The New Yorker Radio Hour - Ayanna Pressley and Abigail Spanberger on the Rift in the Democratic Party

Episode Date: December 11, 2020

In November, when the Democratic Party lost seats in the House and a hoped-for victory in the Senate fizzled, centrist Democrats were quick to blame left-leaning progressives. Rhetoric about democratic socialism and defunding the police, they said, had scared away moderate voters and was costing the Party its influence. David Remnick speaks with two prominent House members on opposite sides of this debate: Abigail Spanberger, a centrist whose caustic comments about progressive rhetoric were leaked to the press; and Ayanna Pressley, one of the four progressives known as “the Squad,” who insists that “impact,” rather than compromise, is the best way to sway voters. New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. In his campaign for the presidency, Joe Biden played up as long career as a centrist, a champion of bipartisanship. At the same time, he advanced an agenda that, on paper anyway, was in many ways more progressive than Barack Obama's. It was not an easy balancing act at all. But Biden managed to unite the Democratic Party

and beat Donald Trump. But while the Democrats won back the White House, the Democrats also lost a dozen seats in the House of Representatives. Centrists in the party were quick to lay the blame on progressives. Terms like Democratic socialism and defunding the police, they said,

had scared away moderate voters. Progressives, on the other hand, say that the energy that they brought to the campaign is exactly what pushed Donald Trump out of the White House. So today I'm going to talk to two members of Congress who are on opposing sides of this debate. Ayanna Presley, who represents a district in the Boston area, and Abigail Spanberger, who was just re-elected in Virginia. When Spanberger won in 2018, it was the first time a Democrat had taken her district, the Virginia 7th, in decades. So let's begin at the beginning.

Absolutely. You had a conference call with the Democratic Caucus, and you were not having to be a conference call. You were not happy with the use of the word socialism, democratic or otherwise, and certainly not happy with the term defund the police because you were convinced that it made your political life perilous and the political lives of a lot of members perilous and may have hurt the Democratic party this time around. A lot of people disagree with you. Make your case.

I'm a Democrat because I believe in our policies. And I'm a Democrat because in the face of calls for change across our country, because of real challenges facing people, because of the death of Brianna Taylor, because of the death of George Floyd, we in the House of Representatives put together a bill that is, frankly, the compilation of things that my colleagues have been working on for years banning no-knock warrants, reforming qualified immunity, banning chokeholds. investing in training for our police departments and in community policing programs. And we voted and passed a tremendous piece of legislation, the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. And so, you know, my comments and what it is that I have talked very openly within my caucus about is that we have good policies. And it's unfortunate when we're talking about what we as legislators are advocating for and are working towards, that we're missing the opportunity to make sure people know that when there are calls for change sweeping our country and calls for reforms sweeping our country that we've

acted on them. So then to put a pin in it, as they say endlessly now, what's the space between you and somebody like Ayanna Presley or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on issues like this? Or is it our fault the press, or as it so often is. What's the space between you? From a policy, standpoint. I think, you know, looking at this particular piece of legislation, there's no space. You know, and I think that in various different districts, to be clear, you know, we are advocating for and supporting a bill like this that is tremendous in terms of the types of reforms and improvements that it would create. But when we're looking across the country, and I say we as legislators, be it, you know, someone like Ayanna or be it someone, you know,

from anywhere across the country. You know, we're looking to build coalitions to bring people together in common cause. So in your view, what you were angry about is the kind of rhetoric of it, the politics of it. The rhetoric of it and I guess the politics of it, but it's easy for us as legislators to use slogans that,

our, you know, politically aligned folks are using, right? But it isn't, it isn't speaking to the policy. And for people who want and are demanding change and reforms, I think we have a responsibility to say, in fact, these in response to calls for action, these are the policies that we're putting forth. Well, let's talk about bipartisanship. Joe Biden has been in Washington for decades, and he repeatedly looks back fondly on an era in which there was a such thing as bipartisanship, whether that was reality or fantasy or something in between, you can debate that. But we have been living through four years in which the Republican Party has been incredibly loyal to Trump and Trumpism, including the worst of Trump, which takes in a lot of area.

how is it going to be possible on a dime on January 20th for there suddenly to be great cooperation between the Democratic Party and a Republican Party that has been, with some exceptions, but not many, really obedient and loyal to Trump and Trumpism? So I think it becomes a question of how much do we want to govern? We shouldn't accept a notion that we only govern when the House, the Senate, and the White House are held by one party. You know, in my district, I represent a district that has historically voted for Republicans.

I'm the first Democrat elected since 1968. And I represent people who disagree with me on a whole host of issues. Does that make you feel constantly imperiled? You know, I had a really good life before I ran for Congress. That sounds like a yes. A healthy version of yes. And I had a really good life before I got to Congress. I love the job that I'm able to do serving the district I grew up in, serving people.

I love what is, in fact, often a challenge of talking to people who may not agree with me and working to be accountable and explain, this is why I'm advocating for this issue, this is why it's important. And bringing people to either, in some cases, agree with me when they initially might not have agreed with what is perceived to be a democratic idea in terms of, you know, partisanship. Or at least when people still disagree with me, don't disagree with me just because I'm a Democrat, but they disagree with me because they disagree with what it is that I'm actually advocating for.

Your remarks about socialism and defund the police as imperiling remarks were leaked. It was a conference call. Were, did you not expect it to be leaked on such a large conference call? Did you feel betrayed by them? Listen, I, you know, I come from the CIA. that's what surprised me. People have asked me that question before. And, you know, I had, if we are to, as the Democratic Party, have conversations about, you know, what went right, what went wrong, what we should be doing moving forward. You know, I do think it's fair that I would have expected that none of my colleagues or none of their staff members who might have been on the call would leak, you know, notably.

So you were speaking in effect publicly and you didn't mind that it was leaked. No, I minded very, very much. I wasn't speaking publicly. I caveated my comments heavily with the fact that it was meant for my colleagues, and I expected them to not leak them. And notably, it was a two-and-a-half-hour phone conversation or caucus call where the majority of the call were people echoing the exact same comments as mine. So, you know, it's unfortunate that the...

those comments. It's very unfortunate to those comments were leaked. But, you know, what I'm focused on are the policies that matter. And we are sent to Washington by people who trust us to do the right thing, who trust us to advocate on their behalf. And on issues of, you know, going back to the beginning part of your conversation, on issues of justice and equity, like we put forth good legislation and that's what we should be talking about, the policy. When it comes to COVID relief, people need to know that there are many people who continue to fight for and work towards ensuring another relief bill because that's what people need, that's what families need, that's what school kids need, that's what localities need, that's what small business owners

need, and overall our larger economy needs it. The package that you're working on has no stimulus checks in it. It is purely relief. A lot of people need immediate material relief in this pandemic, and if they don't see it, what are the odds that they're going to show up and vote down to? Democratic in 2022. So I think we're mixing a whole variety of things. One, people need immediate relief.

We also need stimulus checks. I've been an advocate for stimulus checks. At this point, the relief bill that we've worked on that currently has, you know, bicameral and bipartisan support does not include stimulus checks. It is fully relief. And the relief is extended unemployment, additional unemployment dollars each week from a federal complementing state dollars, the inclusion of gig workers, of course, support to employers through the PPP program so they can keep people employed. And that the inclusion here of programs that are

meant to focus on relief, this does not negate a need for additional stimulus, and it certainly doesn't stop anyone, myself included, from continuing to advocate for, well, what's the next step when comes to stimulus, even President-elect Biden has talked about this package as being, I believe he referred to it as a down payment for what comes next. And I would agree with that. This is about the immediacy of relief when so many of the programs created under the CARES Act are set to expire at the end of the month. But it does not negate, nor does it stop people like me from continuing to talk about the need for stimulus as well. Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, thank you so much. My pleasure. Thank you so much for having me on.

Abigail Spanberger represents the 7th District of Virginia. She was elected in 2018. So was Ayanna Presley. Presley represents a distinctly liberal district, the Massachusetts 7th. And she's one of four high-profile progressive women in Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who some refer to as the squad. There's a $908 billion dollar COVID relief package in Congress. Where are you on that bill? And what else might you like to see? in it? Well, there's, you know, there's no language or anything immediately before me right now to react to. What I continue to fight for is direct cash relief and assistance, reoccurring payments for the American people, because that's what my constituents tell me they need. When I ask them,

well, what will you do with those funds? They say, pay my rent, pay for diapers, pay for insulin, pay for an inhaler, pay for groceries. So they need direct reoccurring cash. And payments. We also need to cancel a rent and mortgage. We need eviction and foreclosure moratoriums. We need to extend and expand unemployment benefits. And might add, our immigrant neighbors have been excluded from all of this relief. And meanwhile, this pandemic has, although it has disproportionately hit some communities more than others, and that includes immigrant communities, the heart has been felt by everyone. And so the relief must be felt by everyone. We can leave no one behind. We also need massive federal investments in municipal and state aid as well to support their relief

efforts, as well as the infrastructure needed for vaccine distribution. So these are the things that I will continue to fight for until the very end. Now, how do you respond to moderate members of your party? People that range from Abigail Spanberger of Virginia to Barack Obama, who said that the phrase and possibly the policy defunding the police is damaging to the overall. Democratic Party effort. I wish people were as offended about defund education as they are this slogan because in fact we have seen a defunding of public education for decades, which has created an ecosystem whereby the most marginalized have been pushed to do survivalist things that have later been criminalized resulting in mass incarceration. Look, first responders have a role to play in

our society, but they need and play a role in every part of our society. Neither do they want to. Rather than deploying the police to the home of someone battling mental illness who is having an episode, we should instead be deploying social workers. Rather than investing as we have for the last two decades, one billion dollars, that's with a B, in growing our school police force, when every child, when every student does not even have equitable access to a school nurse, social worker, or guidance counselor. So we know what works. We simply haven't funded it. What you describe is profound change, real change, reform. And I'm not sure that somebody like Barack Obama would argue with that. What he would argue is that the phrase defunding the police is politically poisonous for the

Democrats. It's a difference, I think. The Black Lives Matter movement is the modern day civil rights movement. And I am certain that many of the policy mandates and signs that were carried at that time were considered equally disruptive and perhaps offensive to some. Anytime you are disrupting the status quo, anytime you are ushering in a paradigm shift, anytime you are truly being progressive, you are going to be met with that. I would urge us to not be bogged down in a debate about language that allows us to get distracted from the work that we must be doing to respond to the brutality, the lynching, the surveying, profiling and the murders of unarmed black Americans for generations. If you really believe that

Black Lives Matter, thank you for your tweet, thank you for the hashtag, thank you for your t-shirt that you perhaps did not even purchase from a Black-owned business. But the only receipts that matter right now are policies and budgets. And if it feels uncomfortable to codify that Black Lives are value in budgets to enshrine that in our laws, it is because we have never done it before. From redlining to unequal access to the GI Bill, to the war on drugs. Do you feel that the moderate or more moderate wing of the party so-called is disrespecting the work of progressive activists and politicians? No, I respect all of, I'll say this, I respect all of my colleagues.

you know, these narratives that are pushed in the public square are predictable in part for the course. Again, to be a progressive is to, by your very nature, to be doing the work of making people uncomfortable. At the end of the day, unity is not the goal. Justice is. Unity is overrated in some sense. The goal is justice. And if we are all centering the people, we will get exactly where we need. to get. President-elect Biden has repeatedly expressed his faith that with Donald Trump out of the

picture, Republican members of Congress will suddenly be open to working with him. Is he dreaming? Well, listen, it is it is reprehensible that there have not been more conscientious objectors, you know, true patriots, both of the policies of this administration, their corruption, And now this unpatriotic delegitimizing of the election and unwillingness to have a peaceful transfer of power, I will say that bipartisanship is a talking point. The goal, again, must be us centering the people and responding accordingly to their needs. When you say it's a talking point, sorry to linger on this, but it's so important to going forward now, if it's merely a talking point, that suggests that it's, in practical terms,

with the composition of the Congress being what it is, an impossibility and will make your fondest hopes or anyone's fondest hopes for a truly transformational legislative agenda impossible. Well, I don't think anything is impossible. I believe in the capacity of our democracy and of people and of community and of movements. I'm doing everything of my power right now

to regain control of the Senate. we can stop the obstructionist actions of this GOP-led Senate of the last four years. They have been obstructionist in every regard, most notably in standing in the way for us to pass a comprehensive relief package to meet the scale and scope of this herd. Instead, they approved 222 federal far-right-leaning judges. And now they are, once again, focused on corporations. and pushing this corporate liability shield rather than being focused on the American people.

When I talk to workers, you know what they tell me? I don't want to sue my employer. I want to survive. So I'm an eternal optimist, and I don't want to say that bipartisanship is an impossibility or an improbability. If we remain focused on the people, then we will get to where we need to get to.

Congresswoman, with Donald Trump gone on January 20th, what is the pitch to inspire voters who are not the converted, especially people in something like a Georgia runoff? I think the ultimate persuasion tool is impact. Again, this hurt is being felt by everyone. Again, we know before the pandemic, families did not even have $400 saved to weather a disruptive life event. And I'm sure many of those families were Republicans.

So the ultimate persuasion tool is impact. We have to continue to center the people. I have to continue to center justice. Representative Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts. I'm David Remnick, and that's our program. I want to thank you for joining us. See you soon. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker.

Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Arts, with additional music by Alexis Quadrato. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.