Speaker 1: Good morning, peeps, and welcome to wik f Daily with
Speaker 1: Meet your Girl Daniel Moody, recording from the Home Bunker, Folks.
Speaker 1: Yesterday was the oral arguments being heard in the Scrammatic
Speaker 1: case at the Supreme Court that are going to decide
Speaker 1: transgender rights in this country. The case is being argued
Speaker 1: by and openly trans attorney Chase Strangio with the ACLU.
Speaker 1: And you know, with this six to three court that
Speaker 1: we have, we can already predict what is going to
Speaker 1: happen here. But what it got me thinking about is
Speaker 1: humanity and that when will there come a time when
Speaker 1: human beings are allowed to just be, to just exist,
Speaker 1: free from oppression, from persecution, free from the opinions of
Speaker 1: nine unelected black robes to decide whether or not you
Speaker 1: deserve dignity and respect and a full and complete and
Speaker 1: abundant and beautiful life. And I say this to you,
Speaker 1: and I'm kind of choking up a bit because it
Speaker 1: never ends. The targets just change, but it never ends.
Speaker 1: And I think about Brown versus the Board of Education,
Speaker 1: and I think about Plusy versus Ferguson, and I think
Speaker 1: about the dread Scott decision, and I think about being
Speaker 1: label three fifths of a human being. And I think
Speaker 1: about all of the decisions that are made largely by
Speaker 1: unelected bodies that get to decide whose body is worthy
Speaker 1: and whose is not, and that for so long, those
Speaker 1: that sat on high were straight white men making the
Speaker 1: decisions about other people's bodies and their humanities, and nothing
Speaker 1: has really changed. Sure, there are a couple of women
Speaker 1: that are on the court and two people of color,
Speaker 1: but really only one because we all know Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: hates himself and hates black people. But it just it
Speaker 1: never stops. And so I think about being there as
Speaker 1: a trans person and arguing about your right to exist,
Speaker 1: your right to take hormones, right to identify in the
Speaker 1: way that you choose. Why is it so hard? I
Speaker 1: really don't understand why it is so hard, As Tim
Speaker 1: Wall said, to mind your own fucking business. What does
Speaker 1: a transperson taking hormones have to do with me if
Speaker 1: I'm not the one ingesting them. What does someone marrying
Speaker 1: someone of the same sex have to do with me
Speaker 1: and my life if nobody is forcing me to marry.
Speaker 1: Why can't we just acknowledge people as human beings worthy
Speaker 1: of dignity and respect for no other reason than they
Speaker 1: were born. I don't think that I'll ever live inside
Speaker 1: of that world, but I really do hope that somebody does.
Speaker 1: Coming up next my conversation with our friend, our in
Speaker 1: house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel, offering up his reflections on
Speaker 1: the last four years of our weekly conversations on WOKF
Speaker 1: that have been such a guiding light for me through
Speaker 1: some really dark times. And I'm just so grateful and
Speaker 1: appreciative that Jonathan will be closing out the year with
Speaker 1: us and with this show, and we will, dear friends,
Speaker 1: have some exciting news on the horizon, because you know,
Speaker 1: new space, new opportunities is what is coming our way.
Speaker 1: So coming up next that conversation with our friend Jonathan Metzel, Folks,
Speaker 1: I am always very pleased when I have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to speak with our in house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel
Speaker 1: as we close out Jonathan WOKEF at the end of
Speaker 1: this year. I guess one of the first questions that
Speaker 1: I want to ask you today, as I'm very much
Speaker 1: in reflection mode as many people are, that's kind of
Speaker 1: what the end of the year brings. We've been in
Speaker 1: conversation for the last four years on a weekly basis
Speaker 1: for four years, and we have been through a lot
Speaker 1: during that time, and I guess I want to ask you, like,
Speaker 1: what has stood out to you during this time of
Speaker 1: less being in conversation during a global health pandemic and
Speaker 1: insurrection like multiple One cannot count the amount of mass
Speaker 1: shootings that we've talked about.
Speaker 2: It was really that we realized that we were having
Speaker 2: a conversation that wasn't happening in a lot of other places.
Speaker 2: I think you know, you and I started talking during
Speaker 2: the intense period of the pandemic, and we realized that
Speaker 2: there just wasn't a space for like not just factual information,
Speaker 2: but like processing everything that was happening and thinking about
Speaker 2: how the frameworks that we bring to all this crazy
Speaker 2: shit would help us understand and articulate it. And so,
Speaker 2: I don't know, our conversation has felt like really honest,
Speaker 2: because it's in part like, hey, why isn't the information
Speaker 2: getting out, which is going to be even more important
Speaker 2: as we destroy our information networks in society, But also
Speaker 2: it's just felt very super validating in that way. And
Speaker 2: so for me, what's stood out more than anything is
Speaker 2: the emotional resonance of having these conversations and how important
Speaker 2: that's been, and it's felt really honest, honestly, and so
Speaker 2: for me that's I'm very very grateful. It's actually been
Speaker 2: very personally meaning for me. Also.
Speaker 1: You know, it's really interesting that you bring up the
Speaker 1: word honest, because as we're reflecting and still unpacking what
Speaker 1: has happened over the last couple of weeks since the
Speaker 1: election and as we move into this transitional period of
Speaker 1: the Trump regime, one of the things that keep coming
Speaker 1: up with regard to people's distrust in corporate mainstream media
Speaker 1: is the fact that they don't believe that they're being
Speaker 1: told the truth. That one of the reasons why Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: of all people, has resonated is because he bucks systems
Speaker 1: and people feel like he is authentic. And I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about like our feelings around authenticity and
Speaker 1: actual authenticity, because we all know, for instance, that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is an habitual liar. We all know that mainstream
Speaker 1: corporate media gave up on fact checking him many years ago.
Speaker 1: But the fact is is that people still feel like
Speaker 1: the media is lying to them, but Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: telling them the truth. Can you help us understand why
Speaker 1: that is?
Speaker 2: Well, there's an olviator saying one man's authenticity is another
Speaker 2: man's potato pancake. No, I just made that up.
Speaker 1: I'm like a lot. No.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a trick of a salesman, which is
Speaker 2: to make people feel like they're being heard and then
Speaker 2: twist that toward whatever. I mean, that's what politicians do,
Speaker 2: and for whatever reason, Trump is exceptionally good at that, right.
Speaker 2: In other words, people feel heard when he's in a rally.
Speaker 2: People feel like he's connecting and talking to them. And
Speaker 2: it's a moment now where people want they want their
Speaker 2: anger reflected, they want their frustration reflected. You know, you
Speaker 2: and I talked right when Kamala Harris became the nominee
Speaker 2: about whether joy was going to sell, whether happiness was
Speaker 2: to sumble, and I said at the time, I hope
Speaker 2: that's the case, but I don't think it's going to
Speaker 2: be the case, just because we're not. In a moment.
Speaker 2: People want their anger or frustrations acknowledged. And Trump, for
Speaker 2: all of his messed upness, is incredibly good at that. Right.
Speaker 2: He's incredibly good at like feeling the room. It's not
Speaker 2: like he stands for one thing. He can feel a
Speaker 2: room and tell people what they want to hear. There
Speaker 2: are democratic politicians who do that. So if we were
Speaker 2: going to play that game, Kambala Harris would not have
Speaker 2: been our nominee. You know, she's somebody who sounds like
Speaker 2: an insider, and so, you know, everything else aside, it
Speaker 2: was an election of two very different affects in a way.
Speaker 2: So so I mean, I guess the question is is
Speaker 2: that going to be the case whenever we have our
Speaker 2: next election in twenty seven years or something like that.
Speaker 2: But I can't say that Trump is very good at mirroring,
Speaker 2: amplifying people's anger and rage and then twisting at prison thing,
Speaker 2: which is again what good salespeople do. And given that
Speaker 2: that was the tone of this moment, everything else aside,
Speaker 2: Kamal Hairs was not that right. She was somebody who
Speaker 2: sounds like an institutional luster or something like that. So
Speaker 2: there are two very different frameworks.
Speaker 1: My thing is that because here's what Democrats are really
Speaker 1: good at and what they're doing right now, which is
Speaker 1: just a ton of finger pointing, a ton of finger pointing,
Speaker 1: a ton of complaining and just doing the same things
Speaker 1: over and over again and expecting a different result. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Maga upended the political norms ten years ago,
Speaker 1: and we're still grappling with like what that means, understanding
Speaker 1: what that means as we're getting ready to go now
Speaker 1: into a new wave that is now going to finish
Speaker 1: the job that began in twenty seventeen to decimate our institutions,
Speaker 1: to decimate credibility. And in that time span, it's as
Speaker 1: if democratic not even as if they haven't learned anything.
Speaker 1: And so while people are still saying, oh, well, Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris sounded like an institutionalist, is that because she was coherent?
Speaker 1: Is that because she showed that she understood how government works?
Speaker 1: And what people want right now is just to break things.
Speaker 1: I guess that's what I'm trying to understand. Because if
Speaker 1: you're talking about this vibe check of somebody ushering in
Speaker 1: joy and truth versus somebody that says I'm going to
Speaker 1: break everything and I'm going to make people pay for it,
Speaker 1: and that being what resonated, I don't know how you
Speaker 1: would ever combat that, because again, we're trying to operate
Speaker 1: in a place of fact and information and Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is not.
Speaker 2: I was on a panel for NPR right before the election,
Speaker 2: and it was with Rachel bit Kaffer, who was saying
Speaker 2: we're wasting all our money on positive ads. We should
Speaker 2: just be doing negative ads all the time, because that's
Speaker 2: the only way to combat this. And I've thought a
Speaker 2: lot about this. I mean, you know, that's what you
Speaker 2: do when you lose. When you lose, you figure out,
Speaker 2: you know, what the hell how do we not lose again?
Speaker 2: And so we are quite good at that. But also
Speaker 2: I do think that there's a post mortem that is
Speaker 2: important right now, right, I mean, there are different They're
Speaker 2: just decisions we have to make now about how to
Speaker 2: go forward. And so I don't think finger pointing is
Speaker 2: I mean, I wouldn't call it finger pointing. I think
Speaker 2: that there's a post mortem that needs to happen that
Speaker 2: is instructive about I want to know where we went wrong.
Speaker 2: And so I don't know. I mean, I guess you're right,
Speaker 2: like should we have hired should we have just put
Speaker 2: up somebody? I mean, it's all relative. We lost, So
Speaker 2: you tell me how do we go forward?
Speaker 1: I mean I guess my question is, like, well, one,
Speaker 1: I don't think that we're being honest. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Democrats are being honest, and I don't think that
Speaker 1: there is. Again, I think that you need to look
Speaker 1: at quote unquote failure in a different way. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: did not receive a mandate. He did not win overwhelmingly.
Speaker 1: You're talking about like a percentage point. You're talking about
Speaker 1: a handful of votes literally in a handful of states.
Speaker 1: And so when you're competing with somebody that is telling
Speaker 1: you that these people are to blame for your ills,
Speaker 1: and I'm saying, no, they're not. It's actually the rich.
Speaker 1: But that's not the message that Kamala Harris had. Her
Speaker 1: message was We're going to reach across the aisle. I'm
Speaker 1: going to put a Republican in my cabinet, but here
Speaker 1: are the ways in which for black men, for Latino men,
Speaker 1: I can make life better and offer up these different opportunities.
Speaker 1: I think that people wanted a quick fix, and even
Speaker 1: if that quick fix is a lie, that's what they
Speaker 1: went for. And I wonder, though, in hindsight, if Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris had just hammered home an economic message, which was
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration didn't have anything to defend. We
Speaker 1: have the best economy. You just saw. Of course, after
Speaker 1: the election, Lois thanksgiving prices, Lois cost for dinner, like
Speaker 1: jobs have returned all of these things. If you had
Speaker 1: focused solely on that, on a progressive populist message as
Speaker 1: opposed to linking arms with Republicans, that to me is
Speaker 1: the only thing the message that should have been hammered
Speaker 1: over and over and over again, and that wasn't. And
Speaker 1: there was still this push to what no longer exists
Speaker 1: as the center, which kind of made in some ways
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris seem like Republican light.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Again, you know, it's just I mean, I guess
Speaker 2: the question now is in response to the Democrats go
Speaker 2: farther left or do they go toward the center?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is there is no sense so that
Speaker 1: like that's my argument now, is that like that is
Speaker 1: a false question to ask because the center doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: So you either continue to follow the extremists over a
Speaker 1: cliff or you retain and reimagine what it is that
Speaker 1: the progressive base actually wants.
Speaker 2: I was reading an interesting article this morning that asked,
Speaker 2: you know, would higher turnout have helped Kamala Harris? Was
Speaker 2: this a question of turnout? And it's just funny because
Speaker 2: it mirrored something that I've been thinking, which is it
Speaker 2: just really felt like Republicans were playing by different rules
Speaker 2: than we were for this election, and so there's something
Speaker 2: about like winning hearts and minds. They were doing something else.
Speaker 2: I don't know what it was, but yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: I hope you're right. I'm not gonna I'm not going
Speaker 2: to push back except to say that I hope you're right.
Speaker 2: I hope we get a chance to fix this. I
Speaker 2: hope there's still a system in which we can fix this.
Speaker 2: But let's see how that plays out.
Speaker 1: I guess the fact is is that it isn't gonna
Speaker 1: play out because I have said for the longest time,
Speaker 1: and I hope to be wrong that I don't think
Speaker 1: that we actually get another bite at the apple here.
Speaker 1: Everyone wants to hold their breath and believe that there's
Speaker 1: going to be an opportunity in mid terms. I'm going
Speaker 1: to disagree with that statement. I don't think that there's
Speaker 1: going to be an opportunity with midterms because I don't
Speaker 1: think that we're having them. And so that being said,
Speaker 1: if you have an entire now fascist maga movement that
Speaker 1: has no guardrails, that is completely unleashed, the response to
Speaker 1: that can't be centrist thinking. And I'm wondering in your
Speaker 1: mind what it takes then for Democrats to realize that
Speaker 1: they once again have been chasing the wrong dragon.
Speaker 2: I mean again, the rules of everything, because of all
Speaker 2: the dismantling that's about to happen, the rules are going
Speaker 2: to be totally different. And so I do worry that
Speaker 2: we have a lot of institutionalists who are still running
Speaker 2: the party, and I think what we need right now
Speaker 2: is outside the box people in a way. And so
Speaker 2: I don't know, because I don't know there's some plan.
Speaker 2: I mean, when you have somebody at the head of
Speaker 2: the Department of Education and the FBI and every other
Speaker 2: organization who's in place to basically destroy that organization as
Speaker 2: it's been known and remake it, the rules are just
Speaker 2: going to be totally different. And so I guess I
Speaker 2: hope we have people who are nimble and force full
Speaker 2: and bare knuckles enough to combat that. I just think
Speaker 2: that the rules are different and we have to there's
Speaker 2: something very responsive about it. So I'm not avoiding that question.
Speaker 2: It's just we're about to create a new reality here.
Speaker 2: I mean I feel it most deeply with health, for example.
Speaker 2: I mean that's kind of where I'm consumed right now,
Speaker 2: because dismantling all the health infrastructure that Kennedy and those
Speaker 2: guys are going to do is going to be catastrophic
Speaker 2: and it's going to create new realities. And so to
Speaker 2: then say we just need to build things back the
Speaker 2: way they were is not going to work.
Speaker 1: I feel like we need to be like everything is
Speaker 1: going to be dismantled, and to be honest, I'm in
Speaker 1: a place where I am recognizing that they were never
Speaker 1: created to work for all people anyway. So while there's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of pain and there's going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of harm that is going to
Speaker 1: be done, I really wish that Democrats would be in
Speaker 1: a place of imagination rather than reaction to what it
Speaker 1: is that Republicans are going to do. Because the fact
Speaker 1: is is that, like, if we're honest, this incremental shit
Speaker 1: was not working. It doesn't work. People are still you're
Speaker 1: talking about healthcare paying astronomical premiums. People are still having
Speaker 1: to come out of pocket for costs that like the
Speaker 1: insurance refuses to cover. So there are so many things
Speaker 1: and for one me, being a person that pays for
Speaker 1: their health insurance out of pocket, are strapped with so
Speaker 1: many fucking costs that I'm like, so you get rid
Speaker 1: of it. Yes, there's going to be a ton of pain,
Speaker 1: but like, when are democrats ever going to move from
Speaker 1: a place of creation rather than a place of reaction?
Speaker 1: And I just don't know. It's still this dismantling is
Speaker 1: going to be that aha moment.
Speaker 2: It's just interesting, you know, because the health infrastructure that
Speaker 2: we have is based on like shared cooperation. You know,
Speaker 2: vaccines and public health and smoking bands and seat belts,
Speaker 2: all these things work by people like cooperating. And that's
Speaker 2: not the world we're about to enter. The world We're
Speaker 2: about to enter as a very health libertarian moment from
Speaker 2: a public health perspective, but also a financial perspective, and
Speaker 2: so on the new show. Let's keep talking about this
Speaker 2: because I think what health becomes, I think is going
Speaker 2: to be incredibly, incredibly important, as many of these things are.
Speaker 2: And I just I guess I agree with you that
Speaker 2: we need people who are creative and who are setting
Speaker 2: the agenda, not people who are trying to recreate the
Speaker 2: past that's that's gone.
Speaker 1: Because that's where I feel like democrats are right now
Speaker 1: and where they continue to be, which is why at
Speaker 1: this stage in my political career. I'm saying that it
Speaker 1: is time to have real, honest conversations about a viable
Speaker 1: third party because I do not think that Democrats are
Speaker 1: here to meet this moment. I think that they are
Speaker 1: fine with the way that things are and just ticking
Speaker 1: away at that. And what Donald Trump is offering is
Speaker 1: to destroy it. And I think that that is why people,
Speaker 1: you know, the racism, the deep seated racism and misogyny.
Speaker 1: In addition, I also think people are sitting back and saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, this shit still doesn't work. It still
Speaker 1: doesn't work for me. And so if he's coming in
Speaker 1: with a sledgehammer, maybe that's what is needed.
Speaker 2: Well. You know, the risk of a third party, though,
Speaker 2: in our system, is that you just become a permanent opposition.
Speaker 2: People always ask me, like, how could people support Trump
Speaker 2: when he's you know, obviously abcd all these horrible things.
Speaker 2: But you know, when Obama was president, the Republican Party
Speaker 2: was in many places being kicked and the proverbial scrotum
Speaker 2: and Trump came in and said, I said, proverbial, I apologize, yes,
Speaker 2: And Trump came in and for all of his shit,
Speaker 2: he said, like, we're going to win here's my model
Speaker 2: for winning or something like that. And even though it
Speaker 2: was wrapped in horrible bacon and it was all these
Speaker 2: things and problematic, but people got addicted to like being
Speaker 2: on the winning side again. And so you know, it
Speaker 2: was strong man, maybe fall strong man, all these kind
Speaker 2: of things, but it was like he was promising retribution
Speaker 2: and victory and cleaning house and all these kind of things.
Speaker 2: And so the question will be, is there going to
Speaker 2: be somebody who emerges on the Democratic side who presents
Speaker 2: a new model of winning.
Speaker 1: Ah uh huh, yep, this is the question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because because let's be honest, if Trump or somebody
Speaker 2: like Trump had been like a liberal Democrat and said
Speaker 2: I'm going to kick the crap out of the conservatives
Speaker 2: and we're going to implement everything we ever dreamed of,
Speaker 2: and we're going to control the courts, I think a
Speaker 2: lot of liberals would have followed that person. Yep, you know,
Speaker 2: given any kind of baggage, because he was basically saying,
Speaker 2: I want to get you retribution over your enemies, but
Speaker 2: also I'm going to blow up the system and recast
Speaker 2: it in a way that we're going to be winning
Speaker 2: for eons and stuff like that. And so it's crazy
Speaker 2: that he pulled it off, honestly, But the Democrats need
Speaker 2: a model of winning, and I just my concern about
Speaker 2: a third party is that it becomes like another Green
Speaker 2: Party or even another like Democratic Party or a very
Speaker 2: far progressive party, something that is always critiquing what's happening.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. What we are facing right now
Speaker 1: is a new Republican party. They absolutely rebranded, reconfigured, created
Speaker 1: an entirely different ideology, created an entirely different mode. They
Speaker 1: did it without quote unquote creating another Republican party. They
Speaker 1: just deconstructed. And then I don't know what is it, Frankenstein,
Speaker 1: the old party. And what I'm saying is that, like
Speaker 1: if it isn't going to be a viable third party,
Speaker 1: to your point, that just sits in opposition, Democrats do
Speaker 1: need a new strategy for winning, and they need to
Speaker 1: reconfigure the Democratic Party as it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Okay, I agree, whatever it is. I just I
Speaker 2: don't want to be like I just always think of
Speaker 2: the cover of the Bernie Sanders book, where like Bernie
Speaker 2: is like this, It's just like, yeah, we're going to
Speaker 2: be protesting against authority forever. And I'd rather have somebody
Speaker 2: like Trump who's like, actually, here's what we can do
Speaker 2: to win in this new system.
Speaker 1: So interesting. All right, well, we'll leave it there today.
Speaker 1: But that is the what does a new strategy for
Speaker 1: winning look like for the Democratic Party?
Speaker 2: Which is not how we thought about That's how they've
Speaker 2: thought about it. We thought about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, well, thank you, my friend. We will leave
Speaker 1: it there today and pick up next week. Always appreciate you.
Speaker 1: That is it for me today. Dear friends on Woke
Speaker 1: af AS, always, power to the people and to all
Speaker 1: the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.