Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And Senate Democrats have called for Justice
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the Trump immunity case.
Speaker 1: I don't think he will do that, but sure, why not.
Speaker 1: We have such a great show for you Today. Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Summerlee talks to us about how we achieve a more
Speaker 1: democratic America. Then we'll talk to Democracy Dockets Mark Elias
Speaker 1: about the latest court cases he is battling to protect democracy.
Speaker 1: But first we have the host of Think Lake, an
Speaker 1: economist podcast, University of Michigan Professor Justin Wolfers. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics. Justin Wolfers, happy to talk. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: to be an economist trying to explain this anonymy.
Speaker 2: It's fun and it's easy.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go explain it to me like I
Speaker 1: don't understand what you're talking about, which full disclosure, I
Speaker 1: only mildly understand what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Okay, here's the simple truth. It's good, thank you for
Speaker 2: coming to my ted talk. Years of study went into that.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, So tell me what's happening the landing has
Speaker 1: been soft.
Speaker 2: Yes, Molly, we just met.
Speaker 1: It's not even true we know each other.
Speaker 2: Well, I know, I'm just blessing you. Look, here's another
Speaker 2: way of talking about the economy. We'll talk about a
Speaker 2: soft landing. But what I want you to do, Molly,
Speaker 2: is tell me what you care about, and I'll tell
Speaker 2: you how we're doing. And tell me, as a person,
Speaker 2: what you care about.
Speaker 1: Well, I know what voters care about, because I've been
Speaker 1: told many, many times that all voters care about as inflations.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that's not true. There's a long industry of
Speaker 2: people who analyze election results from the United States and
Speaker 2: around the world, and I'm in that industry, and they
Speaker 2: relate it to economic conditions. And this is where you
Speaker 2: get the old expression it's the economy stupid. That What
Speaker 2: we've learned is economic conditions, broadly defined, have a big
Speaker 2: impact on whether the incumbent party gets re elected. And
Speaker 2: when we say economic conditions, usually it means two things.
Speaker 2: One means the real economy, by which I mean real
Speaker 2: things that happen. Do people really have jobs? Is unemployment
Speaker 2: really low? Are we producing lots of real thing? And
Speaker 2: the answer on that is unemployment's near a fifty year low.
Speaker 2: We have employment rates up near their post. They're twenty
Speaker 2: first century high and possibly not too far off an
Speaker 2: all time high, certainly above pre pandemic lows and above
Speaker 2: pre pandemic trends. And I know it gets very exciting
Speaker 2: when I say gross domestic product, but that's another real
Speaker 2: indicator of what's really happening. How much we make, how
Speaker 2: much we earn, how much we're spending, also strong and growing.
Speaker 2: So that's one side of what's really happening. The other
Speaker 2: side is, yes, inflation also matters, but it's not the
Speaker 2: only thing that matters. Inflation was a year and a
Speaker 2: half ago running at rates of nine percent, and there
Speaker 2: was a bunch of people who said, don't worry, it's transitory,
Speaker 2: including myself. People in Washington think transitory means it'll be
Speaker 2: done by the end of the week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a rough one.
Speaker 2: Right, so it didn't happen. Now in economics we move
Speaker 2: a little slower, and so a year and a half later,
Speaker 2: inflation's down too, as of this morning, three point one percent.
Speaker 2: So it was transitory. Where by the word transitory we
Speaker 2: mean not quite as quick as your hope, but not
Speaker 2: quite as slow as you feared. So the two things
Speaker 2: we care about how much stuff's getting made, people getting jobs,
Speaker 2: stuff like that. All good inflation, what's the price tag
Speaker 2: on stuff? Not all good? But the bad stuff's behind us.
Speaker 2: And we're on the way down to two points something
Speaker 2: percent inflation. Wow, and that's normal. That's the reason you
Speaker 2: and I never talked about inflation prior to the year
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. It's, first of all, we'd never met. And secondly,
Speaker 2: because the preceding thirty years it had been two points
Speaker 2: something percent and it was so boring, no one cared.
Speaker 2: Guess what real Soon now maybe even today, it's so boring,
Speaker 2: we're going to stop caring.
Speaker 1: I was helping you could explain why you can't have
Speaker 1: radical deflation and why it needs to go back. Deflation
Speaker 1: has to happen slowly.
Speaker 2: Right, we can have radical deflation. Here's how you do it.
Speaker 2: You stop the economy. Just hit the brakes as hard
Speaker 2: as you can. I've done that in the car before
Speaker 2: everyone jerks forward. Someone's head goes through the screen, the windscreen,
Speaker 2: and they're miserable. And that's how it works. In economics.
Speaker 2: We could have a recession in ducer recession. Maybe by
Speaker 2: the government cutting back on spending on the FED, raising
Speaker 2: rates to unbelievable levels, and they could induce a recession.
Speaker 2: This is what Paul Volker did in the early nineteen eighties,
Speaker 2: and it caused inflation to fall from fifteen percent down
Speaker 2: to more normal rates of three four five. So that
Speaker 2: kind of feels like it would get the job done.
Speaker 2: But guess what we got inflation from nine down to
Speaker 2: three without a recession. Even better. So what people were
Speaker 2: talking about previously is let's have what they called a
Speaker 2: soft landing. The hope a year ago was that we
Speaker 2: would be able to slow the economy just a little bit,
Speaker 2: just enough it wouldn't throw millions out of work, but
Speaker 2: still enough that it would cause inflation to go down.
Speaker 2: My friend Jason Furman ran a survey of economists back
Speaker 2: then a year ago, and they gave it a one
Speaker 2: and six chance that we would achieve a soft.
Speaker 1: Landing, right one in sex. Wow.
Speaker 2: Now, guess what. We didn't just get a soft landing,
Speaker 2: We got better. Inflation has basically come all the way down.
Speaker 2: It's over the last six months, core inflation's run at
Speaker 2: two point nine percent, so two point something. That's where
Speaker 2: we want to maybe wanted a little bit lower half
Speaker 2: a point, and the unemployment rate is still within a
Speaker 2: quarter point of it's fifty year low. So it's an
Speaker 2: extra soft landing. It's not even really a landing. It's
Speaker 2: some economists are calling it an immaculate disinflation.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about an immaculate disinflation. I'm going to
Speaker 1: guess that some of what happened was that the American
Speaker 1: rescue plan helped this immaculate immaculism be immaculate, and that
Speaker 1: the ways in which like for example, the aid to
Speaker 1: Ukraine was funneled through building weapons in the United States,
Speaker 1: those kind of things actually pumped up the economy. Yes,
Speaker 1: no discuss.
Speaker 2: Those things pumped up the economy, that's what we're calling
Speaker 2: the real stuff before. But they likely also had an
Speaker 2: effect on inflation, which would be to raise it. So, Molly,
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask your permission, can we do economic
Speaker 2: theory on this show?
Speaker 1: Please? I know, okay, ys always.
Speaker 2: But I want your listeners to really understand this. In economics,
Speaker 2: of course, we talk a lot about demand and supply,
Speaker 2: and so all those folks who were terribly worried about
Speaker 2: inflation a year ago were worried the problem was demand. Basically,
Speaker 2: their view a year ago was that we had unemployment
Speaker 2: too low, we had incomes too high, we had too
Speaker 2: much of a good thing, and so too many dollar
Speaker 2: bills in our wallets chasing too few goods, causing inflation.
Speaker 2: And if you thought that it was too much demand
Speaker 2: and too much of a good thing causing inflation, what
Speaker 2: you would want is to crush the extra demand and
Speaker 2: bring us back to a normal amount of a good thing,
Speaker 2: and that would crush inflation, which we didn't do. The
Speaker 2: other story is it was supply. Supply is basically look,
Speaker 2: business went crazy. It was a weird time to do business.
Speaker 2: Global shipping routes were jammed. Energy prices went through the
Speaker 2: roof because Putin invaded Ukraine, so did some food prices.
Speaker 2: We saw bird flu raise egg prices, but more importantly,
Speaker 2: we just saw the pandemic do what pandemics do, which
Speaker 2: is cause infinite disruption in all of our workplaces. And
Speaker 2: all of your listeners can recognize that whatever business you
Speaker 2: work in, it was turned utterly upside down. Now, the
Speaker 2: thing about a supply disruption is once that disruption passes,
Speaker 2: once global shipping routes are back to normal. Once factories
Speaker 2: can open without worrying about every sneeze, then business goes
Speaker 2: back to normal. And I think that's basically what happened
Speaker 2: that we had this weird period. Let's call it the pandemic.
Speaker 1: I had to put too fine a point on it, yes.
Speaker 2: Which made it really hard to do business, and that
Speaker 2: led to all sorts of very unexpected price rises. And
Speaker 2: that pandemic passed. Business went back to normal, and with
Speaker 2: it so did inflation. So look, I know, Molly, you
Speaker 2: have a tendency to want to put things in partisan terms,
Speaker 2: so mean by this story. It's not really that Joe
Speaker 2: Biden did one thing or another, although there is one
Speaker 2: thing that actually believe it or not, I think it's
Speaker 2: Donald Trump deserves a lot of credit for interesting He
Speaker 2: appointed Jay Powell to head the FARED and the FED
Speaker 2: has been very patient and very careful, and it resisted
Speaker 2: all of the calls from conservatives to engineer or recession
Speaker 2: to get rid of inflation. And that patience has paid off,
Speaker 2: as we've seen, you didn't need a recession to get
Speaker 2: rid of inflation. Now, I'll bring it back to your
Speaker 2: partisan terms. Conservative economists with their hard money doctrines and
Speaker 2: their calls for the next recession were exactly wrong. And
Speaker 2: those of US counseling a little more patients because we
Speaker 2: really care about keeping people in work and we're a
Speaker 2: little more cautious and said, let's just wait and see,
Speaker 2: this might just be supply.
Speaker 1: We were right, So ultimate Lea really was supply. I
Speaker 1: can't believe you just call me partisan, you monster.
Speaker 2: I sorry, I'm.
Speaker 1: Very mad at you, But let me ask you. When
Speaker 1: we look back on this is now we're going to
Speaker 1: get really boring. So everyone you can put us up
Speaker 1: at two point oh speed. Actually I think this is
Speaker 1: quite interesting.
Speaker 2: But that's just me, Molly, I mean, thank you. There's
Speaker 2: no greater introduction I could have hoped forul than like
Speaker 2: I'm about to go to my guest. He's an economist.
Speaker 2: Tune out to exit to exit.
Speaker 1: Baby.
Speaker 2: Is that just because I called you patisan?
Speaker 1: Yeah, pretty much.
Speaker 2: We're I'm sorry you are in Manhattan, for Manhattan, you're
Speaker 2: a swing voter.
Speaker 1: Right, yes, exactly. So I want to ask you, like
Speaker 1: what percentage of this inflation was caused by modern monetary theory?
Speaker 1: Which is I'm sorry to do this, but.
Speaker 2: This is such like don't go too, ks through this
Speaker 2: is that way you learn your swear words listeners, Molly's
Speaker 2: had some nonsense whispered in her ear. My professional bullshit is.
Speaker 1: Okay. Modern monetary theory quickly is that you can just
Speaker 1: print as much money as you want. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Go. Modern monetary theory is either original or it's right,
Speaker 2: but it's not both. Look, I don't know, Like it's
Speaker 2: a subtribe of economists who believe that they've understood the
Speaker 2: economy and the rest of us don't. Look, their criticism
Speaker 2: is none of us do. They're right, none of us do.
Speaker 2: But if their claim is they and they alone do.
Speaker 2: I'm generally against messianic figures who by themselves have discovered truth.
Speaker 2: But I really have tried a good faith attempt to
Speaker 2: engage these folks, and either they're saying something totally absurd,
Speaker 2: and then I argue and I'm like, hey, that sounds crazy,
Speaker 2: and they're like, oh no, no, no, no, we're not saying that
Speaker 2: at all. And then they say something totally obvious. So
Speaker 2: either they're saying something that mainstream I must have understood
Speaker 2: all along, which is the real constraints on being able
Speaker 2: to just keep spending more money is eventually that will
Speaker 2: cause inflation, or they're saying something really absurd, which is
Speaker 2: there's no constraint and the government should just keep buying
Speaker 2: stuff forever. I don't know which it is, my friends
Speaker 2: in modern monetary theory. I apologize for not understanding you.
Speaker 2: There is a point in my career I figured I
Speaker 2: got old enough that if I don't understand what you're saying,
Speaker 2: it's your fault, not mine. When I was young, I
Speaker 2: used to think it was me.
Speaker 1: This is realm. We've hit real niche humor. Here, niche
Speaker 1: niche humor.
Speaker 2: It's just you and me, mate, just you.
Speaker 1: And me finding this hilarious. So let's talk about what
Speaker 1: it looks like now. We still have a very tight
Speaker 1: labor market. Will you talk about that for a minute.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's good to know we'll never fix the
Speaker 1: citizenship problem. So these jobs will luckily, we'll find children
Speaker 1: who have come over the board to work in these jobs. Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what the Republicans want, not to seem
Speaker 1: partisan writing.
Speaker 2: Democrats want robots to do them right. And look, Molly,
Speaker 2: go back. You spoke economics. I want you to speak
Speaker 2: like a person. You said, we have a very tight
Speaker 2: labor market. Yes, but don't you mean good?
Speaker 1: I mean good, except that you need people to work
Speaker 1: these jobs.
Speaker 2: Oh so you're saying poor employers are sometimes finding it
Speaker 2: hard to find workers when they're offering measly wages. So
Speaker 2: workers who are looking for work and find it. I
Speaker 2: don't know about you, Molly. It makes me really happy.
Speaker 2: And then I know in New York you've got like
Speaker 2: lots of fancy people you hang with and they're like,
Speaker 2: it must be hard to find people these days. And
Speaker 2: the answer is when you pay very little, it is.
Speaker 2: And the thing is, those of who are truly liberal, Molly,
Speaker 2: think that's wonderful. And I know it's harder to get
Speaker 2: your house clean for not much money. But here's the thing.
Speaker 2: If you want it cleans, just pay a little more.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's Wolfer's out of control. He's out
Speaker 1: of control. No, But I mean, ultimately, you need people
Speaker 1: to pay into Social Security for the economy to keep going,
Speaker 1: you need to add workers, right or Am I confused here?
Speaker 2: Look? Am I pro immigration? Yes? I believe it's wonderful
Speaker 2: for the United States, and I believe it's wonderful for
Speaker 2: the immigrant which is an important fact that shouldn't be lost.
Speaker 1: Where is that accent from just Carriot?
Speaker 2: Sorry, go on, Yes, this is Michigan. I know you
Speaker 2: people call me fly over country, but this is how
Speaker 2: we speak out here.
Speaker 1: I feel like that is not how you speak in Michigan.
Speaker 2: But some people say, actually, the United States get some
Speaker 2: of the best and the brightest as a result of
Speaker 2: its immigration policies. But I still just want to go back.
Speaker 2: What do you care about in the labor market. Look,
Speaker 2: here's the other thing. One of the big talking points
Speaker 2: out there is real wages aren't growing, prices were growing,
Speaker 2: wages weren't keeping up. Not true. What's actually happening is
Speaker 2: wages are out growing prices. I want to go a
Speaker 2: step further. Wages are growing the fastest for those who
Speaker 2: need it most. Those are the to end of the
Speaker 2: instruction really important. There's this sort of vibe session debate,
Speaker 2: which is interminable discussion, which is the economic statistics say
Speaker 2: that things are going well, and infinite column inches have
Speaker 2: been devoted to the fact that public opinion polls suggest
Speaker 2: people aren't so happy about it. Now, it turns out
Speaker 2: all of those column inches are being written by people
Speaker 2: in the upper middle class the upper middle class are
Speaker 2: not getting pay rises right now, the working class are,
Speaker 2: and the middle class are, and so the reality is
Speaker 2: life is getting quite a lot better for the folks
Speaker 2: that those of us a somewhat liberal persuasion actually care about.
Speaker 2: But the whining is coming from folks who are profoundly
Speaker 2: out of touch with reality. And the reality is that
Speaker 2: working class jobs wages are rising a lot. So, yes,
Speaker 2: it's hard to get someone to clean your house cheaply,
Speaker 2: but some of us think that's fabulous.
Speaker 1: I personally have had very good success in my life
Speaker 1: with the people that I have work in relationship with.
Speaker 1: But I'm more just talking about this sort of larger
Speaker 1: sense in which you know, how we keep it moving.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, so you're like, how do we maintain an
Speaker 2: economy with really low unemployment? Right, bloody great question, I
Speaker 2: reckon it's worth finding out. But it's happened before. It's
Speaker 2: happened before in the United States fifty years ago, and
Speaker 2: it's happened in a handful of other countries. Japan for
Speaker 2: many years had two percent unemployment. New Zealand, which is
Speaker 2: a small, uninteresting country near a large and vibrant, terrific country.
Speaker 1: I feel like you have some bias here.
Speaker 2: No, I'm an economist. New Zealand its official unemployment count
Speaker 2: at one point was like two hundred and seventeen people. Wow.
Speaker 2: The labor ad minister at the time joked that he
Speaker 2: knew all the unemployed people. Look, maybe it's impossible to
Speaker 2: run a labor market that tide, but maybe it's possible.
Speaker 2: We haven't run that experiment in the United States in
Speaker 2: several generations. So yes, immigration may well help if low
Speaker 2: unemployment causes higher inflation, but right now it's not right.
Speaker 1: It's a good point, And I think it's interesting as
Speaker 1: we're talking about this because you really do see how
Speaker 1: and this is so counterintuitive. But ultimately what you're saying
Speaker 1: is that the president doesn't have that much control over
Speaker 1: the economy.
Speaker 2: It's an interminable debate. You and I can go back
Speaker 2: and forward. The general view when you ask Washington pundits
Speaker 2: is the president can do whatever he wants to win
Speaker 2: the economic indicator with the click of a finger, click
Speaker 2: of his fingers. And the general view when you ask
Speaker 2: economists is how and there's a great suspicion that presidents
Speaker 2: have a great effect on things. Probably a truth somewhere
Speaker 2: between those two views. I do think it worth that
Speaker 2: it's interesting that one of the most unremarked but remarkable
Speaker 2: thing that's happened is inequality has declined through the Biden presidency,
Speaker 2: and it just so happens to be a Democrat in
Speaker 2: the White House, and one wonders whether somehow the emphasis
Speaker 2: of the president on lifting up working class Americans is
Speaker 2: actually finding its way through to the lives of working
Speaker 2: in middle class Americans.
Speaker 1: That's a little bit of partisanship. I'll take it. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, justin I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's a great joy, Molly.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Summerly represents Pennsylvania's twelfth district. Welcome back to Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Summerly, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 3: I'm always excited to be here.
Speaker 1: Well, it's very mutual. So let us talk about the
Speaker 1: Freedom to Vote Act and what is happening in Congress.
Speaker 1: It's weird to talk about something in Congress that is
Speaker 1: like an actual normal congressional thing after the last couple
Speaker 1: of weeks before we talk about what you're doing, which
Speaker 1: is so important and so crucial. Is it weird to
Speaker 1: be in Congress right now?
Speaker 3: Goodness.
Speaker 4: Yes, actually, let's just start there. Yeah, it's a strange place.
Speaker 4: It's probably one of the least productive congressional sessions ever.
Speaker 4: And you know, I think the weirdest part about it
Speaker 4: is that Republicans are saying this, like hardcore right winging
Speaker 4: Republicans are the leading voice is saying that everything that's
Speaker 4: happening right now is ridiculous. So you know, if they're
Speaker 4: saying it, then it's absolutely true. It's absolutely that absurd.
Speaker 4: We've done very little this Congress except for cinsure the
Speaker 4: leading progressive black and brown voices. We found time for that,
Speaker 4: but we hadn't seemingly found time to pass any bills
Speaker 4: or to pass a budget, which is obviously our basic responsibility.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't bound time for anything else.
Speaker 4: But we are silencing and punishing black and brown members.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about They kicked out Kevin McCarthy. Now he's
Speaker 1: leaving for good. They got had three weeks no speaker,
Speaker 1: panicked and picked a speaker that nobody knew. That's what
Speaker 1: it looks like from the outside you are inside Congress.
Speaker 1: Is that what it looks like from the inside.
Speaker 4: I hate to say it, but that's what it looks
Speaker 4: like to me, I did not know that man. Sorry
Speaker 4: to that man, but I had never heard him either.
Speaker 4: So it was as much as a shock to me,
Speaker 4: but it was also very telling that you know, when
Speaker 4: we talk about it, you know, you say, we didn't
Speaker 4: have a speaker for three weeks. Essentially, it took the
Speaker 4: Republican Party one year to pick a speaker because the
Speaker 4: election was in last November, so they had his last
Speaker 4: November to decide who they wanted to lead our Congress.
Speaker 4: We knew on January third that Kevin McCarthy was a placeholder.
Speaker 3: That was very clear.
Speaker 4: By the end of the twelve line right, we then go,
Speaker 4: he fills his placewoader seat. They start over again in
Speaker 4: the end of the you know, in the fall, and
Speaker 4: then it takes more weeks after that, so it took
Speaker 4: a year for them to pick even a speaker. So yeah,
Speaker 4: it looks as observed from the inset as I imagine
Speaker 4: it looks from the outset.
Speaker 1: One of the things that Republicans have done is they've
Speaker 1: been sort of putting these bills up in order to
Speaker 1: try to get liberals to have to vote against them,
Speaker 1: to try to prove that liberals are anti Semitic. So
Speaker 1: you voted yes on reaffirming Israel the States right to exist.
Speaker 1: You voted yes on calling on Hamas to immediately release
Speaker 1: hostages taken during October twenty twenty three. So these are
Speaker 1: like the two larger bills. Now they have more bills
Speaker 1: that say all sorts of vague stuff, explain to us
Speaker 1: what's happening here.
Speaker 4: I don't know that I can explain necessarily what's happening
Speaker 4: aside from what it feels like to me. I imagine
Speaker 4: what it feels like to many Americans is that the
Speaker 4: Republican Party is distracting from their inability to advance an agenda,
Speaker 4: from their inability to pass a budget, and they are
Speaker 4: using the very real pain, the very raal fears of
Speaker 4: our Jewish communities as a wedge as a weapon. And
Speaker 4: I think it is every bit as racist as they
Speaker 4: always are.
Speaker 3: Is every bit as racist as they always are.
Speaker 4: Here we're talking about the a party that contains people
Speaker 4: who unapologetically have said Jews will not replace us, with
Speaker 4: unapologetically pushed you know theories such as the Great Replacement theory,
Speaker 4: who unapologetically marginalized and oppressed black and brown people who
Speaker 4: are horrible to immigrants of all, well, I won't say all,
Speaker 4: but unapologically horrible to immigrants who don't look like them,
Speaker 4: who don't share their religion. They have not stopped or
Speaker 4: seed any of this in the midst of these bills.
Speaker 4: They still continue on their path. They still continue on
Speaker 4: their crusade to harm all Americans who aren't them, don't
Speaker 4: look like them, who are not wealthy, white man of
Speaker 4: a certain age range of demographic The fact that they're
Speaker 4: leaning so hard into this is for me, the saying
Speaker 4: that the activation is a confession here.
Speaker 1: That's right, it feels to me anyway. We're in the
Speaker 1: cusp of a multi racial democracy for the first time ever,
Speaker 1: and that is what's making Republicans so scared slash angry.
Speaker 3: Let me just say that, I mean, yeah, I mean
Speaker 3: I think we are at a crossroads.
Speaker 4: I think we're at a critical crossroads in our democracy.
Speaker 4: We can see it as we are at the cusp
Speaker 4: of this multi racial democracy, this wild car a reflective
Speaker 4: representative democracy, or or we are at the cusp of
Speaker 4: an eroding democracy, one that doesn't survive into the future
Speaker 4: and two decades into the future because we've not.
Speaker 3: Papped the holes that are becoming more and more uncontainable.
Speaker 4: If you can see the holes and the cracks and democracy,
Speaker 4: we're already in a world of trouble. So that brings
Speaker 4: us to you know, this piece of legislation, which is
Speaker 4: a direct response to further attacks on Section two of
Speaker 4: the Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 1: Tell us about Section two for those who are playing
Speaker 1: along at home.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's the last bit of reports that voters, private
Speaker 4: voters have against discriminatory attacks on their access to voting
Speaker 4: right whether or not, you know, particularly black and brown
Speaker 4: voters can bring suit when they're being or when there
Speaker 4: are laws that have a disproportionate burden on their access
Speaker 4: to voting. So what we saw and what we have seen, right,
Speaker 4: for instance, we've seen you know, states, and we know
Speaker 4: that voting looks different from not just state the state,
Speaker 4: but it looks different from municipality the municipality, county to councy.
Speaker 4: But where we saw we see some states, right, they'll
Speaker 4: have some counties that will have expanded access to voting
Speaker 4: to poles and others that have more limited access. That
Speaker 4: was the situation that we've seen in one case where
Speaker 4: all of the voters that had a higher burden to
Speaker 4: figure out how to vote, to have access to early
Speaker 4: voting or you know, drop boxes or things of that nature,
Speaker 4: whereas their white chunter parts and counties next to them
Speaker 4: didn't share those same impediments. Right, and Section two has
Speaker 4: for decades protected these voters to be able to not
Speaker 4: just bring suit, but proof that there was a disproportion
Speaker 4: in a disperate impact on them. The courts are now
Speaker 4: attempting and have said that that burden has to be
Speaker 4: substantially higher, which essentially makes us so that black and
Speaker 4: brown voters who are being discriminated against, they don't have
Speaker 4: any your ecourse to fairness or to corrective measures when
Speaker 4: they're discriminated against at the polls.
Speaker 1: Right, that sounds very much like the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: We know, the Supreme Court that has been intentioned built,
Speaker 4: And as we talk about the erosion of voting rights,
Speaker 4: you know, we can go back to the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: seat that they stole.
Speaker 3: Everything that we've been seeing has been an escalation.
Speaker 4: So you know, way back in twenty thirteen when they
Speaker 4: eroded Section five, and in twenty twenty one when they
Speaker 4: are starting to erode Section two, when we saw them
Speaker 4: still a Supreme Court case that helped them build one
Speaker 4: of the most conservative and reactionary courts that we are
Speaker 4: dealing with right now. Then we can directly tie those
Speaker 4: actions to our loss of abortion care, we can tie
Speaker 4: those actions to our loss of affirmative action. We can
Speaker 4: tie that to so much more, and then we can
Speaker 4: tie directly to the insurrection, right, because that's the next
Speaker 4: frontier is making sure that certain people never get to
Speaker 4: vote again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's sort of the goal there. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not even sort of, it is the goal.
Speaker 3: It is absolutely goal.
Speaker 1: They were able to somehow get the cr passed. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there a way to get these people to get
Speaker 1: at all interested.
Speaker 4: In this seeing anything in this commers pass. I think
Speaker 4: that the last twelve months have shown us to maybe
Speaker 4: not hold our breath right, but it's also reminded us
Speaker 4: that we have to fight that much harder to reclaim
Speaker 4: the gabbles, to alert the American population to the threats
Speaker 4: that it's facing from a radicalized, extremist right wing Republican Party.
Speaker 3: It was not a one off thing. Donald Chalk was
Speaker 3: not a one off.
Speaker 4: That man said he wants to be a dictator on
Speaker 4: day one so that he can get through everything that
Speaker 4: he would have to otherwise go through the democratic processes
Speaker 4: if he was a dictator for one day, he just
Speaker 4: do all these terrible things. Right that a presidential candidate
Speaker 4: and former president could even joke about being a dictator
Speaker 4: in our society, well.
Speaker 1: Especially one who really does want to be a dictator.
Speaker 4: That man is telling you precisely what he is in
Speaker 4: the Democratic Party. If we are the Party of democracy,
Speaker 4: of democratic values, then we have a responsibility of not
Speaker 4: equivocating with Republicans who are fascists, not pretending that there
Speaker 4: are another side of the coin, and not pretending that
Speaker 4: our democracy isn't under attack. We're not going to fortify
Speaker 4: our democracy by pretending that the threats and the risks
Speaker 4: to it are understated somehow. So that's what we need
Speaker 4: to do. When we still present legislation. We have a
Speaker 4: responsibility to still present the solutions to legislative policy issues
Speaker 4: that our constituents and our country have. And we have
Speaker 4: a responsibility to still protect democracy whether or not we
Speaker 4: have the gabble. So we like to hope that and
Speaker 4: we would wish that democracy and protecting democracy is a
Speaker 4: bipartisan issue. If it's not, then we need to take
Speaker 4: this to the polls, and we need to remind Americans
Speaker 4: that one party doesn't just want democracy to end, they're
Speaker 4: actively working towards it.
Speaker 1: No agreed, And I think that's right. You're being targeted
Speaker 1: right now by apec Ape Well. I was going to say,
Speaker 1: a nefarious billionaire who also funds the right wing attack
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. They're putting pictures of you next
Speaker 1: to Trump and MTG explain this to.
Speaker 4: Us, So yeah, they you know what they did that
Speaker 4: to me in my first election. I think that's really important,
Speaker 4: right because even as people are talking about whether or not,
Speaker 4: you know, corporate packs such as the ones that an
Speaker 4: organization like a PAC ones, whether or not they are
Speaker 4: or should be allowed to operate in our political system
Speaker 4: like this because they're a single issue organization and a
Speaker 4: single issue that is important to many American voters. But
Speaker 4: the reality is is that a one hundred million dollars
Speaker 4: to spend against five people is objectively absurd. That is
Speaker 4: objectively an existential threat to our democracy. And particularly when
Speaker 4: we look at where they spend the money and how
Speaker 4: they spend the money, we can really kind of hone
Speaker 4: in on the ways in which not only is it
Speaker 4: a threat to democracy. But the people who are going
Speaker 4: to be harmed those strets with democracies are black and
Speaker 4: brown communities like the ones that I represent, the ones
Speaker 4: that Jamal Bowman represents, or Chlory Bush, which is where
Speaker 4: they are exclusively focusing. These are communities that aren't rich, right,
Speaker 4: These are working class communities that don't have one hundred
Speaker 4: million dollars to counter at that. But if you don't
Speaker 4: have one hundred million dollars, does that mean that you
Speaker 4: don't get to have a representative of democracy. Doesn't mean
Speaker 4: that you don't get to pick your own politicians. When
Speaker 4: they ran against me last year, they never mentioned Israel once,
Speaker 4: not one time, not one time in any race across
Speaker 4: the country.
Speaker 3: They called me a trunk supporter. They imply that I
Speaker 3: was a Republican.
Speaker 1: I also think that it's important you actually were the
Speaker 1: co sponsor of this bill condemning Hamas.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because actually, what we're trying to do is we're
Speaker 4: trying to kill any distinct So even when we not
Speaker 4: just co sponsor, but we champion, we advocate vocally against
Speaker 4: the wars of Hamas and war when we say on
Speaker 4: equivocally that we believe that Israelis and Palestinians deserve and
Speaker 4: that it is worth fighting for their right to live
Speaker 4: peacefully and safely. We are labeled enemies, we are labeled
Speaker 4: terrorist sympathizers, and it brings harm to us. They know
Speaker 4: that when they tweet at me, they know that they
Speaker 4: are unleashing upon me, people who are going to be
Speaker 4: racist against me, people who are going to threaten our lives.
Speaker 4: They know that we get death threats and so much
Speaker 4: hate from their targeting, and their targeting is never in
Speaker 4: good faith. They are attempting to blatantly squash conversation. But
Speaker 4: right now, desperately, we need to actually be embracing a
Speaker 4: nuanced conversation around what is happening in Israel and Palace
Speaker 4: that not run away from it. But we can't do that,
Speaker 4: and anyone who thinks about doing it or threatened with
Speaker 4: millions and millions of dollars against them. They said that
Speaker 4: they will spend one hundred million dollars this cycle just
Speaker 4: to silence and ensure that progressive black and brown voters
Speaker 4: in this country do not have the representation that they
Speaker 4: called for, that they fought for. But it also means
Speaker 4: that I have to raise money. It means now that
Speaker 4: we have to find a way to fight back. Because
Speaker 4: my constituents, all of mike is are Jewish constituents, and
Speaker 4: our black constituents, they voted for representation that focuses not
Speaker 4: just on our differences, but on our similarities. On climate justice,
Speaker 4: on healthcare for everyone, on infrastructure, on equitable schools, and
Speaker 4: making sure that all of our workers have a living
Speaker 4: wage in the union. Those were concepts and ideas and
Speaker 4: values that unified all of my districts and so many
Speaker 4: other districts. And when this type of money comes in
Speaker 4: to osi scate, to distract and to expread this information,
Speaker 4: it keeps us from having those unifying conversations. It keeps
Speaker 4: us from having conversations about the representation that people in
Speaker 4: PA twelve one to have, that the people in other
Speaker 4: districts like Minnesota or Saint Louis or New York one
Speaker 4: to have. And that's why we are fighting back. I'm
Speaker 4: not a famous representatives. I'm not you know, God blessed
Speaker 4: the members of this blog, okay before me right. They
Speaker 4: have access to a lot of money because of their notoriety.
Speaker 4: I don't have it, and that's why I'm APEX number
Speaker 4: one target because they think I'm the most vulnerable. So
Speaker 4: we need folks who believe in this type of courageous
Speaker 4: representation and advocacy.
Speaker 3: If you do, we need the support.
Speaker 4: If we lose these seats, it will send a message
Speaker 4: that you can't be pro our Jewish siblings and pro Palestinians,
Speaker 4: pro life, pro peace. You can't be pro peace in
Speaker 4: this Congress if they defeat me, and if they defeat
Speaker 4: all of the black members of the squad, just the
Speaker 4: black members of the squad.
Speaker 3: So please give what you can.
Speaker 4: Go Yeah, more about me, learn more about our movement
Speaker 4: at SUMMERFPA dot com. But we want to expand, not
Speaker 4: shrink our movement summerly.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you. Mark Elias is the founder of
Speaker 1: Democracy Doted. Welcome Mark to Fast Politics.
Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I am really delighted to have you. You're one of
Speaker 1: the people that makes me feel better knowing that you're
Speaker 1: out there. That's so terrible. I'm sorry, but it's true.
Speaker 5: If I'm your source of optimism, you need a source
Speaker 5: of optimism.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest, I do need a source. Look, all
Speaker 1: I have is me and my giant mug. But so
Speaker 1: let's talk about what the election landscape looks like, I mean,
Speaker 1: Republicans just want to make it harder to vote because
Speaker 1: they know they are losing, right, I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: net net of this whole fiasco, right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So, look, the Republican plan is pretty out there,
Speaker 5: like they're not hiding it, right. They want to make
Speaker 5: it harder to vote and easier to cheat. So the
Speaker 5: harder to vote part is the voter suppression. The easier
Speaker 5: to cheat is all of the things that they want
Speaker 5: to do to make it easier to overturn free and
Speaker 5: fair elections the next time and have a more successful
Speaker 5: you know, January sixth, Right.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about harder to vote, because that's sort
Speaker 1: of where you come in. I mean, you probably also
Speaker 1: come in in the latter. But the former has been
Speaker 1: telling the Republicans have been working for a long time, Right,
Speaker 1: It's just that as they continually lose the demographic battle,
Speaker 1: it takes on more urgency.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So I think that to understand where the Republican
Speaker 5: psychology is, you have to actually go back in time
Speaker 5: to the election of Barack Obama in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 5: At that time, you know, it was not clear where
Speaker 5: the demographics of America would shake out electorally. As you
Speaker 5: may remember, George Bush made a real push, for example,
Speaker 5: for Hispanic voters to join the Republican Party. But after
Speaker 5: Obama put together what became known as the Obama Coalition,
Speaker 5: Republicans realized they had a problem. After the twenty twelve election,
Speaker 5: you'll remember, they did this very very famous autopsy report,
Speaker 5: and what came out of that autopsy report were a
Speaker 5: series of recommendations from the Republican Party, from the RNC
Speaker 5: that said, we need to moderate on immigration, we need
Speaker 5: to moderate on abortion, we need to find other ways
Speaker 5: to reach out to young voters and minority voters. And
Speaker 5: that was, in a nutshell molly supposed to be the
Speaker 5: candidacy of Jeb Bush. People don't remember Jeb Bush was
Speaker 5: supposed to be the front runner in the twenty sixteen campaign,
Speaker 5: but he got steamrolled by the opposite of that, which
Speaker 5: was Donald Trump. And so since the Donald Trump era,
Speaker 5: Republicans no longer aspire to having a majority of the vote.
Speaker 5: They don't try to win majorities. They try to rig
Speaker 5: the rules to be able to effectuate the ruling of
Speaker 5: the public without a majority coalition. So that's why in
Speaker 5: two thousand when George Bush loses the popular vote but
Speaker 5: wins the electoral college. It was such a traumatic event
Speaker 5: even for him and Republicans, Whereas by the time you
Speaker 5: get to twenty twenty, Republicans are trying to scheme to
Speaker 5: figure out how to lose the popular vote and still
Speaker 5: win the presidency. And in twenty twenty for it'll be
Speaker 5: even more.
Speaker 1: I think that's a really salient point. The thing that
Speaker 1: makes me sleep at night, and I don't sleep that well.
Speaker 1: So it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
Speaker 5: But maybe you need to move out of New York
Speaker 5: City and into the suburbs. It could be like street.
Speaker 1: Noise, you know, that'll do it. But is the idea
Speaker 1: that there's a certain amount of voter protection that comes
Speaker 1: from the governors right in states like Wisconmsin and Michigan.
Speaker 1: And Wisconsin lasts probably because the governor has much less power,
Speaker 1: but Michigan, Pennsylvania where governors have made it a little
Speaker 1: bit easier to vote, or have they been able to
Speaker 1: protect voting as it is? Is that true? Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: And talk me through that?
Speaker 5: Look, it's largely true. But we have two phenomena that
Speaker 5: we have to account for. The First is that most
Speaker 5: of our elections in this country are administered at the
Speaker 5: local level, at the county and subcounty life. So as
Speaker 5: much as governors can do and secretaries of state can
Speaker 5: do on a statewide level, we still see these bad
Speaker 5: actors at the local level, these election deniers taking over
Speaker 5: local election offices, and that's really hard. That's really hard
Speaker 5: for our system, which counts on those election officials to
Speaker 5: be doing the honest thing. The second thing is, of course,
Speaker 5: that you have the increase in Republican election vigilanteism. So
Speaker 5: we used to think about the threat of to our
Speaker 5: elections coming mostly from state actors, legislatures passing bad laws,
Speaker 5: governor Republican governors implementing bad laws, Republican secretary of states
Speaker 5: or ags. What we have seen in the last couple
Speaker 5: of years, though, is the growth of a vigilante culture
Speaker 5: among Republicans and Conservatives, where small groups of non state
Speaker 5: actors these sort of think about Molly the imageges of
Speaker 5: Conservatives in Maricopa Counties staking out dropboxes in body armor, right,
Speaker 5: And that is very hard even for governors to do
Speaker 5: much about at a systemic level, And that's part of
Speaker 5: the reason why my team and I remain so busy
Speaker 5: in court because when you deal at the local level
Speaker 5: with election deniers, you deal with these election vigilantes, oftentimes
Speaker 5: the courts are your best options.
Speaker 1: And that's what Trump wants, right, I mean, that's when
Speaker 1: Trump says, you've got to watch them vote every vote, right,
Speaker 1: That's what Trump wants.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And it's a really important point, Molly that you
Speaker 5: just made. When he says we've got to guard the
Speaker 5: vote or watch them vote. He's not talking about getting
Speaker 5: you know, uniformed police or election officials to watch. He
Speaker 5: is encouraging the same kind of activity that we saw
Speaker 5: on January sixth. He's trying to get his supporters to
Speaker 5: engage in vigilante and that is what is so dangerous
Speaker 5: and I've been sounding the alarm about for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5: Is that that is the dog whistle or maybe not
Speaker 5: even dog whistle, maybe it's a bullhorn that he is saying,
Speaker 5: is for groups of his supporters.
Speaker 2: To do this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's going to be bad. I mean that seems
Speaker 1: pretty fucking bad. Excuse my friend. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: where you're seeing this sort of most egregious voter defranchising.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So I think it comes in a couple of
Speaker 5: varieties and a lot of different geographies. So we know
Speaker 5: that Kleta Mitchell, who is a well known conservative lawyer,
Speaker 5: she was on the tape that Brad Rosenberger made with
Speaker 5: Donald Trump. She was one of the people on the
Speaker 5: Trump side of that conversation, and she was not that
Speaker 5: long ago caught on a released tape encouraging Republicans to
Speaker 5: target young voters, particularly college voters, in trying to disenfranchise them.
Speaker 5: So I think one stream of this will be wherever
Speaker 5: there are college campuses and you have concentration of young voters,
Speaker 5: we should expect to see targeted voter suppression, election visulanteism.
Speaker 1: So what does that look like.
Speaker 5: It is a few things. One of the big tactics
Speaker 5: that they are touting is voter challenges. Now, you know,
Speaker 5: again you and I have talked about voter challenges in
Speaker 5: past opportunities. But just to put a little perspective in
Speaker 5: the runoff in twenty twenty one in Georgia, when there
Speaker 5: were the two Senate seats in January of twenty twenty
Speaker 5: one that led to the Democrats taking control of the Senate.
Speaker 5: The Republican Party and their allies challenged the eligibility of
Speaker 5: three hundred and sixty four thousand Georgians. They tried to
Speaker 5: disenfranchise that many Georgians. Now my team went to court,
Speaker 5: we prevented it, and then Republicans changed the law in
Speaker 5: Georgia to make it harder to block challenges and easier
Speaker 5: to make mass challenges. So we so on another one
Speaker 5: hundred thousand challenges. When Rafael Warnock had his election in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty two, CBS News just did a profile of
Speaker 5: these voter challenge efforts that are moving from state to state.
Speaker 5: I think they identified eleven states now where conserners have
Speaker 5: plans to challenge the voting rights or the ability to
Speaker 5: vote on a mass basis. They're building AI tools to
Speaker 5: do this, and so those tools will be targeted at
Speaker 5: young voters, they'll be targeted at more transient voters, they'll
Speaker 5: be targeted, I believe, at minority voters. And so we
Speaker 5: need to wake up and realize this is going on,
Speaker 5: and we need to tackle this as a political matter,
Speaker 5: an organizing matter, and a legal matter.
Speaker 1: That is really fucking scary. But I also want to
Speaker 1: ask you about this sort of jerrymanderd voting. You know
Speaker 1: the congressional this the congressional seat voting. There have been
Speaker 1: efforts on the part of even this incredible conservative Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to sort of throw out some of the jerrymandering
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about Alabama. Can you talk to me about
Speaker 1: where that is and what you see and what is
Speaker 1: making you hopeful or worried or whatever it looks like there?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Molly again, I think you go back to our
Speaker 5: basic frame here, which is that Republicans want to make
Speaker 5: it harder to vote and easier to cheat because they
Speaker 5: don't command majorities. So one of the ways they make
Speaker 5: it easier to cheat is by rigging the districts. Right,
Speaker 5: Rigging districts is just another way of saying you're rigging
Speaker 5: the rules of voting. And so in Alabama, and in
Speaker 5: Georgia and in Louisiana, my law firm is suing the
Speaker 5: Republican states because they failed to abide by the Voting
Speaker 5: Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act has a very very
Speaker 5: specific requirement that says that under some circlement that you
Speaker 5: cannot dilute minority voting strengths. So we suit Alabama, and
Speaker 5: Alabama lost. They went to the US Court, and as
Speaker 5: you point out, to many people surprise, including Alabamas, the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court rejected their challenge.
Speaker 1: Were you shocked by that, by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: I was not.
Speaker 5: We had two cases in twenty twenty three that went
Speaker 5: to the US Supreme Court that were voting cases, the
Speaker 5: Alabama case and then the so called independent state Legislature
Speaker 5: theory case.
Speaker 1: Both of which the Supreme Court took your side on.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we won both of them. And that's not to
Speaker 5: say the Supreme Court is not trouble. It is in
Speaker 5: a lot of respects. But I do think that the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court when it comes to these existential democracy questions,
Speaker 5: not the incremental democracy questions, but the existential democracy.
Speaker 1: Incremental they love, but existential they don't like so much.
Speaker 5: Yeah, which is the reason why Molly, I'll say here,
Speaker 5: I think Jack Smith is going to win the immunity
Speaker 5: case against Donald Trump because that falls in the existential Now,
Speaker 5: will the court down the road, you know, narrowly construe
Speaker 5: the statutes that he's charged under and you know, maybe
Speaker 5: give a wink and now there maybe, But on these
Speaker 5: big democracy questions, they're not ready to take that lead.
Speaker 5: And so in Alabama we won. Alabama refused to then
Speaker 5: draw awful map, so we had the court do it.
Speaker 5: Now black voters will have two rather than one black
Speaker 5: opportunity district. We have won a case in Louisiana, we
Speaker 5: have one a case in Georgia, same theory, same results.
Speaker 5: Both of those states are traveling the road that Alabama did,
Speaker 5: which is they're refusing to comply with the law. And
Speaker 5: in both of those cases, we are going to be
Speaker 5: pushing the courts to draw new maps in time for
Speaker 5: twenty twenty four. So you know, again, the courts continue
Speaker 5: to be imperfect in many respects, but they are still
Speaker 5: among the strongest bulwarks to protect democracy.
Speaker 1: Do you find it? I mean, I know that we
Speaker 1: shouldn't think, you know, when we think about this country,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be so surprised. But are you surprised that
Speaker 1: you have these state legislatures saying no to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 5: I mean, the same impulse that led the governor of
Speaker 5: Alabama to stand at the schoolhouse doors is what's leading
Speaker 5: this here. And I want to make clear what that
Speaker 5: is because it's a bit of a twist on the Oh,
Speaker 5: they're racist. This is not to say they're not racist,
Speaker 5: but I think it's actually in some ways more pernicious
Speaker 5: than that, Molly, which is that they would rather not
Speaker 5: they would rather be seen defying a court order than
Speaker 5: complying with You know that image of George Wallace at
Speaker 5: the schoolhouse doors. He knew, he knew that those black
Speaker 5: students were going to get registered, he knew it, but
Speaker 5: he wanted the political theater of it being done over
Speaker 5: his objection. And so one of the things that has
Speaker 5: returned in the era of Trump is the Republican need
Speaker 5: for the political theater of being oppositional to the rule
Speaker 5: of law, oppositional to voting rights, oppositional to democracy, and
Speaker 5: that's really really dangerous. But not on resident I'm.
Speaker 1: Glad you talked about that, because it's so important to
Speaker 1: remember where we came from as a country, and that
Speaker 1: Trump is not I mean, yes, he's an outliar for now,
Speaker 1: and yes he's an enormous step backwards, but he's not
Speaker 1: such a huge deviation from some of the many sort
Speaker 1: of sinister figures we've had in early American days. And
Speaker 1: I think that's a really a good point.
Speaker 5: He also, by the way, Molly could not be accomplishing
Speaker 5: what he is accomplishing in the Republican Party without a
Speaker 5: party of collaborators. Oh yes, I mean Mike Johnson is
Speaker 5: a collaborator for January six Will you talk.
Speaker 1: About Mike Johnson because he was He's sort of got
Speaker 1: on Trump's radar by trying overturn the election, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I wrote.
Speaker 5: A piece on Democracy Docket that said that Mike Johnson,
Speaker 5: other than Donald Trump, is the most culpable federal elected
Speaker 5: official in the events of January sixth. Say more right,
Speaker 5: So if you take Donald Trump out of the equation
Speaker 5: and you just say who was elected, who was in
Speaker 5: federal office that was most culpable for January sixth, I
Speaker 5: think there's no question it's the now speaker, Mike Johnson.
Speaker 5: And that's because when he was just Congressman Johnson, he
Speaker 5: organized the Amicus brief whereby one hundred and twenty six
Speaker 5: House Republicans supported a frivolous lawsuit that Texas filed in
Speaker 5: December to throw out the election results in four states.
Speaker 5: You may remember that in December of twenty twenty, when
Speaker 5: it was clear that all of their litigation options were collapsing.
Speaker 5: They were losing cases around the country on a state
Speaker 5: by state basis, Texas went to the US Supreme Court
Speaker 5: and asked the Supreme Court to throw out the results
Speaker 5: in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Speaker 1: Crazy even for these Republicans, I have to say, right.
Speaker 5: And Mike Johnson, his job was to get Republicans in
Speaker 5: the House to sign onto that brief. And so why
Speaker 5: do I say he was the most culpable because that
Speaker 5: was the organizing tool. If you look at who signed
Speaker 5: onto that brief, that became the organizing effort of what
Speaker 5: eventually turned into the protests, that their effort to not
Speaker 5: certify the electors on the night of January six, and
Speaker 5: we know now there were communications between him and Donald
Speaker 5: Trump in which he is conveying to the Republican members
Speaker 5: that Donald Trump has a list of which members are
Speaker 5: on and which members are not on that brief. That is,
Speaker 5: as far as we know, the first and most significant
Speaker 5: effort to organize Republicans in Congress to try to overturn
Speaker 5: the free and fair election on January six.
Speaker 1: Do you think that Johnson really thought he had a
Speaker 1: shot with us or do you think he just thought
Speaker 1: that he would help him with Trump and the Republican Party.
Speaker 5: I think we underestimate Republicans when we think that they
Speaker 5: are in on it. It's one of the things I
Speaker 5: worry about. Sometimes I'll hear, you know, democratic elected officials
Speaker 5: or pundits say, oh, you know, Republicans, they understand what
Speaker 5: they're doing and they're just humoring Trump, or you know,
Speaker 5: Mitt Romney will say, oh, he's just saying those things
Speaker 5: like this is deadly serious. You know, Mike Johnson was
Speaker 5: a backbench member of the House. He is a true believer.
Speaker 5: I believe he believed that Donald Trump should stay in office.
Speaker 5: I believe that he was not concerned about the voters
Speaker 5: in four states. I think he was not concerned about democracy.
Speaker 5: And I think that we make a real mistake on
Speaker 5: our side if we think that Stephen Miller is just
Speaker 5: doing shtick, that Steve Bannon is just doing theater.
Speaker 1: No, they want a result, Yeah, they want a result,
Speaker 1: but just sort of more specifically, do you think they
Speaker 1: thought there was a legal mechanism for this or you
Speaker 1: thought that You think they thought we'll just try anyway
Speaker 1: and maybe it works.
Speaker 5: I think that he organized them in that instance, not
Speaker 5: because they thought they were going to win in the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, but because Donald Trump needed a way to
Speaker 5: solidify all of the House Republican and so Molly, here
Speaker 5: is here is the thing. Mike Johnson gets one hundred
Speaker 5: and twenty six of them in December. By the time
Speaker 5: you get to January sixth, the number of Republicans in
Speaker 5: the House who opposed certification jumps one hundred and thirty nine.
Speaker 5: That brief was the thing that started to create the
Speaker 5: blacklist or the white list for Republicans. He makes clear
Speaker 5: to his colleagues, if you're not on this brief, Donald
Speaker 5: Trump will know he's looking at the names. And so
Speaker 5: that's why I say he was so culpable.
Speaker 1: Mark Haunting as always, thank you for joining us, Thank you.
Speaker 5: For having me no moment, Oh fuck only Jesse Cannon,
Speaker 5: Molly john Fast the vibes impeachment hearing.
Speaker 1: It's got bad vibes.
Speaker 2: If you're asking me.
Speaker 1: It's got bad vibes for Republicans. Dozens and dozens of Republicans,
Speaker 1: even Fox News hosts let that sink in have bluntly
Speaker 1: admitted there's no evidence to support impeaching President Biden. This
Speaker 1: is a waste of time. Congressman McGovern he said it
Speaker 1: not me, poor, poor, poor, never mind, fuck them, they
Speaker 1: are our moment of fuckery. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Speaker 1: to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please
Speaker 1: send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.