America’s Branding Crisis — with Heather Cox Richardson

Summary

Podcast Summary: "America’s Branding Crisis — with Heather Cox Richardson"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway
• Host: Scott Galloway, Vox Media Podcast Network
• Episode: America’s Branding Crisis — with Heather Cox Richardson
• Release Date: July 10, 2025
• Guest: Heather Cox Richardson, Professor of History at Boston College and author of Letters from an American

---

Introduction

In the 356th episode of The Prof G Pod, Scott Galloway engages in a profound discussion with historian Heather Cox Richardson about America’s Branding Crisis. The conversation delves into the current political climate, the evolution of patriotism, the rise of authoritarian tendencies, and the profound impact of recent legislation on American society. Richardson, renowned for her expertise in American political and economic history, provides insightful analyses that connect historical patterns to contemporary issues.

---

Heather Cox Richardson's Opening Monologue

Heather Cox Richardson begins by sharing her personal experiences in Ibiza, contrasting the island's luxurious hospitality with the broader socio-economic issues in America. She critiques a recent tax bill, describing it as an alarming transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, which she believes erodes essential social safety nets. Richardson reflects on her own upbringing, attributing much of her success to accessible social programs and the support of immigrants.

Key Points:

• Tax Legislation Impact: Richardson voices concern over a tax bill that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, predicting significant financial disparities and weakening of healthcare and social services for the lower 90% of Americans. She states, at [06:00], "This is nothing but a transfer of wealth again from the poor to the rich."

• Personal Reflections: She recounts her family's reliance on assisted lunch programs and Pell Grants, highlighting how these resources were pivotal in her educational and entrepreneurial journey.

• Critique of Current Policies: Richardson condemns the conflation of masculinity with cruelty, criticizing policies that she views as authoritarian and indicative of a societal decline.

Notable Quote:

"Everything that I think I am blessed with, or many things that have created just what is an exceptional life around economic opportunity, Loving the middle class, giving people merit and opportunity... all of those foundations are under attack right now."
— Heather Cox Richardson [06:00]

---

Redefining Patriotism and Political Polarization

Scott Galloway and Richardson explore how patriotism has been co-opted as a tool for political polarization, primarily by the Republican Party. They discuss the strategic alignment of patriotism with party identity, a tactic that has deepened societal divides.

Key Points:

• Republican Party Strategies: Starting in the 1950s, the Republican Party has consistently positioned itself as the embodiment of true American patriotism, labeling opponents as unpatriotic. Richardson notes, at [14:49], "One of the things that the Republicans did pretty effectively really... was to identify membership in the Republican Party as being the heart of patriotism."

• Media's Role: The rise of talk radio and networks like Fox News have amplified this polarization by creating an "us vs. them" narrative, further aligning patriotism with one political identity.

• Impact on Democracy: This branding has led to the elevation of partisanship over national unity, undermining foundational democratic principles.

Notable Quote:

"The idea that patriotism belongs to a certain party has turned out to be really quite poisonous."
— Heather Cox Richardson [14:49]

---

Authoritarianism and Historical Parallels

The conversation shifts to the dangers of authoritarianism, drawing parallels between current U.S. policies and historical authoritarian regimes.

Key Points:

• Mechanisms of Authoritarianism: Richardson explains that authoritarian leaders often ascend within established democratic frameworks, manipulating systems to gain control without broad public support.

• Comparison with Nazi Germany: While Galloway compares current U.S. trends to 1930s Germany, Richardson acknowledges the unique context of American history but warns about similar patterns of power consolidation and erosion of democratic norms.

• Militarization and Civil Rights: They discuss the expansion of ICE and Border Patrol, likening these agencies to a militarized state akin to historical concentration camps, raising alarms about civil liberties.

Notable Quotes:

"We have sent now people to a gulag in the Everglades."
— Heather Cox Richardson [56:40]

"I immediately draw conclusions or parallels with the GESTAPO... But I have too much faith in the American people to believe that's going to be the case."
— Scott Galloway [59:52]

---

Rebranding the Democratic Party

Scott Galloway seeks Richardson’s expertise on how the Democratic Party can effectively rebrand itself to counter Republican strategies and regain the public's trust.

Key Points:

• Three Pillars for Democrats:

  1. Restoring Alliances: Strengthening ties both domestically and internationally, emphasizing collaboration over partisanship.
  2. Addressing Inequality: Implementing fair tax policies, reducing the wealth gap, and ensuring equal access to resources.
  3. Promoting Health and Fitness: Encouraging physical and mental well-being through improved nutrition, combating obesity, and fostering community health.

• Messaging Strategies: Richardson emphasizes the importance of aligning Democratic messaging with core American values of equality and community, rather than getting bogged down in identity politics.

• Historical References: Drawing inspiration from leaders like Abraham Lincoln, she suggests Democrats should highlight foundational democratic principles to build a unifying narrative.

Notable Quotes:

"What you are outlining... resembles what Edmund Burke was talking about during the French Revolution... focus on stability."
— Heather Cox Richardson [38:39]

"One of the things that really jumps out at me is what happens when people recognize that in fact, they do need a community, they do need each other."
— Scott Galloway [24:49]

---

Immigration, AI, and the Future of Work

The dialogue progresses to discuss the intersection of immigration policies and the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workforce.

Key Points:

• Impact of Trump’s Legislation: Richardson criticizes policies aimed at reducing undocumented immigration, arguing that they ignore the economic benefits of a flexible workforce and the essential roles immigrants play in various sectors.

• AI’s Role in Job Displacement: Galloway highlights the threat AI poses to employment, noting that many jobs targeted by automation are crucial and irreplaceable by technology, such as caregiving and physical labor.

• Economic and Moral Implications: Both agree that policies antagonizing immigrants are economically detrimental and morally indefensible, especially in an era where AI represents a more significant threat to job security.

Notable Quotes:

"What I have the most troubling piece.... Immigrants play a key role and that an autocracy..."
— Scott Galloway [66:16]

"The demonization of immigrants... economically makes no sense."
— Scott Galloway [62:02]

---

Historical Parallels: The Gilded Age and Modern Tech Elites

Richardson draws parallels between the current landscape of tech billionaires and the industrial magnates of the Gilded Age, exploring themes of elitism and wealth concentration.

Key Points:

• Concentration of Wealth: Similar to Andrew Carnegie and other Gilded Age industrialists, modern tech elites like Elon Musk embody the belief that wealth should be concentrated among the most capable individuals to drive societal progress.

• Impact on Democracy: This mindset fosters policies that prioritize the interests of the wealthy, potentially undermining democratic equality and exacerbating societal divides.

• Lessons from History: By examining past instances where wealth concentration led to social and political upheaval, Richardson underscores the importance of maintaining democratic principles to prevent similar outcomes today.

Notable Quotes:

"When you get to talking about how do you pick up right there... he is talking about how... he set out to create a system that they think advantages them in such a way that they will do good for the most people."
— Heather Cox Richardson [72:47]

"That mindset that some people are better than others and have the right to rule for the good of humanity is a thread that runs through American history."
— Heather Cox Richardson [72:47]

---

Conclusions and Future Outlook

In concluding the discussion, both Galloway and Richardson express cautious optimism about America’s future amidst current challenges.

Key Points:

• Pathways Forward: Richardson advocates for reinforcing democratic principles and fostering a mass movement rooted in equality and community to counteract authoritarian tendencies.

• Institutional Resilience: Emphasizing the role of institutions and individuals in standing up against oppressive policies, they stress the necessity of collective action to preserve democracy.

• Potential Outcomes: Galloway acknowledges the uncertainty of the future, contemplating whether America will veer into authoritarianism or rejuvenate its democratic foundations through societal instability.

Notable Quotes:

"But I am not ready to give up on America. We have done it in the past and in a way we have the tools to know how to do it again."
— Heather Cox Richardson [78:00]

"When you understand our history, you understand our present, and in a way, you understand how to shape our future."
— Scott Galloway [Final Remarks]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of The Prof G Pod offers a compelling examination of America's current socio-political landscape through the lens of historical expertise. Heather Cox Richardson provides a nuanced analysis of the interplay between political strategies, social policies, and economic factors shaping the nation's trajectory. The discussion underscores the importance of historical awareness in addressing contemporary challenges and highlights the critical need for unity and equitable policies to safeguard America's democratic fabric.

---

Notable Quotes Collection:

• "The idea that patriotism belongs to a certain party has turned out to be really quite poisonous." — Heather Cox Richardson [14:49]

• "This is nothing but a transfer of wealth again from the poor to the rich." — Heather Cox Richardson [06:00]

• "I immediately draw conclusions or parallels with the GESTAPO..." — Scott Galloway [59:52]

• "We have done it in the past and in a way we have the tools to know how to do it again." — Heather Cox Richardson [78:00]

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions from the episode, providing listeners and non-listeners alike with a thorough understanding of the themes and insights shared by Scott Galloway and Heather Cox Richardson.

Transcript

[Charles Schwab]

Support for the show comes from Charles Schwab. At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[General Assembly]

Support for the show comes from General Assembly Seems like just about every industry is trying to figure out how to fit AI into their workflows. You can't throw a rock without hitting a new product that promises to automate, innovate and optimize. But what good is a powerful tool.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

If you don't know how to use it?

[General Assembly]

According to their data, General assembly found that 58% of executives have never had any kind of AI training, which means that the skill gap starts at the top. If that sounds familiar to you, you're in luck because now there's an AI Academy from General Assembly. General Assembly's AI Academy helps teams master AI by offering role specific real world training design to boost productivity and accelerate transformation. You and your team can learn the in demand skills that unlock the potential of AI at every level of the organization. That's practical AI fluency for every team, not just the tech team. Visit GA co AIACademy to explore AI Academy training tracks tailored to your team's roles and goals. That's GA CO AIACademy to learn more. GA CO AI Academy General Assembly Real.

[Scott Galloway]

Skills, Real Impact Foreign for the show.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Comes from Intuit QuickBooks.

[General Assembly]

Do you own a business that's ready to thrive?

[Intuit QuickBooks]

It's time to let Intuit QuickBooks take things like unpaid invoices and tracking expenses.

[General Assembly]

Off your plate so you can take.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Things to the next level. Intuit QuickBooks is a powerful AI driven all in one business solution that can help with day to day tasks like invoicing, expenses and taxes. QuickBooks can help you unlock the growth in your business so you can get back to enjoying your business. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit QuickBooks your way to money. Get 90% off for 3 months limited time only terms and conditions apply. Episode 356356 is the country code from Malta.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

1956 Elvis Presley released his first hit single Heartbreak Hotel. True story. Someone asked me to do an impression of Elvis and I said sure and I pretended to be dead on the crapper. Go, Go Go. Welcome to the 356th episode of the Prop G Pod. What's happening? I am still in Ibiza. I just think Ibiza is fascinating. One they've managed to maintain this point of differentiation and this sort of singular ownership of island life and DJ culture and, and the result is incredible margins. Specifically, I am staying at the Six Senses, which is this new raft of six star priced hotels with four star service. It just, it's nice, there's, it's lovely, but it's not worth the money we're paying, quite frankly. And part of that is a Ibiza draws a tremendous crowd with lots of money and has this sort of singular feel. What do you want to do? What is all strategy? What can we do that is really hard. Becoming known for a great island that has the world's best dj, that is really hard to do. And then figuring out a way to price discriminate such you get enough people to create a vibe but also monetize the people here who are in their 50s, who still want to see Calvin Harris and figure out a way to charge them a crazy amount of money. That's just not easy. Speaking of the super wealthy getting even wealthier, the tax bill passed last week, which I find incredibly disturbing. One because I can't understand how America has not basically decided it's the Hunger Games. And that is they weren't fooled. I think people want to think, oh, they don't realize what's in the bill. Unfortunately, I think Americans do realize what's in the bill and I think the lower 90 realize that they're now nutrition for the top 10% but believe that someday they'll be in the top 10. And also conflate masculinity with cruelty. When they see ICE agents holding people down and putting a knee on their head as a 16 year old screams to let his mother go, they find that those are hard decisions and that's masculinity and that's leadership. And they're so angry they want to see that type of persecution. You want to protect jobs, People get your head out of your ass and start figuring out vocational training and some sort of, I don't know, upskilling around AI, you know who's taking our jobs? It's not some lady wiping your grandma's ass or collecting or picking your crops. What does it mean when you have ICE agents who find that the most fruitful ways to find these quote unquote undocumented workers is at schools, churches and Home Depot? Are those really the people we want to be deporting? Anyways, by the way, this is totally reimagined Gestapo, full stop. Yeah. Oh, by the way, in case you're asking, in case you just got your conservative higher up or my are about to accuse me of TDS and say oh, what, you're comparing, you're comparing him to Hitler? Yeah, I am. Hundred percent, 100%. But it's clear this isn't just an accident. The American people have not been fooled here. They've decided this is what they want. They want a certain level of harshness, they want a certain level of cruelty. They've conflated that with leadership and masculinity. I think that is what is most frightening and most disappointing here. But by the way, I've looked at loaded my taxes into ChatGPT and I'm going to get this save about between 400,000 and 1.4 million a year over the next five years based on what I'm hoping I make and the impact of this tax bill. This is nothing but a transfer of wealth again from the poor to the rich. And the poor will see most of that transfer in the form of incredible erosion in healthcare and the social safety net. And the wealthy will just get continued goodies in terms of tax cuts. And then we'll throw in some authoritarianism and wrapped in bureaucratic language such as the senior administrative officials, administration officials can't be subpoenaed or aren't subject to certain, certain checks or safeguards. This is absolutely a move towards authoritarianism. And what's the most disturbing thing about it is it doesn't feel like the American public has been fooled. It appears that that is in fact what they want. I look at when I'm on a vacation like this, I have time to slow down. And I think like most people when you're on vacation with your family, you do kind of count your blessings and have some time to ref like and I immediately reverse engineer my prosperity. This is what happens when you're under the age of 40 or this is what happened to me. And maybe I was just less thoughtful than most people, but under the age of 40 when I reverse engineered my success to pillars, I credited my grit and my character. Like check my shit out. I'm just so fucking impressive. And this is, and all the panels I was on, well, this is how I, I, I did this X, Y and Z. And then as you get older you realize, and I think this is part of maturing, that a lot of your success is not your fault. And that has become so strikingly clear to me. As I've gotten older. And then when I reverse engineer my prosperity and blessings to pillars upon which that prosperity and those blessings were built on, I go all the way back to the fourth grade when I got assisted lunch, that is my family. My mom made $800 a month as a secretary. And so we qualified for assisted lunch. And the wonderful thing about this program, the wonderful, the really generous thing that reflected so well on America about this program, I didn't know about it. I didn't know about it till later in life. Why? Because the good taxpayers of California and our wonderful federal government said it's important that nine year olds don't feel stigmatized. So my mom would send in paperwork, I would get the same lunch and breakfast coupons that every other kid had. So there was no stigma attached.

[Unknown Speaker]

Isn't that, I think that says something.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

So nice about American values, or at least what used to be American values. And then I got to high school now when I was 17, and I've spoken very openly about this, my mom told me she was gonna have to spend the night in the hospital because she was getting something called a dnc, which I later found out meant she was getting an abortion. She'd become pregnant at the age of 47. And had we lived in America in deep dark red country, we just weren't very sophisticated or knowledgeable. We probably would have had an unwanted pregnancy. And at the age of 17, I had a job installing shelving. I was making good money. I probably most definitely would not have gone to U. Ucla and that would have not created this upward spiral of prosperity that I've enjoyed because of the generosity of California taxpayers and the great University of California system. When I got to ucla, the only way I got through was with Pell Grants. I just couldn't afford to be there.

[Scott Galloway]

Oh, and by the way, the fact.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

That it had a 74% admissions rate. But Pell Grants got me through college and I qualified for those because see above, I came from a upper lower middle class household. A third of Pell Grant recipients will either have their grants red eliminated. When I graduated from college, I got to start companies and raise tens and then hundreds of millions of dollars. All of my companies were built on the Internet. Oh, by the way, who funded the Internet? The federal government. Why? Because we had the capital to make these big forward leaning investments in technology. We're about to have a trillion dollars in debt service payments which will crowd out all types of forward leaning technology investments because we are massively funding with future prosperity these tax cuts. So Are we going to have the money to invent or invest these deep technologies that the private sector won't invest in? Oh, I was able to raise capital. Why? Because there was $5 million for every startup in the United States versus 1 million in Europe. Why? Because of rule of law. Who built my companies? Well, one, I'd like to think I had a role on it, but Jawad Mohammed, my first programmer, Red Envelope, an immigrant from Pakistan. Claude Dajokis, probably our most talented consultant, ran our CPG group, was an immigrant from Canada who by the way, was almost kicked out of America. But because I have money, I was able to lawyer up and make sure she could stay and build a great company that seven years later we sold for $160 million and made a bunch of Americans and some immigrants rich. Christine Dang at Red Envelope, our chief merchant immigrant from Vietnam. The talent pool to build these great companies was because we, in fact, we in fact loved immigrants. So let's go even further back. America welcomed my mother and father. Had they run the risk of having their phone absconded or being shipped to some sort of detention center in a swampland or being tracked down at work.

[Scott Galloway]

Or something like that?

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Or even if they got in here legally, they think, do I really need to be here?

[Scott Galloway]

Fucking.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Oh, another great immigrant, Maria Petrova, who in her fifth language edits my books and newsletters. Jesus Christ. Yeah, we don't want that kind of talent coming here anymore. So even if they're not worried about being run down and basically physically abused by ICE folks, mass ICE agents, do they really want to come here? Universities. I got to go create an amazing platform at universities. Why? Because corporations love working with academics. There was incredible deep research funded by the government that gave us the resources to pursue the truth, which the private sector absolutely loves and benefits from. Now that's under attack. Back to mom and dad. I don't think they'd be here. I don't think I would have been able to make the best decision I've ever made. The best decision I've ever made would not have been afforded to me specifically to be born in America, because I don't think my parents would have come and put up and endured a risk. This bullshit right now, let's go even further back. Even further back. My mother was a four year old sleeping in the tube in London as Hitler bombed the shit out of London in the blitzkrieg. And the thing that saved my mother from her last memory, bringing a train ride to some camp. And the reason yours truly is Here doing this fucking podcast from a 4000 DOL room night in Ibiza is because we decided that fascism was unacceptable. History is rhyming. It sounds like a bad cover band right now. Would I be here? Would my mom have survived if America hadn't immediately decided that fascism was unacceptable? So everything that I think I am blessed with, or many things that have created just what is an exceptional life around economic opportunity, Loving the middle class, giving people merit and opportunity, a certain rule of fair play, a love of immigrants and a love of the unremarkable. An appreciation that with a little bit of money you can invest in young people and they will be able to pay that money back and that will be a good return on investment. Making sure kids have nutrition, making sure people have access to some sort of dignity, making sure that women have some sort of bott bodily autonomy. All the things my success is built on, all of those foundations are under attack right now. And if you look through your history and your blessings and most of us are a lot more blessed than we want to believe because social media has made us angry at everybody and angry at ourselves. But the majority of you listening to this podcast have exceptional prosperity. And if you reverse engineer it to many of the core things that weren't your fault that really led to your success, many of them, many of them, if not most of them in my case, are under attack. This is a direct insult to all of the people who made huge sacrifices to ensure that we lived in a free democratic society that loved unremarkable people. Okay, moving on. In today's episode, we speak with Heather Cox Richardson, a Boston College historian and author who connects American history to today's politics. In her best selling books and popular newsletter, Letters from an American, we discussed with Professor Richardson the evolution of the Republican Party, Trump's mega bill, and what still gives her hope for America. So with that, here's our conversation with Heather Cox Richardson.

[Scott Galloway]

Professor Richardson, where does this podcast find you?

[Unknown Speaker]

I am in Mid Coast Maine, much hotter than I have been in the last nine months up here.

[Scott Galloway]

Nice. Well, let's bust right into it here. How has patriotism been redefined in recent years and what would it look like to reclaim it in service of democracy rather than authoritarianism?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, the second half of that is easy, but let's start with the first half of it. One of the things that the Republicans did pretty effectively really, starting in the 1950s with the scare about communism, but certainly after the 1960s and the 1970s, was to identify membership in the Republican Party as being the heart of patriotism. And you really see this taking off under Nixon and Spiro Agnew, when they deliberately polarized the country, they called it positive polarization, meaning that it was positive for them because people would vote Republican. And you see it really taking off under Ronald Reagan and his construction of the other people, like welfare queens. And once you get into talk radio in the mid-80s and then into the Fox News Channel, the deliberate division of the country into two groups, one assumed to be pro America and the other assumed to be anti American. And that picked up a lot of themes like the fight against the Vietnam War and so on. But that idea that patriotism belongs to a certain party has turned out to be really quite poisonous. And you see now the elevation of partisanship over country, even in things as recently as the budget reconciliation bill. So there is a perversion of patriotism that we see going on around us, but reclaiming a broader patriotism that shows an allegiance to the country rather than to a political party. We've done that repeatedly in the past. And the answer to that is simply to return to the foundational principles of the American democracy, the idea that we should be treated equally before the law. We have a right to a say in our government, and we have a right to equal access to resources. Those aren't difficult concepts, and they're the ones that have managed to create broad based political movements throughout our history.

[Scott Galloway]

What do you think Americans get wrong about how authoritarian regimes come into power and does this? What other moment in history would you most equate this one to in terms of a rise of authoritarianism?

[Unknown Speaker]

You know, I think a lot of Americans in the past, and I don't think this is necessarily true any longer, but a lot of Americans in the past thought of authoritarians as people who arrived with the fanfare of the military behind them. And the truth is that the military comes later. The rise of an authoritarian comes from within established systems, often democratic systems, where people vote into power somebody never who has a majority.

[Scott Galloway]

Hitler was democratically elected.

[Unknown Speaker]

No, well, yes, but. Well, those authoritarians never have a majority of the population. They're able to use the systems in order to turn a very small minority into a governing body. So I think we're seeing the same thing around us now. And what looks like this in the past to me is one of two things. Either the 1850s and the ability of a few elite slave owners to monopolize the political system, to take over the government in their own interest, or the 1890s when we saw something very similar among the giant industrialists. And that in a way makes it easier to see ways to get out of.

[Scott Galloway]

I often draw parallels between America now in 1930s Germany. Do you think that's, do you think that's a fitting comparison? Both the examples you gave were from American history.

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, remember, I'm an Americanist, so you know, I can speak with authority on America. Any other country that I talk about is ill informed. You know, what historians do is we understand our body of work. And what I do is America. And my, my background is only partly in history. My master's is in literature. My degree is in American civilization. So I've been trained in a very different way than a historian who could do comparative history, for example. So, yeah, I can read the same books that Germanists read, but I don't have the theoretical background to speak authoritatively about them. What I can do is look at people like Hannah Arendt and Eric Hoffer and George Orwell and all those people who looked at the moment after the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and made broad generalizations about the kinds of populations that are susceptible to a rising authoritarian. And you know, that's really your field, that idea of how do you market and to what population do you market the idea of giving up your rights and your privileges in order to support one guy?

[Scott Galloway]

So funny because just as you said.

[Unknown Speaker]

That, I was immediately very self conscious about dunning Kruger. And that is because I've had some.

[Scott Galloway]

Success in some areas. I feel it gives me license to.

[Unknown Speaker]

Speak about things I don't know that much about. And I very much appreciate how measured you are and acknowledging that you're not an expert in certain fields and somewhat remiss to speak about it. And that is so rare in today's age. So I do appreciate that and I think it represents one of the wonderful things about academia, that that is a standard in academia, that you are supposed to stay in your own lane. So, look, I'd be curious from an American viewpoint or based on your background and domain expertise. Also, I'll flip the question back to you. Who do you think has done the best job of marketing political parties? Or let me frame it this way. I think the Democratic Party right now, my understanding is if the election were held today, that Trump would still win handily over Vice President Harris and that the Democratic Party is less popular right now than Trump or the Republican Party. And I would argue that a lot of that is marketing, that the Democratic Party is seen primarily as weak as a party of identity politics and a party that doesn't really understand how to improve the material and psychological well being of ordinary Americans. But I'd love to get your view of what parties and why have been successful at marketing their own brand of politics.

You know, let's start with what you just said about the Democrats because I don't disagree with you about the way that Democrats are perceived, but that's in part because defining the Democrats has been the business of the Republican Party. And that's through a media system that elevates the Republican voices. Through a construction of a certain kind of politics on the Republican side, they have managed to define their opponents in ways that are completely inaccurate. And the Democrats, I think, have not been able to push back against that successfully. Now, you started by asking who has successfully marketed the kind of political positions that or the political parties that in our history. And one of those groups is today's modern Republican Party, who since at least the 1980s has billed itself as a party that's going to dramatically increase economic growth and enable all boats to rise. Remember Reagan talking about the fact that this, by cutting taxes and cutting regulations, there would be such investment in the economy that it would enable everybody to do better and we would be able to have increasing services, not less services, but increasing services because of the increase in tax revenue that, that quite literally never paid off. And you're still seeing it again with the budget reconciliation bill of just a week ago where you had Trump out there saying this is gonna cause such extraordinary growth. It doesn't. That simply does not work. But I think they were able to sell it in part by tapping into an extraordinarily powerful mythology and a mythology that is not only part of American history, but part of sort of human literature. And that was the idea of the little guy fighting back against, against the empire. And that idea that Ronald Reagan pushed so effectively in 1980, when he was in his campaign in 1980, but certainly people had been doing from before Reagan. You could go back to Barry Goldwater and back to William F. Buckley Jr. And back even into the years before the New Deal, into fundamentalist Christianity, for example, and into all these different routes in the United States. That idea of the individual fighting back against the empire is a powerful enough myth that if you think about it, in 1970, it was the heart of Star Wars. That idea of the cowboy and the independent individual and so on. That's something that a lot of Americans believed that they embodied. And I think one of the things that I just had to walk over here, like I say I really am on the mid Coast Maine. And I don't have cell coverage or cable at my house, so I have to. Somebody lends me this place to work from. And I was walking over here and I was thinking, you know, we're seeing this now play out, where a lot of people who believed that they didn't need the government, they didn't need taxes, they could do it all on their own, are watching all the pieces of the government on which they depended being slashed and suddenly reaching a reckoning. And one of the things that to me is intellectually interesting is what happens when people recognize that in fact, they do need a community, they do need each other. Well, in the past, what we've gotten is the kind of cultural moment you celebrate. Buddy movies or community movies. You know, During World War II, Hollywood made zero Westerns, and they made all those sort of world, you know, War 2 buddy movies or platoon movies and other things that celebrated towns and loyalties to each other. Maybe we get a moment like that. Maybe we get a lot of people who withdraw from politics. Maybe we get an extraordinarily angry reactionary politics that supports authoritarianism. But. But that branding of the Republican Party as the cowboy party, as the individual party, as the party of guys who can make it on their own, was extraordinarily effective. And between 1981 and 2021, it moved more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. So I think you have to look at that as a pretty, Pretty amazing branding moment. What would you do for the Democrats now?

[Scott Galloway]

Let me just say I love this conversation. So. So when people ask, what is the strategy of America? I would say if you had to.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Distill it down to one very basic thing.

[Scott Galloway]

Since the 1980s, the strategy has been to cut taxes. That it's intoxicating to believe that the private sector, which is incredible in the United States, best private sector, arguably in the world, that it's when it's unbridled.

[Unknown Speaker]

And just let to run flat out.

[Scott Galloway]

That it'll create so much prosperity, so.

[Unknown Speaker]

Much growth, that that will ultimately, quote, unquote, trickle down. I think that it's just impossible, if you have any reverence for data, for numbers and the pursuit of truth, to.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Not acknowledge at this point that that.

[Unknown Speaker]

Strategy has not worked.

[Scott Galloway]

I would argue what you're calling the.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Cowboy mentality is that we have embraced.

[Unknown Speaker]

Or conflated masculinity and strength with cruelty and coarseness, that there is a certain level of censors being tickled by people who are so angry, felt like they've.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Been so lied to.

[Unknown Speaker]

And that anger gets speedballed by algorithms.

[Scott Galloway]

That have a profit incentive in convincing.

[Unknown Speaker]

Us that your neighbor isn't a Russian.

[Scott Galloway]

Soldier pouring across the Ukrainian border, or.

[Unknown Speaker]

That your enemy isn't an Islamic republic that is threatening has a gender apartheid or that your enemy isn't climate change. Your enemy is the guy or gal next door that doesn't share your beliefs and that you have every right to be angry at the them. And that when these individuals see masked ICE agents putting their knees on the head of immigrants, that unfortunately, and I think this is terrible, there are a lot of Americans that conflate that with leadership and strength and that I'd love to lay this all at the feet of Republicans who are engaging in the slow burn towards fascism and are combined cruelty and stupidity which adds up to depravity. But I'm worried and I want to get your thought here and then I'll answer the question about what I think the Democrats need to do.

[Scott Galloway]

I worry that this represents a deeper sickness in American society that Americans are so anxious, depressed and angry that they are acting out and they sort of appreciate or conflate this cruelty with strength and with leadership. And it represents a deeper sickness in our society that is going to be tougher to fix. Your thoughts?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, I agree with that. And the piece that you didn't mention is misogyny. I mean a large part of this, that what you're talking about is dominance, is demonstrating dominance. And one of the ways it's been easiest to demonstrate dominance in the US since the 1980s is to dominate women. And that I think is way under talked about because that the conflation of women's rights and the modern American government is I think, terribly underexplored. Now, that being said, one of the things that I need to lay on the table where I think you and I have a real confluence is that I am an idealist in that, as I said, what historians study is how and why societies change. And different people have different ideas about it. It could be the economy or mass movements or great men or religion. I believe ideas change society. So and everything is subordinate to that. Now that's just my position. I'm not willing to go to the death for that against somebody who believes something else. But if that's the case, then what you are identifying, and I'm not gonna disagree with you about that, is not a constant. It is something that has been created by a certain kind of language, which is how we communicate ideas, and by a certain kind of political system that encourages that sort of anger and hatred. Cause I'm gonna throw back at you here that if you actually look at polls on substance, not on things that are political, but if you look at how Americans feel about abortion rights, for example, or they agree with Democrats by a lot. But the point is not that they agree with Democrats, but they agree with each other. And that disconnect between the American people and what they believe and what they want and what they are being fed by their, I would say national rather than state leaders primarily, that seems to me to be be the place that is the fulcrum for where we are and where those of us who want to change that really should be focusing. And that comes down to, I hate to say it, marketing.

[Scott Galloway]

We'll be right back after a quick break.

[General Assembly]

Support for Propg comes from Vanta Starting a company is incredibly gratifying, but can also be one of the hardest things.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Do to you'll ever do.

[General Assembly]

And one of the most challenging parts of it is making sure that you're meeting all the security compliance standards you need to meet. Vanta makes the whole process easier. Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance, enabling them to demonstrate strong security practices and scale. That means that a whole bunch of tasks that used to be expensive, time consuming and complex can now be automated and streamlined. Simply put, your company can't grow if it can't prove that it's meeting security standards, including SoC2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA. Vanta can get you audit ready in weeks instead of months, saving you up to 85% of associated costs and Vanta scales with your business, helping you continuously monitor compliance, unify risk management and streamline security reviews all in one place. Starting a business is hard. Let Vanta make the process a little bit easier. Go to vanta.com profg to meet with a Vanta expert about your business needs. That's vanta.com profg support for the show comes from Shipstation. You know how in sci fi shows like Star Trek the captain just has to tell the computer t Earl Grey Hot and poof it appears. That sounds nice, but since we're still stuck in the 21st century, we have to get our luxuries the old fashioned fashion way by ordering them online. And Shipstation is here to make that process easier and more seamless than ever before. Shipstation can help you automate some of the most tedious aspects of E commerce for your small business at a fraction of the cost. Shipstation offers industry leading scalable features that help ensure accuracy and get your shipments out the door faster so you can keep your customers happy with automated tracking updates and huge discounts off of UPS, DHL Express, USPS and FedEx shipping rates. During the time of this spot, another 1400 packages were shipped with the help of ShipStation upgrade to smoother shipping experience. Go to shipstation.com propg to sign up for your free trial. No credit card or contract required and you can cancel anytime. That's shipstation.com propg.

[Scott Galloway]

Support for the show.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Comes from SoFi Small Business Lending. You're a small business owner. You need capital to find new opportunities and grow. And you can do that with help from SoFi. You might know SoFi for student loans and high interest savings, but now they help small businesses too. No more chasing bankers or wasting time at a ranch. SoFi's small business marketplace is your new go to fast and digital solution. In one Single simple search, SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business. In just minutes you can discover options that meet your specific needs. And if you find a quote that works for you, you may receive funds as soon as the same day you're approved. Say it's working capital you need, or a line of credit or an SBA loan or equipment financing. SoFi's marketplace can help you find all of the above. It's already helped thousands of small businesses find the funding they need. SoFi also offers business owners curated tools, vetted business bank accounts, business credit card recommendations, and a ton of resources to help you scale your business like a boss SoFi now helping you get your business right. Visit sofi.com propgpod and see your options in minutes.

[Scott Galloway]

Two weeks ago I was asked to address what was called the Young Democratic Caucus, which is representatives in Congress under the age of 50. And I think it's hilarious and telling that they would identify any group as young if you're under the age of 50. And this was the entire topic. And I feel as if I'm kind of like, I don't know, Luke Skywalker and you're Yoda. So I want you to to correct me and edit me where you think I get this wrong. But they said how do we rebrand the Democratic Party? And I said I think the three pillars are one. Restoring our alliances, alliances with our great trading partners and other democracies. And the notion that somehow we've been taken advantage of is insane. They sell us Mercedes at 5 points of gross margin and they get 8 times EBITDA on it or they get 40 cents in value. We sell them Nvidia chips at 50 points of gross margin of which get a 30 PE. So we get $15. Global trade. And these unbelievable alliances. Pushing back on fascism in the middle of the 20th century, creating unbelievable prosperity. Pushing back on Russia, pushing back on China, pushing back, promoting civil rights, women's rights. This has just been amazing. These alliances have been a reflection of what it means to be human, our advantage as a species, what it means to be mammal. And we need to restore alliances, most specifically in America. Restore alliances between Republicans and Democrats. Restore alliances between men and women. The genders have done an amazing job of convincing themselves that it's the other gender's fault. Young men believe that their dissent is a function of women's ascent. Couldn't be more wrong. And that we need to restore the greatest alliance in history and that men and women need to stop believing that it's the other gender's fault. Young men believe, or a lot of women, unfortunately, I think, believe that, that men don't have problems. Young men don't have problems. They are the problem. I don't think that's productive either. The greatest alliance in history is the history between men and women. Men should celebrate, promote and protect their daughters, their wives. Other women and women need to realize that their incredible progress, they will not continue to flourish if men are young. Men are floundering. So my first kind of touchstone or pillar is alliances and the importance of alliances and coming together. The second is inequality. You lose nothing above $10 million. There is no reason we shouldn't have a 60, 70% alternative minimum tax above $10 million. Daniel Kahneman and every psychologist has shown that above a certain amount of money, it brings you no incremental happiness. Restore corporate tax rates to a reasonable rate. Corporations are paying the lowest tax rate since 1929. Collect the taxes owed. The tax gap. It's not about tax rates, it's about the tax code. Reduce the deficit, lower interest rates, which will bring down our costs on our interest rate. Restore fiscal responsibility. And then finally, something, and I may not have the right word here, but rather than calling IT Health Fitness. 70% of America is overweight or obese. Places a huge burden on us economically in terms of a healthcare system, better lunch, better nutrition, put in place incentives.

[Unknown Speaker]

That do away with food deserts, encourage the industrial food system to produce healthy food. And some alliances addressing income inequality and becoming the fittest, strongest nation in the world, both mentally and physically. Those are kind of the three sort of policy pillars. But I am very open to coaching here because I was flying on instruments trying to tell these 50 or 60 representatives which messaging I think they need.

[Scott Galloway]

To embrace your thoughts.

[Unknown Speaker]

So let me dig in a little bit to what you have suggested. When you you are talking about fitness, one of the problems there, of course, is our transportation systems. And indeed what you're talking about with food deserts and the way food is distributed. You know, one of the things about our food Systems in the US since World War II has been to provide as many calories as it is possible to provide as quickly as they can be provided, because that was the crisis that they were designed to address after the Depression. So we do have these perverse incentives set up in the way that we manage, for example, surpluses. But if you look at fitness, you're not, I think, talking just about muscles. You're talking about once again, and I'm pushing on this. Cause this is kind of my American studies background. I think you are talking about, once again, celebrating working hard at something that is rather than simply having it, you work for it. So, you know, being in good shape and caring about nutrition and cooking and so on, that takes work. That takes effort. And that's about more than physical fitness. And you mentioned in one word mental fitness. But I would suggest it also celebrates the idea that it's a positive good to invest work in something. And one of the things that really jumps out at me in this administration is the degree to which they sort of seem to say, well, well, we're elevating those people who would otherwise be elevated if we hadn't had to deal with civil rights initiatives, what they're calling DEI initiatives. And what that has done is we now have in place a bunch of people who have no freaking clue what they're doing. The idea that they should just have these positions rather than working their way really hard to get up to them. You look at somebody like Mark Milley versus Pete Hegseth, and Milley is very, very, very well educated, works very hard at what he does, does worked its way up. And then you have Hegseth, who came from the Fox News Channel. That idea of culturally once again, celebrating hard work, education, the idea of taking control of your life not by attacking your neighbor, but by investing in yourself. That's really very classic America. That, if you think about it, was uppermost until at least the 1970s.

I started with something much more corny. And that was I started with the word love. And that is anything that gets in between two people being able to get married such that they can look after.

[Scott Galloway]

Each other and have a rational passion for each other's well being such that they don't end up on social services.

[Unknown Speaker]

Anything that inhibits a family's ability to take care of their children and create so much economic stress that they're more likely than not and end up in a single parent home. And I think you can reverse engineer a lot of single parent homes to economic stress. Anything that gets in the way of people being in an ICU or an emergency room or being insured because they're of sexual orientation. But anything that gets in the way of a parent's ability to stay married, to have some dignity around their children, to not have medical debt such that they have to make a choice between, between food for their children and diabetes. But anything that gets in the way of this term love. And I kind of got laughed out of the room. Cause I thought you're falling into the trap of the feminization of the democratic brand which they believe has not been helpful. Any thoughts around this notion of love or empathy being a touchstone for a political movement?

Yes. But I have to point out to you that what you have just done is you have modernized the concept of conservatism. What you are suggesting there echoes almost precisely what Edmund Burke was talking about during the French Revolution when he said that governments should not be concerned about ideologies because pretty soon leaders are busy trying to fit people into their ideologies rather than the other way around. What he said was that government should focus on stability because when you have a stable government and a stable society, there is less impetus to overturn. And this is one of the reasons in his era, of course, he was interested in supporting aristocracy and the church and the family and so on. But that what you just outlined is a conservative small C and not Republican and certainly not MAGA Republican, but a conservative Rockefeller Republican. Mm, that's right. Eisenhower Republican, which just again, what you just outlined in this modern world sounds radical. It sounds like a radical left position. And this always, whenever anybody tells me I'm a leftist, I just laugh because quite literally the policies that you are outlining, in which now would be called wildly progressive, were in fact Eisenhower values. And he was a Republican and not a conservative Republican, but certainly center right, not center to center left. So my thoughts are that first of all, that this is a conversation that really, really needs to be in the public sphere again, because it's just common sense and it's something that again, the nation was united around until there was a deliberate decision to divide people along Party lines. And I don't disagree with you on any of the idea that single family homes are often economic. I mean, the other thing that I find really interesting is during the Biden administration there was a great deal of talk about how crime rates were plummeting. And I thought what was interesting about that is that even the members of the administration pointed to the increased police officers that they had in which they had invested in order to make those crime rates come down. But nobody that I read anyway, and I'm not a criminologist, but I did read around in this because I was very interested in it looked at the fact that we had record low unemployment, people had jobs, and those jobs in the bottom 20% were paying a much greater rate than they had before Biden was in office. So you're looking at that and you're thinking if you got money, you commit fewer crimes, which is sort of logical. So, yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna disagree with that at all. In that concept, in your concept of fitness, in the concept of inequality. Yeah, this is a no brainer. People say, if I could be emperor, what would I do? And the answer is I would start with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and the Trump tax cuts and work on recreating the great compression that economists talk about where there is less of a gap, both in income and in wealth, between the bottom of American society and the top of the of American society. Not just for economic reasons, but because I think that does a whole heck of a lot more societally when there is less of a gap between people, less of an educational gap, less of a wealth gap, less of a cultural gap, and so on. And I agree with you also in terms of restoring alliances, for sure. And it always jumps out at me, of course, that the United States was a driving factor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And here we are sending now people to a gulag in the Everglades. But what I would say is that these are really difficult concepts to put into a package that can win an election. I think people feel on vibes that these are right. But when I think about packaging, not the Democrats necessarily, because we're in this really interesting moment where the political parties are breaking down, certainly the name remain, but what the internals look like are gonna be very different. And that's what I'm interested in, is watching these conversations take place all over the country among people who are not necessarily in elected office or aiming for elected office, where they are redefining what they would like America to be One of the things that jumps out to me when you define America is less the idea of alliances or less the idea of love, and more the idea that what America has stood for historically is the idea that if you are willing to work hard, you can create a better life for yourself and your children. And everything flows from that. Now, the way that you talk about that, though, and again, that we have done historically, notably in the 1950s, 1940s, the 1930s, the late 1890s, early 2000, and in the 1870s and before that, is by saying we are in this together, we are a community that works together, and that we are not divided. And again, you used to see that in the 1940s, 1950s and so on in movies. For example, in Superman, in Frank Sinatra's the House Where I Live, the film about how he was dead set against religious discrimination in the United States. That is something that strikes me as being marketable, not least because you can plug into it our greatest market moments in our history.

[Scott Galloway]

So just along the lines of Magic Wand and being an emperor, some of the lowest levels of young adult and teen depression are in Israel, despite all the existential threats surrounding them and amongst young Mormons. And the thing I find that's true among both those groups, and again, I might be backfilling a narrative here, is I think, restoring mandatory national service. You take talked about how people kind of saw themselves as Americans first, before Republicans or Democrats, or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth in the 60s or 70s, but I think a lot of that was because they'd served in the same uniform. What do you think of the idea of mandatory national service, where Americans from different ethnic, demographic and income and sexual orientation backgrounds could see each other? And I'm not just talking about the military. I'm talking about senior care, smokejumpers, forest reclamation, whatever it might be. But you're going to spend 12 to 24 months working alongside a group of random Americans, realizing that you need to work in the agency of something bigger than yourself. And that thing is the United States, 100%.

[Unknown Speaker]

But I'm gonna add a reason for that, and that is, of course, having come through a university system in modern America, a lot of young people are not really ready to make adult decisions when they leave home. They need to spend time literally just learning how to live with other people or learning how to be on their own and managing, you know, their schedules and crucially, figuring out what they want to do, which is not especially boys.

[Scott Galloway]

I'm going to be a sexist, especially Boys. Do you have kids, Professor?

[Unknown Speaker]

Three of them.

[Scott Galloway]

Biologically, 18 year old boys are 18 months behind the prefrontal cortex development. When my 14 and 17 year olds have friends over, the boys are dopes and some of the girls look like they could be the junior senator from Pennsylvania. I think this would be especially important for young men. And it's easy to be sexist when you're favoring the female gender. But I really do think there is a marked difference between the maturity levels of boys coming out of high school and girls coming out of high school.

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, and just the opportunity to work in different ways with different people would open up, I think a lot of people to professions that they might not otherwise have considered and that I, you know, I always think back on a student I had who was in college, I'm trying to be vague here because of his extraordinary sport ability, which was great, I'm sure, but he discovered his senior year that he was actually really, really good at history is how he came across my screen. And he was just really starting to get and I said to, you know, we talked about this and he really had gone to school to play sports and he was planning to go back to work in construction where he had come from. And yet had he had a couple of years, he might have discovered that he was as good as he was at history before he was graduating. And at other it always has kind of stuck with me that he's somebody who could have really benefited from not a gap year because it's going to take people six months just to get their feet under them as it does in college. But a gap two years seems to me to be simply a no brainer. Lots of other countries do it. My nephews who live in Europe did it. And I would love to see that, both for the reasons you suggest, but also because developmentally it just seems like it makes such good sense. Sense.

[Scott Galloway]

You were generous asking my thoughts on how to rebrand or brand the Democratic Party. I'll flip the question back to you. What do you think would be the right messaging or platform for Democrats?

[Unknown Speaker]

So this is a little hard for me because as I say, I don't really think in this moment as Republicans versus Democrats. I actually think in this moment of the magician Professor.

[Scott Galloway]

We're up against the rope and quite frankly we're getting the shit kicked out of us. So to the best of your ability, if you were channeling, channeling Democrats, what would you suggest is the real opportunity or wide space for Democrats right now?

[Unknown Speaker]

Okay, so where I was going with that is that I will tell you the branding that I would do. And it seems to me something the Democrats could jump on, should jump on. But it's not saying here's a party I want to market. Because I think in this moment it's going to be important to recognize that the anti maga party is not just Democrats, including in the way people think about certain issues. Some people still vote Republican because it is ingrained in them to have an R after their name. But they are in fact quite open to the idea of the kinds of things you and I are talking about. So here's what I would say. And my model is Abraham Lincoln, who was living through a very similar moment when two older parties were falling apart and you had the rise of a reactionary right elite that was trying to get rid of American democracy and create a system in which the government answered only to them. And this is of course, the elite enslavers who wanted to spread human enslavement across the American west, there establishing slave states that could work with the southern slave states to get rid of free states all over the country. So what happened in that moment, and you have to remember here always that the people who could vote in the United States in that period were all white men, almost all of whom were virulently racist and didn't really care at all about black rights. The way Lincoln managed to create a coalition that could restore American democracy was continually to go back to the Declaration of Independence and to say repeatedly, either we are all created equal or we are not. And if we are not, we need to tear up the Declaration of Independence. And when he did that, even in the southern parts of Illinois, for example, during the Lincoln Douglas debates, even Democrats who were virulently racist would say, no, no, no, that's what we stand for. And I think one of the things that is important to do in this moment is continually to highlight the principles on which people who live in the United States have stood on democracy and expanded democracy. And what is so exciting about that for someone like me is that while I just invoked Lincoln because he was very, very self conscious about what he was doing. And often, if I can't figure out how to admit address something, I will think, what would Lincoln have done in terms of principles? But if you think about someone like Fannie Lou Hamer or Dolores Huerta, or Dr. Hector Garcia or Dr. King or any of these people who were parts of marginalized populations, used those concepts to expand rights in the United States and bring more people under the umbrella of the idea that they could have control over their destinies. And I think that's a touchstone that resonates with all American populations and one that we have not taken sufficient advantage of in the years that we have really stopped teaching the real meat of American history. And I would argue that the popularity of the stuff I write is in part indicative of an extraordinary hunger for people to feel that they are part of that larger story of human self determination and of the United States of America. I see more, more and more people now starting to do it, starting to talk about it, more politicians doing it, but I think that is crucial to building a mass movement that can overawe the kind of rising fascism that you're seeing among MAGA Republicans.

[Scott Galloway]

We'll be right back.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Support for the show comes from LinkedIn one of the hardest parts about moving to a new city is finding your people. You can look far and wide, but it's hard to find the people who just get you. And the Same goes for B2B marketers. Locating the right people who align with your business and an audience that connects with your product and your mission can make all the difference. But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals. According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over a billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys. You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills and.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Company revenue, giving you all of the.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Professionals you need to reach in one place. So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign, so you can try it yourself. Just go to LinkedIn.com Scott that's LinkedIn.com Scott Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads. Support for the show comes from Intuit QuickBooks. Are you a business owner looking to grow your business? You did what most dream of doing, starting your own business. Now you're faced with the reality of how to make your small business run smoothly. Intuit QuickBooks can help. QuickBooks is a powerful AI driven all in one business solution. That means those day to day tasks, invoicing expenses, taxes can be done effortlessly. But here's where it gets really good. You don't need to hire a team of analysts to find growth opportunities hiding in your business data. QuickBooks can help with cash flow optimization, profit and loss analysis. It helps you see how your business is doing and uncover new ways to be more profitable. QuickBooks can help you unlock the growth in your business so you can get back to enjoying your business. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit QuickBooks your way to money. Get 90% off for 3 months. Limited time only terms and conditions apply.

[Unknown Speaker]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app download today.

[Scott Galloway]

We're back with more from Heather Cox Richardson. So let's bring it to present day. You've called Trump's mega bill the capstone of MAGA's six month transformation of the US government.

[Unknown Speaker]

Do you think we're witnessing the cementing of illiberalism?

[Heather Cox Richardson]

And you've also said this was sort.

[Scott Galloway]

Of the signature Republican legislation of this millennium thus far.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Your thoughts?

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, I will answer that. But let me ask you, what do you think of that budget reconciliation bill?

I think it's the largest transfer of wealth in history from the future to the past, from the poor to the.

[Scott Galloway]

Rich, from the young to the old.

[Unknown Speaker]

I think it's not to be too dramatic here, but when I look at my success, professor, it's built on these pillars of access to family planning for.

[Scott Galloway]

My mother, assisted lunch programs when I.

[Unknown Speaker]

Was in elementary school, access to deep.

[Scott Galloway]

Pools of capital to start companies based on rule of law, access to wonderful talented immigrants who built my companies. You know, the fact that my mother.

[Unknown Speaker]

Was able to survive in Britain sleeping as a four year old Jew in.

[Scott Galloway]

A bomb shelter, that America decided to convert its car factories to tank factories.

[Unknown Speaker]

To push back on fascism.

[Scott Galloway]

I mean, I'm so personally, quite frankly.

[Unknown Speaker]

And you can probably hear the emotion.

[Scott Galloway]

In my voice just so rattled by.

[Unknown Speaker]

This because I feel it is setting on fire all the pillars of my prosperity and success.

[Scott Galloway]

So not a fan.

[Unknown Speaker]

Well, and that I think is what I was getting at with the idea that this was the capstone of the past six years. It's also the capstone in many ways of the Republican project since Reagan, which is to blow up the social safety net. But it's not, I call it a capstone in part because of course, that's what the Department of Government Efficiency was also designed to do do. And that the Idea of the rescissions, the clawing back of the money that has already been appropriated, the impoundments and so on. The idea is to shred the modern American state. But what interests, I mean, what is interests me is the wrong way to put it. But what is replacing it, as I say, is the idea that somehow we're going to go back to a better past, which by the way, is a very fascist concept. But there doesn't seem to be any real idea of what that looks like. So, for example, these Trump tariffs, the idea that this is suddenly gonna make everybody rich is just a complete fantasy. It is a complete fantasy. Or the fact that Brooke Rollins, the head of US of the Agriculture Department today, said that when we get rid of the undocumented immigrants who are actually working in the agricultural field, that we can simply replace them with, with the people who are on Medicaid. You know, that's just such a far fetched image of what the future could look like in a country that has since the very development of Western agriculture in the 1880s and 1890s depended on migrant labor. I mean, there's nothing on the other side that suggests the survival of American democracy. And so I think what you're looking at is the rise of, as I say, of authoritarianism. One guy to run everything. But as we're looking at that, and as I alluded to earlier, will 334 million Americans say, oh, I was conned, it's okay, or will they say, this is not the country I wanted and this is one of the reasons that conservatism developed, actually to go back to that theme, because what they are creating is extraordinary instability, just extraordinary. And of course, with that bill, we now have a massively expanded ICE and border patrol system that is in fact a standing army in the U.S. a militarized state in the U.S. but is that going to be enough to maintain a dictator or a quasi dictator from the MAGA wing in power going forward? I think I have too much faith in the American, American people to believe that's going to be the case. What do you think?

[Scott Galloway]

Well, I'm a bit of a catastrophist and a glass half empty kind of guy, as you probably figured out. So I immediately draw conclusions or parallels with the GESTAPO. That was 32,000 people. I think ICE is 22. They spent 2 billion, we're spending 12 billion. It was meant to be an administrative body focusing on documentation and border forms. And instead it's turned into a. What I, as far as I can tell, is A series of pageantry and fear meant to exhibit strength and also scare people. And my father always used to say to me when I would compare Trump to Hitler, you got to keep in mind, Scott, Trump had his own private army. And as far as I can tell, ICE is a private army for the current administration. So I find it frightening. And when I think of just taking out the moral argument and the historical parallels, the notion somehow that we need to get rid of these immigrants such that more Americans have better jobs and higher paid, it's just so stupid. If you want to talk about, imagine the millions of immigrants pouring over the border right now, it's called AI. AI is a much bigger threat to people's livelihoods than the person taking care of your, your aging mother or serving or working at the Chick Fil A. And the notion somehow that American wages are going to go up, all that's going to happen is our expenses are going to go up. And what I find most telling about these raids is they're raiding Home Depot churches and schools. And maybe that's an indication that these are the kind of people we want here. And then just being very unemotional about it. Immigration. People are often very comfortable saying immigration is the lifeblood of our success. What I don't think they're in touch with is that the most profitable part of immigration has been undocumented immigration because they're a flexible workforce that pays taxes and then doesn't stick around for social services and melts back sometimes to their original host country when the crops are picked or that work dries up.

[Unknown Speaker]

And the reason why we have put.

[Scott Galloway]

Up with this or tolerated it is because we recognize it's an incredible economic.

[Unknown Speaker]

Advantage to have this flexible workforce. So again, I go back to Germany. The demonization of immigrants, it economically makes no sense.

[Scott Galloway]

It's morally reprehensible. And I am uncomfortable with a private.

[Unknown Speaker]

Army of an army that will have a greater funding budget than at the.

[Scott Galloway]

FBI who is responsible for white collar crimes and terrorism. We've decided to allocate more resources to a private army of people who have to wear masks.

[Unknown Speaker]

You know, they're not only wearing, they're not only wearing a certain color shirt or insignias as armbands, they're wearing masks because of what they're doing is showing. So in my view, un American. So I find ICE another incredibly disturbing your thoughts.

I agree. I totally agree with that. Well, my point was just I'm not entirely sure that in a country of this size they are going to be able to get the kind of control that somebody could in a smaller country like Germany was in 1933. So I think you're right that this is pageantry, that a lot of of it so far is pageantry, designed first of all to terrorize immigrants, but also to terrorize other Americans into not speaking up. And that's the piece that I am not convinced is necessarily going to work. And by the way, I didn't mean in any way to downplay the terror and the damage and the torture even that immigrants and migrants are going through in this. I'm trying to look at the larger picture here and what the Trump administration is trying to do. So I don't disagree with you at all on that. I'm just saying I'm not entirely sure it's gonna work. This is an extraordinarily unstable administration. Trump himself is not in good shape. J.D. vance, the heir apparent commands no real voting base. Increasingly, the wheels are coming off the bus as FEMA can't respond to things, as the tariffs are starting to kick in, as prices are going to up. You know, it is, you know, I guess what I keep saying is I think we're going into a period of extraordinary instability. And I am not convinced that the outcome of that is going to be a dictatorship. It could just as easily be that the outcome of it is a renewed American democracy. But it's going to be messy, messy, messy either way.

[Scott Galloway]

I love your vision. I always jokingly say in my companies there's been all these people that are kind of invisible until they fuck up. And that is the person running the accounting, the person running the events, that they're not appreciated until something goes wrong. And I feel that a lot of Americans are coming to grips with the fact that there's a lot of people, hydrologists, meteorologists, the TSA working, who are invisible until there's a disaster. And that some of this long term thinking and investment and boring jobs are actually really important and that they're going to learn very painfully that these things matter, matter, and that immigrants play a key role and that an autocracy. Astronomer, I love your vision. I'm worried that this is the first step towards a darker period where we have a lot of young men who are struggling, don't have a lot of economic or romantic prospects, are looking for scapegoats to justify their problems and that we're one economic shock away from, from an authoritarian government that gets even uglier. And we already have. You called it a gulag. I call them concentration camps. Concentration camps. One of the definitions is a camp outside of the host territory, such that the individuals shipped to these places don't have the rights they would in their own domestic environment. We're already there. We have demonization of immigrants. We have militarization of civil agencies. We have a disrespectful respect for some of the institutions. They always attack the academics. Why? Because you and I, you're what I'd call a hardcore, real, legitimate academic. I'm sort of showing up and doing a rich little version of academics, and that is, I teach. But quite frankly, you just have much deeper domain expertise than me. And I find that common across all fat moves towards fascism is to attack universities.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Why?

[Unknown Speaker]

Because at the end of the day, you especially. But also I'll include myself in this critical crowd. We teach young people to ask why. And they don't want young people and.

[Scott Galloway]

Intelligent people asking why.

[Unknown Speaker]

They want them feeling things. And so I worry that there's a fork in the road here, but one.

[Scott Galloway]

Potential left turn here could be much darker. And I look back at Germany again in the 30s, an incredibly progressive society, pro gay civil rights, appreciation for immigrants.

[Unknown Speaker]

Appreciation for academics, and then a descent into darkness. And I worry that that same opportunity for darkness is available to us. And then everyone talks about institutions, the courts, the universities.

[Scott Galloway]

And what I like about what you're.

[Unknown Speaker]

Saying is it's beyond institutions, it's people, it's the judges got to stand up. Academics got to be fearless, such as.

[Scott Galloway]

You have been, and smart and thoughtful people.

[Unknown Speaker]

Employers have to stand up up for their employees. I'm very disappointed in the technology community. Some of the people I hang out with who are incredibly blessed not speaking up about their blessings, that we keep talking about institutions under attack. I think that's true. What I find so disappointing about this professor is that not more people are speaking up. When you have billionaire owners of media companies paying off the administration under the threat of illegal cases they would win. When you have legal firms saying we will provide, basically bending a knee and ignoring all the principles of our basic judicial system, I worry that not enough individuals are standing up because at the end of the day, these institutions are made up of people. So I'm more worried about a darker fork in the road here.

Well, I'm worried about that darker fork in the road, but I also recognize that there is no way forward except doing it. There's no way through but going forward. And so one of the things I'm trying to do is find a way to get people on the brighter path rather than the darker path. Because, you know, the thing is, as a historian, we know how this plays out. We know exactly how this plays out. And one of the things that just gobsmacks me is that knowing what we know and how these situations play out, that people in the administration would be trying it yet again and people would be getting behind them. Because again, I can write that script. I really can write that script. But I can also write the other script in which people reject that version of our future and pick a different one. And that's the one that I'm working for. I do have a question for you. You mentioned something a second ago that sparked an idea for me that I would love to hear you expand on a little bit more. I have been sitting here looking at the reduced numbers of undocumented and documented migrants in the United States and saying to myself, where are they going to find ways to replace them? And I'm looking at child labor, for example, or now this idea that people on Medicaid aren't going to have to work in the fields or whatever. Do you think that what they are doing, that the administration, to be clear, is doing doing, is recognizing that AI is going to wipe out a ton of jobs and setting up the idea that those jobs are not the fault of those people pushing AI, which is a problematic. And maybe someday we can talk about what AI entails for the United States, but that rather than saying, this billionaire put you out of business, they're trying to convince a lot of people who will be unemployed that their problem is the guard gardener, or is the woman doing healthcare? Is that you think a deliberate sleight of hand?

[Scott Galloway]

For me, the logic just isn't sequential. It doesn't add up because the people they're going after are exactly the kinds of jobs that AI. Some of the few sectors that AI can't replace. AI still hasn't figured out a way to wake your grandmother up and bring her her medication. AI still can't give you physical therapy. AI still can't. You still can't need people on construction sites. You still need people harvesting crops. I just don't. You know, I mean, AI could potentially replace a lot of Uber drivers and a lot of truck drivers, but what I see is that who AI is replacing is my kids. When I say my kids, my second year MBA graduates. I was. My first job out of college was at Morgan Stanley as an analyst. They hired 80 analysts. I'm convinced all the work I did in two years in fixed income as an analyst at Morgan Stanley could be done in about six weeks now with AI. So the notion somehow that this, if they really wanted. I see the presidency as just a capital allocator and that his job is to. Or her job is to allocate capital to a greater return than another leader who has capital at their disposal. And taking $12 billion to round up immigrants who are taxpayers. And during the day at work and on weekends and evenings at school and at church, that makes no sense to me. If you really were concerned about employment, you'd be deploying vocational programs and more critical thinking skills such that people could embrace these new technologies and also embrace more self sufficiency and energy and shovel ready jobs. I mean, we need more healthcare workers, more people who understand how to install energy efficient H Vac computers, build nuclear power plants. I mean, that to me is where you would help, help with the employment picture. But look, you've been so generous with your time. I just want to, I want to have, I want you to just touch on one thing that's very close to my heart and that is I work. I think a lot about technology. And something that's just so extraordinarily disappointing to me is that these are the most blessed people in the world, as far as I can tell. If you look at the majority of them, you know, there's absolutely some great stories of immigrants and people pulling themselves by their bootstraps. 20% of the NASDAQ is not only immigrants by market cap, it's Indian immigrants. And there's some wonderful stories, but a lot of these kids came from privileged backgrounds, whether it was Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. They dropped out of Harvard because they could and they got into Harvard because they could. And yet it feels like the most blessed among us, specifically these tech billionaires, are the first ones, quite frankly, to shitpost America and talk about some weird techno libertarian vision. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And a lot of people draw conclusions with the Gilded Age. And I know you've looked at the Gilded Age and I would just love to get your thoughts on the parallels between the Gilded Age and kind of this Technotopia or whatever you'd want to call it and what we can learn from it and where you think it goes from here.

[Unknown Speaker]

I'm actually really glad you asked that because I think a lot about that, including in the ideology of the modern day tech people, because of the parallels it has with the 1880s and 1890s, especially because things were changing by the actual turn of the century. What I think happens is that people begin to internalize Their belief that they are better than other people, that they have done something extraordinarily clever. And, and often, I just wanna add this here, I will follow that thought. But often there is a generational change inherent there. That is, the first generation will say it, but not really mean it. They're saying it either to pump themselves up or for political advantage, but their sons, because it's almost always sons, actually believe it. So in the 1890s, for example, you see coming out of the Civil War, a whole bunch of people in the American south talking about how black Americans are inherently not as. As able as white Americans, as Euro Americans, and therefore they should not have a say in American society. They used it really as a political argument for that first generation. The second generation believes that they are better, that white men are better than black men and certainly than other black people, and they are willing to enforce that through lynching. So that generational shift really matters. But that being said, I do think there is this idea that as people succeed and as they spend time with other people who succeed, they start to believe that they are in fact better than other people. And they, especially men, tend to erase the reality of how they got to be where they are. And they set out to create a system that they think advantages them in such a way that they will do good for the most people. So instead of picking up, right there Peter Thiel or Elon Musk, where I'll get in a second. Andrew Carnegie is a really useful person to look at because he's an immigrant who becomes a steel baron. And he arrives in the United States at a time when he is able to rise because of the economy, because of the Civil War and the nationalization of that period, because of his connections and so on. And by the 1890s, he is no longer talking about the fortune of America that enabled him to become who he was. He is talking about how. How it was his own hard work that enabled him to become who he was. And that because he was so much better than the people around him, he should be able to concentrate wealth in his own hands. And that, that's the way the society really should work, is that wealth should concentrate among those most able to amass it. Because what they would do was they would use it as the stewards of society by building libraries or opera houses or public facilities that could not be achieved unless they did concentrate that wealth. Because if you left it in the hands of the workers, they would waste it on food or clothing or housing or leisure time. Well, if you move that mindset into the present. You can see somebody like Elon Musk who believes that he will save humanity, or at least alleges he believes that he will save humanity by settling Mars. You see that same idea that he has, ideas that are only being corrupted by the idea of civil rights regulations, the idea that in fact women and people of color should have equal rights to employment and equal protections in American society, that hampers him. And that mindset that some people are better than others and have the right to rule for the good of humanity is a thread that runs through American history. Not just from the Gilded Age, but the elite and Southern enslavers said the same thing in the 1850s, the exact same thing in the 1850s, that they were the ones who had truly figured out society. So to me it's just a continuity. And that in many ways helps me think about ways to combat it, because I don't believe that. I actually do believe that people are equal and that they do have a right to a say in their government and they do have a right to be treated equally before the law. And they should have equal access to resources, sources, including things like healthcare and education. So when I think about reinforcing that set of ideological principles, which are the same ones that somebody like Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower or FDR or Lincoln embraced, in a way, there's a roadmap there to see how we have succeeded in the past. And I do want to point out that in all of those moments that I just mentioned, the 1850s, the 1890s, the 1920s, than the present, it didn't look at the time as if the idea of equality was going to win. You think of somebody like John Dos Passos in his poem about how they have clubbed us off the streets. People thought that the rich elites who wanted to control everything were going to win. It was never an easy fight and this fight is not gonna be easy either. But I am not ready to give up on America. We have done it in the past and in a way we have the tools to know how to do it again.

[Scott Galloway]

Not ready to give up on America. Heather Cox Richardson is a professor of history at Boston College and an expert on American political and economic history. She is the author of seven award winning books including her latest, Democracy Awakening Notes on the State of America. Her widely read newsletter, Letters from an American American synthesizes history and modern political issues. I'm going to ask a favor. Most conversations I have, I think I have a certain I'm not proud of this level of arrogance I think okay, that's interesting, but I have a better take on this. I found myself insecure in this conversation because you are so forceful and dignified and have such deep domain expertise and this is my ask. I want to bring more light to your work. I think it just shocks me that as much praise and influence as you have that I think your work deserves a lot more attention and with your approval and your help I would like to bring more attention to it. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this conversation. I think you are doing great work and are the right voice at the right moment.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Drew Burroughs is our Technical Director. Thank you for listening to the profi.

[Heather Cox Richardson]

Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

[Intuit QuickBooks]

Support for the show comes from Intuit QuickBooks.

[General Assembly]

Do you own a business that's ready to thrive?

[Intuit QuickBooks]

It's time to let Intuit QuickBooks take things like unpaid invoices and tracking expenses off your plate so you can take things to the next level. Intuit QuickBooks is a powerful, AI driven all in one business solution. They can help with day to day tasks like invoicing expenses and taxes. QuickBooks can help you unlock the growth in your business so you can get back to enjoying your business. Manage and grow your business all in one place. Intuit QuickBooks your way to money get 90% off for 3 months limited time only terms and conditions apply.

[Unknown Speaker]

Support for the show comes from Mercury. It's the fintech that brings all the ways you use money into a single extraordinary product. Now you can quickly and easily send money, pay bills, create and send invoices, issue reimbursements to your team and more without having to toggle between a dozen apps and services. Visit mercury.com to apply in 10 minutes or less. Mercury Banking that does more Mercury is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided through Choice Financial Group, Column NA and Evolve bank and Trust Members FDIC.

Nobody knows your customers better than your team, so give them the power to make standout content with Adobe Express. Brand kits make following design rules a brief breeze and Adobe quality templates make it easy to create pro looking flyers, social posts, presentations and more. You don't have to be a designer to edit campaigns, resize ads and translate content. Anyone can in a click and collaboration tools put feedback right where you need it. See how you can turn your team into a content machine with Adobe Express, the quick and easy app to create on brand content. Learn [e-mail] Express Business.