B (5:02)

And historically speaking, if you look at the span of human history, democracy is the rarity and a relatively new concept.

A (5:10)

Democracies are very rare. Most of the ones that have existed in the past have failed. There are probably more than you think. I mean, there were some in ancient Greece, the Roman Republic was a kind of democracy, or it had some element of civic participation. There have been other experiments in Iceland and in South America, in Africa over the decades. In modern times there was a group of democracies at the beginning of the 20th century, most of which failed in the conflagration that became World War II. And in our times there was a flowering of democracy after World War II, and then even more so after 1989. But we're now living in a period of democratic retrenchment. And all over the world you can see democratic democracies beginning to fail. And throughout most of human history, that's what, you know, that's what's happened. Most people in most civilizations going back to Ancient Egypt or beyond have lived in what you would now describe as an autocracy, a monarchy, a warlord, some kind of tribal system. Modern democracies are unique and they require special care and attention.

B (6:31)

And having grown up for a long time in the United States, what's happened in the last 10 to 15 years here and elsewhere in the world, it was really just inconceivable to me. It's not something I ever thought was possible. I would look at the history of 1930s Germany and other countries and really be completely confused as to how that could have happened and why didn't people stop it and so forth. Now it is very evident to me how it happens. But is your view that what's happening now, is it a, a permanent shift? Because you talked about how it's, it's in many places in the world. Is it a permanent shift or is this just a, a cyclical wave that is happening as we move from a history of autocracy to new democracies that are, that are just getting going?

A (7:20)

So nothing is ever permanent and nothing ever ends for good. So we don't know whether what we're going through now is a, is a, is a cyclical thing or whether it's permanent. Everything depends on choices that people make, that we make, all of us make in the next few years. You know, you could see, as you have seen in other countries, as you know, I watched it happen in Russia, I watched it happen in Hungary. There are a few countries that I've had a lot of involvement that I've, where I've seen a kind of entrenchment of, of a one man party rule or one man's dictatorship. And you know, in each one of those cases you can see how it could have been stopped. And you could also see, you know, and then of course there were reasons why it wasn't stopped. So I think it's always bad to think about history as having some kind of inevitability about it. You know, that there's a, you know, we're on this wave and we can't stop the wave because that's not how history works. I mean, everything can be stopped and changed. It's just a question of willpower, tactics, sometimes luck.

B (8:28)

And you said that you've seen in some instances there were things that could be done to stop it from happening. If we go back 10 to 20 years, what are things that you feel like could have been done to stop what's happening now?

A (8:45)

Well, I mean, there are different things that could have been done at different times. I mean, now we're playing the game of historical revisionism. So it's hard for me to, you know, you have to go back and think how history could have been different. I mean, we could have, when social media was born, we could have said from the beginning that it needs to serve a social function, that it needs to be set up and the rules of it need to be written in such a way that everybody has access to it and that the rules of it are designed not to favor outrage and anger and emotion, but are instead designed to. To favor, you know, sensible debate, you know, so that people hear both sides of an argument. We could have, so we could have thought about that earlier. We could have not created a system of invisible money structures, dark money, black money, however you want to, whatever phrase you want to use, money laundering. We could have not allowed the financial system to create this whole world of secret wealth and tax havens and shell companies and anonymous investors and anonymous property owners who move money quickly all over the world. That's been a major contribution to the spread of dictatorship. We could have not passed, you know, not created Citizens United so we could have an America in America. We could have a political system that's less grotesquely dependent on money so that our political leaders were interested in us and not in raising enough money for the next election. I mean, I could sort go on. I mean, the flaws of the political system that we see now are the result of all those kinds of things not being done or not being changed earlier.

B (10:36)

And one of the things in your book and your podcasts and articles that you talk about that I found very profound and important is this concept that first of all, the tendency toward autocracy we see on both sides or on all sides, all different ideologies. It's not a right wing thing or just a left wing thing, but also that, that both sides tend to invoke freedom as the reason to do it. And that there are these different concepts of freedom. And I think that's something that certainly in the United States we see and hear every day. Are these collisions of these different concepts of freedom.

A (11:12)

Well, so this is a particularly American argument. Actually, there's an excellent book by a historian called Jefferson Cowie who wrote about the two concepts of freedom that you've had in American history. And one of them, there was an idea from the beginning that freedom meant freedom from the federal government. So freedom to kill and displace Native Americans even when treaties had been signed, or freedom to hold slaves or freedom to abuse freed slaves later on and so freedom became associated with the ability to act as you please at any time. And then of course, opposed to that, there's another kind of freedom that's grounded in rights for everybody. That freedom requires some responsibility, that it requires some mutual respect. And there's a whole nother tradition and a different way of talking about freedom in American history. And we've seen over time, we've seen these different kinds of freedom clash. And the version of I can do whatever I want unless you stop me is one that we've never really seen acting itself out or playing itself out at the federal level. And we've seen it take hold of state governments and that it be operable in, in, in different parts of the country at different times. We haven't really had a, we haven't had that version of freedom be the dominant form of politics in America that, that, you know, the freedom to exercise your will no matter what is, is a new. Is a. Is is a different kind of term, but it's a. The, the. There's another book which I can recommend as well, which is. Tim Snyder has also recently written a book about freedom. And he points out that freedom is something that you can only enjoy under certain circumstances. I mean, it's meaningless to be free if you have nothing to eat, and it's meaningless to be free if you have nowhere to live. And it's meaningless to be free if, you know, if you live in a chaotic and anarchic society. And so there's another argument about freedom that says freedom requires all these other things in order to make it real, in order to make it, to give people the ability to make choices and to have the, and to have opportunities. So there's a. There, there, there are different concepts of freedom at play. And you, and you can hear echoes of this in, in a lot of our modern arguments.

B (13:45)

And as you look at the United States just over the last 10 to 20 years, I, I almost. It's like a gut check as to whether I'm hallucinating in memory a different concept of tolerance and freedom when I was in college and so forth. Ve But I what folks who view themselves as center right often say to me now is, listen, the way our views were treated by the left was just appalling in the last 10 years. And we need a correction. We need a correction in the media, we need a correction in universities and so forth. We just got to move everything back to the center. We got to get to this idea that at a university you are allowed to have different views it doesn't all have to be one view. And so just curious, in your views, did you also have the sense that folks who were center left and far left were far more intolerant of freedom of thought or freedom of views in the United States in the last 10 to 20 years?

A (14:45)

So I wrote about this. I wrote an article called the New Puritans. It was published in the Atlantic a few years ago. And I signed the Harper's Letter, which was a letter by a group of people who were worried by some of the intolerance in academic and cultural institutions. So, yes, I was worried about this, this. And the only thing I would say about it is that it was a cultural phenomenon. It wasn't coming from the government. It wasn't being. There was no, There was no government that was using violence to impose its views or using the threat of removal of federal funding, for example, to impose its views on universities or on, you know, on, on, on, on research institutions? I also think that the arguments that were being had about it, including that letter, but also lots of things that lots, many people wrote over time, were already beginning to change that. So there was a mo. A kind of moment of intolerance that was beginning to fade away. And I know this because I teach sometimes at a university, and I know younger people at universities, and I know lots of people who are inside cultural institutions who had experienced this wave and felt that it was, was ending. What we see the Trump administration doing now is something that's quite different from that. So it's not just pressure, grassroots pressure coming from the Internet or the, you know, peer pressure inside an institution. We now see the US Government, the Justice Department, various funding agencies using the power of the state to impose a set of ideas on people. I mean, it's clearest in the case of universities, where there's actually a group of universities have been offered a kind of compact that they need to abide by a certain way of thinking and teaching. They need to accept a certain set of rules if they want to get any funding for their federal research. And this is mostly, of course, for scientific research. Most of the federal money goes directly into physics, biochemistry, medicine. It's mostly not for the humanities. And we've, you know, that's a, that's a new, you know, telling universities how they need to behave and act if they want this money is something that we haven't had in, in the US Before.

B (17:08)

So I think what more reasonable center right folks might say to that is, hey, that's fine.

A (17:14)

And by the way, I used To I'm technically still on the center right. I never asked what I was and I never left it, you know, I.

B (17:20)

Said, who are farther, farther right than you or whatever. What I hear when I talk about that is, Henry, 93% of what we describe as the mainstream media, the journalists, are Democrats. 90 something percent of tenured faculty at the universities are Democrats. How is that diversity of thought and how is it going to self correct? It's not happening. So I guess what I would ask you is how do we get there?

A (17:49)

So, so first of all, I mean, I'd say right now, if you look at mainstream media is a strange expression. So if you look at media as a whole, meaning the world of podcasts, the world of YouTube, the world of broadcast television, which includes Fox, the world of, you know, the communication in social media and online, if you look at X, if you look at Facebook, I would say that the views of not just the center right, but the far right are now dominant. And so it's very hard actually to go on X and try to, you know, unless you're very selective about your algorithm and you, you know, block lots of people consist, it's very hard to go on X and not receive, you know, what I can only describe as far right messages all the time. And so it's a very strange thing to say that somehow the left is dominating the national conversation because that's not true and it hasn't been true for a really long time. Universities are a little bit different because one of the, and this by the way, is not true, true certainly was not true 20 years ago, and I'm not sure how true it was 10 years ago. But one of the ways in which the left and right now define each other is that the right defines itself as being suspicious of all kinds of sources of knowledge. So it doesn't trust universities, it doesn't trust science, doesn't trust the medical establishment. The Trump administration has appointed a vaccine skeptic to run our national health system. And so it's very hard to expect universities which are designed and created to search for knowledge in ways that can be replicated. So for example, that knowledge based on scientific research and evidence and peer reviewed papers, it's very hard to expect universities to have people inside them who say we don't believe in knowledge and we don't believe in evidence and we don't want any of that and we don't trust it. And so once that became a kind of fulcrum, you know, a difference between the two political parties, you know, you can see why it was hard for the right to fit into universities. And I would say even given that there are right wing universities and there are, you know, Hillsdale College, I mean, there have been specific places where the right has nurtured its people and has trained them and prepared them and they have absolutely all the freedom to do that that they want. So it's little bit, you know, people use this expression mainstream media to mean kind of, I don't know, abc, NBC and cbs, as if that was the dominant conversation. I mean, I don't think, I don't think broadcast television or newspapers are now the dominant source of information for most people. And I think the right now really does dominate. If you look at the information network as a whole, I think the, I would have to say the right dominates that. That.

B (20:56)

I've also heard you talk about how one of the justifications you hear for what's happening now is, hey, this is just listen, we want executive power. We want the President to have clearer responsibility. We elected him. We want him to actually be able to do things. If you have that worldview that the President should be more powerful and that what the Supreme Court is now allowing the President of the United States to do in terms of immunity and everything else, is it reasonable to flow from that? Restrictions on the media, restrictions on universities and so forth?

A (21:32)

No, because that's fundamentally opposed to our Constitution and the way it was written. So no, I don't accept that the President should have the ability to control the media or control universities. And we've never. And that's, you know, that's goes back deep into the way our political system was set up.

B (21:49)

So talk more about that because we did. When the political system was being set up up, there were incredibly passionate arguments on both sides. Sure. I mean, this is not, this is not a new thing that we're arguing with each other. So what does the Constitution say about this?

A (22:05)

I mean, the Constitution provides for three branches of government and the three branches of government have particular, you know, they have particular powers and they're meant to check one another. So one of the things that the founding fathers were worried about, and they were worried about a lot of things, some which matter now and some which don't. One of the things they were worried about was an executive who would have too much power and who would be too much like a king, and they had just overthrown a king. And if you read the Declaration of Independence, which I have done recently, you'll discover that what it really is is a list of things that the king is doing that they don't like. And so they created a political system in which there would be constraints on the executive and in which Congress was, for example, Congress would have the power to decide about money and spending and taxes and tariffs, for example, tariffs are a. Tax attacks. What we have now right at this second is a unique moment in American history where Congress is led by people, as it has not historically been, who are deferring to the executive in a way that was not done in the past. And Congress has given up a lot of its power and a lot of its sources of influence. And there's a long conversation to be had about why that's happening there. Depending on who you are, probably you have a different explanation. But I mean, in my view, that's actually this, that, that more, more than the courts and more than anything else is the explanation for this, this decline that we're all experiencing.

B (23:38)

So let's say that hypothetically, soon, if we haven't begun to do it already, we collectively decide as a country that, you know, hey, we didn't really like everything that was happening in democracy before, but we've realized we. It was better or less, less bad. So let's get it back. I guess the first question I would ask is what historical examples are there of autocracies reverting back to democracy and rule of law, other than by wars and revolution? Do we have something that we can look at, at?

A (24:14)

So most of the examples involve war and revolution. You know, how, how did European countries get their democracies back after the Second World War? They, they got back by the defeat of Nazi Germany. So mostly that's what it looks like. You know, how, how did, how did Ukraine regain its democracy in 2014 after a long experience of an autocratic president? It was through many days of, of street demonstrations and, and by the end, and not mass violence, but some violence. So unfortunately that, you know, if you look at the, look at the historical record that often happens, there are some examples of countries that have recovered and voted back. So as long as you have some form of free elections, as long as there is a, the, you know, the people who count the votes are still counting them fairly, then you have a chance of gaining your democracy back through elections. So actually, I mean, this is a, a, it's a less extreme example, but in Poland we had, I, I lived there part of the time. For those who don't know, we had eight years of a national populist government that was seeking to curtail and change the Polish constitution. It was Quite profoundly corrupt. It had put its people in charge of. Poland still has some state companies, and it put people in charge of the state companies. It was using that money to support the ruling party. This is a model that was developed in, in Russia and then, and then in Hungary. And it looked very much there had also been an assault on the independence of the courts and a replacement of judges with loyalists. And so there was a, you could see the country going on a trajectory away from free elections. Nevertheless, there was one free election in 2023, and there was a major national mobilization, highest turnout ever. And you had enormous numbers of people voting, I should say, for a very broad based coalition that I would say from the center left to the center right. It was composed of three sort of three, four parties. And they, you know, by electing that coalition into power, they ended this trajectory. So you can see that happening. And that's, you know, that's one of the possibilities that we have in the United States. If we want to stop the progression in the direction of a more and more authoritarian political system in which we will have fewer and fewer rights, then, you know, then we need to, we really need to mobilize, certainly in, in 2026, which is going to be a really key election. And then 2028 down the road, hundreds of Texas National Guard troops have arrived in Illinois and are getting ready to deploy in Chicago. Residents there have been pushing back against. They blocked DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from using the bathroom. That's why Governor Pritzker says it's cooperation in keeping people safe. Then actually even more bathroom stuff. They don't even let our ICE officers and our Border Patrol officers use restrooms and facilities. But it's not all bathroom related. You're gonna use that gun on your people? Shame on you.

B (27:29)

I hope right now your ancestors are looking.

A (27:42)

And this tension, combined with President Trump's early morning call for the governor of Illinois to be jailed, has raised fears about what is coming next. That's on Today, explained from Vox. Every weekday. This week on Net Worth and Chill, we're joined by Susie Welch, the best selling author and leadership expert who spent decades helping people win at work and life. From climbing the corporate ladder at prestigious publications to co authoring Winning with Jack Welch, Susie has turned her insights into both career success and serious money. She opens up about navigating major life transitions, why loving your work is actually a wealth building strategy, and how her ViewBridge tool can transform your biggest career decisions. I also had voices in my head that were preventing me from betting on myself. I was like, why would I bet on myself? I mean, the moment I finally stepped out and stepped into my purpose, I literally, like, I was alone in my room at night and I thought, for the first time in my life, I'm gonna do this terrifying thing. I'm gonna bet on myself. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com YourRichBFF.

B (28:47)

So talk more about Poland, because that sounds very encouraging that that happened. And what were, did most of the people who voted for that coalition, were they voting to stop the move to autocracy, or were they voting for economic reasons or for other reasons? What was it that coalesced everybody around?

A (29:06)

So it's always hard to know why people really vote. And if there was a magic formula by which we knew why people voted and how they were going to vote, then politicians would have figured that out a long time ago. But I can tell you what the themes of the election were. So one of the big themes was really corruption. So one of the effects, and this is of course true in our country too, one of the effects of having a less transparent, you know, less, you know, more, more, more authoritarian political system was that it made it easier for people inside the ruling party to do these kind of deals that made them and their families rich, and that created a huge amount of national resentment, partly because they were, they were doing so using state money. It's, this is a little bit different from how this will unfold in the United States. But the, the, the, the idea that, that the people in power weren't interested in ordinary people, but they were interested in making money for themselves, that was a really important reason. I think the assault on the courts isn't something that moves everybody. So talking about judicial independence isn't something that makes people get really excited or go out in the street for the most part. Although there were protests about judicial independence in Poland. But I think it contributed to the understanding that the system was deteriorating. So there was an understanding that there was something unfair happening around judges. So I think, you know, if you, you know, you, you, the, the sense that the ruling party had taken too much, that it was benefiting itself and that ordinary people were losing out was part of it. There may, there were, there was also inflation. You know, that may have been part of the argument as well, but I, I, I think it's more the, the, the, there was a, there was a counter reaction against this centralization of power.

B (31:03)

That people didn't like and on the inflation. That certainly seems to have played a role here. In the last election in the United.

A (31:09)

States, it's played a role. I mean, in the post Covid world, there was inflation because so much money was used to fight Covid and to, and to rescue businesses during COVID and so on. So there's, that's, that's a, that's a theme everywhere.

B (31:20)

Yes. And the economists had a very good example of, of households that had switched their vote from Biden to President Trump in the election and why that happened. And often it was because they were in swing states where they were hammered, either their, their car loans went up or what have you. So it does seem to have had an influence, you know, a big, a big impact here, too. Based on what you're seeing now, do you think the United States will have mostly fair elections in 2026 and 2028?

A (31:51)

So there are some, some disturbing signs that the federal government is interested in shaping the elections in a way that hasn't happened before. We are very fortunate in that our electoral system is decentralized and states run their own elections. But there have been, I just was looking today and I haven't delved into it deeply, but I'll just give you a hint of what could be coming as there have been. The Department of Justice has been writing to states and demanding that they answer questions about their voter rolls and has been thinking about creating a national voter registration list. And there are fears that part of the purpose of this is to kick people off voter rolls, which was something that was happening in, in the, in 2024 and in previous elections. So there's fear that there will be forms of voter suppression in that way, that people will be restricted or prevented from voting. They'll be, There was a, there were, there are some states that have looked at requiring people to have birth certificates to vote. Not everybody has their birth certificates. And that would create a special problem for women who had changed their names. So if you were born with one name and you have a married name, then your birth certificate says you're somebody else. So anyway, there have been some pressure in that direction. And again, I'm not a huge expert on this, but I'm looking into it now. And there are also people who fear that the, this, this use of soldiers in the streets and the use of the National Guard in American cities is, is a precursor to the use of soldiers or National Guard or ICE or paramilitaries in a run up to an election, perhaps to intimidate people from voting. Perhaps there will be an emergency in, in one state or another state or, or A real or a fake emergency created by the pressure of, you know, or declared by the federal government. And you could imagine a scenario in which voting was suspended. So one of the things that's worrying about what the president is doing is this constant invocation of emergency. So the tariffs that he's, that he's applied are being applied on the grounds that there's an emergency. There's no emergency. The troops are being sent into US Cities on the grounds that there's emergency. When even, I mean, we're in a. In Chicago, the mayor of Chicago, the governor of Illinois, they say there's no emergency, we don't want federal troops. And so there's a fear that some of this stuff that we're seeing now is a precursor to how elections might be manipulated or even stopped. I'm not saying that will happen, happen, and of course, if it did, it would be hugely irregular and illegal and so on. But it's in the air. It's one of the things that is worrying people who watch, who are watching this use of federal troops in US Cities unfold. So there are a number of things like that. I mean, you, you know, the restricting or manipulating voter rolls, using federal forces to, you know, to, to, to, to manipulate the vote. I mean, there's another thing which is this pressure on media and on social media to create an uneven playing field so that you don't, you know, so that people don't hear a clash of voices or they don't hear the arguments of both sides. I mean, we are already at a strange moment in American history where most Americans already live in a filter bubble, where they don't hear opposing ideas anyway. And there are fears that some of the moves to put pressure on, on US Media is designed to make. So those are. I mean, I don't want to, you know, I don't, I don't want to be hyperbolic, but there are, there are reasons to worry and to, and to pay attention to the midterms and to worry about whether they'll be as free as they could be and as fair as they could be.

B (36:04)

And so what are the solutions at this point? So given that, what do people who want fair elections want do at this point?

A (36:14)

So, first of all, you. The, the, the answer to that depends a little bit on who you are. There's not, there isn't one answer. But you should be involved in local politics. You should know who your local candidates are. You should think about working on their behalf. You should consider being a poll worker, for example. You should consider Working on, on elections yourself. You should, you know, you should, you should find groups and movements who are doing things that you agree with and who are fighting for, you know, who are fighting for free elections. I'm, I'm happy to, I, I've, I've created lists before of organizations that work on behalf of, of, of promoting free elections. And there are some who do lots of legal work, you know, with, you know, suing or, you know, or, or calling out state governments that seem to be law. I mean, there are a number of organizations around the country that do that. You should find them. You should help them. If you're a lawyer, you can help, you can help them by being part of litigation. If you're, you know, if you're, if you're an ordinary, if you're another kind of citizen, I mean, depending depending on who you are and who you know and what your access is and what your, how much time you have and how much ability you have to help, you should be engaged because that's what that, that's when democracy works. It works because of civic engagement. Also, I should say that one of the worst things about the current moment is that a lot of people feel really helpless. They see a lot of things happening at once. They see a lot of violence on TV and violent language. And their instinct, therefore, is to say, I don't want anything to do with it, you know, just keep me out. I mean, I know a lot of people, including in my own family, you know, who just don't want to watch TV anymore, don't want to pay attention to the news. It's too upsetting. That, of course, exactly what the would be authoritarians want. They want you to be apathetic. They want you to be nihilistic. They want you to be, you know, to feel hopeless and they want you to feel disengaged. One of the best ways to fight against that feeling is to be engaged one way or another in politics or in, in, in the civic life of your community, wherever that is.

B (38:33)

And another thing you've talked about about is the fact that our system has gotten so gerrymandered on the local level that it just rewards extremism. And if it weren't that way, in fact, you'd have to avoid extremism because it would get you, you know, you would lose immediately because you'd lose the middle. And looking at the country as a whole, it seems like what's happened is the middle seems to have gone pretty silent. And as I watched the Democratic Party trying to, to sort of react to what's going on. One of the things that seems to be happening is there seems to be no interest in a centrist candidate who might be able to win some Republicans over. And there's a ton of enthusiasm on the more extreme side, which seems to be what's happening with the Republicans as well. And so is there a lesson for Democrats or for the opposition here in terms of what they should try to coalesce around?

A (39:31)

So I'm not sure who are the extreme candidates that you're seeing on the Democrat side? I mean, I see actually a lot of Democratic centrists making a lot of noise. I mean, I'm in Washington, D.C. and very nearby. Abby Spanberger, who I think is, I would describe as a centrist, is running for governor of Virginia. I know lots of people on the Hill who I would describe as centrists. You know, I know Chris Murphy, who's been a very vocal critic of the Trump administration from Connecticut. I would describe him as a centrist. I mean, there are a lot of people around who are centrists. And I, nor do I think we've gotten to the stage of choosing our presidential candidate yet. I mean, we're feels pretty far away from, from that moment on, actually, on both sides. We, I don't know. I mean, I suppose the vice president is the obvious candidate in, on the Republican side and on the Democratic side, I think the field is still pretty open and there are a lot of people who are potentially in the running who you would have to call centrist. So I would say that. But leaving that aside, obviously it's, you know, what, what, what we really need is something broader than the Democratic Party. You know, we need almost a democracy movement. I mean, what would, what I would really like to see is something like what we had in Poland. I mean, that was also, there were flaws to the system there, but you had a, a coalition of people who went from the, you know, the center left to the center right who disagreed about many things. And actually, one of the things that happened after they won was they disagreed very violently about abortion, which is an important political issue in Poland as it is here. And they disagreed about some other things, too. And that made it difficult later on. But, but the, but that shows you the, the range of the movement. You know, so there was a, there were sort of, there were really two parties plus one coalition party. They had a wide range of views and it of that wide range that they were able to win. And obviously, ideally we would have something like that here. You know, what I'd like to see is candidates in, you know, particularly in the midterms, obviously they're going to be in each state. There's going to be, you know, the kinds of people who are going to be running for the Senate in Texas and the kind of people who are going to be running for the Senate in, in California are different. But, but I would like to see the, you know, a range, range of candidates and I actually, I'm pretty sure that's what's going to happen.

B (41:53)

Yeah, well that's, that's great to hear. I think the part of what I'm reacting to is saw another headline recently which was basically saying like Democrats haven't learned anything yet. They're still blaming the voters. And the part of it is, you know, too much of the party is too far from the center or what have you. And what seems to be getting the certainly the younger generation energized is not folks who, who seem to be obvious interests but folks.

A (42:19)

So there will have to be a place in the Democratic Party for AOC and for other people who motivate young left wing voters. They will have to be part of the party because if you want those people to vote. But you know, the party will also include Abby Spanberger and the party will also include James Talerico who's this young, very Christian candidate who's running, wants to be the Democratic candidate, candidate for Senate in Texas. You know, so there will be a lot of different people but I, you know, and of course what the Republicans will try to do is characterize the party as only far left. But even if you look at it now, that's not that, that, that's not exactly reflective. I mean how, I don't, I'm not an insider how exactly the party, you know, the leadership in the Democratic National Committee, how whether those people are adequate and up to the moment and whether they're still blaming the voters like you know, I can't speak to, to that.

B (43:14)

And going back to your encouraging self correcting example, Poland, it first of all just sounds like it's a multi party system where you're referring to a coalition. So you have different parties. What were the folks saying that won over the center? How do we do that here? So if you build a coalition together, is everybody saying the same thing at that point?

A (43:38)

No, they were very much not all saying the same same thing. They were saying different things. The one thing they had in common was they agreed that the then ruling party, which is a party called the Law and Justice Party was corrupt and should be removed from office. So they agreed about that. And they agreed that, you know, and they agreed about the courts, you know, that the courts needed to be, you know, returned to some, to some, you know, return back to the rule of law. And they also mean state television, which is not an issue in, in our country, was also an issue that they agreed on. So there were a few big basic things that they agreed on. They had some trouble once they were in power carrying those things out. But that's another issue. Coalition government is always, you know, is always rough.

B (44:26)

And one of the things that I remember in the last election just seeing some polling about issues, issues that were top priorities for, for different groups of voters. One takeaway for me was that the democracy issue issue seem to be very low on the list relative to economy and immigration and many other topics. Is there something that you think will help put it higher on the list for people going forward?

A (44:53)

So maybe, I mean, democracy is an abstract word that means different things to different people. But the abuse of power by masked men, men carrying military style weapons is something that people might instinctively understand a little bit better. Or the use of the, you know, federal government pressure to make a comedian be taken off the air. You know, those kinds of issues. I think people do understand those. And when the stakes are explained in those terms, then maybe people will understand them. So you're about to make a trade based on a friend's text, but which you do you listen to is it, we could buy a house in Tulum, get optioning those options. We could lose everything. Or let's do a little research, get your head in the trade and make the investment decision that's right for for you. Learn more@finra.org TradeSmart hey business owners, we know you know the importance of maximizing every dollar. With the Delta SkyMiles Reserve business American Express card, you can make your expenses work just as hard as you. From afternoon coffee runs to stocking office supplies and even team dinners, you can earn miles on all your business expenses. Plus you can earn 125,000 bonus miles for a limited time time through October 29th. The Delta Sky Miles reserve business card. If you travel, you know, minimum spending requirements and terms apply. Offer ends October 29, 2025. Upgrade your laundry routine with a durable and reliable Maytag laundry pair at Lowe's. Like the new Maytag washer and dryer with performance enhanced stain fighting power designed to cut through serious dirt and grime. And what's great is this laundry pair is in stock and ready for delivery when you need it the most. Don't miss out. Shop Maytag in store or online today at Lowe's.

B (47:10)

So, you know, again, like, moving forward from here because so much of what you said was going to happen has happened. What it, when you speak to people about what should happen next, what do we do? What do you say beyond the solutions that you lay out in the book, which, please take us through those as well.

A (47:30)

So, I mean, I think I've gone through many of them already. I mean, when you advise ordinary people, it's about civic engagement. When you advise, you know, people who have law degrees, it's about working with these legal groups who are suing the federal government or suing, you know, who, who are, who are seeking to use the law to reverse these, some of these illegal moves. And there's, and by the way, some of those have been very successful. You know, there's a broader argument about thinking about this as an international problem that I talk about in my book Autocracy Inc. And thinking about international coalitions. When, of course, when I first wrote the book, I had a, you know, an idea that the United States could be a leader in pushing back against autocratic practices around the world, a lot of which we haven't really talked about were our kleptocratic practices. So the, you know, the, the, the use of state power to, to, to steal and hide money, the use of, you know, financial institutions to, to keep that money and hide it and, and move it around the world. There are, you know, all those things are made possible by existing legal systems, and they can be changed by changing the legal system. And I would have liked the United States to be a leader in that world. Instead, we've had opposite happened. So the US has been taking down or saying since January, saying that we won't enforce any more laws, for example, putting pressure on anonymous companies or saying that companies have to reveal who their real owners are or laws designed to prevent money laundering or laws designed to prevent different kinds of financial crimes. We've backed off that. We're not enforcing them anymore. And of course, we have, have, you know, exactly the opposite. We see the president and his family with immense conflicts of interest of a kind that no executive has ever had. I mean, we haven't talked about that yet. The, the, the, you know, people with overlapping roles. So, you know, people, you know, Jared Kushner, who's on the one hand negotiating partly on behalf of the administration of the Middle east, on the other hand is making money at the same time. I mean, that's A in, in the past, that would have been a clear violation of the law and just of the, of the ethics of the way government worked. You president's use of a cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial, into which we don't know who anonymous donors are paying large amounts of money that go to him. And in a way that's completely opaque and not transparent at all. If those are bribes, we don't have any way of finding out. So those kinds of. I had hoped that the US Would be a leader in pushing back against that kind of, those kind of autocratic practices, and instead we've gone the opposite direction. But that doesn't mean that others can't continue to talk about it. It doesn't mean that Europeans can't get together and begin to work on this, maybe in, in conjunction with some Americans, with American lawyers or Americans, ordinary Americans who care about these things through, you know, through kind of joint pressure. But, but the idea that there are, you know, that we face similar problems to other countries I think might also be useful and helpful to Americans. You know, look at what's happened in other places, just as we've been talking about Poland. Look at what's happened in, you know, look at what's gone wrong in other places. What should we be wary of and what should we avoid? I mean, most of my, you know, most of my, you know, wariness and, you know, fear of a Trump second term was based on language that I heard him using and things I heard him saying and people around him saying during the campaign and before that I recognized from other places or other times in history or other countries, you know, so Americans like to think of themselves as exceptional. And of course, in many ways we are. We're quite a unique country. But a lot of the practices that we see unfolding are familiar. And so familiarizing yourself with what's happened in other places is another useful thing to do. And thinking of yourself as being in solidarity with other people fighting for democracy in other places, I think is also useful.

B (51:43)

And he was very clear, I have to say. You didn't have to listen too hard to hear a lot of what's happening now. That was promised.

A (51:51)

It was promised. Project 2025 was written down. It was clear that that was his project. And the people who wrote it were people who were close to him and were going to be working in his administration. And much of what we're seeing is them seeking now to carry that out. And I think there was a lot of naivete on the part of this Is if you want to talk about mistakes that media has made, not to hold him to that and not to understand that this was the plan.

B (52:20)

Have you, as you watch what's happened over the last few years in the United States and around the world, have you seen things that you find in encouraging? And I'll just start. I'll throw a couple about going back to the process whereby the entire law industry was going to be brought to heel and you had to pledge allegiance and agree not to represent causes that might be perceived as events. The administration and one by one, big firms caved and signed up for that deal. Then, to my surprise, a couple of firms said, no, we're not doing that. Anti Constitution, totally against the American spirit. We're not playing ball. They're doing okay. They didn't die because the first few firms that cave said, I always kill our business. Everybody leave and, and nobody do business with us. Seeing that the media still seems. There's still a lot of critics out there who are being very vocal and so far things are okay. So I, I'm seeing some encouraging signs that there is some, some, some people are still standing up and saying, okay, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing. What are you seeing? Are you seeing anything that encourages you?

A (53:27)

So I see a lot. I mean, I think first of all that the, you know, this impression of inevitability and strength is very thin that the administration is giving. I think they're, you know, they're increasingly unpopular. I see everything from, you're right. At law firms, at universities, in the media and other parts of the, the, I mean, other parts of the, of the, of the political spectrum where people have felt under pressure. You see a lot of people reacting well. You see a lot of ordinary people reacting well. I'm really impressed by people in Chicago who have stood up to ICE when they, when they, you know, go over the line. And there's been a lot of really good reporting from Chicago, people saying what happened to them and making it very clear. You know, the people who are making videos and keeping track of what's going on are impressive. A lot of governors and mayors, I mean, obviously Governor Newsom has found his own way of trolling and, and mocking the president and the administration. You know, the governor of Illinois has been really clear, absolutely, you know, brilliant, perfect rhetoric saying, you know, we don't want you here. There is no emergency. Don't send troops to Illinois. I think he's done very well. And as I said, I see a lot of, you know, There are a lot of people making efforts to compete, communicate. And so I, and I appreciate what all of them are doing.

B (54:54)

And I would say one more on that that you've talked about recently is I've recently heard some Republicans say, particularly on the, the free speech issue where everybody was going after Jimmy Kimmel and got polled and so forth, a few voices saying, hey, wait a minute, there may be a time, time when another administration is in charge. And are we sure that we would want this to happen? Because it might be coming right back at us if we now make this a normal thing. As you look forward, if the Democrats were to win future elections and we want to restore our institutions and respect for the rule of law and respect for each other and tolerance, what do you think the best, best governing response would be if the Democrats were to have power again?

A (55:49)

I mean, you're, you're now projecting me too far into the future.

B (55:52)

I mean, I'm sorry, I'm using, I'm taking advantage of your, your knowledge of history. What is it that restores that confidence in the system?

A (56:02)

It would be very decisive pieces of action that, that, you know, that, that, you know, end the practice of sending masked men onto the streets in, in ways that terror. There's a, there will be a, by the time we get to that moment, whenever it is, there will be a whole list of institutions that need to be reformed or changed. So, I mean, I think I'd just rather leave it open for now.

B (56:26)

So, so rebuilding the institutions, decency, tolerance, respect for rule of law, rather than coming back and saying, hey, you just, you were coming after us for four years, we're coming after you for four years. That doesn't lead us to, and there's.

A (56:39)

A risk that that will happen. Happen, sure. I mean, and you know, there's also a risk that for people who are breaking the law now that they, and, and who are, who know they're breaking the law, and this may be where this pressure on elections is coming from, there is a risk that they will be held to account and they must know that.

B (56:59)

And what do you think for the inner circle in your observation, what do you think the plan is long term for the current administration? Is it stay in power, power forever, or is it, hey, we're going to do what we're going to do and we'll be fine afterwards?

A (57:15)

So I imagine some of them would like to stay in power forever, and there is clearly a part of their coalition that actively dislikes democracy and actively wants to undermine elections. So I don't think there's any question that that's part of the, part of the coalition. I think, though, that there are also people who are saying let's destroy as much as we can so that it will be very hard to reach rebuild, you know, so instead of reforming usaid, you know, in a sensible way, let's just destroy it. You know, let's take it apart and make it not exist anymore. And I would expect that to happen to other kinds of institutions as well. So I think they're, you know, they're, I, they're, you know, it's a cult. You know, there are kind of, there are different strains of, of the, of the administration. And I think, you know, some of them, some of them want different things, some of, but some of them will try to stay in power as long as they can.

B (58:08)

So you've talked about many encouraging ways that ordinary citizens and governors and others are, are helping basically by speaking the truth and, and, and committing to that and, and doing small things. Very encouraging. I want to end on something that is downright happy, which is I heard you make some comments recently that in Poland, after many years of battling weeds in what I pictured as your yard, you have finally won by creating a field of wildflowers. And they're beautiful. So please tell us about that and then we'll thank you and let you go on with your day.

A (58:43)

So I, yes, maybe I should, I do live part of the time in Poland. My husband is in Polish politics. So remember that when I'm talking about it. And yes, we spent a long time trying to figure out how to get wildflowers to grow in this field that we have near our house and that we have a house outside of Warsaw, a few hours from Warsaw. And we did succeed and this year we had this spectacular multicolored wildflower garden with full of marvelous.

B (59:12)

So what was the solution? How do you do it?

A (59:15)

You have to keep, you have to kind of keep at it. You have to cut the weeds and replant the seeds and cut the weeds and replant the seeds and eventually the wildflowers kill the weeds.

B (59:25)

Terrific. Let's hope that's a metaphor. And thank you so much. It is great to talk to you privilege and very much appreciate it.

A (59:32)

Thank you.

B (59:35)

Solutions is produced by Meghan Cunane. Jim Mackle is our video editor. Our theme Music is by TrackAdemics. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Thanks for listening to Solutions from the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm your host, Henry BLODGETT. We'll see you soon.