The New Yorker Radio Hour - Can a Newcomer Unseat Lindsey Graham? Plus, Carlos Lozada on “What Were We Thinking”

Episode Date: September 25, 2020

Jaime Harrison may seem like a long shot to become a South Carolina senator: he is a Black Democrat who grew up on food stamps in public housing, and he has never held elected public office. But a Quinnipiac poll ties him with Lindsay Graham—each has the support of forty-eight per cent of likely voters. Harrison is not exactly a progressive upstart candidate: he’s spent much of his career as a lobbyist, and has worked in the office of House Majority Whip James Clyburn. “I’ve seen the power of how good public servants can really address the issues of what people deal with,” Harrison tells David Remnick. “The worst thing you can do as a public servant is to betray the trust of the people that you represent.” For Harrison, Graham’s decision to support a fast-track nomination to the Supreme Court proves that “his word is worthless.” Plus, Carlos Lozada, a Washington Post books editor, immersed himself in a new genre: books that purport to explain Donald Trump and his era. 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. The fight over the Supreme Court nomination is on. The focus is squarely on the Senate as the Republican majority vows to bring a Trump nominee to the floor in the midst of a heated presidential campaign. But as that battle is being waged, Democrats and Senate races all across the country are polling surprisingly well, and in some unlikely places, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, all of which went for Trump in 2016. In South Carolina, a Democrat named Jamie Harrison, a 44-year-old black man, is running to unseat Lindsey Graham, who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. Harrison seemed like a long shot early on, but a poll this month put them neck and neck, tied at 48 percent among likely voters.

Jamie Harrison has been the associate chairman of the Democratic National Committee since 2017. He's a former lobbyist, and he worked in the office of Representative Jim Clyburn. We spoke last week. Hello, how are you? I'm all right. I'm probably, you know, a tad less busy than you, but... So as we speak, you are running in a race declared a tie in one major poll against Lindsey Graham, who's one of the most prominent Republican members of the Senate. you've been a party official, but you've never held public office.

What happened? How have you gotten into this position and what's at the core of your contest with Lindsay Graham? Yeah. Well, thank you, David. Thanks for having me. Listen, you're correct. I have never held public office before. But I've been around for a while in terms of public policy.

You know, I've taught Nankary Social Studies. I've worked at a nonprofit. I've worked in the private sector. And I had a period of time when I worked on Capitol Bill for Congressman Jim Clabber. And I ran the whip operation. And I was the executive director for the House Democratic Caucus. And I served as chair of the state party here in South Carolina. And I currently am working at the DNC.

And so I've seen public policy. I've seen the good, the bad. But I also have seen the power of how good public servants can really address the issues that people are dealing with on a day. day-to-day basis. And the problem that we have here in South Carolina, despite the fact that we have a wonderful state and great people, we just happen to have some peckless leaders. And Lindsey Graham is emblematic of that. Lindsay Graham once called Donald Trump a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. Now, he doesn't call him that any longer. They play golf and they trade compliments

and favors. But was he right in the first place? Well, Lindsay's also called the President of Cook. He's demagogues. Listen, I don't get into that business. My grandma taught me some good Southern manners, and part of that is that you don't throw names at people. You don't castigate folks. You may not like what they do, but you try to find the positives and move forward on that. I don't agree with President Trump on everything.

I don't agree with them on a lot of things, but I'm not going to get into the school yard. Let me call your names like Senator Graham has done. But it's not a matter of calling him names or calling him a jerk. It's calling things by their proper name. Is President Trump a racist? Is he a xenophobic? Is he a bigot? Well, I leave that for everybody else to make a determination.

I can tell you in terms of my friend, in my opinion, I have not appreciated, you know, the president's stance on some of these issues dealing with race. We need better. We need someone who can lead in that space because it's a precarious time that we're in right now. And we need some real leadership that can unite us and not divide us. And I have not seen that from President Trump over years. But listen, again, for me, this is a focus on the people of South Carolina. And none of that really matters to the folks.

when we got folks here who are scared about their livelihoods because of the coronavirus. We have people scared about getting evicted from their homes, when we got folks who can't provide for their kids. That's the most pressing. Those are the most pressing things. You know, the character, the president doesn't address any of those issues. What do you suppose turned Lindsay Graham around? What turned him from being somebody who's calling the president what I just described to

someone who seems to be one of his closest friends in Washington. What happened? Well, Lindsay Graham is all about Lindsey Graham. It's about political power and his political relevance. And he said, you know, he's just happy to be in the president's orbit. But that's not what the job of U.S. Senator is. The job of the Senator is to represent your constituents. We got 30% of rural communities in this state that don't have any access to broadband just a few years ago. four of our rural hospitals have closed over the past few years. You know, issue after issue, we have a lot of things going on here in South Carolina, and we just need someone who will take the time and pay the attention to it and address it.

But Lindsay hasn't even done a town hall here in the last three years. He's golfed with the president more than he's actually had town halls during the six-year term. That's not what we need right now in terms of representation. On Friday evening, last Friday evening, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the age of 87, a longtime member of the Supreme Court, and a hero to many, particularly among liberal constituency, died. And as you well know, Lindsay Graham in 2016 said that if the presidential race had entered the primary stage, that no president should appoint anybody to the Supreme Court, should there be a death or retirement, until the presidential race was over. Now he seems to have changed his mind. How would you characterize that change of mind?

Well, listen, my grandfather told me growing up, he said a man is only as good as his word. A man is only good as his word. And Lindsey Graham, not on one occasion, but multiple occasions, gave his word to the American people, but more specifically to the people of South Carolina. He said that no nominees should be concerned,

considered in an election year. He said that even with President Trump in the final year of his four-year term, that he would not vote for and consider a nominee in that time period. And now he is going back on his word. Would you say his word is worthless? You would say his word is worthless. It's worthless. And my grandfather would say that is a lie. It's a bold-faced one. And you would say that as well? Yes, I would. The worst thing that you can do, the worst thing you can do as a public servant is to betray the trust of the people that you represent. And that's what Lindsay Graham has done. Now, this isn't the first time. But that's what he's done in this occasion. And it's sad. And I think honesty is going to be on the ballot on November 3rd. As I said earlier, the race is now, according to at least Quinnip's poll, is tied at 4848, which, is kind of amazing considering how long Senator Graham has been in office and his seeming popularity in the state. How does the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the political battle that's already seemingly begun? How does that affect your race with Lindsey Graham? I don't know if it does

affect the race. I know that Senator Graham will take this prime opportunity to get in front of as many TV cameras as he can because he actually likes that part of the job better than actually doing the work for the people here in South Carolina. But I'm going to constantly be doing what I've done for almost two years now, which is talk about the issues that people really care about. What do you think the Senate Democrats should do to stop a replacement being named? Yeah, I think they need to remind folks of the precedent that is set. I think they need to constantly replay the words or the members who made a commitment that

we were going down this road. And it wasn't very long ago. So hopefully these members haven't forgotten what they said. And we can roll the tape. As Lindsay Graham said, you know, use my words. And well, we're going to use your word, Senator. Donald Trump is ahead by six points in South Carolina, even though you are tied. Why are some people for Trump and maybe for you at the same time?

Well, partly, I can only tell you why they're for me. And it's because I'm talking about the issues that they care about. And I'm doing that in a manner that is not about Democrats versus Republicans. We've had four rural hospitals that have closed here in South Carolina. When your rural hospital closes and your grandpa has a stroke or heart attack complications with diabetes or if your wife has complications with their pregnancy, you don't care whether it's a Democrat or Republican in the United States Senate, all you care about is having a hospital to go too. And that's what I'm talking about. Lentie is not talking about those things. He's running around

with all of these hearings. He's running around changing this position and that position. He's, you know, golfing. He's not having town halls. He's, you know, just in front of, you know, sitting with Sean Hannity every other night. And he's not addressing those issues. But I am. I am. And that's the appeal that I think a lot of people have right now. And I'm going to always shoot straight with them. They might not always agree with me on everything. And I've told folks that. But they will always know where I am. And they will always know that I will never lie to them. Tell us where you are on Brett Kavanaugh. Would you have voted to confirm him? I had a lot of questions with Kavanaugh dealing with the issues surrounding the treatment of Dr. Ford. You know, I wasn't,

privy to all of the information. Well, you listen to the hearing. Would you have voted for or against him? Well, but I'm not a senator yet. And so when I am a senator, I will make those decisions based on the information in front of me. But I'm just telling you, there's a lot of ifs and and buts in that. And right now, I'm focused on my folks here in South Carolina. Who's your political idol?

Who would you model yourself on in the Senate? That's a good question. I don't know if I have a political model in the Senate, but partly because I don't think there will be anybody in the Senate like me. How do you know? Do we know anybody in the Senate who grew up on food stamps who was evicted from their home, lived in public housing, you know, born to a single mom, raised by their grandparents? I mean, all of those things are the perspectives that I will bring to the United States Senate, which I think will be fairly unique. I hope that what I can do once I'm in the U.S. Senate is become a model for other kids who are growing up in this country just like me, and there are millions of them. I mean, I talk to so many single moms on this campaign thus far, and they just tell me, they say, you know, I hope and pray that my son or my daughter can just,

get out like you did, right? Because they've been trapped in the cycle of poverty, the cycle that my family had been trapped in for generations, and I was able to break that and then help my family. And so that's part of the reason why I'm in this race. It's part of the reason why I've told folks I've already won, you know, despite what happens on November 3rd. And it's because there have been young people who have come up to me with tears in their eyes,

and they said, I am so, thank you so much for doing this, because you just give me hope that I can do something. And that's part of why I'm proud of the way that we have run this race. I'm proud of the results that we have gotten in this race. You know, this is the David versus Goliath race of 2020. And I'm going to play this role to the Hill. It's a rare thing that a freshman senator can get through with his or her leadership, a piece of legislation.

If you could do that, what would that legislation be? What would be the most important thing to you? Well, it's probably also rare for a freshman senator to have the experience that I have. I mean, my job was to get the 218 bills to pass bills on the floor of the house. One of the things that I want to do is what we rolled out just a few weeks ago. We rolled out a rural hope agenda, in essence, an agenda to rebuild and revitalize rural communities across South Carolina, but across the country as well. It has five pillars about health care.

It's tackling health care disparities in those communities, education, infrastructure, economic opportunities, and it also includes a farmer's bill of rights. Because when I looked at South Carolina and asked why is South Carolina on the top of all the bad list and on the bottom of all the good? It's partly because our rural communities are dragging the state down in terms of those categories because of just historical neglect. Lindsay Graham's not talking about these issues, but I am. And I'm focused on this because I grew up in a rural community. I understand the joys of those communities, but the hardships that come in those communities as well. And I want to give those folks hope again. I want them to feel as though somebody, their senator, is fighting for them each and every day.

Mr. Harrison, I wish you luck. All the very best to you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Jamie Harrison, a Democrat running for the Senate from South Carolina. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour with more to come. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. As much as Donald Trump reviles what he calls the lamestream media, his presence in the White House has been an absolute boon to book publishers. The last four years have given us a wave of Trump books left and right, repertorial, and pontificating.

Carlos Lazada, a Pulitzer Prize-winning critic at the Washington Post, assigned himself the perverse task of reading the entire Trump library as it emerges. From the vindictive's health, to the voluminous Mueller report. Now he's added to the pile with his critique of Trump studies called What Were We Thinking? And in it, Lazada tries to sort out whether these books actually matter at all. Carlos, so first question, when you were reading these stacks of Trump books and Trump-adjacent books, maybe 150 of them, there are so many, did you ever say to yourself, is this a really good idea? What if I get hit by a bus and these are my last thoughts as Ascension being? You know, what I try to do while I'm reading all these Trump books is that I sneak in, maybe like every four Trump books, I sneak in a novel or I sneak in an essay collection or something just to kind of keep my sanity going.

What set you off on this project? Well, it started almost accidentally in 2015, actually, when Trump was first on the scene as a candidate and suddenly doing really well in the polls for the nomination. I decided just to read several of his own books, you know, the Art of the Deal and other memoirs and sort of self-help books that he has, just to see what I could learn about the guy. I thought it would be a very kind of one-time thing. But then suddenly he starts doing really well in primaries, so I start reading books about his supporters, right? Then he wins, so I start reading books about the resistance. And pretty soon I realized this was my beat at The Washington Post. Now, one thing you note in your book, what were we thinking, is how similar some of the titles of these books are.

There's the death of expertise, the death of truth, on truth, truth in our times, post-truth, the truth decay, Donald Trump in his assault on truth, and on and on. You know, one thing also that struck me about the titles is how often they use his words, right? Think about some of the most well-known books about the Trump era. Fire and Fury, American Carnage, a very stable genius, rage, fear, right? They put Trump at the very center of the story, which I think is kind of how he likes it. Now, tell me what are the categories of these books? You have broad categories that you write about. Right.

I kick off with all the books about the white working class and the heartland that really dominated the first year of the Trump presidency. and even the campaign, books like Hilbilly Elegie and white trash and strangers in their own land. I also, I look at the books by and about conservatives, right, and to see the different camps that the conservative movement has broken into during the Trump years. I look at all the Russia, well, not all. I say all these categories. There are so, so many.

Out of about 1,200 Trump books total that people have estimated, I've only done this for about 150 books. But I read several Russia books, several books about democracy, which has become a big, obviously a big debate right now. Was there any genre of the book that surprised you or where you learned a great deal more than you expected? I suspect that some of these books seemed awfully familiar. I'll tell you one surprise. Two books about the white working class that came out in 2018, just months apart. They both profiled the same guy in this Trump County in Pennsylvania. And I was, of course, I mean, I had read several books in between. So suddenly I'm reading the second one and I'm thinking, wait, this person's familiar.

Why do I know this person? Right. And then it hits me that I had read about him in a book called The Great Revolt and published months earlier. And now he's reading about him in a book called The Forgot. Who was the guy? And why was he so for, why was he so emblematic to these writers? Well, the guy's name was Ed Harry, and he was a longtime Democrat who had even been a delegate to the 92 Democratic Convention that nominated Bill Clinton, and he switched to Trump. But what was just delightful to read about Ed Harry is that depending on which book you were in, his motives for switching to Trump were completely different. So in the Great Revolt, he's this economic populist guy who worries about unfair trade deals and thinks the Democrats have forgotten the working man and he doesn't like political dynasties like the Clintons or the Bushes. And in The Forgotten, the other book, he's a 9-11 truther who worries about George Soros funding Black Lives Matter. So he's sort of salt of the earth in one book and scorched earth in the next book.

And I think he's the same guy. I doubt he changed a lot from when he spoke to one set of writers versus another. What really happened here is that these different qualities that the authors highlight seem to dovetail with their own interpretations of why Trump won the presidency. Even a single voter, let alone an entire demographic, can be politicized by author. probably in good faith, interpreting things through their particular prisms. Let's talk about Bob Woodward's book, Rage, which comes fast on the heels of Fury. It's the number one seller in America. It's gotten a ton of news coverage. What do you think about its strengths, or do you think there are weaknesses there as well? I enjoyed reading

rage because Bob just gets a lot of information, and he kind of lays. it all out and it's up to you to decide what to make of it. The sort of weird thing about rage in particular, about this last book, is that it's two books in one. The part that's gotten a ton of attention has been the one-on-one conversations, you know, the 17 or 18 interviews between Woodward and the president. And, you know, what did Trump know about COVID and when did he know it? And what did he say? And should Woodward have said something? That's really only half the book. The entire first half of the book is told through the eyes of key national security officials in the Trump administration, particularly James Mattis, the former defense

secretary. To me, that just as a reader was far more interesting because you see how deeply concerned Mattis was about, for instance, the real risk of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea. And there's these very intense moments when you see Matt is sneaking off to go pray at the National Cathedral, right? Because he wants to have his mind ready so that he can respond instantly when something like that happens. How do you feel about the standard critique of Bob Woodward's book and earlier books as well? Number one, that there's a system of source reward, as we say in journalism. In other words, those sources who talk to him get rewarded by being portrayed in the most heroic terms. And if you don't talk to him, you get punished. I certainly understand that critique. Joan Didion laid out that critique most famously in a New York Review of Books essay in the 1990s. Where she said that Bob Woodward basically has no analytical frame ever in these books,

that it's pure information and that mental activity is not applied to it. There's no analysis whatsoever, which I think Woodward really copse to. But you also had this very unusual moment in the book. at the end in the epilogue where Woodward, with great drama almost, concludes in a way that he never has, quote unquote, that he is not the man for the job, meaning that Trump is not the man for the presidency, to which I think a lot of readers might say, no kidding. We could have told you that four years ago.

He's not the man for the job. Why is that a dramatic conclusion? I think you see that his purely reporting instincts are hard to overpower. And they take a long time to get to the point where he can make a very definitive yet opinionated statement. Like he makes at the end of rage, right? Those are the final words that he is not the right man for the job. And I think perhaps for someone like Woodward who's covered a president since Nixon, you know, it takes him writing two books. it takes him amassing all the evidence to kind of give himself license to make a conclusion like that.

You know, I think the journalism that we publish the New Yorker is heavily fact-checked and fair, but at the same time, it very often has a point of view. I've written with a point of view many times about Donald Trump, and I don't conceal that I think his presidency has been a disaster, an emergency on many levels, and unprecedented in many levels. what should I read that I'm not likely to have read that would make me understand this, not necessarily change my mind,

but understand the predicament more deeply? What has helped me the most in the course of this reading is not necessarily finding like that one book that completely alters my worldview, for instance, but rather reading books that are not really, really about Trump, reading books that are about us, reading books that help me understand not just how we got to this moment, but how the fights that we're having now, over immigration, over race, over identity and democracy, how those are ever present in the American experience.

One of your own writers, Jill Lippor's book, These Truths, is an excellent look at precisely that. Which is a history of the nation from its very beginnings. It's pre-Columbian beginning. Right, but through the prism of those self-evident truths of the Declaration, right? And how our attempts and our inability to live up to them are a consistent feature of the American experience. To me, those have been the most helpful. Books like Carol Anderson's One Person No Vote on the History of Voter Suppression, Books like Unmaking the Presidency, Unmaking the Presidency, by Susan Hennessey and Ben Wittes that don't just tell me all the awful things that Trump is doing

in the White House, but show me where are those norms that he is violating came from and what it can mean for them long term to be distorted. The best books about the Trump era are barely about Trump at all. They're about the country that he is remaking, unmaking, distorting. Carlos Lazzata, thanks so much. Oh, thank you. That was Carlos Lazzata of the Washington Post. His new book is called,

What Were We Thinking? I'm David Remnick, and thanks for listening today. I hope you'll join us next time. 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 Quadrado.

This episode was produced by Alex Barron, Emily Boutin, Ave Carrillo, Riannon Corby, Calli Leah, David Krasnow, Caroline Lester, Gauphin and Putubuele, Louis Mitchell, Michelle Moses, and Stephen Valentino, with help from Alison McAdam, Monfei Chen, and Emily Mann. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.