Pod Save America - "Putin's Price Hike." (with Elizabeth Warren!)

Episode Date: March 10, 2022

President Biden bans Russian oil and labels higher energy costs Putin’s Price Hike, Senator Elizabeth Warren is here to talk about Russian oligarchs and crypto bros, and Kevin McCarthy tells Marjorie Taylor Greene that she’s not allowed to attend any more events sponsored by white nationalist Putin fans this year.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. 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 bans Russian oil and labels higher energy costs Putin's price hike. Senator Elizabeth Warren is here to talk about Russian oligarchs and crypto bros. And Kevin McCarthy tells Marjorie Taylor Greene that she's not allowed to attend any more events sponsored by white nationalist Putin fans this year. sponsored by white nationalist Putin fans this year. Before we start, don't miss Offline this weekend. I will be at South by Southwest in Austin interviewing Greg Daniels,

the creator of The Office and Parks and Recreation, about how digital streaming has changed television and how that shaped the creation of his current Amazon show called Upload. It's a fantastic show. It's about uploading your consciousness to the cloud after you die so you can live forever in the digital afterlife. What do you think, Dan? You up for that? It sounds sort of like Facebook's plan for the metaverse. It's a little metaverse-ish, yes.

It's a really funny show, though, and quite good. If you're at south by southwest you can come to the show in person uh if not you can find it on offline's feed we have our own feed now please subscribe if you haven't already just search offline with john favreau uh wherever you get your podcasts and uh smash that subscribe button as dan and elijah would say see i quoted you there i paraphrased you i gave you thank you for the credit. Yes. Proper attribution. All right. Let's get to the news. There were a lot of developments this week in Putin's horrific invasion of Ukraine. But the one with the biggest implications for our own politics is Joe Biden's decision to ban imports of Russian oil, gas and coal, a move that he said will target, quote, the main artery of Russia's economy and deal a powerful blow to Putin's war machine. The president also acknowledged that the ban will lead to higher

gas prices, which hit a new record this week, and promised to do everything he can to minimize what he's calling Putin's price hike. But in the least surprising news of the week, the same Republican politicians who pushed Biden to ban Russian oil, which was almost all of them, are now blaming Biden for the higher gas prices. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, quote, these aren't Putin prices, they're President Biden's prices. And this was Wednesday's exchange between Jen Psaki and the brightest bulb in the briefing room. Fox News is Peter Doocy. Why did you guys decide to rebrand the rise in gas prices as the hashtag Putin price hike? I mean, if you want to use that on Fox, I welcome that. But I think it'll get a lot of airtime. If you guys knew for months that this was going to be the hashtag Putin price hike, why aren't we just hearing that now?

Well, Peter, if we go back to six months ago, I don't think anybody was predicting we would be exactly where we are as it relates to Russia and Ukraine. As you know, that events in the world, including the invasion by Russia of a foreign country, does prompt instability and volatility in the global oil market. Why didn't you tell us months ago that Vladimir Putin would invade Ukraine, which is what you ultimately told us as soon as the intelligence let you know

and no one at Fox believed it? What did you know and when did you know about the hashtag? He is, man, you know, Joe Biden's hot mic moment about Peter Doocy. Correct. Correct, Joe Biden's hot mic moment about Peter Doocy. Correct. Correct. Joe Biden, you were correct. So when we interviewed Ron Klain last week, right here on this very podcast, he seems skeptical that Biden would ban Russian oil. He gave us a bunch of reasons why he was skeptical of that. What do you think changed? Well, two things. First, it became very clear that while the sanctions to date had isolated Russia, had devastated their economy, it had done nothing or very little at least to stop their aggression, sort of the horrendous tactics they were using in Ukraine. In fact, maybe even got worse, the shelling of civilians, the breaking of ceasefires. And so it seemed pretty clear

that both at home and abroad, there was a sense that we needed to use every tool in the toolbox short of military intervention to try to stop what is happening there, because it is absolutely horrendous. The second thing is that despite the very clear impact this would have on the economy and gas prices, there was very rapid bipartisan momentum for a ban on Russian oil imports. Speaker Pelosi came out very quickly for it. There was a Murkowski mansion bill. And it became pretty clear that Republicans were at least going to sign off on this idea, which at least from a political perspective is theoretically, and I really emphasize theoretically, makes it less politically perilous than simply doing it on your own. Yeah. I mean, this happens often when there is

a crisis, either globally or at home, particularly one where innocent people are dying. Like people, American people just want their leaders to do something about it. They don't want to be told, well, we've done everything we can and now we just have to wait and you have to watch this horrific carnage on your screens and we're not going to be able to do anything. So there's a real sort of do something bias when there's a crisis like this that happens. And I think people latch on to the next option they hear about. And in this case, it was any option short of, you know,-scale war with a nuclear power. Congress was moving towards a big, as you mentioned, bipartisan vote on a ban. I believe the House is still going to take that vote. Why do you think Biden decided to make his move before Congress voted?

I assume it is to do it on his terms and with his timing, as opposed to seeming like he was dragged to a position by Congress. I think it also probably helps with having Biden out front doing it, probably helps with rallying the rest of the world to do something similar. I know that Great Britain was looking at some things, some other countries are. It's easier for the United States to do this than other countries because we are less dependent on Russian energy imports than Europe and others. But having the president out there leading and not having the legislative body do it is probably stronger politically

and diplomatically is my guess. Yeah, there's also I mean, there's there's a policy reason, which is now he can he can sort of turn them on. He turned on the ban when he wanted. He can shut it off when he wants. And then I do think, you know, the political reason what you were getting to is he wants to look we've talked about this a lot on this podcast. he wants to look like he's leading and taking action and not getting pushed into something, not being dragged into a decision by Congress and not sort of, again, he wants to shape events and not be shaped by them. Wall Street Journal poll found that 79% of Americans favor a ban on Russian oil imports, even if they increase energy prices in the US? That was the polling question. Do you believe that? And how long do you think that support lasts?

Do I believe the people who told the Wall Street Journal pollsters that believed it when they said it? Yes, I do. Do I believe that that is actually going to manifest itself as prices continue to go up? No, I do not. And there's two. And it's, I mean, I'm very sympathetic to the voters in this situation. First, we know there is almost no issue in American politics that is more impactful than gas prices. It's an inelastic budget item. You have to drive to work. You have to pick up your kids from school. You can't cut it. And at a time in which the vast majority of American families are struggling to get by, if gas prices go up, something else has to get cut, right? It could be groceries, it could be a vacation, it could be clothes for their kids or whatever it is. It really hurts and voters get

mad, right? You can plot high gas prices with diminished presidential approval ratings almost on top of each other throughout history. I think there's also a bigger issue here that goes beyond gas prices, which is America has been at war for this entire century. And other than the military, who we have asked tremendous untold burdens of, the rest of Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing. Famously, George W. Bush implored Americans to go shopping after 9-11. That's how we could help the war effort. You know, you didn't have to cut back or anything. And so the idea that we haven't asked them to – almost no living Americans have been asked to sacrifice anything for a war, let alone a war that American troops are not fighting in.

And so the idea that we're going to be able to go to the American people and say, yes, I know your neighbors, your cousins, your family fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades, and we asked you to do nothing. We didn't raise taxes to pay for the war. We didn't cut back federal spending to pay for the war. We put the whole thing on the credit card. We told you to go about your normal lives. But now here, because this war in Europe between Russia and Ukraine, as horrendous it is, we're going to ask you to make this sacrifice.

I think it's going to be a very, very hard sell. I also think we have asked people to sacrifice for the last two years because of the pandemic. So there's been a lot of sacrifice asked of the American people over the last several years. But look, I think back to the polling question, you know, people, this is very basic, but people want to help people who are in trouble. And that's a good impulse. And I'm sure people who answered the question say, oh, this is one way we can help. Also, Putin is a bully and a villain. And Americans like to stand up to bullies and villains and feel that America is strong and not weak. You know, that's a very important impulse as well. So I think those two things,

both the good impulse to want to help other people and also to want to take it to a dictator who's, you know, trying to push America around, people say, yeah, I'll pay a few more cents in gas for that. But people have also been conditioned by social media to believe that like, you know, war media cycles last as long as any other media cycle, a couple of days, and then we're onto the next thing. And I think, you know, ask that question again in a couple of months, if God forbid this war drags on a couple more months or God forbid years. And it could be a very, it could be a very different story. So. And I think there's one more element. This is not happening in a vacuum,

right? The cost of everything else is up too. It's not like food prices are low and gas prices are high. Inflation, just a new report today, inflation's at another four decade or so high. And so the ability to, even if you are willing to sacrifice to do it, and I think it is worth noting just how unified the American people have been on behalf of the Ukrainians. People are engaged with this. They are paying attention to it. You know, it will, I think, sort of belie what we naturally assume Americans would respond to foreign affairs. It's pretty remarkable and impressive. But it's not sacrifices a lot of Americans can afford. And so that's obviously going to come at some is going to lead to some anger at some point. What do you think of the Putin's price hike branding?

You know, I mean, it's easy to like sort of to mock it or say, you know, it's hashtag sloganeering or whatever else. it or say, you know, it's hashtag sloganeering or whatever else. But, you know, it is sometimes it's better just to say the thing, right? And the thing is that why are gas prices up? And it's because Putin is invading Ukraine. That is why. And so you might as well say it. And if you can get a little over and over, get a little alliteration that'll work. You can't stop there, right? Sometime we'll, you know, we'll talk about a little bit later in the pod, but the story is more important than slogan. And so that Putin's price, I can be the end of the story, but it's not the whole story. is they don't want to focus on what they're asking people to sacrifice because that is not very popular they want to focus on the extremely unpopular villain who is vladimir putin his despite what you may hear from tucker carlson and and donald trump here uh here and there vladimir putin has an approval rating of like you know five percent in america so um he's he's

almost a universally hated figure in this country. And by focusing on him and the fact that it's his fault, this invasion is his doing. And the repercussions from this invasion, be it the deaths of innocent civilians in Ukraine, the repression of the Russian people or gas prices going up in the United States, or by the way, like global economic instability, which, you know, we've basically cut off Russia from the global economy. But that doesn't come without consequences either. Like we're going to all feel the effects of the fact that Russia has been completely cut off from the global economy. You know, just like we felt the effects of various countries getting sick at various times during the pandemic and disrupting global commerce and supply chains. Like that's what happens in a global economy.

And there's nothing that we can necessarily do about that, that we can try our best to mitigate the damage. Republican politicians are correctly claiming the gas prices were rising before Putin invaded Ukraine, Putin invaded Ukraine, but incorrectly claiming that it's because Joe Biden didn't approve the Keystone Pipeline and paused new leasing for oil and gas drilling on public land and water. Mike Pence's super PAC is spending $10 million on a false ad campaign targeting vulnerable House Democrats on the issue. Let's take a listen. Before Russian bombs began to rain on Ukraine, before hundreds of innocent Ukrainians lost their lives. A horrific decision had already been made. Joe Biden caved to the radical environmentalist and stopped America's Keystone Pipeline and dramatically increased Americans' dependence on Russian oil,

endangering America's security and helping Russia fund their invasion. Call Congresswoman Axne and tell her to support America's security instead of Russia's terror. What do you think of that? Did you like the explosions and the faint screams in the background? Do you think that was, do you think they made their point there, Dan? I can't believe that our producers did not include the preamble to that ad, which says, I'm Mike Pence. I approve of this ad and please don't hang me.

Sorry. I thought of that joke and I used that joke in quotes, but I thought of that in basically the middle of the night last night. And I was like, I definitely got to remember this in the morning. What's the truth here, Dan? What's the truth? OK, like because I've had some people in my life be like, hey, why doesn't Joe Biden just boost domestic production? You know, like I'm for I'm for climate change too, and when we get a transition to renewable energy, but aren't the Republicans right that we should just ramp up energy production in the short term? So what do you say to a relative or friend who said that to you? Well, John, I have some news for you that it's going to come as quite a surprise. Did you know that the average annual

domestic crude oil production during Joe Biden's presidency was higher than the average annual domestic crude oil production during Donald Trump's presidency. And it is higher than any presidency in recent memory. You know I did, but that's only because I prepared for this podcast. Yes. Well, I mean, this is a rhetorical exercise for the listeners. Like, don't read the fucking stage directions here, okay? I'm just trying to answer your question.

It's not a fucking quiz, right? I'm not trying to trick you. Look at my chino. It's not a fucking quiz, right? I'm not trying to trick you. So one, for better or for worse, domestic oil production is up. For better or for worse, domestic natural gas production is up. The specific things that Republicans point to where Joe Biden has pushed back on domestic oil production, like on federal lands, like on pipelines, like the Keystone Pipeline, are things that manifest themselves over the long term. They would do nothing to deal with oil supply now or gas prices now. It is something over the long term when the reality of what we're trying to do is to transition off of these fossil fuels over the long term.

If you opened up every square inch of the united states for oil and gas drilling right now you would not feel the effects on the oil supply for three four five years from now you would feel nothing until then because that's how long the process takes it is complete garbage the keystone pipeline as jen saki pointed out during her briefing is a pipeline it carries oil it does not produce more oil that's the other fight these fucking and and the majority of oil from the keystone pipeline will likely go abroad because of the type of right it is the fight over the keystone pipeline by the way the the real republican argument for the keystone pipeline is they were trying to say that the few jobs that Keystone created were outweighed all of the many risks to the environment and the climate. That's the argument.

They were not saying, oh, we need the real argument is not that a Keystone pipeline gives us more oil. It carries the fucking oil, idiots. All right. What do you think the Democratic message should be on this issue? I don't think it carries the fucking oil, idiots. All right. What do you think the Democratic message should be on this issue? I don't think it carries the oil, idiots, is probably the best. I don't know. It's catchy. It's hashtag carry the oil, idiots.

I think it is a three-pronged approach. Three prongs. Let's hear all the prongs. Three prongs. I fear all the prongs. So prong one is to aggressively go after oil companies who tend to use these moments to price gouge consumers. Part two, prong two, if you will, is to have an actual plan to help Americans deal with the burden of higher gas prices right now. the burden of higher gas prices right now. Later in this pod, you'll hear an interview that I do with Elizabeth Warren, which talks about a windfall profits tax, which will both prevent oil companies from price gouging, but also pass along savings to consumers based on what you get from those windfall profits. That's part two. And part three is we have to use this moment to make the case for why we need to transition off of fossil fuels and move to green energy.

Because true, we live in a global energy market, a global oil market. Even if we are one of the largest exporters of fossil fuel energy in this world, but we are still affected by what happens all over the world, whether Saudi Arabia and OPEC decide to produce more, what happens in Russia affects us. If we want true, quote unquote, energy independence, it has to be a shift to green energy, to solar and wind and geothermal and everything else. And so we have to use this moment to make that case. And there's a real danger to fall back into short-termism, right, where you sort of say, look at all the drilling we're already doing. Look at all the

domestic oil production we have here. And not making the case that if we truly want to hobble petro-state autocrats and tyrants like Vladimir Putin, if we want to truly be able to deal with on par with Saudi Arabia, we have to be less dependent on oil period and so we have to make that case yeah I'm glad that um I haven't heard the Warren interview yet but that she talked about the windfall profits tax and then using the proceeds as sort of a rebate for people did you see that Gavin Newsom uh our governor proposed this week a gas rebate, mailing people a check because of high gas prices. So I think there's a short-term, long-term thing here, which you just got to separate, right? Like short-term, we are going to do whatever we can to get people through this crisis and to make sure that we can alleviate the effects of the Putin price hike.

And I think a windfall profits tax that turns into sort of a rebate check for people is a good idea. And yeah, let Republicans block it. Fine. If they want to block it, they block it. But we should go out there. I have been wondering if it if this is an opportunity to sort of reframe the bill formerly known as Build Back Better, which, you know, there's we haven't talked about it in a while as per our promise on this podcast about the all of joe mansion's machinations but just so you all know in the background you know there have been talk about um you know basically mansion wants to get rid of the trump tax cuts raise taxes on the rich or get rid of the tax cuts that they had under trump and then use the proceeds half to go to inflation and the other half to go to energy, to clean energy, climate stuff,

health care, prescription drugs and and child care. At least that's what the Democrats want. Manchin seemed open to that. I wonder if you can say like, you know, we're going to take away tax cuts for the wealthiest few in the biggest corporations, including oil companies making windfall profits. And we're going to use some of that money the wealthiest few and the biggest corporations, including oil companies making windfall profits. And we're going to use some of that money to do two things. Right now, we're going to send you a check to help pay for Putin's price hike. But then we're going to transition to clean, renewable American sources of energy so that we can end our addiction to foreign oil, create new jobs and save the planet.

And then you draw the choice if you're in the midterms. Republicans want a future where our addiction to fossil fuels keeps us dependent on the whims of oil companies and dictators like Putin. Democrats want a future where we control our own cleaner, cheaper, renewable sources of energy. Like, it does seem like it's a pretty good opportunity for Democrats to reframe the bill like this, have Republicans be the one that oppose it, and then go fight the midterms on this issue. Put them on the side of, you know, wanting to protect dictators and their oil supplies and oil companies and all that bullshit. And we're for American ingenuity and energy independence. Yeah, I think it's accurate. I think the president should actually go out and declare that Build Back Better is dead. And then like two weeks later, come out with our new

Putin price hike plan or inflation or, you know, more money in the pockets of Americans plan. That branding has suffered. It's carrying a lot of scar tissue from the brutal legislative battle. And it was, frankly, created in an environment where we thought the pandemic was behind us and inflation was not an issue. And now we're in a totally different world and we should just recreate it in that world. And I think your point here is that you always say plan beats no plan. If we have a specific plan paid for by taxing oil companies or the rich or corporations, which we know is the single most popular policy. And if you add it to any policy, it makes it more popular if you pay for it with corporate tax increases.

And we take that and we take that to the voters. And the Republican plan is we want ExxonMobil to make more money. I think we're going to win that battle. We've got to have something that we are running on. And there's an opportunity to do that right here. There have always been three main reasons that Democrats have argued that we need to transition our entire economy to one that's run on clean, renewable energy. And what we have been talking about for the last several years is, you know,

the most important reason, because it's existential, which is the saving the planet because of climate change. We often talk about the fact that it would create a lot of new, well-paying jobs in this country, clean energy jobs and all the jobs around it. And then the one that we used to talk about back when we when George Bush invaded the wrong country in Iraq and we were in the middle of that war is what we're now talking about over the last several weeks, which is you've got we now part of our calculation in standing up to Vladimir Putin and his awful invasion is having to think about the fact that he, the world depends on his oil and gas. And then if we shut that off, we have to go to the fucking

Saudis or the Venezuelans who also have authoritarian regimes who aren't that fucking great. Like this, these are the choices that we have to make because the whole world is dependent still on fossil fuels in 2022 as the planet's burning up. I mean, it's crazy. It's crazy. And so I do think this is an opportunity for Democrats to hit all three of those arguments at once and be confident about it. And there, you know, like I think that the short term, the short term is the short term, right? Like I get that it's not fun to talk about Joe Biden drilling more than Donald Trump or producing more fossil fuels, blah, blah, blah. But at this point, with people who are going to be struggling to pay for higher gas prices, yes, we need to get through this moment.

And in this moment, sadly, we are still dependent on fossil fuels. But that doesn't need to be our future. And there's no excuse for it to be our future anymore. Can I make one more point here, which I think is a factual point? Because one of the things you hear is you say, well, this is the Putin price hike. And then Republicans will point out, well, prices were up last year before Putin began mobilizing forces on the border, which started this most recent run up in prices. And so we're hoping to try to connect Joe Biden's decisions on long-term domestic oil

production with those higher gas prices. And there is no fact that supports that. That is absolute bullshit. To the extent that there were higher gas prices in 2021 before Putin in Ukraine, it was because of supply chain disruptions when the economy in the world came back faster from the pandemic than people expected. For the same reason, there were delays in products and other supply chain issues. That was the cause of gas price increases. It had nothing to do with the Keystone Pipeline, drilling in Alaska, drilling on federal lands, or any of that other bullshit the oil companies want you to think. Oil production plummeted in the last eight months of Donald Trump's term in office. Is it Donald Trump's fault? No, it was not Donald Trump's

fault. It was the pandemic's fault. That's what happened. Okay. The next big challenge for the Biden administration will be to figure out what additional steps they can take to help stop Russia's invasion without triggering a madman who's sitting on the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons. We got more blob types calling for a no-fly zone or some kind of a limited no-fly zone, which both would still involve the U.S. firing directly on the Russian military. The U.S. just rejected a Polish plan to provide fighter jets to Ukraine because we were concerned that Russia would view that as direct conflict. And then there's Donald Trump's idea, which shockingly we have not found a place to talk about this week. which shockingly we have not found a place to talk about this week uh uh he floated this to a bunch of donors in new orleans over the weekend and his idea is here's the idea in case you haven't heard it get ready this is going to solve the whole fucking war the united states should

label its f-22 planes with the chinese flag and then quote bomb the shit out of Russia. Then we say China did it. We didn't do it. Then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch. Why hasn't Joe Biden thought of that one? Come on, Joe. It's so good because you can just see the shit eating grin on Donald Trump's face when he said it. Because he believes to his core that it is a brilliant idea. That if you simply were to put Chinese flags on American planes, the Chinese would definitely not figure it out.

Also, that an ideal solution to this problem is two other nuclear war powers fighting each other. It seems like just a great way to help all things. Yeah, let's have one nuclear power. Let's bomb the shit out of people who are sitting on a bunch of nuclear weapons. But if we just paint over the flag on the plane, that should do the trick. It should do the trick. I mean, it brings up a serious point, which is I have been thinking over the last several weeks. What possible serious point could it bring up?

Get ready. I'm excited. I've been thinking this over the last couple weeks. And it's very genuinely, like, imagine if Donald Trump were president right now. Like, I have been scared over the last several weeks that we are potentially steps away or a miscommunication or a miscalculation from fucking nuclear war. Vladimir Putin does not seem very stable right now. And maybe he is, maybe he's not. We don't know. We have no insight into this. And so we have one madman sitting on a bunch of nuclear weapons. And imagine if in our country,

we had another madman sitting on a bunch of nuclear weapons dealing with Vladimir Putin, even though they were pals in the past because, as you know, Donald Trump's friendships don't last that long and he can turn on people very quickly. So, like, who... That would be fucking terrifying. Terrifying.

Yeah, it is one madman here at home sitting on nuclear weapons and another madman sitting on nuclear weapons and the ultimate weapon of mutually assured destruction. The P-Tape.

The P-Tape. Oh. Get out of Ukraine or I'm going to release the p-tape the p-tape get out of ukraine or i'm gonna release the p-tape oh my god that probably would have been a tweet honestly it would have been my tweet so so we did you know i mentioned this in earlier which is there is this do something bias uh when there is a crisis like this how do you think biden something bias when there is a crisis like this. How do you think Biden navigates the pressure from Hawks and others and well-meaning people to just do more, do something in Ukraine now that he's taken basically all of the steps you can on sanctions, on economic sanctions, and further steps would all sort of include some kind of military action? I mean, this is something that every president goes through, is that there is a

bipartisan or nonpartisan momentum for war in Washington. It is the one place where some Republicans, some Democrats, think tank people, media people come together, and they push for something more than is happening. And you eventually end up at military force. First, it's sanctions. Then it's oil ban. And then there are no more tools. You either have to sit back, watch the horrible things happening, or get involved militarily. And the people who make the call are ones who do not have to sit back, watch the horrible things happening, or get involved militarily. And the people who make the call are ones who do not have to bear the accountability of that decision. And this is something that Ben and Tommy have talked about so much, but this pro-war bias

infiltrates the media in very powerful ways. And it happens for two reasons. One, in many cases, in very powerful ways. And it happens for two reasons. One, in many cases, you have war correspondents who are on the ground covering these things and they see the horrors. And I think this comes from

a genuine place of empathy and compassion, which is how can we sit back and let this happen? You think about the bombing of the maternity hospital in Ukraine the other day. What a horrendous, horrible thing that happened. Some of the images we've seen.

And the response to that is economic sanctions, yacht seizures. You understand why that is incredibly unsatisfactory to people. But the other reason is we still – sort of the pundit class fetishizes bipartisanship. And you have this – the blob is former Republican lawmakers, former Democratic lawmakers, generals, you know, the ultimate in nonpartisan figures in Washington calling for this. And it becomes easy to abide by. This is what happened in Syria. And eventually, presidents have to make decisions. You know, and it's the consequences, this, like this sort of, the consequences of decisions to get involved in

someplace like Syria or in other conflicts around the world are even different than the ones we're dealing with here because this is a potentially deranged, autocratic madman detached from reality with nuclear weapons. There are real consequences to getting involved and the people who are pushing for it don't have to deal with those consequences or make those decisions. They're not the ones being asked to send American men and women into battle to do that. And trying to find the balance between horrendous human rights catastrophes happening around the world and what is in America's interest is incredibly challenging. And it's very hard. It's never a pleasant or comfortable position for an administration to be in. And we're not there

yet in Ukraine. But if this continues at this pace, it's going to get there very, very quickly when the pressure is going to grow on the president to do something. president to do something. A line that our old boss said many times is wars are easier to start than end. And I think what you're getting at is the consequences of inaction are very visible because right now we are seeing a horrific loss of human life, innocent human life. And the consequences of action, of escalation, are not visible right now. They are off in the future. And we don't know what they are. And so it is hard for, on one hand, people who are watching their screens can see what's happening with us

not engaging militarily right now they can see the horrific loss of life they cannot see what might happen if uh you know u.s planes start firing on russian planes and then vladimir putin says okay you fight on our planes and now i'm pretty pissed and i'm gonna launch some fucking weapons of mass destruction be they chemical chemical, biological, or nuclear. And then what the fuck happens? Now we have a madman who's sitting on, again, the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons. So I'm not saying this is an easy decision because on the other hand, if Vladimir Putin continues to escalate, when do we stop him? When do we, you know, when do we make a move that when do we decide okay it's actually worth the military conflict right now because he's escalated

to this point obviously if he invades or attacks a nato country that would be uh that would be one moment but you know there's reports today that what if he uses chemical weapons uh in ukraine and if he uses chemical weapons in ukraine And if he uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, he doesn't technically attack a NATO country, but these are horrific weapons of mass destruction. Now, what do we do? I don't think it's an easy choice, but I do think everyone should be aware that what we are seeing right now is horrific and sad, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. But if that includes involving the US military and this becomes a global war with a nuclear power, then it's going to be pretty hard to

step down from that. It's very hard for us to come to terms with and for presidents to articulate the limits of American power. We have a pop culture and a mythology that says that the American military is a solution to all problems anywhere in the world. And sometimes that is the case. We have some of the best trained military in the world, and whether it's the bin Laden raid or hostage rescues or things that happen, that happens. But there's not much that has happened in the last 70 years that suggests that large scale American military interventions end up well for anyone involved, including ourselves, right? Whether it's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, they're the more likely scenario is that, and it's not even talking about something, a global conflict on the scale

of what we're looking at with Russia is, and that is a very, as you said, it's a very, very uncomfortable position for the American public and the American president. Yeah. And I think, and I'm sure the hawks and the blob would say, is it a Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or is it World War II? And we had to get involved. And I think that's a legitimate question. It's tough, but everyone should just be aware of the potential consequences. All right.

When we come back, Elizabeth Warren. A lot going on in the news this week. We've got the Russian oil ban, inflation, sanctions, an impending decision on student debt, and possibly something that looks like Build Back Better 2.0. Joining us now to talk all about it is Senator Elizabeth Warren. Welcome back to the pod. Thank you, Dan. It's good to be back. It's great to have you. I want to start with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. More than 2 million people have fled Ukraine since the conflict began. I know the Congress has helped grant temporary protective status to the Ukrainians

who are here, is working on humanitarian aid to the Eastern European countries who are housing these refugees. Should the United States do more to bring some of these folks here? And if so, what does that look like? Yeah, look, we're trying to do everything we can, and I think that includes opening our doors for refugees. This is part of what makes us who we are. And we shouldn't just ask our allies to absorb all the impact of what it means to have a lot of extra people in your cities, in your towns, needing health care and access to all kinds of other services and just space, we should be shouldering some of that burden as well. The Ukrainian people have been so strong and such a beacon for democracy for the whole world. I think doing everything we can to try to help here with money, with defensive weapons and opening our doors, I think all of that is good.

When you talk about defensive weapons, how do you draw the balance between helping arm the Ukrainians and not doing something that might spark a direct conflict with Russia between us or NATO or Europe? I start with two principles. The first one is Vladimir Putin doesn't get to decide. So he doesn't get to say this constitutes a defensive weapon and that's an offensive weapon in a declaration of war as he was doing a few days ago. On the other hand, having said that, that doesn't mean it's an easy line to draw. When the Russians are pounding the Ukrainians from the air, helping the Ukrainians defend themselves, whether it's on the ground or in the air, or in the air, it seems to me, is defensive. But I get it when Poland says, oh, I want to tangle NATO in this, that that is very worrisome. We have to be wary of escalation.

And I take it that you believe that a no-fly zone would be equivalent to that sort of escalation? Well, I think, yeah. I think putting foreign planes in the air, that is, planes that have pilots that come from America or other NATO countries, we're not going to impose a no-fly zone. That's too much direct conflict. But helping the Ukrainians fight their battles in as many ways we can, I think is something we need to find that line, but we need to push it as hard as we can. One other, I think, thing that a lot of people who've been following this closely have learned as there's been so much national attention on Russia and Ukraine is just how involved in the U.S. economy corrupt Russian oligarchs are, but also how easy it is, I guess, for them to hide

their assets here. You have spent a lot of time focusing on the kleptocracy. Has this caused you to think about a legislative response or a policy response to sort of address that situation, maybe something new or something you've been working on in the past? Absolutely. It all fits together. Being able to hide money is something that drug dealers do, that guys who do ransomware and other kinds of cyber crimes do, that tax cheats do, and it turns out that Russian oligarchs do. So it's all kind of a bundle of the same idea that some of the very rich and powerful folks out there want to find out how they can hang on to all their wealth and all their power and hide it from any kind of scrutiny.

So we have a lot of things pending because it's something that occurs in different areas. Being able to tell who the beneficial owner of a condo is, for example, is partly exposing tax cheats and drug lords and oligarchs. Crypto is another area where this shows up. fairly unregulated system for moving value around, a lot of value around, and yet really difficult right now to enforce tracking on both who put the value into an exchange or a wallet and who's taking it out on the other end. On that one in particular, I now have a piece of legislation that I'm working on with several folks to require the crypto platforms to abide by the financial sanctions that we have put in place in other areas. And that means, for example, cutting off the oligarchs, not only from their yachts and from their condos, but also cutting off the oligarchs from being able to move value through this unregulated alternative system.

I'll come back to Russia for one sec, but I want to ask you just a little bit about crypto. You have been a critic of it. Obviously, there is this very specific use case where whether it's Russian oligarchs or others can avoid scrutiny because our sanction system is set up on their traditional financial system where we have financial institutions reporting and informing on such transactions. I've read some stories and some art pieces where people argue that someone like Elizabeth Warren should be very favorable to a version of crypto because there is a world in which it moves at least some financial transactions away from a banking system that is inequitable, corrupt in a lot of levels. Is there a version of crypto you think that can be in line with progressive ideals for a fairer system, one that maybe helps the unbanked or other groups who have

been sort of discriminated against or denied in the current system? So let's start in the right place. And that is the banking system, the formal banking system, has failed millions of people across our country. The people who don't have access to banking services are paying a fortune to go to check cashing services. When they borrow money, they end up at payday lenders. It's a travesty. it's a travesty. And people who are in the formal banking system, many of them keep getting ripped off by it. Notice we're making progress on check overdraft fees. More banks, Citibank is the latest that has said no to check overdraft fees. But there are a ton of junk fees. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is talking about these and other overdraft fees. I want to see JPMorgan Chase. Come on, step up. Get rid of these fees. So the formal banking system has not helped people of more moderate or low income actually build wealth. It's really

preyed upon them and sucked wealth out of those families. So over on the digital side, the crypto world has said we could be an alternative because we're cheap, because we don't have to go through that old formal banking system and i get the point but deliver come on uh what we have right now for many folks is just a completely unregulated system so um we talked about this at one of the hearings somebody puts a hundred dollars into uh one of the crypto exchanges uh sees the value drop because it's very volatile, and wants to get their money out and discovers that to get their money out, they're going to have to pay $40. That was not an improvement for someone of any financial circumstances.

And with no regulation right now, it means that many of the cryptocurrencies are subject to pump and dump, all kinds of scams. So the problem we've got is that do we need improvements in how currency operates. Yes. One of the possibilities that we're looking at in the United States and other countries are talking about is central bank digital currency. Now, that's very different from Bitcoin. Very different because central bank digital currency is actually backed up by dollars, by value, by the promise of the United States government that it will be there. And presumably, if we did it, it would be highly regulated in the sense that you don't put in $100 and have to pay $40

to get your money back out. Just yesterday, President Biden signed an executive order that says we need reports from our federal government. We need to study, including he kind of goosed the Fed to get going on central bank digital currency so that we decide as a country, do we want to lead in this? Do we want to make an investment in this space? And I think it's a good start, but two points. One is there need to be strong rules. We need real consumer protection. And part two, the urgency of the moment. We need to get it done now. And then we'll talk about one more overlay to this, because we've got all these pieces going on, but there's one more. And that is the environmental impact of what's happening right now with digital currency. So unlike a central bank

digital currency, where the government, in effect, just creates it and puts some rules on protecting consumers. We've got Bitcoin and other kinds of Bitcoin mining. And I assume you know basically how it works. But the idea that this mining to effectively solve useless math problems consumes enormous, enormous amounts of power means that it has a huge environmental impact. So something that, you know, we managed to run an entire banking system with a modest environmental impact that covers everybody and every corporation in the whole world. And now we've got this alternative system that is just sucking down huge amounts of energy that's not going to a productive use in the sense that it operates a factory or heats a home or drives a subway. Instead, it just solves a problem so that somebody can claim another Bitcoin. So crypto has real challenges. And so long as it remains almost entirely unregulated,

it poses a real threat, a real threat on climate, a real threat on consumer protection, and frankly, a real threat because it lets Russian oligarchs find another way to move their money around. So a threat to our being able to carry forward on economic sanctions. We've got a lot of work to do in this area. So on another issue, gas prices are at an all-time high. They're headed further upwards because of the recently enacted ban on Russian oil imports. This presents a set of interrelated problems. One is that American consumers are already, even before this happened, suffering at the hands of inflation. New report

out today about how much inflation has gone up. So it's going to be even tighter squeeze on families, problem one. Problem two, oil companies historically have used this as an opportunity to further become even more profitable for price gouging. And three, support for the transition off of fossil fuels tends to wax and wane with energy costs. Energy costs go up. We get into some short-termism, drill, baby, drill thinking. And so what can we do to help consumers now? And how are you thinking about how we can frame this moment as an argument not to double down on domestic oil production, but to transition off of it?

I love this question. And you've got both hands. No, these are absolutely A+. These are the top two issues to be thinking about. So first, let's let's do price gouging. I get it. Supply demand there. We're going to see the price of oil rise internationally. And that's going to be felt at the pump. But let's be clear. And that's going to be felt at the pump. But let's be clear, oil companies should not be permitted to use this as an excuse to price gouge. You know, price goes up a little bit internationally and then they raise a huge amount on the price. Another thing I'm working on right now is called a windfall profits tax. The idea is that the biggest oil companies will have to pay a tax if they're charging prices that in effect way outstrip their costs.

And it's a way both to keep them in the spotlight and to say, we're not just going to make it public what you're doing. We're actually going to fight back against it. We're actually going to penalize you for this. So the idea behind that is a windfall profits tax, and then you take that money and give a rebate to the consumers who are getting ripped off. So I think that's the heart of the pricing,

are getting ripped off. So I think that's the heart of the pricing, is to keep a laser-like focus on big oil companies, what they're paying for their inputs, and what they're charging at the pump, and show them that we actually have a federal response to that. You also, though, raised the question about how does this fit overall into climate policy? My answer is, damn, if a moment like this with Russia does not remind us why we need to get off fossil fuels, then I just don't know what it's going to take. If we had been serious about moving off fossil fuels 25 years ago, 20 years ago, how can I do this, 10 years ago, then Russia wouldn't have the power it has today. I keep thinking of it this way, that this is what the whole Russian economy is built on. It's built on fossil fuels and, by the way, crypto law-breaking. That's kind of the two parts to this.

So when I think of energy independence, of energy independence, it means independence from fossil fuel autocrats. Want to fight Putin and his power and his ability to run over a democratic neighbor neighbor and kill hundreds of people, then double down on EVs, on solar, wind, hydro. We do those things and Putin's threat shrinks by the day. So I hope that's what we will all remind ourselves every time we go to the pump to say, this is why we needed EVs. This is why we need more wind, solar, and power. Speaking of climate legislation, Senator Manchin, right after President Biden's State of the Union, floated an idea that maybe he was once again open to negotiations on a smaller version that would include some climate spending as well as some deficit reduction. Obviously not the package that everyone was talking about a few months ago, but certainly better than nothing. What's your take on his

proposal? And do you have any updates on any progress being made behind the scenes you could share with this very small group of people who I promise won't tell anyone? Oh, as long as you all promise to keep this secret. Everyone is pinky swearing all across the country right now. Yeah. Okay. Okay. One giant pinky promise. Okay. We got this. So look, I get it. There's a lot I wanted to do in the original Build Back Better. But the math is pretty straightforward. It takes 50 votes to be able to make that happen. The good news is there are a whole lot of things for which we have 50 votes.

So my view is let's just stick all those things together and pass it. So my view is let's just stick all those things together and pass it. And there are still details that people are working on on the climate front, but a lot of good stuff. But look at the things we all agree on. We all agree on a corporate minimum tax. Democrats are signed on to say that giant corporations like Amazon that make more than a billion dollars in reported profits and pay zero in taxes, those days are over. That all those billion dollar profit corporations going to pay a minimum 15 percent, And I'm going to be really nerdy for a minute here. We're going to base that on their reported book profits, not an alternative minimum tax through the tax system. Why the difference? Because the corporations, let's face it, they have turned the tax system into Swiss

cheese, particularly for themselves. The idea here is that by doing it on their book profits, they have an incentive to report good book profits because that's what CEO pay is based on. That's what share price is based on. So I think that one is terrific. It's locked in. Everybody's ready to go. It raises lots of revenue to let us pay for things um also just a variation on this leveling the playing field around the world and bringing jobs back to the us that's a part of build back better that's important uh we're looking at a 15 percent minimum tax around the world so these big international corporations can't just go to the tax havens, take all the benefits of being in the US and not be, but not pay any taxes for it. So

there's some stuff in the sketch, the original version of Build Back Better, better, that is powerfully important and that truly is structural change. So give us what we've agreed on. Come on, Democrats. Take yes for an answer. Okay, so we may not be able to solve the thousand-piece puzzle. I get it some pieces we're just we can't get together on could we just make a new puzzle that's the 990 piece puzzle and go ahead and put that one out i'm still fighting to get this done uh there are others in our caucus i think who have not given up and we're just going to keep as gently or as roughly as necessary, just keep pushing this toward closure. That's what we have got to do. Senator Warren, the final question for you. Last week, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain was on this podcast. He made a little bit of news

about how the White House was thinking about student debt. He said a decision, he implied, I would say, a decision on student debt cancellation would come before or around the expiration of the current pause on interest payments. I know you've been pushing really hard on this. What would you like to see happen and what have you been trying to convince the White House to do? Okay. So let's start with what would I like to see happen? I would like to see President Biden cancel $50,000 in student loan debt today. It is a wonderful day for the cancellation of student loan debt. It will make the sunshine and the breezes be gentle and cool. I'm totally in favor of this.

He has the power. He can pick up his pen and do it at any point. Look at it this way. The president, we just talked about Build Back Better. The president has limited powers on a lot of the things that he promised, a lot of the things that he would like to get done, and I understand that. But here's one where he could make a huge difference in the lives of tens of millions of people. And let me just give you a little pitch here. Think about who has student loan debt. 40% of the folks with student loan debt do not have

a college diploma. You know, bless their hearts, they tried. They got out there, and that's what we want them to do. We're Americansicans we want people to try they tried they didn't have families that could afford to write a check so they took on debt and then they had babies they were working three jobs and it didn't work out mom got sick they moved um this would be life-changing for them these are people who are trying to manage college debt on what a high school grad makes or look at it another way. Two out of every three people with student loan debt is a woman. Women borrow more money to go to college. They borrow more money when they're in college. They're having a harder time paying off when they get out. Or

look at it this way. People of color, African Americans, Latinos, borrow more money to go to school, borrow more money while they're in school, have a harder time paying it off when they get out of school. I'll give you one stat on this one. We now have looked at the data 20 years out. People have been paying for 20 years. White borrowers at 20-year mark owe about 5% of what they originally borrowed. You know, they're still paying after 20 years, but the end is certainly in sight. Black borrowers on an average median owe about 95% of what they originally borrowed. You know, 95% of what they originally borrowed.

You know, canceling student debt is the single most powerful thing the president can do all on his own to help close the black-white wealth gap. It is the single most powerful thing the president can do all on his own to help women who have gone back to school, gotten an education, trying to build a future. It is the single most powerful thing the president can do all on his own to show working people that Democrats are fighting for them. Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you so much for joining us on Pod Save America. It's always great to talk to you. I love being with the pod. Thanks, Dan. All right. Before we go, just closing the loop on a story we covered a few weeks ago.

You might remember that during CPAC, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at an event organized by white nationalists where the man who introduced her said this. And now they're going on about Russia and Vladimir Putin is Hitler. And they say that's not a good thing. And I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have said that. I shouldn't have said that. You know, they say about America, they say diversity is our strength, you know. And I look at China and I look at Russia. Can we give a round of applause for Russia?

Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. Goose it! Goose it! Goose it! Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. At the time, Kevin McCarthy told reporters there was no place in the party for that and that he'd meet with Green to talk to her about it. And we said, here on Pod Save America, that what would inevitably happen is that McCarthy would have the meeting, say something mealy-mouthed afterwards, and hope that everyone's attention had already moved on to the

next thing. Sure enough, sure enough, Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Wednesday that Green quote, will not go again and hinted that she will actually get her committee assignments back if Republicans retake the House. How about that, Dan? Are you shocked? John, I am not shocked. I am not shocked that Kevin McCarthy, not exactly a pillar of strength in any way, shape or form, gave Marjorie Taylor Greene a performative talking to for attending a white nationalist conference where they cheered Vladimir Putin at the exact time that Vladimir Putin was invading Ukraine. No, I am not shocked by that i mean yeah it honestly

no points for predicting this from us it was the easiest most predictable fucking thing imaginable um you know the cheers for putin which sounded awful enough at the time sound even worse now that he's murdered thousands of innocent ukrainians and nick fuentes who was the loathsome individual who introduced Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's the clip we just played, he wasn't alone in his Putin praise as the invasion was about to begin. Here's some Putin praise from Trump, Mike Pompeo, Tucker Carlson, and a few others. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen and I said, this is genius. I said, this is genius.

Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine, of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful. He's a very talented statesman. He has lots of gifts. He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that.

Very shrewd. Very capable. I have enormous respect for him. Why is it disloyal to side with Russia, but loyal to side with Ukraine? They're both foreign countries that don't care anything about the United States. I should say for the record, I'm totally opposed to these sanctions. And I don't think that we should be at war with Russia. And I think we should probably take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine. That is my view. And why shouldn't I root for Russia, which I am? No one on this show is rooting for Putin or rooting for the Ukrainians, for that matter. Always rooting for peace, for real. Unbelievable. So, Mehdi Hassan, who was on Tuesday's show uh tweeted this question the other day how come

two weeks into this war democrats haven't yet successfully branded the GOP whose leader called Putin savvy genius friend etc the party of Putin and I saw some similar sentiments on Twitter over the last couple days uh what do you think Mehdi is as smart as they come. And I understand the impulse to see here you have some of the most prominent members of the Republican Party defending a loathsome individual who also happens to be the least popular figure in the world right now, according to the American electorate. So why would you not connect those dots for an election? And I think there is this tendency in political messaging to start with the slogan and then try to reverse engineer the story. And I think what we need to figure out is what is the message we are going to tell about Republicans, why it is that they coddle up to authoritarian dictators like Putin, why CPAC holds their conference in Hungary, why Donald Trump endorsed Orban for reelection, a very strange thing for an American politician to do. Why are they trying to restrict democracy at home?

The Republican Party has become authoritarian, more Putin-like. It's not just that they're friendly to Putin, it's that they view him as a model of governance. What is the story about why they want to do that and what impact it has in America? I think we have – it's just simply saying party of Putin or as Sean Patrick Maloney, the head of the Dribble C, told Politico the other day, calling ourselves Zelensky Democrats is not a message, right? There is a story to be told there and maybe it can lend itself

to something that, you know, you end with a hashtag, don't start with it, I guess would be the way I put it. Yeah, we've been led to believe, this is, as you know, a long pet peeve of mine, that we're just like a bumper sticker away from the right messaging that Republicans have this simple messaging.

And if only Democrats just have a bumper sticker or a meme or something like that, then we'll get the back. Look, you have to tell a story before you get to the bumper sticker. You have to have the story down. And I do think party of Putin shortcuts the story. We have been talking about this. And then sure enough, our friends at Navigator Research tested some of this stuff this morning in this morning's poll. They tested a bunch of statements and then they asked voters, how convincing is each statement as a reason to support Joe Biden's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Here was the most convincing reason to support Joe Biden's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Here was the most convincing reason to support Joe Biden. Quote, if we let authoritarians and

dictators like Putin win when they invade a free democratic country, Putin will only be encouraged to do more and will push to the border of Poland and other NATO countries. 78% of voters found that convincing. 85% of what they termed swing voters, the definition of swing voters in this context is people in the poll who thought that Biden has made the right decisions, but still don't support his handling of the issue overall. And 85% of those voters thought that was a very convincing reason. It was the most convincing statement of all of them. Here was the very least convincing statement on the entire list of about, I think, 10 statements. Republicans are so blinded by their hateful partisanship that instead of supporting America and its allies, President Biden and Ukraine, they are pro-Putin,

pro-Russia, and anti-democracy. Only 46 percent of voters found this convincing. Only 41% of swing voters, and even only 68% of Democrats found that convincing. Now, to your point that there's a larger story to tell about Republicans and authoritarianism and the struggle between authoritarianism and democracy, both here and around the world, there was another statement that came close to the first statement I read in terms of popularity. This was like the second or third most popular statement. Biden and America's allies are protecting global democracy by standing up to Putin and Russia. With it, they protect freedoms like voting, freedom of speech, and the right to

live a life free from dictatorship and violence. 67% support convinced overall, 68% swing. So you see in that statement that there is an argument to be made that sets up the contrast between Joe Biden and our allies around the world defending democracy abroad and here at home, including our democratic values abroad and here at home, and the alternative, which is putin authoritarians and people who act like them by the way donald trump and i do think there's a way to say like you know putin is the future of trumpism remember how trump incited violence at his rallies remember clearing away the protesters for his fucking bible photo op uh remember january 6th like you can lead people to this conclusion without taking the shortcut by just saying they're

the party of Putin, which people just don't buy yet. I want to just focus on slogans for a second here because there is this sense among a lot of people that Make America Great Again was this genius slogan that sort of gave Trump the presidency. And there's no question that Make America Great Again is one of the most successful slogans in American history, without a doubt. But Make America Great Again is actually a slogan version of the story Republicans have been trying and failing to tell for decades, which is that America's best days are behind it because of the demographic and cultural change that's happening in America. And if you want the America that you thought you were going to grow up in, or that you thought you would age in, the America of the 50s, then we have to go

back again. It was a restorative message. And Trump did it in a very good way. We didn't start with make America Great Again. He just found a better way to frame the Republican message than any Republican had in a very long time. And so the story you told, there is a slogan version of that. Maybe it's something about Putin's party. I suspect not. But let's get the story. Let's test the story. Let's make sure it's believable, right? Start with the story. Only political attacks have to be believable. And even for all of Trump's coddling up to Putin, there is a long history of Republicans

having this advantage on being tough on communism that is nearly a century old now. That is not an accurate description of what Russia is now, that you have to overcome. And so you've got to tell the story to get to the conclusion. And I am completely in the camp that at some point we need to do our very best trying to persuade the American people that democracy is a better form of government than authoritarianism, because that's where we are right now. And that's the threat that we face from Donald Trump and a lot of elements of the Republican Party. But we have to understand that for most people in this country, democracy and authoritarianism and the struggle between the two are very theoretical. And we have to make it real for people. We have to make it tangible

for people. And I don't think the answer is just like, oh, then we have to talk about kitchen table issues, right? We default to that because we know those are real to people and those are tangible. We got that. But we also have to make the value of living in a democracy and why it's so important and why authoritarianism is such a threat to everything we hold dear. We need to make that real for people. And that takes a lot more work than just coming up with a slogan. All right. That's it for today. Thank you so much to Elizabeth Warren for joining the pod, as always. And I hope you all have a great weekend, and we will 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 Andy Gardner Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Mews, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, and Justine Howe for production support.

And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.