The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3556 - Justifying Democracy and Making it Materially Important w/ Osita Nwanevu & Marc Maron

Episode Date: August 8, 2025

It's Casual Freebie Friday on the Majority Report, in fact so casual that Matt and Emma aren't even here today. On today's show: In reaction growing economic anxiety and the looming stagnation Trump taps on his friend from the Heritage Foundation, Scott Moore to print off some big, beautiful charts showing numbers "no one has ever seen". Turns out there is nothing to worry about. The old numbers wrong and these new numbers are right. Phew. Osita Nwanevu joins the show for a great conversation about Democracy and his case for a new American founding. You can preorder Osita's book The Right of the People now and it will hit the shelves next Tuesday. We are then joined by Marc Maron who discusses the winding down of his WTF podcast, the state of comedy and his new special "Panicked" out now on HBO. Stephen Miller is trying to distract from Texas GOP remapping by spreading lies about the census. Harry "Emden" Enten has some positive news for Democrat polling although it could be a lot better if Dems would any kind of vision for the country. Benjamin Netanyahu is interviewed on Fox where explicitly states that Israel intends to take full control of Gaza but don't worry, he promises to give it back. Nancy Mace is asked a simple question to which she answers with accusations of misogyny towards the female reporter. Charlie Kirk displays some real misogyny as he describes America as a toxic-feminist state and claims Trump to be a beacon of masculinity. Cue YMCA. All that and more plus your IMs.     The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors NUTRAFOL: Get $10 off your first month’s subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10 TUSHY: Get 10% off TUSHY with the code TMR at https://hellotushy.com/TMR SUNSET LAKE: Head on over to Sunset LakeCBD.com and remember to use code BIRTHDAY for 25% off sitewide. This sale ends at midnight on August 17th. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt’s show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon’s show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza’s music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com  

Hey, folks. Today's episode is brought to you by my favorite sponsor, sunsetlakesebaday.com. But why am I covering the coupon code? Well, because our friends at Sunset Lake Sabadei are celebrating their birthday this month. And you are invited. There's no party, but the party is for you to have. they want to thank this show and all our great listeners for their support of their farm over the past few years

and to show their appreciation they're kicking off a special sale right now if you head to sunset lake sabadea dot com use the code birthday you get an extra 5% off so that's 25% off when you use the code birthday you're going to save 25% site wide but you're also going to unlock a free gift when you spend over 100 bucks. Folks, they have great products over there. My favorite these days, of course, I help myself to sleep every night with my good night oil. They have tinctures and they have good night gummies.

They have some with melatonin, some without, some with Seba Ann and some Seba Day. But they've got two different flavors of what they call a lifted tea, and it has five M.G. milligrams of to hedge say, and Brian's already smiling because he knows what is doing at his house. His girlfriend has been chugging those. I, it takes a little bit less

for me to have a whole night essentially, but they're really, they're great. They taste great. And they make you feel very loosey-goosey. Yeah. So check it out. You can find that on their website, along with all their other great edible products, their smokable products, their solves and their lotions, coffee with Seba Day, all sorts of great Sebeday products, all third party tested. They use no pesticides. They use integrated pest management.

They use regenerative farming practices. They have great business practices, $20 minimum wage, mostly employee owned. and they are movement partners. They have donated tens of thousands of dollars over the years to issues that are really important to you. Carceral reform, Planned Parenthood, refugee resettlement. The list goes on and on. Strike funds. They're a great company, great product.

Right now, celebrating their birthday, happy birthday, sunsetlakesebade.com. The present they're giving to you, 25% off. when you use their coupon code birthday, 25% off of everything. The sale ends at midnight on August 17th. So you got a week. See their site for terms and conditions. Check it out.

You will not be disappointed. And honestly, try that tea. Now time for the show. The majority report with Sam Cedar. We are every day casual Friday. That means Monday is casual Monday. Tuesday, casual Tuesday, Wednesday, casual hump day. Thursday, casual thursday, casual thurs.

That's what we call it. And Friday, casual Shabbat. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Friday. August 8th. 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA. On the program today, Ocita Nueve Nuke, contributing editor to the new

Republican columnist at The Guardian and author of his first book, The Right of the People, democracy in the case for a new American foundation, a founding, sorry, which will be available in just four days. Also on the program today, a special guest, the 1 p.m. hour, the prodigal son returns. Or maybe, maybe not, I don't know. We'll see. Meanwhile, Israel mounts forces to invade Gaza's cities to invade Gaza's city. and overtake all of Gaza as its constructed famine worsens. Air Force will deny trans service members early retirement. Those who have 15 to 18 years' service,

their life's career is going to be cut short without benefits. Meanwhile, wildfires rage north of L.A. Texas Governor Abbott vows special session after special session in a fit against Texas Democratic lawmakers. Meanwhile, Trump manufactures new labor numbers. Tariffs are driving prices of coffee, clothing, and cars up. And businesses are in disarray over Trump's 100% tariff on computer chips. Is it really happening? not. J.D. Vance claims no knowledge of a demand that the Army Corps of Engineers raise a river

level to accommodate his boating expedition last week. India pauses U.S. arms by after Trump's tariffs, and the Trump regime asked the Supreme Court of the United States to allow ICE to roam around and racially profile people. All this and more. on today's majority report. Whoa, okay, welcome. Fast page. Sorry about that. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

Emma Viglin out today. She is at the DSA conference in Chicago. So too is Matt scheduled to go to that conference. So it's just Brian and I today. Take it easy on us. we got a lot to get to today Ossita's book I am

about really almost three quarter seven eights through it it is a fantastic really really important book very timely in terms of really examining what when we talk about democracy

what are we talking about and why and um and and how can we reform it if we get the chance so we will get to that in the meantime Donald Trump is in a bit of a panic new generic democratic uh numbers coming out or I should say generic polling showing that Democrats are starting to pick up some steam we're still over a year out from the midterms, but that is worrying some Republicans, obviously to the point where they're trying to gerrymander, and really in many respects,

break the gerrymander truce that had existed. I mean, it was obviously one-sided, as most of these political trusses tend to be, but Democrats seem to be determined to carry through with their threat of, doing their own gerrymandering in states like New York and California. But the thing that's making the Trump regime panic the most are increasing signs that we are headed into stagflation.

What is stagflation? It is when the economy is stagnant, not growing or in a recession. We have seen a lot of evidence of that, both in terms of last quarter's GDP numbers and the, well, the supposed jobless claims that are increasing exponentially. We're also seeing the St. Louis Fed Chair comes out today, says there are troubling signs of potential for stagflation. That is, again, when the economy is stalled, but inflation goes up.

remember the Fed has a two-pronged essentially mission that is to keep inflation in check and to increase employment and that's usually a balancing act at least according to them i have some skepticism in some respects but both things are not supposed to happen simultaneously job losses in inflation are a rare a occurrence and a bad one because it really limits the number of tools that you can use to deal with this. There's a private survey of purchasing managers, which are now showing indications of inflation working its way through the system as the stores of stuff that people bought and imported in the run-up to tariffs with the hopes that maybe the tariffs would just go away, that it would all be tacoed. They're starting to run out of

those reserves, as it were. And here is Donald Trump's answer to dealing with the potential of stagflation, and that is to bring in Stephen Moore from the Heritage Foundation. I think he's still there.

If you're my age, you know that this guy is a total joke. And they don't even bring him out on TV anymore because he's a laughing stock, but he still has one of those, you know, Heritage Foundation Cinecures. And this is what he does. He comes up with charts with secret numbers.

Nobody's seen really good. No one has seen these numbers, only at the Heritage Foundation. Here is Trump's impromptu press conference yesterday in the White House. And so I called the president because I had some very good news from some new data that we been able to put together that no one has ever seen before and i'll just very quickly go through these so i was telling the president that he did the right thing and when someone from the heritage foundation says we have new data from numbers that nobody's ever seen before and he's talking about uh labor statistics across the country you should be very very suspect

why or just start laughing the heritage foundation does not have the ability to find what's going on in the country better than the states or the federal government but alas this charts but there's charts go ahead and i'll just very quickly go through these so i was telling the president that he did the right thing in calling for a new head of the bureau of labor statistics because this shows that over the last two years of the Biden administration, the BLS overestimated job creation by 1.5 million jobs. That's a, Mr. President, that's a gigantic error. And I don't know if she's, I'm not making it.

It might have been an era. That's the bad part. It was an era. It would be one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely. Whether that you may well be right, but even if it wasn't purposefully, it's incompetence.

Right. Okay. Okay. So, one point five million jobs. Just to let you know, there were the they did overestimate that happens all the time that's why they issue revisions which they also did that is the way it works very often the first numbers that come in for that first month are under or overestimates and then within the following months they provide revisions

you've seen this if you've ever followed any of this you know this is exactly how it always works, regardless of who's president. Go ahead. So 1.5 million jobs, overestimated. We have access to the, we have access to the, some data that no one else does on what has happened month by month with median household income. This is based on unpublished Census Bureau data. It will be released sometime in the next six months, but we get an advanced look at it. And so I was telling the president in his first five months in office starting in January given the end of June.

The average median household income adjusted for inflation for the average family in America is already up $1,174. That's an incredible number. It just came out. Unbelievable. So that's a giant case.

I would have said this. Nobody would have believed it. No. There's your number. Thank God. Someone like Stephen Moore was so much credibility says it. So the next one compares, we finally have the 2024 for data on what happened with real family income in the United States. And so what I did was I compared the record and Donald Trump's first term with the Joe Biden first term.

And you can see that, by the way, these dotted lines here, Mr. President, that's COVID. So if it had not been for COVID, these numbers would have been substantially better. But even taking account of President Trump's last year in 2020, we saw a $6,400 real after-eflation. gain an income for the average family. And that compares with Joe Biden, which was a measly $551. So, Mr. President, you gain 10 times more income for the average family than Joel Biden. It's because of your policy.

I can't believe how great I'm doing it. And that's taken into consideration, COVID, which a lot of times you don't have to do that. I'm very glad you did it. No, we were almost 8,000 until. Look at that number. Yeah. Okay.

Look at that. Look at that bulge. So then we looked at which families did the best. We have data from the Census Bureau that shows by income percentage. So the 25th percentile is the lowest income, 75th percentile is the highest income. What I find fascinating about this, Mr. President, is every income group did better.

The red is President Trump, the blue is President Biden. Every single income group did better under President. Trump. But what's really amazing is look at what happened under Biden. The lowest income group lost income under Biden. They were poor four years after Biden's presidency. No gain virtually whatsoever for the middle class. And the rich was the only group that did better under Biden, which is ironic because Biden keeps saying he was trying to get rid of income inequality. He made income inequality worse, not better. It was President Trump that reduced income inequality. These numbers just came out, by the way.

Yeah, they're brand new. We made them up just freshly. These are the numbers. I just showed you in percentage terms. Mr. President, these are the numbers in dollar terms. So even the lowest income, 25th percent, gained about $4,000 income. That's a lot for a lower income family. $6,400 for the middle class and almost $10,000 for the richest.

So you can see every income group did better under a lower income. Trump than Biden, by a wide version. That's the story. Yeah, that is a story. That's a great story. Wait, show me the graph where it just goes up. I don't even need to know what the numbers are.

Just show me the graph. Put up number 15. This is moments later where Trump is very, very excited of this graph that shows things are getting, look at, they're going straight up. You got it?

This one chart really says it better than anything. If you look at this, this is great. This is great. This is all great. Pretty amazing. Right here. Look at that chart. Forget about the numbers.

All new numbers. We made them up. Okay. There you go. Well, there's the proof, ladies and gentlemen. don't believe your lying eyes there are new data that the Heritage Foundation has received

nobody else has access to it they have a Harry Emden the secret tunnel into the Census Bureau and unbelievable we'll see if that works

in the meantime in a moment we're going to be talking to Ossita Wanevu he is contributing editor at the New Republican And more importantly, he's just come out with its first book. It's actually coming out in four days, but you can pre-order it right now. The right of the people, democracy, and the case for a new American founding. We'll be talking to him in just a moment.

First, a couple words from our sponsors. I've been using this product for a couple of years. You know, I'm getting a little bit older. one of my few attributes is that I still have the full head of hair. But I noticed a couple years ago, it was thinning a little bit, did not want to take drugs. And I started to take Nutrafall. We had it in the office. They had wanted to sponsor the show years ago, but there was nobody interested.

And I started to take it a couple years later. And it turns out it's not just hype. It's physician formulated, it's clinically tested, and it's even recommended by dermatologists. It takes about six to 12 months before you see noticeable improvement, but I've been there. Nutrafall is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand. It's trusted by over one and a half million people. You can feel great about what you're putting into your body since Nutrafall hair growth supplements are backed by peer-reviewed studies. and NSF Content Certified, which is the gold standard and third-party certification for supplements.

A lot of supplements rely only on ingredient studies. Neutrofoil takes their final formulation, clinically test those to assure their efficacy. They use a variety of hair measurement tools like hair counts, pull tests, to assess growth, quality, shedding, and texture. For me, I just look in the towel. How much hair is in the towel after I dry my hair? And it's gone down. I can see it. Adding neuterfall to your daily routine is also super simple.

You can see thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutrafall. For a limited time, Neutrafall offering you $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you go to Nutrafall.com, enter the promo code TMR10. That's the letters, TMR, the number one, zero. No spaces. Find out why NutraFal is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand. And NutraFol.com spelled the N-U-T, R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code TMR10. That's NutraFol.com promo code TMR10.

Also, sponsoring the program today, move down to a different part of the body, it is time to rethink how we're caring for our swampiest body parts. That's why Emma's out today. She doesn't like when I do these reads. She hates it. But I'll tell you something. Honestly,

you want to change your life? Get yourself a tushy bidet. I have friends who have like the super, super expensive, you know, $4,000 toilet. I don't know, $2,000. I just, the people know me better than that.

but you can still get the bidet experience. Tushy is the everyday luxury bidet that instantly transforms your bathroom habits and a bottom health for life. Tushy has two types of badees now. And the ones that I've used, I'm going to upgrade, but the ones I've been using have just been straight on, hook it, basically it's like taken off your toilet seat. You put the tushy bidet back in underneath the toilet seat and hook it into your existing plumbing. It literally takes about 10 minutes.

And now they have an elevated bidet collection, which gives you instant warm water that never runs cold, a soothing heated seat and UV sterilization for next level hygiene. All tushy bidet is easily attached to your existing toilet without the need for additional plumbing. installation is simple. It takes about 10 minutes to complete. Cleaning yourself after using your bathroom, now totally hands-free. Sit, cleanse, and dry using the built-in air dryer. And instead of emotionally wiping, yes, this is a huge, I've got to upgrade. Tushy pristinely removes 99% of bacteria while protecting your natural skin barrier

thanks to one natural ingredient, fresh water. Look, when your hands get dirty, you don't just use a dry piece of paper. You use water. Every Hello Tushy Baday comes with a 30-day hassle-free return in a 12-month warranty. I want to thank Tushy for sponsoring this episode. Be prepared for me to purchase an un-upgraded Tushy. Keep your swampiest body parts fresh and cool for a limited time. Our listeners get 10% off their first bidet order when you use the code TMR at checkout.

It's 10% off your first bidet order at hellotushy.com. code TMR. All right, quick break. When we come back, Osseda-Wanavu, on his new book, The Right of the People, Democracy, and the Case for a New American Founding. We'll be right back after this. We are back. Sam Cedar. On the majority report, Emma Viglin is out today. I want to welcome back to the program, Ocita-Wanavu, contributing editor at New Republic and columnist at the Guardian and author of his first

book, and much anticipated around here, I have to say, right of the people, democracy in the case for a new American founding. Ossita, congratulations on the book. I have to say that it is, it's incredibly

timely, and I think for me personally, when I did this big Jubilee surrounded debate, it had not occurred to me that I would have to justify things like why xenophobia is bad, why a theocracy is not good, where the things that we have taken for granted by simply saying we want a democracy, we really can't take for granted anymore. And your book really fundamentally

addresses that issue. What? Where were you in the course of this? I mean, there's a book that you've been writing for a while, but where were you in the course of thinking that, like, the notion of democracy itself needs to be justified? Yeah. So, I mean, I've been working on this book since 2021. I've been covering American politics for about 9, 10 years now.

And as I was sort of gathering ideas for, you know, first book, it occurred to me that in my time read about politics, democracy was kind of a central concept. Obviously, Trump wins in 2016 with an electoral college victory rather than a popular vote victory. Second time in 25 years that's happened. I remember being in second grade when Bush won the same way and sort of internalizing that basic sense of unfairness and carrying it with me. But even beyond that and beyond the things that follow the 2016 election, the effort to overturn the 2020 election, the attempted coup, you know, as I was covering a Democratic primary in 2020, I found myself having to write over and over and over

again. Well, you know, even if Democrats win, probably not going to pass Medicare for all, probably not going to pass a Green Deal, probably not going to pass immigration form for, like, structural reasons. That there were these structural obstacles to getting a lot of that agenda passed that had to be dealt with. And I got tired of writing that without interrogating the system behind it. Like, why is it the case we have a citizen that's set up this way? When Republicans say, in response to some of these arguments, well, you know, we're not supposed to be democracy in the first place for a republic. What's the kind of philosophical response you can make to that? How do you maybe persuade people who are persuaded by that argument that's

actually wrong? So all of this was kind of in the air as I thought about, you know, what would be worth writing about. And I think that the results of November kind of vindicate that choice. I mean, Democrats ran pretty hard on a pro-democracy message. I don't think you could have escape that unless you were living under a rock. I think voters heard that message and they were like, actually, you know, as much as we might like democracy conceptually, we actually think that Donald Trump's going to be better on the price of groceries, on rent, on my basic material needs. And so there's this fundamental challenge here where, as you say, like people aren't taking the centrality of democracy for granted. People don't take it for granted that we have a

democracy in the first place that's worth saving and so on. So this is a, I think, an ideal time to sort of go back to first principles. What does this word actually mean? What does it commit us to? Is the system we have now Democratic? And if it's not, what actually gets us there? And what actually brings most American people along with us on the project of democratic reform? Yeah, I mean, I think that's the need, again, I remember Ben Rhodes writing an op-ed of all people in the wake of the election saying, you know, you're going around talking about saving democracy and all you know what a lot of people are hearing is the system that has been screwing us and and so there's sort of like a there's a two-part challenge which

you address in the book which is one arguing why democracy is I guess the least worst of our options essentially is he quote Churchill and and two how we can make our democracy actually work. Let's go through, I just want to go through like the three elements that you talk about that are pillars of democracy, agency, dynicism, and procedure. Walk us through those briefly. Sure. So these are like three brass tax reasons why we should prefer democracy to some kind of rule

by the few, whether that's a king or an oligarch, whatever. So agency is the principle that we have the power ourselves as the governed to determine what our problems are and how to solve it. We're not waiting for some external entity to say, you know, this is wrong, this is messed up. I feel like fixing it. We themselves, ourselves, the people who are subject to governance have the ability to do that on our own. That's important and powerful. The second thing is dynamism. So democracy has all of these kind of inbuilt features.

that allow for change to happen. There are in the build times where you canvass the public, you evaluate how policies are doing, you evaluate how particular policy makers are doing, and you have systems by which you can replace those people. You don't really get that as a structural feature of rule by the few or rule by a single person. And the last thing is procedure.

Democracy offers us ways to change things stably and peacefully in an ideal world in the abstract. You're not having to overthrow, somebody every time you want something to get done. You're not having to go out and fight people in the streets. You have a system, a process through which people can collectively make change together in stable and in predictable kinds of ways. These are, I think, you know, core practical reasons why democracy, I think, succeeds as a system of governance beyond the alternatives. But also talk, too, about this kind of background ideal, which I find in some ways even more

compelling than the kind of nuts and bolts technical arguments, which is, democracy perceives from the principle that we are all entitled to a basic level of control and agency over the conditions that shape our lives. We're not just helplessly victims of circumstance and the things that happen to happen to us. We're not enthrall the people who happen to be richer or more powerful or some other part of the hierarchy that we're born into. We ourselves, each and every one of us, has some capacity to exercise a level

over agency, over what's going on in their lives and able to, the ability to direct our lives. That is, I think, a very, very powerful, compelling intuition. And I think it's one that radicalizes, or at least broadens our conception of what democracy ought to be, as I also talk about in this book. So if you take that principle seriously, it becomes very easy to say then, well, obviously, we're entitled to more than just a ballot every couple of years in Washington. were also governed in many important ways at work. We're governed in the economy.

The decisions that are made at the top of corporations that we work for often in effect is more intimately, immediately, and directly than decisions being made by politicians. And so there's also a level of democratic agency that I think we're entitled to in the economy. But yeah, these are sort of the broad strokes. Reasons why democracy is compelling. And the other thing I should say here, too,

is that the basic most simple definition of democracy, the only reasons why it's good, The definition I think I find most compelling is a system in which the governed themselves govern, or as Lincoln put, you know, government of by and for the people. You can read a lot of dusty, abstract books with a lot of formulas to get you, you know, through working through what democracy is all about. But I think that's the core kernel of the idea. And it seems to me, too, I mean, you know, that it defines, it defines goals, democracy, When it's working, and we, you know, we put an asterisk on all this because you address the failures of what, of our democracy, and we'll get into that in a moment. But when it's working, it defines the goals and thereby sort of like is, and if the democracy is working, it increases the competency to reach those goals.

I mean, I guess, you know, the biggest illustration of this that I've used over the years is the Gates Foundation and their work in education. They, you know, a billionaire has the ability to come in, dump several billion dollars into a system, completely reshape the way that we do education. And then 10 years later, they hire the RAND Corporation to do a report on it and the report says, yeah, we screwed up. up. We should just listen to educators. Meanwhile, we have a multi-decade sort of experiment that has fundamentally changed our education system, and we've got to recover from it, all this value-added teaching and high-stakes testing. And the lack of competency in that project is a function of the procedure in which the goals were set because they were wrong in their entire estimation and because they didn't have educators, essentially all the stakeholders involved in setting

what the attempt to so-called reform education is, and our government works in a similar fashion. Yeah. Now, I think that's right. And, you know, sometimes, and I have a whole chapter where I talk about critics of democracy, criticism and democracy that I think are worth addressing. And a lot of that rhetoric, you'll often get the idea that, well, you know, people are stupid. And so what we should do instead is have a system where we get the smartest people in the world to make all decisions for us, because they know better, you know. I think that's kind of what, you know, wealthy people especially would prefer.

They're obviously, bring their own estimation to smartest people, so they should be part of the process. But, you know, so there was a test that I referenced in a book where, Philip Tetlock, this researcher in the 2000s, gathered a bunch of experts and had them try to make predictions about certain outcomes in the future, gathered dozens or hundreds of these predictions, and found that they were actually no better at guessing than if they'd chosen randomly. That's not a knock on the concept of expertise or that expertise is important, but there's something, I think, delusional about saying that by restricting the number of people

who are partied to a process, restricting access to a process, that intrinsically gives you more sensible, more just, more logical governance, whether that's talking about a nonprofit or whether they're talking about government. Some researchers that I've mentioned in the book, I think there's actually something special about large groups of people coming together and the collective intelligence of that process coming through rather than restricting choices to a few people. You have different perspectives coming to play that wouldn't otherwise be in the room.

people can, you know, contribute different bits of knowledge of the process. But I think that people who advocate for democracy are always running up against that fundamental distrust in the public and fundamental distrust and distributed decision-making. And I think that that's one of the things that we have to fight now, not just from the right, but from a lot of, I think, technocratic centrists. And let's talk about you tackle how democracy works when it works. There were three major characteristics you outlined, equality, responsiveness, and majoritarianism. I mean, we start to, it starts to, it brings in stark relief where our deficits are in terms of a democracy.

Talk briefly about those three elements, and I think for a lot of people, it's somewhat self-evident where we're lacking in those. Yeah. So, I mean, these are three principles I think end up being common-sensical when you describe them to people. Equality, in a democratic system, every party to a collective choice has to be an equal kind of standing. If you leave the door up into some other kind of arrangement, some people have more rights than others, some people whose votes count more than others, that leaves open the possibility of while there's some smaller class of people that's governing. It's not the collective as a whole. It's some subset that has, more privileges, more rights. So we need equality. Responsiveness, democracy is not a suggestion box. When the people come together to make a decision, to make a choice, that means something.

They act with some kind of authority, and the system is obligated to respond in some kind of way. The last thing, majoritarianism, of all the different ways in which people can make a choice collectively, from unanimous agreement all the way through some form of minority rule. Majority rule is the only principle that's consistent with equality. So if two people want something, three people want some other thing. There's no way that the two get their way over the three unless there's some kind of inequality involved in the process. You need a majoritarianism, I think, for any of this to really make sense. Again, they all sound kind of common classical principles, but immediately you start analyzing the system we have, and it's obvious that we

flat that in some fundamental ways. So I've done a number of these talks already in D.C. And I always make a point of saying, look, we are sitting right now in a city of about 700,000 and people. They does not have a full and equal say in governance in the federal government the government. They have a non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who cannot vote in the final passage of legislation. There are four million Americans for whom that is true. So under not only that schema that I outlaw, but I think any reasonable conception of democracy, but people are not living in a democratic society. They're governed by a federal government. They don't have a full and equal voice in. Beyond that, even for those of us who do have representation, that

The representation is very unequally apportioned. Resident of Wyoming, on the basis of population, has about 67 times representation as somebody who lives in California. California would be, for its own country, one of the 40 largest countries in the world, one of the largest economies in the world, has the same number of seats in the Senate as Wyoming, a city with fewer people, in fact, in Washington, D.C. does. That doesn't make any sense, democratically speaking. You learn in grade school that the House balances this out. It's not true in any meaningful way. way. The Senate alone decides on judicial appointments. It decides on executive appointments. Obviously, you need both houses to pass any kind of ordinary legislation. So those inequities

really, really matter. And I think it's contributed to so much of this function that we see in our system and in our politics. And those are, that, I mean, those are by design. I mean, you're just, we're just at the by design sort of, I guess, silo of failures of how. a democracy is supposed to work, before we even get into how much of these things have also been corrupted by money or the machinations within those structures. Yeah, that's absolutely right. I mean, I do spend some time talking about money and politics. You know, I do think we should do something about Citizens United and campaign finance and lobbying and all

these things we talk about all the time. But below that and beyond that, we have a lot of deep structural inequities in the system. They're actually only going to get worse. Population dynamics are going to make the inequities in the Senate worse over time. And given all the problems we face as a country, whether it's climate change or immigration, whatever it is that we want to collectively solve in a reasonable way, the design of the system has been a real barrier to getting things done. And it's time for us to confront that, especially given, you know, I think,

it's fair to say. The fact that Donald Trump is sitting here as president today, largely as the function of the systems and equities. Now, he won the popular vote in 2024. I don't deny that or dismiss that. But he came into the 2024 election

as a former president, which is a pretty nifty thing to be as a presidential candidate. And he's a former president because he won the 2016 election by electoral college victory. He sustained in office during two impeachment attempts in which senators representing majorities of the country, I think, over 50% the first time, over 60% the second time, voting to remove him from office.

The threshold was so high, it didn't matter. So Donald Trump has been sustained by these features for the system. And the fact that he seems like he's been invulnerable to them, I think it's part of what's attracted so many people to his candidacy and to him as a political figure. This is a guy who you can't tame, who can't be touched and has this kind of power. And that's one more reason that I should consider voting for him. because he's going to use that power to my advantage. These are impressions that were created by the framework that we've been handed down.

And if we are against authoritarianism, we should be taking a look at not just Donald Trump's own personal conduct, not even just the Republican Party's insanity, but the ways in which the system has allowed him to come to power and has continued pulling the party from my perspective to the right. I don't want to go back too much here, but that that's what I find so important about your book is that, you know, we have, it's not hard. You don't have to do too much digging to find J.D. Vance. I mean, you know, Donald Trump, I don't know that has done much thinking about this, but you don't have to dig too far to find J.D. Vance and a lot of the people who are involved in the Trump administration and ideology that. says democracy is um not is is is not the uh best worst of bad options but that a some

you know i'm thinking you know the but is in fact um inferior to a benevolent uh leader whether it's sort of like peter teal or curtis jarvin or j d vance and all of the minions are andresen i mean those are just the people who have said it more publicly because they're I guess maybe less concerned about being tagged in this way, but this argument that authoritarianism is actually good. We could get a benevolent leader, I guess, presumably. And this minoritarianism has sort of ushered that era in, which is also why it's important to talk about these critiques. but let's also talk about what you deal with in the second half of the book, which is a new founding.

You know, we've talked on this program many, many times about the reconstruction as really the founding, you know, the founding of the America we live in today. And the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in particular as how they had reshaped our society. and continue, I think, like, you know, the vast majority of Supreme Court cases, constitutional cases deal with the 14th Amendment in some fashion or another. Talk about what we need to do politically to fix our democracy in the timeline, because what, you know, and undergirding this, of course, we have to fight the authoritarianism now without any sort of like

powers or I should say levers of power within the system as opposed to sort of fighting authoritarianism with just people power and etc. But what do you see as the sort of like timeline

for political power? Because there have been movements to amend the Constitution. But sequentially, you don't want to do that too early because you need to be ready. Yeah. No, I mean, it's a really good question. It's one that I wrestle with, especially towards the end of the book. I mean, I think that there are shorter term goals and longer term goals. There are things that we can do in the next couple of years of Democrats take

Washington again to democratize a system and bring things further in line with our aspirations here. So the Four of the People Act, John Lewis Voting Rights Act that came up early in the Biden administration, those things should be revived. So they would have made it easier to vote. They would have protected voting rights in all kinds of ways, dealt with gerrymandering, which is now obviously a conversation again, as it is reliably after every census. So those kinds of legislative fixes, I think, are well within reach. More ambitious things that Democrats didn't consider, like adding a new state provided the states and the territories, right the territories in question one, become states,

should be on the table, adding justices to the Supreme Court to bring that in balance with political outcomes and maybe leading towards some kind of non-partisan reform later on, that should be pursued. So there are things like that that ought to be done and could be done as a matter of political will in the next few years. But the longer-term horizon, where I'm talking about things like dealing with the Senate, getting rid of the Senate, or fundamentally changing it someday, that's going to take a bit of time. And I think that takes really the cultivation building of a political movement for democracy. That doesn't really exist yet.

People feel anxious about Donald Trump. They feel anxious about democracy, maybe in the abstract. But when it comes to these kind of structural reforms, I think it's mostly an academic conversation, mostly a conversation that liberal law professors have been driving. I think there needs to be a built need amongst American public or felt need amongst American public. that if we don't resolve these structural inequities, we're actually going to be far from improving the policymaking process and improving their lives in the way that we'd expect a democratic system to.

There needs to be fundamental changes in order to make Washington work better in the long run. And I think the way to do that, and my ideas here are very kind of loose, but convincing people that this is more than just an abstract struggle, and these are more than abstract challenges, that when the Senate functions as it does, when the outdoor college functions the way than it does, that means that it's harder for us to deliver more rights to workers, deliver people health care.

It's harder for us to deliver child care. All of these policy items that we want to accomplish, we don't get them in a world where the system is inequitably set up in the way that it's been. That has to be kind of the leading edge of the argument. It can't just be, you know, a bunch of professors came here and said that the standard is mal-importioned by this number. It has to be really, really felt. And I think the way you get people to feel that, too, is, again, appealing to this background idea.

Do we ourselves have a measure of agency over a society or are we in a society that's run by Elon Musk and billionaires? Do we, as the ordinary American people, have some capacity to create the country that we want? or is that going to be left to people who are already wealthy and already powerful? That's the fundamental question, and I think that broadens our sense of crisis. Even when Donald Trump goes, and even if Democrats come in to government next time around,

we will still be living in a society that is deeply economically unequal in the way that's going to undermine and threaten democracy. Elon Musk is a perfect example of this. Wealthiest man in the world donates $250, $26 million to a campaign is awarded with the post in government where he does whatever he wants

and we work the executive branch, right? We're on the way to having our first trillionaires in this country. We can leave this point of immediate crisis and find ourselves in the world where democracy or the democratic ideal is still fundamentally threatened. And people need to feel that in order to believe in the need for deeper form. Where are we in the course of, or where should we be, or what do you perceive where we should be

in the sort of, I guess, rhetorical sequencing? Because, I mean, to say the, you know, obviously to say we need to save democracy insufficient. And I know you believe that we need to pair this with sort of the material deprivations or benefits that we could get, depending on how you look at it, with a functioning democracy. And the, where down the line, I guess, on the sort of like hierarchy of how broad those questions are.

I mean, so, I mean, I know, I don't know, I can't remember if you, if you identify as a democratic socialist or not, but where we should be as a rhetorically at this point both from like a you know sort of just electoral standpoint and where what kind of candidates we should be having is it enough i guess to sort of say like we're going to get rid of the authoritarian without talking about the reasons why and how sort of material those reasons are yeah i mean what i always say is that i'm for I'm for a democracy in a broadest meaning and sense of that word. And so if we believe in democracy, again, that means that we're not just entitled to the vote and need to protect the vote, but it matters to us that an Amazon worker or a Walmart worker or a McDonald's worker can on the one hand vote, and I think this is right, on the basis of what they think our foreign policy should be with respect to Russia or Iran. But it has no place in their life where they can say, this is how I think Amazon should be run.

This is how I think Walmart should be run. This is how I think McDonald's should be run. That's a fundamental inequity and a democratic problem. How can it be that in the places where we are governed more intimately, immediately, and directly often than decisions are made in Washington, D.C.? How can it be in the places where we spend a third of our lives and drive our livelihoods? We have no agency and no say over our working lives. That is a democratic challenge.

And so I think what we say is, look, we believe, in not just saving democracy, protecting democracy. The project here is to create for the first time American democracy. This is a constructive project, a founding, in which we will not only have a democratic political system, but will also move towards a democratic economy. And in that way, really instantiate and create a society that is truly governed by ordinary people. That's the message, that's the vision. It's a way of talking about democracy that's not just the defensive institutions, this time when so many Americans distrust institutions, it's saying there is a place we want to go to society. There is a vision driving and animating us

of what a more democratic society looks like, of what a more just society would look like, and we are going to go there by instituting both political and economic reforms to empower us and to rest power back from the millionaires and the billionaires and the executives and the investors on Wall Street, who don't have the rights by virtue of their wealth, by virtue of the position in the economy to lord things of lord over us both in the economy and and in politics and you talk specifically about uh sanders proposal um to um develop uh structures that are more democratic within the workplace just briefly just outline that for for folks because i don't think it gets much attention no it doesn't and i think it's wild because this

was one of i think the most ambitious policy proposals any presidential candidate is made in the history of this country, got very little attention in 2020. So Sanders' idea, derived in the Labor Party, was that companies of a certain size, more than $100 million in revenue or in their balance sheet, or if they're just publicly traded at all, would be required over time to contribute about 20% of their shares to a fund that would be owned and controlled by their own workers.

So if you were worker at Amazon, there would be a fund at Amazon where 20% of Amazon's shares go, that would pay you as a worker a dividend and also give you voting rights over the decisions at Amazon, right? So it's 20%. It's not the majority, but this would still be a remarkable amount of power relative to now, given to the workers at Moiseo corporations in this country. It would be a way to embed democracy within these corporate structures. And there are all kinds of reforms I talk about in this vein towards the end of the book, because, again, I don't think that we can cleave apart the political and the economic sphere here, both as a matter of principle and is a practical reality. If inequality persists in the economy and the way that it's been,

that corrods and corrupts and prevents Washington from functioning the way that ought to, prevents our cities and communities and states from functioning the way that they ought to, because they're dominated by the wealth, the people are extracting from the economy. There has to be some kind of interwovenness here. And I think that one of the reasons why our democratic reform efforts on the political side have not succeeded is because we haven't taken the economic components seriously. You cannot do campaign finance reform. You cannot do lobbying reform, or at least it's going to be very, very hard, if the economy is dominated by people who then use their wealth to influence a political process and prevent you from enacting those reforms.

The other way that I think they're connected is, and this ought to be, you know, attractive to people who are very, very concerned about tribalism, polarization, all these kinds of things. If democracy is something that we practice not just every couple years in an election, but on a regular basis at work, We're learning how to engage with other people who might disagree with us, to compromise, to work together, to present your ideas, speak publicly, all of these skills that we don't really use or practice to develop outside elections. If work becomes a venue for those things, that might actually lead to better politics in some way. It's worth trying, at least, developing these skills a more regular basis in the places where we spend so much of our time. So anyway, I think there are all kinds of reasons why the economic sphere, the concept of economic democracy, which used to be talked about by the Roosevelt's and other folks, why that needs to make a resurgence here at this moment now? Because I don't know that the project of political reform succeeds without that. What is, you know, this seems to be the biggest sort of, the biggest challenge, it seems to me, is what is how?

How do you intervene in a system now that is self-perpetuating? Like, we're having this fight in the Democratic Party, obviously, you know, shorthand Bernie on his oligarchy tour and then, I don't know, you know, allowing crypto to buy essentially a Wild West market, which is sure to catch up with us at one point. But where, how do you break the cycle? Like, where the party is now sort of captured by the, the, we've hit some type of critical mass where the party in the system is captured by these things that have corrupted democracy to the extent that we could even have a functioning one with the structure that we had, the loss of faith in institutions, the, increase money in our politics, the exploitation of the weaknesses of the structure of our

democracy. What is the method in which we intervene? Yeah, I mean, I think that you have to build a public for this. You have to build a movement around these ideas. And, you know, I think that one of the central vehicles for that ought to be the labor movement in particular, I talk about that in the book. I think that unions are an instantiation of economic democracy to give workers more power agency at work through a collectively decided upon vehicle. When unions were active in this country, they contributed to the well-being of even non-union members by, you know, contributing to the political efforts behind the Great Society of New Deal. But I think that can also be the vehicles for transforming democratic politics in particular, if we empower them,

And again, these are, again, organizational venues, places where people can come together and participate in politics in new ways to be newly empowered as workers. So that's what people have been, you know, on the case about unions for a long time. I think we should see that and frame that as a democratic struggle. So that even people who don't necessarily consider themselves all the left, but they're worried by authoritarianism, we say, well, this is also a reason why you should be invested in things like the pro act, empowering unions again, because these are. vehicles, mechanisms for democracy too. So uniting Democrats who are, again, angry about Donald Trump, angry by authoritarianism, with people with an economic agenda on the left, on democratic ground, bringing those two sides of the party together, I think would be one way of, you know, electorally making some changes in primaries and within contests. But I think that those

constituencies are very cleaved apart. You have people who, you know, are very incensed about Trump, but don't have to have an economic agenda. And I think that it's possible to bring those people over, close to our side on the basis of democratic principles. You don't have to call yourself a leftist or socials necessarily, but if you believe in democracy, well, that implies certain things about the economy.

You should also join in with. That's what I would try, as far as the question of how we exert our influence within the Democratic Party is concerned. I think that there is an electoral message that pulls those sides of the party together in ways that left candidates might be able to utilize and primaries moving forward. I have to say that today, one of the more hopeful things I saw oddly came from James Carville.

I don't know how much power he has in the context of the Democratic establishment these days. But he's calling for, you know, more aggressively adding states when a Democrat. get back into power, the hopes that they do, and expanding the Supreme Court, which I think that, like, some of these procedural things, structural things will also give momentum and more ability to those people who want to push these more material economic reforms. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, I mean, if you pass a piece of pro-labor legislation.

legislation now and you haven't put more liberal justices on the Supreme Court, it maybe gets torn apart by this conservative majority, right? So you need to deal with the court for that reason first. I think that there's like a logical priority here where statehood and packing court and, you know, democratic reforms of the kinds that were for the People Act, those happen first and then enable the passage of other parts of the substantive agenda later on. But I think it's important for people to understand, or be told at least by Democrats, because I think it's true, that the reason why these things all to happen is not just this kind of naked, partisan power grab for its own sake, but this is the way to make the system more democratic, and this is the way

constructively, or substantively rather, we make it easier for us to pass the policies the American people want and need. If people wake up one day and they see on the CNN, and the Democrats have ad justice to the Supreme Court or they've, you know, they've granted statehood to a bunch of territories. And they don't know why that's happened. There's no context for it and they don't have any kind of background reason to support it. I think the will fall for a lot of propaganda and a lot of critical arguments on from the right and maybe from the center about why this is bad. There needs to be a real compelling message animating support for these policies. So it's good that Carville is saying that this needs to

happened, but I think, you know, there needs to be a rhetoric and argument about democracy, what it means, why we don't have one, and why we need one, that the public is hearing and the public believes to move these things forward. Right now, what the public is getting is the Constitution is great, the institutions are great, and Donald Trump's breaking them. And so to switch over and say, you know, we're going to do all kinds of new, you know, post-institutional or non-institutional stuff. it's going to hit, I think, the American voter weirdly unless we've actually built up this argument. No, actually, the Constitution is not perfect.

It was not this thing that was signed and came down on tablets from some mountain. It was a political compromise and so on. If we're not talking about the need for institution reform and then we go on and expect our ability to do it when Democrats come into power, I think we're not going to succeed in the way that we all do. It's interesting because I feel like the fight that we're seeing in terms of redistricting is a model.

You know, you're starting to read stories now. You know, the Democrats have reversed themselves in this instance. And it doesn't seem to be sticking too hard. And Republicans trying to argue hypocrisy is always sort of a fun look for them. But this is sort of like a blueprint. print for that, right? Where it's sort of like, you know, we're going to, we're not going to be bound by norms for the sake of, without recognizing that there is, that it adds to inequities. Yeah. I mean, I think it could be a model. I mean, I think that Democrats who are saying we're just

going to do this in kind. I mean, obviously, I think that makes some substantive sense. I don't think I'm hearing enough about why for an ordinary person who's not plug into politics, this is a good thing for Democrats to do in response. I think that they need to be told a story here. There need to be a kind of narrative that gets them to understand, okay, we have this messed up process for redistricting, which we should change, by the way, but we have this messed up process for redistricting. Republicans invested a lot in doing it before. It contributed to the erosion, the destruction, of the democratic process. It allowed for people who supported Donald Trump's effort to overturn the election to be elected.

And so Democrats now have grounds to redistrict in this particular way now, not just because we like winning for the sake of winning, but because we're going to use these new seats to deliver us a more just democratic system in the future. That, I feel like is not being, I feel like that, that idea is not in the mix right now as much. It's just, it's just a kind of, bravado. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. And there needs to be a more material foundation for any of this stuff. And I think, you know, some of the Democrats have an allergy to that, but hopefully they'll lose it.

Acida Wanevue, the book is the right of the people, democracy in the case for a new American founding, really. important, very timely book. I certainly feel like I need to brush up on why some of these sort of foundational claims that I have made over the course of 20 years of doing this. Things I never thought I'd have to justify and need to be justified now. Really appreciate you're coming on and talking about it. Thanks as always. All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break, and of course we're going to put a link to Ocita's book at

Majority.fm and in the podcast and YouTube description. We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, apparently Mark Marin showed up to talk about the ending of his podcast and

how it appears that those podcasts that came out of Air America, this one It may end up lasting longer. We'll be right back after this. We are back, Sam Cedar. On the majority part, Emma Vigland is out today.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a real pleasure to welcome back to the program, Mark Maron, of the WTF pod. And, of course, you have a new special out, too. Yeah, new special, Panicked on HBO. it's kind of uh it's the best one i think um you seem really happy to be here mark i'm thrilled sam i'm always thrilled to uh to wonder what i'm going to have to take what am i going to have to put up with now you know i was just going to texting i was it's explained to brian who's new uh on the show uh it's like i can it's just so obvious that mark uh is really this is

the level of reluctance that is that is just coming across you can't see it in the text per se but the subtext of the texts that brought this about I go back and you know there's always sort of the question of like this is going to start off nice and then I'm probably going to take a couple of hits

but I don't mind that and then you're going to feel better about yourself and I'm going to say why do that right i mean that's uh and that's why i was actually contemplating coming in very quick uh with the attacks and then trying to finish uh in uh a more friendly fashion you've been all over the place these days you've done so much media first off yeah go ahead no you go well i mean you're you're wrapping up wTF and you know you i mean you've been on a a huge media junk and i've seen you

It's crazy because everything was happening at once. You know, Brendan and I announced that we were stopping it with enough time for everybody to adjust and for there to be some sort of kind of attention for it because when you choose to stop something and decide that this is no longer a desperate need to provide content in that the way we did it sort of is a body of work. when you stop it and you have this legacy of this body of work and it did have whatever impact it had culturally, it gets attention. And along with that, then I had, you know, the stick thing with Owen Wilson and then the bad guys movie and the doc and then the special. So it's been fucking nuts. Yeah, you know, I haven't seen the doc. Am I in it? I was interviewed. Did I get

Yeah, you are in it. Yeah. It just got, it got a distribution deal. And I think it should be in some theaters in October, I guess, we're hoping. And you financed this documentary. No, I didn't have anything to do with it. I'm joking. I mean, you know, it was interesting, though, you know, with Stephen Fine Arts. And in terms of, you know, like who I am and what I do, like, you know, people always wonder about, you know, how much control do you have over a doc.

And I just, I told him to do whatever he's going to do. I mean, you know, how much am I really hiding? You know, so it's not like, I mean, I don't. I don't look great in some of it. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that comes across just when you, when that comes across just when, I mean, even in this interview, I think there's a lot of things that people are probably already saying.

Yeah, well, that was the thing is that I find that, the funny thing about the doc is Stephen Fine Arts, who directed this new special, I had my last one. And he directed the doc. And, you know, I find him annoying. And so he was following me. around for three years. So the tone of the doc, a lot of it, unfortunately, is me going like, when is this going to end? How long do we, so, so I kind of, I seem more cranky than I really am.

Really? I think so. I mean, do you not, like, does that, you don't feel like that crankiness is just there? You think it was, it was a function of the documentarian being there? I mean, maybe it's like one of those things like what is it is it the the um what is it i i can never remember what that uh what that principle is like something observed uh doesn't well what is it the high high as somebody i don't know don't you have a producer sitting there um yeah he's just trying to figure out of what's playing tetras on his phone uh that's um record score but the well i mean okay so but you know me and you know me And, you know, I think what's happened is, if I am cranky, that was the hardest thing about the doc is watching me at home and living my life from an outside point of view.

I was like, Jesus Christ, this guy's, you know, a little peculiar. And then they also had clips of me doing comedy in the 80s. And that was the cringiest part. All the emotional stuff I had no problem with, but seeing me at stitches in 1988, I gave them that. I gave them a bunch of stuff I have in boxes. And that was the hardest thing to watch. But, yeah, I get that I'm cranky, but I don't think I'm angry cranky like it used to be. I think that, like, there's a, you know, it's a little softer.

Yeah, I was going to say that. I mean, the show, my observation of you over the course of the past, like, whatever, it's been 15, 16 years since we work together. We had a very successful breakroom live that a lot of people remember. Sure, you can still get those clips on YouTube. Yeah. Yeah. I think I actually have still have control. that account. But nevertheless, get it out there.

Oh, yeah. Believe me. Believe me. This is, this is the time to cash in on that. There's a lot of recipes. We were ahead of the curve doing streaming before people could stream. I don't think people really give us credit for that. We were, we were doing the streaming thing before anyone even knew how to do it. Well, I mean, to be fair, you were doing it even 10 years before that with that, what was it that, Emma, that, that, oh yeah, the Microsoft the, yeah, what was that called?

This is, I can't remember now that that, but, yeah, it only streamed within the Microsoft campus, I think. Yeah, you could, I mean, it was all, and it was literally, I think it was literally literally mostly dial-up streaming. I think so, yeah, because all that animation was. Like four frames a minute.

Yeah, yeah. It was all clunky. It was produced by Broadway video, Jim Biederman. Yep. And Nick McKinney was the head writer. And we interviewed a lot of people that were, you know, available through SNL. That, and nobody, I don't even think it exists anywhere. No, I don't even know if there's tapes.

I did a couple of stringer things for you, I think. But it was literally, I think it was in the next room. But nevertheless, my observation is that over the course of the past, 16 years and you've had a tremendous amount of success first with the show and then with your acting and

with your new glasses and all of it. And you also I mean you suffered some some tragedy with your girlfriend passing but it definitely

sort of took some of the rough edges off. I think some of the resent that you carried around about, you know, your career and other people's success, which I think is, you know, well-documented, faded. The real question is, well, yeah, definitely. And that's what my, that's what my next question is. How quickly do you think you're going to revert after the show is canceled? Like, it's, the last show is going to be in September. Do you think this is going to be something like you're going to make it to Thanksgiving or will it take longer for you to

revert back to that? I don't know because I'm like I'm very aware of it of my own insecurities and and jealousies. And I have been able to frame it in in a different way than I used to. Like at some point I had the realization that like I'm jealous of people that are doing something I don't even want to do. Right. And on top of that, I couldn't do it. So I've become more comfortable with my place in the world. And I think some of the resentment, it's not, I think most of what I could have been,

it could have been resentment at a different time. I think most of the stuff that I'm angry about in terms of the community that I exist in and work in is fairly justified. So I've become better at separating, you know, my own personal, issues you know that come from you know insecurity whatever and and just principle so that's gotten a little better and certainly the world of comedy right now there there is a way i want to get to that some of that stuff yeah to discuss that in and i think an honest way that isn't based in in pettiness but but i am concerned about the amount of time i'm going to have and sadly the the resentment

because it can't fuel me like it used to because i'm on to myself, I'm more concerned about just general sadness and anxiety. That seems to be the bigger fears. I have this space. I'm not going to run around hating on people or starting shit, but the weight of the world will kind of will get me into a place of despair that I don't have an outlet for. So I have to find out a way to get personal support and also figure out what to do with my work from this point on, you know? I mean, this is, there's a couple of things I think that you have an option. I would say a therapist, like just with you, with you.

No, I'm saying like maybe 15 hours a day. 50 hours a day. And I think like your Twitter feed could end up being very problematic for you at one point. I don't do any of it. Now you don't. But I'm talking about after the show is done. Oh, yeah. No, no, no.

here's what'll happen you know twitter is out you know i just i promote the show you know i post the show up and that's it um and i i don't engage with anymore because the algorithm algorithm is as such words like what i don't even read that many i don't read comments instagram or something whatever it's going to be i'll get on instagram live probably and yeah that's my big fear it might be my big fear is like i've had brenda macdonald you know kind of you know watching my back for 20 years and he's the guy like you know i put stuff in the opening monologues of the podcast where i know like brandon's not going to put this in there so like he's actually protected me from myself for a long time

but even in this round of press i do have an inner brandon so even during this round of press i was fairly calculating about you know whatever beefs i had and and whether they were justified or not so like I'm not I I do have a propensity to sort of impulsively say things but I do have a little don't hit send thing in my head about what comes out of my mouth I'm I know that you have that now I'm just saying that when the show is like you know because listen there's been there's a lot of like comedians out there you see at the the clubs who you know are going to be careful not to over the past couple years, 10 years plus, I can't get on the wrong side of Marin because I want to go do his show. And then now they're just going to be like, fuck that guy. Yeah, well, that's been my whole life. I mean, I don't know like, I mean, like there's, you know, the fuck that guy contingent has always been out there. But I don't know that there's, I think the people that didn't get, I think most people have gotten on the show. I mean, if they're younger, and it was sort of their

aspiration, you know, what can I tell you? We're ending it. But I mean, who hasn't done the show that really wanted to do the show that, you know, I could jive with? There's not many. Was there, I mean, have you been asked a bunch? I haven't seen all the stuff that you've done. Although, you know, people, people have been sending me stuff. Like, people, I know you were on smartless. Somebody sent me a clip of that. And my name came up. You were, you didn't seem very happy about that actually in that moment. Really? Yeah, he seemed upset.

I don't know if I was upset. I think like the right, I think it's middle of, I think it's endearing upset. Like when your name comes up, I'm like, yeah, yeah, well, Sam, so it's that tone. Right. I mean, yeah, it was not, fuck that guy. And it was also, no, it was not fucked that. It was more like, hey, I only got an hour. I'm not going to, wait, okay.

I'm sure that if you, we just pull him up, he's talking somewhere. We just spent four seconds on that. That's enough. I only have an hour to talk. That's it. But didn't we plug your show or something? I mean, no,

I mean, you moved on very quickly. I think it was, it was, it seemed uncomfortable, actually, because, you know,

they were like, you know, Will I used to be pretty good friends with. And, uh, a Bateman would, would come on, uh,

the show with Janine. Uh, and I think the, your tone, I think, I mean, you know, you can't see anybody because it's just audio.

But the tone, I think, was like, oh, okay, this is a sensitive subject, and people moved on. But that's not the point. That's not the point. So let's, I don't know what the point was. But the, so let's talk about. In terms of me getting in trouble, you seem to be kind of like, I feel that the kind of structure of this interview is kind of exploring and half hoping for my, meltdown publicly yeah after with w t yeah yeah i mean that's that's the uh i mean to the extent that there's a structure i wouldn't call it a structure it's more like the agenda uh but uh yeah i mean i didn't structure it um yeah yeah but yeah yeah yeah go ahead um but but all right let's talk

but so we've gotten there it's it's clear you're not going to although you're going for the for the nicotine gum so that's good is that what it is that gum or is that the That's the big thing now, everybody, right? It's just straight nicotine? Yeah, I mean, it's as straight as like the gum or anything else, but it's got flavor and it, you know, it sits in your mouth and I'm sure we'll find out just how bad they are for everybody in about five years. Right.

I'm always on nicotine of some kind. I kind of like these. I feel bad because everyone else does, but the gum's okay. Yeah, it's nicotine. So, all right. What about you? You smoking? No.

I mean, you know, I have a. when I go to my one vice in Las Vegas What? Well, I go on a tour conference and occasionally I'll you know, a cigarette in the casino? Yeah. Because they smoke indoors.

Exactly, right? One time. Yeah. So the the thing that I have noticed that you're, you know, we played a clip of you talking about if the O'Von had an opportunity into you, Hitler. That was very funny.

and we have a clip I don't think we'll play it right now of you on the Howie Mandel show talking which has been traveled a little bit about talking about the sort of anti-woke contingency comedy and I want to get into that but it's what I find fascinating and it was really I feel like Howie Mandel was not prepared for that

that conversation like a classic late boomer who you know they they lock into just the surfaced ideas, which is shallow, and they don't have any conversation deeper than that. And it's not uncommon. He's not living in the world of discourse or even politics. You know, he's a rich guy that's sort of like, you know, I just want to stay busy. And then, you know, they all get this kind of like, well, you know, people should be able to say whatever. It's like, it's not even about that anymore. Was it ever, though? I mean, it's not like you're going to get taken off. This is not like

Lenny Bruce getting arrested. It's just about the audience is saying, hey, man, I don't like what you're doing. Well, it's about, it's just straight up about representation in marginalized communities, vulnerable people. And it's like they, we don't have to break it all down. But you know and I know it was never just about the words. But ultimately, these guys were marks for the right wing propaganda machine and absorbed by their agenda. And spearheaded, you know, what was in their eyes, I talk about in this. special, this ability to say words they wanted to say, but they used anti-woke to dismantle all

progressive policy for everybody. Yeah. So it's partially on them, and I can't, I can't separate it, you know, whether they were willing collaborators or, or just, you know, grifting for themselves. I mean, it's like, fuck them, you know. It was interesting when he said that he doesn't think comedians had that kind of power, literally the day before stories come out about the White House wanting to ask Joe Rogan to please stop talking about Epstein. And I mean, let's talk about it because the thing that I find fascinating about this era, aside from the sort of the right-wing influence with these comedians, is when we were on Air America, when we first joined in 2004, there was a complete, not a total, but a pretty

complete lack of comedians being political. Like literally all of the people who were political in comedy probably worked at Air America, you know, as a writer. You know, Crimmons was there at that time. And it's completely different now. I mean, it changed over the course of, I don't know if it was from social media or the nature of the world. But I just remember in 2004-05 the intense pressure from, needs management, my management at that time was like, what do you, what are you doing? Now, are we done with this? Or, you know, and other comedians going like, what, what are you doing?

I think that I really think that political comedy in general was always a niche thing. And the guys that did it, I mean, historically, there's only a handful at any one time. And most of the politics, you know, going on, most of the political comics of that time, who were strictly political, who do that, I mean, just to say political comic, it's kind of boring. And I don't know that I was ever a political comic, but it has been my responsibility to myself to address it for at least a portion of the show to show where I stand and offer my perspective on that, whether you agree with it or not, or whether it's well-informed or not.

But I've never considered myself a political comic. And in the last three specials, they're almost structured like that, that there's going to be this section where I'm going to deal with that. that. And then we do the other stuff, personal, dark stuff, stuff that's a little lighter. But political comedy, I mean, even back in the 80s, dude, I mean, remember it was like Will Durst, Jimmy Tingle, Barry Crimmons, and, you know, that was it. But I'm not talking about political comedians. I'm talking about comedians actually even engaging in politics. Yeah, but it's too, it's, it requires an engagement with the narrative.

And then, you know, once you sort of parse that, you know, how do you make that funny? Comedians in general, I'm not saying all of them, but they're, and most people now, they don't have a big picture. They have a reactive engagement with bits and pieces of shit that, you know, pop their endorphins and then they repeat clickbait. And yet the depth of it is not understood. And now you have comics. The other shift, too, with the right-wing political comics, is that there's a blurring of the line of comic and a commentator or influencer all of a sudden within the last 10 years you have comedians who are like you know talking about you know china relations and it's like okay

I guess that's part of the job I don't know when that happened but I mean the I what I mean Air America was uh oh yeah we did it another thing it's our fault okay well I mean, I don't think there's necessarily something wrong with it. Obviously, that's what I do. I don't know that I'm a comedian. I feel like I'm more of like a political commentator who's mildly amusing. You're very funny. But I think, but I, what interests me more is that we started in a time where showbiz people,

including comedians were almost actively disinterested and over the course of that time it's very different yeah but but it was always a divisive thing I mean the idea was that you know if you're going to be an entertainer you know why alienate

this group of people I mean it was always calculated it wasn't you know it's not some mystery and also to speak in depth about politics I'm usually over my head, and it's, it's taking me a long time to just be broad enough from however much I'm informed to make statements that I think are based in my beliefs. I mean, when I was on Air America, even on our show, you know, I was out of my depth in a

lot of ways just with, you know, keeping on top of the, of the narrative and being able to sort of critically understand it. So I don't claim to do that. But I think a lot of people now, because of the advent of never-ending bullshit information, they claim that they can do that. And the right wing has opened up, this sort of expanded the minds of fairly shallow people into believing that they can debate, that they have a point of view,

and that it's based in this very slippery slope of evolving bullshit that gets them worked up. So in terms of the left, I don't know. I think in the special, I did a pretty good job of trying to sort of balance and take a few shots at myself and vis-a-vis the people in the audience who are mostly, you know, leftist or, you know, lefty people. And I think it sort of worked. But I don't know. We're not known to be hilarious, you know.

Wait, what? What do we mean? We like you and I? No, no, no. I'm just saying that when you have like the idea of like a political comic, when we were doing Air America, without naming names, there were like two or three people that were doing, you know, lefty political comedy. And it is so niche and almost impossible to make entertaining or to make mainstream. You know, the only thing I can say about what I've been doing over the last decade or two in terms of the comedy is that I know that this special has. a point of view politically does not provide you know i'm not being self-righteous or trying to answer questions but i do though that it is a mainstream special that i believe there's something in there for everybody and whether that'll deliver the message to people that right hear it that's not the issue yeah i'm i'm not talking about uh political comedians is a different species i'm talking more about comedians people agreed to talk about yeah yeah and now they they totally are but

But now we got a problem. I mean, you know, we, you know, until people realize and adjust to the fact that we're living in an authoritarian country, you know, which I don't think a lot of people, again, big picture don't frame it that way. No. But then it becomes, there's a self-censorship that happens. And the thing I was saying right after he was elected is like, dude, it was, you know, 75 million against 77.5 million. It's not like, you know, you have to censor yourself. you're going to be talking to a room that at worst is going to be 50-50. So why are you going to lose your balls now?

You mean in terms of like people who are arguing, well, I mean, we're living in an authoritarian era. And I think that casts appall on a lot of people in ways that they're probably not even necessarily conscious about. Well, they're not just of fear. Yeah, that's what I mean. Yeah. The self-censory. They shut up. It is self-censoring.

And it's hard to get over it. but if you're playing in like well i have an audience now fine but if i'm at the comedy store and again i'm not you know running around doing clubs i am sometimes but now after a certain point most people know who you are and what you do but i think in a general way you know especially in los angeles to kind of keep working those muscles of pushing the envelope a little bit politically you'll you'll sort of see it's in the opening of the special it's very clear that when I do the ironic take on how great America

is now, most people know it is not. Most rational people and I'm talking about the other 150 million people that didn't vote. They know that it's scary and bad and they're afraid

to sort of I think acknowledge it to themselves so when you release a little bit through laughter, I can hear that they're like, yeah, it's fucked up. Now, and I we'll continue to say that the people that think this is exactly how America should be going is they're bad people there's you know like even if they're single issue republican voters it's like well look what you did yep and and so and I think that's funny to to most of the other people

but the the power of the propaganda on all levels just because it feeds itself now is really you know you know breaking people's brains and there probably on some level, kind of legitimately afraid. I mean, it's not getting any less scary in terms of being a public person. You know, like, it's a lot. And if you're going to talk about it, you are going to feel a target on you, whether it's from within or outside yourself. But they're both equally as detrimental.

I know you do some touring, but can you, I imagine on some level, now your audience are sort of self-selected. So it's a little bit tougher for you to sense, like, has there been a marked change in people's perspective on that question of whatever it is, authoritarianism or what they're sensitive to? Or have you noticed that over the years? Well, I think what happened for me and what kind of led me to the decision I made to, you know, instead of be general about, you know, my political instance.

insights or what's happening culturally, you know, in a way where, you know, the jokes are detached that over, you know, and just sort of me saying them in a provocative way, over the course of touring after this Trump election, I realized that, you know, I would be going to some red states, but I would be selling, you know, 800 to 1,100 tickets. And the people that came were like me. They were scared. They're isolated a lot of them. They're surrounded. They're surrounded, you know, by people that you don't, you no longer know what your neighbor thinks or what's dangerous for you to say just in a community level. Some of them, you know, are just on their phones in despair with whoever they're living with. And the feeling of the, of the crowds was

that, holy shit, I'm providing a community service here. These people would not all to get together in this area for any reason, you know, maybe some of them are motivated to go to a town hall or or whatever, but they're all here and they're all like-minded and that, you know, this is, you know, I'm going, this is a safe space because you're talking about people that are at work and they don't know if they can talk, you know, they don't know if they can talk, you know, to the teachers at the school. So, so once I started to feel that, I realized that in this special in the opening 15 minutes, that I am going to be part of that community and speak to them directly about their flaws and about where we're at. to relieve some fear and to have some self-reflection and get some left. So I was specifically talking to them because I thought that was important. So how long do you think it's going to be until you start another podcast or restart WTF after after that? Well, I would never start restart WTF. I won't do anything like WTF without Brendan involved because you know he's half of it for real you know our relationship as you know really half i mean do you

think like maybe 55 percent i would say even sure i'll give him 70 i don't i don't care you know you know yeah i mean it doesn't work without him um and you know it seems to what what i've learned over the course of it is that a lot of people you know you know for a while there you're like well they're just here for the interviews but a lot of people were there it's really a show about me mostly. And people are invested. Is that true? Kind of. Yeah, it is. Yeah. So people have been kind of invested in how I talk and how I think and in what's gone on in my life. So I think that there is that part of me that's about 20% of like, you know, I kind of have a responsibility to those people because, you know, they're not unlike me. It's not easy getting through the day

because of your brain and stuff. So if I do anything, I don't believe it would be an interview show. But if there was a way for me to show up, maybe on, you know, Instagram Live, or if I jumped into one of these existing podcast networks to do like a video thing, it would probably be, you know, just me. But I'd have to sort of take the ego hit of starting from that point and figure out what that is. But I'm not in a hurry to do that. But that's the narrow group of people who listen to the,

up front monologue. Yeah, it's not, it's a lot, though. I mean, yeah, I know. I'm talking about that. But even, even that small amount of people is probably,

it probably dwarfs how many people listen to your show. I mean, my favorite part of, when I came out to do your TV show, the, we did that episode on the, uh, podcast,

um, the Pat, the patent troll when we were getting sued by the guy who supposedly patented podcasts. My favorite part of doing your show was adding

a line about skipping over your monologue in your podcast. It sort of became less and less in a weird way because I used to get a lot of emails Is that what Brandon would tell you? No. I used to get a lot of emails

for people who were like I used to skip it, but now I'm like, it's like I kind of look forward to it. So I think that. I don't know if you can really measure that. I got to tell you, you could barely listen to me when I was sitting next to you when we were doing a show. You can barely listen to me now. I'm not talking about me. I'm just saying that I know that when I directed Gary Busey, we would send him fake emails to essentially influence what he would do in the show.

And you're saying Brendan has been running this fake email. No, he would not take the time to do that. No, he wouldn't, but there were times where he would ask me, like, do you know anybody who's looking for a gig to just write? It wouldn't require anything. You just have to make a Gmail account. Just a couple of emails. And I'll send them the copy, yeah.

Yeah, well, maybe. I don't know, you know, I don't know. All I know is that there is part of me that is ready to stop, which is good. that is good but you've been acting so much yeah but i i don't you know you feel your acting skills have gotten better a bit i think they have a bit uh they would have to or i don't know why i would do it because i don't have to do it and i generally when i'm offered things i don't want to do it because i don't know if i have figured out how to fully find how acting is like satisfying creatively and I'm trying to do that by taking chances

and trying to deepen whatever craft I'm putting together for that gig but there's still so much waiting around and I don't like being away from home and so much of that is required and how many times during a production are you in your your dressing room or in your trailer

and do you like throw your script down and go why the F am I doing this? what the F is going on here. This is so effing stupid. No, I don't get the stupid thing or why am I doing this for those reasons. What I get no matter what is, you know, once you're in the trailer and then they're like, yeah, they're just doing the scene before you, so it shouldn't be that long. Three hours later, I'm still in the trail and I'm going, what could they be doing?

I mean, we can shoot this on my fucking phone. You know, it's not like this is stupid, but it's like, how is this taking so long? how many times do they got to do you know so that that's difficult but that's how that seems healthy because you've you've externalized that you're not turning on yourself you're not saying i mean that's you're not saying like i made a stupid decision to do this well that that that happens yeah yeah that happens but but it's mostly because there's just so much time i mean like you know i'm a guy that's entire creative creative life is is based on somewhat immediate gratification. So the process of putting together something or being part of something,

even a small part of something much bigger and sort of accepting that and waiting to do these little two to three minute bits that you repeat over and over again and then you go wait four hours, it's very hard for me to see the part of it that's gratifying creatively. But I did play a lead in an indie that, you know, maybe you'll find its way out eventually. But it was was kind of a crazy great script and movie. And I did have a meltdown in the trailer that was pretty, pretty phenomenal. Oh, yeah? Because I'd chosen, you know, I felt that I was ready to do this.

Rob Burnett, you know, Rob. He wrote this amazing script that was a great, you know, role for me. But it was, it was a lot. And it was definitely a risk for me. But I'm like, well, fuck it. You know, you got to, you know, if you're not willing to fail, just, you know, tossing the towel. But there's a scene I did with Sharon Stone, you know, and, and dude, we, you know, we shot, it's one scene, we shot two masters before lunch, and she was just eating me for fucking lunch, dude. I couldn't, couldn't hold the character, couldn't like, it was just, like, it was, I was kind of falling into myself, and I thought that, you know, the entire crew after each take was like, well, this is going to be a rough one.

So, so I, I went back to the trailer, and this is Midway. into this movie that I'm the star of and I got David Martin sitting there. I'm like, get me out of this. What the fuck were we even thinking? That Sharon Stone, my fucking nuts. And I'm playing an actor in the fucking movie. And I don't think I'm a good actor. I'm like,

this is, fuck. We got to end this right now. How the fuck am I going to do? It was crazy. And he just sat there and took it. And then that's what I wanted to here. Yeah. And once I got through that, I was sort of like, dude, you better you better step up here.

because there's no way out. You better figure this out. And fortunately, I just talked to Al Pacino, you know, and, you know, he gave me some inspiration. And, you know, after talking to all these actors, and, you know, there does come to a point with this stuff, with comedy and with anything, where if I know, and I can't know it,

that I've really doing the best I can, then that's all you can do. You know, like, if it doesn't, if it's not good enough, Oh, well, you tried. You know, if people don't like it, okay, but that's really the best. I could not do it any other way. And Sharon helped me a great deal, and I've told the story a couple of times.

It was a life-changing, powerful thing because a lot of the people that came on to this movie did it because of me. She likes me, so she did this little movie. Lily Gladstone wanted to do comedy, and I talked to her, and she came on board. Alan Ruck is in it. Michael McKean plays my manager, and I don't think I had. anything to do with that. But, you know, these are pretty heavy hitters. But when I went back to do the scene with Sharon and talk to her about what I was feeling and what I was concerned about, she just kind of broke me, dude. Like, do you know the story? I don't know this story.

Well, in this scene, do you know what the movie's about? No. Oh, it's called In Memorium. And it's about an actor. I did as much research. for this as you do for your I guess you started to do more research. Yeah, no, I do research, but if I know the guy, I do less. So

the picture of the movie, and I think you'll like it, it's about an actor, who's, you know, me, my age. He was a, he was a kind of like an up-and-coming great actor when he was in his 20s, and he did a bunch of big movies. You know, he was happening. You know, he had a co-star in these three or four

movies. He ended up taking her from her husband. been in the fourth movie tanked and she left him and he was kind of wandering around doing bit parts and some movies and you know you know things on television it opens with me in a scene on a procedural but since you know he was younger he took a sitcom that made him a star for like five years this kind of crappy sitcom and that's how everyone knows him but he sees himself as a great actor so at the beginning of the movie he's diagnosed with stage four you know colon cancer and he becomes obsessed with the need

to be in the in-memorium montage at the Oscars. It's going to be the only thing that gives his life meaning, but he doesn't really have the resume for it. So he's got to figure out a way to get into the in-memorium montage. It's a pretty funny premise, right? So I forego chemo to try to die on time, and then I've got to figure out how to elevate my profile.

my profile to get into the montage. And I've burned a lot of bridges and I'm a selfish fuck. I've got this daughter who's estranged who I don't know. Well, anyways, so the scene with Sharon is she plays the woman who was in those movies with me, you know, back in the day, an ex-wife. And, you know, she's gone on to win several Oscars, do 70 films. And right as I'm about to get into the montage, it's released in the news that she also has cancer. So I think she's going to bump me out of the montage.

I haven't talked to her in years, but I've got to go over there and try to work it. Like, you know, it's a kind of a three-tiered scene where, first, I'm trying to feel her out for when she's going to die to see if she'll make the cut. Second, I try to get her, you know, to make an announcement that she wants me in the montage. And then third, you know, I just break down crying in a real way that, you know, she was my one true love and all this other stuff. so I got to cry it's a complicated scene emotionally and I go back after lunch after I've melted down and I tell Sharon I'm like look you know I don't know if I'm going to be able to pull off the crying I'm you know I'm self-conscious about it and she goes don't worry about that you know my son's an actor sometimes he uses that stuff you make you cry I'm like okay I just you know I want to get

there but I don't know if I can get there I'm trying and then she says well I think I think you can cry. You know, I mean, what makes you cry? I'm like, oh, I'm middle-aged man, you know, commercials and stuff. You know, I can cry. She goes, but I think we know what makes you cry. And I'm like, all right. And I go, are you talking about Lynn? You know, my, my girlfriend who passed away. She goes, yeah. And I'm like, yeah, I've been kind of thinking about that, but I don't know. And then she looks at me and she goes, look, you play the scene to Lynn and I'll make sure she's here. And it's like, you know, and then I'm like, I'm already crying, you know.

And I don't know in that moment that I quite, you know, figured I could do it to Lynn. But what I did know, because he kind of, when you want to cry as an actor, there's this idea like, well, think about a dog dying or your friend. But I think that's a trick. But what I did put in place was that I knew that Lynn. and because she was so supportive of me as an actor and was really my biggest champion, would be thrilled about what I was doing.

So I really just put her in place as watching me do it. Right. And kept her with me. Whether Sharon brought her there or not, you know, we were definitely crying at the end of that scene. Oh, that's good. Well, when is that movie coming out, do you know?

Well, they missed the window to get it into Toronto. I saw a final cut of it, and it's pretty moving because the relationship with my daughter is really the emotional, you know, heart of the movie. And I did pretty well with that actress that her name's, um, uh, writer. Oh, come on, dude.

We'll fix it in post. Uh, no, I, no, I, I want to, I want to, Talia, Talia Ryder. She's great. Did you see that movie sometimes always never, you know, the abortion movie, the indie? Dude. She's great. Every movie I watch is picked by a 12-year-old.

Okay. Have you seen bad guys too? So. Probably six times. Oh, it just came out. No, I haven't seen it. That's going to be hard for you. I haven't seen it.

So the, they're hoping to get it into Sundance and then it'll see if it has a wife after that. So that's not until January. Well, Mark, I think we've covered just about all of it was it was there uh anybody and now i i know there's been a lot of talk about

how it's weird that you're not inviting me back on on the last show uh and i just want to dispel uh the rumors that says been an issue around here a lot of people oh oh yeah well i honestly maybe i maybe it's going to spam but i haven't seen any of that uh coming in but um i specifically told people like don't don't don't do what you're planning to do with the emails i think what we're doing now is probably as good as it's going to get what this yeah we this is like you know what the the camera angle reminds me of that you got here is that uh maran v cedar who used to do i just honestly kept expecting like your appliance repair man to walk through there I, you know, buddy, I think the last show is probably going to end up just me, you know,

unless by some weird outside chance Obama wants to come on again. It feels like you have done every iteration. Like you've had one where Brendan comes on. Like if you hadn't done that, that would have been the one. Well, there's one good one that we just recorded yesterday, Judd Apatow, who's been a lifelong fan of the show, came in with like 40. clips from shows that he loved from the podcast

he like bound 40 he went through all the episodes and the weird thing was that I don't listen to them so my only recollection of these conversations is when I have the conversation because I don't listen to the podcast so he's playing me these clips and I'm like

oh my God like I had no idea that because I don't know what they sounded like you know in the final film yeah the people that I'm talking to and it was kind of Like, it was kind of moving. And I kind of felt like maybe I was pretty good at it. But, yeah, no, I, we don't really have a plan for that last show.

When is the last show? Mid-September? I don't know. You have to ask Brendan. He's keeping it from me. You're completely disengaged. You're kept from out all of it. He's sort of like Biden at this point.

Well, I think that's a little extreme. No, I just don't, like, it's better that I don't, you know, look at numbers or look at comments or no, you know, like I know who I'm going to talk to and stuff, and I know when it's going to go up. But the rest of it, I think it's just healthier that, you know, that I don't know. Okay. And lastly, two questions. One, does this mean the WTF blend is gone from just coffee? I don't know.

You'd have to ask them, but all of a sudden they really upped my coffee deliveries. Like, I could open a store right now. You still getting it? You know, I haven't gotten deliveries from them in a while. Weird. Maybe they're sending me yours. Are they sending the majority report blend? Oh, I don't pay attention. I don't think so. They don't send me the WTF blend anymore because I don't like dark roasts,

but they keep sending it. Oh, is that a scandal? People talking about that? You don't even endorse your own blend? I haven't really thought about it. We don't do ads for them anymore. This is just part of some weird promise. Oh, that's nice. They just keep sending them to me.

And lastly, are you concerned at all that this show, probably, assuming I stay healthy, is going to go on longer than WTF? You started in what? 2009, right? Yeah. When did you start? 2010. Yeah. Well, I don't know if I'm really concerned. I don't know why I'd be concerned.

You know, I just, I want you to keep, you know, fighting the good fight and doing what you do. I'm not threatened in any way by your success. I, uh, I find that so disappointing. Um, but I think maybe we got to check in in like six, eight months after the show is over because I have a feeling you'll be a little bit more, uh, like, you know, humble, just not, uh, humble's not the, uh, the, uh, I don't think you'll ever be more humble. I think it's really more, yeah, yeah. So that's the episode where I come on in six months and you pull up clips from earlier in this interview.

Yeah. Yeah. That's it. I think I called it. I think I called it. Yep. That's basically what it is. I did like a Tim Russert, just getting you on the record.

And then we'll play you back later. Mark Maren, congratulations. on the spectacular i mean everybody know we didn't you know everybody knows about the cultural significance of your show and really also on the entire uh uh for format uh which has spawned a lot of really actually not great stuff uh but i'm not going to hold you responsible for that you're not responsible for you know i just i just made it seem like anybody could do it and they did yeah and now they're ruining the country so yeah you know right well yeah i I try to, you know, like, look, you know, oftentimes.

It was helpful for you, and I think that's the important part. The important part, it was helpful for you, and it really reignited your career. So, you know. Okay. Okay. Yeah. American democracy, small price to pay. For my mental health and my success.

You're exactly right. Yeah. Exactly. And so. I'm glad you framed it that way because that, you know, just right on the money. Yeah. I mean, there you go. Yeah.

But, uh, Mark Maron. it was always it's always a pleasure to have you on um love you sam thank you though talk to you later thanks buddy okay man bye bye bye bye all right folks uh we i guess we're gonna do a freebie uh yeah it seems like we're rolling into freebie uh somebody's asking for an open invitation to have marron back on anytime i mean he knows he can come on whatever he wants did you think it's weird that he can't hold a character who's bitter and selfish and feels like he deserves more?

Well, sometimes people have trouble playing themselves. When I was, you know, when I did Maren Show, I was playing me and that was tough. Yeah. You try and make yourself seem a little bit nicer.

You know, on camera anyways. All right, let's get into it. Another two-hour free half. I know. Actually, it's going to be a two-and-a-half one. It's going to be a freebie Friday. Sean from Coca-Calie, please inform everyone to call their representatives.

Didler Don has done an executive order to illegally cancel the contract between the VA and my union, AFGE. Our lawyers will fight for us, but cannot see a judge until the end of the month. And our unions being removed entirely on the starting the 12th. Please, please help if you're taking calls. I can call from a 9-25, but it sounds like you're not doing calls today. Please, please get the message out. Left is best. Have you heard about this, Brian?

I have not, but I'm looking it up right now. Hack all things. Bring back Tim Heideker of the H-I-E-I network, you coward. I will. I will when that guy cancels his show. What do they call it? Office. After hours? Office hours? Office hours. Office hours. I don't know what it is.

We'll see. It's not the majority report. No. Um. All right. What you? Do you want to do this Harry Enton thing you pulled up last minute? Oh, uh, no. Let's go to, um, uh, Stephen Miller, uh, on this. Texas redistricting. Greg Abbott has now said that they're going to do special session after special session.

He's going to invoke it so that the Democrats, the Texas Democrats who are planning to be out of state for, I think a couple of months even, or up to, will be forced to provide quorum for a vote. to redistrict, essentially to create five new Republican districts or five districts that they hope will be Republican. Keep in mind, however, though, there are probably restrictions as to how late in the game districts can be changed. So the idea that Abbott is pushing would not necessarily be in place for the 2026 election. Meanwhile, you have Democrats in California. and New York, at least, who are saying that they may do a tit for tat.

But here's Stephen Miller on Fox, and it's interesting that they have to lie about this. The Democrats have gerrymandered this country beyond recognition. Republicans won in the biggest blue states, about 40% of the vote in the last election. States like California and New York, according to the official tally, but only got 20% of the votes. I'm talking about the House Republicans here. In 2024, House Republicans won a three-time larger popular vote margin than in 2010. In 2010, they picked up 63 seats. In 2024, four seats, even though they want to get a three-time larger victory in the popular vote margin, House Republicans. At every level of this country, Illinois, Chicago, New York, Massachusetts,

Democrats have gerrymandered the vote beyond recognition to try to maintain their advantage in the House elections. On top of it, let's not forget, Democrats rigged the 2020 census by including illegal aliens. Remember, they sued Donald Trump, they sued the administration, they fought tooth-the-nail to include illegal aliens in the census. 20 to 30 of House Democrat seats wouldn't exist but for illegal aliens. Texas is taking just a small corrective step against this ocean of fraud, this ocean of abuse by the corrupt Democrat Party, Sean. Okay. First off, the census constitutionally calls for a count of the people within the United States borders. period. Now, I think a lot of undocumented immigrants do not answer the census for reasons, particularly after Donald Trump's four years in office from 2016 to 2020 because of their own

sense of security. So I don't think that there are many who respond to the census. However, the census in the Constitution calls for counting all of the people in the United States if what was what he and what if what Stephen Miller was saying was true in terms of the redistricting in New York in California you would see something akin to what we have

in Wisconsin which is in note in Wisconsin they have changed the state Senate they haven't done it with the congressional district but the amount of votes, and this was in the case in Pennsylvania, the amount of votes that Democrats needed to win 51% in the state house

was close to 70% of the votes. They needed to win 70% of the votes to get to 51% majority in the state house. So, I mean, he's lying. We have Republican, we have in California, and in New York. They did an independent commissions. And clearly,

it was a political mistake. They should maximize their advantage. And what Texas Democrats are doing right now is completely part of the part of the rules of the House, which is you need to have a quorum. And you can break quorum. You can deny quorum.

uh so it's interesting that they feel like they have to go and lie about this because i think they feel like it's a losing um a losing strategy and it's quite clear what is motivating republicans in their redistricting attempt in texas they've also i think um they're looking i think in indiana maybe to do the same and pick up a seat ohio uh there's talk of. And let's play this Harry Emden clip. Fresh off the heels of having to issue a correction about Donald Trump's assessment of how Republicans are doing and how his approval rating is doing. Here is Harry Anton explaining why Republicans might be starting to freak out that they're going to lose the house in a big, big way.

So, you know, we're talking about warning signs for the Republican Party, and I will just say, uh-oh, for them. That is the phrase of the day, uh-oh, Democrats lean the generic congressional ballot, and you can see their lead is expanding. It's becoming bigger. Look at this in spring. CNBC, it was two. Now it's five. How about Ipsos? It was one for the Democrats.

Now it's four. How about the Wall Street Journal? It was one. And now it is three. So now the average lead here is four, which is up from just about a point. That's about a three-point move on average in the Democrats' direction. And of course, K-Fall, when this is coming amidst the fights over redistricting, and I think there are going to be a lot of people wondering,

wait a minute, are Republicans wanting to change the lines because they are losing, which they absolutely are on the generic congressional ballot. At this point, Democrats are winning, Republicans are losing, and maybe they're trying to change the lines in order to give themselves a little bit more wiggle room, given what we're seeing, a clear democratic momentum on the generic congressional ballot. How does it break down when you look at party ID? Okay, so this is one metric, right? The generic congressional ballot.

How about party identification, right? because the idea is, if you're a Democrat, you're very likely to vote Democratic. If you're a Republican, you're very likely to vote Republican. Take a look here, the party ID margin, Democrats versus Republicans. Look in quarter one of this year. Quinnipiac, Republicans had a lead of a point. Gallup, it was tight. Look at where we are now in the latest measures.

Again, Democratic momentum. This is a five-point move to the Democrats, according to Quinnipiac. Now they're up by four on Party ID. How about Gallup? What we see is Democrats ahead, ahead by three points. So again, what you're seeing is clear movement towards the Democratic party on a very key metric because if you're identifying as Democratic, you're far more likely to vote for the Democrat. You're identifying as Republican. You're far more likely to vote Republican.

And I will note, Kate, that this is a change from last year, especially among Gallup, when Republicans had held a rare lead going into the 2024 election. And that, of course, foreshadowed Donald Trump winning, foreshadowed Republicans taking the House, taking the Senate. And now, of course, Democrats are ahead here. This is a big, uh-oh, for Republicans as we are at the midpoint of 2025. But you're also, you see some signs as well, even beyond polling that you've been looking at you think could indicate. Yeah, okay. So this is the polling, right? You're looking at party ID. You're looking at the generic congressional about. How about the special elections? Look at this. And the median 2025 special elections so far, Democrats in these different districts, get this,

they're doing about 13 points better, the median Democrat than Kamala Harris did in those same districts last year. That is a huge, huge movement. And last year, we saw was, in fact, when you compare the 2024 special election results back to the Joe Biden baseline of 2020, Republicans were actually doing better than they did in 2020 in those. So again, this is clear movement towards the Democrats, and we're seeing on three different metrics, two polling and one in actual election results. Very interesting. Good to see you. Thanks for coming back in, Harry. My pleasure, Kate. Now, I should say, point of caution, the special elections are a tough measure because we know that,

Democrats have do better with more informed voters and so those special elections are going to attract voters who are more engaged and they tend to vote Democrat more than Republican I mean significantly so

you even see that in the context of primaries a similar dynamic that's why you see someone like Zoron you know trouncing Cuomo in New York. At this point

in 2017 Democrats average around 7 to 10 points ahead of Republicans. In 2025, however, it is a little bit less.

So it's encouraging. It's encouraging that it's moving in the right direction. But part of it is because the Democratic Party has as a party and in terms of like its establishment in terms of like its leaders

have yet to articulate any type of vision for what the country would look like under democratic rule and this may be I mean it may be that people are going to come out and vote against Republicans

because they don't like what Republicans are doing and maybe in the polls they're reluctant to say this because they're finding Democrats being so weak but the weakness here is with Democratic voters because the Democratic

leadership has failed to do really anything they had one or two leverage points and Chuck Schumer gave it away and so that's where we're at this point um we will see miggs trump ended the 2020 census early which resulted in an undercount of people in california and new york resulting in fewer congressional seats in both those states

uh biden time isn't there eventually a danger with gerrymandering when you try to establish a lot of districts where you lead by five to ten points what happens in an electoral year where there's a nationwide swing all your leads are inside that swing could be uh catastrophically bad yes and that's actually the the danger with for the texas uh republicans um they're terrorizing latinos and those are latino heavy districts and and you're shortening the leads of all republicans or you know narrowing the the partisan um uh advantage of all the Republicans in that state and you're doing it at a time where theoretically you're open

to potential democratic waves. I mean, the reason why we're seeing so little movement with seats, you know, Steve Miller complained about this. The reason why we're seeing so little movement with seats is because of gerrymandering, primarily from Republicans, to some extent from Democrats. But I understand, too, when Republicans say, okay, we're going to have, we've got 20 seats in this state, hypothetically, there's a 40% Democratic population. You would assume that's going to be eight Democratic seats, 12 Republican seats. When they make it 17 to 3 or 16 to 4, those four Democratic seats are incredibly safe because all the Democrats have been shoved into those seats. So you don't get a wild swing.

At one point, there's only so many seats to be picked up. What this aggressive redistricting might do is actually put more seats in play in an electoral season where there is potentially more, more of a wave. So we'll see. Let's play this clip. This is an Israeli hostage negotiator named Gershon Baskin. He was on with Pierce Morgan. And what's her name?

Brooke Goldstein. Brooke Goldstein. She is the one who said there is no Palestinian people. And this negotiator, Israeli hostage negotiator, begs to differ. People, when there are seven million Palestinian people, my wife was born here, I am not anti-Israel, but my government is committing war crimes in Gaza. and the arguments that were presented by Brooke belong in the garbage bin of history. It's an intellectual insult,

the kind of things that we heard here that insinuate that there's no such thing as a Palestinian people. When there are 7 million Palestinians living between the river and the sea, how can you deny the existence of a people? Seven million people who call themselves, excuse me, let me talk. What Israel is doing should not be tolerated by the Israeli public nor by anyone in the entire world. This war has to end.

Mustafa Barbuti is a hundred percent right that Hamas has given, in writing, in English, and in Arabic, I received from them in August of last year a commitment to end the war and return all the hostages, and then there was more than 100 hostages that they were holding. But they demand an end to the war. They demand that Israel withdraw from Gaza. They demand a release of Palestinian prisoners,

and they demand that humanitarian aid go into Gaza. they also added in writing twice I've received from them in Arabic that Hamas will not govern Gaza. Now, the big... This is an Israeli hostage negotiator, who I imagine realized like, what am I negotiating? Israel's not interested in this. That is for all the people who continually say over and over again, this can end if they give up all the hostages. Israel has already turned down that deal.

They have turned down the deal that involves Hamas returning the hostages and Hamas not maintaining power in Gaza. We can see, and it has been clear, and this guy's talking about a year ago, he got this in writing. Twice. in writing, twice. It has been clear for some time that the real agenda of the Israeli government is to do exactly what

Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday on Fox News. The way that it's presented in, unfortunately, in the New York Times, another, New York Times should be sued. I'm actually looking at whether a country Sorry, that's the wrong one. Play this.

Clip number five. Incidentally, he wants to sue the New York Times for defamation because New York Times is reporting that the people in Gaza are starving and that they're putting on children, they're taking pictures of children who have preexisting conditions, so their starvation doesn't count. By the way, the New York Times did as little as possible. There is, you could not find a greater propaganda mouthpiece for the Israeli government in the United States of ostensibly an unaffiliated newspaper than the New York Times. But here is Netanyahu on Fox yesterday, articulating what has been quite clear. The only agenda that the Israeli government has had had nothing to do with the hostages.

will Israel take control of all of Gaza we intend to in order to assure our security remove Hamas there enable the population to be free of Gaza and to pass it to civilian governance that is not Hamas and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel okay now he said probably a slip allow the residents to be free of Gaza which I think is probably also part of the plan

exactly what he meant but again we just saw a hostage negotiators say in writing Hamas twice put on the table they will not lead

Gaza anymore including returning the hostages and Israel is not interested Israel wants to occupy this land They ultimately want to annex it Like they're going to attempt to do with the West Bank Officially anyways That's what they want

I just go back a little bit and play it again The civilian governance That is not Hamas And not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel That's what we want to do We want to liberate ourselves And liberate the people of Gaza from the awful terror of Hamas and you were in the Gaza Strip today,

you met Palestinians who are fighting Hamas because finally they see that they have a future. They can rid themselves of this awful tyranny that not only holds our hostages, but holds two million Palestinians in Gaza hostage. That's got to end. Are you saying today that you will take control of the entire 26-mile Gaza Strip,

as it was 20 years ago to this month in 2005? Well, we don't want to keep it. We want to have a security perimeter. We don't want to govern it. We don't want to be there as a governing body. We want to hand it over to Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us and giving Gazans a good life. That's not possible with Hamas. The only way that you're going to have a different future is to get rid of this neo-Nazi army.

The Hamas are monsters. Look at what they're doing to our people. look at what they're doing to the way they massacred, rape, beheaded, our people, our men and women, burn our babies, and they are really cool to their own people because when we try to take them away from the combat zones, they shoot them. They want people to be civilian casualties. They want a starvation policy that they themselves are trying to put into being, and we're doing everything to reverse that. Even the New York Times would say that 80% of what he said in that clip was a total lie. And then just about every other news outlet would say 95% was a total lie. Just switch out Hamas with Israel and he's telling the truth. The idea that they're going to get an Arab force in there once they're taking control of the whole place is, is A, a fantasy. and B, a cover story.

This is what, I mean, this is what they have done time and time again. We're going in there to get the hostages back. They ignore offers to get the hostages. We're going in there to unseat Hamas. Hamas has been seriously disempowered. They do not have the ability to attack. Israel. Well, now we're going in there to get rid of Hamas, and we're going to have to control the entire country. And then we're going to hand it over. We'll just give it right back.

They're never going to hand it back over. Never. Never. All right. Let's move on. Try and do a... Let's do a fun one. Oh, well, this is actually interesting. Let's do this Nancy Mace video. I found this fascinating. Nancy Mace apparently is now running for South Carolina gubernatorial

she's engaged in a gubernatorial campaign. She's at, in fact, a gubernatorial campaign town hall in South Carolina. She is asked by a reporter how are you taking credit for a highway

project for a highway project that was federally funded that you voted against like how do you take credit for this? And of course, Nancy Mace answers like any sane person would.

That is misogyny. You I know, one of the accomplishments things you were touting was the I-5-26-en-change. What was the accident along the coin road? Yeah, not the interchange. But yeah. But

That funding came from the inflation reductions, which you voted against. Right. Is that an accomplishment, is that something you can tell? No, absolutely. I mean, absolutely I can tell that. And you're a raging Democrat, so raging leftist with that kind of questioning. And I would say as a woman, like you might want to think about how you view other women and how you treat other women the way you question them, because women are going to lead this country off the brink and conservative women.

the first female president of this country is going to be a conservative woman, not some liberal like you. Okay, again, just a question about the bill, whether you vote in a voter or not. I mean, can you imagine the look on that reporter's face? Like, are you seriously saying I'm a misogynist because I'm asking you how you can take credit

for funding provided by a bill passed by all Democrats that you voted against? careful you're going to get a me too charge just summarizing this you can't even you can't even ask the question it is fascinating to me how the um the republicans will utilize this stuff like how does how is nancy mace if we are to believe what uh republicans say how could nancy mace win anything in the use of, like, claiming misogyny

or claiming that the country is going to be run by women. It's not really a right-wing talking point. How is that possible? But here she is lying. She's, I mean, I think there's reason to suspect that she is a slightly disturbed person. And it is just amazing that she thinks she can get away with that. And maybe she can in South Carolina,

but that's impressive. the uh but just the idea i don't know maybe it's a way of just trying to intimidate reporters and making sure she doesn't get a question like that i don't think that's going to work i find it hard to believe it would but here is um here is uh charlie kirk in light of the fact that nancy may says that women are going to take this country from the brain conservative women and that we're going to have a conservative woman

be the first female president and that it's misogynistic to ask a question about your voting record are we to believe after this Charlie Kirk video that Nancy Mace does not consider herself a feminine woman? See, now I'm getting confused, but let's play this Charlie Click, because we just saw Nancy Mace make all these proclamations about women

as she was asked at this gubernatorial campaign, how can you take credit for funding on a highway project that you voted against? And then we have this Charlie Kirk thing. The cultural paradigm right now is a rebellion of the men of the West. It's happening in every major country where young men are finding podcasts like ours. They're finding other information conduits that believe in nature, believe in God's design, believe that men should have to stand up for the vulnerable, create a family, provide for the family, have to, to, to,

protect the weak, to fight the battles of society, to go on an adventure. This is very appealing to young men when they hear it. There's a lot that you can call Donald Trump. No one has ever called him feminine. In a toxicly feminine world, again, all the media missed this, and almost every cultural critic missed it. We didn't. In a toxicly feminine world, you have the absolute inverse. of that, which is like ultra

masculine. Never apologize. Red tie, big plain, super rich, supermodel wife, right? It's going to be big and Mexico's going to pay for it and more tariffs and it's like as bravado, strong men as

you can get. And young men didn't care that, you know, it wasn't even about policy. That's what people don't understand. It was partially policy. He was like, no, he is the middle finger to all of the screeching hall monitors that have told me I have to use certain pronouns, that have told me that, like, I'm bad for existing, that have penalized me for my

existence. And Trump is the big FU to the feminist establishment that has not been challenged my entire life. There's a lot to unpack here, aside from the fact that he's implying that women who get involved in politics are not feminine, are not feminine, I guess, or they're toxic. But, aside from the low-hanging fruit of Donald Trump's red tie, put up a couple examples of Donald Trump's red tie that is so masculine.

And you know what? You don't even have to put the filter on this. Let's just pop this up. Just Google. it and see what we got. Got it? Yeah, let's see. Yeah, let's see.

Oh, that red tie seems very, very pink. Keep going back up. I mean, the guy has been wearing pink ties. Now, that's fine. I have no problem with pink ties. I think that Trump's style is a little gaudy, frankly. but the fascinating thing is you heard Charlie Kirk sit there and go it wasn't even about policy and then he realizes like

it was a little bit about policy so much of what has happened over the past 20 or 30 years and certainly I think like Obama triggered it by existing and being president and being black data shows that up until 2008, 50% of non-college educated men thought the Republican Party was still to the left of the Democratic Party on race. That was a vestige, a literally a 40-year vestige, a 40-year shadow from when the Republican Party had been, And maybe it was really longer than that, but associated with being to the left of civil rights because of the civil war. And the Democrats at that time, the Dixiecrats, who all abandoned the party following the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, it took a while for a lot of people to catch up to the reality that,

the Democratic Party is to the left on race of the Republican Party. And what that did, and this was a big argument we had in the 2016, 2017, 2018. You had a situation over the course of 30 years where men lost social status. They lost status across the board. not they still had more than white men i should say still had more than uh women black men black women brown men brown women they still had more but it was diminished within our our culture white men were no longer always centered sometimes you'd see a black guy in a cealis commercial sometimes you would see a sitcom with a female lead

sometimes you would see multiple sitcoms with a female lead and they weren't playing somebody's mom they weren't playing somebody's wife they were just a person I could feel myself disappearing as you say this well I mean look there is some truth to the fact that there was a loss of social capital that white men

suffered. When you are at the top of the totem pole, as it were, and no one occupies section two, three, or four of that total pole.

And then you have a series of different people who are lower than you on that totem pole because in lower in very, in, in, in various different sort of like silos of society, when you get dropped down a notch or two

because everybody else moves up one closer, not at parity, but closer to parity, it feels like a loss because it is a loss. But it's still more than equitable of a loss. It is still a system that is still rigged in this favor. However, as a Christian fundamentalist, and I don't know if Kirk himself is actually a Christian fundamentalist, although now he seems to be a lot more out about it if he is. He is. The everything that derives from that, the religious hierarchy, once it extends from God to man, and I do mean man, then it extends to everyone else on the religious hierarchy.

once it extends from God to man and I do mean man then it extends to everyone else on the planet and that's what we call the patriarchy if you're talking about gender or it's called white supremacy if we're talking about race

these are all the same sort of inclination when Hillary Clinton came up against Donald Trump, there was a percentage of people, the people, maybe some who voted for Obama, who were like, not, hey, I was willing not to be a racist, but I'm a misogynist. It was more like, from their perspective, we already had one non-normal president. We're not going to have two non-normal presidents in a row. we need to get back to a normal president

Donald Trump wins and who defeats Donald Trump another normal president not one of these other types of presidents that's what we're seeing and we're seeing in many respects

I think probably the tail end this is the white knuckled version of it And the question is, is will that white knuckle have held on tight enough to provide Donald Trump or the Republican Party the leverage to maintain this control? That they used in this one moment, this white knuckled moment for white male privilege to maintain a minoritarian control over the country? And it's no mistake that we're talking about, you know, people who are like in their early 20s, mid-20s, late teens, because their parents and their fathers were all from my generation during a Reagan era where there was like a where we came of age at that time and where we just are, those men were just on the cusp. of seeing this dramatic change. You know, when Kavanaugh was at his hearings,

he had license in his mind to lie about what he did as a kid because the rules at that time were boys will be boys. And when you grow into an adult, you're not responsible for that stuff. That's just part of like being a prep school guy. It happens. That's just like a row, you know, it's a ritual.

And people of that generation got caught on either side of essentially emancipation, equality for a whole host of people. And they felt the loss because, you know, for people who are really old, people are in their 70s, age, they still have the same sort of like sense, but they're not, they don't have to deal with in a dated debate basis. Because they're competing against people who are in their 70s or the 80s.

That's what's going on there. Superficially, too, Donald Trump is not a very masculine man. Donald Trump is not a masculine man. No. I'm sorry. A guy who gets up and he's dancing to, or let me put it this way.

He is not, he does not fit the definition of a traditional masculine man, man, who's up there dancing to a gay icon, a gay cruising, essentially, anthem. Yeah. This is not a guy who's particularly athletic. This is not a guy who cares, has shown a lot of care for his family. He divorced three times and cheated on all his wives and turned the White House into Liberace's house. I mean, exactly. But it is the story they tell themselves. And the story they tell about Donald Trump, because it's really more that Donald Trump is the guy who's willing to say,

I am proud of my misogyny. I am proud of my racism. And you have a home here. I'm also so sick of talking about young men, like young women aren't alienated in this economy and completely lonely. Like that's just a function of policy and society in general. I think that the whole age range has been left behind. Without a doubt.

But I mean, this country did not do any wholesale studies. of women's health until I was almost 30 and that's been canceled and it's been canceled all right I'm going to read uh

oh five IMs and we're getting out of here sorry we went long with with Marin uh really cool can we go live to the DSA convention pretty please we did not have that kind of

uh streaming ability um matthew from atlanta talking about trump's tie i didn't know ties came in high letter yellow i think he calls that gold probably it's been very difficult to make a gold thread nobody's done it that's a billion dollar idea there you go party with ag it should be important to note that if the cap on the house represents uh on house represents was lifted made more appropriate it would be the actual check and balance of the senate it was meant to be it would also make the electoral more representative. This is not to say reform of the Senate representation wouldn't also be good, but its power has been

buoyed by how small the cap on House of Representatives is. Yes, it has not grown since I think it was like the early 1900s. But also, you could say the same thing about the Supreme Court. It's supposed to be 13th Circuit. It's supposed to be the same number of circuit courts. Globalize the enchilada. Hey, our crew, been a daily viewer since 2020. I want to thank you for everything you do.

This is my first I am as an MR member. I joined DSA today. We beat fascism by standing united. I'm going to give you one of these. Thank you for the support. Thank you for joining DSA and getting involved. Very important. Congressional baseball fan.

Sam, where are the tapes of you doing sets at the Calhoun in 1989. I did those in 1992. I don't know if I recorded there. I had to make a B-line to get out of that place. And the final I am of the week. Old Chomsky, what the hell is Kirk talking about? Trump listens to the cat's soundtrack when he gets out of bed.

He's more feminine than my girlfriend. Matt, Emma, in Chicago for the DSA. Good job in absentia this week. Brian Yeoman's work solo today. We did it. You haven't been on the job for two months yet, have you? No. jeez good job good job this week uh folks we'll see you on monday

it might take all strength like i to get to where i want but i know somehow i'm gonna get there i wasn't looking when i just got a call but see the truth in the light bar but see the truth in a light bar Find it out won't make me feel any better Yeah, I know the clock is ticking But the men's are gonna kick in And my pilot Light shining bright I guess I'm where the choice is made

For the option where you don't get paid For the road that bends Before it finally breaks you I guess in a lot lost my drive Between the 101 and the fire Do you know how far The Deto takes you Yeah, I know the clock is ticking

But the meds are going to kick it And my piling light shining bright And I'm shifted into here, While I shifted in here, while I shifted in and out of gear waiting for my moment to happen I don't know how much longer I can stay in or how much more I've got to pay to play in I know somehow the lives got grated