The Daily Show: Ears Edition - Loopholes, Lost Voters, and the Future of the Democrats

Episode Date: November 19, 2024

Jon Stewart analyzes how Republicans exploit loopholes to gain political advantages while Democrats stick to the rules—and questions whether it’s time for a change in strategy. Jon sits down with Ruy Teixeira, co-author of Where Have All the Democrats Gone?, to explore how the party lost its working-class base, whether cultural politics are alienating voters, and why neither major party seems interested in building a true majority coalition.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As a kid growing up in Chicago, there was one horror movie I was too scared to watch. It was called Candyman. It was about this supernatural killer who would attack his victims if they said his name five times into a bathroom mirror. But did you know that the movie Candyman was partly inspired by an actual murder? I was struck by both how spooky it was, but also how outrageous it was. Listen to Candyman, the true story behind the bathroom mirror murder, starting October 3rd, wherever you get your podcasts.

You're listening to Comedy Central. Ow. From the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central, it's America's only source for news. This is The Daily Show with your host, John Stewart. It has been two weeks since the election. Two of the fillers have been elected. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers.

I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers.

I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers.

I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the fillers. I'm going to tell you about the Daily Show. My name is Jon Stewart. It has been two weeks since the election. Two months, feels like two months. It's been 15 years since the election. It's been, I mean this was me election night. Oh. Was I ever that young? Or ever looked that handsome? But Donald Trump is returning to power and so once again it is time to saddle up a la

résistance. Because if you remember, before Trump won the election, Democrats were clear-eyed about the stakes. It's time that fascism is called fascism, and Americans know exactly what they're voting for. He is paving the way to become a Vladimir Putin or to become an Adolf Hitler. He is a threat to democracy.

He is a clear and present danger to our democracy, to our way of life. The damage may be irreversible. The destruction could be unthinkable. And it would be a betrayal of everything that our framers fought for. You're not even going to look up? You're not even gonna look up? You're not even gonna... You know, a little eye contact, a little inflection could drive the danger thing. You give it a little urgency, you know. I feel passionately.

We should fight him on the beaches, in the field, God forbid the streets, the asphalt and the silence. Is it sad that the only thing that really makes it a Schumer impression is I put glasses on? Is that? Was it really that? I mean, you applauded literally just the glasses. I'm a pair of bifocals away from being Chuck Schumers. You bastards!

Now, I assume now that the Democrats have lost to the greatest threat we've ever faced as a nation. That they will be forthright in acknowledging one, the Democrats' role in this catastrophic defeat and two, the bleak hellscape we now face. Or We're proud of the fact that we've defeated more House Republican incumbents than they've defeated House Democratic incumbents. We did flip three House seats from Republican to Democrat and gained back almost all of

those that we had lost in 2022. Yeah, almost is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yeah, we almost gained back all we had lost. Almost is kind of a load bearing adverb. Spin wise, finding a positive in what is clearly not good news. You can't, parents, good news we gained back almost all of the children we lost on the field trip. Win,win!

It's a new dynamic. It is a willful, bright-siding, this shit show that we celebrate in our new segment called The Audacity of Cope. Now, technically, yes, Democrats have less seats. But have you heard who's in those seats? In this freshman class alone, and I'm going to stop for cheers for each one of these because they're remarkable, we have our first trans member of Congress. We have an engineer from an immigrant community in the San Fernando Valley.

We have the first Iranian-American Democrat in Congress. We have the youngest member ever elected to the House from New Jersey. That's not a thing. How did you go from the reasonably impressive first Iranian Democrat to hold the seat to the, I think somewhat reaching for, youngest person ever from New Jersey? And then, by the way to the audience, if you think that that framing is not that interesting. Wait till you hear that this record-breaking young phenom

from New Jersey is 38 years old. 38 years old. God, how far? Come on. How far are we going with this? Oh, in Illinois, we elected a ginger. Oh, hey, yeah, yeah. We elected the first representative

from Washington state, who looks like he has a terrible secret. He ran on loneliness. Wow, this is gonna be the most diverse group of congresspeople to ever get all their legislation blocked. So inspiring! But you know what? No, it's fine. F*** people.

But you know what? Those are just lonely House Democrats. How will the head of their party, the outgoing president, man the ramparts during this challenging and fraught, peaceful transition to fascism? President Biden is in Brazil where he became the first American head of state to visit the Amazon rainforest. He went there to highlight the dangers of climate change

and the need to turn away from fossil fuels. What the f***? No way that desk was there. No way! Not a chance! In the middle of all this, he disappeared to the rainforest? Starring in what appears to be like four Pixar movies in one mixed together? Clearly Up is one mixed together. Clearly, Up is one of them.

And in Kanto, I'm going to say there's a little Moana, maybe Wally, had a powerful anti-consumerist message. Well, hopefully, listen, while he's down there, hopefully he has some inspiring words for us. Mr. President. History is literally watching us now. So let's preserve this secret place for our time and forever for the benefit of all humanity.

Thank you very, very much. Where are you going? Where are you going? Literally just walking away like that. Mr. President, I'm sorry. The tribe has spoken. Extinguish your torch. What is happening? You know, maybe this is how we should do the transfer of power. The winner moves into the White House and the incumbent just wanders off into the jungle

so that his nutrients may be returned to the soil. But of course, that's the Democrats' struggle. Donald Trump headed to Madison Square Garden with his grab-em-by-the-pussy posse to do his favorite thing, watch people submit. Oh, Trump likes submission in the octagon. He likes it out of the octagon. He likes submission from his enemies and even from his new friends. And, by the way, it doesn't take much of a transgression to warrant a bended knee for Trump.

For instance, last week, Trump's newly-minted Health and Human Services nominee hit Trump with a bit of a light-hearted jab about his diet. The stuff that he eats is really, like, bad. Uh... It's not campaign food. It's like bad. It's not campaign food is always bad, but the food that goes onto that airplane is like just poison.

A little friendly swipe, a little bit of ribbing, gentle ribbing, and he will pay for his insolence. President Trump, Elon Musk, Don Jr., RFK Jr., and Speaker Mike Johnson eating McDonald's on Trump's private plane. Hey, uh, what's up? Hey, uh, Robert, come in here. You think that's poisoned, huh?

Eat it. Hey, uh, Robert. Eat the whole thing. Yeah, in front of us right now. Eat the whole thing. And by the way, when you're done eating the whole thing, Grimace is going to come in here and f***ing yes. Yeah, that's what we're going to do. Yeah, yeah, that's right.

Grimace. Hey, hey, Robert. Eat the whole thing. Grimace is going to f***ing yes while we're doing it. You got to make eye contact with him all the time. Yeah, hey, Robert, eat the whole thing. Grimace's gonna f***ing ask why we're doing it. You gotta make eye contact with him all the time. We're gonna film it. I was just gonna keep going with the premise.

By the way, I know we're focused on the humiliation of RFK Junior, but look at poor Mike Johnson there. Poor Mike Johnson right there. Oh, he didn't even get a seat at the cool kids' table. And the sad part? This whole thing was Mike Johnson's bachelor party. Meanwhile, Joe and Mika Brzezinski-Scarborough, who famously warned of the growing threat

of Trump's fascism, also had an interesting announcement to make. Last Thursday we expressed our own concerns on this broadcast and even said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the president-elect himself. On Friday we were given the opportunity to do just that. Joe and I went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally with President-elect Trump. And for those asking why we would go speak to the President-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't we? Because you said he was Hitler. But, uh, okay.

Tap out, tap out. But look, we don't know what the visit was. We don't know what the tone of the visit was. We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets. Oh, I bet you really laid down the gauntlet, Joe. I bet you walked in there and just lit him heaven, didn't you, Joey?

I'm gonna do a one-act play called Joe and Mika Go To Mar-a-Lago. Ooh! Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. President, your rhetoric is outrageous. I cannot in good conscience—

Ooh, are those macaroons? The pink one is raspberry. We've learned nothing! Even those putting up resistance to Trump's agenda don't seem to understand who they're dealing with. Senator Elizabeth Warren accusing President-elect Donald Trump's transition team of breaking the law. As there are reports, it missed a deadline to file a required ethics pledge.

Hear ye, hear ye, Hitler missed the reporting deadline. The war is over. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because they glued their balls to their thigh. That is what is happening. The election that we just had was a repudiation of the status quo, an overly regulated system that

is no longer responsive or delivering for the needs of the people or their beloved beheaded squirrels. Oh, RIP peanut. Government is theoretically a constitutional system of checks and balances between equally powerful branches. But what government actually is is an overly complicated Byzantine bureaucratic maze of rules, loopholes to those rules, and norms.

Complex enough that A, if you want to find a rule that keeps you from doing something, you'll find it. And B, if you actually want to do something, you can find a loophole to get around said rule. And then the norms are just how often you've had to pull any of this shit. For example, Trump's let's be generous, provocative, and unorthodox cabinet picks. I don't think Hulk Hogan's been nominated yet. I think he's going to be the secretary of TAKE YOUR VITAMINS! Democrats are positive that the vaunted constitutional rules of the Senate shall be the guardrail to this madness.

Certainly we can fight back. The president nominates, the Senate confirms. We're a check and balance. We're there to be a guardrail. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on this nomination. Oh, shit, you want Matt Gaetz, Mr. President? Prepare to be advice and consented, biatch?

There is no way for the Constitution to allow you to get past it. The Constitution does give the President power to adjourn the House and Senate on extraordinary occasions. To unilaterally install his most controversial nominees and bypass the Senate confirmation process entirely.

That is our government in a nutshell. The rules say we can stop it. The loophole says that and so what are you left with the last refuge of losers. The norms. I don't think that's appropriate and I don't think that's what the founders intended that is not the norms. I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think that's what the founders intended.

That is not the custom. God. Yeah, you can do it, and it's legal, but whatever, guy. We're gonna think you're a dick. Republicans exploit the loopholes. Democrats complain about the norms over and over and over, and it has ghastly consequences.

Remember when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to give that a vote, saying, well, it's only one full year before the election. It's too close. Now, you could make a case that Obama could violate the norm, say the Senate failed their

advice and consent, and appoint him anyway, and see whatever happens. Fight. But they just went, well, we never heard of that rule, but, uh, okay. Smash cut two months before a presidential election. Trump nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court after the completely unforeseeable death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as you can imagine the Democrats went right to the nearby Kinkos.

Behind me is the McConnell rule on February 13th 2016 when justice Scalia passed away senator McConnell said and I quote this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. And so Amy Coney Barrett was forced to head back to her homestead, never to be heard from a... Oh, they didn't give a...

Oh! Oh, right, I forgot. They didn't give a... Look, let this show be the utterly ineffective hypocrisy finders. I can tell you from experience, it does nothing. You guys be the loophole guys that figure out how to get shit done because they don't give a fuck about your norms. They will exploit any loophole, even if they have to go through clearly closed windows

to do it. You would think after Trump's presidency Democrats would have learned. But they doubled down when Biden tried to get immigration reform into the inflation reduction act and the Senate parliamentarian told them he couldn't did he respond to the rule with the loophole or did he.

That's for the partarian to decide, though. Not for Joe Biden to decide. No! That's for... You take the parliamentarian and you put them in a locker, and then you bring Grimace in and have him... That's what you do! Do you guys get what I'm saying?

Perhaps a demonstration is in order. To get anything done, the Democrats feel like they must thread the needle to make sure, oh, we have to make sure each norm follows the overly complex bureaucratic process that we created ourselves. Oh, oh, the parliamentary, oh, I can't do it because the norm says, oh, I can't get anything done. Meanwhile, the Republicans come in, and all they have to do is finger-bang a donut.

That's all they have to do. Oh, how are we gonna get Matt Gaetz in if the advice and consent? Oh, there he is right there. Boom, boom. There he's in there. There he's in. Oh, look at him, he's in. Do I have to sleep with this now?

I've made you all uncomfortable. Now Trump has the House, Senate, presidency, and judiciary. So it's going to get harder, not easier. Democrats are going to have to forcefully play the loopholes. But the good news is, you're well set up for it. With the youngest congressional representative ever. From New Jersey. 38-year-old LaMonica McIver. Unless... Wait, I've got a loophole.

What if Joe Biden got his vice president to not certify... No, no! President Biden, wait! Listen! Listen to the plan! Joe! We'll be right back with Roy Tichara. Don't go away. Whoo! Whoo!

Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo! Whoo!

Whoo! It's time for a brand new season of Survivor. And you know what that means. It means it's also a brand new season of the only official Survivor podcast on fire. Here's our goal with this podcast. We bring you inside the how and the why of what we do on the show. And we do it from three different points of view. You have the producer in me, you have the fan in Jay, who also happens to be our executive

producer of this podcast. And then we bring you the insight from a former player and this season it is Survivor 46 runner up, Charlie Davis. Welcome to the team, Charlie. Well, Jeff, I know firsthand that playing from the couch and playing on the island, completely different. So I hope you tune in. Every single week, we're gonna dissect the strategy,

the misfires and mistakes that change the game. If you want more Survivor than just 90 minutes, this is where you get it. On Fire, the only official Survivor podcast. Listen to On Fire, the official Survivor podcast wherever you get your podcast. I guess tonight is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow co-founder of the liberal patriot, substack and co-author of Where Have All the Democrats Gone. Please welcome to the program, Rui Teixeira. Start. Hello.

How are you? Thank you for joining us. Hey, my pleasure. Your book is Where of All the Democrats Gone. I don't even know what I'm holding it up to here. I'll just hold it up over here. Where of All the Democrats Gone. This was kind of an expose, I think, on your recipe for how Democrats left the country. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book.

I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book.

I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's a good book. I think it's of an expose, I think, on your recipe for how Democrats lost their coalition. Written when? We put it out last year, basically.

Exactly a year from before the election. Rui, let me ask you a question. Did you send it to any of the Democrats? Not really, no. We hoped they'd pick up on it. I guess it didn't happen. People aren't really readers anymore. Is there an audio book?

There is an audio book. Maybe we should have sent that to them. Or maybe like a five slide PowerPoint deck Now you're learning the game right right first of all it is a really interesting historical breakdown context of Sort of how the Democrats lost their more populist economic instincts and Can you can you go through it sort of,

the Clintons probably began it in a way, but even as far back as Jimmy Carter. Sure, yeah, yeah. I mean, Jimmy Carter had a sort of deregulatory, sort of anti-populist approach toward economics. He took on a lot of things that eventually found their way into the Reagan approach in terms of deregulation and so on. And of course with Bill approach in terms of deregulation and so on and of course with Bill Clinton

We have you know deregulation of finance. We have NAFTA Eventually after Clinton leaves, but you know sort of he was pushing it along We have the accession of China the WTO and you have the so-called China shock which really destroys millions of manufacturing jobs So over time you saw a lot of working-class people manufacturing jobs. So over time you saw a lot of working class people developing a sense, particularly in the areas of the country that we left behind that were dependent on industrial growth, on resource extraction. They felt like Democrats didn't have their backs anymore. They felt Democrats were, this was a new world, we're all going to get educated, we were going to have a lot of economic growth because we're moving into the new

Information economy right and forget that old Manufacturing stuff and there wasn't seemingly much difference other than maybe tax cuts and tax hikes between neoliberal Democrats and Standard Republican free trade policy. Yeah. Yeah. No, that was definitely true I mean I was very noticeable at the time. And there's some Democrats who pushed back against it. But they definitely lost the debate. And the Democrats became, you know,

there's sort of this third way thing in the 90s with Clinton and Blair and people like that. And sort of they basically put their chits down. And we have to get government off people's backs. We have to deregulate. We have to just let it rip, right, with global trade. And eventually, it will all trickle down to the masses of honest workers and peasants of America.

It's coming, people. It's going to trickle down a few more decades. So then it's sort of, you get the rise of kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. There is this, and throughout it, you know, Paul Wilson, a progressive wing that wanted a more populist approach, but they could never win the day. And you make the case it's because the money that was coming into the Democratic Party

was coming now from business and not from labor. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, the influence of labor on the Democratic Party just right line so much in the 80's and 90's of course through our current day. I mean it used to be labor was the backbone of

the Democratic Party that's what they relied upon for troops for money to some extent and that really just becomes completely replaced in the 80's and 90's and even the culture of the Democratic Party changes because there used to be much

more contact between the Democrats and the labor movement. You know there's a really close working relationship between them over time. The labor movement gets pushed out because it's also declining at the time. Well that's what I was going to say. What do you think came first? The decline of the labor movement, the decline of people participating in the labor movement or the Democrats moving away from that as a source of well I think they were sort of a interactive negative feedback loop as it were

right fewer death spiral unions that you kind of a death spiral if you want to be melodramatic about it really I do want to be melodramatic about it okay well I don't know if you watched the first act but I punched my hand through a donut hole. Let's face it, that last election, things could have gone better. I think, I'll say something that I feel like resonated with the audience Party is it was a rejection of a status quo, of feeling that, not just in the working class movement, but in many movements, that democracy is by nature analog. We are living in a digital world where, you know, terminallyally online the outrage and the anger and the confusion is much elevated and the distance between those two points becomes untenable, especially

if the Democrats insist on, well, we have to keep the, I'd love to get you the help you need, but the parliamentarian has really been up my ass like all night. I feel like that's a real problem for them. Yeah, I mean, the sense that the Democratic Party isn't responsive to the needs of sort of ordinary, the common man and woman, the working class, and they're too caught up in other issues, or they're too worried about sort of government regulations

and parliamentarian stuff. And they're not like laser focused on getting stuff done and you know even in places like New York City where you have you know very Democratic governance is a sense that they are pulling out all the stops to make sure everyone gets good services and everything runs well and you know effective government is what people want. That's a true system in some respects there's 2 things you

have to respond to what seems to be the immediate needs and then lay the groundwork for the future I still think they did an effective job laying the groundwork for the first part is what that's exactly right for example infrastructure built right those are things but the deal worked because it triaged the urgency that's right it seems like they had a problem by the way I don't think the Republicans do that either. No. In terms of that.

Well, see. I mean, look at these great cabinet picks that Trump has. They're ready. They're tan-raced and ready. To help the people. I was warned about you. Ruey T'Chara's a dry son of a bitch. Yeah, right.

Well, you know. No, dead on right. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie.

I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie.

I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to lie. that returns in services they actually use. If you break down people's tax bill, the first probably five tranches of it are nothing that you use, you know, 75, 80 percent of it is it's military, Medicare, Social Security, it's stuff you'll use when you're 65 or 70, but you don't use now. How do we get them more responsive to what really is happening in people's lives?

Well, you know, if I knew that, I would be running the Democratic Party and they'd be running the table. But first of all, you can't hit the target unless you're aiming at it. Contrary to this end precept, you actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people in their daily lives and figuring out a way to do it. Okay, you know, they've got X percent of the budget that's allocated to these other things, but how can we take what degrees of freedom we have and use them to help ordinary people so they feel it? Right. Let's not just pass a bunch of legislation that kind of sounds good and may pay off in

the long run, but people don't really feel in their day to day lives. And I think they have a sense that they work hard, they pay money into the system and then that money is, whether this is hyperbolic or not I think it is, goes to people who don't deserve it. It goes to migrants, it goes to trans people, it goes to this and it's they don't deserve it, I deserve it. Right.

Well the migrants thing became such a problem obviously because of you know I think the extent to which immigration spiked and then you had people Turning up and overburdened urban areas and you know you even had a lot of black voters for example in Chicago saying Why should I vote for? For for Kamala Harris mean you know they're giving away all this stuff to people you know who just came in from out of the country that aren't even legal and you know but even that even that tells you though they had an opportunity to do something three years about it they said they they couldn't and that was baloney but i can't do it i'm gonna wait for first of all that's the type of language that

i absolutely wait a minute i saw your monologue that was i don't know what happened there Wait a minute. I saw your monologue. That was I don't know what happened there It will get bleeped. Okay, but But it is the kind of thing like we can't Overturn norms and things and you're like, well, how did you get to Kamala Harris as the nominee? That wasn't turning norms you overturned her and by the way when you did there was an explosion of enthusiasm and excitement because they suddenly felt like, oh, they're recognizing a reality that I also say. And now we have a chance.

Why isn't that more a part of the governance? Well, I think one, I mean, for example, look at the immigration issue. Right. Yes, they there were some tenuous excuses why they couldn't move on it earlier, but why didn't they move on it earlier? It was a lot because the Democratic coalition is so responsive, Biden was responsive to the various elements of the coalition. You didn't want them to do anything. There were a lot of advocacy groups, a lot of parts of the Democratic party that really thought things were fine, this is not really a problem, it's

all made up. It's all in Fox News. And Biden didn't want to cross them. And this is a part of the problem with the Democratic coalition today. There's too many parts of the coalition have veto power on doing effective things. You get into something interesting with that.

And it's something that I, rightfully, I think have a blind spot on. And that is this idea of woke and DEI. And that the Democrats are too woke and DEI and that the Democrats are too woke and too DEI and that's why they lost and it's hard for me to wrap my head around that. Well it's not the only reason but it was a contributing factor. Right. And if you look at like there's been some data collected after the election by the blueprint strategy group that saw the top three reasons.

There you know them. I love their listicles. Their listicles. Well, in this listicle, the first reason was inflation. The second reason was too much illegal immigration. And the third reason was Democrats being too concerned about cultural issues and not the welfare of the middle class. Right. And there's similar data from other places.

Here's where maybe you can help me with with this but the idea of DEI and maybe I'm just working off of a wrong the wrong definition of woke. You know which is and maybe that's the thing that I don't understand but like when they say all this DEI it feels like you're talking about like that one seminar you have to sit in like that's like an hour. Like I know it's a little more like it gets eye-rolly but like it's a f***ing hour. Right. Well, there's more to it than that.

I think people have the perception that it's being used as a way of allocating things that's different from merit, and that's a real problem. I'm just saying, it doesn't seem to work that well, people don't like it, including non-white working class people. So, that's, yeah, I mean, there's a very reasonable argument that we need to lift up

people who've been left behind by various heritages of vexed heritages of our I don't know why that's controversial that's why it's not that's not controversial people are fine with helping out people who are disadvantaged I mean that this

people are good with that I mean they don't think that's a here's where I'm lost right because you just said people don't like that. So I guess is it because of my definition? People don't like DI or reparations or whatever. I mean, whatever kind of a basket of things that sound to them like they're going to give people stuff that they didn't

sort of earn in terms of their merit. But what is it we're doing? Tariffs are there to repair the damage, yes? I I mean I'll use the exact word tariffs are an economic policy that's supposed to make it you know sort of more things made in America is supposed to help manufacturing workers yes so on okay so well I mean people look at class different from race what can I tell you it's just a fact but it's all fact. But it's all mixed together isn't it? Of course it's all mixed together. So why are you yelling at me? Because you seem to be determined to uh I don't know just I what what's your point it's like race is more important than class? No. What's your point? No my point is it seems

that government's job is to look at the systems that we use in this country to create wealth and progress. Sure. And then to look at the natural areas where those systems create collateral damage and repair as best they can the collateral damage of those systems. And I don't understand why we've singled out DEI as the devil and helping manufacturing as smart and and good like isn't it all the same thing the point about deis It's not particularly effective and lift, but that's a different argument. Is it not? No, it's not a different argument Basically what I'm saying is that what if you want to actually help people I will hear you you want you to write down You want universal policies that this will disproportionately lift up state black and Latino poor people because they're more heavily concentrated among people who are

well also because that is what is popular but they were explicitly disadvantaged so why wouldn't we try to repair that but my point government picks winners and losers all the time we have subsidies for farming areas and those aren't controversial because they say the policies that we have in place have hurt farmers so let's get some subsidies in there to ameliorate the damage that is a particular if you want to you want to help out people who live in say poor black areas of poor Latino areas yes you can't just channel that money to people who are Latino and black because that's unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular.

If you want to lift them up, have universal programs that actually help people to live in those disadvantaged, everybody's for that. Everybody's for that. That's not DEI. DEI is really different. I think I... No, they're a completely different set of issues. I think that I disagree with you that everybody's for it because I think they view that as woke. That what I just described they would view as woke

and that is of a different. That's right. All right. I get the sense that in this country people look at entrenched poverty in the cities and think that it is a product of culture and vice. And they look at entrenched poverty in wider areas and think that they are victims of economic policies that they are not in control of. I do think in this country it's viewed differently. I just think it's, you know, here's what you didn't get during the crack crisis. Deaths of despair, these poor people.

But in the federal critonists, rightfully so, you do. And I think some of that has to do with the populations. And so that's my point is, why is DEI, I feel like then it's a failure to describe what we're trying to do. Okay. Well, D.I. isn't the name for what you want that it's something. Yeah. Is the only thing I want to help allowed, you know, the real behind black and Latino

but the real things that would help entrenched poverty in those cities aren't done in favor of okay, we're not actually going to do that. But we will let you have an hour every three months where you get to tell us. I agree with that. I agree with that. I think DI is a very poor substitute for those kinds of programs. Could you just look into that camera and say that? Do you think it is something that can be fixed?

Is it perception or is it reality? It is a matter of the kinds of programs will have to be promulgated on a universal basis which have a disproportionate effect on black and latino working class and poor people. That's how you do it and it's possible to build support for those, I really believe. Right. Don't call it DEI, don't call it reparations, don't call it anything like that because those are really unpopular. Call it you're just trying to help people who are disadvantaged and there may be complex historical reasons for it and there's black people and white people, Latino people, all need that kind of help. That is actually pretty popular. Why do you think the Republicans don't have to play by those same rules? Like if you're pro-Palestine they're very happy going,

you're a terrorist sympathizer. If you want certain economics you're a Marxist and a communist. They name call constantly. They do the same thing that you're saying. They do. So why they don't seem to ever have like. If they really wanted to seriously dominate the country in a way that's different than taking advantage of the fact people hated the Biden-Harris administration, they would have to like push back on stuff like that. They would have to move to the center themselves. That's the whole thing about the political era we're in. We're in an era where both Democrats and Republicans seem incapable, maybe even not interested,

in forming a dominant majority coalition and sort of sanding off their rough edges, correcting the things that need to be corrected, and really capturing the center of American politics in a decisive way. And absolutely, the Republicans have the same problems. They say and do a lot of stupid stuff. need to be corrected and really capturing the center of American politics in a decisive way. And absolutely the Republicans have the same problems. They say and do a lot of stupid stuff that puts a ceiling on their support.

Generally the biggest movements in America that have done what you're saying weren't centrist. The New Deal and FDR was considered far left. Reagan and the Reagan revolution was considered far right. And it seems like the centrist, Romney, McCain, those guys got their asses kicked. So I'm not sure. Well, the New Deal was actually quite centrist.

I mean, it was extremely popular. The New Deal was centrist? Yeah, I mean, it was basically Norman Thomas and socialism. No, no, it was basically, it was the institution of Keynesian economics in the country. And it was actually wildly popular at the time. I mean, people revered FDR. They thought he stood up for the common man and woman.

Well, OK, but they still liked it. But it wasn't centric. No, it wasn't the center. I'm not defining the center as being a particular ideology. I'm defining it as what do people in the center of the distribution want? What do they care about? What are their concerns?

You mean like, oh, so you're talking about statistical. Yeah, that's my thing. Sorry. Guilty as charged. I didn't know statisticians were such argumentative sons of bitches. You're pretty argumentative yourself. Can I tell you something?

Super argumentative. Like, I actually don't like that about myself. I'm very contrarian, too. Like, and can get a little sanctimous. Yeah, I don't know what I'm gonna do about that. Yeah. I have a feeling, as I get older, it's not gonna get any better.

Trust me on this. No, I'm gonna be one of those dudes where people are just like, don't invite him. Right, right. You guys can check out Rui's work, liberalpatriot.com. Rui Tichara, we'll be right back after this. It's time for a brand new season of Survivor. And you know what that means.

It means it's also a brand new season of theor. And you know what that means. It means it's also a brand new season of the only official Survivor podcast on fire. Here's our goal with this podcast. We bring you inside the how and the why of what we do on the show. And we do it from three different points of view. You have the producer in me, you have the fan in Jay,

who also happens to be our executive producer in this podcast. And then we bring you the insight from a former player. And this season it is Survivor 46 runner up, Charlie Davis. Welcome to the team, Charlie. Well, Jeff, I know firsthand that playing from the couch and playing on the island, completely different. So I hope you tune in.

Every single week, we're gonna dissect the strategy, the misfires and mistakes that change the game. If you want more Survivor than just 90 minutes, this is where you get it. On Fire, the only official Survivor podcast. Listen to On Fire, the official Survivor podcast wherever you get your podcast. -♪ Whoosh! -♪ -♪ Whoosh!

-♪ Whoosh! -♪ -♪ Whoosh! -♪ -♪ Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! Whoosh! You know what's crazy? So, they cleaned my glasses right before the show. I already had them all f***ed up. Never put donuts on your glasses. That is our show for tonight.

Before we go, we're going to check in with your host for the rest of the week, Desi Lydic. Desi! Desi, so nice to see you. What's coming up this week? Well, John, we'll be talking about my weekend trip to Mar-a-Lago, where I went to reopen the conversation with President-elect Trump. Reopen the con- Mm-hmm. Desi, didn't you spend the last year calling him a f***** face?

That's not how I remember it. No, but I wanted to go down there for unity. I want to be unified with all the people who he won't be getting revenge on. We had a great conversation about mass deportation. And the bottom line is, I can tell you now that I'm gonna be okay What about all the people being mass-deported oh, yes, I can tell them too that I'm gonna be okay

Congratulations, Desi Des Desi Leidig, your host this week. Here it is, your moment has ended. You're going to be okay. And you can see him embracing Joe Rogan. Let's see him. They're going to get together in a second. Here it comes. Wait for it.

He's walking in. Now he's going to say hello. There's Dana. Well, not quite. I think we'll get the Joe Rogan picture in just a moment. Hang on, hang on, that's not quite. Explore more shows from The Daily Show Podcast Universe by searching The Daily Show,

wherever you get your podcasts. Watch The Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central Central and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. Paramount Podcasts. As a kid growing up in Chicago, there was one horror movie I was too scared to watch. It was called Candyman.

It was about this supernatural killer who would attack his victims if they said his name five times into a bathroom mirror. But did you know that the movie Candyman was partly inspired by an actual murder? I was struck by both how spooky it was, but also how outrageous it was. Listen to Candyman, the true story behind the bathroom mirror murder. Early and ad free with a 48 hours plus subscription on Apple podcasts.