The Bulwark Podcast - Jamelle Bouie: Bad at Being President

Episode Date: December 6, 2024

Trump may have authoritarian aspirations, but he's very bad at governing and managing—four weeks into the transition, he's had two major Ls. Meanwhile, Democrats have to rebuild their connection to voters with local party clubs, and not wait until an election year. Plus, a reverse cancel culture is silencing any conversation about the role that gender and race played in Kamala's loss. And finding solace in the words of Frederick Douglass. Jamelle Bouie joins Tim Miller. show notes: Jamelle's column about one of Frederick Douglass's final speeches Tim's playlist

Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We are taping this Thursday late afternoon. I have got a funeral in Iowa to go to on Friday. Much love to my friend Grant. So you know, if Donald Trump appoints Judge Box a wine to be the deputy attorney general or something Friday morning, you'll know why we didn't cover it. I'm here today.

I'm the first time guest. Very excited. Jamel Bowie is a columnist in the New York Times opinion section. He's also the cohost of the podcast, Unclear and Present Danger, and a prominent figure in my TikTok for you page. TikTok wants us to be friends. Jamel, I know the Chinese, I think, were arranging this date. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Xi.

I want to talk to you a little bit about the TikTok stuff at the end. I want to start just lightly. We have some heavy fare to discuss, and this is actually maybe kind of heavy fare too, because we have some exciting news from the dystopian capital. Spotify is gonna be hosting an inauguration day, pop-up podcast studio, and a brunch to celebrate the power of podcasts in this election. So I was just, I was wondering, as two prominent, semi-prominent podcasters,

did you have an invite to that? I did not receive an invite to this. If I did, I would pretend like I didn't. I have no desire to go to the Spotify sponsored podcast brunch. Every word of that sounds like something I want no part of. And just as a little, just to share you on top, that it's the morning of Donald Trump's

second inauguration. That's exactly how you'd want to be spending it, I would imagine. I want to talk about your column after the, oh, I guess it wasn't the first comment of the election, but you wrote one, I guess, last week. And it was for people feeling super down, which I include myself among. And I think probably 96% of the listeners except for the handful of hate listeners who've got out there and then who like Jeffrey Clark who I love how you doing Jeff and you wrote about a speech from Frederick Douglass late in life maybe his last speech and if you'll indulge me I'd just like to read some of the excerpts that you wrote it was from the period the counter reconstruction

period he wrote this post reconstruction is it has shaken my faith in the nobility of the nation. I hope and trust all will come out right in the end, but the immediate future looks dark and troubled. I cannot shut my eyes to the ugly facts before me. He is a wiser man than I am who can tell how low the moral sentiment of this republic may yet fall. When the moral sense of a nation begins to decline and the wheel of progress to roll backward,

there is no telling how low the one will fall or where the other may stop. It has more uplifting conclusion, but I want to start there first and ask what your sense is on how far things might go and why you thought this excerpt gave you some comfort. I'll answer the second part first and then roll into the first. I have long been fascinated by Frederick Douglass for obvious reasons one of the most important singular individuals of 19th century America. I would say one of the most important political philosophers

of 19th century America is an often thought of in those terms. But I think he is throughout his life articulating a vision of like those terms, but I think he is throughout his life articulating a vision of like an American, you know, I don't want to call it liberal because like liberal doesn't really exist at the time, but a kind of American philosophy of action that is in dialogue with like other philosophers of the time who I admire.

So a lot of things fascinating about Frederick Douglass in my view, but one of the most interesting is that he is this rare figure who basically lives to see his life goal accomplished and then lives beyond that to see it begin to unravel, not completely. There's no reversal back to chattel slavery, but his vision of flourishing for black Americans by the end of his life,

it's quickly becoming quite clear that the country is rapidly moving backwards. Not just along the lines of black rights, but across the board when it comes to the ability of ordinary people to live lives free of domination of the domination of others. This speech, which is one of his last, I called it his last great speech. There is another speech he gives a couple, I think a couple months later to a group of school children that is,

others might say is his last great speech. But one of his final public speeches before he dies, is him reflecting on his experience throughout his life, his what he witnessed, where he thinks things are going. And I think that it is useful to be reminded that the story of this country's history is not one of ceaseless and upwards progress. It is often one of long reversals that people recognize that they were reversals at the time.

And that nonetheless, people continued to act and behave as if their actions mattered, as if their struggles mattered, as if politics mattered, as if it mattered to be engaged in all of this. And at the end of the speech, Douglas says, you know, I wish I had more time to join you in this fight, but like the fight will have to carry on and it must continue. And I find that inspirational. I find it maybe a little comforting, but more than ever, I find it useful, a useful way of looking at the situation. So to answer your first part of your question, I think things can get pretty bad. I think it's important to balance malign intentions, the fact that Trump really does seem to want, even if he can't articulate it in his terms, a kind of a personalist authoritarian state,

and balance that against the fact that he is very bad at being president. He's very bad at this. He's very bad at governing, he's very bad at managing all the things one would have to do to accomplish the things he wants to accomplish. He's actually quite bad at. We're seeing this right now with these cabinet picks, like very disturbing, but also haphazard and somewhat disastrous for

his political capital if you want to talk of such a thing. But the world of outcomes is wide. I think it could become very bad. And even if it doesn't become the worst, right? Like there's still, from my perspective, reversals across a number of areas that I think will take a generation to claw back what was lost.

And so even if we're just looking at that, I think Douglas's counsel is worthwhile. Yeah, I was with you. It was needed, Colin, for me to read for that same perspective, right, about him kind of living through this period where there is a clawing back. And one way I've put it when speaking to some of my friends that are more on the progressive side is that there's a sense among progressives always, they get motivated, it's right in there in the world, right? By creating change that will bring progress, right?

By figuring out ways to further advance progress. I said maybe the one value I can bring to that world over the next couple years is like having come from a conservative persuasion, like this sense of the conserve, right? Like that we're going through a period right now, this next little period, that will probably not be much about progress, but will be quite a bit about conserving. And I just wonder as you kind of think about it in that framework, like what are the elements that you are the most worried about being able to conserve? You know, on the highest level,

I'm most concerned about being able to conserve a constitutional order or a constitutional interpretation in which the courts really do look out and are trying to give serious consideration to the rights of vulnerable people in the society and aren't willing to simply defer to state legislatures out of some principle of neutrality. I'm obviously referencing the recent oral arguments regarding gender-affirming care

for trans youth, but the Constitution takes a neutral view towards social controversies towards social inequality is also expressed in daubs. And I just find that a very dangerous way of viewing the Constitution because it neutrality of that sort opens up the door to again domination by people over others who may be more numerous in the community and are desiring of trampling on other people's rights. So, you know, I'm worried about that.

I'm not sure the extent to which that can be concerned. Like I think we are passing into a new kind of constitutional order and I'm not really sure there's much that can be done to conserve the old one, except as a guidepost for the future, for trying to bring it back. How do you then think about this question of what kind of limiting principles the left should have in thinking about trying to protect or change or reform that constitutional order, right? Because I think the questions become very intense. You know, for even a hopeful change to return to something

similar to the pre-constitutional order, like that's going to be very challenging to do if it's a 6372 Supreme Court without doing things, you know, that will make some uncomfortable, right? Court packing or doing things that go outside of the traditional constitutional order to benefit the other side. Like how do you kind of think about those questions in the coming years? Listeners may be able to tell or not,

I'm a guy who spends a lot of time thinking about the 19th century and I think it's interesting, an interesting part of American history. One important takeaway when thinking about 19th century politics is how much, especially in the middle of the century, how much politics was about the Constitution. And that like happening on the field of ordinary political combat was just like, you know, debates about what the Constitution is, how it should be utilized, what, not even like how to interpret it, but like, what is it? What kind of document is it? Is it this purely legalistic document, just sort of another form of law?

Is it something much more broader and more political? And I think that when I think about both the path towards change, maybe after this period, when I think about limiting principles, I think the foundation of that has to be bringing the Constitution back into politics and actually making a public case, like making a case to voters, to ordinary Americans. This is what we think the Constitution is, and this is what we think the relationship of the court to the Constitution ought to be, the relationship of the elected branch to the Constitution ought to be.

And to the extent that the court is out of balance within that relationship, then we should do something about it, right? So it's not an unlimited, we want to do this because we want to get our way, but it's an argument that you're making to the public that, listen, the courts are captured by a faction and they are acting in a way that is sort of divorced from any kind of popular accountability, divorced from any kind of popular accountability, divorced from any kind of recognition that the people themselves and the elected branches do have something to say about what constitutes

our constitutional tradition. And to the extent that we can pull them back to where they ought to be, using, you know, expanding the size of the court, imposing ethics rules, like whatever the answer may be. I'm agnostic about what ought to be done, but I do feel quite strongly that the foundation has to be, this is part of politics again,

and that for too long, I think the broad center left, I'll say, has been almost like I I think, embarrassed about serious constitutional arguments, seeing it as something for conservatives, for the right. That's the thing that they're obsessed with. In what sense? Why would it be embarrassing? Because when you start talking about, when you're getting into this discourse, right? You don't want to be the pocket constitution guy from the right? Is that really what it is? Yeah. It's a little nerdy.

It's a little, you know, and you're talking about the founders and you're kind of engaged in this kind of, this way of talking about things that is coded, I think, is quite conservative. Or is there some sense of it like not because many on the left don't share the reverence for the founders that it's like, oh, we have to shout out the fact? I don't know about that. Hamilton was very founder. That was left coded. A lot of love on the left for Hamilton.

A lot of founder's love. Yeah, I would call that a strange, like, you know, that was like a, there was like a little boom blit. And we're not gonna, I mean, this is not a conference about Hamilton, but I think people should be, I mean, the actual guy Hamilton, you know, he's mixed opinions. Yeah, Okay.

So anyway, the long story short, to get back where you are going to need to be, the left is going to have to be more serious about, about arguing for reforms within the constitutional rubric using those arguments. Right. And it needs to be much more forthright about just like bringing this back into politics, like, you know, one of the, I'll put it this way, one of the actual great powers of originalism as like a method of constitutional interpretation, like regardless of what you think about it as like legit or not, it's politically very powerful. It's like very politically powerful to be able to say to voters,

right? Like elect us and we will, we will treat the Reverend constitution with its original meeting. Like that's a really powerful thing to be able to say. And there's like no, there's no response to that from the broad left. And there should be. I interrupted you because I wanted to go down that rabbit hole. But are there any other things that you are, you know, besides kind of those,

the rights of the marginalized being tramples on, it seemed like there was something else you were going to mention. Yeah, it was just, it's just on sort of a lower level, you know, just the integrity of elections, right? I kind of go back and forth on this one because you know, one of the funny things about Trump winning is that like, you know,

Trump voters like, well, we trust elections again. Yeah, right. I saw a poll yesterday that was like 70 plus percent of Trump voters trust mail voting now. Right, right, right. It's like, okay, well, result. And you know, the fact that he won means there's like none of this energy to try to stop the steal.

But like, I'm sure to, you know, does that translate to, oh, we're gonna, you know, come 2026, like our, you know, mega election boards, you know, at the state level gonna meddle. And so, you know, one of the things I've been, you know, sort of saying in various places is that the next year, the year after, these are going to be really pivotal elections, if nothing else, because there's still this opportunity to, like, secure the electoral

process and to do as much as possible to, like, maintain election integrity so that people have, like, an opportunity to, you opportunity to vote out the majority should they decide to do so. Hey, y'all. I was just having a conversation with somebody over the weekend about how they are reflecting on their own online security, particularly with what might be expected in the next administration, worrying about potentially being targeted and what they might have online.

And I was happy to discuss with them, this episode's sponsor, DeleteMe. We've talked previously about how much your personal data is out there on the internet for anyone to see, your name, contact info, social security number, home address, all being compiled by data brokers and sold online. As a person who exists publicly, especially someone who shares

his or her opinions online, I'm hyper aware of the threats. All this data hanging out there on the internet can have actual consequences in the real world. And that's why I personally recommend DeleteMe. DeleteMe is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers. DeleteMe sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, and what they removed.

DeleteMe isn't just a one-time service. It's always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. To put it simply, DeleteMe does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe. Now at a special discount for our listeners and their loved ones. Today get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash bulwark and use promo code bulwark at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join

deleteme.com slash bulwark and enter code bulwark at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash bulwark code bulwark. I think that both of us, based on my consuming of your TikToks, are getting relatively weary with the autopsy type discussion, the tactics discussion with regards to what the Democrats should have done. But I would like to just kind of talk about two sort of broader elements that are less related to like what David Plouffe should have done and more about kind of the Democratic brand and what we learned from this election. So I'm just kind of wondering what your sense is about that. Like, is the Democratic brand broadly semi-permanently tarnished? Is there a sense that they aren't representing key parts of America in a way that requires

huge reinvention? Or do you kind of see this as more, this was circumstantial and, you know, the Democrats could win next time without really changing much at all? Yeah, that's a really good way of phrasing the question. Because I do see, like I do take the macro picture of this like really seriously, right? Sort of like, oh yeah, and common parties around the world got hammered by,

you know, not just inflation, but kind of like discontent with like the post COVID era with everything that means. And so, you know, given how narrow the result was, like, may very well be the case that you could change nothing and get a better result four years from now. Or you just reroll the dice. I mean, you obviously cannot do this, but if you were to reroll the election again, maybe you get a different result just because it's so narrow that so many different things could explain the outcome. With that said, the macro picture established, I both think that there are real problems and deficiencies

with the Democratic Party and the Democratic brand that this election has made clear, but I also think it's important for everyone not to go overboard. So going overboard is like this sort of, what I understand as being kind of like self-loading, self-flagellating, kind of like, you know, the Democratic Party is permanently separated, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

And it's like, oh, okay, listen, when all the votes are counted, they've basically been counted, Trump has won the popular vote by like one and a half points. It's like the narrowest popular vote win in quite some time. The electorate is basically split in half. And so it's like the field we're operating on isn't the electorate is basically 50 50. So let's like let's slow our role about, you know, either durable majorities on one hand or durable minority position. On the other hand, it seems clear to me that like, both coalitions are engaged in what

you might call a war position and trying to kind of establish a hegemony in a way that they just have not been able to manage. Why can't Democrats manage it? I think that is the question and I think it does get to sort of like a disconnect but they disconnect of the party from its own base and sort of like there clearly is a sense in which democratic leaders, I don't think quite are in line with what democratic base voters want from them, a separation from not the democratic base, but kind of the voters who you might think would vote for Democrats, young people, working class people, there's a real disconnect there. Maybe a cultural disconnect, maybe a communications disconnect, whatever it is. And then there's this extent to which in large parts of the country, the democratic brand itself is kind of toxic, right? Like if you are a Democrat in Montana or Ohio or Florida,

you are not gonna get along well in a statewide election, no matter what you say, no matter what your positions are, because the notion of a Democrat seems to be just connected with a cultural image or with something that is toxic to a lot of voters. How you solve those problems, I don't really know. The social scientist in me thinks that part of the solution here is going to be the democratic party actually reimagining itself as a proper political party and not just sort of like when I say that, I mean like an actual organization that is trying to build direct connections

to voters on the ground. Like the NRA might try to build with gun owners, right? Trying to actually become a presence that exists. I was watching some TikTok. We'll talk about TikTok. I was watching a TikTok and it was a young woman saying to her viewers, you gotta get engaged in politics. I was like, this is the message I love to hear.

And she says, you know, you gotta start at the local level and you should look up to see if there's like a democratic club in your city. And I was like, that's interesting because that doesn't exist. That's not a thing. Right. I can't go, I can't like Google or go to local paper and find the address, like the local democratic club and like show up and be like, Oh, is there anything for

me to do New York Republican has club. They do have a club. They have a speakeasy have been there. That's that to me is like the first step, right? It's sort of establishing this kind of on the ground presence everywhere. And it can be explicitly political. It doesn't have to be, but trying to rebuild a connection to voters, you know, person to person as an organization and not just mediated through candidates, to

me, is going to be a first step towards being able to both reestablish the brand, but also kind of cut through some of the noise kind of reshape the information environment in a way that could advantage Democrats, because as it stands, the extent to which Democrats are trying to do this ad hoc in an election year and when not in election year through mainstream media organizations, it's not working. It doesn't work. Yeah, I have two thoughts thinking about that. One is just about the brand having a problem overall. That's something that I hadn't focused enough

on the Ohio Senate race. So this just occurred to me over the weekend, a couple, like three weeks after the election. Sherrod Brown actually did slightly worse than Tim Ryan had done against JD Vance, which is interesting to me only in the sense that there's a big online fight happening of like the Democrats need to run more Tim Ryan type people on the center-left type folks. And there's another group of populist left-type folks who are like, we need to run more Tim Ryan type people on like the center right or center left type folks And there's a another group of populist left type folks are like we need to run more shared round type people and it's like well We just had a kind of case study if you will and it's real different ones a midterm ones a general election and We ran both types of candidates and they did basically the same like Tim Ryan did a couple tenths of a point better

Which is probably attributable or more to the midterm than to anything and so it's like, to me, that says that there's something fundamentally underlying that is a problem about the brand. And your solution to that, or not solution, but one way of doing it is just this more grassroots. I kind of wonder, is that going to help though? Because is it something about like the types of folks that are visible Democrats folks that are visible Democrats are turning off people in places like Ohio. And that feels like a much harder problem to fix than some of this other stuff. Yeah. Culturally, culturally turning them off, you know? Yeah.

I mean, that's one of those problems where first you have to figure out like what exactly, what exactly is it? And one explanation I've seen for this, and I guess I kind of agree with, is that it's not even so much that there are prominent Democrats who are doing things that are like culturally alienating, but that there's like a media apparatus that basically sort of like, you know, plucks, you know, here is someone who you find objectionable culturally, who's just a person, right? Like not even, not associate with the Democratic Party, just a person who exists in the world, and then says, well, this is, these are what Democrats are, and this is what they think of you. Dems are owning the genocide Joe chanters.

Right? Like they're calling, they're saying the president is doing a genocide, and like there's a right-wing media out, right, it's like those are the people that, you know, you should be worried about, they'll be in charge. Right. And it's like, how do people that you should be worried about. They'll be in charge. Right. And it's like, how do you push back against that?

And it is unreasonable to say everyone who's vaguely left the center of the United States has to be on their best behavior all the time. It's like, that's insane. What you maybe can do is find some way to sort of short circuit the transmission of those messages. And that's really only going to happen either through sort of like media saturation of the same kind, or through some other way to reach ordinary people to have some sort of it so that they have some other image in their head of what a Democrat is right. So that instead of thinking of a Democrat as like some, you know, grad student in Portland, who happened to get sucked up by the right wing media machine, they think of a Democrat as a local teacher who, you know, is involved in like a local the local party I like them, I respect them. They are a Democrat. But even the latter is a project that requires work and investment and experimentation and a willingness just to see what

sticks in terms of organization building and party building. I have two other thoughts on this. One is related to just kind of, how do I put this? We just are going through this anti-elite backlash. You know, like we have this, we've had like election cycle after election cycle that is a rejection of the status quo. And sometimes I wonder like, just because of the media environment, and part of this is the concert explicitly conservative media environment you're talking about.

But I'm also just talking about just the fact that we know too much in our phones, like constantly about everything and everyone and every annoying person. The like in the modern social media, digital media era, like we just had one change election after another, and I worry that the Democrats are just too And I worry that the Democrats are just too associated with the cultural establishment, the cultural status quo. And that it's hard to break out of that a little bit, even when they aren't in power, and even though it's kind of ridiculous. You know, it's like the Republicans have the Supreme Court and the presidency, and like

the Democrats are the establishment. But the Democratic message is always about kind of in some sense preserving rather than reforming the status quo, like that they're not the rebels anymore. And that that is turning off a type of voter that used to be gettable. And that's something I think is challenging to fix, right? How do you go from being the incumbent to the challenger, to the incumbent culturally? It's easy to do that politically, but how do you

do it in a broader sense? Especially since, I mean, I think Democrats are trying to conserve something, and that is sort of what's left of the New Deal order. I mean, the party is still kind of oriented around the New Deal and its successor kind of expansion of the welfare state. So it's like, yeah, I mean, you're trying to conserve social security,

you're trying to conserve Medicare, Medicaid, you're trying to expand it somewhat as well, but you're expanding on an existing foundation. I think some of it is just going to be unavoidable. It is simply the case that what the broad left in this country wants is to use like the power of the state to improve people's lives. That's what it wants. Like it wants to expand social services.

It wants to expand social insurance. It wants to do all these things. And so there's no way to be kind of an anti-system party when your basic orientation is that we're going to use the system. We're not going to try to dismantle it, we're not going to destroy it, we're going to try to use it. I do think there is a way to frame the state, the public, against private actors who may want to unravel the social insurance state,

who may wanna slash taxes to the bone and cut services. There's a way of kind of identifying villains and saying, we want to use the state on behalf of you and not let it be put in the hands of these other people who wanna use it to enrich themselves but that that requires. Democrats and something they really have not done which is really a few exceptions of done but it's really kind of articulate. Villains to say like these are. The baddest yeah besides Donald Trump these forces these these these kind of institutions these, these people, these are the people who are

trying to harm you and we want to do something about them. I do think that part of the absence of that kind of message is that there are these internal tensions within the Democratic coalition, right? Democrats, white, are reliant on the cash that comes from large, wealthy donors. They want to maintain this business-friendly appearance for practical reasons of campaign cash, for governing reasons. They will, don't want to be perceived as antagonists to what you could say like the establishment. Pete Slauson And like right now, in addition to that, the Democrats have been forced,

they're kind of putting this strategic corner on this. Like they're forced to be defensive kind of of like the FBI and the intelligence community, right? And the military, the generals, right? It's like the Donald Trump is trying to tear down these things that there was traditionally left-wing criticism of the security state and the intelligence apparatus and the military industrial complex. But when Trump comes for that, that kind of puts the Democrats in this weird position of having to be defensive of the status quo

in those spaces too. And I think you're right. That's maybe kind of leaves these big, you know, the big tech oligarchs or whatever as the, as the potential way to kind of recapture that mantle. I don't, I don't know. Right. Because they're also connected. I mean, this is, this gets to, I think the role of kind of like the cultural image of what business is, right? Like people think of business, a businessman, as being disruptors, as being, you know being these dynamic figures. It's very natural discourse, you could say.

You have your disruptive dynamic businessmen, Trump, Elon, all these guys, irrespective of the truth of the matter, right? Like that's the image versus kind of like, you know, a party of bureaucrats and Americans are probably gonna side with the former over the ladder every time. I don't think Democrats can truly avoid being a party of bureaucrats because like ultimately like that's Kind of what they are. But there are ways, I think, maybe to redefine the other side.

It's not quite dynamic and not quite exciting, but something more sinister. And then also to reframe what it is that Democrats want, not in terms of we're going to manage these programs, but in terms of our goal is to give you freedom from the worst of the market. Our goal is not to keep you from succeeding, but is to shield you from economic unfairness, and all these things that make your life worse. Interestingly enough, at the very beginning of the Harris campaign, you saw a little bit of this.

A little bit of this rethinking of what freedom is and what it means and that kind of got lost. George Lakoff, yeah, it got lost. Yeah, it's tough. I don't know, maybe you need an outsider candidate of their own that can be a face that puts a different, you know, the cover of the Party of bureaucrats features a picture of a person that offers kind of a more dynamic. Which to what extent is what, I mean, what, what Trump is almost kind of in a lot of ways like a perfect kind of candidate for the Republican coalition because, you know, from my view, it's like, okay, we have a coalition of social reactionaries and plutocrats whose front guy is a libertine with like

working class affectations and it's sort of like, you know, voters, they look at Trump. So you say to voters, these people literally want to slash taxes for themselves so low that they'll be forced to cut benefits for your grandparents. And also they want to ban birth control. And you say that, you say that guy is their champion. And then people look at that guy and they're like, him? And they don't believe it.

And it's a lot of work to get people to believe it. And you kind of want something like that for Democrats. Like someone, those are their school marms who don't want you to have fun. And it's like the Democratic nominee is Spuds McKenzie. Yeah, right. This is why, and this is the problem is this is, this is maybe the other thing of value I can offer

as a former Republican as the party goes forward, is that the Democrats, God love them, fine, nice person. I think I convinced themselves that Tim Walz was kind of gonna be that person for them. Like a front man, like a secondary front man that's like, oh, look, he knows how to hunt. He knows how to fix a carburetor. This guy can be a front man. And people looked at him like, I don't know, he just kind of looks like the liberal teacher.

I'm not buying anything different from this guy. Nice guy, nice guy, good guy. But it didn't actually, he only felt different to like, I think it's people that lived in Brooklyn, I think for the most part. Yeah, I think that might be the case. I do wanna just ask one more thing about that ticket

and kind of the racial element of this. I don't, it's interesting, right? You have this, not nearly as much as in 2016, has there been like a dialogue about, oh, it was a loss because of sexism and racism. This time you had a mixed race female candidate. And I think part of that lack of dialogue is that, you know, the Republicans gained so much among voters of color, a little bit less among black voters, but some more among

Hispanic voters and particularly immigrants. I wonder what you kind of think about that tying it back to the Douglas at the start like how much of the racial legacy of the country is kind of wrapped up in this L or was this this kind of an L if instead of Kamala Harris at walls it was Tim Walls and whatever uh Gretchen Whitmer on the ticket. I think that whatever, Gretchen Whitmer on the ticket. I think that unquestionably just because of what the nature of this country, like what this country's history is, that like race and gender obviously played a part in this. Like Kamala Harris is trying to become the first woman and first black woman to become

president of the United States. And it seems very silly to me to like dismiss, you know, potential racial or gender bias out of hand in that regard. Like there was some research that came out last month, two months ago that was just about sort of like the role of anti-black attitudes in shaping, you know, certain kinds of political views. And there's no, there's no conclusion on the causal thing. Was it that you have anti-black attitudes and you're more likely to support Trump

or being likely to support Trump kind of leads you to anti-black attitudes? The causal direction was unclear, but it's certainly there, right? And it's like, when you're thinking of non-white but non-black immigrant communities who themselves are like, are coming from cultures where there's anti-black prejudice or coming into a culture where there is anti-black prejudice and there's a black woman at the top of a major party ticket running for president. Like it seems silly to me to sort of dismiss

out of hand the role, any of that. I do think the absence of that from kind of broad public conversation does reflect, you know, Trump's gains. I think in a kind of shallow way, people are like, Oh, if Trump made gains, how could like race and gender play any part of it? And it's like, well, it's complicated. It's a complicated relationship. I also think there's a bit of a, how do I put this?

I also think there's a bit of a, how do I put this, a bit of a cancel culture element here. I think if you were to forthrightly make the argument, you might get shouted down. You're just one of those identity liberals who doesn't want to pay attention to what's really happening. I think there's a couple of reasons why. Reverse cancel culture. Yeah, reverse, I don't know what to call it. but I think it's certainly part of why that conversation has been absent

My intuition is that again? This is very much in all of the above situation, right? Like the margins too narrow To attribute it to one thing or the other so it's like a lot of things were happening and also electorates are big kind of Complicated thing so a lot of things were happening. And also, electorates are a big kind of complicated thing. So a lot of things are happening. There is the macro picture of incumbent parties losing. There is a particular disconnect that Democrats have had from voters without college educations. There are questions in terms of race and gender.

It's entirely possible that a Democratic party that was more connected, better connected to non-college voters, to working-class voters, would be able to overcome the race and gender stuff. That was to some extent the Obama story. Obama was able to overcome these things through personal force of will, personality, but also the Democratic party just was more connected to those voters. So there's a lot going on. It's why I've been actually quite, quite hesitant to like weigh in with like a big picture of this is what happened because I honestly, I don't know.

And I think we have to wait to see. We have to, we have to collect more information. You have to count more votes. We have to interview more people. We have to actually find out what voters were thinking we're doing when they went to the polls and in the absence of that that, it seems presumptuous to me to say, well, this is what happened. But at this stage, I do take a very kind of like,

shouldn't dismiss anything and should take seriously questions of identity, questions of prejudice and bias, as well as these sort of structural issues the democratic party appears to have and the unique appeal and, you know, connection that Trump has with a lot of voters. Like all of this is playing a part.

I guess the mailman's coming by there. So I'm glad you've got your guard dog out. Yes. The TikToks and then I've got one final closing thing. It's a twofold question. When do you, do you have any sort of moral or personal ethical compunction about TikTok? Because I like have some TikTok guilt. I'm not a poster there like you, but I'm an avid consumer.

So that's part one. And part two, just as a broader thing, I think it's interesting that you're doing it because I think one of we've seen the Democrats' failures was a cycle, and I just think more broadly is that there is the lack of just having normal, regular conversation with people outside of these formal media, formal establishment media outlets. There's some of that happening, but I just think that there's so much more of it happening on the right.

I don't know if that was the rationale for you starting to do it or if you just got bored, but I'm curious what your thinking is on all that. So I didn't start because of any political reasons. It was very much just sort of, I was consuming a lot of TikTok. I was kind of observing kind of how like the tenor of political discourse on TikTok, the way in which people talk about politics and thought to myself, A, a lot of people in here are saying a lot of things that are not right, not true. And I think I could maybe be a useful resource here as like an actual professional journalist. And after just like some experimentation and such,

I kind of figured out what works for me as like a person posting things which is just to be conversational just to like, you know have a bit of a chat have a walk and chat that kind of thing and A little bit to my own surprise people seem to be into it I do think you're right to observe that this kind of thing It's much more common on the political right like there aren't very many people associated with the political left, the political center left, who are using these kind of platforms in this kind of way to just sort of like talk to people and not even necessarily with an aim of trying to sort of like win partisan allegiance,

but just to sort of like talk about ideas and talk about what's going on in the country and just like the chat. And I think there should be much more of it with regards to sort of like moral or ethical confusions about tech tech. I don't know. I kind of, I don't know. I don't know. You know, that's a good answer. Do I think that the Chinese communist party probably knows too much about me?

Yes. We both got six year olds. Would you put a 12 year old on tech talk? 10 year olds. I much about me. Yes. We've both got six year olds. Would you put a 12 year old on TikTok? 10 year old? No, I mean, when it comes to like usage. Oh yeah, no, no, no. I mean, I would not let anyone younger than like 22

if I had them my way. 22. Older than drinking age. All right, good. I mean, I think about I graduated from college in 2009. So I guess I had Twitter in 2008, and Facebook maybe a little before that. But that was like back when Facebook was as much

about meeting people who go to your college. So it facilitated hanging out with people in real life, as it was sort of like exclusively digital relationships, but the kind of like algorithmic, you know, designed to addict you social media. That's basically crack cocaine and I would not let anyone of the teens be exposed to it if I had it my way. Tinker. Alright, we're tying your the last question back to the first question on to the first question.

On your election day piece, you wrote before the results, the final question was rhetorical. You wrote, now the question is this, will the meaning of our republic change or will we hold fast to the egalitarian ideal that shapes this country as we understand it? Will we keep striving to make good on a more inclusive vision of American democracy? I take it the answer to your question is no, given the results, but I would like to give you a chance to answer yourself. I think the answer to my question is we still have to wait and see. We still have to wait and see. I think that we're on a bad trajectory. I think that we're on the path to a much less egalitarian and fair country. But, you know, we'll have to see.

You know, I don't know. That's my answer. Like, this is a case of having to see what happens, what happens with this administration, how far it goes, and how people respond. And I don't have the answer to that yet. And so I wouldn't say I'm hopeful, but I'm just sort of like, I don't have the answer to that yet. And so I wouldn't say I'm hopeful, but I'm just sort of like, we'll see how things play out and we'll cross the bridges as we come to them. Yeah, we're gonna fight it. And he's had a rocky, and he hasn't even started yet,

but he's had a rocky month of the pregame. This really is the thing that is like, I think if there's anything that people should actually take quite seriously, it's that like that we're three, four weeks into the transition and he has two major Ls. His nominee for attorney general was promptly shot down. His threats to go to recess appointments were ignored and he might lose his first pick for

secretary of defense. That's actually such as unusual. This doesn't happen. Usually new presidents get a lot more leeway than this and he's kind of squandering it. And everyone that falls, it doesn't actually make the chances of the others go up, make the chance of the non-traditional picks

that much worse, right? It's sort of like, well, we didn't have to get Gates. We may not have to get Hegseth. Do we have to get Tulsa Gabbard? Do we have to get RFK? Maybe not. Senate Republicans might say, we'll happily confirm judges and cut taxes, but we may not want

to put this person in that position, and we don't have to. So I would advise people, just as being a political observer, to not dismiss these things as, oh, it doesn't matter. Like, no, it actually when you're a new president, you don't really have that much time to do things. You have like 18 months. And if it looks like you're going to spend the first third of that arguing with the Senate about who you're picking for top jobs, that's, that's an L.

That is an L. There's an L. All right. Well, that is uplifting. And I'll also leave everybody with the, I read the traumatizing part of the Frederick Douglass speech at the top. So I will close with the uplifting part that you left people with. It was his conclusion about thinking about the principles of the founding. Whatever may be in store for the country in the future, whether prosperity or

adversity, whether it shall have foes without country in the future, whether prosperity or adversity, whether it shall have foes without or foes within, whether there shall be peace or war, based on the internal principles of truth, justice, and humanity, and with no class having any cause of complaint or grievance, your republic will stand and flourish forever. Frederick Douglass went through all that shit and could believe that, so can we, right, Jemil? Absolutely. All right. I appreciate you coming on the Bulwark Podcast. Come back again soon. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you for having me. Everybody else will see you back here on Monday with Bill Kristol. Enjoy your weekend. Peace.

I grew up with reverence for the red, white and blue blue, spoke of God and liberty reciting the pledge of allegiance. Learned love of country from my own family, some shivered and prayed approaching the beaches of Normandy. The flag waves high and that's how it should be So many lives given and taken in the name of freedom But the story's complicated and hard to read Pages of the book, obscured, are torn out completely I am a son of Uncle Sam and I struggle to understand the good and evil In a place built on stolen land with stolen people

Blood in the soil with cotton and tobacco Blood in the soil with cotton and tobacco Blood in the soil with cotton and tobacco A misnamed people in a kidnapped race, laws may change but we can't erase the scars of a nation of children devalued and disavowed, displaced by greed and the arrogance of manifest destiny. greed and the arrogance of manifest destiny. Short-sighted to say it was a long time ago, not even two lifetimes have passed since the days of Lincoln. The sins of Andrew Jackson, the shame of Jim Crow, and time moves slow when the tragedies are beyond description. I am a son of Uncle Sam,

and I struggle to understand the good and evil, but I'm doing the best I can In a place built on stolen land with stolen people. The Bullork Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with Audio Engineering and Editing by Jason Brown.