David Pakman (5:54)

Thanks for having me.

Mike Pesca (5:55)

So this book, if I understand book publishing, was set to be published before Donald Trump was president. A lot of the criticisms, very easy to apply to Trump, Trumpism, what Trump does. But you go further and deeper and you're saying this is the right in general, this is conservatism that is afflicted by everything that you're diagnosing.

David Pakman (6:19)

Well, it's not so much conservatism in the sense that conservatism is almost really gone from the modern Republican. And maybe we'll even talk about that part a little bit. But certainly, you know, one of the points I make, and the book was done before we knew who would be president. And that's a really good point, one of the points I make is that Trump ism was not this thing that just emerged in 2016 out of nowhere and complete, completely kind of restructured the American right wing. That it was the natural conclusion or consequence of a process that started in the late 50s as sort of antipathy towards the civil rights movement. Movement created this new group or direction, I guess we would say, for the Republican Party. And we follow that from 58 all the way through Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, Obama. And it, it happened to be Trump, but it really could have been someone else because the stage was really set.

Mike Pesca (7:18)

So Trump is taking advantage of a media ecosystem that not only doesn't punish lying in many ways, it allows for and, and celebrates just a version of truth that most flatters the audience.

David Pakman (7:32)

That's a part of it. It's also that the, you know, I talked about there's very little conservatism left in the Republican Party. There's a chapter in the book about running against a party that really has no principles or policy and the pernicious nature of getting stuck in these theoretical debates about principles. When we've seen even just in the last two months how none of those principles really mean anything. I mean, just to couple of examples to make it really concrete. One of the things that we've heard for 50 years from the Republican Party and to a degree many have accepted, is that therefore fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, and what we see if we just track the deficit among Republican or Democratic presidents is that the deficit grows much larger during Republican presidents. Another example is that they're against intervention into private industry by the government. And that may be true when it's convenient, but when it was, we actually want to force social media to publish Covid disinformation, they were happy to have government interfere in private business. When it's Elon Musk in the free market of ideas, seeing Tesla collapse because of what he's chosen to do politically, Trump holds an infomercial for Tesla on the White House lawn. All of a sudden those principles go out the window. And that's another important aspect to this.

Mike Pesca (8:51)

Yeah. So political hypocrisy runs rampant. I'll give you another one. The criticism of activist judges, unless the activism is in the flavor that you like. All true. And Democrats don't do that. No, I'll answer the question. Of course Democrats do that. Of course Democrats engage in hypocrisy and take advantage of the situation in order to get their policies across and might say we want. Well, some Democrats don't say this, but some Democrats criticize Republicans for not wanting a balanced budget, but they themselves don't create programs or submit bills that would lead to a balanced budget. But your general thesis is that it's not a difference of degree, it's a difference of kind. Whatever hypocrisy there might be among Democrats saying one thing and doing another, when they have the levers of power, it's nothing like what the Republicans do. Is that right?

David Pakman (9:44)

Well, I don't even know that I would necessarily accept that the kind of equivalence that you just drew is even a fair one. Because the position, as I understand it of many Democrats, and it's certainly my position as someone of the left, is that it's not about deficit is good or deficit is bad. It's what are we deficit spending for? Are we deficit spending for programs that are economically stimulative and I can define that, or are we spending on programs that are not? So I think one of the things I try to do in the book is really keep people accountable to what they say. And so, for example, when the right has made it their business to say, doesn't matter what we're spending on, just deficit is bad and we're going to get rid of the deficit. That's the standard I hold them to. On the other hand, me as someone on the left, I don't engage in the deficit, good or bad. It's. There are certain ways governments can spend, like taxes for the very rich that have a low economic multiplier, you give a tax cut to the rich, they don't really need that money for day to day living. It mostly ends up in a bank account. Low economic stimulus. On the other hand, food stamps are one of the most economically stimulative programs that, that you can deficit spend for. So I think I want to hold Democrats accountable to what they say is their position rather than just the inverse of what Republicans say.

Mike Pesca (11:07)

Well, you're right. A lot of Democrats don't say that the deficit is a problem. I would say they're certainly wrong, especially with the Democrat. The deficit. The Democrat, the deficit being $36 trillion and just pay the debt is now more than paying off the military. So just in terms of how much capacity does the state have to fund worthwhile programs like say SNAP or the benefits you talked about? We're extremely diminished because we have a huge deficit. That aside, I want to get to some of your other ideas and we get back to deficit also.

David Pakman (11:40)

Yeah, yeah, I think we. And it's totally fine for us to disagree. I just think I disagree with much of the way you're framing it. It.

Mike Pesca (11:47)

What? Go ahead, tell me what?

David Pakman (11:49)

Well, so our ability to pay for food stamps is not diminished by the national debt. In fact, if we can find economically stimulative programs that generate growth spending on the right stuff improves our ability to pay down the debt. I think that that's, that's kind of.

Mike Pesca (12:09)

What stimulative growth is. Stimulus, always the right choice, no matter what the economic circumstances.

David Pakman (12:15)

Well, there's two options in terms of balancing, right? It's you cut spending or you increase revenue. Cutting spending. I researched for the book, I did not find a single example of a country in the last 150 years that cut spending in order to achieve prosperity. I found many examples. However, I try to just stick to what can I support empirically, regardless of Estonian.

Mike Pesca (12:42)

Estonia did. But that wasn't my question. Wasn't. It wasn't about spending and it wasn't about taxes. It was. Is it always proper to try to stimulate the economy? So far, everything you've said about the deficit and what we should spend on should try to stimulate the economy. Is that always the proper move, economically speaking?

David Pakman (13:00)

Depends on what you're trying to achieve. I mean, I don't, I don't think there's, there's very few. It's sort of like, are tariffs good or bad? Well, it depends what you're trying to do. I think the question as to whether It's a good thing for governments to focus spending in economically stimulative ways. It depends what you want to do. Like we know, for example, if you don't care about stimulating the economy, you can give tax cuts to the rich. Right. So, like economic studies have found that.

Mike Pesca (13:25)

That'S, that also does stimulate the economy, but it doesn't stimulate it as much as some other forms of spending. The multiplier isn't as high.

David Pakman (13:31)

That's exactly right. Yeah. That's the point I'm making. So we know that if. What if your concern is not what is the best use stimulatively of a dollar in government spending? There are many options. One of them, for example, would be tax cuts for the rich. If the goal is let's grow the size of the economy, it would follow that using the tool of government spending to stimulate growth makes sense. It depends on what your goals are.

Mike Pesca (13:58)

Yes. Sometimes if the output gap is insufficient, it is poor government policy to stimulate the economy because that leads to inflation. And we saw that with, especially the last round of COVID spending. Now, you talked a second ago about the right as a movement has no policy. I'm wondering if you see some of what's going on with the aggressive chainsaw themed cuts. Has that convinced you you might not like the policy, but has that maybe pushed you off the idea that it has no policy? I see a policy, I see a ramshackle policy, I see a very inexact policy, but I definitely see a policy direction of trying to cut what they would call the administrative state that might be bad for America. I think in a lot of ways it is. But isn't that a policy?

David Pakman (14:48)

Well, I think when I, when I talk about policy in the book, I'm using a specific frame. I mean, certainly every administration has stuff that they do, executive orders that they sign, and you can sort of say, this is the policy. What I mean in the book, when I talk about there's really no policy here, it's that we've been waiting for Trump's health care plan since August of 2020. He told Chris Wallace it was two weeks away. We still don't have it. The one, the phrase he used, what did he say?

Mike Pesca (15:18)

We have like parameters of a plan. What did he say? We have the.

David Pakman (15:23)

He said during the presidential debate that he's getting to concepts for the plan.

Mike Pesca (15:27)

Concepts.

David Pakman (15:28)

So. So when I think about what are the biggest umbrella areas where policy is needed in this country to help people, we'd be talking about health care, economics, tax policy, education, climate Foreign policy infrastructure in those areas, even their stated principles, as I kind of was mentioning earlier, they go out the window once they become inconvenient. EVs were bad until Elon is my friend. Now EVs are good. That's what I mean by there's a lack of coherent policy. Certainly Trump's doing stuff. Whether we would call that coherent policy, I think, is where I would drill down.

Mike Pesca (16:06)

I think in some areas it's incoherent, in some areas it's hypocritical. There's a lot of lying going on, so you can't just. And that leads to the perception, the reality that it's hypocritical. But I think, especially with you mentioned foreign affairs, there is a policy, maybe not for every sector of the world, but in general, Trump's policy is to pull back from. To pull back from helping Western Europe, to pull back from assisting democracies, to pull back from treaty organizations, and to view America as an island unto itself, making one on one deals in the interests as he sees them of America. I mean, that's his policy. You and I might not like it, but that's what's going on, right?

David Pakman (16:50)

I don't think so. It's certainly not what I'm seeing. I mean, I'll give you an example. The principle Trump ran on was he's the anti war guy globally. You would agree with that, that he said, I will. Hillary will start three wars. Harris would get us into three wars. I am the anti war guy. Fair.

Mike Pesca (17:10)

Yeah, he said that.

David Pakman (17:11)

He said that. And we're, you know, 55 days in or something like that. We've just launched a new military initiative against the Houthis in Yemen. Trump has given the go ahead to Netanyahu to resume some of the larger offensives in Gaza. And I'm not even giving my opinion about these things. I'm just saying it contradicts the stated policy from the campaign. He is now, at minimum, playing coy with, if not welcoming Putin to say, oh yeah, no, insist on keeping a bunch of Ukraine in any peace treaty. So again, I try to take my opinion out of it. It's simply, let's compare what he does to what he said he ran on. I'm anti war guy. He has started new conflicts in his first 55 days. There's a conflict there, to me. And like you said, Mike, people can evaluate if they like it. Maybe some people go, I don't want him to be the anti anti war guy. I want him going into Yemen. Well, fine. But the question is, is it what he said he was going to do?

Mike Pesca (18:10)

Yes. So you're right. As far as the war dimension, it is true that he always. He still had military incursions and uses of military applications in his first term. He killed Suleimani, he killed the then leader of isis. Talked a lot about it, talked tough about it, but also was very proud that he didn't commit to large scale occupations or invasions of countries. I would say that there is a policy. I wouldn't say he has a coherent set of policies on war. He's not a guy who says, I'll never use force. He's not a guy who says that. He's certainly not a guy who says, I'm going to go in and occupy countries like neocons did. But on diplomacy, on the value of treaty organizations, on going it alone versus going it together, he clearly has a policy of going it alone. And I think a lot of Americans like that policy. I don't think they should, but I do think it's a policy.

David Pakman (19:08)

Yeah. I mean, maybe. I've not seen any polling that suggests Americans like it. That certain. I see concern over Trump's.

Mike Pesca (19:16)

Yeah, a lot of Americans. I don't know if more Americans like it or not, but there is a long history of isolationism in the United States.

David Pakman (19:23)

Yeah, that exists.

Mike Pesca (19:24)

Yeah. Now, a couple other things I want to tease out. You say that Republican opposition to critical thinking is strategic, not accidental. What do you mean by that?

David Pakman (19:33)

Yeah, I mean, I, I just reviewed on my show today, very interesting interviews where just average voters were being asked questions like what's the shape of the Pentagon? Or who did we declare independence from in the Revolutionary War? Right. And a bunch of people just don't know. Kind of these basic answers.

Mike Pesca (19:53)

The question is kind of implied in the question.

David Pakman (19:56)

Surprisingly, some people got it wrong.

Mike Pesca (19:58)

So what I mean, it's almost like, what year did the War of 1812 take place in? Yes.

David Pakman (20:02)

Yeah. What I mean by the opposition to critical thinking curricula at state boards of education, especially in red states, is that if you have the ability to really analyze critically media messages, am I watching news or opinion here? Am I looking at primary reporting or am I looking at someone rewriting original reporting, etc. If you're able to do that stuff on your own, you're not going to fall for a lot of the stuff the right pushes, like, for example, trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is something they've been pushing for 50 years. It's generically the concept that you get the most Economic benefit from cutting taxes for the very rich. No factual, empirical evidence behind that. The less able to critically analyze that yourself that you are, the more likely you are to fall for it and support candidates who tell you that that's the world works. I'll give you another example. When we look at for example the debate around climate science, we can and should have a robust debate as to what should we do, what should the policy be. People can disagree on that for sure. But at this point, one of the things that corporate media does that I think is very dishonest is they'll do a seven minute debate with one person who says climate change is real and one person who says it's not. Each person gets three and a half minutes. It's what you call false balance. If you are unable to critically figure out what does the science really say? Because I got three and a half minutes from each side on cnn. Right. What does the science really say? If you don't have those skills, you fall into a non empirical understanding of the world around you. And so I do think it's strategic.

Mike Pesca (21:46)

So does critical, what does critical thinking mean? I thought critical thinking meant something like applying reason, questioning assumptions, teasing out the logic of a statement, so on. So where's the, where's the critical thinking element of trickle down economics? Doesn't work. It's that, that there is a body of evidence that, that shows it doesn't work.

David Pakman (22:07)

That's right.

Mike Pesca (22:08)

And so for example, pay attention or isn't exposed to it. But isn't that ignorance if you don't know?

David Pakman (22:12)

Well, ignorance would be ignorance of the facts. What I'm talking about is lacking the foundation with which to figure this stuff out and say, okay here, yeah, that.

Mike Pesca (22:23)

Is what critical thinking is. But why would that apply to trickle down economics, which I don't hear. It's kind of been derided as a phrase. And you might, I think we both might characterize a lot of what Republicans are doing is inherently saying that there will be a trickle down effect.

David Pakman (22:40)

That's right. They figured out that they don't want to use that phrase. But what they, you know, every day on Fox News you've got people who work for Trump saying that the most pro growth tax policy is one where you cut taxes for the rich in corporations. That's literally trickle down economics. It's just not the phrase they use.

Mike Pesca (22:55)

Yeah, I just don't understand why it's critical thinking as opposed to this is a narrative that they've snookered some people into believing. It's not like People are addled, or the people who don't believe it are addled brained. And if you gave them the information, there's no way they could attend to it, just that they don't have the information they have.

David Pakman (23:10)

No, I think it's more than that. I think it's more than that. I think. Let me, let's see if I can kind of tease it out. I think if you're 45 years old, it may be, yes, that you are ignorant to some facts that would allow you to see the world more clearly. But if you've not built up this kind of framework I write about in the book of Epistemology, first of all, which is justification for my beliefs, critical thinking, which is a framework that I can apply to any topic to try to better inform myself. And then thirdly, media literacy, which is the ability to interpret and tease out the structure of media messages and am I even watching news or opinion here? I think that that framework, if you're 45 and you don't have it, very, very difficult to really build that up. And we see that borne out in a lot of different public opinion studies when people are just asked like, here's 10 statements which are, which are opinion, which are fact. So the assertion I make is that this really has to start probably when people are 8 or 10. There's no political bias to it. These are just tools. It's sort of like saying, is a hammer good or bad? It's like, well, the point is understanding when the hammer is the right tool. And it's been scrapped from curricula in all sorts of parts of the country. And I think it's really hard to recover from it. If you get to age 40 and you don't know this stuff, how is.

Mike Pesca (24:39)

Knowledge of climate change? How is that critical thinking versus versus an understanding of the evidence and a certain deference to authorities. So I think that's what's going on, that some people just reject authorities and they shouldn't. But it's not so much that when presented and the evidence, they're too adequate to understand what's going on.

David Pakman (25:02)

Yeah, no, I know. That's, that's, that's, that was your more or less your last question. And maybe I didn't do a good job.

Mike Pesca (25:08)

I just took it. No, I took it with the, the.

David Pakman (25:10)

Other example as applied to climate change. I think it's more of a media literacy issue and it's the following one, and it's inextricably linked to, to critical thinking. Many people who don't have this framework, turn on tv. It looks very professional. The anchors are wearing makeup, the lighting is good. This thing spinning that says live. It looks as though this is a serious conversation. You see two talking heads pop up. Half the time you're hearing that climate change is real and half the time you're hearing that it's not. Without basic tools to discern what sort of programing this is and try to figure out how do I go through determining what the truth is. Many people would say if these two messages are each getting equal time and placement on what looks like a very professional news set, it must be that there is really a controversy here. We really must not know is climate change real or not? Because they're both getting 50% of the time the instinct to say, is one of these two people talking about facts and one is talking about opinion? That instinct is really tough to give to people when they're 45. It's much better to give people the tools when they're 10 to react in that skeptical way when they see the report.

Mike Pesca (26:34)

But what percentage of Americans say climate or global warming isn't happening?

David Pakman (26:38)

Right now I don't have updated information. I mean, I think that the number is declining. Fortunately, you know, the battle lines on that issue have sort of moved. They've moved to are humans impacting it? So this is all, these are all live discussions that change over time. The battle lines right now are more about whether humans, do humans have a role to play in that? There was a point at which the debate was more over, is it happening now? It's more, do humans have any, any impact on it?

Mike Pesca (27:01)

Right, So I have the stats. The center for Climate change communication says 13% believe global warming is not happening, 70% believe it's happening and 17% say I don't know. So if we didn't have, did we get critical thinking skills to move that number up from 5050 to 70?

David Pakman (27:17)

No, I mean the truth is we had 45 years ago, we actually already had the data. So the fact that it took this long even to get to that point, I don't have the numbers in front of me.

Mike Pesca (27:25)

But does it implicate critical thinking? Does it implicate a whole lot of other things? Like our identity is tied up to our political party and therefore if our politicians tell people what they want, like a lot of people in coal producing states or whatever, they're going to believe what they want to believe. But eventually it gets through to me. It's a, it's a, we're setting up A situation that shows that Americans have critical thinking skills. Maybe not the best, but they're able to form opinions. But there are a lot of other things, including cultural things getting in the way of forming the correct opinion. Opinions.

David Pakman (27:54)

Yeah, I mean I, I think we're using very different language to talk about some of these things. Like for me the concept of a correct opinion is by itself, by its nature an oxymoron. We're either talking about opinion or facts.

Mike Pesca (28:08)

Found a well founded opinions, you're right. I mean but when I talk about believing that critic that climate change is real, this is, I'm using the shorthand of correct opinion. So I agree.

David Pakman (28:17)

Yeah, it's even shorter to just call it fact. So I would, I would stick with that because it's so much clearer. I think one of the things that is really difficult is you're right that motivated reasoning is a factor in people's beliefs. In addition to that, people are more likely to follow the political beliefs of their parents. People are more likely. So all of these things are true. The book can't be about everything. So I'm taking on education policy. Specifically teaching critical thinking and media literacy to Everybody when they're 10 wouldn't solve every problem. It wouldn't solve that people are still more likely to have the beliefs of their parents, for example. But I think it's the best path to figuring out the truth about the world around us.

Mike Pesca (29:01)

And in a minute we'll be back with David Pakman. He is the author of the Echo Machine How Right Wing Extremism Created a Post Truth America. And we're going to be talking about some things where the lack of truth is not necessarily and directly coming from the right. David Pakman in about a minute it we're back with David Pakman. He's the author of the Echo Machine How Right Wing Extremism Created a Post Truth America. So I have two main critiques of the book and I enjoyed going through it and hearing first of all your prescriptions in terms of policy but more importantly in terms of epistemology and how we come to our conclusions. These are things I think about a lot. But my two main, main problems are this. One, the Democrats do it a lot. I concede that it seems to me that the Republicans or right leaning media is more likely to be inexact or misleading. But I don't know if the ratio is 5 to 1 or 3 to 1. But Democrats believe absolutely. In the echo chamber, misinformation has made its way into Democratic thinking. It's crossed Whatever the ratio is, Republicans do it more. But among Democrats crossed a critical threshold such that I would say you can't trust as a heuristic. If the two sides disagree, simply disbelieve the Republicans. But what do you say to that?

David Pakman (30:35)

I agree with you 100% on that. I mean, listen, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a Democrat. This book is not a defense of Democrats. The examples I give from six different countries about successful social democracy programs in some countries, they don't even involve the equivalent of the Democratic Party. In those countries, Many of those countries, Countries have seen those successes come on the heels of either a parliamentary proportional representation system or other systems. I am. I mean, listen, it would not be critical thinking to say that you should just assume what democrats in the US tell you is right. I'm with you 100%. I have nothing to do with the Democratic Party.

Mike Pesca (31:13)

But the idea of the book is that Republicans have created an echo chamber and that Republicans have led us into poor ways of thinking that will mislead us. My thesis is, is the Democrats do that, too, in not equal measure, but enough of a measure that I don't know how useful it is to talk about the ways Republicans do it. How does it help me as a citizen for deciding who's right and who's.

David Pakman (31:38)

Well, the devil really is in the details. I feel like. I mean, maybe if you. If we could broach an issue on which you think the Democratic Party has deliberately spread misinformation that doesn't comport with the facts, it might help us to draw a contrast.

Mike Pesca (31:52)

Okay. Police killings of unarmed black men.

David Pakman (31:57)

Yes.

Mike Pesca (31:58)

So there's one.

David Pakman (31:59)

Okay.

Mike Pesca (31:59)

Polling shows.

David Pakman (32:00)

Yeah, no, I've covered that. I mean, listen, I'm with you on that. It's. I did a segment, I was criticized for. For pointing out that the degree. This is years ago now, because this is really not a big. This is not a big battle line in national elections right now. But years ago, I did a story pointing out. Here is the story that's being told about the racial. Racially disproportionate killing of people in police encounters. Here's what the data say. And some people didn't like that. I was doing that. But listen, I'm with you. I think the danger is, Mike, the proportionality of some of these arguments. And there's a phrase that I use called enlightened centrism, which is a little bit of a pejorative. And it's the idea that to really rise above the fray, we should be Able to equally criticize both sides or whatever. And I just like you're saying it's not equal. And that's the point I'm making. But on that issue, you're right, I think much more sort of substantively, or maybe with bigger consequences, the lies we've been told by the Republican party about the health care systems that best work, I think that that is far more pernicious, for example, than the example you just brought up. But I'm with you. The criticism. I mean, I just brought up. I'm with you. I'm with you.

Mike Pesca (33:25)

Well, I think we differ on the impact of that. I mean, the summer of 2020 through 21, many, many cities burnt down. Democrats lost elections because of the perception that they were for defunding. And while they were in, or the vast majority of them weren't, they were identified with the incorrect idea, as per in the media, that more than a dozen to 17 unarmed black men are killed all the time. And the more liberal you were, according to reliable polling, the more you thought that the number was close to a thousand. And to this day, even if that's maybe a small item in cities, elections are built around this idea or this feeling about the unfairness of over policing. And it also affects the reputation of the party overall, so that when people go to the polls, they look at Democrats as the party of defunding and the party who are not getting a very important question right, which is policing and safety. So I think there's a lot of ripple effects.

David Pakman (34:27)

Yeah, I. I mean, listen, it's great that we have a different opinion. It's great to engage with that. I think that a couple things. First of all, I can only defend what I believe. So, you know, you're telling me that there are people who believe X, Y, Z. I can only defend what I believe and tell you the fact. Facts as I know them. The facts as I know them are this saying cities burnt down is deliberately inflammatory language. Was there looting? Yes, there was. Was there property crime? That there was. And I immediately spoke out against that period with no ifs, ands, or buts. Some on the left said no.

Mike Pesca (34:56)

So when I say a city broke down, I don't mean 50% of a city area. But Kenosha. Much of Kenosha was on fire. The third precinct in Minneapolis is no more. It burned down. So many structures in many cities experienced horrific rioting and destruction that they're still trying to.

David Pakman (35:14)

Okay, you did pull back the language about 80% on that, though, from cities plural, burnt down. But let's not, let's not focus on that. I'm just recognizing that it's deliberately inflammatory language in terms of defunding.

Mike Pesca (35:25)

So was setting fire to the third.

David Pakman (35:26)

Precinct, which I'm against. Yeah. I don't know any. I'm not aware of anyone who's for that other than the people who did it.

Mike Pesca (35:32)

Right.

David Pakman (35:32)

So in my audience we didn't have people cheerleading that. But let me go further. Not during the entire defund the police thing which the day it started I came out with a 12 point plan for how I would fix policing that did not include blanket defunding of police. I immediately said bad idea for Democrats, not a good idea for. For society either. Not a single member of the House or Senate supported defunding the police at that time. Now I can't speak to whether last year there were members who supported that. That's a different story. At the time there was not a single national Democrat who was saying what we need to do is defund. So I think it's just important when.

Mike Pesca (36:13)

Axios Ilhan Omar defends ideas of dismantling Minneapolis Police Department. CNN. There were members. There weren't many. There are 2020. Hold on. It's got to be 2020 if it's Minneapolis. Sorry. Anyway, I don't know why it's listening.

David Pakman (36:33)

Let's. I'll concede that maybe you found one fair. But. But I think we would both agree you were not hearing from Democratic leadership.

Mike Pesca (36:40)

Or people on either side of the.

David Pakman (36:42)

Capitol that they were saying we need to defund. Is that fair?

Mike Pesca (36:46)

I'm saying 12 to 20 Democrats in Congress believed in defunding or they would use wiggle phrases like we need to reimagine how policing are funding and they committed to this when speaking to their people. This was a policy position they held.

David Pakman (37:04)

I would want to. Not many but I would want to fact check that. It's not my recollection election but I think the big. The big takeaway for me is I think the path forward with policing is in some cases you might need more funding. Actually is the truth. And this is what I laid out because oftentimes limited funding leads to low effort policing which is you just kind of patrol areas known for crime. And this often creates an environment that actually can even can have. Have effects that you don't want. So anyway, my policy is not blanket defunding. I certainly didn't support that. Is it. Was it a problem to be seen that way for Democrats at the time? Certainly that was a problem.

Mike Pesca (37:45)

Yeah. I found another one from 2020, CNN K File. Kamala Harris praised defund the police movement in June 2020 radio interview. So it was out there. I'm just saying it wasn't most, but it was out there. Another question, another issue, bigger issue. Do you think it was the Republican echo chamber?

David Pakman (38:04)

Mike, I'm sorry to interrupt. You've used the term echo chamber a couple of times. I talk about the echo machine chamber is more of a passive thing. What I'm really describing here is a proactive thing. It's fine for you to say echo chamber. I just don't talk about one in the book.

Mike Pesca (38:19)

Okay. Was it the Republican echo machine that told us that Biden was too old and mentally degraded to be a successful presidential candidate or president? President.

David Pakman (38:29)

Was it the, Was it the echo machine that told us Biden was too old? I guess.

Mike Pesca (38:36)

I guess I'm not sure what you're getting. Okay. One, my thesis is that Democrats mislead as well. Democrats engage their own echo machines to often lead the public. Mislead the public, misinform the public. A major example of this was, I think a lot of people would point to, wait a minute. Weren't Democrats being very misleading about Biden's mental ability to run for president and be president? So I'm asking you where that came from. Was it mostly a consequence of Republican misinformation that spread that idea there?

David Pakman (39:21)

I mean, over a period of several years, there were a lot of sources about claims regarding Biden's health. I think that the, the echo machine certainly was making unfounded claims about Biden's health a long time before there seemed to be an issue. You know, I think one of the things I'm struggling with, Mike, is I'm, I'm not defending the Democratic Party here. And I also was not part of a bunch of the stuff that you're talking about. So I'm kind of like trying to put myself in the mindset said and the time of what was going on. I was of the position that Biden should not run for reelection. I mean, I, I thought Biden and Trump were both too old, that we needed younger leadership. After the disastrous Biden debate performance, I said, this is very clearly the beginning of the end. He's going to be pushed out. He's going to have to step aside. I was reinvigorated in my belief that he was wrong to even run for reelection. So, you know, was it the echo machine? You know, Trump was saying stuff about Biden's health before any of this stuff seemed real. So to that extent, I guess, but I don't know. This isn't something I write about in the book.

Mike Pesca (40:35)

No, but on your show you've talked about it. And when Biden was the president and candidate for president, you said that it was Republican misinformation and the inability of Republicans to accept the truth. Truth that was behind the claims that Biden was mentally deficient or had memory problems, especially as related to the investigation by Robert Her. I don't know if you remember those segments, but I went back and watched and this is what you said. You played tape. And I did too. You played tape of a House investigation where they peppered her with questions. Peppered her who? Robert Her.

David Pakman (41:17)

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said.

Mike Pesca (41:18)

H E R Special counsel Robert her was called in front of the House a House committee and pepper with questions from Democrats. And your conclusion was they just proved that Robert her was dishonest in describing Biden's memory issues and you framed it as part of the what you would later in your book talk about as the Republican machine, the Republican echo machine. But to me, and I think in retrospect, it seems that that Biden's memory issues were real and Robert her wasn't getting anything wrong. I think you mischaracterized that entire event by seeing things through the lens of Republicans are always trying to mislead us.

David Pakman (42:00)

That's not my recollection at all, Mike. My, my recollection is that from the beginning of Biden's presidency I would, and I would specifically cite the difference between Biden in 2012 when he ran circles around Paul Ryan and Biden in the 2020 debates. And you know, at every instance I made clear that this is not the same Joe Biden of 2012. And I also stated many times that there were claims coming from people with no connection or insight whatsoever into the Biden White House that seemed to depart from what we knew. I also, I mean, listen, I didn't think that he should run again. I don't know. I think what you're referring to specifically, and this was, this is years ago, so it's hard to remember exactly. I would have reviewed it if I had known. But I think that the issue with her was that there was a letter written before that testimony which characterized hers opinion of Biden's testimony one way and then and hers testimony in and of itself did not include a lot of those same characterizations. Yeah, and I think that's what I had a problem with.

Mike Pesca (43:14)

It wasn't a year ago. It was one year ago is March 2024. And what happened was Robert her put out a report that said that Joe Biden would be a bad witness because he would come across as a well intentioned but old man who had memory issues and Democrats and you who objected to that characterization. Then there was a hearing in front of Congress which Robert her was not really given or didn't choose to answer fully. That gave the impression that Robert her gave misleading accounts of Biden's memory. None of that.

David Pakman (43:50)

Well, when he was asked for a single example of something Biden couldn't remember, he couldn't provide him. Right?

Mike Pesca (43:55)

No. He said that Biden couldn't remember the year of his son's death. Death.

David Pakman (44:00)

Right. But the transcript later undercut that and it turned out to be a lie.

Mike Pesca (44:04)

Incorrect. He could not remember the year of his son's death. He could remember the month and date of his son's death, but he couldn't remember the year of his son's death. The entire reason it was an issue is that Joe Biden got mad about it and said how dare he implicate my son. That was a whole example. This is the reason why I bring it up. I'm not nitpicking one thing that you said that turned out to be incorrect, but you have a book, you have a frame name to let us know that Republicans are engaged in misinformation, actively engaged in misinformation. You understand how that works. You're an arbiter of that. But I think that there are many instances where Democrats have been engaged in misinformation and you were carried along to this day. You didn't even know what Robert her got wrong. Maybe it's not important to you, but.

David Pakman (44:47)

To me, I don't know credibility.

Mike Pesca (44:49)

I just, I just don't get things wrong a lot for the.

David Pakman (44:53)

I just think you're describing it incorrectly right now.

Mike Pesca (44:55)

I do. You do. What do you think I got you?

David Pakman (44:59)

I think that it was the claim that Biden was forgetful was undercut by the testimony and the transcript.

Mike Pesca (45:05)

But that's not accurate. He was forgetful. That's what Robert Her. You don't think what we know now that Joe Biden was forgetful. You think it's not plausible that in an extended interview that Joe Biden wouldn't have memory lapses. We saw Joe Biden have memory lapses right in front of us.

David Pakman (45:25)

It's just so weird that Robert Hur was unable to substantiate it. But again, you're. I think the. Maybe the problem Here is, and I don't know, I'm not familiar enough to know whether there's a desire to strike a false balance here or not. But one of the things is that I had said from the beginning and at numerous intermediary points, I don't think Biden should be running.

Mike Pesca (45:50)

But not for mental.

David Pakman (45:51)

There was certainly a time for policy.

Mike Pesca (45:54)

Issues or for mental incompetence issues. Sorry, what for policy reasons or mental incompetence reasons?

David Pakman (46:01)

Just too, too old and slowing down. Yeah, it had nothing to do with policy.

Mike Pesca (46:04)

Okay. Do you think that the right wing echo machine was behind, for instance, not for instance specifically Joe Manchin objecting to funding what would become the inflation reduction act to the amount that Bernie Sanders and other more left leaning members of the Democratic Party wanted?

David Pakman (46:32)

I have no idea. That was not a major story in my universe. Manchin was always a right leaning Democrat and there was no particular. It didn't raise any red flag or. I don't even remember that being a big story. To be honest, Mike, I certainly was not covering it.

Mike Pesca (46:51)

Oh yeah, no, I'm sure you talked about. It was the biggest story when they passed the inflation reduction Act. This was the second biggest post Covid spend.

David Pakman (46:59)

Manchin didn't vote for it.

Mike Pesca (47:00)

Yeah, at first he did it and then he relented at a price tag about half of what Sanders did. To me, here's another example of, of when I would monitor the news, there is a, there was a right and left framing of the story and the left framing of the story it was something like mansions are Republican. Republicans will always mislead us about the effect of stimulus. We understimulated during the financial crisis. We can't do that again question the motives of Manchin and right leaning people when it comes to worry about the deficit. I think in retrospect, everything that Manchin was saying, everything that the more right leaning, the right leaning portions of that debate proved to be correct. So I'm trying to think, if I went into it having read the echo machine and thinking, all right, we know that Republicans try to undercut critical thinking. We know that Republicans have always lied about these things. Things I would not help but say, well, on this debate, what would the effect of the Manchin version of stimulus versus the Bernie Sanders version of stimulus? I have to be strongly suspicious, if not outright reject the Manchin version of stimulus. But reality didn't play out that way.

David Pakman (48:24)

Yeah, I, I don't write about that in the book and it was not a big story on my show. So it's very difficult for me to speak to it. You know one of the things is is I am really trying to do apply an 8020 principle here and really think about what is the 20% of areas in which we could do 80% of the good. Right. So. So like for example I would look at we are told by the right that the US is simply too large a country to do what other countries do on health care. It simply wouldn't work. We've got to have the system we have have. I think that is damaging to tens of millions of people. And so that's an area of focus for me. Another example when it comes to economics, repeated tax plans that are sold as good for the middle class which really enrich the already extremely rich and corporations. I think that hurts tens of millions of people. So I'm really talking about like what I consider to be the biggest biggest stuff education, etc. The mansion vote on Ira. I just don't remember. I take your word for it that Manchin and Bernie had different views. I'd have to analyze who was right. I don't know exactly whose position was what on that particular issue. Ira contained a bunch of stuff that I liked. I'm sure I could find things in it that that I didn't like but it just was not. It was not. Ira was not part of the book are part of my analysis of the biggest areas where we could help people.

Mike Pesca (50:00)

David Pakman is the host of the David Pakman show. It's a YouTube show, it's a podcast and his new book is called the Echo Machine. Thank you, David.

David Pakman (50:08)

My pleasure.

Mike Pesca (50:14)

That's it for today's show. Cory Warra produces the gist. Astrid Green is in charge of our Instagram and social media and Michelle Peskis, CBSO of Peachfish Productions improve And thanks for listening.