← The Political Scene | The New Yorker
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Newt Gingrich and Patrick Kennedy Talk to David Remnick About Fighting Opioid Abuse
00:17:12
Newt Gingrich and Patrick Kennedy Talk to David Remnick About Fighting Opioid Abuse
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
A
As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.
- [01:17]
B
I'm Dorothy Wickenden. On today's Politics and More podcast, David Remnick talks to former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy. And Gingrich and Kennedy are working together on a new project to combat opioid addiction.
- [01:35]
C
Newt Gingrich was once called the godfather of gridlock. As speaker of the house in the 1990s during the Clinton era, he forced the shutdown of the federal government during a budget fight, and he helped change the two party system from one of tension and occasional cooperation to a game of absolute refusal and denial that's more akin to war. He played that game very effectively. Gingrich was a strong, if occasionally critical, supporter of Donald Trump. He was spoken of as a possible vice president and is now a vice chairman on Trump's transition team. In the environment that Gingrich helped to create, any bipartisan effort at all always seemed like a minor miracle. So it's a little bit surprising that Gingrich himself is an advisor to a new venture called Advocates for Opioid Recovery. It's A nonprofit that lays out policies for government action on the opioid epidemic and it emphasizes treatment for addicts over punishment. That's a cause that was once the province of liberals. And Gingrich is working on it now with the former Obama adviser Van Jones and the former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, who's had addiction problems of his own in the past. Kennedy and Gingrich, join me in the studio.
- [02:48]
D
Patrick Kennedy, you're the scion of a great Democratic liberal dynasty in American politics. And Newt Gingrich, you're Newt Gingrich, an icon of conservatism in this country for a long time. How did you two come to collaborate at all and describe the nature of the collaboration and the issue?
- [03:06]
E
Well, Patrick and I began when he was still in the Congress and we were working on electronic medical records and health information technology, and we found that we had very common interests. I had then also co chaired with Democratic Senator Bob Kerry a three year study on Alzheimer's. So I was very deeply interested in the brain and the advances we're making in brain science. Frankly, the opioid epidemic is the largest, the leading national health crisis right now. More people die from opioid addiction than than die from gunshots or die from automobiles. First time since the creation of the mass produced automobile that it's number two. And so we thought, given that modern science indicates profound ways to help people but isn't being implemented very rapidly or very thoroughly, we felt there was a public policy role we could play. And so here we are.
- [04:06]
D
So 47,000 overdoses in a year. These are numbers that are creeping up on disorders. They've passed auto deaths, they're creeping up on the number of Americans lost in a war like Vietnam. It's a huge scale. Why does this problem mean so much to you individually? What connection do you have to it?
- [04:24]
F
Well, you know, if you had asked me as I was growing up about does my family have a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease, of course I would have said yes. And of course, if you had asked me as part of my medical exam, does my family have a history of mental illness and addiction, I said of course not. When in fact, not only does it run in my family, it gallops. And the reason is because of the shame and stigma that exists still in this country around illnesses of the brain. As Speaker Gingrich pointed out, the understanding of the brain and the symptoms that are behavioral of brain disorders is now being better understood, should take away the stigma, but frankly, it hasn't. So our job is to try to connect the modern medical system to the understandings that we currently have, because our medical system has not caught up to the understandings that have been revealed to us through neuroscience and the like.
- [05:24]
D
Speaker Gingrich, what are the roots of the problem? I mean, we've been hearing about drug addiction all our lives, and it comes in waves. Heroin in the 60s and 70s, certainly, and then crack in the 80s was dominant. What is the origin of this problem? How did it come about and reach this horrendous scale?
- [05:42]
E
Two things happened in the mid-90s that had a huge effect, each of them benign but coming together very hostilely. And one is that an article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine that said that pain management was a major responsibility. And so doctors who used to say, yeah, you're going to be in pain, but take two aspirin, began to think, gee, we now have these powerful new tools. Maybe I should give you this drug. At the same time, you had a company which was making the drug. OxyContin was the original case study, and they flooded the market. Well, that led patients to begin demanding that they wanted more drugs. As that's emerging, there are a small number of Mexicans in a very small town in southwestern Mexico who figure out that you can produce Mexican heroin. You could then adopt, basically, a Domino's pizza delivery system. You could give a card to the drug addicts, they could call your telephone person, and suddenly you had this intersection of OxyContin and other totally legal drugs with heroin. And the heroin is much cheaper. And in Columbus, Ohio, at one point, it was cheaper to buy heroin than it was to buy cigarettes. I mean, that's how much they reduced the price.
- [06:59]
D
So what is my path of addiction? If I get. If I get caught up on this horrible train, I begin on trying to control my pain, and then where do I end up? What's the path? How does this happen?
- [07:10]
F
So we're at a point now where we're finally recognizing this has been a problem. And there's things called prescription drug monitoring programs. There's really been a clamping down of doctors prescribing these things. So the irony is now that everyone's hooked, they can't get there oxycontin anymore. It's easier, as you could understandably see, for them to go to the street and get heroin if they can't get access to their pain meds. So that's what's happening. Unfortunately, our public policymakers have not understood that. We have no limitation, really, on the prescribing authority of doctors for pain meds. But we have all kinds of prohibitions on their prescribing the antidote for addiction from pain meds, and that's opiate replacement therapy.
- [07:59]
D
Mr. Speaker, what do you say to the criticism that the way this epidemic has been treated as a matter of illness, not of crime, is about race? And some have pointed out that the reason why we're talking about addiction treatment instead of incarceration as the solution is because a great number of its victims are white, are suburban whites. You think that's fair?
- [08:19]
E
Well, my answer to that is that Van Jones and I have co led an effort for the last three years to develop criminal justice reform to respond precisely to the fact that we made a huge mistake as a country in locking up people for nonviolent crimes who, in fact, should have been sent to treatment centers. But I think you also have to recognize this opioid epidemic is not purely, you know, a white rural or white suburban epidemic.
- [08:45]
D
What are the demographics of it?
- [08:47]
E
Well, I think it's scattered all across middle America now. I mean, it goes from suburbs across the whole country. But remember, one of the most famous people to die from this is Prince, and Prince certainly didn't fit the demographic of being, you know, a white rural person. So, you know, I think that it's a great tragedy how this has evolved.
- [09:06]
D
Now, you're, I think, of the people in this room. It's fair to say that you, Mr. Speaker, know the Trump campaign much more intimately than anybody. Do you think you've made any inroads in getting the new administration interested in this? Do they share your point of view?
- [09:21]
E
Well, I know that during the campaign they were very aware of it in New Hampshire, where the epidemic is so terrible that it was the number one issue in Ohio, where they did remarkably well and where Senator Rob Portman is probably the leading advocate. He's given over 20 speeches on the Senate floor on the opioid epidemic. And I know that they look to Rob as a real leader in this area. I know that they were very supportive of passing the 21st Century Cures act, which has a substantial part of it relating to opioid addiction. And I believe you're going to find that they're very concerned. As you know, President Elect Trump had a personal experience in his own family with his brother, who he loved dearly and who died of alcoholism. And I think in that sense, he's very sensitive and aware of the dangers of addiction and the need to treat addiction as a health, not a criminal circumstance.
- [10:14]
D
So do you see this as kind of emblematic of what's possible. Even though there's a lot of dread on one side about a Trump administration and a lot of anticipation on the other, this is a very heightened political season that this issue and the fact that you two are in the same room and Van Jones is also joining in the effort and many others, is this a possible example of where progress could be made, coordination could be made?
- [10:38]
F
Absolutely. I mean, there's plenty to divide us ideologically, but simply pursuing the science and evidence based solutions that could make a big impact on both blue and red state America. This really doesn't know any partisan boundaries. I do think that it offers a great opportunity for common ground for this president to take a leadership role in helping us finally bridge that gap where addiction, treatment, mental illness has not been integrated with overall healthcare, and we've seen the consequences of that, whatever ends up becoming the new model of healthcare that they put forward really does help that there has been a tremendous commitment to this issue.
- [11:23]
E
Let me point out that the 21st Century Cures act, while it was primarily authored by Senator Lamar Alexander and the Senate and Congressman Fred Upton in the House, was a very bipartisan bill. It passed by huge margins in both the House and the Senate. It's a substantive bill. It's not just one of those that passes easily because it doesn't do anything. And President Obama signed it. And all that was done with the support of the Trump team, who could easily have blocked it if they wanted to, but they understood that this was really a big deal. And every conversation I've had with them, including as late as today, their concern about research and their concern about moving forward with the kind of opportunities to better understand the brain and better understand all of biology, is very, very real.
- [12:10]
D
No, it's no secret to you that a lot of people are distressed that some Cabinet appointees do not necessarily, in the view of some people, share that kind of fact based scientific view of the world on a broad range of issues, particularly climate change. How do you feel about that? Are you encouraged by these Cabinet appointees or the opposite because you've been both supportive and occasionally critical of the Trump people?
- [12:34]
E
Well, I would separate climate change, which is a very politicized ideological argument, but frankly, as a topic also where President elect Trump met with Al Gore, I mean, you can't be much more open on that issue.
- [12:48]
D
He met with Al Gore but then made the appointments he made.
- [12:50]
E
Right, But I'm just saying that there's a constant information gathering. I would separate that as a highly politicized issue from scientific research and things like the brain project at the National Institutes of Health and so forth, we are almost certainly going to be committed to larger research investment.
- [13:12]
D
But when you say climate change is a politicized issue, it certainly is a politicized issue. Do you think the science is solid, though?
- [13:19]
E
No, I am not convinced.
- [13:22]
D
Which leads you to what kind of policy and what you think the Trump administration will go.
- [13:26]
E
I personally think we ought to take appropriate steps that are economically rational and that move us towards minimizing carbon loading just as a prudential thing. As a conservative, I believe you ought to be conservative on risk, and I think we, frankly, ought to look at times at mitigation rather than prevention. I think. I mean, part of what drives conservatives crazy is if I agree that Al Gore might have a point about the fact that there's a problem, then Al Gore promptly says, great. That means you ought to turn over enormous power to an international organization, raise taxes massively, and distort the economy.
- [14:00]
D
With respect, it's not a matter of just Al Gore. Al Gore is representing the point of view of, I think you'd agree, vast majority of climate scientists.
- [14:07]
E
No, no. I don't know that a vast majority of climate scientists would automatically agree with his prescription. They might agree with his analysis, and that's what part of the fight's about. So I would say that there are things we can do that are prudent, and I suspect that the Trump administration's effort, for example, in developing an infrastructure program, which will be very substantial, will have some aspects of it that are very positive in terms of solar power and other developments that probably most people concerned about climate will look on positively.
- [14:37]
D
What worries you about the new administration, both of you?
- [14:42]
F
I'm just concerned about, obviously, the Constitution of the United States, freedom of press, freedom of assembly. I think that the concern I would have is whether we, as a democracy feel as though we all have a voice and that those opposition voices aren't stifled for fear of government reprisal, so to speak, or some other. I have been concerned, I think, as generally everybody has, about the temper of the election, where there's this threatening environment that we all live in and that, you know, there's a real. It borders on violence, because keep in mind, politics is a substitute for violence.
- [15:25]
D
Right?
- [15:26]
F
So we have an obligation to not only, you know, not to inflame people's prejudices and bigotry, but to tamp those down and bring connection and community. That's the real challenge, and that's what I Hope, I think all Americans hope that we can ultimately see from a new administration.
- [15:48]
D
Mr. Speaker, what concerns you?
- [15:50]
E
Oh, I think I have two major concerns. One is that President Elect Trump is assembling an extraordinary cabinet, but it's a Cabinet that has overwhelming experience in the private sector, not the public sector. And I think they will be shocked by the weight of bureaucracy and the weight of regulation and the complexity of the legislative process. And so watching them for the first 90 days come to grips with how different Washington is from running a company.
- [16:18]
D
Was there adequate respect for the art of policymaking in the selection of a cabinet?
- [16:24]
E
Oh, I think so. I think he knows what he's doing. Trump campaigned on very large scale change. He is assembling a Cabinet that has the energy and the drive and the toughness to potentially achieve very large scale change. But most of them are relatively outside the Washington experience. I think that's a legitimate gamble. And you know, the other thing I worry about is variation on what Patrick just said, which is that this election will never be over. That if you watch the Washington Post, you watch the New York Times, you watch the Democrats, this is going to be a daily fight every day. And the ability to bear up under that and remember why you got elected and stay focused on what you're trying to get done is really challenging. And it'll be interesting to see how much they get worn down just by the sheer weight of the onslaught or distraction.
- [17:20]
D
You come to us on a day when the President elect tweeted, tweeted about a bad restaurant review in Vanity Fair.
- [17:29]
C
What does that portend?
- [17:31]
E
That he has the energy of Theodore Roosevelt and that you can expect him to routinely do things. I mean, Teddy's the same way. And there are moments I remember reading.
- [17:42]
D
Biography of Theodore Roosevelt and of course he had boundless energy, but he read 500 books a year and shot antelopes and did what Teddy Roosevelt did. He was tweeting about a bad restaurant review. I don't know.
- [17:51]
E
If Teddy were alive today, he'd be.
- [17:53]
D
Tweeting about a bad restaurant review.
- [17:54]
E
He'd be tweeting about lots of things.
- [17:56]
D
As they say in the movie anchorman agree to disagree. Speaker Gingrich, Patrick Kennedy, thank you so much.
- [18:02]
F
Thank you. God.
- [18:07]
D
Teddy Rose he real gcn.
- [18:16]
B
That was David Remnick talking to Newt Gingrich and Patrick Kennedy.
- [18:28]
G
I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.
- [18:31]
F
I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of consumer Tech and Culture.
- [18:34]
B
And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a Sen. Correspondent at Wired, and our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.
- [18:43]
G
And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.
- [18:53]
F
Right? So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.
- [19:01]
G
Affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.
- [19:14]
F
From prx.