← Surrounded
Surrounded
What's the Future of The Democrats' Platform? | Surrounded Follow-Up w/ Luke Beasley
00:48:43
Loading summary
Transcript127 lines
- [00:00]
Steve
We give too much out.
- [00:02]
Luke
Let's just focus too much.
- [00:03]
Steve
Did you just shush me?
- [00:04]
Luke
Luke, come on. That's just. I apologize.
- [00:06]
Steve
All right, you're forgiven. I apologize. But shushing me. Get out of here.
- [00:12]
NFL Announcer
You can't count on much these days.
- [00:14]
Steve
No way.
- [00:14]
NFL Announcer
Jim, this is incredible, but you can always count on Sundays with the NFL on CBS and Paramount. Plus, here we go. This time for real. Watch your local NFL game live every Sunday all the way through the AFC championship game, and he's in for a touchdown. Visit paramount.com NFL to get started today and count on Sundays with the NFL on CBS and Paramount. Plus.
- [00:41]
John
I'm John. Luke. Welcome to the Surrounded follow up on behalf of Jubilee. Thanks for jumping into the arena. Are you ready to, you know, kind of get into the, the action?
- [00:54]
Luke
Well, it's great to be with you, John. I'm so ready. And the experience was fun and interesting, and to reflect on it, I think will be the same.
- [01:03]
John
Excellent. So I've pulled some clips that I want to react to, but before we dig into that, I usually just ask folks, you know, what were your thoughts going into the experience, and how do they compare to how you felt coming out of it?
- [01:18]
Luke
Well, going into it, you know, I've done a lot of debate. My beginning getting into this space at all in politics was going to Trump rallies and debating with people, knowing that that would just be a. An ocean of people I disagreed with. And I found that so stimulating. And obviously those sorts of videos would perform well. And so that they kind of allowed for a little bit of funding to allow me to travel to more. And that's kind of how it all started. And so when I found out that specifically it was going to be me versus folks who were not just supporters of Trump, but also in an older demographic, that's like the exact median age of someone at those rallies. And so it felt going like I was going back home to the thing I'm most used to. And so I was totally just pumped. And it's a very comfortable environment. And then reviewing the claims felt strong on them. I think my only concern going in was that it would be intense because of how fancy the production value seems when you watch the videos. And it was very high production value and a great crew and everything, but. But it still shifted back into that gear that I'm used to, which is a little bit more playful, a little bit more lighthearted. Ended up being a pleasantly surprised experience, I think.
- [02:32]
John
Yeah, I think when the, when the cameras turn on, it's just inevitable that There's a little bit of, like, there's a performative element to it that everybody kind of plays with, because I felt the same way on Jubilee sets, where it's like, we're arguing about the worst or most important stuff yet. This is sort of fun. So there's an interesting contradiction there, and.
- [02:53]
Luke
That'S the beautiful part. Another big takeaway is just I could tell, especially the political environment, that we're in, the security presence, and just the very intentional phased approach to how it'd be recorded and how when I would go out, when I would be taken away, and that some of the participants, I think, were maybe a little bit surprised that during and after. I actually loved the idea of just chatting it up off camera, because I want to walk away from those experiences having plenty of negative feelings, obviously, about not thinking the person I was debating against was reasonable or not feeling like they were trying to hear me, but also get some level of hope that we still have a common humanity and can joke and have some level of lightheartedness.
- [03:39]
John
I think this might be the first episode where there was that generational element that you brought up, and I thought that created some interesting dynamics. I was having flashbacks to my political arguments in the past with my parents because of that dynamic. So that's actually something I'm wondering. Do you have the same political views as your parents? If you're comfortable disclosing, yes, I'm very.
- [04:04]
Luke
Aligned with my parents. But that was, I would say, a development that came later. Not that they had different views, but they were really intentional about not sharing their views with their kids until their kids shared their views with them. And so the environment they fostered in our family was really, have whatever you want to have as your political views, but just be ready to debate them with each other and with us. And so we set up mock debates between me and my brother because my brother is really different than me politically. And we kind of. Yeah, my. The three. My two brothers, who are both older brothers, we span the political spectrum completely. And I think that came from the intentional effort by my parents to be very cautious about not just bringing us into their political views, because obviously, that's usually the dynamic is you just kind of copy your political views. But then my parents and I went on our journey and are all kind of aligned in this current political moment. But then outside of that, extended families, uncle, aunt, grandparents, very different. A lot of more MAGA folks in that broader circle. So, to your point, that's another reason why these types of conversations feel so comfortable. Like I'm just at a family function, hashing it out with family members.
- [05:18]
John
So you're saying Thanksgiving is. Is a throwdown?
- [05:24]
Luke
You know, ever since I started doing this, there's an unsaid rule that when Luke's around, just be very mindful of unless you want to spend the rest of the night talking with me about politics. And it's never hostile. I love it, it's fun. It's not going. My feelings hurt anything, but a lot of people aren't up for that. And so it's funny, since it became known in my broader family like Luke's the politics guy, everyone's actually extra cautious not to bring it up with me unless they're ready for the rest of the night. Being about politics.
- [05:54]
John
That's great. Let's jump into your first clip.
- [05:57]
Steve
I'm all for demand economics.
- [05:59]
Luke
Trump is doing the most trickle down, insane redistribution of wealth from the bottom of the top with his big, beautiful bill.
- [06:05]
John
No.
- [06:05]
Luke
The largest cut to Medicaid ever. Nearly a trillion over a decade.
- [06:09]
John
Trim things.
- [06:10]
Steve
We need to tighten things.
- [06:11]
Luke
He lowered.
- [06:12]
Steve
I'm on Social Security, bro.
- [06:14]
Luke
You think?
- [06:14]
Steve
I don't worry about bro.
- [06:15]
Luke
He lowered taxes for the richest American.
- [06:18]
Steve
I am for that.
- [06:20]
Luke
While taking money from the poorest American because they have less.
- [06:23]
Steve
We got to tighten. We got to tighten up. We got to tighten up. We give too much out.
- [06:27]
Luke
Let's just too much focus.
- [06:29]
Steve
Did you just shush me, Luke?
- [06:30]
Luke
I did. I apologize.
- [06:32]
Steve
All right, you're forgiven. I shouldn't be.
- [06:35]
Luke
Get out of here.
- [06:37]
John
What are your initial reactions to your sparring with Steve?
- [06:40]
Luke
Well, Steve was a nice guy and obviously there was a funny banter there. But that's the part that I think resembles in a much more cordial way maybe than is more broadly true. But the underlying detachment of. I'm saying something. He's not listening. I'm sure he thinks I wasn't listening, but I was. But that we weren't really. That it's just too completely detached from the ears. Voices shouting at each other, which does drive me crazy because. And obviously you're talking to me. So I'm going to think that I was handling it fine. But when people have a weak understanding maybe of what they're trying to argue or they're uncomfortable with the place the argument has gone. It's just this free association of words like not grabbing on to. Do you agree or not with the data driven argument I just made about the impact of the bill? Let's start there and then we can move on to health programs, whatever but just kind of what happened a lot throughout the broader debate was, oh, you said something about healthcare. So instead of refuting or agreeing with what you just said there, I'm just gonna make a different point about how I want people to get healthy or I want people to run more, do more push ups. It's like, great, but that's not really connected to what we were talking about. And I didn't get a single person to explain, based on actual numbers in the bill, why what I was saying about it wasn't true and why it's not a complete betrayal of his commitment.
- [08:12]
John
To the working class, besides it being really funny. First of all, when you shush him and how he takes offense to it on his end, I'm sensing sort of this. There's a bit of a contradiction, I think, in the current Trump coalition. Let me know if you agree or disagree. But you have the deficit hawks and Elon's maybe the most prominent, I guess, spokesperson for that, and that was even maybe the source of their rift. These are folks who just want to relentlessly cut back on social programs that cost money in order to tackle the deficit. There's a lot of people who say that's really the only way, realistically you're gonna bring down the debt is if you cut aggressively into Medicaid, Social Security. On the other side, there's just sort of the tax, the deregulation part of the Trump coalition, which is just like, let's lift the tax burden on the wealthy, because those are the job growers, those are the job creators, those are the economy growers. And you know, you're trying to kind of communicate this point, like the big beautiful bill adds to the deficit. That feels like the opposite of the messaging, but I think it's only the opposite of like the deficit hawks. I wish we could have pulled apart that contradiction a little bit more. But is that your sort of take about the conservative view of the economy?
- [09:42]
Luke
Yeah. And I see kind of how you're explaining it. There's a lot of truth that two different categories of Trump's base. But what I find so fascinating about the Big beautiful Bill in particular is that it is wrong for both categories. Like, you do have the more populist portion, who probably don't care as much about debt and deficit. They're not as they're actually getting more and more hostile toward that idea of trickle down economics. We gotta just keep funneling more and more wealth to the wealthy, and then eventually it'll cause this robust economic reaction. A lot of the Populist MAGA energy is turning against that. But what's so weird is they're just doing it thus far in rhetoric. They'll talk also kind of like how liberal populists discuss the wealthy class and the degrading effect that's had in our political discourse. But then in policy, they support something that is more pro wealthy than maybe any single bill we've ever seen in the history of America. While it's, as you mentioned, adding more to the debt than maybe we've ever seen in any single bill in American history and cutting more for Medicaid from any single bill in history. So it's this series of things all in one package that you would think because it's not a political debate, it's not stretchy, flexible culture wars, it's stuff on paper and then rural hospitals in red areas saying because of that piece of paper, we're gonna have to shut down. We won't be able to serve Republican voters as effectively different analyses. This many Americans in this red state or that red state will lose their Medicaid coverage because of that. And it's very empirical. And for even something that empirical that doesn't rely on living liberal talking points or anything to drive home that narrative, to still not get for that word, not to get to your average Trump voter, is a part of why I get really discouraged. Because if he can even do that, which is the biggest slap in the face to them, then I don't know what would push them away. Obviously the rhetorical things from him, ground by the P word. The court case, like all of that has proven not to dissuade them. But you'd think him attacking their economic well being would, and I think we're learning that for many of them it won't.
- [12:07]
John
You know what I mostly hear from people on the left who come on the show and who I talk to, the core messaging around the economy is we gotta tax the wealthy, the wealthy have to pay their fair share. While I think that's a strong argument, we're probably seeing that resonate, you know, with the rise of Mamdani. What do you think are other winning positions or like great arguments on the economy that that should become more well known for, like the Democratic Party?
- [12:39]
Luke
Well, first let me just say I don't like that some in the Democratic Party just brush off the problem of the debt, because that is an issue. And what's weird is I just somewhat recently reviewed on my show an analysis that looked at if you didn't, if you didn't See over the last few decades, the last like three Republican tax cut bills that all disproportionately benefited the top 1%, then that or as you assess that that accounts for like 90% of the debt problem over that period of time. If you also exclude like crisis spending, getting out of economic crises just during regular economic times. One of the major fuelers of our debt problem is constantly reducing the revenue stream, which makes sense because you can attack that problem two ways or both, which is bringing in more revenue to address the debt or spending less. But to bring in to every time you come around and try to cut spending, you buy two or threefold cut revenue, then you're not actually, you're actually worsening the debt problem while worsening people's immediate economic well being. And so I think then zooming out from that, there's a underlying truth that drives me crazy crazy that I don't hear more Democrats messaging on anyone listening this right now, You, John, anyone can go fact check this. Over the last century it's just one of the most profound and distinct economic trends that the economy has performed much better under Democrats than Republicans over the last century. And so it's fascinating to me growing up that I was certain that Republicans had overseen better economic conditions just because that's what you hear and just Republicans economy, they're the economy people and but I care, I care about social programs and I care about people so Democrats but man those Republican and it's just the total upside down ification of the truth on that. If you look at every major economic indicator and again you can say well that was because of this in that era and that and that era and this it wasn't because of policy. Now why I see that to be the case with Steve is Republicans are more likely to agree with that supply side economics theory and it can sound nice. The job creators, if we just give them more tax cuts, they'll stimulate the economy in a way that parallels to whatever we would have lost in revenue. But it hasn't demonstrated as we've seen through all these Republican administrations who have underperformed. Whereas Democrats, while they also make plenty of horrible decisions while in power on the economy, they are more likely to lean into demand side economics, putting the dollar not only where it's most needed immediately, but people who have less money and need it right now are more likely to immediately spend that dollar which is a much more quick and effective and dollar for dollar stimulator of the economy than hoping that more tax cuts will stimulate from the top and so that bottom up approach to economic policy has been the reason that Democrats have overseen those better economic indicators for many of my lifetimes. And so why Democrats can't brand themselves as the rational ones on the economy party, I don't know. And maybe now with Trump's tariffs, he's kind of done a lot of damage to the Republican brand on this. But for a long time, Republicans consistently polled as more trusted on the economy. When you just can't make a data driven case for that. When you zoom out, get away from the culture war and the identity stuff as much as you can, and see if you can pound that drum on the economy, especially in an era where Trump is failing on his economic approach, and then, hugely important, acknowledge the broader failures in the system. A lot of Democrats have been seen as status quo humpers and they're really just so proud of themselves for the work they've done. Yeah. And you have to come in with, hey, if we're making this argument about who's better, there is no argument really. But we've seen that even in that context, both parties have failed. And we're looking for a systemic generational change to our economic order that actually serves working class folks. That's where the energy is right now for good reason. And I think if they can capitalize on that, especially when there's a lot of resentment towards how Trump's failing on a lot of his promises, then there's a promising future ahead for Democrats. But clearly they haven't done that well yet because they still are in the dumps, polling wise.
- [17:22]
John
I'm gonna go into your second claim in the video, which is Trump is an authoritarian threat against democracy.
- [17:31]
Luke
Trump is an authoritarian threat to democracy. He doesn't respect elections, he doesn't respect the nonviolent principles of approaching our democratic process, doesn't respect court rulings, is degrading our democratic process in a lot of key ways.
- [17:44]
Rosalind
Okay, so I want you to really think about what you're saying here. He's had two assassination attempts because of rhetoric that you're giving right now.
- [17:54]
Luke
I disagree.
- [17:54]
Rosalind
Charlie Kirk is dead because of rhetoric that you are stating right now. Don't you think it's time to take down the rhetoric?
- [18:02]
Luke
Yeah, I think absolutely. And I actually make an effort to lower the rhetoric. But me identifying someone's ideology and saying through peaceful means we should push back against someone's authoritarianism is exactly in line with peaceful principles. What happened to Charlie Kirk is an abandonment of all of the principles I hold dear. That was horrific. And so the way that we push back against authoritarianism. Like for example, if we're saying political violence is wrong, and that's what I believe and that's why I am horrified by what happened to Charlie Kirk then is it not anti democratic, not in the interest of a peaceful approach to a democratic process for Trump to pardon January 6th?
- [18:36]
Rosalind
Well, no, because a lot of people, they were violent. Not all.
- [18:39]
Luke
No, specifically think about people assaulted.
- [18:41]
Rosalind
I have a friend.
- [18:42]
Luke
No, I don't want to hear about your friend. I'm talking about specifically violent offenders.
- [18:45]
Rosalind
Well, I'm talking.
- [18:46]
Luke
Daniel Rodriguez stun gunned an officer. He had a heart attack. I'm asking, is it correct that there were people who assaulted police officers violently who got pardons and are you okay with that?
- [18:56]
Rosalind
Yes, because their due process was violated when people.
- [18:59]
Luke
It wasn't. They had their trial. No, they had their whole due process. Unlike the people that Trump is going to.
- [19:04]
Rosalind
Let me speak.
- [19:05]
Luke
I just don't appreciate if you're going to avoid. Let me answer you. While I actually believe that we should not be violent, it sounds like I don't okay with some people who were.
- [19:13]
Rosalind
No, I'm not.
- [19:14]
Luke
Which scares me. I think that's not lowering the temperature.
- [19:16]
Rosalind
Of these United States, which says that.
- [19:18]
Luke
You have transfer of power.
- [19:20]
Rosalind
I believe that you have a right to a quick and speedy trial. I believe when you weren't a non violent offender. We're talking about.
- [19:29]
Luke
Avoid the question I brought up.
- [19:31]
Rosalind
No, you're just. For me to be right.
- [19:33]
Luke
No, you brought up violence. You brought up violence. Specifically.
- [19:37]
John
A little bit of that Thanksgiving dinner table vibe.
- [19:41]
Luke
Totally.
- [19:41]
John
Towards the end. I'm curious, you know, it goes like that for a little bit longer. They vote her out and then the next cast member who comes in, he sort of scolds you for not letting her speak. When you see it back, do you feel like you should have let her answer your question or address what you were kind of pointing out as a contradiction?
- [20:10]
Luke
Well, I definitely wanted her to address what I was pointing out. The reason I kept interrupting was because she wasn't. And what's unfortunate is, especially in a debate that has a time clock, you know, clock ticking down and time restraints. What's really important to me is that especially when I'm bringing a claim and I'm posing a specific question is that if they're gonna go in some other direction, I gotta bring them back to where we are at. And I, if we had the time, I'm happy to address all the other things she was bringing up. All that's interesting to me and important. But if we can't start with what we've agreed to start with, which is my claim, then it's not gonna be productive. And the reason that there was a certain level of rhetorical aggression there in cutting her off and trying to hold her to a specific point is because what I've noticed in a lot of these conversations, you saw it with the guy before, is that people, when confronted with facts about their ideology that they start to realize are contradictory or aren't coming off great or not aligned with what they thought they were aligned with, principle wise, they'll, as I referenced earlier, do kind of like free word association and just, oh, well, that was mentioned. So that allows me to connect to this other thing. And you can follow that logic tree as long as you want. And you'll never get back to at least refining what the core of the argument is, because there she brought up political violence. And I am passionate about addressing that issue and about having a good faith discussion about it. We can't do that if we don't lay out just factually some of the basic foundational things that we're even supposedly disagreeing on. So, like, she brought up Charlie Kirk, and I got the sense as people came into that debate that maybe because of stuff they saw online or something and knowing that was gonna be a liberal, that I wasn't gonna be as horrified as they are with what happened, which I am. And so then after addressing that, I don't think she was comfortable maybe introspecting on while the guy sitting across the table from her is just opposed to political violence, whether it's against someone I disagree with or someone I agree with, that maybe she is not similarly consistent? Based on the example I brought up.
- [22:33]
John
Do you think there's any. Any truth or credibility? Her initial argument was like your rhetoric around, and I think it was specifically a threat to democracy. That phrase I've been seeing kind of pointed out as inappropriate or maybe too hyperbolic of rhetoric. What do you think about that argument?
- [22:55]
Luke
Well, first, I'm not as prone to go, ah, shut up. Like, I actually want to engage with that and think, is it? And after certain events over the last couple of years, Trump's assassination attempt, for example, or Kirk's assassination, I've every time sort of gone back through and thought about this as intentionally as I can, because that does matter and rhetoric does inflame. It is irritating when it feels like there's the people telling you to do that introspection aren't doing it themselves. Like, obviously Every time someone says this is because people call Trump fascist, then you play a montage of Trump calling all of his enemies fascist, and it's like, okay, well, it's hard to take it. Yeah, it's hard to take it seriously coming from them. But that doesn't mean that separate from who's bringing up the point, you shouldn't consider it. And so then, upon considering it, I've done my best, and this might sound kind of silly, but to use the least inflammatory but accurate rhetoric as I can. So, like, I don't go around saying, you're a fascist, you're a fascist. I'll talk about, like, fascistic ideologies that seem to. But you're a Nazi. Right. Stuff like that. I try to be as accurate as I can. And to me, the wording of not a threat, but a threat to democracy, the democracy is being threatened from my point of view, as least inflammatory, as I can put it, based on Trump's actions. To answer your question, again, sort of in. In summary, it's a fair thing to ask whenever horrible things happen, are our rhetoric. Is our rhetoric playing a role? And collectively, as a country, our political rhetoric clearly is playing a role in our political violence. But in my specific wording, is that the best wording I can come up with that speaks to the facts that I see? People will disagree with my characterization, but that's how I see them. But isn't hyperbolized. Yeah.
- [24:49]
John
I do find it interesting that both sides of the political aisle in recent years have kind of been pointing out rhetoric, and it's a ball that has sort of changed hands.
- [25:02]
Luke
That's why I kind of laid that as the initial in an argument that's an easy way to shut it down is going, well, your side. Right. That's not necessarily the most wholesome way to engage with a criticism, which is why part two of my thinking is all right, but attached, detached from any of the political jargon, like, what do I actually feel about how I'm speaking? Because we're getting in this place where there are now enough examples on both sides of people being outrageous that anytime either side's accused of anything, they can just point, and then we're just gonna keep doing that. And now, again, the reason I. One of the reasons that I am proudly liberal is I do see a difference in not just random people out in the world, but people in positions of power and how they treat these issues and how extremism has taken hold. Taken hold of the Republican Party in a way that I see is More severe than the Democratic Party, but. So it's not about both sidesing it, but there's enough extremism where that game of, oh, I can shut down your criticism of me by just pointing to the most crazy people on your side is a dangerous spiral and kind of race to the bottom.
- [26:04]
John
You know, there's this idea that Jubilee is obviously kind of flirting with, which is platforming and the ethics of it, when it's appropriate, inappropriate. David Pakman, another. I'm sure you're familiar with him, two weeks ago, said he wasn't gonna participate in Surrounded did that factor. I'm just curious, you know, after doing the show, reacting to some clips, what do you think of kind of his stance and what are sort of your rules about engaging with debating opinions that you find, you know, disagreeable?
- [26:41]
Luke
I was a little bit discouraged seeing, and it feels weird to name check anyone, but there's been kind of that thread through a lot of people, a lot of prominent folks, people who've gone on before, people who were thinking about going on, and then just random accounts online lobbing a lot of criticism at Jubilee. But it's not just Jubilee. It's at this type of format for debate. And that was all kind of spiking right as I was getting ready to go do it myself. And I was like, dang, what? Right. Right before mine. No, wait a few weeks before you get all angry. But then in thinking about it, I've never really understood that criticism, not the you can do damage by platforming someone in an unprepared manner. Like, there's plenty examples of Rogan bringing on people that clearly he didn't like. Trump prepare enough to fact check. And then he just kind of lets lies float out into the biggest audience on the Internet. And I just wish we'd be a little bit more intentional about what we're saying, because a lot of people make it like it was inherently wrong to platform whoever, but that's never the problem. You can platform literally anybody. It's just how then do you do it? And there have been excellent interviews with horrible people, but the reason they were so excellent is the interviewer did a really good job of preparing themselves and making sure that it was not just a vector for misinformation. And so then with Jubilee, obviously it's not like an interview, but this debate format, when people say, why would you give a platform to this extreme view. I've watched the ones that people were the most upset about, and I'm like, guys, that's a really prominent view. We need to make sure people know that and then debate it like that's our option. And it would be one thing if you aired those ideas un refuted. Like one of the ones that got a lot of controversy was Mehdi Hassan. He did an excellent job in my mind of making clear how absurd the radical views were that he was arguing against. So it wasn't like it was just floating out and people were going to be radicalized. If anyone who wasn't familiar with those views watched it, I think they would come away thinking, dang, that's insane. The things that the people Medi was arguing against in part because of how effective of a debater Medi is. So I would not. Then the other part of the many. No, I wouldn't either. He's, he's really, really good. But the other part of it is, well, I don't think this is. So there's the platforming criticism and then. And I'm sure I'll get some of this once it gets released. But there's also the. What is this doing? Is this productive? Is this how you change people's minds? And it's like, I mean, in some cases, yeah, people will have their minds changed. I've had people who saw me on right wing platforms doing debates and went and watched my show and ended up going from like maga to liberal. So yeah, it actually can happen. Is it gonna have some huge gravitational impact on the extremist? Probably not. And a lot of it is performative and a lot of it is kind of the sport of debating. But I see nothing inherently wrong with that, especially if you're responsibly platforming the ideas and, you know, fact checks are being put up and all that type of stuff. And I actually see it as such an important yes. In a YouTube format, there's going to be a lot of elements that are about performance and intrigue and clickbait for anything. But I do see us barely hanging on to some rare situations where we throw our ideas at each other and we're increasingly just siloing. And I don't like the applauding of people who never put themselves in oppositional environments but are facilitating really engraved silos, which is facilitating one of the worst problems that's allowing people to get even more radicalized. At least if you see your friendly neighborhood fascist on Jubilee, you might see them exposed, you know, otherwise, if they're always just alone on their show, you'll never see their ideas challenged. So I actually think it's really healthy, however YouTube friendly. Or algorithm friendly. It is.
- [31:02]
John
It's good to kind of hear how you think about it. And I'm going to create a T shirt that says Friendly neighborhood fascist.
- [31:09]
Luke
But just to be clear, since, just in case anyone wants to clip anything. To be clear, since David was the one who prompted that, I ended up taking it to a bunch of other people that I was thinking about separately. I understand where he's coming from and he's just said this isn't the right format for me. And that's totally reasonable. People should only do it if they feel like it's the right format for them. And I respect people. Not. But the broader, like, random people I've seen criticizing online of like, you should never do stuff like this. And I've gotten that backlash when I've had. When I've appeared on, like, Tim Pole or whatever. I always found it silly.
- [31:39]
John
You asked Rosalynn or Rosalind to come back to the center at the end, and you had argued with her at the beginning and then asked her to come back. I believe her claim was something along the lines of, like, the Democratic Party doesn't understand the American people.
- [31:56]
Luke
Yeah.
- [31:57]
John
And, you know, you brought up kind of some criticisms of liberals and Democrats, and that rings at least if we're just reflecting on the last election as a pretty strong claim.
- [32:10]
Luke
It's fiscal irresponsibility to cut, cut, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans to pay for an attack on the working class. That's what it is. And it balloons. The debt. Do we all agree we should get our debt crisis under control?
- [32:24]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
We have to.
- [32:25]
Luke
Then why does it add $45 trillion to the debt?
- [32:29]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
Here's the biggest problem.
- [32:30]
Luke
Why does nobody answer my question?
- [32:31]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
You know what we are, but unfortunately you have your own agenda. But we're trying to answer.
- [32:37]
Luke
So then you tell me how much is increased? How much does it increase? That.
- [32:40]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
Then here is the problem.
- [32:41]
Luke
Answer that question.
- [32:42]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
The savior of the world.
- [32:43]
Luke
No, I'm not doing.
- [32:44]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
No, he's not.
- [32:45]
Luke
I can't hear another general rally.
- [32:48]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
You want to know something? He is not the savior of the world, but I know he is far better than anything you could come up with on that side. They don't know money. The majority of them have never run a business. I would rather be with a president that has a business who knows how to make a dollar, who knows what it's like to have to pay taxes.
- [33:08]
Luke
Do you see? I wish everyone would notice this. I just want to talk about the numbers. If you have an alternative analysis. Wait, wait. If you have an alternative Analysis of how much will be added to the debt because of Trump's one big, beautiful bill. Then you can present that, but you don't. So I give you a number based on independent analyses, and you respond with, trump's not our savior, but he's going to make us better. That doesn't mean anything.
- [33:32]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
There are analysis.
- [33:33]
Luke
Present the counter data points.
- [33:35]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
The big beautiful bill.
- [33:36]
Luke
Present them.
- [33:36]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
There are analysis of it that say the exact opposite.
- [33:39]
Luke
If they're from Caroline levitt.com, we won't.
- [33:42]
Unidentified Conservative Cast Member
Know until it happens. Your side says, oh, no, it's going to be horrible. Why do you think our side says, no, it's not?
- [33:51]
Luke
Oh, okay. First of all, Rosalind was very, very, very sweet and cool. Before I get into anything else. Sorry, what are you gonna say?
- [34:04]
John
Well, okay, I definitely want to hear what you want to say, but there's an interesting contradiction here. So her claim is a good one. You know, Democrats don't understand the American people. And then your debate with her kind of moved into, like, data specific arguments versus general Vibey arguments. And like, she was getting applause from the other cast members as she was kind of. She went on some kind of speech rants a few times and she got. She got applause. But that in and of itself almost demonstrates or reaffirms her claim because, you know, sometimes it really just is about vibes, no matter how good the data is or how, you know. So I. Not to throw you under the bus, but I. It was an interesting tension in that moment, for sure.
- [35:00]
Luke
That's an interesting thought. That little clip was a microcosm of how I see the state of America right now, which is like, hurry. Well, if you look at the. In the latest study on. And then Trump. And it's just. That's it. And I'm like, sitting there like, what is happening? Why are they cheering for that? And again, what was in that clip was, as you said before, I laid out the reasons why I think the Democratic Party has lost the trust in the American people. And that is a strong claim. But I will not stand for us just talking about that in a moment when no party has failed their base more than what we're seeing. Right. So that's kind of why it shifted to that part of the argument. I kept being like, wait, just respond to this point. And then it would be, well, sometimes the waters will pour and the ocean will rise, but the moon will still be there. And I'd be like, what? What are we talking about? So that was upsetting.
- [36:03]
John
Did you feel like they weren't taking you seriously because of your, your age. There was another moment with another cast member where he's like, you're young. I like your spark. Like, there was a lot of, like, kind of love, but then there would be like a big but they're like, but once you have a little more life experience, you'll think this. Do you think you'll get more conservative as you get older?
- [36:23]
Luke
No, I don't think so. I mean, I'm, I've always been pretty moderate, so I don't, I don't really know. I don't think that's gonna happen. But. And as already as my life has progressed and I'm like, paying taxes, all those things they say I'm living in a house like that will eventually cause you to be more conservative. Have already kind of happened in my life. And that hasn't been the political reaction. So I don't know. You never know. But you hear that a lot from older conservatives. Right? Which is my age, which I do value a lot. Age and experience and wisdom and like, all that is valuable. And I wish that our culture was more loving towards aging and all of it. But what's funny is I don't know how you don't realize that's obviously going to fall flat when people are old. Of all different political views. So you can't say no, no, you'll understand that you should support Trump once you turn a certain age because a giant percentage of old people don't support Trump. So it's not. Age doesn't then give you this complete truth. We're always going to be debating whatever age we are. And your experience gives you certain edges. I think a lot of the work I've done to try to catch up on understanding things at this age has also brought an asset. But it is funny when it feels like someone's not taking you seriously because of something like that age. When on my side of the table, I'm feeling like they're not bringing an adult's argument to the table.
- [37:54]
John
You have an exchange with John where he makes the argument that. And I think your. This was in the context of the claim Trump supporters are not patriotic.
- [38:05]
Luke
That one was a little click bait.
- [38:08]
John
I thought it was interesting. It was provocative.
- [38:10]
Luke
Acts of political violence to further a political goal is bad, and I'm against it across the board. You, many of you are not. When you justify what happened on January 6th.
- [38:20]
NFL Announcer
Forgive a sports analogy. Imagine a football field. Most of America's on the 50 yard line, Republicans on the right, 40 yard line, Democrats on the left 40 yard line, personally, over my life.
- [38:31]
Luke
Cool. Okay. Yeah. I think that extremism has gotten worse in general. And the big factor I see is social media, the fractured Internet that now we have, we're used to. There were a very small number of sources of information about politics. So then we were all agreeing on the basic facts, but then disagreeing on what we should do with those facts. We have disagreement about where we should go, but not where we are. Now you can just live in alternate universes because we're not all reading the same newspapers. We're just all in 100,000 different silos on the Internet. And so that means that on the left and the right, people are much more radicalized and there's a lot more extremism. And I'm very concerned with left wing extremism for sure. My big barometer for given that my focus is on electoral politics and actual, like positions of power, how do I judge when the extremism has become a real problem close to the centers of power. And there are some examples of that with extreme left wing ideologies. But right now, in a world where we have Trump, who I see as the extreme manifestation of a right wing ideology, as the president and Congress controlled by people who are at least willing to align with those extremist principles, then my concern is going to have to be more severe towards the Republican Party as an institution because it as an institution has been more consumed by its extremist element than the Democratic Party that still has like so many, some who are way too moderate even for me, who are just kind of milk toast, typical Democrats who still control kind of the center of the Democratic Party. What people think of when they say the Democratic Party has gone more extreme than ever. It's not the policies. It's really not like what Biden's infrastructure law. We think Joe Biden was this big extremist. His EV subsidies, like he implemented very middle of the road policies. That was his record and a lot of them were pretty positive. But that's a really good example of on paper, that's not what people are thinking of. What they're thinking of is like the craziest video they saw online of some rando college student saying whatever. And. And that does have an impact. And you can get radicalized being some random person online and then do political violence. And that matters and it should be opposed. But I see as when it comes to people who have had their hands on power, there's disproportionate extremists in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. So I kind of agree with that field analogy, but just a little bit the reverse. And I actually just think we had a football field and then we just kind of set it on fire. So that's the better analogy.
- [41:16]
John
Who do you think's gonna be? Because you know, I think, oh no, don't you dare. I'm gonna do it. Conservatives are in this position of defending this administration and hoping for the best. Democrats have to essentially envision a future and then sell it to people. So who do you think is going to be the nominee for the Democratic Party? You can answer that or you can say who you want to be the nominee.
- [41:44]
Luke
No, I'm kidding. I don't know. I don't know, John. I don't know. It could be anyone. It could be me. Maybe it'll be me. You know what? That's it. Me. That's my answer. I think it should be me.
- [41:55]
John
That was actually another question. So are you, do you have any political aspirations? You young gen Z also?
- [42:02]
Luke
I don't know. I mean, yeah, I leave my options open. I try to get caught up in any weird chats like we just learned that could cause a controversy from the young Republicans. No, I, I definitely see that as potentially something. But right now I'm so passionate about the media space that I'm in and then I don't want to just completely brush off your question. It's a good one. I just do believe that the Democratic Party needs a real soul searching right now. And I think that the primary is gonna be a really good opportunity for that. So I don't want everyone to kind of like preordain someone. I think all the people run. Shapiro is gonna run, Newsom's gonna run. Maybe AOC is gonna run. Maybe Biden will put his hat back in the ring. We don't know. And then just kind of let them. That's my answer. I think Biden should rack it that they kind of all hop on the stage and the. Whoever gets through that crucible will be a much better candidate for it. And the different parts of the party a healthy disagreement about how, how left are we, how center are we, where do we stand on these different issues, foreign policy, otherwise like to really grapple with that and then through the process figure out who clearly is the better candidate is what we need to do this time. Clearly the. This is the person before the primary even starts that we know has to be the candidate. Didn't work. It doesn't work. And the competition, I think is A really healthy process.
- [43:26]
John
Yeah.
- [43:26]
Luke
Sorry to give you a very politician answer.
- [43:28]
John
It's okay. It's what I expected and I think it's actually an accurate point. You know, Chamath from, you know, all in pod. I can't remember when he said this, but I heard him say kind of a similar thing. It's like Donald Trump took control of the Republican Party very publicly. You know, I don't know, I don't know how old you were when he just like, you know, humiliated Jeb Bush publicly in one of the debates. And from that moment on, he was just sort of elbowing everybody in the face. But it was a very public display of dominance and something like that has not happened for the Democrats since Obama. So I think you're right. Like it's, this is going to have to be something, you know, a wrestling match that occurs out in the open for everybody to, to witness and sort of agree is real for sure.
- [44:25]
Luke
And I, I just hope that the Democratic base can do that in a very competitive, very passionate way without us all attacking each other. Because I remember kind of the should Biden drop out? Should he not? If he does, should Harris be the nominee? And it felt like whatever you say, a third of, for me, my audience, or for a third of people reacting, if you're shouted on Twitter would act like you are the enemy and you're essentially Maga. If you don't exactly agree he should stay in or he should drop out or should be Kamala, it should be news. And so I hope that we can just really hash it out without causing ourselves to go into the general election heavily divided.
- [45:05]
John
Okay, well, Luke, thanks so much. Thanks again for being in Surrounded and thanks for doing this follow up chat and hoping to see you in another Jubilee video somewhere down the road.
- [45:15]
Luke
Absolutely. Thanks so much, John.
- [45:17]
John
All right, take care. If you want to see more follow up episodes of Surrounded, be sure to like, leave us a positive review. Comment. If you're watching the video on YouTube, you can subscribe to Tubli Jubilee second channel. You can also subscribe to Jubilee to see full Surrounded episodes. But however you want to support us, just thank you so much for listening. Remember, you could be wrong, so could I. Keep your mind open until next time.