‘Woke 1’ and the Red-Green DSA: A Distinction Without a Difference

Summary

---

The Josh Hammer Show

Episode: ‘Woke 1’ and the Red-Green DSA: A Distinction Without a Difference

Date: August 11, 2026
Host: Josh Hammer

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Josh Hammer critically examines the ongoing evolution—or lack thereof—of the “woke” political movement within the American left, especially as embodied by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and high-profile figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). He argues that so-called shifts from "Woke 1.0" to newer iterations are issues of branding rather than substance. Hammer connects these themes to contemporary primary races, Democratic Party divisions, and the recent trend of strange political alliances. Later, he shifts focus to the impact of America’s litigation culture on economic issues, featuring an expert interview with economist Ike Brannan.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Is There Really a “Woke 2.0”? The Case of AOC and the DSA

• AOC’s Shift?
  Hammer discusses AOC’s recent public distancing from “Woke 1.0” and critiques her for trying to laugh off past controversial stances, such as her support for “Defund the Police.”
  • “Woke one was crazy. Ha ha ha ha. Let's laugh it off. I mean, look at Jonathan Karl. Look at this absolute slob of a journalist... Are we just expected to conveniently forget all that you batcrap crazy lunatics were shouting and spouting as far as the eye can see back around the time of the martyrdom of St. George Floyd?” (05:00)
• No Real Policy Change:
  Hammer insists that despite the rebranding, the DSA platform and AOC’s views have not truly changed—only their rhetorical emphasis has.
  • “There actually is no difference. There is no difference. As Karol Marquis concludes in her column, ‘Are we supposed to really believe that AOC doesn't think this anymore, or is she just savvy enough to say otherwise?... There is no Woke 2. It’s exactly the same as Woke 1, just better focus grouped.’” (07:30)

2. The Red-Green Alliance & DSA's Political Strategy

• DSA’s Enduring Radicalism:
  Despite some candidates downplaying culture war themes in favor of economic policies, Hammer argues DSA’s actual policies remain unchanged and radical.
• Case Study – Francesca Hong (Wisconsin Governor’s Race):
  Once vocal on “cancel Thanksgiving” and other cultural topics, Hong now pivots to promoting left-wing economic proposals, but Hammer points out the core ideology is intact.
  • “If there is some switch from ‘woke one’ to ‘woke two,’ it is one not of substance, but one of rhetorical emphasis.” (10:10)
• Implication for Swing States:
  Hammer suggests Democratic overreach in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan could provoke voter backlash, benefiting conservatives.
  • “Are Democrats overplaying their hand in states like this? I tend to think that the answer is yes.” (20:43)

3. Democratic Party Divides: Old Guard vs. Radicals

• Primary Losses & Internal Rifts:
  Hammer analyzes examples such as Haley Stevens’ loss in Michigan to Abdul El Sayed, emphasizing the growing influence of hard-left and “red-green” (left-Islamist) alliances within the party.
  • “The left has the dying old guard... the Chuck Schumers of the world... just opening up the big tent. Ideas all matter.” (14:25)
• Stevens’ Reluctance:
  Stevens struggles to endorse her primary opponent, revealing discomfort with party shifts.
  • “Haley Stevens says that her most recent state party convention for the Michigan Democrats got a little crazy, got a little out of hand.” (18:56)
• DSA’s Reckoning Looms:
  Hammer predicts electoral consequences for the DSA’s hardline stances.
  • “The bill is going to come due for peddling Woke 2, which again is really no different than Woke 1. The American people have woken up.” (21:35)

4. The Horseshoe Theory & Strange Bedfellows

• Populist Convergence:
  Hammer highlights odd coalitions forming at the extremes (far right and far left), including strange alliances and public displays such as Marjorie Taylor Greene appearing cordial with Code Pink activists.
• Tucker Carlson & Hunter Biden Friendship:
  The host expresses skepticism over Tucker Carlson’s authenticity, noting his personal ties with Hunter Biden despite previous opposition reporting.
  • “Is there anyone less credible in America today to assess whether someone else is a good or bad human being than Hunter Biden? Really? That guy?” (26:14)
• Cynicism on Political Operations:
  Hammer questions whether Carlson’s and others’ stances are genuine or calculated to serve broader, possibly nefarious, ends.

5. Litigation Culture and Economic Impact – Guest Interview: Ike Brannan

Interview begins at 34:00

• The Cost of Mass Tort Litigation:
  • Brannan explains how class action and tort lawsuits, especially in liberal jurisdictions, burden ordinary Americans by driving up the cost of goods and services.
  • “We’ve basically created a legal atmosphere that bends way over for the rights of the people who are filing a lawsuit. The size of these tortuous lawsuits have grown exponentially.” (34:38)
• Examples:
  • Monsanto/Roundup Case:
    Supreme Court intervention in “junk science” mass tort claims (36:20).
  • Medical Malpractice:
    Litigation fears drive costly, sometimes unnecessary medical procedures, ultimately raising insurance premiums (38:00).
    • “For an early stage cancer, doing a lumpectomy is exactly as effective as doing a radical mastectomy. But doctors felt like they couldn't risk this. And so for decades, we went to a situation where doctors routinely did radical mastectomies, which cost hospitals a lot more... all because of tort lawsuits.” (38:00)
• Policy Solutions:
  • Reform venue shopping in lawsuits (“form shopping”), as seen in Illinois and Texas (40:30).
  • Congress has constitutional authority to regulate multi-district/class action litigation to limit abuse (43:02).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Woke 1.0 vs. Woke 2.0:
  • “There actually is no difference. There is no difference... There is no Woke 2. It’s exactly the same as Woke 1, just better focus grouped.” (07:30)
• On AOC’s Past Rhetoric:
  • “I’m old enough to remember back in 2018... when AOC was describing the ICE facilities at the time as concentration camps.” (06:50)
• On Odd Political Alliances:
  • “Is there anyone less credible in America today to assess whether someone else is a good or bad human being than Hunter Biden? Really? That guy?” (26:14)
• On Litigation Costs:
  • “We’ve basically created a legal atmosphere... the size of these tortuous lawsuits have grown exponentially.” (34:38)
  • “If you only have a few people in one particular district and it doesn’t look like it’s going to be enough for a lawyer to bother with his time... then you try to expand it and pick up people in multiple districts.” – Ike Brannan (42:17)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• AOC, DSA, and “Woke 1.0 vs. 2.0”: 00:30 – 13:39
• Democratic Party Divisions (Michigan/Minnesota/Wisconsin Primaries): 13:39 – 23:04
• Horseshoe Theory & Tucker/Hunter Segment: 23:39 – 33:32
• Litigation Culture and Tort Reform (Guest: Ike Brannan): 33:32 – 43:27

---

Summary

This episode of The Josh Hammer Show dives deep into contemporary left-wing political strategies, especially the rhetorical rebranding of “wokeness” versus policy continuity as seen in figures like AOC and organizations like the DSA. Hammer warns listeners not to be fooled by surface-level changes, maintaining that the underlying ideology remains unchanged—and potentially dangerous. He highlights internal Democratic rifts, critiques emergent oddball political alliances populating both fringe sides of the spectrum, and finally, in a guest interview, explores the economic impact of American litigation culture with policy recommendations for reform. The tone throughout is combative, irreverent, and deeply skeptical of left/progressive politics—typical of Josh Hammer’s New Right commentary.

---

Transcript

[A]

This is John Hichta with AARP and I want to talk to you about the money you pay into Social Security. With every paycheck, folks. That's money you earned. But special interests in D.C. are pushing to reduce your Social Security payments and annual cost of living increase. They don't get how much Americans depend on Social Security, but AARP is fighting to stop them. Go to aarp.org we earned it to join our fight. Paid for by AARP.

[B]

AOC says that woke one was crazy. Which raises the obvious question what the heck version of woke are we on right now? Don't be fooled. Woke one never went anywhere. They're doing a rebranding and it's the exact same thing, just in disguise. I'm Josh Hammer and this is the Josh Hammer Show. So AOC Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who in in many ways is one of the leaders of the left, I would personally argue, I think that she has been surpassed by Zormadani at this point. Aoc, whose career was boosted by the dsa, the Democratic Socialist America, when she first ran for Congress back in 2018, trying to be and succeeding as the John Lennon, the star singer of the squad, which has existed for a few Congresses, AOC had her DSA credentials actually pulled notably in 2024 where she did not go as far all in on the anti Israel cause in particular that the DSA wanted. So the DSA apparently has some very specific criteria that you must meet in order to get their much coveted endorsement if you're running as a Democrat for Congress, Senate, Governor or whatever have you. And apparently AOC did not meet their criteria. I don't know which vote it was, but that's the situation with aoc. So AOC is in a very interesting spot because a lot of folks think that she might just challenge Chuck schumer for the U.S. senate seat in New York state come 2028. That's probably where I come down as well. There are a lot of other folks, including it seems Harry Entin of CNN, who we had on the show just last Friday, who think that AOC is gearing up for a presidential run. And she's not denying it. She is not dismissing it. In fact, she joined ABC's this Week with Jonathan Carl on the Sunday circuit this past Sunday. We're talking about, we were talking about her yesterday as well because this whole egg freezing thing. So AOC has been all think about trying to make headlines in the midterm cycle, gearing up for 2028. Okay, maybe she actually might be running for president. So she's freezing her eggs, making a whole big stink about it, and now she's also throwing woke 1.0, whatever that even means, under the bus. Here was AOC on Sunday talking with Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

[C]

Right. I mean, I think that a lot of these races, even right now, they'll have a tendency to be nationalized, but these races ultimately are local, and all politics are local. My understanding is that is. Is that Francesca Hong has made clear her present stances to her.

[B]

Yeah, she's moved away from.

[C]

Right, she's moved away from it. And I have a local city councilman that has this saying, woke one was crazy.

[B]

Woke one was crazy.

[D]

Okay, that's true.

[B]

And.

[C]

And I think that what's important is that we have to assess, what was it?

[B]

I mean, did the movement go too far with some of those positions?

[C]

I mean, you.

[B]

You briefly supported the idea of defunding the police.

[E]

Well, you know, I think.

[C]

I think that during this time and during. Especially during COVID there was a huge opening of the overtone window. We were shut down. There was some of the highest unemployment rates that we have seen because of those shutdowns.

[B]

So woke one was crazy. Ha ha ha ha. Let's laugh it off. I mean, I mean, look at Jonathan Karl. Look at this absolute slob of a journalist. Abc just. Ha ha ha. Oh, yeah. Laughing off. Wokwen. What? I mean, I'm sorry, but can the American people be expected to just have a giant amnesia episode? Are we just expected to conveniently forget all that? You batcrap crazy lunatics were shouting and spouting as far as the eye can see back around the time of the martyrdom of St. George Floyd. Really? Is that actually what is expected of we the people? My good friend Carol Markowitz has a column in today's New York Post that talks about some of the highlights, or lowlights, if you will, of what AOC is seemingly now trying to walk back. So in today's New York Post, Carol Markowitz writes, In June 2020, when New York State proposed cutting the NYPD's budget by $1.5 billion, AOC didn't think that went far enough. Defunding police means defunding police. It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. A month later, she said, quote, crime is a symptom of a diseased society that neglects its most marginalized people, and we do not solve that problem with police. But here's the thing. It actually wasn't just the whole George Floyd thing. You see, in that interview with Carl AOC is saying, ah, it was George Floyd, Black Lives Matter. It was a crazy time. It was like Woodstock. Six girls smoking weed past the pipe. Ah, Kumbaya. No, no, says Carol Markowitz in her column. It goes further than that. And she's right, quote. But it wasn't just a symptom of the lockdowns as AOC portrays it today. Before COVID back in 2019, AOC tweeted that quote, we need to have a real conversation about decarceration and prison abolition in this country. I mean, heck, I'm old enough to Remember back in 2018. 19, right when she was elected during the first Trump term, when AOC was describing the ICE facilities at the time as concentration camps. This was kind of a predecessor to the full scale moral perversion that Israel are Nazis, et cetera, et cetera. She was doing that all the way back then by taking these legitimate law enforcement facilities to enforce this nation's immigration law and call them con strange camps. Now, today, in the era of Trump 2.0, how many times do you hear Democrats spout off about how ICE or Gestapo are Nazis? It's disgusting. But my point is that AOC was doing that seven years ago and now we're tempted to just forget this. But the most important thing is this. There actually is no difference. There is no difference. As Karol Marquis concludes in her column, quote, are we supposed to really believe that AOC doesn't think this anymore, or is she just savvy enough to say otherwise? There is no Woke 2. It's exactly the same as Woke 1, just better focus grouped. And therein lies the rub. That's all this is. They're looking at the polls. They see that things like abolished prison are what, a 95 to 5 issue, literal open borders, part of the DSA plank. They see it as what, a 90 10, 95 to 5 issue. This Sophie Cunningham stuff is still all in the news when it comes to wnba. So they look at issues like biological men, women's sports, which Ines Cantor is now trying to do in the. In the wnba. And good for him. That's hilarious. I love the troll move. But the AOCs of the world who are gearing up for some sort of run, whether it's Senate or the presidency, they look at that and they see an 8020 issue. So what are they doing? Their solution is to do ha ha ha ha ha Woke Almost crazy. Well, what do you believe now? Well, I'll tell you what they believe now. It's pretty freaking obvious. In fact, the DSA just released a whole platform. They literally released a document articulating what it is they believe they did that just about a month ago. It's crazy. It calls to seize the means of production and all this various other socialist, Marxist claptrap. It calls to abolish ICE and not fully, fully, fully to abolish prisons, but pretty darn close to abolishing prisons to severely downsize whatever the exact word of choice is. Now, we have primaries all across the country today where some of this is getting played out in real time. So there are primaries in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut and Vermont today. Also a special election in South Carolina to replace Lindsey Graham, his sister Darlene Graham, running for a full term against a number of other candidates, including Ralph Norman and the disgraced former governor Mark Sanford. A lot of eyes are on the race for governor in Wisconsin. We have this candidate, Francesca Hong. So Francesca Hong, well, she was all in on Woke 1.0, shall we say? She was all the way in on Woke 1.0. How we know that? Because one of her earliest post that seemed to go viral on social media elsewhere was when she called to cancel Thanksgiving. And now she's trying to kind of sort of walk it back. She had this line on the campaign troll, ah, you know, I joined Twitter and then they all said, twitter, we kind of all say dumb stuff, we regret it. And now she's trying to walk it back. She's probably going to win. She's probably going to win this race, actually. Which means that she will go up against Tom Tiffany for governor in one of the nation's most crucial battlegrounds, Wisconsin. Francesca Hong is also not just a leftist culture warrior trying to abolish Thanksgiving. She's also a bread and butter socialist, AKA a core aoc, DSA type. Here was Francesca Hong saying that voters are telling me they want to tax the ultra rich. Here was Francesca Hong, courtesy of Fox News Digital.

[D]

I learned then you have some hot takes, sometimes bad takes on Twitter. And I let my feelings out into the world. And right now as governor, what I'm most serious about are the issues that voters are telling me they want solutions for, for permanent affordability, to tax the ultra rich, to make sure we're getting corruption like he is out of politics, to make sure that we're fully funding public schools and that we're fighting for universal childcare and raising wages.

[B]

So what she's trying to do here is to distance herself from the culture warring crusade to cancel Thanksgiving, to focus on taxing the quote unquote, ultra Rich, whatever that even means. So if there is some switch from quote, unquote woke one to quote, unquote woke two, it is one not of substance, but one of rhetorical emphasis. They're trying to make you think that they're leaving the social cultural issues aside and focusing now on the economic issues. There are two problems with that, two glaring problems with that. One is that the economic issues are terrifying. They're calling for socialism. They're quoting Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. They actually want to bring the failed economic endeavors of Nicolas Maduro, Hugo Chavez era, Venezuela, Fidel Castro era, Cuba, Soviet Union and on. They want to bring that here to the United States. That is terrifying unto itself. These are failed ideologies that have only resulted in pain, suffering, immiseration, and most tragic of all, in tens and tens of millions of dead people through the totalitarianism that socialism and communism inevitably will lead to. The second key point is this. They're actually not giving up on the social issues again. I mentioned the DSA platform. It's all in there. All of the things you would expect when it comes to the police, the prisons, the transgenderism, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's all there. That's it. It's an issue, in other words, of what they choose to emphasize in their campaign literature when they go on social media, when they put out campaign videos and things like that. There is no difference in the policy. It is just the same old wretched, horrific wine in a slightly, slightly revamped focus grouped skin. That is all that is going on here. Do not be bamboozled. Unfortunately, it does seem like some of these radicals like Hong, are likely winners in today's primaries. We'll see how it goes. The DSA continues to be on the up and up, folks. We'll have to go to a quick break. We'll be right back with much more after this.

[F]

For nearly 3,000 years, Homer's the Odyssey has shaped Western imagination. It tells the story of Odysseus as he faces monsters, shipwrecks, false comforts and impossible choices on his long journey home. As one of the foundational works of Western literature, Homer's epic is more than a mythology. It explores permanent questions about courage, duty, loyalty, family, leadership, temptation, and the search for home. In one of the epic's defining moments, Odysseus rejects the offer of immortality from the goddess Calypso, choosing instead the long and difficult journey home. His decision reveals one of the central themes of the Odyssey, that a life of duty, family and home is greater than a life devoted to comfort or glory. Achilles chose glory. Odysseus chose home. That's why Hillsdale College has released its newest free online course, the Odyssey. Taught by Professor Benedict Whelan. The course reveals why Homer's masterpiece remains one of the greatest works of of Western literature. Find this free course at charlie for hillsdale.com that's charlie for hillsdale.com read the classics, study the West. The Odyssey from Hillsdale college. Go to charlieforhillsdale.com

[B]

welcome back. So to recap, there is no difference in substance between Woke 1 and Woke 2. If anything, there is a slight difference in emphasis from the culture warring issues to the absolutely horrifying economic issues that the DSA socialists and radical Comm. Peddled today. But even on those underlying cultural issues, there is actually no difference. And even more to the point, if there is a difference, what is it? Tell us. You know Jonathan Karl, he should have pressed AOC Woquin was crazy. Ha ha ha. Well, what was crazy? But like, be more specific, what was crazy was saying that the ICE facilities in Trump 1, comparing those to concentration camps. Was that crazy? Calling for the full abolition of prisons, get rid of the carceral state, to quote these loons. Was that crazy? If not, what was crazy? You're trying to laugh it off. Well, tell us, detail how exactly your policy platform, how your political beliefs have changed, have evolved, as Barack Obama might have put it, between let's call it 2020 in the George Floyd era to now in the year 2026. I have not heard an answer because none of them can actually give an answer. Again, it's the exact same thing. Now a related question to this is how can Democrats possibly unite? They are, if anything, more riven than Republicans are at the time. This is one of Republicans many potential silver linings as they look to make a play against all the odds to maintain both houses of Congress come January 2027. Yes, the right side of the political aisle has many of its internal debates. We will actually wade into another one of those shortly. So stay tuned for that. And we have debates when it comes to foreign policy, perhaps first and foremost when it comes to economic policy populism versus laissez faire fundamentalism, there's all sorts of interesting debates happening on the right. But the left, oh man, the left has the dying old guard. I mean, quite literally dying. In the case of some of these boomers and people older than boomers, the Chuck Schumers of the world, you have the old guard that's barely putting up a Fight. They're just opening up the big tent. Ideas all matter. There was a fascinating interview on this exact topic this morning on Fox News. So Haley Stevens, who just lost her hotly contested and very expensive U.S. senate primary in Michigan just last Tuesday to the Muslim Brotherhood dark course candidate Abdul El Sayed, the man who has brought in over $115,000 in donation from entities such as CAIR and ISNA, which are Muslim Brotherhood Hamas title organizations. Haley Stevens, who was running as a Clinton era throwback, ish. I mean, a relative moderate for today's Democrat Party standards, she ended up losing that primary narrowly, but still lost after, after massively outspending Abdul Al Assad on the airways. And, and she joined Fox News this morning for a tough but fair interview and was asked, among other things, about how she, who calls herself, among other things, a Zionist, how she can possibly get behind a candidate, Abdul Syed, who is anything but that, and whose state party, the Michigan Democratic Party, currently has a convention that will be held at the end of this month where the sitting Attorney General of Michigan, a Jewish woman, a Democrat. A Democrat. Well, it says that she will not go to that convention because she does not want to be harassed. So Haley Stevens asked about that on Fox News. Here's what she said. I don't know.

[E]

You know, look, my, my Democratic opponent, now the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan has disavowed socialism. You know, I think we all should, you know, it's dangerous. I, you know, I, look, I'm a proud labor capitalist, Democratic labor capitalist. And you know, that was something that was humdrumming throughout my campaign. So, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll see, you know, you sort of see some of this stuff, you know, eking out. I haven't really had a ton of interactions or if at all, I really haven't had any interactions with DSA and what they're, they're all about. But I will tell you, you know,

[B]

what I'm all about.

[G]

You had a chance there in the campaign too quickly.

[B]

Okay. So honestly, I had not spent a whole lot of time with Haley Stevens, but now that I see interviews like this, I'm frankly not shocked that she lost. She's not exactly the most charismatic individual, is she? Abdul S, whatever you might say. And, and there's a lot to be said, is a charismatic, glib, well spoken, polished individual. In many ways, he actually is Zoram Donni, potentially even more dangerous for the very similar reason that Mamdani is actually not born here. He's therefore not A natural citizen, he therefore is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. Abdul Syed, not the case. Born here, unfortunately, is eligible, God forbid, for the presidency. But in other parts of that interview, Haley Stevens says that her most recent state party convention for the Michigan Democrats got a little crazy, got a little out of hand. She talked about how some of the quote unquote attendees got a little out of hand. Hmm. What attendees would those be? Oh yeah, the Hezbollah caucus that calls Dearborn, Michigan home, AKA the voter base for Abdul Syed, who Haley Stevens is now begrudgingly going to campaign for. In fact, the final question of that interview was the interviewer ask. Haley Stevens says, to be clear, you will campaign for Abdul Syed. Right. And she wouldn't even affirmatively say yes. She phrased it in a hilariously politician like way and said, well, you know, I campaign for Democrats and therefore I campaign for Democrats. Or some garbage nonsensical circular answer such as that. So they have real problems. And the nric, the nrcc, maga, Inc, the super PAC supporting President Trump and his endorsees, all the whole conservative, monetary, financial, political infrastructure system should go all in on trying to drive this wedge. This is the key that picks the lock to potential victory this November. You actually see some of that a little bit on the campaign trail. So we mentioned already Francesca Hong, we played the clip of her saying, ah, Thanksgiving cancellation. Yeah, we all say dumb things on Twitter.

[G]

Right.

[B]

So interestingly, Francesca Hong, who is likely going to win this race, I mean, don't get your hopes up. Exactly. That'll be anyone other than Francesca Hong. She is crushing her opposition in the polls. But the notable thing is this. All the stars of the dsa, aoc, Bernie Sanders, people like that, they're mia. They're not actually in Wisconsin. They're not there campaigning for her today. Why? Well, one, I think they recognize that there is a candidate problem. Francesca Hong, much like Kelly Stevens, is not necessarily the most charismatic, well, presenting, well spoken individual on camera. But Wisconsin is also a major swing state. For that matter, Michigan is only a slightly less major swing state. It's basically the same thing. They are two of the the iconic Rust Belt swing states. So are Democrats overplaying their hand in states like this? I tend to think that the answer is yes. Ultimately it will be up to the voters to make that decision. In Minnesota, which is also part of the broader Midwest. It's not quite as swingy a state as Wisconsin and Michigan, but also Minnesota. There was a big primary today on the Democratic side of the aisle. So Tina Smith is the incumbent senator who is resigning. And there was a hotly contested primary between Angie Craig, a sitting U.S. congresswoman who's running as the competitor comparative relative moderate. She's running against the far left Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan. That name might ring a bell for you, and if it does, because Peggy Flanagan was one of the leading arsonists during the DHS ice descent into the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul back in January. So where you had that whole saga in the context of the Somali fraud happening, the billions millions of dollars in Tim Walsh overseen fraud happening in Minnesota, you had the Trump DHS under Chrissy Noem and Trump ice, they all went into Minnesota. It feels like a political lifetime go. It actually was just in January. So Peggy Flanagan was one of the leading arsonists, calling people on the streets the protests, those protest traps, we ended up resulting in multiple fatalities, lest we forget. So Peggy Flanagan is likely going to win this race where she will likely go up against Michelle Tafoya, the former podcast host and former NFL sideline reporter. So lots of very interesting races to look out for. But the dsa, I do feel, is going to have a reckoning. That reckoning might not be today. It might not be in the primaries. That reckoning might be, in fact, I think will be this November. Abdul Syed is not going to win that race in Michigan. He's not. Francesca Hong is not going to win that race in Wisconsin. The bill is going to come due for peddling Woke 2, which again is really no different than Woke 1. The American people have woken up. That's why Trump was reelected in 2024 in the first place. You can't do this stupid rebranding exercise without ditching the substance. That's the key insight here. And the DSA ultimately, sooner rather than later, God willing, will pay the price. Folks, we can go to another break. We'll be right back with more on the other side.

[H]

Life can be messy, but you don't have to figure it out alone.

[A]

Hey, it's the Lusco.

[H]

Join pastors and best selling authors Levi and Jenn Lusko. And hey, it's the Lusko's for honest conversations about faith, marriage, family, grief, ministry and all the unexpected moments in between. You'll laugh, you'll be encouraged, and you'll be reminded that God is faithful through every season.

[A]

It will always come back to Jesus in the end.

[H]

That's right. Tune in to hey, it's the Luskos with Levi and Jenny Lusko available now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

Welcome back. So we are living in a very interesting political moment. And some folks tend to describe our moment as a horseshoe of sorts. This is an old political phrase. There are pros and cons to the horseshoe analogy. It's not really worth getting into the details of the analogy, but there is, whatever you want to call it, there definitely is before our eyes this reality that there are some folks on the quote unquote far right and the quote unquote far left that seem to be making common cause. There are any number of examples to point to. I can think, most recently before she resigned in disgrace from Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, AKA Marjorie Trader Greene, who was smiling and yucking it up with the Chinese Communist Party sycophanting pinko commie America hating radicals of Code Pink in the halls of the U.S. house. That would just be one example. There was a fascinating example that took place in Bryant Pond, Maine, which is an idyllic little town that has been made slightly less idyllic by the president of a cancerous individual by the name of Tucker Carlson. So Tucker Carlson in his main cabin had a sit down with the prodigal presidential son himself, who happens to be an old friend of Tucker's. We'll get to that in just a second. Hunter Biden. Yes. Tucker and Hunter Biden sat down in rustic Maine and they yucked it up and yucked it up. And there's, there's so much potential fodder to, to flag for you from, from this interview. I think this clip kind of sums it all up is they had a love fest about Candace Owens. Yes, that Candace Owens. Here was this clip from the Tucker Carlson show on Tuesday. Let's go ahead and play that big time. And then I wake up one morning and you're doing Candace Owens.

[I]

I love Candace.

[B]

I do too.

[G]

I do too. I've taken a lot of abuse for saying that, but I know her and I, and I do, I think she's

[I]

a great, as a person.

[B]

Yeah.

[I]

Forget the, the politics and, and anything and, and largely why I'm, I'm sitting here. We've known each other for, you know, quite tangentially for 30 years.

[G]

Yes.

[I]

Is it. She as a human being is a really, really good person and, and thoughtful and generous and has a deep faith and, and I just vehemently disagree with some of her positions.

[B]

So before we go any further, I want to make the following observation. Is there anyone less credible in America today to assess whether someone else is a good or bad human being than Hunter Biden? Really? That guy? The former crack addict? The deadbeat dad who has a daughter who he still to this day potentially has not had any contact with really that guy. But there's so much to, to get to here. So I allude to the fact that Tucker and Hunter Biden, as you heard there, have been chummy for a very, very long time as they just discussed. So Hunter Biden, actually this is a very lesser known fact. I remember hearing it the first time years ago. My mind was blown. Hunter Biden wrote Tucker Carlson's son a letter of recommendation to get admitted to Georgetown University in D.C. where Hunter Biden is an alum. That's how close these two are, okay? That's how close. Tuck Carlson, the would be populist champion of the right. That's how close he is to the Biden family. But there is a broader. Well, there's multiple broad points make here, but. Well, go here for now. Hunter Biden had the infamous laptop, the laptop from hell, as Miranda Devine in the New York Post has so eloquently put it, the Hunter Biden laptop. I mean, I am old enough to remember when the Hunter Biden laptop was a big freaking deal. When Rudy Giuliani came across it, the Delaware repair shop, the whole story, it broke a few weeks before the disputed 2020 election. I remember when you had immediately, within 24 hours, the letter of the 51 deep state spooks, Clapper and Brennan, all the rest of the gang who dismissed it as Russian disinformation, which it turned out not to be. Years later, CBS would put an apology, paragraph, buried 13 paragraphs into a random article saying, oh yeah, that actually was legitimate, the laptop. But the ultimate corroboration, affirmation came in 2024 when the US government, the Special counsel who was pursuing Hunter Biden at the time, submitted the laptop as evidence when they are prosecuted Hunter Biden for a gun charge in his home state of Delaware. So I think back to that whole laptop saga. Tucker Carlson, who was on Fox News at the time, was one of many folks on the right who were making a big deal about the laptop. And the laptop, by the way, was the first example of mass, mass unambiguous, undeniable, big tech censorship. That is when Meta and Facebook and Instagram and X, which was then Twitter under Jack Dorsey on the Unchart regime there in, in Twitter, they, they all went all in to censor the laptop. You are not allowed to tweet out the link to the laptop. You're not allowed to, you're not allowed to share the link privately. The New York Post, which broke the story, was Banned from X for weeks. The fourth largest newspaper in America. Literally six years later, I'm still blunt. The fourth largest newspaper in America, The New York Post. Founded by no less a founding father than Alexander Hamilton himself. The Post was locked out of their own Twitter account with weeks to go in presidential election. Why? Because they had the temerity to report the now we know, accurate, legitimate Hunter Biden laptop. And here is Tucker Carlson years later, just yucking it up. But the prodigal son himself, Hunter Biden. They talked about the Epstein class. Oh, we're both insiders gone rogue. We're now, we're now populous. But was Tucker's show just. Just an OP at the time? It's definitely an op now. I mean, that should be obvious. It's an OP on behalf of America's enemies on behalf of Moscow and Dugin on behalf of. Of China and Xi Jinping on behalf of Doka and the Muslim Brotherhood on behalf of Iran and et cetera, et cetera. It's obviously an OP now, but was it also an OP back then in 2020 when Tuck would bring on guests like Brandon Devine? Talk about the Hunter Biden laptop. What was he doing? I mean, did he believe it? I presume the answer is no. How could he credibly talk about the Hunter Biden laptop while he was having Hunter write a recommendation letter for his son to get admitted into a tony university like Georgetown? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's why they're back at it here, just having a beer together and having a good time deep in the woods of idyllic summertime Maine? I mean, back when Tucker had people like Tony Bobulinski, there's name for the past, the IRS whistleblower. Was all this just an OP to try to establish Tucker's credibility in the broader right wing media space, therefore trying to inoculate us against his later nefarious turn? Listen, I don't know the answer. I'm just saying that this is. It's more than a little weird, by the way, one of the most hilarious, one of the most inadvertently hilarious parts of this Tucker Hunter kumbaya session deep in the Maine woods. You know, one of my favorite guilty pleasures is looking at the Tucker Carlson episodes and he puts out the timestamps and just looking at the headlines for the timestamps. I look at these headlines and I'm like, this is literally a conversation for the loony bin. It's a. These are phrasings and topics and the whole conversation is better fit for an insane asylum than for respectable political discourse. Anyway, they had a time sent yesterday on this topic. How was Israel and how Israel was involved in in the Hunter Bind laptop, of course, because of course, of course it goes back to the Jews. If I'm mistaken, Hunter Biden is actually technically married to a Jewish woman, which again shows that means absolutely literally nothing whatsoever. You can still say and believe a whole lot of idiotic crap. I look forward to seeing this story corrected by folks on the right because Hunter Bind Laptop was a big deal. It was a really big deal. It opened many of our eyes to the scope and breadth and depth of big tech censorship in America. And for Tucker to now play footsie with this years later is gross. It is vile and it does yeoman's work to expose him even further for the absolute despicable charlatan that he has become and possibly who he always has been. Folks, we're going to one final break. We'll be right back with our guests after this. Stay with us.

[H]

Life can be messy, but you don't have to figure it out alone.

[A]

Hey, it's the Lusko.

[H]

Join pastors and best selling authors Levi and Jenny Lusko on Hey, it's the Lusko's for honest conversations about faith, marriage, family, grief, ministry and all the unexpected moments in between. You'll laugh, you'll be encouraged, and you'll be reminded that God is faithful through every season.

[A]

It will always come back to Jesus in the end.

[D]

That's right.

[H]

Tune in to hey it's the Luskos with Levi and Jenny Lusko available now wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

Welcome back. So one of our go to lines here on the show, as James Carville famously said when he was running the Bill Clinton campaign all those years ago, was that it's the economy, stupid and inflation, affordability, cost of living. These really are the topics that voters will bear to mind this November. One of the under discussed aspects of that is the realm of litigation and how litigation costs actually can affect the price of all that we do and all that we consume. So on the note, I want to welcome today's guest. He is Ike Brannan. So Ike Brannan is a Washington, D.C. based economist. He is president of Capital Policy analytics, also a senior fellow at the Jack Kemp Foundation. So Ike Brannan, welcome to the show. We're really happy that you're here.

[G]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

You had a recent column, Mike, on this very topic for Real Clear Markets. I wrote about it as well in a column for Newsweek. Can you just start a very high level. Talk at a broader level about the level of the problem of mass litigation costs when it comes especially to tort litigation and how exactly that affects the everyday American.

[G]

Sure. So tort litigation is when we have lawsuits that are often these are, we call class action lawsuits, where we have groups of people who are suing with. With one lawyer representing a group interest. And the idea is that, you know, the people who are suing are trying to get some kind of corrective action out of the individual. And we've basically created a legal atmosphere that bends way over for the rights of the people who are filing a lawsuit. And so what we've seen in the last few years is that the size of these tortuous lawsuits have and grown exponentially. So, you know, for just an example of this in Illinois a few years, just a year ago, Illinois passed a lawsuit that makes it much easier for tort lawyers to file suit in Illinois, even if there doesn't appear to be any nexus in the state. That is, none of the people who are harmed are in the state, and the firm doesn't operate in the state. They can still file in the state. And the only rationale I can figure out, not as given in the legislation, is that Illinois will have more money coming into their quotes.

[B]

And this is picking up speed, isn't it? But on the other hand, Ike, there have been some recent rulings at the U.S. supreme Court that have at least tended in the right direction of trying to rein in some of this activist mass tort litigation. So tell us a little bit about what's actually happening in the courts. There's a big case involving Monsanto that the Supreme Court just decided in this most recent term, what is happening from a litigation perspective when it comes to trying to rein in the activism of the tort bar and the plaintiff.

[G]

Right. So the Monsanto case was. Is really interesting. So Monsanto makes this thing called Roundup. It's a insecticide that looks like insecticide. It kills certain plants, but it, you know, you get a base for your plant and it kills all the weeds except for your plant, and it's dramatically increased productivity in. In Midwest farm station. I come from a farm community in Illinois, and everybody uses Roundup. And then there was a claim that, well, it causes cancer. And no one really established this, but a series of courts kept saying, well, you know, people have accused it, so it must be true. Without really any legal, any medical backing to this, then you could call secure. And so finally, you know, Monsanto was sued for billions of dollars, and the Supreme Court finally just threw it out.

[B]

And we're trying again, folks, with Ike Brannan. Ike Brannan is the senior fellow at the Jack Kemp foundation, also president of Capital Policy Analytics. Ike, talk to us a little bit. If there's numbers, that'd be great, but just a little deeper, more specific level as to how exactly the costs of this litigation then end up showing up in the price of increased goods, perhaps even in the realm of medical malpractice lawsuits. I think this is a pretty obvious one. How that cost then gets passed on to insurance premiums. Talk a little bit more just about the nexus. And they trickle down. If you want to use one of the less favorite buzzwords, the trickle down effect of this litigation that ends up affecting consumers every lives.

[G]

So here's, here's an example. Graduate school colleague of mine named Ben Gutierrez did a lot of research on the choice between women who have breast cancer doing a radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy. And the issue that doctors face is that if you do a lumpectomy and the cancer comes back, you're automatically considered to have done some sort of medical malpractice. Right. And it leaves you much more vulnerable to being sued than if you do a radical mastectomy and the cancer comes back. Well, you did everything you can. But despite this presumption, this data show that, you know, for an early stage cancer, doing a lumpectomy is exactly as effective as doing a radical mastectomy. But doctors felt like they couldn't risk this. And so for decades, we went to a situation where doctors routinely did radical mastectomies, which cost hospitals a lot more and, you know, does a lot more, you know, I would argue physical damage to, to the women. And we did it just because of tort lawsuits.

[B]

And how exactly then does that then affect the actual bottom line? Does that show up in insurance premiums or.

[G]

That's exactly it. So, you know, 98% of people are. Have medical insurance. And so what happens is that total medical costs go up by billions of dollars a year because we're now doing procedures that we don't have to do. And so as a result, that means overall medical costs are higher, and so we pay for it in higher medical premiums. Or if you get your health insurance through your employer, what ends up is that your employer has to pay more for your health insurance, and that means there's less money available for your salary.

[B]

And what exactly is. Just to make sure we're on the same page, we're chatting with Ike Brannan. He is president of Capital Policy analytics, also senior fellow at the Jack Kemp foundation and economist based in the nation's capital Ike. What exactly can and should policymakers do? Whether it's at the federal level with the US Congress, whether it's at the state level, what exactly can policymakers be doing to try to rein in these costs? And I can't help but think of the current environment. As I mentioned to the beginning of our conversation, this is really all the rage. Inflation, affordability, cost of living. Everyone seems to be chomping at the bit to try to rein in costs into lower prices for the everyday American, which is a noble and worthy goal. So when it comes to this particular aspect of the broader inflation puzzle, what should lawmakers be focusing on?

[G]

I think at the state level, lawmakers should focus on not making their states a welcome place to move toilet reform. Right. So, you know, like in, in the state of Illinois, where I'm from, something like 60% of all lawsuits are done in one county, Madison county, kind of by some, it's a suburb of St. Louis. And they do that simply because there are four or five judges there that are open to just about any and all tort lawsuit that there is. And they're always deferring to, to the plaintiffs. We see this in Texas, right? Most, most of these lawsuits end up in one or two counties in Texas. So there's a whole lot of, we call it form shopping that goes on. And so at a minimum, we just had some kind of law at the federal or state level and says, no, you just can't go and figure out which place is going to be most amenable to you getting paid. That would take us 20% of the way here.

[B]

I'm happy that you mentioned Texas. So I live in Florida. I'm actually a bard attorney in Texas. I used to practice law there and I remember hearing and learning all about this. Actually, if I'm, if I'm, if I'm not mistaken, I believe was based in the Eastern District of Texas, in Tyler, Texas. There's some real aggressive form shopping, shall we say, there when it comes to this problem that we're talking about right now. Before I let you go, I want to ask also about the related concept of multi district litigation. This is something, I think that it's class action adjacent, but it just has the effect essentially of just blowing up the number of plaintiffs who can join a lawsuit ultimately then adding costs to the defendant again, trickling down to the consumer, as we've already discussed. Talk to us a little bit just about the class action and the multi district litigation aspect of this broader picture.

[G]

Right. So if you only have a few people in one particular district and it doesn't look like it's going to be enough for a lawyer to bother with his time, that is, he's not sure he's going to get enough money to make this worth his while, then you try to expand it, the lawyer tries to expand it and pick up people in multiple districts and then even though they're all not in the same district, basically they fudge it. And so it becomes this multi district thing. Right. So it's kind of a bending of the rules in order basically at the convenience of the litigant. And so, you know, I think it's a pernicious trend that we're doing not for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of lawful, but just for the benefit of people who want to make money from our legal issue.

[B]

Yeah, it's for the benefit of the ultimately of the tort bar and the plaintiff bar. That's pretty much simply what it is, by the way, that is squarely within Congress's power to regulate that. If Congress wants to legislate to stop this sort of litigation in federal courts, they absolutely have the power to do so under their constitutional authority. But Ike, unfortunately we are out of time, folks. Ike Brannan is president of Capital Policy analytics, also a senior fellow at the Jack Kemp Foundation. Ike, we appreciate you joining. Have a great rest of your day and come back soon.

[I]

Great.

[G]

Thanks, Josh. Appreciate it.

[B]

Folks, have a great rest of your evening as well. We'll be right back. As always, tomorrow.

[H]

Life can be messy, but you don't have to figure it out alone.

[A]

Hey, it's the Lusko.

[H]

Join pastors and best selling authors Levi and Jenny Lusko on Hey, it's the Luskos. For honest conversations about faith, marriage, family, grief, ministry and and all the unexpected moments in between. You'll laugh, you'll be encouraged and you'll be reminded that God is faithful through every season.

[A]

It will always come back to Jesus in the end.

[H]

That's right. Tune in to hey, it's the Lusko's with Levi and Jenny Lusko. Available now wherever you get your podcasts.