Pod Save America - “Donald Trump, Diplomat.”

Episode Date: June 3, 2019

Trump spends the weekend picking fights with our biggest trading partner (Mexico) and our closest ally (the U.K.), the mass shooting in Virginia Beach puts gun control proposals back in the spotlight, and the Democratic candidates for president descend on California to make their case. Then London Mayor Sadiq Khan talks to Tommy about Trump’s U.K. visit, and Cherokee journalist and activist Rebecca Nagle talks to Tommy about her new podcast, This Land.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, Tommy's interview with London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who made time for us this morning to talk about President Trump's visit to the UK. By all accounts, going smoothly. He's pumped about it. Mayor Khan is. You'll also hear a conversation Tommy had with Rebecca Nagel,

the host of Crooked Media's brand new podcast, Out Today, This Land. I've had so many people text me this morning to say they were listening and loved it. That's fantastic. We're all listening to This Land. If you haven't subscribed yet, what are you even doing? So be sure to listen through the entire podcast for Tommy's interview and then go download that first episode.

But first, we've got a lot of news to get through from Trump's latest trade tax to his trip to the UK to all the latest 2020 news. Also, a reminder, we will be on the road this week. A lot of T-words. You're tax to his trip to the UK to all the latest 2020 news. Also, a reminder, we will be on the road this week. A lot of T-words. You're going to be able to hear our Thursday night show in Chicago on Friday and our Sunday night show in Des Moines on Monday. And there's still tickets to come see us at those shows and in Minneapolis at crooked.com slash events.

Going home to Des Moines. Home to Des Moines. Maybe I'll find the truck that I abandoned at a gas station in 2007. That would be wonderful. Yeah. Still cooking? I don't think so. It was a 1994 F-150, and the tranny went, so I just left it there.

This happened. Love It's got a show in Minneapolis. Love It and Amy Klobuchar. Me and the club. Love It and the club, one night only. Lots of great stuff going on this tour. Okay, let's get to the news. On Friday, Donald Trump announced that he will raise tariffs by 5% on all goods coming from Mexico,

quote, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico and into our country, all capital letters, stop. mexico and into our country all capital letters stop the president said that if mexico doesn't comply he'll raise the tariff an extra five percent every month until it hits a maximum of 25 even trump's own economic advisor recently admitted that american consumers pay the price for these tariffs which will affect everything from cars to electronics computers alcohol lots of different shit a lot of guys what are the other potential consequences of Trump's new trade tax? Amazing leadership. Everything getting better? I don't know.

Yeah, it's, you know. I mean, it's going to make, people keep saying, oh, avocado prices are going to, no, it's like mostly auto parts and all the beers we drink, Coronas, Dosekis, like a lot of consumer goods that a lot of people like are going to go up. If you live in Texas, a lot of imports from Mexico are going to be more expensive. And so, I don't know, big picture, this makes us look like a pretty unreliable trade partner writ large. He just negotiated the NAFTA 2.0, the USMCA, thought we had that behind us, and he just arbitrarily slaps escalating tariffs on Mexico to deal with a immigration problem that is actually coming from other countries in Central America. That seems crazy. Yeah, you hear a lot of, when you read about analysis of this, people say, oh, it's going to disrupt the supply chain, which is something everyone's like, what the fuck does that mean? Thousands of auto parts.

Here's an example of that. The American auto industry, as you just said. The American auto industry right now is facing the most layoffs over the last four months that they've seen since the Great Recession, which is when the auto industry almost collapsed completely. And a lot of parts in American cars are imported from Mexico. And that happens. That's what they mean when they say the supply chain. There's all these American manufacturers, the head of the American Manufacturing Association said there would be devastating consequences for American manufacturers because of this, because so many different parts and so many different manufactured goods in this

country come from Mexico. And not just come, they go back and forth. Like we built a big system and it's not a perfect system. And there are plenty of reasonable criticisms. And it's interesting that you see some of the criticism of Trump's proposed replacement for NAFTA kind of coming at him saying things like, you know, we don't know this would be a good enough deal for American workers. Everybody recognizes that there's been blowback because of NAFTA. But one of the things we built is an international system across our southern border where it's supposed to be open. Things go back and forth. Products start in Mexico, end up in the U.S., go back to Mexico to be completed. Products start in the U.S., go to Mexico, come back. Things move across the border as they're constructed, as we've built this international system of trade in which borders are supposed to be more open. So to introduce this very simplistic notion that we're just going to stick a tax on things coming in elides how complicated international trade has become, in part because of the agreements the United States has been privy to for the last 30 years.

Yeah. I mean, on a micro level, we are just making it really hard to do business. Like, for example, GoPro just moved a bunch of its operations from China to Mexico to avoid tariffs. And then they wake up in the morning and they read about this new tariff on Mexican manufacturing. And how are we going to see what happens when a dog goes to the Grand Canyon? Right, exactly. On a macro level, this could actually start to hurt the economy. It's been weird watching the trade war unfold,

because there were a lot of dire warnings. And then the markets just kind of absorbed the slow escalation. We're all a bunch of boiled frogs. But Josh Barrow wrote a smart piece this weekend where he talked about how some economists think that the latest iteration of China tariffs and Mexico tariffs could hurt GDP up to a percentage point, which is like, that's a big deal. For someone, if I were Donald Trump and I were trying to run a reelection campaign, I think I'd be a little more worried about the general economic sentiment in the country than whether my base thinks I'm mean enough to immigrants. I feel like he's really solidified the case that he's a horrible person to anyone who

lives south of the border. Yeah, I don't think he understands the economics around trade, to say the least. But yeah, Joshua's piece was very good because I think up until now, a lot of these tariffs have affected, I think he said like 7% of the imports or 10% of the exports or some low percentage of imports and exports in the country. So therefore, it's a small percentage of the overall economic output. But when you're getting up to, if we get up to 25% tariffs for Mexico and 25% tariffs for China, which he has threatened to China too, now you're talking a significant chunk of the economy. I mean, already, the average American household has paid about $831 more because of higher prices due to tariffs. $131 more because of higher prices due to tariffs.

And they think that these new, there's an estimate that these new tariffs could cost 755,000 American jobs in Mexico. That is a lot. That evaporates any value from his crappy tax cut for the average family. And also, I mean, yeah, Trump's numbers on trade. I mean, Harry Enten from CNN did a piece on how Trump's approval on trade issues generally are actually down from where he started. So people aren't looking at his track record and thinking this is going well. In fact, it's hurting. How do you think Democrats should talk about this and how much should they talk about this?

Because I do think, you know, it's tough. Obviously, the consequences could be devastating to the economy. It could erode Trump's advantage on the economy that he's had in polls, as you just pointed out with, you know, Harry's analysis on his numbers on trade. But as we also know, trade is sort of a complicated issue to talk about. And, you know, what do you think Democrats should do? Yeah, I mean, I think it's, I think it's similar to immigration in that I think you can talk about this as a strategy that's failing, right? Like, you know, he's getting some, as long as we're in the trade war, he can claim any problem you have with China or any problem you have with Mexico is why he's doing this, right? But then you go down the list of the things he's trying to achieve with China and he's just not getting them. He's not

getting what he wants out of this trade war. You look at what's happening with Mexico. He's now set a goal that I'm going to put a tariff on this unless you deal with a systemic, multi-decade long failure of our immigration system. So I don't know how you can look at that. I mean, he may be able to declare some kind of victory if there's sort of a natural trend in a reduction of migrants trying to cross the border because of the seasonal change in the way people come to this country. But for the most part, you know, you look at the actual list of things he wants. They're not totally crazy demands, right, to have Mexico do a better job securing its southern border, to have Mexico, I can't remember, you know, for example. Well, you're not remembering because he wouldn't, he didn't lay them out in any way. Mexico has no idea what standards it has

to reach right now. They're sending their foreign minister to the United States for some emergency meeting to try to figure out what the fuck they have to do. Even Mulvaney said when asked, what is the goal of this set of tariffs? He said, oh, we're going to evaluate that on an ad hoc basis. They want to see Mexico do something to reduce the number of migrants coming in, to do something along its southern border, to help them with the asylum situation along the southern border,

which Mexico has been loath to do. But they don't know what they're supposed to do to prevent this outcome from happening Mulvaney went on meet the press a bunch of Sunday shows this weekend to one humiliate himself further by just being an asshole and pretending that it's okay to move a ship named after John McCain because your right is a prick got about to he said that the catalyst for the surprise tariff on Mexico was there was a video of a thousand migrants coming from Tijuana across the border into the U.S. in this major incident. And that just like. That's how you make your trade policy.

Right. It just got Trump's racist dander up. And so that is, you know, like. So I guess the case I would be making is about immigration, which is, you know, the China trade war is a whole separate problem that might create massive economic problems. which is, you know, the China trade war is a whole separate problem that might create massive economic problems. This incident with Mexico feels like he has set up a situation where he's going to get some minor concession and then declare a win on it. I think we need to be making a case against him that he's been president for a couple of years and his immigration policies have failed. The maximum cruelty policies have failed. The Democrats need to go after and just hammer him on that. Yeah, I think I would make it I would link it to a broader economic case against the president. If I

were Democrats, I would be doing events with the farmers in the Midwest who've been hurt by this. I'd be going to auto plants right now and doing events with auto workers. I'd be talking about how average families, auto workers, farmers, they're all being hurt by Trump's economic policy while CEOs, big corporations have never done better. You know, there's a study out last week that corporations paid $90 billion less in taxes as a result of this tax cut. And, you know, profits are doing better than ever. And they all use the tax cut for stock buybacks.

And everyone's doing great on Wall Street. And most of the people in the middle of the country are getting fucked. And for Mexico, too, it will devastate a lot of these border communities, communities that deal with a lot of trade for Mexico. They're our number one trading partner. The other question is, can the Mexican government stop asylum seekers from traveling through their country to the U.S.? I don't really know the answer. that a punitive reaction that punishes the country of Mexico is going to solve a much broader systemic problem that starts with incredibly unsafe Northern Triangle countries where people are going to leave no matter how mean we are to the Mexican government,

period. Yeah. And there's an international right to asylum, to seek asylum that Mexico wants to honor. It's also, you know, we've seen a few immigration plans from O'Rourke, from Castro that include as part of their plan to help countries in Central America and to help Mexico deal with the flow of people. There's a kind of Trump's all stick, no carrot. Right. And it's also it's also like slapdash and mercurial. Like there a, you could imagine a disciplined right-wing revanchist administration that hates brown people with a sophisticated plan to try to kind of punish Mexico if it doesn't help while providing rewards to Mexico to try to help them manage the process to like actually achieve

apology to the outcome. But when it comes to trade deals, when it comes to the Iran deal, when it comes to the Paris Accords, there's no, there's, it's all stick, no carrot. It's all just, you shoot the hostage. You punish Americans without a clear plan for how to get out of it. You pull yourself out of the deal without a clear plan to replace it with something better. That's, that's what he knows how to do. He knows how to lash out. He knows how to walk out of a room, right? It's what it'll do with Pelosi. It's what it'll do with anybody. Donald Trump knows how to walk out of a room, but he doesn't know how to actually make a deal in the room. Except that like, there's no, in this situation, there's no room to walk out of. Like the border is still there. The problem is still going to happen. You know, so like you're right that

that's what he's trying to do. Vox suggested that Trump's trying to get Mexico to sign what's known as a safe third country agreement, which says that basically Mexico is a safe place for people fleeing from Central America to just stay. Therefore, those Central American migrants fleeing will not be entitled to asylum hearings. That's a pretty devious, cruel way to treat a bunch of people, because I don't think anyone's suggesting that just parking in Tijuana is remotely safe. That's incredibly unfair, unsafe thing to those people. Yeah. So in addition to his trade wars with China and Mexico, our chief diplomat is doing his best to fuck with politics in the UK during his visit there this week. Fun.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Donald Trump said Britain should be okay with a no-deal Brexit and walk away from the EU if they can't get favorable terms. Prime Minister Theresa May is scheduled to step down. The list of those angling to succeed her includes former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who Trump praised during his interview. The president also said that Nigel Farage should be involved in the Brexit negotiations. Tommy, can you talk about the state of Brexit politics right now and what's going on in the race to succeed Theresa May

just so we have some setup for Trump's visit? Sure. I mean, Theresa May worked for years to try to put forward a Brexit plan and try to get that through Parliament, and it was rejected several times. So she finally decided to step down. And now there's a race to figure out to see who will lead the Tories after her. So they'll be chosen by, you know, let's call it, let's say superdelegates. Okay. A older, whiter, more

conservative faction will figure out who the next prime minister is on the conservative side. So it will, it's not likely to be someone good, but that's not going to solve the problem of Brexit. I mean, they keep blowing through these deadlines with the EU. And I think the question is whether they'll ever be able to get a deal through, whether they'll have to vote again on Brexit and throw it back to the people and see if they still really want it or have what was called a hard Brexit, where they just haven't negotiated any of the relevant customs or border issues or anything that would, you know, anything you would normally do during a bilateral relationship with another country, which would just be like

an economic catastrophe, would just be as much uncertainty as you can imagine. So it's an ongoing total mess. Yeah, I was gonna say, what are the consequences of a no deal Brexit or a hard Brexit that they're talking about? Is that just, I mean, I don't know all of them. But like one example is what happens to Northern Ireland, right? And right now, between Ireland and Northern Ireland, there's an invisible border. Because Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the Republic of Ireland is an independent country and part of the EU. If the UK exits the EU, you need some sort of border between the two countries all of a sudden for customs and whatnot. But that's like an incredibly fraught thing to do because the Good Friday Agreement, which ended the decades of terrorism in Northern Ireland, was designed to soften that border and increase access and travel between the two sides. So you could reignite the troubles, reignite the IRA and all the things that we saw in the 90s and 80s that

were so horrifying. So like there's all these second or third order effects. There's all these massive economic impacts of a hard Brexit. And like, I don't think anyone can really predict what all of them are. I certainly can't. But no one thinks that that's a good way to run a railroad. And what is Trump trying to do here, aligning himself with bozos like Boris Johnson and Farage? He's now interfering in British domestic politics. What's his goal here? That's a hard question.

Is he aligning with these people? He's aligning with the people that like him against the people that don't like him. Is this like right-wing populace around the world or his buddies kind of thing? Or what's going on there? I mean, look, your guess of what his motivation is is as good as mine. I mean, he basically said, Nigel Farage came to an event I did. He was really nice.

I liked him. It was exactly what Lovitch has said. I don't think it's very complicated. He's sympathetic to people who are nice to him and who are racist. So it kind of works itself out sadiq khan's op-ed uh mayor khan the mayor of london we talked about the first question i asked him really tied trump to other far-right leaders in europe like victor orban and marine le pen and sees this as a scary global movement i think he's right we were talking about this before the pod tommy but i find myself very unsettled by Mayor Kahn's op-ed, reading it, agreeing with all of it,

but then realizing that he's writing an op-ed about a foreign leader who is our leader. It was very upsetting to see a foreign leader talk about the United States and the leader the United States has chosen in a way that is completely accurate. Yeah, I mean, look. I mean, he said that our president is a global threat, which, you know, I believe, too. But when someone else says that that's not in your country, you're like, oh, yeah. It was a little weird for me to interview him because I agree with what he wrote. But it is a strange feeling to talk to a foreign leader about a really rough criticism of an American

president. That said, I think one of the things that we failed to do is just speak as honestly and bluntly as he did in that op-ed. Certainly his own party has. And he made a global case for why nationalism in these far-right parties are dangerous. And I think it was very compelling. It was actually a case that I was like, I would love to hear a Democrat make a case this clear. I'd love to hear Democrats make all kinds of clear cases. Uh, the, uh, well, no, there was, um, uh, somebody, there were, there was a conversation about some of the protests that are happening in London against Trump. And what I appreciated about one of the organizers is they said, you know, we're not doing this because we're not opposing and protesting Trump because we don't like America. We feel as though we're doing it because we want to,

because we actually like America and we like American values and we don't believe this president represents those values. So I'm glad that that is at least part of this. You know, it is. And Mayor Kahn made that point as well. And it's not bad. And it, you know, it's a, it's shameful. It is shameful to send Donald Trump to represent us. It is shameful that there's a giant balloon baby flying over London of our president in a fucking diaper. It's all embarrassing. It's embarrassing to have him call Meghan Markle nasty. And it's embarrassing to have him compare Sadiq Khan to Bill de Blasio. Because, like, no one deserves that.

And it's embarrassing. Just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. con to Bill de Blasio because like no one deserves that and it's embarrassing just kidding just kidding Bill de Blasio's response to that though going back to the fucking stop saying condom stop saying condom what are you fucking uh the Krasenstein brother here yeah yeah the third the third Krasenstein look I I think that like and I talked about this in there I mean I don't think that Donald Trump or Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage is going to upend the historic relationship between the US and the UK. There are cultural ties. Everyone knows someone who lives in the United Kingdom and vice versa. So that's there. But like, Theresa May didn't need to give him a state visit.

That was a naked attempt to kiss his ass in curry favor. And, you know, he's only the third American president to receive the honor of a state visit. He's hanging out with the queen at Buckingham Palace today. He's got a private lunch with her. I wonder what the hell they're going to talk about. She doesn't deserve that. But the parliament was like, no way in hell you're addressing this body because they would have booed him out of the place.

So look, democracy is a bitch. You know, like people are going to say what they think about you. And that's how it is how does the queen get stuck with that meeting of everyone in that country listen she survived the fucking blitzkrieg

she can get through she can get through a lunch with an asshole it's fine she's probably out of fear by the way not the first rich American prick

she's had to sit across the table from she's been around for 50 fucking years I think she'll be fucking fine we're British yeah we're British.

It's a small thing. Obviously, these are very big, important issues, but there is something. It's a bit like we're dating someone, and we realize that if we weren't dating them, we'd be just constantly making fun of them. I don't think we've held that. But it's sad to know that you're sitting at the queen with your boyfriend, and then you just know that when the queen goes back, she's going to make fun of your boyfriend, and you kind of agree, you know?

You just sort of, listen, I think he fucking sucks, too. I didn't want to, I didn't, you know. Yeah, look, the tradition of politics ends at the water's edge, I guess it was there for a reason because it kind of feels right. It feels weird to be criticizing him as he's over in London, but we're past the point of no return. He deserves it. I don't think that we can sit quietly while he tries to spread his brand of far-right nationalist garbage politics.

It's actually dangerous. Steve Bannon's sitting over there in some European castle trying to get a Russian. Yeah, they are trying to evict him from some castle. They're trying to fund and help these kind of parties get power all over the continent,

and it's dangerous. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's a shame that the American president is a threat to the global world order and one of the most dangerous and evil people we've ever empowered. Anyway, on to 2020.

On to 2020. At least they didn't let him stay at Buckingham. Yeah, that was a win for humanity. It's under construction. That's so funny. It's under construction. I can't. That's a Russian accent.

Yeah, that was a Russian. What is a British accent? Someone do it. Can we get Ira in here? I can't do it. His is worse than mine. Say cheerio. I did Russian by mistake.

It's fine. All right. Before we move on to 2020, I do want to mention the mass shooting that occurred in Virginia Beach on Friday where a dozen people were killed and many more were wounded. The shooter, who was a municipal employee, also died and was found with a.45 caliber handgun, extended magazines, and a silencer. magazines and a silencer. And just as a reminder about how important state and local elections are, the Washington Post reported that in January, Republicans in the Virginia legislature defeated a bill that would have banned the sale of high-capacity magazines like the ones the alleged shooter used in Virginia Beach. Guys, do you think one of the reasons that the coverage of mass shootings like these moves on so quickly now is because our politics around gun control is so stuck.

I mean, it did strike me as incredible that this happened on a Friday afternoon and even by Sunday. You didn't see the Sunday shows all about this. You didn't hear many people talk about it. Democrats at the California convention, which we're about to talk about, none of them really. I think Cory Booker mentioned it. Cory Booker should get a lot of credit because most of his speech was about it. But most people just decided to not talk about it. No, they all put out their statements on Friday and then that was that.

Yeah, I mean, we tend to sometimes get the direction of problems and solutions backwards in that people tend to care about a problem when they believe they can solve it. And so I think there is a sense of hopelessness creeping in. There's also just this natural equilibrium, which is a heinous thing. But the more mass shootings there are, the less deserving they are of coverage in the sense that they are more common and less newsworthy. And yet also at the same time, the more coverage mass shootings get, the more that may lead to the inspiration of other mass shooters. So we're in this sort of delicate murder equilibrium where when they get more coverage,

they start to happen more. When they happen more, they get less coverage and we're just sort of trapped in this cycle. Yeah. It's also, it's just hard to, it's hard to shock us anymore. I mean, the Las Vegas shooting killed 58 people and wounded 422 or more if you count people harmed in the panic and the stampede that resulted in it's like if an event that shocking and terrifying doesn't change something immediately in our country the way New Zealand's uh horrific shooting at Christ Church did like what the fuck will so it's hard for me to even I just get so angry when I read these stories and I feel incredibly frustrated and angry about it. But like, I don't know what I guess I should focus my rage and say one credit to Cory Booker for making that speech at the California convention.

Because he he had the chance to make the case for himself and his campaign to 5000 devoted activists. And he instead decided to make it about the issue of violence and how we respond as a nation and come together and not about himself. And I really think it was it was impressive and inspiring and good for him, too. I think we should talk more about some of the candidates who put forward proposals to take executive actions to deal with gun violence. So Kamala Harris has been out in front of that. And it's important. Third, I mean, I think we should thank Mike Bloomberg and Everytown and Moms Demand Action for funding and then working 24-7 on these campaigns to put in place common sense gun safety laws

and to go right at the NRA because of them, because they're funded and financed and there's grassroots energy behind them. We're actually making progress for once and it doesn't feel as shitty as it used to. But, you know, look, I didn't necessarily want to talk about this issue today because it is so hard and it does feel really defeating at times. Yeah. And I do think you mentioned this, Tommy, but the good news in this cycle is I think the Democratic presidential candidates are talking

more about gun control in general and more importantly than talking about it, putting out policy proposals to address the issue more than they have in the past. Booker wants to establish a national gun licensing program. Kamala has talked about a series of executive actions. She'd take mandating background checks and banning imports of AR-15s. Swalwell, who's made reducing gun violence a centerpiece of his campaign, has proposed a mandatory gun buyback program for military-style weapons. So we have a couple candidates here who have proposed some pretty far-reaching things.

I do think, like you said, Tommy, the ones that are proposing executive actions like Kamala are most interesting to me because, you know, we lived through the Obama administration, and we say this all the time, but when a universal background check bill that was sponsored by Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, conservative Republican Senator Pat Toomey, couldn't get through the fucking Senate, I don't know what can get through. After Sandy Hook. After Sandy Hook. After children were murdered. I don't know what can get through Congress.

And so I do think that when it comes to executive actions on gun control, the next Democratic president should have a whole slew of them ready. control the next president democratic president should have a whole slew of them ready um the other thing and this goes back to the virginia case is you know we started this fuck gerrymandering fund um to help flip state legislatures so that they're democratic so that we can redraw these districts but the other reason that state and local elections are so important is because some of the most sweeping effective gun control measures that have passed over the last couple of years have happened on the state level. And in the Virginia legislature right now, we're talking about a few seats for Democrats to take control of the whole legislature and then also have to take control of the governorship. And imagine what can happen if a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor can sign a bill on universal background checks on banning high capacity ammo. That makes a real difference.

So you can donate to Fuck Jerry. Go to votesaveamerica.com slash Fuck Jerry. Fuck Jerry with a G. Okay, let's talk about the 2020 primary. The Democratic candidates descended on California over the weekend for the state's Democratic Party convention and MoveOn's Big Ideas Summit. California is obviously home turf for Senator Kamala Harris, who had a big presence at the convention and got a great reception. But the biggest applause went to Senator Elizabeth Warren, who also turned out 6,000 people at a town hall in Oakland on Friday night. Warren also appeared to take a swipe at Joe Biden during her convention speech when she said, quote, Some say if we all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses.

But our country is in a time of crisis. The time for small ideas is over. Bernie Sanders also took a shot at Biden by noting his absence at the convention and saying, quote, We cannot go back to the old ways. We've got to go forward with a new and progressive agenda. Let's start with Kamala Harris. Between polling and the convention this weekend, it seems like she has a little bit of a home turf advantage, but she certainly doesn't seem like the front runner here in California. What do you guys think of that? And what do you think of what she had to say this weekend and her presence at the convention?

Just in terms of hometown, home field advantage, I do think just politics is nationalized. And I just don't think that that's as important as it once was. And of all states, California is a tough one to have a home state advantage in because it's like, you know, larger than most countries. So it's hard to have a home state advantage, I think, as a senator. And I don't think that's just going to apply to her. I think we'll see a similar, you know, there'll be questions about whether Elizabeth Warren has any kind of home field advantage in New England. And I think that's hard to justify. So I just think in terms of this idea of home field advantage, I think that that's not as important as it once was, just as we're all watching the same news at the same time. Yeah. I mean, I think people were making note of the fact that it was also San Francisco based events and that's where she came up politically. So people thought that,

you know, you might have a political organization to really pack those rooms and it didn't seem like she did that. That said, I don't think we should make too much of the enthusiasm or lack thereof from like 6,000 people in a room. It's a small sample. What I noticed about Warren's speech that impressed me was I thought that she didn't just do a litany of Trump attacks and state a bunch of things that every single Democrat in the race stands for. She made a broader case that was about corruption in Washington. And I thought that actually had people revved up and really excited. And Booker did a similar thing. He made a much broader speech that was a critique of a brand of politics. It was a critique of inaction. It was a critique of thinking small. And I thought that

seemed to really impress the crowd. It's interesting. We're going to have a lot of these. They're known, they have been known in the past as cattle calls, where you have a bunch of Democratic candidates at one event, and then everyone compares them, right? And so we're going to have a whole bunch of these in the primary. In a field this crowded, in a primary that's become this nationalized, this crowded in a primary that's become this nationalized it becomes even more imperative to stand out at these events and the question is how do you stand out and you can stand out by making a case for your candidacy that differentiates you from the rest of the field that tells a story about why you should be running and implicitly talks about why other candidates shouldn't and you saw

Warren Bernie to some extent Buttigieg did this as well, sort of take jabs at Joe Biden or the centrist candidates in the field trying to start drawing lines. Kamala sort of went up there and she, you know, she probably had the biggest applause line of the weekend when she said, you know, we need to impeach Donald Trump. But that was an applause line. And you don't, I don't really know what the rest of, you know, the rest of her speech was more the standard Democratic fear. And a lot of the candidates did that as well. And so I do think. Impeach Donald Trump at this point is sort of just something you throw on at the end just to get the crowd amped.

And she did. Just to get the energy up. And she did. And she did. You know, it's interesting. I feel like a lot of the conversation about the Warren crowd in Oakland was about the comparison to Harris. But I think it's actually less important for what it means for Kamala and more what it means for Warren. I do think, you know, I noticed this on the road.

They're all, you know, a crowd is a self-selecting sample and it all should be taken with a grain of salt. But I do think there is a kind of enthusiasm for Warren that is growing and maybe not manifesting in the polls, but there does seem to be a kind of excitement about her candidacy that I think is masked by a little bit of the worries about her electability and all those conversations that we've been having. But when you see a crowd that big, I even think when you see the response to like when she talks about pride, when she tweets out a gif of herself at a pride parade. There's a kind of love for her amongst a set of Democrats that I think is interesting and important. And I think the question is that I'm always trying to figure out is how big is that set of Democrats? Because, you know, one of my complaints about Punditry before we started doing this was that it's a bubble, right? Of course. And our crowds are self-selecting. The people who show up at a California convention are very self-selecting. And, you know, like you said, when you look at the polls,

it hasn't necessarily materialized, though she's been gaining in the polls. So the question is, does the media coverage she's getting, which has been very positive lately, does that start translating into movement among the polls from people who aren't paying attention to the race quite as closely as we are or some of the activists in the Democratic base? That's, I think, what we have to figure out. And I suspect it will because it tends to be a lagging indicator. But I think the elephant in the room, or in this case, not in the room, was Biden.

He didn't speak at the event. And that was certainly noted by some of the speakers. And then the Young Turks did an interview with Bernie where they basically said, you know, do you think that if Biden is nominated, it could lead to a defeat like 2016? And Bernie said, I fear that it could be. I really do. I fear that you could have a campaign without a lot of energy, without a lot of excitement. And that seems like that's the case a lot of these guys are going to make against Biden, that he is centrism or that he is the safe choice. And I don't know whether that's true or not, but I do know that if Biden is not in these rooms making the, the case in response, he's going to lose that fight. So I'm wondering when they're going to have him out there or what the argument is not to have him at these major events where you're talking to some key activists.

Yeah. I also thought there's an, I wonder what you guys think about the other dynamic is the, uh, Bernie Warren dynamic because, uh, you know, they have you know, they're both progressives. They're sort of going after some of the same pool of voters, though. I imagine both of them would say their pool is much larger than just progressives. But you see them both trying to go after Biden because they it benefits both of them to be the one who's taking on Joe Biden because they get more media coverage. But how do they differentiate from each other or do they even need to at this point? If I were the thing that I found interesting is I do that, that that multiple candidates have all at the same moment realized that it's that Joe Biden can serve as a stalking horse for what they're running against is really, really dangerous for Joe Biden. And, you know, it is like that is going to be something

that you can start seeing chipping away at his support, chipping away at his support. And to me, it is actually really effective for them. So it makes sense to me that Bernie and Warren would kind of make their same critique at the same time for a while. I don't know if at some point that shifts, but for now, when the biggest pool of voters is sitting in the Biden number, that just makes a lot of sense. And the danger there is, and we've seen this happen in previous races, if you're the one who is most strident going after

the front runner, sometimes that could damage you. Because remember, whether you like Joe Biden or not, his approval ratings among Democrats are very high. And so most Democratic voters, if you ask them, even if they don't want to support Joe Biden, they like Joe Biden. And so you have to be very careful at how you attack Joe Biden or how you draw contrast with Joe Biden. It's like Veep when they just want somebody to launch the negative attack, but neither one of them wants to do it. I could see this ending up though with just like, with kind of using Bernie as a kind of battering ram, and they're all kind of like grab onto the back of his jacket and just sort of run forward, pushing him ahead, like a, what's that thing at the front of a locomotive called?

Cow catcher? You know? Just sort of knocking off things. Cow catcher? Never heard of that before. Isn't that called a cow catcher? The little thing in front of a train? Cool, cool.

That's dark. Sorry, I'm salt of the earth. I know what those things are called. Yeah, yeah, for sure. Well, it doesn't seem like Warren's very afraid either, though. No. Yeah, the cases are different. Warren and Bernie are sort of making cases from the left.

Although even their cases are different. Warren's is about the system and sort of Washington and the system. Bernie's is more about progressive ideas. And then Buttigieg's case is more past future. And it was interesting because it made me think of Obama's case in 08 against Hillary was sort of a combination of past future and running against the system. It was a kind of a combination of Warren and Pete's case. I can see it being very useful to all the candidates to have someone out there saying

the Biden electability argument is actually quite weak and dangerous and that being valuable as other candidates are making a more substantive policy case. I just think that's, that is a, like, it clicked for me as I was seeing this week because like that is, that is an assault on Biden in all directions. None of the blowback falling on just one of his opponents. So that to me, like this nominee, he can have it. You know, he can go out and win it. It really is there for him. And the Bernie critique to me is so important. Like, what are you going to do to, like, get young people excited about your candidacy? Like, what are you going to do on policy? What are you going to do in terms of the tenor of your campaign to kind of show people that you're not just going to play it safe, that you're going to kind of lead this big movement?

Yeah. And also, like, what's your theory of what's wrong with our political system today? HuffPo had a funny story that Joe Biden has been saying, this is not your father's Republican party since 2006. Which it's always been true. Well, and he probably stole it from the what's this not your father's Oldsmobile ad back in God knows when. Oh, yeah. Those things, these things are sticky.

And he's right. And look, it's better that he's saying that than saying Republicans are going to come to their senses and have an epiphany once a Democrat wins and start working with us. I guess what we're saying is we want, you know, he can't be his father. Our father's Joe Biden. Right. You know, like he has to. Come on, man. I just have to say what clicked for me this weekend is I just cannot believe that these cattle calls people are going to have to listen to up to 20 21 22 speeches that is terrible there was a not just for the speaker not

just for the people in the room but for the speakers if you're dead last like we need to find a system for grading these people on a curve you can't sit in a room for and again 10 hours this is as all these candidates are starting to prepare for the debates and honing their debate strategy if you go into that debate thinking that you're just going to go up there, answer questions, be on your message, talk about your policies, and that that's going to make a difference, you're wrong. At the same time, you don't want to be one of those people who gets attention at the debate by lighting yourself on fire. Donald Trump worked for him. It's probably not going to work for a Democrat, right? Like, Condon's not going to get you noticed at a debate or some zinger about Donald Trump.

Or it might in the wrong way. Or it might in the wrong way. Or some, like, you know, the best zinger against Donald Trump, that's not going to get you noticed. But you've got to find a way at these debates where there's going to be 10 people on stage every night to differentiate yourself in a way that advances your candidacy and separates you from the rest of the pack without getting too cheesy or strident. And one of the reasons that's going to be challenging for many of these candidates is they don't have that argument. It doesn't exist. And they will discover it at the fucking debate. Yeah. Yeah. This is not your father's Oldsmobile ad. Seems to have debuted in 1988. So that was a previous Biden campaign. Do with that information, whatever you want.

There was a quiz on time.com where you had to just type in from memory all the Democratic candidates. And I did fine. Thanks. It was fun, though. It was a fun thing. It was fun, though, that O'Rourke was hard to type. I feel like it didn't register my apostrophe properly, so I didn't really get the credit for it. Oh, that's a bummer. So the New York Times published a piece over the weekend about California's earlier 2020 primary that quotes Democratic strategist Chris Lehane saying

that the best strategy for the candidates who want to win California is still a pretty simple one, win Iowa. And I thought this was interesting because another Times piece over the weekend by Jonathan Martin argued that, quote, the explosive growth of social media has nationalized the race and made Iowa and New Hampshire less important than they used to be. Jay. Mart wrote that, quote, the feedback loop between the Internet and television news is the most powerful title force in politics. Tommy, who's right here? I don't know who's right in this piece. I'm not going to make a prediction.

I think it will be very hard to argue that Iowa is not absolutely critical to whoever wins this nomination somewhere in early February. I mean, like, there's just no way that you can raise enough money to spend it on a real organization on Super Tuesday to win California unless you have a ton of momentum going into it. It's also just sort of, it's the kind of thing where, well, there's only one way for it to be really shown to be a true prediction. And that is if the nominee of the Democratic Party does not do well in Iowa or New Hampshire. I find that hard to believe. I'm sympathetic to the Dan argument that basically says in the effort to make other states like California more important in the process, it's ended up making places like Iowa and New Hampshire more significant because it's so hard to compete in a place like California.

It's so hard to get people to knock on doors. There's so many votes at stake after Iowa and New Hampshire that doing well there will have a big impact. I think Jay Mark makes a good point that social media, cable news, and the fact that more people are more engaged than ever before because of Donald Trump and his presidency sort of helps nationalize the primary in a way that it hasn't been before. And so you do see these candidates trying their hardest to find these viral moments. And part of that is because there's an incentive to do it because it helps in the national polls. It helps you raise money among grassroots donors. But I think even if we look back to 2018, some candidates, some Democratic candidates running in some of these Senate and House races had these ads that went viral, had these viral moments where, like, sensations on Twitter raised a whole bunch of money and did not win. And some of them did.

on Twitter, raised a whole bunch of money, and did not win. And some of them did. But I do think that if you asked a lot of these campaigns, any of the campaigns, Democratic campaigns, they would tell you that there is no substitute for having a ground game and having a real organization in Iowa, especially to a lesser extent New Hampshire and South Carolina. But you see Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke have invested a ton of money in a lot of staff in Iowa.

Pete Buttigieg, now that he's going to raise a shitload of money, is starting to ramp up and put a lot of staff in Iowa as well. I think a lot of these candidates, and Bernie has always had a big organization, I think a lot of these candidates are realizing that if you, you know, it's still early right now in May. It's realizing that if you, you know, it's still early right now in May. And I think it makes sense that right now a lot of them are going around the country, going to these different cattle calls, going to California. I think if you, this story is going to look a little different in you're campaigning nationally, you're campaigning in Iowa too now. They're part of this you get votes in early states when so much of your interactions with candidates are not person to person or face to face, but through Twitter, through social media, through what you see on television. Yeah. I mean, look, I'd say Pete, Mayor Pete is a top tier candidate because of that CNN town hall and because he did a ton of

national press. Beto is a candidate because of social media and that NFL speech that went viral, right? Kamala Harris is known because we all saw her viral moment from various hearings. None of them will be president if they don't do well in Iowa, New Hampshire. And I think that is the key distinction. Yeah. Well, I mean, and you've seen this, Tommy, having been in Iowa and worked in Iowa. I wonder if, you know, there's a bunch of voters who some viral moment makes them pay attention to a candidate. And if a pollster calls them, they'll say, yeah, I saw that candidate. I see an in-town hall and I really like them and I'm interested and I want to learn more and maybe I'd support them right now.

Does those opinions change when you start meeting candidates one-on-one in these events? Is one-on-one interaction with the candidate still sort of the most powerful driver of the vote? Depends on the candidate. Well, for better, for worse. Yeah, I mean, I think undoubtedly. I mean, look, Iowa caucus goers are political junkies. You know, they're watching the CNN town halls. They're reading the national news, right?

They're just like us. But they have this incredible honor, privilege of meeting these people one-on-one. And I do think that when you see someone in a room, when you get to ask them a hard question, that will help you make up your mind. Not just like them, but decide, okay, I'm going to caucus for you, I'm going to volunteer for you.

You know, we get a little taste of that here in the sense that we've had, I think, roughly 4,000 of the 6,000 Democratic candidates come through our office. Yeah, we're about two-thirds of the way through. And... Maybe there's like six lined up outside waiting for us to be done. I see a man with a condom

sign up there. Oh, that's the condom sign. Scientifically, there is no proven example of an organically existing condom sign. They are 100% manufactured and carried with the campaign. But we see that Canada candidates come through here.

And I think there have been better interviews and worse interviews. And they've been more revealing or less revealing. And then we've also seen what they're like when they're interacting with the 40 political junkies that are at Cricket excited to meet them. And some of them, they'll charm the pants off of you. And some of them, it's like goldfish. It's part of it. And some of them, it's like goldfish. You know? It's part of it. We've talked about it.

Tune into this week's Love It or Leave It to hear which is which. Look, they're candidates. The mics and cameras turn off. I'm like, that person's super cool. Would love to hang out with that person. And some of them said, like, guys, you've got to take the picture. They're here. You know what I mean?

Let's be honest. Let's not. Okay. When we return, we will have Tommy's interview with London Mayor Sadiq Khan. And be sure to stick around after that interview for Tommy's conversation with This Land host, Rebecca Nagel. On the line, all the way from London, England, is Mayor Sadiq Khan. Mayor Khan, thank you so much for joining us today. It's great to be on the podcast.

Can I just apologize at the outset? Last year, you guys were in London as part of your European tour, and I couldn't make it. And I'm really sorry for that, but I'm really pleased I caught up with you today. I wanted to reassure you, I'm not in the habit of snubbing Americans. It's just one particular one that I snub. Well, you are incredibly kind to apologize. It was not necessary at all. But I noticed you have a new pen pal named Donald Trump. You wrote a very long, sternly worded op-ed this morning. Why did you want to make this case about Donald Trump before he touched ground in the United Kingdom? Well, the thing that concerns me is,

I'm not sure if your listeners realize this, but Donald Trump basically is the poster boy for the far-right movement around the world. And he and I first came into interaction and actually joined his campaign when he basically decided that he was going to ban Muslims from coming into the USA. But he was going to make an exception for me because I was the mayor of London. And the point I made in a polite, courteous way was there's nothing exceptional about me. I think banning Muslims from going to the USA is a bad policy. I know many Americans who are proud

to be Americans, but also proud Muslims. And that's not the sort of America those of us who love America know. And over the last few months and a couple of years, we've seen a number of policies that your president has announced, but also some of the things that he has said, which do cause concern to those of us in London, those of us in the UK, and those of us in Europe. And you'll know that actually the office of the president of the USA is really special. It's probably one of the most, you know, it is the most unique role in the world. The ripples of what is said by the president of the USA, what the president of the USA does, are felt all around the world.

And I'm afraid a number of things he has said and are causing problems to those of us, you know, a number of thousand miles away. And there are also, I'm afraid, people in Hungary, people in France, people in Italy, people in the UK and across the Western world who are having their views, and you tied him to nationalists and far-right leaders like Victor Orban or Marine Le Pen. I mean, do you see Trump as a piece of a larger puzzle that is tied together somehow? Well, if you study history, not just contemporary, but go back decades, what is the far-right playbook the far-right playbook is what you pick on minority

communities you pick on marginalized communities in order to manufacture an enemy you fabricate lies in order to stoke up fears and what does that lead to that leads to a promotion of hatred of immigrants it also can lead to we've seen it in the uk we've seen it in the UK, we've seen it in Hungary, France, Italy, and in the USA, sympathy for white supremacists. And you'll see other policies which cause huge concern, you know, attacking women's reproductive rights, rolling back some of the progress made in LGBT rights. the assumption we all made is progress is one way and our impatience has been the lack of pace towards progress on gender inequality on lgbt rights on pluralism you know the situation where not simply are we not making progress but we are going backwards and so you know my piece was articulating the views of not just londoners views of many, many decent Americans I speak to on a regular basis. Yeah. So historically, the U.S.-U.K. alliance has been viewed as special, extraordinarily close.

There are reports that a quarter million people are planning to show up to protest President Trump's visit. What do you think that says about the state of the U.S.-U.K. relationship? Well, it's really important to distinguish what we think about Americans versus the views many Londoners and British people have about your current president. It is a fact that not just myself, many, many people in my country love America, love Americans, love the culture. Many of us study and revere some of the things your founding fathers said. Some of us, you know, love your contemporary

presidents in more recent times from Roosevelt to Eisenhower, from Kennedy to Obama, and of course, the one and only Jed Bartlett. But the point is that you've got a situation where many of the things that have been said and done by Donald Trump cause huge offense. And I'm afraid it is the case that, you know, the reputation of America isn't as great as it has been in the past because of the actions of this president. That's not to take away from the fact that we'll be commemorating the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings. You'll have also the Prime Minister of Canada here in our country. There are others coming from Australia, from New Zealand,

President Macron. That's really important. I think the frustration amongst Londoners and other people around the country is that President Trump's been given a state invitation, it's a state visit, there'll be a state banquet tonight, and the view is, and I agree with his view, the red carpet and all that goes with a state visit is not an honor that should be bestowed on this president. Yeah, so first of all, tough hit on President Santos and Jimmy Smits, who, you know, deserves a shout-out as well. So, I mean, in your op-ed, you talked about the case.

Yes. You called on Theresa May to issue a rejection of this far right agenda. And, you know, his views are incompatible with British values. And I, of course, you know, agree with the incompatibility point. With respect to the state visit, you know, I mean, clearly Prime Minister May made this choice to try to curry favor with the Trump administration early on. I don't know if she believes it's paid dividends. I suspect not. But, I mean, do you worry at all that some sort of rebuke of him while he's over there could lead to a vindictive punishment in response, like the tariffs he just slapped on Mexico for no clear reason? Really good question.

Look, my view is this in relation to the USA and the special relationship. We see the USA as our best friends, as our best mate. And my view is that the expectations we have of a best mate, a best friend are higher than the expectations of an acquaintance or a normal friend. So the expectations we have of each other are higher than we'd expect from other countries who aren't our closest allies and with whom we don't have a special relationship. more friends. So the expectations we have of each other are higher than we'd expect from other countries who aren't our closest allies and with whom we don't have a special relationship. That means, surely, that we must have a relationship where we can call each other out. We can have a relationship of honesty and candor. And that means if we think that our best friend is acting in a

manner that's not in their interest, not in our interest, we disagree with it. We should say, listen, you know, I think you're wrong on issue A, on issue B. Of course, at times adversity will be with you. But I've got to tell you, I think you're making a mistake here. And, you know, my concern has been that our prime minister, and your analysis is spot on. It was for self-interest because the prime minister thought it would make her look like a world leader, particularly with concerns post-Brexit.

And it's backfired. And I think what it's led to is a situation where Donald Trump feels he can say and do anything because others will be sycophants. And I think it's important. We're not asking for Theresa May. I'm not asking for her to do sort of a Hugh Grant in Love Actually. But I think what's important is that, you know, she in robust terms says, I disagree with you rolling back on the rights of women and, you know, abortion. I disagree with your views on LGBT rights. I think it's wrong for you to separate children from their parents. You know what? Muslims can be Westerners and Muslim. By the way, you know, protectionism doesn't work. And I think the concern I have with, you know,

politicians nowadays who are becoming popular is rather than addressing the fears people have, they play on them. And you see it with Donald Trump. You see it with Nigel Farage. You see it in Hungary. You see it in Italy. You see it in France.

And one of the criticisms I have of my side, the progressive left, is we've got to go on the pitch. We've got to take on these issues. We've got to address people's fears. We've got to educate the public in a non-patronizing way. Public education is really important. But we can't vacate the pitch because we're scared of upsetting Donald Trump. You mentioned Nigel Farage. because we're scared of upsetting Donald Trump.

You mentioned Nigel Farage. I mean, Mr. Mayor, when President Trump sort of ham-handedly endorses a far-right politician like Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage, do you think it helps them? I mean, are British citizens okay with Trump just diving into your most sensitive political debates time after time? Well, it depends. Let me tell you an interesting fact, which is when President Obama made the point, which everybody agrees with, by the way, if the UK leaves the European Union, your power will be less than it is afterwards. And President Obama not unreasonably was saying that you could well be lower down the pecking order because of your size versus the European Union.

And the right wing in the UK, including Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, rebuke President Obama for having the audacity to make a perfectly reasonable point about the impact of us leaving the EU. reasonable point about the impact of us leaving the EU. Lo and behold, those very same people who criticised President Obama for, quote-unquote, interfering with British politics are now jumping over backwards because President Donald Trump has said that Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson will be wonderful, in Boris Johnson's case, wonderful Prime Minister, in Nigel Farage's case, should be leading UK negotiations with the European Union. And the point I make to those people is, what's source for the goose is source for the gander. You can't, on the one hand,

criticise President A when he says something about your country, but then welcome what President B says about your country because you may well like him. And I think, look, it's up to the Conservative membership to decide whether it's a good or bad thing having Donald Trump's endorsement. I'm not sure if you're aware, but the next Prime Minister of our country won't be chosen by the British public. He or she will be chosen by Conservative MPs and Conservative members, and their profile is quite elderly, quite right-wing, not representative of the country, as far as the country is concerned.

You know, I'm not sure if it is a huge badge of endorsement having Donald Trump, you know, you know, saying that you're his guy. Yeah, certainly didn't help him hawk Trump's stake. So we'll see. So I want to go back to something you said earlier. I mean, what does it mean in your in your view for progressives to get on the pitch? Like what can well meaning people do in the United States and Europe to stop the rise of these right-wing populist movements that seem to be spreading across Europe? Look, we've got to accept, we've got to accept that there are decent, genuine people who are voting for Brexit,

who are voting for Trump, who are voting for Le Pen in France and on in Hungary and elsewhere. We've got to accept that you can't criticize voters for being racist or being xenophobes. There's a very real reason why they're voting for these leaders. And the reason they're doing so is because they're not seeing the fruits of globalization. They're seeing the consequences, and they're uneasy about deindustrialization. They're worried about the pace of change in some of our countries. And so what we have to do is understand that their concern is legitimate and then try and

address them and meet the challenges head on. So, for example, if politicians are saying, you know what, yes, it's true, the car factory where you worked has closed down, but don't worry, when I become the president or we leave the European Union, I'll reopen them. It's got to be explained in a polite, courteous way. You know, you can't now realistically in the UK build cars and be competitive with, you know, the Far East or with countries where they've got a bigger market than we have. And you've got to realize in countries like ours and the USA, low-skilled, low-paid jobs aren't the future of our economies. We've got to have high-skilled, well-paid jobs. So we've got to think about and work on what are the emerging markets. So the green agenda is very important.

So in London, we have policies to meet the needs of not just climate change, but poor quality air. And that's leading to jobs being created in relation to low carbon green jobs so we want you know people who are tech savvy people who have the skills to come to london and work with us with the solutions of some of the challenges we have and the same applies to the uk the usa and other countries in the western world we can't have a future where our workforce is poorly educated and is doing jobs with poor salaries because, realistically, we can't compete with those countries that can do these pieces of work much cheaper, particularly with automation. And I don't think we should be afraid of the fourth industrial revolution.

We should surf the wave and make sure our workforces are ready. And my criticism of my side is we're not engaging with the public, spending time educating them, spending time finding solutions. What we're doing is vacating the pitch and criticizing the voters for choosing people who play on their affairs. And I think we've got to get on the pitch. And that means making an emotional connection with the voter, understanding where they're coming from, and then meet head on people like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, and others around the world. Yeah, well, we have like three football clubs worth of players on our pitch right now.

So if you want to borrow some, we can probably do like a lend-lease program, go back in time a little bit. So, I mean, you talked about the economic future that's getting complicated by globalism. I mean, it's certainly, I think Brexit could make that economic future even more complicated. How is that debate, fight, I don't even know what to call it at this point, impacted the people you represent in London? And do you think there's an end in sight? I think our country is divided. I think our country is unequal. I think there are similarities between the UK and

the USA. When you look at the sort of parts of the USA that voted for Trump, we've got a similar comparison in the UK that voted to leave the European Union. And that's a problem. And I'm afraid what's happening is unrealistic promises are being made by politicians here the likes of boris johnson and niger farage and um you know the public who voted and supported them won't simply be annoyed when those promises aren't met they're going to be angry and that's what causes me huge concern i can't see a short-term prosperous future for my country, bearing in mind some of the toxicity of the discussion taking place. Some of the candidates in the Conservative leadership are promising that they will leave the European Union even without a deal. Catastrophic for the

UK economy. Catastrophic for jobs, wealth and prosperity. Big promise to make. What will happen if it doesn't happen? If we don't leave on October 31st, which is the next extension, people are going to be angry. And so what it leads to, Tom, is the public being further cynical about politicians, which makes our life much harder

as mainstream politicians, which allows the far right to exploit this. And so they'll blame the European Union. They'll blame immigration. They'll blame mainstream politicians. And what we should really worry about is when you've got officeholders criticizing judges,

officeholders criticizing the free press, officeholders who should be talking about making deals with countries, the importance of multilateralism, walking away from a Paris Accord, the climate change agreement, walking away from a deal to remove nuclear weapons from Iran, walking away from a roadmap that leads to peace in the Middle East, walking away from the European Union, arguably the most successful trading bloc that the world's ever seen. But also in the last 70 years, you know what, trading bloc that the world's ever seen. But also in the last 70 years, you know what,

we've not had a war in mainstream Europe. And so it does worry me that the fact that the, you know, the right part of the spectrum of politics is setting the agenda. But what worries me more is that the fruits of this will be exploited by the far right. And these fruits are poisonous. Yeah, agreed. Final question. And thank you again for your time. I mean, we've had this big debate in the United States recently about whether Donald Trump is an aberration of history or just sort of the latest version of the modern Republican Party. And certainly, it's not the first time that racism or xenophobia has driven US politics. Unfortunately, that's something we've seen time and time again. But the conversation does feel supercharged these days by Fox News and the increasingly white nationalist content you're seeing on that channel. Have you guys seen a

similar evolution in the media in the UK, specifically from Murdoch-owned news outlets? I mean, are they exacerbating the problem in your political system the way Fox News is in ours? Lots of similarities between the UK and the US. The saying we used to have, which is, you know, the UK is 10 years behind the USA. So what happened in the USA, we see a few years later. And so what you're seeing in the UK is now what you saw in the USA with the Tea Party, impacting on the politics of the Republican Party. You'll see in the UK the Brexit Party, a new party that Nigel Farage has formed, impacting the politics of the Conservative Party.

You'll see the proliferation of social media, completely no checks and balances. We've seen how Facebook can be exploited. We've seen how foreign countries can exploit referenda, can use automation bots to get messages amplified. And so it's a big concern. So we've seen, for example, some of the work that's happened in the USA, looking at the lessons learned from the 2016 election. We know the role now of Russia in that. We're seeing now some revelation about the impact, the consequences of foreign intervention and the

impact we know in the referendum in 2016 here. So there are lots of similarities. The challenge we have, somebody who is a mainstream politician, is how we make sure that we reach the public. And one of the things we've got to accept as progressive politicians on the left is the medium sometimes is not a medium we find attractive. The reality is many of my voters do read the Murdoch Press. Many of my voters, Londoners, do go on some of those websites that you and I may not find desirable. Similarly, if you want to be the president of the USA and you're a Democrat,

it's a fact you've got to accept that many of the voters you need to persuade to vote for you watch Fox News. And that's one of the conundrums that we have, and I think we've got to address it head on. And I've got no problem talking to media groups or journalists who work for organizations that I perceive as being right wing. I think it's important because it gets me to an audience otherwise I wouldn't get. So the medium is important because without that we're just an echo chamber. There's no point me simply speaking to my tribe. There's no point somebody aspiring to be the next president from the Democratic Party just speaking to his or her tribe.

We've got to persuade people from another tribe, people who stayed at home last time, people who voted for the Tory party, the Conservative party in my country or for Donald Trump in your country, to come back to us. And so it's really important we do so. There's a view I have, which is that there's no such thing as our people being a small tent with just our tribe our people should be the entire electorate and so that's why we've got to use the tools we've got to expose where they where there are lies being told exposed with this fabrication interference exposed where laws have been broken but at the same time, realize that the conventional tools

of reaching voters has changed, and those conventions aren't there anymore. We've got to evolve to make sure we continue to be relevant to the voters. Yeah. Mayor Khan, thank you for your time. And thank you for making such a clear case about the disconcerting rise of these far-right political leaders. It is one of the defining issues of our time that I don't think is talked about enough, and I really appreciate hearing from you about it. It's a pleasure. Speak to you soon. Take care, mate. I'm so excited to be here with Rebecca Nagel, the host, the creator of our new podcast, This Land. We are here in the Crooked Media studios in Los Angeles, which we have been describing as 70s cable access.

That's the vibe I'm getting. That's kind of the vibe. Okay, cool. Why did you want to make This Land? I think it's a history and a story with really high stakes in the present day that most people don't know about. present day that most people don't know about, you know? And so when we're talking about, um, even just this Supreme court case that impacts the treaty rights of five tribes and half the land in Oklahoma, it's barely been covered by the mainstream media. And then when we get deeper into the story, we're talking about the history of, um, our specific tribes, like what's happened to our land in Oklahoma. It's stuff that, you know, is the foundation of American history, but something that's not taught, that people haven't heard about.

And so I think in a bigger picture, you know, the wall we kind of hit as Native Americans is that when our cases are in front of the Supreme Court or our issues are being debated on the floor of Congress, it's happening in a country where the public doesn't have a basic understanding of what those rights are and what those legal issues are. And so it makes it really hard for us to drum up public support because we need people to know about these issues and to understand. For lawmakers to pay attention, frankly. Yeah. Lawmakers would probably rather ignore the very ugly history they're being presented with. Yeah. Or have the same just blanket ignorance as the rest of the country. Yeah.

I know you have a deep family connection to this story. You're an expert. You're a journalist and activist. But was there anything you've learned that surprised you during the process? I mean, I think we went out, and I think one of the things I'm really proud about about the podcast is just all of the voices that we've been able to bring to the table. So from,

you know, um, the chief and AG of Muskogee Creek nation, like our experts, our historians, but also like our elders, our first language speakers, like our family.

And I think just over and over again, um, what I heard from people is just how, how important our relationship and our connection to the land where we are in Oklahoma is and how much this case means to everyone. Yeah, even the music is beautiful. Yeah, it's made by Chickasaw composer Gerard Tate. That's really cool.

What do you hope people take away from the show? I mean, like big picture, I want people to kind of have this moment of, oh, crap, I wasn't paying attention to federal Indian law. I wasn't paying attention to what's happening in the courts and the rights of Native Americans. And I need to be not just because it impacts Native Americans, but because it impacts everybody. You know, when the far right wants to tinker with a little piece of the Constitution, they use federal Indian law to do it because nobody is paying attention. Yeah. And I feel like there are probably a lot of big muddied interests out there who don't want people to listen to this show. Yeah. Can we talk about who those interests are and what their stake is in this case? Yeah. And so, I mean, like most

things, it comes down to money. But basically, the opposition, the people who have lined up against the tribes and don't want the tribe to win are the Trump administration, oil and gas companies, and the state of Oklahoma. And then there are also, you know, some like sheriff associations and like cattle ranchers that also filed briefs. But those are the big players. And, you know, eastern Oklahoma, the land that's impacted by this case, sits on one of the country's largest oil and gas reserves. And so if your bottom line is money and profit, you don't want that land to be tribal land. And so that's one of the big issues that's lining up against tribes in this case,

but also in general. I mean, a crazy statistic that I think most people don't realize is that our tribes occupy 2% of land in the United States. And that land represents a fifth of all oil and gas reserves in the U.S. Wow. Tribes also sit on like, I think, is it like a third? Really, I think a third to half of coal west of the Mississippi. And so even though we have a small amount of land, there's a

vast amount of natural resources. And there is a concerted effort to open that land up to extraction. Do people who live on those lands feel like there's a target on their back from these, you know, big oil and gas companies? I mean, I think it's a case by case basis, depending on the tribe. I mean, it doesn't mean that just because land is a reservation, no oil is ever drilled there. It just means that it's complicated and it depends on the land, but tribes often have say in what can happen. I think the bigger picture of what's going on, it's actually, it's like tragically basic. I think there's always been a desire for more and more native land. And even though I think people think that that was like a chapter of history instead of something that's

ongoing and happening today. And so when you look at some of the theories that the far right is trying to promote in the courts, or even some of the policies that the Trump administration is passing, there's this sort of end goal to get rid of tribes and for there to no longer be sovereign nations within the United States that have these land rights. It's a great story because this is a complicated case, right? There's a murder that's more recent. There's a murder that happened in the past. I feel like justice is a complicated question in any discussion like this.

But what does justice look like to you in this case? Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things that's interesting about this case, I think people could hear about it where it's like, oh, my gosh, like there are these five tribes in Oklahoma. It's like half the land. And like, of course, the Supreme Court should give that land back to the tribes. Of course, it should be returned. And that's actually not what this case is about. The truth is, is that our treaty rights, our legal rights to that land was never terminated. It was never ended. It was never dissolved by Congress. And so we're not

asking for anything to be returned or given back. We're just asking for our legal rights to our land to be acknowledged. Do people who are living this day to day have faith in the justice system to deliver a just outcome? Oh, man. So overall, our win rate at the Supreme Court is about 30 percent. So if you're a tribe and you're going up to the Supreme Court, you have about a one in three chance of winning. Wow. Wow. How should we additionally browbeat the shit out of people to subscribe and download this show? Yeah. So, I mean, if you're interested in the story, you want more people to hear about it, you can check it out, thislandpodcast.com

and then subscribe and listen wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you do that extra step of leaving a review, a rating, it helps other people see it. That's great. And I have to say, I've listened to the first episode. My wife has. Some select family members have. And it's a gripping

amazing story told beautifully by you so thank you for for doing it yeah thank you so much for having me thanks to Mayor

what is this this is the Oldsmobile not your father's Oldsmobile what's funny is now that's from 1988 so it clearly is your father's Oldsmobile Oldsmobile are there are any of our father's Oldsmobile. What's funny is now that's from 1988, so it clearly is your father's Oldsmobile.

Are any of our father's Oldsmobiles still around? I think we've had an Oldsmobile. Oldsmobile is a retired brand. Oldsmobile is a retired brand now, right? I don't think you can get it anymore. Right, I think it's not. And also, I don't understand what's going on with Buick. I wish Buick...

Come on, like, Buick's could be cool. Buicks aren't... People don't... I think Buicks are fine. I don't understand why... Buick... Buicks are cool. Okay, well, we're ending with a Buick ad. Thanks to Mayor Sadiq Khan, and thanks to Rebecca Nagel for joining us today, and we'll see you on the road.