Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - The Identity Politics Double Standard (ft. Rep. Marilyn Strickland)

Episode Date: August 29, 2025

Jessica is joined by Rep. Marilyn Strickland to talk about Trump’s threat to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, why she’s “all in” on retaliatory redistricting, and how her time as the mayor of Tacoma, Washington helped prepare her for on-the-ground politics in Congress. Plus — how both the Democrats and the media can cover Trump without losing their minds, and what we really mean when we talk about “identity politics.” Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. This winter, take a trip to Tampa on Porter Airlines. Enjoy the warm Tampa Bay temperatures and warm Porter hospitality on your way there.

All Porter fairs include beer, wine, and snacks, and free fast-streaming Wi-Fi on planes with no middle seats, and your Tampa Bay vacation includes good times, relaxation, and great Gulf Coast weather. Visit Flyporter.com and actually enjoy economy. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. My guest today is Representative Marilyn Strickland, a Democrat representing Washington State's 10th District. She's the former mayor of Tacoma, Washington, and she's in her third term in Congress. Congresswoman,

thank you so much for joining me. Thank you for having me today, Jessica. Yeah, it's a pleasure. We were before we started talking about makeup, but we're going to do more substantive things now. All right. I kind of wanted to start big picture. You know, you came into Congress in 2021, so after Trump's first term. And you were mayor of Tacoma for half of his first administration until 2018. How are you feeling about the moment? I realize this could go in a bunch of different directions. But sure, like I wake up every day. And I kind of think, what is happening? Right. And what can be done about it? So what is. is happening and what can be done about it, Congresswoman? Yeah, so the second term of Trump feels very different because, you know, we knew, well, we really didn't know what he was going to do in his first term. And, you know, it was not ideal. It was awful. But I don't think anyone thought that the degree of awful in the second term would happen so quickly. And we didn't, we were not aware of the Project 2025 playbook back then, right? And so everything you see happening was spelled out as clear as

day in Project 2025, I think what's overwhelming in this, Jessica, is the speed with which they are doing everything is overwhelming. And I remind myself, it is only August in the first year of his second term. And it feels as though it's been in eternity already. And so, you know, we're doing everything we can in Congress to amplify what's happening because, as you know, there's so much crap that comes out every few hours. And what we can't do is chase every single transgression. I believe we need to stay focused and everyone has a different lane. And so pick your lanes, decide what you want to amplify, but I would say more than anything, this is as much about communicating to the people in the country as it is about how we develop policy to combat it.

Yeah. So, I mean, one of the major areas that we've been talking about, certainly having to communicate, but also needs an action plan as well is what's going on with the maps and the redistricting. So Texas has approved their maps. They're going to get their five seats. Gavin Newsom has his ballot measure that will be on there in November and seems to have captured the attention. I mean, if we're all vying for a spot in the attention economy, Gavin Newsom is winning that, you know, whether you're a big fan or not. But how are you kind of looking at the redistricting wars? I saw that Washington State will not be engaging in this.

the U.S. have a bipartisan redistricting commission, and there will be no new maps coming out of Washington before the 26 midterms. But what's your take on the redistricting wars and also how you think Democrats should be dealing with it? Are you all in on this nuclear approach? Yes, well, I am completely a thousand percent all in in this nuclear approach because we cannot sit idly by, wring our hands or be self-righteous when so much is at stake. But I will also, you know, remind folks that the reason they have to resort to this is because they know their policies are so terrible. They are doing so much damage to the American people.

Their brand is doing badly. And so the only way they can win is to cheat. So Governor Abbott did what he did in Texas. You know, and let's remind people listening to and watching that some states don't even require voter approval, right? So Texas can make this happen with a vote of the legislature. But in California, for example, this has to go before. the people. But I 1,000% support doing everything we have to do to make sure that we can win

because there's just too much at stake right now. What happens in a few years? So let's, I mean, put aside the idea that Trump's going to run for a third term. And he's going to dance around it and maybe he will try. But I just like, that's too much for a Tuesday morning for me to really engage with that we'll have a third term. Right. But, you know, there are people and some even on our side who are enthusiastic about, quote, unquote, meeting the moment, but are scared about the implications of this for the long term. But that if we're just constantly in a fight with Republicans who have shown themselves to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever Trump wants at this point, but I imagine it'll transfer onto Vance or whoever's in control that it's like a win. or take all approach to politics. Do you think that there is any hope to ever return to some sense of normalcy? I do think there's hope to return to normalcy. And it starts with Project 26, which is having the Democrats take the House because that's where we're going to be our

first firewall against what this administration is doing and then coming together behind one candidate in uniting in 2028. And I do think there's a chance to return to normalcy. And, you know, remind folks that Donald Trump as a candidate is very, very unique. He spent decades building this brand as someone who was a dealmaker and a successful businessman, even though he is a crappy businessman. And so going into the elections, he already had brand ID unlike any other candidate. And then he gets into office in the second term, brings Elon Musk, takes a sledgehammer in the chainsaw, doing what they're doing, and really just trying to destroy trust in institutions. And And remember, in addition to trying to steal seats for 2026, what they have been doing steadily is eroding trust in institutions, trying to erode trust in voting, trying to erode trust in media, trying to erode trust in education, trying to erode trust in government, because they think that the chaos is going to keep them in power and give them power.

And so I do believe there's a chance, but we have to win in 2026, Jessica. It is so vital. And then we have to take the White House back and get back to a state of normal. And I will tell you, you know, in my district in Washington, I'm in Washington State's 10th congressional district. And I often say we are a snapshot of the entire state. And in some ways, a snapshot of the country, right? I have urban, rural, suburban. I'm considered not a frontliner, but, you know, I have Republicans and Democrats and independents who are part of my base who support me. And I think about how so many people I speak with from all political directions are saying this is not normal.

We cannot go on like this. We all have to work together to restore democracy. And so I do believe, especially in local communities, people know what's at stake. And then there's the performance of what we see coming out of Washington, D.C. And honestly, Jessica, the way the press covers it. And so we have to do a lot of fighting locally and having this conversation with people who care about democracy and doing what we have to do to restore it. What do you see as the major failing of how the press is covering it? So, you know, I said this last night.

I had an event in the district last night, and I talked about the fact that, well, I said this before, even like last year and year before, Donald Trump is good for the media business, whether you support him or whether you despise him, right? Whether it's rage bait or full support. And having him in the mix and this idea of, you know, journalistic fairness, showing both sides. I don't disagree with showing both sides of an argument, but this false equivalency and some media outlets refusing to tell the truth is what's hurting us. And I ask myself sometimes how do voters who don't live inside of our political bubble get accurate information, get truthful

information, and have some of these hard conversations in person so that we can get to a place where this country can get back on track again? And I don't have the answer to that, but so much it is how we receive information, how people may not be as discerning as they need to be. And the fact that Trump is good for business and media outlets is like, don't just worry about being fair and balanced, worry about telling the truth. That's your duty. Yeah, I mean, I think about this a lot, certainly as a liberal that lives in a conservative media ecosystem. And we were talking the other day on the five about Trump's lasting legacy. And I think that there are, are many. But my top one was this war on truth and objectivity that we have been pushed through

some sort of filter system where I, you know, we're looking out the window, right? It's a beautiful sunny day where I am out in Long Island. And if Donald Trump told someone it's pouring rain, there's a decent chance that they just tell you like, well, actually, it's a pretty shit day. now that I'm taking a look at it. And that is something, you know, in the conversation about elasticity of institutions. And I get it, you know, the institutions plus Mike Pence saved us in 2021 on January 6th. But the way that our brains have been reconfigured and the way that we absorb information and also where we go for our information is not something that can rubber band back into place.

and, you know, I agree with everything that you're saying, right? Like, we vote the same way. We probably go to very similar news sources for our information. But there's, like, the mainstream, I even hate using that term, like, legacy media, whatever you like. Because it's become weaponized, right? Yeah, it's just also, like, it's a buzzword that doesn't mean anything anymore. Right. Because people's definition of what fits in MSM isn't what it used to be and legacy media and even what independent journalism is.

Yeah. I'm an elder millennial and what independent journalism looked like as I was growing up is very different than what it is today. Yeah. But this idea that we are not going to find a way to be on the same page again, no matter who you support politically, is something that I find really disturbing. And I have two little kids, like a three and a half year old and a 16-month-old. I can't even imagine what media literacy is going to look like as they're coming up. Like whatever the next iteration of TikTok journalism is or, you know, however they're going to get their news. Yeah. And I don't think that's unintentional, right? No. And again, you know, the business model feeds on that and promotes it. And to your point about, you know, it's a beautiful day and someone says, oh, no, it's raining. Yeah, you're right. It's a crappy day. And you know this. You can go to any source online and you can find some outlet that will confirm that. Right. So the confirmation bias that makes it so easy to hunker down and say, see, I told you. I told you. Absolutely. And, you know, J.B. Pritzker talked about this a little bit in a speech that he gave about Donald Trump's threat to send in the National Guard. He had a great line where he said to the members of the press who are assembled here today. And listening across the country, I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story. This is not a time to fall back into the reflective crouch that I so often see where they're. the authoritarian creep by this administration is ignored in favor of some horse race piece on who will be helped politically by the president's actions.

And I agree with him, but in defense of that defensive crouch, so many people got over their skis. Like, even you said about the first Trump administration that we thought that it was bad, but it looks like a pretty normy Republican administration now in light of what Trump 2.0 looks like. Yeah. And I feel like everyone is so afraid. I mean, afraid of being out of a job, but also afraid of inflaming tensions even worse than they already are. Well, and you know this, too. I mean, what do journalists want? They want access. And so what does he do? He cuts them off or he sues them into submission. And so it's just a very bizarre place I imagine for journalists to exist right now in the media companies that, you know, do that work. Yeah.

Well, especially if you want to maintain some semblance of lack of bias, right, that you're just out there reporting the news and what you see. In terms of the National Guard being sent into D.C., potentially into Chicago, he's threatening New York, Baltimore, you know, any kind of major blue city, you name it. He's interested in sending the National Guard, Project 2025 Playbook, for sure. How are you viewing all of this? And I mean, I've spoken to some people who think that it's actually something that we shouldn't be screaming about 24 hours a day, that there are more important, I hate to say more important issues, but there are other things that we can be focused on and that it's a lot of bluster and that the Trump administration feeds off of seeing Democrats losing their minds. No, I completely agree. And I made this comment, you know, earlier in our interview, Jessica, where I said, we can't chase every single transgression. But some of these things are very important. And if you think of the cities that he's targeting, it's interesting because to your point,

it is very performative, right? And, you know, in Washington, D.C., I'm hearing reports of restaurants having sales plummet because people are just staying inside because they don't want to get caught up in the drama. What's interesting, too, though, is that you have governors of red states that have crime that is much higher than these other cities sending their National Guard, right? Tennessee, West Virginia, I mean, it's ridiculous, and Louisiana. And so they are here sending National Guard over to these Democratic cities. At the same time, they have crime in their own states that are much higher than what's going on over there.

And so, again, it's another example of performative drama and bending the name. But you never want to discount how people feel when they're walking around the city and they see National Guardmen everywhere. Yeah, but likewise, you don't want to discount the fact that people also walk around their city and they see crime or that they've been victims of crime. Like over 50% of D.C. residents say that it's a serious or very serious problem. And I think, you know, we've gotten stuck in this vicious loop where we end up defending indefensible things. And then Trump looks, I don't want to say it looks like a reasonable guy, but he certainly looks like somebody that knows that today is a sunny day, in fact. Yeah. No, that's absolutely fair. And because I come from local government, you

know, there's the conversation about, well, you know, I feel unsafe and there's crime happening. And then people often say, well, look at these statistics. It shows it's not true. And I tell people, perception is reality when it comes to safety. If people don't feel safe, then there's some action that has to be taken. And so I absolutely understand your point. But at the same time, it's part of the playbook that Vice President Harris talked about. She said that Trump was going to use a military to try and intimidate civilians. And you see it happening all of the place. Is that perspective, which I think is so important, you know, you've done politics in a different way than a lot of the people that you work with now. So is that perspective, something that

you've been imparting amongst your colleagues? How have you found the transition from working in local government like that to going to Washington or the other Washington, I should say? No, no, that's a great question. You know, I often say that having served in local government and city government is actually the best background to have when you go to a place like Congress, because, you know, you're in Washington, D.C., you're looking at national policy, and sometimes you lose sight of the people at home and how those policies affect local government and the people who live within the communities. And what's really cool about Congress is that, you know, there are, we have about a handful of former mayors. And so, you know, Richie Neal was a mayor in

Springfield, Massachusetts, on Robert Garcia, Pete Aguilar. And so I serve with people who have local government experience, and it's always important to bring that lens to a policy discussion. And let me give you one example. When there was a discussion about the American Rescue Plan during the pandemic, they were trying to figure out how to disperse the money. And a lot of said, you know what, why don't we let the cities determine how they want to lose the money because every community is unique. And so I do believe that having local government experience makes you a better member of Congress because you bring that lens. I like that. I like that. a lot. Do you feel like leadership of the party and folks who have been there for a long time

understand how important it is to have that kind of on the ground perspective? Because, I mean, you said not a front-line Democrat, but a lot of the front-liners and the ones that we kind of hold up as these examples of folks who can win over Republicans and Democrats and independents, they take that local feel to the way that they do their job in Washington. Like, they're actually talking about things like fixing pot holes and making sure that daycare is run better. And I'm always appreciative of that because politics, it's fundamentally like an unsexy job, right? It's civil service and dedicating yourself to your community. And a lot of that is not glamorous, to say the least. It's not glamorous. It won't get you on MSNBC every night

and it's not going to make a headline. But it is the bread and butter of what people expect government to do well. And so as we even look at the earmarks, they've rebranded it to something else. But those are really important funds that help local projects get to the finish line. And so, again, to my point, having a local government lens makes you better in Congress because you can see what has to happen. And we always communicate that to leadership, regardless of how long they've been there, but also to leadership in place right now. But I just do believe that, you know, having that experience makes you more effective. It helps you decide how you disperse funds and local communities so appreciate the money that they get from the federal government when it's

supporting a project that they've been working on for a long time. It's often when I call that last money in, it gets over the finish line and we get to attend ribbon cuttings because we just got money in the door, $3 million for a transit center in my district that I attended yesterday for ribbon cutting. And this is an important center that's going to help more people get access to public transportation. Housing is being built in that area. And again, the nexus between housing and transportation, I know because I was mayor of Tacoma for eight years. Absolutely. That's exciting. And I thought it was a loss plot line in the doge cuts, actually, like how much you could contextualize or personalize what they were going after by making

it about local stuff to say, like, oh, your transit center isn't coming now because of a doge cut instead of making it, you know, a story about big balls and what Elon Musk is doing. We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back. You know, you're relatively fresh face for Congress. And, you know, we went through the 2024 election, obviously very disappointing loss, top of the ticket. I happen to think it was better down ballot, at least in the sense. then it could have been, so I'm thankful about that. But how are you feeling like Democrats are doing eight months into the new Trump administration and heading towards the midterms, which are really a must-win situation for the party? Well, you're completely correct in saying

that it's a must-win situation. All things considered, I believe that we are doing well. And I will stand by that comment. And I reject this idea that our parties in complete disarray and we don't know what we're doing. And you said something about not losing the plot. And I've been saying this a lot lately. The American people are not looking for something that is very complicated, right? They want housing that they can afford, whether they rent or buy. They want access to jobs that pay well and have benefits. They want access to health care. That's not going to break them financially. They want good schools for their kids and safe neighborhoods. They want to get that retirement. they've been paying into and they have earned. And they just want to be left alone to live

their lives in peace, right? Regardless of where you're from, who you love, whatever. And when we talk about all the things happening with this administration and we chase every single transgression, it often feels, Jessica, like we lose the plot. That's the plot. That's the American dream. That's what we should stay focused on because it's not real for a lot of people. You have people working two jobs, doing everything that we asked them to do, and they just feel like they are just underwatered all the time. So how are we addressing those problems? I'll tell you one thing, taking away health care from millions of people is not going to address that problem. Firing veterans from the VA is not going to address that problem. Taking food benefits away from working

families, is it going to address that problem? So how do we, amidst all this stuff happening, which, you know, all legitimate concerns, but how do we not lose the plot and get back to why so many people are just pissed off right now? I agree with you. I mean, obviously the Republicans were smart to have the Medicaid cuts come after the midterms so that we'll look like lunatics out there screaming like you're going to lose your health care. No, no, really, you're actually going to lose your health care. And, you know, I'm bullish on taking back the midterms. But one thing, you know, There seems to be a bit of a disconnect sometimes. So, like, that's all the right stuff to be talking about and that that's, you know, we need an American dream. I had Mallory McMorrow who's running for Senate in Michigan on. She's talking about a new American dream, which hit me in all the millennial feels. And, you know, she's kind of changed it to meet the moment of what's going on with, you know, housing affordability.

For instance, it's the, you know, the latest that anyone, generationally speaking, has ever been able to afford their first home and things like that. But do you feel like the party or even what is your answer to this? Like talking to talk is one thing, but walking the walk is quite another in terms of having policies that can resonate with people. Like I know no tax on tips actually has a lot of Democratic support, but that's something obviously that Republicans take to the proverbial bank, right, that people remember that. They remember all of the catchphrase. I mean, MAGA, right? And we have been accused of, and I think very guilty of talking too much and not having enough action. So, you know, what's your take on that?

So I often say that when you are an elected official, whether you're in Congress or in the mayor's office or in the state legislature, you are in the communication business as much you are in the policy business. And we just have to do a better job of communicating very clearly and very succinctly. So when we say we need more housing, let's put a number to it. Let's talk about how many units of housing we plan to build in this next administration or when we take the house back. And if that means that we have to work with local government to deal with some of their drama with land use, then let's talk about that. But we have to make the key message, the one that people can easily understand.

I mean, talk about a message that people understand easily. Make America great again. It's about the nation. it harkens back to a time when things maybe weren't so great for us, but it's very memorable. And so what is our thing going to be, right? Restore the American dream. I'm not going to sit here and mark it a slogan for the Democratic Party, but we have to talk in clear-sistening things. We want to build 500,000 units of housing within the next five years. Okay, and that's a marker. Now, how do we make that happen? But that's what people remember, right? And so we have

talking ways that regular folks outside of our political bubble who are just trying to survive every day and live their lives and mind their business understand with ease and does it resonate with them. I will also add this and tell me, tell me if you disagree with me on this. When we did the many autopsies of the last election, right, the top of the ticket underperformed compared to those of us in Congress. Congress actually outperformed the top of the ticket. And I think about the fact that people say, well, it was the economy and It was all these policy things. And I think Democrats have to understand that sometimes it's not even policy related.

It's how the party makes people feel. And we have to get rid of these litmus tests. We have to ask ourselves, are we serious about winning or not? And are we going to do everything we can to win first and then implement all the policies we want? And so I believe there's a reckoning that has to happen within the party about whether we're going to get our feelings about everything or just say, look, for now, let's focus on winning, let's do that first, and then when we get control, we can implement the policy. So I think there's a conversation about not just policy and all these great ideas, but how do we make people feel when they

think about our party and our brand? That's a really important conversation that has to be hacked. I totally agree. I think back to an interview before the election with a long-time Democratic voter who switched her vote to Donald Trump. And she said that she would take, like, chaos over preachy and that the Democratic Party just too often made her feel, like, bad about herself and just wasn't engaging, like, a normal human being. And, you know, a core component of that, at least what people argue about the party, I didn't think it was as big of a problem with Vice President Harris's campaign as some other people made it out to be, but was identity politics. and the use of identity politics and the way that we talk about our communication. You know, you are Korean-American,

you're a black woman, first black representative from the Pacific Northwest to go to D.C. How do you think about identity and this conversation around identity politics? I mean, one example that cropped up just as I was even prepping to come and talk to you. You know, I saw that leader Jeffrey

has released a statement about the firing of Lisa Cook. Yeah. from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the first line is Dr. Lisa Cook is the first black woman to ever serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And the response from overwhelmingly a Democratic base was, why would you put that as the first line, right?

This is about authoritarianism. This is about Donald Trump wanting to control every facet of American life. The fact that she is black has nothing to do with it. What do you think? So I would say the fact that she's, She's black has a lot to do with it because this administration has been overt in their anti-black agenda.

And so I don't fault Leader Jeffries for saying that. But I think the bigger question becomes, why is identity only considered identity politics when it's not white, male, and straight? And the answer to that is because if you look at what it takes to win a national election, that's what the majority of the electorate believes, right? Not that they believe what I just said about everything about anti-blackness, which is very apparent, and I have receipts to show that this administration is completely about anti-blackness. But it's the conversation about what we know is true, what we know is just, and what this administration is doing, sometimes doesn't mesh with what it takes to win a national election. And that's just the cruel reality of electoral politics on a national scale.

district by district, it's different because we as members of Congress cultivate relationships with our communities because we have to run every two years. So in many cases, it's not just the Democratic grand we represent, it's the brand of each individual member that we represent. And that's a different value proposition than running for president every four years and running under the banner of a Democrat. And so I have no problem with what Jeffrey said, but it's interesting to me that you shared the reaction from Democrats. And if Democrats are thinking this, what do independents think, right? What are Republicans who could be in our column think about this? And so it's not saying to suppress calling out the wrongs, but I still come back to the question, why is it identity politics when it's not white or male?

When people say working class, that's an identity. When people say seniors, that's an identity. But it always feels like if it's not a protected class, then it's okay. But if it's a protected class, it must be identity politics. That was a great answer and made me think about it because my first reaction, and it could be also, you know, liberal living in a conservative media world where I was just like, oh, crap. Like, this is going to be the next few days of my life, right, that I have to talk about this. Right. So very much appreciate your perspective.

And I think, you know, from the whole conversation, I can see how you have managed your political career being results oriented, which is the healthiest place for a politician to be. Right. I want to make sure, though, I ask you our last question. Okay. Which is, what's one thing that makes you rage and one thing you think we should all calm down about? So the thing that makes me rage is this completely false narrative that the economy is stronger and job growth is higher when a Republican president is in the White House. That is just patently false. And people, if you surveyed 100 people today, you would say, who's better on the economy, Democrats are Republicans?

Republicans would win that survey. And, you know, if you look at the record, every single president's been a Democrat has had much higher job growth, lower unemployment, and they've reduced the deficit. But to the general public, they think the opposite is true. So that just pisses me off to the moment. And I think we had to do a better job of communicating what the facts are. And what was the second part of your question, Jessica? What do you think we should all calm down about? Oh, my God. We need to calm down when companies try to engage in marketing, right? The Sidney's Sweeney and her. her pants or jeans, the cracker barrel drama. And, you know, companies market and communicate and make changes constantly because they may see their market share going down or they want to appeal to a broader customer base. And for people to get so worked up about those things is kind of amusing to me. And I come from a background of marketing and communication. And so when I watch these things unfold and just the absolute outrage, I'm like,

y'all, calm down. Okay, we have much bigger problems than ad campaigns. themes to sell products or to rebrand a restaurant. Sometimes a rebrand is just a rebrand. Exactly. I hate to disappoint so many people that I know and love. It's ugly, but that doesn't mean it's woke. Exactly, right?

Although I will say that, you know, the gentleman sitting in the rocking chair with overalls and the look on his face, because now I started looking, right? I said, well, what's so bad about this brand? And I looked at it's like, you know, it doesn't exactly say welcoming to a broad swath of people. And I'll just leave that there. We'll leave that there. Congresswoman Strickland, it was so nice to have you. Thank you for joining me.

Thank you, Jessica.