Loading summary
Transcript25 lines
- [00:00]
A
I love the fact that Jon Ossoff, if this is true, I've heard that he writes all his own speeches.
- [00:06]
B
Really?
- [00:07]
A
That is so impressive.
- [00:09]
B
You got to give him credit for also responding to questions where it's no advanced writing at all. But he is very articulate in dealing with tough questions and turning them to advantage, which is not an easy process. The more I talk about them, the more I like them.
- [00:32]
A
Welcome to the Mona Charon Show. Thanks so much for joining me today. I am delighted to welcome the New York Times columnist Thomas Edsel, who writes a very interesting column that's kind of a conversation. I think it's a unique invention on Tom's part. So. So, Tom, thank you so much for joining me.
- [00:56]
B
Very good to be here.
- [00:58]
A
So the topic that I want to address is one that you had a kind of blistering piece about a week or so ago, and it was called something along the lines of if Democrats want to win elections, here are the things they need to do. So I guess you must have been responding to the fact that that the progressive left, the Democratic Socialists of America, are having a bit of a moment, and you have quite different advice. So why don't you tell us your analysis of the situation?
- [01:34]
B
Well, in addition to the Democratic Socialists, the party itself has had basically three major problems connecting to the electorate. And just to preface it, I would say it's a moment where you see Donald Trump having unfavorable ratings sort of unprecedentedly bad, but the Democratic Party's favorability ratings are slightly worse than the Republican Parties. So something's off in here. And what I would say what's off is that voters feel the Democratic Party has gone over the top on a series or under the top in another way on a series of issues. One of the controversial ones that had a key role in 2024 was the transgender question. Could trans women play on women's sports teams? Could they go into women's prisons? And then there's the whole question of transition surgery, all of which are opposed by significant majorities of Americans, including, in most cases, Democrats. My proposal was that they should have one party plank in the platform in 2028 explicitly declaring that there are two sexes, that women, trans women, should not play on women's sports teams or enter women's prisons. And transgender surgery has had so much fraught analysis and discussion that for the moment at least, it should be prohibited for children 18 and under.
- [03:30]
A
Let's probe this a little bit. So when you presented this to several Democrats, what kind of reaction did you get? On that issue.
- [03:40]
B
Well, from centrist Democrats, it was pretty positive. And in fact, they had different approaches, but somewhat similar to what I wrote. The Third Way is one of those groups. But when I presented it to a very pro trans group, they were adamantly opposed to, and they wouldn't answer my question. Based on a basic question. When you're in this debate, are there two sexes or are there more than two sexes? That's sort of a litmus test to get into this debate. If there are more than two sexes anyway, we're in a different world.
- [04:26]
A
Well, you would, I think, if I understood you correctly, you think that if you take the position that there are more than two sexes, you alienate a lot of working class and non college educated voters who think that you're kind of crazy or out of touch.
- [04:44]
B
Absolutely. That's absolutely true. That most people, especially working class people, think there are two sexes and no more. And they think people who talk that way are a little bit off the wall. And more importantly, politically, they're not going to trust someone who believes that there are more than two sexes to govern the country.
- [05:12]
A
Whenever you have political coalitions, you know, you have to worry about how things will be perceived by all members of the coalition. So, you know, if there are significant numbers of progressives who think, well, wait a minute, this position of saying there are only two sexes and no transgender women on sports teams and no transgender women in women's prisons and so forth, they're going to say, well, you, you are really just embracing the Republican position here. You're, you're, you're throwing trans people under the bus. This is a civil rights issue, and they may feel alienated from any candidate and they may be less inclined to come out and vote. How do you respond to that?
- [06:00]
B
Well, you can respond to it two ways. One is just plain, factually, virtually all studies and all scientific work says that there are two sexes. And it is beyond debate almost, but not quite. There are some people in science who will argue for more than one, but it is not a, it's just not a credible position in, in most scientific communities. Factually, politically, it may be the transgender people would feel sort of dumped on the side of the road. But I'm not sure one, how many transgender people are committed to these more controversial aspects. Secondly, they are a tiny fraction of the population. So what you lose, what you might lose from transgender support on election day, you theoretically will gain working class voters, or you'll have a shot at gaining working class voters in far larger numbers. The kind of Numbers that make it possible to be a majority. So I think on both reality and purely as a political strategic choice, the argument is pretty strong in favor of a tough stance on transgender issues.
- [07:37]
A
Let me try this on you. Instead of having a plank in the Democratic platform that says there are two sexes and no more, which will get some people's backs up, I mean, I agree with you. There are two. You know, I happen to think that's factually correct, but maybe you could do something a little. A little less stark. Maybe you could say that the subject of transgender medicine is still developing. There are people who feel that they are born in the wrong body and they deserve complete respect and honor in our society. And it's, you know, when you're an adult, it's up to you how you want to present to the world. And we would not dream of having discrimination against people who are transgender and they, you know, should not be thrown out of the military, for example, or discriminated against in other ways. But because the science is still quite unsettled, we think that transgender surgeries, for example, for people under the age of 18, go too far and that we need more time to evaluate the science. What about something like that?
- [08:56]
B
Well, it's possible. I just don't know whether the Democratic Party has dug itself so deeply in a hole that it has to really break with the past. My strategy in proposing these platform changes was to make a clear break with past policies that Democratic candidates have often adopted, including Kamala Harris, who really went over the top when she ran for president in 2020, and to sort of break that linkage in a pretty, I agree, pretty brutal fashion. But I'm not sure what, if that's necessary to free the party from the anchor like, effects of the transgender issue, which has pulled it down.
- [09:54]
A
And I guess people who share your view would say it's true that this is not a big issue for most voters, but it symbolizes something about the Democratic Party, that it is too beholden to special interests, too afraid to just tell the truth about basic things for fear of offending somebody. Right.
- [10:18]
B
You took the words out of my mouth. That's right where I was going when you stepped in. And I read your piece.
- [10:28]
A
So now that half our audience is enraged and saying, I'm not watching any more of this. I'm turning it off. Let's move on. So the point being that might as well say this, which maybe I should have said in the introduction, which is you're very worried about the Democrats being able to defeat the fascist Republicans. Right. I mean, that's the point here, is that the Republican Party has become so toxic that it is highly necessary to make sure the Democrats can compete. And at the moment, the Democrats are suffering from a poor opinion by swing voters who are going to be key in 2026, but also in 2028. Right.
- [11:16]
B
I should give you all my speaking obligations. No, I agree with that. In order to have a competitive, even Democratic Party, much less a winning, it's very important. I think Trump is a truly toxic person and he has done things that are unimaginably bad for the country, bad for the economy, bad for individual people, bad for poor people, bad for Medicaid recipients, Medicare recipients across the board. And he and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party have to be defeated, and ideally defeated in a way that the Republican Party returns to its roots or goes on another track altogether. And so I think this is very important, both politically and substantively. If the country is going to move ahead and move past Trump, the Democrats are the vehicle to do that at the moment. The Republican Party in a different, in a new world might take a role in that, but it's. That's. We don't have that right now. Given the makeup of the two parties and the absolute loyalty that Trump commands among the leadership in the House, Senate and across the board.
- [12:52]
A
Yes. And he has transformed the Republican Party so that even once he is off the stage, it is by no means obvious that the Republicans will revert to the pre Trump era. The people who stand to inherit the party are in just as offensive, J.D. vance being the prime example, just as anti Democratic, just as cruel. And so the Democrats have to look in the mirror and figure out what they need to fix so that they can compete effectively against, against those people. And so what is your second issue that you think is a weakness? Well, I should say it's not that. Just what you think. You're basing this on lots of surveys of voters and swing voters about what things, how they perceive Democrats. One famous survey found that voters think Democrats are weak, woke and out of touch. So what's your second issue that you think does the most damage and that Democrats need to reform or change?
- [14:07]
B
Well, a larger issue, a larger constituency is immigration and border control. Democratic Party under Biden really endorsed open borders. And again, people don't want a country where there are not boundaries clearly set and that the people who enter the country enter it legally and the ones who enter it illegally are either stopped at the border or deported. It's not sort of an iffy question. Those are the positions that the majority of Americans stand for. The Democratic Party has unfortunately been associated with this, well, open borders with allowing immigrants to come in, illegal immigrants to come in. And this again is one where I think a strong declarative that is in a platform statement of the Democratic Party supports legal immigration and even supports the DACA restoration of a chance to get citizenship for the DACA kids. They're no longer kids. And even for those who have been in the country for a substantial period of time, committed no crimes during that period, paid their taxes and they've become integral parts of American society and the American economy, they should have a chance for getting a green card first and then a chance to get citizenship. It's not blanket anti immigration, but it's basically pro legal immigration and pro immigration for those who have really demonstrated a long term commitment to the country. But I think a clear statement that the border will be enforced under a Democratic president and a Democratic administration and that those crossing it illegally will be sent back without question. It's again one of those issues that voters are wary of. A party that's unwilling to put limits on things things and limiting and controlling immigration is one of the things voters want done. And they are not prepared just to sort of have a laissez faire policy of, of on immigration. So that's sort of my position. It is my position.
- [16:49]
A
Do you think that the nature of the immigration enforcement that we have seen in Trump 2.0 changes the calculation at all? I mean people have seen that when the Republicans. So they saw under Biden that the border wasn't secure. I don't necessarily agree with you that it, that Biden endorsed open borders. But. Okay, but, but people had the perception that the border was not secure and they reacted very negatively to that. And there was know there were a lot of crossings. Okay. But under Trump 2.0, they have seen the other extreme of Republican enforcement that goes far beyond anything that most voters thought they were voting for. These roundups, the killing of American citizens, the sending, sending immigrants who may not have committed any crime in some instances. We know that they were never convicted of any crime to foreign gulags and prisons. All of this has also soured, arguably soured voters on the Republicans approach. Does that change your calculation at all?
- [18:07]
B
Yes. Well, what it does is the Republican excesses, and they have been terrible, have opened the door for the Democratic Party to take a tough stand on immigration, but a moderate one in terms of the dreamers, in terms of those who've been in this country for a number of years and have been working and give them a chance. I think that would not have been possible without Trump's excesses and his abuses of immigration enforcement. So I think Trump, in a way, has done Democrats a favor of being able to adopt a position on immigration that is strong on the border but is not totally preclusive of giving a shot to people who deserve it. For various reasons, they're still allowed to be a somewhat liberal policy on granting citizenship. And I think Trump is the guy who has allowed this situation. People have really turned against Trump. The polls, it's used to be his strongest issue. I'm not sure. It may still be, but it's not no longer a favorable issue. He's now in the red on the issue. And so if anything, it's opened the door for Democrats.
- [19:38]
A
Do you think that Democrats can even go a little further? Because the fact, the reality is that our birth rate continues to fall and we definitely need people and Democrats, you know, you could say Democrats should not be leery of arguing that we need more legal immigrants, that they make a positive contribution. By the way, there's polling from PRRI that shows that people actually do believe that immigrants are a net advantage to our society, that they contribute more than they take and, and that we need them. And, you know, wouldn't that be in this environment, wouldn't that be possible? As long as you say you're going to. There won't be chaos at the border. There won't be.