Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hey everyone, it's me, Sam Stein. I am joined by Brian Tyler Cohen. We're going to be talking about a lot of stuff happening in the world today, but predominantly I want to pimp his book. It's, it's, it's not out yet. When does it actually come out? It's called the Day After. When. When can we get it?
- [00:17]
B
It comes out on July 14th, so two weeks.
- [00:20]
A
Oh, man, we are close. You couldn't get up by July 4th?
- [00:23]
B
Ah, no. Probably for the best. I don't know how many people are going to be paying attention to a book Release on the 4th of July.
- [00:33]
A
Well, you know, they're not down on the mall in the heat at the Great American Fair. They're probably in the, you know, in their air conditioning environments looking for a good read. I already done the Fourth Reclaim the Fourth out there.
- [00:43]
B
Who would be, I'm sure, I'm sure very interested in it.
- [00:46]
A
Well, congrats on the book, man. I don't know why you did it. It seems like an insane task to write a book, just. But you know, you have a lot to say. You have some good arguments in it too, so I get it. Tell me a little bit about why you decided to write it, though.
- [01:01]
B
So I wanted to write it because I think, look, the book has three major elements which are that Democrats have failed to wield power in the past, Republicans have abused their power in the past and in the current, and really offer up a blueprint on how Democrats can use the lessons that the Republicans are putting forward to exercise power in a post Trump world. And I think it's important now because, look, there is so much dissatisfaction with what Trump and Republicans are doing that, that Democrats have the ability to, to frankly go beyond, like, if you, here's the best way to put it, when I was in school, it was, it would be like social suicide to not have supported Barack Obama regardless of geography, regardless of socioeconomic status, whatever it may be. Like Barack Obama had one culture in such a huge way. Cut to 2024, that whole thing had swung and so now Republicans own culture in, in, in a way that we, that I couldn't have imagined when I was in college. And you see the way that millennials are still the most liberal generation and you see the way that, that, that Gen Z had been so conservative prior to this. And generally like when you, when you have political affiliation, like kind of stick to a generation, it's really hard to shake that off. But because Republicans and Trump have, we're presented on the left with an opportunity to do what otherwise would be really difficult to do, which is to gain those people back. But I think we have such a small window to do that because already we have so many people who are disaffected. You know, Gen Z is so disaffected, so disillusioned with politics. They gave Trump a chance. He's obviously not delivered anything worth keeping them on for. And so, you know, come 2028, we're going to have the opportunity, if Democrats win a small window, to show these people that government can work, that if they're not so disillusioned with Republicans and so disillusioned with Democrats that we can actually win those people back and bring them back, bring them back onto the left. But, but I think if Democrats fail to wield power effectively and actually deliver for voters, then you're going to lose that whole generation of people. Then you're going to have a whole generation of people who said, who said, you know, we went over to the right because the Democrats were feckless and ineff. Donald Trump and Republicans didn't deliver. We gave the left a shot again against our better judgment, and they didn't deliver either. So we're just, you know, we're going to be politically homeless. And, and in that, in that void of, of, you know, trust in government, I think that's kind of where autocracy and authoritarian thrive anyway.
- [03:52]
A
So I got a quibble with one part. You say Trump hasn't given Gen Z a reason to stay with him. And I would just say he hasn't finished the ballroom yet, so you got to give him time.
- [04:03]
B
That's right.
- [04:04]
A
It's an, it's halfway done, if that. So, you know, seems like you're jumping to conclusions here.
- [04:10]
B
Yeah.
- [04:11]
A
And a more serious note though, like, what makes you think that Gen Z wants to re. Engage at all with politics? Isn't. I guess my, my question would be put this way. Obama gave him hope, no doubt. But Trump said, let's burn this down. Yeah. And start anew. Like, why, why would, if you were a young voter, why would you even want to engage?
- [04:30]
B
Well, so Trump said burn it all down on the, on the pretext that burning it down would be an end to the status quo that had failed to deliver for these people. And, and so they didn't, you know, it's not. Burn the entirety of government down so that nothing works for anybody. It has burned the status quo down. That led to outcomes where like 40% of Americans can, can't even afford a 400 emergency. I mean, Trump was out there talking about housing and rent and groceries and the cost of eggs. Like he got so granular that he was willing to talk about the, the price of an egg. And so this isn't somebody who was saying government is going to disappear. This is somebody who is saying government is going to finally deliver for the forgotten American. For the little guy. Of course he hasn't done that. I mean, like you, you, you jokingly mentioned the ballroom, but it's been more talk about the ballroom than just about anything else. I mean, there's been talk about, you know, the, the Triumphal arch, we're doing a great American state fair where I think Michael Knowles was on stage Talking to a 10 year old yesterday about the Salem witch trials. Like the things that this government is, is focused on are, are doing nothing for regular people. And so again, like, I think that in terms of what people want to see, I don't think it's a burn it all to the ground because we don't want government to work at all. It's burn the status quo that hasn't been delivering for people down to the ground and figure out how to, from its ashes how to bring about a government that actually does deliver.
- [06:05]
A
All right, well, there's this debate happening and you know this better than I do because you actually talk to people and I just sort of sit here and, you know, twiddle my thumbs up among Democrats. It's like, well, can you get people back? Can you, can you energize people who are disaffected and have kind of given up on politics and get them to re, to engage maybe for the first time? Or should you spend your time trying to win over people who may have drifted away from you, who, you know, kind of like Trump? And they're in, they're already engaged in politics, but they've kind of soured on Democrats largely for cultural reasons, but maybe not just for cultural reasons. I'm not totally convinced it's an either or right. Like, I think there are ways to do both, but it certainly is an either or when it taught when it comes down to prioritization for Democrats. And I'm kind of curious where you come down on that.
- [07:00]
B
It's a great question. I've thought about this a lot. Like in the book, I argue for proactive reforms and, and that includes like ushering in a just economy, includes, I mean, I talk about health care reform and Medicare for all and how I think it's the time, the time has come for Medicare for all I talk about voting reforms and, and basically an effort to bring about the Freedom to Vote act or Voting Rights Act. Obviously that's especially important given the fact that that Section 2 of the VRA was just gutted. But then there's also this idea of like tackling corruption and holding people accountable for the crimes that they've committed or the corruption that they've eng right now. And so I've thought about this question a lot of like, you know, how to walk and chew gum at the same time, how to both right the wrongs that are being committed as we speak and also bring about an agenda that, that is going to reach out to the, you know, that's going to reform the lives of so many people, help help so many Americans out there. And that is in effect what they're voting for. And the answer is that you have to do both. I think the, the important thing is, is we have these conversations now so that time isn't wasted when we actually do get into power because we have a tendency, Democrats have a tendency of starting the debates once they actually are in a position to do something about them. And then you've wasted so much time, you know, basically either debating or, or, you know, engaging in process and, and before you know it, half of that precious sliver of time where you can actually deliver something is gone because you've been engaging in like, you know, some new iteration of what Democrats love to do, which is commissions and strongly worded letters and poll testing and just making everything as safe and risk averse as possible. And there was a point in Biden's administration, I think in the aftermath of 2020, where we had unified control of government. And I do think at the end of Biden's term or the end of full control of government, we had a lot of great legislation that had been passed, but a lot of time was also squandered just deciding what to do and how to, how to kind of whittle things down so that they would be most palatable for people. And, and we're seeing right now that the sacrosanctity of our processes is not so great that you cannot barrel through these things if there is a real desire to do so. Trump is using it for bad, but I think you can do it in a virtuous way.
- [09:29]
A
I would just add it's, it's funny you mentioned this because I've been thinking a bit about this too. I don't know if I agree with you. Democrats tend to overthink things and, and you know, I was, I was a young reporter during Obama. And you know, you watch, I go back and look at my notes from the Affordable Healthcare act and, and the construction of that, and it's kind of crazy to think that that was like, you know, a year and a half long process and went through multiple committees, but it kind of had to. Right. Like, you need to get. Everyone's buying. No one's ever done healthcare reform like that. I'll get back to in a second. But I, I just want to, it's not a pushback, but I just want to just note. Part of the reason that I feel like Obama and Biden, maybe to the outside observer, move slowly at the, at the beginning of their administrations, frankly and objectively, is because they were handed like, piles of. Right. Like, Obama had the Great Recession and his first act had to be getting the country out of that. And so he spent a lot of time on the stimulus and, you know, it went relatively fast. But, you know, then you had the auto bailout, and then you had to figure out what to do with the second tranche of TARP and all that stuff. And Biden obviously came in and he had Covid and he had to figure out how to, you know, the vaccine was already online, but he had to get it out and distribute it. And, and then he had to do the relief act for that, too. And so it's like they had, they're inheriting real turds. You know, it's like, what do you do?
- [10:54]
B
Well, and, and, and this isn't so much an indictment of how Democrats have acted in the past, because I understand that they had to contend with those things, but this is more of a blueprint of what Democrats need to do now.
- [11:06]
A
All right, let's chisel on that. So let's say you're, you're, you're, you make the case for Medicare for all. Let's, let's just play around with that one.
- [11:11]
B
Sure.
- [11:12]
A
I mean, it's, how does it, how do you, let's say everything goes swimmingly in 2028, and in 2029 we get a Democrat president, fairly healthy House majority. So you got like, you know, 10 to 20 votes to work with. And I think optimistically, you get, like, at the highest level, you get two to three Senate majority. Okay, I think we're in agreement there. How do you get Medicare fall passed?
- [11:38]
B
Look, I think, I think the, the, the onus then falls on, on folks like myself, people who want to advocate for this kind of thing to, to, to basically say, I mean, like, process Aside, because I think you are going to have to be in a position where you have to eliminate the filibuster. That's what this whole thing is like. This is to not to recognize that people voted for Trump and Republicans because they promised to barrel through these, these, a lot of self imposed barriers, hurdles, norms, the parliamentary and the filibuster, all of these things, none of them are in the Constitution. A lot of them are just there because of stasis. Right. And so the argument that, that I'm needing to make here and, and for people who agree with this is that these things are not so that you're not in government so that you can protect these processes. You're in government so that you can deliver outcomes. And I think there, there is some confusion or, or a change in priority when Democratic officials get into government because I think inherently they are institutionalists. Right. And, and because Republicans want to break everything down, the knee jerk reaction by Democrats is we have to stand everything up, we have to protect everything as it stands. I think that's the wrong approach. I think you can both, both, you know, protect the sanctity of the government itself and like of our system of government while still recognizing that a lot of these norms and processes that are in place are, are barriers to the outcomes that people want to see. And if the election of Donald Trump and Republicans has shown us anything, it's that people are not content with the status quo, are looking for some big swings and, and especially in healthcare where we are the envy of no one on this planet, certainly not any industrialized nation where more people go bankrupt because they're trying to just stay alive than any other country in the industrialized world. Like there needs to be some, some change here. And so even, look, even Obama had come out and this was 20 years ago and said that what he was initially looking for was single payer and what we were left with was a compromise and like good on him. I'm not, I'm certainly not going to knock getting something which is better than nothing. And me at 26 years, you know, prior to being 26 years old, had health care thanks to Barack Obama and that, and, and have health care on the ACA Marketplace right now. And I'm sure that there are people, you know, in, in the comments and who are watching who have access to health care and health insurance even with pre existing conditions and they might not be here if it wasn't for something like that. So, so those are monumental wins. But at the same time, like, you know, look, I just think that, that these institutions are not as sacrosanct as we've been led to believe. And I think Trump's rise is owed to the fact that he was willing to acknowledge that incrementalism on certain subjects was, is just not enough anymore.
- [14:31]
A
Yeah, I hear you. I do remember the Obama debate where he start, he admitted, I mean, he was like, look, I would have loved to have started with single payer. But like he, but he almost copped to the fact that he couldn't get it done from the get go and didn't even try. And I remember they, they kind of conceded it, they threw a few breadcrumbs at the single payer crowd at the time. Would you. So I, it kind of raises the question because you talk about you gotta eliminate the filibuster, maybe, you know, deal with the parliamentarian. Trump wants to do that right now. Right? Like, would you be okay with that if Trump did it?
- [15:05]
B
Look, obviously, obviously that's the difficult part, I think, I think saying I'm not going to not advocate for Democrats to eliminate the Phil, obviously I wouldn't be happy if Donald Trump eliminated the filibuster, but I'm not going to not advocate for Democrats to, to eliminate the filibuster because all that would say is okay, we're, we're content with the status quo. We are content with no advancement on health care, no advancement on climate change. Democrats won't be able to advance or keep in place any legislation that isn't a Republican priority, like the filibuster is eliminated for the two things that are Republican priorities, judges and tax cuts. Those are the things that they want. And so if we decide not to eliminate the filibuster, we're basically making the conscious decision that we are okay with the status quo. The same status quo that has lost Democrats, the House, the Senate, the White House and the popular vote. So I understand that, that Republicans can benefit from the same thing that I'm advocating for Democrats to do. But if we're going to not do something for fear of Republicans abusing it like they're abusing it right now. So we can either do something or do nothing.
- [16:15]
A
Yeah, there's plenty of Democrats I talk to who would be fine honestly with Trump getting rid or Republicans currently getting rid of the filibuster precisely for that reason. I think in the aggregate there are more legislative priorities that are hit or tripped up by that 60 foot threshold for Democrats than there are for Republicans. All right, let's say you're elected president in 20. 29. I don't think you're eligible. How old are you?
- [16:39]
B
I'm 37.
- [16:41]
A
Oh, yeah, fine. Okay.
- [16:42]
B
Yeah.
- [16:42]
A
Wait, how old do you have to be? 35.
- [16:44]
B
Yeah, 35.
- [16:45]
A
Okay. You wouldn't want it. Okay, well, let's say you just somehow got it. Okay. What's your first day priority then?
- [16:53]
B
First day priority.
- [16:54]
A
You can't, you can't do it on the first day.
- [16:57]
B
First day priority is advocating for the elimination of the filibuster and looking toward court reform. Those are the two things. Here's why.
- [17:07]
A
Both of them, because everything else is, everything else is held.
- [17:09]
B
Everything. Yeah, correct. Those, those are the two, those are the two things that would, that would serve as barriers for everything if you, we've, we've obviously talked about the filibuster and everybody's talked about the filibuster ad nauseam. So I think, I think that that part is pretty clear. Court reform, if you decide to leave in place this 6, 3 conservative court that basically acts as an arm of the Republican Party, you're saying that after all the work it's going to take, not only to get Democrats into the majority House, Senate, White House, which unto itself needs to be a herculean task, but then you're saying all of the work that needs to go toward getting legislation passed, you're okay with leaving in Place a 6, 3 conservative court that can and will strike everything down. And, and so the question really becomes, are you okay with just getting caught trying? Are you okay with just symbolic gestures that you're, that you're, that you're making an attempt to deliver for people, or do you really want to have meaningful, lasting change? And if it's the latter, then there's no excuse to leave in place a conservative court that everybody knows will strike down any legislation that doesn't comport with their political ideology.
- [18:15]
A
Okay, I agree. I sort of agree. I sort of agree. But like, how do you get away from doing this tit for tat? Right, because you're not going to just be the only, not just going to be U.S. president, there's going to be future presidents who then expand upon that. Like, don't you have to do, I don't know, like, mandatory retirement? Like, how. Have you thought through, like, the specifics yet?
- [18:33]
B
Yeah, I mean, I, I, I also advocate in, in the book for, for term limits for Supreme Court justices. I don't think you can do mandatory retirement because, because there would be constitutional barriers to that. But, but, you know, basically cycling judges out, you can put them on, on lower courts, by the way, so they don't have to be there forever. I mean, I advocate for expanding the court to 13 justices, because forever.
- [18:57]
A
That's the JVL position, just to be clear.
- [19:00]
B
Yeah. I mean, like, the number of Supreme Court justices has comported with the number of federal court circuits going back to the 1800s. I mean, there, you know, in 1837, there were six. Then, you know, then it was moved up to nine, but it's stuck at nine. And that's not in the Constitution. It's also not so sacrosanct that Republicans haven't changed the number of Supreme Court justices in modern times. Mitch McConnell brought that number from nine to eight for almost a year because he wanted to prevent Merrick Garland from taking that seat. So, like, these are, this is not so sacrosanct that we've never seen more or less, you know, more or fewer justices on the Supreme Court. So, so again, you know, look, I hear what you're saying about tit for tat, but also, if you have, like, my, my point from before stands, which is you cannot act in such a way that, that you prevent yourself from advancing on anything for fear of Republicans abusing the same thing that you're trying to do, especially when they're abusing it right now. Like, like, we, we saw almost four judges, justices today decide that, decide that they were okay with undermining the plain text of the Constitution in birthright citizenship. So this is not textualist, you know, neutral arbiters of the law. Supreme Court.
- [20:11]
A
It's funny, I was just talking because we just did a live stream on this like, an hour ago, and my initial reaction, now that you brought up to the, to the birthright citizenship rulings, it was that, okay, good. Like, it's, you know, they, they upheld birthright citizenship. It was a rebuke of Trump. And now that I'm thinking about it a little bit more, it is a little bit alarming. Like, there are definitely, like, four justices out there who are just like, actually, this is not really a constitutional right. Three of them are just like, nah, you misread it. And one of them's like, Congress can just override. It doesn't even require constitutional amendment. Like, four out of nine, not particularly great.
- [20:45]
B
No, it doesn't inspire confidence. And, and look, this is, it's not the first time that the Supreme Court has, has kind of undermined the plain text of the Constitution. I mean, we have the fact that Donald Trump is running for president or that had, had run for president Given the fact that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment exists and he's given aid or comfort to those who've engaged in insurrection, I think is a blinking red light. The fact that this, the Supreme Court created out of whole cloth this provision where presidents are shielded from, from criminal acts that yeah, that like this they will bend over backwards heaping deference on onto Trump. And so, you know, we escaped by the skin of our teeth on birthright citizenship. But the plain text of the Constitution prevents, says that, that, that if you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen. And that wasn't good enough for like half of the court. So, so again, like I, it would be one thing if this was a court that, that was going to adhere to the plain text of the Constitution regardless of political ide. But that's not what we have with, with these people.
- [21:46]
A
You brought up Trump and the in his loose relationship or wild relationship with the legal system. But in your book you're talking, you also talk about just prosecuting Trump officials for misdeeds that are clearly happening day in and day out. I mean, every day it's kind of something crazy. Today I was reading about the pardons where they're just like, yeah, it's well known in D.C. that for a mill you can get a pardon, maybe two. And it's just like that. You know, it's just bribery. It's like bribery of public officials. And you also brought up just sort of these half step notions and the fact that you have to, when Democrats come into back to office, they try to, their instincts are sort of like, we need to restore norms and bring back culture of comedy and you know, kumbaya. Right. And so obviously the parallel here is why didn't Barack Obama go after the Bush administration for authorizing torture? But in this case, we're on a whole different level. I mean there's clear acts of corruption and self dealing and all that stuff. I know you want to just go balls to the wall next time, but it does seem like you do need to actually in this case do it right.
- [22:59]
B
If you don't.
- [23:01]
A
Yeah, that's a good point. What happens if you don't? That's a good point.
- [23:04]
B
If you don't, you end up with where we are right now. Like Trump 2.0 is the result of Merrick Garland putting the, putting, preventing the optics of politicization above actually, you know, seeking out justice without fear or favor. Like this is it. We don't have to guess what it would look like to be in A world where, where criminals aren't prosecuted because we're living in it. Like we are living in an unbridled, unrepentant Republican Party that engages in corruption on a daily basis. Now, I'm sure, I'm sure folks here have seen the Atlantic article that, that suggests that Trump is considering 250 pardons for America's 250th birthday. Like that is, that is so crazy.
- [23:49]
A
We don't know. They could be, well, deserving pardons. We don't.
- [23:51]
B
I'm, I'm sure they're going to be low level drug offenders. I'm sure it's going to be people who pay their due. That, that's, that's so like, you know, it's just unfortunately, like this. Like, unfortunately we're in a, we're in a situation where, where we don't have to guess. Like this is what it looks like, it looks like making announcements, but somebody shorted the stock five minutes before the announcement. And that happens on an almost daily basis. It looks like heaping favor on to donors and family members for government contracts and government loans and Pentagon, and Pentagon loans. So, like, this is that, this is that corruption. And I think without it, without holding these people to account, all it does is embolden these people to think that they can get away with it. And frankly, they, they can. Until Democrats show that they have enough of a spine to hold these people to account. Like Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland's inaction is why we're in the world that we're in right now.
- [24:50]
A
Yeah. Has anyone's reputation aged more poorly than Merrick Garland?
- [24:54]
B
I, I, I can't imagine, like, I don't, I don't think so. And, and you know, I say that
- [25:00]
A
just not just from the vantage point of he, he was initially presented to the public and he has this, he earned a sterling reputation as a jurist and he was going to be this guy who was going to replace it was going to get on the Supreme Court. And then like, you know, this whole, the whole AG tenure was a disaster in some sense. I gotta, I gotta put you on the spot here because I play this game with a lot of folks. But like, what was the, what's been the Trump act, the, the act of corruption or grift or whatever that has astonished you the most? And what.