Nukes and music: Greg Mitchell talks about the state of anti-nuclear activism

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Chuck ToddCast – "Nukes and Music: Greg Mitchell Talks About the State of Anti-Nuclear Activism"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Chuck ToddCast
• Host: Chuck Todd, Meet the Press
• Episode: Nukes and Music: Greg Mitchell Talks About the State of Anti-Nuclear Activism
• Release Date: December 5, 2023
• Description: Chuck Todd engages in unscripted and informed discussions on critical political matters, featuring top reporters and exclusive interviews from the campaign trail.

---

1. Introduction and Political Landscape

Time Stamp: [00:31]

Chuck Todd opens the episode by addressing the pressing political deadlines leading up to the holidays in Washington, D.C. He emphasizes the imminent Senate deal concerning funding for Ukraine, which is intricately tied to border policies. This legislative sprint is highlighted as the focal point for the next ten days in Washington.

Chuck Todd [00:31]: "We are in the sprint to the holidays, which in Washington means there's a ton of deadlines... the big Washington story for the next two weeks is this sprint. Can there be a compromise? Is there?"

Todd explains the bipartisan support for Ukraine funding but underscores the fragmentation within parties, particularly within the Republican Party, where support for Ukraine is deeply divided. Additionally, he points out the President's simultaneous push for aid to Israel, complicating Democratic support, especially among progressives.

Chuck Todd [02:50]: "Ukraine is one of those things that literally splits the Republican Party right down the middle... the president is also wanting aid to Israel in this."

He further delves into the broader geopolitical concerns, including the situation in Israel, Europe, and potential developments in Taiwan, especially with impending Taiwanese elections that could have significant implications for U.S. involvement.

---

2. The Border as Political Currency

Time Stamp: [06:15]

Todd shifts focus to the U.S. border issue, labeling it as the currency Republicans are leveraging to extract concessions from Democrats. He criticizes the Democratic approach to immigration, suggesting that since 2013, Democrats have largely ignored border issues, fearing alienation of key voter demographics. This strategy, according to Todd, has left Democrats ill-prepared to counter Republican narratives effectively.

Chuck Todd [07:45]: "The Democrats have kind of just walked away from the issue believing there are no votes for them on this issue... they have not done a good job articulating what they don't like about the Republicans."

He argues that Democrats have failed to clearly communicate their stance on asylum policy changes proposed by Republicans, leaving the public disillusioned and the party on the defensive. Todd predicts that political pressures may force Democrats to concede on border policies, potentially alienating immigration rights groups and activists.

---

3. Interview with Greg Mitchell: Anti-Nuclear Activism and Historical Perspectives

Time Stamp: [12:29]

Guest: Greg Mitchell, Author and Journalist

Chuck Todd introduces Greg Mitchell, highlighting his extensive work on California politics, the anti-nuclear movement, and his recent contributions to the discourse on nuclear weapons through a Substack newsletter. Todd shares his admiration for Mitchell’s books, particularly "Nixon and the Pink Lady" and "The Campaign of the Century," which delve into historical campaign tactics and political movements.

a. Evolution of the Anti-Nuclear Movement

Time Stamp: [13:10]

Mitchell discusses the trajectory of the anti-nuclear movement, noting its peak during the early 1980s with the "freeze campaign." He explains how the movement transitioned from mass street activism to more legislative-focused efforts, which he believes diluted its original energy and mass appeal.

Greg Mitchell [13:57]: "The movement itself... became focused on legislation, it got focused on the test ban treaty... became a little more, not so much in the streets and more in the suites."

Todd reflects on how activist groups often struggle to maintain grassroots momentum once they gain political traction, leading to a reduction in civil disobedience and public demonstrations.

b. The Current State of Nuclear Activism and Oppenheimer

Time Stamp: [16:24]

Mitchell expresses concern that without a rekindled mass movement, anti-nuclear activism may remain subdued until a significant event, such as the accidental use of a nuclear weapon, thrusts the issue back into the spotlight.

Greg Mitchell [16:39]: "I have a feeling you're going to enjoy this conversation with Greg... But nukes, is that it? I mean, is that your North Star?"

He delves into his recent work, including his documentary "Atomic Cover Up" on PBS, which uncovers hidden footage and information about the aftermath of atomic bombings and subsequent cover-ups by the U.S. government.

Greg Mitchell [17:25]: "I show some of this footage and explain why it was hidden... the US could not face what we had done."

c. Impact of the "Oppenheimer" Movie

Time Stamp: [18:00]

Mitchell critiques Christopher Nolan’s "Oppenheimer" for not sparking the anticipated public debate on the moral and ethical implications of nuclear weapon use. He fears the film presents a muddled message, focusing more on Oppenheimer’s personal anguish without adequately addressing the broader consequences of the bombings.

Greg Mitchell [18:59]: "It really did not set off a new debate, which I predicted... does not have the legs to reset this."

He emphasizes the urgent need for renewed dialogue on nuclear policies, especially in light of contemporary threats from nations like China and Russia.

d. Henry Kissinger’s Legacy

Time Stamp: [23:50]

Todd brings up Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic legacy, questioning its relevance and effectiveness in current geopolitical crises. Mitchell responds with skepticism about replicating Kissinger’s style of diplomacy, citing its controversial nature and mixed outcomes.

Greg Mitchell [25:01]: "There is a lot of work just in the past month... the US is in one of the most dangerous periods of nuclear threat..."

He highlights Kissinger’s historical role in shaping Cold War policies but remains doubtful about his methods being applicable or beneficial in today's complex international landscape.

e. Progressive Movements: Past and Present

Time Stamp: [29:42]

Mitchell draws parallels between past progressive movements, such as Upton Sinclair’s 1934 gubernatorial campaign, and the current progressive resurgence. He underscores the importance of a singular focus, as seen in the successful "freeze campaign," compared to the fragmented nature of modern movements like Occupy Wall Street.

Greg Mitchell [33:31]: "My most recent book and movie is called Memorial Day Massacre... it did help spark the labor movement and helped lead to really the surge in union organizing and success."

Todd adds his perspective on the rising labor movement, attributing it to widespread distrust in big government and corporations, leading individuals to seek collective representation through unions.

Chuck Todd [34:07]: "In this era of distrust, we don't trust big government, we don't trust big corporations... we gotta all look out for ourselves."

f. Greg Mitchell’s Music Interests and Memoir

Time Stamp: [41:40]

Mitchell reveals his passion for music, particularly in the Americana genre, and discusses his ongoing memoir about his tenure at Crawdaddy, a precursor to Rolling Stone. He reflects on his experiences, including writing some of the first articles on artists like Bruce Springsteen.

Greg Mitchell [42:14]: "Crawdaddy was the precursor to Rolling Stone... I was there for all of it. Helped write the first article ever about Bruce Springsteen..."

He also touches upon his challenge of keeping up with new music amidst the dominance of algorithm-driven platforms, expressing a preference for artists like Jason Isbell and Alison Russell.

---

4. Closing Remarks

Time Stamp: [45:53]

Chuck Todd wraps up the episode by commending Greg Mitchell's remarkable career and encouraging listeners to explore his documentary "Atomic Cover Up" available on PBS. He hints at future discussions on alternative histories and teases an upcoming episode focusing on the College Football Playoff.

Chuck Todd [45:55]: "My next my upcoming guest is Greg Mitchell... It was delicious?"

Mitchell responds humorously, reaffirming the availability of his work online.

Greg Mitchell [45:54]: "PBS.org and all. All PBS."

Todd concludes by thanking his guest and listeners, highlighting the production team and inviting audience engagement through email for future topics.

---

Notable Quotes

1. Chuck Todd on Senate Deal and Bipartisanship [00:31]:

   "If you care about this funding for Ukraine, because there is a huge bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate to fund Ukraine... but it doesn't have strong support in one of the two parties, it's almost harder to get said legislation across the finish line."

2. Todd on Democratic Strategy on Borders [07:45]:

   "They have been a dereliction of explanation... not trying to take back and attempt to explain their position on their terms."

3. Greg Mitchell on the Decline of the Anti-Nuclear Movement [13:57]:

   "It became a little more, not so much in the streets and more in the suites, you might say."

4. Mitchell on Oppenheimer Movie's Impact [18:59]:

   "It really did not set off a new debate... does not have the legs to reset this."

5. Todd on Labor Movement and Distrust [34:07]:

   "In this era of distrust, we don't trust big government, we don't trust big corporations... we gotta all look out for ourselves."

---

Conclusion

In this episode, Chuck Todd provides insightful commentary on the current political maneuvers in Washington, particularly the interplay between funding for Ukraine and U.S. border policies. The in-depth interview with Greg Mitchell offers a historical and contemporary analysis of anti-nuclear activism, the legacy of Henry Kissinger, and the evolution of progressive movements. Mitchell's perspectives on nuclear policy and his critique of cultural representations like the "Oppenheimer" movie enrich the discussion, highlighting the ongoing relevance of nuclear discourse in today’s geopolitical climate. Additionally, Mitchell's passion for music and his forthcoming memoir add a multifaceted dimension to the conversation, bridging politics, history, and culture.

For listeners interested in the intersections of politics, history, and social movements, this episode provides a comprehensive exploration enriched by Greg Mitchell’s expertise and Chuck Todd’s incisive hosting.

Transcript

[Glad Force Flex]

Glad Force Flex Max Strength now has bags with a two times stronger top for over the top strength. Like the kind of over the top strength you need when Bill breaks your bowl of buffalo chicken dip. Glad Force Flex Max Strength strong enough for all of life's garbage. 2 times stronger top vs 13 gallon force flex bags.

[USAA Auto Insurance]

The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.

[Chuck Todd]

Foreign hello from Washington. I'm Chuck Todd, and this is the Chuck Toddcast. All right, so we are in the sprint to the holidays, which in Washington means there's a ton of deadlines, most of which will get missed, but one of which I think will be the focal point over the next 10 days, and that is this deal in the U.S. senate in order to get something on the border that will bring enough Republicans on board to do funding for Ukraine. That's sort of the big Washington story for the next two weeks is this sprint. Can there be a compromise? Is there? It's one of those frustrating moments in Washington because if you care about this funding for Ukraine, because there is a huge bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate to fund Ukraine, the problem is it's bipartisan. And unfortunately, the more bipartisan something is, but the less. But if it doesn't have strong support in one of the two parties, it's almost harder to get said legislation across the finish line these days. And you know, Ukraine is one of those things that literally splits the Republican Party right down the middle. And so it's. And then when you throw in the fact that the president is also wanting aid to Israel in this, you throw that in there and that actually can cost you some Democrats, at least on the progressive end of the spectrum, a bit on that front. But we are in one of those moments where it's gonna be a lot of the talks are dead. Ukraine's gonna have no funding. Oh, the talks are alive, this or that. If history is any guide here, they'll get their deal. This will happen. But I do want to make one point here on the border aspect of all of this, because obviously right now what's front and center of concern for a lot of folks is what's happening in Israel and what's happening in Europe and to a lesser extent, what could end up happening in Taiwan. We have Taiwanese elections in January. And if a, if a more pro Independence president is elected and right now the more pro independence candidate is the favorite as the opposition is pretty divided in Taiwan, then we could have a third front here, if you will, a third potential hot front where the US would be expected to try to do what it could to give Taiwan the tools to protect itself. So the point is there are a lot of people focused on this. The border is the currency that Republicans are trying to use, extract concessions out of Democrats to change asylum policy. And it brings me to a point here of where I really think the Democrats have just sort of buried their head in the sand on this border issues for the last, I'd argue, really ever since 2013 when we came very close, very close to having that bipartisan immigration reform which would have legalized the dreamers, would have, would have put, would have actually I think, funded a fence, it was called then, now we call it a wall. But it would have, it would have funded a fence along not the entire border, but a good chunk of it. Ever since that moment, Democrats have kind of walked away from the issue believing there are no votes for them on this issue and that the more they talk about it, the more they potentially alienate the one group of voters that, that is in a swing voting category that cares about the border, independent voters, that they will somehow alienate those voters. And they've kind of just ignored it and they've just kind of just. And I think now they're at the moment where they can't, they have not done a good job articulating what they don't like about the republic, what the Republicans want to do. It is clear what they don't want in changes in the asylum system. But the Democrats, particularly the White House, if you're going to try to push back on this because you know, this is one of those cases where, you know, the voters are very good at telling us what they don't want. They don't necessarily tell us what they do want, but they are telling us what they don't want here. They don't like this chaotic feeling of what's happening at the border. They don't like the fact that there does what's happening in New York City as some of these migrants get bussed up there. So they don't, they don't seem, you know, the public doesn't like it. Now why isn't the administration out there talking about the need, hey, we need workers. It's true, we do need workers. We are, we have massive shortages, particularly in the home healthcare sector where first generation immigrants might be very helpful in filling our needs on that front. But there's been no articulation from Democrats of sort of why they are pushing back against the policies that they're pushing back on. And I know I'll get some guff here. Oh, so and so saying this and so and so saying this. Look, if the president isn't front and center on it, the public isn't hearing it. And the fact is on immigration, the conventional wisdom inside the Democratic Party is there is no good politics of it. Do what you can to mitigate it. And when you treat a policy issue as a political problem in that sense, then you're never going to get the best policy solution that'll work for you. I have a feeling Democrats are going to end up caving on something here that a lot of Democratic activists, immigration rights groups, are not going to like at all. But the politics of this has been so lost in the middle of the electorate by the left here on immigration. And I would do it, it's sort of been a dereliction of explanation, if you will, of articulating exactly why what the changes that they want to make don't work versus ones that do. And this is again, the Republicans have framed the border debate on their terms. The Democrats have done nothing to try to take back and attempt to explain their position on their terms. They're very much on the defensive, which is why I think we are in the situation on that front that we are in. So anyway, just wanted to give a little sort of update on where I think things stand this week when it comes to that back and forth. By the way, one more little bit of, of interesting conventional wisdom that is developing that I think is going to be mainstream shorthand pretty soon, and which is this. Democrats have a better chance of winning the House than they do of holding the Senate, and Republicans have a better chance of winning the Senate than they do holding the House. It's that unusual of a campaign year that we're headed in, in a presidential election year to have the, in any election year to have the House and the Senate go in the opposite directions, I think shows you that we're truly living in some unprecedented times politically. It is certainly not your mother and father's American political electorate. Anyway, my next my upcoming guest is Greg Mitchell. I first discovered Greg Mitchell, the author, if you will, when I read a tremendous book probably some 25, 30 years ago called Nixon and the Pink Lady. It was about Richard Nixon's campaign for the U.S. senate in 1950. Helen Kehagan Douglas, after reading that book. I discovered his book on Upton Sinclair and I've always known Greg as just tremendous author on California politics. I learned a lot about California politics reading those books. Sort of the incubation of the progressive movement of the 30s from Upton Sinclair. And what's great about both of those books is what a historian about campaign tactics Greg has ended up becoming. Because in both of those campaigns, Nixon's in 1950 and Upton Sinc and the campaign against Upton Sinclair 1934, some of the tactics that are mainstream today in American politics were first used in those campaigns. So that's how I got to know of Greg's work. But he's really spent a majority of his time focused on the issue of nuclear. Of nuclear weapons. And he's been writing a sub stack about sort of ever since the Oppenheimer movie came out, sort of updating weekly where we are all things having to do with nuclear arms. He's written books, he's got a couple of documentaries. One that's out now that he'll be talking about in our interview. But I really think that you'll enjoy this conversation with Greg. I think he provides an interesting. I don't want to say it's a counterpoint to Oppenheimer. It's not at all. But I think he really believes there was more to that story that needed to be told. More about Oppenheimer's just being so anguished about the use of the actual weapons themselves on that front. And you'll also get. Get from him sort of a counterpoint on Henry Kissinger that we got last week from, from Leon Panetta. And in some ways it's fitting because with, with, with Henry Kissinger and what we saw, whatever you thought of Kissinger, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I actually think the collection of remembrances and if you did your duty and read a variety of remembrances and however you want obituaries on Kissinger that you got a full picture of who he is, who he was, why he did what he did in the moment, all of those things. And if you admired him, you could find plenty to read that admired him. And if you hated him, you could find plenty to read to feed that part of your brain as well. But I have a feeling you're going to enjoy this conversation with Greg. He also has a substack newsletter and essentially focuses on Bob Dylan every day. He claims it's about rock, but I swear to God, every day it's more on. On. On Dylan as well. So with that enjoy this conversation with acclaimed author and journalist Greg Mitchell. Wasn't that delicious?

[Glad Force Flex]

So good.

[Chuck Todd]

Your bill, ladies. I got it. No, I got it. Seriously. I insist.

[Glad Force Flex]

I insisted first.

[Chuck Todd]

Don't be silly. You know, silly people with The Wells Fargo ActiveCash credit card prefer to pay because they earn unlimited 2% cash back on purchases.

[Glad Force Flex]

Okay. Rock, paper, scissors for it.

[Chuck Todd]

Rock, paper, scissors. Shoot. No. The Wells Fargo Active Cash credit card. Visit Wells Fargo.com ActiveCash terms apply.

[Glad Force Flex]

Glad Force Flex Max Strength now has bags with a two times stronger top for over the top strength. Like the kind of over the top strength you need when Phil breaks your bowl of buffalo chicken dip. Glad Force Flex Max Strength. Strong enough for all of life's garbage. 2 times stronger top vs 13 gallon force flex bags.

[USAA Auto Insurance]

The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA Auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.

[Chuck Todd]

Usaa. Well, as I said in the intro, there's a lot of ways I could come in here, Greg, and start a conversation. I got to know you before you ever got to know me, because I was a fan of your early books, particularly in California campaigns, on Upton Sinclair. And the first book that I read of yours, which got me into everything else that you've done, Nixon and the Pink Lady.

[Greg Mitchell]

All right.

[Chuck Todd]

Which is just one of the more fun, gripping reads that's out there. And if you really wanted to shortcut everything on Nixon, I would argue. Greg, you just read that book. You don't need to read anything else.

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, it certainly set the tone for his trickery and also brought down Helen Gahagan Douglas, who was a sort of fascinating figure.

[Chuck Todd]

It is. And it's. It's actually what. What is motive? What motivated me, and I want to talk about Kissinger in a second, but what really motivated me to have this conversation with you was Oppenheimer. You have. You have focused on covering the nuclear weapons industry. You were the editor. Let me start with there. You were the editor of Nuclear. The Nuclear Times, I believe it was. Is that correct?

[Greg Mitchell]

Right, yeah. 1980s. Yeah.

[Chuck Todd]

Where, you know, that was at the height, I would argue, of the. Of the sort of. The Stop the Nuclear Arms Race movement.

[Greg Mitchell]

Right.

[Chuck Todd]

And that has ended. Why do you think that has?

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, the. The movement itself, which was focused originally on the freeze campaign, you know, in the early 1980s, really took. It was one of the great mass movements in our history, really. And then it kind of got it kind of went Washington in a way. It became focused on legislation, it got focused on the test ban treaty, it opened up large lobbying arms there and so forth. So it became a little more, not so much in the streets and more in the suites, you might say.

[Chuck Todd]

You know, it's interesting you just put that, you just said, you know, they went Washington. Look, one of the things that I've wanted to do since I left Meet the Press is spend more time educating people a little bit about when people just. Because I think we all speak in shorthand and I think I know exactly what you mean, which is you get a well funded or a well meaning activist group, they get some traction, they get some action, maybe they win an election or get a policy proposal and then they enjoy their time in Washington. Explain how that works.

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, they get a lot of the funding will go there. There's a lot of people who will fund such a movement at the beginning because it seems kind of safe and gets a lot of media coverage usually. And then when the real battles start in the trenches, then lines get drawn and you get more civil disobedience as there was then. There was a great deal of civil disobedience. People arrest and these groups don't want.

[Chuck Todd]

To lose their funding, do they?

[Greg Mitchell]

Right, that's right. So I mean, that's one thing. But we also have to say that it did have some real success and impact, which also in a way took away some of the drive. There was a new test ban treaty that was debated. You know, Reagan went and met Gorbachev and Reykjavik. Famously. Reagan himself said, I wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons. He didn't really, and it didn't really come close to happening. But there were people started saying the right things. You know, we must curb the arms race. And you know, the freeze did sort of set that in motion. Now, of course, the bigger factor later was the downfall of the Soviet Union, which came not much later. You know, the Berlin Wall came down and so on and so forth. But I would argue that the, you know, the anti nuclear movement did set the stage for that and did have.

[Chuck Todd]

Some real success, sadly. Why do I fear that it's going to take an accidental or maybe a malevolent use of a small nuke before this issue is front and center again?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, well, you know, that's what's driven me on this. And as you said, I've been writing about this for over 40 years.

[Chuck Todd]

Is this your great passion? I say this because you've, you've got a lot of great Passions. And I can't wait till I get to talk of music with you in a minute. But nukes, is that it? I mean, is that your North Star?

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, I suppose, you know, like you said, I've written these books about California politics and other subjects, but, you know, I've always been, well, at least for 40 years, the main focus has been on the atomic bombings. And you know, I've written three different books about it. And I went to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and now I'm directed a film called Atomic Cover up on pbs, which people can.

[Chuck Todd]

Find, I was going to say just about this year right now.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, PBS.org, you can find it there. But you know, the reason, besides what you might say, some interest in raising the issues of bombing cities and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. There's why it's relevant today. And the main reason, you might say is because the US still has a first use policy. Most people don't really know that. So you raise the issue of tactical nukes or use of one gun.

[Chuck Todd]

Is there such thing as a tactical nuke? I don't know if there is.

[Greg Mitchell]

And we're the only country that's used them. So you get a situation like today where we feel that Putin might want to use them, and yet he himself has specifically said, where do you come off on this? You're the only country that's used them. And, you know, most countries abroad do denounce our use of the bomb in 1945. Nevertheless, internally here, the message for all this time has been that, you know, well, it was unfortunate, but it was still the right decision. So what does that mean about laying the groundwork for using the weapon again?

[Chuck Todd]

You know, it's, I feel like Oppenheimer maybe helped restart the mainstream debate about the decision itself. Do you think it is gonna launch more of a serious historical debate on this, at least the Nagasaki bombing, clearly?

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, I'm afraid I disagree that it is going to or has set off a debate. I think in the first month there was certainly more attention to nuclear weap, and there were many good articles written that brought attention to the plight of the people in the Southwest who still who suffered from all the atomic tests. There was a lot of focus on the aftermath of our atomic tests and so forth, but it really did not set off a new debate, which I predicted after I saw Oppenheimer. I said I didn't think the film because of its focus and what I would consider kind of a muddled message would not set off what I consider a much needed reassessment of the use of the bomb in 1945. Unfortunately, that did not happen. And so I was actually disappointed, but not really surprised that Oppenheimer to me, does not have the legs to reset this. Great coming to terms with either nuclear weapons or the actual use.

[Chuck Todd]

Well, obviously the device he used in the film was that one security clearance hearing and that created limitations. And I think the biggest limitation, especially when you go back and read Kai Bird's book, is, and I'd love you to give some voice to this, is that Oppenheimer really did spend the last years of his life worried about this, didn't he?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, I think what the film certainly expresses over and over, I imagine some people feel too much the anguish, Oppenheimer's anguish and well captured by Killian Murphy and of course the security clearance added to that. But also confused matters. You know, you really don't know from the moment the bomb is used exactly why Oppenheimer is so anguished. You know, you're right about that. Is it because we actually dropped the bomb on two cities or was it.

[Chuck Todd]

Because he was left out of the decision making process?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah. Was it certain things? Yeah, he resented certain things. He wasn't able to participate in certain things. Was it because he saw the future as we see the final scene of the film? You know, he was anguished about what he might have helped bring into the world. But there's no sense of direct anguish or regret over the use of the bomb. And now some people may have taken that away message because, you know, we do see this anguish. And people might so. Well, some people would say, well, it's because we killed all these innocent people. But you look at the movie, look at the movie closely or even look at the screenplay, you see, that's really not what Nolan was after there. And I, my fear was, was that people would just as many people would come away from this movie feeling, well, yeah, I was a little uncertain about the use of the bomb, but now I get why it was used and I support it as ones who would really have new questions about it.

[Chuck Todd]

You know, it's funny, there was a part of me that looked at the revitalization of the interest and how we did it in Oppenheimer. And I'm like, why isn't this our climate change strategy? Why don't we unite every major research university in America to figure out, okay, you work on clean fusion and you work on this and you work on this. You know, there was a part of me that was wishing that somebody would take that part of the Oppenheimer story and say, hey boy, you know, when America does these things, you know, when it puts its mind to it, it could do big things. Maybe we ought to solve a world problem instead of create one.

[Greg Mitchell]

There's a lot of work just in the past month as I've written about, I have a substack newsletter called Oppenheimer and the Legacy of His Bomb which people could look for. And every week I write about sort of the current or recent concerns about nuclear weapons stemming from the use of the bomb in 1945. And just in the past month, both the Scientific American and Washington Post have had major articles about. We're now in one of the most dangerous periods of nuclear threat we've ever been at, partly because of the Ukraine war, but mainly because China is now rushing ahead with more nuclear weapons and the US Is modernizing its fleet. And so this is actually maybe a little bit below the surface. This is a very, very dangerous time. And so I encourage people to, I mean, not only find my newsletter, but read up on this, get involved in this as it does deserve a new mass movement. But I don't quite see that coming.

[Chuck Todd]

You know, I'm sure a lot of people might have been surprised to learn that this is how Kissinger first made his name in Washington.

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, you know, during the early 60s, yes, he was, I mean, he's been, I think, mistakenly created as the model for Dr. Strangelove where it really was Herman Kahn, who was a more prominent figure at the time. But yeah, Henry was right in there on all the, you know, the nuclear and the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis. He was sort of a little bit off camera, but he was engaged in that. And so yes, he was, he was one of the, one of the prime movers back then.

[Chuck Todd]

So let me do a point, let you give you a chance to be counterpoint. Leon Panetta, like I said, I had him on last week. We had a number of topics that we talked about, but it was right after Kissinger's death and he thought the Middle east needed the Kissinger style diplomacy right now. What say you on that specifically? But the Kissinger legacy, let me put it this way. Is there anything redeemable in your eyes?

[Greg Mitchell]

Oh boy, that's a tough one. It's a long, I'm not even quite sure what people mean when they refer to Kissinger diplomacy. I mean, I don't know exactly what that means. We've had Blinken, we have Blinken diplomacy now. I mean, what there's certainly been an Awful lot of alleged closed door meetings and arm twisting and that kind of diplomacy. So I'm not sure. It's hard to answer that question specifically in the current crisis. We keep seeing that the US Is urging Netanyahu to do this or that, threatening to maybe curb, withdraw some weaponry. But I don't know what's really being communicated and certainly it hasn't had any effect. So I don't know if Kissinger diplomacy, does that mean more overt threats?

[Chuck Todd]

Look, that's a fair argument. I look at it, I'm sort of with you. If I whenever in my lifetime, whenever anything positive has happened in the Middle East, US Presidents have had to get involved.

[Greg Mitchell]

Personally involved.

[Chuck Todd]

I mean, that's usually the only time anything gets moved.

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, I guess, I mean, you know, certainly Biden has spoken out a lot about this and been asked about it a lot. And of course he sends Blinken. It's not like the, you know, the International Red Cross has been, you know, and the diplomacy he hasn't brought, I mean, it's an unusual situation because can you really bring Netanyahu and a Hamas leader together, you know, at Camp David?

[Chuck Todd]

Yeah, well, I'm old enough to remember when nobody thought Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat could ever break bread. That happened. So I don't know. I mean, there's a part of me, I mean, we forget, we so forget history sometimes. I mean, you tell you my right, in the 80s, the idea of the Israeli prime minister and Yasser Arafat ever shaking hands, well, that's crazy. That's never going to happen.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, well, even Reagan going to Reykjavik and meeting Gorbachev, which was not a Kissinger move. But, you know, strange things have happened. This is such an unusual case today. You know, Kissinger specialized in, you know, trying to overthrow democracies like Chile and he specialized in bombing neutral countries like Cambodia and things like that. So I don't want to take too many lessons from Kissinger in the current.

[Chuck Todd]

Crisis, I think it's fair to say. And I thought that and this goes back to, and I'm curious your thought on this because whatever anybody thought of Kissinger, I thought last week at least was a fair airing of his record.

[Greg Mitchell]

Right.

[Chuck Todd]

I mean, I thought in every corner, in every pocket. And I feel like what was correctly taken away collectively is that here's a guy who just spewed the world through two countries, pure and simple, and he treated everybody else like pawns. And while that may have made given the United States short term, the belief in short term benefits in the moment, it did a lot of long term damage.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, I mean, you're right. If you, if you read enough or watched enough, you certainly got the full. I thought things, some things were a little too positive on him and I'm.

[Chuck Todd]

Sure, I'm sure that there would be back more than that, but I really do think that I felt like I got it in stereo and I mean that.

[Greg Mitchell]

Right. No, you're right. You're right. It was a rare time where a lot of, a lot of criticism, a lot of people spoke ill of the dead. Usually when that happens, people they're chastised. In this case, it kind of went full bore. So maybe it's just the modern social media, I don't know.

[Chuck Todd]

I think it is because I'll never forget being living in a fantasy world after Nixon died. It was the strangest week. Everybody waited a week before their criticisms.

[Greg Mitchell]

Of their Reagan also. Reagan also.

[Chuck Todd]

On that front, let me shift gears over here and talk about. Cause the other part of that I think you captured really well with Upton Sinclair that Oppenheimer, the movie, I think did a good job of I think at least opening the door for people to understand today's progressive movement and where it got its start. And I'll tell you, I think the book itself, the Kai Bird book, did a good job of explaining the Communist Party movement of the 20s and 30s in the United States and how it had much less to do with the Soviet Union than folks realized.

[Greg Mitchell]

Right. Well, you know, the book you're referring to is called the Campaign of the Century. Upton Sinclair's race in 1934 in California for California governor in which he swept the Democratic primary and shocked the world running a. The end poverty in California.

[Chuck Todd]

And this is after his books had become bestsellers, right? Yep.

[Greg Mitchell]

Right. He was a famous muckraker and I wouldn't say a kook, but he was quite quirky in many of his. Can you just keep a kook?

[Chuck Todd]

Moniker. If you get a nomination for governor of a major state, I think you get to graduate from kook, don't you?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, yeah.

[Chuck Todd]

If he lost, he gets to be a kook, right?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, I'm not implying he was a kook. He was a kook, but he was, he was in.

[Chuck Todd]

I know certain things.

[Greg Mitchell]

He was.

[Chuck Todd]

Yeah, yeah.

[Greg Mitchell]

But he was, you know, one of the most famous writers in the world and you know, and very controversial and, and so forth. So, so he. Well, I'm going to run for governor at. In the depths of the Depression and, and of course. But this was a time of great movements on the left because of the Depression. Even though Roosevelt was in. Was leading what you might call a progressive New Deal, it still was, was really one of the hot points in the history of the US labor and popular movements in various states. So. And just to make a long story short, he swept the Democratic primary leading a great movement and then the modern campaign was invented to defeat him. Basically the threat was so great, virtually all the elements of modern campaigns were sort of invented or created then, including, you know, national fundraising, the use of the movie, use of a screen, in this case a movie screen to defeat, to defeat a candidate led by Irving Thalberg of mgm, all kinds of shady front groups. The first use of political consultants to run a camp, actually run a campaign, put political, outside political consultants. And I could go on and on, but in any case, it did capture this, you know, this, this progressive widespread movement which included some Communists. Certainly this is a little bit ahead of when Oppenheimer was that active out there. But it's certainly something Oppenheimer would have sympathized with. And the, you know, the Oppenheimer movie does spend time. I would, I would argue too much time really on his security clearance and what his former connections helped bring him down. But it is, it's a fascinating.

[Chuck Todd]

What kind of parallels do you see with the re. Rise of this progressive, the current progressive movement we're in?

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, it's hard to say. You know, I think sometimes the progressive movements, they organize around one issue or something like Occupy Wall street, for example, seemed like a great. And then all different groups with their own complaints join in and it becomes the main thing they were first organizing against starts to recede and you get again just kind of a multifaceted movement. And sometimes I think the single focus as we saw with the freeze campaign in the 1980s can be more successful that if things get diluted. You know. My most recent book and movie is called Memorial Day Massacre, which is also up on PBS.org and there's the book, the companion book that was about the 1937 incident when Chicago police shot and killed 10 labor activists. It's another incident that almost no one remembers today.

[Chuck Todd]

I'm going to confess I don't know that incident.

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, you should check it out. It's Memorial Day Massacre and it was, you know, the police shot and killed 10 activists and. But it did and they got away with it. But it got, it did help spark the labor movement and helped lead to the really the surge in union organizing and success. And now we're seeing this again today. You know, one of the great really positive developments of the last couple years is the new labor movement and the great growth.

[Chuck Todd]

I have to say, though, it comes because of distrust. What I find interesting about at least my thesis as to why the labor movement is on the rise, and it's left and right, you see this interest now, this isn't that my thesis is that in this era of distrust, we don't trust big government, we don't trust big corporations. We gotta all look out for ourselves. So in many ways, I think this is a case where people see a union as sort of back to what it was supposed to be seen as, which is speaking for a group of people that individually has no voice.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, I mean, I think you're right. And I think people, every year, the Democrats and their allies, talking about getting the minimum raise raised and all these other things, and not much happens. And so more individuals are saying, hey, we can't count on that. We're going to try to do it ourselves. And it's had a ripple effect. You know, wages have gone up a fair amount and ever. Ever since the union organizing got hot. And so I think it's another example of how, you know, this organizing and protests and so forth sometimes seems kind of useless and not accomplishing much. But, you know, again, as we saw going back to my book in the 1930s was it did cause it made Roosevelt move to the left. And some of these benefits we take for granted and Social Security and Medicare and all these things would not necessarily have happened without the pressure from the left back then.

[Chuck Todd]

I want you to take a few minutes on your Hiroshima documentary that's on pbs. One of. I don't want to. I don't know how to put this, but I think I brought this up to you. I brought it up at the panel with Christopher Nolan. I think it's important for the public to have seen the impact of the bombing. And, you know, I remember sort of the first time as a teenager where I sort of understood, oh, this is how Godzilla got its start. Like, when you start to connect, like, why do the Japanese people. And I have to tell you, it's one of those moments you're like, why are we making fun of Japanese people being afraid of something called Godzilla? Like, this is a mythology that essentially we here in the United States helped create. Right. The fear of giant lizards grown on the radiation, thanks to radiation. I mean, do you think if more people could, you know, with CGI today, you could have seen. Now, Nolan said he didn't want to use cgi. Right. That was the whole point. He didn't use CGI anywhere in his movie. And in order to show what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would have had to use a lot of cgi. You think that's something that's necessary?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah. Well, let me unpack that just a little bit because I think that the CGI argument is bogus. Because, you know, there is an excellent 1979 documentary series on. Well, not documentary. It was a drama on PBS starring Sam Waterston as Oppenheimer. And I actually, on my. In my newsletter about Oppenheimer, I showed the clip from the 1979 movie, which is really duplicated in the Nolan movie, except for one major thing. In the 1975 movie, and this happened in real life. We see Sam Waterston as Oppenheimer in a screening room looking at the first footage of victims and survivors from Hiroshima. And you get some narration and then he cuts to some black and white images, which I'm very.

[Chuck Todd]

Do we think Oppenheimer actually did see the footage?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yes, he did. And it had a big effect on him. In the Nolan movie, it's duplicated almost shot for shot. Oppenheimer's in a screening room, there's people around him. You hear narration on the screen, but you don't cut to what Oppenheimer is seeing. And again, you see that anguish. You know, okay, Oppenheimer looks like he's anguished. We don't really know why and we're not seeing the inspiration. And you know, I've written widely about, you know, Nolan not showing any Japanese victims. In fact, the only victim really we see in movie is his daughter who is, who's. Who plays the, you know, the. The one with the woman whose face starts to melt. It's a white American woman, or a white woman in any case, not Japanese and so forth. So. But, you know, my. The PBS film Atomic Cover up and the book of the same name that I wrote few years ago is about this cover up after World War II. Of all the most important footage, historic footage from Japan, both the black and white Japanese footage shot by the Japanese, which was seized by the US and color footage shot by the US army, which also surprisingly, you might say, was buried for decades and back early 1980s, I was the first person to bring all this to wide public attention. And, you know, I've kept at it since in books and my book Atomic Cover up and now the new film where I show some of this footage and explain why it was hidden us could not face what we had done. But the fact that these images were hidden for, you know, for so many decades contributed to this defense of the bomb. I mentioned earlier why the media and many historians and the public continue to this date, despite the Oppenheimer movie, to believe that. Yeah, well, you know, it's regrettable. I have maybe conflicting emotions about it. But in the end, the use of the bomb was the only way we could end the war. And therefore, it was perfectly fine. And, you know, the danger of that is it sets the. Sets us on the road to possibly using it again or giving Russia the excuse to use it again or whatever. So anyway, that's been my focus on that and showing that the US did not want to show what had really happened on the ground. And unfortunately, neither did Christopher Nolan.

[Chuck Todd]

Yeah, no, it's. Look, as my uncle who saw this stuff in Vietnam would say, if you've seen war, you'll be a lot more hesitant to ever be responsible for starting one or participating one, if you've ever been a part of it, if you've ever seen it up close and personal. And so it does make you.

[Greg Mitchell]

They generally don't like to talk about it. You know, it's so shattering that people don't. The number of people who decades later, gee, my uncle. My uncle was at the Battle of the Bulge. And I never knew until you hear these.

[Chuck Todd]

And you're like, yeah, it's because it's hard to see. And. And look, protecting us from the hard to see stuff is why we end up looking the other way on this stuff. I mean, I think you're right on there. All right, before I let you go, I gotta ask you about your. First of all, how many substack newsletters can you keep up in a week? Between Oppenheimer and Between A Rock and A Hard Place. Why do I feel like you update the music substack a lot more often than the other one?

[Greg Mitchell]

Well, I was doing Oppenheimer every day after the film had come out, and now it's more when there's really something new to say. But I do get something up twice a week. The other one, as you mentioned, between Rock and Hard Place is I'm often inspired by music things people. Shane McGowan of the Pogues just died, so I had a tribute to him. But, you know, one of the key facts about my distant history was I was the number two editor at the legendary Crawdaddy throughout the 1970s.

[Chuck Todd]

Wow. So why don't you write a book about those days?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, well, I actually am working on working on a memoir. Rock and roll memoir, sort of. But I was Crawdaddy was the precursor to Rolling Stone, and it was a very big culture and music magazine in the 1970s. And I was there for all of it. Helped. Helped write the first article ever about Bruce Springsteen, things like that. So. So my newsletter on Between Rock and Hard Place is, you know, does have a lot of music, but it also has a lot of politics. So I mix commentary on Kissinger with comment. You know, commentary.

[Chuck Todd]

All right, let me ask you this. What new music do you like? Do you find new music? I hate what algorithms have done. I think it makes it impossible to actually seek out new music unless you find a way to avoid an algorithm.

[Greg Mitchell]

Getting in your way. No, I agree. It's hard for me and I don't know, working on films and books, I don't have the time. I kind of keep up with what's popular. But I would say my new music that I've purchased and listened to a lot the last few years is really, you might say it broadly speaking, in the Americana realm with great artists. Jason Isbill is, you know, probably my favorite. Brandi Carlisle, always into her before she got super popular. And we just went to a great Alison Russell.

[Chuck Todd]

So because she's gotten popular, you don't want to be into her anymore?

[Greg Mitchell]

No, Brandy. I love Brandy. Alison Russell. We were in Alison Russell long ago and she's up for four Grammys this year. Natalie Merchant has a great new album. She's kind of disappeared from the scene. She had one of the best.

[Chuck Todd]

It's funny you call it Americana, because I am starting. I don't think there's such thing as rock and roll anymore. What say you?

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, well, no, there's a lot of people would argue, but yeah, a lot of it is certainly the rise of hip hop and rap and so forth. You know, I guess it depends what your definition of.

[Chuck Todd]

Well, I was going to say what is your definition because the Rock and Roll hall of Fame changes it based on whether they want to have relevant artists.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, it's kind of meaningless in a way. But if you think of rock and roll as, you know, as. Since I go back to the 50s, you know, guitar.

[Chuck Todd]

I think of the guitar. That's what I. Guitar driven music. That's the way I look at it.

[Greg Mitchell]

It could be piano. Piano kind of, but with a. In a real rock. Rock with a guitar and rocking band and so forth. So if that's. If that's the definition of rock and roll, then yes, there aren't that many real rock, popular rock group.

[Chuck Todd]

I feel like there's more electric guitar in the realm of country than there is in other parts.

[Greg Mitchell]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, there's a lot of country artists. I mean, Brandi Carlisle was considered country, you know, now she embraces everything. You know, Jason Isbell was considered country and he's, you know, he's now much more of a rocker. So I'm glad. Country music has given birth to so many great artists going back to Hank Williams and so forth. But, you know, people generally have to leave country in a way to get, you know, to really get rocking.

[Chuck Todd]

Craig, I think you, you've had one, you have a remarkable career in journalism, one that I think would be the envy of anybody I know. I know I am. You have, you pursue your passions and you do it with such expertise. Anyway, it's always a, always a pleasure to talk with you and I'm glad, folks, I hope they do check out your, your special on PBS on going back to Hiroshima. Thank you, my friend.

[Greg Mitchell]

It's online. It's online right now.

[Chuck Todd]

Online, right?

[Greg Mitchell]

PBS.org PBS.org and all. All PBS.

[Chuck Todd]

Excellent. All right. All right, my friend. Appreciate it. You've been listening to the Chuck Todcast. Today's episode was produced by Justice Scope and Green and Matt Rivera. Theme music composed by Spoke Media Alternative history series will be back in December. So if you have a great what if question you'd like us to tackle, please email [e-mail] I can tell you right now, one of the alternative histories I'm working on is the alternative history of the College Football Playoff, where they actually use results on the field to make a decision about the teams that participate, rather than a computer and Vegas model to decide what would give higher TV ratings. So with that Easter egg, I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks for listening. And until we upload again.

[USAA Auto Insurance]

The last thing you want to hear when you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today, restrictions apply.