Pod Save America - “Are we infrastructure?”

Episode Date: April 8, 2021

The debate over Joe Biden’s jobs plan devolves into a fight over the definition of the word infrastructure, Republicans threaten their corporate donors and their grassroots donors, Matt Gaetz raises money off of his scandal, and transgender activist Raquel Willis joins Jon and Dan to talk about the horrific wave of anti-trans legislation sweeping the country.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's pod, the debate over Joe Biden's jobs plan has devolved into a fight over the definition of the word infrastructure. Republicans threaten their corporate donors and their grassroots donors. And transgender activist Raquel Willis joins us to talk about the horrific wave of anti-trans legislation sweeping the country. Before we start, one quick housekeeping note. On last week's Hysteria, Erin and Alyssa were joined by Nse Ufot of the New Georgia Project to discuss voting rights. And today, Dan, they're joined by Hillary Clinton.

How about that? I mean, that's a big get. Yeah, seriously. That is a big get. Hillary Clinton on hysteria. So tune in. Check it out. All right.

Let's get to the news. For the last several days, official Washington has been consumed with the question that struggling Americans everywhere are no doubt asking themselves, what is infrastructure? Is everything infrastructure? Is nothing infrastructure? Are we infrastructure?

That's right, Republicans are attacking Joe Biden's American jobs plan because it doesn't just spend money on traditional infrastructure like roads and bridges, but things like high speed broadband and clean water and veterans hospitals. And here's what's really upsetting them. Better care for senior citizens and people with disabilities. Marshall Blackburn actually tweeted an attack specifically about the fact that Joe Biden's plan gives $400 billion to care for seniors. She was very mad about that. They are, Republicans are now attacking a Democratic president for life panels. So in response, Democrats are, for some reason, trying to argue that actually everything in the

bill does count as infrastructure. One example from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who tweeted yesterday, quote, paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure. Dan, call me crazy, but one way to connect all the investments in the American jobs plan is by pointing out that they all create jobs, which is even more popular with voters than infrastructure. Or I suppose we could keep having a fight over the definition of the word infrastructure.

What do you think? What do you think we should do? I've rarely gotten more worked up about something of lower stakes than this conversation. If anyone just sees our text chain from the last couple of days, it's you and I texting in all caps about how angry we are about this stupid fucking debate over the definition of the word infrastructure. I mean, I am I've been trying to figure out how we got to this place because it was. And I think it began with the idea. We'll talk about this a little bit later, that there was one more reconciliation bill. So there was probably one more piece of legislation that was going to leave the station in the first two years of the Biden administration, at least major legislation. And

it had been signaled that it would be an infrastructure bill. It was something Biden ran on. He had his Build Back Better plan. And then a bunch of advocates, progressives in Congress in particular, started making the case that all these other things that were quote-unquote infrastructure, child care, paid family leave, this was the family infrastructure agenda. And we sort of got in this place where we had that we created this debate, right? infrastructure bill. And we were going to operate in the way the press was going to cover in the traditional political definitive infrastructure, which is roads, bridges, airports, dams, things you build. And the advocates were trying to expand the definition of that to include these other very worthy, important things. And now, just because this is how politics in the Twitter age works is there is an immediate homing beacon to the dumbest possible argument. And so here we are, right? And does this matter

to voters? No. Does it have some political consequences for how this bill passes and what credit someone gets and what blame people oppose to get, I actually think it does. Here's a little story. When I was a speechwriter for Barack Obama, we talked a lot about infrastructure. And one thing I would try to do is constantly look for a word that was not the word infrastructure to put in Barack Obama's speeches, because I have a hunch that most Americans don't walk around talking about infrastructure or think about infrastructure all that much. So I would talk about investments in transportation, since people know transportation. I talk about rebuilding roads and bridges, rebuilding highways, spending money that will create jobs for people who are going to rebuild those roads and bridges.

So all of us speech writers, and I'm sure you guys wanted us to do this too in the communications office, would try everything we could to actually explain what he meant by infrastructure as opposed to using the fucking word infrastructure over and over again. I would also say that like the entire frame of this debate is wrong because even if people do know what infrastructure is, I guarantee you without even looking at a poll, it is not nearly as popular as creating jobs, which by the way, every single dollar, almost every single dollar in the American jobs plan would do whether it's home care. It's not just better home care for the elderly and

people who have disabilities. It's paying people who have those jobs, who care for the elderly and those with disabilities. So that's about creating jobs like changing, you know, retrofitting lead pipes in people's homes so that they have clean water and they don't have lead in their water. That's going to take jobs. That's going to create jobs. Every single thing in this bill is going to create jobs, which, by the way, is why the Biden people named it the American jobs plan. So why are all of these Democrats trying to stretch the definition of infrastructure to win some weird battle with Republicans who are saying it's not infrastructure? I don't understand. I don't understand. For people with our experience in the Obama administration, it's a surreal thing because we obviously took

office at a time of incredibly high unemployment. Therefore, the best and fastest way to get something on the president's schedule was to make it about jobs. So every scheduling meeting, everyone from all across the government would twist their initiative into a pretzel in order to say it's quote unquote jobs. This is a class. At least that kind of twisting though makes sense because guess what people love? Jobs. People love jobs. Love them. I mean, this was a classic move of the National Security Council would be like, we should

do this event with this foreign leader because they're going to buy four airplanes and airplanes are made by people with jobs. And so now you have, I've written, I've written plenty of those remarks. And now you have a democratic administration pushing something called the American jobs plan that is incredibly popular. And we are going to define everything against this other term that really means nothing because people in politics think of infrastructure in terms of the way we talk about roads, bridges, et cetera. But if like in every other context, it has a very different

meaning, right? People talk all the time in sports about organizations with great infrastructure, right? That they, when you talk about the San Antonio Spurs or your New England Patriots or whatever, you know, organizations have great coaching, great training staffs, you know, great scouting development that when players go there, they have the best chance to succeed. When they say that the Spurs have great infrastructure, they don't mean they have a great fucking road to the stadium. Right. So it's like it doesn't it's we have so back the car into a cul-de-sac of stupidity that it is mind boggling. And I do think it matters.

At least like some of this is just like people like you and me and people on Twitter talking about this and, you know, it becomes this topic at Jen, you know, at Jen Psaki's briefing. But I think in the case where it does matter is it gives the Republicans an out for opposing very popular initiatives. Because when you say this is an infrastructure plan, they can say like Marsha Blackburn, someone who scores an own goal every time she goes on the field, can say, I am not opposed to elder care. I am opposed to, it's not, this is an infrastructure, but it's not an infrastructure, so I am not voting for it, right? We are allowing them to skirt opposing popular initiatives on the merits by saying whether it should be in or out based on this fake definition that we have created. Well, that's what I was going to say. Do you think

people see it like that? Like if every Republican votes against $400 billion in caring for seniors and people with disabilities, you think people are going to be like, well, you know, it's okay that they voted against that very popular provision because it wasn't technically infrastructure. And I'm a stickler for the rules. That bill should have been infrastructure only. Yeah. I mean, does that really matter? Kinda. I mean, it just, it, the con people are surfing the news here, right? And if what you get from simply surfing the news by scrolling through Facebook or whatever else is that Democrats are playing fast and loose and trying to jam a bunch of things

into an infrastructure bill that aren't infrastructure that creates a permission structure for people to be okay with opposing it. And look, you know, I get it. Yeah. What I would say though, is like, if someone asked me about why I was doing that, I'd be like, you know, what Democrats are trying to do. People elected us, they gave us power. And now we're trying to pass all the things that we said we'd pass when we were on the campaign trail and ask for people's votes because that's how it works. Yeah. Yeah. We say, I'm running on this. I'm running on, I'm going to do X, Y, and Z. Then you vote for me. I'm in power. Now I'm going to try to do X, Y, and Z because that's what people

asked me to do when I ran for office. Yeah. I'm going, we are going to do a bunch of things that we told you we were going to do that are good for the economy and they create more good paying jobs. That's the end. Some of those things are infrastructure and some of them are other things, but they're all good for the economy. So, of course, Republicans have made it pretty clear that they're not seriously considering voting for a big jobs and infrastructure bill, whatever may be in it. You know, there's some noise out there. Some Republicans are like, oh, yeah, I'll sit down with the Biden administration and work on an infrastructure, you know, a transportation infrastructure only bill. But I'll be shocked if that actually happens. So Biden's real challenge is getting just about every Democrat in Congress

on board. Joe Manchin made that tougher this week with a real potpourri of unhelpful comments. potpourri of unhelpful comments. He said he wants the corporate tax rate at 25%, not 28%. He said he refuses to allow the bill to pass via reconciliation unless his vote is earned, was the quote. And he said that six or seven other Democratic senators have concerns too. Sure enough, Mark Warner came out and said he wants more input into the bill. Do you think Manchin and these other Senate Democrats want big changes, small changes? Like how much of a headache do you think this is for the White House? And how much is just normal negotiating with members of your own party in Congress? I think this is pretty normal negotiating. It's just, I think we, everyone needs to understand that the way the American Rescue Plan passed is the exception, not the rule, of how presidents pass legislation. Joe Biden sent up a very specific $1.9 trillion plan,

and then Congress passed something that was $1.9 trillion. It was pretty damn close to what he sent up. And here, Biden released broad principles with price tags attached, and Congress now has to go about writing the bill. And I understand that maybe Mark Warner wishes he had gotten an earlier phone call or a more extensive briefing, but he still gets to write the bill. He has all the input, and he can thank the founders for that because he gets to write the bill. And, you know, this is – like all Manchin statements are treated as like these giant proclamations, and it's like, oh, my God, Joe Manchin is flaking on us again. is like these giant proclamations. And it's like, oh my God, Joe Manchin is flaking on us again. He only wants to raise the corporate tax rate to 25%, three points off what Biden does. And so I think this is all pretty normal. There's going to be a lot of wrangling. There's going to be wrangling on the left. It's not all going to be just about appeasing Joe Manchin. You're going

to have a lot of people in the House who are the progressive caucus looking to include certain things in the bill to ramp up some of the climate spending, et cetera. And so this is going to be a supernormal congressional process. And every supernormal congressional process is pretty messy. But I think if you were, we don't make predictions, but nothing that has happened yet suggests that Joe Biden is not on track to pass a very significant jobs bill. Look, I think the corporate tax rate should be 28 percent. I think it should go back to being 35 percent, which is what it was before Trump cut it.

And I also think, by the way, that raising corporate taxes is going to be broadly popular politically. But if Joe Manchin, to get his vote, wants 25 instead of 28, I'm not going to lose a ton of sleep over that, particularly since we're deficit spending these days. It's not like we needed the 28% to make sure that we could pay for the rest of the bill if he wants it at 25% and then adding more to the deficit on the back end. That's fine. I care more about making sure that the investments in the bill stay robust than I probably do about the tax thing. So that's that's good. There was some good news for Biden and Democrats this week when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that they have the option to use reconciliation

a third time this year, as you mentioned, though, as he is wont to do. Joe Manchin took a big dump on that news when he wrote in an op ed today that, quote, I simply do not believe budget reconciliation should replace regular order in the Senate. And then he reiterated, quote, I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. In fact, that was the title of the op-ed. Lovely. That came after Kyrsten Sinema reiterated her opposition to filibuster reform this week as well, saying, quote, I don't think the solution is to erode the rules. I think the solution is for senators to change their behavior. Yeah. What's easier, fucking eroding the rules or changing the behavior of Mitch McConnell and his gang of bozos? I mean, it's just,

where does this leave us, both on the third reconciliation bill and then on all the other things that Democrats want to get done that require reforming the filibuster like H.R. 1? The third reconciliation bill, I think, is important, but perhaps not as important as everyone wants us to believe it is. Where I think it is useful is it is a sort of a break glass measure, right? Where we're going to, I think the right thing to still do is try to get as many things as possible that are jobs and economic related into this infrastructure bill and have the third reconciliation. Jobs, jobs, let's call it jobs. I did. Oh, this is an audio medium, but I did air quotes for the infrastructure. You did do air quotes. Hey everyone, Dan did air

quotes. And so, but it's good to have another bill, right? But we shouldn't assume that it's going to be really easy to pass a third, really big bill. So it's nice to have. I hope we don't need it, but it is there. I would say, by the way, there's a few big ticket items that I would want to see in the third reconciliation bill that I think they're planning that are super important. I think they are floating the idea of making permanent the child care tax credit that they passed in the American Rescue Plan in a third reconciliation bill, which would be legacy defining for Joe Biden and transformative in this country to basically then have Social Security for kids as a legacy item that would last in perpetuity. And so that every child in this country forevermore has a couple thousand dollars, their family gets a couple thousand dollars

allowance for them. That would be enormous. And all the health care changes or additional health care changes, aside from what was in the American Rescue Plan, would be in that third reconciliation bill as well, whether that's lowering the eligibility age for Medicare, whether that's letting Medicare bargain for a cheaper prescription drug. So there's a lot of really important things that could be in that third reconciliation bill. Yeah, that's a fair point. So what do you think about filibuster stuff? This is the risk of this as well, is I've sort of thought the way this would play itself out was you would use one reconciliation bill to pass the American Rescue Plan. You would use the second one to pass the American Jobs Plan. And now here you are.

It's summer of the first year in office, and we've got nothing else to pass. So the question of do you do nothing for the next year and a half, or do you take on the bigger challenge of filibuster would finally ripen? But as long as you have this other legislative vehicle out there, it creates a way in which to avoid the very hard question. Because as we've talked about before, there are a number of senators who very much want to get rid of the filibuster. There is another group, which is probably just as large, if not larger, that would get

rid of the filibuster, but really hopes the question is never called. as large, if not larger, that would get rid of the filibuster, but really hopes the question is never called. And the longer we can play around with passing things on a budget reconciliation, that question may not get called. And what that means is no significant gun legislation, no voting rights, no $15 minimum wage, according to the current leanings of the parliamentarium. of the parliamentarium. And so I worry about this. And I think the mansion op-ed is bad. And it's bad.

And it's just, it's, I mean, it is like. It is. It made me like, he didn't, in fairness, he didn't say anything too new because he's said that before about the filibuster and he's complained about reconciliation before. Though I will say that he didn't draw any lines in the sand on reconciliation in that op-ed like he did on the filibuster and he's complained about reconciliation before, though, I will say that he didn't draw any lines in the sand on reconciliation in that op-ed like he did on the filibuster. So, you know, I'm sure he doesn't prefer a second or third reconciliation. No one

wants that. No one wants that. But he could potentially get there on the filibuster, though. You know, at one point in the op-ed, he talks about democracy reform and H.R.1. And he's like, well, I think there's plenty of bipartisan provisions. I think there's ways to improve voting access, election security, campaign finance reform, because he's always been big on that. Again, didn't mention nonpartisan redistricting, which is driving me nuts since it's both the most popular thing in the bill and probably the most important thing that we get done, I would argue, but didn't mention that. But he said, so there's these bipartisan things we can get done around voting and democracy reforms,

and we should do it that way. And it's like, all right, man, then go find, you go find 10 Republican senators. So we have 60 votes who would pass your bipartisan version of the For the People Act. Show us the version of For the People that gets 10 Republican senators if you really want to go play prime minister, which is what you're doing. Like, I kind of think that like someone's just got to call his bluff. And I don't know who's going to do that because there's this delicate dance, right? We're like the White House, Schumer, the other Democrats. You want to piss Joe Manchin off too much because your whole agenda hinges on fucking Joe Manchin.

So I like how do you deal with this? With great anger, I guess. I mean, it's this is the same thing at the end of my rope on this. Yes. This is the same thing with the cinema comments. Like, have you people met your colleagues on the Republican side? Do you watch? Do you read the news? Do you listen to them speak?

Do you read their tweets? There is nothing that suggests anything is going to change on that side of the aisle. Even with Donald Trump gone, they are getting worse, not better. So this is your choice as a United States Senator, the career profession in which you have chosen and worked really hard to get to and to keep. And your choice is, I am going to do very little. Like, I care about things. My constituents care about things. They like me to do things. But I am choosing to not do them. Like, that is the choice they are making. And I think it's very disingenuous. Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They're pretending to be ignorant for the purpose of creating this mythos about themselves as these bipartisan institutionalists. They are lying to create that impression. And I think that is very disingenuous. And it is in their constituents and

everyone else suffers because of it. But it's disingenuous, but it's also, I think, points to maybe the only pathway for Biden and Schumer and the rest of the Democrats to deal with them, which is I sort of said call their bluff in a more an angrier way. But if I were Chuck Schumer, I would maybe sit down with Manchin and maybe Biden should do this, too, and say, look, if you really believe we should do H.R.1 and do democracy reform in a bipartisan way, show me the piece of legislation that you would want to pass and then and show me the 10 Republican senators that we could bring on. And like, let him go do his thing, because maybe what Joe Manchin wants is just to be able to say, I really tried to get all these Republicans on board. I want to do something bipartisan. I had the support of the White House. I just supported my caucus. And these Republicans said no. And he wants the Republicans to be the ones to say no.

So it looks like they're intransigent and not the Democrats. I don't know. I don't think that's a great option. I'm not saying I love it, but it seems to me like the best of a whole bunch of bad options at this point. I guess this is the, if you're looking for a dark lining in the silver cloud of that third reconciliation bill, is it delays proving the Republicans' opposition? Because now you have another situation where Democrats can go do things and they don't have to worry about Republican opposition. And so where's the moment where we're going to bring up a guns bill that is going to be filibustered? Where are we going to bring up the $15 minimum wage that's going to be filibustered? Where are we going to bring these things up to prove that the only way to actually accomplish things is to change the rules or reform them in some way, shape, or form? Still, we are in April,

I think, whatever month this is, and Republicans have not really had to filibuster anything because of the – we've been – in some ways, that's a fortunate thing because we've been able to – Joe Biden and the Democrats have been able to accomplish a lot of things. But you still have to prove, apparently, to Joe Manchin – Manchin and Sinema are the kind of people who have to jump out of a window to be reminded that gravity exists. And so this is sort of what has to happen in the Senate. But that keeps getting delayed and delayed and delayed. And I worry we're going to run out of runway before that happens. And if we, as we've said a thousand times, and Vote Safe America is so cleverly branded, if we don't pass H.R. 1, we are fucked.

Yep. Speaking of which, if you want to learn more about these issues, want to learn how to get in touch with your member of Congress to really push this, of course, go to votesaveamerica.com slash for the people. And we have all the tools and information you will need right there. So one fun development over the last week is that Republicans appear to be at war with their own donors. There was a New York Times story by Shane Goldmarker and Rachel Shorey about how the currently sending out right now fundraising appeals that include a small yellow pre-checked box that reads, If you uncheck this box, we will have to tell Trump you're a defector and sided with the Dems. Make this a monthly recurring donation. But it's already checked for you.

You don't have to go check that box. And probably you didn't see the box when you signed up. It's in small, fine print at the bottom of the email. And lest you think that Republicans are only threatening their grassroots donors, Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning companies like Delta and Coca-Cola that there would be, quote, serious consequences if they kept speaking out on issues like the Georgia voter suppression bill. Here's a clip. My warning, if you will, to corporate America is to stay out of politics.

I'm not talking about political contributions. He's not. He's not talking about political contributions. He does want them out of politics. We will come back to that. I want to start with the incredible New York Times story about Republicans just tricking and threatening their supporters into giving them money. Is that kind of fundraising tactic typical? Is it even legal? Is it the sign of a healthy party that excels at persuading people to support it? I think it is in many ways a giant tribute to the Democratic grassroots fundraising machine that the Republicans have been forced to lie, cheat, and steal to keep up. And one of the most fascinating parts of this story is they got these people to check these

boxes or to fail to uncheck them, I guess would be the right way to say it. And when the Republican fundraising started to dry up and you saw Joe Biden get a huge fundraising lead, they changed the withdrawals from monthly to weekly so they could get even more money out of these people's pockets. And it is, according to the story, not technically illegal, but it is definitely stealing. If you take people's property without their knowledge, that's definitely stealing and that's definitely what the Republicans are doing. Yeah. I mean, there's so if you it's a great piece in The New York Times. And if you if you go through it, there's a lot of stories, pretty sad stories. I know some people are going to say, oh, it's Trump supporters. So it's not that sad. But a lot of people just built like thousands of

dollars of bills that they didn't know their credit card has been run up. And it's just like it is un-fucking-believable that they did this and got away with it. And that a lot of these Republican committees are still doing it. The NRCC is still doing it right now. And not only are they doing it, the fact that they're threatening their donors, which is just so in line with the Republican Party right now. They have like long given up on persuading anyone. It's all threats and intimidations now. They threaten voters. They threaten Democrats and intimidations now. They threaten

voters. They threaten Democrats. They threaten journalists. They threaten corporations. And now they're even threatening their own supporters. If you don't donate, I will go tell Trump on you that you're a defector. If you don't make a monthly recurring donation, you will be branded a defector. I mean, I don't know how you get more. That's pretty fascist right there. I mean, it is. It's endemic of the whole problem Republicans have, which is the Republican Party one giant senior scam. I mean, they lie about their agenda. They lie about Democratic agenda. They throw a bunch of bullshit red herring issues out there to distract from their agenda. They trick you into donating. I mean, it is all of a piece and it's how you end up with the head of Trump University as the

Republican president, right? And the party leader. It's all like, just the grift is the whole thing now. What did you think about Mitch McConnell telling corporations to shut up and stick to what they're good at, which is writing checks to Republicans. Has there ever been a less credible threat in history than McConnell threatening to punish corporations? Yeah, like, that's a good point. Like, what? Like, it's going to invite serious consequences. Like, what?

What are the consequences, Mitch? You're currently in a fight with the Biden administration over making sure that there's not a corporate tax hike for corporations. That's what you're fighting. You're making sure that CEOs, the one piece of legislation you proposed is eliminating the inheritance tax so rich CEOs can pass down billions to their kids tax free. That's what you're fighting for. But, oh, consequences. Watch out.

tax-free. That's what you're fighting for, but oh, consequences, watch out. I mean, ultimately, Mitch McConnell's greatest passion in life, other than just the pure accumulation of power, is allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in politics. He has been the plaintiff in Supreme Court cases to allow this. He has pushed for it. It is his primary opposition to HR1, is that it would stop dark money donations. It is his primary opposition to HR1 is that it would stop dark money donations. In 2010, when the Obama administration was trying to pass the Wall Street reform bill, which would put the toughest rules on Wall Street since the Great Depression, Mitch McConnell went to go meet with the Wall Street banks.

And he brought with him to that meeting. Did he bring the ranking member of the finance committee or a subject matter expert in regulations? No. He brought John Cornyn, who was the head of the Republican Campaign Committee, so that he can make the pitch that if you give us money, we will make the world easier for you. If you fund us, you will have fewer rules and you can take on more risk. And so the fact that he said this and people who were in Tennessee laugh in his face is a really sort of embarrassing for everyone who was there. Well, he also sort of just like unwittingly made a great argument for passing H.R.1, which would also help keep money out of politics with like better disclosure rules and public

financing of campaigns. So if if Mitch really wants corporations to stay out of politics, he should jump on HR1 as a sponsor. Yeah. I mean, there was this great story by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker where she got the transcript, was able to listen in on a strategy call among Koch Industries and Ted Cruz, a bunch of people. And in that call, the conservatives acknowledged that the anti-dark money, the limits on corporate giving were so in H.R.1 were so popular that Republicans couldn't even publicly oppose them. They would have to try to kill them in the dark of night in the Senate. And it sort of speaks to the politics here. worst Republican fundraising story of the week. Matt Gaetz is now trying to raise money off of the report that he's being investigated by the Department of Justice for sex trafficking,

a story that has just gotten worse and weirder for Gaetz since we talked about it on the last pod. CBS reported Wednesday night that federal investigators are looking into a Bahamas trip that Gaetz made with a marijuana entrepreneur who allegedly paid for female escorts. This comes after the New York Times reported that Gaetz asked Trump for a preemptive pardon before he left the White House, something that both Gates and Trump have denied, with Trump also pointing out in his first comments about Gates that he has, quote, totally denied the accusations against him. Dan, I would say the recent developments in the Matt Gaetz story are making him more suspicious, not less. What do you think?

I would say that who would have guessed that when we talked about this investigation into Matt Gaetz on last week's pod, that would be the high point of his month. It has only gotten worse for him. The stories have gotten worse. We have more details about what has happened that are much more incriminating. the stories have gotten worse. We have more details about what has happened that are much more incriminating. We're learning more about his other abhorrent, but not technically illegal behavior about showing photos of nude women to other members of Congress, these horrible stories about how they conducted themselves in the legislature. The more we know, the more we hate Matt Gaetz, which I guess shouldn't be a surprise i was

gonna say like matt gates as gross as you always thought he was yeah maybe grosser yeah but you probably should have always known he was yeah yeah all right let's talk about another front in the republican culture wars where children are the collateral damage. This week, Arkansas became the first state to ban gender-affirming health care for trans youth after the legislature overrode the governor's veto. In just the first three months of 2021, Republican legislatures have introduced over 80 bills targeting trans youth, with 26 of those bills focused on excluding trans youth from sports that align with their gender identity. North Carolina Republicans just proposed the most extreme legislation by far. It would not only deny health care to trans youth, it would force state employees to notify a child's parents if they believe that child has displayed gender

nonconformity. Joining us to discuss the Republican attack on trans youth is award-winning writer and activist Raquel Willis, who's been the executive editor of Out Magazine and an organizer with the Transgender Law Center. Raquel, welcome to Pod Save America. Yes, thank you so much for having me on, John. So I think a lot of this Republican attack is malevolence that preys on people's ignorance. I saw you tweet the other day about how hard it is to distill all the misinformation that conservatives push about the trans community. So I won't make you try to do all of it.

But could you talk about the most common and perhaps the most harmful misconceptions around some of these bills? Yes. So, you know, I think there has been a long kind of fight from the conservative side against transgender people in our community. The most recent kind of iteration of it has really come about in the aftermath of marriage equality. And so we've become the new kind of cultural scapegoat in a lot of ways in terms of their fight against people who have different experiences. I think a lot of

the misinformation is fueled by these longstanding myths about trans people, that we are predatory, that we are not who we say we are, that gender and sex and all of these other distinctions that we have in society are more rigid than they actually are. And so I think also many people know that there have always been folks across the LGBTQ plus spectrum, right? But when we get to questioning the fact that we exist, then they kind of magically forget. They're like, well, no, everyone kind of fits into this cisgender straight box. And it's like, well, you know, that's not real, right? You have met all types of people. So let's remember that as we move forward in this fight for liberation for everyone. Dan, why do you think Republicans are doing this now? 60 bills in 2020, 80 bills so far in 2021.

They're talking about how it's a concerted strategy. Why do you think it's happening now? I think there are two reasons for it. One is this is consistent with the long history of the Republican Party. Whenever they find themselves in any sort of political trouble, they go looking for another group to scapegoat, a new bigotry to weaponize. That is exactly what's happening here. That is what Donald Trump did with immigrants. It's what George W. Bush did with the gay community. It's what countless Republicans have done with black Americans. This has been from Nixon on, this is consistent. Even if you look at a very analogous point in history for the Republican Party in right after Jimmy Carter was elected, the very first thing the quote unquote new right did was going and trying to weaponize these gay friendly laws that had passed in cities like Miami

and San Francisco and across the country to turn that into a galvanizing issue for a divided party. The second part of that I think is related, which is, as we talked about before on this show, economic issues divide the Republican Party. Cultural issues unite them. And so they cannot have a conversation about Biden's infrastructure plan, the $15 minimum wage, because 40, 50, 60, 70% of Republicans support elements of those things. What they can try to find some unity on are these cultural issues to try to find new ways to scare their base that America is changing faster than they are comfortable with.

Raquel, what do you think about the timing? I saw you say the other day that as more transgender Americans become visible, sort of one of the effects of that is Republicans deciding that they're going to attack more. Absolutely. You know, I think visibility is in many ways this double edged sword. You know, I think that obviously it can expand some arenas in terms of access. You know, we see more trans people, openly trans people than ever before on television screens and in films

and now also running in political office. But of course, that also opens us up for attacks. And, you know, I think to your point, Dan, thinking about how important the 60s and the 70s were in terms of this modern LGBTQ rights movement, it only makes sense, right, that in many ways this moment as well is analogous in terms of trans visibility

and what it means to now be the number one enemy under attack, I think, in some ways for Republicans. And I think the other piece we also have to understand is like, when we look at history as well, some of the first documented folks who were gender nonconforming and probably would have been considered trans by today's standards were criminal records. You know, all of this is tied in many ways as well to anti-cross-dressing laws that were a big part of the social fabric some 50 or so years ago. So the New York Times had a piece last week that said all this legislation, quote, has been brought about by a coordinated and poll tested campaign by social conservative organizations who are focusing on women's sports out of, quote, an awareness that women, not men, could be more sympathetic advocates. So sure enough, most of the polling on this issue shows broad support even among Republican voters for trans rights.

Broad support, even among Republican voters, for trans rights. 87% of swing state voters say transgender people should have equal access to medical care. 60% of Trump voters say transgender people should be able to live freely and openly. But when a Politico morning consult poll asked specifically about banning transgender athletes from women's sports, voters supported the ban 53 to 32%, including pluralities of women and millennials, while Democrats and even Gen Z were split on the issue. Raquel, I know you wrote an open letter with GLAAD for Transgender Day of Visibility that specifically talks about this issue. How should we respond to what is obviously a very cynical strategy by Republicans to target women's sports and make this issue somehow about women's sports? target women's sports and make this issue somehow about women's sports? Yeah, well, you know, I think the Republicans have a long track record of not actually showing up for women and our fights. So I think that we have to keep in consideration that track

record. You know, when I think about the blocking of access around reproductive rights and reproductive justice, right, that is entirely connected to bodily autonomy and self-determination. And, you know, I think we need to make more of those connections there that a lot of the conservative agenda is about policing communities on the margins. So for me, as a Black transgender woman, the fight for reproductive justice, the fight for more voter protections and access is all connected as well to this fight for trans people to be protected as well under the law. It also seems like they are inventing a problem that does not exist, really, that there is not in schools and colleges

across America, transgender Americans trying to play and to compete in women's sports. That's not like a big issue that needs to be taken care of. It seems like more of a political issue that they want to invent out of nothing. Absolutely. I mean, I think that this is the way that they can kind of insert themselves into the identity conversation, right? They can't say that this is about identity, but truly, this is how they can weaponize identity against particularly the left. I think that we have to pay close attention here, because the ways that they are using, I think, conservative women in particular to kind of chop away at some of the left, I think also using conservative folks of color to kind of chip away at many of the fights that the left has taken up, is going to play out in the midterms and

the next presidential election as well. You know, so this is a testing ground for them to see what kind of foothold they can get with making transgender people a scapegoat and saying that they are trying to preserve the rights of women. I also think the point you made about the parallel to reproductive rights is really important. I mean, even Governor Asa Hutchinson, who vetoed the Arkansas bill before his veto was overridden by the legislature, said, you know, these are really tough and private decisions that are made between children and their doctors and their parents. And for the state to interfere in a decision,

in a health care decision that's being made by children and their parents and their doctors is such an overreach of the state. And I do wonder if if we all sort of framed the issue that way, that here are these children and parents trying to make decisions about their life, about their health and the government's trying to step in. That's probably even more effective with a lot of voters, I would imagine. government's trying to step in, that's probably even more effective with a lot of voters, I would imagine. Yeah, you know, I think the values kind of conversation around everyone having access to the health care they deserve, it spills over as well to having access to the education they deserve, and as well, housing and so much more. And like you said, I mean, this is completely out of step with this longstanding idea of what conservative is. Conservatism is in the United States. Right. That it's about keeping the state out of people's personal lives and personal decisions. And clearly people are not adhering to that. Right. This is not about that anymore.

It's about who we can make be the villain in this moment. Dan, you wrote in this week's message box about how Democrats should respond to the Republican culture wars. What do you think about how, you know, Democratic candidates should handle this issue? Obviously, there's going to be some Democratic candidates who are running in purple and red districts who see polling, they might get spooked. You know, I know your argument is certainly my argument that like, you we shouldn't and can't run away from from these issues. We've got to take them head on. How do you think Democrats should talk about this? I think there's a lot of lessons to learn about what Democrats have done right and wrong in the past and points have brought up these

cultural issues. I think there's a real similarity to how George Bush and the Republicans used the issue of marriage equality in the 2004 election to what is happening here, which is they had to find a way to make the issue affect you, right? It wasn't that two men were going to get married or two women were going to get married. It was that that marriage was somehow going to devalue yours, right? And that's how they had to go and find this issue of sports participation. The polling shows pretty clearly that people are broadly accepting of the trans community, but they went and found a place where this could affect your daughter, yourself. I think the first thing you have to do is you cannot buy into the premise

of the argument. That's a mistake Democrats made in 2004. We oppose the constitutional amendment around making marriage between a man and a woman, but we felt the need to, at the beginning of every statement about it, restate the premise of the Bush argument. And we can't do that here. I think the first step is we have to educate voters, right, to what the issue is and what it isn't. And second, I think whether it's these attacks, whether it's how Trump has attacked immigrants or the way he tried to use

the caravan in 2018 is to, you don't play the game, you call out the game. You explain why they are bringing up this issue and say what they are trying to distract from, why they are trying to divide people, why they are victimizing, in this case in Arkansas, children in order to push forward this special interest agenda. You can make a million things, right? Tax cuts for the wealthy, cutting Medicare. This is all a smokescreen to smuggle that through. And we have to really call out and explain why they are dividing people. But I think it begins with educating people about what is really at play here and why their arguments are complete and total bad faith bullshit. Raquel, can you talk about both where the fight goes from here and what can people listening do who want to get involved in this fight?

Yeah, you know, I think to Dan's credit, you know, a lot of this is about education and it's about having more of these conversations about the complexity of identity, of gender, all these different things. You know, I think one of the things that's important to me is making sure, you know, yes, trans people are beautiful and brilliant and fabulous and all of these amazing qualities. And we're all on a gender journey, right? It's not just trans people. And so when I think about the policing of our gender experiences, this is connected to all of the men and boys who are told they can't express themselves in certain ways and have certain emotions, right? They're being locked out of humanity, in a sense, and all the women and girls who are told they can't be strong,

brilliant, intelligent, capable leaders, right? Being locked out of opportunity. And for everyone who's dealing with all of that in between, right? Largely trans people, non-binary people, and so much more. So we're all kind of connected in a deeper way than I think most understand. I think the other piece of it as well is we've got to continue this fight. So one of the reasons that the letter was so important and working on that open letter with GLAAD was that I really wanted to see what our support actually looks like, right? Like, and it was a signal even to me personally, because I didn't know how many folks supported the trans community, but this was a good demonstration. We got feminist thought leaders and feminist-led organizations to sign on. I mean,

now we've gotten, you know, around, I mean, several thousand signees, right? And, or signatories. So I think we've got to continue to find these ways to make those signals to folks that there are people who stand and support the trans community, that trans people are human. So trans children are still children.

They have parents that love them, guardians that love them. We have partners, we have friends, we have so many love them, guardians that love them. We have partners, we have friends, we have so many people that care about us as well. We're not just some imaginary concept living over somewhere else, right? We're right here with you in this human experience. Raquel Willis, thank you for coming on Pod Save America. And more importantly, thank you for all the work you're doing to stand up for transgender rights, we appreciate it

Of course, thank you Thanks to Raquel Willis for joining us today everyone have a good weekend and we'll talk to you next week Bye everyone Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our associate producers are Jordan Waller, Jazzy Marine, and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somenator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmal Konian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week. Thank you.