AOC Loses to the Gerontocracy

Summary

Pod Save America: "AOC Loses to the Gerontocracy" – Detailed Summary

Release Date: December 18, 2024
Hosts: Jon Favreau, Dan Pfeiffer
Guest: Cecilia Munoz

---

Overview

In this episode of Pod Save America, hosts Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer delve into recent political developments affecting the Democratic Party, particularly focusing on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) losing her bid for the top Democratic position on the House Oversight Committee to seasoned Representative Gerry Connolly. The discussion also explores the broader implications of this decision on the party's communication strategy and effectiveness. Additionally, they highlight positive strides within the party, such as efforts to reform Democratic fundraising practices. The episode culminates with an insightful interview with Cecilia Munoz, a veteran immigration advocate, who analyzes why Democrats have struggled with the immigration issue and offers strategies for building a more effective reform agenda.

---

Republicans Targeting Liz Cheney [05:20]

Jon Favreau opens the discussion by addressing the latest House Republican report, which alleges that former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with Cassidy Hutchinson, a star witness, without Hutchinson's attorney's knowledge. The report suggests potential federal witness tampering and calls for an FBI investigation into Cheney.

Notable Quote:

• "Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering by the FBI and might have broken numerous federal laws." ([04:58])

Favreau and Pfeiffer dismiss the allegations as baseless, emphasizing that Cheney acted in her capacity as a member of Congress and that Hutchinson approached her independently. They criticize the Republican strategy of targeting Cheney singularly to avoid broader uproar, suggesting it reflects an authoritarian approach to suppress dissent within the party.

Dan Pfeiffer:
"This is exactly how it happens. You get a pretext for an investigation run by a bunch of political cronies who will do what the authoritarian wants." ([05:20])

---

House Democrats Appoint Gerry Connolly Over AOC [17:59]

The hosts transition to a significant internal Democratic decision: the House Democrats voted 131 to 84 to appoint 74-year-old Gerry Connolly as the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee instead of 35-year-old AOC. Connolly's appointment replaces Jamie Raskin in this influential role.

Notable Quotes:

• "Picking seniority over the ability to deliver a message is exactly how we've gotten this mess to begin with." ([18:41]) – Dan Pfeiffer
• "It is insane. You think the NRCC is going to just forget she's a member of Congress and not run ads against her?" ([21:10]) – Dan Pfeiffer

Pfeiffer and Favreau critique the decision, arguing that prioritizing seniority over communicative prowess undermines the party's ability to connect with voters. They highlight AOC's effectiveness as a modern communicator who can garner significant attention, which is crucial in today's media landscape.

Jon Favreau:
"What really bothers me about it, right, is that it just gets to your point. It reveals a mindset among Democrats that they are missing that attention is the only thing that matters right now." ([23:46])

---

Democratic Strategy and Messaging [26:29]

The hosts discuss the broader implications of sidelining effective communicators like AOC. They argue that the Democratic Party's failure to prioritize attention and clear messaging contributes to its struggles in elections. Favreau emphasizes the necessity of creative and authentic communication to engage voters effectively.

Dan Pfeiffer:
"AOC can get attention. She has proven that when she has attention, she can deliver a more compelling message than most people in the party." ([23:44])

Favreau adds that without leveraging figures who can attract and maintain public interest, the party's messages risk being drowned out in a crowded media environment.

---

Government Funding and Legislative Leverage [32:26]

Favreau and Pfeiffer analyze the ongoing struggle within the Republican-controlled House to pass a government funding bill. With Speaker Mike Johnson holding a narrow majority, Republicans face challenges in securing unanimous support for legislation. This dynamic presents an opportunity for Democrats to extract concessions or influence legislative outcomes despite being outnumbered.

Notable Quote:

• "We have to do everything we can with a limited power. We have to fight Trump, vote against his nominees, use legislative tactics that we have to try to expose them to longer debates or a longer process." ([35:08]) – Dan Pfeiffer

They debate whether Democrats should leverage their limited power to negotiate better terms on critical issues like tax reforms and healthcare, even if it means allowing some Republican initiatives to pass in exchange for concessions.

---

Good News: Democratic Fundraising Reforms [40:30]

Shifting to a more positive note, Favreau and Pfeiffer discuss a significant effort within the Democratic Party to reform fundraising practices through ActBlue. Over 100 Democrats have pushed for changes to reduce spam and deceptive solicitation tactics that alienate potential donors.

Notable Quote:

• "We should do it. It's so sketchy when you get, like, Barack Obama has spoken, and it's like a quote from Barack Obama, and, like, some of the appeals seem ridiculous." ([43:08]) – Jon Favreau

Pfeiffer commends the initiative, highlighting its importance in restoring trust and improving the effectiveness of Democratic fundraising by eliminating scam packs and enhancing donor experience.

---

Interview with Cecilia Munoz: Immigration Advocacy [48:40]

Background and Concerns [49:08]

Cecilia Munoz, a distinguished immigration advocate and former White House domestic policy overseer, discusses her journey into immigration advocacy shaped by her personal connections as the daughter and wife of immigrants.

Democrats Losing Ground on Immigration [50:34]

Munoz and co-author Frank Sherry argue in their Atlantic piece that Democrats have shifted too far left on immigration, abandoning comprehensive reform in favor of singular focus on enforcement. This shift has alienated voters who seek balanced solutions addressing both enforcement and pathways to citizenship.

Notable Quote:

• "I have a lot of praise for the Biden administration... but I think it was pretty clear that he didn't want to talk about this issue until he had to, because it's a world of pain." ([53:12]) – Cecilia Munoz

Missed Opportunities and Strategic Failures [53:24]

Munoz criticizes the Democratic leadership for lacking a cohesive narrative and theory of the case on immigration, which hampers their ability to effectively communicate solutions to the public. She emphasizes the necessity of balancing enforcement with humanitarian pathways to restore public trust and support.

Notable Quote:

• "We need to have a vision for what needs to happen and be able to persuade the American public that that's the right vision." ([57:23]) – Cecilia Munoz

Preparing for a Potential Trump Term [67:27]

Looking ahead, Munoz warns of exacerbated immigration challenges should Trump return to power. She advocates for Democrats to maintain a strong, clear narrative that emphasizes order and fairness, countering Trump's aggressive deportation tactics without adopting extreme positions.

Notable Quote:

• "If we do not have a theory of the case for how to address the border situation, I really fear for our ability to take the country back from the autocrats." ([66:27]) – Cecilia Munoz

---

Concluding Remarks

Favreau and Pfeiffer underscore the critical need for the Democratic Party to revamp its communication strategies and policy frameworks to regain voter trust and effectively counter Republican maneuvers. They highlight the importance of leveraging internal reforms and embracing effective communicators to navigate the challenges ahead.

Dan Pfeiffer:
"Politics is a war for attention. AOC can get attention. She has proven that when she has attention, she can deliver a more compelling message than most people in the party." ([23:44])

Jon Favreau:
"The Democratic Party has still not figured out how important it is to get attention and what is required to get attention." ([26:29])

The episode concludes with anticipation for future discussions on political strategies and the ongoing evolution of the Democratic Party in response to internal and external pressures.

---

Key Takeaways

• Internal Democratic Decisions: The appointment of Gerry Connolly over AOC signals a prioritization of seniority over effective communication within the party, potentially weakening its public messaging.

• Republican Tactics: Republicans' targeting of Liz Cheney exemplifies authoritarian strategies to suppress dissent and maintain control.

• Fundraising Reforms: Positive internal efforts to reform Democratic fundraising practices through ActBlue aim to reduce voter alienation and enhance donor trust.

• Immigration Strategy: Democrats need to adopt a balanced, assertive approach to immigration policy that combines enforcement with pathways to citizenship to reclaim voter support.

• Future Challenges: With Republicans gaining tighter control and potential strategies to hinder Democratic legislative efforts, the party must innovate its communication and policy strategies to remain effective.

---

Note: This summary excludes advertisements and non-content segments, focusing solely on the substantive discussions and interviews within the episode.

Transcript

[Jon Favreau]

Variety raves. Maria is absolute perfection. In Entertainment Weekly hails Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie. Brings tragedy and triumph to the last days of opera singer Maria Callas.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Finally, I am in control.

[Jon Favreau]

And critics agree. It's a towering tour de force performance from Angelina Jolie and a career best.

[Cecilia Munoz]

My life is opera. There is no reason in Opera Maria.

[Jon Favreau]

Directed by Pablo Lerae for your consideration. Now playing it's Lech Peterson on Netflix. Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. As you celebrate the season of giving, remember that safety is the best gift you can give your home, your family and yourself. With Simplisafe, you can ensure you and your loved ones are protected while you enjoy the festivities. And right now, save 50% off your new system. But you need to claim your discount today.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You have to do today.

[Jon Favreau]

And you know John Lovett knows that better than anyone because he set up a SimpliSafe all on his own.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I did. And incredibly easy to do. You can customize it and then set it up in a matter of minutes.

[Jon Favreau]

Now he's snug as a bug in a rug.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And the app is Customer support is great. It's just a great product.

[Jon Favreau]

Old school systems only take action once someone's already inside your home. That's dumb. Simply saves active guard. Outdoor protection changes the game by preventing crime before it happens. If someone's lurking around or acting suspiciously, those agents can see them in real time, talk to them directly, set off your spotlights, and even call the police before they've had a chance to break in. Plus, there are no long term contracts, no cancellation fees, and it's around a dollar a day. For all this protection, Simplisafe is extending its massive Black Friday deal for our listeners this week only you can get 50% off any new system with a select from professional monitoring plan. This is your last chance to claim their best offer of the year. Head to simplisafe.com crooked that's simplisafe.com crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I'm Dan Pfeiffer.

[Jon Favreau]

I know what you're thinking. Dan and I together on a Wednesday, not a Friday. Is there a polling emergency? Turns out only for Ann Seltzer.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yes, yes, yes.

[Jon Favreau]

We are here together because Friday's episode is our annual pundi show where all four of us debate the worst takes of the year, including ours. Then we're off for the holiday break. So Dan and I thought we'd do One last normal episode here in the very abnormal year of 2024. Are you as excited as I am, Dan?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

John? I was just so worried that my takes were just going to be stuck in the fridge for weeks and I had to get them out before they started to smell.

[Jon Favreau]

I know. Well, you don't put them on social media as much anymore, so I know I should, but. Because you're smart.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Because you're smart, I watch what happens to you on social media and it's an object lesson. You're a walking scared straight for your own podcast, offline.

[Jon Favreau]

Canary in the coal Mine. Okay, so we are gonna talk about how House Democrats voted to pass over AOC for the top job on the Oversight Committee and whether it says anything about the party's broader strategy over the next few years. We also potentially have some good news. There's reportedly an effort afoot to stop Democratic fundraising Spam. How about that? And then later, you'll hear my interview with cecilia Munoz, a 20 year veteran of the immigration fight, about why she thinks Democrats lost their way on the issue and how we can build a majority for real reform. But first, we have talked a lot in recent weeks about Trump's revenge tour and how scared his critics should be. Looks like we're starting to get our answer. On Wednesday, House Republicans released a 128 page report that unsurprisingly, tries to pin the blame for January 6th on Democrats instead of Donald Trump. People would be surprised to learn that. But Republicans, quote, top finding was this. Quote, former Representative Liz Cheney colluded with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson without Hutchinson's attorney's knowledge. Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering by the FBI and might have broken, quote, numerous federal laws. Cheney called the allegations, quote, defamatory and said that no reputable lawyer, legislator or judge would take this seriously. Someone who is taking it seriously, Donald Trump, who posted at 3am a statement that started, liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble. So this is obviously bullshit. And we know that it was Cassidy Hutchinson who reached out to Liz Cheney, not the other way around. Cheney talked to her in her capacity as a member of Congress, not a lawyer. And most importantly, when Republicans criticized Cheney for this meeting months and months ago, maybe years ago, they merely said that she had a, quote, ethical responsibility to have Hutchinson's lawyer present for the meeting. Didn't say anything about any laws being broken. But that, of course, was before Donald Trump and Cash Patel, the person he wants to run the FBI, campaigned on locking up Liz Cheney and the rest of the January 6th committee. Dan, how serious do you take this threat, not only for Cheney, but for.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

All of Trump's critics incredibly seriously? This is exactly how it happens. You get a pretext for an investigation run by a bunch of political cronies who will do what the authoritarian wants. We see this happen all over the world, and Trump told us it was gonna happen. He appointed the people who would follow through on the things he told us he was gonna do, and now they are doing it. It's incredibly dangerous.

[Jon Favreau]

I also think it's interesting that they singled out Cheney. She's a former member of Congress, and they didn't single out yet all the other members of the January 6th committee. And I think part of that is, like, what's scaring me most about it is that it is a concerted strategy to not, like, if they came out and said, we're going after every member of the January 6 committee and all the staffers, and we're, we're investigating all of them, you know, then you would have more of an uproar. But to, like, go after one person who's not in Congress anymore and is now just a private citizen shows that they're really, they're going to try to do this so that it doesn't, it doesn't garner a lot of attention.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think it feels like we're on the cusp of something very dangerous, and most people are unwilling to reckon with just how dangerous it is.

[Jon Favreau]

So Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut agrees. He had a compelling, if alarming, thread on all of this. He painted a picture where Cash, Patel and the DOJ charged Cheney. Right, because they have the power to do that. And then are the courts going to save her? Judges going to save her? Well, they can find a jurisdiction with a MAGA judge to try her. And then Murphy tied it to Trump's larger effort to stifle dissent by he's now officially sued and seltzer in the Des Moines Register. He is, of course, intimidating media outlets. ABC News, we talked about on the last show, settled for $15 million. Murphy talks about how Trump has and his new potential FCC commissioners threatened media outlets take away their broadcast licenses. He's threatened other lawsuits against media figures, media outlets. Whether or not any of this succeeds is beside the point, Murphy points out, because now, you know, everyone will be scared to say or write anything that Donald Trump doesn't like, including put out a poll where he's not ahead or his approval rating is low. What did you make of Murphy's threat?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Once again, I think he Nails it. The suing of an seltzer in the Des Moines Register is stupid. Like, even, even the most MAGA judge, I think, is going to struggle to find the harm that Donald Trump suffered from a bad poll in a state that he eventually won by more than he won in 2020 and 2016. So that's just. That is pure idiocy. It's so dumb, it's almost a cause for relief about how he's gonna proceed down this path because he's clearly easily distracted. But I think it's important to understand, and you guys talked about this, I thought very well, as relates to the ABC News settlement, is you have two problems with media outlets that Donald Trump is exploiting here. One is, like abc, most of them are run by much larger corporations that have many interests before the government, and particularly in these, you know, whether it's Comcast owning NBC or Paramount owning CBS or Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post, and all of the. And the business, the news business is such a minor part and often a money loser for these larger entities that they are not going to take on water on the businesses they care about to get on Donald Trump's wrong side to defend. If ABC News was on its own, a independent company, it would have fought that case to the very end. But because Disney has a million items of business before the government, they don't want to be in a fight with Donald Trump for the next year for a part of the business. It is so small that Bob Iger suggested selling it at a loss a few years ago, and then the other media companies don't have the resources to fight these lawsuits. Right. It is amusing that he's suing against elsewhere. You're also suing the Des Moines Register, a struggling newspaper that's part of a struggling newspaper chain that does not have the resources to do that in any way, shape or form. And it used to be, there used to be an old saying that was, you never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. You never pick a fight with the press because they will beat you in the end. But the press itself can barely afford to buy ink by the barrel right now. And so many of these newspapers or local television stations or other outlets could be bankrupted by. By just the idea of fighting an absurd lawsuit against Trump.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. There was a New York Times story as well today that sort of dug into why Disney decided to settle. And they listed a couple of reasons. One, as we've been saying, and you just said that, you know, $15 million for Disney is like chump change compared to, you know, what they would have to potentially pay if, if, if Trump won. And, and, and they just didn't need the headache. And so in some ways it's a business decision and it almost makes sense as a business decision. Right. But then they were worried about a jury in South Florida and a judge in South Florida because that's, you know, MAGA territory now. So they were worried that they wouldn't get a fair hearing. And then they were worried reportedly that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court. And you know, you've had Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court and others say maybe the Supreme Court precedent on press freedom, like the foundational case Sullivan, that allows the free for freedom of the press and has a, has the standard of actual malice for libel and defamation suits that maybe it could get overturned. And I think that just shows not only like how screwed we are with Trump and what he's doing, but with the fact that the judiciary has been tilted so far. Right. Over the last several years.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah. And just another point on why this was a business decision for ABC is the way they structured the settlement. It's a tax write off because it's a contribution to Trump's future foundation, which just notable, ABC News is getting $15 million to fund a monument to the most anti press president in American history. But they get to write the taxes off. So that's cool.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, it was interesting to me that Senator Murphy did this thread because he said he's a U.S. senator, Democrat. It's not like us talking about it on Pod Save America. I sort of wonder. There's a lot of people sort of sounding the alarms, raising awareness for all this. Like I don't know what to do about it. I mean, there's obviously just thinking about Cheney again. Right. I think this is obviously another argument in favor of Biden issuing preemptive pardons not just for Cheney, but for other members of the January 6th committee and staff as well as potential Trump targets, the Department of Justice. But I think there's like a broader strategic question here. We have talked a lot since the election about how Democrats in the broader pro democracy movement can't just spend our time being defenders of institutions and that we have to talk about things that directly impact voters lives. I can't imagine a fight to defend Liz Cheney or ABC News or the Des Moines Register fits into that category. But I think we would also agree that a show trial against one of Trump's opponents or lawsuits that are completely frivolous and baseless against media companies is crossing a pretty dangerous Rubicon. So what do we do?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That's a very tough question, John. I'm not gonna lie.

[Jon Favreau]

I know something. I'm thinking because I wanted to use the example, because I feel like, you know, we've all become very comfortable to be like, Democrats can't defend the status quo and we can't defend institutions, and we gotta be the party reform, blah, blah, blah. And then something like this happens. It's like, okay, so do we just say, well, that's pretty scary, but I'll see you later?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think the we all, you cannot see that you can't walk away from a such an important fight. You absolutely cannot do that. And because walking away from that fight, even if you can't win it, even if you have limited levers to pull as Democrats do here sometimes in politics, oftentimes in politics, fighting and losing is better than not fighting at all. And I would put this in that category. I think there are three parts of what Democrats would do here. The first is we have to do everything we can with a limited power. We have to fight Trump, vote against his nominees, use legislative tactics that we have to try to expose them to longer debates or a longer process or more investigation or whatever it is, and use our bully pulpit, as small as it may be. Second, we have to focus on how we get more power, and that is to realize that the most important thing that Democrats can do over the next two years here is take back the house in 2026. That is a very doable thing. So take back the House in 2026, focus on state legislature and the governor's races in 2025. But wherever we can get power, we have to get power, because that allows us to create additional bulwarks against Trump's offenses here, but also sends a message to other Republicans about the dangers of Trump if the voters are rejecting it at the ballot box. And the third thing we have to do is we have to not just be against Trump. We have to be for stuff. That's the one thing that got lost in the last resistance, is that we opp Trump did. We thought our best strategy, and it was a successful strategy in the moment, was to shine all the spotlight on Trump, let him show the public why he was unfit and dangerous, and then reap the rewards that was sufficient to win the House and the Senate and sneak through a very, very close White House victory in the middle of a pandemic. But it's clearly not enough to win again. It's not enough to actually build a governing majority in this country. And so we have to have an agenda. And it is within that agenda that we must demonstrate that we are not defenders of the status quo. That must be an agenda that is populist in broadly defined, populist economically, but also populist in the sense that in the classic term of we are reformers of government. Right. We are looking to get to deal with corporate influence, money in politics, concentrated wealth. And if we can do all of those things, we have a shot here.

[Jon Favreau]

Well, I completely agree. And on that note, I also think it matters how we frame these fights when we take them on. And so what does the average person care about the Des Moines Register or ABC News backing away from Trump? What do they care about Liz Cheney on trial or someone at the DOJ or Merrick Garland or whoever? Well, Donald Trump over the next couple years is hanging around with a bunch of billionaires and they are gonna try to enrich themselves at every possible chance. They're gonna take every possible chance to enrich themselves and they're gonna try to screw everyone else. Take away your health care so they can pay for tax cuts for rich people, all kinds of corruption. You're gonna have to pay more in prices. And they want you not to know about it. They don't want any critics. And then when they do this, when the press tries to report about it or when someone tries to complain, a Democratic politician or anyone else, they want to throw them in jail or they want to sue them. And so they want a country where they can get away with whatever they want and enrich themselves and screw you and have no one find out about it. And I do think that like just, it's subtle and it's nuanced, but I think how we frame these fights matters and so that it's not necessarily about our democratic institutions under attack, but it's about Trump trying to get away with a lot of shit with a lot of. With Elon Musk and all of his billionaires around him.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yep.

[Jon Favreau]

Let's talk about Democrats who are dealing with their own congressional drama. On Wednesday, House Democrats voted to give 74 year old Jerry Connally of Virginia the top Democratic spot on the Oversight committee instead of 35 year old Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, widely regarded as one of the party's best messengers, certainly the one with the biggest reach. The vote was 131 to 84. Connolly has been a longtime member of oversight, which is primarily responsible for investigations, though he did sadly announce in November that he has esophageal cancer. This means the Democrats will be replacing 61 year old Jamie Raskin, who will now be the top Democrat on Judiciary, with someone even older though, as Connally ally Congressman Don Beyer said, Jerry's a young 74, cancer notwithstanding. Quite a quote, Dan. On last Friday's episode, we were both encouraged by reporting that AOC basically had the votes to get the gig. And we're pretty excited about it. What do you think happened?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Nancy Pelosi?

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, man.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Reportedly, Nancy Pelosi was lobbying for Gerry Connolly, a longtime ally of hers, in part because he is an ally of Pelosi, but also because I think she believes in the seniority system, which I'm sure we'll talk about. And it's one of the most bananas decisions I've ever seen in my life. It's just such a misunderstanding of how, of what matters in politics. Picking seniority over the ability to deliver a message is exactly how we've gotten this mess to begin with. It's how we end up with the gerontocracy of leading the Democratic Party that cannot communicate clearly or in any sort of modern way that it reaches the actual voters who decide elections.

[Jon Favreau]

Can I just say, Nancy Pelosi obviously has still, even though she's not speaker anymore, a lot of sway over Democrats. But she's not speaker anymore or minority leader in this case, 181 Democrats voted for Connolly. And you know, if you're sort of a younger, newer Democrat to Congress, is it really like lobbying from Nancy Pelosi that's gonna sway your vote? Like, do you think there was anything else at play here?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I look the someone, a very experienced Capitol Hill person once described to me the politics of leadership elections in the House as akin to how decisions are made in high school student government elections, where it's all about cliques and friendships and relationships and there's no collective interest at play here. And I think that's part of what happened here. Obviously, when they first came into Congress, there was a lot of tension between AOC and members of the quote unquote squad and other members of Congress. I think that there are people who do value seniority because at a time in which when 97% of incumbents get reelected all the time, you could rise to power simply by staying alive. I mean, if you just stay. A lot of these people have not, and have not had a competitive election since their first primary and are not going to have another one for the foreseeable future. And so they can one day become the ranking member or the chair of something simply by exercising and eating well.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, I think this is crazy, as do you, but let's give the arguments for Connolly their due here, cuz there's plenty of Democrats talking about why the party did what it did. Retiring Representative Annie Custer, who heads the centrist New Democrats group in the House, said some of her vulnerable members had concerns about AOC's record of supporting primary challenges to her colleagues, even though AOC promised to stop doing that as part of her campaign for the role. There also was a fear, apparently about her going too hard at divisive cultural issues. According to Politico, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, age 84, made the case for seniority on behalf of Pelosi. And basically his argument was being senior shouldn't mean you automatically get the job, though it should at least be a tiebreaker between qualified candidates. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, age 77, said, I think that there are challenges in totally abandoning the seniority system here because if seniority is not the rule, money becomes the rule. What do you make of all those arguments?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's like I said, it is. Seniority is essentially a participation trophy for members of Congress. Right? You just have to be there and you get. You eventually get something. I think there is value in experience, particularly leading substantive committees in the majority. Someone who knows what they are doing. Do I really care if the chair of the Ag Committee is an amazing communicator or not? Not really. No one's ever going to see that person on camera. You would have to go searching for that person. There is one role where communications matters the most. Two roles, I guess, where communication matters the most in Congress. And it is on the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee. And so let's use our brains and try to think, think strategically about who we should put in those positions. I'm sure there are members who are mad, who are friends with Elliot Engel or other people who had lost primaries, who are mad at AOC and other people who support the primary challenge. I'm sure that's the high school lunchroom politics at play here. But the idea that somehow she is a problem for vulnerable Democrats is insane. It's insane. You think the NRCC is going to just forget she's a member of Congress and not run ads against her? It is true that Gerry Connolly is unlikely to show up in any ads against vulnerable members of Congress. That's cuz no one's gonna know who he is. He will never get attention.

[Jon Favreau]

I was gonna say like I have nothing negative to say about Gerry Connolly because I, like 99% of Americans, have no idea who he is.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It is almost impossible for a member of Congress to get sufficient attention to actually be heard by voters who decide elections. There is a list of one member of Congress in the Democratic Caucus who meets that test and it is aoc. The best job for someone who can actually get attention is to be the ranking member on the Oversight Committee. When these fucking MAGA goons are using this committee to try to do things like gin up charges against Liz Cheney. Yeah, and aoc, she, she is good at what she like what she says is, is good. Like she has a good message. But what is even more important than that? Because there are a lot of members who are pretty good messengers. What distinguishes her from other people is she can actually get attention. She understands how to communicate in a modern way. The fact that Republicans hate her and are triggered by her is a plus because it means that there will be conflict around the thing she says, which means they will get more coverage.

[Jon Favreau]

It just, it is, I know we.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Are just making a decision to not be heard. And that is exactly how we got into this mess. Politics is a war for attention. AOC can get attention. She has proven that when she has attention, she can deliver a more compelling message than most people in the party. But she's going to be denied that for a series of very dumb, self defeating reasons.

[Jon Favreau]

I will say two things here too. Like I think there is some angst among a lot of House Democrats that I think is quite misplaced. Where, you know, I think they're like, oh, squad, unpopular with the broader electorate, you know, dsa, all that kind of stuff, I would, I would say that aoc, particularly over the last several years, I'm not going to say she has moderated her message or anything like that because I do not think that. But I think she has been very smart, especially in recent years on which battles to pick how to talk to voters, open to people who have different opinions. I think that like she's just, she's very, very thoughtful and she's like really? I mean I was always impressed with her, but she's impressed me even more the longer she's been in Congress. So that's number one. Number two, I think from her perspective, like whether she's the top Democrat on oversight or not, she's going to get hurt, right? Like there can be fudgeing five hours of hearings on C Span that no one will ever see. And if AOC picks up her phone and does an Instagram live? She's gonna reach more people and she's still gonna be on oversight, right? Cause she was on oversight before. And if they're fucking smart, Gerry Connolly and others on Oversight, you know, during these hearings, she'll be given plenty of time to speak, so that'll be okay. What really bothers me about it, right, is that it just this gets to your point. It reveals a mindset among Democrats that they are missing that attention is the only thing that matters right now, or not the only thing that matters. But attention is the first thing that matters. Because if you cannot get attention in this media environment, your message cannot be heard. And if your message cannot be heard, you cannot persuade people. If you can't persuade people, you can't win. If you can't win, you can't govern. So, like, I think that the Democratic Party has still not figured out how important it is to get attention and what is required to get attention. And even if you're a more moderate member, what's required to get attention is not, I'm sure some of them think just yelling and screaming about Republicans and showing the most outrage and this or that. Like, look, it's tough. You gotta be creative. You gotta talk like a normal fucking human being and not like a politician who's been there for 40 years. And by the way, I don't just want to make it an age thing. There's old politicians who know how to communicate. There's young politicians.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Bernie is an example of that.

[Jon Favreau]

And there's plenty of young politicians who are unbelievably boring and do not, just to be very honest. So it's not necessarily about age, but everyone needs to know that, like, if you cannot get attention, and attention is not like putting out your press releases and giving your board press conference and doing something at the whatever, like, then you're just not going to be heard and we're just not going to win. Pod Save America is brought to you by Stamps.com. you know, we've been using Stamps.com here since the beginning.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

From the, from the jump.

[Jon Favreau]

From the jump when we were just, just a couple people here at Crooked Media and we were like, we don't have time to go to the post office. No, let's use stamps.com.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Made our lives a lot easier.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

So much better.

[Jon Favreau]

The holidays are hectic. If your business mails and ships items like marketing materials, forms, documents or products, you need stamps.com print postage online so you can free up time to focus on getting your business through this busy season. Stamps.com is a holiday hero. From small businesses to multi location organizations, they handle all your mailbag and shipping needs. Wherever, whenever. Take care of mailing and shipping wherever you are. Even on the go with stamps.com mobile app. They are a 24. 7 post office that helps you avoid holiday traffic jams. All you need is a computer and printer. They even send you a free scale. Holiday expenses add up fast but stamps.com offers crazy discounts. Get rates you can't find anywhere else like up to 89% off USPS and UPS. More holiday, less hustle. Free up more time with stamps.com sign [e-mail] and enter code crooked for a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a free digital scale. No long term commitments or contracts that stamps.com, code crooked support for Pod Save America comes from the International Rescue Committee. The IRC works in more than 40 countries serving people whose lives have been upended by war, cross conflict and natural disasters. In places like Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, displaced families are experiencing war, extreme hunger and life threatening injuries. The humanitarian suffering in Gaza is catastrophic. The ongoing violence, bombardment and blockade have caused more than 2 million Palestinians, half of them children, to be without clean water, food and critical medical care. Nearly 1.9 million Palestinians, about 80% of the population, are estimated to be internally displaced. Some have been displaced multiple times. The lack of safe water, medicine and healthy food contributes to the spread of diseases and children are especially at risk. In Gaza. The International Rescue Committee is directly delivering water, sanitation and hygiene services and has launched direct Nutrition in Child and Women's protection programming. The IRC works around the clock to help families in crisis by delivering critical supplies such as therapeutic food from malnourished children, clean water, cash assistance and more. Your donation will support this work and help children and families survive. Donate today by visiting rescue.org rebuilt pod save america is brought to you by Article. Article believes in delightful design for every home and thanks to their online only model they have some really delightful prices too. Their curated assortment of mid century modern, coastal, industrial, Scandi and boho designs makes furniture shopping simple. Article's team of designers are all about finding the perfect balance between style, quality and price. They're dedicated to thoughtful craftsmanship that stands the test of time and looks good doing it. Article offers fast, affordable shipping across the US and Canada. Plus they won't leave you waiting around. You pick the delivery time and they'll send you updates every step of the way. Article's knowledgeable customer care team is there when you need them to make sure your experience is smooth and stress free. We've had Article furniture in our Cricut office for a long time now. It looks great, very affordable, and, you know, it arrives pretty quickly. I think I have some patio furniture. That's Article as well. We're big fans of article here. Article's offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit article.com crooked and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com crooked for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. So even though Democrats don't control the White House or Congress, we may actually have more leverage to fight back than people might think. As we've mentioned before, Speaker Mike Johnson will have an incredibly narrow margin in the House next year, which will require nearly every House Republican to support him on nearly every vote if Trump and Republicans want to get anything done, at least legislatively. And right now, Johnson is already struggling to get that support. He is currently trying to pass a bill to keep the government funded for just three months. Given up on a full year. He's just trying to do three months. But, but all the usual MAGA troublemakers in his caucus are once again threatening to oppose the bill because it's not crazy enough for them. Unfortunately, one of those MAGA troublemakers, unfortunately for Johnson, one of those MAGA troublemakers is now Doge master Elon Musk, who weighed in with a tweet saying this bill should not pass, and another with a photo of a huge stack of printed out papers. There's supposedly the bill with the caption, ever seen a bigger piece of pork? It's also funny, by the way, that Fox and Friends broke this news about Elon Musk to Mike Johnson live on air. And Johnson had to say, well, I know where Elon stands on this and he knows where I stand. And Vape called me last night and he knows what, what a tough spot I'm in. And we just need to wait till Donald Trump is in charge next year and, and then everyone will get in line. But the question is what Democrats will do not just in this fight, but in next year's funding fight. The fight on the, on taxes, immigration, energy, all the fights that are coming up in Congress next year. Do Democrats use their leverage to extract concessions from Johnson in this case in exchange for helping him keep the government open, or do Democrats just sit back and let Republicans fail? Because, you know, like I said, even if he gets the votes for this three month funding Bill, which he may, in the end, he's going to have to do this many, many more times when Trump is president. What do you think Democrats should do here?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

My understanding, and my understanding equates to my having read Punchbowl this morning, is that Democrats actually did a pretty good job of getting a bunch of concessions from Johnson in this bill. Like, Johnson understood that he was going to need a bunch of Democrats to vote for this to get it passed, and he's given them a bunch of things. If we wanted to play good but probably kind of hackish politics right now, we would make a giant issue of the fact that there is a pay increase for members of Congress in this bill, the first one in 15 years.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And that is deeply unpopular. And I am willing to bet that this was a. I'm just guessing here, so don't hold me to this, but I'm guessing that this was sort of a bargain struck between all the leaders, because, remember, this is the thing every member wants. No one wants to say it. And when members run for leadership, they often say they will support a pay raise. And substantively, we should actually pay members of Congress more. But if you wanted to find an issue that would galvanize people against the Republican Party, the pay increase would be one of them, even if it is not the most substantively responsible thing we would do.

[Jon Favreau]

And we should say why. There's an argument for paying them more. And it comes from, like, some Democrats, liberals, progressives. And it's because basically we have a system now where because members of Congress are paid the salaries they are, you have to be like, independently wealthy, which especially many members of the Senate are in order to run for Congress, Because a lot of these guys, it doesn't matter that they have a low salary for Congress because they're rich otherwise. But if we want people to go to Congress who are working class, who represent the incomes of most people in this country, then it needs to be a little more attractive as a salary.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And it's people. It just, I would just add one more thing that is people will look at that sour and be like, that's a lot more than the median American makes.

[Jon Favreau]

It is.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That is absolutely true. But you also have to have two homes in this situation. You have to maintain a residence in your district and you have to have a place to sleep in Washington State, which is why some people actually sleep in their office. But that's probably not particularly viable, particularly for people with families.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. But anyway, so that's, that's what's one thing that, that's in there.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But I was gonna say going forward, so what? So let's get through the. If this bill, as, as I understand it, pretty good for Democrats, then we should do what we can get it, get across the finish line, take the wins we got in here, and then next year we should be. Hakeem Jarvis should hold all his votes until he gets what he wants. For the. At least for the first few months, it's going to be a one seat majority, most likely, presuming that Trump's nominees get confirmed and head to that and leave the House. So until those special elections happens, he will have a one seat majority and so use all that leverage possible to get as much as we possibly can.

[Jon Favreau]

Or, you know, look, I am usually.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Are you calling for a shutdown? Are you about to call for a shutdown? Are you going to shut down the government?

[Jon Favreau]

I'm not going to shut down the government, but just for discussion purposes, right? We've talked about shutdowns and what Democrats can do in using their leverage in the context of Trump's president. Democrats control the Senate, Trump's president, Democrats control the House, Biden's president, Republicans in the Congress. We are now going to have a situation where Republicans control everything. They control everything, every level of power. They are in charge of the House, the Senate, the White House. Donald Trump has more power than any president has ever had. Got a Supreme Court that he has shaped. And I wonder if next year when some of these bills come up, I'm thinking of especially like the tax bill, which I'm sure most Democrats will vote against anyway. But again, you can imagine a scenario where, you know the tax bill is going to be a must pass bill. Right. Because the Trump tax cuts are set to expire next year. And so Trump wants to, of course, double down on his tax cuts. Not just renew the tax cuts, but also like make the corporate tax rate even lower, give a bigger tax cut to corporations. You could imagine a scenario where because Mike Johnson may need Democratic votes, that we extract some concessions and get some good middle class tax cuts. Right? Beef up the middle class tax cuts. Or you can imagine Democrats saying, look, you guys run Washington. You have all the votes. You have powerful Donald Trump here and we're not gonna sit here and help you gut people's healthcare, take away their health insurance so you can give tax cuts to rich people. Like you find the votes for that because we're not gonna stand for that.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

This is an important distinction you're making. I was answering that question in the context of government funding?

[Jon Favreau]

Well, I mean, I think it depends on what's in the funding bill, too. But if that funding bill, which I imagine it will be under full Republican control, is gutting a bunch of priorities for Democrats, and it's gonna hurt a lot of people if they, they throw like, Medicaid funding in there and they got Medicaid funding or they gut the subsidies for the ACA that Democrats got to do instead of getting, like, compromising so you get a little bit more of the subsidies and maybe you save a little bit more the Medicaid cuts. I also think you could be like, look, they, look, they want to fund the government. They want to pass something that's going to keep the government open, but screw people on health who are going to lose their fucking health care. Go for it. You find the votes.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

So let's, let's take these things. This is relatively and surprisingly interesting conversation about congressional strategy.

[Jon Favreau]

So just trying my best. I'm trying my best.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

So let's do the government funding first. Now, the way this is going to play out, there's obviously going to be some House versions of the bill. The Democrats are going to be terrible because they're going to have to keep going further to the right to get every person from Barry Loudermilk, who I, who I discovered existed yesterday, to, you.

[Jon Favreau]

Know, he's, he's the one who put out the report to target Cheney.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yes, it's an amazing name. But what eventually will come back is a bill that got at least seven Senate Democratic votes.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, yeah.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And so they're like, in that case, and that is probably a Thune Schumer negotiation to get something that gets a large number of senators that then comes back to the House. And then that is something that is probably, unless something has gone horribly wrong in the Senate is something that we would probably be okay with, or as okay as we could possibly be in comparison to a shutdown when the Republicans control all the levers of power. Now, on the tax bill, this is incredibly important. No Democrat should vote for the tax bill. Certainly coming out of the House. Absolutely. We should say none. Not a single one. Now, there may be one person who breaks, but that should be that. We have to treat this like Harry Reid treated Social Security privatization in 2005, which I know is an example.

[Jon Favreau]

You write it, you get the votes, you pass it yours, it's on you.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

We're not going to be there. We're not there. We're not negotiating everything. You go do it, and let's see if they can Actually get it done. But we are, do not give them anything for this. And this is incredibly important because we want to shine a light on the fact that Donald Trump ran to cut costs and one of his first acts is going to be cut taxes for the richest people in America.

[Jon Favreau]

No, yeah, look, I've been, I've been thinking about this because you can see, even with the government fund. That's correct. On the tax bill for sure. Even on the government funding bill, you can see a situation where Democrats are like, well, we want to, want to work with Republicans where we agree and, and, you know, extract some concessions and then stand up where we don't agree. And then Republicans end up keeping the government open, but they do a bunch of bad shit in the funding bill. And Democrats go, well, we got this concession and no one knows because no one pays attention to Congress. No one. And all the people maybe understand about Congress right now or Washington in general, forget about Congress is, oh, Donald Trump controls all of Washington. Donald Trump's in power. And anything that goes wrong, it's Donald Trump's fault. But in order for that to happen, Democrats have to be like, yeah, no, they're doing it all themselves.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Just. Sorry to harp on to keep talking about this because I am shockingly interested in it, but we cannot consider keeping the government open a give to us.

[Jon Favreau]

Right?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That is, that is their job, which.

[Jon Favreau]

They, which they have done in the.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Biden era with the debt ceiling, the keeping the government. But that is not a give to us because we care about people's lives. That is a give to them because they run Washington.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, totally agree. All right, finally, we like to cover good news when we see it, which isn't all that often right now. Something that caught our eye this morning, a piece from our friend Sam Stein at the Bulwark about more than 100 Democrats pushing for reform at ActBlue. ActBlue is the main online engine for small dollar donations to progressive candidates and causes and Democrats and all kinds of the whole broader Democratic universe. It is also, these Democrats argue, a key culprit in all of the fundraising, spam and grifty, no name appeals that drive us all crazy in our text messages, our emails, everything. Some of the changes this group of Democratic operatives and and staffers all want to see. No more solicitations from shady groups pretending to be official party entities when they're not. No more outlandish promises of a 500% match if you give now, and it's so urgent, you must give now by the deadline. They also Want to see changes to the ways ActBlue sells or shares donor information. What do you think? I think this is the least we can do on this.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I mean, in fairness to full disclosure here, I talked to the organizers of this effort several times over the last couple months. I think this is incredibly important.

[Jon Favreau]

Good job.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

All I did was read the things that the very good work they did. And I just primarily, as someone who has complained loudly about abuses of the fundraising system by Democratic organizations and particularly scam packs, which there are a lot on our side. This is very important. The problem always is there's a collective action problem where the dnc, like, even if the DNC or the presidential nominee or the individual senators were responsible in how they use their lists, everyone else isn't, right? And the most donors don't. They're not, like, counting. Like, Hakeem Jeffries has only emailed me three times, but something called turnout pack has texted me 7,000 fucking times. No matter how many times I hit stop, it never works. It's just the Democrats. It's all the Democrats. And ActBlue is the one place where you can actually have levers to pull to affect all of this. And so this is all very good stuff. We should do it. It's so sketchy when you get, like, Barack Obama has spoken, and it's like a quote from Barack Obama, and, like, it makes you think that Obama or Michelle Obama or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris has endorsed this Pack, whatever it is, you've never heard of run people you've never heard of, and you've never seen them expend money in any way, shape or form. And so this is a very challenging problem. This is a set of reforms that can make things better. It doesn't mean that we're going to stop getting annoying texts, but we may get fewer of them, and the ones we get may be better aligned with actual organizations that are doing the work we want it done.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, I would go beyond this, too. I mean, yes, let's get rid of all the scam packs and not have not as many of those techs. But, like, we gotta really think about, you know, the people who are writing these fundraising emails, these texts, like, that strategy from the campaigns themselves. And by the way, sometimes the campaigns outsource it to, like, some digital fundraising, you know, firm or whatever else. Like, just the language that's used. I mean, I fucking start from scratch here. It's like some of. Some of the appeals seem ridiculous. Like, I. We believe and we've done this through you know, vote Save America here. But, like, we believe that there is a way to help, you know, direct people's donations and, and figure out where to give that's smart and what's needed, even in a way that, like, makes sense to people, that doesn't sound like a fucking bot blowing up your phone and is actually like a real fundraising appeal. And maybe even use some humor and maybe you just sound a little more authentic. Like, I just think that the, the entire business of democratic digital fundraising, like, it could use a. He's a real overhaul and that goes just beyond the scam packs.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I don't want to depress you, but they do these things because they, they test them rigorously and they work. Right.

[Jon Favreau]

They are, you know, I know, I know. They test the open rates. And so when they say, like, Maddow segment freaked me out and everyone, like, opens the fucking thing. And I get that. But, like, I don't know, I, I think that the testing is different from the like, okay, it's going to get some money, but how many people is it going to turn?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, it's all short term, right? It's all short term.

[Jon Favreau]

It is exactly right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

No one is thinking, because all these campaigns only care about their list through election day, so they will burn it to the ground. And all they care about is their list. They don't think about the fact that the people on their list are on 700 other lists. And so when you're burning your list to the ground, you're affecting all your other Senate colleagues or the D.C. or whoever else. And this, these are good questions that we should ask the dnc. Not that the DNC is in charge of all of this, but they do have some influence here and we can talk to them about how they're thinking about this as part of the DNC chair race coming up.

[Jon Favreau]

It's a good idea. Okay, when we come back from the break, you're going to hear my conversation with Cecilia Munoz about what it's been like to watch from the inside as the immigration conversation drifted farther and farther to the left. Quick plug before we do that. I know a lot of us have holiday trips coming up, maybe long flights if you're traveling, or you just need to escape from your family for a bit. I don't know why. That would be a reminder that you can binge Crooked's award winning limited series podcasts like Dissident at the Doorstep about the shocking transformation of a Chinese civil rights activist into a MAGA figurehead, Killing justice, which digs into the mystery of the death of a prominent Indian judge and our most recent, Empire City the Untold Origin Story of the nypd, about the secret history of America's largest police force, which was named one of the Top Podcasts of 2024 by Time magazine, Vulture, and the New York Times. You can find all these limited series at cricket.com limiteds wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back. Cecilia Munoz this is an advertisement from Better Help. The holiday season is, as they say, the most wonderful time of the year. It can be filled with joy and happiness, but it can also be the most stressful time of the year. Scheduling conflicts, added expenses, family dynamics and drama can all take a toll. So it's important to slow down and not lose sight of your mental well being. Therapy is a great way to do just that, not only during this stressful time of the year, but all year long. And BetterHelp online therapy is a great way to get into therapy. BetterHelp is designed to be convenient, flexible and built around your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a credentialed therapist that fits your needs and preferences. Once matched, you can connect via phone, video, text or chat. Whatever works for you. It's surprisingly affordable too. So this holiday season, give yourself a gift you can appreciate all year round. Therapy's important. Obviously it's been a stressful, stressful time. Stressful couple weeks, stressful couple months, stressful year, nine years. It's a great gift to yourself to go to therapy and talk with someone about it. It's really helpful. Visit betterhelp.com PSAToday to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelph e l-p.com PSA what a year it's been. Long year, tough year. It's okay. Take time to process, unplug, get off Twitter for a while. We just want you to know that we are deeply grateful for your support of this show and of Crooked Media. Thanks for tuning in to laugh, cry and cringe at everything JD Vance says with us as we look to the new year, we'll keep creating the content you love. Conversations that remind us of the power we have to make a difference and serve as a counterweight dominated by right wing media. And when you're ready, we'll need people like you back with us, ready to hit the ground running. The best way to support Cricket is by subscribing to Friends of the Pod. Your subscription makes it possible for us to continue building an independent, progressive media company. But like all good friendships it's not one sided. You get bonus pods ad free Pod Save America episodes and a discord community that will be here to support you. For a limited time only, we're offering 25% off new annual subscriptions. Learn more and [e-mail] friends or on Apple Podcasts directly from the Pie Save America feed. Joining us today, she spent two decades focusing on civil rights and immigration at the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy organization before overseeing all domestic policy in Barack Obama's White House, the first Latina to do so. Cecilia Munoz, welcome back to Pod Save America.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Thank you so much.

[Jon Favreau]

It is good to see you.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Good to see you, too.

[Jon Favreau]

You wrote a piece in the Atlantic called How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration with Frank Sherry, an advocate like you who ran pro immigrant organizations for more than three decades and also advised the Harris campaign. I think the piece is very much worth a read and I want to talk to you a little bit about the piece itself. But first, for people who don't know your background, can you talk a little bit about what led you to immigration advocacy and ultimately the White House?

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah. So I'm the daughter of immigrants and the wife of an immigrant. And I've been working on immigration really since I was a graduate student, first as providing services to immigrants. I ran a legalization program back in the 80s, which is the last time we legalized undocumented people in significant numbers. And so I've kind of been doing policy and advocacy ever since. It's kind of fundamental to who I am.

[Jon Favreau]

In your piece, you and Frank write, quote, we believe that immigration has become a losing issue for Democrats over the past decade because elected leaders have followed progressive advocates to the left beyond the political space available to them. Voters feeling unheard and frustrated may have squirmed at Trump's racism and radicalism, but they also saw him as someone who took the problem seriously and was trying to address it. Now I've seen, I shared the piece. You can imagine a lot of response. I'm sure you're getting a lot of response to it. I've seen a lot of activists and a few immigration reporters argue in response, Wait a minute. Biden relied on some Trump era policies to keep out the huge influx of migrants and asylum seekers during his first term. And then Kamala Harris ran on a border proposals so tough that it was written by a conservative Republican. So how does that qualify as elected Democrats following progressive advocates to the left?

[Cecilia Munoz]

So I think it's pretty well understood that the Biden administration was slow. I think Voters saw the Biden administration as being slow to respond to the situation at the border. I'm obviously close to the folks in the Biden administration. I know they worked incredibly hard. I think they ultimately landed on some. Some pretty thoughtful policy and policy which turned out to be pretty effective in the end. But by the time they got there, it was too late to persuade voters that they were serious. And they had endured, by that point years of hammering away at how much of a crisis this is and all of the crazy, tough ways that Donald Trump was going to address it. And the thing which is uncomfortable, I think, both in the advocacy community and therefore uncomfortable for the administration was saying out loud that they believed this was a thing that needed to be controlled. It is really, really easy to push back on immigration enforcement. I spent a lot of years of my career doing it as well. It is really hard to have a vision for how enforcement should happen. And politically, for a Democrat in office, it's a world of pain if you stand up and say, this is how we should enforce the law. But at the end of the day, especially because the situation at the border is unlike anything we have experienced before in our history, I think the public expects their leaders to have a theory of the case for how to do it and to be assertive about it. And I think the. I have a lot of praise for the Biden administration and a lot of affection for the Biden administration, but I think it was pretty clear that he didn't want to talk about this issue until he had to, because it's a world of pain. But at the end of the day, I think we need to accept that the American public expects its officials to bring order and fairness to the border. And I think if we can be persuasive, that we can bring order and fairness to the border. The American public is also prepared to be really, to be generous. And that's why in the Obama years, the comprehensive immigration reform frame won the majority of the public by a lot, had tremendous public support. That's why we argue a balanced approach that includes a theory of the case for how to manage the border, along with a path to permanent status for people who are here legally and openings and legal immigration. That's a balance which I think can win the public. But for the time being, we have lost the public on this issue, Democrats have lost the public, and that's a catastrophe.

[Jon Favreau]

So what do you think President Biden and Vice President Harris could have done differently over the last four years to deal with the border in a way that More Americans would have supported.

[Cecilia Munoz]

I think ultimately, the policy formulation that they landed on is a really good one. We know that it's effective because actually, the pressure at the border, the number of folks entering unlawfully has gone down, but they didn't start talking about it until. Until too late. So I think an aggressive approach that. That said, from the beginning, we recognize that this is a challenge. Here's how we're going to handle it in the region, in the hemisphere, they actually adopted a lot of really solid policy to give people the ability to get to safety without making the dangerous journey to the United States. They created mechanisms to move people from entering in between ports of entry and channeling them to ports of entry. They got a lot of pushback for doing that, but ultimately that allowed them to regulate how many people come in a day. They got there, but they got there kind of late. And they were, I think, reluctant to make a forceful case, in part because if Democrat makes a forceful case, you get a lot of pushback from within the family. And so I think the mistakes were not so much policy mistakes. They, I think, started from the point of view that they did not want to talk about it. I think the sense was any day that this is the thing in the news that we're talking about is a bad day, and I think that was the mistake.

[Jon Favreau]

It's funny, because last night, as I was preparing for this interview, I sort of went back on the whole timeline of everything that happened in the Biden administration around immigration. And because, you know, some people are arguing, look, they use Title 42, which Trump had used right from the beginning of the administration. Title 42 is a public health provision that allowed both the Trump administration and Biden administration to turn away migrants and asylum seekers because of COVID And so they had that in place. And then after that was taken away, then they tried to do the border bill. And then after that, they finally arrived at the executive action that essentially close the border that resulted in many fewer crossings. But when I look back at, like, Biden's statements and speeches and remarks, it really. There was almost nothing. I mean, when he announced a new measure, he would talk about it, but, like, not much in the State of the Unions, not. Not like any kind of big immigration speeches. And it does seem like even as we talk about what the right message or wrong message was, there just wasn't much of a message at all. And on an issue that ended up being, you know, the number two issue for most voters and not just Republican voters, that seems like a missed Opportunity, to say the least.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Absolutely. I mean, the argument that Frank and I are trying to make in the piece that we wrote is that Democrats should lean in. And I think the instinct that has taken hold is to run away from the issue. But there is history that demonstrates that when the frame is, who's going to be tough? This is Donald Trump's frame. Right. Who's going to be tough as opposed to not tough, that we have a hard time competing with that. But the frame that works for Democrats is leaning in with an approach that actually solves the problem. When the frame is fix it versus chaos, Democrats tend to do well. And we have been having this debate on Donald Trump's frame for way too long. And the way to move it back to our frame is, is to lean in. And with a theory of the case on how to address this. And I think the good news is the policy part is available. This isn't an intractable problem. This is a problem with policy solutions. But we have to be willing to talk about them and embrace them. And they include enforcement, which is uncomfortable. But obviously that's preferable to what we're all about to endure over the next four years.

[Jon Favreau]

Yes, and I want to get to that. But first, I want to go back for a second because I think a lot of our listeners, a lot of Democrats, a lot of people who've just sort of been involved and paying attention to politics, sort of started at 2016, when Trump won. And I think the history and the context is really important to this debate to understand where we've been. The most common reaction when I shared your piece was activists on the left who said something to the effect of, well, you and Cecilia, you both worked for the deporter in chief, so we don't really trust you on this issue. Can you talk a little bit about the politics of immigration when you were in the Obama White House? Sort of your reaction to, you know, the deporter in chief criticism and what you guys in the policy part of the White House had to deal with there.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah, President Obama had the kind of balanced approach that Frank Cherry and I are advocating for in that he had a theory of the case that included an approach to immigration enforcement, but also a path to citizenship for undocumented people and expansions to legal immigration. And that was, from the public point of view, the desirable policy. Right. 70, 80, 85% of the public supported that approach. He also had a theory of the case on how to conduct immigration enforcement. I think it's a fair criticism to say that it Took us too long to land on the right approach. There was a lot of trial and error from 2010, when we really started tweaking how enforcement happens to 2014. But essentially the premise was you have to conduct immigration enforcement, but how you do it matters. And instead of concentrating on people in the interior who have been here for a long time, the priorities should be new arrivals, people who haven't set down routes yet, and folks with serious criminal convictions. And ultimately, that's the set of enforcement choices that makes sense. That's also the most humane. But because the removal numbers were high, and the removal numbers were high, because there were a lot of new entrants that the Obama administration removed, he got named by my former boss the deporter in chief, and that has stuck. What happened in the advocacy world from that era onward is that folks moved to the left and focused very heavily on immigration enforcement. Their request to Secretary Clinton when she was running was to move away from immigration enforcement. And she did. She did an interview with Jorge Ramos, which essentially backed away from the kind of enforcement infrastructure that President Obama had outlined. Immigration enforcement was barely mentioned in her platform at all. They extracted a promise from Joe Biden when he was running to do a moratorium on enforcement, which he did, which he announced, but which ultimately, you know, did not withstand legal scrutiny. And they and the candidates that were running for the Democratic nomination were all asked about decriminalizing border crossings. The entire conversation moved to the left, away from immigration enforcement, and created the impression that Democrats were not serious about imposing order and fairness at the border. And I think that has cost us very, very dearly. It's not a comfortable subject. Look, I'm a Latina immigration policy expert. It is a very uncomfortable subject. But honestly, John, the reason that Frank and I wrote this piece, I feel very strongly, I am not convinced we're going to be able to take our country back from the autocrats if we don't get our arms around this issue. What's happening at the border is happening at a scale that the country has not seen before, ever. And it is not a short term emergency. It is the beginning of what's coming because of climate change and other things. If we do not have a theory of a case for how to do this in an orderly way that allows us to welcome folks, but with conditions, I really fear for our ability to take the country back from the autocrats.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, and I know you and Frank have both made this point, but look, the job of, as you know very well, the job of an advocate and an activist is to push on politicians, right?

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

It's also the job of the elected leaders to take in that advice and that pressure, but also do what's best for the country and for their other constituents and to build, to continue to garner support so they can govern. And the moment that I sort of realized that things had really shifted in a way that could potentially down the road, be troubling is in that 2020 primary. Now, you know this because, you know, how many speeches do we work on immigration speeches in the Obama White House, where Obama would always say, we are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. And then he would say, we really want people who have been here in the shadows for decades, who were working hard and paying taxes and contributing to the community and have families here. We want to give them a pathway to citizenship. And we want to say that if we're going to give you this path, then there's a lot of other people who are going through the legal processes to become immigrants, and so you'll have to pay a fine, get to the back of the line, and then we'll give you the pathway to citizenship. So he said that all the time, and there was no controversy around that at all. At least the way he said that. And then in one of the primary debates, Joe Biden uses that language about getting to the back of the line, and there's this outcry that it was offensive that he shouldn't say this. He had to meet with immigrant groups and Latino groups and he had to, like, apologize and do these roundtables. And I remember thinking like, this was like, so just standard language. And also now, after we just went through this last election and we heard from so many people in focus groups and voters and just, you know, interviews, Latinos, immigrants, recent immigrants who are saying, look, the one thing that bothers me is it took me years to become a citizen in this country. And now someone just. Just came over the border last week and suddenly they get all these benefits. And I've still been waiting for citizenship for 10 years.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

So I do. I wonder why. Why do you think the immigration activist community sort of went this route after. After 2012, I guess.

[Cecilia Munoz]

I think a couple of things happened. As I mentioned, they focused very heavily on enforcement, and that became the center, the situation of undocumented people, which is work well worth doing. And the risks of immigration enforcement to them became the focal point of the move to the left. We stopped having a conversation that included advocates and folks who were governing or folks who were Seeking to govern about how can this actually work. Advocates instead landed in a place where they focused on the trade offs that were part of the comprehensive immigration reform model. The getting to the back of the line, the fact that some people legalized, but not everybody, and decided that that was trading off a benefit for some people at the expense of other people, and that they in fact, tossed out the entire comprehensive immigration reform reform model and began really to focus pretty heavily on enforcement. And then, of course, there was a heck of a lot of terrible to respond to in the Trump years, you know, and that I think the response to Trump, I think, contributed to the, to the singular focus of where the advocacy community landed. And look, that is heroic work. It was incredibly difficult work, incredibly emotional work, like they took people's children. And the advocates that I'm talking about were at the front lines of addressing that. I have nothing but respect for that work and for the people who do it. But when you were describing the job of advocates is to push, and the job of people who are governing is to govern when we do it really well, all of those people's jobs is also to be in a conversation about what the policy solution is to the problem at hand. And as an advocate, you are, of course, pushing for the best possible outcome, but you're in the conversation, and that conversation has really broken down. And as a result, Democrats don't have a working theory of the case that they can say out loud about how to address the border situation. And that's tragic because this Democratic administration is actually kind of doing it pretty well. But we can't talk about it because of the, of the. You just, you get shot at.

[Jon Favreau]

Well, you mentioned that a lot of this was sort of in relation to the response to Trump when he won the first time. I think the reason why it's so important now is because there's going to be another Trump term and another potential reaction from Democrats. He seems pretty intent on carrying out mass deportations. He's threatened to use the military, especially in blue states and sanctuary cities that may refuse to help ice. He will try to end birthright citizenship. He seems ready to go far beyond only deporting undocumented immigrants who've, who've broken the law while in this country or pose a threat to public safety or just arrived here recently. We're looking at deportations of people who've been here for decades, who work and pay taxes and contribute and have family who are US Citizens. How do you think Democrats should react this time around? And what lessons do we learn from last time, knowing that this time could be far more extreme than what we saw last time.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah, it's going to be worse. We know that. Maybe not in all the ways that he has promised, but because some of the stuff he wants to do is going to be pretty hard for him to do, but it's going to be worse. I think the thing we didn't do as well as I would have liked last time is have a Nair, have a consistent narrative that makes it clear there is a goal that generally the American public agrees on, which is to bring order and fairness to this system. That goal is valid. We didn't say that. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about achieving it. And we are about to tell you we're about to see a lot of what the wrong way looks like, the harms of what the Trump administration is about to do. The greatest harms are likely to be visited on children. I think we're likely to see workplace raids, for example. We saw those in the George W. Bush era. What that looks like is kids go to school in the morning, and when they come back at the end of the day, their parents are gone. So those kinds of. We know that that's what happens. We are sadly, tragically about to be able to tell the story to the American public about what it costs those families, what it costs those kids, what it costs those communities, and what it costs all of us. That narrative should also include that this is the wrong way to go about accomplishing the country's goals. But there is a right way, and the goal is not the problem. It's how we're going about trying to accomplish it. To lay the predicate for that frame that I was talking about, Democrats need to own the. We're the ones who know how to fix challenging problems. These guys create chaos and harm, and they harm really vulnerable people that most of the country, I hope, believes we shouldn't be harming. But we have to lean in and we have to be prepared to say that the goal that the American people want, which is an orderly and fair system, is legit.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. My fear is that they are going to start by. They would love nothing more than to pick fights with blue state governors, mayors over deporting undocumented immigrants who are threats to public safety. And, you know, obviously this is a tiny percentage, but they have made these folks famous in the last campaign, and they would like nothing more than for Democrats to react with outrage to the deportation of either recent arrivals or people who have, you know broken laws and potentially violent criminals here in the United States. And I do wonder, like, how we. Part of what I think this conversation requires is us to sort of have the discipline and wherewithal to think about when these horrific stories, much like the ones you just mentioned, when that happens, that we lift up those stories and that we don't necessarily overreact when they try to deport violent criminals that they should deport. Because I think that they're going to try to make this about what they've just made the last campaign about.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yes. And try to force us into a position of appearing to make the argument that no one should ever be deported ever. And that's not good. Policy is not where the public is, and it's not where we should be either. But you're right that it will require, I think, discipline to not have this debate on Donald Trump's terms, but to swing the debate back to our terms because we need to win elections and we need to get this policy challenge addressed.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, well, to that point, I mean, we are so. Last question on this. Like, we are so far from having the votes to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Yeah. And, you know, if, if, if the filibuster is still around, we would need 60 votes in the Senate. I don't even know how Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate at this point with this map. If we get rid of the filibuster, we still need 51 votes. That's still a challenge at this point. When you look at the states that are up in the next two elections, what do you think a Democrat running for president in 2028 can realistically promise? And what should they run on? Knowing that part of the challenge has also been Democrats running on comprehensive immigration reform, making these promises, and then they get into power. We don't have the votes, can't pass immigration reform because of the Republicans, and then Democrats get blamed for it.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Yeah. No, it's an enormous challenge. It's not a short term thing. We're not going to fix this in the short term because Congress is a catastrophe. I think it starts with having a vision for what needs to happen and being able to persuade the American public that that's the right vision. Look, I think we have, honestly, the debate is happening around the extremes, and I think the public really wants there to be a center and we need to provide it, for starters, and create the momentum so that it's safe for Democrats to have a conversation about enforcement and safe for at least some number of Republicans to have a conversation about the kind of immigration system that we want to have. I fear that we are now in a situation where the kind of permission structure to allow us to get to that conversation requires that we successfully manage the situation at the border. I think that is true now in a way that was not true a decade ago when, in the Obama years, when we passed immigration comprehensive reform through the Senate. The situation at the border was not then what it is now, and the country expects it to be addressed. So I now think that has to be kind of the primary piece. But I also think if you can be persuasive that that is manageable, and I do believe that's possible, then I still believe the American public is prepared to have a conversation about a pathway to permanent status for the people who are here on temporary statuses or without status at all, and even an expansion of legal immigration. I mean, the great irony is the business community knows we need immigrants. They know we need more of them. It's not just that we will be cooking our own goose economically if we deport people who are here now. It's that we're going to need more generous immigration for the long term. And the business community knows it. They're just terrified of saying anything out loud. So we need to make it safe again to have this conversation. But I think as an advocate or a former advocate or what, you know, I don't know if the advocacy world would embrace me any longer, but we need to do a better job of listening to where the public is. As a Latina, honestly, I think we haven't even done enough listening to where our own community is, as this election shows. And we have to fix that. And that requires some humility. I think it requires some listening and willing to make some hard policy choices in order to get to the outcomes that we need. And honestly, I really think the fate of democracy in the United States depends on this.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, no, I completely agree. And it's not just something that's happening here. We're seeing it all over the world as we're seeing mass migration, especially from the global south to the North. And so I think a lot of countries in Europe are dealing with this exact same thing. So this is not just a United States problem. Cecilia, thank you so much for joining. Thank you for writing that. To try to start this conversation, have an honest conversation. I know not easy for you as someone who cares so much about immigration and has been an advocate for so long, but I'm really glad that you and you and Frank started the conversation. As contentious as it may get because I think we need to have it. So thank you and it was good talking to you.

[Cecilia Munoz]

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

[Jon Favreau]

All right, that's our show for today. Dan, Tommy Lovett and I will convene on Friday to hand out this year's pundies our awards for the very worst takes and tweets. Talk to everyone then.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Bye everyone.

[Jon Favreau]

If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our Friends of the pod [e-mail] friends or subscribe on Apple Podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed. Also, be sure to follow Pod Save America on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube for full episodes, bonus content and more. And before you hit that next button, you can help boost this episode by leaving us a review and by sharing it with friends and family. Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari, Reed Churlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Keefer Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt de Groat is our head of production Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hayley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hethcote, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kiril Pelaviev and David Tolles.