Speaker 1: And good afternoon everybody. I'm Steve Schmidt with the Warning
Speaker 1: and very pleased this afternoon to be joined by the one,
Speaker 1: the only, Brian Tyler Cohen. How are you, Brian.
Speaker 2: I'm doing okay. Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: You have written a book. It is excellent. I wish
Speaker 1: I could tell you that I am done with it.
Speaker 1: I am almost done with it the day after How
Speaker 1: to Wield Power in a post Trump world. This is
Speaker 1: an important book. I think the purpose of books is
Speaker 1: to get conversations going, and this is an important one.
Speaker 1: The Save America movement, of which I am a part of,
Speaker 1: is open and filled with people that represent a broad
Speaker 1: spectrum of politics that we rarely talk about. When we
Speaker 1: go into a meeting with a Democratic senator or representative
Speaker 1: and we have a couple one hundred thousand donors, actually
Speaker 1: more than a couple hundred thousand donors, and we'll say,
Speaker 1: with humility, speaking for the donors to the organization, that
Speaker 1: we have an expectation of you, and our expectation is
Speaker 1: not to be for a policy. It is to embrace
Speaker 1: the concept that the maximum abuses of the Constitution and
Speaker 1: of power demand the full and maximum use of all
Speaker 1: available political power everywhere to make it stop. And I
Speaker 1: think Democrats have done an awful job at this. And
Speaker 1: this is a conversation that will define the next presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: So I'm delighted to be able to talk to you
Speaker 1: a little bit about it, talk about what made you
Speaker 1: write the book and how you conceive of the use
Speaker 1: of power for what you call the day after. But
Speaker 1: let's be honest, right, it starts at the second power
Speaker 1: transfers at noon, and let's for the purposes of our
Speaker 1: conversation and envisional world where there is democratic control of
Speaker 1: the Senate, the House, and the White House on twenty
Speaker 1: January at high noon of twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2: So thanks so much for asking me and for having me.
Speaker 2: The reason that I decided to write this was for
Speaker 2: the exact reasons that you laid out. It's because Democrats
Speaker 2: have been terrible at exercising power. And that would be
Speaker 2: bad enough unto itself, but when you contrast the asymmetry
Speaker 2: of how the Republicans not only exercise but abuse power,
Speaker 2: it becomes abundantly clear that until and unless Democrats learn
Speaker 2: how to wield that power effectively, we're going to continue
Speaker 2: losing at the hands of a Republican party that will
Speaker 2: change the rules of the game at every single turn
Speaker 2: to get what they want. I mean, the perfect example
Speaker 2: of that. Somebody who's in the news right now is
Speaker 2: Mitch McConnell, who, even on his deathbed, is figuring out
Speaker 2: ways to undermine the system to extract maximum political advantage
Speaker 2: for himself and his party. And so the reason that
Speaker 2: I wanted to have this conversation, this broad discourse right
Speaker 2: now is because let's entertain the hypothetical that you put forward,
Speaker 2: which is that Democrats have the House, the Senate, and
Speaker 2: the White House come you know, January twentieth, twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2: I would rather use this time talking about what that
Speaker 2: looks like, so that when we actually have the ability
Speaker 2: to exercise power, we do it, that we that we
Speaker 2: don't spend that precious sliver of time that can go
Speaker 2: away like this instead and paneling a commission that we'll
Speaker 2: spend twelve to eighteen months discussing what the options are,
Speaker 2: and then they come back in and they go over
Speaker 2: their findings, and we make a determination about whether we
Speaker 2: want to implement those findings, and before you know it,
Speaker 2: that precious sliver of time is gone. So I want
Speaker 2: to have this conversation now about what it looks like
Speaker 2: when Democrats get into office, get into power, so that
Speaker 2: on day one we can determine are we going to
Speaker 2: eliminate the filibuster? Is making DC and Puerto Rico a
Speaker 2: state a priority of this party. Is expanding the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court so that we don't offer up a veto on
Speaker 2: any and all progressive or pro democracy legislation. Is that
Speaker 2: going to be acceptable for Democrats? Is it good enough
Speaker 2: to just get caught trying or do we want to
Speaker 2: have meaningful, lasting change? And if it's the latter, then
Speaker 2: there are things that we need to do right off
Speaker 2: the bats that we can set ourselves up for success
Speaker 2: and not just squander that time getting bogged down in process,
Speaker 2: like Democrats have a tendency to do.
Speaker 1: When you talk about when you talk about the party
Speaker 1: and you say, you know, the party has to learn
Speaker 1: to do something. This is professional sports in the sense
Speaker 1: that both parties are filled with elected federal officers, right
Speaker 1: they're all elected to the Congress, to the Senate. What
Speaker 1: is it that you think, Why is it that you
Speaker 1: think that one group is allergic to the use of
Speaker 1: power when they're in the business of power. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean to quibble, but I don't think it's a
Speaker 1: matter of learning. I think it's a matter of exercising
Speaker 1: will with intent. What I think that there's something that
Speaker 1: Democrats have to reckon with which is this? I find
Speaker 1: this astounding, it's incredible. Actually, after eleven years of this,
Speaker 1: the polling is clear the American people look at these
Speaker 1: two parties and they think the Democratic parties the more
Speaker 1: extreme to Trodnir. How do you account for that?
Speaker 2: So I want to answer the other question that you
Speaker 2: asked first, which is which is why do we get
Speaker 2: into a position where it becomes unclear why the Democrats
Speaker 2: fail to exercise power or refuse to exercise power and
Speaker 2: kind of get caught up defending these institutions. And I
Speaker 2: think the answer to that is that Republicans have been
Speaker 2: so quick to tear these institutions down. And so the
Speaker 2: knee jerk reaction from the left is, Okay, they're tearing
Speaker 2: everything down, and so we have to stand everything up.
Speaker 2: We have to protect these institutions exactly as they are.
Speaker 2: We have to to you protect an amber, all of
Speaker 2: the traditions and norms and processes of the Federal government. Now,
Speaker 2: it was actually a smart play by Republicans to position
Speaker 2: themselves as the destroyers of these institutions, because these institutions
Speaker 2: are not popular. They're the institutions that have ushered in
Speaker 2: an environment, a political environment where forty percent of Americans
Speaker 2: can't afford a four hundred dollars emergency. But that's how
Speaker 2: politics goes. You have one party that breaks something down
Speaker 2: and so de facto, the other party wants to protect
Speaker 2: those things. And I think that it was a miscalculation
Speaker 2: by the Democrats to think that we're going to be
Speaker 2: the party that protects all these institutions that are so
Speaker 2: aggressively unpopular that the vast majority of Americans are bucking
Speaker 2: against this system or pushing back against the system, are
Speaker 2: voting for people who outright say that they want to
Speaker 2: destroy this system. So I think that that has to
Speaker 2: be recalibrated, that we can have a democratic party that's
Speaker 2: going to say we're here to protect every single thing
Speaker 2: that Republicans are looking to tear down. Now, the Republicans
Speaker 2: have shown that these institutions are not sacricanct. The difference
Speaker 2: is they're doing it for their own self enrichment. They're
Speaker 2: doing it for their own entrenchment of power. My argument,
Speaker 2: my contention in this book is that Democrats have to
Speaker 2: be willing to tear down these institutions, but to do
Speaker 2: it for virtuous reasons. To make sure that we can
Speaker 2: do whatever we can to deliver climate change legislation, to
Speaker 2: do whatever we can to deliver affordable and accessible health
Speaker 2: care to every single person in this country. To do
Speaker 2: whatever we can to make sure that voting rights are expanded,
Speaker 2: that we have a Freedom to Vote Act and a
Speaker 2: Voting Rights Act, so all of these institutions can continue
Speaker 2: to be broken down. That's fine, I'm okay with it.
Speaker 2: I'm not advocating for blind deference to our traditions and norms,
Speaker 2: but you have to be willing to do it for
Speaker 2: virtuous reasons, which the Republicans are not. And I think
Speaker 2: the Democrats have to recognize if they want to get
Speaker 2: this stuff done, it's either our norms and traditions or
Speaker 2: the outcomes, but not both.
Speaker 1: I think that Democrats have an enormous blind spot about
Speaker 1: something which I'll share in a second. But I think
Speaker 1: there are two inherent design flaws around the arguments that
Speaker 1: both parties have made at a top level. For a generation,
Speaker 1: and going back to the Reagan era in the conservative movement,
Speaker 1: the argument was there, and there's truth in this at
Speaker 1: a common sense level, which is that it's best to
Speaker 1: make decisions closest to where the problem that that decision
Speaker 1: is being made around, and that if you can make
Speaker 1: it there, that's better. Now, the Republican mythology is that
Speaker 1: there's some type of wisdom in the country that is
Speaker 1: greater the further you get from Washington, right, and the
Speaker 1: lower the ranking the elected by, the more wise it
Speaker 1: is because it's closer to the people. And as a
Speaker 1: functional matter, I don't think that's true. And I remember
Speaker 1: going out and having my first experience at a Republican
Speaker 1: meeting when I took over Schwarzenegger's campaign in two thousand
Speaker 1: and six from leaving the Bush White House, and my
Speaker 1: first thought was, holy shit, right, these people out here
Speaker 1: make those people in Washington look like Lincoln's cabinet. And
Speaker 1: so that's not true, I think. On the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: I think this is deeply true, with probably a few
Speaker 1: exceptions in a few places, but it's a general proposition.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's anybody who encounters their government at
Speaker 1: a local level. I got to go in there for
Speaker 1: a zoning issue at a county level, at a state level,
Speaker 1: at a DMV level, who walks out of that experience,
Speaker 1: who says, God, that was great and efficient, And I
Speaker 1: think we ought to put those people in charge of
Speaker 1: more shit. And so none of the things that work
Speaker 1: right or or none of the things that are supposed
Speaker 1: to work it appears to many people work. And so
Speaker 1: if you're the party of government solutions, you have to
Speaker 1: be the party of government accountability in the sense that
Speaker 1: we insist for the taxpayer of getting a dollar ten
Speaker 1: value for every dollar spent on every program that we
Speaker 1: spend it on to make sure that that hungry kid
Speaker 1: at the end of the pipeline is getting what they're
Speaker 1: supposed to get. Man, Donnie just gave a speech about this,
Speaker 1: and honest to God, he's the first progressive in my
Speaker 1: lifetime that I've heard linked those two concepts together. And
Speaker 1: I think that's an enormous issue for Democrats.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, look, starting from the abundance discourse
Speaker 2: from Ezra Cline, I think that absolutely both of those
Speaker 2: have to be done at the same time. Can't just
Speaker 2: advocate for more power to the to the government without
Speaker 2: making sure that those the powers that were afforded to
Speaker 2: the government actually work. And so I think you have
Speaker 2: to do both at the same time. But you know,
Speaker 2: to your point, the most popular government programs right now, Medicare, Medicaid,
Speaker 2: and even the ACA are all examples of the system
Speaker 2: being able to work. And I agree that that you
Speaker 2: can't just have blind deference to heaping more power onto
Speaker 2: onto the government, especially in areas where it doesn't have
Speaker 2: any credibility, And so I think you do have to
Speaker 2: do both. But the reality is that right now we
Speaker 2: are seeing the chipping away at the ability of the
Speaker 2: government to be able to operate in a lot of
Speaker 2: these spaces, whether it's healthcare, whether it's you know, I
Speaker 2: take stuff.
Speaker 1: Is God all this Donald try t'roum destroy the architecture
Speaker 1: of America's strategic military alliances, our healthcare, scientific infrastructure. This
Speaker 1: outbreak of the food borne diarrheal diseases all over the
Speaker 1: country as a direct link to getting rid of food
Speaker 1: safety inspector so all of this stuff is gone. It's
Speaker 1: one of the great fantasies of the era is the
Speaker 1: notion that there's something there to come back into and fixed.
Speaker 1: It's gone we're gonna have millions of people dead all
Speaker 1: over the world from the destruction of USAID program. So
Speaker 1: all of this gets to be reimagined to suit a crisis.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that happened yesterday is probably
Speaker 1: the most important news of the year is you had
Speaker 1: a Ukrainian strike on an Iranian ship in the Caspian
Speaker 1: Sea for the first time, merged to theaters of war,
Speaker 1: a very serious time in the history of the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and and and the point that I that I
Speaker 2: think is worth making here is like this is we
Speaker 2: are in the midst of unbridled republican republican governance right now,
Speaker 2: where a lot of these systems are being torn down
Speaker 2: and the outcomes are objectively worse. Like tearing down all
Speaker 2: of and destroying and firing all of the Inspectors General,
Speaker 2: for example, which allows a lot of Elon Musk and
Speaker 2: and his you know, government business entities to do what
Speaker 2: they're doing right now, has created an outcome that is
Speaker 2: objectively worse for the vast majority of the country. It
Speaker 2: is consolidating power for him and destroying regulations that we
Speaker 2: need to rein in certain people from committing these abuses.
Speaker 2: And the same thing goes for healthcare, for example, for
Speaker 2: cancer research, for example, watching watching Donald Trump right now,
Speaker 2: use this Republican ethos or this maga ethos, I should say,
Speaker 2: of breaking everything. Is what it looks like when when
Speaker 2: you know you have the natural conclusion of this Republican
Speaker 2: project to shrink government down so that you can drown
Speaker 2: it in a bathtub. I mean, this is what it
Speaker 2: looks like. We have worse health outcomes right now, we
Speaker 2: have more consolidation in the business realm right now, worse
Speaker 2: pricing strategies for consumers. Right now, our antitrust sector has
Speaker 2: been completely gutted. And that's worse for consumers, that's worse
Speaker 2: for capitalism. So I mean we're looking at we're looking
Speaker 2: at the natural conclusion the results of these projects in
Speaker 2: real time. So I get that. On one hand, you
Speaker 2: can say that that the government is not the most
Speaker 2: efficient or effective player in this game, and I absolutely
Speaker 2: agree with that, And I think you and I are
Speaker 2: both on the same page that if you're gonna be
Speaker 2: in this space, you have to make sure that this
Speaker 2: stuff is reimagined so that you can actually do it
Speaker 2: in an efficient and effective way. But the opposite of that,
Speaker 2: where everything is just shrunk down and killed that the
Speaker 2: government had any hand in. We're seeing what it looks
Speaker 2: like when the government doesn't play a role in climate
Speaker 2: change and the effects of climate change are being exacerbated.
Speaker 2: We're seeing what it looks like when in healthcare the
Speaker 2: government takes a step back and is no longer a
Speaker 2: player in this space, or cuts cancer research funding, for example,
Speaker 2: or starts to push away the most brilliant minds in
Speaker 2: the world that we're coming to this country to do
Speaker 2: this work like this, what we're living through right now
Speaker 2: is an example in real time of what it looks
Speaker 2: like when we relinquish all of this talent and when
Speaker 2: we rip down all of the guardrails that we've been
Speaker 2: operating under for years and years and years. So again,
Speaker 2: I think you have to be able to walk in
Speaker 2: chew gum. At the same time, you have to be
Speaker 2: able to reimagine this stuff, because, as you said, it
Speaker 2: doesn't exist anymore. A lot of this stuff has been
Speaker 2: broken down, and if you're just going to prop it
Speaker 2: up in the exact same way that it was five
Speaker 2: years ago, you're gonna keep losing. So you have the
Speaker 2: ability right now, if you're the Democrats to reimagine this stuff,
Speaker 2: but it has to be reimagined in such a way
Speaker 2: that it will work. But the notion that the government
Speaker 2: can't do anything is so broken and is leading to,
Speaker 2: you know, the biggest differential in income inequality that we've
Speaker 2: seen in this country's history. That's happening right now as
Speaker 2: the results of Republican governance. So I think that you
Speaker 2: do have to be able to do both.
Speaker 1: Let me let me say to that. I think that
Speaker 1: one of the things that I would push back on
Speaker 1: a little bit is the notion of big and small
Speaker 1: government such as it is has never been bigger. We
Speaker 1: have mass federal agents running around the contrary in discriminately
Speaker 1: draw weapons two thousand miles from any border, immigration agents.
Speaker 1: We got government trying to break in the hospital rooms,
Speaker 1: birthing rooms, right the place of the death. There's never
Speaker 1: been more money spent on government. It's not that they
Speaker 1: looked at something and said we have to restrain spending
Speaker 1: or a problem. It's that it's just gone right in
Speaker 1: the corruption. And listen, I think in any room I've
Speaker 1: been in a lot of I deeply believe this is
Speaker 1: how this stuff should work. And this is why I
Speaker 1: think the political center is important in America is that
Speaker 1: you should be able to objectively identify a problem and
Speaker 1: have adults look at it from a different series of
Speaker 1: different set of perspectives and say, yes, that's a problem. Right.
Speaker 1: And then you have somebody who may be on the left,
Speaker 1: But what are we going to do to solve the problem? Right?
Speaker 1: We got to spend a billion dollars on this, right,
Speaker 1: And you're kind of sitting where I sit in politics. Wow,
Speaker 1: holy shit, right, a billion dollars And you look at
Speaker 1: the right wing guy, You're like, what do you think
Speaker 1: we got to do? I don't think we have to
Speaker 1: do anything, or we got to spend one thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on it? And you're like, I got one thousand dollars, right,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know, right, what about four
Speaker 1: hundred million? Right? Like somewhere somewhere in the in the
Speaker 1: center of this right that there's a that there's a
Speaker 1: pragmatic sense, but I just don't think it's true, right,
Speaker 1: And I and I think that this is a frame
Speaker 1: that progressives and Democrats should think about because the prejudice
Speaker 1: in the country breaks against big right for small rhetorically.
Speaker 1: And the point is, right, this is the biggest, most unresponsive,
Speaker 1: corrupt government that there's ever been. Wildly profligate with the
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars because part of the coalition has to include
Speaker 1: people who care about the spending of their money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, no, I I I absolutely agree. But
Speaker 2: I do think that that it needs to be done.
Speaker 2: It needs to be reimagined in such a way that
Speaker 2: we can actually make the functions of government work. But
Speaker 2: I think abandoning abandoning government, you know, in deference to
Speaker 2: this long standing MAGA principle of just shrinking it down
Speaker 2: to nothing, is obviously not you know, the notion that
Speaker 2: that we are here just to privatize everything and to
Speaker 2: make to make it so that every single element of
Speaker 2: our government is just ripe for some CEO to make
Speaker 2: millions or billions of dollars as the results of our healthcare,
Speaker 2: our social security, you name it. I think that that
Speaker 2: is something that will eventually come if Democrats don't a
Speaker 2: take power, be wheeled power, and see do it in
Speaker 2: such a way that it's more effective. That doesn't allow
Speaker 2: there to be so much fertile ground for Republicans to
Speaker 2: come in and make these arguments that social security, for example,
Speaker 2: needs to be privatized.
Speaker 1: Yeah, listen, I think that FDR's great legacy is he
Speaker 1: saved democracy all over the world, but he saved it
Speaker 1: here at home first by saving free market American capitalism, right,
Speaker 1: And that's what the New Deal did, much more, I think,
Speaker 1: politically than it succeeded as a set of economic programs historically.
Speaker 1: And I think that for this moment for Democrats, the
Speaker 1: most important speeches that they could conceivably orient a campaign around,
Speaker 1: or the nineteen thirty six FDR convention speech and the
Speaker 1: FDR closing speech in Madison Square Garden, because they're the
Speaker 1: most appropriate ethos for a Democratic party that needs to
Speaker 1: reconnect to America's working men and women and be the
Speaker 1: party for small against big. That's taken tremendous license in
Speaker 1: an era that I think is fair to describe as
Speaker 1: a as a second guilded age. And you know, for
Speaker 1: the conversation we're having, you know, I ran a California
Speaker 1: governor's race. I've lived all over California, mostly lived in
Speaker 1: California over the last twenty years. Right, No Republicans in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles were responsible right for the burning of the city.
Speaker 1: You know, that was that was gross incompetence right across
Speaker 1: a wide panoply of players. There that undermines when you
Speaker 1: have a lack of performance by any public official in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party in a high profile city, the fundamental
Speaker 1: cause that you believe in, because you have to be
Speaker 1: able to deliver a service. If you have a complicated question,
Speaker 1: you know, on something like healthcare, you're inclined to at
Speaker 1: least I'm not inclined to listen to a person who
Speaker 1: can't get water to the fire that they're going to
Speaker 1: be able to engineer the complexities of of something else.
Speaker 1: And I and I, and I think that's something Democrats
Speaker 1: have to have to reconcile with. But I, but I,
Speaker 1: but I, But I think I can tell you exactly
Speaker 1: how day one would open up in twenty twenty nine, Right,
Speaker 1: the first thing that the Democratic president would have to do.
Speaker 1: And if I get run over by a bus later today, right,
Speaker 1: this will be recorded, right, And I'm going to be
Speaker 1: proven right about this. Trump is not going to hang
Speaker 1: around and do any of the traditional stuff. He's going
Speaker 1: to get on his Katori jet and head out somewhere
Speaker 1: and in the in the question that's going to be
Speaker 1: on the media, a list is going to be what's
Speaker 1: the new president going to do about Trump's Katari plane?
Speaker 1: Is he going to keep the plane? Because trust me,
Speaker 1: the cameras are gonna be at Mara a Lago for
Speaker 1: the continuity of the of the reality show. And literally
Speaker 1: new president raises his hand and after he swears or
Speaker 1: she swears the thirty five word oath, he's gonna or
Speaker 1: she's gonna get three ruffles and flourishes, bupp up ba
Speaker 1: ba bah, a twenty one gun salute and Hail to
Speaker 1: the Chief, which is gonna take about five and a
Speaker 1: half minutes, which is time to shake hands, kiss the
Speaker 1: wife or husband, and sign about ten executive orders. And
Speaker 1: the first one of them, imagining he's still there, is
Speaker 1: the immediate firing of Cash Pattel and the ceiling of
Speaker 1: his office. The second one is the immediate relief of
Speaker 1: federal badges from every ice AG who completed the forty
Speaker 1: seven day training program between twenty January of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and that exact moment and one of the most important things.
Speaker 1: And I'd love the job, Brians. I think I'd be
Speaker 1: great at it for six months, but I'd love a
Speaker 1: senior West wing job where I got to be the
Speaker 1: person to call Susie Wiles and to say listen wherever
Speaker 1: he's going with the plane. Very important for you all
Speaker 1: to be on the ground at noon. Otherwise it's flying
Speaker 1: back to Andrews where you can uber home to Bedminster
Speaker 1: or wherever the fuck is going. And then that day,
Speaker 1: no fucking around. Serious as a heart attack. R that
Speaker 1: is a US Air Force jet. The Commander in Chief
Speaker 1: orders the US Air Force to seize that jet, take
Speaker 1: it into custody from Palm Beach Airport. That jet is
Speaker 1: environmentally red idated within twenty four hours. Get all the
Speaker 1: shit off of it that you need to get off
Speaker 1: of it, all the classified stuff you need to get
Speaker 1: off of it. Get that seven forty seven on a barge,
Speaker 1: take that barge to the shore off of mar A Lago,
Speaker 1: and dump that plane by crane into the water where
Speaker 1: it would become an artificial reef and be declared part
Speaker 1: of a Marine National Park under the Antiquities Act by
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. Then I would take
Speaker 1: in moth bowled old Navy ship, put an anchor on it,
Speaker 1: give a federal grant, and establish a low income diving
Speaker 1: center for all the kids in West Palm Beach so
Speaker 1: they can swim off the shore in mar A Lago
Speaker 1: and onto the next issue. And I think that's how
Speaker 1: you use power. What say you?
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean here, here, I'm I'm for all
Speaker 2: of those things. But I think, look, I think that's
Speaker 2: that is a good microcosm. I understand that some of
Speaker 2: that might have been, you know, tongue in cheek, but
Speaker 2: I do think.
Speaker 1: None of it is. Listen, I get it when I
Speaker 1: say that, people take it as the very serious note.
Speaker 1: Here is no Donald, you can't keep the corrupt gift
Speaker 1: of a five hundred million dollar Katari jet. And we're
Speaker 1: not going to start the next administration after Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: and after what happened in the Obama era with all
Speaker 1: of the Wall Street bankers getting away with it, with
Speaker 1: you keeping the fucking jet. It is the most important
Speaker 1: political issue in the first moment of the next presidency.
Speaker 1: It's not I And I think that's what I worry about.
Speaker 1: The Democrats don't understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, looks. I spent a good deal of the book
Speaker 2: talking about a lot of my time was spent trying
Speaker 2: to figure out how to reconcile a proactive agenda with
Speaker 2: focuses on healthcare, on voting rights, on kitchen table issues,
Speaker 2: on affordability, on an economy that works for people, with
Speaker 2: a progressive tax system that actually has the rich pay
Speaker 2: their fair share, because those people don't give a shit
Speaker 2: about the minutia of politics. At the same time, how
Speaker 2: do you deal with the corruption that we're seeing right now?
Speaker 2: And we did see Merrick Garland's DOJ refuse to lift
Speaker 2: a finger to act in a timely manner to hold
Speaker 2: Trump accountable for what he did in Trump one point zero.
Speaker 2: And I contend that the only reason we see so
Speaker 2: much corruption right now is that it is a direct
Speaker 2: response to the inaction of Merrick Garlands DOJ. And so
Speaker 2: how do you reconcile those two things? But you have
Speaker 2: to do both. You have to both be willing and
Speaker 2: capable of delivering a proactive agenda for people for whom
Speaker 2: what happens at their own kitchen tables, in their own
Speaker 2: houses is all they care about. These people are not
Speaker 2: watching CNBC or CNN and interested in the minutia of politics.
Speaker 2: But there's a whole raft of other people who do
Speaker 2: and who understand. Rightfully, I would contend that if you
Speaker 2: don't have an actual system of law and order in
Speaker 2: this country, then you're doomed to repeat these problems over
Speaker 2: and over again. And Trump's corruption right now isn't just
Speaker 2: happening in a vacuum. It's not just allowing him to
Speaker 2: get rich. We don't even know if he's acting in
Speaker 2: the best interests of the United States when he has
Speaker 2: a mean coin or cryptocurrency, not where he accepts money
Speaker 2: from UAE and Qatar, where he's offering breaks on our
Speaker 2: tariff policy so that he can confer some direct personal
Speaker 2: benefit to himself. So there is a national security impetus
Speaker 2: to actually uphold the rule of law in this country
Speaker 2: and to prevent this corruption from proliferating. So I'm in
Speaker 2: complete agreement that the inability or unwillingness to hold Trump
Speaker 2: accountable for the corruption that he engaged in Trump one
Speaker 2: point zero is exactly why we landed here, exactly why
Speaker 2: this country is in a weaker position on a national
Speaker 2: security front, on an economic front, on a on a
Speaker 2: humanitarian front than we've ever been. So, so one hundred percent,
Speaker 2: if you don't have a DJ that's willing to to
Speaker 2: step up, start acting like adults, and start wielding the power,
Speaker 2: it has against people who are engaging in overt corruption.
Speaker 2: You are one hundred percent doomed to continue repeating the
Speaker 2: mistakes that landed us where we are right now.
Speaker 1: Right, last last question for you. You're such an important
Speaker 1: voice in all of this, in a committed progressive voice
Speaker 1: with a lot of conviction and integrity. UH, speaking to
Speaker 1: your to your belief in that in that space a
Speaker 1: patriotic American, how do you how do you feel and
Speaker 1: how do you think about the dimensions of the coalition,
Speaker 1: the big kent that is required to bury this under
Speaker 1: the concrete sarcophagus that we agree we need to bury
Speaker 1: it under.
Speaker 2: Great question. I think, at its core, and you may disagree,
Speaker 2: I think at its core, politics is cobbling together a coalition.
Speaker 2: That's what it is. Obama was able to do it
Speaker 2: in two thousand and eight and twenty twelve, and that's
Speaker 2: why he got into a position where he could exercise power.
Speaker 2: I think that that there is an increasing move toward
Speaker 2: purity on the left. I can't speak to why. I
Speaker 2: guess you can say the same thing about the right,
Speaker 2: because at the end of the day, the only long
Speaker 2: standing principle that we see among maga Republicans is allegiance
Speaker 2: to Trump. He can say he's anti war one day
Speaker 2: and they'll all beat their chest and say we're anti war.
Speaker 2: The next day he goes and you know, engages in
Speaker 2: what is now a five month war with Iran that's
Speaker 2: cost one hundred and thirty billion dollars, and they're all
Speaker 2: cheering him on and refusing to hold him to to.
Speaker 1: To South Park episode.
Speaker 2: Right. So, but as far as the left is concerned,
Speaker 2: you know, I can't I can't speak to what Maga
Speaker 2: Republicans are going to do to debase themselves today in
Speaker 2: deference to Trump. But on the left, I think that
Speaker 2: the increasing move toward purity is going to be the
Speaker 2: biggest obstacle in terms of cobbling together any coalition that's
Speaker 2: going to allow us to get into office and ultimately
Speaker 2: wield power. And that's dangerous because you know, if we're
Speaker 2: in a position where we are demanding, where we are
Speaker 2: demanding one hundred percent purity from a party that just
Speaker 2: lost the House, the Senate, the White House, and the
Speaker 2: popular vote, we're not going to be in a position
Speaker 2: to actually do anything to get us closer to the
Speaker 2: to the very agenda items to the very platform that
Speaker 2: we claim to want to impose and so and so,
Speaker 2: you know, I think that there has to be an
Speaker 2: understanding from people on the left. And this is an
Speaker 2: example that I use. I'm sure it's overused at this point,
Speaker 2: but politics is not a car that brings you to
Speaker 2: directly to your front door. It's a bus that gets
Speaker 2: you closest to where you want to be. That might
Speaker 2: still be a few blocks away from your house. It
Speaker 2: might be a few miles away from your house. But
Speaker 2: you want to build up a coalition that will get
Speaker 2: you as close to where you want to go, because
Speaker 2: getting somewhere is better than getting nowhere. And I think
Speaker 2: that we are seeing right now the downfall of being
Speaker 2: being in the minority everywhere where. You know, these Republicans
Speaker 2: who have no deference, no adherence to the constitution, the
Speaker 2: rule of law, even democracy itself. Having them in power
Speaker 2: is putting us as far away from all of these
Speaker 2: outcomes that we could possibly want. So I think at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, you know, we're seeing a
Speaker 2: lot of infighting between DSA types and leftists versus moderate
Speaker 2: Republicans and just you know, liberal democrats. I think it's
Speaker 2: okay during this primary process that you know, we debate
Speaker 2: these ideas and get them out into the open, and
Speaker 2: that's what healthy democracy looks like. But that there has
Speaker 2: to be some understanding in the aftermath of all this
Speaker 2: that even even just ideological differences on the left, that
Speaker 2: the most important thing is going to be coming together
Speaker 2: to defeat a republican party that is a clear and
Speaker 2: present danger to democracy itself. And once that is undermined,
Speaker 2: then you know, once democracy itself is undermined, that it
Speaker 2: doesn't matter how pure you are in your convictions, because
Speaker 2: you're going to be so far away from being able
Speaker 2: to wield power that it's not going to matter whether
Speaker 2: whether you're a leftist or a moderate. We're not going
Speaker 2: to have any democracy to protect. And so I think
Speaker 2: I think that's how I think about all of this.
Speaker 1: Brian Tyler Cohen, everybody, and this is a really important
Speaker 1: book for everybody to go out and read, because we
Speaker 1: have to have discussions about what to do. And this
Speaker 1: is not going to be a presidential campaign where I
Speaker 1: think the typical banalities and talking points and pat ya
Speaker 1: on the head and give you a little bit of
Speaker 1: sugar is gonna is going to work out. I think
Speaker 1: that we're talking about the most powerful office in the
Speaker 1: world and the most powerful people in the world. And
Speaker 1: I encourage every one of you, no matter what your
Speaker 1: political beliefs are, is to approach power with skepticism, not fandom,
Speaker 1: and that these are not rock stars, these are not
Speaker 1: movie stars, these are not celebrities. These are people who
Speaker 1: make decisions of life and death, and they're influenced by
Speaker 1: powerful interests, and what you want to make sure is
Speaker 1: that they're on your side. And as we go through
Speaker 1: a recovery era and a renewal era in America, one
Speaker 1: of the rhythmic aspects of the country is that through
Speaker 1: crisis we have typically emerged stronger, but we don't know
Speaker 1: yet where we are in that crisis cycle, and things
Speaker 1: in America, though it may not seem like it today,
Speaker 1: can get much worse than they already are. And I
Speaker 1: think we're in a consequence phase for the catastrophic decisions
Speaker 1: that we passed every exit on the old proverbial parkway
Speaker 1: on which we could have exited this disaster but did not,
Speaker 1: And so here we are, and it's a long way
Speaker 1: to the next exit. We have ninety nine days to
Speaker 1: the midterm elections. Democrats will have control the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: There will be an election. Trump will try to interfere
Speaker 1: with that election. He will try to undermine faith in
Speaker 1: that election, but the American people won't stand for it.
Speaker 1: And an important voice for the preservation of our democracy,
Speaker 1: our liberty, and our dignity at human being as human beings,
Speaker 1: Brian Tyler Cone, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: You got it.
Speaker 1: Great book. Everybody