Speaker 1: So salitarianism and monopoly go in and don't make the
Speaker 1: healthcare system any worse, don't jack up premiums on people
Speaker 1: by seventy five percent, and.
Speaker 2: Don't act lawlessly.
Speaker 1: History tells us that when the people stand up, something
Speaker 1: magical happens.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't need to remind everybody that the government
Speaker 3: is shut down, but we are not shut out from
Speaker 3: getting a deeper understanding of what's going on in Washington, DC,
Speaker 3: because we have one of the most prominent democratic voices,
Speaker 3: someone who has been a fierce defender of democracy and
Speaker 3: free speech, who is one of the leaders in the
Speaker 3: resistance against Trump and trump Ism, that can unpack and
Speaker 3: unveil what's going on with healthcare in this country, what's
Speaker 3: going on in terms of negotiation with the government shut down,
Speaker 3: but also broad in the aperture to what's going on
Speaker 3: in American cities with the increasing militarization with our National Guard,
Speaker 3: and what's happening to the state of our democracy. This
Speaker 3: is Gavin Newson. This is Senator Chris Murphy. Senator Murphy,
Speaker 3: it's great that you took the time to be with
Speaker 3: us today. I continue to make this point behind your
Speaker 3: back anytime I'm asked, they said, who do you admire
Speaker 3: out there in the Democratic Party? Who from your perspective,
Speaker 3: particularly in Washington, TC stands out And every single time
Speaker 3: first name comes out of my mouth is you, sir.
Speaker 3: And so I'm grateful for this opportunity to check in
Speaker 3: and check up on what's going on in this country,
Speaker 3: including just what happened as we're taping this. Just an
Speaker 3: hour or so ago Pam Bondy, the Attorney General of
Speaker 3: the United States, at an oversight hearing that sounded more
Speaker 3: like cross examination coming from Pam Bondy doing op research
Speaker 3: on Democratic senators.
Speaker 1: So what was your reflection of that, Well, Governor, awesome
Speaker 1: to be with you, man, The compliment is turned straight
Speaker 1: back around.
Speaker 2: What you're doing out in California is.
Speaker 1: Absolutely a central People need to feel like we are powerful,
Speaker 1: not powerless right now, and you're delivering people that sensation
Speaker 1: that there's still things we can do to save our democracy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I watched some clips of that hearing. You know,
Speaker 1: she acts like, you know, somebody who works for a
Speaker 1: guy who believes he's a king, right it, believes that
Speaker 1: they're accountable to no one. She clearly showed zero deference
Speaker 1: for the United States Congress and Senate. That's probably understandable
Speaker 1: given her combative boss and how you know what she
Speaker 1: wants folks out there making news and creating viral clips.
Speaker 1: But you know, it just is representative of the way
Speaker 1: the entire administration operates. They're not bound by the law,
Speaker 1: they're not bound by the Constitution. They don't believe they're
Speaker 1: accountable to the people. They certainly don't believe they're accountable
Speaker 1: to the Senate. And I think that's wearing thin on folks.
Speaker 1: You know, eighty percent of Americans now say that we're
Speaker 1: in the middle of a political crisis. More than fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the country is worried about losing their right
Speaker 1: to free.
Speaker 2: Speech and the show.
Speaker 1: So I don't think she does her boss any favors by,
Speaker 1: you know, acting so childish representing the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: in front of the United States Senate. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you think differently.
Speaker 3: It's interesting, and you know, I want to unpack that
Speaker 3: because I think the point you're making is an important
Speaker 3: point about how quote unquote unpopular so many of the positions,
Speaker 3: not just the president's overall popularity itself, but a lot
Speaker 3: of the positions he has been promoting, including members of
Speaker 3: his own administration. But I wonder if just in the
Speaker 3: administration of oversight, did you reflect on that and reflect
Speaker 3: on the fact that Democrats may need to change their
Speaker 3: tactics in terms of how they even begin to, you know,
Speaker 3: prepare for subsequent oversight hearings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, these hearings are becoming jokes because she's
Speaker 1: not even attempting to answer these questions. You know, when
Speaker 1: we send basic oversight letters to these agencies to ask
Speaker 1: questions about how they're spending money, they never ever respond.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, I do think you need to understand
Speaker 1: that right now, they perceive these hearings to be reality
Speaker 1: TV shows, and you're, unfortunately, whether you like it or not,
Speaker 1: going to have to approach the hearings in that way.
Speaker 1: But I also think Governor, you know that we've got
Speaker 1: to make clear that the oversight here, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to the illegality, is permanent, right because someday Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to be back in charge of the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate. Someday we're going to have the power
Speaker 1: of subpoenas. Someday there's going to be people in the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice who actually want to administer the law
Speaker 1: on its face, and so I just think we're going
Speaker 1: to need to say to these folks and save your records,
Speaker 1: because if any of you have committed actual, real illegality,
Speaker 1: you know you are ultimately going to have to be
Speaker 1: held accountable for that, either by being hauled before Congress
Speaker 1: and be forced to swim in and tell the truth
Speaker 1: and be held accountable for perjury, or before a court
Speaker 1: of laws. So the oversight is going to be much
Speaker 1: more real and much more forceful when Democrats are back
Speaker 1: in charge.
Speaker 2: And we'll get to getting back in charge.
Speaker 3: Talk a little bit about redistricting in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 3: particularly as it relates to not just the Senate but
Speaker 3: obviously the House. But first I want to sort of
Speaker 3: paint the picture of where we are today where now
Speaker 3: this government shut down. We haven't broken any records, but
Speaker 3: were not necessarily break in any new ground in terms
Speaker 3: of breakthroughs based upon at least what I'm reading and
Speaker 3: understanding and hearing, as it relates to the prospects of
Speaker 3: a deal, where you think things stand at this stage,
Speaker 3: and how do you think we have positioned ourselves the
Speaker 3: Democratic Party, and how do you think we get out
Speaker 3: on the other side.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think it's first of all important
Speaker 1: to understand that Trump is rooting for a shutdown, right
Speaker 1: because he does believe that he has these extraordinary powers.
Speaker 1: He's come to believe that those powers get bigger in
Speaker 1: a shutdown. That's not true. He also roots for chaos,
Speaker 1: and the fact of the matter is there's more chaos
Speaker 1: when the government is shut down. Cruelty is the point
Speaker 1: to this administration, and things get crueler when head start
Speaker 1: centers don't open and federal employees don't get their paycheck.
Speaker 1: But what Democrats' priorities are here are pretty damn reasonable.
Speaker 2: What are we asking for.
Speaker 1: We're saying, listen, the healthcare system isn't fair and it's
Speaker 1: a mess. We just don't want it to get worse
Speaker 1: this fall, when premiums are scheduled to increase on people
Speaker 1: who have Affordable Care Act plans by seventy one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: So let's just make sure that those premium increases don't
Speaker 1: go into effect. And then second, let's make sure that
Speaker 1: if we write a budget that says you have to
Speaker 1: spend money in all fifty states, the president is actually
Speaker 1: required to spend money in all fifty states instead of
Speaker 1: not spending money in places like California, in New York
Speaker 1: and Connecticut that are represented by Democrats and spending money
Speaker 1: in states represented by Republicans. So I mean our asks
Speaker 1: are pretty minimalist. Just don't make the healthcare system any worse,
Speaker 1: don't jack up premiums on people by seventy five percent,
Speaker 1: and don't act lawlessly. If we get those two things
Speaker 1: included in this budget, then I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see democratic votes, and I think increasingly the American publicers
Speaker 1: are beginning to see that, you know, what we're asking
Speaker 1: for is pretty damn popular and not terribly piggish.
Speaker 3: And it seems to have been reflected in the president's
Speaker 3: own comments, where it seemed at least politically attuned to
Speaker 3: the popularity of healthcare and the imperative to actually figure
Speaker 3: this out, suggesting that he's quote unquote a Republican but
Speaker 3: likes healthcare and thinks he can quote unquote make a deal,
Speaker 3: but doesn't seem to me there's any substantive conversations, or
Speaker 3: are there substantive conversations being held?
Speaker 1: There are not, and the clearest evidence of how unseerious
Speaker 1: Republicans are about negotiating is the fact that they're not here,
Speaker 1: so the House of Representatives is not in session. This
Speaker 1: is the third week that they've been on kind of
Speaker 1: an unscheduled recess. Part of that is that they don't
Speaker 1: really want to negotiate away out of the shutdown. Part
Speaker 1: of that we can talk about it is that they're
Speaker 1: about to vote on the Epstein resolution, and a minute
Speaker 1: they come back into session, a new Democrat will be
Speaker 1: sworn in, giving them the magic number of votes on
Speaker 1: a resolution that would force a debate and vote on
Speaker 1: the Epstein resolution. But no, there are no real negotiations
Speaker 1: happening right now. But you know, those premium increases are
Speaker 1: getting closer and closer and closer, And as more Americans
Speaker 1: get their notices that they're about to see a five thousand,
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars increase in premiums, the pressure is going
Speaker 1: to mount on Republicans to come to the table and
Speaker 1: reopen the government while also making sure that people don't
Speaker 1: get hurt from a healthcare perspective. And I mean, you
Speaker 1: know the real world consequences yere. We're not talking about numbers.
Speaker 1: This isn't about politics. This is you know, people who
Speaker 1: are going to have to make a really hard decision
Speaker 1: about whether to keep their healthcare or let it lapse
Speaker 1: and potentially based bankruptcy, or pay the increased premium and
Speaker 1: just you know, have their kids go without lunch three
Speaker 1: days a week, or just not have Christmas presents under
Speaker 1: the tree this winter. I mean, their real consequences to
Speaker 1: these premium spiking for middle class families all across the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 3: I mean the magnitude of those those premium increases are
Speaker 3: pretty jaw dropping. Did we just put out in California, which,
Speaker 3: of course we provide more coverage than any other state
Speaker 3: just by the dairy nature and size and scope and
Speaker 3: scale of our state. But we have very familiar here
Speaker 3: on the exchange in California what they call the Bronze Plan,
Speaker 3: which is the Middle Plan for folks and anthem. And
Speaker 3: you got premiums that will go from three hundred and
Speaker 3: seven dollars to nine hundred and sixty four dollars a month.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just so it's on average, we talk
Speaker 3: about the agurate, but people will see tripling in some
Speaker 3: cases up to three hundred and eighty eight percent and
Speaker 3: an average of ninety seven percent of those increases, and
Speaker 3: we expect six hundred thousand people to lose insurance because
Speaker 3: they can't afford it in California, and I know we're
Speaker 3: talking four plus million across the United States. So I
Speaker 3: appreciate the painting of that picture with clarity and sticking
Speaker 3: to two easy issues to understand. Congressionally approved appropriations. Congress
Speaker 3: the purse, here's where money. We both approved the legislative
Speaker 3: and executive branch where it needs to go. And the
Speaker 3: President shouldn't utilaterally change that course, that commitment, that direction
Speaker 3: and healthcare. But I'm curious if I could just step
Speaker 3: back center what was without breaking confidence. But I'm curious
Speaker 3: the Democratic Caucus the determination last time not to move
Speaker 3: forward with the government shut down. Lessons learned the expectation
Speaker 3: that you needed to prepare for this moment, particularly with
Speaker 3: someone as you suggest, it was more interesting in golfing
Speaker 3: before the shutdown, and obviously had no interest in meeting
Speaker 3: with the leaders because he canceled that first meeting and
Speaker 3: then in that last meeting just trolled those leaders in
Speaker 3: the Oval Office with a twenty twenty eight Trump Patty
Speaker 3: was never serious to your point about negotiating, but knowing
Speaker 3: that was what was the journey since the last time,
Speaker 3: we decided to continue to allow government to stay open
Speaker 3: to the determination this time to get a little bit
Speaker 3: tougher in terms of the approach.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, we have so few moments of leverage,
Speaker 1: moments where we have power as a minority. Right Republicans,
Speaker 1: whether we like it or not, they run the White House,
Speaker 1: the House, and the Senate, and so when they do
Speaker 1: need our votes, I mean, it's really our moral responsibility
Speaker 1: on behalf of the people we represent to stand up
Speaker 1: for things we believe, you know, not to you know,
Speaker 1: be pollyannish about what we're ultimately going to get, but
Speaker 1: to stand up for a few things that will help people.
Speaker 1: You know, I disagreed with the decision backing in the
Speaker 1: fall to vote for a budget that was essentially written
Speaker 1: only by Republicans that didn't solve any of the problems
Speaker 1: that they.
Speaker 2: Were in the midst of creating.
Speaker 1: But you know, a few things are different that I think,
Speaker 1: you know, allows Democrats to be right now really united
Speaker 1: around using our leverage.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: One, you know, people see Trump I think more clearly
Speaker 1: now than they did back then. As approval ratings are
Speaker 1: you know, ten points lower too. The pain is you know,
Speaker 1: more real now that that big beautiful bill has passed.
Speaker 1: Premiums are about to go up on millions of Americans.
Speaker 1: So the pain is acute right now in a way
Speaker 1: that maybe it wasn't in March. And then, you know,
Speaker 1: back in March, I think there were a lot of
Speaker 1: folks who were worried about his attacks on democracy. But
Speaker 1: maybe we're sort of hoping for the best case. Now
Speaker 1: they see that we are in the middle of a
Speaker 1: totalitarian takeover. If it's not arrested, if it's not stopped,
Speaker 1: they are trying to rig the rules, and thank goodness
Speaker 1: for you and what you're doing in California, they are
Speaker 1: trying to you know, create a state run media.
Speaker 2: They are trying to use.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice to suppress dissent and lock up
Speaker 1: their critics. So you know, that level of alarm is
Speaker 1: much higher. And I just think, you know, it's not
Speaker 1: just Democrats who want us to fight and draw a line.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a big part of the middle of
Speaker 1: the country too. So the demand for us to show power,
Speaker 1: I just think is a lot more amplified today that
Speaker 1: it was back in the Spring, which is also why
Speaker 1: so many people all around this country, left, middle, and
Speaker 1: center are cheering what you're doing to show that we
Speaker 1: are not powerless against his efforts to try to rig
Speaker 1: the rules.
Speaker 3: So where do you see? I mean, is this we
Speaker 3: look at another week, two month? I mean, you're going
Speaker 3: to be back at this in seven, six and a
Speaker 3: half weeks or six weeks. Isn't there another this sort
Speaker 3: of date with destiny in terms of just extending this
Speaker 3: narrative even be I know we're talking about this continuing
Speaker 3: resolution seven weeks, but that just gets us to another
Speaker 3: point where we're going to have another potential shut down.
Speaker 3: I mean, is this the bond markets that ultimately we're
Speaker 3: going to determine that we're going to break this chill?
Speaker 3: Is it the stock market that ultimately is going to
Speaker 3: force everybody to come to the table.
Speaker 2: What's your gut? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean my gut is that Republicans are already starting
Speaker 1: to sweat a little bit. Something interesting happened just about
Speaker 1: ten minutes ago. So we had our lunches today, the
Speaker 1: Republicans all huddle for lunch, Democrats all huddle for lunch,
Speaker 1: and the Republicans came out of their lunch with a
Speaker 1: brand new message, one that we hadn't heard before. Their
Speaker 1: message today was, well, Democrats have this big protest coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the No King's Rally on October eighteenth, and
Speaker 1: so they want to keep the government shut down until
Speaker 1: the No King's Rally, which I've never heard from them before.
Speaker 1: They clearly knew what they were saying yesterday was working,
Speaker 1: and they're scrambling to come up with some new message.
Speaker 1: And I think it's just all a sign Governor that
Speaker 1: you know, they are feeling the heat because they're getting
Speaker 1: more and more calls and emails from constituents who are like, hey,
Speaker 1: what the hell are you going to do about this
Speaker 1: seventy five percent increase. So my guess, if I had
Speaker 1: to put money out of today, is that this isn't
Speaker 1: another month that Republicans come to the table sometime soon
Speaker 1: and say, listen, help help us, help ourselves. Let's get
Speaker 1: rid of these premium increases and listen. That would that
Speaker 1: would help a lot of people, and it would show,
Speaker 1: you know, for the first time all year that you know,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party has fight and has relevance, and so
Speaker 1: I love the optimism.
Speaker 3: I mean, it would be a hell of a victory
Speaker 3: for millions and millions of Democrats, Republicans, independence. To your point,
Speaker 3: the twenty plus million people that are directly impacted, millions
Speaker 3: more indirectly impacted. It's not Democrats or Republicans. These are Americans,
Speaker 3: and that would be that would be extraordinary outcome. Let
Speaker 3: me ask you just you know, in terms of you've
Speaker 3: used the word totalitarian. We started as it relates to
Speaker 3: the oversight conversation about use the word Kings, not just
Speaker 3: in relationship to the October eighteen NOME King's rally. I mean,
Speaker 3: I remember the old Chris Murphy. You know, it was
Speaker 3: the bipartisan you're working across the aisle, actually producing real results.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm old enough to remember the most significant
Speaker 3: at least in my lifetime thirty plus years, safer Communities Act,
Speaker 3: the work you did mental health and gun safety in
Speaker 3: a bipartisan way.
Speaker 2: But I've noticed much more well, I don't.
Speaker 3: Want to say strident, but I see a Democrat who's
Speaker 3: leading the resistance that has more clarity on free speech
Speaker 3: in terms of more conviction perhaps and expression around it,
Speaker 3: as well as democracy and using language that I understand
Speaker 3: that I think is very resident. I'm curious your own
Speaker 3: evolution in that respect, and was there a moment that
Speaker 3: sort of hit you where you said, I'm going to
Speaker 3: I'm going to dial things up a little bit.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I appreciate that coming from you, because
Speaker 1: we have also watched you at a moment where this
Speaker 1: party has been desperate for leadership, bold leadership. We've seen
Speaker 1: you step out and frankly take risks, which is which
Speaker 1: is what I think this country is desperate for us
Speaker 1: to do, to show that we understand the gravity of
Speaker 1: this moment and show that we are willing to take
Speaker 1: risks on behalf of saving the democracy.
Speaker 2: And probably fifty is a risk, right, not.
Speaker 1: Destined to succeed, but but can and will if we
Speaker 1: put our work behind it. So I appreciate you saying that. Yeah, listen,
Speaker 1: I just see these guys, and I saw these guys early.
Speaker 1: They are not Democrats, small d you know, inside the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, they have come to believe over the last
Speaker 1: four years that democracy is just not worth it any
Speaker 1: longer if it elects Democrats.
Speaker 2: They have come to believe.
Speaker 1: That, you know, our support for multiculturalism and civil rights
Speaker 1: and human rights and feminism is you know, an assault
Speaker 1: on the very idea of Americanism, and their version of
Speaker 1: Americanism is a Christian, white male dominated America. So they
Speaker 1: want to get rid of us at any cost, and
Speaker 1: if that cost is the erasure or the weakening of democracy,
Speaker 1: then they're willing to live with that. So to me,
Speaker 1: this is all a plan. I mean, a really well
Speaker 1: thought out plan to capture the media, to use the
Speaker 1: doj to, which hunts to rig the rules, to change
Speaker 1: the facts, as an attempt to just try to suffocate
Speaker 1: the opposition so that.
Speaker 2: We don't have enough room to operate.
Speaker 1: And last thing I'll say is that, you know, I
Speaker 1: think some people say, well, as long as there's you know,
Speaker 1: no cancelation of elections, we're in good shape. Well I
Speaker 1: don't think they're canceling the elections. I think they're just
Speaker 1: going to, you know, do what they've done in Turkey
Speaker 1: and Hungary and other countries like that, where the opposition
Speaker 1: party still exists, but they just you know, don't have
Speaker 1: enough space to operate, or the rules are are changed,
Speaker 1: like the shape of districts, so that even if the
Speaker 1: president is wildly unpopular, we can't win. I just see
Speaker 1: these guys, and I know it sounds extreme to suggest
Speaker 1: that Republicans are actually trying to engineer an erosion or
Speaker 1: a destruction of our democracy. And I don't think every
Speaker 1: Republican believes that there's still a lot of Republicans in
Speaker 1: the Senate who want to protect democracy, but there are some,
Speaker 1: there are some real radicals inside the White House who
Speaker 1: do have plans to convert America to something different than
Speaker 1: liberal democracy. And I just think we have to see
Speaker 1: it and understand it so that we recognize, as you are,
Speaker 1: you know, how loud our fight has to be.
Speaker 3: How do we overstate or do we understate the influence
Speaker 3: of the omb director rest vote.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he's just you know, one of
Speaker 1: many in that White House who who's operationalizing this plan
Speaker 1: to you know, constrict the space that the opposition has
Speaker 1: to to operate. I mean, what he's doing recently is
Speaker 1: another tried and true tactic of would be authoritarians. He's
Speaker 1: you know, pausing funding for democratic states, and he's you know,
Speaker 1: hoping that Democrats will essentially bend or self censor themselves
Speaker 1: so that they get their money turned back on. It
Speaker 1: wasn't lost on any of us in the Democratic Caucus
Speaker 1: that when they canceled a whole bunch of energy projects.
Speaker 1: One of the states that was exempted was Nevada. One
Speaker 1: of the two Democratic centers from Nevada voted for Trump's
Speaker 1: continuing resolution. So it's a very clear signal. If you
Speaker 1: vote with me as a Democrat, your money will continue.
Speaker 1: If you don't vote with me, the money's turned off. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I just think he's he's playing his role,
Speaker 1: But I tend to think that it's more, you know,
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller and that crowd out of the White House
Speaker 1: that's orchestrating a lot of the day to day operations
Speaker 1: of trying.
Speaker 2: To on your mind our democratic norms, and.
Speaker 3: Those democratic norms now include the militarization of American cities.
Speaker 3: We saw that obviously firsthand here in California, not just
Speaker 3: with the federalization of the National Guard thousands and thousands,
Speaker 3: but seven hundred active duty Marines that were sent to
Speaker 3: a US city. We said it at the time, this
Speaker 3: is a preview of things to come. Obviously Washington, DC
Speaker 3: has its own criterion conditions, but clearly takes shape there
Speaker 3: and now taking shape in cities large and small, Portland
Speaker 3: attempting to militarize those streets with a federal judge appointed
Speaker 3: by Trump who correctly has put a pause, but that's
Speaker 3: not necessarily the case. And you brought up Stephen Miller
Speaker 3: with what he's been able to effectuate in the city
Speaker 3: of Chicago.
Speaker 2: Give us your sense of that.
Speaker 3: Trend line that's growing headlined now and where you think
Speaker 3: things may go if we're not successful in pushing back.
Speaker 1: Well, it's incredibly dangerous, and I do think you have
Speaker 1: to put it in this broader context. You know, at
Speaker 1: the same time that they are sending our troops into
Speaker 1: Portland and Chicago, they are also getting ready a campaign
Speaker 1: to crack down on what they term, you know, far
Speaker 1: left terrorist groups, but that list may include Indivisible and
Speaker 1: move On, just basic run of the mill progressive activist
Speaker 1: groups may all of a sudden be targeted by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice or by the IRS. And so what
Speaker 1: they are doing is using the military, using the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, using the IRS to try to convince people
Speaker 1: that you're just better off staying on the.
Speaker 2: Sidelines, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, we'd be naive to think that troops in
Speaker 1: your city doesn't have an impact on people's willingness to
Speaker 1: show up and protest. We'd be naive to think that
Speaker 1: the threat of IRS action against you're not for profit
Speaker 1: chills your interest to speak truth to power, say what
Speaker 1: you think is true about the immorality of this administration.
Speaker 2: So again I.
Speaker 1: Think it's part of this big, broader plan, And again
Speaker 1: it just raises the stakes on his budget fight, because yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to get people's healthcare saved, but I also
Speaker 1: have no moral obligation to vote for a budget that
Speaker 1: funds the destruction of our democracy, that funds those operations
Speaker 1: at the Department of Defense, at the Department of Revenue,
Speaker 1: at the Internal Revenue Service. So that's why this budget
Speaker 1: has to be, you know, not just good for our
Speaker 1: healthcare system, but good for our democracy too.
Speaker 2: What do you make of you know?
Speaker 3: And the big beautiful bill, as they describe it, the
Speaker 3: ability now for ICE to increase its ranks by aparts
Speaker 3: of ten thousand personnel, which would make it the largest
Speaker 3: domestic police force anywhere in the world. And increasingly it
Speaker 3: seems pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, a political domestic
Speaker 3: police force that appears not to be as committed to
Speaker 3: an oath to the Constitution, but to the oath to
Speaker 3: the President himself. At least how it's played out in
Speaker 3: my state. What do you make of what's happening there,
Speaker 3: not just with the federalization of the Guard and the
Speaker 3: militarization of American cities, but with ice, with border patrol,
Speaker 3: masked men disproportionately out in the streets, sidewalks, parks, playgrounds,
Speaker 3: in and around churches, schools, courthouses.
Speaker 2: You know, I'd say two things.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, I think you have, better than
Speaker 1: anybody else, called out the moral consequences of a private
Speaker 1: police force loyal to the president and not necessarily the
Speaker 1: rule of law doing violence to our neighbors without regard
Speaker 1: on most days as to whether those neighbors.
Speaker 2: Have committed a crime or not.
Speaker 1: But you know, one, I think it's it's really important
Speaker 1: to understand that this isn't popular and Democrats, you know,
Speaker 1: have been really reluctant to talk about anything connected to immigration. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the Democratic Party should get, you know, stronger
Speaker 1: on a message of a secure border. But I also
Speaker 1: think that, you know, folks really don't like what's happening now,
Speaker 1: and we don't appear to folks as a legitimate opposition
Speaker 1: if we're remaining silent. So folks want a secure border,
Speaker 1: but they also don't want ICE going after immigrants who are,
Speaker 1: you know, basically playing by the rules and having committed
Speaker 1: no violent offenses. So I think that that's really really
Speaker 1: important to understand that we've got to talk about what's
Speaker 1: happening and that the people will be will be with us.
Speaker 3: Do you think, I mean one of the things that
Speaker 3: I appreciate, many things that I appreciate about you, is
Speaker 3: your willingness to do your own forensics, your own analysis
Speaker 3: on went right wrong in the last election, but you
Speaker 3: broad in it. You wrote a one I think the
Speaker 3: best maybe the best piece quite literally that I've read,
Speaker 3: looking back at where our party is, looking at the
Speaker 3: present and arguing for a different future. Is your sense
Speaker 3: that our party is finance footing again now? I mean,
Speaker 3: on the basis we could talk a little bit more,
Speaker 3: maybe unpacked, maybe you can illuminate the viewers and listeners
Speaker 3: about what you argued is the challenge for our party.
Speaker 3: But is your sense now that we are back on
Speaker 3: firmer footing than when you wrote that piece a number
Speaker 3: of months ago. Do you feel like our party is
Speaker 3: in better shape or worse shape?
Speaker 2: Are we finding our voice?
Speaker 3: Is this shut down in a perverse sense, helpful in
Speaker 3: terms of just organizing that voice and a clarity of
Speaker 3: what's at stake.
Speaker 1: All right, well, I'm going to turn that question back
Speaker 1: around on you too. But I mean, the polling would
Speaker 1: not tell you that our party is in good shape today.
Speaker 2: We are historically.
Speaker 1: Unpopular and part of that is just, you know, people
Speaker 1: expressing their frustration about Trump's lawlessness through their indictment of
Speaker 1: the opposition that they would hope could have arrested.
Speaker 2: More of it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, he's giving us an opportunity, right, he has
Speaker 1: been exposed as a fake populist. Right he is simply
Speaker 1: operationalizing government to steal from poor people, cut their health
Speaker 1: care to it enrich himself. And so that really commands
Speaker 1: us to try to figure out why we've lost so
Speaker 1: many votes amongst poor people in this country because they're
Speaker 1: now questioning whether this guy is actually righteous, whether this
Speaker 1: guy actually is looking out for them. But they're not
Speaker 1: ready to vote for Democrats. And that's for a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons. Hey, they think we're just as corrupt as
Speaker 1: Republicans are. And so until we get more forceful in
Speaker 1: the way that we talk about how we would reform
Speaker 1: government if we were back in charge, like maybe a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment to ban private money, corporate money on us
Speaker 1: money from campaigns. They're just going to sort of think
Speaker 1: that we're all the same stripe. And then two, you know,
Speaker 1: they perceive us Democrats often to be pretty judgmental about
Speaker 1: them if they don't line up with us on all
Speaker 1: of our social and cultural priorities. And so you know,
Speaker 1: I've gotten in some hot water amongst our friends because
Speaker 1: I've said, listen, I think we should be a party
Speaker 1: who has a tent pole of unrigging our economy and
Speaker 1: unrigging our democracy, and then we should try to let
Speaker 1: into that coalition people who might not agree with us
Speaker 1: on all of the hot button issues, even guns. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean I stopped fighting any harder for those things.
Speaker 1: I just think we can win a lot more elections
Speaker 1: if we were perceived as being, as I said, a
Speaker 1: little less overtly judgmental of people who don't believe in
Speaker 1: everything that you know, me or Gavin Newsom or Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris believes. And let's just open up the aperture a
Speaker 1: little bit to who we invite in, and we might
Speaker 1: find ourselves winning more elections and being able to get
Speaker 1: a lot of good stuff done for the country.
Speaker 3: So is your sense that we're coming to our senses
Speaker 3: in that respect or is it still so situational as
Speaker 3: you opened up about Trump and trump Ism and sort
Speaker 3: of the crisis at hand in this moment, and that
Speaker 3: we're still sort of in this fight or flight in
Speaker 3: terms of playing defense right now before we then get
Speaker 3: back dust off and really talk about that positive alternative
Speaker 3: to Trump and trump Ism that is more inclusive, that
Speaker 3: broadens our appeal to more people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's.
Speaker 1: Probably the former. I think we are right now seized
Speaker 1: with this fight. And of course it doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: if we correct from a policy or messaging standpoint if
Speaker 1: we don't have an election in twenty twenty six or
Speaker 1: we don't have a free and fair election. So it
Speaker 1: is kind of essential at least in twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: for us to make sure that we lose our democracy
Speaker 1: within this twelve month period of time. But I think
Speaker 1: we could probably do a better job of walking and
Speaker 1: chewing gum at the same time. I don't know, Gavin,
Speaker 1: it's just to me, you know, we became a party
Speaker 1: that kind of became addicted to incrementalism. You know, we
Speaker 1: thought that these little adjustments on the margins of the
Speaker 1: market could you know, make people's lives better. I just
Speaker 1: want us to be for big ideas again, ideas that
Speaker 1: are as big as the solutions that people face. And again,
Speaker 1: in the way that you're attacking this threat to democracy,
Speaker 1: you've kind of modeled a belief in big ideas. And
Speaker 1: Trump has big ideas. They're racist, they're responsible, divisive ideas.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is going to have to have some
Speaker 1: bigger ideas if we want to convince people that we
Speaker 1: know how hard their lives are.
Speaker 2: I can't agree with you more.
Speaker 3: I mean those talk about trend lines that have become headlines.
Speaker 3: You've got an economy for decades that hasn't been working
Speaker 3: for folks. And one of the areas that I admire
Speaker 3: you're so focused on as young people, and this notion
Speaker 3: of loneliness and isolation and underscorings for the economic trend
Speaker 3: lines that are now finally being recognized. As a thirty
Speaker 3: year old today living is doing worse than his parents,
Speaker 3: which is the first time in US history that's ever
Speaker 3: been the case. And the more time I spend online,
Speaker 3: more time I spent offline, more time I spend with
Speaker 3: my own kids.
Speaker 2: You know, I can appreciate this, this sort of that's.
Speaker 3: Almost a desperation that I will never ever afford the
Speaker 3: home I'm growing up in, or even imagine even being
Speaker 3: able to pay rent, even if I have two or
Speaker 3: three roommates, or be able to continue to afford the
Speaker 3: quality of life that you or my parents are enjoying.
Speaker 3: And so I think this notion of moving away from
Speaker 3: incrementalism is important, But I also want to unpack this
Speaker 3: notion of isolationism and this notion that increasingly people are
Speaker 3: sort of understanding and unpacking again. You've written a lot
Speaker 3: about it. Maybe you can illuminate us to your thoughts
Speaker 3: in that respect.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it because you know, there's a there's a
Speaker 1: radical change happening in America today, and it does explain
Speaker 1: a lot of our incivility and a lot of our
Speaker 1: political anchor. We've gone through really a period of great
Speaker 1: social withdrawal. And it's not just the pandemic. It really
Speaker 1: dates to, you know, the moment those smartphones got dumped
Speaker 1: in our pockets. Today, the average adult spends half as
Speaker 1: much time every week with friends and family in person
Speaker 1: than they did just thirty years ago. The fall up
Speaker 1: and socialization has been even more severe for our kids.
Speaker 1: They're in some instances spending sixty seventy percent less time
Speaker 1: in in person communion than they were just generations ago.
Speaker 1: You know, you have to work longer hours now to
Speaker 1: be able to make ends meet, so there's less leisure
Speaker 1: time available for you. We have a a isolation and
Speaker 1: loneliness epidemic in this country, and you know, the Surgeon
Speaker 1: General under Biden talked about you know how that has
Speaker 1: health consequences. You're more likely to have heart disease, dementia
Speaker 1: if you're spending more time alone. But it has practical
Speaker 1: considerations for our politics. I mean, I bet you a
Speaker 1: lot of those people who were riding at the Capitol
Speaker 1: on January sixth were pretty lonely people that came to
Speaker 1: believe these conspiracy theories about Democrats because they were first
Speaker 1: sad about their loneliness, and then they were angry about
Speaker 1: it and they wanted to.
Speaker 2: Take it out on somebody.
Speaker 1: So, you know, I just think that you know, the
Speaker 1: in that founding document, it says that government is supposed
Speaker 1: to guarantee the right to pursue happiness and happiness is rooted, yeah,
Speaker 1: in your career, but mostly in your relationships, mostly in
Speaker 1: you know, how connected you feel to your community. So
Speaker 1: I would love a conversation about how we kind of
Speaker 1: unwind this cycle of social withdrawal. And I think we
Speaker 1: should start with our kids. You and I am raising
Speaker 1: kids in this age of smartphones. You and I talked
Speaker 1: about it last time we saw each other in person.
Speaker 1: I remember you having done a better job than I
Speaker 1: have and my kid's mom has in keeping our kids
Speaker 1: away from that technology. But you know, you could just
Speaker 1: start by restricting the access kids after social media, giving
Speaker 1: them a chance at meeting each other more often, and
Speaker 1: then maybe that would spin them into healthier adults. I
Speaker 1: just think it's a real important and unifying conversation because
Speaker 1: like right and left, don't feel differently about the poison
Speaker 1: that's being handed to our kids. They want us to
Speaker 1: step up and do something.
Speaker 3: I completely concurrent in terms of just the universality of
Speaker 3: the concerns and the consideration of how we can I mean,
Speaker 3: this is about communitarianism. It's not about political party. It's
Speaker 3: about our shared experience, shared humanity. And I think this
Speaker 3: explains more things and more ways on more days in
Speaker 3: terms of our politics and unpacking that is critical and
Speaker 3: the interest of trying to sort of unpack more issues
Speaker 3: and distill in a very short period of time. I
Speaker 3: want to unpack a little bit about your reference a
Speaker 3: moment that very much is in line with what we
Speaker 3: were just talking and you mentioned media and passing. You
Speaker 3: obviously have tried to meet the moment with the Nope Act,
Speaker 3: which I want to talk about in a second, in
Speaker 3: relationship to what happened with Jimmy Kimmel. But there's a
Speaker 3: lot happening with social media. TikTok now peers to be
Speaker 3: transferring hands to American investors disproportionate number that have strong
Speaker 3: ties to the Temper administration. We've seen what's happened with
Speaker 3: Paramount deal and obviously new announcement to the new Barry
Speaker 3: Weise who's going to be running CBS, and just a
Speaker 3: shift now consolidation into hands of fewer and fewer people.
Speaker 3: Seems like more oversight, or at least more settlements that
Speaker 3: imply more oversight, including with YouTube that's sending twenty two
Speaker 3: million dollars of a twenty four and a half million
Speaker 3: dollars settlement to build a new ballroom that is not,
Speaker 3: by the way, be packed it by the government shut
Speaker 3: down the construction there. What's your what's your sense of
Speaker 3: what's happening the media landscape in this.
Speaker 2: Well that doesn't sound too good when you, you know,
Speaker 2: lay it out that way. Leading question here.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, like you know this, you know, totalitarianism
Speaker 1: and monopoly go hand in hand. You know, it's really
Speaker 1: important to you know, somebody that's seeking to contract the
Speaker 1: space for descents to you know, be able to pull
Speaker 1: the levers of media control. And it's really really worrying
Speaker 1: that increasingly there's a really small number of people in
Speaker 1: this country who control the platforms upon which we communicate.
Speaker 2: The algorithms really matter there.
Speaker 1: And control the sources of news that we all consume.
Speaker 1: You mentioned this, You know this one company that's essentially
Speaker 1: controlled by the Ellison family. They're very very close to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. They just bought up Paramount, which on CBS
Speaker 1: and immediately installed Arry Wise, right leaning commentator in charge
Speaker 1: of the news.
Speaker 2: They now are.
Speaker 1: Looking to buy an even bigger media company that includes CNN.
Speaker 1: They may have control of TikTok. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: one family now that could have CBS, CNN, TikTok, and
Speaker 1: you saw what happened to Kimmel when the state starts
Speaker 1: to use its regulatory power to act on small and
Speaker 1: medium sized actors and say, if you want to keep
Speaker 1: your license or you want to ever get a merger approved,
Speaker 1: you've got to listen to us in terms of who
Speaker 1: can speak and who can't speak. Again, this is you know,
Speaker 1: what's been happening in Hungary over the past twenty years,
Speaker 1: is that the government just starts to cut deals with
Speaker 1: very rich people. Will let you take ownership over this
Speaker 1: media company and will make you We'll let you make
Speaker 1: a lot of money off of it, but you have
Speaker 1: to tilt the coverage towards us. And it's pretty clear
Speaker 1: and in fact, pretty brazen and transparent that that's what
Speaker 1: Trump is time to do. So you know, we've got to,
Speaker 1: you know, speak up about that. But we also have
Speaker 1: to tell people that if you put Democrats in charge,
Speaker 1: we're going to do something about these media monopolies. I
Speaker 1: think that's actually pretty popular because I think folks out
Speaker 1: there don't like the fact that, you know, the news
Speaker 1: is being controlled by a small handful of individuals and
Speaker 1: companies in this country.
Speaker 3: So after what occurred with Jimmy Kimmel and the SCC
Speaker 3: and concerns. You introduced an actual strategy to respond to that,
Speaker 3: not just rhetoric, but actual legislative plan referred to and
Speaker 3: you're of an act. There's the NOPE Act. Unpack that.
Speaker 3: What's the N and O and P and E stand for?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it is important also to just remember that,
Speaker 1: you know, Kimmel's back on the air, right, and it's
Speaker 1: another demonstration of you know, our power. In that case,
Speaker 1: it was commercial power that we you know, used our
Speaker 1: powers consumers to say that Disney listens are going to
Speaker 1: be consequences to you if you essentially engaged in Trump's
Speaker 1: censorship regime. And we can do that again through our
Speaker 1: commercial power. But we also have that same power politically.
Speaker 1: So you know, the notepack is, you know, is a
Speaker 1: is a bill about banning political prosecutions. So we just
Speaker 1: set up a whole new set of common sense defenses
Speaker 1: that individuals would have in court if they ever got
Speaker 1: prosecuted for free speech. Now it's illegal to arrest somebody
Speaker 1: just because they're protesting the government, but that hasn't stopped
Speaker 1: Trump from doing it.
Speaker 2: I don't remember if it.
Speaker 1: Was Stalin or some other famous totalitarian and once you
Speaker 1: know said show me the person and I'll.
Speaker 2: Find you the crime.
Speaker 1: Right like you know, you can dig up something somebody
Speaker 1: has done and alleged it is a crime, even though
Speaker 1: your underlying motivation is really to punish their speech. What
Speaker 1: this bill does is just set up a number of
Speaker 1: defenses you raise in court if you believe you're being
Speaker 1: persecuted for speech, and allows you to ultimately collect attorneys
Speaker 1: fees and have repercussions against the charging agent if it
Speaker 1: turns out that you were unconstitutionally pursued for your political activity.
Speaker 2: So listen, I don't I don't have any.
Speaker 1: Illusions that that bill is going to pass in a
Speaker 1: Republican Congress. But it's just another way for us to
Speaker 1: raise for folks the specter of what they're doing.
Speaker 3: So let's in finishing up here, I want to sort
Speaker 3: of go back to the beginning and just you know,
Speaker 3: you made the point on multiple occasions, including the reference
Speaker 3: to how people really use their voice and express their
Speaker 3: disdain for what occurred and put a lot of pressure
Speaker 3: on Disney and Kimmel getting back on air in no
Speaker 3: large part was because of people exercising their free speech
Speaker 3: and pushing back. You mentioned the No King's rally on
Speaker 3: October eighteenth. You mentioned as well Indivisible and other organizations
Speaker 3: you've been supporting, and we're grateful and you've been champion
Speaker 3: for so many of these, uh, these these sort of democratic,
Speaker 3: small de organizations all across this country. What you know,
Speaker 3: where where do you see things going as we map
Speaker 3: out twenty twenty six? I mean, uh, there, it's pretty
Speaker 3: clear Trump would have made those phone calls, first one
Speaker 3: being to Greg Abbott said he's entitled to five seats
Speaker 3: in Texas, and those subsequent phone calls. So you saw
Speaker 3: that poor Indiana governor who said I had no choice
Speaker 3: and he publicly said it out loud because he would
Speaker 3: take my money. Just think about that, I mean, President
Speaker 3: saying he's entitled to five seats. And I don't think
Speaker 3: enough people paid attention to what the governor of Indiana
Speaker 3: said of why he's moving with redistricting just under just
Speaker 3: the auspices of being threatened with government money. What do
Speaker 3: you make of where we are and where we'll be
Speaker 3: this time next year in terms of our prospects not
Speaker 3: only for the House representatives but the United States Senate
Speaker 3: and how important are these organizing groups, the No King's
Speaker 3: rally and the momentum that we need to build in
Speaker 3: terms of sharing our voice between now and then in
Speaker 3: terms of getting back into control and power.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you mentioned you know before, maybe my
Speaker 1: my over optimism about our ability to get Republicans to
Speaker 1: do the right thing on the shutdown.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: My feeling is that, you know, people like you and
Speaker 1: me kind of have to be absurd optimists, you know,
Speaker 1: sticking this business for as long as we have. But
Speaker 1: I'm optimistic about a our ability to defend democracy and
Speaker 1: our ability to win next November.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think a lot of it has to.
Speaker 1: Do with the success of your effort and the success
Speaker 1: of other states' efforts to try to balance out the
Speaker 1: harm that they're doing in places like Texas and Indiana.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's this really interesting study that was
Speaker 1: done some years ago that looked at democracies that were crumbling,
Speaker 1: right that we're being challenged by an elected leader who
Speaker 1: you know, essentially wanted to stay in power forever.
Speaker 2: And what they found.
Speaker 1: But the study found is that there's kind of a
Speaker 1: magic number, a magic number of citizens that once they
Speaker 1: hit the street, end up just putting the sand in
Speaker 1: the gears of that to sent away from the democracy.
Speaker 1: The number is sort of two to three percent of
Speaker 1: the people. I think on October eighteenth, we're going to
Speaker 1: maybe see record numbers of people all around this country
Speaker 1: standing up and speaking out. And that will, you know,
Speaker 1: cause just a little bit of concern amongst Republicans who think, well,
Speaker 1: maybe this isn't as strong a bet as I thought.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe I am going to lose my seat
Speaker 1: if I continue to endorse this corruption. Maybe that'll give
Speaker 1: a little bit more confidence to some corporate CEO or
Speaker 1: some leader of a school or a law firm out
Speaker 1: there to say no to the attempts at bullying. So
Speaker 1: I just think it's still in our hands. History tells
Speaker 1: us that when the people stand up, something magical happens,
Speaker 1: whether it's fear on the other side, courage to allies
Speaker 1: who have been sitting on the sideline, We still have
Speaker 1: the ability to save this thing. And again, you know, all,
Speaker 1: you know, all credit to what you are doing in California,
Speaker 1: which in many ways is the center of our you know,
Speaker 1: national effort to resist. Whether it was what you did
Speaker 1: to raise issue with the deployment of federal troops, what
Speaker 1: you've done to stand up to his uses of spending
Speaker 1: power to bully states into submission or Prop fifty. I
Speaker 1: think we'll have a big turnout on the eighteenth.
Speaker 2: I think we'll.
Speaker 1: Continue to grow indivisible and move on in local groups,
Speaker 1: and in the end, I think we'll be in a
Speaker 1: strong position. A Senate's hard next November, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Like if you had an outcome where we won the
Speaker 1: House and we didn't win the Senate, that that wouldn't
Speaker 1: you know, spell doom for democracy.
Speaker 2: That would still be a good day.
Speaker 1: But you know, if it's appropleer ratings stayed out in
Speaker 1: the low thirties, mid thirties, we got a chance to,
Speaker 1: you know, win places like Texas, flip a couple of
Speaker 1: seats that people maybe weren't expecting in the Senate and
Speaker 1: maybe surprise folks.
Speaker 3: Love to hear that optimism, and it's a reminder, you know,
Speaker 3: Justice brand I said it better than any of us.
Speaker 3: In a democracy, the most important office is office of citizen.
Speaker 3: This notion of act of not inert citizenship. And we
Speaker 3: saw that the last big protests a few months back,
Speaker 3: and I hope on October eighteenth, everybody is hearing Senator
Speaker 3: Murphy loud and clear, the opportunity to really, you know,
Speaker 3: not just show up for ourselves, but show up for
Speaker 3: each other, show up for our founding fathers. They didn't
Speaker 3: live and die to watch two hundred and forty nine
Speaker 3: years of these enduring principles of you know, co equal
Speaker 3: branches of government, popular sovereignty, the rule of law be
Speaker 3: replaced by, as we've said, the rule of don And
Speaker 3: so I'm grateful Center for all your leadership, and I
Speaker 3: encourage everybody listening watching. I don't remember under what was
Speaker 3: it a blog that you wrote yourself? Was it published
Speaker 3: in some fancy magazine?
Speaker 1: But I wrote I wrote something longer. I think it
Speaker 1: was for I don't remember what it was American Prospect.
Speaker 1: I think that's where it was. I talked about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: google it sort of. There was a realignment of America,
Speaker 1: and how you know, there's there's a lot of folks
Speaker 1: out there who want to break out of Trump's camp,
Speaker 1: but need the Democratic Party to feel a little bit
Speaker 1: more sincere and a little bit more robust in the
Speaker 1: way that we attack concentrated power.
Speaker 2: So hopefully I'm right. It was.
Speaker 3: It was a long piece and it deserved to be long,
Speaker 3: and it was every word was important. And I can't
Speaker 3: impress upon people more the importance of taking a look
Speaker 3: at it because you brought in the aperture and you
Speaker 3: really looked at our party more broadly and connected to
Speaker 3: cultural issues, more larger societal issues, not just tactical or
Speaker 3: situational issues. And again I I I'll end as I began.
Speaker 3: One of the brightest lights in the Democratic Party. Guy
Speaker 3: shows up every single day online, offline. Senator Chris Murphy,
Speaker 3: thanks for being with us.
Speaker 2: You're my hero man. Thanks a lot, Thank you, brother,