Why Conservatives Are Trying to Kill the Voting Rights Act

Summary

Podcast Summary: Reveal

Episode: Why Conservatives Are Trying to Kill the Voting Rights Act

Host: Al Letson
Guest: Jamelle Bouie, New York Times history and political columnist
Release Date: August 20, 2025

---

Overview

This episode of Reveal, hosted by Al Letson, features an in-depth conversation with Jamelle Bouie on the significance of the Voting Rights Act 60 years after its passage, how and why it’s being systematically weakened, and what these changes mean for American democracy. Together, they discuss the ideological and historical forces motivating conservative opposition to the Act, the political weaknesses of the Democratic Party, and lessons on political messaging and engagement.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Origins and Importance of the Voting Rights Act

• Historical Context and Impact
  • Passed in 1965 after the Civil Rights Movement highlighted persistent barriers to minority voting rights.
  • The Act’s central feature was Section 5 preclearance, which required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting rules.
    • “[Preclearance] meant that lots of localities and municipalities and states that were looking for ways to dilute or otherwise undermine the voting power of black residents simply couldn't because the federal government was maintaining kind of a sharp and watchful eye over their conduct.” (Jamelle Bouie, 04:17)
• Supreme Court Erosion
  • In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court gutted preclearance, claiming the formula was outdated.
  • “John Roberts...wrote the opinion for the Court, [saying] it’s unfair to hold these states to account for actions taken in a previous generation.” (Jamelle Bouie, 04:59)
  • More recent decisions, like the 2021 ruling by Justice Alito, have made it much harder to prove discriminatory intent under Section 2—weakening protections further.

Conservative Opposition: Ideology and Historical Continuities

• Long-Standing Resistance
  • Conservatives have always resisted strong federal oversight of state elections, especially to protect minority voting rights.
    • “The conservative movement has never liked the Voting Rights Act. It's never liked the idea of a federal government exercising its authority...to curb states from shaping their electorates and shaping their elections.” (Jamelle Bouie, 07:16)
• Current Moves to Restrict Voting
  • Contemporary Republican initiatives—such as restricting mail-in ballots, redistricting, and imposing proof-of-citizenship requirements—are seen as direct continuations of this resistance.
  • These efforts are happening alongside broader efforts to centralize executive power over elections.

Are We in a Constitutional Crisis?

• Jamelle Bouie contends that the weakening of voting rights and broader attacks on democratic norms amount to a “constitutional emergency.”
  • “The foundation is rotting under our feet, however you want to describe it...I think it's clearly true that we're in a state of constitutional emergency.” (Bouie, 08:17)

Democratic Party Shortcomings and Missed Opportunities

• Failure to Codify Key Rights
  • Democrats often get criticized for failing to codify protections like Roe v. Wade or robust voting rights when in power.
  • Bouie notes that the lack of party unity—e.g., pro-life Democrats during the Affordable Care Act negotiations—hampered major legislative action.
    • “Part of what almost killed the Affordable Care Act were pro-life Democrats...they probably would not vote to codify Roe v. Wade.” (Bouie, 09:46)
• Mindset and Generational Divide
  • Many party leaders are accused of seeing politics in outdated terms of bipartisanship and collegiality, rather than the adversarial approach Republicans take.
  • “So many elected Democrats...are just dispositionally inclined to behave as if their Republican counterparts are operating in good faith...But that's not how it is. They want it to be one way, but it's the other way. And the other way is that...Republican Party is out to win and win for the duration.” (Bouie, 12:33)
  • Memorable pop-culture analogy from The Wire’s Marlo Stanfield: “You want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.” (Bouie, 12:20)

Issues in Democratic Party Leadership

• The “seniority system” and aversion to elevating charismatic, aggressive younger politicians like AOC or Zoran Mamdani stands in contrast to Republicans, who give platforms to energetic rising stars.
• “It's not even that they don't want to elevate the person with the sharpest blade. They seem to be afraid of the blade.” (Bouie, 16:19)
• As a result, voters view Democrats as weak and out of touch, while “Republicans and conservatives can just make up stuff and say, yeah, Democrats said it...and people, I guess they did.” (Bouie, 16:44)

Lessons from Republican Messaging and Political Machines

• Simplicity and Clarity
  • Both Trump and historical political machines like Tammany Hall understood the power of clear, direct, and visible benefits to voters.
    • “Politics isn’t this game of showing how responsible you are. First of all, it’s winning elections...Public engagement...connect ordinary people to government and to persuade them that you will do better for them than the other guy.” (Bouie, 19:54; 24:32)
• Contrast: Government vs. Business
  • The idea of “running government like a business” is flawed—businesses exist for profit, government to deliver services. However, the appeal comes from government’s failure to deliver benefits in a simple, visible way. Social Security is popular because its benefits are transparent and easy to understand. (Bouie, 21:43–23:41)
• “If writing your name on the check is what it takes to remind voters that you are doing something for them, you should do it. This is the basic insight of the old 19th century political machines.” (Bouie, 24:25)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Shelby v. Holder:

  “[Preclearance] meant that...states that were looking for ways to dilute...the voting power of black residents simply couldn't because the federal government was maintaining...a sharp and watchful eye over their conduct.”
  (Jamelle Bouie, 04:17)

• On intent-based voting rights suits:

  “To prove intent. It's impossible.”
  (Bouie, 06:19)

• On Democratic leadership’s approach:

  “They want it to be one way, but it’s the other way. ...The Republican Party is out to win and win for the duration.”
  (Bouie, 12:33)

• On elevating new political talent:

  “It's not even that they don't want to elevate the person with the sharpest blade. They seem to be afraid of the blade.”
  (Bouie, 16:19)

• On political messaging:

  “Politics isn't this game of showing how responsible you are. First of all, it's winning elections.”
  (Bouie, 24:32)

• On lessons from the past:

  “You go around the country, you'll find buildings that still have [Roosevelt’s] name stamped right in them...Reminding you that you have this building...because Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted you to have it. And that's powerful.”
  (Bouie, 27:20)

---

Key Timestamps

• 03:23 — Bouie gives an overview of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5 preclearance, and its undoing by the Supreme Court.
• 06:28 — Barriers to proving discriminatory intent under recent Supreme Court rulings.
• 07:11 — Conservative movement’s ideological resistance to the VRA and equal ballot access.
• 08:08 — Bouie calls the present a “constitutional emergency.”
• 09:29 — On Democrats’ missed opportunities to codify rights like Roe v. Wade.
• 12:20 — Reference to The Wire, highlighting Democratic naiveté about Republican motives.
• 16:19 — Discussion of Democratic leadership’s fear of elevating aggressive young politicians.
• 21:43 — Bouie explains why running government like a business is a flawed metaphor.
• 24:25 — The need for direct, personal political messaging—“put your name on the check.”
• 27:20 — The enduring power of clear government benefits and historical leaders’ legacies.

---

Conclusion

This episode breaks down the systematic, decades-long campaign to weaken the Voting Rights Act, traces the ideological drivers behind it, and offers an unsparing look at Democratic Party weaknesses and what can be learned from more effective Republican strategies. With memorable analogies and clear-eyed historical context, Bouie and Letson make a compelling case for recognizing the political moment as a constitutional emergency—and for embracing clarity, fight, and direct relationships with voters as the only viable path forward.

---

For further exploration, listeners can check out Reveal’s previous episode, “How Trump Exploits Working Class Pain,” for more in-depth analysis of current political dynamics.

Transcript

[A]

The conservative movement has never liked the Voting Rights Act. It's never liked the idea of a federal government exercising its authority in strong ways to curb states from shaping their electorates and shaping their elections.

[B]

Coming up on MORE to the Story. New York Times history and political columnist Jamelle bouie on the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights act and why he believes America is in a constitutional emergency. Stay with us.

[C]

Did you know you have the power to inspire future generations with the same impactful reporting you trust and believe in right now? I'm Lisa Schachter and I manage the Legacy Society program at the center for Investigative Reporting. When you include Reveal in your will or other legacy plans, you are passing along your values of truth and integrity. It won't cost you anything right now, and you don't need to be wealthy to make a difference. A gift of any size through your will or from your retirement plan, life insurance plan or other financial account can ensure that reveal's meaningful, factual reporting continues for decades to come. For more information about making a legacy gift to Reveal or to notify us that you already have, give me a call at 415-321-1706 or send an email to giftsevielnews. Or again, that's 415-321-1706 or giftsrevealnews.org Please consider creating your legacy of truth today. Thank you.

[B]

This is more to the story. I'm Al Edson. The right to vote and be represented fairly in Congress has been challenged and fought over since America's founding, and that battle over who gets to participate in democracy and hold power is playing out around the US Today. In Texas, Republicans are attempting to redraw legislative maps that would give their party as many as five new seats in the House of Representatives. On a federal level, President Trump recently announced that he wants to get rid of mail in ballots and voting machines that follows an executive order currently blocked that would give the executive branch unprecedented power over how the country's elections are run. Similarly, Republicans in Congress have proposed a bill that would require people to produce citizenship documents when they register to vote. Election experts say the move could disenfranchise millions of Americans. All of this is happening on the anniversary this month of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation that for decades helped ensure that African Americans and other minorities were able to vote. That act and how it's been hollowed out are something that my guest, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, has thought a lot about lately. Jamelle thanks so much for being here.

[A]

Hey, thank you for having me.

[B]

So this month marks the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights act being signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Supreme Court seems to be dismantling it bit by bit. Tell me a little bit about the history of the act and how it's changed over the years.

[A]

The Voting Rights act is more or less drafted and passed and signed in the first half, more or less, of 1965. It's signed into law August 6, 1965. But much of the work is done earlier in the year. And anyone who's seen the movie Selma, who knows sort of basic civil rights chronology, knows that it was prompted, precipitated by movement efforts to demonstrate the high barriers to voting that still existed post the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And the signature piece of it, the piece of that really made it transformative, was Section five, which is called preclearance. And preclearance simply meant that in jurisdictions covered by the law, if they wanted to change their voting rules, they had to go to the Justice Department, submit them, and get approval. That's it. But in practice, it meant that lots of localities and municipalities and states that were looking for ways to dilute or otherwise undermine the voting power of black residents simply couldn't because the federal government was maintaining kind of a sharp and watchful eye over their conduct. And in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court basically gutted preclearance. Specifically, the Court said the existing preclearance formula, which was based off of states that had histories of voting discrimination, was outdated. John Roberts essentially saying the Chief justice in his he wrote the opinion for the Court, Roberts saying that, you know, times have changed. It's unfair to hold these states to account for actions taken in a previous generation. In theory, a Congress could pass a new voting rights bill with a different formula for pre clearance. You could have universal pre clearance, which is something I would prefer, where all states had to submit voting plans prior to enactment to make sure they're not discriminating. But in practice, Congress just has not had a voting majority for any kind of serious voting rights bill. And so the Roberts court decision end pre clearance and subsequent decisions from the Court have weakened the law in other ways. So in 2021, for example, in a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that you needed to prove intent to discriminate in order to file suit under Section two, which gives sort of a cause of action. You can sue under Section 2 for.

[B]

Voting discrimination, improving Intent is so hard. The evidence of it you can see and clearly point to. But proving intent, I mean, that's a tough bar to reach.

[A]

That's what made the decision 2021 so absurd. Because even at the height of voting discrimination in this country, lawmakers were smart enough not to say, we're doing this to discriminate against black people or Hispanic people or whomever. Right. The 15th Amendment still exists. Right. It explicitly bars discrimination in voting on race. And so obviously, lawmakers figured out ways to get around it. And so to prove int. It's impossible.

[B]

I think people that are watching the way politics are playing out right now, especially if you're not a student of history, you may not realize that all of these movements, everything that we're seeing right now, has been in the works for a very long time. Chief Justice Roberts hasn't liked the Voting Rights act since he was a young man working under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. So this is sort of like fulfillment of a promise that was made many years ago to shift society into this new place, or maybe more accurately, to shift society back to an old place.

[A]

I think that's right. I mean, Roberts has a long history of disliking the Voting Rights act. But in general, the conservative movement has never liked the Voting Rights Act. It's never liked the idea of a federal government exercising its authority in strong ways to curb states from shaping their electorates and shaping their elections. The notion that everyone deserves equal access to the ballot, that everyone deserves equal access to elections, that one person ought to mean one vote, and that there ought to be some measure of political equality has never really sat well with the political right in this country. And, you know, with the Trump administration and with the Supreme Court, they are very clearly aiming to use this power to advance their vision of some people have more access than others.

[B]

So do you feel like we are in a constitutional crisis?

[A]

I mean, yeah, I'm very much of the view that we're in some kind of constitutional emergency. Whether you want to call it a constitutional crisis, whether you want to describe it as an ongoing assault on the constitutional structure, whether you might. The term I like a lot. Whether you want to see it as an acute instance of constitutional rot, the foundation is rotting under our feet, however you want to describe it. Right. There's different ways to talk about this. I think it's clearly true that we're in a state of constitutional emergency.

[B]

So I want to step back a little bit and just look at the Democratic Party. I'm curious if the struggles that you're seeing right now, like, what's going on with the voting act, but also when we look at taking away women's right to choose in red states. I'm curious if you think that the Democratic Party has just been a little bit too meek in the past and not been able to codify these things. You know, I've heard many people say that, like the argument over Roe v. Wade. We didn't even need to have that. It could have been codified to stop this from happening, but the Democrats never did it. I don't know. What's your thoughts on that?

[A]

I think you could fault the Democrats, probably rightfully, for not codifying Roe v. Wade when they had the chance. Although it's worth saying that probably the first time there was an actual voting majority, like a pro choice voting majority in Congress was the most recent Democratic trifecta that people who remember the 2009-2011 cycle may recall that part of what almost killed the Affordable Care act were pro life Democrats who were demanded a promise that there would not be any funding for abortion in the law. So during the time when there was briefly a Democratic supermajority, you had a chunk of that supermajority constituted Democrats who probably would not vote to codify Roe v. Wade. So just for saying that, sure, sure. But, like, the reason conservatives are anti abortion isn't because liberals support choice. They're anti abortion because they have a sincere belief that one should not be able to get a legal abortion. And I think it's worth remembering that the other side, like, gets a vote, right? Like, the other side has agency. They don't do things purely in reaction to their opponents, but they have an independent source of motivation. Now, having said that, do I think that the Democratic Party is like a bunch of weenies? I do. Do I think that Democrats could use more fight in them? I absolutely do. I know you know this, but listeners who maybe have not watched the Wire or rewatched the Wire may not remember. I believe it's a scene in Season four when the character Marlo Stanfield goes into a convenience store and steals a lollipop just because he can. And there's a security guard there who sees him steal it and is like, hey, man, could you just, like, do me a solid and put it back? Because I know you're just kind of disrespecting me to disrespect me, but I have no choice but to have this job. This is like, this is what I do. And, you know, I just can't let you leave having stolen something. And Marlo, who is kind of like a murderer psychopath in a powerful on the rise drug kingpin, looks at him and says to him, you want it to be one way, but it's the other way. And I think about that all the time with relation to Democrats. I think so many elected Democrats who are of a generation of lawmakers who came of age on the oldest side in the 70s, in the 80s and the 90s, in a period where even when the country's politics were headed towards stark polarization, that would have been the 90s, they're still moderate Republicans, there are still conservative Democrats, there's still kind of a bipartisan ethos in Washington, and there's still this sense in their political upbringing that you could calm the common ground with your opponents, that you kind of basically wanted the same things, just had different ways of going about it. And there was a sense as well that the country was generally kind of conservative. And so you just had to work, you had to work around that. And so Democrats have ilk of that generation, I think, are just dispositionally inclined to behave as if their Republican counterparts are operating in good faith, as if they don't really mean the extreme things they say. I think it's disbelief is downstream of this view that like kind of we're all playing a game, you know? Right, right. But that's, that's not how it is. They, they want it to be one way, but it's the other way. And the other way is that no Republicans want to destroy you. The Republican Party is out to win and win for the duration.

[B]

To your point, I think that many Democrats, including the current Democratic leadership, and when I say leadership, I'm talking about Chuck Schumer, they want to go back or they wholeheartedly believe that we are still living in the world of Tip o' Neill and Ronald Reagan. And I'm curious if you agree with this. The Democrats are very much entrenched in the idea of whose turn is it? Instead of like, who's got the sharpest blade. So they will push forward a candidate that they feel like, well, it's their turn, instead of the candidate that really has a blade that's sharp and can go in and cut. And Republicans are the exact opposite.

[A]

So I do agree with this. I think that Hakeem Jeffries knows that we're not in the era of Reagan and Tip o'. Neill. But I think what we're sensing from Democratic leadership is that they imagine themselves in the face of this chaotic president and this transgressive political movement, they imagine themselves as the protector of, you know, the system. They're defending, you know, the way things used to be, so they can be restored. Unfortunately, this just reads as being weak and there's no going back. Right. Like, what it means is that you can't do a game of seniority anymore. I think of the minor in the scheme of things, but revealing fight over who is gonna be the ranking member in the House Oversight Committee. Initially represent Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was running for that spot, and her opponent was Jerry Connolly. Now, Ocasio Cortez, I believe we're about the same age. I think so. She's like 36, 37. Gerry Connolly was 74 years old, and his supporters were like, yeah, he's 74, but he's like a young 74, cancer notwithstanding. Direct quote. A young 74 cancer notwithstanding.

[B]

And Connelly, this is just a wild. A wild caveat. I mean, that's just a wild caveat.

[A]

It's comical. And he won and was promptly just like an inert and not particularly interesting chairman, a ranking member. And he passed away recently. And it's like, that's the problem. Right? I get it, I get it. Older members leadership may not like AOC all that much. They may think that she is, you know, too aggressive, whatever, but she's unquestionably one of the most media savvy and compelling people in the Democratic Party. Why wouldn't you want her to be the ranking member on your Oversight Committee, which offers plenty of opportunities to make. Make noise against your opponents. Like, why wouldn't you want to do that? And it demonstrates, as you said, a. Like a. Like a. It's not even that they don't want to elevate the person with the sharpest blade. They seem to be afraid of the blade. Yeah, afraid. Afraid of what it looks like to be that aggressive. You see this with the reaction to Zorwan Mamdani, another compelling, telegenic, charismatic Democrat who you would think that any rational party would be like, yeah, let's. Let's make this. Let's make this guy. Let's elevate this guy. Because he's clearly, he has it, whatever it is. But, you know, there's all this fear, all this worry that, like, oh, he's Muslim. Oh, he's kind of left wing. So voters are gonna be. But there's no understanding that political leadership is a thing that exists and that you can. You can shape the environment in which voters understand your party and your candidates. And The Democratic Party's refusal to do this has left it in a situation where voters don't know what it stands for, that, that people who identify as Democrats think the party is weak and that Republicans and conservatives can just make up stuff and say, yeah, Democrats said it and people, I guess they did.

[B]

When you talk about Mandani, I think about if there was a, for lack of better term, a bizarro Mandani where he was the exact opposite but still charismatic and all of those things, he would be a star in the Republican Party and they'd be putting a lot of love behind him and pushing him forward, whereas in the Democratic Party, they don't want to touch him. And it's just a really clear example of how party leadership seems to be out of step with the rest of, with the actual rank and file members of the party.

[A]

This is so true, and it's interesting. So back in the 80s, there was a conclusion. There are many more moderate Democrats who felt that the party elite was out of step with the, out of step with the rank and file, by which they meant that it had moved too far to the left. And so things like the Democratic Leadership Council, guys like Bill Clinton were trying to realign the party leadership with what they believe to be the moderate base of the party. And I'm not certain that they were wrong. Right. Because Clinton does end up winning two terms as president. Democrats have a pretty good 1982, so on and so forth. I think there's a misalignment between the party base and the leadership, but I don't think it's an ideological misalignment. And I think an ideological misalignment because I think the figures who are rising to the top as people that rank and file Democrats are excited about don't have ideology in common, like Zoran Mandani, AOC Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker. They're all over the board of Democratic Party ideology. But what they have in common is a willingness to treat Republicans not as wayward colleagues, but as opponents, as people you have to beat and to be willing to be creative and compelling and attempting to do that. And that's, I think, where the mismatch is. You see, there are a lot of polls right now showing Democratic Party's low overall approval. But so much of that is driven by actual Democratic voters looking to Washington and just being frustrated with Chuck Schumer and Jeffries and aging and inert leadership. If Democrats can solve that problem, if it can elevate people who understand that the moment that we're in requires more fight, then those numbers are gonna go up.

[B]

Coming up, in addition to having more fight, Jamel talks about other lessons Democrats can learn from the Republican playbook.

[A]

Politics isn't this game of showing how responsible you are. First of all, it's winning elections. But second of all, it's using rhetoric, public engagement, public speaking, public discourse to connect ordinary people to government and to persuade them that you will do better for them than the other guy.

[B]

Before we get to that, somehow summer is almost over. I know, I know. You're getting in those last minute trips, doing all the back to school stuff. It is a busy time. But there's one small thing you can add to your list that makes a big difference for us at Reveal. Tell your friends about us, give us a rating or review on your favorite podcast app and help others discover Reveal's award winning reporting. Okay, so don't go anywhere. More with Jamelle Bouie in a minute.

[A]

Hi y'. All.

[C]

My name is Nadia Hamdan and I'm a producer here at Reveal. I'm Reveal is a nonprofit news organization and we depend on support from our listeners. Donate [e-mail] donate and thanks.

[B]

This is more to the story. I'm Al Ledson and I'm talking with New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie. So, Jamel, there is one thing in politics that drives me absolutely crazy whenever there's an election. And I hear people say we need candidate X in office because he's a good businessman and we need government to run like a business. What do you think about that?

[A]

So I 100% agree about the notion that it's absurd to want to think of government as a business. The goal of a business is to make a profit. The goal of a government is to deliver services. A business is run like a little dictatorship, right? Like the CEO says, the boss says what goes. And the thing about businesses is a lot of them fail. But I'll say that I think maybe one reason the public is so attracted to this notion of running the government like a business, aside from kind of the way that this, our culture kind of elevates the businessman as this figure of emulation, the entrepreneur. But I think one reason perhaps is that our government does not do a good job of delivering services in a way that makes it clear that this is a product of the government, right? Like so much of what our government does is obscured under layers of tax credits and incentives and that kind of thing. Direct benefits, a one to one relationship between we're say we're going to do this and this happens to you few and far between. And I think it creates the impression that the government isn't doing anything. I'm always struck by. Right. Like, people love Social Security. They love Social Security, they love Medicare. And I think one of the reasons is that Social Security is very simple. You see in your check, it says you pay your Social Security tax, and then when you turn 65 or 67, you get a check in return. It's very straightforward. Yep.

[B]

Simple.

[A]

To go back to Mamdani, I'm convinced that part of his appeal isn't even the substance of the policies, but the fact that they're so simple. Right. Free buses, city grocery stores, rent control. That's easy to understand. It's simple. Our federal government doesn't do this so well.

[B]

I also think, to your point, that what Trump has done very well is made his policies simple.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like it's make America great again. And these are all the things that I'm going to do to enact that. And also say what you want about Trump, he is a master marketer and he has an innate understanding of his audience. And so when the COVID checks went out and he made sure that his name was on it, even though he was opposed to the checks going out, when people got those checks, they saw his name on it. But the fact that the effective political messaging keeps it simple is a huge part of it. It.

[A]

I think that's absolutely right. I have a couple thoughts. The first is that the example of Trump putting his name on the checks is such a great one. During last year's election, there is a rally where Obama was speaking and Obama was praising Biden for not putting his name on his checks because that showed he was for the American people and not just for himself. But I saw that and I was like, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That, that politics isn't this game of showing how responsible you are. First of all, it's winning elections. But second of all, it's using rhetoric, public engagement, public speaking, public discourse to connect ordinary people to government and to persuade them that you will do better for them than the other guy. And that involves sending messages however you can. And so if writing your name on the check is what it takes to remind voters that you are doing something for them, you should do it. This is the basic insight of the old 19th century political machines. You're an Irish immigrant. You show up in New York and boss the Tammany machine, you know, greets you says, hey, I represent, you know, this, this, this neighborhood. You need a job, you need a place to live, come to me, we'll get you a job. And the job is coming from Tammany, it's coming from us. And the only thing we need from you is your support. Election comes along, give us a ballot. That's all we need. That direct relationship, yeah, there's corruption, whatever, but that, that represents, like a direct relationship between the representative, the system, and the voter. And Trump, I think, kind of intuitively gets this. He's a very 19th century figure in a lot of ways. He intuitively gets this. And I'm not sure Democrats intuitively get this. Some do. But I think that this older generation, existing leadership are too just acculturated in this era where that kind of directness seems, like, uncouth or inappropriate. But no, it's exactly what's needed. And yes. Does it mean maybe that you can't have big, complicated policies anymore? Probably, but that's probably a good thing to begin with. Maybe there should be a return to just simplicity in our policy making rather than trying to figure out what kind of tax credits you're gonna get. If you make this kind of money, just say, oh, every family gets a flat amount of money to help with their kids. Everyone gets access to a basic level of healthcare. Everyone gets a flat amount of money to help pay for housing. It's simple and it's a direct thing. You know, Roosevelt understood this. I mean, you know, you go around the country, you'll find buildings that still have that dude's name stamped right in them, right? Reminding you that you have this building, you have this library, you have this courthouse, you have this playground because Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted you to have it. And that's powerful.

[B]

Jamel Bouie, thank you so much for coming on. I have been looking forward to this interview ever since we booked it. So thank you very much.

[A]

Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you for having me.

[B]

That was New York Times history and political columnist Jamelle Bouie. If you like that episode, I'm gonna recommend you check out one of our previous episodes, how Trump Exploits Working Class Pain. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild talks about how President Trump uses economic decline to win over voters and rural Americans. Further to the right, we'll put a link in our show notes. Lastly, to keep up with everything we're doing here, sign up for our free newsletter by going to revealnews.org newsletter and we'll send you the latest from our newsroom in a weekly email. That's revealenews.org newsletter. This episode was produced by Josh sanburn and Cara McGurk Allison, edited by Taki Telenides Theme music and engineering helped by Fernando My Man Yo Arruda and Jay Breezy. Mr. Jim Briggs, I'm Al Lettson. This is more to the story from prx.