The Daily - Why the A.C.L.U. Wants to Be More Like the N.R.A.

Episode Date: July 30, 2018

For decades, the American Civil Liberties Union has battled in the courts on behalf of Americans’ constitutional rights, whether that means same-sex marriage or the right of neo-Nazis to hold a rally. But since the 2016 election, the A.C.L.U. has been changing tactics, and one of its models for the future is the National Rifle Association. Guest: Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. For decades, the ACLU has battled in the courts on behalf of Americans' constitutional rights, whether it's gay marriage or the rights of neo-Nazis to protest in the streets. But ever since the 2016 election, the group has been changing tactics.

Why its leader, Anthony Romero, says the NRA is a model. It's Monday, July 30th. Anthony, I imagine as head of the ACLU that there's kind of an origin story that you tell about the organization. Can you tell that story to me? Yeah. There was darkness and then there was light. You know, it's funny. Yeah. There was darkness and then there was light. You know, it's funny.

The very beginnings of the ACLU came out of a time in this country that's very similar to the one we're living in now. The era of the great migration from Europe began about 1820. It was in the early 20th century. During the following 70 years, immigrants came in growing numbers. You had a burgeoning immigrant community pouring onto the shores of the U.S. Millions of every nation and calling drawn together by their vision of America, a vision of land, opportunity, and freedom.

You had the rise of the labor movement, where people were getting active, and there were people in the streets in protests and demonstrations. And one of the primary drivers of the creation of the ACLU was the reaction to the Palmer raids. On the evening of May 1st, a night clerk at the main branch of the U.S. Post Office

on 33rd Street and 8th Avenue happened to notice 16 slender, identically wrapped packages, each addressed to a prominent politician or businessman, and each containing enough nitroglycerin to blow a man's head off. In 1920, you had a series of bombs, 33 of them, that went off all across the country. Confirming deeply rooted American fears that sinister foreign elements were at work in the land.

And one on the doorstep of the man who was Attorney General at the time, Mitchell Palmer. And there was this concern about the enemy within. There was this concern about the changes in the demographics of the American public that was going to rip the social fabric of American society. And Palmer, when his, I guess even his daughter was in the home when the bomb blew up at his doorstep, reacted with the full fury of the Justice Department and unleashed the Justice Department to detain and deport thousands of immigrants. You know, rounded them up. There were Russians, Germans, Poles, many of them Jews. It was the reaction at the moment. The enemy within national security needs to be asserted. And at that time, a handful of very progressive, visionary, somewhat crazy, you know, youngins said, well, we need to create

an organization that defends the rights of everyone. I don't like to see people suffer. Margaret Sanger. I don't like to see cruelty. Helen Keller was one of the founders of this organization. I'm what most people would call a reformer. The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. And I've always been concerned with the poverty and injustice I saw around me. Jane Addams and Crystal Eastman, two of the great women suffragists, founded the American Civil Liberties Union with a very simple premise to defend the rights of everyone. So from the start, who exactly was the ACLU defending people from? From government. The enemy was always the government.

That goes to the core of what the ACLU is all about. It's about the idea that we get to decide the decisions over our lives, what God we worship, if any God at all, whom we love and whom we marry. Kind of the idea that we have agency and autonomy and that the government should not be in the business of regulating or curtailing or controlling that individual liberty and that individual autonomy. So if chapter one of the ACLU's history is kind of young and rebellious, what was chapter two? When did things start to change?

I think things started to change when we started having some success. And we began to understand that we could actually use the law as a tool for social change. And I guess, you know, one thing that I was struck by when I came here almost 17 years ago were all these, you know, iconic cases that I learned in law school, but I had no idea that they were ACLU cases. Like what? Like the Scopes trial. The scene is set for what is now being valued as the monkey trial. Ultimately, it was just about whether or not the public schools should be in the business of deciding whether or not religion should be taught in the schools. Evolution teaches man came from a monkey.

I don't believe no such a thing in we can go down the best hits. Please. Miranda, the right to remain silent. Our case, our client. The question, of course, Gideon, is the right of accused. The right to a court-appointed attorney if you can't afford one. To the appointment of counsel. Our case, our client. The state cannot infringe upon the right of Richard and Mildred Loving to marry.

Loving, the right for interracial couples to marry. Because of race. Mildred Loving was our case and our client. In a unanimous decision, the nine Supreme Court justices ruled racial segregation in publicly supported schools to be unconstitutional. Then the cases go on. Declaring that it denied equal opportunity. Griswold the right to contraception.

The Edie Windsor case where we struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Obergefell case where we got the right for same sex couples to marry. Our case, where we struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Obergefell case, where we got the right for same-sex couples to marry. Our case, our client. This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality. In doing so, they've reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law. And by that point, we had become much more professionalized. It wasn't just a band of volunteers. We were thinking strategically about how to move the needle on core rights and core liberties

and map out a strategy and like water on stone, stay on these issues for years, even decades. Because ultimately you want to be able to change the public narrative on these issues. Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business. Complicated. So, did you know right away that the election of Donald Trump was going to change the role of the ACLU? You know, I had a gut that what was different about this was just the rhetoric coming out of his campaign. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. It was clear that a lot of our issues were going to be at play. They asked me, why do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump? I said, I love it. I love it. So you know early on that this was going to be big for the ACLU, the election of Donald Trump.

early on that this was going to be big for the ACLU, the election of Donald Trump. But I wonder when you started to see large swaths of the American public turn to you and the ACLU in direct response to this president and what that looked like. It built. It wasn't the tsunami that came out of nowhere. It was kind of like the waves definitely built higher and harder on the shore. But, you know, right after the election, I remember coming to the office, and I felt like, okay, everyone's feeling the way I'm feeling, and I've got this great organization that I'm leading. And then I just started typing into the computer

kind of an open letter to President-elect Trump. We ran it in the New York Times, and then we pushed it out on social media, and we put it on our website. Dear President-elect Trump, as you assume the nation's highest office, we must ask you now, as president-elect, to reconsider and change course

on certain campaign promises you have made. And that's when the traffic to the website started coming. We started getting emails from folks. And then I remember... If you do not reverse course and endeavor to make these campaign promises a reality, you will have to contend with the full firepower of the ACLU at your every step. I love Rachel Maddow, by the way. She's a dear friend and buddy. But then she had me on her TV show.

We will be vigilant every day of your tenure as president. And when you ultimately vacate the Oval Office, we will do likewise with your successor. Our website crashed that night. We were on her show. From being overwhelmed by people. It was overwhelmed. Signed Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union. Joining us now is Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Anthony, it's nice to see you. It's great to see you, Rachel. So basically, you took out national ads, literal ads, and you go on Rachel Maddow, and your message is that if you're angry, if you're scared in this moment, we're the place for you.

We're the place for you, and we can fight this together. And then the moment that we could make good on that promise was the Muslim ban weekend. That night we file in court. Within hours of him signing the executive order, we have filed. night we file in court. You know, within hours of him signing the executive order, we have filed. And then we are in court on an emergency hearing, getting the first national stay on the Muslim ban, right? And we're walking out of the courtroom. It's a Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn. And, you know, out of nowhere, when I come out of the court hearing, there are several thousand people who have just spontaneously convened.

What we've shown today is that the courts can work. I was kind of stunned. And when President Trump enacts laws or executive orders that are unconstitutional and illegal, the courts are there to defend everyone's rights. So we want to thank you very, very much. I've walked out of a lot of courtrooms, but not on a Saturday night in the middle of a January winter evening and finding thousands of

people braving the cold, chanting, you know, ACLU, we are here, we stand with you. I'm like, oh my God, this is different. This is different. And in that 24, 28-hour period, there were 4,100 new members per minute on the website. Wow. And that's when we knew this was different. I'm like, oh my God, we've tapped into something. People are worked up. They are angry. They are motivated.

They want to know, what can we do? So we had to develop this whole people power platform. So for instance, one of the first things we had the people power activists do was to kind of double down on enacting sanctuary city laws across the country. So rather than just play defense, which we're doing in terms of helping some litigation against the sanctuary city jurisdictions, we said, let's go on offense. Let's try to enact more sanctuary city jurisdictions. What we've got is not good enough. So create new sanctuary cities. Create new sanctuary city jurisdictions. And we enacted more than 21 new sanctuary city laws across the country. One of them in a place like Phoenix. Phoenix, Arizona, big city in a big red

state. And a border state. And a border state. And a border state. And we put people to work and we sent them out. And they were people who were just school teachers and massage therapists and ordinary folk who went to me with their local elected officials and said, this is why we need a sanctuary city jurisdiction. I mean, that's what we want to do more of, is to use the pincer of litigation,

sue them in court, and then mobilize the public, play offense and play defense. So you're now talking about passing new legislation and engaging voters to marshal around causes. So I want to pose a theory to you. Yeah. Having just had the Supreme Court

uphold the travel ban, which was a real loss for you, and with the Supreme Court now the most conservative we've seen it in basically our lifetimes, is part of this shift about not being able to have confidence that the court will work in your favor. I think you can't put all your eggs in the judicial basket. Right. And I still think that there are ways to file important civil liberties and civil rights cases that will convince conservative judges and conservative justices in the Supreme Court. I mean, like, look at the family separation issue. The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Trump administration over forced separations of asylum-seeking families. We drew a Republican-appointed judge. A federal judge in California ruled

overnight. And it was great. That the Trump administration must reunite separated immigrant families within 30 days. That he was a Republican George Bush appointee. Because ultimately, it became harder for people to dismiss his ruling when he mandated the fact that these 3,000 families had to be reunited. And is really putting the government through its paces to ensure that they reunite the kids with the parents. It's fantastic that people cannot just write it off as just another kind of latte-sipping, Bruno Magli-wearing, liberal judge on the coast. Right. So that litigation is ongoing. But part of it is also to kind of shape the public judge on the coast. Right. So that litigation is ongoing. But part of it is also to kind of shape the public debate on this issue.

So we've run TV spots. It all started when Donald Trump tore thousands of immigrant children away from their parents. We the people challenged him in court and in the streets. Shut it down! Shut it down! We had a big day of action in Brownsville. Hello, this is John Legend. I'm standing with the ACLU.

We've had celebrities. Hey, America. Hey, America. I know, things are crazy right now. Talk to their constituents about why this matters. We're all overwhelmed, but listen. The ACLU is on it. The ACLU has had your back for almost 100 years. So effectively, the ACLU is becoming as much a political organization as it is one, it sounds, about litigation. Absolutely.

With your help, we got this. We got this. We got this. But is there a concern right away with this messaging that you're doing and the strength of people's divisions that have been revealed in this election that you're starting to tap into a partisan dynamic and perhaps inevitably that you're seeming to pick a side? You know, we're fighting this president not because he's a Republican. We're fighting this president because of the challenges he represents on civil liberties and civil rights. because of the challenges he represents on civil liberties and civil rights. And we have earned our nonpartisan stripes over 100 years, right? We fought FDR, we fought Clinton, we fought Obama, right?

Probably the most contentious meeting I've ever had has been with President Obama. Sometimes our values, I mean, to give you one example of where it's important to lead in a challenging moment. A year ago, when we decided to provide legal representation to the Nazis and Stephen Kessler in Charlottesville. If it hadn't been for the legal assistance they received from the American Civil Liberties Union, the white supremacists who led the ill-fated march in Charlottesville would likely have been forced to accept a venue far removed from the statue of robert e lee that was at issue and we said that is not the government's role to decide who gets a permit based on the content of their speech or the content of their message we were unfortunately sued by the aclu and the judge ruled against us. We got lots of criticism, internally and externally. And I think that's a moment when you burnish the nonpartisan credential and you say,

when we believe these rights are for everyone, we truly mean it. And even for people we hate and whose ideology is loathsome and disgusting and hurtful. You know, if we were just a liberal left advocacy group, you know, no other liberal left advocacy group in the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party would take on those types of cases and clients. I think it's really important for us to kind of continue to forge a path that talks about this being about the rights of everyone. But would you say that the shift in tactics that you're describing is in direct response to President Trump? Absolutely. And as you make this change in tactics, do you look to other groups like the NRA for a model of how to do it effectively?

Sure. So back in 2013, I'd have to pull it, I think the NRA and the ACLU were of comparable size. But if you had asked me, you know, who had had a greater impact on American society and politics and government in 2013, I'd have to say it was the NRA. So I was trying to understand, well, why is it that they punch so much above their weight if they're the same size as we are? And I actually spent a bunch of time looking at their website. And their website was very different than our website. How so?

It was much more narrative. My dad was a hunter, a big-time clay hunter, and also a squirrel hunter. There were stories. There were videos. I got a gun when I was four, and my parents shot with me. And I remember it's a little.22 that my dad actually had to customize for me. He shortened the stock and he shortened the barrel. You know, the daughter being shown how to hunt with her father and what that meant to her.

And now my daughter and my son are both shooting that gun. There were wine clubs, discounts for your automobile insurance through the NRA. It was just, it was, it was. Kind of all encompassing. Exactly. It was a lifestyle. I wanted to understand from their playbook, what could I learn from their playbook that we could adopt here? I think the thing I learned most from a report that we commissioned in 2013 is that when you look at the way they talk about their mandate, the Second Amendment, they don't talk about it in legalistic or policy wonk terms. They talk about their mandate, the Second Amendment, they don't talk about it in legalistic or policy wonk terms. They talk about the gun culture, right? They talk about it in very personal...

Lifestyle terms. Lifestyle terms. And that was when the light bulb went off in our heads. It was just like, oh my God, we can definitely do that too. And we're talking about, because when we're talking about liberty, we're not talking about the First or the Fourth or the Fifth Amendment, we are, but we're not only talking about that. We're talking about liberty, we're not talking about the First or the Fourth or the Fifth Amendment. We are, but we're not only talking about that. We're talking about the ability for an individual to live the life she wishes to have with the dignity she's entitled to in our democracy. freedom, their autonomy, their agency, their self-actualization in deeply personal ways that they may not understand what the language of the Fourth or the Fifth Amendment is, and it doesn't really matter, right? I mean, I use the metaphor always like, you know, if you're shipping

off your Christmas presents, let's say, in the U.S. Postal Office, and you're standing on that long queue to send mom her gift, and someone tries to cut in front of you on that long line, watch how people respond, right? That ain't fair. That ain't right, right? There is something innately visceral about saying that that just ain't right. That kind of gut, that kind of instinctual reaction to an injustice, if we can find a way to kind of tap into that and to get people to understand that what we're talking about here is about leveling the playing field and about making sure that you have the right to live the life you choose to have.

So you want to build a lifestyle essentially around people's sense of righteousness and civil liberties. Absolutely. The way that the NRA has done it with the right to bear arms. Absolutely. Absolutely. And look what we've done with the kids separated from their parents. You know, we didn't have to get into the kind of due process equal protection arguments. I mean, we did for the judge, but that isn't the way that we framed the public debate.

It wasn't a good Fifth Amendment argument that got people's outcry saying, oh, my God, that's a great Fifth Amendment argument. Let me go to a protest. No, it's the basic idea that, oh, my God, that's a great Fifth Amendment argument. Let me go to a protest. No, it's the basic idea that, oh my God, you separated these toddlers from their mothers and you lost them in the system and you deported their parents into a different country while you're holding onto their kids. Are you kidding me? That type of response and that type of gut, cultural, instinctual kind of reaction, that is just wrong, just plain wrong. But the NRA has a really distinct advantage of being built around one constitutional right,

the Second Amendment. So the lifestyle stuff that you're describing all feels like an extension of that. So it does seem harder when, as you say, people don't quite understand the amendments that you're working with. Right. And they span the partisan gamut. Is there a risk that you're just building a lifestyle really around disliking Trump? No, because ultimately you've got to be able to talk about what it is you're fighting for. Right. What is it you're you're trying to

accomplish? I think what is important to underscore is that, look, is the ACLU fighting Donald Trump and his policies with all the vigor that we can muster? Definitely. Is it because he's a Republican? No. Is it because of the policies and priorities of his administration? Yes. Does that mean that we give a pass to Democrats or that we're going to be less vigilant or less assertive if it's a different Republican president or even a different Democratic president?

Hell no. I think it would be a real abdication of responsibility if we didn't fight this administration with everything we've got because we're worried that people will conceive of us as partisan. So what you're saying is that you believe you're fighting for everyone, even if they themselves don't see it that way. Exactly. What do you say to a Trump voter who says,

OK, but you are literally, ACLU, declaring war with my president. So how are you really for me? I'm declaring war on some of the policies of your president that are fundamentally un-American. And that your president and his success and his role in the country will benefit by my holding his feet to the fire. All I am is I make the workings of our democratic system stronger. I file a lawsuit on behalf of clients that has to go before a judge. I make my best political

arguments and lobbying and mobilizing the public put pressure on elected officials. At the end of the day, it is a judge who decides the legality or the unconstitutionality of an action and the propriety of our lawsuit. And it is a legislator or an elected official who's going to decide the policy. So even if you say that 90% of our positions are wrong, I make the democratic process more robust and more energetic. And I serve as a countervailing force ensuring that there's proper checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches by my being engaged directly. And there, I think, you want me. being engaged directly. And there, I think, you want me. You know, I think we can't afford to just write off everyone who voted for this president as being our enemy. I tend to be an optimist. I think it's very hard to find, you know,

even some staunch supporters of this president of good faith and good mind who will, in a moment of quiet, say, I voted for this president and I think it's great that we're separating kids from their families. And I think they'll just have moments when they'll pause and they'll ask the hard questions. Well, Anthony, I really want to thank you for your time. Really appreciate it. Thank you. You bet. You bet, Michael. Bye. Special thanks to Joel Lovell,

who first wrote about the ACLU's changing tactics for the New York Times Magazine. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Thank you. The wall must get rid of lottery catch and release, et cetera, and finally go to system of immigration based on merit. In a tweet on Sunday, President Trump threatened to shut down the federal government this fall if Congress does not pass sweeping immigration reform, including more funding for his proposed border wall. But such a shutdown could endanger Republicans seeking re-election this November, prompting Ohio Representative Steve Stivers,

who is coordinating Republican congressional campaigns, to dismiss Trump's idea during an interview with ABC's This Week. I don't think we're going to shut down the government. You know, I think we're going to make sure we keep the government open, but we're going to get better policies on immigration. And on Sunday, President Trump disclosed a recent off-the-record meeting with the publisher of The Times, A.G. Sulzberger, during which he said the two had discussed, quote,

the vast amount of fake news being put out by the media and how the fake news has morphed into the phrase enemy of the people. But in response, Sulzberger said the president had mischaracterized the meeting. In reality, he said, he had told Trump that the phrase fake news

was untrue and harmful and that the language the president is using to describe the media, including the phrase enemy of the people, could lead to violence against journalists. I warned that it was putting lives at risk, Salzberger said, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country's greatest exports, a commitment to free speech and a free press. That's it for The Daily.

I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.