← Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov
Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov
Trump Triggers Airport Chaos and Manipulates Markets — Can Democrats Take Back Immigration? (ft. Rep. Sarah McBride)
00:38:47
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:01]
A
Support for this show comes from Indeed. If you're looking to hire top tier talent with expertise in your field, Indeed says they can help. Indeed Sponsored Jobs gives your job the best chance at standing out and grants you access to quality candidates who can drive the results you need. Spend more time interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. Now with Indeed Sponsored Jobs and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves@ Indeed.com VoxBusiness just go to Indeed.com VoxBusiness right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com VoxBusiness Terms and Conditions apply. Hiring do it the Right Way with Indeed.
- [00:55]
B
This episode is brought to you by Venmo with the Venmo Debit card, A taco in one hand and ordering a ride in the other means you're stacking your rewards. Nice. Get up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash on your favorite brands. When you pay with your Venmo debit card, pick a bundle with your go tos and start earning cash back. Do more stash, get more cash. Visit venmo.com to learn more Venmo Stash Bundle Terms and exclusions apply. See terms at Venmo me terms max $100 cashb month.
- [01:25]
C
You've been there settling in for an evening of TV only to waste half the night scrolling. Enter Fire TV Entertainment with zero effort required. Fire TV serves up personalized recommendations from across all your apps. Not sure what to watch? Just tell Alexa what you're in the mood for and she'll pull up the perfect recommendation. Problem solved. Stop the scroll. Start the show. Find what you're looking for with Fire tv. Subscriptions may be required.
- [01:59]
D
Welcome to Reading Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway.
- [02:01]
E
And I'm Jessica Tarlov.
- [02:02]
D
Joining us now is Congresswoman Sarah McBride, one of the most compelling new voices in Washington. In her first year, she's focused on lowering costs, defending programs including Medicaid and snap, and bringing a bit more sanity and dignity back to politics. She's also been outspoken on the growing conflict with Iran and what it means for Americans while it's here at home. Very much appreciate you being here.
- [02:24]
F
Thank you for having me.
- [02:25]
D
So if you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay in the loop on all things politics and news. All right, let's bust right into it. It has been a haphazard few days in politics where we've seen Everything from President Trump mocking the death of American patriot and hero Robert Mueller, to Now he's sending ICE agents to 13 airports in the middle of a funding fight and calling Democrats this the greatest threat to America. It feels like a mix of distraction and escalation at the same time. How do Democrats call that out in a way that actually lands with people instead of just feeding into sort of this indignant cycle?
- [02:59]
F
I think all of these connect because it's the chaos of this administration that we've seen from day one. I think people are frustrated by the distractions. I think people are frustrated by the chaos. I think they want a federal government that keeps the planes and trains running on time. They want a federal government that delivers for them. And I think everything that we've seen, from the rising price of gas as a byproduct of the Iran war with its changing objectives and unclear motivations, to the chaos at the airports, which this president has now said will continue because he's throwing the Save America act into the negotiations when the Republicans in the Senate were ready to work with Democrats to pay TSA agents across the board. The chaos, the instability, the distractions, I think, are exhausting the American people, and I think they want a government that actually functions and delivers for them. When government ceases to deliver for people, it's easy to fall into a politics of entertainment. But then once you put that politics of entertainment in charge, I think people grow tired of it pretty quickly.
- [04:10]
D
But when you meet with your colleagues, I mean, right now, it's basically chaos at airports. Is it, all right, stay out of the way of your enemy shooting, you know, shooting themselves in the foot? Or are there specific actions that you and your colleagues feel that you need to take to try and relieve that chaos at the airports? Generally speaking, what is the strategy among Democrats right now?
- [04:33]
F
The chaos at the airports has been a problem that we have wanted to solve. I mean, we've always been open to funding the rest of DHA while keeping ICE out of that funding package so that we can continue to negotiate for the reforms. And it was clear that that strategy was working, is working. Republicans were feeling the pressure to at least fund the other portions of dhs, which originally they were not willing to do if it didn't include ice. We just got a report, I think, this morning from Punchbowl that said that Senate Leader Thune was ready to reopen the rest of DHS and continue the conversations on on ice. Likely they would try to pursue some kind of reconciliation package, but that in the short term, we would solve the problem. And the president has now decided to throw the Save America act into that conversation as a precondition for paying TSA agents, which I think is an incredible self own on his part and only results in any blame that the American people were going to place on all parties. I think it now shifts everything to this president's feet.
- [05:47]
E
It was actually shocking to me on the Senate deal that I think it came from Ted Cruz of all I mean he loves to get to the airport, we know that. But that it came from him. And it felt like actually a big in the term that you already used self owned for the Republicans because they had always been saying, well ICE is already funded, so what are you guys talking about? But clearly there was some money that could be cleaved out to make sure that we could reopen. But Trump stomped on that. And I wanted to get your take on the other kind of parallel story going on with Trump vis a vis the war in Iran. So he posted this morning that we're not going to be attacking the Iranians essentially for the week, which means when the market is open as as far as I can see. So he wanted to calm the markets down before they opened. And this will go till Friday. But Iranian state media and I get it, it's Iranian state media is saying that there have been no good faith negotiations, which was the linchpin of why Trump said we could take this break. How do you see things at the moment in terms of the potential for negotiation with the Iranians or what do you think comes next in this?
- [06:56]
F
Well, I think the news this morning is fast developing and I'm certainly, I certainly hope that there is a path toward de escalation in this moment. But I'm not going to hold my breath because this president has used this strategy of temporary victories in order to calm the markets, only to have it revealed in a matter of days or weeks that his claims were actually false, that things weren't materializing the way he claimed they were materializing when he claimed some sort of short term victory in order to calm the markets. And it is amazing to watch the markets time and time again be, you know, Lucy with the the football. Hopefully that's not the case this time. But it's hard to have any trust and faith in what this president reports given the fact that he's done this so many times before and it has turned out to be a lie.
- [07:49]
E
I'm sure that you caught Scott Besson with Kristen Welker yesterday. He was really on one, but I wanted to play you this clip from his interview and get your reaction, though.
- [08:00]
C
Is the President in the process of winding down this war or escalating again?
- [08:04]
D
They're not mutually exclusive. Sometimes you have to escalate to de. Escalate.
- [08:10]
E
What is going on, I guess is my question here. Do you guys know more than we know? Because we're all very confused at this moment.
- [08:19]
F
Listen, as a Democrat in Congress, I certainly encourage the administration to continue to put Scott Bessant out front and center time and time again. He is one of their most effective and likable messengers. But no, look, I think all of us are equally as frustrated in Congress as the American people are because it is not clear what this administration's objectives are or were. It's not clear that they had objectives at the start. They certainly have been misleading the American public when it comes to the intelligence that preceded this war in Iran. And I think at this point, again, the news is fast developing and I hope and pray that what this President said this morning turns out to be true. But at this point, all that we have seen from this war is destruction of things that can be rebuilt. A new Supreme Leader, except this one is more hardline and frankly more pro nuclear and Russian oil reserves and revenues increasing, thus bankrolling the war on Ukraine, making peace harder between Ukraine and Russia, and at the same time showing the Chinese our operational capabilities as a byproduct of this war and therefore allowing them to potentially plan, even in more depth, a potential invasion down the road of Taiwan. And so I don't think not only have we achieved the objectives that they, in this current moment seem to be articulating are the objectives, but from all I can see right now, the actual tangible consequences of this war are to make our enemies richer and better prepared and to make us poorer, both in the lives lost and the resources spent and Iran even more extreme.
- [10:07]
E
I wanted to ask you quickly about the potential proposed terms for a deal which sounds remarkably like the JCPOA which The Donald Trump 1.0 administration took us out of and that we're potentially giving the Iranians $15 billion in sanctions relief. How is the Democrats a caucus going to be talking about that diplomatic avenue? Because obviously we want it, but also we already had it.
- [10:31]
F
There are certainly elements of the deal that the President outlined that, that, that he is pushing for that were included in the jcpoa. There were elements, in fairness, there were elements in what he outlined that were not included in the jcpoa. Although I believe that had we stayed in the JCPOA built trust and guaranteed that the nuclear program was not advancing. Ten years ago, we could have seen progress on diplomat on some of the other points that the JCPOA didn't include that are included in this president's proposal. But honestly, what he put forward isn't any different than what the United States has been pushing for since before the war in Iran. And so I'm not entirely sure what's new here because we don't actually have any sense of whether, whether the Iranian regime is more open to those demands now than they were before the start of the war. And it's also not entirely clear what Iran was fully willing to agree to prior to the commencement of the war, whether they were willing to agree to the bulk of those demands or not. The administration has said that they weren't, that they were only willing to stop advancing their nuclear program, but that's that conflicts with some other things that we've heard. So it's not entirely clear if they get it, if they got that deal. I think that's, that's a good deal. But we should never have been in this circumstance. And I believe there were diplomatic routes that we could have taken before for losing the lives of more than a dozen Americans, spending billions and billions of dollars over the course of the last couple of weeks, alienating our allies both in the region and globally, and also spiking the cost of gas for Americans. Because let's be clear, even if the war stops tomorrow, the price of gas will not come down tomorrow.
- [12:15]
D
Scott Representative Finnish President Alexander Stubb has suggested a diplomatic grand bargain, if you will, as a solution to the crisis, or what has become kind of the world's choke point being the Strait of Hormuz. Speaking at Chatham House in London on last week, Stubb proposed that Europe provide military assistance to help the US Unblock the strategic waterway in exchange for a commitment from US President Donald Trump to fully support Ukraine. What are your thoughts on that proposal?
- [12:49]
F
The challenge with opening the Strait of Hormuz is not just whether the ships will be escorted, whether by American vessels or European vessels, but whether any commercial vessels would be willing to go through that even with an escort. And so I'm not entirely sure that apps in a holistic solution to the crisis that that an escort by any of our allies will actually resolve the issue in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm also skeptical about Trump's willingness to maintain any kind of long term agreement. That's a situation where the Europeans give something on the front end and then there's a long term commitment by Trump, by Trump on the Ukraine end. And I'm, I'm skeptical of his willingness to honor those types of commitments. But look, I mean, I'm, I'm open to any path that brings down tensions, opens the Strait of Hormuz, lowers costs for people here at home. I'm just skeptical about the practicality of what was proposed there or the long term sustainability of it, given who is party to that agreement.
- [13:57]
D
I want to switch gears. So Congress is supposed to control the power of the purse. It feels like it's been a lack of control. And this goes obviously decades before you were in politics, but distinct to the war. We're going to spend $7 trillion on receipts of 5 trillion. And it feels as if we describe it as the largest tax crease in history on future generations. And both parties have participated in it. George Washington to George Bush, 7 trillion in deficits. George Bush to Donald Trump, 38, 39 trillion. And by the way, Donald Trump is responsible for more of that than I believe anybody. What is your approach to fiscal policy? And do you believe that we need to increase taxes, cut spending, both and if you would do what very few elected representatives do on this show and outline programs and specific taxes for decreasing spend and increasing revenues?
- [14:55]
F
Well, I think any kind of path toward reducing the deficit, which, look, we don't have to do it overnight, it doesn't have to happen in one foul swoop. In fact, I think it would probably be pretty impossible politically or practically to do it in one foul swoop. Anything is going to have to include both a mix of reductions in spending and, and, and changes to revenue. And I think obviously the clearest place for us to increase re is among the wealthiest. Whether that's a billionaire tax, whether that's closing the loophole on carried interest or frankly taxing other forms of wealth that the wealthiest are able to materialize even outside of income or carried interest. I think that that's a critical path for us to make a fairer income tax system and to also get the revenue that we need to help to close the deficit. And then on the spending front, I mean, the reality is you can y create efficiencies, you can improve government services to reduce costs, you can improve the use of technologies to reduce waste. But at the end of the day, the biggest areas of spending are defense and entitlements. And I think obviously there are significant reductions in defense spending that I think we could do without sacrificing the safety of our country or the support for our service. Members. And then I think in the long run, we obviously have to grapple with the sustainability of. Of certain entitlement programs. And I think there's things that we can do ranging from increasing the maximum for the Social Security tax. That's a revenue front. To also exploring what it looks like to make sure that Social Security benefits are going to those who. Who most truly need them and to truly lift them out of poverty. And rather than a system that benefits the wealthy in a way that they don't need, obviously, I think our side would be more interested in making the tax system fair. The other side would be more interested in lowering the spending on entitlements, which does have the benefit of sustainability for those programs. But I'm not going to commit to specific things right now. I'm certainly open. And yes, look, I think. I think the fact that we have people in this country who are amassing exorbitant, untold, unfathomable amounts of wealth, and that wealth is just sitting there doing no public good, that will never be touched by the person who is earning it right now, or their child or their children's children or their children's children. I think that is a moral failing, and I think it's a policy failing for a government that continues to struggle with such a significant deficit and obviously massive debt.
- [17:45]
E
Okay, this is a total skip around to another world, but I want to talk to you about culture wars because you live. You're a nexus point in it. I see it every day working in conservative media. And I'm curious as to how you personally navigate dealing with Republicans relentless focus on issues that don't actually affect people's pocketbooks and what advice you would give for people that are trying to navigate it themselves.
- [18:20]
F
I think there is a way for our party to be both principled and pragmatic in this instance. I think one of our responsibilities is, yes, when these attacks happen, and in many cases these distractions happen, we have to pull back the curtain and make it clear that this is part of a strategy as old as politics itself. Every single time you hear them say the word transgender or immigrant, look at what they're doing with their hands, because I guarantee you, they're picking the pocket of American workers, they're trying to fleece seniors, they're trying to gut unions, they're trying to cut health care and food assistance. And I think making sure that people understand that there is a direct connection between the prioritization of the culture wars and an impact on their pocketbook is something that our party has now increasingly done over the last year, but prior to, did a pretty poor job at connecting those dots for people. I do think that we know that we can't just say every single time they come up, this is a distraction. This is a distraction. We have to actually meet people where they are and address the issues. And I think on various issues, we can acknowledge that there's room for nuance. We can acknowledge that people have, for instance, on the topic of, of sports, very understandable concerns about fairness and respect in school sports on all sides of these issues. And the place that those dynamics are best able to be handled is at the local level with individual athletic associations that understand the sport and the science the best, not 435 politicians who know very little about school sports and even less about trans people. I think when it comes to youth access to care, medically necessary care, I think focusing in, on the right of parents to direct the health care decisions of their children rather than bureaucrats or elected officials in Washington D.C. that needs to be our focus there. But I think the bigger challenge we have in all of this is I think we have to step back as a party, as a coalition on a whole host of these issues and acknowledge that people falling in different places on particular policy questions, people having questions, people being confused that it is not a sign that they are a bigot. And I believe that we have to be much more curious rather than judgmental when people are coming to this conversation, coming to these, coming to these topics with a different starting point, with different understandings, with concerns and a sense of instability. And I, and I think that we would benefit collectively as a country and people like me would benefit individually as parts of targeted communities if we didn't create an environment where, where it's, you're either with us or you're against us. You're either with us 100% or you're evil and bad and hate trans people. Because that will result in a wonderfully morally pure club at the gulag we've all been sent off to. It won't actually result in us having the conversations necessary to change people's hearts and minds and to remind people. And I think this is the biggest thing at the end of the day, which is, look, regardless of what you think about gender, regardless of what you think about bathrooms or sports, the reality is trans people exist and we have existed throughout time and cultures. It is not a new invention. Yes, we're hearing about it a lot more, largely as a byproduct of very well funded, coordinated efforts seeking to divide our country. But trans people have existed. We didn't suddenly appear in 2015 or 2016. I certainly didn't just suddenly appear in 2015, 2016. And so the question before us is, when there is a community that you don't understand that will exist no matter what politicians do or say, how do you treat them? Do you treat them with dignity and respect? Yes, there are. There are specific policy questions that society might have to navigate. And again, different people might come to different conclusions. But what is the practical way you engage with that type of person? What. What is the practical way you engage with that community? What are the ways that cause the least disruption for them and everyone else when this community will inevitably exist no matter what policies are in place?
- [22:56]
E
I'm really glad that you, frankly, said all of that because it touches on how I think about what I say on these kinds of culture war issues. And I wanted to know if you could connect it to the algorithms and what's going on online. I love that you describe yourself as chronically online as any millennial is not quite as bad as Gen Z, but our brains are rot basically, at this point. And, you know, how do you see what's going on online as impacting this? And from a legislative point of view, what do you think we can do about it?
- [23:33]
F
I think there are ways that the algorithms are feeding the toxicity in this conversation, and I think they're reflective of the way that the algorithms are feeding the toxicity in our politics writ large. And so I think on the trans front, for instance, you've got online both the amplification of the most extreme, most hateful people for trans people, and then the amplification of sometimes, not even real, sometimes bot. But, but, but voices in, in, in our own community that are used to feed the caricature or used to say, look, these folks aren't open to conversation. They hate you, so you might as well hate them. And I think that that drives people further and further apart. Not only does it normalize the type of dehumanizing rhetoric that we're seeing in this conversation by a lot of politicians, but it's pushing people away from people like me. Because the examples we're seeing of people like me too often are either not real or they're the most extreme voices that are expressing, in many cases, their understandable frustration and anger, but obviously not in ways that are the most constructive or productive for us to invite people in for a conversation. We can't shame and blame our way out of this. If, if, if shame and Blame worked in today's day and age to stop cultural regression, we wouldn't be in this place right now. We've been trying that for years and it doesn't work work. It's just pushed people further and further away from us. Yes, grace has been abused in the history of our country, but the course correction for that cannot be to eliminate all grace from our politics. And I think that that is a case study in the problem in our politics right now driven by the algorithms. And I'll get to what we can do about it. But when we go online, a hundred percent of the content that we see is reflective of maybe 10% of the public. It's the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides. And the algorithm lifts it up and it tells us that everyone either 100% agrees with me or 100% disagrees with me. Because we only get content that either completely conforms to our pre existing biases or outrages us so much, we are driven to anger and grievance and hatred toward whoever is saying that or their coalition. And one of the blessings that I have as an elected official is I am forced to touch grass. I am, I am required as part of my occupation to go out and have conversations in the real world with people who disagree with me about the things that they disagree with me on. And what you see when that is your everyday, when you're having political conversations, but political conversations not online and in the real world is that we are not as divided as the algorithm makes it seem. Most people, the ones who are doom scrolling, not doom posting or not online at all people are. Most people are good people, decent people who yes, we have real disagreements with, but who you can have a conversation with, who you can reason with, who you can over time change their minds. And the greatest threat to me in our democracy right now is that false perception of reality that social media drives. Because when everyone seems like they are 100% with you or 100% against you, it becomes very easy to lose faith in the possibility for persuasion in the point of conversation across disagreement. And the reality is, is that democracy only exists if we maintain our faith in other people's capacity to change. And sometimes you have to summon, consciously summon that. Sometimes you have to consciously tell yourself what I'm seeing online is not reflective. Sometimes it means making the effort to go and have conversations in real life. But part of it falls on us, part of it falls on government. We need regulation of social media platforms. We need to make sure that the algorithms are fully transparent. I believe that there should be a duty of care so that people, the harm that these platforms are inflicting on our country are acknowledged and that the perpetrators who knowingly inflict that harm on our country so that they are held accountable. And then finally I'm very open to what they've done in places like Australia where they just say you can't use social media under 16. Or if you do, you can't use algorithmically driven social media because the reality is is that the algorithm is the 21st century's version of Big Tobacco.
- [28:39]
D
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
- [28:44]
G
Support for this show comes from Prolon. We all have healthy habits we wish we could stick to. Keyword is wish because you can wish all you want, but you won't see results without a plan. Prolon's five day Fasting Mimicking Diet is a real plan. It's a revolutionary plant based nutrition program that nourishes the body while keeping it in a fasting state. It's a simple science backed way to turn intentions into action so you can stay focused and see results you can actually build on throughout the year. The mimicking diet is based on more than two decades of research developed with USC's Longevity Institute. Prolon has been shown to support fat focused, weight loss, energy, metabolic health, skin appearance and more. With Prolon, you get everything you need prepackaged and ready to go. Each kit comes with five boxes labeled by day so you know what to eat each day. No guesswork or planning required, which is a relief during busy work weeks. Right now Prolon is offering our listeners 15% off their five day nutrition program for your post holiday. Glow up when you go to prolon.com Prof. G that's P R O L-O-N life.com Prof. G for 15% off prolonlife.com profile crafting. Quick break One useful thing to share I thought TikTok was just dances. Turns out it's where I learned how to save money, fix stuff and get real tips. Short videos, real people download TikTok now
- [30:13]
H
TaxAct understands you haven't memorized the tax code. That's why TaxAct has live experts to help. TaxAct can even do it for you if you prefer. It's the easiest way to know you're doing it right. Well, other than going back to college and obtaining a bachelor's degree in accounting with a minor in finance, then interning somewhere and becoming fluent in all tax forms. But that might be hard to accomplish before tax day. So maybe just stick with TaxAct. TaxAct let's get them over with.
- [30:45]
D
Representative McBride as the first, my understanding is the first openly transgender woman to serve in Congress.
- [30:50]
F
First trans. Openly trans person there. I don't think there have been a trans man too.
- [30:56]
D
I just went back to my high school in West Los Angeles, and it's got 2,000 kids. And if you the data, and I don't know if it's accurate, but the data I've read, 5% of the community is non binary, and of those 5%, 20% will contemplate or engage in self harm. Teen suicide is up dramatically since COVID and it's especially severe among the LGBTQ community, which means, and I just did the math, that 20 kids this year, my high school, and the LGBT community will engage in self harm. As someone who some of these kids may have an easier time relating to, what is your message to them, to kids who are, in addition to going through all the difficulties and weirdness of what it's like to be a teenager, when you speak to LGBTQ youth, what is your message to them?
- [31:52]
F
I think the first thing I want to reinforce for any young person who's looking at the state of our world, looking at the state of our politics, looking at our country, and wondering whether the heart of this country is big enough to love them too. The first thing I would say is that you're not alone. There are people who see you, who love you, who understand you, and who are fighting for you. But the second thing I would say is I know it feels scary right now. I know it feels hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I know it is. It feels like you have every reason to believe that the heart of this country is not big enough to love you too. And I understand what that feels like because that's what it felt like for me as a young person. When I was growing up, the only examples I had of people like me were punchlines in a comedy or dead bodies in a drama. When I was growing up, the idea that I could live openly and do work that I love, find love, live in a community I love, it seemed so impossible that it was almost incomprehensible. And yes, we are in a moment where we are moving backwards. But I have had over the privilege of my lifetime, and I recognize how lucky I am. But I have had the privilege of bearing witness to change that once seemed so impossible to me that it was almost incomprehensible. Not only become possible, but become a reality. And I know now get to walk onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives as my authentic self. Something that I never, ever could have imagined. The words themselves that I just said would not have made sense to me when I was a kid. And now I get to walk on the floor as the representative of more than a million people and cast my vote in the place where slavery was abolished, where women got the right to vote, where the equal protection clause of the Constitution was ratified. I get to serve in the place where Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid were created. I sit in the chairs where our predecessors sat to pass the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act. That change seemed impossible to me as a kid, and today it is a reality. And that is because people persevered. They maintained hope in the face of that impossibility. Not just people like me over the last 30 years, but every single previous generation. You cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness for an enslaved person in the 1850s who had no reason to believe that an Emancipation Proclamation was on the horizon. You cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness today are greater than the reasons for hopelessness for an unemployed worker in the early days of the Great Depression who had never heard of a New Deal. You cannot tell me that the reasons for hopelessness now are greater than the reasons for hopelessness for a closeted LGBTQ person in the 1950s who never knew of a country where they could live openly and authentically as themselves without violating the law. They had every reason to give up, but they didn't. They persevered. They. They summoned their hope, they found the light, and they changed the world. And I have to believe that we can do the same. And if we do, we can make this moment what a friend of mine from Florida once called a slingshot moment. Where, yes, we are pulled backwards, but the tension and pressure of being pulled backwards ultimately propels us to destinations that we've not yet been.
- [35:46]
E
Slingshot moment. That's so good. I love that.
- [35:50]
D
Sarah Elizabeth McBride is an American politician serving as the U.S. representative for Delaware's At Large Congressional District. Author and LGBTQ rights activist. A member of the Democratic Party, she served in the Delaware Senate from January 2020 to January 2025, representing the state's first Senate district. Prior, she was the National Press Secretary of the Human rights campaign from 2016 to 2021. McBride is the nation's highest ranking openly transgender elected official and the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress. Representative, very much appreciate your time and the role you're playing and the grace and dignity you bring to your role as an elected representative. Thanks for joining us.
- [36:33]
E
Thank you.
- [36:34]
F
Thank you.
- [36:36]
E
So I've been following Congresswoman McBride's career for a while, and I'm so glad that we got to talk to her not only about policy, because she's got the chops, and I think often gets siloed into these conversations about transgender issues when she's a great policymaker and has a lot of depth to her knowledge and is laser focused on affordability and all the things that you should be. But I just found her responses about, you know, what LGBTQ plus kids should be thinking now and what her example means, and also how to deal with culture wars and the algorithms to be very thoughtful, inspirational, and also practical, which usually don't all collide. So I was, you know, I've been excited to have her for a long time and certainly lived up to my expectations.
- [37:26]
D
I think she's going to end up being someone who is seen as a symbol of real, real progress, not, not because she was elected, but because she cements the notion that regardless of your sexual orientation, you can be an effective representative, and that. That doesn't identify her. That doesn't define her. What identifies and defines her is that she just seems like a very thoughtful, competent person who also happens to be transgender. And I think that is really powerful as opposed to. I just think she serves her community really well because I think it's impossible to speak to her, and you may not agree with her policies and who knows what your viewpoint is on the transgender community, but it's hard to argue that she doesn't deserve to be in that seat, regardless of her identity, that she earned that seat based on her character and her intelligence and her confidence. So I think she's going to be. Play a really important. She's already played a historic role, but I think she's gonna move the ball forward for her community.
- [38:26]
E
Also, I think it's so important how she emphasizes kindness and to not jump to conclusions. Like, anyone who has a question or maybe doesn't fully agree with you on a topic is a bigot. I mean, that's something that I think about a lot in my work. And if she's saying that you should be able to.
- [38:46]
D
To get there, too, I'm really hoping that she continues or gets good appointments or. I don't know how the politics of politics work, but I think she can be a very effective voice. Distinct, distinctive transgender issues. I just think she's going to be a powerful voice for Democrats on key issues.
- [39:06]
E
Let's leave it there. I'll see you tomorrow,
- [39:12]
F
Sam.