Diabolical Lies - September 07, 2025


Democrats Are Failing. What Comes After the Liberal Status Quo?


Episode Stats


Length

2 hours and 18 minutes

Words per minute

172.91

Word count

23,973

Sentence count

1,278


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.340 Today's episode of Diabolical Lies was brought to you by Encyclopedia Britannica, sorry, Brat Summer, the Democratic National Committee, Matt Iglesias' content calendar, the Liberal Order, the Abundance Agenda, all the leftists who came before me and taught me about what it means to stand on business, and finally, the Dark Money Group generously funding Barry Weiss' ops.
00:00:28.020 wow uh what a comprehensive group i already have a few shivers coming down my chest
00:00:34.140 caro are you ready to talk about liberalism honestly no
00:00:39.200 okay so before we get into it today uh just some brief housekeeping you may have noticed
00:00:46.380 our new branding and that it goes fucking crazy designed over the last several months by chris
00:00:52.460 Mara Muldrow of Studio Portico. So I would say consider this our formal relaunch of Diabolical
00:00:58.380 Lies. Caro, I think one of the craziest things to you and I about doing this show together is that
00:01:04.240 listeners just autonomously began forming Diabolical Lies local groups with one another,
00:01:11.140 and they'll do meetups to listen to the episodes. They'll do unrelated events together. They'll form
00:01:16.540 book clubs. They're politically organizing in their towns. That is the sort of organic organizing
00:01:21.920 that the Democratic consultants being paid millions of dollars could only dream of.
00:01:25.400 And if you listen to the show a lot, you know that we redistribute 33 percent of our net
00:01:31.260 revenue. And so far this year, we've donated something like seventy thousand dollars.
00:01:35.840 But we have a new idea and we're calling it our local group distribution pilot, because
00:01:41.620 I think one of our core philosophies is that money is not the only thing that should be
00:01:47.380 distributed, but that the power to decide where that money goes should also be distributed.
00:01:54.180 So we are piloting our first local group redistribution. We are giving the next $30,000,
00:02:01.040 which will actually allow us to cross our six-figure redistribution goal for the year,
00:02:05.520 to the dirty little liars in the Colorado local group. And they get to decide how that money is
00:02:12.500 going to get distributed, how it is best used, ideally in their communities, but it's completely
00:02:17.700 up to them. And so our hope is that we can keep doing this. We're going to work out all the
00:02:21.640 logistical kinks, but we're really excited about it. Yeah. Quick cutaway to a new Chuck E. Cheese
00:02:26.420 franchise popping up in Denver, Colorado. We're like, whoa, maybe we should have set up some
00:02:33.000 guide rails. Maybe democracy isn't a good idea. Maybe I do like, what do they call it now? State
00:02:39.400 sponsored capitalism. Is that what we're calling it in legacy media? We are the twin dictators
00:02:45.600 that get to make all the decisions. A lot of this local group organizing happens in our paid
00:02:50.280 subscriber chat. I think someone at some point made a spreadsheet where, you know, there's like
00:02:54.860 all these links to the different groups. So if you want to get in on that, join the dirty pack
00:02:59.300 of liars. And of course, you'll also get access to every paywalled subscriber episode that we've
00:03:04.280 ever done and we just launched our discord i just have to add and it is it goes so hard have you
00:03:09.620 been on it yet katie no i haven't oh i have already i am already sending voice memos
00:03:14.520 i literally was like welcome you guys are getting the katie text message treatment
00:03:19.620 i was sending them voice memos there are so many channels already i have never been on discord
00:03:24.340 before and it fucks big time so you also get that as a paid subscriber this is like how we find out
00:03:31.160 that the Diabolical Lies audience is just like a bunch of fucking weird gamers.
00:03:36.740 Yeah, well, what is it called? Oh, you don't play video games. I was going to make a Zelda joke.
00:03:40.760 Anyways, I'll save it for the Discord.
00:03:42.280 Oh, goddammit. Yeah, okay, time to move on. All right. I often like to study narrative and
00:03:49.440 cultural movements on the right. I think that has become my quasi-beat on this show. Usually when
00:03:54.500 it's my turn to write an episode, I'm like, what weird shit is Charlie Kirk into right now?
00:03:59.380 Maha, the womanosphere, you name it.
00:04:01.920 Sometimes, though, I actually think it can be more instructive to look a little bit closer to home.
00:04:07.900 So since Vice President Harris lost the 2024 presidential election, we have witnessed something of a desperation of the center-left contingent to prove that their ideology is still relevant to voters.
00:04:25.100 We know that Harris ran a very centrist campaign and lost, and so media figures who share that ideology have now had something of an uphill battle to convince their spheres of influence that, hey, no, these are still the correct priorities for the left.
00:04:41.780 And I'm going to be talking intermittently today about Harris, and I just want to clarify up front, this isn't about her. I think my broader critique of the Democratic Party is that the candidate in this present paradigm basically doesn't matter.
00:04:58.780 Like, you can put anyone in that slot, and the rejection or acceptance of that person has very little to do with them and any principled positions that they hold. It is a little bit of an interchangeable revolving door, and I think that is central to the critique that we're going to be making today. So consider this like a little checking in of sorts with the Democratic Party.
00:05:19.960 Something that interests me about what you just said is you just mentioned Harris being a centrist candidate. I find that interesting because I think a lot of centrist political influencers always describe her as having run the most progressive political campaign that has ever happened. What do you think about that?
00:05:35.540 Oh, yeah, we're going to talk about the radical woke Marxist Kamala Harris and her lethal fighting force. I got so frustrated writing this outline. I just stop and start over like four times. I went on so many walks.
00:05:48.000 while I was working on this. But I do really want to closely examine the nature of centrist
00:05:53.820 politics today and see what we can learn from them. Because the Democratic Party's approval
00:05:59.440 rating is the lowest it has been since Gallup began measuring it in 1992, which was incidentally
00:06:06.560 right before the election of a man named Bill Clinton. It is at 34% right now. This data just
00:06:13.920 came out. And if you look at the trend line, it sort of looks like the stock market. Lots of
00:06:18.480 jagged peaks and valleys, right? But there's one real difference, which is that rather than
00:06:22.660 trending up over the last 30 years, it has been trending downward. And recently, when they ran
00:06:28.920 these polls that came out on July 31st, they found that it's rated no better than the GOP
00:06:35.640 at its ability to A, manage the government effectively, or B, bring about necessary change.
00:06:42.740 And I think that is pretty damning considering what the GOP is doing right now.
00:06:48.900 But Katie, what if we just paid a series of influencers some money to spread the word?
00:06:53.720 Do you think that would solve the popularity crisis?
00:06:55.840 What if we just said it's not happening?
00:06:58.880 You can just get on the internet and say stuff.
00:07:02.080 So I'm looking at these record low approval ratings.
00:07:05.600 and simultaneously, I'm thinking about the fact that in the last year, people have started
00:07:11.880 openly talking about post-liberalism, or the end of neoliberalism. Mexico's president,
00:07:20.060 Claudia Scheinbaum, has said Mexico's, quote, neoliberal period is over, and she recently
00:07:26.300 announced a bunch of new public works, like passenger rail, highways, airports, affordable
00:07:31.740 housing, hospitals, like the government investing in building these things. And then on the right,
00:07:36.900 of course, you have J.D. Vance, who has characterized the MAGA movement as, quote,
00:07:42.820 post-liberal. So anyway, taken together, I think there is a conversation worth having right now
00:07:48.840 about what all of this means and what I am most interested in, which is who is still working
00:07:55.700 tirelessly to defend a status quo that might already be dead? So to do this effectively,
00:08:01.300 I realized that we kind of have to do two things today. So number one, we are going to go era by
00:08:06.520 era of liberalism here because its meaning has shifted over time. I think the way that we got
00:08:11.880 here and being clear-eyed about that is actually really important to contextualize what is happening
00:08:16.200 now. And number two, we need to be specific about what we mean by some of the terms that we are
00:08:22.400 using today. Liberalism, neoliberalism, leftism. These are all different political philosophies
00:08:28.540 that have different theories of power and different goals.
00:08:31.840 And we need to try to be precise
00:08:33.600 about what we mean by these terms
00:08:35.400 and what we are actually arguing over.
00:08:37.240 So we're going to do that too.
00:08:38.840 You just said the dirty magic word though,
00:08:41.460 which is eras,
00:08:42.200 which means that you do have to treat this
00:08:43.620 like a Taylor Swift concert.
00:08:44.720 And I will be asking you to come up with wordplay
00:08:46.880 on the fly as we move through the eras.
00:08:48.820 Thank you.
00:08:51.540 Fuck, okay.
00:08:53.260 I can't sing.
00:08:54.220 It's been a long time coming
00:08:55.160 because I did that last episode.
00:08:56.400 so I'm going to have to resort to my B-team Taylor Swift puns.
00:09:00.560 Welcome to the DNC! It's waiting for you!
00:09:05.660 We have changed nothing!
00:09:09.980 So something happened earlier this year that really electrified the broadly defined left.
00:09:17.580 Do you know what that thing was?
00:09:20.300 Oh, Mom Donnie!
00:09:22.440 Mom Daddy.
00:09:23.640 Mom Daddy.
00:09:24.160 So Ron Mamdani winning the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. OK, this is an outspokenly pro-Palestine Democratic socialist running on a platform of raising taxes on people with incomes over a million dollars to do things like making buses free and rent cheaper.
00:09:41.460 Okay, we're talking about New York City, home of Wall Street. This is arguably the epicenter
00:09:47.940 of global capitalism. And this person went from total obscurity to winning his primary so
00:09:54.460 decisively that Andrew Cuomo conceded the night of in eight months flat. And I think most of the
00:10:00.540 people who listen to this podcast probably know how the Democratic Party more broadly has reacted
00:10:04.980 to this. But Caro, can you like give us a little fill us in? How has the Democratic Party embraced
00:10:11.100 this Momdani popularity wave? The Democratic Party has treated Momdani the way that I used
00:10:18.180 to feel going to parties in my hometown when I was in college, which is not well and like a
00:10:24.380 fucking loser. Yeah. Powerful Democrats won't endorse him. New York Democratic Governor Kathy
00:10:30.220 Hochul has already indicated she is going to block his plan for a tax increase so he can't
00:10:35.520 pay for anything. We're going to be specific here about what exactly she said.
00:10:40.920 I've spoken to hundreds of business leaders saying, listen, nothing is going to happen to
00:10:45.780 this city without me being aware of it and involved in it. So don't talk about packing
00:10:50.040 up and leaving and all these other overreactions, Hochul told MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday.
00:10:56.700 I've become the therapist-in-chief, it seems.
00:10:59.420 So I'm saying to everybody, we're going to be okay, Jesus Christ.
00:11:03.620 Maybe it's the mom in me, okay.
00:11:05.560 I know how to calm down situations, and we'll get through this.
00:11:09.000 Oh, these free buses are just going to fuck this city up.
00:11:13.520 Oh, here we go.
00:11:14.380 I'm focused on affordability, and raising taxes on anyone does not accomplish that,
00:11:19.360 she insisted after Mom Donnie secured the party's nomination.
00:11:22.460 I'm making sure that people who create jobs will stay here so that we can have good paying jobs
00:11:27.840 wow that's like five times worse than I thought it would be there is actually no other interpretation
00:11:33.160 of this than Hochul is this is Hochul signaling to the city's wealthy people that she works for
00:11:40.000 them she's saying I am focused on making sure the people who create jobs will stay here that is
00:11:45.020 boilerplate trickle-down economics okay cool so back in 2022 we're going to kind of flip to the
00:11:50.880 other side of the ledger here. Sam Adler-Bell interviewed Mamdani for a piece about DSA.
00:11:56.820 When Mamdani was just an assemblyman, he had no name recognition. And I want you to read
00:12:01.960 from that piece. And we're just going to kind of compare here.
00:12:06.040 This is making me think about how one of the many extremely lost women who work for the Free Press
00:12:11.240 did a video being like, I went into Zeron Mamdani's social media archive and what she found
00:12:18.600 was like, dun-dun-dun, he's always had the same beliefs. Like, he's been very educated on his
00:12:23.620 political beliefs for a very long time. All right. Mamdani sees his role not merely as a legislator,
00:12:29.280 but as, quote, an ambassador for socialism, using his access and public profile to advance
00:12:34.540 working-class struggles. In 2021, he joined the Taxi Workers Alliance in a hunger strike to push
00:12:41.040 then-Mayor Bill de Blasio to provide debt relief, which the city eventually did. Mamdani also took
00:12:46.460 Senator Chuck Schumer on a ride-along with a cab driver from Burma, whose brother had been
00:12:50.380 driven to suicide by his insurmountable debt. With local environmental groups, including DSA's
00:12:55.360 Eco-Socialist Working Group, he fought the construction of a natural gas power plant in
00:13:00.600 Astoria. Some people in my neighborhood, Mamdani said, may see me as the face of socialism in their
00:13:06.140 lives. That carries responsibility as well as opportunity. On a recent visit to a middle school
00:13:12.240 in Queens, Mamdani met with the seventh graders who run their school newspaper. All of their
00:13:17.300 questions were about socialism, he said. We've researched you, and these are our questions.
00:13:21.640 How would socialism work? Why is capitalism bad? It was great.
00:13:25.720 Okay.
00:13:25.920 Awful guy. Sounds like a real fucking terrorist.
00:13:28.720 Hunger strike for the working class. Wow.
00:13:32.560 What gives him the right?
00:13:33.820 We are not scared enough of Mamdani. This is a young person who has principles. He has a vision.
00:13:39.740 He has consistently stood by those principles and that vision. He has a track record of actually fighting for working people. And critically, he understands how to wield power. He understands how to get people with power to do what you want them to do.
00:13:57.140 And his ideas were popular. They had widespread grassroots support, 50,000 volunteers. And that translated to a decisive electoral victory. And it would be easier to dismiss Zoran as like a one-off if he were the only one, but he's not the only person that this is happening to.
00:14:20.020 So Omar Fateh, another Democratic socialist representing the district of Minneapolis where George Floyd was killed, recently won the Democratic Party endorsement in Minneapolis for mayor at their recent convention.
00:14:33.020 The party in Minneapolis is called the Democratic Farmer Labor Party, or DFL.
00:14:37.620 Now, the incumbent that he defeated, Jacob Frey, had used the mayoral veto 19 times since being elected, including a record-breaking eight times in 2024.
00:14:50.380 So I was looking into some of the reasons, like what was he vetoing?
00:14:54.560 What was the city council passing that he was like, nope?
00:14:57.560 And some of the past resolutions he vetoed were a call for a Gaza ceasefire, a labor standards advisory board.
00:15:06.500 oh my god amnesty for university of minnesota anti-genocide protesters
00:15:11.760 a measure intended to build more affordable housing oh my god minimum wage for rideshare
00:15:19.980 drivers and on that one he said he would refuse to enact it even if his veto were overridden
00:15:26.100 which it was so the voting process at this convention where where fate beat fry it was
00:15:34.380 weird. Okay, there was like this technical malfunction in the first round of voting. So like
00:15:38.580 176 votes didn't get counted. And then they redid it with just a show of hands, apparently.
00:15:45.360 And Fateh won that too. So I'm going to have you read something from current affairs reporting on
00:15:52.040 this. Undoubtedly, the convention was a mess. The best solution would probably be to just gather
00:15:58.260 everyone together again and hold a new clean vote. But the DFL has not done that. Instead,
00:16:03.580 the party has announced that it's stripping Fate's endorsement from him, giving Jacob Frey
00:16:08.660 access to the voter rolls, and prohibiting the Minneapolis DFL from making any endorsements
00:16:13.560 separate from the state-level party. This was reportedly decided by a closed-door vote of just
00:16:18.280 28 party elites, most of them not Minneapolis residents, and it seems the sanctity of voting
00:16:23.800 processes was not their first priority. Okay, so it gets worse. We are actually going to listen.
00:16:31.320 And then we're going to listen to a leaked video clip from a pro-Jacob Fry.
00:16:37.720 This is like a Zoom call that someone leaked.
00:16:39.960 It's a pro-Jacob Fry, the incumbent.
00:16:42.640 It's a PAC meeting in which Minneapolis City Council member Lisa Goodman says that she will withhold $25,000 of checks from the DFL if the endorsement is not overturned.
00:16:55.200 Okay, so here we go.
00:16:56.780 Can I jump in on that too?
00:16:58.700 Yeah.
00:16:59.140 Hey, Lisa.
00:16:59.760 Hi, Jacob.
00:17:00.420 So I'm holding checks, Lenny, from a lot of people who contributed to this multi-candidate expenditure in our ward to help Elizabeth because some of the largest contributors at the $5,000 level didn't feel comfortable giving the money to the DFL.
00:17:15.920 If the decision is overturned, I have permission to cash a bunch of those checks.
00:17:21.320 You're welcome to add to the pod, by the way.
00:17:24.200 And we've raised, Lou Remley and I have raised roughly $25,000 to help Elizabeth get another
00:17:29.800 staff person.
00:17:30.780 But it's clear that people don't trust the DFL in our world and don't want the money
00:17:34.860 spent if Fate is going to be the DFL endorsed candidate.
00:17:38.120 You can reach me offline for more info.
00:17:40.620 Wow, she says that so confidently.
00:17:43.040 Can we all just hearken back to something we've discussed on the pod before, which is
00:17:46.940 the 2016 Democratic Convention and what they did to fucking Bernie with West Virginia.
00:17:53.120 I know. Echoes. There are echoes.
00:17:55.840 It's like genuinely baffling. And I was actually, I sent you a voice memo about this the other day,
00:17:59.980 this frustration that like, I understand that leftism can sometimes have a problem with purity
00:18:05.120 politics. They can sometimes have a problem with cynicism. But like, I am really tired of hearing
00:18:11.040 people talk about the reason why the left can't band together is because of purity politics.
00:18:15.720 that is not correct and I think that anyone who says that is really getting caught in like an
00:18:21.060 internet discourse moment or having a moment where like someone is trolling them and it's
00:18:24.480 frustrating I understand that it is frustrating to deal with people who are using purity politics
00:18:29.960 language but like the reason why leftism hasn't taken more hold in America is because of stuff
00:18:35.320 like this it's because of like structural blocks to populist efforts and I think that we really
00:18:41.880 have to keep that in mind because it's very easy to be like, why hasn't democratic socialism taken
00:18:46.940 roots? And it's like, dude, because of moments like this, because campaigns like Zoran Mamdani's
00:18:52.140 that get 50,000 door knockers work so hard and then get totally dismissed. Or with Omar Fateh,
00:18:58.440 even worse, they get like basically blackballed. And I think it's really important to keep those
00:19:03.680 structural blocks in mind as opposed to falling back on like arguments over language. It also
00:19:09.660 makes me think of this Politico article that, again, you and I were talking about kind of
00:19:13.960 offline. It was this political article that came out a few days ago that basically said in so many
00:19:18.660 words that Republicans are, quote, giddy that Mamdani is winning. And the framing of the article
00:19:23.660 was that Mamdani's win was essentially going to be a major loss for the Democratic Party
00:19:28.140 because he provided effective attack fodder for the Republicans. It's really important to remember
00:19:33.660 that Omar Fateh, Zoran Mamdani,
00:19:36.340 these democratic socialists
00:19:37.400 are campaigning as Democrats.
00:19:39.840 They are not like Jill Steining an election.
00:19:42.480 They are working within the Democratic Party
00:19:44.400 and it is centrist Democrats
00:19:46.560 who are refusing to acknowledge their ideas.
00:19:49.160 And I think that that is the most damning indictment
00:19:51.420 of the Democratic Party that we could see
00:19:53.240 and on how weak the Democratic Party is at this point,
00:19:56.700 that they are basically refusing to allow any fresh air
00:19:59.600 to even enter the party.
00:20:00.760 The fact that they think of him
00:20:02.620 and his ideas as threatening kind of gives the whole bag away because I'm like, you guys have
00:20:11.100 record low approval ratings. Y'all can't get elected. So clearly, like if you are watching
00:20:17.240 two people who campaigning as Democrats, but openly calling themselves democratic socialists
00:20:23.580 and that not bothering people being like, yeah, fuck it, whatever. We don't care. Like we just
00:20:28.420 needs someone who's actually going to do something about the affordability crisis, I think that just
00:20:33.080 really goes to show how entrenched and how obstructionist the establishment democratic
00:20:40.760 apparatus is committed to being to preventing actual popular ideas getting through. It's this
00:20:46.780 idea of like they have to have total control over the narrative. They have to have control over the
00:20:52.040 messaging. We have to include this as diabolicalized fodder. That article cites Zaran Mamdani as being
00:20:58.120 the biggest threat to Democrats since Ronald Reagan.
00:21:00.680 Jesus fucking Christ.
00:21:01.820 And I was just like, this is so fucking unserious.
00:21:04.580 What are we doing?
00:21:05.620 What are we doing?
00:21:06.580 Oh no, a person that people actually want to elect.
00:21:10.100 What are we doing?
00:21:10.920 We don't know what to do with this.
00:21:12.840 Nightmare fuel.
00:21:14.060 Okay, bear all of that in mind today, please, as we go.
00:21:18.340 So the reason that I wanted to do this episode,
00:21:20.940 the inspiration, if you will,
00:21:22.700 was the launch of a new Substack Media Company
00:21:25.560 called The Argument.
00:21:28.120 So that's the lens that we're going to use today. And I think it really demonstrates the
00:21:32.980 all-hands-on-deck campaign that has been erected in the wake of Harris's defeat and
00:21:37.840 Mom Donnie's stunning victory. So, Carol, what do you know about the argument?
00:21:43.540 I know that it was launched several weeks ago by a series of neoliberal centrist Democrat
00:21:50.240 powerhouses. So like Derek Thompson, Jerusalem Demsos, Matthew Iglesias, Matt Brunig, who we
00:21:57.560 do, Stan. And I know that you and I thought it was notable not only because we are power-hungry
00:22:03.740 politics hounds who are constantly climbing up the culture leaderboard in subsec, but because
00:22:08.120 we saw its valuation, and we thought that was really interesting, that it received like a
00:22:12.220 $4 million investment round from a few billionaires, and it was valued at $20 million before it even
00:22:17.520 began, which I thought was really interesting. Yes. So it is a new publication that has been
00:22:22.480 started by an ex-Atlantic staff writer named Jerusalem Demsus. And Jerusalem Demsus wrote
00:22:29.340 one of my favorite critiques ever of the American housing system a couple years ago. And so I'm kind
00:22:35.600 of confused by this. It has a $20 million valuation. It has raised, as you noted, $4
00:22:41.320 million in funding. We're going to talk today about from whom. Their slogan is, join us,
00:22:46.820 we're living out. And I will spoil my own conclusion here and just say up front, I think
00:22:52.760 the only way that I can describe what is happening here is an attempt to claim the ideological vacuum
00:22:58.320 that opened after November. So columnists include Derek Thompson, as you noted, co-author of
00:23:05.080 Abundance, the massively popular New York Times bestselling book that he wrote with Ezra Klein,
00:23:11.060 Matt Brunig, who is a bit of a labor rights lawyer icon, in my opinion, and he's the sore thumb in
00:23:16.660 this group. We're going to kind of talk about his role in all of this, too. Matt Iglesias,
00:23:22.520 who needs no introduction, though I'm going to give him one anyway. He is like the poster child
00:23:27.080 of liberal punditry. The Washington Post reported that he was read widely by people in the Biden
00:23:33.260 administration. I feel like he's the Brett Stevens of the center left. Is that correct?
00:23:38.340 Maybe like, no, because Brett Stevens is like a moron, like straightforwardly. So Iglesias has
00:23:45.040 kind of been clowned on post-election because Harris basically ran the centrist campaign that
00:23:50.160 Iglesias was advocating for and then lost and then he pivoted post-election to be like yeah
00:23:54.880 see she was too far left I was saying this the entire time. She's like slinging her gun with
00:23:59.820 Oprah doing like a fucking tap dance to fucking modern conservatives she's like okay sorry
00:24:07.000 too far left understood Roger. So from what I could tell three or four of the seven columnists
00:24:14.160 our former Atlantic staffers, which I think is important if you know anything about kind of the
00:24:19.320 ideological positioning of the Atlantic. Now, what I really want to stress here is that these are not
00:24:24.760 nobodies who started a sub stack. Like, these are some of the most popular and platformed
00:24:29.920 political writers who are alive today. So we are going to read the about section of their site
00:24:35.100 where they lay out what they intend to cover and what their mission is.
00:24:39.800 The argument is a mission-driven media company based in Washington, D.C.,
00:24:44.160 We make a positive, combative case—ooh, interesting word—combative case for liberalism
00:24:48.620 through rigorous, persuasive journalism. We will publish sharp, well-argued opinion pieces—a lot
00:24:55.060 of adjectives taking place—original reporting and multimedia content that confronts the illiberal
00:25:00.020 drift on both the left and the right. Okay. Both sides are bad. Both sides. Both sides.
00:25:05.100 We aim to persuade, not preach. Argue, not just diagnose. Our coverage will focus on the politics
00:25:11.080 and economics of growth slash abundance, technology and society, gender and family.
00:25:17.140 Our coverage areas include, okay, so the first header, politics and economics of growth. Okay,
00:25:22.100 so we got abundance. So the second abundance has hit the bio.
00:25:26.860 Abundance is like the Jell-O Kool-Aid man who kicks down the door and he's like,
00:25:30.480 what's the word that he says? Oh yeah, that's abundance. Abundance! Okay, I'm going to say
00:25:36.460 that for this episode okay so the politics and economics of gross abundance uh housing energy
00:25:42.460 and infrastructure next immigration and labor market dynamics katie shush i'm reading the
00:25:48.120 welfare state justice and democracy how policies encouraging economic growth interact with
00:25:53.860 democratic institutions okay next header we have technology and society so under that we have
00:25:59.420 governance of rapidly advancing technology such as artificial intelligence now peter teal kicks in
00:26:05.400 the door. He's like, hey. Yeah, I got that one, actually. You guys don't have to. I got it. I
00:26:11.240 got that. He's like, oh, there's women here. We're going to have to change that. How public policy
00:26:17.460 and civil society can shape innovation, sectoral analysis of the impact of new technologies in
00:26:22.440 fields such as health care or education, and then finally gender and families. What 21st century
00:26:27.580 egalitarianism should look like. Data-driven comparative analyses of gender, racial, and
00:26:33.060 class disparities, and then the role of policymakers, institutions, and individuals in ensuring freedom
00:26:38.820 of gender expression. I am going to now show you, we're going to watch this together, their launch
00:26:44.560 video, because I do think... Oh, there's a video? There is a video. It does capture the worldview
00:26:51.600 that they're trying to argue for. And when you watch this, I want you to pay attention to some
00:26:57.820 of the b-roll and newspaper clippings and like the images that are being displayed while she is
00:27:04.880 speaking so this is the voice that you're going to hear is jerusalem demsis the founder liberals
00:27:10.500 used to stand for things but now it seems like all we do is stand against them president biden
00:27:16.560 has said he's not sure he'd run for president if donald trump wasn't running too i want to do
00:27:21.720 something different my name is jerusalem demsis i'm an opinion journalist i'm launching a new
00:27:26.220 media company called The Argument. We're not just gonna explain, we're gonna
00:27:30.180 persuade. We're not just gonna diagnose the problem, we're gonna fight for the
00:27:34.260 solutions. But let's rewind. In 1955, the conservative public intellectual William
00:27:40.680 F. Buckley said that conservatism stands athwart history yelling stop. But when I
00:27:45.420 look around at the political landscape today, it's not conservatives I mainly
00:27:49.560 see yelling stop. It's liberals.
00:27:51.840 push back against offshore wind projects.
00:27:54.100 We want to stop it.
00:27:55.180 A majority of residents in the Hacienda Heights community
00:27:57.700 say they are against these housing plans.
00:28:00.000 We don't want this here.
00:28:01.020 Liberals find ourselves feeling like the world is moving too quickly.
00:28:04.360 Like we can't even get a handle on everything that's going on.
00:28:07.100 Like, dear God, please, just make it stop.
00:28:10.360 Liberalism deserves better.
00:28:12.240 Look at its record.
00:28:13.500 American independence was founded on liberal principles.
00:28:17.000 Those same values inspired revolutionaries and reformers around the world.
00:28:21.000 liberal economics built modern industrial prosperity and it created the
00:28:26.100 social safety net that made sure that we could take care of people who could not
00:28:29.400 take care of themselves. Liberalism is why we have social security, clean water,
00:28:33.360 and workplace safety regulations. And liberal principles are the reason why we
00:28:37.960 are the only nation in the world to define ourselves not just by where we
00:28:41.760 come from but what we believe in. Don't just take it from me. Abraham Lincoln,
00:28:46.320 famously a Republican, once said that immigrants could claim the Declaration
00:28:50.340 of independence, as though they were blood of the blood and flesh of the flesh of the
00:28:54.000 men who wrote it.
00:28:56.000 Trump and the MAGA coalition are engaged in a reactionary project to remake America into
00:29:00.820 a tribalistic, isolated, and ultimately poorer version of itself.
00:29:04.660 They're using tariffs to destroy the economic interdependence that made America wealthy
00:29:09.060 through trade and alliances.
00:29:11.780 Another new era of Trump tariffs.
00:29:14.060 They're bringing back old world levels of corruption right in front of our eyes.
00:29:17.780 a $400 million payoff bribe from a nation overseas.
00:29:22.460 And they're persecuting Americans for exercising their basic freedoms.
00:29:25.560 The abduction of Mahmoud Khalil.
00:29:27.120 That should be a cause for concern for any American who believes in free speech,
00:29:30.660 who believes in due process.
00:29:31.980 When the post-liberal right describes the nation they're seeking to build,
00:29:35.680 they're not talking about what made America great.
00:29:38.080 They're talking about what made other nations weak.
00:29:40.160 They think the circumstances of your birth should determine your destiny.
00:29:44.020 They think the most important things about you are unchangeable and hereditary.
00:29:47.780 From Africa, from Asia, all over the world, they're pouring into our country.
00:29:52.360 They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done.
00:29:55.300 America is for Americans and Americans only.
00:29:58.620 We on the right, on the sort of the post-liberal right or the new right, or however we want to define what it is.
00:30:04.220 One of the most pressing problems for us to face is to redefine the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century.
00:30:11.560 This is not America. And the post-liberal left is little better.
00:30:14.760 We are raising tariffs on about $18 billion worth of Chinese imports.
00:30:19.760 President Biden is taking this action today to defend America's workers.
00:30:24.560 They reject the fact that many people in this country simply disagree with them.
00:30:28.480 And they look down on the hard, unglamorous work of building a pluralistic society.
00:30:35.180 But if liberals are going to win this fight, they've got to stop just being umpires and
00:30:38.760 radio announcers.
00:30:39.760 They've got to get ready to play.
00:30:41.700 It's one thing to point out that AI could lead to mass unemployment, or that things
00:30:46.700 have gotten way too expensive, or that young men and women just seem to hate each other.
00:30:51.640 It's another, much harder thing to argue for policies and for change that could make
00:30:56.460 all of this better.
00:30:57.460 Because it's when you move from analysis to argument, from diagnosis to persuasion,
00:31:01.820 that's when the real change happens.
00:31:04.080 It's also when people get mad at you, which, you know, we don't care.
00:31:08.100 Every week on our podcast and every day on our newsletter, we're going to bring together
00:31:11.680 their self-described liberals libertarians conservatives and socialists i won't agree
00:31:17.060 with everyone but not many socialists we will only publish people we're committed to seeking
00:31:21.440 we have one stopping a liberalism from destroying this country okay okay i have a few questions
00:31:28.020 i know we have a lot to get through today and i want to be careful here because i intellectually
00:31:35.620 admire like 60 of the people who work at the argument and so i want to be very clear here
00:31:41.680 Barry Weiss is very good at what she does because she understands that presentation is everything.
00:31:47.920 As someone who is looking at this politically, that video was, like, pretty poorly cut together.
00:31:54.400 It could have been probably cut down by 50%.
00:31:57.500 And the thing that they're trying to do is compete in a new modern media way.
00:32:02.140 And I actually think the Free Press does this very well.
00:32:04.780 They have a very, very snappy website.
00:32:07.480 They have very, very good social media.
00:32:09.120 Like, I'm genuinely surprised, I guess is what I'm saying.
00:32:11.680 that this looks so roughshod when it was clearly planned out and when they have so much backing
00:32:17.120 it. But putting that aside for a second, the big thing I took away from that was that the first
00:32:22.180 half of that video, Jerusalem is making the argument that it is people on the left who can't
00:32:28.220 look forward, that we are having trouble keeping up, which is like just not even a critique that
00:32:33.600 I would level even at the center left. That's like not really my perspective or how I understand
00:32:38.080 their flaws to be, or at least not in the way that she's describing them. And then she flips it and
00:32:42.280 says what is true, which is that the post-liberal right is reactionary. They're actively trying to
00:32:48.940 generate this nostalgic culture to move things backwards. And it's very striking to me that any
00:32:55.140 sort of left-leaning publication, even center-left, would try to reverse that or confuse people about
00:33:00.600 who's looking backwards and who's looking forwards. Do you remember the episode of If Books Could Kill
00:33:05.280 where they were talking about someone
00:33:06.540 who worked for a publication called Persuasion
00:33:08.480 and every time they would talk about it,
00:33:09.740 Peter would go, Persuasion.
00:33:12.280 That's what I hear.
00:33:14.180 Anyway, but my bigger thing is like,
00:33:16.740 do we think that the MAGA coalition voters
00:33:19.600 are watching, reading,
00:33:23.200 and thoughtfully considering the arguments
00:33:26.100 that we are making on the left?
00:33:28.040 Do we think that that is like,
00:33:30.140 it is kind of a dead giveaway from the jump of like,
00:33:32.940 our goal with this media project is to convince people that liberalism is good, that it is a
00:33:41.620 fundamentally good thing. It is a thing that is working. And all that is left to do is persuade
00:33:46.860 people of that truth. I also just think whenever you see these announcements of people leaving
00:33:53.840 very prestigious publications to work on Substack, like you and I had nothing to lose,
00:33:58.840 me especially like I came from the mud I've got nothing to I've got nothing to lose by building
00:34:04.100 a career on Substack like no one else was going to take me these people work at the Atlantic they
00:34:08.800 are like very established writers and so the question I always have is like well what are
00:34:13.320 you going to do here that you can't do there and it's really not entirely clear to me because it
00:34:18.640 seems like they're just advocating for a content strategy that like most of legacy media currently
00:34:23.800 has. So I don't really get what they think they're going to gain on Substack.
00:34:28.280 Amazing segue. Thank you. The thing that you won't catch if you're just listening to that
00:34:33.340 and not watching it is that the beginning of the video when she's talking about how liberalism
00:34:40.660 used to do things and that like the nice liberals of yesteryear actually were like good at their
00:34:45.820 jobs. There are newspaper clippings that are announcing the New Deal. There are pictures of
00:34:52.240 people protesting for civil rights and voting rights. There's shots from like the women's
00:34:57.540 suffrage movement. Funny that the left and the right alike both agree. It seems that nothing
00:35:02.140 good has happened since 1950. I'm like, wow, we are aligned. So the only other thing that I want
00:35:08.800 to call out before we continue just to draw attention to it is I think it's easy to miss
00:35:13.400 because it's just kind of such a common talking point now. The tariffs inclusion that she's
00:35:20.480 talking about how Trump is, you know, lobbing tariffs and like the left is doing it too. And
00:35:25.100 trade is what made America rich and we have to embrace this. I actually think that that inclusion
00:35:30.580 is exemplary of a trend that we're going to unpack a lot today. Trade protectionism, it is just worth
00:35:36.600 saying, has been part of the U.S. economy since its inception. Trump's tariffs are obviously erratic
00:35:41.980 and dumb and random, but free trade does spur economic growth internationally. That is true,
00:35:49.200 But it also means that work is going to be offshore somewhere cheaper where labor protections are weaker. It means that American workers are going to lose jobs. This is essentially the pattern that has led to like the hollowing out of many American cities that produce the sort of like grievance politics that got Donald Trump elected.
00:36:06.660 So to say that trade made America wealthy, it certainly made some Americans very wealthy, but the effects of free trade under capitalism are more complex than just, this is liberal and therefore good, and because Orange Man doesn't like it, we are for it.
00:36:23.620 So at this point, I want to pause and I want to actually explore this idea of liberalism
00:36:28.820 more precisely because they're saying liberalism is responsible for these leaps forward, right?
00:36:34.380 Liberalism as a philosophy is what gave us all the good things that we have now and that
00:36:39.180 we are here at the argument to defend and continue this same intellectual tradition.
00:36:43.880 So we're going to start with describing liberalism.
00:36:47.980 Are you going to fucking put me on blast like you did in the capitalism episode?
00:36:51.520 Do I have to describe liberalism?
00:36:53.360 Don't do this.
00:36:54.260 I just want to.
00:36:54.980 It's like porn.
00:36:55.820 It's like porn.
00:36:56.560 I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.
00:36:58.500 I would offer that the highest level working definition is that liberalism is a political
00:37:03.620 philosophy that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central
00:37:09.320 problem of politics.
00:37:10.620 It's very committed to ideas like democracy.
00:37:13.480 It's very committed to free enterprise or markets and private property.
00:37:19.900 So in the launch material, we see all this imagery.
00:37:21.880 We see B-roll of newspapers and protests during the part where she says liberals used to stand for something.
00:37:28.160 She references the New Deal and civil rights explicitly as examples of what liberal governance used to be capable of.
00:37:34.340 So, Caro, I'm going to have you read.
00:37:36.300 I found a total neutral source here.
00:37:38.860 We're going to read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for modern liberalism.
00:37:43.920 Nice. From the woke Encyclopedia Britannica.
00:37:48.160 Encyclopedia.
00:37:49.460 Sorry.
00:37:50.100 I'm slurring with anxiety. Okay. The further development of liberalism in Europe was brutally
00:37:57.940 interrupted in 1914 to 18 by the prolonged slaughter of World War I. The war overturned
00:38:04.000 four of Europe's great imperial dynasties—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Ottoman Turkey—and
00:38:10.360 thus at first appeared to give added impetus to liberal democracy. Europe was reshaped by the
00:38:15.840 Treaty of Versailles on the principle of national self-determination, which in practice meant the
00:38:20.500 breakup of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires into nationally homogenous
00:38:26.060 states. The League of Nations was created in the hope that negotiation would replace war as a means
00:38:31.360 of settling international disputes. How did that go? Quick record scratch. You're probably going
00:38:35.680 to wonder how I got here. But the trauma of the war had created widespread disillusionment about
00:38:41.520 the entire liberal view of progress towards a more humane world. The harsh peace terms imposed
00:38:46.800 by the victorious allies, together with the misery created by the Great Depression beginning in 1929,
00:38:52.540 enfeebled Germany's newly established Weimar Republic and set the stage for the Nazi seizure
00:38:57.580 of power in 1933. In Italy, meanwhile, dissatisfaction with the peace settlement led
00:39:02.840 directly to the takeover by the fascist party in 1922. Thanks for going well.
00:39:06.500 liberalism is also threatened by soviet communism which seemed to many to have inherited the hopes
00:39:13.100 for progress early associated with liberalism itself while liberalism came under political
00:39:17.860 attack in the interwar period the great depression threatened the very survival of the market economy
00:39:23.300 the boom and bust character of the business cycle had long been a major defect of market economies
00:39:28.620 but the great depression with its seemingly endless downturn in business activity and its
00:39:33.360 soaring levels of unemployment confounded classical economists and produced real pessimism
00:39:38.580 about the viability of capitalism. Interesting. So like pausing here. So we're hitting you over
00:39:43.480 the head with the with the significance of this. The idea that like liberalism. Katie's gesturing
00:39:49.280 wildly right now. The idea that I'm hitting the Joe Biden. The idea, the idea that liberalism
00:39:56.680 used to it used to work and it used to function like really well. And we've just gone off track
00:40:02.040 here. I'm like, I just want to call some attention to the idea that that framing in itself is very,
00:40:09.140 very shaky. Okay, continue. This is kind of breaking my brain, the realization that the
00:40:13.360 center-left weaponizes nostalgia in the same way that the right does. I don't think I've ever really
00:40:18.120 thought about that. Okay. The wrenching hardships inflicted by the Great Depression eventually
00:40:22.620 convinced Western governments that complex modern societies needed some measure of rational
00:40:27.500 economic planning. The New Deal, 1933-39, the domestic program undertaken by President
00:40:33.700 Franklin D. Roosevelt to lift the United States out of the Great Depression—
00:40:37.680 All-time Nepo baby. Nepo baby who ate.
00:40:42.100 Yeah, Franklin Roosevelt and Haley Bieber are my all-time—okay.
00:40:47.400 Typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of government activities and its
00:40:52.420 increased regulation of business. Among the measures that New Deal legislation provided
00:40:56.860 were emergency assistance and temporary jobs.
00:40:59.380 What does that sound like?
00:41:00.580 To the unemployed,
00:41:01.900 restrictions on banking and financial industries,
00:41:04.460 more power for trade unions to organize
00:41:06.360 and bargain with employers,
00:41:07.840 and establishment of the social security...
00:41:09.680 Quick cut to what the abundance authors
00:41:11.660 have to say about unions,
00:41:13.380 the role of unions.
00:41:14.440 No, sorry.
00:41:15.000 What do we say, Katie?
00:41:19.320 Boom.
00:41:20.180 Abundance!
00:41:23.820 Abundance!
00:41:25.100 Abundance!
00:41:25.540 Oh, yeah!
00:41:26.860 Other things that it provided.
00:41:33.440 In his influential work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, 1936,
00:41:38.760 the liberal British economist John Maynard Keynes introduced an economic theory that argued
00:41:43.320 that government management of the economy could smooth out the highs and lows of the business cycle
00:41:48.180 to produce more or less consistent growth with minimal unemployment.
00:41:51.980 So, in other words, this was yet another era of liberalism where capitalism was failing us. We had the New Dealers. We had, you know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who saw their role as intervening to save it.
00:42:07.480 much of what the New Deal attempted to do was lifted directly from the Socialist Party platform
00:42:14.520 of the early 20th century. Because yes, there was a Socialist Party in the United States in the
00:42:19.520 early 20th century. Some have pointed out that if you read the Socialist Party's platforms in the
00:42:24.780 years leading up to World War I, it reads like a blueprint for the New Deal. Here are some things
00:42:30.720 that this Socialist platform was fighting for, if you can just read this list for me.
00:42:37.480 Reduced working hours and higher wages.
00:42:40.160 Abolition of child labor.
00:42:42.360 National programs of old age.
00:42:43.440 Sarah Hockney Sanders is like, wait, now, hold on a minute.
00:42:46.280 Hold on.
00:42:48.120 Fucking radicals.
00:42:50.020 National programs of old age and unemployment insurance.
00:42:53.460 More city parks and playgrounds.
00:42:55.420 He yuck.
00:42:56.340 Public housing.
00:42:57.640 Free maternity clinics and hospitals.
00:42:59.840 Public theater.
00:43:00.660 Cultural offerings and reading rooms.
00:43:02.760 Disgusting.
00:43:03.380 I wouldn't want any of that.
00:43:05.380 So woke.
00:43:06.280 Okay.
00:43:06.500 But then how would all my taxes go to bombs?
00:43:12.200 You're going to build a park?
00:43:13.960 I specifically requested bone strikes.
00:43:18.780 The Hoover Institute, which is a think tank that is considered conservative, too libertarian,
00:43:24.520 explained, you know, disparagingly that part of FDR's political strategy at this time,
00:43:34.700 because the left, the socialists were like,
00:43:37.700 people were like, wait a second,
00:43:38.840 that shit sounds better, actually,
00:43:40.600 was absorbing some of the quote-unquote
00:43:43.420 radical left's ideas, rhetoric, and leadership.
00:43:46.540 He was like, you know what?
00:43:47.280 I'm going to borrow some of that.
00:43:48.360 We're going to do some of that instead.
00:43:50.260 Now, reminder, this is the period
00:43:51.840 they're pointing to as exemplary liberal governance.
00:43:55.060 This is the period that we look back on today
00:43:56.680 as peak damn shit, peak living out, okay?
00:44:00.560 They also reference civil rights era liberalism.
00:44:03.200 We're not going to read the entire section on that, but it's worth pointing out again. It was not liberal governance that achieved civil rights. It was sustained, highly organized, often violent mass protest that led to black Americans getting equal rights.
00:44:20.480 These were radical movements that did not have popular liberal support and were characterized
00:44:26.460 at the time as extreme. This is a sampling of public sentiment from 1964.
00:44:32.900 Oh, I'm so glad that you got this. I saw this a while ago and it genuinely blew my mind. Okay.
00:44:39.040 When civil rights activists led a bloody protest march in Selma, Alabama on March 7th, 1965,
00:44:45.340 that is credited with helping to assure passage of the Voting Rights Act that year,
00:44:49.060 civil rights was a top issue for the American public, but opinions about it were very mixed.
00:44:54.200 Yep. Even so, America's verdict on Selma was clear. In all, the protesters staged three marches
00:45:00.820 that month, and polling showed the public clearly siding with the demonstrators, not with the state
00:45:05.180 of Alabama. A nationwide Gallup poll in February 1965 found 26% of Americans citing civil rights
00:45:12.580 as a problem facing the nation, second only to the expanding war in Vietnam. Wow, which was 29%.
00:45:18.820 There was broad-based support for the war at this early stage in its history, but views about civil rights and integration were clearly mixed. Yep. On one hand, Americans continued to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at least in principle, but had concerns about its scope and implementation. Classic. I support in theory, but I have good concerns about the interests.
00:45:37.920 Not in my backyard, though. Not in my neighborhood.
00:45:41.000 Not in my school. A Gallup poll in October 1964 reported that the public approved of the new law by 2 to 1, 58 percent to 31 percent.
00:45:50.560 And in April 1965, Gallup found a whopping 76 percent in favor of a then-proposed equal rights voting law.
00:45:56.960 But while the public supported civil rights legislation conceptually, they expressed concerns about the pace of its implementation.
00:46:03.860 There we go. Indeed, although most supported the new civil rights law soon after it was passed, a National Opinion Research Corporation poll showed 68 percent of Americans wanting to see moderation in its enforcement.
00:46:15.980 They're like, just a few blacks.
00:46:17.500 What's the center take on this?
00:46:20.220 And then it says only 19 percent polled wanted vigorous enforcement of the new law.
00:46:25.940 It's the predecessors to our soccer team.
00:46:28.200 No, actually.
00:46:29.800 So that's what public sentiment was at the time.
00:46:31.900 Okay. This was not a popular liberal position, nor a position that liberal leaders were, like, fighting especially hard for.
00:46:38.600 And just to say really quickly, if it was popular, then protesters would not have had to throw themselves in the line in front of police hoses and attack dogs in order to generate interest.
00:46:49.400 The leaders of the civil rights movement were leftists. Many were socialists. This is from Jewish currents.
00:46:57.140 I love Jewish currents.
00:46:59.580 Anti-Defamation League being like, oh, they support Jewish currents? Add to the list?
00:47:04.760 On many issues we now identify with modern liberalism.
00:47:08.080 Communists and socialists were there first.
00:47:10.420 They opposed war, organized the unorganized, and challenged racial barriers in American life.
00:47:15.700 They demanded fair wages and working conditions, government action to protect labor and free speech.
00:47:21.060 Virtually all the tactics used in 20th century protests, moreover,
00:47:24.420 from sit-ins to mass demonstrations to picket lines, were also pioneered by communists and
00:47:29.680 socialists. Many liberal activists, however, were reluctant to make common cause with those to their
00:47:34.900 left, particularly communists, for two reasons. Principled ideological opposition to communism
00:47:40.340 and concern that identification of political activities with communism in the minds of the
00:47:44.860 public would lead to a loss of support. This is like Obama going from Palestine support in college
00:47:49.420 to, yes, we can, no, we can't talk about Palestine. Despite this gulf, however, liberals generally
00:47:55.640 followed the left's approaches to activism after a lapse of several years. Yeah, that checks out.
00:48:00.960 So I point all of that out to say at least two of the key examples offered in the launch video
00:48:07.520 for this new liberal publication reference historical examples not of liberalism being
00:48:12.940 successful, but of progressive causes being successful, of radical agitators being successful.
00:48:20.060 So I promised everyone that I would be precise in my language today. Leftism doesn't really have a
00:48:25.820 formal philosophical definition in the same way that liberalism does, but I would define the
00:48:30.480 critical difference between liberals and leftists to be their conception of power, how power should
00:48:36.500 be distributed, what that means about people's material conditions. My working theory here is
00:48:42.760 that really what it boils down to is that the key difference is capitalism. When we talk about
00:48:47.760 capitalism, what do we mean? By capitalism, what we don't mean is an economy that has markets or
00:48:53.860 an economy that has competition. We know that those things existed before capitalism. When we
00:48:58.940 say capitalism, we are explicitly referring to a system in which the means of production are owned
00:49:04.400 and operated privately and for profit there are only two classes in a capitalist system if you are
00:49:11.340 looking at like the political theory of all of this and so it says like basically the middle
00:49:15.460 class isn't real the middle class is a fiction invented to make working class people identify
00:49:20.140 with the ruling class snaps katie get them get them bitch there is the working class there are
00:49:28.180 people who work for money and there is the capital class those for whom money works the people who
00:49:33.220 own the things that are being made more valuable. The key challenge here and the problem that I
00:49:39.240 think a lot of leftists would point to with this system is that the people who own all the stuff
00:49:44.280 get to decide how society works, how the economy functions. Today, I think you can sum up the role
00:49:52.980 of liberal governance in a capitalist economy as twofold. Their jobs are, number one, protect
00:50:01.180 capitalism. That is Kathy Hochul calling herself therapist-in-chief for Manhattan's elite and
00:50:06.660 incessantly using words like job creators when trying to convince Mom Donnie voters that they're
00:50:11.460 dumb and wrong. And number two, intervene to relieve capitalism's worst effects. So this is
00:50:17.940 the like, well, we want to help the poor. We, of course, we want a social safety net because like,
00:50:22.420 oh, all these people are left behind and you have to do something with them. We're going to bounce
00:50:26.280 back now to the argument. My first question here is something that you've already highlighted.
00:50:31.560 What are the readers going to get here that they would not already get in the Atlantic? What is
00:50:36.760 the real differentiator? But I think we get a little bit clearer when we ask, why now? Why is
00:50:43.680 now the time that we are doing this? And a lot of those questions were answered for me when I spent
00:50:48.780 some time digging into some of the things that they had published. So if you are launching a
00:50:53.300 new media company with a $20 million valuation, the first pieces that you are coming out with
00:50:58.800 are pretty important in establishing the overall ideological direction of the projects that you
00:51:04.080 are attempting to run. So I pulled a couple that jumped out to me from their first week of
00:51:09.520 publishing. I think if we look at these three pieces taken together, we get a clearer picture
00:51:15.800 of what is happening here. And I think it's worth spending some time with that. So these articles
00:51:21.380 are called giving people money helped less than I thought it would, the imaginary war on American
00:51:28.380 workers, and the case for staying on Twitter. The imaginary war on American workers goes so
00:51:38.200 fucking hard. Would you like to start there? Let's start there. That's like such a mouthful
00:51:43.760 that I feel like someone just shoveled a spoonful of lukewarm kimchi from the trash
00:51:51.660 into my mouth. That's how I feel. No clue if they're going to redeem themselves in the copy,
00:51:56.280 but like, go right off with that. Okay, so this is by Jordan Weissman,
00:52:02.000 who has formerly written for The Atlantic and Semaphore. This is a piece about how the
00:52:07.060 conservative narrative that immigrants are taking jobs from quote-unquote native-born Americans
00:52:11.820 is bullshit, basically. So Weissman explains how labor statistics have been misinterpreted to
00:52:17.720 suggest that an immigration crackdown resulted in more job growth for American citizens. And he
00:52:22.640 basically points out that, hey, no, like unemployment for American citizens is actually
00:52:26.960 on the rise this year. Like y'all are interpreting this data wrong. Right. He points out that pre
00:52:32.700 crackdown, the surge of immigrants into the United States over just the last couple of years
00:52:37.900 was actually going to reduce our economic deficit by $897 billion because of all the money that the
00:52:45.660 immigrant workforce was generating in our economy. And like, all of that is true. I have no objections
00:52:51.020 to any of that. The thesis of the argument, I think, comes toward the end. And he basically
00:52:56.200 says that digging out of the situation that Trump has put us in now will require more Americans,
00:53:02.280 like literally more humans, because we need more economic growth. These tax cuts are very expensive.
00:53:09.560 The deficit is growing. And that, hey, if liberals want a generous welfare state,
00:53:14.500 if we want economic stability, you have to embrace immigration. You have no other choice.
00:53:19.480 And again, no objection to the core idea that immigration is economically beneficial.
00:53:24.640 However, he does this little conservative both sides hat tip where he's like, now those numbers,
00:53:30.040 of course don't offer a complete picture of the social and political impacts of immigration
00:53:36.980 social interest and so i get to this point and i'm like oh good okay cool so here's where here's
00:53:43.420 where he is going to mention the fact that the reason immigrants are such disproportionately
00:53:49.520 high contributors to the economy is because of their status as being undocumented and how easy
00:53:56.180 they are to exploit, that they don't receive any of the benefits that they're paying for.
00:54:01.300 Maybe we'll even get a mention of the fact that GDP growth and deficit reduction are
00:54:05.540 irrelevant to the life of the average worker if they are earning lower stagnant wages
00:54:10.020 and cannot afford the necessities of life. No, this is the complete picture of the social and
00:54:18.400 political impacts of immigration. I feel like I'm stepping on stage. Those numbers, of course,
00:54:24.860 don't offer a complete picture of the social and political impacts of the immigration burst
00:54:29.380 the U.S. experienced, which was larger than any since at least 1850. The chaos at the border
00:54:35.760 became a political albatross for the Biden administration. The busloads of Venezuelans
00:54:43.340 and Salvadorans brought to New York put a multi-billion dollar strain on the city's budget
00:54:48.800 since it was legally required to house people while they waited for work permits.
00:54:54.280 Homelessness increased nationally.
00:54:56.940 Right-wing media turned a mythical migrant crime wave into a national fixation by spotlighting tragic individual cases like the murder of Lake and Riley.
00:55:05.880 We had a fever dream national debate about whether Haitians were barbecuing cats in Ohio.
00:55:11.400 At the risk of recycling an old line, we bumbled our way into a trial run with open-ish borders.
00:55:16.860 And from a purely macroeconomic perspective, it was basically all upside.
00:55:22.600 Suffice to say, that's not the main lesson most American politicians appear to be taking away from the immigration story of the last few years.
00:55:30.480 Democrats, with good reason, are still scared shitless of looking too soft on the border after it helped undo Biden,
00:55:36.760 even if Trump's gulag-first enforcement philosophy has turned public opinion back against his approach, too.
00:55:43.000 But the hard politics shouldn't blind them to a simple fact.
00:55:45.940 The United States desperately needs more people.
00:55:49.380 Wait.
00:55:49.500 I read this and I'm like, OK, so the rest of the picture is just even though all this stuff was actually good, it looked bad for the Biden administration.
00:55:59.460 The real problem with all the immigrant stuff is that it's just bad optics for Democrats.
00:56:04.040 Right. We just need to change people's opinion about this.
00:56:07.400 And like, I want to be clear, I'm not trying to be nitpicky.
00:56:10.180 I largely did not have a problem with this article.
00:56:12.300 And I understand that it's not fair to judge an argument based on something that you wish they would have been arguing for instead.
00:56:17.560 But I do think that it is illustrative of the broader project, which is basically to say, hey, things are pretty good, actually. And all those problems that the conservative base is reacting to, there's nothing there. The immigration system's actually fine. Our GDP is going up. Like, what more do you want?
00:56:36.200 I also think that this is really illustrative of what you and I tipped our hats to when we were watching that intro video, which is this is not a media publication that's going to be about liberals, conservatives, libertarians and socialists.
00:56:51.100 You can tell by who they're framing their debate against, right? And who they're actually catering to. They're acknowledging the arguments that conservatives make without ever acknowledging the arguments that leftists make, which is like, okay, fine, you don't care about what socialists think, but be honest about that. This is you trying to basically acknowledge and win over the sentiments you're never going to win over, but that you're going to keep trying to win over, which is the sentiments of conservatives.
00:57:15.380 I'm, of course, open to the idea that in the future they'll write more articles about immigration and like, OK, what does fixing it actually look like?
00:57:23.480 I think what he would say if Jordan Weissman were here and I presented this critique to him and said, like, hey, dude, like, you're not really addressing what's actually wrong here.
00:57:33.220 He'd probably say, right, you know, but I'm just trying to convince people that immigration is a good thing first.
00:57:38.200 Like, I'm trying to establish the base argument that we should not fear immigration.
00:57:42.840 I just personally feel a little squeamish based on this initial foray into this topic that there
00:57:49.280 is no mention that the problems with it are way more than just an optics issue for Democrats or
00:57:55.220 chaos at the border. It badly needs to be reformed. American industry relies on people
00:58:02.220 remaining undocumented so they can be paid shit wages and essentially receive no real worker
00:58:07.560 protections. And I think it also sort of sidesteps part of the core grievance that is being expressed
00:58:12.800 by the MAGA base. A lot of the MAGA opposition from the top down is obviously just straight up
00:58:17.460 racism and white nationalism. We know this. But there are a lot of people for whom that
00:58:21.960 anti-immigrant message appeals precisely because they sense that they have no economic opportunity.
00:58:29.160 And when someone points to the immigrant and says they are the reason that your life is bad
00:58:34.260 and you cannot find work and your town is in a downward economic spiral and you can't afford a
00:58:39.780 House and the liberal across the aisle is going, no, no, no, no. See, that's actually where you're
00:58:44.980 wrong because actually that immigrant's really good for economic growth and like, see, GDP is
00:58:49.640 going up and so everything's fine. Like, you are not going to get very far convincing that person
00:58:55.300 that the economy is working for them. And there does not seem to be any recognition of the fact
00:59:00.160 that in the MAGA imagination, immigrant is just a stand-in for a displeasure with the economic
00:59:07.500 status quo. Yeah. And I would also add the phrase there about open borders really itched at me. I
00:59:15.260 think that that is doing a lot of work to imply that prior to Trump, we were some lawless,
00:59:21.840 rudderless nation. And I'm like, dude, I understand that we had a surge of people
00:59:26.980 crossing the border. To equate that to open borders is to cede so much ground to bad faith
00:59:33.220 conservative actors, and it just really feels like a dog whistle that kind of perked my ears up.
00:59:38.400 Yeah, I mean, what was that chart that showed, like, even before this new round of ICE funding,
00:59:43.400 they still had more money than, like, any other law enforcement agency? It's like, no, that's
00:59:48.700 really not a fair way to represent what was happening then.
00:59:53.340 Right.
00:59:53.820 Okay. Now we're going to move on to giving people money helped less than I thought it would
00:59:59.340 by Kelsey Piper. Okay.
01:00:03.780 Katie is literally slowly turning pink.
01:00:08.260 You know this one infuriated me.
01:00:10.600 When I saw this headline, you sent this to me,
01:00:12.600 and I was like, I sent back a two-minute voice memo.
01:00:15.220 I was like, really?
01:00:16.060 That's what we're fucking doing here?
01:00:18.300 Now, I knew when I saw the headline
01:00:21.180 what this was going to be about
01:00:22.600 because I was already aware of the study in question.
01:00:26.140 And I was aware of the study in question
01:00:28.160 because it was covered on the New York Times
01:00:30.260 Daily Podcast on August 6th.
01:00:32.160 There's a full episode of The Daily devoted to breaking down this study and essentially calling attention to it.
01:00:38.700 The Daily is, of course, consistently one of the most popular podcasts in the world.
01:00:44.180 Each episode gets between three and four million downloads, okay?
01:00:48.780 Join them. They're living out.
01:00:50.220 And the TLDR is that a study began a couple years ago that gave people who were living below the poverty line around $300 per month to see if it had any positive effects on their lives.
01:01:03.360 So they were measuring things like health outcomes, levels of stress, depression, body mass index, child development.
01:01:12.340 And the change was very minor.
01:01:16.160 Piper does not actually say what the percent changes were.
01:01:19.560 I'm not clear on if that's because the study's authors didn't provide that yet or if she is
01:01:24.460 excluding it intentionally. But she just really hits home the point that it was a lot smaller
01:01:29.460 than anyone expected, that these results were shocking. And she quotes a few of the study's
01:01:34.920 authors expressing surprise that there wasn't more of a change, right? That this $300 a month
01:01:40.400 did not make more of a difference. Wait, $300 a month?
01:01:44.040 Mm-hmm.
01:01:44.840 Why would anyone think that that would make a change? Am I being stupid?
01:01:47.800 Yeah, no. So she acknowledges that. She acknowledges the pandemic. She acknowledges inflation. She's like, yeah, you know, $300 per month really isn't that much money. But then she pulls forth two more studies where people were given cash transfers of $500 per month or even $1,000 per month and says, hey, look, those studies did not show a measurable impact either.
01:02:09.920 So her position is basically cash transfers are not an effective or efficient way of improving
01:02:16.580 people's lives. Now, before we really dig into this, I do want to note there are valid arguments
01:02:22.380 against things like universal basic income. Somebody named Jason Hickel, he wrote an article
01:02:27.600 critiquing basic income as like a silver bullet solution. He argues that a UBI does not address
01:02:33.600 the underlying system of production. It doesn't do anything about who controls it. It doesn't
01:02:38.000 change what kinds of goods or services are produced or under what conditions they're
01:02:42.040 produced or for whose benefit. He says this. So I want to extend this some, you know, good
01:02:49.080 faith. Like this is this is a real argument that one can make.
01:02:52.520 Is this an argument that the argument made?
01:02:54.240 No.
01:02:55.020 OK, this is an argument from a non-argument writer.
01:02:57.980 Jason Hickel.
01:02:58.920 People can only buy what is being produced. Having a basic income does not enable people
01:03:03.420 to buy good affordable housing or public health care if those things are not being made in
01:03:07.560 the first place or are not available in large enough quantities. Basic income will not help
01:03:12.400 you access public transit if there's not a public transit network in your city. Or for a particularly
01:03:17.920 striking example, take the climate crisis. We know we need to achieve a rapid transition to
01:03:22.880 renewable energy, but capital does not invest in expanding renewable energy infrastructure and
01:03:27.680 other green technologies at the required rates because it is not sufficiently profitable to do
01:03:32.260 so. No amount of basic income will change this. Yeah, that's a great point. So I think that that's
01:03:37.420 really worth keeping in mind here. And as you might have gathered already from that brief
01:03:41.980 snippet from Hickel's piece, typically you're going to hear arguments against basic income
01:03:46.720 in the context of someone claiming that something else is preferable instead. He's arguing that we
01:03:53.020 need to be working diligently toward universal basic services. There needs to be more democracy
01:03:57.800 around the system of production. But Piper is not arguing for those things here. She is only
01:04:02.820 arguing that one of the few efforts that has been made in this country to directly help poor people
01:04:08.740 is not effective enough to be worthwhile. And you know what? I think even that would have been
01:04:14.660 forgivable if that had been the extent of the piece. Like, hey, look, these are some studies
01:04:19.280 that we should pay attention to. Cash transfers are not moving the needle for people. We really
01:04:23.360 need to try something else. I would have been fine with that. We could move on.
01:04:26.580 But didn't the stimulus checks help? Didn't the COVID stimulus checks
01:04:29.780 make a significant dent in child poverty?
01:04:32.500 They did.
01:04:33.260 So did the expanded child tax credit.
01:04:35.220 Okay.
01:04:35.440 But she takes this weird turn
01:04:38.120 into essentially implying
01:04:40.420 that there is a conspiratorial cover-up
01:04:43.700 to bury these findings.
01:04:46.400 She literally calls the section,
01:04:48.400 which ends up being around a third of the piece's
01:04:51.280 total word count,
01:04:52.760 the basic income cover-up.
01:04:55.580 So I'm going to have you read that now.
01:04:57.080 What? Oh, Kelsey. Girl, know your enemies. What? Oh my God. Okay. These latest small to null results largely weren't surprising to people who watch this issue closely. Many of them had realized years ago, when first such studies came out, that the effects of cash weren't going to be transformative.
01:05:19.520 While exciting big results from pilots tend to make headlines and travel quickly on social media, sobering results from RCTs generally don't.
01:05:28.880 The depressing facts I've recounted for you are largely missing, obscured, or glossed over in the public communications about these studies.
01:05:36.440 What?
01:05:37.080 Articles focus on tiny positives, or at best, we'll note the evidence is uncertain.
01:05:42.100 Very few articles or press releases put the big picture together even if they cover one disappointing result.
01:05:46.900 I'm loving this world she's describing where, like, People magazine is over-covering and over-embellishing the effects of universal basic income, where our legacy media is, like, 24-7 pumping up universal basic income.
01:06:00.660 Like, what?
01:06:01.220 All right, whatever.
01:06:01.920 Back to the article.
01:06:02.980 Perhaps the most egregious offender is the Denver Basic Income Project.
01:06:06.620 Katie, shots fired.
01:06:07.640 I know.
01:06:07.860 I'm like, keep my name out your mouth.
01:06:09.440 The most bizarre set of findings I reviewed.
01:06:11.980 This is what a prominent part of the report section of their website says.
01:06:16.000 All payment groups showed significant improvements in housing outcomes,
01:06:19.460 including a remarkable increase in home rent and ownership,
01:06:22.340 and decrease in nights spent unsheltered.
01:06:25.180 I guess I can't call this a lie per se.
01:06:28.020 Wow.
01:06:28.780 But in reality, they gave $1,000 a month to homeless people,
01:06:31.960 and they were barely more likely than the control group to get housing.
01:06:35.680 What?
01:06:36.320 Which, yes, Kelsey, the median rent in Denver is over $2,000.
01:06:40.520 But wait, I don't understand.
01:06:41.700 Why is she saying it's a lie when giving homeless people $1,000 a month
01:06:45.560 made them more likely than the control group to get housing?
01:06:49.180 So the study, basically, they tried different amounts.
01:06:51.800 They gave some people $50, they gave some people $1,000, right?
01:06:55.360 And the group that got $1,000 was only marginally more likely to find housing
01:06:59.800 than the group that got $50.
01:07:01.000 And she's like, see, it doesn't really make a difference.
01:07:03.240 But my point is like, well, yeah, why are you surprised
01:07:05.600 that giving a homeless person $1,000 in a city
01:07:08.320 where the median rent is two and a half times that,
01:07:12.280 that that wouldn't immediately house them.
01:07:15.140 Like, again, it would be one thing to me to call this out
01:07:18.120 if you are arguing for basic social housing.
01:07:21.600 But this is not an argument for basic social housing.
01:07:24.540 This is just saying, see, it doesn't do anything.
01:07:27.560 This argument strikes me as someone who is talking about
01:07:31.300 certain studies related to UBI,
01:07:33.540 but who is not a scholar in UBI,
01:07:36.040 because even the way she's talking about homeless people
01:07:38.100 I'm like anyone who studies UBI is probably someone who would also be like yeah well there
01:07:42.900 are so many obstacles for a homeless person to get housing it's not just getting a thousand dollars
01:07:47.100 the principles of UBI would only work in a system that also just has generally leftist principles
01:07:52.380 about like what it means to have housing and then I would also say again no shade to the people who
01:07:57.100 are studying this I know it's probably really hard to fund to give people more than a thousand dollars
01:08:01.260 a month but there is something very Lucille Bluth like how much does a banana cost to me
01:08:05.440 about giving people $1,000 or less and being like, how much could housing possibly cost?
01:08:09.960 It's like, well, yeah, $12,000 a year is unfortunately not going to move the needle
01:08:14.820 for a lot of people unless you're like, I mean, again, we're even seeing even with homeless
01:08:19.160 people, it's like housing costs have increased so much such that $12,000 actually might not
01:08:25.860 generate stability for them. And that would be the next place I would go as a journalist is like,
01:08:30.680 how much money would it take to move the needle? And what does that say about
01:08:34.440 where we are economically right now
01:08:36.780 as opposed to just using a number
01:08:38.100 that I feel like is coded to be like,
01:08:39.760 look how much we gave them
01:08:40.900 and even that wasn't enough.
01:08:42.060 The steel man, again, I think like her defense,
01:08:44.500 because she did kind of get lit up about this
01:08:46.420 and her defense was basically like,
01:08:48.560 well, my point is that we need to move on
01:08:51.820 from focusing so much on giving people cash
01:08:54.600 that like we need to be pursuing other.
01:08:57.200 But it's this weird squishy thing
01:08:59.320 where like you have this plausible deniability
01:09:01.980 because you're making one argument
01:09:03.820 and people are like, what are you talking about?
01:09:06.100 Like, what is your end game here?
01:09:07.980 Okay, please, this is the last paragraph I want you to read
01:09:10.360 and then I'm going to tell you a little bit more.
01:09:11.800 Okay, time for some media criticism.
01:09:14.320 Okay.
01:09:15.060 Indeed.
01:09:15.840 Indeed it is.
01:09:17.800 You don't know how right you are.
01:09:20.900 Abundance.
01:09:23.480 All right, time for some media criticism.
01:09:28.340 It's not just the researcher's fault.
01:09:30.720 Even when researchers don't understate a null or negative result,
01:09:34.480 they told me that journalists are often less eager to go to press with it.
01:09:38.320 Researchers have written a dozen null effect papers.
01:09:40.940 They're trying to get the result out there, Miller told me.
01:09:43.580 People aren't interested in reading them.
01:09:45.820 Wasn't this in the New York Times?
01:09:47.520 Yeah, Caro, can you recall where I said I learned about this study?
01:09:51.920 The Daily.
01:09:52.600 The New York fucking Times.
01:09:54.940 this notion that like the mainstream press
01:09:58.720 just doesn't want you to know
01:10:00.260 that giving poor people money doesn't help them.
01:10:03.440 I was going to say,
01:10:04.060 there's like no bigger American beat
01:10:06.180 than saying that giving people money doesn't help them.
01:10:09.340 It's like central to our founding ethos.
01:10:11.320 Too many people are clamoring
01:10:13.460 for cash transfers to poor people
01:10:15.440 and we just need to set the record straight, you guys.
01:10:17.820 I know you all want to give more money to poor people,
01:10:21.440 but wake up because it doesn't actually
01:10:23.880 solve poverty which is of course literally the condition of not having enough money
01:10:29.420 i am not trying to critique in bad faith here but i'm just like this feels like a really fucking
01:10:34.960 weird first week out of the gate yeah take to be hitting us with she's kind of doing the same thing
01:10:41.780 that klein and thompson do in abundance abundance thank you thank you for getting on board they
01:10:48.320 spend a lot of time arguing for something that I would classify as, like, pretty fundamentally
01:10:54.320 neoliberal in framing, and then will toss in a single line. In her case, there is one sentence.
01:11:00.980 She says, winning the war on poverty will require more than just transfers. It will require building
01:11:07.100 and improving institutions that provide education, health care, and housing. Okay, so we have, like,
01:11:12.340 But that's the article. Write that article. Exactly. Why aren't you writing that?
01:11:16.560 Or in their case, in Thompson and Klein's case, they'll say things like, well, we're not against universal or redistributive policies, but like they're never arguing for universal or redistributive policies.
01:11:28.200 That's never what they're asking for.
01:11:29.820 So I'm like, well, that's really not your position, is it?
01:11:32.500 So to the argument's credit, one of their other writers, Matt Brunig, who Twitter has taken to calling good Matt, wrote a pretty harsh rebuttal of this article, which they did publish, which I'm like, cool.
01:11:43.340 Okay, the argument. I guess the argument just means the commentators are going to be arguing with one another, which is kind of fun. And all the comments were like, man, why are you being so mean to Kelsey? Brunig is a wonk when it comes to poverty research. So he points out where just the core framing of the piece is flawed. So she ends up writing a rebuttal to his rebuttal. And then he gets on Twitter and he's like pointing out where she's actually just making very baseline mistakes in her interpretation of the data.
01:12:11.280 It was like something with Medicaid spending where she was like, see, we're spending so much.
01:12:15.160 She's like, no, dude, that's Medicaid.
01:12:16.620 And the reason we're spending a lot on that is because of fucking UnitedHealthcare.
01:12:21.060 So good try.
01:12:21.960 Swing and a miss.
01:12:22.820 It was just a mess.
01:12:24.040 I'm going to have you read the end of Brunig's rebuttal because I think it really ties a nice bow on what is so frustrating about the ideological project that they're engaged in.
01:12:38.180 What is ultimately disappointing about Piper's piece is that it is yet another effort to make
01:12:42.760 poverty, inequality, the welfare state, and issues of distributive justice seem much more
01:12:48.000 complicated than they really are. As a policy matter, these are mostly solved problems. Yes,
01:12:53.880 Matt. This is why they give him good Matt moniker. There are countries in the world right now with
01:12:58.140 very low levels of poverty and inequality, and they follow a very well-documented policy approach
01:13:02.740 called the Nordic model to get there. Acting like this is all very inscrutable and we don't really
01:13:07.460 know and we need more study can make you sound like you are overflowing with intellectual
01:13:11.460 honesty. But in reality, it is the pseudo profundity that papers over the moral atrocity
01:13:17.000 of poverty amid plenty. Yes, this is also American exceptionalism at work. It's complicated.
01:13:22.840 What applies for them could never apply to us. It immediately nullifies any conversation that
01:13:27.500 you would have. I have gained a lot from reading Matt Desmond's work on poverty. And I think that
01:13:33.360 there was another opportunity that could have come up in this piece. And again, like I said,
01:13:37.820 I don't think it's fair to be like, well, you should have argued it this way. But I do think
01:13:43.040 that part of the problem to me with her core argument that, see, the U.S. government is
01:13:49.480 spending so much money on anti-poverty. And like, she's basically creating a false equivalency where
01:13:56.260 the U.S. government having a lot of very expensive programs for anti-poverty and giving
01:14:02.980 people cash transfers but it's worth noting that like a lot of people that study this have already
01:14:08.300 said no no the reason that anti-poverty measures are so expensive and don't work well is because
01:14:12.880 they're structured like private public partnerships where like the government is outsourcing this shit
01:14:17.640 to private companies that have 25 profit margins like that's why this shit is expensive not because
01:14:23.860 the government is just writing blank checks to poor people she's not arguing it explicitly but
01:14:29.120 she's creating this connection there of like see we're spending so much money and look giving poor
01:14:33.860 people money doesn't help and it's like these things are not related and now for our last one
01:14:39.200 uh the case for staying on twitter against the politics of hygiene oh my god by jerusalem herself
01:14:45.720 no one argues anymore no one takes a joke anymore the thing about airplane food i don't know what
01:14:52.880 my accent is here is that new yorker i'm not sure it felt right will you please read the first
01:14:58.080 sentence okay twitter is a cesspool i hold elon musk the site's owner personally responsible for
01:15:04.620 the deaths of nearly 300 000 children wait what is that yeah i know i was like wait is this about
01:15:09.620 gaza uh no actually there there actually have not been any articles yet as of this recording on
01:15:15.540 august 29th about the u.s's foreign policy of paying for a genocide in palestine which actually
01:15:21.400 might be the most liberal thing about it uh this is about us a id being shut down oh okay and yet
01:15:29.620 i visit his website every day i tweet i respond to posts i scroll i will also always call it twitter
01:15:35.660 i love how it's like an establishment journalist who like who is like the type of person the
01:15:40.660 demographic of people who love twitter the most being like i bravely use twitter i'm like yeah i
01:15:45.740 bet you fucking do so her thesis her argument if you will our argument argument the argument
01:15:51.360 is that leaving Twitter is deplatforming yourself
01:15:56.420 and that you should stay on Twitter
01:15:58.960 because you can persuade people on Twitter
01:16:02.340 to come around to the good side, the liberal side.
01:16:06.260 Has it happened?
01:16:06.940 Does she have evidence of it?
01:16:08.520 Yeah, I'm like, babe, are you sure you're using Twitter?
01:16:11.560 Is this the same Twitter that I'm using?
01:16:13.080 Because I don't think anyone on that website
01:16:14.780 is there to be persuaded.
01:16:16.980 This is like that day where for whatever reason,
01:16:18.820 when I logged onto the New York Times,
01:16:20.280 i was stuck in 2020 do you remember when that happened oh yeah that was so weird it was so
01:16:25.480 weird it was like for whatever reason the newspaper was had taken me back to like a day in winter
01:16:30.500 2020 and i couldn't get out of it and it was like something to do with my cookies
01:16:35.260 yeah find bernie you're a white man in the winter of 2020 find bernie
01:16:40.540 so maybe she's like stuck on twitter 2014 okay so for twitter refugees the question is not whether
01:16:49.380 you leave for another public square. It's whether you participate in one at all. Is it possible to
01:16:55.240 change people's minds through argument? Argument! Among those of us who worry about the rise of the
01:17:00.580 post-liberal right, our answer to this question is the dividing line. If you are pessimistic about
01:17:05.760 the value of public debate, then staying on Twitter is worthless. What? All that matters is
01:17:11.380 that Musk is in control of the algorithm. He has removed the cordon sanitaire—okay, that's a cool
01:17:15.920 phrase and the nazis are now free to roam when people imagine the process of persuasion they
01:17:21.760 often imagine a debate where one party leaves with their opinion entirely transformed but
01:17:26.740 persuadable people are usually not the diehards they're the lurkers in the big online fights
01:17:31.820 the ones who might throw out a like or ask a question but rarely participate maybe you think
01:17:37.080 it's impossible to persuade your intellectual enemies but what about the bystanders okay can
01:17:42.040 I just, you and I run a podcast that releases like two official episodes a month, right? We'll do
01:17:49.600 like a bonus or whatever, but we're like two episodes a month. And as such, we are like
01:17:53.940 litigious about what we want to talk about, right? We will not discuss something unless we think that
01:17:58.560 we have something genuinely worthwhile to contribute. I understand that this newsletter
01:18:02.600 is releasing numerous articles a week, but the fact that these people created a publication
01:18:07.860 that has gotten all of this press and fanfare.
01:18:11.020 This is in their first few weeks of existence.
01:18:14.680 And they are releasing article op-eds
01:18:16.980 that I would not even consider using as a TikTok video
01:18:20.420 is blindingly confusing to me.
01:18:23.220 I'm like, this is your most,
01:18:25.000 this is the most important thing you have to say
01:18:27.360 at this moment from a strategic standpoint.
01:18:29.840 I cannot believe that this is how they are launching
01:18:32.760 their, like, last gasp fighting battle for neoliberalism.
01:18:38.140 It's wild to me.
01:18:39.820 Stay on Twitter?
01:18:41.660 Meanwhile, Dan Thompson's like,
01:18:43.620 so what's the deal with pickleball, guys?
01:18:45.940 This perfectly embodies this could have been a tweet.
01:18:48.400 Because it's like, you're not wrong.
01:18:49.760 I get it.
01:18:50.380 I get the argument of people staying on Twitter.
01:18:52.920 Yeah, I agree with her.
01:18:54.000 The lurkers.
01:18:54.620 That's a great point.
01:18:55.580 That could be a bumper sticker for sure.
01:18:57.520 Is it the op-ed that you want to start your media company with?
01:19:01.260 I don't understand.
01:19:02.760 Well, and a lot of the comments were like, hey, I get it. You're a journalist. Totally agree. Totally makes sense. But like, why am I right? Why am I on Twitter? Like, what am I getting out of this? And I think that there is like a sort of insular argument happening here, which is like, yeah, not everybody wants to go be an ideological warrior on Twitter to like try to convince maybe three open minded people.
01:19:25.200 It's like her audience is other journalist peers. And it's like, but your audience should be tens of millions of Americans.
01:19:32.800 There are kind of these like flashpoint moments where I'm like, oh, I get it.
01:19:36.640 It's giving Coastal a lead.
01:19:37.900 Yeah, this is what's happening here is it's like these are... Barry Weiss is like, yes.
01:19:45.160 Diabolical Lies announces that we've been acquired by the free press.
01:19:47.980 i also just checked again this morning because i wanted to double check that my comment that like
01:19:53.660 they have not touched gaza was still true because i pulled some of these articles earlier this week
01:19:59.560 and um i was greeted with this treat from matt iglesias's first argument post caro can you please
01:20:10.120 read the headline and sub headline for me what is his debut take on this platform oh oh katie he is
01:20:21.300 brett stevens he is absolutely the left's brett stevens now that we're an hour and a half in and
01:20:26.180 only the real ones are listening we can confirm he is the brett stevens of the center left okay
01:20:30.840 the forgotten american value of minding your own business subhead liberalism means not caring if
01:20:38.800 someone spends $10,000 on their pet bird. Let me guess. Is this like some niche discourse that
01:20:44.940 happened online that no one else would ever care about? Uh, yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. So this
01:20:51.540 is okay. This is also, I think obviously Katie, I always think that you're a genius, but I think
01:20:56.280 that one of your recent genius arguments that we are argument arguments that we have, that we have
01:21:03.640 discussed again and again is, like, the most important thing you can do as a person in general
01:21:08.860 being alive today, but specifically as someone who likes to think of themselves as having a voice
01:21:14.460 that is worth reaching people, is to ask yourself, would I know about this if I was not online today?
01:21:20.780 Half of the articles we have read today are for things that, like, you would not care about if
01:21:25.860 you were not online that day. I would also add that the broader argument that he is making here
01:21:32.760 is that basically it's a free country we should not be mad if people want to waste money on stupid
01:21:38.980 shit or shit that we perceive to be stupid and it's like even that to me has this kind of weird
01:21:44.820 permissiveness around the economic reality that most people are living in right now which is that
01:21:51.540 most people don't have fucking ten thousand dollars to spend on a bird and he's not policing
01:21:56.380 you woke snowflake whore if you're a good liberal you value freedom and value money freedom means
01:22:03.960 you don't police how other people are spending your money it kind of is this like thought
01:22:08.780 terminating cliche that basically says like there's no fair value judgment of how our society
01:22:13.800 is allocating resources the tweet that like the discourse that he was responding to was somebody
01:22:19.640 quote tweeting helene olin who wrote a book about how personal finance is a broken industry
01:22:24.360 she was quote tweeting someone talking about spending a lot of money on their pets and like
01:22:29.320 how silly it is to spend a lot of money on your pets and she was like my take is that we need to
01:22:34.940 get private equity out of veterinary practices so saving your animal's life doesn't cost ten
01:22:40.420 thousand dollars and iglesias is like whoa whoa isn't liberalism her being able to say that
01:22:45.820 okay it's so stupid moving on all right we are going to take a second now to define what i mean
01:22:52.100 by neoliberalism. We've used that phrase a couple times. I think it's a phrase that people will
01:22:58.740 sometimes critique the left for using because it's very broad. We've reached our final section
01:23:04.020 of the encyclopedia, lucky for you, which is called the revival of classical liberalism or
01:23:10.400 the beginning of the period that has come to be known as neoliberalism. By neoliberalism, we mean
01:23:16.140 An economic and political theory that emerged in the late 20th century that at least superficially advocates for things like free market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and again, private control of the economy by individuals with as little government intervention on behalf of those individuals as possible.
01:23:38.800 Caroline, please read.
01:23:40.160 The three decades of unprecedented general prosperity that the Western world experienced
01:23:45.100 after World War II marked the high tide of modern liberalism. But the slowing of economic growth
01:23:50.780 that gripped most Western countries beginning in the mid-1970s presented a serious challenge
01:23:55.980 to modern liberalism. By the end of that decade, economic stagnation, combined with the cost of
01:24:01.300 maintaining the social benefits of the welfare state, pushed governments increasingly towards
01:24:05.660 politically untenable levels of taxation and mounting debt.
01:24:09.460 Equally troubling was the fact that the Keynesian economics
01:24:12.860 practiced by many governments seemed to lose its effectiveness.
01:24:16.700 Governments continued to spend money on programs
01:24:18.820 aimed at stimulating economic growth,
01:24:20.780 but the result too often was increased inflation
01:24:23.320 and ever smaller declines in unemployment rates.
01:24:26.600 Okay, so again, you're probably picking up on this.
01:24:30.100 There is the cyclicality here where, again,
01:24:32.500 eventually the capitalist system, it stops working properly
01:24:35.640 Like, the contradictions become hard to resolve.
01:24:38.740 As modern liberals struggled to meet the challenge of stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, others saw an opportunity for a revival of classical liberalism.
01:24:48.600 The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist F.A. Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman.
01:25:03.360 Abundance!
01:25:05.640 One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate on purely logical grounds that a centrally planned economy is impossible.
01:25:15.660 He also famously argued in The Road to Serfdom, 1944, that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth led inevitably to totalitarianism.
01:25:25.880 Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates,
01:25:34.880 rather than by government fiscal policy, contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his
01:25:40.080 followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political
01:25:44.540 parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal
01:25:48.560 conviction that the market for all its faults guides economic policy better than governments
01:25:53.200 do. Revitalized conservatives achieved power with the lengthy administrations of Prime Minister
01:25:58.660 Margaret Thatcher, 1979-90, in Britain, and President Ronald Reagan, 1981-89, in the United
01:26:05.220 States. Their ideology and policies, which properly belonged to the history of conservatism
01:26:10.260 rather than liberalism, became increasingly influential, as illustrated by the British
01:26:14.880 Labour Party's official abandonment of its commitment to the quote common ownership of
01:26:19.140 the means of production in 1995, and by the cautiously pragmatic policies of President
01:26:24.540 bill clinton in the 1990s the clearest sign however of the importance of this quote neoclassical
01:26:30.220 version of liberalism was the emergence of libertarianism as a political force as evidenced
01:26:36.140 by the increasing prominence of the libertarian party in the united states and by the creation
01:26:40.600 of assorted think tanks in various countries which sought to promote the libertarian ideal
01:26:44.980 of markets and sharply limited governments yeah so this period is intensely critical for this
01:26:52.400 conversation today. This was the shift in which the Democratic Party decided that in order to beat
01:26:58.960 Reagan Republicans, they needed to become Republicans themselves. This is the era which
01:27:06.080 produced Bill Clinton and real Democratic endorsement of centrist, quote-unquote, third-way
01:27:11.900 thinking, where there is an emphasis on staying close to the ideological center, endorsing market
01:27:18.660 solutions or involvement for the delivery of public services, so the proliferation of the
01:27:24.880 private-public partnership, scaling back social democratic expectations and ambitions so they
01:27:30.620 don't challenge the economic competitiveness of globalization. And in 1994, the Democrats suffered
01:27:37.240 losses, and the conservative New Democrats leadership was prepared to tack further right.
01:27:43.840 And in 1995, Ted Kennedy warned against, quote, sheepishly acquiescing to Republican caricatures of their values. He said, and I quote, the last thing this country needs is two Republican parties.
01:27:58.820 But as we know, that is the direction of the party went in. Ideas like universalism and decommodification were perceived to be too unpopular in the post Reagan era to be worth pursuing.
01:28:10.920 It is presented as this very common sense, very reasonable, well, this is what you have to do to win approach to politics.
01:28:19.940 But Katie, I thought Jill Stein was why the Democratic Party wasn't succeeding.
01:28:23.660 Yeah. Jonathan Chait, who is not a columnist for The Argument, but who operates in a very similar vein, wrote this column for Intelligencer in October 2024. Would you mind reading the headline and sub-headline for me?
01:28:42.680 wow perfect segue okay the race is close because harris is running a brilliant campaign
01:28:51.240 stop complaining the centrism is working wow this is like lifted right out of like the latest
01:28:57.660 fucking online discourse about how leftists are too powerful no they don't exist which
01:29:03.280 is it hard to say i'm slowly raising the continuity through change change through
01:29:08.720 continuity or whatever the fuck the slogan is. Is the effective centrism in the room with us
01:29:13.660 right now? I'm now going to have you read the final two paragraphs because he includes an
01:29:18.740 Iglesias tweet. I can't get over how quickly and how frequently they move back and forth between
01:29:23.920 calling Kamala Harris a centrist candidate who faced other problems and calling her the most
01:29:28.540 progressive candidate we've ever seen. She's the last person who ran for president. So she was the
01:29:33.140 face of the Democratic Party. But I'm like, this is not about Kamala. This has been the Democratic
01:29:37.680 Party for 20 fucking years. Okay, go ahead. Mm-hmm. For all the complaints his stance on
01:29:42.780 Israel drew from the left, Biden generally avoided criticism from the left on his broader
01:29:47.380 campaign themes. This is why progressives remained loyal even as he was drifting toward inevitable
01:29:52.440 defeat. Harris has violated progressive shibboleths, doing almost everything within her
01:29:57.660 power to meet the decisive handful of persuadable voters where they are. Okay, yep. However depressed
01:30:03.900 progressive activists may feel as she has moved towards the center, the country as a whole has,
01:30:09.120 not coincidentally, grown dramatically more favorable towards her. Will it be enough? That
01:30:14.520 is hard to say. Wow. Hope he gets paid a lot for that. But the inverse relationship between the
01:30:18.900 mood on the left and Harris's standing with the electorate as a whole is no accident. It is the
01:30:23.640 fruit of a well-executed strategy that has created an even chance of victory out of certain defeat.
01:30:28.080 It just, like, blows my mind the extent to which centrist Democrats and, of course, everyone in the Republican Party will just never stop painting as people on the left who are, like, principled or who aren't aligned with the Democratic Party as being wildly irrational or out of touch.
01:30:45.980 They never talk about, like, oh, well, you have to win over progressive voters.
01:30:49.460 It's in the same way they talk about winning over Trump voters.
01:30:52.520 Well, the progressive activists might be sad.
01:30:55.140 Right.
01:30:55.400 But no one can deny that this campaign is rocking and, like, the centrism is working.
01:31:02.180 Donald Trump won all seven swing states.
01:31:05.700 It was the first popular vote win by a Republican in a very long time, was it not?
01:31:10.300 Everything that has happened over the last 30 years, I want to connect the dots here to what Trump is doing now.
01:31:15.400 All of this has made it very easy for Trump to dismantle the federal government
01:31:19.340 because Democrats and Republicans worked in lockstep to minimize its physical presence in
01:31:24.940 our lives. Because anything that you're getting from the government is like indirect interventions.
01:31:29.600 You're getting tax incentives. Your employer might be getting a subsidy for something.
01:31:33.960 There might be grants that are going to the local and state governments.
01:31:37.560 There is a thinker named Suzanne Mettler who calls this the submerged state for the way that
01:31:42.380 the state has become invisible as opposed to big flashy efforts like the New Deal era Works
01:31:47.780 Progress Administration and how this actually has the effect of undermining support for the
01:31:52.580 government because people don't understand what the government is fucking doing for them.
01:31:56.640 People don't even realize that they're on public benefits because of the reliance on
01:32:01.560 public-private partnerships. Medicaid, for example, has a different name depending on
01:32:06.440 which state you're in. There may be a private insurer's name on your health insurance card.
01:32:11.520 Even though you're on Medicaid, you probably don't even realize you're on it. There are so
01:32:15.980 many stories this year of red state or right-wing voters going on the news being like, I'm not
01:32:22.140 worried about Medicaid cuts because I'm on health first. And it's like, that's Medicaid. You are on
01:32:28.160 Medicaid. Anyway, why does this matter? Why are we talking about it? I think it all comes down to
01:32:34.360 framing this commitment to the center, a commitment to a few tenets of the status quo that you are
01:32:40.580 just refusing to touch, which then prevents you from ever seeking real solutions to major
01:32:46.540 structural problems. The major example of this that I would point to is the way that liberals
01:32:52.480 have historically tried to quote unquote fix health care, usually through trying to taper
01:32:58.060 the worst instincts of the health insurance companies like the Affordable Care Act took
01:33:02.440 rescission away. But that was something where an insurance company could just be like, oh,
01:33:06.280 we've spent too much on you. Your coverage is gone. Bonk. And they were like, no,
01:33:10.260 you shouldn't be allowed to do that. But that's like, that is the extent of the steps that they're
01:33:14.520 willing to take. And a lot of this just functions, unfortunately, to drive the prices of things up.
01:33:21.060 They're trying to make a fundamentally untenable and inefficient and expensive system slightly
01:33:27.120 more tolerable without actually addressing any of the underlying root causes, which then gives
01:33:33.700 conservatives ammunition to say, see, look at how much prices have gone up since the Affordable
01:33:38.740 Care Act, we need government out of health care. And the only thing the American people know is
01:33:43.820 that health care is expensive and they can't afford it. And it's like, yeah, okay, I guess
01:33:46.640 the government's the problem. Yeah, this is also in the same way that in our Rise and Fall of
01:33:51.120 Capitalism episode, we were talking about how capitalism is so ingrained in our lives as
01:33:55.560 Americans that you know how to defend it, even if you didn't study economics. Neoliberalism
01:34:00.880 is so ingrained in our lives that I can already hear some neoliberal talking head being like,
01:34:06.240 yeah, well, this is why progressive activists don't get anything done and they're just online
01:34:11.020 keyboard warriors because this is the reality of the hard work of governance. You have to work
01:34:17.040 really hard to achieve very small wins. And that's what I'm invested in doing, creating real
01:34:22.700 incremental non-existent change in people's lives by upholding a stupid fucking system that never
01:34:29.120 worked to begin with. And you're just a keyboard warrior. And won't the Democratic voters get on
01:34:35.620 bored with that? We just have to persuade them that we're doing a good job. Look, the reason
01:34:41.720 the Democrats can't do anything about it is because the only long-term solution for a problem
01:34:47.120 like that, the amount of waste, the amount of fraud, the amount of inefficiency would be to
01:34:51.960 shift to a single-payer model. Now I'm melting! Which every other country has accepted as objective
01:35:00.540 fact and just fucking ripped the bandaid off and done it. And everyone who understands health care
01:35:06.280 basically concedes that that is the real solution. But liberals can't do that because that exists
01:35:12.800 outside the scope of capital R, capital L, capital S, reasonable liberal solutions. We can't do that
01:35:19.480 to our health insurance companies. Obama famously argued that part of the reason you cannot have a
01:35:25.020 single payer system, even though it clearly makes more sense, is because it would be too disruptive.
01:35:30.540 That the administrative state in the insurance industry is enormous and employs a lot of people.
01:35:35.680 That doing a bunch of pointless paperwork is actually, there's a lot of people's jobs to do pointless paperwork.
01:35:40.960 David Graber rolling over in his grave.
01:35:43.580 You cannot create a cheaper, more efficient, more equitable system that works better for everyone because it would get rid of a lot of jobs and it would hurt a lot of shareholders.
01:35:53.500 And so you get stuck in this weird fucking limbo where arguing for an actual fix gets you painted as a keyboard warrior idealist, and then everyone else just has to LARP working diligently toward a solution and celebrating our incremental wins that are ultimately just maintenance of something that is never going to work.
01:36:15.480 Putting aside all of my morals, all of my spirituality and my ethics for a moment, putting that aside.
01:36:20.440 Oh, good. This only ever takes us somewhere good.
01:36:23.500 racial epithet, racial epithet. No, putting aside all of my morals of like why I find
01:36:32.160 leftism to be like genuinely interesting as a political ideology. The thing that I also feel
01:36:38.040 like I have been shocked to realize this week is that we have reached a stage in our economic
01:36:45.680 history as a country where like you actually can't lie to people anymore because the costs
01:36:50.980 of being alive have actually become too much. And as such, even if we agree at face value that,
01:36:55.840 yeah, it's going to be super disruptive, it's going to be really hard to sell
01:36:58.380 single payer health care system, you're never going to beat Republicans with the strategy that
01:37:04.360 you're selling. That is the thing that really blows my mind is like, fine, you guys hate leftist
01:37:09.620 ideas. I get it. Donald Trump is actually a great politician because he is promising and he is now
01:37:15.260 carrying out revolution. He promised revolution and he is carrying out revolution. Do I support
01:37:22.340 the revolution? Fucking no. But there's a reason why people voted for him. And it's because people
01:37:27.860 wanted change. And it's so strange to me that these people are still like, oh, it's going to
01:37:33.840 cause too much of an upset. I'm like, the candidate who has been beating you handedly for over a
01:37:38.640 decade now has been campaigning on upset he's literally campaigning on on huge huge huge changes
01:37:47.620 he's saying out loud at rallies everything is gonna change he's literally said to people you
01:37:52.880 might suffer temporarily yeah it'll be worth it in the long run and you guys are still sitting
01:37:58.360 with your hands on your fucking asses pretending that people can't be bought over with a promise
01:38:03.920 of revolution the majority of americans by the way support universal health care yeah i know that
01:38:10.500 universal health care and single payer are not technically the same thing like there would be a
01:38:14.720 way to have universal health care without a single payer system but it's just worth mentioning that
01:38:19.380 like that is a fucking popular idea and like to shut up political party that's like would never
01:38:25.880 work quick cutaway to kirsten cinema just like sitting on a fucking 24 karat gold toilet because
01:38:32.080 of all the fucking donations she's received from corporations to vote against anything.
01:38:35.440 Yeah, guys, it would never work.
01:38:36.800 It would just never work. It's too complicated.
01:38:38.820 So I mentioned earlier in this conversation that the argument already has $4 million in funding.
01:38:44.880 Are you curious about who is investing?
01:38:47.800 Yes.
01:38:48.940 So Semaphore reported on their investors. I looked into a few of them.
01:38:52.320 Rachel Pritzker, J.B. Pritzker's sister, is a billionaire who has funded the argument.
01:38:56.580 she sits on the board of the third way think tank and the breakthrough institute that maps closely
01:39:04.560 this one simple trick do everything the same okay we are gonna read the third way think tanks about
01:39:11.840 page they have really managed like swiftian levels of dominating our entire culture while
01:39:18.040 somehow operating as an underdog it's incredible okay our mission third way is a national think
01:39:25.120 tank an advocacy organization that champions moderate policy and political ideas they're like
01:39:29.580 have you considered the middle our work on the center left acts as a critical bulwark against
01:39:35.220 political extremists our approach this is honestly this is gonna fucking send me on this friday
01:39:40.980 afternoon our they're like have you considered have you considered walking onto a talk show and
01:39:46.520 talking about being a gun owner we have heard that that polls very well with audiences okay
01:39:51.640 Our approach brings together rigorous policy research, deep knowledge of the peoples and places that decide majorities.
01:39:58.880 We have a cold and calculating approach to retaining power by any means necessary, irrespective of what that power is used for.
01:40:10.600 Deep knowledge of numerous proper nouns all across the country.
01:40:15.240 We know people and places.
01:40:17.420 so this is your this is your one-stop shop for almost everything but but things we don't do
01:40:28.660 things just people in places there's another thing for the things this mission statement is
01:40:36.100 exactly why moderate politics are so fucking stupid okay we stand for nothing okay okay deep
01:40:43.860 knowledge of the people in places but not things that decide majorities two-thirds of proper nouns
01:40:48.920 and sophisticated public opinion and messaging data to create strategic advocacy campaigns
01:40:54.400 designed to persuade elected officials and influencers on the defining issues of our time
01:40:59.500 we advocate for the vital center across seven programmatic areas climate and energy i'd love
01:41:06.180 to know what a moderate response to climate change is okay that's that's they did i think
01:41:13.140 they did the paper straws i think that was them yeah climate and energy economy educate they're
01:41:19.540 like they're like save the sea turtles but not the dolphins just the whales you have to prioritize
01:41:27.080 okay economy education health care national security politics and social policy as passionate
01:41:33.860 moderates or quote radical centrists for the new york times our work is not about splitting the
01:41:39.140 difference, but about standing for a values-driven, reform-oriented politics that can both deliver
01:41:44.800 electoral power and drive meaningful policy change. Wow, my ligaments are going to hurt
01:41:48.880 from all the backbending I'm doing to get through this mission statement. We believe in building an
01:41:53.160 opportunity economy that rewards hard work, making progress in social issues to uphold our
01:41:58.340 fundamental freedoms. Oh, my God. Winning the global clean energy technology race. Abundance.
01:42:03.040 and securing our safety against evolving 21st century threats.
01:42:07.920 Oh, my God.
01:42:08.700 Word salad.
01:42:10.400 Crazy.
01:42:12.820 I'm so happy you enjoyed that as much as I did.
01:42:15.760 Dude, a moment of silence for the idea of being a billionaire
01:42:19.780 but having no thoughts to back up your billions.
01:42:22.980 What a prisoner's dilemma, truly.
01:42:24.760 I can't even imagine being a billionaire
01:42:26.820 and investing in a think tank for moderacy.
01:42:30.800 It kind of makes perfect sense, honestly.
01:42:32.920 it's like yeah because if you let if you let things get too radical you're going to the
01:42:38.080 guillotine so you have to be like you know what we should do is nothing right right because she
01:42:42.580 doesn't want leftism because then she wouldn't be a billionaire but she doesn't want conservatism
01:42:45.860 because they will kill her because she's a woman so really she doesn't have either option
01:42:49.400 rock and a hard place rock and a hard famously a rock and a hard place it is worth saying radical
01:42:54.540 centrism is that's a real thing like you can be a radical centrist that just refers to the idea
01:43:00.140 that like you are committed to confining the scope of our solutions and the ideas that are like
01:43:07.160 permissible to discuss to a very narrow and moderate set of options. Okay. So I was just
01:43:14.460 like, huh, I wonder like they're talking about how they want to persuade people. They're talking
01:43:19.280 about wanting to like influencers and politicians and like they want to like make this popular. So
01:43:24.460 I was like, what are they like? What kind of hits do they have in the press? And they have a little
01:43:27.840 press section. I'd love for you to read the headlines of the three most recent press hits
01:43:33.220 that they have shared. Oh my fucking god. Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. Yeah. And
01:43:45.460 Circle gets the square. These are press hits in Politico, Axios, and Politico. Okay. So these are
01:43:51.100 like, it's like, it's almost like I think someone who works for them has like pitched these stories
01:43:55.380 to these outlets and is getting placements okay uh headline one from politico there is a sensible
01:44:01.100 center on transgender politics here's where democrats can find it uh it's right next to the
01:44:07.420 clitoris it's the third hole men if you're listening to our to our diabolical guys women
01:44:20.860 have three holes you're welcome come back in two weeks for more health education okay next headline
01:44:26.440 axios first look third way's plan for dems to fight back third headline politico centrist dem
01:44:33.780 group rails against leftist identity politics and purity tests incredible i opened my tiktok
01:44:40.380 yesterday and my entire feed i was sending you these because i was like did some like memo go
01:44:45.880 out that i missed there were every other video was somebody being like the leftists with these
01:44:50.640 purity tests are crazy, you guys. We, like, really need to rally around the Democrats right
01:44:54.760 now. Like, they need all the help they can get. And it's, like, it is kind of funny to see a
01:44:58.580 think tank almost, like, seeding that sentiment in Politico. Matt Iglesias famously, I think
01:45:05.200 several weeks ago, claimed that anyone who, like, claimed moral imperative within Gaza and the
01:45:11.040 crisis in Gaza was basically a bad faith actor who didn't actually believe in it. And then the other
01:45:15.240 thing is, like, I have also noticed that, that there's been, like, this big push. I don't know,
01:45:19.040 maybe it's just our algorithms of like center influencers being like, get in line behind Gavin
01:45:23.740 Newsom, stop criticizing. We're three and a half years from a presidential run. And like friendly
01:45:28.540 reminder, the Democratic Party is deeply unpopular across the board. Actual people who identify as
01:45:34.020 progressive voters account for vastly less than 10 percent of the voting population. So like the
01:45:38.860 Democratic Party is unpopular with everyone, not just with leftists. And it's like a pretty big
01:45:44.620 a mistake to assume that it is just some fringe progressive population who are like holding you
01:45:49.700 hostage the entire country thinks that the democratic party's in shambles right now so
01:45:54.660 other investors include patrick collison the ceo of stripe who is an irish american billionaire
01:46:01.620 who has also funded some abundance related projects he caught some heat last year because
01:46:06.940 he posted a picture from tel aviv being like oh missed this view on my run and people were like
01:46:12.260 wow they found the only irish person who is pro-occupation that's dude class politics are
01:46:18.360 real someone named john arnold of arnold ventures um some brief digging into him he used to work for
01:46:25.260 enron a group called open philanthropy a hedge fund guy named gaurav kapadia then there were a
01:46:32.500 couple women who i couldn't find anything on like i googled their names and just got nothing and then
01:46:37.580 this guy named John Wolfeus, who is on the board at a libertarian think tank and has abundance in
01:46:43.980 his Twitter bio. And then, Caro, you have Tyler Cowen's Emergent Ventures, headed by libertarian
01:46:51.580 economist Tyler Cowen and funded with grant money from Peter Thiel. Does the name Tyler Cowen ring
01:46:57.840 a bell, Caroline, by chance? No, it doesn't. Okay, cool. Tell me if it does after you watch
01:47:04.540 this video. Hello, everyone. This is Tyler Cowen. I'm delighted to be announcing that I'll be
01:47:09.740 joining Barry Weiss's Free Press as a writer and I hope also podcaster. I'm very excited about this
01:47:16.340 development. One thing that I find especially intriguing is simply that the Free Press is a
01:47:22.100 startup. Oh, so all these people saw that Zoran Mamdani was going to become mayor of the city and
01:47:27.300 they all like speed dialed Derek Thompson is the vibe that I'm getting. Let's check what Tyler's
01:47:32.260 been writing for the free press. Can you please read this headline for me? Oh my fucking God.
01:47:39.760 Okay. Headline. Why won't socialism die? Subhead. The simple explanation is that people like free
01:47:46.620 stuff. What's actually happening is a nationwide case of bad vibes. The picture is of someone
01:47:52.320 campaigning for Zoron. I'm like, they will do fucking anything other than come up with better
01:47:57.820 policies. Anything. Yeah, they really will. I would describe this as another attempt at the
01:48:05.520 closing off of real alternatives. And in this case, it is just manifesting in a multimillion
01:48:10.060 dollar media venture to shore up a status quo that most Americans have lost faith in and long
01:48:15.960 expressed their desire to move on from, whether by shifting for the right and voting for Donald
01:48:20.580 Trump or shifting for the left. And in the last couple of election cycles, especially liberal
01:48:25.860 politics have focused a lot on abstraction, ideas and values like freedom or saving democracy.
01:48:35.180 But the truth is that most people care a lot less about abstractions and more about material
01:48:40.700 improvements to their lives. And as we've seen, the Democrats have only had moderate success with
01:48:48.640 this approach. I think it is fair to say that since Donald Trump became an active player in
01:48:54.620 politics, that even when Biden won or Democrats did well in midterms, people were voting against
01:49:01.440 Trump more than they were voting for Democrats. And it is far too often that their answer is not
01:49:09.320 actually doing politics. All of this really reveals the emphasis on messaging. How can we
01:49:15.360 change our messaging to make the stuff that we want to do anyway more appealing to the electorate?
01:49:21.340 everything gets treated like a campaign strategy problem it's just a matter of convincing people
01:49:27.260 that before donald trump everything was fine and good and we just need to get back to that
01:49:32.600 it just makes me think of what kathy hochel said in that that statement earlier where she was like
01:49:36.480 we can't generate income by raising taxes and i'm like but wait what the fuck we can't right and
01:49:42.480 like how else do we do it like that is actually exact that's the one-to-one that's how you do it
01:49:46.820 right now the neoliberal argument is you lower them further and then people will be more
01:49:51.660 incentivized to partake in the illustrious grind of industry and that will produce more money well
01:49:57.920 we haven't tried that yet so give it a go take a whack at it but i think the bottom line is that
01:50:03.280 like the truth is staring us right in the face a system wherein everything was fine does not produce
01:50:10.440 Donald Trump, by definition, a person like Donald Trump does not get elected in a system
01:50:16.260 where everything was already fine and good. I thought that Grace Blakely summarized this
01:50:21.360 really well. She recently wrote something about this. And when she says liberals, she
01:50:26.400 is referring broadly to liberalism, again, as like the defining philosophical framing
01:50:30.880 of our time. And I think it's important to say here, like, it's kind of like I said in
01:50:34.760 the Womanosphere episode, liberalism has become so ubiquitous that people who essentially agree
01:50:39.360 with all of its fundamental tenets
01:50:40.900 and just want to, like, say slurs,
01:50:42.860 consider themselves conservative.
01:50:44.560 But for the most part,
01:50:46.260 whether you're left or right in this country,
01:50:47.780 like, you are liberal.
01:50:48.920 Here is Grace Blakely.
01:50:51.440 Above all, they loathe ideologues,
01:50:53.820 erroneously believing that their own views
01:50:55.920 are based on an objective consultation of the evidence
01:50:58.580 rather than a coherent ideological framework.
01:51:01.360 This oversight is what makes liberals so dangerous.
01:51:04.220 Their ideology is hidden and unacknowledged, yes,
01:51:07.200 which means that it is hard overtly to challenge.
01:51:09.360 You might think I'm overstating the hold liberalism has on Western elites.
01:51:14.380 The narcissism of small differences means that the pages of our major newspapers are full of liberals griping at one another, but the constant buzz of their minor disputes only underscores the fact that they agree on most things.
01:51:26.120 And the most important thing that they agree on is that things are, by and large, fine.
01:51:30.320 If things aren't fine, it's because some bad guy is messing with a system that isn't broken.
01:51:34.740 get rid of the bad guy restore normality hence the liberal refrain make politics boring again
01:51:40.860 yes okay this is oh wow she's such a great writer this is really unlocking a feeling i have had in
01:51:47.440 my brain but haven't really been able to put words to that feeling that like there are so many
01:51:51.660 assumptions built in and we rarely challenge any of those assumptions so on the note of appealing
01:51:57.780 to the center that you have to tack to the center you have to tack to the right to to get all these
01:52:02.280 supposedly persuadable, middle-of-the-road voters that exist out there, and you want to avoid
01:52:08.320 accusations of being too radical or being too progressive. Kara, how would you characterize
01:52:13.700 the Democratic campaign positioning in the last election?
01:52:18.780 Uh, I would not characterize it as radical.
01:52:22.860 They had Harris campaigning with the Cheneys. Dick Cheney was one of the most consequential
01:52:29.120 players in justifying a historically unpopular Iraq war, which ended up killing millions of
01:52:35.360 Iraqis for effectively no reason. In August, she said that we were going to have, and I quote,
01:52:41.640 the most lethal fighting force in the world. She reiterated her support for Israel, which by that
01:52:48.240 point, there were already credible reports from The Lancet and others that the IDF had already
01:52:52.000 killed over 100,000 Palestinians, a fact that Biden insiders have since admitted they were
01:52:56.780 fully aware of. Yeah, it's worth reminding people there was a full year. They were in charge for
01:53:02.220 the first full year of the invasion of Gaza. So this was not a small period of time.
01:53:07.280 The Democrats by September had totally adopted the conservative framing that immigration is an
01:53:12.460 issue that is predominantly defined by managing crime and chaos. And I would say to her credit
01:53:17.960 and in fairness, many of the quotes that I found when I was looking back to feel like,
01:53:21.900 what was she actually saying at this time? She did emphasize wanting the process to be humane
01:53:26.200 or that we needed to reform it,
01:53:27.660 which is obviously a huge improvement
01:53:29.400 over mass deportations.
01:53:30.940 But she still signaled an intention to crack down.
01:53:33.900 She said, quote,
01:53:34.840 those who cross our borders unlawfully
01:53:36.540 will be apprehended and removed
01:53:38.120 and barred from reentering for five years.
01:53:40.500 We will pursue more severe criminal charges
01:53:42.760 for repeat violators.
01:53:43.940 And if someone does not make an asylum request
01:53:46.120 at a legal point of entry
01:53:47.720 and instead crosses our border unlawfully,
01:53:50.140 they will be barred from receiving asylum.
01:53:52.300 So essentially what you're seeing is
01:53:54.140 the Republicans are just defining
01:53:55.920 the framing and the terms of all of these issues. Democrats used to at least speak to like, well,
01:54:01.200 we need immigration reform. We need to reform the system. She could have said, that's what I'm going
01:54:05.900 to do. But again, it became about crime and it became about legality and it became about punishment.
01:54:11.140 And what did they call her? They called her woke Marxist, radical liberal, radical Kamala Harris.
01:54:17.640 And my point in saying this is that they are going to call you a radical, woke, progressive,
01:54:23.500 whatever the fuck, no matter what. Right. No matter what. And if that is the case,
01:54:31.280 why not actually try some radical progressive shit? I've been going through the backlog of
01:54:37.820 two podcasts that I think are excellent. Number one, Citations Needed. Katie, you were right.
01:54:42.120 That podcast goes so fucking hard. It fucks. It's so good. Highly, highly recommend people
01:54:47.840 listen to it. And also 5-4, which also goes so hard. And Peter said something on a recent 5-4
01:54:53.600 episode. Add him to the list, by the way. Oh, yeah. Peter is on the fuckable Diabolical
01:54:57.800 Lies being a card. He basically talked about how the police force in America are so obviously
01:55:06.060 conservative coded. Like everything about our police force is founded in far right ideals.
01:55:12.360 And of course, no one wants to be the leftist screaming defund the police. But what he was
01:55:16.080 saying is the Democrats have basically created like this losing battle by never actually clarifying
01:55:21.060 that they do exist in opposition to how the police force operates. And the real loss here is not just
01:55:27.080 that you fail the chance to improve people's lives. The loss is that you are campaigning for
01:55:33.140 an audience who will never choose you. And the Democrats never realized that if you created an
01:55:38.580 opposition that just basically clarified, like, we are spending way too much money on this. Our
01:55:43.400 police force is militarized well beyond every other developed country very basic arguments that
01:55:48.820 could easily become popular that don't have to use the word defund but instead we are constantly
01:55:53.840 kowtowing to them because we think that that's how we can leech over voters but what we're
01:55:58.280 essentially doing is defining ourselves as like this very muddled version of donald trump's
01:56:03.680 clarity so if you're going to choose between a muddled version of neoliberal conservatism or a
01:56:08.840 clear one people are choosing the clear one and so you really should stop trying to do this like
01:56:14.240 vague nice girl version of what is essentially conservative or moderate bullshit policies
01:56:20.540 yeah and the clear one comes with cool hats and slurs and like americans love both of those
01:56:25.560 things we're really fucked on both levels cool hats and slurs america shooting a gun into the sky
01:56:33.300 Okay. So shifting into our conclusion here, I want to close today with a quote from a socialist
01:56:50.700 leader named Norman Thomas, who founded the Workers' Defense League. And he was answering
01:56:56.640 the question at the time, is the New Deal socialism? Because at the time, the Republicans
01:57:01.800 were calling FDR a radical socialist.
01:57:04.540 They were calling the New Deal socialism.
01:57:06.400 As we've already discussed, like, it kind of was.
01:57:08.860 Like, they did really borrow the socialist platform,
01:57:11.340 so that wasn't totally off base.
01:57:13.300 One socialist who actually worked for FDR
01:57:15.580 allegedly complained at the time,
01:57:17.840 we are trying to save capitalism
01:57:20.140 and the damn capitalists won't let us.
01:57:23.400 And I just found this quote unbelievably prescient.
01:57:26.800 He said this in 1936.
01:57:29.900 All the gentlemen whom I have named want somehow to keep the profit system. Socialism means to abolish that system. Those who want to keep it will soon find that out of war or out of the fresh economic collapse inevitable when business prosperity is so spotty, so temporary, so insecure as it is today, will come the confusion to which capitalism's final answer must be the fascist dictator.
01:57:54.180 In America, that dictator will probably not call himself fascist. He, like Mr. Roosevelt in his
01:58:00.260 address to Congress, will thank God that we are not like other nations. But privately, he will
01:58:05.380 rejoice in the weakness of our opposition to tyranny. Under the forms of democracy, we have
01:58:10.680 not preserved liberty. It has not taken black shirts to make us docile. Given the crisis of
01:58:16.460 war or economic collapse, we, unless we awake, will accept dictatorship by violence to perpetuate
01:58:22.300 a while longer the class division of income. We shall acknowledge the religion of the totalitarian
01:58:27.940 state and become hypnotized by the emotional appeal of a blind, jingoistic nationalism.
01:58:33.920 Against this fascist peril and its Siamese twin, the menace of war, there is no protection in the
01:58:39.980 New Deal, no protection in the Republican Party, less than no protection in the Liberty League.
01:58:45.700 Who of them all is waging a real battle even for such civil liberties and such democratic rights
01:58:51.680 are as ostensibly are possible in a bourgeois democracy. When Al Smith appeals to the Constitution,
01:58:58.140 is he thinking of the liberties of the Bill of Rights, or is he thinking of the protection
01:59:01.880 the Constitution has given to property? Damn. Something that you discussed in our capitalism
01:59:08.320 episode that I really appreciated is an awareness of how slowly economic systems changed. Like,
01:59:13.360 it took a good 500 years for kind of our, like, feudal serfdom period to transition over into
01:59:19.040 capitalism. When I read this, I am struck by how hard it is to have a firm grasp on history when
01:59:26.420 you are looking at it from, like, the anthill perspective of your own life. Because I can see
01:59:32.140 300 years from now someone reading that speech and being like, and he was right, a mere 70 years
01:59:37.440 later, this is what happened. And, like, we view those 70 years as so consequential and so much
01:59:42.720 happened in them. But really, it's like, this is kind of a one-to-one. And, like, we slid down this
01:59:47.120 hill, he predicted the hill, and now we're experiencing it. And it's going to be so
01:59:50.620 condensed when people view this time period. And if you think about even the beginning of
01:59:54.520 the neoliberal order that brought us to this point, that only happened like 40 years later.
02:00:00.700 Yeah, very short time period. It stopped working again pretty quickly. So the Democratic Party
02:00:06.600 has been trying to rerun the Bill Clinton playbook for the last 20 years. They want to
02:00:13.540 throw progressives and their causes under the bus,
02:00:16.080 tack to the right,
02:00:17.240 say that this is what we have to do to win.
02:00:19.120 That approach gave us Donald Trump.
02:00:20.980 We know this now.
02:00:22.140 And this has produced a system
02:00:23.620 in which the electorate constantly finds themselves
02:00:26.700 in this weird bind
02:00:28.220 where there is always a greater threat
02:00:31.180 because Trump and MAGA exist.
02:00:32.960 And so it's never a good time to question anything
02:00:36.100 the center-left is doing.
02:00:37.760 You can't criticize them when Trump is in power
02:00:40.160 like he is right now
02:00:41.200 because, well, we need a united front
02:00:43.180 to fight him. You can't do it when someone is running against him because we can't let Trump
02:00:48.580 get back into the White House. And by the time the Democrats have power, well, now it's too late
02:00:54.120 because you don't have any leverage anymore. And so much of this does come back to your theory of
02:00:59.160 power. How do you get people to do what you want them to do? You have to understand leverage. And
02:01:06.540 what I do not see from center-left voices, professional or otherwise, is an understanding
02:01:11.980 of leverage and just how much we have right now as Democratic voters. The classic line is, well,
02:01:20.080 we will worry about all these actual problems once our people are back in power because Trump
02:01:25.660 is worse. Will we? I'm sorry. Do we have any evidence? Do we have any track record of our
02:01:31.320 ability to get Democrats with power to do what we want them to do once they have the power?
02:01:37.400 Cue the Obama supermajority that did not codify abortion rights for women.
02:01:42.940 Thank you. Thank you. I am already starting to see, to your point, this messaging about Newsom,
02:01:50.600 who has not announced an intention to run yet, which is basically now isn't the time to do your
02:01:57.020 stupid progressive thing, to do your purity politics, to have standards. You can't criticize
02:02:02.160 this man or ask if this is really the person that we should all be mobilizing behind because we have
02:02:07.260 to beat Trump. The implicit suggestion being that, like, if you want to beat Trump, you need
02:02:11.080 to put someone like Gavin Newsom on the ballot. But he does have very funny social media right
02:02:15.960 now. That's true. And as we've discussed, I would also say it's a perfect example for people who
02:02:22.040 are so chronically online because all of Gavin Newsom's success is online. The election is three
02:02:28.320 years away. Now is precisely the time to hold their feet to the fire and say, no, we actually
02:02:36.260 aren't just going to vote for whatever charismatic person you put in front of us just because they're
02:02:41.580 good at TikTok. Do you know what I've been thinking about? Do you remember, give Ezra Klein credit
02:02:46.820 where credit is due. I think he was very, very brave to speak out against Biden and to push
02:02:51.320 for a new nomination. I think that was like extremely consequential and something that I
02:02:55.000 also appreciated that he did, which was again, very unpopular at the time. Again, note that I
02:02:59.720 just got to say, note Ezra Klein isn't doing this. I don't know. Give him a little credit
02:03:03.560 work credits do you're just saying this because you had a sexy dream about Ezra Klein last night
02:03:07.440 oh my god that was private
02:03:10.620 I told you that in confidence and now a mere 500,000 people who listen to this are gonna
02:03:20.940 know about me fucking Ezra Klein we didn't fuck I never he probably just took you to like a tasteful
02:03:26.540 it's all edging it's all emotional like some like waterfront restaurant in DC
02:03:31.720 that you guys talked about housing policy?
02:03:34.760 Do you want to know the real fucking dream?
02:03:36.740 He and his wife were renting out an apartment
02:03:39.120 to me and Riley,
02:03:40.320 and I was living above their garage,
02:03:42.360 and then he and I had an intellectual infidelity stint
02:03:47.680 that spanned months.
02:03:49.660 My husband was in the dream.
02:03:51.060 Ezra Klein's wife, Annie Lowry, was in the dream.
02:03:53.520 It was very complicated,
02:03:54.580 and I woke up feeling very conflicted,
02:03:56.980 and I told Riley about it immediately.
02:03:59.340 So, moving on.
02:04:00.780 Holy shit.
02:04:02.540 Give him credit where credit is due.
02:04:03.920 Take me seriously.
02:04:05.160 I'm a woman.
02:04:05.880 I'm a sexual woman who also has thoughts,
02:04:07.820 and you must accept me in my complex entirety.
02:04:11.520 I cannot tell you how much it tickles me
02:04:14.060 that your sexual dream about Ezra Klein
02:04:17.120 was a non-sexual, vaguely polyamorous dream
02:04:21.460 that involved, like, a more practical approach
02:04:24.440 to suburban zoning law.
02:04:29.020 Abundance.
02:04:30.780 You, congratulations, Caroline, you are a leftist.
02:04:37.260 That is amazing.
02:04:39.400 Building common ground.
02:04:40.880 It was my landlord.
02:04:43.600 Talk about a power dynamic fetish.
02:04:46.420 Wow, I live, breathe, eat, sleep leftism.
02:04:51.560 That shit is, that shit is so deep.
02:04:54.780 that shit fucking is in my mitochondria even my dream in which i like uh emotionally edge with
02:05:05.760 the neoliberal uh podcaster of our time there's still like a like a little bit of class consciousness
02:05:12.940 in there holy fuck okay oh my god i can't wait for some inevitable profile of me to come out
02:05:21.780 with the novel and the person who is assigned
02:05:23.540 talking to the editor being like,
02:05:24.700 yeah, I have to include it.
02:05:25.700 I just don't know how to write it in a paragraph.
02:05:30.200 I don't know how to summarize this, boss.
02:05:32.300 My stomach hurts.
02:05:33.300 Okay, okay.
02:05:33.820 Holy fuck.
02:05:34.560 So what I was going to say is
02:05:36.040 that summer, Ezra Klein talked about
02:05:39.080 having basically a conference
02:05:40.840 where a bunch of Democratic leaders
02:05:42.440 gave their case to becoming presidential candidate.
02:05:45.080 And over the summer,
02:05:46.520 Biden then endorsed Kamala Harris.
02:05:48.280 Everyone agreed like there was no time
02:05:49.940 to have any sort of like conference
02:05:51.460 or sort of DNCS convention, the time is now for them to do that. And I was actually thinking about
02:05:57.140 that in advance of this conversation. I have also seen this desire to fall in line. And I'm like,
02:06:03.020 we have nothing to lose. Democrats have no control in Congress. They're actually not
02:06:07.580 doing anything else. They're doing like kind of... All-time low approval. All-time low.
02:06:12.700 All-time low. You have nothing, nothing to lose. And the fact that we haven't had
02:06:18.200 any sort of like live broadcasted airing of thoughts to show that people have
02:06:23.320 different perspectives on how to approach is so stunning to me. And I think it really speaks
02:06:28.520 number one, to the lack of creativity, number two, to like the way that we are constantly in
02:06:32.760 a reactive crouch, but number three, and most importantly, that there actually aren't differing
02:06:38.420 ideas. I don't think that at this point, the Democratic Party would be willing to showcase
02:06:43.200 a differential of ideas. This would be a time for all of these leaders to start doing CNN town halls
02:06:49.860 in groups, in panels. So it's like once a month, you can watch 20 Democratic leaders argue about
02:06:55.140 stuff. You have nothing to lose. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. You're still losing.
02:06:59.560 I don't think it's fair to say that no one's doing anything different because in Pete Buttigieg's
02:07:03.520 defense, he did grow a beard. There is a singular focus right now, singular focus,
02:07:09.640 from what I have seen, on unity around getting the Democratic Party back in control by any means
02:07:17.560 necessary. So that we can deport the immigrants. It's better when we do it. There is effectively
02:07:24.440 no focus whatsoever on what they do with that power once they get it. And the reality is that
02:07:32.920 the social order, as we have known it, has broken down, okay? That social order produced Donald
02:07:39.600 Trump. It got him elected twice. When the status quo fails, when that social order crumbles,
02:07:46.240 fighting for the status quo is not going to save you. So I want to read a Wall Street Journal op-ed
02:07:52.700 from 2019, which are usually words that should send a shiver down your spine, but not today,
02:07:57.580 to set the stage. This was in July when some Democrats wanted to move to impeach Trump and
02:08:04.380 Pelosi was being very cautious about doing that. When people say that Democrats should unify,
02:08:09.780 the part they leave out is most important. Around what? Nearly everyone in Washington seems to
02:08:15.720 assume that progressives should shut up, accept their place, and unify around the status quo.
02:08:20.760 Think about what an arrogant and preposterous request that is. Progressive leaders,
02:08:25.300 including our representatives in Congress, should abandon all of our policy positions and sell out
02:08:30.400 our voters to please the Democratic establishment. Democratic powder to fight Republicans is forever
02:08:35.860 dry. Oof, great sentence. Detention centers without any constraints? Check. Defeating an
02:08:41.580 amendment to prohibit the Pentagon from housing kids at the military facilities? Check. Continuing
02:08:46.640 to let Mr. Trump run roughshod through a house the Democrats control is an abdication of
02:08:51.260 responsibility. Democrats have been surrendering to the GOP for as long as I have been alive.
02:08:56.840 Yeah. Yeah, I would add to that. Surrendering to the GOP, but also just surrendering to
02:09:01.540 corporate interests. And I think that that's maybe implicit, but worth stating aloud. But like,
02:09:06.840 that is also worth noting that like, the fatigue that anyone with a fucking brain would feel at
02:09:12.420 this point of hearing some person shout at you to just like get in line and we'll fix it once we
02:09:18.320 get there and then oh the congressional majority is never enough because oh there are all these
02:09:23.200 politicians constantly getting bought off and oh nothing ever goes through because we have all
02:09:27.220 these voting requirements and there are no percentage of people who are actually voting
02:09:30.480 on behalf of themselves some talking heads can like claim that it's for progressives faults but
02:09:35.860 like no one believes that most people don't think socialists are real like socialists occupy such a
02:09:41.240 small percentage of american life in any public sense that the idea that it's progressives that
02:09:47.780 are the ones that are holding people back because they're like writing in jacobin or sharing videos
02:09:53.000 on tiktok or hosting a very fucking cool podcast it's just laughable and i think it's always
02:09:58.660 important to like have the perspective like progressives are such a small faction mom donnie
02:10:03.680 did not win because there are like four million radical left people in new york city as so many
02:10:10.380 have claimed he won over districts that went for trump because he's campaigning on change it's
02:10:16.480 funny because socialists both occupy such a small section of the u.s electorate and also the
02:10:24.000 republicans think all democrats are socialists i feel like democrats think half of them are
02:10:29.060 socialists with this idea of like the progressives are the reason of the democrats can't win because
02:10:33.340 the democrats are it says basically like oh the progressives are out here confusing people right
02:10:37.840 yeah they're they're they're undermining support for the democratic party the implication there
02:10:42.440 is that were it not for people who had different views about what the left should be,
02:10:48.120 then they would be more successful in convincing everybody that their liberal governance has been
02:10:52.660 effective. And it's like, sorry, that's not what's happening. The undecided voter is not
02:10:57.840 reading Jacobin. They're not like, oh, actually, good point, though. I'm actually going to vote
02:11:03.080 for Donald Trump. This is also, can I just vent very quickly? This time last summer, I made the
02:11:09.020 stupid, stupid, stupid decision of talking about politics on TikTok. And something I was trying
02:11:14.640 to explain is something we are talking about in this episode, which is leverage, which is that
02:11:18.460 if there is ever a time to demand concessions, to demand promises, it is in the months leading up
02:11:24.600 to a presidential election. It's when you are dangling your vote. You are saying, I will not
02:11:29.020 vote unless. Now, again, anyone with a brain understands that you might end up voting even
02:11:34.240 if they don't give you what you want. I voted for Kamala Harris. I can say that comfortably.
02:11:37.840 I voted for her even though she didn't give me fucking anything I wanted.
02:11:41.440 But in the run-up, I thought there was a lot of value in certain people saying,
02:11:46.080 I need you to promise me something, whatever that is,
02:11:48.880 whether that is a stronger answer to affordability for parents,
02:11:53.340 whether that is Gaza, whether that is health insurance.
02:11:55.920 I actually demand something as a voter in this exchange.
02:11:58.580 And the feedback that I got from so many people was like,
02:12:01.600 you're confusing voters.
02:12:03.020 This is not the time.
02:12:04.360 We just have to beat Trump.
02:12:05.780 What do you think the purpose of these people having power is?
02:12:10.100 What is the compact between voter and politician?
02:12:12.620 I don't understand.
02:12:14.040 Are we just going to vote someone in so that four years later another Republican can win again?
02:12:18.600 Everyone is feeling the breakdown of the system.
02:12:21.760 And then they are just like communicating that frustration or fear or anger in different ways.
02:12:26.400 So I actually do think it's very rational now that I think about it.
02:12:29.380 I process that breakdown in a different way, I suppose, than people who are saying,
02:12:33.860 just get in line. We just have to stay afloat. So let's talk about leverage and forcing
02:12:38.540 concessions. The recent Quinnipiac University poll, which is a highly regarded polling
02:12:43.820 organization, found that 75% of registered Democrats oppose sending more military aid
02:12:51.080 to Israel. 77% of registered Democrats believe Israel is committing a genocide.
02:12:57.640 So not just leftists. I'm like, earnest question, though, for the 2% gap who believes they're
02:13:02.180 doing genocide but still supports the military aid. I guess that's AOC. Okay. The point is that
02:13:09.240 this is now a super majority position. The last time that Sanders introduced the resolution to
02:13:15.440 block the sale of offensive weapons to Israel in July, quote, offensive weapons, 17 Democrats and
02:13:22.020 all Republican senators voted against it. 27 Democrats voted for the resolution, which was up
02:13:28.440 12 from a similar measure in April. Why? Because public pressure is heating up. Because they don't
02:13:34.600 want to piss off their constituents, because people are loudly proclaiming we want this to
02:13:39.480 stop. Right. That is why I am skeptical right now of any Democratic voice that is not talking about
02:13:48.080 this. Because this is an issue where there is an almost unprecedented gap between the positions of
02:13:53.780 the people and those elected to represent them. There are numerous issues like that. I mean,
02:13:59.060 reproductive rights are like that. Gun control has super majority consent. But I think that what
02:14:03.980 has been effectively communicated about Gaza that is different than those two other issues
02:14:09.900 is the messaging around Gaza is also so obviously about money. And I don't want to diminish the
02:14:15.800 moral depravity of this genocide, but when you combine the moral depravity with your taxpayer
02:14:21.140 dollars and with the knowledge that I think a good amount of people now have, which is like,
02:14:25.860 so people in Israel have health care, but I don't. And that is why Gaza has become so popular is
02:14:31.920 because people are like, not only are we doing something horrific, but we are falling apart
02:14:36.760 over here and we're sending inordinate amounts of money to fund this. And I think that that has
02:14:41.500 been a very, very effective wedge. It's a wake up call. Yeah. It's a wake up call. And I think
02:14:46.120 some Democrats are finally waking up to that and going, oh, fuck, I'm about to get my ass voted out
02:14:50.740 if I don't do something about this.
02:14:53.100 So, yeah, I think it's absolutely asinine,
02:14:56.660 this idea that you can't make demands of politicians
02:14:59.360 because you have to, it's like,
02:15:01.620 okay, so we're going to get them into power first
02:15:03.260 and then demand concessions?
02:15:04.260 That's not how this fucking works.
02:15:05.660 In conclusion, I'm going to have you read
02:15:08.380 from a recent Andrea Longchoo book review
02:15:11.560 of Thomas Chatterton Williams' new book.
02:15:13.860 Oh, so the episode we were going to do
02:15:15.640 before I decided to do one on Taylor Swift
02:15:17.100 was about, we were chronicling the rise and fall of woke,
02:15:19.800 and I was going to have this.
02:15:21.400 So I'm so glad that you're doing this.
02:15:24.420 Same brain.
02:15:24.940 Oh, such a brilliant writer.
02:15:26.920 I love Arako Chamber.
02:15:29.620 But this book that she's reviewing
02:15:31.620 is basically about how everyone lost their mind in 2020
02:15:35.020 and got all woke and shit
02:15:36.360 and why everyone should just calm down
02:15:38.840 and embrace the goodness of liberal democracy
02:15:42.200 and all the freedoms and fruits therein.
02:15:45.340 This guy totally would pay for some woman's plan B,
02:15:48.800 like Venmo her for it after he left the apartment. That's the vibe I get from him. I'm reading as
02:15:53.240 Chu, not this guy. Another way to put this is that all social movements are also intellectual
02:15:58.440 movements. They both contribute to and rely on the ideological groundwater of society.
02:16:04.220 But the panicking ruling class wasn't just interested in flattening the encampments or
02:16:08.780 quelling the looters. It wanted to crush the ideas that these things represented.
02:16:13.800 This is what James Baldwin was getting at when he spoke of the spiritual state of America.
02:16:17.920 The political institutions of any nation, he wrote in The Fire Next Time, are always menaced and controlled by the spiritual state of that nation.
02:16:26.460 What he meant, I think, was that every time a person contests or defends a political situation, they are also contesting or defending the intellectual terms on which that contest is conducted.
02:16:37.900 You cannot fight without fighting about how you fight.
02:16:40.900 That is why Williams cares so desperately
02:16:42.820 about what the summer of 2020 made us think,
02:16:45.520 even if the protests manifestly failed
02:16:47.640 to achieve their objective goals.
02:16:49.500 It is also why liberal institutions
02:16:51.400 like corporations and politicians
02:16:53.040 were so eager to snatch up these ideas
02:16:55.420 and exhaust their potential
02:16:56.940 before tossing us back the husks.
02:16:59.300 What Mamdani's win suggests, however,
02:17:01.540 is that they did not get them all.
02:17:03.920 Oh, so good.
02:17:07.220 I fucking incredible so true at this moment things could change but it's worth noting that at this
02:17:13.320 moment the argument has not taken off so like that's kind of maybe like another way of saying
02:17:19.120 the mom donnie thing is like it is not clear at all you can go viral on tiktok however much you
02:17:25.100 want about how lefties are ruining your life and everyone needs to get in line behind gavin newsom
02:17:29.480 but a change be a bruin what what is uh hairspray you can't stop the beat are you a musical gal
02:17:35.460 game and watch musicals. Caroline, goddammit. Oh my god, Katie. Dear Theodosia has been in my top
02:17:44.640 20 for years. Anyways, the episode is over, question mark? The episode is over. Liberalism's
02:17:52.500 last dying grasp for narrative control is, it's not going well, but I'll tell you what is,
02:17:59.580 and it's socialists running for mayor. And you know what is also growing like wildfire is
02:18:05.120 the diabolical lies era so that's right motherfucker get on board kick neoliberalism
02:18:13.900 under our dirty fucking stilettos i'm going to stomp on your neoliberalism with my batons
02:18:20.640 kicky that's on biker's controversies socialism but rich yeah that's exactly i'm gonna i'm gonna
02:18:27.480 give that one to you guys on a silver platter whichever critique is currently brewing there
02:18:31.840 you go that's the critique socialism but socialism but rich okay the episode's over