Speaker 1: Up next. Wow what Giano called part of the gig
Speaker 1: which switch secually, we all know that the black community
Speaker 1: votes overwhelmingly for Democrats, so much so that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party takes the black vote for granted. Is it time
Speaker 1: for black folks to take charge of their voting habits. Today,
Speaker 1: one of the left leading intellectuals and I debate the
Speaker 1: black communities relationship with the Democratic Party. This is allied
Speaker 1: with Gianno called well, thank you Dr Mark Lamont Hill
Speaker 1: for joining me today on all of Gianno called well,
Speaker 1: a lot of folks know you as a very influential
Speaker 1: brother on the left for your intellectual Clearly you have
Speaker 1: your own show and people may not realize that you
Speaker 1: Before you were on CNN and all those different places.
Speaker 1: You were on Fox News Channel doing weekly ball Battle
Speaker 1: with Bill O'Reilly and you did it. Yeah, Bill really
Speaker 1: respected you. I remember this one particular clip where he
Speaker 1: was giving an example about a coke dealer and he said, hey,
Speaker 1: you look like one, and you said, well, you look
Speaker 1: like somebody who does coke. Those were the good old
Speaker 1: days where you can make jokes and people weren't as
Speaker 1: pc as they are now. So definitely a different place
Speaker 1: to be, so thank you for joining me again. That's
Speaker 1: my pleasure, brother, it really is. Man. I always love
Speaker 1: a good civil dialogue. I've seen some recent chat on
Speaker 1: social media's uh, that's what we're here for today, a
Speaker 1: good civil dialogue. So you you're clearly a prominent voice
Speaker 1: on the left, You've got a big platform, and I
Speaker 1: wanted to figure out from you, what do you think
Speaker 1: thus far Joe Biden's presidency. It's a good question. I first,
Speaker 1: I say that the Biden presidency is exactly what I
Speaker 1: expected it to be. It is a presidency that won't
Speaker 1: meet the needs of the real left, but it will
Speaker 1: irritate the right significantly because he's not the centrist that
Speaker 1: he campaigned on either, And so what you end up
Speaker 1: with is a presidency that is slightly left of center
Speaker 1: that problem, which is sort of what it promised to be.
Speaker 1: But I would argue not nearly as progressive as he
Speaker 1: promised right, which was to be the most progressive president
Speaker 1: since l B J or since FDR Right. He ain't that.
Speaker 1: But he's also not the right winger that some people
Speaker 1: on the left was we're afraid he would be. But
Speaker 1: he's also not the socialist leader that many people on
Speaker 1: the right are now pretending that he is because of
Speaker 1: some of the spending that he's doing and because some
Speaker 1: of the plans that he's trying to enact. Well, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of folks in the middle, you know,
Speaker 1: most voters are in the middle. They're more so independent
Speaker 1: than anything else. They were told and sold on the
Speaker 1: fact that Joe Biden was going to be a moderate,
Speaker 1: and I know you said that, clearly he's not. A
Speaker 1: lot of folks have said pre election that progressives have
Speaker 1: said that they were going to drag him to the left,
Speaker 1: and we clearly see that happening. But what we're not
Speaker 1: really seeing is any policy specific and direct for African Americans,
Speaker 1: which is the reason why he's in office today because
Speaker 1: of the black vote. Black folks seemingly, especially when it
Speaker 1: comes to Democratic politicians, seem to always get left out
Speaker 1: in the cold. They vote for him, they rally for him,
Speaker 1: but they never really get any tangibles for their support.
Speaker 1: Why is that? You know, It's an interesting question. And
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who sits on the left and I've been
Speaker 1: critical of the Democratic Party for many years for this,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say we don't get anything for Democratic votes
Speaker 1: but we certainly don't get the kind of race targeted
Speaker 1: policy and other groups get. We are with political scientists
Speaker 1: referred to as a captured electorate. We uh, we ain't
Speaker 1: going nowhere. The assumption is Black people gonna vote Democrat
Speaker 1: no matter what happens, and so very little is done
Speaker 1: to get us to vote Democrat. What's done is to
Speaker 1: get us motivated to vote at all. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: if a h Black people come out and vote, somewhere
Speaker 1: between eight eight and ninety four of them are going
Speaker 1: to vote Democrat. But if we don't speak to their needs,
Speaker 1: you're only gonna get a hundred. If you speak to
Speaker 1: their needs or or you promise some stuff, maybe three
Speaker 1: d come out, you'll still get the same percentage, but
Speaker 1: you'll have a lower turnout. So a big part of
Speaker 1: what Democrats strategy has been is doing stuff to get
Speaker 1: voter turnout, but not trying to convince people to vote
Speaker 1: for them. And that's something that you don't see with
Speaker 1: the Latino communities for for lots of complex reasons, the
Speaker 1: biggest of which is just internal political and ideological diversity
Speaker 1: among the various types of Latin X voters. White folks
Speaker 1: certainly aren't trailed with an assumption that they're just going
Speaker 1: to vote for whoever. And so I think it's it's
Speaker 1: a big part of the fact. It's largely do rather
Speaker 1: to the fact that black folks don't have a lot
Speaker 1: of political options in a two party system where they
Speaker 1: don't trust the Republican Party and where they don't feel
Speaker 1: like Republican policy speaks to their needs, and so they
Speaker 1: end up saying, well, look, I don't trust these Democrats,
Speaker 1: I don't like these Democrats. I like some of them,
Speaker 1: but at the very at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I know that they'll do better for me than Republicans,
Speaker 1: and that becomes, uh, the kind of endgame. And so
Speaker 1: you don't see the kind of attempt to shift policy
Speaker 1: or shape policy around African American needs and interests. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what what's interesting is I did see some
Speaker 1: some various outreach from the Democrats, especially calling Republicans racist
Speaker 1: more so than they typically do, which we know that
Speaker 1: exists in every election. But because Donald Trump was doing
Speaker 1: a lot of outreach to African Americans, especially African American men,
Speaker 1: you saw al what he got in twenty sixteen, which
Speaker 1: was a percent generally the black vote to percent black men,
Speaker 1: and this year for African American men who had a
Speaker 1: high school diploma or below that they voted for him
Speaker 1: to the tune I believe. So we do see when
Speaker 1: there is some policy tangibles. We talked about the first
Speaker 1: step back in the number of these things that I
Speaker 1: know folks on the left typically dismiss as real and
Speaker 1: tangible efforts. We do see black folks say, Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: willing to give this a shot, give it a chance.
Speaker 1: But we without any real tangibles. Because I'm from the
Speaker 1: South Side of Chicago, I've heard the song and thence
Speaker 1: pretty much all my life. You know, white Democrats are races,
Speaker 1: so we couldn't get anything done for you. But we're
Speaker 1: gonna come back the next election cycle. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: a fish fry, a chicken cookout, and we're gonna tell
Speaker 1: you what we're gonna do for you. And nothing gets done.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you? Would you advocate for black folks just become
Speaker 1: an independent versus being in that out which we saw
Speaker 1: under Barack Obama In two thousand and eight, black folks
Speaker 1: voted for Barack Obama. You know, it's an interesting question.
Speaker 1: You asked first let me get to the first one.
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced. I don't. I don't concede that black men,
Speaker 1: particularly educated black men, voted for Donald Trump because of
Speaker 1: policy tangibles. And I'm not convinced that that's the case.
Speaker 1: I haven't, uh when I look at so when I
Speaker 1: when I've interviewed folk and talked to folks, that's not
Speaker 1: what I get. Now, I don't assume that my experience
Speaker 1: is I don't confuse my experience for data. So I'm
Speaker 1: not going to say that, you know, anecdotally what I'm
Speaker 1: experiencing is necessarily the whole story. But if I look
Speaker 1: at Trump's proposed plans and I juxtaposed that to say
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan's plans or say Mitt Romney's plans, um, it's
Speaker 1: not that Trump offered vastly broader or even more targeted policies, um,
Speaker 1: and yet black men voted for Trump much more. I
Speaker 1: think that there were several things that play here when
Speaker 1: we look at Trump versus Hillary Clinton. I think there's
Speaker 1: a very complex comm station we have to have about gender,
Speaker 1: about whether black men are willing to vote for a
Speaker 1: white woman, and whether they were willing to vote for
Speaker 1: a Clinton in particular of whether they're male or female
Speaker 1: at this stage in history, given everything that happened with
Speaker 1: Clinton's in the nineties. UM. The second piece of it, though,
Speaker 1: in the second election of Trump, the second election that
Speaker 1: he lost, is an interesting connection that many black male
Speaker 1: voters had to Donald Trump. And there's something about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's personalities or something about the way that he navigates
Speaker 1: the world that does sort of resonate with certain voters.
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure that it's because of, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump's vision of school choice or because of Trump's understanding
Speaker 1: of the free market. I don't think it's necessarily because
Speaker 1: you know, any particular policy, as much as as it
Speaker 1: is who Trump represents, which I think is deeply problematic.
Speaker 1: But the second part of your your question, I think
Speaker 1: we is where we probably find some common ground. I
Speaker 1: don't believe black voters should be have allegiance to the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Now. I happen to be a Green Party member,
Speaker 1: and I've been a Green Party member almost all of
Speaker 1: my voting life. I voted for Joe Biden in this
Speaker 1: last election. It was the first time since I've been
Speaker 1: voting for presidents that I can remember that I voted
Speaker 1: for a Democrat and in an election, and it was
Speaker 1: for me, it was because of the particular stakes of
Speaker 1: this election. But I say that the same I'm still
Speaker 1: able to weigh in on policy, I'm still able to
Speaker 1: be part of the conversation. I'm still able to drag
Speaker 1: Joe Biden in the direction that I want them to
Speaker 1: be dragged. But the Democratic Party doesn't take for granted
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote for them. And I think that
Speaker 1: if black people had that kind of flexibility, it would
Speaker 1: be fine. But if all black folks are registered independent
Speaker 1: but they still vote Democrat every single time, then you
Speaker 1: end up in the same vote. Democrats don't care whether
Speaker 1: you're registered or not. I mean, it might matter for
Speaker 1: the primary, but in general, Democrats want are you gonna
Speaker 1: vote for us? So if a whole bunch of independent
Speaker 1: black folks still voted for Democrat in every election, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that changed anything. So black folks don't have
Speaker 1: to just change your affiliation with to actually change how
Speaker 1: we vote, not just in the national election, but particularly
Speaker 1: in these local and state wide elections. Okay, do so
Speaker 1: do you think folks are gonna answer that call? And
Speaker 1: and before you answer that question, because you were saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you don't know the reason why so many voted for
Speaker 1: Trump if his personality what what the case may be,
Speaker 1: And and many could argue that the personality was a
Speaker 1: part of it. Certainly people were attracted to his personality.
Speaker 1: Is bravado all of that that that alpha male type energy.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I can understand that piece. But we also
Speaker 1: if we're looking at the data just in terms of
Speaker 1: how well black folks did over four years, by the
Speaker 1: time he was leaving it was he was up for election.
Speaker 1: Rather during that time of the election cycle, unemployment in
Speaker 1: the black community was it is lowest on record five hispanics.
Speaker 1: These are tangibles. You talk about the deregulation of the
Speaker 1: economy and how it benefited everyone. It wasn't just the wealthiest. Again,
Speaker 1: they would gain more because they pay the most in taxes.
Speaker 1: But certainly there was some tangible benefits, unlike what we're
Speaker 1: seeing with Joe Biden, who's regulating the economy and he's
Speaker 1: coming out with a lot of kind of uh, welfare
Speaker 1: initiatives if you will, to say this is what I'm
Speaker 1: gonna do for the black community, when the black community
Speaker 1: actually need jobs, not welfare programs. Here's what I following
Speaker 1: them because you're saying that that the demographic of blackmail
Speaker 1: voters who voted the most Trump board between earners, of
Speaker 1: which I said that the original number that I stated
Speaker 1: with those who had high school diplomas are below overall
Speaker 1: in terms of black folks, has supported him black men,
Speaker 1: I believe it was almost My understanding is, and I
Speaker 1: don't have the data in front of me. That's why
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't want to speak with certainty, but
Speaker 1: my understanding of the data was that the highest slights
Speaker 1: of black men who voted for Trump were actually those
Speaker 1: who had higher educational attainment and higher income. Yeah, I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't have the data to support that that particular conclusion.
Speaker 1: But but but but so because it's interesting to think about
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable people are voting for Trump workers, people
Speaker 1: who honestly are fairly recession proof. For example, you know,
Speaker 1: when you look at black men who make over seventy
Speaker 1: dollars a year, who have graduate degrees or college degrees,
Speaker 1: they're they're they're not recession proof per se, but they
Speaker 1: certainly are less vulnerable to the whims of the economy
Speaker 1: than say, someone with a high school diploma and someone
Speaker 1: who's making minimum wage. And so I'm always fascinated to
Speaker 1: know which slices of our population, of of our community
Speaker 1: are finding residents with Trump's message. But but again, black
Speaker 1: voting patterns with regard to Republicans aren't don't necessarily hindle
Speaker 1: on the economy. So you could look at moments under
Speaker 1: George W. Bush when the economy was fairly strong, right
Speaker 1: particularly the first two years of his presidency, and when
Speaker 1: you when he goes up for re election in two
Speaker 1: thousand and four and John Carey's on the table, it
Speaker 1: could have made complete sense to vote for George Bush
Speaker 1: based on the economy at that at that time. But
Speaker 1: they didn't because there's something about George W. Bush that
Speaker 1: didn't resonate with them. And of course we have nine eleven,
Speaker 1: we have the Iraq War, we have weapons of mass instruction,
Speaker 1: there are other conversations going on. Similarly, you could look
Speaker 1: at the economy under the kind of small government except
Speaker 1: for the military Ronald Reagan years, and you see a
Speaker 1: very interesting voting pattern. Black men are not They're voting
Speaker 1: for Reagan more than they did George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 1: George W. Bush, UH and and uh and John McCain, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But they're still not voting as higher numbers they are
Speaker 1: for Trump, despite the fact that based on just the
Speaker 1: economic metrics, you could make a case for it. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's really complicated. I think that black
Speaker 1: people are are committed to the Democratic Party as as
Speaker 1: a cultural move, as a confidence move, and to a
Speaker 1: large extent, as as a for policy reasons. But I
Speaker 1: do think that Donald Trump might be an anomaly. And
Speaker 1: I wonder and we'll know, and you will certainly know
Speaker 1: in three years, right when when when these when when
Speaker 1: we campaigning again and and Republicans are attempting to rest
Speaker 1: control of the White House again. If Donald Trump runs again,
Speaker 1: will know, we'll have an answer. But assuming Donald Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't run, it will be interesting to see if anyone
Speaker 1: else in the GOP can get the kind of support
Speaker 1: that the Donald Trump got. I think it's an anomaly.
Speaker 1: I think it's I don't see it happening again. Well,
Speaker 1: there's one indicator that I think that you you you
Speaker 1: didn't reference there, and that's the fact that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has been the only president to my knowledge or really
Speaker 1: in my lifetime, that has went after the black vote
Speaker 1: in such a way that it was almost his every
Speaker 1: conversation when he was running in sixteen. He will be
Speaker 1: before all white audiences and you will say the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party of taking black people for granted. Republicans were afraid
Speaker 1: to use that kind of language, and they certainly were
Speaker 1: afraid to be looking to recruit African Americans to support them,
Speaker 1: and in the same way that Donald Trump did. You
Speaker 1: don't even see Democrats per sely go after the black
Speaker 1: vote in the way that Donald Trump did so. If,
Speaker 1: for example, he doesn't run for a second goal at it,
Speaker 1: rather a third go at it, he and the next
Speaker 1: person to say, if it's rhond de Santas or someone else,
Speaker 1: they may not go after the black vote in the
Speaker 1: way that Donald Trump did so, then that would make
Speaker 1: him an anomalo. So that that's a fair point. I
Speaker 1: think you're right. I think it would be so unwise
Speaker 1: though general like if after watching Donald Trump, despite all
Speaker 1: the drama, all the messiness of his of his presidency,
Speaker 1: um secure that much of the Black vote, it would
Speaker 1: be full foolish for the Republican Party. Whoever, the next
Speaker 1: standard bear is to not follow Donald Trump's blueprint one
Speaker 1: at least targeting the black vote and Donald Trump didn't
Speaker 1: just do it during the election. I mean, we're in
Speaker 1: the kind of moment of the called the doctrine of
Speaker 1: the permanent campaign, which is kind of post George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: where you're always campaigning. But but Donald Trump was very
Speaker 1: particularly to say, look, from day one until day whatever,
Speaker 1: I'm going to constantly be speaking to the black community.
Speaker 1: You know, whether it was bringing HPCU presidents into the
Speaker 1: White House, whether it was you know, meeting at Trump
Speaker 1: Tower with everybody from Jim Brown to Steve Harvey too.
Speaker 1: I mean, this stuff matters. Now. I disagree with it
Speaker 1: as a tactic and as a strategy, as a philosophy,
Speaker 1: and as a policy move Donald Trump or not just
Speaker 1: don't see the world the same way. So I don't
Speaker 1: agree with him. But if I were in charge of
Speaker 1: the GOP, or if I were managing the next presidential
Speaker 1: campaign for the Republicans, I would absolutely say, look, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: just because Donald Trump did it don't mean it's wrong.
Speaker 1: You know, donaldrup did a lot of stuff right tactically,
Speaker 1: and one of those things was targeting in the black
Speaker 1: community in the way that he did. And so for me,
Speaker 1: you know, I I think you're right that if the
Speaker 1: next person does with the GOP usually does. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: be at apples and apples comparison. I just have enough
Speaker 1: faith in politicians ability to do it's best for them
Speaker 1: to think that now that they see that it works,
Speaker 1: that they'll do it. I mean, if you remember, uh
Speaker 1: guess it's been over ten years and now kind of
Speaker 1: time moves so quickly. But after just getting smashed in
Speaker 1: in an election, Bobby Jendo did the autopsy of the
Speaker 1: GOP and he's you know, and and and he said,
Speaker 1: look at where we are, look at what we're doing,
Speaker 1: look at what we're not doing, and here's you know.
Speaker 1: And they made other problems. One of them, of course,
Speaker 1: was the tent was getting smaller. The Republicans too often
Speaker 1: said we're gonna double down on what's already worked. Trump's
Speaker 1: had found a way to do both. He found a
Speaker 1: way and you and I may not agree on this,
Speaker 1: but he found a way to appeal to the most
Speaker 1: racist sector in America at the same time that he
Speaker 1: said I want some black people on board. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was it's actually quite stunning how how he was
Speaker 1: able to kind of speak to the populations that are
Speaker 1: so desparate and be so successful at getting one side
Speaker 1: and getting enough of the black vote to make him
Speaker 1: competitive in every state. That's that takes more than the notion.
Speaker 1: You know, I disagree with you on that point, but
Speaker 1: we'll debate more after this quick break. Let's be clear,
Speaker 1: there were some people that were racist. Didn't they did
Speaker 1: like what he said? Okay, that's fair, that's fair. There
Speaker 1: were some people. There were some people, so that's but
Speaker 1: that's gonna be the case with Joe Biden's base too.
Speaker 1: There will be some raceist that say, I like some
Speaker 1: of the things that Joe Biden says. That happens on
Speaker 1: both sides. But if you yeah, But if we're big artists,
Speaker 1: I think it'll be safe to say that if you
Speaker 1: were to take the one million most racist people in
Speaker 1: America and and line them up and ask who they
Speaker 1: voted for it, would you would you agree that they
Speaker 1: would that Trump would would would win by landslide. I
Speaker 1: don't have the people, I don't have any data to
Speaker 1: support that conclusion. But if we were to say, a
Speaker 1: candidate who's using some language that may not be racially
Speaker 1: sensitive at times, will both of them with be be
Speaker 1: in that category or are candidate who's literally legislated policy
Speaker 1: to put as many black men in jail as possible,
Speaker 1: who's used the N word on the floor of of
Speaker 1: of Congress, multiple times, whether it be he was repeating
Speaker 1: what someone said or not. I think most racists would say, hey,
Speaker 1: give me that person. You don't name Trump or Biden.
Speaker 1: They would say, give me that person, and that person
Speaker 1: would be Joe Biden. Yeah, I think out of context
Speaker 1: that could be true. But I guess I'm making a
Speaker 1: different argument. My argument here isn't about whether or not
Speaker 1: Trump is racist or whether Trump is even intending, and
Speaker 1: that's not That's not what I'm arguing either. My point is, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. I'm just saying that if you look,
Speaker 1: if you go to rallies taking my golf the table
Speaker 1: for a minute, if you if you if you just
Speaker 1: if you look at the people who are marching in
Speaker 1: Charlottesville right for as an example, just I think it
Speaker 1: would be dishonest to suggest that those people are marching
Speaker 1: to tear down who are protesting the tearing down Confederate statues,
Speaker 1: Those people who are anti Semitic, anti black, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Are also voting also voted for Hillary Clinton, in the
Speaker 1: previous election. I think that would be an unreasonable um interpretation.
Speaker 1: Now whether Trump, I'm not so when I say Trump
Speaker 1: is appealing to them. I'm not even making at this
Speaker 1: moment a judgment about whether or not he wants to
Speaker 1: or not. I'm not making a judgment about whether it's
Speaker 1: his fault or not. I'm not making it he's more
Speaker 1: or less racist than his opponent claim at all. I'm
Speaker 1: simply saying that Trump's campaign and Trump's president seemed to
Speaker 1: appeal to those people. Those who made a choice for president.
Speaker 1: They chose Trump, and lots of other people chose I'm true.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that everybody who voted for Trump was racist,
Speaker 1: but I think if you're a racist, it's much more
Speaker 1: likely you voted for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen and then in two thousand and twenty.
Speaker 1: I would make the same for Biden. But I have
Speaker 1: no I make no I do not believe that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is racist. But I absolutely could dissect Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: career and point out numerous instances where he said some
Speaker 1: racist stuff, or did some racist stuff, or reported a
Speaker 1: racist policy. Absolutely I would agree with you a thousand percent.
Speaker 1: But just to be clear, you know, when we talk
Speaker 1: about the crime bill, for example, or three strikes or
Speaker 1: the welfare reformat wealfare reformat, or the prison litigation reformat.
Speaker 1: All of these policies that emerged in the nineties, Democrats
Speaker 1: were in control or but Republicans supported them as well.
Speaker 1: So for me, it need you don't think you don't
Speaker 1: think that Republicans supported the welfare wealth reform no wealthfare reform. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I don't I don't understand where where that would
Speaker 1: be institutional racism or racism generally. The ninety four crime bill.
Speaker 1: You said holistically, you mentioned a bunch of policies, and
Speaker 1: you said Democrats supported the Republicans supported them as well.
Speaker 1: Republicans as a whole did not support the ninety four
Speaker 1: crime bill. There were some Republicans that voted for, but
Speaker 1: the majority that voted for that was Democrats. If we
Speaker 1: look at I don't have the I'm gonna put up
Speaker 1: the rod call now. But no, that's it's angry. You
Speaker 1: can take you can take my word is fact. The
Speaker 1: majority that voted for the institutional rate because my colleagues
Speaker 1: a lot of them don't believe in institution racism. I
Speaker 1: get it. I do. I think it exists. In the
Speaker 1: ninety four crime Bill, most majority Democrats supported it. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not distributing that, but I'm looking I'm literally
Speaker 1: looking at the crime deal. Now everybody supported the crime
Speaker 1: That's not true. It was. It was ninety five years
Speaker 1: and four days and one he didn't vote. Were you
Speaker 1: looking at the you're looking at the Senate right now,
Speaker 1: look at the House. But I mean, let's and then
Speaker 1: I was wondering, what exactly are you looking at? Because
Speaker 1: the majority of folks that voted for it, and who
Speaker 1: was it? What was the makeup in the Senate at
Speaker 1: that time too, That's another consideration. But the majority of
Speaker 1: the folks, especially when you look at the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives the word democrats, right, But we're talking about that
Speaker 1: the Senate where Joe Biden was, right, Joey wasn't in
Speaker 1: the House, he was in Senate. So my point is
Speaker 1: everybody voted for it. I'm not. I'm not making a
Speaker 1: claim that Republicans were more forward. Wait, just maybe we're
Speaker 1: talking abow diferent things. You you you you agree that
Speaker 1: in the Senate nearly everyone, it was nearly unanimous support
Speaker 1: for the crime bill. You agree with that, right, No,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that. I gotta look at that record.
Speaker 1: I don't think I'm okay. I mean, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the majority already stands. The majority party stands. Was the
Speaker 1: Democrats supported it. It It was their issue, their bill. Uh.
Speaker 1: Jesse Jackson, Jackse Jackson went and sat down in the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee and he said this was gonna cause mass incarceration.
Speaker 1: And he was absolutely right. And he was the spokesperson
Speaker 1: for the black community at that time, one in which
Speaker 1: Democrats supported. So with that hold on, I'm confused because
Speaker 1: this is just a matter of fact. I'm looking. There
Speaker 1: were four days and one instention. So again in the Senate,
Speaker 1: I mean, we can't really disagree on this, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a matter of fact. Right, Almost everybody voted
Speaker 1: for it. Only four people out of a hundred said no,
Speaker 1: that's a fact. You still think that that most people
Speaker 1: didn't vot for it. Look at the House, Look at
Speaker 1: the House totals. I'm only talking about the Senate because
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Joe Biden. I'm saying that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that Joe Biden supported it. Right. I agree,
Speaker 1: Democrats supported it. Democrats advanced this was a project. In fact,
Speaker 1: this was one of the policy. But you said Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats everybody voted for it. That would means if
Speaker 1: everyone voted for everyone in the House and everyone in
Speaker 1: the Senate would have to have supported it. That is inaccurate.
Speaker 1: It's factually that's not what I'm saying that I'm saying
Speaker 1: so clearly we're miscommunicating. So so that we could be
Speaker 1: on the same page. I'm saying in the Senate where
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was, where Joe Biden advance, that was a
Speaker 1: serving architect in advance a policy that had detrimental impacts
Speaker 1: on the black community. I agreed, most it was a
Speaker 1: democratic project. I agree. I'm saying that Republicans also supported it,
Speaker 1: that this was not a u and I conceded that
Speaker 1: point from the beginning. I said that there were some
Speaker 1: report Republicans that did support it. That's what I said
Speaker 1: that I said, the majority, the majority that supported the bill,
Speaker 1: we're Democrats, That's what I said. We're on the same page, right,
Speaker 1: I'm saying, But the majority of Republicans who were in
Speaker 1: the Senate also voted for it. We agree with that too, right,
Speaker 1: I was listening to your point in terms of the majority.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the Senate totals are. So if
Speaker 1: you say that that's the case, but that's still but
Speaker 1: that's still we're talking about over four hundred people in
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives. We're still there's still more Democrats
Speaker 1: supported it than Republicans. So that's the point there. Move on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not I'm not just I'm not just agreeing
Speaker 1: with that. Right, we were on the same page from
Speaker 1: the beginning. I said the majority supported it, and some
Speaker 1: Republicans did supported Sure, but it wasn't just majority of Democrats.
Speaker 1: I have. I have no dog in the dimocrats. I'm
Speaker 1: fine saying with Democrats supported I have. That's I'm saying. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm that's never been in the street for me. My
Speaker 1: overall point in saying this is to say that I
Speaker 1: don't look at the Crime Bill or any of these
Speaker 1: other and I did. It wasn't just some of the
Speaker 1: crime but like I said, the Welfare reformat, prison Lilegation
Speaker 1: REFORMAC these were all bills that were they all and
Speaker 1: I was speaking about all four of the bills that
Speaker 1: a one time that was the other thing. I wasn't
Speaker 1: speaking just of the House. That's that's not true, because
Speaker 1: you lumped them all in there. There you go, right,
Speaker 1: And what what I'm saying is if we look at
Speaker 1: if we look at this body of work emerging in
Speaker 1: the nineties, there were not Republicans saying, no, we should
Speaker 1: get softer on crime. There were there, they were not.
Speaker 1: In fact, most of the if you remember, most of
Speaker 1: the opposition, Republican opposition to these bills were about the
Speaker 1: details of the bill, not against the premise of the bill.
Speaker 1: Right as you as you know in Congress, it's it's
Speaker 1: the devil's in the details. People saying we don't want pork,
Speaker 1: we don't want these add ons, we don't we don't
Speaker 1: want to people Democrats and Republicans sins were smuggling other
Speaker 1: things on a on a bill that has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the thing they're talking about. We saw with
Speaker 1: the COVID release package. But there were there were not
Speaker 1: a string of Republicans saying, no, we should we shouldn't,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't give we shouldn't have welfare from No, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be the soft tougher on prisons form. For I'm
Speaker 1: not making a case about what I'm making. The case
Speaker 1: when it comes to legislation and bills is the devil's
Speaker 1: is in the details, and people put pork in it
Speaker 1: and things that Okay, got it all right, I understand absolutely,
Speaker 1: But also but also the Clinton presidency. Clinton was very
Speaker 1: strategic and saying. Clinton had a series of policies that
Speaker 1: he knew would be palatable to the mainstream, and he
Speaker 1: knew that would um make him seem like a centrist,
Speaker 1: and and and and Bill Clinton was quite savvy in this,
Speaker 1: and he understood that the crime bill here said, the
Speaker 1: string of bills that we just talked about, would be
Speaker 1: things that would make him look reasonable and tough and
Speaker 1: quite frankly, in many ways, it was the Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: and Clinton administration that threw black people under the bus
Speaker 1: because they said, well, if if I could be a
Speaker 1: two term president by governing this way, by by by
Speaker 1: attempting to govern from the center. Um. Of course they
Speaker 1: say now they regreted. It's very easy to regret things
Speaker 1: twenty years later, thirty years later. It's very easy to
Speaker 1: regret things when there's nothing at stake. That the question is,
Speaker 1: do you know, how did you feel when you were
Speaker 1: when you're in the midst of doing it, and was
Speaker 1: it just an air of judgment or was it what
Speaker 1: you wasn't that you did whatever you needed to do
Speaker 1: to succeed. And so when I look at that, I say,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's a little bit of both. Joe Biden's. You
Speaker 1: don't get to be a career politician. You don't get
Speaker 1: to be in the Senate for all that time and
Speaker 1: and not have to make some calculations that are not
Speaker 1: ethically strong. Right, you're but you can convince yourself that
Speaker 1: you're looking big picture. And then there's a way that
Speaker 1: I think Joe Biden has grown. I think that's way
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden has been challenged and pushed and made
Speaker 1: to look at the world differently. And I appreciate that
Speaker 1: in him, and I think there are a lot of
Speaker 1: politicians like that. I don't think it's just Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And So when I think about racism, and I think
Speaker 1: about what it means to live in a country where
Speaker 1: they're still lingering racism, and I think about who who
Speaker 1: those people to tend to vote for. They tend not
Speaker 1: to vote for people who speak about racial diversity. It's
Speaker 1: not to vote for people who say black lives matter.
Speaker 1: They tend not to vote for people who want to
Speaker 1: reform police, you know, all things that Joe Biden has
Speaker 1: talked about. Even though again I don't Joe Joe. I
Speaker 1: happen to think Joe Biden is not strong enough on
Speaker 1: these issues. I don't. I'm deeply critical of Joe Biden
Speaker 1: on these issues. But it's hard for me to imagine
Speaker 1: that someone who supports police votes for Joe Biden if
Speaker 1: that's their pride, if if they're voting on that issue. Obviously,
Speaker 1: people aren't single issue voters all the time. Um, it's
Speaker 1: hard for me to believe that somebody who cares about
Speaker 1: the environment, I'm sorry, who who who doesn't believe in
Speaker 1: global warming for example, or someone who wants to put
Speaker 1: out the Parents Accords hard to believe they vote for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. It's complicated because, you know, voters vote for
Speaker 1: lots of reasons. That's that's true. People vote for lots
Speaker 1: of reasons. And I think a lot of people, especially
Speaker 1: some prominent black folks. I'm not sure if you know
Speaker 1: Terik Nashid or not. He's he's been on a podcast
Speaker 1: he believes or rather he has said that he believes
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden is a suspected white supremacist, which he
Speaker 1: has a you know, big following, as you know, and
Speaker 1: he had he said some very insightful things. He says
Speaker 1: some really insightful things on the podcast that made me
Speaker 1: think and say, man, I never thought about it that way.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. So when we talk about these policy is
Speaker 1: very smart, Yeah, very very smart, very very smart, very smart,
Speaker 1: both a lot of insightful thoughts and comments on lots
Speaker 1: of issues. Indeed, indeed, now you you were saying that,
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to stay on the ninety four
Speaker 1: crime bill because there's so much other things to be
Speaker 1: talking about than that, But you were saying that with
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton. It's interesting how you can say that you
Speaker 1: regret something twenty years ago. What Joe Biden is in
Speaker 1: office right now. It was his crime bill. We've not
Speaker 1: seen any policy pushed forward in terms of reversing some
Speaker 1: of the draconian effects of that that crime bill. We
Speaker 1: saw with Donald Trump, he pulled out the first step back,
Speaker 1: which was what he said to be the first step
Speaker 1: and reversing these these negative effects. What are you doing
Speaker 1: to push folks on the Joe Biden's team on the
Speaker 1: left to tell him that he needs to right these
Speaker 1: wrongs that continue to devastate the black community to this day.
Speaker 1: You know, Um, for me, the strongest thing we can
Speaker 1: do is take to the streets and and mobilize our votes.
Speaker 1: Those are two separate things, right, there's protesting this voting,
Speaker 1: and for me, both of those things are key. You know,
Speaker 1: I've met uh and publicly and behind the scenes with
Speaker 1: many lawmakers in the last few years to talk about
Speaker 1: these issues. I'm an abolitionist. I believe in the abolition
Speaker 1: of police and abolition of prisons. So Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: I will never be on the same page. But what
Speaker 1: I can do is make moves and support the types
Speaker 1: of reforms that aren't antithetical to the project of abolition.
Speaker 1: In other words, I don't believe in reform as the solution,
Speaker 1: but I don't I don't oppose reforms that that can
Speaker 1: make create more livable lives as we fight to produce
Speaker 1: this new world, this ultimate world, which might we might
Speaker 1: be decades from, we might be centuries from who knows,
Speaker 1: But but we have to we have to fight and
Speaker 1: live in the world that we're in. Right now, And
Speaker 1: for me, that means, for example, pushing Joe Biden to say, hey,
Speaker 1: what about what about cash bail? Pushing Joe Biden saying, hey,
Speaker 1: what about privately funded prisons, federal prisons. These are things
Speaker 1: that we pushed them on during the campaign, and it's
Speaker 1: paid off because he's already saying no, no, you know,
Speaker 1: no to privatize federal prisons. You know, you know Obama
Speaker 1: had already said a note to cash bail and uh
Speaker 1: in federal prisons. Definitely. We're pushing on, pushing against the
Speaker 1: death penalty, pushing for retroactive parole, in release for people
Speaker 1: who incarcerated for for for marijuana in the nineties, who
Speaker 1: got these draconian sentences under under these various laws. These
Speaker 1: are things that we can do right now. And these
Speaker 1: things that I'm doing to push Joe Biden, but not
Speaker 1: just to push Joe Biden, but to push state level
Speaker 1: law making, because so much of the stuff happens at
Speaker 1: the state level, and we gotta push them to Okay,
Speaker 1: So I'm hearing what you're saying, and it's two things
Speaker 1: that pop out. One, Um, I get getting rid of
Speaker 1: the private prisons, But are you saying that you're are
Speaker 1: you against all prisons or just private prisons? Against prisons?
Speaker 1: I believe in the abolition of prisons. Yeah, so so
Speaker 1: what do you so? What do you do with the people? Who? Who?
Speaker 1: And I know you have I'm not sure how many
Speaker 1: children you have, but I know you have a daughter.
Speaker 1: So someone tries to do anything to hurt what do
Speaker 1: you what do you do? You take the law into
Speaker 1: your own hands or what is it you would advocate
Speaker 1: to prevent the destruction of life? And what criminal penal?
Speaker 1: Is there any criminal penalties? Do they go in the
Speaker 1: corner for a few hours? And what? What? What? What
Speaker 1: are we doing? Well? I think there's a lot of um,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of space between putting someone in a
Speaker 1: cage and sitting someone in a corner. Right, There's there's
Speaker 1: lots of ways that we can reimagine the world. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I know what I mean. These are the questions I
Speaker 1: get asked all the time. Right, is it a slap
Speaker 1: on the wrist? You know? Do we get people slap
Speaker 1: on the wrist or do we you know? And if
Speaker 1: because people can only think in extremes, because that's how
Speaker 1: we've been talked to things, Right, We've been We've been
Speaker 1: only talked to think about the extremes, which are either
Speaker 1: we lock of people in cages for years or decades
Speaker 1: or their whole life. Are we kill them or we
Speaker 1: do nothing? And Um, the first thing I say to you,
Speaker 1: because it's it's an it's an important question you're asking, UM,
Speaker 1: the first thing I say is, well, I don't think
Speaker 1: about this purely in those extremes. Right the bulk of
Speaker 1: the cases, the bulk of the people sitting in prisons
Speaker 1: right now aren't there for violent crimes. The bulk of
Speaker 1: people in prison aren't there as serial killers and rapists
Speaker 1: and murderers and etcetera. Right if they were, there are
Speaker 1: two point five million of those, we might be having
Speaker 1: a different conversation. So I think about, um, the various
Speaker 1: ways that the prison is used right now to cage people, uh,
Speaker 1: for crimes of need, for crimes of addiction, for crimes
Speaker 1: of of mental illness, for crimes of homelessness, for crimes
Speaker 1: of poverty. And the first thing that we always talked
Speaker 1: about is investing in the world in such a way
Speaker 1: that those crimes are not necessary, That people aren't stealing
Speaker 1: to eat, that people aren't stealing to live, that people
Speaker 1: aren't selling drugs out of this session, that people are
Speaker 1: using drugs to treat mental illness UM, and that we
Speaker 1: understand drug addiction as a mental as a mental as
Speaker 1: a mental as a medical problem, rather than as a
Speaker 1: as a criminal problem. So part of what we have
Speaker 1: to do is really is a strip away are the
Speaker 1: logic of criminalization, so that we don't always criminalize everything.
Speaker 1: I'm still getting to your crazy serial killer question. I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm just explaining that that that's the which is
Speaker 1: because I think that's the right question. No, I think
Speaker 1: it's the right and fair question because people aren't scared
Speaker 1: of the person steals a TV in the same way
Speaker 1: to scared of the person who might sexually assault them.
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm with you. I don't want you to
Speaker 1: think I'm avoiding your question. I'm just saying I think
Speaker 1: that we tend to only thinking those narrow terms right
Speaker 1: of of what happens to that small slites of people
Speaker 1: in prison for that, UM, I think about so so.
Speaker 1: So it's about that. It's about imagining what the world
Speaker 1: would be like if we had uh decarceration. For me,
Speaker 1: prison never listens about decarceration. It's about saying how can
Speaker 1: we empty the prisons now? And during COVID we saw
Speaker 1: lots of signals as to how that's possible. A whole
Speaker 1: bunch of people didn't get A whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: did do their time. We let them out. They were aging,
Speaker 1: they were dying, they were sick, they want to threat
Speaker 1: to society more, and we said, you know, we can
Speaker 1: let these people out. We did it for health reasons,
Speaker 1: but the truth is we could have done it a
Speaker 1: year prior with with the same consequence. Right they were.
Speaker 1: They weren't more or less of a danger because of COVID.
Speaker 1: We let them out because they weren't really threat to
Speaker 1: society anymore. So we have way more people caged than
Speaker 1: we need to. We cage people when they don't have
Speaker 1: enough money to pay for their bail. So essentially you're
Speaker 1: in jail because you don't have enough money not to
Speaker 1: be in jail. That's an evil system. You should that's it.
Speaker 1: Sinmily becomes a debtor's prison. So we can decarceerate that way.
Speaker 1: We can decarcate by giving people suspended sentences by right
Speaker 1: by doing work release, by doing community based um action,
Speaker 1: community based dispute resolution as opposed to adjudicating things in
Speaker 1: courts and lead to prison. We can empty out so
Speaker 1: much of the prison without separating fathers and mothers from
Speaker 1: their families, without breaking down communities, without stripping away so
Speaker 1: much of what we need excarceration. As an other part
Speaker 1: of what I'm talking about, um, it means that some
Speaker 1: of the party because part of your questions is what
Speaker 1: do we do when people commit crimes? But remember crimes
Speaker 1: of social constructs? Right? Okay, I mean, I mean they
Speaker 1: are right. You would agree that everything you there's laws
Speaker 1: that are past and people feel whatever it's criminal behavior,
Speaker 1: they provide a punishment for it. Okay, got it. So
Speaker 1: you agree that crimes is a social construct They're created
Speaker 1: by people, They're created by lawmakers. You laughed at you
Speaker 1: don't want your audience, No no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no no, because I'm listening to where you're going
Speaker 1: with it, because okay, let's let's continue. I want to hear.
Speaker 1: I want to hear you. I want to hear. The
Speaker 1: reason I'm saying that, because so much of our attachment
Speaker 1: to things once might commit to crime, is that many
Speaker 1: of the things that we as a society agree on
Speaker 1: his crime shift from time to time. For example, when
Speaker 1: you when I was growing up, Um, if you told
Speaker 1: me somebody was smoking weed, we oh my god, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. Now it's like you're smoking weed?
Speaker 1: Do I mean? People joke about it, people talk about it.
Speaker 1: You can you can run for president. I mean even
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton inhaling with he had to lie about it.
Speaker 1: How much Weedy spoke just to be president? Right, And
Speaker 1: it was like wink wink. But like now, if you
Speaker 1: told me somebody smoke we nobody would trip about it. Right. So,
Speaker 1: but that was a crime, and and and so learning
Speaker 1: to read was a crime for black folk at one point, right,
Speaker 1: black people and white people getting married was a crime
Speaker 1: at one point in history. So so what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is just because it's a crime doesn't necessarily mean that
Speaker 1: we have to punish it. We can reimagine what crime
Speaker 1: is and say, okay, is everything that we consider a
Speaker 1: crime actually something that we as a society want to
Speaker 1: commit to punishing. Now, some things I think in any
Speaker 1: juncture in history we might say should be a crime,
Speaker 1: there are other things a hundred years ago that should
Speaker 1: have been crimes that worked. I mean, there was a
Speaker 1: time where you could beat slaves legally, right, that should
Speaker 1: have been a crime. Uh. You know, sexual assault, particularly
Speaker 1: among married people did not exist. That should have been
Speaker 1: a crime. So I'm not. You know, lynching or lynching
Speaker 1: was act and legal, they just didn't care. But so
Speaker 1: my point is I'm not. My point is that crime
Speaker 1: is people don't commit crimes. They commit acts, and then
Speaker 1: society decides whether these things are criminal or not. So
Speaker 1: another piece of this X carceration is making the is
Speaker 1: making the determination about whether or not all the things
Speaker 1: that we call crimes need to be And I'll give
Speaker 1: you a concrete example. Uh, smoking crack. Right, you grew
Speaker 1: up in Chicago, you had crackheads as they called them, Right,
Speaker 1: they call people crackhead. The crackhead was seen as somebody
Speaker 1: who was not just making a bad choice, but somebody
Speaker 1: who was a bad person. Juxtaposed crackhead with the cocaine. Right,
Speaker 1: you could have a cocad lawyer, You can have a
Speaker 1: cokehead accountant. You could have a cocade holding that goes
Speaker 1: to college when you gets high and he goes to
Speaker 1: class the next day. And we didn't we would say, yo,
Speaker 1: he's making a bad choice. But the crackhead was a
Speaker 1: bad person. So it was much easier to imagine taking
Speaker 1: of one addicted to crack and put them in jail,
Speaker 1: because because that's where bad people go. Then it is
Speaker 1: to take that that that rich guy sniffing coke in
Speaker 1: his office before he goes to a board meeting, right,
Speaker 1: And that's abound race. That's about classes, about gender, it's
Speaker 1: about lots of stuff. And so my point is we
Speaker 1: have to strip away some of our some of these
Speaker 1: ideas we have about crime. You know, do we really
Speaker 1: do we need to criminalize sex work? Do we need
Speaker 1: to criminalize two people in the corner shooting dice? Because
Speaker 1: there's plenty people some Sich Chicago shooting dice and you
Speaker 1: don't care about that when you walk past, and you
Speaker 1: don't really think they need to be in jail for
Speaker 1: for illegal gambling. But it's still illegal. So we have
Speaker 1: to ask ourselves are all these crimes on the books
Speaker 1: um necessary? But then there's this thing you that you're
Speaker 1: talking about, which again I don't want to ignore. And
Speaker 1: for as an abolitionist, is what I call, or not
Speaker 1: what I call. It's what abolitionists have called and what
Speaker 1: I echo restraint of the few. Yes, there are people
Speaker 1: in society who need to be restrained from society. They do.
Speaker 1: I grew up with them kind of people. I grew
Speaker 1: up in a hood. It's people You're glad they somewhere else.
Speaker 1: I've seen people kill people. I've seen people do extraordinary
Speaker 1: harm to people, and it's not because they're poor. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it is, but sometimes it's not. It's people who have means,
Speaker 1: who have resources. There's sometimes people just do bad ship.
Speaker 1: And it is not my contention that we put them
Speaker 1: in the corners. That my contention that we give a
Speaker 1: slap on the wrist. But the question is is there
Speaker 1: a way to have restraint of the few in a
Speaker 1: way that actually makes those people whole again and makes
Speaker 1: the people they harmed whole again outside the logic of
Speaker 1: the prison. And you might say, well, why, Well, because
Speaker 1: the prison doesn't work. The prison doesn't actually rehabilitate. The
Speaker 1: prison actually produces more crime. The prison actually makes it
Speaker 1: is criminal genic. It actually makes people worse than when
Speaker 1: they you go to prison for one thing, you learn
Speaker 1: how to do more crime you in there. The prison
Speaker 1: is unsafe, the printed, the prison creates more untreated trauma.
Speaker 1: So for me, it's I'm not I'm not against developing
Speaker 1: a system of restraint of the few for the purpose
Speaker 1: of restorative justice. But the prison isn't the only model.
Speaker 1: But even if you say, all right, Mark, that's a
Speaker 1: distinction without a difference. You still, whatever you call it,
Speaker 1: you're putting people away for some time. Let's tall you
Speaker 1: that's true. I don't agree, but let's say that's true.
Speaker 1: That's still would reduce the prison population from two point
Speaker 1: three million to maybe a few hundred thousand, which for me,
Speaker 1: would be the ultimate way to undo the violence of
Speaker 1: the crime bill, the violence of the prison litigation, re format,
Speaker 1: the violence of the war on drugs. That's that's and
Speaker 1: I know that's a long answer, but that that would
Speaker 1: be my knowledge. Yeah, So it was so important to
Speaker 1: hear you out in your concept and your analysis failing.
Speaker 1: And I wanted to make sure that I didn't interrupt.
Speaker 1: But let me say, and I know that you're a
Speaker 1: very smart guy, but my opinion of this and this
Speaker 1: has not been you just pushing it. There's been a
Speaker 1: lot of people pushing the same concept on a national level.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, I think it's an intellectually bankrupt concept.
Speaker 1: And i'll tell you why. So you talked about coming
Speaker 1: from this South side of Chicago, talk about my best
Speaker 1: selling book, Taken for Granted. My mom was one of
Speaker 1: those quote unquote crackheads that you you just referenced. I
Speaker 1: recognize that she isn't a bad person and wasn't a
Speaker 1: bad person. Then, However, there are people who are quote
Speaker 1: unquote crackheads, didn't do criminal behavior, and they abuse their family,
Speaker 1: They rob people, they steal from people, and they may
Speaker 1: murder someone just to get a hold of that drug
Speaker 1: to get in their pocket. Those people deserve jail time.
Speaker 1: When you think about the fact that I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna murder somebody that deserves jail time, if
Speaker 1: someone shoots you, so one murders you, your family is
Speaker 1: gonna want to get justice. Just like with George Floyd,
Speaker 1: his family wanted justice, America wanted justice. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you just a client, Frank, because because my premise was
Speaker 1: if we invest in the world, I agree. But most
Speaker 1: people who most people who do who are doing crime
Speaker 1: as crack addicts are doing so as crimes of addiction.
Speaker 1: You'd agree with that, right, Like you said, they steal,
Speaker 1: they robbed, they do the stuff. I mean people, it's
Speaker 1: like steeling your VCR in the nineties. It's not because
Speaker 1: they just like to steal VCRs and they tell them
Speaker 1: to get right. Yeah, they were selling still in all, Still,
Speaker 1: in all, there's someone being disenfranchised by that action. So
Speaker 1: that that's that's what I'm saying. Let me finish this
Speaker 1: point really there. So the same philosophy that you're you're
Speaker 1: pushing is being pushed on the national stage. So I
Speaker 1: won't even say as your philosophy. I'll say that is
Speaker 1: being pushed on the national stage. There's people like Kim Fox,
Speaker 1: she's the Cook County prosecutor in Chicago right now, who's
Speaker 1: moving about life with this very same philosophy. She has
Speaker 1: since she's been in office, over the course of three years,
Speaker 1: has dropped all charges. And I'm talking about felony counts,
Speaker 1: real legitimate felony accounts, which are up to murder, all
Speaker 1: charges for twenty nine point nine of defendants. That's about
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand people. This is not made Chicago more safe.
Speaker 1: My little brother in a car Memorial Day weekend, seen
Speaker 1: in the car with two of his friends. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: two of his friends just sitting on the street talking.
Speaker 1: That's it. And that's all they were doing. Two men
Speaker 1: walked up, shot the car twenty five times. His best
Speaker 1: friend died in his arms. Should we reimagine the punishment
Speaker 1: for the shooters because it was two shooters at that point.
Speaker 1: Should we say like, oh, well, maybe they don't deserve
Speaker 1: jail time, or we have to think about this differently. No,
Speaker 1: people want justice. My little brother wants justice. His best
Speaker 1: friend died in his arms and he could have been dead.
Speaker 1: I would want justice. So there has to be a
Speaker 1: place for the bad people to go for those who refuse,
Speaker 1: and there's gonna be people who refuse to obey the law.
Speaker 1: There's not gonna ever be a time where we can
Speaker 1: just say, hey, you can be rehabilitated. Some people, simply put,
Speaker 1: cannot be rehabilitated. They have to face some harsh consequence
Speaker 1: in order to turn theirselves around if they were to
Speaker 1: choose to do so. Would you not agree with that?
Speaker 1: I would disagree with almost everything you said. Well, I
Speaker 1: reject some of the premises, right, So again you said
Speaker 1: that you're asking why why shouldn't those people get justice?
Speaker 1: My premise, I'm not sure. I never argue that people
Speaker 1: shouldn't get justice. What we're disagreeing is what justice looks like, right,
Speaker 1: he'd not go to jail. Derek Hilman shouldn't go to
Speaker 1: jail in your in your argument? Is that right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's my argument. So you're saying Derek Chauvin should not
Speaker 1: be in jail for uh, what he did to George Floyd.
Speaker 1: You're I mean, if I don't want to get into
Speaker 1: a sound bite thing, you understand that we're speaking about
Speaker 1: in the ultimate you're talking about right now, in this
Speaker 1: very moment, are you talking about in an abolitionist world?
Speaker 1: You're saying, you're arguing, generally speaking, the jails shouldn't exist.
Speaker 1: That's right or no? Yeah, okay, I'm saying in this world,
Speaker 1: hold on, hold on. You also remember me saying that
Speaker 1: we have to also to navigate the world we're in.
Speaker 1: Then it could it could decades or even centuries to
Speaker 1: build the world that I'm talking about. Remember that part.
Speaker 1: So let's just say it takes decade. Let's let's just
Speaker 1: say one decade, because that because that would be it
Speaker 1: becomes a disignest conversation because what you design is you
Speaker 1: don't want to mention it. Has it dishigonness? Are you
Speaker 1: being intellectually dishonest and I don't know. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: understand your point. You don't believe in jail. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is it becomes misleading to the audience because the
Speaker 1: way they walk with a headline saying makoel moont Hill
Speaker 1: says Derek Schulman shouldn't be in jail, as opposed to
Speaker 1: saying markol mont Hill is saying that we should we
Speaker 1: should construct a world that would that would deal with
Speaker 1: these issues in a different way. I also said that
Speaker 1: people who are a threat to society should be restrained
Speaker 1: and held out of society. I just think the model
Speaker 1: should look different than the prison as it's currently constructed.
Speaker 1: I also said that, And so to take all that
Speaker 1: away and just walk away with markol Monthill said Derek
Speaker 1: Shulman shouldn't go to jail, I think that was a
Speaker 1: misrepresentation of what I'm saying. You say you clarified your
Speaker 1: point because you said, oh, yes, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So you just clarified your point. Fine, we we we
Speaker 1: we You move on from that, But I begin with that.
Speaker 1: I began with that. I began by saying that again,
Speaker 1: this could take centuries to create. I began by and
Speaker 1: I also began. But I also began by saying restrain
Speaker 1: of the few doesn't mean that people just go home.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that we get people slaps on the wrist,
Speaker 1: but that we reimagined how we can do it, but
Speaker 1: that the goal is restoration and rehabilitation rather than simply punishment. Also,
Speaker 1: I also never suggested that people shouldn't get justice. What
Speaker 1: I said is that justice may look different if we
Speaker 1: have other models outside of just the prison. Right, I'm
Speaker 1: talking about restorative models. I'll give you an example. Someone
Speaker 1: shot the president, right, Ronald Reagan gets shot. All right,
Speaker 1: there's a fact he wasn't putting, he wasn't sent to prison.
Speaker 1: It's also a fact. You're not disputing any this, right, No, no, okay.
Speaker 1: So it was determined that he had mental illness, and
Speaker 1: so for decades he got treatment, he got care, he
Speaker 1: got medicine, he got scoping strategies, he learned how to
Speaker 1: navigate society. And this man is now where back in society, reintegrated.
Speaker 1: But he didn't sit in a cage for thirty years.
Speaker 1: This is my point. So it's it's so and so yeah,
Speaker 1: but so yeah, we could we could have a cheap
Speaker 1: headline of you know, he says, you know, the person
Speaker 1: shoots the president shouldn't go to jail. We yeah, but um,
Speaker 1: But the more nuance and sophisticated conversation, I think is
Speaker 1: to say, what did that set of services do for
Speaker 1: him that still kept the public safe, that still held
Speaker 1: him accountable, but but allow him to re enter society
Speaker 1: better than when he left. That's what I'm looking for,
Speaker 1: and and and and remember I also began by saying,
Speaker 1: we have to invest in the systems that, um, that
Speaker 1: that create the problems that we have. So again, if
Speaker 1: somebody is addicted to drugs and they're stealing because they
Speaker 1: don't have drugs, part of why they're stealing to get
Speaker 1: drugs because they don't act us to them. Right, Drugs
Speaker 1: are illegal, they're they're they're poorly regulated, they're they're unsafe
Speaker 1: for that reason, and you have to live in the
Speaker 1: underside of society to consume a lot of them. Right,
Speaker 1: You can't just go and do heroin like sitting on
Speaker 1: sitting on the steps or so. And many people are unhoused,
Speaker 1: and and so what would what would the world look
Speaker 1: like with safe injection facilities? What would the world look
Speaker 1: like with with the with the decriminalization of these drugs,
Speaker 1: What would the world look like if we invested and
Speaker 1: create a social safety net so that so that the
Speaker 1: people who are the poorest among us still have resources
Speaker 1: for a living wage at the same time that I
Speaker 1: would say, just to use example, with your with your
Speaker 1: your your beloved mother, I don't want her to stay there.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we should give our living wage
Speaker 1: so that she can buy drugs. I'm saying, give her
Speaker 1: a living wage at the same time that we're we're
Speaker 1: supplying drug counselors and drug treatment, and we're treating it
Speaker 1: like a medical problem rather than rather than a criminal problem.
Speaker 1: That's all I'm saying. So I'm not saying ignore the
Speaker 1: fact that the person just stole your TV. I'm saying,
Speaker 1: let's create a context where someone doesn't have to steal
Speaker 1: t vs to deal with a medical problem and a
Speaker 1: social problem. That's what I'm saying. So I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to ignore what happens when they steal the TV. I'm saying,
Speaker 1: let's try to prevent the stealing of the TV through
Speaker 1: these other investments, But that doesn't change the fact that
Speaker 1: somebody's going to steal the TV. Right, everybody isn't going
Speaker 1: to follow this the rules. There's going to be somebody
Speaker 1: who steals the TV, either because they need to or
Speaker 1: because they just want to. Some people are just suck
Speaker 1: up people and they just want to steal TVs. Let's
Speaker 1: let's let's accept that. I'm saying, though, if General Carbon
Speaker 1: steals my TV, I don't want you to put it
Speaker 1: in here. I want you to make me whole again.
Speaker 1: I want I want you to restore me to where
Speaker 1: I want right. But potentially yes, and it could look
Speaker 1: like buying me another TV, but it could look like
Speaker 1: a few other things. And I'm saying that that also
Speaker 1: has to be part of how we think about this.
Speaker 1: And if we do, if we do those processes, then
Speaker 1: the Derek Chauvin's of the world, or the Dealing Roofs
Speaker 1: of the world, Right, these are awful people. They can
Speaker 1: be dealt with through mechanisms that we can create in society.
Speaker 1: There's no way you're gonna tell me de Laruf is sane.
Speaker 1: There's no way you're gonna tell me a child molester
Speaker 1: is sane. There's no way you're gonna tell me a
Speaker 1: serial killer, the Boston bomber it's sane. I'm saying that
Speaker 1: they need mental mental mental health treatment as much as
Speaker 1: they need to be kept out of society. We can
Speaker 1: imagine alternatives to the prison that that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: you don't get justice. Okay, we're talking to Dr Martin
Speaker 1: Lamont Hill. We'll be back in a second. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you about this because you know we're we're in
Speaker 1: a place where, uh, being woke is. I remember when
Speaker 1: woke was a thing, it was just kind of more
Speaker 1: among the black community. But now being woken seemingly everybody's
Speaker 1: thing and whatever the general the purpose of being woke
Speaker 1: was has been usurped to something else altogether in my view,
Speaker 1: So I want to ask you about wokeness and social justice.
Speaker 1: I recently saw a story about Coca Cola urging its
Speaker 1: employees to be quote less white as a part of
Speaker 1: their company's diversity training program. Do you support that kind
Speaker 1: of thing in the workplace? At what point do we
Speaker 1: get to woke? I still don't know what woke means.
Speaker 1: I'm still very confused at what people mean when they's here,
Speaker 1: and I mean, that's that's not me being silly a
Speaker 1: core or like I feel like it's the term, like
Speaker 1: you said, that has been co opted so much that
Speaker 1: I don't I don't know what it means to people. UM.
Speaker 1: For me, woke at least what Erica used to say it,
Speaker 1: you know, stay woke and all that. For me, it
Speaker 1: was about being socially conscious. Woke was about being aware,
Speaker 1: it was about it was about being aware of who
Speaker 1: you are is and having knowledge itself. Now woke to me,
Speaker 1: it is about playing into some real narrow thin liberal
Speaker 1: politics that I don't necessarily share. UM, And so watching
Speaker 1: core operations or or media outlets or whatever co op
Speaker 1: that language to look like that that they're part of
Speaker 1: the diversity, equity and inclusion game, which is really about
Speaker 1: um posturing and making themselves accessible to more money, uh
Speaker 1: and resources. For me, I have, I have very little.
Speaker 1: I have very little trust or I put very little
Speaker 1: credence in those in those efforts. Yeah, so would you
Speaker 1: would you agree that, uh, the Coca Cola really advocating
Speaker 1: for his employees to be less white would be a
Speaker 1: form of racism that advocating for their employees. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what they said. They im sorry, I'm asking for claring.
Speaker 1: You say the one the employable this way? Do you
Speaker 1: mean demographically or to act less one no, no, no,
Speaker 1: to act less white, to act less white. I think
Speaker 1: that that's uh a very The language is so ambiguous
Speaker 1: that I think it can it can potentially do harm.
Speaker 1: I can understand the context in which that would make sense,
Speaker 1: and I can understand the context on which that would
Speaker 1: be problematic. I don't think it's racist, but I think
Speaker 1: that it can. It's wildly insensitive and deeply irresponsible. If
Speaker 1: it's if it's unless it's given extraordinary context. And even
Speaker 1: in that context, I would say, is that really the
Speaker 1: best way to make that happen? So if if you
Speaker 1: and I were a part of a corporation, let's say
Speaker 1: Apple or whatever, and they can't no, no, no, Let's
Speaker 1: say we work for Sea Pack, if you will. Let's
Speaker 1: say we work for Sea Pack and we were in
Speaker 1: the room with our white colleagues and they said, listen,
Speaker 1: you and Mark need to be less black. Would that
Speaker 1: be considered racist or would that just be uh, deeply
Speaker 1: disturbing the premise of the question the answers the answer
Speaker 1: your questions, Yes, would be racist. And the reason why
Speaker 1: there's a difference is because black and white aren't opposite sides.
Speaker 1: Of the same coin. Surely it's surely if if when when,
Speaker 1: when you're again, you're from Chicago, you know all about
Speaker 1: the Black Panthers, when people stood up and said black power.
Speaker 1: Surely you don't think that that's the same thing is
Speaker 1: somebody sending up and saying white power? Right? They words
Speaker 1: have different meanings given the context and the histories that
Speaker 1: they come out of. Black and white are opposite sides
Speaker 1: of the same coin. One has normative power, one has
Speaker 1: state power behind it, and so when and so again.
Speaker 1: I don't know the context which Coca Cola is saying it.
Speaker 1: But if if I asked you, if I said, Gianna,
Speaker 1: what do you love about being black? I think that
Speaker 1: there are certain answers you would give. Right, you can
Speaker 1: talk about all the ship you like about being black. Right.
Speaker 1: If I if you walk to white person, what do
Speaker 1: you love about being white? Right? That's a very different question.
Speaker 1: Not what do you love about being Irish or Russian
Speaker 1: or Polish or or whatever, but what do you love
Speaker 1: about being white? And the reason why it would be
Speaker 1: an uncomfortable question to ask someone is because of what
Speaker 1: whiteness means in our social world and with the social
Speaker 1: and political meanings attached to white nest. So it's not
Speaker 1: the same thing. And so when you ask me, well
Speaker 1: what if a white person did that, Well, the context
Speaker 1: is different, you know what I mean. Similarly, if um,
Speaker 1: you're I don't know if you're part of blex it
Speaker 1: or not, but you know if but if somebody says
Speaker 1: there's a Blexit, that's not the same thing as a
Speaker 1: wex it. If white people said, you know, all the
Speaker 1: white people need to lead Republican the Democratic Party, that
Speaker 1: ship would be profoundly different than saying all the black
Speaker 1: people need to leave why Because there's a history and
Speaker 1: a context for why black people need to leave the party.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have served white liberals quite well, and white
Speaker 1: people aren't under or under attacking the Democratic Party, right,
Speaker 1: So so a wexit would be a very different kind
Speaker 1: of move. And so we could look at this across
Speaker 1: across the board and say, well, yeah, that's why we
Speaker 1: don't have white history model, that's why we don't have
Speaker 1: w E T for a for a TV network because
Speaker 1: these things aren't necessary in context. So when I hear
Speaker 1: them say so, so part of what whiteness, part of
Speaker 1: what we've learned, and part of what we talk about
Speaker 1: with regard to whiteness is whiteness is is when people
Speaker 1: is when we say we're trying to rid ourselves of whiteness.
Speaker 1: Typically what that means is white privilege. Typically what that
Speaker 1: means is being at the center of the cultural experience
Speaker 1: at all times, being at the center of the the
Speaker 1: intellectual experience at all times. And so to so what
Speaker 1: I use the language be less white. No, I would not,
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't assume that that means the same thing
Speaker 1: as being less black. They don't mean the same thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that that that's that's your interpretation of it as
Speaker 1: you as you would say. They said, be actuively. But
Speaker 1: but here's the distinction too. You talk about how do
Speaker 1: you feel about being black? Um, I can ask my
Speaker 1: friend Connor, for example, how do how does it feel
Speaker 1: being an Irish American? Or how does it feel being
Speaker 1: an attack? No, no, no, no no, no, you didn't
Speaker 1: say that. I'm saying. I'm saying you said about you know,
Speaker 1: how does it feel about being black? That was your example.
Speaker 1: I'm saying I did not say, did not say that that? No,
Speaker 1: I said, what do you like about it? What do
Speaker 1: you like about? Being very specific? Okay, what do you like?
Speaker 1: It is important. I'm not I'm not being pedantic. The
Speaker 1: distinction is important because liking something about being white when
Speaker 1: white is born out of a certain kind of power
Speaker 1: and privilege. It's hard to say what you like about
Speaker 1: being white? What what if you like to be white?
Speaker 1: Is different what you like about as white prisons? What
Speaker 1: do you like about being white? And see what kind
Speaker 1: of responses you get? What do you think a white
Speaker 1: person would say about your white friends? I have white friends.
Speaker 1: What do you think a white person said, what do
Speaker 1: you like about being white? Not about your ethnicity, but
Speaker 1: about being white? What do you think they say? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've never I've never had that discussion before, so I
Speaker 1: wouldn't I would know. I barely like I barely hear
Speaker 1: black folks saying what do you like about being black?
Speaker 1: I don't really hear that. And I'm just saying, if
Speaker 1: we're talking about equality and we want things to be
Speaker 1: the same for everybody, if we wanted to be uh
Speaker 1: even bored, if you will, then one would say, if
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you be less black, which we know
Speaker 1: you and I both know that there's been corporations that
Speaker 1: I've done this there's been supervisor just said, listen, you
Speaker 1: should be less black. Therefore you would be more appropriate
Speaker 1: for us, so you would be more accepted by us.
Speaker 1: If we're saying that that's racism and that's wrong, than
Speaker 1: being saying be less white can also be viewed as
Speaker 1: racist and wrong. I get what you're saying. I hear,
Speaker 1: I hear what you're saying. You're looking at it through
Speaker 1: the context of uh context. It's a different context. It's
Speaker 1: a different it's a different context. But that your context
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Just because you have
Speaker 1: a different context. I can I can look at a
Speaker 1: glass that has water, and then I can say that
Speaker 1: glass is half full or is half empty. That's that's context,
Speaker 1: that's the distinction. But either way, it's still a glass
Speaker 1: would water at a particular level, right, And I'm saying
Speaker 1: something different. I'm saying because those are objective measures. There's
Speaker 1: a certain amount of water in the glass, and and
Speaker 1: it's and it's and and my perspective may shape how
Speaker 1: I describe it, but there's still an objective amount of
Speaker 1: water in the glass. What I'm saying is that the
Speaker 1: very idea of white and black aren't objective in that
Speaker 1: way that they're not flat objective categories. They're categories and
Speaker 1: ideas and identities that emerge out of history, and they
Speaker 1: emerge out of politics, and they emerge out of social meaning.
Speaker 1: And so when we make social meanings about things, they
Speaker 1: don't necessarily mean the same thing. And so, and even
Speaker 1: an example you just gave when I tell somebody, this
Speaker 1: is what I said. If you would ask a bunch
Speaker 1: of black people, what do you like about being black?
Speaker 1: You don't think that. I think. You go on Twitter
Speaker 1: and find a hashtag what I like about being black?
Speaker 1: You can find million people tell you all the ship
Speaker 1: they like about being black. Right, you don't find white
Speaker 1: people in general talking about things they like about being
Speaker 1: white that aren't about and if they do, it's from
Speaker 1: You'll you'll see some very interesting answers. And I'd like
Speaker 1: you to do this and anyone else listening to this
Speaker 1: as an experiment as white people, what do you like
Speaker 1: about being white? Not about being Irish or any other ethnicity, Italian?
Speaker 1: What have you? What are you like about being white?
Speaker 1: And the problem is it creates a discomfort because whiteness
Speaker 1: is often defined or the things you like about being
Speaker 1: white or often in opposition to what black people don't
Speaker 1: have or to what other people don't have, because whiteness
Speaker 1: is about a power relationship, just like blackness is about
Speaker 1: a power relationship. And so that's why I'm saying it's different.
Speaker 1: And so when you ask, when you when if somebody
Speaker 1: says that you be less black, like you said, they're
Speaker 1: saying you need to hide that society has decided are
Speaker 1: wrong and bad in order to achieve right. Don't talk
Speaker 1: the way you talk, don't move the way you move,
Speaker 1: don't dress the way you move, do a dress the
Speaker 1: way you dress, don't do the things that you do
Speaker 1: culturally or don't don't identify in the world with the
Speaker 1: people that has been despised. Yeah, you're right, that would
Speaker 1: be racist when they tell you don't be white, when
Speaker 1: they said don't don't act white. And again I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's okay. I'm just saying it doesn't necesarily to
Speaker 1: be racist. Everything is not the same if I say, um,
Speaker 1: actless white. A lot of times just saying, at least
Speaker 1: in experiences that I've had where this has been said,
Speaker 1: they're saying, be more culturally sensitive, listen to other people,
Speaker 1: decenter yourself. Can you just say that I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I said there are other ways to do it. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not. What I'm saying, though, is the sentiment
Speaker 1: behind beat less white is not the same as a
Speaker 1: sentiment behind beatlist like they're not the same thing. I
Speaker 1: agree with you that there are better ways to deliver it.
Speaker 1: I agree with you that this is not a helpful
Speaker 1: or healthy way to build community. We're on the same
Speaker 1: page that you shouldn't do it. But just because you
Speaker 1: shouldn't do it doesn't mean it's racist. Okay, all right, UM,
Speaker 1: I hear your point. Now, let me ask you about
Speaker 1: something because we were talking about walking this right now
Speaker 1: and we're seeing and to your point where you were saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be like this like that, and you're using
Speaker 1: your example in your descriptor for black people be less black,
Speaker 1: I would I would argue that they're the same thing
Speaker 1: is occurring with white people, with a lot of white
Speaker 1: people saying, hey, I hate my white skin and I
Speaker 1: hate um what has happened in this country and what
Speaker 1: I what I might me being white has has done
Speaker 1: to this country, and that that's a whole another set
Speaker 1: of issues and probably self hatred because obviously these are
Speaker 1: people ancestors and not them actually committing the acts. But
Speaker 1: there was a guy by the name of Andrew Gutman
Speaker 1: who head is I believe it was his daughter in
Speaker 1: a private school in New York City, and he recently
Speaker 1: took her out, and he wrote a letter to to
Speaker 1: UM six hundred parents about what they were teaching. And
Speaker 1: in the letter and some of the things he said
Speaker 1: in the letter I disagree with. I want to read
Speaker 1: this part UH here what he said, object to the
Speaker 1: idea that blacks are unable to succeed in this country
Speaker 1: without the aid from government or from whites. He disregards
Speaker 1: the view that blacks should be forever, forever regarded as
Speaker 1: helpless victims and are incapable of success, regardless of their skills, talent,
Speaker 1: or hard work. And he believed that's what they were
Speaker 1: teaching in the class. And I think to some degree
Speaker 1: a lot of people can agree with that statement in
Speaker 1: terms of UH saying that, hey, you, because you're black,
Speaker 1: you can't be as successful. And I grew up with
Speaker 1: people saying that to me that I can only go
Speaker 1: so far in life because of the color of my skin.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about black folks telling me that exact same thing.
Speaker 1: And these are things that are passed down, theories that
Speaker 1: are passed down from generation to generation. I understand that
Speaker 1: their systems against us. I understand the history of this country.
Speaker 1: I get all those things. But for us to form
Speaker 1: our mentality around we can't succeed because of the color
Speaker 1: of our skin. It's not just a dangerous concept, it's
Speaker 1: one that provides um that we're incapable of any success whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So what do you do if you believe that you
Speaker 1: can't succeed doing things the right way? You you get
Speaker 1: involved in criminality, You pretty much story your life away.
Speaker 1: You don't believe in education because hey, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to succeed regardless because of the color of my skin.
Speaker 1: Are you seeing that in this woke culture? Now? Are you?
Speaker 1: Are you? Have? You are familiar? You're not seeing that
Speaker 1: at all? Have you never heard of any of this? No?
Speaker 1: What I what I've heard in my experience in the
Speaker 1: forty two years I've been on this planet. Um is
Speaker 1: uh more black people acknowledging this is no internal conversations
Speaker 1: that it happens. White people are engaging in it as well.
Speaker 1: They're saying Hey, we need to bring about qutches because
Speaker 1: there's no way you can succeed because you're black. That
Speaker 1: that that does exist. We see that very little. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, you asked me about my experience. Experience.
Speaker 1: I get an example. I went to Cook County Jail
Speaker 1: with Jesse Jackson. Of time, since you missed Jesse Jackson,
Speaker 1: you would agree that Jesse Jackson, someone who talks about
Speaker 1: systemic racism, right, and and and black people having a
Speaker 1: tough way to go. Jack is not shy about criticizing
Speaker 1: racism and calling out racism. Right. So we go to
Speaker 1: the jail and he says, to the incarcerated brothers, how
Speaker 1: many of you are here for a non violent drug offense?
Speaker 1: Hands go up? Almost everybody, right, systemic stuff, He says,
Speaker 1: how many of you finished high school? Almost no hands
Speaker 1: go up? He said, how many of you have kids?
Speaker 1: Hands go up? Two kids, hands go up, three kids?
Speaker 1: Whole bunch of hands up. He stopped asking, So how
Speaker 1: many of you are here under twenty five years old?
Speaker 1: A whole bunch of hands go up? So about young
Speaker 1: black men, systemic drug crimes, kids, broken schools, the whole nine.
Speaker 1: But he just asked questions. He says to him, how
Speaker 1: many of you I want to get out of this
Speaker 1: prison or his jails? She is, how many you want
Speaker 1: to get out of here? They raised their hands. He said,
Speaker 1: how many you'll want to leave his place? He said, yeah,
Speaker 1: how many you'll want to shut this prison down? Everybody
Speaker 1: raised their hand. They said, what do we do? You
Speaker 1: know what he said? He said, don't come back no more.
Speaker 1: He said, don't come back no more. Jesse Jackson as
Speaker 1: a critique of society. It's a critique of the drug war.
Speaker 1: He is a critique of broken schools. But when he
Speaker 1: met with those young men, what he said to them was,
Speaker 1: if you want to shut this thing down, don't come
Speaker 1: back no more. You're from Chicago. I'll give you another example,
Speaker 1: Elijah Mohammed, and I don't you Mohammed. He said, we
Speaker 1: have to starve the system. Nobody would ever say the
Speaker 1: Nation of Islam doesn't have a critique of racism. But
Speaker 1: what he said was, we have to starve the system
Speaker 1: by cleaning ourselves up. So when you look at Marcus Garvey,
Speaker 1: when you look at do Boys, when you look at
Speaker 1: book or t when you look at Malcolm, when you
Speaker 1: look at King the argument and our tradition, the churs
Speaker 1: and I've been a part of, is not to ignore
Speaker 1: that we got work to do and that we need
Speaker 1: to do better, and that we need to act right.
Speaker 1: But it's to balance the need for act right with
Speaker 1: the realities of a system in which we need to
Speaker 1: act right. And so when I hear people say the
Speaker 1: system is messed up, there's a conspiracy against us, they're
Speaker 1: trying to kill us, they're trying to arrest us, they're
Speaker 1: trying to push us out of school, they're trying to etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: The the endgame has never been to just concede to that.
Speaker 1: It's to understand, as Ratcas used to say back in
Speaker 1: the nature of the threat, it's to understand what you're
Speaker 1: up against so that you can fight and win. So
Speaker 1: when I meet with young black men, I say, yes,
Speaker 1: there is a conspiracy against you. They want you go on,
Speaker 1: they want your erase, they want you silence, then want
Speaker 1: you marginalize. But I said, the next question is are
Speaker 1: you going to be part of the conspiracy or are
Speaker 1: you going to fight the conspiracy? And that's how I
Speaker 1: think about this work, and that's what I've always heard
Speaker 1: of our tradition. The system is sucked up, but you
Speaker 1: gotta act right, and that's the only way we can succeed.
Speaker 1: The system is left up, but you gotta right. Yeah. Wow,
Speaker 1: let me ask you this question because I really want
Speaker 1: to ask you about this. And you know it's about
Speaker 1: racism because you mentioned Jesse Jackson. You said you you
Speaker 1: know he talks about racism all the time. Yeah, of course,
Speaker 1: racism exists, and I personally don't believe it. It will
Speaker 1: never not exist. I think hate will always be with us,
Speaker 1: whether it be hate against Hispanics, hate against White's, hate
Speaker 1: against blacks, whatever the case may be. I think hate
Speaker 1: is is here to stay. I don't think that that's
Speaker 1: gonna change at any point until Jesus come. Maybe then
Speaker 1: you know that that are changing. And I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how you feel about Jesus and one on that, but
Speaker 1: you see racism continuously being used in ways like I
Speaker 1: saw that. It was a a transgender woman who says,
Speaker 1: for those who say that we shouldn't have um biological
Speaker 1: men playing in women's sports, that's the new form of
Speaker 1: white supremacy and racism in this country. Uh. You you
Speaker 1: have a home, I know you might be in your
Speaker 1: home right now, you have a master bedroom. Right. People
Speaker 1: are saying that master bedrooms, the phrasing of that is racist.
Speaker 1: People are saying that trees are racist. People are saying
Speaker 1: a lot of different things and a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of cases. What I'm seeing now it has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with black folks and legitimate racism. White liberals
Speaker 1: have usurped what true and real racism is for their
Speaker 1: own agenda and their own benefit. And we got policymakers
Speaker 1: like Joe Biden who no longer speaks to black people
Speaker 1: in terms of direct policy. He's saying minorities. Um, do
Speaker 1: you think that the liberals, like really far left liberals
Speaker 1: or even just liberals in general right now, have usurped
Speaker 1: these not even concepts, but what has happened with racism,
Speaker 1: and they created their own agenda to the kind of
Speaker 1: fuel whatever they want to target and push forward in
Speaker 1: their own life. No. Um, I think that if we
Speaker 1: have a look at the grand swoop of history, they've
Speaker 1: always been these kinds of tensions and debates. They've always
Speaker 1: been these skepticisms of white liberals and criticisms of white liberals,
Speaker 1: very skeptical of white liberals, Yeah, he should have been. Um.
Speaker 1: And so I don't think this is some new movement
Speaker 1: as much as I see part of the tension of
Speaker 1: freedom fighting, part of the challenge of of of having
Speaker 1: moral and political political clarity. What are we fighting for?
Speaker 1: What is the endgame here? What is it supposed to
Speaker 1: look like? Um? Is every fight worth fighting for? Now?
Speaker 1: You and I might disagree on whether these things are,
Speaker 1: these terms, these moments, these movements, these controversies, these stories
Speaker 1: are racist or not. I mean, that's almost not even
Speaker 1: the point, right Uh. Um. The question is who gets
Speaker 1: determined what the thing is? And I think too often
Speaker 1: we have surrendered um our power to define, in our
Speaker 1: power to lead our own meeting freedom movement, to other people,
Speaker 1: including white liberals. We've allowed too many people to shape
Speaker 1: the discourse or to tell us who we're supposed to
Speaker 1: be and how we're supposed to be. And for me,
Speaker 1: the best thing we can do at this junction in
Speaker 1: history is to rest that control back. And I think
Speaker 1: the most beautiful thing I saw in the streets of
Speaker 1: Missouri and two thousand and fourteen, or the streets of Minnesota,
Speaker 1: in the streets is the people taking control. The people
Speaker 1: season seizing power, et cetera. We're calling for defunding because
Speaker 1: that's what we want, damn what Joe Biden wants. Right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna call for medicare for all to help what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden wants. And even and even though this is
Speaker 1: a particularly black issue, it should be uh, the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal, we're gonna call for it because that's what
Speaker 1: we want, that's the people want. And we're no longer
Speaker 1: going to say I pray, We're no longer going to say, um,
Speaker 1: not yet, we can't wait. The Democrats won't win on that.
Speaker 1: We're now saying, what do our people need? What do
Speaker 1: the people need? What do what? What does the world need?
Speaker 1: And we're making those judgments. Um, And again, we may
Speaker 1: have disagreements, You and I may have disagreements, but if
Speaker 1: we love black people and we love freedom and we're
Speaker 1: willing to fight for it, then we can get somewhere. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, we we do disagree because I don't think
Speaker 1: black folks are so interested in the Green Deal with
Speaker 1: some of these other things that you mentioned. But you know,
Speaker 1: you know what you said, you know what I just said,
Speaker 1: the exact same thing I said. I don't think that's yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but you said they should, but I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think black folks are really for for that. Think Poland
Speaker 1: supports that. But I want to finish this conversation by
Speaker 1: talking about unity. There's no secret that our country is
Speaker 1: very divided. We often hear people, including President Biden, talk
Speaker 1: about the need for national unity. Is there any hope
Speaker 1: of that happening? And what steps can be taken to
Speaker 1: unify the American people more uh than they are now.
Speaker 1: I don't think you can have unity without justice, which
Speaker 1: include prisons. UM. I don't think prisons is the issue
Speaker 1: right now. We're talking about unifying the people. I'm saying
Speaker 1: we're dying in the streets. We don't have access to capital.
Speaker 1: There's a huge wealthcap um. Our neighborhoods are over polluted. UM.
Speaker 1: We're being our streets are being militarized, jobs are leaving. UM.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that there's too there's too much of a
Speaker 1: gap between those who have and those who don't for
Speaker 1: us UM to be unified. There's also a big chunk
Speaker 1: of the country that's deeply racist. It's deeply homophobic, it's
Speaker 1: deeply transphobic, and the condition of peace the precondition of
Speaker 1: peace has to be justice. So if people don't feel
Speaker 1: whole and whatever that looks like, then no, we won't.
Speaker 1: We won't have unity. We can't all right, So justice
Speaker 1: in the form of ensuring that police aren't unjustly killing people,
Speaker 1: Justice in the form of black folks not killing each other,
Speaker 1: Justice in the form of jobs. Coming back to the
Speaker 1: communities which which existed in pre COVID. Things were going
Speaker 1: fairly well for a lot of people. So you're saying
Speaker 1: we need justice overall in order to unify the country
Speaker 1: in a real way. I'm saying that, yes, but I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be clear of the bar is very low right now.
Speaker 1: You know, where we were pre COVID is not enough.
Speaker 1: Where we were, we were there, we were doing really
Speaker 1: well things. I mean, the lowest black unemployment rate in
Speaker 1: the history of this country, or at least since they've
Speaker 1: been recording the data. You're missing my point. I'm saying
Speaker 1: that the bar for for the bar for justice and
Speaker 1: prosperity can't just be that. I'm saying that this isn't
Speaker 1: This isn't the partisan argument. I'm thinking, you know, whether
Speaker 1: we're talking about the Trump days with Timbo, the Obama
Speaker 1: days and saying none of it was enough. We've never
Speaker 1: been close to justice. Are we closer than we were
Speaker 1: fifty years ago? Of course, I'm not making the case
Speaker 1: that there's no progress. What I'm saying is we still
Speaker 1: have so far to go, and and and and the
Speaker 1: gaps were experiencing don't hinge upon whose president They hinge
Speaker 1: upon our capacity to imagine the world differently and better,
Speaker 1: and um also our our political will to make it happen.
Speaker 1: And we're so far from that. There's such a crisis
Speaker 1: of leadership. But there's also christ of imagination in this
Speaker 1: in this country, political imagination, social imagination, cultural imagination. There's
Speaker 1: so much further we could go if we just dream
Speaker 1: differently and worked differently and organized differently. And I didn't
Speaker 1: just say, well, we can't do that because we've never
Speaker 1: done it before. And that's too often where we where
Speaker 1: we find ourselves. Yeah, I certainly agree with you that
Speaker 1: there's a crisis of leadership. We're seeing a board that
Speaker 1: uh continuously in crisis. We're seeing a White House that
Speaker 1: seemingly and they just got into I'll give them that
Speaker 1: they've been in office for what five months now, So
Speaker 1: I'll give them the fact that they just got in,
Speaker 1: but they're seemingly a government that's not completely working for everyone.
Speaker 1: So that's that's a problem in and of itself. But
Speaker 1: before I let you go, what's next for you? Do
Speaker 1: you have any big projects? You know, you want to
Speaker 1: plug your your TV show? You know, got a book
Speaker 1: out as well. I know I'm doing a lot, very
Speaker 1: excited about it, you know. I I am the host
Speaker 1: of Black News Tonight, which airs every single day Monday
Speaker 1: to Friday, eight o'clock on Black News Channel, which is
Speaker 1: in fifty two million cable home so it should be
Speaker 1: on on whoever's listening is cable provider if not, it's
Speaker 1: also in Roku channel, Amazon, uh t vo all all
Speaker 1: the things. UM. Also the host of Upfront Without Jazeera.
Speaker 1: Our season just ended, but we'll be right back in
Speaker 1: the fall with with weekly weekly international news and just
Speaker 1: great hard hitting stories. UM. I have the Coffee and
Speaker 1: Books podcast where I sit down with great authors to
Speaker 1: talk through UM their work, their ideas, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: I'm the owner of Uncle Bobby's Coffee and Books. So
Speaker 1: if you're if you're purchasing books or UH interested in
Speaker 1: you know, critical community, critical engaged conversations and beautiful beloved community.
Speaker 1: Go to Uncle Bobby's dot com uncle b O B
Speaker 1: B I E s dot com and you can check
Speaker 1: out all this stuff, including our apparel, our books, everything well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your your time. It was
Speaker 1: a great conversation. Thank you for joining me today on
Speaker 1: that with cars. It's my pleasure, but bless your brother.