The Broken Promise: Democracy, the Economy & What Comes Next with Pete Buttigieg

Summary

What Now? with Trevor Noah – Episode Summary

Episode Title: The Broken Promise: Democracy, the Economy & What Comes Next with Pete Buttigieg
Release Date: October 30, 2025
Guest: Pete Buttigieg (Former Mayor of South Bend, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation, 2020 presidential candidate)

---

Episode Overview

In this candid, wide-ranging conversation, Trevor Noah sits down with Pete Buttigieg to tackle the state of American democracy, the challenges of governance, and the shifting economic and geopolitical landscapes. They dig into the broken promises of political systems, lessons learned in and out of power, the tension between systemic change and incrementalism, and the emotional toll of public service. In typical Trevor Noah fashion, the conversation is rich with humor, vulnerability, and depth, offering listeners a backstage view into political mindsets and the future of American – and global – politics.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Life After Public Service

[07:58 – 09:40]

• Pete describes his new life out of office, adjusting to more time with his family and reflecting on identity after 15 years in public roles.
• He discusses balancing personal fulfillment with ongoing political engagement.

Quote:
"One of the occupational hazards for people...who have a lot of purpose in their work, is that your work becomes your purpose, and then you can't live without it." – Pete Buttigieg [09:11]

2. The Superhero After Retirement Analogy

[09:44 – 10:55]

• Trevor likens leaving public service to a superhero trying to lead a normal life, noting the urge and responsibility to keep stepping in.

3. Frustrations with Political Succession and Policy Reversals

[10:51 – 14:43]

• Pete shares frustration over seeing hard-won policy gains and protections reversed by successors.
• Specific callout about passenger protections for airlines being dismantled.

Quote:
"It's especially hard for me to watch them dismantle the airline passenger protections we put in…we worked really hard on that, it was the right thing to do...and now they're just unraveling it." – Pete Buttigieg [11:00]

4. Partisanship and American Political Identity

[15:13 – 17:03]

• Trevor explores how American news and politics are uniquely filtered through party identity – “D” or “R” – versus other countries.
• Pete reflects on his experience as a mayor in nonpartisan settings and how knowing someone's party changes public perception.

5. Instability and Short-Term Political Cycles

[18:28 – 20:52]

• Discussion on how America’s political direction flips every four years and whether this is now “normal.”
• Buttigieg warns that the U.S. is outside normal political patterns, facing a more existential crisis: "[This is] way beyond what happens in one or two elections." [19:13]

6. Long-Term Institutional Change Is Needed

[20:52 – 22:05]

• Pete argues it's not enough to rebuild old systems – many American institutions must be fundamentally reimagined.

7. Who Pays the Price of Policy Decisions?

[21:08 – 23:16]

• Trevor asks about the delayed consequences of political action, where a leader enacts changes but a future administration faces blame or fallout.
• Pete points out Republicans intentionally delayed Medicaid cuts to obscure accountability.

Quote:
"They're not stupid. They know that can happen...it takes a while to filter through." – Pete Buttigieg [22:06]

8. Multiparty Systems and Voter Disillusionment

[23:16 – 26:21]

• Eugene (co-host) discusses coalition government in South Africa and how it can lead to distrust as parties become co-opted once in power.
• Pete warns against romanticizing multiparty systems and highlights how even with two parties, most Americans don’t feel represented – suggesting the need for a wider set of “inarguables.”

9. Consensus vs. Division on Policy

[26:22 – 28:14]

• Pete notes that on many major issues (taxing the rich, minimum wage, family leave), public consensus is high, but electoral outcomes don't reflect this.

Quote:
"Lots of things Democrats are for and Republicans are against, that two-thirds of Americans agree on…My party can't figure out how to get 51%, let alone 60 or 70, on our candidates." – Pete Buttigieg [27:10]

10. How Issues Get Politicized

[28:25 – 34:01]

• They trace how issues like COVID, vaccines, or AI go from bipartisan concern to deeply partisan culture war.
• Buttigieg notes a rare moment when politicians across the spectrum agree (e.g., getting smartphones out of classrooms) not because of party unity, but due to cultural consensus driven by parents.

11. Political Disempowerment and Local Empowerment

[36:53 – 42:07]

• Eugene asks how citizens can hold leaders accountable. Pete laments uncompetitive districts and systemic barriers but encourages engagement at the local level, protesting, and direct lobbying.
• The power of personal influence within social circles is emphasized.

12. Nationalization of Local Politics and the Overton Window

[45:36 – 50:18]

• Buttigieg describes how hyper-partisan national discourse has intruded on local politics, complicating pragmatic governance.
• Trevor explores the concept of the “Overton window” – how what is politically “normal” shifts over time (e.g., views on beards or tattoos), warning that media silos can entrench opinions.

13. Community Bonds and Societal Functionality

[50:18 – 53:32]

• They discuss Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” thesis: societies with robust real-life community ties have less polarization and better governance.
• Trevor proposes, "Maybe America's not polarized. Maybe America's just isolated." [52:35]

14. The Risks of Strongman Politics

[53:46 – 57:13]

• Eugene and Trevor probe why public trust in local officials is low and why strongmen (authoritarian figures) thrive globally.
• Pete warns that once strongmen win democratic elections, they are almost impossible to remove and are systematically worse at delivering real economic well-being.

Quote:
"When strongmen come to power in elections...very hard to get them out. History has shown that again and again and again." – Pete Buttigieg [56:05]

15. Populist Appeal: Breaking the System for All

[57:13 – 60:02]

• Trevor points out that many voters no longer believe politicians will fix things, but take satisfaction that a populist will “break it for everyone” and upend the system.
• The perception of Democrats as “feckless” is addressed—laws passed too slowly, contrasted with Trump’s visible, immediate (if problematic) actions.

16. Democratic Party Effectiveness & Internal Reckoning

[60:02 – 73:20]

• Buttigieg admits Democrats need to show fast, material improvements in people’s lives, acknowledges self-sabotage via proceduralism, and the limits imposed by opposition.
• Trevor presses on why “blue” states still struggle with housing and homelessness, to which Pete responds with mixed explanations: systemic barriers, regulatory inertia, but also some real success stories (e.g., Denver).

17. Role of Government vs. Private Sector

[75:33 – 87:08]

• Lively debate over the merits of government-run services (e.g., grocery stores, public banking, internet access).
• Trevor cites global examples (Brazil’s banking system) where government innovation has succeeded in ways markets failed.
• Pete draws lines, arguing for strong government in platforms, utilities, and regulation, but not every service, and giving room for real-world experimentation.

18. America’s Eroding Global Standing

[87:08 – 99:01]

• Discusses how the Trump era (and broader U.S. instability) has degraded trust in American leadership, likely for a generation.
• Buttigieg calls for a return to values-based leadership, but warns against wishing for a simple restoration of old alliances and systems.

19. America’s Inconsistency in Applying Values Abroad

[99:01 – 108:22]

• Trevor insists America must reckon with its historic inconsistencies—supporting dictators, hesitating on apartheid, etc.
• Buttigieg acknowledges America’s ideals are often imperfectly applied, at home and abroad, but maintains those values are still worth pursuing.

Quote:
"We can be imperfect in our fidelity to our ideas at home or abroad. And those ideas are still the right ideas, and they're still the ones that ought to guide us." – Pete Buttigieg [95:49]

20. Israel, Palestine, and Defining Alliances

[99:31 – 104:52]

• They explore the U.S.-Israel relationship: how far can "allyship" go in the face of actions that violate U.S. values?
• Buttigieg calls for America to place real, actionable limits on support, truly leveraging its influence.

21. Generational Shifts and Moral Calculus

[104:52 – 108:22]

• Buttigieg discusses generational divides within the Democratic Party on issues like Israel, and the necessity for a new wave of leadership willing to directly act on values, not just rhetoric.

22. Looking Forward: Changing Frameworks and Facing Authoritarianism

[108:35 – 112:11]

• Buttigieg reflects on what public life has taught him, especially about the urgent reality of fascist threats and the need to fundamentally rethink policy frameworks.

Quote:
"Things that we used to talk about as a matter of rhetoric are here now...it's not enough...words like authoritarianism or fascism...now we're in a moment where we have to be much more clear eyed about what it means to deal with that." – Pete Buttigieg [109:34]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Work and Identity:
"Your work becomes your purpose, and then you can't live without it." – Pete Buttigieg [09:11]

On Policy Reversals:
"It's especially hard for me to watch them dismantle the airline passenger protections we put in...we worked really hard on that." – Pete Buttigieg [11:00]

On Partisan News:
"I, for the life of me, I couldn't understand why news in America is filtered through the lens of politics before it's filtered through the news." – Trevor Noah [15:29]

On Institutional Failure:
"I don't think we can just go take power, find all the pieces, tape them back together and have things be the way they used to be." – Pete Buttigieg [20:52]

On Strongmen:
"When strongmen come to power in elections...very hard to get them out. History has shown that again and again and again." – Pete Buttigieg [56:05]

On U.S. Foreign Policy:
"If you're going to give up your values when it suits you, then are they your values?" – Trevor Noah [93:15]

On Responding to Authoritarianism:
"Find out who's really good at dealing with fascism and learn from them on how to beat it." – Pete Buttigieg [109:34]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [07:58] Pete on adjusting to life after public office
• [11:00] Frustration over dismantled airline protections
• [15:29] Trevor on America’s partisan news culture
• [20:52] Buttigieg on the need to rebuild institutions
• [27:00] 2/3 public consensus vs. political results
• [35:50] The politicization of non-ideological issues (AI, COVID)
• [42:07] Local empowerment and civic participation
• [50:18] The “Bowling Alone” argument – community and polarization
• [56:05] The risk and stickiness of strongman politics
• [60:02] Perceptions of “do-nothing” Democrats vs. decisive populists
• [63:23] Real-world examples of local policy success/failure
• [75:33] What should government do vs. market
• [87:08] Global trust in America after Trump
• [99:01] America’s inconsistent application of values abroad
• [104:52] Generational shifts in U.S. attitudes toward Israel
• [109:34] Buttigieg’s evolving view: “What would I run on now?”

---

Tone and Style

The episode blends Trevor Noah’s signature humor and warmth with Buttigieg’s characteristic thoughtfulness and candor. The tone is searching and sometimes frustrated, but with undercurrents of hope, humility, and a call to re-engage personally and collectively with democracy’s future.

---

In Summary:
Trevor and Pete deliver a masterclass in political introspection, illuminating the complexity and contradictions of modern governance. From the fragile state of American institutions to the lived realities of local politics, from globalization to the tech future, the episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to understand not just what now, but what’s next.

Transcript

[A]

A graduate of Harvard, a Rhodes scholar, a Naval Reserve officer who deployed to Afghanistan, and the mayor of a small city in Indiana.

[B]

Buttigieg, now the first openly LGBTQ elected official to run for president.

[A]

I'm running for president because I think our country is running out of time. We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over and over again and expect it to get better. The Senate overwhelmingly approved the nomination of.

[B]

Pete Buttigieg as Transportation Secretary.

[A]

He's overseeing one of the most significant.

[B]

Investments in America's bridges, roads and rails in more than half a century. What made Peter stand out was his leadership. You kind of knew that there was an extraordinary potential there. This is what now with Trevor Noah. Welcome back to Listen to youo Heart.

[A]

I'm Jerry.

[B]

And I'm Jerry's heart.

[A]

Today's topic, Repatha Evoloki Map Heart. Why'd you pick this one?

[B]

Well, Jerry, for people who have had a heart attack like us, diet and exercise might not be enough to lower the risk of another one.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

To help know if we're at risk, we should be getting our LDL C, our bad cholesterol checked, and talking to our doctor.

[A]

I'm listening.

[B]

And if it's still too high, Repatha can be added to a statin to lower our LDL C and our heart attack risk.

[A]

Hmm. Guess it's time to ask about Repatha. Do not take Repatha if you're allergic to it. Serious allergic reactions can occur. Get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing or swallowing. Swelling of the face, lips, tongue, throat or arms. Common side effects include runny nose, sore throat, common cold symptoms, flu or flu like symptoms, back pain, high blood sugar and redness. Pain or bruising at the injection site. Listen to your heart.

[B]

Ask your doctor about Repatha. Learn [e-mail] or call 1-844-repatha this message is brought to you by Apple Card. Did you know that Apple Card is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions? And because fees don't help you, Apple Card doesn't have any. That's right. No fees. So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch. Variable APRs for Apple Card range from 17.99% to 28.24% based on creditworthiness rates. As of 10-1-20. Existing customers can view their variable APR in the Wallet app or card apple.com terms and [e-mail]. pete Buttigieg. Do you miss being called Mayor Pete's?

[A]

Oh, I always go by Mayor Pete.

[B]

Oh, you still go by Mayor Pete. I like that.

[C]

Even on LinkedIn.

[A]

I logged into LinkedIn in a while. Yeah, maybe. I don't know.

[B]

That would be great if you had a LinkedIn.

[A]

I should. Maybe I do.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

I should check. Now that you mention it, I still have my old. You know, what if my MySpace is still up somewhere?

[B]

Just, like, someone trying to link with you there, you know? You know what I always think about, like, people's social media profiles is the people who don't pay attention to the world. World, but pay attention to the social media. And then they're friends with you on MySpace and they're just like, I wonder whatever happened to Pete. Like, think about it. There's people like that out there who are friends with you on, like, MySpace, Facebook, any of those things. You went off. You went and did things in the world. They're still friends with you there. And they're like, I wonder whatever happened to that guy? And now you got a beard, so you look a little different. So they're just like, I wonder where he is.

[C]

You didn't always have a beard.

[A]

No, no. This is. It comes and goes. But I haven't had one in a while.

[B]

So beard, beard, crew, both of them.

[C]

How did you make that decision of this is it now?

[A]

Mostly my husband made that decision.

[C]

He was like, I like you with a beard on.

[B]

Oh, I don't like seeing your face.

[C]

Because when a partner likes the beard, it's a hard one. Yeah.

[B]

How did your beard come out?

[A]

I think it's an easy one. You just give in.

[C]

I looked at myself in the mirror. I was like, what is your aim in life? Then I was like, what do you mean? I'm doing everything right. And my face was like, is everything right for real?

[A]

Real, real.

[C]

Then I was like, yeah, maybe I'll try a mustache. Then I tried a mustache. Then I had a goatee. Then I would hear girls going, yeah. Oh, you look. Yeah. With a beard. Kind of.

[A]

Baby.

[B]

Baby.

[C]

Then I was like, yeah. Then I grew a little bit on the side, and I was like, what do you. Then I did a little bit of a poll. Then I went around, and I was like, what, do you look vulnerable? I was like, yeah. What do you think? They were like, oh, yeah. Actually, then it became my identity. Then Covid happened. Couldn't go to the barber.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

Then I was like, let me. Let me see how this thing Goes, yeah.

[B]

Oh, that's when you went full beard.

[C]

Yes. Then I went full beard. Then when I came out of COVID people were like, this is you now. Then two weeks, three weeks ago, I shaved everything off.

[A]

Oh, really?

[C]

I lost my aura.

[A]

You had to get it right back completely.

[C]

Like, I can't live like this anymore. I saw my dimple. I saw my. This part of my chin. I didn't like myself past mirrors. I couldn't look at myself, and I started growing back, and I was like, I'm in now.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know if I'm that committed yet.

[C]

You are. You are here.

[A]

If I've worn it here, it's over. It's locked in.

[B]

Now it's official.

[C]

If you want to see how your partner feels about your beard, call them. And then turn on clippers. Then go, yeah, I'm just shaving. And just hear what they say.

[B]

Then, you know, it's wouldn't be good. I like this. I like this. I didn't. I didn't expect to be in a beard conversation with you two. Thank you very much.

[A]

Yeah. How long you been doing that?

[B]

Don't even ask me those questions. I can't grow a beard. Don't. There's no.

[C]

What do you mean you can't grow up?

[B]

I can't grow a beard. I've tried. It doesn't work. It doesn't.

[C]

This.

[B]

It's gone. It's. There's no chance.

[C]

But your mustache game is strong, though.

[B]

Thank you so much, Eugene.

[C]

Yeah, the mustache.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

This is what good friends do for you. They give you hope. I appreciate it. No, I can't. I can't grow a beard.

[C]

Or you can do the size.

[A]

No.

[B]

So when I was. You know, what happened is when I was. When I was young, late, like, early 20s somewhere there.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

I had really, really bad acne. Like, really, really bad. So then whenever my hair would grow out, it would make things worse. So someone was like, oh, you must go and get laser so that the hair doesn't grow. So I went and I got laser. You got laser? Yeah, I got laser on my face. And then it helped. And then I was like, oh, this is much better. Thank you. And then beards came into fashion. Then I was like, I'm joining. And then my skin was like, nah, you're not. So now I'm just. This is me.

[C]

Thank you for being vulnerable with us. I mean, this is not something that most men like, talking about.

[B]

What, not growing a beard?

[C]

Yes.

[B]

Or getting laser.

[C]

What you are doing right now is you're opening up the podcast to a huge segment of men who are struggling with connecting beards. And some of them don't know what happened, but you particularly, you chose this platform to face this disability that you now have.

[B]

That's what we all do. You've got to share your. You've got to share your vulnerabilities.

[C]

Look, I would like to say I see you.

[B]

Thank you.

[C]

I respect your decision.

[B]

Thank you.

[C]

And Pete and I would like to say we'll think of you when we're oiling our beards all the time.

[B]

Thank you, Eugene.

[C]

You're welcome, Pete.

[B]

Welcome to the podcast. Mayor Pete. Former Secretary of Transportation Pete, which title do you prefer the most?

[A]

Just Pete.

[B]

Just Pete. Just Pete. Yeah. It's weird calling you Just Pete because I feel like you're not Just Pete. Like you've done everything beyond just Pete. You know what I mean?

[A]

It's like when someone's His Excellency works, if you want.

[B]

You see, I'm in His Excellency Pete. Now we're talking. Now we are talking. Yeah, that's what. I'm Midwesterner.

[A]

We're like humble, straightforward people. Pete's kid.

[B]

No, I like this. I like this a lot. Thank you so much for joining. You know why I'm excited to have you is because, like, from the very first time I heard of you and knew you, I was on the Daily show back then, and. And then you were the mayor, and, you know, it was like. So it was Mayor Pete, and then it was like, Mayor Pete's running for president. And then it was like, Mayor Pete, and then it was Mayor Pete. In the administration, you've always been inside the government in some way, shape or form. And this is the first time where we find you sort of like in an in between space. So maybe we start there. What are you up to these days? Like, what are you doing?

[A]

Yeah. So this is the first time in 15 years that I haven't been either running for something or in some kind of public position or both.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Um, that's kind of great. I mean, you know, most days I'm the one dropping the kids off at school or at camp this summer, just able to. Able to stop shaving for a few days, actually. And, you know, just things that weren't possible when there was that, like, everyday grind. So I'm enjoying that. I'm trying to make the most of that, but then I'm balancing that with the fact that there's things going on in the world that I feel like I need to be part of or making myself useful around all the time, which is why I'm in the media and I'm traveling and I'm doing what. What I can, working with candidates I believe in and promoting causes I believe in. And, you know, just being active politically without being in an active campaign. And it's different. I mean, it's. It's. It can be strange sometimes because I am so used to there being like, the one big thing that. That you organize your life around. But, you know, that can. That can do a lot of work for you in your life, and it can also be very unhealthy. Right. I think one of the occupational hazards for people, including people in public service, who have a lot of purpose in their work, is that your work becomes your purpose, and then you can't live without it.

[C]

Right.

[A]

That's especially dangerous in politics because sometimes doing right by your job means putting your job on the line. It's the only way to do your job well and maybe losing it. And it's that much harder if you draw meaning from work. So, yeah, I've been wrestling with all of that, but also really enjoying a life where I'm just around my husband and kids more and at the same time, getting out on the road and trying to be part of the political conversation, because obviously there's a lot to talk about.

[B]

It almost feels like you're like a retired superhero.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Do you know what I mean? You were thinking the same thing.

[A]

No.

[B]

You know why? Because we never think of it. But at some point, a superhero goes, I want to be done. I want to be with my family. I want to be. You know, it's like, I want to be Clark Kent. I don't want to spend as much time being Superman. But then what happens?

[C]

Dust off the cape once in a while.

[B]

Exactly. Then there's something happening. They're like, oh, a tower is falling. Or they're like, oh, there's a big invasion. And then it's like, where's Superman? And if you were a superhero in any capacity, I think it feels weird just sitting at home. Cause here's what I mean. Most of us watch the news, and we can only respond or react to the news.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Like most people, you just go, I can't believe that happened. Man, that sucks. And then the most you can sort of do if we're honest is like, wait to vote or maybe phone lawmaker, maybe. But if you were in the inner workings of it, you have more access to the levers that can actually change Something and do something. So maybe that's a good question. Like, what would you say is something you've seen recently in the past few months that has made you go, ah, I gotta get off the couch and shave a little bit.

[A]

I mean, where do you start? Right. I mean, obviously, so many things are happening in the country under this administration from these, like, massive things that I think threaten the integrity of the republic. Like, like sending troops into the streets of American cities.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

To like, very specific policy things that I disagree with at the FTC or whatever or at the department I used to serve in. I mean, one thing that's hard, even if. Even if somebody comes in who you agree with, it's. I think it's hard for anyone who leaves a high office to watch their successor. But it's especially hard for me to watch them dismantle the airline passenger protections we put in, for example, we worked really hard on that is the right thing to do. You know, we on the airlines and we won, and now they're just unraveling it. So there's a lot of things like that that are very hard to watch. But you know, what I've realized is I don't have to be in a seat of political power to be talking about it. I mean, one of the advantage privileges, I guess that comes with just kind of where I fit in the picture right now is, you know, I've, like, my unexpected specialty going on Fox News a lot. Right. Like, part of that was I was like everybody else, occasionally finding myself watching that network, being like, man, somebody ought to go on there and say this. And then I got to actually be the guy who went on there and said this change. And I can still do that. I mean, I'm not doing it from a position of power.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But, you know, as a citizen, I'm out there talking about this stuff, and I'm hopeful that that matters.

[B]

I want to talk about each of those things that you said individually because I think they branch out into topics and ideas that everybody's grappling with right now. So let's start with, like, the first part of it. You know, leaving a position, seeing somebody else step into that position. I think we all take that for granted in many ways because that's. It's very rare that that happens. Most of the time, if you leave a position, the person who fills the position after you is generally trying to do the same job as you. Yeah. Just generally. Do you know what I mean? It doesn't matter what level you're on. So in My case, it's like Jon Stewart hosting the Daily Show. I come after him. We're sort of aligned, you know what I mean? And obviously, we knew each other as people, but we're. We're heading in a similar direction as human beings and so on and so forth. In your office, you leave your job as the head of hr. The next person who comes in does hr. It's weird if they're like, nah, I don't believe in hr.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't believe in people.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You're like, what happened? They're like, yeah, that's not how I roll.

[A]

Well. And you could take it one further. So I would say, actually, in my department, for example, I disagree with my successor, but, like, I think he believes in continuing the department. Right.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

You go to the Department of Education.

[B]

Oh, yeah. That's.

[A]

The secretary's mission is to demolish the Department of Education. Right. Or you have people in charge of environmental protection who don't believe in environmental protection. Right. Or, you know, they. They inherit usaid, the International Development Agency, and then they just burn it to the ground. So, yeah, there are. I shouldn't. I should only complain so much, maybe, about where I used to work, because.

[B]

At least he believes in.

[A]

At least it's still there. Yeah. And even the projects, they killed some really good projects. But most of the projects that I launched, they're still doing. They just put a Trump sign on them so they can take credit for it, but they're still doing the project.

[B]

Do you mind when that happens?

[A]

Yeah, of course I do.

[B]

Okay. I like that. Honest. All right.

[A]

Because he. He promised when he was president that he was going to do a big infrastructure package, and then he failed. And then we set out to do a big infrastructure package, and he campaigned against it. People forget this. It's not just that he didn't do it, it's when we did it. He threatened any Republican who was part of the bipartisan majority that voted to do the infrastructure, said, we will remember. And most of them either got taken out or took themselves out for the crime of having joined us to vote for more road funding. Right. And now they're literally, like, slapping Trump signs on projects that were funded by our department, our administration, with a bill that Trump tried to stop. So, yeah. Yeah, I'm kind of pissed off about that.

[B]

I always wonder if there's a way to, like, fix that in American politics. The first time I remember thinking about it was when I first moved to the US I was reading a newspaper and not a physical one, like Digitally, Relax. I saw the way you looked at me. And I was reading. I was reading the newspaper, and it was interesting because it had names, and behind every name, it had a little D or a little R. And you know, it would say like, congressperson, da, da, da. Says this doctor, Congressperson, doctor. And I was like, what. What is. What is that? And then someone was like, oh, that's Democrat, Republican. And it was so normal to my. To my American friends to say that. But I, for the life of me, I couldn't understand why news in America is filtered through the lens of politics before it's filtered through the news of.

[A]

Of.

[C]

Of.

[B]

Through the lens of news.

[A]

I hadn't thought about that. Yeah. Any other country, I guess you don't see the party label. Literally.

[B]

No, not behind your name, not behind your. Like in South Africa, for instance, they don't do that. They'll tell you if it's a story about a person who's in the ANC or a person in the da, they'll say that. But it's not next to your name. It is not the thing that defines.

[C]

It doesn't become your identity.

[B]

Exactly. And so even when they propose something, I always wonder how much it blocks Americans in their ability to be for or against an idea. If the idea is Eugene Causa, Republican, says he's for beards, then I'm like, but I like beards. But do I want to support a Republican? Do you know what I mean? I wonder how much that actually blocks people from. From thinking of embracing an idea just because it might come from the quote, unquote.

[A]

Yeah, I'm sure it's not. You know, I have a little experience on that through the lens of being a mayor, because, you know, there are some. Every state, every city has a different system. Some of them, it's like national politics. You have a primary, and there's a Republican primary and there's a Democratic primary, and there's two candidates. Others, there's a nonpartisan system. And so someone emerges, they might proudly be a Republican or a Democrat, but they might actually not tell anybody, which they are too. It just depends. And so I would find myself at mayor's conferences where there's other mayors. You know, these are elected officials in positions of major responsibility and get to know them well and not know. Like, I'd have to go back online and look up whether they're Democrat or Republican. Yeah. So I do think you view people and you view their ideas differently. If you don't know right off the bat what you know what team they're. They're from.

[B]

It is. It is weird to see America flip and flop, though. I will say that, like, when you're talking about, like, one administration wants this, then the next administration wants that. The next administration. I was at an event in. I wonder where it was, I don't remember now. Europe, Middle east somewhere. And there were some world leaders gathered, and they were having this discussion about America and its new place in the world. And one of the world leaders said something that was the most interesting thing I'd ever heard because it gave me a different perspective. The moderator said, how do you feel about what's happening in America right now, and what do you think this means for the future? And he said, well, I don't really worry about the future. I just know we have to weather this moment for the next three or four years, and then America will flip this way, and then it'll flip that way, and it'll flip that way, and it'll flip this way. And he said, we think longer term, and we try to think beyond one cycle at a time. And there was a general concession and an agreement amongst the world leaders there who went, yeah, that's pretty much America. And if you think about it, it is true, for the most part, America's one of the largest, most prominent countries that completely switches the direction it's going in every single, ish four years. Which is a. That's like, not a thing, really, when you think about it.

[A]

Yeah, I think I'm trying to decide if I buy that. I think that's somewhat true. If we're in a normal political pattern. I think we're outside of that now. I worry that even in my party, I worry that people are acting as if we're in this kind of normal pattern of elections and politics when we're actually increasingly outside of it. Right. In what way? We've always had someone win an election. Somebody aggressively or not, like, promote their agenda. They win, they lose, whatever. But we have not had an American government try to consolidate its power over civil society, over broadcast companies, over law firms, over universities. You just go on down the list the way that we have now. And what I see is a real risk that what happens is way beyond what happens in one election or two elections. I think my party could win in 2026 and not get the message. I think we could even win in 2028 and not fully grasp the level of change that these guys in charge now are trying to achieve, which is why I'm trying to push people who are in the opposition to Trump, whether they think of themselves as Democrats or not to think at a higher altitude as well about like even my organization, a non profit in a PAC we call Win the era. Not that I don't care about winning the election, but I think what's more important is to win the era. And when you're thinking of it in those terms, you start looking at, okay, what does it mean to get ready for the next the way some of these other countries you talked about planned? What does it look like to get ready for the next five, 10, 20, 30 years? Especially because I think we're also at a change or an end of a certain cycle that has gone on for decades. Certain patterns, assumptions, institutions about how the world works and about how the country works that were set up in the 40s and 50s are falling apart. And I don't think we can just go take power, find all the pieces, tape them back together and have things be the way they used to be. I think so many of our institutions have needed to be rebuilt for a long time. They're being smashed to pieces now by the current administration, which is wrong. But it would also be wrong to imagine that the answer is to just go back and try to put them back the way it was.

[B]

Put it back to the way it was.

[A]

I know you could say that about anything from the Department of Education to tax policy in this country, which I think we might have to start over on if they really break the fiscal viability of the country, which I think they're trying to, to things like international development, usaid.

[B]

You know what I always wonder? I wonder who pays the actual price. Because politics is weird in that.

[A]

When.

[B]

You look at the term generally of a president in a Democratic country, it's not really enough time to implement change and see the effects of that change. Just generally speaking, not all the time, but like economies move slowly, Effects generally, you know, happen over time. But I think to myself.

[C]

Like, wouldn't.

[B]

It be crazy, and we've seen this sort of happen before in America. Wouldn't it be crazy if like Trump does all of these things and then only at the end of his term do you sort of start to see the results? But that means whoever comes in next takes all of the blame because that's when you might see the biggest results of education. That's when you might see the biggest results of taxes and how they've changed. And healthcare that's been cut.

[A]

Some of them are doing that by design, right? Some of the healthcare cuts, they're doing That'll take people off Medicaid. They set up to only take effect after the next election.

[B]

Oh, yeah, they did that. I forget.

[A]

They're not stupid. They know that that can happen. But you're right. Even if you are trying to do something immediately, it takes a while to filter through. I mean, I saw this back when I was mayor. I spent a lot of my first year as mayor doing things that upset people and cost political capital and weren't necessarily popular. Believing that if I was right, if they were the right things to do, by year four, I would have something to show for it and people would trust me, reelect me, and give me the benefit of the doubt. And that's kind of what happened. Everything from the way we design our streets to the way I organized the city administration, people were mad. I heard them out. But we also stuck to it in some important ways. And then things worked. And then they gave me a little more credit or a little more trust the next time around. So I think that in an ideal sense is how it's supposed to work. But I agree with you that I think a lot about if. If there was a four year. If there was a five year instead of a four year term and we were able to do just a little more on the bridges and the tunnels and the roads and the stuff that. At least the little piece of it that I worked on, how would things have been different?

[C]

I come from a country where there were general elections last year and no one party won outright. Whoa, whoa.

[B]

We.

[C]

I come from a country where, like.

[B]

You just kicked me out of my own country.

[C]

Wow, wow, wow, wow.

[A]

Eugene.

[C]

Look, I'm sorry.

[B]

You got to understand. There's nothing has changed about me, Eugene. I'm proudly South African. I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what.

[A]

I need to just give you guys a couple of minutes.

[C]

When no, no one party won outright, the ANC for the first time had to share power with another party, which is an opposition party, which is now in government. But what I've realized is when people oppose someone's idea, and as soon as they get into power, they get co opted into believing in the same thing as well. And I think that's what's causing distrust in my country about political parties. And if you've been opposing for so long, the next thing you become minister of whatever. Now you're like, I'm enjoying the perks, the blue lights and the great side. Yeah, what happened to that thing where you said you hated. Hold on, hold on. We'll Deal with it when we get there. And I think that's what caused a lot of distrust. And I've said to many of my friends, it looks like most politicians want young people to be interested in voting, but not to actually vote. Do you think that might be true for many countries, not just for the US or South Africa?

[A]

I don't know. That's a really interesting warning for those of us who sometimes fantasize about what it would be like if America had five political parties. And there was a minute last year when Speaker McCarthy, or whenever it was McCarthy, was losing his grip on the U.S. house. It looked for a minute like he could maybe keep his speakership by getting some Democratic votes. And I thought if Democrats name their price and McCarthy goes with it, we could see a coalition government on American soil for the first time.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

And I was actually kind of intrigued by that. It didn't happen, obviously, but I wondered whether that might give us some chance of breaking out of this really stultified, kind of paralyzed state that we're in. But it sounds like what you're saying is not to romanticize that model too much because it has its other. Its other downsides, which makes sense. I think, for us, the problem we have is here in America, there's no party that actually commands a majority. I mean, both parties, in terms of people who really are like, yeah, that's my party, are at something like 30%. Right. But every election, functionally, pretty much every election for Congress and certainly for the President, it kind of comes down to two. And people are supposed to pick, and then people are dissatisfied with what they get. Part of what I wish we could do to respond to that is just expand the scope of things that both parties think are inarguably true and will defend and then go out argue about the other stuff. So I don't know about South Africa, but I know a lot of countries where if there's a center right party and a center left party, they both, for example, acknowledge the reality of climate change. They'll fight over who's doing a better.

[B]

Job fighting, but they don't fight over.

[A]

Whether it's a thing. Right.

[B]

Universal health care.

[A]

Yeah. A lot of these things are just a given. And I'd like to invest a little more in what I think of as the inarguables that we all ought to be, or most of us ought to be able to say we care about. But then there are all these other things that are contested that are fought over, that we still have two thirds support in the country. For importantly, lots of things that Democrats are for and Republicans are against that 2/3 of Americans agree on. I mean, the idea that we got to tax the wealthy more, the idea that we ought to have a stronger minimum wage, the idea that there ought to be paid family leave in this country, when you have a kid ideas around a woman's right to choose or freedom to marry or climate change or background checks on guns, these are not like 5,149 things. These are actually like 60 or 70% consensus positions in the country. And yet my party can't figure out how to get 51%, let alone 60 or 70 on our candidates. I think that needs to lead to some introspection on how we approach these issues. And then this other set of issues that I'm spending a lot of time thinking about that don't have any left to right pattern yet I'm thinking about a lot about artificial intelligence. Right. Where I think most people left, right or center are skeptical of a lot of these tech companies.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Interested in AI, if only because we use it, you know, ChatGPT or whatever we use more and more in our day to day lives. Excited about what it can do, but also very worried about what it might do to us. And there's this moment where it hasn't fallen into this obvious left right fight.

[B]

Yeah, that's interesting.

[A]

But what Covid taught us the hard way is that even something like public health and getting vaccinated that you would think was not a partisan thing, almost overnight became one.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which tells me that this is a very special and narrow window around AI to talk about things that might be shared principles before we figure out what to fight over between Democrats and Republicans. You know what I mean? Yeah.

[B]

That actually is a fascinating idea to think about, is like, when does an issue suddenly become politicized and when is it not? I distinctly remember because, I mean, I was like in the thick of things when it was Covid and it was. I distinctly remember seeing one of the strangest flips and it was how Donald Trump was pushing forward for a vaccine.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Donald Trump was. I'll say this again. Donald Trump was pushing forward with a vaccine and he was leading a team that was like, it was operation something. Warp speed, warp speed. Operation warp speed. And it was like Donald Trump. And I'll never forget this moment. I would see liberals, progressives, Democrats, whoever, whatever they want to call. I would see tons of them going, I don't trust his vaccine. This man is. How are they making it so quickly? How are they Rushing the. I don't trust Donald Trump's gonna make of it. And then I was like, guys, Donald Trump's not in the lab. It's not like he's there with, like, his little vial, and he's like, add two, man. Two of these four drops. I think I got it. Ooby dooby doo. No, he's leading a task force that is trying to get. Then they were like, I just don't trust it. I just don't trust it. And then Biden wins during COVID Biden's in charge now. They keep moving forward with the vaccine, which I still say is Trump's vaccine. And by the way, which Trump has said is his vaccine. And then I noticed everyone flip. All of a sudden. People were like, well, of course I trust it. And then now the flip happened the other way around. It's like people were like, I don't trust that vaccine. I don't trust the Democrats. And I was like, what just happened? Has it become so, like, red and blue that you get what I'm saying? You can literally just flip based on.

[A]

No, it's true.

[C]

Who's telling you something?

[B]

Yeah, who's telling. And then Trump, he went to. I don't know if you saw this. He went to one of his rallies. I will never forget this. And then he said, it's my vaccine.

[C]

Say it in his voice, in the crowd.

[B]

Oh, he's there. And he's like, it's my. I created a vaccine. Joe Biden taking credit for my vaccine. Taking credit. I did it. I did it. And then the crowd was like, boo. Boo. Crowd was like, boo. And then he's like, yeah, a lot of people don't like it, but it was mine.

[A]

It was mine.

[B]

I did it.

[A]

I did it.

[B]

And his crowd was booing the idea of the vaccine. And Trump was like, no, no, no, it's mine.

[C]

It's mine. Yes.

[B]

And even now, in moments, you'll see him slip. If someone asks him who made it, he'd be like, well, I made it. But then he sort of says it like, joe spoilt it. But he still goes, he made it. And I'm like, what happened in that moment? I love that you brought up the AI thing, because it's like, when does a topic or an issue become politicized in America? And I was wondering, do you. Cause I know you spend a lot of time thinking about this. Is it when the groups know which lever to pull? Is it when? Like, for instance, I often think that sometimes American politics is thought of as this, this pure idea and ideal that's hanging on its own, and we sometimes forget how many outside forces are poking and prodding at it. Right. So if I run a major corporation and I'm trying to get AI, you know, I wanna get as few restrictions as possible. I wanna be in a power position. I think all I would do is look at which party would be more amenable to getting me what I want, and then I would try frame it so that AI is in or out of the other party's wheelhouse. Does it. Does it sound like real to you or even familiar?

[A]

I think that's right. And I think companies do that all the time. Like, they figure out a way, if you're running a clean tech company and Trump wins, and suddenly anything green is out of fashion, maybe it's smarter to talk about it in terms of contributing to American energy independence or American energy dominance, which is also true. Right. That's one thing that green energy has to say for itself. Now it doesn't. I mean, Trump's still killing wind power, but I think that happens all the time on some level. I think also, though, a lot of this is downstream from culture, as they say. Right. That politicians kind of flatter themselves or ourselves, that we're shaping things Sometimes, obviously, leadership decisions matter hugely, but a lot of times, a lot of things have worked through the culture before you even get to the left and right boundaries of what politicians get to do.

[B]

That that's interesting.

[A]

And then sometimes it can come back out. So think about tech, right? Not AI. Think about social media.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So it starts with kind of like left vibes. Right? Think of, like, early Internet days. These guys basically seem like Democrats because maybe they're more libertarian deep down, but they're young, they're socially liberal, they think climate change is real, they care about immigration. And you've got Obama hanging out with tech CEOs. That seems like a very natural thing in 2012, say. Right? Then these things happen with the way social media affects the election, the role of Twitter, and suddenly it gets more complicated than that. And you come to this point where actually now when you think tech CEO, Silicon Valley tech CEO, you are more likely to think of them at that dinner in the Trump White House than thinking of them rubbing elbows with Obama. Right. And yet, wow. Even though that's been kind of coded either way, one of the few kind of areas where the horseshoe has come together on our political spectrum is the idea of getting phones and social media apps out of our schools. So you've got really right wing, like maga, right wing politicians. Josh Hawley comes to mind.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Who I would disagree with ferociously, strongly on lots and lots of things. Teaming up with more liberal politicians and not just federally, but at the state level, saying things like, yeah, a screen should not be with a kid during the hours that they're in school because that's a distraction, it's a problem. It's a factor for a lot of bad things to get into their minds. And there's actually something of a consensus. I don't think that's happening because the politicians got together and said, hey, we got to find something that we can agree on. What about this? Or to put it another way, if that happened, it happened after more and more parents who didn't agree on politics, didn't agree on what they thought of this or that election or how social media played, but definitely agreed on, oh wow, this could be screwing up. My kid start to feel the same way about this issue. And that pressure then finds its way, which is healthy by the way, that pressure finds its way into the political system. And then politicians are saying, yeah, we got to do something about that. Right.

[B]

We're going to continue this conversation right after this short break. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Did you know that Apple Card is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions? And because fees don't help you, Apple Card doesn't have any. That's right. No fees. So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch Variable APRs for Apple Card range from 17.99% to 28.24% based on credit worthiness rates as of October 1, 2025. Existing customers can view their variable APR in the wallet app or card.apple.com terms and [e-mail] did my card go through?

[A]

Oh no. Your small business depends on its Internet.

[B]

So switch to Verizon Business and you could get LTE Business Internet starting at $39 a month when paired with Select Business Mobile Plans. That's unlimited data for unlimited business.

[A]

There we go.

[B]

Get the Internet you need at the price you want. Verizon Business Starting price for lte Business Internet 25 Mbps Unlimited Data Plan with select Verizon Business Smartphone plan.

[A]

Savings terms apply.

[B]

It's Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity.

[A]

Use strong passwords Set up Multi Factor.

[B]

Authentication Report Phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected. With a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

[C]

What always helps a voter not feel helpless? Because sometimes people think of government in this big juggernaut that's gonna happen with or without you, and you're just happy for smaller wins. Like for example, in my country.

[A]

People.

[B]

Our country.

[A]

Pete.

[C]

You know what I mean?

[A]

I'll stay at Alex.

[C]

Our country, Trevor.

[B]

Thank you, Eugene.

[C]

You're welcome. People who are mostly underprivileged or under serviced will always worry about social grants if you can sort that out, or cheaper housing if you can sort that out. Whether it takes you four years of your tenure or the last two months of it, it will happen. Just the hope of it is always enough. So how do people feel empowered that whoever they voted for will always do what they promised? How do you hold the person that you voted for accountable? Because obviously that seems like protesting on social media becomes a thing.

[B]

I think that's. I think that's universal. I think that's every country, to be honest. It is a great question.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Well, look, the answer is supposed to be the election, right? But look at our system. I mean, in addition to all the problems around presidential elections, including the fact that we're the only presidential democracy in the world, where the person who gets the second most votes can get the office and the person who gets the most votes loses because of the Electoral College. But in addition to that, you look at the congressional level and out of 435 seats in the U.S. house, less than 1 in 10 less than 40 are actually considered competitive.

[C]

Less than 40?

[A]

Yeah. So even though we are, let's say typically a 55, 45 country in terms of which way the country feels, which party the country supports, you have states like where I grew up in Indiana. I remember when it was 5 and 4, five Republicans, four Democrats in the House, then it was 7 and 2 because they gerrymandered it. Now they're under pressure to make it like 9 and 0. And even if Indiana is a more Republican state, like a 60, 40, that's probably true about Indiana right now is not 100 to zero. Right. And so there's this thumb on the scale, not in terms of somebody like secretly going in and changing what's in the ballot machines, but out in the open, the way they redraw These districts that has made more and more of our elections less competitive. So big picture, we need to reform that in the meantime, since that's not going to happen overnight. I think the best ways and places to feel empowered are first of all, closer to home, because a lot of these processes are actually playing out locally. A lot of decisions about vaccinations are happening at the state level or even the county level. Right. Most decisions about policing happen at the local city level. A lot of decisions about resources for mental health or the policies we were just talking about about smartphones or any number of things are happening either at a state or a local level. There's a much better chance of getting somebody's attention at a local level. Yeah. And look, I got started as mayor, right? So part of it is, I think, in those terms, but I saw like a city council make a different decision because a bunch of people lined up, many of them too young to even be eligible to vote, and said, hey, this decision's going to impact me. And they spoke with a kind of moral authority that young people have, and it got people's attention and it changed things. So that's one example of where I think people sometimes have more power than they might imagine. Even if I understand why and share why so many of us feel disempowered when it comes to national politics. Another thing is to recognize that you don't have to wait for the next election to be having an effect. So of course, periodically you have these elections. That's the kind of ultimate check on power, assuming the elections take place appropriately. But in the meantime, some stuff that sounds very old fashioned, like getting in the streets or calling your member of Congress matters. You can tell it matters because of what happened at these town halls. Right. A lot of people, especially when the Republicans were cutting Medicaid, a lot of people went to the town halls and said, if you cut Medicaid to give tax cuts to wealthy people, it's going to do this to me. And I'm pissed. And it mattered enough that a lot of these members either stopped doing the town halls completely or had these moments that showed that that really shook them. Right. So I think that we need to get more in the habit of flexing political muscle offline as citizens, not just on our smartphones, but yeah, as citizens in a very real IRL, human 3D format. And the other thing I would say back to our thing about culture is that a lot of the kind of battlefield of ideas and politics is inside people's social circles and their families. And I wonder if, actually, because it's so easy for us to spout off on politics online, we're actually less likely to have a hard political conversation with someone we know or care about. But those are the people you can actually move. We know time and time again, we've seen people's hearts and minds change when somebody they already know and trust shapes the way they think about something. Something. And I. I worry that we might be doing less of that in a moment when we need to be doing more.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Interpersonal mobilization.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

Yeah. You know, it's funny. I. I think of it less as changing people's minds, and I think of it more as just being around people who change you and how your mind works.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Like, the reason I. I think of it is I remember reading a book about how the views and opinions that we hold are oftentimes more influenced by our locales and our location than how we think. We think.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And I remember, I finished reading the book, and I thought to myself, huh, maybe you're not conservative. You just live in a rural area. Right? And maybe you're not actually liberal. You just live in a major metropolis. And I'm not dismissing anybody's political views, but I think it's inevitable that if you move to a major city where there are more people who have come from more places, you're going to be exposed. You're in New York. You're walking around, you're like, this is how I think men dress within the day. You're like, all right, maybe I don't know how men dress.

[C]

Are you resisting that?

[B]

Yeah, when you're around it. But when you're around it enough.

[C]

I have been resisting because I'm keeping my fashion sense until I leave.

[B]

Stay here long enough. Stay here long enough.

[A]

What are your tools of resistance?

[C]

My wardrobe.

[B]

But it's. But this is what I mean, so. And you don't even realize it's happening to you. So, like, you know, the Overton window is such a powerful thing in our lives because it's where we perceive the bulk of reality to exist, and then it shifts without us realizing it's shifting. So you look at yourself like, beards are a good example. I remember a time, and I know I have a personal, you know, feeling to that, and I will say I'm biased, but I remember a time when a beard was considered the number one indicator of your unprofessionalism. You could not be elected with a beard. You could not be on TV with a beard. You could not get an Interview people were like, the dude with the beard. You can't read the news with a beard. And then part of it is Covid. You know, whatever it is shifts in society. And all of a sudden it's like, oh, look at that. Oh, that news anchor has a beard and that TV presenter has a beard, and your teacher has a beard. And then society doesn't realize that the Overton window of a beard has shifted. Same thing happened with tattoos, right? There was a time when a tattoo was a great way to know who you shouldn't hire. That's how people thought of it. Oh, tattoo. I guess we're not hiring you. And then now a tattoo almost means nothing. It's like, it's not. It is not a signifier that tells you about how somebody does or doesn't live their lives. Not that it ever was, but now it definitely isn't even in society's view, for the most part. And so when I think about these things, and I think about, like, the Overton window and how it shifts in politics, I wonder if you've thought about it on a local level versus a national level, because you are in an interesting position. Yeah. You were a mayor. As a mayor, you're only trying to shape the lives of the people who are in the same town that you live in. You know, we all know the streets. We all know that corner. We all know that shop. Let's get something done. I would love to know how you think the nationalization of all politics has adversely or maybe beneficially affected politics in America, Because I'm assuming there's a big difference between what people need on the ground and what they're reading about is, like, national news.

[A]

Totally. I thrived on the fact when I was mayor that our work was distant from what was going on in Washington or national politics. And I think that's one of the reasons, without ever concealing where I was that I was a Democrat, that I was more progressive than probably most people in my city. I had, you know, before I became more of a national figure, I had, like, equal approval rating among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, because they weren't. They just wanted. If I was going to get the trash picked up and are we going to grow the local economy, what were we doing about this? Blocking and tackling basic things to take care of the city. So I guess to your question, I'd say it's in one way easier. In one way harder. The way that it was easier was we were all operating from pretty consistent sense of the facts. So if there was a hole in the road. As the mayor, I couldn't be like, that's the best road ever. There's no holes in it, and it's a pothole. People can see. And they were like, there's a hole in the road. What are you gonna do about it? Right. If something was good or something was bad, people could just tell. And so there was much less of a contest over what the facts were and much more of a contest of, given these facts, what are you gonna do?

[C]

What's gonna do about it?

[A]

Right. It was the good, the bad and the ugly. I mean, the ugly was we had. Because we'd been a factory town, we had acres of collapsing auto factories everywhere and vacant and abandoned houses everywhere. And you couldn't escape it. You couldn't pretend otherwise. And so what was easier was we at least had the same reality compared to nationally, where you can tell the way Donald Trump talks about American cities, he's clearly just using his imagination. This is not based on any experience of what it's actually like.

[B]

Yeah. Or maybe it's social media feed, because I think we take for granted how much that man is on social media.

[A]

Totally.

[B]

Do you know what I mean?

[A]

Yeah. Now, here's the way. It's harder. It's harder because if you're trying to pry open an Overton window, the more that the reality you're trying to describe that's different, is kind of in somebody's face, I think the harder it is to picture something different. I can try to open somebody's Overton window, and I have about changing the electoral college. I talked about that when I was running for president, which probably not the smartest thing to do in New Hampshire. And I definitely didn't think that that was going to happen in five years. But I just think, like, I should lay down a marker from the earliest in my career till the end about that being important and try to, like, push, push, push. So, like, one day, 20 years from now, maybe we will fix it. But when you're asking people to look around the vacant and abandoned houses in their neighborhood or look at the abandoned factory downtown and say with a straight face, it doesn't have to be this way. We can change it. If you trust me, I will change it. Give me a chance. That can require even more of a push on the imagination than when I'm talking in abstract terms about what we might want our country to be like.

[B]

Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

[A]

But I think the other thing that's at stake in what you're saying is a kind of humility about what we believe. Like, I passionately believe in all of the things that I passionately believe in. By definition, I think I'm right about the things I believe. But I recognize that if I were born in a different family and raised in a different community and soaked up different values, I would probably think differently about a whole bunch of things. And that's just a basic thing that's definitely true about how we all form our political values. And yet there's even less room to show regard for that now than there's ever been. Because instead of a news story. And now I sound like a grumpy old timer. But I can say I grew up in a time when the way I learned the news was I watched a TV bit or read an article. And that article on a controversial issue contained the perspectives of the two different sides, whatever it was, abortion, taxes. And it's not that I read both sides and wound up in the middle. Like, maybe I read both sides and seeing the other side made me feel my side even more strongly. Or maybe not. Maybe the other side made me stop and think. But the point is, you would think about it. Now I have a feed. And what does the feed give me? Gives me two things. Here's this person I already like doing something that looks good and reminds me why they're amazing. And here's this person I already don't like doing something which reminds me why I don't like them. And that's it. Right. And I think it makes it that much harder for us to have any humility about why we are where we are on the political spectrum and why we believe what we believe about what ought to happen next.

[B]

Yeah, I think as you separate communities, that becomes the first thing. Like, we had Robert Putnam on the podcast a while ago, and he wrote that amazing book, Bowling Alone. And the fundamental. I mean, you're familiar with it, but for those who don't know, the fundamental premise of the book was he wanted to study why some societies work and why some don't. And when he was in Italy, where he was studying it, he came to realize that in Italy, which is a relatively small country, especially in size itself, he saw that some towns and cities were doing particularly well, and people trusted the government, they engaged in the government. And there was low levels of corruption. And this is what interested me, because from our country, I was thinking, I was like, why is corruption worse or better in some places? And he found one of the most interesting correlations. And it was just about how strong Community bonds were. So in places where there were still church choirs and community bowls and clubs, whether it was coffee or debates, social clubs, he found, was the biggest correlation between how the thing worked and then when he brought it to America, he almost instantly found it was. It was true. Where people had bowling clubs is where they generally were less polarized and where they had more community and they moved in unison in a different way. Doesn't mean they all had the same view. But he found it was because you had spaces where people could sit together, not coming to talk about politics, but because of the in between, time would just talk about things that might be political. So they would say, to your point, hey, man, you see that hole in the road? What's been going on? And the other person goes, like, well, I heard this guy Mayor Pete says he's gonna fix. What do you think of that guy? I don't know, man. What do you think? What do you think? But because you know me and I know you and we're bowling together, we're more likely to form opinions that are shaped by the collective as opposed to individually. And it's less of an echo chamber. Right. And that made me rethink everything. I even started, quote, unquote, judging America less because I went, maybe America's not polarized. Maybe America's just isolated, you know? And he shows it, like, starts with tv. He goes, as soon as TV came, people just stopped hanging out. And when they stopped hanging out, that's where you start to see the split in American politics. And I was like, oh, man, what if it's not that people don't get along, it's just that people don't hang out. Yeah.

[C]

I also think Covid played a big part in exposing people's vulnerabilities.

[B]

You're not wrong.

[C]

I think the rise of the political strongman, which in most cases would be called a dictator before, has become more prevalent. We see it now with countries that we won't mention their names and we know them, India, South Africa. So we know those countries. And the strongman as. And I think it makes sense now because I've been battling with this question is why councillors locally and municipal managers and mayors are not taken seriously is because people think there's an overlord somewhere that can affect change immediately. Then you go, no, don't worry about him. He probably doesn't even know there's a pothole in this street. But I do. But people have looked at the world now, like I said, people would have assumed before that a Putin, a Zelensky a Trump or Ramaphosa, whoever in Africa would have been a dictator 10 years ago.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

But since now, it looks like if he's a strong man and he's rolling with strong men, it looks like we're safe generally as a population. But I also think. I think people generally, as voters, have lost hope in the system. I see it every time. I see when people go, what can we do?

[B]

I think that's true every time.

[C]

Is very prevalent everywhere now.

[B]

I think that's true everywhere. Yeah.

[C]

What can we do?

[A]

But in a democratic, even a complicated democratic society like ours, I think the answer comes back on us. Like, if there's something wrong either with an individual policy in our system or with the system itself, we're responsible, because who else is going to. Right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, it's either the strong man or it's us. And if it's us, if the entire. And I would argue I have a very different view of what it means to be American than people like J.D. vance. My view is what it means to be an American has a lot to do with this civic structure we created, this democratic structure we have.

[C]

Go deeper into that.

[A]

Well, one way to think of it is this. The fact that we have a word, un American, which gets abused and used as a weapon. But the fact that we even have that word is telling because I don't know what you could do to be un South African or UN South African American.

[B]

We really don't have that as a thing.

[A]

And I think what it signals is we believe that actually a certain set, a certain creed, I mean, the Declaration, the things that are in there, not some ethnonational affinity, but the creed is what makes America America. Of course, we came out of a specific place and have a specific story and heritage and a certain landmass, obviously. But that's not what makes America America. What makes America America is our fidelity to this national experiment in democracy that we've been running for 249 years. And it follows from that that all of us, just in as much as we were Americans, have some responsibility toward that in a way that I think is just different than the way you would say, somebody in any other or other countries I can think of, relate to their country. And so I just think it's too easy of an out to say, what can we do? We're in charge. We, the people, collectively are in charge.

[C]

What threat does the strongman pose to those ideals? Like, it almost feels like everywhere where I've spoken about a strongman, people have Voted for an Andrew Tate to be a president.

[A]

Yeah, it's bad. And I think the threat is all of these commitments, all of these freedoms that we care about. By the time everybody wakes up and sees that they're gone, it's too late. This happens, I mean, when strongmen come to power in elections, when they don't just emerge as figures, but then actually win an election, very hard to get them out. Yeah. I mean, history has shown that again and again and again. And so I think the challenge, especially for an opposition, is to do two things at once. We have to talk about those freedoms and that democratic commitment itself and talk about the things that are a little more immediate in people's lives. Because the other thing we have learned, definitely the hard way over the last hundred years, is that these authoritarian systems are systematically worse at taking care of your needs. At the end of the day, they will not help you be able to afford to buy a home. They will not help you get healthcare. They will not deliver these things as well, because they don't have to be responsive to you.

[C]

They don't have to be responsive to you.

[B]

But I think that misses the point of what they're trying to do, actually.

[C]

Right.

[A]

How do you mean?

[B]

I hear what you're saying, but the more I talk to people, the more I realize that some of the allure of the strongman, some of the allure of the populist, is not the fact that people actually think they're gonna fix it. Some people enjoy the fact that they're gonna break it for everyone. Do you get what I'm saying?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So there's people in South Africa. There's people in the uk. There's people in America. There's people in Brazil. There's people in wherever. Where they go, like, no, no, no, no, no. I don't think that person's gonna fix it. But you know what I like, they're gonna break it for everyone.

[A]

It's almost like being on their side means you're in on the joke. Yeah.

[B]

Because they go, look, I was left behind. I was in that town that had cars that were being. You know, it was a manufacturing city. I was in that town that had jobs. I was in that city that had this. I was. And I don't have it. No one cares about me. No one looks at me. The news only pops up when it's the next election and they're gonna ask my opinion, but no one's here for me. But now there's somebody who's gonna break all of it. And they go, look, I'm already living in the trash. You're gonna join me. And I think that's sometimes what we forget. We always think of it as a logical push. We go like, this person's not gonna help. Then they're like, yeah, I'm already homeless. I already don't have healthcare. I already don't have a job. My wages are already not keeping up. So I would like them to break it so that we're all on the same page. And I actually wonder if that's something you look at. You know, when you talk about the Democrats now, there's a feeling that I hope you're aware of where a lot of people. And this isn't unique to the United States. When I was in the UK and I was talking to people who voted for the new government, now they go. I mean, they're useless. That's what they go. They go, we voted for this guy, and here's Keir Starmer, and here's this. But they're useless. And the main thing that people say when I listen to them in different parts of the world is they go. It feels like liberals are selling an agenda that is beautiful on paper, but they're feckless. When they get into power, they'll tell you about healthcare, they'll tell you about education, they'll tell you about jobs. But when they get in, they tell you about, like, oh, you can't just do that overnight. And it's so hard. And it's this. And then they'll also tell you things like in America, for instance, we gotta get the Republicans on board. We've gotta get them on board. Obama. No, no, no, I don't wanna do it myself. I gotta wait for Mitch. Mitch has gotta come on board, you know, gotta get this thing. And it's like, why are you waiting? Then when Donald Trump comes in, Donald Trump goes, I'm not waiting for anybody. I'm gonna shut down the border the way I said. Then they're like, you're not allowed to. He's like, stop me. You try and stop me. And he goes. And he does it. He goes, I'm doing trade, I'm doing tariffs. You can't do tariffs. He's like, bring your courts. I'm gonna do the thing. And whether or not you support Donald Trump or not, you can't deny that people see that and go, it is possible. He does the thing that he said he's gonna do, and it may not have the effect that people have promised, and he may not help the people he said he's gonna promise and your taxes are gonna. Are gonna hurt.

[A]

It creates the impression of being decisive.

[B]

And that's exactly what I mean. And so I wonder if, like, the Democrats internally, are you guys having a conversation about how there is a perception that you just don't, like, do a thing. It feels like you guys are very good at, like, you know, the homework side of it.

[C]

He made everyone look like a bureaucrat.

[A]

He did, actually.

[B]

You're not wrong. He did make everyone look like a bureaucrat.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. I think we need to be able to demonstrate how your life gets different materially and rather quickly if we're in charge instead of them. And part of that standing up to what they're doing, that's wrong. It's like you are going to lose your health care or pay more in your premiums. Like, now people are paying more than their premiums now because turns out he doesn't care about you and he's taking the money and he's giving it to the wealthy. But it's not enough to just point out, poke holes in what they're doing. We have to be able to say, look, if you put us in and you give us enough political room to implement this agenda, here's what we're going to deliver for you. And I think it's a good list. The list of things we want to deliver, like higher wages, more housing, paid family leave. This is something every country has except us.

[C]

Wow.

[B]

But let's pause on, like, a few. Let's just pause on the housing one. For instance, one of the criticisms that I think a lot of people correctly level at the Democrats is they go, there are states where Democrats are ruling from top to bottom. Why do they have some of the worst housing crises in America? Like, why do they have some of the highest homeless populations? Why do they. You know what I mean? So it's like, I think that's the thing that a lot of people butt up against is they go, I. No one is against housing. No one will say, I don't want housing for people. No one is against. But I think the question people will ask is they'll go, yes, beyond the promise. Why does it seem like. And again, this is why I'm not in all the states. But some might ask you, they might go, like, but Pete Buttigieg, why does it seem like the Democrats aren't able to do this thing in the state where they're running all of the. All the levers? Why can't they get housing going? Why can't they get better schools going? Like, what's your response to them in that situation?

[A]

There's so many different answers that are all true and that are important. One is that, yes, sometimes we just get in our own way. I mean, I saw that with a kind of a, kind of a proceduralism, a kind of a fetish for process, that all these processes that are there for good reason, but the result has been a federal government. I felt this when I was trying to build things around the country as a, as Transportation Secretary. The process is more set up to stop a project from going wrong than to make sure the project happens, period. So there's so many checks that by the end, it's taken so many years that it's doubled in cost and you can't get it done. Now, sometimes we were able to get through that. Other times it was really tough. So that's real. But another way to answer the question is to point to the places where we are getting results or did get results, either locally or nationally. And I think because we are doing a healthy process of questioning some of our own policies and habits, sometimes missing the fact that we also need to vigorously defend the things that we got right. And that's true at the local level, where you have Denver, where there's Mayor Mike Johnson, who has gotten extraordinary results on housing in a way that mixes compassion for people experiencing homelessness with the need to make sure that it is safe and clean on the streets and expanding, just the affordability and access to housing.

[B]

Or D.C. had a great, I think more houses per capita than Texas was.

[A]

Building or on something like safety. You know, a place like Boston. Yeah. Where one of the reasons it didn't work when Republicans tried to bring in Michelle Wu to a committee and kind of beat her up on public safety, was the lowest murder rate in 75 years. So she can explain, like, here's how we got that done. But there's also a third set of answers that's also true. That has to do with all the ways that when Democrats came to power, they were still stopped by Republicans. Right. And the question is, is the answer to that that you just blow through the way Trump is? Well, the truth is, no Democrat in my lifetime has amassed that kind of power.

[B]

What do you mean by that?

[A]

Well, first of all, the total power over government. Right. Because the courts and the Congress are unwilling to constrain him, even when they know he's doing something wrong.

[B]

Okay, got it.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So that didn't just randomly happen. Like, Trump has everyone in line. Really not Just amassing the power. But he has the power in line with him.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Right. The problem is, you say that and then it starts to sound attractive to some people. Like, great. All we need is to do that on our side. We just need to have somebody, some Democrat who's willing to break all the laws and have total control over, you know, all government, and we'll do our stuff. And that's not the right answer because sometimes the rule of law is part of what we're trying to protect, itself in addition to the things that it might shape or stop. But look, the appeal of the strongman is always, I'm going to get results. I mean, Mussolini, you know, I'm going to make the trains run on time. Which, by the way, importantly, he didn't. He did not succeed in making the trains run on time. But he built that reputation. Yeah. And so the other thing we have to do is really talk in terms of. Of concrete results and show that they're related. If you have a corrupt government, if you have a corrupt president who's making money on crypto or accepting jumbo jets from Amirs or whatever it is, that actually winds up being related to the fact that your health care premium just went up because it means he's not accountable to anybody and he can just do things that make that happen. It's related to the fact you're under 65 and you're going in for a Covid shot and you can't get one. I actually think that's related, obviously, in the immediate sense. That's because RFK did that change the eligibility for people. But in a way, that's related to an administration that doesn't think it has to answer to anybody. And an administration that doesn't have to answer to anybody is also going to leave us weak and unprepared in the face of the things that we're actually that are going to change everything. This is where I think about AI all the time. Like, we have an education secretary who has given speeches referring to what she calls A1, which means she's unaware that the acronym is AI.

[B]

Oh, no. The person just reading a speech and says, like A one. When A one comes, we got to.

[A]

Make sure that we're dealing with, like, the implications of A1 in our schools. Something like that. Secretary, which means she doesn't know what it's AI, which means she doesn't know that it stands for artificial intelligence, which means she's unaware of the most important development affecting U.S. education since the invention of the pencil. And I think that's related to the corruption of the President because in a system of healthy checks and balances, the moment that happened, the president would be shamed into replacing that person.

[B]

They would be right? Yeah.

[A]

So these things are related. The challenge for my party is to talk about them. At the same time.

[B]

It seems like an, not a, not a, not an unscalable mountain, but it, you know, it's so interesting to hear these things. Here's what's always got me is when I look at South Africa and its issues and many small, smaller countries in terms of like their GDP and what they actually have going, I go, man, I understand why this developing nation is experiencing what they're experiencing. Yeah. What always shocks me is how America will have third world problems with the first world budgets. That always blows my mind. I'm shocked that the issues Americans have are the same issues that South Africans have with the budget that America has.

[A]

I think there's one word that explains most of it, if not all of it, and the word is inequality. So there's so much research that shows even if you take two countries that have the same average gdp.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The same general level of development, the one that has a higher level of inequality will have more, will have worse outcomes on everything from violence to public health, even on average. And you mentioned Robert Putnam famously wrote Bowling Alone. He wrote another book, co wrote another book that's less famous called the Upswing, which basically the whole book is written around a chart that is the level of inequality in this country. And you can see all of these, if you start the clock in the 40s or even in the 60s, you see a comparatively more equal society and then you see it go more and more unequal until you have this explosion of inequality that we're living with now. And you can correlate all these other developing world problems that we seem to have here around social instability and violence and health, all of them get worse pretty much on the same trajectory as the inequality gets worse. And then of course it becomes self reinforcing because the more you have that economic inequality, the more you start to have inequality and power. And that can be used to reinforce the conditions that lead to the economic inequality. And this is yet another reason why I think we're not paying enough attention to AI. Everybody's paying attention to AI as a, as tech, but I think we need to pay more attention to AI as a question of political economy because it can do one of two things. It can either create so much wealth that there is enough to go around and all of us could have a four day work week and more money in our pocket. And it could alleviate inequality both by finding the right way to share the dollars and cents wealth that it creates and by taking the benefits of it in terms of a level of tutoring that up until now has only been available to a wealthy kid.

[B]

And now you just get it from. That's the dream, right? That's the dream.

[A]

That's one way things could unfold. The other way things could unfold is it makes these inequalities of wealth and power even more extreme. It concentrates the wealth into the hands of the people who have the means not just to start these tech companies, but to own the physical plant, the computers and the land and the energy that goes into them and they're making all the money. And more wealthy and established and powerful players have more control over the AI. And it unfolds that way. One of those two things is going to happen. And the decision over which of those two things happen, in my opinion is mostly not a technology decision. It's a political decision, set of policy decisions about what we do next.

[B]

Yeah, it's similar to what they discussed a while ago in, it was either in Sweden or it was in Finland, one of the two. And they basically discussed taxing robots in a factory and people at the time, you know, especially outside of those countries, like, that's crazy. How can you tax a robot? And they went, no, no, no, nothing is crazy here because remember, we have to go down to the fundamental principle of what tax is trying to do and how it's trying to do it. Yes, right. And when you start thinking of laws through that lens, you start to realize that every law is crazy until it's a law.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Do you know what I mean?

[C]

It's a wild idea.

[B]

Yeah. Like even the idea of weekends wasn't a thing. You used to work every single day of the week. And then at some point unions fought and were like, man, we got to take days off. Now the idea that you wouldn't work, that you would work seven days a week is now the crazy idea. And so I think, I think that's, that's the question is like, what are we able to do? That seems crazy now. That could define the new normal tomorrow. And that sort of makes me think.

[C]

Of all.

[B]

The people running for office in some way, shape or form who are Democrats, who are very progressive and are doing really well.

[A]

Right.

[B]

New York City right now. Zoran Mamdani. Like, you can say what you want about the feasibility or not of his plans and ideas. Cause everyone can poke holes in everyone's feasibilities. Right. But the movement behind him. Yeah, people on the ground, black, white, young, old, you name it, saying, well, not rich, but everyone else going, this guy, I like what he's trying to do. And you see them mobilized behind him. You know, you see the Democratic Party having some of its lowest approval ratings in years, despite not being in power, which is rare in America. But Bernie Sanders bringing out some of the biggest crowds he's ever brought out. You know, and we.

[A]

We.

[B]

We talked to him about it on the podcast, and I. I was wondering, like, from your perspective, as somebody who's been in an administration, has been very close to, like, the upper workings of the. Of the Democratic Party, is there an internal reckoning with where the establishment Democrats sit?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And where it seems like the voters of the Democrats sit? Because it seems like there's a big disconnect there. Like, Andrew Cuomo, for me, is the worst example of it. You say, I'm a Democrat, you're a Democrat. Okay, let's go into a primary to see who the voters want. The voters say, we want Zoran Mamdani. You then go, all right, I guess I'm gonna run independently. But it's like, wait, wait. What do you mean? That creates a distrust in the system as well. Cause it's like, but you said you were a Democrat. No, no, no. I only said that when I thought you'd vote for me. Now I'm an Independent. So now you're an Independent supported by Trump. Were you ever a Democrat then? When you're working internally, when you're having these conversations, is there a reckoning with where the Democratic Party is and where its voters are?

[A]

Yeah, I think so. I mean, look, to be clear, there's not some official meeting of all the Democrats that like. Or if there is, I'm not invited. So I think these things happen in a more diffuse way. But, yeah, I think that conversation has to happen, and I think it's playing out right now because there's a lot of kind of muscle memory in the Democratic Party about, like, well, this happens, so we got to do that, and here's what we're used to. But I think what you're describing of going back to first principles and saying, okay, it doesn't have to be this way. What if we start from scratch? And I think the appeal of Mamdani, and I agree with some of this stuff, and I disagree with some of his stuff, but the point is he has aroused a sense of hope by saying, we can solve these problems with big ideas. And the best leaders I see in the party, many of whom are on the left, but many of whom are more moderate. It's not only about how left you are, but they have a level of imagination about what needs to happen that gets back to the first principles. See, the left likes to think that we're the intellectual ones, but I actually believe the right over the last 50 years has been much more systematic, definitely about connecting big ideas, bold ideas, sometimes crazy ideas, through this process that gets them into the mainstream, finds politicians willing to give them a try, pushes the Overton window, pushes the political system until eventually that happens. That's why they're able to sometimes. I mean, demolishing the right to choose in this country, that was a 50 year project on their part. The stuff in Project 2025, it wasn't just a laundry list of crazy policy proposals. It was the result of a whole kind of apparatus doing very big deep thinking. Most of which of course I think is horribly wrong. But they were really thinking about these things in a very basic way.

[B]

It feels like they have a room and then the Democrats don't.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I think they are.

[B]

More like in a weird way you just said there's not one room where all the Democrats meet. But it seems like the Republicans were like, hey, let's meet in a room and have like this collective idea that moves us. But before we move on further, give me an idea of like what you agree with on Zoran and what you don't agree with. I'd love to know, because you were a mayor, you know, so you actually ran a city. So like, give me something where you go like, oh, I agree with that.

[A]

Yeah. So I think, I mean, first of all, just the focus on affordability, like we have to prioritize that and make sure that you can afford to live in this city. Makes a ton of sense. I think the stuff he's talked about, getting mental health resources out to crisis situations, I don't think that means you get rid of the police. I think it means that you understand that the police are not the best. It's not even fair to the police to expect them to be the kind of first resort responders.

[B]

Same reason police don't fight fires. It's different. Mental health crime is a different thing completely.

[A]

And I think he's shown an understanding of that. Right. Other things, I'm kind of skeptical of the government grocery store concept.

[B]

So you see, this is what I'M intrigued with what is it about that I'd love to know?

[A]

Because there's are sets of things that should be done by government and then there are things that I think should be done by the private sector. And running a grocery store is a good example. I think the government needs to come in where there are these big collective action problems or foundation like basic research. Good example. So my favorite example of this is the iPhone. To talk about the division of labor. I don't think the federal government could ever design and sell a smartphone that you and I would want to buy. I think only a company could do that to drive that level of innovation and use the competitive pressures of capitalism to fashion a product in that way that eventually becomes affordable for people. That's just, that's what companies do well. But if the federal government hadn't literally invented the Internet, which no company or even consortium of companies could have done, that took taxpayer funded public research to do. If there's no Internet, there's no smartphone. So the areas where I believe government needs to lean in more are areas where there's some reason to think that but it will only work if government leans in. I think that's true to a point. In health insurance, I'm not somebody who believes we should abolish any private health insurance, but I do think there needs to be a public option. A public, we call it Medicare for all who want it, not Medicare. Whether you want it or not, but especially if people are going to keep changing jobs, you need benefits that aren't just dependent on your company that you work for. But I'm not somebody who believes like every hospital and every health insurance system should be somebody who works for the government. Other situations. And this is why I was an aggressive regulator of airlines. I don't think we should have a government run airline. Some countries do. I don't think that works. But I also don't think the market for airlines is exactly like a healthy, normal competitive market. It's got huge barriers to entry. It's got all these things that help to explain why you only have a handful of airlines. So the answer to me was okay, this should be done by private companies, but the government should very energetically lean in and regulate those companies so that they can't abuse their customers. And my sense is that when it gets to groceries, which is a highly competitive and very, very low profit margin business, you're not going to find some market inefficiency because grocers have these monopoly, especially in the city context where there are so Many different competitors. What I do believe in is making sure you have the right kind of subsidy structure so people can afford school, can afford food. I just don't know that I would route that through the plumbing of a government owned and operated store. But look, he wins. He gets the opportunity to demonstrate again. What I loved about being mayor was some of my ideas were popular in my city, some of them were unpopular in my city. I was willing to attach myself to certain ideas and live and die by whether they worked. And the great thing is you actually get a chance in local government to show or sell, put your money that this is going to work and he can humble his critics if he's right and do these things.

[B]

Don't press anything. We've got more. What now? After this. It's funny, I, I, I think there's a part of me that agrees with you and there's a part of me that disagrees with you in terms of the government and its ability. I think of it through the lens of, I don't know, let's start with some of the bigger utilities. You look at the United Kingdom like the railway. I don't think I'm crazy when I say that the UK's railway system has become more expensive, less affordable, less predictable, less, you know what I mean? When it became privatized, and I'm not an economics major, but from everything I've read, fundamentally, if you look at what economics tells you, you know, you're trying to make as much money as possible, you're trying to get the profits that you can, the argument is at some point it gets down to zero. And I mean, you, like, really, you're a brain in this world. You know, I've seen your, your resume and everything you've studied, but it feels like corporations and the way they exist is sort of at odds with the public good. So let's go back to the iPhone, right? I don't believe that a government couldn't make an iPhone. I actually don't believe that. I think governments and the way we see them now could not make an iPhone because to your point, on what we said earlier, they've become bloated, they've become slow, they've become corrupt, et cetera. But I don't think, to me, I go like, I don't think that means a government could not make an iPhone. I just think it means that the way some of the governments around the world operate now, they would not. Right? So here's an example. Let's look at Brazil right now, and this could change. That's why I say I'm not an expert, but this could change. Brazil right now, on a government level, has rolled out a digital payment system that works in the country, Right? And basically what they've done is they've made it so that everybody in the country can have a bank account, just having a phone. We've got similar products in South Africa and in Southern Africa, M? Pesa and Nigeria and those places, Ucuru. Yeah. But this is not run by a company. It's the government. And what they did is they said, we are going to be your bank and your banker. We're going to make sure that you have access to banking, which is one of the worst things you can do to a person when they're not banked. They just kicked out of a system.

[A]

Right.

[B]

They said, we're going to make sure that doesn't happen to you. You sell things on the beach. You have a little, you know, you sell food, whatever it is, you now have a bank. You now can build credit. You now have something that you can work towards. But we will manage that as a government. And the most impressive thing that they've done is they've basically made it that almost every single transaction is free. You pay me, I pay you. That doesn't cost you anything. Because they've come to realize, and we should all know this, the costs that a lot of banks tell us about are basically false. You know what I mean? Now, I'm not saying they were always false. There was a time when it cost a lot of money to send money to somebody. But we've got systems now that can do these things for you, right? But now, because of what Brazil has done, they've created a whole new market. And now the legacy players who are companies, they have a choice to make. They either get in line and offer a competitive deal, or they're just not gonna have customers. Yeah, yeah. When I look at what companies have done, look at, look at South Africa and most parts of Africa, right? We pay some of the highest data rates in the world. And we've seen time and time again with every study that's done, whether it's, you know, the World Trade Organization or the UN People who do not have access to the Internet have exponentially less upward mobility. Cause it's the world we live in now. But then who sets the price of the data? Who chooses how much you pay to connect to the Internet? It's a private company. And the government can say, oh, it should be within. It should be within. But we've seen what companies can do. You've seen what airlines can do yourself. You know what I mean? And so I don't think that governments can't do it. And I think governments should be in the business of doing it and doing it properly. Because New York, for me, as an example, I try and ask these questions to random people just to see what they'll tell me. But one of the most interesting answers a grocery store owner gave me in New York was he said, I don't think Zoran Mamdani's local grocers are gonna do well as a business in any way. But he said, but I do like that if the government becomes the owner of grocery stores, they can step into the fray of grocery stores and pricing and monopolies in terms of, like, the suppliers. And they said, they can fight an outsized fight that we can't as grocery store owners. Come on.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You, as Eugene, own a grocery store. You, as Mayor Pete, own a grocery store, you can't really do much. But if the government owns a grocery store, the same way if the government owns the purchasing power, the purchasing power, but also the power power, good luck screwing over a government and getting away with it in that way. You know what I mean? If the government says we're gonna buy drugs from pharmaceutical companies, they can't come in with the same, like, oh, your insulin costs.

[A]

No.

[B]

The government goes, like, what are you doing? And that's what I mean by, like, the feasibility. I think sometimes we might think of it as, can the government run a business or not run a business? Well, I don't care if a government can run a business for profit, but I do like the government being involved in an industry so that the industry can't just run off and go crazy. You know what I mean?

[A]

I think, to me, a lot of it has to do with the kind of business or the kind of industry.

[B]

Oh, yeah, completely. Don't get me wrong.

[A]

So. And maybe I think you and I might read the grocery case differently, because I'm just thinking about so much of the businesses, about engaging all of these different suppliers to get all these different things on the shelf and the way supply chains work and the way retail works and then the margins being as tiny as they are. Yes, but to your point, I mean, an example that's not unlike what you're describing with the payment system is something I've seen cities do that I do think makes sense, which is creating a municipal competitor to Internet service providers.

[B]

Yeah, this is exactly.

[A]

I think Chattanooga was the first place to do it. And it turns out even just the existing ISPs, there's prices magically come down.

[B]

That's why they're talking about the moment.

[A]

That they threat, they face some kind of competition. Right, but that's because there's that local monopoly.

[B]

No, no, no. Then we are. No, no. Then I think we are close to that.

[A]

So, yeah, I'm not saying that, like, government can't do well in a tech context. I'm just looking for the things that are more like networks or platforms or utilities or something where you really just cannot expect market forces to do much good versus the ones where we have more experience with competition driving prices down.

[B]

And I found it wild that during COVID the government couldn't pay people in America into their bank accounts. That was just wild to discover about America. I was like, wait, what?

[A]

Yeah. And look, sometimes the answer to these things is also related to corporate power. So another thing that the Trump administration has killed is direct file. You know, the last administration was working. It was kind of a pilot. Some people had it, some people didn't, but it was growing. Where you could just file your own taxes seems like a pretty basic thing. Most people in most developed countries can do this.

[B]

You go developing South Africa, you can file your own taxes developing even, and here you can't.

[A]

Is that because we, the American people, couldn't figure out a way to make that possible? No, it's because there are companies that make a lot of money as the middleman who figured out how to block getting that done, and they're having their way in this administration. So, yeah, I'm not going to be the person to say that innovation only happens if you let the private sector do anything it wants. I think I draw the line on that balance a little bit differently.

[B]

No, no, no, I understand what you're saying. I think you clarified it. Let's talk a little bit about the world, the geopolitics. And as we wrap this up, I want to know where you see yourself moving in the future. As Pete looks at the future of America and America looks at itself in the world, there's no denying that Donald Trump has completely upended how America sees the world and how the world sees America. You know, allies are no longer like, ally allies. You know, countries like India are on, like, a blacklist. Brazil's on a blacklist because they are prosecuting somebody who tried to stage a coup. Canada is always, you know, in an adversarial relationship or a moment with the. It just feels like America isn't The, you know, that rock that it once proclaimed itself to be. And I think how many countries saw it. When you look at the geopolitical landscape right now, what do you think the future of America is if this carries on for the next, like, four years? Like, if it just keeps going the way it's going, what do you think it does to America that Americans don't realize? And what do you think it. Like, how do you think it affects the world in a way that the world hasn't yet thought of?

[A]

I mean, I think it's going to take a lifetime to. Even in a best case scenario, it will take a lifetime to establish some of the trust that has been blown up between other countries in this country by the Trump administration. And I also, I think we have to face the fact that the whole world system that we have all inherited has been showing its age for some time.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Like, this emerged out of the. The power dynamics and the values that were most prominent or, or had their greatest moment of privacy, immediate primacy immediately after World War II. Right. And like the last of the people who experienced World War II as adults are passing out of, out of this world right now. Like, we're just in a very different world world. And so it's another example of a realm where I don't think we're saying, like, let's just try to get Trump out, come in and stitch back together all of these systems and alliances and international institutions the way they used to work and hope that'll get us through another 80 years.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I think the future is one where we reconnect with the importance of values as well as interests in American policy. And that's part of what I think is at stake for the rest of the world. So my view is leadership matters, leadership by people, but also leadership by countries. And somebody will be leading the way things unfold for the next 5, 10, 20 years in the world. And I really want that not to be people like Putin or people like Xi Jinping. I want that to develop on terms. It's not that I want the world to look like and think like America, but I think the American values that are most worth defending are most worth defending because they also express universal values. I think that's the most credible thing about what we did do when we set up the institutions. We did like the UN in that, that period. So what does it actually look like? I mean, we can't be. We have this America first mantra, but it's really kind of like an America alone. I would like to see A vision that's about America in first place, meaning America strives to compete and outdo every other country, which means we care about what the other countries are doing. And when they're ahead of us on something, we try to learn from them, catch up, and get back in first place. But it's not by having our. It's not by stepping on people's faces as we go, because that really does amount to America alone and in ways that we can't even guess. Sitting here in 2025.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Like that will make every American less safe, I think.

[B]

Let's say you were president and you're stepping into the White House. It is post Trump. There's been another election. Things have gone well. Let's say you're president and you look at this world that lies out there. I won't ask you, like, sort of what you would do. There's policy and things changing, whatever. What I found myself most interested in is, does America. And do American leaders ever think about how to grapple with the world that they have created that they're now fighting against? And the reason I ask it is like this. Putin is a great example. You can't talk about Vladimir Putin without talking about how Putin becomes Putin, and you can't talk about how Putin becomes Putin without looking at how Russia, the way we know it, becomes Russia. You can't talk about how Russia becomes Russia the way it does without talking about how America worked towards Russia. Now, I'm not excusing Putin in any way, shape or form, but I'm going, man, when you look at the Cold War and how America played it, a lot of it was, like, bullying in a way that didn't bring Russia along. And then you look at, like, you know, the G20, and you look at all of these decisions that America made, and you're like, ooh, doesn't seem like America made a lot of the best decisions to bring Russia along.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Because America at the time was so, so paranoid about communism.

[A]

No question.

[B]

It cast aside all of its values. You know, America was like, we'll give anyone money anywhere in the world if they're gonna help us fight communism. We'll prop up dictators, we will overthrow leaders as long as it stops communism. And it's like, oh, well, if you're gonna give up your values when it suits you, then are they your values? And so, like, that's one example. You know, another one I think of in the world is I go, you know, we talk about, like, issues now. I was thinking the other day I was like, America doesn't have a particularly good track record of sort of, like, helping the movements that society would agree are the movements that are worth helping. Like, apartheid was a good example. I'm not saying you were there, by the way. I'm not pointing at you like you did it. No, but, like, I was thinking the other day, I was like, America didn't do a good job during apartheid.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's not like America was like, we're gonna help you. No. When. When apartheid was fully in. Like, in full force, America was like, yep, seems pretty good to us. They welcomed South African leaders. None of their visas were blocked. None of them were restricted. No sanctions. America was one of the last to even, like, entertain the idea of sanctions. Right. And then when apartheid ended, the Clinton administration, just so we're clear, there's not like a Trump or anything, the Clinton administration gave out thousands of visas to white South Africans only. Only to help them escape, I guess, because they were like, what's gonna happen to them? But it's like, wait, wait, wait. You were rescuing the oppressors. That's a weird one. The Titanic is sinking, and you fly in and you rescue the iceberg. Like, wait, what just happened here?

[C]

That was good.

[B]

That was so.

[A]

So.

[C]

So the iceberg. Cause it's.

[A]

See what you did there.

[B]

No, but I mean, like, I think of it in all of these instances, I go, like, even now with, like, Israel, Palestine, I'm like, man, you know, week one, after October 7th, people are going, well, you know, Israel. I mean, they've got a defense. Week 10. Well, week 100. And then people are like, man, at what point? And then, like, most recently, we see a strike that happens in Qatar, and we don't know the inner workings of things. So I'm not gonna assume anything, but I. But I wonder if there's, like, a misalignment there between how America portrays itself and how America. How America acts in the world. You know, like, Even World War II is an example. America for a long time was like, ah, man, that's none of our business.

[A]

Right?

[B]

That's none of our business.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

People were like, yeah, but the Jews are being persecuted. America's like, yeah, but that's none of our business. And then when Pearl harbor happens, America goes like, all right, now it's our business.

[A]

Right?

[B]

And now, again, please don't get me wrong. I'm not diminishing America's contribution in the fights for democracies time and time again. But I wonder if, as a president, let's say, you would step in and would you be able to grapple with the inconsistency in how America applies its values in and around the world, in fighting for freedom or not fighting for it?

[A]

I think not because we're Americans, but because we are a people. We are inconsistent in our affinities and the stories we tell ourselves and the commitments we come to. I also think that we can be imperfect in our fidelity to our ideas at home or abroad. And those ideas are still the right ideas, and they're still the ones that ought to guide us. And I think that's true at home. As we question, like, how much is our democracy even a democracy right now? It doesn't mean we're on the wrong track trying to be one. It just means we're further away from one than we wish. And I think that's true for America's conduct around the world. All of that is definitely the experience of America and the countries that have had to deal or the peoples who have had to deal with America as, at best, a very flawed bearer of the flag of liberty and freedom around the world. And at the same time, I think that our belief in that, however imperfect, however we haven't always been true to it at home and abroad, is the most important fact about us. And so I think leadership in America has to do the work of trying to center us in that while we're being buffeted by all these other things. So there were a lot of folks who were queasy about various countries in the course of the Cold War that we supported, but really believed it was still somehow the right thing to do for reasons of hard security. I think a lot of that was wrong. But that balance, nobody can claim that that's ever going to be easy, but what we no longer have is the excuse of not knowing how it can go wrong.

[B]

That's true.

[A]

So the next president, or just the next generation of American leadership arrives with the benefit of a lot of hindsight. And I say this belonging to the generation that was really shaped by 911 and also by the Iraq War. I mean, that definitely shaped my understanding of politics. It also shaped my life because I wound up serving in the Afghanistan War. And honestly, that was another example, right? Where for 9 11, it was the first time for a lot of people that a chain of events that happened somewhere else actually was visited upon us concretely and shook everybody out of this idea that that was just, you know, that we weren't going to be pulled into the consequences of what was happening abroad, some of which we had had a hand in getting to be the way it was. Because it's a world that we made. I would like to believe if we get it right, if we have the right fidelity to the values that actually matter, we do this next time around, as people are still returning our calls, as a country with more of a partnership, more of an actual partnership with other states and peoples that are sincerely committed to those same values, and that around that we can build an architecture of values, but also security that actually works. But that's gonna be really, really hard, and it's gonna be that much harder because the level of trust people have for America has been laid so low by what people are seeing from both our conduct toward other countries and just the way things are going at home right now.

[B]

Yeah. Because let's say when I look at a situation, like, exactly what you're saying, looking at the relationship with others, other countries, their representatives and their people, again, I don't know the inner workings. So I'm only saying what I've read and what I've seen. You have a delegation of negotiators who are in Qatar. Right? They're there to negotiate whatever it is, but they negotiate. Israel kills them.

[A]

Bam.

[B]

And says, yeah, we killed them. This is not even like a. I'm saying, they said, no, we killed them. I found myself going, just on a basic level, and maybe I'm a very stupid, simple person. It's possible. I went, if you kill negotiators, isn't that the opposite of wanting to negotiate? Like, you know what I mean? That's like, this is. That's kicking the guy in the pit in Sparta. It's like, yeah, that's the guy who's come to deliver the message, and you won't get peace without.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so I was thinking to myself, I was going like, okay, so if you are in power, if you're a leader in that type of situation, at what point does an ally stop being an ally? Or how do you define the allyship of another country? Is it when their interests are completely aligned with yours, or is it when their actions are completely unaligned with yours? You know, like, how far would Israel have to go for you, as a president, to say, I can't say that you're our ally anymore, but I think what happens.

[A]

And, you know, that happened as we're taping? Like, I think. Yeah. No, no, please.

[B]

Not commented.

[A]

So I don't know all of the. We're still learning what happened in that strike, but everything you just said makes sense to me about what it means to blow up negotiators. And it feels like every few days or every day there's another example of this. So I think the job of leadership is to say, okay, if this is our ally, or whatever you want to call it, we are the most important country to that country. Yes, we are the most important country to Israel.

[B]

Right.

[A]

What does it actually look like to draw a line between saying we have a foundational commitment to this country being able to defend itself from people who are committed to its annihilation, which I think is the bedrock of the US Relationship with Israel, to have fidelity to that and also say when you do certain things, we're not going to sponsor you to do that. And to say as your most important, ally, friend, sponsor, whatever you want to call it, there's going to be more than pretty please. We are going to find ways to shape your behavior. I think that's what leadership needs to do. And I don't know who the next leader in the US will be, or for that matter, the next leader of Israel, or what kind of leadership the Palestinians or the Arab states will have. And I actually think the further this goes, the more important the ultimate role of Arab states will be in whether there is any form of a two state solution that's even possible or whatever is about to happen next. But I do think that is an example where there are certain things that we still bear fidelity to, because there are reasons, not just tactical strategic reasons, but moral reasons, why the United States has decided from the beginning to be there to make sure that a country whose neighbors want it annihilated is not annihilated. And of course that is born out of the circumstances that were present in the world at the time that the Jews sought that homeland. And at the same time, say just because that is true and however unshakable that is, we're not on board with this. And we're going to think of more than just saying this is unfortunate, but actually do something to change it.

[B]

It's so difficult. And you know why it's so difficult is because humans bear the brunt like civilians bear the brunt of the decisions of a few men. Just generally speaking, as I've been, you know, watching what's happening in the now, I'd like to go back and try and read different times to see if there's any correlations or any, anything that gives me a certain insight. Because when things are happening now, they're happening now, you have to react to them. You don't have Perspective, you don't have hindsight. Sometimes when you go back, you read something and it's a lot more clear. You never know what fully happened, but you have a better idea. I found it particularly interesting that a lot of the language the US Uses now with Israel is similar to the language it used with South Africa during apartheid. It would say, I mean, we. We have to let these people defend themselves, and we have to assure ourselves that the Africana is safe. And do you know what I mean? It's interesting how defending the implied threats against these oppressors was more important than defending the actual threat that was happening to the people at the time. And that's something that I think. And that's where, funny enough, I think when we come back to voters and people, when you look at, like, the Democratic base, I'm not saying Kamala Harris lost or didn't lose because of one specific thing, but there's no denying there was a huge swath of the voting population, Democratic voters, especially young people, who said, yo, man, we don't want our country. We don't want to be aiming in this direction. This is not what we're aiming. This is not what we see America doing. And it was interesting that the Democratic leadership didn't seem to come on board with that. It felt like that was the 70, 30 split, but just within a Democratic Party where they were like, no, we are not on board with this completely. How do you. Maybe bridge the divide is the wrong phrase, but how do you. How do you make sense of that disconnect?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, where is it because young voters or voters in the Democratic Party don't know as much as the people, the leaders do? Or is it because you see the situation differently and not, I'm saying, collectively.

[A]

Well, look, I think part of it is what. What was going on during the time that your understanding of these events was formed. Right. So if you're our age or younger, definitely, if you're the Gen Z people who are watching this, including, by the way, many Jews, young Jews who are watching this, saying, I want no part of that. You have only experienced Israel as the dominant regional hegemon, and especially in the last two years, where they have decapitated or neutered those entities that are most threatening to them right now, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Hamas's military capabilities, whether we're talking about Hezbollah. Right. So you see this extremely powerful country where there, I think, is a generation of Democratic leaders who only knew or largely knew Israel as The underdog, where this wasn't just some off stage thing that was invoked as why. And by the way, Netanyahu skillfully does this, invoke these offstage threats as something that will legitimize anything, including things like starvation that absolutely nothing can legitimize. But back then, that was a real. This was not like a theoretical thing. Now I'd say even today it's not a theoretical thing, but it's obviously more off stage because of the power that Israel has exerted to not only defend itself, but to do things that I think most observers, including people who care about Israel's future, would say are not helping you defend yourself. It's not helping the hostages. And it's not only incredibly destructive of life when you have starvation or these bombings that we're seeing or so many of the other things that are going on, but it's also destructive of a moral fiber that has connected these two countries that really is as important as the strategic relationship. And that could be the most lethal thing of all because it turns the relationship into a partisan cause or something, that there's a generational split, and that is just catastrophically bad, I think. But to get to where your question began, I think the next round of American leadership will just be about what will it take to make things get better. That's the thing. So many, and this is the ultimate example of it, but so many things, international relations in here, at home are freighted with layer upon layer that if I mention this, you say, okay, but what about that? And if it's that, well, what about that? All of which is true. And in this case, it goes back not just to 1947, it goes back thousands of years, right? And it's all true. And no one moment, no one generation, least of all a child or a family living in Gaza, or for that matter, living in Israel, can or should have to bear the weight of all of those layers. All we can do is say, okay, what can we do that would make it better? And I think a new generation of American leadership will be willing to do things, to shape the choices of an Israeli government in ways that neither an older generation of Democrats nor Republicans were willing to do. But across all of this, I still come back to the idea that the real challenge is to have fidelity to the values, that even if we're not that good at living up to them much of the time, the values are still there and they're still worth it. And our attachment to those is everything.

[B]

So let me ask you this finally, before we let you go. I won't ask you if you're going to run for president, because I've learned in America you'll always say no. Or you'll give me a vague answer. Not you. Politicians just do that. Here they go.

[A]

Like.

[B]

Well, I think right now I'm focused.

[C]

On dropping my kids off at school.

[B]

Yeah. And my life. And I think what we need to look at right now is the midterms and building a world where we can. I know how this goes. I know how this goes. So I won't ask you that. What I would ask you instead is this Pete Buttigieg, the mayor. Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of transportation. And then we meet Pete Buttigieg. Now, what do you think you've seen in the world, in America and in your communities that has changed how or what you would run on if you were to run again? You know, so when you look at yourself back, I mean, now, what has it been, 10 years, maybe more? And then you look at it now, is there anything that's shifted you? Is there anything that's changed your perspective slightly? And what would that thing be and how would it change the path that you would pursue? Because we all change. Something changes us along the way. I'd love to know. Now, you've been in an administration, for instance.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, I could point to any number of tactical or policy questions where I think about it differently, or I'm more attuned to why things are harder than they look, or I think we should just blow something up instead of trying to keep working with it in our bureaucracy or something like that. But I think the biggest thing that's changed is that things that we used to talk about as a matter of rhetoric are here now. And so it's not enough, you know, words like authoritarianism or fascism. I think when I was first, definitely when I was first running for president, those words are out there as kind of the end of a conversation. Like, look at this stuff that's going on. Like that could. I mean, that I might be authoritarian. And then it started happening, and now we're in a moment where we have to be much more clear eyed about what it means to deal with that. In other words, if we just say that's authoritarian or that's fascist, everybody's paralyzed by that. Where actually, I think the project increasingly is find out who's really good at dealing with fascism and learn from them on how to beat it. And that's just like a different project than the one I thought I was part of even five years ago. I think that the other thing I would say is I still thought as recently as five years ago that there was more we could do within the structures that we inherited, within the kind of policy frameworks that we inherited. And now I just think all of that's being blown wide open, either because you have whole departments being burned down like the Department of Education, or because the financial picture, which is not as sexy to talk about fiscal policy. But I think sooner or later will require us to completely redesign our tax code as a country, which is not a bad thing, actually, because that could be a chance to have a system of taxation where we actually get more trust that our government is actually doing good things with the money that we pay into it. There's a sense of more fairness. But I guess what I'm getting at more than saying, like, I think this border policy, I disagree with what I used to think five years ago. It's more that I think the framework we're in needs to be replaced in a way that I think Trump has clearly exposed. But I think Democrats need to come to terms with. And we're just into a new world in terms of what that means for what leaders need to do.

[B]

Well, as always, man, I enjoy having a conversation with you. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for being so candid. And yeah, man, thanks for sharing your beard. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

[A]

For real. Thanks for having me.

[B]

What now with Trevor Noah is produced by DayZero Productions in partnership with SiriusXM. The show is executive produced by Trevor Noah Sanaziama and Jess Hackle. Rebecca Chain is our producer. Our development researcher is Marcia Robiou. Music mixing and mastering by Hannis Brown. Random other stuff by Ryan Harduf. Thank you so much for listening. Join me next week for another episode of what Now.