Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds.
Speaker 2: And Project twenty twenty five claims to be ending policy
Speaker 2: work right. We have such a great show for you today.
Speaker 2: Massachusetts Centator Elizabeth Warren stops by to talk how Dems
Speaker 2: are defending citizens from predatory practices. Then we'll talk to
Speaker 2: Princeton historian Julian Zelzer about their new book, Our Nation
Speaker 2: at Risk Election Integrity as the National Security Issue. But
Speaker 2: first we have the president of Bright Corners and NBC
Speaker 2: MSNBC political analyst Cornell Belcher.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 3: Cornell, thanks for having me. It's my pleasure.
Speaker 1: I'm so happy to have you. I'm such a fan
Speaker 1: of yours. First of all, this week for Vice President Harris,
Speaker 1: I think it could not have gone better this launch.
Speaker 3: It's weird because I was texting back and forth late
Speaker 3: last week though weekend with two members women members of Congress,
Speaker 3: the Democratic Caucus, and they were ecstatic and as well
Speaker 3: as just in shock that we didn't fuck this up right.
Speaker 1: The thing is, as a long time fan of the
Speaker 1: Vice President, I feel like a lot of times I
Speaker 1: write pieces about how I think she had this seismic
Speaker 1: change about two years ago where she became an Obama
Speaker 1: level orator. We haven't had as Democrats since Obama?
Speaker 3: Easy? Easy, Why I'm going to get Trump? Easy?
Speaker 1: Sorry? But you know what I mean. She became next
Speaker 1: level about two years ago, and I've been writing about it,
Speaker 1: and I feel like everyone has been like, you're just
Speaker 1: a Partisana da da da, But we really saw that.
Speaker 3: Well. I think she has gotten better, right, she met
Speaker 3: the moment. And look, as you know, being in that
Speaker 3: spotlight and center, that glaric spotlight at the national level
Speaker 3: is not easy, right. It's difficult for anyone, but it's
Speaker 3: particularly difficult for women because, as you know, you know,
Speaker 3: they are scrutinized in a way not even men do.
Speaker 3: But it is a glaring, heavy spotlight and they go
Speaker 3: after everything from her hair to the way to the
Speaker 3: way she laughs. Everything. They go after women in ways
Speaker 3: they don't go after men, and it can break up
Speaker 3: a lot of people, and not everyone's ready for the moment.
Speaker 3: I think the contrast between her and Jennie Vance, who
Speaker 3: clearly is not ready for the weight and the moment
Speaker 3: of this spotlight by his rollout because there's a rollout
Speaker 3: full of gas and just weird shit. Yeah, but she
Speaker 3: has raised to the moment. But after a couple of
Speaker 3: years of being in the spotlight and being beat up
Speaker 3: for Look, you mentioned Barack Obama, like people think of
Speaker 3: the Obama now or the Obama at the end of
Speaker 3: the campaign, oie. But he had become that Barack Obama.
Speaker 3: Tel he got his ass kicked through the primaries to Clinton. Right, hey,
Speaker 3: you get tested by fire. But look what she has
Speaker 3: been able to do in a short period of time
Speaker 3: is remarkable and is extraordinary. And I will say, you know,
Speaker 3: as a polster, something has happened that I would not
Speaker 3: would say it was a probable and that is she
Speaker 3: has gone from a net negative favorability to a net
Speaker 3: positive favorability and a matter of a week and a half,
Speaker 3: which is something that we never see. But it's extraordinary,
Speaker 3: and it is I think some of it is. You know,
Speaker 3: I'm instilled this line from Chuck Todd. It is you know,
Speaker 3: the vice president in many ways is the most famous,
Speaker 3: unknown person in the country. And so she has been
Speaker 3: in the background as a vice president doing the work
Speaker 3: of the vice president, supportant president. But when she got
Speaker 3: a chance to shine and people will get to know
Speaker 3: her more. The more they know her, the more they
Speaker 3: like her.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I think that's a really good point. It's
Speaker 1: really true. But it's also because there was all this
Speaker 1: pulling about how voters really didn't want this rematch and
Speaker 1: how they felt both candidates were too old and YadA, YadA, YadA,
Speaker 1: and part of it, I think was they were kind
Speaker 1: of desperate for someone who was authentic. You know, she
Speaker 1: was a sex crimes prosecutor, attorney's general, district attorney, vice president,
Speaker 1: and second black female senator ever, right, So I mean
Speaker 1: she has experience, but she has a certain authenticity which
Speaker 1: I think that the other two men just didn't have.
Speaker 3: I agree with you, but I'll even go further than that.
Speaker 3: And when you look at who she is and you
Speaker 3: look at where the country is right now, you know
Speaker 3: she is what they want and that they want change.
Speaker 1: Right. That's a good point too.
Speaker 3: She encapsulates change, right. What could be bigger change than
Speaker 3: voting for a woman president of color? Right, And her
Speaker 3: background of being at the vanguard of and breaking glass
Speaker 3: ceilings and pushing the boundaries she speaks to, She speaks
Speaker 3: to change. I would focused groups all the time, and
Speaker 3: voters talking about how you know they really again want
Speaker 3: change because Washington is broken and they keep getting the
Speaker 3: same old politicians with the same old ideals and finding
Speaker 3: the same battles. Right, the cultural wars never seem to end.
Speaker 3: And there's voters out there when you look at Gen
Speaker 3: X and millennials and the Gen Z's are coming in
Speaker 3: into the electorate, right, those old battles don't have any
Speaker 3: meaning to them, and they they're looking for change, and
Speaker 3: just the very visual of her is changed. Right. We
Speaker 3: are looking at the you're looking at millennials and Gen Z.
Speaker 3: You're looking at what the most diverse generation of Americans
Speaker 3: in American history. Right, You're looking at swirl America, and
Speaker 3: Mollie she is a representation of swirl America. She's walking
Speaker 3: talking diversity, and in her they see themselves and they
Speaker 3: see what the future of America is about, and she
Speaker 3: gives a voice to that. So I think she connects
Speaker 3: in a unique way that is different from ninety nine
Speaker 3: percent of our political leaders out there at the national stage.
Speaker 3: And I know we don't want to do it because
Speaker 3: there's always blaspheme. Because I work for Obama but how
Speaker 3: mark of you that she is as close and as
Speaker 3: certainly as close an inheritor of the Obama continuum than
Speaker 3: any other candidate on our national stage.
Speaker 1: One of the things that there's anxiety about is that
Speaker 1: Obama was able to still get those working class white voters.
Speaker 1: That group is more of a Trump contingent. Now, I
Speaker 1: wonder if the white college educated voters there's been sort
Speaker 1: of a switch through, like a switch. I wonder if
Speaker 1: the switch is enough to propel her, and if so,
Speaker 1: where does she need to focus. Well, I'm going to
Speaker 1: challenge this, Okay, good, I mean I want you to
Speaker 1: challenge me, because you know this is what you know
Speaker 1: about and what I don't.
Speaker 3: So please do this idea that Obama didn't win working
Speaker 3: class wife, Like, what are we talking about?
Speaker 1: Okay good?
Speaker 3: Tell me? In twelve Obama got what thirty nine percent
Speaker 3: of the white vote right in it makes giant strides
Speaker 3: at en roads with working class white voters. I don't
Speaker 3: know where that comes from. What Obama was was a
Speaker 3: candidate who expanded the electorate right, and he brought more
Speaker 3: people into the process, and he made the electorate look
Speaker 3: more like the changing face.
Speaker 1: Of America, right right, right.
Speaker 3: But if you look at white non college voters, Obama
Speaker 3: wasn't winning white non college voters. There wasn't even close.
Speaker 3: But what I would argue is that if you look
Speaker 3: at what's been happening, how we didn't even win white
Speaker 3: college voters in twenty twelve. If you look at what's
Speaker 3: been happening over the last couple of election cycles, you've
Speaker 3: seen and I think this is perhaps the beginning of
Speaker 3: what could be a semi realignment, at least a crack
Speaker 3: in the way that we haven't seen since the end
Speaker 3: of the sixties. Because you have increasingly white college voters,
Speaker 3: particularly white college women, breaking hard for Democrats. And in
Speaker 3: some polling, if you look at where Democrats support is
Speaker 3: among white college women, they're like almost like a base group.
Speaker 3: That means they're coming to levels where they're coming to
Speaker 3: a base room. So the Democrat's ability to run up
Speaker 3: the score among white college voters on the back of
Speaker 3: white college educated women means all of a sudden, the
Speaker 3: suburb rights the suburbs around Philadelphia are more competitive. The suburbs.
Speaker 3: It means that suburban ringing around Atlanta. It means Georgia
Speaker 3: is now a state that could go either way. So
Speaker 3: I think what you will see is that I think
Speaker 3: she has the ability to grow the gender gap, particularly
Speaker 3: among women, specifically probably among college educated women, in a
Speaker 3: way that you didn't see under Biden and Obama. That
Speaker 3: would be my first educated guest. I also think she
Speaker 3: has the ability to and you saw this in their
Speaker 3: early polling. Is you know Biden was running behind his
Speaker 3: twenty twenty performance most among what I would call that
Speaker 3: Obama continuing coalition, those younger diverse voters. I think she
Speaker 3: has an ability to pull those voters back and coalesce
Speaker 3: them around in a way that we haven't seen in
Speaker 3: the polling data recently. And I think that's her power.
Speaker 3: That we've been going in the wrong diression. If you
Speaker 3: look at the exit polling data and even the Pew
Speaker 3: or Gallop, the Pew verified data from the last couple
Speaker 3: of elections, we have not been making any in roads
Speaker 3: at all among white, non college voters, right, And that's
Speaker 3: not me making a value.
Speaker 1: Judgment, right, No, No, it's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we've been going in the wrong direction. But yet
Speaker 3: at the same time, we've been having great deal of
Speaker 3: success in elections, and we've been having a great deal
Speaker 3: of success in elections because we're making up for that
Speaker 3: loss in that place by gains in other places. And
Speaker 3: I think she has an ability to gain in other
Speaker 3: places to make up for I think the continued erosion
Speaker 3: of white non college voters as Trump plays that tribal
Speaker 3: politics and politics of grievance, which resonates.
Speaker 1: Right, it does. It resonates with white voters. You know,
Speaker 1: I read a ton about authoritarianism, and that is the
Speaker 1: idea of a multi racial democracy, that which is the
Speaker 1: goal of all of us, is actually very triggering to
Speaker 1: a certain group of voters, which is insane.
Speaker 3: We are at an important crossroad where you do have
Speaker 3: in many ways, and I talked about this in two
Speaker 3: thousand and eight. You have two electorates fighting for the
Speaker 3: future of America, and one of them is older, less diverse,
Speaker 3: and they are and again no value judgment. You know,
Speaker 3: they are uncomfortable with the changes they see happening in
Speaker 3: the country, and they're anxious about those changes, in these
Speaker 3: demographic changes, and you have politicians playing that zero sum
Speaker 3: tribal racial game with them that makes it seem like
Speaker 3: they're losing, and so you think they're losing their country, right,
Speaker 3: And on the other side where you now have the
Speaker 3: majority because you have that and realizing the Obama coalition
Speaker 3: is a group of voters who are for the most
Speaker 3: diverse in the nation's history, who are comfortable with diverse,
Speaker 3: and they're not anxious about it, and they will change.
Speaker 3: These two electorates are fighting for the future of the country.
Speaker 3: The problem for trump Ism is that that coalition isn't growing.
Speaker 3: That coalition is growing older, and it's shrinking, and they're.
Speaker 1: Not as centralized as they were. I mean, the thing
Speaker 1: that seems so interesting to me is that between twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen and twenty twenty four. In twenty sixteen, Fox News
Speaker 1: was their met Yer, right Fox Everything was on Fox News.
Speaker 1: You know, if Tucker Carlson talked about you in primetime,
Speaker 1: your life was a living you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Like and all of a sudden, now it's two million,
Speaker 1: maybe it's three million, but it's not the way it was.
Speaker 1: And I think this decentralization actually makes the process of
Speaker 1: running for office totally different too.
Speaker 3: Right, I do. But I also think I don't think
Speaker 3: it matters as much because they are organized around one
Speaker 3: central thing, right, and that is this idea that the
Speaker 3: other half of America that diverse America is the enemy, right,
Speaker 3: and they're taking the country and it's very powerful. And look,
Speaker 3: if we want to step back from an even more.
Speaker 3: I am anxious because I know that historically what we're
Speaker 3: looking at is something and you talk about sort of
Speaker 3: studying authoritarianism, and you know, I look at something historically
Speaker 3: there is that there's an authoritarian sort of fascist fever
Speaker 3: that is happening on the right and Mala, we know
Speaker 3: that fever historically, and the country isn't broken until the
Speaker 3: patient is damn near killed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm very worried about the authoritarian stuff. We've been
Speaker 1: operating under the principle that Democrats can just keep winning elections,
Speaker 1: but sooner or later they're going to lose, right, and
Speaker 1: then the sister can't hold right, and we have one
Speaker 1: party that no longer believes in American democracy, right, So
Speaker 1: how does thatur?
Speaker 3: But it doesn't. And that's why I think we've got
Speaker 3: to be thinking beyond this election, and we got to
Speaker 3: be thinking about more sort of fundamental and transformative changes
Speaker 3: in our country to preserve our democracy because at some point, right,
Speaker 3: at some point, every election can't be an emergency because
Speaker 3: at some point and again you say this and say
Speaker 3: this or history. You know, most authoritarians are fascists. Don't
Speaker 3: come to power on the back of the majority, right,
Speaker 3: it's not that the support has supported now they come
Speaker 3: to power on the bats of a well organized, vocal
Speaker 3: minority of voters. So this could happen. And so what
Speaker 3: do we do even before that? Look in this talk
Speaker 3: is now like does the elections get certified? I think
Speaker 3: we have to win not only the presidential election, but
Speaker 3: we got to win the post election because they were
Speaker 3: absolut be people on the Republican side, the Trump Republican
Speaker 3: side right now will try to disregard the election results
Speaker 3: if they don't go away.
Speaker 1: And they did that in twenty twenty. And I mean,
Speaker 1: one of the things that I was heartened by with
Speaker 1: these Biden Supreme Court reforms is that they ultimately are
Speaker 1: very pro democracy, right like, each president gets to appoint
Speaker 1: to Supreme Court justices that justices served for eighteen years.
Speaker 1: They don't involve luck, they don't involve lifetime appointments. They
Speaker 1: just involved real nuts and bolts kind of stuff. But
Speaker 1: the larger problem of these norms partisan Supreme Court a
Speaker 1: Republican party that basically says every election was stolen. I
Speaker 1: don't know how you solve for that.
Speaker 3: You've got to hope se on the fever brace, because
Speaker 3: you actually do. We need help from the Republicans on
Speaker 3: this right for them, sensible Republicans who are still Republicans,
Speaker 3: not maga, who believe that we have to in fact
Speaker 3: sate our democracy because if they keep undermining the rule
Speaker 3: of law and they keep undermind the legitimacy of our government,
Speaker 3: at some point again it breaks. So at some point,
Speaker 3: you know, the Romneys of the world, the Bushes of
Speaker 3: the world, the Chaineys of the world. We need a
Speaker 3: coalition for democracy that's beyond partisanship. And we actually need
Speaker 3: legislation now move through the Senate that stops people from
Speaker 3: being able to not certify an election outcome.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think I don't know where you go
Speaker 1: from there. It's just a completely unsolvable problem. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. I hope you will come back.
Speaker 3: It's always my pleasure. I love being on and I
Speaker 3: love talking politics with you. You're so smart.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about Project twenty twenty five and how
Speaker 1: awful Trump's second term could be? Well, so are we,
Speaker 1: which is why We teamed with iHeart to make a
Speaker 1: limited series with the experts on what a disaster Project
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five would be for America's future Right now,
Speaker 1: the first four episodes, with the final episode coming next week,
Speaker 1: are available by looking up Molly John Fast Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five on YouTube. If you are thinking you are
Speaker 1: more of a podcast person and not a YouTuber, you
Speaker 1: can hit play when you get to the video, put
Speaker 1: the phone on lockscreen and it will play back. New
Speaker 1: episodes are dropping in the next week as well. We
Speaker 1: need to educate America on what Trump's second term would
Speaker 1: do to this country. Please watch and help us spread
Speaker 1: the word.
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren is the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm delighted to be with you.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited to have you. And also on a
Speaker 1: day when the Senate may start to pass tech regulation,
Speaker 1: my heart is going to explode.
Speaker 4: I know, I know, I think we're starting in exactly
Speaker 4: the right place, and that is, if we can't pass
Speaker 4: regulations designed to protect our children, then we've just given
Speaker 4: up the whole game to the tech bros. So this
Speaker 4: has got to stop.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: It's such an interesting like I want to ask a
Speaker 1: Democratic senator about this, who's really smart? And he was
Speaker 1: saying that part of the problem is that there's just
Speaker 1: so much like really successful tech lobbying that it stands
Speaker 1: in the way of the ability to create regulation. Do
Speaker 1: you think that's true.
Speaker 4: I not only think it's true. I take the problem,
Speaker 4: you know me, I think problems are structural often. Yeah,
Speaker 4: And here's the problem we've got for me. This is
Speaker 4: like credit card world back in the late nineties and
Speaker 4: the early two thousands, and that was that credit card
Speaker 4: comings Man. They were sending out these credit cards to everybody,
Speaker 4: including lots of stories about dogs and pats that got them,
Speaker 4: and they had all of these tricks built into them
Speaker 4: about things like double cycle billing and just crazy stuff
Speaker 4: that really did trick people, cheat people, got people deeper
Speaker 4: and deeper in debt, and they couldn't make it out.
Speaker 4: So Congress comes along and says, oh, wait, we got
Speaker 4: to put a stop to this specific problem. And the
Speaker 4: industry would go for Circo and they would spend a
Speaker 4: bazillion dollars and then you know, Congress would kind of
Speaker 4: come fighting back, and people on the outside, because I
Speaker 4: was very much on the outside during all this time,
Speaker 4: just doing research, would push and push and push, and then.
Speaker 5: Finally, finally, Molly, we would roll that rock up hill
Speaker 5: and we would ban one really horrible practice, and guess what,
Speaker 5: in the meantime, they had figured out fifty four other ones.
Speaker 4: And so we're kind of in that early phase now
Speaker 4: trying to push back against the tech industry. Said well, please, sir,
Speaker 4: could we at least just have this little slice of
Speaker 4: regulations to help protect our children. Ultimately, what we've got
Speaker 4: to do here, Mollie, is we have to have the
Speaker 4: big bill. And I hope you're sitting down because I'm
Speaker 4: gonna say something. It's gonna surprise you. I have actually
Speaker 4: worked on that bill with Lindsey Graham's for the last
Speaker 4: two years. We got this thing ready to go, and
Speaker 4: it's the one that creates in many ways, it's like
Speaker 4: the Consumer Agency. It says Congress can't fight these things
Speaker 4: one at a time here, one at a time there.
Speaker 4: Because we need to do things about Amazon and the
Speaker 4: self preferencing and the way they're destroying small businesses. We
Speaker 4: need to do things about how apps get more. We
Speaker 4: need to do things about the anti trust implications of
Speaker 4: what these giant platforms are doing, just on and on
Speaker 4: and on. We need somebody on the side of the
Speaker 4: American consumer that can develop the expertise, that has the
Speaker 4: enforcement tools, and that can just basically keep some rules
Speaker 4: of the road in place so that the tech industry,
Speaker 4: just like every other industry in America, is subject to
Speaker 4: some basic rules. So I'm happy to vote for what
Speaker 4: we're going to do today, but our ambition has to
Speaker 4: be bigger than that, and it has to be more structural.
Speaker 4: We need an agency that continues to stay after these folks.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I'll just say about the Consumer Agency,
Speaker 4: you know, because that's what we ended up building after
Speaker 4: the two thousand and eight crash. It has now returned
Speaker 4: more than twenty billion dollars directly to consumers who got cheated.
Speaker 4: And the industry is doing just fine. They innovate, they create,
Speaker 4: they come up with new products, they make good money.
Speaker 4: But there's no longer this idea that the best way
Speaker 4: to make profits is to cheat people, because there's a
Speaker 4: watchdog there to say, uh uh, that's not where you
Speaker 4: get to go.
Speaker 1: It's so interesting to me because what we're seeing in
Speaker 1: this election, which is ninety nine days away, I.
Speaker 4: Think ninety nine days a week.
Speaker 1: Outing is that Trump is the wild West, Right, you
Speaker 1: can pay me for regulation. It's reported that he said
Speaker 1: to a group of oil executives that if you know,
Speaker 1: if you raise me money, I will end up supporting
Speaker 1: you know, I'll end up ending all your regulation. And
Speaker 1: tech is an industry that has really not been regulated
Speaker 1: nop SO that has created enormous opportunities for things like Facebook,
Speaker 1: and also you know, enormous perils like if you think
Speaker 1: of the Roe Roehindan, I think I'm mispronouncing it, but
Speaker 1: you know they've had a lot of perils, and they've
Speaker 1: also killed the you know, they've killed local news while
Speaker 1: doing it. Yea, And in California there's some regulation to
Speaker 1: protect local news. We'll see if it's to go. But
Speaker 1: we do see them crushing industry after industry.
Speaker 4: Right And you know, you are right to put this
Speaker 4: in an even larger context. Tech right now is the
Speaker 4: most extreme example. It is the only industry in America
Speaker 4: for which if they do a bad thing, they neither
Speaker 4: can get sued in court, nor do they have a
Speaker 4: regulator to say you've got to stop doing that. In
Speaker 4: other words, they get a special zoning vary it swhere.
Speaker 4: If you're tech, you just don't have to follow a
Speaker 4: lot of the laws. Right now now there are people
Speaker 4: trying to bring that in. I want to give big
Speaker 4: credit to Lena kan Over at the FTC, to Jonathan
Speaker 4: Canter at the Department of Justice, and they're trying to
Speaker 4: use our current anti trust tools and consumer protection tools
Speaker 4: to try to come in. But we really need to
Speaker 4: write better regulations. But we're in the middle of an
Speaker 4: election cycle and Donald Trump is auctioning off America's future.
Speaker 4: I want to go back to your point about the
Speaker 4: oil execs. The way I read it is that he
Speaker 4: offered them if they would put a billion dollars into
Speaker 4: his campaign. He named his price. If they would put
Speaker 4: a billion dollars into his campaign, they could basically put
Speaker 4: whatever poison they wanted into the air for your children
Speaker 4: to breathe. They could basically do pretty much whatever they want.
Speaker 4: They've already said it Project.
Speaker 6: Twenty twenty five.
Speaker 4: They want to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Speaker 4: and they want to permit the oil industry to get
Speaker 4: you at the gas pump as much as they want,
Speaker 4: and to let the oil industry not pay its fair
Speaker 4: share of taxes and to shove those off for families
Speaker 4: and individuals to pay. So it really is. I mean,
Speaker 4: there's an active auction going on right now with Donald
Speaker 4: Trump leading the way.
Speaker 3: It's sickening.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it is also it's also like pretty scary.
Speaker 1: They want to get rid of the Department of Education,
Speaker 1: which I mean this project twenty probably five stuff like
Speaker 1: they want to get rid of the Department of Education,
Speaker 1: which would hurt probably more than anyone Red states because
Speaker 1: they have lower state taxes, you get. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just can you just talk through what that would mean
Speaker 1: getting rid of the Department of Education, because it's so
Speaker 1: glaring and enormous.
Speaker 3: Well, that's it.
Speaker 4: The Department of Education now helps the schools that are
Speaker 4: struggling the most. That's its number one use of its
Speaker 4: funds is to try to help struggling schools. I think
Speaker 4: that's a good thing because I think we ought to
Speaker 4: invest and our children. The other thing in the Department
Speaker 4: of Education does is it administers the student Lung program.
Speaker 4: And if you're rid of the Department of Education, I
Speaker 4: actually when you read this, you're like, what do you
Speaker 4: guys have in mind? Here, does that mean that if
Speaker 4: you're not born into a family that can afford to
Speaker 4: write a check for you to get more education after
Speaker 4: high school? And understand, it's technical college, it's two year college,
Speaker 4: it's four year college. For some people, it's a graduate school,
Speaker 4: it's any of those. If your family can't afford to
Speaker 4: write a check for it, don't go. Just don't have
Speaker 4: an ambition for your kids, for yourself. You know, that's
Speaker 4: kind of the approach the Republicans reflect in this Project
Speaker 4: twenty twenty five overall? Can I do one more from
Speaker 4: twenty twenty five? Just knock my thoughts off, because it's like,
Speaker 4: how you think of this whole thing? So Republicans want
Speaker 4: to stand out and they say, oh, they're family friendly. Okay,
Speaker 4: let's talk about that a little bit. But let's talk
Speaker 4: about the economics of your family. Okay, if you can
Speaker 4: afford to write a check, your kid doesn't get to
Speaker 4: go to college. But let's do a second one. How
Speaker 4: much you're going to pay every year in taxes? Donald
Speaker 4: Trump has put together a tax package, and Project twenty
Speaker 4: twenty five kind of fleshes this on out that if
Speaker 4: you do the math, it's three and a half million
Speaker 4: dollars every year for every billionaire in America, they get
Speaker 4: like just a gift of three and a half million
Speaker 4: dollars because it cuts their taxes by that much. So
Speaker 4: what about the average family of four in America? Straight
Speaker 4: out of Project twenty twenty five, they say those people
Speaker 4: will pay twenty six hundred dollars more every year because
Speaker 4: what they think is fare is that working families, middle
Speaker 4: class families should pay more so that billionaires can have
Speaker 4: a tax Does that just not pir socks off?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Because I know these people enough, so I mean yes,
Speaker 1: as in my personal views, yes, I think it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: But you know, Republicans have somehow convinced white working class
Speaker 1: people that tax cuts for billionaires will somehow help them.
Speaker 1: I mean, trickle down economics is like the great lie
Speaker 1: of the twentieth century.
Speaker 4: Great line, and the Republicans are running that same old
Speaker 4: play again. And the consequence of this because they want
Speaker 4: taxt the billionaires and the mega millionaires and the billionaire corporations.
Speaker 4: Because they don't want to do that, it means we
Speaker 4: don't have the money to invest in our families, in ourselves.
Speaker 4: So look at something like childcare. Here we are in
Speaker 4: America richest nation in the world. Where are we on
Speaker 4: the proportion of our national income that we spend on childcare? Answer?
Speaker 4: Or number thirty five out of the thirty seventh th
Speaker 4: richest nations. Can we all do a chant. We're number
Speaker 4: thirty five, right, that's the degree of our investment in
Speaker 4: our children right now. The Republican view is we shouldn't
Speaker 4: even be doing that much. In fact, can we just
Speaker 4: talk JD. Vance for a minute? JT. Vance says that
Speaker 4: putting money into childcare is class warfare on normal people,
Speaker 4: normal people because obviously normal people don't use childcare. It's breathtaking.
Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, always remember follow
Speaker 4: the money who profits from that billionaires don't have to
Speaker 4: pay taxes in order to help support our schools, in
Speaker 4: order to help support kids who are trying to make
Speaker 4: it through post high school education, in order to support
Speaker 4: our babies in early childhood education and childcare. So it
Speaker 4: all fits together. It's all of a picture here. That
Speaker 4: picture is the Republican's biting hard for those at the
Speaker 4: very top and expecting hard working families just to keep
Speaker 4: taking it on the chin.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's totally right, and also scary. So
Speaker 1: can you talk to us about algorithmic transparency because this
Speaker 1: is something I'm obsessed with. We get all of this
Speaker 1: information on social media, but we don't know quite why
Speaker 1: we get it or how we get it.
Speaker 4: Oh, you hit a nerve on this swinder, right, Yeah,
Speaker 4: So I want to make you a couple of points here.
Speaker 4: One of the things that's happening right now is that,
Speaker 4: as you know, with whether you want to call it
Speaker 4: AI or just fancy, algorithms suck up information and then
Speaker 4: there's some evidence that the program then starts to discriminate.
Speaker 4: That is, higher prices for people of certain race, or
Speaker 4: higher prices for women then for men, or higher prices
Speaker 4: depending on where you are in your age group, higher
Speaker 4: prices because we think we can squeeze you harder. All
Speaker 4: of those different pieces and the industries that are doing this,
Speaker 4: some of these are in the financial industry, some are
Speaker 4: just generally in tech. They say, oh, the computer did it.
Speaker 4: We didn't do it, And the answer is no. The
Speaker 4: law is that you are responsible and you're not allowed
Speaker 4: to just set up the computer and let it take
Speaker 4: advantage of people. But I think one of the parts
Speaker 4: this is an important part of why Lindsey and I
Speaker 4: when we put this bill together is to put REGs
Speaker 4: in place so there is more transparency about the algorithms.
Speaker 4: And if these algorithms are used to create a news
Speaker 4: feed for you, to create advertising for you, then you
Speaker 4: have a right to understand what went into that and
Speaker 4: why you were picked for it. And I think that's
Speaker 4: great to say the person who gets targeted on this
Speaker 4: has a right to nope. But this is one more
Speaker 4: reason why I believe you've got to have an agency
Speaker 4: overall with some expertise that's really willing to dive in
Speaker 4: on these algorithms and run independent verifications and tests. Otherwise
Speaker 4: we just are still back to big tech companies say, oh,
Speaker 4: it's very complicated, just trust us, And I'm sorry, I'm
Speaker 4: gonna know on that.
Speaker 1: The tech regulation stuff is really beguiling and they are
Speaker 1: going to work hard to prevent it at every point.
Speaker 1: What can you do to sort of push back on that?
Speaker 1: There definitely is right now bipartisan support for tech legislation,
Speaker 1: But sooner or later this will become like oil and gas, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they'll get Republicans on board.
Speaker 4: I think the best answer here is sunshine, and in
Speaker 4: this context, what I need is to keep hammering on
Speaker 4: these issues, keep showing what is broken. That's what stiff
Speaker 4: the spine of the elected officials who ultimately have to
Speaker 4: stand up to these lobbyists. Our threat right now is
Speaker 4: the lobbyists have simply they outnumber all of us here
Speaker 4: in Washington who are elected to do the people's business,
Speaker 4: and they are hammering every day for the things that
Speaker 4: benefit their industry, their corporate executives, and let American families
Speaker 4: pay for this. So I think it's the kind of
Speaker 4: work you do, Molly, that we just got to stay
Speaker 4: after it and keep talking about where the abuses are.
Speaker 4: Show them that we're smart, show them we've got our
Speaker 4: eyes open, show them that we've got a good vehicle
Speaker 4: like this agency, the Digital Protection Agency, that we are
Speaker 4: willing to put some muscle behind fighting back. At the
Speaker 4: end of the day. In a democracy, I got to
Speaker 4: believe that when the overwhelming majority of people are with us,
Speaker 4: we can fight and we can actually win.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 4: Oh, thank you, it's always so good to talk to you.
Speaker 2: Julian Zelizer is a historian a Princeton University and the
Speaker 2: author of Our Nation at Risk Election integrity as a
Speaker 2: national security issue.
Speaker 1: Welcome Julian to Fast Politics.
Speaker 6: Hey, it's great to be with you as always.
Speaker 1: You know you're my friend, and also you're very, very
Speaker 1: smart academic. So talk to us about what this book.
Speaker 1: What's it called? What is it? What's it about?
Speaker 6: Tell us everyth It's called Our Nation at Risk. I
Speaker 6: co edited it with Karen Greenberg, and it looks at
Speaker 6: just about every element of national of election security, from
Speaker 6: voting rights to how the machines work, to foreign interference
Speaker 6: in elections and tries to give with some of the
Speaker 6: smartest minds in the country, you know, a better understanding
Speaker 6: of the short term risks our elections face, some of
Speaker 6: the long term problems we've had since the country started,
Speaker 6: and all of them offered different kinds of reforms moving forward.
Speaker 6: So we thought the time was right, given how fragile
Speaker 6: our election system has become.
Speaker 1: So I was hoping you could explain a little bit
Speaker 1: about why we Republicans. I mean, I've been watching the
Speaker 1: Republican whatever that is convention this week and one of
Speaker 1: the favorite tropes of their particular peccadillos is that the
Speaker 1: elections are not secure, and they're not safe and basically
Speaker 1: that the election was rigged. So can you explain to
Speaker 1: us what the fuck is happening and if that's true
Speaker 1: or not?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, it wasn't rigged. The remiss of it
Speaker 6: being rigged was that there's all this voting fraud, which
Speaker 6: again has been repudiated many times over. Where they are
Speaker 6: right is that the election system has become more fragile
Speaker 6: because of them, right, correct, They have been part of
Speaker 6: the process. They've exploited weaknesses in the system. I mean,
Speaker 6: I think many people in twenty twenty didn't realize all
Speaker 6: the ways in which what should be a pro forma thing,
Speaker 6: meaning people vote, the votes are tallied, and ultimately the
Speaker 6: electoral College decision is ratified. That there's a million kind
Speaker 6: of veto points or points of subversion that can happen
Speaker 6: along the way, pressuring state legislatures to essentially overturn what
Speaker 6: the delegates had done, for example, and I think all
Speaker 6: of that was exposed. Republicans have used this as a
Speaker 6: kind of mantra, as a campaign platform, as really a
Speaker 6: defining theme, but I think what they have actually done
Speaker 6: is shown how important it is to try to reform
Speaker 6: this system because we have perpetual problems and ways in which,
Speaker 6: you know, bad actors can really take advantage of a system.
Speaker 1: So taking advantage of a system looks like Republicans refusing
Speaker 1: to certify elections. Talk to us. This is something that
Speaker 1: is on the cover of the New York Times. It's
Speaker 1: a real thing that we're seeing now, which is these
Speaker 1: these Republicans have decided, you know, they're putting people in
Speaker 1: there who refuse to certify elections. And they're doing it
Speaker 1: because if a state doesn't, if parts of a state
Speaker 1: don't certify, you can actually sort of put the whole
Speaker 1: thing off.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: No, it's exactly right. I mean, look, we've had contested
Speaker 6: elections in the past. One of the famous presidential ones
Speaker 6: was in eighteen seventy six Rutherford Hayes against Samuel Tilden,
Speaker 6: and eventually there was a commission to decide how it
Speaker 6: should be resolved, and the resolution brings an end to reconstruction.
Speaker 6: There's many congressional races which have been contested, but right now,
Speaker 6: essentially they're preparing to contest elections before there's any problem,
Speaker 6: and they are kind of trying to put people in
Speaker 6: place within the states who will have the authority to
Speaker 6: take action there's even plans right now to have lawyers
Speaker 6: for the GOP monitoring election sites dropboxes, And it's kind
Speaker 6: of this preemptive move which in itself raises doubts about
Speaker 6: the election if they want, meaning if Trump ends up losing,
Speaker 6: But at the same time, it's setting up for kind
Speaker 6: of an ugly potential outcome where not only does he lose,
Speaker 6: but then he fights that loss again. And so it's
Speaker 6: taking something we've had historically and politicizing and weaponizing that
Speaker 6: for political advantage.
Speaker 1: Can you explain to us a little bit about that
Speaker 1: election that ends Reconstruction, because I think that's really relevant
Speaker 1: right now, especially because remember, if you think of this
Speaker 1: as I've always thought of it, which is Trumpism is
Speaker 1: the last gas of the far right to prevent us
Speaker 1: from becoming a true multi racial democracy, which we have
Speaker 1: never been. It's this sort of extremist response to Obama.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if you can speak to this reconstruction election,
Speaker 1: what the history looks like there.
Speaker 6: Well, it's really I mean reconstruction for listeners who don't
Speaker 6: know as much about it, was this huge post Civil
Speaker 6: War effort by Republicans, and at this point the Republicans
Speaker 6: were the Party of Lincoln and of Reconstruction, trying to
Speaker 6: really offer a bold platform that would empower freed black Americans,
Speaker 6: create a new federal presence to ensure that rights would
Speaker 6: be observed and implemented. There were efforts to distribute land
Speaker 6: to create economic independence. So it was this really bold
Speaker 6: move and Southerners are furious with it. And you have
Speaker 6: this election and the Republican is Rutherford Hayes, and initially,
Speaker 6: you know, he loses to Samuel Tilden, and the Republicans
Speaker 6: protested in three states. The results were actually uncertain, and
Speaker 6: so Congress creates this panel and has members of the House,
Speaker 6: that has members of the Senate, has some Supreme Court justices,
Speaker 6: and they end up giving Rutherford Hayes all of the
Speaker 6: disputed electoral votes, and that gives him the victory. But
Speaker 6: in exchange for that, basically the Republicans accept the end
Speaker 6: of Reconstruction. It was a more gradual process how Reconstruction ended,
Speaker 6: but it was crucial. And so right away you see
Speaker 6: how elections and disputing elections was right at the heart
Speaker 6: of these fights over racial justice in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 6: And then I'll just add it was the same thing
Speaker 6: in the twentieth century. Another example I often talk about
Speaker 6: are the Jim Crow laws in the Deep South, which
Speaker 6: were essentially mechanisms to sub or the post reconstruction rights
Speaker 6: the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of Black Americans, and
Speaker 6: elections became the focus of what we're threatened, what we're subverted.
Speaker 6: You know, Black Americans just couldn't even register to vote.
Speaker 6: There was violence against anyone who supported them. So there
Speaker 6: is a long history of the connection between election rights
Speaker 6: and social justice movements.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it feels very dark right now for a lot
Speaker 1: of us. We're going to veer into my own therapeutic
Speaker 1: practice here. No, I have a sure I'll see them later.
Speaker 1: But it feels really dark for a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: right now. So I want you to explain to us
Speaker 1: how our elections can be safe and how you know, again,
Speaker 1: we don't know what's going to happen in November. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is actually wildly unpopular. Most of the country just
Speaker 1: wants normal democracy. But explain to us a little bit
Speaker 1: about what that could look like and sort of the
Speaker 1: net net there.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, the irony of twenty twenty is, even
Speaker 6: though now we remember it for January sixth and all
Speaker 6: the turbulence, the election actually worked pretty well.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 6: We brought in a lot of people to vote. We
Speaker 6: made voting easier, which historically we've been very resistant to do.
Speaker 6: We didn't have a national election day, but we really
Speaker 6: saw states innovating with mail in voting and dropboxes and
Speaker 6: really taking every effort to make sure that there were
Speaker 6: no barriers to voting. And so I think there were
Speaker 6: elements of twenty twenty that really worked incredibly well and
Speaker 6: showed our election system can be very robust. There are
Speaker 6: certain things I think, Look, it's not going to happen
Speaker 6: between now and November, but the most important issue is
Speaker 6: restoring the Voting Rights Act of nineteen sixty five, which
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court undercut with a historic case, and many
Speaker 6: Red states have been moving, you know, since the mid
Speaker 6: to twenty tens to undermined voting rights. And so I
Speaker 6: think if we're thinking of how do you take a
Speaker 6: system that can work pretty well, that often works very well,
Speaker 6: and make it better, I would start with that. And
Speaker 6: that's one of the arguments we have in our book.
Speaker 6: A full and robust Voting Rights Act restored strength and
Speaker 6: so that every American understands not only do they have
Speaker 6: the right to vote, but the federal government will protect
Speaker 6: it if anyone threatens it. The second thing, and the
Speaker 6: most immediate front, is protecting poll workers. You know, there
Speaker 6: has been an uptick of threats in the last few
Speaker 6: years against poll workers.
Speaker 1: Right, that's a really important point.
Speaker 3: That should be number one.
Speaker 6: And look after the attempted assassination, where violence is on
Speaker 6: everyone's mind. So let's do things to stop the threat
Speaker 6: of violence. And so you should be able to go vote.
Speaker 6: Someone should be able to you know, take your information,
Speaker 6: and they shouldn't be scared about doing that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, I mean that is a really important point,
Speaker 1: and I want to do two seconds on poll workers
Speaker 1: because you cannot have these elections without these people who
Speaker 1: are normal people in your community, who do this really
Speaker 1: out of the goodness of their heart. It's not a
Speaker 1: high paying job, it's not a glamorous job, and occasionally
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani ruins your life.
Speaker 6: I think many pole workers are scared of actual violence,
Speaker 6: but they're also scared of the Jiuliani's, meaning they're scared.
Speaker 6: In this day and age, someone will grab their phone
Speaker 6: and take a quick video of something that looks suspicious
Speaker 6: but actually is not, and then broadcast it to the
Speaker 6: world on some social media platform X or other. And
Speaker 6: we saw in twenty twenty some of those people, as
Speaker 6: you said, are just they're just doing a good thing.
Speaker 6: All of a sudden, they are subjecting themselves to real
Speaker 6: threats and their families. And I think that's a really
Speaker 6: dangerous situation. It's become hard for a lot of localities
Speaker 6: to find enough people at this time, and it's a
Speaker 6: way through threat to subvert the processes. Again, it's like
Speaker 6: going back to things we seen in the past where
Speaker 6: the threat against the electoral system becomes a way to
Speaker 6: intimidate people either away from voting or in this case,
Speaker 6: even working the ballot box and making sure people can vote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's just talk for a minute about some
Speaker 1: of these lawyers being there. It feels like intimidation. What
Speaker 1: the Republicans want to do. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: something that I noticed. This is like in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: I knew a guy who ran for the House. This
Speaker 1: is like a personal anecdote Hank for Texas. He ran
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. It's the podcast before this. A bunch
Speaker 1: of times he's some really great running for Texas's first
Speaker 1: district against Louis Gommert. And one of the things he
Speaker 1: told me, and again, this is the first district. It's
Speaker 1: an R plus twenty ten or something. You know, it's
Speaker 1: the world's most republican district. It's not obviously the world's
Speaker 1: most but it's very red. He wasn't going to win,
Speaker 1: but he told me there was a fair amount. And
Speaker 1: again this is just his so it's anecdotal, so you know,
Speaker 1: they're not two sources here. You can't run it in
Speaker 1: a newspaper. But he told me that he saw a
Speaker 1: lot of voter intimidation in his district. And you know,
Speaker 1: guys on horses, et cetera, et cetera. Now very redistrict,
Speaker 1: so obviously the stakes are different. But can you talk
Speaker 1: to us about voter intimidation?
Speaker 6: Sure, I mean, look, historically, voter intimidation has been part
Speaker 6: of our politics. I've been deep into studying the South,
Speaker 6: the Deep South recently for a book about civil rights,
Speaker 6: and intimidation was prevalent in that day and age. In
Speaker 6: the nineteen.
Speaker 3: Sixties or nineteen fifties.
Speaker 6: For example, if a black Mississippian went to the courthouse
Speaker 6: to try to register to vote. Intimidation would encounter them
Speaker 6: at every step of the way, from the police who
Speaker 6: would stare them down when they walked into the courthouse,
Speaker 6: to the registrar who would ask him essentially, why are
Speaker 6: you even here? The threats you would face for just
Speaker 6: trying to do that, And I think right now, there's
Speaker 6: all kinds of ways in which this threat is being
Speaker 6: wielded in a different context for different purposes. But from
Speaker 6: having the former president of the United States constantly question
Speaker 6: the legitimacy of the election, down to having lawyers stand
Speaker 6: around at a drop box in a state like Florida
Speaker 6: when you go to vote. Is a way in which
Speaker 6: certain look in certain middle upper middle class communities, they
Speaker 6: won't care. But if you're in a different area where
Speaker 6: encounters with authorities can be very unpleasant and dangerous, this
Speaker 6: is going to dissuade some people from dropping their ballot
Speaker 6: off or from going to elections. That will create inconveniences.
Speaker 6: We've seen that in the two thousand election in areas
Speaker 6: in Miami, for example, there were huge lines, and this
Speaker 6: I think will accelerate those inconveniences in places that don't
Speaker 6: have enough staff and adequate equipment. So look, you combine
Speaker 6: voting rights limitations with intimidating poll workers. It's a way
Speaker 6: to damp in the vote in ky areas very easily.
Speaker 1: Right. So one of the things that I was hoping
Speaker 1: you could talk a little bit about is smart people
Speaker 1: compare this time in American life to the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 1: Are they right? And if so, what period of the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties and make it make sense.
Speaker 6: Look, I mean, if you're saying the nineteen sixties were
Speaker 6: incredibly turbulent and also very violent. We had many assassinations.
Speaker 3: John F.
Speaker 6: Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Moore,
Speaker 6: good comparison, meaning we are in a moment that is
Speaker 6: that fractious and violent in some ways. It's also a
Speaker 6: moment where we were deeply divided in the sixties over
Speaker 6: many core social issues such as race, as well as
Speaker 6: foreign policy such as Vietnam. And today you see some
Speaker 6: of those divisions over issues like Ukraine, the Middle East,
Speaker 6: and certainly social issues from sexuality even to race relations.
Speaker 6: So those comparisons are fair. And look in nineteen sixty eight,
Speaker 6: not only was the Democratic Convention in Chicago as it
Speaker 6: will be now, but you had an incumbent then Lyndon Johnson.
Speaker 6: Today Joe Biden, who was in deep trouble within their
Speaker 6: own party in sixty eight, Lyndon Johnson decides not to
Speaker 6: run again, and we'll see, but that is one of
Speaker 6: the possibilities we are seeing with Joe Biden. So those
Speaker 6: are some of the comparisons. Look, two basic difference is one,
Speaker 6: we're much more polarized today, meaning just on the electoral map,
Speaker 6: fewer parts of the electorate move around sixty eight, you
Speaker 6: still had landslide elections and big swings in the electorate.
Speaker 6: So more changed in sixty eight than it does today.
Speaker 6: And secondly, the media environment is just much more different,
Speaker 6: much less controlled. There's fewer guard rails, fewer filters, and
Speaker 6: so I think information conspiracy theory, arguments about elections can
Speaker 6: just flow much more easily and quick than they could
Speaker 6: in sixty eight.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. You are working on this new book
Speaker 1: about civil rights in the South and about the killing
Speaker 1: of three civil rights workers. Talk to me about that
Speaker 1: story and how it relates to right now.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting, often and often unsettling to
Speaker 6: hear all these attacks that take place on teaching about
Speaker 6: civil rights history and race relations history in a clear
Speaker 6: eight way. I'm writing a book about something called Freedom
Speaker 6: Summer in nineteen sixty four, which was a huge mobilization
Speaker 6: where local black activist civil rights organizations, then college students
Speaker 6: from the north all converged on Mississippi in an effort
Speaker 6: to register voters and challenge the Democratic Party, which at
Speaker 6: that time was the party of Southern Democrats who were
Speaker 6: at odds with the civil rights agenda of Northern Democrats.
Speaker 6: And it's a dramatic story. It's also gruesome. Involves murder
Speaker 6: not only of three civil rights workers who kind of
Speaker 6: make the news, but violence against many others, and it's
Speaker 6: a reminder. Basically, I think the story of just how
Speaker 6: deeply rooted not only racial division is in this country,
Speaker 6: but racial violence, kind of institutionalized racial inequality has all
Speaker 6: been part of relatively recent history, and it took movement
Speaker 6: efforts and real struggle to start to bring down those
Speaker 6: kinds of systems, and we're not that far away from
Speaker 6: it in twenty twenty four, and so I think the
Speaker 6: story is important, and it's also a reminder when we
Speaker 6: see voting rights being restricted in Red states today, it's
Speaker 6: not some just technical issue. It's reversing hard fought struggles
Speaker 6: from that nineteen sixties period. People literally gave their lives
Speaker 6: just to be able to go and vote, and so
Speaker 6: that voting rights principle is really sacred. It's not just
Speaker 6: a democratic principle, it's one that people gave everything for.
Speaker 6: And so when we see the restrictions being put back
Speaker 6: into place today and you can see some of the
Speaker 6: absolute fury of kind of older generations who remember what
Speaker 6: it was like not to have that right, I think
Speaker 6: the history is an important reminder of why this is
Speaker 6: so dangerous and how badly we can veer in this
Speaker 6: country when we're not careful and not watching.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Julian, really appreciate you.
Speaker 6: Thanks for having me great to talk.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds
Speaker 1: in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.