← Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Tom Bilyeu's Impact Theory
Cenk Uygur: The Real Fight Isn’t Left vs. Right—It’s You vs. the Establishment - PT 1
01:19:52
Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:01]
Commercial Narrator
You never know where your next unforgettable experience will pop up. That's why bringing along an American Express card opens the door to rewards wherever you go. Morning coffee run with an old friend. Earn cash back. Weekend getaway. Earn miles. Dinner at the hottest restaurant in town. You get the idea, no matter the place or the plan. Amex rewards your inner explorer. Learn about card options@americanexpress.com terms apply if
- [00:31]
Cenk Uygur
you work in university maintenance. Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:00]
Tom Bilyeu
I'm Tom Bilyeu and this is Impact Theory. If you've been wondering why everything feels so broken, why the media is trying so desperately to control the narrative, and what's really going on behind the scenes in politics, this episode is for you. It is not just about Democrats versus Republicans anymore. The real battle is between the establishment and the populace. My guest today, the founder of the Young Turks, really gave me a new paradigm through which to view modern politics. So whether you agree with him or not, Cenk has a perspective with high predictive validity. He connects the dots between politicians, donors and the media in a way that will change how you see the world we dive into, why populist movements are on the rise around the world, how the system is being rigged, and what it all means for your future. So without further ado, I bring you Jank Uygur. Why is this moment in American politics best understood not as right versus left, which is what I think most people think, but rather populist versus the establishment.
- [02:00]
Cenk Uygur
The media has changed and that has led to the thinking changing in this country. And so my thesis is that it was all always about populace versus establishment.
- [02:11]
Tom Bilyeu
Can you define those?
- [02:12]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, I can. But we never knew it until we got to this new media era. In the old media era of mainstream media, there was only one way of thinking, and it was, in my opinion, overwhelming propaganda. And they got you to think about it in terms of left and right. And then they lied to you about what's left and right, and most importantly, they lied to you about what was moderate or centrist. That was the greatest illusion that mainstream media ever did. We can come back to that. So in Terms of what's populous in establishment. Establishment is the current system that we have. So the politicians, the donor class, mainstream media, the powerful and the elites and populist is anyone who is for the average guy. Now, everyone will tell you they're for the average guy, right? But their actions show you otherwise. So for every cable news anchor is for the elites. They're not for the average guy. And I could prove it to you. I could prove it to you in every policy position they have, every framing that they do of a story, the way that they report stories, etc. So, for example, the average guy thinks that politicians are crooks, and they're right. No cable news anchor thinks politicians are crooks. So if you ask them about a specific individual like Trump, they might say, oh, yeah, Trump, you know, if you get them off air and you got him talking about what they really think, maybe they say he's a crook or he's a liar, et cetera, but partly because they view him as populous. I don't think he really is. But that's how they view him. That's how. That's how he portrays himself. And so they think that's an anathema. I hate that. And so, okay, I can criticize Trump. Trump is a politician, a rare politician I can say anything I want about, right? But when you get to other politicians, Nancy Pelosi. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. No cable news anchor on MSNBC or CNN would go off on Nancy Pelosi. Never going to happen. Has never happened. So why? Because they're the establishment. They think, oh, she raised a billion dollars from donors, which the average guy goes, then she owes a lot of donors, a lot of favors. That's basically a billion dollars in bribes. Everyone at the New York Times and Washington Post and CNN and MSNBC think what a wonderful states person and legislator. And in fact, her nickname almost for a long time. And it would appear in article after article and on the Young Turks, we would show it over and over again. Master legislator. Master legislator. It was an incredible, you know, overwhelming propaganda to show her as, like, this angel and incredibly effective. And I was like, what did she ever pass? And I remember I was at a Politicon. I asked that question Bob Shroom, who ran several of the Democratic presidential campaigns for Al Gore and. And honestly for almost all the losing candidates. And I like Al Gore, but the other guys were just a nightmare. Anyway, so he nearly sprung out of his seat on a panel in front of all these people. He's like, how dare you criticize Nancy Pelosi like that? Because that's the establishment mindset. These politicians are demigods, the donors are demigods, and that's all they ever serve. They never serve the people.
- [05:28]
Tom Bilyeu
What's the core belief that underrides that? Is it that we need an elite class who are smarter that can help guide those who are less intellectually fortunate? Is that the driving thing or is it just greed or something like that?
- [05:44]
Cenk Uygur
The answer is both. So what they tell themselves, because nobody wakes up in the morning, thinks, I'm evil and I'd like to do evil things, right? They have to tell themselves a lie first before they tell you the lie. So the lie they tell themselves is what some people call neoliberalism, which is, oh, of course, the educated elites know everything and the masses are barbarians and ruffians and we have to guide them along the path. They don't know. They don't know that you have to pay more taxes and the rich have to pay less taxes because it's going to trickle all over you later. And us sophisticated people know that we should have all the money and the power so that we can help you poor, poor, uneducated masses at a later date. Okay? And that's called neoliberalism. That's called the establishment. It's called, you know, a lot of different things, but it's the same idea no matter what label you attach to it. So. But they truly believe it. They think like the Greeks when the. They had the banks collapsing and. And all the different countries were suffering. We were. But Italy and Greece were suffering the most. And what did they do? They hit them with austerity. You Greeks, you were naughty. You borrowed too much money from us. Now you have to pay us back and your people have to suffer in order for us to get our money back. And that's the only way you could rescue your economy. And we're doing this for your own good, so shut up and take it, okay? And they really believed it. And they thought that the Greeks were irresponsible. In reality, the bankers pushed those projects onto them. And yes, their politicians said yes, but it was part of this giant process by which they extract wealth from all these countries. So the underlying real reason that they believe what they believe is greed. And so here's how you connect those things. It's not that they're not more educated. They are, right? They have plenty of degrees, et cetera. So when they say, hey, we understand some of these complex ideas or policy positions a little bit better than the average guy. That's not necessarily wrong. Right. But the part that the establishment is missing is that, yes, but do you really have other people's best interests in mind? Do you really have the average person's best interest in mind? Or are you super educated and super smart, but you're actually driving towards your own goals and your own interests, which are oftentimes diametrically opposed to the average person? And I don't think they realize that they're doing that. So a lot of populists think, oh, those elites are evil. No, they're in a bubble. And in their bubble they think they're saints helping the average guy, but they got to help themselves first. Right? And then it eventually that trickle down economics is such a perfect word, perfect phrase because it literally, they think, well, we get all of the money in power and eventually maybe trickles on you. Right. And they believe that that's how it should be. And so they don't think they're hurting people, but they are because they actually rigged all the rules for their own benefit.
- [08:51]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay? So the establishment, the, they are the people who are educated, who are some mixture of telling themselves a lie and actually wanting at least as messaging to themselves and to others that we want to help the average person. But the policies that they enact help themselves first and foremost. And what is supposedly meant to trickle down never really trickles down. Cool, that's. I can wrap my head around that as well. The establishment is. So what is populism?
- [09:20]
Cenk Uygur
So populism is appealing to the average guy and, and actually trying to serve the average guy. Now, unfortunately, it has a history of being co opted by usually a demagogue who comes in and says, I'm going to help you guys, and then just helps himself. Right. And so this is the history of politics throughout the history of the world. And it's so, so frustrating. But when populism is done right, it's beautiful. And so, and that does happen from time to time. And I would argue that FDR did it right in a lot of respects. And everything's complicated, nothing's black and white. FDR did plenty of things that were wrong as well. Right. But overall on economic populism, he was terrific. And that's why he's beloved and that's why his, the bills that he passed are to this day the most popular bills in American history. So populism says that we shouldn't first give it to the powerful and the rich. We should actually give it directly to the, in this case, the average American.
- [10:23]
Tom Bilyeu
And when we say give it, are we saying give them policies that make their life immediately better economically?
- [10:30]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, 100%. So an interesting. A good example, I think, is paid family leave. Right. So paid family leave, just as you get. Roughly. There's other aspects of it, but the main core of it is moms get 12 weeks off after they have a baby. So that makes sense. The whole rest of the world has it. America doesn't have it. So why is that? Populous? Because it's giving a benefit directly to moms. It doesn't go through any other conduit, it doesn't go to her company, and then maybe out of the goodness of their heart, the company passes it on or doesn't pass it on. A lot of times, what Republicans of years past and still today. Trump's a complicated character. Not a normal Republican, but normal Republicans would say, no, no, no, give a tax break to her company and they'll do the right thing because they're patriotic, which is horse crap. That doesn't mean anything. A company's not. A person doesn't have any emotions. It's not patriotic. It's a machine built to maximize profit. So, no, they're never going to give it to her unless they think it's to their benefit to give it to her. Right. So populists say, no, no, I'm not going to give more tax breaks to the corporations or to the rich. I'm just going to give her paid family leave and she's going to get 12 weeks off. And if you don't like it, go pound sand. And populist is not just in policy, it's also in rhetoric. So I went to a couple of Ivy League schools. So it's not like I don't know how to talk like the elites do. And I'm happy to take them on in any intellectual debate that they like, but I talk like a regular person. And that's another thing that drives the establishment crazy. They think that that's so unsophisticated and like, oh, he's talking like an average American. He didn't even use any SAT words in that sentence. They like a great example. So, you know that I'm not doing just hyperbole or theatrics. Is Adam Schiff. If you ever listen to Adam Schiff now, the senator from California, he's like a thesaurus. And. And like, the elites love it and they love Adam Schiff. They're like, oh, he's so smart. Oh, he's so great. And you looks out for them a thousand Times before he'll ever look out for the average person. Right. And, and they think he's sophisticated. But in this era, Adam Schiff, to the average person sounds unbearable. Unbearable. And they're like, oh, Trump, he sounds like a dullard, right? Like, what are you talking about? Trump sounds like a normal person and that's why they like him. So a good example of that is the McDonald's photo op that he did during the campaign. A lot of Democrats were like, look at that, he looks ridiculous. Like he would do sell French fries. Do you know how bad he is to his own workers? Now that's true. He's terrible to his own workers. And you can make that point without doing the right. So no, he, he looked good. That was a good photo op. Whether you, it's true that he's terrible to his own workers, it's true that he hired undocumented immigrants, it's true that he's against minimum wage. It's true that he would be against a lot of the interests of those McDonald's workers. But it was a good photo op. Why? Because it was populist. He put on a McDonald's, you know, outfit. He gave it through the drive thru. You see what I'm saying? That's this, that's the style of populism. And the elites hate it.
- [13:49]
Tom Bilyeu
And the average person loves it's really interesting. So why then does populism become co opted so frequently?
- [13:59]
Cenk Uygur
Usually people are so oppressed by whatever establishment is in charge in whatever country in whatever time period, because these are phenomenons that have been happening for time immemorial. Right? So, and then someone comes along and says, I'm going to fix all that. I'm going to break all that. And I talked to Dan Holloway who has a podcast called Drinking Bros. He's on the right.
- [14:21]
Tom Bilyeu
Drinking Bros. Yeah.
- [14:22]
Cenk Uygur
Okay. Yeah. And, and Dan made a great analogy. He said, we know Trump's a bull in a China shop. You're not telling us anything new when you tell us that. And we know there's some things in that China shop he shouldn't break. But we hate the China shop so much that we're sending him in on purpose. And that's, that's populism that goes in the wrong direction oftentimes because a lot of things that shouldn't be broken get broken in that process. And so if you're a con man and, and I, the right is going to hate this, but my job is to tell you the truth. Donald Trump, I used to think Donald Trump was A unsophisticated con man. But now I see the other con men, they're even more unsophisticated. So I now believe that Donald Trump is a sophisticated con man.
- [15:11]
Tom Bilyeu
Interesting.
- [15:12]
Cenk Uygur
And so when a con man sees this great opportunity, this opening, they dive in it. Especially when people are hungry for someone to go into that goddamn china shop and break as many plates as he possibly can. So if, if you don't know Donald Trump ab tested a lot of his messages. It's actually clever thing to do. So he went on right wing talk radio for several years. Dan Scavino, I think, explained this. And so he would test messages, he would test a pro immigrant message and an anti immigrant message because he doesn't care. He doesn't care at all. He used to be a Democrat. He was pro choice, all these positions and he flip flopped because he's not a principal guy. He doesn't care about it. He just cares about winning for himself, more money, more power, more fame. So he noticed, oh, anti immigrant test. Better with the right wing. All right, I'm going anti immigrant, right and on down the list. So usually a guy like that will appear and they will gather a lot of momentum and, and then unfortunately, a big percentage of the time they take it in their own interest and not the people's. But like I said, there are those magical moments where you get a populist who actually does the right thing and that's when you really have the best scenario.
- [16:32]
Tom Bilyeu
Give me an example. You said there are some times you gave us FDR does it right. Has there been anyone in recent memory that's doing it right? What would Trump have to do to do it right? Like, what does that look like than I get it. Like we need to do things that are good for the average person. But is there a principled way to do it? Or is it literally just reflect back what they're telling you they want? Quick break here, but don't go anywhere. If you think you already know how politics works, think again. Jank is about to blow your mind after the break.
- [17:04]
Commercial Narrator
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [17:36]
Tom Bilyeu
All right, we're back. Let's get into it. Is there a principled way to do it or is it literally just reflect back what they're telling you they want?
- [17:44]
Cenk Uygur
No, no, there's definitely a principled way to do it. Here's an example that's a mixed bag. Andrew Jackson. So Andrew Jackson was a real populist, arguably maybe the first populist in American history. I'm not a historian, so if that's wrong, I'm happy to get corrected on it. But one of the first that I've certainly read about. And so, for example, he invited people to the White House when he was president, like actual citizens. So no president had done that before. I'm not sure any president has done that since. And I don't mean just as like a tour. I mean, oh, we're having a party, let's invite everybody in Washington. Okay, so he was a die hard populist. Now, Andrew Jackson, subversion of populism has significant downsides, as happens. Right. He was very tough on Native Americans and he was, you know, vicious in a lot of ways in that regard, on race, etc. Again, in his historical context, he was still a pretty bad figure with even within historical context, but obviously a different time than it is today. Right. But he was a populist on economic issues in some ways that were good. And so. So that's a populist that's earnest, even though it has a significant downside and a significant upside. I would argue FDR is a populist that had largely upside. Again, there's plenty to criticize, internment camps, etc. Right. But obviously enormous accomplishments, wins in World War II, Social Security and on and on. So I would argue Lula in Brazil is a really, really positive populist. I could argue that Sheinbaum in Mexico is a really good populist. So there's a lot of examples of it going right.
- [19:24]
Tom Bilyeu
Because I have not been politically really awake at all until say, the last four years, I have begun to intuitive grope at some of these ideas without having the words to put to it. My audience will have heard me say this a gazillion times, but this sounds like what I call the dumb voter problem. So to use my words to explain what I hear you saying is I think you can bifurcate everybody by what they think should be done with people they consider dumb voters. I understand some people think I'm the dumb voter, but what I think makes somebody an elitist is somebody who thinks that dumb voters need to shut up and be taken off social media, not be allowed to speak, not create disinformation, misinformation, whatever. Trust me, we know better and we're going to take care of this. We got you. But they actively view themselves as knowingly right, that other people are knowingly wrong, or at least they know them to be wrong, even if that person doesn't recognize it themselves. And based on their level of intelligence and ability to successfully navigate the world, they need those people to not disrupt the narrative, to let a story be told about what this all is, whether it's this moment, whether what these policies mean, and that the other people need to just be quiet versus, and I will very much put myself in this camp, wherever this means I fall. I don't trust myself and I don't think anybody should trust themselves like that. So all I'm going to do is say, look, treat me like an AI. I'm going to give you a strong, sincere take. I'm not going to pretend I don't believe what I believe. So I'm going to say the things that I believe with the level of aggression that I feel inside. But I don't want people to just go, oh, Tom said it. And therefore I'm going to believe it. I want people to say, okay, I'm going to need a bunch of people like that to give me a view on this thing that we call truth that none of us can see clearly. And based on these sincere, very firm takes, I then am going to make up my own mind about what this thing is. And you can call it wisdom of the crowd or whatever you want, but I think my view, you have to let even the people that you think are dumb and uneducated have their voice say whatever they believe to be true. And then, and only then, by battling those ideas out in public, can we, as a very large collective of people, begin to move in a direction that we think is most advantageous. Does that seem in line with what you're saying, or are we saying very different things?
- [22:03]
Cenk Uygur
I only agree with you 100%. If that's all. Okay, yeah, so that's exactly right. And so I realized as you were talking, though, that that's part of the friction that exists for me in. In terms of being on the left and in the Democratic Party, and as we do the Young Turks, that friction has been present for a long time. So what do I mean by that? My policies are on the left. And, you know, we want to talk about populists, the nearly perfect populist in our Lifetime is Bernie Sanders. So $15 minimum wage, the money goes straight to you. Paid family leave, it goes straight to you. Universal healthcare, you get the healthcare straight to you. Right? All for the average guy, etc. So I'm on the left, but the problem is the Democratic Party is filled with voters in that first bucket that you described. That's disinformation. I know better than you. I'm more educated than you. You should shut up and you shouldn't be allowed to say that. And I should get to say this. And et cetera. And a lot of policing of language and behavior and, and, and, and that leads to a super toxic and damaging and counterproductive policies, political culture. Because what they're all, what they're doing constantly, even though they don't realize it, is they're talking down to their voters like, you don't know. I know. And you have an obligation to vote for me. You'll see. Whenever a Democrat loses, they almost always blame the voters. So interesting. Yeah, that happened in this election too. Very first thing, and we know it's coming. So the young Turks were ready and we're like, here we go. Roll the tape. Right? And they said, oh, Latino men, they were sexist and that's why they didn't vote for Kamala Harris. I'm like, Mexico is a female president, so I'm pretty sure that that wasn't the real reason. And by the way, Latino men voted for Hillary Clinton by 31 point margin. Whoa. They didn't get magically sexist in eight years. You didn't deliver for them. It's not their fault. It's your fault. But a Democratic politician never sees it that way because of the mind that you just described. They think that they definitely know better and that their voters owe them their vote. And that is a terrible political mindset. And that's why they just lost the popular vote. Even though they have every advantage in this country. They have a demographic advantage, they have an infrastructure advantage now they have a money advantage, they have a media advantage. And they blew all of that because they have this imperious, unbearable attitude that they're owed power and that everyone must listen to them. By the way, I think the Republicans used to be like that in the past, and I'm really upset that the Democratic Party has gone more in that direction.
- [24:51]
Tom Bilyeu
Right, so does that happen whenever you get a preponderance of establishment Republicans or establishment Democrats?
- [24:58]
Cenk Uygur
Exactly.
- [24:59]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay, so that's really interesting. So who do you have more in common with? Populist Republican or a Establishment Democrat.
- [25:10]
Cenk Uygur
If you talk about policy, I'll probably wind up having more agreement with the establishment Democrat if you talk about attitude, like way of thinking, ideology, philosophy, life philosophy, probably populist, right? So, but what's perfect for me is populist left. And that was the main battle for the last eight years within Democratic Party. Bernie, the populist wing versus Hillary Biden, Kamala Harris, etc. The establishment wing. So Bernie has all the actual left wing policies and Biden's like, oh, I'll do 10% of them if you push me really hard and if you beg and plead, but he doesn't really want to do them. And I can give you a lot of examples of policies he chose not to do because he never believed in them. He's from the corporate establishment wing. So that's the battle we've been having inside the Democratic Party. So sometimes people will hear me criticize Democratic politicians, go, oh, you must be on the right. Oh, you must be a Trump supporter, or you must be this. No, remember the battle we've been having this entire time, Our side of the party has to win. If we don't win, we're going to have these unbearable guys lose election after election after election. So, so you can sense the loathing that I have for Democratic establishment politicians. But unfortunately, we have what I now call binary brain in this country. So our media has taught us you must either agree 100% with one side or 0% and there's no nuance and they break. Left, right, that's left, right, that's right. So Hillary Clinton, the most establishment politician of our lifetimes, you have to agree with 100% of what she says. Otherwise you support Donald Trump. But I, I don't agree that we should give everything to the rich and powerful and then have a trickle. I don't agree with that. I, Even though she's pretending to be on the left, I don't even think she's on the left. I think she's a right wing establishment Democrat. Right. Democrat used to mean left wing. But I, I wrote in my book Justice Is Coming about how the Supreme Court decisions allowed an avalanche of money to come in. And the Democratic Party started realizing, oh, the Republicans aren't the only ones who could take money from corporations. We can take money from corporations, and they let that money completely and utterly corrupt them. And so that's why I fight so hard against those guys. But it's gotta be someone like Bernie that wins, because Bernie's earnest and actually cares about the average person. And And I believe the left wing policies are correct. So. But when anybody that hears this conversation, not anybody, but a lot of people who hear this conversation will go, oh, Cenk just said that he has some things more in common with right wing populists than Democratic politicians. We knew it. He's a right winger, he's a Trump supporter, he's maga. Because of binary brain, they can't get into a simple conversation about there are two different political spectrums. Left, right, populist, establishment. So I am center left, but I am very populist. And it's. I get it, it's a new concept to a lot of people. But we got to get better. We got to get better. Otherwise we're never going to fix the Democratic Party. And in my opinion, demagogues like Trump will just take what is basically an empty open field. He has no competition because his real competition was Bernie and the Democrats killed him off in the primaries. So you give me any populist, I don't even care if they're a knucklehead. I don't care if they're not. They're not earnest, just political strategy. Why that person will beat an establishment politician every time. Especially in this era. In the old times, no way. Why mainstream media would have crushed the populace. But mainstream media has lost power. So now because of online media, populace can actually rise up. So the minute we have a Bernie like figure on the left, they're going to landslide everyone. So because in the old days, the only reason Bernie lost is because every cable news anchor, every reporter at the New York Times, every report of the Washington Post, they despise Bernie. And they don't. Even though, wait. People say, wait, I don't get it. Mainstream media is on the. Seems to be on the left or supports the Democrats. What do you mean they hate Bernie. But you see what they say and you read what they write and you go, wow, they do hate Bernie. Why do they hate Bernie even though he's on the left? Because he's a populist. And their establishment. That's why they hate Bernie. And the mainstream media has killed every populist left wing figure's career. They are our biggest opponent and they're a propaganda machine that enforces corporate rule on the rest of us.
- [30:08]
Tom Bilyeu
This is really interesting, man. So I am always looking for what is the lens in the world that gives me the highest predictive validity. You're the first person that I've heard talk about this. So the world felt very naturally divided. Left, right. So I'll Definitely want to hear your breakdown of where you think those ideas came from. But before we go to that, let me ask you. So had it been a Bernie versus Trump, so now we've got a Democrat populist versus a Republican populist, who would the media have gotten behind Trump? Really?
- [30:44]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah. And in fact, it's not a question. It already happened.
- [30:48]
Tom Bilyeu
Why?
- [30:49]
Cenk Uygur
So in 2016, Trump got several billion dollars in free media. Do you know how much ABC News talked about Bernie Sanders in the year 2015 as he went from about 2% to 48%. One of the most miraculous political ascents in American history. ABC News talked about him for seven seconds.
- [31:12]
Tom Bilyeu
That's a literal number.
- [31:13]
Cenk Uygur
That's a literal number. Okay, so because was he up against
- [31:19]
Tom Bilyeu
Hillary at that point?
- [31:20]
Cenk Uygur
Yes.
- [31:20]
Tom Bilyeu
But isn't that why they were silent? Because it's like, ah, we don't want a populace when we can have an establishment Democrat 100%.
- [31:28]
Cenk Uygur
But they didn't do that for Trump. They gave him billions of free media. Two reasons. Three reasons. Number one, he's a celebrity and they're obsessed with celebrities. They're like, celebrity. Right. Most importantly, number two, they didn't take him seriously. They thought, oh, it's a clown. We'll get good ratings, but he's obviously not going to win. They were positive he wasn't going to win. I said he would win the Republican primary in October of 2015. Jesus.
- [31:57]
Tom Bilyeu
I was like, he's unelectable. Literally. Up until up, I told my team, go home. It's not possible that this guy can get elected.
- [32:03]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah. On ABC's this Week with Stephanopoulos, right after Hillary Clinton's DNC, where she then at that point, she had about a 10 point lead. The convention had just ended. They had us predict who was going to win. I was the only one on the panel that predicted that Trump would win. And the rest of the panel laughed out loud. And I said, we're in a populist era and you guys aren't getting it. And you can't see straight because you are the establishment. And so. And they're like, that's this crazy guy. He thinks that clown Trump's gonna win. No, he's giving us great ratings, but it's got no downside because he's not really gonna win. But there's a third reason. The third reason is what did Trump do when he got in charge?
- [32:44]
Tom Bilyeu
Taking a short pause. But when we're back, Jenks got more on how the media is keeping you distracted and what to watch out for
- [32:54]
Commercial Narrator
when you Manage procurement for multiple facilities. Every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery, so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [33:25]
Tom Bilyeu
All right, let's pick up where we left off.
- [33:27]
Cenk Uygur
But there's a third reason. The third reason is what did Trump do when he got in charge? In the beginning and for most of his time, he might have said crazy things. He might have done crazy things. But at the end of the day, his one major policy accomplishment was massive corporate tax cuts. So he wasn't a real threat. Later, they perceived him to be a threat in that he only cared about himself. When a politician in that position is supposed to be a servant of the donor class, they're like this son of a. Well, hesitated for a second. This son of is taking all the money for himself when he's supposed to take the money and give it to us.
- [34:08]
Tom Bilyeu
Right?
- [34:08]
Cenk Uygur
Again, they don't think that way consciously because you. And the one thing I think you say said a little wrong on the. What I said was 100% right is you said dumb voter. But it actually isn't dumb voter. It's all about bubbles. Everybody's in their own bubble and they cannot see straight. It's not because they're dumb. It's because they think that their worldview is the only worldview. And so that's what's creating a lot of these problems. So the establishment let Trump basically win with all that free media because they thought it was impossible. They thought it was good for their ratings and they knew he was going to deliver for the rich because he's rich. Bernie was a much bigger problem because they knew he was not going to deliver for the rich. He was going to deliver for the average guy. And viscerally they hated that. It like I, when I interact with people in mainstream media and I say the things that I say, that supports Bernie, that's populist left. I can see that the hair on their neck rising like you, you can't actually physically, literally see it, but you see it in their reaction. They start to like, do this. They get tense, they get. And then their answers are much sharper, aggressive. And they, and they feel like, who are you to say these things about us? And I Can give you a great example. You could even see it online. I gave a speech in Washington, D.C. to the, to the Press Club, National Press Club. Okay. So I go there and I give a speech about populism and establishment media and what they're doing wrong. And boy, did they hate it. And, and so the.
- [35:48]
Tom Bilyeu
They don't like to be critiqued. What's the driving thing?
- [35:51]
Cenk Uygur
The person, the president of the National Press Club then got up and said, you know, we work really hard. I didn't say you didn't work hard. I said that you're seeing it wrong. Right. They take personal offense at the idea that they are not objective. And the reality is they're not within a million miles of objective. And I could prove it. I mean, it's not close. So, for example, they say, what do you mean we're objective, we're neutral. Wait, hold on. How is neutral objective? What if you have an idea on who's going to win the AFC Championship game, and I have an idea on who's going to win the AFC championship game, and you say the Bengals are going to win, and I say the Browns are going to win, but neither one is going to win because neither one of them are in the game, right? So mainstream media goes, oh, the correct answer is between the Browns and the Bengals. No, the neutral position between two points is not necessarily correct at all. That's just a neutral position. That is not the objectively correct position. So there's many different tricks that I could explain of what mainstream media does. And again, they don't know they're doing it. Guys, if you're out watching, like, don't think they're evil and they're going, we will now trick the American people. And a lot of the reporters aren't that rich, but they are in a group think and they don't realize it. And so, like, whenever they talk about a bill, a piece of legislation, right? What is the number one factor that drives what's going to be in that bill? I'll tell you, it's money, right? It's. The lobbyists aren't spending literally billions of dollars for their health, for general charity, right? They're doing it to affect what's in the bill. Does it work? Absolutely. I can show you dozens, maybe hundreds of examples. They put pressure on, the bill gets changed. The bill's in favor of the corporations and not the people. People over and over and over again. Not negotiating drug prices is the most insane thing anyone's ever heard. It's the most anti free market anti capitalist thing anybody's ever heard, but everybody treats it as perfectly normal. But much more importantly, in the articles about the legislation, they never mention the money. They go, the beloved Senator Lindsey Graham. I know they don't say beloved, but, but it's in the framing. They, they kind of frame it that way. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina thinks this. The honorable gentle lady from Connecticut think. And they had this debate and oh, it looks like the Republicans won the debate. There was no debate. All there was is an exchange of checks. The donors give the checks to both sets of politicians and they get what they want and we get screwed. And if you work at the New York Times and you don't know that, that's embarrassing and to the point of almost humiliating, but none of them know it.
- [38:39]
Tom Bilyeu
It's hard to believe that they don't know it. I think this may be one of the things that we see differently, which is that I don't believe God, I don't want to believe that people can blind themselves that completely. That's a level of lack of self awareness that I would find terrifying.
- [39:00]
Cenk Uygur
But Tom, I can prove it to you. Sorry to interrupt.
- [39:02]
Tom Bilyeu
No, please.
- [39:04]
Cenk Uygur
So it's again, it's not binary. Does the New York Times sometimes do great reporting? Absolutely. Can I show you hundreds of great investigative stories, etc. That they did? Yes. Right. So when I criticize the New York Times as an example, they get emotional and they, and I get it, you know, I'm criticizing the place you work than the place that you might love and believe in, etc. Right. And they go, what do you mean? Look at this great story we did on this or that, the other thing. But those are great stories. But when you're doing your political analysis, you could just look up in the New York Times, all the times that they talked about legislation and how often did they say the most the controlling factor was donor money or lobbyist money? The answer is near zero. How often was it actually donor money and lobbyist money that was the controlling factor nearly 100% of the time. So if you create a theater for people and pretend that these political actors, and they're literally actors, are having an ideological debate and one side won the debate, etc. You have greatly misled your audience, your viewers, your readers. So, but they don't know that. And so I'll have interactions with a reporter and I'll say, you know, it's the money that controls yada yada, right? And they'll say, yes, I understand that. And I. And between you and me, I agree with you. So it's not like they're not aware of the concept. Right, but money in politics is a, a different beat. That's not my beat. So my editor told me to focus on this. Okay, but money in politics is in all the beats. If you cover politics, money in politics is everything. But the editors say no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's a tiny campaign finance reform thing. No one really cares about it. It's a process issue. We. So we're not going to emphasize it
- [40:54]
Tom Bilyeu
that I get what the. But that all feels like theater to me. To your point about their actors, that does not feel like people honestly assessing the problem. This feels like people that thread because they know that motives are going to be swayed by that. Let's take what you and I do. So you and I both have to make decisions routinely about whether we're going to curb the things that we say based on advertisers. Speaking for myself, I'm fortunate that I could self fund this for a very long time without advertiser money. So I'm never going to change what I believe to be true based on an advertiser. But I have lost advertisers, so I certainly understand how advertising dollars can get people to. Well, maybe I just won't talk about that thing because I know advertisers are going to be a little bit weird about it. So even that I see how it begins to nudge people. What, what I literally refuse to believe is that they're not aware that that is happening. They may want to think that they let it influence them very little or something like that. But the reason that guy can say to you, yeah, yeah, I know it's a problem, it's just not my beat is because there's no way that they can trick themselves into thinking that the donor money doesn't actually have influe. Even if they go online and say, now admittedly I'm just projecting, I'm mind reading. But I can't fathom a world in which that is. That is a level of complete and total blindness. I think their emotional reaction is because part of them knows that that's the one line you can't cross. And they may have a mental gyration about why it's not immoral to do, but that they're unaware of it. I just can't wrap my head around that.
- [42:36]
Cenk Uygur
So they are. But let's unaware. So let's talk about who they are though. So when you talk about a junior reporter, the new York Times, they're younger. They grew. They didn't grow up with television. They grew up in online media. So they're way more aware than a reporter would have been 20 years ago, 30 years ago, when they're just getting brainwashed by mainstream media. There is no money in politics. It never affects anyone. These politicians are honest. They're never affected by the money. But the senior reporters and the senior editors, that's the most important part. And. And remember, the. Who's the most important. The one above them is the publisher, right? And the publisher hires the editor. The editor hires the other editors. They hire the senior reporters. And it all flows down from that mindset of it's an outrage to think that these politicians are crooks. If I was here with a senior New York Times editor, and he was sitting right here with us, and we told him, you know, the. You know. Right. The politicians are cooks. They. They take money from the donors and they do whatever the donors tell them. He would be outraged by that idea. He would think that we're radicals and we're weirdo, you know, conspiracy theorists. I've literally had reporters tell me, are you saying that the politicians are voting based on the millions of dollars that they got? Because that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I was like, are you insane? The conspiracy theory is that they are not affected by millions of dollars. Right?
- [43:59]
Tom Bilyeu
No. Agreed. Have you seen A Few Good Men?
- [44:02]
Cenk Uygur
Yes.
- [44:03]
Tom Bilyeu
Okay. Admittedly, I am simply building a mental model. I don't know any of these people. And so, of course, I could be wrong. That caveat aside, you could peel my soul open and see that I actually believe what I'm about to say, that all of these politicians make a lot more sense to me if they are Colonel Jessup, who has a belief in his soul that we just can't handle the truth. And you need people like me to protect you. And so, yes, I'm going to take donor money, because that's how this game works. But I am doing it for you. And if you don't have people like me standing between you and China, you and a world that wants to see you destroyed, you're a fool. It has to be me. You want these people giving us money, and you have to know that I am moral. I'm not going to do things that aren't in your best interest. So, yes, I take money, and, yes, I do the right thing. But they're not fools. They know what they're doing. And I really believe if you crack them open, that's what you're going to see. I don't buy for a second that Hillary Clinton isn't at that Colonel Jessup level where she's like, she may believe that she's truly doing it all for the little people, but holy hell, there's no way she's like, oh, I'm not influenced by this. Oh, no way. I don't buy it.
- [45:19]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, I. So again, it requires nuance. So here's a good example of what the model you're talking about. I think that Dick Cheney is Colonel Jessup, and I loathe Dick Cheney. Right. And so apparently everybody in the country outside of Kamala Harris does.
- [45:35]
Tom Bilyeu
And it was a shocking turn of events when they were celebrating that. Yes.
- [45:39]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah. I mean, God, Democratic establishment politicians are so stupid. Like, there's. I'm not supposed to call them stupid. I just told you not to call them stupid. Right. They're in their bubble. But that bubble is so dumb. Right? How Dick Cheney polls at 13%. What part of that is complicated? And they're like, no, we're gonna get the Republicans in the suburbs. But you said that in 2016, and Hillary Clinton only got 7% of the Republican vote after you spent all of your money chasing after Republicans you were never gonna get. And then you did it again in 2020, and Biden only got 6% of the Republican vote. You did it again in 2024, and Kamala Harris only got 5% of the Republican vote. They are impervious to facts and reason and logic because they're so diluted by their own bubbles. So Dick Cheney. But to go back to your Colonel Jessup example, probably thought, I don't know which of these theories he believed in, but peak oil or something along those lines. We need boots on the ground in the Middle east because oil is such an important natural resource that we need to be able to control it if we have unfriendly governments that can get together. And what if they get off of the dollar? The dollar is even more important than oil. So, yeah, I know that they don't have weapons of mass destruction. I know they not only did they not do 911, that their mortal enemies of Al Qaeda. It's not like Dick Cheney doesn't know that. He definitely knows that. Right. And he made a decision. This is my inference, based on overwhelming evidence that I've seen that. Yeah, I'm going to lie to the American people because they need me on that wall. Right. So he got himself to believe he's the great hero and savior of America. And if they. We hadn't gone into Iraq, blah, blah, blah. Right. But then when you talk about other politicians, they're not all like that. Like, Ted Cruz is a slime ball and he knows he's a slime ball. He knows that there he is not going to eventually help the American people who couldn't give a rat's ass about the American people. I'll give you. And again, this is not just, oh, I don't like Republicans or I don't like the right. No, this is all based on facts. So we've been covering news and politics for over two decades now. So all of these stories have accumulated. So on Ted Cruz, if you remember, he did not endorse Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican convention. He gave a speech and never endorsed Trump. And that was a big controversy. And they're like, whoa. Because they were the two main competitors at the end of the day. And. And if you remember, Donald Trump had insulted his wife and basically insinuated that she was ugly and that his father killed jfk.
- [48:15]
Tom Bilyeu
I mean, very Trumpian.
- [48:16]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, yeah, Enormously Trumpian. Exactly. So Ted Cruz, out of principle, decided that he wasn't going to endorse Trump. And then like two weeks later, I mean, instantly, I don't even know if it took two weeks, he's phone banking for Donald Trump and he's on television saying, Donald Trump is the greatest and we have to elect Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is about, so what the hell happened? Well, I read what happened. What happened was after the speech, he goes up to the suites where all the donors are, and he goes to his main donor, the Mercers, Robert and Rebecca Mercer. They have given him, at that point in that primary loan, $13 million. What people don't realize is Ted Cruz is not a politician. He's a servant. He's a servant of the Mercers. So he goes up to their suites, suite and they slammed a door in his face and he's shell shocked by it. And they say to him, look, we put the money into you in the primary that we invested in you, and it didn't work out. Trump won. Now Trump is going to give us the corporate tax cuts we wanted. So now we're backing Trump, so shut up and back Trump. And then once he got his orders, he immediately turned around and said, oh, I love Donald Trump, Donald Trump is the best, etc. He doesn't think he's Colonel Jessup. He doesn't think that you need him on that wall. He thinks, oh, money, money. Oh, I'm Ted Cruz. He's A total freaking slime ball. He knows he's got to go lick the ass of Robert Mercer and so he goes and licks that ass. It's not to be on a wall. It's not to protect anyone. It's not to do anything but look out for his own self interest. And as loathsome as Dick Cheney is, and as terrible as his actions were, and as much as the country it cost the country, I would argue that he had a better intent than somebody like Ted Cruz who only cares about himself and doesn't even have any delusions of being Colonel Jessup. You see what I'm saying?
- [50:13]
Tom Bilyeu
I do. I don't know anything about Ted Cruz, so I don't have a read on that.
- [50:16]
Cenk Uygur
But you could take Ted Cruz And I mean, 98% of politicians are like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is just the most flamboyant, one of the most flamboyant of them.
- [50:28]
Tom Bilyeu
Help me understand the left versus right split. What causes that?
- [50:35]
Cenk Uygur
I mean, partly it's a matter of genuine policy disagreements and, and I actually think it's partly a matter of nature that you're probably born conservative or, or born progressive.
- [50:49]
Tom Bilyeu
Give me as much detail on that as you can. I find that very compelling.
- [50:53]
Cenk Uygur
And then, but there's also a cultural element too. So I'll start all the way in the beginning. I, I think that we have hardware and software in our brains. So our hardware is our DNA, so that's hardwired in and there's nothing you could do about it, about that your brain is structured in a certain way, you have certain proclivities, etc. Then our software is all of our cultural influences that inform us, educate us, oftentimes deceive us. And so what are the cultural influences? Your community, your family, your friends. Family and friends are very different. Very different influences. Right. And, and very, very importantly media. And so, so now let's talk about software first. And I come back to the hardware in software. Well, you have the red states where you have a lot more conservatives or Republicans, and you have the blue states where you have a lot more people on the left. Part of that is, is, doesn't have to do with software. If you are, if your hardware says no change, you're going to stay in your hometown, you're not going to go to the coast. If your hardware says you like change or you need change, you go to California, you go to New York. So the left starts to go to the coast more because they're more in favor of change. But the main part is in California, you have media, you have culture that is very left wing. In Alabama, you have community, culture, family, that is very right wing. And so that's your software. And so when you're in a room where everyone thinks the same thing, you know that that psychology test where they have a series of lines and they ask you which one is the tallest line, the longest line, and what you don't know is that they told everyone else in the room to pick the second tallest one as the tallest one, and then they see how many people defy the crowd and pick the actual longest line and the number is very small.
- [52:54]
Tom Bilyeu
It's terrifying.
- [52:55]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, because. And so when you're in Alabama or you're in Los Angeles, you have to be super strong to get past the cultural influence, the software that you're imbued with every day. As these people around you all say, well, of course the Republicans are right, of course the right wing is right. Or if you're in la, of course the Democrats are right, of course the liberals are right, and, oh, you don't believe that. Are you a Trump supporter? And they look at you like you're evil and et cetera. So in la, you're worried about being labeled a Trump supporter. In Alabama, are you a liberal? Do you dress up like a girl in the middle of the night? No, no, no, no, I don't, I don't. I'm a Republican, I'm right wing. So that software is super powerful, let alone when you get to the media level where it's on steroids. So what's your hardware? Hardware is free. So what I tell my friends on the left is the right wing are not bad guys. Sometimes they'll react to us in a way that you go, well, I sound like bad guys. I mean, we're talking about H1B visas, and some of these guys are saying, don't let the goddamn Indians in. They're not real Americans. That's a bad guy thing to say. Right. And that's attacking me, et cetera. So how can you say that they're not bad guys? Well, first of all, of course some of them are right. We're all. And that's a different conversation. But really, it's not that. The main part of it is they circle the wagons. Conservatives circle the wagons. So they believe in stability. They believe not as much change, nice and easy, and we look out for our own. So they're terrific to their family, they're terrific to their community, their church, etc. But if they perceive you as outside Their wagons, then that's bad news. Their guard is up and they view you as the others. They're going to fight you. They're going to fight you 2000%. Well, a lot of us are outside their wagons. Whereas for progressives, people on the left, left, they're more open to change. Just structurally like their DNA, their brain is more open to change. So they're like, oh, I don't have to stick with tradition and culture and what society tells me to do. Then the second part of it is there our wagons are much larger. So to me, whether you're Indian or you're white guy from Alabama or you're a Martian, I don't really care. To me, I mean, Marsh is not a great example because to me, if you're human, you're human. And to. And a lot of sometimes Republicans will challenge me. Are you saying that you care about this is as much about the people in Bangladesh as you do about Americans? Yeah, I do there. Now, if I'm running America, I'm going to care more about Americans. Right. And as a political figure in America, I got to look out for American citizens first. Right. But it doesn't mean I hate the people of Bangladesh and it doesn't mean I think that they're any less than us. I think they're just as human as we are and just they should have the same rights, same everything. Now, if you have a right winger in the room, he's not going to want to be racist and tell you, oh, yeah, yeah, the people of Bangladesh are inferior. Or I don't give a shit about him, but really he doesn't give a shit about them. And a lot of them, to be fair to them, are very honest. And they'll tell you that. They'll be like, that's their goddamn problem. In fact, Trump said it the other day and I think he doesn't really mean. But. But they asked him about the ceasefire in Gaza and, you know, will the ceasefire last, etc. And he said, that's their war, not our war. That's a very right wing mindset. That's their business, not our business. I circled my wagons and that's why he says America first. That's why he's always talking about, we're going to deliver for his base first before he delivers for anyone else. Hey, if you didn't vote for me, I don't care about you and I might not give you disaster relief, but if they tell them, oh, in our Orange county, they voted for you, I said, okay, then Orange County's fine. That's good, because Orange county is inside his wagons. Louisiana is not inside his wagons. Right. But for progressives, that's such an anathema. Like if you said to someone who's truly on the left, hey, they got hit with a tornado in Alabama, but they didn't vote for us. And they. And they don't like us and should we give them disaster relief Belief, any real leftist would say, of course, they wouldn't even understand the question because the guy in Alabama is inside our wagons.
- [57:05]
Tom Bilyeu
It's interesting. The tribal nature of it all makes that feel not necessarily true. I've seen when people tribe up, there is an innate part of our hardware that I think drives people to say they're not on my team. And there was a lot of, like when BLM and everything first kicked off, there was like, hey, you either get on board with this or let it burn. So I think people tribe up on both sides. But let me lay out my hardware software because on that we're really similar. But I don't know if we draw the same conclusion. We might. I'm just not sure yet. So I look at the left and the right without the nuance that you've now given me about establishment versus populist, I think is important and is very much. I'm updating my thinking as you've presented that.
- [57:56]
Cenk Uygur
That.
- [57:57]
Tom Bilyeu
But I had come into it always okay, the left and the right need to exist. It's the tension between the two that make us function well. And just as marrying somebody who views the world different than me, that's actually made my life better across a whole host of dimensions. And I learned very early on, I don't want to make my wife think like me, and my wife shouldn't want to make me think like her. It's in this ability to hold dynamic tension where we're able to navigate well. And so think of a kite in a string, right? So the string without it, the kite just flies off into nothing crashes. And the string without a kite obviously just lays on the ground. So it's the dynamic tension that allows it to stay afloat. So from an evolutionary standpoint, you've got. Evolution is trying to make sure that you have kids that survive long enough to have kids that have kids, right? So, okay, so now I've got to get us to survive in an environment where there's no refrigeration. This is one very simple. It's not the only thing. There's no refrigeration. So if we go on a Hunt and I kill more than I can eat. I'm either gonna let it rot, or I can store those calories on your body. And so now I'm like, hey, you're part of my tribe. Eat some of this. I want you to have it. And so in us is this desire to help people. So we'll call that the left. There's this compassion of, like, nobody left behind. I wanna make sure that I serve other people because it helps the cohesion of the group. It helps me survive later when it's gonna be my turn. And so this reciprocity from an evolutionary impulse standpoint is very advantageous. The catch is that if you're always looking out for other people, then you get what's known as the free rider problem. And so that's where the right comes in. And the right says, okay, hold on a second. We need personal responsibility. We need people that they're going to pull their own weight. And so now if you get just the right, it's going to devolve into madness. Everybody's looking out for themselves. There's no group cohesion. If you get just the left, then you get this free rider, what I call the barnacle problem. And if you've ever seen a turtle get covered in barnacles, it just sinks and it dies. So you need the tension between the two. And if you only had one, they're both going to break off into pathology. Regardless of what side you're on, it it just becomes nonsensical. And so I learned this actually in business because I had these two guys I respected a lot. One was the CEO type, one was a COO type. And they just were cruel to each other. And I was always like, why?
- [60:22]
Cenk Uygur
What?
- [60:22]
Tom Bilyeu
What's happening? And they both thought the other person was an idiot. And I was like, you guys are two of the smartest people I've ever met. But you have different roles in this company. And once you understand that, you want that dynamic tension, you want to think differently, you want to view these things differently, and you find a path that works ultimately for the goal that you guys agree on. I won't drag us into that fractal right now, but. But the dynamic tension serves everybody. So when I look at the left, right divide in myself, even I'm trying to remind myself, I don't want people to. I don't want everyone to think like, I think I'm very happy to have other people who think like I think, but I would not want that to be the only way, because we need that Balance. So to me, and I think to you, that's an echo of evolution. Definitely grant you there's a software layer as well that can be extremely compelling. But good luck fighting against somebody's like, if they are like pushed hard to one way or the other, even with all the software in the world, you're probably going to have a hard time pulling them too far. But that's how I look at it. So I never respond well to the vilification of the other side, even if I don't agree with their policy, because I'm like, the one thing I know better than to do is to trust myself. So I want my voice to be heard. I'm going to lay my most compelling arguments. But then I want everybody and I, I do really have a hard time explaining this idea to people, even people I consider dumb or other people consider dumb, because I don't trust my assessment. They all should have a voice. And now it gets put before the people. And whatever people decide we do. I won't fractal on direct democracy, but the comment section should know that. Yes, I'm aware of the problems of direct democracy, but we'll set that aside for now. How does that land? Am I missing something obvious?
- [62:17]
Cenk Uygur
No, no, I think I totally agree. So let me break it down one by one. What you're describing is balance. I describe the same balance in my book Justice Coming. And I say, look, I'm coming at this from a left wing perspective, but here's why we need the right right wing, because you can't steer this ship without both sides. And, and there's a whole host of reasons why you need the right wing. But I'll give you the most, the easiest one to understand. Winston Churchill was right wing and he was brutal to India and, and not a great guy overall at all. But During World War II, you needed someone to make hard decisions and to sacrifice some troops, knowing that they're going to die. And you needed that kind of guy to take charge and go, okay, now let's go kick their asses, right? And so I respect that, and there's a time for that. But if all you do is let's go kick the ass of everyone, whether it's right or wrong, whether they're Nazis or poor innocent Indian villagers, that's not the right way to go. But sometimes you're not subjugating Indian villagers, you're fighting Nazis, right? It doesn't mean a left winger can't. FDR was a left winger and he beat the Nazis too. Stalin was Definitely a left winger and he beat the Nazis too. But at that point. But you could argue, well, sir, like to have a conversation about whether Stalin is really right wing or left wing because he's a dictator, blah, blah, blah. But leaving all of that aside, and, and so, and I can give you a dozen other examples. So I totally agree with you that we need the balance. But that doesn't mean that both sides are always right. No, one side can definitely be wrong and dramatically wrong at different times. And it's not just the right wing. I mean, the communists eventually devolved into Stalin, etc, and they were at Mao and they were massively wrong. Right. So. But when you look at American history, so your point about tribalism is also definitely correct in my opinion. And so, well, we had a right wing tribe that formed in the south that said. So whenever I bring up history, the right wing instantly catches feelings. This is not about you. You didn't do it, your family didn't do it. Just calm down for a second and let me say the statement because I know they're already reacting the minute you say the South. You better not say Southern traditions about peach cobbler. It's not about slavery. Come on, guys, come on. Of course it was about slavery. Of course it was about slavery. Right? And what was slavery? It was vicious and it was saying, your tribe is worthless, your tribe is furniture and your babies are people is a commodity like a purse that I'm going to sell. So. And white people are awesome and superior and we don't have to work, you have to work for us and get nothing. Okay, so, okay, now I'm giving you a super extreme example. And by the way, slavery wasn't just in America. It was all across the world and different races did it. So again, don't catch feelings. It's just an example. So, but there were tribes there. And yes, that tribe happened to be right wing and is still right wing. And so that tribe was wrong. It was fundamentally morally wrong. So just because you need the left and the right doesn't mean they're equally right at all times in all circumstances. In fact, a lot of times the left is right, sometimes the right is right, and that's how you steer the ship. Not by being right at the same time, but being right at different times. Right? So, and I hear what you're saying about the tribalism this days, these days. And I think that it has gotten worse and I think it is driven by media and I think it's beginning to be driven by the algorithms which lead to Audience capture, which then says, if you deviate a little bit from what your audience wants, the algorithm is going to punish you. And that creates an enormous incentive to say, oh, yes, yes, yes. Of course Trump is right about everything. Of course Biden is young and dynamic and totally right about everything. He's the best candidate in the whole world. He's 35 years old. Of course he is. Of course he is. I'll tell you whatever the fuck you want to hear. Right. And what does that do? Tribalism. Tribalism. Tribalism. And that tribalism now, especially these days, is you must hate the other side. If you don't hate the other side, you're not one of us. And I loathe that. I can't stand that. And that's what's destroying the country.
- [66:49]
Tom Bilyeu
Yeah, There is no doubt about that. The algorithms are driving a lot of it. Exacerbates the situation greatly. Anybody that runs the kind of media companies that we run have to be very cognizant of audience capture. That is for sure, given the fascinating moment that we're in with social media, with somebody like Trump being able to leverage a very watchable personality. Love him or hate him, he gets eyeballs. How do you think of Trump? What does he represent in this moment? I know you've been talking about, hey, if I could get a meeting with Trump, I would take it.
- [67:31]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah.
- [67:31]
Tom Bilyeu
And that hasn't exactly made you popular on your side. How do you think about Trump? Why would you take a meeting with them?
- [67:37]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, look, we're crazy. We. We challenge our own side all the time, algorithm or not.
- [67:43]
Tom Bilyeu
You know, the we in this is the Young Turks.
- [67:46]
Cenk Uygur
Yeah, Young Turks. TYT Young Turks is the flagship show, live every day, 6 to 8pm Eastern on YouTube and all the other platforms. TYT is the network. And the network has many channels, many shows, many hosts, dozens of hosts. So a Young Turks is just a flagship. But so as a company and, and as the flagship show, we often challenge our own side. I remember we lost a lot of subscribers when I started challenging Obama from the left and I. We fought so hard to get Obama elected against Hillary Clinton in the primary at first and then against John McCain in the general election. So our audience is filled to the rim with people who really love and support Obama. And then I started to say, yeah, I like a lot of what he's doing, but guys, I got to tell you, drilling in the Gulf is not a left wing position. It's not a good idea and it's bad for the environment, etc. Etc. And then the Gulf explodes. Right? So, but before the Gulf, BP disaster in the Gulf, I just give that as one of dozens of examples again where I challenged Obama from the left. And then I wound up having problems with that at MSNBC when I hosted there. And, and we lost viewers, we lost paying subscribers. But then eventually people come back and they come back in even larger numbers because they see, oh, they were right, they weren't trying, they weren't against our tribe. They were actually get, trying to get our tribe to do the right things and trying to get our leaders to actually serve us instead of serving other interests. Right. So that's the nature of this game. And so I get it. And every time we, we defy our audience a little bit, then what happens is the leeches come in and you know, and they're like, oh great, we'll pretend to be more pure than them and we'll be thoughtless and mindless and we'll say, Trump is 100% evil, will never do anything good, and he's a Nazi and a racist and haha, he didn't call him a Nazi. That's it. He's, he loves Trump. Right. So what's the reality? The reality is, and here I am, I'm going to upset both sides again. Trump, generally speaking, con man, and to me a very obvious one. But I'm not in the bubble, in the right wing bubbles, right? And so does that mean that he, everything he does is bad? No, not necessarily. You have to judge every single thing by its own merits. So, oh, he did criminal justice reform either. Criminal justice reform more than the Democrats did. Did mainstream media give him credit for that? Not really. You know, they almost never talked about it. And, but I, Anna and I were like, that bill was pretty good. It was kind of left wing, right? But these days if you say a bill that Trump passed is good, even if it really is left wing, people say Nazi, right, racist. Wait, hold on. But he, he passed a bill that we would want Democratic presidents to pass, right? So now, but then he passed corporate tax cuts for the rich and for corporations and generally supported corporate rule deregulation. They say, oh, it's freedom. Lewis Powell in his famous Powell memo in 1971, made that up for the Chamber of Commerce. He's like, oh, when we want deregulation, which, for our own businesses so we can take advantage of people, we should call that freedom. And so all the way to today, Trump's like, oh, freedom. I deregulated the oil industry so they could take all the oil. Not Share any of the money with you, create climate change that's going to destroy your house in a hurricane, Put that cost all on to you, take $30 billion in subsidies, take all the money, all of the advantages and we'll call that freedom. That's not freedom, that's bullshit. Okay? Regulation is another word for law. And if you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in regulation. But that doesn't mean that all regulation is good. The question is how much regulation. You can get carried away and have way too much regulation. You could have way too little regulation. So we have these nonsensical conversations. I mean, I'm so tired of it. Even not only in cable news, but even in the New York Times that's supposed to be sophisticated, intellectual. They'll have these garbage conversations about are you pro or anti regulation? That doesn't make any sense. What regulation are we talking about? If the regulation is don't murder innocent people, then I'm pro regulation. If the regulation is I'm going to come take your half your house for some reason, then I'm anti regulation.
- [72:10]
Tom Bilyeu
So what are they groping at when they ask a ham handed question like that? Is it tribal signaling or do they really have a base belief that regulations are just a code word for breaks
- [72:21]
Cenk Uygur
for corporations on an individual level? They don't even realize they're doing it. And if you, if you challenge them on it, they'd be like, oh yeah, I, I'm not sure what I mean by more regulation or less regulation. Right. Because it's, it's a factually nonsensical point. Good, great, progressive. Matt Stoller worked in the Senate, worked in Washington a long time. He told me this once. It stuck with me. I give him credit for it all the time. He'll, he says, oh, regulation, you know, Cenk, I'm gonna do a project at my house. What size pipe should I buy? I'm like, I don't know what's, what do you need? What's the job? Right? He's like, exactly right. You don't know if you need more or less regulation unless you know what the job is. Right? So I give you one last example. My dad ran a small business in New Jersey, Bona managed commercial building. And they would inspect elevators six times a year. And he's like, this is, that's crazy. It's over age. We have to spend money, we have to spend time, energy, etc. So I said, yeah. So they, so you want them, you don't want them to inspect elevators Right. And he said, no, no, they should inspect elevators twice, not six times. I said, why do you want them to inspect it at all? Every time they inspect it, it costs you money. He said, because sometimes in Turkey they didn't inspect elevators and then they fell. Okay, so you don't want them to fall. You don't want people to get hurt, you don't want people to die. You need regulation, you just don't need overregulation. So that's a sophisticated conversation. But to your question, they're in group think, the reporters, the politicians, so they haven't thought any of that through. They just go with whatever talking point that the software that, that was written for them, somebody at some point told them to be against regulation or for regulation. And they just mindlessly repeat that without ever thinking, what's the job? What are we trying to solve for? Right, so now back to Trump. So I'm a little bit more hopeful about Trump in this term, which is really pissing the left off. Like you're not allowed to be 1% hopeful about him. And I'm not 100% hopeful about him, I'm not 50% hopeful about him. 12%, you know, 20 max, maybe another 80% is going to be terrible things that I don't agree with, corruption, blah, blah, blah. Right, but so why? Because his base is different now. Because his base is getting their news from different media, so they're getting different software. So in the old days when I went to go on a right wing show, I would get Sean Hannity talking points non stop. That's all I would ever effing here, okay? They had the same talking points as Fox News and they all said the same thing. They were all robots. It was. I wouldn't go on right wing shows because it was intensely dull. You just yell at each other back and forth. Talking point, talking point, talking point, useless right now. You go on right wing podcasts, you go on right wing online shows, everybody has a different opinion. Patrick bet David has a different opinion than Tim Poole who has a different opinion than Joe Rogan, who has a different opinion than Dave Portnoy. Because they're actual human beings and they're not driven by this media industrial complex and the group think that it comes with it. So if you're on the right wing in the old days you all believed whatever Rupert Murdoch believed because he came down from the mountaintop through Fox News. Right? And what did Rupert Murdoch believe the rich should get? Everything. Everything should be tax cuts and deregulation. And that's Still a main driving force in the Republican Party. And that's why I'm not a Republican. Okay, but now you have the bros. So Rogan, Portnoy, et cetera. But those guys, they don't think the same way. They have no reason to support corruption. They're largely pro choice, they're not religious fundamentalists, they're not corporate group think guys. So we might disagree with a whole bunch of their opinions on trans rights or, or, or maybe even on immigration, etc. But wait a minute, they're pro choice. So why do I hate them for having the same position as I do? I don't have to hate them for that. Now the tribes are getting a little bit mixed up and I love that because the tribes are, is, as we've been talking about, the tribalism is causing the problems, right? So now when I go on a right wing show and almost every right wing show I've gone on is anti war, I then come back and report it to the left guys, I got great news. The right wing has turned anti war. They hate Dick Cheney like we hate Dick Cheney. And they're like, we don't believe you. And in fact that's it. You're a Trump supporter. Because we're so. The tribalism so ingrained, do you think
- [77:20]
Tom Bilyeu
that's inherent to the DNA hardware of people on the left that they are very good at consensus building and keeping people in the group? Like what is it that drives that? Because the right feels like the exact opposite where they're non conformist, they're a little bit maybe cowboy, but they have their own set of problems. But it feels very different than the like really intense purity tests that you find on the left.
- [77:50]
Cenk Uygur
Left. Yeah, no, there's a little bit of that which I don't know if it's interesting enough to get into in the parts that I agree with you on, but overall I disagree. So no, I was, I grew up a Republican because I watched mainstream media and I believe the of peace through strength and balancing budgets. And then it took me a long time to realize, wait a minute, they never balanced the budget my entire life. The last Republican who bounced the budget was Dwight Frickin Eisenhower. Right? Oh, they don't want to balance budgets. They just want to give tax cuts to the rich who are their donors. So okay, I figured that out, et cetera. Right? But, but back then, so I switch over to the left, I and I become a Democrat. But back then the Democrats were the punk guys. They were the guys who did not conform the Republicans Were like conform, you know, you must obey. That was a very, very Republican way of thinking, a very right wing way of thinking. Now the policies have roughly stayed the same, but the attitude has totally switched. That's why in the very beginning of the conversation I said attitude wise, philosophically, like not in terms of politics, but in terms of how I act in the world. I relate a little bit more to right wing populists than Democratic establishment because the right wing populists have become punk rock the cowboys, as you describe, and they don't like the authoritarian nature of the government saying you must do this or you must think that way. That used to be the left. That used to. And, and the left was like, we're not going to conform. That was what the left was known for. And that sense of revolution and rebellion and not listening to authority and the right wing was you must listen to authority figures. Now it's flipped. I don't want to listen to authority figures. I think the authority figures are full of. I can't stand them. And I. And as we talked about earlier with neoliberals and the establishment, the authority figures are not working on our behalf, they're working on their own behalf and on behalf of the donors. So I can't stand that those authoritarian dickheads have moved over to the Democratic Party. And lo and behold, how do you see that actually surface? Hey, look at that. There's Dick Cheney on the campaign trail with Kamala Harris. Those are the guys we were fighting, the authoritarian jerks we were fighting in the first place who told us, oh no, no, we know better. Oh, the evidence of them having weapons of mass destruction will be a mushroom cloud. Obey, otherwise you're a terrorist loving scumbag. Support their troops. You must obey. That was Republican 101. Now that some has moved over to the Democratic side and I can't stand it, it so, so that's why it's not it. It wasn't always this way. The parties flipped in that sense and the parties flip from time to time. Like the Republicans used to be the party of civil rights under obviously Lincoln and, and, and the Democrats had the Dixiecrats and they were the more racist party. And then after the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act, then that Lyndon Johnson, Democratic president got passed. Then Richard Nixon came up with a Southern strategy. And I talked to Pat Buchanan about this when he was on MSNBC and I was on MSNBC and the strategy was go get racist voters in the south who hate the civil rights movement. The Democrats are giving them up. So let's go pick them up and get more voters. When I asked Pat Buchanan about it, he said, yeah, we had a good 40 year run.
- [81:24]
Tom Bilyeu
That's it for part one with Jank Uygur. Tomorrow is a brand new episode of the Tom Bilyeu show, and Part two of Jank will be out on Thursday. In Part two, we're going to dig even deeper into what's really happening behind the scenes and what it means for your future. Make sure you hit that follow button so you don't miss any of it until then. My friends Be legendary.
- [81:53]
Commercial Narrator
With Vrbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach, or sightseeing in a new city, there's still time to get great discounts. Book Your next day now$72 select homes only.