The Daily Beast Podcast - Ben Franklin Was Probably As Annoying As Jordan Peterson

Episode Date: July 4, 2023

It’s Independence Day but hosts of The New Abnormal are not in a patriotic mood. Hosts Andy Levy and Danielle Moodie discuss last week’s “grifting ass” Supreme Court decisions, including the student debt, anti-LGBTQ same-sex website, and affirmative action rulings—and Danielle makes the case for students of color filing a lawsuit against universities for their legacy student practices. Also on this episode: Andy plays a game of American “20 questions” with David Roth, editor at and co-owner of Defector and co-host of the Distraction Podcast, and Jeb Lund, a journalist whose writing has appeared in such places as The Guardian Vice Rolling Stone, Gawker, and The New Republic, each whom answer questions like ‘what was the best year in American history?’ ‘who is the most annoying president in American history?’ and ‘how is Donald Trump celebrating the July 4th holiday?’ Then, on a serious note: Alí R. Bustamante, deputy director of the Worker Power and Economic Security program at The Roosevelt Institute, reveals a hard truth: The American economy isn’t functioning “in any Democratic way.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. Our goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears. Happy Fourth of July. What a great show we have for you today. We're joined by Ali Arbusamante, deputy director of the Roosevelt Institute, specializing in worker power and economic security.

And he's here today to talk to us about how some of those policies might not actually be as democratic as we think they are. Then we'll be joined by David Roth, editor and co-owner of the Defector and co-host of the Distraction podcast. And Jeb Blund, a journalist whose writing has appeared in such places as The Guardian, Vice Rolling Stone Gawker and the New Republic, and they are also the co-hosts of the It's Christmas Town podcast. And they are here today to find out which one of them is the greater American. But first, let's have some fun. So, Danielle, it's July 4th, and I think it's fair to say that this country has never been in a better place. I think you and I both agree on that.

There's absolutely nothing terrible to talk about. Just everyone enjoy your barbecues, eat some burgers, eat some ribs, eat some chicken, eat some dogs. And oh shit. Hot dogs. Hot dogs. Oh, great, great. Not actual. Not actual dogs.

Come on. Got it. Come on, people. Unclear. You know, unclear. Okay. Eat some cats. I was taken out of context.

But look, I just want to start off. Let's talk about the Supreme Court decisions that came down at the end of last week. I just want to start off with a general observation that we should think about how much different this country would probably be right now. If we elected presidents by popular vote as we should. Hmm. We don't need to. get into a discussion on this. It's just something that was on my mind as I was looking at these decisions, thinking about how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. And I've never been a fan of

hers at all. So this is not, I'm not a, I'm not a Hillary Stan by any means. But anyway, just food for thought for you people out there. So let's get to these Supreme Court decisions. And let's start with the one where this six guys, one of whom gets tuition for people paid by his rich friend. His handler? Yeah. Yeah. They decided that Joe Biden

overstepped his boundaries when he canceled a portion of student loan debt for people. Danielle, I was a little surprised. You agreed with the majority on this. You know what? It's a beautiful day in America

where you have an unelected corrupt grifting body of people that get to decide as they take bribes from billionaires, that they get to. to decide what the majority has to endure. When Joe Biden canceled student loan debt for nearly 45 million people in this country, it was a major win for working class and middle class people. And why was this

done? Because universities and colleges have made acquiring on higher education a six-figure debt for a majority of Americans, that we tell people, we have changed our industry, change what it is that work looks like in this country because we've shipped jobs overseas and given those companies tax breaks. So we tell people, you must get a college education if you are to be, quote, unquote, successful. If you are to live out the American dream. Well, 45 million Americans are being crushed under that American dream. And many of whom actually leave college before they have a degree because they can't fuck

going to afford it anymore. But you have these black robes who have decided that they are able to get trips and seats first class on private jets and luxurious locations and tuitions and houses paid for, but they can't receive a little bit of relief that would allow them to take that money that they are paying off and actually invest in things like buying a home, buying a car, actually accessing that American dream and feeding money back into our economy, which you think, oh my God, that makes so much sense. Well, that makes sense if you actually care about middle and working class people and you want them to have a better life. But these black robes do not. I think you cut to the heart of it there by saying, you know, when Biden did this, it was a major win for middle class and

working class people. And we can't have that, Danielle. We can't have that in this country. I mean, this has nothing to do with the actual decision, but it still blows my mind. The New York Times, as this decision came down, was running like a live blog on their site. And I think they might have actually put this in a full article, but I can't remember. And they had a list of options that are now available to loan holders, disability claims and stuff like that. And then one of them was, and I'm not making this up, one of them was death. And then they wrote, if you're a young adult, wondering about the federal loans your relatives took out to pay for your education, you maybe wondering whether the debt dies with the person or the people who take it on. It does. The

federal government will not make a claim on their estate and you will not inherit the balance. They're literally throwing death out there as an option for people who are buried in loan debt. This is 2023 America and a lot of people are pissed at the times for doing this and I get it. Like I don't really think you need to be putting that thought in young people's heads. But I think it is, you know, it's important to note that there. There are people out there who are already thinking of this because they're like, I am so crushed by debt. I don't see any way I'm going to get out of it. And my college education has not led to a high paying job.

Yep. And I probably just got laid off because some asshole thinks AI can do my job. Yep. And I guess their solution is basically everyone needs to find a rich friend. Yes. That can give them trips and pay for their education and stuff like that. We all need, it's the sugar daddy law. We all need a sugar daddy law.

Daddy. Orsirgamama, no discrimination here. No discrimination here. Yep. No. It's just insane. They made this ruling by saying that Joe Biden overstepped his bounds. I don't think that's accurate. I understand that there are legal people who do. So it's maybe a muddle thing. There are other options that Joe Biden can take. AOC was out there on Friday tweeting immediately that there are other ways we can do this. There are ways we've been pushing, you know, from the start. So I hope that the president does that and doesn't just tell everyone to vote harder. We can't have that. And let me just lift this up.

A friend of mine and friend of this show, Amin Mohadine, who is on MSNBC, he tweeted out just, you know, a quick reminder for folks and said, just a reminder, the U.S. government has forgiven loans for people, businesses, and industries across all sectors in our society, except students. Yep. And also the loans, I just want people to understand that Biden was forgiving were largely loans that are taken out by people of color in this country. Yep. And so, again, the Supreme Court, not only with the decision on affirmative action that says, fuck you, you shouldn't be able to be led into this, you know, predominantly white institution.

Your race and how hard you fought and whatever obstacles you had to overcome in order to make it to set. place is now no longer going to be an admissible reason for you to be admitted into this school. Now they also say, and if you have gotten into this university, you should then be crushed underneath this debt. Again, people of color. So it is very clear with that piece of shit, Clarence Thomas, who is the token of all tokens, and I will say it until I am dead, that sits on the Supreme Court that was able to rise to his station because of affirmative action to then, as many have said on social media, burn the ladder and the bridge from which he crossed and climbed behind him. This Supreme Court, these black robes are very clear about continuing,

lifting up, solidifying, and legalizing white supremacy in this country. And every avenue that we have been told which education is that path to move yourself out of these invisible casts here, they have now taken away. I tweeted this out and I said, you know, I don't know why we are all just casually taking these laws and just like, okay, I guess we'll get them next time from this grifting ass criminal Supreme Court. Like we're just saying like, oh, okay, because people in France, they take to the streets. Women in Iran, they've been taken to the streets. And I'm very confused about why here in America we're just like, oh, well, we know the Supreme Court is corrupt. They have a 20% approval rating, but I guess what they say goes.

And I am one to say, maybe we should rethink that. Danielle, can we agree that the fact that it seems like a whole lot of this stuff of these cases and these decisions disproportionately affects people of color? Can we agree that that's a coincidence and nothing more? Yes, because that would help bring my blood pressure down. Let's contort ourselves and make up any other reason as to why these decisions are being made. Let's pretend what cable news. Yeah.

We have to talk about why all these decisions do disproportionately affect people of color. Unfortunately, that involves looking at U.S. history. And we're not supposed to do that, I guess, in Ron DeSantis's America. Andy, we banned those books. What are you talking about? I know. Exactly. Also, I misspoke.

It's Rob DeSantis. That's my bad. Correct. All right, let's talk about, I think, maybe the other big Supreme Court decision on Friday. This was a case in Colorado. It's a very weird case because it's a woman who was thinking of opening, I guess, like a wedding planning website. But she didn't want to open it because she doesn't want to provide services for gay weddings. And she was afraid that that would run afoul of Colorado law.

So she decided to take this case to the Supreme Court for something that hadn't happened yet. And apparently, according to the New Republic, the actual facts of the case aren't even right because her whole thing was in her case. She referenced a guy named Stewart, one half of a gay couple who inquired about a website for their wedding. And according to the New Republic, they got a hold of Stewart. And he says, I'm straight and married and never made that request. So this is a phony case. from everything that it appears to be. And my understanding is the Supreme Court is not supposed to take phony cases.

So that's A. But I guess let's set that aside because they took it and they gave a ruling saying that this woman could start this business and she could refuse to design weddings for gay people. Danielle, your thoughts. I, too, thought that the Supreme Court didn't take on phony cases. I too thought that discriminating against people based on sexual orientation was something that we had discussed in this country and decided it was a terrible idea. But here's the reality. This opens the door to so much. I made the comment before we started taping and I'll say it again that as a black queer woman, I'm wondering now if I go into said restaurant and sit down and happen to, you know, well,

as Andy points out, I am black and I'm not obviously queer but I'm black and that's obvious. So I may just be turned away on principle. But if I were to go into a restaurant and hold the hand of my girlfriend, I'm wondering now if the owner of the restaurant or the manager will take great offense to that and because of this Supreme Court ruling be able to just kick me out because it's a private restaurant, privately owned. This opens the door to so much discrimination that it is wild. It is wild to believe having the power that Chief Justice Roberts has to be able to do good to transform the lives of people to create true equity in this country. And your response is, nah, I like the way that things are. Or rather, I like the way that they were in 1953. That seemed like a really great time where people were in. the closet where black people were used and abused and needed to move off sidewalks so that white people could walk past seen and not heard. And we couldn't aspire to higher education, let alone

have student loan debt because we weren't allowed in in the first fucking place. So I just, you know, it is wild. It is a wild. It is a wild country. I don't know what the fuck people are celebrating today, to be honest. I guess if you were white and you were mediocre and you're a heterosexual. This is your day. You know, go ham, but make sure it's not woke. I don't know. But for the rest of us, I'm like, drink. I don't know what else to tell you to soothe your pain. I will agree, this is absolutely my gay. You are not mediocre, my friend. You are not media. I said white mediocrity. As a Jew, I will not go ham. Anyway, all right. So look, this is a weird case for me, because I can sort of see both sides.

And Danielle, I hope we can have a civil discussion about this without you shouting me down and calling me names for once. Am I Ron DeSantis? It would just be nice if I could get through an explanation for once. All right. So it depends on whether you look at this as a free speech case or a discrimination case. If you look at it as a discrimination case, then yes. Once you open yourself up to the public by starting a business, the question is, can you discriminate against people and refuse to provide service to them simply because you don't like their beliefs or agree what they're doing or how they look,

I guess. And as you said, like, in that sense, is this any different than refusing to serve food to black people, to queer people, to Jews, to Muslims, whatever, in your restaurant? And I would think that in that case, the answer would be no. This is no different at all. And if you're starting a business, you got to serve everybody. If you look at it at a free speech case, this is where it gets tough. Let's say you're a wedding website designer and you are a proud. And you are a proud of leftist and two of the most vile Republicans come to you and say, we want you to design a website for our wedding. Can you say no? What if a Nazi couple comes in and says, we want a Nazi themed wedding? Do you have to provide that service? Are you compelled by the government to do that even if these

are things that you despise with every fiber of your being? And look, I hope it's obvious that I'm not comparing LGBTQ people to Nazis. I'm using an extreme example, which is kind of what you do in a free speech case. It's an interesting thing. Like, we went through this a little bit with the, was it, the Master Peaks cake shop where the people didn't want to put a message on a wedding cake for a gay couple. And it's sort of the same thing. And look, I think it is vile bigotry to be opposed to gay marriage. And that's simply how I feel. And I think if you started a business and said, I'm not providing services for gay marriages, I would not, as a straight person, I would not use your establishment because I already don't like you and I'm not giving you money. Again, if you look at it as a

free speech issue, like going back to this cake shop thing, do you have to make a cake that says Heil Hitler on it? Do you have to make a cake that has some message on it that you are completely opposed to? Or do you have the freedom of speech to say, I am not going to use that speech? So I do sort of see both sides on this. I think ultimately we've been through too much in this country with regards to discrimination to let this one go. And I think I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on this one. But am I wrong to be conflicted, Danielle? Please tell me I am and explain why. The pendulum should be able to swing both ways. That's what you're saying, that if you are a business owner and you're a progressive or you're, you know, a person with sense and a brain in your head and a white

supremac comes in or a rabid maga person comes in and says, I want you to make said cake or design, you know, my I Love Nazis website, then you should have the right to say, no, I don't. If we're reading the law that they have declared to be true, that that is your first amendment right to be able to say, well, I don't want to do said business with you, then it should go both ways. But something tells me that they don't give a fuck about both ways. And if a MAGA Republican were to now bring a lawsuit because I didn't want to make the I love Trump. or the I Love Trump website because it goes against my beliefs and values, something tells me that I wouldn't win that court case with this Supreme Court. So you make a valid point, but we're not living

in valid or even normal times or even on Earth one anymore. The rationale that we try to part and parcel from these decisions only work with a legitimate court and in a society that is actually looking for equity. We live in neither of those places. So I'm pretty sure that the pendulum will not swing in both ways, but I dare somebody to do it. Let's see. Let it rise to the occasion. Just like I had tweeted, I would love to see a court case being brought by students of color that are pushing back against legacy students that are let into these institutions that don't meet the qualifications, right? Because here's the thing, as I think it was Michael Harriet, who is a journalist and writer, said, like, oh, don't get it twisted. And let me pull it up real quick because, again, super important to be clear about what was actually decided. And he said, before you begin your think piece, the Supreme Court did not strike down affirmative action. Admission preferences for legacies, donors, employee families, and special recommendations are still. allowed. So I would love to see a lawsuit brought by students of color from marginalized backgrounds

against universities for admitting in all of these groups because they still have affirmative action. Affirmative action based on gender is still a okay to protect white women who is the group that was able to benefit from affirmative action more than any other fucking group. So let's be clear that there isn't both sides here because I'm pretty sure if we saw those court cases or they were heard, they would lose. Yeah, the other thing is I just want to say that I left this out for sort of rhetorical reasons, but sexual orientation is a protected class in this country and being MAGA and being a Nazi, not so much.

I'd beg to differ. There are good people on both sides. Fair, fair point. There are good people on both sides. Fair point. But the point is you could argue that, yes, you could refuse service to Nazis, but not to gay people for a gay wedding because sexual orientation is a protected class in this country. Ultimately, I think I agree with you, and I think the court ruled wrongly on this. I do think it's a more interesting case that maybe isn't as, I hate to use the phrase, black and white, but ultimately, I think I agree with you.

And also, just to end, I think on a, if there was a lawsuit brought by people of color against, universities for the unbelievable amount of legacies that they allow in. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd get a bunch of amicus briefs from poor white people because they're hurt by that too, whether they realize it or not. And the only people not hurt by legacy admissions are obviously children and grandchildren, whatever, of legacies who probably already have all the money they'll ever need for the rest of their life. Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal for the very first time, Ali Bustmante, who is the deputy director at Roosevelt Institute, specializing in worker power

and economic security, things that are incredibly, incredibly important. Ali, we are living in a really, I want to say precarious economic climate, where over the last year plus. One day, the headlines are all about gas prices. The next day, the headlines are all about inflation. And yet, at the backdrop of both of these things, we see an administration that has added more jobs than any other president at this time. So while they want to be able, the Biden administration, to hail, we're making economic progress. I don't think that they've done a good enough job of being able to tell the story of what it is we've had to dig out of in the prior administration and frankly, how much COVID had also disrupted our economic stability. So can you talk about kind of,

give us a 50,000 foot view as to how two things can be true at the same time? Yeah, absolutely. The first thing that folks obviously have to understand is that our economy is not functioning in any kind of democratic way. And it hasn't been. doing that for many, many years, for many decades by now. And so what we're actually seeing right now are these two counter forces, an economy that is really stacked in a way that is benefiting just a selected few, while we're actually seeing for really the first time in a very long time, these very concrete set of policies that are really oriented toward broad prosperity, towards really building out economic growth in a way that doesn't just benefit the folks

on Wall Street, but that actually benefits folks who are actually earning a paycheck, which is just a great majority of Americans. So seeing these two forces collide is really providing us with this really unique opportunity of one, seeing what's possible, as you mentioned, you know, a lot of these investments that have happened over the past couple of years. We're talking about massive reductions in poverty, thanks to the child tax credits. We're talking about folks receiving actual direct financial assistance from the government in an unconditional way. And we're also talking about, investments being made in American jobs that have very clear good job quality standards.

However, what we're also seeing at the same time is this vast network of forces that are really pushing against that. They're trying to take back the focus of the government to benefit them in the way that it has in a few times. And we see that one with the courts, right, trying to undermine a lot of the administrative policies. We're seeing that just across the board, we're thinking of, you know, the price markups that many corporations were doing during the pandemic, really in many ways trying to counteract the inflation reduction policies of the administration. So we're seeing these very, very clear examples of one, what government working for the people looks like, but at the same time, that there are these real forces who don't want that, who actually want

to maintain the status quo where policies are just really benefiting a selected few. I feel like we know this, like those of us that are in this work and go through policy with a fine tooth comb and understand the larger goal, which is that the wealthy stay wealthy and that the poor stay poor and the middle class continues to shrink. And I feel like there is a narrative, Ali, that is not being spread out to the actual workers because then you have folks that end up. voting against their best interest. And so what do you think needs to be said as it pertains to economics, which is such a huge, vast industry field that a lot of people can't wrap their minds around it. They can wrap their mind around their paycheck. They can wrap their mind around in the taxes that are taken out. But like you said, during the pandemic, we actually got to see the taxes that are taken out were given back to us in the ways that we needed them.

So how do we have conversations that the 1% want to make really complicated? And it's really not. You're absolutely right. It's really not. You know, the difficulty here, and I always like to think of, you know, direct from the Declaration of Independence that governments are instituted among men and deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, which is, to your point, you know, it's us. It's the people of America who have actually enabled a system to be the way it is.

And it's not because folks don't. know the difference, it's because there has been a very well-sold lie for many decades now, for many generations that has really attributed economic status to effort, diligence, or some other personal trait while dismissing the structural factors that actually prevent people from having opportunity in the first place, let alone them having access to the things that would ultimately provide them with a better life. This ideology justifies poverty and old for wealth in a way that seems attainable for most Americans. As you mentioned, we know it's not. We know that in order to do well

in this country and in the world, you need support. You need not just support from individual folks in your community or in your family, but you actually need a functioning society that provides folks with voice, that provides folks with power. And that's the key idea here that we're told that we have a democracy. But it's really not a functioning democracy. And we see that spillover directly into our economy and the policies that shape that economy in terms of who benefits and who doesn't. And when we look at things like income, wealth inequality, climate change, poverty, these are all symptoms of this false narrative that has really limited and curbed our government's ability to provide us with that voice and opportunity.

And so folks look at the government and say, well, it's not doing anything for us. And it's because it's been constrained in such a way that that's what folks are meant to see. But this is really, again, a really unique opportunity now that we've seen. And it really does matter in terms of how folks see those payments that arrived at their door, money that they were able to use to pay for child care expenses. Even on the other side, folks were able to keep their jobs during the pandemic, you know, continuously get a paycheck first had paid lien, paid sickly for the first time in many ways, you know, for many folks across the country, there are these really, really tangible policies that really materially improve people's lives. Now, what's missing is this

broader frame, I think, as you mentioned, that really puts all this together and says, hey, government can work for you. Government is not the problem. Government, in fact, is just shaped by the policies and the ideologies by the people who are in it, who are controlling it. And this is where I think the more, and I think the administration has actually done this rather successfully, again, in this idea that there is a biodynamics, that there is a set of government policies that can deliver broad prosperity and really contrasting that to these very clear sources of pushback, of sources that are really actively trying to limit, you know, either more checks going out or poverty staying low. We see that with, you know, SNAP and work requirements, for example. We're looking at all these many examples of

some sources within government trying to infringe on the administration's ability to actually deliver for folks. And that is what folks need to see. And then secondly, what we need to actually create a very clear and cohesive narrative around. Here's my trouble with this, which is that, one, we know that the Biden administration and Democrats want to do this. We're working against an entire political party, the Republican Party, that wants to dismantle government from the inside out, that the whole point is to make people feel like government is not working so that you can take it apart. And so I think that a part of the narrative isn't just about this is how we can create policies. Like we have, we always have the tools to create what it is that we want.

What we don't have is the will. What we don't have is the desire. And the only way to get the will and desire is for the masses to push those that they are electing to represent them to make the changes that they need that are actually going to better their lives. But when you're being fed a steady stream of lies that are about how government has failed you, how government is trying to control you and take over your life in ways and how everything is socialism, how do we work around that? Because to me, that's the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about. That's the hurdle. There is no longer going to lobby the five Republican senators that we think are going to

actually side with us if you tell them the right story or deliver the right message. Those days are gone. How do we bypass what we know to be one of the biggest hurdles to actually creating a democratic economy and a functioning democracy to boot? Yeah. And I think there's a very key opportunity right now that the administration has. It knows that it doesn't have the legislative majority. It knows that a lot of the calm breaking legislation that was possible over the past couple of years isn't possible anymore. And that's where there is now really a very clear attempt to make agencies much more robust in serving their actual missions. You know, just thinking about more recently the nomination of Julie Sue to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor.

That is a very clear microcosm of what's happening here. You know, the administration is actually trying to put somebody in power of this agency that is meant to serve workers with somebody who has this great experience of representing worker right, representing not just through her capacity as the Secretary of Labor in California, but even before that in terms of representing textile workers and other exploited, marginalized workers. It's this kind of building in the capacity of government to be able to actually fulfill its mission. That is really a key opportunity, this idea, right, the personnel with policy. I mean, that is what is happening right now and what is really, I think, a tectonic shift in the way government is currently.

operating and hopefully continues to operate into the future, this idea that for the first time ever, we are actually putting folks in positions of power who are on the same page, who do believe on this same kind of shift of making government work for people. Now, in terms of how that actually moves forward, it's very clear that to the extent that folks are actually seeing all these attempts at shifting government in a new direction, that at the same time, they see where these kind of pressure points of economic stress are coming from. I kind of mentioned before that this idea of like price markups during the pandemic, this idea that there were these very specific corporations who were on these shareholder calls just gloating about the idea that they were able

to overcharge, you know, all their customers because they could, just because they had that power that ability to do so. And so that really shines a light on this ability of power, this idea that if we let the powerful do what they want, they can continue to just exploit. They can continue to extract now that we, you know, there's a lot of folks who know about the price gouging that was happened. The profiteering is now, you know, moving towards child labor. We're seeing that throughout the country. We're seeing instead of trying to exploit the consumer now, you know, as much because, you know, now they're looking bad in the public. Now they're shifting their strategies to another way to profiteer off of Americans and that children, this idea that the tight labor

market, the hot labor market that we have right now, that instead of paying folks more to enter the labor market, instead of being actually competitive in attracting workers to their particular company, instead, they want this shortcut of employing children, 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds, It's doing work that is oftentimes dangerous, that it's putting them in very precarious situations. And there's not necessarily this very clear understanding that this is part of this broader strategy, that it's not just about, you know, again, increasing labor supply. No, it's about how corporations and how others in power are really trying to double down on their ability to continue to extract, to continue to pull as much wealth and as much power.

from away from the government and away from Americans. Like the fact that we are in a place where you had the state of Arkansas decide to roll back child labor laws. I want folks to understand that the reasoning behind this is not because they think that white children are going to be the ones that are going to be in factories or at fast food places. It is because of the influx of undocumented Latino and Hispanic children that they want the ability to be able to explain. So race, racism plays a major role in a lot of these policies. Again, another elephant in the room that we don't address and don't talk about and connect the dots. Because when we're talking about child labor laws, we have to talk about whose child,

whose child we're speaking of. And it is those children that were ripped away from their families, trying to get a better life during the Trump administration, that we have yet to be reunited with their families. and now, they're saying, oh, well, don't be a burden on the state. You can come and work here. It doesn't matter if you lose a limb so long as the factory keeps going. You know, Ali, it makes me so disgusted because during the pandemic, I felt like we saw government working in the way that government is supposed to actually work, where our money is actually going to what it needs to go to. And I thought foolishly that we were going to continue past the crisis to see how government can actually work for the people, the people that are actually putting in their tax dollars every single pay period in order to be able to uplift it.

But here we are again, and I feel like we have made a considerable, a considerable taking a million steps backwards, where, we're having conversations about, you know, those that are privileged enough to work at desk to go back into the offices. And for no other reason, no companies lost money during the pandemic, but because of the corporate real estate leases that they have. This is why you need to go back into work. And so when you pull back the curtain, I just realize that the decisions that are made are not about people. We don't live in a people-centered, country. Capitalism isn't people-centered. And I'm wondering for you, is there a way that capitalism becomes people-centered, or is that just something else entirely? You know, we're thinking of government,

where we're thinking about the economy or capitalism. You know, I like to think of it as a blank slate. As I mentioned, you know, it's government can work for everyone or it can work for a selected few. The economy can work for everyone or it can work for a selected few as well. When we're thinking about, you know, who the economy is and who's driving the economy for. forward, who's driving our government forward. This is where power matters. This is where who is represented matters. We know that with true democracy, we would be a very, very different country. We wouldn't be a country that is trying to take away voting rights away from African Americans across the country. We know that we wouldn't be a country where we would ultimately, again,

focus on child labor as a solution to increasing our labor pool. These aren't, as you mentioned, people-centered policies. These aren't policies that if you were to poll Americans across the country that they would support because they're insane. What ultimately needs to happen is that we really need to have this very huge shift in the way that we're actually structuring our economy, the way that we're actually structuring our democracy. And it's really not until we actually make these very sweeping changes to these institutions that will actually have this people-centered economy that we should have.

This through democracy that I think many folks really, really want and that hope in many ways that they can live long enough to experience. The big issue here is how do you push at these kind of changes here and there wherever you can, whether they're, are marginal, whether they actually have large scale, how do you actually push all of these in a coordinated way that is trying to really, from all sides, right, from across the board, have this shift into a new direction. And that's the part where, you know, the administration, again, through changing, you know, who's leading these agencies, that's one part of it. By having, you know, unions and workers, you know, as we see, like the huge movement towards, you know, unionization, whether you're looking at Starbucks, whether you're looking at REI, whether you're looking at

5 or 15, all these kinds of movements, they're all trying to push towards the same goal, which is a much more democratic society, a much more democratic economy. Are all these folks working together? They're really not. Are all these folks, do they have a cohesive goal in mind? The answer is no. And so to the extent that we have the, you know, Black Lives Matter movement, the post-V-Waid movement, to the extent that we have all these kinds of, you know, the labor movement, to the extent that we have all these movements doing things separately in a way that isn't creating, again, this broader picture of what is possible, of what should be in the American economy and for American government. As long as we don't have this cohesion, it's really

allowing, again, these forces of pushback to be much more successful than the American government. then perhaps they ought to be. Ugh, so much work still left to do. Dr. Ali Bustante, thank you so much for making the time to join the new abnormal. We will have to leave it there today, but we will surely pick it up another day to continue the conversation. Really appreciate you. Thank you so much for having me.

David Roth is an editor at and co-owner of Defector and co-host of The Distraction podcast. Jeb Lund is a journalist whose writing has appeared in such places as the Guardian, Vice, Rolling Stone, Gawker, and the New Republic. He's also the co-host of the Quaid in full podcast. And when they fist bump each other and say, Wonder Twin Powers activate, they are the super co-hosts of the It's Christmas Town podcast and my next guests. Jeb, Dave, welcome. Hello. Thanks for having us. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay, so this is our special All-Star July 4th episode. A little later, we've got Chuck Norris live in studio, and John Mellencamp is going to stop by and do a song for us.

I'm happy to be a part of this star-spangled celebration. Absolutely. Thanks to both of you, great Americans for being here, which gets me to my point. I'm going to ask both of you a series of questions, and then at the end, I will announce who is the greater American. Wow. All right. My choice will be completely objective, and as always, I will be guided by the principles of

Aristotelian logic and non-Euclidean geometry, as well as the weird sexual mores of science fiction grandmaster Robert Heinle. I will start by asking each of you. What is your favorite thing about America? Jeb, why don't you go first? Personally, whenever I'm in a foreign country and I'm driving down a residential street and I'm going less than 50,

I'm like, why are these so narrow? And that's one of the things that I appreciate as a parent that I can take my kid out on any street in America and put him right next to a highway. Yeah, wide lanes for easy cruising is a good answer there. Dave, can you top it? I kind of like that you can get so many different kinds of weird things from all over the world here in kind of a weird flattened out denatured version designed to flatter our palettes. So that's like both an earnest answer and an attempt to be cynical because Jeb made it sound so cool.

I was talking about this with Drew McGarry for the distraction. And it's, I think that actually really I do like the fact that you can get all kinds of different foods from different cultures here that. Like, I love Italy, but Italians in Italy eat Italian food every night. And while I myself am, you know, certainly open to doing that for the rest of my life, it's cool that there's so many different experiences to have here, all of which are like subtly dialed down so as not to scandalize me too much. Okay. What is your least favorite thing about America?

Probably how stupid and mean things are at baseline culturally. And, you know, obviously we have this sort of hegemonic effect. in the whole rest of the world. Like, I don't necessarily know what cable news is like in Hungary, but I can't imagine that it's good. And I have to imagine that we have a lot to do with the ways in which it's bad. So I think that Americans have this, it's the habit of just getting upset about stuff as a leisure time activity. I don't know that we invented that.

I do think that we've done a lot to perfect it and then to sort of export that very unappealing tendency to the rest of the world. Interesting. Jeb? Yeah, I think mine's going to be an export. well. I mean, maybe it's on my mind because, you know, this happened at the morning of the recording. But I do dislike the fact that like every, you know, 10 to 20 years we take like an established truth and then we run it through the five most corrupt robe wearers in the country who are actually not even good at the completely fake academic discipline that they invented within my lifespan. The idea that we're just going to have this, this, we're going to be cruising ontologically and, you know, the ontology car at, you know, you know, know, 50 because we're on a residential street. And then we're just going to throw it in reverse. And like, well, whatever happens to the machine at that point, you figure it out. Not a big fan.

Okay. So a lot of people, you know, you see arguments all the time. What was the best year for movies? And, you know, people say 1999 or they'll say some other year and be wrong. And so I want to sort of expand on that. I want to ask each of you, what would you say was the best year in American history? Jeb, your turn to go first. Oh, geez. You kind of can't go wrong with 1865, like this idea that, you know, albeit birthed in blood, that we would have forced a reckoning with the promises that we made to ourselves and to our posterity and then, you know, actually follow through on it. And, I mean, admittedly, as is our want, almost immediately begin backsliding. But for one shining anim there, you know, we kind of felt like maybe we were a little bit committed to it. Okay. That's a good answer for sure.

I mean, I think if you wanted to take the question seriously and give it some thought, I went immediately to 1986. I was eight. I was having a blast. Mets win the World Series. Yep. Obviously, some other things probably happened in 1986. That might have been the year of a stock market crash.

I don't remember. There was a big one that happened in there. That was 87. All right, yeah. Well, by that point, obviously, that's the hangover season. You can't blame the Mets for that, though. Right. The twins won that year. In spring training.

They were taunting. Yeah. Just taunting God. When I mean, obviously it helps that I was eight. But that was the moment when I think the full promise of American life unfolded before me in the sense that there was like Huey Lewis and the news was on the radio and it's an eight year old. You're kind of like being a grown up sounds awesome. You're just like going to work and like dieting. I guess. Maybe there's a song about that.

Naming major cities. Yeah. New York. Ugh. Exactly. So if you look at 1986, at that point indisputably,

the heart of rock and roll was still beating. So true. And that was what I thought being a cool grown-up was like. You win two out of every three baseball games

you play. You get in a fight with off-duty cops at a bar called Cooters in Houston. You don't even get in trouble for it. We need to get back to that.

We need to return to that, in my opinion. Every third locker, you open just spills cocaine out, like topping over like the fucking elevator doors in the shining, but it's just pills. I guess the stupid thing about this is when I wrote this question, the first thing that popped into my head was, oh, it's 1986. It's embarrassing for us both.

And it was because the Mets won. And then I guess technically the Giants won the Super Bowl in 87, but it was the 86 season. So it was just, you know, but I'm trying to imagine because I'm a little bit older, but as an eight-year-old watching the Mets win the World Series and thinking, oh, there's going to be so many more of these in my lifetime. Yeah. That was what I think I've got to give my dad some credit on that because like he woke me up to like, you know, I saw the, you know, ball go through Bill Buckner's legs.

That was, I was, you know, wearing like footy pajamas probably when it happened. Sure. But my dad got me out of bed and like in later years was like, it was important to me that you see that because you never know. Like whether you're going to. And I think maybe what he didn't have the heart to say was that you do actually know. You know that this. is like you get one of these in a lifetime and if you let your child sleep through it because

he's got a whatever got a big day in third grade the next day he would never forgive you I just want to say I think it's a little bit disappointing that the two of you displayed typical East Coast media bias here you know we're talking about the United States and history and what do we get de Mets baby Demets love the Mets that was the preparation I did for the show I didn't know we were going to be doing patriotic stuff I was just ready to break down bullpen options in the back half of the season. Absolutely. Yeah.

Well, you should have, I mean, the fact that Jeb didn't expect that says, you know, speaks volumes. Yeah, really. Well, I couldn't book an orthopedist in time to talk about the Mets. All right. Let's move on. But I will say that I think this is probably obvious to listeners. Dave has built up a commanding lead. It's a stage.

Handering very strongly. Jeb, you're not helping yourself by complaining. Next question. annoying founding father Thomas Jefferson easily let's see suspended habeas corpus put Americans in internment camps slaver and rapist obviously and tried to impeach an associate justice of the Supreme Court used journalism in a horribly you know weaponized way to you know smear and slander his enemies and like we have the most annoying cult of worship about this just absolute douchebag like pick another one good

writer though yeah that's a good answer I think in part because and I it's like unfair to steal the same one. But like Jefferson is the one that has the biggest mismatch. I think like the most, I think like Ben Franklin might have been like personally annoying or whatever, but there was not anything in there where he enslaved hundreds of people and then like wrote a bunch of essays about how problematic it was when other people did stuff like that. And certainly there's this disconnect where there's still, you know, books being written about like his romance with Sally Hemings or whatever. Like he's getting the benefit of the doubt after having been dead for, you know, a couple centuries and change. That's a, yeah, that's a very generous

assessment of a guy who did not always earn such a generous assessment. It also like chief among our victims, right? Like probably the originator of the, I have like this almost total supremacy over the politics of this nation, right? He was inviting members of Congress to the White House. He's basically coordinating legislation and messaging on it. He has a whole cadre. of complicit journalists basically doing messaging for him, targeting his enemies, and what does he do? I am so assailed by these infamous scribblers. Bitch, you built that.

Yeah. Also, that is, like, in some ways, you got to tip your cap. He was a little early on that. Yes. But if your legacy is, like, the speech that Samuel Alito is going to make over the summer to the Vlad Dracool Institute for Innovation,

you know, Congrats on that one. Yeah, I would go personally with, because I purposely framed the question as most annoying and not, you know, biggest asshole, I would actually go with Ben Franklin with his little sayings and I just like, I picture him on Twitter and just like instant block. He's like Jordan Peterson. He's like, well, you need to make a bed made is a day earned. God damn it.

How does this have 50,000 retweets? Yeah, I think it's like, it's not the account of the writer Jeet here is a good account. The little image on that account is the vibe that Ben Franklin would have in real life, which is like a man holding up his finger, point of order. Like that is not what you want. I always thought that there should be a, the worst conversation you could possibly walk into would be his avatar and the New Yorker's avatar talking. Just you guys saying quite back and forth.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. To industry. Capital. Okay. On a scale of Rob DeSantis to AOC, how woke will each of your 4th of July barbecues be? And what will be the most woke food you have there?

Bonus question, what will be the least woke food? Mayanase is off the table. It's sort of like the vowels in the bonus round of Wheel of Fortune. It's a given. Jeb is going to blow me out of the water on this one. The man is literally in Florida as he joins this. call. I don't have a fucking prayer. So, all right, let me, I'll lay the baseline then. Here's what I think is probably going to happen is that maybe I will go see my sister and her family. She is a vegetarian. My

wife is a pescatarian. Can't grill. They don't allow that in the backyard area of their home. Obviously, we have no outdoor space of our own because we live in Manhattan. So there's a chance that it's like a field roast brand veggie sausages cooked on a foreman grill and then put onto some sort of possibly multi-grained bun type thing. That's how much I'm going to the gulag if a Republican Mr. President of the United States. This is why they hate us. Yeah. I mean, I love all that bullshit. And as a kid, it was July 4th was going to my friend the Morolla's house and there just be like sausage and peppers all day coming off the grill while like some uncle I didn't know was like, no kidding. No matter what it was I told him. That to me is America. I'd love to get back to that.

I just live in a city so I don't have the space to do any of that shit. Okay, I can see that. In my case, you know, as somebody who worked at the highest levels of journalism, my answer is going to be right down the middle, irrespective of what the polls say. So, I mean, obviously we're going to begin with a land acknowledgement. Now, like, so I'm going to be going to a house with, you know, there'll be at least three different races represented in three different generations. And we're going to cook a lot of panhandle, downhome, like greens and stuff and in ribs

and just like really just nuclearly fattening and dangerous food. We're going to blow up a small part of America. I think if we acknowledge America, it will probably be in the sense that like it is one of the top republics in North America. Oh, no, no question. It's top three. Easy. Oh, what America is America? Okay.

It's a high performance day. It's what you want. That's pretty good. So, like, so yeah, we're going to have like, I mean, what I would imagine to be like a very conservative spread and that it will be abundantly meated and fatty and there will be, you know, as many dishes as you can think of. But at the same time, like, I'm going to make a potato salad that has like 20 different moving parts in it. It's going to be delicious and it's going to just, you know, put the whammy on your health. But it is like very complicated.

And so we're going to be a diverse group, but we're also going to do every stereotypical four thing you can think of. I know when this episode is released that there's. going to be patriotic music coming up under Jeb's answer there. Getting gradually louder and louder. I'm actually standing to do this entire podcast. I found myself saluting during that, especially the potato salad part. All right. Moving on.

How do you imagine Donald Trump celebrates the 4th of July? He's going to ride around in a golf cart for a little while. And then he's going to go into a room where people eat, but the room is carpeted. except for a small dance floor area in the middle. Some of those people will be waiting to get food off a steam table. He will cut that line. He will take a yellow bag of laced potato chips and put it on a fancy plate. He will go up to a place where man is sawing away at a kind of jarringly wet-looking haunch of beef.

He'll ascertain how many flaps of that beef every other guest is getting. And then he will ask for one more than that. And then he's going to pass by someone at a table. table that he doesn't know and say, have a great time. It's also what he does every night of every week. But I feel like that it's true. It's not going to be any different. No, there might be like a band where everybody's dressed like Uncle Sam and they're going to cover Celebrate Good Times. Come on. But that's more or less what I anticipate. Dave did not leave a lot on the table. I was hoping he was going to forget the carving station.

Because that's my favorite detail. I'm thinking like he's going to have a third scoop of ice cream for sure. Oh, yeah. Hell yeah. Everyone else has permitted one. I'm thinking also maybe he might experiment with making a cola, strictly cola-based suicide Pepsi into a Coke because that way you have red, white and blue represented. Otherwise, yeah, I imagine some outdoor grass and golf cart related sweating. And yeah, probably like an extremely like fucking overlook hotel.

Hell haunted level Instagram story of him just sort of hovering near somebody who's having like a bat mitzvah. It's like some realtor is getting remarried and he's going to show up and give a speech about like what could they weren't really documents. It was bravado, you know. Yeah, that part of it, I kind of, I think that maybe, and this is not something you would necessarily think given the substance of our two answers, that we might be being too generous to like contemporary present day Trump because I think we're still thinking

about the like the bon vivant from like 20. 15 to like early in his presidency where he was clearly having a blast being the most important guy at the party. He just looks like upset now. He's like a jarringly different color every time you see him. He's like blinking a lot and really mad. So I don't know that he's even, I mean, obviously, yes, that's what the third scoop of ice cream is for. But I don't know that he's, this is going to be one of, I think, the unhappier July 4th for him just because it's how he is. To be fair, he's being treated very badly. It's been so nasty and very unfair. I believe he might grill up. some documents.

I was going to say. Okay. Last question, and it's a hard one, and we are a little short on time, so I need short answers. It's a fuck, Mary kill. And it's Tim Poole,

Dave Rubin, and Ian Miles Chung, all great Americans. Very tough call. Can I point of order here that Ian Miles Chong has never been to the United States? No, they are all great Americans.

Fair enough. Fair point, then. The Malaysian, kingpin. I'm asking for Jeb. You can't fuck all three of them, though, right? No, you have to stick with the rules. Okay. Well, I'm going to change my answer. I, uh, yeah, I don't, hmm, this is tough. Dave, help me out. I'd probably wife up Dave Rubin. Yeah. Just because of the fact that he's, I mean, all those guys are bad, but he's kind of like the closest to being, you know, just like a gentle hymbo, you know,

like, I bet he has like a pool at his house. It was like, Tim Pool lives in. like the alt-right version of peewey's playhouse like I don't want to hang out with him at all I don't think that I would want to have a domestic experience with him and uh i miles strong as much as I would love to go to Malaysia I don't even like like looking at pictures of the guy makes me feel like I'm covered in bugs yeah that would be the more unpleasant sexual experience but I think I think you got to go with with him for that you're right about marrying Dave Rubin he's pliable he's like very unctuous like eventually you'd be able to wear him down with just, I think, the strength of your worldview, he'd, like, migrate toward you.

Yeah. Or there'd be, like, if he does have a pool, just be like, do you want to go on the water slide again? And he'd be like, all right, you know, it's like kind of how you get a golden retriever to stop being stressed out. But you kill pool, right? Because he's beyond, he can't be helped. He can't be reached. Like, if nothing else, like, you know, in Miles Chong, you can just get somebody at the State Department to flag his passport.

So he's not coming in. Yeah. Is there, I mean, with that, I think what's unfortunate here is that we're leaving, that basically, if we're going by the rules of this game, you just consented to fuck Ian Miles Chong. I think if there's a way to do that online, though, that doesn't require him going to Malaysia or that requires us to go there very briefly, then that is clearly the probably the right answer. Yeah, if you could wear some sort of like AI hentai skin of like something that, you know, it's like, no, I'm a thousand years old. I know I look like I'm 15, but I'm a thousand,

I swear. Okay. I would like to apologize to our listeners. Not for Dave and Jeb, but for me, for asking that question. Yeah, we went where we were led. No, absolutely. You are blameless here. That one, that one is on me. We got to go. I guess I have to announce who is the greater American, and I think it's me. Nice. Congrats. I think it's me. I think that's what we've learned here. It's bias. Yeah. David Roth, Jebelon, thank you so much for being here. And happy fourth to all who are listening. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, thanks. Happy fourth. Andy Levy. Danielle Moody. Who is your fuck that guy to start off this fantastic week in America?

Oh, God. My fuck that guy is a bunch of Republicans. And this is what they do. And to his credit, President Biden kind of mocked them for this towards the end of last week. A bill will be passed. A bill will be passed that Republicans vote against. And it will do things like, I don't know, bring billions of dollars in federal funding to individual states. And let's say for just as an example, a bill that would send $1.4 billion in federal funding to Alabama for expanded broadband internet access.

If you were a Republican who voted against that and then the bill passed, would you then get up there and tell your constituents what a great job you're doing, bringing them all that money? Well, if you're Tommy Tuberville, you would. Because that's exactly what he did. He voted against the bill in 2021. and now he's out there saying things like, great to see Alabama receive crucial funding to boost ongoing broadband efforts. I mean, it's absolutely unbelievable.

John Cornyn did a similar thing in Texas. He voted against the law, and now Texas is getting $3.3 billion from it. He tweets out a link to an article, Texas to receive $3.3 billion in federal funds to boost broadband expansion efforts. Nowhere in the tweet does he note that he didn't vote for the,

this. And Nancy Mace did a similar thing. And this is, they do this time after time, after time. These are just the latest examples because they know, like deep down, they know that these are good bills and these are good laws. But they can't bring themselves to vote for them, but they know it's what their people want. So they will go out there and tout the bill and tout the law that they themselves voted against and they will sit there and basically, you know, they won't actually come out say that they voted for it, I guess at least they have the intelligence not to so blatantly lie on something so easily checked. But they certainly will give every possible impression that they voted for it as opposed to against it. And I'm sick of seeing it. And I'm glad that President Biden called

them out and more people need to do it. And just fuck all of those guys forever. You know what would be great if Democrats would decide to also weaponize the federal government when they're in control and decide, how about this? We're not giving money to red states. Actually, your welfare time is done and that if you don't change your policies or openly admit how you have voted, you're not getting these resources. And no, I don't want you standing up beside me to say mission accomplished when you did everything in your power to create obstacles to getting these policies past that your actual constituents need and benefit from. So fuck them. Like I'm at a point where I'm just like, no, literally, fuck all of them. If you don't vote for these things, but your state still receives that

funding, nah. No, your constituents should know who the fuck you are and you're a liar. So fuck those guys. Yep. All right, Danielle, on this glorious July 4th, what segment is, you? of America do you want to highlight for your fuck that guy? Put down a potato salad, Karen. Yeah. Here it comes. Here it comes. And put down your raisins.

But here is my thing. I am saying, fuck that guy to the 53% of white women in this country who in 2016 decided to vote for patriarchy and vote for misogyny and vote for white supremacy and vote against one of their very own. We are in this fucking situation because 53% of white women in this country are fucking selfish and would rather align themselves with white men in the hopes that their proximity to their maleness and their whiteness is going to save them at the end of the day. And those motherfuckers are the same ones that turned around and stripped away Roe v.

Wade. But they're like, oh, but our husbands, our boyfriends, our fathers, they'll protect us. No, the fuck they won't. They want you chained to a fucking stove. They want your mouths closed, right? My whole thing is I don't want the pussy hat marches. I don't want white women to get away with being able to vote against their own interests. And we just kind of move along.

We want to understand the pathology. We want to understand this. I don't need to understand you. I need to understand. that white women will put the power of white men above all else. 53% of white women looked at another white woman and said, no, not you. We'll go with the pussy grabber instead.

Imagine where we would be right now in this country if three of the Supreme Court justices had been appointed by Hillary Clinton. Like give me a fucking break right now. And then to go ahead in the 2020 election and decide to bump it up from 53% of white women to 56? What the fuck is wrong with y'all? Honestly, I don't know if you were around in the 1950s as a housewife and you want that life back, but the rest of us don't fucking want it.

But because of your selfishness, this is where the fuck we are. So for that to white women who decided to put their man before, everything else, fuck you all day long. And your fucking bad potato salad with raisins in it. Yeah, if you are listening to this at a barbecue and you are

a white woman and you are eating some plain ass potato salad, completely unseasoned, Daniel is talking to you. I'm talking to you. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday.

If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going. This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh,

and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover

what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.