3537 - A Growing Surveillance State or a Third Reconstruction w/ Jessica Burbank, K. Sabeel Rahman

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3537 – "A Growing Surveillance State or a Third Reconstruction"
Guests: Jessica Burbank (investigative journalist, DropSite News), K. Sabeel Rahman (professor of law, Cornell Law School)
Date: December 3, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Majority Report dives deep into two urgent threads in contemporary American politics:

• The spread of mass surveillance technology at the local level, focusing on the controversial rise of the Flock surveillance camera network, with investigative reporting from Jessica Burbank.
• The argument for a "Third Reconstruction," a period of transformative democratic reform to combat the resurgent authoritarianism and systemic dysfunction under the current Trump administration, as outlined by K. Sabeel Rahman.

Other topics in the opening segment include Republican underperformance in special elections, analysis of the Tennessee 7th race, Democratic momentum, and various current political developments.

---

Key Segment Breakdown

1. Special Elections and Political Shifts: The Tennessee 7th Race

Timestamps: 07:19–17:57

• Turnout & Margin Analysis

  • Despite a historically strong Republican district (Tennessee 7th) with a typical 22-point margin, the GOP barely held the seat with only a 9-point win.
  • Voter turnout closely mirrored that of the 2022 midterms, undermining the GOP's arguments that special-election results aren't predictive.
  • This shift suggests significant Republican underperformance and a "blue wave" building across diverse regions (Virginia, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, Texas).

• Notable Quotes:

  • “Matt Van Epps...won it by nine. But this is a district that Donald Trump won by 22 points. ... This is a 13 point gain for the Democrats in terms of the margin and excuse time for Republicans is over.” — Harry Emden [11:45]
  • “If you are a Republican anywhere else in America who comes from a district Donald Trump carried by, say 12, maybe even 15 points, you're thinking, yesterday I didn't think I was vulnerable. Next year, maybe I better think about that again.” — CNN Correspondent [08:21]

• Contextual Insight:

  • This trend is outpacing the Democratic swings seen during the lead-up to the 2018 midterms.
  • G. Elliott Morris’s model forecasts this shift could put states like Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, and Texas into play for Democrats in Senate and House races.

---

2. Mass Surveillance by Flock: Jessica Burbank Interview

Timestamps: 26:32–43:47

What is Flock?

• Flock is a $7.5 billion surveillance firm deploying AI-powered license plate readers and live view cameras across 5,000 communities and 49 states.
• Contracts are typically secured at the municipal level, often bypassing public debate and competitive bidding.

How Does Flock Spread?

• Municipal Quiet Adoptions:

  • Local police chiefs bring Flock proposals to city or village boards, often as part of uncontroversial consent agendas without public discussion.
  • Example: Scarsdale, NY—a famously safe, affluent suburb with negligible crime—approving over $1 million for surveillance with little transparency.

• National Network Formation:

  • Municipalities get access to a shared national database, enabling law enforcement to track vehicles across state lines.
  • Private businesses can add street-facing cameras via Flock’s "Thriving Cities Fund," further blurring public/private surveillance boundaries.

• Risks and Real-World Usage:

  • Data can be accessed by federal agencies such as ICE, raising concerns about targeting immigrants and abortion seekers.
  • Burbank recounts a Texas case where law enforcement used the network for abortion-related surveillance—even in states where abortion was legal.

Legal and Policy Issues

• Lack of Oversight & Regulation:

  • Flock often bypasses competitive bidding, using “sole source justification” letters to claim no meaningful competition, despite alternatives like Motorola.
  • Governments rarely provide meaningful oversight or debate, even in affluent, civically literate towns.
  • Patchwork state-level legal actions (e.g., fourth amendment lawsuits, public records requests) have forced some towns to cancel contracts.

• Antitrust and Democratic Accountability:

  • The monopolistic growth model and tight police-tech industry links (revolving door between law enforcement and Flock) raise ethical and legal flags.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “How does a mass surveillance company that's $7 billion in size, with funding from Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund, Peter Thiel money—how is it this big with no mainstream coverage?” — Jessica Burbank [29:41]
  • “They're willing to use any avenue to put their cameras up. ... What Flock offers that's unique, I would say, is the national network that you can track people across state lines wherever they happen to go.” — Jessica Burbank [35:10]

---

3. A Third Reconstruction: K. Sabeel Rahman Interview

Timestamps: 44:26–75:32

What Are Reconstructions?

• First Reconstruction: Post-Civil War reforms (abolishing slavery, 14th and 15th amendments, early federal civil rights efforts).
• Second Reconstruction: Civil Rights era reforms (voting rights, desegregation, institutional expansion).
• Third Reconstruction (proposed): A comprehensive democratic renewal in response to the dual threats of authoritarianism and institutional decay.

Features of the Current Crisis

• Two-Pronged Reactionary Attack:

  • Dismantling civil institutions (SNAP, FEMA, Education Department, civil service).
  • Weaponizing government coercion for illiberal ends (ICE, DOJ targeting, reversal of civil rights oversight).

• Structural Hurdles:

  • Entrenched anti-majoritarianism (Senate, Electoral College, Supreme Court).
  • Decades-long deregulatory and anti-democratic drift (e.g., Reagan-era antitrust downgrades).

Lessons from History

• Legislatures as Engines of Democracy:
  • Major expansions—like the Freedmen’s Bureau, labor rights, and social safety net—were legislated by Congress, not handed down by courts.
  • The Supreme Court has often rolled back democratic advancements (nullifying Reconstruction statutes, legitimizing corporate power, etc.).
  • Durable reforms require major institutional and bottom-up legislative changes.

Building Lasting Reform:

• Material Democracy:

  • True democracy involves not just voting rights, but material equality and security—unions, public agencies, social insurance, antitrust, etc.
  • Creating new or revitalizing existing institutions (NLRB, FTC, CFPB, etc.) is essential for durable democratization.

• Containing Reactionary Power:

  • Active steps to dismantle and constrain authoritarian tools (i.e., abolishing ICE, robust anti-corruption enforcement, taming corporate oligarchies).
  • “Unaccountable power at scale is just hostile to democracy, whether that's the unaccountable power of the oligarch or ... government.” — K. Sabeel Rahman [64:11]

• Leadership and Grassroots Energy:

  • Recent history shows bottom-up mobilization is crucial; big cities and states can model ambitious democratic reforms (universal childcare, campaign finance, ballot initiatives).
  • Political leadership must amplify grassroots demands and be willing to confront big money and entrenched institutions.

• Strategic Optimism:

  • Rahman is optimistic: Presses for broad reform on all fronts—economic, democratic, institutional—just as was necessary in the Progressive Era.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “We are having to create a democracy that hasn't yet been real for many, many Americans.” — K. Sabeel Rahman [54:09]
  • “We need an institutional source of power to advance the moral vision of democracy that we all want to see happen.” — K. Sabeel Rahman [57:24]
  • “We shouldn’t be retreating from our big aspirations for what a good society looks like. We should be doubling and tripling down.” — K. Sabeel Rahman [51:40]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Sam jokes, “This could cause some Republican lawmakers to step on Trump's IV... just to get him out of office quicker.” [16:40]
• Burbank recalling the "quiet" route Flock takes: “You would think mass surveillance coming to America would be this thing that Congress has to vote on...not at all.” [28:20]
• Rahman on reconstruction: “Thinking about this moment as a next reconstructive moment...where we actually started to create the kinds of institutions…that actually made us an inclusive and equitable society.” [45:31]

---

Critical Timestamps

• Tennessee 7th Election Breakdown: 07:19–17:57
• Surveillance State – Jessica Burbank: 26:32–43:47
• Third Reconstruction – K. Sabeel Rahman: 44:26–75:32

---

Tone and Style Notes

The conversation was informative, energetic, at times irreverent (characteristic of the show's progressive slant), but always rigorous in its analysis. Banter and in-jokes among Sam, Emma, and the guests sustain the rapport, even as the subject matter addresses profound democratic and constitutional threats.

Conclusion

This episode spotlighted the creeping growth of a privatized, barely-regulated surveillance state at the municipal level and tied it to broader themes of democratic crisis and the necessity for bold, bottom-up reform. Both the surveillance story and the call for a Third Reconstruction convey a sense of urgency—and possibility—in the face of growing authoritarianism and entrenched systemic inequality.

For further reading and context:

• Links to Jessica Burbank’s documentary and reporting on Flock
• K. Sabeel Rahman’s Dissent piece: “The Case for a Third Reconstruction”
• Backgrounders on special election trends and the contemporary antitrust debate

---

(Ads, fun half, and off-topic banter omitted for clarity and focus on the main political content.)

Transcript

[A]

Hey, folks, did you ever walk into a Paki, as we used to call them back in the day in Massachusetts? You may know it as a wine store and have no idea what to buy. Well, that was me for a long, long portion of my very, very long life. But now I don't even think about that. I don't have to. And the reason is Naked Wines.

Naked Wines is this podcast obviously sponsored by Naked Wines. Naked Wines is a wine club that directly connects you to the world's best independent winemakers. And you can get world class wine delivered straight to your door. Use our code Majority for the code and the [e-mail] and get 100 bucks off your first order. That's six bottles for 3999.

I don't know if I had the full half dozen of Naked Wines at Thanksgiving, but I remember a Syrah and a French wine that we got from Naked Wines. They were delicious.

[B]

I think I had that Syrah or one of their Syrahs too. It was great.

[A]

Yeah, they have, they have a whole bunch. I mean, they have a huge range of wines. And here's the, here's the rub. My sister used to rep wines from Italy for a long time and she would always tell me, like, the markup, you cannot believe the markup because there's so many middle people between the grower and ultimately the person who sells you the bottle of wine. Well, Naked Wine brings you amazing wine straight from the winery at up to 60% less than you would pay in a store. They cut out extra costs like middleman markups. Winemakers can pass those savings on to you without skimping on quality.

Honestly, the thing about Naked Wines that is so fantastic, you get to try, try a huge variety of wines. They're all high quality and they're all like, substantially less than you would pay in a wine store. Now is the time to join Naked Wines community. Head to nakedwines.com Majority Click Enter Voucher. Put in my code Majority for both the code and the password and you'll get a hundred dollars off your first order. That's six bottles for only 39.99 and that's with shipping included. That's a hundred dollars off your first six bottles at nakedwines.com majority. Use the code and password majority for six bottles of wine for $39.99. We'll put the links and that information in the podcast and YouTube descriptions now. Time for the show.

The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, December 3, 2025 My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Jessica Burbank, investigative journalist and contributor to Dropsite News.

On Flock.

A surveillance system coming to a town near you. Also on the program today, K. Sabeel Rahman, author and professor of law at Cornell Law School on the third reconstruction.

Meanwhile, ICE begins operations in New Orleans and in the Twin Cities area.

And despite a win, Republicans are shaken to the core by Tennessee seventh special election. Last night.

November's private payroll measure dropped by 30,000. They were expecting 40,000 bump.

Remember, it's the holiday season.

Trump regime holding SNAP administration funds for blue states hostage unless the states hand over enrollee data. Exxon Doran president convicted of drug trafficking freed on the Trump pardon because you know, he's so worried about drugs coming into this country.

Elise Stefanik having lost Mamdani as a linchpin for her New York City state governor run attacks. Mike Johnson as a deep statist, deep stater. I don't.

Ayanna Presley announces she will not run against Markey in the Massachusetts Senate race. That's a bummer. Larry Summers banned from the economics profession for life. Well, didn't know you could do that. But I'm glad it happened.

[B]

I mean why did it take them so long?

[A]

And I got a list.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

11 Indiana Republicans have been targeted with swatting or threats of violence for not being in favor of redistricting in their state.

And Trump this just breaking pardons. Henry Cuellar, the Democratic congressman in Texas who may or may not lose his seat anyways.

[B]

He's an anti abortion right wing Democrat already.

[A]

But Trump saw that he was up on bribery charges and said none of that, not while I'm president.

[B]

But Dorsey points out that Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump's parting was the right outcome.

[A]

Oh, way to fight. Way to fight all this and more on today's majority report.

[B]

It is hump day.

[A]

That's right. Emma Viglan coming in strong with her coin phrase.

[C]

Did I stutter?

[B]

It's hump day.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

What, what happened?

[B]

I was just trying to bring energy to it.

[A]

I like the fold. Right after.

[B]

That silence was like a stab in the art.

[A]

I wasn't sure what you were doing.

[B]

I'm so red and I feel myself getting so red and I hate when that happens.

Look at it. Just completely change color. I can't help it.

[A]

Well, fortunately we have the color settings on the Cameras, right.

[B]

I need, I need to look like Sam yesterday. More green, more green.

[A]

We got a lot to get to today. This race last night in Tennessee, it's a big deal. You'll recall a 22 point margin for Donald Trump, a 21 point margin for the congressman, the former Congressman Greene from there. And the biggest, the most important fact about this election was the turnout. The turnout was almost identical to what it was in the midterm elections in 2022, when you would have your most motivated Republican voters coming out.

When they had a Democratic president.

The turnout numbers were the same, But Republicans lost.

15 points essentially. And that is a big deal. Here is cnn.

[D]

We are seeing something that at the moment suggests the Republican might hold on to win. Matt Van Epps has just taken the lead. I'll explain why in a minute. And if you look through the map, you could see a progression to where Matt Van Epps can hold on. I can also give you a scenario, though, where the Democrat Afton Bain wins. But the fact that, that we're talking about this race at 9 o' clock at night in the east on this night, a special election tells you everything you need to know. Republicans are going to be nervous even if they win this seat because Matt Vedevs is leading this race right now, but by less than a point. Less than a point, Caitlin, let's just say he stretches that out a little bit. Right? Okay. But just a little more than a year ago and quaint little day in November 2024, election day, mark Greene, the former incumbent in this congressional district, won it by 22 points. The man who sits in the White House, Donald Trump, won it by 22 points. So to your point about Democratic overperformance, or you might call it Republican underperformance, as we watch what has happened this year in Virginia, in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, in Mississippi, in Georgia and elsewhere, in special elections and big statewide elections, Democrats are coming out to vote. The Republican coalition is not performing. And here tonight in Tennessee again, Republicans may well hold this seat. But tomorrow, imagine Mark Green won this by 22 points. Matt Vaness might win it inside of single digits somewhere. If you are a Republican anywhere else in America who comes from a district Donald Trump carried by, say 12, maybe even 15 points, you're thinking, yesterday I didn't think I was vulnerable. Next year, maybe I better think about that again. So it changes the battlefield, the map for the midterm elections, potentially. It could also, Caitlin, change a lot of conversations between Republicans and the Trump White House about those Obamacare subsidies About what do we do next time a government shutdown prospect comes up about how do we vote on things Trump wants to do that maybe the people in my district don't like. So the margin here tonight matters, even if the Republicans hold on. If it's that narrow margin, then it's going to cause jitters in the Republican Party. And just want to check on Davidson county and Nashville. Only half of the vote in here.

[A]

So I'm speaking, we don't need the rest of that. You know, that was obviously last night and it in fact was single digits now it was nine points in the end. So it's right on the cusp. If this was around five points, I had predicted yesterday, if it was around five points, you would see like multiple resignations from Republicans. Just, just to be clear, 100 Republican held seats are less pro Trump than this seat.

That there are.

Let'S see here.

There are Republicans won 23 House seats in 2024 that gave Donald Trump an 8 point or lower margin over Harris. Now that 8 point margin, those 23 House seats are in grave jeopardy of flipping. Grave jeopardy.

And again.

You would look at this if it was a special election and generally say, well, it's an apples to oranges comparison. So you got to, you can't do a 1 to 115 point swing. But when the turnout numbers are match the midterms in 2020, then it's a real problem. Here's Harry Emden.

[E]

Let's talk about the numbers. Republicans should be running for the hills this morning because the blue wave is building. My dear friend, Mr. Berman, what are we talking about here? Well, Van Epps, Matt Van Epps, the Republican candidate, he won it by nine. But this is a district that Donald Trump won by 22 points. 15 points, 17 points. This is a 13 point gain for the Democrats in terms of the margin and excuse time for Republicans is over because I hear all about these special actions. Oh, the turnout so low, it's not representative of what happened in the midterm election. The turnout last night in Tennessee's 7th district was equal to the turnout in the 2022 midterm election. So the blue wave, it seems to be building right out of center of Tennessee.

[D]

Interesting. In terms of the numbers, the turnout.

[A]

Looked like a regular midterm election, not a special election.

[E]

Exactly right. Exactly right. And of course we have a midterm. What about 11 months? All right.

[D]

What have we seen in terms of trends in all the special elections the last year?

[E]

Okay. You know, I wouldn't necessarily give a hoot and a hollering about one special election in Tennessee. I love the people in central Tennessee, but central Tennessee is nothing special compared to the rest of the country. But what we see happening is take a Look here, okay, 2025, U.S. house special elections. Dems outrunning Kamala Harris. A lot of blue here, A lot of blue, which is what I think the nation might look like a year from now if these results hold. Arizona 7. You see a 17 over outperformance of Kamala Harris, 23 points in Florida, 1, 16 points in Florida, 6. 13 points in Tennessee, 7. 28 points in Texas 28 and then 17 points and in Virginia 11. So we've seen it throughout the nation. Whether you go from the suburbs of Washington D.C. all the way to southwest to the southwest in Arizona, whether you're looking at Texas, whether you're looking at Tennessee, whether you go down to Florida, we have seen the Democratic outperformance of Kamala Harris happening across the political map. What happened last night in Tennessee ain't just staying in Tennessee. It is spreading itself throughout the nation. As I said to me, looking at these results, it looks like a blue wave is building.

[A]

Now, the one thing that strikes me put that, that image back up there. I would be curious to know what the Latino population is across all of those districts. And I imagine that it is higher in the districts where you see a higher.

Outrunning of Harris.

[B]

I mean, Florida and Florida, Arizona.

[A]

I mean, I, that's just, I have no idea. Numbers are there. Yes, but it would be interesting to look at those and make an assessment based upon that because I think that that is a cohort that has really, I think down to 180 in terms of the way they voted in 2024.

[B]

So thus far, the basically kind of average swing in the special elections since Trump got elected has been 17 points. G. Elliot Morris has a write up about this on his substack strength in numbers, which is a really good follow. And if you Compare that to 2018, in the lead up to 2018, the special election margin was Democrats beating their benchmarks in those special elections by around 11 points. And then the Democrats in 2018 won the House popular vote by 7 points and there was that swing. So this means that when you Compare it to 2018, again, you know, in the first midterms or the special elections leading up to the midterms in Trump's first term, these are, these numbers are outperforming that.

So that, that is looks like it could actually be a very positive sign for them in the fall.

[A]

And also we have a couple of redistricting that has taken place that one has to wonder if those redistricting.

Those gerrymandering is dummy mandering because it was incumbent upon, you know, certain groups of people voting for Republicans that they looks like now may not be doing that. So we really, the real relevance to this at the end of the day is how does this impact Republican lawmakers? How many decide to quit to retire because they don't want to go through a bruising campaign only to lose? And then even, even with the prospect if they win that they're going to lose the House.

And how many are going to want to hang on to their jobs and are gonna start bucking the White House?

[B]

Yep.

[A]

This could cause like some Republican lawmakers to step on Trump's iv that's going into his hand to give him the medication just to get him out of office quicker.

[B]

It's something to consider. They may be considering.

[A]

I'm speculating, I don't know, medical stuff.

[B]

Yeah.

Morris's model also basically says that this would translate if they use 20, to something like an 8 point swing for Democrats, which would be like from R plus 2 to D plus 6. An 8 point swing means that Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, and then even Iowa and Texas in terms of those Senate races are in play.

And that's very important to note because obviously a swing in the Senate, I mean, if the Democrats are able to take back both chambers, that's a way to actually materially curb this authoritarianism that Trump has overseen and the fascism. And we're going to be talking to Raman in a sec. But this is a way, I think, to basically push back against this fascism. We'll get to that in a moment.

[A]

We're going to be talking to Jessica Burbank about Flock and then K. Sabeel Rahman about what do we do if we do take back.

The House and the Senate, etc. But first, a couple of words from our sponsors. When I started this podcast, everything.

Largely.

I was ultimately responsible for it, which is exactly why I did not want to have a merch store. Too much work, going to be too complicated. I don't need more things on my plate. But people wanted a merch store. We want the Trump slump stickers, we want the Emma majority hats or shirts. And ultimately I capitulated and turns out super easy. Why? Because of Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world, from household names like Magic Spoon to brands just getting started. Shopify has Hundreds of ready to use templates to help you build an online store to match your brand. Whether that's beautiful, edgy, minimalist, or you know.

Like sort of DIY homemade. Like we got on the Majority Report, Shopify is packed with AI tools to help you put together product descriptions. Page headlines can even enhance your product photography. And best yet, Shopify helps you with managing inventory, international shipping, processing, returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. The thing that's also great about Shopify is when we do a live show, we sell our merch. We can integrate it easily with our Shopify back end for the web page. Also, Shopify, you'll notice it's on our YouTube right now. You can integrate it with all of your social media platforms. Super easy, totally turnkey. Turn your big business idea into Cha Ching. With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial. Start selling today at shopify.com majority. Go to shopify.com majority shopify.com majority right now. We'll put that.

Description in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. I should say we'll put the links in there. Also. Today's episode brought to you by Wild Grain. What is Wild Grain? It is the first bake from frozen box that sends you artisanal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas. All items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike store bought, Wild Grain uses a slow format fermentation process. It's easier on your belly. Richer in nutrients and antioxidants. Made with simple ingredients you can pronounce.

Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you to enjoy. Like right now I see I can barely even read this without like, like literally my mouth watering. Yeah, they have tear and share cranberry pecan rules.

Parmesan herb biscuits and apple pie bites. I've got some, I've got some apple cider donuts still in my freezer that like every time I open up the, the freezer I'm like, oh God, I'm supposed to be saving these for soul. Then I had some waffles like Belgian waffles. And that didn't. No, they saw. Did not get those. Sorry buddy. But they, they'll send you bread, they'll send you croissants.

Super easy. You put them in the oven. The, the most any of these things take are 25 minutes. But you don't have to do anything. You literally just put it on a tray and it comes out and it is delicious. Fresh baked bread goods like the cinnamon rolls and the. The donuts might have a breakdown, but the bread, the croissants are delicious. Honestly, write an style erotic poem I know.

Well.

The harvest Wild Grain is here to make you look like a baking expert without the stress. You can even buy some of their items in bulk and you can give it as a gift as well, which is a great gift. Oh yeah, you can giving a box or sending an e gift card to their inbox. Wild Grain makes for the perfect gift for loved ones or to bring as a host.

Honestly, so easy to do, so delicious. It's. It's crazy. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.com majority to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissant in every box. $30 off your first box when you go to wildgreen.com majority. Folks, this is a great gift to give to your parents. You time it so that when you go to visit them for Christmas, they've got all the stuff, they bake it for you. You try out the stuff that you love, then you get it yourself.

[B]

It's a gift for yourself and for.

[A]

That'S the way you work it. Also sponsoring the program today, Zbiotics.

Zbiotics is the makers of the world's first genetically engineered probiotics. It is Zbiotics Pre alcohol Probiotic, your first drink of the night for a better tomorrow. It's engineered by a team of PhD microbiologists. Pre alcohol is a probiotic drink that breaks down the byproduct of alcohol, which is responsible for rough days after drinking. This is great for, I mean, I went to a couple of parties recently, if you can believe it or not, and I have the first drink I have of the night is Zbiotics. I feel great. When we were doing mom Donnie's coverage, first drink of the night I had was one of these Zebiotics pre alcohol probiotic drinks. And the next day I come in, I do the show. It's like I'm as fresh as a daisy. And if I was one of those people, I even did my like, you know, seven minute workout regime. Whoa. Which is very difficult for me to do on days where I don't feel good. But Zbiotics.

The way it deals with this is that it turns out like what? When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. It's the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme which breaks this byproduct down.

Honestly.

I have taken this Zbiotics for a couple years and I have never had a situation where the next day I didn't feel like I hadn't had anything to drink the night before. You got to be responsible, obviously, but you can make the most of every toast this holiday season. Don't forget to bring pre alcohol along for the ride. Go to ZBiotics.com Majority to learn more. Get 15% off your first order when you use Majority at checkout. ZBiotics backed with 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they will refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com Majority use the code majority at checkout for 15% off. Check it out.

Quick break. We come back, Jessica Burbank, investigative journalist, contributor to Dropsite News on Flock, a surveillance system coming to a town near you. We'll be right back.

[F]

Live.

[A]

We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Viglund on the Majority Report. It's a pleasure to welcome to the program Jessica Burbank, a investigative journalist and contributor to Drop Site News. And Jessica, thanks for coming on. You've written a piece and did a hour long documentary on Flock and specifically how it had to deal with a a town in Westchester county up in just outside of New York City. But this is something that we've been hearing from our listeners.

Happening all across the country. A lot of this going on in Colorado, in Denver, I should say in Washington state. This is happening all across the country. What is Flock?

[C]

So thanks for having me. Hello, Majority Report. Flock is a $7.5 billion company, which is crazy. They grew extremely big, big through securing government contracts largely behind closed doors. And what they do is they produce license plate readers, live view cameras sort of surveillance technology. And they sell this to police departments and say this will help you solve crime. But really what they offer is not just this like AI powered license plate reading technology. They offer a network of license plate reading technology across the entire country that is searchable and usable by whatever law enforcement signs a contract with them.

[A]

So and this is happening on like a municipal level or is it happening on a state level or both?

[C]

It's crazy. It's municipal. So you would think that mass surveillance coming to America would be this thing that Congress has to vote on and there would be heated debate and people would talk about it on the nightly news. Not at all. It's a police chief comes to a city council, whatever municipal body you have. In the case of Scarsdale, it was the Village board. And they usually through quiet consent agendas where it's lumped in with a sum of what's supposed to be non controversial policy items, routine stuff. And they say, yeah, we would like to have $60,000. In the case of Scarsdale, it was over a million dollars to implement license plate reading cameras all over town. And the town board typically votes these through without any public notice, any debate, without it even being an agenda item.

[B]

I mean, the fact that this is Scarsdale for people that are outside of New York, I would be hard pressed to think of a wealthier, more affluent suburb in New York state. It's kind of notorious for that. Were you trying to highlight Scarsdale for a particular reason on that front? I know you highlighted other communities in your piece as well, but the fact that it's there too, I think says a lot.

[C]

Yeah, I grew up not far away from Scarsdale in Stamford, Connecticut. My dad's a contractor and he said, you know, Scarsdale is this crazy rich town, and it's so wealthy that they ship such expensive rock and landscaping in that. It's a part of the village code that you can't sh any of it out without a special permit. That's the kind of money we're talking about here. And I had a friend in town, Josh Frankel, who's in the documentary and quoted a lot in the piece. We'd worked together before, and he was messaging me like every day. It's so crazy what's happening here with this Flock stuff. We're getting these license plate readers. It's mass surveillance. And finally one day I got on the phone with him and he explained it. And I did an online search. You know, what's going on with Flock? There was hardly anything like no coverage. So how does a mass surveillance company that's $7 billion in size, with funding from Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund, Peter Thiel money. How is it this big with no mainstream coverage? And so I immediately knew there was a story here, but I got lucky that I knew someone in a town where this was happening live and we could catch the village board as they tried to bury this. I talked to Flock on the and they agreed to a recorded interview. Now, no one at Flock will will talk to me. They're very secretive. But it was a really lucky turn of events. And Scarsdale was perfect because there were so Many people in town, including people like Charles CEF who are NSA former employees, they're really aware of what this technology can do. So it was lucky that it was an affluent town where people had time to show up and fight this, which might not be the case in a working class town.

[A]

I'm looking at a website, banish bigbrother.com flockcameramap and it's nuts. There are so many of these all around the country. And it definitely feels like this was the strategy. We can go in and.

Be a lot quieter about this and a lot more successful and going city by city rather than going on a federal level to do this. But what's the pitch like? I mean, I don't know. You know, I know Scarsdale by reputation, but is there that much crime there that somebody on the city council is going like, oh, yeah, we need to have like all of this. Is it like, how are they securing these contracts? Where I would imagine municipalities are like, we don't have a lot of money to throw around necessarily.

Unless you're like, you know, in the midst of some type of like, crazy crime spree. I can't even see how this would be entertained.

[C]

Scarsdale's a famously safe town. Their main crimes are petty larceny and identity theft, not things that these cameras are going to solve. I mean, the petty theft was the neighborhoods are so safe that people were told by the village board at one point, stop locking your keys in your car. So license plate readers aren't going to solve these kinds of crimes. So why was it that they needed 172 surveillance cameras in a town like Scarsdale? The money was not in the village budget. It was expected to come from a federal grant, which didn't end up coming through. But Flock goes and meets directly with the police chief. And I think the pitch is simple. Just if you have these cameras, you're not gonna have to devote as much resources and personnel to solving crimes because you can track people wherever they're going. You have a body of evidence here, which is a major fourth amendment concern. You're supposed to have probable cause before you're doing a search and seizure of evidence on someone. So this is persistent surveillance that is constantly collecting information whether or not someone's committed a crime. And when I went into Scarsdale to cover the story, there were a lot of people in the area. And I grew up nearby. It's. It's the same all over the tri state, where there's a lot of people who are landscapers, who are from other Countries. And there were a lot of people who came to the village board and said, 404 media has reported that they're giving this data to ICE so that they can track immigration cases and track people they're suspecting of being illegal immigrants that they want to take. They've also used this data to track people getting abortions across state lines. So it's not so much about Scarsdale, it's about establishing a national network in case someone happens to drive through Scarsdale that they want data on.

[B]

But the national network piece I think is important, right? Like the fact that these local municipal police departments don't have to go through a process of, say, collaborating with X County to pursue a specific case essentially makes it so that there's kind of this, like, privatized, almost federal surveillance aspect that can be tapped into legally by these municipal police departments. I mean, that's, that's fairly unprecedented, I would imagine, also because, like, say, if you were to collaborate with the federal government and they had that kind of information, that would be a more formal process too.

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. And they've now started to sort of pivot how they establish their, their camera network and grow their camera network. They have 5,000 cameras or cameras in 5,000 communities. It's over 88,000 cameras in 49 states. So they're already all over the place. But because now people are starting to push back at the municipal level. They started this thing called the Thriving Cities Fund where they pay for private businesses to put their cameras on their property. So what does it mean for our democracy if those cameras are street view facing and then law enforcement gets asked access to them through Flock directly or the private business? So that's what we're dealing with is they're amorphous. They're willing to, to use any avenue to put their cameras up. What does it mean in terms of antitrust law if they're going to pay for their own expansion as a company to put cameras everywhere? Anyone can buy license plate reading cameras. But what Flock offers that's unique, I would say, is the national network that you can track people across state lines wherever they happen to go.

[A]

Let's talk about that national network. But I also, I also want to get to that sort of like no bid process that you'd cover in Scarsdale, because that seems important to me too. But do we have a sense of how networked these are throughout the communities? Like, I mean, obviously within the context of the community, all the cameras are networked. But has Flock begun to build a national database that would allow for the feds just to be sitting in D.C. and sort of tracking somebody going from, you know, I don't know, from New England to Arizona or something.

[C]

So we know because there have been cases of this happening. In the case of Johnson County, Texas, a sheriff was able to search the 88,000 camera network because they subscribe to this model where if they share their data with other Flock municipalities, they get access to search those cameras. And so they were tracking a woman who crossed state lines to receive an abortion. This became a major case. They searched cameras in states like Illinois, where abortion is legal, to prosecute this case. So what does that really mean? I mean, we know that ICE has access these cameras before. There's been cases in Westchester county actually where federal officials access the data. And when Flock is, is questioned about this, you know, are you collaborating with the federal government? They say, well, it's not our data. The data belongs to the towns. So what, what happens if they get a subpoena? They give a really unclear answer or they say, well, Scarsdale, we'll let you know that we've gotten the subpoena so you can protect yourself. And, and maybe you can ask us if you don't want us to fulfill the subpoena for the data with the federal government. But we, we deal with this on a case by case basis. So they answer like a politician. Even at a time when they were pitching Scarsdale for the contract and the village board was asking these very specific questions around who owns the data? Can the federal government access it? They were given indirect answers and Scarsdale still ended up authorizing the contract. So that's what we're dealing with here is a lot of municipalities that are totally fine with accepting the potential consequences of. Now the federal government has a mass surveillance network they can access with whatever subpoena they can get.

[A]

And there was an angle about competitive bidding as well for this stuff. Tell us about that. Because, I mean, I think it's probably, I'm just a little jaundiced when I think about this, but it sounds to me like a bunch of police chiefs are getting kickbacks. Like, like, like, you know.

More bang for your buck. Chief Anderson, you know, will explain the technology to you on a five day junket to Bermuda or something.

[C]

It feels like that. I mean, Chief Delbene in Scarsdale was not the police chief when he started communicating with Flock. The first day he was appointed at as police chief was 14 January. On January 15, he was exchanging emails with the Flock representative to begin drafting up this contract. He didn't officially take office until the 1st of February. So what's going on here? He wasn't even the official police chief of the town. So you really wonder. Yeah, what's at play? What's in it for him? There is a revolving door between people in law enforcement and people who end up working for Flock. How much of a salary bump are they getting if they end up signing a contract before they go on to take a job at Flock? I've asked, you know, the Flock communications director about this directly, and she said this is entirely above board. You know, law enforcement officers have really good backgrounds and they. Their experience serves them well at Flock. And so it's very suspicious. I don't know what's really going on, but you're supposed to have a request for proposals from a lot of different surveillance technology companies. If you want to adopt a multimillion dollar contract because you want to get the best deal, you want to make sure you're picking the best technology. That didn't happen here, and it didn't happen in a lot of other cases where Flock sends a sole source justification letter which says you don't need to do a competitive bidding process because we're the only company that offers this technology. So that's not true. Motorola has AI powered license plate reading technology, but they don't have the national network that's established, so that really has to be the selling point. And the same sole source justification letter that was in possession in Scarsdale has been sent and then posted publicly in municipalities across the country. So it seems pretty clear that they have a model for doing this without public input, without recognition, with as little accountability as possible.

[A]

And that's where I think some of the antitrust liability lies there.

Outside of applying antitrust issues, I guess on that, you know, theoretically a different DOJ or a different FTC could bring.

Are there other. Is. Is this in any way regulated by, like, states, or are there federal regulations or is this just something that's like that sort of feels a little bit like when Uber first started, they just would come in and.

Create facts on the ground, essentially, and then just apologize later.

[C]

Yeah, we all really miss Lina Khan right now. But I think in the case of Norfolk, Virginia, the Institute of justice is funding a lot of lawsuits around fourth Amendment concerns. So people who say, the cameras block me in, in my neighborhood, I can't leave without being on one of these cameras. You shouldn't be collecting evidence on me if I haven't been convicted of a crime. And so it's been approached from that perspective legally, something people are doing to sort of waste law enforcement's time and make the cameras not worth it to have is do a ton of Foil or FOIA requests for whenever they drive past a flock camera to get access to that data. And the courts have ruled that people are allowed to have access to those public records. It's not protected by any sort of laws. Scarsdale has tried to say that it would be a risk to public safety because we're investigating active crimes. So I don't know if the cartel of the Suns has roots in Scarsdale or what that's supposed to mean, but it sounds like that's not gonna hold up in court and that people really do have access to these records. So I'm happy to see it's got people with money willing to sue the government over Fourth Amendment concerns. And Eugene, Oregon, is another place where they're pushing back against this pretty hard. From some other angles, they've gotten several towns, including Scarsdale, to cancel their contracts altogether. So it's heading in the right direction, I think. Now.

[A]

Jessica Burbank, investigative journalist, contributed to Dropsite News. We'll put a link to both your YouTube documentary on this and the piece you've written. Really appreciate you coming on, talking about it.

[C]

Thanks, y'. All. Thanks for having me.

[B]

Thanks so much.

[A]

All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, K. Sabeel Rahman, author and professor of law at Cornell Law School, will be here to talk about the third reconstruction. Be right back.

We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. It is a real pleasure to welcome back to the program K. Sabeel Rahman, author, professor of law at Cornell Law School. We had him last on in 2017 for democracy versus domination. And you've written a new piece, the Case for a Third Reconstruction, in Dissent magazine. I love this piece. In many respects, it's sort of like what our mission statement has been here, particularly during this era, is to a fight the rising authoritarianism, kleptocracy, I mean, fascism. We can go on and on and also to sort of set up for a.

New normal, because returning to the old normal does not work. But let's just start with just the concept of a third reconstruction. Lay out for us the other two reconstructions.

[F]

Yeah. Great one. First, thanks for having me back. Emma and Sam, it's great to be with you and really appreciate the space you all have been curating. I think this is exactly the challenge for all of us So I think the punchline for me is that we should be thinking about this moment as equivalent in transformative potential and urgency to previous moments of building our democracy. So the first reconstruction, of course, was after the Civil War, and that's when I would argue we first actually started to become multiracial, inclusive democracy, abolishing slavery, passing the 14th amendment and so on. But the other moments are, one, the New Deal responding to industrialization and the transformations of modern capitalism, and then the second Reconstruction, which is really the civil rights movement, and that period of time in the 60s where you start to see greater inclusion on race, on gender, on a whole host of other things that really expanded the New Deal promise and other 14th amendment promises to the whole country for the first time. Voting Rights act, all of that. And thinking about this moment as a next reconstructive moment, like the New Deal, like the moment in the 60s and early 70s when we actually started to create the kinds of institutions and norms and values at scale that actually made us an inclusive and equitable society.

[A]

I mean, it's interesting because when we look at what, like, some of the lowlights are of this administration, it's an assault on citizenship and all that's involved around that with immigration, which, of course, the first Reconstruction was very much about the 14th Amendment and the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment. That's what our society is based upon today. Virtually every Supreme Court case involves not every, but close to it. One of those amendments, the Department of Education, the first Department of Education we had federally was in the first reconstruction. That is the first agency that they really went after to completely demolish. Because, of course, that was the idea of, like, citizenry comes from a guarantee of education for everyone. There's so many parallels here with that. But let's. I mean, let's talk about, like, the. Just going through the piece.

The.

Policy changes that we have seen. More specifically, you put them into sort of two. You said that they have two features. What are those two features that the policy changes that we're seeing under the Trump administration.

[F]

Yeah, and I think you started us off, laid it out well, going back to sort of the reaction against the New deal and the 14th amendment. I mean, I think of this as this is not conservatism. We have a lot of different views in the country about role of government and all of that. I really think of this administration as offering a reactionary vision of society that is specifically built to try to undo advances of economic, racial, gender, geographic expansions of democracy. And so they're doing that by one Dismantling a whole host of things, whether it's food stamps and snap in the shutdown, you know, the dismantling of the Department of Education, dismantling of fema. Right. There are all these firing of the civil service. So there's a bunch of dismantling happening, which is all on the things that are essential for inclusion and for democracy. Right. Those are the things they're breaking apart. And at the same time, there's a weaponizing of government to leverage the worst kinds of government coercion, whether it's ice snatching people off the street in broad daylight or using the coercive powers of the Department of justice or Title 6 to go after universities and firms and nonprofits. Right. So it is both of these things happening at the same time. Too much state power and a dismantling of state power. And the through line for me is that there is a coherent vision of a deeply hierarchical society in the economy and in society, and that's what connects those two things. And so thinking of this as a reconstruction moment, I think also helps make clear what we're up against. Right. It's not just the normal deregulationists, you know, on the right, it's that and it's this weaponizing authoritarian piece that together is trying to set us back, you know, before, before the civil war, really.

[B]

But, but that scale, I think, is what you are trying to get people to grapple with with your piece. Right. I mean, what I loved that you wrote about here is talking about how returning to the pro democracy coalition and flipping the lights back on is not going to save us here. Can you just expand on how the coalition that the opposition party has built, the Democratic coalition, how that's been insufficient since Trump's rise in 2016.

[F]

Yeah. I mean, one way to think about this, and look, there are a lot of important policy wins that things that changed in, in the 20, early part of the 2000s. We could talk about that. But you know, we've already had one bite at the post authoritarian, post Trump apple and we're back here in a worse position. Right. So, you know, lots of people work extremely hard to get us out of the 2016-2020 period and some good policy resulted. But I just think, you know, proof is in the pudding. We're in a, we're in a worse spot now. Right. And part of that, I think, is the insufficiency of transformation that happened from 2021 to 2024. Right. We didn't get, we didn't have enough sort of Bottom up pressure to get the kind of transformative democracy reforms, for example, that could have headed off the like gerrymandering war happening right now. The kind of deeper transformations of our economy to really speak to people's economic insecurity and exploitation and precarity in the world of growing corporate power. Right. There are a lot of important things that started to happen at the FTC and elsewhere during the Biden administration. I really support a lot of that. But we need, we needed still more. And so I think this idea to your point for me, of like, we shouldn't be retreating from some of our big aspirations for what a good society looks like. We should be doubling and tripling down. Because actually to me, the lesson is we didn't do enough collectively and that's why we're back in this mess.

[A]

I mean there's, I mean there's sort of two, it's, the mess we're in is times two at this point. Because a, it's the proof was in the pudding, like you say, in terms of the insufficiency of the Biden agenda to stop this wave of reactionary ism that has been building in the country, I would argue, you know, for at least 25, 30 years, maybe going back to Reagan, frankly, for that matter. But, and then what we're seeing in this iteration of the Trump administration is far more.

Far greater assault on the structures of our government. I mean, speak to that because you, you, you say, you write, reconstructionist approach to policy may seem uncomfortable or excessive in some circles, but in this moment of authoritarian crisis, there are three reasons why we need it. You talk about the depth and scale of the attack on our institutions, the, the, the, the failure of pre existing institutions, the Supreme Court and, and then structural changes that we're seeing within the context of our government. Just talk about those aspects before we get on to how we respond.

[F]

Yeah, no, I think that's, that's great because in some ways.

We'Re hamstrung by a set of structures that are built to restrain the kind of democracy that we want to see come into being. Right. So you mentioned the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is in many ways downstream of the Senate and the Electoral college, which we have layers upon layers of counter majoritarian institutions baked into our constitution, number one. Number two, you mentioned the Reagan revolution, Sam, that in a lot of ways part of what we've been laboring under for many decades is a set of policies and ideologies that have created a presumption against an expensive safety net, against attempts to rein in corporate power or lift or build worker power. Right.

[A]

The antitrust regime that we've been living with up until the Biden administration was an innovation, if you will, during the Reagan years. Prior to that, it was actually effective totally.

[F]

Right. So the kind of Reagan Bork revolution on antitrust that really undid the kind of New Deal era set of views about the need for a democracy to have corporate power be restrained enough for wealth to be restrained enough for that, for democracy to be real. Right. So those are all just baked into our day to day of governing and the air we breathe in policy circles. And many people have been arguing against that and pushing beyond, trying to push beyond that, but those put a low ceiling on what is actually possible in terms of transformation. And so part of the ambition I think we need at this point is, yes, there are some good policies we can point to from the last different waves of progressive governance, but we're going to need to get to those root structures of who has power in the economy, who has power in our politics in terms of rising authoritarian power, and alter that balance of power. And that's going to require very different institutions. And so it really puts us in the spirit not of saving a democracy that was great, you know, two years ago or 10 years ago, but we should be thinking of ourselves as democratizers. We are having to create a democracy that wasn't, that hasn't yet been real for many, many Americans and many of our fellow Americans. And so that's the spirit, I think when I think of reconstruction, to me, that's what's empowering about that frame. It's thinking like before there was a New Deal. What would we imagine to rein in corporate power before the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act passed? What would we need to do to have a genuine multiracial democracy? That's the mentality I think we should have.

[A]

And let's, let's talk just a little bit about what were the, the material answers to those questions like, so when we say what, what democratizes things, you know, prior to the New Deal, that's the National Labor Relations Board, that is Social Security Administration, that is, you write, the Federal Trade Commission. These are all entities that are essentially function to distribute political power in some fashion or another, either by, you know, very often by material needs, providing for material needs or providing for negotiating power or inhibiting, you know, monopolies that are accruing and concentrating power. All of these institutions function to create essentially more democracy. And those are the type of things we need to be thinking about for the. For the response to this era.

[F]

Yeah, totally. And I think, you know, democracy for me is. It's not just voting. I mean, there's an assault on that, too. But it's actually this deeper thing that each of us are equal moral persons, and we want a society that treats each of us with that. With that equal dignity and respect that enables us to thrive and live the lives that we might have reason to value, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, geography, structural conditions that you might be under, you know, in terms of working conditions or economic insecurity. Right. So that's.

[B]

What.

[F]

If that's what democracy is, then I think the Alphabet soup of the New Deal is actually a big part of this in that we have these big aspirations and values. We should be forthright and unapologetic about the kind of society we want. But then we make it real by creating new laws and institutions. Right. Without an ftc, it's really hard to gain leverage on corporate power that is exploiting small businesses and small towns and workers. Without an nlrb, it's really hard to. To enable and empower workers to unionize and demand their rights. Without Title 6 before, you know, the real Title 6, not this administration's version of Title 6 and the Civil Rights act, it's really hard to desegregate the country. And so we actually need an institutional source of power to advance the moral vision of democracy that we all want to see happen.

[B]

Well, yeah, when you talk about, just, like, the institutions and how to create those, I just think it's important to linger on that for just a little bit because you mentioned, like, the CFP PB as being, you know, a step in the right direction. Right. But a lot of this has to come from the legislature. And I think, like, that's another key element that we should be pointing out here. You know, you write about how the legislature has been central in the past to moments of democratization. You talk about the Reconstruction Amendments. You talk about how the New Deal in many ways was associated with FDR being a very strong leader, but that the legislature played a very important role. You would need that to create these administrative agencies that we're talking about. But then when we. Let's contrast that with the Supreme Court for a second and, like, how that. How undemocratic that institution has been for decades at this point. And if you could just give us some historical analysis about the role of the legislature in moments of democratic expansion versus the role of the Supreme Court and the courts when they've asserted their power and how that has played out in American history.

[F]

Yeah, I so appreciate that, Emma. I mean, and going back to the first Reconstruction, I think, is really illustrative here. So in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, all of those amendments to the Constitution have this really important line at the end of each of them where it says, congress is the body that has the power to implement and make real the abolition of slavery, equal protection of the laws, due process of the laws, all of the stuff in those amendments, right to vote. And that was intentional because the notion was Congress is the seat of democratic sovereignty. I like to tell my students in constitutional law, it's Article 1 for a reason. Right. And what you see happen after the passage of those amendments is a flurry of legislation that, going to Sam's earlier point, creates the Freedmen's Bureau, creates the enforcement acts that allows local prosecutors to ring up Klansmen on charges of conspiracy to intimidate black voters. And that legislation starts to create civil rights and affirmative, you know, economic.

Affirmative economic investments. That creates the real on the ground reality, right of equal citizenship for a brief time. And then it's actually the Supreme Court that goes out of its way to neutralize each of those statutes in the late 1870s and 1880s, and that helps usher in the Jim Crow era. So the whole puzzle of like, why does it take a century between the Civil War and the civil rights movement? It's because actually the Supreme Court, working in tandem with paramilitary groups in the neo Confederate south, deliberately rolled back the democratic promise of Reconstruction. And you can tell the same story over and over again, right? The Supreme Court is in the way of labor organizers in the 1920s, you know, fighting for minimum wages and basic standard safety standards in the workplace. Over and over, over again, you see this pattern. And so to me, that's indicative, right, that Congress actually, as the most smallly democratic body, we should have a conversation about, like, like campaign finance and gerrymandering and voting rights. But the way our system was designed originally is for Congress to be able to lead and for the court to take a back seat. And on the executive power piece, I think this is something for progressives to actually really wrestle with. And you know, I've served in the executive branch of many other people who've done great, great work. But I think we can get over reliant, even as progressives on the notion of a singular president who is going to solve everything. And we need that leadership. Absolutely. And we need to. We need majorities in Congress who are going to legislate to create the big new systems that you were alluding to, Emma.

[A]

So, okay, so there's, there's, there's really two parts. There's these. That's almost the third part of the reconstruction strategy, which is to sort of like be conscious of the meta.

The, the meta process and you know, the inhibitions to democracy that are built into our system. The second, you know, the one that's sort of like sandwiched in the middle, there is constraining reactionary power and backlash.

Which I guess in reconstructionist terms is like, guys, why didn't you continue to occupy the South?

Like, why did you leave it up to. Why didn't. When in South Carolina when they're killing black politicians and driving them out of town, why weren't we sending federal troops in there to stop them?

There's a bit of that in that sort of second strategy.

[F]

Yeah, I think this. And yeah, we've talked about the building and the democratizing. I think on this containing reactionary power. I think this has a couple of dimensions and like get rid of ice.

100%. Right. So I think, I think like, you know, in a world where even the bill crystals of the world are very clear about that, that needs to happen, I think progression should be even more clear.

[A]

Yes.

[F]

Unapologetic. That when there's a governmental institution that is systematically flagrantly violating the rights of just basic human rights, let alone like laws on the books and you know, mistakenly detaining US Citizens, but just in terms of treatment of fellow humans is just offensive and dangerous for a democracy cannot continue. Right. And so this, for me, the idea of containing reactionary power is meant to say that in any reconstruction moment, it's not enough to just do the affirmative things that we want. Right. We want a more equal economy, we want more democracy. We also have to like be real that there are centers of power that are built to prevent democracy. And so that. And we can think of that in terms of ice. We can think of that in terms of, you know, we have laws on the books to prevent the kind of rank corruption that we're seeing in this administration and the kind of abuse of office. Right. If someone is holding office and abusing that office for their personal gain or to violate the rights of others. Like we have laws already on the books against that kind of behavior. I would put actually anti monopoly and antitrust and corporate power in this domain as well. Like if you think one function that the sherman of the Sherman Antitrust act, when it was originally conceived, was to put a Ceiling on how much corporate power could be amassed on the theory that any kind of unaccountable power at scale is just hostile to democracy. Whether that's the unaccountable power of the oligarch or the unaccountable power of a government that does not respect basic democratic protections. So all of that is a like dismantling that we need to do as progressives to ensure democracy. Sorry.

[B]

No, no, it's just, it's important to note that economic piece because I think when we just return to the failures of the so called pro democracy coalition, there has not been an effort from the opposition party to treat economic empowerment as a function of like democracy as well. When people don't experience that in their day to day lives, the most material way that a supposed democracy should be impacting them, they lose faith in those institutions in and of themselves. And then we have an opposition party that runs on faith in the institutions that are screwing you and I just to zoom out in terms of political orientation for the democrats, like it's so fatal given everything you outline.

[F]

Yeah. And I think that the notion that we actually have a very rich alternative tradition of progressive small D democratic social change that is very clear about that democracy has to be real in a material sense. Right. That people's basic rights have to be actually protected from a civil rights, human rights standpoint, that the economy has to actually be equitable. I mean going back to, you know, the civil rights movement itself had a very robust vision of economic rights that was part of the march on Washington. And going still further back, the first reconstruction also had an economic dimension to it. They weren't fully realized. But you know, from a, from the standpoint of black liberation and sort of advancing a multiracial democracy, social movements have consistently been very clear on the left. Right. That the material reality of democracy has to be part of the equation. It's not enough to just sort of wave the flag of rule of law. Right. And I think that's still a lesson we should be learning today.

[A]

And you write a lot about this, that much of this must come from a bottom up movement. You cited it happening in the past. And that we need to be have at the ready plans for reimagined institutions that will make democracy real and durable going forward. And again, when we talking about democracy here, this is not some type of like.

Idealistic notion of democracy democracy. It is one, it is literally a material people in sharing in power which means that they get material benefits of society as well. What. And you mentioned this is going to Happen piecemeal. And you know, Mamdani may be an example in one area and maybe in Montana where they are trying to say that if we charter your, your corporation. One of the rules of chartering corporation in Montana is that you can't spend money on politics. Like that's just like any other rule about being corporation.

How do we compete with.

Those entities, the moneyed interests that want to simply shift the power from column A to column B. So I'm thinking specifically There's a project 2029 that like Larry Summers at one point I think was like sitting on the board and stuff like that.

[B]

Now our dear, our fearless leader into the future, Larry Summers, I imagine he's.

[A]

Not going to be anymore, but, but there's still going to be others. And so like. And frankly the abundance movement, it seems to me was a, an attempt by a lot of those same people and maybe some of the wealthy oligarchs who are sort of like have control of this administration too, to sort of like be the, you know, hedge their bets on the Democratic side.

How do we, who don't have that, that, that monopoly of wealth, that concentration of wealth, the hold of big institutions, how do we. Where does that come from in these instances? Like, you know, there was in the first Reconstruction, there were the radical Republicans. Yeah, I don't really see the.

Analog to that today.

[F]

Yeah, yeah, that's. I think it's a huge challenge. I mean, one thing I do think is really a source of optimism is, you know, we've seen the largest nationwide grassroots mobilizations in recent history this year. Right. Thinking about the drumbeat of no kings mobilizations, even at the hyperlocal level, thinking about communities that are organizing to protect their neighbors against attacks from the government. Right. At the block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood level, people are trying to protect their fellow residents from ICE raids and so on. So on the one hand, I think we're seeing a tremendous amount of energy in small d Democratic ways at the grassroots. And the challenge has been how do we get more of our political leadership to channel that and help amplify that. I think you're seeing some of this in the states and in cities you mentioned in New York, thinking of places like Seattle, New Mexico, creating universal childcare. Right. So there are things that are moving in the states and in the cities that are pointing a way forward. That's. So that's number one. Number two, I do think we need more national leadership in the House, in the Senate that are unapologetically building towards championing this kind of a reimagining of our democracy. Right. And I imagine we will see a lot more of those kinds of voices clamoring for a seat at the table going into the midterms, thinking about some of the different primaries in different parts of the country and so on. But we need a lot more of that. And then I think the last part to your point about there's always money at play and there's always, it's very easy for organized interests to launder their policy preferences through.

New York Times profiles and think tanks and the like. But what I'm really interested in is what are those organic spaces for designing and imagining new institutions. Right. So.

Some of the movement organizations that are partnering with progressive think tanks, that are embedded in social movements and that are working with grassroots partners directly, a lot of this will be at the community level as well. And generating new people running for office and just new blood.

On the progressive side, I think will be really, really important. I do think a lot can change very quickly. So I'm still an optimist about where this can all go. You just think about the sheer brazenness and danger that so many communities are experiencing under this administration. The notion of just a. Putting the old stuff back and tinkering around the edges is not going to be tenable.

Anymore. Right. I just don't think, I just don't think the public will buy it. Right. It's not where people are very clear about what's happening. So this is partly, I think, a wake up call is for, for kind of political leadership to, to get, either get more bold or get out of the way.

[B]

My, my, just last question really quickly on this is just because when we're talking about corporate power and how these moneyed interests can influence our elections, you know, Zoran Mandani, the most underrated story about his victory is the fact that he was able to be competitive with Andrew Cuomo because of New York City's matching funds program. And when I think like when we are talking about systemic changes and how do we create the power that we need, it feels like we've got to start there with campaign finance reform. And it's not going to. It doesn't seem very likely at all at the federal level right now, but other areas of the country getting very serious about creating programs like this so that candidates who aren't, you know, raking in millions of dollars from billionaires can be competitive in those races. Like, I don't know, I want to do all of these structural things, but we have to have the horses first.

[A]

Chicken and egg. Yeah, but.

[B]

But to me, this is really hard.

[F]

Yeah, yeah, I agree with that, Emma. And I think, I think it's things like the public financing in New York ranked choice. Floating is also something I'm really interested in. But we do need these structural changes that create more space. It does become a bit chicken and egg to your point, Sam, but very quickly, one bit of hope maybe is going back to the progressive era in the tens and twenties, pre New Deal. Part of what's fascinating to me about that period is you see all of this is happening at the same time. They are also worried about the oligarchs, Elon Musk's of that period, who can just drop tons of money and try to buy races and rank corruption and corporate power and all the. All the rest. But what you actually start to see is at the same time that workers are organizing in new ways, that kind of municipalities are starting to create kind of public utilities as sewer socialists of the era. You're also seeing campaign finance reform, the creation of ballot referenda at the state level. All these structural democracy changes are happening at the state and local level. Simultaneous do changes in worker power, changes in economic power and governance. And it's because they also were facing the same chicken and egg problem. That's not a formula, but I think it's a source of optimism or source of inspiration that we also need to do both of these at the same time. And to me that means press on all fronts with maximum energy and see which things break first and then build on those rather than sort of like trying to get really small and think, well, maybe we'll put those issues to the side and only focus on this. Right. We should be doing all of the things all the time and see what breaks first in our favor.

[A]

Rahman.

The peace is the third reconstruction in dissent. We will put a link to that and we'll also put a link to democracy versus domination. Still very important work. I mean.

I think about.

That book in our interview often. It's surprising to me just because I tend not to be able to remember anything. But I really.

[F]

Sam and Emma, great to be with you all and look forward to the next time.

[B]

Great, thanks. Thanks so much.

[A]

All right, folks, that's it for the free show today. We will head into the a fun half where we will go have fun and look at some clips of stuff we've got. Oh, we've got all sorts of different things that we will get to.

[B]

We'll circle back to Trump falling asleep and that insane Cabinet meeting.

[A]

That was really nuts.

[B]

Yeah, not looking good for him. I mean, like with all the Biden autopad and stuff. Did Biden ever fall asleep in public? Oh, he did. Okay.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, okay.

[B]

He was also just in public. So much less than Trump. There you go.

[A]

Yeah, that was pretty impressive. And you know what? I will cover this, but my favorite part was that both Rubio and Hagseth who were sitting next to him on either side of him, I feel like they got more animated as a way of trying to wake him up. They both got really, really animated. They were talking like this. They were talking like this accidentally splash water on.

Like at one point I really thought they would go like, you.

[B]

Know what I'm saying?

[A]

And just like knock them like that. But yeah, yeah, exactly. Yes. Okay. Wait, what time? What?

Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member. Join the MajorityReport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercial, but you also get the fund out. And send us an [e-mail] Tell us what you think is the best of of this year and we will include it. Maybe I'm not going to promise anything in our compilation of best of at the end of the year when we go on vacation. It's the only time of the year where we're all on vacation at the same time.

Because we go on the work workers trust retreat. Right? We. We go on.

[B]

Yeah, that's when he's on vacation. The three of us are all just scrubbing the studio with a toothpaste brush.

[A]

That's our.

[B]

That's what?

[A]

Part of the trust. That's part of the trust exercises that we do.

Also, don't forget just Coffee Co Op. 30% off. Right now you try the coupon code majority, but I'm even sure you need that 30% off from just coffee co op. Try the majority report blend.

Try some of their single origin or try both. 30% off. Now's the time to do it. You can buy a five pound bag of beans.

I mean, that's the way I. That's the way I operate.

Matt.

[B]

I don't. What did Brian want to say? I almost made a Jack and the beanstalk joke and then realized Brian's watching. Brian was watching? Yeah.

[A]

I can't see. I've got a serious majority report filter.

We're still dialing in my filter here. Sometimes I think of things and I go, nah, not this show.

Matt.

[G]

I was looking for the Elon make comedy illegal. Thing yesterday on Left Reckoning, I talked with Dev and Thomas o' Shea about my favorite new novel, novel by Thomas Pynchon, called the Shadow Ticket, which everyone should look into, but I would say Wayward Young Men. It follows a guy from Milwaukee who, after high school, gets into strike breaking in the 30s and 20s because it's the, you know, the best job that he can get with the gas in his car. And then eventually he softens up and has a bunch of adventures. But check out that episode. Because if you are a literary type.

[A]

See you on the.

[B]

Other side.

[A]

Fun Half.

Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now. But I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow.

What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on.

[F]

Hold on for a second.

[A]

Emma. Welcome to the program.

[E]

Matt.

[A]

Boo. Fun hack. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. Nomi Keen, you did it. Fun hack.

[B]

Let's go, Brandon.

[F]

Let's go, Brandon.

[A]

Fun.

Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy.

[D]

It's all the boys today.

[C]

Fundamentally false.

[B]

No. I'm sorry. Women.

[A]

Stop talking for a second.

[B]

Let me finish.

[F]

Where is this coming from?

[B]

Dude?

[A]

But. Dude, you want to smoke this seven egg?

[C]

Yes.

[A]

Yes.

Is this me?

[C]

Is it me?

[A]

It is you?

Is this me?

[G]

Hello?

[A]

It's me. I think it is you. Who is you?

No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[F]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[A]

I'm gonna go libertarian. They're so stupid.

[G]

Though.

[A]

Common sense says. Of course.

[B]

Gobbledygook.

[A]

We nailed him.

[B]

So what's 79 plus 21?

[A]

Challenge. Matt.

[F]

I'm positively quivering.

[A]

I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0. 35, 5, 0, 11 half. 3, 8, 9, 11.

[B]

For instance. $3,400. $1900. 5, 4.

[A]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[B]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[A]

But let me say this.

You call it satire.

[F]

Sam goes satire on top of it all.

[A]

My favorite part about you is just.

[C]

Like every day, all day, like everything you do.

[A]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy.

[F]

We see you.

[A]

All right, folks, Folks, folks.

[B]

It's just the week being weeded out.

[C]

Obviously.

[A]

Obviously.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Sun's out, guns out.

I. I don't know.

[F]

But you should know.

[A]

People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares?

[G]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[A]

I love it.

[B]

I do love that.

[F]

Gotta jump. Gotta be quick.

[A]

I gotta jump. I'm losing it. Probably.

Two o'. Clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him.

Sent to a gulag.

[B]

Outrageous.

[A]

Like, what is wrong with you?

[C]

Love you. Bye.

[A]

Love you.

[F]

Bye.

[A]

Bye.