Pod Save America - “Does size matter?” (with Pete Buttigieg!)

Episode Date: June 10, 2021

Joe Biden’s Hot Vax Summer is off to a rocky start thanks to Republicans in Congress, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg talks to Jon Lovett about how the administration plans to pass their jobs and infrastructure plan. Then, Dan Pfeiffer and Jon Favreau talk about some bright spots in the Biden agenda, and answer listener questions.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 show, President Biden's hot vac summer is off to a rocky start thanks to Republicans in Congress. I have to thank the PSA team for writing that one for me. I wanted to make sure we got hot vac summer in a Pod Save America episode somewhere, and they made sure we did. So good job, team. It's good to knock out the title of the episode before we even get to the housekeeping section. So that's great. President Biden's hot back summer is off to a rocky start thanks to Republicans in Congress. But lucky for us, Dan, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is here to tell John Lovett how the administration plans to get their big jobs and infrastructure bill passed. Here is a very pandemic era use of that term.

Yeah, right. He's going to be here in the Zoom with us soon. And then later, you and I will talk about some bright spots in the Biden agenda and answer some listener questions. But first, we got some big news. bring you our first scripted comedy podcast called Edith that tells the untold true-ish story of America's secret first female president, First Lady Edith Wilson, who basically ran the country after President Woodrow Wilson suffered a paralyzing stroke in the White House. Edith stars Golden Globe winner Rosamund Pike, and it was written by our very own Travis Helwig and Gonzalo Cordova. I told Travis I was doing this today and he said,

make sure you mention how good looking I am. Unbelievable. Hear the trailer now and catch the first episode June 21st. New episodes every Thursday. Listen for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Dan, this is going to be great. You're going to love Edith.

Despite the fact that Travis is involved with it, I look forward to listening to it. Also check out this week's Take Line. Jason Concepcion and Rene Montgomery talk to two-time NBA champion Chris Bosh about his new book and being elected to the Hall of Fame. And lastly, Dan, do you have any news that can beat either of those announcements? Chris Bosh is in the Hall of Fame. We got Edith coming out. What do you got? Hey, we got a Hall of Famer and a Golden Glober. Pfeiffer, what do you got?

So my much less exciting news that is neither Hall of Fame nor Golden Globe worthy is that Untramming America, A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again, my book that was released in February 2020, three and a half weeks before the entire country and bookstores shut down due to a pandemic mishandled by the man whose name is in the title, is out in paperback this week. book, I was filled with the anxiety that comes with writing a book about contemporary politics, because things change very quickly. I'm sort of haunted by a book you and I know well, a book called The Way to Win that came out in 2006 about the 2008 presidential election and told everyone about what would matter and who could possibly win. And if you read that book, you will find nary a mention of Barack Obama, who does not appear once in that book, as an example of just how quickly things change. And when I was writing the book, many people pointed out to me that a book with the premise that Trumpism will outlast Trump and that Democrats must undertake

aggressive strategic structural reforms to beat Trumpism could look embarrassingly bad by the time the paperback came out after the 2020 election. Well, the paperback is out. I hate to say this, John, but Trumpism has outlasted Trump. And Democrats- America is still Trumped. America is still Trumped. And many of the things that I believe and you believe the Democrats must do to defeat this scourge have not yet been done. And the book contains in it some very specific actionable items for readers about how they can help make those things happen. So if you did not get a chance to read it when it was out in hardback, or if you

just want to read it again, because it has a new epilogue that talks about the 2020 election and where we go from here, Untrumping America, A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again, is available wherever you get your books these days. Go buy it, people. Go buy it. All right, let's get to the news. Here's a lead from CNN's Stephen Collinson that sums up the old media narrative right now. Joe Biden is heading abroad just at the moment when his hopes for a historic legislative legacy at home seem headed for a wall. For all the talk among Democrats of Biden assembling a Rooseveltian legacy, the moment was always going to come when his vast political agenda would hit the blockade of Washington's uncompromising political math. And just in case it wasn't

clear, there was a big banner on CNN that read, Biden's Stalled Agenda, all capital letters. So at the beginning of the president's first summer in office, he leaves behind an epic political shit show only to face the unrealistically high expectations that come with a big foreign trip. Dan, any of that sound familiar to you? You getting any deja vu? When I read that story and many stories like it, I started just banging my head against my desk because it was so painful. And the question I have, John, is did that agenda stall itself? It did stall itself. It up and stalled itself. Yeah, no, it just it's sitting there in Congress. And what it really needs is a little shove from Joe Biden.

But for some reason, he won't give it the shove. So there it is stalled in Congress on its own. I mean, I do want to like we have obviously been here before the first summer of of actually it was it turned out to be like every summer of Barack Obama's presidency ended up being uh miserable there was there was like a million crises we've also gotten on the plane to go to a foreign trip and had like the media turning on us at home because Republicans were pulling some bullshit in Congress and then you go abroad and you can't plan for everything that happens on a foreign trip because a whole bunch of things can

happen that aren't great. And so you're dealing with, you know, all kinds of gaffes and problems on your foreign trip and then back home. And it's not easy to deal with when you're in a different time zone and pretty sleep deprived, is it? No, and it's funny how even with all of the technology and advantages you have with traveling with the President of the Air Force One and 24-7 technological help and cell phones and BlackBerry. Cell phones and BlackBerry, is that so embarrassing? Cell phones and the internet. Leave that in.

Leave that in. In our days, yes, in our days, we're old. We used to get our faxes in the hotel. That's not actually true but the time change like really matters like you if there's you know there's two there's two sort of governments happening right now there is a group of people who stayed in washington and a group of people are on the road with the president and yeah for the folks in washington they go to sleep they wake up and there's because of the time change a whole bunch of news has been made abroad that they now have to respond to and then similarly for the folks in Washington, they go to sleep, they wake up, and because of the time change, a whole bunch of news has been made abroad that they now have to respond to. And then similarly for the folks on the road, they go to sleep and they wake up and find out that Biden's agenda has stalled itself or something else has happened because of the time change.

It is incredibly challenging. And then you start emailing the people at the White House. And they're asleep. Oh, they're asleep. Why the fuck are they asleep? And they're asleep. Oh, they're asleep. Why the fuck are they asleep? Yeah, there's nothing worse than an Asia trip, which is 12 hours apart, where there was basically like one hour a day where there's like an overlap where both people are awake and reading emails.

But to go back to that CNN story for a sec. Yeah, well, I want to talk about that. It bespeaks a larger problem in political coverage. I mean, there are many problems in political coverage, but I'll pick one here, which is sort of the desire to choose a narrative, right, an oversimplified narrative. economic legislation through a bipartisan process and with his goals for vaccinations ahead of schedule in America experiencing the lowest average deaths from COVID since the pandemic began. All true. All those things are also true, right?

But because the media gets bored with its narratives and feels the need to switch. We did about four months on Biden, exceeding expectations, unified party, new FDR. And then you hit a couple of speed bumps and it's like, holy shit, different thing, total stalled agenda, loss of momentum. Where are we going for here? We're stuck. And the truth is always somewhere in between those narratives, but you got to pick a narrative. The new FDR narrative wasn't exactly the truth either. Everything is over-exaggerated all the time in all directions. I mean, we're going to get to the substance

of the stalled agenda in a bit, but I want to talk about like what Biden himself can actually do about it. You wrote in this morning's message box that the green lantern theory of politics has returned. Care to explain to our listeners what the greentern theory of politics has returned. Care to explain to our listeners what the Green Lantern theory of politics is? We don't have to date ourselves too much to talk about this. We only have to go back to the Obama administration.

Yeah. Yes. We only got it back to like 2013, I think, is when the Green Lantern theory was coined. So the Green Lantern theory is a term that was coined by Brendan Nyhan, who's a political science professor at Dartmouth. And he writes for The Upshot on The New York Times, and he's sort of a prominent political thinker on Twitter. It is his description of this school of thought that says, the president can overcome any obstacle through sheer force of will or strategic thinking or messaging, right? And if you can't get something done, it is because of a failure of the president. And this is – Brennan came up with this theory. And so there are a whole bunch of pundits during the Obama years who were sort of blaming Obama because he could not get a party that was three years away from nominating Donald Trump to agree to a progressive immigration

reform bill, right? That it was – like why can't he lay with sort of this embodied by Ron Fournier, who was a writer for National Journal, who would say, like, why won't he lead? Why won't Obama lead without any, that just purely leading would get you there, right? And what is dangerous about that theory is one, it's wrong, right? We have a system of checks and balances, the filibuster exists, there are, we live in an incredibly polarized side, there are limits to what presidents can do. But when you imbue the president with this sort of absolute power, like the Green Lantern, the DC Comics superhero has through the ring that the Green Lantern has, it lets the people and the forces that stop progress off the hook and can lead to people becoming disenchanted and demoralized. Because I voted for Biden. Biden said he was going to do X, and he hasn't done X.

That means Biden failed me and my vote wasn't worth it. As opposed to saying the Republicans who have 50 votes in the Senate block Biden from doing what he's doing. So my response to that should not be to disengage with politics. It should be to double down on politics and try to go expand that Democratic majority. So the Democratic senator from the state that Donald Trump won by 39 points doesn't have a veto on everything. And Brendan points out that there's two styles of Green Lantern theory of politics. One is the LBJ version, where you just sort of browbeat everyone in Congress to do what you want. And then there's the Ronald Reagan version, or this is really was the Obama version as well, which is just like by the power of your communication, suddenly you can persuade everyone

to go your way. And look, it's this is not to say that presidents don't have agency and don't have influence. They do. They can be persuasive. But I think their powers of persuasion are more limited than the power of the system in which they operate. Right. And media narratives tend to focus on characters and personalities, and they tend to focus less on sort of the structural impediments to change. Because just saying that sounds boring. But the truth is sort of the larger structures that the president and Congress and everyone else is operating in have much greater effect on outcomes and policy outcomes than any individual personalities. And this is why during the Obama years, it drove us so crazy to hear people be like, why doesn't he have a drink with Mitch McConnell? Why doesn't he play golf with John Boehner? Like those things didn't matter and they wouldn't have mattered. Right. And look, some people might say, OK, well, Joe Biden was the one who campaigned on the idea that he was going to be able to bring Republicans to his side.

Yes, he did. And at the time we thought he was overstating the case and we said so. So he was he was wrong then, you know, but like now it is really hard to just sort of win people over just through the powers of the presidency. Like there are just larger forces at play here. I mean, the American presidency is sort of unique in the Western world in the sense that our president is both the head of state and the head of government, right? They're a monarch and a prime minister. and the head of government, right? They're a monarch and a prime minister. And so because of that, they become these larger than life historical figures who in hindsight are told, and this is the retelling of the LBJ presidency through movies, books, a Broadway play starring Bryan Cranston about how he arm twisted us into civil rights. And it's always more complicated than that. And you're right. Presidents, they have a lot of power. They have more power

and more agency on what they can do with their executive power than with Congress. And there, in some cases, there's limits to what you can do. And this, like everything else, every conversation comes back around to Manchin, where it's like, Joe Biden's got to make Joe Manchin be for getting rid of the filibuster. It's like, well, how do you do that? Like, what is the leverage he has to do that, right? He's got to make Mitch McConnell do this. And there's just limits to it. And it isn't like, I don't bring this up to like, let Joe Biden off the hook for the promises he made or not. I mean, that's not the point. But I just worry so much about demoralization and letting Republicans off the hook. This is Mitch McConnell's entire plan. Block everything, understand how media

coverage works, and ensure that that will lead to a narrative of Joe Biden failed president, which will lead to a demoralized Democratic base in the 22 elections. And watch the Democrats fight amongst themselves as Mitch McConnell sits back and laughs. Well, so let's talk about the shit show back home. We had Joe Manchin made it clear on Sunday that Democrats do not currently have 50 votes in the Senate to either pass voting rights legislation or kill the filibuster. Then on Wednesday, West Virginia's other senator, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, was told by Joe Biden that their bipartisan infrastructure negotiations were over after being unable to agree on a few small things like the size of the bill,

how to pay for it, or the definition of the word infrastructure. But just in case you were worried that this could mean the end of long, drawn out, seemingly hopeless negotiations, fear not, Dan. Biden is now turning to a group of 10 Democratic senators and 10 Republican senators who call themselves the G20 to save the day. The group, which is led by Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema, what a crew, is now discussing an eight-year, $900 billion proposal focused on roads, bridges, and other narrowly defined infrastructure investments.

Do you think there's any danger that this group might actually accomplish something? There is a slight danger that they will accomplish something. That danger is not passage of a large-scale infrastructure bill. What this group may possibly do is convince Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema that if you care about infrastructure, the only way to do it is through budget reconciliation. A lot of people reacted. It was sort of funny because the news about the end of the much ballyhooed Capito negotiations came out in two chunks. The first one was all these tweets, Biden ends negotiations with Capito. Everyone cheers. Here we go. later, everyone groans because they discover that he's leaving those bipartisan negotiations to get involved with a different set of bipartisan negotiations. But if you need Manchin and Sinema's vote on reconciliation, you can't bypass the bipartisan group that contains Manchin and Sinema. This is painful. This is annoying. But this is also reality. This is painful. This is annoying. But this is also reality.

President Biden continuing bipartisan negotiations is solely about getting Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on board. And we talk about he's got to get caught trying. It's not just like get caught trying for the public. It's get caught trying for literally two Democratic senators, perhaps more, but they're hiding behind Manchin and Sinema, who are nervous, anxious about going through the reconciliation process and passing a big infrastructure bill with just Democratic votes. On this bipartisan group, Republicans in that group, Romney, Portman, all the rest of them, are still saying they have ruled out tax increases to pay for this bill. There's no way they're doing any tax increases. So I don't know how you solve the pay for issue if you've ruled out tax increases, unless this group of Republican and Democratic senators are going to say,

here's a package that's about a trillion dollars, and we're just not going to pay for it. We're going to add to the deficit. And like, will the group of 10 Republican senators agree to that? I don't know. That seems a little far fetched to me. No, and I don't think Joe Manchin is going to agree to that. Because you think he'll want tax increases or i think i think he is fine with the tax increases but i think he will want to pay for it right right and i don't think and the other the other option that's been floated to pay for it is like we'll use unspent covid funds which is not a real thing right it's like it's like you know fake accounting that they're gonna try to move some money around to pay for it. No one really believes it.

You either pay for it with tax increases or you increase the deficit. There's really no other way. I mean, the unused COVID money is technically a budget gimmick. That is a way in which you sort of meet the CBO standard for how you pay for things. It's a gimmick, right? That's what I'm trying to say. But it is actually real money that was earmarked to go to things like small business loans and schools and all this other stuff that is going to be taken away. Right. And so it is like the Republican plan at the end of the day, whether it's COVID money or user fees is asking you to

pay for infrastructure, not Amazon. Right. That is the ultimate thing. And I think to give you a sense of how not on the level this is with Republicans. So Biden's plan is we are going to go back into the Republican tax plan of 2018, and we are going to raise the corporate tax rates that you cut in that bill back up. Republicans oppose that. And I think that their position is substantially wrong, morally wrong, politically insane. But I understand the sentiment of like, we've only ever passed one fucking law in our life, and we don't want to undo it two years later. And so Biden, in the Capitol negotiations, and this thing got a ton of attention,

Biden came back and said, let me offer you an alternative as a possibility. What if we increased funding for the IRS in order to do greater enforcement of the law you passed? So I'm not going to change your law. I'm just going to make sure that more people follow the law that you passed. So I'm not going to change your law. I'm just going to make sure that more people follow the law that you passed. So therefore people.

Particularly rich people. We're going to make sure that rich people who have hired fancy accountants to get off from paying any taxes are going to have to pay their taxes. That's what we want to do. We're not changing a single law. We're not changing a single tax rate. We just want to stop your plan to defund the IRS. And we want to enforce the law and make sure that rich people pay the taxes that you pass the law to make them pay. And they said no to that too.

So how do you ever come up with a plan with people who won't raise taxes and then won't enforce existing tax laws? So we're just stuck here. And this is where infrastructure has been stuck forever. Every time everyone talks about bipartisanship, they're like, you know what? Everyone loves roads and bridges. I get it. We have big disagreements on healthcare and tax policy and whether the right to vote is fundamental. We have visits on those sort of policy issues, but we love roads and bridges. Let's get together. I mean, you remember the talk in 2017 about Schumer and Trump cutting a huge infrastructure deal because roads and bridges are bipartisan. Trump's a builder. I mean, you remember the talk in 2017 about like Schumer and Trump cutting a huge infrastructure deal because roads and bridges are bipartisan. Trump's a builder. It always gets stuck on this issue.

Because Republicans actually pay for it. There's no way to pay for it that Republicans will agree with. It doesn't include something like asking poor kids to eat one fewer lunch a week. Like that's basically the plans that they have. That's basically the plans that they have. One more thing on this, you know, just in case Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and other bipartisan curious Democrats in the gang of 20 are listening to this podcast, which, of course, they do religiously. I do want to point out that our friends at Data for Progress gave us some exclusive new polling on this issue.

So they described the American jobs plan and the American families plan to voters and then asked people whether they thought it was more important to pass everything that's in both bills or to find a compromise on the bills, even if that means an infrastructure bill that only includes roads and bridges, that narrowly defined infrastructure bill that the G20 is talking about. By 51% to 40%, people said that Congress should pass both bills. Bipartisanship be damned. So there you go. And look, I will say one more thing on this, too. You know, the there was a political story the other day where Gina McCarthy, who's the

top climate adviser to the Biden administration, said, yeah, there may be some some climate provisions that fall out of this package. And a bunch of Democratic senators, Martin Heinrich from New Mexico, Michael Bennett from Colorado, Brian Schatz from Hawaii, were all like, hey, we get to vote on this too. And just because the 10 Democratic senators negotiate some narrow infrastructure build that's just roads and bridges, if all of our climate agenda or if there's a good chunk of our climate agenda isn't in there, you can't count on all the Democratic votes either. So I do think I can't really see these negotiations lasting for too much longer. And then at some point we go to reconciliation and figure out how to get Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on board there.

Yeah. And Gina McCarthy did walk back that comment. And then the White House said the climate stuff was going to stay. So I think that was an offhand- Which is an even greater indication that this thing is not going to be a bipartisan bill. It was an offhand comment by an advisor that I don't think was indicative of the White House position, which, as you and I know, can be a real pain in the ass. Happens all the time. When we come back, we'll hear what Secretary Pete Buttigieg has to say about all this. He talks to Lovett right after the break. He is the Secretary of Transportation and the first openly gay cabinet secretary in American history, Pete Buttigieg. Welcome back to the pod. Thanks. Good to be back with you.

So I want to get to the infrastructure negotiations, but I want to step back from that first. So in March, I talked to a transit researcher, Alon Levy. They've looked at the explosive cost of infrastructure construction in America. Of the hundreds of subways built in the world since 2000, the five most expensive are in New York, four times the medium cost. A tunnel in Seattle costs three times what it costs to build in Paris, seven times what it costs in Madrid. No correlation to

GDP per person. So, you know, you're in the midst of these negotiations of a package between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. But regardless, we have this huge problem of costs in America being so high. How do you view your role as Transportation Secretary in making those dollars go further? Yeah, I think, look, part of what we got to do is just make sure that the right level of support goes in. But we also got to make sure that it's well spent and well used. And part of what I think we need to be doing as a department is having the right level of accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent. And I want to stand up more capabilities here to assess some of the reasons why that's the case. Some of it is

here to assess some of the reasons why that's the case. Some of it is inevitable in the sense of the rising costs of certain kinds of materials or processes, but it can't be that we should just settle for having a higher cost of delivery than peer nations, especially ones in Europe that, you know, you can't say that they're not taking labor or environmental seriously, right, which is part of why this is such a head scratcher. There are a lot of different things that go into it. Part of it's the complexities of our federal system where there's usually a lot of different layers of project sponsorship. Part of it may have to do with the legal environment in the U.S., but we do need to work through these things because, you know, it matters not just how many dollars we put in, but more importantly, what do we have to show for those dollars? Yeah, I mean, this is actually one of the reasons I was excited that you were Secretary of Transportation, because I thought this is something that I thought you could really dive into.

And one of the points that a number of experts make is that this is an area where we just need to learn from other countries. is that this is an area where we just need to learn from other countries. Like we need to, you know, send people, bring in city planners and experts from Italy, from Spain, from France, and we need to have sort of more communication. Are you thinking about that at all, about how we can learn some of these lessons? Yeah, for sure. I mean, look, we shouldn't be too proud to learn from other countries, especially because if we're being honest with ourselves, America may be the leading nation in many ways, but not trains, right? Public transit, not highway safety. I mean, there are lots of things that really matter to us transportation-wise where we clearly could be learning from others on how to do what we do better, and we should. Now, having said that, I think it's not just about going far afield and

seeing what the Norwegians are up to. It's also looking around our own country. You could look at two different cities in two different parts of the U.S. with radically different levels of cost efficiency or safety or any other number of things. I think part of our job is to make sure we cultivate the best of the things that are happening in communities or certain states and try to create carrots and sticks to have those best ways of doing things adopted in other cities and other states and other communities. And we have such great visibility on that as a department, right? Funding things in all of the states and for that matter, tribes and territories around this country that I think we can kind of cross-pollinate the best from one

place into another. So you are saying it's not the size of the infrastructure package, it's how you use it. That's sort of what I'm... Both. It's both. I mean, look, part of why... This is really important because part of why the last round of negotiations didn't make it

was because our negotiating partners just wouldn't get there on the level of dollar amount that it is going to take, no matter how efficient we are. I'm offended. I'm sorry. I'm offended. I made a reference to a package. It is pride. There was an innuendo there and you ignored it. This is pride. I am going to be strategically oblivious from now on. Frank Kameny did not protest in front of the White House so that you could ignore my jokes during pride, Pete. Secretary Pete. I'm sorry to disappoint.

Unbelievable. Well, you just wait. You just wait. Let's talk about I wanted to ask you about really. No, I'm going to watch how much I can ignore your wit. All right. All right. Challenge accepted. Gauntlet thrown. I want to talk about climate, seriously. So Senator Martin Heinrich said an infrastructure package that goes light on climate and clean energy should not count on every Democratic vote. This was echoed by AOC. This was echoed by Senator Ed Markey, who basically said no climate, no bill. So you've made climate central to what you're doing in your role. Are there lines the administration is drawing on climate? Does it have to be part of a bill? How are you thinking about that? Yeah, I mean, the way I'd put it to make it relatively simple is this has to be a set of investments that leaves the climate better

and not worse, and to a major degree. I mean, look, every transportation decision is a climate decision, whether we acknowledge it or not. And it's not just things like electric vehicles, which is a very important part of the president's vision. It's also things like where a highway goes or whether you add a highway at all. It's what we have by way of transit. In other words, it's not just whether our vehicles are cleaner. That really matters. It's whether you need to drag a vehicle. It's whether you need to bring two tons of metal with you to get somewhere in the first place. Those are questions of networks, transit, road design, even city design. I mean, it's as much a question for housing and how and where we build housing as it is, you know, what's specifically going into the transportation system, which is why we need to be working these things together.

So all of this belongs in the plan. All of this belongs in the vision. And it is. I mean, it's in the president's plan, and it needs to stay in whatever it is we're creating. What has surprised you? You're in these negotiations, and obviously I know you're not going to reveal private conversations, but generally speaking, what has surprised you about the difference between what's being said behind closed doors, ideally, hopefully in good faith, versus sort of public pronouncements? What are you learning about that difference? Well, the good news is there's not as much difference as you might think.

The tone and goodwill in the meetings is similar to what we're expressing publicly. And when we are far apart on something, like there's a big, I don't want to get too wonky, but there's a big thing over the baseline, right? So they were bringing what they viewed as hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, but most of it wasn't new spending, which meant it was apples to oranges with our plan and basically one-tenth of what we brought forward. Nobody was sneaky about that. I mean, we sat down, we talked through it, and we were very honest about being on just very different pages. So I think I appreciate the level of goodwill. Maybe it's unique to

infrastructure. I don't know. It's one of those areas of domestic policy that's less toxic than a lot of the others. But that's encouraged me. It's also very human. I mean, this is, the Senate is 100 very specific people with very specific personalities and styles. Senate is 100 very specific people with very specific personalities and styles. And sometimes the outcome of a policy decision or policy negotiation is as much about the relationships that emerge and the trust that emerges among human beings as it is any kind of elaborate protocol for how negotiations happen. So just the humanity of this. I mean, look, I'm used to dealing with, you know, when I was a mayor, I had a legislative body of nine. And now there's 100 senators, 435 House members. It's different. But that part

actually isn't so different. You know, it's interesting that you say that. It does feel like there's these sort of like two kinds of conversations. And one is the one that you're having, like, you know, Senator Shelley Moore Capito is disappointed but believes there's room for a deal. You know, Manchin and Romney are now resuming talks. McConnell today said he's hopeful. You have progressives creating leverage, which is kind of what you'd hope they would do to kind of pull the package to the left. And then at the same time, you have Republicans across the country undermining voting laws,

supported by a lot of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate who, you know, won't pass any kind of voter protections, wouldn't support investigation into the insurrection. Do you think there's any kind of mismatch between, I think, the rhetoric that is correct about the threat to our democracy and our behavior in trying to figure out how to engage these Republicans on other issues? How do you think about that? Look, there's always a lot of compartmentalizing that goes on in trying to make good policy. And part of where we are is that we may have ferocious differences in one area, and it's still worth it to look for where we're aligned in another area. I mean, what's happening on those other fronts is incredibly important, and it's incredibly serious. I think at the same time, it's possible, those other fronts is incredibly important and it's incredibly serious.

I think at the same time, it's possible, if there's any area of domestic policy where it's possible to get together, it's on this because, you know, that's where constituencies are too, right? Every Republican or Democrat I talk to, what they all have in common is they're from somewhere and they're from a place where I don't care how conservative or liberal or Trumpy that place is. People want better roads and bridges and, for that matter, Internet and, you know, transportation resources and clean water. And they think corporations aren't paying their fair share. And they're right about that. I mean, that's something that I think is true on a widespread basis across America. We're just trying to get it to be reflected out here in Washington. You mentioned the fair share. It does seem like there's this non-starter around how to pay for it. Is there any movement on that? It does like,

you know, even those that are negotiating the more moderate, so-called moderate members are saying that non-starter, you cannot touch the Trump tax cuts. Is that a line? Is that a real line? Is that a private line? So far, it's been a pretty hard line. I've heard some House Republicans talk about the rate, maybe, okay, it doesn't have to be 25. 21, they'll say maybe it could be 25. I've yet to see any Senate Republicans say that out loud. What I will say, though, and look, this is a good example of where I'm never going to see it their way. I mean, to me, the idea that these corporate tax breaks and tax cuts for the rich are an important legacy achievement is tough for me to relate to. But I believe that they believe that. And that's enough to understand that that's going to be important

in the negotiation. So at the same time, there are a lot of other things. I mean, the enforcement piece, right? Like who could be against at least making sure that people and companies pay the taxes they're supposed to pay? And we know that there is a huge return on what we invest in enforcement because the IRS has really been unable to collect what's owed. That I think is a fruitful area that doesn't get into the rate disagreement as much, where it may simply not be possible to bring Republicans on board. And there are other areas like that, where I think certain kinds of loopholes or things like that, where there's a lot of promise. But look, obviously, tax policy is going to be one of the areas where it will always be harder to agree with people on the other side of the aisle than something like the abundantly clear fact that we got to fix our roads.

Are you concerned at all that the current proposals, not the Republican proposal, not the Democratic proposal, does anything to support the Gene Smart renaissance? You have Watchmen, you have Mayor Easttown, you have Hacks. Watchmen, you have Mayor Easttown, you have Hacks. There's nothing in the bill to support Gene Smart's renaissance. You don't know anything about these shows. You're not watching Hacks. You're not watching Mayor Easttown. Did you watch Watchmen? As Lucille Bluth said, I don't understand the question and I'm not going to respond to it. Unbelievable. What are you in? I know that Watchmen is

incredible and I'm diminishing myself by admitting I haven't caught up to it. But I'll get there. What are you in Chastain watching? Let's see.

This Solar Opposites. I think it's from the Rick and Morty people. That's been pretty good. This is a very stylish French heist miniseries. Lupin. It's based on Arsène Lupin, the novels. He's

breaking into the Louvre. That's pretty exciting. Words on the bottom. That has words along the bottom. Subtitles. Yes. Yes. Those are good for you. I'm sure they are. I just can't look at my phone during it, so it's tough.

I see. How about you? Oh, well, you know, Mary's town, which I recommend hacks. You got to watch hacks. One other thing I want to ask you, I loved biking in DC and I actually had an e-bike that I used to commute to the white house. And I was mocked mercilessly by several senior Obama administration officials for using my e-bike. Really?

Do you believe that I'm owed an apology? Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. You do. Okay, good. Final question.

Do you think any part of your tension with Amy Klobuchar was sexual? Again, I do not understand the question and I'm not going to respond to it. That was hard to say. I almost like want to cover my camera as I said that out loud. Can we go back to the bike real quick? Was there a bike at the time? Yes, please. There was a bike rack at the time. Thank you for asking. So you had to go south, and I think it was through West Exec. Then you could come up, and it was in the old executive office building. There was a bike rack where I could park both either my e-bike or there was an

e-scooter. And I understand why I was mocked for the e-scooter, although I was ahead of the curve on both of those. As long as you do it safe, safely, I'm pro-scooter. But it's good to know there's a bike rack in there somewhere because what we did when I biked there is we just put it on the vehicle. And then somebody saw us taking it back off the vehicle and concluded this was a grand conspiracy of me to, you know, claim some great feat of athleticism riding a couple of miles out to the White House that wasn't actually true. So this is sticking in my crawl a little bit. It's good to know. Yeah. You really were riding the bike. They were trying to, you know, they thought it was like a

Bloomberg situation where he would like get out of an SUV, ride the subway a couple of stops and then get off. But you really were biking. I don't do it all the time, but I bike from the department up to the White House and then I bike back. from the department up to the, to the white house. And then, and then I, I bike back and the next thing you knew it was, it was like the crime of the century, according to, so, uh, um, all cause there wasn't a bike crack within, uh, within evidence. I'm going to try to get that thing down. Yeah. It's a little bit, I think for, you know, you're meeting probably in the West way and you have to go down and there's a, it's, it's a little bit out of the way. Let's be honest. It was at least when I was there, uh, the, um, the e-bike was great because in the suit you're DC in the spring,

you're going to, you're going to sweat. You're going to sweat. No, I'm, I'm very pro e-bike again, uh, ride at a safe speed, have your helmet, et cetera, et cetera. But, uh, no, it's just like a wind at your back. There's no shame in that. Thank you. Thank you for saying that secretary Pete Buttigieg, always good to see you. Thank you. Thank you for saying that. Secretary Pete Buttigieg, always good to see you. Happy pride. Happy pride. All right. Take care. All right. We talked about all the places where Biden's agenda is stalled, but there are a few bright spots or at least potential bright spots, that we should mention. On Tuesday, the Senate voted 68 to 32 for legislation that would invest nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars into American technology, science, and research in an effort to compete with China.

That same day, the Senate confirmed Biden's first two judicial nominees, Julian Xavier Niels as district court judge in New Jersey, and Regina Rodriguez as the first Asian American judge to serve on the district court bench in Colorado. Schumer has also set up votes for Katonji Brown Jackson to serve in the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Zahid Karachi, who will be the first American Muslim federal judge in U.S. history. I believe those votes could be happening as we're recording this podcast. judge in U.S. history. I believe those votes could be happening as we're recording this podcast. And even on an issue as difficult and contentious as police reform, three sources told NBC this week that Democratic and Republican negotiators are close to a compromise on qualified immunity,

which currently protects law enforcement from being sued for misconduct and has been the main sticking point in passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. All right, let's just go through these issues one by one quickly. How do you think a bill that invests a quarter of a trillion dollars in science and technology ended up with 68 votes in the Senate, including 19 Republicans, but didn't really make any headlines? I guess there's two questions. First of all, how'd they get a bipartisan bill on this and get 19 Republicans? And then how didn't it make headlines? On the first part, I think it is Joe Biden

and Chuck Schumer basically pulled a brilliant Jedi mind trick on the Republicans. Because do you know what this bill basically is? And you would, there weren't that many stories on it, but even if you read the few stories that were, you wouldn't really get this point. A huge, he did a good episode on it.

That's why I learned more. I'm unfamiliar with that podcast. Is it? That's not the one to kill in Gideon do right now. That's no, I'm familiar. That's the only one that you need every morning. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what you need. Well, I am a person in a daily world. Yes. So what you would not know from reading the very few stories that are written about it is a big chunk of Joe Biden's American jobs plan is embedded in that bill, right? The help for manufacturers, the support of semiconductors, things like that. Education, STEM education, scholarships, manufacturing.

partnerships, manufacturing. It is an element of just how sort of overly simplistic and identity focused Republican politics has been that if you just say this bill takes on China, they'll pass a bunch of Democratic stuff, right? There's probably a lesson there, right? That we can apply to other things. It's sort of, you're using a small psychological trick to get people to do the things you want to do. It's a big deal. The reason it didn't get attention is because the press loves bipartisanship, but things that happen on Bipartisan Investor are not seen as news. Right.

Because there's not a lot of debate. There's not a lot of argument. There's no conflict. People aren't calling each other names. There's no conflict. The bias is conflict. This bill got way more attention when Ron Johnson and Tommy Tuberville and others blocked it before the recess than it did when it actually passed. The conflict and the failure of bipartisanship and the fight and yelling on the floor, that got news. The actual passing of things almost never gets news. They cover the fight. They don't cover the end of the fight. And it's a huge problem.

It is a disservice to people's rights. And the other thing is it runs against the chosen narrative of the moment. The chosen narrative of the moment is Biden's agenda is stalled. We live in the mansion cul-de-sac. Where are we going from here? Are Democrats screwed? And then you have Biden actually accomplishing a campaign promise, which is passing part of his jobs plan in a bipartisan way. And it gets zero attention because it runs counter to the narrative. Just like in the FDR narrative,

there were all anything, any of the warning signs about whether you could pass things with 50 votes were also ignored, right? And I will tell you, like, I didn't spend a lot of time paying attention to this bill. Like I, I, I saw reports of it here and there on Twitter, uh, until we started prepping for this podcast. And it's like a quarter of a trillion dollars is a lot of money. Like, it's not like, I thought it was some smaller bill that was going to do whatever. Like I did not realize it was this substantive and this large. And also because it has been framed as like a, you know, how to maintain competitiveness with China bill. I wasn't all, I also wasn't aware how much it does for, you know, research and development, education, manufacturing, innovation, technology, science, like all of the, like investing in all of those areas right here in the United States.

It's it's great. It's a it's a it's a real big accomplishment. And it's sort of amazing that like including in those included in those 19 Republicans was Mitch McConnell voted for it. You almost think like if Mitch McConnell voted for it, how good could it be? Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz was one of the leading Republicans for it. Like it really breaks your brain. I know it makes you think it's bad, but Republicans for it. It really breaks your brain. I know. It makes you think it's bad, but it's not. It's good.

I mean, this is like the overlying or underlying, I guess, theme to a lot the primary cultural ethos of political media is holding politicians accountable, holding their feet to the fire. And that's, I mean, ultimately a virtuous thing. That's what you want. But too often it devolves into – it is a huge deal when presidents don't keep their promises for whatever reason. They break their promise. They choose not to do it. Structure blocks it. Agendas get stalled. That's a big deal. And it is upon us as the holders of the feet to the fire to tell everyone about that. But then when they do what they're supposed to do, that doesn't get celebrated. It doesn't get talked about. It's not something that bleeds, therefore it doesn't lead. And. And this is, this is, this happened. This angered us. It's an old problem. Yeah. It's been around forever.

It's still like with all the changes in media and everything that's happened and Mark Zuckerberg ruining the world and everything, this problem still exists. I like that you just slipped in Mark Zuckerberg ruining the world. I mean, it almost felt like it was redundant. Like I didn't even have to say it. Like oxygen exists.

Right. On judges, Senate confirmed Biden's first two with overwhelming majorities. Again, 66, 33, 72, 28 were the votes for the first two. There are more than 100 vacancies expected to open up in the coming months. How big of a deal do you think this is that we're starting to move judges? I also, by the way, noticed we're going to get some mailbag questions, but a bunch of questions were like, why aren't they going faster?

We got to act faster on the judges. We should point out that this is know compared to both trump obama bush all past presidents this is relatively quickly to start having the senate move on judges it is relatively quickly but you know what move faster we got 50 senators a lot of them are over 80 some of them are in states with republican governors like every minute counts here people just got to get these things going. Ever since Monday and the Joe Manchin op-ed, the amount of people we have heard from are like, why does it even matter? Why did we win Georgia? Everything sucks. This is why it matters. Without Joe Manchin, Mitch McConnell would be in charge.

And he could – it is the power of the majority to decide what goes to the floor. to the floor. And Mitch McConnell could do to every single Biden judge, district court judge, appeals court judge, replacement for Stephen Breyer were he to retire, prevent them from going to the floor. He could do to them what he did to Merrick Garland. But because we have 50 seats, we can put judges on the court. And those judges have lifetime appointments. Long after all these senators have gone, long after Joe Manchin has gotten in almost heaven and sailed off into the sunset, those judges will still be there. This is incredibly consequential. It is the most lasting thing a president can do. It's the most undoable thing, I guess you'd say, that presidents and Senate Democrats, this is a huge deal. It's incredibly important.

And Donald Trump put mostly unqualified, almost entirely white, mostly male people on the court. And here you have Joe Biden and the Democrats putting a diverse set of people, diverse in men and women, diverse all across every demographic group and life experience, not just a bunch of corporate lawyer, federal society bots like Trump did. Public defenders. Public defenders, criminal justice advocates. This is a huge deal. And it's easy to get lost in all of our anger and depression about the, for the people, like everything else.

But this is why it was so fucking important that we won those Georgia Senate seats. And this is not to say you shouldn't be mad about Joe Manchin. It's not to say that you should be like, you should settle for this and nothing else. It's just to point out that like, this is why it's worthwhile to have joe mansion in the democratic caucus as fucking infuriating as he is right now because he's voting for these he's not only voting for these judges because a bunch of republicans voted for these judges too but like you said joe mansion being

a democrat is making it possible to confirm these judges. If Joe Manchin were not a Democrat, if he were not in the Senate or if he changed parties, there would be no judges. A hundred vacancies would just be held open probably by Mitch McConnell until there was a Republican Senate. And then they would be filled by 22 year old fucking, you know, white dudes whose only qualification is that they like fucking wrote a Breitbart piece. That's what we'd have in those vacancies. You know? Yeah. A judiciary full of shit posters. That's what we would have.

So, you know, it's not like, not everything's great, but not everything's awful either. Finally on police reform, how hopeful are you that they'll get something done here? You know, the NBC story was pretty optimistic. And then Cory Booker, who's one of the lead Democratic negotiators on the bills, told CNN that the talks are going very, very well.

But then Tim Scott, the Republican senator in charge of negotiating the bill, told CNN the same day that there are many other issues besides qualified immunity that they're finding really hard to resolve and they probably won't make their end of June deadline. What are your thoughts on that? their end of June deadline. What are your thoughts on this? Look, I mean, Cory Booker is a person who's never been overly enthusiastic before, so I don't know. That guy's an optimist. There are very hard issues here, right? You're still dealing with a Republican Party that wants to run on defunding the police. We just saw that in the New Mexico special election we talked about a few weeks ago. But the fact that they are talking, the fact that the progress is potentially being made is hopeful.

That is a sign that some things can get done. And this is the dueling narratives that are currently existing, right? There is a very true, very accurate narrative about a bunch of crypto authoritarian Republicans blocking everything that matters for the sole purpose of trying to hold on to political power despite representing fewer and fewer Americans every day. But then you also have these other, like you said, green shoots, to use a horrible term that we hated back in the day. But there are some things in that. And if Biden is going to get blame for things not getting done, he should sure fucking get credit for the things

that do get done and for progress being made. And that is where this oversimplification, this narrative hurting, where we just decide as a political media culture that everything sucks, and therefore everything should be viewed through the filter of everything sucks, is – it is overly simplistic. And I think it is incumbent upon all of us to push back on that. And like you said, don't let Joe Biden off the hook right there. And there are some things like student debt cancellation he can most likely do all by himself. And if he doesn't do those things, then that isn't- He hasn't done it yet. He should do it.

But simply yelling at Joe Biden is not going to get Joe Manchin to change his vote. There is work to do that could possibly get us there or at least expand our Senate majority in 2022 so that you don't need Joe Manchin's vote. But yelling at the president can be cathartic at times, but it is not a solution to the problems we currently exist. Yeah. Figure out strategic ways to pressure the president and Democrats in Congress. Yell if you want. It's just not going to do much. I mean, you feel free to tweet into the void. That's where Twitter exists. If you tweet into the void, we do it.

Don't worry. We're not, you know, we're not special. All right. Let's take a few questions from the old mailbag. Questions. Max asks, I know you don't play the prediction game, but is there a plausible scenario where there is a net gain of at least one Democratic senator in 2022? You know, to nullify Joe Manchin's

existence. Similar question from Malik, who asks, which 2022 midterm races can Democrats look to steal? Also, very important, has Dan thought of his campaign slogan for the Delaware Senate? Do you want to take the serious part first? Oh, well, let's take

the less serious part first. I want to hear it. I want to hear the slogan. first oh let's take the less serious part first and by yes i want to hear it i want to hear the song is i mean it like fucking writes itself i didn't even come up with it yes we did it seems so obvious that's maybe that's the episode title yes god i hope not um and why aren't there yes we dan t-shirts in the crooked store we should get on that please don't please do not do that nothing would nothing would piss down off more than yes we dan t-shirts we're not even going to tell you we're just going to start selling you'll get you'll get a you'll get an email from theoked store and that's how you'll find out. Anyway, back to the serious questions.

Yeah, there is a very plausible scenario that Democrats could pick up a net gain of Senate seats. We have to hold Georgia, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada, four states that Biden won, albeit quite narrowly, but four states he won. And then we have a chance to pick up Senate seats in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states Biden won, albeit quite narrowly, but four states he won. And then we have a chance to pick up Senate seats in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states Biden won, albeit narrowly. And then other opportunities in Florida and North Carolina, two states that Biden lost, but are competitive in purple. And so, yeah, there is a very rare opportunity to do it. And it is as favorable a map as you could possibly hope for in what is historically a tough year for the party of the president.

Yeah. And I think that we should all expect and push the Democratic candidates in those Senate races to make sure they tell us ahead of time that they're going to kill the filibuster. Right. Let's get it. Let's get it right. Let's get a promise ahead of time. I mean, you know, I saw just when when after Manchin's op ed, John Fetterman, who's who's running one of the Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania, tweeted, I will be the 51st vote for the filibuster reform. I imagine the other candidates who are running against him in the primary in Pennsylvania will say the same thing. I imagine you'll see Democratic candidates running for office in a lot of these states who may say that. And I actually think you can do it because, look, even if you are running in a more purple state that's probably more ideologically towards

the center at times and you've got sort of tough swing voters, I do think that filibuster reform is one of those issues that's not necessarily connected to ideology. Like you can be for filibuster reform and still be someone who sort of represents the views of the more moderate voters in your state. And so I think we'll, that's where I'm looking at this point, because the way that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are right now, like I don't know that they're going to change their minds, certainly not completely. And so I looked at 2022 and think, can we pick up, you know, two more seats and then, and then you don't have to worry about those two. Mark asks, if I'm most worried about democratic performance with Latinos,

which organization should I volunteer for donate to? This is obviously something that we've talked a lot about on this podcast. What do you think, Dan? Well, we got a list of folks from our political team. Two of the folks on that list that I think are very important are Voto Latino and Nuestro Pac. Chuck Rocha, who is at Nuestro Pac, has been on this podcast before. You've talked to him for the wilderness, I believe, and some other things. Those are some great ones. Should we tweet out the other list? How do you want to do that? I'll go through them really quick. There's a local organization in Pennsylvania called Casa in Action that does some fantastic work. And then there are a few organizations that don't deal directly with electoral politics, but they do fantastic work on specific issues like

immigration or economic justice, workers' rights, United We Dream, Lucha in Arizona, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, and Voces de la Frontera in Wisconsin. We can obviously tweet these out. We'll put them in the show notes as well. I will just say, yeah, we've had Chuck on this podcast. And we've talked to him outside this podcast. He was a top strategist for Bernie Sanders. And he's really been, he spends all of his time thinking about sort of Latino performance and in electoral politics. And Nuestro PAC is a really sort of exciting organization that's looking to to work on that issue, both in 2022 and 2024 and beyond. So great organization. Amanda asks, what are you guys reading?

Which, of course, Dan picked as a question to answer just to embarrass me who doesn't read. I actually am. I actually am reading some things. But you go first. Tell me what you're reading. So here's the I'm always reading like multiple books at once. And what happens is I get into bed and I read like 15 pages at a time before i fall asleep because i'm very tired all the time and the most embarrassing book that i am still reading

because i have not finished it yet and i'm just everyone just keep it between us don't don't spread this around i am still finishing promise a promised land which is brock obama's memoir like look i know how it ends so i don't you know it's not but it's a fantastic book but i'm still reading that um i'm reading i'm halfway through a little more than halfway through uh rhodes's book after the fall which you should all go by ben is now number three on the new york times bestseller list he's just he's on bill o'reilly's heels n at the heels. So go buy After the Fall. In fiction, I just finished Midnight Library by Matt Haig. And I've started Interior Chinatown by Charles Yu and In Five Years by Rebecca Searle. So you are crushing. I mean, I'm, I'm, again, I'm like picking them up. I get 15 pages. I fall asleep. I try another

one the next night. That's what I'm doing. Yeah. I used to read one book at a time. I used to just plow through books. And then I had one child and I plowed through fewer books. Then we had a second child. Oof. Yeah. I plowed through even fewer books. But I now am at the point where I'm reading sort of several books at a time because some

of them are quasi. They're books that I would read on my own, but they are quasi work related. I just finished Ben's book. I'm reading Adam Serwer's book right now, which is coming out soon, which is unbelievable. Oh, I want to read that. I'm reading a book called Dissent,

which is coming out in a few weeks from our old friend Jackie Colms, who was a reporter who covered the Obama White House. It's about the, it tells the story of the radicalization of the Republican Party through their efforts to rig the courts. It's really, really fascinating.

A lot of interesting information about the Kavanaugh confirmation. And fiction-wise, I sort of – in this weird period of time where you were waking up in the middle of the night with two-and-a-half-month-olds, I sort of had to switch. I was reading – trying to read like a bunch of political books at night, and I cannot do that right now. So I've been reading a couple of books by Jane Harper, who is a Australian crime thriller writer. It's like they're very good, they're very entertaining, they're very sort of beach-ready, like high-concept beach reads, I think. Um, I've just started the committed by Viet Nien who wrote, uh, the Pulitzer prize winning book, the sympathizer. This is the sequel to that, which is phenomenal, but everything is moving slowly. My primary reading right now is Rosie Revere engineer and it's compendium book Iggy Peck architect, which are, uh, very, very popular among, uh, a certain segment of our household who we read them every night, uh, multiple, multiple times a day.

So I forgot that yeah i forgot that children's books are what i read the most uh yeah to charlie before bed every yes um and and just one on you know when i'm not reading things that we're watching i just well i don't know if you've seen this yet bo burnham's special on netflix inside is maybe the best thing i've seen certainly this year, maybe multiple years. I cannot recommend it enough. Everyone who's saying wonderful things about it is correct. Go watch it. It's on Netflix. It's sort of about it's definitely the best piece of like pandemic content, although it's weird to call it that because it's about so much more than that that I've that I've seen. It's sort of about like living this online life. It's fantastic.

It's funny. Go see it. Can I do two things to watching things really fast? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So one, this season of top chef, also a piece of pandemic content because they did it in a bubble. This is a phenomenal season. They're in Portland. You wouldn't really know it because they're in a bubble, but it is phenomenal. And then I cannot recommend this enough. And this is going to sound strange. There was a show called the Bureau, which is a French spy show about this from so many people. It is on AMC plus.

It is the single best piece of television I have seen since the wire. There are five seasons. It is unbelievable. It is subtitled, which also is the added benefit of making you put your phone away. Can't look at that phone with subtitle. It is phenomenal. benefit of making you put your phone away can't look at that phone with subtitle it is is phenomenal i cannot recommend enough and our old friends uh at the watch andy greenwald and chris ryan have done specials where they break down each of these

each season of it so that's like a nice compendium to watch afterwards but the bureau french spy show superb a few quick questions brent asks who who wrote Hillary Clinton's line? Make sure you Pokemon go to the polls. That's John Lovett. That's very easy. Charlie asks, have you eaten a cicada yet? And would you, if a Michelin star chef prepared some for you? No, stop trying to make us eat fucking cicadas. Everyone. I think if I was at a Michelin starred restaurant and they served a cicada, I would try it. But here's the thing. This is the most important part.

Don't yell at anyone for not wanting to eat insects. That's the key. If you want to eat an insect, eat away. If you don't, fine. The fucking cicada discourse is so much worse. So much worse. I mean, I know it's been so many years since the last one, but God, it's so bad. Just stop with the fucking cicada food. It is just a sign of how much things have gotten worse over the 17 years since the last one but god it's so bad just stop with the fucking cicada food

it is just a sign of how much things have gotten worse over the 17 years since the cicadas hit last time is that now social media exists it's for people to yell at each other about whether they eat cicadas or not um milo asks who's the diva host is it dan it's dan isn't it look you've been listening to this podcast for this many years and you can't figure out who the diva host is. I can't help you. Yeah. Some questions answer themselves. Final question from Rockmeister.

What are some things that give you hope? It's hard not to feel overwhelmed. I'm really worried about the direct challenge to row, gerrymandering, et cetera. Dan? I mean, we talked about this a little bit during the 500th episode, but I think that what happened in 2020, not what happened afterwards, not what Trump did, what the Republicans did, what Fox News did, what Mitch McConnell did, but what regular people did in the middle of a pandemic to defeat an incumbent president who represented a moral and existential

threat to the country is incredibly inspiring. It happened once. It can happen again. And I think people have stayed engaged. That's the other thing that I think really gives me hope is that there was a sense that everyone would turn off politics. Trump is gone. Everything seems safe. It's hot fact summer, to use our super awkward title. You can go out and do everything. But people are still engaged, and they're staying engaged. And people are engaging with us. They're asking about what they can do in 2022, how they can contribute to holding on to the Virginia governorship. And if people are engaged, doing the hard work of politics, anything is possible. It's not going to be easy. It may not be as fast as we want, but it can happen. And that gives me hope that we can overcome Joe Manchin, Donald Trump, Fox News, Facebook, and everything else.

and we've been through a pandemic, like bad things are going to happen and you can't predict them and you can't prevent them. All you can do is make a plan to fix them and to keep fighting. And that's sort of how I look at everything now when bad shit happens, when Joe Manchin writes an op-ed, my first thought is, okay, this sucks. I'm mad about it. Like, let's figure out a way around it. Let's figure out a plan. And then you just keep fighting. And there is, you know, that sort of keeps me hopeful as long as I'm continuing to fight and try to figure out ways to make progress. make progress, then, you know, I don't feel, I don't feel so hopeless. And when I see other people, not when I see other people angry, when I see other people mad about this, that like, that only makes me feel like, okay, at least people still care, right? When people stop caring, that's when I'll stop feeling hopeful. Yeah. It's like make a plan and it's okay. If rage tweet is step number one of your plan, just make sure there's a step two, three, and four, right? And it's, and it's also okay. If you are reading the news and you're super bummed out and you're like, I need to take a break from it for a little while.

A break is fine. A break is not giving up. Just don't, you know, just get back in the fight at some point. So, all right. Thank you to Pete Buttigieg for joining us today. And everyone have a great weekend. We'll talk to you next week. Bye, everyone.

Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Flavia Casas. Our associate producers are 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, Narmel Konian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week.