid of the filibuster precisely for that reason. I think in the aggregate, there are more legislative priorities that are hit or tripped up by that 60 vote threshold for Democrats than there are for Republicans. All right, let's say you're elected president in 2029. I don't think you're eligible. How old are you?
- [17:14]
A
I'm 37.
- [17:15]
B
Oh, yeah, fine. Okay.
- [17:16]
A
Yeah.
- [17:17]
B
Wait, how old do you have to be? 35.
- [17:19]
A
Yeah, 35.
- [17:20]
B
Okay. You wouldn't want. Okay, well, let's say you just somehow got it. Okay, what's your first day priority then? First, you can't, you can't do it on the first day.
- [17:32]
A
First day priority is advocating for the elimination of the filibuster and looking toward court reform. Those are the two things. Here's why.
- [17:42]
B
Both of them, because everything else is, everything else is held.
- [17:44]
A
Everything. Yeah, correct. Those, those are the two, those are the two things that would, that would serve as barriers for everything. If you, We've, we've obviously talked about the filibuster and everybody's talked about the filibuster ad nauseam. So I think, I think that that part is pretty clear. Court reform, if you decide to leave in place this 6, 3 conservative court that basically acts as an arm of the Republican Party, you're saying that after all the work it's going to take not only to get Democrats into the majority House, Senate, White House, which unto itself needs to be a Herculean task, but then you're saying all of the work that needs to go toward getting legislation passed, you're okay with leaving in Place a 6, 3 conservative court that can and will strike everything down? And, and so the question really becomes, are you okay with just getting caught trying? Are you okay with just symbolic gestures that you're, that you're, that you're making an attempt to deliver for people, or do you really want to have meaningful, lasting change? And if it's the latter, then there's no excuse to leave in place a conservative court that everybody knows will strike down any legislation that doesn't comport with their political ideology.
- [18:50]
B
Okay, I agree. I sort of agree. I sort of agree. But like, how do you get away from doing this tit for tat? Right, because you're not going to just be the only, it's not just going to be U.S. president. There's going to be future presidents who then expand upon that. Like, don't you have to do, I don't know, like, mandatory retirement? Like, how. Have you thought through, like, the specifics?
- [19:07]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I also advocate in, in the book for, for term limits for Supreme Court justices. I don't think you can do mandatory retirement because, because there would be constitutional barriers to that. But, but, you know, basically cycling judges out, you can put them on, on lower courts, by the way, so they don't have to be there forever. I mean, I advocate for expanding the court to 13 justices because for ever.
- [19:32]
B
That's the JVL position, just to be clear.
- [19:34]
A
Yeah. I mean, like, the number of Supreme Court justices has comported with the number of federal court circuits going back to the 1800s. I mean, there, you know, in 1837, there were six. Then, you know, then it was moved up to nine, but it's stuck at nine. And that's not in the Constitution. It's also not so sacrosanct that Republicans haven't changed the number of Supreme Court justices in modern times. Mitch McConnell brought that number from nine to eight for almost a year because he wanted to prevent Merrick Garland from taking that seat. So, like, these are, this is not so sacrosanct that we've never seen more or less, you know, more or fewer justices on the Supreme Court. So, so again, you know, look, I hear what you're saying about tit for tat, but also if you have, like, my, my point from before stands, which is you cannot act in such a way that, that you prevent yourself from advancing on anything for fear of Republicans abusing the same thing that you're trying to do, especially when they're abusing it right now. Like, like we, we saw almost four judges, justices today decide that, decide that they were okay with undermining the plain text of the Constitution in birthright citizenship. So this is not textualist, you know, neutral arbiters of the law. Supreme Court.
- [20:45]
B
It's funny, I was just talking because we just did a live stream on this like an hour ago. And my initial reaction, now that you brought up to the, to the birthright citizenship rul, it was that, okay, good. Like it's, you know, they, they upheld birthright citizenship. It was a rebuke of Trump. And now that I'm thinking about It a little bit more. It is a little bit alarming. Like there are definitely like four justices out there who are just like, actually this is not really a constitutional right. Three of them are just like, no, you misread it. And one of them's like, Congress can just override. It doesn't even require constitutional amendment. Like four out of nine is not particularly great.
- [21:20]
A
No, it doesn't inspire confidence. And, and look, it's not the first time that the suprem has, has kind of undermined the plain text of the Constitution. I mean we have the fact that Donald Trump is running for president, that had, had run for president, given the fact that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists and he's given aid or comfort to those who've engaged in insurrection, I think is a blinking red light. The fact that this, the Supreme Court created out of whole cloth this provision where presidents are shielded from, from criminal acts that yeah, that like this they will bend over backwards heaping deference on onto Trump. And so, you know, we escaped by the skin of our teet right citizenship. But the plain text of the Constitution prevents, says that, that, that if you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen. And that wasn't good enough for like half of the court. So, so again, like I, it would be one thing if this was a court that, that was going to adhere to the plain text of the Constitution regardless of political ideology. But that's not what we have with, with these people.
- [22:21]
B
You brought up Trump and, and, and, and the, in his loose relationship or wild relationship with the legal system. But in your book you're talking, you also talk about just prosecuting Trump officials for misdeeds that are clearly happening day in and day out. I mean, every day it's kind of something crazy. Today I was reading about the pardons or they're just like, yeah, it's, it's well known in D.C. that for a mill you can get a pardon, maybe two. It's just like that. You know, that's just bribery. It's like bribery of public officials. And you also brought up just sort of these half step notions and the fact that you have to, when Democrats come into back to office, they try to, their instincts are sort of like, we need to restore norms and bring back culture of comedy and you know, kumbaya. Right. And so obviously the parallel here is why didn't Barack Obama go after the Bush administration for authorizing torture? But in this case, we're on a whole different level. I mean, there's clear Acts of corruption and self dealing and all that stuff. I know you want to just go balls to the wall next time, but it does seem like you do need to actually in this case do it right.
- [23:34]
A
If you don't. Yeah, well, we don't.
- [23:37]
B
What happens if you don't? That's a good point.
- [23:39]
A
You don't, you end up with where we are right now. Like Trump 2.0 is the result of Merrick Garland putting the, putting, preventing the optics of politicization above actually, you know, seeking out justice without fear or favor. Like this is it. We don't have to guess what it would look like to be in a world where, where criminals aren't prosecuted because we're living in it. Like we are living in an unbridled, unrepentant Republican party that engages in corruption on a daily basis. Man, I'm sure, I'm sure folks here have seen the Atlantic article that, that suggests that Trump is considering 250 pard. America's 250th birthday. Like that is, that is so crazy.
- [24:23]
B
You don't know. They could be well deserving pardons. We don't.
- [24:26]
A
I'm, I'm sure they're going to be low level drug offenders. I'm sure it's going to be, yeah. People either doctors, that, that's, that's so like, you know, it's just unfortunately like this. Like, unfortunately we're in a, we're in a situation where, where we don't have to guess. Like, like this is what it looks like. It looks like making announcements, but somebody shorted the stock five minutes before the announcement. And that happens on an almost daily basis. It looks like heaping favor on to donors and family members for government contracts and government loans and Pentagon, and Pentagon loans. So like this is that, this is that corruption. And I think without it, without holding these people to account, all it does is embolden these people to, to think that they can get away with it. And frankly they, they can. Until Democrats show that they have enough of a spine to hold these people to account like Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland's inaction is why we're in the world that we're in right now.
- [25:24]
B
Yeah. Has anyone's reputation aged more poorly than Merrick Garland?
- [25:28]
A
I, I, I can't imagine. Like, I don't, I don't think so. And, and you know, I say that
- [25:35]
B
just not just from the vantage point of he, he was initially presented to the public and he has this, he earned a sterling reputation as a jurist and he was going to be this guy who was going to replace it, was going to get on the Supreme Court. And then, like, you know, this whole, the whole AG tenure was a disaster in some sense. I gotta, I gotta put you on the spot here because I play this game with a lot of folks, but, like, what was the, what's been the Trump act, the, the act of corruption or grift or whatever that has astonished you the most? And by that I mean, like, you step back and you think about it like, I can't believe he did that. Like, I, it just, it boggles my mind that he did that.
- [26:14]
A
Yeah, I think, I think it was when he granted a pardon because someone's
- [26:19]
B
mom's mom went to like, Mar.
- [26:23]
A
A lago, gave him like, $2 million. And I mean, how, how do you, how do you even. How do you justify that? Like, I, I can't imagine that there's any, any real way to justify either that. There's, There was also that 600.
- [26:38]
B
You have 2 million. 2 million ways to justify that.
- [26:40]
A
Yeah, I suppose so. I, I don't mean how can he bring himself to justify. I mean, how publicly do you justify that as anything other than what it is? I mean, it's, it's just like, it's like comic book villain level stuff there. I mean, it's just, it's so egregious. It's, it's just so shameless. And, and again, I think that's, that's the, that's the sad part is like, there's not even a pretense that, that what he's doing is somehow justifiable. It's just happening. And even worse than him doing it because he's, he's a, he's a con man and a criminal and he's just a. He's a corrupt piece of shit. But like, the Republican Party more broadly, they, they all know better, you know, and if any Democrat did 1/1,000th of what Donald Trump or anybody in his administration are doing, they would be, they would be apoplectic. I mean, judge, like Judge Janine and Laura Ingram and Jesse Waters would be nonstop on Fox News hosting a telethon for their prosecution and their impeachment and like. But it's just, you know, comes and goes like a fart in a hurricane now, because that's just, it's just, you know, it is what it is.
- [27:42]
B
In today's GOP, I'm surprised you didn't say the $1.776 billion Anti Weaponization Fund, that was. That's a. That's not my favorite, but that one is your favorite. That.
- [27:53]
A
No, look. That is great. There, there is a lot of contenders.
- [27:56]
B
It's tough. You could do a. I say that one.
- [27:58]
A
Not, not to the detriment of anything else. It was just the one that I plucked out of thin air. What's yours?
- [28:04]
B
Okay, you got it. Let me. It's a bit of a winds up. Actually. It's not much of a wind up, but it seems so obvious. But then when you think about it at a different level, it still boggles my mind. I think the bulldozing of the East Wing is the most insane thing you could possibly do. Think about it. It's not his house. It's like, it's not his. Like, yeah, he just. And he didn't get permission. He was just like woke up and he's like, I'm bulldozing this historic building that's not mine and I'm gonna build something without any permission. And then I'm gonna just lie about the fact that it'll be paid for by private funds. The gall to just go ahead and do something like that to the White House. I, I feel like we don't appreciate it enough. Stuff. Right? Like the reflecting pool is funny. Hahaha. Whatever. Like the ARC is like the arch keeps calling the ark. The arch is stupid and weird, but this. He like took down a building. It doesn't compute to me that he could do that.
- [29:06]
A
I actually think it's instructive because it should be a lesson to Democrats that you can do that. Like you can. No, whatever.
- [29:13]
B
You cannot do that. You cannot do that. Don't do that.
- [29:16]
A
I don't mean, I don't mean bulldoze.
- [29:18]
B
Don't give them the ideas to kill off the West Wing too.
- [29:20]
A
Yeah, no, what I mean is like, is, is. And you can do it and you must do it in a virtuous way, but you can do things that you want to do. And a lot of the things that stop us are, are our respect for like, norms. And I mean, this is getting back to the conversation that we were having before, but Trump is. Trump has shown that a lot of the things that stop Democrats from delivering decent outcomes for people are a lot of like these, these barriers that are not so sacrosanct. Because if you want to do something again, do something virtuous. Not, not, you know, bulldoze the fucking White House and encrust the Oval Office in gold and stick your face on half a dozen government buildings. Like, if you want to do something that's actually going to deliver food people, get people health care, combat climate change, usher in a just economy, pass voting rights legislation that a lot of these barriers that seem so sacrosanct are not in fact as sacrosanct if you have a great enough will to get them done.
- [30:19]
B
Yeah, well, I want to bring it back to a little, to the book a little bit. There are places in here where you talk about, you know, this kind of virtuous but righteous path forward and you know, are there and you talk about like for instance, climate change and immigration and obviously gerrymandering and voting reforms and lots of. Are there places though where you see a advantage for Democrats to moderate, whether in policy or in tone or in how they present themselves kind of culturally and socially?
- [30:56]
A
Yeah, I think, I think it would behoove the left more broadly to not be in a position where we impose purity tests. I think the left does, does have a tendency to do that. We're not in a position where we have that luxury like Democrats don't have the House, the Senate, the White House and have lost the popular vote. And I think a lot of that's, there's going to be a lot of reversion back to the mean anyway just by virtue of how unpopular Republicans are. But at its core, I think that politics really is just about cobbling together coalitions and if we're imposing purity tests and which inherently creates a more exclusive party, shrinks the tent. Like I think that we need to be, we need to be expanding the tent. Republicans and the right more broadly, I should say, were really effective at finding some area of agreement with people and embracing them because they were willing to show agreement in that one space. I think Democrats so often, or the left so often says unless you adhere to my political ideology 100% of the time, then you're not a member in good standing of, of the Democratic Party or of the left more broadly. So we have a lot to learn, I think in terms of recognizing like what politics is at its core. It's just building coalitions so that you can get into power as opposed to saying you have to be 100% ideologically aligned with me before I allow you entrance into this movement.
- [32:26]
B
Yeah, I agree with that. You know, it's tough, right, because on the one hand, obviously no one wants to say you have to be with the agreement with me on 100%. Right. Like that's obviously. But then you sort of get into the specifics about what you're allowing is non purity, you know, or non pure utterances. And you know, like, everyone brings up trans issues as sort of the classic example of which, like you gotta let Democrats, you know, come out against, you know, trans kids playing in, you know, different sports. And it's like, okay, yeah, but that's like, you know, you can see why that's offensive and why it's not that big a problem because it's like a handful of kids we're talking about, right? Yeah. And so it's like you don't want to offend. At the same time, you do understand that there has to be broader appeal for certain candidates running in certain races. I just don't know where, how. And maybe that's just a sort of disposition thing. Right. It's like, don't you can be respectful while disagreeing or something like that?
- [33:21]
A
Yeah, I think it's, it's as simple as that. But look, you know, people who are going to win races in New York are going to be different from Democrats who are going to win races in Florida and Texas. And like that. That is okay. I mean, like, I know everybody shits on Joe Manchin, man. What, what we would give to have
- [33:36]
B
you big mansion guy.
- [33:38]
A
No, but I am a. But I'm a big Democrat from. I'm a big Democrat from West Virginia guy. I'm a big. Allowing Democrats to have gavels. It was certainly helpful. Like, look, I, I think, I think that I, that Joe Manchin was probably the bane of my existence in terms of like what he did when he was there. But it didn't change the fact that like, like I'd much rather have a Democratic Senate majority leader than Mitch McConnell in power. So, you know, I think on that point, like, again, I just, I just don't think we're in a position where we can be, where we can be imposing purity tests. But also like, I think, you know, when you talk about like trans Americans, I also think it's kind of. I would almost reject the premise of that at this point because it's become so clear that these culture war topics that I think resonated so much in 2024 were nothing but a smokescreen for a Republican Party that had no interest on like, on delivering for people. Like, I think a lot of people realize the extent to which they were conned by voting on the issue of like trans athletes. And now they're in a position where the inflation's higher, gas prices are higher, we're at a war with a country he swore we'd never be at war with. The Epstein files are still suppressed. Costs of everything are surging and like, ok, but six kids who wanted to, who wanted to play sports in school can't play sports in school. Like that's what you, that's what you voted for. Is your life materially better in any way whatsoever? And so I don't even think that's going to be an issue moving forward because like, because, because everything else that this administration promised didn't come to fruition.
- [35:16]
B
I mean obviously, obviously I agree with you. Right. Like it's, it's, the ledger is so one sided there. But again, this gets us to sort of your chapter on the media too. And just it's like, yeah, but the sort of media filter and the media diet that half the country is digesting presents that as the most existential threat that they face and won't actually cover the fact that Trump called the housing legislation a yawn or that he's sitting on the Epstein files. Right. So it's like you and I could sit here on this wonderful, well attended substack live, but it's not like everyone in the world is watching and it's, and a lot, a huge portion of the country is going to get their news in an incredibly sympathetic filter to Trump.
- [36:03]
A
Yeah. And I think that, that, that's where you know, the onus is on, on folks like you at the Bulwark, at people like me doing what I do on my channel to just push back. I mean like the right wing media ecosystem is better funded, bigger, they have structural advantages on their side. Elon owns Twitter, you know, the Ellison's own half of legacy media. Now obviously Mark Zuckerberg is sympathetic to, to Donald Trump at Meta. You know, this is tick tock owned by some consortium of, of right wing officials. And so like so, so I think like structurally they have every, hey, don't forget Bezos.
- [36:42]
B
Don't forget Bezos.
- [36:43]
A
Correct. Like Jeff Bezos. And so, so like, you know, I think that it's, it just requires left of center media, pro democracy media to, to, to do what we can to make sure that we're present in this ecosystem. I mean that, that is, it's, you know, people so often ask me like, why don't you run for office? Like you're a young guy. We were in desperate need of like young blood on the left. Once you run for office, I, I think that the media space is so much more important. I think this is the front lines of democracy. And so that's what I do, why I do, that's why I'm So grateful for the work that, that you all do at the Bulwark, and why I'm so, you know, glad to see, to see you growing to the extent that you are year after year. And, and you do, and you do do great. I mean, you do, you do an amazing job.
- [37:31]
B
And I keep going.
- [37:33]
A
I had a show with Tim that I did in the lead up to the 2024 election. And like, you know, I, I, I'm a big fan of the work that, that you do and the audience that you've built. And so I, but I think that that needs to be done. I mean, it's not easy, and we're, and we have every disadvantage that we're contending with. But even still, I think that, you know, the message that, that we have, whether it's, you know, taking climate change seriously, making sure that more people have access to health care, making sure that, that we actually protect a democratic system as opposed to allowing ourselves to slide into autocracy, I think those resonate with people inherently. And so even though we have structural disadvantages, we have an easier path in terms of, in terms of the positions that we espouse.
- [38:17]
B
Yeah. Well, first off, let me just say no one's ever asked me why I don't run for office. I don't think anyone wants me to run for office. But if you're out there, I get
- [38:25]
A
that question every day. It's so weird that you don't.
- [38:27]
B
I, no, no one has asked, suggested, encouraged, anything. I'm a little offended, but I, I'm not going to take it personally. Secondly, if you want to keep going by how great the Bulwark is, feel free. But I will just note, for those who just, you know, are, you know, believe everything Brian says, we have a promo right now where you can join the Bullock as a subscriber. It's our July 4th promo, the bulwark dot com. July 4th. You get $86 per a subscription because we want 86 the. Tell me a bit about how you built up your YouTube follower buddy. 5.2 mil. I'm jealous. I'm real jealous. So you wait. But I want, I want the, I want the whole sort of biography story. So you're like a kid and in Pennsylvania, he went to Lehigh. He started a podcast during COVID and then like, suddenly get 5.2 mil. What happened?
- [39:15]
A
Yeah, so, you know, I first started out on Facebook in, like, 2016, when Facebook was really the only, the only way that anybody was getting any political news. And I was writing for Occupy Democrats and I did that for about a year and occupied Democrats was the biggest page on Facebook at the time. I think it still is the biggest page on Facebook. And I had asked if, if I could do, start doing video content because I'm like, I think video content is going to be the next, the next thing. This is 2016, roughly 2016, 2017.
- [39:45]
B
Yeah, you were ahead of your time, but maybe a little too far ahead of your time. It took a little while.
- [39:49]
A
It did take a little while, but. And, and so I, I had asked, I was like, can I do video content? I was like, no. Video content is not the future. Short form articles of the future. And so I was like, I don't think that's true. So I left and I was like, I'm just gonna start my own thing. And so that's what I did. I just started posting videos onto Facebook in like 2017, 2018, consistently, every single day. And I was doing it for like tens of people, hundreds of people, maybe like a couple thousand. And slowly. And, and I remember I hit a hundred thousand subscribers on, on YouTube. And I was so embarrassed because YouTube was just prank videos at that point. Like nobody was getting political news from, from YouTube. Certainly not from like some 27 year old kid wearing a suit, an ill fitting suit. And like in, I was in my, like I was in a family member' the basement. Like it was, it was wild.
- [40:36]
B
But you put a suit on, doing
- [40:37]
A
it in the house. And I was like, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna like do the news. And and so I had, I got the hundred thousand.
- [40:44]
B
Oh, we gotta find some archival footage. I wanted the baby face.
- [40:47]
A
I make everything private. I'm like this, I took the plaque and I was like, I am not opening this. I'm like. And I shoved it like in my like deep into the depths of my closet because we put our plaque right there.
- [40:57]
B
Look at that.
- [40:58]
A
Now. Yeah, I mean now, now it's like now more people get their news from, from YouTube than they do from, from legacy media. But this was like, this was almost a decade ago and, and it was just keeping my head down and working every single day. And I still work every single day. And it's, it's amazing what you can accomplish when you are willing to sacrifice all of your mental health and meaningful relationships.
- [41:21]
B
So I mean, do you feel. I sometimes feel that. Not meaningful relationships. I'm married, I'm happy. But like I do sometimes worry about my mental health being in this all day, every day. Right?
- [41:31]
A
Yeah. I used to Be really like, on a serious note, I used to be really good at compartmentalizing and I've gotten much less good at compartmentalizing over the years. And because, you know, it's, it stuff starts to impact you and your friends and people around you and your neighborhoods and your, and your loved ones and like, and it isn't just stuff that offends you, it's stuff that affects you. And, and you know, it's been almost 10 years and a lot of damage can be done in 10 years. And, and. But, you know, I think we're also in a position where we have the, the, the fortune of being able to do something about it and inform people and, and bring people into the political process. And like my North Star in politics has always been to make politics accessible. Like, I don't do punchbowl news. Like I am. I want to be the gateway for people to come into the process. And if they want to stay with me, that's great. They come in and they go farther left. That's great. If they come in and they go, you know, like, whatever, whatever. It means if I can be the top of the funnel and bring people into the process, people that may not have paid attention to politics before, then I feel like I've done my job.
- [42:39]
B
How do you think, since you are in the media and you do all this incredible stuff on YouTube and you got this great fast following, but you also had the presence to see where the puck was heading a little while ago. Where do you think the puck setting
- [42:51]
A
now in terms of the media space or.
- [42:54]
B
Yeah, like what's the next big innovation, you think?
- [42:57]
A
Yeah, it's a good question. I'm not sure that I know the answer to that question yet. I do think, you know, watching, watching the influencer space really take off in such a massive way, kind of makes it so that the writing is on the wall, that it's going to be. That it's going to be more about. About content creators than, than it even is right now. I do think that, that, you know, as legacy media institutions, which a lot of content creators rely on, which I rely on to make sure that I have accurate information, I think that's gonna, I think they're going to be worse and worse funded and it's going to bode pretty poorly for like misinformation and disinformation proliferating in this ecosystem. I also think that that the fact that people like Elon own these algorithms, that's going to in large part impact what kind of information people are Fed during elections. It's already happening, but I think it's going to happen to the nth degree. And, and I think bot accounts are going to make it so that, you know, full blown news cycles can be manipulated or created out of, out of whole cloth and perpetuated through accounts that are, that are inauthentic. So, you know, I think we, we have a lot of, we have a lot of issues that we're going to have to contend with. Which is why I think trusted voices like, like real human beings are going to be that much more important. Whether, you know, whether it's content creators like, like, like the work that we do, whether it is legacy media folks who continue to, you know, maybe, maybe if they come into the independent space. But I do think that, that voices that people know that they can trust are going to be that much more important because there's going to be a lot of forces of mis and disinformation swirling around sound.
- [44:40]
B
You make it sound so positive, man.
- [44:42]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [44:44]
B
Jesus.
- [44:45]
A
I mean, you know, I, I, I did say things are, things are bleak in this ecosystem.
- [44:52]
B
Have you been approached by one of the legacy outlets? I'm assuming you have.
- [44:55]
A
Yeah, I mean, MSMB, back when it was MSNBC, I, I was a contributor with them for about 18 months.
- [45:03]
B
I'm talking about like, hey, we want you to like anchor a show or do a project or with us, not a contributorship.
- [45:08]
A
It wasn't that, but I think that could have been what would come next at Ms. Had I opted to stay. But, and I, and I have, I have, I have all the love in the world for the work that they do, but I just think that it would be kind of crazy to, to like relinquish a platform of, you know, I've got over 5 million on YouTube. I've got about 14 million across platforms to relinquish that, especially at a time where more people are going toward independent media. Not so, you know, it, it's, it's sad because like, I think my first goal in politics was like, I, I want, I want to have my own show. And, and then you have your own show.
- [45:44]
B
You do, but that's the thing, right?
- [45:46]
A
Right, Totally.
- [45:46]
B
Yeah.
- [45:47]
A
I mean, like, you know, it was to have my own show on tv, but the landscape changed and now I see a lot of these TV anchors that are trying to get YouTube shows. And so, you know, I, I'm, I'm where a lot of people want to be.
- [45:58]
B
You know, you could share some of your followers with us. Generosity.
- [46:02]
A
I, I, I I do. Show them.
- [46:04]
B
Hand them to us. Okay, fine. Do you want to do, before we
- [46:06]
A
go, do you want to not subscribe to the Bulwark? Please hit the subscribe button and, and spread the wealth a little bit. There is as, as Sam mentioned there,
- [46:17]
B
I'm sure the Venn, the Venn diagram is pretty overlapped. Before we go, do you want to tell a story about how you left me out? Let me hang it on, on the stage.
- [46:27]
A
Yeah.
- [46:27]
B
By myself there.
- [46:28]
A
I, I, we were doing a, a trivia round at one of the Bulwark Live events, which are very fun, and if anybody watching has the opportunity to go to a Bulwark Live event, could not recommend it highly enough because, But Sam was on my trivia team. I'm doing a lot of heavy lifting because I didn't enter a single question correctly. I mean, it was, it was you,
- [46:52]
B
me and Van Latho.
- [46:54]
A
It was rough. I also don't think Van Van did not.
- [46:58]
B
Van, Van at least had a couple where he tried. I don't even think he would try.
- [47:02]
A
It was, it was grim. It's how, it's how like my friends in my, my apolitical friends, all of whom work in the entertainment industry, it's how they must feel when I talk about politics. I was as clueless as they were. Which is, which is wild because, like, you know, I, I, I purportedly work in this industry.
- [47:21]
B
But, well, in fairness to you, all the questions were the theme of the questions because a long one to Miller came up with them. It was strictly trivia about never Trumpers. So it was like all old Republican lore. So it's just like, you know, some random Mitt Romney strategist did this and like Mark Sanford did that and Michael Steele when he was running the rnc. Like, there's no reason to know that. And the only reason I knew it is because I've heard them talk about this stuff.
- [47:45]
A
Yeah.
- [47:45]
B
At various points in my life. So I appreciate it.
- [47:48]
A
But, yeah, that was, you know, a slice of humble pie. I didn't know. It was great.
- [47:54]
B
I had a great time. He is right about the live shows. They're good fun. All right, man. Well, look, I took up a lot of your time, but this was a real pleasure and I'm, I'm super excited for you on this book. I was joking at the top about why would you do such a thing? The only reason I was joking is because it. Writing a book seems like a real bear, but if you have something to say, you should say it. And it looks like you have with this book. So best of luck selling it. I'm going to pimp it one more time. It's called the day after July 14th. There you go. Pre sales now for by Mark Elias.
- [48:27]
A
Yeah, Mark, I mean, you know, he, he actually argued one of the cases that the Supreme Court handed down today. The case that, that, that basically gutted the FEC's spending limits. I actually, I think he's argued in front of the Supreme Court eight times and he's won seven of them. This unfortunately was the one in one case that he's lost. But, but I mean, man, talk about a hero for democracy. Mark is, Mark is exactly that. So really proud to have him have written the forward for this. And yeah, it's available now. A great way to support my work and independent media. And also I should note that J.D. vance's book just came out and it's number one on the new York Times bestseller list. So if you want to help me unseat J.D. vance and, and show some love for left of center media, this is a great way to do that.
- [49:11]
B
That excellent. All right man, thank you so much. Good luck with the book.
- [49:15]
A
Appreciate it. Thanks.
- [49:16]
B
Take care, buddy. Take care.
- [49:17]
A
See you.