The Three Questions with Andy Richter - Rachel Maddow

Episode Date: October 17, 2023

Rachel Maddow joins Andy Richter to discuss her MSNBC show's switch to a weekly format, the importance of anti-corruption laws, her love of ice-fishing, and her new book, “Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism.”

Hey everybody, I'm Andy Richter. This is Three Questions with Andy Richter. So yeah, that's me. I'm the host. And today I'm talking to another host, and I'm excited to talk to her. It's Rachel Maddow. She's a brilliant writer, political commentator, television news host. She hosts the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC every Monday night, as if I needed to tell you. And her new book, which is fantastic, prequel, An American Fight Against Fascism, is out today. So go get one from your local independent bookseller. I spoke with Rachel via Zoom back in September, and here is my a buttering up,

giving like a reason to be excited about Monday. Like now that you're on, I mean, I miss you not being on more days, but it is, it's like, oh, it's Monday. Which, you know, there's like one aspect of, you know, it usually isn't until like four o'clock, five o'clock that I start, oh, it's Monday. And Rachel will be on. It's like when I moved to New England, I decided I needed a winter hobby. So I get excited about the oncoming cold. So I started ice fishing. So then like as soon as we started having nights well below zero, it would get me all excited because my hobby is coming. So it's the same sort of thing.

I'm trying to make Mondays a good thing. It was kind of an accident that I ended up on Mondays. But I actually, I think it's kind of great. I love it. How is it an accident? In what way? Because, I mean, being on television, this is always a stuff. I'm like, how did it end up there? You know, like it's interesting to me. It was a, it was, I want, I don't want to say bumbling because I don't want to make it sound bad. I want to, I don't want a derogatory term. But when I first started talking with MSNBC about

like re-imagining what I'm doing and approaching it in a different way. A bunch of people at MSNBC suggested from the very beginning, oh, you should do a weekly show. And I was like, I definitely don't want to do a weekly show because that's like a magazine and like a digest of what's happened in the past week. And people who do that already are really good at it. I don't think I can compete. That's not the way my brain works. I don't want to do it. I said no, but then it emerged that there was kind of a different way to think about it, that I could just do my regular show and just pick a night and it could still be my regular show and I didn't have to digest the whole week and it didn't have to be on a Friday night. It didn't

have to be on the weekend. It could be any time and I could do the show. And it turns out, I think Monday is the best night to do it because I can just cover the day's news. And if it was a particularly slow news day, I can dip into what happened over the weekend without it seeming too weird. So it's just a regular Rachel Maddow show. It's just Monday is the best night to do it. I think. I think that's how it works. I think so too, because it is in that kind of news business and in the in the you know, the cable news business, cable primetime news that it does. The content does drop off on the weekend because the news isn't being made that much on the weekend. But there's still enough happening that, like you say, it's you're back to like full production of news content on monday well but i also feel like when people turn on the on cable news uh like in prime time on a weeknight they want

to know what's going on in the news they don't necessarily want to hear like somebody's reflections on what's going on in our time right right and occasionally you have to do a little bit of that but if something has happened in the news that day you expect to be updated on it and get some perspective on it. So I don't I didn't want to abandon that part of the job because that's I mean, that's a big part of it. Explaining what happened in the news today and why it matters or why it doesn't. That's the gig. So I want to I want to still do that. Yeah, and absolutely.

Because and it's like you said, you get to and I mean, what and what you do so well is just the granularity of what you do. You know, you pick a wrinkle and you spread it out and show us how it reflects the entire picture. And it's, you can't do that in a magazine. You know, you got, you got too much stuff to hit on, you know? Yeah. And it's also, it would be a little bit, I feel like it'd be a little bit weird because at MSNBC, we don't really do the big magazine format, you know? Yeah. And it's also, it would be a little bit, I feel like it'd be a little bit weird because at MSNBC, we don't really do the big magazine format, you know? Like it's kind of the news all the time. And so I want to be, I want to be not too dissimilar from what my colleagues

are doing. Cause I don't want to be essentially calling on us to develop a whole new set of skills. Cause who wants to do that when you're old and tired? Oh my God. Tell me about it. This podcast, it's just because I'm already a bullshitter. So it's like, I can just continue doing that in a different format. One thing that I always think about, and like I said, as somebody that works in television, I always think about, that works in television, I always think about, because, and you mentioned about sort of the MSNBC shows being very about what's happening. And sometimes what's happening isn't enough for all of the shows. You know what I mean? Like it's like on a slow day, you can tune in at 11 and then you tune in at two and it's kind of like oh still on this and what do you is there some sort of like do you guys give each other tips on how to handle that or

is there like a network philosophy on how to because you have to do a show you know and it has to be entertaining because it's television it just you need to catch eyes and you catch eyes by being entertaining. And I don't even say that I'm an entertainer. I think, you know, I say that as like, no, that's, that's a, that's saying you're working, you know, like you're really working to get people's attention. But what do you guys do when the kind of the day's a little light or there's, you know, you've already kind of gone over stuff? Well, there's a few different things about that.

I mean, one is like this is a this is a great problem to have. Like Joe Biden got elected president and he all but explicitly promised when he got elected president, it's going to get boring. Get ready, America. Get ready, America. We're going back to actually sanely running the country in a kind of professional way that's predictable and out loud. And so, you know, stuff will happen Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. Prepare to get more sleep. Like that's so, it's a great thing. Like we're not having the death of the republic being threatened every Thursday at 4 in the morning.

Like it's just, oh, that's good. That's good. So that's one thing. On the other hand, you know, it does create, boring does create its challenges for making television. It's a little bit of a blessing on a day when the news isn't moving that fast and there isn't that much going on because it does give you a chance to leave the beaten path, do something else. I know you've all heard about the showdown over the defense bill or whatever it is, but did you also notice this unusual thing happening in South Carolina that I haven't had time to talk to you about because we've had other pressing stuff. So it gives you

a little, as long as you're reading widely, I think the key is to make sure you're reading all the time more than what you need for that day so that you've just got better peripheral vision about things that are going on that might not be immediately on today's show or in today's news cycle, but you know that they're important enough to be watching them. And when you have that opportunity to bring something up because the news cycle is self-explanatory, then you know where to go. You've already done the baseline work and you know why it's important. At a very practical level, I mean,

in primetime, at least, I know that at least on my show, we check in like, oh, what's Chris doing at eight or who's hosting at eight and what are they doing? What's Lawrence doing at 10? Just to make sure that if Chris is ending with a 12-minute segment on what's happening in Tahrir Square, I'm not opening with a 20-minute segment on what's happening in Tahrir Square. I'm not opening with a 20 minute segment on what's happening in Tahrir Square, like move those things around. But it's just it's just sort of accommodation rather than it is coordination. Yeah. And it does seem like there is a very collegial atmosphere. So it's, you know, so you guys do cooperate as opposed to compete, basically, which I could see that situation existing. I treasure that. Yeah. Yes. I treasure that. I could see that situation existing i treasure that yeah yes i treasure that i could see that easily happening on another network of like i'm gonna beat the guy before me or the person after me you know or i want to make sure that i undercut whatever point that

person is making or that i mean the the collegial atmosphere among the hosts and among the executive producers and all the staff and stuff is this rare, beautiful, priceless thing that unless you've worked in television or in a newsroom, it's really hard to explain how important that is. But when you don't have that, when people are fighting and trying to undercut each other, when you're in like a gossipy environment, it's hell. Like, I just hate it. And MSNBC is in a really good space in that regard. And I mean, I credit the leadership or whatever, but I also credit like there's an effort being made to preserve that because I think we all know how precious it is. It's terrible when it's not there. Right. And you can give props to the people in charge because they're doing the hiring. And that's where the rubber meets the road in terms of morale and, you know, and joie de vivre or what.

No, esprit de corps. That's one of those French terms. Coup d'etat. Yes, yes. Yes. Well, there, you know, there's a comedy version of that, which is working on a show where all the comedy writers are working towards the greater good of the show or working on a comedy show. And they exist out there where all the writers are broken off into little, into little groups, feverishly writing, trying to undercut other people to get their stuff on the air. And those shows are already, they start out unfunny because they start out in an air of competition and fear. And that's not funny, you know, so. And it's, you know, it's hiring. You're talking about like,

how do you create the right environment there? It is hiring in terms of valuing that esprit de corps and that sort of generosity of spirit and that sort of self-confidence to not be a dick when you're hiring people. But it's also firing. It also means when somebody is abusive, even if they're talented, if somebody is abusive and creating a toxic environment around them, part of leadership is firing that person in order to protect the atmosphere that's more important than any one talent, than any one producer, than any one writer, than any one person who's a cog in the machine if they're there messing it up. And that's a darker part of it, but I think that's true too, that protecting people is part of your job as a leader. Protecting people is part of your job as a leader.

And I've learned that, like, I don't, I'm not, I'm kind of a put my head down, close my door, like, think by myself person. But I've learned that, I've learned from the people who I work with about making sure that everybody kind of feels okay in the work environment. It's hard. It's hard to do. And it's like a thing you don't do once. You have to do it all the time. You have to do it every day and keep fixing it. It's very like sometimes mommy and daddy have to get mad.

Like it definitely has an aspect of that to it. Like it's like, yes, it's mostly about love and keeping us together. But sometimes, you know, daddy has to yell. If you hit your sister, bad things are going to happen to you. Yes, exactly. Exactly. It's all part of the job. Well, you're here today. I mean, aside from, you know, your deep abiding love for me.

And I brought the book and I'm holding it up even though we're on Zoom. Do you think the cover is too scary scary it's got a little it's got a little a little freaky factor listen i i am i'm glad you asked because when i got the copy of this i was it's like it's like scary sexy this cover i think it's scary sexy yeah yeah i think it's like kind of it does feel like oh this is gonna is going to be you know, this is this is going to be like a thriller, you know, and it is really it's a great book. I mean, I don't know if you intended it to be a thriller, but it has a thriller kind of feel. And it it drew me to it as opposed to saying like this icon, this iconography is it's too Marxist. I don't think I'm not thinking that I'm thinking like, it's too Marxist. You know? I don't think, I'm not thinking that.

I'm thinking like, oh, that looks cool, you know? Scary sexy is great. I think the fact that you can see kind of veiny bits in the guy's hands as they're shaking hands on the front, I think you're reacting to the veiny bits in the wrists. Also, I have an eagle fetish, too. Oh, really? Tell me more. Tell me a lot about that slowly. I love talons.

I can't get enough of talons. Well, tell the people about the book. It is subtitled An American Fight Against Fascism. Yeah. So it's basically this idea that we got left a handy instruction manual by a previous generation in the United States about what to do when the American right wing gets really, really out there and dangerous. Yeah. And, you know, when they want to get rid of democracy and throw out our system of government. And I feel like there's like I'm not a historian.

I have a Ph.D. in political science, which is adjacent, but not the same thing. And I'm a journalist and do things in cable news. But for me, this history is not just like, oh, something happened in our history, in this case, right before World War Two, that has uncanny resonance with what we're going through now. It's as the title says, it's like a prequel. It was, it's, there are Americans who faced something not exactly the same, but very similar to what we've got right now. And they had good ideas for how to deal with it. And it was really hard to deal with. And their right-wing crazies were really, really dangerous. And they fought them and undercut them and kind of battled them to a draw in the advance

of us joining World War II in a way that is, I think, whatever the opposite of enervating is, it's energizing. Because I sometimes feel like our right in this sort of flirtation that we're having, this attraction that's happening on the right to getting rid of democracy, getting rid of elections, getting rid of our system of government. It's so scary and it can be so unsettling that our fellow Americans want to do that. I find it to be, like I said, energizing to know that other people did this too and other people had to fight it and they won. So it's about that fight in the lead up to World War II. Do you think that, because you kind of, it was sort of implicit in what you just said, that kind of World War II interrupted that rise of fascism

in this country specifically? In a way, although, I mean, part of what was going on with the American ultra-right in the lead up to World War II is that they were really energized, and in some cases directly connected, to the dictatorships rising in Europe that ended up starting World War II. And so like the book, the chapter one of the book is the story of an American fascist guy who went on to become a very, very, very famous

architect going to a Hitler youth rally in Potsdam and during the ascendance of Hitler and being so inspired. And then a little later on in the book, you realize he came back and tried to recreate a rally like that here in Chicago in the 1930s, tried to found a party that was based on those principles and tried to draft a specific American governor into leading that kind of a uprising here. So, I mean, our fascist-leaning far right-wing Americans in the lead up to World War II were sort of interrupted by World War II when it happened. I mean, he ultimately had to join the army once Pearl Harbor happened.

But I'm not sure that our fascists would have been the same had they not been connected to and inspired by those bad movements abroad. And, you know, and today, you know, our our ultra right wing, you know, we're not dealing with the Nazis. Then only the Nazis are the Nazis. There's no analogy there. But there there are some similarities like there is on the ultra right right now, this weird worship of authoritarian foreign dictators. And especially and specifically male maleness in general, too. Certainly. And along with that, we've got like showy, kind of cartoonish, but also kind of scary armed right wing paramilitary groups. Right.

They had that. We have that. We've got the targeting of minorities, including weird conspiracy theories that justify all sorts of crazy bad behavior and persecution of minorities. Right. Denying election results, wanting to instead take power or hold power by force. They had to do all of that in the 30s leading up to – in the early 40s leading up to us getting into World War II, just like we're having to do it now. Yeah. This brings up something that I often think about, and it's not the Roman Empire, if you're up on the recent memes. I often think about how it does kind of seem like there was a world movement towards fascism. There was kind of after the inspiration that the American revolution is, you know, the inspiration that spread out throughout the world over the American, you know, enshrining democracy into a new power, that spread a little bit.

And then there seemed to be this sort of, you know, fascist, authoritarian, undemocratic movement happening. And it was a worldwide phenomenon. Yes. I could be talking about now. And it was a war that interrupted it. It was a war that made everyone go, well, all right, it's now time to put up as opposing to shut up. And it's come to this. We now have to the entire world needs to get into war.

How are we going to avoid that now? Like, how is that not going to be the thing that snaps us out of this rightward turn as a planet? It's actually a really good question. I think a really subtle question, too, because you're right. It's got everything in it, too. I mean, yeah, we had, you know, you've got Mussolini marching on Rome. You've got the Italian fascist takeover. You've got Hitler taking over in Germany. You've got Franco in Spain. You've got Mussolini marching on Rome. You've got the Italian fascists take over. You've got Hitler taking over in Germany. You've got Franco in Spain. You've got rising authoritarianism everywhere. France came very near to the same pattern.

And it really was everywhere. And those winds definitely blew through the United States. And we had a big fascist movement in this country that very much wanted that sort of thing for us too. And the reason we had a war against it is because Hitler turned out to be expansionist. He wanted to blow through his borders, not just take back what he felt like had been wrongfully taken from them in World War I, but he wanted to take all of Western Europe and then all of Europe and then all of the world. He had this view for a global Reich. And so that meant that countries who didn't want to fight a war, and nobody did after World War I, felt like they had been forced into it. And that was it.

That was the only deciding factors, that he was going to take over their country and he was going to keep taking over more countries. And so somebody was going to stop him or it was going to be all of us. And, you know, I don't know that we'll face that dynamic again. Certainly seeing what Putin is doing with Ukraine is unsettling when you look at it through that lens and considering all the other places that he's invaded and tried to take bits of territory since he's been in power. But that wasn't the only way that it got defeated, that fascism got defeated, right? The other thing, like for what was happening for us here at home, it was a whole bunch of different things. You had criminal prosecutions of fascist groups that were obviously anything

involved in violence is a crime. And so all the violence part of it got prosecuted. Also, when people were working with foreign dictators, foreign influence in certain ways is criminal, whether it's spying or treason or sedition or any of those things, not registering as a foreign agent, right? We're back to that being prosecuted. Yeah, yeah. So criminal prosecutions matter. There was a lot of really good journalism, people doing exposés of what was going on, trusting the American people that once they learned what the designs were of these groups, they'd turn against them. There were intrepid, freaking fantastic activist groups that infiltrated the worst groups and not only exposed what they were doing, but kind of messed with them. Not exactly agent provocateur, but they were

people who got in there and screwed with what they were doing, sabotaged their plans. And you also saw institutions stand up and do what they were supposed to do. You did see the political parties. The Republican Party had a real problem in particular with this in the North and the West. The Democratic Party had a real problem in particular with this in the North and the West. The Democratic Party had a real problem with this in the South, if you think about the timing. And the party stood up and kind of self-regulated some of these people out. A lot of these guys lost, a lot of the worst people in Congress who supported the fascists were removed in party primaries. The military court-martialed some people.

You saw the church crack down on fascist demagogues like Father Coughlin, who was the biggest media influence of his time. So it's sort of, yes, there had to be a war because there was a military element to what the fascists were doing. But there's all these other elements to what they were doing too. And the ways to fight those are multivariate and require all sorts of different types of work. Yeah. Something that I wanted to ask you about, because we're talking about history and we're talking about the repetition of history and the characters are very similar from one thing to the other.

And there are definite villains in your book. Yeah. And you're a journalist. You have to maintain an impartiality. I mean, you're beholden to the truth. And that's what's so weird now is that, that word is just so bent beyond any any recognition. But is it hard in these days to keep what you feel like your own sense of impartiality when we seem to be looking at the repetition of something that was so patently demonstrably bad? patently, demonstrably bad. I mean, that's kind of the blessing and the curse of writing about something like this topic, which is adjacent to World War II, because I feel like

World War II is the closest thing we have to moral shorthand. Yeah, yeah. It's a real simple cartoon. It's easy to get. Yeah. How about Nazi equals bad? Can we start there? Yes. We have to argue for that. Are we good? Right, right. Nazi equals bad. Can we start there? We have to argue for that. Are we good? And so you can go overboard with that, right? Like, and you shouldn't, you know, there's nothing comparable to the Nazis except Nazis. Like there really, there isn't an analogy to be made there, but

there's also, it's worth remembering that as bad and as clear cut as that seems to us, there were a lot of Americans who thought if we were going to join World War II, we should be on their side, not on the other side. And so like, right, let's just take that for what it is. Really powerful, rich ones too. Yes, exactly. Rich ones, people in power, people in elected office, people with a lot of influence. And so that is, you don't need an analogy. You know what I mean? You don't need to make the moral case there, I think. I think you can, I think it's helpful

to be able to say, you know, I think if we can start from the assumption that the Nazis are bad, it is worth being factually accurate about the fact that there were Americans

who wanted the Nazi side to win. And we should pay attention to what their tactics were, what they wanted for America, and what happened to them once we started fighting the Nazis. They didn't dissolve. They didn't get raptured. They ended up forming the seeds for some of what would go on to be a continuing ultra-right, anti-democratic, authoritarian impulse in this country that we're still cont you know, we're contending with a later generation of it. And so I feel like the danger, kind of the storytelling risk, the like historical risk is to

impose what we know now on what those actors knew then, or to say that something happening now is the exact same replay of what happened then. It's not. But it's better to know history than to not know. It sure is. And the people who went before us, if nothing else, if we can just learn how they lived their lives, we can see what they tried and see if it worked and learn from it. Like when I was mentioning bringing prosecutions and stuff, from it. Like with the, when I was mentioning the, you know, bringing prosecutions and stuff, it is hard to bring sedition, treason, you know, foreign influence, espionage,

prosecutions. They're difficult to do. The Justice Department, however, learns from the courts, the way that our legal system is set up. You learn from precedent. You establish precedent the way that you approached it before. Thinking about putting 19 Donald Trump-associated defendants on trial in one courtroom with an inexperienced judge in Fulton County, Georgia, well, maybe that's going to happen, or at least 17 of them, maybe that's going to happen. We should learn what happened when they tried to put 20-something defendants on trial in the Sedition case back in 1944. We can learn from it. It's not an exact analogy, but it is a precedent that should inform our decision-making now. Right. I think it also, too, there is something about the repetition of history that can be comforting, just in the notion that because what's happening right now can feel, and I mean right now,

right now can feel, and I mean, right now you take, pick a right now. I mean, right now as a concept, not necessarily this date, you can, you can feel like, oh my God, we are in deeper than we've ever been. We are further out on a limb. The whole world feels tenuous. And then you kind of find out, I don't know, a few hundred years ago, it was probably worse, you know, like it was very similar and probably worse. And you go, oh, okay, this is just the galumphing way that this particular kind of ape that we are gets through life, you know, and being a society. So. And, and then the next step is, and the people who galumped through it before, how'd they do it? How did they, how did they avoid the worst case scenario in that situation? And oftentimes,

I think it was particularly when what's resonating with us is something equally bad or worse that happened in the past, the thing that we look up is the bad guy. And that's who the Wikipedia entry is about, right? And that's who the books are about. But what's harder to find and sometimes more interesting is, okay, well, who were the good guys who made sure that that didn't go as badly as it could? And the good guys are often much more obscure. And I feel like that's the history that I'm kind of in love with right now is figuring out who all these badasses who were in previous generations who taught us how to be effective anti-fascists. Yeah. You know, since we're talking about,

you know, extrapolating from history generalities or even, you know, truths about now, do you think that the arc of history as I can't remember the exact Martin Luther King quote, but, you know, that it does kind of bend left, that it is kind of like less about strong men saying this is how it's going to be and more about everybody deciding together? Or are we going to 100 years from now look back on these liberal times as being just terrible? I mean, I don't know. I mean, the idea of the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice, it's certainly not an inevitability, I don't think. I'm a religious person, but I still don't think that God does that arc bending for us. I believe that it bends toward justice because people work for justice, that the arc of the moral universe needs bending. And it can certainly go back. I mean, even just in, you know, really specific things in our own lifetime. You know, I was born in 1973, which is the year that women in this country

had it recognized as a matter of constitutional law that you couldn't force them to give birth against their will. And now in 2023, here we are, I'm 50 and that right's gone. So that arc is bending. That's true. And I even think just even more recently, I came out as a gay person when I was 17, so that was 1990. And it definitely felt like things were sort of bad and getting worse for a while, and then they got way better, and now they're getting way worse again in terms of LGBTQ rights. So it's certainly, regression is real. Reactionary politics is real and can be violent in terms of its backsnap. And we're in a we're in an era when on the right, we do we are living in an era of an ultra right reactionary moment. And you see that, I think, with Republican politics getting really crunchy and

nonfunctional. It's because the conservative movement and the Republican Party are trying to do things that you kind of can't really do through politics. So, you know, we're in a tough moment. But, you know, I mean, nobody's in previous in previous generations. People were beaten to death with canes on the floor of the United States Capitol. Like, yeah, we're not doing that. Yeah. Good job, guys.

No more cane beatings. No more bludgeonings on the floor. Sumner isn't here. Okay. Yeah. Somebody on the left can be absolutely sure that the stuff that the conclusions they've come to are right, that they are moral and decent and right. And then somebody on the right can have the exact same kind of feeling about all their beliefs. And in many cases, they're diametrically opposed. posed. So we all get some kind of moral laundry list that is comfortable to us and that we end up kind of living out throughout our life. And I'm wondering if you've ever thought about or if you have an idea of where yours comes from. That's an interesting way to put it. I mean, I feel like the thing that I have learned as I've gotten older and as I've sort of made my share of mistakes is that to be less sure of myself is to trust my instincts, but also, like Ronald Reagan said, trust them, but verify them. Yeah. Because sometimes your instincts come from the wrong place.

And ego can drive you to a lot of bad behavior. And so to sort of check your self-centeredness, I think, is something that I'm still trying to get better at and to recognize, like, I'm only seeing this from one perspective. There are other perspectives to see this from. And to recognize like I'm only seeing this from one perspective. There are other perspectives to see this from. And whatever seems simple to me about another person almost by definition is going to be proven wrong once I recognize the complexity of that person. And so I think that's part of why in my work I'm so interested in the far right because I really want to understand it. because I really want to understand it.

I really want, I mean, I'm really for democracy and really against fascism and really against authoritarianism. And I want to understand my fellow Americans, you know, bright, thoughtful, faithful Americans connected to other people through family and loving ties who really felt like like and who may now really feel like we should get rid of this democracy thing and instead have a strongman leader. Like I want to I want to get that. I want to understand it and understand what their friendships and their networks are like. And yes, I'm doing it because I don't agree with it, but I am trying to understand it.

Yeah, especially when I thought we all under, we all agreed like democracy's good. I thought we all just agreed on that. Even, you know, right, left, we all agreed democracy. Oh, well, yeah, sure. I mean, you know, we do different things with it. You know, we have different methodologies that we wield democracy with, but we still agree on the democracy part. And we agree that like Russia invading Ukraine, like that kind of imperialism, like that's bad, right? And also it's Russia, right? And that isn't to say that like Russia needs to be demonized, but it's like saying, well, the mafia, you know, there's not a new mafia, like the mafia, they're still thieves. And when you say Russia, you're talking about, especially now, a criminal operation, you know. But also Dostoevsky.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. Oh, I know that. But, you know, but I'm talking about, I'm not talking about the Russian people. I'm talking about the Russian powers. Behavior as a country. The behavior as the power structure, the powers that be in Russia. There was this moment when Russia wasn't,

it looked like Russia was going to evolve in a way that was going to make them not bad. And in fact, in the very early days of Putin taking over in Russia, there was a lot of hope in the West that he was going to be the guy who kind of made Russia a normal country. I remember that hope. Yeah. And there was this idea that, I mean, it was not a joke that Russia might become part of NATO. Like, wow, yeah, that would have been amazing. And Russia could have gone that way. And Russia does have incredible cultural legacy and incredibly, you know, brilliant, resilient people. And they have

this cultural legacy in particular, scientific technological legacy, artistic legacy that is so much to be proud of. And then they just have this garbage government. And actually, one of my other books, my previous book, Blowout, was in part about how part of the way they ended up with a garbage government is by deciding that the only economy they needed was oil and gas. And that tends to give you a garbage government. That was part of the problem. But you sort of, you know, I feel like what you were saying, we all agree democracy is good, right? But what is democracy? Democracy is everybody gets a say. Okay. That seems good. That seems, you know, that I can hear the tiny violins playing. But then the practicalities of it, well, that means that everybody gets a say, including the bad people,

including the people I really disagree with, including the people who I might believe are monstrous or depraved or somehow demonized. Or trying to replace me. Or yes, trying to replace me. Your tiki torch is good looking. And my Tommy Bahama look here. God, you guys all got the same khakis. That's so cool. Iraqis. That's so cool. It was a deal. It was at the outlet mall. So, I mean, that, again, like I try to problematize my assumption that we all like democracy and I try to understand how a person would come to believe they don't want it. And it is about thinking, well, it's nice in theory for everybody to have a say, but I don't, it would probably be better if only I had a say.

I could do a better job with this. And if we're talking about the common good, me being in charge of things is really the best way for the common good. Because I know what's best for everybody. Yes, yes. That instinct is a human instinct that we have all had in large and small ways. I mean, it happens all over the map. Yes. It happens when you are ordering at a restaurant for a large table and the waiter can't hear everybody. I'm like, you know what?

You're actually just going to have the chicken. OK, I'll take care of it. Yeah, because you people cannot come to a conclusion. Let me just I'll get the apps. Let me do it. come to a conclusion. Let me just, I'll get the apps. Let me do it. Those little human instincts that we all can relate to and that we all have experienced in some ways in our lives, extrapolate that to our larger political problems. Extrapolate that to the people who you perceive as your enemies or are bad countries in the world and try to get where they are coming from. Even if it's

only to better combat them so that they don't win. Because something that has always occurred to me about the particular kind of ape that we are is that we really are suckers for corruption. Like, it doesn't matter. And, you know, when you talk about a Russia that was completely dependent upon oil and gas and how that was a crappy government, it's because of corruption. It's because corruption is, you know, it's, it's the smell of petroleum is it entices one into corruption. And what are we going to do about that as a species?

You know, I mean, because even in this, you know, light, whatever the, the, the town upon the hill, you know, the shining light in the darkness, we are very corrupt. You know, if there's a pocket to be lined, you know, we're either holding the pocket open or shoving something into it. What do we do? What do we do? Honestly, you prosecute and lock up people who are corrupt. I mean, I really think that's the, I really think that's the key. That's why you need independent law enforcement to be protected from political pressure and intimidation. I mean, at a fundamental level, like one of the most basic reasons for that is so people in power

will be prosecuted and will fear being prosecuted and will fear the consequences of being caught out for corruption. Because otherwise, like you said, the incentive, the lure to line your own pockets, to take bribes, to be on the take and make profit from your political power is too great. The only way to contradict it is to fight it with legal force. And so all of the stuff that's going on right now with the fights over the FBI and the Justice Department and weirdly all of the Republican candidates in the Republican presidential primary contest right now all saying, oh, yeah, I'm going to get rid of the independence of the Justice Department? Oh, no, no, no, no, no. That's a fundamental thing that we need because corruption needs to be criminally prosecuted and there's no substitute for it. I mean, you also need people to expose it. You need good journalism, right? You need crusaders, you need good government groups and all those things, but it just has to be not worth going to prison. And I kind of am inspired by the simplistic truth of that. When you look around

the world at different opposition parties who are fighting authoritarian leaders and authoritarian governments and trying to bring democracy back, all the opposition groups always put anti-corruption right up at the top. And even though it kind of seems like a first world problem for a country that's lost its parliament or lost, no longer has elections or something. They know, opposition groups all over the world and opposition leaders all over the world know that corruption is at the heart of it. Yeah, it's a cancer that will eventually erode all the good that's supposed to be being done by whatever the government is. There's this one.

Can I tell you a little fascism story? Of course you can. A little tiny one. My goodness. Let me curl up with my whoopee. Fascist story time with Waitress. So in the 30s, 1934, there was a governor in North Dakota who was totally corrupt. Yeah. 1934, there was a governor in North Dakota who was totally corrupt. And he was demanding, essentially, that state workers give him kickbacks all over the state.

And he got prosecuted for it. A federal prosecutor came in, prosecuted for it, found guilty, sentenced to prison. He said, in response to being prosecuted, you know what? I do not recognize the authority of the court. You know what? I do not recognize the authority of the court. I do not recognize this conviction or this sentence as applying to me. I hereby declare a martial law in the state of North Dakota and be that North Dakota is seceding from the United States because these corrupt whatever they are, are coming in here and trying to tell me to go to the crowbar hotel will screw you and his followers stormed into the streets of the capitol with guns and you know the lieutenant he had been thrown out of office by because of the the the corruption finding because of the the the verdict in his criminal trial the lieutenant governor was nominally the head of the state government, but this guy's mob of armed supporters stormed the lieutenant governor's hotel and said they were going to shoot him at dawn. Absolutely crazy.

That happened in 1934. Miraculously, it resolved with him just agreeing to leave office and nobody dying. But people made him such a hero for that. That was seen as a heroic, tough guy thing to do, that they elected him to the United States Senate in 1940. Wow. And when he got elected to the Senate in 1940, the Senate had to decide whether they were going to take him.

They were like, well, he did declare martial law and try to secede. And he was convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to federal prison. Are we going to take him? And they assigned this little unit of senators to look into his fitness for office. And the senators that reviewed his fitness for office came back and they were like, unfit, cannot be seated, no way. And the whole Senate had to vote on whether or not to accept him and his party lined up behind him and they sat him and he became a united states senator and he then plays a big role in my book because he ends up siding with the

americans who are working with the nazis and um trying to get them not prosecuted. I didn't even know the Senate could say, uh-uh. Yeah, they police it. Was that a contingency or was that the first time that they'd had to kind of? No, there's been a few in the history of the Senate where people were just deemed to be unfit to take their seat. It doesn't happen often, but it's their prerogative because with a co-equal branch of government, there's nobody above them, right? So they have to police themselves in terms of their own ethics. That's why they have the right to censure or to expel their own members as well. It's the sort of corollary to that. But the fact that that guy started with a corruption problem and then he goes on to, okay, then we won't have the rule of law because the rule of law will stop me from being corrupt and then okay we will have authoritarian government by force rather than by

the rule of law and democracy and then his party excuses him because it seems like cool tough guy stuff right like that in a nutshell like that gets you that gives you a portrait of kind of how all these things work together and it's a it's a shame to me that he's a forgotten figure. He went on in the Senate to propose repatriating all African-Americans to Africa. That was his next big idea. Wow. As a segregationist. So it's I feel like.

Was he ever found to be lining his pockets while in the Senate? Not that I know of. Not that I know of. Not that I know. I mean, it's, I wouldn't think that would, that would eventually trip him up because it usually does, you know, once that becomes your habit. Yeah. Like I worked once and I got rich, you know? Yeah. I don't know. I mean, in the Senate, it'd be interesting to know if he ever had any scandals like a bunch of senators, like kind of made a habit of taking kickbacks from their staff, which is a really grody form of corruption too. Cause it's not even just like you're fleecing the taxpayers.

It's that you're fleecing the people who have, you have to look in the eye every day. That's a really evil form of corruption. Yeah. The ones who are holding you up or keeping you afloat, you're going to writing your speeches and, and picking up your coat. Yeah. Yeah. Paul Simon was on Howard Stern yesterday. Yeah, yesterday. And he told a story that when he and Art Garfunkel went on American Bandstand when they were like 15, they were thrilled because the after minimum was like $212.

Dick Clark made them sign that check over to him. Dick Clark made a regular habit out of taking the after fees from all the musical acts that were on his show. Personally, putting it in his pocket. Sign it over. Here's a pen. Sign it. Pay it to Dick Clark. He could have been a senator.

I know. And it really is. And even Paul Simon was like, he was a nice guy, but he did do this. I was like, wow. That is astonishing. When you think about what Dick Clark, what he must have been making as the, wow, that's incredible. Yeah, yeah. Man, this is a bad thing.

People shouldn't do that stuff. It is. This is a bad thing. People shouldn't do that stuff. It is. And that's, you know, like a lot of the, you know, I mean, in the strike that we're in right now, I've asked so often, I mean, even on social media, like, if you're trying to get people out of, you know, like out of the sort of like production line of your product, who's going to buy your product? If you're trying to make all industry human lists, what are the humans need jobs in order to buy your stuff? And, and it's sort of the same thing. Like these people need to make a living in order to do your stuff. They're here

for you and you're going to, I don't know. Wow. We're of a higher moral cut. I think is what we're saying. It's this fantasy that I have, you, right? I'm going to fashion my company so that I have revenues, but no payroll. That's great. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. I mean, it doesn't work if what you're marketing is human genius, which is what the entertainment industry is doing. We're marketing human genius, marketing, packaging, distributing human genius. And if you take human genius out of it or try to make that something that's a survival scale wage, you've ended up doing yourself out of your business, out of the core idea of what people come to you for. Yeah, yeah. your business, out of the core idea of what people come to you for.

Yeah, yeah. Speaking of business, did you set out thinking that you would be a television journalist when you started out doing this? No, no. When you started on this path, what did you think was going to be your future? I don't know where the path is. I haven't. I've been off-roading for years. I occasionally appear at a doorstep. How did I get here? I don't know. Yeah. Not a planner. I don't know. I would be curious. Did you have a plan? Did you know? No, I had an inkling early

on that and it was, and it was borne out. And I don't know whether that was just because it was convenient that my theories were proven true. But I had the feeling that if you just remained open and continued to be in places in which you were feeling enriched and you were feeling growth and with people that you liked where stuff might happen, that it would happen. And that eventually kind of things would, would happen. Um, you know, I'm now 56 and I wish I, I, I, you know, I, I, I wish like, oh, cause I mean, Conan has a theory that, that as you, that you're born into a stream and that the stream slows down as you get older. And in order to continue moving forward, you have to just work a lot harder.

When you're younger, you can just coast and you're moving forward. But you get older and you have to keep pushing to move forward. And I wish I had a little more, as we used to call it, gumption to know to just do stuff on my own i'm i'm an improviser i i exist for a group to improvise in but no i always had that feeling and i saw people who would whose whose goal was a thing or was a position or you know i don't mean a thing like you know a gold bar i mean like a position or a show or a particular level of show biz and when they get it the engine that is making the move forward get gets get go go go is still working but they've they're at their location you know yeah they put set the parking brake and still

have the accelerator going so they're you, you know, there's smoke coming off the wheels that ends up, you know, enriching a therapist. And so, yeah, I, I, I'm with you, I'm with you, you know, to just kind of, cause I didn't, I didn't have any sort of notion that I would, I mean, I didn't even, you know, the notion of being on a talk show wasn't even, I mean, I was a huge fan of David Letterman, but I never thought I would be on a talk show. I thought it'd be, you know, the neighbor on a sitcom or something. But I feel like part of your secret sauce is like, um, uh, sort of generosity of spirit. Like you're a, you're a, you are a donor of good vibes. You are a, you, you, you, um, you're not, it's not like, it's not flattery. It's not like you come in and make people feel good about themselves. It's not it, but you create an environment in

which people feel, um, comfortable, welcome, um, calm, um, because you, yeah, but I think that's, that's a gift. And so that, to me, that makes sense when you say that you wanted to put yourself in environments where you felt like you were being enriched and there were good things happening and then something might happen. I think in those environments, you were an important ingredient

because you have a way of making conversation happen and making and drawing people out and making people feel good about themselves in a way that makes the next time those people get together and want to do something, they want you in the room too. Yeah. So that's, it's, it's not, you're not a passive part of those environments that you were wanting to be in, which is nice. Yeah. You're still doing that. Yeah. No, I mean, and I, and I, I mean, I'm very grateful and it's such a nice thing to hear you say that, but it, but there's also, I'm like, yeah, that's what I'm trying to do.

You know, that's, I mean, I do think, you know, like, just be nice. You know, as you go through life, if you want things to run smoothly, and also if you're going to even be like shallow and just want to get stuff out of people, you can do that so much easier if you're nice to them. And people will want you around. Yeah. Also, when you are kind to people, you encourage the best in people. Yes. in people. When you are not kind to people, you may be able to get some bit of work out of them or some rise out of them that you find entertaining in the moment, but you're causing people to shut down, get mad, get defensive, and that doesn't produce the best in people. And so you never see

what they most have to offer. And especially when I've sent somebody trying to do that to me, that it makes me like a cartoon thermometer pop, you know, just like, just like, oh, don't try and manipulate me because it just makes me mad. And then I'm not going to do what you want me to do. Yeah, exactly. Totally empathize with the not planning thing too. I mean, that's exactly. Yeah. Yeah. That improvising thing, what you were saying, that's exactly how I feel about it. And I never used that word to describe how I got where I am, but improvising is right. You do a thing and then see where it goes and try to do work that you're proud of. Yeah. We're getting near the end here, but you mentioned it at the top and I wanted to ask about fishing and just like, because I love fishing. I don't do it enough, but I've always, and I don't understand why i love it so much

because i have a terrible attention problems and there's so many things that i become bored i mean like it's supposedly like i remember when the first and only time i ever water skied i got up on the first go so which everyone's like oh hoor, oh, hooray. And then, and I stayed up. And after a few minutes, I realized I'm being pulled around by a boat. You know, like, like it just, I felt like, is, what is that? What is there to this? And I never did it again because I just, I was like, ah, that's not for me, you know? And so there's even exciting things that

are boring to me, but I can look at a string in the water that has the implicit promise of a monster coming up all day long. And I don't know why. And I'm wondering if that's because I have a feeling, like, I think you can focus well, but I think you also probably need stimulus. Mm-hmm. Yes. So how do you, I mean, what is it about fishing that matters to you? Like, why you love it so much? It's good.

Yeah, what you're saying, I'm realizing. I was driving from the grocery store yesterday and the, like, community center in the town next to us, which is not like a liberal town. I live way out in rural Western Massachusetts and it's pretty conservative out here. The community center had a sign out in front of the town hall that said, Meditation 101, Tuesdays at 6.30 PM. And I was like, nobody in this town meditates. What do you mean? I was realizing like, oh, that's really obnoxious of me to think that. But it's because I can't meditate. I can't.

I need there to be a thing. And the thing that I love about fishing, I've been fishing for years now, and I've never gotten any better. I never improve. I find it very difficult. And it's just difficult enough that I can't think about anything else other than fishing. And so I try all different kinds of fishing, saltwater fishing, freshwater, fly, ice fishing, all the different, I'm willing to do everything. I have no- Internet fishing.

Internet fishing or catfishing. Yeah, all the fishing. I spear fish people at big companies all the time. I get their passwords. It's a thrill. Oh, it the vision. Yeah, I do. I spearfish people at big companies all the time. I get their passwords. It's a thrill. Oh, it's hilarious. But I don't, it's just enough that it's stimulating. It's hard. I'm not very good at it. Anything could happen at any moment in terms of a fish stumbling upon what I'm doing.

Yeah, yeah. And it clears my mind in a way that I find just really, really therapeutic. So I'm sure I should probably just go to therapy. I should go to Meditation 101 at the community center. But instead, I just go out to the, I just get in my little one-person rowboat and tangle my propeller in my fly line. So many of those things, you know, so many of our pastimes, I just am convinced are just a vacation from ourselves.

Just a give me something where I just am not thinking about this carcass, the brain floating around in it for just a few minutes, maybe a half hour, maybe half a day. And you have like the preparation is exciting. You know what I mean? I've got to get my fishing pole and my bomber and my night crawlers or whatever it is. Like even the, the fact that even that part of it feels like part of the fun tells you that you're right. That it is about having a different type of, having a different type of life for a little

while. Right. And pretty little, like pretty little lures that are, you know, like gorgeous and incredibly lifelike, but also be careful because they could hurt you. That's a good analogy for all sorts of things. Yeah, yeah. It sure is. Have you ever been ice fishing?

I have not ever been ice fishing. I've been pretty much all the other kinds. If you ever want to go, it is super fun. And I would happily take you in Massachusetts. If you're here in January or February is when it's best. I would absolutely love to do it come if you're here like in in January February is when it's best I would absolutely love to do it even if we just go for an hour it's very much might take you up on that and what are you catching trout anything it's nothing you're staring at a hole not knowing what yeah it's you know panfish bass pickerel you can get pike which

can be very big trout delicious stuff yes yeah See, I like to eat what I catch. I don't want to just harass the fish for no reason. Oh, I harass it and put it back. I'm a bad person. No, no, no. I feel like if I'm going to go to the trouble of like pulling you up from the depths, you're going to be protein. That just, that's.

I'm going to kill you. Yes. And I, and it, well, and also too, it feels like such a part of a natural process that's been going on for as long as we've been upright, if not before. So, yeah. Well, Rachel, thank you so much for taking this time with me. It's really, you made my morning. It's really been fun.

I really like talking to you. Thank you. Thank you. And everybody go out and get that book prequel. Is it out yet? I can't, I know I should know. They told me. October 17th. October 17th. And everybody go out and get that book, prequel. Is it out yet? I know I should know. They told me. October 17th.

October 17th. And it is real. I haven't, I'm not done yet. I just got started, but I'm definitely going to finish it. And it's a great read so far. What did you say? It's sexy scary? Sexy scary.

I'm going to put that as the blurb on the second printing. Andy Richter, sexy scary. Sexy scary. Like, you know, like a knee-high leather boot. Sexy scary. So good. Thanks, Andy. Bye-bye, Rachel.

Thanks. Bye. Thank you. The Three Questions with Andy Richter is a Team Coco production. It is produced by Sean Dougherty and engineered by Rich Garcia. Additional engineering support by Eduardo Perez and Joanna Samuel. Executive produced by Nick Liao,

Adam Sachs, and Jeff Ross. Talent booking by Paula Davis, Gina Batista, with assistance from Maddie Ogden. Research by Alyssa Graal. Don't forget to rate and review and subscribe to The Three Questions with Andy Richter

wherever you get your podcasts. And do you have a favorite question you always like to ask people? Let us know in the review section. Can't you tell my love's a-growing? Can't you feel it ain't a-showing? Oh, you must be a-knowing. I've got a big, big love. This has been a Team Coco production. I've got a big, big love