On with Kara Swisher - Pete Buttigieg on Biden, Trump, Gaza, and His 2028 Presidential Plans

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg is on the shortlist of Democrats expected to make a run for the White House in 2028. Six years ago, the then-mayor of South Bend, Indiana, burst onto the national political scene as the first openly gay major presidential candidate. His centrist appeal and platform of good governance helped him win the Iowa Caucuses, edging out independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and then-former Vice President Joe Biden. But should Buttigieg choose to run again, he’ll face a much more fractured Democratic electorate that’s still divided over Gaza, the 2024 election, and the best strategy to counter the MAGA movement.   In a live conversation recorded at the University of Michigan’s Rackham Auditorium, Kara and Pete talk about his concerns over how the Trump administration is using the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk to crack down on free speech; why he and other Democrats struggle to speak clearly about the war in Gaza; and his vision for a post-Trump America. Buttigieg also weighs in on whether he is, in fact, planning to run for president again in 2028. Thanks to the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy for hosting this conversation.  Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm starting to agree with Tucker Carlson on this fake gay thing. No, I don't. Chaston has threatened my husband has threatened to have my gay card revoked so many times. This is just going to be the latest. We're going to definitely have to report you after this one. Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Box Media Podcast Network. Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Pete Buttigieg, the former U.S. Secretary of Transportation and former Democratic Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg burst onto the national scene as a 2020

candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he's on the short list of Democrats expected to make a White House run in 2028. But if he chooses to go for it again, he'll face a much more fractured Democratic electric than he did five years ago. The party is still divided over the war in Gaza and U.S. support for Israel, the reasons behind the Democratic Party's waning support among rural, working class, and minority voters, and the continued fallout from Biden's decision to run again in 2024. I've interviewed Pete Buttigieg several times, including when he was on the upswing and also post his run when he was Transportation Secretary, so I've had a lot of insight into his development over time, and he still remains one of the

most interesting candidates around in the Democratic field. He's also found a way to reach across the aisle in a way very few others have. We recorded this interview on Wednesday, September 17th, just hours before the Atlantic reported on a second excerpt from Vice President Kamala Harris's upcoming book. In Ed Harris says Buttigieg was her first choice to be a running mate, but she decided it would be, quote, too big a risk for a black woman to run with a gay man. Speaking to political Thursday, Buttigieg said he was surprised. by Harris's commons, and added that he believes in, quote, giving Americans more credit than that. Ouch.

All right. Let's get into my conversation with Pete Buttigieg. Our expert question comes from former Democratic-turned-Independent West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. The interview with Buttigieg was recorded in front of a live audience at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. Thanks to them for being such great hosts. So stick around. Support for On with Caraswisher comes from Sacks Fifth Avenue. Sacks makes easiest shop for your personal style. Falls here, so it's time to invest in new arrivals you want to wear again and again, like a relaxed Prada Blazer and Gucci Lovers,

which you can take from work to the weekend. Sacks makes shopping feel customized to you from in-store stylist to their website Sacks.com, where they show you only what you like to shop. They'll even let you know when your arrivals from favorite designers are in or when something you've been eyeing is back in stock. So if you love a personalized easy shopping experience, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the best fall arrivals and style inspiration. Support for this show comes from Censor Tower.

Smart marketing teams use Censor Tower to outperform their competitors. Do you? While you're stuck waiting on results, your competitors know what ads are working and where. They're saying which apps are growing and which audio. audiences are converting and which trends are exploding. Censor Tower gives you digital advertising, mobile app, and web insights so you can move faster on your way to take market share. You can join global leaders like Procter & Gamble, Duolingo, and Activision to get insights

that make an impact on your marketing strategy. Learn more atcetower.com slash box. Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door, expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like tea time you. Or this tea time you. Or even this tea time you.

Said you hear about Dave? Or even tea time, tea time, tea time you. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great. Thank you for coming on. I really appreciate it.

I have lots to talk about. We're going to talk about the State of the Democratic Party, gerrymandering, President Trump, the recent assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, and a range of things. And there's a lot to talk about, so we're going to dive right in. And I will say, I'm really enjoying your train daddy look.

Those of you who know know what I'm talking about. You know what I'm talking about. You're setting a tone for our whole time together. Exactly. Yeah, yeah. Do you know what I'm talking about? Actually, no. Oh, my God.

It's the Gilded Age, Train Daddy. Okay. He's an icon for gay men, just so you know. Okay. I believe you. Okay. So let's get into serious issues. I'll send you.

I'll send something. Okay. So it's been a week. I'm going to get more serious since Charlie Kirk was killed. you've condemned as killing, as most leaders in the Democratic Party have done, and you talked about the need to turn the rhetoric around. But the opposite has happened, especially because, including President Trump, Vice President Vance,

are sort of ginning up anger continually. So give us a sense of where you think the country is right now and where it's headed, or is it noise that is not really where the country is? Well, I think in the days since it happened, and first and foremost, still have to begin with the fact that a man was killed, that a family was robbed of a father, and that should never have happened,

and that should never happen to anyone. And I think that's the only sane place to begin. I will say that we did see a truly bipartisan response, not a universal response by any means. But we saw leaders ranging from a conservative Republican like Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, to Bernie Sanders on the left. the left, saying things that really rhymed with each other about why and how political violence

is unacceptable, how terrifying it is that America is at this fork in the road. And I do think that what's happened next in terms of the response out of the White House teased up a really challenging problem for those on my side of the aisle. And the problem is how do we authentically live up to the things all of us or most of us are saying about doing our our part to reject the use of violence and to turn down the temperature. And at the same time, you've got to stand up to this stuff. If the White House is saying that they intend to use this as a basis for cracking down on their political opponents, you have to stand up to that. But I also think that that's less of a contradiction than it seems, that there are ways to

be politically forceful and reject the use of force. And I think the way to think, the way to think about it is that both of those things, our opposition to the way the White House is approaching this and our opposition to political violence come from our commitment to freedom. Part of what makes political violence crime, not just against the target, but against the country, is that it deprives our whole country of the freedom to have open, honest, safe, free political debate. And of course, that's also the harm of any government, and certainly our government, using this. or any other pretext, to use the powers of the state to go after people, not because, or groups,

not because they are physically dangerous, but because they are politically opposed to those in charge. So I think those things sit together. Were you surprised by the reaction? Which reaction? The White House reaction. The first, I happened, yeah, when I heard it, I thought, okay, good beginning, and then, oh, no, this is not great.

I mean, I wasn't exactly getting my hopes up for him to suddenly transform into a unifying leader who would bring us all together. I mean, the simple fact is, even though the most important job of the President of the United States is to hold the American people together, he does not view this as part of his job description. He said as much. It's not important to him. And so we saw what we saw. Now, the other thing, of course, that I think is important is that he didn't talk about the fact that there has been so much political violence directed against people who are left of center. this same summer that is ending in September with the horrific killing of a conservative activist in Utah, Charlie Kirk, began in June with a nationalist madman running around with a list of Democrats he wanted to kill

and he found some and killed them, Melissa Hortman and her husband in Minnesota and shot others. So a partisan response to something that should horrify us on a bipartisan basis is wrong, it's bad, and sadly, it is unsurprising on the part of the president. Why, from a political point of view, why do this? Because it's continuing, and advance has continued to pretty much spew inaccurate statistics

and just keep repeating it over and over again. What is the strategy from your perspective, if you were them? I'm doing my best to get into their heads and imagine what they're trying to do. I think, for one thing, it's easier. I mean, it would be difficult for them to acknowledge just how much political violence has been inspired by the right

or to even acknowledge just that this has happened in ways that have aligned with either side. But also, you know, part of their project is to assert total control over this country. Not just lead the government, but control everything. and this is something that is enabling them to try to do that even more. We've seen that sort of thing before. I mean, history teaches us.

Some provocative incident then leads those in power to have a way to consolidate their power. And, you know, every step, if there's any cohesion, any pattern in what this president does, it's everything he does is about consolidating his own power. Will it work? You could. I mean, if he's actually able to use this as a pretext to undermine groups and people who are politically difficult for him that are not in any way associated with this or any other act of violence, but are a political problem for him, given that you have a court that's unwilling to check his power and a Congress that is unwilling to check his power, that could happen. Having said that, it's also possible that something different happens, probably from the bottom up among the American people

before it gets to Washington rather than the other way around. But I'm thinking about the people that I was arguing over beers with in college who were libertarian or conservative. Maybe we were arguing about guns. Sometimes we'd be arguing over something like, you know, the Clean Water Act. And they would say, we can't have, that's tyranny. It's too much power for the federal government to have, right? And then, and I can be a little sarcastic about that,

but then they would say something like, look, you go down this road, and sooner or later, someday, you're going to have mass federal agents walking down the street, nabbing people because of op-eds, they wrote. Jokes on me, right? It didn't happen in the way they said it would,

but something like that is happening right now. So I'm trying to appeal to folks of that turn of mind and say, this politically ought to be your Super Bowl. It's actually happening. Well, except that a lot of people are calling for, cancel culture, like the people that originally had been so opposed to cancel culture, such as Attorney General Pam Bondi. Yeah, it turns out there against cancel culture selectively, which you just can't be

in the same way that you can't be against violence selectively. It's either right or it's wrong. You recently said social media is clearly part of the problem, but a big way when it comes to political violence, Governor Cox from Utah said the same thing to use the term cancer. It's obviously something I've talked about for, I think, about 20. years now. I think you're both right, but we're not going to see any tech regulation anytime soon, especially since they've spent a lot of time coddling President Trump with golden statues and a million-dollar donations and things like that. So, and putting your phone down puts the onus on the individual, not the companies themselves. So talk about how you

change the social media equation. Well, we can't let the companies off the hook. But we also, just before I get into that, I would say can't let ourselves off the hook. So yes, we are being manipulated down to the brain chemistry level by companies and algorithms. But we do have some level of agency that we ought to be smart about in the same way that lots of things had to be done around tobacco. But one of them was labeling and education and other things that then helped people to make choices that were healthier. I'm not saying you should have left it on the individuals. Obviously, the companies were responsible. But if you're just thinking about a broad spectrum, what are all the things we could be doing at the same time that would make a

difference? One of them is certainly, let's think about anything and everything that we ourselves can control. But I agree that it's not fair to just expect the user, the individual, especially young users, to just shoulder that on themselves. I'm not as pessimistic as you are about the possibility of some kind of regulation or rules here. I get what you're saying. I get what that they probably have a protector in the president. They had a protector in President Obama, too. Yes, in a different way and for different reasons, but yes. But back then, it was that idea, okay, we don't know where this is going to go.

Let's let a thousand flowers bloom. Now we know, right? And I think a lot of us who had really high hopes for the democratizing power of social media 20 years ago or even 10 years ago have been humbled by what's actually happened. But look, I actually think there's a really interesting, I'm not going to say consensus, but a lot of strange bedfellows coming together around radio,

to think somebody like Josh Hawley, I can't imagine agreeing with him on almost anything. But you have figures like him on the right, Spencer Cox himself, right, the law they passed in Utah. Now the companies are fighting it, but a law that would do something about that. So I think if the American people turn on these companies, it won't be because of what they've done

to harm our politics. It'll be because of what they have done to harm our kids. Correct. But either way, it could happen. What would you push? You can't sue them. There's no regulation against them. They have unlimited power, unlimited money, and limited access now.

The attempts by the Biden administration to push back on them were met with loss. Yeah. I don't have all the answers, but some things I've observed. Which one of those many things would you do? Well, the Utah approach is to have some controls on exposure. I think that's a good place to start. The rules that, again, are getting really interesting bipartisan support around phones in schools. That's just things that can at least get some measure of control for the most

susceptible and vulnerable users. I do think, you know, whether it's returning to the now, I think, beaten-to-death conversation about Section 230 or some new frontier on that, we still have to talk about formal responsibility that companies bear. Liability. Yeah, yeah, which is how America, for better for worse, solves most problems related to your responsible behavior. And I think we should think It sounds like it has less teeth, and it doesn't work on its own, but I do think like naming or labeling things can have a lot of power too. I learned this as somebody who was a watchdog on airlines. We had rules that airlines had to follow that we came up with.

We had enforcement actions for violations when the airlines didn't follow the rules. But actually, one of those powerful things we did in terms of changing airline behavior was we just put a bunch of information out about like here, red X's and green check marks. a website that let everybody know, here's the airlines that will take care of you if you get delayed or need a meal or a hotel or something, and here's the ones that won't. I couldn't believe how powerful that was.

So I think all of these things have to travel together. When you think about doing that, are you surprised by the shift of tech companies toward Trump, given the hostility they had towards the administration you worked in? I think the shift was well underway by the time the Biden administration was in office, or at least by the middle of that time. So by the end, I wasn't so surprised.

Early on, I was. I mean, there were people who, 10 years ago, I met when I was running for chair of the DNC, which means they weren't just Democrats. They were Democrats who cared enough about being a Democrat to care who the chair of the DNC is. Most people don't even think about on a regular basis. And went on to be Trump supporters or Trump fundraisers.

I mean, that did shock me. I think I overestimated the extent to which they were serious about being libertarian. Because I always knew they weren't maybe quite where I was politically. But I imagined that what they really cared about was freedom. And so to suddenly get on board with, you know, an administration that has stripped freedoms ranging from the, you know, the freedom to choose that they destroyed the first time around to the freedoms of speech and association that they're going after now. and over what? Because we did too many DEI trainings? Maybe we did.

That doesn't make it okay to turn against free speech if you're a libertarian. So how would you bring them back? They're powerful in every single aspect. And right now, Larry Ellison, he just bought CBS via his son. They're likely to try to buy CNN and Warner Brothers. He's getting TikTok.

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, et cetera, et cetera. They are consolidating power across many things. How do you get them back? Pretend I'm Elon Musk for a second. Oh, geez. What would you say, too? Well, let's bookmark.

Because you didn't make fun of Elon Musk. You said he's really sensitive. Too bad he didn't get to go to the Car Summit. That set him off. Yeah, and look, we probably should have invited him to the car thing. But I want to bookmark the question of whether what we really need to do is to win them over, or whether what we're really going to do is have a policy framework where they can't dominate us. But I do think there is a case to be made, at least for the rank and file of Silicon Valley,

that's like, wait a minute. Part of it's about the rule of law. You're riding a tiger that sooner or later will eat you too. Like, yeah, maybe you think you're benefiting right now because the president's too busy going after the easiest pickings, like universities or law firms that employ people who were inconvenient to him or broadcasters. But you can't imagine

that you're going to play his game and sooner or later he won't turn on you too. So that's the leopards will eat your face argument. Yeah. Okay. I think there's also a case to be made

that you can't have a functioning business in the long term. Because I think part of the answer to why they turned is that they are business people first and foremost, sometimes more interested in their business

than in the citizenship that I would hope would move. Well, they want to live on Mars, so there's that. But I do think the other question is, okay, what else has to change for just not to be like? Remember, we've been here before. I mean, we haven't been here before with social media, but 100 years ago or 120 years ago, like we would have been reading newspapers that were dominated by certain people who own newspapers and railroads at the same time. Train daddy.

If you will, apparently. So, and even. I really got some, I got to Google some stuff after this. You need to chat GPT, but I'm not going to go on with that. These problems aren't like completely, some of these things that feel unprecedented or more precedented than we might think. Okay. What is not president is this idea, maybe it is precedent that there's a vast domestic terror movement on the left and promise to use the federal government to crack down it.

What are you most nervous about in that threat? Sometimes they're just yammering on. Other times they do have the power of the government. And they seem very enthusiastically going through their list. I mean, it's not hard to imagine a roadmap that goes from here where any 501C4 that challenges the president is described as a terrorist organization. And again, we see that, I mean, other countries, the ones we worry about becoming. like Russia, for example, this is what they do, right? Putin doesn't say, like, I'm going to shut

you down because I don't like you. He says, okay, I don't like you. I'm going to shut you down or a terrorist organization or because you didn't pay your taxes or whatever. They come up with something that, at least on its face, as a fig leaf, is defensible. And we are fast on a road toward that. And again, that should horrify every conservative and every libertarian just as much as every progressive. It doesn't. Well, what are you most nervous about, right? now they're attacking the University of California, one of the greatest education systems in the history of the world, actually, in terms of educating people, and many other institutions here everywhere. There's not a university not under siege. There's not a media company not

under siege. There's not a law firm not under siege. Is there a line for you? Is there somewhere where you'd be like, oh, no, no, no. Now they're going after George Soros, which I thought they'd get to that first, but they haven't. I think there's a lot of people waiting for for some line, like some indicator that goes off? Or has it been crossed? I don't think it works that way. I think 100 lines have been crossed that are already really bad, and I think there's more where that came from.

Nobody's going to just come down and tell us, hey, you just had an authoritarian breakthrough. It's underway, and the real question is, does it get consolidated? Right. Or does it get redirected and disrupted? Right. And, you know, what most worries me is that the American people don't understand their own power.

I mean, obviously, Congress is just completely incapable of standing up to this president. So the only thing that will really change is if people, especially people in Congress, who now believe that their political survival depends on going along with things that they know deep down are wrong, is replaced by an awareness that their political survival depends on doing something. that are right. We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. If you want to freak yourself out, search recent data breaches on the search engine of your choice.

Not to ruin the surprise, but the list is going to be long. That's because these days it's easier than ever to find personal information about people online and that can have actual consequences in the real world. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. I've gotten to use Delete Me and I use it a lot. I think its dashboard is really easy to understand. And of course, when you're hearing about data breaches every day, it becomes ever more important to do so.

I have been aware of data breaches for a while. It's not something new to me, but it seems more than ever most of our information is vulnerable. The way I use it is I go and find out what people have done, what information they put together, and then I delete it, delete me, right? Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash Kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash Kara and enter code Kara, K-A-R-A, at checkout. That's Join DeleteMe.com. slash Kara, code Kara. With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex presale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race.

Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at amex.ca.com. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from Live It Up Super Greens. We know how much work you do for everyone in your orbit. I'm actually just talking about myself. But that can also mean your own wellness gets bumped to the bottom of the list. That's where Live It Up Greens comes in. It's a daily habit that actually works.

No hassle, no fuss. Just scoop, mix, and go. Whether you're tackling school drop-off, which I did twice this morning, conference calls, 53 of them, or a laundry mountain. I'm never getting to it. This is one easy win that supports digestion, energy, and immune health. Live It Up sent me some of their product,

and I have to say it actually was really good. I've tried lots of different greens mixtures. I put this one in, I drink kefer every morning and so I put it into the mix along with a little honey and it was delicious actually. It was really good. It wasn't too much. I use it in all kinds of smoothies and I feel great right now. I didn't

have coffee this morning and I feel really energetic. It's an all natural blend of over 20 superfoods formulated with organic vegetables, probiotics, digestive enzymes and naturally derived ingredients. Live It Up is offering you 15% off your first order including subscriptions with code Kara K-A-R-A. Plus, shipping's always free. Head to Let's Live It Up.com

slash Kara and use the code Kara for 15% off your first Super Greens order. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Let's pivot to the state of the Democratic Party because one would imagine this would be the counterweight. And specifically, it's credibility deficit. I would call it Fecklessness, others would use other terms. On Meet the Press, let's go back a little bit. You said that President Joe Biden, quote, should not have run. It's been almost a year since the election.

You waited until Vice President Harris said the same thing in a book excerpt, said it was reckless. I'm not going to say no shit, Sherlock, to you, but I'm thinking that in my head. Well, first of all, I didn't. I said something along these lines before that book came out. But also, like, yeah, look, everybody got to that conclusion, including, by the way, President Biden,

who took himself out of the race. Sure. Belatedly, we can say. Okay. Is it a position you've recently come to, or did you feel it at the time? I'm going to be interviewing Vice President Harris in two weeks. What about during it? You were in that administration.

And I know that Scott and I on Pivot were talking about it a full year before that and got attacked really relentlessly by Democrats saying we needed to get on board. And I was like, not on that train. I'm not getting on that train. Or you didn't understand the assignment. Talk about from inside. What took so long for people like you and Vice President Harris and others unequivably say that he shouldn't have run? Well, people like me were not consulted on the decision about whether he should run.

Sure, but you have eyes. And what my eyes told me was that the sitting president of the United States and the leader of my party had made a decision that he was going to run. And that our country faced a choice between President Joe Biden or President Donald Trump. And it was not hard for me to know, not just who I was going to vote for, but who I was going to do everything in my power to make sure won. And while there's lots of things that hindsight tells you about how and when he made his decision to change course and the hundred or however many days it was of the Harris campaign. And I continue just as enthusiastically backing the Harris campaign and then the Harris Walls campaign as I did the Biden Harris campaign. and anybody who was part of making sure that they and not Donald Trump would want,

anybody who tried to do that, I think should have their head held high because it was the right thing to do. Was there a moment in that time period where you thought, oh, no, he should quit sooner? I mean, obviously, all of us who saw the debate immediately began asking ourselves tough questions. And I knew that he was asking himself tough questions.

and eventually stepped aside. I think that was a turning point for... For you all. I mean, even before the debate, polling showed a majority of voters were worried about his age. I'd love to understand from the inside. Like, what happened?

I get, like... I don't know which inside you mean. Because when they're, like, inside the room where he's deciding whether to run again, they're not calling... As a cabinet member. The secretary of transportation is not invited into that room.

Right. But... But you're nearer than I was. Potentially, yeah. Definitely. But to the extent that I was involved, in the campaign. It was how do we make sure that this campaign and not the Trump campaign is the one that wins. How does the party, though, then regain credibility with voters who are skeptical by just blaming the Bidens? Because that seems to be... I get why the Bidens did it. I understand it.

I think the answer is to tell the truth. Of what happened. Yeah, and why we believe what we believe, right? So, again, the truth, at least the truth that I lived was that we had a choice between two candidates, two presidents. It was not close. Who should be president between those two presidents? And then we had a different choice when he stepped aside. And it still was not close to me, who should win and who should lose. I get that. But during, I think I'm trying to say a very specific question, during that time period when there were worries, why didn't someone quit? Why didn't someone say, go to him and say, listen, love you, but you got to get out? Is that impossible to do in the current the way things are?

It's not like you can just book a meeting and go in and tell him not to be present anymore. Or maybe there's some people who could, like people in his family. I don't know. I don't know how that worked, but I know that enough people did that eventually he made that choice.

Well, it was Nancy Pelosi, which is on brand for her. But I'm just interested in why that didn't happen sooner. So then what happened is it was very quickly Vice President Harris. Probably many people think far too. quickly. So every episode, we get a question from an outside expert. Here's yours. Hello, this is Joe Manchin, and I would like to ask my friend Pete Buttigieg a question.

Do you believe, Pete, that the Democrats should have had a many primary, at least 30 days, when Joe Biden decided not to run? And do you think it would have helped or it had been more harmful? That's a good question. That's former Senator Joe Manchin. I just interviewed him this week, and he kindly provided that. I think it probably would have helped. I didn't think that then. Why?

I think I felt that we were so under the gun that every day mattered so much and that she was prepared to not just come out running, but to take the organization that had been built over years and immediately carry it forward, that we just couldn't lose. one day. I think with the benefit of hindsight, if there had been, if we'd invested those 30 days, then had she been the nominee, she'd have done so after consolidating

the party in a competition, and had she been unable to do that, then almost by definition there would have been a stronger nominee. But it's one of a million things that's a lot easier to say now, looking back with the benefit of hindsight, than it was in the moment. Is there too much cautiousness in the Democratic Party? Obviously, Trump doesn't have any caution. Often, yeah. I mean, not to the answer is to... Which is an asset.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think the answer is to emulate Trump. But, yeah, I mean, to take one example, like most of my Democratic colleagues still hesitate to go into venues and spaces that I think we need to be in where people might not be exactly on our side or even on the level. But it's while, although it's happening more and more. Like, I remember getting, like, not just feeling like I was one of the only ones who would go on Fox News, but having to defend going on Fox News. Like, people said I was, you know, contributing to their business model and all kinds of reasons why I was actually.

People, some people said it was actively harmful to go on to Fox News. Now, I think it's relatively uncontroversial in the party that we should be there. Well, it's funny, they're not booking me as often as they used to. They're obsessed with Gavin, just so, you know. As long as somebody's doing it, but also into the kind of the online, look, most people, younger than me, aren't getting the majority of their news from any TV. No, that's quite an age of demographic. And so obviously there's kind of an online expansion of that same principle.

But the principle is there, and I think I would take the podcasts. So, you know, I've started doing some of these podcasts are like three hours long. And even if you intended to be on talking points for three hours, it is just not possible, which is risky. It's a risk, and it's the kind of risk that a lot of people in the consultantocracy in the party tell you you shouldn't take, because you will definitely put a foot wrong in three hours. You just will. Do you think you're risk averse? I think I'm less risk-averse about that than others who wouldn't do it. Okay, let's talk about a topic then. You have a well-earned reputation as an effective communicator, 100%. You got blowback for equivocating me. You're asked about Gaza an interview on Pod Save America. You now say you would recognize a Palestinian state,

As part of a two, if I'm wrong, you can correct me. As part of a two-state solution in the U.S. should not pass another 10-year agreement with Israel on foreign military aid. Did it take getting dragged online to clearly state your position on this issue? And please, more clearly state it for us. Yeah. So on the specific issues, there were three things that I spoke to. One was a resolution about offensive weapons going to Israel. and I believe, like a lot of Senate Democrats who voted for it,

that that was an important step, something that I would support, even though I'm not in the Senate, because it's one of the few things I could think of that would get the attention of Netanyahu in the conduct of the war. So that's number one. Number two, on the recognition of a Palestinian state,

I think that if you believe in a two-state solution, then by definition, you believe in the recognition of a Palestinian state. But that does not mean that you just turn around tomorrow morning and do it while Hamas is still in charge and with no security guarantees for Israelis who are living surrounded by countries and organizations, including Hamas, that are dedicated to wiping them out. So yes, it has to happen, but it has to happen as part of a negotiated, credible and enforceable agreement. And then on the third policy issue, the MOU, in the past, we've had our security relationship defined by a, I think it's happened three times now by a 10-year non-binding but important MOU between the U.S. and Israel. I'm not sure that's the right answer going forward.

I'm not saying I'm sure structurally what all the technical details of it should be. What I am saying is by 2028 or 29, we don't know what we're going to be looking at in terms of how the security relationship is structured. I can tell you for sure right now that there should be a security relationship, that that should include the U.S. maintaining its historic commitment to making sure that Iran or anybody else is not able to achieve their aims of destroying Israel. But that is a defensive goal, which is different from some of the things that the Israeli government has expected the American taxpayer or requested the American taxpayer to continue to support. One of my students here named Zach wants to know, he asked me and sent me a note,

if you still consider Israel a strong ally of the United States and if so, what line would Israel have to cross to lose your support? So Israel is not behaving, obviously, as a good friend, but that's past the point, right? The problem is that the Netanyahu government is perpetrating atrocities in Gaza. Atrocity is the word you want to use.

Would you use the word genocide? I have a lot of respect for not just the moral weight of that word, but the legal definition it represents. And so out of deference to that, I'm not going to jump into that semantic fight. But the important thing is that the killing has to stop, the starvation has to stop, the war has to stop. And of course, the hostages need to come home

and Hamas needs to not be a threat to the people of Gaza. Let me tell you why I equivocate it. Okay. Well, you're good at it, but go ahead. Thanks, I guess. You're a good argument. Anytime I talk about this issue, I'm mindful of the pain that people experience. Even if they're not, it's not quite accurate to say they're on opposite sides of it.

Because so many people I know who are really, really concerned about protecting Israel's ability to exist and separately, I want to say that, separately, really concerned about the explosion of anti-Semitism on American campuses, will experience when you know, you say things, even things that I think they too would agree or in arguably true about what's happening in Gaza. If you say it in a certain way or you say certain things in a certain order, their worst fears about the abandonments of Israel or of American Jews facing anti-Semitism are confirmed. So one of the reasons why is somebody who does a lot of talking and a lot of politics, I have rarely felt closer to my limits in terms of the tools that are available to build consensus and talk forthrightly about these issues, then on this is because I'm conscious of the pain that comes with talking about this, even when we are saying things that are clearly

true, because it turns out if you say certain things that are true and don't say all these other things that are also true, some people are inclined for very understandable reasons to assume the worst. Certainly. But when Democrats talk about building back credibility as voters is actually framed around bringing back working class voters, for example. But we're in Michigan, going to state Harris lost in part because of Arab and young voters who are furious about the Biden administration's support of Israel. How do you win back credibility if you're worried about that? I mean, a recent poll found 77 percent of Democrats think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and a U.N. inquiry concluded that it had. How do you bridge that gap then?

Because again, like I said, same thing with Biden. We have eyes. We can see. How do you do that as a Democratic Party. By naming all of the things that are all true and that collide with each other in messy ways but are still definitely true. And by the way, this is one, and who knows even just between when we're sitting here and when people are listening to this podcast,

what else will have happened on the ground? But in the face of this ground invasion, you see a lot of Israelis standing up and saying this is not, certainly not helping the hostages, this is not helping our security as the Israeli people, and it is wrong. And so I think part of what we have to do, and it's been hard in the U.S. politics for all kinds of reasons, but to speak about this as freely as frankly as possible in Israel, there are sometimes things that I have read on the pages of the Jerusalem Post or Ha Aretz, Israeli papers, that in the past people weren't willing to say in U.S. politics. And we have to because they're true.

what would you state now if you were in a position of authority you would do? What would be one of the first things you would do? It would be to make clear that the U.S. is not going to subsidize just anything. We're not going to let the Netanyahu government take American dollars and the credibility that comes with being an ally or partner of the United States and use it to, for example, use starvation as a tool of war. was wrong and it's one of those things that is so wrong that all of the other things which might also be true just cannot possibly make it right and that does mean taking a look at the things that

which is why that resolution even though I think it was symbolic was important so I don't have all of the answers to something as vexing and as as just repeatedly brutal as the the Middle East conflict but I think that the next president needs to be more willing to do that than any previous president from either party. You do understand young voters are. I've watched the shift happen in real time right now. And the Democratic Party has to respond to that, presumably. Yes.

So I'm going to move on to something else. The federal government is set to run out of funding and shut down at the end of the month. In March, Chuck Schumer decided to avoid a showdown with the administration he corralled enough Senate Democratic votes to help Republicans keep the government funded. What about this time? Should Democrats help Republicans keep the government open,

or should it shut it down again? And what are the strategic benefits to both approaches? Well, first of all, I don't want to buy into the premise that it's the Democrats who would be shutting down the government. I get it, but they might be. The Republicans are in charge. Right. They have the House, they have the Senate, they have the presidency.

And if there's anything we know about this presidency, it's this attempt to assert and then expand its control over everything. So if there is a shutdown, it will be because of Donald Trump. and the Republicans. I'm just going to insist on that. If they want to ask for Democrats to vote for a Republican budget, there are certain things that Democrats are not going to be able to do, even if Republicans are saying, if you don't do this for us, it's all going to shut down. And I think right now there are different answers from different voices in the party. in the House, voices like Pat Ryan and Jay Kalkenklaas have been part of a group

that has laid out a pretty specific set of things. The biggest, well, I wouldn't say the biggest, but one certainly big one, right, is that I don't see how you can tell Democrats the government will shut down unless you vote to strip away access to health care from Americans. So I think that's likely to be a clear line. But there are many others. And look, if we're going to go into that, we have to know what it is we hope to do

to have a less bad outcome than if Republicans just get to run rush out. Is there a strategic benefit to just saying, go ahead, shut it down? Not one to be taken lightly. Why not? It's theirs. You know, they're holding the bag.

Yeah. But the reason you can't take it lightly is because of how many people will get hurt. And if their goal is already to wreck the federal government and they're well on their way, a lot of, there's just going to be a lot of damage left in the wake of this. So I'm not saying that I don't believe Democrats should roll over on this. I think it's different than it was in the spring.

And I think that, frankly, the unpopularity of the Republican proposals that they've jammed through is becoming clearer and clearer too. And again, just philosophically, I think the Republicans are in charge. And if you're asking Democrats to actively cooperate with you, you can't demand. and that we support... But you don't see a benefit. I hate to use a Mel Robbins term, but let them. Look, there's been this theory...

You know who Mel Robbins is, right. She's real popular. Anyway, look it up. There's been this theory from day one that what Democrats need to do is just let Republicans screw everything up, burn everything down, and then they'll screw it up,

and then they'll get blamed, and then we'll come back into power. Yes, that's the theory. I think that theory is. wrong. I don't disagree that they'll screw it up. I am not so sure that they'll just get blamed. One thing they're really good at much better than actually running the government is apportioning blame. And that's even more so as they're dominating some of the ways people get their information. So again, I think there really needs to be a really forceful

response this time. I just don't want to assume that it's going to be easy. or that it should be done lightly. Is Chuck Schumer fit to do that? He, I mean, one thing I've experienced is that he is exceptionally aware of what the dynamics are to actually get anything done or to stop anything from actually getting done in the Senate. And I would also say the virtues of a caucus leader in the Senate or the House and the things you expect from them might be different than what you expect from a presidential candidate or a person playing a different role or a governor or a different person playing a different role in the party. I do hope, though, that he recognizes how much has changed, how much the toolkit has changed, how much the relationship of the public has changed, since some of the defining fights that might still be shaping his muscle memory.

Yes, I would suggest he not do social media anymore, actually. Take a look, please. You'll understand. You've seen it. I don't know what you mean. It's a problem. It really is. You need to speak to him. I'm sending you, not me. Like, stop it, Chuck.

You're hurting my eyes. Even if Democratic states also gerrymander their congressional districts, it's like you can't match these Republican gains who are much more willing to do so, let on pick up more seats than the GOP. It's not a realistic tit for tat from what I understand. How do you feel about gerrymanderingering? and what do you think democracy

putting their energy right now to make sure the party isn't permanently shut out of power? Yeah, I mean, look, I do think there's a chance that some of these redistricting plans will be too clever by half because there's only so many Republicans

to rearrange, and that might backfire on them. But I don't, I wouldn't hang my head on that as a strategy. How do I feel about Jeremy? It's terrible. I mean, in Indiana, for example. Where you're headed next, correct? Yes.

Yeah, as we speak, I'm getting ready to head Indiana to, among other things, do a rally around gerrymandering. They are openly saying, we want a 9-0 map. Indiana, obviously I grew up there. I served there as mayor. It is a conservative place. But it is maybe a 60-40 kind of place right now. So in addition to just the basic obvious unfairness of a place where if you get five people off the street at random, probably two out of those five will be Democrats, or let's say nine, maybe four of them would be Democrats, but the nine members you're going to send to Congress are going to be 100 percent

Republican. But it's more than that. It's the contempt for the voter. To just even go around saying it's going to be 9-0 means you are saying to the voter, we're going to decide who's going to win that election before you even bother to vote. Which is so insulting to every voter. Republican independent in the state of Indiana. And I don't know how good our chances are of pushing back on that in a state house with a Republican supermajority. Although you can tell from the body language that they're a little bit embarrassed that Trump is pressuring or requiring them to do this. That doesn't seem to have stopped them? No, because they're more afraid of him than they are of either their own conscience or their own constituents. But at the very

least, I think we can make sure that there is a political price to be paid for expressing that level intent toward your own voters. So what do I think of gerrymandering? I hate it. Also, if they're doing it, which shouldn't be possible, but if they're doing it, we can't just sit here with our high-minded ideas and not respond. So you support what Gavin Newsom's doing in California or anywhere else or any. Yes. I think if this is going to be how things work, we can't just sit there and let them do it. But that's not a long-term answer. What we need is widespread, durable, actual reform. We've got, what, 435 house districts, right?

Fewer than one in ten are competitive. In a country that's basically 50-50, that is nuts. Obviously, we need a comprehensive structural solution to that. And that shouldn't be partisan. I mean, it is, but it shouldn't be. We'll be back in a minute. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from Grooons. There's no dietary secret that's magically going to get you in great shape,

but there are products can help you feel your best, and Grooons is one of them. Here to improve your skin, gut health, and immunity. Grooons are a convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a daily pack of gummies. It's not a multivitamin, a greens gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all those things, and then some at a fraction of the price. In Grun's daily snack pack, you get more than 20 vitamins and minerals, 6 grams of prebiotic fiber plus more than 60 ingredients. They include nutrient dense and whole foods, all of which help you out in different ways. And now Grooons has launched a limited edition

Grooney Smith apple flavor for fall. You get the same full-body benefits you know and love, but this time they taste like you're walking through an apple orchard in a cable-knit sweater, warm apple cider in hand, snackable and packable with the flavor that tastes just like sweet tart green apple candy. On top of it all, Grooons are vegan and free of nuts, dairy, and gluten. Grab your limited edition Grooney Smith Apple Grunes available only through October. Stock up because they will sell out. Get up to 52% off. Use the code Kara.

Hey listeners. I want to tell you about a new podcast from the Box Media Podcast Network called Access with Alex Heath and Ellis Hamburger. It's a show about the inside conversation happening across the tech industry. You may know Alex Heath from shows like Decoder and The Vergecast, and he's the founder of sources, a new publication about the tech industry, and a contributing writer for The Verge. And you'll probably only know Ellis if you worked in Silicon Valley yourself. He's the former tech reporter turned tech industry insider working closely with today's

hottest startups. Their first episode features an interview with Mark Zuckerberg about meta's latest smart glasses, the AI race, and what's next for the social media giant. You can find the Access podcast with Alex Heath and Ellis Hamburger on YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts. Support for On with Carousisher comes from LinkedIn. As a small business owner, you don't have the luxury of clocking out early. Your business is on your mind 24-7, so when you're hiring, you need a partner that works just as hard as you do.

That hiring partner is LinkedIn jobs. When you clock out, LinkedIn clocks in. LinkedIn makes it easy to post your job for free, share it with your network, and get qualified candidates that you can manage all in one place. LinkedIn's new feature allows you to write job description and quickly get your job in front of the right people with deep candidate insights. You can either post your job for free or pay to promote in order to receive three times more qualified applicants. Let's face it, at the end of the day, the most important thing

for your small business is the quality of candidates, and with LinkedIn, you can feel confident that you're getting the best. That's why LinkedIn claims that 72% of small business owners who use LinkedIn find high-quality candidates. So find out why more than 2.5 million small businesses use LinkedIn for hiring today. Find your next great hire on Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash Kara. That's LinkedIn.com slash Kara to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply. Speaking of respect for voters and what people they choose, in July you were asked if you

would endorse Zoran Mamami for mayor of New York City. You said at the time he hadn't asked for your endorsement, which sounds rather quaint. And you're not a player in New York City. but you would talk to him about it. Now, it's now September, and Governor Cuomo just said he couldn't name a single living Democrat he admired, besides his other incredible attributes. That was facetious. Given the choice between these two candidates and Eric Adams, the hot mess that he is,

who would you rather see when? And do you need an invitation to endorse him, Governor Hochel just did, for example? It's not a... Because the voters picked him, young voters, and one of the... just make a little moment. We tell young people to vote, and then they vote, and we tell them their vote sucks. I'm sorry, that's their vote, and so we should respect it. Yeah, so again, I'm not getting, like, you know, formally involved in a New York City mayor's race. But between those choices you laid out, yeah, it's not close. I mean, the ways in which Andrew Cuomo has

disqualified himself, in which the current mayor has disqualified himself. And don't get me started on the Republican candidate. Like, it was not close. He likes cats. Okay, that's... I put number two in my choice list, but okay. Everybody's got something. But yeah, I mean, I think that's very clear, right?

And by the way, I also think, even though I sit in a different place in the Democratic coalition than he does, I think that he has been absolutely right to be relentlessly focused on affordability. And I think that we could learn a lot. Like some things obviously are not as useful. Some things that worked in a Democratic primary in New York City may not be particularly portable or useful here in Michigan. Sure, but he's not running in Michigan. Right.

But in terms of what we could learn in Michigan or anywhere else from his campaign. So why not just endorse them? First and foremost. Why not just say, I like the cut of his jib. Say it just like that. I'm not planning to get formally involved in that race. Okay. But again, I think those things are really impressive.

I also think he has a real challenge, though. And the challenge is, in the same way that the most important job of the president is to bring the country together. One thing I learned very quickly as mayor, and it's a very popular. policy-minded mayor, who came in not terribly interested in anything but the specific policies I wanted to implement. The job of a mayor is to bring everybody together. It doesn't mean everybody's going to support you politically, but you need to, you were a walking symbol of what people in your city have in common. And what he will need in order to succeed as mayor. And what I think he, from what I can see, has recognized in terms of the campaign, too, is the

importance of moving on from some of the things that were more divisive in past statements or past positions. And that's not about necessarily even changing a policy, but making sure that he positions himself to bring people together, including people who might not support him politically. What do you think his biggest asset and his biggest, the negative from your perspective, just from yours? I mean, I think in terms of assets, the, again, the focus on affordability. Now, that sets a high bar because some of those things are really in track. in New York City. But you win, you get to work those issues. I would add to that his kind of go everywhere strategy on social media. I believe and practice the same strategy, not just on

social media, but just being out and about. I think in terms of campaign tactics, I think that's smart. I think it's the right thing to do. And also, again, in recent weeks, it seems to me that he has recognized probably thinking not just as a candidate, but as a future mayor. He's recognized the importance of finding ways to bring people together or to have to Bloomberg. Yeah. Biggest problem for the Democratic Party? I think it's, look, specifically, obviously, various positions or statements he's taken that would be pretty toxic here in Michigan or in a lot of other places.

But I don't know, I don't know to say for the Democratic Party. Like every Democrat, wherever they are, needs to decide what they're going to do and say that makes sense where they're from. And for us to be one party, all of that has to cohere into a bigger set of things that we care about so that we can be in coalition

with each other. And I think that's okay. I don't expect to ever be on the exact same page as the most conservative Democrat or, for that matter, Bernie. But there's a reason why we are in coalition together.

Yeah. So let's wrap up by talking about how you approach both these elections coming up, the midterm elections, the 28 presidential election. You decided not to run for Michigan's open Senate seat next year's midterms.

You might have been a shoe in. Does that mean you're going to run for present again in 20? There's no such thing as a shoe in. Well, you probably would have won. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, what was... Are you going to run for president again in 2028?

Oh, I don't know. Please don't be caught. Come on. I don't know. Really? It's 2025. That's not very long. Have you lived through the last nine months?

It's long. That's true. I got to tell you, that was better than the Gavin answer. Oh, thank you. That said, he said I could sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, so we know where he is on that. It's my greatest goal. Will you let me sleep in the Lincoln bedroom? Sure.

Okay, there we go. He's running for president, ladies and gentlemen. Apparently Trump's changed it, by the way. Oh, it's a Trump bedroom now? Yeah. Great. There's a lot of gold happening. It's going to take a lot to fix that.

So, but that if not, if not, name three Democrats who you think should run for president, if not you, and then tell us their strengths and weaknesses. You're just going to put that in front of me. Yes, I am. You put it in front of me, but I just don't think I should eat it. Come on. Look, there are great great people. in our party. Some of them are thinking about running for president. Some of the most interesting

ones are ones who are not maybe immediately being mentioned as 2028 contenders, but are just really interesting people providing a lot of leadership. I mean, I'm mostly interested in people in my generation who are, I mean, you've got folks in the Senate like Andy Kim, who came out a very Trumpy district in New Jersey and is now a very modern U.S. senator. My senator right here, our senator right here in in michigan alice slacken um in the house right um i think in the house again i was very impressed that pat ryan uh from new york was the pretty much the first to the punch to say if we're going to do a shut if we're going to be forced into a shutdown by the republicans here's what we would need before we would be ready to give democratic votes and he named

specific things that also very wisely i think tied together the things that we're all going to feel in everyday life like health care costs to the militarization of our cities and how all of that is part of one big picture. So people like him, some are, you know, coded more center or more left. People like Marie Glouz and Camp Perez is a very original thinker

who, because she has a body shop, I mean, that was her career, just has a regard for people who work with their hands in the trades that has always historically been so core to who we are as Democrats, but weirdly is not how we're thought of since this education gap has opened up. And she's very true to her district in a way that I really respect having worked with her

on getting this big bridge fix that affects her district. Others are really not talked about very much, and maybe because they're not craving national spotlight, but leaders like Gabe Vasco's in southern New Mexico, who I think is just a remarkable leader. So my point is we have Jake Hawkinglaus, who has provided, I think, some of the most interesting... and intellectually ambitious ideas.

Those are all great Sarah McBride, Greg Sussar. Sarah McBride, another person who's been so focused. So no one that could run against you for president. Correct? Love them all. Love them all. How do you like Gavin? You're just behind him in the numbers.

Great infrastructure work in California that we did together. Okay, right, okay. Do you like all his social media stuff? We all have our style. Oh. I'm very glad that someone is doing what he's doing. It's just not, you know, it's not my style, but I'm glad he's doing it. Okay.

You made history as both the first openly gay person to win the Senate confirmation to a cabinet position and first openly gay presidential candidate when you ran. But on a recent episode of his podcast, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, called you a fake gay guy. He said he wants to ask you some, quote, really specific questions about gay sex. I would like to know your response, but I'm having moments here now, too. So I made two references you don't get. Both, first of all, I do not think I want to discuss anything with Tucker Carlson.

Okay. Same, same, same. Also, but I cannot think of a topic I would like to discuss less with Tucker Carlson than that. Even though I will admit some level of morbid curiosity on what in the hell he thinks his... No, actually, no. I just... I suppose it's a sign of progress that their idea of a conspiracy is that I'm actually secretly straight. And... But, yeah, I'm just...

Where do you even... I don't know. We are in a postmodern... I'm good. We are through the looking glass now. Do you know what you have to say? You have to say, Tucker, I'm not interested. Okay?

That's one way out. It's worked with people who attacked me. I'm like, stop flirting with me. They go away really quick. So I have a last, let's end on a positive note. In your interview with Ponce de Merck last month, you said President Trump's dismalioning, the government also presents Democrats

with an opportunity to rebuild on better terms. Build back better. So you also say arsonists present homeowners an opportunity to rebuild, which is not the best way to rebuild. You did not say that? Did you sort of say that? No.

Okay, all right. You could all say. Oh, I say. I am saying that. Sorry, I'm reading it wrong. But, okay. Phoenix, Phoenix. You got the, you got the...

No, no, but look, this is really important. Paint a picture of what post-Trump America looks like. I think whether we're talking about people in political practice, elected leaders, people like me, but also people like people like. the policy scholars here at the Ford School at the University of Michigan and a whole lot of other people have an opportunity to invent some things from first principles. And I use the word opportunity very advisedly because we just a bad thing that we are here. But it means that a whole set of fundamental questions that were just being assumed as asked and answered because we had

this big rickety status quo. We actually get to start over or have to to start over. We're forced to start over. It was so wrong, like criminally wrong, to dismantle USAID. Like, one of the ugliest things I've seen in this parade of horribles is not one of the most famous things that happened in Washington, but it was the Secretary of State lying to Congress by saying that nobody lost their lives in that, when we know from good journalism the name of some of the people who lost their lives from that. Having said all of that, talk to anybody who's been involved in international development aid, including at USAID,

and they would not say that the status quo that we had in 2023 was exactly where we needed to be. So if we're going to have to start over, it's not okay that we do, but if we do, or the Department of Education, that they are burning to the ground. Or who knows, we might have to think about tax policy on a clean sheet because they're going to plunge us

into a debt crisis with all these giveaways to billionaires. So many things where we might find ourselves starting from scratch is there is an opportunity that rests in that. And it's to build a different way of doing things, socially, economically, politically, that actually supports your ability to live a life of your choosing and to have a good life. Look, the government never decides that you're going to have a good life. But we can make it easier or harder in so many ways. we shouldn't be wedded to all these institutions, many of them built in the 40s or 50s that we kept, because it was what we had, going the way they were going. But frankly, we're really showing by the 2020s that they were not well adapted for the time.

So where would you start? Name one thing. Getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court, ending gerrymandering. We should totally do all three of those. Yeah. Okay. What else? What's the one thing? The first thing you do, day one. I mean, those three sound great. Maybe we do those three in one day. Not really, because you need a constitutional amendment. By the way, another thing when you do is revisit the most important, Jill Lepore has a new book about this. The most important attribute of the Constitution is that it can be amended. And we just stopped.

We were like for the last 50 years, we haven't had a substantive amendment. We used to do that, not all the time, but we used to do it often. For whatever reason, maybe because we were there first, among presidential democracies, ours is one of the hardest to update. And I think that is costing us. Thomas Jefferson himself was the one who said we might as well require man or to wear the jacket that fitted in when he was a boy as to require a future generation to live under the regiment. So what's your first next amendment?

I mean, look, we'll get to the Electoral College. I don't know if that's my day one thing. I mean, really, if we've had to pick one to start with, how about something that corrects the harm of Citizens United and the idea that money should just freely flow into our policies? There you go. Perfect way to end. Secretary Buttigieg, thank you so much for your time.

Today's show was produced by Christian Castor Roussel, Kateriokam, Michelle Alloy, Megan Bernie, and Kailin Lynch. Nishat Kirwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Rosemary Ho. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following this show, you're a train daddy. If not, Tucker Carlson has some sex questions for you. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Carous Wisher, and hit follow.

Thanks for listening to On With Caroushisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.