Mayim Bialik's Breakdown - Is America For Sale? The Truth Behind Trump’s Meme Coin, Why Social Media Makes Us Feel More Divided Than We Actually Are & How Both Sides of the Aisle Are Wrong About the Deficit

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Jon Favreau, former Obama speechwriter, co-host of Pod Save America, and founder of Crooked Media and Vote Save America, joins us to break down the most urgent issues in U.S. politics 2025. Mayim and Jonathan unpack what “The Big Beautiful Bill” means for health insurance, the dark side of crypto, and the role of political outsiders in undermining trust in government. Plus: Jon Favreau’s take on the 2024 election aftermath, and why Democrats and Republicans are more divided than ever. From political hope to stock scandals, this conversation exposes what’s broken—and where we might still find hope.   Check out the POD SAVE AMERICA Podcast: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/pod-save-america/   Offline with Jon Favreau Podcast: https://crooked.com/podcast-series/offline/   Crooked Media: https://crooked.com/   Vote Save America: https://votesaveamerica.com/   Follow us on Substack for Exclusive Bonus Content: https://bialikbreakdown.substack.com/   BialikBreakdown.com YouTube.com/mayimbialik Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There is a real grassroots, rage, disappointment, anger towards all of our institutions, government, business, media. If you tell people that all of their problems are the fault of some other group of people, it's a pretty potent political message. Donald Trump thrives on that you have to choose a side. One of the reasons that we can't seem to get past the division has to do with the way. that media and information are consumed now. Now it's like every individual has their own personal, algorithmic IV drip of news and information,

making it really difficult to talk to each other. Politics becomes what matters to you personally, what affects you personally. Availability of health care, availability of abortion care. Is your community safe? Are you worried that there's going to be a mass shooting in your kids' school? If you hear politicians talking about democracy, Hope or even Donald Trump, that doesn't register or impact you as much as just, I want to live a better life and who's going to help me live a better life? The Congressional Budget Office says 10.5 million will lose insurance because of Medicaid cuts,

and another 5 million will lose insurance because they are cutting the subsidies people get for buying health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Authoritarian autocratic regimes gain power by pushing this narrative of us versus them. Prize. Beach Day. No excuses. I'm in. Give me five. With Bixolet Glide Razor, you'll have hydrated smooth skin that's ready to go on the fly. No shave cream needed. You can prep, shave, and hydrate all in one step. Thanks to moisture bars that hydrate your skin during and after shaving. Five flexible blades hug your skin for a close shave. Glide into smooth. It's your time to shine with Bixole. Buy now at Amazon and Walmart. Ready. Your skin looks amazing. So smooth and beach ready. Let's go. Life's journey is filled with change, growth, and exciting new chapters. Whether you're welcoming a new family member, stepping into a new city, or chasing after your biggest dreams, you need a ride that's built with more space for the grand challenges ahead. The Toyota Grand Highlander is made for those who embrace every twist and turn. With advanced safety features, innovative tech, and a bold, sophisticated design,

it's the SUV that adapts with you with room to spare. This spacious beauty seats up to eight, gives you up to 97.5 cubic feet of cargo space, and has a diverse engine lineup, available in gas or hybrid options, including the powerful 362 horsepower hybrid max. Plus, available all-wheel drive means you'll have confidence no matter where life takes you. Ready to take on your dreams? The Grand Highlander is more than a vehicle. It's your partner in embracing all life throws at you.

From daily routines to unexpected adventures, it's up for every grand challenge. Learn more at Toyota.com slash Grand Highlander. Toyota, let's go places. Hi, I'm I'm Biolic. I'm Jonathan Cohen. Welcome to a very special breakdown of essentially, do you like the country you're living in? There are a lot of complex topics, and it is very hard to distinguish between what one side is saying, what the other side is saying. One of the things that I've been focusing on so much is the divisiveness in this country, and it feels like it's only getting worse.

But our guest today literally makes a living out of trying to help us understand how there is more that unites us than divides us, while also really applying a critical eye to some of what's going on. And his perspective is democracy or else, which also happens to be the title of the book that he wrote with the two other Obama staffers that he hosts Pod Save America with. We're going to be talking to John Favreau. He was Barack Obama's head speech writer. from 2005 to 2013. He co-founded Crooked Media, where he's a co-host of Pod Save America. He's also the host of Offline with John Favreau

and host of the Wilderness, which we're going to talk to him about today. The book, Democracy or Else, How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps, and one of the things that I love about this conversation, which I hope you will love as well, is how much we talk about where common ground is, what are the things that we can actually do

to kind of maintain our sanity in what feels like an unprecedented time. And he also helps us really understand what is unprecedented and what is just sort of politics by a different kind of hat than some of us may be comfortable with. A few things that we're going to cover specifically. We're going to talk about Doge. We're trying to talk about the Elon cuts. Did they actually save any money? Is anything efficient happening in Washington, D.C.?

We're going to talk about the big, beautiful bill and the risk to Medicare. And is it increasing the deficit or is it keeping the deficit the same? Keep in mind, there's also a. tremendous amount in this episode about hope and what it looks like for you to fight for the America that so many of us love and want to believe has potential. And the risk to that potential in the terms of crypto, potential crypto scams, influence on government, what we need to know and how to make sure that whatever influence is happening, we can potentially regulate and put safeguards around.

Let's welcome to the breakdown, John Favreau. Break it down. Thanks for having me. Why do you have Don Favro's name? I know. Why does he have my name? Who came first? He definitely came first because I remember the first time I realized it, I was watching Rudy.

Okay. And at the end of Rudy, I saw the credits. I'm like, that's my name, but that's exactly how I spell my name. The French way. Yeah, I got introduced to him when I was still living in D.C. and working in the White House. But then when I moved out here, he was doing like a pop-up. for chef at this restaurant and invited me and my family to come. And so it was my brother, my wife, and it was John and his wife.

So we had like all the Favros together. Do your wives also have the same name? They don't, no, no, they don't. But I still get, I get his email once in a while. Oh, anything good? Yes, yes. I once got, I once received Bob Eager's notes on the second season of The Mandalorian. What?

That's amazing. Yes. You're like, accept it. I will integrate all of these. Me and Kathy Kennedy on the email. Yeah. And I was like, and I, you know, I've met Bob a few times. And so I was just like, I just responded to him like, great notes.

Thank you very much. And then I forwarded it to John. And I was like, I got your mail again. You are a Jonathan, I presume. I'm a Jonathan. But you never were like, I should be Jonathan Vavro because he's got the John Favreau thing there. No, I tried going by Jonathan when I was a kid. And my mother always wanted that, but it just didn't take it.

I'll tell you. It's very effective. I know you were getting a Jonathan, then. All right. Sorry, I just had to ask. Where to begin? We're so appreciative of everything that you do in terms of information and in terms of education. I think it's important for us.

We have people on many ends of all the spectrums here politically, emotionally. And I think something that's really been lost is the ability to have dialogue or listen to people. with possibly different opinions than you. And it seems that, and I've lived a long time. I've seen a lot of presidents come and go. There's something about, and it could be the social media of it, I'm sure there's many reasons. There's something about this presidency that is so incredibly polarizing

that it has divided families, stopped conversations, and broken up friendships and relationships in a way that I've never seen. What is going on with this level of divisiveness from where you sit? A huge part of it is Trump. as a figure, I think that, and basically Trump and what the Republican Party has sort of transformed into during the Trump years, which I think is, like, I don't necessarily think politics now is on a liberal conservative axis, like it has been for some time. I think that the Trump Republican Party is much more anti-institution, anti-executive. establishment, populist in a sort of right-wing populism. Certainly, I would argue, shades of authoritarianism, if not outright authoritarianism. So we haven't, we haven't had a

national political leader like this in the United States ever. I mean, George Wallace was like a regional candidate. So like this is new for the United States. I think that because he is a celebrity, an entertainer, a businessman that most of the country knows, I think half the country at least, the laundry or half the country, doesn't necessarily see him like obviously the other side. And so when people say, you know, he's a dictator or he's scary or he's offensive, you know, I think he gets some leeway from the other part of the country because, one, they feel like they know him and they think he's not as scary as other people. Two, there is a real sort of

grassroots rage, disappointment, anger towards all of our institutions, government, business, media, and I think inequality plays a part in that, growing economic inequality. I think America becoming a more diverse nation over the years plays into that. that. So there's a lot that goes into it. But I think that they, the one of the reasons that we can't seem to get past the division, aside from Trump, definitely has to do with the way that media and information are consumed now. And it's, it's social media, yes, but it's just we don't have this, we don't get the same information anymore. You know, like we used to watch three networks. And, and, and, and you could disagree with your neighbors over what you heard in the news, but at least you were

hearing the same thing on the news. You could disagree with what you read in the New York Times, but at least everyone was reading, sort of similar news at least. And then it got sort of, you know, balkanized into different bubbles. And now it's like every individual has their own personal algorithmic IV drip of news and information. News is generous for some of it, information at least, that is making it really difficult to talk to each other. And those conversations don't happen in real life as much offline. They happen online where you don't see the person. You don't know the person.

Sometimes the person is anonymous. And so... Sometimes the person's a robot. Sometimes the person's a robot. And so it's easier to yell at people, be mean to people that you don't know, that you've never known before. You don't get the nuance of their political position. You don't get the subtlety, the complexity of someone's political positions. Maybe they're left on one issue.

Maybe they're right on the other. But you just sort of see them as a caricature. And, you know, and it's just kind of snowballs. And more and more, we want people to be one thing or the other. Like this idea of nuance that they could have a position on one side for one issue and a position on the other side. It's like you're all in on one team or the other so I know how to attack you. Yes.

And I think that Donald Trump, thrives on this idea that everything has to be black and white, that you have to choose a side. And because that's because his project needs an us versus them for it to work. Can you say more about that? Yeah, I think because, look, he's done this from the beginning, right? Which is when he came down that escalator in 2015, it's, you know, there's real Americans, patriotic Americans.

And then there's, you know, Mexico's not sending their best. And there's too many immigrants. And then the left is extreme. First, they were just extreme. Then they're radicals. Now they're anti-American. Now they're maybe they should be deported along with the immigrants as well. And if you tell people that all of their problems are the fault of some other group of people,

then it's a pretty potent political message. And it's not as easy to govern when you tell people that they're, their problems are complex and caused by all kinds of different forces. And maybe it's no one's specific fault, but that we can come together and make life a little bit better through government, which is sort of hope of the project of democratic governance. And that's just not as, it's not as a direct message. It's not as sexy a message. And it doesn't rile people up as much. And so, you know, and it's not just Donald Trump's project. Like this is Victor Orban on Hungary, Putin and Russia, Bolsonaro when he was in Brazil, like all over the world throughout history, more authoritarian autocratic regimes.

They, you know, they gain power by pushing this narrative of us versus them. Solving complex problems does not work on a hat. No, it does not. It does not. And the frustration for why our problems aren't solved is real and legitimate because, you know, I was. I was in the White House for five years, and we arrived with the best of intentions. And I worked with people who every single day worked their asses off to try to do better for people and make life better for people. And they all had the right motivation. And we made all kinds of mistakes.

And progress was slower than we like on a whole host of issues. And that's, in some ways, that's the reality of governance. But it is that it's that frustration and the slowness of demotality. and democratic governance that within it contains the seeds of how a populist authoritarian project can thrive. Because the disenchantment with democratic governance and the progress that it delivers and the benefits it brings eventually builds and builds and builds. And look, in a country of over 300 million people that is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial democracy, that is even harder. That is a project that no one on earth throughout history has been able to. My MBialx breakdown is supported by Superpower.

We all know the feeling of leaving a doctor's office and kind of feeling like we didn't get anything out of the experience that was useful. Maybe they're like, you're fine. Drink more water. There's no real data. There's no game plan. This has happened to me many, many times, especially on the perimenopause journey. That's why we're fascinated by what superpower is doing. They send a licensed professional to your home or you can visit a nearby.

lab, one simple blood draw with over 100 biomarkers. That's way more than you usually get. It unlocks a true understanding of your body. Their app has detailed information on heart, liver, thyroid hormones, metabolism, vitamin and mineral levels, even environmental toxins. From disease prevention to treating that annoying brain fog or simply optimizing your gym game, superpower is the most comprehensive and advanced system out there. I've been super tired of constantly guessing or just trying to read articles online about what to do for health. Superpower gives you an actionable health plan based on personal results. It's a real game changer.

Plus, they have an on-demand clinician team to answer questions. Supplement or prescription suggestions can be directly bought through superpower, so you don't have to go anywhere else. They also have nutritional guidance, tips for lifestyle and behavioral adjustments. You even get your true biological age that you can track over time. Superpower used to cost $499. Right now, it's $199 for the full experience, which is much more affordable than anything else out there. Make this the year you stop guessing about your health with superpower. Superpower.

Not only did Superpower reduce their price to just $199, but for a limited time, our listeners get an additional $20 off with the code break. Head to superpower.com. Use the code break at checkout for $20 off your membership. And after you sign up, they'll ask how you heard about them. Make sure to mention my ambiotics breakdown to help support the show. Efficiency, and we heard this word in terms of Elon Musk's role, which I still don't, God's honest truth, don't really understand what happens. I don't I don't follow that aspect of the news like when I first saw the chainsaw thing I thought it was a joke like I saw a cartoon I was like oh that oh they were not it's not a joke so but one of the words though that we heard especially related to Elon Musk was efficiency that we're trying to increase and I'll I'll be honest as blue of a person as I am like nothing seems to get done and like potholes never get filled like I can't get a permit like put a bathtub in like everything seems to be to work slow on the city, state, and national level. So what is it? You know, is it that we just

need to be more patient or you just need to know like sucks to be you? My theory for years, and I'm going to, you're the closest I've ever gotten to pitching it to an actual political person. I think we need provinces. I think that there are too many people being governed. The country was not made for this many people, opinions and places. And I just think that we're not made for this. So anyway, that's my solution to efficiency is that we need, you know, more and also less. What is it about efficiency that people ran out of patience for and seemed to be ready to rush to Trump to solve? President Obama really cared about making government more efficient, modernizing government, bringing like better technology to government when he came into office. And I think some people

thought it was just sort of a political thing that sounds nice for folks who are either on the right or in the center who want more efficient government. Obama was like, no, progressives should want more efficient government too because our whole promise is that government can improve people's lives. And if that's going to be our promise, then we need to actually do that. But it's hard because like before every state of the union, we would talk about, right, this is the one where we're going to, maybe we can consolidate some cabinet agencies. Maybe we can consolidate the Department of Education, Department of Labor. Because, you know, in Congress, education and a labor, like one committee. and maybe we could have that at the White House.

So you start down that road, and then you get, like, 15 lawyers and 20 policy people who tell you, and political people who are like, that's not possible. Who are you going to get rid of? The Education Secretary or the Labor Secretary? That would cause all sorts of problems. So you can't fire one of them. And then also there's all these laws and civil servant rules and blah, blah, blah. And pretty soon you get some, like, smaller initiative that is not what you originally envisioned.

And, or the Affordable Care Act, right, which we start. in, I don't know, I think his first speech on that was... I tweeted about it. There you go. March of 2009, I think, was our first big speech on that. And of course, it doesn't, it barely passes. It almost is dead many times. Because it was a socialist plot.

Because it was a socialist plot. To this day, if you ask, you know, young people about it, they'll say, socialist plot. It's a free market. It didn't do enough. Well, of course it didn't do enough because we had 60 senators for a lot. little bit. Most of them are a good chunk of them at the time. We're from very red states, not very progressive. And every senator and every house member has a constituency that they care about. So they want this in the bill, but then someone else. So it's just a lot of people to deal

with. And it's really hard. The system is designed to not do really big things. It is designed for slow incremental change. Like that is the system that the founders. Like, I think we'd be a lot better off, honestly, if we had like a parliamentary system. I was going to say parliament, but I went with province first. It would involve a parliament. Yeah, a parliament system will make it easier, right? Like, if your party, you know, you're the leader of the party, you've got the

majority in the legislative branch, you implement your agenda. If it's good, great. People send you back. If not, they get you out, right? We don't have that system. And so I think that that makes it difficult for the left, the center

left to, you know, continually make the progress that people expect. Why do people expect so much? One, a lot of people struggling, a lot of people who can't afford basic costs of living right now. And two, we also live in an information environment where everything is immediate. So we're on social media all the time and we're watching news happen. News cycles used to be, you know, 24 hours. Now they're like five minutes. And so we expect things to happen. fast and governments not like that. So you put all that together and then someone comes along and is like, oh yeah, the system's not just broken and inefficient. It's corrupt. These people are screwing you over. I can fix it. Just me. I'm strong enough to fix it. I can, you know, smash some

heads and break some things and eliminate departments and just trust me and I'll fix it. And the way I'll fix it is to hurt or push aside these other people who are really the source of your problems. And so Elon comes in and thinks it's like another company that he runs. I mean, this is to your point about running things like business. And, you know, these tech startups, if you take Twitter down for a day because you fired half the staff and it's not operating, it's inconvenient for a lot of people, but it's not, you know, world ending. or at least it doesn't like screw someone's life up, you shut government down, or you eliminate parts of the National Weather Service, or you install someone in FEMA who doesn't know the hurricane season or any of those things. You do that then like you are jeopardizing people's lives.

Like even I knew there is a hurricane season. There is a hurricane season. I couldn't tell you when it is, but I'm not in that job. Right, right. There's like a meteorologist in South Florida telling people like last year I was able to tell you when the hurricane would turn this year. There's been so many cuts. I can't even tell you anymore because we don't know where things are. And that's important because people's houses are in the way of these hurricanes. Yes. Well, yes, and.

Yes, and that's the sort of practical, the practical essence of it. The more conceptual complexity is you want to believe that people in government know what they're doing and that someone's in charge that is moving things in a direction that hopefully will benefit people. I mean, that's spoken as a bleeding heart liberal, you know, like I'm... You want to believe that, but then government moves so slowly. There's no alternative. If you live in one of the blue states, New York or California, you see that endless red tape makes almost anything impossible. You can't build new houses.

you can't redo the house that you have. You can't, you know, like you're just mired in nonsense. And so we don't have the parliamentary system, which is why it makes sense when someone says, I'm going to fix this. But the reality of them actually fixing it, now we're into some nuance as to what's happening. And the media sphere is challenging that reality, making it very difficult to even understand, like go back to Elon on Doge. we're supposed to say what was the I don't know what the number was that was quoted but first he said two trillion then he went down to one trillion then he actually saved he says 165 billion it's probably less than that and then the bill that's coming to congress to codify the actual cuts that they made is nine billion so went from two trillion to nine billion so two trillion to nine billion and then there's rumors that you know there's all the secondary costs that reducing these people will have such as lack of tax collection

which is estimated at $400 million or more. And so, like, is it just impossible to have a balance sheet and do any accounting for a country this big and we should just give up? Because people are making pretty significant decisions based on math that seems totally made up and, like, the goalposts are moving all the time. How does anyone make any sense of this? this is what happens when you have only outsiders coming into government believing that everyone in government is either an idiot or corrupt and anyone could actually do this and anyone could fix this and we run businesses and we're entrepreneurs and so like these people don't know what the hell they're doing and so we're going to come in and fix things and then you get there and you realize how complex it is and that's not to defend the lack of progress but it's a little more complex than you think but then there's basics like you're going to come in and then there's basics like people were telling Elon Musk and Donald Trump and all the people who run Washington and many of them know this, that the real money, like if you're going to cut the deficit, if you're going to, you know, make government more efficient, you've got to go where the money is if you're going to do cuts.

And yeah, most of our budget, most of the United States budget is a defense budget, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest that we pay on the debt. That's it. That's most of the country. And all the other stuff that Elon was doing is like, just that represents a tiny percentage of the budget anyway. And he didn't even make that more efficient. He just fired a bunch of people, cut a bunch of government services, and then created some chaos. Created some chaos. And that was that. One of the things that I think, you know, I find so confusing is you can get people saying to

completely opposite things simply because of what party they're registered to vote under. So you can have someone say, this is a total disaster. and then you can have someone say it's a total success. And this makes me kind of cuckoo. It makes me crazy because it feels like why are we even talking about this? If you're just going to, if you, the generic you, if you're just going to make your decision based

specifically on the position you want to hold because it's who you want to vote for, then I don't really need to talk to you about it, right? But if we're having practical conversations, then I do want to know. You know, I want to know why the Democratic Party, you know, hasn't stepped up in the ways that so many of us wanted them to, right? I want to know if I'm really trying to understand what's happening. And I am allowed to have a perspective that I'm a liberal person.

I believe in supporting poor people, you know, all the things that I believe. But when it comes down to it, how do you engage in honest conversations without just shouting in a matchbox? I don't look I don't think it's difficult if people are sort of all operating on the same set of facts I think it's it's tough to do that now I know like personally you know our podcast is liberal people know we're not hiding it because we are former Obama staffers people know where we come from but I try very hard our staff does our other hosts do to make sure that even as we are offering our about politics, we are doing so based on facts and what is true. And we are willing to, if there is a success from the other side, I'll say it's a success.

I think that there should be some kind of a doge, you know, in government. When we got to the White House in 2009, we had gateway desktops. There weren't even laptops. And there was, because of the way the West Wing is, it was. hard to even get a signal on your phone. And so as a speechwriter who have to work a lot, I couldn't even go home and work on anything. I would just like sit in the office. And the technology is so old. And it's like, it's infuriating. You're like, this is the federal government. This is the White House. We should have the best technology. We should have the best everything, right?

We should, in that way, it should be run like a business. So I, and I do think that there are federal agencies all over the country with people who probably aren't doing as much work as they could be doing or positions that we don't need. There's not enough people answering the phone at Social Security. Certainly not. I wait a long time to talk to the home of my mom. Well, and like, you know, they're doing these Medicaid work requirements now and they're like, well, you know, you should work if you're going to get Medicaid and fine, but the reporting

requirements are designed to kick people off Medicaid. And the reason that they're designed to pick people off is because these websites, some of these websites for Medicaid, like they stop working at 9 p.m. You can't go, like an office is, if you're in a rural area, it's like 30 miles away. So you do, I deeply believe that you need to make government more efficient, work for people, more nimble, more technologically adept. So like, I'm willing to say those things. And I'm, like, and I'm also willing to say that if we're going to have a really hard conversation about how to reduce the deficit, we're going to figure out, we're going to have to figure out how to slow the rate of growth in health care because that's what's driving growth in Medicare and Medicaid. right and I don't want to cut benefits for people to do that but we do need to figure out how to make it sustainable for the long term I mean we're big fans of also not facilitating people getting sick in the first place the way the government subsidizes in terms of cutting the deficit and Medicare spending both of those are wrapped up in the big beautiful bill and I just driving here today was listening to two very different versions of reality about what is in this bill and what the impact

of this bill will be. This is the bill that Elon Musk left the government over in theory. Yes. Correct. Or, yeah, it is now very mad at. At least we know about that. Oh, he's so mad. Yeah, he's very mad.

So does it increase the deficit? Yes. Does it not increase the deficit, which we've also heard? This should be simple. Yes, I want something to be simple. This should not be one side says, the other side says, and where do we? So the Congress has something called the Congressional Budget Office. So we would say they are the nonpartisan scorekeepers for Congress.

So both parties- That's exactly what we need, a scorekeeper. A scorekeeper. So both parties send them legislation, and then they score it for how much it's going to cost, how much it's going to increase the deficit, what are the effects going to be on the budget. Just one point on this. Is it at all possible to be nonpartisan who appoints these people and aren't they going to get some form of kickback to then go to be a consultant somewhere? No, they're like... These are the most squeaky, clean people that have...

These are the most... They're just economists. They're like... They're civil servants, right? And I think both parties get oversight over the CBO. They're not. They're like just non-political people, right? And in forever, both parties have been like, all right, we wait for the CBO score.

And we, that's what it is. You know, we did that with the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, done that threat. You know, I think the first Trump administration accepted the CBO score. for their tax bill in 2017, 2018. This one comes out, and it's like, yeah, it's going to increase the deficit by a couple trillion dollars. And Republicans are just like, no, that's not real. And then the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, today said, well, if you go back

and look, not one CBO member has voted for a single Republican since 2000, which is technically true because not one CBO member has voted for. for a Democrat since 2000 either because they're not allowed to, they're nonpartisan and they don't support Democrats or Republicans. So again, what she said is technically true, but not really true in the spirit of what she was trying to say, right? So, and then look, the healthcare coverage thing is also kind of easy because the Republicans are claiming that they have about $400 billion of the savings that's going to ostensibly

reduce the deficit is coming from Medicaid. So how do you get $400 billion in savings for Medicaid without cutting Medicaid and cutting the coverage of Medicaid? They talk about work requirements. About 92% of the people who currently get Medicaid are either working or not working because they are a caregiver, because they're in school, because they have a disability. So there's like 8% of people who are maybe able-bodied and aren't working on Medicaid. You want to tighten up a work requirement for those people? you probably save a couple billion dollars, probably less. So the only way they're going to save as much money as they're claiming to save is by cutting all

these people off of Medicare. And sure enough, the CBO says 10.5 million will lose insurance because of Medicaid cuts, and another 5 million will lose insurance because they are cutting the subsidies people get for buying health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. So the nonpartisan agency doesn't have a media, to communicate these findings directly. So they get interpreted through whatever partisan channels then communicate. And so then everyone is left to say either lie blatantly and disregard the agency entirely

or spout the quote unquote truth from these agencies and then be accused of being liberal bias and you know, you have Trump derangements in Durham and you don't know what you're talking about. Regular media outlets will just report the CBO score. You can go to the CBO website and they have the source. score right there. So you can go see the score. You can also sort of suss this out by looking at who is objecting from within the Republican Party to various parts of the bill. So you have a number of Republican senators right now and members in the House who are like, no, no, no, no, they're lying.

This is going to increase the deficit. And we want to make deeper Medicaid cuts, right? Because they just care about the debt more than anything else. So they want deeper cuts. So you have a bunch of Republicans who are acknowledging that it does increase the deficit. And then you, you you have some Republicans, like your Lisa Murkowski's from Alaska, Susan Collins from Maine, a bunch of House members, Republicans in the House who are in very competitive races, who are like, we don't like these Medicaid cuts, and they are Medicaid cuts. So you do, you know, you can at least look to, if you are following the news, you can at least pay attention to some Republican members of Congress who have objections to this bill that are based in the reality of the numbers in the

bill. And if you had to put your money down, are they going to fold? under the pressure anyway? Most of them, I think, will. We don't know because, look, it's very hard to satisfy the concerns of the people who want deeper Medicaid cuts and the people who think that the Medicaid cuts that are there are already too deep. So you have to satisfy both those people, and they can only lose three Republicans in the Senate.

So if they lose four, the bill doesn't pass. I think that because it's Trump's only legislation, it's his biggest piece of legislation. and the way that it's set up, if they don't pass anything, the tax cuts the Trump passed in 2017, will expire and taxes go up on everyone. So there is a cliff at the end of the year where all these people know, like, if we don't pass any, now, they might end up passing something that's just like, oh, we'll extend some of the tax cuts for everyone, for some people. We won't do any of the Medicaid cuts, and we won't do many other cuts, and it'll raise the deficit and whatever. at least we stopped a tax hike. Maybe that's like their, you know, if things really go badly for them, that's their sort of like out. And this is the talking point that we hear. Everyone is going to, 67% of people are going to have their taxes increased. It's not that if,

it's because you will reverse the tax cuts that had previously gone into effect. Yeah. And they're trying to say like Democrat, if we don't do this, Democrats will are raising taxes. And the truth is, if it got to that point, every Democrat would come together to say, all right, let's extend the tax cuts for everyone making under, I don't know, $500,000. And let's just get rid of the tax cuts for everyone above that. And then, you know, we'll be fine with that. The theme is that there's nuance. It's not that everyone's going to have their taxes increased 67% of people.

There is another option that's not being spoken about. It's back to the black and white. If you don't do this, it's a threat. Yeah, these people, they are not even trying to negotiate with Democrats on this legislation in any way. No meetings, no offers, no nothing. Let's do this. Let's scare as many people. Let's rally. We have the numbers. We have slim majorities, but we have enough. So let's just ram it through

and not even bother getting the Democrats' advice or ideas on this. And then that's that. A lot of people, when you say these types of things, like they're not even talking to us. The rebuttal to that is, well, when the left was in power, they just did whatever they wanted. and they wouldn't negotiate either. Is that substantially different now? And if so, how? Well, you know, when Joe Biden was president, they passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill

that Mitch McConnell, like, appeared with Joe Biden at the bridge in Cincinnati at the ceremony after they passed it and said this is a miracle of this legislation. So, you know, they, we did when we were. Now, there's plenty of legislation we passed along. party lines, just Democrats, for sure. But I think when possible, you're more likely to see Democrats sort of reach out to at least try to get Republicans on board than the other way around, certainly in this administration. Maybe I think even in the first Trump administration,

you saw more attempts to at least try to work with Democrats on some legislation. Now they just don't seem to care at all. It's funny. That general theme came up a lot in the last election. You know, the joke, I don't know if I'm the first one who said it. But the movies that were out at that time were Barbie and Oppenheimer, remember? And I said, that's the, like, that's literally, who do you want to vote for? Do you on Barbie or do you on Oppenheimer? Because one was very, like, optimistic. And it was, it was bubbly.

Some might say too effervescent. And then the other, you know, choice was really this messaging, which, I mean, you know, I'm a Hillary person. So, you know, like, I had Hillary vibes of, like, what if we go high, right? what if we say we can work together and the country's not in the garbage. This country is made of incredible people with amazing stories.

You know, I'm only here because this country allowed my grandparents in, right? So many of us have these stories of like, this land is full of so much opportunity and while it's flawed and we knew it, it's a place where so many things are possible, right? That was sort of like one message. And then on the other side,

it was like America's in the dumpster. And like, you're a nation of people who need a new dad, and I'm going to spank you into submission. And a lot of people responded to that. But I think that that's sort of something that I remain confused about. I wanted to, and I want to continue to come at this from some sort of optimistic, positive lens. And it makes me really sad that not just that my person didn't win, right, or however people want to frame it, but that the sort of notion is like, we're a mess. it's all a mess.

What is that framing like and how do we see that then impacting kind of every decision and every conversation? I have come to think that the most salient divide in American politics right now is not necessarily left and right Republican Democrat, but the small minority of people in this country who follow politics closely and the large majority. of people who do not. And and this again is partly a consequence of people becoming fed up with both parties and politics in general and a politics that doesn't seem to be delivering for them. And it's partly because of the information environment that we're in. And people just sort of turn

away from the news because they don't know who to trust. And so they're like, and after almost a decade of Trump, it's like, I just don't want to pay attention to this anymore. So I'm just going to go live my life. So for those voters, which is most voters, even if they're registered Democrats or registered Republicans, the way they approach voting in politics is they're not even listening to those messages. And they're just saying like, okay, well, I feel like over the last four years of Joe Biden, everything got more expensive. And I don't like Donald Trump. But I don't know. I think I had more money in my pocket when he was president. And I know he says a lot of crazy things and probably does some bad things, but I think I'll be fine. And what's more important to me is that I don't

pay so much for groceries that I can afford a home, that I can afford rent. And I think maybe he'll be better on that. That's like the thought process of the median voter that flipped, right, from Biden to Trump. And I'm not saying that's everyone. It isn't. But there's enough of those people that that's what matters. And so politics becomes what matters to you personally, what affects you personally, right? And it can be economic, mostly it is. It can also be availability of health care, availability of abortion care. It can be, is your community safe?

Do you feel safe walking down the street? Are you worried that there's going to be a mass shooting in your kids' school, right? things that really affect your life. Why are you talking all about me, right? Things that really affect your life. And then when you hear, if you hear, politicians talking about democracy, hope, or even Donald Trump and all the crazy things he says it rallies, that doesn't register or impact you as much as just basic, here's how I want to live a better life and who's going to help me live a better life. That's helpful because I think it also, it removes some of the steam from the conversation. right, to be able to realize. And I think that's, you know, also it's a challenge, you know, living in Los Angeles where there's a real homogeneity, you know, in many cases. And, you know, there really was and has been this sort of notion of all those people must be evil or crazy or we shouldn't talk to them or we can't deal with them. But what you're presenting is, I think, a much more sobering and humble perspective on what is actually going on in this country, which is that a lot of,

lot of people are not constantly on social media scouring Trump's Twitter for this or that or looking at this or that. They're just kind of trying to get a sense of what's going to be right and they're willing to overlook a lot of things. If you look at polls and of who won and why certain people voted different ways, people who follow politics closely, Kamala Harris won them overwhelmingly. People who get their news from traditional media sources and even in like digital news sites, she wins those people. People who get their news from social media only, Trump wins them by a couple points.

People who don't follow the news or don't follow politics at all, Trump wins by a significant margin. So Democrats, we are all, all the media that we're doing, and I do this for a living, right? We're all talking to people whose minds are pretty much made up. And it doesn't seem like that because we also hear the other side and because there's a small minority on the Republican side who's following politics closely and engaging on social media and yelling at us. They have their own network.

They have their own network. And by the way, those people are much more extreme than the median Trump voter. What's interesting is so many people had these sweeping statements about the groups of people and we're trying to analyze why were they so fed up with the Democratic Party that they switched. Like, what was it about Trump that spoke to this population of people? And basically it's people who are like, I don't really want to follow it. And just I'd like more money in my pocket. And he may say crazy things, but like I need to feed my kids and have insurance. Yep.

And I, um, so I, for the last couple years, I do a podcast called The Wilderness about, um, the Democratic Party. We're still there. Just going to have to do another season now. Um, and what I do for that is, uh, I would talk to people who do focus groups of voters. And then I was like, I should just do these myself. So I started going around the country and doing focus groups. groups and sitting down with voters. And it's wild. And it's a hard listen for people who are sometimes for liberals and Democrats because they listen to episodes where I'm talking to these voters.

And they're like, how did you not scream at them? How can you stand these people? They're saying, that's stupid them. But they're not. I like, I really enjoy sitting down with them because these are people who are like just living their lives and they're very busy. And some of them are working multiple jobs and they don't have time to watch CNN or Fox or MSNBC. all day or they don't have time to read the New York Times. They don't have time to even be on social media a lot. Some of them genuinely want to pay attention to the news, but where they get their news now is from like bits and pieces in maybe there's a TikTok that pops up that has some news in it or maybe YouTube algorithm takes them to something that's new, right? Like this is not how we decide

who should be the president of the United States, but apparently it is. It is. It is. And but when you hear these people's political views, you realize that like voters are extremely. complicated people and the ones who don't pay attention are even more complicated. I was in Vegas with let's see I was talking to Latino men, a group of Latino men in Vegas who had voted for both parties before. This was before the 22 midterms. And at one point I always ask every group like, so what politicians do you like? Who do you like? One guy was like, you know who I like? I like Ron DeSantis and I also like AOC. Oh. This was before DeSantis ran, of course, against Trump, but it was I was like, you know, Florida, anti-establishment, outside the system.

And so he's not afraid to maybe say negative things about Trump once in a while or his party. And AOC's not afraid to like speak up and speak truth to power with Nancy Pelosi. And she's outside the system. And I kind of like, you know, and I'm like, okay, I kind of, I kind of get that. That's the new ticket. That's the new ticket to Santa's AOC. Well, but what it speaks to, and I think you can probably speak to this, you know, best in this room. And I'm sure many rooms.

what it speaks to is people have a deep desire to feel empowered and to have a voice in what's happening and also want people in power who can speak to that. Right. Like that's a, that's kind of like a human need that is devoid of political affiliation. Yes. And I think that in this information environment, people got very used to after the first Trump presidency, having a president for better or worse, and I would say worse,

who was in their face all the time. I said, I don't want to know what he's freaking doing. When I was a kid, I never knew what the president was doing. He was communicating all the time. And he was on Twitter all the time. He was on TV all the time. You couldn't get away from him. The middle of the night, I would wake up to be like,

what happened while I slept? But what's, I think what Democrats need to realize is, like, that's what people now expect from their leaders is constant communication. And the question is, though, can you have a democratic politician, hopefully several, who can communicate constantly,

but not in a reality show style? Well, and this was sort of the challenge for Kamala. I didn't want to know that much about what she was doing or thinking either, but you have to compete with that. And it became really complicated. And then people are like, she's tripping over her words

and she's saying the same thing and why is she saying that? Because the level, that's not what politicians are bred for, also. You know who's bred for that? Actors. Like, I am one. We're taught to bullshit for pay. Like, we're taught to make shit up and make it sound really real and convincing and grab

you and hold you. And I understand politicians have always been like, you know, I grew up with like the image of Richard Nixon of like, don't be anyone but this, right? Right. Like, I grew up with dreams of Clinton and then the fall of Clinton in my house because we're socially conservative, you know, bleeding heart liberals. So it was like, how could he do that to his wife, right? So, I mean, I've seen like all of these kind of like hills and valleys, but also that's not what that's not what I want from them. But pitch me the alternative because if they have to communicate constantly and the algorithm needs it to be inflammatory, how do you do anything else?

Yeah. So inflammatory works. Fear and anger work, right? I also think, think about the other things that go viral. Humor. inspiration hope right and I only I think fear and anger are you're saying the hope word you're going to make me cry I think I think I think uh fear and anger are more likely to go viral um than hope and inspiration but I do think there is there is a market for that I think there's you did say hope with a question mark it was the least convincing of all the words you mentioned I also think that I think that harnessing anger fear I think harnessing fear is bad harnessing anger if it is anger on behalf of people who feel that the government has let them down or hasn't seen them or ignored them, I think that's an important anger. I think tipping that towards rage is a problem, but I think

having anger on behalf of people is good to express on that. But I think that requires, like, again, constant community and someone who can communicate. Like we even, and before you had this need for constant communication, when Obama was in the White House, like every time we get into a jam, I know because I would be most annoyed since I was the speechwriter, but every time we were in a big, in a jam, someone would inevitably propose in a meeting, I think he should give a big speech on this. And then you'd get the like,

we need a race speech for the economy. We need a race speech for whatever, because that was how he. And so, but he could do that, right? And he could go up and give a big speech. A, we don't have a Barack Obama. B, it's not an environment where you just go and give one speech and it fixes things because that's not a,

everyone's going to see that speech, right? So now you just need to control the new cycle. Or like, I mean, AOC does this well, right? Like she is someone who you go on Instagram live for, you know, an hour. She's unfiltered. She doesn't seem like she's reading from it because she's not. She's a very authentic politician. I mean, love her or hate her. That's an authentic. That's an authentic person. That's the kind of person, you know, that, um, that many of us saw in Obama, meaning I saw an authentic. you know, when you said hope, like there was a feeling in this country of, at least, sorry, I shouldn't say that.

There was a feeling among certain people in this country that something was rising and there was a mobilization of people who were hopeful. This was the perspective. This was the angle that we were all gearing towards. And I hate to ask you these things because like you're not responsible for the entire administration. But you are responsible for understanding a time in history. Sure.

What happened when we could not galvanize that hope into a larger sustainable movement? Yeah. I mean, it goes back to what we were talking about earlier, which is the promises of a campaign collide with the realities of governing in a polarized time, now much more. but even then. And, you know, Republicans decided that Barack Obama was, at least some of them decided he was an illegitimate president. You have the T. And look, I also think some of this is not just on the Republicans. I think we had a financial crisis that was incredibly difficult to recover from and slow to recover from.

And I don't think that those, that was necessarily because of policy choices by Barack Obama. I mean, everyone talks about the bank bailouts, but like George Bush started those. And we just tried to keep the financial system afloat. But for a myriad reasons, like we just, it was a slow recovery. And that's hard. And it goes back to, yes, people are hopeful and they're excited. And they, you know, Barack Obama ended his presidency very well liked. And, you know, even by some Republicans.

But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people still hadn't, you know, their finances still hadn't recovered. And there's a lot of kids who graduated around then who didn't get jobs. And that's almost always, right, the predictor is finances and the economy and things that many of us don't really know how to even wrap our heads around, meaning we're just, we know what rent is, we know what our budget is, we know what our personal sort of needs are, but not necessarily how to balance that with those of the entire nation. This brings me to another very, very, very, complex issue that I think is painful to talk about that has a tail to it. So the idea that when Obama left office, the economy hadn't recovered, that's a very complex number of

inputs that are going to impact whether I get a job or not when I get out of school that cannot only be attributed to the actions of one human being. So another thing at play right now is crypto. People don't have the time to either understand new technology, or the implication of this, or the fact that the president now has multiple coins and a coin selling operation and like the, let's slow this all down for a second because here's why we need to talk about it, in my opinion, is that it has a long tail with many implications that can come. And we could be three, five, seven years in the future and realize the worst version of this is that the economy no longer has the trust of the general public and investors don't

want to put their money in markets because the level of corruption and people getting rich off of insider trading has exploded. So like that's the long tail. Yeah. Can you walk us back and start to someone who hasn't been following this to sort of ease us into what the risk is here or what's happening and what the risk is here? I'll try to separate it out because there's sort of the crypto industry writ large, which there are, you know, good arguments. for we got to regulate it way more than it is. There's also arguments for like, this is why crypto is valuable and at least one form of banking and currency that people should be able to use, right?

So like, I think there are fair arguments on both sides there. But the meme coin that Donald Trump has. And the exchange? Right, that he's, yeah, that they have created. Basically, this, Donald Trump is, Donald Trump has created this, this. this meme coin, this Trump coin that has no intrinsic value. It is basically just what investors decide the value is. It's like a trading card, basically.

And the art was potentially developed for someone else before he got it. Is there any truth to this? I heard this, but I don't know enough about that story to really. But yeah, I heard it. It was like, I think it was Sylvester Stallone. Correct. That's what I heard. And I haven't even gone deep into what the art is, but supposedly there's pictures of him, like,

with just all manner of action hero poses that you would be like, you could slap on Sylvester's face to that and you'd be like, that would make sense. So the Trump family owns most of the Trump coins. They also make money every time there's an exchange of the coins on the transactions, right? And so if you are, if you want to curry favor with the Trump family, you can buy a bunch of Trump coins. And now the Trump people will say, well, we don't know.

True. But the people who are buying them tell them. And in fact, say it very publicly. And the way this works on a policy level, when I believe there was like a lumber company that was trying to avoid, that was going to get hit pretty hard with the tariffs on trucking. and they decided to buy a bunch of Trump coin and then put out a press release

saying that they bought a bunch of Trump coin and also that they hope that the tariffs can come down. Now, it didn't work for them because they want other tariffs. But this is what's happening. That's like one example. But it did work for Jesse Powell. It did right.

And it worked for who was the Binance guy. Yeah, this guy who was Justin Sink, who I believe was under investigation, SEC investigation, and then he bought a bunch of... 75 million. I forget if it was Jesse or the finance. Yeah. You're seeing this happen now, right?

Which is people who are either in trouble or want to or need a policy from the Trump administration or need some kind of a favor will either buy the Trump coin or just go to a dinner, pay a bunch of money to go to a dinner with Trump. Trump does a lot of things that other people do. He just does them without caring what people will think about it, meaning that is something that happens. He says a lot of things. He believes a lot of things.

Like anyone who thinks that, you know, their political party has a squeaky clean, you know, untarnished candidate is mistaken, you know. And even those of us who believe so devoutly in Hillary or in Obama, like, that's true, too. they're humans and they're human politicians, right? So what do you say to people who would say, okay, Trump is doing a disgusting, blatant thing, but other politicians do it in other ways.

They're just sneaky about it. It's widely known that Nancy Pelosi and her husband beat the market in ways that could never possibly eat. And you're buying favors left and right. Like, is it, is, I mean, I'm happy to be wrong here, but is that just politics and he's just so unabashed about it? He's better at it. It is not politics.

It, we, I mean, some of the things that they do in this White House, like, we get to the White House. We had ethics trainings that was like, you can't even accept a lunch that's over $50. What is that just for staffers who they're trying to put a nice mask on everyone else? And then the people who are actually in positions of power are just stuffing money in their pocket? Well, they have to do financial disclosures. And, right, if you're running for office. And so you're very public. And in fact, I think if you are an elected official, you are, it's easier to know if someone, look, because you're just so public and your finance set to be public, right? Or at least a lot of them, there's a disclosure. But here's a good example. Bob Menendez, former senator from New Jersey. Oh.

The Biden Justice Department, the Democratic president, Justice Department investigated him and found him guilty of just like accepting bribes, gold bars. It's really crazy. Just really corrupt. It was really, super corrupt. And he gets. convicted, right? So that's justice. Democrats go after one of their own, right? And this week, Bob Nendez is like, you know what? I just want to say, I think that I agree with Donald, with Donald Trump that the Justice Department under Democrats is weaponized because I think Joe Biden's Justice Department went after me because I didn't support Barack Obama on the Iran deal and I didn't support his Cuba opening. And I think that that carried over to the Biden administration. and he's doing it because he knows that it doesn't matter if you're...

Donald Trump is bipartisan when it comes to pardoning corrupt politicians. All you have to do is tell Donald Trump he's wonderful, pay him, do some favor for him, pledge loyalty to him, and you'll get a pardon. This is what I mean, this is what they did to the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, right? And the way they did it with him is, okay, we won't prosecute you. and but we're not going to dismiss the charges altogether so that they can't come back. We're going to have them hanging over your head and now basically they own him. I mean, it's very effective. Well, because the only thing that really stops this, in the Constitution, the mechanism to stop this kind of thing is impeachment.

And it doesn't seem to work anymore. We're just Republicans are not going to, they're protecting him. They can't, they won't impeach him. And the Supreme Court said that any act that you do that could be construed as potentially an official act, even if it's criminal, you know, you get a pass. Another argument people make is that how different is it than just large donors used to be? You know, these dinners, politicians spend most of their time going around trying to collect money for the campaign, even when they're not campaigning. So it's not that different. I want you to answer that question, but also just a few other examples.

Pam Bondi has reportedly sold $1 to $5 million of Trump's stock right before the Liberation Day tariffs happen. And there's a handful of others that have sold stock at very specific times right before announcements hit that would be almost unprecedented in terms of the accuracy of their timing to either short Tesla or gain favor in ways that have enriched. them. Yeah, I mean, the solution there is members of Congress and their families just shouldn't be able to just trade stocks while they hold public office. Just that's it. Bipartisan. Bipartisan. That would take care of the Pelosi thing. That would take care of the Pam. Or if you're a cabinet official like Pam Bondier and the administration like that, should just be banned. Just increase their salary. Make it a very enticing salary so that you're just unable to make money outside of the office. And there is a bipartisan bill to do that and just not enough support right now.

But it should absolutely happen. Where is the place for you of hope? You know, even the title of your book, right, Democracy or Else. I was. We're firmly in the or else camp right now. That's what I was wondering. Where is sort of your, you know, where's your framework for the work and advocacy that you do and also your kind of personal perspective on is there still hope? Yeah, I'll be honest. I am, you know, I've been a

very hopeful person for a long time and part of it is working for Obama. Part of it is just the reason I went to work for Obama in the first place. That's just how I am. I feel like that's being tested now in a way that it hasn't been in 44 years I've been alive. But I still think that for all the damage that's being done right now, for the threats that. that we face right now. You know, it goes back to that, the focus groups I was talking about. Like people are, most people in this country are just like good people, flawed people, trying to go about their lives, trying to like help their families, raise their families,

and want to be good neighbors, want to be good friends, want to be good citizens. And I think that people are persuadable if we can somehow get out of the, these online spaces that are very unhealthy and start, you know, like I'm a firm believer in grassroots organizing. And if you've ever been on doors for a campaign, it can be like really frustrating and it's harder and harder. But those types of conversations, and I don't even know door knocking is the best way to do it anymore, but those types of in-person real-life conversations, I've had them with people who are from the other party. And I've been, seeing people change their minds, right? It can happen. And I also, but I think what it, what it takes is

people who are willing to step up and get involved in public life and be willing to show some courage in how they communicate. Like I, my challenge now with a lot of Democratic politicians is because everyone has been so shaken by what has happened over the last, 10 years, people have stopped trusting their instincts and they are so looking for the solution, the answer, the right slogan, the policy that will unlock the majority, that it sounds like Democrats are like Democratic politicians are like reading the stage directions all the time, doing a lot of like analysis of the voters of different messages here and there and they're afraid. Everyone's afraid. And so they're not just saying what they believe. And what I,

what I want people to do, people in power especially, something happens in the news. Donald Trump does something. Someone else does something. Like, don't read social media first. Don't turn on the news. Don't talk to your advisors. Just, like, sit with it yourself and think about how it makes you feel and what you want to say about it. And then just, like, operate from there. Because people have very finely honed bullshit detectors in this country. And people have every reason to be, skeptical and even cynical because of politics, not just because of Trump, but because of everyone else. And to break through that, you really got to just speak from a place of authenticity and what you actually really believe. And you know, you get that a lot from younger generations,

and I just hope that, I have hope that people in this country can still make a difference, can still, like, persuade people. of the things that I appreciate that hope. And I also know that one of the things that has been so divisive for the Democratic Party in particular is something that I really think, you know, Trump kind of incubated this notion that the far left speaks for all of us or all of the Democratic Party or all liberals, right? Can you talk a little bit about the conflation of the far left? And, you know, in many cases, things that are quite extreme, you know, meaning just like you said that Fox News is really an extreme end of the spectrum for Republican voters, it seems that a lot of

the things that are really on a pretty extreme, you know, end of the spectrum for those on the other side really got, you know, first of all, incubated, I think, by Trump and really exploited. And I also don't feel like the Democratic Party did its best to distinguish itself from some of that. Can you speak to that? Because that's a place where a lot of people feel like I had hope, but if this is what they think of us, right, how can I align with this? When you have, and this is the case throughout history, when you have an authoritarian threat, right, the only way to beat that back is with the broadest possible coalition. And countries fail and government and democratic government's fall when the center right is divided from the center left is divided from the far left

and they're all fighting amongst each other and then you know the authoritarian's party which usually does not have majority support at all ends up winning and so for since 2016 2017 the democratic project has been to build a coalition that spans from aOC and even for their left to Joe Manchin and the never Trumpers who used to be Republicans. And that is a big, big coalition. And it's really hard to keep it together. And so when you have people on the extreme far left, oftentimes the instinct from folks on the center left is not to push them out of the coalition or call them out because it

will increase divisiveness. That said, you've got to have your lines, right? And I do, this is also an online phenomenon, right? Which is like I have come to know organizers, people who've actually knocked on doors, been on campaigns, worked for causes who are from the far left to the center right. And the big division is not ideological. It's with the people who've actually done the work of trying to knock on doors and persuade people

versus people who perform politics online mostly and have never really had to sit down with someone and try to convince them. And it also is also the difference between like there's a place for marching and protest, but marching and protest also doesn't require you to sit with someone. No, in many cases there's a refusal to sit with someone

that they, you know, presume does not agree with them. And I think that's a problem on the left, not just strategically, but it has to do with how we view the world. It has to do with our ideology because part of, I think, being progressive or liberal is believing in pluralism. And pluralism requires you to, you know, we talk a lot about diversity of identity and race and religion and socioeconomic diversity. but we also have to respect diversity of ideas and politics and ideology. And we don't have to play nice with every Republican or people that we don't agree with. But we have to learn to live with them in this country of over 300 million people because even if we win, they're not going away.

We don't want them to. Maybe Donald Trump and his party wants people to go away and is trying to deport them. but that's not our view of the world because if we start picking and choosing who, you know, who needs to get out of the coalition, who can't be here, who's not American, then we're like them. And we're not just like them in style. That's their ideology. Our ideology is we can have a country with this many people who are this different and believe different things and come from different places.

And yet somehow, even with all these differing views and people, like we can live together in peace and relative prosperity. That's it. That's the project. And so if that's our North Star, then we have to make sure our actions reflect that. And if whether you're far left or center left or center right, if your actions and the way you approach politics doesn't reflect that ideal of what this country should be, then you should think about whether you're really living up to the ideology and the values that you profess. And it's not only about rejecting the right, It's also about rejecting factions of the left who may not use the right terms or have the same ideology like the far, far left has become so divisive as to divide amongst themselves. I think that we went through a period of that that is now waning.

I think that's a good thing because, you know, there is a difference between trying to persuade people that, you know, trying to open people's minds. to experiences, identities, people that they have not encountered before. And to get them to accept those people, right? Like, there's in between that. And if you encounter someone who hasn't had those experiences, shouting them down or scolding them or making them feel bad. And not just from like a people should be nicer kind of stance, but like just brass tax politics.

Like no one ever convinced anyone to join. a movement by yelling at them or scolding them like give them snacks you're right like the the point is to expand your movement and expand your coalition that's how you win power and you don't do that by just screaming at people and yelling at people and in challenging their motivations and calling them evil and accusing them of things like that's just it might feel good to you it might feel good to the people who are in your movement, but it is self-defeating as a political strategy. And it always has been. Was there anything that you learned out, you know, by sitting down with people that sort of was beyond the fact that most people aren't thinking about these things? Were there insights to be

gleaned there? The other thing that you hear in these focus groups, right, when you hear when you sit down with voters, and it's interesting because you get this whether, you know, I sat down with Latino men in Vegas and young black professionals in Atlanta and Obama Trump voters in Milwaukee. And the common threat is just this feeling that the government has left them behind and that government is not listening and that the people who represent them don't care and that they are either stupid or corrupt. And when you hear this enough, you start to understand where Trump came from. and you start to understand where, you know, RFK Jr.

And all of these sort of anti-institutional maybe seem like cranks to us. But for a lot of people, it's just like, look, I don't trust the system right now. And I think Democrats for a long time have responded to that by saying, no, no, no, no, trust the system. Please. It's important. Instead of saying, you're right not to trust the system. we're going to reform it. They want to tear it down. Well, that was a huge challenge with Joe Biden at all, meaning so many people were kind of like, what's happening here? Why is this our candidate, right?

And what it was met with was you're a bad patriot, you know, you're not, you know, supporting your party and your country. And I think that was some of the confusion that a lot of people had, um, was. was not so much me wanting to analyze why people didn't or weren't ready for a woman president or a president of color, you know, in the form of Kamala Harris. But to be able to say, if I don't feel like I'm being told the truth, what else can I not trust? And it's almost like many people chose the unknown that they couldn't trust over what they knew they couldn't trust. I think the problem is a lot of Democrats, a lot of people who don't want Donald Trump to be president

and are very concerned that he represents an existential threat to America, right, have been driven by fear for the last decade. And as I mentioned earlier, you want this big coalition, this big tent coalition feedens. We all got to keep it together. And if you're driven by fear, then, you are likely to tell yourself that maybe saying, you know what, Joe Biden, he's fine, you're just being, he's not that old, he's okay. Inflation, it's not real.

That's just the media talking about inflation. Look at these economic statistics. They're great. I don't know what you're talking about. That's just a media invention. That's a Republican invention. You're more willing to do that because you're like, well, the most important thing is that we beat Donald Trump. My view is, yes, the most important thing is that we beat Donald Trump.

to do that, people have to trust you. And you cannot tell people that they are seeing something or not seeing something that they see or not hearing something that they hear or not experiencing something that they are experiencing in real life. You cannot argue people out of their feelings or out of their reality. And I think that the Democratic Party over the last several years tried very hard, or at least some Biden officials and some Democratic Party insiders, felt tried very hard to convince people that Joe Biden was fine when most of the country was saying, no, no, no, he's too old to run again, even people who liked him. And same thing with inflation, right? And so going forward, I think you're right, like anyone who wants to defeat Donald Trump or defeat his movement or win, you have to start from a, yes, it's scary

and you can be driven by fear, but that fear can't lead you to a place where you are willing to lie or not be, forget about lie, just not be forthright about the reality of the situation and what people are actually seeing and hearing in their own lives. When you're not focused on politics and producing 15 podcasts a week, how do you spend your time? He was hopeful enough that he had children. That was it. That's it.

I used to have hobbies. I don't have any hobbies anymore. When I am not working or thinking about politics, I am with my four-year-old and my one-year-old and my wife. and just, you know, we're in it with a one and a four-year-old. So we're just trying to get through that. And honestly, it's a great break from politics because I have learned to sort of put my phone, like I come home from work, I put my phone in my office at home, and then I go have dinner with the family and just try not to not to think about politics,

which is nice. It's a very nice break. Thank you for helping us think about politics. Absolutely. Thanks for having me. Very helpful to sort out everything from both sides. and we appreciate your perspective. Also, really, really great reference book to have to keep coming back to, meaning like it was a great

read, but I also really enjoy being able to use it as a reference point. And really great conversation starters also for young people. I have an almost 17-year-old and a 19-year-old, and so very helpful to be able to frame it. So appreciate that. And also, if you have not checked it out, check out Pod Save America. Where else can people find you? I also have a podcast called Offline with John Faberow about the Internet. breaking our brains and the wilderness we talked about. And then we're on YouTube, Pod Save America,

so check it out. Amazing. Thank you. If you follow us on Substack, you'll be able to hear a little bit more analysis from this episode. So we recommend you go over to Miami-Bi-Lex breakdown on Substack, so we can continue the conversation with you over there. From our breakdown to the one we hope you never have. We'll see you next time. It's Miami-Bi-Lix breakdown. She's going to break it down for you. She's got a neuroscience PhD or two. One fiction.

gonna break down