The Daily Beast Podcast - Is Biden the White Moderate MLK Jr. Warned Us About?

Episode Date: June 4, 2024

Academic and author Eddie Glaude Jr. joins The New Abnormal, discussingwhether President Joe Biden is acting like the white moderate Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of.Plus! A conversation with Vicky Hausman, the co-founder of an organization called Forward Majority, about the need for Democrats to reclaim state legislatures across the country after decades of neglect in the party’s state apparatuses. 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 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 Kedden, 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. What an excellent show we have for you today.

Forward Majority's co-founder and co-CEO, Vicki Hausman, joins us to talk about her organization's push for Democratic engagement in the elections for state legislatures. Then, University, University, University, Eddie Glock Jr. is here to talk about Trump's felony conviction, democratic messaging, and the importance of the black vote for the Biden campaign. But first, let's have some fun. I want to follow up on what Rachel asked you, though, because I hear you struggling with it. I hear you say it's a tough question, a bit unsure. You famously said regarding Hillary Clinton, lock her up. You declined to do that as president. I beat her.

It's easier when you win. And they all said luck her up. And I felt, and I could have done it, but I felt it would have been a terrible thing. And then this happened to me. And so I may feel differently about it. I can tell you, I'm not sure I can answer. the question. Hilary Clinton, I didn't say lock her up, but the people would all say, lock her up, lock her up, okay, then we won. And I say, and I said pretty openly, I say, all right, come on, just relax. Let's go. We've got to make our country great. Yeah. And it would have been think of it. You lock up the wife of a president of the United States.

They want to lock you up over $130,000 of an accounting thing. And she actually. And a perfectly stated accounting thing. But, you know, people also say, can you bring the country together? And the The answer is yes, success will bring the country together because I had it together. Before the China virus came in, I had it together. We really had it together. And it would have stayed. I think it would have stayed. Everybody was doing better. The country was doing better than it had ever done.

And we're going back to those same policies and then some. Hi, Daniel. Hi. Hi. I'm just wondering how fucking stupid does Donald Trump and the Republican Party? think that we are. One, he never said lock her up. I'm pretty sure you can do at least a fucking 10 minute clip cuts over the, from 2016 until now of Lock Her Up that he is done on every fucking stage, every platform. They had it on T-shirts. They had it on bumper stickers at convention in

2016, at convention again in 20. Like, how dumb do they think that we? we are. And also, I'm just, I'm confused about what the grounds would have been because obviously nobody that is interviewing Donald Trump on Fox and Friends is going to ask like a follow-up question, like, what would have been the grounds, what would have been the charges, what like any of those things? Because that would be, what did they call it? Oh, God, journalism. So we're not going to do that because that's dangerous to the audiences at Fox News because you may get to some type of truth. But I'm just like I'm beside myself at this point listening to Donald Trump. But go ahead, Andy.

I mean, the other question is, how stupid do these Fox News hosts think their viewers are? And the answer to that is very. And that's why they don't ask follow-up questions. And that's why, you know, I think it's Will Kane, Rachel Campos Duffy, and Pete Hague said just sitting there, just not a single one of them is a journalist. And by the way, I used to know Will Kane. and he wasn't always like this and what he's become is absolutely pathetic. But so it's a double-barreled question in that, yes, Trump thinks that Americans are stupid.

And then it's just a little sub-question of, you know, he's sitting there in front of three people who work for a network where they think their entire job is catering to viewers whom they consider stupid. So, yeah, it just kind of goes hand in hand. And you're absolutely right. As I sat there listening to him, say, you know, I could have done it. I was like, no, you couldn't have. You absolutely couldn't have. And you don't need a degree from Columbia Journalism School to know that that's not true and to be able to sit there and go, like you said, you know, no, you couldn't. You know, on what grounds would you have locked her up?

She was never charged with a crime. So it's just the whole thing is pathetic. And the whole thing is, of course, just a way to deflect from the fact that, oh, I don't know that he has been convicted of 34 felonies, Danielle. Mm-hmm. 34. Yeah. So let's talk about that. Also sentencing happening July 11th.

I'm not quite sure why it can't happen on the 4th of July, but whatever. Also mentioned in that clip was him saying that the $130,000 was, did he say that it was perfect? It was a perfect deal. Yeah, something like that. Perfectly realized or something like that? What? Sir, again, like what are you talking about? Here's the thing with Fox and Friends and just the entire GOP's reaction to this case,

to Donald Trump being the first United States president in the history of this country, to be found guilty of criminal conduct, 34 felonies, is now a convicted felon, and they shall not be moved. It is fucking wild to me. Senator Susan Collins, you know, the one who told us during the impeachment trial, that, oh, Donald Trump will learn from this? Because apparently, you know, he's a 70-something-year-old teenager that just needed a good finger-wagging from a really tepid, spineless white woman

in order to really feel like, ooh, I'm going to grow up someday. But puts out a statement disparaging our legal system, right, saying that this was weaponization and this DA ran on locking up Donald Trump. He ran on doing away with crime and criminals. I didn't hear anything about any of the other prosecution cases that brag won. That's his job to prosecute criminals. If you don't do crime, guess what doesn't happen? You don't get prosecuted for crime.

Certainly not as a rich white guy. Thank you for the caveat. You're absolutely right. And famous one at that. So the way that the Republicans have rallied around Donald Trump, this party of family values, the party of law and order. I just, if I'm a Republican, I think to myself, how shitty must the candidate's search have been

that out of all Republican possibilities in this country at all different levels of government, senators, governors, that a man that has been impeached twice has been found guilty of 34 felonies, has been found guilty of being an alleged rapist is a habitual liar that this is the best that this party could put up against the Democrats. There was no one else, no one else that they were willing to look at. I think to myself, my God, I don't know how these people sleep at night.

I don't know how they look in the mirror. I don't know how they rally around this man, given everything, and just go on as if all of this behavior is normal. I want to talk about something because you touched on it as the Republicans having this reputation as being the party of law and order, which is something that they've cultivated, at least as far back as Richard Nixon. They have never been the party of law and order. I mean, you know, law and order was always code for white supremacy. And the fact of the matter is they have, and we've seen this from Richard Nixon on, they have certainly never been concerned with the law part of law and order. What they've been concerned with is the order part of law and order.

What I mean by that is the Republican Party has sort of always stood for preserving what they believe is the natural order of America. And that is white Christian men on top and then everyone else, I'm sorry, white Christian straight men on top and then everyone else below them. And yes, they have always been the party of order in that sense. They have never been the party of law. Again, Richard Nixon, you know, who famously used the law and order phrase, was himself a felon. You know, Trump is not the first felonious president we've had. He's just the first convicted felon president we've had. Richard Nixon certainly committed felonies.

They've hid behind this law and order phrase and reputation that, honestly, the media has let them get away with in the same way, you know, we've let them get away with supposedly being pro-family and for family values. None of that is true either, but they've said that's what they are, and that is how everyone has just sort of taken them at their word, and their word is garbage. So this is sort of a nice, in a sense, this should shatter something that should have been shattered a long time ago, but this should shatter any illusion that the Republican Party was ever the party of law and order. And so I thank Donald Trump for that, Daniel. You thank him? I think he did this as solid. Yeah, I mean, I guess you're right, Andy.

Let's look at the glass half full. I guess that we should be thanking Donald Trump for revealing to us what had been hidden underneath of America for so long. And it's now fully out in the open. So we know what the fuck we're dealing with. When it comes to the Republican Party, their erosion of morality and values and being 100% against the Constitution at this point in time. And for generations to come, I would imagine. So just adding to the list. adding to the fucking list, garbage that this party is willing to take in, things that they're willing

to just look away from with regard to Donald Trump is something that probably people should be paying attention to. Maybe. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But you tell me, in Donald Trump's camp, there are nine witnesses in the criminal cases against him. And ProPublica has a new piece because they're the ones doing a lot of.

of the heavy lifting when it comes to investigation. Yep. Entitled multiple Trump witnesses have received significant financial benefits from his businesses campaign. Nine of them who are being called to offer up their witness testimony to alleged crimes of Donald Trump, Andy, let me tell you what's happened to some of these people. They're not sleeping with the fishes as of right now. But one campaign aide has had his average monthly pay double monthly pay from $26,000 to $53,500.

I'm just curious as to what he could have done to have his monthly pay doubled like that. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. and one, another, according to this article, of the campaign's top officials, had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff where she is now the fourth highest paid employee. Is this coincidence, Andy? Or is this something else? I don't know what that something else could possibly be, but what do you think? Well, I think, Danielle, with something like this, you have to look at the history here. And I really, I don't think there's anything in Donald Trump's past that would lead you to believe that there's anything shady going on here.

I don't think there's really anything you could point to in his long career as a businessman and a politician that would lead you to believe, well, this guy is shady. So I have to think that this is all a bunch of coincidences. And like you said, did one guy get his salary doubled? Did another person get their daughter hired on staff? Yes, but you know what? I think shame on you for casting aspersions. I can't keep doing this. Look, the thing is, and ProPublica says this,

it's important that we repeat it. There's no evidence that any of this is quid pro quo, at least not yet. And ProPublica quotes a former U.S. attorney, Barbara McQuaid, as saying it's tough to prove these cases because they're always done with sort of a wink and a nod, you know, and there's never anything in writing. like, you know, hey, you do this for me in this trial, and, you know, I'm going to double your salary.

So, you know, just remember. Remember who loves you, baby. This is probably not the kind of thing that can be proven or be really tough to. But, man, I mean, come on. We all know what's going on here. I also am not a lawyer. So with all the legal stuff out of the way, come on. This is obviously an attempt to pay off potential witnesses against Trump. I think it's laughable to consider that it might be anything but that. I really failed my young self by not just going into corporate law. Yeah.

I really did because for the amount of times that I hear that something is so difficult to prove, it's always so difficult to prove when it's quote unquote white collar crime. Oh, it's just so difficult. We know it's unseemly, but, you know, we just don't know how to prosecute it. We don't really know how to go forward. It doesn't matter if we have a pattern of behavior. It doesn't matter how many crimes the person or the organization has committed. We just, you know, it's just too tricky to do.

I wish that I would ever hear that when it came to low-level drug offenses and people spending like a good chunk of their life behind bars for weed or stealing from a store. It is so amazing to me what we're so incapable of doing. That's the other thing that Donald Trump has revealed. And his fucking decades-long. crime spree, before he was even president of the United States, is that so long as you have the complexion for the protection and the money to be able to have the firms that back you up, you can do whatever the fuck you want in this country. Because the loopholes for white collar

crimes are so fucking enormous. And no one looks into them, into how you really figure out how to get these people who do more public harm than any low-level offenses could do. But that's where we put our energy and money. I'm just so, I'm so, I'm so, I'm just so sick of the conversation around, it's so tough to prove, it's so tough to prove that Donald Trump is paying off his fucking employees to keep their mouth shut. How would we ever manage to prove that? I don't know.

Yeah, it is the reality that it is tough to prove. and, you know, you've got people out there who are lawyers, who are attorneys, who don't like Donald Trump, who are saying, look, yeah, this looks really, really, really bad. I don't know how easy it would be to actually prove in a court of law. So the fact is, you know, I agree with you. It sucks that that's the way it is, but it is the way it is. So that's what I mean when I say I'm not a lawyer, but it's incredibly obvious what's going on here. year. They're giving payments to people like Boris Epstein, who are just the biggest losers in the world. And as ProPublica points out, he's a Trump aide that didn't even work full time for the campaign for Trump. But they're

like increasing his salary an unbelievable amount. And it's just so obvious what they're doing. Look, in so many ways, the American legal system is set up to prop up the people in power. And this is just one among many. There's so many things that Trump takes advantage of. He takes advantage of the fact that he has deep pockets and just the threat of suing someone for defamation or whatever causes people to clam up and causes, you know, sometimes articles not to be written and things like that. Everything about our legal system is set up to help him do that. It absolutely sucks, but it's also until maybe, I was going to say until maybe we change it. I was going to say what, Andy, until when?

I know. I was just thinking that the idea that we might even not have a legal system in like two years is actually possible. So what the hell am I even talking about? Oh my God. I want to scream. We spend a lot of time on the new abnormal talking about the presidential election and other federal races, but we also try to try to.

to keep you informed about what's happening in various state legislatures as we approach November. Forward Majority is a Democratic Super PAC that focuses on just that. And here to tell us all about it is co-founder and co-CEO, Vicki Hausman. Vicki, thank you so much for being here. Great to be with you, Andy. So there's a quote on the Forward Majority website that reads, Republicans have long understood the power of state legislatures and where they have strategically invested for more than 40 years. In contrast, Democrats have treated state legislatures, as an afterthought. This is what you're trying to remedy, right?

Yes, that's exactly right. I think many of your listeners have probably seen the consequences of Republicans' long-term strategy and investments in state legislatures. And I think one of the big insights that has driven our work since we got started in 2017 with Trump's election, as so many eyes have been on the White House and presidential power ever since, is that if we're not investing down ballot in this foundational unit, of government and state legislatures across the country. We're basically seeding the ground. And this is in so many ways, state legislatures are ground zero in the fight for democracy.

So we've been trying to help accelerate the fight for power and help Democrats win in state legislatures that are competitive, but where there's been chronic underinvestment for so long. So let's get into what states you're focusing on now. On the website, you have a map and you have states that you call near-term priorities and other states that you call long-term opportunities. Let's start with the near-term priorities. We're talking five states here, right? Yeah, exactly. So there are five states that are core priorities for us this year. We've been really trying to get folks to walk and chew gum as they think about power and state legislators. So we need to focus on the long-term and just to frame this for folks. You know, we have the fights

that are right in front of us in 2024. But we also have. 2030, which is the next big election before redistricting, which is the once a decade opportunity to have power in state legislatures that will draw district lines, both for congressional districts, but also for state legislative districts. So that's been a really focusing moment for us to think about not just where we can win now, but where there are longer term investments that can prepare us to be in power and to have the ability to put a check on some of the most. egregious Republican gerrymandering in the country that's kept us either out of power in Congress or struggling to win, even in competitive years, where a lot of these maps have just been drawn

systematically to keep Democrats out of power. It's very bold of you to assume that we'll actually have elections in 2030, but go ahead. I hope spring of the turtle. Yeah, you know, I think that working in the state legislative landscape is both a cause for concerned seeing some of the most egregious attacks on democracy. And I think so much of the extremism that we see that is embodied in Donald Trump for so long has been emboldened and taken root in state houses across the country. I think we'll talk about Texas today, but, you know, the GOP platform that is being hashed out now and unveiled includes the death penalty for anyone who has sought an abortion.

So the most extreme and radical ideas. But we really think about this election in terms of the states that are competitive, particularly in battleground states, where having power in this moment in time will be critical. So there are four states that really come to the floor for us. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona are states that are obviously essential for Biden to win the White House. But they're also competitive legislative chambers in those states where Democrats very much have a shot at either holding onto power or flipping chambers. And these will be critical whether Trump wins or loses. And I'll just break this down for you.

I think, you know, if Trump loses, he has already told us exactly what he will do. He will reject the election results and try to find every lever of power he can exploit to seize the White House. And that is where power, you know, from governors to attorney general, straight down to legislatures, is critical. These footholds of power are so essential. In contrast, if Trump wins, I think we will, once again, need footholds of power for policy, for democracy, to ensure to your point that we do have fair elections by 2030. And I think that these are where we have not only opportunities to win, but we're seeing Democratic candidates with, real strength that are actually polling and mobilizing voters and persuading voters in ways I think

Biden has struggled to. So a really important lever of electoral power as well. So I noticed that the one state you didn't mention in those four, you didn't mention Minnesota, which I think on your map is also considered a near-term priority. What makes that different from those other four? Minnesota is also a priority for us this year. I think it is one that we've been watching and where Democrats, you know, have performed better historically. So we tend to be just in terms of our electoral stance at Ford majority, we tend to be more aggressive in terms of going after some of the tougher chambers, tougher races. So that's been on our watch list. I think it will likely be a state that we invest in this year as well. It's another incredibly important state. I think just

given how the environment is taking shape and what looks really like a toss-up kind of neutral electoral environment. I think we're increasingly concerned about the need to hold on to Minnesota House as well. Okay, so you mentioned Texas earlier, and yeah, I know that that's one of your long-term priorities. Talk about this because that's a state that currently has a Republican trifecta, the governorship and both houses of the legislature. But four a majority is pouring a lot of money into some races there, right? I think $2 million is your initial outlay. That's right. So Texas has always been a priority for us at Ford majority. It is very much a long-term endeavor, but if you look at the history in Texas, every decade, by the end of the decade, the state house is competitive for

Democrats to win in the run-up to redistricting. And Texas has, you know, 40 congressional seats, 40 electoral college votes. It is just this huge treasure trove of electoral power. But Democrats often have not thought about Texas or invested in Texas in the run-up to these opportunities that emerge again, before the census, before redistricting. And this is a function of so much of the dynamism, the growth, the population change that we see, particularly in the Texas suburbs, where gerrymandered statehouse lines decay over the course of a decade. They simply cannot hold.

And so that presents this real opportunity. but our perspective and our lived experience is if Democrats are not doing the work now, to really invest in the places we know will be competitive and will be critical to flipping the statehouse by 2030 that we will come close, but once again, not get all the way there. Obviously, flipping the Texas State House, winning in Texas would be a thunder clap nationwide. Not to make it a blue state, but really to put it in play and make it purple state. we see now in Arizona or elsewhere. And so what's going on with the Speaker of the House race there?

There were a whole bunch of runoff elections last week. And I know the current speaker, Dave Phelan, who seems to be one of the more sane Texas Republicans, everything being relative. I know he won his, and I assume that's good. But overall, the runoff elections were not great, were they? They were not great. And I think what we see now is Texas is on the brink of a total MAGA takeover. Yeah.

Even after Dave Phelan's narrow victory last week, six of his more moderate allies in the House Republican caucus lost by wide margins. So this has really set the stage for Maga Republicans to potentially take hold of those seats in 2024. This would lead to a much more extreme agenda in Texas, which is hard to believe. Right. Because I know we all think of it. And understand it is one of the most conservative states in the nation. But this is really a move that would shift Texas even more to the right. It would shut Democrats out of committee leadership and participation.

And as we've seen in so many ways, what happens in Texas has such vast implications for us across the country. So there's a Texas federal case to ban abortion medication that's awaiting court ruling, the Texas governor and legislature actively challenging the supremacy of federal immigration policy. And we see all of the ways in which Texas right-wing lawyers and politicians are working to criminalize travel and abortion procedures in other states. So this is really critical. And I think that, you know, this is part of the longer term fallout of the moderate Republican coalition that was in the Texas House that started election cycles ago. And now we're in kind of this culminating chapter. So we are investing $2 million in Texas that's aimed directly at combating.

these attacks on our freedoms by going after the races that are winnable where we can defeat some of these maga extremists and try to keep what it would never be considered moderation in the Texas house but the Texas house from moving even farther to the right something you said that i saw that I thought was really interesting is that Texas is younger more diverse and more educated than ever before and that demographic change is disproportionately present in the states rapidly growing suburbs. I assume that's one of the reasons why you see a long-term opportunity here? That's exactly why we see a long-term opportunity here. So the whole ballgame for flipping the Texas House is in the suburbs. And there's a quirk of how Texas House lines are drawn

for the legislative races, which essentially requires these lines to adhere to county lines. So there's actually a limit on the gerrymander. If you couple that, with this incredible growth, this incredible diversification and demographic change that's happening in the suburbs. It's exactly what creates an opportunity over time. So we've done a lot of forecasting to really think about not just where the puck is, but where it's where it will be and where it's the Wayne Gretzky. And you start to converge on a set of Texas House districts that will be essential to winning power and flipping that chamber. to Democratic control in 2030.

And it's a really narrow playing field. So there are 14 Texas House districts that we see as the most likely to be the competitive battleground for 2030 control. Now, some of those look pretty Democratic today. Some of them look pretty Republican today. But they are trending in different directions. So we've been able to look at about 100 different scenarios and really identify where the opportunity is.

We refresh this after every election, but it allows us to start to do things like targeted voter registration in these districts. A lot of these districts have not had systematic, scalable voter registration happening on the ground. And Texas, as I'm sure many of you know, is one of the most hostile places for voting. So these efforts are incredibly important. They're what allow us over time to start to shape the electorate and build advantage so that we can capture this opportunity as it emerges. And 2030 sounds futuristic. I'm sure to many folks who hear that number, but it's six years away. So it's the work that needs to happen now. No, absolutely. And I think, you know, it's so easy to get focused with good reason on what's coming up later this year. But

thank God people like you are out there saying, hey, guys, yes, this year is incredibly important. But we assume there will be other years coming up. And we got to start thinking about that now because, Because, you know, as we were talking about earlier, the Republicans have had these long-term strategies for a long-time now. And we really need to start matching, if not exceeding, their efforts. There were a couple of other states you have listed as long-term priorities. And those are, I think, Georgia and North Carolina. What do you see happening in those states? Yeah.

So Georgia and North Carolina are two of the other states that have some of the most extreme Republican gerrymanders. So literally, if you look at the congressional maps for those states, There are zero competitive congressional races at this stage. The state legislatures similarly have been extremely gerrymandered. So these are states where our investments in things like voter registration in the suburbs that can start to shape the areas, again, where these gerrymanders will decay, and where there may well be court cases and litigation that comes forward that presents opportunity that really changes the game. So we're playing the long term here and we're really looking at where

their opportunities for growth and where the impact would be the greatest, again, with an Ida 2030 and what's possible through redistricting. And Andy, I just want to respond to something you said about we are obviously facing an existential threat with Donald and at the presidential level. And yet what I encounter with voters and with activists is so much exhaustion. Yeah, for sure. And so what I would appeal to folks to think about is we must do the work to fight that existential threat. But if we're not also doing this longer-term work, the systemic work that gets at the heart of gerrymandering where we know the only thing that can address it, you know, in the decade ahead will be power in state legislatures. We're not going to change the game. We're not going to get off this hamster wheel of feeling like we're

constantly just, you know, hanging on by the skin of our teeth to enough power to hold on to our democracy. And the really beautiful thing is, you know, if you think about the amount of money and attention that goes into the presidential race, I think there was 12 billion spend on advertising alone in the 2020 presidential. And this one will be sure to top that. When you look at these down ballot races in state legislatures, particularly in a place like Texas, there is this chronic underfunding and chronic lack of attention. It creates opportunity. Think about where a marginal dollar can make a difference. It goes much farther in a competitive Texas house race than it does, you know, in terms of a Biden super PAC or something like this, the Biden campaign.

And I would encourage you all to support Biden. But I think that we really think about, you know, making a difference. These state legislative races have the incredible potential for impact and are exactly where the return on investment is great. No, for sure. And something we've talked about on this podcast a lot is, you know, how important local races are even below the state legislature level at the county level and school boards, et cetera. And like you said, you know, you said earlier, state legislatures are ground zero in the fight for democracy. And I think that's in arguably true. And I do feel that, you know, thanks to organizations like yours and some great local journalism, I'm sure it's there in other states. I have noticed it particularly in Texas. There's maybe a more

general awareness of how true this is than there was even seven years ago when you started up for majority. And I'm curious if you agree with that. I very much agree with that. And I think that there's been such a collective effort and groundswell. I think with Trump posing such great threats and people really digging in to understand how they can make a difference locally and connecting the dots from local power, local election administration, local politics. connects to these broader issues, these bigger and more macro issues of democracy in America. I also think there's something I personally have experienced, and I imagine many others have, which is the best antidote to hopelessness is action.

And really, I find so much optimism and so much joy in getting involved in local races and local politics and really experiencing, you know, the impact that's possible and meeting the local leaders that are doing such incredible work. So I would very much agree with you. And hopefully that trend continues, particularly in this year where I think there is just this huge, you know, swing back to focus on the presidential. So before I let you go, how do people help Ford Majority if they want to get involved? I know the website is foremajority.org. What can people do? Yeah, that's great. We are very much in fundraising mode right now, as I'm sure you can appreciate. and we've been fueling targeted voter registration program

and persuasion and mobilization efforts in the races that we're investing in. Anyone who would like to support the work we have underway, you can check out our website and contribute there. I think more broadly, I think I would just encourage all of your listeners to really think about how to activate their networks and their communities. What we're up against this election overall,

I think is so much exhaustion and so much kind of fatigue. that really having the conversations, connecting with folks who trust you, who may not agree with you, but at least who, you know, you can engage on these issues and share your views with is incredibly important as well. Vicki Housman is the co-founder and co-CEO of Ford Majority. Vicki, thank you so much for being here and letting everyone know about all the great work you're doing. Thank you so much, Andy. My pleasure. Folks, I am very happy to welcome back to the new abnormal. Eddie Glaude Jr.

who is an American academic and author, a pundit, you see him often on MSNBC. He is the James S. McDonald Distinguished University Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, and just a man that shoots it straight on social media that has us look in a mirror as a country and ask ourselves, who do we want to be?

Eddie, I'm talking to you now where we are, I don't know, a couple of days from what should have been viewed as a historic event. The first president in U.S. history to be found guilty of 34 felonies, guilty in a criminal case, paying off a porn star, trying to hide his character, hide that money, hide that relationship, not from his wife,

but from the American people so that he could win an election. It was election interference, it was bank fraud, the GOP, the party of quote unquote family values, the party of white evangelical Christians, the party of law and order, all got dressed up in the same outfits, the same ties, and have been disparaging our justice system, have been calling this, echoing the parroting of Trump, a witch hunt politically motivated is what Senator Susan Collins said. What do you make of where we are at this moment in a moment, with five months to go till an election, where one of the two candidates is it criminal?

Right. Well, first of all, it's just a wonderful opportunity at any time to sit down and have a conversation with you about what we face as a nation. I think it's fairly clear that Trump is not the only problem. So he's a convicted felon, but there are a whole host of enablers. there's a party, the entire infrastructure of the other major political party that has in some ways bowed to his moral corruption, has bowed to him in some ways. And so I think it is clear that something historic happened the first time a president of the United States, a former president, has been indicted and convicted. But I think it's also important for us to see that this is the enablers, the folks who are around him,

who are selling deep distrust in the rule of law, deep distrust in our institutions broadly, so that the problem cuts much deeper. Donald Trump is just what's visible. The rot actually cuts to the core. And when we look at this rot, to your point of it, not just being Donald Trump, that it is also his enablers, several of those enablers, Eddie, sit on the Supreme Court that are right now thinking about whether or not a president should be immune, from the very charges that Donald Trump was just found guilty of. Right. I sit here and I think to myself headline after headline about this Supreme Court that has become

weaponized by this former president. And I don't see the alarm. I don't see the sense of urgency coming from Democrats, coming from the Biden campaign, with five months to go. And everything at stake, I feel like these. folks on the other side, Democrats are acting as if this is business as usual. First of all, I share your description here. I share your sense of anger and alarm at what seems to be affectlessness on the part of Democrats. What I see, you know, it feels like this.

It's almost as if the Trumpists, the MAGA Republicans, part of their calculus is that mainstream white liberals will behave the way the current Democratic Party is behaving. That is, there's this sense in which the performance of a certain kind of calmness, a commitment to reasoned deliberation, all of the things that we associate with liberalism, rightly understood, those things are presupposed as folk act a fool. You know what I mean? So I know you're going to show home training while I act a fool, so I'm going to continue to do it. I know you're going to show decency while I behave indecently, so I'm going to continue to do it.

So it's part of the calculus in some ways. So as the Republican Party has descended into a kind of neo-fascist move, a place, dungeon, basement, however we want to describe it, right? There is this sense in which the Democratic Party is still triangulating. It's still in this, how can one describe it? You know, this rejected lover relationship with the so-called Reagan Democrat, still trying to woo them back to convince. them to come back home, as it were, while taking for granted the base, alienating the base, creating the conditions to my mind that could literally, literally crack the foundations of American democracy. So I share your alarm. We need to understand the nature of the crisis we face. It's not

just simply Donald Trump. It's the entire political system that's being revealed to be in not so good of shape, to put it mildly, or to offer an understatement. It is the great unveiling. I feel like we have been in the midst of a great unveiling for the last nine years since Donald Trump came down that escalator. And maybe even before then, when America revealed itself at electing a black man twice to be president of the United States only to then have an entire reversal in terms of progress, whether we're looking at racial relations, whether we're looking at racial relations, whether we're looking

at women's equality, reproductive justice, environment. Like, we patted ourselves on the back, and then white supremacy pulled us back. And I don't, and I don't know if white supremacy ever lifted its grip so much as it is now ever present. It seemed to have been pushed to the margins, and now it's front and center. You have a new book. We are the leaders we've been looking for, and I want to believe that. but I also sense the deep anger entwined with apathy that people are feeling right now.

How do you make sense of that? I think it's important, Danielle, for us to understand the apathy as, in fact, a judgment. Usually we invoke the word to judge those who seem to have disengaged, when in fact their disengagement is actually a choice. It's an action. For many, they believe that the process is bankrupt. that the politicians don't care about them, that the Democratic Party will say this is a crisis point and then get in office and govern as if it's business as usual, right? And so I think it's not

so much apathy. It's actually a harsh judgment of the state of our system, right? So I think that's key. But I also think, and this is what I'm arguing in the book, is that we can no longer afford to outsource the responsibility for American democracy to others. And if we're going to do that, if we're going to take on the responsibility for the country, we've got to become better people. Because deep down inside, for the last 50 years, the values of greed and selfishness have simply destroyed any robust notion of the public good. People are only out for themselves, for the most part, or they take care of the people that they call their own. And so part of what we are describing being here is not only bad actors, indecent people who are seeking office, or a indecent person,

a convicted felon, trying to, at least by July 11th, he will be a convicted felon, trying to lead the free world. Not only is that a problem, the problem is that everyday ordinary people have been so preoccupied with whatever we are preoccupied with. Sometimes that's just keeping our noses above water that we refuse to take responsibility for this mess. It's It's our responsibility, actually. I honestly believe it requires of us a full-throated critique, not only of Trumpism, of Maga Republicans, which is just simply a reflection of the barnacles on the underbelly of American life, right? It also requires a critique of the Democratic Party as its counter in its current iteration.

And that's hard to do when it feels like the very republic is at stake in this moment. How do we have the necessary reckoning around the responsibility of our citizenship inside of this democracy that has never fully provided the rights and the responsibilities to all its citizens? How do we do that at a time when books are being banned, when there is counter-programming that is happening? For weeks, MSNBC and CNN were coming. covering the Trump trial. That wasn't happening on Fox. So a majority of the country, right,

because they have the highest viewership, was not tapped in to what was happening, nor were their cameras inside of that courtroom. Nor did we have a true conversation about why cameras were not in that courtroom because of the threats that are being faced by a former president that moves like a mobster. So if we are not really truly educating and unlearning, I should say, unlearning the lies of American exceptionalism, unlearning the quote-unquote rugged individualism that has us deny our community responsibility to one another,

how do we get to a place of leadership? Yeah, it's a great question. And, you know, I'm thinking about it historically. You know, Fox News might have the largest viewership, but they don't have the majority of Americans, right? Because we know that young people aren't getting their news from Fox and MSNBC. They're getting their news right from their cell phones, from streaming services and the like, right? All cable news understands the cliff, right, the viewership cliff that they're facing as they face the competition of stream services and the like. So we know Fox's limitations. We know it's demographic. And you know what, Danielle, in this sort of moment historically, when folks seem to have lost their minds. When the fever dream spikes, it's our sense of helplessness in the face of it that allows it to metastasize, that allows the fever to deepen, to get worse. So, you know, I was asked this question once about President Biden and black voters, right? And somebody asked me this question about, do they just see him as this rich guy who's not in touch with everyday

people? I said, no, I don't think that's it, although I can't speak for all black people. My gut, my intuition is this, that whenever white folk lose their minds and the good meaning white folks stand by silently, we make judgments of both. Let me say it again. Whenever it seems like the rabbit racist are losing their minds and the good folk, the so-called good folks, stand by and let them do it, the judgment is rendered for both of them. When sexist and patriarchy is afoot, right, And so-called well-meaning men stand by and allow it to happen. Judgment happens across the board, right? When homophobia, transphobia, all this stuff.

So part of what I'm saying is not so much the loud bigots as the problem. Right, right. It's the folk who stand by silently in the face of their bigotry. And so what do we do in this moment to answer your question directly, right, is that we have to fight for the world we want. We have to fight for the country. We want. We can't just simply hand it over to them. Remember what, remember who Dr. King is speaking to in the letter from the Birmingham jail. He's not speaking to the clan. He's speaking to the so-called liberal clergy. The white moderate. Exactly. So part of what I'm suggesting in this moment, it is a moment that's asking each of us the question, what do you stand for? What are you committed to? What are you willing to risk in the face, right, of the troglodytes who are trying to destroy the country? And, you know, how you answer that question.

becomes a mirror into your soul, it seems to me. Is Biden operating right now and has been like that white moderate that Dr. King has talked about? Because there is an opportunity when you are running against a felon, when you are running against people whose desire is to dismantle every bit of progress that we've gained in the last century and turned the 21st century into the 19th century. Is he standing in his own way? by not embodying and demanding the type of progress, the type of morality, and showing it both at home and abroad. At times, yes, absolutely, to be honest with you.

And, you know, this is with full disclosure that, you know, the White House and the speechwriters have reached out to me to help in times, right? So just at full disclosure, but I think you're absolutely right. And you know why? I don't necessarily draw the conclusion about his heart. I think it's part of the American political consultant class. You know, as we see all of the, you know, that sounds real abstract, Eddie, but, you know, when you see all of the ways in which politicians are straight-jacketed and constrained

because the idea that the American voting public, you know, the demographic consists of X and Y and Z, and you ought to behave, A, B, and C. And so you wind up just simply following a damn script that looks like it was written in 1972. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And here we are facing these. moral question of this generation. What's happening in Gaza? Mass death. We see white supremacists, folk committed to patriarchy, all this stuff. It's running rampant. And we have to speak with the level of

emotional and critical intelligence and energy that you ask that question with. So the answer to the question is yes, at times, you know, his rhetoric at times actually, you know, there's a lag in his policy in relation to his rhetoric. I've never heard a president speak the way this one does from the bully pulpit about white supremacy and racism. Policy is lacking. But he has to be more aggressive, as Anand Garidotis said, step out the box, break out the straitjacket, and be more aggressive in the defense of American democracy because you know what? The other side understands the stakes. They understand that this is an existential battle. This is not a policy battle. This is an existential battle for

them. And if we don't fight on the same terrain, we may very well lose that battle. Oh, Eddie Glaw, Jr., we are going to leave it there today. And I tell folks that if you are looking for inspiration, if you're looking to move that malaise that has come over us, get and pick up not one, but two copies of Eddie's latest book. We are the leaders we have been looking for because we have five months. We have five months. Thank you, Eddie. Thank you. Thank you so much. Andy Levy. Moody, comma, Danielle. How are you kicking off this wonderful first full week in June with your buckback guy? Okay.

There are these two guys in Texas. They are both professors. And they are now suing for the right to punish their students who have abortions. Are they having abortions in the classroom? They are not having abortions in the classroom. Okay, got it. Just keep going. Yes.

Okay. That might be a whole thing. separate issue. There's a guy at University of Texas at Austin. I believe he's a philosophy professor. Daniel Bonavac, or Bonavach, I'm not sure how it's pronounced, and I don't care. He says that he has the right to refuse to employ a teaching assistant who has had an abortion because that's a criminal act. I am, by the way, I'm reading from Amanda Marcotte's salon article about this. And he thinks that anyone who misses class for abortion care, that he should be able to flunk them. So it's Tim and this other professor, John Hatfield, who I think is a finance professor, I may have that backwards.

Again, I don't care. In addition to all of this, they are also, this will be a shock to you, Danielle. They are refusing to refer to students by their preferred pronouns. And one of them said he should be allowed to not hire a male teaching assistant who wears a dress. somehow they managed to file their suit in which what they are basically doing is going after Title IX and basically says you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex or gender. That would include health care based on sex or gender, which would include abortions. They are filing suit against Title IX, against the Biden administration's guidance on Title IX. And they did a nice little thing called Judge Shopping. And they filed the suit not where the University of Texas of Austin is, but a little bit of ways.

And lo and behold, they've got Judge Matthew Casmaric, who you may remember from saying that the FDA had no right to let Mifapristone be sold to people a case that is now at the Supreme Court. And he's also come up with a lot of other wacky decisions that have literally no basis in the law and are based solely on his very, very maga, very Christian nationalist politics. So it really is, it's an unbelievable suit that they filed, and it really just outs them as pathetic human beings. And in a much better world, people would be too embarrassed to do what they've done. But of course, we are in our world, so not only are they not embarrassed, they are full of self-righteousness. And they filed this suit, which is as I think Jessica Valenti wrote, she called the language of the complaint downright petulant. And she's absolutely right. If you read through this complaint, you're like, really?

this is a legal filing? This is you venting at a bar. Like, this is not a legal filing. This is you venting at a bar until you're asked to leave because everyone else in the bar is like, will you shut the fuck up? We're just trying to have a drink and live our lives. But that's, that's the world they want. They want a world where they are free to be as rude and, and petulant, and whatever other word you want to put in there. And anyone who calls them on it is bad and is Going after their free speech, et cetera, et cetera. It's one of the more disgusting lawsuits I've seen recently. So I just wanted to single it out and say to both these professors, first of all, I feel very sorry for your students.

Second of all, I feel very sorry for whatever families you have. And third of all, fuck those guys. I think I'm at a loss because I don't understand. Where would this question be asked? Is it in an interview process if you're having interviewing it? TA that you say, have you had an abortion? Is it in a student who then says, I need Tuesday or Wednesday off from class for a personal day? And then the professor is supposed to be able to pry into your personal life and say, what do you need this off for? And then if a person says

for an abortion, then they have the right to fail them. Like, is this what you're getting at? Like, is this what their lawsuit is getting at? Yeah. And look, it's important to note, and I failed to note this, that all of this is working as intended, because remember, this is Texas where abortion is currently illegal. So guess what? You have to travel out of state to get one. And look, I'm not saying abortion is an easy process for a woman, but I'm saying geographically, you can't just bop down to the local Planned Parenthood and, you know, have it taken care of. You have to actually plan travel, which may mean missing multiple days of class or whatever. And all of this is set up, again, this is all working as intended.

It's to make it as close to impossible or as difficult as possible to actually get an abortion. And then to punish the people who have to go through the difficult process of actually traveling to get the abortion. You know what? Fuck those guys. I'm over it. Yeah. All right. So, Danielle, I feel like there's a state that is maybe not far from Texas where maybe you can take us.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So according to an office. article in Black Enterprise. Louisiana has a new law on the books. And it is a law that I believe will most likely be copycatted. Is that a word? Copycoat? I don't know. But it's going to have a domino effect. Let's say that across the country. And what is that law? Well, let me tell you. A new Louisiana law will make it illegal to stand within 25 feet of a police officer while there are a quote, engaged in law enforcement duties. Now, 25 feet. Interesting. Because what has happened over the last

several years, the last decade plus, the last two decades, is that people who have mobile devices have been able to video police brutality, have been able to video what we saw in May 2020, which was the public execution of George Floyd because a 17-year-old young black woman filmed it on her phone. The cell phone in many ways has become protection for black people in particular and people of color in this country

who are and have been targets of police brutality for, oh, I don't know, probably ever since there was the shift from the slave patrol to policing in this country. So now the state of Louisiana, I guess to make it safer for cops to beat the shit out of someone is now saying that if you a bystander are walking by and see police doing something that is not within their law enforcement duties, that if you have the audacity, to step outside of this now protective perimeter that is around them, you yourself can go to jail. What the fuck type of country is this? What the fuck kind of law is this? Like, it's not enough that police in this

country don't have any responsibility in terms of the number of people they accidentally shoot to death when they think that a black person is holding a gun, but it turns out to be a cell phone. When you shoot to death a 12-year-old boy, but then you say he's 21 and was wielding a gun, but it was a toy gun. There's no mode for us to prosecute these officers. Four years after there was supposed to be bipartisan legislation referred to as the George Floyd Act. Guess where that is? Nowhere. And it was nowhere nine months after his murder because they won't do away with immunity for police officers. So now on top of that, now you can't get within 25 feet in Louisiana. I'm like, who the fuck are they protecting? I just want to know. Who are police in this country

protecting themselves. They're the ones with the guns and the cameras and the self-protective gear and all of, you know, the military welfare that they get, the tanks and the riot gear and this, that, and the other thing. Everything, every day, every day we move further and further backwards. Every day, Republicans are showing us that they don't care about law and order or safety, community well-being is all about self-protection of white supremacy and white power. This new law is wild, but you will see it pretty much everywhere. I'm coming to a city near you soon. Fuck those guys.

Yeah, I mean, look, Florida already has a law like this. I know Arizona tried to pass a law like this that had to do with filming. And I think it was a federal district court judge, shot it down on First Amendment grounds. And it's insane to think that. that a law like this does not violate the First Amendment, but given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, who the hell knows how it will be ruled on if it gets that far, which I would assume it would. I would assume that activists and First Amendment specialists will be all over this. It's absolutely nuts.

You know, you said, who did the police protect? And look, the phrase Black Lives Matters had sort of an unspoken two after a T-O-O. And it was like, hey, you know, it's not just white lives that matter. Black lives matter too. The phrase blue lives matter does not have a two after it because there are a lot of police who honestly think that their lives are what matters above all else. It seems fairly obvious that the police have or many, many police have come to the conclusion that they are there to protect and serve the police and not. citizens and not civilians, whatever you want to call it. So yeah, fuck these guys. 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 enjoy, 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.